Logan Bonner

Logan Bonner's page

Designer. Organized Play Member. 253 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 253 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
That reminds me, other than my high strength wizard, the other character I really want to try in 2e if I get to play is a druid/rogue multiclass. I'm curious to see how viable one of the objectively worst multiclass combinations in 1e is. :)

I'd recommend animal order...

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
BinbouMiko wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.)

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:

There was talk that, with Pathfinder second edition being easier to learn, there would be no need for a beginners box.

No such product has been announced at PaizoCon (to my knowledge).

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to note the cover is a placeholder image! What's shown there is a classic pad from way back when. The new one is redesigned. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

18 people marked this as a favorite.

You are *not* your own ally, but there are probably a few places, such as paranoia noted by Fuzzypaws, that do 1E style and weren't caught.

Paizo Employee Designer

18 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
This playtest is going by so fast...

Tell me about it...

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
swordchucks wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
GM Eddv wrote:

Woof.

This doesn't really feel any more simple or like it lessened the bookkeeping load at all but I appreciate that you're trying.

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.
You literally call out "there was too much tracking" as a reason for the previous system's unpopularity.

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonriderje wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Greg.Everham wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Redelia wrote:
How do you want us to implement these changes in Doomsday Dawn? Should we play with the new rules, or with the old rules?

Please use the printed rules and updates for any Doomsday Dawn game you'll be giving survey feedback on.

Paizo Employee Designer

18 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Eddv wrote:

Woof.

This doesn't really feel any more simple or like it lessened the bookkeeping load at all but I appreciate that you're trying.

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

For those who want to see the rules, the blog and documents are up now!

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
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!

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We think people getting kicked back to the start might have been due to some minor and backend changes we were making to the survey. We're holding off on those for now, so if it keeps happening, please let us know!

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:
In the Class survey on the Alchemist section, Perfect Medicine is not listed as an option in the question "Select the level 16–20 feat you think is the most powerful."

Thanks for catching this. Fixed now!

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
I thought "ask the player to roll" and "check is secret" were mutually exclusive.

You close your eyes and roll.

It's a system meant for the amusement of the rest of the table dying from laughter due to your crappy rolls. :D

I'm tempted to use this implementation at my table, to be honest. XD

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
There’s a monk feat like this, too, reads awkwardly until you realize the missing word would have wrapped to another line.

Do you recall which monk feat it was? I'd like to take a look for potential rewording.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

Regarding Doomsday Dawn - The Lost Star

** spoiler omitted **

I don't know whether we'll errata this, but for now I'd say use burning hands instead.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
AlgaeNymph wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
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."

Paizo Employee Designer

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. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There are quite a few we didn't include for space. I'm compiling the list of classic ones that seems like they ought to go back in, so I'll be checking in to see what folks have a soft spot for!

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book..."

Paizo Employee Designer

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!

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
I like this, but I want to know what sorcerers have to do to add an uncommon spell to their spells known. Hear about it? See someone cast it? Please don't say "be taught it."
Be taught it, find a scroll in a treasure hoard, spell research, pry it from the spellbook of an enemy wizard, be gifted with its knowledge by a god's icon in an abandoned temple...

Blood transfusion... ;)

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
rooneg wrote:
So is the Imperial bloodline approximately the same as the old Arcane bloodline?

It's kind of similar. Not all the spells or abilities match. It's also a little more specific thematically.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:

I'm curious on why there isn't undercasting as an option for sorcs in addition to their spontaneous heightening. A sorc that knows heal 5, should be able to cast heal 3, and heal 1 without additional costs, whereas a sorc that knows heal 1 should need to pay a cost (one of their spontaneous heightening spell choices) to be able to cast heal 3, and heal 5.

Is there a reason undercasting doesn't seem to exist for them?

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. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
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!

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

15 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
NielsenE wrote:

A few questions:

Cloak of Elvenkind: Can you wear it (not invest), and still use the activation power? Or does the invisibility power effectively cost 2 RP (one for the invest, one for the activation), so amortized its better if you use it multiple times a day.

Staff of healing: If invested, and you cast a heal spell using your own spell slots, do you get the +1 w/o having to spend another RP? (If you use RP to spontaneously cast heal by expending a different spell, as written, I think its perfectly clear that that cost resonance.)

Cloak: You have to invest it in order to activate it.

Staff: It applies to all your heal spells while it's invested.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

42 people marked this as a favorite.

Happy Tuesday! Here are a couple tidbits that weren't in the blog.

Monks have 10 + Con mod HP per level.

Monks have no alignment restriction.

Paizo Employee Designer

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Stupefied also seems like an odd choice since it doesn't fit a progression from flat footed->stupefied->stunned. Unless the second step is flat footed AND stupefied.

Yes, it should say that they're both flat-footed and stupefied.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Varun Creed wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
They're experts in unarmored defense, so it will be 10 + 2 (expert proficiency = level+1) + Dex.
So the same as a Common Chainshirt. Except you can craft an Expert Chainshirt which has an AC of 3 I believe.
The same AC as chain shirt, but 1 higher Touch AC, no skill check penalty, and 0 Bulk.

Wait, isn't a Chain Shirt +2 AC as per the equipment Blog? Wouldn't that make Dex 18 + Chain Shirt AC 17 at 1st level (4+2+1)? And the Dex 18 Monk's AC only 16 (4+1+1)?

Have we gotten the math wrong?

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Varun Creed wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
They're experts in unarmored defense, so it will be 10 + 2 (expert proficiency = level+1) + Dex.
So the same as a Common Chainshirt. Except you can craft an Expert Chainshirt which has an AC of 3 I believe.

The same AC as chain shirt, but 1 higher Touch AC, no skill check penalty, and 0 Bulk.

Paizo Employee Designer

24 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
I think "bolstered" is a new term. Anyone know what it means?

I thought we had mentioned this in a previous blog, but perhaps not. "Bolstered" means you're immune for 24 hours.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
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!

Paizo Employee Designer

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
That means he isn't allowed to tell us. He doesn't spoil stuff planned for later blogs. I bet we will find out on Friday.

Signature skills are the ones you can increase to master and legend, and are typically defined by your class. Though there are a few other ways to get more.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Franz Lunzer wrote:

Well, Sense Motive should be rolled in secret, by the GM.

I know, most groups don’t bother.
In PF2 there are no opposed rolls. One person just rolls vs. the opponent's Skill DC (ie: their Skill Bonus +10). We don't know the guidelines on who rolls, but you can rearrange that easily enough if you like.

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? :)

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
1) Why aren't any of the custom abilities listing extraordinary / spell-like / supernatural as tags? Seems weird to me to not know what powers different effects.

Anything that's magical would have traits like "arcane" or "evocation" appearing in parentheses. See "Red Cap."

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
NielsenE wrote:
Is "bolstered" the new term of art for "immune to effect for the next 24 hours"?

You guessed it!

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
dysartes wrote:
Probably just a typo in the blog, but you need something between slashing and boot in the Redcap's Melee line - I know I read it a few times as "slashing boot", which admittedly sounded interesting...

Yeah, that's a typo. Should have a line break there.

Paizo Employee Designer

13 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Question:

does EVERY monster get a signature attack? That would be cool as hell, but not sure if it's too ambitious

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.

1 to 50 of 253 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>