Yrtalien's page

https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/107971/True-Naming-A-supplement -of-magic-language-and-power-PFRPG

I know this is a blast from the past but I just found it. My question concerns Naming skill ranks:

At 10th level as a namer, assuming I placed all possible points in ranks, How many Ranks should I have and what is my HP Threshold?

I really like this idea I want to give it a try.

Thanks in advance

You gain one of the following: a climb speed equal to your land speed, a swim speed equal to your land speed, or a fly speed (average maneuverability) equal to your land speed, chosen when you learn this adaptation. In addition, when you spend 2 MP to gain a climb or swim speed, the effect lasts for 1 minute. You can select this adaptation up to three times, selecting a different speed each time.

Can anyone tell me if this means I can fly Without paying in mutation points. The only listed cost seems to apply to Climbs speed Or swim speed

Also how long can you fly?

Thank you

I have TWF and use daggers. At 10th lvl I have 4 melee attacks. Assuming a Blinkback belt can I also throw my daggers 4 times?

Thanks

If I play a rogue With sneak attack And I have an animal companion From a multi class archetype...

If my 1st action is to order my cat into combat and then support Me.Does my next Attack get sneak attack Damage Or is it my Second attack which is set up to do sneak attack.

Support Benefit Your cat throws your enemies off-balance when you create an opening. Until the start of your next turn, your Strikes that deal damage to a creature that your cat threatens make the target flat-footed until the end of your next turn.
Advanced Maneuver Cat Pounce

I know that runed items can be upgraded for the difference in cost (going from striking to greater striking)...

Can the same be done with staves or other items that clock in at different levels?

If I have a Lvl 6 Staff of Abjuration and I want a Lvl 10 does it cost the full 900 to build from the ground up or does it cost 900-230=670 gp? Since you start with on partially built already?

TY

HammerJack wrote:

Handwraps.

Yep. Handwraps improve unarmed attacks, and wind crash strikes are unarmed attacks.

Ok then woot ! I really like it ty guys!

I love the idea of being in the 8th lvl wind Stance and attacking with wind crash strikes but 1d6 propulsive for the next 12 lvls is going to be underperforming fast. Is there any way to increase the damage on this?

Thanks

Thanks guys!!!

Everything is doubled. The only exception is damage added on a crit (like Fatal weapons).

Even the dog from things like fiery tunes or shocking? Wow

What exactly is doubled On a critical hit .Is it precision damage? Just the dice? The Str or Sex adder? Inspire courage?

Thanks

So in the PF1 Core there were some short rules on ideas for carrying your game beyond 20th. Is there anything like that in PF2?

Basically Im running Age of Ashes and I have an idea for continuing the game but have no clue how to do that...

Rules, ideas, fancies welcome.

Yrtalien wrote:

For the sake of clarity...

If I FoBs then strike and strike without any stances is this what my MAP looks like...

+0, -4, -8, -8

Or is it...

+0, +0, -4, -8

Or is it...

+0, +0, -8, -8

Thanks in advance

It is 0, -4, -8, -8. Each attack in flurry incurs the MAP penalty.

Tyty

For the sake of clarity...

If I FoBs then strike and strike without any stances is this what my MAP looks like...

+0, -4, -8, -8

Or is it...

+0, +0, -4, -8

Or is it...

+0, +0, -8, -8

Thanks in advance

....my subscriptions. Money is a little tight right now. I will be back as soon as I can.

Thank you.

I read this class and archetype since their is interest and am surprised to find the medium has almost no support even from 3rd PP. My games tend to be high fantasy and the other two players are a Wizard and Sorcerer... Will this have problem keeping up as well as being frontline for the group

I was considering offering my player a feat that increases the rounds she can spirit dance (much like a bards extra performance). Does anyone think that's overpowered?

Hints on this archetype's play style would be appreciated.I
Thanks

I should have said 7 min till what would be an early posting. I am well aware of the scheduling's somewhat haphazard nature. Still, love the previews and look forward to whatever new things we get to see today.

7 min till the possible post and I'm hoping for Sorcerer, but anticipating Monk.

Joe M. wrote:

I don't think we know for sure how the "essences" and spell lists will interact.

True, but if it works well for the job I have no doubt that the team will pull that wonderful GM trick of "You totally figured it out, bravo!" *erase old idea, write in new one*

OK, I knew couldn't be the only one who has done that. I say co-opt as many of their ideas as possible and run with them. Just congratulate them for figuring it out so they know it was your idea all along

I am wondering if what you roll to save might be based on the essence of the spell. Vital spells requiring something like a fortitude or Con save, for instance. Material spells Reflex or Dex. Spiritual, wisdom or Will and Mental... Int. Hmmm not sure on the last one.

People saying how Intimidating Strike doesn't require Intimidate.. I don't think that's actually how it's going to work. They didn't give us a whole feat writeup. I'm thinking it at the very least requires Intimidate Proficiency, then inflicts whatever level of fear your Intimidate proficiency allows. So if you only go up to shaken, the feat also causes shaken. If your Master at Intimidate can cause Panic, so does the feat.

Heck, it may even require you to use Intimidate as your attack roll. We don't know anything yet, really. I do like the flavor of it though!

The idea of it using intimidate to attack is interesting... or perhaps simply offering the choice between intimidate vs normal attack roll. I hope things like that are possible.

I'm not certain how to go about it but a good system of multiclassing would help considerably in developing some of the hybrid classes I like. Can't wait to see how they tackle this

Rysky wrote:

Or you jump up and smack magic man down to the ground.

I can't tell if you're being serious, but magic man I'm sad to inform you is beyond your jumping capabilities, and can see your house from where he is.

We don't know if spell ranges have been refluffed. Presumably, since Mark Seifter hinted at various anti-flight feats, there may be the ability to take out fly-boy Wizard. If nothing else I'm sure Franky-fighter man can put an arrow through him.

Look forward to figuring all of this out in August.

What version of game did you play?

Your statements do not back up what are even in the Games themselves (and I have the games themselves if people want to have a reference to them).

I'm sorry if I mis remembered something. Many of these things happened over 30-40 years ago when a friend brought the Old D&D pamphlets to a church retreat. I don't have the old books so I'm going by an admittedly faulty memory.

For starters OD&D had 9th level spells. NO ONE pulled their hair out when AD&D had 9th level spells. It simply continued what OD&D had already.

I'm sorry I would have sworn Magic User spells topped out at 6th at one point. Sorry to have messed up. I thought I recalled a player being upset that Wizard spells had gone up to 9th.

The number of players were so small (and most of them are dead now) when 9th level spells were finally included in the pamphlets for OD&D in GreyHawk, but NO ONE tore their hair out or screamed about it. In fact, Greyhawk was so popular that it became the default of what we understand D&D to be today.

It was a supplement, and one that got pretty universally accepted.

So I wasn't wrong about the spell levels increasing?

As to the number of players being small, well, I never had problems finding any. The family of the girl that introduced me to the game when I was a hair older than 6. The kids who played in the library at my school throughout Junior High, New friends when I went to High School. My 3 cousins when they moved back. I didn't even start AD&D till I was a Sophomore at my University. Lack of money meant we often played with old editions and as I joined different groups I found some had different versions of the game.

As far as most of them being dead I assure you Melissa and her two sisters are very much alive, I haven't asked about their parents. I lost track of the library kids so I can't say. My friends from High Shool are still alive. My cousins are still alive and they began back when I did. My current table has another guy who played through many of those iterations and he's just a bit older than me. When do you think these games came out? I mean, I know I'm old but I would hardly call my gaming group methuselahs.

Tearing his hair out was hyperbole, he complained mightily. He was older than me and ahhh I can't even remember his name anymore.

The Original Basic did NOT have race as class and actually stuck pretty closely to what was in OD&D. It is now known as Holmes Basic, but at the time it only went to level 3. If anything, people were confused at the rules differences between AD&D and that version of Basic, but as AD&D was the continuation of OD&D...most settled happily on playing AD&D.

We just called everything D&D for the longest time. If messed up the order or got confused about what I played before what. I'm sorry. Holmes Basic... never heard it called that. Now I know.

And anyone who played back then KNEW that and that the original Basic (by Holmes) was based on OD&D (though some hoped it was going to include ideas of AD&D, which it did in a back around way...it was a weird grouping ideas) and that AD&D was the continuation of THAT version of OD&D...NOT BX or BECMI. We all knew those were different versions made later. If anything, some of the players of AD&D put up their noses at those who started with BX because it said Basic and was a simpler type of game. BX and BECMI were published at the SAME time as AD&D and were not NEW versions of AD&D (or even Holmes, which was seen as connected to AD&D while BX and BECMI were not). They were made and brought in a LOT of new players...but were DIFFERENT than AD&D, which was what came from OD&D (and in theory some would say if it HAD a basic, that would have been Holmes Basic).

Ok, now I have to admit I don't recall the people running the games ever saying things like Basic, BX, or BECMI... it was all just D&D and later it got called OD&D and later they introduced AD&D... If I got names wrong I'm sorry.

No ONE tore out their hair because those who would have were playing AD&D already...and AD&D kept on being published and supported even while BX came out and then eventually was replaced with BECMI.

Still not certain what BX and BECMI are... So not sure what to say to that.

Most of the iterations were considered pretty small and overall progressing naturally on what had come before.

And yet I remember complaints and some reticence to buy the new stuff. I'm sorry Dude, my experience seems to have been different than your own. We're your groups so easy going about all this?

It wasn't until AD&D 2e that we first start seeing a rift, and even then, it wasn't as big as some think it was. AD&D 2e was HUGELY compatible with AD&D 1e, to the point that there was even a grandfather clause. The clause that was stated was that you could basically bring anything you felt you needed over to AD&D 2e in your games or ongoing campaigns and it was perfectly legal.

I'm sorry if my hyperbolic tearing of hair lead you to think that I was speaking of a rift or divide, most people I know made the switch, not all but most. I was only trying to say that even then there were people who were unhappy with changes.

As far as AD&D 1e played in 2e, my cousin would have none of that. New rules were law. Though he fell in love with 2e, still has his books and just last year tried to get me to play a game of AD&D 2e with him. I may take him up on it someday his games were great!

IT wasn't until D&D 3e that we see anything that people today would consider an "edition war" and that was probably FAR harsher than anything I've seen since in regards to people upset about an edition change (far more than from 3e to 4e, or from what we see with P1E to PF2e).

Egads man I was not trying to say there was a war. We didn't even have the internet back then... the back and forth would've had to have been carried out through the mail. I was just trying to say some people I played with didn't like the changes. I need to re-read my post did I put things so poorly. I'm sorry my intent was to say with change can come upset but we see the game survived. My cousin still thinks THAC0 was the best thing since sliced bread and laments it's loss; he prefers it to 5e's system to hit (he skipped the 3.Xs and 4e).

Your statement does not reflect what anyone really saw back then, which raises a LOT of other questions regarding what you stated in regards to the OD&D, BASIC and AD&D changes.

It reflects what I really saw. I think you are calling me a liar and I try very hard not to be. I'm not certain how to take this or how to prove my veracity it was over 40 years ago.

OD&D, BASIC, and AD&D were ALL more compatible with each other than what has come later in Hasbro's/WotC's years of D&D.

I didn't try to say they weren't. I'm sorry if that was what you took away from what I wrote... again I regret any misunderstandings.

I'm not sure WHAT OD&D, BASIC and AD&D (as well as BX and BECMI and the RC) even have to do with our editions changes today, as those were absolutely done differently and seen differently. It's more of an offtopic thing for this than what I see as relevant. It was a different time, and even with AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e, though there were some that were unhappy, their voices were mostly muted because society was not by and large on the internet and had instant communication between them.

I thought what I wrote was relatively on-topic... I will go back and read it... Since I'm worried now I somehow said everything wrong.

If we want to discuss relevant, then we should discuss the change between AD&D 2e and D&D 3e, OR D&D 3e to D&D 4e, OR D&D 4e To D&D 5e.. The situation is far more similar (at least we had a LOT more on the internet and the discussions and anger or happiness could be seen) and far more can understand what happened.

I saw the discussions and anger and happiness face to face, that's what I was trying to write about, no internet needed, just talking at the gaming table and a couple of people walking away from it.

I'm sorry I distracted from the conversation. I will try to do better.

Bodhizen wrote:

My single greatest concern is the lack of any mention of Fighters having greater narrative power than they did in First Edition. Can we please get a response to this concern?

What do you want eh?

Do you want to be able to punch so hard that you break reality? Cut a hole in space time? Be reasonable.

Hey now, I kind of like those ideas... don't think they'll be in the game but fun to think about.

Fighter draws back fist and says to Wizard: So you wished that I die... and now my guts are dragging on the floor... well this is how I make my wish. [Punch] I wish you'd die! [Punch] I wish you'd die! [Punch] I wish you'd die!

[Poof... reality breaks... Fighter shoves dead wizard in hole while asking the Cleric to heal him up.]

master_marshmallow wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I like how Power Attack is automatically better on bigger weapons now- that feels right.

I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.

Shifting the focus on doing damage from "accumulating a bunch of static bonuses" to "rolling more dice" is a positive change. I had one character who by the end of the campaign was rolling like "1d8+45" for damage and at that point, the die is pretty much superfluous.

The die should be superfluous, because it means your character can be reliable regardless of the weapon they are using.

It won't be good design when killing the dragon becomes two battles of you vs. the dice landing correctly instead of making sure your properly trained fighter hits and the team can rely on him/her to kill the dragon within a small margin of #of hits landed. Now you could see a swing of something like 6 damage per hit to 28 damage per hit on the same weapon.

This is not good design, I'm not being rewarded for learning the system. This is not Pathfinder.

We haven't seen everything, and I'd be really surprised if they haven't already thought of this and encountered it in their internal playtesting - they've been playing for a year, after all. Maybe as you improve in a weapon from Expert to Master or whatever, you get to start rerolling low damage dice. Maybe instead of just rolling double damage on a crit, a crit is actually rolling damage once and adding the max of what you would have rolled on a normal hit. There's any number of things they could have already done to mitigate a night of rolling 1's.

So many possibilities, I feel August is too far away.

Threeshades wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Threeshades wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Not happy with power attack, more dice means less reliable numbers, I don't want to base my damage calcs solely on variables.

I have to say i feel the opposite way. In Pathfinder rolling those 2d6 or 1d12 wor your weapon damage was just a formality, really a farce, because it was a pittance on top of the +45 damage the character got from all other factors. Might as well just change weapon damage to be static, so that players couldsave themselves that near meaningless dieroll.

I'm happy that dice will mean something again in the new edition.

I'm not, it adds two layers of variation to lessen martial reliability whereas in PF1 there was more focus on making sure you hit. Now not only do you have to make sure you hit, but your damage is also swingy. I'm already having visions of snake eyes ruining the fighter player's night over and over again meaning he can't do his one job well at all.

More dice is not good game design, it just attracts people who like simplicity, it's the reason I stay away from 5e still.

In that case we need an optional rule to make all damage dice deal average damage automatically. Super reliable numbers and the unnecessary, purely ceremonial damage roll is out too.

Either way i like the idea that the amount of damage your weapon deals by itself is now actually a meaningful factor in the game, not just "Is it two-handed? Y/N" whether thats dice for people who prefer the randomness or a hard number for those who want more predictable output.

I like that actually, doing average damage in place of rolling.

But still, it is going to create more scenarios where we will find the "one true weapon" and everyone will use it because it has the best dice to roll to reliably deal damage.

If this is the result of the fighter being the best at weapons, then by virtue all the other classes will be terrible too. Damage is no longer going to be the economy...

First of all I like complexity and I am attracted to more dice. To say that either system statics bonus vs bonus dice is better or simpler is misleading... they are different, that's all. I endorse the idea of using the average though... I give my casters in high level games the choice to average rather then roll things like disintegration's 36 dice. LOL

Secondly, as concerns the "one true weapon", different weapons may have different qualities (for lack of a better name). Some weapons reduce the penalty on the second and third swing. Some weapons make it easier to hit more than one person. We don't yet know how many qualities there are but I hope there are more than enough to accommodate many different and personal "One true weapons".

MMCJawa wrote:

for people worried about narrative power, I suspect all characters getting skill feats as well as the proficiency system for skill should mostly address this problem for fighters.

Except everyone has access to the skill feat system.

So long as Fighters can take them without sacrificing something else I'm fine with a hopefully large common pool. If the pool is small... then I will add my complaints to others... but I have a feeling the Devs did a good job.

If your' worries stem from duplication, a bit of table talk should take care of that, although having two people who can bargain for a better price is never really bad. (Example pulled out of bumm... I have no idea if there will be a better bargain skill feat).

Not happy with power attack, more dice means less reliable numbers, I don't want to base my damage calcs solely on variables.

Your damage calcs won't be based solely on variables. They include Str and we may find out more later. Add to that people who forego Power attack in PF1 never had that big a static number. I know, who would play a martial character w/o PA in 1e... well that's a feat tax for a different conversation. My argument is with the use of solely, it's afaik incorrect.

Is there a source somewhere that confirms weapon damage dice? Is a greatsword still 2d6? Does Power Attack make it 4d6? Do two-handed weapons still add 1.5 STR?

Where did the information on +1/+2 weapons come from? Do we know that each +x results in more dice? Are there weapons that deal multiple dice in damage?

We only really know about the few weapons featured in the playtested. So far based on what we know a +1 weapon does an extra die worth of damage PA adds another extra die. We haven't really heard what a +2 or higher weapon does and they haven't talked about or playtested any multi dice weapons that I can recall.

Seems martials got nerfed, and fighters got worse not better. Not happy, and now much less excited for the other classes.

We can't really know till we see more. I will say Fighters got changed... I like the idea of the fighter crit-ing more. I like the idea of a fighter able to jump 20 feet... and those are the few things they've mentioned. So far it not feeling like a hit from the nerd bat to me.

To be sure, the paladin is more than likely going to be our Tank class, most likely with CHA related abilities to draw aggro, since I can't really see a class that focuses on armor being able to use that feature without making enemies want/need to attack them.

That's my take away too. At our table Paladins are almost always tanks with some very nice extra utility. I look forward to seeing if they can make fighters into the main damage dealers with some cool extra utility too.

Seems the 4e comparisons are coming more and more true. I'm losing faith in this edition now.

Move+ Power attack is just as bad as move+ vital strike. That's why we hated vital strike.

At what rate does this power attack scale? How much does it scale?

You've created many questions that I didn't realize I never wanted to have to ask.

As for 4e I liked it less than 3.5 and PF1.. so far I like what I hear here. 4e felt like a card game to me that was masquerading as a rpg. But there were many MANY who liked it. I don't see the comparison but if they'd take brings in those players too. Well what's good for Paizo is hopefully good in the long-term.

If the 4e feeling is really rubbing you raw, then I hope you around long enough to try the playtest, since that may change your mind. Barring that let them know and follow your heart.

As far as Move + Vital Strike, I loved it in my npcs, and always thought my players undervalued it.

We don't know when PA adds the extra die, only that it does.

I hope the next blog fills you full of questions you want to ask, because I agree that's where the fun is at.

This doesn't look like an iteration on the same game, but a knockdown rebuild. I don't want a brand new house. I want the same house renovated. There is value in iterative design (see pre-WotC D&D).

As a guy who has played through those old iterations let me assure you that many people screamed then what you scream now. OD&D, Basic D&D, AD&D all had what were called massive game breaking changes. Pointing to the halcyon days of yore and thinking the edition changes went down easy is just wrong. People stopped playing with us.

Changes people complained about at our table when variations in iteration came up: Races having classes. Females not being able to have as high a strength as males. The inclusion of classes beyond fighter, cleric, magic user.

A Fighter nearly pulled his hair out because Magic User spells went from 6th as the highest level to 9th. Same fighter screamed about having to remember the different damage dice when they switched away from all weapons doing a d6.

Screaming happened when exceptional Str. happened but not exceptional other stats. Comeliness and Charisma. Psionics, Multi-classing, Non Weapon Proficiencies.

The list goes on and on. If you look at 3.0 and beyond it just keeps going.

Iteration changes are big things. Trying to say previous iteration changes were small things is just wrong.

This is just stuff I remember about the old iteration changes, it is by no stretch complete. My brain is old. I'm sure others remember more. Change usually isn't easy. Try playing a Dwarf for a while then finding out you need to pick a class. LOL... here's to good times... and the hopefully good times to come.

The problem isn't that Pathfinder 1st ed is perfect and doesn't need fixing. It does. The problem is among the playerbase there is such a signficiant disconnect as to what "fixing" Pathfinder really means. It's concerning to see the company that built up the Pathfinder brand from the "3.5 survives thrives!" platform appears to now be moving so drastically away from what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder as opposed to D&D 4th ed.

That's why you're seeing this resistance. Some of us were around when Pathfinder started and actually appreciate the basis from which Pathfinder was built upon.

I too was around when Pathfinder started and I do appreciate how it started but I also think it's bogged down in old mindsets that need changed.

This is an edition change not a 7th printing of the CRB with errata. Many of the changes deal with issues this community has discussed for more than 10 years and many require more than a patch or a fluffing of language. We have effectively (even the Devs) playtested this game since 2009. I'd like to get the details on what they've heard.

Finally it's not moving away from what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder, it's extending Pathfinder a bit further out from 3.5.

When this game was first announced it was called D&D 3.75, now we need to call it what it is; just Pathfinder. It may always have its roots in 3.5, in 3.0, in AD&D, and in D&D... but it needs to grow beyond those forebears. I want to see where PF takes it's story and rules when it isn't concerned overly much by backwards compatibility.

So far these blogs leave me eager to read the full playtest.

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

This doesn't sound like a scenario that's likely to happen. I mean, why would the developers design the system that way? It seems more likely that number+dice isn't going to be the whole story.

It's exactily how its looking right now. And I believe I heard some coments on playtest that sounds like this,

Basicaly, it is the same as Ability Check in PF1.

How many times in your tables, an average joe, with STR 10 (+0) beat a challenge the barbarian with STR 18 (+4) failed. This happend because the modifier bonus is too low.

In Pathfinder 2.0 this problem will be present in skills, attacks, saves, and everything that uses auto-scaling proficience.

Ahh, but that is dealt with through the flexibility of >10> Crits. The barbarian, as I understand it through my limited info, will likely avoid the problem you describe since he crits more reliably than the yokel.

If I missed the point of what you were saying I'm sorry reading through this whole thing has left me a bit frazzled, and I have yet to catch up on the 150+ new posts on resonance.

Thing is, if they do go with that, then there is no point having such high bonuses to begin with since the only reason to have high bonuses is to attempt difficult challenges.

The point to the high bonuses is that even with them you might fail or succeed, or even better for story purposes get a crit success or crit fumble.

The master lower level guy will likely out perform you in amazing team jaw-dropping ways, but you the sorcerer might actually be able to swim out to the boat. While in PF1 unless you let a skill you are expected to have slip, you probably can't manage that.

That there sounds fun to me. I want to see the rogue porpoise-dance across the water as I struggle to haul my ass to the boat, maybe I make it maybe I don't... but I get to try, and I like that. So far, to me, it sounds like good game design.

I will finish with a simple statement. I have run PF since it was in Beta. I have loved and spent a fortune on PF... I would likely be running PF1 this summer as I have done every year and we would be loving it. I want the chance to fall in love with these new rules. My players would be the first to tell you shiny new thing always get my attention 13th Age, 5E, Savage Worlds (I hadn't tried it before) but I always come back to PF. Now I'm hoping that I always come back to PF2.

My only issue is how severe the scaling is, it should make you competent at all the basics of the skills, not better than real-world's top athlete's level.

It does make you hyper competent of the Basics. However, as many have tried to explain it will not make you faster than the world's fastest runner who has trained all his/her life, it will not let you jump farther than a gold medalist long jumper, or at the very least, since I'm going by what I have read and discussed, it will make it highly unlikely.

Yes, if you put me up against Usain Bolt even though I am a 20th level person who never trained running, I likely won't win in a race... but you know what, I bet he's tripped more than once while running, maybe I get one in a million lucky and he twists his ankle. This system simulates this, a DM just needs to be able to explain how my 20th level fat ass got to the finish line before him, and any competent DM should be able to do that.

Hmm what do you think the capstone power for a 20th level human person would be... retirement?

Albatoonoe wrote:

Come on, man. It's been explained that the skill check is not the defining metric of how good you are. It is really just a determination of how seldomly you fail. Skills are gonna be a lot more than just that number. It's gonna be proficiency and skill feats and whatever.

This thread is starting to argue in circles because people are refusing to acknowledge anything EXCEPT the numbers being the indication of skill.

I'm not comparing it to the other PCs in the party who have skill feats. I 100% understand that a PC who specialized in a skill will have much more ability to use it compared to the untrained people in their party because of ability scores, items, class features, and skill feats.

This doesn't change that the massive bonuses provided by proficiency specifically make you at-the-top of the world in regards to the basics of every single skill (see Mark's examples with the cookies, where the high level character will be much much better at making standard cookies than a low/mid level master of culinary arts, but the master cook will be able to make up non-basic dishes that the untrained character cannot attempt to replicate).

The rules for jumping for example will be one which needs to be severely changed in regards to DCs, considering jumping is a basic thing that anyone can do that you don't require training to accomplish.

Not in regards to the basics of every single skill. IIRC we've been told professions can't be attempted untrained. Mark was just expanding on previous debate, I think. You will not be a better lawyer than someone who has passed Golarion's bar, you will not be a better accountant than a trained accountant, you will not be able to outperform a blacksmith. You may know some facts about those things, maybe lend a hand...

If your worry is that by the new system once trained the level 20 guy will outshine the level 5 guy who worked at excelling... Consider this. I have done my own taxes my entire life (I am almost 50) and if I decide to go to H&R Block this year and my tax advisor is 25 and has been doing this a year... well you know what we could both probably fill out the form in a way that won't result in fraud and tax evasion charges... but I'm gonna bet he finds more deductions and gets a better return.
That is what this system simulates, as I understand it.

As far as jumping I bet they already have it down... we just need a chance to playtest it. We already know falling damage has seen a change... not hard to imagine the two happening at the same time. August 2nd will give us more info... I can barely wait.

So it enhances the feeling of participation to have a roll which you are good at merely because you are breathing and a certain level rather than any choices at all you made? I don’t see it.

It isn't merely because you are breathing, but rather because you managed to keep breathing while spending years fighting a Necromacer and his army of skeletons, survived 100 traps... 30 of which got set off, because you've watched Rodgar climb that rope 10 times, and even though you've never seen a pool of water larger than a bucket you managed to reason out, through the wits you've used for 18 levels that kicking your feet helps keep your head above water. You may not figure out the breaststroke but you can tread water.

Not "merely" anything.

BtB: I learned to swim when I was 5 I saw no one else do it... the pool was empty... I was tossed in by family and told stay above water. Cruel, perhaps, but it served until I learned the breaststroke at the Y 7 years later. So, to whomever keeps mentioning the guy from the desert figuring out swimming though he's never seen a large body of water I did it and I must have been at best a fifth level kid. My cousin who was 17 and visiting and had never learned to swim figured it out way faster than I did in part because she was older and not as panicked as a 5 year old.

I also figured out how to use a computer the first time I saw one and was given 30 minutes of free time with it by my teacher. I was in 4th grade at the time. Yes I am that old.

I figured out my first cell phone last week in a quick bit because I am a man in my late 40s who had enough experience to reason it out after having avoided cell phones like the plague.

Experience matters. I will probably never type on my cell phone like the teenage son of my friend (how do they do that so quickly... itty bitty buttons big fat thumbs) but I managed to send a text in my first few minutes of getting the phone.

Experience matters, wits matter, age matters, intelligence matters, luck matters, Gods given talent matters.

If you were 15th level (known otherwise as 15 years old (and had never really lied to, or deceived your parents) do you think you could reason out how to sneak out of the house past your parents, do you think you'd have a chance of convincingly lying about it the next day? Shouldn't my 15th level fighter have a reasonable ability to sneak past a guard? Shouldn't I be able to realize the chain mail makes a noise when I move and take it off. Even though I never put points in the skill.

At almost 50 I don't pretend to know half the the Things in this world but give me a bit and I'll be able to reason some nugget out. I may not know how to Jack up the car but I can give you the number to Triple A (I memorized it though I've never had to use them or been a member) and since I have seen others Jack up the car twice (IIRC)... I'm willing to bet in a tough situation I could even change my tire in one go. I after all managed to change the battery after watching it be jumped once.

I've never bought pot in my whole life nor do I consort with people who use it, but give me 30 minutes and I bet I could figure out how to get some. In large part because I haven't lived in a bubble. My 20th level fighter should be able to reason out with a fair degree of accuracy how to get the people in a bar talking about the latest rumours even though he has never gossiped in his life.

I have Chosen to remain willfully ignorant about many things in my life. Country music, old cinema, anime... to name a few. However, I can rattle off a bit on the topics because I don't live in a void. Though I detest anime I can rattle off a bit about Full Metal Alchemist, and the one where the guy screams Akira and the crap hits the fan... even though I've never seen either because I lived in a dorm once and I on a few occasions nteracted with people who do like it.

You want to talk about Casa Blanca, I've never seen it and have no desire to but I can quote some of the more famous lines and sum up the story because I have levels in human person... 47 or so of them.

So yes, for me it does enhance my feeling of participation. It may help me remember or imagine the Things that came before, the challenges my character overcame and the fights he lost and won. All of which to me is part of the essence of good storytelling.

TL;DR Experience matters. It all matters. This adds verisimilitude IMO. Your experience may vary. There is no "merely" to life.

Yrtalien wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

The untrained wizard shouldn’t be a better climber than the career mountaineer

Those don't compare in the way you think, I think.

Yes, numerically their values will be propinquitous, but, for example... Mountain man may have a climb speed. He may have lower DCs to climb. He may be able to climb twice as fast as Magic Man. In short, Mountain man mountains better.

As far as the mentioned numerical propinquity, I justify that by the oft mentioned applied experience

The argument, to my eyes, that has more merit is that you can't choose to be a crappy climber.

That play choice will be essentially hobbled but I see that as a valid option to accommodate a large portion of their core customer. To be truthful we both are trying to speak for large portions of the base... so I'm not certain why that keeps being wheeled out... but there you go.

I hope everyone finds something to love in the new edition, something that wins them over. I am currently intrigued by what I know (not a lot) and eagerly await the playtest.

The people that want the other option are a large portion of the customer base as well.

Yes, I addressed that. We agree on this if nothing else.

The untrained wizard shouldn’t be a better climber than the career mountaineer

Those don't compare in the way you think, I think.

Yes, numerically their values will be propinquitous, but, for example... Mountain man may have a climb speed. He may have lower DCs to climb. He may be able to climb twice as fast as Magic Man. In short, Mountain man mountains better.

As far as the mentioned numerical propinquity, I justify that by the oft mentioned applied experience

The argument, to my eyes, that has more merit is that you can't choose to be a crappy climber.

That play choice will be essentially hobbled but I see that as a valid option to accommodate a large portion of their core customer. To be truthful we both are trying to speak for large portions of the base... so I'm not certain why that keeps being wheeled out... but there you go.

I hope everyone finds something to love in the new edition, something that wins them over. I am currently intrigued by what I know (not a lot) and eagerly await the playtest.

But it doesn’t seem like an iteration, it feels more like scrapping most of the system and starting over.

Other that rolling d20 and some of the names what does it keep from put that makes it an iteration? It’s not an iteration, it’s a completely new program at the machine code level

It feels to me that you are wanting something more akin to an errata than an edition change.

Raynulf wrote:

Much of the pessimism is (I think) derived from the legacy of the D&D brand as the conventions of the past decade were repeatedly discarded and the game reinvented - whether the customers wanted it to or not. The 2E-3E overhaul worked out in D&D's favor, dramatically increasing the player base. The 3E-4E overhaul... didn't.

But the tale of D&D Editions is one of complete turnover of design teams. Most editions were new creations by a new group of people, not an iteration on past design. Conversely Pathfinder 2 is a direct iteration on Pathfinder 1, by basically the same people who developed it in the first place. I expect there to be a few growing pains as we get used to new ideas, but I think some faith in the Paizo team is in order to respect their previous work and the love their customers have for it.

** spoiler omitted **...

But it doesn’t seem like an iteration, it feels more like scrapping most of the system and starting over.

IIRC, it was said that this would be an iteration of PF rather than an iteration of 3.5,

By that light this does feel like an iteration to me. One I think I might enjoy based on what I've read and heard.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

I want to take a moment to thank everyone here for the spirited debate on this part of the game. We knew that this one was going to raise some eyebrows. Fundamentally, this system is trying to replace a fundamental part of 1st edition that caused us HUGE problems at the high levels of play, which distorted character choice and severely hampered design. A huge disparity is statistics between characters/adversaries of equal level really warps the play space and it led to stability problems with the entire game engine.

The goal here to find a middle ground that still allows characters to excel in the places that they want, but not in such a way as to dominate the game. To allow monsters to be an appropriate challenge for their level without having an ability that practically auto-cripples some characters.

This blog is a good overview of the system, but there are certainly a number of parts of it that are not at all clear. We will endeavor to get to that information as we come to it through other topics (for example, expect us to talk about how it relates to armor when we get to talking about gear).

We expect there will be corner cases, spots where these rules might leave us with a play condition that does not meet the vision of the game. We are going to be looking at ways to make this work because of just how critical it is for play balance and game sustainability. That is, after all, why we playtest, to tune the game, look for rough spots and smooth them out.

Thanks for your continued patience on this. We know its tough to only get pieces of the game, as we work to get all of the information out there. There is a lot more to come.

You seem to be basing the entire game around level 15 and higher. Most of the arguments in favour of these new massive overhauls that you guys give involve high level play (especially in regards to skills and death mechanics), and I don't think I've seen any designer even mention a playtest session lower...

Just my take on things. Consider for a moment that most people don't play past 15th for reasons most of us can probably recite by rote.

As Devs you worked really hard to write rules that go from 1 to 20... but people aren't playing with a considerable portion of the content...

So yeah, basically they're trying to deal with something that is a biggish problem. Furthermore, a good quantity of the problem can be traced back to the close ties twixt 1st ed and 3.5. So something new. Will it work... maybe. Are there other ways of dealing with it... definitely, but this is what has made it through vetting so far.

When a good fourth of the written material is rarely played... well, We're not getting our monies worth. I hope part of why they are doing this is because they want me to use what I paid for.

Just IMO.

The problem here IMO is people are looking at resonance as being added to the game solely to combat clw wand spamming, when that is only one facet of the change. It also streamlines resource management and gets rid of body slots. Depending on implementation it may also help meter access to especially powerful items by requiring a larger investment (something I have heard theorized but have no proof of).

If you look at this solely as a reaction due to wand spam then yes, it does seem to be an over reaction, but in light of the other issues it touches upon perhaps it's worthy of the playtest and critique.

Have a good day every one. The 20th is International Happiness Day so hopefully game this weekend and approach the day glad : )

thflame wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

Doesn’t matter how cool items are if they never see use because of resonance costs.

I don't think you understand how large Level + CHA mod. is.

Let's do some math:

Assuming level 10 Human Fighter with 18 CON and 10 CHA, you would have 148 HP and 10 Resonance.

A level 10 Cleric's healing spell a la PF1 heals 4d8+10 HP.

Assuming this character uses half his resonance for magic items (weapons don't count towards this), he can heal 20d8 + 50 damage per day off of potions. (average 140 healing) THEN, he gets to make Resonance Checks. What fighter have you played where you burn through 288 HP in ONE day at level 10, without some serious stuff going down?

And the only magic items he gets to use all day outside of the weapon are heals. Because, resonance. How cool.

They've already talked about multiple ways to heal... so you shouldn't have to rely on wands and potions for main healing. Heck according to Seifter (IIRC) a barbarian managed to keep the whole party healed when he decided to focus some attention on that.

My parties, but in a rare case, rarely rely on wands for healing, much less potions. We usually go out with no healers and it's not been a deal for us.

It's a revamp of the system. New tactics will have to evolve. Until we know how prevalent magic is in the game we really can't speak reliably to how we would apportion our resonance.

I realize that current tactics call for entering every combat as fully healed as possible, that works but it removes a bit of anxiety from the game. I prefer the idea of debating whether you have enough in you to take out the big bad after fighting through his minions. I like the idea of deciding whether a magic item ability might be a wiser option than saving for a heal I might not need and I don't mind my character talking about the time he died fighting Igthorpe the Bold, but how his companions carried on with the can of ass whip he opened up. Hell, my character might even brag about it.

These are differences in play style. Yours suits you and mine suits me. Hopefully we can talk about it in a clear enough way that the Devs can parse easily and use our critiques.

I really like the idea of managing my magic item inventory by resonance rather than individual item x per days... I can see why it's being called fiddly, but I appreciate that sort of decision making, it's like choosing what spell my Sorcerer will learn at a level. The choice is based on what I think I'm going to need in the future and as I level, and outgrow that need, I reallocate the slot.

The obvious parallel to my example is that I can supplement my casting ability with 50 varieties of wands and staves and in this new system I might be able to do that but definitely won't pull them out Willy nilly because of the pool. Ok, that is definitely true, but maybe we can wait and see what they give us to fall back on.

One of the reasons my Sorcerer was decked out in wands was he ran out of spells once at lower level and couldn't effectively add to the game. I think they are giving us better cantrips than the current acid splash to help with that. They are implementing new ways for healing to work to manage the inability to rely on potions and wands (IIRC). So a fiddly bit, but one I am ready to read more about and that so far I am interested in.

As far as complexity, I think you are saying other games have solved the deluge of magic item Christmas tree problem in simpler ways. Like the hard limit in 5e (If I'm wrong feel free to correct me), if that is what you mean then you are right. There are simpler ways to do it but part of what gets me about 5e (which I do play and like) and 13th Age etc. is it feels oversimplified. Part of why I always come back to Pathfinder is the complexity. Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for Champion's PF, but I want crunch. Crunch makes me think tactically, it challenges me. That may not be your experience and that's fine. Until I have a lot more detail I can't say I love it or hate it but colour me intrigued.

I hope everyone intends to stick around long enough to give the playtest a read at least... and maybe a try. Everyone here sounds like they like PF a lot, if it comes from a place of love then I don't begrudge you your say.

The more I think about it, the more I realize I really only object to resonance and potions. I could get used to resonance in just about every other case, but potions just seem bizarre to me.

A silly example that helps illustrate my aversion: the most powerful evil wizard in the world brews a polymorph potion and forces a commoner to drink it. The commoner fails his resonance check. Nothing happens. To me that's just too absurd.

Since we don't really know the system we can't really say, but let's imagine that ultimate evil wizard can pay the cost himself for the poly potion to work... I would have no problem with that.

Otherwise we see villains with the heroes chained in the dungeon feeding them potions of spider climb all day to ensure that if they escape they can't invest or spend any resonance.

Frankly it's easy for me to imagine that the user, not the target pays the cost. If I pour a potion of healing down your throat I imagine it's up to me to meet the cost... though if the player is sensible enough to say yes maybe we decide between us.

Because members of my group are teachers I too will miss a bunch of potential testing time. There will be about a week and a half after scheduled release before they're back in school. If release were to happen in May, well, we play about 4x a week during the two-ish months of Summer... so...

I realize this is most likely dead but if there's still life in this guy I'd sure like to hear about. I wish we could have seen the revamp of the loyalties and edicts...

Still love the idea... and making a 12th level cohort with the current write up... which is what brought me here.

Thanks

Only recently began buying this AP. Find myself wondering if there is a guesstimate on the final adventures release date to non backers. I anticipate finishing the written adventures within a month and I'm hoping the last adv. is out by then. I'd hate to leave my players hanging at 19th. Is To Kill a Star out to backers yet?

By the by... Reading Confederates right now and it says my players should be Mythic tier 4 by the end, but I can't figure out when they got tier 3... can anyone tell me what I'm missing?

Thanks

I have a Steelfist Warlord playing in my Legendary planets game and that takes the players to Tier 4 Mythic. I realize I could let him lose in Champion but I want to tailor a few feats and powers for him.

For instance a feature like Archmages Wild Arcana that duplicates any maneuver of your level.

Wild Maneuver (Su): As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to initiate any one maneuver without expending a readied maneuver. The maneuver must be in one of your Discipline lists and must be of a level that you can initiate with that class.
You don’t need to have the maneuver readied, nor does it need to be on your list of maneuvers known. When initiating in this way, you treat your initiator level as 2 levels higher for the purpose of any effect dependent on level.

And a few powers.. like letting a character maintain two stances... what tier should you be to get that.

OR

The ability to add a new Discipline whole cloth to your repertoire...

For feats Mythic Spell focus converted into Mythic Discipline focus.

Mythic Extra readied maneuver could give your tier in extra readied maneuvers.

Mythic Lightning recovery.. May use recovery a number of times per day equal to your tier....

Anyone else ever try mixing PoW and Mythic?

Do the aforementioned sound like they'll work?
Thank you !

Why are those two problems? What is wrong with them...

Thank you.... thinking of using those two and worried now.

Asked this on your Patreon, but I figured I'd post here to...

Assuming my Celestial Pact Avowed uses Rune of Penance and the villain attacks Fighter Wuggly, instead of me, for 40 damage. Wuggly gets back 10 damage this round and 10 the next... even if in round two Villain hits my Avowed... correct? Is the rune discharged after? Does it continue for the full minute? If in round three Villain hits Wuggly again for 40, Wuggly again heals 10 this round and is set to heal 10 next round but round 4 (after my Avowed has either applied the Rune again with his free action or it still lingers eating up its minute duration) Villain hits Wuggly again for 60 damage. Does that mean Wuggly heals 10 + 15 this round or just the better? Sorry for the confusion... I may stumble across the answer as I keep reading but I was confused... beyond that this is a great class : )