I really wish we could see the whole list. For instance, I don't see Drop Dead Studios on there - but really wish I did. I don't know if they HAVE officially expressed support - I just hope they do - and not knowing is uncomfortable.. :-)
Snare Setter has a prerequisite of 'trained in Crafting'. Also grants trained proficiency in Crafting. Is this a chicken, or is this an egg?
i agree with the comments from months ago that the geniekin name is misleading. Planar Scion (insert plane here) is far more applicable, and would, honestly, work to describe every planar influenced ancestry, and frankly, shouldn't be an 'ancestry' at all, but something that is added onto a material plane ancestry.
Yes.. I am suggesting that.
What's so powerful about it? The ability to save 1sp when buying gear.
Improvise Tool. Take a feat to replace the need for a 1sp Level 0 item.
It's certainly a distinct possibility at this point, and it's not one I'm pleased with. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Paizo is in a position to change it. I'd love to demand that they roster on a bajillion more pick-packers at their warehouse, but that's just not realistic. You misunderstand. I don't care when my book ships. What I don't like is that for some reason the pdf access is tied to the shipping progress. They don't need more warehouse workers to fix that problem.
I simply don't like that some subscribers have the pdf, and others do not. The physical book being late is fine with me - they are mostly shelf decoration to me - the content is what I purchased, and that I'd expect to be fulfilled when the order enters my cart - not at some arbitrary date when the order ships. It would certainly be upsetting if come the 30th, any non-subscriber can go onto the site, purchase the pdf, and have it immediately - while subscribers have to wait until their particular order ships.
All that has to be done to fix pg. 278 is to delete the entire first paragraph of the Critical Hits section. It would then say: CRITICAL HITS
That is all that is needed since critical success is already defined elsewhere. Though honestly, I'm not sure that section even needs to be there. Critical hits are not a property of the weapon, they are a result of the STRIKE action, which is already well defined on pg. 471.
The Lamia has no athletics score listed in its statblock, which implies it is Untrained in Athletics. This, however, makes its Grab ability have a very easy DC15 escape DC - quite low for a Creature 6. Is this an oversight, and should they actually be Trained in Athletics (+13, so DC-23)? What makes me say this is that the Lamia Matriarch appears to be Expert in Athletics, with its +18 Athletics modifier.
They could just change the rules that they made? It's not like it's an external law beyond their control. And therein lies my biggest dislike about them having their game design tied to the print cycle. Rules that are acknowledged as being poorly worded or in some cases not usable are often not dealt with for reasons such as not physically fitting on the page they originated on due to word count/space, or because the book is not going to get a re-printing.
Honestly, I don't care if they can get them into 'actual print'... I'm down for audible exclusive releases if possible.
In my particular case, what made me think of using this in the 'up' direction was the Airy Step feat. It'd be awesome to blast up unto the air, swipe at the flying baddie, and then drift back down smoothly. And that is sort of the best thing about this spell - is that, at least as I read it, it is one of the most cinematic spells in the game.
Okay - so at least this answered the question - because the disagreements in this thread are exactly the same things that were said of this spell 8 years ago. That's incredibly sad, as it means I will likely avoid even TRYING to use it, because of this rule confusion that is likely to happen. FWIW, I have always interpreted it as you do 'move' (meaning change location linearly from point A to point B), but you do not walk, run, fly, jump, swim, climb or burrow. The mention of it leaving being a trail of images makes it, to me, seem to be a sort of burst of movement, or even transmuting to energy of sorts - in whatever direction you choose. It is pretty obvious that you can pass through creatures in your flash, since it describes not working if there isn't AN unoccupied space along your route for you to end in - meaning the only unoccupied space required is the one you stop in. Apparently, I'm not getting a common interpretation though.
SO, at the end of our pfs2 session this last weekend, I decided to take the time after everyone else got their chronicles to sit with the GM and work out the crafting mechanic, and how it is supposed to work - and if it is ever even worth doing. I had a 1st level alchemist with a +7 in Crafting, and Crafting was also my highest 'Earn Income' viable skill (well, it was equal to my two Lore skills at the time, so any of the three would be the same for earning). I had decided that since my background had granted me Quick Repair, I should acquire a Repair Kit to make use of it. We decided I'd go forward with the crafting, and then compare it to the same dice results earning income and see what is actually better. So, the Crafting process:
I spend 4 days of downtime and half the price (1gp) to start the crafting job. I then roll the check. 12 on the die gives a result of 19, so it's a SUCCESS. That means the job can continue, and "Each additional day spent Crafting reduces the materials needed to complete the item buy an amount based on your level and your proficiency rank." Consulting TABLE 4-2: INCOME EARNED shows that I would reduce the price at a rate of 2sp/day (Trained and MY LEVEL of 1), meaning 5 more days of downtime and it would be done. PFS downtime is spent in blocks of 4 days, however, so I'm spending 8 more to finish it up. As a Field Commissioned Agent of the pathfinder society, I have 12 days to work with after a scenario, so that's my entire downtime for this session. So, after downtime is done, I've got my shiny new Repair Kit, a book full of potentially useful crafting formulae, and am 1.1gp poorer. So now, what about the alternative?
In this particular case, crafting was obviously better (though it did take a bit more jumping around the rules and requires some more annotation on the chronicle sheet). After getting home, I was realized that I had leveled up after that session, so I decided to see if it would still be better to craft at my new higher level. The complication here, is that this alchemist is a gnome with the Gnome Obsession feat, so my Lore skills are now at Expert, +10, while Crafting is now at Trained +8.. will this alone tip the balance? Lets see: Still assuming a 12 on the die, Crafting would mean:
What's the conclusion? No idea. Crits are big in the earn income game, which means they are also big in the Crafting game since they use the same table. I do know I'll probably stick to Crafting, if I can reasonably do it, just because it FEELS nicer to make the tools I use myself, instead of buying them from the market - but the differences are not so much that you HAVE to go that route, and the simpler Earn Income role is so much smoother to navigate if the group is trying to just get Chronicles thrown out and head home. So there you have it. A bunch of rambling and sputtering about to come out with no real conclusive evidence that it was the right way to go... That sure sounds like Pathfinder Crafting at its core, right?
Kobold seemed much more setup for it in society though, storywise. And just general societal norms (lawful) as well. Kobolds for tight knit communities - yes, xenophobic - but they at least have a basis for supporting the community being a strong force. goblins (chaotic) will eat their own tribesmen if they get antsy.
It still sounds like the major problem is that the amulet is too expensive, not that the wraps are too cheap. That means this is a fix, and not a complication.
plenty of items have come out over the years that make core options less optimal - hell, entire classes have come out - and those are made legal. I think I'd be okay with this if this was just a different slot amulet - but that's not really the case. It doesn't do some things the amulet does, and it does to some things the amulet does not.
The handwraps specifically prohibit combining with the amulet. A character can’t benefit from both handwraps and other items that provide enhancement bonuses or weapon special abilities (such as an amulet of mighty fists) on the same attack.
By this token, why is Aldori Duelist considered fine as an Archetype, while Swashbuckler needs its own class? Where is the dividing line?
Yeah. I was kinda hoping that PF2 was going to have just 4-6 classes that provided less than classes do now, and everyone has one or more archetypes/subclasses which provide more than just feat options.Why aren't Ranger, Barbarian and Champion just Fighter feats?they certainly could have been, like in previous edition of D&D. Similar to this, I had hoped from early on in pf2's previews, that it was going more modular in character creation. But instead, it seems to be just that the class feats are being used to just get the feel of the pf1 archetypes on a given class, but that they still feel they need a class for every major trope. Seems a cop-out from what was teased, to me at least.
This is my greatest fear - that the game is being developed first in marketing, and not in game design. The goblin thing was the first indicator of that - this, I feel, is another.
Why does it take an entire class to build a character who is good at solving mysteries or tracking someone down? And why does it need to be done in exactly this way, instead of being a dedication feat line that any character can take? why can't someone who casts spells be a good investigator, or a cleric of Abadar be excellent at tracking down the con-man plying his trade in the markets? This would provide far more player options as a dedication than as it's own class.
Why is this not a dedication feat that any character can take? Gains a focus pool (or adds to it) that can be used to cast focus spells (that are the panache abilities). Gains the finisher mechanic - why would a barbarian NOT want to finish in this way?
Would it not be better game design to make this a dedication feat line that could bolt a mysterious patron onto existing classes? This would greatly multiply the potential character options out there, with less actual rules needed. The Oracle's mystery should actually be this exact same thing. In fact, the oracle's curse works very well for a witch's patron as well - I can't think of any witches in common mythologies and lore who weren't wracked in some way by their use of the magic. Just combine these into the same dedication, with a wide variety of patron/mystery options, and let the player's build the theme they want.
In the same way, swashbuckler panache should have been focus spell feats that any character could pick up with a swashbuckler dedication.
I think it's pretty safe to assume the new APG is also going to have a lot of expansions to the core classes. Of the 4 classes presented, I think only the Investigator could reasonably be considered able to fit an existing class, and I like the adjustments to the chassis they've made for that one. How would you make a Witch as we see here with only class feats on an existing class? I would have made a 'Witch' by playing a wizard or sorcerer (or any other spellcaster), and taking a "Mysterious Patronage" dedication feat. With that, you gain a basic lesson, granting you a focus spell, and a focus pool (or adding to an existing one), and maybe the cackle ability (the ability to sustain without concentration by adding audible and sonic). Subsequent feats can be taken later to learn greater and major lessons. The character themeing options are FAR greater being able to have this mysterious patron bolt on to any other spellcaster, than being tied only to this particular trope. This method as presented here, of 'just make a new class', backpedals on the great innovations and potential pf2 brought to the table. To be completely honest, I feel the oracle could have been built with the exact same dedication feat - a witch's patron and an oracle's mystery being essentially synonymous - and to combine the various 'lessons/curses' into a common list means even more options for all.
I am actually quite upset that we are getting more classes into the game, instead of building these new concepts on the existing classes. I thought that the whole point of the feat based classes was so the existing classes could fulfill more roles. Now we're just going to go back to adding a new class for every concept, meaning things they might share with existing classes are now reprinted as new feats, with different names, taking something that was supposed to make things more streamlined actually make them even more cumbersome.
Anyone know why they went away from the term power? I like that better and it risks less confusion from those new to RPGs So all things that are spells are called "____ spell".
I'd agree - which is now rolled into the 'Jousting' ability (which added some handedness abilities to enable using a lance in one hand (with a lesser damage die) when mounted. But that still has another question it brings up: Does a Sudden Charge trigger the Charge/Jousting damage boost? In the case of the Sudden Charge, there may not be an action preceding it, as it's part of the same action. Common sense would imply it does, but the words are ambiguous (Action is a very specific word with specific meaning, I believe).
The issue with the 'no XP unless you show up' is that its a cascading penalty. Missing one or two nights and the player's character is now forever behind the others, thus his fun when he DOES show up becomes negatively impacted, making it far less likely he'll show up in the future. In general, just a bad practice.
Being honest, I haven't looked much into the mechanics as presented in the playtest - but I am very familiar with the ultimate campaign versions - and while I do like the concept, I think they were created with the wrong emphasis in mind. They were made as a way to 'have' these concepts in the game, without taking much table-time to deal with them. As such, they tend to abstract things out WAY too much. The way the resource management is in downtime, for instance, I think is too simplistic, and makes it hard to give out treasure rewards in a meaningful way. Sure, you can have the party discover 6 barrels of fine wine, and simply call that '3 goods' - but then when the party gets back to town, they end up using those 'goods' to help build their wizard's tower. I would much rather goods like this be treated as what they are, and provide a benefit for a specific thing (use it to have an event that raises Influence capital if managed right). Sure, I can do that on my own - but if I'm going to do that anyway, then why use the written system?
PFS will always see mixed level tables, so there will be SOME form of guidance there, I'm certain.
So, digging this thread up - I'm looking for some experience after a year or so of this class being out there. I have a Magus (Kapenia Dancer) 5 in PFS, and am seriously thinking of throwing a level of Inquisitor (Living Grimiore) on her for skill/utility reasons. She's at 20 int right now, so her canny defense is already at it's max at +5 Dodge. I'm looking to get her some armor proficiency anyway (Kapenia Dancer gives it up). What I see getting from this: - Cure Light Wounds on her spell list (spam them CLW wands)
What I'd give up, would of course be magus spell progression, some BAB, and a magus arcana. RP wise, she's a devout shelynite, and I've been wanting to give her a bit of divine anyway, just didn't see anything that worked mechanically (meaning int based) until stumbling upon this weird archetype.
I'll be incredibly disappointed if they move away from half-race heritages. I thought this was a very innovative method of character customization, that offered far too many benefits going forward (plane-touched races, half-xxx templates, etc).
Considering that all you have to do to get rid of wounded is survive the fight, I'm overall okay with this. More than just survive the fight - you've got to remove the condition, which CAN be difficult, depending on someone having a good Medicine skill, or a lot of magical healing.
Something worth noting, the update mentions you might use different DCs for certain conditions. The examples given were increases for cursed wounds or inimical conditions but there's no reason not to take that and lower the DC if it was light wounds or a weaker character you're healing. It only makes sense for the DC to be representative of the difficulty of the task like most other DCs here. I'm not a fan of paying for a 'rulebook' that just says 'do what you want'.
Another good point. I just see it as unlikely for a drow to cast it on themself. That's what they have minions for, and minions are not to be trusted with important decisions. It can only be cast ON a drow, per the target description. There is a drow feat called 'Surface Scout' that grants this as an SLA. Pretty sure it was intended to be for casting on oneself for long term infiltration. I have talked to the author since posting this, and his intention of the nondismissible spell was so the Drow would have to fully buy in to the persona, and not be able to switch in and out of the ignoble persona at will - his fear was the spell being too powerful if it was easily dismissed. Unfortunately, there was already a comparable spell of a lower level, ancestral regression from the ARG, that is dismissible, that did essentially the same thing but to a full elf instead of half-elf, so the 'over powered' reasoning sort of falls flat. It's also sadly easy to "dismiss" a polymorph spell by simply casting a lower level, short duration polymorph spell and letting it expire. A wand of Aspect of the Nightingale will allow the Drow to come out of his 24 hour non-dismissible Ignoble Form very easily. Something that is so easily circumvented through convoluted means probably shouldn't be that way in the first place, and self cast polymorphs should all be dismissible. I mean, if you have a choice of whether a spell even effects you (see the rules on multiple polymorph effects), you should probably be able to stop it at will as well.
I am playing a Ekujae fighter in PFS. Thematically, I purchased some Thistle Arrows. Hostorically, they are an older item from Golarion, 3.5 - found in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting: Thistle Arrow: These arrows are a specialty of the Ekujae shamans, who craft the arrowheads out of the thistles of a toxic plant that most creatures find highly caustic. They deal normal damage but then become embedded in the wound and deal an additional 1 point of damage each round for 1d6 rounds from their irritating sap. Creatures immune to poison are immune to this extra damage. A creature can remove an embedded thistle arrow as a move action without provoking attacks of opportunity, but doing so deals an additional 1d3 points of damage as the thorny barbs are pulled free. A DC 12 Heal check (made as a standard action) can pull free a thistle arrow’s head without dealing any additional damage. A single thistle arrow costs 1 gp. Obviously, the old Campaign Setting book is not pfs legal - however, in Adventurer's Armory, there is a section that brings some old 3.5 items forward (that weren't done so in the Inner Sea World Guide).
PFS Additional resources states that it is legal (or doesn't exclude it from it's otherwise blanket legality):
So, the actual pfs legal source is AA, and it doesn't actually contain the rules for the thistle arrow, just a summary of their effects. Is it expected that the excerpt from the campaign setting book is valid rule text for these items in pfs? Alternatively, is the text in AA all that we have to go on? In which case, there is no price, and no description of WHAT the bleed effect is. What materials do I need to have to use these arrows, and am I going to run into a lot of table variation and problems if I keep these arrows on my character? Many of the other items in this 'conversion' section The bow is secondary for this guy, who is otherwise a dual wielding build, I just liked to dive head first into the Ekujae theme, and these arrows seemed perfect.
Put most simply, the level bit int he math keeps the level 5 character from killing the level 15 character.
In today's playtest this did not go over very well. encountering the Goblin Pyro who cast Burning Hands I was imediatly ased if he was a sorcerer or a wizard, since Goblins are a PC race now. I told them: neither. He's just a monster with spellcasting abilities...because. And this right here is something I have experienced many times at 5e tables. It's especially the case when abilities that are similar but not really the same as PC abilities. And don't get me started on them having completely different action economy than the players (Legendary actions).
Yeah, the 'simplest' fix I think would be an additional ancestry feat at 1st level, while limiting it to a single heritage tagged feat. This lets the heritage feats still be limited, while providing just a bit more ancestral flavor from the boot. This, combined with the inevitable increase in ancestry feats to choose from will be quite nice. I had expected a blog post about the status of the playtest by now. Is that something that is going to happen, or is that going to be limited to things like "twitch streams?"
Only humans get access to half races because further down the road the other races will get feats for their subraces. Elves will get feats for aquatic elves, drow, etc. Your proposal is just another thread to plead for more feats to spend at first level. No thanks. Admittedly, they have not rules out the option down the road for being able to use the Half-elf heritage feat on a dwarf, or half-orc on a halfling. That's the real benefit of this type of system. Also, they are not limiting the half-heritage feats down the road to specific feats for specific races. Yes, aquatic elves would be a thing for just elves - but they also mentioned that aasimar, tiefling, and other plane-touched races (sylph, undine, etc) would be more universal - so they only need to make one set of aasimar feats, that would be able to work on any existing ancestry.
I seriously dislike the loss of this. Personally, I wish absolutely EVERYTHING was an ancestry/background/class, even if there were 'classes' for monstrous skills and such. I'm much more of a simulationist in my approach to gaming, and I loved pf1e's ability to build everything from the town drunk to the deity's right hand using the same system of rules. Perhaps it's my lack of traditional creativity i guess, or my engineer's mind, but I need that structure for all creatures in the world to make things work in my head.
I suspect it's to discourage the silliness of a character using a longbow indoors or in a dungeon without giving the weapon such a significant Bulk that characters would be reluctant to carry one at all. Or, they could make it so that using such a weapon in inappropriate situations causes a penalty - but that penalty would have to be based on a strictly known game mechanic - very often, ceiling height is not necessarily defined, so we need to look at something else. I know, how about we just make it harder to use longbows in short ranges? That would approximate the desire to limit their 'indoor' effectiveness, while still allowing them to work great for long range attacks. We can still refer to the reasoning for this mechanic by calling it something like 'bombardment' or something - but that word sort of implies siege weapon use.. I know, we'll call it Volley. That should work.
What I had originally hoped with regards to feats is that they would have more varied prerequisites. I would love for Piint-Blank Shot to be listed as "Fighter 1, Ranger 1, General 3". This allows Fighters and Rangers to select it at 1 with a glass feat, and any class to select it as a General feat later. Still makes it a "Martial thing", but allows other bills to use it if that what the player wants. In general, I think this allows a lot more flexibility going forward.
I really like the Volley mechanic. I want every weapon on the table to be desireable. For a weapon to take up space on there and never get used (like the PF1 shortbow) is just an illusion of choice, not actual choice. You can absolutely play a viable archer without the fighter feats, as long as you choose your weapon appropriately. This whole thread is committing a oft-done sin of viewing PF2 through a PF1 lens. This is a different game, and stands alone.
while correct. if it only takes 1 dent on attack 1. it could THEN take two more on the next attack, and thus be destroyed. (Also I believe there are shields with more than 3 dents eventually.) This is why I worded it as "do you shield block when only 2 dents from destroyed." That is not actually correct as currently written. There is no rule that states 3 dents and it's destroyed. The written rule is: An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage. As written, the only way to destroy an item is to damage it while it's already broken. Since the shield block isn't possible with a broken shield, and since there is no sunder mechanic, it's impossible under current written rules to destroy the shield (or any item, for that matter - since there is no other mechanic for actually damaging any object).
I'm the opposite direction on TAC. Not that I want it kept, but I think the difference between contact and penetration should be adjudicated. I really wish they'd gone all in on the armor as DR system - not necessarily exactly as previously done - but built into the new system. It's sort of a bummer that they leaned a little toward it with the shield mechanics - which sort of just complicates the entire issue.
You know, you COULD just use a shortbow when not wanting insane range... I'm prettty sure that's the reason for the Volley tag, to make the shortbow worth something. The old mechanic of Longbow > Shortbow is weak, and not really reflective of how weapon designs work. If you are going to be making your way through tighter spaces - dungeon crawling, or hunting in the woods, it just makes sense to carry a shortbow - it's just the more appropriate weapon. A longbow makes perfect sense for open battlefield use, or stationary defense from a parapet. Mechanically, the shortbow is only 1hp/attack less than the longbow, and on a crit, they are equal (both are Deadly d10, I believe)
|
