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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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 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.

I gotta say, I find it a little off-putting that I can start out as a Wizard with a 10 Intelligence and have full access to all class features, but if I want to dabble just the tiniest bit without having started out as a Wizard, suddenly I have to have a 16 Intelligence.

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 don't like the changes to the Iconic Sorcereress, another victory for neovictorianism is disappointing to me.

There is nothing wrong with some sex appeal.

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.

willuwontu wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

My issue with the "option paralysis" reason is twofold:

1) Why isn't this a problem with the Wizard? A wizard knows more spells and can have more slots as well, depending on specialisation. And they can heighten their spells to any level. But they also have to choose that heightening at the start of the day. I can see a lot more option paralysis there as they hem and haw about what to prepare in which slot at the start of the day than a Sorcerer during a fight. Especially since I've seen it happen in PF1 (but with a Cleric, not a wizard).

Because a wizard doesn't prepare/choose their spells in the middle if combat for casting.

And? If anything, having to lock your choices at the start of the day would generate more option paralysis, not less.

"Man, should I prepare dispel magic as 5th level? Or 4th? Well the bad guy is supposed to be a wizard. But I got no idea what level. Oh man."

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.

JRutterbush wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

JRutterbush wrote:

The only time the Sorcerer's versatility outshines the Wizard's is when there is a time-sensitive issue that must be solved within 24 hours that requires more than 2 or 3 uses of a given spell that is common enough for the Sorcerer to use a limited spell known slot on. This does not come up nearly enough to balance out the Wizard's versatility in most other situations.

Do you even random encounter or engage in combat without knowing the enemy a day ahead of time, bro.

And the Sorcerer knew the enemy three levels ahead of time? We're comparing Sorcerer to Wizard here, not just looking at the Wizard on its own. In a surprise encounter like the one you're describing, the Sorcerer and Wizard are on even footing, since neither of them knew enough about the encounter in advance to prepare their spells to match it.

However, in an encounter where the enemy is known in advance, the clear advantage is to the Wizard, since the Sorcerer can't change their spells to match an upcoming encounter, even if they know it's coming.

Both the Wizard and the Sorcerer can take a set of general spells that allow them to solve the most common problems in the game. The difference is that when they know about a specific problem in advance, the Wizard can spend some time to specialize their spell selection to overcome it, while the Sorcerer can't.

So again, either the Sorcerer and Wizard are on equal footing, or the Wizard has the clear advantage.

As already said, it depends on "how much in advance". Retraining is a thing in PF2, it is available in the basic set of rules. So a sorcerer can change his entire set of spells, if he has enough time.

And the Wizard can do it in one day, and use the rest of those downtime days that the Sorcerer is spending to retrain to edge ahead on the WBL curve... Again, advantage Wizard.

Remember, were comparing the Sorcerer to the Wizard here, not just listing what the Sorcerer can do.

JRutterbush wrote:

How many fights have you been in where the only way to contribute was to spam the same spell over and over? Maybe one in dozens. Overall, the Wizard is still at an advantage. Pointing out one very specific and very rare circumstance where the Sorcerer can shine doesn't change that.

Also, a Wizard will likely prepare multiple elemental spells and be fine against most enemies. But if, say, they're fighting fire elementals, the Wizard still has 2 or 3 solid blasting spells they can use, while a Sorcerer who chose a fire spell as their primary damage spell is just plain out of luck. So again, large scale versatility trumps small scale.

You appear to suffer from some conceptual limitations that I'm not sure I can break through

I understand what you're saying, I just think you're wrong. And your condescending tone isn't really helping the matter, either.

JRutterbush wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

JRutterbush wrote:

The only time the Sorcerer's versatility outshines the Wizard's is when there is a time-sensitive issue that must be solved within 24 hours that requires more than 2 or 3 uses of a given spell that is common enough for the Sorcerer to use a limited spell known slot on. This does not come up nearly enough to balance out the Wizard's versatility in most other situations.

Do you even random encounter or engage in combat without knowing the enemy a day ahead of time, bro.

And the Sorcerer knew the enemy three levels ahead of time? We're comparing Sorcerer to Wizard here, not just looking at the Wizard on its own. In a surprise encounter like the one you're describing, the Sorcerer and Wizard are on even footing, since neither of them knew enough about the encounter in advance to prepare their spells to match it.

However, in an encounter where the enemy is known in advance, the clear advantage is to the Wizard, since the Sorcerer can't change their spells to match an upcoming encounter, even if they know it's coming.

Both the Wizard and the Sorcerer can take a set of general spells that allow them to solve the most common problems in the game. The difference is that when they know about a specific problem in advance, the Wizard can spend some time to specialize their spell selection to overcome it, while the Sorcerer can't.

So again, either the Sorcerer and Wizard are on equal footing, or the Wizard has the clear advantage.

If a Sorcerer needs to cast a single high level offensive spell 3-4 times in a day to overcome an encounter, he can. No Wizard is going to prepare the same offensive spell 3-4 times, and if he does the Sorcerer beats him because he has other spells known that he can flexibly shift into if a Teleport ends up being more useful than Fireball [5th].

For bread and butter fights without weird (strong) resistances or immunities the Sorcerer has a flexible ability to spam a solid all around...

How many fights have you been in where the only way to contribute was to spam the same spell over and over? Maybe one in dozens. Overall, the Wizard is still at an advantage. Pointing out one very specific and very rare circumstance where the Sorcerer can shine doesn't change that.

Also, a Wizard will likely prepare multiple elemental spells and be fine against most enemies. But if, say, they're fighting fire elementals, the Wizard still has 2 or 3 solid blasting spells they can use, while a Sorcerer who chose a fire spell as their primary damage spell is just plain out of luck. So again, large scale versatility trumps small scale.

JRutterbush wrote:

The only time the Sorcerer's versatility outshines the Wizard's is when there is a time-sensitive issue that must be solved within 24 hours that requires more than 2 or 3 uses of a given spell that is common enough for the Sorcerer to use a limited spell known slot on. This does not come up nearly enough to balance out the Wizard's versatility in most other situations.

Do you even random encounter or engage in combat without knowing the enemy a day ahead of time, bro.

And the Sorcerer knew the enemy three levels ahead of time? We're comparing Sorcerer to Wizard here, not just looking at the Wizard on its own. In a surprise encounter like the one you're describing, the Sorcerer and Wizard are on even footing, since neither of them knew enough about the encounter in advance to prepare their spells to match it.

However, in an encounter where the enemy is known in advance, the clear advantage is to the Wizard, since the Sorcerer can't change their spells to match an upcoming encounter, even if they know it's coming.

Both the Wizard and the Sorcerer can take a set of general spells that allow them to solve the most common problems in the game. The difference is that when they know about a specific problem in advance, the Wizard can spend some time to specialize their spell selection to overcome it, while the Sorcerer can't.

So again, either the Sorcerer and Wizard are on equal footing, or the Wizard has the clear advantage.

JRutterbush wrote:

People keep comparing the PF2 Sorcerer to the PF1 Sorcerer, which is a mistake. It's a new edition, stop comparing it to the past. We need to be comparing the PF2 Sorcerer to other PF2 casters, and that's where it loses. I'm sorry, but spontaneous casting from a very limited list does not make up for the loss of versatility when compared to Wizards who can prepare from a spellbook full of spells, or divine casters that still automatically know every single spell on their list. We know from previous editions how powerful having access to such a large selection of spells is, and that spontaneous casting simply doesn't match up to it at all.

This is only true from a long term campaign perspective where time is not of the essence. As a specialist in "solving immediate, common, and recurring problems" the Sorcerer was and is better than the Wizard. Having a versatile utility and combat spell known (plus a bloodline spell and one freebie) that can be spammed up to four times a day can be much more useful than a Wizard having 3-4 options, some fringe or potentially useless, with only one repeatable at need.

That's not the balancing factor you think it is. Wizards can prepare commonly needed spells as well, and they have options to re-cast spells if they need to use them multiple times. But even in a fast-paced campaign, a Wizard's ability to react day-to-day to the path the adventures are taking vastly outclasses the Sorcerer's minute-to-minute versatility. A sudden surge of undead start attacking villages? On day 1, the Wizard and the Sorcerer are equally unable to adapt to the situation. From day 2 onward, however, the Wizard is preparing anti-undead spells, while the Sorcerer is still stuck with whatever static spells they know. And if the Sorcerer uses some downtime to retrain to anti-undead spells (keeping in mind that this means it's now a situation where "time is not of the essence"), they're in the same boat again once the focus of the campaign shifts away from undead.

The only time the Sorcerer's versatility outshines the Wizard's is when there is a time-sensitive issue that must be solved within 24 hours that requires more than 2 or 3 uses of a given spell that is common enough for the Sorcerer to use a limited spell known slot on. This does not come up nearly enough to balance out the Wizard's versatility in most other situations.

People keep comparing the PF2 Sorcerer to the PF1 Sorcerer, which is a mistake. It's a new edition, stop comparing it to the past. We need to be comparing the PF2 Sorcerer to other PF2 casters, and that's where it loses. I'm sorry, but spontaneous casting from a very limited list does not make up for the loss of versatility when compared to Wizards who can prepare from a spellbook full of spells, or divine casters that still automatically know every single spell on their list. We know from previous editions how powerful having access to such a large selection of spells is, and that spontaneous casting simply doesn't match up to it at all.

Sorcerers need to have more spell slots, unlimited heightens, or a much larger focus on Spell Points and Powers to compensate for their lack of versatility.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Logan Bonner wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

I hope blasting damage is looking all right. I've been optimistic, but those feats leave me a little underwhelmed at first glance. (Though, if Dangerous Sorcery works off each seperate "hit" for a spell, Heightened Magic Missile is gonna be awesome.)

That's definitely one we're planning to keep a close eye on!

AAAAW HEEELL YEAAAH. If Dangerous Sorcery gives damage to each missile, that spell is gonna be a popular Spontaneous Heighten Choice.

1st level: 3d4+3+3 =13.5
3rd level: 6d4+6+18 = 39
5th level: 9d4+9+45 = 76.5
7th level: 12d4+12+84 = 126
9th level 15d4+15+135 = 187.5

Those numbers are significantly better than what we were seeing for the AoE damage, as I predicted. Especially when you consider it is there's no save

That means a 5th level Dangerous Sorcerer probably won't be one shotting a Red Cap, but if that thing has taken even a single greatsword hit, it is dead. And those higher level numbers.... Mmmf.

Yeah, the wording right now is technically ambiguous on multi-"particle" effects in general, since the entire spell gets the bonus damage. It certainly should not apply to every particle, and I think the best close reading doesn't cause it to do so (though still leaves you questioning exactly where it goes), but I imagine some people are going to be running it the problematic way, which will provide a useful test of both unless we want to just errata it to avoid that variation. This is not just something for the sorcerer feat, it's an issue with any +damage or -damage source (since -3 to all damage is definitely something that can happen and would pretty much render magic missile useless if you applied per missile), as well as resistances and weaknesses. I think it will be clear to most that if a spell 52.5 damage and a feat seems to increase that by 135 damage, something is not working properly.

I think the best way to handle it is to make the bonus damage per-target, and not per-spell. That way, magic missile doesn't become a single-target slaughterspell, but it's better for multiple targets just like, say, a burning hands would be.

Quandary wrote:

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

I still don't understand what they're getting to compensate for having no more spells per day than a wizard though.

I can't help you there, that seems like key issue. Curious how Paizo views the issue.

The ability to cast at the same rate as the wizard seems to me like a much better thing to have than the ability to cast an extra spell of each of my weakest spell levels (in PF1, specialists have 5+ in their lower slots and sorcerers have 6+, but sorcerers don't have the highest slot at all half the time, and even when they get it, they are not ahead). Or to put it another way, if you gave me an option in PF2, for wizard or sorcerer alike, to not get access to a new spell level at odd levels in exchange for a bonus spell per day of all but my top level of spells, I would not take that deal.

So unless you would take that deal, this is another gain for the sorcerer over its PF1 counterpart.

The point isn't how the PF2 Sorcerer compares to the PF1 Sorcerer, though, it's how it compares to the PF2 Wizard. They have the same number of spells, but the Sorcerer has an incredibly limited list from which to choose those spells. Look at any comparisons in PF1 and you'll find that the Wizard's requirement to prepare spells in their slots does not diminish the fact that their versatility in spell selection is the main draw.

Spontaneously casting from a very small list of spells known does not make up for the loss of versatility from being able to prepare spells from a massive list of possible options, even if all other things (like the levels at which new spell levels are gained) are equal. That's why the Sorcerer (starting in 3e and continuing in PF1) is supposed to be getting more spells per day, not just the slightly slower spell progression.

brad2411 wrote:

Mark from the Podcast Thread wrote:

Resonance is getting rid of pretty much the per-day tracking other than "Once per day" or "At will, as resonance allows." But consumables are still consumable. Just as casting 10 scrolls is going to cost 10 RP and use up the 10 scrolls, same with a wand (but cheaper than buying 10 scrolls).

Whelp, that sucks. I was really hoping to get away from that with wands. Maybe I'll have to come up with a price point that makes them reasonable as an unlimited item.

Yeah, this has pretty much caused me to do a complete 180 on Resonance. I loved the idea as a replacement for charges, but in addition to them? Looks like I finally have my "thing I'm immediately going to house rule" for the new edition.

I'm still looking forward to the playtest, but this is definitely putting a damper on things.

Maybe rather than charges per se it's uses per day? You still use resonance to activate, but can only do so a given number of times each day? To prevent stuff like a character using a wand of fireball 20 times a day every day, if that is considered a problem.

That still doesn't address the problem of having a dozen items with charges to keep track of each day, though.

So in the latest Glass Cannon Podcast for the playtest, it was mentioned that the wand of magic missile had 5 charges, but it was later said that it would still require Resonance to cast from it. I think these specific statements need clarification. The only reason I'm okay with Resonance as a mechanic is because it can be used to replace the need to track charges on a dozen or more magic items, not add to it. If we're going to have to deal with tracking charges on individual items as well as tracking Resonance, that removes what is, in my opinion, the main benefit of using the mechanic in the first place (as there are many ways to deal with the Wand of CLW issue).

Is this really how things like wands will work, requiring both charges and Resonance, or is this another case of the Podcast getting something wrong?

People seem to be misunderstanding the Sneak in Exploration Mode thing. Remember, systems for exploration almost always have rules where you have to decide what sort of thing you're doing while you're exploring, which limits your ability to do other things. For example, most exploration systems in RPG's would have "Be in Stealth mode." and "Be in trapfinding mode." be two separate things you can do while exploring... but a Legendary Stealth character could do both, because they don't have to declare that they're in "Stealth mode".

Some pretty awesome stuff in there. The things that stand out the most, to me at least, are build-your-own familiars, what looks like a new (and more interesting) approach to item-based ability score changes, and Fighters (a favorite class of mine as well) having a lot more interesting choices for how to spend their combat rounds.

I can't wait for August.

I highly doubt they're suddenly going to change it so only Intelligence based classes get bonus skills from Intelligence. Why do so many people seem to think this is the case?

One thing that I do hope we get in 2E that hasn't been directly mentioned is a better way of approximating large numbers of creatures.

1E had swarms for smaller creatures and troops for larger creatures.

I feel like the troop rules should be tweaked a bit (such as likely removing the unavoidable damage and instead having special troop attacks similar to the marilith mentioned in the blog) but deserve a place in the playtest bestiary.

Having an easy solution to "the entire Goblin encampment is angry at you" without having combat rounds take half an hour seems like a near-requirement for a new game.

One workaround I ended up using was to simply pool HP. Say you have a camp of 20 goblin warriors with 15 HP each and 10 goblin rogues with 10 HP each. The goblin warriors have 300 HP, while the goblin rogues have 100 HP. Any damage dealt to a goblin of one group deals damage to the group as a whole, and every multiple of that group's normal HP "kills" a member of that group. Even if you deal more damage than one enemy would normally have HP for, the total damage is still applied to the pooled HP: any excess can be flavored as morale damage to the remaining enemies, and enemies that "die" from this excess damage can simply flee (and anyone that tries to attack them while fleeing hits and kills them automatically, since they're already "dead").

So, for example, say your party's Fighter attacks one goblin warrior for 10 damage. The warriors now have 290 HP. Then the Rogue jumps in and deals 25 damage with a sneak attack, leaving the warriors with 265 HP. That's a total of (10 + 25) 35 points of damage, or two goblins: the Rogue's attack finishes off the goblin they hit, and another nearby goblin gets spooked by the gore and runs away.

Then it's the Wizard's turn: they pick a cluster and let off a fireball, dealing 20 damage to 5 goblins, and 10 damage to 5 more who made their saves. That's a total of 150 damage, which kills or drives away 10 goblins.

(These numbers are all streamlined for the purposes of the examples, obviously.)

It's worked out pretty well as an approximation so far, you just have to be open to interpretation on how enemies "die" if damage spills over.

Mark Seifter wrote:

gwynfrid wrote:

This looks great. The fusion of DR and energy resistance feels like something so evident that it should have been done 10 years ago!

In fact, it actually almost happened 1 year ago. Starfinder had this combined resistance, for a time, until compatibility with PF1 monsters (which used the DR and energy resistance format) forced the slide backwards to DR and energy resistance later on.

I wonder if you are kicking yourself over that decision now. I would ;P

At any rate, I think this post has helped to convert a lot of the PF2 sceptics over. Well done!

So far, the vast majority of problems I've had with Pathfinder (PF1 and PF2 alike) and Starfinder are things that came about because they didn't feel comfortable straying too far away from What Came Before. They still haven't gotten over that for PF2, but they've definitely taken a lot of great steps.

Joe M. wrote:

Blog wrote:

To close off, many people have been wondering how in the world we handle creatures with many heads, like the hydra, or arms, like the marilith or hekatonkheires, in the 3-action system. Such creatures have unique abilities to use their attacks in tandem in different ways. For instance, a marilith has three options for her six blades. She can make a focused assault on one enemy, which can deal a massive amount of damage on a hit, and deals damage for a single longsword even on a failure (but not a critical failure). Alternatively, she can spin about like a whirlwind of blades, attacking up to six different creatures with her swords. Finally, she can just attack twice and use the other blades to parry, giving her a killer AC for 1 round.

Question: What are the action costs for these options? Do they all use all 3 actions?

Maybe I'm missing it, but it really isn't obvious to me from the text. Which left me with the weird feeling that the blog doesn't answer the very question it sets up here (i.e., 'how in the world we handle [multiattack] in the 3-action system').

They are activities that use enough of her actions that she can only pick one to perform.

That is a surprisingly cagey answer for something that one would assume could be phrased as "They cost two or three actions." Do Mariliths have a non-standard number of actions to start?

With that out of the way, it's my understanding that Pathfinder was created to "preserve" D&D in the wake of the 4th edition fiasco.

And D&D in that form (3.5) has successfully been preserved, and it will always be there, ever unchanging, for those who want it. That doesn't mean that the rest of us can't move on and try doing something new. If you really want the old 3.5 based stuff to stay the same, good news! It will. Just stick with PF1, and let those of us who want to experiment and break away from ancient traditions do that.

I would prefer to see the Sorcerer truly focus on their Bloodline. For example, leave their spells known at a similar setup to the prepared casters' spells prepared, and the same number of spells per day. But then give them their normal Bloodline power at first level (like the Cleric's Domain power, with their Charisma modifier in Spell Points), as well as a special class feature granting them +1 Spell Point per level. Then let their feats and other abilities heavily focus on letting them use their Spell Points: more Bloodline powers (and thus even more Spell Points), the ability to use Spell Points to enhance their spells (upcast them for free, apply free metamagic), and so on. Really focus on the fact that Sorcerers are magical because of their bloodline, that the ability to cast spells is just a side-effect of the raw power they already have.

I also like the idea of Sorcerers being the masters of cantrips with at-will options.