imposeren's page

Are you sure that evolution on Golarion took the same path as on Earth? Maybe there are no arachnids on Golarion and only "arachnid-like insects" can befound.

Not sure if this is a error, but druid dedication feat says:

You can prepare two common cantrips each day from the primal spell list in this book or any other cantrips you learn or discover

Looks like "any other cantrips" implies that those two slots can be used to prepare even non-primal cantrips if you "learned them". This is either a "intended feature" for multiclass archetypes (e.g. this will allow wizard to prepare his wizard's cantrips using druid cantrips) OR description is not precise, e.g. it can be changed as following:

You can prepare two common cantrips each day from the primal spell list in this book or any other primal cantrips you learn or discover

Other spell-casting archetypes have the same issue.

P.S. Is it better to post here, or simply create issues on GitHub?

Similar to "creating new races" of first edition: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races/

I think that new ancestries can be built using similar approach. I'll use "Ancestry Points" (AP) to define costs of different features.

Costs:
* Base package (8 hp, 25 speed, Medium/Small size, a physical ability boost (STR/DEX/CON), a mental ability boost (INT/WIS/CHA), a free ability boost, an ability flaw, common language, their race's language): 0AP
* +5 speed: 2AP
* -5 speed: -2AP
* -2 HP: -1AP
* +2 HP: 1AP
* Darkvision: 4AP, or 2AP if applied as heritage on ancestry that already has low-light vision.
* Keen eyes: 4AP
* Bonus language: 1AP
* low-light vision: 2AP
* free boosts (without mental/physical restrictions, but just 2 boosts, and without flaw) and free language selection (instead of racial lang): 1…2AP (and 3…4AP cost for human heritages)

Some reasons to treat heritages as having "same cost":
* forge dwarf, arctic elf and snow goblin — all have equivalent bonuses, so heritages for these ancestries should be considered equal.
* seer elf is somewhat similar to gnome heritages with cantrips — so gnomes can be considered equal to elves, so they are equal to dwarves and goblins too.
* Gutsy halfling, death warden dwarf — are equal too, so halflings can be added to same list too
* "Half-orc" is similar to "Twilight Halfling", but "half-orc" also gives wider range of ancestry feats, so we can say that human heritages are a bit better than other heritages.

Final AP prices for each ancestry:
* Dwarves: Darkvision, +2HP, -5 speed — (4+1-2) AP=3 AP. (+2AP heritages)
* Elves: low light vision, -2HP, +5speed — (2-1+2) AP=3AP. (+2AP heritages)
* Gnomes: Extra language(Sylvan), low-light vision — 3AP. (+2AP heritages)
* Goblins: Darkvision, -2HP — 3AP. (+2AP heritages)
* Halflings: Keen Eyes, -2HP — 3AP. (+2AP heritages)
* Humans: 1…2AP. (+3…+4AP heritages).

Some restrictions should be in place when designing new ancestry:
* HP value should be in range from 6 to 10. If for some reason GM allows values beyond this range, then it's recommended to double or tripple point-costs of "steps beyond range" (so 4HP should be -3AP or -4AP, and 12HP should be 3AP or 4AP)
* Speed value should be in range from 20 to 30. Other values are not recommended at all even with increased AP costs.
* Only one feature with negative AP cost can be used for new ancestry

Heritages are tricky... Current heritages can be "generalized" to next options:
* Reaction to get +1 circumstance bonus to saves restricted by some condition
* Typed energy resistance equal to half your level, and environmental effects downgrade
* Constant +2 circumstance bonus to saves restricted by some condition (more strict condition than one used for reaction-based heritage)
* Choose magical tradition and gain one cantrip.
* Some other ancestral feature that costs 2AP (normal-sight → low-light vision, low-light → darkvision, etc.)
* Something similar to general or skill feat, but a bit better. For example Nomadic halfling is similar to "Multilingual" feat, but also boost that same feat.
* Gain natural attack (like goblins)
* Some other "custom features" specific to ancestry

Custom ancestral feats are a bit trickier to formalize, but generally:
* They should be equivalent to existing ancestral or general feats.
* 1st level feats might be equivalent to "ancestry feature" with 1AP or 2AP cost, or to some heritage effect (which should generally cost 2AP). For example "Orc Superstition" feat is similar to Dwarven heritage "Ancient Blooded Dwarf".

How to design "powerful ancestries"? This one is still a mystery...
* Maybe such races should be allowed to have more than one feature with negative AP cost, so they would be able to take more "powerful" features.
* Maybe such races should only be allowed for characters that start on third level or greater, with a mandatory requirement to take "Ancestral paragon" as a general feat on third level

What do you think of this? Are there any issues?

P.S. By treating human heritages more powerful than heritages of other races I enforce treating "other halves" (halfling-half-orc) as overpowered. This can be solved in 2 ways:
* "other" base ancestry should already have low-light vision or darkvision to be allowed taking half-elf or half-orc heritage
* or human heritages should be treated as equal to other heritages (and so "free boosts selection and free language selection" cost should be set to 3AP)

imposeren wrote:

Another stupid question:

> Duration: until the next time you make your daily preparations
Can we kill the caster to make "light" permanent? :)

"If you are dead or otherwise incapacitated at the 24-hour mark after the time you Cast the Spell or the last time you extended its duration, the spell ends" - Page 305 under Long Durations.

I was actually a bit surprised this was covered by the rules but I did some searching and here it is.

We still can put the caster into coma or keep him unable to make preparations for the rest of his life in some other way. Will this make light "permanent" while the caster is alive?

So this rule about targets does not apply to "non-creature targets"? Then what if target "becomes a creature"?

For example (very synthetic but whatever): someone starts a ritual to make an animated object. In the middle of the ritual someone casts "light" on object. Will light end after object becomes animated?

Another stupid question:
> Duration: until the next time you make your daily preparations
Can we kill the caster to make "light" permanent? :)

Target of light cantrip:
> 1 unattended, non-magical object of 1 Bulk or less.

And description fo "target" for spells says:
> If a creature starts as a valid target but ceases to be one during a spell’s duration, the spell typically ends, but the GM may decide otherwise in certain situations.

So what is intention here? Do authors want to make "lighted" objects not movable? Or this is simply an oversight?

1. Why expert proficiency in weapons on level 5? This makes warlock "as good as rogue/champion". I think it should be more like bard
2. Why not make eldritch blast a cantrip? You also use "counts as a weapon" similar to Playtest description of unarmed attacks of monk. This was removed after playtest, so I think it's better to remove it here too. So:
* maybe convert it to cantrip and remove "as weapon". I think that having "WARLOCK EXPERTISE" is enough. Maybe you can add "Warlock's feat" to simulate "WEAPON SPECIALIZATION" on eldritch blast (not everyone uses blast, but you are effectively making at as good as weapons, that is not very just and makes "weapon warlocks" less attractive than caster warlocks)
3. Hexblade patron: too good (e.g. ruffian rogue only gets "armor" without martial weapons). Maybe remove martial weapons proficiency, but allow to choose specific "patron's weapon"(or category that matches weapon specializations)
4. I'm feeling some concerns on how PactBoon/Patron interacts. Essentially this makes warlock to be similar both to rogue/champion subclasses and to "cleric/sorcerer" bloodlines/deity. So warlock has "two subclassing ways" that effectively allows to choose from 3*NumPatrons options... But I really don't know how to fix this, because that kind of "several branches and several sub-branches" might be considered a "feature of warlock"... But actually you can make "pact of the tome" and pact of chain into "warlock feats"... And pact of blade can be made into "focus spell" because it gives similar benefits as some "Morphs" of Druid (at least in aspects like "treat as magical")
5. "LIGHTNING REFLEXES". Does any other class receive progression of saves from trained to expert? Also this is kind of pointless because it just mimicks "Cunny Acumen feat". Maybe just give him "Deny advantage" like rogue and barbarian get?
6. Many feats feel more like "focus spells" rather than like feats...

Correct url

At low levels you don't really have to convert much. APs use a lot of DC 10, 15, or 20 checks. Just use those as written. The skill bonus for a trained or expert skill is virtually identical to a PF1 class skill with Max ranks.

By mid-levels you might see some DC 25 checks that you COULD bump up to DC 30 but probably shouldn't.

By high levels it may get a little wonky, but that's because high level skill DCs in PF1 aren't worth much as a usable barometer of chance of success. The variance in skill bonuses is just too high. So you might as well use it there as written too, haha.

Good points. Even if someone is going to use formulas that I've proposed, it can be clearly seen final delta of +5 on high-levels is not a big deal.

With very "linear" and easy conversion (or no changes to DC at all for low levels), I think that it's more important to take into account some nuances of second edition before making any changes to DCs:
* "trained" skills progression for second edition is the same as it was in first edition: +3..+23 in both cases
* At levels 3, 7, 14 second edition characters will have some extra "specialization focus gap" for several chosen skills by improving their proficiency level in some skills.
* Abilities growth is more prominent in second edition, and makes it easier to maximize primary attribute, without worrying too much about over-specialization (because each time character gains abilities boosts, player is forced to increase 4 different abilities). So difference of "min-max" character against "jack-of-all trades" will be even more prominent in second edition at higher levels.
* One might think that above points should be taken as arguments in favor of increasing "hard DCs" as a way to compensate for this "focusing induced gap in skills efficiency", but:
  - Changes to abilities progression and to skills progression together make it possible to "focus" some aspects of player's character to make her/him stand out when compared to other "unfocused characters". And I think that this is one of the greatest things about second edition: players will have much more confidence about their character efficiency in chosen areas. For example bonus at 20th level will be at least 25% better when comparing legendary vs trained proficiencies, and if one accounts for greater ability value of focused character over ability value for "jack-of-all-trades", then difference will be around 35-50%
  - Most characters (except for rogues) will have at most 3 legendary skills, or if they want some diversity, then it will be 1-2 legendary skills with several master or expert skills.
  - Allowing 3 skill-areas of a character to be "that much better" is not a big deal, and should be considered a good motivation for players to plan their party areas of skill expertise to cover weak areas of one another.
* Summary: maybe one should not make any compensations for how faster skills grow in second edition or for how faster abilities grow and simply use DC from first edition without any changes as suggested by Captain Morgan.

Just a reminder: as mentioned in earlier posts, this is only relevant for skill DCs and perception DCs! Progression of save bonuses is very different between editions, and while it's possible to simply scale things proportionally (bonuses +0..+10 to +3..28; DCs 10..20 to 13..38 ), it's still way too rough, because not only "scale" changed in second edition, but the difference between "good" and "bad" saves is changed dramatically: 2 times difference in first edition and 1.3 times difference in second edition.

Generally you can guess the conversion by comparing ranges of bonuses gained at different levels in both editions. This works for anything, not just skills.

Skill DCs:
* PF1 bonuses: +0..+23
* PF2 bonuses: +0..+28
* DC conversion: DC₂ₑ = 10 + (DC₁ₑ − 10)×28/23 ~= 10 + (DC₁ₑ − 10)×1.22

Save DCs (purely from bonuses, so this is against effects that are not based on opponents level, e.g. environment effects, hazards, etc):
* PF1 bonuses: +0..+12
* PF2 bonuses: +0..+28
* DC conversion: DC₂ₑ = 10 + (DC₁ₑ − 10)×28/12 ~= 10 + (DC₁ₑ − 10)×2.33

Save DCs (based on DC formulas in both versions, so this are DCs against effects based on opponent level, e.g. creature ability DCs):
* PF1 bonuses: +0..+10 (half the level)
* PF2 bonuses: +3..+28 (full level and trained-legendary proficiencies)
* DC conversion: DC₂ₑ = 10 + 3 + (DC₁ₑ − 10)×(28−3)/10 = 13 + (DC₁ₑ − 10)×2.5

Last formula can also be used to convert AC values of monsters:
AC₂ₑ = 13 + (AC₁ₑ − 10)×2.5

And can be adapted to convert Save bonuses of monsters:
* If PF1 value is 4 or greater: SaveBonus₂ₑ= 2 + (SaveBonus₁ₑ − 2.5)×2.5 [mathematical rounding]
* If PF1 value is 1–3: SaveBonus₂ₑ=SaveBonus₁ₑ

P.S. This all works correctly for DCs/ACs that are greater than or equal to 10

"Climb" has some reference to footholds and handholds in both editions: PF1 reference, PF2 reference

So:
* PF2 Legendary DC is PF1 DC=30
* PF2 Master DC is PF1 DC=25
* PF2 Expert DC is PF1 DC=15 or DC=20
* Others are not so clear

But "honest direct conversion" is impossible. You can do something like this:
* "Untrained DCs" (0-10, maybe 0-12): PF2 = PF1, or maybe PF2 = PF1 - 2
* "Trained DCs" (11-15 or 13-16): PF2=PF1, maybe PF2=PF1-1
* "Expert DCs" (16-20 or 17-21): PF2=PF1+2, maybe PF2=PF1+1
* "master DCs" (21-25 or 22-26): PF2=PF1+4, maybe PF2=PF1+3
* "legendary DCs" (26-30 or 27-31): PF2=PF1+6, maybe PF2=PF1+5
* "epic DCs": no way to guess correct conversion, maybe just keep them as is.

But this way you will never get some DC values when converting PF1→PF2 (like 16-17, 21-22, 26-27 for first versions of DC ranges)

I understand that this might be "a window" for combining class-archetype
(that are not yet available) and multiclass-archetypes: e.g. when some class archetype enables unarmed attacks improvements.

Still, the general problem is "bad" efficiency of unarmed oriented multiclass archetypes for classes that have no progression of unarmed attacks proficiency:
* Monk archetype is only good for: barbarian, druid.
* "Wild order" oriented druid archetype (with focus on attacking shapes/morphs) is only good for: monk, barbarian.
* Both archetypes are far less usable to other combat oriented classes because they do not have progression to "expert or master proficiency of unarmed attacks. Fighter is a bit better case because she starts with expert, but still lacks "master" proficiency

page 182 (Rogue) Possible error:

* Weapon Specialization (lvl 7) states:
> with weapons and unarmed attacks in which you are an expert

* But default rogue features do not allow to get expert in unarmed attacks, because "Weapon Tricks" and "Master Tricks" do not mention "Unarmed attacks"

This might be intentional (but still I can't find a way to get expert unarmed attacks for rogue through any archetype), but this makes "multiclass druid archetype" of "Wild order" far less usable than other orders.

Maybe at least "Ruffian" Rogue should gain expert/master proficiency in unarmed attacks? (this can be described the same way "automatic medium armor progression" is described for Ruffian Rogue")

The same problem is relevant to "multiclass Monk archetype" (good for Druid and Barbarian, but bad for fighter, ruffian rogue, champion)

Why not include TEML values as a faint numbers right in each entry? Like this:
https://imgur.com/a/m1tnb2L