I'd recommend the wizard or cleric specialising in summoning (especially one of the options for single action summons) - that should help both the frontliner and the rogue. Unchained rogue is not a bad option starting at level 5 as I suspect ToEE is probably quite trap heavy. Also worth considering classes that get a companion (summoner, druid, sylvan sorcerer or some cleric domains)if you are regularly in combat with that many opponents - having a T-rex or big cat can really help at these levels.
Considering my sorcerer had 26 HP and 17 AC and never took any damage...I'm not sure what you mean by "unworkable."
My angelic sorcerer - arguably one of the weakest builds - had Cha 18 and 16 int and survived chapter 1 of the playtest just fine. Generally the enemy either couldn't get to her or focused attacks on the front liners that were about to kill them.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Indeed. I have had mostly very good playtest experiences so far but still recognise problems in the system. I think play and GM style matter greatly in TPKs. I generally get few player deaths in PF1 (or 3.5 etc.) but have played in groups (or watched play in groups) which seem to have lots of deaths - and style seems to be a big factor. A simple example: if I GM and a player declares an action that (in game) their character would 100% know is stupid or risky I will warn them (especially for a new player - less so for an experienced player). I've seen games where the GM doesn't do that.
I largely agree. We're still play testing but our experience is that spells are not far off where they need to be. I'd like to see a small boost to damaging spells including cantrips, more interesting partial effects on saves and a bit of un-nerfing of utility spells (depending on the spell in question). The sorcerer also probably needs a bit of a boost (maybe just for the Divine spell list).
Some of this could be done tweaking spell lists - but also maybe some of this could be done by improving class or other feat options..
I think something like this could definitely work - even if it was just for healing. I'd also incentivise boosting more powerful consumables if it was a multiplier rather than an additive boost. They'd still need to fix resonance for alchemists and add more points at low levels.
This happened to the lead PC in our party, but I could't see any reason to have the reaction affect multiple PCs. That seems a bit brutal, but it did make for a more interesting encounter.
With regard to flat-footed Drakus could also feint.
I find this surprising. I've had no deaths or TPKs and run a non-cleric party for Lone Star and a non-optimised cleric for Pale Mountain. There have been tough encounters but not close to TPK.
It doesn't cost money, but they do spend resonance for items like bombs and healing elixirs (but at the rate of 1 RP for two items). Quick alchemy is more flexible but is 1 RP for any item in their formula book.
There may be other ways to run this, but I played with a Angelic Sorcerer in part 3, and he held his own quite well in comparison to the clerics.
This is good to hear - I had a divine sorcerer in Lost Star and liked the concept but feel it needs a bit of help at lower levels. I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes at level 9.
I was a little dismayed that one of my favorite classes, the Oracle was removed from the new Pathfinder.
To be fair - it wasn't really removed. They added one of the base classes to core rules and I believe they nearly chose Oracle (two if you include Cavalier). I took from that they intend to add the base classes back in in some way (though some might be added as archetypes like Cavalier).
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I think the spell DC is spell roll + 10 (which replaces a more complex formula) and the spell roll replaces caster level checks and separately listed rolls from spells like black tentacles or spiritual weapon). So I think it is simpler than previous editions. However I agree that the different rolls could be presented more clearly.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Yes - though not necessarily just by changing the bonuses. For example giant centipedes would have been much more fun with toned down poison. We're nor finding fights a coin flip - but players are having to use movement, debuffs etc. cleverly on most encounters. The main issue (for us) is that too many encounters are severely resource depleting, but toning down monsters a little and boosting some classes (the most resource dependent ones) would be useful. The announced resonance fixes seem to point in the right direction.
We have a switch hitter for Pale Mountain that seems to work well. Usually starts as quick draw Longbow with hunt target and then quick draw shortsword and main gauche if switching to melee. He has been a bit unlucky (the first half of our initial encounter no D20 roll over 10). He has the best hit points and AC in the party (23 if he parries). I think a fighter would be mechanically stronger in combat but the skills have been really useful.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I don't think this is necessarily true. Previously it favoured multiple attacks, but here there is a more complex relationship between attack bonus, AC, number of attacks and MAPs. High CR single monsters seem to be the main problem as crits from the weaker creatures haven't phased us much in actual play (unlike poison - which seems slightly too strong for some creatures). In the last fight there were three crits by monsters and only one dropped PC (two crits were natural 20s). The monsters were not particularly intelligent and mainly attacked the closest targets. The party were a bit depleted from a very tough earlier encounter - but switched tactics to be more defensive before the encounter began.
We've had no TPKs but a few encounters with PCs or animal companions (and one familiar) reduced to zero, but no deaths. In most cases the dropped PCs were back in the fight by burning hero points.
Captain Morgan wrote:
That’s what we did. I think I would use trivial for something they had identified before. However, checking the book you use spell effect level for items. Table 4-2 on page 146. A first level spell or can’t rip is typically DC 13. The DC table on p.336 has low at 12 and high at 14 for level one. That could use clearing up because some items don’t have obvious spell levels.
Shady Stranger wrote:
Yes - bulk seems fine so far. I think the only issue might be with alchemists - which could be very fixable with some tweaks to equipment or the class.
Travis Enright wrote:
I think there are some issues with class feats needing an upgrade in some cases and sorcerer bloodlines. The spell lists will improve, I'm sure, but I'd like to see more or better use of the graded success options. More spells with partial success on a successful save and a few spells strengthened a little. At the moment only cleric feels at more-or-less about the right level (and some of the domains are a bit weak). However, even the full casters are enjoying the playtest so far.
10 minutes would be OK. In present form it is very underwhelming.
Definitely witch for me too.
I think I'd favour boosting bloodline abilities and class feats slightly.
True - my other character is a Divine sorcerer - and I think could do with buffing at level one. Yet to see how effective she is at higher levels.
I didn't mind the addition to Golarion lore, but getting proficiency was an issue. One of my characters had a Dwarf wizard and wanted it as his arcane focus, but even after spending a fear for racial proficiency he didn't get proficiency with the clan dagger. I house ruled it, but it could with some explicit proficiency support if it is so integral to clan identity.
My experience is similar - at least four characters dropped (plus the animal companion and a familiar) in Lost star and Pale mountain so far. No deaths but some close calls and a fight that nearly ended in a TPK (though the bad rolling and sudden reversal would have probably led to a similar outcome in PF1).
I agree - there are gems like Nimble and Hardy, but too many that don't are weak and also not particularly flavourful. I think this would be fairly easy to fix though.
I disagree - but my dwarf cleric only has three heals a day (but the battle cleric feat is really helping). My playtest experience so far suggests improving other healers would be better. I think with an optimised healer cleric you can get by with only one source of healing but it feels as though you need a couple to get by without one at the moment.
Dire Ursus wrote:
We have had a lot of fun playtesting too. I've mostly enjoyed GMing a lot more and the players seem to find the encounters more varied.
That is how I've ruled it. It multiplies if the base damage is persistent, but not otherwise.
Well remember the target of the attack probably doesn't take Splash damage when they are hit, so it wouldn't be 2d8+Int. Also I don't think Bottled Lightning's Flat-Footed is given on the Splash damage, since it mentions target so that probably only effects the target of the bomb on a success/critical success.
Yes - that is how we read it too. A previous poster mentioned persistent damage being easy to remove. We have found the DC 20 flat check reducing to DC 15 with an action pretty hard to reach.
Joey Cote wrote:
Yes - resonance is an issue. Martial shouldn’t have +1 weapons until 5th (not routinely). Martials miss a lot. Generally you want to move, raise shield or do something tactical with the third action. Getting people flat footed to all targets is huge. Free damage like splash on a miss or persistent is also hugely effective at the levels we have played. My players may be unusual as they pick up on tactical options very quick, but they really liked having options other than full attack or charge.
Also forgot - alchemist has remarkable resonance - so 10 points - another clue that resonance is a bit low. Typically preparing 10-12 bombs per day with 4 or 5 in the locker for quick alchemy.
Looks like we got that wrong. the text says says extra damage minimum 0 so I assumed int damage is additional - so 1 + 4 = 5 rather than the 6 we used.
Looks like we got the splash damage wrong at 6 rather than 5. In practice we have found this very effective. Not played a fighter yet - they look likely the strongest damage dealers. However our experience suggests an alchemist is very effective with damage on a miss, debuff and cries against touch. Not yet had a problem with splash damage on allies - but that is half the fun so far in terms of movement, tactics and positioning. Anything flat footed for a round tends to go down quick. Also at this level we have one magic weapon in the party - so delivering damage at +1 weapon level is huge. My play test feedback will include the resonance issue - but the basic alchemist experience seems fine. Crafting needs some tweaks also.
I have GM experience with PF 1 alchemists also. generally well balanced but could completely trivialise some encounters such as golems.
Standard 18 int and 16 Dexter halfling. Doing splash damage on a miss is in practice huge. Anything with a low touch AC was also easily critted. Hope we did the 3rd level bombs right. 2d8 for fire with 2 persistent because the entry in the treasure section does d8 fire not d6. Also splash is 2 plus int for 6 damage with a fourth level feat that I forget the name of.
Tremendous fun - just needs more resonance. Getting something flat footed often makes a huge difference to party damage.
Bottled lightning for flat footed followed by fire or acid. As well as increasing damage from the other PCs it effectively reduces the MAP. He rolled badly for damage and often did more from splash misses than hits. persistent fire and helped drop at least one foe. He only just realised how good persistent acid damage was ...
While Alchemists' proficiency with bombs never increases, their empowered bombs grant a +1 item bonus to attack rolls at Level 15 and a +2 item bonus to attack rolls at level 19. Unfortunately, this bonus comes late, and it doesn't stack with the +2 item bonus from Alchemist's Goggles or the bonuses to ranged attacks from Quicksilver Mutagen. Nor does it match the +4 item bonus spellcasters can get to attack rolls with duelist's gloves or wands, or the +5 bonus weapon wielders can get from enhancement runes.
Just starting GMing Pale Mountain with an an alchemist PC. The alchemist is extremely effective - typically two bombs per round at level 4 each doing substantial damage and debuting on a hit and splash damage on a miss. I'd like a bit more clarity on how resonance interacts with crafting for them and a bit of a resonance buff but hitting isn't a problem in practice. The alchemist is by far the most consistent damage dealer when you figure in debuffs, persistent damage and crits.
I think I'd rule the same way but by RAW I think it is OK. My top tip is to take 20 on a hide check for a dagger or two.
To track down Lamatar's remains for the nymph or failing that to end the ogre threat once and for all. The latter might require an NPC nudge or some ogre raids on outlying villages.
So again, rule wise thus Raw, does this work?
No. Not in my view. Running water involves fresh water replacing old unclean water. Churning water involves the same water being mixed around. Different concepts. On a strict rules basis running water and churning water are different phrases and in the absence of some rule calling them out as equivalent I can't see that are being persuasive.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
But the Leave campaign flirted pretty close to demonising foreigners, which is not exactly very nice. Remember that immigration was their big argument, despite the fact that all the stuff about immigrants clogging up the NHS and welfare was basically untrue (actually, it's the old age pensioners, who mostly voted to leave, doing that). The Remain camp pretty much just told us we'd all be f~*@ed if we left. And that may yet come to pass.
The remain campaign exaggerated a few points, but I saw no evidence of outright lies. The leave campaign had lies and misinformation from day one that they refused to correct during the campaign. Here is Farage admitting that their central claim was false and there will be no £350M per day windfall for the NHS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8UjkoFfG2Y
Other big lies: NHS is at breaking point because of immigrants. Immigrants are young and pay more in taxes than they take out of the NHS. Our elderly are cared for in the NHS by immigrant doctors and nurses - because we don't train enough doctors and nurses. (This will get worse under the Conservative government who are removing bursaries for training student nurses).
There were many other big and little lies. One I spotted was that they blamed the EU for the European Court of Human Rights' ruling to award prisoners the vote. The ECHR is not an EU institution and its role is via law enacted by Westminster.
One of my sons would like to play a Brute so I've tried to come up with some simple fixes that make it playable (we may modify things a bit later on).
i) No -2 penalty to AC etc when in brute form (just the standard size penalties) - it also eliminates the skill penalty (which is particularly stupid for intimidate)
We're also considering NA or DR but will start with these fixes to begin with.
It would be useful to know if you have meta-game knowledge of the game (e.g., retained knowledge of the AP and rules exploits in game). The challenge as stated implies you'd lose all skills you didn't buy so no making explosives if you didn't take craft (alchemy) etc. Recognising monsters becomes a big deal without meta-game knowledge.
I agree with the posters who stress survivability at level 1. I'd also try and pick fairly simple classes that are hard to screw up when you are making decisions in real time. I think I'd definitely pick:
- a life oracle or healer cleric (not necessarily optimal, losing hit points hurts and I'd want to minimise pain and maximise comfort) - and Cayden would be appealing for the free beer!
- a synthesist or master summoner
- a sylvan sorcerer with the optimising trait and feat for AC
- empiricist investigator (skills and hangover cures) or maybe a bard
- mostly humans with toughness at first level
Treat it just like swim but up the DC because of it's viscosity.
There was a mythbuster episode on this - swimming through custard or similar. In theory the viscosity shouldn't matter - but in practice it did. ISTR they got better after a few attempts. Suggests a DC change might be appropriate (at least while unfamiliar).