Smite Makes Right's page

You would have the option to not raise it every turn, and fighters often will be raising it as a reaction with reactive shield. Some turns you’ll want that other attack, some turns you’ll need to move etc. I don’t see a problem with reaffirming it every time. Each turn you get three actions, defending yourself with a shield requires one of them.

When you have to spend an action to avoid being flat footed this turn, to be able to use deflect arrows, shield users can spend an action to raise their shield.

Reactive shield or Shield Paragon will be a must have feat for fighters with shields and Shield Warden for Paladins.

The mechanic needs to go away.

Real life says that you're incorrect in your assumptions. That's why lots of school books and even the "... For Dummies" series use icons for often occurring notifications.

They're not going to use colour changes in the text going forward (there will also be a version dropping soon that'll be for vision impaired people, it'll be able to be read by text to speech programs).

As for the OP, so many of those things I can tell stem from an incorrect/insufficient reading of the rules. And I haven't even read the rules yet, but I could tell just from the previews and videos released before the launch.

I found the icons a little unclear. I feel like like one and two actions are clear enough, but that when I see three actions, I'll have to stop and count. Maybe I am getting old, but why couldn't they just hollow it out and add a 1, 2, 3, F, R, instead? It would be clearer once you were familiar with the iconography and no less obscure before then.

Both in the iconography and the traits (the somatic spell casting component may or may not have the manipulative trait? Why?), I feel like they are sacrificing comprehension for sake of word count. Increasing the learning curve will probably reduce the player base or slow the growth. You don't get more players by making the game less approachable and PF2e is far less approachable than PF1e or D&D 3.0 - 5e.

I haven't finished my first read through, but this is looking like a poor direction for Pathfinder (at hopefully a superficial level).

At a more fundamental level, I am concerned that the feats upon feats(PF2e should have the subtitle of "Yo, dawg. I heard you liked feats so...") replacing canned classes is going to lead to choice paralysis in some players, but that is harder for me to judge.

The compromises listed would create a ton of work for Paizo, which makes them very unlikely to be implemented. Ideas need to account for that.

Building alternative alignments in the vein of the Tyrant archetype is reasonable. Building 3-8 alternatives that have distinct balanced mechanics is not reasonable.

We don't know what they planned for class feats, but aside from the oath and smite ability, nothing about the paladin is lawful or good. You could make an argument for lay on hands in the same vein as cleric channel energy. Everything else is more about the character's role independent of alignment.

My solution would be to add a few (4 to 9) variations of smite chaos, evil, good, and law. If you want to separate lay on hands, define a more offensive ability and tie it to whether a corresponding cleric would channel positive or negative energy.

In a later book, add more differentiation by diety.

No, flexible alignments would be easy to implement and easy to balance.

Outsiders are by definition already 1% to 100% elemental and it makes sense that elemental is a subset of of outsiders. "An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane." That accurately describes an elemental.

I think if types and subtypes were more fluid, elementals would be outsiders / oozes. Since types and subtypes are not driving the stat block (at least to the same degree), maybe the types will move to more of "tag cloud" and elementals will indeed become outsider oozes.

The statblocks are only suggestions. Not every orc is evil, but for the sake of there being common villains to fight, nearly all orc societies tend towards evil. They do this by continuing to self-select, killing the "weak" orcs that stray out of line, just like most goblins and hobgoblins do. They're all capable of goodness, it's just hard to be good when doing so puts you in mortal danger. The same is true of "common" humanoids in Cheliax, Irrisen, Nidal, Razmiran, etc. Which is why those are great places for player-controlled heroes to visit. =]

Right. Orc culture may be evil and tend to produce evil characters, but the race does not. If the race has a physiological trait that subverts their control and actions, those actions are not good, evil, chaotic, or lawful because they are unwilling.

The caveat is that the physiological (Dwarven hardy) traits are often bundled with cultural traits (Dwarven defensive training) as a "race."

With luck, both ancestries and monsters will distinguish between the two in 2.0. It sounds like ancestries may at least.

Smite Makes Right wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

How can there be unwilling Evil acts then ?

Edit: How can an act be unwilling by the person performing it and be good or evil in regards to judgment of that person?

The Paladin code mentions willing evil acts. If there could not be unwilling evil acts there would be no need to specify willing

Or the code is emphasizing that it must be willing to be considered and then it must be evil.

Sometimes, redundant are stated explicitly for effect.

How can there be unwilling Evil acts then ?

Edit: How can an act be unwilling by the person performing it and be good or evil in regards to judgment of that person?

Xenocrat wrote:

The results of the deterministic firing of neurons in your brain are not your "fault" even though you mistakenly thought you had a choice rather than being a deceived but powerless observer of your own actions.

You should still be punished, of course, because those hardwired (or bounded random) processes that determine your actions are still modified by external stimuli and perceived threats despite the fact there's no "you" to "blame."

At least, that's what my own deterministic processes are leading me to type, and I find that my observer function agrees with them after the fact.

This is all factually untrue in a universe with souls. Which Pathfinder is. We can argue all day about whether it's true in real life (personally, I'm religious and believe in a soul, but that's matter of faith rather than logic), but it's certainly not the case in Golarion, where souls can be empirically measured.

That is not a given.

For one the deterministic nature could come from the soul rather than the synapses, often part and parcel with the concept of fate.

Second, you can still have deterministic behaviors determined by chemicals and neurons with a soul that is an influence on that physical system and/or carries the learnings from the physical onto the metaphysical (and possibly back again).

Now, Magic Missile[i] will bypass nothing and any low level monster with any amount of DR will laugh at spells like [i]Magic Missile, which already do less damage than a fighter or barbarian swinging a two-handed sword.

And unlike the fighter or barbarian, the wizard won't be dealing double damage dice because he has a magic weapon and he won't be getting quality bonuses for his spells.

It may be helpful to check if you are reading the change correctly. Skeletons have resistance to slashing and resistance to piercing. This is the same as damage reduction bypassed by bashing. It doesn't apply to magic missile. Magic missile will only be diminished by resistance or immunity to force, which will likely be very rare. I am not sure how spell resistance will work, if it is present.

When the fighter or barbarian have magic weapons, we do not know what the options for the wizard are, but they will surely have higher levels spells if magic missile does scale when heightened. Also, it's not clear how different levels of spellcasting proficiency will impact spells cast.

Does that help to alleviate your concerns for now?

Maybe for characters of a certain level, but I just don't see how it makes sense for every creature having battle-hardened reflexes as to know when to strike an enemy that is somehow moving away or distracted. An array of hedgehogs, they'll get ya!!

My point was that they aren't doing anything to do it necessarily. It's not a reflex.

You dropped your guard and walked into the hedgehog volley that was happening anyway.

When you provoke, it might be you walked up to someone who takes a swing or three as you run by or you may run careless into a field of swinging.

In the abstraction, there isn't a distinction between the two. In the abstraction, you take turns swinging, but they are actually happening simultaneously and you swinging at the enemy does not actually start on your turn. Mechanically it typically does, but if they provoke, they got wallopped by a swing that was already happening.

It doesn't require special training; it's just part of the abstraction.

Second: A question for those of you wanting multiple alignment 'paladins'.

Do you actually want the full package? Do you want to find your character tied to tenets so important that you can lose everything by violating them? Because, to me, that potential sacrifice is part and parcel of a Paladin.

Also (and slightly tongue in cheek) do you really want to be responsible for multiplying the should my Paladin have fallen threads by 9?

Full package, a holy warrior available for each faith. Holy warriors for Irori. Holy warriors for Pharasma. Holy warriors for Lamashtu. A warrior class that is not some personification of the diety or an aspect, but a warrior for the faith, empowered by the faith. A class code about treatment of the faith and the followers of the faith and adherence to the strictures and anathema of the diety. Even if we were restricted to lawful good, I hoped that there would be more differentiation between gods than paladin code + anathema.

I would like to see "falling" be handled largely as a GM and player conversation (a cooperative story telling point that leads to changes in the character rather than a point of antagonism between them). I would like for the actual "fall" to have three primary paths: temporary fall plus quest for redemption; loss of faith; and conversion of faith.

I also thought that it would be neat to have a litany/chant used at will with a longer cast time (maybe a minute) to divine whether a course of action is in line with the faith. More of an automatic knowledge check than a divination. It would be something that would be a parachute for players with cruel DMs and perhaps have minor side benefits (identifies you as faithful, unnerves or distracts faithful and/or outsiders of opposing faiths, etc).

That's what I would like, but I am not getting my hopes up.

I hope this does not derail but I had a thought. For the people who wish to lighten/remove the alignment restrictions from the Paladin, does that mean you also wish to remove the alignment restrictions from Druids and Barbarians? Druids in PF1 have to be any neutral. Barbarians can be anything but lawful.There might be some archetypes that can change that, same as the Paladin/Anti-Paladin but it was never a built in core thing. I mean I sometimes wish the names were different. Paladin=sounds cool. Anti-Paladin...sounds kind of dorky. I mean Tyrant is a cool name for a LE pally. Hellknight would of been a cool name for an evil paladin thing but that is taken by something else.

I am in the camp that alignments should be lifted. But I also agree with the otherside. What would the codes be? I mean LG we have, LE and CE we have also. What kind of codes could you have for a CG? What kind of codes can you have for a Neutral? I mean technically the Cavaliers/Samurai have an oath/codes that enable a "neutral"/selfish ways. The Knights Errant or Ronin. Then again, I always saw the Cavalier/Samurai as some weird "neutral" variant of the Paladin. I mean they have no alignment restrictions but they can be seen almost having similar/thematic powers without a deity. IDK I might be wrong and rambling.

I think it should be relegated to a suggestion at most. I feel that it is less of an issue since it is more flexible. For paladin, even opening it up to any good would be a huge improvement. In general, alleviating the alignment restrictions, to adapt James's phrase, would expand the stories that we can tell.

For example, I could see Sir Tristan being statted out as a Paladin/Druid.

As far as the codes, I was hoping that they would be derived entirely or primarily from the deity, like the cleric's.

Paladins should be Warpriests. Or « Knightly Order of X God ». And they should have the same restrictions than the Clerics. But only LG... It is 2018 already.

And Paizo lost the right to call on traditions when they introduced the Goblins as Core. Because in a world where you have Goblins as your normal adventurers, you also have Paladins of Cayden Cailean or Asmodeus.

I have a sudden need for a goblin Paladin of Shelyn. Perhaps that will be my official playtest character....

Athaleon wrote:

- You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others. (Good)

This is a 100% lawful tenet - honor is one that is on a solid amount of LG deities, and a few LN or LE ones...while not at all on any NG or CG ones.

This is 100% a mixed bag. Honor as an abstraction is more lawful versus anything else, but not lying nor taking advantage of others? That's good, not lawful.

I don't know about the whole "badge of authority" thing (HWalsh's opinion, not mine), but this whole "LG-only Paladins make Lawful Good the Best Good" argument really misses the point for me. No one is saying that (not even HWalsh). Because Paladins are more than just a divine champion. Not alignment-wise (I'm not saying they are more righteous than a divine champion), but flavor wise. There's more to them than that.

For the me, "lawful good is the best good," whether I agree with the statement or not, means that you have divine powers and the LG powers have clerics, paladins, and other miscellaneous servants. Other powers, good or not, will only have clerics and the miscellany. Chaotic evil being the exception with the antipaladin.

Sure, some of the deities of other alignments will allow LG followers, but they will be fewer and less in line with the deity. This results in a power imbalance and makes LG the best deity alignment (unless CE has an equal number of antipaladins).

For me, this has no direct effect on player alignment, but if the party alignment conflicts with the LG Paladin code, then it becomes disruptive.

We built the Paladin to be the best holy warrior we could make.

You made a divine warrior who is holy, who is empowered by and is characteristic of her deity, as an afterthought.

It's a narrow, party disruptive class that the only released effect of worship is that the deity's anathema adds to the restrictions of the character's disruptive behavior at the penalty of losing the class abilities.

You gave an example of the sin of sloth. Let's not focus on the parallel to real world religions, but instead, can you explain why this is considered a sin for Irori, Iomedae, Sarenae, Torag, Erastil, Abadar, and others that apply? Not individually, but why is, without exception, a vile concept they oppose? Is a paladin of Abadar going to utilize a litany against greed, if one were to exist? (let's assume that it does for sake of argument to give you the greatest freedom to discuss how the deities interact with their paladins.) They may champion wealth of the many over wealth of the one, but that could put them in conflict with the law of the land.

The fact that you are having to clarify, "LG Paladin" is the issue in and of itself.

The fact that I have to clarify "human paladin" is as much the issue as "LG Paladin" is. Which is to say that it is not an issue.

The class can be expanded without damaging the existing concept(s) it covers.

Smite Makes Right wrote:

You are not after defining a class or character, you are after controlling the playstyle of everyone else.

No I am not.

The Alignment restriction is part of the class. Defining the class only. I am not touching your playstyle at all, that is completely incorrect. If you define any restrictions on anything as impact your playstyle then we will just never agree.

I am not sure that we can proceed without devolving into yes you are, no I'm not.

An alignment restriction is part of the class as is the role amongst the deity's followers. Opening it up to to other alignments, along the same veins as the cleric, fills the hole for other deities while still allowing LG paladins to exist as normal. Nothing about that diminishes LG paladins.

If you can play a CG FULL Paladin of Milani, then it doesn't matter that I can play a LG Paladin of Iomedae because the class isn't the same anymore. Something is different and it doesn't feel like a Paladin anymore. It is just a generic holy warrior at that point and that has little to no draw for me.

You are not after defining a class or character, you are after controlling the playstyle of everyone else.

If they released 9 paladin variants to cover the alignments or if they managed the same thing more efficiently with one class, you would oppose the second, objectively superior option despite their being no meaningful differentiation between the two implementation.

I don’t know how you will handle the potential outcome of paladin variations handled by archetypes after the core release.

Igwilly wrote:

The Paladin, as any other class, has changed with time. However, they still are the Paladin. Just as the Wizard still is the Wizard, and the Fighter, and...

"Opening" up the Paladin to other alignments is not "changing" the class, is destroying it by changing their fundamental nature.
A fighter still fights. A wizard still casts arcane spells. Therefore, paladins should still be paladins, even if their abilities change over time.

And this article proposes a terrific approach to the paladin! Paladin fans have much to celebrate!
If you don't like the class, play another ;)

Doesn't work that way.

Part of the appeal of the type of hero the Paladin represents is the exclusivity.

If you open it up, you destroy that exclusivity, and you destroy the class.

So yes. You being able to play an CG Paladin of Milani damages the LG Paladin, because for us it isn't about what we can play. It is about the class's place in the world. You have to understand that.

It doesn't work that way.

First, why should a class with such a tiny place in the world deserve a spot in the core rulebook?

Second, the exclusivity and the trappings it comes with is a flaw of the class and the source of party discord.

Third, being able to paladin of Milani has no impact on your ability to play a paladin of Iomedae. The difference is that you have a set view on how a paladin should be played and are against players having the option to deviate from that. You are not preserving paladins of Iomedae, you are tearing down the options for others.

Look at it like the gods are colleges and paladins are football teams. Football teams represent the college and their rivalries much in the way paladins represent their deity's causes and oppose their rivals.

Having the option to have a paladin of Iomedae temporarily team up with a paladin of Asmodeus or opposing a paladin of Irori would add complexity and flavor to class, not detract from it.

Hey there all,

Hi. I apologize for not digging through the entire thread. I swear a page or two was added since I started.

Edit: I tried to make this level headed and constructive, but I do feel strongly about paladins and flexible, inclusive game design. Combined with the emotionless nature of text-based communications, I apologize if I offended anyone.

We knew the Paladin was going to be a bit contentious. The class has provoked strong emotions and discussion since the earliest days of gaming. In designing this class, we really had two routes we could take. Traditional, but very flavorful, or Reimagined, but ultimately more generic. I chose the former.

You had the option of making a divine class whose deity was a secondary concern and disconnected from the flavor or one where the deity was the primary defining aspect of the flavor. You chose the former. You may prefer to present it as you did, but I have no doubt that you could have made the paladin accessible to more alignments and therefore more deities while still preserving the lawful good implementation, if you want to play it.

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

This is a playtest and you could change up the incarnation we play with from time to time. Otherwise, we will have a one-sided basis for the vote that was suggested.

People sitting on the fence may be more likely to take a stance on which incarnation is more fun if they can see and play with a polished draft. Alternatively, making both available and seeing how often each version is picked may be a good supplement for a survey.

We knew this would not be popular with some. We knew the opposite would not be popular with others. Once this game is released, I would implore you to give it a closer look. We pushed for a paladin that best expresses its ideal form. If we can get that nailed down, the roadmap to champions of all flavors becomes a lot more clear.

I disagree. Without approaching that from the onset, it makes approaching it as a retrofit more difficult and more likely to result in awkward patches or new classes to handle an assortment of narrow variations on the paladin.

A flexible base class is a better solution even if the core book only presents a few options and the remainder are released in a supplement.

Until then.. be kind to each other folks. We are all hear to tell stories and go on thrilling adventures. Nobody wants to fight their companions along the way.

That is a good sentiment, but you gave us the version of the paladin that is arguably even more of a party enemy than prior incarnations.

The straight-jacketed implementation of a lawful good only code combined with deity anathemas results in a class that must only travel with like-minded companions or be the source of party strife. How are you planning on evaluating the anti-social aspects of your class strictures?

This implementation that is a class who is mechanically a team player, but the strictures make it disruptive unless he subjugates his party.

This is largely a disappointment.

Again, gods who disallow lawful good clerics have no holy warriors. The lawful good paladin wasn't the one you needed to get right, it was the one that you needed to step back from and start from the concept it is filling.

If I recall correctly, the original paladin worshipped one specific diety and no one else had paladins. 3.0 addressed this hole with a few prestige classes and 5e has incorporated variations into the core class. The 5e incarnation or the 3.0 Templar (expanded to 20 level class) are more indicative of how the paladin should be treated. Other deities deserve a divine champion and we should not have to wait for a supplement to play divine champions of core deities.

Again, the shield tax needs to go. If paladins are iconic shield users, they can't be down an action every turn for it. Especially, if they need to juggle actions for attacking, positioning, using lay on hands, and spell casting.

I like the AC bonus with lay on hands. (I would actually prefer that the bonus did not apply to the paladin, perhaps +x to AC, up to the paladin's own value.)

I didn't see anything about actions or hands available required for paladin lay on hands or spellcasting.

Edit: Also, did anyone finally teach paladins the mend orison?

The action tax on shields needs to go. Sword and board paladins needs to be a viable option instead of devolving into juggling actions in order for core functions. I came to play an action game, not a resource management Sim.

In addition, I want characterful shields, not disposable ones that get thrown away because they break.

The best in category armor is valid and should remain so because the differences are technological differences. If you can afford full plate, you don't buy banded and trying to make them an even trade off is like making bronze weapons equivalent to iron.

To make it less confusing than before where you could have a shield simultaneously enchanted as both a weapon and an armor in the same weapon, we have separated out the shield spikes (for piercing) or boss (for bludgeoning) as weapons that you deal with separately. This incidentally allows you to do a lot more with your shield and to switch out your really nice boss or spikes into a new shield if you find one that's awesome.

Wait. You pluck the spikes or pry the boss off of your shield and plug it into a new one? That's a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

When discussing the spell slots, the spells for high ability score aren't just gone with no replacement; you also get more of your best spells automatically (2 of your best spells at odd levels, 3 at even without counting channel/domains, as opposed to PF1's 1 at odd 2 at even without counting channel/domains). While at very low levels, a heavily optimized character (starting at 20 casting stat and aggressively pushing headband) might be getting 2 bonus spells or her highest level from ability scores, that tends to be impossible to keep up by about level 5.

I apologize for not having the time to get caught up on the thread, but by the time I did, I would be behind on the next one.

However, I have to disagree with you. Your spell slot changes have removed bonus spells with no replacement that you have revealed so far. Yes, the changes let you keep pace with a Pathfinder 1e caster at first, but instead of having a maximum of 4 spells per level, plus bonus spells, plus domain spells, plus a domain power, plus channel energy, we have a maximum of only 3 spells per level, plus a domain power, plus channel energy.

While channel energy, cantrips, and maybe domain powers sound like their might be cooler, you haven't revealed enough to offset concern that you are hindering our ability to cast signature spells. Yes, a cleric can now heal with channels, but now healing is competing with channel energy usages instead of spells.

With what you've revealed, this is a significant net loss of spellcasting for a dedicated spellcaster.

What about for classes that don't typically channel energy, like a wizard? The reduced number of spells would be crippling.

Anathema, on the other hand, sounds awesome and I hope we see it applied to all of the divine casters, particularly, the paladin.

And for the record, I'm a fencer and have been competing for almost 10 years since college. Everything a combatant does requires focus. Using the shield as an action is smart developing; your shield doesn't just hang out statically in front of you.

Would you require that a combatant expend an action to apply their dexterity bonus to their AC? They are not just hanging out statically in their square. It requires focus. Making everyone use an action to receive their dexterity bonus is smart developing.

Congratulations on your fencing accomplishments. I am not one. I did some light fighting in college and have had minor progress in martial arts. However, I think it is safe to say that not having a shield does not give you a case of dead arm. Whether you have a shield changes how you fight with your arm, not if you do.

[3] This one's a long shot, but...Venetian spellcasting replaced with spell points, similar to, no exactly the way psionics works in ultimate psionics.

I think you mean the abomination that is Vancian Magic.

WBL is a guideline and should remain so. Some will exceed it and some will fall behind it. Society balance where a character floats between groups will be different from home groups where the resources may be shared to a degree.

Power by level is a guideline, but we may refer to abstractions of "optimization," we don't force players to meet precise levels of optimization.

In same vein, WBL should be a rough guideline without becoming a weight around the group's necks.

Multiclassing should be balanced, but it is a vital part of character customization. If you restrict characters to one class, you will have to provide single class options for all character concepts and I don't think that is reasonable or effective. The 4e take was bad.

If you don't like multiclassing, don't, but don't take that option away from people who do, like me. Balance is good, but so are options and there is no reason that we can't have both.

But the sky

IS FALLING!!!!!

Only if it is master level proficient and spends an action to ready gravity. Then, when someone posts, it can use a reaction to move downwards its full movement rate.

One thing that I think we could explain a bit better is the fact that every character has a breadth of options open to them when it comes to social and out of combat abilities.

You and Mark Seifter appear to be presenting different design philosophies.

Planpanther wrote:

TiwazBlackhand wrote:

Also, Normal Fighter Dude, with Master Grade Athletics (so, lvl 7) has literally been said in a blog preview to be able to leap into the air and smash flying foes to the ground.

You can get master proficiency by level 7....yikes.

This particular aerial combo is an ability available exclusively to fighters, and it is available in the level range of master (pre-legendary), but that doesn't mean you can have the whole thing going at a particular level. You'll at least get some anti-aerial options around the time the wizard is first able to fly.

Why should a jump attack be exclusive to a fighter? A fighter is a guy who focuses on martial training, but it is just training. Everything he can do should be theoretically available to everyone. Anything that is closed off to nonfighters should be due to the amount of of feats and proficiencies required.

Only fighters can jump attack is even more arbitrary and ridiculous than only 4th level fighters can specialize in weapons. If I want a ranger that focuses on aerial foes, I can't take them down without splashing into fighter? Why? It reflects poorly for PF2.

Are we sticking with only rogues can disarm magic traps and only rogues can study a trap to bypass it? (Because there is something special about examining something)

You talk like you have options as to how to implement your concept, but you every so often, in even just this thread, you say something that indicates that you are dedicated to artificially attaching generic functions to classes.

I was hoping that Pathfinder 2 would be a system where I would be able to say that my Holy Crusader is a pure Paladin, a Cleric, a pious Fighter/Sorcerer, a pious Monk/Wizard and through options such as spell and feat choices be fairly effective at fighting evil/undead/fiends, but it is looking like PF2 is going to be even worse in this regard than PF1 and 3.5. Give me a reason to play a class that isn't "we took this generic ability that everyone should be able to do and tied it to one class."

Smite Makes Right wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Rubber Ducky Guy wrote:

5 is a gross exaggeration. We go 30min or longer before someone has to pause to ask questions.

What really slows things down is the archer with a bucket of variable bonuses who has to calculate manyshot, rapid shot, judgement, bane, haste, bardic performance, deadly aim... ect with each shot

If adding 4-5 numbers from paper is derailing the game by 30 minutes, then how is adding 4-5 numbers from a dice going to change your experience and make it better? The process is the same, but instead the player now has to deal with the system working against them roughly half the time, at best.

I think you misunderstood what Rubber Ducky Guy* was saying. They play for 30 minutes or more without a question. The time spent on the math for the archer's damage was not specified.

*I can't help but say that in an Ernie voice.

It really doesn't change my point, if they were having problems adding 4-5 different numbers that are static and don't change turn to turn then how is the same group going to fare when they have to add 4-5 numbers that do change every turn?

The archer's bonuses would change turn to unless the group is only facing a single target. I suspect that the issue is not the addition, but remembering what bonuses apply. If that is true, a flat bonus versus a die would not make much difference, but a die added to one roll would be simpler than a flat modifier applied to two rolls. The exact impact would vary by player experience and focus.

Bodhizen wrote:

My single greatest concern is the lack of any mention of Fighters having greater narrative power than they did in First Edition. Can we please get a response to this concern?

Then the Fighter is not your class. They don't need any NARRATIVE power. They are a COMBATIVE CLASS. They fight. At most I can see is maybe doing something with intimidate. Other than than I don't think they need any. If you want it that bad then dip in to classes that give it.

The response is either there is none or wait till the playlets comes out and see the full CLASS.

That's not entirely a fair statement. For example, I believe in d&d 3 or 3.5, there was a gladiator prestige class that could use his gladiatorial fame in a narrative fashion. However, since the fighter is, in concept, a generic class, the narrative aspects would likely come from feat choices that have flavor attached to them.

Just because the class is specialized in combat does not mean that it should not have non-combat options.

Rubber Ducky Guy wrote:

5 is a gross exaggeration. We go 30min or longer before someone has to pause to ask questions.

What really slows things down is the archer with a bucket of variable bonuses who has to calculate manyshot, rapid shot, judgement, bane, haste, bardic performance, deadly aim... ect with each shot

If adding 4-5 numbers from paper is derailing the game by 30 minutes, then how is adding 4-5 numbers from a dice going to change your experience and make it better? The process is the same, but instead the player now has to deal with the system working against them roughly half the time, at best.

I think you misunderstood what Rubber Ducky Guy* was saying. They play for 30 minutes or more without a question. The time spent on the math for the archer's damage was not specified.

*I can't help but say that in an Ernie voice.

The race was wiped out by a parasitic race leaving a legion of resilient hybrids with acidic blood.

Smite Makes Right wrote:

Collect twice as many free hugs. Duh. ;)

And now I have an image in my head off a Kasatha hippie.

*starts printing character sheets*

My job here is done.

Reason #3 -- It is very cold in space, liquids like blood freeze instantly effectively sealing the puncture.

Space is not cold. Cold requires matter for you to be in contact with and transfer your heat to. In a vacuum, you are actually at risk of overheating as you can absorb heat from a "nearby" star and have no way to transfer it away. (So, as part of protecting you from a vacuum, armor has to either reduce the amount of energy absorbed or have an internal cooling system.)

Back on topic, out of character, an attack that hits does not represent actually connecting with an attack.

A more interesting answer would be the complex but miniaturized systems that go into the basic functions of armor (like environmental protection) are under sufficient enough pressure as to instant seal around punctures until nanites can more permanently repair the damage. This sometimes results in side effects like a foul smell to the recycled air.

Note that the Technomancer and Mystic also get abilities besides just spell levels; not having 9 spell levels also gives them things they can swap out for archetypes and such at levels where they arent getting new spell levels.

Theoretically true, except that when they take archetype abilities, they are often swapping out spell slots.

It feels like they squeezed Pathfinder Society restrictions across 20 levels, but I suspect that the reason for it is more likely to be able to give the caster class more abilities per level other than more spells.

I am thinking of adapting the d20 modern / urban arcana rituals for the high level spell effects.

It has been pointed out in another thread that there is a sidebar on page 3 (aliens as PCs) that says for the Starfinder game, treat +1 and -1 as +2 and -2. That should resolve the difference in attribute bonuses.

I am not sure what the trend in Pathfinder is or what the trend in Starfinder will be, but in d20, when you gain a feat without meeting the prerequisites, you do not need to meet the prerequisites to use the feat.

Either, gaining proficiency through a class feature is not a feat or it is a feat that you gain without needing to meet the prerequisites.

If Paizo's intention was that heavy armor required a certain strength, they should have placed that requirement in the heavy armor section. They did this for heavy weapons, per Gorluckcanfly, and did not do this for heavy armor so I believe that the strength is only required if you gain proficiency through a feat.

Shirrens- Between having 3 genders, and a culture explicitly based around celebrating individualism, this is hands down the race I'm most excited about in the specific context of making queer as hell characters, but also the one with the greatest need to clarify a hell of a lot of things first. Like, what is the whole pronoun situation here? If I had to guess, I'd say males go he/him, hosts go she/her (specific reference in the stat block to 'queens' and all), and females have their own pronoun set going on. This is something that really needs to be sorted out officially before anyone can really properly write about any non-male shirren NPCs.

Also having 3 genders calls for a lot of specialized terminology for attraction. If you're straight, or ace, that's fine. A certain percentage of them being trisexual is a given. If you're specifically only interested in others of your own gender, that's manageable. But, what if you're, say, a host who's...

I am considering using one pronoun, perhaps varied by speaker (independent of speaker's or subject's gender) to represent having a difficulty transitioning from telepathic communication (which may involve transmission of ideas rather than words) to verbal or written use pronouns. If I do, I will probably have them tend to avoid singular pronouns.

Another interesting piece of kit is the holoskin. It's superficial only, but still offers some options. I was surprised that there was no other alter self/change self/shapechange equivalents.

In addition, they can use empowered weapon to get +1 to +6 attack and +1d6 to +6d6 damage.

I would say that grapple is a poor choice unless you do not need to maintain the grapple on the subsequent rounds, but I am not sure how that would be helpful.

Keep in mind that some of the staves have a material component cost. For example, the Staff of Life's Raise Dead. So, since you don't have to supply the material component to recharge the staff, you wind up saving money ... if you are prone to untimely deaths ... That baby pays for itself after only 22 uses.... </sales pitch>

Aelryinth, you are the one playing English-twisting games to invent a loop hole.

Mage Armor with leather armor does not interact with the rules for Bracers of Armor. The clause does not affect that pairing.

You cannot use wear two suits of magic armor because it they use the same magic item slot. I don't know if there is anything preventing or allowing you to use two mundane suits (or one mundane and one enchanted).

Stacking armor bonuses has not been errataed, armor bonuses have not stacked, in the same manner that they do not now, since 3.5 and probably since 3.0.

What has been added in Pathfinder is the odd language in bracers of armor.

Stop calling people names, please. I could use adjectives to describe your posts and behaviour as well, but I recall the most important rule of PFS.

I have never called anyone names. I can understand that you might misconstrue my intentions, but please stop misrepresenting my actions.

I have reread Mark's post and find it less offensive than when I originally read it. Perhaps "condescending" was not the best word to describe the tone, but I did find it rude. I found the post rude. I never said anything about Mark Moreland. I do not know him in any capacity and I assume that the above post was off moment.

The post you're referring to was about posts to the messageboards by members of the Pathfinder Design Team. Posts by PFS Campaign leaders, of which Mark Moreland is one, are official with regards to the PFS Organized Play Campaign.

I was not aware that Mark Moreland was a PFS Campaign Leader. That is disappointing, not to imply that he in any way performed sub par in that role, but because I strongly feel that this change merits a FAQ entry at the least.

So, Kyle Baird's Scenario #5-08: The Confirmation conflicts with Mark Moreland's ruling above. Since the Season 5 scenario is more recent and has the potential of overturning Mark's stance, can we get a FAQ entry for upgrading Wayfinders using the Wayfinder Enhancements in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide?

I assume that we cannot expect an errata for either document since they are PDF only (and thus never reprinted), correct?

I would suggest Fate's Favored trait as your second trait: increases luck bonuses by 1.