Shain Edge wrote:
Cantrips, Cantrips, Cantrips, Cantrips.
Not only can the caster use a strike action or concentrate on a spell (say a summon), but they can cast a cantrip as well in one round. These cantrips auto heighten and often have a critical effect as well (even marital characters have a hard time blocking weapon critical effects... wizards get this at lvl 1).
I agree it's sad to see spells get nerfed, but if we are trying to level the playing field and lessen the gap between the old tiers of PF 1 then I feel the changes are pretty balanced considering the action economy. Also, seeing as even on a saved spell there is usually an immediate effect and that means your cast is rarely ever completely wasted.
Auto Heightening all spells is interesting, but I would say probably swings us way out of balance. Effectively eliminating all lower level spell slots and converting them to free higher level slots.
Quick preamble; I don't say anything below to be disparaging or arrogant, just my experience with the play-test so far. I play with a group of experienced players that has been playing since 2nd edition (not together), prefer hard mode, low magic home brew campaigns, and are annoyingly good at breaking games with solid/focussed character builds.
It's funny, I keep hearing about TPK's and how tough monsters are but I feel my players have hardly broken a sweat in the Playtest... We are gearing up to play next weekend and they just camped at the knoll camp, so will be stepping up to the Manticore next. I have run a couple test scenarios myself and, barring some lucky crits, I don't think the Manticore has a chance at wiping the party... maybe if it had more spikes to exhaust the party of their heals.
Only KO we had was in Ch 1 when the overzealous rogue jumped in on the Sewer Ooze alone... couldn't sneak attack it and got knocked down after getting hit then crit'ed on 2nd attack. Every fight, including Draxus, has been a total breeze since. The rogue effectively tanked most of ch 1 since his AC was top tier, no one could hit him!
I think we are all in agreement that Spells got nerfed hard. I like the idea of bringing the old low tier and high tier classes closer together, but I feel like spell-casters may have gotten hit just a little too hard. Sword n' board looks to be too good to pass up.
You can give as much info as you deem appropriate. I believe playtest states they are aware of the general layout of the "dungeon".
I ruled that the Goblin PC was aware of the rooms west of Pharasma's chamber... that he bunked in that area with the lower ranking goblins and didn't venture further East where Draxus and his lieutenants quartered.
That way those more challenging encounters were largely unspoiled.
Good luck running the play-test.
ROGUE CLASS FEAT: BLUDGEONER - MACE WEAPON GROUP
Rule Book 121
"You make brutal bludgeoning attacks that daze your foes. You can deal sneak attack damage with one-handed weapons of the club and mace groups even if they don’t have the agile or finesse trait."
No Mace Group in Weapons Section - Rule Book 180 - 183.
WHAT EXACTLY ARE PHYSICAL ATTACKS & DO/CAN THEY INCLUDE SPELL ATTACKS THAT TARGET AC &/OR TAC?
The term Physical Attacks is never clearly defined. Needs to be defined so Mechanics are clear for the below reactions (or the Trigger language needs to be adjusted):
Shield Block Reaction Trigger - Rulebook 309
“Trigger - While you have your shield raised, you take damage from a physical attack.”
Defensive Roll Reaction Trigger - Rulebook 124
CONFUSION: Do spells that deal damage and target AC or TAC trigger these reactions? (spells that could trigger the above reactions: Chill Touch, Acid Splash, Acid Arrow, Telekinetic Projectile).
“Physical Damage” can be found in traits section (Rulebook 422).
“Physical Attack” is present in one other place (that i have found anyway) and that is while referencing Barbarian Spirit Totem’s ability to hit Incorporeal Creatures (Rulebook 56).
“Physical attack” is not included in the index or traits list and is not included in the Strike Action (Rulebook 308).
CLERIC FEAT: IMPROVED COMMUNAL HEALING
Improved Communal Healing - Rulebook 76
“You can grant the bonus healing from Communal Healing to any creature within the range of your heal spell instead of just yourself. You also get the benefit of Communal Healing when you target only yourself with a heal spell, though you must give the bonus healing to someone other than yourself.”
Confusion: Language is a little broad… “any creature”.
Clarification Required: For the first sentence: Is this just one other creature within range? Or any/all creature that is within range?
Someone in 2nd sentence seems to imply that that target applies to only one other creature.
RELIEVING PERSISTENT DAMAGE - ACTION & DCs
Persistent Damage - Pg. 323
“You or an ally can spend actions to help you recover from persistent damage, such as casting healing spells or using Medicine to Administer First Aid against bleeding, dousing a flame, or washing off acid; successfully doing so reduces the DC of that condition’s flat check to 15 and usually lets you immediately attempt an extra flat check to end that persistent damage. The reduction to the DC lasts until you remove the persistent damage or gain another persistent damage condition with the same damage type.”
Couple issues below (1. Clarification on what actions can be taken to offer flat DC 15 check & 2. Conflicting Information-Sited below):
1)What Actions can be used to to offer flat DC 15 check?
2) Conflicting Info:
Administer First Aid-
Persistent Damage Entry-
This would be incredibly useful for me as both DM and PC:
Master Table with Actions/Activities.
WEAPON TRAIT - DEADLY
Traits - Rulebook 415
“Deadly On a critical hit, a weapon with this trait adds a weapon
The table list the deadly damage die as d8.
I would love to see a thread that just includes direct feedback to Paizo and doesn't get drowned with spats, complaints and unnecessary reply chains. Perhaps this can be it!
My main constructive criticism here: The guts of the rulebook are solid, but there is an abundance of confusing and contradictory language throughout the rulebook and it needs fixing. I understand we are in playtest, but the rulebook is riddled with confusing language, discrepancies, and conflicting information. We are also given a lot of specific mechanics in great detail, but also areas where specific care really needed and not at all present.
Difficult to playtest if mechanics to be tested are not clear.
Ground rules that i think will help keep this useful:
I’ll post a few below to get it started.
Please post and (to the best of your ability) be specific, clear and concise (admittedly not one of my strengths).
Paizo friends - feel free to post replies / answers if you have them. I have really enjoyed your past products and would like to see PF2.0 be a success.
So sorry for reopening this can of worms and a stupidly long post:
Shield Block, Page 309 says:
Trouble language: "the shield take THIS damage instead"
Presumably, "THIS damage" is referring to what was just written before... "an amount of damage up to its Hardness".
SO, according to the Shield Block Reaction, only 1 dents worth of damage, and thus 1 dent, can be dealt to the shield per use of the Shield Block Reaction. Any remaining damage is passed to the player... since, "Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage UP TO its Hardness"
It then cals usl to page 175. Which only muddies the water on how the SPECIFIC (remember specific overrides general guideline - pg 299) Shield Block Reaction actually works... the call to page 175 only seems to be there to get you in the right part of the book to figure out how much damage each shield can absorb and how many dents they can take before breaking.... The problem is, it goes on to detail the amount of dents a shield can take from one source of damage. This doesn't seem possible RAW because we have no way to target shield, armor etc. Strike only targets creatures.
2 reason why sunder was probably OP and removed:
Paizo, love ya, please fix. And if we can have sunder work in this edition, without breaking the game, that would be amazing. Please, thanks.
No Fight Defensively Action or General Feat that gives you AC Bonus. Grab a shield and use raise shield action. If One handed fighter take Dueling Parry at Lvl 2. There is a 1st lvl Rogue feat that gives you a reaction 1/round to buff your ac. And the weapon parry trait : ) Maybe other class feats that I haven't digested yet (probably in Monk crane style).
It'll be good for a GM to know how the victim of a paladin's smite can rid themselves of persistent good damage. Douse themselves in unholy water?
Exactly! How exactly should that work? Just feels like designers were rushed here... doesn't feel sharp/clean. I get it is playtest, but there are a number of places that are devoid of important design elements (How to combat train animals, mounts fatiguing riders in exploration mode, undefined scent distances, etc etc).
Anxious to see how these are errata'd.
In the case of Persistent Damage: If there is a mechanic to apply some effect in the game, there needs to be the mechanic to relieve it as well (or at least be clear about it).
Thanks Draco18s, will have to take your word on the %'s... math not my friend. I would think the percentage chance would not change going to infinity... isn't that the whole gamblers fallacy thingy? Won't each flat DC 15 check net a 30% chance of success?
As for what action you need to take to take the DC down to 15...as far as I'm concerned right now the rules are "spend an action and you do <<<something>>> and you get the benefits." <<<something>>> doesn't need to be defined at all, just that you spend an action dealing with the problem.
That's how I interpret it too, but no such action or activity exists in the rulebook (it is eluded to, but not specifically defined). Also, fuel to the fire, check out this sentence from Rulebook pg 323... can be interpreted in another way than how we both think it works... that Administer First Aid Action is to be used to put out fire/acid (and it also contradicts Administer First Aid's stop Bleed Mechanics as described in the skills chapter pg 152):
"You or an ally can spend actions to help you recover from persistent damage, such as casting healing spells or using Medicine to Administer First Aid against bleeding, dousing a flame, or washing off acid;" - Rulebook Pg 323
Grammer... ugh... I highlighted the trouble word that seems to suggest we need to use medicine for bleeding, dousing or washing...
This could be errata'd quite simply:
1) Interact Action - include language about dousing a burning buddy, washing off acid, finding a way to ground your electrified bud,
2) Add a new action / activity that fits this niche.
Pg 323, Persistent Damage states when it affects you...
My beef with persistent damage:
Here is how I might fix it for Persistent Fire, Acid, Electricity Damage...
Player can interact/manipulate 1 action to pour water on self/burning victim, Wash off Acid, or somehow disperse the electric charge (not sure flavor-wise... and there could be other methods DM fiat based on player creativity). No Check Required, and the plater affected by Persistent Damage can attempt a DC 15 Flat Check.
Say the check is failed. Player can spend another 1 action attempt, this time lowering the Flat DC to 12 (makes sense... more continuous patting, pouring, dousing, errr grounding of charge).
Say the 2nd check is failed... and the player still has a remaining action... they can attempt it a 3rd time, lowering Flat DC to 10...
Any further attempts that round to douse the persistent damage will remain at Flat DC 10... and IF the victim of persistent damage gets all the way to the end of his/her turn STILL "burning/melting/electric sliding" and fails the free flat check (now lowered to 10 from 20)... they take the persistent damage and the DC is again set to 20. (unlucky b$$trd).
My 2 cents. As currently written we don't have enough to go on.
If you lack both the Ride feat and an animal companion mount, you cannot travel on a mount overland for more than 10 minutes
Maybe add a Mount Trait that includes ruling to make it not a fatiguing action to ride. That seems simplest. Basically make Handle Animal checks necessary only when in combat or attempting to command it to do something other than overland travel. Like my car, I expect my fantasy mount to just work... i don't need to be fred flinstone-ing all over golarion....
I do like the concept of animal sticks to its last command... but that action economy is just too good. Borderline OP... will make summon swarms a thing again.
Maybe that could be a feat to add to the APG... Pack Handler... allowing your command an animal check apply to a certain number of animals of same type. etc.
Sorry Golden Fox, I totally just read your post after posting this... sounds like we are in agreement.
Crits Page 306 - “Add double any circumstance and conditional bonuses and penalties to damage.”
Wanted to see how folks are reading this? Or if there has been clarification from Paizo.
It reads to me that we should double penalty as well as the bonuses. Doubling a negative number would net in a larger negative... which doesn't feel very crit like... why should a debuff double in power in this situation?
If anything, it seems like we should zero out the penalty on a crit or apply the penalty as normal.
Seems to me the current design of character creation is supposed to net generally the same stat array (from an optimal standpoint). This is probably great for 2 things:
1) Play testing
2) Pathfinder society play
and I +1 Kerobelis... you can always roll characters for a more varying ability array. Personally I prefer this... everyone getting roughly the same stats feels a bit like everyone getting participation awards... some of my favorite / memorable RP moments/characters are attributed to characters with a terrible stat and having to build and strategize around/despite that.