SaveVersus's page

I actually prefer PDFs to books in this case now; errata gets pushed and I can download the updated version.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I've always read "up to 3" as 0, 1, 2, or 3 targets, and never as the same target three times. I've interpreted "up to X" to mean that if I have less than X targets, I can still use the spell/feat. Compare this to "select X targets" specifically and then being prohibited from using the spell/feat because I can't target EXACTLY that many targets (or worse, having to include allies).

I know I've seen spells/feats that have called out ahead of time that the targets must be separate, but is there a spell/feat that says "up to X" that allows you to target the same creature? If we can find example to support "up to X" allowing you to target the same creature multiple times, then I'd say this argument has legs.

For example, Magic Missile allows you to target the same creature more than once, but:
1) it doesn't says "up to X."
2) has specific rules for if you target the same creature with more than one missile.
This would be an invalid example for this argument even though the intent and end result is what we're looking for.

With so much else being changed/renamed that seems really really dumb.

It’s a name. What is so paramount that the name can’t be changed or else systems will fall apart? What’s there to be backwards compatible with?

They want the revised books to be compatible with everything 2e.

For example, if some old AP out there says something like, "Barbarians are not suggested for this adventure," but PF2R renamed the class Battle Rager, or Emotional Warrior, people might get confused.
Note: I know those examples are dumb, but I'm trying to think of something that doesn't have a direct correlation to Barbarian.

You could probably have a sidebar explaining what stuff got renamed, but then that presents 2 scenarios:
1. You have one, big sidebar to save space. You now have a sidebar everyone has to remember is there, like an errata box.
2. You move each sidebar next to the thing that was renamed. So the Berserker sidebar says, "Anything referring to Barbarian is applicable to the Berserker." Now WE might know the reason for the change and can easily make that correlation, but new players - who have never played the game before - might not, and now they also have to remember that name change because they bought an older AP. Imagine these forums filling up with "What book is the Barbarian in?" posts.
2a. A sidebar off any length might feel like a simple thing, but it's still takes up real estate. In that R4C livestream, they mentioned the original corebook was over 800 pages and they had to edit like crazy to get it down, either by chucking things or reformatting the text until it fit.

Personally, I'd be okay with a name change, but like I said above, I knew what a barbarian was before so I can make that swap in my head.

It was mentioned (in a Roll For Combat livestream) that in order to keep things backwards compatible, some name will have to remain, the example being Barbarian (since other stuff references Barbarian).

They said if/when it comes time to develop PF3e, then they can start revising things, like possibly renaming the class Berserker.

This revision is mainly to fold in all errata, plus scrub clean any OGL/D&D/d20 identifying stuff.

I just wished they named the books the same +revised instead of * Core.

Side note though: I really like hydra encounters because the decapitation mechanics really make it feel like less of a sack of hit points and more like an actual monster where you can target body parts and inflict wounds. I don't know if the game would be better if all monsters worked that way, but it is a nice change of pace.

I wish large, single encounter monsters were treat with more hit locations.

Like a dragon could have two wings and four legs. For simplicity, the AC is the same, but something like one leg dropped to zero HP: move penalty, 2 legs: -2 AC, etc.

I don't give the dragon more HP, or split the HP; I just track a hit to the leg doing leg damage and main body damage.

You can't really think of it in terms of "realism." For example, a fireball isn't really an explosion; no one is moved away from the center of the blast, and there's no distinction of damage from the actual fire, or the radiated heat from the fire, or the unfortunate few who inhaled at the wrong moment and would clearly have lasting damage to their lungs (not to mention damage to their lungs from the pressure wave of the explosion).

It's best to think in cinematic terms: a fireball goes off, the heroes raise their fleshy arms to protect their fleshy faces, and people look worse for wear.

My table doesn't equate Hit Points as "Life;" it's an irregular countdown timer counting down (and sometimes up) to the hit that "gets you."

Signal boosting this Twitter post.

I kind of want "let's find some paths" to be the "Hail Hydra" of ORC. :-D

This mean we'll see Starfinder 2e sooner than expected?

I know there's nothing wrong with SF1e, but I like the PF2e system.

Page 15

... and I'm out of printer paper, le sigh.

There's two symbols on the page. Do those mean anything?

Page 15

Seems like only Subscribers are getting them?

Not al of us; I don't have anything.

You were pretty generous with the house rules there, especially against the skeleton. That's not necessarily a bad thing, especially for new players, but it is worth noting.

I agree; I don't normally have an issue with houseruling if it makes the game fun, but I'm not sure any of this is helpful for a playtest... unless it's to say the class isn't viable without houseruling.

Doesn't have to be those three specifically, but I wouldn't give every element a "defensive"... uhh, element.

I know that helps dedicated gates, but if they could split and limit the number of options, they could focus on making them synergize so omni gated people could be a beast in burst moments.

I would probably limit to just Air, Earth, and Warer.

Air: +AC vs Range
Earth: Temp HP (think ablative armor)
Water: +AC while moving

It's not even just the feats. Universal gets a lot more raw utility, too.

- Just gather. Gathered fire sheds light like a torch (and can probably be used to ignite and/or cook things). Gathered water is fresh and drinkable and can probably be used to clean stuff. Gathered air could reasonably be used for cantrippy wind/breeze effects.
- A bunch of different class features. Adapt Element, Extract Element, Pure Adaptation, Elemental Resistance and Elemental Immunity all benefit from the flexibility that Universal brings.
- A couple of the general feats. Voice of Elements and Command Elemental, in particular.

I didn't think of that. I was stuck with like, attack impulse feats.

Am I just not seeing this?

You only get 10 class feats (not counting your initial Lv 1's), and you're splitting them between class and impulse feats.

Not counting retraining every level, you don't really get the option to swap until level 9.

Let's say that you go half class and half impulse, that means by level 20 your schtick is to cast 5, maybe 6 elemental abilities? And this is your THING? I can't se why anyone would spread themselves so thin with a universal gate. Especially once you add hybrid impulse feats when ROE comes out.

Does this feel like there's a big potential for watering-down? You have class feats and impulse feats competing for the same slots.

A dedicate gate, or a dual gate... seems maybe okay, but if you're a universal gate Kineticist (with 6 elements by the full book), it feels like you'll barely scratch the surface of what your class can do, and that will be at the higher levels when the game is potentially over. Avatar, you are not.

I do like that there's no bookkeeping; it's like a channeling mechanic, but you either have the element primed, or you don't.

There's a big difference between, "You like 5e. Have you given PF a try?" and, "Drop the training wheels already! Just play PF and thanks me later."

I feel the kneejerk reaction was to tell people, "Stop. Just... stop," and that wasn't the correct response either.

The rules for Oscillating Wave don't exist in a vacuum.
I think any reasonable person would read that section and determine you can add or remove energy, your choice, then flip flop from there. The sentences around "Once you add energy..." seem to indicate such.

It IS badly written though.

What I don't know how to fix are Thermal Stasis and Redistribute Potential... unless you make Oscillating Wave optional, so you can cast them vanilla.

I dont know if that breaks OW though. Like, is flip flopping supposed to be beneficial, or a hindrance?

I also don't know how to fix Unlimited Potential. Maybe once a day, and instead of "prepared spell" you don't expend the slot??

Specifically, oscillating wave needs 1 more minute in the oven followed by 1 more minute in the freezer.

Unless you keep putting it in the freezer, then you'll never have to put it in the oven.

The Psychic needed a couple more minutes in the oven, but I like this version of the class over any other d20 equivalent class.

Since Conservation of Energy reads like it's mandatory ("...decide whether you're adding energy or removing it."), I'm of a mind that Redistribute Potential makes both area hot, or both areas cold, thus destroying any flavor the cantrip has.

I think my biggest complaint about this book is it really needed to be a volume 1, 2 and 3 kind of thing.

So many interesting ideas and we get an appitizer's worth of material to use (not counting the adventures).

I would have rather gotten two of these sections fully fleshed out, then another book with two more sections fleshed out, and repeated until we had everything.

Reversing Charge, Pg. 186

Looks like it had a different name in the playtest because is says:
"You then teleport back to the square from which you began your Snapback Charge."

It then goes back to Reversing Charge in the next sentence.

I guess I want to start with the rules and make sure I'm running everything correctly before looking at retraining three decades of GMing habits - though some of that might be in order (especially since I've had this Killer GM title following me since 3rd edition D&D - when the focus of the game turned very tactical and the rules became very precise).
Some of the advice I've been getting has been kind of diametrically opposed, so it's hard to know what to do.

If you've been known as the killer GM for 30 years, and it's not "accidental" TPKs (bad luck rolls, etc.), then I think you should lean into it as long as it's fun. Maybe look at some Old School Revival stuff.

Otherwise, you need to learn how to keep the game moving forward.
For example, if Locked Door A is not important to the plot (just a treasure room), then a failed lockpick roll means the door stays locked and you don't get to try again.
If Locked Door B is important to the plot, then that Door has to open no matter what. So a failed lockpick roll instead opens the door, but the picks break, or the door opens, but guards are alerted.

From a combat perspective, if the fight is leading to TPK Town, you need to do something about it. Either fudge monster HP (lower it), or fudge die rolls behind a screen ("miss" more often).
If you're better at miniature combat than the players, you need to dumb down your playstyle so you don't wipe out the party.
If you're down to one player, the enemy could demand surrender, or tell the player to run and tell everyone what a badass the monster/villain is.
If the party does TPK, you still control the narrative. The party wipes, but wakes up in a cage/cell and now they have to escape. Book of the Dead came out; revive the party, but they have to take ghoul archetypes.
If the party TPKs, they are resurrected and owe a debt to the benefactor who paid for it.

The story doesn't continue unless you turn the page, so it's your job to keep these things in your pocket and avoid dead ends.

Without knowing HOW your players are dealing with each encounter (and how they use the time between), I don't think you're going to get a specific perspective to help you; the best you'll get is general, wide reaching advice. Still helpful, but not as much as an actual post mortem of your encounters.

For example, If your players move into position, then stand there swinging until the monster is dead - since D&D Opportunity Attacks trained us to not move - that leaves your casters open because monsters will just walk around your front line. NOTE: Adventure Paths seem to use Op Attacks more often than advertised, so it looks like it's a tactic that's hard to shake anyway.

Also, an example I've seen before: If your mob of "mindless" skeletons is using advanced military tactics on the party, maybe you're taking things too seriously. A fix for this example would be to add someone "controlling" the skeletons and giving them these tactics. The party can then focus on that NPC and once they're defeated, the skeletons become easier to deal with.

This reminds me of a scene in Coco where a skeleton sneezes and says he's allergic to dogs.

Coco asks how can he be allergic if he's dead?

The skeleton says, "I also doesn't have a nose, but here we are."

If someone at your table says "I don't have dice" is it unreasonable to offer them some?

I'd be more accurate to say something like, "I didn't bring any d12's for my great axe."

And then someone else say, "Here, roll these 2d6. It's better on average and 1d12 is too swingy anyway."

Fumarole wrote:

Clearly we should all just play GURPS.

Funnily enough the very thing that's being discussed happened to me with GURPS.

I had a friend who couldn't stop gushing about GURPS, so I thought I'd give it a shot. We all made PCs for a game he was going to run and after I turned mine in, he looked it over and said, "I'm a little shocked. Out of everyone here, I thought YOU would understand the system better than anyone else and make a better character."

... I didn't bother showing up to the first game. :-D

... being told that you might want to try pathfinder 2e which fixes the problem your talking about in your piece in my mind counts as fair comment.

I agree... depending on how it's presented.

"Y'know, X Game handles Issue Y that you have a problem with."

is a lot more palatable than

"Get out of the dark ages already, put on your adult pants, and just start playing X Game. You can thank us later."

Try as you might, you can control how someone will respond.

Also in a celebrity's case (internet famous or otherwise), seeing "Try X Game" fifty to 500 times in a row would start to grate on anybody.

I think the whole thing could be solved by individuals not commenting with something that was not asked for.

Regrettably, I submit This from 2004.

If people publish something on internet, why should other people not react to it in good faith ?

I'm gathering that it's people reacting with unsolicited responses, at least initially.

Then compound that with these responses being made in either good or bad faith, and one bad apple spoiling the bunch.
In one person's case, frequent people pitching PF at every opportunity.

I do feel that if you post/offer something in a public forum, then you open people to react however they want, which - even in good faith - might not be the response you were hoping for.

People have a habbit of "reading between the lines" even when there is nothing there.

And that's just the nature of the medium.

... and a lot of it is we can control how we type something, we can't control how they read it.

If someone is having a bad day, or they're just normally a condescending person, they may read a comment like they're being talked down to, even if that's not how it was meant.

If you don't want feedback, I wouldn't solicit advice or talk about how much your favorite system doesn't do (x) online.

So I've had a change of perspective on this.

I used to suggest stuff like that; the system doesn't support you're idea, so here's one that does...

But most times, that's not what the poster is asking; they're asking for ideas to modify something familiar that they already like.

It maybe helpful, but it isn't constructive.

It also may be the right answer, but you can't make someone see something until they're ready to see it.

I'd LOVE to weigh in here.

As someone who played 5e exclusively until mid-2021, and was way too active on D&D reddit, I was seeing people shill for Pathfinder 2e for months starting in early 2020, every single day...

As much as I liked 5e, I was looking for more for a very long time. The system has its merits, but wasn't crunchy enough for me.

I got the 2e playtest as soon as it was available, but quickly gave up on it because it looked TOO crunchy for what I wanted. Didn't give 2e another look until this year when I ran into the "Different Battle, Same Tactics" issue with 5e that Taking20 mentioned with 2e.

Some bad faith people aside, I feel this is largely not toxic and people are projecting. This is all an opinion, so I' not backing it up with facts and only submitting it as my perspective.

1. People are passionate about things they like. Personally, I was very elitist in my 20s; the things I liked were superior and the cream of the crop. I didn't throw it in anyone's face, but I'd ask people if you like X, you'll love Y and here are 15 reason why. If they considered it cool, if they didn't, I wouldn't hound the issue, which leads to...

2. I'm sure if inspected, a large number of these people saying "try PF2e" are fire and forget; they make what they feel is a helpful post and move on. The issue is these people are "internet famous" so they receive a LOT more of these posts than you or I would. This is skewing things because after the 50th post, it starts to sound like a broken record.

3. This is a stretch, but stereotypically "nerd culture" is antisocial, which means we're less skilled in getting our point across (I'm including myself in this). In my 20's I processed things a lot more logically than I do now and didn't consider the emotional impact.
If someone mentioned they didn't like something, then I'd suggest something different, list the reasons why it's better, and I'd get confused when my suggestion wasn't taken. If my suggestion answered all their problems, it didn't make sense to me why it was ignored.

4. People are passionate about things they like (redux) and feel invalidated when an overwhelming majority reject that. If I mention something about D&D and the majority of my replies were "Try PF2e instead," then I'd feel like my opinion didn't mattered, and that would probably sour me towards trying PF2e.

5. Generally, happy people don't announce they're happy. If someone is happy with D&D 5e, then they're most likely not going to post a reply saying so. This means even if the majority of replies are for PF2e, that doesn't mean the ENTIRE audience feels that way.

This isn't to say that we should downplay the impact of bad apples. Some people hate D&D and will take any chance to shoot it down. Some people think they're being helpful and are getting upset that their suggestion is being taken, and now they're belligerent about it. Some people are evangelical about PF2e and want to convert as many people as possible.
But I think it's a bad idea to take this as the sample size and extrapolate it to the group as a whole.

Common: You're Good.
Uncommon/Rare: Check with your GM

If your GM doesn't have the book: CHECK WITH YOUR GM (no matter the rarity)... and send them the Archives of Nethys link.

For Example: Your GM doesn't have the Book of the Dead and you want to take the Skeleton ancestry. https://2e.aonprd.com/Ancestries.aspx?ID=50

Applying scatter damage on a miss would definitely make the most sense with how shotguns work. Otherwise, where did all the projectiles go? Especially with swarm creatures, how would you miss? I'm unsure what the RAI is though cause that could go either way I think.

If I were to try and argue between scatter and splash, I'd probably say splash is a burst because the systems assumes you're lobbing the thrown item for "maximum effect." That would mean to me, however, that scatter should have a cone shape since you don't lob the pellets.

Really though, it looks like scatter is a 1.5 Build trying to reference a 1.0 Splash Build.

This would be a very specific interpretation of the rules, but since the Scatter description on Archives LINKS to the Splash trait, I would say that every reference of Splash Damage applies.

So...

1. On a Hit, the target and secondary targets take 1 point splash damage per weapon die.

2. Since this is splash damage, "On a failure (but not a critical failure), the target of the attack still takes the splash damage."

3. "Add splash damage together with the initial damage against the target before applying the target’s weaknesses or resistances."

4. "You don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit."

Since we're being very strict here...

A. Since these weapons have the Scatter trait and not the Splash trait, I'd say that these are NOT "splash weapons" (instead they'd be "scatter weapons").
As such you do not apply "If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage."
B. Since Scatter and Splash don't say anything about other damage types (Fire, Sonic, what have you), I'd say the splash damage is whatever the weapon does; concussive or untyped.

Inventor seemed like the most natural choice since I thought I could mimic the special attacks with feats, but I'll have to reread Gunslinger again. The imbedding Interact to reload also mimics the gunlance's Quick Reload.

EDIT: With Way of the Sniper I could use a tower shield and get a reload when I Take Cover... very cool.

Yeah, if the OP is looking for a mobile PDF reader, and not their phone, then one of the Amazon Fire HD tablets might fill that need.

As a tablet, the Fire HDs... suck hard, to be frank. But they can DL Adobe Reader from the Amazon app store.

I don't know if it's only a Prime thing, but all my Amazon products allowed me to make monthly payments.

I know there's a sidebar that says you can select one of these archetypes at level one (you're just locked into take the dedication at Lv 2), but it just seems odd the way it was planned out.

... walks up to the group ...
"How do you like my new look?"
"Wait, are you a ghost??"
"Yup!"
"But... when?? You were with us the whole time?"
"There's a guy over there doing it for free! He was very convincing."
:-D

Okay, so two threads to follow here.

SaveVersus wrote:

If you remove the word Interact from the description, would it still read the same way?

I would and in fact did as it would still state "if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action." This means that even if there is no reload action, drawing exists and drawing is a manipulation action that we know is subsumed into the ranged Strike. In essence, it's a moot point what you call the Interact action in the Strike for everything I can think of.

So I know drawing and nocking exists, and you know drawing and nocking exists, ... but the people reading the Reload section as RAW don't see it that way. Since "This can be 0" seemingly refers to the number of Interact actions (none, by strict interpretation of the rules), then the argument is either so automatic that it can't be hindered, or we should look the other way when it happens and just focus on the attack roll.

Now reading the section on Actions (pg 461), Activities seems to match the description of what we're doing (drawing, nocking, and firing) and the sidebar Subordinate Actions (pg 462) further elaborates this. Other people have pointed this out, so I'm not going to repeat it here, but this is a "trail of breadcrumbs" way of explaining something when the Reload section should have been more explicit.

SaveVersus wrote:

If removing the word Interact from the entry makes it MORE likely that you could argue that an archer could load and fire their bow while pinned, then wouldn't that indicate that "This can be 0" then points to the word Interact?

Otherwise, if "This can be 0" pointed to the Action, then it should have read the same way with or without the word Interact.

Not necessarily, since "this" refers to the conjoined term, Interact Action. Removing the word Interact from the sentence still means that 0 actions are being taken to reload. All that removing Interact does is remove the potential baggage that comes with Manipulate, which doesn't seem to be intended based on the game going out of its way to describe how a wielder interacts with their ammunition in other sections of the book, and it being synonymous with the wording of Interact.

I would argue that calling Interact Action a conjoined term is a trap; "Interact" is qualifying "Action." There are many listed actions and Interact is a specific one. This would be like arguing that you can't separate Pinto and Bean. Obviously there are other beans out there; Pinto just happens to be one.

Since there aren't other types of Interact-things (Interact Stance, Interact Finger Wiggle, etc.), Action in this case is superfluous. At least in the context of people trying to argue Action as it's general term. As keywords, Interact and Interact Action are synonymous, Action and Interact Action are not.

The people arguing a strict interpretation of Reload say that Reload 0 = Interact 0, so there is no Manipulate (as a keyword) present. I agree it's silly, but I find it hard to argue against. You can lead them to the logical conclusion as stated above (Activities and Subordinate Actions), but that's seems odd when a reasonable person should just be able to look up Reload and get their answer.

Removing Interact from the sentence really only serves to permit the "manipulate but not really" argument being proposed, which you just admitted yourself, ...

Just to be clear, I'm against interpreting/reading the rules in such a way that it breaks "realistic" immersion (as realistic as a fantasy setting can be).

I'm just arguing the Devil's Advocate position because that's my manager style. :-D
At my company, we propose a plan of action and the rest of my team tries to poke holes in it to make sure the plan holds water. I specifically tell my team to be No-Men so we know we're making the right decisions.

Now back to the argument...
If removing the word Interact from the entry makes it MORE likely that you could argue that an archer could load and fire their bow while pinned, then wouldn't that indicate that "This can be 0" then points to the word Interact?

Otherwise, if "This can be 0" pointed to the Action, then it should have read the same way with or without the word Interact.

I've been following this whole thing, and I think any reasonable person would interpret that a ranged attack is 1 Strike, and Reload 0 means 1 Interact action folded into the strike, so 2 things in 1 action. In this case Reload 0 reads as no ADDITIONAL actions to reload, so that a ranged attack takes up as much time as a melee attack: 1 action.

If anyone spends the time to think about it, the ammo doesn't magically appear nocked and loaded; you have to use your hand and physically move the arrow from the quiver to the bow. That sounds like manipulation to me, and that makes sense. For me, that enough to close this case and put it to bed.

However, the reload section (pg 279) says: This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. (bolded mine) Again, I think any reasonable person would read that as ZERO Interact actions, as in NONE; not an Interact action of null quantity (Interact 0). This sounds like an attack with a Reload 0 weapon is just a Strike action, the same as any other ranged weapon; they may have to use interact actions to reload, but the attack is still 1 action.

Attack of Opportunity (pg 473) lists these as triggers: A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using. (bolded mine again) It sounds superfluous that a ranged attack would proc an opportunity attack twice, once for reloading with an Interact 0 and again for the ranged attack. I know not all ranged weapons have Reload 0, but it still sounds weird.

I don't agree with this "reading the rules in a vacuum" but I can see where people are coming from at least.
This same logic would mean that if my move was somehow reduced to 0, and I perform a Move action of 0 feet, effectively meaning I didn't move at all, then someone could react with an opportunity attack even though I didn't move anywhere in space. That just sounds weird.

Only thing I can find is the Pathfinder Archetype from the World Guide. Let's you increase one skill from Trained to Expert at Lv 2.

Thanks.

I'm more worried that Grapple/Trip is always the opening salvo.

Seems like combat could get boring if stunlock is always the first option. I'll get a better idea after some combats under my belt; I just don't want my players to stumble upon this and think the game is "solved".

Relevant Vid: https://youtu.be/PKgZXvzqOG8

I'm preparing to run my first PF2e game and I'm reading/watching as much as I can to prepare for it. Most of my friends are 3.5 versed, but we've been playing 5e for a long time, so I'm mainly looking to avoid traps that my players might fall into thinking this is a 1-1 swap.

Watching this video above brought up some questions, so I wanted to know how rigid are these rules? The examples they gave seem very exploitative and less "fun" though obviously YMMV.

1) One example they brought up was a 2H person using a hand to initiate a grapple, then gripping their sword with both hands again to Strike, then continuing to maintain their grapple. Is that allowed? I get the end result of the grapple is to prevent movement, but I assume once they "let go" of the target, the grapple would need to be reapplied.

2) Another example they proposed was grappling a target, then tripping them (basically pushing someone to the ground and sitting on them). Is that allowed too?