Have any designers commented on the intended functioning of shields yet? I didn't see anything about them in the errata itself or the comments, but haven't been sure if I missed a post in a thread somewhere.
Unarmed attack. True, there's still a penalty to do lethal damage with it, but it's now included with simple weapons, which everyone other than Wizard gets.
I don't think there is a penalty? At least not that I've read. Near as I can tell stuff like nonlethal-immune enemies just can't be knocked out(and the final hit KO is the only difference nonlethal has from lethal).
I've seen a lot of discussion about shields being flimsy, but by the playtest rules as written unless an attack ignores hardness and gets blocked by one they will never take damage themselves as the hardness reduces their damage taken to 0, and they never take more damage from an attack than their hardness.
I was looking through the magic item list in the playtest when I noticed that Bags of Holding are noted as having an activation activity, which means it currently costs 1rp for every activation due to the rule(on page 376) that the activation of magic items always costs at least 1 rp unless otherwise stated.
While reading through the armor in 2e I got to wondering, is it a good time for Studded Leather to get a new name and/or description?
For me... hmm.
The Martial Artist and Sohei archetypes for the monk as well. One allows for a more power(including the ability to ignore DR and hardness) focused monk while the other allows for a weapon wielding monk with an animal ally fighting alongside them.
For alchemist, the Herbalist archetype seems cool, giving druidic magics and improving their ability to find and collect herbs(as well as a nifty seedpod themed attack).
Finally as number five; the Freebooter ranger. It's a pretty short archetype, but being able to spend actions to buff allies is pretty cool(the rp aspects of being a sort of ship's commander are cool too!).
Okay, just found out they really do plan(or at least have said they plan to do) a real "how to add a thing from 1e to 2e" guide... so yay!.. I just wish I'd found out before worrying.
One issue though is... it's sounding more like the 3e dnd to 4e change? Like, a case where converting content from 1e to 2e just won't work without loads of guesswork.
Plus... is people relying on 3PPs really a good outcome for Paizo?
2e being incompatible just seems like a huge risk for Paizo to take, especially given it means people are far less likely to try to swap over mid-campaign.
So I have been thinking more on 2e and... one issue did hit me after reading peoples views from both sides of the arguments and such...
How possible will it be for 2e to gain a foothold if it does indeed lack much/any practical backwards compatibility?
While having 1e books still for sale will help a little, I worry the sudden content dropoff will prevent enough current players from taking enough of a plunge for 2e to be viable(or that people may favor 3rd party producers more than Paizo.).
I mean, if 2e DOES have enough backwards compatibility for someone to play a skinwalker shifter or an elf psychic or whatnot, huzzah!..
Calmer now, had a glass of water, and 2e isn't the end of the game or anything. Still... I do sort of hope they at least consider small 1e things once in a while after it's release. I mean, they are still going to be selling the books, but I mean maybe new content that isn't some third party thing of random balance.
So... I can't be the only one baffled by the 2E announcement. The desire for a system similar to 3.5 DnD is what drove Pathfinder's creation and what kept people coming back... why drop all of that now out of the blue?
So I decided to make a one-dagger rogue for an upcoming campaign a friend is running...
Weapon-wise, I'm aiming for a focus on wielding a single dagger, maybe with an offhand shield to boost defenses.