The Raven Black wrote:
I feel that 4e original sin was not listening to its customers base and force-feeding them what the devs decided was best for the game.
To be honest, I think it was the opposite. Or at least, listening to the wrong customers.
During 3.5e, a lot of new mechanics were introduced. You had what were effectively at-will attacks via Reserve feats (as long as you have a Foo spell available, you can do Bar at will), you had cool martial abilities that were essentially per-encounter in Tome of Battle, you had what were effectively Encounter spells for the Binder in Tome of Magic, you had the simplified monster format and the Delve encounter format, you had easy between-encounter healing, and so on. All of these things were well received by a vocal online fan-base, so when they made 4e they doubled down on those. But, as it turned out, the people who enjoyed those elements were to a large degree not representative of the fan-base as a whole, and other changes they made did not work out so well, so the whole thing flopped (for certain values of flop).
I love how much hatred the concept of 4e has. 4e wasn't a terrible game, it just wasn't a good D&D successor to 3.5.
Very much so. It had some math troubles, but it also had some great ideas. The main problem I had with it was that it tried to be something that didn't quite feel like D&D, what with some iconic races, classes, and monsters missing in the core rules and new ones replacing them.
But many of the ideas were great, such as healing as a resource inherent to the healee, short-term recharge powers, moving most non-combat magic to rituals, monsters with a small number of cool abilities instead of laundry lists of useless ones, and probably some others I can't quite recall now. Not all of them were well implemented, but the ideas were sound.
The split in magic lists feels reminiscent of the various power sources that powered all 4e characters.
I'll disagree on that. In 4e, power source was mostly a cosmetic thing - the important thing was what role your class had. The spells of a bard would likely be more similar to the prayers of a cleric or the exploits of a warlord than to the spells of a swordmage or a wizard.
I think there's merit to having a "trick shot" character like that, and that could maybe justify it's own class, but I don't see much reason to limit it to firearms. I think if I were to build a class like that, I'd want it to work as well for building Robin Hood as it would the Mysterious Stranger.
What Arachnofiend said. At least in the playtest, the fighter has no resource management (other than hit points and gear). All fighter class feats except Determination can be used as much as you want as long as you're in the right situation. This is nice, but it would also be nice to have a character with slightly lower baseline fighting ability (say, on par with a champion before adding in the magic) but with some form of resource management that lets you do extra-cool stuff. I could even see a mix of point-based resources (e.g. grit/panache) and time-based resources ("cooldowns")
And yes, such a mechanic could make sense for other classes to dip their toes in as well. That's what multi-classing is for.
Probably the filming itself was just a fraction of the production day. My guess is 2 or 3 episodes filmed per day, with the portion that was filmed edited down a bit.
I did some research, and found a post by Wil Wheaton where he mentioned that they were shooting the Tabletop RPG show "all week". The end result was 10 episodes that were each about 45 minutes (with some variation).
I don't know how well that translates to other RPG shows that aren't live, but it implies that you get about 2 hours of usable material in a day's shooting.
I'm not seeing this. RPG books are reference materials, they don't need to be read in a strict order. Unless the SRD version ends up abysmally nested with no links or sidebar/top bar menus, material is more accessible, not less.
There's a huge difference between a book written as a guide to learning something and a reference work. For example, compare educational literature to an encyclopedia. This is a big problem when writing RPGs, because they mostly have to fill both roles.
In the boardgame biz, Fantasy Flight Games have gotten pretty good at publishing games with two rule books: one for learning the game ("This is what the game is about, this is how you set the game up, this is how a round goes and what you do in each phase and some things to remember about them, this is how you win or lose.") and another as a rules reference (where you can e.g. quickly find out what is and isn't an Asset and what you can do with one). But an RPG, at least one like Pathfinder (1 or 2) is slightly more complex than can be explained in 16-32 pages, so that approach might not be super-functional.
Why did anyone ever throw Alchemist's Fire in PF1 when a Greatsword was doing 2d6+9 damage? They did it because it was worth it at the time due the situation they were in and the enemy they were fighting. Why would this not still be the case in PF2?
Because in PF2 there's a class built, at least partially, around using alchemical bombs as their primary weapons. So at least for them, using bombs should be viable as a default tactic.
Jack of Dust wrote:
My understanding is that things that used to target Touch AC (the Chill Touch spell, for example), now require a reflex save from the opponent instead.
I don't think so. That's how many 5e spells work (I think the PHB has a single-digit number of non-cantrip spells that have attack rolls), but PF2 still has attack rolls for energy attacks.
However, there are some secondary differences from PF1. In PF1, having rays be touch attacks mainly served to compensate for casters having lower BAB, and not using their primary stat. In PF2 I believe casters do use their casting stat to make spell attacks, and they are trained or better at making them. In other words, a wizard casting ray of frost at a foe should have about the same attack bonus as a ranger shooting with a bow, and their attacks target the same AC.
A level 6 Alchemist making 30 Elixers for a party of 5 is basically delegating the healing to individual agency allowing their focus to be completely free. Both i would say are completely viable so long as the numbers remain comparable.
I would argue that this point is not in favor of the alchemist, particularly not an alchemist who has focused on healing instead of bombs.
I'm unsure of the details of how this'll work out in the action economy, but the most generous way I can see a fighter drinking an elixir on their turn has them spend one action to ready the elixir, one action to drink it, and then having one action left to strike. It is very likely in this scenario that the fighter will need to use their third action on re-readying their weapon, unless they are fighting one-handed without a shield. On the alchemist's turn, they will shoot a crossbow bolt, reload, and then have one action open for something else. So, one crossbow bolt from the alchemist, and one heal for the fighter and maybe one strike as well.
If we instead have a cleric in the party instead of an alchemist, the cleric spends two actions healing the fighter, and then one action on bashing someone with a mace or something. Then the fighter has their full turn, likely consisting of two strikes and some form of trick (raising a shield or pushing the foe back or something). So, two fighter strikes, one cleric strike, and one heal.
The latter action economy seems much more useful.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Also... even clerics wind up being better healers, that is their thing. It is like being bummed the alchemist can't be as good with a sword as a fighter.
See, that's a problem for me. I don't want healing to be a primarily-cleric thing, because the cleric class brings a lot of baggage with it. It is the one class being strongly tied into a setting-based thing (religion/gods), and it it is a class being very distinctly exclusive to D&D-derived games (as an armored healer empowered by one or more gods).
I see healing as being a core function on par with "hitting things". Fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and monks are all good at hitting things. They go about hitting things in somewhat different ways, but in a party any of them can fill the role of "guy who hits things and can take being hit back".
Similarly, I think clerics, druids, bards, and alchemists should all be able to fill the role of "guy who undoes the effects of being hit". For some of them, it might be a core identity of the class while for others it's a thing they can spec into (I'm fine with a bomber alchemist being worse at healing than a baseline cleric), and they should probably go about the job in different ways (e.g. clerics being better at direct healing, bards doing heal + buff, druid being more resource-efficient but slower), but either of those classes should be able to fill the healer role in a party.
Interesting that the one week timing is vague, and yet on the same item, the 24 hour immunity is precise.
This reminds me of a thing I'm considering house-ruling: 24-hour durations, particularly of the "temporary immunity" variety, will be replaced with "until one sunset and one sunrise has passed."
Because screw keeping track of when in the day the medic failed their Treat Wounds check, or however that works nowadays.
I've been using binders with protector pages intended for mini-size cards (16 to a page). They fit Medium-size and Small pawns very well. I use ones for regular-size cards for Large pawns. Then I put all the Huge pawns in a single box, because there aren't enough of them to be a mess to search through.
As for the druid in particular, the reason you can't make a druid that does everything a PF1 druid does and some more is that the PF1 druid does way too much stuff. They have full spellcasting with a mix of controlling, damaging, and buffing spells, plus spontaneous summoning, plus wild shape, plus an animal companion, and OK skills. All major D&D versions post-3.5/Pathfinder have had at least some reduction of druid capabilities:
4e: First, druids didn't show up until Player's Handbook 2, and there they pretty much lacked healing, summoning, and animal companions, and since you needed to select what kind of powers you had you had to decide whether to focus on wild shape or elemental magic. Primal Power added summoning, but again each summoning power you learned would be one less elemental/shapeshifting power.
13th age: This probably has the most innovative approach. Like 4e, druids don't show up until 13 True Ways, the equivalent of PH2 for 4e. There, the designers come straight out and say it: the "classic" druid has too much stuff. Instead they get to pick three selections among: animal companion, elemental magic, healing, shape-shifting, nature magic (based on location), and fighting. Pick a thing once, and you'll be middling at it, or pick a thing twice and be really good at it.
5e: Nerfs summoning a bit compared to 3.5/PF, and unless you spec for it wild shape is mostly a scouting ability, not a combat ability. Also, no animal companion.
So, not being able to replicate all the abilities of a PF1 druid with additional stuff on top of that? Good. Working as intended.
I would also argue they were the first unique concept that made it into Pathfinder at all, and were where Paizo really made the game their own.
I would argue that they were around in 3.5e in the form of "Substitution levels", where you could swap some class features for others, usually based on a background of some sort. They were used in the race books, among other things. Archetypes are a more developed version of the same concept, but I wouldn't call it unique.
You could also trace their lineage back to 2e's kits, particularly the ones in the Complete Bard's Handbook which were all based around replacing core bard features.
I could see the comparison to 4th related to classes getting abilities at various various levels. I think it has things in common with D&D 5th such as adding level to proficiency and the 3 action economy. So for me maybe 5.5.
4e and PF2 definitely have similarities.
* Level-based bonus to almost all rolls (though 4e makes it half level instead of whole level).
* Multi-classing through feats.
* Many choices to make fairly often in character generation.
* Monsters primarily defined by level and role, and commonly having memorable special abilities.
* No "free" level scaling for spells - if you want a spell with lots of juice, use a high-level spell.
* De-emphasizing having a myriad different necessary magic items, instead having a small number of must-haves leaving more room for unique items.
This is not strange - both are made by people looking at D&D 3e and going "What isn't working here and how can we fix it?" PF2 additionally has the advantage of 10 more years of game design experience, including seeing where 4e failed.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Seems to me that if Paizo were to implement these class tags, it would save some space to put a reference to the feat in the description of the class, and put the descriptions of all the feats in one place, i.e., the "feats" chapter. Some might object to "now I have to flip pages to find out what it is", but that's about the only downside I can see. And that's alleviated in that the pdf version can include hyperlinks.
Again, that sounds horrible. It would be the alphabetization of spells all over again, and that was bad enough already. I'd rather have a book that's easy to use and with a handful fewer feats than one like that.
But I'm wondering- Why is it seen as a better use of column inches to devote n pages to archetypes than it is to devote them to a new class?
Because judging by the pictures we've seen of the CRB, a full class takes something like 12 pages (at least that's what it looks like comparing the Alchemist and Barbarian page numbers). An archetype takes about one (for the feats, plus more for the lore).
There's also the issue that an archetype can work for multiple different classes. A Hellknight archetype can be a Champion, or a Fighter, or a Cleric, or something else. If you make Hellknight a class, all Hellknights work the same way, and you have to be a Hellknight starting at level 1.
Furthermore, the PF2 rulebook doesn't do this because it has class sections, but there's no reason we can't just do cross-listing via tags to print class feats for more than one class with a single feat.
That sounds like a nightmare. If I'm making a monk, I want to look at the monk feats without being distracted by barbarian feats or alchemist feats or sorcerer feats. It's bad enough that the feats will eventually be spread across multiple books, but at least I hope each book will have them in concentrated form.
And if that means that there will be duplication leaving some feats on the cutting room floor? Good. Those were probably crap feats anyway.
Mastery in armor at level 13 seems a little optimistic (unless I've missed something from the previews). In the playtest, fighters got Expert at level 11 and Master at 17. Monks get Master at 13, but only in Unarmored. Paladins get Expert at 7 and Master at 13 - in the playtest, that's only heavy armor, but the devs have said paladins and fighters will have equal proficiency in lighter armors as well. No other classes, as far as I can tell, get armor proficiency beyond trained (at least not as default, could be hidden in class feats or the like).
On the other hand, you don't have any magic included in that calculation, so it probably evens out.
It is interesting trying to think of other examples that fit this class outside of avatar . Avatar is just such an obvious one that it blocked my view! But as has been mentioned it is very comic book inspired in general .
If you wanted to broaden the class concept a bit, I think a good way would be to look at Jim Butcher's Codex Alera books. Those books have very common elemental magic in the form of Furies. Their elemental magic goes a little beyond the direct approach - for example, water magic is used for healing and for communication via waterways, and metal magic (the elements there also include metal and wood) can be used for mental and physical endurance. It is common for people to have a personal bond with a fury, but some can get by just commanding the furies that happen to be around.
Well in the flat system the problem is that those higher level creatures are just pathetic shadows of what they could have been. 5e dragons are not very impressive (having lost their casting) and demons and other outsiders are even worse. They are basically adventurers with big sacks of hps. Not terribly fun to play against because they don’t have outerworldly abilities.
That's not a problem with bounded accuracy, however. That's a problem with boring monster design.
I run 5e, and I'll readily admit that monster design is one of the game's weak points. I think it was an overreaction to the hyper-complex 4e monsters, where almost all the humanoid monsters came in half a dozen different varieties loaded with special abilities for different roles, which placed quite a cognitive load on running fights. But there's nothing that says you can't have monsters with exciting special abilities together with bounded accuracy.
What made the playtest alchemist so much different to the current one? I didnt play it
The PF1 alchemist is basically a semi-spellcaster (like the bard or inquisitor) whose spells are flavored as alchemical concoctions and who need to spend one of their optional abilities if they want to be able to affect other PCs with their (predominantly buff-focused) spells. In addition, they can throw bombs dealing mediocre damage and eventually use a mutagen to go "Mister Hyde".
The PF2 alchemist in the playtest is strongly tied to the crafting system with some additional abilities letting them craft things on the fly. This mostly limits them to making elixirs others could make as well via Crafting, and the list of things they can make is very strongly focused on bombs, mutagens, and poisons. There are only about two dozen other items to make (not counting leveled-up versions), and almost all of them are available at level 3 or lower. This means that a high-level alchemist does mostly the same thing as a low-level one, except with bigger numbers
John Lynch 106 wrote:
In 4e encounter powers removed all choice from the game. You always opened with your most powerful encounter power, then worked your way down until you just had at-will powers left. I'm not surprised to see encounter powers being praised given the tone of the playtest, but I'll need to see it in action in its final form before I sing its praises.
13th Age has a pretty neat fix for why you wouldn't open with your most powerful stuff: the Escalation Die.
Basically, the GM has a D6 they put on the table set to 1 at the end of the first round. At the end of each subsequent round, increase the die by 1. The game suggests you get the biggest one you can find, but that's not a necessity. PCs add the escalation die to all attacks they make (which when translated to Pathfinder ought to mean their save DCs increase as well, since 13A uses the 4e method where everything offensive uses attack rolls). Monsters generally don't add the escalation die to their attacks, but there are exceptions, and there are also some monsters whose abilities are affected by the escalation die in different ways (e.g. "If the escalation die is even, do X")
The effect of this is to gradually ramp up the PCs' offense over the course of the encounter. This, in turn, creates an incentive to lead with weaker attacks, because you're more likely to waste a strong attack in an early round.
13A also has a fix for the 15-minute adventuring day, but that's a bit of a narrative cheat. Essentially, you get a full heal-up when the GM says so, which is usually after four encounters. This is not related to you going to sleep or anything like that. You can force a full heal-up, but at the cost of taking a "campaign loss" (the monsters eat the prisoners, summon the demon, get away, or something else bad happens as a result of the PCs tarrying).
I have a question about the license. Say you make a 3pp class and it's going to have one or more class feats from the CRB, either the same or slightly different from their CRB forms (like how some class feats in the Playtest are available to multiple classes, sometimes with minor differences). Do you have to put for that feat entry "see (class name) feats in chapter x of the Pathfinder Second Edition Core Rulebook" and then qualify any differences in that class' version, or would you be allowed to actually put the feat entry there, complete with any changes for your class, since you're actually giving them that ability and not referencing an existing ability like in the example given in the license?
As I understand it (and I am not a lawyer), the section you're referring to only limits how you may refer back to the Pathfinder books. For example, let's say you're making an adventure and the adventure has a bunch of orcs in it. You could then write "4 gnolls (see Pathfinder Second Edition Bestiary)." You could not write "4 gnolls (See Bestiary, page 123)."
On the other hand, you could likely get away with using the actual stat block (as long as proper OGL references are made), but if you do you must make sure not to include any product identity. For example, if the gnolls have an ability named "Hunger of Lamashtu", you probably need to rename that ability (depending on what Paizo declares as product identity in PF2, of course).
Clonky Bob wrote:
A class that satisfies the "play as a monster" itch, like a summoner but they get evolutions themselves instead of sticking them on an eidolon. I don't think 1e even ever did anything like that, the closest thing was the summoner, and that only ever gave you a monster as a companion.
PF1 also had the Shifter as a late addition, which has full BAB and druidic wild shape, plus the ability to buff themselves by taking on animal aspects. It doesn't have any "unnatural" abilities though.
Going back to 3.5e, you had the Totemist class from Magic of Incarnum, which could mimic some abilities of magical beasts. It was a cool idea but always seemed a little fiddly, moving incarnum points around to empower different abilities, plus some of their more powerful abilities competed with magic items for body slots.
I'm hoping each spell list will have both at least one bloodline that delves into monstrous transformations, and one that doesn't. In the playtest, the Fey and Imperial bloodlines stayed humanoid, the Celestial bloodline grew wings every now and then at mid-level, and Aberrant, Demonic, and Draconic all have a base-level ability to change their form (with tentacles, a bite attack, and a claw attack). It'd be nice to have options for occult and divine sorcerers that didn't involve overt transformation.
That's why I said it should have a slightly lower baseline martial competence. Think paladin/champion or barbarian as a baseline, but replace the holy/rage stuff with deeds/tricks/exploits.
And I wouldn't say that the fighter "relies on brute force and luck". In the playtest, the guy playing the fighter in the second adventure was probably the one most happy with his character, because he had quite a few options (it's been a while, but I think he used a polearm and focused on shoving people around). There's nothing wrong with the fighter, but it would be neat to have a class that (a) didn't use magic and still (b) could do a limited amount of really awesome stuff instead of an unlimited amount of really competent stuff.
Captain Morgan wrote:
You don't change encumbrance for damage, but you do for drain. Admittedly, Symbol of Weakness does the former, but the fact that this remains a point that needs to be clarified is not a thing in PF1's favor.
On the other hand, ability drain is really rare.
Also, I don't think anyone has mentioned one of my favorite wrinkles: how an odd/even amount of ability damage/drain interacts with an odd/even ability score. Bleh.
Well, for ability damage the answer is easy. Odd numbers don't matter. You get -1 per 2 full points of damage/penalty, regardless of whether your actual stat is even or odd.
This has to be the most handwaved rule of all pathfinder... why would you even do this...
Because "But you did remember to recalculate encumbrance, apply relevant penalties if your load suddenly went med/heavy, check if you still could use any weapons, items or feats that required minimum Str of some value, check what actual impact of your damage did it have, because it's -3 for normal weapons, but half of that for light weapons and 1,5 for two-handed ones, oh, do you round that up or down, also, CMB and CMD, skills that go off Str, also check if you aren't under the effect of anything that makes you use your Str bonus instead of whatever else bonus."
Much easier to remember "6 points of Strength damage = -3 to melee attacks and damage, CMB, CMD, and any Strength-based skill check."
That's a shame. I was hoping for a proper preview of the "real" new rules.
You are not really making a point for PF1 rules being easier or clearer here. :)
I know. This is just one of my pet peeves. PF1 actually simplified the rules for ability damage/penalties by not having it affect long-term stuff like feat prerequisites, bonus spells, max spell level, or encumbrance, but pretty much everyone seems to assume that it works like in 3.5e.
My hypothesis is that very few people have actually read the Pathfinder rules engine (as opposed to all the crunch that plugs into the engine - classes, feats, spells, etc.). They either come from 3.5e and assume that everything other than combat maneuvers is the same, or they are taught the game by someone in that position. And I can't really blame them, because the PF1 core book is a mess.
If ability damage/penalty has special rules that differ from the usual effects of having a lower ability then it is basically a special condition... just like in PF2. Only PF2 just gives it a name.
Exactly. Well, and PF2 combines all the mental stats into one condition.
But Strength damage/penalties do not actually reduce your Strength. This is what the core book has to say on the topic (via AONPRD):
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score.
Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense.
The same applies to Strength bonuses. So when your greataxe-wielding barbarian rages, she gets +2 to damage from the +4 Strength bonus, not +3 on account of having a two-handed weapon.
If you suffer ability drain, you actually reduce the score. But not from ability damage (or penalties, which is functionally the same as damage except it can't cause you to go unconscious or die).
I think what the discussion here shows is that there's demand for a class that's mechanically a resource-based warrior - something like the PF1 gunslinger or swashbuckler, the 5e Battlemaster fighter, or (on the more spectacular end) the classes from 3.5's Tome of Battle. The fighter's abilities are all either always on, or enabled by circumstances - the only resource the fighter has to manage is their hit points. That leaves a lot of room in the system for a class with a slightly lower baseline martial competence, but with some sort of resource that lets them push the envelope a bit.
I wouldn't want such a class to replace the fighter, because there's definitely something to be said for a class that doesn't have to deal with resource management. But there's room for both.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems you're the one who has been playing the game wrong all along. In Pathfinder 1, if you take Strength damage or get a Strength penalty you apply half that damage/penalty to:* Strength-based skill checks.
* Melee attack rolls.
* Strength-based damage rolls.
* CMB if you're Small or larger.
Also, if the damage is equal to or higher than your actual Strength, you fall unconscious.
You do not recalculate encumbrance, and you do not change that damage penalty to account for off- or two-handed weapon use.
To some degree, ranger spells in core 3e/PF1 were a way to represent being supernaturally in touch with nature - things like Detect Snares & Pits, Hide from Animals, Longstrider, and so on. But with later sourcebooks (starting with the Advanced Player's Guide), they got a whole bunch of combat buffs, thus making their spellcasting more a part of their combat power rather than exploration power. I mean, compare this spell list with this one.
In light of that, I'd be perfectly fine with a spell-less ranger that compensates by having class feats that make them better at nature stuff, and possibly with skill feats as well.
Like Sweden and Denmark have been separate countries for 400ish years, and though they speak different languages they are mutually intelligible.
I beg to differ. I can read Danish, but understanding spoken Danish is nigh-impossible for most Swedes. Particularly if they start talking numbers.
I can agree with this, every Healer should be on his own spot with things that can help and boost him above that.
Yeah, I'd be totally OK with different classes having different styles of healing. Just off the top of my head: the cleric could have the biggest direct heals, the druid would have short-duration regeneration spells that would heal more than an equal-level cleric spell but take a few rounds to do so, and bards could either be best at AOE healing and/or combine their healing with buffs.
I asked JJ why in-universe clerics have that ability instead of something more related to their individual gods and he said it's because they're designated to be the prime and most masterful channelers of positive and negative energy around, which is an okay reason I guess, but I still would prefer clerics who don't necessarily hurt undead and heal people (or the opposite), most of all now that we have so many ways to heal up and a dedicated healbot is somewhat less necessary.
That's a shame. I was hoping that they'd listen to the feedback that making one class much better at a core task (healing) than anyone else makes that class a necessity, which is bad. It's especially bad when that class comes with as much baggage as the cleric does.
This is one place where I thought 4e did good. They placed all the healing classes (cleric, warlord, bard, artificer, shaman, and probably a psionic one I'm forgetting) on mostly equal footing (as well as moved a lot of the healing burden to the person being healed). That meant that a party consisting of a warden, an artificer, a sorcerer, and a runepriest was just as viable as one consisting of a fighter, a cleric, a rogue, and a wizard.
5e is also doing pretty well on this front. A bard that has learned healing spells or a druid is mostly on equal footing with a cleric without the Life domain. I'm OK with the healing-specced Cleric outhealing everyone else, but IMO a baseline cleric should be about as good at healing as a bard or druid.
Stuff like "You heal an amount of hp equal to spell level when casting a spell of your school" also seem cheap to stack on Cantrips. It just makes sense that Cantrips=Spells is not such an absolutely hardwired expectation, it can often apply but can also not when appropriate... /shrug
At least one of the spoiler cards said something like "When you cast a spell using a spell slot, you get benefit X". That seems like a likely phrasing on anything that would give a lasting benefit (e.g. healing).
Gwaihir Scout wrote:
Huh. I hadn't noticed until now, but PF1 actually has a different definition of "check" from 3.5e, which makes the circlet of persuasion much more powerful.
In 3.5e, a check is "A method of determining the result when a character attempts an action (other than an attack or a saving throw) that has a chance of failure." In other words, attack rolls and saving throws are specifically not checks. But in Pathfinder 1, attack rolls and saving throws are types of checks along skill checks and ability checks.
I guess this means that a circlet of persuasion would help a swashbuckler using their Charmed Life feature? Or if any class had a feature that let them use Charisma instead of Strength/Dexterity for attacks?
They also likely scale separately. In PF1, +1 flaming costs as much as +2. In PF2, it seems likely to be closer to two +1 weapons. That's making some assumptions about how flaming works, but seems reasonable.
Wait... that's supposed to be armor, not clothing? Even less reason, then. Boob plate is inherently a bad idea, and I was hoping Pathfinder art had moved away from such silliness.
I mean, I'm not opposed to art showing cleavage on the right characters, but preferably not ones who are supposed to be armored. Save that for Seoni and Seltyiel, not Seelah.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Sadly, from these spoiler cards it seems Spell Level is still a thing. And considering the universal format of things, it's a worse problem than other editions. Feat 5 means it's a feat available at level 5, Item 5 means it's an item appropriate for level 5, etc. But apparently Spell 5 still means it's a 5th Spell Level spell, which can be taken at level 9... A cantrip with Heightened +1 means you improve it every other level. And what levels are they using for Rituals and Focus Powers? (I suspect spell level and character level respectively, but focus powers are probably heightened by spell level).