I'm curious to know why/how the Amazon price for this and other books are 20%-35% discounted.
I want to support Paizo the best way I can, but saving that much will allow me to purchase more books than I would have otherwise.
W E Ray wrote:
Just stayed there. I want out. I'm canceling my other 3 nights and trying to find somewhere else to stay while at the con. Not worth it. I wasn't comfortable at all there.
Rooms were 70 a night. But there are other charges. It was 345 for 4 nights.
If you're looking for a roommate to split cost at double tree I'm in
I feel we should move the replay conversation to another forum, I'd like to see more discussion about the rest of the blog. Scrolling trough replay arguments are much less useful for Paizo as well.
I am very curious on the color choices here. Why a bright red shield? Why the goldish-yellow armor? I would have liked to see a more tarnished, brassy, colored armor, and as for the shield, anything that wasn't so bright would be okay, but would have liked to see a more earthy/wood color.
Lastly, the shape of the shield. Since he is the Iconic Fighter, it would have been nicer to see a more..... traditional shield. Something with less of a point at the top, and rounded coming down to the bottom. I'm all for Fantasy getting away from historical designs, but something less "Kite" shaped and more "Shield" shaped. I can only hope that will shields being dented and broken, that Valeros finds something a litter nicer as he levels. :D
I used to have some of the stack-able containers some have mentioned above, I had 3 connected to one another (the lids clipped together to make it easier to carry), but the problem was that is was cheap and when my collection got larger the clips that held the lids on and kept them stacked together would 'open', spilling out all of my mini's.
I have since moved to this: Washi Tape Storage Box
I also have this: large Latch Mate that I use for my Large and larger minis, as well as maps, notebooks and terrain. (I've put in my own foam dividers so I can have them separated)
I was initially worried about the Latch's lid since of my previous experience with the latches holding on lids that had handles, but I filled it pretty full and haven't had any problems.
Also Michael's usually has sales going on so the prices very per store and if you have any coupons.
It does seem like the expectation for starting age has changed from 110+training time in PF1.
I'm fairly certain from the playtest rules and from Twitch streams, that they are changing the starting age of Elves to 20.
Not sure how Forlorn was dealt with in the past, but my understanding of it now isn't an age or maturity thing, but something that can happen to any Elf at any age that has contact with those outside of the Elven race, or outside of 'traditional elf society'
Additionally it's a trait that you can take at any level in PF1, and it looks like in PF2 you can take it at Level 1 or at level 5, 9, 13, or 17 as additional Ancestry feats.
For the QSG, here are some things I would have liked to know/have.
Trying to reply to multiple comments here, so I'll try to make it general.
1) I think that the bonuses should be larger than +2 (assuming Level is removed) BUT as @Unicore and others have stated this gets into a huge problem with DCs and Defenses
Honestly I would like to see Skills separated from Saves, Armor, Weapons, etc. In PF2 they have consolidated many of the terms and options. Features, etc are all Feats now, and EVERYTHING has a proficiency *UTEML*. For me UTEML is only be as useful as the Feats that are associated with them (which currently is lacking, which is fine b/c of playtest, but when we get more feats the 'simple' UTEML math will be overshadowed by the complex, and system expertise that comes with knowing all the feats. Currently most of UTEML is based on Skills for determining Skill feats. So why not only use them for Skills and move Saves/etc to another system. Only Class feats require any sort of Expert/Master,etc Prof. for non-Skills, generally. And if we're arbitrarily providing Expert level Prof. in weapons for Wizards just so they aren't left in the dust, then I see that as a problem.
2) Most of what I have to say about this is basically address in 1). Most of any "Important" saves, Armor, weapons, etc will automatically be Trained (by default, without choice from the player), and any Skills that a group consider important will end up becoming a 'tax' that you MUST have training to prevent yourself from crit failing.
Combined those solutions will 'hopefully' create a system in which those who specialize in Grappling will have a better chance of succeeding when they reach their new Prof. level, but also will decrease slightly as the opponents level increase due to +level to defenses.
@Unicor Might I suggest moving relevant discussions to another thread. I really want to have this discussion and try to give Paizo as much research from Players here on the forum so they don't have to try to think of everything on their own.
My input from what I've read is that
A) people seem to want a middle ground OR something lower than untrained so that you're not completely incompetent when untrained. A "I've never focused on this, but I'm also not an idiot" rank.
B) We want additional understanding of what Proficiency actually means, and how much freedom a character will have when determining/choosing them, outside of class options.
C) What differentiates Skills / DC's / Saves / Weapon / Armor Proficiency. And what that means in terms of advancement and choices. [this sort of goes with B]
I've started a thread on Proficiency but think we could create additional threads for keeping discussions as specific as we can for Paizo.
Additionally in PF1 if you neglected a skill until later levels, then you need to put your ranks into it and neglect your maxed skills, and to be fair you could still go from +0 to +2 to +10 depending on your class, but at the cost of your other skill ranks.
I think non-level increments allows for investment to determine numerical benefits and prevent a huge bump in bonuses when going from Untrained to Trained.
The problem I see with #2 is that they are simplifying the proficiency system to use this one rule for most things +0 2+level, etc. but then now requiring everyone to know more about what feats are useful/meaning full. I for one want Skill feats to be very useful and require advancement in. But then at that rate, why have this proficiency system as another layer on top of that? Just git rid of "Skill Increase" and have "Skill Feats" be what constitute "proficiency" in a skill, if I'm putting a feat in it, I want it to be good.
Very good point. But it's still somewhat true in the current system. If a 12th level party is up against a 16th level caster with Legendary DCs it's still going to be a bit harsh, just due to '+level' alone. At the very least I'm happy about the change, and it give me confidence that they are trying to make the new system simple to implement and 'balanced' to a manageable point.
I wanted to post this to start a new thread about it. But basically I see it as a step in the right direction, but with 2 major problems.
1) It's still only a +2 variance between the Proficiency levels.[Except Untrained, which brings me to number 2]
What are peoples thoughts on the latest updates to Proficiency?
Jason Bulmahn announced Prof and DC changes during a Twitch Stream (which is now on YouTube as of Jan 2nd 2019)
It was announced that the Table of DCs will be addressed "1 level line, 1 list of numbers"
Additionally Proficiency looks like this:
FYI: Jason Bulmahn announced Prof and DC changes during a Twitch Stream (which is now on YouTube as of Jan 2nd 2019)
It was announced that the Table of DCs will be addressed "1 level line, 1 list of numbers"
Additionally Proficiency looks like this:
I want to see more discussion on this. I think it's a step in the right direction, but I think that it causes other concerns.
I would Much prefer
and remove level all together: there's already a preq to be a certain level to even become an Expert/Master/Legendary [so instead of adding level, you 'bake' level into the bonus you get (somewhat) for achieving that proficiency. [making choices more important] without the gamey feel you get from +level to 'everything you're at least trained in' AND additionally removing how large of a bonus you get from just becoming trained at higher levels
Hi, I'm a level 10 Wizard, with a +0 to Athletics due to my 10 Str [untrained: 0]
I feel that bump is just too much, especially if DCs are going to be changing. I feel it basically says that unless you're pushing for Legendary status, that you better spend your skill feats on becoming trained in as many skills as you can so you can at least get the +level to that check.
I hope they do not change this.
OH and for s#@*s and giggles lets get ahead of ourselves and make a Mythic level proficiency that provides +32 in my preferred method (as my method prof's are Powers of 2) and I feel it fits the fantasy. And will make leveling and the math so much more understandable.
Here's 2 alternatives for those still looking: (which I went over in October:)
1) As your character levels, it allows him/her to utilize their training more effectively. (instead of level dictating) Below is a very rough and non-balanced for level option that perhaps could include flat bonuses or not. But a maxed out Legendary proficiency would be = 10. [And would feel like those who have training are 'better' instead of just level.........
Untrained = -2
2) Your proficiency determines bonus. (Because you can't achieve certain levels of proficiency until certain levels anyway, it show how dedicating to one thing pays off) The way I describe this is that if you're Trained then you should be perhaps on par with someone who's naturally good at something. If you're Expert then you should be a little better, but on par with someone who's has a natural talent. If you're Master then you should be better than someone who has a natural talent. And if you're Legendary it is something that is impossible for someone with a natural talent to perform. (And using 'naturally good' and 'Natural talent' as say, oh I don't know, ability Modifiers. then it's fairly easy to calculate, but if we want Legendary to be Truly Legendary, then we can use Powers of 2.
Untrained = -2
I'm 100% behind OPs ideas. I think that your choices as a player should be the most important part of your numerical bonuses on your character sheet. Not your level.
I mean they made the awesome system of Proficiency, and completely made it basically pointless numerically (what, you're 15% better between trained and Legendary?) something sounds off
I seriously hope that in the final 2e that they fix the inconsistencies between monsters and PCs. It's only really come up in forums here (except the Pale Mountains Gnoll b/c that's as far as we've gotten)
Being able to disassemble a monster into it's working parts and applying those is important. Having weapon size be a factor in damage, applying consistent bonuses, etc are all very important. Hopefully this was overlooked for the playtest to keep things simple, but it seems to have caused more controversy than simplicity in the forums, and in practice.
I do believe Paizo has said they do intend to do something about it. but now sure exactly what or when they said it.
Any time I 'copy' stats from the book. I'm taking a screenshot of the PDF, pasting it into an image editor (Paint) and then pasting into a Word Processor (Word) that allows for images.
To me it makes a consistent look and feel to the original (since it's a direct copy) And usually the info I'm copying it very clear and doesn't have any short hand that I may have added to make the descriptions,etc any smaller.
So far with the play test I've been very happy with this, and I have encouraged my players to do the same things for feats, spells and features.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Just to chime in on this. Mark, Yes I do think Adding things to the Arcane bond to be more interesting. [additionally adding something special for the School of magic would be good too, or perhaps limiting Quick Prep to a spell of your selected school]
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
This is true for real life, but in a world where everyone who gains experience in 1 things, gets better at everything I feel this argument falls off. Someone who's a master rock climber, is not going to be expert(or even a trained) level at playing pool, running a marathon, fencing, debate, identifying foot prints, foraging the jungle, or lying.
I'm completely okay with there being some flat DC for mundane things, but i don't think any untrained character should ever have the same bonus as a master, no matter what. And if you happen to have a similar stat than someone who's trying to max out then you're only 3 or 4 points behind.. which i think isn't a big enough gap for how the Proficiency system feel like it should be.
There's a Legendary feat that gives you a swim and a climb speed, but if there's standard DCs for those sorts of things, then why ever take that feat, b/c you'll already getting around a +20 just for being at the level that can get Legendary feats.
I see this as the major problem.
I'm with you. Proficiency training should be the most important numerical function, otherwise there's not much to the proficiency training system, which I really want to move forward. instead of having skill ranks like P1, using the proficiency training take that place feels right, but mechanically it doesn't work that way.
As it stands level is the most important numerical function of the playtest.
Granted, that would lead to the interesting mental image of a fighter being able to pick a branch up off the ground and murder people to death with it, dealing more damage than a greatsword could in other people's hands.
As discussed in the Proficiency talks, training should be more important than anything else I think otherwise why have Expert or Legendary, when the difference is a +2? As everyone has said, it then requires the arbitrary Magic weapon rules to even come close to a caster.
Not only that, but has anyone considered attacking a weapon? (AKA Sunder?)
With the current rules Any sort of Adamantine, Or magical, weapon would destroy any item, and heck structures without much problem. Going through the hardness no problem. I see current Magic Weapon rules combined with item/object damage as a big problem
Different desires for the system, then. I do want level to be a primary source of advancement. I want level 10 to be an entirely different universe to level 1, and level 10 characters to dance over any challenge a level 1 character could consider. Level 10 characters are regional heroes, super-famous knights and wizards, compared to level 1 nobodies. I want every level 10 character to be better at everything than every level 1 character. That trained, 18 Cha level 1 is the head of the high school debate club, sure. He's got potential at diplomacy and a winning smile, but Grognor the guy who slew an entire orcish camp on his own can hold his own socializing at the galla due to the stories he has. A lot happened in 10 levels!
I agree, it's a different desire for the system. You did sway me here a bit, to the thought that 1 vs 10 are definitely on a different playing field, but I feel with level added the numbers just get silly where they could be much smaller and fulfill the same purpose, and to RazarKuk's point, making it some simple calculation for difficult to DC would be nice to have.
As it stands now, with Level being primary advancement. Then a Bard trying to balance all attributes, not going for any maxes, and becoming trained in all skills would have the best chance to defeat any encounter. They would most likely have an upwards of 65-75% chance to succeed at most checks (and attacks) dealing acceptable damage and have the ability to cast spells and use Inspiration.
I dont want to see Pathfinder 2nd Ed become a game where there is 1 or even 2 superior ways to play. Sure, full Attribute, full training will be better, but by how much? +5? is that +5 to 1 thing better than being +5 better at literally everything else?
I might be drawing some bad conclusions,but it just doesn't feel right.
Heck, it can go to +20 different at high levels (untrained->legendary,-1->+7 attribute,+0->+5 item) if you stretch, meaning something the wizard fails on a 19, the fighter succceeds on a 2. This is before considering feats & features that can move results an entire category.
It's true that specialization matter for individuals of the same level, that's how the system works, but make level a variable to any of that and I feel the system breaks down to an extent.
I'm fine with having a portion of level modify how much your training give you in terms of modifiers, but I dont want level to be the main source of improvement.
LVL 1, 18 CHA, trained Diplomacy: +5 (trained(level)- +1; CHA mod- +4)
I don't like this. To me the level 10, 8 cha, untrained, should not have the same bonus as anyone trained. This means that EVERY SINGLE level 10 character is better than every level 1 character at EVERYTHING. PERIOD.
Basically the biggest boost you can give to yourself as you level is to spend all your skill increases on going from untrained to trained to get the +4 and screw going Expert/Master/Legendary, unless you really need the boost from the Master/Legendary skill feats.
I want to see more benefits to skill increases and being trained and less benefits from just leveling [and to balance this with attribute modifiers I don't think any sort of level based bonus should go above +10.
Check out this post: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42byg?It-must-be-that-time-of-the-month-again# 7
I can get behind the skill proficiency's here, but not weapon damage. But yes Training should be MOST import, and not the difference between +0 trained and +3 Legendary.
I would be able to get behind adding bonuses to weapon damage based on training, instead of multiplying. (the same mods, just instead of x it's +)
I hope the Devs are listening to these. I just hope they just don't think it's just too big to address. Because it would mean of complete re-write, re-balancing of all the encounters, monsters, etc. because Level is now baked into DCs, scaling, etc.
Not to mention Legendary Feats for most skills are very, very specific and I don't think would come up that much (except maybe swimmer/climber, b/c they actually give you a swim speed/climb speed), but then at that point you don't really need to roll at all to do those things... I would still like to keep those legendary action, but the difference between a +2 and +3 is silly.
I want Training an Attribute selection to be more important than level
@Lyee, I'm all for obstacles that are basically level locked. In your river example Why does the level 18 elf wizard better at crossing that river just because he's 4 levels higher than the encounter.
It makes specialization almost pointless, even less for those skills that happen to be higher because it's based on an Attribute that you use for your class. I want the fact that my Fighter has Trained in Athletics to mean that he's on point in the river crossings and must help the other get through using the party's wits instead of everyone being able to cross just because they're level 4.
I don't want the whole party to have a roughly 40+% chance to succeed in most challenges, I want some character who have an 80+% helping those with the 10% or less chance get by. Otherwise specialization and Attribute increases are pointless and EVERYTHING is either challenging or trivial for EVERYONE instead of SOME THINGS being trivial/challenging per character.
I can understand the reasoning behind it. You don't anyone who didn't specialize to be locked out of doing anything, but that's inclusive and arbitrary. A highly skilled level 7 MASTER climber should out climb ANY untrained climber. PERIOD. an Ultimate DC for level 7 is 27, but DC 27 is between easy and medium for anyone over level 13. And thinking further. a rough climb for level 13 "Incredible" is 35, which is basically impossible for the level 7 Master, but why, he's a master. and those level 13's aren't even trained... but they have a better chance? Explain this.
I can completely get behind this, but an explanation would be nice. [Just trying to play the devils advocate here, not trying to say anyone's opinion is wrong.]
This is why I'm not a fan of +Level to proficiency. It's basically an arbitrary +Level to any DC to keep it challenging. (It's not like Jumping and hanging on a ledge all of a sudden become a DC 30, where 10 levels ago it was a DC 20..) I just don't understand the justification.
It seems somehow un-Pathfinder to have a level 5 wizard swinging a club, or shooting a crossbow, having the same bonuses (or higher) to attack that a level 1 fighter has.
It's an arbitrary "Game" thing that's messing with my understanding of Pathfinder's "In Game" rules/laws.
Like why would any mid/high level NPC offer a quest to any level 1 PCs? they could do everything they are doing but better....
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
This is exactly why I don't think a proficiency system should include full level at all. Raise the bonuses for actually training in that skill.
Currently Level is the most import part of proficiency, training and ability modifier are almost negligible. I mean the basic difference between trained and Legendary is +3, so having a 16 in the relevant stat basically makes you Legendary (since most of the time the 'Legendary' actions don't come up)
I see 2 fairly acceptable ways to represent this. 1 would be to include a fraction of your level based on your 'trained' proficiency. And another would be Flat, but Large bonuses based on 'Trained' proficiency.
1) As your character levels, it allows him/her to utilize their training more effectively. [instead of level dictating] Below is a very rough and non-balanced for level option that perhaps could include flat bonuses or not. But a maxed out Legendary proficiency would be = 10. [And would feel like those who have training are 'better' instead of just level.........
Untrained = -2
2) Your proficiency determines bonus. [Because you can't achieve certain levels of proficiency until certain levels anyway, it show how dedicating to one thing pays off] The way I describe this is that if you're Trained then you should be perhaps on par with someone who's naturally good at something. If you're Expert then you should be a little better, but on par with someone who's has a natural talent. If you're Master then you should be better than someone who has a natural talent. And if you're Legendary it is something that is impossible for someone with a natural talent to perform. [And using 'naturally good' and 'Natural talent' as say, oh I don't know, ability Modifiers. then it's fairly easy to calculate, but if we want Legendary to be Truly Legendary, then we can use Powers of 2.
Untrained = -2
As I've mentioned in other posts, I honestly dont want to see level at all in skills/proficiency. [maybe 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 your level, but never full level]
Sure you're getting better as you level, but is a level 4 with 10 Dex really the same skill level at Acrobatics as a level 1 with 18 Dex?
I'm NOT saying Paizo should adopt a type of "Bounded Accuracy" like 5e, but something that a balance between that and how it's calculated now.
If full level is added to proficiency bonuses, then that makes your choices of Attributes, and Skill training that much less important. It's one thing to get awesome at some things as you level, but to get awesome at ALL things as you level is a bit much.
As I think about this something like you get -2 if untrained, +1/5 level if Trained, +1/4 level if Expert, +1/3 level is Master and +1/2 level if legendary. That means that at Level 20 Legendary is +10, Master is +6/7, Expert is +5, Trained is +4, Untrained is -2.
This is just an example and I would defiantly would need to be tweaked, but having all level 20 characters have a min bonus of +15 (assuming untrained &8 Attribute) and a max of what 28 (assuming Legendary & 20 attribute), sure that's a difference of 13 between trained and untrained, but that means that the worst untrained level 20 character is still better than the best level 8 character at any given skill. And sure that's a 12 level gap, but how do you justify that 8th level bard diplomat Master in Deception is a worse liar than a level 20 dwarf Untrained in deception?
I'm with 1/2 bonus as well or even 1/3 or 1/4. Having an Untrained high level character having a higher bonus than a 7th level master of that skill is a bit absurd. As it stands now, it basally makes the bonus from Attributes/Proficiency(untrained, trained, Expert, Master, Legendary) less important than your level. Sure you'll be able to 'do some more stuff' but any of the basic actions you can perform with a skill, anyone who's higher level can do it better than you, (on average). Sure the -4 for being untrained helps a bit, but i dont think it's enough.
"Oh your a Master at Acrobatics? Well I'm 4 levels higher so our bonuses are the same" or "Oh you have an 18 in an Attribute and I have an 8, 5 levels will fix that!"
Thanks everyone, it's good to know I dont need to go back to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 to get all the updates. They're all in 1.4
As for PDF layout I understand that completely with references, etc, but Honestly I could care less how "nice" it looked on page, or if there's only 1 paragraph and no images at the end of a section or chapter, I just want all the latest updates and rules in 1 document without having to cross references a very dense 20 page update doc with a 434 page Rule Book.
And since it's all PDFs at this point and any Print material is obsolete, then why not change things like "(See page 312)" to "Reference Terrain" with a link to that section using a bookmark or something within the PDF and if a graphic is obsolete based on rules changes, then remove it.
Sure it wont look polished, but it's a playtest. As someone who's coming into actually running the playtest a bit late, it's a LOT of content to ensure is updated, referenced and remembered.
I agree with this, for the most part. Doing a mundane activity/action shouldn't become harder just because you leveled up. That basically makes the Assurance Skill feat pointless.
Why would it matter if you could auto succeed on a 15, 20 or 30 if every DC that you'll be facing will be over that amount, and if it's not, anyone of that level will succeed unless they roll a 1 or something.
On the other hand, how do you represent continued progress while leveling, but still making the skill system easy enough that you're not getting 5-12 'skill points' to put somewhere.
It would require an entire re-write of the proficiency system, which might not be a bad thing.
I mean as it is now, an level 20 dwarf with 10 Dex and Untrained Athletics can still Long Jump with a bonus of what +16? (level -4 for untrained) allowing a Min 12 foot and Max 31 foot
Where a 2nd level Elf with 18 Dex and Expert Athletics can long Jump with a bonus of +8 (Level +2 for Expert) allowing a Min of 4 foot and a max 23 foot.
And a 7th level Elf with 18 Dex and Master Athletics can long jump with a bonus of +14 (Level + 3 for Master) allowing a Min of 10 foot & Max of
I see a problem with this. I feel Expert and at very least a Master of a skill should out perform any one who is untrained at that skill, no matter what level they are. I can see where Paizo would want to keep some sort of challenge at all levels no matter the skills you've chosen, but I think if you're an Expert or Master, it should allow you to do things without rolling.
To fix this they would need to take level out of skill proficiency, and instead have the type of proficiency (Trained, Expert, etc) have a larger bonus applied to them, in which case they could lower the DC's for EVERYTHING and skill keep balance and challenge even for those trained or untrained in certain skills at all levels.
Not sure If I've missed something in my absence, but I just want some clarifications on rules updates.
Should I only be looking at the latest updates and ignoring the previous ones? [ie. do the most recent updates contain the the entire set of updates that I need to address as a Game Master?]
Additionally I've seen posts regarding updates to Resonance that include a link to a new set of rules, but you must find the post, and download from there instead of from the bundle.
Honestly I would like to see the updates to be address in the Rulebook as they come out, versioning the rulebook downloaded from the homepage of Paizo to stay up to date.
As it currently stands, as a GM I need to download the latest rules updates and distribute those to my players, and then when we meet, I need to check every Ancestry/Class/etc option with them to ensure they have addressed it on their character. What I really want to do is to say, "Go on Paizo, download the Rulebook again, and it will have all the updates in it" currently it's a nightmare to review and ensure I've addressed all the updates into the rules. Especially with Doomsday Dawn, I printed out the updates to the DC's etc, but I completely forgot about them during play.
Can anyone address why the base Rulebook, bestiary, Doomsday Dawn PDFs aren't updated when the Update notes come out? There's bound to be someone at Paizo already doing this to ensure their documents stay up to date. All's I'm asking for is a copy of that.
Mark Seifter wrote:
(Fighter Dedication would take 5 feats to replicate for a wizard, and an average of around 3 feats for most other characters)
Hopefully this is hypothetical feats and not actual feats? I would hate for the list of feats to get so large in 2nd that someone who's new to the system would pick their feats, only to have another player more experienced make the same exact character but using the 'more powerful' feats and having a better character only because they knew which feats provided more/better benefits than others.
I just don't the amount of feats cause problems for players. Say for example you wanted a wizard who has Armor proficiency, so you take the Armor proficiency feat.. but wait, they could have just multi-classed into Fighter as you said and get that and then some. Why would a Wizard (Who didn't intend to multiclass into other classes) ever take any weapon or armor Prof. feats? They should always take Fighter Multiclass? and if you pick the weapon/Armor feats then you're making a bad/wrong choice. I hope I'm conveying this right
I think a big limiting factor her is size. You can only grapple creatures of a certain size, and once they are larger than that, it is no longer a tactic, so being able to get the ability to grapple larger creatures, (or become larger yourself) would be a big bonus.
Another thing to consider is your goals behind grappling. If you're trying to tie up all the bad guys, you'll be more or less in the way of everyone else who's trying to do combat.
As for higher levels, I'm not exactly sure what the effects of grappling would be.
All of these look good, though some will require player participation, and I know that my players like a good 16d6 roll fest lol.
Another thing a GM of mine has done was pre-roll a page or two of d20 rolls, so if she had 10 monsters, she just goes down the line for most of the rolls she makes, only having to add the bonuses.
Some thing our group has tried is rolling both Damage and Attack at the same time.
But I think the biggest time saver here is making sure your players have an idea of what they want to do before their turn. Nothings worse than after 10 mins of waiting for other players, that once they get to someone, they have no idea what they are doing, so be sure of player involvement and interaction with each other.
As noted on Paizo
FAQs of Life wrote:
Taking this as written, because Cleave is a special action, it seems no other combat action could be considered unless specifically stated. So no Charging, no TWF, nothing that requires an action to be expended.
I would say that the Player would know the numerical bonus for that item given the use of the spell. (from the "Learn its function" portion)
Even if it only said, "This belt gives you strength" once you put it on the GM would need to tell you so that the player could keep track of his bonuses. But I think it would be included with the spell.
Mage Evolving wrote:
Evil does not equate to stupid or crazy.
Completely agree! as well as with most of what you mentioned. Silence and some of the generics like True Seeing and such are a must, but anything else too specific to what the PC tactics I would caution against. (unless of course this is not the 1st encounter, b/c as you said, EVERY good villain escapes at least a few times against the same party. (that or comes back to life) :P
I've had an old GM who told a story of his 'recurring villain' I think he came back 4 or 5 times from death, and that only after being completely dismembered, burned, teleported and burred.
"What do you mean the Runelord Karzoug is back! I saw him die!"
-edit changed reincarnation to resurrection
What I found on another post
Rules as Written, at-will, no errata so far and has been mentioned before so I'm guessing it's staying that way.