dysartes's page

Organized Play Member. 334 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
This should mean rogues can give out DEX to Damage like candy for one or two feats on anyone, we'll see if that's good enough this edition.

I'm not a religious man, but if I were I'd be praying you're wrong.

If it is going to exist in PF2E at all, Dex2Dam needs to stay as part of the Rogue class, and not be handed out as a party favour to anyone who is willing to MC Rogue.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Personally, I hope the addition of Cleric Devotion allows people to make Pseudo Paladins to fill the slot for those who wanted Holy Warriors, but couldn't do LG.

Nah, I'll just play a CG Paladin. The alignment system is meaningless as a mechanic anyways, no one will know the "LG" at the top of my sheet is a lie if I don't tell them.

It's funny, I hadn't yet decided what my fifth character class would be for doomsday dawn, but this post settled it.

So you won't actually be playtesting PF2E then? Good to know.

House rules are fine once the game is out at retail, but should be kicked to the curb for the playtest period.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
I really wanted to see simpler Firearm rules in the playtest/core rulebook. I get they aren't universally popular, and I don't care. Guns are a cannon element of Golarion, and Pathfinder 2 is set in Golarion by default:

I see what you did there...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I flat out fielded a question about it in my Major Spoilers interview. Granted, it wasn't for the full details but the design goals.

Mark, I assume there is a schedule for all these blog posts, so the topics of future posts are already known - can you confirm if there will be a blog post looking at multi-classing before the playtest hits?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
Can we please not call them "anathema". How about "taboo" or some other similar word.

I agree that Anathema might not be the best choice for a Barbarian - but if they're mechanically the same as the ones in other classes, it makes sense to use common terminology, rather than re-inventing the wheel.

Of course, you might be advocating changing it everywhere, in which case I have no real preference either way on the term ;)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wultram wrote:
Also the fact that not a single Iconic is worth the ink that they were printed on.

Based on what metric?

Wultram wrote:
Totems were the most popular thing!!!! No they weren't nobody that I have played with gave arse about the totems. They were popular because they had nice rage powers and were in a tree format which wasn't the case for lot of the other rage powers. Beast totem being a prime example, pretty much everyone for example considered the claws pure tax and nothing else. The other popular ones were the ones that gave fly.

So you're saying they were used a lot, which ties in to what was said. Just because players in your area didn't play up the RP side of things, doesn't mean others might not have done. One group's experience isn't reflective of all groups, after all.

Wultram wrote:
Anethma....oh boy here we go again. Go write 100 times on the blackboard "Locking mechanics behind RP without a very good reason is bad game desing." Superstisous is an example of a good one, it is a mechanical benefit and mechanical restriction also it makes sense IC. The others mentioned are garbage writing and should be discarded as such. At least the paladin has the excuse of sacred cow in need of slaughter. This is adding in more of that assenine thinking into the game.

Firstly, dial back the tone, dude - calling something "garbage writing" because you disagree with it is beyond OTT.

Secondly, while some people might agree with you that it isn't a good move, there seem to be at least as many people who like the idea, going by this thread. Given we're looking at a playtest here, how about we test how it works in the game before discarding the idea?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
I like the totem mechanic, it reminds me of sorcerer bloodlines, but was never a fan of rage and was hoping for some other options.

What were you expecting to see on the class which has been defined since at least D&D 3.0 by getting slightly irate in combat, if not Rage?

Nathanael Love wrote:

Superstition totem sounds like the worst party destroying character types of editions past- vow of poverty and the Forsaken remixed into a core book option.

Hoo. Ray.

Any chance of why you think the Superstition Totem will be a problem for parties? It only seems to directly affect the Barbarian, especially if someone in the party has taken non-magical healing options.

tivadar27 wrote:
NOTE: While it would be amusing, pretty sure I've never seen a wizard cast fireball by flippin' the bird.

I'm not 100% certain, but I think Harry Dresden may have done something along those lines - though I'm not rereading the entire line of books right now to check ;)

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I wonder if the rage bonus will also be MOAR damage die. My gut likes Barbarians throwing the biggest fistfuls of dice in a game full of big fistfuls of dice, but I'm not sure how if that works well in practice.
Plenty of people like throwing ye olde dice bukkit. It's at least 33% of the appeal of playing Shadowrun after all.

Or the West End Games classic Star Wars engine.

I think playing a high-XP Jedi in that system, whilst spending a Force Point, is one of the few times I have had to use more than one brick of Chessex d6 (i.e., over 36 dice) in a single attack roll...

Pandora's wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Taboos, from the Medium class were interesting restrictions that gave a bonus. However, they were fairly easy to game by taking one with the least impact to your character, and thus practically ignorable. That made the idea much less interesting. So, I'm skeptical of too many options.
It's almost like forcing role-playing restrictions that the player doesn't want doesn't work out well. If Bookrat's interpretation is correct, the developers' intent is to instead encourage a dialogue where the GM and player together decide on restrictions the player finds fun. If that's correct, it's an ingenious way to sidestep this problem.

Nah, it's more like a chunk of the Pathfinder playerbase are determined to get as much ice cream as possible, while eating as few vegetables as possible.

Pandora's wrote:
This is needless cosmology. What source? There is no defined, single individual responsible for the anathema like there is for clerics. Why does an intuitive warrior who loses track of everything but the battle and uses massive weapons to intimidate his enemies have to also have a competition complex? More generally, why does a feature as generic as "barbarian who uses big weapons" need to be tied to a specific role-playing restriction?

I'm assuming this is something that will be explained a bit in the write-up of the Totem feature in the Playtest Rulebook. Instead of flying off the handle about it now, how about cooling your jets a bit until you can see the full picture on them?

Pandora's wrote:
But even if you weren't, the role-playing restriction having a cosmological source doesn't make it any more fun for me. We're essentially back to the same debate as with paladins. You can have your character with the default flavor, and I should be able to have mine that's another flavor that makes just as much sense. A rulebook with unnecessarily narrow flavor restrictions tells some people "your idea is correct" and others "yours is wrong." In what way does that improve the game?

Well, one would like to think that when it comes to games set in Golarion, the dev team's ideas are what's correct for the default setting. And let's not bring the Paladin argument into here - so much of that in PF1E boiled down to "I want Divine Grace, but can't deal with playing LG!", with a variety of bull-pucky claims as to how this wasn't actually the case, that it wasn't funny.

Meophist wrote:
I hope I can make a fist fighting Barbarian. I hope unarmed combat isn't restricted to the Monk.

From what we've seen, I believe Unarmed is likely to be a weapon proficiency. So, in theory, an unarmed Barbarian would be doable, though I doubt they'd reach the same proficiency level (or have the same Class Feat support) as the Monk.

Stone Dog wrote:
Please, first example of Barbarian doesn't fall because we don't even know if that is a thing that can happen yet. I'm taking "relatively low impact and designed to create roleplaying hooks" at face value instead of assuming that it makes them lose all their powers and makes them need a cleric.

I'm pretty sure the blog (or a post from Mark) mentions what happens if the anathema is breached - lose totem abilities (but not RAEG!) until you can spend a day to straighten yourself out.

Cyouni wrote:
Is it really necessary to literally write THIS TOO CAN BE DISCUSSED WITH GM on every single page people might have a problem with (every page)?

Just pop it in the template for the page header or footer...

Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Is it just the totems that are giving the anathema? If so maybe the totem options are slightly better then non-totem options?
their are no 'non totem options' as far as I can tell, from reading this they are a core class mechanic.

Fury Totem (not Furry Totem) exists for the Barbarian who wants an anathema-free life. From what little was mentioned in the blog post, it sounds like generic PF1E Rage Syndrome (as opposed to PF1E Forum Rage Syndrome).

Rob Godfrey wrote:
no it does not, its a 'nerf the barbarian button' for intelligent enemies to press, when no such button makes any sense

That assumes that a, it is simple for an enemy to identify a given totem; b, it is commonly known what the anathema for a given totem is; and c, that it is simple to generate conditions to trigger an anathema in a given scenario.

+ + +

Question for Mark Seifter, if he's still reading the thread - are Totems (other than Superstition) being presented with a single Anathema each for the playtest, or are more than one per Totem available?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
NetoD20 wrote:
I wish each time you gained a new Skill Rank you gained a Base Skill Use, which would be the same for everyone who attained that rank in the same skill, much like an Occultist gains a Base Focus Power everytime he gets a new implement school.

Well, we don't know for sure that there aren't some skill usages which are gated by proficiency, outside of an Untrained/Trained split. Would something like that cover what you're after?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If instead I can just invest in an "Academics" skill which covers everything from Mathematics to Chemistry to Marine Biology to English Literature to Analytic Philosophy to Gender and Women's Studies to Art History, I can at least define boundaries like "actually, I never studied glaciology", but I can still play a character who got a triple major in Math, Physics, and Women's Studies who went on to do graduate research on information theory and pedagogy.

Academics, Craft or Swim to represent a Degree in Underwater Basket-Weaving?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
That said, it seems like Skills are another aspect of the game being made more complicated for complexity's sake...

How so? No more need to determine which are class skills and which aren't (as far as we know); a shorter list of skills; five different levels of proficiency (the same as everything else in the system); and certain bonus abilities gated behind feats. Not seeing how this is "more complicated for complexity's sake" than PF1E, especially if you factor in things like the Skill Unlocks from Unchained.

Leedwashere wrote:
I think a level 13 character being able to stop their adventuring companion of so many levels from bleeding out without having to sweat about it isn't mind-blowing.

After 13 levels, I'd hope they'd seen enough to figure out "staunch the bleeding" :)

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Can't say I'm a fan* and I know the reaction my table will have to this (based on how they reacted to other games that implemented this) and it won't be pretty.

Any chance you might, y'know, actually get one of them to post here, rather than continually speaking on their behalf? It gets old seeing the same thing in every thread, man.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
Lol, that legendary stealth ability. You literally need to wear a bell on you at all times to keep from giving your party mates heart attacks.
Or you can double down and also take Scare to Death from legendary Intimidate, and literally give them heart attacks.

Well played, sir, well played.

Mark Seifter wrote:
We have a known discussion point where the fighter should very likely get Intimidate as a signature skill and also another starting trained skill, but alas, that omission was pointed out after the book hit the printer (after which we noticed it in several times from several places). I am guessing there won't really be two sides among you guys in the playtest as to whether we should carry through on that.

That's a couple of times we've seen you mention signature skill now, Mark - is it just a case of "these are skills we think are typical for the class", or is there some mechanical benefit for a character taking training in their signature skill?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Spell rarity, huh? Good bye, easy Blood Money... (grins)

I'm just hoping for "Goodbye, Blood Money" - full stop ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Paladin: Their offensive abilities sound pretty cool, and they can buff their allies a little now, which is great. Just hope we actually get different alignments in core that stand up to their LG counterpart(come on, Paizo, I know you can do it!)

*sigh* Can we keep the Paladin alignment debate (PAD as an acronym, maybe) out of this thread, please?

Dragonborn3 wrote:
The Gauntlet: Looks good to me, though I still dislike Bulk. What was wrong with carrying capacity in pounds? :(

For one, most of the world uses the kilogram instead...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
You can keep saying the ogre is somehow unique...

We're not saying the Ogre is unique...

The designers have said the Ogre is unique. I believe it was Mark, though it may have been Jason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Picture on one side, and stat block on the other (which conveniently is turned away from the players when you're showing them the picture, unless they're flanking you . . .).

And if they are flanking you - and the monster is an unpopular one - watch out for the Rogue...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So... Alchemist info at $5k? ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get the impression a $1,600 stretch for the last blog may have been a bridge too far, Mark - maybe two smaller goals (say 3,800 and then 4,600) to cover the Alchemist and then familiars might have drawn sufficient donations for your goal?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

Whatever you want I suppose. You're firmly into houserule territory at that point.

Edit: Actually, you might be right. Giving rolled characters ancestry boosts is not much different than racial adjustments now.

I agree. You can even get a character with a 20 ability score now if you roll an 18 and slap a +2 racial bonus on it. Also, so what if we end up with a character in the group with a 20 in one ability score? Big deal. I've played in plenty of games with a character like that and it wasn't game breaking or overpowered. Strength that high might be ridiculously strong for a human or half-orc, but it's nothing when compared to something like a Rune Giant.

Not much different in PF1E terms, no - but potentially making quite a difference within the PF2E mathematical framework.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Having just read the Attack the Stat Block blog post and thread, there seems to be a great deal of concern regarding the use of icons within PF2E.

As it stands, we've seen [[A]] and [[R]] as stand-ins for icons for Action and Reaction respectively, though we have yet to see the assets which are going to be used for those icons.

Comments regarding the use of screen-readers, whether the icon imagery will be suitable for colour-blindness and if a block is reformatted into large print have cropped up - as well as comments regarding how these images may cause problems when copying text out of a PDF (such as the Playtest Bestiary).

I've spoilered some excerpts below - however, I counted 21 different users commenting on the issue in a thread which, at time of writing, was merely 6 pages long.

Spoiler:

knightnday wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
I hope the Action and Reaction symbols are distinct at a glance, even in low light. The symbols in the Starfinder Alien Archive book can be a little muddy and indistinct.
This x100. It cannot be stressed enough that if one cannot pick out the symbols they aren't useful.
Voss wrote:

Once again, words are better than icons- much more clear, no fancy printing costs.

Action: <text>
Reaction: <text>
It's really simple.
Valantrix1 wrote:
Being blind, from what I can tell so far, if you continue with this representative symbol nonsense, the stat block will be absolutely useless to me. I'm ok with everything else I've read though. If you can make it where screen readers can actually interpret the symbols, that is a different story.
DirtyCarl wrote:
Quote:
Quick reminder: the [[A]] symbol is code for "action," and it will have a special icon in the actual Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook and other products. You'll also see an [[R]] later to represent a reaction.

I know it seems like a small thing, but this will be extremely annoying for me. Using custom symbols means we'll lose information when copy+pasting. Screen readers (for accessibility) will also likely fail on them, and homebrew statblocks will not include the special symbols.

Please, please consider using normal text for these. I think [[A]] and [[R]] work just fine.

Paradozen wrote:

I still hope Icons are distinct and don't rely on color much

because over-reliance on color (particularly red/green for me) makes icons a lot less useful for me, being partially colorblind.
Weather Report wrote:
As for icons, this is the only part that has me fuming, on several levels; first, I do not like them in 4th Ed or SF (especially in SF, they look cheap, cheesy and gross), and my eyes are screwed (Vision Impaired, Partially Sighted and all that): I have Retinitis Pigmentosa and a Cystoid Macula Oedema, so please, please do not use icons

This seems like a topic which could merit from some comment from Paizo, as it is one which could very well have an big impact on a section of the player base.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
He was implying that their would be no spell-like Abilities I do believe.

Indeed - it appears that Innate spells are the same as Spell Point spells are the same as Prepared spells. If you can counter one, you can counter all - assuming Counter-Spell is a thing in PF2E, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
It's such a tease seeing the "Attack the Stat Block" blog sitting there in the forum but unable to be viewed.... lol

Well, I'm glad it isn't just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
To be totally fair, right before the sentence about one-handed to two-handed it did specifically mention codifying grip-changing in general, it's not *that* big a leap to assume the reverse uses the same rules. As for the doors thing, do note this also applies to more than just doors. Any class that has any abilities that involve using a hand will pretty much be forced to avoid two-handed weapons. Gonna suck for Clerics who's deities favor a two-hander, having to burn an extra action (or maybe even two) every time they want to cast a spell. Or Paladins, who now have to burn an extra action (or two) to use their lay on hands. A melee Alchemist trying to chug a mutagen to get into combat? You're losing an entire round even if they're already in reach as you pull it out, chug it, and then put your hand back on. This really hurts the viability of the two-handed weapon, having to burn an extra action (or two) to do what a one-handed weapon can do without. Or else just leads to the Two-Hand quality becoming king because you can still get that really good damage when you need it, but *aren't* left defenseless if you can't spend the spare action to re-ready your weapon.

You mean there might be a downside to using the weapons that have tended to have the largest damage in the game? Oh, the humanity...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given James Jacobs' heavy dislike of the whole Paladin of Asmodeus thing, I have no doubt they will definitely be excised from PF2E.

As for increasing which gods have Paladins in their portfolio? It might happen, though as long as the Paladin a, stays LG; and b, has some form of steer as to how to portray someone who is LG with a CG (for example) god, then it might work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm surprised the OP didn't have Blood Money in his list of things he wanted gone in PF2E, given how many forum arguments it seems to have caused.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chance Wyvernspur wrote:
Violating the tenants would lead the church to expel you, perhaps excommunicate you.

Violating one's tenants really should be a problem, and should result in being kicked out of a church immediately.

Violating the tenets of the faith might not be an insta-ban, depending on the tenet and situation - and possibly the church/god in question.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Alternatively... just let your players pick it all. Let them choose any spells, domains, favored weapon, with no edicts or anathema. Basically the same result as "clerics of a philosophy" anyway. And zero work for you.

Though, if you do do that, don't complain if the cleric ends up over-tuned in some regard.

If you're going to create a world, creating the religious framework for those classes is part of that crafting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
dysartes wrote:

Or that Paizo still really don't like crossbows...

i jest. I hope I jest, anyway...

Even if crossbows aren't a valid combat style (and I certainly hope they are), the change still implies that they think TWF is valid.

Or just more valid than crossbows. Which, in PF1E terms at least, doesn't appear to be a high barrier to scale ;)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Also, Harsk the Iconic Ranger is being shifted to a TWF guy, which strongly implies that the folks at Paizo think it's a solid combat style.

Or that Paizo still really don't like crossbows...

i jest. I hope I jest, anyway...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


*resists urge to inquire about a particular exotic weapon that's been inspired by recent forums and instead nods quietly and watches*

I doubt the Banhammer will be in Core - but maybe in a splat-book down the line...

Fiorrill wrote:
Really hoping to see some other classes like the Magus. Also want to see how Archetypes will work in this new edition?

I'm pretty sure we're not going to see any non-Core classes as part of the playtest, but I'm open to being proved wrong.

Noir le Lotus wrote:
Moreover, where is the baalance betweeen an ability thaat amkes your weapon deal more damage after each attack and another one who reduces the penalty for attacking another target in the same round (a suboptimal tactic that noone uses).

I'm pretty sure that's why we have a playtest. And how can you claim a tactic is "suboptimal" that "no-one uses" for a version of game very few have played to this point?

Noir le Lotus wrote:

Lastly, what is the point of telling us in one of the first previews that magical +X for weapons were not part of this 2nd edition if you tell us now that there will be quality +X for weapons ?

It's exactly the same stupid thing !!

A, Please cite your source for this claim.

B, Are you sure whatever you're on about is exactly the same?

+ + +

In terms of the article, I think the only thing I'd've liked to have seen in there would be a full stat block for one of the weapons, to get an idea of how they'll be presented. Other than that, a good piece!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Or alternatively, add wording like Force Users get in Star Wars games that basically allows a GM to warn folks before putting any sort of penalties into place.

No Phylactery, though.

Isn't that exactly what the Phylactery does? Not sure what you're disagreeing with here, especially as people weren't suggesting giving them the exact item, but having the ability from it baked into appropriate classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RickDias wrote:
Ser Guii de Facien wrote:
"Ummm. Please tell me that my Goddess still loves my singing, and not just boring building stuff?"

Forgive me if someone has already beaten me to this idea, don't have time to check every post. If they haven't, let me propose this: What about letting Clerics choose from one of two skills that fit their deity?

Imagine Shelyn granting Crafting or Perform.

Sarenrae granting Heal or Diplomacy.

Mark said up-thread that Perform and Diplomacy (and I think Medicine) are already whatever the equivalent of Class Skills are for Clerics.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Catharsis wrote:
dysartes wrote:
I may have missed this somewhere, Mark, but is Medicine the new name for the Heal skill?
Ugh. That's one of the things I dislike about 5e the most. Why don't you call Knowledge: Engineering «Quantum Chromodynamics» and Perform: Dance «Twerking» while you're at it...? ;o)

TBF, it is a rename I can get behind - saves any possible confusion with the Heal spell, after all.

Jet Set Dizzy wrote:
This makes Clerics largely incompatible with the average party and if so, playing them in general should be taboo as it mandates the actions of other players. Clerics would only function for specific deity aligned parties or parties that all have VERY closely aligned thinking. A better solution is to just have the deity care about the Cleric's own actions rather than the actions of the whole party if for no other reason than the fact that it actually makes them practical to play. We don't need two Paladins.

I doubt this is the case. I'm sure I've seen reference to the Pally code being reworked to mean you don't end up playing the Party Police, and I doubt the Cleric would be designed to be a problem for groups either.

Now, actions leading to in-character conversations? That seems like a great roleplay opportunity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
What does "strike first" mean in this context?
Common sense.
LOL That thing that has brought us years of paladin debates...

I mean, if you're going to avoid having a discussion with a GM in any game you intend to run a Paladin or Cleric in, you're going to have problems - and yes, this is something you can do in a PbP or PbF game.

graystone wrote:

Most of the blog seems fine. A few question/comments though:

Alignment: It saddens me we still have this in the game... :P

You may be saddened, but it lifts my heart with joy to still that this is still a thing, and that it still has an impact on the game.

I imagine I am not the only one in this position.

Paladin blog should be interesting, when we get there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

But you could say the same for the Rogue and the Fighter, brad2411 - in each case the class got a preview, and then there was a mechanical/system preview which related to them - Skills for the Rogue, and Crits for the Fighter (IIRC).

That's all we've seen here - a class with an associated mechanical preview. It just so happens that the class and the sub-system pretty much share a name.

Equally, I wouldn't be surprised by a Paladin blog being paired with an Alignment system post - though I think I'd only be touching the forum with an 11 foot pole for that week ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
2) Resonance is called for 6 times in this post. Meaning, it has become such an integral part of the ruleset is not going away no matter how much we don't like it. And I don't.

How can you say you don't like Resonance when we barely know anything about how it works? At least wait for a blog post on the subject before you rip it to shreds ;)

Tels wrote:

Non-magical class with non-magical abilities crafting non-magical items requires the magical resonance resource to function. Can't wear magical armor or use magical weapons because that all consumes resonance and the alchemist requires resonance in order to use it's class features.

This is a huge turn off for the class and the entire resonance system.

I'm pretty sure the Alchemist blog mentioned a class feature that gave more Resonance - and they get to use a different stat to base it on, which makes me think they won't be *that* Resonance-starved.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
...and downright broken on posions (takes two hands to slather it on something, but you can't hold a weapon since you're occupied using the poison...).

I'd imagine the two hands thing on poisons is to allow for the fact you're holding the weapon you're applying it to - but I'll wait for clarification on that.

TheFinish wrote:
Well, Alchemists lost Int Bonus to bombs it seems

I think that's due to return as a Class feat - or for the splash damage, at the very least.

worldhopper wrote:
Seeing a lot of talk of the ability to throw 3 bombs per round. Was this confirmed somewhere? Wouldn't you have to use an action to draw the next bomb?

I remember reading it was an action to draw a bomb, but there was a feat to allow you to draw two at once.

Though TheFinish made a good point about how you can do that if bombs are two-handed - maybe a second feat makes them one-handed?

TheFinish wrote:
It's still 3 actions (that don't even bloody work as written) to apply a DC 13 poison to a weapon and it works for 1 hit. That's it. Unless the save bonuses have been drastically reduced, I don't see how it's any better than PF1 poisons except in price.

While I can understand the Action count required - especially if we assume a round is still ~6 seconds - the output from it does seem a little lacklustre. However, I'm going to wait and see on this one.

DeathQuaker wrote:
I wonder outside of assisting with conditions, if there will be any alchemical healing items (that cure hp, even if just say 1 at a time to a certain max).

There was an Elixir of Life mentioned which seemed to be a HO healing elixir - and possibly a res item, at high levels?

NielsenE wrote:
RE: bulk versus weight. I much prefer weight, but I think you're right that bulk will get used more/ignored less and that's a good thing for exactly the reasons you list. Its one of the the things that will cause some annoyance/inertia/change-aversion, but if it quickly recedes and the game/engine is fun/works then all is good.

Given how many tables talk about hand-waving encumbrance away at the moment, Bulk may be the thing that gets them to actually use it - and that's a good thing! Not sure we'll see that much annoyance about the change, if people weren't using those rules anyway ;)

eddv wrote:
I'm just not certain I see the point in even having these blogs if they're only going to actually reveal most information via podcast and ENworld compilations of the information revealed via that method.

To give enough information to get people interested - or even excited - about what PF2E will be doing differently, without giving the whole game away?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cleric: Get some actual class features, to improve quality of archetypes (hopefully happening with the Class Feat system)

Fighter: Equivalents of Stamina and the Advanced Armour/Weapon Mastery abilities baked in, with the latter probably as Class Feats.

Paladin: Kept broadly the same, but with slightly tweaked verbiage on the Oath (mainly around associates), and better guidance for running one for the GM.

Monk: Gets three good saves back, but otherwise based off Unchained design.

Rogue: Gets a role which isn't going to get stepped on so heavily by follow-on classes (or archetypes).

Any class with AC or Familiars: These features scale better, at least in terms of hardiness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

It's a simple fix. Changing this doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't alter the rules. It doesn't change what your caster can do. All it does is alter one word so that people who haven't been playing for years can look at the rules and not be confused why their 3rd level character is limited to 2nd level spells - because it'll be Second Tier spells instead.

Outside of "tradition" is there an actual problem as to changing Spell Level to Spell Tier?

Keeping it as-is doesn't "hurt" anyone - and I loathe that term when it comes to this sort of thing - it just means they actually have to pick up a basic understanding of their class.

That's it. Not power-gaming, not memorising the CRB, not becoming "hardcore" - they simply have to wrap their heads around one table per class.

Let's take Cleric, for example - we're talking a core 9-level spellcaster, though in terms of levelling, probably the simplest due to lack of options. Even if someone playing the cleric doesn't own the CRB, they should be looking at the class page ond20PFSRD or the Paizo SRD to understand how the character works. If they look at the class ability table, and don't grasp within a couple of minutes the difference between spell level and character level, I'd argue they shouldn't be playing a caster of any description. Caster level should only really be an issue if they're multi-classing, which isn't something I'd expect casual gamers to be doing too much of.

And "tradition" is at least a partially-valid reason when dealing with a new edition of a game - especially one with as much history as PF (or other games based out of D&D). The more you change, the less people tend to want to stick with the game, with 4E as the shining example of changing things for the sake of changing them driving people away (coupled with it being an MMORPG sim, but that's a matter for a different thread).

We're already seeing a lot of terminology change, such as race to ancestry. Keeping other terms which people are familiar with the same is, in my opinion, a good thing for PF2.

And, hang on - you were using the Mythic rules with "casual" gamers, and the use of level as a term in three places is what you thought made the game too complex? *shakes head*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Mathota wrote:
“All about magic” but no meantion of psychic magic... hopefully it makes it into the new core. All in all I’m feeling really excited for 2E, it looks like they are doing a good job of taking all of their obscure rules and mechanics introduced in auxiliary books and making them into something coherent and workable.
Psychic magic is not in the new core. This has been stated previously. Though obviously "mental" magic is a thing, and Psychic's may use that if they are introduced later.

Well, assuming Thought and Emotion components would be a thing for Psychic Magic down the line, they're a thing it'd be nice to see in the CRB, if nothing else.

thflame wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
So are we CERTAIN the the whole Material, Mental, Vital, Spiritual thing is actually a thing, or is it entirely conjecture?
I'm pretty sure it's just wild conjecture that people are running with at this point. None of the devs have said anything about it and the blog post doesn't imply that to me.

It's an interesting idea, and one that Mark hasn't said isn't correct... yet ;)

Gorbacz wrote:
I'm pretty sure that by the 536th time of you insisting to act out the Sailor Moon-style sequence of casting detect magic your table will kindly ask you to tone it down a little.

Second time - maybe the first, depending on actor.

Bloodrealm wrote:
The blog post also incorrectly cites that in PF1 you had to learn all previous analogous spells to get the new one.

If you mean the reference in the Heightened Casting section, I think that's intended to refer to chains like Summon Monster X, where most of the versions say "Works like Summon Monster X-1, but with this difference."

In other words, that the player needs to understand the spells in the chain, not that the character needs to know the spells in the chain.

Tangent101 wrote:
Through all of the last campaign I ran, I kept running into the same problem over and over again: trying to explain to my players (who are playing the campaign online and do not actually own the rules as far as I know) that "Spell level" and "Caster level" are not the same thing.

Your problem here seems to be people who a, apparently haven't bought the rules; b, haven't spent the time to read up their classes on d20PFSRD; yet c, still expect to play a caster class.

At the very least, they should need to read their class on one of the free resources provided - then you can just refer them to the handy table there which tells them when they get which level of spells.

You shouldn't be having to spoon-feed these people, just because you're playing an online game. Some reading is required to play PF, and if you can't be bothered to do the reading, how the heck do you expect to play a character who uses magic? Sheesh...

Keep the three types of levels as nomenclature - there's only so much hand-holding you should do if people can't be bothered to read the basics of the game they're playing (as they apply to their character).

*dons his "Proud Traditionalist" hat*

Mark Seifter wrote:

While these statblocks aren't actually using the final presentation with graphic design elements for the final book (in part because we're not 100% sure about all of those yet!), the school is grouped with all of the other traits that aren't schools because they all are aspects of the spell (traits, even!) that might be something you have to quickly locate because a special ability says "You get a bonus against death effects" or "Whenever you are the target of a necromancy spell" or things like that. In our most current layout, the traits aren't in a row like you see here but instead in a little box that makes all of them easy to find so you can quickly scan for that.

Does that make any sense? It'll be easier to explain when you can see it, I imagine.

Quick suggestion - start the row/box with the school, then follow with the other traits in alphabetical order.

Using the three previewed spells as examples, that gives:
HEAL: Necromancy; Healing, Positive
REGENERATE: Necromancy; Healing
VAMPIRIC EXSANGUINATION: Necromancy; Death, Negative

Makes it a quick scan for the school, and keeps the rest of the traits in an easy-to-follow order.

(NB: Upon continuing to read the thread, I'm nowhere near the first to suggest this, but I'm keeping this here to show support for the idea.)

Tangent101 wrote:
So why not work and change another tradition? This one has a valid reason for changing. Spell Circles (I do like "Tiers" better but it does sound better if used in an in-universe term... basically both terms are valid in eye eyes as a replacement) would help reduce the confusion of new (and some older!) players. It is understandable and logical.

Alternatively, why change things for the sake of changing it? Especially when it sounds like the people you're changing it to satisfy are mostly those who aren't spending money on - or even reading! - your product, if we follow your previous example...

GentleGiant wrote:
And none of the people I've played with since the 80's have had any problem comprehending it (which has to be at least 30+ different people). Including some who weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. So much for anecdotal "evidence" for how confusing it is.

I believe the appropriate phrase is "The plural of anecdotal evidence is not data."

Adaff wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

*basks in the new information*

I wonder if Prestidigitation gets any heighten effects.

A third level Prestidigitaion gets rid of 99.9 percent of all germs.

I wonder what level we need to kill of 99.99% of all known germs... ;)

Tangent101 wrote:
I have had people have this argument with me every single time they level up. You have to understand. Not everyone is a hardcore gamer. And Paizo wants to draw in the more casual gamers as well.

I'm sorry, but this is getting silly - you're a hardcore gamer if you read the rules of the game you're playing? After all, you need to reference the game material to level up - including that handy table which tells you what features you get each level...

nogoodscallywag wrote:

I have no idea what you mean. The three spell components are self-explanatory: Verbal, Somatic, and Material.

Verbal= speech
Somatic= hand movements
Material= use of material

If you take actions to remove verbal and somatic from a spell that includes all 3, the caster still has to use a material component, which means handling it in some fashion. Likely to be seen unless they've got a good sleight of hand, etc. or nobody is paying attention.

I believe it is to do with the element described in Ultimate Intrigue where all magic use has some form of sparkly bits (or whatever) that draw people's attention, regardless of Still Spell, Silent Spell or Eschew Materials (or even being Invisible, IIRC).

As with the Psychic casting components, having these spelled out in Core saves arguments later ;)

GeneticDrift wrote:
It would be cool to have example names that in world wizard schools use for spell levels. Circles, secrets, rune,....

Not a bad halfway house option - those who want to stick to RAW can use spell levels, while those who have players who get confused by this can use an appropriate term for the type of character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you did get George R. R. Martin to write material for Golarion, how many major NPCs would end up dead by the end of the first chapter?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laird IceCubez wrote:

Didn't Paizo said that they'd be porting all the 1E classes to 2E.

Does that mean that they'll port Vampire Hunter. :p

I really, really hope not.

Keep the anime knock-offs out of the game as much as possible, please.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
dysartes wrote:
swoosh wrote:
There are archetypes built with NPCs in mind that appear to intentionally be limiting to discourage PCs from using it themselves.
Some form of [NPC] tag on such archetypes would be a good move - not preventing PCs from taking them, but to make them aware that they're designed for NPCs, and may well not be as strong as the base class.

Not bad. It's almost exactly like what I'd thought up once, handling balance and verisimilitude at the same time.

It should be even better if you deliberately move them to the Bestiary, just like PF1's monster feats.

Eh, I'd prefer to avoid the confusion/arguments caused by whether PCs can take Monster feats, thank ye kindly ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
There are archetypes built with NPCs in mind that appear to intentionally be limiting to discourage PCs from using it themselves.

Some form of [NPC] tag on such archetypes would be a good move - not preventing PCs from taking them, but to make them aware that they're designed for NPCs, and may well not be as strong as the base class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know, I can think of three reasons to include Core spells off the top of my head:

- Make sure all [keyword] tags that have cropped up over versions are correctly applied to their spells.
- Include any errata that have arisen since the last printing.
- Update the Summon X lists to allow for the additional Bestiary books which have been released since Core.

I'm sure there are other benefits I'm not thinking of, as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Spiritualist, taking advantage of their incorporeal Phantom, perhaps?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Yeah, if you want to copy a Marvel character, you should at least copy someone cool - like Squirrel Girl! Every time you'd get back after missing a session, your GM would be like "During the events of last session, your character split with the party for a while and defeated <super powerful bad guy X>. Now she's back, but no details are given!"

FTFY - I'm fairly sure Doreen don't kill ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Omnius wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Also if the BBEG knows about the all powerful wizard who is single handedly beating all of his enemies, they will assuredly use mindwipe, spellcrash, night terrors or other effects to make the wizard less viable.
That is fully and freely admitting that one member of the party is SO OVERPOWERED that you have to look to them personally and declare rocks fall, you specifically die, you are no longer allowed to play. And that's TERRIBLE GMing, and a sign that the game is TERRIBLY balanced.

Firstly, Omnius, you really need to take a breath - when you've resorted to RANDOM caps LOCK to try to make a point, you've conceded defeat already.

Secondly, maintaining verisimilitude within the game world is not abusive GMing. Given the scenario posited by Gallant Armor above, an intelligent BBEG absolutely should be figuring out ways to target those he (or she) views as the biggest threat. If the few minions who get away are talking about the powerful wizard, that's who he'd be looking to target - and if they were talking about a might Fighter, a cunning Rogue, or a saintly Cleric as the biggest problem, I'd expect them to be the target instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
dysartes wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
But I'd like to see more Egyptian deities statted out for PF. I know that's very unlikely to happen, but a guy can dream.
When you say "statted out", I take it you don't mean statted out, but rather the deity blocks from the likes of Inner Sea Faiths, with Deific Obediences, Favoured Weapons, etc?
I think he or she means the latter ;)

That's what I was thinking/hoping, too - deities should never be at the mercy of the "If it has stats we can kill it" brigade.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
Quote:

what about bored grappled casters during a combat?

Hopefully it convinces the GM how dull and slow life gets when grapples appear

Or that the caster learns they need to have ways to deal with being grappled.

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>