One thing I that interests me about this is if striking takes the same slot as flaming, and if those are still constant d6. If so, then we get to make a choice like in Monster Hunter World, where big raw d12 weapons want striking, but a weak d4 dagger would be better with elemental first.
*pssst* one of the advantages of fundamental runes is that they don't count toward the item's total number of runes.
Yeah, I don't think Legendary DC checks are actually assumed to be the norm just because the PCs have hit a certain level.
That's accurate. If you're playing a 15th-level adventure, a normal brick wall isn't gonna be any more difficult than it would have been in a 7th-level adventure.
Also worth noting that the simple DC categories are benchmarks for the GM to use for tasks, and don't require the listed proficiency rank. (With some exceptions, like hazards.)
Franz Lunzer wrote:
I don't believe we've said there's no need for a Beginner Box, but that there's no need for the Beginner Box to not be fully compatible with the full game.
I do feel like there is slightly less bookkeeping in this because resonance will probably never matter until the highest levels (unless I'm missing something big).
Yeah, the intent is that you won't really be stressed for wearing magic items until you have a bunch of them and start looking to retire some of your weaker ones. That should be happening in the mid- to late-levels.
Yep, and this is testing to see if still having a slightly smaller—but not *vastly* reduced—amount of tracking is worth it in order to get these additional benefits.
I have a player in my games that almost always dumps Charisma, so I'm curious how this change will affect him. What will the minimum number of Focus be? 1? 1+Ancestry? 0?
As with anything else, this is TBD, but generally leaning toward minimum 0. Since we're holding off any any class design till we see how the test is received, we haven't looked in detail into, say, what a dwarf wizard might need.
Does this whole move to Focus feel a lot like the 50% off sales at shady stores that move everything to 200% the original cost? Like "Oh, cool, this $10 scarf is marked up to $20, but then I get half off!" "Oh, cool, this 1d8 healing potion is cut in half to 1d4, but then I can spend a Focus to get it back to 1d8!"
I talk about this specifically in the blog! Search for "The other concern is that we're weakening" and you'll find it.
GM Eddv wrote:
Simplicity and lighter bookkeeping are not the main reasons for this test. This is to see if a Charisma-based pool useful for supercharging items is fun.
I am also having the issue that the survey is kicking me back to the start - right after the Cleric class in my case. Went back through the survey a couple times and it keeps kicking me there. :(
We had a couple errors we had to correct this morning, which necessitated editing the survey and might have caused this error. Give it another try and let me know if it happens again!
I'm tempted to use this implementation at my table, to be honest. XD
Which reminds me, and also bears mentioning: not since the Great 'Loth Conspiracy have fiends gotten such a teleportation nerf. They've only got dimension door now, and it's only 60'. It's as if, to answer the question of "what are the ramifications of a race of malicious teleporters?", the dev team opted for the easiest possible answer and just removed the teleportation.
Most of them can use 5th-level dimension door once per day to teleport a mile.
Power attack already scales badly, bus as worded right now, it doesn't even scales at 10 if you pick it up with the Fighter Dedication Archetype.
Going through and collecting errata, and just got to this post! The dice should scale up, because the archetype's limit to your fighter level applies only to prerequisites and Power Attack should care about only your level, not your "fighter level."
John Lynch 106 wrote:
It's interesting to see the difference between Minor Elixir of Life (1d6 HP or +1 item bonus to Fort saves for 1 hour) vs Healing Potion (1d8 HP). I'll be interested to see what players prefer.
I suspect they'll prefer to buy healing potions, but be happy to take minor elixirs of life that an alchemist in their party makes for free. :)
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Where can I find the rules for potion pricing? I've found pricing for very specific potions. But I can't find potions of healing (and am not sure what each potion would cost depending on heal level).
Potions are unique items rather than being spells with a price by level. You’ll find the healing potions starting on page 394!
Blood Money immediately comes to mind. With properly codified rarity their purpose will be well-defined, and will no longer be intensely problematic to introduce. I'm curious to see what's fallen on the common/uncommon side of the spectrum, particularly with regards to spells.
Most of the options (apart from class-specific ones like powers) are common in the Playtest Rulebook because it's a precursor to the Core Rulebook. There are a few uncommon and rare ones for doing things like reversing laws of physics, some forms of outright negation, and that kind of thing.
Blood transfusion... ;)
Largely to take pressure off your spell selection at higher levels. Rather than being encouraged to fill your high-level spell slots with versatile spells you might want to use lower-level slots for, you can fill a couple lower-level slots with spells you want to spontaneously heighten and pick the newest, hottest spells for your top-level slots. :)
Captain Morgan wrote:
I hope blasting damage is looking all right. I've been optimistic, but those feats leave me a little underwhelmed at first glance. (Though, if Dangerous Sorcery works off each seperate "hit" for a spell, Heightened Magic Missile is gonna be awesome.)
That's definitely one we're planning to keep a close eye on!
Rek Rollington wrote:
I was concerned when I heard you needed to know a spell at a higher level to cast it there so spontaneous heightening is a relief. But what is the logic behind them not being able to do this all the time? Is it too much of an advantage over a wizard or does it present too many options to a player when selecting which spell to cast?
Those, with the latter slowing down play at the table immensely. Plus it really pushes you to choose spells that have heightening effects, distorting your spell selection too much. Also, spontaneous heightening can be really strong with certain spells, and we wanted you to have to pick and choose a couple to focus on at a time rather than having all that access always and outpacing prepared casters.
Though I do worry that rolling all(?) of the spontaneous casters into a single class is a bit of overgrouping and doesn't give them as much room to make their possible feats more niche.
It's not really all the spontaneous spellcasters. It's a broadening of the sorcerer, but doesn't preclude other spontaneous casters from coming along later and this isn't the only spontaneous caster in the book.
Cloak: You have to invest it in order to activate it.
Staff: It applies to all your heal spells while it's invested.
Also, rereading the article, I see that all references to increasing damage due were actually either at level 1 or conditional on landing flurry of blows. I wond how that damage die increase will interact with the “weapons” you get from different fighting styles.
Same as with fist or any other unarmed attack. If you get polymorphed into a dragon, it will work with those unarmed attacks too.
Nope, I told you the wrong thing! A chain shirt for a 1st-level character who's proficient and has 18 Dex (and has the money for it) would be AC 17, TAC 16. An unarmored monk with 18 Dex would have an AC 16, TAC 16.
Varun Creed wrote:
The same AC as chain shirt, but 1 higher Touch AC, no skill check penalty, and 0 Bulk.
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.
I don't think I quite understand how unarmored works... It sounds like a 1st level monk's AC will just be 11+dex, essentially. That seems low, and extremely low if you happen to be playing a strength build.
They're experts in unarmored defense, so it will be 10 + 2 (expert proficiency = level+1) + Dex.
Interesting, though I wonder whether Str based Monks aren't just going to be subpar. True, they seem to do a little more damage than Dex monks, if Crane Wing and Dragon Tail are to be considered as representative, but a Dex monk might not need to care about Dex, while a Str based monk still needs Dex a whole lot for AC, not to mention reflex. Maybe it won't be as bad as prior editions, since Wis is somewhat optional, but still, I'm unsure.
My suspicion is that such a monk will still have Dex second, so 18 Str/16 Dex at 1st level, 19/18 at 5th level, 20/19 at 10th level, and so on, meaning they're behind by 1 or 0 in AC at most levels. A monk like this will probably want Con third for sure. We'll see how it fares in playtest!
In this case, I'd most likely roll a secret Perception check for a player whose character gets suspicious. A bit obvious to roll a Deception check in the middle of my speech, no? :)
One thing, though: once in a while, I make monsters who truly are spellcasters (as in, it is not innate casting). Would this work in the same way every PC class works on monsters? How that would be?
Yes, you can give them prepared or spontaneous spells just like a caster. Innate covers what used to be spell-like abilities.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Not every one. It depends on the creature. So a horse doesn't have a signature attack, for example, nor do a lot of 0-level monsters. We're avoiding doing too many "you musts" with our design guidelines, since it can be overly restrictive.