You seem to be correct. It just seems to require you to be able to use the Cast a Spell activation, which requires you to be able to use the Cast a Spell activity, and have a Spellcasting class feature, which casting classes obviously have and the archetype section specifically prevents any ambiguity for Multiclassing, though classes like Champions or Monks or Rogues with Minor Magic, even though they have a magical tradition and can use the Cast a Spell activity, can't use Cast a Spell activations, because they don't have a spellcasting class feature. But otherwise, no level requirements that I can see.
I like wands in 2e more than 1e, but I'm still kind of lukewarm on them. The overcharge mechanic seems a bit too punitive, since, are you really going to risk a magic item to 45% of the time be destroyed, just for a second cast per day of a spell? Because you can just buy a scroll for 1/15th-1/10th the price of a new wand.
Fair enough for using both, I guess, but I'm not sure the going away for 10 minutes us a huge knock against it compared to the buckler. At level 1, the shield goes away if you take more than 5 damage in a single hit. But so does the buckler (6 damage - 3 = 3 = Buckler Broken threshold), and the buckler could also be permanently destroyed, potentially, and it also blocks less damage. While there isn't as clean a comparison for later levels, the best common bucklers are cold iron, but even at the levels you get them at, if you consider the maximum amount they could block compared to the cantrip, it can always block at most two hits that would destroy a cantrip shield of equivalent level, but the maximum HP saved from that would be only equal to or 1 higher than the cantrip shield, meanwhile the cantrip shield can handle larger single hits and is just flat better when the next heightened versions come online, as any hit that would bypass the shield's hardness would break the buckler in one hit, thus preventing more damage. So, as a backup, sure, but at that point you have to wonder is it worth the general feat?
Yup. Although they did invent Bucklers for that, only half as effective in AC and HPs of course. But they're only L!
Hm... an action to gain +1 AC, which allows you to use a reaction to block some damage, and which doesn't require a free hand. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea for a caster. But I'm not sure if bucklers are thematically suited. If only casters had some other option to get the same benefit, in a more thematically suited way. Too bad something like that doesn't exist. Maybe we'll see it in a later book.
In addition to that (because otherwise the level 1s don't really mean anything, unless you want to do some sort of zero-level "call to adventure" session), it's also used for starting treasure past 1st level. If a 2nd level character dies, and then the player brings in a new character, and that character want's half plate, that counts as their 1st level item. Likewise for Full plate counting as a second level item, if a character comes in at levels 3-6.
It doesn't have Fort/Ref listed individually on that sheet, but looking at the medians for Fort and Ref saves, it hits the median only on creatures about 2-4 levels lower, getting closer to 3-5 by higher levels. However, if you can intuit that Fort or Ref is a weak save it gets better, as it hits the median weak save on average 0-1 level lower, though by high levels it gets closer to 1-2 levels lower. Not terrible, as a third action, since if it doesn't hit at least you know not to try it next round, but tripping or grappling a minion enemy, which is what it'd be most useful for, doesn't seem like a huge win.
So I had an idea for a homebrew skill feat, but I figured it wasn't complicated enough to warrent a thread to itself, so I figured that this might be a good place to put homebrew general/skill feats that are rather stand-alone and pretty basic. Essentially stuff that seems like it would fit nicely in the CRB if they had a few more pages worth of space.
Scribe Scroll Feat 2
You can use Arcana, Nature, Occultism, or Religion instead of
I figured this was a pretty obvious skill feat, given that, while you could make the case for other consumables, such as potions or talismans, requiring Crafting to create, it seemed really strange to have that carry over to scrolls as well. Since the various magic skills seem to replace both the respective knowledge skills as well as Spellcraft, for their given traditions, this seemed like a no brainer addition.
Sure, but I think that puts more scrutiny on the fighter MC feat (and also the champion feat for armor, and also the [Ancestry] weapon expertise in a few cases, but the [Ancestry] weapon training actually handles it pretty well for most). As it stands the feat required to get expert proficiency is a feat tax, because classes and monsters are designed such that the granted proficiency through class features essentially form the BAB/AC-Equivalent of the class, and 2E was supposed to be trying to avoid such taxes. Not a perfect metaphor, but it'd be sort of like if in 1e you didn't get to add your BAB from a class that didn't get proficiency in a given weapon that you got through multiclassing, unless you picked up weapon proficiency anyway. A better solution would be to have all trained weapons and armor scale with the class, and do something similar to the "Resiliency" feats, where you get a limited bonus, so long as you only get expert in weapons (or armor for the champion), though that's difficult to do with the bonus stacking rules.
This, though I could also go with perhaps a limited x/day recovery, where x is the pool size, likely with similar strictures to something like the wizard's Linked Focus, to prevent spamming. To me, just 1-2 more focus spells per day due to focus pool size seems a bit underwhelming, given that you're usually getting those from picking up another focus spell. If the average 4 encounters per adventuring day (considering only encounter usages, since otherwise they're basically just cantrips with a 10-minute casting time), you go 4->5->6 in usage per day, as pool size increases, and I think something closer to 4->6->8 would feel more freeing, since you'd feel like you're actually able to make more use of your focus powers if you decide to devote further feats to them.
Ok, so this might be a "Monk's Ki ability is still Wisdom" sort of thing, but I can't for sure tell for sure: there are a number of different feats and features which grant focus powers, and on my first read through, I assumed that focus points/focus spells worked similar to spell repertoire/spell slots for spontaneous casters, in that every time you gained a focus spell, you gained a focus point (at least, up to the maximum of 3), since it seems like they're looking to simplify things down such that, unless otherwise stated, you don't have to cross-reference for different sources for both totals.
However on reading through it again, I'm noticing a few places where things are not standardized leading to some questioning over whether or not that is the case. For instance, the druid is an example, where it states "you start with a focus pool of one focus point" before going into the individual orders. However in two of the orders (Leaf and Storm) it also mentions after gaining that order's focus spell that you increase the number of focus spells in your focus pool by 1, while the other two orders do not state this. Meanwhile the wild order grants, indirectly, a second focus spell, by granting the Wild Shape feat, however even though that feat grants a focus spell, it does not specify that it grants a focus point. So what's the read here? for Animal/Plant/Storm/Wild is the proper number of focus points 1/2/2/1 (RAW)? 1/2/2/2 (assuming focus spells always grant a focus point, but the extra in plant/storm isn't a typo)? 1/1/1/2 (assuming # focus spells = # focus points)?
There are other places where similar, though not necessarily exactly the same, potential for confusion exists: Champions gaining a basic domain aren't specified to gain a focus point (though it is specified for advanced domains), clerics gaining a second domain aren't specified explicitly to gain another focus point, both Monk and MCing have multiple ways to gain the first focus pool, and neither specifies something like "If you already have a focus pool, instead increase your focus points by 1" but multiclassing has the additional stipulation of "if you don't already have [a focus pool]".
I'm willing to believe this was just a matter of not necessarily having a standardized format for focus points, so things got formatted differently and perhaps missed in the final edit, but some of it I could also see being intentional, but it's hard to tell which ones, if it's not just # Focus points = Min(3, # focus powers).
I recognize that a lot of this is based on a very specific issue of mine, and, in general, it might be less pidgeon-holey, but I feel a lot more restricted compared to the playtest, with the fact that taking other orders' feats requires Order Explorer, which mandates ties to the order's anathema. Now, avoiding cruelty to animals and plants, and not polluting the air aren't exactly difficult anathemas to adhere to, but the Wild Order pretty much forbids any sort of Urban Druid options, and given that Wild Shape requires following the Wild Order's anathema, no matter how one gets it, that puts the kibosh on my Wild Shape focused Urban Druid/MC Rogue infiltrator/spy character idea way more than not getting STR to my wild-shape pool ever did. Though admittedly this is a pretty specific concern that probably has more to do with the asymmetry between the wild order anathema and the other orders' anathema.
I'm interested in how Hexes will work in 2E as well as what ones make it over (slumber being outlawed by a lot of DM's in 1E).
4 degrees of success, I suspect will help a good deal with this, though I suspect we could also see it take up essentially the new changes to sleep, where targets can wake up with perception checks as normal, making it less of an in-combat thing.
If I were to speculate on the Witch, I think it will be quite mechanically similar to the Bard, at least structurally, being a (likely) occult caster with some unique cantrips and likely focus spells, though obviously it would be thematically different and what those cantrips/focus spells do would be mechanically different from the bard.
As for Oracle, I don't think they'd get full Occult casting, alongside Divine, but I'd imagine, if they do something similar with mysteries, you'd see a lot of mysteries, or whatever replaces that, get some occult-list spells, along with some mysteries like flame or wood getting primal-list spells. I'm not sure how curses will work, if they significantly differ from 1e, though I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up sort of merged in with mysteries, such that for example the Blackened curse basically gets Flame Mystery-like stuff, Haunted gets Ancestor/Bones-like stuff, ect.
I really don't know what to expect from Investigator or Swashbuckler, though since Swashbuckler had Panache, and Investigator had the option to get Luck, through the Sleuth archetype, I'm wondering if we'll see them introduce a system like that, as a sort of martial counterpoint to focus spells. I'm sort of guessing that'd be the case, otherwise I don't really see the mechanic justification for having them be their own classes, as opposed to class archetypes or just general archetypes.
I would be inclined to consider the cantrips and other spells gained as following the rules for innate spells, since it also fails to list proficiency in spell attack rolls/spell DCs, whereas the rules for innate spells cover both those aspects, so as a result I would say it uses Charisma and gives you Trained proficiency.
Joe M. wrote:
I'm not sure if this was in the playtest, but here Jason mentioned that "since you're Trained, you can only aim for the lowest DC, which is 15" (paraphrase, but accurate and I think pretty close to exactly how he said it). So it sounds like increasing proficiency allows you to attempt higher DCs (presumably for more healing).
I just watched episode 3, but one thing I noticed is the "but that's all you can do for right now" after the treat wounds was done. I don't know if that's just due to the circumstances, given what happened next, or not, but it seems that maybe, as opposed to the playtest, the treat wounds ability bolsters the target for some period of time (just speculation, but probably less than the 1 day that the critical fail of the playtest had). So maybe this is a change from the latter days of the playtest, in that mundane healing (and again speculation, but possibly other 10 minute activities) is limited by time, more than just the time required for the activity (speculation, again, but I'd wager maybe, whether it be healing or regaining focus spells, ow what not, it might be once an hour, or something like that?)
Interesting notion, but I worry that it might bog down play, as if a failure does nothing but require an extra roll, and maybe waste time if you're on a clock, statistically you're going to have fairly frequent strings where the player doesn't roll a 1 and doesn't roll a success, many times in a row (and that's just assuming you only need 1 success, or that each success gives some sort of discrete benefit). Dice pool systems often actually function on a similar notion (though not entirely the same), but they have the benefit that you're rolling at once, so getting a success or consequences is something that only requires one roll to see, which keeps the game flowing, and keeps the tension of the dice.
I'm not entirely sure I disagree entirely, however, the untrained penalty of -4 isn't necessarily comparable to the trained to legendary jump, due to the fact that the DCs tend to guarantee a certain base success rate based on level. Even discounting the imbalance with the DC math, respective of level, the -4 only ensures likely success in checks that are so easy as to be ignorable to most of the party. Meanwhile a success check based on trained, compared to the same check based on Legendary is more influential, simply because the checks that are viable for an untrained character are largely inconsequential, while the difference between legendary and trained will largely make themselves known on more consequential checks. Even ignoring the DC table, this will still have this effect, assuming DCs aren't so out of whack that most checks are either almost guaranteed, or unmakable by normal PCs.
As a general idea I like it. I was thinking something along the lines of regaining spell points in a short rest might be good as well though with the focus changes I don't know if that makes sense or not.
It'd probably involve some re-rebalancing of items, but honestly, I think it actually would work better with the focus changes. There probably needs to be some sort of balancing act there, as there are certainly ways to cheese the system, but with the reduced amount of focus, both for items (as even splitting resonance out into it's own thing, the gain due to level means this new system will have less "free" resonance to be used to power items) and spell points (1 or 2 + Cha is going to be less for most characters than Main stat + Number of other powers), not to mention the combination of the two, a way to get back focus seems ideal.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
It's also worth noting that Charisma's two skills are actually four skills.
I'm no lawyer, but all those terms were things in the OGL. Attunement is new to 5e, thus not part of the OGL. Seems like there could be issues there.
It would indeed be awful, but I'm not entirely convinced, given how another Bloodline power, Dragon Claws, specifically calls out the 1d4s as separate (though that also has the issue of whether the counting as +1 weapons means both d4s increase, or just one). I'm not entirely unconvinced either, as dragon claws has the benefit that only one of the damage types is variable, but I think this is a place where revision for clarity would be advisable.
A lot of this I think is fair, but I wouldn't say almost nothing was done. I think the move away from resonance (or focus) for crafting is a big boost, but that really just speaks to how far the Alchemist needed to be boosted initially, as all this did was put their baseline chassis on par with other characters (at least in a vacuum, ignoring the weakness of alchemical items in general). A number of the issues, I think could be solved by moving away from bonus types, as others have suggested, and implement a "3 best sources of bonus/3 worst sources of penalties" system and maybe even having some of the always-on boosts, like weapon and armor potency, not count as a bonus under this schema, but that still doesn't cover the fact that, as mentioned, a lot of these items still feel like cantrip level benefits. Maybe the best solution for that would be that invested alchemical items act as if the user spent focus, but even so, I'm not convinced that's entirely enough.
Well then, it's a good thing PF2e doesn't work like that. Like, at all.
Well, keeping a stat at 8 should punish you. I don't really care about that aspect (though admittedly, I might not be opposed to increasing the ancestral Focus from 1 or 2 to 2 or 3), my concern is more on the interaction between Powers and items and how tight a line balance will have to be for those, to prevent one from overwhelming the other.
I'm worried that making Powers use focus instead of spell points will have a strange effect on the game, especially if the powers are getting buffed, where you will either see casters who never really use interesting items, because items without focus point investment are (understandably) weakened, and they want to save their focus for their powers, or you'll see the opposite way around where maybe some item effect is stronger than their powers, and they never use their Powers. Is this necessarily bad? I don't know, but it does seem odd. At least for monks, this feels like a good change (except for the Cha base not necessarily gelling, but the meditating to recover focus does intrigue me), since I could see Ki powers tuned such that item benefits are less competitive, leading to a viable ascetic monk feel, but for other classes, I'm a bit worried.
John Mechalas wrote:
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the suggestions, but I don't think anyone was suggesting difficult terrain as an Alternative to AoOs, for those who get access to it, but that classes that don't get AoOs still have some of the benefits of AoOs, by virtue of limiting movement, due to difficult terrain. My assumption though, it that classes that get AoOs, in some form or another, still get AoOs as normal, but that threatened areas also count as difficult terrain (I.e. if you try to move past a fighter, you trigger an AoO, and moving past anyone, including the fighter, but also other non-AoO enabled characters, counts as difficult terrain). If this is perhaps too powerful, I could see maybe there could be the choice, on the fighter's side as to whether to have the enemy provoke an AoO or have the enemy have to move through their threatened squares as difficult terrain, but even in such a suggestion, it'd be fighter's choice, not enemy's choice. But I haven't seen anyone suggest that the choice between provoking and moving with difficult terrain be the mover's choice, unless I'm misinterpreting things.
Focus is supposedly going to be tied to Charisma, but it was kind of confusing for how it would work, since they also said spell point casters would have something different going on, but I don't know if that means they'll get something like the Alchemist's "Replace [X stat] for Cha for Focus" or getting flat extra focus, or adding [X stat] in addition to Cha, so it's yet to see if it's actually worth it any more.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Focus, for instance, essentially combines Spell Points and Resonance*. I'd propose taking it a step further and folding Hero Points in as well. This would include removing the Out of Character methods for gaining Hero Points.
My worry with this is that you'd never see anyone use those points for Powers or Item activations, for the same reason that Hero Points rarely are used for anything other than not dying. Now this is partially due to the cost of the other options, but also this shows up with Resolve points in Starfinder, from what little I've played of it, where you only use it for staving off death and recovering Stamina, and not really for the class resolve point abilities.
only 1 caveat on the difficult terrian thing: It only applies after entering the threat range. It shouldn't take extra movement to just approach when you want to attack.
I think a reasonable rule, in such a case, would be "if you are in a threatened area, all areas within the threatened area of that creature are difficult terrain" or, alternatively, if you want to minimize the issue of moving between two threatened areas that might have some overlap "if you are in a threatened area all areas within the threatened area of that creature that are not within the threatened area of a creature that is not already threatening you, are difficult terrain" to prevent corner-case situations, where you can't step to a nearby target when an enemy isn't between you and the target (though that might be unnecessary, except in extremely movement restricted situations, in which case the first rule might actually be more reasonable).
On the issue of increasing dice vs increasing flat damage, I think that both are, if not equally problematic, probably both less than ideal. I personally think I prefer PF2e's more dice solution over 1e's bigger static numbers solution, not because I like rolling more dice, but because it's closer to an equivalent ratio of damage over levels. That said, it's still not ideal, because I think it overly emphasizes greatswords, ect, over smaller weapons, as level increases. Perhaps the best solution would involve having +weapons be static damage increases, while extra dice come from some other source, be it weapon quality or some innate benefit, such that maybe a d12 weapon is always about 1.4-1.6x the damage of a d6 weapon, depending on the user's investment into strength, as opposed to growing, fairly easily to nearly double that damage, as it currently stands, or growing nearly inconsequential as 1e did it.
Isn't the thing about the ECB that it's really quite long and thus awkward to carry? Falchions are pretty compact.
Falchions are also, IRL, one handed weapons, so it's hard to really get a grasp on what they're supposed to be like in Pathfinder. I never pictured them as that compact, simply because otherwise I couldn't find them convincing as two handed (or at least some form of hand-and-a-half), over one handed.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Step 1) Take Paladin.Step 2) Pick up Bow.
Um... Guys, I think I made a bow Paladin. Not that complicated.
Vital/Mental, if it existed, I could see as some form of Psionics, particularly like the egoist from 3.5 or the vitalist from Dreamscarred. For Spiritual/Material, I want to say Ki, just for the sake of the fact that it's allowed to count as divine or occult, based on player preference, but honestly it's probably just Spiritual/Vital, but from a completely different perspective than divine magic, for the most part. It's hard for me to piece together what it might be though, as spiritual is about the (literally and metaphorically) ethereal, where as physical is about, well, the physical, and it's hard to see where those intersect. They are supposed to be opposite points on the same axis, so it makes some sense, though the fact that vital/mental is also supposed to represent opposing points, but is fairly easy for me to come up with an explanation for makes it a bit stranger to puzzle through.
The more I think about it, the more I don't want to see Hero Points in this form in the game. I love Hero Points, but there's a problem with them in that, the game has to fundamentally work without them, or else they just become another resource to manage, but one more prone to fiat. Where Hero Points work best is when they're not really a resource, but something that's part cooperative storytelling aid, part currency for RAW-bending, allowing for minor alterations to scenes or a way for the GM to say "Sure, you can do it... for a Hero Point" and as a way to reward good RP, or as a consolation for GM fiat. This isn't to say that it can't have defined mechanical benefits, like rerolls or whatever, and in fact I think it's better if it does have such benefits, if only to peg their value to something more concrete, or allow the player to influence climactic story moments in a way outside their character's mechanics or the whim of the die, but tying them too close to the mechanics of the game creates a situation as highlighted in this thread: If Hero Points allow for an effect as strong as staving off death, then in order to get the sense of danger the designers want, they have to make things deadlier, which results in more hording of Hero Points.
Now, personally, I'd be fine allowing hero points to be used to stave off death, if they weren't assumed to be standard, since the game would have to be benchmarked to a certain level of danger assuming no hero points, as opposed to that level with hero points, which means they'd be less likely to be hoarded for that purpose (essentially this is how Hero Points worked with my group in 1e, where in the playtest, everyone's pretty much expecting to go down at least once, and even saving Hero Points for when you hit dying 4, they're still far more likely to be necessary for that purpose that everyone hoards them). Not entirely sure how I'd fix them. I don't think the proposed solutions here really solve the core of the problem. Maybe the best fix would just be to put them in the book, but keep them optional (and maybe even then, rework the costs, as well), but I feel like there can be a better solution, and I just can't think of it.
I don't really have a horse in the ABP race, since it does some things I conceptually like and others I'm more hesitant on, but I will say that 2e already effectively solved the latter issue, due to runes, and their transferability between items. So the GM doesn't need to drop a +2 Gnome Flickmace in a scenario where it wouldn't make sense, the PC just needs to transfer that +2 to their existing item.
I don't doubt that that would produce a better game, but you have to acknowledge that with 5e, they had Hasbro bankrolling them, and for Hasbro, WotC is far more lucrative from MTG than D&D, so waiting a bit on 5e is more viable, since they didn't need to worry about return on investment as much, both because their investment was smaller relative to their total income, and because their gains from that investment could be weighed against the opportunity cost of releasing the system earlier.
Now, Paizo has stated that they're not in a state where they need a bump from 2e, or that they can't delay if need be, and I believe them at that, but I also know that without a wealthy bankroller, it's harder to justify a longer term investment in a system, even if that investment might have some pay off. Essentially it comes down to a question of the ratio between total customers if they launch Gen Con 2019 vs launching Gen Con 2020. As a player, I'd certainly prefer the latter, assuming that comes with a more refined system, but for Paizo, I can see the former being more valuable, assuming that they can get the system to be reasonably good at launch, and expandible for future supplements.
You can Step out of difficult terrain, just not into difficult terrain. So you could still get out of a threatened area just fine, it'd just mean you couldn't easily get past someone who has an AoO, or move as easily to flank them. And to me that's fine. I don't think this makes AoOs any more or less attractive to characters who don't get them naturally, as the places where this will come up most often, such as an enemy rushing past a character to reach a squishier ally, already will provoke. The main thing this does is make it so every character will get some of the benefits of AoOs as far as limiting enemy movement, and making flanks less automatic but not entirely create the staticness of 1e combat.
I mostly agree, though I think skill feats are still good for the game, and would not like to lose them (but, maybe have them and skill increases be earned at the same time, for some of the reasons you mention). But I had a similar notion of removing Ancestry feats past 1st level, and replacing them with archetype feats, which I personally feel is a better way of doing things (and ancestry archetypes could exist that let you get what are now higher level ancestry feats, and possibly things that even push the power level even further, not being bound to the power of an ancestry feat).
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
If this sort of system was in place, what kind of Archetypes would people like to see?
Likely not for a bit, until an Inner Sea Gods book comes out, but I think it'd be neat to have a fighting style archetype for each deity, that focuses not only on their signature weapon, but on the way the deity's specific style impacts their use of the weapon.
I feel like a decent bit of wind was lost from the sails when the primary general archetype added was pirate for the playtest (mostly cause it has you replacing way to many class feats with what are basically super niche skill feats, no matter how bad I want to make a mug rougue in the vain of final fantasy.)
I've had a couple ideas on how to solve this issue, that hopefully they'll work out by launch: First, make archetype feats not bound to class feats, that way the things like rope runner or sea legs can require that you've picked up the pirate dedication, but be taken with skill feats (though probably they'd still need buffing, since they're still super niche). The second option would be that these niche skill bonuses get combined with a less niche (likely combat) ability, so you get the benefit of feeling like a skilled Pirate (or whichever archetype) when it comes up, but when it doesn't it's still worth a feat, for the most part.
By RAW, it seems it costs 2 Resonance, since that wasn't specified as changed in the update. So while it's a stupid rule, as currently written, it still does cost 2 RP. That said, costing 0 RP is the reasonable read of this, if you assume this was just a missed errata, and is how I'd run it, but yeah, this is something that should be definitely clarified in 1.5.
b) largely because I was enfeebled 5 from the ****ing [redacted]s, and for some super-weird reason enfeebled affects even spell attacks and spell damage. In earlier fights I had switched to ranged touch attacks when an enemy proved adept at saves, but that -5 penalty made that a non-starter, and the -5 damage meant that the damage was already pretty terrible even before the half damage from the save...
Just a minor note, but the -5 penalty should have been a -4 for the attack rolls (according to this citation from Mark Seifter). Granted, your point in general is valid, and maybe this means [redacted] should be changed, as I think the way its effect works can be super penalizing, but I think this is more an area where expected hit rates should probably change, so a -4 to attacks is a major detriment, but not quite as punitive.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
How can you get a 20 at 5th level? The max you can have at 1st is 18, and that 5th level boost bumps it up to 19. You have to be level 10 to get a 20 in a score, and to me that's just fine.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
On this note - I'm also not sure why Arcane is the only spell list that cannot heal. I'd have been okay if Occult couldn't heal except for Bards who sing a healing song.
To me, I can see two reasons:a) Tradition, Wizards have never been able to heal, at least easily. As much as I'm usually somewhat dismissive of Tradition as a reason for things, this is one place that it would bug me if wizards got an easy (non-ritual, for instance) healing spell. I guess I contain multitudes.
b) Arcane has traditionally, and still is, to some (although a slightly lesser) degree, been good at most things to do with what the conception of "magic" is to most people. Having it contain all of that, as well as something that has been traditionally the domain of non-wizards creates some ripple effects in what a spell list aught to be (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's something that should likely be designed from the outset).
As for why Occult gets Healing? If I had to guess, I'd say that moving the Bard to Occult, and likely the Witch as well, if my guesses are correct, resulted in them splitting the difference with existing occult casters (not quite half of whom get healing abilities), to grant a weaker healing spell to their list. Personally, I'd be fine with having a healing song, or a healing hex (for the witch), and other occult casters either losing their extant healing abilities (if they had them) or getting them similarly through class abilities, but I can see a degree of thematic association that's hard to describe other than with some of the intratextual insinuations that outside of certain hedge-witch stuff, witchy healing is seen as unnatural, which ties to the unknowable nature of occult, as contrasted to the knowable, almost metaphysically complete notion of Arcane. Or at least that's how my mind has rationalized it.
My guess was that there would be some break point where twin takedown got better with two d8 weapons over a d8 and a d6 agile, which it does do at high levels in some corner cases where you get a +4 weapon before you get Masterful Hunter, but since that's such a corner case, (as the treasure table assumes you get that +4 weapon at about the same time as you get Masterful Hunter, and the expected damage benefit is still less than 1 point), it does still seem odd. Especially since, at least to me, if there's any class to dual wield non-agile weapons, it's the ranger.
I'd be fine getting rid of that -2 circumstance penalty, were this not the playtest, as it might be a misprint, but even if it's not it's probably a miscalibration. My gut says it's the latter, as with higher to-hit numbers, which the designers seem to be accounting for, the values are a little higher, in some cases, for the non-agile dual wield, but it's still close enough, that I don't think it's worth the penalty, as any gains in fighting multiple lower level monsters are lost when fighting a big-bad.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The first Goblin Scuttle was indeed not supposed to be level 9 alongside the follow-up, as you guys guessed.
Follow up Q: Was Goblin Scuttle, then supposed to also retain the bestiary goblins' requirement of a "Goblin ally"? Because, outside of "We Be Goblins" type campaigns, I don't see it as all that common a trigger.
Unplayable, perhaps (at least in most cases), but that hasn't stopped page counts being spent on it before, and at least for folks who like using NPCs built as PCs (or at least layering on some PC features, which is more my take), it can be useful. Maybe though, more like something 5e did, where they kept their Antipaladin in the DMG, so as not to crowd the PHB, PF2e could keep it in a supplement. And Honestly, I wouldn't really mind if they did something like make a base class of "Champion" or whatever, and have the only PHB option be the Paladin, and have all other options be in supplements, if page space is an issue, just so long as they design it in such a way that it's easy to fit other class-ideals in the place of the LG Paladin.
Though, again, if there's anything I'm most concerned with, it's that Deity-Free is an option (Second most would be that the "Iconic" vision of antipaladin becomes more to the LE corner, rather than CE, as that's far more compelling for me, but I'm getting a bit off track)
On the one hand, adding Sense motive back might have the same problems that Perception had in 1e, in that it was the one skill you wanted maxed no matter what, because it was by far the most rolled individual skill. On the other hand, tying it to perception just feels wrong. We haven't seen it much in play, just because there are fewer opportunities for intrigue-heavy sessions in the playtest, but every time it does come up, it bugs me a bit. Maybe with the smaller skill list it could be more balanced, especially if they manage to balance what is opposed by sense motive, what is opposed by perception, and what is opposed by Will DC.
I mean, there's nothing in here that I don't generally think is a good change, but it does still feel a little too lite a touch if this were the way that ancestries are to change for the final version. Maybe some of my problems are that this is a more extendable system, and I won't get a good grasp on how valuable this change really is, until we see more of that extension. On the flip side, not seeing the full effects of it after a couple supplements or so make me worried that it's hard to gauge how well the new framework works until it's too late.
Edit: Also, goblin scuttle seems a bit too situational. With PCs, outside of "We Be Goblins" type scenarios, I'm not really sure how likely having two goblins in a party will be. Hell, we haven't even had one yet, and as a group we aren't really negative on Goblins as PCs, just sort of ambivalent.