Technotrooper's page

Fantastic news. Thank you, Paizo!

Great idea. Looking forward to this!

Aaron Shanks just posted an update on the Pathfinder 2 errata on the Starfinder errata thread:

Hey Finders. The office is closed today for the holiday.

I'll talk to Joe about the status of the Character Operations Manual errata.

No, there is not a separate downloadable errata doc. There are no plans to make one at this time.

The Pathfinder Core Rulebook second printing is coming soon. It will contain updated errata beyond what was released in the first errata blog. The current plan is that it will be added to the Pathfinder FAQ. There is a blog tentatively scheduled for late October/early November to announce the update and give highlights. The Core Rulebook PDF will be updated when the second printing starts to ship.

I'll push the server error message to the Tech team too. Stay well. Adventures Ahead!

It looks like they estimate that print will arrive in November, so I would assume we'll get errata at that time.

I hope you're right. That would be fine.

Where was the release publicly announced? It was commented on in a stream, but I don’t recall an official announcement.

You don't consider a comment from the lead designer on their main GenCon announcement stream to be "public" or "official?" I do.

Please just let people civilly express a little disappointment and suggest a bit more communication without harassment. It's just constructive feedback because we love the game.

It's so strange to me that requesting some simple communication from a company when it misses it's own publicly announced timelines (by a lot) is viewed by some as an unrealistic and inappropriate request.

It's been radio silence since they announced it would be released right after GenCon. I understand there's a pandemic going on and some staff turnover, but the lack of communication and updates doesn't feel good. Even a "hey guys, we're still working on it to make sure we get it right" would go a long way for me. With the Humble Bundle recently selling out hard copies of the CRB, I figured there would be pressure to do a second printing of the CRB and this would drive the need to get the errata done sooner rather than later and out the door. Just a little surprised it's taking so long.

I use a house rule that heavy crossbows have a Fatal d12 trait.

I purchased a couple of those minis and had them painted for my 10-year old daughter who loves pugs. She has a blast playing Shoony characters in PF2. Pictures here. Paizo really should make some Shoony minis. I think they would be popular.

*) I talked to redrazors, the guy behind Pathbuilder. He was planning to support proficiency without level, but all the other variants he basically dismissed as obscure house rules.

FYI, support for the free archetype variant is in the most recent release of Pathbuilder.

Hoping for some clarification on how many free hands Battle Medicine requires.

When my DM read the shield rules, he thought that it meant you reduce the damage by the Hardness and then split what remained between the shield and the character being protected, 50% to each. This has been working for us so far, and is similar to your thought to reduce the damage by half, except both the shield and the target both get the half deduction (they share the total damage after Hardness.)

One benefit of doing things this way is that it helps reduce the common idea of taking strong hits yourself to save the shield, since both of you get to take only half damage each.

I like that this approach reduces the incentive to take hits to avoid your shield taking them (which seems ridiculous and unlikely for any person in combat to ever do), but I do worry that it would give shields too much DR in terms of damage mitigation for the wielder. This would make Shield Block much more powerful, and I wonder if it would overshadow other options. I'm not sure I want shields to be more powerful, just not to break so easily.

I don't want to add a lot of complexity to my game, but I would like shields to be more durable and less breakable. If I just said that, as a house rule, shields only take half of the damage they normally would take under RAW, wouldn't that work without a lot of rules overhead or changing lots of numbers and prices? Is there something this approach would unbalance (other than perhaps making sturdy shields less likely to ever break)? It feels like a fairly simple way to increase shield durability across the board, if that's all I'm after. But maybe there's something I'm missing.

The other day, I asked Jason Buhlman on Twitter when the devs were going to clarify a couple of the issues that seemed to be causing some confusion on these boards (shield scaling and how many hands Battle Medicine requires). Jason was kind enough to reply, "Noted, we will take a look." I believe the devs do pay attention to what is being discussed here and are pretty proactive (perhaps often behind the scenes) in trying to address problematic issues. In any case, I was impressed that the lead game designer responded to my inquiry.

Does anyone use house rules for simplifying stealth and perception? I find the RAW complicated and difficult to track--especially when a lot of creatures are involved. Each creature can have a different status (unnoticed, hidden, etc.) in relation to every other creature and I just don't want to deal with tracking all of that. Has anyone found a good way to simplify this aspect of the game?

I'd like to see a book that can really help distinguish PF2 from PF1 and D&D: A product that focuses on adding mechanics to the game that facilitate narrativist elements of play, encourage cooperative storytelling, and allow character's moral beliefs and values to have some mechanical weight. Something that offers mechanically expanded character possibilities beyond combat abilities and skills.

The most recent ICv2 report states that PF2 sales are "strong," "better than expected," and second only to D&D. Seems like a good sign, although the report only covers through the end of August.

The most recent ICv2 report, which states that PF2 sales are "strong" and second only to D&D seems to back up what Lisa is saying.

ICv2's Latest Quarterly Chart: D&D Top, But PF2 Is Strong

That's what our 5E group did.

Technotrooper wrote:

I just wish I understood a little better why Paizo made Battle Medicine the way they did.

To give nonmagical healers a way to restore health in a combat situation.

I don't mean the reason why it exists. I mean the execution why. For example, why include training in Medicine as a prerequisite or Manipulate as a trait if this is just someone shouting "get up you big baby" or some unexplained form of mysticism? Not a big deal, I'd just like to better understand their thought process on the way they executed it.

Its fantasy, in a game with magic missiles and dragons and elder gods people are concerned with the realism of Battle Medicine?.

The fact that some people prefer a little more verisimilitude with mundane actions isn't #badwrongfun. I do agree, however, that GMs can just house rule away anything we find too silly or improbable in our own games. I just wish I understood a little better why Paizo made Battle Medicine the way they did.

I know this is just a game about imaginary things. There aren't many things in PF2 that break my sense of verisimilitude to the point it bothers me, but healing people (using mundane techniques) in the middle of combat (in two seconds) without using any hands or bandages strains things beyond my comfort level. I don't see any way to picture or narrate that as a GM. What is actually happening? Two seconds isn't even enough time to call it a warlordy "pep talk." I may just house rule this feat away because it seems so silly and improbable. One thing I like about Pathfinder 1 and 2 is that, while certainly not "realistic," they at least usually make an attempt to be a bit more simulationist (which I like) compared to other games. Battle Medicine comes across as "we want mundane healing during combat for reasons but don't have a good way to explain it so we won't even try." I'm sure its inclusion was well-intended but do hope it gets some kind of errata.

Technotrooper wrote:

This came up in my game today and I couldn’t find an answer. One of the PCs (a Rogue) chose the Minor Magic feat which gave him 2 cantrips from a magic tradition of his choice. He chose Primal. Questions:

1. For purposes of Spell Attack Bonus and Spell DC, is he considered Trained with these cantrips?

2. What attribute bonus should he use to do these calculations? We just went with Wisdom but had no idea if this is correct for Primal spells.

All innate spells use charisma for stat and are trained. Core rulebook pg302

Many thanks for the assist.

This came up in my game today and I couldn’t find an answer. One of the PCs (a Rogue) chose the Minor Magic feat which gave him 2 cantrips from a magic tradition of his choice. He chose Primal. Questions:

1. For purposes of Spell Attack Bonus and Spell DC, is he considered Trained with these cantrips?

2. What attribute bonus should he use to do these calculations? We just went with Wisdom but had no idea if this is correct for Primal spells.

Treat Wounds kind of trades one absurdity (a bag full of CLW wands) with another absurdity (healing wounds in just minutes with mundane techniques). My hope is that the GMG has some alternative healing rules.

This is my favorite action reference sheet.

They really need to make all of this more clear in the GameMastery Guide.

How do you apply "deadly" weapon traits with the Critical Hit Deck? Do you apply the listed affect and then add the extra "deadly" dice to that?

This may be what you are looking for.

Lack of clarity on this issue brought my game to a screeching halt tonight. I have a player with a wizard PC who is very invested in his moth familiar (he added speech). He wanted to send it out to do some scouting nearby and return with information on enemy activity. We read the familiar rules together, and I just had no idea how to respond to his request. There was no guidance in the CRB about anything other than combat. It doesn't even say how intelligent they are. I finally decided to let the familiar scout ahead a bit (GM fiat) but then he started asking me what the familiar saw and how much detail the familiar could understand and convey back to him. Again, there was no guidance in the CRB on this. I was totally winging it (which is usually fine) but it made me uneasy because I knew I was setting a precedent for our campaign and the ability to scout ahead and report back will have a pretty big impact. I have to admit that I got a bit frustrated because I felt that Paizo was leaving me to make these big decisions without any guidelines and without understanding the full impact of what I was trying to rule on the fly.

I really hope there is some additional information and guidelines on how to run familiars (particularly in exploration mode) in the Gamemastery Guide. I don't need a rule for everything, but I do need some idea of what is intended in terms of familiar capability (especially outside of combat) and intelligence. In general, I have been amazed at how much more helpful the PF2 rules have been than the 5e rules in providing clarity and guidance. I just feel like the ball got dropped a bit with the familiar rules. Hope to see some clarifications soon as it really disrupted our game.

Yep, I just got an email saying it will arrive on September 24th.

Thanks for the response. That’s disappointing news in terms of getting my book but (maybe) also a sign of high demand for PF2 products?

I am still curious if anyone got the book from Amazon before they ran out.

What is happening with regards to the availability of this book? I pre-ordered it from Amazon several weeks ago. The estimated release date was September 10th. Yesterday, I got an email from Amazon saying the release would be delayed until October 10th. Now, I am hearing rumors about the need for a reprint. Does anyone know what is going on with this book and why it seems to be so difficult to get a hold from 3rd party sellers compared to other PF2 books? Did Paizo significantly under-print the first printing and ran out on the release date? Has anyone who ordered on Amazon received their copy? Any insights would be appreciated.

On the Paizo Friday stream I asked if the GMG would explain how to better address using these rules in common situations such as ambushes and breaking down doors. Logan Bonner said “yes” and it specifically addresses transitioning from exploration mode to encounter mode. I’m looking forward to more clarity from Paizo on these issues (cuz, dang, this thread is getting long).

Will there be additional guidance and examples on how to apply the stealth, perception, detection, ready action, and initiative rules (moving from exploration to encounter mode) in situations such as an ambush, breaking down a door, etc.? These rules are scattered all over the CRB and there aren't many examples on how to apply them to common situations.

Would buy.

During the Paizo Friday Twitch stream, the devs promised an update addressing key critical issues (not every little error/typo) in the first printing of the CRB "soon."

It would really help if one of the devs explained this a bit better and provided some examples of how to apply the relevant rules (which are scattered all over the CRB).

For avoiding notice on the move versus ambush, there is this action:

Quote:

TAKE COVER [one-action]

Requirements You are benefiting from cover, are near a feature that allows you to take cover, or are prone.

You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover (page 477). If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action.

I think it’s fair to say Wait in Ambush is an exploration activity which grants a +2 or +4 circumstance bonus to stealth rolls. This is available to both PCs and NPCs and means using your terrain creatively gives you substantial bonuses which I think is a good thing to encourage in my games (others may disagree for their games).

Good idea. I think there should be a difference when you are not moving and have taken up excellent cover/position.

Good discussion. I don't believe the "I have a bad feeling" is RAW (at least I couldn't find anything in the CRB along these lines), but I do think it is a cool and valid way to approach this situation.

The rules don’t specify Avoid Notice is what a creature is doing when it ambushes, but it does expressly give the GM flexibility to interpret actions in Exploration Mode. That’s how I run it, absent any other rule in the book to the contrary.

How I do Complex Hazards, too, which btw is amazing. This is the best system to start a trap room I’ve ever seen in a tabletop RPG because it can have so many various starting triggers and by a single unified system.

It is a pretty amazing and flexible system. There is a lot more leeway for GMs to just make a call on how they are going to interpret/handle stuff like this at their table.

In Exploration Mode, the Kobolds are attempting the avoid notice action. When the encounter starts (GMs discretion), kobolds roll Stealth for initiative - that roll determines both their initiative (result) and their degree of stealth (result vs. PCs perception DC regardless of initiative result). See page 479 under Avoid Notice.

This can lead to all kind of various results. It’s possible the Kobolds bomb the stealth roll but actually win initiative, in which case they attack first but their target isn’t flat foot (unless they have the Rogue class ability). They could best the perception DC but a PC could absolutely school then on an initiative roll - it’s the PCs turn, but the Kobolds are still hidden and undetected, so that PC would need to take a Seek action to pinpoint his ambushers, but based on his Perception roll he knows something is up.

This is generally correct based on my understanding. The only thing I question is, if the goblins are in hiding in a fixed position, it doesn't seem like Avoid Notice (which always seems to entail "traveling at half speed" according to p. 479). Avoiding Notice seems more like "hiding on the move" than "fixed ambush." If the goblins can see the PCs and are preparing to imminently jump them but the PCs can't yet see the goblins, I believe you are probably in Encounter Mode at that point.

@techno

imagine everyone in the party has a perception DC of 14

the kobolds roll 15 for stealth, and the party all rolls 16 or above.

it's pretty strange. the party goes first but are completely unaware they're in combat even though they just rolled initiative.

Agreed, although it is a somewhat unlikely scenario. It means the PCs "act" first (do their current exploration activity first) but, because they are unaware of the hidden enemy, they can't act on that knowledge. That's my understanding of how the rules work whether that seems strange or not.

Most people seem to want to make this some kind of contested roll and that concept has been completely removed from the game, for better or worse. For those who don't believe me, show me any contested skill rolls in the CRB. I don't have a problem with people house ruling this if they don't like the RAW.

The roll is the same, but it's not a stealth vs. perception "contested roll." It's stealth vs. a static perception DC for each PC.

See the "Point Out" action (p. 472) for rules on how those who are aware of an ambush (undetected creatures) can help those who are not yet aware to become aware. Once a battle is joined, it won't take the unaware PCs very long to figure out the party has been ambushed (although they still may not know where the hidden attackers are located). The party members may need to use Point Out and/or Seek actions to help everyone understand where the attack is coming from.

The thing you have to remember about PF2 is that there are no "contested skill rolls," which is what you seem to be describing. That concept no longer exists at all. Everything is a skill roll vs. a static DC. This is a big change from PF1. For those in that older mindset, it makes understanding the new rules more challenging.

I am fairly certain I have these rules right, but I am open to correction if someone has a better understanding. Just trying to be helpful.

When two potentially hostile groups encounter each other and one side is hidden, you roll stealth vs. perception DC to see who can see whom (particularly on the unaware side because those waiting in ambush can see everyone on the other side unless they are also trying to use stealth). You also use this same roll for initiative for those who are trying to use stealth to hide (so you are only rolling once).

If the goblins decide to hold back in hiding and wait until the (unaware) PC group reaches a certain spot, they are essentially repeatedly taking the Ready action. If the unaware group turns around and leaves before reaching that spot (not because they noticed the ambushers) and comes back later on (and the goblins are still waiting in hiding), it would be another (new) initiative roll and stealth vs. perception DC check (use the same stealth roll for both) because it is essentially a new battle. I hope this makes sense. This seems like a really rare and unlikely case.

I pieced this understanding together after reading all the material in the CRB on stealth, hidden, visible, perception, initiative, etc. This info is scattered everywhere. What finally put things into place for me was the PF2 designers explaining how this works during the Paizo Friday Q&A stream on Twitch. They discussed a similar scenario (sorry I don't have the time codes). What is important to remember is that rolling stealth for initiative and comparing this stealth roll against perception DCs are two different things. One is to see who acts first and the other is to see who can see whom when the action begins.

The only exploration activity that seems to affect this type of scenario is scouting. If someone in the party is scouting, all PCs get a +1 to their initiative roll--which could definitely help in an ambush situation. It's actually a fairly simple and elegant system; it's just not explained very clearly in the CRB.

My understanding is that that everyone would roll for initiative when the encounter occurs. Goblins would likely use stealth to roll if they are trying to hide. The goblins would also use their stealth roll vs. the PC's perception DC (not their perception roll for initiative). If a goblin wins initiative and beats a PC's perception DC, he is hidden to that character (and the PC would be flatfooted to him). The PC could use a Seek action to try and find that hidden goblin. If a goblin wins initiative but fails to be beat a PC's perception DC, the goblin goes first but isn't hidden to that character.

I don't think it's that hard once you understand it, but it isn't presented in a simple-to-understand way in the CRB and the information to put it all together is scattered in several sections. Could have been written more clearly and examples (such as this scenario) would have been useful.

Hope to see some errata from Paizo on this issue soon.