Quijenoth's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 630 posts (634 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 630 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

master_marshmallow wrote:

Since PF1, paladins had been charisma focused, WIS actually was a dump stat for them.

In PF2, the detect evil stuff is locked behind a feat, and I don't think you can take it until 8th level because of the level gating.

So where does your " Paladins are strong in sense motive " argument come from then? if its related to detect evil that has nothing to do with sense motive as a skill.

sherlock1701 wrote:
Skills were never icing on the cake. They're a core part of your character build that dictates what you are and are not good at aside from casting/fighting.

With the exception of rogues I have to disagree. While skills have become an intricate part of the rules, the core concept of the game (based on the original AD&D) never even had a skill system. It wasn't until 2nd edition non-weapon proficiency list came in to help flesh out characters backgrounds. This evolved into the skill system of 3rd edition. The clunky rogue "open locks/pick locks" table was the only thing that benefited from the port into a skill system.

Casting/fighting are the backbone of encounters, you couldn't "win" an encounter with skills alone unless the encounter was non-combat like negotiating a dangerous rope bridge.

Yes systems as they evolve find new ways to link skills to encounters. PF2 's use of hazards are an ingeneous way to mix skills into an encounter for example. but the skills of 3.5 where still a choice. If they where core, everyone should be able to do them all, but they can't.
Thats why people choose the ones that will get used the most over "fluff" skills and why perception has now been removed from the skill system because its "THAT" important. I mentioned before in another post about diplomacy/gather information/bluff/sense motive etc. how useful are they in a campaign set on a deserted island populated by dinosaurs? Over time fluff skills have gained combat uses (feint for example) to try and entice people to take ranks in those skills.

Grand Lodge

But wasn't the reason paladins where good at sense motive was because it was a class skill and was wisdom based? same could be said for the cleric, no? That's not changed here. A paladin is good at perception due to wisdom by default so using perception to counter deception (Lie) makes them one of the best in PF2.
If I recall rangers where better against their favoured enemy and that's still a part of perception with hunt.

Sense motive was not exclusive to any specific class. and again isnt something you can teach really.

Unless I'm forgetting something about Paladins, they where only good at sense motive because of their other abilities to detect evil and detect lies.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I'm glad perception isn't a skill anymore.

Skills are not a fundamental part of the characters abilities, they are like iceing on the cake. They look nice but dont improve the taste.

Having a skill like perception that is a "must have" makes no sense. It also made little sense in relation to its purpose. how can one learn to be more perceptive? I know perception was originally the attempt to reduce the number of skills by combining spot and listen into one but again the same argument stands, you cant really train someone to be better at seeing or hearing. People can be trained to look out for key things like a guard trained to spot poick pockets, a scout trained to find tracks or a rogue listening out for movement in the next room, but picking out details or listening for key sounds is different to what the general perception is about.

In the past there have been house rules and such that have added perception as a 7th stat which felt more balanced. In PF2, having Perception as a seperate mechanic (it basically replaces initiative) makes sense but what seems to confuse people is its connection to the skills proficiency system.

It would be nice to see more circumstance benefits to perception due to your skills, class or ancestry but I like that only certain classes can get to mastery+.

Grand Lodge

Going to throw another suggestion out there. This one doesn't directly focus on the OP topic but does "influence" it more.

Change Character Progression as follows...

Step 1: Start at 6!

Grand Lodge

Another Suggestion...

all stat increases are +2.

stat progression changes as follows
10-12 +0
13-14 +1
15-16 +2
17-18 +3
19-20 +4
21-22 +5 etc...

even more extreme
10-12 +0
13-15 +1
16-18 +2
19-21 +3
22-24 +4
25-27 +5 etc...

to the totally ludicrous
10-14 -1
15-19 +0
20-24 +1
25-29 +2 etc...

yes I'm toying with the math here but then what does these numbers really mean?

Those that remember AD&D probably recall the hardship of playing a character with stats as low as 6 and that was still part of the game. I actually enjoyed playing the non-charismatic dwarf stereo types who belched at the ladies.

The progression of stats over the years has lead to this mentality that your character doesnt shape up if its core ability score isnt 18 or higher! So why limit the increase at a certain point? Just reduce or shift the increase to fit your balance.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NorthernDruid wrote:

One positive function is that it makes 16/16 top stat builds a viable long term strategy.

But I'd really rather there just was a max cap at like, 22 (or even 20, with a max of 16 before racial ancestral? modifiers)

I think taking stats to 20 instead of 18 wouldn't be too overpowering but if its power creep your worried about perhaps removing one of the character creation steps is in order.

Grand Lodge

DataLoreRPG wrote:
They gotta fix light sources to do dim light so low light isnt useless.

Or perhaps they need to highlight the penalties of relying on darkvision rather than it being the trump card to win them all that it currently is.

Since darkvision is mostly portrayed as black and white the closest real world analogy would be thermal cameras, like police helicopter night-time surveillance videos.

Seeing in black and white might have a penalty with regards to depth perception for example. The inability to see details or even identify friend or foe until your up close. If you focus on darkvision as thermal, you might be effectively blinded by intence heat (with or without light) making carrying a torch beneficial vs creatures with darkvision since you could "blind" them with the heat.

Overall my biggest concern is how darkvision is handled as a one word catch all for different night-vision types. We know various creatures see differently at night, from cats to toads, and we also know "blind" creatures like moles rely on senses besides sight, covered with rules such as temorsense.

What we find difficult to comprehend is how creatures obtain darkvision. Is it natural, supernatural or magical? Each could be very different in its workings and a creature that has access to them all might be able to switch like the predator does.

Grand Lodge

Grimcleaver wrote:
Then change the math. This is a playtest and that excuse is getting old.

Agreed. while the math may need some work, the concept of the OP is still founded. Quite simply the current benefit of heavy armors isn't worth its cost. Players are going to need a bit more bang for their buck.

Perhaps something else like damage mitigation but I personally wouldn't go that far. or critical resistance maybe... the floors open for more ideas.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Id have to agree with this thread but take it further than just fixing Fullplate. Id go so far to change the progression to something like this. (increased armors are in bold)

Light Armor
Padded +1 (drop fragile)
Leather 15 sp +2

Studded leather +2
Chain shirt +3

Medium Armor
Hide +3
Scale mail +4
Chain mail +4
Breastplate +5

Heavy Armor
Splint mail +6
Half plate +7
Full plate +8

Grand Lodge

I never liked the idea of cultural weapons having different statistics. If its mechanically different, fine, but with the generalisation of armor and weapons; a sword is a sword is a sword regardless of where its made.

Once you start defining the cultural versions of swords then you start ending up with a huge equipment list and that could seriously impact on party treasure as the katana specialized hero never gets a magical katana unless its made for him as the adventure only has "regular swords."

So instead I propose the following.

Apply the benefits of the katana (which in essence is nothing more than a trained fighting style) through cultural feats.

For example

Monk Feat: Kendo training (1)
Requires: Monastic Weaponry
You become trained in all swords and add the monk trait to them allowing you to treat them as monastic weapons.

General Feat: Bushido (1)
Requires: Expert in martial and simple swords
You add the finesse and agile traits to swords.

You can then add specific feats that focus on the attack styles you see portayed in movies, such as the draw strike.

Yes its a feat tax, but samurai are supposed to follow a training reigime far more focused than other cultures so it seems fitting that not everyone should be able to benefit from simply picking up a katana and using it like a pro in minutes.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

20ft of light (or 30 ft for a lantern) is actually pretty far in real life. It just feels incredibly small on a 5ft scale battle mat.
I too, feel the change comes from making the rules simple to learn and remember. but I do agree Low-light needs some additional benefit.

My suggestion would be that low-light simply doubles the range of the light source as well as converting all dim light to bright light.

Lantern 30ft bright light (60ft if Low-light)
Bullseye Lantern 60ft cone bright light (120ft Cone if Low-light)
Torch 20ft bright light (40ft if Low-light)
Candle 5ft dim-light (10ft bright light if low-light)

Also the thing to remember is that unless your in a dungeon or other location completely devoid of ambient light, most encounters should take place in dim light at the very least. Moonlight is referenced in the rulebook as dim-light on page 301 under special senses.

Its also worth considering how useful seeing in black and white actually is for most creatures. I wouldnt expect dwarves to read or write in complete darkness so for some darkvision creatures, using a lightsource should be just as much a requirement for those without it.

Grand Lodge

Matthew Downie wrote:
Quijenoth wrote:
What you're proposing is effectively a Permanent DR for a character equal to its shields hardness

The proposed system uses a hand for the shield, an action every round, and if your shield is hit hard, you either lose its protection for the rest of the round or the shield is damaged. That's not as good as Permanent DR.

A sequence of Move/Attack/Raise Shield has significantly less average damage output than Move/Attack/Attack with a two-handed weapon. There ought to be a decent reward.

If you read the whole OP and my reply you will see this is almost as good as a permanent DR.

The result of the OP suggestions allows ANY character to raise a shield as a reaction, prevents damage to shields unless its a critical hit in excess of its hardness, and would require excessive amounts of damage to force the shield to be dropped. If you choose to use an action to raise a shield, you then have a reaction available should someone hit it hard enough to lower it.

Lets take a minute to view this with a couple of characters.

Any level 6 character
Typical treasure of 7 would likely have a sturdy expert heavy steel shield Hardness 10 with 2 dents before being broken.

Paladin level 6
Typical treasure of 7 would likely have a sturdy expert heavy steel shield Hardness 12(10 +2 for shield Ally) with 4 dents before being broken. And has access to shield warden to provide shield block for your allies!
Lets take 18 str and con, his shield remains raised until he took over 20 points of damage from a critical hit.

Cleric of equal level

+1 potency Expert mace(2d6) str (+3 being generous )

Average Damage: 7+3 = 10 - hardness = 0 ( -2 vs Paladin )
Max Damage: 12+3 = 15 - hardness = 5 ( 3 )
Average Critical hit Damage: (non-deadly) 14+6 = 20
Raging barbarian (titan mauler) of equal level

+1 potency Expert scythe (2d10) str (+4)
Rage +6 (+3x2 large size) damage

Average Damage: 11+10 = 21 - hardness = 11 ( 9 vs Paladin )
Max Damage: 20+10 = 30 - hardness = 20 ( 18 )
Average Critical hit Damage: (deadly d10) 27+20 = 47

So as you can see. An average character will see over 50% of their successful attacks doing no damage due to the shield and would need alot of luck to get a crit and roll high enough to drop the shield. Even a damage machine like the barbarian would be in for a long fight unless he crits often.

And this is not even considering how hard it would be to actually hit a character AC benefiting from a shield all the time. (I'd put the paladin at 30+)

Grand Lodge

The argument here will never end regardless of how you argue it. Its personal preference and as has been mentioned, many house rules and "alternative" mass combat rules have been considered in the past.

The question really here is, should this be a part of the core of PF2?

For me the answer is No. Almost* (see below)

Since 3.x the level system of OGL games has been less about stature and more about story telling. If you want 10,000 archers to down that ancient red dragon then tell it like you want. You dont have to sit there rolling hundreds of dice!

If you want to wage war on the battlefield and track mass combat, go and play a mass combat game like warhammer. It doesnt belong around the kitchen table of most OGL gaming groups.

If you need numbers to challenge your players your doing something wrong, or your just too lazy to apply levels to the guards to make them a challenge. Let go of the idea that all guards have to be 1st level warriors, that died with 2nd Edition.

* (now one thing about combat in the OGL is the limit on creature count. the moment you have more than double the number of creatures to the PCs things start to become difficult to judge when balancing an encounter. This is why I have been using my own minion house rules for my games to turn level appropriate mobs into 4 balanced combatants that provide a challenge but lack the risk presented by non-minion creatures. An unexpected critical hit or critical failure agaisnt the party can result in a TPK if you have too many threats for the party to cope with.
My minion rules remove those risks in favor of more controlled damage and threat. This lets you turn a group of 4 orcs and its ogre chief into a squad of 16 orc minions and an Ogre Leader The orcs cant crit and have reduced damage but they are still equal level to the party and cannot simply be ignored due to rediculous numbers needed to hit the PCs if they where all level 0.)
I'm sharing my minion house rules so if your interested just PM me with your email and I'll send them to you.

Grand Lodge

1- I do not agree with getting permanent DR from a shields hardness. Otherwise why not give plate armor wearers permanent DR since they are covered in metal.

What your proposing is effectively a Permanent DR for a character equal to its shields hardness given that even a light steel shield is 5 hardness, that's a permanent 5 DR for all characters (except druids) who can use a shield!

By virtue, the shield cantrip would also need to be changed to be ongoing DR of 4, 10 at 3rd, 15, at 5th and 20 at 7th! what spellcaster wouldn't want that!
It would just throw out the balance of the game in favour of having a shield as a must. DR is way too powerful of an ability to be given away so freely.

2- The concept of a shield is a weapon of war and needs to be an instrument of those classes trained in war. Paladins and Fighters predominantly. By giving everyone the ability to prevent damage through reactions (coupled with permanent DR) will effectively weaken the importance of a Fighter and make any other "reaction" ability pointless and a waste.

3- Ok so you want permanent DR AND indestructible shields? So my character with his Steel Shield at 1st level has a permanent 5 DR and will absorb dozens of hits before getting even a scratch! While I do think the dents and broken rules seem too low, what you are proposing is completely unbalancing and unrealistic.

4- not a bad idea in its own right but coupled with 1-3 the average fighter (assuming min maxed 18str 18 con) would need to be taking hits in excess of 13 points of damage just to lower the shield and would only need to use a reaction to raise it again!

Lets take these rules you propose and apply them to the monsters? Any PC that cant deal more than 5 points of damage regularly (which given the average simple melee weapon does 1d6 damage), will have a hard time winning any encounter with shield bearing creatures.

Grand Lodge

Sent you a PM. The rules are a 3 page PDF so too much to post here.

Grand Lodge

pauljathome wrote:
I really want to feel competent at level 5 and not have to wait until level 15.

I guess this is the big personal question people have to ask themselves.

The OGL rules are based on levels; levels provide visible improvements, achievements, and gates for more powerful abilties. The reason these games are so popular is the mentality of self improvement. It affects every day of our lives; year 6 children see themselves as superior to year 5, gaining that promotion makes you better than your peers, passing that degree gives you more job opportunities, etc...

If you really want your level 5 to feel as competent as a level 15 your probably going to be disappointed with any OGL games. But PF2 has certainly made some sweeping changes to blurr the lines of improvement vs gated abilities that would probably suit you more than others have in the past.
The +1 per level and the heighted spell instead of spell chains and unique spells all focus on improving your existing abilities as you level instead of presenting you with new ones.

In doing so, however, they have taken the customization down a few notches and that isnt sitting well with some.

I could suggest you play a game that doesnt use levels but thats not productive to the conversation or the playtest. Your here because you enjoy the OGL format and want to make a difference in its implementation in PF2.

Grand Lodge

tivadar27 wrote:
Yes, some things should be tied to class, and some classes should be naturally better at some things (Perception) than others, but it should be possible to make a character, for example, a master of perception, or an expert in a class of weapons, without requiring them to take levels of a particular class.

Agreed, there needs to be more "customization" but not at the expense of what your supposed to be doing. Having a fighter take training to cast spells is not going to be good for you or your party. Archetypes give you a bit of customization and I hope they introduce more but the fact remains if you choose fighter, be a fighter.

Yes this is an extreme example, but we shouldn't be sacrificing limited and valuable resources designed to make you good at what you are to customize.

Grand Lodge

I think the new dying rules are better but like Jason mentioned in the stream it could cause the yo-yo effect to return.
I don’t think there is a good solution to recovering from dying personally. I think the focus should be on the situation before you fall unconscious.

Let’s be honest, being knocked unconcious is the most unsatisfying and disheartening part of rpgs and also one of the most unrealistic. From 100 to 1 hps you are at the peak of fitness mechanically. While we could introduce endurance penalties we all know the micro management of such a system is jut not worth it.

What I propose is to introduce a downed condition instead of knocked out. That is when you reach 0 you fall prone clutching your body from that fatal wound, struggling to find your way to a safe place or slumping against a wall hoping the cleric rushes to your aid.

I was thinking of using the dying 0 for this new rule. but as Draco18s points out that breaks the condition rules.

Hitting 0 you still suffer the death and dying rules but get 1 round of actions (less whatever conditions are applied to you for taking that falling blow) to crawl out of harms way, call for help, or even administer first aid to yourself before you slip into unconsciousness. Any lethal damage would take you to dying 1 so you better make sure your in a safe place before attempting anything.

I also think there should be a deaths-door condition. this is a permanent condition only removeable by rest and applied each time you gain the dying condition. deaths-door increases the dying condition by its value. The first time you gain dying condition you gain deaths-door 1, if you gain dying 1 again, increase it by 1 and gain deaths-door 2, if you gain dying again that day you would increase it by 2, this could make you hit dying 4 (and die) if they happen to get critical success on you. 3rd time, your at dying 4 straight away and die (3 strikes and out)

But this could be a little overkill perhaps.

Grand Lodge

I think we need more proficiency ranks and with it more definitions on applying those to encounters.

Additional Ranks
Currently we have

  • Untrained (1)
  • Trained (1)
  • Expert (3rd)
  • Master (7th)
  • Legendary (15th)

This is based on the idea that you gain a skill increase at every odd level after 3rd.

What I propose is to increase the frequency

  • Untrained (1)
  • Trained (1)
  • Journeyman (3rd)
  • Expert (7th)
  • Master (11th)
  • Grandmaster(15th)
  • Legendary (19th)
(personally I think legendary sounds too high for 15th level so used Grandmaster and moved legendary to 19th, but you could move legendary back to 15th and make 19th Mythical, Divine, Fabled, or perhaps "legen - wait for it! ——— dary" :) )

This opens up a broader range of speciality for characters without sacrificing other skills in the process and would give those that specialise a much more defined and customized skillset.

It would also then become a major part of encounter building. Providing a proficiency rank to encounters helps GMs understand the difficulty of that encounter while also rewarding those who exceed that difficulty in the fields their characters specialise.
A Journeyman encounter with some goblin guards would give the expert stealth rogue a +2 bonus to sneak past them or an master deception bard a +2 bonus to distract them.
The goblin king encounter, However might be a Master encounter. The rogue would have more difficulty sneaking past than the bard has to distract him but both can still attempt it.

Finally skills should introduce trivial levels.
Every skill action has a trivial level, for example Treat Poison might have a trivial of master. Therefore any character who is at least master in Medicine receives a +2 bonus to Treat Poisons. As an option you could make the bonus only +1 and increase the bonus per tier you exceed the trivial but I think that would be too much on the record keeping and just slow things down.
Alternatively skills that increase with the DC by level could use the progression to section off the skill.
Craft: Identify alchemy

  • Level of Item (Skill Difficulty)
  • 1-5 (Journeyman)
  • 6-10 (Expert)
  • 11-15 (Master)
  • 16+ (Grandmaster)

An Expert Crafter would get a +2 identifying an alchemical item of level 1 to 10.

Note this doesn't replace the Proficiency-Gated Tasks involved with skills and this should still be a thing.

Grand Lodge

pauljathome wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

It is a different point of view of the game than I have and I am trying to understand it. So please take my questions literally.

I was playing a 5th level Bard in a group of 4 characters. We all tried to diplomicize an encounter.

At no point in the rolls did my character (who had the highest modifier but only by a little) roll the highest in the group.

It is very hard to feel like the competent diplomat when, every single time, somebody else does better than you. It isn't about being competitive, it's about your character coming across as incompetent in what should be their specialty.

I think what your trying to achieve is only present in the proficiency class rather than through the dice modifier. By 15th level you would be a legendary diplomat, by 17th you could have legendary in society, You (or a social focused rogue) would be the only one who could negotiate peace between two waring countries. The other characters wouldn't stand a chance and wouldn't even be able to make a roll.

Grand Lodge

Ok so whats the overall affect?

A fighter with a 26 str at max level instead of 22? an overall +2 doesn't seem like it would be much of a balance issue personally but then the playtest is only really focused on 1st level characters currently.

But this got me thinking about the ability boosts...

Assuming 4 Free ability boosts and using the stat creation from the rulebook.
Characters will have 14 14 14 12 12 12 average stats.
at 5th that's 16 and 5-14s,
at 10th that's 5-16s and a 14,
at 15 only 3-18s and 3-16s,
at 20 you have 5-18s and one 19.

Overall I don't think many will look at the "min-max 1 for 2" passed level 10 unless you really do bottom out one more than 1 stat that your class usually relies on.

This isn't clear by the rulebook, and you could probably argue both ways, but it would be worth noting now for some clarification.

The ability boost from 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level states under each class(and they are all exactly the same)

Rulebook wrote:

At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, you boost four

different ability scores. You can use these ability boosts to
increase your ability scores above 18. Boosting an ability
score increases it by 1 if it’s already 18 or above, or by 2
if it starts out below 18.

In the levelling up section however, there is this additional comment.



character’s class entry also explains how to apply any
ability boosts or skill increases you gain.

There is further reference to secondary ability scores in the Classes Table on page 13.

All of this seems to point to the fact that you can only boost key ability scores from class when levelling.

If I'm correct, the dwarven fighter in the example, upon reaching 5th level would have the following key abilities.
from fighter Strength or Dexterity
from secondary Constitution

This all makes sense until you notice that you would only be allowed to boost 3 abilities for all classes except monk and ranger, unless you also consider ancestry.

Perhaps I'm overthinking this...

Grand Lodge

JulianW wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Also note that scouting ahead is /incredibly/ dangerous in PF2, since even low level monsters have effectively legendary Perception and high level ones can easily trump an utterly min maxed rogue with the best possible Stealth in the game. Scouting means you die.

This was kind of why I asked... that unless I’ve misinterpreted things, even an utterly min maxed (for stealth) rogue is not going to be able to do this in practice, even vs relatively weak monsters for his level.

Plus there’s no longer much difference between between a supposedly big dumb ogre or a very well trained sentry - the ogre is still pretty likely to spot Pete if they are similar level.

Means a pretty classic fantasy role (and one I love) isn’t a playable concept in 2E.

I wouldn't say its totally unplayable. I just think its a little more open to GM adjudication.

For example if someone scouting ahead was to come across a clearing with a fortress guarded by eagle eyed guards, as long as the scout said I want to remain hidden, a GM could easily rule that the guards are focused on the gate rather than trying to spot people hidden in the bushes and not require a perception check for the guards.

A less forgiving GM might force you to make additional checks as you come across the clearing and roll perceptions for the guards anyhow.

Now if you wanted to try and sneak inside, that a different matter entirely. At that point your interacting with the encounter alone and deserve the wrath it brings.

How I would rule scouting ahead is that your intent is not to actually encounter the next obstacle, but gain some insight as to when, where and what it is. just like how another character might study maps or history books to gain knowledge of the obstacles ahead. At the very most I would only benefit the players with a bonus on their initiatives for an encounter that has been scouted. that and the knowledge of what to expect should be enough to keep the scouting character happy without affecting the encounter to much.

Grand Lodge

Mergy wrote:

Regarding new actions: It's a cool idea, and I appreciate bringing new mechanics whilst also creating the cinematic effect of throwing arrows into the ground so they can be shot quickly. I worry that the execution might be clunky in the current 3 action/turn system. I might suggest making both "prepare" options require only 1 action, and increase quiver capacity to 18. While a bit unrealistic, this still maintains some amount of cinematic realism.

I like the approach of having bows with high damage and no strength scaling along with bows with slightly lower damage that scale with strength. I appreciate the new items, although I think some of this might need to be streamlined. Characters are currently assumed to be maintaining their arms and armour in downtime, and I'm not sure that mechanics need to be identified for bow maintenance specifically.

I get crossbows having a reload time, but I think most of these will simply not be used because of it. If I'm right and most of these are not used due to the reload time, it seems a waste to have created so many. I would recommend adding a property rune option for all crossbows which turns them into a repeating variant. Yes, this would make your compound heavy crossbow incredibly powerful, but with magical item investment, that sounds fine to me.

I still haven't played a game yet of the playtest and work is being a pitta right now. I will certainly be watching the live twitch playtests with interest. Your suggestion on the action tax does make sense, perhaps I was being a little over cautious.

The items where directly lifted from my PF1 house rules so given the pace of PF2 your probably right.

The reload time is actually exactly how it is from the rulebook.

rulebook page 179 wrote:


Ranged weapons indicate how many Interact actions it
takes to reload them. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition
and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an
item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines
whether you can spend those actions out of sequence or if
they must be performed together as an activity.
An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be
thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like
drawing any other weapon. Reloading and drawing
a thrown weapon both require a free hand. When you
spend the last action required to reload a weapon you’re
holding, as part of that action, you can place your hands
in the grip necessary to wield the weapon normally.

Grand Lodge

Draco18s wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
They can be, but as a wizard are you going to spend your resources on being a better wizard or on being a better fighter?
There aren't any items that make you a better wizard. Well there is. It's called a staff.

He said resources, not items. I assume he's referring to the investment in feats and spells that makes you want to stand in melee range to actually aid another, rather than hiding behind the fighter and attacking with spells. I don't know about you but even at low level I'd be keeping my "untrained in all armor" wizard well out of harms reach as much as possible.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand your frustration but I also know how frustrating it is to GM these superhuman social characters.

1: The skill system from 3.5/PF1 was inherently flawed because of its limited points and huge selection.

This made for great customization but it also meant sacrificing key elements of your character that could lead to disaster in the future. The most common was the rogue that couldn't pick the lock on the door, needed to progress through the dungeon. Why? Because he spent all his points in bluff.

You could have the most charismatic character in the game with diplomacy, bluff and sense motive all maxed and boosted with feats only to play him in a 15 level campaign that put the PCs in the middle of a swamp on some remote island inhabited by dinosaurs!

2: This is being discussed elsewhere on the power scale but its a fundamental part of this Playtest and changing it would probably not be possible at this point without some global reworking.

3: Not sure I understand this question as you can already take stats above 18 currently.

Playtest Rule Book wrote:

Ability Boosts

At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, your character
boosts four different ability scores. Your character can
use these ability boosts to increase her ability scores
above 18. Boosting an ability score increases it by 1 if
it’s already 18 or above, or by 2 if it starts out below 18.
For more about ability boosts and applying them during
character creation, see page 18.

4: Given how critical perception is to combat starting this would simply become the improved initiative of PF2 and likely a "must have" feat making it even less likely for you to be better than others.

5: More choice is good but again you want to make all characters good at perception? How does that make you better than others? The concept of perception is more about how alert you are to the presence of danger. Rogues Rangers and Fighters are supposed to be alert to danger, others take Alertness.

Grand Lodge

1) Pete would probably describe things to reflect how much time he's willing to invest in sneaking and scouting. Personally I would only allow such options outside of dungeons. how he describes things will also reflect on how you describe his surroundings, he's not going to rely on the foliage cover in a desert or mountain pass for example. but make sure he highlights key factors in his actions like where he will look for cover, how he disguises his movement, etc. and reward or penalize his rolls accordingly.

Regarding task, Sneaking is probably the most common form of task you should use. once an encounter is reached make the check for his initiative and notice. if he succeeds he can freely report back to the group, if he fails, he's probably in a lot of trouble.

2) give the rest of the party exploration actions, again explain their surroundings and give them a chance to do something. without this players will feel like their characters exploration doesn't matter and most will likely just choose wandering. my advise for a GM with this sort of character is plan accordingly. create interesting and unusual random exploration encounters that the other players can interact with. one of the things I find with scouting characters is they just don't like missing out on things yet while they are away the world should still go by with their absence. don't focus the game on them.

Heres some examples;
wizard in the party decides to do some investigating of his surroundings to learn about the creatures that might inhabit the area. while doing so you have him encounter a particularly intelligent creature that enters into conversation with the wizard. Providing him with magical secrets that lead to the learning of a new spell.

A peddler passes the party on the road and offers them a discount on his wares for news of the road ahead.

A guard patrol approaches the group and warns them of the creatures attacking travellers on the road, while describing such creatures, they hear screams in the direction the Pete recently went...

3) anything that can sneak quickly and has the ability to evade others.

4) this really depends on what he encounters and where. encountering a sleepy goblin camp at night probably wont get him noticed, spotting a group of wolves out on the prowl while downwind of them in think foliage will be hard to stay un-noticed.

Bottom line is, make the time fun for all players, don't feel forced to focus on Pete at the expense of others enjoyment.

Grand Lodge

Here are two things to consider.

1-0 level characters
This idea has been flying round since second edition. The concept of creating a non-heroic version of a character only to earn enough experience to be considered a hero and become a level 1 character.

2-Power Increase
Increase in Power is exponentially less with each new level. Going from 1st to 2nd in PF1 was as much as 100% gain in HPs. In PF2 this is slightly less with the bonus hps at 1st level from ancestry. Many GMs I’ve played with have toyed with the concept of increase hps at first level but while that helps with low level survivability at some point, it fails to address the discrepancy in power that plagues characters from 1st to 5th.

MMO Solution
Now let’s look at the online MMO consideration, I’m going to use Everquest as it’s the closest thing to D&D online that I am familiar with and that has addressed this problem.
EQ has always had issues with grouping, the idea of 1 party member being so much higher than the rest, he simply carries the others along. PnP doesn’t have this issue nowadays as level loss and xp discrepancy are pretty much a thing of the past for most groups, but we still have adventures with ranges of levels to accommodate tournament play. The solution for MMOs was to minimize the effect of power increase by increasing the minimum level.
Now the game slingshots you 50 thanks to faster xp and powerful mercs. If you pay you can start at level 85 to bring you closer to grouping with those playing at max level.

So what does this offer PnP PF2?
A solution would be to create new characters at 5th level instead of 1st or, create several sub-levels where characters make choices and gain bonuses to bring them to the equivalent of 5th level power at 1st level. Gaining equivalent HPs, AC, attack, saves, skills and spells at 1st level as that offered to a 5th level character would significantly bridge the gap from 1st to 20 and reduce the power curve in the process.
This is not something to consider lightly via house rules that I have experienced in the past. This is a huge consideration on every element of the game at all levels of play. But its worth considering during this early stage I think.

Grand Lodge

Aramaya wrote:
Zman0 wrote:
You need to burn the action each turn to keep defending yourself with it.

I agree with Zi Mishkal and therefore with Sid Meier. Burning a action each and every turn while raising a shield isn't a problem. It's the fact that it has to be reminded every single turn to the DM.

It would be easier to have a "risen shield" status, where you lose an action for more shield protection, and the ability to react against attack.

Sorry I totally disagree. The same argument could be used for casting a 1 round duration cantrip every turn or similar action. It’s still a provocative action that provides you with a bonus (in this case AC) for the rest of the round.

Anything that would prevent the use of actions or hinder certain actions may affect the bonus. Not to mention that the raising of the shield is a conscious choice. You could use that action to make an extra attack or to move, so its use or non-use has consequences.

Let’s say you decide to perform an action that uses two hands as your first action, such as a Paladin using Lay on Hands (although I think this needs rule clarification as a side note). Since raising the shield first would effectively waste the use for the round, any reaction you cause by the Lay on hands action would trigger before the raise shield.

Yes, in PF1 this wasn't always the case, but now it is and I personally love the concept of shields in PF2. Not only does it make them worthwhile using, it is also a good reminder for GMs that you are employing it as a defense when they are deciding if monsters hit or not.

Considering the shield as a passive affect is wrong on so many levels.
It’s not like armor any more.

Grand Lodge

Just curious as I haven't run a game yet and wanted to understand more about players experiences so far.

Are your GMs remembering the multiple attack penalty for monsters? I see many mentioning the fact creatures get 3 actions but if they aren't suffering the -5/-10 then they could be a recipe for disaster.

Another issue might be old PF1 conditions. all the creatures in the first chapter (except Drakus) lack Attack of opportunity, which makes for a lot of freedom on the battlefield than was possible in PF1. Conversly, causing mosters to activate your triggers would also be safer than rushing in to get the first blow. Hitting an advancing goblin then ducking behind the fighter so when it advances on you again provokes the fighters wrath seems like a solid tactic to me.

How many used skills? If im not mistaken, Shove, Trip, and disarm (if trained) have far better changes of succeeding; The creatures DC is 10 plus its saving throw modifier according to the rules.

To shove a Goblin Warrior is Fortitude DC 11 which for a fighters signature skill could suceed more frequently than using a regular attack against the goblins 14 AC. especially while employing a weapon with shove.

The result can knock an opponet out of the fight for quite some time or open up triggers instead of just wading in for the DPS race.

Spells. I've seen it all to often where the spellcasters focus on trying to outdamage the fighter instead of assisting the fighter. Taking electric arc or acid splash over daze. The flatfooted action of daze not only opens up rogues precision damage but also gives everyone a +2 bonus to hit the goblin.

Shields. The long lost item of D&D, the shield has often been forgotten by players due to its flat bonus to AC. but now with Raise Shield and Shield Block (a free reaction while your shield is raised) as long as you win initiative, the first attack against you will likely ever do damage while your shield remains intact!. Yes it costs you an action but are you really going to hit often with a -10 on that 3rd attack at level 1?

I'm not saying your players arent utilizing these abilities, but it would be helpful to know if they are or not in the situations being mentioned here.

Grand Lodge

Aadgarvven wrote:

add to this that at some levels FOUR atributes are raised by 2 levels unless above 18, then 1.
Raising your 4 lower abilities is optimizing, you could build 1 over 18, but very few people will raise 2 atributes above 18.
Level 1 characters will be different, with these differences diminishing with level due to the +1/level and the atributes, besides for spellcasters, the low number of spells will make them choose the most effective ones.

My guess is that after 6 months there will be a power build for every archetype, with very few outliers and even them very similar.

That's a good observation. While the idea of limiting ability raises after 18 restricts power creep it also restricts the versatility of some options. I think your right, certain builds will simply overpower others but then for some that's the enjoyment they get from a game.

Over time more rules will release which will change the top 6, then after a while we will be looking at PF3 :)

Perhaps we should only allow attributes to increase by +1 regardless how high they are, or increase it to +2. doesn't really matter which though, the result will be the same. the only difference will be the power gap created by the optimization.

Grand Lodge

Expanding on the abstract rules, what I have always thought would be a good new abstract rule is one that reduces your level as your power is depleted. But there's never really been a good system to base it off except hit points. You could argue that, as a wizard expends his spells, he loses power, but there's nothing equivalent for fighters who can literally continue fighting for eternity.

Systems like spell points and endurance have been considered in the past but have been abandoned due to the excessive amount of tracking involved by both players and the GM.

I have tried a system that when you first reached 0 HPs, you receive a -1 level drain and your hit points return to max. You could only suffer 2 of these before you fall unconscious. The problem with it was inherent in the HP system where fighters could go on for much longer before needing a heal and clerics invested in damaging spells instead of healing. I tried to compensate this by reducing HPs granted per level from 1-4 (1 for wizard, 4 for fighter) but abandoned that when I realised just how much work was involved recalculating every weapon, spell, and ability for damage in the game!

Grand Lodge

The issue is inherent in all D20 systems. The concept of 1-20 level progression creates a limitation on the system.

Ideally the chance of success should be 50% but as the power grows at a rate of 5% per level, the range between success and failure grows quickly. reducing progression by 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 is one solution but when you mix them up the discrepancy from one system to another becomes too great a sacrifice. That's why fighters are the granddaddy of combat and wizards the poor stepchild of power due to their 1-9 spell progression.

Abstract mechanics like hit points, as Igor pointed out, help to mitigate the hard lines of the power curve inherent in a d20 system and to be honest, I think it could use more. I see no other solution to this within the d20 system. Instead, we have many versions (editions) attempting to manipulate the system to create new progression speeds.

The only way to overcome the flaws is to abandon the d20 system but I don't think that's something this playtest is intending to do. Instead the process we are partaking in today is to create a new system.
Some will like it, others will not, nothing is perfect for everyone.

The concept of simplifying systems, such as removing the differences between AC, Saves, and checks (remember thac0) opens up more space for new rules to help soften the power curve. But I don't think their is a good solution to making level 1 characters remaining a threat to a level 20. If you want new characters fighting alongside long standing characters, then your better off playing a system that doesn't have levels.

Grand Lodge

Additional rolls, lookup tables, no thanks. anything that adds time and complexity is always bad for a game.

I understand your concern with lots of weak opponents but there is a better way of dealing with this I personally houseruled.

For PF1 I created a new monster template called minion. The idea was that when dealing with more than 5 identicle creatures, they would gain the minion template. increasing in power based in its size. minions shared hp pools and each successful attack would effectively reduce the number of minions instead of tracking hps individually. It gets a little more complex when dealing with area spells and such and the rules are too complex to repeat here but the result was the ability to have PCs engage armies of monsters and still feel challenged and have risks rather than rolling dice for the sake of it.

Grand Lodge

Agreed, there seems to be various limitations depending on the type of action.

Attack actions have a 20 always hit/ 1 always miss rule
Skills and opposed checks however, have the beyond your abilities caveat.

It's situations like this that causes player confusion and with PF2 its even worse since they hare trying to blend all the rules together to minimise having different rules for different parts of the game.

Grand Lodge

doc the grey wrote:

As a long time 3.5/PF player I have always been a big fan of encumbrance and the system it represents but like many have always found the system of tabulating it out to be a royal pain. So I am super happy to see the bulk system transferred over to 2e, it makes encumbrance quicker to calculate and easier to adjudicate as time goes on.

That said, is there a way we can get a bulk to pounds conversion put in the core rulebook right alongside the explanation of the system? As it stands, there's not really any reference point to tell the reader how much 1 bulk really weighs and it makes it difficult to contextualize unless the reader has either a familiarity with the weight of say, your average greatsword or has been playing these games for years. Even rough estimates like, "1 Bulk is equivalent to 5-10 pounds)" would go a long way to helping get every reader on the same page and help add literal and figurative "weight" to the actions in play, and avoid too much dissent as time goes on and more weird and uncommon items start floating around the game.

And as a GM, it'll also help me figure out how much bulk say, 2,000 lbs. of Ankheg takes up when our fighter tries to haul it back to camp to butcher into crafting parts XD.

There are...

Rulebook Page 175 wrote:

Bulk Values

Items may have a number to indicate their Bulk value,
or may be light (indicated by an L) or negligible for
the purpose of determining Bulk (indicated by a —).
For instance, full plate armor is 4 Bulk, a longsword is
1 Bulk, a dagger or scroll is light, and a piece of chalk is
negligible. Ten light items count as 1 Bulk, and you don’t
count fractions (so 9 light items count as 0, and 11 items
count as 1). Items of negligible Bulk don’t count toward
Bulk unless you try to carry vast numbers of them, as
determined by the GM.

Estimating an Item’s Bulk
As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds
is 1 Bulk, an item weighing less than a few ounces is
negligible, and anything in between is light. Particularly
awkward or unwieldy items might have different Bulk
values. A 10-foot pole isn’t heavy, but its length makes
it difficult for you to move while you have one on your
person. Items made for larger or smaller creatures have
greater or lesser Bulk, as described on page 191.

I agree though, the system could use a little more expansion, right now it only seems to focus on what you can carry, not what things might weight in regards to pushing, dragging, or lifting.

Infact, I noticed something while searching "lift" in the rulebook PDF...

The belt of giant strength states.

Rulebook page 382 wrote:
You gain a +4 item bonus to Athletics checks and a +2 circumstance bonus to Athletics checks to lift a heavy object, Break a Grapple, or Break an Object.

but the athletics skill lists no action for lift a heavy object! the closest rule would be break open to lift a heavy gate.

Grand Lodge

Perhaps it’s time to simplify critical hits even further?

The ambiguity of the critical hit sidebar has become less important since the Play-test introduced critical successes for most abilities, spells and actions.

So, instead of saying...

CRITICAL HITS 177 wrote:
If you critically succeed at a Strike, your attack deals double damage (see page 293).

we say...

Suggested Change wrote:
If you critically succeed at a Strike, double the value of the weapons dice rolls only"

the question of whether you double strength modifiers and the like are no longer a concern because the answer is simply no.

Then for things like sneak attack, specify that ”on a critical success you double the number of precision dice rolled”, This would also simplify the Doubling and Halving Damage entry.

It's not hard for players to colour code their dice. Roll blue dice for weapon damage and red for precision. many players I have already do this. You then simply double the blue, roll additional red, and add your modifiers.

Yes, this may seem like it dumbs down critical hits a little, but with no more critical multipliers on weapons, instead replaced by traits like deadly, fatal, and two-hand. You don't even add 1-1/2 str modifier to two handed weapons anymore so the impact should be minimal and make combat calculations simpler and quicker.

With all the changes coming in and with the extra critical effects throughout the rulebook, perhaps it needs reducing a little. From the few posts I have read regarding actual play-testing, many GMs are finding the critical hits far too common, resulting in TPKs.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Kerobelis wrote:
Third attacks (with the -10 penalty) will often require more than a 20 roll. So in this case when a natural 20 is rolled, it is a hit and not a critical hit?
That is a good point. Your third or subsequent hits will crit less due to the multiple attack penalty. If you roll a 20 and that would not normally hit due to those (and other) penalties, it would be a normal hit and not a critical hit.

According to page 177 this is contradicted under the critical hits entry.

Rulbook Page 177 wrote:


When you make an attack and roll a natural 20 (the
number on the die is 20), or if the result of your attack
exceeds the target’s AC by 10, this is called a critical
success (also known as a critical hit).

Its the "or" that breaks the continuity. it gives the impression that either a natural 20 or beating the DC by 10 is a critical hit. It should read...

When you make an attack and roll a natural 20 (the
number on the die is 20), your attack is considered a
success even if it failed to exceed the targets AC.

If the result of your attack exceeds the target’s AC by 10,
this is called a critical success (also known as a critical hit).

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, long post time to discuss a favorite topic of mine. Bows.
I am going to approach this productively using house rules I created and modified to fit into the rules presented in the playtest. This will impact on a lot of elements of the game, from weapons, to encumbrance, and to actions. I will start off with the concept and goals first before going into the rules.

Concept and Goal To add realism, limitation, viability and uniqueness to all types of ranged weapons.
Too often, ranged build characters have provided safety and limitless versatility in combat to the point where some characters forgo the use of a melee weapon entirely. Shooting adjacent opponents and doing the 5ft step dance around the battlefield to avoid AoO (Step action). By providing definitive rules on how you prepare for ranged combat, and limiting the amount of ammunition you have access too provides for a much more realistic

We know the D&D weapon categories have been simplified since the earliest days, forums have been filled with heated discussions about katanas, bastard swords, morning stars and the like. But one that has always bothered me is the bow. People say all a katana is is a keen longsword and people argue both should be unique. But why do we have two categories for bows when the only difference is the shape and materials for which it is made?

Why does composite bows have propulsive and normal “self” bows do not? The difference between self and composite bows is simply a method of construction. Neither deserve their own stat blocks which has baffled me since the early days of D&D. Compound bows however are much more interesting. The idea of cams on compound bows is to provide more damage with less effort. When a compound bow reaches maximum draw, the cams take over the strain providing better accuracy for weaker users. It doesn’t matter how much father you pull a compound bow string; the velocity of the arrow would not increase. Not so with the self or composite which is 100% dependent on the strength of the user. Compound bows may not fit some players in terms of technology but as pathfinder has firearms (although missing from the play-test) compound bows would likely be available in some parts of the world.

To help with confusion between composite and compound wording, for this write up, I will refer to composite bows as Laminate. Also, I don’t really like the volley trait as it doesn’t make any sense to what its trying to do. Instead I turned the ability on its head and called it aim. So, any reference to volley in the rulebook instead refers to aim.

Ok so on with the rules.


Archer Prep
These actions involve preparing for the use of your ranged weapon. Each use comes with advantages and disadvantages and some may not be available in all scenarios. Once you have prepared your ammunition for use, you can use the matching ranged weapons normally until the prepared ammunition is depleted.

2 actions>> Quiver Prep: You position your quiver and release the string to allow you to draw your arrows to reload your bow. This often involves moving the quiver from your back to the side or hip to reduce the time it takes to grab the arrows. When a quiver is prepped for use any sudden movement not initiated by you runs the risk of the contents of your quiver spilling out. When you are the victim of a critical success action that causes your character to move or fall prone (such as critical success from the Shove or Trip attack action) the contents of your prepared quiver spill out at your previous location. A crossbow rack mounted on your crossbow is automatically considered prepped.

1 action> Ground Prep: If you have soft ground cover such as wet soil, sand or similar at your feet, you can take an action to thrust a rack of arrows into the ground. This is often a good choice of range prep for longer fights to provide additional arrows when the quiver runs empty. Since the ammunition is placed in the ground, if you move away from the location the arrows are considered dropped and unattended.

3 actions>>> Load Quiver: This action requires loading a quiver or archery bag with a loaded rack of arrows or bolts.

3 actions>>> Load Rack: This action involves loading an archery rack or crossbow rack with arrows.

Longbow The longbow is a long piece of material with a string attaching two ends causing tension. Laminate Longbows are made by gluing various resistance materials together. These create more tension and often retain the curved shape of the bow when unstrung making them bulkier. A longbow is too large to use while you are mounted.
Shortbow A shorter version of the longbow, this bow can be used while mounted.
Crossbow The traditional crossbow or hunter’s crossbow, consists of a horizontal bow mounted on an arm with a nock and trigger. The sting is pulled back manually into the latch to “arm” the crossbow. The bolt is placed in a groove along the arm. The trigger is pulled to release the string and fire the bolt. The draw weight is generally less than 100 lbs.
Heavy Crossbow The heavy crossbow is identical to the light crossbow but with a much stronger draw weight (normally around 150-200 lbs). The heavy crossbow cannot be “armed” with 1 hand and requires 2 hands to arm. Most come fitted with a foot stirrup for better leverage, while others include a winch mechanism to slowly draw the string back with minimum effort.
Hand Crossbow also referred to as the pistol crossbow, this crossbow can be fired with one hand but still requires 2 to load.
Repeating Light Crossbow This modified light crossbow uses a self-loading lever mechanism and vertical magazine that holds 4 bolts. This is the only crossbow that can be reloaded and fired in the same action (reload 0) however due to its construction the repeating crossbow was far less deadly and had a shorter range than its counterpart.

Bow Benefits
There are 3 types of bows and crossbows, self, Laminate, and compound, while all are identical in use, they are constructed differently which provides advantages and disadvantages.

Self bows can be repaired in the wild if the string breaks, with a successful survival check a makeshift bowstring can be fashioned if you do not have a replacement.

Laminate bows can be repaired in the wild if the string breaks, with a successful survival check a makeshift bowstring can be fashioned if you do not have a replacement. Due to their construction laminate bows are much more resistant to damage, they are treated as thin iron or steel giving them a hardness of 5.

Compound This bow requires a bow press to restring or the assistance of someone else due to the torque strength of the bow. Compound crossbows generally have a built in or detachable winch. Like laminate bows their construction is much more complex however due to the many moving and intricate parts they only have a hardness of 4.

Simple Weapons
Crossbow; 30 sp; 1d8 P; 120 ft.; Reload 1; Bulk 1; Hands 2; Bow; Deadly d6, aim 30
Compound Crossbow; 120 sp; 1d10 P; 120 ft.; Reload 1; Bulk 3; Hands 2; Bow; Deadly d8, aim 30
Hand Crossbow; 25 sp; 1d6 P; 60 ft.; Reload 2; Bulk L; Hands 1; Bow; Agile, aim 30
Heavy Crossbow; 40 sp; 1d10 P; 120 ft.; Reload 2; Bulk 2; Hands 2; Bow; Deadly d6, aim 30
Compound Heavy Crossbow; 180 sp; 1d12 P; 120 ft.; Reload 2; Bulk 3; Hands 2; Bow; Deadly d8, aim 30
*NEW* Repeating Crossbow; 70 sp; 1d8 P; 80 ft.; Reload 0; Bulk 2; Hands 2; Bow; aim 30

Martial Weapons
Longbow; 60 sp; 1d8 P; 100 ft.; Reload 0; Bulk 2; Hand 1+; Bow; Deadly d8, propulsive, aim 50
Compound Longbow; 200 sp; 1d10 P; 100 ft.; Reload 0; Bulk 4; Hands 1+; Bow; Deadly d10, aim 50
Shortbow; 30 sp; 1d6 P; 60 ft.; Reload 0; Bulk 1; Hands 1+; Bow; Deadly d8, propulsive, aim 50
Compound Shortbow; 140 sp; 1d8 P; 60 ft.; Reload 0; Bulk 2; Hands 1+; Bow; Deadly d10, aim 50

Shoulder Quiver 4 sp; Bulk 1; Hands -
Archery Bag 3 sp; Bulk 1; Hands -
Archery Rack (3 capacity) 1 cp; Bulk L; Hands -
Archery Rack (12 capacity) 1 cp; Bulk 1; Hands -
Archery Rack, battlefield (50 capacity) 10 cp; Bulk 5; Hands -
Crossbow Rack 1 cp; Bulk L; Hands -
Wrist guard and finger tabs 2 sp; Bulk -; Hands -
Bow Press 120 sp; Bulk 8; Hands 2
Bowstring (10) 1 cp; Bulk -; Hands -
Silencing kit 1 sp; Bulk -; Hands -

Shoulder Quiver This quiver has a long strap suitable to placing the quiver holding 12 arrows onto your back. The quiver can be turned around to hang under your arm allowing you to draw arrows from the front instead of having to reach over your shoulder to pull out an arrow. However, in this position, with the draw string untied, sudden movement or falling can cause arrows to fall out of the quiver. You can only wear one shoulder quiver. The shoulder quiver can store arrows but not bolts. Capacity 1 Bulk

Archery Bag This smaller quiver has a large loop instead of a strap that can be attached to your belt or other waist strap. The bag contains 3 small tubes that can store 3 ammunition (or 3 capacity rack) in each. Unlike the shoulder quiver, you can wear 2 Archery Bags on each hip but can only prepare one for use at a time. The archery bag also comes with a detachable shoulder strap, so it can be stored on your back when not in use like a traditional quiver however the smaller length of the quiver prevents the user from drawing from this position. Capacity 1 Bulk

Archery Rack Racks are discs of soft material that are used to store arrows inside quivers or bags. They provide spacing to allow easy draw of the arrows or bolts. racks come in 3 and 12 slot sizes. A Shoulder quiver holds and includes 1, 12 slot rack. An archery rack holds 3, 3 slot racks. Archery Racks can also be used to store arrows in other containers such as backpacks allowing for easy reloading of quivers once they have been depleted. (this requires a full turn to complete) Bulk an empty rack weights nothing, a full 3 capacity rack is L and a full 12 capacity rack is 1 Bulk.

Archery Rack, Battlefield These Racks are wooden or iron stands made to hold large quantities or arrows, some even have hangers for bows. Found on many castle walls and stationed along the battlements to provide defending archers plenty of ammunition from attackers below. A battlefield rack holds as many as 50 arrows at a time. Providing ammunition for up to 5 archers.

Crossbow Rack This bolt rack holds 3 crossbow bolts and can be mounted on the underside of a light or heavy crossbow providing quick access when reloading. You do not need to prepare these bolts unlike a regular quiver. Capacity L Bulk

Wrist guard and finger tabs These pieces of protective clothing are used by archers to prevent friction and chafing while using the bow for an extended period.

Bow Press A table mounted device used to bend a bow to release the string enabling the user to replace a bowstring on a compound bow without the assistance of someone else.

Bowstrings Historically, bowstrings are made of hemp, linen, sinew, plant fibers and animal hides. Almost any fiber may be used in an emergency and can be made in the wild with a successful survival check.

Silencing kit using animal fur, leather pads and cotton, a ranged weapon with the aim trait can be modified to operate near silently, improving your chances of remaining undetected when hunting. Attacking a creature that hasn’t seen you would normally render you seen. Using a silenced bow allows you to make a stealth check to remain unseen assuming you have cover or concealment nearby. If you hit your target, they have a rough idea where the shot came from, due to the arrows trajectory, but cannot pinpoint your exact location. You cannot hide from targets if they are in your weapons first range increment. For Example. you can hide from shooting someone with a shortbow at 65 feet or more, but not at 60 feet or less.

New Trait
Removed Volley and replaced with Aim

Aim Ranged weapons with the Aim quality require you to spend time lining up the shot before firing. The number indicated on the aim indicates the minimum distance a target must be to you to aim correctly. Shooting at targets closer to you imposes a -2 circumstance penalty to your attack rolls.

You take aim and hold your weapon to pick off nearby enemies quickly. You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to damage rolls on attacks made within the weapons first range increment. When using a ranged weapon with the aim trait, you don’t take the circumstance penalty to attack rolls made versus targets closer than the weapons aim limit.

Requirements You are wielding a ranged weapon with the aim trait and reload 0.
You fire a volley at all foes in an area. Make a Strike with a –5 penalty against all enemies within a 10-foot-radius burst; this burst must be centered at or beyond your weapon’s aim limit. You can only strike a number of foes up to the number of ammunitions u have prepared.

New Magic Item: Endless Quiver
1 action> Activation Focus
Activating this item instantly replenishes its ammunition. The endless quiver is always considered prepped and does not run the risk of spilling if you are forcibly moved.

Well that’s it for this post. I probably missed some things out but at least the concept is here ready for scrutiny. I would love to hear play-testers thoughts on these rules and don’t worry if you think its all a load of bull, I have broad shoulders and can take the criticism.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, so disclaimer first. I downloaded and read most of the Rule book and bestiary but have yet to play-test the game.

The main approach I had was to build my favorite characters from 2nd Edition, as many have been shelved due to changes in the rules since 3.0 (specifically looking at the old kit books). I did the same with the original PF play-test.

One particular character I had was the Dwarven Rapid Response Rider [Complete Book of Dwarves] that charged into battle on the back of a grizzly bear (for which I commissioned Jeff Easley to draw me a portrait of many years ago and is framed above my computer desk). So I started putting together this character with PF2 rules. Especially after seeing Cavalier in the Archetypes.

Each attempt got me close to the 2nd Edition version with just one problem. None of them could ride the bear until at least 12th level due to the fact that the bear is size small!!!!

A simple fix would be to make the bear young companion Size Small or Medium. The problem is the dwarf size category of medium. This only really gives them the ability to ride horses. A Medium bear could thus be ridden once it is fully grown, giving the bear size large as early as 4th level for a druid, or 6th level for a cavalier.

I also think the mount special ability needs some extra clarification as to what it means.

Rulebook Page 283 wrote:
The Special entry, if present, lists any other special abilities your companion has, including whether it ordinarily serves as a mount and is appropriate for mounted classes, such as the paladin.

This just tells me if I'm a paladin I should select a horse animal companion. Seems pretty obvious not to need a defined rule for it. I noticed the work together clause about not using it while riding a companion but I think it needs more expansion, like adding rules for barding, saddle use, etc.

A similar problem also arises with boars, wolves, and cats, but these are generally far smaller than bears and more suited to small races. The largest cat (Siberian tiger) stands 3-1/2 ft at the shoulder, while a polar bear can exceed 5ft!

Other issues discovered while building this post...

The following creatures are all referenced as possible mounts but are not clearly indicated for choices as an animal companion mounts (goblin paladins riding goblin dogs?).

Camels (bestiary 37), Riding Dogs (bestiary 53), Goblin Dogs (bestiary 74), Nightmare (bestiary 90), Wargs and Winter wolves (bestiary 114)

I think it would benefit to add the following 2 abilities;

Bestiary creature ability

Animal Companion [Mount] (Companion Type [beast])

This creature can be used as an animal companion using the companion type specified in its description.
If the entry includes [Mount], Add Special mount, to the animal companion entry.
commentary wrote:
This allows for mount specific versions of animals to be identified for paladins and cavaliers and could be used to indicate proficiency in barding and handling a rider.

If the creature type indicates [beast], this type of creature can be selected as an animal companion if the character uses the Beast Companion specialization ability. Obtaining rare or intelligent creatures as animal companions is subject to GM approval.

The creature retains all special abilities when used as an animal companion (a camel can spit, a boar can charge, a tiger can pounce and wrestle, a nightmare keeps its smoke aura, fly speed, resistance fire 10, divine innate spells and flaming gallop, etc.).
Commentary wrote:
retaining special abilities is just a consideration for clarity, I'm no rules master so this might be unbalanced and might need further clarity/justification for each creature but it certainly needs addressing.


Camel: Animal Companion [Mount] Horse
Elephant: Animal Companion [Mount] Horse?
Nightmare: Animal Companion [Mount] Horse [beast]
Riding Dog: Animal Companion [Mount] Wolf
Tiger: Animal Companion Cat
Winter Wolf: Animal Companion Wolf [beast]

Rulebook specialized companions ability

Beast Companion

You may select a beast creature with the Animal Companion [Beast] ability as your animal companion instead of choosing a specialization. Treat this new companion as if the previous one had died, requiring 1 week downtime to obtain. If the beast companion dies you can acquire a normal animal companion within 1 week. To obtain a new beast companion requires 1 month downtime. Some GMs may require special side quests to be completed before replacing your beast companion if the creature is particularly rare (obtaining a winter wolf while in a desert).
The new beast companion starts off as Full-Grown and does not apply any modifications for full-grown companions (do not increase strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom, increase its unarmed damage dice, proficiency rank for perception, saving throws or size). apply modifiers normally for nimble and savage companions.
Obtaining rare or intelligent creatures as companions is subject to GM approval so you should check with your GM what creatures are available before choosing this specialization.

Other Considerations...
It would be good to see arachnids, fish and insects included as animal companion types which I imagine you may have already considered but excluded from the play-test due to size issues (pun intended). Many of these also have beast counterparts which would work as companions and mounts (Ankheg, Giant Spider and shark mounts anyone?)

Thanks for listening! I look forward to seeing what more PF2 offers as the months go by.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Without a doubt the biggest mistake happened on day 1 of the second kickstarter

The kickstarter goal should have been set at 3m not 1m and the MVP (minimum viable product) we have now should have been more complete. Its likely though, that at that price the game would never had been put into development.

Over the past 9 months the devs have been trying to follow a release goal but that has been hampered by the demands of the players already in the game.

The game will eventually feel like Pathfinder, it will have the lore and PVP will work alongside the non-PVP. But we have none of that now because its far too early in development.

I backed this game knowing this to be the case but even I was surprised by how early the games state was at the beginning of Early enrollment. They needed subs to finish what they started and this brings me back to the kickstarter - the budget and grandness of this project has been its downfall.

I do think Lisa is doing the right thing approaching some gaming publisher to take on PFO and I hope they get someone while the community is still behind this project. If they have to shut down for a year there will likely be nothing worth coming back to. Better just starting over with a new plan.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Heralds of Callambea

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

I'm having some real issues getting the website to load. I have tried chrome, IE and Firefox as well as clearing cookies and browser files.

IE went from low and unresponsive to cannot load message after clearing cashe,

chrome shows broken links to images and no map,

Firefox loaded 80% of the in game map before timing out and becoming unresponsive.

tried rebooting and still the same issues except chrome now displays no data received message.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

We have a new section under Player Groups on Goblinworks main Forums.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Callambea is a crafting settlement focused on promoting open trade throughout the river kingdoms. Our two leading companies, Beyond the Grave and the River Kingdoms Trading Company, have made Callambea the number one place to buy and sell goods. Traders have come from as far south as Riverbank in hopes of earning more coin.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome our newest Company, Brimestone! to Callambea.

Callambea is proud to introduce its new Visitors Centre. The best place to stay informed of news regarding Callambea and to get in contact with its citizens. We also showcase AH requests and offer gathering services here.

It is also a great resource for tools and guides. Many members enjoy advanced previews and can work behind the scenes to make these utilities a must for any PFO character.

Link to Crafting Planner

Link to Freeholders Field Guide Preview

Callambea is Open for Business!

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Trading Post as featured in the recent Kickstarter Email

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's some images and video of our recent holding and outpost placements.

Trading Post as featured in the recent Kickstarter Email

Lumberjack Outpost Sporting the Gold and Brown colors of the River Kingdoms Trading Company.

Sanctum Holding

Library Holding and a short Library Construction Video

I will be uploading more images into my websites gallery as we build them!

Beyond the Grave Gallery

Join us today and make full use of our new training facilities!

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

AGC Ronyel wrote:
That was my concern.

If done right the DPS boost and HP boost will see 2 things - larger chucks taken away from yellows and reds and less 1 hit wonders from white mobs.

ranged should take 1 extra shot on most mobs while melees should need less hits to kill

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

To melee you need to be able to take damage - its far easier to kite.

Kiting has been semi nerfed but with 2-3 shots at max range bow users are still abusing it to semi kite - the risk then is solely on the melee who actually has to get hit.

many creatures stun and thus those learning combat will find that if they melee they are going to die, if they range then they can run away.

end result- Melee sucks, range for the win.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

AGC Ronyel wrote:

As far as ranged attacks goes, I like the future plans for needing ammo, line of sight, and arcane spell failure; however, with the changes to the monster's hit points, wont the buff they give to melee attacks not truly be realized, and in fact, the pain will be worsened when they turn that buff off.

Example: To offset the fact that ammo, line of sight, and arcane spell failure wont be released for at least a couple more months, they are going to buff melee attacks; removing the melee attack buff in the future.

Ryan understands that there will certainly be pain felt to the melee attackers when the buff is removed, but I think that is fine, as the pain will be across the board because range attacks got more difficult at the same time.

However, they are also giving monsters more Hit Points. Now by increasing the amount of Hit Points for monsters, you are essentially negating the melee attack buff that you are giving, at least for PvE (depending, of course, on the amount of HP increase and the amount of melee attack buff given).

So once you remove that melee attack buff, wont it then be felt twice as hard?

The main advantage of range ATM is the ability to kill a mob before it reaches you - most T2 bow users can 1-shot bandit recruits omega wolves and goblins, thinning out camps to the few tougher mobs. higher T2 can 1 shot most whites.

Yellows and Reds are all killable in 2-3 shots with relative efficiency. Meaning you can kill at max range and still turn and leash the rest.

By increasing the HPs of mobs ranged will have a harder time clearing camps solo.

Melee right now have a hard time dealing with large groups. they need to use attacks like whirlwind to thin out the whites then tank the rest, running if they need to. often the presence of 2-3 reds can either stun lock or DPS a melee down too fast to take out larger camps.

The boost in DPS for melee should (in theory) enable melee to dispatch white and yellows much quicker and thus win over larger camps while still maintaining enough stamina to use combos and dispatching enough quickly to at least give them a chance to turn and run.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saiph wrote:

How can anyone possibly take what Golgotha says seriously, they just mock and spout passive-aggressive comments to those that don't agree or debate with them. And then want others to take them serious when it's time to talk business. Yes, that is what you're doing...Nihimon and Decius post facts and recaps of actual situations; you all should try it.

lol. funniest thing I've read in ages. And I thought I was misinformed!

Thanks for the laugh.

1 to 50 of 630 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>