Shadrayl of the Mountain's page

Captain Morgan wrote:

If we are going to talk market saturation, one imagines 5e also has a lot more competition than AD&D did. There are many RPG options now.

We have a lot of RPGs today, but a glance at some of the first years of Dragon Magazine shows the 80s were saturated with a lot of gaming crap as well.

Also, we shouldn't continue to discuss this...

---

I'm worried about Equipment a lot this edition. The boost to proficiency tiers boost is too big, and items being inconsistent with that would probably be ok, but defeats the purpose of the universal system.

I'm at the point where I'm waiting to see the full thing. Individual mechanics in isolation are just too tempting for me to go overboard on expecting the worst.

Mostly, I'm just really disappointed in the way they went on equipment in general, as I've always hated D&D's item treadmill. The ability to almost completely ignore items is my favourite part of 5e.

They are way more complex games than 1E. Some I like and some I don't. When someone says that they like a more complex game than me, then I'm very much cool with that. But history shows that this model hit a sweet spot and was a huge success. There is no need to give away depth. And the playtest gave away a ton of depth.

The 'Sweet Spot' of 3.5e/PFRPG is a bit of a silly idea. Many of the players PFRPG are simply the 3.5 holdouts. I won't say it didn't bring in some new players, but nothing like 5e. 5e has sold more copies than every edition of D&D prior + Pathfinder. (And will most likely outsell every edition Pathfinder ever makes, if past history is an indication). It doesn't even seem to be slowing down right now. If there's a sweet spot, it's 5e.

Yes, some were, at least. I was thinking of Merisiel though. I don't think hers is all that long or heavy.

The art in the Rogue section has Merisiel's rapier blade about as long her arm + her dagger's blade. So maybe 36"-40" which is a smallish real world rapier. Not really a shortsword even then.

CBAnaesthesia wrote:

-4 or -5 to every check, and -10 movement to get +1 or +2 AC compared to a Dex armor user is not a good tradeoff. You might not even get that extra +1 or +2 AC, if you start with a 10 Dex, because now even Plate armor has a Dex bonus to it.

I agree with you about the other problems with heavy armor, but I don't agree that the movement penalties or ACP are balanced as-is. Again, just watch videos of people doing things in armor like...

Quality and Material reduce ACPs by 3-4 by the time any lightly armored character is capping out their Dexterity. Subtracting 5% from a check (or 1 foot off your already superhuman long-jump) isn't that bad a penalty for being covered head-to-toe in rigid protection. Also Grey Maiden Plate (the only kind a 'Maiden is proficient with, and thus the only kind of heavy armor non-paladins will ever wear during the playtest) is just like Full-Plate, except provides TAC +3, and has a Dex Cap of +0.

Also were those videos of people wearing some 'plate armor' or people in an actual full suit of gothic era plate armour. Because the latter can barely be stood up in if one fell over, and required a crane to mount their warhorse.

a couple points

1) the fact that there's no significant benefit to full armor is an issue when it comes to the penalties

2) There were links posted with the videos in question, showing literally the best modern armor reproductions in existence - and yes, they show full plate harnesses. (People can cartwheel in full plate, even)

3) You clearly know Smurf-all about armor

So, my take away here

1) Hardness probably needs an update then, or shields need more dents available. If you subtracted the hardness 1st, it would make it a lot more palatable.

2) I'd much rather have higher proficiency bonuses and lower item bonuses. Heck, lower stats too if it lets proficiency be higher. (I have a feeling that armor proficiency is holding us back here *as well as on the armor chart*)

While I'm not keen on DR from heavy armor, I think baking fortification in to heavy armor would work to make heavier armor actually attractive. On a crit against the person wearing the armor, the attacker has to make a Flat Check with a DC equal to the armor bonus; failing means the crit is reduced to a normal hit.

That seems like a nod to heavy armor that would make it feel like I'm getting something useful out of it. I approve.

While I can see how the numbers work out ok-ish due to Fighters and Paladins having their highest proficiency apply to heavy armor, it still hurts my heart to read that chart. It's aesthetically just painful for armor to be basically a penalty when proficiency isn't considered. The problem is - there isn't actually a huge proficiency benefit for armor IRL. You get accustomed to it, and there's a physical training aspect, but really armor is REALLY, REALLY good. I don't expect to see anything realistic really, but aesthetically I want to see a bit of specialness to heavy armor for the game to feel right to me.

I don't want to discourage people doing math, but wow this just seems like one of those things you need to playtest and see how it feels...

I like that the 1st attack has a decent chance to hit, and the subsequent attacks don't. It makes choices of tactics such as feint and buffs and agile weapons more valuable.

Already did that part, and it feels... awful.

I would in fact rather they balance around first attack actually having a decent chance to crit. But except for rare HP sponges like ogres, dragons and suchlike, that balance should be more inclined to accepting enemies are more fragile and hitting a sweet spot of sustain-ably running more monsters per encounter without bogging down play. More enemies that are more fragile give plenty of builds more fun options.

Same here. I'd like to see something like 15% crit rate against even enemies, so that we're not constantly struggling to hit boss monsters. I and many I know will run into strings where we can't roll above a 10 to save our lives- it will make for a really frustrating game if that means you get to spend the whole night achieving absolutely nothing. In PF1, it wasn't uncommon to reach the point where your 1st attack still hits on a 2. That's a godsend for people like me.

Yes, I agree with your numbers. Saves are similarly dire for spellcasters. They want battles to go on for a while, because it takes a while to consistently land blows and meaningful spell effects.

This reddit post has some related charts.

That chart for martial efficacy is just plain sad. You're literally getting worse as you level up if that is accurate.

I would honestly like to see resonance in reverse, like you can have up your level plus cha mod, start with zero then don your magic armor gain 1 resonance, drink a potion, gain 1 resonance, this way it feels more like your are saturating yourself with magics and you can only handle so much before its like grounded in the surroundings or dispersed , I think this would go over a lot better

I like that idea thematically as well. Seems like one of the easiest house rules ever, though, so I'm sure we can just do it that way if we like.

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

Cuttlefist wrote:

Definitely in the minority, but I am actually really excited about resonance. I think it is a great solution for streamlining magic item inventory and curbing unwanted item abuse.

So people playing the game differently from the way you think it should be played are committing "abuse" - that is... well, it's definitely an opinion.

Whoa pretty hostile there, my friend. Developers have said at least once that Wand of CLW is unwanted, and this would curb it, so there's technically nothing wrong or opinionated there.

The developers saying it has little bearing on whether or not it's opinionated or wrong. They're making a game to sell to us here, not to sell to themselves. Telling us how we should play in regards to CLW is definitely an opinion, and could be considered 'wrong' if the majority of players disagree.

I feel like Resonance is fine with items that can be used 1 time per day since then it's just a matter of asking "did I use that already?" rather than "how many times". We should absolutely not have to use resonance with items with "uses/day" limits other than 1, though.

I can see 1/day being acceptable, but I'd personally prefer only single-use consumables and Resonance/day items.

I think a better way to balance than multiple uses is to simply have varying Resonance costs.

Cuttlefist wrote:

Definitely in the minority, but I am actually really excited about resonance. I think it is a great solution for streamlining magic item inventory and curbing unwanted item abuse. I do understand the concerns from people on it discouraging consumables use, but I don’t actually think it will be an issue once playtesting begins. I do share in the disappointment in seeing items with daily uses, as the resonance system is supposed to replace that, just makes it wonky to have both in my opinion.

One thing I absolutely do not understand is the complaint that it is narratively inconsistent with the previous edition. How is that an actual concern? This is a new edition of a game, mechanics change and it doesn’t have to have a narrative explanation. It’s not hand waving, it’s a new game. It’s not like there are any significant plot points that revolved around a character being able to chug 30 potions and then shoot off 50 magic missiles from a wand. As far as the setting is concerned this could always have been the norm but it just never came up.

I'm right there with you Cuttlefist. I like the resonance system. I was hesitant about 2E when it was announced but so far each of these blog posts has only made me more excited!

I'm pretty happy with what we've seen of the game so far, but Resonance is something that I'm really starting to dislike. Which saddens me, as I liked it quite a bit at 1st. But now we've already seen multiple items which use Resonance but have a limit of activations per day, or a number of charges, which really kills the utility of the Resonance system for me, since we're back to tracking uses of a bunch of separate items. I think it's something that could be fixed by the playtest though.

Huh, came back to the thread and jumped near the end to see what's up. That was a mistake.

Personally, I think a couple things on this anathema whining

1) A good GM will be flexible on helping you realize the character you want to portray, within reason.

2) I think it's about time Barbarian had a little more going on that just angry beatstick. They were kind of boring on their own.

3) having some restrictions can actually breed creativity in my mind. i.e.- how does this character fit/break free of this mold?

Don't bother replying to this post, though, I'm not coming back to this thread, I have much better things to do with my time.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Anyway, universal verisimilitude is so low on the list of priorities for a fun game.

Not for me.

Perfect verisimilitude isn't desirable, as most of us aren't physicists, but I absolutely HATE when rules are written in such a way that they make no sense in the context of the world. (Like PF2's shield mechanics.)

"Fun" is a delicate balance between verisimilitude, balance, and ease of play. Too much or too little of any of these will ruin a game.

The shield rules make absolute sense. It doesn't take 0 effort to use a shield even if it is easy. The basic measure of effort in PF2 is 1 action. Therefore, 1 action is a perfectly reasonable cost to use a shield, as long as the math works out, which it seems it will with the info we have so far.

Don't mistake 'Doesn't make sense to me' with 'doesn't make sense to anyone'.

The "its easier to add than remove" argument is troubling to me. As several posters have already pointed out, it's not easier to create balanced, effective abilities than it is to create a list of such abilities that aren't allowed at a table.

But I don't think that's really what is meant by "it's easier to add." I think it's referring to the human cost, the psychology. It's easier to tell your players "look, I've added this new tier of legendary proficiency that allows you to do these cool things" than it is to tell your player "we're not going to use legendary proficiencies in this game." It's the difference between having something you expected removed vs. the addition of something positive that was not expected.

I think this is where people have a problem with goblins or non-LG paladins or Leadership in the core rulebook too. In the minds of some, everything after the core book is more optional and therefore easier to say "no" to, but the core is supposed to be completely allowable and they don't want to have to come across as a jerk for removing what they don't like from the core book.

And this is where I have a problem: the mentality that the core game should be the most restrictive part of the rules (LG-only paladins, no legendary proficiency, no goblins, etc) and that the other stuff can be there but shouldn't be the default. The only way that mentality makes sense is if you plan to use the rules as written as a bludgeon to get your way. It's a plea to be able to argue "but it's the rules" to get what you want. If everyone in your group also didn't like legendary skill feats or whatever other rule, then it wouldn't matter what the default or "most official" way was; you'd decide as a group not to allow it.

I think the "it's easier to add" argument often comes from people who know that their group may not agree with their taste but want their way anyway. And that's deplorable. This is a social game, where the taste of more than one person matters. If a down-to-earth aesthetic is...

This is one of the best posts I've see here in a long, long time.

As to the blog- bring it on! I'm really excited to see what they have in store for us!

Haven't bothered to read the thread, but the blog seems pretty interesting. I like everything I've seen so far. What I really wonder about is if the numbers for different monsters will feel more natural than Starfinder monster building, where it's just 'it's got the numbers because it needs them'. I hope we can get something that builds them in reverse from the necessary numbers, so their stats keep some verisimilitude.

I would just like for you to get 2 Ancestry feats at level 1. Seems pretty weird that I can be Hardy by nature of my family tree, but that none of that family's culture influences me until I get another feat.

Agreed. It should be 2, so we're not forced between taking the Heritage Feat that is 1st level only and the other Ancestry Feat that perhaps seems super important to our character's story.

I absolutely agree verisimilitude only matters so much. I think the primary reason this change is happening is balance though, not realism. And it as at least intuitive that if you wield a bigger, more cumbersome weapon that you will not be able to get it back up as quickly when you have opened a door way and gotten through it. The short sword may be awkward, but it is less awkward. But the thing that matters more is if the one handed weapon feels competitive with the two handed, not verisimilitude.

I think the Bo Staff is...

Agreed. If it needs to done to balance between one-handed and two-handed, I'm fine with that. That's why I pointed out that it's actually going easy on a lot of one-handed weapons to allow them to bypass this issue. At the end of the day, everyone will have their own line in the sand, but the designers need to try to find the best solution for the most people.

I suspect you are right about the Bo, but I'm still going to be annoyed. I'm willing to acknowledge it might be a pretty specific pet peeve. But a stick of a certain size is just a stick. It doesn't magically change properties by being Asian... Enough of that tangent, though

I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.

Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.

So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.

I totally agree with that example. Except for one thing - it should apply to almost all weapons if we're really talking realistic. Opening a door and getting through it with a rapier is actually smurfing awkward. Everything but light weapons should have to deal with this.

Which gets to my real point - verisimilitude with combat rules is overrated. Because the combat rules in D&D/Pathfinder have never even come close.

It's the sort of thing I used to care about a lot more. After 20+ years of both gaming and fighting with weapons, they're just not even close. What I really care about is - how does it play? If it works best from a rules sense, then I'm cool with it.

That being said, I'm still kind of worried about weapon traits...if a Bo is a better stick than a quarterstaff, I'm going to be very annoyed.

Ecidon wrote:

True it's replacing the "numerical arms race" in Pathfinder with a "numerical arms treadmill"

It's fascinating to watch the evolution of PF to 4e and already seeing the complaints about PF2e that we saw lobbied at 4e which directly led t4e to evolve into 5e.

4e's biggest problem is that it exposed the math too much which made how everything was balanced glaringly obvious and ultimately unsatisfying. Unfortunately PF2e's math is even more exposed than 4e's was.

I seriously, seriously doubt this has much bearing on reality.

1, only a select few people here on the boards see anything of 'evolution of PF to 4e', and it seems rather ridiculous to most of us. (From what I've seen from reactions so far.

2, there's lots of things that people didn't like about 4e, but 'exposed math' is hardly a commonly discussed issue. And 5e has probably even more glaringly obvious math, yet people love it.

I'd much rather have a game that's easier for players to understand regarding the repercussions of their choices, than a game where people accidentally stumble into garbage builds while thinking they're making something useful, which is what PF1 is. Time will tell in that regard. I expect it to be much easier to understand than PF1, but probably substantially harder than 5e.

Another thing I really enjoy regarding the new action economy - no more searching for ways to fill each action 'slot' and characters classes that can do so better or worse. I don't like it that you can end up with characters that either have little use for Swift actions or have too many things competing for their Swift action. I'm a big fan of system mastery, but I like how this shifts system mastery to the table, instead of your ability to comb through dozens of books.

See it done at all? Sure.

See it in core? Yeah, it's probably just you.

Mark Seifter wrote:

It's the difference between:

1) There are quatloos, waznits, bliknorks, foozles, and barloks. On your turn, you can do a quatloo and a waznit, two waznits, or one bliknork, and either way you can do one foozle too, except you can do a barlok at any time and if you do, you can't do a foozle next turn. Also, there's some things you can do for free.

2) On your turn, you have three foozles. Some things might use more than one foozle and will tell you how many foozles. You can also do a barlok at any time. Also, there's some things you can do for free.

Without looking back at the above text, in #1 can you do a waznit, a foozle, and another waznit on your turn? In #2, can you do four foozles?

Can I just say, I hate all these comments that try to paint the current action economy like some archaic, incomprehensible construct that we've struggled against since it's inception. Not just this one, but every time it seems to come up in conversation concerning the second edition playtest, the first edition action economy is always commented on with derision. I can't speak for everybody, obviously, but my first legitimate tabletop roleplaying experiences were with the pathfinder ruleset and the action economy was one of the most intuitive parts of the game. The way the actions fell into heirarchical structure made it simple to understand what actions were what, and how to distinguish between them. I can't recall ever having to reference the rules after first reading them, and the closest I can say that they've ever been a problem at one of my tables is when one of the players forgets that they took an immediate action, so they don't have a swift action this turn. Even then, it's not like the player doesn't know the rule, we just don't have perfect memories.

I'm not even against the new 3 action rules. I can see how changing to a 3 action turn will remove the near absolute reliance on the full-attack action, which in turn will allow for a more mobile, fluid, and likely engaging play...

Trying to teach the old system makes me think that it's highly unlikely that it's intuitive to anyone other than hardcore gamers. I can lay it out really simply, and people still get it wrong 13 sessions later, even though I explain it at least once a session.

3 actions and a reaction is likely to be WAAAAAY easier. I'll be testing it by having some complete newbs in my playtest games, though.

Also, it's rather telling that absolutely every iteration off of the d20 system uses a simpler/ more straightforward action system than 3.5/PF1

Regarding concerns about carrying multiple weapons - real life warriors generally carried 2-4 weapons into battle. I'd say that if we need to carry a couple weapons, then it just helps make the warriors I picture when I imagine my character actually line up better with his abilities. As long as the mechanics support actually doing so, rather than punishing us for diversifying.

Leedwashere wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

Albatoonoe wrote:

I hope we get away from limited "monk weapons", personally. It always kind of enforced an Asian flavor on a character, which is boring. Not to mention glaring gaps in what they can use. Not even something that sorta resembles a jian.

Me too, I think Asian names should be used for flavour, longsword = katana, greatclub = tetsubo, warhammer = dai tsuchi, etc.

I'd rather the asian weapons be used for variety, personally. There are a whole host of them which aren't just palette-swapped other weapons, and even among the ones which appear to be it rarely turns out to actually be that simple. For the ones which might appear at a glance to be palette-swapped, simply shuffling around the traits can make them enough of their own thing to be interesting. I just hope that they don't slap the exotic tag on too many of them for no reason, but I have enough benefit of the doubt for the designers to believe that the only exotic weapons in the new edition will be for mechanical reasons and that, as mentioned in the blog, they will use other means to differentiate what is common in an area, and that uncommon!=exotic.

Not me, I used to, but now it smacks of "Orientalism", where anything that is Asian/Oriental is automatically different and/or better (tank-slicing katana, etc).

The mentions of bo staff in the blog have me extremely worried about this, especially considering Ultimate Combat's take on these things. If a Bo is different from a quarterstaff, I'm going to seriously be smurfed off! It's just a stick, people!

Except for the greater number of slots in PF2, 5e spellcasting just seems plain superior to what we've seen so far.

I haven't seen anyone have trouble choosing whether to upcast or not when playing 5e. Although arguably, it's often not worth it. (Usually I just do it in order to hit multiple targets with Heroism)

Hey Mark. If you are really going to make blast spells this weak and pump up martial attacks that strongly by giving out three attacks at first level you can count me out of PF2. Please, drop the 4E designers and their dislike of the iconic spells. I don't want a fire weave or fire burst spell using a higher level slot to do what fireball has always done. Get with the program and allow casters to do other things besides the save or suck/die and group utility belt. Its really starting to get old.

He has basically said they're doing what you're asking for, so your tone seems pretty out of place. Maybe you need to chill a bit.

I tried to find medieval accounts of female armor. There is nothing definitive that I have found to date, but there is an over-arching narrative of "masculine" women when armed. That makes me think armor may have been gender-neutral, which is probably the right place to start.

That said, I think the games are too prudish. You can have (slightly) more mature art without changing equipment in a non-functional manner to be more sexualized (like boob plates).

There's some late Medieval/Renaissance artwork depicting women in armor. It's shown looking almost identical to male armor, except sometimes with a skirt over the leg armor portion. (like, actual large cloth skirt)

I want single target buffs like bulls strength to allow overcasting for more recipients (or be reworked for more recipients in base).

Non-group buffs are currently not very fun and usually not worth it and i'd like to see buffs act a little more like haste where everyone has fun with it.

Good point - scaling by number of targets is another possibility. So for something like Bull's Strength you could scale on № of targets and bonus. (Although I don't think that spell will exist in it's current form.)

I guess I can expand on my headache. If you were to allow PCs to purchase their profs and feats it would have to be very spelled out in the CRB. So many GMs are stingy with gold and rewards and fail to understand that the game doesn't work unless they provide the golden shower and ye olde magic shop.

I can relate because its often hard to explain why a troll who lives in a cave and eats whatever it finds has gold and magic items. Sure you can do a whole backstory on the poor adventurer who came before you and died in the trolls cave yadda yadda. Though after the 13th time telling such a tale it gets to be a chore. I cant speak for any GM but me, but I dont like chores...

Also, I am so tried of players turning over every stone for gold. I mean I joked once about them stripping out the copper pipping from a dungeon and their eyes lit up like they just discovered a new source of income...

I share your headache.

The troll thing can be solved by just adding that treasure to another encounter where it makes sense. The problem for me is that does nothing to help with the players wanting every single thing - although we had a funny campaign where my friend's character liked to loot furniture for his home. :)

One of my worries is caused by my 5e experience, where people still loot everything even though they don't need it and can't sell it for much. It took a lot of convincing to get people to stop wanting to take every goblin short sword and grimy boot. (Eventually I just refused to write it down, as I was the one keeping the loot list as a PC)

I'd like to see every spell with reasonable larger versions scale.

So, like citricking said, Enlarge Person is a great example, which you could even have different costs for based on if you want to effect a larger range of creature types, or if you want to make something even bigger.

What I don't want to see is spells that scale into different spells, like Mark mentioned in another thread (as being something they don't want to do) with Obscuring Mist not Scaling into Cloudkill.

I hate magic items as expected parts of builds, honestly. I also hate that even characters who shouldn't really have a desire to strip search every corpse still need to do so to get their WBL.

That being said, I know a lot of people like the status quo.

I mentioned in one of the economy threads that I would like to see a list printed that shows when abilities are expected to be available for PCs. Things such as, when to expect flying to be common, when you can deal with flesh to stone, diseases, curses, and all sorts of other situations often solved by spells/magic items, as well as when the math expects certain item bonuses.

This would have two effects:

1) It would help people know what to expect when planning a party composition, including knowing what they would need to cover via items if a character can't innately handle it.

2) It serves as a guideline for groups who want to remove the importance of magic items from their games.

I really do like Mathmuse's suggestion, though. And the idea of having something to spend your money on other than a treadmill of magic items is really appealing. I'd personally prefer to ask the question, "Why do high-level PCs need to be assumed to be wealthy at all?" But, given that it's been the default for a long time, it's safe to think the APs will assume that - thus another use for wealth is important.

I'd say the 4 hp from an AoE healing spell compares favorably with a 1st level PF1e cleric's 1d6 channel, especially since the 2e spell can both heal the party and harm undead at the same time. And it scales much better than the 1e mass cure spells - compare the 5th level new version at 4d8+mod to mass cure light wounds at 1d8+10 at level 10.

The fact that basic healing spell can do both AoE and ranged healing if desired also really helps with getting healing to dying characters.

I think due to the lack of a roll, it's probably better. I'm just wondering about the interaction with HP. What monster damage output looks like is a big factor in this. Although you're right that it does really outperform the mass version.

Just 2 points I'd like to add:

1) The 'also damages undead' bit is only a significant factor in undead- heavy campaigns. Most of the time it won't matter.

2) The AOE version should be compared vs Channel, as that was PF1's AoE healing. If the Spell Points allow Heal to auto-scale, then it compares really well. I'm a little worried about that, but I'm currently going to take Mark at his word about a Cleric not being necessary as a healer. (Especially since it sounds like the office playtests they do are often higher level games)

You can't really have an economic system where your team of 4 characters can fight 30 enemies who each have the same wealth as you do before leveling up without increasing the party's wealth by a huge multiplier every level (and even if you did say that wealth quadruples each level or something akin to that, you'd run into a problem where you fight a boss two levels higher than you and get x16 of your current wealth).

Basically, I'm hoping for some limiting factor on acquiring gear that isn't money, and leaving money to do other things. Worrying about the wealth drop from a PC-built foe runs counter to this...EDIT: also, PCs tend to be the only weirdos who carry all their worldly wealth on their person at all times, and it just kind of irks me when that is what is considered 'level-appropriate' gear value.

But, as you said, it's off topic.

To get back on topic,

True, this is mostly a snapshot impression from 1st level. I do find it rather scary how much damage can be put out in 3 actions if you roll well... makes 1st level much swingier than you would expect from the higher starting HP.

I think the 3 actions basically necessitates higher HP at low levels, which is something that I think people forget when they complain about 'HP inflation'. (although I wonder if the higher HP numbers at high levels will also make going into fights down some HP more feasible...)

I do wonder how the 3 action version of Heal will work out, since a lot of characters are looking like they'll have 15 or more HP. The 4 HP or so you'll get is a small fraction of that. Of course, no worrying about rolling a '1' on your channel, either, so maybe it comes out in the wash.

nogoodscallywag wrote:

What does this mean, ( dying value can't exceed 3) in the Regeneration Spell block:

"While it has regeneration, the target can't die from damage and its dying value can't exceed 3."

Dying 4 is dead. A character with regeneration cannot die while their regeneration is active. The wording does seem a bit redundant, but is probably written to account for effects (bleed maybe?) that increase dying value without dealing damage.

Probably so you don't auto-die at the end of the spell's duration...

My thoughts ??

I like most of the preview but seriously :
- Spell Slots
- Spell Points for domain/scholl powers
- and rituals

3 different magic systems for ONE CLASS ?

Come on Paizo !! Can't you just keep things simple ??

Past experience says no.

This is extremely important to us too. It may not come across when directly reading the rules because the rules will rarely tell you this directly (for instance, the essences deep dive from that post is not in the playtest book), but we spend a fair amount of time occasionally having really interesting conversations about things like "Well a voyage to Absalom is required to be able to try to join the Pathfinder Society. If you were in Magnimar and wanted to take a ship, how many months would you need to save up as a laborer beyond the amount you spend on food and lodging before you could afford it? This needs to be something you could conceivably do in the world."

Honestly Mark, just the idea that you occasionally sit around talking about how the economy has to make a certain amount of sense really makes me hopeful.

How does a Wizard with 12 CON get a 50% HP boost out of Vampiric Exsanguination? Seems like he'd have something like 85 HP, wouldn't he?

What is "handringing"?

That's what you're doing when you put on your rings in the morning, right?

I've been thinking, and add me to the list of people who would prefer Ancestries to look more like their PF1 versions, with the Ancestry Feats being cool extras you can do later.

From what we've seen so far, it does seem like abilities that used to be 1st level are being spread out, instead of getting more cool new things. Of course, some PF1 races really did seem to dish out a lot more abilities than others, so maybe some balancing is in order. I just don't want the Ancestries to seem to 'stripped down' to start.

RumpinRufus wrote:

Definitely agree - you should get at least 2 ancestry feats at level 1. Otherwise all the races will just look the same at low levels.

I agree with this. Two Ancestry Feats seem much more interesting and compelling than one.

Especially when you take Heritage Feats into account, since you'd be stuck without something that might be really important to your concept if you also need one of the Heritage Feats. I'm hoping it's at least 2 if not 3 Ancestry Feats at level 1. That being said, it seems like something that could easily end up changing through the Playtest.

The GCP playtest games mentioned a Medicine skill at some point.

Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I believe you but still 1 in 8000 does still seem pretty unlikely. You could probably not see that happen in an entire campaign. Considering we are rolling a d20 their is really only so much variation we can have. so a 1 in 8000 doesn't seem to unlikely, I think I've only seen 2 1's in a row happen like around 3 times in the 14 years i've been playing.

Well, to be fair, the reason why I said I might consider playing with the 3 1s version is the likelyhood that it wouldn't happen in that campaign at all, which is pretty much what it would take to get me to agree.

For people that like this stuff, fine, but I wouldn't play in that campaign. And since the thread is about making such junk core, it would take house rules to get rid of it, when it should be a house rule to add it in...

Yeah Critical fumble rules definitely should be optional. Not a core rule. some people hate them. I think its usually the Person dming that enjoys them. (evil laugh insert here)

however 1 in 8000 and then like a minor downside wouldn't be terrible. like a -2 penalty here or their. You can't get realistic numbers without changing the dice or making a stupid amount of d20 rolls.

If we're talking minor penalties, it's a lot more palatable. Something like you mentioned upthread is a lot more manageable. Then I'd be willing to endure it even with like a 1 in 400 (so confirmation roll would have to be a 1) And those could be played off as something like 'you step on a loose floorboard', etc.

It's still something I'd want to be entirely optional, since we don't need punishments for martials. Although I suppose it makes PF2 Power Attack more interesting.

I'm totally fine with stuff like they've mentioned so far, like reactions that can be triggered by a crit failure. That's just a 'oh, you left an opening there' sort of thing, and that happens often enough. Especially if your opponent is good enough that you're hard pressed. Such as would be represented by a higher crit fail chance in the new system.

I believe you but still 1 in 8000 does still seem pretty unlikely. You could probably not see that happen in an entire campaign. Considering we are rolling a d20 their is really only so much variation we can have. so a 1 in 8000 doesn't seem to unlikely, I think I've only seen 2 1's in a row happen like around 3 times in the 14 years i've been playing.

Well, to be fair, the reason why I said I might consider playing with the 3 1s version is the likelyhood that it wouldn't happen in that campaign at all, which is pretty much what it would take to get me to agree.

For people that like this stuff, fine, but I wouldn't play in that campaign. And since the thread is about making such junk core, it would take house rules to get rid of it, when it should be a house rule to add it in...

FaerieGodfather wrote:

You know, if I wanted to play a cartoonish farce starring incompetent buffoons...

I can only ascribe such vehemence to either having never used the rules, but dislikes the idea so they're by default the devil, or simply doing it wrong (applying fumbles on every failed roll, forgetting confirmation rolls, etc).

I've used fumble rules in the past, and they are definitely the devil.

1 in 8000 seems pretty unlikely to me.

In 17 years of fighting with swords, I've managed to accidentally hit myself once, in the first month or two I was doing it. And even then, it was because I bought a new sword with an extra long cross, and I bumped my head with the cross while changing sides. I've literally never dropped my sword without being disarmed.

17 years, at say, 300 swings a week average is 265,000 swings. Even if you say "But REAL combat is different" and make it 20 times more likely, that's still a 1 in 13,260 chance.

And I'm no epic hero - I'm not even all that good.