NikTheAvatar's page

If most of PFS' Season 6 ends up being "PCs vs Androids", you're going to silently lose some folks. But I suspect many Pathfinders want to play with warriors, wizards, and dragons, moreso than Gamma World/Rifts. :)

But, Paizo generally has its ear to the ground, so I'm sure this has been thought through. If it's a few scenarios here and there, not a problem, and so long as the boons don't end up with a Mysterious Pistolero touting two laserguns!

My Nov 27th order hasn't budged, and no answers to my emails either. Not sure what else to do here...

Can you look at 2907115? I placed it on November 27th. I did update the shipping address though, but it would be great if it could go out before I leave from vacation.

It is what it is, and it will never be more. So, what exploit is it that you're so sure is going to end up happening if we don't prevent it?

Never thought the world would end. But the trait is not balanced against the 2+ feat chain in the CRB you'd need to get a similar result, and that's enough for me. I don't think you need to prove "OMG you broke the game!!" to justify keeping an unbalanced item out of circulation, no matter how small, or whether it combos nicely with something else.

But that's my view. Maybe the PFS GMs disagree! Maybe balance only matters to them in REALLY egregious cases with "in the wild" abuses (eg, weapon cords). I don't know, I certainly can't tell from looking at Additional Resources (re: the cauldron example, which seemed like a pre-emptive strike).

Congrats!

You say exploitation is irrelevant, but your examples are centered specifically around guarding against exploitation.

"It is clearly overpowered, so why not ban / nerf it proactively? To prevent it being an issue in the future?" -- this might be what Nik is trying to say.

Thank you Walter, I was being long winded :) You don't need to SEE the exploit widely to know that it CAN be exploited, and protect against it. Does someone need to break into your house before you think you need a lock on your door?

EDIT: The question here seems to come down to whether or not balance is worth preserving, and where you draw the line. Well, where Mike draws the line; we all clearly have different opinions on the subject.

Is the trait overpowered?
Unambiguously, yes. Lessons of Chaldira provides a post-failed save free-reroll. It takes a two feat chain (Iron Will/Improved Iron Will, etc.) to get close to this for one of Fortitude, Reflex, or Will. Traits are supposed to be approximately half the power of feats: this one saves you at least two.

I don't see this trait being abused. Is this really a problem?
Whether it is being exploited or not in the wild is irrelevant; what matters is that the trait is overpowered. It is, and should be dealt with for the sake of consistent balance. You don't need to see an exploit to judge balance; you can judge balance without proof.

When we say "you brought a knife to a gunfight!", we don't ask for proof by watching the proverbial gunfighter shoot someone dead before declaring it imbalanced.

When a security researcher finds a hole in a company's software, the company doesn't say, "but it's not being exploited so it doesn't count!". Or, at least companies that intend to stay around with their business reputation intact don't. That has been proven many times in recent history....

Who cares if a particular trait is overpowered! It's not like it is breaking the game?
PFS' house rules allow or ban paizo content on thematic grounds (eg, pathfinders are non-evil) and on balance issues (eg, the recent ruling on weapon cords). Reviewing the list of banned items, lots of items are banned on much more marginal grounds than a trait being worth 2 feats.

Reaching for a quick example, the cauldron of overwhelming allies is banned from The Snows of Summer. I expect it is, because it can nearly double the efficacy of some summoning spells and is arguably better than the Superior Summoning feat chain. Summoning spells are already on shaky balance grounds according to some.

Would the cauldron break the game? No; but I bet the Mike et al. judged it would be a notable imbalance. And did they wait until it was exploited in the wild? No; they made the judgement call and here we have it. This thread is not asking Mike et al. to consider something he doesn't already do as a matter of course. Just to look at Lessons of Chaldira on its own terms.

A random keleshite caravan would make sense. Perfect, thanks!

Eastern Iobaria, specifically the Dvezda Marches, is well characterized in Maiden Mother Crone (AP #69). It sounds like a wasteland, but still it might be possible for the occasional foreigner to try to eke out some minimal trade, directly or indirectly, with those centaurs.

I'm wondering what humanoid nationalities might strike up a trade? For instance, going by the maps, it looks like it should be possible for Tian Xia to possibly have some irregular trade with Eastern Iobaria via the Shining Sea.

Trade with the Tian Xia matters for an in-campaign plot point, but I don't want to stretch the setting TOO far; I would settle for any kind of trade. But my knowledge of Golarion isn't that solid, and I know that the Jade Regent AP talked about the path over the Crown of the World. Would appreciate any idle comments from the Golarionites in this forum about who my PCs might run into out there.

No worries. It shouldn't have been a problem, but I changed the address to a friendly neighbor's just to be safe. Thanks for replying.

Just placed this order as part of the Great Golem Sale. Can you delay shipping my order? I will be at the location being shipped to from December 15th, so if you hold off until the 2nd week of December it should work out well.

If that's not possible, feel free to ship it at the end of your Great Golem Sale shipping frenzy. I doubt you get this request often :) so thanks in advance.

What do the PCs want to accomplish in Reign of Winter? A truly horrific action for any good character: to free one of the evils of the multiverse, one that has inflicted countless horrors on innocent and non-innocent alike over centuries. The Black Rider's mantle is a evil geas inflicted on the PCs with a spoonful of sugar, driving them onwards with no choice except to comply, regardless of the moral quandary.

But, you counter: it's for a good reason! You are driven to free Baba Yaga it to prevent an ever greater evil - that of eternal winter spreading across Golarion. With that in mind, let's take the best outcome in the authored AP: the PCs free Baba Yaga, stop the ritual, and afterwards ask Baba Yaga politely to leave Irrisen alone. Yay! Golarian is saved!

But... Baba Yaga is free. She is loose.

Does saving one planet from an icy fate really excuse the number of lives that she will destroy on other planets? The countless off-planet Irrisens she will almost certainly go on to create?

If you question the amount of lives lost, the AP establishes that Irrisen is, by design, a frozen hell bent on torturing countless innocent souls via The Shackled Hut (aka, "The Child Endangerment AP"). The Witch Queen's Revenge explains what happens to the granddaughters of each of the deposed queens. We could go on; Baba Yaga is no Demon Lord, but most of her experiments seem to involve a gleeful amount of collateral damage. Let's not think that she is innocent or does not deserve to be brought to justice.

So, if freeing her is an evil act, should a paladin fall after releasing Baba Yaga? Of course the answer is no! No GM should force a fall from a choice that is not really a choice.

And that's my issue with the railroad: why isn't it a choice? Why did the author(s) choose only ONE single way to save the world? Should freeing Baba Yaga have been the only way to conclude this Adventure Path?

If you ask me, tabletop gaming is at its best when it promotes creativity. The AP metaplot had plenty of options to support creative solutions beyond just freeing Baba Yaga:

• stealing her power by following Rasputin's path to ascension, becoming mythic, and stopping the ritual.
  
• finishing Rasputin's path and claiming the Thrice-tenth kingdom for the fact that it may weaken Baba Yaga, allowing her to be ultimately killed or reimprisoned
  
• destroying the Dancing Hut. Doesn't it house the demi-plane where Elvanna is hiding?
  
• after killing Elvanna, there is really NO WAY! to stop the ritual short of Baba Yaga? Really?! No allies, no deific intervention, not the decemvirate, no avatars of creation that can sort out how to stop a ritual that has been put in place by (only) a 20th level, non-mythic, non-deific power?
  
• Best option! Make it a choice. Free Baba Yaga to stop the ritual, thus acquiring great wealth, power, and immortality as boons upon her freedom; or sacrifice your lives to shut down the ritual and keep Baba Yaga imprisoned for another age.
  

Sure, any GM can add this, but I am wondering why the conclusion to this AP are so narrowly structured, with one path to success or failure, given how much of a moral quandry the plot presents to thinking good PCs.

How would YOU have changed the ending?

PS. And don't get me started on Elvanna. She manages to survive her mother just to guarantee her death by threatening all of Golarion before her power is cemented. Brilliant plan. /slowclap

0) My vote: not a dud. I am GM'ing RoW. We're into book 3 and so far, my players are having a hell of a lot of fun. No complaints.

1) Railroads are there in any AP. Good players will go along for the ride enough to support you, while waving their arms out of the coach to keep it entertaining for themselves.

2) It's up to any good GM to HELP personalize and drive the AP together. Sometimes details are lacking given Paizo's publishing cycle; in RoW, I don't think enough is done to explain Elvanna's motivations, or reveals about Baba Yaga.

So, I've made my own metaplot; the Black Rider is affecting characters with ... very different results. Not all of them are good. Different characters have roles to play in the future of Irrisen, etc.

This should be part of any narrative AP, though. Gear it to your players, use the book as a base and go from there.

3) In terms of difficulty level, you have to significantly increase some of the encounter levels in The Shackled Hut. I thought Snows of Summer was well balanced enough. But, 85-90% of the encounters were entertaining and interesting enough.

In that case I think you were generous in allowing a CMD at all. If the BBEG didn't actually damage the sleeping PC then he was helpless all the way to the bottom of the cliff.

I think mdt and I have hammered out how the rules are intended to work in terms of getting the PC off the cliff!

But in terms of the CMD part for RAW, helpless PCs still have a CMD, albeit with a dex of 0, a -5 penalty. Melee attacks against them have a +4 bonus.

So, we're talking about a minimum of a +9 to their existing CMD. It is possible to fail (though probably on a 1).

Ah, ok, stand corrected then. As I posted earlier up thread, was mostly going from memory, and missed the highlighted text when I did a quick lookup on moving.

However, I don't think it was relevant. The only provoked AoO's were from the sleeping character (who, given he was asleep from a spell, may not have awakened), and when the big bad backed off the cliff (leaving threatened square). So I don't see anything wrong either way.

Sure; for what it's worth, I don't think these rules are easy to understand. I always want to make sure I have them straight!

I think, at most, a) The PC could have awoken, subject to interpretation, giving the PC a few more opposed rolls b) the extra round would have telegraphed to the party the clear intention of the BBEG, who might have been able to martial something creative to save the PC.

The results most likely would have been the same, given how the party was acting.

The creature doing the grappling can move.

Grapple wrote:

Move: You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.

You've left out an essential part of the description leading up to the move grapple action you quoted.

If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)

Move: You can move both yourself...

By your logic, you could never move anyone, round one, round two, round 50000.

You can move them on round 2 - round 50000 by successfully maintaining your grapple and using the move grapple action.

The grapple action describes the exception to the Grappled condition, which is what grapple actions are available to you as the primary grappler that has maintained the grapple on each subsequent round.

If you don't believe me or what is written in the rules, as another summary which lays this out nicely, look at the grapple flowcharts on d20pfsrd. The move grapple action is only available to the grappler who is controlling, as part of the standard action to maintain the grapple on subsequent rounds.

From a thematic perspective, I agree with Adamantine Dragon as well. Regardless, the RAW mean the minimum time taken to execute this action via Grapple is 2 rounds. I doubt the PCs could have prevented it, given the description, but there would have been a bit more rolling involved.

Standard Action : Grapple helpless opponent (Wakes him up). Beats CMD by 18.

Move Action : While grappled, walk off cliff edge (up to 15 ft of movement).

You cannot move if you are grappled, according to RAW:

If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition.

Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity.

This would take two rounds: 1st round the BBEG initiates the grapple, waking the PC. 2nd round the BBEG maintains the grapple, and then move as part of one of the actions you can perform with a successful maintain of a grapple.

So: BBEG and helpless PC, standing on a 5ft cliff ledge, adjacent to each other. What can the BBEG do to drop the character off the cliff?

- Drag wouldn't work, because the BBEG can pull the PC behind them but is not holding them as such.

The aim of this maneuver is to drag a foe in a straight line behind you without doing any harm.

BBEG walks 5 ft off the cliff, and the PC stays at the ledge.

- The BBEG could not Reposition the character into a hazardous location, such as over a pit, as per RAW.

You cannot use this maneuver to move a foe into a space that is intrinsically dangerous, such as a pit or wall of fire.

- If this was grappling:

For all of these:

Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not.

Though the RAW is not explicit, RAI would make me think that any aggressive action towards a character, such as dragging them around, would wake them up.

you are saying, 'grapped'. Was the PC grappled? dragged? repositioned?

(Arguably any of those would wake up the sleeping PC.)

I think they have the right approach to Race Boons now and they should remain. Boons are a form of population control; they can manage the relative numbers by controlling how many boons they distribute. There really only SHOULD be a handful of Goblin Pathfinders. Awarding them at conventions seems like the right balance between fun and creating a living world that (sorta, kinda) reflects the racial balance of Golarion.

Just ran into this thread, so while I'm here:
recent FAQ post on how Crossblooded and Wildblooded do not stack.

The bottom line is that we've let them know that the overall feedback we're getting on this set indicates that the paint quality seems to be much more variable than on our previous sets

Thanks for following up, Vic.

I'm curious what Wizkids' take on LoG is. Have they acknowledged that something went wrong this time around?

Still waiting here. It's very unlike Paizo NOT to acknowledge customer issues promptly. It would be great to hear even that they're following up with WizKids on our behalf, and have no official word.

Until then, I'm not buying.

Peacemaker is a feat from the Champions of Purity player companion.

The DC to resist spells you cast to ensure peace or force aggressive creatures to become peaceful increases by +2. This affects spells that dissuade creatures from aggressive actions without exerting long-term or absolute control over them, and without leaving them defenseless. These spells include, but are not limited to, calm animals, calm emotions, command, compassionate ally, enthrall, euphoric tranquility, sanctuary, and serenity.

So, what additional spells qualify? How about hideous laughter:

This spell afflicts the subject with uncontrollable laughter. It collapses into gales of manic laughter, falling prone. The subject can take no actions while laughing, but is not considered helpless. After the spell ends, it can act normally. On the creature's next turn, it may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. If this save is successful, the effect ends. If not, the creature continues laughing for the entire duration.

As an argument, though while you are not defenceless with hideous laughter you still cannot take any actions. You can't run away, drop weapons, or parley. That strikes me as the caster exerting absolute control over what the character can do and violates the spirit of the feat.

However,enthrall also prevents characters from taking actions during this too, so I don't know if I have this right. Any views?

None of the pawn collections come with bases - you are meant to supplement with those found in any of the other boxes.

An Incorporeal ghost still takes 50% damage from a PC's (non-ghost touch) magic weapon, even if both the ghost and PC are on the Ethereal plane, right?

As of this comment, Legends of Golarion is a 2.5 star product. I have been holding out making any purchases until I see some (semi-)official comments explaining why the paint quality seems to have been so hit and miss this time around.

I have this problem with Paladins in Pathfinder, period. If there are evil creatures, Paladins are just death dealing machines that cannot be stopped.

However, remember that Nazheena has the flight hex; you can rework her to use obscuring mist, fog cloud.... and then make the on the ground combat so hectic that they're too busy getting beaten, frozen, and sharded half to death by the Ice Golems to consider bowing the flying, concealed witch.

Off topic, how far did you amp up Logrivich? I advanced him by an age category, but my PCs, well prepared, all had potions of fly prepared for the occasion.

I'm not sure that this is really a problem.

First off, there was unprovoked aggression from a number of NPCs who are, in fact, lackeys to the lords of the Pale Tower:

So first off: they are not murdering innocents in the town. Katrina is NE! Sure, they are motivated by fear, but when you serve suggestion tea to a bunch of well armed individuals and then pull out the crossbow.... actions lead to consequences.

Second off, I understand why you're concerned. Emma may have crossed the line. But, the town is entirely cowed by the Pale Tower. None of them are going to provoke violence, they have been ground down under the bootheel of the White Witches. The peasants are unlikely to respond.

Go go Toronto Pathfinders!

You can't charge as standard action

To nitpick, the mount is charging as part of HIS full round action. As the mount-er, you are just going along for the ride (and striking with the lance at the end of it). I think the charge is fair but the DC 20 Ride Check is in.

Do you need to make a DC 20 ride check to charge on an untrained mount, even when you are out of melee range? I have seen folks rule that this check only needs to be made in melee range, but not in the initial charge into combat.

This is a practical question, with a PFS scenario that has NPCs riding untrained mounts, and the leader's tactics saying to Ride-By Attack with a lance and a Ride Skill of +6.

Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat. If you don't dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a mount. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full-round action, and you can't do anything else until your next turn.

and repeated in...

Control Mount in Battle (DC 20): As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

By raising the dead to act as his minions, the Necromancer desecrates the bodies of the fallen twice over.

First, by inviting unholy powers inside the body to animate it, the 'temple of the body' is violated against the original owner's will. Even worse, some believe you are forcing the soul back INTO the body to cause it to move, a worse kind of enslavement.

Second, you subject the body to further indignities via combat, inviting others to chop, maim, and deface.

Animating the dead is by its nature a dark and unhallowed pact, and thus evil. No legitimate paladin or cleric of a good deity could forgive this, or allow it to continue in their presence.

PS. unless you home game rule it otherwise :P and I haven't read about the Juju Oracle!

Well, there's the "Basic Rules Cheat Sheet" which is part of the free download of the worksheets in the back of the Gamemaster's Guide.

Brilliant! Thanks, that is at least half of what I was looking for :P

I'm wondering if we shouldn't have a Playing 101 document...

Not to hijack your point Kyle, but along those lines - do any PFS venues have something you could hand to a BRAND new player? A very basic, "What is Pathfinder and how do I play?" document?

I am thinking of someone who has just dropped in out of curiosity - with little to no no experience in Pathfinder, D&D, or even RPGs at all, where handing them Valeros or Kyra is confusing. ("What's Str mean?") I had this happen last week, and wasn't sure how much of the table's time to spend on basic explanations.

Perhaps a single sheet with the very basics of the game on one side, and a definition of PFS and useful links/resources/references to the Beginner Box on the other.

the honor system does not pay the bills

Paizo makes money from passion, not from honor, policing, or guilt.

The problem PFS has is in efficiently helping new players come to grips with 1500+ pages of rules (optional or otherwise) and find the fun! Failing to enforce book ownership rules doesn't strike me as one of them.

This rule is attempting to do two things:

1) ensure players have the reference for all abilities in play at hand - to increase smooth running of game
2) to ensure books have been purchased

Yes! There are really two separate issues.

• Having references at hand. This entirely makes sense: GMs need rules to adjudicate. Just enforce non-internet/PRD based access from a legal rules source. Rules are always available for the player and fully legal.
• Enforcing book ownership. Yes, we all want Paizo to thrive; but volunteer PFS GMs are not meant to be an 'enforcement arm' for the Paizo purchasing system. GMs are meant to run a fair and fun PFS scenario, and not to make sure players have paid their bills.

So! Don't make volunteer PFS GMs tax collectors and book auditors. They have enough to do keeping the game fair. Let the culture of PFS encourage people to do the right thing.

Photocopies of hardbacks accomplish this goal, and also supports PFS players who a) prefer hardbacks b) prefer buying from their FLGS, who can't sell PDFs.

Conclusion. Having references at hand should be the goal here, with the informal proviso of 'you must own the resources you use'. And photocopies of the hardbacks you own is a perfectly balanced approach.

There is a Paizo Blog post from Adam Mogyordi (VC for Ontario, Canada) with a great summary of the rules and restrictions, released around the same time as Animal Archive. It may help clarify a few things for wayward players.

Animals and Their Tricks

I just retro-fitted an ITS to the character I intend to play tonight (an 8-th level gunslinger with five or six different varieties of ammunition, and a goodly selection of potions). It probably took me around half an hour.

Reading the policy, I think you only need compliance for transactions, eg, every time you buy/sell after a scenario. That is, you need to fill out ITSs going forward, rather than catch up to where you sit today.

Over time this will reduce the auditing burden. Mike et al. don't appear to be asking for compliance by filling in ITS for your previous state. (Though, I plan to just to ease wand tracking.)

If your target window is less than 4 hours, you shouldn't be playing PFS Scenarios or at the very least shouldn't EXPECT to be able to play, finish them and have a good time.

Funny, because Toronto's been successfully doing this for quite a while now at most of its PFS nights... I should probably stop expecting to go out and have fun at them! :)

Not every venue is a perfect fit for PFS. You could run Quests (more are coming) or Beginner Box events. You are not entitled to play PFS exactly when and where and how you want to.

This is not what is happening! Paul and all struggle to get scenarios to execute in under the expected window of 4 hours, but they succeed because of hard work and scenario prep.

If Paul and others like him weren't willing to work hard to run PFS within the constraints of the most popular game stores in their city, fewer people would be participating in PFS (including me). Paul's site is a success, and he is not trying to be entitled to playing it when and how he wants to.

Mike, I think the new policy is fair. But I would suggest that players fill in the "Additional Gear - XXXX GP" line on the chronicle sheet as they do with everything else. Let the GM just initial that. It reduces it from 5 words to a scrawled initial. Surely that is enough :)

I expected the Witch to appear soon, but this set of 4 classes still positively surprised me. I'm curious about how you'll make the Investigator under this new system.

I'm reading the core book, and I'm quite impressed with what I saw.
Even though I'm loving it, there's always something to dislike:
1° What happened to item quality?
2° I think they should have used the Uncommon and Rare traits more often, especially with magic items.
Even then, that's great work, Paizo.

As a last note, I've met many RPG players, personally and on the internet. A total of 0 has used fantasy races as justified examples for acts of racism and such. In fact, all players I know are well versed in separating fiction from reality :)

They unfortunately can be, if people aren’t paying attention and write in their biases.

Only if the author actually writes them to be. Sometimes, this stuff is just in your head. The tapestry being blue just means the tapestry is blue. Just because you see it, it doesn't mean it's there.

Why can't an entire species be psychologically different from humans, especially when they're from a weird, chaotic plane of existence? Personally, I'm not a fan of "everything is basically human, just looks a little different".

This.

I'm actually happy with the carrying capacity being relevant this time around. For too long have people dumped STR and gotten away with no repercussions because of how hard the old system was to track. Not to mention that example with carrying Full Plate + Entire warehouse worth of items is ridiculous when you really think about it.

Videogames have really changed the perception of this... I actually thought it was kinda cool how you'd figure out the logistics in old games. Had to have mules or henchmen carrying your stuff.

Thank you!

Just commenting about the monk.
It may seem weird to people, but one of my favorite monk concepts is the monk that uses a weapon: a flamboyant sword or scimitar or something like that. I trained a short time under a traditional kung-fu school, and contrary to what video-games and D&D taught me, weapons were part of the training. Ok, I only got to a simple weapon (something like a sap), but many more were coming for it, if I had continued training...
I almost always GM, but when I actually have the book, money problems aside, I'll build one of these monks. Just for fun, perhaps ^^

Hey, I’m back! Did someone miss me? No?...
Ok then T_T
My comment about the bestiary: one of the things Pathfinder has/had unique to it was the fluff: darker and edgier than D&D. This was especially prominent in monster descriptions. I really hope they don’t hold down punches in this new bestiary, I love the darker depictions of evil monsters and such. Gives an aura of fear and caution.

Well, I'm with the people that loved this article ^^

Well, my opinion about the video-gamey talk.
This is a class-based system. Classes have abilities, unique abilities which other classes do not have. If anyone can have any ability, what one wants is a class-less system.
This *is* a game, after all.

tivadar27 wrote:

I'm highly disappointed that from a playtest/marketing point of view, PF2 seems to be focusing on running pre-generated content for GMs. It's nice to tip the hat and say "this will appear in the final version", but if it's not being playtested or even made visible during the playtest, why should I assume that that content is good?

One of the great things about PF1 was the ability to import it into any world/use it in any campaign (fantasy obviously). PF2 seems to be ignoring this at best, or have it as a non-goal at worst.

I suspect that the reason they're not having a lot of custom campaign stuff in the playtest's rulebook is the same reason they really don't want people using things like houserules and homebrew in the playtest: They want solid, consistent data. Their pre-printed content is designed to test specific mechanics at specific times so they can get regulated, consistent data on how it does or does not work.

Pretty much. Playtest needs trustful data. This is not the kind of thing that goes on there.

The Raven Black wrote:

I like GM-set DCs. Players beware

Having bought the collector edition of the playtest book, I am highly disappointed that it will be missing a significant part of the rules

Which is exactly why I DIDN'T purchase the "collectors edition." As a playtest, the book will be completely obsolete within a year. After all, how many of you are still using the Pathfinder Beta that came out back in 2008? So I just didn't/don't see any point to a "collector's edition" other than money-grubbing to finance other future projects.

I personally think all playtest print products are basically "collector's stuff". Just for bragging rights.

I once had a player who wanted a Guitar-Axe for her Bard. I mean, electric guitar and rock-and-roll and that. No sane DM would ever allow such a thing!

Of course I said yes.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Mark,

How do Bards provide material spell components?

Like how clerics can present a deific symbol, bards can play an instrument as the Material Casting as well, if they want. Or just provide the materials as normal.

Oh. They can replace every component with an instrument? If we get any weapon that can be used as an instrument [or vice versa] that'll be pretty sweet. A mace maraca? A new version of a totem spear?

https://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/File:ARR_Bard.png

Because it doesn't make any damn sense?

Really? For me, saying "This spell is only available to this NPC" is pretty much like saying "No, you cannot play as a gelatinous cube".

It seems you are missing my point here. My point is that an adventuring party has very different needs from a fictional world. Things are balanced mostly with PCs in mind - the rarity system may be viewed at least as an attempt to create a rules set that doesn't implode the world if played even barely realistically.
Even if they cost the same, a +5 sword or a ring that lets you cast fireball 3/day are a lot tamer than Reality Warping.

Let me clarify. RAW, the settlement stat blocks place an incredibly severe limit on what you can buy. Literally a handful of different items depending on where you are. That's so intrusive that, in my experience, people don't use it, and just make it anything goes because approving every individual purpose is far too much work for the GM.

Well, the current system obviously fails at what it was supposed to do. Rarity can be a much easier-to-implement one if done correctly.

Bruunwald wrote:

This seems a bit intrusive and a bit more unnecessary. Not as intrusive and unnecessary as forcing everybody to play in Golarion or spend hours separating it from the core rules like picking unwanted raisins from a chocolate chip cookie, but I digress.

It seems to me that rarity as relates to setting is something the GM can decide on his own, and for other uses, was perfectly serviced by a mention in a stat block.

Do we really need to service the pedantic and unsophisticated on such an intimate level? I remember when these games challenged you to be resourceful, creative, and to learn a little something along the way.

You know what doesn't challenge you to be resourceful? Being able to acquire every magic item at the Quick-e-Mart.

"What do you mean, I cannot just buy a Ring of Three Wishes here? This store sells all sorts of magic items! Even the strongest Bag of Holding or something..."

"Well, you will have to work more to get the ultimate Reality Warper power for 3 uses."

Well, I actually liked it.
I'll have to wait and (re-)create my own world so I can see how much this is useful to world-building, but in the core setting's context, it's actually very useful to regulate stuff like spells, magic items and so on. So that a novice DM won't put a Vorpal Sword in sale at the magic items shop in a rural village. That happens to people more than it looks - it can happen with experienced DMs!
In any case, I can see why it's helpful: instead of climbing the wall, you have stairs. It gives a beginning for DMs ^^

I am definitely someone that leans towards spell casters. My favourite classes are sorcerer, paladin, druid, cleric, bard, oracle, rogue. In that order.

I absolutely welcome the caster nurf. It is entirely required at high levels.

I personally like the Wizard and the Paladin above all classes, but spellscasters sure come first in general - except perhaps the Tome of Battle (3.5) classes and the Warlord (4e).

Igwilly wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm pretty sure they've said all the classes which will be in the playtest are the core classes from PF1 plus the alchemist- there will not be surprise classes.

So, people never lie or backtrack to create surprises, huh?

I just think we should wait until we have the bard preview before theorizing something like this ^^

I'm really unclear on what there is to be gained from clearly stating: "the classes in the playtest are: Alchemist, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard" and then having 2-3 classes that aren't in that list show up come August.

Like it seems like there's more lost in terms of "breach of trust" than there is to gain from there being a surprise. No matter what, a good portion of every class is going to be a surprise come August, just not "what the classes are."

If I ever "lie" to my friend, saying there won't be a surprise party for his birthday, while I'm just concocting that, I wouldn't be seriously called a liar.

Anyway, that's not my main point. My point is: the bard being occult is a too big change to just "assume" it's going to happen because of a sorcerer's bloodline.
Also, the core rulebook may have more stuff than the playtest. They may very well introduce a full occult class later, while watching what sort of reaction this list causes.
Bard being occult may be right, may be wrong. I just want to wait until the preview so I can then think on those terms ^^

Hmm wrote:

I don’t share the same assumption that near-nudity equals confidence.

Poor Conan

Oh, for God's sake, they can't please everyone.

Well, if you're an Angelic-bloodline Sorcerer who worships Gorum, you're getting your magic powers because one of your distant grandparents was an angel, whereas if you're a Cleric of Gorum you get your powers from being one of Gorum's chosen without any need for special blood. A Sorcerer who happens to worship one deity or another really isn't different than a fighter who does the same- gods don't generally say "Don't worship me."

And an angelic sorcerer could very well be a mistheist who thinks all gods are superpowered jerks and only prey on mortals, and be of a "Fallen Angel" heritage.

I always found it strange that my 'mountain man' survivalist ranger had to also be a spellslinger, which was confusing and impossible for me to work into my understanding of such characters.

That's what I'm saying about 3.X and PF1's ranger: it got his spells out of nowhere. There was not much (if any) explanation behind this.

I liked pretty much everything here, nothing to complain ^^
Honestly, the Ranger's spellcasting was an old artifact, from a time which Rangers were vastly different from our "modern" conception, such as in OD&D and AD&D's Ranger. With that previous concept, it made sense for the Ranger to have spells. But once 3e was in, spells for Rangers became non-sense. Things make sense again, now ^^
Of course, there's nothing that stops us from including spellcasting Rangers later...

My two cents: went Resonance was first introduced, it felt weird, but also that there might be something in there. When I learned more about how you got it and what it was for, I started liking it more.

Now instead of having a shirt that gives you an extra move action 1/day and a cloak that turns you into a crow 3/day, you can wear both and decide with your 4 resonance points if you run 4 times, or turn into a crow 4 times, or any mix in between, and didn't have to track remaining uses for neither, just a global Resonance Pool.

When I learned potions costed resonance, I was also up for it. This encourages you to drink that one big level-apropiate powerful potion instead of drinking 20 crappy ones in a row after a fight, same for wands (wich I asumed would cost resonance to activate and would have no charges neither, so if you have 10 resonance points to use on wands, you want to make those 10 heals be better, so you buy better wands).
Making potions cost a valuable resource (Resonance) was also the perfect excuse to make them more powerful (since you are limited to how many you can use in any given day) so you would track your 3 AWESOME POTIONS instead of 20 crappy situational ones; and things like drinking a Healing Potion in Combat wouldn't be so much of a waste of actions (if it did for once heal more than what ANY enemy in the battle field could damage with half their attacks).

I was so into resonance, that I started homebrewing it in my current campaign, giving players wands and items that all have abilities that cost resonance, so they decide what/how they use them. And I do like having a resource similar to "How many spells do I have left? Do I want to burn one for this?" for all clases.

Then the last 2 Blog Posts happened... What a mess... 3 or 4 new kinds of actions that have never been explained to us and that seem that could be easily replaced with "Somatic, Verbal and Material". If you want to have a "Amazing Opperator" Feat later that removes the Opperation Action from items, you can...

Thank you. That is exactly how I feel, too.

Honestly, I would rather deal with some magic item powers spending 2 or more resonance points than going back to 1/day, X charges, once each 1d4 rounds, etc and add resonance in top of that.
Thing is, when resonance was presented to me, it was the way to limit magic item uses. Now, it's just one more thing to keep track off, and it throws out of the window many scenarios that made me cheer up for resonance.. I don't like that. And there is such a thing as over-complex characters (ask 4e epic tier).

Then you don't understand the problem I have with it. It's a continuation of the ongoing Terminology Problem, which encompasses all sorts of mechanical and in-game things that are anachronistic, inappropriate, awkward and/or mean something completely different than what the chosen term actually means.

That they're also treating etching metal like wax pencil marks and magical items like temporary tattoos just grinds it in deeper.

Further, given that PF2 is even more entrenched in Golarion as a setting, this is yet more things that... don't exist in that setting. Well established characters have legendary items that aren't Orihalcuzwhatsit with temporary sticker decals slapped on them.

Yes, pretty much.

I'm sorry, I didn't like these last two articles.
I was hoping that Resonance would actually replace all those charges, X/day uses, etc. That would be nice, but now it's just an extra-layer of complexity, which will end up not being good.
Also, runes shouldn't be so easily removed, transferred and so on. You might want to change the description. Runes seem to me something more permanent and personal: you cannot "transfer" a rune from one place to another. The description does not match the fluff, sorry.

With the previous information about resonance, I was excited about magical items. I'm not anymore, and I think this is my first disappointment with Pathfinder 2.

Weather Report wrote:

Crikey, flashbacks to 2012.

Yeah, sorry for the derailment. Revisionist history puts my favorite edition into even more of a negative light than it is already amongst enthusiasts. I feel an irrational need to defend it (as you’ll see is common in many hobbies, i.e. PCs versus consoles).

That said, no further sidetracks from me in this thread.

Not alone, my friend *high five*

Still, I'm viewing PF2 by itself, and I'm not seeing any of the mistakes 4e supposedly had or actually had. PF2 will have its own problems. It's an interesting game in of itself, and that's what it matters.
Anyway, specific issues are good, but just saying "it looks like 4e" without having anything to indicate how a particular mechanic is bad or disliked sounds trash. Not saying you did that, but some did.

Well, I guess there are some things you only know when you play it! ^^

Happy Tuesday! Here are a couple tidbits that weren't in the blog.

Monks have 10 + Con mod HP per level.

Monks have no alignment restriction.

So, my Monk will have pretty good HP and achieve enlightenment by deciding all life is meaningless and become a CE Omnicidal Maniac? Great!

…
What? Monks and Paladins are very different beasts hahahaha.

I liked it. I didn't personally find this to be complex, but other people may have different opinions.
I think this is an easy format to remember. I mean, you remember what the condition does, you have the number, go for it.
I don't see where this all "this stacks, this doesn't" is coming from. Fatigued looks like it increases while you try to do stuff, and that's logical. But it doesn't look like we'll have a bunch of "this condition stacks, this doesn't" stuff to remember...

One curiosity: what happens to energy/level drain? What mechanic would replace it for our cute special undead which players are terrified? Just got curious ^^

What they are doing with legendary it's a quite common trope. Charles Atlas Superpower:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower
This has nothing to do with magic :P
Plus, I guess a reasonable explanation for "fall from stratosphere" case is leaving a crater behind.

I liked the stuff here. I think the legendary skill stuff is great.
The medical skill stuff sounds amazing! I can create a Rogue medic or something like that and be awesome!
I'm excited for what I'll see at the playtest ^^

People seem to be misunderstanding the Sneak in Exploration Mode thing. Remember, systems for exploration almost always have rules where you have to decide what sort of thing you're doing while you're exploring, which limits your ability to do other things. For example, most exploration systems in RPG's would have "Be in Stealth mode." and "Be in trapfinding mode." be two separate things you can do while exploring... but a Legendary Stealth character could do both, because they don't have to declare that they're in "Stealth mode".

Thank you.

Expanding on what I said:
Magic is perfectly capable of reacting to non-magical stuff. It is very possible (even probable) that true seeing has a limit, and, if the sneaker is good enough, it just doesn't work. That's not making stealth magical; that's limiting magic. Something the game desperatly needs.

Igwilly wrote:

I wpuld question about disease curing spells. Things are changing and they already said stuff like diseases, poison and such are much more serious.

Stop basing comments around the idea everything else is going to remain the same. It won't.
Being able to heal a permanently blind person is amazing even nowadays, and normally using stealth in exploration is likelly going to have a cost.
These feats are already amazing. I wpuld absolutely hate if skills could do supernatural stuff, instead of superhuman.

Fortunately, you're not getting what you want. We already have an example of a Stealth feat that makes you so good at hiding you can't be detected even with true seeing.

Magic is limited, not omnipotent ;)

I wpuld question about disease curing spells. Things are changing and they already said stuff like diseases, poison and such are much more serious.
Stop basing comments around the idea everything else is going to remain the same. It won't.
Being able to heal a permanently blind person is amazing even nowadays, and normally using stealth in exploration is likelly going to have a cost.
These feats are already amazing. I wpuld absolutely hate if skills could do supernatural stuff, instead of superhuman.

Honestly, how many big spells does a Wizard need to feel useful?
They already have scaling at-will cantrips (not particularly to my taste, but I can go for it) and people still want a huge number of spells. It's like being able to cast high-damaging spells every turn of every combat!
I'll suggest an idea: try to be a little more cautious about casting your non-cantrip stuff and the Wizard will not be reduced to a 2-encounter wonder (like they ever were that).

Mekkis wrote:

thflame wrote:

So I take it that this means that wizards will be running out of spells somewhat frequently?

Wizards will have to ration their spells if they want to have them when they count?

Wizards that "go nova" are going to be near-useless later?

Wizards that want a ton of utility spells at the ready are NOT going to also be able to contribute to combat effectively (outside of whatever combat utility those spells offer)?

If these are true, then this would be awesome, but I have my doubts.

These are true in Pathfinder. By limiting spells more, all you do is shorten the Adventuring Day.

Although with scaling cantrips it may be that your actual spell lots are your big finale type powers where your cantrips help fill out so you are not a two encounter wonder.

Pretty much. I hate to admit that, but scaling at-will cantrips go a long way to make the Wizard contribute to every encounter. Casting all your non-cantrip spells in two encounters is pretty much trying to be a spell machine-gun, so I'm not sorry about being reduced to cantrips for the rest of the day.

PF1 Wizards already had this flexibility. I don't see where you're getting "more power" from.

The thing is, you're assuming PF1 Wizards were balanced and don't need a nerf. They do.

The more I think about, the more I'm worried about this feat. It is the only one thing I don't like about this article.

Well, the only one thing I didn't like was the Quick Preparation feat. I hope it has some limits or counter-balances, or this better be left entirely for another class. I think that it's way too good as it is.

About the Arcanist: I hate to admit that, but...
Hybrid classes were cool. However, they were created by a necessity: correcting certain flaws in the multiclass system - flaws being certain combinations who were very cool but didn't combo'ed together. We know nothing about multiclass, perhaps they won't even be a thing...

The problem of giving every Wizard Arcanist-style spellcasting is obvious: it would destroy the Vancian magic system. I would not like that. But as an option - like the Arcanist was in PF1 and this feat seems to be now - it's cool :)

They have to play catch up, shore up their bottom line, and simplify the game to get more people playing because that's the market now. The days of complex RPGs are going away.

With so much tactical and customization complexity, I couldn't really call PF2 "simple". I mean, not at all :)

I liked it!
Glad to see we'll be able to choose between an specialist and an universalist. I missed the last in 5e ^^
The Focus and Familiar are well and alive. Meta-magic seems to be strong with the Wizard. Cool!

Ok, I was unsure about spells being heightened, but I'm fine by now :)

PCs can research unique spells in PF1 too, per the rules, if the DM doesn't disallow it. I take it you object to NPCs also having unique spells that they researched? If an NPC has a unique spell, is it a hard line for you that the PCs should always be able to recover it in scroll form off their corpse, even if their spellbooks are elsewhere or they're a cleric / druid / sorcerer who doesn't even use spellbooks?

Well, I love spell research!

I don't care if I have 18 in charisma, or +4 i charisma. Paizo is concerned that changing it from 18 to +4 will causes problems with a decent minority of the player base.

I would have no problem with this, but perhaps some people would object...

Legendary proficiency is not difficult to justify...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower

The important critique:
Changing monsters: In PF1 it is easy to alter, add a template, change, upgrade or nerf monsters, or even add in custom house-rules. Everything has enough detail to easily break down the PF1 statblocks to figure out why everything the way it is, and to alter anything and everything needed.

Changing, upgrading, or creating new monsters in 3.X/PF1 was a nightmare, and it was the worse case among all the systems I've tried to GM. It was what made me leave PF1. Sorry, I won't miss this part.

Honestly, one thing I like about 4e was the easiness of monster design. One thing I hate about 3.X/PF1 was fiddly, overly-complex monster design.
There's absolutely no need for monsters to have feats, numerous tables and rules accounting for generating stats, and so on.
As Paizo has presented these stat blocks, I think my main complain about PF1 is gone. It functions clearly, it has the information I need, and it can be as tactically complex as I like. That's terrific!
I think one should look this article as it is, and it's awesome :)

Edit: Also, giving keywords such as arcane or evocation to magical abilities is a great way to identify them when this matters ^^

Ok, I don't know if everyone agrees with this, but...
I don't think monsters should be built as PCs.
I don't think they should have "feats". I don't think their stats should be the result of many pluses all around the game.
I think they should have special abilities, defenses, qualities and so on. Their stats should be about how good they are in a fight, or how they perform at different tasks, or how much damage they can take, and so on.
So no, I don't think they should have the same mathematical (or building) rigor of PCs.