Sayt's page

I think the amount generated is pretty generous, but I do think they should persist until after panache so you can, for instance generate panache, generate thp and then use a finisher.

Huh, so it does. That seems.....really dang bad, huh.

Guess I'd assumed that readying to Parry didn't open you up to getting smacked.

I'm not sure how such a change would promote build diversity. No one is going to take both of them anyway, so combining them doesn't open up anything new.

I didn't mean diversity within builds, but between builds. If you can compact these two Paizo can maybe fit in another feat at the level that let's you play swashbuckler a little differently. I probably should've made that clearer :)

*tilts head back and forth*

Eh, I'm fine with them being separate, since they're two completely different ways, both mechanics and aesthetics, to buff your defense.

Aesthetically, absolutely there is adufference, yeah.

But mechanically? With both you spend an action to get +2 AC, one is called 'interact' and the other is called 'raise a shield', but I honestly don't see the meaningful mechanical differentiation?

At second level, the swashbuckler has two sets of feats that I feel are somewhat redundant: Buckler Expertise and Dizzying Parry, two feats which increase the AC bonus from Parry weapon and bucklers respectively to +2, bringing them to parity with 'full' shields.

Then at 12th level, each style gets a feat granting them stances guaranteeing uptime on this defense, Buckler Dance and Storm of Parries (which are both great names!)

Each tier of these feats have the same level at which they become avaliable, the same mechanical effect and similar themes in off-handed defence.

Wouldn't it be economical to reduce these feat pairs to two, one for the AC bump, one for the stance? These four feats very much seem to be two ways to achieve the same goal. Maybe include duelling cloaks as well!

Merging them would save page space (I am not in layout I'll admit, but I think you'd save space on headers and formatting), allow for a more diversified feat selection, and allow characters to switch between bucklers and main-gauche/clan dagger etc as gear is acquired and lost, or as the situation demands (perhaps you're fighting a Rakshasa and your Buckler has a shield boss and not spikes).

In terms of comparative advantages between Parry weapons and bucklers:
Bucklers: Shield bashes are neither finesse nor agile, but you can hold wands in the same hand and have a higher damage die with bosses and spikes, and at very high level the reflecting shield is quite nice, and theoretically you can block some damage but bucklers are the most fragile of shields.
Parry weapons: tend to have versatile damage types, can use Dex to hit, can deliver precise strike damage

The way I read was that it allows the sustenance of multiple spells with a single action.

A lot of fiends have weakness to good damage, and some double up: the
Barbazu has weakness 5, three ticks of persistent damage adds +15.

The Pit Giend has weakness 15 to good, and regeneration 30, turned off by good damage, and the Balor has Weakness 20, +60 from three ticks!

Litany of righteousness also gives weakness 7-10 for a round.

Yeah I'd have thought 2e pf would be much more the speed of a 5e preferring group than 1st ed pathfinder.

I mean, you can definately still woodchipper enemies, albeit at higher levels. Grab a Ranger, Impossible Flurry, and the Flurry Hunter tactics. Grab two sawtooth sabres.

Make six attacks at -2 each, all bur the first getting bonus damage from twin weapons.

Honestly, I think expert in unarmed defence is just.... incredibly insufficient on the monk. You've fit a whole 1 more AC than someone running around naked, and you need strength for damage, dexterity for AC, constitution for not dying and wisdom if you want ki powers.

I player a 4th level human monk, alongside a barbarian a friend of mine played, who had: slightly less speed (Faster Raging, slower not), better damage, better AC (Same while raging), same accuracy, more HP, and a THP buffer from rage.

Over him, I had really good jumping, slowfall, and could ignore difficult terrain

flurry of blows didn't turn out to be much of an advantage because while he was attacking at 10(4+4+1+1*)/5/0, I was attacking at 10(5+3+1+1*)/5/0/0 (Proficiency+Str+Item+Conditional)

I've also found combats in the playtest extremely frustrating, most recently a fire giant against a level 9 druid, Wildshaped into a Huge wolf.

It needs a 7 to hit my static of AC 27 with its sword, I need a 12 to hit with my jaws. My second attack was a hail mary, and my third attack was just fishing for 20s. Which means most of your attacks will miss, and your best attack in this case is an unfavourable coinflip, which means rolling a lot of dice for not much effect

So clearly I should be throwing spells at it, except it's lowest save (which unexpectedly is reflex) is +14. As far as I can tell, I had best possible spell DCs at 23, so it needs a 9 to save, on its weakest save. Its got a better than even chance of passing it's worst save.

At the moment, combats means whiffing a lot of attacks,band getting hit a lot, which feels really, really bad.

I recently also played IPMS, and wanted to give side feed back as well. I had a pretty miserable fight against the Manticore, and did okay against the elementals.

Fundamentally, my monk had a +9 to hit (+10 with bless or the extremely limited Ki Strikes), which just didn't cut it against the 20AC of the manticore and large elementals, having your most accurate attack be a coinflip I found was incredibly dispiriting, especially when your best option for most turns in a combat is Flurry+Strike+Strike, with the two Strikes needing 20 to hit, (19 with backswing)

I also tried to climb the wall and drop attack the Manticore but flubbed the climb check. I flubbed a lot of rolls that session.

There is a specific exception called out for barding whixh allows them to have their item to AC but not saves.

I played wild order in Lost Star and honestly I'd have been better served in the Storm order.

Because of tightish confines and party having a melee rogue and paladin as well as me, I often ended up throwing cantrips from the backline until it was prudent to swing with my staff. It was never a good time to cast wild claws, and pest form is just.... well not bad,per se, but highly niche.

I'd rather of had tempest surge.

Is it me, or are the rules for stripping persistent damage incredibly rough?

You get clipped by, say, acid arrow, and start taking 1d6 acid damage/round. If you want to get rid of this, it's a flat DC 20 check. so you could reasonably expect to each 10d6 damage off of that one spell over time.

That said, you can reduce that flat check to.... DC15. That's still a really hard check, and consequently a lot of damage.

Does this seem...problematic, to anyone else?

I took it to be crossbows that are simple weapons.

I have no problem with them having a long reload time, I'd desperately like them to have some flat damage or a dice bump.

Lord Fyre wrote:

What do people have against the Alchemist 1/Barbarian 1/Bard 1/Cleric 1/Druid 1/Fighter 1/Monk 1/Paladin 1/Ranger 1/Rogue 1/Sorcerer 1/Wizard 1 character?

Ah, yes, that great military figure, Major Undecided! :-)

I mean, I wouldn't call someone with 4/11 BAB a great military anything. :p

How does power attack stack with magical weapons? Is a character power attacking with a +1 mace swinging for 3d8 or 4d8?

A d d i t i o n a l R e a c t i o n s!

I'm very much happy with what I've heard in this blog, fighter looks like it's going to be.... fun?!

Scaled Fist/Tortured crusader/Sage Sorcerer/Eldritch Scion: I love archetypes which alter a dependent ability scores, as they can aid in non-standard multiclassing (such as monk-magus, or sorcerer/alchemist) to ajm for novel builds.

Eldritch Scoundrel and Child of Amaznen and Acavna: Giving casting to the muggles is good, in my opinion, as fighters in PF1E were possibly a little too straightford in play, abd casting gave them something to think about.

Guide Archetype for the ranger is cool, but kinda got superceeded by the Slayer, but was an interesting exploration of a varient on the ranger.

Virtuous Bravo: while getting 4x level to damage was certainly problematic, the VB was very cool as it was still a paladin, but traded out the 12th/13th century knightly aspects for a renaissance fencer.

Qinggong monk: "Monk as ascetic magician" was a very cool idea, allowing players to build a monk less focused on melee combat, and it opened up some nice build options for a class which was a little threadbare.

Does each level of proficiency give the same fraction of level to your proficiency bonus?

I'd make cure spells channelable on one target for Spell level rounds.
So cure moderate wounds can be cast continuously for two rounds to heal 4d8+2×CL, to improve the GP economy of healing.

To be fair, I very much doubt the potion misses your face, or that you're inside of dino b6 the armor, it'd be much more sensical if you simply didn't get the magical effect of those actions without resonance.

As for analysing the tidbits that have been released so far, can we not doomsday the changes by plopping them into PF1E, without the context of the rest of the system? It's not building well-founded hypothess on 2e. An edition change implies broad, systemic changes from 1e.

It's all well and good to say "hit by ten+=crit is broken, because of a 1e magus arcana", but the magus isn't even in 2e, let alone that specific Arcana, or what rules there there may be regarding touch attacks ability to critical hit, seems like a farly direct consequence to account for.

He looks like he was 60 already in PF1 era.

No modern medicine and a father accused of heresy could do that for you.

The Katana, God of Swords meme will never die, it seems xD.

Personaly, I'd like a norms check on the names and some weapon's damage types(Warhammers should deal B&P, for instance), but by abd large its a "yeah, sure, whatever" thing for me which niggles every now and then.

There are two different things bung talked about in this thread, and even in the OP's post.

One is veracity with the real world, which I weigh negative to neutral in a fantasy game.

The other is adherence to current historiographical norms, which I'd weight neutral to positive, if done sensibly.

Realism is full plate armor making you immune to slashing attacks, historiographical normality is calling a double edged straight blade of 70-80cm for wielding I one hand an arming sword, rather than a Longsword.

That said, we also don't need the armoury to have detailed breakdowns of the entire Oakeshott typology.

Quote:

After making the big choices that define your character...

quote in reference to class, "race," and background.

This fills me with dread. With a few other subtle mentions, this is a backwards design philosophy. Characters should not be defined by mechanics. The character should be defined narratively, with mechanics chosen afterwards that best represent the character concept. I.E. I have a character that learned magic in a school like a wizard, but focused on mastering spells so she could cast whichever spell she knows as long as she has enough energy for it. Best mechanic for that is sorcerer, but if the sorcerer mechanics are too tightly tied to the whole "magic from the blood" concept, it makes it harder to portray this spontaneous wizard character properly.

I find their backwardness on this to be a problem, because it probably means they'll tie flavor and mechanics together so tightly, that it'll be hard to bend the mechanics to anything else, which basically means a serious reduction in flexibility outside they tiny little narrative they've chosen for us. Frankly, Pathfinder already has this problem, but it is not that bad. I'm afraid of them making it worse.

I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

Mechanics and narrative are intertwined. A character that cant hit or do damage in combat will struggle with fulfilling a traditional heroic champion narrative. An illiterate barbarian is going to have trouble with being a scholar.

My own personal wild, unfounded speculation is that untrained maps to 1/2 level progression, trained to 3/4, and expert to 1:1/full progression.

Reactions seem really cool to me, the one thing I think would really put a bright sheen on it would be the ability to take multiple reactions in round in some fashion. Something like combat reflexes, or everyone just getting bonus ones slowly as you level.

I like that it is more complex than 5e, but less than so than parts of 3.5, and it could be a little simpler.

I like that characters evolve mechanically and refine their identity as they level up, through feats and menu optioslike rogue talents and alchemist discoveries.

I like building mechanics puzzle characters, like the dwarf with the dorn-dergar which cleaves every enemy in 35ft foot square.

I like the diversity of options and the multitude of classes: hellknights and investigators and slayers and magi (oh my!)

I don't get to play in Golarion that much, but I like the diversity of the setting: ifferent cultures, non-human peoples that aren't just real-life ethnicities or cultural groups with different bodies. I like that LGBT inclusivity is built into not just the culture but the divine metaphysics.

I like the wealth of 3PP options and the freelancers that work in the player companion line.

If it's a limited set and I could only choose between a handful, based on my class, yes. mostly because every character in the class more uniform instead of more unique. If there a ways in PF2 to change that set completely and to pick reactions that fits the character best, this action economy system would actually be quite nice (not nice enough for a whole new edition, but nice enough to use that rule in a real PF game)

...amazing, you'd resent being given something new if it didn't give you enough choice, even though it's free?

Also based on the podcast, the fighter had two, one of which was only useful if you had a shield, I'd be surprised if they expected polearm users or archers to pick it up.

Oh THAT I got. And I stand by my first reaction that this reaction system is limiting. So let's say I play that rogue, I see that enemy drink that potion and all I can do as reaction is a steal attempt? Where are the choices? Maybe I want to shoot at the bottle, maybe I want to take advantage of the fact the enemy is occupied to retreat or attack. If I'm limited to only one possible reaction or a short list of possible reactions that is the same for every other rogue, what makes my rogue stand out? Limiting the roleplay aspect of a roleplaying game is never a good idea, even more so if I seemingly still have unlimited choices of ACTIONS I can take. "My three actions: retreat, taunt, juggle... no wait, attack, move, write a poem...no wait, paint a portait of my enemy, crush it, and hear the lamentation of his woman..."

...it's no more restrictive RP wise than an immediate action. We also dingy know what a given clclasses reactions are or how many they get.

What if in 1e they gave every class a set of immediate actions they could take. Would you say that is restricting rolplay?

Is charging not a thing anymore (as in gaining a +2 to hit and -2 to AC) since you now can move, attack?

The fighter had a thing which let him move 2x his speed and make an attack as two of his actions, but I don't think there were bonuses or penalties. Didn't have to move straight either!

It's really easy to end up removing any meaningful distinction between ability scores this way, ending up in de facto 4E-land.

Ability diversity was not 4e's problem. 4e's problem was that it pidgeonholed classes excessively.

Ability score divesity can be used to differentiate classes and make them interestingly and meaningfully distinct from each other.

I'd like to see options for different classes to get different stats to things, as that is one of the things that I think 5e actually does well and desnt lead to excessive simplification.

I'd like to see a little more, if not accuracy, then adherence to historograhical norms in the naming of arms and armor.

If Second Edition does away with the distinction between "when you make as a standard action, X" and "as a standard action, make an attack and X", I will be a happy dorf, that was an unnecessary and arbitrary complication.

Kobolds.

Seriously.

I know kobolds won't be a core PC race "ancestry", but when they are introduced in the PF2 Bestiary, they need to be a mechanically viable option for PCs to play. I think kobolds are already highly flavorful, but if they suck mechanically, they won't get played. If a race/species/monster is intended to be an easy/not-too-challenging option for 1st level PCs, then do it with a template.

Likewise, no races/species with racial hit die just for the purposes of just extra HPs when they should just be a 0HD race from the get go. This means you, lizardfolk and gnolls. If they need to be tougher, again, that's what templates are for.

It sounds like they're using SF style character creation, so RHD are thankfully going the way of the dodo, is my guess.

Do want:
*More ability score swaps, such as Str to hit with thrown, Cha to will saves, Con to AC, Dex to damage, etc.
*Prestige Classes, good, interesting ones!

Do not want:
*Ineffectual combat styles and false/inferior options/Ivory Tower game design. Hardly anyone uses firearms or crossbows in PF unless they have a class which gives an ability score to damage. Harsk looked cool, but was conceptually hamstrung by not having 5 levels in Bolt Ace. At worst (IMO) a weapon option should have a separate abilities governing hit and damage with a comparatively accessible option to pick one of them.

In Pathfinder, the taking 10/20 rules had language that allowed for taking 10/20 on ability checks, but I can't find an equivalent clause in Starfinder. Am I missing it or has it not carried over?

I'd love to see: Dragon Empire's World a guide, Impossible Kingdoms primer. Likewise, more coverage of southern garund would be amazing.

Also, expansions on Dwarven and Halfling society works be fantastic, especially outside the Inner sea (The Ouat were amazing, but Dwarven Samurai? Dearvwn Samurai.)

I use a spreadsheet for my charactersheet, and write most of my spells/extracts in there. If i dont, or I acquire a new ome in session, I'll use the PRD/d20PFSRD to look up the spell.

Ohhh, neat, one of the reasons I stiated collecting flipmats is how many times can I reuse the same castle?

This, I am instantly enthusiastic for.

When my group ran the first fight on the Sunrise maiden, we found the rear-mounted flak thrower invaluable.

For context, we weren't using many stunts, adn the Gm wasn't using any. The enemy ship in that ombat has no rear-mounted weapon, so we would fly around it, into it's rear-arc, tilt our rear arc to face it (we were coming from the front, so this was closer) and fire into it's unarmed arc with our two most powerful weapons.

Is negative energy inherently evil? i guess i've always thought so but i dont think its specifically stated anywhere.

It's an association not causation thing. Negative Energy associated things are often evil, but not inherently so, just like how positive energy things are often, but not also good (Looking at you, Jyoti. Jerks.)

It's an undead version of agent orange. Instead of defoilage, it delifes. I'm not saying that PCs shouldn't have some type of access via black market. It would make sense that necro weapons (the kill everything because life) should be illegal when Eox joined the Pact World alliance. I can see Eox (the government) maintaining a backup supply of WMDs or planet killers in case of hostilities between Veskarium or any Swarm invasion. Neural Interface Necro weapons wouldn't be as frowned upon since it kinda requires your brain to register the owner of said weapon to operate. Keeps the weapons out of enemy hands, you can modify to self destruct if someone uses it.

I don't think it's is a good equivalency. Agent Orange was a poisonous Herbicide. Necrotic weapons are guns that don't hit the undead. Yes, they kill living things, thats an inherent property of all lethal weapons.

A Frailty Rifle fired at a living creature doesn't do anything that a Zero Rifle wouldn't, the sole difference is that the undead are immune and are instead bolstered.

Mecrotic weapons aren't more directly dangerous than common cryo weapons. They're actually less so, as there are.

Two other things I think are worth noting: these are made specifically by the Corpse Fleet, not Eoxian corporations.

Also, the Frailty Cannons are weapons with the Line special, and without unwieldy! This is surprising, but it does mention that they're easier to control than zero cannons.

I mean, "Outsider ([alignment])" is a valid choice for a ranger favored enemy, why wouldn't it be for Augment Calling?

Healer's handbook includes the "Injured" mercy for 9th+ level, which grants fast healing 3 for 1/2 paladin level rounds.

Honestly I thonk the wording on spellstrike makes it ambiguous enough that it can go either way.

I'd likely go with spell damage is not multiplied, except on a crit, as lance chargers honestly do sufficient damage anyway.

Ditto what AVR said, though I'd maybe strip out the racial and race trait requirement. I can see why it is there, but I don't think it's vital, and taking it out would open up the option a bit.

Caste based themes make sense for Tau, that's a good idea.

Regarding the vision, in the 3e codex at least, I think, they have sharper long range vision, but their eyes adjust to distance changes slower that a human.

The other option I can see would be to set the tau up like the lashunta. They get a +2 dex, amd then each cast gets an additional good and bad stat, amd a different skill bonus

Fire: +Con, -wis, perception or piloting
Earth: +int, -2, engineering
Water: +cha, str, culture
Air: +dex(+4 total), -Str, acrobatics or piloting

The Tau as a whole are not appreciably stronger or tougher than a comparably fit human.

They have some advantages in that: they have precise long range vision (although their eyes focus slowly), they are digitigrade, and the fact that they are possibly even more eusocial than humans.