MerlinCross's page

Thematically I like this but mechanically(Paizo you always do good work but also botch at the end like this).

Frightening Injection - When you successfully inject a creature with a substance (including a biohacker’s biohack) using a weapon that has the injection special property, you can attempt an Intimidate check to demoralize that creature as a move action before the end of your turn. A creature can be affected by this ability only once per day.

It's nice, it's cool, it fits with 'mad space doctor' vibe.

Why would you ever take this.

1) Biohacker has no need for CHA and thus would have a lower Intimidate score than someone else.
2) It works with Injection weapons only, thus limiting it's usefulness to other classes as they can operate better weaponry.
3) A once per day per target restriction. Meaning you have to move on to the next target if you fail or vs a solo target, it's a dead feat.
4) Demoralize is range 30, and the feat doesn't at least as RaW remove that. So you're more than likely having to stay up close to a target rather than using a rifle to stay safer.
5) And all of the above could be debated and argued over if it's a good skill or not; if Improved Demoralize didn't exist.

I love little fun feats like this that really help flesh a character out, but it's truly TRULY hard to argue taking it when Improved Demoralize does the job but better without having to make an attack roll and be limited to once per day per target.

Paizo has a history of making really good thematic feats but then just making them garbage. Why does this feat exist?

[I can only speak for myself, but the math and attempts to break the system are precisely why I'm here. At some point, I am going to gather up all my toys, write up my houserules, and not come back for a while. That doesn't mean we do math when making player choices. It just means I want the game designed to maximize choice with minimum punishment for "roleplaying" choices. I'm sure the game designers would tell you that requires some math. The simplest way to put it might be: You don't come to the forums to roleplay.

You're right. We don't come to the forums to roleplay.

But at the rate it seems on the forums, I question if most people here wouldn't be happier with a skirmish war game instead. Or one of those board games that simulate a tabletop game.

I make choices based off some math. The community seems more than willing to just take the accepted answer because of math going into the decimals.

And if a person is that willing to give up their own choices, I can only question what sort of actual in character agency they'll have, never mind their player one. They've already given that one up.

I had this concern too. I'm still not certain if it's an issue or not, but it's a possible one. Mostly because class feats are pulling double duty for customization and class abilities.

Thankfully, I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that the GMG will include class feats at every level as an official optional rule. Yeah, you can house rule it now, but sometimes having it printed is what helps convince a GM to allow it. My main concern with a class feat every level is that it will kind of encourage everyone to multiclass all the time, because you'll often find it where you've taken all the good looking class feats, so you might as well multiclass. As more class feats are released though, this will probably become less of an issue, but the ease of multiclassing will make it very attractive. Whether that's a pro or con depends on the individual. I personally want a sweet spot of multiclassing being very doable, but not so easy that it's the default for everyone to have multiple multiclass dedications.

That's kinda debatable and probably more based on Build.

A Feat each level more than likely just means 2 feats from each Rung. And I can't picture there not being at least 2 winners each Feat Level Rung. Double backing for a weaker feat at a higher level seems a bad move unless you're using it to unlock something else later on.

Meanwhile people who have a good build picked out can multiclass a lot easier and probably get close to the old hybrid classes.

In PF2, the action cost for debuffing is much less: characters can do a debuff instead of taking a third attack at -10 or for free with a crit.

If a third strike at -10 is universally a better choice than inflicting Frightened on an enemy then that's a damning criticism of the system. I suspect that isn't actually true, though.

You Can. Will you want to is left to be mathed out. Especially later on when new splat books come out and there might be ways to over come that -10.

I mean for the sake of all the PF gods, we have people mathing out DPR already, to decimal points.

It's why I hang my head at times when talking about PF1. It's not Agency or the choice, it's the Math that makes people do stuff. And far too often it seems. Did it make sense to take this trait for my character? NO but it gives me the Math I wanted. Story be sod off, I need Fey Foundling on Paladin. We'd be here all day if I kept giving examples but I think people get it.

I might not like the changes but right now might actually be the best time to try PF2 as the math isn't figure out just yet. Or maybe it is but it hasn't been broadcast to the wider community just yet.

I've always questioned "Dump stats". I'm the guy that at least likes to keep everything at 10-12 so I don't get a negative. I never saw going lower as a 'good thing' unless it was for spell casters and even then, there's ways to get more spell slots/recharge them. Also the danger of taking Stat damage early but that's gone last I saw(There's no stat damage just debuffs. Can you die if your stat hits 0 by debuff?)

As someone who plays charisma characters a frankly unreasonable amount of the time, this behavior annoys the hell out of me. It feels like being deliberately robbed of my investment in diplomacy because the GM wants to punish the dwarf. You wouldn't force someone who didn't invest in Thievery to pick half of the locks.

No but the CHA character everywhere or at least IN character might not have the mannerisms to be fully trusted.

A Bard might be able to win over the Thieves guild but a Rogue or someone that is more criminal/underground might have a better idea or way of getting them to talk cause they are "One of us".

It's why I'm slowly testing out Etiquette from Shadowrun in my games. Well the Shadowrun Returns series. Basically different mannerisms or talking/culture points that help with discussing.

Yeah your Dwarf might not have CHA to talk to the big merchant lord but he'd have say Etiquette Miner or Streets and be able to talk with the lower classes just fine, as an example.

While having a strong CHA build is fine, just make sure to let others talk and not just be for combat.

Yeah no I wasn't expecting instant rules on how to revert back in the first couple APs. Unless said APs are retreads/repeats, like Rise of the Runelords 2.0. Just a little "Hey here's what to do to update it" or something like that.

But again unless it's retreads I don't expect to see rules on how to convert back till later.

I get that you guys want to keep working. I even get you guys want to move on. And I wish you luck.

I just hope your new game doesn't get broken and answered in a year or two.

Suggestions on how to port new AP into the old system.

That aside;

Ramifications on the larger setting could be good, as I think most of us who have run more than one AP like to reference that. I did Iron Gods and Wrath of the Rightous afterward and made a new order of knights/paladins to go with the PCs based off Tech found in Iron Gods.

Or maybe find ways to link the AP from one book to another. Now of course this would be a giant task if you do it for all the APs but maybe link them based on Region or style? It doesn't even need to be the same characters, maybe the retainers of the PCs are sent to deal with an issue near by, but if you're going to link them based of PCs(And their levels) maybe give a broad suggested stat bonus to give monsters? I don't know.

Like if you completed Skull and Shackles, your next character for say, Serpent's Skull or Ruins of Azlant was a retainer/helper of your old PC and gets a small Pirate bonus?

Something to help flesh out where they're from or at least what "Completed" AP they are from. You don't even need to beat the AP but can now go "Okay this AP was completed and here's the fallout" in an easier way.

I think Reign of Winter mentioned a Module that might have been played before the AP and goes "So here's what's up if that happened" or something. More of that be interesting to see.

Even with the explanation I'm with Cyouni and Arachnofiend here. If a game developing optimization paths and preferred builds as it develops is what constitutes a failure... then the vast majority of products that exist or will ever exist are automatically failures.

That seems like a poor metric.

Optimization paths and preferred builds - okay.

Community and dev expectation that they are the absolutely only way to play the game - bad.

I'm tired of being told I need a barrel of happy sticks. I'm tired of being told I'm bad if I select a tier 1 and struggle. I'm tired that everyone rolls their eyes if I pick Rogue or a class-race that isn't optimal.

I'm tired that everyone seems to expect everyone to min max. Even the devs at this point.

And if PF2 shapes up the same way, then yes, I'll consider it a failure.

I disagree with that too. We absolutely want better builds than others. We want people who explore and theorycraft to find synergies that are hidden (and then of course make guides/posts/videos about it). If there wasn’t room to get superior (and by that also inferior) builds in PF2 then the game would imo be a failure. What they do need to do to succeed though is have the gap be narrower. Too often in PF1 one character would overshadow the table and make them useless. There was a hug gap between optimized and incorrectly built, but the bigger problem was the huge gap between optimized and averagely built.

I don't mind when people do that but I mind when people fully accept it as "The only way to play".

PF2 is a failure to me if it sells itself on all this 'customization' and "oh these are viable" only for the community to throw out 75% of it and keep playing with the same builds again and again regardless of if it fits the character or not.

I don't want to pick Fighter in PF2 and instantly have the community and even Devs expect "Oh he's going Two hander cause that's the only way to play that class at this point". I don't want to pick Wizard and the answer be "Oh pick X, Y, and Z" and have the community AND GAME tell me I'm bad if I don't.

Also; "We want better builds than others". Yeah. That's how the arms race begins.

It's fresh. It's new. It's shiny.

It needs time for the new paint to wear off and the community to solve the math problems. Then we'll see if it's a better game or not.

Because I see the term "Tier list" adopted by the community at large, AGAIN in PF2, and a general expected mathed out "you must be X strong" come up AGAIN in the community and official books; it will in my opinion have failed.

By RAW I don't know. Others have put it up there so I suppose that's what happens.

However, in my Mummy's Mask game, I had a snake just as a random enemy. It was hiding under a table outside an estate the team was exploring. The team..., not only left it alone but also gave it some food.

There was a weapon in the building that was going to be VERY useful to killing about half the enemies there so I ruled that the former owner of the weapon was a Ranger/Hunter of some kind and his animal companion was the snake. Smart enough to do a 'snapping' trick to make a sound and smart enough to lead the group to the weapon(Which has a snake decal on it).

The party took the helpful snake with them and actually became the Cleric's familiar

I feel like one thing that kind of makes brawler style flexibility less necessary in PF2 is that most combat styles no longer require a massive feat investment to be functional. Like grappling feats are no longer math enhancers that help you successfully grapple, they give you options for things you can do to someone you can grapple. A 15th level fighter with 16 dex and mastery with the longbow should be able to hit a lot of things with arrows without a single archery feat.

And yet I would prefer to decide at the start of a fight "Am I going to be grapple based or given that it can fly, should I take some Archery Feats to help me fight it".

That 15th level Fighter can hit things with a bow yes. But he still has to pick "Do I want to be a better Archer or a better Melee today" is the issue. Yes you could just use Brawler to sneak past the Feat Tax problems but being able to pick up 1-3 feats at the start of a fight was really fun and let you choose how to fight that battle. I mean I like Pummeling Style, but I'd like to only have that for DR enemies. I can do that with PF1 Flexing.

And really something that should have it's own topic. Again I just dislike that Brawler seems to be "Ki-less Monk" when it brings it's own style of play to the table.

That aside, I know people want Ki-less Monks for..., flavor or mechanics reasons but what do you DO as a monk if you don't have your Not magic but totally magic powers?

Cause it seems like asking the Spellcaster for buffs is out or at least not as useful.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

I just picture 2 Anime Monks just countering each other's Ki ability spam while the fight goes on around them.

Monk 1 countering Monk 2's "Wholeness of Body" because they know what pressure points to hit in order to block the appropriate chakras is pretty flavorful.

Very “Fist of the North Star” in feeling... now I wanna make Kenshiro as well as the JoJos... DAMN IT MAN, WHY MUST YOU GIVE ME AWESOME IDEAS?!? But yeah, using Ki to cancel Ki has some very DBZ feels to it as well, Kamehameha beam wars and all that

Because I'm very good at coming up with odd ideas for builds/characters. Like I just found out there's kinda a "Dancer Fighter" archetype for Brawler and I need to make something for that.

As for Jojo..., maybe the first 2 parts. We'll have to see how they do Summoner and see if we can do Stands again.

This is very off topic now so I'll stop.

MerlinCross wrote:

masda_gib wrote:

graystone wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

IMO, it never made sense for "you use your ki to cast dimension door" to not be a spell.

I'm more thinking about an ability that doesn't replicate a spell. Ki allowed extra movement, another attack, ect. Ki strike and such abilities [that add simple numbers] don't jump out as spellcasting: all those untagged, NOT su abilities that ki was used for.

SO for me, if a monk has to cast a spell to get a +1 to strike then a grit user would have to cast a spell to use their abilities: that's really all I'm saying.

I think PF2's definition of spell is very broad. Basicallyyou do stuff to achieve a magical effect, whatever the effect and the stuff is. Especially with occult magic covering all the simply unexplainable effects.

The monks Ki Strike (and Ki Rush too) only has a verbal action, which could be a typical "Huh!" while punching or shouting "Falcon Punch!". And both are tagged as transmutation magic.

If they count as magic, can they be countered Spelled? Does Anti Magic Field gimp Monks now?

I'm pretty sure Ki was Supernatural in PF1, so an AMF stopped their Ki before, didn't it? Or was Ki Extraordinary?

As for Counterspell, that requires having the same spell at hand. So depending on how they are classified in the final rules, either no or yes, but only if you have the Counterspell feat and the same power. Which would be kinda cool honestly.

I just picture 2 Anime Monks just countering each other's Ki ability spam while the fight goes on around them.

MerlinCross wrote:

And given that Combat Feats are gone, I don't see how you can have a Class like Brawler anymore.

Floating class feats? Maybe swap 1/day and give it a focus ability to switch the floating feat to another faster? Plus, if you multiclassed you could pull from another classes class feats.

The multiclass part sounds like it could just ripe for abuse in practice. But they'd(hopefully) figure out how to restrict it a bit. Like Brawler 9/Fighter 1 shouldn't qualify for Certain Strike as a fast example.

But this is more a Monk topic. I just dislike that Brawler is waved off as "Monk without Ki".

Is it the Flurry or the Unarmed damage that makes it so? If it's the latter, there's a lot of archetypes in PF1 that were "Monk without Ki"

Can you even do Unarmed without being a Monk or taking Monk Dedication?

graystone wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

IMO, it never made sense for "you use your ki to cast dimension door" to not be a spell.

I'm more thinking about an ability that doesn't replicate a spell. Ki allowed extra movement, another attack, ect. Ki strike and such abilities [that add simple numbers] don't jump out as spellcasting: all those untagged, NOT su abilities that ki was used for.

SO for me, if a monk has to cast a spell to get a +1 to strike then a grit user would have to cast a spell to use their abilities: that's really all I'm saying.

I think PF2's definition of spell is very broad. Basicallyyou do stuff to achieve a magical effect, whatever the effect and the stuff is. Especially with occult magic covering all the simply unexplainable effects.

The monks Ki Strike (and Ki Rush too) only has a verbal action, which could be a typical "Huh!" while punching or shouting "Falcon Punch!". And both are tagged as transmutation magic.

If they count as magic, can they be countered Spelled? Does Anti Magic Field gimp Monks now?

As for the topic, I see this going 2 ways.

1) Nova. Every Fight. I disliked it in Spheres, I'll probably dislike it here. No reason to think about resources, no reason to think up a plan that isn't "Damage". Death is the best CC and just take 10 minutes to eyeball the room.

2) Nothing. Being so trained over X years to never use their cool stuff till the boss, players might actually with hold using their powers out of habit.

61. God Wizards.

62. God Wizards..., too lazy/busy/something good is on the crystal ball that night, so sends the PCs to deal with whatever problem is around.

APL is a starting point anyway, at least to me. This is because of how some enemies are assigned CR. Like someone showed that according to the math, a type of Hag would be totally acceptable to fling at a level 3, 4 man team. Hint, that encounter would NOT go over well.

I'm of the opinion that if you go below 1, you should round it back up to 1.

The ambush sounds okay but you'll have to maybe switch some things up depending on what class he plays. A Sorcerer is going to have a very different run through than say a Fighter or Barbarian.

This is a rough idea. Do the ambush, 4 raiders vs 4 defenders; your son, cleric NPC, and 2 guards. Then split the battle. Have your son and the cleirc take on 2 on one side of the caravan, while the guards take on the other 2.

Don't even roll combat for the other side of the caravan just see how your son is handling combat. If he's breezing through it or the cleric still has plenty of spells, bring the other 2 raiders over after he's won the first fight(Just remove the guards from the board, they got killed off screen or knocked out, depending on how you want to handle death/killing for your son).

If your son's character is wounded or the cleric is low on healing, just have the guards drive off or kill their raiders. Heck if it looks bad for your son's character, have a guard win his fight and come over to help.

Right I have a swashbuckler player now so I should go tell them to redo their entire build or go mulitclass because that's the only way you can play this "class".

I'll kill them off so they can do it right and play Bloodrager.

No wait this is Pathfinder Community. I'll tell them to roll up Wizard next time.

Alternatively, people could just get used to "only" having four actions per turn, instead of the three that everyone else gets...

I certainly hope summoners don't get more then that, especially if they are still casters.

My house ruled version of Spiritualist is "You must spend a standard action if you want your phantom to do anything; it doesn't exist on rounds that you don't spend that action but you can have it come into existence anywhere within 30 feet of you when you do", and that has sped up play SO MUCH.

Disclaimer: I do think that PF2e summoners should at least be able to spend 2 actions to give their summon a full 3, instead of having to split 2 and 2 every round, and I think that summons should be able to take 1 movement action per round when not being controlled.

Two and Two does equal Four and that is bigger than three. But I'm sure you can find instances where you'd prefer 3 actions on your character or 3 actions on your Summon rather than 2 on each. Requires more planning and thought put into your actions during battle given how it's spread out.

As for the house rule you used, okay I can see that speeding up play but that also seems... rough?

AoE comes in leaving behind Dots like burning terrain or acid? "I just don't use my Phantom this turn and let it skip the damage". This also basically gives semi Reach or Teleport to get in and out of combat at Spiritualists will.

There's also the issue of possibly trying to apply buffs/heals to the Phantom but it doesn't exist on the turn you use Standard to do so.

Speeds up game yes but that sounds rough in places.

The second issue that threads into that is that you are having to use class feats to get them, thus focusing less on improving your classes "feature" set. I content that is functionally the same as opting to spend your limited pool of feats in PF1 on picking up combat style feats instead of the various numerous feats that could improve on your classs feature set (metamagic, extra talent, spell focus etc.)

PF1 however I'm not losing out on Brawler Knockout. Or Manuver Training. Or Awesome blow.

Actually I'll make it easier.

PF1 I'm not forced to pick between between a class Feature and Power Attack as a Monk. If I want it in PF2, I have to give up 2 monk abilities. Or post pone them till later and question, after a certain point, is it REALLY worth going back for lower ranked Feats?

Fast example; say I do get Power Attack on my Monk(Why doesn't matter, I want it). I spend my level 2 feat on Fighter Dedication, my Level 4 feat on Power Attack. I'm level 6 now and picking a feat. If I double back and pick up Flying Kick, something I would really like to have in the build, is that worth skipping a level 6 Feat? Next time I could pick would be level 8... but would picking up a level 4 or 6 feat be WORTH skipping a level 8 feat till level 10?

You aren't paying with Feats. You're paying with Leveled Class Features, and those are going to be worth just as much if not more than before I feel. You're probably going to always want to buy on level if possible so the moment you decide to skip that level/feat, it's probably dead to you.

In addition, how many of those Class Feature feats from PF1 are usually over in General Feats, not Combat?

Having 2 rolls on a skill never hurts. At the very least, you can aid another each other.

Quick question, no where near this book but wondering what people did.

What was done about Tidewater Rock? Did your players just fully drop it? Move the people to the Island of Empty Eyes?

This was something that came up twice now but it was last night that really made me want to make a post.

So we're playing an AP that has a trial and we have someone on the stand we KNOW is lying to us. Rest of the players are trying to figure out how to catch him in one when I bring up "Couldn't we just zone of truth?". I had used it before in another game and that worked okay. But another player pointed out it's flaws(The will save and knowing you are effected by the spell) and actually took a dive into spells while we were debating. He only found 1 Paladin spell "Touch of Truth Telling" that would work but that belongs to a certain god. A dead one named Abadar.

So this got me thinking; is Sense Motive strong enough to compete with spells? I mean that's why basically everyone seems to suggest raising it if you can because you can't easily swap it out with a spell, right? I suppose you could get spells to raise your Sense Motive bonus but you still need the skill.

The only thing that might put a wrench into this idea is the use of Command spells. Couldn't you just use some sort of Charm/Command/Mind Control spell to get the truth you want from a subject? Now granted, in a Trial, that is basically asking the other side to just call Foul for all number of reasons but I think that's a way to get around lying.

I dunno, what I'm saying probably has been discussed before but the event sparked a desire to hear from other people. Magic can split the earth, control weather, and make demi planes. Can it keep up with a silver tongued two faced liar though? If so what are some ways to do so(That probably doesn't just give bonuses to Intimidate checks).

Nettah wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

Given that the idea is that the Core class should be viable to play without the Archetypes(including Rogue and Monk regardless of what community says), I would think it actually does come out to be different.

One is suggesting "Maybe this will fit" while the other sounds like "You have to pick these feats to work".

I dunno. It sounds different to me. Having a player's guide say "sea singer (bard) is a suitable archetype this AP" sound different to "Picking up Pirate Dedication, Dirge of Doom, and X Muse are suitable Class feats for this AP"

But this is probably something that deserves it's own topic. We can take it to PMs if you want to continue discussing it.

Personally I also would want you to be able to build multiple archetypes within the class without resorting to picking other class dedications. And I think this will be more the case in the final version of the CRB and likely even more so when additional books start coming out.

So most of the views I have expressed about picking up druid dedication if you want to have magic abilities as a Ranger is limited to the playtest. I don't know, but I could imagine that it wasn't by accident that a class like the ranger didn't have the opportunity to pick up any magic in class, while a class like paladin could. It would (in my mind) be too big a change to add or remove this sort of thing in the middle of the playtest, so Paizo would need to have several different "class types" available in the playtest to get a better sense of the data.

Agreed, I said something similar earlier (or maybe it was in another thread). Like Paizo wanted to test both "PF1 low caster with no magic" and "PF1 low caster with Powers", but it was impractical to test both with Ranger and both with Paladin, so they instead did what we got and aimed to get feedback on the concepts themselves, not just how the class itself played.

To be fair, I think Ranger and Paladin would play very different with Powers.

While I can understand the reasoning behind doing so for the test, Powers on Paladin make a sort of sense. Power to Smite, power to heal, defend their allies, react if certain conditions are met in the thick of things; these all make sense due to how Paladins are played. Sure there's some outliers and we might be able to make a better Ranged Paladin later but it all works to support the fantasy of big armored holy combatant wading into battle with holy support.

Ranger? To my knowledge most of Ranger's spells were either buffs or utility in nature. Which I think make for poor options as Powers, partially buffs given the nerfs they've seen. Depending on how it's set up, you might actually just be better off jumping into a Spellcaster Dedication rather than picking up the Powers. And we won't know how that looks or feels for Ranger till after print.

Ediwir wrote:

On the other hand, converting a missing creature or npc from 5e to pathfinder would take a looooong time, and even a simple skill check would be much less immediate.

Eh, I found that the Simple Monster Creation rules simplified this specific point pretty well. An exact analogue might be beyond the scope of those rules, but you can usually get close enough to wink at it,

Where PF1 fails and PF2 might succeed is Legendary and Lair actions of boss characters. It's possible, but the CR system really doesn't cope well with it. With PF2 you can simply add a few extra actions and reactions every round and call it a day.

...and the idea of complex reactions just now occurred to me. Those should totally be a thing in PF2, in th beastiary if not necessarily in player's hands.

To be fair, I don't think Extra Actions is something CR/Difficulty handles well in any system. Give a Dragon the ability to cast level 1 spells during someone else's turn; depending on the spells picked out that's either kinda meh or actually rather effective. How much CR does that change if the spells are on the lower end?

>be worried about the fight against Gaunt Cadaver
>Watch them steamroll it in 2 turns.

WHELP.

They aren't even that big on min max but 1 crit vaporized one of the targets and another high swing from a Bane weapon melted another. Gaunt himself(With slight rework) buffed his AC on his first turn as he was blinded and trusted his new 20+ AC to save himself. He failed however to a Hold Person save and ate a Coupe de Grace. His Gutstone probably could have saved him but that also would have destroyed it and made it harder to prove he died to Unwrapped Harmony.

Next up due to them going around in the hallways, they're going to fight the Carrion Golem. Which with it's Stench Aura should be a harder fight.

A system where you can trade off one thing for one other thing a la carte is simply easier to use, but it's also exactly the same thing as "you have a slot to fill here, and you can make these choices."

A system where half the kit is build it yourself strikes me as hard to balance.

How do you judge how strong or weak a class is if at any time you can have half your class be completely different? I mean when more APs come out are they going to have suggested feat picks? Or are we just going to see "Don't take class feat, just take X Dedication" in guides and characters? Is taking Sorcerer Dedication strong or is the base class that weak that you need spells? The idea of taking Druid for Ranger has already been floated in the topic but that still sounds more like a band aid than an actual fix.

That is, however, a far more in depth and detailed topic that probably deserves it's own thread. But I think that every class should be able to stand on it's own under default settings or build. And with a la carte system, that seems rather hard to perceive. At least on my end.

@Mathmuse: I mean I like the idea of some sort of Herbal ability for Ranger but maybe need some more polish to it. I've done deep dives in the gear for PF1 and liked the idea of Herbal/plant use when I saw them.

Still, part of me goes "Why not just Dedication Alchemist instead?"

I think that kind of "custom NPC class with special abilities" is more feasible in 2e because players can't just dip a level of it for the shiny toys like they could in 1e.

That said, I'm not sure that "class that exists only to explain or formalize handwavium" is something I think Paizo should be spending valuable wordcount on. If my players ever make complaints along the lines of "why does that NPC have a higher bonus at making tapestries than me, my tapestry-making bonus is as high as possible at this level!" my response is typically "Has your character spent 20 years of their life dedicating 12 hours a day to mastering the art of tapestries, with no meaningful diversions?" and/or "which class features would you like to trade out for a higher tapestry-making bonus?"

"Class with NPC tag is suggested to be prohibited from PC selection".

I don't see why that wording or something close to it can't work for each edition. Given that in my opinion, several Archetypes seem far better for NPCs than players, it doesn't seem too far a stretch to just slap an NPC tag to something.

But that's usually my explanation in games too. Sure you have a high bonus but they've been doing it for years longer and picked up some tricks/shortcuts. Now if you would like to become their friend and do a quest, maybe they can show you some but unless you want to give up being an adventurer for like 5 years and learn under them, that's probably all you're getting.

Again I just made up some hard and fast rules for myself to explain why, at least in rules, NPCs are better at X.

I think that the 4 essenses are all that there will be. That allows for 6 combinations (AB, CD, AC, AD, BC, BD). We already have 4, Arcane Divine Primal and Occult, leaving 2 possible combinations undefined. Devs have said that they want to get away from having 15 different spell-lists but I haven't seen anywhere that they said the 2 undefined combinations will not be used, just a hard cap of 6 spell-list instead of what we have in P1.

Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Alchemist, Bloodrager, Inquisitor, Magus, Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, Psychic, Shaman, Summoner, Spiritualist, and Witch.

On the other hand, having personalized spell lists could make the classes feel different and allow the devs to seed each one with spells catered to the class. I mean a Cleric vs Paladin spell list are going to have different wants and needs based on what the class does but now they're both tossed into Divine. Magus and Bloodrager might both be spell casting Martials but Magus wants more spells to channel through their blade while Bloodrager probably wants more self buffs.

That's not to say that's how it actually shaped up but that's at least how I see it should have been.

I mean I don't think anyone can turn invisible in reality, and thus any effect that does that breaks reality. I don't see how that is subjective. It isn't about scale its a fairly simple binary of "is this achievable naturally."

Now of course this isn't a slight to the idea that magic should be even MORE reality bending. A desire for a higher magnitude of magic is totally legit (and something I agree with to a certain extent.)

I mean there's a difference between say "Harry Potter" and "Dr. Strange". Sure both magics bend reality, but they're vastly different levels.

When I hear "Bend Reality" I think Dr Strange levels of insane.

Malk_Content wrote:

oholoko wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

Somewhat related question here. Now I don't have the PDF in front of me and it's an older copy so all the spells aren't one to one. Throw on the fact we probably don't have every spell that's going to be in the core book(probably?) And we might be missing some info.

But what sort of reality warping do spell casters HAVE in PF2? I mean even "Alter Reality" just lets you copy another spell.

Any spell that doesn't merely replicate the abilities of a mortal is reality warping. In more refined game terms, a spell that doesn't merely replicate the outcome provided by a non-caster.

So Fly is an example. Normally PC races can't fly, no matter how good they get at anything. The Dinosaur Fort spell they previewed is another good example, no non-caster no matter how invested in a crafting skill could create an instantaneous fort of that size. Even the strongest barbarian cannot create the fissures described in the Earthquake spell etc etc.

Well... That's exactly what a high level barbarian can do now xD

Had to go look that up, that is pretty awesome. Not sure whether to move the goal posts and class the barbarian as reality warping or not.

Also a caveat on the ability to fly, it's in 18 second increments with at least 6 to cool down between. So it's not good for overland travel, but awesome for tactical positioning.

Yeah see that's the thing, didn't most spells get nerfed to the point they are only useful in short bursts or just damage now? I mean I think of Reality bending as the Wizard that has 5 demi planes, Time Stop Spam, Unlimited summoning, and other insanity.

Even Earthquake just seem like "I have natural Disaster on call" which might be some bending but nothing that would probably bend if to break the laws of reality.

But I have a different magic scale in my head I suppose.

Somewhat related question here. Now I don't have the PDF in front of me and it's an older copy so all the spells aren't one to one. Throw on the fact we probably don't have every spell that's going to be in the core book(probably?) And we might be missing some info.

But what sort of reality warping do spell casters HAVE in PF2? I mean even "Alter Reality" just lets you copy another spell.

I mean it basically happens that way. The asking for the flamewar. While I'm not trying to stoke the fires myself, my own experiences during the playtest paint a different game. One I'm not interested in picking up, I'm just here to see the discussions. Maybe see what the fully finished book looks like but I stress this; I see no reason to switch.

-Classes have a stronger identity, only if you pick them. You're given half an identity and told to fill in the rest. Some like this, others don't. I'm in the don't.

- I prefer spell lists myself. Or at the very least, some spells being class restricted. I feel having some spells locked to some classes helps create a sense of difference in what each class does/can do/feels.

- Weapon Runes...., okay I like this. I usually play with ABP so thinking how to port runes back but this isn't a bad idea. Kinda dislike you are fully required to have runes due to the damage.

- Three actions, where 2 of them matter. Which was usually walk up and swing, or double swing. My groups didn't see much use for the third action and when they did it felt more like a 'swift' action than a full fledged extra action.

It's a remake of a 10 year old game. But at the same time, I see and have played with nothing that makes me think "I should switch over". I also see nothing in this that makes it more likely to attract Streaming gen.

Now these are my experiences and thoughts, they don't devalue yours or anyones. Or makes it so yours didn't happen. But PF1 works for me, PF2 seems to try and fix things I've never had a problem with, and I'll have to relearn a system with those new fixed issues in. And if my group has to jump to a new system, we're going to Shadowrun just for something fully new.

MerlinCross wrote:

If we're thinking of the same table, aren't you supposed to also ask "What level is the party hitting this castle?"

Level 1 or 20 artisans built the castle. Your team arrives at level 10. It should be a level 10-11 challenge right? And if they come back at 15, it's a level 15 challenge now right?

You are quite specifically not supposed to do that, spelled out clearly by the very first passage of the Difficulty Classes section on page 336 of the rulebook:

Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook wrote:

It's important that you don't simply make the DC arbitrarily higher or lower with the PC's level. Any increase must be justified based on how the challenge actually increased, and thus how success is more impressive.

...

Many tasks are not opposed and have no reason to change in level. If you decide climbing the ordinary pine tree nest to the temple is a level 0 task, climbing it doesn't arbitrarily get harder when the PCs are higher level; its level stays 0. If you need a task with a significantly higher DC to challenge your PCs, you should choose one that's inherently harder rather than inflating the level of a simple task to increase its DC.

"Choose one that's inherently harder rather than inflating the level of a simple task to increase it's DC".

So how do you choose "Climb castle wall" that's harder than "Climb castle wall" without inflating the level of the first "Climb castle wall"?

Pretty it up as much as you want. The PCs have to climb in the rain now. The Guards made it slick with oil. The Castle mage came around and used Permanent Grease or maybe the Alchemist did something tricky to the wall. You're still at the end of the day, climbing a wall.

If the PCs leave a castle they broke into, and come back a couple levels higher, under this system I would expect the DC to rise due to said levels.

Example; The pine tree is level 0 Climbing check. Oh but you're level 5 now so the tree has weaker branches so it's actually a level 5 maybe low difficulty? Or the tree's on fire.

All this seems to read to me is "Make sure you have an excuse as to why it's tougher" rather than just make it "Tougher". That's probably not how it was intended but I can't help but feel that's what's going to end up happening. More flubbed excuses as to why X is tough now rather than "Because I am GM".

On the flip side, one could make the argument that it doesn't matter WHAT is done, the DC should remain the same. And meta-gamed into oblivion. "Oh everything that was done to the castle-walls SHOULDN'T have actually raised the DC so it's still what it was last time." I'm pretty sure everyone reading knows a THAT GUY would probably pull the stunt at least once. Like he figures out human hands can only get Castle Walls to level 8 and figures out the DC, then goes on to complain about any attempt to raise said level to actually give a challenge.

Dunno, probably overthinking this.

I mean, Pathfinder had things which were "race" that were clearly not, in a biological sense. Changelings are a one-off coupling of a Hag and a human, there are all sorts of "literal things from space" that you could play in PF1 (e.g. triaxians and yaddithians), there are things native to other planes (e.g. gathlains) and things which were artificially created (ghorans and androids). None of these things are meaningfully a "race" of some broader category.

Asking "who are your people, where do you come from" is a better way to phrase the question because it applies to gathlains ("I grew from a seed of a magic tree in the first world") and ghorans ("I am the continuation of a thousands year old lifeform who occasionally needs a new body") as readily as it does Dwarves ("my mom was a smith at Five Kings Mountain and my dad a miner") and Half-Elves ("Mom was an Elf, Dad was a Varisian").

I do not want "race" back, since it presumes we can only have versions of a common thing, else it's going to be used incorrectly eventually. I will also point out that "should it be ancestry or race" has never been up for discussion during the entire playtest, as devs have repeatedly indicated they are not changing it back.

Which is fine and works for them but I'm still going to mentally and verbally probably address it as Race myself because I'm so used to it and it works for me.

I will say the discussions of it tend to open up cans of worms that were probably better left un-opened.

But it feels like most folks think heavy armor is worse than it was in PF1, and if anything it seems to me it is better (at least in core.) I think folks just need to shift their perspective to account for this.

I mean PF1 heavy armor was bad I think we can all agree on that. But looking it over in PF2, I still don't really see a reason to use Heavy armor most the time.

It's probably hardest for natural obstacles. At least to my mind it's really easy for anything built by sentient creatures. "What level creatures creatures built this castle? How good were they at building impenetrable castles?" Answer those two questions and I instantly know what DC the walls are.

Plus, I have the option of approaching it from the other side. "What level creatures built this castle? How hard do I want it to be for a party of equal level to scale the walls?"

I totally understand how the table could have/would have been misused or misunderstood. But as someone who does a lot of adventure design, I lament the loss of how incredibly useful it was for answering certain basic adventure design questions.

One of the things that frustrates me so much about PF1e adventure design is that "what DC will be hard but not impossible for a 13th level party?" is a question that is almost impossible to answer, and having that information baked into the system in the playtest was something I saw, much like the standardization of monster levels, as taking a huge amount of guesswork out of my design.

If we're thinking of the same table, aren't you supposed to also ask "What level is the party hitting this castle?"

Level 1 or 20 artisans built the castle. Your team arrives at level 10. It should be a level 10-11 challenge right? And if they come back at 15, it's a level 15 challenge now right?

As for "What DC will be hard but not impossible for a 13th party" Depends on the party. Your DC is different from my DC because your party stacked all their knowledge checks but mine put points into bluff and slight of hand.

Only reason the Table can exist is due to the +level of proficiency so you have a better general idea of everyone's skill level. Without it, I don't think you could have such a table.

I’m just done with the stupid swim argument. I honestly cannot comprehend the idea of a character who is able to slay ancient dragons and more but quivers in abject terror at the sight of a body of water that’s deeper than 6 feet let alone the appeal of ever playing such a character. I know that it’s mostly just an example people use for argument’s sake but please find a less ridiculous one.

As a kid they almost drowned trying to get a frog in a river and the trama haunted them since. Sure they can be willing to drink a potion of Flying and grapple a dragon to the ground but get them near water and well that hero could flash back to a scared crying thrashing kid.

It's not just for argument's sake, it's based around your character. I think having some normal human fears on a character helps keep them grounded.

Heck, I'm playing Carrion Crown with a character that's scared of Undead. Now he deals with this fear by masking it with hate and bashing their skulls but should be fun to see how he deals with some of the bigger nasties.

Now as for why you'd want to mechanically not be able to swim, that I can't tell you.

Going back to my earlier problem of "What to do with the Mask under Automatic Progression" I've come up with something. Not sure if it's good or not but let's see.

However I need to explain a bit of rewrite on my end. Rather than stealing the mask back/having it be a fake, I had Nebta-Khufe come and steal part of the mask, a large gemstone on it. The mask is made up of two parts, the actual mask itself which houses most of the Transmutation energies and the gemstone, which was responsible for Necromatic Energies. With the two split, so once again is the soul basically. So without anything to really protect himself from the soul, Nebta got dominated/destoryed and his body is a puppet for the fragment in the gem.

Meanwhile, the Mask still works but at a reduced state. Here's a fast write up;

Restoring the Gem to the mask will raise the bonuses and abilities. I'm thinking of swapping out the "good aligned" spells with more Crowd Control themed ones. To represent the Pharoah will to kneel before him(Burning Disarm throws the weapon away, possible charm/skill boosts, Paralyze?)

Piccolo wrote:

What does annoy me is that Pathfinder never takes into account the influx of TONS of gold into a given economy by adventurer types.

Mummy's Mask module 2 does. It's promptly forgotten about as the city goes to hell.

Quick bit from the book;

The PCs are likely interested in exchanging their hard-won treasures for gold, but this has become a difficult prospect when so

many local vendors have been flooded with priceless relics recovered from the necropolis. In fact, the price of historical artifacts and art objects has dropped so sharply form their sudden availability that merchants in Wati are currently paying only 25% of the value of most items (instead of the normal 50%), and 75% of the value for trade goods and other valuable items (rather than the usual full value).

This was actually my 'running clock'. I had an NPC inform them that yes, they could go slow, steady and if they wanted to take a room each day, flee and rest.

BUT it was a matter of time before the market dove/crashed so maybe don't take TOO long.

Even if you are being creative PF1 heavily encourages being stupid good at one thing and then only doing that if you can. This is part of the levelling framework (hunting for more +1s to specific things) and the encounter framework (limited ability to mix and match actions during a turn.)

In PF1 my players never tried anything particularily interesting. Because hitting people was best 95% of the time. Meanwhile in PF2 my players are always looking for something interesting to do with their second or third actions (except the Monk I guess) and because of that they feel more liberated in making character choices that don't just improve the one thing their character is good at.

Why not hunt for +s to improve your weak areas? Why not use all the bonuses to do something different or shore up an idea? WHY do you need to min max in PF1 and not PF2 with Crits having a bigger impact?

But then again, people have already said "If you aren't using your 2nd or 3rd actions optionally, you're doing it wrong" so what the heck do I know?

I'll let people get back to mathing out their spreadsheets.

Ideas of what your fellow players are doing could go a long way.

CHA is not a dump stat usually I find, but I'm a big follower of trying to keep everything at 10 if possible(Cause it just takes a few bad rolls to die to something that drains you). Can probably settle on keeping it at 10 and then buffing the needed skills as you see what is being used. That said I would probably avoid an "Int+2" class, or go human/favored bonus to fix that.

Basic Rogue is in a bad spot given it's rivals/spin offs. Outside of RP/backstory/personal taste there's little reason to pick Rogue vs Hunter, Slayer, Alchemist, Vigilante, or even Brawler. Outside of maybe skills but that's not enough. Unchained Rogue..., well it's better than base. It gives Dex to Damage so saves a feat, coughs up Debilitating Injury which boosts your Sneak Attack if you can pull it off, gives Unchained Skill bonuses which can maybe help keep up with spells(Maybe), and even gives a small upgrade to Trap Sense. You're all around better as Unchained Rogue than normal but probably aren't up to par with your peers in your role. But you'll have an easier time as Unchained Rogue. Werd that's only a dip.

Anyway without knowing more, couple ideas;
> Bard. Always good, has magic and skills to back it, not too shabby in combat and Songs are always good.

> Alchemist. Bombs, Extracts, Mutagen. Go ranged, support, or melee; it all depends on your group.

> Brawler. Worried about what feats to take. Don't worry, Brawler lets you use one for awhile, capping up to 3 feats which lets you pick out some different ones with your normal progression. Go tank with normal/combat and flex into damage, go full melee damage cannon, or even pick up Examplar as your Archetype to be a really hard hitting bard that can give Teamwork feats to others.

> Cavalier - Constable. Go normal attacker(Maybe reach) or full on grapple. Either way you can pass Teamwork feats with Squad Commander, and Quick Interrogator is a fitting ability for this AP.

Just a couple ideas I've floated in my head when looking to join up for this AP myself. But these are fast and loose ideas from someone that doesn't really crunch numbers. Mileage may vary and you'll have to do your own reading.

I feel like if we're pretty clear on "how many magic items a character of a certain level should have" a la tables 11-1 and 11-2, that's sufficient for me and better than a pure GP restriction which is way too granular since it sets up questions like "should I buy potions or save up for better armor".

But I do not in any way want bodyslots back.

If we can make it so consumables and permanent items do not compete for the same resources, I would be satisfied.

I don't know, I dislike tables that kinda sit me down and say "You should have THIS by this point". That's kinda what the table feels like to me. Should you save up for potions or better armor? Well that's a question that varies from group to group, player to player. I dislike the more direct Answer the table seemed to be set up for but I might need to go look back over it.

I can respect the desire to not have body slots back. Slots probably encourages the idea of "best in slot" thought process and I've seen enough of that in PFS and MMOs that I want to just flip tables. But at the same time, for me keeping things slot based makes me measure and weigh things within their own group, rather than entire magic item catalog. "Is this cape better or more fitting than this cape" is easier I find than "Is this cape better or more fitting than this cape, ring, glove, hat, and boots". Having that outright slot narrowed down my focus where as slotless opens the door to choice paralyses. At least for me, this is a Your Mileage may Vary thing.

I do agree on the consumables and permanent shouldn't compete with the same resources but making both viable options without overshadowing the other is going to be tricky I feel. It'll be interesting to see.

I'll admit, I prefer the bodyslot system. This is mainly due to my gaming background, probably. I can't equip say "Body Armor" and "Leg armor", armor is just a 1 buy and done. I suppose that makes sense but I'm used to it from RPG video games so the slot system isn't too hard on me(Also auto progression so 6 six are dead to limited).

That out the way, I do believe there's a need to limit items otherwise we might end up with PF1's problem of spamming low cost gold items to get around issues. PF1 tried to limit this with body slots and the 24 hour wait time(Otherwise you might get people spamming Quick Runner's Shirts).

I can't recall if PF2 has the 24 hour wait time because all the testing in game was done over hours or maybe days to the point it came up either once or not at all. And 10 items is a responsible limit I would think.

Resonance being removed is probably the favorite thing they've done from the playtest. Having all magic items being gated felt waaaay too limiting to me and in playtest it was always in the back of my head.

But I do agree we need a limiter of some kind. I'll be interested to see how they finalize this at the very least.

The playtest's most notable spell nerfs involved restricting the harsher effects to critically failed save situations. Conversely, spells with a partial effect on a successful save now have no effect at all on a critically successful save.

Which pushes all spell casters to do the same thing. Damage spells all day.

We've gone from spell lists looking the same with colour spray and black tentacles to straight up damage spells.

With the crits in place, why take the risk you'll fail and waste a turn? Better to apply some damage than none. And I'm sure someone will do a turn by turn break down of using what spells give the most damage or are most effective.

Okay so Save or Suck spells are gone. Spell lists are still going to be as bland and repeated as ever.

WatersLethe wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Right now, I anticipate it being as PF1 in "oh, no one went completely out of their bailiwick to learn Nature? Okay, we have no idea about anything that's going on, so let's go back to plan A: break down the front door".

Your opinion is perfectly valid, but I want to stress that this exact scenario is not only acceptable to me, but is *crucial*.

I strongly believe groups with different compositions and skillsets should solve problems differently. It is antithetical to my enjoyment of the game if every group is assumed to, for example, be adept in wilderness lore and every scenario assumes not only that competence but success at the relevent roll.

I would be if the same school of thought.

I really hope we don’t end up so that being an adventurer means never having to say Sorry.....

I also agree to this.

A team of 4 fighters will have different solutions than a party of 4 wizards. Heck two different teams of wizards will probably come up with different solutions.

PF to me(And table top in general) is a game of Solutions. Can you figure out how to solve the problem with what you have?

Any time you are expected to have the guaranteed only one Answer(Like you need Skill level X, spell Y, or item Z) feels cheap, gate keeping, and constrains character builds.

The fighter breaking down the door, the rogue picking the lock, the wizard casting a spell to move the door, or the bard charming a guard should all be viable solutions to the problem. Even if it's someone else suggesting it or even the Rogue charming, the bard casting, the Fighter charming, or the Wizard just summoning something to break the door down.

Don't expect Pathfinder 1.5

It's a new game mate, and a playtest!

It might be a new game, but they've said they wanted to try and keep some things from Pathfinder 1.

So it's new but also supposed to be the successor that doesn't fully leave behind everything from PF1.

That said, anyone jumping in this late is bound to be confused as they don't have all the relevant info along with the patches/clairifactions that have come along.

Honestly, people that haven't kept up with or are just looking to try out now are probably better off waiting for the full product.

Am I one of those vocal people being silent now? I don't know.

I do know that while I'm glad to see some changes being tossed out(Yeah for the Resonance gutting) that's still not enough for me to make the jump from PF1 to PF2.

I have my houserules set up, my games are in mid book 1-early book 2, my players have voiced their complaints/concerns, and those that have settled into Non Core PF2 classes/abilities really don't want to lose those.

I hope people actually HAVE fun with it and most my complaints have been about PF2 not ending up as PF1 due to the community, but as two of my players put it; "If we're going to switch systems, might as well do something that isn't pathfinder".

i would completely agree with you if we actually had any plan on plays testing rituals and necromancy but unless i'm wrong they have no plan to do so and that is why i disagree

unless you are suggesting i wait until they have already print the book in which case i most definitely disagree with you

I actually kinda want to latch onto something here. Ignoring the Necromancy bit though...

I kinda agree. I admit I gave up after a failed run of Mirrored Moon but I'm looking back on my time playing and thinking "When could we have used a Ritual?" and coming back with..., very limited times.

I'm not saying Paizo didn't have a plan to test Rituals but Doomsday Dawn doesn't seem to have a good set up to allow the use of them anyway. So I'm unsure just how much feedback they'll get before going to the printer.

And how likely they'd be willing to change an entire thing afterward is.., well not impossible but very low I would think.

As of now, at least to me, Rituals seem like an after thought of "Oh no where do we put these spells that are somehow too problematic to give casters outright but also too useful to hide behind Rare or removed from the game?".

They aren't bad they're just kinda... meh. And we can only really see what happens as people actually start playing with them in homebrew or when more get printed. By then it might be too late to fix any issues.

I never felt awesome. Part of that was die rolls yes but when crits were far more common my brain just turned off being hyped for seeing one roll out. My alchemist was too busy juggling his own resources to really do much, My monk was just... okay, and the cleric I made was a walking heal bot that could do other things. And oh the crits from the enemy that laid me out or made me retreat.

On the flip side; I never felt absolutely useless. I never felt that I wasn't unneeded or that an NPC could do my job better. Or a couple wands or a summon or just replace me. My characters could keep up with others even if it was only in the ballpark, we were on average around the same level of power..

PF1 had a problem for me of being rather easy to be awesome and at the same time, be dead weight. PF2 from my experience, looks to narrow that gap. But in doing so makes it feel more... average? At least to me.

This might change after the game is finalized, players understand the game more, and splats come out; but for now it kinda felt..., okay for me.