Darius Alazario's page

Darius Alazario wrote:

And then the player must track these successfully obtained additional spells in some way that could be audited if a GM were to decide to do so. Presumably in the notes of the chronicle sheet where a GM witnessed this roll. But then does that mean they can not start the game at level 1 with any spells outside of the CRB? Or does a GM need to witness one or more rolls before starting their first game, thus bogging down the start of the game for everyone else?

All of these rolls are handled by the player, with no GM oversight required, but records (such as notes on the Chronicle, or an updated spreadsheet, or screenshots) need to be readily available in the rare case that you are audited.

You can have these spells before your first game in the same manner that you can purchase non-Core gear before your first game.

Makes sense.. since I've not really personally dealt with anything needing to be rolled for before the first game wasn't sure how they best like to handle that.. though it is nice that they aren't looking for GMs to initial everything. The whole chronicle filling process can be a bit cumbersome as it is. The new chronicles definitely make this a lot easier, though to some degree I do miss the running totals, but with online chronicles being more and more common and not everyone being able to edit the PDF themselves, that was a lot to fill out and a lot of space for errors on the GM part after every game. These new chronicles are nice and quick.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Honestly, the main issue is that while org play is using this rule, it is supposed to be a general rule, not one made for org play, or at least that is my understanding. Basically, this isn't an org play rule and likely could use a FAQ at some point.

It is an Org Play only rule, from the Blog I linked up thread, which is why people want the Blog changed. It conflicts with not only the Core rules, but also the Society chart that determines Access.

I'm convinced it's one of those cases where the playerbase knows the rules better than the Paizo people do.

This does depend on a few things to be fair. The main one being the definition of "access" in the Character Options page. One person posted something that then got removed it seems but it was the one pointer that did make the pieces fit.

If I play devil's advocate here and we go with the one alternate possibility that access on the Character Options page does not grant Access the keyword but just means the content is available to be referenced, then we also use that perspective on the common trait definition which does use the available term instead of the word access. It CAN be interpreted in the way that the organized play staff appear to have done.

In this scenario, all options of common rarity and standard availability are available to your character but access is not automatically granted then most rules options are available to all characters because none of them have any restrictive text to them. Most spell casters then also have access to most spells as their spellcasting ability simply states you choose spells known from the common spells of your tradition (paraphrased). But Cleric, Druid and to a degree wizard have that limiting text in their class abilities of spells "from this book" or any others you have access (the keyword) to.

In this interpretation, this would mean that having to learn a spell to add anything outside of the core rule book would be necessary to grant access (keyword) to that spell. Wizards are a little more complex because this is only listed explicitly at first level. Subsequent levels it says you add 2 spells "you can cast" to your spellbook. Which is pretty open terminology which could use some clarity in it's own right as to how it works in this regard.

So, I am not certain this is anyone knowing the rules better than anyone else. It is simply 1) a seemingly unnecessary restriction and 2) potential confusion over use of a word in two different ways.

It's an unclear case open to interpretation and could use clarity either way from the Organized Play Staff. More than a FAQ entry but something in the document itself delineating exactly what "access" means in their document especially as it pertains to spells. And more to the point, the choice to use some very specific yet rather confusing wording for a few classes in the CRB. If Cleric, Druid and Wizard didn't have this limiting text in them it wouldn't be a point of contention either. Which does lead one to believe there is a reason they are worded in this very specific way when no other class is.

I still think this seems an unnecessary burden of spending money and making rolls to see if you can get an "available" spell which you would like to use. Wizards are guaranteed a certain number free and only go through this for extras. Druids and Clerics have to go through this for any new spells they want access to at all. Spontaneous casters just get to pick them whenever they could pick other spells. And then the player must track these successfully obtained additional spells in some way that could be audited if a GM were to decide to do so. Presumably in the notes of the chronicle sheet where a GM witnessed this roll. But then does that mean they can not start the game at level 1 with any spells outside of the CRB? Or does a GM need to witness one or more rolls before starting their first game, thus bogging down the start of the game for everyone else? It's just cumbersome for very little gain/reason that I can see.

Nefreet wrote:

The Blogs aren't a wiki. I meant it can be revisited and edited by Paizo.

That wasn't possible years back.

Did they post their blogs on the blockchain or something?

At one time they were likely static pages under a given part of the site structure and so updating them wasn't particularly easy for the average company member and required an update of the page by someone from the website team specifically. The site is pretty antiquated and really needs a major update.

Just realized that the original Blog discussion on this is locked =\

Since Blogs can be edited now, the best way to handle this would be to revisit the original Blog, strikethrough the conflicting and erroneous paragraph, and include an "Edit" statement immediately after it clarifying that it was a product of misunderstanding the rules at the time.

Otherwise it will continue to be referenced forever.

Perhaps I am missing something but I do not appear to have the option to edit a blog post. And since it was locked is why I commented here. It seems likely the blog post would get more visibility from Organized Play administrators to get official clarity.

Right now the problem is that it exists in the FAQ as a rules clarification, one I imagine many people over look. It seems to conflict with their other rules documentation and has no really indication as to what the reasoning is that they would need these extra steps for common spells.

Honestly, the main issue is that while org play is using this rule, it is supposed to be a general rule, not one made for org play, or at least that is my understanding. Basically, this isn't an org play rule and likely could use a FAQ at some point.

I don't personally feel there is anything in the core book or any other book to suggest that players should need to do anything special to access common rarity options even the definition of the Common trait from the CRB does not lend to this as it reads:

common (trait) Anything that doesn’t list another rarity trait (uncommon, rare, or unique) automatically has the common trait. This rarity indicates that an ability, item, or spell is available to all players who meet the prerequisites for it.

This would suggest, if you meet any other listed prerequisites you have access to it. Of course your GM may rule otherwise and that is 100% within their purview as the GM, it is their game. In the case of PFS that role is taken by the PFS Administration/Organizers and they certainly have the right to do so but some explanation as to why this ruling is in place or if it is an error and should be removed (given how hard updating things on their site is that is a possibility, that it hasn't been removed yet or the FAQ entry was overlooked in error and is in need of modification or removal). So, as best I can tell, in the absence of any other ruling if it is common you are able to access it as per RAW. PFS FAQ presents an alternate ruling for organized play however.

None of these classes are analogous to cleric and druid, I'm afraid (in that none of the other prepared casters get a book worth of known spells free, instead of a few selections from any source). A witch leveling up to level 3, for example, gains 2 spells of their choice for free, and must then must learn others (Either through scroll consumption, or through the witch's special use of Learn A Spell to create something for the familiar to consume). A druid leveling up to 3, on the other hand gains one CRB worth of second level spells for free, and must then learn others through the Learn A Spell activity.

Except there is absolutely no rules text to support this interpretation. I've even quoted rules text that suggests this is entirely wrong. Again, as I quoted before from Cleric it states: or from other divine spells to which you gain access.

And the Society Guide explicitly states, if it is standard availability and common rarity Your character has access to this option.

Those two rules combined quite clearly indicate you should be able to prepare any common spell from any book you have access to that is of standard availability. This makes this ruling very confusing and unclear at the very least and if for whatever reason this is the intended way to operate spells then nit really should be clearly defined in the Society Guide that simply having access to a spell does not mean you are able to prepare and use that spell.

As a further note, while you state this is to balance Cleric and Druid because they have access to the entire list and not just a subset unlike many other casters. As worded in the FAQ this would impact Wizards as well, and any other prepared caster. A wizard could only gain new spells from leveling up from the CRB. Anything outside of the CRB they would need to pay for and use Learn a Spell to add it to their spellbook. This seems like an unnecessary penalty for the Wizard when the Sorcerer, Oracle, and Bard are not subjected to this limitation.

All in all, I think it was a solution thought up at a time before they finalized and clarified their access rules and needs to at the very least be re-evaluated and clarified in their Character Options rules and not in a FAQ. Or, in my opinion more appropriately, removed.

Quote:

And from the Character Options Page if an option is Standard access and Common rarity Your character has access to this option

Searching the Character Options page, I do not see this quote. Is this your paraphrasing of your understanding or did I miss a quote, somewhere?

The question might seem pedantic but it is actually important. From previous discussions of exactly how this rule works and why clerics and druids need to learn common spells, my understanding is that it hinges pretty heavily on a very non-intuitive distinction: that the definition of Common in the Rarity system does not mean having gaijed Access but instead means not needing to gain Access. That's what limits the spells that can be prepared without learning to the CRB for these classes, and requires using the Learn a Spell activity to add other options to what they can prepare.

The reason I didn't include it as a quoted text was because it's not directly searchable or selectable as it is part of their image on the page.. why a table is an image instead of, well, a table I don't know.

Direct link to the image

Also, if Common rarity means not needing to gain access would that not also mean Learn a Spell is moot as it simply gives you access. If you don't NEED to gain access then gaining access is unnecessary by definition. But that, I think, is moot as my link points directly to the image in which it states verbatim: Your character has access to this option.

This Blog Says:

Blog wrote:

Learning Spells - Some members of the community raised questions about how their cleric and druid characters could use the new spells from the Advanced Player’s Guide. We’re happy to provide a solution! Any prepared spellcaster can use the Learn a Spell activity to learn any common spells they have access to from tutors at the Grand Lodge. This adds no additional material cost beyond the standard cost for the Learn a Spell activity.

This is resurrecting an old post but I am completely at a loss for understanding why this ruling was instituted and what it's purpose is. It doesn't make sense relative to how all other text around Clerics and Druid spells and additional resources is written and unless you look at the FAQ or the linked blog post you are unlikely to even be aware of it.

To quote the rules for Cleric specifically in this case:

At 1st level, you can prepare two 1st-level spells and five cantrips each morning from the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access.

And from the Character Options Page if an option is Standard access and Common rarity Your character has access to this option. As such, you should be able to freely prepare any common spells that are not explicitly listed as Limited or Restricted which are on the Divine spell list because, according to the Character Options page you have access to it.

Additionally, the act of using the Learn a Spell skill task would be redundant based on the rules because, as per the Learn a Skill rules in the CRB:

You can gain access to a new spell of your tradition from someone who knows that spell or from magical writing like a spellbook or scroll.

This states you gain access to it, but again, according to the Character Options page if it is Standard availability and Common rarity you already have access, so why would you need to perform a skill check to gain access to something you already have access to?

These rules do not seem to be intended for gaining access to common rarity options (spells or otherwise) but for gaining access to Uncommon or Rare if the opportunity should arise. And the Character Options page would appear to support this. So it is really unclear to me why prepared casters are being pushed into requiring an extra step to gaining access to spells which should seemingly already be accessible to them.

I would say perhaps this was an outdated ruling as it did come (as I recall) before the current well organized and in my opinion pretty clear Character Options page. However, this remains noted in the FAQ section as well though I had overlooked it until someone recently brought it to my attention.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I don't feel like you actually read the restrictions they are working under.

By all means, say the benefits of giving up some of those requirements outweighs the loss of those standards. I might even agree. But Paizo clearly doesn't.

You're right; I haven't. Because they've been "fixing the website" for years...but somehow it never really gets better.

At some point the only logical conclusion is that it just isn't a priority.

I have to agree... I get the points made in the post originally linked about them working to update it but even if they can not do a full overhaul they 100% COULD make it a priority to fix certain specific issues that are detrimental to their business IF it were a priority, such as not being able to easily update product information in a timely manner. The only conclusion is that even this specific issue isn't a significant priority to them. The entire site is outdated and riddled with issues. And they know people will just put up with it so they're not focusing any attention there, even when it comes to something as basic (in terms of general site operability not necessarily in implementation) as clearly updating their users on the availability and release dates of their products.

They have a store, the product has a release date on it.. I shouldn't need to scroll through over a dozen pages of comments to find out when it comes out. I shouldn't need to follow their twitter account to find out when it comes out. It SHOULD say it right there and it SHOULD be accurate. That's not a lot to ask out of a store, it's a basic requirement of a decent web store, and they are failing.

I have never really understood the whole "spoiler" culture around RPG releases. To me, it's not like a narrative, where ruining the surprise can spoil some of the fun.

Instead, these new RPG mechanics seem more like releases of say, a new phone or (non-story heavy) video game, where the interest is in the function rather than the story.

Of course, if it hurts Paizo's sales that's a different matter.

If people knowing the mechanics of what they are going to buy impacts their sales of a mechanics and game system oriented supplement, perhaps they should reconsider those mechanics.

Like you said, it's not a story driven supplement. There's not really a lot to ruin here, people are going to need to thoroughly read it before using it. So if people being aware of those mechanics and systems before they buy means they aren't interested in the product those rules and systems aren't engaging enough or offering what their consumer wants.

The exception would be people releasing enough information for people to use those systems and rules without paying for the product. But that's no longer a simple review of it then and is a whole different issue.

Video games these days get copies out into reviewers and influencers hands far enough in advance of the release for them to actually create a useful and informative review on release day with sufficient personal experience with the product. Then consumers can make an informed decision on their purchase. A supplement like this should be no different. There should be no loss if it is a worthwhile supplement for people to spend their money on, and if it is particularly good some good reviews out there could help bolster sales rather than harm them.

Hi. I'm back from a lovely long weekend.

We've received two clear communications internally that the August 25 Street Date, including Secrets of Magic, has rolled to September 1. (I can get the word out about via social media faster than our webstore can update pages.) The PDFs will go on sale when the print products go on sale. We apologize for any confusion.

This really needs to be worked on.. there is no excuse for a company with an online store to not be able to appropriately update the product information. I should not need to dig through dozens of pages of comments to find out what the REAL release date of a product is or follow your social media.

I understand it's easiest to get the news out first that way but within a matter of hours (if not minutes) at the very least the product page should reflect this information and not have a big "PDF Available Tomorrow" when it wont be. And this is a change in release date that has been known for far longer than a day or two even.

Certain static web pages may take more time and effort to update but your store should not. It should be tied into a sufficiently robust ecommerce solution to allow you to update your product catalog with relative ease and not keep your customers guessing. Not to mention I've heard from others who have your rulebook subscription they got emails (automated as they may be) as recently as yesterday telling them to expect the product to be available for them. Maybe this is due to the subscription system getting things a bit early but given how the information on these delays is not clear and readily available it's impossible to tell, and only causing more confusion.

In all it makes it look like Paizo is not concerned with keeping their customers clearly informed about their product releases and availability. Given the general useability and style of the website I suspect it is more a side effect of using outdated and difficult to maintain systems and Paizo as a company should really look at updating their site, or at least their store experience, to some more modern and easily maintained solutions.

I am a bit curious on how the gold gained should be properly filled in on the new Season 2 Chronicles. I've just been adding it up from all sources then noting that in the GP Gained box on the chronicle. I would still note the Earned Income in downtime, or the sale or purchase of items in the appropriate sections of the chronicle as well but it has recently occurred to me this may not be the intended approach especially with item purchases or sales being allowed away from the table and may cause some confusion.

So in order to remain consistent with what is deemed the standard in the community I figured I would ask. Should the GP Earned box only be what is earned in the scenario through treasure bundles with other purchases, downtime activities, etc.. noted separately on the sheet in their respective areas? Or would this include all of the Variable Quantities relating to gold.. in this case I think that primarily means treasure as well as their recorded earned income from downtime?

Pretty much every paragraph in Pathfinder starts with a bit of "fluff" like that before getting to the mechanical "crunch." It's always best not to take the fluff too seriously, as they don't really make much effort to get it right; it just needs to sound good in passing.

This is why my question is more about lore/fluff than mechanical rules. Curious if it is like incredibly uncommon for a champion not to take up their diefic weapon or if it happens with enough frequency that he wouldn't seem completely out of place, just not common either. This is more from an RP/Lore/Thematic perspective.

I think you have this kind of backwards. It's not that Deific weapon says "use the favored weapon of your deity" it's "if you wanted to use the favored weapon of your deity, it will be usable even if it's normally not a very good weapon." So Redeemers of Pharasma are not worse off for using daggers for thematic reasons. But since they have martial weapons they're free to use longswords or fauchards or whatever else, which might be better than even a souped up dagger.

In first edition Paladins had precisely no incentive to use their deity's weapon. So the precedent is that a Paladin of Shelyn can use a rapier or a guisarme if they want and there's nothing even remotely weird about this.

Mechanically this is what it offers.. however let me include the text and my interpretation of one particular point:

I've added the emphasis here. The concept of 'zelously bearing' the weapon to me implies that the champion would tend to choose this weapon over all others.

Basically, the champion Diefic Weapon class feature seems to strongly imply that Champions will almost always use the favored weapon of their diety. Is this true? Would a champion of Shelyn almost always favor the use of a Glaive or might some choose to take up sword and shield to gain better defense and potentially stronger capability to protect their friends with additional shield block attempts, etc?

I am just curious on how well the idea of Champions who do not choose to use their diefic weapon fits into the setting.

It's also a fighter feat.

Raise Shield only gives you the shield's AC bonus (usually +2) to your AC until the start of your next turn.

Shield Block takes over as a reaction. Note that reactions happen when it is not your turn, say when someone is hitting you. It doesn't give you any additional AC. Instead, it subtracts the shield's hardness from the damage the attack would have done you. You take any extra damage left over, as does your shield.

Shield Block is provided for free to fighters and champions at level 1 but is actually a Level 1 General Feat, or I suppose one could say it is also a Level 1 General Feat.

I personally, question this change from the playtest rules which provided Raise a Shield and Shield Block as part of just having a shield. It felt like the loss of an action to gain your shield AC of likely +2 was balanced with the addition of the reaction for DR against one attack and that DR potentially costing you your shield if over used. Now, you need to use the action for the AC and nothing else. You need to spend a feat (unless you are a fighter or champion) to be able to get the limited DR effect. This seems a rather heavy cost to me.

Given that Shield Bash is listed under Martial Weapons along with all the many other martial melee weapons, would this mean use of a shield and other weapon would qualify for the wielding two melee weapons for abilities like the ranger's Twin Takedown? In a home game it's up to the GM but wondering if this would be accepted for PFS games?

From page 10 of the Playtest rules:

The uncommon rarity indicates an element available

only to those who have been initiated into a special kind
of training, grow up in a certain culture, or come from a
particular part of the world. A character can’t take these
options by default. Specific choices, such as class features
or backgrounds, might give access to certain uncommon
elements. The GM can grant any character access to
uncommon options if she so chooses. The level (or type of
element for those without levels) is marked in red.

Emphasis is my own. I take this to read that such features make that uncommon element common for you. The GM may then allow uncommon elements to characters for whatever reason they deem fit on top of this.

An example of this is Dwarven Weapon Familiarity on page 25 in which it states 'In addition, you gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons.' And this is then further supported by Pg 174 with 'Items with an uncommon rarity can only be bought with special access or GM permission.' Note the 'or' in this statement.

As such, there is nothing wrong with any of these classes or their powers. As some have mentioned, the rarity might come into play in the future with feats or abilities allowing you to pick up other classes powers. It it may be to avoid issues with feats which allow you to pick spells from other classes because technically most of these powers are considered spells. The uncommon classification makes them unavailable except through a class feature or special GM approval.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.

They only seem to scale at half the normal rate, which is somewhat limited, option-wise.

Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).

To me the blog seems to indicate that with Wizard Dedication you get Cantrips, item use, and signature skill. But those cantrips do not scale at all. This being because the scaling is explicitly mentioned under Basic Spellcasting but not under the dedication feat. Now, this may be to clarify that even though you have spellcasting at levels much lower than 1/2 your level the cantrips still scale at this rate, but then it should also be mentioned in the dedication.

I believe rarity and proficiency type are completely decoupled. So in Cheliax a kama, being an eastern weapon, is uncommon, but it is nonetheless a farming implement so should be a simple weapon. In Minkai, sickles would likewise be uncommon, but would be simple weapons as they are, again, farming implements.

This is my expectation and hope. I am in particular interested to see how this will be handled in PFS settings myself. As I like playing characters like a traveling warrior from Minkai who might actually use a Katana or Naginata instead of Longsword or some other form of polearm.

I am just hoping, and believe it is the case from what I have seen but may not be, that rarity of weapons, armor, implements does not affect their proficiency. For example, a fighter gains all martial weapon feats, for example. Now, if a Katana is a an uncommon, martial weapon then hopefully that means they can use one should the obtain one somehow... perhaps through an adventure that happens to take them to Minkai, or they just happen to do some work for an NPC patron from the region that offers one as a reward.

So.. one thing that is still incredibly unclear to me is what options a sorcerer has when picking new spells at a new level.

I get the spontaneous heightening. That is clear. But say I just reached level 3 and have unlocked my 2nd level spells. Can I CHOOSE to learn Summon Monster as a level 2 spell making this a permanent choice and blocking off availability of other level 2 spells..

or do Sorcerers ONLY learn spells at their base spell level and the only way to heighten them is through spontaneous heightening?

My biggest problem with Resonance as a solution to the 'CLW' supposed issue is that it is an overly complex solution, that affects other parts of the game when there's a simpler, cleaner, standard economics way of addressing the issue.

People stick with Wand of CLW because value per HP it is the best value. This means, the real world solution would be for the cost of the higher level cure wands to reduce in price to where they are adding a similar value per HP. Then people would pick this item more frequently because if is better during a fight when needed (conserves actions needed to keep the person alive since it is healing more with a single action) and out of combat it simply lasts longer. But the cost discrepency is so vast that it make it strictly uneconomical to use other wands. Of course no one is going to pay 4500gp for on average 600hp worth of healing when they could instead pay 1650hp for that same price from a wand of CLW. The difference in the amount of healing that much gold gets them is simply staggering. So instead, maybe it would be better to reconsider how much wealth per level should be and bring down the values of some of those other options so that it actually makes economical sense to choose them rather than simply putting some other complex system in the way that potentially breaks other things.

I can see something like a slimmer version of resonance being added simply for limiting the number of permanent magic items one can be invested in or attuned to in place of the slot system. That is cool.

They also say that this system is there to help reduce the different bits of tracking to be done but that Staff of healing still has charges to be managed. It seems like those wands still have charges to be considered before they run out. Some items still have X/day uses like the Luck blade... so are we really getting rid of tracking or are we just adding one more pool to the list?

In which case the only real goal it is accomplishing decently is removing item slots.

SamosNemo wrote:

Pan wrote:

SamosNemo wrote:

Do magic weapons cost RP to use?

I believe only when using abilities like the flametounge's scorching ray.

What makes you believe that? The article I read at http://comicbook.com/gaming/amp/2018/06/24/pathfinder-playtest-review/ made it seem like it does:

"Potions, magic armor, and magic weapons all expend resonance points, which is determined by a player's level plus their charisma modifier."
Some clarification would be appreciated.

I’m under the impression you’d still need to spend RP to invest the weapon...

I believe this will depend on the weapon as there are three types of magic item uses:

Magic items are used in three major ways: by investing them, by activating them, or automatically.

I vaguely recall mention of at least some weapons simply needing to be wielded not invested, but I could be misremembering that information and can no longer remember where it came from, one of the videos wither a pathfinder friday video or some part of one of the streamed panels from PaizoCon. But there is also this which lends some credence to it:

Automatic activation happens with a small category of items that give their benefit whenever they're used for their normal purpose. A prime example is a sword with the frost property rune, which is always coated with frost and needs only hit a foe to deal extra cold damage.

Based on the two quote this would imply the frost damage from a sword with the frost property rune would require neither activation nor investiture. However, I would fully expect anything that happens only sometimes, such as the mentioned flametongue's scorching ray effect to require the weapon be invested and an activation action of some kind be used (either operate for pointing the sword at the target, focus to simply focus on making the weapon do this, or both)

QuidEst wrote:

Staff cantrips seem pretty pricey, though, since they cost 1RP each.

They are actually free to cast.

I've been confused by this response for awhile and saw no clarification. The post by QuidEst is in regards to a 1RP cost for casting spells from the staff, specifically cantrips.

The blog clearly states:

Now how do you cast these spells? Well, you activate the staff as part of casting one of the spells in it (spending 1 RP as usual).

So I read this bit from the blog as if you want to cast a spell (any spell) from the staff it costs 1 RP and either a charge from the staff or one of your prepared/available spells. But then Mark's comment seems to be counter to this, either in regards to Cantrips specifically or towards spells from the staff as a whole making my less certain how this aspect operates.

I think a big consideration with this form of Archetype vs previous edition is the balance of capstone/mainline class features vs feats. Given the sheer number of class feats that are offered (every even level approximately) I would expect that we will see fewer capstone/mainline class features that every class X gets and more of those features moved into feats, many of these quite possibly covering the various features which archetypes once replaced, except this now gives you the choice of which features you're going to forgo in favor of an archetype feature, which archetype features you'll pick up and at what levels you make each of these exchanges, even including the ability to later retrain to modify those choices. All in all, that is a far more flexible form of archetype.

It does make it more difficult to get multiple archetypes or even an archetype and a prestige class, and I can see why that is concerning to some. As an example if one chooses to be a 'pirate gray maiden'.. as unlikely as that might be but we have samples for these to work off of.. you are looking at picking up pirate dedication and feats at 2, 4, and 6.. which means you've delayed your entrance to Gray Maidens to level 8. Similarly for any other archetype mixing.. you'll be level 8 before you can even dip into the dedication for the second archetype, 14 if you want to dip into a third. All the while getting no class specific feats. At the same time, I see where the worry of people just picking a handful of archetypes to stack on their class to get the most optimized rules benefits possible would be a concern as well and it's hard to balance those two concerns.

Most of all, I personally am extremely pleased with this modification to Prestige Classes. This comes mostly from having played a summoner for an extended period of time which likely will not make an appearance at this stage.. but it was just exceedingly difficult to find a good Prestige Class for a summoner, one that gave enough benefits to outweigh loosing several advances to your Eidolon, or even halting your progression of power in your summon monster ability. With this method, you would continue to advance those abilities.. or in the case of say Wizard or Sorcerer you don't stall the scaling of your cantrips for example. Those will still go up as if you had leveled normally but you've opened access to new options as well. This has me pretty interested to see what other prestige archetypes they introduce with the full release.

As Tonya stated in another thread, They will be released to the public for general use on August 6th.

Thanks I just went back and re-read her post. For some reason on the first read through it seemed to me that this might be when it was expected to go out to those running it at cons, but it does say 'for general use' so I will definitely be taking a look at that.

I've seen some mention of playtest scenarios, these seem to be in reference to specific conventions. I am curious if during the standard PF2 playtest these scenarios will also be available for those of us who want to allow our PFS online, home or store play groups to try out the new rules in a Society format to prepare our group for the upcoming change to PFS play as well as to give feedback for the new rules.

I tried searching but didn't see if these would be generally available around Aug 6th or if that was just for specific conventions.

Darius Alazario wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

Okay, but what is the point of waiting until after the second attack roll to make the damage roll for your first attack?

I don't think there is a necessity for waiting to make the damage rolls. The key here is 'the damage of the two attacks is combined' why this is key is if things have say, resistance 5 bludgeoning and you do 2 separate attacks, the damage of each is reduced by 5. However, with this flurry the damages are being combined and as such the resistance only applies once! I imagine there are other similar cases but this is the most obvious one that comes to mind. I suppose also would be overpowering

So, does this mean both attacks must be against a single target?

That is something I have been attempting to dig out of this thread for awhile now but haven't seen many question that or an answer to it. Given it is a single action to perform I could see it going either way.. And expect to see it behave similar to the two-weapon fighter feat for double slice or twin slice or whatever it is, which I do not know if they mentioned being able to pick different targets or not for that one.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

Maybe I am still half asleep, but how does Flurry works, in regards to the combining damage, how does it work out, exactly? Let's say you make your first attack, and it hits, you roll damage, then your make your second attack, it hits, you roll damage, and then what?

I believe you make your first attack, it hits, you make your second attack, it hits, then you roll once for the sum of the damage.

Once for the sum being the damage dice from both attacks (double damage dice)?

Yeah. Well, double if you used the same weapon both times, you don't have to AFAICT.

Thanks, so both attacks have to be against the same target?

That has not been stated explicitly. I would guess you can probably make the attacks against two targets but forfeit the extra benefits of a double hit by doing so. An interesting difference from PF1.

So 1 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 2 targets, or 2 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 1 target?

I suspect you get to add your Str mod to both sets of weapon damage dice whether they're against the same target or not, but it's not 100% clear to me.

Okay, but what is the point of waiting until after the second attack roll to make the damage roll for your first attack?

I don't think there is a necessity for waiting to make the damage rolls. The key here is 'the damage of the two attacks is combined' why this is key is if things have say, resistance 5 bludgeoning and you do 2 separate attacks, the damage of each is reduced by 5. However, with this flurry the damages are being combined and as such the resistance only applies once! I imagine there are other similar cases but this is the most obvious one that comes to mind. I suppose also would be overpowering a shield, damage is reduced by hardness and if they are separate attacks with separate damage each is reduced individually, again, in this case you are combining the damages and that pool is reduced only once.

I was able to indirectly access the reporting page for my event. I had to take the report link from another event and add the ID from the edit link of the event I wanted to report.

Report Event URL pattern:https://secure.paizo.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/Pathfinder Society/reportEvent?event=XXXXXXX&destinationPath=organizedplay%2FmyAcc ount

Edit Event URL: https://secure.paizo.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/DirectAction/editE vent?event=XXXXXXX

By taking the event=XXXXXXX portion from the edit link and substituting it into the same part of the Report link it allowed me to access the reporting page and report my event.

Hopefully Paizo comes up with a proper fix soon though.

This is a pretty widespread problem by the look of things. There is a thread here in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild forum about this with several people reporting the same problem. This has been going on since Saturday evening at least.

I've also been experiencing this for the past few days, along with several people in the thread linked by CrystalSeas. Is there any way to ensure this has reached the people at Paizo and is getting investigated? It's rather troublesome not being able to report any sessions right now.

Friendly Rogue wrote:

The Sightless Swordsman wrote:

This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.

I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.

Also, Excalibur's scabbard was actually more OP than Excalibur itself.

On the topic of Scabbards Mark.. one of my most amusing fighter builds in PF1 was a fighter with Equipment Trick, Quickdraw, and an Aldori Dueling Sword who would start most fights drawing his weapon while closing in on the enemy, hurling the scabbard at the enemy then following it up with a standard attack with the sword. It was surprisingly effective. Will there be a way to do similar in the new edition?

I am having the same problem. I have created an event but only have the edit link, no option to report the session. A much older event in My Organized Play shows links for Sessions, Clone, Edit and Report. It seems to be just newer events that have this problem.

DerNils wrote:

Also, it leads to useless metagaming when my Players can say Things like "as a rogue this guy should never have ability XYZ and therefore I know perfectly how to kill him with spell ABC".

A) Mutliclass/Prestige Class/Archetypes/Feats basically kill this thought process instantly.

B) has this ever actually occurred... ever?

To B... yes! Not exactly like this but similar.. more frequently in the form of: But he is a rogue! How can he do XYZ!? That's not right. Or similar other ways of basically telling the GM they are cheating.

What I personally like though is when NPCs will have options available to them that aren't there for PCs to a certain degree. Racial traits through EX/SU/etc abilities, or some custom SP for a seemingly human caster to represent some special area of study he might have done.

I think overall, rules need to be applied consistently but NPCs need to have some tricks and abilities up their sleeves that will keep PCs guessing. I think there's a certain degree of excitement that comes up (except from those trying to game the game) when an NPC does something they completely didn't expect. As they all go, wait.. what? Uhm.. now, how do we deal with this?

I also must admit, that having to build out many NPCs as practically fully fleshed PCs can be tedious. Some methods for simple, clean, and basic stat blocks with a few little tidbits thrown in to give a flavorful and interesting encounter with significantly less work could certainly be nice.

Saint Bernard wrote:

Putting in my vote for arcanist style spell casting for all prepared spell casters. Makes more sense than cast and forget.

I know I said it earlier, but I really wish this would happen. It's almost certainly not going to happen, but I really prefer this to "fire and forget".

If this was the new standard for spell preparation, what could we do for spontaneous caster (assuming we wanted that to stick around) to compensate for that?

I would say downcasting is innate. If you have a higher level version of a spell you can cast all the lower for free as well. That's one thing that would help spells known. Probably needs to have more spells known of each level than wizards can prepare each day. Bloodlines (and similar) giving several spells known for free (more than the one per level, or at least choices at each) compared to the one per that PF1 sorcerers offer. Perhaps a mechanic to retrain spells known if you realize you've made poor decisions. Something that takes time (but probably not money) so that you can't switch it mid-adventure, but if you have a weeks downtime you can switch for free. That would work at least for bloodline spells (assuming we have bloodlines offer multiple spells at each level).

Problem with the "downcast" is that there is no higher level version of spells anymore from what we have been told. Instead you get Cure Wounds as a level 1 spell, then if you use a level 2 slot to cast it you get an extra d8 to the healing done, etc.. similarly, I would expect the same from say Summon Monster. You get that at an earlier level but increasing the spell slot used for it means you can summon creatures of a higher base CR. So this specific suggestion kind of fails.

But that is one of my two big questions for people clamouring to throw away the classic Wizard style casting.
1) What option do you provide to those who DO like that casting method? Sure, you don't.. and plenty of people don't but there is the sorcerer and the Oracle for those people, what is there for the people who DO like it? Why remove that option from them when you already have options other than Wizard that do what you want?

2) If you do change it, then what really differentiates them from the Sorcerer or Oracle? And what balances that out. Because if the wizard can just have a floating pool of memorized spells and then a pool of spell slots they can use to cast them they've really just become a more powerful Sorcerer.

And I suppose 3 would be, why are the existing spontaneous casters apparently so unacceptable an option that it's necessary to change the prepared casters instead of simply playing a spontaneous caster?

Or, perhaps, just picking a different season to run through entirely if others have a more complete plot to them. Though, ideally a season with the current faction divisions so it's not too confusing as to who the primary players are in things.

But if you have suggestions for some other tie in scenarios from earlier seasons that would be great too.

I am planning to run a group through basically all of Season 9 scenarios. I'll start them as recruits in #06-10, then completing their Confirmation and becoming official Pathfinders with #05-08, then starting #09-01 I will play through all the Tier 1-5 scenarios in numerical order, then go to #09-02 and do the same with the 3-7 scenarios, etc..

Are there any potential timeline issues with this? I know it's totally valid to do this (so long as characters are remaining within the level tier for the adventure and don't out level them or similar), but if possible I'd like to present as consistent a story as possible too and avoid them suddenly being in a higher level scenario that quite obviously occurs after something they already completed.

Similar to this, are there any additional scenarios, quests or modules that might be worth introducing into my plan to help further flesh out the story for the players?

There's been no update to this scenario since September last year and the most recent post I could find on this topic was from November. Just curious if a Season 9 update to this is planned, did I miss where to find it? I really like the way this scenario can help provide a hook into the story for the current season for new pathfinders and would like to do this for my upcoming group that will be attempting to play through much of the Season 9 story.

So animal companions only get 2 actions? That's the same as "slow" zombies.

It also takes an action from the owner to command their animal companion to do something. So when it comes to telling your buddy to toss you a potion, that's a free action, but when it comes to telling your trained pet to "sick 'em" it takes an action?

This is apparently to keep one player from "bogging down" combat with a ton of actions.

That's not cool. I would rather have to wait for a player to take his turn and his animal companion's turn than tell him, "You can't do that, even though it makes perfect sense that you could do that."

Maybe actual animal companions don't have this restriction, but that isn't what it sounds like.

I get what they are going for in an attempt to balance "pet" characters against other as one of the major balancing tools in PF2 appears to be action economy. However, I am never fond of expend an action to command your pet. As you mention, it doesn't make sense as one can speak short phrases as a free action so a basic command should really be a free action as all you're likely doing is something to the effect of pointing at an enemy and shouting "Get 'em!" I'd rather see it balanced by removing some other options from the class in some way. There's not enough information on the class yet to determine what other way of balancing this could work.. but I'd definitely prefer something other than the regular loss of an action.

Stone Dog wrote:

Folk is as singular as people is.

I am sorry but "these folk" just doesn't sound right.

Regardless, it is valid. See:

plural folk
the masses of people in a homogeneous social group as contrasted with the individual or with a selected class : the great proportion of the members of a people that determines the group character and that tends to preserve its characteristic form of civilization and its customs, arts and crafts, legends, traditions, and superstitions from generation to generation (e.g., the Folk of the Air, the Folk of the Fringe)

I was looking forward to mixing a character's ancestry with heritage feats (Humans raised by Dwarves learning to hold their liquor w/ the Hardy heritage feat; or Gnomes raised by Elves w/ the Keen Hearing heritage feat). I guess that may very well be just one MORE disappointment.

I also am against having the base speed (or stride) of a race be an odd number. It really does muck things up when things like the Hampered or Slowed conditions come up.

That depends how these work. If it is a flat: Reduce speed by 5' or 10' then being odd or not is immaterial.

Desna's Avatar wrote:

Interesting to note that the term "ancestry" has not completely supplanted "race". The term "race" is still used multiple times:

"You get 10 Hit Points from your race—more than the other races and MUCH more than the elves!"

This could also simply reflect that even the designers themselves have trouble remembering to replace the term "race" with "ancestry" every single time.

Thanks for pointing that out. "Race" has been updated to "ancestry" in the few places it slipped through in the post.

Another thing I noticed (and it is very small) is that throughout the post there was repeated use of " instead of ' .. such as Elves" instead of Elves'. Just thought I'd point it out while mistakes are being edited.

Awesome art.

Also, Clan Dagger!

I thought this was a really awesome little thematic addition. I can already see having a dwarf adventurer who has lost his family or is attempting to restore his clan name holding onto that clan dagger as a prized heirloom. It can be a really cool bit of story and fluff to the character!

Tangent101 wrote:

Still wishing we'd gotten some answers to the questions that had been posted (outside of the one on hit points) but... we'll have another blog up with Ancestry Feats in a few hours hopefully so maybe that will have more answers.

I'm sure we'll get more in the near future. At least by the second Ancestry blog if nothing else.

Is Ancestry Feats confirmed to be next?

All they have said was the next blog would go into more about ancestries. I am sure this will at least touch on Ancestry Feats but to what level is hard to say. I'd personally really like to get an idea of things like: Do you start with 1 or more ancestry feats? How often would you likely gain more of these feats? We know every odd level seems to be a class feat, but not really a cadence for Skill Feats and Ancestry Feats.

MerlinCross wrote:

Points for effort but if I have to listen to someone talk Gobbo once a week for a couple hours, I'm going to go mad.

I dunno, I've been watching Critical Role's second campaign, and Sam has been amazing with his Goblin, Nott the Brave.

** spoiler omitted **

Now, I've not watched the Critical Roll episodes for this season and only a few from the first season. But, they are playing D&D 5e and /technically/ D&D Goblins are quite different from Pathfinder ones. They are weak, downtrodden and not too intelligent but do not tend to be the comedic clowns and punsters they are in Pathfinder normally. It is, however, entirely possible that Sam plays his Goblin in this way regardless. I can see it working quite well. Just as most times I've been in groups with a Goblin being played they were rather more serious and more akin to D&D goblins than classic Pathfinder ones.

Vic Wertz wrote:

You're providing feedback now, and we're hearing it now—don't think it doesn't bear weight!

Thanks for responding. I very much appreciate it.

Vic Wertz wrote:

However, your feedback—like everyone's—will bear more weight after you've actually seen the game, and it will bear still more when you're actually playing the game during the playtest process.

If you choose not to do that, of course, that's fine, but don't be too surprised when we listen more to the people who do.

Fair enough. Like I said, I do hope to get my group to playtest the game. I just know that if the game is too different from what we enjoy then getting more than one game session is going to be difficult. And if we were to get someone to play a goblin that would negatively impact the enjoyment of the game all of our feedback will be coloured from that experience.

I would strongly encourage you to push your group, or at least a portion of it as you have mentioned before it is large, to really put in the time on the playtest. It is absolutely true, they may not like the system at all because it is too different, but remind them it is their opportunity to provide meaningful, experience backed feedback to help shape the final system and potentially get something they DO like as a result. If they can provide play experience demonstrating the rules or the theme not working well for them and provide that feedback it helps more than saying "it is too different" because it provides in context explanations of the problems which helps better inform the development team how to address those issues. Personally, I don't think the added weight of playing comes because the developers go 'Oh, he took the time to play so I will listen to him more' and is more because it provides context to the problem that helps them better evaluate it.

One of the things that I feel obligated to add to this thread:

If you really want Paizo to listen to you, I think that it helps to have a high signal to noise ratio. Be someone who’s worth reading. I’m not perfect in that respect, in that a lot of my posts include filks and other entertaining frivolity, but I do try to keep the signal up.

What do I mean by signal, over noise?

Noise:

• Personal attacks on other posters
  
• Repeating the same post / argument over and over in the same thread
  
• Inflammatory tone or baiting
  
• Being unwilling to consider or dismissive of other viewpoints / perspectives in a debate

Signal:

• Calm tone — even when expressing dismay
  
• Respectful and Considerate of other posters / points of view
  
• Including details of problems or issues
  
• Providing links, quotes, history, insights
  
• Helpfulness — answering newcomer’s questions patiently
  
• Offering potential solutions or ideas
  
• Fun analyses of the information from Paizo — acknowledging potential blindspots or missing information.
  
• Clear expression of thoughts
  
• Willingness to change your mind sometimes in light of new information.
  
• Being willing to listen yourself. If you want to be heard - listen.

That’s my list, so far.

What’s yours?
Hmm

I really like and agree with this. I think to go with it, it helps to try and show you are trying to see things from multiple perspectives. Try to see and consider what Paizo might be trying to accomplish with this particular change. Then discuss how the change may not be succeeding in that goal.. or what IS good about the change along with what is bad about it and why, as a whole, it doesn't work out. Some might call this the "Feedback Sandwich" give some positive, some criticism, finish on a good note. Good note does not need to be saying good things about the change/feature/whatever.. just generally showing a positive attitude and positive outlook can do the trick. If the post is entirely doom and gloom and negative it is natural for people to feel less receptive to it's content.

Lady Firebird wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

There's a difference between not fun because things are buggy/unbalanced/mathematically flawed and unfun because much of the premises upon which the game is being built are antithetical to what we enjoy and appreciate from an RPG.

Then why would you even bother? The point of a playtest isn't to completely scrap everything and rebuild it from the ground up. If you hate every single thing about it, and already have the game you actually want, why would you try to ruin something for other people? It just doesn't make any sense.

The playtest ISN'T the final product and we've been told that things CAN change from playtest to finish, so why WOULDN'T those that dislike things they currently see try to get the end product shift into something they like? It's not to ruin your day but to make theirs.

I have no problem with this, provided those people do in fact take the time and test out these systems. At least to some degree. If they don't bother to test how the using an action to raise their shield coupled with the other abilities, feats and class features works out in actual play but feedback that they hate the idea that isn't fair if it is found by people who do try it out in play that it does actually balance things out and works well in actual play.

Play the game, try it out, if something doesn't work for you houserule a change to it, play some more. Then use those houserule changes to provide constructive feedback. Tell Paizo what you tried, why it didn't work for you, and suggest a solution that does.

If you don't even try the rules it is hard to have criticism of it with founded, supportable reasons why it is a problem.

The Goblin ancestry is a hard one since MOST of the criticism against it is more conceptual than mechanical. In which case, sure give your opinion as to why it makes a good or bad choice as a core race. One can definitely back that up just by reading their entry and not needing actual play.

/rubs eyes

flexible ability boost?
on top of the other 2?
so instead of +2+2-2 it is now +2+2+2-2

and I thought a new edition would be a reset of the power creep.

One thing they have already noted is that there will be a different way of generating your stats that is inspired by the Starfinder system. So, yes, if you still rolled your stats or did point buy THEN applied these bonuses that would be some pretty impressive bonuses. However, it's likely to be more along the lines of everything starts at 10, you apply these bonuses first, have a small pool of points (say 10) to increase them but nothing can be improved beyond 18.. and you get something a little more balanced.