Leyren's page

Organized Play Member. 167 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Rysky wrote:
Leyren wrote:
The spell Charm (Core rules, PDF, add the page later) has its entries for successes and failures in the wrong order (critical failure describes the effect of a critical success, same for success and failure).
Charm isn’t an attack you roll, the target has to make a Will Save, the 4steps are describing what happens when they do.

Ugh. Sorry. I must have still been in "New Edition Confusion" when I read that spell. :-/

The spell Charm (Core rules, PDF, add the page later) has its entries for successes and failures in the wrong order (critical failure describes the effect of a critical success, same for success and failure).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ranger appears to me as the weakest class so far.
Spells are removed, Favored enemy is more flexible but weaker and there's not much in return.
Also, the other classes read more interesting.

I'll wait for the Playtest document to decide how I like it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like the scenario with the healing potion on a dying character. What if the dying person is out of resonance? Is the potion wanted and the dying continues?

Allow using resolve instead in these cases, or allow activate them at the beginning of a day for 24 hours at least.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope there's something (at least two things) for every class in the archetypes that are not specialized for a specific class.

As a pirate-wizard, I won't want the boarding action feat. I would like my area effects to match the ship's movements instead of remaining at their position, or something like that.

Logan Bonner wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
On the other hand, it sounds like you made Ki Strike the sole point of entry into the Ki power tree, just like Point Blank Shot in PF1 was the feat tax to be able to do anything else whatsoever as an archer. Not sure how I feel about that. It'd be better if there was at least two points of entry. I know there will be more options later down the line, but even the CRB shouldn't constrict things this much. All the other ki feats should have "Possesses ki" as their printed prerequisite rather than specifically "Ki Strike" to make this more future compatible.
Hoping to add more access paths in the full Core Rulebook.

Maybe something defensive like "Ki Block" for some shield ac or something like that.

I'd like to know more about how Reactions are assigned to different classes. I understood that the fighter learns automatically to do attacks of opportunity. The wizard on the other hand, has to learn his counter spell reaction by feat.

Does this mean the wizard has no reaction to utilize at all, if he doesn't learn a feat granting him one?
If so, why the difference? In my opinion, every class should have the possibility to do something as a reaction from the start.

What do we know about the reactions from the rogue, cleric, alchemist and paladin? Do they get a reaction option as part of their 1st level package?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder: The Silver Age

Oh, and I thought you wanted to know what prevents us entirely from preparing anything at times. Like Netflix, procrastination and stuff.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

In 3.5 critting against undead didn't normally work. In Pathfinder this was changed and you became able to do so, but some people never noticed.

For the record, in PF1, undead and constructs are both susceptible to crits. Pretty much only elementals and oozes are not (well, and incorporeal stuff if you lack ghost touch).

EDIT: Ninja'd. Ah, well.

I was just thinking... there could be critical resistance now instead of or in addition to critical immunity.

Also, weakness against critical.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Catharsis wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Interesting tidbit for players in this blog: knocking someone prone makes them flat-footed and therefore eligible for sneak attacks. Trip Rogues incoming?
Or better yet: Trip Fighter and Rogue tag teams incoming.

Every option enabling sneak attacks helps.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

OK, even if +/- 5 damage can generate that reaction, 'Surprise, the game is different now' only works for so long. Sustainable interest/difference over the long term seems far more important.

Knowing most players, 'Ooh neat' is going to be replaced by grumbling about getting their backup weapon out of the golf bag by the next session.

In Pathfinder 1, knowledge checks to get information about creatures you're facing almost always gave you a hint about what you shouldn't do because there were rarely any weaknesses to exploit.

It's not a big change, but it feels better to find out about things that do more against a creature instead of finding out about the lowest resistance (but resistance reducing the expected effect nevertheless).

Sounds great, I like it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I will miss the usually deep flavor of traits and the creative challenge of weaving them in your PC's backstory

I guess they were a part where balance and variety just cannot coexist

I think the background step should be more of a GM-approved player's choices thing rather than the packages we are given here. Though I understand how the latter are easier to reference in APs and in PFS

Maybe the Background step should be 2 GM-approved floating stat boosts, then GM-approved Skill feat, then being trained in a GM-approved Lore skill, with pre-made packages being a help for people who do not wish to go in that level of customization (including APs and maybe PFS)

GM approved stat boosts and skills? You might need to explain this a bit more - because my first thought was "hell no! not on my watch!" GMs can ban options, but otherwise should only get involved in character creation if invited to - it's my character, my sole interface with the game I should get to decide what it looks like. The GM has the rest of the world to play with.

Thank you for warning me of this legitimate concern. I had not thought about this

I was thinking something along the lines of the GM (or maybe the whole gaming group) agrees that the choices make sense with the PC's backstory

I'm okay with a list of 19 examples for possible backgrounds.

But the chapter could include a sentence like "If none of these backgrounds meet your requirements, ask your GM to create one for you that matches the backstory you imagined better." along with a sidebar containing guidelines for a GM to design her own campaign backgrounds (what skill feats are appropriate here and so on).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to suggest implementing a minor background into the game.
That could be done quite simple by reusing the backgrounds as defined here, but without the bonuses and feats except the lore gained.

That way you could build a character who was born a farmer's child (minor farmhand background) but was sent to the city when he or she was 8 years old to become a priest (or wizard or whatever), never got there and had to do what was necessary to survive (full criminal background)

Of course you can imagine your background however you wanted, but this way, it would reflect a bit better that you know what was going on there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Leyren wrote:
I wouldn't want to have every character with a criminal background to have skills in pickpocketing.

Oh, that one's easy:

Jenny was a blacksmith's apprentice who lost her job—and so, her livelihood—when the blacksmith caught her embezzling funds for the fifth time. She's now a bit desperate and setting out on an adventuring career as a way to make ends meet. Class: Fighter.

Criminal background, no pickpocketing.

Nice. But what I meant specifically was to offer a selection of skill feats that fit the criminal theme, maybe for escape artist, stealth or disable device instead of only pickpocket.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

While I like this definition of backgrounds, they appear a bit inflexible to me to start with just 19 of them.

The solution is probably simple - keep the names a bit more generic and provide a list of skill feats to choose from instead of only one.

I wouldn't want to have every character with a criminal background to have skills in pickpocketing.


(not a bad name for a 2nd edition...)

dragonhunterq wrote:

I'd be lying if I said this doesn't make me very happy.

It is promising that if and when they get around to the other alignments they will be more finely tuned than simply inverting the LG paladin abilities. My big issue with anti paladins wasn't their existence, but the lazy design (with apologies to whomever designed it, but it really was).
I always preferred the Blackguard prestige class to any other anti-paladin.

Even the name is a bit lazy since it references the paladin, meaning the class wouldn't be possible without them, which is not true.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Leyren wrote:
graystone wrote:
1of1 wrote:
Wait, is that a mummified bat? Hell yeah!
You sure that's not a familiar strap to attach your familiar to your belt? ;)
But which one of all those belts? ;)
I just hope my magic belt can have more than one magic novelty belt buckle so that my bat will hve more than one ensorcelled perch choice per belt.

Or "bat slots", if you will.

graystone wrote:
1of1 wrote:
Wait, is that a mummified bat? Hell yeah!
You sure that's not a familiar strap to attach your familiar to your belt? ;)

But which one of all those belts? ;)

necromental wrote:

What does exactly 5-ft step do now that everyone doesn't have AoOs? And that's two additional taxes right there, IMO. AoO now takes an action (if you have it), and 5ft step takes an action.

AoO always to something action-like since you usually only had one of them. It's called reaction now and is not one of the three regular actions per round.

necromental wrote:

The problem for me probably stems from the fact that a lot of things you did for basically free in PF1, cost an action in PF2, and so the streamlined action economy that should make the game flow better now feels more punitive rather than less.

We don't know everything yet. We will when the playtest document is published. Then we test it and tell how we find it. If there are good reasons to change things (e.g. make the game more fun), they probably listen to our suggestions.

I probably share the opinion that more things shouldn't be an action, but at least it is the same for everyone. If you spend an action to 5-foot-step, your opponent needs to do the same to follow.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it would be great if the quality of armor and weapons at a certain level included the possibility to add a positive trait or remove a negative one.

For example, when the legendary weapon smith creates a new spear, he can add deadly as a weapon trait or the legendary armorer can remove the noisy trait from the chain shirt.

Of course it shouldn't be possible to add any trait to any weapon, so that's a bit harder to define since a list is needed about what can be added to a specific weapon(group/category). Reach daggers don't make sense after all.

Also, when armor gets damaged it could gain negative traits like noisy until it is repaired. Similar for weapons, but I haven't seen any negative traits there. But the loss of a trait would be a possibility, as a reach weapon could probably lose its reach when the handle breaks...

There probably will be (class) feats improving action economy. I hope?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Again, the post says you "find or craft magic armor," not that you can buy it.

Well, maybe you can find magic armor in a shop.

JoelF847 wrote:

I might understand the math of the system wanting to not have this bonus work on both armor and shields, but don't see why that would actually work. What about if you weren't wearing armor, but used a shield? Still no magic to improve its AC bonus?

Good point. If the developers decided it is better not to increase the AC bonus by those runes, they could've at least increase the damage mitigation property of shields instead.

Mark Seifter wrote:

I don't think it is currently possible in the playtest rules for a character who is at least trained in both armor and shields to have a worse proficiency from shields because abilities that give you really good proficiencies with armor tend to always raise your proficiency with shields. Now, conceivably we could have shields just not be a proficiency at all and just everyone can use them, and it would help simplify that bit of the rules too. I suppose we might ask you guys about that later in the surveys!

I assumed it would be possible to upgrade proficiencies with feats if a character doesn't get these from its class. So specializing in either one would be possible.

I like the shield proficiency, speculating that higher proficiency levels allows characters to do more interesting actions with them (without additional feat investment).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The AC bonus of the armor looks promising, I think.

it seems that light armor adds +2 (+quality?) +magic, no matter what kind of armor.

So medium probably has a +4 base, while heavy has +6 ac bonus?
Or is it even flatter like +2/+3/+4?

Bruno Mares wrote:

I guess your proficiency bonus will ALWAYS be equal your level + you proficiency rank modifier (from -2 to +3), so your level will be added to your AC as well. So, a caster with no armor should always have level -2 added to AC, I guess...

I hope there won't be a "No armor proficiency"...

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jonathan Cormier wrote:
Boy do I not like heavier armor improving your TAC.

Well, considering that

1. the chracter level does not go into the AC
2. spellcasters get their level to their attack bonus

something has to add to touch ac to rebalance it.

This doesn't mean that I think this is the best or only solution.
Maybe we can come up with a better one?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:

Yep, this is to cover circumstances under which your DM might have you use Con instead of the standard score for a skill check.

Will this be a rule? If you swim for a short time, you add the Str modifier, but if you swim for a long time, you'll add the Con modifier, for example?

And the TAC bonus from armor is interesting... I hope that spellcasters get proficiency with touch attacks at least.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd love to know more about armor traits. We read that there's one called noisy, but I'm curious if there are some that are more interesting, something positive that makes you choose a specific type of armor.

Joe M. wrote:
Leyren wrote:
Blog wrote:
Your character has proficiency in shields just like she does with armor, and when using a shield, you use the lower proficiency rank of your armor or shield to calculate your Armor Class.

So I can reduce my AC by using a shield?

Can't say I like that.

The way I think it works is that your AC is calculated something like this: 10 + Armor Item Bonus + Shield Item Bonus + Armor/Shield Proficiency Bonus + Dexterity

Imagine that you have a +1 Armor Proficiency Bonus; a +0 Shield Proficiency Bonus; and a shield that provides +2 Shield Item Bonus. If you activate the shield, you use the lower proficiency bonus but gain the Shield Item Bonus, so your AC would on net increase by +1.

(This is all a bit of a guess. I'm hoping that the designers clarify how proficiency and items interact, either in this thread or in the twitch stream in a couple hours where Logan will be discussing this. So head over there with questions if you've got 'em.)

Yeah, it's a bit theoretical, but if the proficiency bonus goes into the ac, it means the higher your armor proficiency goes, the less likely you'll use a shield to be more defensive, probably.

21 people marked this as a favorite.
Blog wrote:
Your character has proficiency in shields just like she does with armor, and when using a shield, you use the lower proficiency rank of your armor or shield to calculate your Armor Class.

So I can reduce my AC by using a shield?

Can't say I like that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like this a lot. But what would should be written into the rules to encourage roleplay? Something like "The GM may add a +2 bonus to a skill checks if the attempt is wrapped in roleplay of a quality that meets her expectations"? Reward good roleplay with resonance or spell points?

There probably has to be found some middle ground between rewarding roleplay ins some form and not rewarding it at all. Some people are shy, not as experienced as others or don't really bother while others do a lot better, even inside a group. You wouldn't want players to feel punished if they don't want or can't roleplay as well as others within a group and get rewarded less.

I don't think there will be three magic items that are of the same type for every character or class.

For the fighter it will probably be weapon, armor, shield while it might be robe, headband, rod for a wizard and weapon, holy symbol, prayer beads for the cleric or whatever. It may even depend on your specialization inside the class.


As for the armor class, the rule system tends to define two values that are opposing each other and are summed up out of comparable source values.

For attack/ac this was bab, ability bonus (str/dex), bonuses from feats and class features, magic bonuses.
AC consisted of 10 + ability bonus (dex), armor bonus, bonuses from feats and class features, magic bonuses.
Magic bonuses to attack were a bit harder to get or at least more expensive, but you had your bab to compensate for that.

In PF2 they probably want to clean this up a bit.
the 10 base ac will probably stay while ability bonuses, proficiency bonuses, and item quality bonuses cancel each other out. Magic and class ability or feat bonuses to ac and attack will probably be comparably rare.
There might still be the armor bonus to ac though, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense to go for a heavier armor. Or armor wearers will benefit from some kind if dr, I don't know.

I've never seen D&D or Pathfinder as a game where you play characters to whom scarcity of shelter, food or water, sunburns, cold and similar things should pose a threat to.

You can play that game during the first three levels, after that they should face more serious stuff more. Those things are for the normal people rather than adventurers or aspiring heroes.

Additionally, I think that magical items or effects like the ring of sustenance, endure elements, rope trick and so on provide a solution for the most basic needs (shelter, food, water) so it is only logical that things like those are what magic will be used for as soon as possible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheAuldGrump wrote:

Hardwiring ability scores to the classes is one of the big issues, with a dislike of getting rid of weapon sizes affecting damage coming up as a distant second.

Well it is one bonus of +2 to one ability score per class. That's relatively insignificant and, in most cases, deals with the requirement of an ability score of at least 11 to use your spells.

A +2 bonus to something shouldn't matter as much as you're thinking and shouldn't be a problem at all.

With what appears to be less spells per day at hand than in PF1, I hope there are more spells working on an exploration scale. Beginning combat with a few rounds of buffing isn't fun, so hopefully there are more buff spells in the hours duration range.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blog wrote:
Heroic Recovery, an 8th-level feat, adds a powerful buff to heal spells: you can target one creature at range using 3 actions (the 2-action version of heal, plus another action to activate the metamagic) to heal them for a solid number of hit points and also give them a bonus to attack and damage rolls and a 5-foot increase to its speed for 1 round.

I don't know how high the bonus to attack and damage is, but at a duration of one round it doesn't look that powerful to me (for 8th level).

Hm... not many suggestions to add.

Limit Burst?
Emergency Reservoire?
Overdrive Points?
Exaggeration Energy?
Class Points?

Unicore wrote:

For example: Are gnomes inherently a better ancestry than halflings if they get low-light vision and halflings don't? Almost every other feature about the two is the same, so it seems like the answer is yes.

I think it would be quite fitting to give halflings acess to tremorsense (and tremor-vision) as ancestry fe(e/a)t (while not wearing shoes, probably).

Also, I'd like to have a complete list of senses available with descriptions what they can do.

And I'd love stealth giving the possibility to fool those senses ("can hide in the darkness even from people with darkvision", "can sneak so carefully that creatures with tremorsense don't recognize her").

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
Sure, the iconic Bard is a Halfling, ...

The iconic druid is a gnome and those don't have a bonus to wisdom. So I'd say that the Iconics doesn't necessarily have to represent an optimal combination race/ancestry and class.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Small weapons doing the same damage as mediums is a crappy rule
Who says small weapons exist? I'd expect small creatures to just use medium sized weapons with potential restrictions on which weapons they can use.

I think this was the case in D&D 3.0 at least. As far as I know, small characters were wielding one-handed weapons two-handed and light weapons one-handed. (But I'd have to re-read that to be sure.)

But the difference in damage between small and medium weapons is so small in most cases that making no difference at all is/would be a welcome simplification.

I'd like to have a character who shoots healing arrows with his bow, please.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The possibility of not knowing what a magic item does for a while is a good thing to me. So spending resonance and auto-succeed in identifying the item's properties isn't the right thing for me.

I think it wouldn't be so bad if the identification dc were right there in the magic item description. Which we would have to look up anyway by the way, because magic items do more special things than in PF1.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wicked Woodpecker of the West wrote:
Why would anyone use ivory tiles which are 100 times as expensive as bat guano, and worse they provoke a danger of violent retribution from Garundi Druidic Order of the Tusk?

They're probably a focus and therefore aren't consumed in the spellcasting process.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm completely fine with rules telling us what happens if we use a rule element and leaving the description to the player.

I'd like spells to state how much actions it takes to cast them but not, what kind of components are used. Let the player choose a priority which kind of component comes first, second, third,... (except expensive materials). Apply those in order depending on the number of actions.

Let the rogue or monk or lightly armored fighter be acrobatic, jumping and rolling around while moving and attacking to make things appear more dynamic an interesting.

Edit: typos

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see how mutliclassing works first. Then we can talk about if a sort of compensation for sticking with only one class is still necessary.

1 to 50 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>