It's delicious and it counts as a trail ration.
Ctrl+H Replace all instances of Stone with Scone.
Wall of Scone - Delicious and Defensive
Also, Dwarves can take Scone-Cutting, which qualifies them to be a Judge on "Great British Bake-Off".
The dreaded Might Hag, who has no spell casting or hexes, but DOES have a Strength of 30 and a two handed Maul. *WHOMP*
And for your fungal themed druid, Cone of Mold
Go through Advanced Race Guide from PF1, make every single Alternate race feature a race feat.
Improvements on existing feats at higher levels.
Like, Trained in Racial Weapons at lvl 1 > Expert in racial weapons and Critical effect at Lvl 5 > Master in racial weapons AND Legendary in ONE racial weapon at Lvl 9. Make it WORTH spending the feats on.
And I still think we should front load like 4 ancestry feats at first level.
You know, Spanish is a really difficult language.
Gato? Why don't you just call it a cat? It's much easier.
What's my point? Tags/traits are good, and in the long run they will make the game easier. Your problem is you are comparing your native tongue to a new language you've just started learning.
Once you get past your initial "I don't know what this means, but I know the AD&D 2e rules by heart" confusion, once you PLAY the game for a while, and USE the new systems so that you know and remember them, it will make it a lot faster, and easier to learn NEW content once it starts rolling out.
As best I can tell, at this moment, this is how it works:
1> Wielding a Large Weapon gives you Sluggish 1 and doubles your conditional bonus.
2> Giant's Stature makes you Large and grants you Reach +5' and Sluggish 1.
3> IF you are Wielding a Large Weapon AND using Giant's Stature, your weapon becomes Huge, BUT THIS HAS NO ADDITIONAL EFFECT, instead acting just like wielding a large weapon while medium.
3.a> So, the Summation is You are Large, Wielding a Huge Weapon, with Reach +5', Double your conditional rage damage bonus (Normally 3 at lvl 6, so doubled to +6 dmg, going up to +8 at 7th). You also suffer Sluggish 1 from two sources, but they DON'T stack. So, effectively, you suffer Sluggish 1, with no additional penalty for using BOTH at once.
So, while wielding an oversize weapon prior to level 6 is questionable (is it worth +2 damage to have -1 AC, -1 to Attack, -1 to Dex checks, and -1 to Reflex saves?), if you're going for a Giant Totem Reach Build, once you have Giant's Stature there is no reason NOT to use an oversized weapon.
I personally feel like the Large Weapon should have increased die size. Also the d12+2 that you get from upgrading a d12 weapon, that +2 SHOULD get multiplied by anything that multiplies the die.
1> Inform him that he can't because "There aren't rules for size tiny weapons yet"
2> If he complains, inform him that soft weapons only deal nonlethal damage.
3> Advise him that he will take a -2 untrained penalty. If he complains that he is trained (or better) with unarmed attacks, respond "that's not what (your mom, girl he dated, whatever) said".
4> Change the time and day of your game sessions and just don't tell him.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Everybody can find traps that don't require a minimum proficiency rank to discover, even if they aren't searching.
All players can find traps of any difficulty level, simply by running up and down the hallways, touching all the doorknobs, and opening any chest they find.
OH, find them without TRIGGERING them...
Yes, of coarse...
*Banging my fists on the desk, stomping my feet*
ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS, ORCS!
Specific Feat Suggestions
Feat 1 (General) - Bar-room Brawler
Feat 7 (General) - Surprising Weaponry Vetran
Back in June 2017, you released Adventurer's Armory 2, which finally included some hard and fast rules for Improvised Weapons.
PF2 playtest has rules for Improvise Weapons of "It's poor quality (-2) untrained (another -2) and have the DM make up the rest"
It would be really nice if we could transfer some of those rules from AA2 over.
Small items like broken bottles are 1 handed, deal 1d4, and are agile (the PF2 equivalent of PF1 Light).
And while I'm asking for things I doubt I'll get:
Step 1> Add more ancestry feats, with better ones at higher levels.
Step 2> Demote the weakest feats to "Level 0 Feat"
Step 3> At creation you get 2-Level 0 feats and 1-level 1 feat. Keep the Anc. Feat progression (5-9-13-17).
Also, the level 5 racial weapon feats are weak. I think they should grant expert in your racial weapons.
It seems like a lot of people feel like we aren't getting enough ancestry features, and that we end up waiting an oddly long time to get things we're used to having as baseline parts of the ancestries.
For most races, the only "Free" benefit is low light vision or dark vision.
No weapon skills, no innate resistances, etc.
Having to choose between Dwarven Poison resistance or Dwarven Magic resistance. Not developing skill with your ancestral weapons until possibly level 9.
Would it fix things if we front loaded something like 3 ancestry feats at 1st level instead of 1?
Then your dwarf could Start with Hardy (poison resist) Weapon Training(Dwarf) and Giant Bane. Or which ever. But at the same time keep the ancestry feats at 5/9/13/17, so you can still grow within your ancestries culture.
I think it would bring us closer to the alternate race features from PF1.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Well, I'm just gonna have to eat AAAALLLLLLL these fresh baked chocolate chip cookies myself then. Such a shame. But I guess if you don't want them badly enough to come over...
Cleric - Advanced Dogma - Gain one Cleric feat. For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites your Cleric level is equal to your Actual Level.
So if you MC into Cleric, you can take Miraculous Power and have 10th level Cleric Spells.
Can we just try to compile a list of things that are badly worded or ambiguous enough to need dev comment?
Mostly, it seems like they tried to be very thorough in explaining powers fully, but there are a few things that seem to have fallen through, like, the team knew how they worked and didn't remember that we don't, and could make wrong assumptions.
Monk Flurry of Blows - How do the multi-attack penalties work with this? (spelled out in two weapon fighting feats, not here)
Monk - Perfected Form - When you make an unarmed strike you can treat any die that rolled under 10 as a 10. I'm pretty sure this is just supposed to be the d20 to hit rolls? But the way it's written, I make an unarmed attack, roll a d6 for damage, and because it's below 10 (1-6) I automatically treat it as a 10. I get auto 10's for damage on any die under a d12?
One very definite piece of feedback that I will already give is, Any "Power" type spell that is unique and only available to one specific class should be stripped out of the spell section, and put into a section at the end of the class write-up.
Lay of hands, all the Litanies - Paladin after the feats
*Pounding fists on table and stamping feet in rythm* ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS!
Seriously, it shouldn't be that hard to push a PDF supplement with just the Orc ancestry stuff in a month or two, we could have them for most of the playtest year, and put them into the CRB. I mean, TECHNICALLY we have 2 fewer ancestries than we thought, since Half-Elf and Half-Orc aren't their own ancestries, they're Human variants now.
So anyway *Resumes Banging* ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS!
5E offers Thaumaturgy for divine, and Druidcraft for Nature
I'm a long time Paladin Stan.
One of my first AD&D characters was a Paladin rolled the hard way. (I was stupid lucky)
Paladins have always been a thing for me.
And yes, I am guilty of more than a few instances of Lawful Stupid Paladin.
Honestly, while I like most of what they outlined in this blog post, what I really wish they'd done is this:
But, oh well.
I don't know if this is doable, maybe you have a list of blog topics for the playtest previews going till release, but I have a topic I'd really like to see a Blog post on.
The "Party Healer" Barbarian that keeps getting mentioned.
I would really like to have a blog post dedicated to showing us what sort of choices and options allow a Barbarian (using none of the barbarian class options) to be an effective party healer.
It doesn't have to be 100% detailed, but something like "They can do this, because they have THIS skill feat, and they can do THIS because of this ancestry feature/feat, and this power is from a general feat, and this is because they put a bunch of skill advances into this skill so they have it at Master."
Personally, if I'm not specifically going for a companion based build, I find mandatory companions burdensome for 3 reasons.
1> To make a Companion of any sort useful 5-10 levels in, you have to spend limited resources (I.E. Feats) to improve it. Otherwise it's the first splat in each encounter. Also, you have to spend limited combat resources (Actions of various sorts) to make it do stuff which, if you're not going Full Companion, could be better spent doing other things. Fluffy, Attack! is not as useful as I Cast Swarm of Deadly Deadly Bees!
2> There is often a Penalty for letting your companion die. So, if I choose NOT to spend my feats and Magic item allowance on making Kitty able to survive a cr 23 elder dragon fight, I can expect to take some sort of hit. Even if there isn't a Gotcha like the old 3.X 'Lose 200 xp per level when your familiar dies save for half' there's still the GP cost and lost day to summon a new one.
3> Opportunity cost. Designers at least INTEND classes to be fairly balanced, each class feature therefore has a conceptual 'Value', totaling up to the target value of an entire class. If these 'Class Feature Points' are spent on a feature that you won't use, like a familiar or animal companion you don't want, then they AREN'T being spent on features you DO want and will use.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Also, we have been contemplating the concept of spell cards since we were making game aids for 3.5, but we've never found a good solution for the problem that some spells take up more than half a page in the rulebook, and so just can't be made to fit on a card. Since the point of having these is to avoid having to reference the rulebook, as soon as you have to make a card that says "See Core Rulebook p. 331," you've defeated the purpose.
WotC made it work in 5e.
Bard of Ages wrote:
I mean, we keep letting people play Humans...
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Fish live in water, Trout are fish, therefore you get no further saves against Dominate ever.
You're assuming things that we don't know yet.
This is a Teaser, not full rules.
Don't assume that the stupidest possible implementation is the one they've chosen.
Dominated is PROBABLY a condition, and they've shown already that conditions can generally be shaken off with specific actions (Like mentioned earlier in (I think) this thread, Nauseated can be decreased in severity one step by taking an action to Vomit).
The logical conclusion is that even if you Crit Fail your save v. Dominate there will be the possibility to resist and try to shake off the condition.
Crafting a Laser Rifle requires Gunsmithing at LegendaryCrafting an automatic Rifle requires Gunsmithing at Master
Crafting single action pin fire gun requires Gunsmithing at Expert
Crafting a smooth bore black powder gun requires Gunsmithing at Trained
Not accidentally shooting yourself in the head and dying is a dc 20 untrained check.
And now, having just made a post decrying the making of assumptions, I shall, Hypocritically, make an assumption.
Why are they adding the 1 20 Auto-Fail/Success mechanic to skill checks?
Why, when it is not the rule in PF1, Not in 5e, specifically called out in the rules of 3.5 as not the way skill checks work, are they putting this into the PF2 playtest?
I think it's because they pay attention to how people play. You listen to D&D podcasts? Most of them do it. Most game groups do it. It even happens, INCORRECTLY, at Adventurer's League and Pathfinder Society tables (YES it DOES, I have personally witnessed it).
The human brain likes patterns that match, and if 1 is auto fail and 20 is auto success on a d20 roll for COMBAT, and for SAVES, SURELY, SURELY our brain tells us, SURELY it MUST be the rule on this other d20 roll.
It is how, to my observation at least, the majority of people play the game. Paizo is simply changing the rule to accommodate the fact that the majority of their customers are going to do it that way at home, to avoid confusion and arguments at Con tables.
Anyway, that's my take.
It's a shame (actually probably a good thing) that we can't post images in threads here.
So just imagine the accompanying screen shots, or go to Morbotron and look them up.
[Zoidberg, calmly] Relax Friends...
Preeeeeeety much all the Playtest threads, just continuously.
I mean, I think we all know that we all want more info, and that these teasers are really light on actual detail, but man the level of assumption, baseless extrapolation, and vitriolic defense and attack of said assumptions and baseless guessing is just absurd.
All fish live in water, all Trout are fish, Therefore Fighters can divine smite at 3rd level and if I roll a 20 on acrobatics I can jump down your throat and wear you like a power suit.
[Insert pic of Finn from adventure time wearing Jake as a suit]
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
You know what Adventurer League GMs get? XP to apply to a character. Gold and Downtime days to apply to a character.That's it.
There's also special quests to get a cert for what is essentially an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1, or a 5 use 2d8 heal potion that also does Remove Disease/Remove Poison.
So, as I said above, I have no problem with certs for, literally absurdly broken and abusive items. I don't consider access to Specific Magic Items to be a core part of a character.
Give the DM a cert for, as I said in my first post, a +10 Bazooka of Infinite Godslaying. IDGF.
But having aasimar, catfolk, changeling, dhampir, fetchling, gillman, grippli, goblin, merfolk, ratfolk, samsaran, suli, tiefling, vanara, vishkanya, gathlain, ghoran, and vine leshy gated behind GM Boons means there are 4 more locked races than there are freely playable.
There are 18 boon locked races.
Do you see how that feels really poop to those who CANNOT AFFORD in time or money to go to enough cons to grab these certs?
By all means, give boons. Give good stuff. Just consider that gating races, especially popular races like CATFOLK, GRIPPLI, GOBLIN, AASIMAR, & TIEFLING is a good way to put off new players and casuals.
I've always considered Bards to be Generalists.
They get a decent attack bonus, less than warriors but better than wizards.
They in 2nd ed AD&D they got some thief skills, in 3.x they got the second most skill points and had access to almost every skill as a class skill.
They get magic. Often a mix of wizard and cleric spells.
I hope they work this way in PF2 as well.
To me, that's what Bard is.
Also, I hope they get some form of the Bard Arcane Duelist/Skald Spell Warrior - Bladethirst/Weapon Song feature. That was one of my favorite PF1 things. Although who knows if it works with the new PF2 math, but I'd love something thematically similar.
Another thought that occurs to me: It seems to me that, generally, the logic behind BoonGating races was that they were in some way "Complex" or had features that would be "Disruptive" to play, and by gating them to dedicated GMs theoretically they were kept in the hands of people who wouldn't cause a problem.
In PF2, depending on how Ancestries work, and ancestry feats, would it not be possible to take a race with "Disruptive features" and either JUST BAN those AncFeat options, or Gate JUST those powers with a boon?
Like (and this is just a crazy made up example) say Ifrit somehow got unlimited fireballs. Just ban that. Say a winged race got a feat for fly speed (at low level). Boon Gate JUST THAT.
Just. Don't lock/ban EVERY new race. Or MOST races. Make 90% of races available, and don't BoonGate things you KNOW are going to be super popular.
Lets have less gating of new races (or ancestries in this case) behind Special GM certs.
I'd far rather have "GM's get a cert for the +10 bazooka of infinite god-slaying" than "Only people who GM'd at GenCon 2014 can play the cute froggies, only Bob Thulglflorp who bid $1,000,000 in a charity auction can play a catfolk".
PF2 will get a foot hold, because PF1 is being discontinued.
Will the 2019 Chevy Silverado sell if the engine pistons aren't backwards compatible with the 2018 Silverado? YES, because they aren't making the 2018 anymore.
Or perhaps a better analogy is why the Can$1 coin and the £1 coin took off and worked fine, but the US$1 coin has never worked. Because Canada and the UK withdrew the Can$1 bill and the £1 note from circulation. The US has never had the gumption to remove the $1 bill and force the issue.
When PF1 STOPS GETTING NEW MATERIAL, and PF2 is getting adventure paths, pawn collections, new books, and flip mats, etc., PF2 will gain pretty much full traction, and PF1 will become a niche game like AD&D, OD&D, and other defunct editions.
I will pretty much guarantee that 3pp will stop supporting PF1 within a year as well. They'll pump out whatever they already started on that they feel they can't just port to PF2. A few 3pp companies will put out the occasional legacy item when they feel like it, the way some publishers occasionally put out 2nd ed AD&D adventures still. But any real support will be gone.
That's edition changes. That's how it is. That's how it works.
Rip the bandaid off, stop picking at it, it'll hurt less.