Shield

Rek Rollington's page

103 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LordVanya wrote:


Hunt Target would be great if it were itself a class feat or if it was one of multiple options. That way it wouldn't be imposing on character concepts or basic combat choices.

I’m all for Hunt Target going the way of Finesse Striker with the Rogue and being one of three options. Then keep the two new feats for HT builds and offer other first level feats for other builds. Alternative options is what PF is all about.


If you don’t like Hunt Target because you don’t think Rangers should all be hunters, that’s fine I can’t persuade you from that. I’m no expert on what Pathfinder Ranger’s are meant to be, my experience with Rangers is playing one in Neverwinter Nights, playing alongside one in 3.5, DMing one in 5e, listening to Lorc’s adventures in GCP and GMing the Ranger and the Sorcerer/Ranger in this playtest. The changes in 1.3 make me want to play one, but I need to get my group through Doomsday Dawn first.

When Hunt Target was introduced I didn’t like it, not because of the theme or the purpose (better against a single target) but because of how poorly it worked with the rest of the Rangers abilities. Without any bow feats, my Ranger Player in 1.1 chose to take a crossbow because that’s what the feat options suggested she do but with all the reloading meant she couldn’t get many benefits from the multi-attack reductions. Double Slice was the same. It’s like whoever created the Ranger feats and who created Hunt Target did not collaborate at all.

1.3 changed some feats so instead of working against Hunt Target, they work with it. Hunted Shot and Twin Takedown negate one of the biggest issues I had with Hunt Target. That it encourages attacking multiple times but it uses one of your actions. With these feats you can take two actions to Hunt Target and HS/TT to fire twice and you already get the benefit of HT right away on that second shot. You still have an action left to improve your postition, attack a third time or command an animal. On future turns you can change your Target and do the same as above or can keep with the same target and you have an extra action up your sleeve. At no point, with either of these feats are you worse off for having Hunt Target as a class feature.

What I would like to see if more lvl 1 feats that work with Hunt Target for different play styles. A ranger with a crossbow or great sword should be viable options. It wouldn’t hurt if one of these feats was given to you for free as part of Hunt Target because first level players would be torn between these and an animal companion. After all, without one of these feats Hunt Target is as lame as it was before 1.3.


Draco18s wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:
and a Divine Sorcerer with the Ranger Multi-class in 1.3
What multiclass feats did you take?

Ranger Dedication (Martial Weapons, Light Armor, 2 Skills, Hunt Target once a day).

Basic Hunter’s Trick (Hunted Target).
Targeted Hunter (Unlimited use of Hunt Target).

The multi-class Hunt Target doesn’t reduce multiple attack penalties but he was really effective for a character because most targets last several rounds. He was using a ghost touch magical composite longbow. So I believe he was doing 2d6+1 on a hit. 4d6+d10+2 on a crit. He got his fair share of crits in. Get got two shots of this for a single action from up to 100 feet away. Compare with his Chill Touch which heightened dealt 1d8+4 for two actions and doesn’t actually harm undead and is melee range or disrupt undead which only hurts undead and is 30 foot range two actions for d10+4.

It’s nice that cantrips scale, but it’s a little sad how they scale against other ranged characters. Then there’s the front line fighter with their 2d12+4 greatsword.


I’m not saying the Ranger is release ready but I’m happy with how Hunt Target works with Hunted Target and it’s melee equivalent. I think there should be other feats that allow you to save a action. Like one that could allow you to fire a shot and command your animal as a single action against your hunted target but it couldn’t be used in the same round as Hunted Target. Or a feat so when applying Hunt Target you can command animal or something. These seem too OP to me but I’m sure there’s a balance. Likewise 2-hand weapons should have their own feat for a viable option. That said, those options can be added at anytime. Because you don’t actually have to change Hunt Target, you can just add feats that customise how you use Hunt Target. Why require Hunt Target at all? Because of balance. Hunted Target is balanced by needing you to spend an action on Hunt Target. Without the Hunt Target requirement it’s a straight 4 attacks per turn every turn which is too powerful.

I’m not saying the benefits to Hunt Target itself couldn’t be adjusted, but I am saying I didn’t like it before 1.3 but because of the changes they made to the skills around it I really like it now and hope they make further changes like it to make it work for other play styles.


I've not played a Ranger in 2E, but I've GM'd a Ranger in 1.1 and a Divine Sorcerer with the Ranger Multi-class in 1.3. I mentioned the need to crit for that +1 bonus, it's even in what you quoted. But I did leave out the fact you need to take a feat to pick that ability up. In the first case the Ranger kept it's distance for volly for the longbow, while in the second the Sorcerer was able to shoot well over 80 feet (second floor at Sommerhall to the entrance downstairs). So long distance fights can be part of this adventure at least. I'm not a fan of volly though, I want them to find another niche for the shortbow.

To me, any part of the system that revolves around Hunt Target changes Hunt Target. The more you can do against your target the most valuable Hunt Target becomes. If they remove the need to Hunt your target first then a lot of these abilities would need to be re-balanced.

As it stands, using Hunt Target is not a wasted action unless you are using it incorrectly. If you want to fire at target twice in one turn you can use Hunt Target and Hunted Target and get off two shots just like if you had used neither (except added together for DR purposes) but if you can keep that target hunted it's a boost for future turns and you can benefit from all the other bonuses. If you only wanted to fire the single shot then you don't apply Hunt Target that turn.

Hunt Target/Hunted Target together is two actions to fire twice plus benefits.

I compared it with the fighter because they have double shot which is as close a feat to Rapid Shot I could find in 2E. I maybe missing something but no one has Rapid Shot. I can't compare it with something that doesn't exist.


LordVanya wrote:


What if I don't want my Ranger to target the same target in one turn?

Then fire your shots at three different targets. You don't get the benefit of Hunt Target's reduced multiple attack penalties but you are no worse off then anyone else (except for a fighter who has taken double shot). You can still Hunt Target one target, fire twice at him and fire a 3rd attack at someone else (at -10). Or if you've already hunt targeted someone you can fire at one person at 0, second person at -5 and then fire two shots at your hunted target for -10/-10.

LordVanya wrote:


What if I don't want my fighter to target different target in one turn?

Then fire all all your shots at one target. You just take it as 0/-5 instead of -2/-2. Although I just edited my above post, when a fighter picks up triple shot they can fire them at a single target.

LordVanya wrote:


Limiting a player's basic combat options like this for the apparent sake of placing the classes in limited roles is deeply unsatisfying.

Both classes can do either, they just have an edge when it's one or the other. How would you make it so they were less limited?

If a feat gives you a +2 bonus against half of situations, and another feat gives you a +2 bonus against the other half then it's more interesting if a single character can only gain access to one of those feats. Otherwise you just took two feats for a permanent +2 bonus against everything and that's pretty boring (and would be called a feat tax).

All feats are meant to be at least somewhat situational, power attack for instance went from being a must have to a situational power to help against targets with DR. The thing people need to adjust to is just using your Strike action without any feats altering it is a perfectly good option at least twice on your turn.


N N 959 wrote:

If you start the round and Target the Boss, and someone gets in your face, you can't afford to switch your HT because you won't be able to put it back on the boss.

How is someone getting in your face in the middle of your turn? You hunt target on your turn, if you don't have a good shot at them or can't get into a position to fire then you shouldn't have chosen that target.

Now if someone gets in your way before your next turn and somehow you can't move to a position with a better shot then you can take an action to change your hunt target. If you kill it with your Hunted Target double shot then you can use your last action to either fire at the boss or reapply hunt target for the next round. There's nothing around Hunt Target that makes the creature bolstered against you targeting them again.

With the Hunt Target action and using Hunted Target allows you to fire 3 shots in your first turn against a single target or 4 shots in later rounds against that target. These shots are at 0, -4, -8, -8. You can also fire a shortbow up to 120 feet without penalty which is further then the 100 feet range of Hunt Target.

Good comparison is with the fighter which is the other obvious bow choice. At 4th level a fighter can take Double Shot. Once a round a fighter can take two actions to fire twice at -2. So their three actions will be -2,-2,-10. Fighters will have a proficiency bonus to attack to to compare them fairly it would be:

If you don't have Hunt Target applied to your target:
Ranger: 0, -4, -8
Fighter: -1, -1, -9
If you already applied Hunt Target:
Ranger: 0, -4, -8, -8
Fighter: -1, -1, -9

If it's a shortbow and further then 60 feet take -2 off each shot from the fighter and not from the ranger.

At 6th level a fighter can take triple shot and do three shots at -4 (-3 compared to ranger).

Also when applying Hunt Target you get a free knowledge check which if you succeed at you get info on your target and if you crit you get a +1 on your next attack and so does all your allies. This would normally apply to the first attack in your round.

As for high level play, a 17th level ranger takes another -1 off the second shot and -2 off the 3rd and 4th shots making it 0/-3/-6/-6 while the Fighter at 16th level can take a feat to spend an action to reduce it's penalty by 1 as long as it's standing in it's spot.

If you were a fighter Multi-classing into Fighter you could open with Double Shot and lead into Hunted Target on any round where you had already applied Hunt Target. That would be -2,-2,-8,-8. If you were a fighter multi-classing into ranger to do the opposite you would be -2, -2, -10,-10 (but compared to ranger -1,-1,-9,-9). This is because multi-classed Hunt Target doesn't provide the multi-attack reduction. You also need to invest in the feat to allow you to hunt target more then once a day for this to be viable.

The big benefit for Ranger though is if they multi-class into a spellcaster class. Once they've applied hunt target, in the following rounds they can cast a two action spell and then fire two shots. This also works for casters multi-classing into Ranger, as those two shots for an action can be better damage then a cantrip (but will cost them 3 class feats to achieve).

EDIT: Also, one very important difference between the Fighter's double shot and Ranger's Hunted Target. Hunted Target can only be used against a single target, while Double Shot has to be against DIFFERENT targets. So double shot can't be used if there's only a single target while Hunted Target is wasted if the first shot kills the target. Although once you pick up Triple Shot the fighter can start shoot at the same target. The fighter certainly uses more feats to stay comparative given Hunt Target and the improved Hunt Target at lvl 17 is given for free, a Ranger really only needs to pick up Hunted Target and is then free to pick feats from other areas.


I like rangers a lot after the 1.3 update. Hunt Target is so much more useful now due to those new feats. It's gone from being pretty meh for a bow user to the best class for a bow user (as it should be).


By getting dying 2 when you already had wounded 1 means you just got crit. If you didn’t get reduced by a crit then you would be dying 1 and wounded 1 so combined for dying 2. Your allies have a full round to apply some healing before you have to roll.


For Affair at Sombrefall you need the whole party to heal. Two clerics who can channel positive energy then the rest as Paladins, Divine Sorcerers, Bards or Druid. It’s not that the party would wipe without healers (well, they may) but in that chapter they are specifically testing those healing mechanics.


Xenocrat wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:
So the pre-gen alchemist had +4 to it’s bomb throws, with the only 18 stat being Intelligence. Being the primary stat of the class it would make sense if throwing bombs what using int state, but for the life of me I can’t find it in the rulebook. Anyone able to find the section?
He would also get level to his attack bonus. Was Dex a 16?

It was, so it’s dex to throw.


So the pre-gen alchemist had +4 to it’s bomb throws, with the only 18 stat being Intelligence. Being the primary stat of the class it would make sense if throwing bombs what using int state, but for the life of me I can’t find it in the rulebook. Anyone able to find the section?


For the AP you don’t need to worry about XP, but if you were then each encounter in the book already lists the challenge rating (Trival 1 or Severe 1 for example for first level characters). But no one is leveling traditionally in the playtest so you can skip over XP. There’s other posts in this forum that explain how you can design encounters around XP budgets which is worth looking at to get a sense of how it might work if you wanted to play a homebrew after the AP.

Hero Caps are for when players impress you. They always get one free at the start of each session and hey never carryover. They can get one buy being helpful outside of the game, maybe they brought the snacks or organised everyone to attend. The 3rd is if they do something cool in-game, if you listen to the GCP then it’s a “bottle-cap” situation. Did they just save the party by doing something clever? Bottlecap!


How effective would power attack be if iit could be used as the 2nd and 3rd action instead of the first. So you get a full attack then a -5 power attack. Currently you can’t do this because of the open trait.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes I agree. The layout is definitely something I would like to see changed for the final rulebook.

I would like to see in the skill section a single page per skill that explains its uses, what each rank gives you and all the related skill feats you can take including assurance.

Then the feat section becomes General feats only and it be be written there “you may also take a skill feat, see page 1xx” and refer to table in the skills section.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What doesn’t help is that we have a feats section that mixes general and skill feats together. Forget the fact that this section doesn’t include ancestries or class feats as that would make it worse.

Skill feats should be in the skills section. Then the feats section can be called general feats. If general feats allow you to take skill feats, just state so and refer to the skill feats on page 1xx.

Edit: was Ninja’d by Paradozen. But agree with powers too. Take them out of the spells and make a domain section where you can explain the gods, their domains and what their domain powers do.


Kodyboy wrote:
Bobson wrote:

Sorcerers have the same number of spells as wizards. Each class has a lot of flexibility in their spellcasting - it just takes different forms. Wizards are very flexible in what they cast (they can prepare a lot of different things and with a feat, even swap them during the day), while sorcerers are very flexible in how they cast (spontaneous heightening, casting any spell at any time).

And that also assumes you compare them to a wizard. If you want to take divine, occult, or primal spells instead, then you're far more flexible than any of those casters.

Sorcerers need more spells since they know far fewer spells.

As of now sorcerers have to learn the same spell a multiple levels....so that alone makes them useless and is a massively stupid idea.
The different spell lists don't matter because you only get one of them (you can't switch them out) and you still end up with too few spells. The flexibility just makes the sorcerer into different spontaneous casters instead of writing up 4 classes that are basically them same. It really is not more flexible in game play.

They don’t NEED to have each spell at each level. For the ones that they do want (dispell magic comes to mind) then you have spontaneous heightening. If you have taken that then you are better at heightening those spells then a wizard as you can heighten on the fly and do more dispelling if required.


The 5 point difference is a much bigger difference now with critical successes. It’s very different from how both PF and 5E do it, we’ll need to playtest it to see how it works out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It’s been fun reading speculation between the actual new information (mostly from Mark) while waiting for this book to release. Thanks for keeping it interesting. See you in the new forum once we know a lot more about what we are talking about. Happy rolling.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
It is a bit strange you can start play as a Wizard with 8 Intelligence but have to have a 16 if you start as something other than a Wizard....

A 1st level wizard with 10 Int spent years or decades studying magic and only have lvl1 spells for it. A multi-class Wizard has to be a genius to pick this stuff up on the fly.


Cyouni wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
but that does not change the inherent maths of the game
The people who designed the maths of the game say you are wrong.

They said it would invalidate the encounters and the playtest data. But what Vic is saying is that it doesn’t break the rest of the system. But this is only useful if you are more interested in playing then playtesting which is not something the devs (or I) would encourage.

Does the change in maths invalidate any and all playtest feedback? Yes
Does it break the math of the game where it no longer works as a game? No, the equations are balanced on each end so that as long as the GM is determining their own CR combats then the rest of the game will run very similar.

I'm pretty sure it's going to devastate anything related to critical success/failure, and anything based around shifting result levels up/down. I suspect it's going to hit spells the hardest, since you're basically never going to see any critical failure results (whereas before you could expect one if you hit someone significantly lower level), and basically turn the vast majority of fights into ones where you'd only ever crit on a natural 20. (Minor exception being something like a zombie - which has low AC - being crit on an 18, if I remember my numbers right.)

You will see less criticals against foes lower then you, and less critical fails against enemies higher then you. But provided if in the base game it’s possible to get +10 or -10 of a target role against creatures of your level then moving creatures closer to your level of power doesn’t undermine this system. Proficiency, saves and attributes scores will make the difference on if you in high critical success or high critical failure territory just as the game should be right now if you are playing creatures of your level.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
but that does not change the inherent maths of the game
The people who designed the maths of the game say you are wrong.

They said it would invalidate the encounters and the playtest data. But what Vic is saying is that it doesn’t break the rest of the system. But this is only useful if you are more interested in playing then playtesting which is not something the devs (or I) would encourage.

Does the change in maths invalidate any and all playtest feedback? Yes
Does it break the math of the game where it no longer works as a game? No, the equations are balanced on each end so that as long as the GM is determining their own CR combats then the rest of the game will run very similar.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

If you're going to do your own thing, by all means, have fun. But please don't drag your fellow posters into the fight and put words into their mouths.

Because this is what Deadmanwalking had to say in the Running the Game thread.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'll repeat what I've said in other threads: Changing things so the bonuses vary like that is gonna completely wreck the game's math and violate several core system goals. I strongly advise against it.
None of us will stop you from doing whatever makes you happy in Pathfinder. Most of us won't even care, except the devs who have to chuck out your playtest feedback if you submit it after they politely asked us not to submit data for altered games.

Oh dear, it would seem you're dragging yourself into something you do not understand; how terribly embarrassing. I am not dragging Deadmanwalking into anything or putting words anywhere, I was merely highlighting his knowledge of the game maths, and his previous expert advice on this very matter (which again, unfortunately, it would seem you do not understand, and as we have seen, this can lead to a sort of threatened and defensive lashing out).

Check out the post below yours', if you do not believe me about Deadmanwalking (thanks again, homes, I find some of your posts more helpful and insightful into PF2 than the devs, ha!).

1) The math will not be fine.

2) Crit success and crit failures won't happen as expected,

Oh, the humanity, wow, this is something else, can't even see the horse...

1) The maths are fine, that's the point.

2) They will happen just as expected.

No they wont, because if you are for example 3 levels above your enemy you are15% more likely to crit and the other way around. This might be okay for your game but it still changes the game...

That is the intended result, that creatures a few levels above and below you stay relevant for a lot longer. Yes it would upset the balance of a pre-written encounter (a group of lower level foes becomes more deadly, a single higher level enemy becomes weaker) so a pre-written adventure would need a lot of work but for someone making their own adventure this would work really well if they wanted a more grounded world.

I would warn people doing this now instead of when 2E launches is that you are launching a home brew using unfinished rules and you may be having fun in the new system but you aren’t helping much with the playtest since you can’t contribute to the surveys. This single change you make may be very important to you but the other 90% of the game is probably just as important and by homebrewing during the playtest maybe they miss out on the data for your favourite class that could have been used to make that class cooler. Test by the rules, submit your surveys, then start playing around with the rules while wait for 2nd edition to come out.


Cyouni wrote:
Professor Quolorum wrote:
Subtracting the party’s level from every DC is equivalent to adding character level to every check.

Honestly, if you do that you're just playing the exact same game, you just want to pretend it's different. At that point, you're basically just going "I don't want to see big numbers", but sure.

Granted, you also have to subtract the party's level (and not the enemy's level) from all enemies' rolls, AC, etc, or you're turning it into a very different game that's not at all relevant to the playtest.

It would mean a bit more prep work but I can see how people who liked bounded accuracy would make it work. You still get all the other benefits of PF2 like the new action economy, multiple degrees of success and the character customisation (compared to 5E at least), you could still run APs with a little bit of math done in prep or on the fly.

I wouldn’t do it for my game but it would be a pretty easy houserule for 2nd edition.


The half-level rounded up is a point of confusion that could be worded better in the final rulebook. It makes sense to me now, but it’s not very clear without it being explained. So, this means the gnome feat that gives you a cantrip is actually a full scaling cantrip, not a half-powered cantrip as I thought. Elf should have something similar I would imagine. That’s very cool.


I’ll be GMing Doomsday Dawn but if I get a chance to play the PFS adventures as a player then I would like to play a forlorn elf cleric of Desna. I would be interested to see how fast she could go with the elf base speed, the elf feat to boost speed again and whatever we get from the travel domain. Using the elf training to use bows, should be interesting to cast a 2-action spell and fire a bow in a single round.


Meophist wrote:
Maybe the DEX-to-damage feat should require 16 STR.

Maybe 14 strength to give you up to +4 from Dex, 16 or 18+ could give unlimited. Still wrapped into a single feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

Since my group will at most get in one playtest session per month, I am wondering how to do triage on which scenarios to run.

It is my understanding that the scenarios will be of two types:

1) Scenarios in which you create a new party of characters, and

2) Scenarios in which you advance your original party to a new level.

Has anyone yet revealed how many scenarios are in each category?

What I am considering doing is running the first scenario and then limiting the group to either the scenarios that advance the original party to a new level or to those that involve creating an entirely new group of characters (essentially making every session a "one-shot"). Ideally, I would want to set things up so that we run just under half of the Doomsday Dawn scenarios during the playtest.

Easier to answer in reverse

2) You return to your original party twice at a new level, for 3 scenarios total.
1) You create new one-shot parties the remaining 4 scenarios.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Seelah the human paladin is up.


My group stopped playing Pathfinder 1st edition when D&D5e came out. I’m going to run the playtest with them and I hope it will sway them to 2nd edition. I don’t see any of us playing 1st edition again although I will still listen to it being played as long as the GCP keep playing it.


Roswynn wrote:
Also notice his sudden charge lets him run at speed x2 and attack at the price of just 2 actions, with 1 left to attack again against a mage, or raise shield (and then block) against a warrior. Nothing to laugh at imho.

Everyone can already move twice and attack once at full attack using the new action economy so the feats only function is to reduce it to two actions. Still very useful but we’ve known that since the fighter preview blog.


So Attack of Opportunity doesn’t seem to do anything to spellcasters?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Huh. I'd been under the impression that we'd be using the same characters the whole way through Doomsday Dawn, but if I'm understanding this thread right, we'll need to create multiple characters. Do you think it's still feasible to have the same party the whole way through, or would it be better to run it with the different characters for each scenario?

You’ll make 5 characters per player (not including any deaths). The characters you make in the first chapter you get to return to in later chapters after some level jumps. So you won’t be using traditional XP/leveling. The characters you make between these chapters will be a specific level and may have other restrictions (some are designed to stress test specific rules). Story wise it’s designed to be 5 different characters but unless it’s specified in that chapter you could just make 5 fighters if that’s your thing. I would take the opportunity to test a few different options though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, Keith Slashmaster Valeros the Human Fighter is up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Is it just me, or does Kyra not have a Class Feat?...
I don't think spellcasters get class feats at level one, instead they get... spells.

I thought that may have been it so I went back to the blog:

Cleric Playtest Blog wrote:
At 1st level, you might pick Communal healing so when you cast heal to tend to a creature other than yourself, you regain some Hit Points too, or you might take Turn Undead, which forces undead that critically fail their saves against your heal spells to flee from you. (This works great with the 3-action version of heal!) You could also pick Expanded Domain to explore your deity's domains further, gaining the initial power from a different domain than the first one you chose. You can select this feat twice, letting you delve into a maximum of three domains!

So it does seem a class feat is missing here or the blog meant 2nd level.

Getting access to two domains at first level (and therefore more spell points if I recall correctly) could be pretty amazing.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I was concerned when I heard you needed to know a spell at a higher level to cast it there so spontaneous heightening is a relief. But what is the logic behind them not being able to do this all the time? Is it too much of an advantage over a wizard or does it present too many options to a player when selecting which spell to cast?


j b 200 wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
In many other threads where using an action to activate some sort of bonus has been questioned, compared to using the action to make an attack, we've been told "Yeah, but that attack would have been at -10 or -8, so using the action for something else is a good idea."
So, this made me think of something. Who says you have to use your first action of the round to Hunt? Why can't I use actions 1 and 2 to attack normally (or move and attack or whatever combination you want) and then on the "it's not usually worth a swing anyways" action I activate Hunt Target. Now I get the full benefit of the reduced penalty for all three attacks on the first round using it instead of waiting until round 2. How would this affect the math?

The penalties to your second and third attack only kick in after making your first and second attacks respectively. So if you spend your first two actions on something else like moving or using hunt target then use your third action to attack then it takes no penalties.


Charlie Brooks wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the age of Jason's elf barbarian: He is only 54, which is less than half the minimum possible age for an elf barbarian in PF1. I wonder whether age/height/weight are being adjusted in general?

That would be a bigger lore change than just about any other rule change.

I feel as though they hinted at elves' starting age being lowered in one of the blogs where they mentioned an elf "at the ripe old age of 14."

I'm not sure how big a lore change this would really be, since most of the Golarion lore I've seen has been kind of ambiguous on how quickly elves mature. I don't recall any adventure featuring a 70-year-old elf as an adolescent, for example.

I remember Erik mentioning that forlorn elves will be part of the lore mentioned in the playtest. I think the forlorn story fits better when the kids around you outgrow you.


How does a bow fighter and bow ranger compare?

Fighters get a +1 extra to all attacks due to being higher weapon proficiency at most levels. So fighters have +1 advantage on first attack of the round, equal on second and -1 compared to the ranger on 3rd. Rangers have to spend an action per target to get this but also have a +2 bonus over fighters outside the first range increment. Then it comes down to what feats you can add on top


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't think it's necessary for every action to be fully explained. It's fine for using a dragon's breath potion to just take two actions and to let the player decide what exactly that means, but specifying that one of those actions involves breathing opens a massive can of worms.

I think it’s fine for that case, it’s a big deep breath to fill your lungs like you were about to blow out a cake full of candles. 2 seconds to do this seems reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing the spell actions has got me doing is thinking about how I would role play them at the table. You can plan it out on your character sheet for each spell.

For heal you can say:
Single action: “I place a healing hand on Valeros’s shoulder and he is healed for *rolls* 6 hit points.”
Two action: “I raise my hand in Valeros’s direction and say “Desna’s light!” and he is healed for *rolls* 6 hit points.
Three actions: “I raise my hand directly into the air, scream “Desna’s light!” and bring my hand down to touch the butterfly symbol on my chest and you are all healed for 4 hit points.”

It might take a bit more prep work and I would try and think of something more clever to say. But if you keep the parts consistent then your group will recongise your spells by your characters words and actions rather then just telling them. Just keep them pretty short or don’t drag out your other actions. “I then loose an arrow at the orc over there *rolls*”.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Well, I remember one thing they confirmed was basically the fact that martial characters have effectively 0 resources, so they can go functionally forever without caring.
HP is a resource. They've spent a significant amount of effort in removing CLW wand spam (whether as a side effect of another goal or as a direct goal itself). I'd be surprised if they then turn around and give everyone free healing.
For clarification, that's one reason that was confirmed as one of their problems with PF1, which they were attempting to fix in 2E.
I don't understand what your trying to communicate here. What was the "problems with PF1"?

Fighters only resource to manage was HP which was cheaply restored each fight by CLW spam which meant fighters entered every battle with full HP while casters got weaker and weaker as they consumed their spells. This made designing encounters difficult because each of them needed to be capable of reducing a fighter from full HP to 0 in a single encounter to be a threat while also considering casters may or may not have any resources left.

If healing is more restricted in PF2 then it can be expected at the end of the day the fighter may be low on HP and the casters are low on spells and a medium level fight could be a good challenge. If we as a playing group can get behind the idea that you don’t need to be at full HP at the start of every combat and the game is balanced around that ideal then we could have more varied encounters and likely a more interesting game.


DFAnton wrote:

So, how exactly would this system work with negatively enchanted items? One of my favorite things to craft in PF1e is a Hood of Deafness/Aphasia. Slip it over the dude's head and he has a constant effect of "I can't hear" or "I can't speak or understand language" with the hood itself applying blindness.

Am I correct in assuming that my (effectively, but not literally) cursed items would simply not function because the target wouldn't choose to resonate with it?

Cursed items like that which you use on someone else could just apply automatically which is the 3rd option mentioned in the blog. So it could work like a magic weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just spit balling here:

What if wands became arcane magic only. Then you can drop wand charges and leave it to resonance pools. The divine have their divine favoured weapons, I don’t think we need to see them holding wands. Staves can still be used for both but keep that max charge or 3 per day.

That leaves healing items to scrolls and potions each still costing a single RP. Make scrolls have level requirements to read so you can price them at points that higher level scrolls are more attractive then lower level scrolls without having to worry about lower level characters buying them. You could even make the scrolls take 2 minutes to read or something to keep them out of combat and keep this kind of healing to “small rests” between combats. That I feel would feel a bit better then the current “I stick you with my low level wand 6 times until you are fully healed”.

Remember the point of the new resonance is that you can’t fully heal between every fight. That’s not designed to lead to shorter days, it’s designed to lead to combats that are less deadly on their own but will stack together to wear a party down. Instead of healing after every fight maybe you only get a few really powerful healing spells so you just heal 2-3 times a day. Changing this behaviour in the players to not waste the healing for very stratch will be tricky and I don’t see how this can be easily balanced between parties with healers and those without.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for the skills, there are certain things locked behind skill ranks so if building a bridge is considered something an inexperienced can’t even attempt they can either lock it behind an expert skill rank or higher item level.

Most of the skills in the game benefit if everyone in the party can attempt them. It’s not much fun if you are the only one who can sneak through an area or swim across the river. Often if you can’t do it as a group then you can’t do it. Now being good (expert, master? I don’t recall) at sneaking allows you to help your party sneak so you can lead your party past whatever you wanted to avoid.


If they need 3 to hit AC then 13 or higher is a crit so it’s 40% chance of crit on the first swing and a 90% chance to hit. On a second attack it’s 15% chance to crit and 65% to hit and on the 3rd attack is 5% crit and 40% chance to hit.

For the caster needing 13 to hit they would only have the 5% chance to crit, 40% hit on the first attack, 15% chance to hit on the second and would only hit on a natural 20 on the 3rd.

So on the first attack the fighter is over 2x likely to hit and 8x likely to crit then a caster and by the third is 8x likely to hit.

We’ve often been told the 3rd attack is not going to be bad enough to make a fighter consider doing something more productive like raise a shield or re-position but that would be the starting point of a caster. It’s too big of a gap. Give them their first attack as good as a fighters second attack and at least they can get one semi-good hit in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:


If they didn't change the mathematics from Pathfinder, the four degrees of success would be really good. It would allow DCs to be spread out more and make encounter design more interesting. It would reward PCs who invested heavily in certain aspects of their characters.

They couldn’t do four degrees of success without overhauling the maths. If they kept the current -10 to + 10 range then those old bonuses would mean at higher levels some characters would automatically critical succeed while others automatically critically failed because the difference between characters was vastly more then 20. If you change the -10 +10 to something else like -20 to +20 then the d20 has much less impact on the result and you still have the auto succeed and fail between the party.

Mekkis wrote:


It would make martial characters more quadratic in their damage output, and makes critical focus feats more attractive. Suddenly the fact that they have +16 against the opponent's AC18 is meaningful, even if they aren't able to take iterative attacks.

Unless you are fighting something lower level you are always going to want extra to-hit to get those crits. I’m not sure if you are aware that level isn’t just added to Attack, it’s also added to AC. So it’s your modifier and weapon proficiency and item/spell bonuses that will make all the difference in a fight.

Mekkis wrote:


It would reward characters who are able to stack conditions on their enemies. Why shouldn't a rogue attacking a flat-footed, prone, flanked enemy have a higher chance to pull off a critical than attacking one who is merely flat-footed?

This I agree with, it’s a bit like advantage in 5E where you can advantage for 5 reasons and disadvantage for 1 so they all cancel out. +6 may be too OP but maybe +2 for prone or flanked but +3 for prone AND flanked and +4 total for prone, flanked and otherwise flat footed.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
TeCoolMage wrote:
Since spells lose efficiency if you don't use the maximum amount of actions
This part is actually not true of most spells. Spells like Magic Missile or Heal that use a variable number of actions are the exception rather than the rule.

Heal doesn’t even lose efficiency but is more situational. One action and two action heal are the same healing but gives you a little bit more range then most movement speeds. The 3rd action going to depend on if you have 2 or more people nearby that need healing (or undead that need slaying) because it’s always going to be d8’s behind the single target spell.

Magic missile on the other hand does seem like a waste to use anything less then 3 actions. This mechanic would be really fun on a cantrip as it wouldn’t be as harsh if you wanted to trade 1/3rd of the damage for a move or interact action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the level stuff it helps remembering that level just represents experience. A level 3 item? That just requires a more experienced crafter or is expected to be found in the hands of a more experienced character then a level one character. Much like the old skill rank requirements required your character to be sufficiently skilled before taking that prestige class.

As for the maths, if you aren’t rebuilding the system from the ground up why even make another edition. I think they have done a good job explaining why they wanted to start over. The adventures can be converted on the fly but all the class, race and feat options will have to stay locked in PF1 until they are updated in future books. It’ll be interesting to see the pace in which they release those classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Resonance blog for Monday! From the end of the archetype blog “And come back on Monday for a massive blog that I am sure will resonate with many of you!”

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>