Fireflash51's page

Is there any kind of preview somewhere for this book? The product description is lacking in information.

What kind of content will I get? I guess each region will feature important cities/locations with their populations/religions/etc.

What else? Important people? Major events? Organisations? Fauna/flora? Story hooks for quests?

Thanks!

Based on the level of the party otherwise they're gonna struggle a lot.

Thanks for the feedback! I'm going to go for Fall of Plaguestone!

These are the spell levels. On top you write how many spell you can cast for each level. The bottom row is to keep count of your remaining spell slots if you are a spontaneous caster.

To those who have seen/played both adventures:

Which one do you think is the best as an intro to PF2?

I know Hellknight Hill is the first part of an adventure path and plaguestone isn't. This does not really factor in my decision. I'll probably branch off to homebrew quests afterwards.

What I'm mainly concerned about is overall fun factor and the ability to showcase different kind of encounters that allow different kinds of characters to have their time in the spotlight.

Thanks!

As the OP says, as written, trip is counted for the MAP, but the MAP is specifically described as a penality to attack rolls.

Trip is an athletics check vs fortitude. Nothing close to an attack roll. If you read this text like a logical machine, Trip counts towards MAP but is not affected by it.

BUt I'm pretty sure it,s meant to affect it. The correct way to write it would've been a penality to attack actions. Or actions with the Attack trait.

Quote:

Grab [one-action]

Requirements The monster’s last action was a success with a Strike that lists Grab in its damage entry, or it has a creature grabbed using this action.

Effect The monster automatically Grabs the target until the end of the monster’s next turn. The creature is grabbed by whichever body part the monster attacked with, and that body part can’t be used to Strike creatures until the grab is ended. Using Grab extends the duration of the monster’s Grab until the end of its next turn for all creatures grabbed by it. A grabbed creature can use the Escape action to get out of the grab, and the Grab ends for a grabbed creatures if the monster moves away from it.

So, grabbing is one action after a strike. Maintaining a grab established in this way is one action to maintain on all grabbed creatures. No athletics check is involved.

Oh ok. Weird to have the same keyword do different things for players and monsters.

If I'm reading the rules correctly, when a creature has "plus grab" in the damage of its attack the grab is automatic on a successful hit.

The rule quote: "The monster automatically Grabs the target until the end of the monster’s next turn."

I think this means that there is no athletics check to roll vs the target's Fortitude. Am I right?

The creature spent 1 action to do the attack that lists "plus grab". Does it need to spend another action to do the automatic grab?

On it's next turn, if the creature wants to sustain the grab longer, does it simply use the generic grab action (athletics vs fort) or can it use the same "attack plus grab" action?

Thanks!

Yeah Intimidate is a charisma check but I can see where OP is coming from.

From the point of view of a person being intimidated there's also a risk assessment even before any interaction occurs. Context beyond charisma.

Given 2 characters with the same charisma score, which one is going to look more like a threat to your safety? The big muscular guy hodling a weapon or a scrawny and seemingly unarmed teenager in rags?

But I don't know how or even if this should be reflected mechanically somehow.

From what I'm reading in the rules so far, you never do opposed skill check. Instead it's one side rolling a skill check vs the skill dc of the other side.

Is the player always the one using the skill check when opposing an enemy?

Example: A player tries sneak around an enemy. That's player stealth roll vs enemy perception DC.

But what about the opposite? If an enemy is sneaking around a player. Is it enemy stealth roll vs player perception DC or player perception roll vs enemy stealth DC?

Kerobelis wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

One thing that is great about this edition, which was not as prominent in PF1 and which is lacking a lot in 5e, is how easy it is to buff classes on the future.

Classes are extremely modular and have a very light "chassis". Which means nobody is stuck with weak abilities as long as better ones exist. You could just publish stronger Wizard feats or stronger Arcane spells to improve them whenever, and Paizo is known for spamming splatbooks. There could later be strong class archetypes (How PF1 fixed things) and such.
I think the current Wizard is decent and fun to play, just different, but time will tell how they perform in play and whenever that happens, there will be many avenues to improve them. Not as much like 5E ranger that got a bunch of unofficial reprints and fan content because it was stuck sucking.

What you can't do is Nerf classes without erratas (Which we almost never see), so there is a strong possibility of power creep as time passes. Whoever is the strongest class right now (Fighter?) is likely to become the baseline to flatten the power curve down the line.

I have no side in this argument but I disagree with what you are saying here. Publishing more to fix problems is a terrible thing. Half the people won't even know the options and you are also admitting to their being lots a "trap" options.

A lot of weaknesses are caused by a simple lack of options; for example, Wizards inherently do less damage than Sorcerers when using instantaneous spells because Dangerous Sorcery exists. If/when Wizards eventually get a class feat that synergizes with evocations that'll get balanced out.

Like, you have to realize that there is only so much text you're allowed to have in one book.

Well in PF1 your touch attacks were made with your attack roll, which was much lower than a full BAB martial.

In PF2 you have to hit the full AC but you roll with spell attack, which is based on your spell profiency, which can go just as high as the fighter's weapon proficiency (legendary).

If you were using spell attack vs an hypothetical touch AC, you would have an VERY high success rate for all your spells.

Why are you just looking at a tiny part of their stats, not even the most important ones? Other than HP, which you listed, what matters the most is attack/damage/defensive rolls.

But you're limited to 3 focus points max. Sure you can refocus after an encounter. But still, if your casting relies entirely on focus you won't be casting that many spells.

Still not a fan compared to the other instinct but maybe I underestimated the usefulness of positive/negative energy types. Thanks!

Is it just me that feels like Spirit instinct is significantly inferior to other choices?

It gets much smaller damage bonuses yet all it gets to compensate is ghost touch.

It only seems like a good choice if you are gonna play an undead-centric campaign.

Also I dont really feel the spirit flavor. The granted bonuses dont really match the image of a barbarian with spiritual powers

Does the book explain how to handle chases?

And this is why you don't do updates on a friday just before leaving for the weekend. Especially when you are less than 2 weeks away from launching your new product line.

Or at the very least test your stuff after you release it to make sure everything is working as expected. 5 minutes of browsing would have revealed the problem

Yeah I wasn't expecting this to be unlimited. The way I imagine it patching you up after a fight can only do so much before magical healing and rest is required.

Of course I don't know how to balance it exactly but I don't think you should be able to receive this kind of healing from the medicine skill more than once after an encounter.

People have been confused about shield block since the beginning and still to this day not even the people who make the game can tell us how it works officially.

R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S

Personally I always thought attributing skill points was the most tedious part of the levelup process. The current skill system in the playtest is certainly flawed. For example I don't think untrained skill modifiers should be that close to trained. But otherwise i'm glad the granular skill point attribution every level is gone.

I feel it would be even more useful in PF2 considering all the big damage the monsters are dishing out. It would greatly reduce the need for a caster that uses most of his spell slots /powers for healing.

Yes the "realistic way" your shield is being used to deflect attacks harmlessly and without damaging it is already represented by the boost to AC you get when you raise your shield. That boost says: "I am using my shield to deflect attacks coming my way.

If the enemy beats your AC while your shield is raised it means that they successfully went through your defenses, including your shield.

Shield block might be a bad name for the ability because based on how it's triggered it feels more like a last ditch effort to put your shield between you and the attack after failing to defend yourself properly. It's good enough to stop weak attacks unharmed but for bigger attacks you're still gonna feel the pain.

Since a lot of the feats don't directly power you up, instead giving you more options. I would like to have more of the feats available to all the martials but give fighter even more feats. Making his thing being the most versatile of martials classes by letting him be good at more than one fighting style.

I'm still confused on it how it interacts with magic weapons. Is a power attack with a +1 greatsword 3d12 or 4d12? Cause one of these options is a lot better than the other but I'm not sure which is right and which is what people are using to say it's bad.

It adds only one dice no matter the magic bonus on your weapon. 2 die at level 10+. So yes, it gets worse as your weapon gets more powerful.

I like the combat actions that fighters get at higher levels but some of the lower ones don't seem worthwhile at all, power attack being the most noticeable one.

As mentionned in other threads by various people, power attack ranges from bad to barely ok depending on the situation if you compare the tradeoff vs doing 2 strikes instead. Also I don't think the mechanic really fits the fantasy of a power attack.

So how woud people like power attack to be designed?

Personally I think that if it's gonna have the same name as in PF1 it should be closer to the spirit of the original ability but a still fit in the design style of PF2.

So for me it would be a tradeoff of damage at the cost of accuracy. Obviously I have no idea right now what would be the proper number tuning, just throwing a general idea.

1 action - Power Attack
Traits: Fighter, Open
Make a melee Strike. It gains the following enhancement.
Enhancement: Your strike deals an additional damage bonus equal to your strenght modifier. This strike and any other strikes this
turn receive a -2 penality to hit. Your other strikes do not benefit from the damage bonus.