Duskreign's page

James, have you ever tried Thousand year old vampire? It’s quite interesting. Single player RPG where you are a vampire. Events happen (based on choices you make) and you can only retain so many experiences that define who you are. As time goes on, you have to make decisions about what memories you forget and what memories continue to define who you are. Ultimately, you weave a story around your memories choices. It’s really quite interesting and has incredible nuance. Worth checking out if you haven’t heard about it.

PDF as my sub has shipped.

Yeah on top of tasks, the APs should try to exploit the action system of Pathfinder 2.

I want to see challenges where it takes several actions to do something, whilst something else is happening.
Example: A tree branch has fallen on the road and the cart cant make it through. It takes 7 actions of athletics, divided between any members, to remove the branch. Meanwhile, there's an ambush going, or part of a chase.

Those are the types of things I would absolutely like to see.

One thing that i have noticed about 2e APs is that there are a lot “tasks”, especially in the early going. For example, while looking at the first Quest for the Frozen Flame, you are asked t: fetch water, capture tapirs, fix a stone, prepare the camp for evacuation, etc.

On the one hand this shows the flexibility of PF2, but on the other hand, I’m not interested in doing tasks. It just feels a lot less exciting to me. There is less tension and less conflict IMO. The author hints at something menacing that will happen but it has zero impact on the tasks themselves. Other PF2 APs have these tasks too (Strength of Thousands) and its one of the major difference I feel between a 1e and 2e AP. It just struck me as a stark difference in the tone of adventurers. Hopefully, as the system matures, these tasks can be presented at more opportune times and can have a bigger impact on the story that is more exciting. I am thinking that these sort of tasks could be really relevant in a rebellion or in a kingmaker setting and would work wonderfully there to support the larger narrative of events.

This is all just my opinion of course, but its feedback about the tone and difference for 1e vs 2e AP’s and this might be what some folks are identifying as different without putting their finger on it,

James, you and Chris Perkins are my two favourite adventure writers.

Have you and Chris Perkins ever participated in the same campaign? If so, what was it?

Hi James,

Do you have an estimated release date for the Kingmaker compilation? Last I heard/read was last half of 2021. Just wondering if you have a tighter timeframe or if its been pushed back. Thanks and have a super day!

Of the ones I've actually played (which is sadly not many!), Curse of the Crimson Throne #2 "Seven Days to the Grave." It has a strong theme, there's a little almost-sandbox with a few missions for the party to choose from in the middle, and the finale dungeon is interesting and the right amount of challenging.

Seven Days to the Grave is another fantastic adventure I recall fondly.

Looks like it’s tough for people to choose their top issue! Good stuff. Keep it coming!

Lots of threads about APs in general, but what is your number 1 favourite issue?

Mine is issue #97 In Hell’s Bright Shadows

For me, everything about this issue is fantastic - great adventure, evocative setting, and strong back matter articles (particularly how Kintargo information was laid out, it really gave me a great vibe for the setting and it let my imagination run wild which made it easy to convey info to the players). As a bonus, I thought it tied in very well with the Player’s Guide.

So what’s yours?

Sorcerer - Imperial Bloodline.

Nice, that does sound like a fun character. Too bad I only ever get to GM. XD

Ha. Same here. Same about DMing too!

Was reading Lost Omens Legends today. I totally forgot that Irabeth Tirabade (half Orc paladin) travelled to the River Kingdoms prior to her escapades in Mendev. Since Kingmaker occurs several years prior, I think it would be cool for her to show up in the updated Kingmaker book as an Easter egg. Do you have any plans for that, and if not, how about now?

@Duskreign I don’t see any reason why the math on that wouldn’t work fine in general. You’re just moving the leveling effect from a positive bonus to a negative, should be a fine way to keep numbers low with just a bit of math as the cost. But unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re doing it won’t give me the flattening effect on the world I’m looking for. A group of level 5 characters would still need to roll At least 4 higher To hit a level 9 monster, while they could roll 4 lower and still hit a level 1 monster than they would have at level .

You are right on all accounts. I didn’t connect that that was your goal. I thought the flatter math of level gains was your goal. Not sure what else to suggest for you.

I tried out the no level to proficiency change for a campaign I was building and I quickly found that it made characters feel really flat. Class feats and Skill feats are cool, but getting one of each leaves a character feeling very much like nothing really happened when they hit level 2, except they got more hit points. Not getting any boosts to skills at all except when you boost their proficiency makes you feel like you character can only possibly get better at a very narrow range of things when they level up.

I'd love to hear about your experiences if you are committed to trying it out, but when I actually tried to put it in play, it really felt like it took the wind out of the sails of the game.

Unicore,

See my post above regarding how I do things in my games but from our groups perspective, leveling is faster and the game retains the exact same feeling. When the players realize that in most cases at level one you hit on an 18 or 19 AC and that on level 15 you need a 33 or 34 which is more or less the same number you needed 15 levels earlier you realize that the numbers just inflate and don’t really do much for the game. There ARE some very minor changes to the system but not enough to really care about IMO.

Just thought I would let you know my experiences.

I’ve mentioned this in other threads and it hasn’t been popular but here is my suggestion. I subtract the PCs level from everything. This makes the PCs effectively have no level but it retains the entire PF expectations regarding math, crit expectations and skill check DCs. A higher or lower level creature still works the way it should. We are level 15 in the Age of Ashes AP and it has worked very well and anyone who claims this doesn’t work is flat out wrong. The only downside is a bit more mental math for the DM in figuring out the attack rolls and such which I do purely on the fly with no extra prep.

The one thing that IS kind of weird with this is that creatures that are fought over multiple levels see their AC get lower which is odd at first. But accuracy is shifted from being added to the attack roll to lowering the AC.

Again, there will be a lot of naysayers about this but it works 100 percent maintaining the integrity of the PF2 system.

Good luck!

Looking forward to your adventure! How is Kingmaker progressing? Haven’t heard any updates since Paizocon.

What stuff is there for the ranger?

Thanks for your feedback.

In regards to the bard, what do you feel becomes that much more game breaking for them? I’m genuinely curious. This suggested house rule still keeps a tight reign on what a caster can and can’t combine with magic in a given round. Thus it must be the extra action, perhaps as a stride to get out of harms way?

In my own games the issue seems to be the healer role but every player including myself has felt that casters turns just don’t feel as fun as a martials these days regardless of class and it’s not about the math. Casters are generally limited in how they can play around with the action economy when they spend turns casting spells. And god forbid if they add a meta magic action.

When you DM, have you ever found yourself saying that casting a spell seems suboptimal to the melee options?

Again, just trying to understand the concern you see in case I haven’t seen it.

Thanks again

Completely off topic of the current discussion in this thread, but I would like your analysis DMW on a house rule I have just implemented in regards to action economy and casters.

First some context. Players playing casters IME seem dissatisfied with their experience. Some feel it’s lack of damage, some feel they are behind on the proficiency curve, and some feel (looking at you cleric) that entire turns are taken up healing martials thereby limiting their own fun.

After some analysis, I believe that proficiency is not an issue. Casters are behind by one proficiency level on levels 5, 6, 13, and 14 but are ahead at level 19 and 20 when compared to non-fighter martials. Strangely, the more martial spellcasters (bard, cleric, Druid) are behind for 12 levels on martial proficiencies (although this isn’t where my focus is for this post). Damage and spell design has some issues but these are minor in my opinion. Where the larger issue seems to be in my mind is action economy. Martials get two or three attacks a round which means they are likely to hit at least once. From a play experience this is satisfying. Conversely, casting a spell takes two actions. If the spell is largely ineffective, the player has fewer options to feel they have meaningfully contributed with their last action. Compounding this, when martials take a feat they usually get further benefits to action economy. Essentially they do three things squeezed into two actions. Spellcasters, on the other hand, add actions to their spell to manipulate their spells (meta magic feats for example). Thus action economy seems incredibly punishing to spellcasters.

Therefore, I implemented the following rules:

1. All 2 action spells now cost 1 action but have the flourish trait meaning another flourish spell cannot be cast this round
2. All 1 action, variable action spells (heal, harm, magic missile, etc) and 3 action spells are not altered which means they do not have the flourish trait.
Edit: 3. This also decouples the V, S, M components of spells to actions. Spells still keep whatever is required to cast them, they just don’t equate to an action anymore (for example a 2 action spell with V and M still requires that but it’s done for 1 action now instead of 2)

In effect, this keeps almost all the same the same limitations on casters in terms of what they are limited to casting in a given round with maybe a slight loosening on the reigns. Ultimately, this gives casters an additional action to use for movement, pulling stuff out of their pack, skill checks, or the occasional third 1 action spell which gives a slight damage increase while they have the available resources.

I have had this in play for one session but it had a very noticeable effect on the fun factor of spellcasters. Healers, in particular, could do a 1 action heal, a flourish spell, and still make a decision for their third action. They seemed to have more choices which led to more fun with only a minor bump in damage.

Two questions arose from that session. First, Quicken Spell which I said either removed the flourish trait or did it’s current effect on a nonflourish spell. Second was magic items which I ruled that 2 action magic items were also 1 action with the flourish trait. This kept casters from double dipping with spells and items but interestingly enough, the magic item rule benefits martials as well as casters for action economy.

In my own experiences as DM (nearly done 2 full 1-20 level campaigns), I have not enjoyed spellcasters because using 2 actions on a spell that fails is a complete waste of a turn. But during this session, I had a dragon and I made liberal use of spells and melee attacks unlike anything before. It seemed liberating and very enjoyable. Also, I have found magic item use on both sides of the screen to be lessened due to the action economy and I feel this house rule improves that area as well.

Thanks for reading and for any insight you may have and I apologize if this is off topic for your thread. If you experience any of the above in you group, I highly encourage you to give this a try, even for a single session and get feedback.

So, for what it’s worth, my table tried out my proposed ideas tonight. My players are 14th level for context and the idea was loved. We will continue to test this but effectively giving casters an extra action while keeping spell casting limitations in effect due to the flourish trait worked spectacularly.

The only major question this brought up was magic items and how many actions they now took since many are modelled after spells. For now, I gave them the same caveat as I did spells which was that all 2 action magic items are now 1 action with the flourish trait. This in particular needs much more testing but I’m really pleased with my changes.

I think existing 1 action spells could continue to exist without the flourish trait as well.

IMO I don’t think spell casters are as far off as you. Allowing casters to play with the action economy more is a good start. In a clerics case, it now allows a 2 action heal as well as some additional fun, which is where I notice the issue most in my own games. In my own games, I see 2 action healing the most followed by 3 action healing when the party is in trouble. 1 action healing is used sparingly but conversely these are the rounds the cleric can have the most fun because he can cast another spell and feel more useful. So allowing the 2 action spell to work with a flourish spell is a significant upgrade in my eyes already.

In regards to magic missile, I have seen it used as a single action to finish off a creature fairly often so it has its uses.

The other issue I see with spell casters that no one has mentioned is the dice that are used. First, at mid to higher levels, they chuck an awful lot of dice. This takes time to gather the dice, roll them, and add them up. Spell casters turns are already lengthy by that measure. Additionally, dice tend to roll towards the mean. Seeing loads of dice looks good at first glance but the mean means the damage isn’t as significant as first thought. I think the system would have been better with less dice rolled, say up to 5, with the rest of the dice statically set as damage at say 75 percent of the die total. For example, instead of rolling 10d8, roll 5d8 and add 30. This is 45 damage vs 52 damage. Speeds up the game and makes casters more potent but also greatly removes the big swings in damage where maximum is really impossible to achieve. But many players like chucking dice but if you look beyond that thrill, it’s actually a drawback. And this is another difference between martials and casters. Martials static damage bonus from high strength and other sources makes it feel good even when they roll poor damage. Spell casters, much less so.

My initial thoughts are that:
1, All 2 action are now 1 action spells with the flourish trait.
2, all existing variable action spells such as MM, heal, harm, etc stay as they are but do not have the flourish trait.

It preserves the PF2 system mostly as is. It’s an easily remembered rule with maybe a few edge cases. Done.

For me, as few rule changes as possible is a plus. It gives casters more flexibility without substantially changing anything.

Thoughts?

Have you watched Dark yet on Netflix? I can’t recommend this series enough. Season 3, the final season due out Saturday. Think Stranger Things meets Back to the Future. Tight story, so good.

Thanks James.

Hi James,

If one wanted to become more familiar with the publishing side of things - such as the OGL and its ins and outs, as well as what is public material and what isn’t, what would be the best source for that?

James Jacobs says the likely date is end of this year/early next year. It hasn't been pinned down and it will take as long as it takes to get the product right. This info is as of yesterday from a Kingmaker AMA on paizo twitch.

Sweet baby jesus!

Going to my first PaizoCon as well. Badges bought, tickets bought, hotel booking in progress. Woot.

That's not how removing +level is likely to work in the GMG though. That seems like it will be "remove each thing's level from itself", not "remove the PC level...

I'm not so sure this is correct. I would think Paizo would still want to keep the integrity of the game in regards to how crit percentages scale up and down with level variance between enemies. Granted, they may have a different way of doing it, but whatever answer Paizo uses still needs to keep in mind level variance for crit success/failure reasons.

We will know in a few months how they do it.

There was this "verily the +level treadmill, wrought, unnecessary, tacked on, will discard at earliest opportunity" fellow who was super active and then vanished into thin air, suddenly, like a candle on the wind. Shame, I'd love to hear his account on just how well did the discarding go.

Well, I intend to at least try this out. I'm not opposed to the core game with the +level so don't think of me as hard core against the norm. It's just something I am willing to give a shot to see how it actually works. I find too many people theorycraft without actually trying things. PF2 is a great example of people having many ideas before even giving the game a chance.

The system is valid and I have been suggesting it as a way to remove level without breaking game balancement, so it definitely works. The reason I still only advise it "if you really really want to" rather than "go ahead and do it", is essentially this:

krazmuze wrote:

Interesting idea - so if you fight a boss across levels until they become a minion, they will have declining stats as you level up. So you take on the burden of the mental math so your players do not have to.

Isn't this counter productive to players wanting to have meaningful AC/DCs if they become dynamic? Makes for a more confusing metagame.

You say you just finished WftC. I'll drop a few names.

Think of Jeroth, extremely easy to make into a recurring villain. Think of the Three Sisters, all of the same power, but one of which is faced earlier than the others. Think of Merkondus, Vaddrigan, Avenna, Bartelby and all those NPCs you might face in an infiltration way earlier than you're meant to fight them. Think of Titus, whom you could be facing in a duel way earlier than you're actually capable of beating, or Ehlers, whose power is hard to resist when first met but changes a lot afterwards. Think of Guisarne or Veleto or Malphene.

All of these NPCs (a short list, really) are met at some point in WftC and recurr one or two or sometimes three levels after, once the PCs have grown stronger... or at least, that's how it would normally work. By removing level, they recurr once they've grown weaker.
That's weird.

The mindshift in all this is that the enemies haven't grown weaker, its the PCs who have become stronger, making the challenge against them weaker. I'm pretty sure that its because of this mindset that removing +level is something that is showing up in the GMG and not just a sidebar in the Corebook.

]What's confusing about it, is that there is no real AC for a monster. Fight a troll at 2nd level it will have one AC. Fight another at 5 level, it will have a different one.

Individual named bosses rarely become minions, but it's not that uncommon to fight something as a tough solo foe at low level and then fight a bunch of them a few levels later. It's a nice clear way to show off how much tougher you've gotten.

Which it still would be under your system, it's just that it's kind of weird for the actual AC to drop. It feels more like these monsters are weaker, rather than the PCs being stronger.

I'm also trying to think how you would stat out monsters (or NPCs) in such a system, if you weren't working with an existing model with +level built in. How would you write up a Troll's stats in a bestiary? Seems like there should be a way to do it that isn't just "X-PC level", but I don't see it.

Ah, these are very good points. Let me give you my thoughts on these.

First, in regards to AC. AC is really a relative thing in the game and has been for a long time. A creature is given an AC to match the level it should be on. PF2 is more transparent in this than ever before. So, if we assume AC is just a number out of thin air to make the math work, then what if AC lowers as one gains more experience because you are more accurate at hitting? Instead of level bonuses to hit, its level penalties to enemies. Does that make sense?

Example: A level 1 character fights a level 5 troll. It's AC would be 19 (20 - 1 (party level) = 19) because of hide and its ability to avoid getting hit. Then that character levels up to level 2 and fights a troll. The trolls AC is now 18, not because the troll is weaker, but because the character is more accurate and better at hitting. This is how experience is manifested now.

Taking it a step further, can an average DM really explain the difference between AC 45 vs AC 25 or 40 vs 38? Not really, its just arbitrary. In this system, AC is now a combination of armor, dodge ability, AND SKILL. As you gain levels relative to the creature, it can't avoid you as easily. Thus, its AC is dropping because of your skill.

Second, how to stat creatures for this system. To be honest, I haven't given that any thought because I plan to play APs as opposed to home brewing stuff (I used to home brew all the time, but life, aka family and work, take up too much time these days). Based on this, I need a system that is essentially compatible with what Paizo produces, otherwise I might as well play a new system. What I would do is simply follow the monster creation guidelines that Paizo has put out. Those are solid rules to follow. Then simply subtract player level when they fight said creature at whatever level and keeping in mind my answer to AC above. AC now reflects skills, so as a character improves, AC lowers

I don't know. Its not perfect and its likely too far from the norm for the average player/GM to consider but its an interesting thought exercise that level changes not the player, but everything around them. Maybe its unsatisfying for some to not feel they are gaining things when they level, but I bet when they next fight that troll 2 levels later, in that very moment, the player, and by extension, the character, will feel more powerful.

I'm sure there are things I haven't thought of, but in a +/- 4 level thing as PF2 suggests, I don't see it being too hard to implement.

You've just subtracted the same number (PC level) from both sides of the equation.

This succinctly captures what I am trying to express. Thanks!

Interesting idea - so if you fight a boss across levels until they become a minion, they will have declining stats as you level up. So you take on the burden of the mental math so your players do not have to.

Isn't this counter productive to players wanting to have meaningful AC/DCs if they become dynamic? Makes for a more confusing metagame.

I’m not sure I follow you. I can’t think of an AP where this happens and if it does, I think the boss tends to level too. A boss never becomes a minion, except I suppose in some weird circumstances.

Another way of saying what I intend to do is this.

1. Players never add +level bonus. Everything else stays the same.
2. Whatever level the players are, is the bonus you subtract from the monsters stats that benefit from level bonus.

This perfectly replicates the numbers using the normal system at higher levels.

I don’t understand how this makes things more confusing. It perfectly replicates what is already happening but without inflated numbers. If you want to see this for yourself, take a look at several level 10 creatures in the bestiary and subtract 10 from everything. Suddenly, every single number works for a first level character.

I totally understand that removing the +level bonus breaks immersion or whatever you want to call it for some folks (and that’s cool) but PF2 works the same at high levels as low levels. It’s super simple to remove it if you want.

Is "Numbers start to become meaningless" really any different than in PF1?

I mean, the basic calculation for "is this guy hard hit" still boils down to "What do I need to roll to hit him?". That's how the math always has to work. If I only hit with a good roll he's hard to hit. Or, I suppose, depending on which iterative I reliably hit with.

I don't think even in PF2 there's really much mental math needed to figure out if someone's hard to hit - rather than start with the 43, start with the actual die roll. Roll lousy and hit, this'll be easy. Roll well and miss and you're in trouble.

I’m not trying to compare to PF1. I am looking at PF2 as it’s own system.

If you feel the mental math is not difficult, that’s your opinion. I don’t find math difficult either, but my statement is my opinion based on a year long campaign, 5 months of which have been at what I would call high level. As a DM, it’s easy to lose track what becomes a hard save or a hard attack for players because the numbers are always moving. It’s the same from the players perspective. But at the end of the day, the numbers are the same as first level, just inflated modified by the difference in level. I find NPC spellcasters particularly underwhelming at high levels (unless they are higher level than the players) and am constantly surprised at the low numbers the players need to pass the spell DCs (which is a result of the designers wanting to increase the odds of success as players level). This catches me off guard because I don’t track the players save bonuses. If the numbers didn’t constantly change I’d have a better sense, allowing me to fine tune things without extra homework.

You are welcome to feel differently, and clearly you do. My belief is the +level bonus obfuscates the game to a degree. Once I try playing without the +level bonus I can confidently tell you if I think the game is better for it or not (IMO). Until then, I can’t state whether one is better than the other.

I haven't really followed this thread, but I will weigh in here with an unpopular opinion.

Our WftC campaign is nearing its end. We have played the entire campaign based off of either PF2 Playtest rules or PF2 rules. I am the DM, the PCs will level up to level 17 next session.

After DMing for nearly a year, I have the following observations:

1. PF2 is a great system
2. I think the math breaks down a bit at high levels (its my feeling at least - and to be clear, the rest of the post does not pertain to this thought).
3. There are a lot of pluses, a lot of dice rolled (magic weapons), and a lot of attacks (sometimes three times a turn for attack, attack, attack routines). The game slows down a lot. By the end of a session, math fatigue sets in. This is undeniable for our group.
4. Numbers start to become meaningless. +33 here, +28 here. Both players and DMs lose sight of what is actually an easy, medium, or hard number to hit anymore and the game is about throwing out numbers. Things boil down simply to "I got a 43 to hit, did I hit?" If the answer is yes, players then do some math calculation and then they come to the conclusion that its a higher level guy or a guy with good armor. The number itself, without doing math, does not indicate to players how tough an AC or a save is. But it should. At level 1, if the DM says the creature has AC 20, most players will be "dang, this guy is gonna be tough". At high levels, players need to do mental math to come to that conclusion.

My group plays APs and therefore follows a set story. The story progresses, the stakes amp up, and there is very little to no chance of fighting the same creatures on level 10 or 20 as level 1. I plan to run Age of Ashes without +level bonus, while still keeping level difference of enemies relevant. That is, if the PCs are level 5, one enemy is level 7, and the other three enemies are level 4, the following would happen:

1. On the players sheets, they have no +level bonus so all things look fine from their perspective.
2. On the level 7 creature, I subtract 5 from their pluses. Pretty simple and it keeps the to hit and crit chances the same as if the +level existed. The integrity of PF2's design is maintained.
3. On the level 4 creature, I subtract 5 from their pluses. This preserves the level difference, making it easier for the PCs to hit as if the +level bonuses existed.

Damage, HPs, etc are all preserved. The only change is essentially removing the +level bonus while still maintaining the level difference.

At this point, I don't see any issue with the game, and I am hoping as we hit high levels, it provides more transparency to the players on where they stand in regards to the game because at the end of the day, the +25s, +38s, +22s of the world are mind numbing numbers at high level that mean very little.

I think that this hits the mark that some posters in this thread have hinted at and is very simple to do.

One thing I AM unsure about, is that by the time we hit level 10 and I announce, yet again, another AC 20 or 21, will the players say "Again?". The reality though, is that if you looked in the bestiary and picked many creatures from level 8 or above and had an equal level party fight it, the majority of creature ACs would be between 19-21 (excluding level bonus). There are some outlier creatures but the math is really the same regardless of level.

Just my thoughts on all this.

Duskreign wrote:

One other effect I think shields has had on the game is that in order to make the shield math generally work, its pigeon holed the math of creatures to be pretty same-y on the same levels. There are some outliers though.

I don't think that has much to do with shields. Creatures of similar levels need to have similar stats to make encounter building guidelines worth a damn.

One dial can be turned up while another is turned down. More damage could mean less HPs or lower AC. There are ways to still balance the encounter. I think the game would be better for it with more of these adjustments. I just think Shields is one of the things that is thus far limiting these changes.

One other effect I think shields has had on the game is that in order to make the shield math generally work, its pigeon holed the math of creatures to be pretty same-y on the same levels. There are some outliers though.

I agree, its a slippery slope. But I do think a brief beta test would have been good. If I recall, PF1 went through alpha and beta tests and that was already on top of pretty polished 3.5 game (ymmv).

I think overall, PF2 is very solid, but a beta test would have caught some of the language omissions and rules edge cases that exist now.

Well, I currently run a level 13 game, and shields work fine at these levels if you believe in the idea that shields aren't meant to block damage round after round. But I also think there is a lot of moving parts with shields. If you run shields differently than the expected way (which is admittedly confusing), then you will have drastically different results and feelings about shields.

Duskreign wrote:

NA Palm wrote:

Duskreign wrote:

So here's something to consider. Shield Block's trigger says "While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack."

What if you had Resist 5 Physical Damage? If an attack hit you for 4 damage, you would not take damage, thus you could not activate your Shield Block, but you can't even choose to use Shield Block at that point because you didn't know that you took damage. Therefore, you need to know that you took damage and the only way for you to know that is for the DM to tell you that you took X damage.

So the trigger has to happen after you are told damage.

Therefore, the player will know at all times whether an incoming attack will destroy the shield or not.

I don't think he was arguing that it wasn't how it worked according to the rules, only that the decision making it promoted was bizarre.

I just felt it was important to point out to anyone reading the thread why the timing for Shield Block is important and that players benefit from knowing the incoming damage before making your decision. A certain segment of DMs force the player to decide before hand, and this is not the correct ruling. So I grabbed the opportunity to reinforce this. :)

Has "knowing the damage" been clarified? Watching episodes of Oblivion Oath Jason B seems to ask if they want shield block first before they know the damage. So sorry if I missed that clarification but reading the feat it does not specifically state you know the incoming damage amount...just that damage made it through all you resistances.

Duskreign wrote:

NA Palm wrote:

Duskreign wrote:

So here's something to consider. Shield Block's trigger says "While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack."

What if you had Resist 5 Physical Damage? If an attack hit you for 4 damage, you would not take damage, thus you could not activate your Shield Block, but you can't even choose to use Shield Block at that point because you didn't know that you took damage. Therefore, you need to know that you took damage and the only way for you to know that is for the DM to tell you that you took X damage.

So the trigger has to happen after you are told damage.

Therefore, the player will know at all times whether an incoming attack will destroy the shield or not.

I don't think he was arguing that it wasn't how it worked according to the rules, only that the decision making it promoted was bizarre.

I just felt it was important to point out to anyone reading the thread why the timing for Shield Block is important and that players benefit from knowing the incoming damage before making your decision. A certain segment of DMs force the player to decide before hand, and this is not the correct ruling. So I grabbed the opportunity to reinforce this. :)

Has "knowing the damage" been clarified? Watching episodes of Oblivion Oath Jason B seems to ask if they want shield block first before they know the damage. So sorry if I missed that clarification but reading the feat it does not specifically state you know the incoming damage amount...just that damage made it through all you resistances.

Well, that's the real trick. I think Jason plays it simpler for the stream but who knows. What I do know, is that I had a long conversation with Mark Seifter (one of the PF designers) about this and he stated this was how it worked. Although he did say that he wasn't authorized to make it official as Paizo wants to have a single source for definitive FAQs and errata. So while its not official, its as close as it can get. Further, he brought up the resistance example I used above which clearly illustrates that you need to know that you actually take damage before you can trigger the reaction.

Duskreign wrote:

So here's something to consider. Shield Block's trigger says "While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack."

What if you had Resist 5 Physical Damage? If an attack hit you for 4 damage, you would not take damage, thus you could not activate your Shield Block, but you can't even choose to use Shield Block at that point because you didn't know that you took damage. Therefore, you need to know that you took damage and the only way for you to know that is for the DM to tell you that you took X damage.

So the trigger has to happen after you are told damage.

Therefore, the player will know at all times whether an incoming attack will destroy the shield or not.

I don't think he was arguing that it wasn't how it worked according to the rules, only that the decision making it promoted was bizarre.

I just felt it was important to point out to anyone reading the thread why the timing for Shield Block is important and that players benefit from knowing the incoming damage before making your decision. A certain segment of DMs force the player to decide before hand, and this is not the correct ruling. So I grabbed the opportunity to reinforce this. :)

thenobledrake wrote:

...and the chance isn't actually 50% because the timing of Shield Block is such that the damage roll has already been made before you choose whether to block or not since "roll dice" is step 1 of figuring out damage and "take damage" is step 4. So you can use the reaction on the hits that won't destroy your shield in one go if that's what you'd rather do than just get a little extra reduction of damage at the cost of your isn't-just-for-defense item.

That decision still doesn't feel right to me.

GM: "You are hit."
Player: "Fortunately, my character is ready to use her shield to absorb the blow, thus preventing damage to her body."
GM: "It's a heavy blow: 68 damage."
Player: "Yikes! In that case she will use her body to absorb the blow, thus preventing damage to her shield."
GM: "The fiend's axe sinks deep into your flesh. Blood flies everywhere."
Player: "Don't worry, little shield. I won't let you come to any harm..."

So here's something to consider. Shield Block's trigger says "While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack."

What if you had Resist 5 Physical Damage? If an attack hit you for 4 damage, you would not take damage, thus you could not activate your Shield Block, but you can't even choose to use Shield Block at that point because you didn't know that you took damage. Therefore, you need to know that you took damage and the only way for you to know that is for the DM to tell you that you took X damage.

So the trigger has to happen after you are told damage.

Therefore, the player will know at all times whether an incoming attack will destroy the shield or not.

My take is that shields are meant to absorb damage once a fight. You have the option of doing it more, but at extreme risk of destroying your shield.

Shields are not meant to absorb damage endlessly. Remember that choosing a shield build needs to be balanced with other non shield builds, and being able to absorb damage multiple times in combat in addition to an AC bonus quickly eclipses the benefits of non shield builds. The math (creature damage vs hardness/hp levels of shields) strongly supports the once a combat Shield Block.

Thus, shield users are meant to use Shield Block later in the fight when the healer is busy and your shield wielder would remain standing by using the Shield Block action.

Certain magical shields CAN support taking more hits though. In my own games I see almost every shield wielder gravitate to shields that have higher hardness and HPs in order to absorb more damage which is understandable because people who use shields want better defense whether its through an AC bonus or damage absorption. The tradeoff is that you are giving up some potential offensive/utility abilities of other magical shields for a purely defensive build.

Once you understand that shield damage absorption is limited and you understand when you should use Shield Block, magic shields with other abilities than a higher hardness/hp threshold become a little more appealing.

In my view, if the designers were a bit more obvious about the shield niche in the game, this would curb a lot of confusion.

Like the wraith and the nightmare. Not a fan of the PF2 shadow design. Too spindly for my tastes. Looks like a strong set tho.

Davor Firetusk wrote:

I'd be curious for some alternate ideas, side quests or material for earlier in the adventure path. The last volume isn't the natural place for that exactly, but even if you start playing as it is released you might barely be through book 2 by time book 6 is released.

I don't think this is the right place to add in "cutting room floor" or "developer's addition" type content. That stuff is more useful during play, not after the campaign is over.

That said, we ARE looking for ways to get more stuff like web enhancements or bonus material out there via other routes, so hopefully some day we'll be able to do web enhancement type things more easily and quickly and efficiently.

I know that you already answered this but I still feel I want to second the "cutting room floor/developer's addition" content idea. Many GMs don't run APs as they come out for various reasons and I think this is an opportunity to further link the individual adventures tighter together. I've read enough anecdotes about published adventures that sometimes things get missed, forgotten, or not entirely lined up with the overall story that this provides an opportunity to resolve some of this at the very end.

I completely understand that this could lead to a lot of work and that perhaps producing this in the final volume is still too soon to notice these sorts of errors/omissions but I think it would be great if you tried the concept at least once in the future to gauge community feedback. I think this sort of thing can only enhance the overall AP in my opinion.

Three questions:

1. What is the design reason behind some adventure gear giving a bonus to some skills, while others provide a penalty if you don't have them. It seems that penalties for not having an item can be easily forgotten about (compass and crowbar for example). It seems like it would have been easier to make them all one way or the other.

2. Can a hero point save you from an instant death? Say a creature that kill you outright on a failed save?

3. Musical Instruments in the equipment section are 2 handed items. On pg 96 under the Bard Occult Spellcasting, it states if you use an instrument you don’t need a spell pouch or another free hand. Does this mean a bard can cast spells with an musical instrument in one hand?

At one of the streamed panels from Gen Con, Mark Seifter specifically called out that Disrupt Prey was meant to be a reaction and not a free action. I'd suggest treating it as such as there will be errata for that in the near future.

I have no link, but it should be on Paizo's twitch channel and I believe it was the PF2 Rules Q&A seminar.

Man, did we play that wrong last night (our first PF2 session). We were applying the extra 2d6 damage on the triggering attack.

Something I am curious about are spell shapes and sizes. Do they follow a similar pattern to PF1 or have they been altered at all? I have always hated drawing the weird patterns to determine if targets are in the area of effect.

Much appreciated.