JRutterbush's page

I'd rather have an expanded/reworked archetype purely for snares, since it's more fitting.

I think a lot of people missed that snares were still going to be around in an archetype. This is objectively better than leaving them as part of the Ranger, because a Ranger can still take the snare feats at any level they would have if they were class feats, but now other classes can also make traps.

Twilight2k wrote:

The new crit for crossbow is weird. Realistically, an arrow wound would bleed far more than a bolt wound - they almost feel backwards to me.

Plenty of people point out that bucklers and shields are backwards on which one is strapped to your arm and which is held.

Most infantry shields would have been held rather than strapped too, actually. Strapped shields was mostly a thing when mounted combat became more of a staple: design requirements led to smaller, thicker metal shields with a strap to leave the hand free to hold reins.

But in P2E, a spontaneous spellcaster in that same situation (needs to use a low-level (or I guess, low-rank) spell, knows said spell (but not as a signature spell), doesn't have spell slots of that spell's rank but does have higher rank slots available) is just SoL.

This is a misunderstanding of the spell slot rules. You can always use a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell, you just can't heighten that spell unless you know it at the correct level or it's a signature spell.

I can cast a fireball with a 5th level spell slot if I have no 3rd level slots left, it's just going to deal the base 6d6 damage, not the 10d6 it would deal if I had heightened it to 5th level.

Or is this a non-issue because the Remaster gave spontaneous spellcasters the freedom to power their spells with whatever slots met the minimum criteria that they used to enjoy?

This doesn't come from the remaster, it's how the rules have always worked.

aobst128 wrote:

The rest of the spell maybe not so much but it puts you on par with martials starting at 7th level minus any status bonuses they happen to have.

The bold part is kind of my problem with it though. It means your self buff designed to make you a relevant martial gets worse the more party buffing you have (and better the less your party has). That feels kind of janky.

It's not designed to make you a "relevant martial" though, it's designed to let you step in for a martial if you have to, in specific situations. You shouldn't be able to be a full caster with powerful focus spells and be able to be equivalent to a martial as well, that's one of the biggest contributors to the martial/caster disparity that PF2 has done such a good job of overcoming so far.

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Am I reading the Animist right?

After 10th level, they become a 5 slot caster (for ranks 1st-8th), with 2 prepared and 3 spontaneous?

The table includes the bonus spells from Advanced Interlocution, so you get exactly what's in the table.

Then what's the point of making it an ability instead of just using the table? It's already a unique spell slot table, this just seems like a weird extra step that serves no purpose other than to cause confusion.

The thing about a game like this is that there is room for many different people comfortable with many different levels of complexity.

Not good with complex stuff? Sorcerer.
Okay with moderately complex stuff? Wizard.
Like complexity? Animist.

I, for example, really love the idea of mixed spellcasting and I have absolutely zero concerns about the level of complexity because complexity is something I'm comfortable dealing with.

I feel like the intention was to be #3, but the weird way they worded it actually does #1, which seems like a super-buffed version of Power Attack (which I'm not necessarilly opposed to).

I could be wrong, though, and they actually meant to do #1... but if that's the case they should definitely clean up the wording. For example:

"If this Strike hits, it deals an extra die of weapon damage, and the bonus spirit damage is increased to +4 per weapon damage die. If you’re at least 10th level, increase this to two extra dice and +6 damage per weapon die, and if you’re at least 18th level, increase it to three extra dice and +8 damage per weapon die."

A GM might say that his campaign might not work well with Summoners. Maybe a homebrew setting doesn't even have druids!

That would be why I specifically said "in a normal game set in Golarion".

Secondly, my entire point was you could ditch the demigod angle and still have them work as a class by reflavoring them as a different kind of monk (and have their 'divine spark' be 'focust chi' or something).

Yes, you can do that. And to do that you'd have to discuss it with your GM... which is what the "Rare" trait is meant to be about. They want the baseline class to have a specific flavor based on their setting, so it's designed to fit that. If you want to change that flavor, that's fine... talk to your GM.

Maybe I just want to be a swordsman who has honed their skill so much that I have developed supernatural abilties. I don't want the demigod baggage. Why take that option away/not make it available?

It is an option. By talking to your GM.

Like I said, all I'm asking for is a sidebar saying 'hey, you can make this class non-rare by reflavoring it like this,' so people know it is an option.

Sure, that would be a useful thing to have... in the final product. Which this is not.

It's still effectively only +1 if you have a shield raised, it just includes the shield's +2 circumstance as well.

Ah right, I haven't played PF2 in a while, I forgot they removed circumstance bonuses stacking if they're from different sources. Thanks for the reminder.

The classic Spartans are usually shown wearing gleaming golden breastplates.

Sorry, I should have said "The classic image most people think of thanks to modern media."

Like Gilgamesh and Enkidu became fast-friends by throwing down over a period of days, Beowulf kills Grendel with his bare hands, Heracles strangles the Nemean lion, Odysseus wins an argument with Greater Ajax by fighting dirty in a wrestling match, Bhima finally ends the cruel reign of Jarasandha by tearing him in half in a wrestling match, etc.

None of these heroes were dedicated unarmed fighters though (at least not that I remember). They have feats of strength that involved defeating foes without weapons, but they still used weapons most of the time. Their unarmed fights were notable because they weren't unarmed fighters, it was a challenge they overcame, not their standard method of engaging with their enemies.

If you want to mimic these heroes you don't need ikons that focus on it, you just need high Strength, maybe some Athletics feats for wrestling, and if you really want unarmed combat as a fallback just take Monk Dedication.

"I focus on defeating foes with my bare hands." and "I'm so strong I can sometimes defeat a foe with my bare hands." are not the same thing.

My point is 'why make them rare?'

Because being Rare means you have to talk to your GM about playing one. It's not saying you can't play it, it's saying that in a normal game set in Golarion choosing this option has Story Implications, and that's something that you should work with your GM to hammer out rather than just showing up with a demigod and ignoring how much of an impact that would have from a roleplaying perspective.

Either you talk to your GM about playing a demigod and the way that might affect the story, or you tell your GM "I like these mechanics but I want to use a different source for my power.", which is also something you need to work out with your GM.

You're correct that it is infinite self-healing, but the medicine skill trivializes out of combat healing anyway.

I don't think it trivializes it unless you just have unlimited time between encounters, which is an issue with adventure design. It is another source of technically-unlimited healing though, even if it is even slower than a Paladin, so that is a good note to make.

In the end it looks like it's not quite as powerful as I thought, but is still a very strong and thematic thing for a demigod to be able to do. I have decided that I like it.

There's a worn ikon that gives you +1 AC or +3 while you have a shield raised. There's a body ikon that lets you just heal 1d8 per round as an action at will. I think the idea is that this class is meant to use methods other than the raw AC bonus from armor to survive.

If you're going with a Dexterity build, then your light armor is fine. If you're going with a Strength build, then thematically you're much more likely to be taking the ikons that let you just no-sell damage or heal it quickly rather than focusing on not getting hit. Or, of course, be the classic "naked Spartan with a shield and spear" if you take the bracer ikon.

Whether that's mechanically viable or not remains to be seen, and that's what playtesting is for... but it definitely seems like it's the thematic vision they're going for.

Scar of the Survivor's "No Scar But This" lets you recover 1d8 hit points as an action. It's a transcendence ability so you can only use it once per round, but if you're not in combat that's one action to use No Scar But This, then one action to put your spark back in your body ikon to use it again next round.

I'm not seeing anything that stops you from using this to just heal up to full between every encounter, assuming you have a minute or so to use it. I'm not necessarily against the idea, it does seem very demigodly, but I'm not sure it's an intended thing since I'm not sure of any other class that gets to do anything similar.

Edit: Actually I think the Paladin can do something similar with Lay on Hands, but that's a minimum of 10 minutes per application. I guess it technically is another form of unlimited out of combat healing though, so maybe it's not as unprecedented as I thought.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Mythic rules are categorically NOT an extension of the game past 20th level.

- Mythic rules are in the book

- These rules are explicitly not an extension past lvl 20.
- The book is apparently full of archetypes that are capable of granting various forms of immortality.

Hm....

I'm going to guess for the moment that "mythic rules" is mostly "you get a mythic archetype", possibly with some sort of Free Archetype thing.

My guess has always been that "Mythic Archetype" is a new, separate mechanical 'slot' for characters.

That is how the original mythic rules worked. It wasn't a post-20 progression it was a completely separate 10 rank progression that could be added to characters at any level. In fact I used it alongside E6 to make for an interesting alternate progression style while keeping actual levels low.

I'm guessing it's gonna be something similar here, a completely separate progression path that can be slotted in whenever you want to start being mythic.

So does animist give 1 focus point, singular, or 2 focus points, plural? I assume it gives 2, because it says 2. But it says "you start with a focus pool of 2 Focus Point" singular, implying someone changed their mind halfway through the design process or forgot to type an "s".

It gets 2. You get 1 Focus Point per Focus Spell you have, and they start with 2 Focus Spells. This is further clarified when they get their third apparition slot (and thus third Focus Spell), which also says that their Focus Points increase to 3.

I'm kinda confused on why page 3's sidebar doesn't specify they are trained in divine tradition, is that new format change or typo? Took me while to read what tradition they could cast

I really hope this isn't a typo, because it would mean that spell attack and DC are no longer tied to tradition at all, they're just your general spellcasting ability like weapon proficiency is your general fighting ability.

This makes multiclass archetype spellcasting, for example, so much easier to deal with.

Also is Animist just the highest spell slot class out there now? They get 4 per spell rank baseline, but they also get +1 apparition slot per rank at level 10, which unless I'm missing something is 5 spell slots per rank. It's been a while since I looked at PF2 stuff but I don't think any other class gets more than 4 slots per rank.

Personally I'm sort of horrified that this class gets NO save upticks. Like resolve, juggernaut, evasion, etc. It's possible that this is just the model for classes going forward and kineticist was a weird exception because it's Con-based, but it's concerning.

The Channeler Intermediate Boon grants Master Fortitude proficiency, so I think they're going to be in the subclass choices rather than the core class features to allow for more differentiate between each subclass.

Also, Stand Still (4th) could give you a good Reaction that takes advantage of reach. (It doesn't seem to ignore MAP though...)

All off-turn attacks ignore the MAP.

"The multiple attack penalty applies only during your turn, so you don’t have to keep track of it if you can perform an Attack of Opportunity or a similar reaction that lets you make a Strike on someone else’s turn."

There is a strange phenomenon wherein upgrading steel is so trivial that it is cost-free as part of scribing runes, but upgrading any other material becomes exorbitantly expensive, raising the total price to double or more.

Do weaknesses really double on a critical hit? I am looking at page 453, and I can find no such rule.

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.

Yes. Basically, you just get a special Monk shield because your just that damn tough. But remember that you only have to use one action to enter Mountain Stance, so once you've done that, it's just one action per round afterward.

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".

It states that when you are using a weapon of ancestry, you do critical effects when roll a critical.

Wouldn't that happen anyway? I am confused. What is the point of this feat?

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).

Paladins have a class ability that increases the damage die of a simple weapon by one step, if it is the favored weapon of their deity.

That's not a proficiency, so it wouldn't apply to the dogslicer.

"Dwarves dislike goblinoids"
Why do you need a bonus to hit goblinoids to dislike goblinoids?

"Goblins are fond of fire"
Why do you need a bonus to using fire to like fire?

"Elves are nimble"
Elves already start with a 30 foot speed (sounds pretty nimble to me), this is just getting even more 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.

Probably a silly question but... are the strikes activated by the different stances compatible with Flurry of Blows? ie can you make two Dragon Tail\Tiger Claw etc attacks as part of a Flurry?

As written, I would think so as the stance attacks have the unarmed trait and Flurry only specifies that you make two unarmed strikes.

But unable to find anything to clarify and seeing that this may cause some contention at the table, I thought I'd ask the experts :)

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.

Thing is, that warrior survived to level 20.

He's probably fought dragons, battled through armies of skeletal mages, broken major artefacts, and sought advice from the highest sages of all the lands for his quests.

"Oh s$@$! The last time a guy wiggled his fingers at me like that, the whole town burned down... run!"

Yeah, I think the "Success" part of Disarm should instead read "Until the start of that creature's turn, treat any successful Disarm against that item as a critical success instead."

Actually, are the only pregens we have the ones that ENWorld previewed? Because if they have a pregen feat for Amiri, we could just look at the damage listed for her weapon and see if it's different than expected.

Colette Brunel wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

Page 91, "INCREASING WEAPON DAMAGE DICE"

That does not say anything about larger weapons dealing more damage

Voss wrote:

zeonsghost wrote:

I'm having trouble finding the damage for Large Weapons, as described in the Titan Mauler ability on Page 56. Any ideas where it's hiding at?

It's probably the fighter sidebar on page 91. Increasing Weapon Damage Dice.

1d4->1d6->1d8->1d10->1d12-> +2 bonus.

You can never increase weapon damage dice more than once.

So a large greatsword would be 1d12+2.

If it _isn't_ that, its basically a 404 error, rules reference not found. The playtest rules basically ignore size except for moving through, hiding behind and screening.

It really ought to be explicit though, because this feels like an educated guess.

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.

Voss wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Persona Mask.

Sigh.

Is that a reference to something else, or are you citing a rule somewhere?

It’s a magic item for these performances. You can use them when appropriate.

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.

Axelwarrior wrote:

JDLPF wrote:

On the other hand, I provisionally see this as a possible welcome change since this means no enemies can ambush the party. They can't use Stealth to attack since "if you attack a creature you’re unseen by, that creature is not flatfooted against that attack."

Why do you think that's the case? The Unseen condition states:

"If a creature is unseen, you have no idea where it is. You
don’t know what space it occupies, you’re flat-footed to
it, and you can’t easily target it with attacks or targeted
spells and affects. "

Enemies can still ambush the party by attacking from behind cover or concealment, such as in a dense forest or a dark dungeon (assuming there's no light on them and the PCs don't have darkvision).

The only difference it makes is that a melee rogue can't effectively use Sneak in combat to get Sneak Attacks, unless under very specific circumstances.

No, they can't. The instant before the enemy tries to attack, they are revealed and no longer unseen, per the Stealth rules, and the player is no longer flat-footed.

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
aren’t concealed from them at any time during your movement, unless a creature that might see you is otherwise distracted and not looking in that direction, as determined by the GM."

You guys are all wrong, it's a carbon copy of Dungeon World. You roll dice and go on adventures! It's exactly the same, it's really super disappointing...

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?