You could actually keep up just fine, as long as you're willing to take a -5 penalty, which isn't that bad. Getting an ability to let you sneak at full speed without penalty was still good though.
You can't do that in PF2, whether in Encounter or Exploration Mode. You're stuck with half your speed unless you have an ability that allows you to do otherwise. So in that sense it has worse useability than PF1.
Trick Magic Item also requires an unspecified check of the relevant skill in order to use the Wand or item in question (though the rules say it's usually the low-difficulty DC it also says it's at GM discretion, so hurray).
Honestly the fact that this comparison doesn't take into account the checks necessary for mundane healing to work is telling. Assuming you'll get full healing from Battle Medic? At level 1? With DC 20? Yeah, right. Even an 18 Wis guy with a Healer's Kit fails that 60% of the time. And Critically fails 15%.
And without Master/Legendary proficiency you can't get the higher levels of the Assurance feat, meaning you'll always have to roll, which means a chance of failure (and maybe even Critical Failure) for 0 healing (or worse, hurting the guy). And I do mean always, since it's Master Assurance that gives a 20 result.
Items also, as said above, require a check, though it's more manageable overall. If you stick to the "low DC for the item's level" line, the most you'll ever need is a 21 for a wand with 4th level heal. But that wand costs resonance, requires a check, only has 10 charges and it costs a pretty penny to boot (205 gp means you're not supposed to have one until you're 9th level, unless the party pools resources, per table 11-2: Character wealth).
The Cleric, meanwhile, gets healing for free at his highest possible casting level, with no check necessary, in addition to their daily spells. They're the best healers out there, period. Also not sure what you mean by "Devotes all their class feats" to the goal? The only Class Feats a Cleric specialising in healing should take are Selective Energy and Channeled Succor. They don't need to take anything else to beat the snot out of a non-magical healer (Alchemist's included).
As an aside, restoration can reduce one condition by 2, or two conditions by 1, and it's only once per target per day. So a Cleric won't really blow through his spell slots using restoration.
This is also called out as extremely rare, requiring way more than just going "Lol nope". And, to be honest, I've no idea why it's there at all, considering that someone saying "Lol nope" is how we got Urgathoa and Zyphus. So y'know, maybe Pharasma would want to crack down on it.
Then again, an Evil person that goes this way does get rid of the bad part of going to the Evil Planes....but also the good part, where they can attain far more power than they ever had as a mortal. So I guess the Lady O' Graves thinks this is alright, or something.
Samuel Caldwell wrote:
- The feat in question only works for Quick Alchemy. It's nice, but it only solves one problem. The Alchemist still needs Resonance for: Investing, Advanced Alchemy, Magic Item/Consumable Use. It's gonna be tight. And if you need it for the Alchemist to sort of work, it's just a Feat tax.
-He's not asking for downtime crafting to be infused. He's asking, why can't he use the Smoke Bomb feat, or the Debilitating Bomb feat, or the Extend Elixir feat when he uses Advanced Alchemy to make his daily stuff. Like, he spends 1 point of Resonance to make two Smoke Bomb Alchemist Fires. I figure this isn't allowed because the developers think (whether rightly or wrongly) that the effects are too powerful and they don't want the Alchemist to get them in bulk.
- Empowered Bombs doesn't really fix anything since bomb damage is pretty lackluster already due to being base dice with no addons, and Splash Damage being pitiful even with the feat that lets you add Intelligence. If Empowered Bombs affected Persistent Damage, it might be worth it. But it might also be too good. Honestly, Bombs should go back to how they were in PF1 and allow the Alchemist to add Intelligence bonus to damage. Then they'd be fine.
- I think what he means by Craft (Alchemy) being useless is that, until 20th level, stuff you craft doesn't scale in any way, shape or form. Bombs are always level 1, Poisons don't have scaling DC, Elixirs have their normal onset time, etc. And with the crafting rules, you can only brew 4 of an item each time, so why would you bother when Elixirs of Life when they're pretty bad (and they cost Resonance to the user). This goes double if the party has the McHealer Supreme, aka a Positive Energy Channel cleric.
Nah, again, not worshipping someone doesn't mean you don't get judged and sent where you belong. At worst, it takes a bit longer. But a LE atheist is still going to Hell for the most part, just as a CN atheist is still going to the Maelstrom and NG goes to Nirvana. Not worshipping anyone in particular just means you take the non-preferential queue in the river of souls. And that queue doesn't have pretzels. Which is horrible.
I mean, it doesn't matter if you didn't worship anyone, or were atheist, or agnostic, or an animist, or what have you. Pharasma judges you anyway, and you go to the afterlife that most closely matches your Alignment. Only souls that actively reject the metaphysical order and do not become petitioners are left to fade away in the Boneyard.
Relevant parts from the River of Souls article in Planar Adventures:
"Their rejection goes beyond mere atheism or impiety, being a deliberate rejection of the metaphysical order. When given the chance to become petitioners and pass on to other realms, such dissidents actively refuse. Many mortal philosophies teach that all atheist souls meet this end, but in truth, most atheists and agnostics whose souls are judged can experience the full range of afterlives just as adherents of any other belief system do, passing on to the Outer Planes best aligned with their convictions."
"These souls are not transformed into petitioners; instead they are escorted into the Graveyard of Souls beyond Pharasma’s court where they can forget and be forgotten. There, these lost souls wander until they find crypts and crevices where they can eternally brood on the failings of reality. Either willingly or because they lack the capacity to care, these dissenting and broken souls then spend eons gradually dissipating, forever excluded from future travel along the River of Souls. Eventually their memories fade, their personalities dull, and nothing remains but a handful of eternally stagnant quintessence."
To OP: It's a whole different beast to play a "faithless" character in a setting where faith as we know it isn't really there. The gods do exist, and there's no denying it. You can certainly play a character that considers them unworthy of worship (Rahadoum is basically a country full of people like this), or one that worships something entirely different (like Animists, or the old God-Callers of Sarkoris, who worshipped Eidolons), or someone that worships nothing at all. Those are all fine. That the playtest has an unfortunately inaccurate line about what happens to the souls of those kinds of people doesn't make it correct.
Now, if you want to play a character that just doesn't believe in the gods at all, you can too. They'll be wrong, but that doesn't make them any less valid to play either.
Oh I was just looking at the Stock Goblin Warrior in the Bestiary, where both are at +6. Not that it makes sense for the shortbow either, at +3 Dex and Level 0 the modifier should be...+3.
None of the statted goblins make sense though, so there's that...
O. N. wrote:
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 think the inflated to-hit scores are to blame here, most of all. I haven't gone through all the monsters in the bestiary, but it's not just the level 0 Creatures. Every single monster has greatly inflated to-hit scores.
I mean, a Tiger is a Level 4 Creature with +11 to Hit and Strength +5. Level 4 + 5 Strength = +9. Where's it getting the other +2 from? A level 4 optimised Fighter (18 in Attack Stat, +1 weapon potency, Master in his weapon) is looking at a total bonus of 4 (level)+4 (stat)+1 (potency)+2 (Master)= +11. How's a random tiger just as good as a fully optimised fighter of equal level? And this repeats for basically every monster out there.
Without changing that, giving people less Hit Points will just make it far too deadly. It's already pretty deadly as is, particularly if you do not have a Cleric in the party.
That is correct, yes. Being Trained in Unarmored means that, when wearing no armor, you'd just add your Proficiency Modifier to Dex and Base 10. No AC or TAC bonuses apply.
So an 8th level Wizard with Dex 14 would be:
Base 10 + 8 (Trained Proficiency Modifer) + 2 (Dex) = 20
This applies to all classes except the Monk, because they have higher Proficiency than Trained (they start at Expert).
O. N. wrote:
That's fine. I'm not passing judgement one way or the other, just pointing out that there's a glaring difference between systems. Adding level to everything has several implications that have to be taken into account, not all of them good.
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 treadmill where you face stuff of your level, and maybe one or two below/above. Trying to do a PF1 "APL+4" encounter will just end in a TPK most of the time. And I don't mean big stuff, either.
The difference is the PF2 character can be stark naked (or just unarmored) in the bar and be AC 25, still completely untouchable by the ghouls. Meanwhile your PF1 15th level fighter, if stark naked (or just unarmored), only has an AC of 11. And he'd most likely get demolished.
You can still play NPCs with the normal Dying rules if you want though, there's nothing stopping you. Well, actually, I guess there's no guidelines for what the Stabilise DC is when a PC downs an enemy. You'd have to either ignore that or adjudicate it.
I do agree Dying should have some penalty beyond "You are closer to death" but one has to be careful or it can quickly turn into a downward spiral where once you're downed once you're worse, which makes you easier to down again, etc.
Bulk needs fixing, or at least the PF1 weights listed in the PF2 rules for those wanting that grounding.
At the very least there's a silver lining. If the worst comes to pass and this doesn't happen, you can still just use the old PF1 Encumbrance rules fine. It's the same stats and the same items, so it shouldn't be a problem. Kinda hard to do in Starfinder since we don't actually have weights for a lot of things, but PF1 to PF2 is really easy.
I mean I'm going to do this if I ever run WHFRP 4th edition since that game also uses a Bulk system. Just use 2nd edition values and you're fine.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Where is he carrying everything though? Backpacks? Those can carry 2 cubic feet, so not much fitting in there. Sacks? Those hold 1 cubic feet, so even less.
Is he just tying ropes to every item and dragging them with him? I mean, that's hilarious, but more power to him of course.
Meanwhile, in PF2, how much can a backpack hold? 4 Bulk. Ok. So 4 clubs. Or 40 daggers. But can it carry 40 shortswords? Can it carry 40 light shields? The rules say probably not, since:
"Containers can hold the listed amount of bulk, but some items might not fit due to their dimensions"
Ok, so shortswords and light shields are obviously bigger than daggers (but not, apparently, as hard to carry as clubs), so how many can a backpack hold?
The belt pouch is mostly the same in that regard. And we haven't even gotten to Bulk - items and how you can carry as many as you want of them with no repercussions.
As there are some situatoins where you can get a skill rank in the same skill during character creation I'm wondering if that means you have to choose different skills each or if taking the same skill twice means you become expert in it?
No, all the Ancestry Feats/Backgrounds are specific in saying you are "Trained in X"; and the Classes can only ever get you Trained, since:
"Additionally, this section indicates the number of skills in which your character is trained. When you choose your character’s class, you also select a number of skills equal to this number; your character gains the trained proficiency rank in those skills."
So no stacking Class with Background/Ancestry to get Expert.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
It's funny how it's you that has to bring up the completely ridiculous example, while Castilliano is just using the bulk system as is. And the bulk system as is turns out to be irredeemably bad.
The system tells me a Light Mace, a Light Shield, a Javelin and a Potion are all equally hard for someone to carry, whether by weight or because of a combination of weight and other factors. It tells me that carrying ten Light Shields is as hard as carrying a Club. That a Club is just as hard to carry as a Bastard Sword. That a Longbow (whether composite or not) is just as hard to carry as any polearm, or a greataxe, or a greatsword.
And this just goes on and on and on. A casual glance at the bulk rules and the assigned bulk for items should be all that's enough for someone to realise it's all out of whack.
And the variable weight-to-bulk translation makes it hard to define how hard it is to carry someone. Or to get loot that's not normal (Ancient tapestries, a solid gold decanter, the chair of First Emperor Taldaris, or what have you.).
It's good at simplifying encumbrance for gear, and it basically fails at everything else.
Jason S wrote:
I'm pretty sure it isn't intended, but it is a pretty funny side effect of the rules as they are written now. Probably something that should be fixed before release, but it's not something major.
I mean, in PF1, Charisma 12/14 means...basically nothing. If your characters didn't invest in the appropiate skills, they're still useless. If they're all trying to bluff, then a +1/+2 won't mean a thing, they're still fishing for a high number on the roll. So I'm not entirely sure what you mean, honestly.
You could leave Charisma at 10 or even 08 and still be good at social skills as long as you invested in them. But if you didn't invest in them you'd never be good at it, not even passable, no matter what your Charisma was.
And this is mostly still true in PF2, by the way. Without resonance there's really not a lot of incentive to take your Charisma above 10. Going Trained in the skills is probably a good idea because you get rid of the -2, but even at mid levels an Untrained Cha 10 guy is throwing +8 at the relevant uses. And of the Charisma related skills, only Deception and Performance have a Trained Only use. And Performance's Trained Use is just substituting for Lore to earn money.
So the party face still has incentive to keep the skill up (mostly a few of the feats), but the rest? They have even less incentive than before. The skill goes up no matter what they do. No reason to ever bother with it, or Charisma, beyond Resonance.
As far as I know, you are correct: If you roll, and get a 17/18 in a score where you must add an Increase (which means Ancestry, and Class, and maybe Background) then you can put that increase in another ability score of your choice. Or, if you rolled a 17, you put the increase in the 17, and that makes it 18.
Not sure what your "rules lawyers" are arguing for though.
They're only Flat-Footed if you're a Rogue, or have Surprise Attack from Rogue Multiclassing. If you do not, well...
"If you do anything else, you become seen just before you act. For instance, if you attack a creature you’re unseen by, that creature is not flatfooted against that attack."
Which means, if they win Initiative, even if you're Unseen, the moment you try to capitalise on it you become Seen (unless you're under 4th level Invisibility) and they're not Flat-Footed.
Stealth and Initiative rules in PF2 are pretty borked. There's no way to ambush or snipe effectively.
Jason S wrote:
No, if you get hit while you're Unconcious you "[...]apply the same effects as if you has been knocked out by that damage"
You're a Fighter, at 5 HP. You get hit for 6 HP. You're now at 0. What does this do?
- You're Unconcious.
So our Fighter is now at 0 HP, Unconcious, has moved his Initiative, and has Dying 1.
He gets hit, again. Per the rules, we apply the same effects as what happened the first time, because we treat this attack as if it has knocked him out.
- He's Unconcious -> This doesn't change).
So, after the second strike, our Fighter is still Unconcious, his Initiative has moved again, and he's at Dying 2.
You know, except for Strength. Oh, and Intelligence. Strength is basically completely useless for some classes (I'm looking at you, Rogue); and Intelligence is the de-facto dump stat* since it does bloody nothing after first level.
Also, Resonance isn't the new UMD. Trick Magic Item is the new UMD. Resonance is just a patch-job because the designers didn't like people spamming CLW wands.
*Dump Stat in the PF2 "Why would I ever raise this?" sense, not the PF1 "I'll lower this in point buy to get a better stat elsewhere" sense.
The Narration wrote:
If that includes giving other people authorization to rob tombs, then that kind of blows the whole premise of the Mummy's Mask AP out of the water.
Man, I hadn't even thought about this but you're right, how does Mummy's Mask opening premise work with this Anathema...
And Pharasma also has "desecrate a corpse" as Anathema. Does that include looting them? I mean, under most definitions desecration includes looting, amongst other things.
I forsee these Anathema (amongst others, looking at you Desna and Torag) to give us just as many "Does X Fall" threads as we had with Paladins back in the day.
Thats exactly my point though friend, why wouldn't you want to reduce the cost? Otherwise you're spending four days you don't have to if the GM is nice and has a friendly local Alchemist shop.
Because you may not be in a place with a friendly Alchemist shop? Or a shop at all? Also, AFAIK Uncommon Alchemical Items (ie, Mutagens and...Sleep Poison) aren't for sale either.
That and to be honest, crafting Alchemical items in downtime is, for an Alchemist at least, mostly worthless. Crafted items don't have the Infused trait, which means most (if not all) of the special Alchemist Class Features/Feats don't apply to them. You can't use Empower Bombs with a batch of Alchemist fire you crafted (or bought), so they're always level 1 bombs. You can't use Fast Onset or Extend Elixir with bought/crafted Elixirs, etc.
And as a last point, Crafting is one of those "Bad at low levels, very good at mid to high levels". By level 10, an Alchemist that's Master in Crafting can churn out a batch of 4 of any level 1 bomb for half price in 3 days, 2 if they Critically Succeed. Of course, the bombs are basically worthless to them as we just explained, but they can do it.
Why do you have such long crafting times listed for the Elixirs? Alchemical Items, like all items, just take 4 days to craft, as long as you meet the level requirements. And you can create them in batches of up to 4, as long as you pay the cost up front.
The only way you'd take that long to make them is if you wanted to reduce the cost.
I suspect its because after the first few levels, buying/crafting stuff sort of doesn't really work. A lot of the Alchemist Class Feats and Class Features (like Empower Bombs, Fast Onset, Extend Elixir, etc) only work with items that have the Infused tag. That means items the Alchemist created with Advanced Alchemy/Quick Alchemy. Sure, the Alchemist can craft bombs during downtime, but they'll always be 1st level bombs, aka mostly useless as you go along.
Furthermore, a lot of Alchemist Class Feats (like all the Bomb Feats) require that the Alchemist use Quick Alchemy, thereby expending Resonance.
So an Alchemist needs Resonance for:
- Making Infused items at the start of the day. And while 1 RP gives you two items of a kind, you're juggling Bombs, Elixirs and, later on, Mutagens.
I haven't yet played an Alchemist or seen one in play (my group read through the document and had no interest in playing PF2, sadly), but I can see why they'd have problems even with using INT for calculating Resonance.
EDIT: Just wanted to add
"Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's actually worse, because now classes like Fighters and Rogues can't use items like Wands or Scrolls anymore, whereas before, if they were trained enough, it was at least fairly possible to do so. Now? "Fighter wants to use Wand of CLW," "Fat chance, next!"
I don't like it, it looks like a patch-job to try and solve the consumable problem, and that just means you now need a Cleric or other dedicated healer. And some of the items that use Resonance (Bag of Holding and Gloves of Storing) are just Resonance drains for no reason.
Also, to everyone saying "No more item slots", read again. ITEM SLOTS ARE STILL HERE. There's 13 of them, in fact. I posted the breakdown in another thread, but basically, aside from rings, it's mostly the same. There's only a few non-ring items that are worn . The vast majority falls into a slot.
Stop saying Resonance got rid of slots. It didn't.
And UMD is still there too, by the way. It's not a skill, but Trick Magic Item is basically UMD, only worse due to the variable DC and the Critical Failure clause.
Does that mean we're going to make everything but heavy blunt/crushing weapons completely ineffective against plate armor? That's also historically accurate.
Or how about giving bows a reload higher than 0? Also historically accurate.
Besides, there's a very prominent martial arts from the Phillipines (Eskrima) that uses dual sticks/dual daggers. Not to mention the most iconic dual wielder in all of DnD is probably Drizzt, and he uses twin scimitars. Then again he's a Ranger, so he'd actually get feat support in 2E. You know who else uses two of the same weapon? Harsk. Same deal as Drizzt though.
My point is that this claim of "Two Weapon Fighting totally exists" rings hollow. Yeah, it does exist. Unless you don't want to use two different weapons. Then it doesn't.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
A guy using a single shortsword, or two shortswords, or a shortsword and a dagger, or any combination of Agile weapons sees absolutely no difference whatsoever.
So yes, a Rogue using one weapon is as good as a Rogue using two in most cases. If you want to make someone who uses two of the same weapon (two rapiers, two shortswords, two daggers, etc) you're basically just wasting money in the off hand.
Yeah, but without stuff like Double Slice, or Twin Parry, etc. there's no difference between a guy using a single shortsword and a guy using two shortswords. Heck, the first guy may be better off, he has a free hand to do stuff with.
Having two weapons out is an advantage if: a) Your "main-hand" isn't Agile, so you have a bigger first strike followed by lower MAP from the off hand (say, Longsword/Shortsword) or b) Your weapons have different damage types and that actually matters.
If you're planning on using two of the same weapon you basically gain nothing and lose nothing. It's basically all in the Feats now. Without them you just behave like a PF1 guy with 3 attacks from BAB that switches what weapons they use for each (though you get an advantage from Agile weapons).
No, because Double Slice states:
"Make one Strike (see page 308) with each of your two melee weapons, each at your current multiple attack penalty. The second Strike takes a –2 circumstance penalty if it’s made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait (see page 182)."
So, if Double Slice is your first Strike in a round, your current multiple attack penalty is 0. If you use Double Slice after you do one Strike, your current multiple attack penalty would be -5 for a non-Agile weapon and -4 for an Agile weapon. The wording at the end of Double Slice just means any strike after a Double Slice, no matter when you did the double slice, suffers the Multiple Attack Penalty of a 3rd Strike (so -10, or -8 for Agile).
John Ryan 783 wrote:
Neither. Universal Empowerment makes any bomb or mutagen the alchemist picks up count as Infused, not Invested. They're different things.
Normally bombs and mutagens only count as Infused if the Alchemist creates them with Advanced Alchemy or Quick Alchemy. But the 20th level Feat changes things.
For example, Empower Bombs only works with Infused bombs. If an Alchemist buys bombs from a shop, they're not Infused, so Empower Bombs doesn't work with them. But with Universal Empowerment, they do, so an Alchemist can stock up on bombs they crafted/bought and they'll be just as powerful as those they make with Advanced Alchemy/Quick Alchemy.
Similarly, as willuwontu pointed out, certain feats only work on Infused versions of certain items, which means they wouldn't work on stuff you buy or craft normally. But with Universal Empowerment, they do.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Just wanted to say, Geralt of Rivia isn't a wizard by any stretch of the imagination (and certainly not by Pathfinder standards, or the standards of his own universe); a Chaos Sorcerer would beat them because he's a 7 foot tall supersoldier in power armor (assuming a Chaos Space Marine) or get completely obliterated (assuming a human sorcerer); and Jedi got slaughtered by mooks even with lightsabers.
Plus, PF2 is an evolution of PF1, so you'd need to look at those stories. And you won't find a PF1 story about an unarmed, magic-less wizard beating up twenty 1st level fighters. Because it didn't happen.
It can totally happen now though. The numbers are just incredibly skewed by level, it isn't even funny.
I advocated for just this before the playtest dropped. "Power Points" are what we should use if those points are used to activate something called "Powers". Even if the Powers are a special kind of Spell.
Thus, Cantrips are at-will, you use Spell Slots for Spells, and Power Points for powers. Boom, much simpler.
And I agree, they should be separated. Ideally they should be in the Class Feat section, instead of writing a gazillion variations of "You can use X Power for Y Power Points." as a feat. But if you can't do that, then please, please, separate them from normal spells.
James Jacobs wrote:
But you guys at Paizo did a terrific job differentiating the philosophies of both of these deities in PF1. They were never "This guy's about fiery hell" and "These guy's about shadowy hell". Making Asmodeus LE only (and robbing him of nuance) doesn't really add anything, it just substracts.
I'm not entirely against the idea of these revisions, but some of them just don't click for me. The ZK/Asmodeus dichotomy is one. Rovagug/Lamashtu is another (I mean, Rovagug allows NE, but Lamashtu doesn't? Why?).
The biggest offender in my eyes is Pharasma though. A True Neutral goddess supposedly above it all, playing no favorites except for hating everybody who creates undead....yet she does not have CN and NE worshippers? That just means she does play favorites, with Law and Good.
Luca Bancone wrote:
Well, it combines the damage, which is good for beating Resistances (though bad for taking advantage of Weaknesses.). Still, having two attacks at your highest bonus is an advantage, and a definite one.
Fighters and Rangers also both get Twin Parry, Twin Riposte. Fighters can also get Improved Twin Riposte, Two Weapon Flurry and Twin Paragon. All of those work with and enhance the use of two weapons. That's what I meant by saying those classes get feats for enhancing Two-Weapon Fighting.
I mean, compared to PF1, where your 3rd level Fighter just uses Take 10, scales the cliff, then throws down a rope so the other guys only need to meet DC 5 to scale it, I don't really see it as a nice addition.
Proficiency and the removing of Take 10/20 in their original form (Assurance exists, but it isn't very good) has made characters (especially low level characters) much less reliable at jobs they're supposed to be good at. And this is made worse by the fact that you always have a chance to fail, no matter what. It's not fun to be the guy with +14 Athletics that fails to scale the cliff on a 1 just because the rules say so, even though I met the DC.
For what its worth, resonance isn't just about wands, but also about getting rid of slots, and allowing characters to deck themselves out in whatever equipment they want. But if you get rid of slots, you are going to need to some sort of way to limit the amount of magic a character can deck themselves out in.
Resonance didn't ger rid of slots though. Slots are still there, they just aren't called out as prominently.
Slots in PF2 (in order of appearance!):
There's also Barding and Horseshoes, though those are just re-naming Armor and Shoes for Animals. For those counting, that's 13 slots, vs PF1s 14. They got rid of Rings, and changed others around, but it's mostly the same.
In fact, in the Playtest, there's only 7 non-ring worn items that don't fall into one of these slots: Anklets of Alacrity, Armbands of Athleticism, Brooch of Shielding, Han of the Mage, Necklace of Fireballs, Third Eye and Whisper of the First Lie.
That's it. Slotted Items far outnumber slot-less worn items. To claim Resonance got rid of Slots is not true.
Damn, I meant Quick Recognition. I got them mixed up. My bad.
Upgrading it so that the test is a Free Action (once per round, at least) is the idea behind the Quick Identification Feat.
But honestly, since Counterspell is a Reaction too that just means Quick Identification is a must-have if you want to play a counter-spelling guy.
The only way I know of is to be Human, and use your 1st level Ancestry Feat to take General Training. That lets you get any 1st level General Feat, so as long as you're Trained in either Arcana, Nature, Occultism or Religion, you can then get Recognize Spell.
I've honestly no idea, hence why I started this thread. I think the idea is for the Shield and the Fighter to take the same damage, post Hardness.
So you got Heavy Steel (Hardness 5) and you get hit for 10. You Shield Block. Shield reduces damage by 5. Then both Shield and Fighter take 5 Damage (which is enough to Dent the shield).
That's what makes the most sense, I think, but the wording is a mess and could use a lot of revision. Or at least, a sidebar with an example.
I agree with most of what you said, but this is actually contradicted later on in the paragraph:
"For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents"
That tells us that, despite bad wording, it should be damage equal to it's Hardness after we've already factored in Hardness. Otherwise, the example listed would take 3 dents, not 2.
For a Light Shield with Hardness 3 to only take 2 dents from 10 damage, it has to be first reduced by Hardness to 7.
And AFAIK there's no way to add more Dents to an item. It's 2 max and then completely obliterated.
The clarification would be entirely unneeded if they just kept the old language that Reach weapons threaten the second diagonal even though it's technically 15ft away.
That is a much simpler solution than a wordy explanation that runs contrary to the normal Threat/AoO rules put in there just so a Reach weapon can AoO someone coming in from the second diagonal but not actually threaten that square.
Especially considering the explanation is nowhere in PF2 at the moment, so right now, per RAW, you can approach anyone with AoO and a Reach weapon through the second diagonal and be perfectly fine.
The thing is though, you get the lessened penalties by just using an Agile weapon, it doesn't need to be off-hand or anything. A guy with two daggers and a guy with a rapier both get the same penalties in the end.
Two-Weapon Fighting is now just the domain of class feats, and only Fighters/Rangers get those (Fighters more than Rangers), which means if you want a TWF Rogue you're out of luck, better Multiclass. And that's just really bad design.
Yeah but the "naked" medics patching an army had, you know, tools and supplies and such. A guy with Battle Medic doesn't even need healer's tools (unlike someone using Administer First Aid), he just heals you by touching you.
I mean if Administer First Aid requires supplies, surely something that heals even more would also require supplies? At least, that's how I understand OP's position.
There is at least one way I found: the Esoteric Scholar Class Feat (for Bards). I don't think Sorcerers get anything similar though.
But to answer the OP: every odd level (3,5,7, etc) you get 2 Spells Known of the new level you can cast (so two 2nd level spells at character level 3; two 3rd level spells at character level 5; etc) and at every even level (2,4,6, etc) you get 1 Spell Known of the highest level you can currently cast (so one 1st level spell at character level 2; one 2nd level spell at character level 4; etc)