Playtest so far - Round Two! Three things you Love, Three things you Hate, and Three Houserules you'd Make.
- Spell failure does not exist anymore
- Casting, in generall, does not cause a reaction, unless an action involved in casting has the manipulate trait.
- Items don't have HP anymore
- If you pick a class, you keep that class untill level 20. Multiclassing is done by picking feats.
- Skill ranks don't exist anymore
- You can't use magic items as much as you want anymore (-> resonance)
- Shields have to be raised (an action) to provide AC
- Combat maneuvers are now part of the Athletics-skill and are rolled against the targets reflex or fortitude DC
- Weapon damage does not depend on size anymore
- Two-handed weapons only add the strength modifier to damage (not 1.5 times STR anymore)
- Two-weapon fighting is very different now
- Initiative is now rolled by picking the most appropriate skill (usually perception, sometimes stealth, but can be any skill)
That depends. Are Level 1 and 12 PCs playing simultaneously? If so then probably not, because of the "+level to everything" rule: Either Level 1 characters are going to be useless, or level 12 are going to steamroll everything. I think it would only work when the PCs are no more than 2 levels apart.
The problem is, that RAW, a shield would never get a dent when you use it to block:
Some people also have interpreted, that this damage would bypass the hardness, so it gets a dent if the damage is high enough, which would make shields pretty bad, IMO.I also believe, that the intention is, that basically you and the shield suffer the full amount of damage from the attack and for both of you its reduced by the shields hardness.
Example: You are hit for 8 damage, and block with a steel shield.
This damage is reduced by 5 (steel hardness), so you and the shield suffer 3 damage, which the shield itself "ignores", because its below its hardness.
If the attack dealt 10-14 damage, the shield would take a dent, if it was 15+ damage, two dents.
That is the way I will play it, at least... And that you have to use shield block before you know the amount of damage you take (but after you know you will be hit).
You could "roll for stats" without actually rolling for stats:roll a D20 6 times, and assign the numbers in order of your stats.
Then, the highest number has to be you best stat, second highest number, second best stat and so on. For equal numbers you can pick the order, if relevant.
So for example you roll: 3, 8, 1, 19, 12, 8
Which results in :
That would mean INT has to be your highest stat, followed by WIS, then you pick either CHA or DEX and so on... That way you still have some control with the new "point buy" system, while your stats are still somewhat random.
Another option would be to make ancestry and class semi-random:
(Sidenote: I would actually prefer just rolling for a random class to either, or even better Long John's suggested method, which I will be using once the playtest is finished. It's just another suggestion.)
True, a separate PDF is much better idea... This could also be expanded on further with new content being released.
it just occurred to me, that people who come from 1st edition might spend quite a bit of time looking for stuff that was essential to 1st edition but does not exist anymore. Some examples include:
- spell failure
- two weapon fighting (does not really exist as a general rule anymore, rather as specific feat)
- two-handed fighting (just in the sense, that this now only adds your strength bonus, not 1.5 times your bonus)
- multiclassing (in the classical sense)
And similar stuff. This might just be 2-4 pages, but help players transition to the new edition quicker without reading the new rulebook back to back or looking for rules that are not there anymore. Like me, looking for arcane spell failure for an hour O:-)
What do you think?
Pretty much the same for me. Things I remember looking up:
- Shield Block (found it)
- Hardness, and its dependence on material (found both)
- Some specific feats (found them)
- Class DC (technically found it, but the rulebook didn't help. But I was just looking for confirmation that it should be calculated like all the other DCs. Fortunatly, the character sheet confirmed this.)
- Archetypes (found it, but the index could use an entry for "multiclassing")
- dying (found it)
- conditions, in general (found it)
- Two-weapon fighting (didn't find it, but does not exist in that sense anymore)
- arcane spell failure/penalty for casting in armor (didn't find it, but does not exist anymore)
- unarmored proficiency (much like class DC, I found it but not what I was looking for, namely the default rank. But that is clear by now)
Overall, I used it mostly to find the page of things I already knew existed. I think I found everything that I was looking for that was actually in the book. I don't know if it's necessary that every feat is listed in the index, that might result in a lot of bloat in the final version.
That's also true. A lot of people act like Paizo came and said "Hey, is it cool if we ship this next week?" and they are going "OH GOD NO, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?"
I actually feel like it got a lot better since monday. Probably all the people who didn't like it vented and are gone or have calmed down. There seem to be a lot more constructive posts recently.
Maybe raise the amounts of the TEML to 0, +1, +3 and +5 respectively so that the differences between each level of acquired proficiency feel more different from each other and are more relevant numerically. A +3 that is legandary between numbers as +15 of base proficiency feels little.
I thought so too, but multiple posts on this topic had me convinced, that +3 in this system is actually a huge difference (because of critical successes), even though it does not look like it. I still think that legendary should feel more legendary, though. But this can be done via skill feats and I hope there will be more in the final rulebook. "Scare to death" (p.170) is actually a great example of what a legendary skill feat should be, in my opinion.Not trying to derail the thread, just stating my opinion.
There are people who are smart and ignorant, as well as smart and superstitious. Both can be a somewhat dangerous (or at least VERY annoying) combination. I agree, that +2 Int is not perfect for goblins, but I believe it fits better than Cha.Another solution could be to give them two free boosts, making them the small humans of the monster world *shrug*
In the end, because of the free boost that every race gets (plus background, plus free boosts, plus class), it does not make a huge difference in gameplay and is mostly flavor.
From what I can tell Doomsday Dawn does not contain spoilers for any other adventure path. Every chapter gives a brief introduction where it fits in the timeline and which adventure path is happening "in the background", but it does not say anything about the story of that adventure path.
I would be okay if Goblins received a +2 bonus to Intelligence instead of Charisma, but I will not be upset if it is Charisma.
Same for me. I see goblins more as cunning (even though crazy) as charismatic. My suspicion is, that they feared this would favor the goblin-alchemist too much, with Dex and Int being alchemists primary stats.
Also, I think it will never be Dex and Con because of gameplay/balance reasons (as PossibleCabbage mentioned earlier).
I think you can make a very nice monk/rogue combination, that focuses on crippling enemies:
This would result in a very mobile "tank"ish character with a lot of potential for battlefield control. At least I hope so ;)
I also think, that level/2 might be a better solution. The Star Wars D20-system did it that way and it worked very well.
With the new class/level system you could just indicate proficiency increases in the table. Maybe make it a new column:
That way, you could even (if you wanted to) differentiate skill advancement for different classes. Rogues could advance a bit faster for example.
Rogue dedication (p.282) talks about "the rogue's surprise attack class talent" while everything in the class section is referred to as feats or features. Calling the features you can not choose "talents" would also help in clarifying what you can and can not choose when you pick the "advanced [blank]" multiclassing-feats.
Thanks! I somehow forgot that... Original post was edited
after skimming through the rules, there are some small things that caught my attention and I thought I'd list them here. These is not intended as suggested errata or the like. Most of this is to make certain elements more thematic or balanced (from my point of view). So here it goes:
Natural medicine & powerful leap
Critical hits with bows
Immunity, weakness, and resistance
This might sound like a lot of complaining, but these are pretty much ALL the little things that I thought could be improved while reading the rulebook. Overall I REALLY like this new edition and if the current ruleset (not format ;) but this has been mentioned to death before...) would be released I would be perfectly fine with it.
I think there is no explicit mention on how your "class DC" is calculated (10+level+ability), except for the character sheet. At least I could not find it.