But there's also a lot of Common options that are better than the things you listed- if all Medicine Feats were Common and level 1 I'd still be taking Continual Recovery and Ward Medic before I took Paragon Battle Medicine. As a Master level Skill Feat Paragon Battle Medicine doesn't feel like it's out of line with Terrifying Retreat or Kip Up as situational feat that can save your ass when it comes up.
Of course there are good options that are Rare. That doesn't mean they're good because they're Rare.
I've run three Adventure Paths and I've seen the casters Silenced more than I've seen Fatigue inflicted on the party. And I've definitely seen more Precision-immune, high Resistance Ghosts and Oozes, which completely shut down the mechanics of several classes.
Sometimes things will be harder for one class over another- that's a feature, not a bug.
"some complex effects might have parts that affect you even if you're immune to one of the effect's traits; for instance, a spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid damage to you even if you're immune to fire."
Amped Telekinetic Rend is the baseline for doing AoE damage all day. Psychics can do this twice a fight, every fight, and often at a higher Save DC than the Kineticist.
I see Urgathoa's Anathema to be the mirror of Pharasma's Edict to destroy Undead- it's an action based entirely on the fact that they are Undead, and nothing else. Pharasma is saying if something is Undead then that is a good enough reason to destroy it. Urgathoa is saying if something is Undead that isn't a justification for destroying it. If they get in your way or otherwise piss you off then Urgathoa doesn't really care if you destroy them, as long as there's a reason beyond them being Undead.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Would the slowed condition actually affect the donkey's overland travel speed?
I wouldn't bother having it slow overland speed. In general it's assumed characters aren't spending three actions moving anyway, plus a zombie donkey could just keep inexorably walking when a regular donkey gets tired, so it makes sense that they have approximately the same speed over long distances.
There is no particular mechanic that stops a Wizard wearing Heavy Armor, beyond a lack of proficiency making it unappealing. If they were to take Feats that gave them proficiency in Heavy Armour, it would work the same as for any other class that's proficient in it- it doesn't hinder their spell casting in any way.
I've always seen Karl "Helo" Agathon from Battlestar Galactica and Alphonso "Mac" Mackenzie from Agents of SHIELD as great examples of Lawful Good characters. They have a rigid sense of right and wrong and will follow it even when that means they have to go up against their friends and allies. They don't expect their colleagues to always agree with them, and know that sometimes they just won't be able to convince their friends to see things the same way, but they stick to their guns even when it causes them problems.
This is wonderful news. Foundry has allowed my gaming group keep playing throughout the events of the last few years, and definitely was vital in keeping some of us sane through the isolation. Really happy to see Paizo taking full advantage of the tools and opportunities Foundry provides, and working with the amazing volunteers that have worked their asses off to make the Foundry PF2 system as good as it is.
They aren't "slaves to balance", they've made a balanced game and most people who play it prefer it that way and want it to stay that way. It sounds like you don't like that aspect of PF2, and it seems likely the only two solutions available are work with your GM to change your home game or use a different system, because it would be foolish for Paizo to undo all the good things they've done with PF2 simply because you don't like it.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. A tuned encounter is one that's properly balance for the party facing it- surely that's what you want?
If what you actually want is never to have hard fights, as suggested above that's a conversation you need to have with your GM before the campaign starts, so they can make adjustments. But it's unreasonable to expect Paizo to write their APs that way, since having the occasional Severe difficulty encounter is part of the design of the game, which I assume Paizo did because their playtest and market research showed a significant portion of the playerbase enjoy that.
I have finally realized why my friends are not hyped about SoM (or PF2 in general). In Paizo's quest to make high level play, they have created a system where character concepts do not come on line until level 12+ (5 class feats with 2-3 available for non class such as archetypes). I am going to see if I tell my friends to start at level 12, that I can entice them back. OF course, this does not help PFS
Considering how well Abomination Vaults runs, I haven't found this to be accurate at all.
What really annoys me is when there are partial squares at the sides of a map. When there are full squares across the whole map (like on Flip-mats) I can just resize the map to Squares x 100px and import it with no issues. When there is what might be a third of a square along one side and what looks like a half a square along another then I need to cut away the outside partial squares, but on a large map that can result in distortion since I'm not going to get the cuts pixel perfect and any error amplifies as it goes across the map.
Noting? Well if there's nothing new, one must wonder what the point of the books is then.
You asked for what changed. You didn't ask for what was new. Those are different things. There's a ton of stuff that's new or expanded from before, because unlike most of the regions covered by Core Book and World Guide large sections of The Mwangi Expanse had very little detail compared to what they get in this book. Though I understand that if you're trying to push some weird agenda your approach makes sense.
They won't be, for the reasons that have been brought up, and no Player's Guide could remedy that. That's not a PF2 issue, that's an "All games with an experience system" issue.
High level characters innately rely upon skills learned by their players at lower levels, either with that character or with other characters, and expecting a single 15-18 page document to distil that down over a few pages is asking way too much.
One of the core assumptions for the entire AP is that the party will spend time in Otari and get to know its citizens. You aren't supposed to wait until the start of Book 2 to introduce the character, and this entire rant seems completely over the top.
How are people handling the arrow slit-style windows that are found all around the exterior of the surface level? I was originally going to run them as the small windows that they are, but I'm concerned that the players will spend the first session walking around all the external walls and looking in to see all the encounters beforehand, which doesn't feel particularly exciting.
I would really like if all the maps ended on the edge of squares instead of having a bit extra around the sides. Having them perfectly fit (like the flip-mats do) means you can just count the squares and multiply by your square size and it's ready to go on VTT. Instead I need to use a few different programs to cut out the maps and get them ready, which can still end up a couple of pixels off. A couple of pixels doesn't really matter on a standard map, but on Gauntlight maps that can be 50+ squares it can lead to serious issues with grid alignment.
If you have a 1h fighter for instance the target is probably going to be flatfooted practically all the time anyways.
If you choose to be a 1h Fighter and then choose to use swords knowing they lack synergy, that's your own decision. Designers can (and should) only do so much to make various builds viable, and if you actively ignore big signs saying "these don't synergise well" that's entirely on you.
Just because you like swords doesn't mean they need to be better.
I'm a bit unclear on how Bequethal works- is it only for things with a listed rarity? If I've played Extinction Curse Book 1 and assign the Chronicle Sheet to character 2001, and later want to Bequeth "Run Away and Join the Circus" to my 2002 character so he can become a Juggler, is that possible? And how much does it cost?
The difference can easily be explained by where you're aiming at on the target and how you're firing, just like any other Versatile weapon, especially since damage type generally only matters for creatures with specific biological or magical differences from standard targets. I don't think that Firearms should keep B going forward, though I understand the legacy reason it is there for playtest, but how Vesatile works isn't part of the issue.
Fortunately this issue is specifically raised in the playtest survey, so Paizo are aware of it.
Is the Inventor really more of a martial class than the alchemist or investigator?
Yes. The Inventor is absolutely just a Martial Class of similar design to the Ranger. The Alchemist has significant party utility through elixirs and the Investigator has massive non-combat utility. The Inventor is no better at Crafting or Recall Knowledge checks than a Witch or Wizard, and that's basically the entirety of their out of combat utility.
Paizo must have implemented a similar class build and balance methodology. I imagine their point system must have put significant points into Spell Levels.
The concept of this thread is already a ludicrous waste of time ("I assigned arbitrary points values and then it turns out they aren't balanced. Why Paizo?") but this bit really takes the cake. Design doesn't work this way. The whole is great than the parts, there are a dozen moving pieces to how a character is built, nevermind an entire class and trying to math out how to make balanced classes takes away from time Paizo employees are better off spending actually making the game.
Game Design isn't a maths problem.
The majority of my characters start off with a 16 in there main stats, the only time I've had a 18 from level 1 character is when I play a casting focus character.
A lot of people prefer having 18 in their starting attack stat because it's the roll you will make the most, and succeeding feels better than failing. No one is saying you have to have 18 in your main attack stat, but the option would be nice. And the reality is that +1 to attacks (and likely damage) is just more consistently useful than the +1 to Save DCs and Crafting checks (and sometimes damage) from Intelligence.
The issue is that for 4 of those "Half your levels" it's the start of the game, where characters have the least access to clever combat tools and are most reliant on just rolling regular Strikes. You are worse than a Ranger or Barbarian at regular Strikes and not any more useful in non-combat situations (unlike the Investigator who suffers similar issues) and don't bring lots of in-party utility (unlike the Alchemist who suffers similar issues).
The Inventor isn't actually a Crafting focused class that needs to start with Int 18 to do its main job. It's a Whacking Things In The Face focused class with some set dressing to explain having a slightly fancy weapon or Animal Companion, and a Rage-style damage buff that sometimes fails to justify having to roll a Crafting check. It needs to be as good at Whacking Things In The Face as the Barbarian, Ranger or Swashbuckler, because that's the role it occupies in a party.
This is the exact same issue the Investigator had in Playtest, one that was mostly corrected by the addition of Devise A Stratagem. And the Investigator has a lot more out of combat utility than "good at Crafting, but no more so than a Wizard who also Trained in it".
A feat that matters in maybe two or three encounters in a 20 level Adventure Path is not a useful feat.
They would have to have a hit points 6+ levels lower than the level of the party for 1d6 per 5 levels damage to matter. The damage is much too small to be useful in all but the rarest of occasions- the Gunslinger would be better off just throwing the bomb because they would be up a Feat for the 99% of other fights it doesn't matter in. Like a lot of the Gunslinger Feats, it is cool flavour and terribly underwhelming math.
The Raven Black wrote:
I feel that Misfire for the firearms and Unstable for the Inventor's contraptions are basically the same thing
They aren't though. They have very little mechanical similarities, and the only real link is they are both in the same document.
Misfire is a mechanic to add additional risk to certain feats, and basically just costs an action to undo- you can keep doing actions that may trigger Misfire all day if you want.
Unstable is a mechanic that limits specific actions to a single use per combat, in a similar fashion to Focus Points, with the option to try again at a high chance of simply failing to do anything.
Any rule that tried to combine both of these into one thing would end up being six paragraphs of text, half of which would only apply at a time.
Using a tripod in combination with Way of the Sniper only works in rare situations where the party are set up and the combat comes to them. It takes an action and two hands to set up a Tripod, and then another action to draw your Arquebus. And then an action to Hide. That's the whole first turn of the combat, which didn't include an attack so you don't get the bonus damage from your Way.
The Hide action results in a form of Hidden that breaks "if you do anything except Hide, Sneak, or Step." Unsteady requires an Interact action to be taken before firing or else suffer a penalty, which would cause the character to stop Hiding. This makes it difficult to take advantage of the Sniper weapon trait. This would also affect Way of the Sniper Gunslingers, who will need to spend an action re-Hiding before firing to take advantage of One Shot, One Kill or face a penalty when using the Arquebus.
My thought is that Lightning Raven is 100% correct, it's wording to make it clear you can't use Stance-specific Strikes whilst under the effect of something like Fuse Stance.