Rules Artificer's page

Is there a reason for bombs being the only alchemical items that don't scale into higher levels?
I don't get why bombs have to stay at level 1 and only Alchemist can boost them.
Why not just have higher level bombs that do more damage but are more expensive?
Price them like Necklace of Fireball beads.
Alchemists can make them for free (for themselves during the day) anyway.

Enemies critically succeeding vs a spellcaster's magic usually means no effect.

Martials critically failing vs an enemy's AC/TAC usually means no effect.

Seems just fine to me.

Finally, even with 2E's action economy, crit fail rules need to pass the Kung-Fu Kraken test. Making more attacks due to martial skill should not lead to an increased chance of penalizing fumbles.

Knight Magenta wrote:

Hooray I got a Mark response! Achievement get :)

That's a good use-case. Touche.

I guess I was disappointed by this incarnation of the assist action because the fighter has a "ranged assist" feat and I thought that it would be neat to do that with my 3rd action. Part of it is that I don't think that there are enough non-class-gated martial options for the third action; by my count there are:

• Raise Shield
• Intimidate
• Feint

I think its important for the base system to have enough options there so that the classes can then add twists on the baseline.

An archer Assisting a barbarian is actually another potential example of the lower-damage improving high damage paradigm, and a fighter has a better chance of a crit for +4. Then again, a fighter's crit has some nice additions, like pinning them in place, so it's likely to be better when the foe has resistance, and not if the group doesn't have a big hitter. Even so, that specific feat perhaps could give a bonus on the Assist since it's for a character that might not normally be providing support and has specced to contribute more with Strikes, opens, and presses.

I think the issue remains that a Fighter using Ranged Assist on his last action after making 2 strikes that round already has a quite poor chance of actually succeeding, doesn't he? Because making an Assist is just as difficult as making a Strike.

There is value in defining the theme and then giving folks the option to step beyond for a cost as opposed to making everyone feel the same by giving them the same slate of features.

I fully agree, with the exception that I draw the line for "stepping beyond for a cost" beyond just being able to do a thing.

Like wanting to multiclass Fighter to pick up some shield feats or multiclassing Paladin (eventually) to get a divinely powerful shield.

Lyee wrote:

If the GM can track 12 health bars of the monsters, the players can track 2! It's hardly a big ask compared to how terrible the system is right now.

But I would also accept any other fix to the horrific adventuring day/out of combat healing issues in PF2.

My problem with stamina in Pathfinder is that it’s not just “keeping track of another health bar” - it’s doubling your hit point pool, for a truly absurd amount of hit points, making it almost impossible for a PC to go down in a fight. In Starfinder, at least mystics and healing serums are not extremely common, but in PF, everyone from bards to Paladins to alchemists to clerics can heal, and keep replenishing hit points. I have a hard enough time with PCs in PF2 having 100 hit points by level 8, having close to 200 hit points by then would make it impossible to drop PCs in combat after a point.

I agree that healing needs a little more widespread implementation than just clerics having the best option, but stamina to me is overkill for the job. Better if you could just rest a limited number of times to refresh up to half your hit points or something, than to just grant a whole extra pool.

That seems very easily resolved by just making the Stamina + HP pools total equal to the current amount of HP.

For example, every class could get 4 + Con modifier HP per level, and then you get Stamina based on your class. d12 classes (Barbarian, currently) get 8 Stamina/level, d10 get 6, d8 get 4, d6 get 2.

There, now everyone has the same max/total HP that they currently have, but the more martially inclined classes have a bigger Stamina buffer.

You would need to retool the Toughness feat and Fighter's Resiliency.

That's a pretty good summary. 2E Ranger has a lot of neat ideas and options.

However, things need to be tweaked a bit so things actually work together. Hunt Target's penalty reduction doesn't help crossbow users much (or at all with a heavy crossbow) nor does it help TWF builds that use Double Slice to ignore the penalties entirely.

Hunt Target also doesn't play nice with Rangers with Companions, due to Commanding an Animal requiring an action each turn.

Monster Hunter is supremely underwhelming compared to the other level 1 class feats; I'd much rather it allow you to Hunt and Recall Knowlege together rather than *maybe* getting a +1 bonus to one attack against one creature.

Snares? Yikes. You can't do anything with them until level 4, they take too long to assemble in-battle till level 8 (and even then you have to completely burn a full round to set them), they don't use your class DC till level 16.

My design philosophy is always inclusive, not exclusive.
Rangers and Barbarians having shield proficiency opens up more options and doesn't restrict those who want to not use them.

Fighters and Paladins would still remain better with shields defensively due to class feats.

I agree that them losing shield proficiency doesn't make any sense.
2E seems to be attempting to roughly balance 2H weapons, TWF, and Sword and Board.
So why do these classes need to burn a general feat just to gain access to shields?

It's a mix between the Ritual Healing Suggestion and the Bandage of Healing suggested on another topic.

Personally I think whatever idea is better than the current state of the game so... yeah. Sure. I would use it.

Out of all the suggestions so far, I prefer healing rituals, as they require only skill and some gold, not magic. That thread also proposed how each character could participate in the ritual to aid it in some way, whether it's boosting the healing, removing conditions, or securing the area/keeping watch to reduce the chance of being interrupted. I think that's far more engaging of a solution than just more consumables.

Regardless, 2E does seem to need some mechanic to allow parties to spend breaktime in exchange for healing.

Count me in for Arcanist-style casting for prepared casters.
Needing to choose which spells for the day is an appropriate level of specificity for me.
Needing to choose precisely how many of each spell to prepare per day? That just seems frustrating more than anything.

Balance-wise, Paizo has balanced Arcanists in the past; I don't see why they can't do it again. Related but separate is the issue that Sorcerer has just about the worst casting of all the current spellcasters in the game, so with this change, it could use a buff.

Themetricsystem wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Oh for the days of PF1e when people would be gently ribbed for even using the word "tank".

I'm just glad we don't have anything that compels enemies to drop everything and attack you regardless of circumstances; that's a line I'm unwilling to cross.

Agreed, a Taunt that determines "aggro" is a line in the sand for me. If I see something like this it's getting house-banned faster than limp lash.

Well, Retributive Strike has been working pretty well to get my GM to always attack me instead of the other PCs. I personally don't think it's that enforcing, but then again, neither was Divine Challenge in 4th edition.

As a means of tanking that doesn't involve Aggro mechanics, Retributive Strike does a good job. Enemies don't want a free hit on them (that comes with a debuff), so they hit the Paladin instead.

I do, however, have some pretty significant issues with Retributive Strike being the Paladin's primary class feature.

- It is only effective countermeasure against particular threats, and even then isn't clearly defined.
RT's trigger is "A creature within your reach hits an ally or friendly creature." Does it trigger on ranged attacks? What about spells that deal damage? What about harmful effects that don't require an attack roll?
Then there's the issue that Retributive Strike always requires the Paladin to be within reach of the opponent, and never upgrades from this requirement. For melee, a creature can easily move to the opposite side of a creature and strike. Ranged attacks (including most spells) can easily circumvent this requirement. Where's the mid-level option to be able to at least move up to our speed before making a Retributive Strike? Also, what's a ranged weapon build Paladin to do?

- Retributive Strike is a class feature you want to never have to use. It's the threat of being walloped that makes an enemy reconsider attacking your allies and try to attack you instead. However, what happens when the enemy does just this? The vast majority of the Paladin's offensive class features revolve around Retributive Strike. Which means that, if the enemy attacks the Paladin instead (AKA Paladin is doing his job tanking) then the Paladin is deprived of using his class features that actually help defeat his foes!
This leads to the exceedingly wonky state that a Paladin wants to get in position to protect his allies but then have enemies attack his allies over him so that he can actually use his abilities to defeat them. Having anti-tanking be the optimal strategy for your tank seems extremely counterintuitive.
On a similar note, Aura of Justice seems like a monumental pain to actually use. Allies need to be all huddled around both you and the enemy, and need to be able to use a melee weapon worth a dang, and need to not use any reactions that turn, just to have a chance that the enemy decides to attack one of them so the Paladin can make a neutered Retributive Strike and they can also try to bop the enemy. That is such a far cry from the 1E Aura of Justice (practically Paladin's most powerful class feature) it's insane.

I agree with others that having to pick the "most powerful" feat within a set level range is not straightforward nor does it seem particularly helpful. In some cases, feats can be strong for build A but weak for build B. Also, generally speaking, yeah the highest-level feats are going to be the strongest.

The lack of even a general "how satisfied are you with the power of the class feats presented in the playtest" and "how satisfied are you with the diversity available in the class feats presented in the playtest" for each class is disappointing, as those are my two biggest issues with 2nd edition.

LuniasM wrote:

In the Class survey on the Alchemist section, Perfect Medicine is not listed as an option in the question "Select the level 16–20 feat you think is the most powerful."

Thanks for catching this. Fixed now!

Likewise, the new 20th level feat for Bards added in eratta, Virtuoso's Brilliance, is not listed in the similar question for Bards.

As it gives access to the 10th level Occult spells, it absolutely would have been my choice for most powerful 20th level Bard feat.

Lord Norin wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

MrAptronym wrote:

2. I think they have a different picture of what healing should be like than I do.

My biggest head/desk moment was when Jason said something like "I think there may be a healing problem but we need more data to be sure". The one thing that is screamingly obvious if you listen to just about ANY feedback is that YES, THERE IS A HEALING problem. The fact that Jason doesn't recognize this is more than a little alarming.

The fact that they are ignoring the complaints about vancian casting still being in the game as well as resonance and other things shows that they really are not informed about what their base wants in a new edition....

To be fair, the only complaints against Vancian casting have been very subjective: there's the "I don't like it" (by definition subjective), and the "It's unrealistic" (which is a very nebulous concept when dealing with something as unrealistic as Magic).

More to the point, the two obvious things to replace it with seem worse that Vancian casting:
- Spell Points or Mana has issues where it feels video gamey, and causes all the "psychic nova" that was so prevalent with 3.5e psionics.
- "Daily spells" makes magic even more limited, and is so reminiscent of 4e that it'd alienate a larger proportion of the playerbase.

This is why I prefer Arcanist-style spellcasting over all other options that have been presented thus far.

Tholomyes wrote:

I'd like arcanist style casting, but I don't think that means Sorcerers have to go the way of the dodo, it just means any spontaneous caster needs to have something that pushes them above the arcanist-style casters. If this means leaning into the bloodlines more (probably, in this case, without them costing a feat slot), or something, and obviously full spontaneous heightening would be a given, but I think there's room for the sorcerer, even with arcanist style casting.

Agreed. The draw of the Sorcerer is the conceptual simplicity of "knowing what magic you know, cast until out of magic oomph" that far more closely reflects how 99% of magic users in fiction work anyway. Making prepared casters prep their daily spells off of a larger list (either the primal or divine lists or the Wizard's spellbook) and then freeform casting those spells in whatever fashion the day dictates like the Arcanist helps bring those casters closer to relatable fictional examples, but still doesn't achieve the role the Sorcerer fills. And I definitely believe the Sorcerer would need something to assymetrically match the prep casters.

Just an example that I'm not married to:** spoiler omitted **...

I see what you're getting at, and I think I agree. A Sorcerer should have more spells known than he has spells per day, while a Wizard using Arcanist casting has about the same number of spells he can prepare per day as what he can cast per day.

Thus, within a given day, a Sorcerer is far more versatile than a Wizard. Given time to rest and re-prepare spells, the Wizard can be more versatile than the Sorcerer.

That seems like a solid balance to me. It would still need to be determined how heightening would work:

My gut says "prepared casters need to pre-heighten spells and prepare it in that spell level, while spontaneous casters can heighten on the fly". More spells known for spontaneous casters also helps mitigate the problem with auto-heightening that Paizo mentioned: that spontaneous casters would prioritize spells that can be heightened. Learning more than 2 spells/level gives you more flexibility in your choices.

I do agree that learning spells should go top-down, not bottom-up,
so learning Fireball, 5th gives you access to Fireball 1~4,
rather than learning Fireball, 1st giving you access to Fireball 2~5.

Nettah wrote:

Darksol said wrote:

As the title.

One thing I have observed is that a Paladin's ability to use Lay On Hands requires a hand to use. This means a Paladin using sword and shield is out (including Light Shield, since in PF1, it only let you hold stuff in there, not do anything else with that hand, per RAW), which meant unorthodox ways of combat (such as a two-hander or just using a single weapon) was required to make use of this ability during combat for yourself or someone else.

With the current rules, even two-handing is now impossible. To put it simply, while wielding a two-handed weapon, you must spend 1 action to remove grip on it, spend another action for your Lay On Hands (to yourself or an adjacent ally), then spend your last action re-gripping your two-handed weapon. Did I also mention you provoke Attacks of Opportunity the moment you let go of your weapon? Which means against enemies that have them, using Lay On Hands is just giving your enemies free reign to attack you without (much) penalty. It's extremely clunky and extremely punishing for no apparent reason. After all, you can't just heal yourself automatically, or just give your ally a poke with your weapon, or the GM might have to rule you deal damage to yourself or the ally, at the very least, if not outright say "You can't do that." The feat that removes the manipulate trait really only makes Lay On Hands no longer provoke, but that's circumvented when a player removes his grip on his weapon (which provokes), making it a very moot point. You still need a free hand (which takes actions and/or losing equipment to rectify at the least), and you still provoke at the part where it is most critical for it to not occur.

This means a Paladin, if he wants to make effective use of his Lay On Hands, has to use a single weapon (with no shield!), meaning a "swashbuckler" style of combat is required for this feature to have its use. Last I checked, every Paladin should not have to use a Zorro/duelist fighting art to

...

I believe many players feel it is a "tax" because they are expending a class feat to get Lay on Hands back up to its basic functionality in 1E: A heal that, when used on yourself, is fast and viable to use mid-combat without having to worry about juggling items or taking AoOs.

Albatoonoe wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Scythia wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.

I think Blizzard might disagree with that opinion...

That site doesn't allow direct links to images. Try this one.

Yeah, that doesn't look dumb at all.

There are actual fighting styles in real life that use two weapons. Florentine Fencing, Nito Ryu Kenjutsu, and various martial arts use two weapons. It is not just a fantasy trope.

Yes, artificial fighting systems with rules and social/fun/honor constraints sometimes use two weapons. Barbarians trying to kill and not be killed in raids and real battles do not fit that mold.

Well, maybe some of the early ones who fought the Roman legions before the survivors decided that winning fights might be a cool idea.

As usual when the topic of "realistic/practical fighting styles" comes up, if we're saying that Pathfinder fighting styles should correlate to real-life ones, then I guess we'll have to go ahead and delete the Monk class, as going into combat unarmed and unarmored IRL is ineffective suicide.

But since we don't want to do that because this is a fantasy game, how about we let people play characters with fighting styles they think are fun and cool?

Put me down as in support for Ki Dodge. A mobility-based counter is perfect for a Monk, and Monks need a reaction at lower levels.

I will specify that the rules do need to adjudicate precisely how the whole "moving out of the way of an attack" resolves. What happens if a Monk steps behind cover, or behind an ally (screened), etc.

I do think that this indicates that the scaling with Resonance is a little off. The developers have also stated that the current mechanics of Resonance do little to limit the huge quantities of cheap magic items that high-level players can use, which is (by dev statement) one of the design goals of the Resonance mechanic.

It seems like an easy solution to me to have Resonance start higher and scale slower than 1/level. This both helps low-level characters from being scrapped for Resonance when they arguably need it most, and helps high-level characters having way too much Resonance (according to the devs).

It is my opinion (that has largely held true for Pathfinder) that a single class is a purpose, while a single character is how the player goes about achieving that purpose.

A Barbarian is about showing that primal emotion and instinct can stand toe-to-toe with dedicated training or sophisticated learning. A Rogue is about using your cunning and skill to do what others can't or would refuse to do. A Bard is about treating life as a performance, telling grand tales or starring in them, and that there's magic anywhere in the world if you know how to find it.

How an individual player interprets that purpose, and deciding what it means for their character? That's up to them.

I say this to then ask what a character's choice of weapon, or even just the answer to "what will you do when violence becomes inevitable" has to do with their purpose. In my opinion, not much. Most of the time it's a matter of what type of gameplay the player enjoys, or what a given party needs.

My conclusion then actually doesn't come down on one side or the other of the debate about class-locked feats. Instead, my conclusion is just that no matter what playstyle a given player wants their character to use, the system needs to be flexible enough to allow them to make a viable and fun-to-play character.

Classes having specialties is awesome and fun. It's great to build a character that really shines in their given focus. But this doesn't need to come at the cost of excluding other classes from building towards that same thing.

Fun fact: my enchanted gauntlet/doubling ring "exploit" relies heavily on "Dual Handed Assault" keeping your off hand "free" and thus still wielding the gauntlet which in turn allows you to strike with your main hand sword while still maintaining the effects of the doubling ring.

Weeeeeee

Also, doesn't the feat still have a meaningful effect when you are using a weapon without the "Two-Hand 1d12" trait?

Not really, no. If the weapon doesn't have the Two-Hand trait, the damage from Dual-Handed Assault is worse than just making two Strikes.

[For a 1d6 weapon with +5 potency and ~60% accuracy, DHA boosts the dice to d8 and adds a single +2 bonus, for a total damage of 23.8 damage; while making two Strikes instead has a total average damage of 30.8.]

Page 307—In Basic Actions, in Drop, at the end of the first sentence before the period, add “or release your grip from one hand while continuing to hold it in the other”.

meaning that the full text is now

You drop an item you’re holding in your hand or hands, or release your grip from one hand while continuing to hold it in the other. Unlike most manipulate actions, Drop does not trigger reactions such as Attack of Opportunity.

So it takes 1 Action to change from 1 to 2 handed grip, while it's a free action to change from 2 to 1 handed grip.

As a result, the Fighter feat Dual-Handed Assault's only benefits are a meager non-scaling +2 circumstance bonus to damage, and the fact that it doesn't interrupt "any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free".

Unless the above were the intended benefits of Dual-Handed Assault from the beginning, I think that it needs a bit of a buff considering that it "lost" the advantage of saving you 1 action every time you use it.

I think that Dual-Handed Assault could do with being reduced to 1 action. This means that, as before, a character with Dual-Handed Assault has an action advantage over someone without the feat.

Importantly, all Fighter feats that require a free hand and make attacks (such as Combat Grab or Dueling Riposte) state that you make a Strike, so they cannot be used to make a Dual-Handed Assault. So it's not as if this change would allow a Fighter to gain Greatsword levels of damage all the time. There would still be a tradeoff between making a "regular" attack and using Dual-Handed Assault for a bit more damage, or using one of their other Fighter feats and dealing one-handed damage.

That said, stamina might still be an option we look at, but I am not sure that we would ever put it in a position to replace healing.

Thanks for the feedback.

I don't think that having Stamina replace healing is necessary. Ideally, a good balanced could be struck between Stamina, mundane healing and magical healing.

Stamina allows the party to take some damage each fight and it not be a huge deal. I do think this is important because a fight in which the party takes no damage doesn't feel very threatening or engaging, while taking a bit of damage and then taking a breather to recover feels more natural. I will specify that if Second Edition adopts a stamina system, the character hit points should be adjusted so that HP + stamina doesn't exceed the current hit point totals.

Mundane healing makes sense as the low-resource but also slow healing option. Needing to break out the healer's kit and treat deadly wounds, apply poultices, etc. puts things pretty squarely within the Exploration mode, not combat. Alchemical items would also fit well into this category.

Finally, magical healing needs the most resource expenditure (spell slots, spell points, resonance) but it functions in a snap. You can heal your ally back up so they don't just survive, but keep fighting. In an emergency, it can save a downed ally from death's door, or spells like Breath of Life can bring someone back from death entirely.

3 types of "healing", with their own niche that different party members can choose to specialize in, and also with their own drawbacks so they don't overshadow the others.

Interesting that the blog mentions that "some hazards require multiple successes to disable". Personally, I think that this is a good change, as it moves towards the entire party participating in the "hazard encounter" instead of the Rogue/resident trap expert just making his roll while the rest of the party stands back and does effectively nothing.

I understand that some people knee-jerk at anything remotely similar to D&D 4th edition, and that a lot of people legitimately dislike ye olde "skill challenges".

But anything to break up the monotony of having the "skill monkey", "party face", etc while the other members of the party twiddle their thumbs because they either can't participate or it isn't worth it is good in my book.

I hope that certain social encounters similarly have a requirement of multiple successes (with different success options possible) so that several party members can get in on the social action, instead of designating one "face" and everyone else safely dumping Charisma.

Putting Snares on the CRB seems counterintuitive – it's highly unlikely they'll be effectively used. New players could get tricked into spending their feats for something that would rarely come into use.

Snares are a trap option.

2E seems like the perfect place to try to change that though. We've been told that with investment, snares can be placed as a single action, and can be either free or have high DCs.

I'm hoping that Paizo can pull it off and make alchemical items, poisons, and traps actually viable in this second edition.

Given my initial reservations, I'm really liking everything presented in this blog. The wording on some things is a little clunky (Operate Activation actions are 3 words where hopefully 1 would do).

My only concern remains with consumable items such as potions and scrolls requiring resonance to use. Consumables were already a hard sell in 1E, with mainly the cheapest of the cheap actually seeing use. Having to expend time to craft, initial gold cost, and resonance and actions to activate all for an effect that's one-and-done seems like it's going to swing things away from using consumables and towards saving up for permanent items even further.

We'll see when the playtest launches, but I worry that the resonance mechanic (which works well for solving several other magic item issues in 1E) will make consumable-happy players sad.

Overall I like the changes. Monster statblocks themselves really only need the info you need to run them, not to build them. That's assuming that we do get robust monster-building rules elsewhere though.

Two things I'm sad to not see though.

The redcap's 2d6 persistent bleed doesn't have anything on how to stop it, leading me to assume that it'll be similar to 1E's "DC 15 skill check or 1 point of magical healing" which always seemed way too specific to account for anything from a cut to getting your insides ripped out. Considering that skills and spells work on the same scale, I'd much prefer having a set DC to stop the healing. That way more powerful creatures (and higher level players) cause bleed effects that are more difficult to stop.

Neither monster has a DC to identify it, which again leads me to assume that the identification DC is based on the creature's challenge rating (Creature 3 and Creature 5 for our examples here). This again is a bit too simple for the huge variety of monsters Pathfinder has.

For example, some Dragons are tough, but a lot of people are going to know the basics about them (they fly, they've got lots of natural attacks, they have breath weapons, higher level ones cast spells). In comparison, a Denizen of Leng doesn't have that high CR but is supposed to be very mysterious and rarely seen.

Thus, I'd really prefer individualized identification DCs for monsters. This would both help and hurt players specced into knowledge checks, as the DCs may be higher or lower than the 1E way, depending on the monster. But a GM being able to immediately tell if a PC crit failed, failed, succeeded, or crit succeeded their knowledge/lore/etc check to ID the monster would be a lot easier to run than needing to calculate the DC on the fly and then apply "GM discretion" modifiers based on in-game rarity.

Voss wrote:

'irreligious' is just flat out the wrong word for what you're trying to say. No one indifferent to religion is going to be scared of holy symbols.

----

Once again, words are better than icons- much more clear, no fancy printing costs.
Action: <text>
Reaction: <text>
It's really simple.
---

Speaking of which the formatting needs work slashing boot just runs together into the backside of the scythe attack. It also isn't clear at all if the attack gives both scythe and slashing boot attacks.

And yes, it isn't clear that you're trying to say that the scythe is a slashing attack and the other attack is simply called 'boot' for whatever crazy reason. Some form of punctuation needs to be in there. Or better yet, another line starting with Attack: Boot <etc>

---

As a personal preference, I'd like to see the derivation of the various numbers... somewhere. I can puzzle them out, but it isn't user-friendly as is.
----

Finally:

Quote:

You'll also notice the monster gives just its ability score modifiers instead of scores. This lets you make calculations more quickly, and since monsters don't increase their scores the same way PCs do, listing those is unnecessary

Truthfully, this logic works just as well for PCs, especially as you've only shown modifiers of +2. (Which is to say, a +1 modifier)

Pick an approach and stick with it consistently. One way for some things and just the modifiers elsewhere looks sloppy and confusing. If you really aren't using the base stat numbers at all, then just use the modifier as the real number.

I don't believe irreligious means indifferent.

Irreligious

The Redcap seems like it falls into the latter category to me.

One thing that I do hope we get in 2E that hasn't been directly mentioned is a better way of approximating large numbers of creatures.

1E had swarms for smaller creatures and troops for larger creatures.

I feel like the troop rules should be tweaked a bit (such as likely removing the unavoidable damage and instead having special troop attacks similar to the marilith mentioned in the blog) but deserve a place in the playtest bestiary.

Having an easy solution to "the entire Goblin encampment is angry at you" without having combat rounds take half an hour seems like a near-requirement for a new game.

I agree that, effectively, if there are options in 2E that allow you to more effectively combine combat and casting (instead of making your casting more powerful), then we don't have as much a need for "gish-in-a-can" classes.

If Paizo deems it necessary to have archetypes that nerf the class' spellcasting to gain access to these options, then that's fine too.

Spellblade Wizard that gets 6th level casting in exchange for better proficiencies and making a Strike in place of the somatic spellcasting action.

Warrior Priest Cleric that gets 6th level casting in exchange for better proficiencies and reducing the casting actions of spells that target themselves, or maybe raising a shield in place of the somatic spellcasting action.

Overall, the action economy and the classes themselves being more granular means that we don't necessarily need as many individual classes to fill the same design or roleplay niches.

you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component...

an arcane spell if its components...

If the spell requires a material component

Each of these bits of wording indicates that the False Focus feat applies only to the material components required for casting the spell, as listed in the spell's info block.

As such, additional components would not have their costs subsumed by False Focus.

So while the +X item bonus to attack rolls from a potency rune does effectively "override" the item bonus to attack rolls from item quality, item quality is still important as it is a requirement for higher level enchanting?

I share the concerns about shifting grip requiring its own individual action that other posters have; this is going to heavily limit anyone planning on using a two-handed weapon, especially a spell caster. Having your Wizard or battle cleric need to spend an action to get a free hand to cast a spell and another action to wield their staff or Greatsword properly is a huge drawback for what doesn't seem like that much benefit.

[Edit: a dev has clarified that it does not require an individual action for every single shift of grip. Paizo is going to have to be very careful about how they word this section in the rules. Even still, I'm not a fan of adding grip requiring its own action nor am I a fan of Shifting grip one-way not requiring an action and shifting grip another way requiring an action. That's not very streamlined or easy to remember. I hope that this can be changed in the playtest like bombs going from two handed to one handed was.]

But my current primary concern is about higher quality weapons giving you an item bonus to attack rolls and now potency runes also give you an item bonus to attack rolls. From what we know, bonuses of the same type never stack in 2nd edition.

This either means that having higher quality weapons is ultimately redundant because you can just slap a potency Rune onto your weapon and gain the same effect; or, if applying a potency Rune of a certain level requires a specific item quality as a prerequisite, then the item bonus from the potency rune is automatically redundant.

Can anyone clarify how the item bonuse to attack rolls from mundane but high-quality weapons interact with the item bonuses to attack rolls from potency runes?

Overall this ties into the issue that Pathfinder 1E does not have any sort of Rarity mechanic outside of flavor text. I would appreciate the second edition to have something for this, so it can be stated in the rules how commonplace a spell like Magic Missile is compared to something like Blood Money. Or how common a big giant is compared to an Eldritch Horror, when they both have the same CR. This could also apply to equipment, alchemical formulas, even bits of information.

Likewise, Aid Another really shouldn't be limited to melee only. Covering fire is definitely a thing, but in Pathfinder it's a huge pain to actually make work (requiring lots of investment in teamwork feats).

The vast majority of mechanics that work on "adjacent" enemies/allies need to be changed to "within your reach".

If I can reach 3 squares away, I shouldn't need to be adjacent in most cases.

For example, with Bodyguard, you're just interfering with an enemy's attack like normal Aid Another, so you should be able to do that if the enemy is within your reach.

With In Harm's Way, you're literally decking your ally out of the way and taking the hit, so yeah you should be adjacent then.

Joe M. wrote:

Voss wrote:

Hmm. Mostly sounds good.

Except...

Ok, if powers are not spells, the power source should NOT be 'spell points.' Don't level-level-level this for no reason. Go with something general, like essence or focus.

Spell Blog wrote:

The powers are now treated as a special kind of spell and they are all cast using Spell Points.

They're getting rid of the whole "when is a spell like/supernatural ability like a spell and when is it not" mess. Spell like powers are just spells accessed a different way.

I think this is more confusing than spell-like ability. So there are certain spells that you cast with spell points, but (as far as I know) aren't actually spells you can prepare in your spell list. And your prepared spells aren't able to be cast with spell points (again, at least as far as I know). So they're spells that work differently then all other spells. Probably better to call them powers or whatever

Having them as spells does actually simplify and clarify a lot of things:

* What's the DC for my domain powers?
Same as your spell DC; they're spells

* Does my Spell Focus feat apply to my domain powers?
Yes, they're spells

* Can I use metamagic on my domain powers? Do I have to roll for spell resistance? What do I use for my attack rolls for melee/ranged attacks? Can they be counterspelled? Do they work in an antimagic field?
They function as spells in every way except they fall outside of your per/day prepared spell list.

To be perfectly "honest", the mention of Sarenrae being a goddess of honesty and "A Paladin of Iomedae never lies" from that comment, these seem a tad strange to me. Lore-wise I'd never seen either of these deities as having honesty as a big part of their religions.

Elizabeth Zeigler wrote:

So....a maximum of three spell slots per spell level? With no bonus spell slots?

That...sucks. Going to reserve judgement for the playtest, but this deflated almost all of my excitement for 2e pretty much instantaneously.

Keep in mind they jacked up cantrips and osirons which level with you. These will act like the casters xbow. You have an ability pool called spell points (which arent spells, which I know is confusing) its more stuff to do. Finally, DCs level with you also so your 3 slots per level will stay useful all through the game.

Powers are a special type of spell that come only from your class, and are cast with Spell Points—think of things from Pathfinder First Edition like domain powers or a wizard's school powers. Powers are stronger than cantrips, but not as strong as your best spells. A cleric's initial power costs 1 Spell Point to cast.

So yeah, they're called spell points because they're points you use to cast spells that fall outside your class' spells/day progression.

Are specific casting actions uniformly tied to certain spell parameters. i.e. Somatic for melee touch spells, with verbal expanding to ranged touch, Material/Focus expands to AoE?

This last one got talked about in last Friday's Paizo Twitch Stream. Yes, those specific additional spell components for those effects seem to be the standard under the new system. One of the devs mentioned how it's also reminiscent of how, in 1E, clerics needed to present their holy symbol to channel. Now, if they wanna cast heal as an AoE, they also need to present their holy symbol.

Because it's overall a better system. Yes, it does give prepared casters a bit more flexibility, but this can be balanced by the fact that spellcasters gain fewer raw spell slots per day and hopefully spontaneous spellcasters having more options with regards to overcasting and metamagic.

Having to guess at whether you're going to need 2 Fireballs, 1 Lightning Bolt, and 1 casting of Fly as opposed to any combination of the three always seemed pretty contrived and annoying.

edduardco wrote:

Rules Artificer wrote:

One thing to keep in mind with the "nerf" to number of spells per day:

Your lower-level spells have the same DCs as your highest-level spells. Gone are the days where it's pointless to cast your low-level spell because it only has a DC 16 and enemies have a +25 bonus to thier saving throws.

Now, these lower level spells won't be as powerful as your higher level spells, obviously. That's the point. But a spellcaster won't be useless as soon as they run out of spells of their top 1 or 2 slots.

Yes but now spell don't autoscale with caster level, so the bigger DC for lower spells levels got balanced with the requirement of heightened. But that still leave us with fewer spells per day, so that stills looks like a nerf.

They may not autoscale with caster level, but they do start off with higher damage dice than your typical low-level spells. Magic Missile for example throws additional missiles based on how many actions you throw into it. So there's more ways than one to scale lower level spells.

Lower-level spells not automagically being as potent as your higher-level spells seems fairly obvious and intended to me. That's why they're lower-level spells, and you get more of them.

2E spellcasters also have actually potent cantrips that do get automatically overcast to your highest level of spells. They still won't be as powerful as your highest-level spells, but they'll be orders of magnitude better than cantrips in 1E were.

A primary spellcaster that's expended all of their highest-level spell slots should by design fall somewhere right behind martial characters in usefulness, and not merely bad crossbowmen.

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

brad2411 wrote:

eddv wrote:

In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?

Not really because you are now getting to choose what you want. More customization.

You are spending those "extra" feats to get things that automatically progress in PF1.

It's a false bonus - they are taking away your class features then giving you the option to repurchase them using a limited resource.

This really takes me back to the arguments that arose from the new lore warden.

Ahh memories

If the Adventurer's Guide Lore Warden was actually equivalent to a similarly-built PFS Field Guide Lore Warden, I wouldn't have any issues with it. Instead, it gutted one of the few ways PCs could realistically have combat maneuvers be viable into higher levels. And the reasons given for the nerfs weren't even all mathematically correct.

One thing to keep in mind with the "nerf" to number of spells per day:

Your lower-level spells have the same DCs as your highest-level spells. Gone are the days where it's pointless to cast your low-level spell because it only has a DC 16 and enemies have a +25 bonus to thier saving throws.

Now, these lower level spells won't be as powerful as your higher level spells, obviously. That's the point. But a spellcaster won't be useless as soon as they run out of spells of their top 1 or 2 slots.

I find it hard to believe "Options" are better when the math will eventually make everyone build the same bloody characters anyway.

This seems to be one of the things that Paizo is specifically trying to reduce in the 2nd edition. And I certainly don't see it as a given for any RPG.

Sure, there will always be 1 set of options that is in some way the "most optimal". But I think that Paizo should strive to make all of the available options good enough that the difference between the most optimal builds and everything else is as small as possible.

Especially if most things allow you to specialize and tradeoff, so even if one build is the best at one thing, it won't be the best at everything.

Channeling & Charisma

I really hope they remove the charisma requirement and move to wisdom (for clerics or main casting stat for others).

Imo it is cleaner to just base it off of wisdom and clears up questions like "what is my channeling DC? Based off of chr or wis?" and simply because MAD characters aren't as fun.

Channeling & Class Feature Uniqueness
Secondly, i think that channeling is pretty cool as is but should have an additional effect to make it feel differently than just an extra couple of cure spells. Class features should always be something that are unique and can't be accomplished by another class (without a lot of work).

I think it would be cool if you got to pick an add-on channel effect from start. I think a choice of a few add on types such as reroll 1s or possibly a scaling version of each deity's specialized channel effect (from Inner Sea Gods) would be sweet. It doesn't have to necessarily be very powerful but make the channel seem cool and something other classes can't do (right out of the box).

Anathema
I think this is a pretty good way to flavor clerics (and paladins) without devolving into a big alignment argument at the table. I'm looking forward to see Gorum clerics roleplaying not backing down from a fight and other flavorful tidbits in action.

Simplified Spell DC
Love it. So much easier for a new player to just have 1 DC.

Need to prepare multiple copies of spells?

Quote:

...and if you think you'll need more healing than this provides, you can always prepare more heal spells using your normal spell slots...

Oh no. From the text it sounds like we are using normal prepared casting from PF1 and not arcanist/dnd 5ed style casting.

Please switch to 5ed style casting where you prepare the spell and just keep track of how many spells you cast of each level per day. Having old style vancian casting is confusing for new players and isn't fun.

I'm with you on everything except making Clerics purely Wisdom SAD. Spellcasters needing to only focus on 1 stat while other classes need [attack+damage stat], [armor stat because they're combatants], [HP stat because they're combatants], and [misc stat so they're not boring beatsticks/stat to shore up their poor save] was a significant component to the class disparity in 1E.

It also made it so that those core classes were stronger than some of the later 9th level casters like the Psychic, Arcanist, and Shaman because those later casters actually had abilities based off of multiple stats.

Personally, I think that all 9th level spellcasters should have 1 primary spellcasting stat and 1 other important stat at a minimum. A dual ability focus is a lot easier to balance around when compared to the other classes.

I want there to be a clear distinction between humanoids and monstrous humanoids. In 1E it seems pretty arbitrary, as there are plenty of humanoids with "monstrous" (read: animal or creature-like) traits, while there are monstrous humanoids that look nearly like humans. Given the pretty small differences between the two creature types anyways, they could use a reorganization and better distinguishing the two groups.

I for one do not want to see the Unchained progression in 2nd ed. I played in a campaign that did that and it was very disappointing. I have always enjoyed my characters finding magic weapons while adventuring. The GM ended that by using the progression and saying whatever weapons we were carrying just poof and started being magical. I think it takes some of the fun away when you lose the element of finding neat magical treasures.

I understand this perspective, but I don't think it has to necessarily relate to ABP or not.

Is finding a "magical longsword of +1 hitting" all that engaging as a character? How do you even roleplay finding a sword with just a raw enhancement bonus?

I definitely think it would be more fun to have the system take care of the mathemagical parts of weapon progression so I have appropriate abilities for a given level. Let magic items really feel magical by giving them interesting new abilities or powers.

Finally, I much prefer this handy homebrew to the Paizo official Automatic Bonus Progression system. It still keeps the automatic scaling in, but it gives the reigns back to the players and allows them to focus on a specific aspect of their builds while they can choose to ignore or focus less on unimportant abilities.

Oh no.

They're still violating spontaneous casters (assuming Spells Known don't go through the roof compared to PF1)

I honestly thought Paizo was better than that.

Yeah I really think that having to choose as a Sorcerer what level version of Magic Missile or Invisibility or Fireball you want to learn would suck pretty hard. To be your full-on thematic spellcaster with your "signature spells", you have to either burn a spell known or a spell lineage just to have the spell scale as you level. Neither of those sound like fun prospects.

In general, I'm not really a fan of the design strategy of having spontaneous spellcasters just be generally worse than prepared spellcasters but have more/better class features to make up for it.

You really can't please everybody in this regard.

Some people love rolling dice and as many dice as they can. Others hate having to roll dice and do a bunch of addition.

At the very least, diceroller applications are plentiful if you need to roll and add a lot of dice quickly.

This change also makes weapon damage dice more significant; typically in 1E the difference between a 1d6 and a 1d8 became meaningless when you're adding +50 and above in static modifiers on top of them.