Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
So even that is not the same for all? Subscriber since the first rulebook preorders and 10th (still pending) for me
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).
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.
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?
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?
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).
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^^')
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:
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?
Or did I overlook something there?
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) ?
hand crossbows deal 1d6 and have no reload time. They are like bows thus can be fired 3x every round
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
This means then mundane at first level:
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
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?
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
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".
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?
Matthew Downie wrote:
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.
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".
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?