Ironwedge's page

I checked a bookstore site and Highhelm is listed as only 136 pages in length. I was hoping for more content and really expand on this area of the world, but it seems way too short to be an in-depth look.

I really wish they would not "re-invent the wheel" and just modify 1st edition with clearer language and simpler terms. If Pathfinder 2nd edition was more a Starfinder system instead would be much more to my liking.

The last one you won't find in Paizo material, but it needed to be a "D

D should be details/description (anything from name to biography), and there sure is E section - Equipment!

I also Added F to this... the F@#$ Why is this taking so Long! part lol

TL;DR every response. I just want to say that I love the Stamina Point/Resolve Point system and I think it solves both issues of heal-bots and PF2 dying condition.

The real problem with Feats is that they are now calling everything a Feat. Something like Class Specialization and Ancestry Ability to rename class feats and ancestry feats will solve a lot of the confusion.

I really like your suggestion of spell saves being described from the perspective of the caster. I really don't think Greater type spells are even needed anymore with the new Heightening powers. Why make a new spell with a new name if you could just place a Heightened description at the bottom?

A little backstory/history. In part 1 of Doomsday Dawn, my friend made an alchemist that threw bombs. It was cool and he had some nice feats to help him make his character like he wanted, but now for part 2, I want to make an alchemist that does something else.

I had this idea of an elf who shoots poison arrows/throws poison daggers at his foes. The feats for bombers seem to be much better and more of them, than an alchemist that does something else. The 3rd level class feature Empower Bombs will be something I rarely, if ever, use with this character. Since the alchemist makes 3 categories of items: bombs, poisons, and elixirs; shouldn't there be feats/class features that can allow for more specialization in the 3 categories? 3 of the 5 1st level Alchemist feats are for bombs; 3 of the 5 6th level feats are for bombs; 3 of the 6 10th level are for bombs; etc.

I would love to see feats that allow for faster application of poisons to weapons. I would love to see feats that boost DC's of poisons, and/or boost damage or condition duration. I also would love to see something done with the alchemists' familiar to make it more applicable to the class.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am having a really hard time translating the rulebook from what it says in text to what it should mean at the table. The wording of the book is not easily understood when it comes to how the rules are to be applied. Examples:

1. They dying condition. Page 295-296 does not clearly lay out how a character goes from 0HP back to functional Positive HP, or a "back into the fight" condition. The wording on page 295 especially, under the section "If you are at 1 hit point or more:" it only lists a success condition.

2. Fighter Feat Two Weapon Flurry. Page 95. "Strike twice, once with each weapon. These do not count toward the multiple attack penalty until the second Strike." The "until the second strike part is messing me up. Does this mean the first hand is full bonus, and 2nd hand is -5? Or does it mean the two attacks are at the same bonus and after this activity, then apply the -5 or -10 to whatever comes after?

These are just 2 examples but all throughout the book I just feel like I'm supposed to approach the game with the same given assumptions as the writers did, but I have no idea what those given assumptions are.

I hope more people add to this post as they find confusing wording issues.

I just came by to say I like how the proficiency system works in this game.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in 3.5/Pathfinder 1e, using a weapon that you are not proficient with was a -4 penalty. In 2e, being untrained is level -2, which, you will always have at least one level, so really it's a -1 or less when applied. My question is why not stick to the -4 in some way. Maybe Untrained should be level -4? In this way, it will always be a -3 or less when applied to a roll. Additionally, I think Legendary should be more than a +1 away from Master, and really set itself apart from the rest of the pack. I think this could be done by making Legendary Level +4, like the opposite of Untrained, which I think should be Level -4. In play, untrained just seemed too close to trained and expert. And I think keeping some numbers from Pathfinder 1 is good, especially when they make sense and won't break the game when used. What do you think?

I just made my first Pathfinder Playtest Character. I made a human fighter, and it took about 2 hours from start to finish. I know it's a first character and I had to look a lot of things up, but I saw the video on character creation with Jason Bulmahn, and he claims that it will eventually only take about 15 minutes. I don't see it ever going that fast. I'm thinking 1 hour minimum.