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:
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?
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?
I was just thinking... there could be critical resistance now instead of or in addition to critical immunity.Also, weakness against critical.
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).
The Raven Black wrote:
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).
I'd like to suggest implementing a minor background into the game.
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.
Joe M. wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Or "bat slots", if you will.
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.
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.
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...
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 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).
Bruno Mares wrote:
I hope there won't be a "No armor proficiency"...
Jonathan Cormier wrote:
Boy do I not like heavier armor improving your TAC.
Well, considering that1. 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.
Joe M. wrote:
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.
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.
In PF2 they probably want to clean this up a bit.
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.
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.
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).
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").
John Lynch 106 wrote:
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.
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.
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.