I just want to point out that the manipulate trait never required an open hand in the playtest
playtest rulebook pg416 wrote:
the only thing that changed was somatic no longer requiring a free hand.
Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream!
because you if you start off as a non-storm druid, join it's order later by order explorer (which does not include a focus spell or bonus focus point you get from starting in it) you have 2 points with wind caller, then 3 when you get up to invoke disaster
I think your math is off hereAC=10+proficiency+dex mod (up to armor check penalty)+ armor+armor potency runes
Unarmored ac 33 = 10+17(level+expert)+4(dex)+0(armor)+2(runes)
Leather ac 32=10 + 15(level+trained) +4(dex cap)+1(armor)+2(runes)
Also, I wished canny accumen did something between when you gain Expert normally and when it gave master so it wasn't deadweight for almost half the game in some cases.
If a focus spell wasn't tied to the base classes tradition, then you wouldn't benefit from any increases to the base classes proficiency with that tradition, plus both champions and monks specify that their focus spells are divine, and divine or occult respectively. Since they are the only focus casters that don't have a preexisting spellcasting tradition, they are the only ones that have to specifically specify what tradition the focus spells are.
Knight of Whispers wrote:
What you want is either +level/5, +level/3, or what ever rate works for you. It's easier than looking at relative levels and as long as everything uses the same rate, it won't radically change things more than any other variant of +level. Cause if you think of about it, +level to everything is the same as you gain +1/-1 for every level difference between you and the target. (think getting a +6 vs the target getting +7 from level vs taking a -1 penalty due to relative level)
Clases don't get fixed features on even levels, they get a class feat and a skill feat (plus skill increase for rogue, but that's a seperate case) and maybe an ability score boost.
They were talking about preparing magic missile, not force bolt
You can take the order spell multiclass archetype feat that gives you your chosen order's spell
it also mentions no additional modifiers, so that ability scores not being bonuses isn't relevant
Core rulebook pg 258 wrote:
Even in the worst circumstances, you can perform basic tasks. Choose a skill you’re trained in. You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus (do not apply any other bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).
A few questions about the u armored armor options
First, in the armor alternative sidebar in the armor section, it mentions that bracers of armor have no dex cap, yet the actual block has a dex cap, so which is correct?
If the bracers do have a dex cap, what is the reason to use them over explorers clothes with runes? They have the same bulk and bracers are 8th level so it takes longer to be able to gain them.
Finally, do explorers clothes count as being unarmored for things like monk abilities?
The trick is you are looking it reverse of how the system looks at it. You are looking at "How much XP is fighting three of these monsters worth" while the system is set up for "You gain XP for a moderate encounter that happens to have three of these monsters" basically the monster isn't worthy any XP, the encounter is what is worth the XP.
Think of it this way, you have Monster XP, which is how many monsters a given difficulty allows for but has nothing to do with player XP. It just happens to be that for parties of 4 that monster XP is the same as player XP.
Its much easier to add random hazards and monsters to an encounter than recalculate the xp value of the same encounter for a differing party size
So my group got one of our books and looking through it, I see a confusion point unresolved from the playtest. Certain spells have the Attack Trait but make no mention of any attack roll to be made. This includes Abyssal plague, Chill touch, Death Knell, Ghoulish Cravings, Goblin Pox, Mariner's Curse, Outcastes Curse, Spider Sting, Savor the Sting, Touch of Undeath, and Force Bolt. Each spell makes no mention of making any attack, but has the attack trait and has saving throw (with the exception of force bolt) and is usually touch range. So does the attack trait imply that you have to make an attack? Cause if that is the case, force bolt, which is basically a single magic missile, doesn't make any sense. But on the other hand, spells like spider sting would be automatically dealing piercing damage with no mitigation without any attack rolls.
Also, since most a touch spells, I copied out the following from the book on touch spells an attack rolls
"You can usually touch the target automatically, though the spell might specify that the target can attempt a saving throw or that you must attempt a spell attack roll"
Also, if spider sting has the attack trait, probably so should purple worm sting
It might be nice for the general feat to increase your weapon Prof to expert when you get your class bump. But no further. Remember that's wizard actually has to take the feat twice to get martial, since they aren't already trained in all simple weapons.
But if that does, the fighter dedication and it's expert weapons feat would need an increase. Probably similar scaling on the dedication and raising the level of the later but letting you get to master profency
XP is not divided in pf2. Everyone gets the same XP, which is the encounter budget before any modifiers due to additional players. Effectively, players don't gain xp based upon the monsters in the encounter, but rather the encounter's difficulty for the party size and level. So if it was a 80 xp encounter, all players gain 80 xp, even if you had to add in an extra 20 xp of monsters to adjust for a 5th player
If you want to link it to relfex, I say it'd be better to treat your targets reflex DC as the AC (before circumstance and status modifeirs) against the gun's attack roll than making it a reflex save. It's probably the closest thing the system gets to touch ac in flavor (outside of magic, armor doesn't it boost it so it's based upon your raw dex but also tends to have higher profency so it's not radically out of line). That said, I like the idea that guns are similar to bombs in that they deal damage on fail (but not crit fail) and I warn against too high of reload as in most cases the cost is to much as compared to the benefits.
I could see it done via a condition, making it binary instead of a pool. So assuming that they combine into a single class, you could have the Daring condition, which many feats and features key off of, then choose a daring drive which adds some basic features to the daring condition and links it to a mental stat (Wis for a grit drive, Charisma for Panache). Maybe even make a special Dare action that makes you daring in exchange for a short term penalty, like taking extra damage or penalties to certain checks until the start of your next turn, so you aren't at the risk of not being able to become daring but still need to weigh the cost to use abilities that require you to lose the condition.
on the topic of slots, there is also the fact that focus (formaly spell points) can be recovered mid day, meaning powers are more reusable as well. So you have cantrips for your defaults, powers for more boring but practical effects and your slots for more potent effects, especially with your highest level slots.
I could see a compromise where a campaign hook is like a background archetypes replacing either the lore, skill feat, skill training(which devs have confirmed are now part of backgrounds) or ability score choices of an existing background. So a mindquake survivor replaces their background lore and skill feat, but keeps the rest from their chosen base background.
Honestly, it was looking at the monsters in the playtest that really won me over. I've been on 5e for a while and even did some small dev work for some third parties and while I understood their monsters pretty well, they particularly struck me with blandness. I can really see that removing the attacks of opportunity left open the design space for some really cool abilities that changed the mechanical texture in ways that really help break up combat monotony
I think that there is also a psychological component to why perception is considered to be so vital. It's a fear of missing out. Ignoring traps for the moment, people usually hate feeling like they have missed out on something and perception disproportionately helps counter that feeling. I have had a group once tear a chair to pieces just because they thought it had some secret in it. So often if they are faced with a choice of either taking perception or feeling like they will be not experiencing the entire adventure, they will choose the former, so they made it compete with class features instead of skill choices.
The trick is, trained is the "normal" assumption. Think of it this way, if you don't know how to drive a car, are actually going to try to drive one? So the game assumes that you roll unmodified level cause you are typically doing things you are trained at, and on those ocations where you are, it penalized you for moving outside of your area of basic expertise.
So to reverse things, do you need the cs/s/f/cf written out for every attack? Cause I see little difference in the standard rules here. If a spell does damage and nothing but damage, there isn't a need to repeat the same info over again. And if it doesn't have just damage, then you put the results which imo is more clear and less likely to be glossed over, since it has a higher signal to noise ratio