I really want to see one book that make all necessary changes for SF2 classes to seamlessly play in PF2. I already know the rule set is fully compatible but, for example, the Soldier currently is a two-handed ranged weapon specialist (AFAIK). In SF2 that’s easy, they use big guns. How does it work in PF2? Do they use crossbows or bows or firearms? Can PF2 have a melee-specialist Soldier? Maybe it’ll already be apparent on launch of SF2, but if not, give me the conversion rules!!
My FLGS (in Australia) hasn't communicated a minimum volume of regular covers to secure a sketch cover. I just order the sketch cover only. However, with Australia being the bottom of the world, none of the physical books (regular or sketch) are getting shipped to my FLGS until February. It's a massive downer and isn't a once off. Rage of Elements only got stocked recently but came out in August, same with Highhelm. The physical distribution network makes it difficult to keep up the enthusiasm for new products for PF2e. Especially compared to "the-game-who-shall-not-be-named" which has the books available in Australia at the exact same time as the rest of the world.
Michael Sayre wrote:
Is Advanced Warden a prerequisite for Masterful Warden? Is there any prequisites for higher level warden spells? Or can I pick and choose whatever slots of warden spells I want without needing others I don’t want?
I’m hoping the ranger can pick any warden spells without needing others. Having to take the lowest level spells just to get a spell pool so you can get a higher level spell was an annoying spell tax. If the spells are now all a feat tree it will be even worse. I want to pick whatever spells look cool without being forced to take other ones.
James Jacobs wrote:
I love this kind of behind-the-screen insight into Pathfinder and very much appreciate your openness and willigness to share. Thanks James!
I read most of the comments an think that most people enjoy either the multiclass archetypes and/or the generic ones (marshal, sentinel, acrobat etc). There seems to be less love for the Golarion-themed ones (firebrand braggart, halcyon speaker, hellknight armiger etc). I am one of those who love the generic ones and TBH wish there was more at the expense of the Golarion-themed ones).
Unicore wrote:
This is my bugbear as well. I agree that Player Core 2 is a mislabled titled. My preference is Player Core Expansion. Though I've said this on many a platform and thread now. Time for a break.
I'm also in the camp that Player Core 2 is a bad name. While all the core book names are a bit uninspired, I defintiely understand the naming conventions for Player Core, GM Core and Monster Core. But if we have Player Core 2 (and we know in advance that it is coming), the front cover for the first one should be Player Core 1. IMO, naming them so litereally is to make it obvious that you need (or at least want) them to play based on what role you are (player or GM). But if the two player books are Player Core (withouth the 1), and Player Core 2, then I feel there is confusion, and most people would say, you only NEED Player Core (with the rules of how to play plus 8 classes). So in this case, the second book being Player Core Expansion makes more sense anyway. If the idea is to say players will need both, then I feel it should be Player Core 1 and Player Core 2. So put me down as one more vote for Player Core Expansion.
Ezekieru wrote:
Nice! I actually hope the sketch covers remain exclusive to the four core books and they are not repeated past them. It will make the four core books feel extra special.
With all the ancestry name changes over the last couple of years (ratfolk to ysoki, lizardfolk to iruxi and now gnoll to kholo), what is their status in the ORC? Are they able to be freely used in any unrelated material if the ORC is appropriately referenced? Or are they considered Paizo IP (like Red Mantis Assassins)? Hopefully it's the former. I'd love to have all my gnolls now be kholo with no IP issues. If it's the latter then other publishers need to find a new third name for all of these ancestries (yes, it's a hyena-headed anthropomorphic humanoid, called, um, a Hyenu, haha, yes, that will do)
James Jacobs wrote:
Hell's Rebels was amazing regardless, but the special issue 100 was even better. Can't wait to see what AP brings in issue 200. I was also interested that Sky King's Tomb is the third 3-issue AP in a row. But now it makes sense if Issue 200 is meant to be the 5th of a 6-issue AP instead of the 2nd of a 3- or 6-issue AP.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I like this a lot.
Squiggit wrote:
I would want at least d8 1H reach martial spear. Flickmace is d8. Martial spear should be an improvement on the longspear, not an improvement on the regular spear (reach weapon probably won't be Thrown). So for names - Warspear anyone?
Captain Morgan wrote:
What's the build summary? I'd be keen to understand how to get the best out of an Oracle.
Does anyone play with "FA-lite"? I have yet to GM my first 2e game (1e campaign still wrapping up). I plan to make FA default, but only give an extra feat on levels 2, 6, 10, 14, 18. If the levels for FA feat don't work for character concept I can work with the player, but this seems more manageable. Wat do people think?
mattdusty wrote:
My understand is that it still doesn't work like this. So you roll 25 for stealth (inc. incredible initiative). Opponent rolls 24. You go first. BUT, then the 23 Stealth (exc. incred. init.), is vs. the opponents Perception DC. So what if that same opponent only has +5 Percepction (so rolled a 19 to get 24), then the perception DC is 15, and you are hidden. OR, that opponent has +14 Perception (so rolled an 10 to get 24), then the perception DC is 24, and you are NOT hidden.
Hello brains trust. I love Automatic Bonus Progression but I have two problems with magic item cost in with ABP. 1. Buying Magic Items with ABP
In 1e, using the 1e ABP, if the PCs found a +1 flaming longsword, I would price it at 6,000gp (the regular 8,000gp minus the 2,000gp for a +1 weapon - whether or not that was RAW correct it doesn't matter - it seemed to work out). I can't find an equivalent pricing for 2e. If my PC wants to buy boots of bounding for the extra 5ft movement, what does it cost? The PC can't utilize the +2 item bonus for high and long jumps, so what discount should be applied? Is there an official answer? (edit) Do I use Table 4-16 from the GMG? (/edit) My current plan is just to let potency and item bonus both exist, though not stack. Therefore the PC just pays the full price for the item, but won't get double the bonus. The problem is it encourages the PC to buy magic items in skills other than the ones they get potency for (but is that actually a problem?). 2. Creating PCs above 1st level with ABP
OPTION 1 Make no changes. With this option, all magic items are the same price and potency and item bonus both exist but do not stack. But the PC will have more "stuff" because they'll get their weapon and armor bonuses through ABP and get to spend all their gold on other magic items. OPTION 2 Reduce the number of permanent items allowed in Table 10-10. But by how much? At level 12, a PC should get a +2 great striking weapon (LV 12) and a +2 resilient set of armor (LV 11) through ABP. But table 10-10 doesn't even allow a 12th level PC to have a LV 12 magic weapon yet. So what do I reduce the table to? OPTION 3 Reduce the lump sum gold allow in table 10-10. But by how much? Using the same level 12 example as option 2, the +2 great striking weapon (LV 12) and +2 resilient set of armor (LV 11) are a total of 3,400gp. But how much is +1 to all Perception checks worth? How much is a flat +1 or +2 to a skill worth? This links back to the first topic above on buying magic items. (edit) Again, should I use Table 4-16 from the GMG? (/edit) Hoping for some good advice or solutions that have seen play - or even an official rule I've missed. Thanks!
The Rogue multiclass archetype gives a free skill feat that the player can choose. If taken at level 2, this skill feat would have to be a level 1 feat and therefore not more powerful than any other archetype that give a specific skill feat (which is usually a low level one). But what happens if a PC takes the Rogue archetype at a higher level - e.g. through the human Multitalented ancestry feat. Can the skill feat be any feat the PC currently qualifies for? e.g. A PC is Master in Stealth at level 7. They take the Rogue Archetype via Multitalented at level 9. Can they take Swift Sneak as their skill feat? (requires master in stealth).
Zapp wrote: wrote: The extra things TWFers pay are not significant to a degree that requires errata or pressures Paizo into changing their mind. They're insignificant to most users, as the overwhelming majority of this thread's responses indicate. Emphasis mine - overwhemling majority is not something you should assume. I don't believe he is beating a dead horse. 2E is still quite new and there are areas that could be improved. N N 959 has been clearly and consisely outlining their points as to why they would like clarification. I agree with those points on the whole. I'm flexible to the outcome - whether it be a hard ruling for Quick Draw, or drawing weapons in general, or whether it be a new option that works better for TWFs. e.g. "Double Draw" a feat that allows you to draw or stow two weapons in one action. But either way, I would also like either a ruling, or a new option as I also believe the current steup is not supportive of TWFing.
I've been reading this thread from the beginning. Ranger has been my favourite class and I've played one in every edition since D&D 2nd Edition. I've wanted to believe the Ranger is already in a good place to play because I don't want to admit my favourite class is not as good as it should be (and therefore will be less fun to play for me). But N N 959's points are too compelling. To me, the Ranger is missing vital parts of the chassis that make it feel like a Ranger. I want my PC to be the best tracker (Swift Tracker, Ephemeral Tracker etc), but when it has such minimal affect on actual play, and means you cant take cool combat feats, it is too hard to justify. I desperately hope the Ranger will be given some upgrades for the second printing of the CRB. E.g. make Swift Tracker more compelling as discussed above. Or remove the prerequisite of unrelated lower level Warden Spells when taking higher level Warden Spells (how does Gravity Weapon or Heal Companion have ANY connection to Ephemeral Tracking?!?). If there is any plan to upgrade the Alchemist in the second printing, the Ranger should get a small upgrade as well. Not saying either will/can happen, just hoping. I feel doing to upgrades to classes will be WAY better than not doing upgrades for any argument of invalidating the first printing. I won't hold my breath though.
N N 959 wrote:
Where does it say TT requires two different weapons? The Requirement is "You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand." They can be the same type of weapon. e.g. two sawtooth sabres.
Yes I guess I would have to agree with you on the RAW interpretation. You are also correct regarding published content. I feel it will never show up, as it will come down to two options:
I wouldn't be soo worried about this if it was a skill feat (as there is zero combat utility to it). OR if it didn't require an unrelated prerequisite (1st level focus pool feat). BUT as a class feat and needing to use another class feat to access, it feels like a badly designed feat requiring too much investment for not enough gain. Very frustrating.
Hey team, hoping you help me work through why Ephemeral Tracking exists. It seems to me, that is this one of those "Fill in a rules niche for something that didn't require rules" and "now the assumption is I can't do that thing unless I take that option." Before Ephemeral Tracking, I assumed a high enough level of Survival would cover crazy tracking options like across water, through air etc. If you are legendary in Survival you should be able to do those things. Now it looks like a ranger can't track through air or water, regardless of proficiency unless they take this feat. AND, as it's a focus spell above level 1, the same ranger needs to take a totally unrelated feat to qualify by gaining a focus pool. I want to make a tracking ranger who is the best of the best. So I see Ephemeral Tracking falling into one of two interpretations: 1. You can't track over sea or air without it
Have I read it correctly? Something I've missed?
ikarinokami wrote:
When did this happen? I must have missed that information. I'm easy with it being a full class or archetype, just wanted to know the current statements on which way it will go.
How are the pdf's sent? Is it a one-off download or does it go through the Paizo website? I'm asking because the big draw of the pdf's for me is the automatic update for download via the Paizo website when any errata is incorporated into a new print edition. If it is a one-off download that options is not possible.
First choice has the be Gunslinger/Drifter (happy with either name). While guns are not traditionally part of western-themed fantasy (my default base setting), I feel so many stories are enhanced by the ability to have and the existence of guns that it is a necessary add on. Pirates? I want cannons and pistols. Eastern? I want early blunderbuss and other gunpowder options. Second choice is Shifter. They are such a cool idea but implemented way too late in 1e (and not a super strong mechanical choice in 1e) that they never got their due. Would love to see them in 2e (even as a class agnostic archetype)
Ubertron_X wrote:
Emphasis mine. Why would nobody really like to rely on this feat for Recall Knowledge checks?
Now that Disrupt Prey is a reaction, is seems like a poor man’s Attack of Opportunity. While DP can be gained at level 4 rather than 6 for AoO, the text of DP is missing two key parts from AoO. 1. DP doesn’t trigger from ranged attacks. 2. DP misses the text about not counting multiple attack penalty that AoO has. And of course DP can only be used on a hunted prey. Was DP meant to be AoO but just for prey? Hence being available at level 4 vs 6? Or are these omissions on purpose?
Hoping someone can help here - I'm running The Fish and the Rose. On p49 there is an encounter for a "Clockwork Watchman" which references the Zobeck Gazetteer, p29. Thing is, I own the gazetteer and no clockwork watchman is listed on p29. After some googling I've come to believe the reference is for the original OGL gazetteer and not the updated PFRPG version. As I don't own the OGL version, where can I find stats for the clockwork watchman? Is it the same as the clockwork huntsman from the Midgard Bestiary? Both have 36 hp, but the one in Streets of Zobeck is meant to be CR2 each and the bestiary is CR3. |