Thundarr the Barbarian wrote:
Look on the bright side, after August gets here we won't care about the missing spoilers anymore since we'll have the books by then. So, the missing spoilers and reveals will only matter for a month and a half.
It's the principle of the thing. We had a task to try and accomplish and we failed.
I hope the Witch ends up being the prepared caster for this school of magic, it'd be a very appropriate fit.
I don't think it would particularly fit the thematics of the Pathfinder witch, personally. I'm pulling for witches as the prepared sorcerer, with their spell list based on their patron.
Yeah, they do have some scary low AC, and even with feat investment it doesn’t seem to scale too quickly. The clunky interaction with melee ranger is interesting to know; i can picture it with PC and enemies able to move around a lot more; makes crowd control a lot more valuable.
I had a solid melee ranger with an animal companion by using my bear as a mount. Lost the Work Together benefit but it effectively gave me a free stride at almost double my speed every turn and effectively negate MAP for one of my attacks so I'd say it was worth the feat investment.
I did some transcribing of my own.
4 - SKILLS
(cont. from Repair Item, presumably) both hands. The GM sets the DC, but it's usually about the same DC to Repair a given item as it is to Craft it in the first place. You can't Repair a destroyed item.
Crafting Trained Actions
You must spend 4 days at work, at which point you attempt a Crafting check. The GM determines the DC to Craft the item based on its level, rarity, and other circumstances. If your attempt to create the item is successful, you expend the raw materials you supplied. You can pay the remaining portion of the item's Price in materials to complete the item immediately, or you can spend additional downtime days working on it. For each additional downtime day you spend, reduce the value of the materials you need to expend to complete the item. This amount is determined using Table 4-2: Income Earned (page 236) based on your proficiency rank in Crafting and using your own level instead of a task level. After any of these downtime days, you can complete the item by spending the remaining portion of its Price in materials. If the downtime days you spend are interrupted, you can return to finish the item later, continuing where you left off. An example of Crafting appears in the sidebar.
Critical Success Your attempt is successful. Each additional day spent Crafting reduces the materials needed to complete the item by an amount based on your level + 1 and your proficiency rank in Crafting.
Success Your attempt is successful. Each additional day spent Crafting reduces the materials needed to complete the item by an amount based on your level and your proficiency rank.
Failure You fail to complete the item. You can salvage the raw materials you supplied for their full value. If you want to try again, you must start over.
Critical Failure You fail to complete the item. You ruin 10% of the raw materials you supplied but you can salvage the rest. If you want to try again, you must start over.
Sidebar: Consumables and Ammunition
Sidebar: Getting Formulas
Sidebar: Crafting Example
Create a Diversion <A>
You'll notice that there is no 10th level spell feat listed. That means that either there's another sorcerer page after the one shown, which I find unlikely given that there's unlikely to be a full page worth of capstone feats, or casters will be able to cast 10th level spells without a feat.
Untrained Improvisation (Feat 3) (General). Your proficiency bonus to untrained skill checks is equal to half your level instead of +0. If you’re 7th level or higher, the bonus increases to your full level instead. This doesn’t allow you to use the skill’s trained actions.
So... I question how they think everyone who isn't a rogue isn't going to take this at 3? Are general skills all going to be this good?
Presumably there's a success chart that just wasn't included on the card because that would make it too long.
Agreed. This seems like it's designed not to help players who don't want to make the jump continue to play Society, but to create a transitional period while PFS2 gets off the ground so we don't see stuff like what happened in early Starfinder.
Captain Morgan wrote:
The change where the thing that Lore was used for, having specialized knowledge without having to invest in the appropriate knowledge skill, is now covered by having any appropriate skill (e.g. you no longer need to invest in Nature to know about medicinal herbs, nor have Lore (herbalist/doctor/whatever) because you can use the Medicine skill instead). However, as Quid pointed out that doesn't cover the use of skills for certain professions. So I'll amend and say "hey, maybe this means they can rename Lore to Profession so I can stop hating the skill name so much."
Not gonna lie, Twin Feint feels kind of lackluster given how prevalent the flatfooted condition is. Rogues in the playtest games I ran never had a problem inflicting it or getting it from their party members. So committing a feat to make two attacks as two actions, one of which has full penalties but gets the flatfooted that you could've gotten on both attacks by moving into a flank or, like, amping up your Intimidate skill seems like it'd be mediocre.
The way this is set up, why even have exp at all? Why not just write into the rules "you level up when the GM tells you." Right? That's in essence what they're doing.
The thing is that a lot of groups prefer using Exp, and Exp is better than Milestones for sandbox games. If you make the default Exp, then it's easy to just discard it outright for Milestones, but if you make Milestones the default, then your players have to reverse engineer an Exp system from scratch.
Mark Seifter wrote:
So if we follow the same example, but the attack only did 6 damage, neither the shield nor the character would take anything?
Mark Seifter wrote:
So does that mean anyone can use shields now, or is it a binary "you're either proficient or you aren't."
Don't forget the sheer number of Pathfinder Society missions they've been on.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Paladins do not make sense when not tied to a deity or Empy Lord (or Deamon/Demon/Devil for APs) Didn't make sense in ADnD 2e, wouldn't make sense now.
You mean aside from the ADnD 2e supplement entirely dedicated to paladins that explicitly unmarried them from deities by allowing them to be pledged to governments and knightly orders instead?
Player Name: FedoraFerret
Items to buy: Also need to double check this
I've got busy nights at work this weekend but I'll transcribe my sheet into an alias and check my gold and items that I need to buy on Sunday.
But I like the idea that in the course of adventuring my character will pick up basic things about tasks outside of their purview. Like no level 15 character stands the risk of drowning if they fall out of a boat on a still pond, and every level 12 character can climb a rope, and everybody past a certain level can tell the difference between a dragon, a vampire, and an ooze. Having these things not be true regardless of what a player chooses to invest in just makes our mighty heroes seem incompetent and ridiculous.
Honestly, those are things that I'm of the mind any adventurer regardless of level should be able to do. Basic swimming, easy climbing, being able to identify that that's a dragon, this is a skeleton, and that's a vampire, shouldn't be rolls to begin with.
No automatically scaling proficiency bonus. No level-to-level increases by skill ranks. Nothing. If you don't touch a skill between level 1 and level 20 it should be the exact same. Now that I've got your attention, please put your pitchforks down and hear me out.
As it stands, the only differences between an untrained person and a specialist of the same level (which should be every party) are Proficiency, Ability Score, and Magic/Item bonuses. Level-to-skill, then, only applies when determining your likelihood of succeeding at a given check. A level 15 character is much more likely to succeed at scaling a wall than a level 5 character. My question is... why?
I've seen the reasoning behind proficiency scaling with level. I even agree with it. I like the power fantasy of a badass character wiping the floor with a swarm of lower level characters because they're so much more experienced. So having attacks, AC, spell DCs, and saving throws all just automatically scale with level makes sense to me. But having skill checks and skill DCs scaling with level doesn't, as much.
Taking out level based scaling altogether puts more emphasis on training and ability score. Right now, the highest innate difference in bonuses you can get from a skill is +17 (difference of 5 from training, 8 from ability scores (8 vs. 24), and 4 from an item). That difference of 17 is going to feel a lot more impactful when is a -3 vs. +14 bonus, rather than 17 vs. 34, especially when you're still running into the same DCs for comparable challenges that you were nineteen levels ago and they're still relevant to both of you. Furthermore, it makes all those little bonuses matter that much more. Every point you manage to acquire to improve your skill bonus isn't just another improvement against equal level things, where lower level things you now likely disregard anyway. It makes you better at everything related to the skill, from opening the tough little lockbox you found in that first level dungeon to cracking the king's secret vault open at level 15.
And honestly, I think the most prominent thing it will do is let Paizo keep their desire to keep bonus disparity tight, without forcing a sense of constant improvement on every single thing for every single character, whether they want to or not. It makes progression and specialization feel like progression and specialization, and not just like a checkbox. It makes improvement in skills a choice, rather than an assumption. And most importantly, most importantly of all, it puts an end to (or at least severely limits) the idea that beating up goblins in the wilderness for three weeks with no library access makes you better at anything unrelated to beating up goblins.
In first edition Pathfinder, it was occasionally pointed out that tying knowledge of certain cities was based on Knowledge (local), even if the city in question wasn't remotely local. Having a deep and intricate understanding of the inner workings of your home town somehow made you knowledgeable about every city in the world to the same degree, so long as you were physically in that city. This isn't a thing that often came up, mind, but it was one of those strange quirks of system that really only functioned because we had no good, specific way to represent it.
Well, we do now. It's called Lore. And I think that should be embraced.
Proposal: Every character should be given the Lore skill for their hometown or possibly home nation (multiples at GM discretion, for, say, the character that emigrated from Sargava to Sandpoint a few years ago). Checks made to know things about certain cities or towns are based on those Lores, with anyone who doesn't have that lore able to use Diplomacy to gather information in its place. Society then becomes used for nobility, government structures, and other knowledge checks based on things you would learn from reading a book about the place, as well as identifying humanoids.
I mean in practice most oracle curses were effectively "which thing is least inconvenient" and most of them weren't so bad so the execution of the class needs more work.
I would like the record to show that this is not the case when you spam Oracle's Burden like I do, because then debilitating curses with really good ability scaling is awesome.
So I'm curious if one of the designers could clear up some confusion for me: how exactly does Symphony of the Dark Prince work? Do you still designate an area where the effect is? Because as written, it seems like you spend a standard action to fling someone into the stratosphere with no default save.
Edit: Never mind it's been pointed out that Masterpieces give saves to unwilling targets.
Unfortunately, that would take a dedicated healer, and nobody wants to play a dedicated healer.
Honestly, I think Paizo has a good answer without this resonance nonsense already. Make charges lower, have them recharge daily (as they do with a staff). Keep the limit on how many magic items you can have at once (if it scales appropriately then your lower level items won't have to be thrown by the wayside to make room) and have your wands count. Boom, now you have a restraint on wand spam that still allows wands in general to fulfill their function, and makes it a genuine choice whether to dedicate multiple magic item spots to more wands or not. In the meantime, you also make other kinds of non-focused healing work (based on their assertion of a barbarian healer the heal skill is probably sufficient) and on top of that, make healing fun! Give me my AoE healing, HoTs, reactive healing, give my my favorite combo from WoW where I fired a laser out of my hands that damaged an enemy and shielded my allies. You can 100% make healing a fun, proactive and tactical mechanic.
For the record, though, I love that a) you're making Gray Maiden an available concept off the bat and I hope you do that with all of the major organizations in Golarion (Hellknights, Red Mantis, etc.) and b) I love that the Gray Maiden feats appear to be actually really useful for the kinds of characters who would become Gray Maidens.
While that is the case in general, Pathfinder goblins are actually very clever. Their illiteracy is a choice born of superstition rather than a physical incapability. The default goblin statblock has 10 Int, and half the We Be Goblins pregens have a positive Int score. They're inclined towards crafting, two of their archetypes are for the alchemist, and if we fast forward to Starfinder, they frequently make laser pistols out of junk and gorram spaceships out of bathtubs and solar sails (that's not canon, but it's entirely fitting with Pathfinderverse gobbos). So, like, +Dex/Int -Wis is actually perfect for them.
How much experience do you have with Pathfinder rules?
How much experience do you have with Roleplaying in general?
Are you familiar with PbP formatting and how to?
Have you ever played Reign of Winter before, even just a little? (please be truthful)
How many PbP games are you currently active in?
Will you be able to check the game at least daily or every other day to post? If not explain and we can work with you.
What type of characters do you like to play? Personality, Class, Themes!
I tend to prefer big valiant types, usually in more of a supportive or "tanking" role. Generally very capital G good (Paladin is my waifu class), although I've been known to play Evil and do so wel even in a mostly good party structure.
The Sideromancer wrote:
This. Legendary Heal feats should be along the lines of Raise Dead/Breath of Life, or completely restoring someone to full hit points instantly. Things that are beyond the bounds of the physically possible.
Honestly, in much the same way that Paladins have become spell point casters rather than quarter casters, I wouldn't be surprised to see monks become spell point casters as well. It would incorporate the popular Qingong archetype into the basic chassis, fit with the idea of mystical wuxia fighters, and unify all of their various ki powers and abilities into a straightforward system.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
They seriously nerfed Phantasmal Killer, which now only forces the fortitude save if the will save is a critical failure.
It's not a nerf, they changed the use case. It's no longer a save or die that allows two saves (the damage from passing the Fort save is basically irrelevant for a 4th level spell) but a damage/debuff spell that has the potential to outright kill the target.
That said, the main thing I'm taking away from the statblocks is that the new action names do look ridiculous in context. I assume going for things like Stride and Strike instead of move and attack is to prevent confusion, but honestly it - and I hate to say this because it gets bandied around so much here for ridiculous reasons - feels deeply gamey and immersion-breaking. I don't think it would be that much harder to process just marking in the action rules that an attack is always one action except when described otherwise, and then just have the action count in parentheses for things like Power Attack. Same for movement. "I move twice, to here, and then attack once" just flows better, IMO. (Also now that I'm looking at it, there's still room for confusion in the Stride/Strike setup, because the Redcap's entry describes it Striding half its speed, which means the Stride action is not always moving up to your speed, so there's absolutely no reason to give it a special name.)
I can actually think of a reason for this: rider effects. If there are abilities that apply whenever you take a Stride action, say from giving something class levels, then any time it used Stomp, or, say, Pounce, or Sudden Charge (I assume Sudden Charge will be two Strides and a Strike) then that ability would apply. Likewise, if there was an ability that caused you to move but didn't involve Striding (say, if they keep the effect of Bull Rush that allows you to follow the target after hitting them), then the effect wouldn't apply there. Which all becomes much less ambiguous than "when you move."