Colette Brunel wrote:
I'm working off the SRD, so I don't know page numbers, but under "Doubling and Halving Damage" in the "Playing the Game" section, it states:
"Sometimes you’ll need to halve or double an amount of damage, such as when the outcome of your Strike is a critical hit, or when you succeed at a basic Reflex save against a spell. When this happens, you roll the damage normally, adding all the normal modifiers, bonuses, and penalties. Then you double or halve the amount as appropriate (rounding down if you halved it). "
Basically, the only damage that doesn't get doubled on a crit is damage that only applies on a crit.
While some advantages of the undead have been mentioned, I do actually kind of like the idea of a makeshift army of pots and pans, brooms and chairs, knives, swords, shields and buckets. So I think I might nab it, thanks.
I'm definitely gonna run at least one adventure involving a kindly old grandma who conquered a city with an army of animated cutlery.
Basically, invisibility is less "you succeed at Stealth now", and more "you will always at least be hidden from people relying on visual senses". It's not a bonus, but a base level of success.
And let's not scoff at hidden, which is both an action economy boost (you no longer have to Hide, you can go straight to Sneaking) and a defensive boost (a flat 50% chance for effects to miss you).
Invisibility is still a very strong option.
I was looking at a bunch paintings of an invading army from like 1500, and everyone was dual wielding swords. Thought that was cool.
And "looking cool" is exactly why they painted it that way. Just like in modern times, artists are not generally known for knowing how actual warfare is done, and they take a lot of artistic license with their subject matter. Whoever painted that just thought dual-wielding soldiers looked cool, since a battlefield is the worst possible place to try to fight with two weapons instead of a weapon and shield, polearm, or full plate and a two-handed weapon.
It's not because they were too effective, it's because of the lack of required training. The idea that anybody can just pick up a crossbow and have a dangerous weapon that poses a threat to even armored foes is terrifying to people who rely on a monopoly on violence as a means of controlling the masses.
The main reason crossbows started to see use in the real world is because they didn't really need much in the way of training to use. They were slower than bows and worse at long ranges*, but any peasant could pick one up and have a reasonable chance of shooting somebody with it, whereas archery required quite a bit more training.
This fits perfectly with them being simple weapons.
(* They could be fired with more force, but the smaller size of the crossbow bolts meant they'd lose power much more quickly than an arrow the farther they traveled.)
I realize that there are limited options in the playtest, but I really hope there are plans for more non-bomb related Alchemist feats in the full book. I love playing poison or elixer oriented Alchemists, but as it stands, there really isn't a way to focus on either of those as an Alchemist, since almost all of your feats are based on using or modifying bombs and nothing else.
Just as an example, the first feat you'll want if you're an Alchemist that wants to poison people isn't available until level 10. This is... disappointing.
The Deadly Simplicity feat increases the damage die of our favored wep (crossbows) from 1d8 -> 1d10. Then using Crossbow Ace and hunting our target the damage die is once again increased since we're using a Simple Crossbow. So 1d10 -> 1d12 and we get 1/2 our wisdom.
A weapon's damage die can never be increased by more than one step.
This isn't great for the rogue if she rolls poorly on initiative checks though.
The thing is, you'll be rolling Stealth for Initiative, while the guard will almost certainly be rolling Perception for Initiative. So basically, it just takes one last Stealth check (in the form of skill-based Initiative checks) to see if you can actually get off an attack before your target notices you.
"Sling staves" isn't quite a weapon, although there is a weapon called "Halfling Sling Staff". It's unclear where you get training in this weapon or if you just gain access to them. It feels like there meant to be a non-Halfling "Sling Staff" weapon that was left out.
"Staves" is actually one accepted form of plural for "staff".
Patrick McGrath wrote:
Each weapon group has its own special bonus critical effect that you only get if you have an ability that says so. For example, swords make the target flat-footed on a crit, but only if you have a feature or feat that lets you use that bonus. This is in addition to the normal critical effect of dealing double damage.
These effects are listed after the weapon traits section in the equipment chapter.
From what I can tell after my read-through of the rules, items no longer have HP. In lieu of HP, taking damage over their hardness will cause them to gain a dent, and taking more than twice their hardness in damage causes them to instead gain two dents. For most items, this causes them to be "broken" meaning that, with the exception of armor, they stop providing any benefits until repaired. If a broken item gains any additional dents, it is instead destroyed.
It actually takes twice the object's hardness to dent it, since hardness still reduces the damage the object takes before determining if it gets dented or not.
I'd rather the option to do both be baked into both of those classes, I'd rather not be forced to multi-class just to play my 1e character who doesn't multi-class.
This is a pointless distinction, since it's all done using class feats anyway. Basically, the Paladin can use class feats to gain some divine spellcasting, who cares if they call it multiclassing or not?
After reading about the barbarian's sudden leap feat
Based on the wording of Sudden Leap ("Even if you’re Leaping vertically, you determine the DC for the height you’re jumping using the DC of a Long Jump."), I think it's meant to allow you to jump a long-jump's distance vertically, so you can jump your Athletics check result -5 feet straight up to, for example, hit a flying enemy. If that's the case, then the language needs to be cleared up there.
If that's not the case, then it does at least drastically reduce the DC for the high jump (to 5 plus the height of the jump, instead of DC 30).
"Dwarves dislike goblinoids"
"Goblins are fond of fire"
"Elves are nimble"
You can have a like or dislike (or in the case of an elf, a certain trait) without getting a mechanical bonus for it. Getting the feat at higher levels just means that you're focusing on that like or dislike over the course of your career.
Basically, what these stance feats do is give you an alternate unarmed strike as a new "weapon" you can use. Any time you make an unarmed strike while in a stance, you can do so using the stats listed (though you're not required to, you can still make a basic unarmed strike: I know some people are, for example, using Dragon Stance but still using normal unarmed strikes for the Finesse trait).
With how some view Cantrip damage, I have to wonder if they even looked at the Alchemist's bombs?
You're underestimating the power of persistent damage, I think. That's #d4 per round, with a very difficult check required to stop the damage: even if they sacrifice an action to lower the DC, it's still only a 30% chance per round to end the effect, and they're effectively Slowed 1 while doing so.
I'd say that's a great step up from a cantrip, myself. You apply that damage to one enemy, concentrate on ending another, and then you can go back and finish the (now heavily damaged) first enemy fairly quickly.
Acid flasks are amazing.
They're trying to give each combat class their own identity in combat feats, rather than having all physical combatants basically wanting the same types of physical combat feats. I think it works better this way, and helps make the two more distinct. Cleave means the Barbarian wants to dig in and finish one foe to get a head-start on the next one, while Sweep means the Fighter wants to spread damage around a bit more, which gives each of their "hit two guys" type feats their own distinct feel.
Spell rolls are the new mechanic for caster level checks, which were also not used very commonly in PF1 either, but they were still necessary. Also, Spell Rolls will be used when attempting to counteract effects (page 319) where your spell's level isn't higher than the targeted effect's level, which includes things like counterspelling and remove X spells.
"Oh s&@#! The last time a guy wiggled his fingers at me like that, the whole town burned down... run!"
Is "zeonsghost" a dev? Because none of that points to larger weapons increasing the damage die, it just says what happens when damage dice are increased. As is, there are no listed rules about how larger or smaller weapons are treated.
It gives you a bonus to Performance checks, it doesn't let you use song, dance, or oratory as "instruments" for the purposes of Bard class features and feats.
Also, even if it did, a Bard shouldn't have to rely on a magic item to be able to be a Bardic singer, dancer, or orator.
Unless they're using ranged attacks from concealment, or the players don't have access to light (maybe the enemies snuffed their torch somehow).
I think they just need to put in a line about inattentive watchers. "You automatically become seen if you don’t have cover or
So far, all I've seen from the Bard is instruments, and not only does it not mention non-instrumental performances for a Bard, the Performance skill specifically separates singing and oratory, as well as dancing, from playing an instrument.
Can we really no longer make Bards that focus on song or dance or (my personal favorite) oration anymore?
A problem easily solved by adding rules in that supplement, if necessary.
Texas Snyper wrote:
The Basic X and Advanced X are so that you don't just get the multiclass feat at later levels and just jump right into the good stuff. Basic+Advanced gives your character a form of progression through the multiclass.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. If that's an issue then, this could just modify the Advanced X feat, instead of replacing both.
I like this idea, but shouldn't the dedication feat stay level 2?
This doesn't modify the dedication feat at all, it just has it as a prerequisite, so I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Just to be clear, this doesn't alter the level at which you can take the archetype feats, it only alters the level at which you can take the actual class feats of the class you're multiclassed into.
There may eventually be abilities that require a weapon of a specific damage type ("requires a bludgeoning weapon"). The issue with something like S/P is that it gives all multitype weapons a secret advantage for each such ability that comes out.
This way, you can say that, for example, a longsword still only counts as a slashing weapon for the purposes of such abilities, even though it technically has the ability to deal piercing damage.
So... you haven't actually looked at the alchemical items list, have you? All the bombs are first level. This is only there to make all the bombs viable at higher levels.
Empower Bombs currently does nothing for bombs that the alchemist creates that aren't 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, or 19th level bombs.
I think you might be misunderstanding how the ability works. As written, you can't empower any bombs that aren't 1st level. It's not that you can empower a 3rd level bomb to make it deal double damage, it's that you empower a 1st level bomb, which turns it into a 3rd level bomb that has a damage equal to twice what it was at first level.
So, a major problem I have with archetypes is the ability score requirements (I can be a full-power Wizard with 10 Intelligence, but I can't dabble in wizardry unless I'm a genius?), and a major problem I've seen other people mention is that you can only take class feats of half your level. I think we can solve both issues by removing the ability score requirements, and replacing the "Basic X" and "Advanced X" feats with the following:
Multiclass Feat (Archetype)
This way, if you really want to dig into your multiclass's high level feats, you'll need to shore up your multiclass's primary ability score... but if you just want to dabble a bit, you don't have to worry about it too much.
So one thing I'm having an issue with is the way certain things in the Playtest book are organized, namely powers and skill feats.
Generally speaking, if I'm going looking for a spell or a power, that's all I'm looking for: I'm either looking for the mechanics of a power that my class is giving me, or I'm looking through my available spells in order to see what I can prepare or learn. There is no reason for spells and powers to share the same section of the book. Ideally, I'd rather see each class have its own powers section to make it easy to find the power I'm looking for (with a line referencing the spells section for the rules on how they work, since they work like spells), but I'd at least settle for powers and spells having their own unique sections, then having powers be divided by class in their own section. As far as I can tell, powers are unique to each class, so there's no reason they should be all mixed together, and especially not mixed together with the spells as well.
As for skill feats, it's the same thing: when I go looking for a skill feat, I don't want to have to go look through the entire list of skill feats. If I'm looking to take a new skill feat, for example, I'm far more likely to want to choose a skill to be awesome at, and then pick a skill feat from that skill's list. And if, for example, I remember that there's a skill feat that does something cool, but I don't remember the name of it, it would be much easier to just go to the appropriate skill's section and find the skill feat there, rather than having to read through the whole list again finding the one I want. Skill feats that require a skill should each be listed at the end of their respective skill's description, and skill feats that don't should have their own section before the general feats section (again, with a line reminding players that they can still be chosen as general feats).
Also, one final little nitpick that doesn't really deserve its own thread, but it's a general feat and I just mentioned general feats, so I'll put it here: Ancestral Paragon allows you to choose an ancestry feat of your level -1, but that limitation doesn't matter, and it specifically messes things up for humans. There are no ancestry feats with a level requirement that's equal to that of a general feat, since they're awarded at different levels, so you're always going to be forced to choose an ancestry feat of a lower level anyway, since those are the only ones you'd qualify for. Unless, of course, you're a human, who has the ability to choose a general feat at 1st level... which means that if you choose Ancestral Paragon, you gain the ability to choose a level 0 ancestry feat. That obviously doesn't work. Of course, experienced players will just say "Don't pick that feat at first level.", but since the limitation doesn't matter anyway (as mentioned above), it would make far more sense to just have it be a level 3 general feat and let you take any ancestry feat that you qualify for.
Captain Morgan wrote:
So instead of making three attacks, you just got an enemy to waste two actions to get away from you, and only have one left to make an attack? And they can't even use any multi-action abilities?
Sounds like a win to me.
And unlike Seelah, Valeros has nothing specific to offer once the enemy's closed on an ally.
Sure he does: he has Sudden Charge so he can move in, flank with the ally the enemy went after, and still be able to make two attacks (twice as many as the enemy was able to make, if you'll recall).
I feel a bit confused as how that d20 icon next to the skills, saves, etc. works. It seems to indicate proficiency but it feels a bit weird, sometimes it's just the top dot, sometimes just the bottom one, and sometimes multiples. I wonder how that is supposed to be read.
I'm pretty sure it's just a filler symbol, representing "This is your bonus to d20 rolls using this Skill/Save/Whatever." The "dots" aren't actually dots, just artifacts from the low quality of the image.
None of those are as clear and distinct as "When you take a Stride action".
It actually goes even further than that. The devs have specifically said that they chose the terms they chose so that the language of abilities can flow smoothly, but still be solidly defined so as to avoid the "natural language" issues that 5e ran into, with ambiguities in the rules. It's a great balance between natural language and unambiguous rules.
So it's not "When you take a Stride action.", it's very specifically designed so they can say "When you Stride." That's why all the action types we've seen so far have been verbs.
I, for one, am actually a big fan of this method.
As has already been shown in the preview material, being at positive hit points doesn't wake you up anymore, you still have to make checks to regain consciousness. In addition, as Malk said, your dying levels also stay active even once you do wake up, so if you do down again, you're that much closer to dying.
I'm pretty sure the shield only takes 5 damage, and the rules for taking double hardness in damage are just the general rules for damaging objects. It's a little confusing, but that seems to make the most sense.
Sure, when it makes sense. For Seoni, it doesn't make sense. As Wayne Reynolds said, he didn't know where she came from when he first drew her. Now that he knows she comes from a cooler region, he's drawing her as being dressed appropriately for her climate.
The difference is that this decision-making process is done at the start of the day, when everybody's just puttering around and doing whatever. It doesn't come in the middle of combat, where one person is taking forever deciding what to do with their turn when combat is supposed to be fast-paced and fun.
To be clear, I'm not convinced that free heightening for the Sorcerer would create this decision paralysis problem, I'm just trying to clarify why it happening during combat as opposed to during prep time would be a problem.