Culach's page

I would also like to see wizards have another signature skill. Maybe this could be linked to the specialist schools. Something like Abjuration (Acrobatics or Athletics, or possibly a shield or armor proficiency), Conjuration (Survival), Divination (Lore {ideally, several lores}), Enchantment (Diplomacy or Society), Evocation (Intimidation), Illusion (Stealth), Necromancy definitely Intimidation), Transmutation (Deception), Universalist (player's choice ?).

I would have put Necromancy as Medicine, all healing spells are Necromancy, so why not give the Necro (who spends more time with bodies) the heal skill as sig.

I have an idea that makes use of Proficiency and the level of check needed (i.e.: Master Lock, Swim the Maelstrom (Legendary)).

It would work something like this using lockpicking as an example:

Untrained: Can attempt to pick ordinary locks. Nothing Higher can be attempted

Trained: Can attempt to pick Expert locks. Master locks could only be opened on a critical (either 10 above the DC or Natural 20). Legendary locks could only be opened on a Natural 20.

Expert: Can attempt to pick Master locks. Legendary locks could only be opened on a critical (either 10 above the DC or Natural 20).

Master: Can attempt to pick a Legendary lock.

Legendary: Can attempt to open Magical locks with no magical assistance.

Basically, it is this: you can attempt the skill level above you without any problems. Checks that are 2 above require crit rolls to succeed, 3 above require a natural 20. Untrained can only attempt to try things that are at a basic level, anything above is beyond their skill.

This would give a bit more meaning to the Skill Proficiencies and allow those that invest in a particular skill to shine without being outshone by their allies.

And just so that you can have a visual of what I perceive each level of lock as:

Untrained: Cheapo locks like you find on luggage.
Trained: normal padlocks and doors
Expert: what you might find on a high-end merchant's warehouse or goods chest.
Master: The Treasury, or something in Abadar's Temple.
Legendary: Some weird puzzle thing like the puzzle box from Hellraiser.

Well, since all I had to do was concentrate while I affixed it, 30 seconds.

That is how resonance is described as working, and that would be how a fighter uses it.

Ah, now I see my confusion.

I believe one of the Devs, I'd have to go and look, said that it was because the new math for the game doesn't work the same.

The new system is partially meant to restrain the out of control numbers (I have seen a +60 on a 5th level character) from the original, and still have them be competitive with the critters to be faced. You no longer NEED those larger numbers, and if you got them you would throw the system out of alignment.

According to the Twitch Stream with Jason, yes. That said, he did indicate that they are looking at it.

Simple answer is yes, long answer, still yes.

Thanks for doing this, I forgot to say it earlier and have run through several permutations of characters using your sheet.

magnuskn wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Arakhor wrote:

CWheezy wrote:

Unless the spells are actually organized I wont look any harder (alphabetically and not by level??? wtf)

I know - it's shocking that it's been done that way ever since 3rd Edition debuted. Incredible, isn't it?

At the very least 3.X had tag for each spell which class could cast them.

Weird. I'm looking at my PF1 corebook right now, and I don't see "magus" anyway near the Shield spell.

Weird, I didn't know that Magus could time travel to the release of the CRB and insert themselves into that book. Oh, wait, they can't.

But good to know that you are on the side of terribly organized books.

Given the fact that we now have four traditions of magic, and all classes reference one of those traditions, this is kind of future-proofed - you can add as many arcane casters as you want, a 5th-level Arcane spell is a 5th-level Arcane spell for everyone who uses Arcane spells. There's no good reason to exclude this info from the spell entry.

I agree with Sherlock, we have those Keyword blocks right there so the type of magics that can use it should be listed in there too. I would also recommend that it list Material/Mental/Spiritual/Vital so we can see WHY it is on that list.

Rysky wrote:

... wait... are they saying Medium creatures typically weigh 40-80lbs?!?! o.O

Yeah...that's a workable number to allow carrying people, but I no longer have any idea at all what Bulk actually represents.

In other news, I ran the game and my play experience was pretty much fine. The only non-organizational issue I came across that hasn't already come up in this thread was that there appear to be no guidelines on what skill you use to identify what monster which is vague in an extremely non-useful fashion.

It seems to me that those key word blocks should have Arcane/Divine/Occult/Primal so that a GM knows which skill to look at. We already have info that indicates a Dragon is Arcane, Angels & Demons are Divine, most animals should fall under Primal, and Brain Collector should probably fall under Occult.

Edit: on the topic of Weight vs. Bulk, look at the differences in light wooden shield vs a Staff. The shield has an L and the staff has a 1, though a shield weighs more.

Just shows the disconnect between weight and bulk.

Certain Coats of Plates used wood strips in place of leather or metal, but they were atypical...

Oh, I agree, it definitely needs to be clarified.

Also on page 190:

Improving Quality

You can use the Craft downtime activity (see page 148)
to improve the quality of an item up to your proficiency
rank in the Crafting skill. For this purpose, the Price
equals the difference in Price between the two qualities.
Upgrading an expert-quality chain shirt to master quality,
for example, uses a Price of 3,250 sp. This requires you
to have master Crafting and to provide 1,625 sp worth of
raw materials to start the process.
Nonmagical items might decrease in quality over a long
period of neglect or after extended use, but they can be
restored in the same way as improving an item.

That indicates that you are correct in how it works at present. I think we may get an errata at a later date that makes it additive (which makes more sense to me) instead.

Yeah, they made sure that wasn't happening here. Just +2 to 4 stats of your choice at each level.

All of the caster classes have similar wording in their descriptions regarding spellcasting.

This actually makes hitting with a spell that requires an attack roll EASIER than ever.

Because it wouldn't let me edit my previous response:

1) Can you use Arcana to identify alchemical items?

No. As I stated previously, I think that is a typo and should have said Crafting. All the other feats around Alchemy seem to refer to Crafting leading me to that conclusion.

2) Can you use Crafting to identify alchemical items?

Yes, the crafting ability specifically has the Identify Alchemy.

3) Does using Crafting to do so require the Alchemist tools

Identify Alchemy specifically requires the tools, and I rather imagine them like a geologist's field kit in this regard. It has the items needed to make that quick identification.

4) Does the Alchemical Savant feat ineract with questions 2 and 3?

I would say that was the intent. I suspect we will see that in an errata.

5) If using Crafting, can you just spend another 10 minutes to try again or do you have to wait a day?

I would say yes, but only to INT mod number of attempts/day. After that you would have to wait 24 hours.

6) If the answer to 1 and 2 is yes, and the answer to 5 is no, does that mean the only real use of the alchemist tools in this scenario is to lower the identify time from 1 hour to 10 minutes?

In this scenario, yes, that is what it is doing. Otherwise the person identifying the item is really just guessing at what it might be.

7) If the answer to 6 is yes, does even that become redundant with Alchemical Savant?

No, Alchemical Savant reduces it to a single action to make the Identification, but it requires the Alchemist Tools to do so. I imagine it is more like the alchemist is making and educated guess and reaches for the items that will allow the quickest identification. Also, remember that Alchemical Savant adds a +2 to the identification attempt if you have the item formula in your formula book, so you may need to show the GM what formulas you have.

I actually think it is a typo in Alchemical Savant, but yeah, that needs clearing up.

Thaboe wrote:

That being said, Ancestry would be a better term now because races now come with a la carte customization that expresses their specific ancestry, rather then a full race pack. It's also better descriptive for The new structure for half-orcs and half-elves who can now we half ANYTHING (in the blog post, not the book atm), rather then simply being human.

This makes the most sense in regards to adopting a new term. But what do we call someone's culture now?

My ancestors are Cajun. My ancestry is Cajun. That's a distinct thing. My race is human.

If my ancestry is now human, what does this version of Pathfinder call the thing that used to be ancestry?

The Culture portion is now called "Heritage".

Debating between my Fighter, dedicated to Pharasma, or my Goblin Barbarian, whose god is a Gold Dragon.

Culach wrote:

I had two concepts for goblin characters that have worked to varying degrees.

The first was a goblin alchemist named Spike. Spike thinks he can play the lute and sing as well as any bard (he can't and doesn't train it). When he walks out on stage he places two flaming pots on corners of the stage and then whips out his lute and starts playing fast and loud while screaming incomprehensible lyrics. After the song, looking out at the crown he sees stunned expressions on their faces and thinks that they truly enjoyed his performance (they didn't, they were stunned he had the audacity to try it). As he leaves the stage he feels he has amassed a new group of fans.

Spike is an Alchemist, but the +2 CHA that goblins get out of the box has a mitigating effect on how far I can push the concept.

You can just choose to have a lower Cha at chargen if you want (though you won't get any mechanical compensation for it). See "Voluntary Flaws" sidebar on page 19. It's for pretty much exactly this situation AFAICT.

Believe it or not, I missed that sidebar...

I had two concepts for goblin characters that have worked to varying degrees.

The first was a goblin alchemist named Spike. Spike thinks he can play the lute and sing as well as any bard (he can't and doesn't train it). When he walks out on stage he places two flaming pots on corners of the stage and then whips out his lute and starts playing fast and loud while screaming incomprehensible lyrics. After the song, looking out at the crown he sees stunned expressions on their faces and thinks that they truly enjoyed his performance (they didn't, they were stunned he had the audacity to try it). As he leaves the stage he feels he has amassed a new group of fans.

Spike is an Alchemist, but the +2 CHA that goblins get out of the box has a mitigating effect on how far I can push the concept.

The second is a goblin barbarian named Digurt. Digurt is from a clan of goblins that a gold dragon chastized and told to be good after he subdued them. Our hero is now trying to live up to the expectations of his new god, but when he gets angry and starts hitting things they tend to get set on fire. (We don't want to discuss his belching in combat issue.) But he tries so very hard to be good.

Digurt is a Goblin Barbarian with the Gold Dragon Totem. This concept works well, and is super funny in my head.

Creating a character before reading most of the book seems like an exercise in frustration, I'm suprised so many do it that way. Then again, this is the first core rulebook I've actually had to read in order to play a game...in previous games there was always someone around to define the basics and online resources to quickly search for the rest.

For those calling for bold keywords, did you notice game terms are already called out by being Capitalized?

Yes, I DID notice the bold Keywords. I also noticed that they were inconsistent in doing so. Calling it out here in the forums so that they can correct it is not a bad thing. It is kinda what the whole playtest is about.

Not mentioning things that we feel could be done better is how the game will come out poorly. We have become part of the editing staff. It is now our job to help them create the best game we can with the mechanics they have given us.

If we spot something that can be done better, we should point it out, and that is what I did.

Thanks for the synthesis.

On the actual content. So, what we get after all this feedback is -4 skills for the sorcerer, witch is already regarded as strictly inferior to any other spellcaster option. And 1 more skills for the Alchemist. Talk about underwhelming.
But still, it has been only about 10 days from the release, I'm willing to give them a bit more time to see if they decide to stick to their design philosophy or finally take into account the direction most of the forum has expressed to prefer. After the feedback from 3 session with my pals, I'm currently holding from running additional games until an extensive update to the ruleset is released.

Remeber, this is a PREVIEW of the errata to be release Monday morning. So there will be more errata for us to review, these were the biggest items to address in this version of the errata. There will be more.

According to the Twitch Stream they may get rid of Volley from Longbows and rebalance bows in a different way.

Jason Buhlman has already stated that Paizo is looking at this and he indicated in the twitch stream that he had seen an idea he liked.

Play, send feedback, post in the forums here. They appear to be listening.

Paizo should split the spell lists up by school again. It's not as important for divine, occult, and primal casters, but as long as specialist wizards exist and receive some sort of benefit for using their school, it will be useful to split spell lists up by school. Currently if I have a specialist wizard, the only way to find spells of the right school when picking spells is to keep paging back and forth between the spell list and the descriptions.

I would rather see the Lists laid out as tables with a column indicating the school.

Re-reading your OP I see you could have meant during character creation as well.

Thing is, each step of character creation (except class) allows for a +2 to at least 2 attributes.

Let's demo with that human fighter:

Ancestry: Human - gets 2 free attribute bumps of +2 each. Lets put them in STR and CON.

Background: Let's pick Blacksmith. Bump of +2 to two attributes, one of which must be STR or INT. Let's go with STR and DEX.

Freebies: At this point, you can place +2 in 4 attributes of your choosing. Let's go with STR, DEX, CON, and hmm CHA (for the resonance).

Class: You can place +2 in one Attribute, most likely your primary stat, in this case STR.

So lets add that up:

STR: 10 +2(ancestry) +2 (background) +2 (Freebie) +2 (class) = 18
DEX: 10 +2(Background) +2 Freebie = 14
CON: 10 +2(Ancestry) +2 freebie = 14
INT: 10
WIS: 10
CHA: 10 +2(freebie) = 12

So that is an array of:
STR 18/DEX 14/CON 14/INT 10/WIS 10/CHA 12

Just thought I might provide an example with a human fighter to show what I mean:
.
.
.
.

1- STR 18/DEX 14/CON 14/INT 10/WIS 10/CHA 12

5- STR 19/DEX 16/CON 16/INT 10/WIS 10/CHA 14

10- STR 20/DEX 18/CON 18/INT 10/WIS 10/CHA 16

15- STR 21/DEX 18/CON 18/INT 12/WIS 12/CHA 18

20- STR 22/DEX 18/CON 18/INT 14/WIS 14/CHA 18

hmm...Seems I was wrong, you can get 4 attributes to 18+ over the course of the game... And your other stats aren't weak either.

Edit: Corrected numbers

I don't understand.

From the Alchemist Class on page 47:

Ability Boosts 5th

At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, you boost four different ability scores. You can use these ability boosts to increase your ability scores above 18. Boosting an ability score increases it by 1 if it’s already 18 or above, or by 2 if it starts out below 18.

Every class has essentially the same entry at level 5.

That means the 4 attributes get a boost of +2 (+1 if 18 or above) every 5 levels. This would allow you to have at least 3 attributes at 18+, depending on your build.

If you are referencing something else, please explain the rule and give a page number so it can be looked at more in depth. I may have missed something.

Culach wrote:

Bombs: Should never cost resonance, these are the Alchemists primary weapons and the equivalent of Wizard cantrips which also do not cost resonance. If you want to charge resonance for Bombs, put a limit on Cantrips too.

I believe bombs don't cost resonance to use. They don't have the "Operate Activation" which require RP like other magic items and alchemical items do.

Both Quick Alchemy and Quick Bomber refer to crafting bombs during combat requiring resonance. Even Advanced Alchemy refers to creating Alchemical Items as requiring 1 resonance.

Once the bomb is MADE it costs no resonance to use. Unfortunately the fact that MAKING them costs a resonance is one of the things putting Alchemists so far behind the spell-casting classes.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think there are some very basic ideas about the core PF2e Playtest game that NEED to be put at the very front. Things like training (trained, expert, master, legendary) and other things so that people creating their characters actually understand about when they are writing down the various things on their character sheets.

We had this difficulty in the middle of character creation with at least two of our players, with one of them getting excessively frustrated (to put it lightly).

It doesn't need to be long, as the basic idea can probably be covered in a page or two, but it needs to be there so they don't get frustrated at trying to understand what exactly all this lingo about trained and expert means and what numbers that indicates they put on their books.

It's there, but it needs to be highlighted more so that people read it and see it rather than just glossing over it right before they make their characters.

Quick question, did you feel like the information in pages 7 through 10 failed to give the basics?

As an aside, there will be an example of play in Chapter 1 of the final version of the game. It was cut for space in the playtest (which was one of the pieces I really wanted to keep).

Yes, I did find it useful, and I referred back to it several times while building my first couple of characters. After that I haven't really looked at it.

Page flip IS a major issue, and I will go on with others stating that a way needs to be found to reduce it, and indexes aren't always the right answer. Location economy is often a better answer.

For example: Powers descriptions are currently located scattered throughout the Spells section of the book. However, the majority of them are unique, except in the case of Domain Powers being shared by Clerics and Paladins. By placing the Powers in the Class area you could reduce page flip and allow the players to better evaluate those powers for their characters. In the case of Paladins, referring back to the Cleric section on Domain Powers would not be thought unusual.

Key words being bolded to make things more obvious would be useful. As would page numbers on tables that list items, spells, feats, etc. Page numbers greatly speed up referencing, rather than the digging through the section that currently prevails.

I think a sample play Intro would be great. Especially if it shows specific mechanics in play, (Shield use and destruction for example). This will let players new and old get a better feel for how the game is supposed to go.

BTW, thanks for jumping in the thread and asking for feedback.

I read it as 1 resonance to open the bag, implying that bags of holding are for more long-term storage, as in "shovel the dragon horde into the bag, so we can carry it to the bank." It's for long-term storage, not for stuff you might use today.

An attunement-based smaller extradimensional space with ready, easy access to your stuff should probably exist so the bag of holding and this item occupy different niches.

The closest item to what you suggest is the KNAPSACK OF HALFLINGKIND (pg 396) which, as I read it, apparently has the same costs as the Bag of Holding. It even refers back to a Bag of Holding II as an equivalent item for one of the compartments.

Personally, I'd hand wave it and say 1 resonance to attune at the beginning of the day and you are good. Anything more is nickle-and-diming the fun out.

Edit: I guess you could add Gloves of Storing to the mix, but those require a resonance to place and to extract, so it has the same issue being complained about.

The Basic function of these items is as a container, I would say that allowing them to be attuned and calling it a day for resonance works fine. That way when the thieves who stole it try to get your gear, there is nothing inside, unless they wait a day and one of them attunes.

Using one of my wasters behind me, I was able to affix a trinket like item in about 30 seconds.

So, yeah, I agree, this makes precisely zero sense.

As some have said, I think resonance has a place, but the implementation has gone off the rails. In another thread I posted some of what I thought were some good possible changes to how resonance is used.

Here they are in essence:

Bombs: Should never cost resonance, these are the Alchemists primary weapons and the equivalent of Wizard cantrips which also do not cost resonance. If you want to charge resonance for Bombs, put a limit on Cantrips too.

Potions & Scrolls: No resonance to use, these are one and done items that become prohibitively expensive to buy too many.

Wands: I think charging resonance for the use of a wand is ok, as long as you remove the charges and make it a permanent item. You are powering the spell inside with your own magic, all that is in the wand is a spell matrix.

Magic Items: Should cost 1 resonance to invest at the beginning of the day, and only cost extra if they have a special extra (ex: the invisibility function on the cloak of elvenkind). Items that are typically inert and only have an effect when activated, such as the ring of the ram, should use the rules for wands.

Armor: Should require the investment at the beginning of the day to activate the Potency and the constant functions (ex: Ghost touch) and only requires a resonance to activate a special, non-constant, ability (ex: Ethereal).

Weapons: Should not require investment to use Potency and constant functions (ex: ghost touch again) but require a resonance for a special function (ex: Dancing).

Staves: Staves should require investment that activates any potency or constant effects, but use charges that regenerate every day to power spell effects the staff produces.

I think that something like that would cover most of the issues that people have with Resonance, while still limiting the overuse of items like happened with Cure Light Wounds.

To quote from my original version:

I understand limiting certain body slots (I have never been able to wear two pair of boots at the same time and two pair of gloves makes fine manipulation a pointless endeavor) but Rings and Amulets should not be limited in the same way.

I can also see not having a real limit on belts. In my life I have seen people wearing FAR more belts than would ever be practical. And hey, if you want to play a 1990's super-hero in a fantasy setting, be my guest. (sooo many belts.)

As for chest and torso slots, I am willing to bet that most players wear two shirts on a regular basis (undershirt and over-shirt), and in winter, how many folks layer. And let us not forget our friend the Tuxedo (particularly the old-time Tuxedo) with an undershirt, overshirt, vest, and coat, and possibly an overcoat.

With cloaks: two cloaks in late fall through early spring is not-bad to great, the rest of the year it can blow. So yeah, you CAN wear multiple cloaks, but if you do it in the Summer (or a Desert/Jungle environment) you had better have more than one waterskin buddy.

Quote:

Personally, I think Hide and what is called Studded Leather should be swapped on the tables and the armor value of the Studded Leather be increased (along with a name change and a new description).

I have another thread where I did similar, although I had more extensive changes. Like I also removed chain shirt and breastplate, since they feel like piecemeal armor in a non-piecemeal system, combined half plate and full plate, since historical full plate is basically masterwork half plate, and made leather a material, not an armor. So now it goes:

Light: Untreated leather jerkin (new joke option), padded/gambeson (no longer a joke option), leather scale, leather lamellar

Medium: Hide, leather plate, steel scale, steel plate, brigandine

Heavy: Chain mail, plated mail, plate

yup...I replied in that thread too

I would rule that Studded Leather counts as metal armor, but that is because I suspect that Gygax based his version on a form of Brigandine, which is leather inside and out with metal plates in between, or with cloth replacing the inner layer of leather (the image I linked to is a reproduction based on armor found at Wisby). The Armor that Ned Stark, Robb Stark, and Jon Snow all wear in Game of Thrones are all a variant of this, and as you can see, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that it is 'studded leather' if you had no clue what you were looking at.

I have seen Coats of Plates that used rivets to fasten pieces of leather to an undercoat of leather or cloth, but I would classify that as Leather Armor rather than Studded Leather, there just aren't enough studs to be useful as armor. This is also, considered by some, to be a class of Brigandine armor, particularly when metal plates are used instead of leather.

Personally, I think Hide and what is called Studded Leather should be swapped on the tables and the armor value of the Studded Leather be increased (along with a name change and a new description).

*Edited for clarity

On the topic of Resonance, I like the concept, but the execution could use some work.

If I were to change it it would look something like this:

Bombs = 0 resonance to make or use (I won't go into why, because that could get me in trouble)
Potions & Scrolls = 1 resonance per spell level to create, but no resonance to use (this prevents the potion creator from just cranking them out all day, but allows them to be used when needed as the Resonance was paid up front)
Wands = 1 resonance per spell level to create and one resonance to use (Limits how many can be created in a day, but you only created a spell matrix, and you are using your own energy to power the spell)
Magic Items = 1 resonance per spell level to create (multiple spells require their own resonance use during creation) & 1 resonance invested at the beginning of the day and the item is considered to be in constant use. If the item is inert, and only has a specific function (ex: Ring of the Ram) refer to the wand above for resonance costs.
Armor = 1 resonance per spell level to create (multiple spells require their own resonance use during creation) & 1 resonance invested at the beginning of the day and the item is considered to be in constant use for base and constant abilities (ex: Ghost Touch). Special spell-like abilities require use of 1 resonance to activate (ex: Ethereal).
Weapons = 1 resonance per spell level to create (multiple spells require their own resonance use during creation) & Special spell-like abilities require use of 1 resonance to activate (ex: Disrupting) for an entire combat. Constant abilities are always functioning without resonance expenditure (ex: Ghost Touch).
Staves = creation and use like weapons above, but charges are used to power the spell-like abilities (unless resonance is specifically called for).

My thinking is this would limit characters from becoming magic item factories, make single-use items more palatable to the player base complaining about the mechanic, and still accomplish some of the original goals of the mechanic (such as limiting CLW spam).

I understand limiting certain body slots (I have never been able to wear two pair of boots at the same time and two pair of gloves makes fine manipulation a pointless endeavor) but Rings and Amulets should not be limited in the same way.

I agree, from just looking mind you, that the prices appear like they could use being toned down a notch. I will reserve final judgment until I see how treasure rewards work out during play.

As for decoupling cost from bulk for special materials, there I disagree. Bulk is there to indicate how much material you have used in the crafting process. It gives a more realistic sense of how the economy would likely work.

A Static cost for the material wouldn't make sense (ex: a blacksmith is unlikely to use the same surcharge on adamantine for a dagger that he does for a greatsword, it doesn't account for the amount of material used).

Any mechanic that is used to create items has to take into account the cost of materials due to how much is used. Unfortunately, Bulk is the current method of doing so, and it has its own problems (a light wooden shield likely uses more Darkwood than a staff made of same, but the shield is Bulk L and the Staff is Bulk 1). Short of going to a mass or weight-based system (unlikely at this point) this is what we have to work with.

Again, after reading the tables to make sure I was understanding your position, I do agree the costs need some adjustments unless treasure allotment is higher than I suspect in Playtest.

I have the distinct feeling that Orcs will get a fully developed, playable Race build rather quickly, in order to capitalize on what has already been done with the Half-Orc Ancestry.

I do like the way Ancestries and Heritages work overall, and I think that only a few minor tweaks are needed to make it nearly perfect. More Heritage traits are needed for all the races, at the very least.

I think that Goblins are a fun entry into new races and are a nice counterpoint to the long-lived (400 years), curious Gnome we get the short-lived (20 years, or 50 (maybe) with protectors), cunning Goblin. While the Gnome is out there trying to find ways to make their long lives interesting, the Goblin is out there trying to survive for the few short years they live.

The Systems Agnostic wrote:

*I have several threads for all of my thoughts, but they are also collected--with a statement of the aims of my analysis--here in this Google Doc.*

- Paizo-specific classes (the ones that really make it Pathfinder and not DnD 3.5) all come late to the party.
Partially addressed! The alchemist is included, which is rad, and a perfect choice, if they had to include only 1 “new” base class. But they don’t. They don’t at all have to include only 1 new base class. And they don’t have to stick to the original DnD3e set. They could have done a lot that would have made this PAIZO’S Pathfinder 2, like including the magus or summoner or witch in place of the wizard, or including the oracle instead of the cleric, or one of the occult classes in for the paladin.

I doubt there will be an Oracle, except possibly as an Archetype, since the Sorcerer is now the all-magic spontaneous caster.

I disagree, I think the Oracle has a pretty unique design space that the Sorcerer is unable to fill.

Curses and their affects are interesting enough that they on their own could be worth bringing in Oracles. Imagine that the Blackened Curse still penalizes combat (maybe limiting them to untrained in any weapon proficiency) but they still get a +2 when working with Fire based spells.

Most gods would grant access to the Divine list, but other gods would probably grant access to other lists (Erastil = Primal, Nethys = Arcane, Pharasma = Occult) leading to a different flavor of caster entirely when combined with their curses.

*Edited for clarity

Overall, I like the new version.

Does it need some adjusting to get things balanced correctly?

Oh my yes. That doesn't mean it is BAD, it just means that the open beta version we are reading needs some work and input from us.

The Sidhe of Celtic Myths (Elves by a different name, and conforming to most of the tropes, but also the depowered descendants of the Celtic Gods after Christianity reached the British Isles) were described as intelligent, cunning, fast and nimble, with humans only able to catch them through trickery (except in the case of certain Heros).

Svartalves (literally "sword-elves") are one of the inspirations for Tolkiens Elves and always seemed to be pretty fast and agile in Norse Mythology. They just weren't enough to overcome the Aesir/Vanir Gods.

Finnish Mythology, yet again another source of inspiration regarding the race for Mr. Tolkien, also has fast and elusive Elves.

Tolkien has been mentioned a great deal but his influence on modern literature, particularly concerning Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings cannot be understated. Many authors of fantasy literature since Tolkien have used his layout to define these races in their own stories.

In Roleplaying, Gary Gygax pretty much lifted the races wholesale from Tolkien's stories, only changing the name of the race of Hobbits due to legal reasons. The game mechanic didn't really support the higher speed, but the improved DEX was supposed to allude to the fact.

Shadowrun has been mentioned, and many other games have also followed the tradition.

The recent movie "Bright" on Netflix also ran with the trope, showing how ingrained the idea is in pop culture today as well.

I know that there are traditions of Elves I am forgetting, but I do feel that the bulk of historical mythology and literature support fast elves.

If there is no magic involved I would say 1 hr is a decent amount of time for potions. Maybe even too short, but for game purposes it should not be any longer.

Stop watching variuos CSI shows, you do not put a sample in a machine and get printout spectogram in 2 minutes.

Some analysis take days!

I would say that if you have better lab, it could be little shorter and you could do multiple samples at once.

Personally, I might agree with you on a potion if it weren't for the fact that there is a pretty significant dearth of alchemical potions in the book. An Alchemist who comes across one should have a pretty good idea where to start and should be able to get through the process pretty rapidly.

"Hmm...this potion smells of cinnamon and ash. Only a couple of potions have similar smells, let me start with the most common one. Yup, this is a Heal Potion."

For other magic items, the various classes have both Detect Magic and Read Auras (2 separate spells to do 1 thing, they should be combined, but that is another thread) which should give them an indication of which school of magic an item is from and help to rapidly narrow those options.

"Look at this wand. It has a low level Abjuration Aura on it. There only a couple of low level abjuration spells commonly placed in wands, so I suspect it will be one of those. Let's start there. Yup, it's a Wand of Mage Armor."

Now I could buy into the idea of a Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, or Rogue having this issue, but not the core magic and alchemy classes.

What the current rules have is something akin to a geologist walking up to a rock formation and saying, "It is going to take me an hour to figure out what kind of rock this is guys. Go take a break while I do this." When in fact, they can usually figure out what it is just by looking at it, and the test is to confirm their hypothesis. And even then, it usually only takes, at most, a few minutes. 10 minutes is a long time except in special circumstances.

Also, one reason it takes so long in real life for actual identification is that there are not as many crime labs as one would suspect from watching TV and most departments actually have to share or send out to labs that are overwhelmed with a backlog. However, once the scientists actually get their hands on the evidence it tends to go pretty fast because they generally have a pretty good idea where to begin due to familiarity with the kinds of things they specialize in.

for example:
Detective finds a thread and sends it to the lab.
Scientist looks and says to themselves, "this is some form of polymer thread."
Knowing that it is a polymer thread, they run tests to confirm which polymer.
Knowing which polymer they the cross reference materials books they have that could tell them what uses that kind of polymer thread.

Now, if the Identification in-game worked on a similarly tiered system I could get behind an hour to figure something out completely.
Tier 1: figure out the base item you are looking at
Tier 2: in depth info on how it works
Tier 3: traditions or schools that use the techniques and materials used to create the item in question
Tier 4: the specific individual that created the item. (This might require a slightly higher DC)

Unique items I would also understand taking more time. In fact, I would say that a breakdown for the Tier 1 above should look more like this:
Common Items = 10 min
Uncommon Items = 30 min
Rare Items = 1 hour
Unique Items = 1 day

This makes the rarity of the item play better into the timing of identification and makes more sense within the game.

But that is my feeling on it.

YMMV

The problem is, bulk addresses not only weight but the size of the item in question. This makes giving hard numbers a lot trickier than just saying that 2.5lbs (the average weight of a real-world arming sword (Longsword in-game) is 1 bulk.

That said, I prefer the older weight system and just handwaving the issue of bulk to haversacks, bags of holding, efficient quivers and other similar items.

What Zman0 said.

There are several other threads that have addressed the issue of Shields in depth, with suggestions on how to fix some of the biggest issues they have.

I have seen a couple of other people just say they are going to drop the Raise Dead spell and use strictly the Resurrection Ritual instead.

YMMV

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I mean, if we're carrying or dragging Bob the 200 lb Fighter...is that 20 Bulk or 40?

20, since people have handles in the shoulders, on the ankles. Also because "when in doubt, go with what benefits the party".

100% agreed on both "trained in 3 skills" is too few for martial classes and "signature skills are overly limiting."

Sorry if someone had already answered this,

On page 323:

Petrified
You have been turned to stone. You can’t act and you have the blinded and deafened conditions. You become an object with a Bulk equal to twice your normal Bulk (typically 16 for a petrified Medium creature or 8 for a petrified Small creature)...

According to this Medium creatures are Bulk 8 and small are Bulk 4.

Culach wrote:

I can actually see PCs using this in several scenarios.

Any scenario where they are in the wild and being chased by enemies. Cover Tracks will make it slightly more difficult for the enemies to find them.

Great, have you ever read any scenario or AP where this is used? Does this mechanic come up at all in the playtest scenarios?

Quote:

Similarly, in a babysitter mission, where you have to get "Important NPC" from Point A to Point B while traveling through hostile territory, I could see using this to make it more difficult for enemies to find you and hit your failure condition.

Great, same questions as above.

Quote:

Scouting scenarios. These are scenarios where you are trying to gather valuable intel on what the other side is doing, but you don't want them to know you were there. (More explicitly: sending a PC to scout an enemy encampment.)

Awesome, same questions as above.

Quote:

In each case it is about making sure the other side has difficulty finding you and/or your party.

It sure is. Now, can you name a single PF authored scenario or AP where the party's ability or inability to cover the tracks had any substantive change on the encounter?

The question isn't "can you imagine how to make this useful," the questions is has anyone played a scenario where this mechanic is useful. The point here is Paizo has created an essentially useless feat and then stuck the Ranger with it, instead of providing something actually useful in the context of how this game has been played for over a decade.

I can think of at least one in the Mwangi that could have used it, I also seem to remember one in Irresen that could have used it as well, as long as it worked for the group, but since the mechanic didn't exist, wasn't an option. Most scenarios where this mechanic SHOULD have been used, hand waved it because PLOT. With a new mechanic that doesn't have to happen.

When I gave you several options for how it could be used you asked if we had seen it in the past. The problem with that line of thinking is that it is in the wrong direction. You should be asking "will this come up in the future?"

I say yes, and you will likely reply with "but no one has said it has come up before so it likely won't in the future." This is false logic. Just because a thing hasn't been seen in the past does not preclude it from happening in the future.

What is my basis for thinking we will likely see something using it in the future? The fact that this mechanic exists and is fairly prominent.

Not liking Cover Tracks is one thing, but auto-dismissing when others give reasons and ways that it could, and SHOULD, be used, well...

Personally, I hope to see scenarios where it IS used, because it is a neat little mechanic that saw use in several myths, stories, and legends, most prominently Robin Hood.

Culach wrote:

About the ONLY thing I can see that the Alchemist has over the Cleric, or any spellcaster for that matter, is that they can operate in a magic dead zone. Heck, ALL of the classes get nerfed in a magic dead zone, the magic sword the fighter had is now a regular sword (of at least expert quality mind you), the Rogue's cloak of Elvenkind is now a regular cloak (but it looks nice), etc, but the Alchemist can keep throwing bombs and healing companions.

After all, Alchemy is non-magical.

That said: how many magic dead areas do you expect to run into?

So yeah, overall, Alchemists need an overhaul.

is it nonmagical though?

Resonance feels very magical to me.

The first sentence of its description is actually :

Quote:

Resonance Points

Your innate ability to use magic items is represented
by a pool of Resonance Points (RP).

Which is why it doesn't actually make sense that alchemical items require RP at all.

From page 359:

Alchemical items are not inherently magical but instead use the properties of volatile chemicals, exotic minerals, potent plants, and other substances, collectively referred to as alchemical reagents. As such, alchemical items don’t radiate magical auras, and they can’t be dispelled or dismissed. Their effects last for a set amount of time or until they are countered in some way, typically physically.

Sometimes the reactions of alchemical reagents create effects that seem magical, and at other times they straddle the line between purely reactive and the inexplicable. Some alchemical items require spending Resonance Points as part of their activation, and alchemists can use their Resonance Points to quickly craft and empower their own alchemical items. Even in these cases, alchemical items don’t radiate magic auras, and they use a creature’s Resonance Points as simply one additional catalyst to produce their alchemical effects.

This quite explicitly says that the resonance is merely a catalyst, but there is nothing magical about Alchemical Objects, their creation, or using them.

Yes, I understand your problem regarding Resonance Points, but it says that RP are just used as a catalyst. How that isn't magical I don't know, but it IS their take on it.

I'm always a bit surprised to see people railing against "Vancian magic" by saying that's not how magic works in fiction. Really we rarely see the same spell or effect repeated in multiple instances in most works. How do we know that Vancian magic is not at work? We don't. It's just an assumption that smart players make because they don't like the term for whatever reason. How many spells does Gandolph cast? How many are cast in infinite progression? Doctor Strange? Harry Dresden?

Gandalf channels his magic more than he casts it in any fashion similar to Vancian. In fact, from the books and movies, he is more like the next two. (With the added bonus of being an angel)

Doctor Strange (in the comics) goes and checks his tomes to make sure he doesn't mess up a spell, or to try and figure out how to cast them, not because he forgets them. He is often seen casting spells like "the Crimson Bands of Cytorak" multiple times. In the movies he just keeps moving energy around (which is exactly what the Ancient One described magic as).

Harry Dresden's magic is EXPLICITLY described as not being Vancian. It actually drains the caster and can actually cause them to pass out if they put too much power into it, unless they can draw from a different source (like in Storm Front). In fact, casting a couple of powerful spells has nearly killed Harry.

Personally, I think Playtest HAS a better magic system already built in. Two of them actually. Powers could EASILY be expanded to cover ALL spells that a mage would use on a regular basis. Rituals would cover those spells that are EPIC in nature (Wish, Miracle).

How would it work in practice?

I would say that Bards would add their Stat Mod each level. Druids and Paladins could probably do the same. Clerics and Wizards might add their mod+1 each level. Sorcerers would likely add their stat mod+5.

Reasoning: Bards, Paladins and Druids have a great deal more going on than just spells, but I could see Druids being moved to the same category as Clerics. Clerics and Wizards get a great deal of flexibility in spells, being able to have more spells they would have access to. They just don't have as much raw power to keep casting them ad nauseum. Sorcerers have a limited number of spells they know, but they are power houses able to keep casting when other casters can't, unfortunately, that spell they can cast may not be the one they need.

Rituals are great, read up on them if you haven't. I would say that Bards, Clerics, and Wizards should have greater access to these based on the nature of the three classes.

Those are just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree.

Edit: Dang it, zer0darkfire snuck in and said what I wanted to in a slightly more succinct fashion.

About the ONLY thing I can see that the Alchemist has over the Cleric, or any spellcaster for that matter, is that they can operate in a magic dead zone. Heck, ALL of the classes get nerfed in a magic dead zone, the magic sword the fighter had is now a regular sword (of at least expert quality mind you), the Rogue's cloak of Elvenkind is now a regular cloak (but it looks nice), etc, but the Alchemist can keep throwing bombs and healing companions.

After all, Alchemy is non-magical.

That said: how many magic dead areas do you expect to run into?

So yeah, overall, Alchemists need an overhaul.