Starbuck_II's page

More support for every archetype.

Like Mindwyrm Mesmerist deserves support for its breath like the feat make s it have a secondary effect after dealing dam. Maybe fire choice sets them on fire. Cold entangles. Electric dazzles or deafens. Or something

And maybea breath feat for +3 or 4 uses (it is limited pretty badly to just Cha uses normally)

Unchained Spiritualists?
It could do with better spell caster list (making it faster, getting a few spells quicker) like Chained Summoner (ironically chain made it better).
A better summoner archetype for Spiritualist.

Unchained Ranger. He could use a tiny improvement.

I like that 2E spell Grim Tendrils

I think to convert it since it would way too strong to level up naturally so much:

Grim Tendrils
Class Wizard 2, Cleric 2, Spiritualist 1
Casting: Verbal, Somatic
Area 30 ft line, 5 ft wide
Save: Fort (half)
SR: Yes
Tendrils of darkness curl out from your fingertips and race through the air. You deal 1d4/2 lvs (Max 5d4) negative damage and 1 bleed damage to living creatures in the line. Each living creature in the line must attempt a Fortitude save to negate the bleed and half the negative damage.
The bleed damages increases by 1 every 5 lvs (2 at 5th, 3 at 10th, max 4 at 15th).

Also Shield Block, while 2E monsters deal way too much at higher for shields to survive, 1E monsters likely won't (a lot of monsters do multiple weak attacks than one big one).

SheepishEidolon wrote:

Players are currently level 3, with a emphasis on divine casters (inquisitor, shaman, omdura). The fourth player runs a barbarian, so far they all have a blast. We use Unchained's revised action economy, which turned out a tad too melee-friendly (for my taste), but the pacing is still way more enjoyable than high-level combat.

I use Unchained Action economy in the PF1 game that I run. I find that it making that game more 'melee-friendly' is a good thing but would suggest that (if you havent already) you don't remove swift actions from the action economy. Make quickened spells a single action, but preserve things like swift action bardic inspiration, paladin lay on hands, etc. Warpriest still have to spend a single action to 'buff' themselves with fervor.

The actual book sidebar doesn't say Swift 1/rd. It says do as many times as want unless it becomes an issue.

When I run it next, I decided 1 free action (swift) a rd then they cost 1 action.
Also cantrips cost 1 act, but each component of a spell is an act with spells. Eschew takes away Material, Silent takes away Verbal, and Still takes away Somatic. And if they use Occult, Logic takes away Emotion.

I'm planning to run Jade Regent soon with UAE (I think in Sept). I'm planning use 2E's shield mechanics.
Everyone gets Shield Block as a basic ability (like Elephant in Room which I'm also adding)

Instead of Shield Other, I'm letting Whispering Strike be able to raise/block like a shield. Yes, +1 Wakizashi's only have 12 hp as they are small blade but they have decent hardness.

I'm including most of basic 2E Shield feats like Quick Block, Reactive, Aggressive, and Angle Shield (from a designer's blog). It is possible player's don't even use shields making all this for nothing lol

Bracers of Armor helps AC and doesn't break.

BTW, Flask Avengers are back:
Sneak attack works with alchemist flasks like acid or alchemist's fire.

So, have trouble hitting normal AC, go for touch by throwing a flask or two, especially with sneak attack.

Haven't tested the Alchemist class's bombs, but normal ones work.

Love this because 3.5 D&D allowed it but I never got to try it out back then.

Well, one save is Druid, Luna, still in old sycamore.
Feyspeaker Druid 4 Aasimar (race that gets 1/day SM 3)
Valarie Fighter 4 (power attk, dazzling display)
Linzi, Bard 3/Rogue 1 (sneak attk, since ranged sneaks work now)
Regongar, Magus 3
Octavia, Rogue 1/Wiz 2 (with accomplished sneak attack)- acid splash sneak attacks are amazing. Reason I survived Smolder Viscount.
Harrim, Cleric 4

Other save: more multiple classing, just started and experimenting
Ash, Monster Summoner Inquisitor 2
Linzi, Bard 1/Rogue 1
Amri, Barbarian 1/alchemist 1 (vivisetionist for mutagen/sneak attk)
Harrim Cleric 1/inquisitor 1 (animal companion/extra healing)

Draco18s wrote:

kaid wrote:

Also with the cantrips auto heightening in general casters have some solid go to backup powers they can use whenever they want.

They're not solid. Look at the numbers in my post above yours. Cantrips gain damage at 1/4 the rate of slotted damage spells and cap out at 5th level effectiveness. 2d8+INT can't even come close to comparing with 12d10. Sure, you could use the cantrip 100 times instead of the 5th level spell once, but generally speaking a 5th level spell once is enough.

Cantrips can't even be used twice in the same turn (unlike comparable damage melee and ranged fighters; cough Longsword 1d8+STR cough) due to the way the action economy works. Add onto that melee fighter's Stance, Open, and Push keywords the fighter actually gets more interesting while wizards and sorcerers got less.

Uhm... At 5th level your Acid Splash does 2d4+Int Persistent 3

A 5th level character will probably have a +1 Weapon, that they had to pay for, and say a Shortbow, will do 2d6+0 Persistent 0, Deadly 1d10.

Assuming you have an Int of +4 (and I suspect you will) that is 2d4+4 or an average of 9 damage, 3 persistent.

A +1 Shortbow user will do an average of 7 damage.

Granted you will only get to fire once, they can fire (up to) 3 times (granted though that 3rd hit isn't likely to hit, and they are shooting at a higher difficulty, and their second hit also isn't likely to hit...)

And you get this attack for free... That... That isn't a bad weapon?

It is basically a better version of a magic light crossbow. That you don't have to carry ammo for. That you use your casting stat to hit with. That does static damage based on your casting stat.

7th level it is equal to a +2 Weapon.
9th level it is equal to a +3 Weapon.

How... How do you call this bad?

And if their touch AC is significantly lower than regular AC then you crit more often doubling damage.

TheFinish wrote:

O. N. wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...

I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.

A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).

There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's that. And the pattern repeats for basically everyone. Monsters are either as good as optimised, magically armed fighters of their level, or they're straight up better. In this world, we had people that were able to hunt tigers. In PF2, a Tiger would TPK a party of 1st level anything without breaking a sweat.

I am totally finding that the monsters are more powerful then they should be currently. If there were monster creation rules, I would completely be critiquing that!

There are the Elite and weak templates.

It becomes a bomb so 20 ft.

I'd say +2/DC hit if target covered in oil.

I just got through two playtests sessions and I find that they attack bonuses on level 0 creatures are too high in general.

Attack bonuses should not be +6. I’m talking about most level 0 creatures, for example Skeleton Guardian. It makes no sense considering:

1) You reduced all armor AC by 50% in PF2, our ACs are not good.

2) There is no UMD wand buffing with Mage Armor or Shield anymore.

Yes, Trick Magic Item is a feat, it requires training in a skill related (Arcana, Nature, Occult, or Religion). Basically UMD but limted to one type for Mage armor and Shield choices are Arcana or Occult.

I'd add the Weak template (lowers level by 1) listed in Bestiary (lowers AC/Saves/Hit/Dam by 2), also lowers HP.
This is important since fighting multiple Level -1 is more balanced than multiple level 0's for Level 1 characters for Encounter Budget (though you get less XP).

Heck, Shield is a cantrip so available to most PCs (Elfs, Humans, Gnomes).

I will say Bobcats will straight up kill commoners though.

Nonlethsl exists (fist deal it)

Wouldn't it make sense to just get a cantrip as a Monk (Humans can get any cantrip). Then choose shield spell.
That adds +1 AC (just don't use shield block mechanic much).

shroudb wrote:

i'm gonna use my fav new item for this thread: sturdy shield.

assuming that level 1 adventurers are pleb commoners picking up semi-sharp sticks of iron as weapon and disposable shields, from level 2 and onwards that they start gearing, they can start buying those!

the level 2 "sturdy shield" is "expert light wooden shield" with 3 dents and a hardness of 6, which means that it needs to take 12 damage to get dented.

since the're wooden, we can say that they could be the semi-disposable viking shields. Certainly able to take a few hits before becoming broken (and needing repairs)

the level 4 variant, or "light steel" can be compared to the greek one, sure, bronze is softer than steel, but they probably aren't layered upon layered. Still, 8 hardness means 16 damage to start taking dents.

and then we can get to the crazy ones, at levels 10+ made from special materials, where even dragon strikes have trouble denting them.

seems about right. no

No, I don't think that's right; IMO you don't apply Hardness twice per RAW, at least that's my interpretation. Here is what the rulebook says :

(Item hardness, p. 175) wrote:

An item reduces any damage dealt to it by its Hardness. The Hardness of various materials is explained in the Materials section on page 354. If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness, the item takes a Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents. A typical item can take only 1 Dent without becoming broken. A second Dent causes it to become broken, though it can still be repaired. An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage.

I can understand the first sentence is confusing because it implies that each item can completely ignore damage equal to its Hardness. However, I don't think that's the case, you ignore damage only if it's...

This sentence you quoted says you subtract twice:

10-3=7. Is 3 go into 7 twice? Yes, explains the 2 dents.

so Tanglefoot is for slow and anti-Casters?

So Heavy armor dudes and Warlocks.

Remember Heavy Armor dude likely has only 5 movement speed after being hit. 25-10 Heavy Armor=15 -10 Bag=5 ft

If Culach is right, at high level, why would anyone ever carry a shield? The very first encounter, you raise it, it blocks 5 hp, and is destroyed. So shields are basically one use, mundane items that for 10 sp or so give 5 temporary hp. Only at very low level do you get a few uses out of them.

Why would anyone spend the money to make a +1 shield? or a +5 shield? By the time you can afford it, monsters are doing enough damage to destroy it in one shot.

From the bestiary, this is (randomly) from the Harpy, a level 5 creature:
Melee morningstar +13 (versatile P), Damage 2d8+4 bludgeoning
Melee talon +13 (agile), Damage 2d6+4 slashing

Those attacks average 13 and 11 damage.

Crafting: Seriously, I'm going to go into a dungeon and face a dozen encounters. After the first one, maybe two, I'm going to carry around this broken shield the rest of the way, including into the boss fight so I can repair it. Rather than just spending another 10-20 sp when I get back to town?

More annoying. Light shields have a bulk of L. I can just see some fighter saying he has 20 shields in his backpack that only take up 2 bulk. Each fight, he just keep swapping out shield after shield. (Not a first level, of course, but eventually 200 sp is not a lot of money.)

Actually, Hardness 5 means 13 damage only gives 1 dent.

That is how simple it is.
Now if the creature Crits Shield is breaking but eh.

Shields are temp DR. +1 X increases Hardness by 2 I think. Type of Shield matters as well (Legendary Shield also increases Hardness by 3)
So a +5 Legendary Shield has around 30 DR.
There is also the weaker but never denting Living Shield with only DR 23 but never dents.

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

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

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

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

Well, bleed is instantly healed if healed to max hp.

One way is to take that Additional Lore feat. new feat is signature now. Not that it matters since you aren't limited for Lore feats according to books.

If a fighter with a raised shield uses their reaction to do the Shield block, where does the damage go? Say he is holding a steel shield (Hardness 5) and they were struck for 15 damage. Does 5 get ignore due to hardness then 10 goes to the fighter or does the 10 go to the shield giving it 2 dents, Or both?

Thanks,

K-ray

Both.

Repairing shields will be a common thing in PF 2.

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)
--Also yes at times.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
--I liked some of 4th. Never tried 5th.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)
-- Smoother higher play is a plus. But less disparity is a good thing.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
-- Easy to play means more players.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
--Depends.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).
--Yes, depending on how it goes.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)
Something like ToB/PoW for every class.
Few Dailies, mostly encounter powers, few at wills.

I like the idea of proficiency/skill feats/etc.
They need much tweaking. Half of the legendary feats don't feel they should be above Master or Expert level.
I mean, speed as land speed is nothing above master level imo, but the thievery to steal pants or armor is.

I loved the idea of multiple tiers of proficiency when I read about it on the blog, but reading the actual book, it's actually very underwhelming when compared to the the fact that every level, all of your rolls go up by one, no matter whether it's something you ought to be good at or not.

Let's say we have a level 7 rogue who has reached Master level of proficiency in deception, and has a charisma of 20. She's a darn good liar, with a proficiency bonus of her level (7) +2 (Master) +5 (charisma) for a total of +14.

Now let's say we have a level 20 dwarven wizard with a charisma of 8, who is untrained in deception. Her proficiency bonus alone, despite being untrained, is 18, because being untrained still lets you add your entire level -2 to your skill check, and even with the lowest possible charisma in the game, this dwarf is still a better liar than the above rogue.

This also makes the age-old dilemma of 1000 orcs vs one high level fighter even sillier, especially considering that you add your "proficiency" to your AC now, which effectively translates to adding your level to your AC. Even in Pathfinder 1, the fighter would win, but now the fighter's going to win without getting hit at all even if she's only wearing padded armour. Heck, now a high level bard with no spells prepared and wielding a sharpened stick could wade through that many orcs, just because her level gives her such a high bonus to _everything_.

Anywho, for folks who are also finding this getting on their nerves, the fix that I'm planning on running at my home table is just to remove the factor of level from proficiency bonuses, and to increase the difference between levels of proficiency to 2 per shift instead of 1. (Untrained: -2. Trained, 0, Expert, +2, Master, +4, Legendary, +6). I think that the built-in restrictions between what level you can become a master or legend should be enough to ensure that a level 7 character is still going to be better at the things that she's good at than a level 1 character is.

The smart Rogue gets Assurance feat instead as soon you can.

A Master Rogue gets to take 20 (no penalties or bonuses) at all times now. A Legendary Rogue will take 30. It is the best feat for skills.

BTW, your Dwarf should have a 17 (20-2 level -1 Cha =17 bonus to skill).

But yes, a Dwarf who lived that long and is that Legendary is usually a better liar; except the rogue can choose to never fail

Spellcasters nerfed into the ground, all spells nerfed as well, greatly shortened adventuring day. Using medicine to be the group healer was a blatant lie (referring to the "our barbarian was the healer!" story by a dev, barbarians themselves have zero healing powers), except when you stop adventuring after one encounter. So far my impressions are only negative, but of course I looked up the stuff which would be controversial to me first. Still, not good so far. :-/

Bards got boosted.

I'm sorry your group won't be participating but I encourage you to still play around with it. Many of the systems simply make sense once you get into them and everything is laid out in a way that makes it easier to understand since the philosophy of how the different systems work is mostly the same across the game. There are a lot of complaints about having fewer character options, but I honestly believe that's only because this playtest has specific options they want feedback on and the final product will open up a huge world of opportunity.

The way skills, proficiency, and basic actions are calculated is fun and fast, and I'm absolutely loving the way spells are done (the way heal works for channel energy blew me away). Item blocks are written in a way that saves a ton of page space (combining multiple like-items in one block is great), and the graphic design itself is fun and engaging.

I can't wait to get it to the table and begin playing around with it in action; I feel like a kid again. If you want a fresh take on Pathfinder I think you'll enjoy the playtest book.

Bards only get Soothe (Touch heals and buffs target's saves) as a 1st level spell. Really wish we got Heal as well.

I don't suppose you can give us a couple examples of Rogue and Fighter Multiclass Archetypes to help fill things out a little?

Well, the Wizard dedication shows that Wizard feat 4 Basic Arcana allows a Wizard feat of level 1 or 2.

So, we know that Basic Thievery and Basic Fighting will do the same for Rogue/Fighter respectively. What does the basic dedication do though is question? Fighter grants All armor and all martial weapons, of course.

In fact, this basically allows ALL of the Hybrid classes.
Arcanist? Sorcerer multiclassed with Wizard.
Brawler? Monk multiclassed with Fighter.
Investigator? Alchemist multiclassed with Rogue.
And on down the line. :)

You need 6 levels to take another dedication if focused on getting another. So by 12 you could have 2 extra classes. I guess, you take advanced Wizardry at 12th to learned 8th level spells by 20th level (starting with 4th level spells).

Likely, there is a multiclass feat to double spell slots (since you only get 1 with current feats shown).

I've had a couple of characters whose parents were a half-orc and a half-elf, so how do I handle that? However I do it, it's probably better than the PF1 version of "pick one parent to take after."

That was covered:

I do not like "evil races". I want a range of alignments across every kind of people, regardless of where they were born or what their parents look like.

Heroic goblins is a good start, but I'd like to see more good orcs too

If the core/non-core distinction is meaningful, IMO, it has to be about "how many of these there are, and how widely they are distributed." Which is an argument against tieflings sure, but is also an argument against elves and half-everything (and is an argument in favor of goblins).

What about a miniature Balor (so small or medium)? Would you accept a good race of that (they are an offshoot)?

omniplex wrote:

I like the way spells scale now, but its frustrating to me that spontaneous casters only add one level at a time to their spell list. I'd rather they just had fewer spells known. But, its just the playtest, I'm sure they'll find a better way, and if not, I trust the developers have a better understanding of balance than I do.

To be fair, the heightening features have their own issues for obvious reasons.

Let's say I have a Scroll of Heal. What level is it? How do I denote what level it is, roman numerals? Certainly not a bad idea, and there is precedent for it, we just don't know how it exactly works, so it could just be a Scroll of Heal 9. Same issue with Wands and other similar consumables (though Potions are no longer "spell in a can," so at least they aren't bothersome enough).

I'll also say that, if a Prepared spellcaster can learn one version of Heal, and prepare it heightened to whatever he wants, a Spontaneous spellcaster should be able to do the same. If a Prepared spellcaster had to have each and very version of the spell in their spellbook (or whatever) to cast them, then I'd say the system balances itself out, and it's actually Spontaneous Spellcasters who have the upper hand, initially.

Well, since spell level matters a lot, you do need to note spell level. Same with wands and other consumables that mimic spells.

Might be a spellcaster feat that auto level stuff to your highest spell lv.

I do like Burning hands deals decent area damage now at 1st. Not sure about after, but good at 1at.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Also, being the ONE class that gets a -2 to a Save would be very, very bad...

Having a -2 at all would be very, very bad for you at level 1, as it's probably in a save that doesn't mesh much with your class and that you also don't start with much in the way of your ability score. Right now first level saves could vary from +0 to +6, which is pretty broad; whenever the +0 succeeds, on the same roll the +6 is more likely than not to have critically succeeded. Varying from -2 to +6 would be too extreme at 1st level, and would be likely to force you to spend a bunch of stat boosts shoring up that untrained save or keep critically failing it when the stakes were up.

Plus it generally makes sense for adventurers to have basic competence at the basic task of "staying alive." Weak-willed, frail, clumsy sops are NPCs, not heroes. :)

Hey, Sailor Moon was clumsy, frail, and even weak willed at times, but she still righted wrongs and triumphed over evil, and that means you: In the name of the moon, she punishes you.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

My suggestion would be if you want characters full healed after every combat just say that they are. There is not really much of a difference. except one way you have to keep track of charges for no real reason.

Totally, 4th Ed might as well state that. The Vancian thing is weird in that edition, Daily powers should be Encounter, and Encounter powers should be Recharge X. Powers should also be grouped by Source, not Class.

That would be a cool houserule for 4th: Wait, are Encounter Recharge 1?

eddv wrote:

Each of those would need to be viable.

Well, most of them anyway, yeah. If they aren't that's a bit of a balance problem, but that hardly means the whole idea of different resource distributions is bad.

eddv wrote:

Given just how little resonance there is to go around, there really is just one choice unless skill healing is SO GOOD that it renders this entire discussion moot.

There's plenty of Resonance to go around. A 10th level party will probably have something like 25 points that aren't used for non-consumables. That's a fair bit of healing if using remotely on-level consumables (3rd Spell Level Wands of Heal are around 65 HP for everyone for five charges, for example).

And Skill Healing is probably quite good, as the oft-cited Barbarian example indicates.

eddv wrote:

Either way, these aren't interesting choices. They just aren't. The whole point of this was to inject more interesting choice into the game in the form of magic items that aren't REQUIRED.

Indeed. And the Wand of CLW is no longer required. So that's a thing.

But if it is no longer required, isn't changing wands rules over kill?

-Poison- wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

...you don’t know what tumbling is? If you don’t provoke the attack, it doesn’t matter what your AC is.

Higher speed gets you further away. Cost the enemy two actions to catch you for the one action you spend to escape. You get three attacks enemy gets only one.

Tumbling is something every martial can do and Monk's dexterity isn't going to help unless you're a DEX Monk (even more incentive to go DEX Monk over STR) this is more suited to a Rogue, the Monk isn't the class to adopt this playstyle with as the default which is what we're talking about. This is especially so early on when your speed is minimal and you'll be getting hit twice up until around 15th level (3 hits if you're a STR Monk, being much more likely). Remember that your speed is halved and it's a 5-ft increase every 3 levels after the initial 10-ft increase.

We don't know how it will work in PF2, but in PF1 tumbling require "that your speed isn't reduced by wearing medium or heavy armor or carrying a medium or heavy load", so it isn't automatic that "any martial can do it".

Fine, Any Dwarves can.

Thinking of letting people get an 1 archetype feat for free when I do playtest.

Why slow down ability to be who they want to be.

After all, it seems they gave an extra feat to everyone during official playtests.

@CheBurn: A lot of your arguments are based on legacy concerns, not good class design.

Legacy concerns will be forgotten. They will be ignored. If the game functions well, they will fade away.

The "Flurry of Misses" comments in this thread are an example of that. People don't know how enemies are blocked, don't know how attack boosts will be handled, etc. They just see numbers and assume things.

Same thing with the "low Will saves of the UnMonk". Yeah, right. Like CRB Monks had extra points to put into WIS, or extra feats to go for Iron Will. UnMonks have as-high Will saves as CRB Monks, but people get hung up on the class table rather than what actually matters – praxis.

Again, it's tantamount to saying Wizards had few skill ranks per level because they had 2 + INT.

There is, however, a case to be made with the Fighter comparison. If the Monk is "Fighter but unarmored", then it's an arms race against the Fighter, as they attempt to achieve the same goal – "hit hard, don't get hit too hard, have some out-of-combat utility."

I believe there are some acceptable combat differences between Fighter/Monk:

- Fighter should have better sticking power than Monk.
- Monk should be better at disengagement than Fighter.
- Fighter should have more on-demand AC (see: Raise Shields and such).
- Monk should have more TAC.
- Fighter should have better Fortitude saves.
- Monk should have better Will saves.

See the problem here? Everything I mentioned is in-combat tuning. It's a all measure of outputs, rather than different standalone concepts.

That's why I argue that adding the mystic element baseline to the Monk is better for the overall identity of the Monk – like a Fighter, but has an expendable pool of supernatural powers.

I personally would make unarmed something Fighters can be good at too, and focus more on how Mysticism allows the Monk to excel in combat to separate their identities further.

So, to summarize: I'm not concerned about people clamoring about...

The solution to make monk want to be mobile: +1 AC when moving more than 5 feet each round. Since each AC is supposed to matter now.

I'm surprised that Wands are a consumable item at all, I was under the impression that wands and staffs were replacing the old spell component pouch and functioning as an Arcane Focus.

With the premium on spell slots in PF2, I was expecting a wand that lets you cast extra spells at the cost of resonance and would be the equivalent of a +1 magic weapon rather than a cheap consumable.

Or maybe they'd be an item that lets you burn a spell slot to cast a spell you didn't prepare/know that day.

Yeah, we all thought, Wands were just per day with Resonance cost, but they decided that was too easy.

Temperans wrote:

What? So is the new AC higher or lower in the end? (compared to rogue in both editions)

Comparing to previous editions is misleading.

Seems like the Monk is below the Rogue in total AC if they go DEX by 1 KAC, and by more if they go STR.

Although, they qualify for all Expert feats regarding armor.

Because that is what Mastery system depends on: what does it grant you access.
Just like having Expert on a skill is a small bonus, but access to amazing feats make skills want to be Expert.

Acid Splash assuming good dex: has good Critical chance since +5 hit over and above normal hit Touch AC.
So you should regularly deal 2d4+2 (Crits deal double). This competes well with MM (and acid Splash is a cantrip)

How will the same condition stack/not stack?

Let's say I have Slow 2 for five rounds.

Then something puts Slow 1 on me for ten rounds.

Am I immune to the Slow 1, because I already have Slow 2? Or do I have to track both (lose Slow 2 at round five, at which point Slow 1 shows up for those last five rounds)?

You are slow 2 for 5, then Slow 1 for 5: since only highest applies each time.

Rules question related to the Vulnerability system: does Ostog the Unslain take double damage from swords?

Are swords his Anathema?

Actually Mark,

I would like to have a serious dialogue about this.

I saw it in Starfinder where, if you aren't a certain class you can just forget about using certain skills. Ever. For example, in SFS you will not be the pilot on the ship unless you are a high dex operative.

I have always struggled in Pathfinder with melee classes, who...
As a Paladin, for example, I generally assume that I should be good at the following things:

1. Diplomacy
2. Knowledge: Religion
3. Ride (if I plan to take a mount, but even if just because horses are a thing.)
4. Perception (because everyone needs perception to be maxed out)
5. Sense Motive (because you need to be able to know who is lying to to you.)
6. Heal

I have never been able to do this.

The explanation is, "Balance"

But, to be honest, I feel that the Rogue is far better at skills than I am, while I am not equally better than the Rogue in combat. In fact often times the Rogue is *better* in combat because Dexterity (at least in PF1) is so much better than any other stat, and the penalties for heavy armor are downright crippling in many situations.

With the combat gap between fighter-type classes and rogue-type classes narrowing. How are more fighter-type characters going to be compensated?

I did, but I was a Bard/Pal Gestalt.

It was fun, but DM dropped game eventually before it was over.
Yes, I was riding my ape as a mount.

Xenocrat wrote:

And most problematically, it scales by number of casters. One of the big problems with Magic Missile is you have to explain why 20 (or fewer) low level Wizards can't burn down a dragon that attacks their town while they hide and shoot through windows. In PF1 the reason was limited slots and spell resistance. It's not clear if spell resistance still exists in PF2.

That's why you don't attack the wizard's academy.

Where else is going to have that many wizards?

Exactly, dragon attacks an academy it deserves to be MM'ed to death. Natural selection.

I guarantee you that nobody other than dedicated caster fans think that a spell that grants completely unavoidable damage should be an infinitely spammable cantrip.

It is only 1d4+1

If "cast cantrips most of the time" is indeed going to be the play style, then those cantrips need to be Magic Missile and Fireball.

I originally thought MM was going to be a cantrip. Rather than 1 per action. I thought it was just one.

Maybe it should be?

bookrat wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

The paladin code does not bend to the fact that you are in a different culture.

Umm.. that's literally part of the new Paladin Code. You have to abide by the laws of whatever country you're in. And since the paladin doesn't follow a specific country, then it doesn't matter if their home country forbids something or allows something that this new country does not. They have to follow the laws of the country they're in.

Quote:

You would be expected to uphold the tenants of your deity regardless.

Yes, that's exactly what I've been arguing the entire thread. And if the deity had no qualms about poison, then it's not against their code. It's entirely dependent on the deity and the current country/culture the paladin is located in.

Quote:

For example, you stated you were in the military. During the time you were part of the service, you are expected to follow military rules and regulations regardless of where you are stationed and you could be penalized by your branch of service for not following a rule or regulation even if the local culture or government did not have a prohibition in place for the rule your broke under your military code of conduct.

That's not always true. There's no drinking age in Germany, and my fellow soldiers under the age of 21 were allowed to go out drinking, depsite it being illegal in the US.

One guy in my unit, whom I went drinking with nearly every weekend, got out of the army just after we returned from a tour in Iraq. His 21st birthday was in 2 weeks when he got home, and he wasn't allowed to drink back home.

The military didn't care one way or another. Therefore, drinking under 21 was allowed for us when we were stationed in Germany.

Quote:

Same rule applies for paladins. If you want to play a less stringent character then play any other class except a paladin.

Cultural rules & norms < paladin code

The only thing a paladin must abide is his deity, his code, and the

...

Except for those acceptable poisons like tranqs, flashbangs, tear gas, etc.

So poisons are okays long as we don't call them "poisons", eh?

Cutting back the wealth can be done by adjusting the cost of magic items and then lowering the wealth discovered by an appropriate factor. They've already said they want magic items to be level appropriate and to be special. To do that, they wanted to end the reliance on "gotta have" items.

Great. Now take that a step further and make the crafting system so it is much more difficult to make magic items. In PF1 the system allows for a DC 5 penalty in lieu of many crafting requirements. That was a huge mistake and was a meaningless penalty. The result in any campaign that allowed it was an overabundance of magical gear and high powered gear at that.

If an item requires a CL of 11 to make, then that's it. It if requires a wizard, that's it. If it requires a druid, that's it. No more DC 5 freebie penalties. Make loot from adventures meaningful. That also means adjusting that loot so that it is level appropriate.

Adjusting the economics can be done.

Wouldn't items would still be made, just they'd have flaws (or curses)?

Monks probably add the Forceful, Sweeping, and Agile property to their fists as a class feature.
This helps with emulating flurry of blows.
Forceful: +1 damage if same person in an additional attack (stacks)
Sweep: +1 to hit a second person in an additional attack (stacks)

That helps them tremendously I think.

Well, the issue is str isn't use in PF2 for shortswords, Dex is for hit.

Short swords have the finesse and agile property. So Double slice must max dex more than Str.

All agile does is Agile property means 0/-4/-8 for attacks.

I kept very good notes when playtest discussion started.

I predict Exotic Ranged: Bola, Hand Crossbow, Boomerang, Shurikens will all have agile. Normal ranged: Dart.
And many of the simple/Martial light weapons in PF 1 will get it.

Oh, and finesse is case it is unclear means: Dex to hit instead of Str.
I'm predicting: most Light weapons, Martial: Rapier, Exotic: Spiked Chain, Elven Curved Blade,

I'm adding Elven Curved Blade and Boomerang even though we won't get it in playtest document because why not.

Also has anyone calculated Double Strike when using Scimitar's?
They have the Forceful property and add +1 damage if same person in an additional attack (stacks).
I'm not sure if this meant if you have two scimitars would second get bonus when hit or does it mean +1 damage in second attack of that weapon hand.

- * - * -

Wizards and spells.

By design the maximum level spells of a spellcaster will not be able to one shot a same level PC. That to avoid ambushes by 4 spellcasters killing 3/4 or maybe even all the party. I agree with that.

But then the problems start.
The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 50% health or have a 50% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill half of the party in an ambush
No - them go below

The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 65% health or have a 35% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill one third of the party in an ambush
No - them go below

The spell launched by one of those 4 spellcaster will be enough to reliably reduce the same level target to less than 75% health or have a 25% chance of removing him from the combat for a period long enough that he killing him will not be a problem?
Yes - those 4 spellcasters will kill one fourth of the party in an ambush
No - so those spell are pretty useless.

Now change "spellcaster" to "archer" or PF2 equivalent of "pounce barbarian" or "move and attack twice".
An archer making 4 attacks will deal more or less damage than the highest level spell of a spellcaster? Or to put it another way, 4 archers focus firing during an ambush will...

In PF, Control spells were like this:

Starbuck_II wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

I can aim a bow all day of the week. I don't need an enemy to target.

No you can't. You can probably aim a bow for about 30s before your arms and hand start to get fatigued. Same reason you can't just hold Horse stance all day an expect to be fine. In fact that sort of stuff is used as physical punishment.

Nope, lasted three minutes before only noticeable tiredness set in.

Could have gone longer but figured that was long enough.

With the arrow knocked and the bow tense? Wow.

Poundage matters for the bow.

I tested a very light bow because you didn't say a warbow or anything amazing.

This guy using a stronger bow last 2 minutes and 19 seconds, but the wasn't in great environment.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/big-buck-zone/bowhunting-prep-how-long-ca n-you-hold-full-draw
A tip he gives is to let your string rest in the valley while you’re waiting at full draw. This keeps you from over-pulling against the backwall and exerting more energy than necessary.

Words!

I am literate not iconerated. (term probably invented by R. A. Heinlein)

But working at Walmart taught me that most people are not that literate, they can't read the price/the signs/etc.