KageNoRyu's page

KageNoRyu wrote:

Only as a small question: should all subscribers already have their shipping mails?

Short answer: No, I don’t either.

Longer answer : Today (09/11 or 11/09) is the last day of shipping according to the customer service forum and Paizo are not open for business yet (how very dare they require sleep). So, if it’s still the case tomorrow, there may be a problem but I’d expect that thread to be updated if it’s the case.

Thanks!

Only as a small question: should all subscribers already have their shipping mails?

They started the authorisations on the 9th and it spilled over into the 10th.

Ah explains it though i am surprised a bit sounds to me like manual interactions are necessary there instead of fully automatic algorithms (surprise and curiosity......programmer and automatism fan at hearth :D )

GM Moonknight wrote:

Pretty frustrated. My subscription went into pending on the 10th, and still hasn’t shipped. Others have gotten their hard copies but I don’t even have the PDF’s yet.

Mine has been pending since the 9th.

So even that is not the same for all? Subscriber since the first rulebook preorders and 10th (still pending) for me

I'm wondering the dragon disciple does he also give a few proficiencies?

For me it would be interesting how they handled the dragon disciple as he is one of the hardest 1e arxhetypes to convert imho due to his many ability and ac bonuses

Oh I see. I was one of those who didn't have The Slithering in their orders, but it was resolved immediately. I contacted customer service and got reply and fix in like an hour, super fast. Paizo's Customer Service is excellent, so shout out to them, because they are awsome!

what is slithering?

I just want to see an archetype or two. I’ve been very curious about the changes to some of the classics (Dragon Disciple, Eldritch Archer) and the new ones like Beast Master

Have to say I'm MOSTLY interested in what the changes to the dragon disciple is, as I can see it being one of the most difficult ones to convert to 2e (as it gave quite a load of ability bonuses in 1e which 2e tries to avoid like a hot iron).

hopefully before 26th then^^'

Those who subscribe receive the PDF when their order ships.

tnx then I shouldn't order at all.....got a subscription and waiting still

How did anyone order the pdf already? I can only order the pdf beginning 26th?

Keep in mind that, assuming we are still going by the old method of classifying dragon ages--and I don't see why we wouldn't be, given that some are described with terms like "wyrm" and "great wyrm" in the sidebars--none of the dragons we see in the bestiary are at their highest age categories.

That is one point iam confused about though. I dont remember an ancient wyrm from pf1 ao i thought that ia the new word for great wyrm?

1 am i seeing it right that now even the oldest and mightiest sragon can o ky reach a size class of huge?

2 is there any “canon” about dragons being able to have a nom standard alignment or changing it during their life? Example a golden sragon becoming lawful neutral. If so are there any side effects to this?

Is the char going to be a true fighter? There was a shield guy in anime: raise of the shield hero. He could cast spells using the shield even. In pf1 he would be fighter/magus witz a multiclas into cleric also for heal. In pf2 i would gueds champion (as hecould heal) with multiclass into sorcerer (until magus exists) so he could heal and cast spells and fight. The shield being a trquitement to cast spells though.

I've currently got a group using playtest rules and switching to 2E in august.
One of my players brought up the arcane trickster and using rays in combination with sneak attacks.

Now my question is is there anything known already about this? Or can it work at all with how rogues will work (is that maybe known already)

I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped the generic tieflings/Aasimar/dhampirs and instead went with just the subtypes. Those are a lot more interesting and we are no longer attaching all these ability scores to them.

Thus you mean "outsider" heritage and then via heritage feats you gain abilities according to he alignment/plane of the outsider?

Is there any info out yet how those three will be treated? If they are their own races or if they will be handled like half elfs and half orcs?
(as they are halfbreeds themselves imho it would make most sense if they are treated the same...but then again they got the most differentation from their "base races" more so than half elves and half orcs).

Am I reading it correctly that hardcovers are gottenalmost a month before the pdf's? (the dates in the book entry of ths product page)

is it known if its more uniform now than in the playtest? (every class had their very own level when they would be able to become expert in a weapon or a skill)

Did I understand everything correctly?

Bonuses are now:
untrained +0
trained +2 + level
expert +4 + level
master +6 + level
legend +8 + level

Or am I wrong somewhere?

Hi
I've ot a question. A player of mine gave me an idea to combine an adventure I lvoe with an AP I also like much.

In details its the adventures surrounding falcons hollow and the kingmaker AP.

Still though I'm drawing a bit blanks on how a combination could be done there.....later on you are so strong when you have the kingdom that you will just march through the first few falcon hollow adventures. and in the beginning I could not fit it in :/

So asking: Does anyone have an idea there?

Btw as those skills dont exist any longer (even in playtest): How is it handled when someone needs to ride a beast, steer a ship, fly around obstacles, ...? not over skills or if over skills over which ones?

The playtest saw quize a reduction in skills. And with podcasts underway iam wondering if there is any info already on which / how many skills amde the final cut?

2 auestions there: the ghoul abilitywas it seen what it foes in detail? (Intrigued)

And did we see so far any non class powers of the pcs? (Thus the 3x use powers from the playtest. If they are still like that or use spellpoints instead)

As far as I remember it was mentioned once that the difficulty table is going to change a lot.

Is there any info already on that one? Or how it could look?

I certainly hope it will be more of "okay, here are those 4 skills you can't get trained in at level one, choose wisely and bask in the glorious comfort of being poor at those, because we know that being crap at Profession(basketweaving) is something that's very important to you" and less of "okay, here are those 4 skills you can be trained in at level one, well, it's more like 1 skill once you take those with in-combat application, have fun tripping over your own legs, heroic adventurer"

From what I gathered from one post made it seems only 1 in the aprty needs a specific skill at trained for the party to not suffer too much (aka always automatically failing at stealth as example).

Is there any info if the skill list will be expanded?
(time and again during the playtest it felt as if some skills were missing. Especially during times when a monster was to be identified that was not a natural animal, but something else like a drow,...)

Uh...Quality says what it does on Armor very specifically on p. 190. It reduces Armor Check Penalties. It in no way adds to AC.

Also, I was talking about Mage Armor there, but that's really secondary to you misreading the armor rules.

Yepp saw it (read it up already and wanted to edit my post accordingly).

Thus it is correct: AC: 7 TAC: 5 for studded leather is its max (sry there^^')

KageNoRyu wrote:

While doing a bit of a conversion I just noticed soetthing about mage armor.

its highest incarnation gives +6 to ac, +0 to tac and +5 to saving throws.

It's actually +6 TAC, check out p.16 under Armor Class, where it specifically says that any spell that adds to AC also adds to TAC unless specified otherwise.

That said, it's probably still inferior to Studded Leather. The reasons to use Mage Armor (or, more likely, Bracers of Armor) instead of Studded Leather are as follows:

1. As mentioned, it has no maximum Dex Modifier, which can be handy.

2. If you lack Proficiency in Light Armor, or, like a Monk, have better Unarmored Proficiency.

It is +10 ac....I made the same mistake at first. Untiol I noticed quality adds not only to weapons.

Thus the complete ACs for studded leather:
Base stats: AC 2, TAC 0
Legendary quality: AC: +3, TAC: +3
Magic +5=> AC: +5, TAC: +5
=> AC +10, TAC +8

While doing a bit of a conversion I just noticed soetthing about mage armor.

its highest incarnation gives +6 to ac, +0 to tac and +5 to saving throws.

Still though I noticed that that is quite weak vs. what other characters at that level could get. Even compared to light armor.

If I take a studded leather and give it +5 (with legendary quality) I would get an AC of: 10 and TAC of: 8. (not taking proficiencies into account there).

So I'm wondering aside from being a gimmick is mage armor worth anything at all? (as seemingly even light armor bests it without the player giving up a limited resource for it).

After looking up things in the core rules I noticed that there seems to be a massive difference in regards to size (pf1/pf2).

In the past size usually modified your to hit, damage and ac and also stats for characters.

But now it seems (aside from enlarge spell) size does not do anything at all but telling you how much space you occupy?
(aka the races don't have any modifiers and also no combat modifiers,...).

Or did I overlook something there?

Did you take also the magic weaponns into account? (Including properties?)

Hmmmm makes sense at least until later on. 3 attacks per round could produce enough for up to 6 dents a round. Do you use a to hgit roll (what dc?) to hit a wall?

ah found it. so I need to do at least 15 points of damage in one go vs. stone wall. a force wall (spell) has +3 dents it can take. could that be the "realistic" value also for a normal wall?

The 30 damage needed in one go ?

I'm currently in a discussion with a player of mine about at which level a mage could possibly destroy a city wall (either stone or wood or darkwood) and destroy buildings / towns.

Most notably this is about pure damage output not via special spells like clouds that kill living beings,... .

Is it known how much hit points(and DR/durability) walls / buildings have? (stone/wood) ?

My fault hand crossbows have reliad 2 (hmmm overlooked that so far will have to adjust there next game). Bows though have reliad 0 thus can be fired 3x per turn

Blave wrote:

shroudb wrote:

At level 1 a sorc with a crossbow should only have 16 dex and a total attack mod of +4

He's firing on average 3 bolts per 2 rounds (fire, load, fire followed by load fire load) with a total attack mod of +4/-1/+4 for 1d6 damage

Crossbow deals 1d8, which closes the gap a bit.

But yeah, cantrips do their job pretty well at levels 1-2. They fall of at level 3-4, but so do Crossbows unless you invest into ae expert/magic which is not really worth it.

Yup, brainfart on my part, fixed my numbers.

Cantrip is still better damage and better action economy

hand crossbows deal 1d6 and have no reload time. They are like bows thus can be fired 3x every round

Interesring do you use magic weapons there for the other chars?

As for 1 at level and crossbows. The pkayer usually hits with 2 attacks (around 60-70% of the time)

And yeppfor rhe damage only had memorized
The pre change values

My player is using a draconicnsorcerer and his statement was that he can do more damage with the bow and more reliable than with his spells.
(He has 18 dex btw and dipped into fighter for the proficiency. Before that he used a hand crossbow for the aame reason. Now a longbow)

Meant d6 not d4. Miswrote there. And yepp i went with a 100% hit

@blave that is then what i asked the dieect damage iant really worth it only special spells like charm. Magic weapon,... and aoe vs more than 2 monsters is then wortg the slots.

To add to lvl 1 if a magic user casts magic weapon on the weapon it does increase the mundanes damage to 12 per hit thus 36 dor all 3actions combined

As the title says. Iam asking due to a player of mine who plays a sorcerer and dipped into fighter to use a bow instead of magic for 90% of the encounters. He told me he felt dansgewise ubderpowered compared to bows then i myself started calcing

If i take first level. Lets say chars have 18 in strength/int/cha. The mundane guy uses a bastard sword
And lets say we use avg damagr each disregarding crits.

This means then mundane at first level:
Lvl 1: 8 damage per turn thus 24 total
High level with a +5 sword and 3 damage peoperties:
6d8+3d6+7 for attribute. Thus: 40 damage per action so a total of 120

The caster:
Level 1: Endless resource: 1d4 thus 2
Burning hands (strongest spell i found) 3d6 thus 9

High level i took meteor shower and csme at sround 100 damage

One can argue about them being aoe there. Still though single target wise i disnt see anything stronger
Meaning the spell damage to a single target can be almost 1/3 to 70%
Of what mundanes can do (without using up one of their four daily uses)

So as thr title says. Is there anything iam overlooking or are damage spells just not worth the time to learn them any longer?

Iam currently in a discussion about the sorcer r trained skills pre and post recent updates.

In the pdf it seemingly stands that he is automatically trained in all bloodline skills Iam sure in rhe print d book i didnt see that nor is it on hero labs that way.

Now the question is: pre change how many skills did the sorcerer have trained at level 1?
(If really 5+4+int. why was it reduced)?

If you don't think a wolf should be a fair match for a 1st level PC, then you don't think they should be level 1. And arguing that wolves should be level 0 monsters is definitely an argument you could make...but not really the point of this thread.

Now, whether they should be as much a match for an optimized PC as they are is another question, but whatever you consider 'default PC optimization' a level 1 monster should be about on par with it.

As for the party of 14 attack-stat people with AC 12...how? I'm honestly and legitimately confused by how that can even happen in PF2. I mean, a Wizard can easily wind up with terrible AC, sure, but a Fighter or Paladin? You basically have to be trying to not be good at your job to wind up with less than Str 16 and Dex 12 (on a melee character) and that should make for an easy 16 AC with medium armor.

And finally, no wolves had a +2 to hit in PF1.

For +2: Yepp one of the posters mentioned +2 thus I corrected it to +4.

For the stats: As I mentioned my groups are going mostly for non opzimized realistic chars. For example one of the fighters was renowned for her beauty and gave up on becoming a cleric after having to hit her admirers in the face too often (peaceful god so it was a problem). Thus str 14, dex 14, con 14, int 10, wis 10, cha 16

ac 17 due to breastplate (she is one of the higher ac ones but as mentioend I talked about avg not the highest AC).

Sorcerer: Has 14 dex and leather armor thus 14 AC
Cleric: has AC 15 due to chain mail (and str 16)
Another cleric that is not a combat focused one: str 10, dex 14, con 12, int 14, wis 14, cha 14 has leather armor thus also below 15 with AC (she is an all rounder).
Barbarian: str 18, dex 14, con 14, int 10, wis 10, cha 8 AC 14 with leather and 16 with fur.

First attempts we overlooked that arcane spell failure is no longer and thus sorcerer, wizard had no armor at all.

Still though normal non opzimized chars don't ahve AC 16+ they are around 12-15 normally. thus avg. 13. And 1 fighter in the group.

And even most CR 1 creatures are not dumb....."my teeth dont get thorugh this hard shell...the one with the less hard shell looks more tasty".
Besides even the fighter with AC 17 has only ac 12 when she wasn't on guard duty when the wolves attacked (else she is quite fatigued the whole fight and day).

As for the stats: Like I mentioned they went with realistic stats according to what the chars did. I mean "Scholastic", trained to fight and purely str 18, dex 14 making much sense?

KageNoRyu wrote:

In 4 combats with lvl 1 chars I noticed it is killing at least one pc if I go 1:1 with wolves vs chars (even some optimized ones inside).

Isn't that roughly what CR1 is intended to mean? A CR1 enemy is supposed to be a threat to a level 1 group on its own; two CR1 enemies at once is about the limit of what they group is expected to be able to take on.

That is the question. In pf1 I understood that CR 1 means threat to a single party member. IF its CR 1 = threat to a WHOLE 3-6 man group of lvl 1 chars then........I honestly don't get how the hell civilizations in Golarion survived. I mean 6 wolves are enough to squash a whole village.......... gg civilization. Food time for wolves and similar.

Aka from a fluff and setting perspective some of the CR 1s then make absolutely no sense at all as the setting would not be possible at all.

The problem is for the olves as exmple in combat als o they seem to be optimized for BEST of the best.

in my group most had 14 for their to hit attribute (thus a total of +3 or ü+4 for the warrior) and their armor class was of average 12.

If we only use optimized chars then yes the wolves are okay. But if we want to use REALISTICAL chars then.....the wolves are "elite" wolves able to easily kill lvl 2 chars without much trouble.

In 4 combats with lvl 1 chars I noticed it is killing at least one pc if I go 1:1 with wolves vs chars (even some optimized ones inside). If I got 1/2 wolves and 1 chars (thus 1 wolf for 2 chars) the chars have a good chance to survive with only half hp lost.
(although in 2 of the 4 combats I had to retreat the wolves after THEY lost half hp...else they would have squashed the party still!)

And in all honesty that feels completely wrong vs a WOLF.

And to correct a foreposter: Wolves had +4 to hit in the PF 1 not +2.

And in all honesty: With +4 to hit they would be good against optimized and normal chars of level 1-3 while giving the chars a fair chanbce and a gm the chance to use a whole pack instead of "okay 3 wolves vs. 6 party members and I have a chance that nobody has to die".

wolves also got their hp doubled and if oin groups of three+...got double damage as well on a hit

Secret Wizard wrote:

Starfinder combat - more explosive rounds where you hit harder and with more accuracy, against enemies who do the same.

As opposed to grindier, defensive encounters.

But that's exactly not what is happening - the enemies are hitting harder and with more accuracy, the party is not.

I'm curious about the change, too.

Edit - damn typos.

One thing I thought about was to make the wolves so that they can also be opponents for higher level groups than lvl 1-2. But still different variatns could have done the same there so I guess it won't be that one reason.

I've run a few level 1 sessions now and did also some calcing.

First: Don't misunderstand me, I'm liking the new rules (most of them) so far. But for the monster stats I couldn't understand / get to the why.

When I looked at the monster stats I was baffled by the +7 to hit for wolves and other similar Cr 1 creatures. In essence if we took an average fighter (str 16) he would to be at level 3 to be at the same +7 total to his to hit. I was quite surprised there (quite experienced wolves so to say^^)

Then I compared the +7 to the usual +1 to +4 for the chars in my group and also the AC of the group (usually 11-15).

thus statistically and also in praxis the wolves had a very easy time hitting wehile the chars had troubles beating the AC 15 of the wolves.

With the wolves hitting that easily while having such high defenses I had drop a default scenario of mine for wood adventures....attacking low level chars by a pack of wovles (4-5) as the wolves would overwhelm any party (thanks to hitting extremely easy while being hard to hit).

sooo with the background dwon to my question: Is there any known reasoning behind why the former +4 for many CR 1 creatures is now +7?