Ectar's page

With a lack of direction, I defaulted to the 3.5 idea that a large creature takes up roughly 4x the space as a medium one. So when something could swallow one large creature, it could instead swallow 4 medium ones.
When I looked, I was somewhat surprised to find that PF1 lacked similar guidance, at least that I could find easily.

Total Party Kill

Name of PCs: Ravillia Alurith Nikoslava, Uuki OohAahAahTingTangWallaWallaBingBang, Sokkit Decko, and Darmak Kegshield
Classes/Level: Oracle of Battle, Bard, Rogue, Fighter, all 12
Adventure: Siege of the Dinosaurs
Catalyst: Consumption
Story:

Having recently saved the Densirt family from certain death, the humble performers were asked to look in on the folks at Fortune's Hall. Upon arrival, the party had decided to check building exterior and surrounding structures before entering the Hall. Ravi and Darmak went to scout the stable, while Uuki and Sokkit checked the main building and the area around the pond, respectively. Darmak mistakenly awoke the Starved Staff, who swallowed the dwarven fighter after mere moments. Ravi began blasting while the other two arrived on-scene. After another few moments, Ravi, too was consumed. As both were specialized into heavier weapons, neither were able to deal sufficient piercing/slashing damage to rupture the undead's leathery innards. The only potential saving grace was the Air Bubble granted to Ravi by Drecko as she was consumed.
Uuki was the third to be swallowed whole, attempting to deal as much damage as possible before being taken. Drecko, the only one able to reliably overcome the monster's resistance to piercing and slashing weapons, was the last to be swallowed, as his raptor companion could only watch.
With the the whole party consumed, unable to free themselves, and continuously taking damage from their starvation aura as well as the beast's grinding innards, desperation came to the party. Darmak surrendered his last round of air to heal Ravi, Uuki gave his last breath to Soothe Ravi as well.
With the support of the whole party on her side and her Orcish Ferocity expended, Ravi bet it on all Searing Light. With the roll of a one, the light was extinguished; the whole party consumed.
Having eaten mightily of the party, the spirits of the Starving Staff were able to rest, dispersing the undead creature.

Drecko's faithful companion was able to escape and make the long journey back to town. It's only a matter of time before The Professor becomes worried at the disappearance of the circus's star performers and sends out a search party...

While true, at least ice and stone can be broken somewhat reliably.
Force is much harder to deal with.

Also, though a DC isn't given, I can't think of a reason why you couldn't climb a wall of stone.

But to be fair, those are 2 and 3 spell levels higher than water, which means by the time it's expected a party encounters them, they'll have much more resources to deal with them.

Ectar wrote:

2.) Every spell I can think of that has a secondary check/save uses something that automatically progresses.

Both Spell DC and Athletics check to swim automatically progress with level. At least as much as an Acrobatics check to escape does that you reference with Entangle.

So what are you talking about with point #2 here?

Every character IS trained or better in all saves as well as perception.

Every other spell I can think of has SOME option for EVERY character to use a modifier that receives your level-based scaling without requiring any additional investment, because they're things that always receive level-based scaling at at least trained level. Being saving throws or perception.

Given that, from a dice-roll perspective, wall of water can ONLY be defeated via athletics, which not all characters have, I'm positing that it should have a basic DC, not a level-based one.

2.) Every spell I can think of that has a secondary check/save uses something that automatically progresses.

Those also inflict an effect upon a character. Wall of water, being a wall, can't be thrown onto a character so the character must be choosing to attempt to swim through it before the DC comes up, making the comparison not really 1:1 - it's not unfair of the game to expect that someone choosing to attempt to swim has put a resource into being more capable of doing it.

Nothing in Wall of Water indicates that it cannot be placed in the same space as a creature, nor do the general rules on Walls.

3.) Because nothing in the spell says that that's what the DC is.

On this point, you're confusing helpful reminders for mandatory mentions. The general rules for setting DCs tell us a check/save against a spell uses the spell's DC as a default, it isn't actually required that every spell specify that detail.

The general rules for setting spell DCs tell us for a saving throw against a spell, you use the caster's spell DC. Nothing is mentioned as a general rule for setting skill DCs.

Ectar wrote:

Considering it's a third level spell, I don't think it should be equal to the spell DC.

Why wouldn't it be the spell DC?

Are there any cases in which the DC of something involved in a spell that isn't a flat check is explicitly not the spell DC?

Couple of reasons why I don't personally think it should be vs spell DC:

2.) Every spell I can think of that has a secondary check/save uses something that automatically progresses.
A lot of things use Escape checks, which at LEAST progresses with unarmed attack proficiency, which all characters have, but also Acrobatics and Athletics. Maze uses perception checks or survival. Every other spell I can think of uses either a save or their choice of a save or skill check.
I can't think of any other spell that would require exactly one kind of skill check to overcome.
And because ONLY athletics can bypass the wall of water, a ton of non-athletically inclined characters would be SOL. Even having a swim speed doesn't guarantee success if the water is turbulent, which isn't specified either way by the spell.

3.) Because nothing in the spell says that that's what the DC is.
Using Entangle and Maze as examples:
"Creatures can attempt to Escape at entangle's DC to remove these effects."
"Once each turn, the target can spend 1 action to attempt a Survival check or Perception check against your spell DC to escape the maze."

In other spells I've looked at, if the spell gives the victim a kind of skill check to escape/reduce the effects, the wording of the spell specifies that the check DC is the same as the spell DC.
Here it doesn't.

The answer to this question significantly impacts how good of a spell it is.
Considering it's a third level spell, I don't think it should be equal to the spell DC.
Nothing in the spell description describes the quality or stillness of the water, so I'm unsure which of the non-level based DCs would apply.

Looking at the art in the blog post looks kinda "swiftly flowing river" to me, but I'm really grasping at straws when I'm trying to discern rules from art.

Why is the whip of compliance worth 3000gp?
That's an extremely high amount for a 9th level item. On par in price with some 13th level items.
The closest item of its level is the 10th level Galley, and that's an entire ship.

Hmmmmm. Looking through the bestiaries 1 and 2, there is only one stat block with reach 5ft listed, and that's the gorilla, a large creature.
The demilich's reach 0 is also unique, as far as I see.
At least as far as I've found.
This also means that there are zero tiny creatures with a reach of 5ft listed. So either all tiny creatures have 5ft, because that's the assumption when a range isn't listed, or zero tiny creatures have 5ft reach and the reach 0ft of the demillich is extraneous.

But it also means that every single large-long creature has no reach listed because it's assumed, and every large-tall creatures has its reach specified.

I'm not sure what set of assumptions I like better.

For games that I run, I'll probably be going with: if a reach isn't listed, it's 5ft.

ps- The tiny trait doesn't actually give a "typical reach" the way that the other size traits do. It merely mentions that if a creature has reach 0ft it must enter another creature's square to attack it.

If that were the intent, it'd be nice if it were explicitly said so.

The Demilich is actually specified to have reach 0ft with its jaws attack. As far as I can tell, it's the only tiny creature that specifies a reach, but it specifies the reach you would expect a tiny creature to have.
Additionally, a whole mess of large-tall creatures have their reach explicitly stated as 10 ft, the expected amount.

Seems really odd when it's a huge creature, and a full size category over the regular nightmare which also has 5ft reach.
I couldn't find many instances of a huge creature having only 5ft reach. The Quetzalcoatlus has talons at 5ft, but it also has beak at 10. Both the Greater Nightmare's jaws and hoof are not given a range, so it defaults to 5ft, yeah?
Seems odd.

Name of PC: Tolius Viben
Class/Level: Swashbuckler 4
Adventure: The Show Must Go On!
Catalyst: Channel Smite is a hell of a drug
Story: Ashagith and her warriors were swiftly defeated, but not before alarming the rest of the Xulgaths with the gong. Three rounds later, the reinforcing warriors showed up to turn the tides. However, they came down the stairs in perfect AoE formation and two rounds later, only one warrior remained. The sole survivor bravely ran back to his master above. The party gave chase and were met by the big bad. Tolius, as the first of the party up the stairs, attempted to trip the fleeing Xulgath, but wound up tripping over his own feet. Cavnakash, having buffed himself in his first round, walked over to the prone swashbuckler and delivered a mighty channel smite, dealing almost max damage, dropping the unfortunate gnome to dying. The rest of the party arrives and begins to spread out. Tolius fails his first recovery check and advances to dying 2. Cavnakash dropped his Death Knell, which Tolius initially critically failed. He used his last remaining hero point to reroll the save, but failed once again.
Cavnakash went on to bring our Battle Oracle and Monkey Goblin Bard to dying, but was slain by our Leshy Druid's produce flame, after a hero point was able to turn a miss into a hit.

Tolius will be remembered by the town of Abberton this Sunday, and is survived by his fellow circus performers, and especially Bardolph who had begun performing again with the charismatic gnome.

Yeah. From the list of 2e APs, Extinction Curse also has the Agents of Edgewatch stuff on it.
It's weird and took me a few minutes to notice that Extinction Curse is actually on the lower half of the page, but I don't think other AP pages have 2 APs worth of stuff on them, especially when the stuff that should be up-front is on the bottom.

Ectar wrote:

Two-Headed Trolls have an action called "Reactive Chomp", but it seems like it should be a reaction based on the wording.

The Two-Headed Troll looks like it was going to work like an Ettin, with separate turns for each head. Some of the language needs to be updated.

It does. It has the same "independent brain" ability that Ettins have.

Additional errors I noticed:

Two-Headed Trolls have an action called "Reactive Chomp", but it seems like it should be a reaction based on the wording.

Jotund Troll have a reaction called "Fast Swallow" that allows them to use Swallow Whole on a creature it grabbed with its jaws, but the Jaw strikes lack Grab.

Related: all static numbers that you compare your checks to are DCs.

Most critically, armor class is a DC. So if you're frightened or sickened, giving you a penalty on all checks and DCs, your AC goes down by that same value.

When performing high jump and long jumps, the wording of the actions states that you perform a stride of at least 10 feet, then make either a vertical or horizontal Leap. Make an athletics check.
So, if you have a feat that modifies your Leap action, does that affect high or long jumps, since they have a Leap action nested inside of them?

So a feat like Raging Athlete:
"Physical obstacles can’t hold back your fury. While you are raging, you gain a climb Speed and swim Speed equal to your land Speed, the DC of High Jumps and Long Jumps decreases by 10, and your Leap distance increases by 5 feet when you jump horizontally and by 2 feet when you jump vertically."

Obviously it reduces the DC for high and long jumps. But does the last bit about Leap distances also apply to high and long jumps, since the high and long jumps still use the Leap action?

Secondly, how high can you jump with Sudden Leap? Specifically this line:
"When attempting a High Jump or Long Jump during a Sudden Leap, determine the DC using the Long Jump DCs, and increase your maximum distance to double your Speed."

The patron in PF1 was pretty bland and uninteresting.

The patron in PF2 is non-existent. It's a two paragraph blurb in the class mechanics section that doesn't have any associated mechanics. If every instance of the word "patron" were removed and the class copy/edited, it'd play exactly the same.

From the Patron section: "You weren’t born with the power to cast spells, nor have you spent years in devotion to tomes or specific entities unlocking mystical secrets. Your power instead comes through an unknown being that has chosen you as its vessel to carry forth some equally unstated plan in the world. "

It's a cool write-up, genuinely. It's just a shame that it doesn't translate into anything mechanically.

I think it'd be fine if there were a standard list of patrons that lay out lesson plans, with a "You can work with your GM to determine a different patron with their own lessons" or something if there's a patron you'd like that isn't represented.
Heck, even if the listed patrons just have suggested lessons and familiar types and whatnot it'd be better than it is now.

Concentrate doesn't trigger reactions, anyway.

Regarding the Biohacker, were any changes made to the scientific method? In the playtest, the int build was significantly more powerful than the wis build.

It would be a very interesting stream if a paizo employee taught PF2 to a group of non-RPG players. PF2 is lauded for its ease of learning and playing. It would be fascinating to see it in action.

Name: Mara
Race: Halfling
Classes/levels: Unchained Rogue 13
Adventure: Rasputin Must Die!
Location: Ancient Monastery
Catalyst: Multiple rifle crits
Gory details: Upon learning the existence of the blueprints for the World Anchors, the PCs tracked down the location of Rasputin's personal chambers. Some mediocre fly checks followed by similarly mediocre stealth checks found the PCs spotted by the Pale Snipers, who got a surprise round, shooting the nimble halfling once and successfully sniping to remain stealthed. One the first round of combat, the unlucky rogue was on the receiving end of a confirmed 4x crit from one sniper and a Stranger's Shot from another. Unable to enter the tower through the tiny slits the snipers were shooting through, she and the other melee party members flew around to the Monastery entrance to make their way up the tower. Being the first one into the tower, the rogue was the first target the snipers turned on inside the tower. A second 4x crit brought the unlucky rogue to -61 hp with a con score of 16. A breath of life only brought the thrice unlucky rogue to -17 hp. Dead as a doornail. Being that the party has no true divine caster, it fell to the wizard to Limited Wish the rogue back to life, with a single negative level remaining after a second Limited Wish removed one.
Mara returns to Russia with a vengeance and a nasty bullet-hole of a scar below her left eye.

Ectar wrote:

Can a stunning fist also be a perfect strike, while also being a punishing kick?

Not normally, because perfect strike only works with kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, or siangham, while style strikes and Stunning Fist require an unarmed strike. You'd need Ascetic Form with one of those four weapons to use them all at the same time.

Good catch, I kinda skimmed over that.

So taking perfect strike out, how about the rest?
Stunning Fist + Punishing Kick + any given style strike?

Since neither feat specifies a body part (punishing kick doesn't even specify you have to make an unarmed strike), could you combine those three, assuming you used the correct body part for the style strike?

And more generally, what kinds of abilities can you mash together?

Can a stunning fist also be a perfect strike, while also being a punishing kick?

Can my stunning, punishing, perfect fistkickstrike also target the foe's flat-footed AC via the Spin Kick style strike?

Where does the madness end?

Ectar wrote:

I don't get the channel smite feat. Why would you ever use it? You spend 2 actions to smite and deal extra damage equal to your hear/harm, at the cost of using a usage of channel.

I fail to see how it's any better than just casting heal/harm then striking. Because harm doesn't have the attack trait (possibly an oversight?), it doesn't incur multiple attack penalty. So casting harm then striking deals basically the same as channel smite for the same amount of resources, without costing a feat.

You might not want to cast a spell for some reason - either the opponent has an attack of opportunity or readied action to strike against spell.

It doesn't seem to be terribly useful, though... If it gained some sort of bonus when channeled through weapon over casting and attacking separately it might be better.

The point about attacks of opportunity are valid. Though, with only @20% of playtestiary monsters having AoOs, I still don't know if this is worth a feat.

I don't get the channel smite feat. Why would you ever use it? You spend 2 actions to smite and deal extra damage equal to your hear/harm, at the cost of using a usage of channel.
I fail to see how it's any better than just casting heal/harm then striking. Because harm doesn't have the attack trait (possibly an oversight?), it doesn't incur multiple attack penalty. So casting harm then striking deals basically the same as channel smite for the same amount of resources, without costing a feat.

Just to point it out: This thread was primarily about eliminating the distinction of "small" and "medium", since there are very few mechanical differences. Larger than medium and smaller than small both still have significant differences that warrant their existence.

Bad jokes aside. It also matters for gaining tactical cover with large creatures and bulk (page 190 pdf version).

This matters a tiny bit? Since it also depends on the size of the target being targeted, the chances that it'll be significant go down significantly.

Lemartes wrote:

What about lifting and bulk?

A goblin with 18 str and a giant with 18 str can carry 9 bulk before being encumbered.

While this is true, a giant is a large creature, so 1 bulk for it =10 bulk for a goblin. So while they can each carry a similar amount of "bulk", how much mass that bulk has is quite different.

What about lifting and bulk?

I'm not seeing any correlation. Do you have a page number I should be looking at?

For almost anything. Insofar as I can tell, the only difference between small and medium character is how big an enemy has to be to move through their space.
Small creatures can move through a huge creature's space. Medium creatures can move through a gargantuan creature's space.

If that's the only difference, why bother? Slaughter that sacred cow.

I heard (somewhere) that if you build an enemy with PC class levels the same way you build a PC, it'll come out close to doing it the monster way. So that's nice.
I like building my bad guys with PC class rolls the same way as PCs.

As far as I can tell, powers are unique with the exception that paladins can get domains like clerics.
But I'd also like for powers to be listed separately from spells. Same chapter, sure, but I'd like lists of powers by class way more than just higgledy piggledy throughout spells.

So you can remove the penalty with point blank shot.

Would be bad enough as a feat tax, but ok you don't need to worry about precise shot.

Oh no - this is fighter only. Only fighters can use longbows properly.

OR, you could use a shortbow and get a bonus to damage on most of your attacks.

I take all of that back. I just read the specialty crafting feat. Craft all the things.

Sure, but it allows the GM to be more flexible in encounter design. Every once in a while it's fun to throw an encounter at the PCs that they are too strong for, just to show off how strong they've become.

Plus, as numbers rise, the fluctuations the d20 can cause go down.

I, for one, embrace our new, shortbow overlords.

The formatting has some really egregious errors. For instance, try reading the "Shield Other" spell. After the line regarding casting actions, it goes into an unrelated set of actions you can take after casting the "Shield" cantrip for a few paragraphs, before going back to the rest of the "Shield Other" spell.

I have no doubt that this will be fixed for release. As it is, we just kinda have to put up with stuff like awful formatting.

2) Other effects (namely, Raise Dead and Ressurection) apply the condition for one week with the qualifier statement "this condition can’t be removed or reduced by any means until the week has passed."

3) Restoration states that it can remove/reduce enervation (the condition) including permanent enervation, however no applications of enervation (the condition) are actually applicable.

4) The penalty to proficiency and the penalty to level interact oddly:
• The proficiency penalty is "max your current level"
• Your level reduction is "max your current level -1"
• Proficiency is already a value based on your level (does this mean a 5th level character that is Trained in a skill and has Enervation 1 roll skills with '1d20+4' or '1d20+3'? Their level is reduced by 1—to 4—and takes a penalty on rolls equal to 1, Trained is '1d20 + your_level + modifiers')[/list]

There are a handful of monsters in the playtest bestiary that can enervate PCs, separate from the spell.

I don't think the penalty proficiency and penalty to level DO interact.
The penalty to proficiency applies to basically every d20 roll.
The penalty to level applies only to what suite of abilities you can use.
ie: if a 5th level wizard got hit with an enervated 1 he couldn't cast fireball until the enervation went away.

I think this needs to be fleshed out more.

However, some of your examples would be covered by the lore skill.
Personally, craft would apply for armor, weapons, leather, and bows. Maybe throw leather in there.

The rest would be
blow glass: lore-glass
bind book: lore-books
bridges: lore-arcitecture
horseshoes: lore-blacksmithing
leather: lore-leatherworking

ect.

There are a lot of words dedicated to spell rolls, but only 5 spells and powers use this mechanic in any way.

Ancestral surge, Black tentacles, Charming words, Illusory creature, and Telekinetic maneuver.

Ancestral surge can give a bonus to OTHER spell rolls, to let's throw that one out. Charming words gives your foe a bonus to spell rolls if they crit succeed the save, so let's throw that one out, too.

That leaves 3: black tentacles, illusory creature, and telekinetic maneuver. These spells make admittedly good use of the mechanic, functioning as a sort of spell attack, but using your spellcasting stat.
However, all of these spells are on the arcane and occult lists, only. So clerics, druids, and ~1/2 of sorcerers gain proficiency in spell rolls, with literally no way to use this proficiency.

Upon first read-though I had thought spell rolls were synonymous with spell attacks, but now I believe this to not be the case, as melee spell attacks are specified to have the finesse property.

As is, the spell roll mechanic seems like a big waste of book space. Maybe the final release will have more spells that use this mechanic. Or maybe I misunderstood these rolls entirely. I'd actually love it if that were the case.

edit: Spell rolls are also used when trying to decide if you can cast a spell while stupified.
3 poisons, 2 bombs, stunning fist, 5 spells, and 2 monster abilities can make a PC stupified, though one of those requires forming a bond with a succubus first.

Just want to bitterly confirm that a friend of mine that preordered through Amazon has all of his stuff today.

Ectar wrote:

This is really, really frustrating.

It's irksome that Amazon messed up orders via Paizo, but not orders via Amazon. Different departments, different issues.

Thanks for being a generally great company, Paizo.

>_<

It's not just Paizo pre-orders. I ordered from Amazon directly and just looked at my delivery. Mine won't be here until the 7th.

I ordered mine through Amazon and it shipped yesterday (arrived today).

I've seen similar in other forum posts.

This is really, really frustrating.

It's irksome that Amazon messed up orders via Paizo, but not orders via Amazon. Different departments, different issues. Sure sure. Still feels wrong. But that's okay, feelings are allowed to be wrong.

$15 store credit is bitterly amusing in one aspect: it's the cost of a soft-cover before shipping. So you actually have to spend ~4$ to use it. Which is great if you were planning on getting something through Paizo anyway. I honestly probably wasn't going to buy another Paizo product until PF2.
Not that Paizo doesn't do great work, but it feels like any RPG-line, player companion, or campaign setting book will be chock full of options that will be irrelevant when PF2 releases. Plus I'm already waist deep in an AP, so I don't need to make any purchases there for some time.

If nothing else, the playtest shipping fiasco will be a nice discount on the PF2 core rule book in a year.

I'm honestly grateful for the way Paizo is handling the situation.
I'm just mad and venting.

Thanks for being a generally great company, Paizo.

>_<

Are half-elves and half-orcs still going to get full culture write-ups like they did in PF1? Part of my concern with this design choice is that the half races could wind up getting less love than ever.
Half-elves, for instance, had some obviously inherited traits (I'm looking at you Elven Immunities). CRB half-elves were boring, but expanded options gave them some things unique to them. They were the only races that could get proficiency in any exotic weapon at level 1 regardless of class, for instance.
Half-orcs have always been more unique among core races, because their other half wasn't also core.

However, in making half-elves and half-orcs mechanical off-shoots from humans, I'm worried that their unique identity will be lost. Part of this might be rectified in later levels by picking up either combinations of human and elf/orc feats or the options unique to half-orcs or half-elves.
It doesn't change the fact that before level 5 half-elves and half-orcs are going to look remarkably similar to one another.

Where humans and elves both have a bunch of feats to differentiate themselves from other humans and elves, half-elves have 2/4 options to choose from, and don't get another until 5 (I think)

It might be fine, but those are some of my concerns with the half-races.

I agree with the sentiment that goodberry is too iconic of a druid thing to lock into one specialization.

*Casts Polymorph Self (Smurf)*

Don't you mean "polysmurf"?

I'll see myself out.

Michael Sayre wrote:

Ectar wrote:

I always have players that WANT to stealth together, but it has never panned out, because the fighters and barbarians just can't.

That is far and away one of my favorite things about the way skills work in the new edition. Instead of group stealth being functionally impossible, even the non-stealth characters get some basic practice at sneaking (as represented by the proficiency+level+modifier model), so there's usually still some point in them trying to be stealthy and it's not just dooming them to failure or forcing the group to split the party every time they want to move without announcing their presence. It's still going to be harder to sneak with the fullplate-wearing fighter in tow, but there's not going to be a 40 point difference between his Stealth score and the rogue's.

That and if you go past the orc camp of 20 orcs all with +1 Perception and nobody is actively Seeking in the area you are Sneaking, your group just needs everybody to make DC 11, not opposed rolls for every orc and then one of them rolls a nat 20 and you get noticed every time. When the worst guy has +2, you still have an OK chance of making 11, but you'd have to shoot the moon for him to beat every orc in an opposed roll.

Do skills auto-succeed on a nat 20, or was that just to say that they rolled really high?

Mats Öhrman wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

2/3-3/4 pass rate is indeed quite lovely for such effects; in fact, the fact that Trivial DCs provide those kinds of odds for a more middle ground character is another of their advantages and reasons to be included on the chart. Once it's 75% success for worst-character, though, that means nobody else is really engaging with it, which is possibly useful in some situations but sounds more to me like using a lower level challenge to spotlight the fact that worst-character might fail even though everyone else make it 95% of the time and can't critically fail. Hmm, it may be the case that a different column head than Trivial would help explain this concept better, particularly in absentia of the rules and just the chart excerpt.

Doesn't feel like it handles "all five rolls must succeed" situations well, like when all five in a party must climb the same rope for the entire party to make it up the wall, or a climb is long enough that you need to roll five times. Then a 75% success rate rapidly feels quite challenging...

As for one character being behind not meaning others are not engaged - my experience is that team members do engage in this, increasing their DC to lower the DC of the character in question through various more or less clever solutions. Especially if you don't want to leave someone behind when climbing that rope...

A climb is a little bit different of a check than it seems. You've actually found the final one of the main powerful uses of a trivial DC. Climbing just to get to the other side is a "Succeed before you critically fail" check, not a success/fail. That means the schlub character with a 50/50 success chance actually has a greater than 90% chance to succeed before critically failing (it's 10/11, succeed on an 11 or higher, crit fail on a 1, ignore 2 through 10 and roll again). If the DC goes up even a little beyond that, the chances of the schlub character to succeed before a critical fail drastically decrease.

Would this be similar to a group of PCs trying to sneak up near an enemy campsite at night? Succeed before critically fail?

I always have players that WANT to stealth together, but it has never panned out, because the fighters and barbarians just can't.

When will the PF playtest bestiary be coming out?

Shinigami02 wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

I'm highly disappointed that from a playtest/marketing point of view, PF2 seems to be focusing on running pre-generated content for GMs. It's nice to tip the hat and say "this will appear in the final version", but if it's not being playtested or even made visible during the playtest, why should I assume that that content is good?

One of the great things about PF1 was the ability to import it into any world/use it in any campaign (fantasy obviously). PF2 seems to be ignoring this at best, or have it as a non-goal at worst.

I suspect that the reason they're not having a lot of custom campaign stuff in the playtest's rulebook is the same reason they really don't want people using things like houserules and homebrew in the playtest: They want solid, consistent data. Their pre-printed content is designed to test specific mechanics at specific times so they can get regulated, consistent data on how it does or does not work.

Pretty much. Playtest needs trustful data. This is not the kind of thing that goes on there.

Maveric28 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I like GM-set DCs. Players beware

Having bought the collector edition of the playtest book, I am highly disappointed that it will be missing a significant part of the rules

Which is exactly why I DIDN'T purchase the "collectors edition." As a playtest, the book will be completely obsolete within a year. After all, how many of you are still using the Pathfinder Beta that came out back in 2008? So I just didn't/don't see any point to a "collector's edition" other than money-grubbing to finance other future projects.

I personally think all playtest print products are basically "collector's stuff". Just for bragging rights.

I save my money for the big release ^^

I find it hard to read really long PDFs. Having the paper copy makes it a lot easier for me. But, there's also a reason I only got the paperback copy ^^

Does this section contain specific rules for groups performing the same check? Like a party trying to stealth perhaps? ::hopeful::