OK lets do this-
Let's do two comparisons here since it varied greatly depending on how you compare things.
Pathfinder RPG (Core Rulebook ONLY):
>1E: Important Selections<
---Class Options (Typically 0 - 10 depending on Class)
*Somewhat Important Selections
Pathfinder RPG (Most Common Rules):
>1E: Important Selections<
---Alternate Racial Traits
---Class Options (Typically 0 - 10 depending on Class)
---Archetype Options (Typically 1 - 5(?) depending on Class)
---Traits (Typically 2 - 5 depending on build)
---Alternate Skill Rules Y/N
-Hero Points Y/N
---Alternate HP/Wounds/AC/Armor Rules Y/N
*Somewhat Important Selections
Pathfinder Second Edition RPG:
>2E: Important Selections<
---Class Options & Feats (Typically 2 - 15 depending on Class)
*Somewhat Important Selections
So, from a very base level, it seems that PF1 Core and PF2 core compared against one another has PF2 with more individual options to choose from, and may very well take a bit longer to make a VANILLA Character. That being said, the PF2 System for Character Creation is so elegant and adaptable that instead of having to bolt-on whole new subsystems and choices over time, they will instead simply drop new options into the existing silos. This to me says that while the options that expand, the actual steps and choices you have to make in creation are DRAMATICALLY reduced over the array of choices a PF1 Character would have to make even if the only rules they used were from the Core, APG, Unchained and Ultimate Books (Which in itself represents less than 5% of the total catalog of different sources released for PF1).
It's not exactly apples and oranges so much as it is Granny Smith VS Valencia right now since we can only really ASSUME that based on the structure of PF2 and what has been said about how new options will work but I'm confident that with the 3.X legacy having been fully shaken loose from the mechanics of the system, they won't have to release whole new aspects/sub-systems in order to make customizing your PC possible or interesting, they need only create more options for the existing silos and customization "slots."
All in all, I think you're probably right. PF1 Core VS PF2 Core, it takes longer to make a PF2 Character, but once you compare PF1 with even a TINY FRACTION of the overall Content for the system over what we can reasonably believe to be how characters will be built even another 8 years from now with PF2, I think that PF2 will come out MILES ahead for build speed unless one chooses simply to make the easiest to create character possible that is boring, plain, and overwhelmingly underpowered.
Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream!
Given how the 2 extra flaws = 1 extra boost alternate rule is handled with a sidebar, should we treat the ability to have half-orc and half-elves of non-human Ancestry as similarly RAW implications? Can/Should Half-Elf Dwarves be legal for PFS?
Are the Focus Pool/Point rules intentionally different between the dozens of ways to get them, or was that simply something that was missed in the editing passes?
I feel like there must simply be an assumption that if an ability states that it should work to effect a certain thing but it fails to make notation on HOW it is possible within the realm of mechanical possibility than players and GMs should assume that is just simply "works" anyhow.
Kinda like the whole specific overrides general rule, but in this case, it is something like "If something says you can do something, ignore all rules that would otherwise prevent it" and just use GM fiat to make up the difference. That's cool and all I suppose, what with rule 1 and all but for these circumstances, I feel like them adding the Hands column to the Gear section has really only done more harm than good.
Bumping for visibility as this is a really REALLY strange place to leave things as in combat I have NO idea if it's even feasible to play ANY Alchemist in PFS in the same way that nobody could play an Oozemorph in 1E.
Especially since Quick Alchemy Items are supposed to stop being effective if they leave your possession... right?
Would someone like to argue over this, maybe ... I don't know help make this visible. I mean, there isn't even a discovery to add extra arms anymore!
I feel like lots of folks are really throwing around the term "Trap option" without any regard for what those really are.
This is a well-balanced feat if you ask me, clumsy 1 is a pretty great debuff on a success which isn't reasonably difficult to get. The Critical Success benefit is truly and remarkably powerful since you can do it all day every day and it's a general incapacitate, unlike many other features that straight up take someone out of combat like spells and focus powers which eat up limited resources.
I think a general Spellcaster Boost Archetype with the following feats might be reasonable.
You could make it one of those Archetypes that is lauded to work with multiple different Multiclass Arcehtypes that has been discussed. Call it the Spellcaster Devotee Archetype.
Pre-Req: Basic Spellcasting Devotion Feat
You gain 1 additional Cantrip and Spell Slot per Spell Level provided by a single Multiclass Spellcasting Archetype you possess.
Pre-Req: Greater Spellcasting Devotion Feat, Expert Spellcasting Multiclass Archetype Feat
You gain 1 additional Cantrip and Spell Slot per Spell Level provided by a single Multiclass Spellcasting Archetype you possess. This stacks with Greater Spellcasting Devotion.
Pre-Req: Grand Spellcasting Devotion Feat, Master Spellcasting Multiclass Archetype Feat
Your Proficiency Ranks for Spell Attack Rolls and Spell DCs provided by a single Multiclass Spellcasting Archetype you possess is increased to Legendary.
This would allow them to focus their Class Feats they are not otherwise spending at levels where they'd normally be encouraged to take their own Class Feats on further increasing their primary Class on increasing their Multiclass Spellcasting Profs.
It really is starting to sound like what YOU really wanted was a 1500 page CRB that included everything from the existing book, and the upcoming GMG and APG in it.
Maybe it'd be best if you took some time to chill and wait for those supplements since from what I can tell the recurring theme in your threads seems to be X Mechanic/Customization isn't in the CRB- PANIC!
A single weapon that requires 1 or 2 Feats to get access to that is only marginally better than a whip.... I'm not seeing the problem here.
Is the issue that the DPR hounds are going to love it? I'm not sure that's much of a problem, it would have simply been some other weapon, in in the past the ideal DPR weapons didn't even require exotic weapon prof or the eq to get access to.
They are more expensive by dint of that fact, they offer more AC (Damage avoidance) or do more damage on a hit (+1/2 Str to damage) than their cheaper counterparts.
They're meant to be non-magical upgrade equipment after you've done one or two cool things before you end up spending money on enchantments and other high fantasy stuff. Besides that, I have nothing nice to say other than to simply restate that they're more expensive because they are more powerful.
So I have a question- How exactly is an Alchemist ever supposed to ever use Quick Alchemy? The equipment requires 2 Hands to use effectively.
If the intent WAS that it requires 2 Hands, how exactly is an Alchemist ever supposed to have the expectation that they should have 1 free Hand to perform Quick Alchemy?
The same thing goes for the Formula Book except with 1 Hand.
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Lo and behold- my terrible Ascii art version of the weapon!
Extra line for space....
And another line for space....
You hold onto that part in the middle there with your knuckles going through into a protected basket with the blades coming out of the left and right side.
That's my interpretation of the description anyway. Basically a set of knuckle dusters with a cage, a pair of blades off each side and spikes coming out of the front.
It really REALLY is!
The fact that TAC is now dead and gone is SUCH a huge boon for spellcasters that it's practically one of those "invisible" changes in terms of how far-reaching the impacts go.
Sure less spells a day feels bad, but Save/Suck spells are no longer crappy if they make their Save, hitting TAC has mostly been converted to an automatic hit, and damage+condition spells are EVERYWHERE now instead of the exception to the rule.
I personally love the new design. I wish there were General Feats to increase the casting limit before Overcharge by 1/day and maybe some Class Feats that do something similar but there is plenty of time and room down the road for this kind of implementation outside of the CRB.
I say bury the old Wands in the same grave as BAB and Leadership, then build a lead monument over the top before blessing the site and banishing the whole 3sq mile area to a pocket dimension.
Edit: Cabbage you ninja!
You currently cannot, as others have stated, much to my displeasure.
It makes NO SENSE that Fighter is more proficient with Unarmed Attacks than a Monk.
Someone high up in the ranks at Paizo either really hates Monk or simply doesn't care enough to pay attention to the details. In no universe should a warrior trained for his whole life to fight using his body fall behind doing something they are 95% focused on to someone who spends THEIR whole life mastering combat in heavy armor with shiny magic weapons.
Also, before someone goes all "It's for balance reasons!" on me, I find that to be a nonsense argument, the mechanics of the class should have been tweaked around Legendary in Unarmed to fit the fluff if the "math" was a problem.
When can we expect to see the new rules and guidelines in their final form for use by the community and ... well, anyone.
I'm PRETTY sure that the Convention Games that are going to take place in the next week are all going to be for use with Pregen Characters only, but if this is at all untrue, then I think getting the new rules pushed out before the show might be advisable.
There are going to be whole swaths of rules, even in the Core Rulebook, that most Characters will never in their career interact with.
Vehicle/Chase Rules are one such instance. Starship Combat, while important, are not the kind of thing a Player needs to memorize- focus on trying to learn the rules for whatever starship role you think you're going to play.
Lastly, there are some really REALLY good YouTube videos out there to help teach people about Starfinder Rules.
The time limitation to do this relates to the acceptable WBL gains you can get during downtime between adventures and if they have such a huge shopping list of items they want to make at a discount perhaps you should have a conversation with them about them bloating their intended power level because if 100% of the gear a party has is all crafted equipment you'll very quickly end up with a group of PCs who have FAR too much wealth and equipment than they are intended to have.
And here we go again with the back and forth "No YOU'RE not listening to ME" nonsense with entrenched opinions again and no real discussion being had chock full with hyperbole and chatter demeaning other peoples perspective.
Really, there is no point even trying to debate someone who genuinely thinks that their post frequency (E.g Loudest voice) determines who "wins" a discussion.
With 6 new classes like the original had (Sorry Antipaladin, you don't count, you're just an overblown Paladin Archetype) I hope makes the first big Hardcover for the 2020 GenCon release:
Once these are added the remaining 95% of the other PF1 Classes can be created using the "Class-Paths" and Archetypes leaving more room for actual new cool feats, equipment, spells, ancestries, and lore instead of wasting tons of space on a huge chapter in every hardcover that like happened in PF1 where it was full of Class Tables and Ability descriptions whose primary role was to serve as options to trade out for Archetype Abilities.
This is simply my opinion and not an invitation to debate my reasoning!
Robert Gooding wrote:
Why would you close the discussion thread for this third party product? Has paizo decided we’re not allowed to talk about it anymore?
I'm not sure I follow your question exactly but I'll try to help. I'm pretty sure it's because this IS the new thread that relates to discussing that Kickstarter fulfillment since it sounds like ND turned over the rights/responsibility of actually getting these made to Archon.
I would never choose to run a game with this generation nor vote for that generation.
I played with this and similar generation methods for a long time in my younger years and it was just not satisfying, fun, or interesting at all. More than once I sat next to players who acted suicidal in order to get a reroll because they ended up with garbage stats and it was extremely disruptive and bad for the game.
Point buy or array is my preferred method now.
Q 1) As Seisho noted I think this is what the deal is. Good luck trying to swing a weapon that is trying to light itself on fire and boiling the water around it with ANY amount of accuracy. It would in effect create a steam/gas barrier around the weapon that would wholesale prevent it from doing any damage at all to the intended target- Just switch the fiery weapon quality off or you have a piece of junk for underwater combat, seems about right to me.
2) Can't say because I know nothing about "Fortune/Misfortune" effects, I'm guessing that those are a specific kind of Tag or Trait that defines an effect? That said I'm not sure where the conflict in your scenario plays out based on how you're describing it. If you have a misfortune Trait in play on an attack, you'd need to decide to trigger your Halfling Luck to cancel it out before you roll anyhow so the whole thing is a wash no matter what, unless I misunderstand what these actually do.
I strongly disagree. I don't like marrying the system to the setting. I'm not playing pathfinder for Golarion, I'm playing it for the ruleset.
I get that, I really do, but that's what the Gamemastery Guide or whatever it will be called is for, that and 3PP.
Them publishing content that doesn't fit within the scope of Golarian is not only a bad idea, but it would also require them to add even MORE handholding for PFS and Con games in terms of hard-fast restrictions.
I said it in my post, it's an opinion, but I'll repeat it. If you want Glocks, SMGs, and full auto weapons in your Pathfinder game, then you should be looking to 3PPs for that, not looking to Paizo to contaminate their own pool and setting.
WARNING: These are all opinions spouted before my second cup of coffee for the day
Misfire on a 1 ONLY- Having higher misfire ranges did NOTHING except discourage people from buying anything except the same 4 firearms and leaving the rest in the discount bin with the exception of those few gunslingers who instead wasted their money on expensive and pointless enchantments to keep them from blowing their face off when instead they could have crafted better ammo and used an objectively better firearm in the first place.
I think Deadly d12 is reasonable for Critical hits.
I'd like to see Paizo take a stance with their mainline hardcover books and NOT release "Modern" firearms at ALL. They don't make sense for Golarion, hell even the space-laser weapons are more Sci-Fantasy than futuristic and adding in Semi/Fully automatic weapons with no misfire chance, superior damage and negating the Reload-Tax for the mainline products is just goofy nonsense that encourages everyone to build the same character, especially if they eventually use Class Feats to gain access to Gunsmithing Formulas to craft one or more Uncommon-Rare Firearms of their choice as they level.
I'm not usually one of those "Keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter" folks but I honestly think that 3PP can and should be the ones best suited to creating firearms that make sense outside of the context of Golarian, IMO nobody should be able to strategically use supplements even 5-10 years down the road with 1st Party books to create Master Chief, that's just silly and destroys the world continuity. Let Rogue Genius Games or somebody else take that creative space and play with it, don't contaminate the lore otherwise.
Tie Grit/Panache/Moxie/Whatever to the Focus Point system. I don't care if people think it's strange that it should use the same resource that Spellcasters use, it makes sense to tie the X/day really cool limited resource stuff to the same pool for every class for balance reasons, besides there is already precedent in place for ways to restore Focus which is a big part of what those systems were about in the first place.
One change I have considered is that it only costs 1 Hero Point to avoid death, but once you avoid death you can't do it again until you gain a level.
I REALLY like this idea, a LOT.
The idea that people who just show up to game sessions get 1 free "get out of death" card every game even if they didn't bring pizza or soda really has irked me for some time and I think limiting that to once per level would really add some cranberry to my vodka in terms of the life-saving function of Hero points.
1) AFIK: Yes, you have to build and upgrade it through all the stages to get the BP cost to work out properly. I myself had to fumble through this for a crew rebuilding the Sunrise Maiden from scratch after losing space combat quite spectacularly and barely surviving.
2) Homebrew is probably your best bet if you're looking for community feedback.
I don't know how or why but it seems to me that simply retrying the links over and over and over eventually DOES lead me to where I am trying to go.
For example, I just clicked to open the Starfinder forums in a new tab 5 times, 3 went to the main page, two went to the desired forum.
I have no idea what the deal is but perhaps a note by CS indicating that they know there is a problem and are investigating it would be a good idea since it seems like this is a universal problem, even if you don't have any earthly idea why it's happening.
As for the canon reason, I couldn't say but to me, I always assumed it was because he is some kind of double-agent for the Corpse Fleet who wanted plausible deniability regarding HOW the CF got their hands on the info about the Drift Rock in the first place.
If it wasn't publicly released then nobody but that party SHOULD know about it outside of the SFS and the Eoxian Embassy which would point some pretty serious fingers directly at Nor when the Corpse Fleet gets involved in the race for a super-weapon whose existence was discovered because of his intel gathering. If the info remained privately sealed and was then leaked to the press, hacked from his database, or otherwise stolen he would similarly be in HUGE trouble. Releasing it all out of the gate assured that he could simply say that he had no idea that the footage would be so explosive and the impacts so far-reaching.
I think that he is playing the Eoxian government and the Corpse fleet both like a master diplomat that he is in hopes to stay on top no matter who comes out the victor.
Other than that, because they needed a way to inject rivals into the story on the chase for the Steller Degenerator.
I look at it as the difference between a normal wall outlet you find pretty much anywhere with electricity and that of a Tesla charging station.
Right now, as far as I can see the Pact Worlds hasn't invented a portable piece of tech that would allow you to convert the wall outlet to function with the Tesla. That said, I'm not sure it's a huge problem because from what I can tell the idea that you can eventually run out of power on your environmental systems for armor seems intentional and not something that is meant to be easily bypassed without returning to a ship or civilization.
I know this is a discussion thread about the viability of either of these as whole new Classes versus Archetypes but I don't have the bandwidth to get into detail explaining why I feel as I do so I'll just make my perspective known instead.
Neither needs new Classes. The Archetype system plus the inclusion of additional Class Paths down the line will offer more than enough room to create both of these ideas without having to waste 25 pages in hardcover and continue supporting them with every other book down the line, it's a waste of development time and space.
If we're taking bets-
My money is on 18 episodes at 56 minutes each per season. They release the show starting on August 1st and release 1 show per week with JB and the G&S team in chat on Twitch with a 1 week YouTube Delay.
They can fly Jason out in another 3 months to film S2 for a Holiday/Winter themed continuation of the same story, same characters which begins airing early-2020.
I can't confirm this but I suspect that Alchemist will be the go-to choice for between combat healing and buffs while Cleric will be strongest when inside the Initiative Round, and to me, that seems totally fair.
An alchemist with a spec on healing will have more overall capability to do mundane healing checks and will likely be able to actually restore more HP with their elixirs in a given day than a Cleric but will fall behind when it comes to "Healing per round" inside combat.
That on top of having way more "ranks" to invest in Skills at large than your average cleric I think it's probably a good balance.
If Pathfinder 1 classes are eventually trickled back into second edition, which do you hope return first?
The dog that barks the loudest isn't always the one you want to follow, and all I'm hearing is a bunch of noise and projection, no actual factual backup or rules discussion that is grounded in the actual item in question.
If there is one lesson in all this I think it's that people obviously read things very differently, I, for example, think that bit is fluff because it's not backed up with any actual rules.
Maybe it would be a good idea to use different fonts or markups to indicate on items what is and is not fluff because that's the crux of my argument here.
Agree to disagree I suppose on the RAI but you're undoubtedly and irrefutably wrong when it comes to the RAW, and honestly that's all I'm talking about here. He asked what it does, not what was the designers intent.
Still waiting for you to show me a page number or FAQ that lists what a "Bite" attack for a PC does. I'll help you out and copy the relevant text... again. This time I'll remove the fluff that's confusing you.
Starfinder #2: Temple of the Twelve pg. 53 wrote:
You can choose to have your unarmed attacks deal lethal piercing damage, and if you are 3rd level or higher, you automatically gain a special version of the Weapon Specialization feat that adds double your level to the damage of these unarmed attacks (rather than adding your level).
That's what the item does, and that's all it does... I don't understand why this is the hill you're willing to stubbornly die on. It's not that hard to understand.
The first part mechanically does zippo, zilch, nada, nothing. It is mechanically meaningless and you're inferring your perspective on what you think it should do instead of actually reading the RAW. Mechanically any unarmed attack you make can benefit, that's how its worded that's how it works.
No dude, that's fluff, find me a table that lists "Bite Attack" anywhere in print and I'll back down from my point. Your bold text does nothing to support your weak argument.
If that's needed. I don't think it is. The ring is a bite attack. Bite attacks don't have the archaic weapon property. I haven't seen a whole lot of people using the unarmed strike line of
I'd not like to start an argument that you've been waging for weeks since I left my note at the top of the thread but please, show me ONE mechanical statement anywhere in any of the rules or on these forums that state or clarifies that this ring grants a bite attack. The entire first sentence of the item description is 100% fluff-period. There ARE no rules anywhere that universally state what a "powerful bite attack" actually is or how it works, it's not on any weapon tables for PC use, it's not listed in the AP, it's not on the SRD or anywhere in print.
The remainder of the item describes exactly what the item does, and that's all it does.
I'll wait.... because it doesn't. It doesn't grant a bite attack. It simply improves Unarmed Strike Attacks, that's what it does.
It's really not that hard, and you're interpreting fluff and the name of the item to indicate that the equipment does something that the description of the item does not say that it does.
This entire thing would be much easier to understand for people if they simply didn't include the fluff text as that's clearly what's causing your confusion and misinterpretation here.
That said, there are PLENTY of other things that could probably use clarification, but don't let that stop you from obsessing over the issue and blasting countless folks with walls of text filled with meaningless interpretations and balance discussions.
Unless there were some last minute tweaks to the NPC rules and the math behind the damage that monsters/baddies do I'd have to say that PF2 is significantly less lethal than 1st Edition and it's not even close by comparison.
That said, it's going to take some adjusting for GMs to really change tactics and really try their best to actively kill a PC but it's still possible, you just won't ever see it happen by accident any longer as the shift in things means that targeting one and ONLY one PC during combat for a group of monsters is totally legitimate tactic that doesn't fall under "foul-play" anymore.
Getting Hero Points for free just for showing up to a game and having a multi-level dying track instead of a target HP number you're shooting for means no character is ever going to go from fighting to dead in the course of a single round.
Not sure how I feel about that really... as others have said, I hope if things are how they seem from the previews and games I played/saw at PaizoCon that there are good options for increased lethality beyond just ratcheting up the Level of the encounters you throw at a party or adding templates to literally everything the party fights.
I'm personally still in favor of having the Cha Mod set the starting attitude of NPCs who are unfamiliar with the PC until they actively make a social skill check against them to raise the attitude level.
I have no idea if the starting attitudes are codified for PF2 or not but I personally plan on running with the following.
Most NPCs start as indifferent to Characters they do not know of or have a prior relationship with. Unless otherwise stated NPCs begin as indifferent. Depending on the Characters Charisma score NPCs have their starting attitude adjusted as follows:
Unfriendly -2 or less
Having an NPC treat Characters differently based on how powerful or influential their personality seems natural to me and I hardly think having most strangers treat the ugly, uncouth Barbarian with -2 Cha badly to start is unreasonable (Given how hard it is to even achieve such a score), and on the inverse, if an attractive well-spoken Bard walks up they should gain some benefit from this.