Mark Brehob's page

For the vampire thing, I agree, I read it as "As such, it has no effect on (nonliving creatures or living creatures) that don’t need blood to live". But that's an unreasonable reading given the context. Still, do demons have blood? In a lot of fantasy art they do. Just some of them? I find it unclear what needs blood to live, and sometimes even what counts as alive.

For the strike question, I can't figure out where to draw the line for target from this part: "Any magic of this type that targets the golem"

So I've had a lot of frustrations with P2e when it comes to the rules. Some things are just unclear but with careful reading you can figure out. But other things are debatable. And still others are actively unclear to everyone. Yet we don't get rule clarifications. And it's not at all clear that Paizo has tried to identify all these and fix them in the next edition.

A minor examples:
What exactly is immune to bleed damage? Is a living tree immune (is sap blood)? And if we are to figure it out based solely on "As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don’t need blood to live", why do some creatures (e.g. iron golem) specifically list it? And do vampires "need blood to live"? Heck, are vampires "alive"?

A more troubling (if less common) example:
How the heck do golem immunities work? There are tons of threads on this, and no one seems to know. Golem immunities have a massive number of issues:

Let me start first in saying - there certainly would be value in a good compilation of rules issues that is easy accessible and can be used to settle issues.

My issue is - how do you keep out bias?

Lets be frank. A lot of discussions are about loopholes in rules text. As a player you are easily tempted to argue in favour of a loophole. As a GM you are easily tempted to argue in disfavour of a loophole.

This directly feeds into the RAI vs RAW discussion.

How would the editorial decisions be made on such a FAQ?

Would editors be selected in a balanced way?

How could that be achieved?

Would it try to give a clear answer or rather summarize these are arguments in favour or disfavour of a ruling?

Two things:

To me, RAW is just a clear way of saying a thing. And yes, for sure, RAW isn't always clear. The English language is that way. Good writing/editing helps, but doesn't solve everything.

The reason I do like the idea of RAW vs. RAI is that sometimes, per the section on Ambiguous Rules, you need to get into the authors' heads. For example on frightened impacting AC, my original thought was "I'll bet they didn't mean to do that". But when I found it was intended during the play test, I've concluded that the RAW and RAI are the same in that case, which is a good thing. If nothing else, it's how I read rules, laws, and just about any other technical document. In my line of work, there is a lot (a lot) of bad English (many engineers can't write well...) and trying to get into the authors' heads is a key to success...

All that said, I do appreciate the feedback--it's good to know that RAW can have such negative connotations for people.

One thing that has been bothering me, is that there is no real FAQ for the 2e rules. And there are certainly some places where it would be useful.

I'm proposing a crowd-sourced FAQ. I've only just started, but am hopeful others might be interested in contributing. I thought about doing it on a wiki (wikidot or something) but I think that creates a significant barrier for entry. My goal isn't to figure out what the answer *is* to each question. Instead what I'm trying to do is link to the relevant resources (rules, discussions, etc.) and identify consensus.

So I've created a Google document with an introduction and just one question asked and answered as an alpha version of such an FAQ. What I'm looking for from this group is:
* If anyone has feedback on the format or structure or anything like that.
* Others willing to edit.

If you'd like to edit, just reply to this thread with a Google email address you'd be using and mention one or two questions you'd be planning on adding to the FAQ.

I reserve the right to make final decisions but hope and expect I won't have to. If this really takes off I'll open a slack or something for discussion, otherwise I imagine this thread will be enough.

Crowd Sourced FAQ.

What are you planning on doing with Int 16. Lots of Lore checks?

You can make a good Sprite bard with Int 8 if you want. There is plenty of room there to adjust your Str and Dex for optimal armour use. But you are in a large party so you will hopefully have a relatively reliable front line to be behind and you have a little more latitude with your AC.

Yeah, bardic knowledge and with strength of 1000 I will be getting a wizard dedication. So planning on running with that and getting decent at arcane spells too...

But yes, a party of 6 most likely. So being in the back should be easy a lot of the time I'd hope.

It would be really nice if we got an FAQ about things like this. Sorta makes a huge difference. I see three rulings:
* You can't target a hidden creature with magic missile, because the spell specifically requires you to see the target.
* You can auto-hit a hidden target because of the "automatic hit" part of the spell
* You have to make a normal flat check to hit with magic missile.

I think all three are reasonable readings of the RAW. Be nice to know that the RAI are...

Probably my biggest issue with 2e the lack of support on rulings from the design team.

The way I'd put it is that the game does a pretty solid job of capping your "optimization" level. It's quite easy to build a *bad* character. And, IMO, most classes, at least at lower-level, only have 2 or 3 reasonable ways to get to get a good character. Really, none of that is all that different than previous editions other than capping the optimization level.

So just don't fall into any traps (e.g. Fighter power attack isn't something you should be using every round) and you should be fine. Be sure to max your attack stat (duh), take the "required" feats for your class (ranger needs a way to attack multiple times on a single action for example...) and you should be fine.

As far as party building:
* In-combat healing is hugely important. That can be a shock from Pathfinder 1e (less so from 5e, but still significantly more important in P2E than 5e).
* More-so than most other games (P1E for sure, 5e a bit) a tank is really really important in some games. In a dungeon crawl (where movement is limited and bottlenecks happen a lot) it's huge. In outdoor games (where people can move fairly freely) it's still important.
* Having some area attack and some ranged attacks are helpful. Ranged attacks look bad (and are bad from a numbers viewpoint) but the action economy makes ranged attacks helpful. And the low penalties for shooting into combat (generally just a -1, sometimes nothing) without spending feats is big, especially in when bottlenecks are common. Are attacks are, IME, less important than in 5e or P1E but still darn useful for obvious reasons.

So you need one healer, one tank, and probably someone that can do area damage and it's nice for significant parts of the party to be useful at range.

OP here. Just made 2nd level as a Goblin Ranger Archer.

Not finding it to be a trap at all and rather liking it. In fact for the first couple of sessions people were feeling like my character was the most deadly (a lot of good rolls). I am finding playing a 1st level martial character to be pretty repetitive, but that's true in most systems (I pretty much always play casters).

There are a three main reasons that the character works better than I'd expected: action economy, kind cover rules, and party composition.

For actions, "move, mark. shoot/shoot" is pretty typical--I've never needed to take a 2nd move. The melee types (fighter, rogue, cleric) often have just too much to do (raise shield, move twice, etc.) and sometimes they don't even get a single attack, let alone two. And while they are doing d12+3 (cleric) or d6+4 (fighter), I'm doing fine at d6+d8+1 as a precision ranger.

The cover rules for shooting into melee are very kind compared to 1e (no penalty or -1 vs up to -8 in 1e). That given our large party (6 folks), that has meant I've been able to attack when only one other martial could.

I'm going with an animal companion and battle medicine at 2nd level. That will give me a lot more to do with my actions and I'm looking forward to having a few more choices to make. Also hoping that an animal companion doesn't slow down my turn much (not ideal with 6 folks). I *am* feeling like battle medicine and animal companion are a lot better than all the other options I'm seeing at 2nd level. They are also what I was planning on since before I understood 2e rules, so maybe I've just not looked broadly enough...

So with only play at level 1, I'm liking my archer.

Lucerious wrote:

My list of complaints about 5e go on for miles. That said, one thing they do very well is answer questions and provide (via third party) an online resource to find all the tweets discussing the rules. One may disagree with the format or the ruling given, but the fact that there is a clear and easy way to get answers to ambiguous rules is great. When I was playing 5e, Sage Advice was a bookmarked site.

Paizo can very easily select one person to be the rule czar. That person would have the final say and be able to give direct answers to rule questions. Some may not like what final arbitrations are made, but it’s better than leaving it to player debate.

Maybe not final say, but more guidance on how rules should should while they work on errata. That way it can't be used as an arguing point after they officially fix an issue.

Errata can be great, but some things just need clarifying.

And I will say, I've had problems with both the 5e sage advice answers (the shield master thing is a good example) and the 2e errata (Manifold Edge errata is just plain old stupid making it a horrible 18th level feat). But I'd rather have the designer's thoughts than not.

Makes sense, but having one rules Czar seems like it would be helpful.

Just the rules are vague/poorly-written in places. More than 5e (simpler rules) or Pathfinder 1e (had 3.5 to build off of).

I know we've got the errata. But I'm so used to 5e where the rules questions largely get answers from the involved staff. Here it feels like the rules questions have yet to really be addressed. No FAQ, not much of anything. Pathfinder 1e seems to have a bit more even.

Anyone know if this is likely to change?

Hobit of Bree wrote:

A ranger shouldn't be outdone on the things associated with being a ranger.

Mounted combat isn't a thing that is associated with being a ranger.

Having an animal companion has been with the class since 1e as I recall. Beastmaster does it better. I see no reason to not allow the ranger to up his companion at the same level as druid and *every* archetype that gives one. I get they wanted the druid one to be better. But should have improved the druid one, not hosed the ranger.

To be able to do animal companions well, the ranger needs to take an archetype. Why bother having the feats at all? Animal companion isn't something you are going to dip into. If you don't level it up, it's useless. So every ranger taking any of those feats is very (very) likely going to do it via an archetype instead. I'm having a hard time seeing a level 8 build that takes the ranger animal companion and doesn't take beastmaster.

Feels like suboptimal design. Why have feats as part of a class if it's unwise to take them?

Did this need like three threads?

I tried to edit the subject. Apparently doing that creates a new post. Sorry...

For me, I think it should be the other way. A class can have several niches. The ranger especially I've personally described as "4 archetypes in a trenchcoat labeled 'Hunt Prey'". But an archetype should be a great deal more focused on its thing.

Fair enough. I'm not thrilled with it, and I wish they interacted with class abilities better (for example, a ranger beastmaster's animal companions should all get the hunter's edge). But that view of things is useful to me.

Sounds like solely focusing all feats on the bow has very diminishing returns and won't be as much fun given my preferred play style is to do something weird at least every few fights. I think I'll end up with animal companion (maybe via cavalier to get upgrades earlier) just to have more options and fun in combat. Curious how it will all play out.

Thanks again everyone!

Gloves of the Giver
As a full round action, lay your finger by the side of your nose. Cast conjure carriage but A) only at night (maybe only on special nights) B) it can fly with a movement rate of 24. Caster level 7. 9000 GP value seems about right if usable once/night. Seems like about a level 4 spell with flight. So (7*4*2000/5), with some discounts for full round action (small) and only at night (say 25% off?).

Extra-large bag of holding
Type III bag of holding that is quite large and weighs as much as a type IV. It's red and large enough that a medium creature has to keep two hands on it to move it around (a large or larger creature need not worry about this restriction and can put it in bags or whatever else). 4500 GP.

Horn of Holidays
During winter months, once a week, on command, this drinking horn produces a liquid which can be drunk as part of the command. It provides benefits as the ability "inspire greatness" performed by a 9th level bard for 2d6+1 rounds (rolled secretly by the DM). If done on the highest-holiday of the Winter season of the god it is dedicated to, it lasts for the entire day, from sunrise to sunrise the next day. 5000 GP? No idea on this one.

Hi folks,
Do we have example high-level characters anywhere? It seems like it would be a nice way to see if I'm getting the various rules correct.

Holy cow, does that look massively overpowered.

Basically full BAB (how many characters really use more than one weapon on a regular basis), a bonus feat at first level (WF) and spells.

It appears to just get better. I _like_ it because I'd like to play one. But balance wise, it just is too much when compared to a fighter.

MAD issues don't really apply. Yes, a higher CHR helps, but you don't _need_ it. Furvor is good with a 10 or 12 CHR.

----------------------
Finally, I'd suggest not doing the "different BAB on different Weapons" thing--just too confusing. Go with full BAB and a -1 to hit at levels 1, 5, 9 etc. with all other weapons. Yes, it's slightly better. But it's also a lot cleaner.