Logan Bonner's page

Hi, all! I'm seeing some misinterpretations due to some poor wording around elemental impulse feats. When you choose a kineticist feat, you can choose from amont the feats under Kineticist Feats and from the impulse feats of any element you can channel. You do not get an *additional* feat each time you pick a feat. So if you were a 1st-level pyrokineticist, you would have the three fire impulse feats from dedicated gate plus one feat chosen from either the main list or from fire impulses. Then at every even level after that, you'd gain one kineticist feat chosen from either the main list or fire impulses.

Sorry about the confusion!

Thanks for the note on the eldritch archer! The FAQ page was, in fact, missing the errata, and has now been updated.

Since it has your attention I'm actually curious; what do you think of the Magus and the feedback you've gotten so far? (snip) Anything else in particular that's stood out as an issue for players?

I'll avoid talking about the solutions we're looking at. The main reason I appreciate this thread is that there are a few people saying the same things about Striking Spell and/or lower number of spells in every thread, which makes finding other information tough to find. Having a spot dedicated toward everything else gives room for the rest to get some attention.

I think the main thing is that the class was set up to allow for more variety in the spell effects you're putting out by allowing more spells, but folks on this forum are more interested in dealing damage. Nothing wrong with that, but I do think some of that is primed by both the P1 magus and by eldritch archer. The playtest magus is a way to try broadening that formula a bit, but hits the action economy wall.

The posts of people who do like Striking Spell often rely on a pretty intense buff and true strike regime to get the results they want. That's not ideal. We don't really want players to only get full enjoyment out of the class with that level of complexity and, often, repetition.

The ability to hold the charge for a full minute, right out of the gate at level 1 is basically giving a class the equivalent of a quickened spell at level 1 that is useable in every combat. It completely wrecks havoc on the action economy of spell casting (snip)

This would be one of my main concerns to. One of the options we're looking at is somewhat similar, in that you have the option to not trigger a spell till later (and get a buff while the spell is held). Solving this action economy issue is one challenge of that. Having it so you can effectively only do it in combat is the most direct path, but a bit narratively weird in the same way stances can be.

Thanks for starting this thread, Inquisitive Tiefling! A lot of interesting info in here.

Your unarmed attacks scale with the other proficiencies. We're going to add that explicitly to the final version. I think an old template got used by accident.

Just a random thought, as I'm building a Magus for playtest purposes. Considering spells are typically balanced around their number of targets... is there really a need to lock the Magus to one target with Striking Spell?

Would it break anything if a Magus could Striking Spell someone with Chain Lightning and have it actually chain, or Striking Spell someone with Fear and include several other foes as targets at the same time (without weapon damage obviously)?

Are there spells whose effects or targets would be hard to resolve in this case?

That's an interesting idea. It would fix some of the annoying parts of restricting spells to just one target, while opening up a whole lot of new questions. Something worth exploring for us, I think.

A Striking Spell can be delivered with any ability that performs a Strike. So you can have Strikes from Attack of Opportunity, Retributive Strike, Hunted Shot, and such trigger the spell. Though, it might get trippy if you use Double Slice, raising the question if all four attack rolls would use the same MAP.

You'd use all the same MAP with Double Slice, but there'd be 3 attack rolls because the stored spell would still only go off once.

...would it decrease the results of the targets save by two?

We don't have this info in a place that's easy to find right now, but you can't increase or decrease a save by more than one step. Something we need to FAQ when we have time.

I'm honestly really confused about if Magi get 4 spells per day or more. Because the description lacks the bit about losing lower level slots (like the summoner has) and matches more with the wizard text that just gives more slots.

The magus has a maximum of 4 spells just like the summoner. The spells table is accurate.

Hello, magic fans! This thread is for general input on the Secrets of Magic playtest. You'll find separate subforums for the magus and summoner class as well, which will be the best place to give specific input on those. This forum is for any issue that involves all classes, and for other discussion about the playtest. Please do keep this forum all about the playtest. You can find threads about other Secrets of Magic topics elsewhere on the forums. Note that off-topic threads might get moved within this forum or to other parts of the forums if necessary.

Hope people are enjoying their first look at these future classes!

Just to restate what I said in the launch blog: Please be respectful and considerate to the other posters. Everybody's looking to improve the game!

Welcome to the magus playtest forum, folks! I'm the principal designer on this class, in addition to being the lead on the book and the Pathfinder Lead Designer. I'm looking forward to seeing your takes on this class and the reports of your play sessions!

If you haven't participated in a class playtest for Pathfinder before, here's what you need to know.

• Most of our data comes through the playtest surveys (link below). Staff will visit the forums, but if you really want to make sure something gets to us, make sure you include it in your survey.
  
• Actual play experience is vitally important! We appreciate opinions based on a read-through, but knowing how the class actually plays in a group during the game tells us much more.
  
• This forum will have a bit of everything: playtest recaps, mathematical analyses, wishlists, and wild speculation!
  
• As noted in the blog, remember that every poster is trying to make the game better for everyone, so please be polite and respectful. Be kind your fellow posters and our moderation staff!

Start building your magi and have fun!

Helloooooo, everyone! Welcome to the Advanced Player's Guide playtest for the investigator. I'm officially opening our case file into sleuthing, eureka moments, and well-aimed strikes to stop dastardly criminals. We look forward to fielding your comments on this class and seeing your experiences with it!

Mark and I did the majority of the work on this class, and will be your main points of contact as you talk about it. The new investigator plays with parts of the game the old one didn't, engaging more directly with the narrative overall than directly with mechanics. We want to see what people think of that approach and how it feels in play!

To reiterate the intro to the playtest document: remember that your fellow players and GMs commenting here might have different experiences with the game or expectations than you do. Please be respectful! It's fine to debate elements of the class, but avoid personal attacks and step away from your keyboard if it's getting too heated. A wise investigator maintains an even keel and an objective eye.

Now go forth and build your first 2E investigator!

Fantastic new people!
Fantastic new jobs for existing people!
And a special welcome to Lyz, already doing fantastic work on the design team!

Kasoh wrote:

Focus powers are encounter powers

I've seen this comparison made before, but I don't especially agree with it. How easy was it in 4e to use an encounter power twice in the same encounter? Because it doesn't look like it's going to be difficult at all to use the same Focus power twice or even three times in the same encounter in PF2.

The design of focus spells eventually kind of backed into being similar to encounter powers. There wasn't an intent to fill an encounter power "slot," but the two rules strike at a similar theme: How do you reinforce the core aspects of your character repeatedly. The distinction for me is that we made Focus Points work that way to reinforce the core theme of your specific character (being a fey sorcerer or a transmuter) rather than the more generic expression of your class that became typical in 4E.

In general, there's a lot of crossing over of ideas from 4E, but very carefully. Stephen and I both worked on 4E a *lot*, and each had our loves and hates of that system. We had tools for solving some of the same 3.5 problems, and could pick or choose which ones worked well. The main stuff we wanted to pull over were the big successes, like monster creation and more movement.

Would love to go into more detail at some point, but that's probably a seminar or stream down the line. :)

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...

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.)

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.

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. :)

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.

This playtest is going by so fast...

Tell me about it...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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!

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

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.

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.

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."

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!

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

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.

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... ;)

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.

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. :)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.