The Lost Omens world guide has a wonderful background, Thassilonian Traveller
"You come from ancient Thassilon, one of the citizens that appeared out of time alongside the city of Xin-Edasseril."
But I've been unable to find out anything more about what happened, how citizens appeared, etc. I've quickly glanced at Return of Runelords book 6 but didn't see anything there.
Can somebody please enlighten me on what happened? Or some basic information of what it means to be a citizen of Xin-Edasseril? Or point me towards some source explaining this?
My character should level up at the end of a session I'm playing later this afternoon.
It will make a (small but noticeable, ~1gp) difference if he levels up and then spends his downtime crafting or if he has to spend his downtime crafting and then levels up.
If this was covered in either the guide to organized play OR the Core Rulebook I failed to find it.
My intuition is split. On the one hand, it makes the paperwork easier to level up AFTER the downtime. On the other hand, it makes more sense in world (at least to me) that one levels up and THEN does the downtime).
One of the things that is bugging me in PF2 is how ineffectual knowledge checks seem to be.
I find that putting down my concerns and soliciting opinions helps me get perspective.
So, comments solicited :-)
The core of my concern is that the rules seem to strongly encourage (if not outright state) that GMs should be very scarce in what information they give out. And GMs seem to be embracing that idea (I've played under several different GMs in PFS so far). Combine that with GMs telling me what they want as opposed to my asking what I care about
When combined with the fact that knowledge checks take a valuable action AND build space AND that critical failures are a thing, especially if your knowledge isn't absolutely maxed out I'm seeing that characters often know next to nothing about what they're facing.
And I'm already seeing a significant rise in metagaming and metagaming accusations as a result. Some consider it metagaming for my cleric to know that many undead take extra damage from positive energy, some don't. Is it metagaming for my character to recognize that a centipede swarm is poisonous when the GM chose to instead tell my character a little about swarm checks on my succesful roll?
Closely related to this is how much information should a GM give out "for free"? I had a GM who refused to give any indication of whether I was hitting enemy weaknesses or resistances on the grounds that my character didn't know how many hit points damage I was doing nor how many hit points the monster had so how would I know? I think that was going WAY too far but I think the rules are actively encouraging that type of reaction.
The game is feeling more adversarial to me as a result. I don't like that. And I don't like that I don't seem to be getting the information to make reasoned tactical choices. One reason to have cold and fire spells is to use the appropriate ones, how can I do that if I can't get the information to let me make that choice?
And so far this is all low level play where monsters only have a small number of abilities. The issue is likely to get a lot worse when facing high level opponents with sometimes well over a dozen things that I'd like to know
I had a game yesterday where the GM and I had fairly different opinions on what a familiar can do in exploration mode. So, I thought I'd solicit opinions. ESPECIALLY when I realized that I'd taken a position much closer to the GMs when I ran the scenario :^). Which side of the table I was on made a vast difference in what seemed intuitively fair.
It's pretty trivial to get a flying familiar that talks. A 1st level gnome can get this as a race feature. Various classes can get this at 1st level too.
Can this be used to usefully scout around (ie, fly overhead and look out for enemies, fly around a large building to get the general layout, etc)?
The GMs interpretation was that, basically, that translated to my character scouting so the ONLY benefit was a +1 to initiative. Essentially, the familiar was only flavour.
On the one hand, this seems terribly unrealistic. When wandering through a zombie infested wasteland having a talking eye in the sky should have a huge potential benefit.
On the other hand, giving a huge potential advantage to a level 1 racial or class feat seems unfair, especially to the poor rogue.
Just asking this question has solidified my opinion. But I'm still interested in what others think
I couldn't find the answer to a simple question.
Let's say you're hit by a giant centipede and fail your initial fortitude save.
When do you make your next save? I think maybe on the centipedes next turn but that requires an insane level of bookkeeping if the centipedes have their own initiatives. Not to mention what happens if you're poisoned by more than one centipede in the fight?
Poison is potentially do deadly that I had it happen at the end of the players next turn
I'm having difficulty building a cloistered cleric that seems viable.
My first problem is how MAD they are. I want to max out Wis, have decent Cha and can't afford to skimp on Dex or Con if I'm going to survive. Lore cleric is right out :-).
But they'll pretty much have the worst AC in the game (no mage armor, need to have a decent Cha so more pressure on stats in general). And in PF2 hanging out in back isn't all that viable in general.
And then what do they actually do? Oh, they're a wonderful healer and more than justify their existence in the group by that. But I want to be able to make SOME decent contribution to combat when not healing. Their cantrips are generally poor damage dealers (they have great riders to invoke some weaknesses which is sometimes great)
I think my current plan is to either MC into another class for mage armor/damaging cantrips or spend feats on armor prof. Maybe rely on scrolls of mage armor but that is quite expensive.
Edit: there is one that is fun and viable. Fey touched gnome. Dumping STR helps, they get a primal cantrip and done fun roleplay. Not sure that I like that this is the only viable L1 cloistered cleric I've been able to come up with. I very much like this character though. I now have my -2 :-)
Paizo ate my first post on this. Growf.
So, I played my very first session of PFS2 today. And my character probably should have died/retired. In a not particularly satisfying away (The GM either took mercy on me or interpreted things differently than I do so I lived)
In the scenario, my character got diseased. Given that the CR1 creature casts invisibility at will, has a +8 agile attack, and the Fort save to resist the DC is 17 it seems quite likely that at least one PC will end up diseased.
With the current guide I think ending up diseased with a lowish Fortitude save is far closer to a death sentence than the designers perhaps intend.
I THINK (but am a long way from sure) that the way this should be handled :
1) My character has the appropriate downtime to resolve the disease or he is retired as still having the condition. So, 8 days in this case (if I'm right, do NOT get diseased in a quest :-))
So, my character (with a base Fort of +3) most definitely did NOT succeed in 8 days. Hardly surprisingly since his odds of doing that were decidedly less than 50% (assuming an antiplague for the 5 days I could afford one and a +2 check from Medicine about 1/2 the time the odds get close to 50%)
I'm not at all upset that my character died. He had 0XP, I didn't have a huge emotional investment in him :-). But this just seems a really unsatisfying way to go. "Well, the monster had a disease. You eventually likely die".
My character DID have a low Fort save (+3) and maybe thats the answer. No character should have a Fort save of less than +5, build your character appropriately (a +5 instead of a +3 changes the odds of this happening substantially.)
Edit: There is another monster with disease in the scenario (We didn't face it). DC 18 for that one. So its not as if the DC for this was strangely high.
I'm trying to figure out how viable scouting ahead of the party is in PF2
But the answer depends a LOT on how stealth in exploration mode works.
Let us say my character has a stealth of +10 and is NOT carrying light.
Something else entirely that I'm missing?
There are several changes to the GMs responsibilities. Individually they vary from quite minor to fairly bad but the combination looks daunting.
1) Determining the party level is, uh, wow. With significantly more combinations of things to add and look at on the fly
That seems like a lot, especially right now when we're learning the new system
At the moment, this is just to gauge interest.
I'm contemplating running the Crimson Throne AP but with PF2 rules.
I'd want a moderately fast paced game. So, I'd want people to be able to post twice a day on weekdays and at least once on weekends. Its an AP, it will take time to go through it anyway :-). And to provide me with bot macros (including general tactics) for those times when I have to bot your actions to keep things moving. Obviously, life happens and we'll deal with it but the intent is for this to be a fast paced game.
I'm thinking of starting more or less immediately with the latest playtest rules and then transitioning to PF2 rules when they came out. If I did this, I'd allow full and total rebuilds but I'd encourage (NOT force, encourage) people to keep their character concept more or less unchanged.
Or it may be better to just wait the couple of months until the rules come out.
If you respond, please tell me which of the two alternatives you'd prefer.
I'd probably run with 5 players.
In general, I'm a "Rules as I think they're intended" as opposed to "Rules as written" GM. But since one of the purposes of this would be to become more familiar with the PF2 rules I'd try hard to stick to "Rules as I think they're written" :-). Note, I firmly reject the idea that the rules (any rules) can be unambiguously written so I think the RAI vs RAW is largely irrelevant. I totally reserve the right to say "I don't care what you think (or even what I think), I'm running it like <this>. I'd try and limit that to egregious cases where I think an alternate approach just breaks the game but I DO reserve that right.
This will be run in PF1 Golarion. So, no goblin, kobold, etc PCs. Other PC like races are fine (I'll come up with house rules for them, as a result they'll be mostly for flavour and NOT for mechanics).
The AP involves a lot of Really Bad Stuff happening to Korvosa. It is key that any characters have to
I'll quite probably modify the AP, likely in some significant ways. In particular, I might well completely alter Book 5. So, having played or run it before isn't a major issue as long as you do a reasonable job of separating character and player knowledge.
Trying again as this "wonderful" site ate my last post
I tried to create an account for a friend.
Seemed to work ok. Went to make a post.
It then sent me into some captcha hell trying to confirm that I was a person.
Some completely inobvious question was asked with multiple gibberish options provided
I chose the least silly answer and cut and pasted it.
That was obviously wrong as it asked me another nonsense question with more random gibberish to choose from.
Eventually I hit some limit and it decided that my account was obviously spam.
Captchas are very user unfriendly in the first place. But captchas where it isn't at all even remotely clear what you want really, really, really suck.
And I've been playing your game for 12 years. If I can't figure out what the heck you want how do you expect a newby to?
That profile is now set to [SPAM] <email address redacted>
I'm guessing if my friend contacts you the account will get reset eventually. But that is crazy.
If you actually want new customers you should probably fix this.
And this was a LOT more polite than my first (not sent) post. This was REALLY frustrating
I'm trying to schedule my groups future participation in the playtest (we're pretty obviously not going to get everything done) and I just realized an issue.
The Resonance test requires us to use the specialized pregens. Which are now out of date.
I presume that we still use the old out of date pregens. But thought I'd check:
1) Is Paizo going to update the pregens? (I certainly assume not, but thought I'd ask :-))
I looked and couldn't find an answer to the following.
In the Core Campaign, my wizard gets access to a spell book with Ant Haul in it. As was specified in a blog the wizard can pay to put this spell into his spell book and the fact that he did this is written on the chronicle sheet.
To be very explicit, there is NOT a scroll of Ant Haul on the chronicle sheet.
Can the wizard now purchase scrolls of Ant Haul? They're a spell on his chronicle sheet so I think maybe yes. But its really unclear to me.
If he CAN buy that scroll, can he lend the scroll to his cleric friend to cast?
Can that cleric friend then use that scroll to ALSO learn Ant Haul?
If the character is a Wizard/Cleric multiclass character, can he have his OWN character use that scroll to learn Ant Haul as a cleric?
A game I ran today (Doomsday Dawn, L9 characters) crystalized a thought I'd had before.
Being a healer is DANGEROUS if you're facing reasonably intelligent bad guys who want to win.
Final fight of The Mirrored Moon. PCs had done everything right so it was a fight between 4 L9 PCs and a CR9, 3xCR 8 enemies
First round, some damage done, some moving into position, some buffs.
Second round, a wizard does lots of Area of Effect Damage so the bad guys focus fire a bit. Do lots of damage. Cleric heals him all the way back on their turn because that is what clerics DO now.
Third round, bad guys, being intelligent, focus fire the cleric down. Wizard (who has multiclassed into cleric) brings cleric back up.
Fourth round, they focus fire the cleric DEAD. If they want to win they have no choice. The cleric is so powerful that any other tactic is just conceeding the fight. They now know the PCs can bring him back if he is only unconscious.
Bad guys are going down at the point too. 2 Down, 1 almost down, 1 in good shape.
Fifth round, they turn on the alternate healer (the wizard) and focus fire him dead too. They don't know that he has shot his healing bolt so they kill him.
PCs mop up remaining bad guys.
Final Score - PCs win but at the cost of 2 deaths out of 4.
I'm normally a pretty soft GM and don't like focus firing unconscious characters to death but
I'm not totally sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. But it is a thing. This game is more dangerous than PF1 and making yourself the primary target is very dangerous. And killing unconscious opponents is a riduculously good (almost essential) strategy
I was building a L10 druid and I realized that Animal Form is pretty much as good as you need, at least up until level 10.
Aerial Form is very useful (for obvious reasons) but Dinosaur Form and Elemental Form are just about identical to Heightened Animal Form in their combat abilities (well, except for what is presumably a bug for the Air Elemental damage. D4 seems a bit low :-)).
Dragon Form, of course, kind of rocks :-). Of course, you get it at level 11 as a spell and have to wait until level 14 to get it from class abilities (which also seems wrong).
I could be missing something but I experienced very little pain (at level 10) with my wild shaping/Animal companion druid. Animal form and Aerial forms were really all I needed.
I'd like to see it in campaign play, of course, but I was only briefly tempted to take Form Control. The fact that it only works on level -1 spells is a strong disincentive to taking this. Yes, 1 hour wild shape is nice for scouting but if you get into a fight you're going to be in a LOT of trouble.
I think that we should try and create some fan created pregens so people do not HAVE to create their own character (they clearly should be encouraged to)
I'd like to put this on pfsprep but there isn't a folder for this yet.
I've created a level 10 druid "pregen". Hopefully accurate (ish).
As an experiment he is a druid who both wild shapes AND has an animal companion.
Didn't take all the skill feats or spend all the gold. This is absolutely because I wanted to let people customize them a bit and not at all that I found nothing at all worth taking :-(
Note - Old character sheet. Untrained is still -2 and not -4. Doubt it will matter much
I can't put these up at pfsprep so I've put links to files on my google drive
It has always been somewhat unclear to me how Wild Shape interacts with various spells and class abilities. The new multiclassing rules greatly extend the number of interactions that are unclear to me. Both in terms of what the rules say but, more importantly, in what they are intended to say
Animal Form (using it as an example, the others are similar) has the phrase "These special statistics can be adjusted only by penalties,
Its not clear what "special statistics" refers to.
For example, is movement speed included? Can a wild shaped druid get an accelarated bonus (from spell or class feat such as fast movement)?
Do claws count as "wielding two melee weapons" (for twin takedown)?
Can a wild shaped creature power attack (does adding extra damage dice count as adjusting the special statistics?)
I think that everything I describe above SHOULD work, at least I think it is probably RAI. Including hasting a wild shaped druid or barbarian. But it really isn't clear to me that is either the intent or what the wording says
I ran Affair Sunday and decided to use Theatre of the Mind and not a flip mat (I VEHEMENTLY deny the stories that I forgot to bring my flip mats :-)).
I did have a printed copy of the map so we could measure distances at least.
It worked out pretty well. The Paladin had both Retributive Strike and AoO and so got his extra attack pretty much automatically every round
But otherwise no arguments broke out, everybody knew what was happening, etc. A couple of times I randomized how many people would be able to be caught in a burst but I erred slightly on the generous side and so everybody was happy :-)
I've now run the third chapter of Doomsday Dawn and I'm definitely coming to the conclusion that Bards need some boosting.
Arguably the single biggest contribution a Bard makes to combat is its Inspire Courage ability.
Unfortunately, this is a conditional bonus and conditional bonuses don't stack and are reasonably easy to get. In the specific case of Doomsday Dawn one of the clerics cast Sanctified Ground making the Bards Inspire Courage no longer worth the action.
At least with the current Resonance Rules (may change in 2 weeks, of course) Cha is a fairly important stat so many characters will have it at close to maximum levels. Intimidate is currently a VERY powerful ability which increases the chances that characters will invest in charisma.
This means that the Bard only has a small (if any) advantage in social skills over many other classes. If we get better skill feats this MAY improve a little. Their ability to use Versatile Performance is severely hampered by the fact that it can be used only "in social situations". So, for example, if I want to demoralize in combat I STILL need intimidate and, in fact, will prioritize it over Versatile Performance.
What niche does that leave the bard? Bardic Lore? The weakest list of spells in general (especially for combat)? Multiclass in fighter and just become an archer ?
I get that the Bard's primary sphere is social situations and the Playtest just doesn't have them. But that was true in PF1 as well and, at least there, a Bard could still significantly participate in combat (especially with non Core options).
But right now I'd prefer a Core PF1 Bard to a PF2 Bard. And that is just wrong.
A lot of issues will go away, of course, if spells get somewhat increased in power (I'm one of the people who welcome the nerfing of spells from PF1 but think that Paizo has gone overboard in many cases). But it isn't clear that is going to happen.
I think that the Bard needs some ability to be flat out better at social skills than anybody else. Might be as simple as letting Versatile Performance apply in non social situations, together with better skill feats for social skills. Those better feats don't have to be bard specific. I have no problem that somebody else who tries hard CAN be as good as a bard. I just have a problem that somebody else who doesn't try very hard at all will be nearly as good as a bard.
I've a few questions about Expanded Narrative
1) I assume that this IS still an active thing. The only version of the boon has Season 8 on it, I'm assuming that this does NOT matter.
2) Does it apply to Starfinder as well?
3) Do games that we run for PF2 count towards Pathfinder 1? Likely doesn't make any actual difference for me since I'll probably max out the boon before I need to anyway but with something like 12 PF2 games under my belt I thought that I'd ask :-)
I've only seen this once in play (at level 5) so I'm hesitant to call it broken at this point.
But it IS a quite powerful combination.
With Magical Striker being essentially free the wizard can pretty easily cast a spell and make one strike HARD.
1 action move, 1 action true strike, 1 action magical striker is a pretty potent combination.
Certainly the wizard was straight out better AT FIGHTING than was the Valeros pre-gen. And, of course, he is a wizard on top of all that when being a wizard is actually beneficial.
At the moment (its early stages in the Playtest, so this may change) one very common report I'm reading (and it definitely agrees with what I've seen at actual tables) is that the 15 minute adventuring day is back with a vengeance. Characters just quickly run out of resources (especially healing) and retreat.
If the latter turns out to be true then the major limitation on the Wizard (spells being used) just isn't much of an issue any more.
I just played my first level 5 scenario.
Three out of the Four players made their own characters (the 4th created a pregen).
All three of us pointed out that we all actually enjoyed creating the level 5 character and all had created a character that could NOT have been created in PF1.
I created a bard who could do the Dr Doolittle thing and talk to the animals (Gnome with Animal Whisperer)
Another player created a Gish character (Wizard with fighter multiclass). Arguably overpowered but that is another matter :-)
The third played a goblin monk with ridiculous movement.
Just thought I'd make a postive comment in the flood of negativity :-)
So, today, after the Giant Centipede fight the party were trying to stop the poor poisoned bear from dying.
Characters kept making Treat Poison checks to get that +2 bonus. ESPECIALLY after the one critical failure.
On the one hand, I have little problem with poison being pretty easy to deal with outside of combat.
On the other hand, the image of 3 different characters frantically trying to deal with one poor bears poison each round (NINE treat poison attempts) seemed hilarious and very, very, very silly :-).
I kinda think that the -5 to subsequent attacks should also apply to things like medicine checks.
In game today I noticed something rather amusing.
Goblin warriors are much better with their bows than their swords.
Attacks of Opportunity aren't a thing (in general) any longer.
So, the goblins just shot the PCs even while standing right beside them.
Not sure if this is expected or not so I thought that I'd mention it
Several questions came up in play today.
Before I get there, an aside. Bears seem to be the clear favourite for animal companion of choice. Out of 4 characters with animal companions, ALL have take bear. This implies that it may be slightly overpowered.
1) Can an Animal Companion do non lethal damage?
Another question that came up in todays game.
The goblins "burn it" feat says that
Does this apply to splash damage?
Other powers (like Empower Bombs and calculated Splash) explicitly talk about splash damage. That implies to me that the lack of any such text in "Burn it" means that it DOES apply. But its a pretty weak implication and I think this should be clarified
Another question that came up in todays session.
The monk character wanted to be in a stance in exploration mode.
Rules on stance:
On the one hand, it explicitly states that you can enter a stance only in encounter mode
On the other hand, it explicitly states when a stance ends and dropping OUT of encounter mode is NOT listed. So, after the first encounter, that would imply you could still remain in that stance.
On the other other hand, Exploration mode explictly allows raising a shield as a tactic AND states that
The player and I disagreed about this. Which, pretty much by definition, means that the rules are unclear and need to be clarified (I have no particular opinion about HOW they should be clarified, only that they should BE clarified)
I ran doomsday dawn today and several questions came up about how poison works (giant centipede encounter).
Stats for Giant centipede poison reproduced below
In one round, 2 giant centipedes bit the same character. He proceeded to fail the first save and crit fail the second.
1) Giant centipede poison has no listed onset time. We assumed that this means that the victim IMMEDIATELY takes the 1d6 poison damage and gains the flat-footed condition
2) Given that the poison only has 2 stages we assumed that the crit fail on the second poison was functionally identical to a normal failure. Ie, the victim was now at stage 2
3) We couldn't agree whether going from stage 1 to stage 2 does an ADDITIONAL 1d6 poison damage or not. If it DOES do an additional D6 of damage would you also take that additional D6 damage on an initial crit fail?
4) "On a success, you reduce the stage by 1 and stake the effects of that stage again". Ambiguous grammar. Does "that stage" mean the damage of the stage you reduced to or the stage that you reduced from?
5) What happens if you go beyond the maximum number of stages? We assumed you just stayed at the maximum number (2 in the case of centipede venom).
I'm finding the official character sheet (including the versions I've found here) too busy for my tastes. I MUCH prefer something similar to the pregen character sheets (all the crucial information on one page, with a couple of pages of "how to play" notes.
Anybody happen to at have a template for something similar to this? Obviously, I'll have to cut and paste a lot but having somewhere to start would help a lot :-)
I'm not sure if this problem is generic to ALL the surveys or is specific to the PFS ones. So it is possible that this should be moved to the general section.
I just ran my first game of the playtest tonight (The Rose Street Revenge). Several issues came up and, seeing that I actually want to help improve the rules, I came home and eagerly entered the survey.
Only to find that I was being asked very carefully tailored questions asking about things that I don't necessarily really care about.
Now, I understand that HAS to be a major part of the survey. No issues there.
Where I DO have an issue is that there was nowhere in the survey for me to actually inform Paizo of places where we'd found problems.
Apparently, to do that, I have to create threads and hope against hope that my comments get noticed in all the noise.
I'd recommend changing the surveys so that there are at least some places where the person can actually give his free form opinion. And, of course, I recommend that Paizo actually READ that free form section and not just use the numeric results generated by the other questions.
Perhaps you restrict general comments to up to 3 problem areas, up to 3 things that you really liked Keep the boxes small so that I HAVE to be concise.
I just ran the Rose Street Revenge and I'm unhappy with the way that the bleed damage from the Bat Swarm played out.
3 characters were taking bleed damage. During combat it was something of an annoyance but nothing major.
AFTER combat it became more annoying. We lost over 5 minutes of game time to people making Medicine checks, flat DC 15 rolls, etc.
And I was being quite nice. I allowed continual Medicine checks to allow another roll of the flat check.
Some of it was bad luck, but a lot of it is that play is quite swingy. Its reasonably likely. There is an ~5% chance to fail to get a 15 8 rolls in a row.
And lots of resources were being spent. Obviously these results don't matter in a quest but in a "normal" adventure the PCs would pretty much have had to rest for the day after the swarm.
I just ran The Rose Street Revenge.
The Hidden Pit in Dragons darn near ended things. Reading it again, it is possible that I did something wrong.
The PCs failed their perception checks so Fazgyn told them about the trap. They then made the Thievery check to remove the trap door.
I then (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that the pit covered the entire tunnel. Crossing the pit then became absurdly hard for Level 1 characters (see below).
If it does NOT cover the entire corridor then I don't understand why a Thievery check is necessary to disable it. Perceive it, just walk around it.
If the thievery check just makes the pit obvious then presumably the PCs have to cross it.
Unfortunately, it is now a 15 foot jump to cross a 10 foot long pit.
So, athletics check of DC 20 to jump the pit. Even the PC trained in athletics with a high strength needed to roll a 15 on the dice.
So, climb into and out of the pit. DC of Who Knows (i arbitrarily assumed it was a Hard Level 0 so DC 12) Requiring 4 consecutive successes.
I know, the following is a fairly minor nit but its bugging me.
Bolstered, according to the dictionary, means things like aided, supported, etc. It does NOT mean "can't be done helped again for a day". It sounds like its a good thing (I want to be bolstered, right?)
May I suggested Habituated or Innured instead. Those at least suggest a limitation and NOT a benefit and are kinda close to the actual meaning.
Or even "dailyed". While not a word at least it makes the meaning clear :-) :-)
I was building my druid and looking at the Heal Animal Power.
It heals "1d8 plus your spellcasting action modifier"
What the heck is "spellcasting action modifier"? Searching the pdf revealed no hits for action modifier :-(. I'm kind of guessing they meant spellcasting ABILITY modifier and this was just a misprint. But, given that this spell actually can be cast with 1 OR 2 actions it isn't 100% clear to me
Note, I haven't yet run 2 games so I haven't filled in 2 surveys. So this may well be a NON issue which would be GREAT.
The surveys start with a whole slew of questions (currently seem to be at least 15) which aren't particular to the event that I just played and/or ran.
If I have to fill this in EVERY time then I'm going to have a SERIOUS disincentive to keep filling them in. I really don't want to have to repeat myself time after time.
I certainly understand why Paizo needs this information. But they need to get it in a user friendly way
Not sure if this is the right place for this but couldn't see anywhere better :-(.
To start with the positive, mounted combat is now much clearer in how it is worded and works.
To continue with the negative, it now seems fairly weak.
Even with the Ride feat it takes an action to Command an Animal. If you want the mount to attack, it is taking the multiple attack penalty. So, you're never going to get the mount to actually fight unless you've lost your weapon or are severely hampered in some way (since you're going to be better than your horse in pretty much all circumstances).
Lances are two handed weapons so no using lance and shield.
As far as I can see, at the cost of a feat and purchasing a horse (or lots of feats if you go cavalier) the only advantages that you get are that you get to move further in your plate mail and, assuming a large mount, you get more reach. That IS actually quite good in the wilderness when mobility actually matters A LOT. But in the dungeon its almost certainly not worth the hassle of a large mount.
So, a fairly high cost for fairly minimal benefit.
I'd only bother in a campaign with a heavy wilderness focus.
All that said, I agree that the PF1 Cavalier is overpowered in the wilderness, especially at low to mid levels. Some reduction in power is warranted. But I really want to be at least ABLE to use lance and shield together and charge and get SOME benefit for it.
One suggestion would be to let Lance be a one handed weapon ONLY when on horseback and have it take a significant penalty when NOT used immediately after a Stride action by the mount. That way the character gets to charge once, use the lance, but then has to draw their sword. That seems both thematic AND balanced to me.
I find it somewhat ironic that the playtest has
1) Made the Cavalier one of the 2 example "normal" Archetypes
Surely if they want to test mounted combat (which I'm kinda assuming is one reason they put in the Cavalier archetype) then having the lance actually be a weapon that people might choose in mounted combat would be a good idea :-)