Search Posts
The Secrets of Magic streaming play that Jason did with 4 amazing people (really, check it out if you haven't) has inspired a possible reskin for me. BattleGOAT! Now that Poppets are available, I am giving thought to a quadruped battlegoat poppet fighter, and I was trying to envision how to do the ramming horns... and then the idea of reskinning shields as helms! One with shield boss (for the rounded horns) and one shield spiked (for pointy horns) that the poppet can swap back and forth! As I am keeping it in mind for PFS, I'm trying to keep the stretching to a minimum, but this is SO tempting to run.
This seems like a good place to leave a thought I've had since I first read the playtest, is that the Amp feats should be applicable to any of the Psychic's cantrips (that are psychic origined anyhow) and not JUST the Psi Cantrips that come with their conscious mind choice... that would let the feats be more flexible choices for more different Psychics. Just 2 cents on my part.
I find the 2E Psychic, even in playtest form, WAY more divergent from Sorcerer than they were in 1E. I've actually wanted something to really dig into the Cantrip system of 2E and make it a go-to, and this is the first real foray into that space. Sure, it needs them to lean more into the whole amp system. (The word count of full publishing will accommodate the bulk of that.) I'd like the amping to be available to more of their cantrips, personally (be able to use feat earned amps on your other Psychic cantrips
All in all, as a starting point, I am not unhappy with what I'm seeing here. If nothing else, I'm way more likely to use the class-unique choices on the Psychic, as it is in playtest form, than say the class-unique options of the Wizard. (I think only one or two of the school focus powers would ever hit my own personal table, ever... I can already see me taking any of the three subclass options here and running with them.)
I could see an Archetype for this, other archetypes swipe feats directly from main classes (Archer and Dual-Weapon Warrior) already. Much like Talisman Dabbler being poached by Thaumaturgist, I like letting them have one-feat options on things other classes still get to do, just via Archetyping.
River Tam a la Firefly. (I did a Tamara Rivers as a Psychic in 1E, I am interested to use that concept as a chassis for my playtesting.) For Thaumaturge, I am not sure yet, but 'Giles' from Buffy the Vampire Slayer came to mind. (I'm looking at the Scroll Thaumaturgy in particular, and going a more support role over direct offense.) But I am not sure, because Harry Dresden works well with a wand (Fuego!) or amulet (one could make a stretch and call Harry's amulet a lantern if you really wanted that ability set instead). I am unlikely to get to run both, so the psychic is more likely unless I happen to find a 5th level slot to test in, and then I MIGHT try Thaumaturgist instead.
So a couple of random, first impression thoughts that crossed my mind in my first reading. (I won't get to make more informed commentary this week, as it's my turn in the GM barrel at our PFS night this week. :) ) No particular order really. - I am a fan of the concepts of the Psychic, it definitely separates them more from the Sorcerer than they were in 1E. (Doesn't hurt that out of the playtest box I can build a better homage to River Tam from Firefly than I did in 1E, so there's that.) Without having spent time on the balance details or such, I AM finding it jarring that only SOME of the cantrip slots of the character can be amped... First impression says to me, "Why aren't they all amp-able, why make me track which ones can and can't, you could still pre-choose appropriate ones for the subclass choice but let people use feat-driven amp's on any of their cantrips?" - Thaumaturge stole the Talisman Dabbler feat ability without making it commit to an archetype. So called this, and actually quite glad, though the whole half-level thing STILL makes this a bad choice (based on current available talismans, anyhow) in later levels... perhaps Absalom book with its market section will fix this feeling (which extends past this particular Thaumaturge choice, it's even moreso the Dedication that I feel that is an issue for.) - Kinda sad to have Psychics be just as obvious in casting as others, but that's a game balance item and I'm not willing to push on that idea. i expect in the full version they will get access to the conceal spell stuff other casters can invest in, those clearly don't need playtesting. :) - Related, my first reading of Thaumaturge felt a little bad about the lack of utility choices vs combat choices, but this is just a Playtest... this way they can focus on the parts that need balancing (ie combat) and the utility can be worked in later based on what space is left in the design, so I'm not TOO concerned there. - +1'ing the Perception item for Psychics, are they just too distracted by the thoughts and emotions around them to ever improve Perception, or is this an oversight? Seems odd to not at least get Expert EVENTUALLY. - Not gonna lie, I squealed out loud at 'Scroll Thaumaturgy' as a first level feat. Excepting for how brutal scroll costs are at very low levels (where I will be able to test, since I am either PFSing or GMing, so no higher options for me this test), this might be my go-to concept for a Thaumaturgist if I can get time to run one. - Related, can we add a version of Trick Magic Item as a class feat, so we can choose to use EITHER skill or class feats to go that route, in a final version? I don't think baking it in is a good balance choice (you'd have to take something away somewhere I expect) but just being able to flex that in seems like a good compromise. Not a lot of word count needed even, just point them back to the CRB feat of the same name. Well, there's some basic thoughts on first read. Hopefully late next week I will have some actual play experience to work with. Happy playtesting!
While I would love to rule that way, the line is: "Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon
As it references effect (-7 damage is more than +5 healing) not mathematical value, the strict ruling, if you're saying the Heal is one effect, would be to only do -7. Personally I'm going to handle the two numbers as their own things and leave it at that, should this come to a table of mine and no more formal clarification has been offered.
While catching up to this thread, a thought occurred to me, that several of the class concepts people have championed (like Inquisitor and several of the Occult adventures, like Medium and maybe even Occultist) could steal a page from the Stances rules architecture, in differing ways, as a basis to branch off. Medium, for example, could have various 'Stances' (which may be more of a long term thing than just encounter mode, I realize) to choose as they make connections to various spirit types, and perhaps have a 'whichever one you chose first this day' (not necessarily at spell prep, depending on how hard or simple they want to make choices) is your primary one, but with a a 'Stance' like option to engage a different one later in the day temporarily, with some drawbacks (like your 'I was here first!' spirit might back off some of its granted bonuses/abilities once you let go of the 'secondary' spirit cause they're grumpy at you). A similar 'I choose you today but can opt to borrow later' idea could be applied for Shaman spirits. Inquisitor could have a 'stance' based Judgement system, and you pick and choose via feats which ones are available to you. Because the Focus system just wouldn't do as well to represent, I think, but that is their other likely method (I'd save that for Bane effects or other 'stronger' advantages). An action to activate, and then potentially change, your Judgements, feels like it would be a good fit. Random thoughts are random, after all. :)
{. . .} Witch is potentially interesting, though cackle every round to sustain is super annoying {. . .} To be fair, Cackle will only be used 1) if the Witch is themed to be a maniacal crazy person, or 2) your situation says 'don't use concentration traited actions if you can help it' because otherwise 'Sustain a Spell' is just as fine and without the annoying sounds. Now if Cackle maintained MULTIPLE sustain spells, then it'd be a different thing, but it doesn't, so *shrug*
Have you guys read any of the novels? Varian is a devotee of Desna, not Asmodeus, and Radovan is consistently described as small and overly charming/seductive, not hulking and brutish. There IS a comment about some stretching in the first paragraph - when in Cheliax, one at least pretends in 'polite' society to have some 'Hail, Ming' going on towards Asmodeus, and earlier on in his career he put /some/ effort into being on the right side of politics, even if he comes to veer away later on (in more notated portions of his career). I can't as much in defense of Radovan, but the /art/ I've always seen of him doesn't live up to charming/seductive, and honestly, his own descriptions in the novels led me to think his charm was more intimidate based, along with his effect on those ladies who like 'bad boys', and not actually seductive even if he convinces himself he's a charmer. :)
In addition to being a cool and familiar character that hadn’t yet appeared in an Adventure Path [..]Varian may not have been a playable character in an adventure path before now, but he's definitely been in one! He and Radovan feature prominently in Season of the Righteous Adventure 3, which is one of my favourites precisely because of their presence! Technically the PFS 'Seasons' are not an 'Adventure Path', as the boxes are AP's and organized play is 'scenarios'. It's nitpicky I know, but he WAS right there.
From what I have seen elsewhere, the Organized Play Basics is the correct version vs the Player Basics, but I can't point you at specific quotes to set that in stone. This should also be commented on in the Guide Clarification/Suggestions post that is stickied to the forum, methinks, if someone hasn't already.
Since the actual launch of PF2 I have been considering ideas for how to get more exposure of the 2nd edition rules into my area. A great change to our area has been the introduction of a Board Game Cafe to our region (the first anywhere close to where I live) and the immediate springing up of PFS at that location. We do meet weekly, but that's a weeknight where we have exactly 4 hours from start to cafe close (with wiggle if we're not quite wrapped up, they're awesome people that way) and that does limit some of the ideas I've had. Then my Bad Idea Fairy came to play while we were doing our Card Game night at the same location. Long story short (involving the fact that Dragon's Demand is the in-box module for the new Core set) I thought of the idea of taking a PF1 module that is sanctioned for Campaign Mode and converting it to P2, running THAT version of it and having PF1 chronicles for folks at the end as an incentive to be involved in this crazy train (due to campaign mode). Here is where I come to the forum for some help; I have two good candidates in mind for this, Dragon's Demand and Gallows of Madness, and I need some help debating which is the better one to do (first, if it turns out great and I want to take on more). Pro for Dragon's Demand is it already intended to be a 'high xp rate' kind of module, characters will see a higher level (as high as 7, potentially) than Gallows, and the PF 2 leveling system is SOOO friendly to making people level up mid-session without killing a time slot. Pro for Gallows of Madness is that if you assign the credits as level 1 credits, it's replayable and so I may nab more possible players because they could spread their chronicles to different PF1 alts to start up new characters. (We've had quite an influx of new players while PF1 was the only game, so this isn't as unlikely as it could be in a more fully mature campaigner area.) Also, the top level of character is lower (3 instead of 6-7). So I come to hear what people think would be the better plan, or if another module for 1st-X with a campaign mode should also be considered (if there is any - again, working from memory only here) and also, what would they prefer seeing posted to the PFS GM Prep site should the unlikely happen and I actually /finished/ such a conversion? What pro's and con's would you attribute to this idea, and/or the specifically targeted modules? Let's hear thoughts! (PS - this is likely to happen as a Sunday afternoon event to get over the 4 hour limit mentioned earlier on weekdays, and so that it isn't stealing bodies from the scenario plays of PF 1 and 2 from that night.)
The more usual updates to Additional Resources was that updates would come every 2-4 months (stretching to 6 in rare rare cases) and those updates often would carry multiple months of product (depending on how long since last time) - without there being monthly drops in addition to the big ones, and with the 'we don't need to wait to get through the formatting and art departments' part of the new web page plan, I expect it will come sooner. As noted, there's actually very little /so far/ that needs actual tuning for PFS, even if they still need to read through it all to be sure. I will also echo Hmm's optimism that they have incentive to make like bread carts and haul buns on sanctioning things, and have little doubt they will have more for us soon.
The higher-level-than-party was a function of the format, since the primary antagonist type chosen by chat didn't have more appropriate options really. With that mind mind, the first 'obviously going to TPK' encounter was actually a choice I appreciated for story, it wasn't meant to be winnable in itself (these things will happen in stories and RL both) but to lead to the actual story where Jason COULD generate a more appropriate challenge. I appreciated the craft of it, myself. But I don't expect that to be TOO common in actual play.
Interestingly, in one of the social media interviews somewhere, the question of evil descriptor spells came up, and the impression given by devs was 'not a big deal individually, it's how you use the spell that matters more' - and I even think this was brought up in relation to organized play. Which is not what this line in the book is saying, assuming (as we should on the face of it) that spells are categorized as abilities. (It may be future proofing for feats that have the tag, and someone missed that spells would also be affected here, but it will definitely need calling out soonish.)
We also ran into a small issue (beyond the spacing for the #), in that there isn't a place for the Fame/Reputation earnings of the players. The only box for Fame is in the GM info section to say what the GM received. Now if that box is meant for the whole of the table and not the GM, that needs to be much clearer.
A comment on the Downtime concept - the # of days you have to 'do your own thing' is not the assumed, 'you have this much time until your next adventure' - it is the time you have /after/ you account for the off-screen duties, paperwork, lab time, TED Talks, etc you do for the Society. (This is why field commissioned agents get more Downtime, they have fewer off-screen duties to cover.) So don't think of it as defining the amount of time you have between adventures, because it still is abstract, just slightly less so than before.
I think the standard answer to this is the same as how other polymorph spells work, and druid wild shape - the spell/ability does what it says it does, and no more. It might seem it /should/, and in a homegame a GM can explore the implications of specific cases, but for PFS, all it's going to do is give the specific changes in the spell, and not anything that would come conceptually with those age categories for a dragon. To be honest, I am now VERY tempted to take that spell back to my Reign of Winter home game and see if I can't make my players go 'da wha?!?...'
As a note, I am reading The Absalom Initiation, and in this one, at least, they are providing Critical Failure information for the Gather Information/Recall Knowledges that are called out in addition to the success/critical success information. So if that trend continues, at least some of that load will be reduced - and I can already see how the examples here will help guide me on monster identification Recalls down the line.
Just received my downloads from my subscription for this and the other Gencon PFS scenarios, and I just want to say, I love love LOVE that full page art for everything we meet is included in the appendix. PLEASE keep doing this. I cannot click like enough on this particular change to scenarios.
I gave the guide a look. Item 1 is certainly a bit more, complex, but make yourself a quick reference sheet. I also expect that folks who will rise up to 3-5 glyph levels are going to start recognizing a number of 'common' combinations. 2 is the level bump I am guessing? Not a hard thing - until players with Mentor boons muck up the waters. :) Secret rolls are, by the rules, optionable to not use (though not preferred). GM Deception skill has always been a skill, though you may want to keep some generic falsehoods handy for when you're stumped. The bundles, as noted, are -during play- easier than the old system. The reward based on class level will take some getting used to, I will admit. All in all, yes GMing is going to be a bit more on the 'bureaucracy' side, but the /system/ is much smoother and should take less mental tracking, so really it should, once we've been at it a bit, be a wash.
Aww, thanks so much NightTrace and Owen. Linda and I try really hard to make it informative but also friendly and approachable for people to come talk with us and help steer the episode (and now we have a squirrel emoji Linda drew for when we get distracted by community questions!). Tomorrow morning's episode is going to be all about GMing for Organized Play, so if you've been considering checking it out now that PF2 is coming out or starting it up in your area (which is easy and we'll tell you how!) be sure to check it out. I'll post again just before the episode as a heads-up. SQUIRREL! You're all welcome. :)
My understanding of the Playtest 'tone' was intentionally regimented to test the framework (ie how sturdy are the poles of this pavilion we are erecting) and a bit less about how nice the cloth is that we will mostly see and notice when we're done. I went into reading it with the expectation that the final would be a bit more 'conversational' in tone, though when they tried to make it a 'common sense' read in the original Core, we learned that a sufficiently large audience is going to be all over the map on 'intention' of rules. :) So there does need to be a bit more mapping this time, and the 'overdone technical manual' of the Playtest was a starting point they could then pull back from; how much to pull was part of what the surveys were for. I am hopeful that a good balance ended up being struck, because I have become very tired of the 'RAW vs RAI' battlefields I've been thrown into... I love Pathfinder, and I love the diversity of people and ideas, but the original ruleset (and its attendant tack-ons due to the source of the river) did leave a bit too much room for accidental and intentional misreading.
Eando Kline is back? Awesome - one of my best moments as a GM on the roleplaying side was when I was portraying him in a session, and I managed to get the lady talking with him to have to stop, turn to her party, and out of character ask what they were trying to accomplish... she'd gotten so into the RP she'd forgotten the point of making contact in the first place. :)
The fuller text of Silent Spell above (from Cyouni) has in its last line 'stacking' for that - Copying from above:
So that covers you masa_gib, I believe.
Ideas I used in the Playtest are itching to come back as fleshed out characters... I had a Joan of Arc like character (inspired by Heather Dale's 'Joan' song) that I was using to explore the multiclass archetyping with cleric and fighter (paladin/champion causing too much restriction on the crazy illogic lol), and a gnome sorcerer with delusions of Draconic proportion (was convinced he was a silver dragon cursed/trapped in a gnome's body).
It appears that you can gain up to 3 permanent boosts, as now, but you choose the timing, but you get 1 HP per scenario, which should be at least 4 per Adventure Deck series (perhaps 5 or 6 in some cases, depending on layouts). So in the time you are playing in the Adventure Deck, you'll want to use 3 of them for upgrades, but how fast you choose to use them for that vs keeping one in a pocket is the 'interesting choice' they are offering here. To answer the question of Malk, it looks to be the first answer, with the caveat that you'll only be able to use 3 for permanent effects per Adventure Deck and the rest are munchies in-game.
I do not believe there is anything called out specifically for this, but my thought would be if you dig deep enough into Recall Knowledge checks you might learn this about creatures, or the Warfare Lore one of the backgrounds shows us when dealing with martial fighters of a humanoid nature. I would not expect it to be the most iconic information of a creature, but you can repeat Recall Knowledge to dig into less well known facts. (Monster Identification is talked about on Page 338.) I would let your GM know if this kind of information is high on the priority list of your character so they can adjudicate their choices appropriately.
Natural 1 on skill checks being a fail, even if your bonus would mean that you would succeed (or critically succeed) at the roll, is something of a sticking point for myself (and for some others I know, a point of intense rage). I get the new system, new paradigm, but with this and the move to assurance over a Take 10 rule, I'm less and less enthused with skills. (To be clear, my 'objection', if one wants to raise it to that level, is one of perception and feeling, and not so much the mechanic in and of itself. And is for skill checks only, not the general critical system.)
A critical failure on an attack roll can have a consequence, /if/ fighting someone who has a reaction that triggers off of it. It's not looking to be a common (or even uncommon) trigger, but it's there. (I, for one, look forward to moments like that with a monster I've not fought before, wondering if they have a special sauce for that occasion. :) )
The numbers look right, though I find it amusing that 'Asleep' you also automatically critically fail reflex saves, but not if you're unconscious... that may need to go on the 'overlooked' list. On the other hand, hitting someone just lying there is going to be quite easy on the first swing (with that 6 pt penalty) and much more likely to crit, which will move their Dying condition 2 steps... so it won't take long to fix (the problem of them being still alive), likely faster than coup was in the previous edition actually. Another comment for dealing with 0 hp folks - the rules call out that in most cases, they're already dead when they hit 0 unless they are higher challenges (bosses and the like) or there is regeneration or party healers involved.
For Doomsday Dawn? I believe anything common is available, and any uncommons that a feature of your character makes available (such as uncommon ancestral weaponry if you took the right feats), within your budget, for the first module. The other modules (which are set at higher levels) have guidelines at the start of their section for GM's to pass along ahead of time. For Org Play scenarios? John Compton was kind enough to sticky a thread in the Org Play Playtest forum for how to generate and gear up.
|
