Sheep

RicoTheBold's page

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber. 481 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 481 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I get all the reasons people don't want a SaaS approach. For me, it's not a deal-breaker.

I don't like the combination of SaaS and iterative data package costs. For me, it's not a deal-breaker.

The biggest problem is that it sucks. It's an okay idea executed terribly.

- It's slow (but hey, it's also usable on my tablet, where it's also slow).
- I often have to make selections multiple times because the first one gives an error, but often the error is bogus because the selection went through so repeatedaattempts don't do anything and the best option is to make a totally unrelated change to trigger a client refresh and then undo the unrelated change
- It's got random inaccurate stuff (a little inevitable, and honestly I was impressed they were mostly able to keep up with playtest changes, but they seem worse with the final material)
- The printouts are worse than the original version they had in the playtest, which also sucked (now they don't have the action icons, and the gear/ability descriptions miss all kinds of stuff)
- Tracking some of the fiddly things like alchemist formulas is entirely manual (i.e.,they give a notes section) , despite them having a functional system for spellbooks they could have started from (although spellbooks are painful, because the slowness is so bad)
- Those workarounds don't print anywhere, which is useless for my players
- They're not being transparent or forthcoming about timelines for anything, even on their internal forums
- Since PF2 launch, I've run into about 3 or 4 days where it just doesn't work at all, which is a pretty high percentage of attempts
- It's useless for tracking combat or conditions or anything, although thankfully that's a lot less of a headache in PF2 anyway
- They're being outdone by one dude writing an Android app
- I usually can't even fix the stuff that's broken with manual adjustments like I could with the offline app

My players have actually all chosen to use the fillable PDF I made from the official sheet, which seems totally bonkers to me. At this point, if someone basically creates a webapp that lets you make check off a bunch of feats/skills/gear/spells and build printable reference sheets, I won't really see a reason to use Hero Lab again. (I've already suggested it to the dude making the pf2.easytool.es site, which is a great reference tool).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thanks for the updates. Personally, I think it's a little harsh to say it's bad organization to include the skill checks for knowing how to disable a hazard in the detection section that is, presumably, expected to be read first.

And I don't get why everyone is telling you other systems to play. I think it's pretty cool that Pathfinder 2e and the Age of Ashes AP work as well as they appear to for your group, and I
think it'd be hard for any system to meet your exact requirements. I look forward to seeing how you adapt the future books to accommodate your game as you get more experience with the system.

And there's definitely no need to turn this into yet another Paladin thread. The "everyone can be redeemed" assumption of Colette's game is pretty well established upthread.

For anyone who thinks this thread isn't providing useful advance intelligence on how the AP runs because of the way this game is different, that's on the people who aren't posting their own play updates in a thread, not Colette.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Like, I think it's a totally valid way to play (that's how I tend to play boardgames with similar tactical elements). I've just found that too much transparency kills a certain amount of immersion for some folks. And there's lots of ways to be immersive or transparent; I tend to be lazy in describing combat attack results narratively so I don't mind having am HP bar that lets players have an idea how much damage the monster has taken.

And I feel like Colette has been super up front about the way this game has been run, and it's certainly different from me.

I feel like one of the big differences has been the use of the GM PCs, which was not something my group really had the opportunity to leverage in the same way, and that has a much bigger impact from a mechanical standpoint than the hyper-transparency. Other than, maybe, the hyper-transparency making the setpieces in the town hall and the first level of the citadel dramatically less tense.

Anyway, I'm grateful for Colette's report on how the game is going. I think the takeaway is probably that it makes more sense here in its own thread where it has the extra context than in the main GM book-specific threads.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

Let's start with the fact that this means that you know the HP/AC/saves/immunities/vulnerabilities of enemies and can optimize working from there.

Given that PF2 is ultimately a tactical wargame, it's like playing an RTS without the fog of war, easy mode on. Also, this pretty much alters the whole dynamic of the table, with the GM being forced to compensate for the player's meta-tacitcal advantage with beefing the encounters so that despite the advantage the PCs are in some danger.

It's some way to play an RPG, but it's about as far from the D&D/PF baseline as I can tell. It makes the touhou kawaii anime Dahak look like a minor afterthought.

All that is fair, but the part I have a hard time reconciling is that presumably all this was true when Colette ran the playtest and repeatedly slaughtered the party in every adventure.

I don't explain all that stuff, running something that seems pretty baseline, although my players haven't tried sitting around for extended periods to refresh after every fight; the treat wounds temporary immunity has mostly covered that. My players are neither finding Hellknight Hill as easy nor found the playtest as hard. I'm about halfway done with part 3, and have downed PCs 3 tunes, but the last one was where a bunch of 2nd level characters opted to pick the southern wing of the lower level first, where the challenges are listed against 3rd level enemies. And even then, there have typically been crits from natural 20s as major contributors to downed PCs by taking off big chunks of HP.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Maelorn7 wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:
What are Voz's skeletons supposed to be? The encounter suggests a skeletal champion and a skeleton guard, but the text says "skeletal champions" at one point, so it could be two skeletal champions instead.

I suppose it had once been 2 Skeletal Champions, but later it was revised to a champ+common skeletons. Have tested both encounters against my group and 2 Champs felt much harder to fight against (it was a wipe), so I think that's why they made it a bit easier.

Just guessing.

Out of curiosity, did you run the skeletons as minions (as would be implied by the use of the create undead ritual Voz knows)?

The encounter budget (as a severe 3 encounter) accounts for the skeletons as normal enemies present in the encounter, and I'm debating treating them as minions to reinforce the "standard" rules for how undead work. Limiting them to two actions and eating Voz's actions to command them should be a much easier encounter, so much so I'm thinking of replacing the generic skeleton guard with another champion so it's potentially actually worth commanding (and/or providing other boosts to make it comparable to a severe encounter)

Although I guess she's actually not high enough level to have a level 2 skeleton as a minion, so maybe bumping her up a level would be the way to go assuming I don't just run the encounter without treating them as minions as written. It's not a "NPCs have to follow PC rules" mindset here, just a "I know my players will ask about undead/whatever minions eventually so I'd like the drawbacks to be convincingly represented up front" thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Singularity wrote:
Joana wrote:
Singularity wrote:

Hellknight Regalia

... deleted ...
Any pointers as to where I can find the section that describes the PCs' acquisition of Hellknight regalia?

advTHANKSance

I'm pretty sure it's referring to the Order of the Nail insignias the party can find in A6.
I'm not sure about that, since...
"Hellknight Hill AP - A6 wrote:

These insignias were originally tokens for recruits, called armigers, to wear during drills in the courtyard...

That doesn't sound like regalia to me. You may be right, though.

I think they're specifically using regalia to be broad as to what qualifies, because in addition to the insignias, there are also the various bits of armor that can be cobbled together for a set of shoddy full plate in the foyer.

There's another spot (Area B2) in chapter 3 where it mentions "the sight of anyone wearing any Hellknight insignias or gear" which I would basically expect to be what's intended by Hellknight regalia.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

These look great, but when I first wandered into this thread I expected it to be for stuff where map content doesn't already exist; like

Spoiler:
the missing artwork of the big throne in section D3, which has tactical considerations since it's a pretty big item in a limited space and is at the location of a combat encounter
or some extra locations in/around Breachill.

I'm curious why you're recreating maps instead of using the existing art. Is it a "quality when zoomed in" thing? Was it because you kicked off your campaign before the PDFs were available?


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Shadrick Hawkins wrote:

+1

Thank you so much - this is great! I've downloaded it on 3 different devices at this point.

It took me a little while to realize that the 6/8/10/12 drop downs next to race and class were for the Hit Point calculations. Even though you have tool tips, for some reason I just never saw them. (User Error, I'm sure!).

They're pretty tiny, so it's easy to not hover over them. I also mention them in the HP_Max field's tooltip.

One of my players still asked what they were for. So don't feel bad!

Also, FYI the drop-downs allow custom input, so if (for instance) you take Toughness you can just add 1 to the value for your class and it will give you an extra HP each level. The Ancestry dropdown can be used to modify the total on a one-time basis (if something gave a flat +3 HP or whatever), and If they publish some new ancestry with a different HP value that's not in the dropdown, you can still use the sheet without waiting on an update just because I didn't foresee some different HP value.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MagnusPrime wrote:

If you don't mind I have a question for ya...

im creating a sheet of my own...and I like the work done here..
im having an issue with the ClassDc equation..
I cant get it to give me a total..
I have Strength score as STRENGTH, and Strength mod as STR MODIFIER,
looking at the code I cant figure out what I have to change from the code used in your sheet to work

Not sure if you're still struggling, but I took another look at the calculation script I wrote.

The code used in mine basically looks for fields with the same name but with different suffixes. This is done because it lets me use the same code for class DC as spell DC just by changing field names.

So it starts by looking at its own name, which we'll say is ClassDC.

It then checks to get the value from ClassDC_Ability, and if it's blank or not set, the script exits with a blank value so someone can write the DC in after they print the sheet. The input is a dropdown offering options of blank, Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, and Cha.

It then checks the proficiency bonus by pulling proficiency (ClassDC_Prof), The relevant ability modifier (using the ability pulled earlier and appending "Mod"), and then the item bonus (ClassDC_Item) with some error handling around that so the script continues even if the field doesn't exist (for SpellDC).

It then attempts to calculate, and if the proficiency or ability modifier values are blank, it exits with a blank as above.

----

So...I use StrMod as the field name for any bonuses/DCs based on the Strength ability modifier. For my code to work for you, you'd need to replace any field names that are different, and make sure any other fields being called also exist. ClassDC_Ability would also likely need to be updated to provide options that match your field names, and you'd similarly need to at least rename the proficiency calculation, which would also require renaming the TEML checkboxes.

In other words, the field names are very important to the code, because I also used only one script for all of the proficiencies. Same with all of the check bonuses with a static ability (skills, ranged weapons, perception), and all of the check bonuses with a potentially variable ability (melee weapons, spell attack). You can go back and hardcode those field names, but it adds a lot of complexity to maintenance/troubleshooting. Notably, my ability score modifier fields have the abilities they calculate from hardcoded, which was basically because I wrote them first and hadn't gotten to reading any Acrobat javascript API documentation yet, and I didn't really see the value in going back and changing them when they're just like two lines anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
theelcorspectre wrote:

I'm curious to know if anyone has figured out what the most reliable ways to lower the saving throws of enemies.

Also, not to sound like I'm making the "if you don't like it, fix it yourself" argument, but would it really break the game if DMs created items that boost caster's Spell-Save DCs and Spell-Attack Modifiers or add those bonuses to already pre-existing bonuses.

My early vote is to scare 'em. Frightened lowers all checks/saves (defensive and offensive). Bards can deal Frightened 1 with Dirge of Doom at level 6 in a 30 foot emanation with no save. Unless they're straight immune to fear, it's a heck of a debuff. A bard can cast that and still have two actions left for whatever the rest of their plan was.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If I want the interactive maps' image, I copy it out with Sumatra PDF, which is my preferred PDF reader for actually reading RPG books. It doesn't support the interactive functionality at all.

I don't use it for copying images out of the books to make my virtual tabletop tokens because I get weird transparency issues from it on most monster art in Paizo books, but it's just fine for large rectangular blocks of maps. I basically only use Acrobat Reader for copying out those monster images and fillable PDFs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

- Sidebar on page 556 titled "Armor Alternatives" says bracers of armor gives a +1 item bonus to AC with no Dex modifier cap, but the item itself on page 607 gives a maximum Dexterity modifier of +5.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
kitmehsu wrote:

A few questions about the u armored armor options

First, in the armor alternative sidebar in the armor section, it mentions that bracers of armor have no dex cap, yet the actual block has a dex cap, so which is correct?

If the bracers do have a dex cap, what is the reason to use them over explorers clothes with runes? They have the same bulk and bracers are 8th level so it takes longer to be able to gain them.

Finally, do explorers clothes count as being unarmored for things like monk abilities?

- Wow, I hadn't caught that sidebar mention on p. 556. I'm going to guess that the sidebar is wrong/wasn't updated to match the bracers.

- There are only two reasons I'd see someone pick the bracers over explorer's clothing: Bracers are cheaper, and bracers can take talismans that require them to be placed on light armor

- Yes. That's why they're in a separate table titled "Unarmored Defense." And the description specifically says "it's not armor and uses your unarmored defense proficiency."


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:

It's absolutely too early to say, even for people who have read the full book; a question like this can't be answered without play experience.

However, PF2 makes a monk with huge muscles a viable and even powerful build right out of the box. So. Should be pretty good.

I went straight from running a PF1 game to the playtest. The things that I really liked about the playtest are still there in 2E. The action economy, the major class redesign, the skills, etc.

It was just smoother, even with playtest rules. There were a few sharp points (resonance), but those seemed to be filed down and polished up.

I'm assuming there will be things I eventually find I don't like so much, but the foundation has been, in my actual play of the playtest (where those parts are substantively the same in final), much better.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:

Not in the Core Rulebook? I understand that.

Not in the Bestiary? I don't understand that as much, but okay.

Not in anything for the first few months? Not even available as a pdf to save on space in the main books? Not even by the first wave of books after GenCon? That's... lame.

Launch was 1,000 pages of core rulebook and bestiary. One thousand pages. The Bestiary has over 400 entries. It's fine.

GameMastery Guide is the next rulebook, and somehow it's still coming out this year, so it's basically as soon as it was ever going to be. Pathfinder 1 didn't launch with the Bestiary because of time constraints. Tons of tabletop games launch without anything like a Bestiary.

The setting books/adventure paths/etc. aren't the limiting factor in publishing time.

There's plenty to do, and frankly, adjusting monsters is so much easier because they focus can be on flavorful abilities, not spend a bunch of time looking through rules on hit dice size per monster type and deciding how much natural armor you need to include to make it not terrible. A great side effect are all the variant skeletons and zombies and the like that take basically no extra space to include because you can just pick and choose which of the extra things to give them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
Alyran wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

Going on a different track.

Will PF2 reduce the number of accidental TPKs?

Probably hard to judge at the moment. However, with the ability to trade all of your available hero points to stave off death, it might be a real possibility that overall lethality is lower. Certainly more chances for a 'kidnap the entire knocked out party' type deal.
I had hoped that the "tight math paradym" and the "asymmetric monster design" would help with that. :(

They seem to.

Mark Seifter (who is not an unbiased source) has reported a vast reduction in the number of unexpected deaths. The common scenario he has mentioned in the past is the increasing likelihood with higher levels in PF1 that a character is brought from above zero HP to -Con HP (and therefore dead) in a single hit. That's basically gone, because there is no "below zero" anymore.

It's super easy to die if you get knocked down more than once in a fight; the wounded condition is no joke. Anything still dealing damage to someone who's dying can rapidly kill them. Crits accelerate the dying process a little.

Save or die/neutralized effects are more nuanced. Generally the really bad stuff only happens on a critical failure/success, so they're more worth using for their base benefits and the fight-winning effects less reliable but still possible. Saving throws are balanced the same way armor is. Touch AC is gone, essentially replaced with saving throws.

You're not able to pile up 5 different kinds of bonuses, making the math weirder. You're less likely to have something that is auto-fail for your worst party member but auto-win for your best, which makes it easier to balance challenges across a party.

Because level is included in to-hit bonuses and save/armor DCs, encounter balance is more heavily dependent on level than, say D&D 5e. This also helps the overall predictability of how dangerous an encounter is.

All of that will likely add up to a reduction in GM-induced accidental TPKs. Players can still get themselves killed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:
Depends on what (if anything) you think is wrong with PF1.

I think the real problems end up being:

1 - Class Tiers (there is a point when casters become simply better then other classes).
2 - Mandatory "options" being required to function effectively in your class's ecological niche - and the adventure material being adjusted to that new balance.
3 - Poor balancing of the later material.
I think all three are absolutely better, but the last one is by default as there is no "later material" yet.
But, I could solve that problem by disallowing material I think is "broken."

Hey, you set up the parameters; I'm just giving feedback. I think there's less chance of broken material disrupting the game because the foundations of the math are better defined, so it's harder to get the cumulative pile-up of unintended consequences that was often the cause of balance issues in PF1. Conveniently, super cool overpowered stuff has a defined place in the game with the rarity system, so things like artifacts or world-threatening magic can still exist, even at low levels. If there's a specific type of magic or item that's likely to disrupt a game, there's a good chance it's already considered uncommon, so it's not even an assumption that players will easily get it outside of some narrow concept where it's intended to be used.

PF1 was a system that was a slog for me to prepare for and run, but I still loved the customizability. PF2 has fewer options than PF1 (after 10 years), but still feels like there's plenty to customize when designing a character build, which is not the feeling I get when I have picked up or played other class-based systems.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:
Depends on what (if anything) you think is wrong with PF1.

I think the real problems end up being:

1 - Class Tiers (there is a point when casters become simply better then other classes).
2 - Mandatory "options" being required to function effectively in your class's ecological niche - and the adventure material being adjusted to that new balance.
3 - Poor balancing of the later material.

I think all three are absolutely better, but the last one is by default as there is no "later material" yet.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Comparing like to like (i.e. the CRB and Bestiary 1 of each), I don't think there is even a question.

But that is the exact question I am asking: Is PF2 worth my money?

PossibleCabbage wrote:
But one game has 10 years of supporting material and you can't catch up to that in 1000 pages.

No, you can't. That is an unfair comparison.

Yes, this thread is dangerously close to provoking edition warfare. But money is tight, so I want to know if it is worth it.

My opinion (having played largely playtest adventures and having read through the rules in fair depth, and answered many questions on a random thread to get exposure to the things I wasn't thinking about, but not played with the final rules yet): I think so. It's both worth your money and appears to be built on a much better foundation than PF1, and I have literally every core rulebook for PF1 and got the original core rules with a subscription when it first launched. I've spent a long time with PF1, and I wrapped up a fun series of adventures to start running the playtest and have no real intent to look back.

However, if your budget is that tight, I have two suggestions:
- One, the PDFs for the Core Rulebook and Bestiary are $15 each, and will conveniently be updated for every new printing. As the game sprawls into tons of books, PDFs rapidly become more convenient for me anyway.
- Two, the SRD will be up and running tomorrow at Archives of Nethys, and you can judge the system and rules for yourself. You'll lose out on the art and book layout and all that (which are both good), but the rules will be there, and those are what sustain a system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

How did we arrive at “+2 isn’t a huge difference”?

This is the tight man paradigm game with critical success and failure hinging on bonuses -/+ 10

If legendary is a big deal compared Master and sacred for Fighter, then Trained is a big deal to be stuck with and poor compared to any class beyond level 11. You can’t have it both ways.

And if Trained was the expected progression, why do all classes get Weapon Proficiency increases, even Wizards?

Because enemies get increased armor proficiency.

Denying that isn’t “missing a +2” so much as it is getting a -2

Lest we forget this is actually a -4 for a Master weapon class that goes off their list. Which no one could even argue is not significant.

At level 11, the proficiency bonus is +13 for trained vs. +15 for expert. It's not negligible, but it doesn't take you out of contention like untrained at +0. Going from +0 to +13 is huge. The next +2 is not huge.

I never made the claim that trained is a big deal to be stuck with, so I'm not trying to have it both ways. You brought up BAB, and one of the things BAB did was scale by level. I pointed out that trained gives you that, which is huuuuge. I don't even disagree that there should be a way to get to expert if they really want to, I'm just saying the absence isn't the big deal you're making it out to be. I've also pointed out that the difference between the weapons isn't huge. You can still get strong weapons without swapping, so if somehow that +2 were and end-all be-all dealbreaker, I don't think most builds are harmed much by sticking with their built-in proficiencies.

I'm trying to figure out what the actual impact of this rules interaction is for you. Like, do you have an example concept you're having trouble building that's impacted here? Is this all for some hypothetical player that really wants a katana but is a wizard and doesn't want to MC into fighter because they're picking up Champion for a blade ally or something? Like what's the deal?

What class gets Master weapon proficiency but is going so far off list they don't keep appropriate proficiency? Is that for one of the four advanced weapons, three of which are tied to ancestries? Is it for monks who just really want to use non-monk weapons, even though they won't work with any of the other monk abilities?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quandary wrote:

Good point, I don't think the difference is so huge, although by the same token it isn't implausible a high level General Feat could exist to enable Expert for one Trained weapon.

Really I think the difference is other effects hinging on Expert, but IMHO the "gating by proficiency" isn't as massively used to the degree I expected. Maybe when they start doing Archetypes they could do Feats that only work with Expert Proficiency weapons, for example? Class Feats already assume Class baseline, and if you MC into them without matching proficiency it's un-necessary or over penalizing to apply Proficiency Pre-Req: you did pay the MC Feat Tax.

This is also a good point. There are some interesting scaling class features (like weapon specialization damage bonuses) that call out extra benefits based on increased proficiency, and even include values for proficiencies (like legendary) that the class cannot get as printed in the core book. That's probably how I'd prefer those such future archetypes to work, rather than lots of hard gates.

I also think adding something to help bridge the high-level "trained to expert" gap, like MaxAstro's earlier suggestion, is just fine. It's not a huge difference, so closing the gap at a moderate cost also isn't a huge problem.

People were speaking in such broad generalities, though, that I feel like they were starting to forget that their core options aren't as limiting as they might sound like when compared in a vacuum. Simple weapons still cover almost all the bases.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:

.

If you look at just the PF1 core book... it's actually a fair bit more restrictive.

Actually in PF1 I could get proficiency with any weapon that scaled with BAB appropriate to my class with a Feat and because of how BAB worked it scaled with my class.

This is not an example of missing content so much as it is an example of a chosen limitation.

All you need is trained to get "BAB appropriate scaling" for almost every class. The tiny group being left behind are the folks who might get expert in a narrow set of weapons from their class, but only trained in their special investment. That's a total difference of a +2 bonus. "Not getting the benefit of expert" is not the same thing as "losing the benefit of trained" because that would entirely drop the proficiency bonus to 0 regardless of level (and therefore lose the "BAB appropriate scaling").


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

I would argue that in PF1 that was true, but with Rune transfers and the variability and balance across weapons in PF2 I do not know that’s true anymore.

There’s a lot of incentives to use more than one weapon based on innate traits and damage type alone (armor on enemies now changes tactics due to specialization)

Not to mention there are almost no weapon dependent feats anymore (weapon focus, specialization) which incentives diversifying by not reinforcing choices.

The only thing that incentivizes weapon choice right now is your class weapon lists and personal taste/combat tactics. And that’s great. What’s not great is how immutable your list is and seemingly not a lot of support. It’s created really weird situations by not moving things to class pools or dropping them a tier (as PossibleCabbag suggested).

Given the arrival of armor specialization and weapon specialization, I would have expected the opposite.

In the playtest progression based proficiency increases weren’t even a thing, so including them but then not extending them to include weapon/armor general feats (even across MCing) is superweird.

Transferring a rune (or swapping) is a day of downtime and 10% of the cost of the rune (or the more expensive rune, if swapping). If I'm a heavy weapon user, I might have a couple specialized tools in my kit, but most of my investment is still going toward whatever one weapon I'm going to use the most.

I'd argue the lists aren't that immutable, but I also think that as long as weapon proficiencies are a class feature, they should have some limitations on how easy it is to swap around. If wizards want fancy weapon proficiencies, it seems fine that they have to jump through some kind of system/setting-relevant hoop to do so, whether it's multiclassing, ancestral feats, or something else.

They've reduced the benefits of hyper-specialization into a single weapon, which is great, especially for the weapon user that picks up some amazing new item. They can evaluate the item on its own merits, not the pile of feats they dumped into getting better with the glaive or whatever.

...But, for someone in a class that didn't grant weapon proficiency in the first place and who hasn't MC'ed into fighter, if they can't use their piercing bow against a skeleton (or whatever) they still have their main schtick as a spellcaster or monk or whatever to fall back on. It's probably still not worth carrying around a bunch of specialized weapons most of the time instead of investing that money in the tools they use 90% of the time.

And remember, most of the time the difference between a simple and the most similar martial weapon is going to be a die size and/or an extra two traits or so. Anyone picking a class that's left out still gets some solid stuff to pick from. Wizards are the worst-case scenario, and they can still two-hand a staff for a d8 of bludgeoning whenever they want.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Since this indicates you lack the book, I'll also note that Dex + Armor totals 5 in the final game (based on posted spoilers), so your analysis of the Breastplate may be a point off pretty easily (it could be +3 AC on its own).

This cap of 5 is true except for a couple of exceptions.

- Padded armor has 1 AC and 3 Dex Cap for a total of 4, but as the very lightest of the light armors (L bulk) it is ideal for your average low-level non-sorcerer/wizard who hasn't gotten Dex to 18 and neither wants to spend meaningful money nor carrying capacity on something better (alchemists, casting-focused druids/bards/clerics). Sorcs/wizards will still be better off unarmored (explorer's clothes, 0 AC and 5 Dex Cap) because they're not proficient with light armor.
- Heavy armors, where Dex Cap + AC Bonus total 6. They have the highest check (-3) and speed (-10) penalties and even with sufficient strength to bypass the check penalties, the speed penalty only gets reduced to -5.

As Michael Sayre wrote in some post somewhere this week (maybe it was even this thread), there may well be an optimal armor for a given character, but there isn't really one for all characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

Currently, that MC Fighter feat on the premise of "getting Expert in a single Martial Weapon" is not as valuable since every Class will have at least Expert proficiency with their Class pool by that time.

That means the real "value" of that Feat comes from the other parts, which seem to go conveniently unaccounted for when discussing this Feat:

They grant Expert to all Martial Weapons which in this edition is a huge deal.

It also grants Trained in Advanced Weapons, which are by measurement better than most other weapons.

Yet we're glued to the tincy benefit of "oh but you get Expert in Longsword and it's a package deal soooo same thing".

Basically, would you count the second Dedication Feat for Wizard that allows Spells 0-3 the same as a Rogue's Minor Magic Talent?

Of course not.

So why are we doing that for the Fighter Feat?

Not to dispute your broader point, which is good, I'm not a fan of your analogy. The big difference between comparing multiple spells and a single spell vs. comparing all martial weapons and one martial weapons is that by virtue of the costs of investing in magic item system, you're likely to only have one primary weapon. It's rarely worth enchanting multiple weapons to the same level, and rarely worth switch to a secondary weapon that's doesn't have the extra bonuses your main weapon has. That investment process encourages specialization, so all the other weapon proficiencies you also got don't matter. By contrast, spell options are inherently consumable, as you have limited spell slots and limited spells to fill them; anything that expands those options is of benefit for nearly any character, even if those extra options are only occasionally used, they're likely to merit more consideration than the backup weapon.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

Having thought about this quite a lot, I don't think a 15th level general feat that upgrades trained to expert for one weapon group or armor type would be out of line. That would allow any class to at least get to baseline levels in any equipment eventually, and allows, for example, non-monk non-fighter razortooth goblins to use their bite at higher levels if they want.

I do think anything stronger than that would be too much.

Druids and Barbarians also advance their unarmed proficiency to unarmed.

Your proposed feat does seem pretty reasonable, though. It's a pretty late +2 that only helps those specifically having left behind higher numbers with something different.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rhyst wrote:

I think the Spontaneous vs Prepared discussion moved into "Heightening Spontaneous vs Prepared". And under that discussion, in this new edition you would need to understand cantrip and focus spell heightening. Both are "Auto Heightened" (half level rounded up). It seems to me that they are where the real flexibility lies in up/down casting. They don't consume other slots but are always getting more powerful.

I know focus spells are limited to a max of 3 per combat (assuming you have gained 3 of them) but cantrip and focus seem to be more the bread and butter. While all of the "spell slot" spells are your "Big Bang" or "I have this just in case".

*shrug* just an impression thus far

There are at least a couple of ways to regain focus points mid-combat. I feel like there's another one I'm forgetting, but here's two off the top of my head:

- A familiar master ability Familiar Focus lets you spend an action to have your familiar spend 2 actions to let you regain a focus point (once/day)
- There are a class of items with the "focused" trait that let you gain a temporary focus point with some restrictions on how you can use it; I think only Druids (Druid's Vestments) and Clerics (Cassock of Devotion) have them in the core book, but more will likely be printed in the future


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Rarity is a blight on this game and I have no intention of ever using it or playing with anyone who does.
The game is predicated on certain things, including Rarity in some cases. If you're gonna make Antimagic Field more widely available, you probably need to do several things to account for that (primarily, defining how much of monster's bonuses in general are magic), or the game will start having some issues.
Interesting how this points out a giant hole in the current monster design.

What hole does that point out in current monster design? That there's not a huge effort toward describing interactions with one spell? Here's the thing: There's still plenty of guidance in the statblock and the underlying system design.

- Nymphs Beauty? Out. Has primal trait.
- Melee branch attack? Reduced, has magical trait. Does 3d12+8 damage, so is probably a +2 striking weapon and should be dropped to 1d12+8, and go from +27 to +25 to hit.
- Ranged leaves attack? Out. Has conjuration and primal traits.
- Primal prepared spells? Out.
- Primal innate spells? Out.
- Change Shape, Focus Beauty, Inspiration, and Tree Meld? Primal, so out.
For magic items, they sometimes carry magical trinkets or wear enchanted clothing or jewelry. There's really only one type of bonus to skills granted by items, so we only need one. Item bonuses to skills pretty much top out at +3. Maybe she has a ring of lies, which is a +2 (there isn't a greater ring of lies or anything for a +3, but those bonuses usually show up around level 17 anyway), so at most you're probably dropping Deception from +30 to +28 on the item bonus.

Maaaybe there's some other +2 status bonus or something from some magic, so you could possibly drop it another 2, but whatever. There you have your "dryad queen in an antimagic field" adjustment.

sherlock1701 wrote:

There's no reason for rarity to exist. It fixes a problem that was never a real issue, and it feels completely alien to a ttrpg. Next thing you know, they'll be putting in color coded lootboxes.

And Bulk is even worse.

This is objectively untrue (based on observable evidence of subjective experience). How can you read post after post by people saying, "Wow, rarity is a great tool to solve this problem I had" and come away thinking it was never a real issue? I'm happy it was never an issue for you, because that means you've got a group that fits you, but that's just not true for everyone. As a GM, it's nice that rarity serves as a little bit of warning that an option might have consequences or implications on adventures beyond a simple statblock. Ring of sustenance is a life-changing item; never needing to eat or drink and only needing 2 hours of sleep per night would fundamentally alter even my mundane existence. By setting the item to uncommon, it's a good indication to random players that they can't assume they'll be able to just get one, it's a good indication to random GMs that they should think about whether they should make them available to GMs, and it's a crystal clear indication that the world does not assume that there is an effort to mass-produce rings of sustenance as some effort to increase economic productivity.

Bulk is trading one imperfect system for another, but it's still easier. I get why some people don't like it, and there are some edge cases with bulky kits and low strength where it's kind of painful, but it's not a problem for me, just a thing to be a little mindful of and maybe houserule around certain elements (coin weight is terrible and bulk helps but doesn't completely solve the problem).

Anyway, on the topic of the actual value of the Deception/Diplomacy DC; it's right there with the level 13 DC + 10 for the "incredibly hard / unique" modifier. If this is the extreme example it sounds like people have identified it as, then that shows even the extreme examples still fall within the ranges.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darth Game Master wrote:
A Google Sheets version would be great if you have the time. No pressure though.

Ha, no. This was, as stated, mostly an exercise in learning Acrobat. I did a bunch of PDF forms in LibreOffice Draw a couple years ago because I didn't want to pay for Acrobat, and I had access to an Acrobat Pro license, so I figured I'd see what I was missing. I've also seen fillable PDFs (like an early one for the playtest) that got worse and worse as more automation was added, and I wondered how hard that was to avoid. Any appearance of a high amount of polish are just a side effect of personality and reinforcement from years of consulting, and the polish steps are part of the learning exercise, because that's where you find out lots of limitations to the product.

Short aside on Acrobat:
You can't, for instance, easily change one field type to another (reportedly earlier versions of Acrobat, before the DC era, had that feature). There's doesn't seem to be a straightforward way to mass-reorder fields, or filter fields to make selection easier, or let you replace the calculation script on more than one field at a time, etc. I found a way to have scripts automatically take the value if one was entered and stop calculating, but it had the side effect of disabling calculation by default when combined with inputs that I wanted to start displaying blank for printing reasons. Lots of stuff like that; just getting an idea what it does well and what it doesn't.

The scope of my automation effort was also narrowly defined, with automating the basic calculations that a player would have to do over and over again, especially anything with proficiencies which by definition change every single level. Other fields just needed to support text entry for readability, especially if trying to capture lots of information in a single box.

I also specifically skipped redesigning any part of the sheet layout, which plenty of others are doing. One of the nice things about using the official sheet is that everyone has stuff in the same place, which can be helpful for teaching new players. Someone could take a character generated with these sheets to literally any table with a new GM, and there wouldn't be anything unexpected about it other than everything is printed instead of filled out by hand. It also doesn't need to be updated for new classes, new feats, whatever. It's the basic character sheet. It's pretty evergreen; someone may still find the form fields and automation useful years from now when I've long forgotten it.

If you're looking for something totally outside the fillable PDF approach, plenty of other people are there for you. May I suggest Malk_Content's effort? I haven't spent any real time looking at it, because I'm not personally a fan of spreadsheets as character sheets, but it's also the first (though not the last, I'm sure) Google Sheets effort I've run across.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

First book of Age of Ashes (Hellknight Hill) is intended to cover levels 1-4, and at 5 to kick off the 2nd book. Remember that APs are going to be designed to go from 1-20 for PF2.

Soo.......depends on how much you want to slow things down a little to pace stuff out on the ol' XP track (or just use milestones). Without adjusting encounters, they would likely breeze through the early HH stuff (I've only read about half the adventure so far, so MaxAstro's advice may be more pertinent).

I've kinda been convinced that with enough effort, you can adjust just about anything, but when I run published stuff it's to reduce the amount of prep work I do, so they're kinda contrary goals for me. It does seem like the levels come kinda quick just reading through it, but across an entire AP that's probably okay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
I’m curious what would happen if you used TKP on an unattended Alchemist Bomb.

Assuming you hit, it would do 1d6 damage per spell level, probably bludgeoning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
You should carry around a few items so that you can take advantage of special material qualities when it comes time to hit something with resistance/weakness to cold iron or whatever.
Using nails for your telekinetic projectile here works well. A smith asked to make 50 adamantium nails might give you weird looks, but adventurer types are always making weird requests.

"No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage."

Interestingly, different materials aren't printed as "traits" per se on the items, so that may be a little up to interpretation.

I think the intent, though, is to let you pick between B/P/S based on the object used and that's it. Loose flotsam like marbles are exactly the kind of thing that's expected. Caltrops might be a good option for piercing, although they're a little pricy for just guaranteeing damage type flavor; small tacks/nails probably make more sense. Maybe the glass from a broken bottle or something for slashing.

As for the ranged attack part; it does seem anomalous that it doesn't specifically mention spell attack like other spells, but the Spell Attacks section on p.305 makes it seem like it would call out specifically if it needed to make another type of attack, such as a weapon Strike. Ki Strike is an example of a spell that does that. Hand of the Apprentice is an example of using a spell to throw a weapon while still using a spell attack role.

The damage isn't out of line for cantrips. It's up a die size over most of them, but doesn't offer the add-on effects like extended range, chances for persistent damage, or hitting two foes at once.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm including a few things that are likely FAQ candidates, even if they're not strictly a typo/error. I'm trying to not include things others have already listed.

- For the previously-mentioned discrepancies on Druid cantrips per day and the missing Monk ki source ability: The class specific character sheets provide further evidence that it's supposed to be 5 cantrips (indicating the Druid table is wrong, not the text) and that monks' key ability for "spell attack" is Wisdom (as implied by the ki monk sidebar).

- FAQ/Errata candidate: The Alchemist class feature Alchemical Alacrity (15th level, p.75) allows you to create three alchemical items simultaneously with quick alchemy, but there doesn't appear to be a way to actually hold that many items. This may not be intended.

- FAQ/Errata candidate: Wounded condition says (p.623) "If you gain the dying condition while wounded, increase your dying condition value by your wounded value." Taking Damage while Dying says (p.459) "If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value." Dying condition does not mention Wounded. In the playtest version, Wounded explicitly mentioned it applies if you increase your Dying condition. The PF2 GM screen version of Wounded says "Any time you gain the dying condition or increase it for any reason, add your wounded value to the amount you gain or increase your dying value." This is also the wording listed on the Character Sheet Pack's folder. Mark Seifter has said Wounded always applies, but it was in a rapid-fire Q&A stream, so there may be more nuance in an official answer.

- FAQ candidate only: Haste + Minion interaction: Mark Seifter said in a Q&A stream that the minion would gain the quickened condition and get an additional action as per normal haste.

- Mostly a FAQ candidate: Sorcerer spell repertoire and "bloodline spell": On p. 193, it says "When you gain access to a new level of spells, your first new spell is always your bloodline spell" and goes on to mention gaining bloodline spells for new levels. The catch is that in the bloodline entries, what's listed under "Bloodline Spells" are the bloodline spells that are cast as focus spells, with "Granted Spells" containing the repertoire list. This is pretty easy to figure out, but they need to be clear about how they use the term "bloodline spell" to mean "spell [granted by your] bloodline" vs. "bloodline [focus] spell."

- FAQ candidate only: Fire runes and underwater combat: Prevents weapons from being used at all.

- FAQ/errata candidate: Champion deity weapon features do not appear to interact well with Irori's "fist" weapon. Deific Weapon (p.107) does not mentioned unarmed attacks and therefore increase the damage die like the Cleric's comparable "Deadly Simplicity" feat (p.121). The Divine Ally "Blade Ally" also requires you to select a weapon, but fist/handwraps of mighty blows are not weapons, so these interactions are messy. The handwraps of mighty blows counts as a weapon for taking runes, so that part of Blade Ally might work, but wouldn't grant you the critical specialization effect, since handwraps of mighty blows do not have them.

- For the previously-mentioned Animal companion section (p.214) that mentions not needing to use Handle an Animal, which doesn't exist anymore: I believe the correction is not to say that this action is not needed, but presumably is intended to mean that a Nature skill check is not necessary when you take the action (as per Ride's updated language about automatically succeeding, on p.266).

- FAQ candidate only: What happens to runes when items get destroyed? Destroyed is barely defined; one sentence near the bottom of the second column says "A destroyed item can't be Repaired." Looks like it doesn't override the Broken condition, which largely disables the functionality of any item (leaving a little in place for Armor). There's nothing saying runes get broken/destroyed, and there's nothing in the crafting rules for transferring runes that mentions the state of the item they're coming from, so runes may be still be transferrable. If they're not, anyone wearing explorer's clothing or padded armor is extremely vulnerable to armor damage effects (few though they may be). A single black pudding (level 7, Bestiary p.255) melee attack would completely destroy either of those armors on an average attack with 5 acid damage on 2d6. Cloth armor has 1 hardness and 4 HP per Table 11-4 on p.577 and does not appear to be adjusted in any way by item level.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
The One True Mango wrote:
Vallarthis wrote:

Monk class doesn't name the ability modifier to use for ki spells (presumably wisdom).

Disrupt Prey (p172) is tagged as a free action, but its content strongly suggests a reaction. Possibly not an error, but I'd be shocked if it's meant to be a free action.

It's a free action used in response to another action- it's free because you're limited to using it only on your prey, as opposed to the more general Attack of Opportunity, which can only be used once per round but can be used on any enemy.
I think it's a typo, using the wrong symbol. As printed, you'd basically be able to take multiple AoOs against your prey (for each separate offense), while every other similar ability is a Reaction and therefore only usable once per round. Also, if this is a free action, how are rangers supposed to use Snap Shot? They need Disrupt Prey to be a Reaction so that they can use Snap Shot without multiclassing to get a feat for it.

One of these (Disrupt Prey or Snap Shot) basically has to be an error. I also initially assumed it was Disrupt Prey, because it fits the normal role of being a reaction. That said, because it only works against a hunted target, it feels like it would be okay to be a free action as the Ranger's "thing" for its version of AoO...but still like 97% expect that the errata will be to make Disrupt Prey a reaction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:


Fighter: "Darn it, they're bringing us in to face divinations. <Wizard>, we need 3 high-level nondetection spells!"

In Mark's games, nondetection seems like it's basically a reverse Detect Magic, where it's just a staple thing that any decent spellcaster has because it's like 1984 with Divination spells up in here.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
The sorcerer arcane evolution feat that lets arcane sorcerers also have a spellbook is hugely cool, and frankly makes the divine/occult/primal evolution options look bad.
Is it the same as it was in the PT? I admit it’s my favorite of the four with Divine being the least.

It's actually a little better than the playtest version. Off the top of my head, the main difference is that you use a spellbook instead of scrolls, so adding additional options costs less gold. All of your repertoire spells get added to your book for free. If you select a spell already in your repertoire as part of the feat, instead of adding a new spell to your repertoire for the day, you consider your already-known spell a signature spell for the day.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
lordcirth wrote:

I don't have my book yet, but doesn't Martial Disciple grant Cat Fall if you pick Acrobatics, and something else (Combat Climber?) for Athletics?

Also, no, you can't get your lore to expert. The class skills day that you become trained, not that you increase a skill by one step.

The background note here is correct; Cat Fall is tied to Acrobatics, although Quick Jump is the feat you get if you choose Athletics. However, because ultimately both skills became trained (Acrobatics was chosen during the Class step), you don't actually need to change anything because you still ended up with the right skills.

And as mentioned, the level 1 skill selections are what skills start as trained as part of your "Initial Proficiencies"; they're not technically skill increases. Skill increases (though you can still opt to take a new skill to trained) start for most classes at level 3, and for Rogues at level 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I feel like this is pretty close to the same core challenge that spontaneous casters (especially sorcerers vs. wizards) have always faced. In the past, spontaneous casters "had more spells" but this wasn't necessarily true, either. A school specialist wizard usually had very close to the same number of total spell slots as a sorcerer and had access to higher level spells at many levels throughout their career.

The fact that anyone ever played sorcerers basically means that some people just prefer having a pool of options they can pick from at any time instead of preparing. I feel like the PF2 sorcerers/bards still pull that off pretty well. The sorcerer arcane evolution feat that lets arcane sorcerers also have a spellbook is hugely cool, and frankly makes the divine/occult/primal evolution options look bad.

I do think signature spells do a pretty good job of filling in the options for casting their most flexible spells at any level. . . which is part of why I think where spontaneous casters are at their worst is for the spontaneous multiclass archetypes. They don't get signature spells. They also only get one spell per level in their repertoire without taking the breadth feat (I'd have liked to see two spells known per spell level as the default).

I suspect we'll eventually see a few more options printed for opening up the possibilities for spontaneous spellcasters. In the meantime, they mainly fit the niche of the narrow focus in a few options, and using their bloodlines and focus spells to kind of double down on that.

At least it's no longer the case that literally every wizard can spend 10 minutes to swap out spells. That thesis topic is still super strong, but there are some other cool ones to keep wizards from encroaching so much on the sorcerer's schtick.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It takes away one of the things that makes humans special as an ancestry, and actually indirectly reduces the 'special-ness' of ancestries generally since every dwarf could secretly be adopted by gnomes or something (I don't love the dwarf ancestry feats and do love the gnome feats).

One option is to consider looking at making/extending half-ancestry heritages for other ancestries (like half-elf/half-orc). The core rules have a little sidebar mentioning possibly extending those two to other ancestries, and it wouldn't be that hard to create similar ones for other ancestries.

Or, if you don't like idea that all your players are suddenly mixed ancestries when they're just supposed to be a goblin orphan found and raised by a friendly gnome family, you could make Adopted Ancestry literally just a heritage. It's clean, simple, and makes an ancestry actually give up something of value while still letting them benefit from the feat at level 1.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RicoTheBold wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
I created fully-fillable versions of the original sheets with automatic calculations for basically anything with a proficiency (AC, weapons, saves, perception, skills, class DC, spells), Maximum HP, and bulk capacity. Proficiencies use the little TEML boxes for calculations, so checking them on the sheet is actually relevant.
Awesome sheet. However, something seems to be wrong with the Arcana skill - it isn't calculating correctly. Keeps coming up with weird incorrect numbers.

Confirmed, thanks.

Looks like it's broken in my 1.0 version, too, which means it's probably a typo'd field name (not super likely) or a bad version of the calculation javascript and not an artifact from my ill-fated experimentation with rich text formatting today. It's very likely it was left on an experimental version of the saves/skills script that's intermittently failing partway through calculation logic due to not having an Armor Check Penalty field. So far none of the test characters I've built happened to take Arcana. Mod and proficiency fields (used as inputs for calculation) look fine.

Should be a very quick fix (just copy/paste the script from literally any other skill) when I'm back on the computer with Acrobat.

I fixed them; it ended up being that a couple fields went rogue and got out of calculation order. I also went ahead and made the non-calculation versions.

I created a new thread rather than continue to make it hard to find in this one. https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ns7?Fillable-andor-autocalculating-character -sheets


32 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Links first:
- Black and white manual fill only - no calculation (v1.0)
- Black and white with calculation (v1.2)
- Color manual fill only - no calculation (v1.0)
- Color with calculation (v1.2)

I'm creating a new thread for this rather than having it buried close to 200 posts deep in the main character sheet announcement thread.

Quoted below is a post I made in the character sheet thread. I ended up going ahead and making the "manual fill only" version for anyone who hates automatic calculation. I also ended up updating the calculation sheets one more time to fix a bug in calculation order that made Arcana work only intermittently (thanks MaxAstro for pointing out it wasn't working).

The text/images on the sheets themselves are unchanged; it's just the form fields that are added.

Quote:

I wasn't super pleased with the fillable version that was floating around; some little things were bugging me like some unaligned/sloppy field placement, borders left on some checkboxes, etc.

I created fully-fillable versions of the original sheets with automatic calculations for basically anything with a proficiency (AC, weapons, saves, perception, skills, class DC, spells), Maximum HP, and bulk capacity. Proficiencies use the little TEML boxes for calculations, so checking them on the sheet is actually relevant.

Because I hate automated sheets that make it impossible to use fillable fields that don't change much (if ever) and or print default numbers in the fields you might want to manually fill out because they change - say, if you're only printing a new sheet every few levels and are otherwise filling in numbers by hand with a pencil...most of the automation gets disabled if you leave certain fields blank. Level is required for anything with proficiencies, for instance. If you leave the ability scores blank, nothing dependent on them will calculate. Checkboxes are there to disable calculation of bulk or HP, but there are also fairly easy ways to adjust the calculations if you have a feat or something that would affect them.

There are some other weird considerations, like it's possible to override the options in drop-down boxes for things. Level (in case you want to just keep having numbers go up for some reason, or you want to do a level 0 thing without a class). Ability scores, in case you're rolling up stats or something and need odd scores below 18. Ancestry/Class HP, in case future ancestries/classes have new HP, or if you want to add one-off or per-level permanent changes to Max HP.

Some care was taken for lots of little things for real-world usability. For example, to make sure that fonts would fit/be aligned appropriately and text sizes would change/multiple lines would be used if boxes had specifically limited space. Tab field order is a compromise between navigating the sheet quickly without a mouse and ease of mass changes. Tooltips explain some of the fields with some automation, so they're actually going to generally be relevant. At worst, they'll be blank or only be the all-caps names Acrobat provided as an initial starting point for automated form field detection. Fields all have relevant names, so it's easy to tell what field is what if you're making changes. The different spell traditions have slightly different shapes instead of checks in the little "book" just because I thought it was more fun.

I'll probably never update these again. It was close to 20 hours of work, mostly justified as doing it to learn how Acrobat works, since I've never used it before. I also don't write javascript, so if there are any eccentricities in my approach, that's probably why.

It's likely not perfectly "fillable" if you want to manually type (not write post-print) in every single field due to the automation on some fields that won't play nice. If people reaaaallly want a version with my carefully-aligned fields but zero automation, I might do it; basically it would involve removing scripts (pretty quick) and replacing a couple drop-down boxes with vanilla text fields, but I'm not particularly interested in maintaining this. Unless Hero Lab Online is terrible (I would describe it as "mediocre" for the playtest) I'll probably use it, anyway.

You can totally break some of the automation scripts if you put in really weird values (text when numbers or blank are expected), but it's just a character sheet, so that's fine.

Feel free to use the automation/form fields as a starting point for any altered versions you might have. If you just changed the background appearances on your own (colors/etc.) and have Acrobat, it's very easy to use the "replace page" feature under Organize Pages to just swap your versions in underneath the form fields. That may work with other editors. If you've moved fields around (i.e. Datalore), your changes would obviously require more work for the fields and calculation scripts, but this might still save you a bunch of time (particularly on the unaltered pages).


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

They went so far as to make a separate table in the equipment section for unarmed attacks just to make it clear that they're not any type of weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Edge93 wrote:
Does Deflect Arrows work on ranged spell attacks despite the name?

It specifically has to be a physical ranged attack for Deflect Arrows.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Loreguard wrote:

I have a question about how the Rough Rider First level Goblin Ancestry Feat is supposed to work.

It grants the Ride feat as a bonus feat, and it seemed to be saying that the 'intent' behind it is to open up the ability to allow goblins to be riding creatures that are thematic to them in their lore. It allows you to pick a Wolf animal companion, even if the creature would normally require the mount feature. It doesn't grant the mount property on the companion however.

My question, and issue instead becomes the question of technically according to the rules, wolf animal companions begin as small creatures, and riding a creature, the creature must be one size larger than you. Thus, it appear that you can't choose a wolf to ride, until you can get to the upgraded version of a animal companion, unless the intent of the Rough Rider was to allow a small goblin to ride a small wolf as an exception. If it wasn't intended, why was it granted as a 1st level feat and not a higher level feat such as where enhanced animal companions become available?

What was intended?

Past what was intended, what would be the ramifications of allowing a goblin to take an animal companion wolf and ride it, if you allow them to do this with rough rider feat. The companion remains small size, but as part of the conditions of the feat it would allow the goblin to ride it, within the normal restrictions of riding an animal without the mount trait. Is there any real significant balance ramification of allowing that, to enable that sort of low level character concept that should be viable? Is there a reason the rule couldn't enable them to ride the wolf?

It grants a specific, thematic level 1 general feat (Ride), which is already roughly why it belongs as a level 1 ancestry feat. Most ancestries won't get their first general feat until level 3, so that's potentially earlier than otherwise possible (humans are the main exception). It's also an access feat that helps for certain conditions later: It grants access to an option that you might otherwise not have, say if you've chosen to play a Champion with a Divine Steed, or for the Cavalier in the playtest which may one day be printed in 2E.

For an animal companion you want to ride, you're probably better off with a pony up until you can get a mature animal companion, but Rough Rider still grants Ride, which works with literally any mount and specifically helps with non-companions. Riding dogs are 4 gp, so a level 1 character can start with one, and the Ride feat makes it much more playable (it will act on your turn like a minion, and you'll auto-succeed at giving it commands, so you can keep it from fleeing when you enter combat even though it's not combat-trained).

As a quick aside, the Bestiary describes riding dogs as "ferocious in battle" but the core rulebook doesn't describe them as combat-trained, so your mileage may vary a little by GM there. They're much cheaper than the warpony/warhorse, so it's not exactly "fair" to consider them combat-trained, but the core book also doesn't have a combat-trained option. Goblin dogs don't have a price in the core book, unfortunately, but that might also be an interesting option. Any option that gets you a combat-trained mount takes Ride from "required to keep your mount from fleeing immediately if it beats your initiative" to "sure is nice not having to roll nature checks."

So if I wanted to play a mounted, champion goblin riding a wolf, I'd think this feat would be pretty useful for the majority of my goblin's career, with like 3 levels (between 3rd and 6th, when you can make it mature) where it's kind of dumb that a wolf companion is the wrong size. I'd either suck it up and ride a pony, keep riding whatever mundane dog or goblin dog or whatever I had been riding until my new wolf pup was big enough, or try negotiating a little with the GM.

Everything else was RAW, but your last question was what was the impact if the GM allowed the exception in riding. It's really easy to handwave the riding size restriction for a couple levels, since there's almost 0 difference between small/medium in the rules and it's sad to be off theme. If I were the GM, I'd very likely allow it. It'd save 3 levels of thematic inconsistency/workarounds at basically zero cost unless there was someone else in the party (say, a gnome druid with a bear) that might feel left out that they don't get a rules exception.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vallarthis wrote:

Ah, flanking! That makes sense, thank you. I knew there had to be something fairly common involved, if this is Produce Flame's 'thing', to stand next to splash damage with Acid Splash, extended range with Ray of Frost, and 2 targets for Electric Arc.

Along with the rogue feats Graystone mentioned, this seems to be the ideal choice for a rogue picking up the minor magic feat.

Don't forget to pick up Magical Trickster at level 4 to get your sneak attack damage as your flanked target is flat-footed and you can burn them somewhere important.

I'm not sure how often I'd want that over just a one-action attack, but it's definitely a fun theme.

I think it's better for the party wizard on the other side of the flank from the rogue, with graystone's suggestion of Opportune Backstab.

Remember that literally everyone "threatens" with an empty hand, as long as they aren't petrified or unconscious or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
FLite wrote:

Page 459: taking damage while dying:

"If you take damage whole you already have the dying condition, increase your dying condition by one... I'd you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value. "

Does that mean if you have wounded 1, and are reduced to 0, you go to dying 2, and then if you take any further damage, you add 2 more and go to dead?

Annoyingly, the text of the Wounded condition in the rulebook does not explicitly say it applies any time you "increase" your dying condition (it did in the 1.6 playtest, and it does on the GM screen). It only says it's added when you "gain" the dying condition. Then there's that extra little warning you found in the "taking damage while dying" section...

When I asked Mark Seifter on a marketing-approved question/spoiler stream, he indicated that yes, wounded value always gets added, but it was in a rapid-fire segment so it would totally be reasonable if he came back with a more nuanced answer on this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
I created fully-fillable versions of the original sheets with automatic calculations for basically anything with a proficiency (AC, weapons, saves, perception, skills, class DC, spells), Maximum HP, and bulk capacity. Proficiencies use the little TEML boxes for calculations, so checking them on the sheet is actually relevant.
Awesome sheet. However, something seems to be wrong with the Arcana skill - it isn't calculating correctly. Keeps coming up with weird incorrect numbers.

Confirmed, thanks.

Looks like it's broken in my 1.0 version, too, which means it's probably a typo'd field name (not super likely) or a bad version of the calculation javascript and not an artifact from my ill-fated experimentation with rich text formatting today. It's very likely it was left on an experimental version of the saves/skills script that's intermittently failing partway through calculation logic due to not having an Armor Check Penalty field. So far none of the test characters I've built happened to take Arcana. Mod and proficiency fields (used as inputs for calculation) look fine.

Should be a very quick fix (just copy/paste the script from literally any other skill) when I'm back on the computer with Acrobat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I wasn't super pleased with the fillable version that was floating around; some little things were bugging me like some unaligned/sloppy field placement, borders left on some checkboxes, etc.

I created fully-fillable versions of the original sheets with automatic calculations for basically anything with a proficiency (AC, weapons, saves, perception, skills, class DC, spells), Maximum HP, and bulk capacity. Proficiencies use the little TEML boxes for calculations, so checking them on the sheet is actually relevant.

Because I hate automated sheets that make it impossible to use fillable fields that don't change much (if ever) and or print default numbers in the fields you might want to manually fill out because they change - say, if you're only printing a new sheet every few levels and are otherwise filling in numbers by hand with a pencil...most of the automation gets disabled if you leave certain fields blank. Level is required for anything with proficiencies, for instance. If you leave the ability scores blank, nothing dependent on them will calculate. Checkboxes are there to disable calculation of bulk or HP, but there are also fairly easy ways to adjust the calculations if you have a feat or something that would affect them.

There are some other weird considerations, like it's possible to override the options in drop-down boxes for things. Level (in case you want to just keep having numbers go up for some reason, or you want to do a level 0 thing without a class). Ability scores, in case you're rolling up stats or something and need odd scores below 18. Ancestry/Class HP, in case future ancestries/classes have new HP, or if you want to add one-off or per-level permanent changes to Max HP.

Some care was taken for lots of little things for real-world usability. For example, to make sure that fonts would fit/be aligned appropriately and text sizes would change/multiple lines would be used if boxes had specifically limited space. Tab field order is a compromise between navigating the sheet quickly without a mouse and ease of mass changes. Tooltips explain some of the fields with some automation, so they're actually going to generally be relevant. At worst, they'll be blank or only be the all-caps names Acrobat provided as an initial starting point for automated form field detection. Fields all have relevant names, so it's easy to tell what field is what if you're making changes. The different spell traditions have slightly different shapes instead of checks in the little "book" just because I thought it was more fun.

I'll probably never update these again. It was close to 20 hours of work, mostly justified as doing it to learn how Acrobat works, since I've never used it before. I also don't write javascript, so if there are any eccentricities in my approach, that's probably why.

It's likely not perfectly "fillable" if you want to manually type (not write post-print) in every single field due to the automation on some fields that won't play nice. If people reaaaallly want a version with my carefully-aligned fields but zero automation, I might do it; basically it would involve removing scripts (pretty quick) and replacing a couple drop-down boxes with vanilla text fields, but I'm not particularly interested in maintaining this. Unless Hero Lab Online is terrible (I would describe it as "mediocre" for the playtest) I'll probably use it, anyway.

You can totally break some of the automation scripts if you put in really weird values (text when numbers or blank are expected), but it's just a character sheet, so that's fine.

Feel free to use the automation/form fields as a starting point for any altered versions you might have. If you just changed the background appearances on your own (colors/etc.) and have Acrobat, it's very easy to use the "replace page" feature under Organize Pages to just swap your versions in underneath the form fields. That may work with other editors. If you've moved fields around (i.e. Datalore), your changes would obviously require more work for the fields and calculation scripts, but this might still save you a bunch of time (particularly on the unaltered pages).

Black and White v1.1

Color v1.1


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:

Do bombs and other alchemical splash weapons target AC or reflex saves? How common would you say martials targeting non-AC defenses is in general, at least in comparison to how often casters target saves?

Thanks for the answer on unarmored by the way, sounds like it will be viable.

Spoiler:

Bombs target regular ol' AC. Higher level bombs get item bonuses and extra damage dice on part with comparable weapons, so it's not a big deal. There aren't as many different levels of bombs, though, as a result, so the extra additives and the like are generally good ideas whenever your level is a little ahead of your top-tier bombs, but they can't be applied to prepared bombs, so there's still some trade-offs there hence the fun of free bombs as mentioned in my previous bomb post.

Martials targeting non-AC defenses with basic abilities seems primarily done with maneuvers, and seems like it can be pretty common if you're going heavy with maneuvers. This is a kind of limited answer, because there's so many weird things you could also mention like Certain Strike for dealing damage on a miss or Demoralize with Intimdation, or Champion reactions...


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
HidaOWin wrote:
How is alchemist bomb damage? Will bombers focus on chucking bombs when the free bombs show up or are they better waxing people with crossbows?

Spoiler:
Should bombers use free bombs?

Free bombs show up at level 7. By this point, people should mostly have +1 striking weapons for an extra die of damage, so technically your free bombs are lagging behind (your non-free bombs won't be, and you'll get 3 per prepared batch and have more batches just for being higher level). Free bombs will also be a bit behind your typical cantrip on a 1:1 basis.

However! I'm still bombing. Not just because that's why I became a bomber, dang it. Not just because I don't want to spend gold on a magic weapon when I have bombs.

Free bombs benefit heavily from all your other bombing class feats.
- Quick Bomber at level 1 means 3 bombs per round is easy peasy, so a 1:1 ratio vs. cantrips no longer is a fair comparison.
- Calculated Splash at level 4 means your splash damage will equal your intelligence modifier (instead of the original splash damage).

Don't sleep on splash damage. Damaging multiple foes is outside the purview of your alternatives, and doing damage on a miss adds up. Don't forget that you should also be swapping up your bomb types to target weaknesses where appropriate.

And the additives are where things get really interesting with free bombs.
- Debilitating Bomb at level 6 is a free action once per round that requires you to be crafting a bomb that's at least 2 levels below your level. Your free bombs are perfect for that. Now you have your choice of adding dazzled, deafened, flat-footed, or a -5 foot speed penalty if the target fails a save.
- Sticky bomb at level 8 adds persistent damage to any bomb, or increases the amount on ones that already have it.
- Expanded splash at level 10 increases the splash damage even more (int + the bomb's original splash instead) , means you can deal that extra splash damage to a 10' range

So at level 7, with my free bombs, I'm throwing at least one debilitating bomb a round just to try to keep some debuffs up.
At level 8, I'm probably trying to keep the persistent damage going alongside the debuffs. Maybe just the first bomb a round, when I have the best chance to hit, is going to come from my limited stock of prepped bombs.

Anyway, I don't think I'd play an alchemist if I wasn't there to bomb things, and every level before 7 when I couldn't bomb endlessly would be a painful reminder that I am not yet the reckless bomber I long to be.

1 to 50 of 481 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>