STOP GIVING ME IDEAS
I'm making a L5 Monk who would use Dragon Style for kick attacks and use his hands to hold a Bo Staff for a 1-action Parry (+1 Circumstance bonus to AC).
Am I missing something or do you not need proficiency in a weapon to use its traits like Parry? This would make my monk even more hilarious ("Oh this stick? I just use it to keep things away...I don't even know how to use it. The real weapons are my FEET!")
Each game session, the GM should award no more than
Your character can have a maximum of 3 Hero Points
Spending Hero Points
• Spending 1 Hero Point allows you to stave off death.
• Spending 2 Hero Points allows you to reroll a d20 roll. You
• Spending 3 Hero Points allows you to act one extra time in
Describing Heroic Deeds
Your character’s deed might involve a lesson learned in
From the work of Reddit user BlackBacon, I created a spreadsheet for myself to look at how a Combat Maneuver specialist stacks up.
In the Playtest Bestiary, it appears the REF defense is almost always lower than the FORT defense. All hail trip, our new king of combat maneuvers?
A little hyperbole there, but trip has been given some love in PF2. It works on creatures up to 2 sizes larger than you (up from 1). On a success, a creature is tripped; on a Critical Success, it also takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage--while not much, it does make those Nat 20s or Critical Successes feel good at the table. Another boost is that Trip now inherently works on flying creatures (Prone Condition: “If you’re Climbing or Flying when you would be knocked prone, you fall instead.”) Critical failure, as always, is you falling prone instead. Trip also has substantial weapon support (13 weapons, but half are gated as Uncommon weapons).
Grapple is a mixed bag but definitely has been nerfed from it’s PF1 incarnation. You no longer can grapple creatures much larger than you (2 sizes larger max), but you only need one free hand and suffer no penalty for using just that one hand. You can no longer maintain a grapple and damage at the same (with one monk class feat exception)--in the 3 action economy, it seems like you are expected to Grapple with one action and then Strike on subsequent actions. There is no grappling “flow”--your opponent’s status can fluctuate between Grabbed and Restrained from round-to-round depending on how you roll...with no way to progress from Grabbed to Restrained. Currently, there are no rules for tying up a foe. Finally, Critical Failure is really bad for a grappler now--your opponent can reverse the grapple and give you the grabbed condition or force you to fall prone! Grapple has no weapon support.
Also (someone will have to double check me) they are trained in unarmed but don't get the monk-like ability to deal lethal with their unarmed strikes. So, if they're not raging, they can only do non-lethal damage, correct?
Unless I missed something, reach weapons no longer have the donut of death?
When you critically succeed to identify a target you're hunting with Recall Knowledge, you (and your allies, if you tell them) gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next attack roll against it, but not against other creatures of that species. The creature is bolstered.
Couple of questions!
1) "a target you're hunting" -- Does this mean 'the focus of Hunt Target'? Or any creature you're just regularly hunting/tracking. I know that's nit-picky, but this is a level 1 feat and probably should be very clear.
2) "you (and your allies, if you tell them) gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next attack roll against it, but not against other creatures of that species" So, if we're fighting a pack of 5 wargs, and I critically identify one, the bonus doesn't carry over to the other creatures in the same combat?
3) What action is using Recall Knowledge? Since there's no [[(X)]], that would be free, correct?
I know we don't have all the pieces yet, but it doesn't seem that fun to fight a group of identical creatures (which happens a lot) and have to spam Recall Knowledge on every single one you target in succession in the hopes of a critical success for a one-off bonus. Is there a feat/ability that lets Recall Knowledge work for all the same type of creatures in a single battle, or at higher levels, the same types of creatures over a period of time (like hours/level)?
Obviously, I need to sit down and play the monk at different levels for a true read, but my concerns seem to be in line with those being posted already. Also, “Flurry of Blows” as previewed does not feel like FoB...might as well call it Double Strike or somesuch. And 0/-4/-8/-8 for full round of attacks feels like Flurry of Misses all over again. (And if the intent is move/Flurry/(other 1 action ability) it really doesn’t feel like a FoB)
Honestly, this preview has me feeling just whelmed by the PF2 Monk. Here’s hoping there will be an engaging archetype for it!
The Sanctioned Content Key reads:
Sanctioned Content: Legal Character Levels
However, the chronicles are:
I'm guessing I should use the Chronicle level ranges vs the Sanctioned Content Key ranges, correct?
A rage lasts 3 rounds, followed by a round of fatigue. While you're fatigued, you can't rage again, but once that round has passed, you can enter a new rage, with a shiny brand-new set of temporary Hit Points to go along with it. You can do this as often as you need during the day!
In case anyone complains about this, I'd wait to see if there is a class feat available that extends how long a rage lasts before fatigue sets in.
To quote the full concealment rule:
If you can't see the target, you're targeting the square they're in with snaking infusion. The GM has the right of it.
If you want to move around the corner and kinetic blast without repercussion, you're gonna have to eat that that miss chance until you get something like Tremorsense or Blindsight.
My CN worshipper of Rovagug worked well in PFS parties because I crafted a specific POV and personality for him that allowed for him to work for PFS yet be true to Rovagug. Also, he constantly courted converts during combat due to the PCs' obvious talents for destruction and bloodshed 3-4 times a scenario.
Just an idle thought every time I see item quality referenced, I kind of wish that instead of:
Poor, Standard, Expert, Master, Legendary
Poor, Basic, Expert, Master, Legendary
If only for the three middle levels as a light reference to the D&D BECMI boxed sets. Such a weird and minor thing to think about, but every time I hear "Expert" and "Master" I keep flashing back to those classic box covers.
Not much is developed for high level play because the demand isn’t there. This thread is from 2014 is relevant because it shows PFS uses reporting to help determine what they develop. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the same same pyramid of PFS-specific scenario availability — lots of low tier, decent amount of mid-tier, some high-tier and very limited Seeker-level support supplemented by sanctioned mods/APs.
Also, I’m flagging this to be moved to the PFS playtest forum so it might get a little more discussion by PFS peeps.
Major reasons why PFS wouldn’t divert limited resources to fully support high-level play:
1) Investment of resources vs interest: It’s been stated by campaign leadership that the vast majority of reported campaign play is in the lower levels with a significant drop-off once you hit seeker-level play. It takes more effort to build a higher level scenario that’s balanced...and would only see play by a very limited subset of players.
2) High level encounters can take longer: This is a PF1-specific observation as we haven’t seen the PF2 system in action yet, but with the swingy, rocket tag nature of high-level play, one group’s ROFLstomp is another group’s dragged out near-TPK. Yes, you can see this at low levels, but at high levels there are so many abilities, spells and counters that things can slow down to a crawl...but when you have the requisite 3-4 encounters in a game store where time may be at a premium, it can be problematical.
What levels are your other PFS characters? Because as some of the other posters have pointed out, a skill monkey that cannot contribute effectively in combat is basically handicapping the party and putting them at a disadvantage.
The thing about PFS is that almost any character concept can "work" through L5--the early tier scenarios are (generally) very forgiving. After L5, when PCs are expected more and more to pull their own weight, "support" or "skill monkey" builds can be problematical when they can't contribute meaningfully in combat. After L9, if you can't contribute in combat, everyone else has to work to make up for you.
Now imagine if your character was the 5th person, kicking the scenario from the 4-person to the 6-person adjustment--can your character contribute enough to counter that adjustment? Otherwise it's basically a 4-person party taking on an encounter balanced for 6 people.
Right now, your character dips THREE 3/4 BAB classes and has 10s in STR and DEX. So, martial prowess is not your forte. You have an INT of 20...but your main spell progression (bard) is CHA-based--so offensive spells due to low DCs are off the table.
You are going to get 3-4 combat encounters per PFS scenario--some can be avoided, some can't. What can you do when it can't be avoided? Every character should have a main option in combat, a back up option in combat and an out-of-combat role. While your OOC role is clear, your in-combat abilities are severely lacking.
The issue of free and swift actions while Nauseated came up previously and was FAQ'd:
So, Nauseated condition would prevent the character from using the free attempt to escape the grapple when placed in a hazardous square.
You can see Wes' original e-mails in the blog post and much lengthier follow-ups in the comments. While the back-and-forth exchanges are primarily concerned with Half-Orcs, you can absolutely see how this would apply to Goblins in PF2.
While here are some selected excerpts, I suggest reading the blog/comments for the full comments and more context...but you can see how it struck me in relation to Goblins.
First, regarding half-orcs… the direction we took with them in their racial description is one we went back and forth over, and in the end we decided to go with the darker, grittier version. Golarion (and Pathfinder) often skews toward mature topics, and while we did tone down the language a bit for half-orcs, retaining their brutal and depressing origins was important to us. Certainly not ALL half-orcs are the product of orcs raping humans, but orcs ARE intended to be evil creatures in Pathfinder, and that’s one way to ensure that point comes across. Especially when there are other very popular game worlds where orcs are presented almost as the good guys. In the end, each and every player gets to choose how his player came to be, and in this case, having a half-orc PC whose parents were loving is a great way to set that character apart from the histories of most half-orcs.
Ultimately, despite many of us having strong personal reactions toward and opinions about elements of our campaign setting, we felt that it was important to include them, taking our setting from the PG status of many games to something closer to PG-13 or even a hard R. It’s our philosophy that facing such elements, including them in our game, and treating them with the gravitas such serious and often personal topics deserve is far preferable to pretending they don’t exist. This is a position that will lose us book sales and will turn off some customers. We know that, and ultimately that is each consumer’s decision. I certainly would not let my 10 year old nephew loose in a library of our works without context and guidance. But Pathfinder is also a game about choices. The game works just as well without halflings, rangers, and lizardfolk as it does with them. So if there’s any element a GM doesn’t want at her game table, the game is entirely hers to customize, and I believe the stronger for it.
Making major changes to races thoroughly established in our world’s continuity is more difficult, though. Saying that there’s one moon today then saying there’s two moons the next is going to raise a lot of eyebrows. With something established, there needs to be logical additions or evolutions. With orcs, maybe those of a lot of areas are crazy–damaged by their exposure to the deepest of Darklands radiations–but maybe that’s not the case all over. That’s a bit tricky considering how strongly so many players feel about orcs, but I don’t think it’s undoable. Half-orcs are easier, though, and I think more discussions about the race of a child born of half-orc parents (or a half-orc and human) will be coming up in the near future. My take is such children will be half-orc (we are NOT going the route of decreasing percentages when it comes to half-races), giving that entire race much more potential to know and not hate their parents. There’s definitely room in the stories we tell for whole communities of half-orcs seeking the comfort of their own kind, though I can’t say quite yet what shape something like this might take as our published works. Ultimately, though, we built the Pathfinder campaign setting to be a place where players can indulge any type of game they want. That’s why we have a viking-themed country, a necromancer’s paradise, an Egyptian-styled region, gothic horror land, Conan-land, knight country, and tons more all on the same map. If we’ve got room for all that, we’ve got room for happy half-orc families and the occasional good-aligned orcs. With additions like that, including the comparatively dull rainbow of human variation should be a breeze, but we always need to know what we’ve missed, so keep letting us know!
I have a half-formed theory here about racial backgrounds and whether PCs embrace them as part of their characters or seek to be exceptions. Like, you certainly get plenty of elves that grew up as elves in Elfland, but far fewer half-orcs or drow who grew up as exemplars of their race. That might have a lot to do with those being less than typical heroic races, but subject matter might factor into some decision as well. Needs more data.
I'm sitting on a lot of unused boons. Again, I'm all for a fresh start...but I would absolutely support Option 4: Boons for Benefits--but only if they were communal for the entire table and only one boon total could be burned (i.e. only one player could contribute their boon). I'd be more than glad to burn an old Boon to grant 1 floating re-roll to the entire table to be used by anyone at the table, 1 floating point of resonance, or other team-based benefits that don't skew the game too much in the players' favor.
QA and production issues aside, with the proliferation of online play, does the online domain become its own “region”? What if every one is physically in the same region (let’s say the Great Lakes) but play online—can they play GL exclusive scenarios or are they limited to online region exclusive scenarios?
Honestly, it’s enough of a bummer that certain scenarios require being at a Con or can only be run by someone with X amount of stars. Adding regions is not personally enticing to me as a GM or player.
Pizza Lord wrote:
2) You are under greater invisibility and you cast ill omen: If there's something that the target can observe (in this example, that likely means 'hear', if you have verbal components), then they receive a Spellcraft to identify the spell you are casting.
You have to be able to see the spell to Spellcraft it. Hearing the verbal components alone does not work.
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.