On my first read-through of the rulebook, I happened across this paragraph, inconspicuously located under Other Spell Traits on pg 301:
Core Rulebook wrote:
Incapacitation
An ability with this trait can take a character completely out of the fight or even kill them, and it’s harder to use on a more powerful character. If a spell has the incapacitation trait, any creature of more than twice the spell’s level treats the result of their check to prevent being incapacitated as one degree of success better or the result of any check the spellcaster made to incapacitate them as one degree of success worse. If any other effect has the incapacitation trait, a creature of higher level than the item, creature, or hazard generating the effect gains the same benefits.
At first it didn't seem like a very important rule, but when I started to build a wizard to test the system I began to realize just how heavily this trait nerfs a substantial number of spells.
The wording is a little unclear, but if "treats the result of their check to prevent being incapacitated as one degree of success better" means that the target's saving throw against the whole effect is improved by a degree of success, any spell with the incapacitation trait is pretty close to useless against targets of more than twice the spell's level. The target will only suffer the failure effect on a critical failure, and if it's already high level relative to the spell then its saves will likely be good enough to make this quite unlikely. Thus, the spellcaster can only reasonably hope for the success effect, which is rarely enough to justify casting the spell at all.
From the perspective of a PC, this situation means that even their highest level of spells with this trait will be ineffectual against the stronger monsters they're facing, and any lower levels of spells will be useless against even foes of their own level. According to Archives of Nethys, all of the following spells have the incapacitation trait, and thus become extremely ineffective quite quickly if they are not perpetually heightened.
So, is this really how this trait is supposed to work? I could understand if it simply changed critical failures to failures in order to avoid bosses being knocked out by pure luck, but as-is it seems unnecessarily harsh to spellcasters.
As a test of the playtest's customization options (and to practice building high-level characters), I've decided to stat up the members of the Order using RAW, starting with Roy. I'll get to the others in the relatively near future, though a good Belkar build will have to wait until a barbarian multiclass archetype is available. Anyway, here's Roy:
Roy Greenhilt:
Roy Greenhilt
Human fighter 16
Good, Human, Humanoid, Lawful, Medium
Background Warrior
Senses Perception +21 (+23 for initiative)
AC 37, TAC 34
HP 232/232
Fort +24, Ref +22, Will +23
Speed 30 ft.
MeleeGreenhilt Sword +28 (versatile P) Damage 4d12+6 S plus 2d6 positive energy
Str 23; Dex 14; Con 16; Int 18; Wis 16; Cha 14
Features Attack of Opportunity, Battlefield Surveyor, Bravery, Combat Flexibility (Positioning Assault), Heavy Armor Expertise, Improved Flexibility (Unyielding Fortitude), Weapon Mastery (sword), Weapon Specialization (sword)
Ancestry Feats Clever Improviser, General Training x3
Class Feats Combat Reflexes, Disruptive, Improved Bravery, Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Reeling Blow, Stance Savant, Sudden Charge, Sudden Leap, Swipe
General Feats Diehard, Fast Recovery, Feather Step, Fleet, Incredible Initiative, Iron Will, Toughness
Skill Feats Additional Lore, Group Impression, One-Handed Climber, Quick Jump, Quick Repair, Rapid Mantel, Recognize Spell, Steady Balance, Wall Jump
Trained Skills Crafting +20, Medicine +19, Warfare Lore +20
Expert Skills Acrobatics +17, Arcana +21, Diplomacy +19, Society +21
Legendary Skills Architecture Lore +23, Athletics +29 (+31 to lift object, break grapple, or break object)
Signature Skills Acrobatics, Athletics, Crafting
Other Proficiencies
Trained: Light and Medium Armor
Expert: Exotic Weapons, Heavy Armor, Reflex, Shields, Will
Master: Exotic Swords, Fortitude, Perception, Simple and Martial Weapons
Legendary: Simple and Martial Swords
Resonance 14/18
GearGreenhilt Sword (+3 keen greater disrupting adamantine greatsword), +3 fortification half plate, belt of giant strength, greater boots of bounding, 2 panaceas, 4 major healing potions, greater salve of antiparalysis
I relied heavily on this thread when putting this together, though I've decided to make everyone level 16 for the sake of consistency. Comments and suggestions are welcome!
Minor note: I was going the use a returning clasp to simulate the Greenhilt Sword's ability to teleport back to Roy, but for some reason it requires the user to have Quick Draw and fighters don't have access to that feat. It would be nice if one or both of those things was changed.
Over the past couple of days of watching the goblin debate, I have come to the conclusion that the issues people have with their inclusion as a core ancestry are really just symptoms of a more integral problem with Pathfinder: the idea that certain sentient species are inherently evil.
In current Pathfinder lore, entire races are genetically predisposed towards evil, despite supposedly being independent individuals with free will and separate souls (unlike outsiders). A few goblins, orcs, drow, etc. may become good through great personal effort and exceptional circumstances, but the general population of these races naturally gravitate towards violence and destruction. Thus, many people are (rightly) concerned by the idea of goblin PCs on a large scale. After all, the first sentence of the goblin entry in the ARG is "Goblins are a race of childlike creatures with a destructive and voracious nature that makes them almost universally despised." And, under current lore, this contempt for goblins is justified: they really are instinctually motivated towards evil.
But why do goblins (or other "monstrous" races) have to be predisposed to favor evil? They aren't outsiders, and they do have free will. Traditional PC races have full control over their alignment, so why should goblins be compelled towards evil? In my opinion, the inherent evil of goblins and orcs is just a cheap way of eliminating any moral qualms the PCs might have about wantonly slaughtering sentient beings. It may be that certain races have more evil individuals than others due to their history or other external circumstances, but they shouldn't be forced into certain alignments by their very nature.
In order to both better justify the inclusion of goblins as a core ancestry and generally increase moral nuance, ancestries in PF2 should not be predisposed towards certain alignments at all. In addition, bestiaries should not list alignment for non-outsider creatures. Published adventures should still list alignment for the monsters and NPCs they contain, because those are specific individuals, but bestiaries should no longer assign alignments to whole species. Hopefully these changes would reduce the problems with goblin PCs and give GMs more freedom when designing adventures.
Having recently gotten ahold of the rulebook PDF, I was reading over the weapons section when a thought struck me: shouldn't the Pact Worlds, a technologically advanced and socially modern society, have some restrictions on the purchase of military-grade weaponry? As it is, it seems that any citizen can buy assault rifles, grenades, etc. fairly easily. This problem is exacerbated by the existence of fanatically hostile organizations such as the Cult of the Devourer. Am I missing something, or should Absalom Station be constantly plagued by mass shootings and suicide bombings by Devourer cultists and other crackpots?
