Filthy Lucre's page

PF2e has a lot of things about it that I find to be clunky, poorly formatted, or otherwise unwieldy. However there are two things I think the designers should know they absolutely hit out of the park: The three action economy and the dying/wounded rules.

These to features are what, ultimately, prevent me from playing or DMing 5e because despite PF2e's (many) flaws, these two systems are so robust and useful that they outweigh any cons of PF2e.

What do other posters think if PF2e's biggest systemic selling point?

Maybe it's because I played a lot of SRPGS and JRPGs growing up, but when I think of the elemental forms of damage I tend more toward fire/cold/acid/lightning for fire/water/earth/air. PF2e is definitely taking a more literal, A:TLAB take on it. I'm a DM and I've got a player who is playing a blaster wizard and I was thinking of making these changes to the Elementalist Metamagic feats:

1.) They're all level 4, instead of 4, 6, 10, and 14. I think this is justified because these feats aren't actually all that strong, to be honest - especially considering they aren't 'free' metamagic and require an action. I reject that the level of these feats actually correspond to their power levels unless someone can justify to me why creating a small amount of difficult terrain is worth a 10th level feat.

2.) Allowing each of the metamagic feats to change the damage type/traits of the spells they affect. Therefor, a Dousing Spell Fireball would, (as per my example in the first paragraph), do cold damage instead of fire damage. Similarly, a Burning Spell Lightning Bolt would do fire damage instead of electricity.

My question for the community is: Do you think these changes will be noticeably imbalanced?

I have a confession to make: I, personally, don't like the Golarion setting. Like, at all. I only use PF2e as a rules system. Although the forum doesn't have a poll feature I was wondering: How many people here actually use/adhere to the 'Lost Omen's' setting and how many just create their own or apply the PF2e rules to a different setting?

Exactly how much downtime is expected to occur in any given chunk? The reason I ask is that I just crunched the numbers and unless I'm mistaken, it would take a level 3 Wizard who critically succeded their craft check something like 44 days to complete a level three item worth 75gp. Am I doing this math wrong or am I just assuming 'downtime' is much shorter than it actually is...?

I'm going to implement the Automatic Bonus Progression, (ABP), and I wanted to ask the forum brain trust if I'm going about this the right way.

I still plan to give out weapons/armor with property runes, just not fundamental runes. This is the correct way to implement this variant rule, correct?

For example...

At 8th level, our fighter's normal weapon attacks will be +1/+1dX. However, I could still have a Flaming Longsword be a treasure that the party can find.

Does this sound reasonable to people who have DMed using the ABP rules?

Howdy All,

Intuitively, from my 3.5 experience, the answer is "obviously yes" but I keep seeing places on message boards where people say you can only ever have a single condition at a given time. Can I get a rules clarification/reference page number?

I realize that conditions don't 'stack' - as in, if you are frightened 1 and then another effect makes you frightened 1 you just stay at frightened 1, (rather than going to frightened 2).

However, it IS possible to be flat-footed and frightened, is it not?

Howdy All,

I've got a question that I'd like clarification on: If X has Y grabbed and X has the constrict or engulf ability...

-If X constricts Y 3 times on their turn, would that mean that at the end of X's turn Y is no longer grabbed?

-If X engulfs Y, does X need to use an action to grab to maintained the grabbed/engulfed condition? OR is Engulf a separate condition, with it's own method of resolution/rules, and it just so happens that IF you are engulfed, then you are also grabbed?

-If X has engulfed Y on X's previous turn, could X constrict 3 times and still maintain their grab by virtue of the creature being engulfed?

Howdy All,

Over on Enworld there's a sort of mini-flame war brewing over whether or not Pathfinder 2e should be considered a failure or not - mostly revolving around the number of people playing on virtual table tops.

Given that Paizo has multiple books slated for release in the future, (Secrets of Magic, Guns and Gears, etc), it doesn't really seem to me like Paizo is hurting.

I think it's unrealistic to expect Paizo to dominate the market as they did with PF1e considering the stars really aligned for their success, but I also don't really think 'success' needs to equate to being the #1 product on the market player base wise.

What do you all think? It only concerns me because I don't want to be on a downward trajectory, you know?

Am I doing this right?

When my players are exploring, say a ruined/abandoned settlement I just have them tell me what they're doing and roll skill checks when and if necessary. If, for example, the rogue wants to sneak into a building where he heard a noise, I just have him roll for stealth vs. what, if anything, might detect him.

If PCs are climbing a cliff I just have them roll their climb checks to see how things pan out. There's really only "in combat" and "out of combat" and with the exception of speeding up time tremendously, to the tune of days/weeks/months, that's the only time that 'downtime' occurs.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand why we'd even need explicit 'exploration' rules when they're really just the application of skill checks... or is there something I'm not understanding?

How would you adjudicate this situation:

A Ranger equipped with a bow wants to trip an enemy by shooting him in the leg/ankle.

On the one hand, there aren't any rules on this particular maneuver. On the other, it seems like a perfectly reasonable/cinematic/fantasy combat maneuver.

The same situation could be applied to say, disarm or maybe stretching disbelief a little bit even grapple, (at least in the context of pinning a foe to a wall/tree/the ground/etc).

(So, Paizo, if you're reading this please. PLEASE. layout your future books better. I that's my only complaint about your 2e - I think it's really hard to find information as things you'd think would all be grouped together are scattered all around)

Is there ever a point/level of advancement at which an animal companion can act without being commanded or am I just imagining that? (Or confusing PF2e with 5e?)

What is the communities thoughts on Jeremy's hot take here? How do your play experiences mirror, or contrast, from his? Link below!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fyninGp92g&t=727s

I was one of the people that during the play test voiced anti-"+level" sentiments because I prefer grittier games where lower level monsters stay challenge (en masse) for much longer.

What has been people's experiences in terms of power level of play? Do characters feel like 1-in-a-million heroic types? Or do they feel like 1-in-a-billion super heroic types?

Even though I was against "+level" I am not at all excited to implement that variant rule since it's so time consuming and possibly unbalancing. Even if characters are more powerful than I'd like, I was hoping that their height of power is less than that of PF1 or 3.x.

If you've played or GM'd a game that used the free archetype variant, what was your experience? Were the player characters significantly, game imbalancingly more powerful? Or were they fairly manageable.

Note: If you haven't played or GM'd such a game I don't care about/am not interested in your opinion. I'm not posting this because I want to hear your theory crafting, I just want real anecdotal experiences.

The specialization ability for Animal Instinct states that it increases the die size of the unarmed attacks that are granted from raging. But, it appears to always be 'on, and from 1st level. So why not just reflect that in the chart on the same page that lists the damage die for these unarmed attacks? Because in practice an animal instinct barbarian will ***always*** use a die one step larger when they're using the unarmed attack granted by their animal instinct. It just seems like an unnecesarry paragraph. Am I missing something?

This imgur link shows the 'stat block' I created for a level 3 hazard. It is actually meant to be the 'boss' of a 5 room dungeon for 4-5 1st level characters. This hazard will be accompanied by 2-3 Level -1 monsters to make the fight more dynamic. I think the hazard is on the weak side as far as damage output goes, however, considering it has 'adds' and we are dealing with level one characters I think it still might be fairly deadly.

This imgur link shows the 'stat block' I created for a level 3 hazard. It is actually meant to be the 'boss' of a 5 room dungeon for 4-5 1st level characters. This hazard will be accompanied by 2-3 Level -1 monsters to make the fight more dynamic. I think the hazard is on the weak side as far as damage output goes, however, considering it has 'adds' and we are dealing with level one characters I think it still might be fairly deadly.

A question for the paizo community: Do you run/create your own campaigns/adventures or do you only run the paizo/pathfinder adventure paths?

Are the repairing/building downtime activities outlined in the Age of Ashes adventure path group activities or solo activities? For example:

If building a structure is said to require 10 days to complete, and I have 5 people in my party do they each contribute to 1 "day" of work? In which case it would only take 2 days to complete?

Or is it assumed that the entire group takes part in the activity and thus it would take 10 days?

Will they create one? Should they create one?

This is a speculative proposal for what a repeating crossbow would look like in terms of game mechanics/rules/features. This should be an uncontroversial proposal, but given the nature of forums I'm sure there will be at least one dissenter. The statistics were created by mirroring the PF1e rules as closely as possible through the interpretative lends of PF2e. From a simulations perspective, the proficiency required to wield a repeating crossbow should not be different from a standard crossbow. Rather, the Repeating Crossbow ought to be significantly more expensive to represent the more intricate work necessary to create one. However, this is not a valid consideration as without some sort of relevant cost, (which gold rarely is for non-magical equipment), there is no reason one would ever use a standard crossbow over a repeating version. Thus, the requirement that a feat be used balances the benefit of the improved weapon.

Repeating Crossbow, Light
Category: Advanced
Price: 21gp
Level: -
Damage: 1d8 P
Range: 120ft
Reload: 3
Bulk: 2
Hands: 2
Group: Bow
Traits: Magazine

• The price was determined by referencing the cost of PF1e Crosssbow and Repeating Crossbow vs. PF2e Crossbow: (250 x 3)/35 = (PF1 Repeating Crossbow x PF2e Crossbow)/PF1 Crossbow.

• The reload was determined by referencing the PF1e Repeating Crossbow. 1 Full-Round Action is (virtually) equivalent to 3 Interact actions

• The magazine trait should be self explanatory for anyone who has played 3.5 or PF1e, but for those who haven't: The weapon has a reload of 0 as long as there are bolts in the magazine case, which holds 5 bolts. Reloading the magazine case requires 3 Interact actions.
  

The Ranger class feat "Crossbow Ace" makes reference to a "simple crossbow". Does this refer to a weapon that is called "simple crossbow" or does this refer to a crossbow which belongs to the "simple" weapon category? If the latter, aren't *all* crossbows in the simple category?

I really wish Pathfinder had taken a page out of D&D 5e's book when it came to strength and dexterity damage. I have a player who wants to make a monk but is really bummed out that they don't have dexterity to their damage. She wants to play a human reflavored as a nekomata/catfolk and the Tiger Stance makes her theme super easy to pull off... she just doesn't want to have to be a beef cake to do it.

Is the following statement true?

"All skill feats are general feats, but not all general feats are skill feats?"

The reason I ask is because I wanted to know if you're granted a general feat from your class you're allowed to pick a skill feat.

Does anyone know of any rumblings that would suggest we'll be getting this class at some point? My steampunk game needs it.

Do we know which releases will get a deluxe version like the CRB and the bestiary?

So, I didn't really participate in the playtest at all so I can't complain too much...

...but I am exceptionally curious why we have +Level bonuses. It just seems to pump up the numbers and nothing else really. Compare that to, say, 5e, where barely anything has an AC over 22 or a bonus to hit greater than +12.

My off the cuff theory is so that PF1 material would still be somewhat easy to insert into PF2 if a person needed more content.

Wouldn't the game work just as well, if not better, if the numbers were compressed down to:

Untrained +0
Trained +2
Expert +4
Master +6
Legendary +8

Then you just knock down all the other numbers and to me it creates a game without artificially inflated numbers and it will also produce situations where low level monsters stay threatening for longer.

But I'm about 6 months to late with this post, so... ya

Page 193, "Signature Spell", says the following:

You’ve learned to cast some of your spells more flexibly. For each spell level you have access to, choose one spell of that level to be a signature spell. You don’t need to learn heightened versions of signature spells separately; instead, you can heighten these spells freely. If you’ve learned a signature spell at a higher level than its minimum, you can also cast all its lower-level versions without learning those separately. If you swap out a signature spell, you can choose a replacement signature spell of the same spell level at which you learned the previous spell. You can also retrain specifically to change a signature spell to a different spell of that level without swapping any spells; this takes as much time as retraining a spell normally does.

This, on my read, suggests that if a spell is NOT a signature spell you have to actually know it at a higher level. I.e.: My repertoire would include both 1st and 3rd level magic missile. Am I reading this right? Is it not as simple as just as casting magic missile in a 3rd level spell slot?

Or does this mean that I can cast 3rd level magic missile AS a 1st level spell if it IS my signature spell?

Howdy All,

Apologies if this has already been covered. If you are wearing no armor do you add your dexterity modified to your AC? If so, does Mage Armor really only amount to +1 AC?

Howdy All,

I want to come home. So badly. As balanced as 5e is the lack of options/complexity is absolutely killing me. However... here is my road block that I want the forums help with:

With the power level of P2e characters... how do I justify a world where mundane nobles/kings/aristocracies run the world/government and not level 20 warlords/wizards?

I'm going to be GMing a gritty steam/diesel-punk game set in a world where magic and technology fundamentally conflict, (re: Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura), using Pathfinder. To keep the game nestled in heroic fantasy I plan to run it as an E6 campaign. My players are ok with their core statistics, (Base attack bonus, saves, skills, etc), being capped at 6th level, however I worry that they'll run into character fatigue if they aren't able to really improve and gain more class features. What does the EnWorld brain trust think about the following variations of E6:

• Gestalt Characters
  
• Continue to advance without BaB/Saves/Skills/Spells improving
  
• Waive BaB/Skill Rank requirements for feats
  

(P.S.: Just for fun and "fyi" the game will also utilize armor-as-DR and wound/vitality variants)

My favorite part of 3.x/Pathfinder is combat. My group really enjoys tactical, interesting, dynamic combat as much as they enjoy exploring and social interaction. It's for this reason that I hope at least some degree of bounded accuracy makes it's way into PF 2nd Ed for the following reasons:

I've played 3.5 for more than a decade now and one of the most annoying problems in encounter creation is creating encounters that are not completely lopsided one way or the other. Too often it seems that PCs completely blow out, or are themselves blown out, by a single monster. Solo creature encounters have always been very difficult to create as well as encounters that feature larger numbers of monsters. One way to alleviate this problem is for lower level threats to still actually be threats. Bounded accuracy accomplishes this beautifully and it's probably the single best thing about 5e Dungeons and Dragons. While 5e is painfully bland and not very crunchy, this is at least one area where I hope the Pathfinder devs are paying attention.

I'm SO hyped for Pathfinder 2nd Edition - I just hope they've taken a hard look at the way combat shakes out so that it's easier to create engaging, challenging, and most importantly fun encounters for our players.

5e introduced a change over the 3.x wands in that rather than 50 charges wands have a very small number of charges (1d6+1 per day, i believe) that refresh each day. What do pathfinder folks think of adapting this to Pathfinder over the 50-charges-and-then-it's-useless model?

I'm going to be running a gritty steampunk campaign. Many of the pathfinder classes work perfectly with little to no mechanical or flavor tinkering. Fighter, Gunslinger, Unchained Rogue, and Barbarian, (or rather "noble savage"), require no mechanical or flavor reworking. Ranger using the skirmisher archetype functions perfectly as an explorer, gentleman or otherwise. Unchained Monks, with a few mechanical and flavor tweaks, become perfect strongman pugilists.

Where I stumble is in finding a class to occupy the slot of technologist, scientist, and physician. I have surveyed the entire range of d20 literature in search of workable steampunk classes. Seriously - I've bought or read it all. So I would like the boards to help me brainstorm simple, streamlined, and evocative classes to finish off my roster.

A few things to make clear: I do not want to reflavor vancian magic as steampunk gadgetry. I do not want to use a system outside d20, and even more specifically, Pathfinder. The reason for these two stipulations are twofold. Primarily, I've found all attempts to refluff vancian casting as gadgetry to just fall short and not really embody the idea of creating an enduring invention that, short of breaking, lasts forever. On the second system point, Pathfinder/d20 is the system I am most comfortable with and after 10+ years of role playing has provided the most balanced and satisfying combat.

As far as areas to begin, I AM happy to reskin item creation feats into "invention" feats - I think there is a lot of fertile ground there. However, the ability to craft steampunk (read: magic) items is not enough to build a class around. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Hey All,

I'm a veteran of 3.5, (which is virtually identical to Pathfinder, don't care what any of you say), and I'm about to run a steampunk campaign using d20 Modern classes and Pathfinder rules.

I actually prefer 5e because the combats are so much more balanced but it isn't a system that supports the crunchy, gritty kind of game I want to run. From my extensive time as a DM running 3.x games I remember that fights tend to be *extremely* one sided one-way-or-the-other, especially at higher levels, and I really want to avoid that. What have you other DMs done to ensure that combat is not a boring slog or so one sided as to be anti-climactic.

I've been playing around with the idea of using armor as DR, (light 3/-, medium 5/-, and heavy 7/-), so that low level enemies can still ping characters who are meaningfully higher than their CR.

What do you all think of this and what solutions have you implemented in your own games?

(Context: I remember playing in the Age of Worms with two other guys and literately wading through a small army of lizardfolk as a barbarian and was essentially untouchable... I want to avoid that kind of scenario. 20+ of any monster, no matter how lowly, really ought to be able to overcome 4 PCs).

Thanks in advance.