>> Spellmaster Dedication is enough to sell me on not taking Spellmaster, regardless of what the rest gives.
I know what you mean, but would like to speak a bit pro feat taxes: Combat expertise was horrible, but I kind of liked feat taxes when they are not totally useless. I really liked to play a character dedicating her life to, in my case, learning the ins and outs of being a snake style monk, even though it meant that not every feat in the feat chain was gold
Doktor Weasel wrote:
the paladin is [a] major problem, not because of effectiveness, but because it seems to completely lose sight of what a paladin is and just think it's an armor-guy who hurts people who hurt others (but only if they're standing close enough). It should be an active crusader against evil.
This... it is the only thing I really don't like about Pathfinder 2 so far.
Maybe the "active champion" will be available in a future product?
The way you argue here is among the most odd ways to argue I have ever encountered
>> She is a Romanov, and that house for four hundred years was among the most barbaric and despotic on Earth
Sorry, but that sentence is so wrong, on two levels:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
... And that's exactly what they say in the blog: that the current questions about resonance are not enough an that they will be asking more questions. There *people*, me for one, that actually like the concept o resonance and wouldn't rather have working resonance rules then playing with something like "you can have 3 magic items, period".
And there *are* people who don't want that magic items should be limited by GM decisions alone. I am currently playing in Magnimar, and it would feel just wrong if you couldn't buy healing potions or simple wands because "there is no trader who has them available".
Strachan Fireblade wrote:
But if you have three actions, a competent character (say: a fighter) should have a small but significant chance to hit even with the third attack. They should have a chance to crit from time to time. So, maybe hit on 7 or better for the first attack, 12 or better on the 2nd attack, 17 or better on the third? That would be in the ballpark of what I personally would expect.
Ranger, monks etc. could then be 1-2 points worse then the fighter, bards, clerics etc. still 1-2 points worse (and would hit with ~10 or better on the first attack).
I am not completely against using a keyword: I really like "bolstered", for example. On the other hand, if the best we can come up with is either completely arbitrary words like "basic" or "standard", then that is probably a sign that it shouldn't be done by using a keyword. How is magic missile less "basic" than fireball? It would probably be better to have a few more lines then.
I couldn't find out if the 2ndedition CRB is fixed at 434 pages (like the playtest), 578 pages (like the 1st edition CRB), or another size? I always assumed it would be 578 pages
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
I am so happy they nerfed it.
I like that utility spells are restricted. Nerfing Fly makes scouting and climbing much more relevant. It also fits to what you said about casters being better once or twice a day: the ranger can scout better than the wizard most of the time, but if you really need it the wizard can fly around invisibly
Jeff Deaner wrote:
Yeah, I have a feeling there was a reason that there are no votes when I made it... Do you happen to know what Paizo said were the reasons for not having votes in general? I understand why they don't do it for rule that need be balanced against each other, but for the small changes in layout we are discussing here I don't see a problem
My group struggled with this sort of thing too. I think it's less about picking one of the four class feats, it's that just about everything is so rules-dense that you need to go look up stuff all the time if you don't already know the system. Take Sneak Attack, for example:
sneak attack wrote:
Ok.. I get that. And also what Jason S said:
Jason S wrote:
, and that should be made easier where possible. From the top of my head:* they could explain some of the rules before presenting the class, e.g. in the form of a gameplay example (for example "bolstered", iterative attacks, spell DCs). I am pretty sure that will be done in the final product
* a leaflet for old PF1 players ("what's different in PF2")
* they already have the "key terms" sections. Agile and finesse should be explained here, at least something like "Agile and finesse are weapon qualities, please read page xyz."
* some flavour text: "If you catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from your attack, you can strike a vital spot for extra damage." - so people can extrapolate from that
I would still insist that all the steps you described are easier than reading all the feats from A to W (like "Weapon Finesse") and then decide which one to take, unless you happen to have played PF1 for a few years. And there are 432 pages in the PF2 rulebook, which is ~150 less than in the old CRB, so I am optimistic this all can be done. So as a message to the OP: I hear you, I understand in part what you are saying, maybe give it a second try now or wait until the rules are polished for a better reading experience.
I read your post a few times now, but I can't get my head around this: there are 4 class feats (Bludgeoner, Nimble Dodge, Trap Finder and You're next), roughly a half page of text. You need to pick one of them, and you can always retrain them later, so it's not like you need to plan your character for the next ten levels if you don't enjoy doing that. And then there is a skill feat, where I would just go with "what skill sounds cool? - and then go through the 2 or so skill feats for that skill and level 1 (and again: if you picked the wrong skill, just retrain). It is orders of magnitudes more easy to build a PF2 character than it is to build a PF1 character, where you had to decide on at least one feat at level 1 (out of a list of how many? 50 or so?).
The Narration wrote:
As far as I know, in PF1, there is only Ki Stand if you wanted to stand up without provoking. I am reasonably sure that you cannot do it with an acrobatics check. Also, you couldn't (by RAW) crawl away. You can, of course, argue that it should be available earlier or that someone who is a master in Acrobatics shouldn't need a feat to do it. I think it's okay. I am with you when it comes to Survey Wildlife, that needs work. It also has an action symbol, even though it says "you spend 10 minutes".
Ah, the things you do for Pathfinder :)
Mark Seifter wrote:
Will you really make your players roll for those? I never do. Besides, if you want a task that's easier than "a coin flip for an untrained character" just lower the DC a bit.
You can plan your character, and if you get a cool non-common spell/feat/whatever along the way, you can re-plan. Isn't that twice the fun?
I believe cantrips do not have levels and do not need to be prepared, they are instead your default option for "you can spam this at zero cost". A cantrip has an effect based on your level, not its level.
Ah well... then I have found one thing I don't think is great in this post :-/Especially Detect Magic has the potential to solve many problems before they start and should have a cost. And I don't mean that because of power aspects.. there is a lot of interesting roleplay that is just unnecessary if Detect Magic is used. It should be a viable option to have a group where noone can cast it.
"Cantrips are spells you can cast at will, but they are no longer level 0" - does that mean you can cast them in addition to your other spells, or would a wizard need to prepare a cantrip at a certain level and can only then cast that as often as he likes? Or a sorcerer need to learn the spell? (Assuming spells for wizards and sorceres work as they did in PF1)
I really like the direction where the rules for background skills are going. There should be more fluff skills, I presume the characters don't spend their whole time perfecting their perception and other skills relevant for adventuring, but will, for example, sing, play board games or drink to pass the time, and why not have a skill for those activities? So I would really like to see more skills rather than less, but divided into two groups as the backgronud skills rules suggest
I can answer a few of your questions:
See http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/equipment.html, "Ammunition"
9. I don't think there are rules for picking the right arrow from your quiver. You could, theoretically, make it hard for players to carry different types of arrows in one quiver, but generally I would assume that a character has some kind of system to know what is what. There are Efficient Quivers that allow you to always find the right arrow.