Helvellyn's page

My suggestion is that if you want to house rule this in you limit them to lores. It is easier to limit lore scope to prevent them from becoming unbalanced.

Another option to consider is bonus feats, which are easier to track than skill increases.

As a reference for house ruling this in your own game, this is similar to one of the organised play boons where you can use downtime to become trained in a lore skill or a language. It takes 50 days of downtime in organised play, however for home brewing you might need to adjust this as in society play 50 days of downtime is quite a lot (Around 6 adventures) whereas a home campaign might use much greater or lesser amounts of downtime between adventures.

I never liked the idea of the deep underground being full of dangerous psionic monsters and evil elves.

I prefer my center of the earth to bull of barbarians in loincloths and bikinis riding dinosaurs and fighting ancient serpentine mystic cults.

So the idea that the barbarians in loincloths might be elvish works for me.

And even if the reason is legal; I am so glad to see the 'Curse of Ham' get tossed out of the game I prefer.

I misread this and now I can't get the image of a Velociraptor in a swimsuit out of my head.

Nine. We probably have enough on the ship now for a training day ;)

Have they clearly defined what is meant by an "Instance of Damage"?

I notice that Elemental Blasts list a range, while ranged weapon infusions (From the 1st level feat) have a ranged increment instead.

As written the upshot of this appears to be that your elemental blasts are limited to 60 feet. However if you use weapon infusions your range is significantly increased (Really increased with a 100 feet range increment).

The only disadvantage is that the text from weapon infusion implies that you can only do bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage rather than your elemental damage in these circumstances.

Is this everyone else's reading of this?

The only downer about books like this is that despite their being loads of new monsters and ancestries, we no longer get any Pawns to use them. It really affected my use of Book of the Dead as making my own pawns from the artwork in the PDFs is very time consuming. For the same reason it will probably effect my enjoyment of this book and likely the Tian Xia ones too.

There are a few places where I would like to see some minor changes.

I completely agree with the opening poster around defining an instance of damage. Not only does it affect the examples provided but it has quite a profound effect on the Thaumaturge depending upon how it is defined.

Lore skills. I'm okay with the basic concept but think there does need some extra clarity especially on things like unique monsters (I think I know how to handle it but a bit more clarity would not go amiss). My other problem with Lore skills is that they become increasingly problematic at higher levels. Putting improvements into a lore skill is rarely effective as other skills are usually better. It would be nice to make them all auto improve in the same way as they do if taken from the feat.

Definition of succeeding in a roll. This came out when people were looking at the Swashbuckler. Some of the Panache generators required you to succeed at a check, however the question of whether you can succeed at a check against something that is immune. If you follow the stages in the rule book success is achieved during the roll, with later steps taking into account things like immunity. However it does feel against the natural use of the language.

I would like some consistency with weapon proficiency feats. Some allow you to increase in line with your weapon proficiencies available from your class others don't. Then there is some of the odd ones which aren't clear like Unconventional Weaponry.

Although I'm a big fan of a lot of the book, I'm a little disappointed in the shields. Was hoping Sturdy could be a property you could add to shields but as it is, there are very few circumstances where someone would want any of the new shields (including the new specific magical shields) over a Sturdy Shield.

To be fair to Aaron, what he describes that Paizo are going through are the initial stages any company would go through if they wanted to address significant cultural issues.

Cultural change is difficult and often fails. Creating policies to make the necessary changes requires expertise that just won't exist within most organisations. In addition, companies with cultural issues tend not to actually know the extent of the problem or problems.

Discussing these issues with the people you work with to draw out the problems and the hiring of a full time HR expert is really the starting point. Until this has been done they can't really start to address the problems.

Once they have spoken to their employees and the HR expertise is in place then you would expect to see changes to policy, procedures etc. As tempting as it is to go straight into problem solving mode it just doesn't work in the long run as it doesn't address the root causes.

My one concern is that there has not really been a statement from the top to set out where they stand on diversity and inclusion. Paizo constantly imply that it is their products and refer to it in blogs and forum posts but you would expect it to be up front on the website and if it does exist I can’t find it. Admittedly as that kind of statement would tend to come at CEO/Chairman level it would probably be Jeff’s to make which might not help considering some of the allegations.

Helvellyn wrote:

Sagiam wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Sagiam wrote:

And Swashbuckler, and Rogue. How many things are immune to precision damage?

Not many, it's pretty rare.

But I mean, also an example of a pretty bad mechanic.

After a quick glance at AoN... looks like anything with the Incorporeal trait, the ooze trait, the swarm trait, and a few other types of undead.

Depending on campaign of course, I wouldn't call that rare.

Edit: Which doesn't mean I like it. I agree it's not a great mechanic. I was using it as an example of a mechanic that's worse then AoO.
At least AoO can be played around. If something has precision immunity half the martials are SOL.

According to the monster spreadsheet which is available on the PF2 Tools site, there are 154 monsters immune to precision out of 2288.

The same tool has 312 out of the 2288 monsters with Attacks of Opportunity however this ramps up quite significantly at higher levels where you are getting 30% to 60% of the monsters with AoO.

I haven’t updated this spreadsheet since FotRP came out, it takes a long time to run and some parts (speed, a few errors) I have to fix up manually afterwards, so 2288 is a little under the current monsters in the game (missing Malevolence, FotRP 1-3 and SoT 1, along with any PFS scenarios that have come out).

Should still be a pretty good indicator of the overall frequency of precision immunity and AoO (note: this is things specifically named AoO, not any other feature that is like AoO and can still significantly disrupt a magus’ turn like twisting tail or lurking death).

Can I just say thanks for your work on the spreadsheet. It's something I find really useful.

Squiggit wrote:

Sagiam wrote:

And Swashbuckler, and Rogue. How many things are immune to precision damage?

Not many, it's pretty rare.

But I mean, also an example of a pretty bad mechanic.

After a quick glance at AoN... looks like anything with the Incorporeal trait, the ooze trait, the swarm trait, and a few other types of undead.

Depending on campaign of course, I wouldn't call that rare.

Edit: Which doesn't mean I like it. I agree it's not a great mechanic. I was using it as an example of a mechanic that's worse then AoO.
At least AoO can be played around. If something has precision immunity half the martials are SOL.

According to the monster spreadsheet which is available on the PF2 Tools site, there are 154 monsters immune to precision out of 2288.

The same tool has 312 out of the 2288 monsters with Attacks of Opportunity however this ramps up quite significantly at higher levels where you are getting 30% to 60% of the monsters with AoO.

Most of the caster first level feats are linked to the class themes. For example the bard's muse gives a 1st level class feat. There is also one non-muse feat for bards which gives an option for a human bard.

The other classes are similar.

There isn't really on consensus on these unfortuately. There are a fair few threads (For example: Does a wit swashbuckler gain panche from a successful, ineffective Bon Mot ) with a number of different view points (Things like success being specifically defined in the glossary as suceeding at a check which as a step preceeds later steps such as applying immunities etc.

In short, it's probably worth chatting through with your GM (You need to get a handle on if they are going to let you gain Panche from other sources anyway so you might as well get their view on this too).

A four point swing on a small number of monsters, as opposed to a +2 bonus that will apply almost every round.

Frequency matters.

I quickly checked 3 random monsters and saw +2, 0, -2 between their will and perceptions. Has someone got proper numbers on it?

I did check out the numbers in detail when the Swashbuckler first came out and if you use the Bestiary then it's a big bonus. There is a clear progression in the liklihood of a creature having a high save/perception DC. If you select only Bestiary creatures then targetting Perception is the worse, then Fortitude, then Reflexes then Will. The number of creatures with a Will save higher than their perception DC is very small.

This had changed a bit in Bestiary 2 and there was a much better spread of high scores for the monsters. I think they realised they had gone overboard on Perception DCs in the orignal Bestiary.

I must admit that I do feel the current number of interesting magic and mundane items is a little on the low side. However, I'm hopeful that the magic sourcebook will add a good number of such items and Guns and Gears will add the more interesting mundane ones.

What I hope they don't do is try and fix a game problem with a class/rule with magic items. It wasn't satisfying to have to use a specific item in Pathfinder 1 to enable certain class builds to be viable so I really hope they don't go down that line for pathfinder 2.

I am quite optimistic that they won't do this however as so far they have fixed issues without reliance on items (or not fixed it at all).

I would have said DC from item level and then modified by item rarity to account for the extra text in brackets.

"The GM determines the DC based on the item’s level (possibly adjusted depending on the item or situation)."

I seem to recall that rarity effects other level based DCs although I may have imagined that.

In addition to those mentioned don't forget the technical stuff.

Can people talk and hear comms properly and see everyone if using video?

Are people able to properly mute their microphones (either through push to talk or higher quality microphones) so people can't hear them eat etc.

Can people access the VTT Ok? Are they able to control their token properly and is it working as expected. Is there an expectation that people contribute to the cost of the VTT if appropriate.

Also can people please turn off there microphone if they go to the bathroom. Seriously. It's very off putting. It really shouldn't happen. At all.

As others have mentioned I'm not sure this is much supported by the rules or balanced if you are allowed to use silver pieces (and as people have said silver coins probably don't have enough silver in them anyway).

Admittedly, I am tempted to allow as it's quite cool but would probably treat it the same as sling bullets in terms of costs etc to have something made from the relevant special material which you can use with telekinetic projectile.

I find pathfinder second edition both the hardest and easiest game I've ever ran.

From the point of view of the rules and the mechanics it is really easy. Once you know the basics you can use the core rulebook as a reference document which it excels at.

However, I found learning the basics from the core rule book really difficult until I managed to get some games under my belt. It's why the Beginers Box is so important as it allows you to get those first few sessions under your belt in a simple manner (Unless you know an experienced 2nd edition Pathfinder GM I would strongly recomend you start with the Beginners Box).

The hardest part however is developing and tweeking the encounters. Not in terms of the numbers (AC, Saves, HP etc.) that is really easy with the tables in the Gamemastery Guide (and also held on Archives of Nethys). However, the monsters are designed in a different way to first edition (or any game I've played to be honest). Each monster or hazard has strengths and weaknesses as do each player. This can cause encounters to play out in very different ways. This means for the first time in an RPG i've played (and that's a long time) you have the opportunity to really make each encounter feel unique. However as GM you need to use these tools to do that and that takes hard work.

Thankfully so far that hard work has paid off, I'm sure it will for you too.

Squiggit wrote:

a 14 str/18 Dex Swashbuckler is -2 on their maneuver checks. -3 if they have a buff like inspire courage or heroism up. -4 if the enemy is flat footed, -5 if both of those are true. Not exactly rare circumstances.

Hmm but those numbers were the same before the clarification anyways though. The only difference it is just a difference on -2 until level 5 where it becomes -1 vs dex. Or were playing giving all those bonuses to manuevers? Also heroism effects skills :)

By level 5+ it should be very close for the most part even starting with 14. Since in general Athletics scales quicker then weapons. There will of course be levels that it is worse or better etc. I normally don't add every circumstance.

Anyway Gymnast pretty much have the same bonus as every other Swashbuckler. Yes we all know they effect MAP and that is the main reason a lot of people dislike Gymnast.

I do agree it is easier to raise attack vs saves. I actually wish it was easier to buff up casters. Unless I am missing something for casters all you can really do is -1/-2 with frightened. I am hoping PF2 balanced for this and made AC a little higher than saves because of this but I am not 100% sure.

I'm not sure why scaling against weapon skill is important. The alternative to a gymnast using Athletics to generate panache with a Trip, Grapple or Shove (Or any of the other styles using their style ability) is Acrobatics to Tumble Through. Panache is not really gained directly from using your weapons (There are some indirect options where you use a weapon but these are generally limited in application and tied to specific class feats and abilities).

Gymnast also suffers from the save it targets as well as MAP. The alternate save is Fortitude (Tumble Through targets Reflex) which is often the highest save. Other styles (Braggart, Battledancer and Wit) target Will which is usually a lot lower.

What balances Gymnast out is that it's panache ability (Trip, Grapple and Shove) is really useful for the group in its own right and can be used on pretty much anything (Bon Mot, Demoralise etc probably* don't effect mindless creatures for example). It's other advantage is that is can deal more damage than the other styles especially with its Exemplary Finisher.

* There are some questions about how these abilities work on mindless creatures etc.

In terms of this thread, each swashbuckler style requires you to play differently in combat. It even affects outside combat as it is going to be one of your three (Four if Acrobat Dedication) skills you take to Legendary.

I wonder if it is for the magic book due next or a later book? If it's the magic book then something like an Arcanist, Shaman or Inquisitor (Possibly also the Kineticist which would be cool)

If it's for a different book then it could be anything.

I do wonder if they might be going down the line of adding very specific character classes into Lost Omen books. I'm thinking of something like the Gunslinger in a book about the Impossible Lands.

graystone wrote:

Megistone wrote:

Why can't you still have pouches and bandoliers on you, even if you didn't explicitly buy them?

So you're asking why a character can't have items they didn't buy? Isn't that how buying things works?

it could just be assumed (reasonably based on the artwork) that pouches and straps and belts are just part and parcel with clothing

It's actually explained that way in the errata:

Worn items are tucked into pockets, belt pouches, bandoliers, weapon sheaths, and so forth, and they can be retrieved and returned relatively quickly.

Damn 30 seconds too slow ;)

Unless I am missing something (and I apologize if I am) your Devise A Stratagem is for melee strikes not all attack rolls. So if your Devise A Stratagem roll is poor I would believe you would probably want to default to Wizard cantrips to consistently due INT based damage and save your actual spell slots for the right opportunities. Nice things about the Cantrips is their scaling is automatic.

/QUOTE]

It includes strikes with ranged weapons too.
APG (pg57)
When you make this substitution, you can also add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier, provided your Strike uses an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon (which must be agile or finesse if it’s a melee weapon with the thrown trait), or a sap.

As has already been said, the Adventure Paths are written a long way in advance and the writers are still getting used to it. The monster levels in the Zoo are similar to what you got in 1st edition adventure paths. Single target level +3 and Level +2 fights were common and relatively easy to suceed at in first edition but are brutal in 2e.

Over time I fully expect that will start to change. I suspect Agents of Edgewatch is the last of them as I'm sure I read somewhere that the writers submit the adventures 18 months or so before publication.

In the meantime I use the Creature tables from the Gamesmastery Guide and use them to adjust numbers on the fly to make the encounters more sensible

As others note, the rules for attacking something while jumping without any Feats are Ready Action - Jump. You will usually need a way to increase your vertical leap to make this useful, but it's doable.

Can you do this though? According to the description on page 470 the Ready action ends your turn so you wouldn’t then be able to jump.

If you have been playing a few months you should be fine. You will already know all about the action system, multi attack penalties, movement, skill checks etc (If there is a skill you've never used then looking it up won't hurt). The Pathfinder Society scenarios list all the DCs in them and obviously check the rules recording any creature's special abilities.

Here are a few things that might make things go smoother:

Read the section on Hero Points. It is very easy to forget about them while you are juggling everything else in your head so having something/someone remind you can be helpful.

Look through the organised play guide so you know what to do with Treasure Bundles, reporting, reputation etc.

Have something handy which lists the conditions. If your playing over the internet there is probably some user created content covering these for whichever virtual table top you are using.

Make sure you know the Death and Dying rules. It is probably the one part of the game that you need to get right immediately because players will get shirty if you don't know it.

Thanks for putting this all together so soon after the book is released.

A quick question about the adventuring gear on pages 114 and 115. You don't mention them specifically but the opening paragraph is similar to that for the magic items and academy instructors (117 to 119)

Pathfinders use a wide variety of equipment on their journeys, ranging from standard adventuring gear to magical items.
Pathfinder agents have access to the following pieces of adventuring gear, including uncommon gear.

However the language is slightly different. Magic items and Academy Instructors both say Pathfinder membership but adventuring gear says Pathfinder agent. Does this mean that only those characters with the Pathfinder agent dedication can select the uncommon adventuring gear or should it be open to everyone?

For any future playing of this scenario, there is a picture of Hestia Themis in the new Lost Omens Pathfinder Society book.

I think this is the fifth thread where there is some debate/confusion around the various swashbuckler styles and the generation of Panache. It would certainly be nice to get some clarification for PFS games. Wonder if it's worth either a dedicated thread or a post in the ask questions on Twitch thread (As we can no longer request FAQs)?

They really need to add more detail to the description of the Boons you can buy before you spend your achievement points. I know some were covered in a blog but not all. For example:

I just purchased the World Traveler boon (I wanted my character to be from Lands of Linnorm Kings and Tian having recently reread the Jade Regent AP) but after you purchase the boon and download the sheet, Tian isn't listed as one of the options. Nor are any of the areas outside those covered in the Lost Omens World Guide.

I appreciate that there is currently no mechanical benefit from coming from Tian (You can learn Tien if you're from the Saga Lands and there are currently no Tian options that can be unlocked with the exception of Dragon Spit if your from Tian-Dan) but I was wanting to future proof the character.

I assume I can get around this by making Tian my Home nation and give myself access to Saga Lands through World Traveler?

Alternatively, I suppose the other option is that despite purchasing it, not apply the boon until such time as World Traveler includes Tian. There is nothing the character has that is unavailable outside having the Lands of Linnorm Kings as their home nation. Although that said, it is distinctly possible there may end up being an entirely different boon for the wider world to keep characters from those areas less numerous.

The wording is you succeed at a Bon Mot.

You have not succeeded at a Bon Mot if the target is immune to its effects. If it had the wording about just suceeding at the check, then you would just need to beat the target's will save as you say and you would gain panache (As with the description for Battledancer).

But it doesn't say this, it very clearly says you succeed at a Bon Mot.

I think the language prevents you unfortunately. The wording is:

You gain panache during an encounter whenever you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe.

If the creature is immune to Bon Mot (either due to linguistics or mindless) then I can't see how you can say "you succeed at a Bon Mot against a foe."

Fencer, Braggart and Gymnast all require you to succeed too in order to gain panache. Battledancer is the only one with the text stating you don't have to suceed at the action. I don't know if that is deliberate because of the once per combat nature of fascinating performance (Braggart also suffers from this with the Demoralise restriction but gains a way around that at level 9) or the text was missed off from the others.

There is very much two kinds of liquorice in Europe. Sweet liquorice which is popular in the UK where it is mixed in with large anounts of syrup (Think Pontefract Cakes, liquorice allsorts and laces) and salty liquorice which is common in Germany, Easter Europe and Scandinavia. Main problem with salty liquorice is that the salt taste builds up and they become saltier with each one.

We tend to pick up liquorice for our gaming group whenever we travel anywhere for us to sample around the table while we play. Sadly with Covid, we have not been able to do this as not only have we not visited anywhere new, we have yet to identify a way of sending liquorice through the internet while we play online.

I would also like to give a shout out to Iceland where we got some awesome chocolate which contained salty liquorice pieces. That was a good day.

I will note however that -20F is medium-heavy wool/down coat weather (mostly dependent on the wind chill factor). Throw on a good hat, warm scarf, long underwear,cotton sweater, in addition to the coat and you can start overheating just walking around.

Well that explains the 4th Doctor's outfit. Link

The devs chimed in on the attack roll thing and clarified that it's written poorly. Attack rolls are supposed to follow the same rules as every other test - a natural 20 increases degree of success by one step.

Don't suppose you can remember where? It would be really useful for our organised play group.

In the introduction text for Fields of Study it states "Each field’s booster, inhibitor, and breakthrough ability follow the rules for basic biohacks unless specified otherwise".

So with the genetics inhibitor that is (3+key ability modifier) rounds.

Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday in the film Tombstone is another example of someone with a terminal, chronic illness in what is at heart an adventure movie.

I would very much like to see a starter box sooner rather than later.

I've found the game is easy to play to an enjoyable level once you've played it for an hour or so. Yes you will miss some of the rules but the core of the game is straight forward so in a few hours you'll be happily cantripping, shield blocking and switching between encounter and exploration mode with ease.

The problem I've encountered is in getting people to play those first few hours. The rulebook is extremely daunting due to its size and I've seen people struggle to pull together a character due to fear of not knowing how to play and therefore what of many options to take.

I've started using one of the pathfinder society pregen quests which has helped quite a bit but having the trimmed down characters with simpler rules (the number of conditions for example or the rules for afflictions) would make it a lot easiet to get people started and then they will take it from there.

Also starter set bling is never a bad way to get people involved.

I'm really excited for this. Just imagine the number of favours Lisa could call in. I suspect Sutter won't be the only fan-favourite involved.

A couple of questions came up during my playtest of the Biohacker at the weekend.

Does the Conserving Fusion work with the Biohackers Injections ability?

The description of the infusion states the ammunition is not consumed as though the weapon has never been fired and specifically lists darts as a type of ammunition that is affected.
The rules under Injections however don’t say how long the injections last after you have made them. It does say you mix the injection as part of the standard action you take to attack with it or inject a creature so it’s possible the injection only lasts for that standard action. However, in the section on regaining daily uses it comments that when you regain your daily uses any injections you created early but didn’t use becomes inert, even if still in your possession. This implies that injections would last longer than the standard action you take to create and use them.
If it functions for Biohacker injections, then is has quite an impact upon the class as in practice it means that misses no longer use up one of your injection uses per day as you can continue to try to use the injection you made until you successfully hit. This makes the conserving fusion pretty close to mandatory once you can use it.

Do conditions inflicted by your injections escalate?

Many of the conditions that the field of study allows you to inflict on your target as a counteragent cause conditions some of which can escalate into a more serious condition if they receive the same condition again. For example: If someone who is already fatigued is fatigued again, this escalates to and they become exhausted.
The specific example in play was an opponent that was already suffering from fatigue was hit by a fatigue causing counteragent due to the Enzymology field of study. Do they therefore become exhausted as per the description of fatigue in the core rulebook?
Although there is nothing to indicate that they don’t become exhausted, it is rare that player character abilities cause this kind of escalation so we weren’t sure if this was intended.

If it had boosts to your recommended skills it would potentially be too good at creature identification, since it should have those maxed and its scanner uses those for all creatures.

As it stands the biohacker’s creature identification is not particularly effective as it takes a move action whereas normally it doesn’t take an action at all.

I don’t really want Dex to damage. That effectively makes Strength based characters and Dexterity based characters the same with damage being weapon plus your stat. If we are having Dexterity based builds then a better approach would be to make them different in the way Strength and Dexterity (or neither) are applied. Maybe Dexterity builds favour many attacks against large single attacks for strength builds, I’m sure there are other possibilities too.

No, the guide is correct.

The blog was referring to cases such as SFS #1-00 which is tier 3-4. As was previously clarified on the forums, since you have to play a pregenerated PC for this scenario (specifically a level 4 pregen for this one), you can apply credit to any PC in the level range - specifically a level 3 or 4 PC for SFS #1-00. So if you only have a level 2 PC and play #1-00 the chronicle sheet applies once they reach level 3.

If the scenario does not require you to play a pregenerated PC, you must apply credit to a PC of a lower level than the pregen once they reach the same level of the pregen, or to a level 1 PC using the rules on page 8.

Ah right, I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up.

With the caveat that I may have read the play test rules wrongly, we are finding that the underlying maths is really fun in combat but is proving limiting outside of combat with players just avoiding skill rolls in situations where failure would have significant impact.

As an example:
The player playing the rogue finds using stealth in combat to remain hidden and sneak up on the opponent’s mage a lot of fun. The success rate feels about right and so far the dice rolls have added to the tension rather than proved frustrating.

The same player is not prepared to use stealth outside combat to scout ahead. The relatively high chance of failure (20-30%) and the consequence of being spotted (Having to face the encounter alone until they can get the other players there) discourages them from attempting it.

As I said, maybe we are reading the rules incorrectly if so ignore me but this is currently what is happening when we use the new rule system.

My initial impression is very much in line with the opening post. The rule mechanics and class frameworks look really good. The modular nature of character generation opens up loads of options as well as creating design space for third party publishers to create different genres (Just change the feats and you can move the game to low fantasy/wuxia setting or whatever you fancy).

However, the feats and powers themselves are not catching the imagination much. Not sure if its the clinical nature of the text in the write ups or just a lack of a wow factor in the feats function.

Will be intresting seeing how this affects actual play and how it develops from there.

I quite like resonance as a whole especially with it applying to consumables like scrolls and wands. However I have to add my voice to the choir when it comes to having resonance and restrictions in uses per day. I'll see how it works in the playtest but having to track multiple resources here sounds like unnecessary complexity.

Nice idea. It will be interesting to see how it works for small tables.

I’ve wondered about something similar but from a monster perspective. With single bad guys being difficult to use in PF1 (I find the fights either tend to be too easy or in boosting the CR of the monster you end up with powers that a group can’t yet counter) increasing their number of actions may balance out the fights without needing a high CR. Enabling the single bad guy to be a more workable option.

I am concerned about the use of a stylish icon rather than the use of the word action (In the example given). This is an area that can cause problems in terms of clarity and really should be something that is tested with a large number of users.

I understand it won't be in for the formal playtest document but hopefully it will be able to be heavily tested at some point over the next nine months.

Looks good. Especially like the focus on the Paladin’s code. I think it might need some greater definition around what “Murder” counts as though. Considering the complexity of the term (Especially some of the modern usage which can be quite emotionally charged) it might be better to remove the term and instead just state what isn’t acceptable, for example (illustrative only): Must not kill solely for personal gain.

If Paizo aren't planning on taking comments from the community onboard, they are spending rather a lot of money just for the privilege of ignoring us.

More expensive print options (Canada rather than China so they can get the final copy to the printers two months later than normal); developer time on blogs and forum posts; delaying getting the new product out by a year......