Hmmmm makes sense at least until later on. 3 attacks per round could produce enough for up to 6 dents a round. Do you use a to hgit roll (what dc?) to hit a wall?
If you wanted to specifically use an attack to hit I'd use the wall of X spells to determine appropriate AC:
I like the 10 minute buff consideration, esp with the 10 minute rest options.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I assume the excessive version is the case since this would actually give the create a bit of versatility when it comes to casting (just changes the source staff and you change the spell repertoire).
Incidentally, I really like the Transmutation Staff here, because of how Humanoid Form can be used by an unusually lucid demilich to take on the appearance of how they were in life.
Big things I've liked from the start:
Changes I've liked:
Lady Melo wrote:
I believe perpetual bombs may not be intended for damage as much as for utility/debuffing.
Minor thunderstone, smoke bomb, powerful alchemy. It takes till level 8 but this sounds very funny and very obnoxious. Your suggested minefield tactic with delayed bomb would also expand the toolbox of obnoxiousness hear. Flashbang field is precisely the sort of thing I would be happy for players to come up with.
So I realise this stuff is an out of context combination, but it did give me a rough idea for a more fun way of handling grip-shifting (esp given that so many people hate it right now).
Make it a free action, but with the manipulate trait so that it interacts with entangled, restrained, and AoO.
Thematically I think I'd be cool if ranger spells were handled like ki powers.
I don't actually like rangers being spellcasters by default, but it would be a nice option.
That said, I'll confess to just very much liking the place the Monk is in right now in general. Which is funny, as it was one of the two classes I was most concerned about prior to the playtest dropping.
Still happy about the death of sig skills.
I very much like Ki Rush, and Chirurgeon makes me very, very happy.
As an asides. While the PF1 Investigator didn't exactly grab me (despite being formed from thematic favourites), taking into account how medicine can be used for analyze forensics, I actually very much like the idea now of alchemist MC-ed into rogue.
I feel like I have three strong opinions here:
I would honestly love positive trait armour.Positive trait weapons are amazing.
I think it would be really fun to decide to build a knight, and actually be able to geek out over equipment choices for stylistic reasons.
I could also dig some weak 1-act spells. Magic Missile and Shield come to mind, but Heal and Inspire Courage are definitely powerful for the time they take...
Coming from 5e, I really like PF playtest Message.A big part of that is the lack of a need to point. I feel like if I stuck it on a Rogue I'd wind up with a weird Shadowrun infiltration adept. Take mindlink, and maybe knock, lock, and hypercognition, and I feel like I have exactly the sort of arcane trickster I want to play.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Also. Depending on the final chassis on the game, it might be fun to redirect crit failed attacks against a climber to the attacker, provided that the attacker is the creature being climbed.
I wouldn't object to using other rules to climb onto monsters, but I'm not convinced that should give the grabbed condition. If you see what I mean?
As grappling currently works, if it worked better on large creatures it would make you better at nerfing them (higher chance for both Grabbed and Restrained to be inflicted, and a lower chance of them reverse grappling you). I have absolutely zero issues with some alternative maneuver that gives you a circumstance bonus on attack rolls or whatever against a creature you're hanging onto (with a likely circ bonus to do so for creatures of appropriate size), but I really don't think this should be the same thing as grappling.
Oh this is fun.And to think I was previously happy enough with a Ki-strike ki monk-wizard idea.
Depending on character level, this could be relatively reliable for a character with the 9th level human feat for a second MC without prerequisites, so you can dabble with both sorcerer and fighter/ranger?
Hero points are one of the few things I currently do not like in the playtest.
Funnily enough, at face value they're loosely similar to a system I actually loved - Edge, from when I played Shadowrun 5.
I suppose it might be worth it for me to consider just homebrewing in an adaptation of Edge, if hero points as are make it in to the final game?
He also has a Holy Rune, and once we learned from dev posts that you can price weakness multiple times with a single attack he has been WRECKING things as his blows are both Cold Iron and Good. Even before that his high accuracy and d10 blows were really doing work.
I'm going to be perfectly honest, and I kind of feel sorry for the demons? I mean demons are jerks but this just feels sad for them, seeing their faces kicked off by some pointy eared little rascal.Probably spoiler box it to avoid spoiling the monster defensive stats for players, but how much damage was that monk even doing per kick?
Also for OP.
Orders really would make an interesting basis here. I think it would have the plus side of not making a sorc feel like they're missing a level 1 feat - as one gets bundled in with their bloodline.
I will confess though to really liking the Imperial Sorc, thanks to all of its powers being "cheat magic. You are the magic boss, show those plebs".
Also agreeing with ClanPsi that 5e sorcs are cool. I normally like complaining about 5e classes not being quite my jam, but unique flexibility with magic does fit pretty well with the thematics of sorc.
So I guess some weak passive bloodline effects (e.g. fey sorcs getting circ bonuses to certain things based off terrain, or dragon sorcs being able to sometimes apply a conditional bonus to the damage of spells in a type appropriate to their dragon), or unique metamagics might be fun. Either way it could be handled the order way with regards to making the abilities level 1 feats that might work better for their bloodline.
Thematically though I think PF2 sorcs are really great so far.
I mean I don't even run games in an established setting outside of this playtest, nor do I particularly intend to stick with Golarion after it, but I actually really quite like pathfinder's daemons - they're relatively interesting and distinctive.
Demons and devils are alright, but I'm a bit soured on them due to the fighting due to different alignments thing from D&D, and they don't strike me as super duper original in comparison (though, I do quite appreciate that PF demons have a thematic basis in sins).
I do kind of like asura as well though. To a lesser degree qlippoths, but that's mostly for aesthetic and some minor divergence from demons.
I find that "well, if that is what you want" strikes an inordinate amount of fear into some of my players, with regards to their ideas. :/
Absolutely. Cone of Cold has an action-based metamagic, but I can’t recall many others...
Thanks for pointing this out. I completely forgot about this.
Banishment, 5th level Gentle Repose (also costs money), 2nd level Lock (also costs money), 6th level Restoration (also costs money) all also add an action.
Definitely would love to see more of this variable action usage, albeit more for reasons like Cone of Cold, Heal, Harm, Magic Missile, or Banishment.
One thing that was really nice to see as a GM was my player's reaction when he wondered out loud "wait. Is the barbarian basically a muscle wizard?"
I am really hoping that reworked alchemist is something I love. I love the new rogue, if one of my other thematic favourites is something I love, then this will be a double win for me.
I really like the alchemy system principle it has going right now, but the actual class definitely needs some tweaking.
I kind of like how the most sensible featless twf is to fight with whatever in your main hand and an agile weapon in your second hand. Like Rapier+ Main Gauche is a plausible, realistic weapon combination that is encouraged in PF2 by the twf rules but was a bad idea in PF1.
I also like the dwarven equivalent:Dwarven waraxe, offhanding clan dagger.
One of the few things I came away from Shadowrun really liking about the system was the spellcasting system.
It wouldn't work here, but it definitely works sort of like the Inheritance type. But I like it more as you can use basic probability to clearly cast at whichever level of risk you're up for.
TL;DR you pick which spell to cast, and how many to cast at once. Pick the level of each spell (spells don't have levels by defaults, costs relative to their level), roll for each spell, and then roll a resistance check (shadowrun so dicepool. More dice you have, the more confident you can be of what exactly your tolerance is) against backlash from casting for every single spell you cast then. Below a certain amount of unmodded backlash it's nonlethal damage, above it it's lethal damage (both damage tracks accrue penalties for things you do). You can take more backlash in exchange for casting spells with a lesser action, or later unlock methods of reducing the backlash (e.g. with somatic or verbal concentration techiques, or a magical focus)
Learning a level 1 spell costs 20SP (albeit due to the magical materials. I think it's fair enough to handwave this though), and this is allowed to be from being in conversation with the tutor throughout.
In spellcasting services a spell seems to cost 25% more if it takes more than a minute to cast. You would need to spend an hour learning the spell, so I think it's a fair bet. So 25SP might be about right?
Incidentally, this is 2 less than what it costs to just hire out somebody to magic missile something. So feel free to take that into account.
Hi, guys on the question here how I read it. When you cast a non-cantrip spell, so there are 3 casting actions at most in this spell so that being said the first MM from each casting should get the bonus the resulting bonus missiles are not cast just splintered from the original 3 and as such do not receive the bonus. Tell me what you think.
It's the same casting of a spell. The casting is from the first action to the last action, everything in that being the spell. You just get to choose how long the casting of MM is.
Also that seems like a very silly and likely broken idea for a fixed turret of magic missile - it not following the all in one turn clause, and having an upper number of actions according the number of resources you spend on it.
But don't all the caster classes have customization built into them? Sorcerer Bloodlines, Wizard Spell Schools, Druid Orders, Cleric Domains, and Bard Muses all offer ways to differentiate one PC of the same class from another.
They do. It just doesn't necessarily feel like that. My wizard player before he left the playtest (2 of my players hated it, 4 seem to really like it) felt like human was the only reasonable choice for his level 1 non-universalist wizard, simply because he didn't get to pick a feat at level 1 (I think cleric and druid seem better at face value to players there though?)Whereas say, the barbarian clocks in and gets to celebrate the fact he can catch fire and take advantage of the action economy with sudden charge.
I feel like this sort of thing would work better as a template, and if it alters the difficulty to simply adjust the effective level (much like Elite) of the boss, the template in part scaling with the original level of the boss.
I kind of want all classes to have a level 1 feat just so we can have archetypes which cost level 1 feats to take so that you can start as one.
That would be nice.
I want a level 1 feat for all classes not because I think casters need the buff, but because I think it feels bad to be missing level 1 customisation for a caster player.
so... shadowrun-modern? i can kinda dig that. or are we talking magitek?
Both, I guess.:
It's shadowrun-modern level tech, roughly. But instead of running on normal tech for the most part, everything runs pretty much entirely on arcane, occult, divine, or primal principles. The main world is a planar hub and the population density is absurd, so it definitely has the Shadowrun Sprawl thing going on a bit. Except like, instead of concrete and steel it's brick and stone facades.
There are some differences. E.g. lines of communication are way worse as reliable magical communication is probably pretty expensive, so the world is developing way slower than it otherwise should. Also the few patches of environment are less horrific, due to large scale druidic management. Overall it probably looks a bit more Ravnica than 2075 Berlin.
I will confess to waiting for the final draft of magic items though, as I'd really like to homebrew a high level arcane equivalent to what is basically a cyberdeck. For the rare locations that actually have an arcane information network. Also it would be fun to let the wizard or rogue use their arcana skill to hack. Depending on the role of resonance, I might use item investment in place of passwords
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Another part of this that I like as I have my own setting, I can handwave some choices for players, while having a sensible way of banning the vast majority of the world from accessing them.
Like, it is nice to not have to wonder why every single high-end military wizard doesn't just use teleport. That sort of thing has massive worldbuilding distorting effects, and I like actually being able to easily set what does and doesn't warp the world as a whole.
As for things I actually am planning on tweaking, spellcasting services. Most of them to Common, some staying at Uncommon. Albeit a lot of them aren't actually handled by people.:
(I asked my players what they wanted out of a setting. All of them wanted high fantasy, but one guy really wanted cyberpunk. The previous setting this follows from was already at approx 20th century tech, and this would be after a 25000 year timeskip for in-story mythology reasons. So, I decided to double down on the magic and make it ubiquitous as the alternative would have probably been a bit tech-heavy to keep everybody else happy)
So I'm just slowly working out stuff like disintegration chambers for getting rid of hazardous stuff, machines that use about an 18th of Create Food and some Prestidigitation to pop out meals for rich travellers on the go, tamed squirrels and cats that mull around delivering parcels, an obscenely luxurious hotel where every single room is a personally tailored magnificent mansion. Black-market curse-sellers (not exactly unheard of for a group of people to post you a Power Word Blind if they really hate you), etc.
I dislike the thematics and gut reaction with +1/level, but I think I like the effect it has on the game, especially combat.
1/2 level (more so given that the largest reliable mod without level is something like 15) would definitely be less thematically jarring, esp if it were phrased something like
Just personal opinion, but I like the idea of being able to set in your daily preparations a possibly nerfed alchemical item or two that you know to be quick alchemy-able at will, and at various levels getting to prep higher level items for it.
Dire Ursus wrote:
I do think it would be nice to have an alternative to ret strike here though.
Also less locking in to Heavy armour only, though that might require something like making armours less about raw numbers.
Dire Ursus wrote:
No matter how experienced you are. It's still a ton of dice to roll if you do go for the many weak skeleton horde route in combat. Which is perfectly viable since they serve as flanking partners, and general meat shields and barriers for enemies in combat. But yeah. Doesn't matter if you're experienced if you are controller 10 skeletons in a combat on your turn it's gonna take a lot of time.
I mean it would be nice if something generally considered to be a cool tactic was usable by a relative newcomer without killing the game for everybody else.
Spellcasting indecision is bad enough.
On a side note. Not a top end option by any means, but Scoundrel's feint with a rapier and a main-gauche is very thematic. Reactive pursuit and nimble roll or sideside makes it even better there.
Let's talk about the Basic Conditions. All of them from Accelerated to Unseen. The good, the bad, the ugly.
Really like the visibility conditions.
Similarly to you, I'd be fine with having the social conditions axed and/or tweaked and stuck elsewhere.
Not a massive fan of enervated thematically, but I at least like the name over level drain by a massive margin.
Fleeing I detest as a common condition, for the same reason I dislike 5e frightened -limits the options of affected PCs for RP reasons, not physical reasons.
If enfeebled became any stat instead, it would be fun to see things like Ret Strike opened up to flexibility targeting.
I was so gonna say troop.
I'm only coming from 5e not PF1, but even there controlling a bunch of individual minions is pointlessly slow. Following minion rules but e.g. being able to heighten an animate dead spell to summon a minion troop could work pretty damn well.
In normal play it would cap out at controlling three undead swarms, but I think that is reasonable enough. At any rate I think troops would nail the feel without significantly ruining the action economy, balance, or time per turn.
In the case of DPR, the Finesse and Brute builds are roughly equal, with the Finesse build having a nearly-negligible advantage at Levels 1-4. The Finesse build may be better on their second and third attacks with an Agile weapon compared to a Brute with a Longspear or 2H Staff, but they're otherwise very similar.
While brute rogues could probably do with a few more weapon options, my favourite thing about the longspear rogue is how it later interacts with gang-up and opportune backstab.
Whoops. Tired. So used to looking at all the threads I forgot some of them were GM only.
Ngl, I really like how the marilith handled "has a bunch of swords and can hit things in different ways". As a general point on monster design.
Bestiary spoilers, players should keep their grubby mitts off:
The actions symbols definitely helped with skimming that.
I'm sort of torn.
I don't particularly lean strongly one way or another for the DC being based off the culprit. I like the idea, but in practice it bogs the game down, and annoys the players who are less than keen on complexity but like knowing what to expect. Given that I want to win players over to this system, and pretty much everybody I know plays 5e, I could stand to gain from less unnecessary complexity.
On the other hand, I do very much like durability playing in somehow.
I think my favourite suggestion was allowing various levels of fort training to modify the DC, but I am a little concerned that this would skew the importance of fort.