Gorstagg's page

I've simply added Versatile S to the weapon and have moved on.

You are all correct.

The lack of an across the board 1st level free General Feat, is killing a lot of interesting options and making them fit some bizarre design choice for options that kill character design freedom and options.

I talked this over with my gaming group and we came to the consensus that the creation process feels like it's missing a feat during creation.

Ideally we figured, ABC+Free.

So at 1st level you'd get Ancestry Feat, Background Feat, Class Feat, and a Free Feat.

This would resolve a lot of early character creation moments that just seem strange to suddenly get at later levels when they should of been built into the character from level 1.

I started playing D&D back in 1982. As I got older, I ended up playing the next iteration of the game, sticking with the Advanced version, from 1e, to 2e, through the Skills & Powers, into 3rd, and 3.5. I then played Pathfinder 1e (D&D 3.75), and into 4th edition D&D, after surviving that I transitioned to 5e, and now I, and my group have tried Pathfinder Playtest (2e).

Throughout the years, people railed against the Vancian system, I for one understood their pain. It was an artificial system that punished the players for making choices for the future for their characters that often turned out to be detrimental. That being said, Spell Points did pop up in 2nd edition as alternative casting options, and they found their way into 3rd as alternative spell methods. Then look 5E comes along.

Bam! All casters get a number of cantrips that work out of the box and are useful, and they get a number of spells per day, and can choose a number of spells equal to their casting modifier and their level, from spells they know, as available, and can cast them via the spell slots they get. So John Q Wizard Level 3, with an 16 Intelligence (+3 Modifier) can choose 6 spells of level 1 & 2 that he knows. While Sally the Cleric who's level 5 and has an 18 Wisdom (+4 modifier), can choose from 9 spells she knows of from levels 1 through 3. She can then cast them like John, by expending spell slots. Casting the spells at whatever spell slots she feels like expending. Okay DAMN! That feels good for the player, great for the DM because the player has some interesting choices and a lot of optional freedom to cast said spells.

So then we are giving this Playtest a run through.

We hit the spells... the actions are clever, the so and so is okay.. but wait.. we have to memorize exactly what each spell slot has in it's place for the entire day? Why are we punishing the players creativity, and why are they doing this when the Most Popular Roleplaying Game in the world Learned to love it's players and not penalize them for having fun. 5E learned from decades of gameplay. They evolved.

The reality is for our group, this is a no go. It's what the playtest showed us, it's not for us. We can't go backwards, because of some Sacred Cow that was already killed in other editions and for the better. I say killing Sacred Cows, you all have certainly done that for many things in this Playtest.

I know others have expressed their thoughts on this, but I felt from a testing perspective, I had to share, the sheer revulsion our group experienced with regression of the Vancian system.

From page 175 in the Playtest Rulebook:

Quote:

In another thread I also suggested that the higher the quality the more Dents it should be able to take. I would suggest something like this:

Expert = +2 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 5/Dents 4)
Master = +4 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 7/Dents 6; Mithral Shield = Hardness 5/ Dents 6; Adamantine Shield = Hardness 10/Dents 6)
Legendary = +6 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 10/Dents 8; Mithral Shield = Hardness 8/ Dents 8; Adamantine Shield = Hardness 13/Dents 8; Orichalcum Shield = Hardness 16/Dents 8)

I would also have the level of potency on a shield (if it can have potency, the rules on runes only say armor, so it's unclear) add an extra dent for each '+' the rune grants (if it added an extra '+2' hardness per potency level that would be great and make magic shields far more useful).

At higher levels it is still possible to blow through the shield completely, but it is less likely to happen on any single hit.

I would also have AT LEAST this apply to weapons too. It should be difficult to destroy a Legendary magic sword.

This right here is in my mind one of the only ways to not be driven crazy by the the exploding shield problem.

In my mind, 2 dents for a broken shield is entirely insufficient. If I continue to use dents for shields in here, I'm probably going to have to house rule it to something similar.

Other businesses would avoid disclosing specifics, and just manage the problem with as little information provided as possible. Instead, Paizo's being forthright and upfront about the issues, that a world class vendor encountered issues, and thus impacted Paizo is unfortunate. Their response is wholly appropriate and I can only see this as a positive outcome from an disappointing situation.

Sure there will be people who are going to complain, some will compliment, others won't even realize there's an issue. But good on the crew over at Paizo for taking this issue head-on and keeping people abreast with the information, even when it's a difficult thing to hear.

Kyle,

Thanks for making such a wonderful program! It means I can keep all the information I need to run an encounter right there on the screen.. I can' thank you enough!