Reposition has the attack trait.
That means it cannot be used on an ally in combat, correct?
How does this compromise sound...
A PC can auto succeed a reposition of an ally by using a manipulate action.
Search Posts
i run all my adventure paths to the highest level available and then to level 21 so my players can experience at least one session at level 20. Unfortunately I think the game breaks down and bogs down at such high levels in heavy favor of the PCs.
holy s$#%, that Fan Content Policy is out of this world. More reasons that Paizo is one of the best companies for fans.
Enemy has a spell effect on that still has rounda left. Spellwrack is cast on it. Does spellwrack work on thst spell or only on spells cast after spellwrack is cast
You should really consider calming down and let your players feel free to ask questions about game mechanics when the rules as written can't possibly be written like a code of law. That's how players learn the game and learn to the love the game. This works better then being talked down to about preconceived notions. There a ton of other posters here who just spell out the rules as written and quote the rules and whatever else sustains their interpretation. This works and always suffices in my experience as a GM. Of course players will try their best to game the system, that's why this system is fun. It's a push and pull that works when we have forums to talk things out. Being rude and condescending isn't it, chief.
I agree. I'm the GM in this case and thought the attack is considered magical due to using the spell attack roll. SO @Finoan, maybe next time time have some respect about your own "preconceived notions." I pride myself on listening to my players and considering their opinions on rules as written in this realm of gaming rules, something I've been doing for nearly 30 years. I would argue that the fluff text argument is incorrect. The so-called "fluff text" is the first sentence that has direct rules in it, so it isn't "fluff." "You hurl a loose, unattended object that is within range and that has 1 Bulk or less at the target."
I don't think it's convoluted at all, because the telekinetic projectile is a piece of normal, mundane item found in the environment already. It's no different than shooting an arrow from a bow. The rock doesn't do any magical damage whatsoever.
Hello! Do ya'll think a a mundane rock that has been telekinetically projectiled at an opponent who sits in a Dispelling Globe would have a chance to be "dispelled" with a counteract check? Globe: You create an immobile globe around yourself. It attempts to counteract any spell from outside the globe whose area or targets enter into it, as if the globe were a dispel magic spell 1 rank lower than its actual spell rank. If the counteract attempt succeeds, it prevents only the portion of the spell that would have entered the globe (so if the spell also has targets outside the globe, or part of its area is beyond the globe, those targets or that area are affected normally). You must form the sphere in an unbroken open space, so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost (though creatures can enter the globe after the spell is cast). I'm thinking the rock would get right in because it's only being propelled at first by magic, and is not magic in and of itself. The word "targets" is what is tripping me up a bit, however.
Hello! Just wanted to see if this is correct. For flying straight up, it looks like it takes 1 action to do the flight straight up manuever with an acrobatics roll, then 1 Anton to move your speed straight up. Since rules say straight up it's difficult terrain, does the below example look ok? PC spends 3 actions: 1st action is a successfull acrobatics check for manuever.
What y'all think?
I just finished up my 4th adventure path this week using PF 2 rules. I, and my players, have come to the conclusion that spellcasters in general are weak compared to melee builds and that it is far more disheartening to play a spellcaster then a melee build due to the lack of repeatable actions. For instance, spells and slots don’t last, but a melee can swing away all day long. Melees can miss twice and still get an opportunity to attack a third time. Most casters don’t. I’ve been playing this and DnD since the 1990’s and have seen how the rules grow and adapt, and I think I can confirm through my experience and time playing in Pathfinder Society that spellcasters are not as good- or fun- to play. Wizards are my favorite class to play and we are system masters of this and previously PF1. So we know what we are doing and talking about and coming at this from a purely balance perspective rather than “we hate casters” or “we hate martials.” I don’t really want to invite the rehashing of “wizards are nerfed” or “wizards are OP.” There are plenty of posts for that. I just wanted to share my 2 cents after playing PF 2 for 4 years and seeing this play out by my own characters and others’. There’s got to be away to bring parity to spellcasters in 2E. The melee characters in my campaigns do tons of damage over what any spellcaster can do in a couple of rounds. Meanwhile, the casters, if their spell goes off, are limited to small dice, no DC buffs, and one-time use spell and save. Unless the caster just wants to give out buffs all day to allies and just sit and watch. I’m not talking about the parity of damage, even. I’m referring to the fact that casters use to have spells that could produce a powerful effect. These effects have, indeed, been diminished in PF 2. Our experience over the 4 years have shown to us (6 of us in total) that there is a problem with balance between casters and martials. I don’t know how to fix it, but I’m hoping the people at Paizo will seriously look at these issues and bring back some parity.
Wait, what is this. At first I thought this was a new magazine on offer! I would certainly sub!
I sure do miss those days. Would love to see a return in an in-person PaizoCon next year.
Need to put this on BGG
Hello! Will the Special on Saturday night be the same format as in the past? i.e., multiple combats where progression is determined via the entire room?
YES! 100% agree that adventures are worth it. I am a GM regularly, so I buy them, but if I'm playing with someone else who is going to GM, I'll it for them!
I really think it is down to Gozreh or Gorum now. Neither of these two, in my humble opinion, have a ton of fans like Sarenrae or Shelyn, and their domains can easily be transferred or not without too much issue. I also thought, " well, the god dying is what sparks the war..." but I'm not so sure now. There must be something else planned for the spark of the war, and I think that probably has to do with Zon Kuthon. The deaths will just be a result of that war, not the impetus. Also to note, it's the "War of the Immortals." I'm not too familiar with Greek mythology, but were Titans also immortal? Maybe the War isn't between the core gods as we know them, but between them and something else? The Whispering Tyrant has been trying for a very long time to ascend, too... Another avenue I often miss is Arazni. She's hell bent on revenge, after all. Maybe there is a war without a clean resolution, resulting in some sort of deal being struck with her? I also think the new class tells us a lot about what major god will die, maybe it is better to have more neutral gods like Gorum and Gozreh be the one of whom dies and rains down their godly mana. Otherwise, say a good god like Iomadae dies, it would be strange for a PC to have some of her mana. Same thing as Lamashtu...could you see a new player asking where the god mana comes from for their class and being told it comes from dead god Lamashtu? I dunno, just coming at this from that angle is all. My money would be on Gorum, now. What better god to provide mana for PCs as "warriors" than the god of war? I hope it's not Torag, if only for the reason that he was mentioned first a couple of years ago as being the one to die. I'm so glad Paizo gave us a 10th god that was one of the widely speculated to die. Shows they are definitely paying attention to the fans, as usual!
Does Paizo have any way to print this edition? I'd be glad to pay!
Interesting notion, seems like if Urgathoa loses, everyone does.Which makes no sense. Why would she be a stopper in something she wants? Easy- because she wants to savor all the stuff she does over time.
I understand why a lot people don't like the "new" dying rules, but since PF2 began they've been a point of contention, especially because it became apparent that there were 2 version of the rules and it wasn't clear which one won out. Until now. I, for one, enjoy the final codification because it's certainly the way, I believe as do many others (including some devs) the way the wounded/dying rules were actually meant to work. That being said, it's your game, just keep the old rules! In my experience, PF2 is not deadly at all and it's tough to challenge the players. It will make hero points more important and force players to keep that one stocked away just in case they go down to stabilize.
I just completed an AP with one of my players using a Thaumaturge. They were very powerful offensively if the creature they fought has a weakness. However, they often were the first player to go down in a combat, too. At higher level, the player was able to extend the benefit of his advantage to weakness to other players. All in all, a cool class that was able to do a lot of damage with one strike during a round. I was hoping for more talisman utilization, though, but that was a player preference and it appears the new Exemplar class may do this?
Have to add my experience into this debate now that I've played PF2e, mainly as a GM but also as a player, since the playtest and GM'd 4 Adventure Paths (one converted from 1e). Note that my group has remained the same for years and we play, literally, every weekend. Obviously, groups may vary. We tend toward maximization in combat for the most part, but are also good at figuring out how to be good at everything (social encounters). It is quite clear that martial character are far better at damaging opponents than casters. Over the course of a battle, a martial can impart 3 or 4 times as much damage as a caster trying to impart damage. So if anyone is looking for a game that provides casters with the ability to match or even come close to martials in damage production, PF2 ain't it. That being said, casters have other strengths. However, it requires system mastery to make an above average caster. There are plenty of utility spells that are still effective and a ton of good area-of-effect debuffs. But...other spells that impose cool effects work, maybe 45% of the time with full effect. This is demoralizing to caster players and people should know this ahead of time. It can be very boring to play a caster- lack of spells per day and automatic betterment of attack and DC causing this, in our opinion, after these 3-4 years. It is incredibly difficult to compare martials with casters. They do very different things. It is incredibly rare that a single caster could ever hope to take a single martial. I'd rather see a better parity in the game for casters. It's my hope the new remaster can address this. My group has discussed this and would love to see more feat options for spellcasters and spells which utilize different action costs like heal/harm. Once again, these opinions have come from playing this game since it came out, including all the years of PF1. It's clear to use that martials do more damage in terms of hit points than casters over a combat encounter (which is ok with us), but the comparable percentage is something we'd like to see higher. For instance, if a fighter can deal 100 points of damage over the course of an encounter, we'd like to see a wizard be able to impart 60, at least, if they are specialized in such things. This has not been the case with our group over these years. If a caster wanted to not be a damager, than allow options to increase their ability to debuff or apply other effects. Many times effects are negated or dulled due to high saving throws/low DCs. Martials also have the ability to have incredible armor classes, furthering their ability to dominate a battle. Combined with a lot of abilities to utilize the superbly wonderful 3-action system (not hyperbole, this system is awesome), it's more fun for a lot of players to be martials instead of casters. It's also our hope that new options for current classes come out more, rather than just new classes. Support for existing classes is a must and something we miss from PF1.
A monk, on their turn: During their first action of moving, falls off a ledge. Bottom of ground they are falling to is 800 ft. down. Fails Geab an Edge reaction. Monk still has 2 actions left. Can they use one action to activate Wind Jump to gain a fly speed and then use the final action to fly up an amount? Or is the Monk's turn ended suddenly, falling the 500 feet for the round as the rules might imply?
That's too bad
I also don't see a lot of utility in moving 500 feet straight down. It's not a very useful direction. Because the cost is zero to move 500 ft. The fact that everyone refuses to see that means something.
My initial concern still stands: 500 feet of movement for zero actions is just silly- and yes, I mean FREE. A flyer can simply choose NOT to fly. It then begins falling and falls 500 feet FOR FREE. It doesn't matter what happens to it at the end of that fall, the point is the 500 feet is free movement.
I made an edit above but it didn't go through because someone was replying, fyi. Example: Dragon's turn. Do not fly. Fall 500 feet. Reaction to arrest fall. This puts the dragon on the ground next to its enemy. RAW does not state the creature's turn ends after falling. So either its turn ends after arresting the fall or it then gets actions, which it can simply use to fly back up out of reach of enemy but within its own reach.
For instance, a flying creature can't fly 100 feet high out of harm's way, then take a Free Action to simply fall (heck, or even a single action) 100 feet for no movement cost at all. That makes no balance sense. Ok, to get away from the bs, let's say: A dragon is 500 feet in the air. On its turn, it does not take a fly action. It would then fall. As an action, it could arrest its fall after falling far enough to get within striking range. Moving over 400 feet for free. My main issue is with the fact that "falling" movement is done for free, when, in the past, (I've been playing DnD and PF for 30 years) it's been ruled that creatures should not get "free" movement. You can hover as an action. All I'm saying is that a dragon, or any other creature, can move, by falling, for free. Yay for dragons.
My main issue is with the fact that "falling" movement is done for free, when, in the past, (I've been playing DnD and PF for 30 years) it's been ruled that creatures should not get "free" movement. Still haven't answered the question as to why you can't move your full movement plus the mount's full movement.
The flyer is "controlling" the distance fell by arresting their fall at the moment they choose. My main issue is with the fact that "falling" movement is done for free, when, in the past, (I've been playing DnD and PF for 30 years) it's been ruled that creatures should not get "free" movement. That's the key difference I'm talking about here...falling movement out of CHOICE v. falling movement out non-choice. I'm fine with allowing my dragons to movement 500 feet for free and then making an easily-succeeded Acrobatics roll as a reaction, a fly action to fly back up to within reach, then, make a reach attack twice or a breath weapon!
My main issue is with the fact that "falling" movement is done for free, when, in the past, (I've been playing DnD and PF for 30 years) it's been ruled that creatures should not get "free" movement. For instance, a flying creature can't fly 100 feet high out of harm's way, then take a Free Action to simply fall (heck, or even a single action) 100 feet for no movement cost at all. That makes no balance sense. @shroudb, a flyer can fall and doesn't have to "move" downwards, according to some interpretations! It's similar to movement while riding a mount. A mounted character doesn't get their 3 actions to move their character's speed, then have their mount also take their 3 actions to also take 3 strides. The principle is the same. Perhaps the "act" of falling should simply be 1 action with the move trait?
There is a difference, but a flying creature can willfully stop flying, and fall that distance, and arrest his stop if he wants.
IF the player is at the top of the building they'd have to spend some sort of movement to move off the edge, but falling is just falling. There's no reason the actual act of falling would cost you any movement. So a dragon who is flying can basically choose to move 500 feet down for free since it's "falling." That makes no sense
A player is at the top of a building that is 20 feet tall. This player wants to jump off the building and fall to the ground. The player has a movement of 15, but claims falling doesn't count as movement. Seems to me this has counted as movement in the past, but I'm having a hard time finding hard rules for this. What is to prevent a PC from literally moving 500 feet for free while falling?
Can a caster dimension door into the air?
Good morning, I just wanted to check my math on this, seems high: 6th Level Psychic, INT +4 mod Has the Subconscious Mind ability, Silent Whisper. All cantrips heightened. Given: Daze cantrip ability. You can daze from a great distance. The range increases to 120 feet. Your daze also gains the following amp. Amp Your spell cracks the target's mental defenses, leaving it susceptible to further psychic attack. The spell's damage changes to 1d10. If the target fails its Will save, until the end of its next turn, it gains weakness 1 to mental damage and takes a –1 status penalty to Will saves. On a critical failure, the weakness is 3 (in addition to the target being stunned 1). The weakness applies before daze deals damage.
Math check on damage output: Daze Cantrip normally does mental damage of 4. Heightened, it becomes 1d6+4. Amped, it gets the damage changed to 1d10. So it now becomes 1d10+4. However, Amping it up gets 2d10 each, so this now becomes 6d10+4?
Just to be clear, it doesn't matter what you're dying value is. When you come back from dying condition, you only gain 1 wounded value. For instance, if you have no conditions and get critically hit and go to zero, you are dying 2. If you're then healed for 1 hit point, you lose the dying 2 condition and only have wounded 1 condition. Edit: but if you are wounded 1 already, and then gain the dying condition, you then are dying 2, or 3 if a crit took you down.
The Drow finally took up the offer to abandon the world of Golarion!
I think in a court of law the Remaster would be version PF 2.5, but I don't care what it's called. Who cares if it's a new version of a game we like if it's improved, especially when the basic rules will be available online and we are able to change anything we want to suit our home games? I think it'll be an improved version, and this is an opportune time to capitalize on a project like this (a Remaster). I do understand the Remaster version will negate/errata-ish a lot of my previous books and cause some confusion about what's legal and not, but I really believe GMs can work through some of that. I realize it's hard to keep supporting a company, though, that puts out major changes (new editions) to a beloved system every 5 years, and Paizo will have to do deal with this, but this one time I think we can accept the move Paizo is making to capitalize on the ORC system and the WotC fiasco. I know I personally want more Pathfinder 2e players and want to continue to play and have supported content. I also think fans and Paizo people should also be able to accept some constructive criticism and understand fans' feelings on the matter without locking thread and being snarky, as I've seen in other posts. But fans should also not make it personal. People like James Jacobs and Jason Buhlman have put their heart and souls into Pathfinder (as have many a player and GM like myself) and I hope everyone can accept that we are all working through this to get to a better outcome for the game. The forums are a great way for fans to critique some of the rules and it's wonderful when devs actually reply with their reasoning. Paizo is a leader in the aspect, and it's my opinion the posters here have a lot to offer. Man, the Alchemist class is such a pain to get right! I'm fine with the Nephilim; we can just specify as an aside what "sort" of * characters are, i.e. my character is a tiefling, etc. I also like the spell schools and 3-18 stats, but also know with certainty they have no real in-game impact, so getting rid of those for something new is fine with me, especially if it helps intuitiveness and continuity. Lore issue has already been thoroughly discussed. Regarding focus issues- I'm not familiar with any issues with focus, my table has never had any. Maybe we missed something somewhere that's an issue? Regarding previous APs: these are still playable, even with new editions, with some GM work. I have run exclusively all PF 1 APs so far with 2E (currently on Strange Aeons). Just takes time to convert some things, but the 2E rules makes monster creation a breeze. I am slightly concerned about the new changes being playtested...has anyone seen info on this? Finally, I'm hoping spellcasters get a feat that can bump up offensive spell DC by at least 1 (yes, I know using debuffs is a round about way to do this).
The new non-Reynolds art is fan-effing-fantastic!
100% this. People saying the changes are all OGL are not correct. However, people at Paizo have always stated the bothersome ideas of the Drow, hence the lack of publications and stories that include them. It's been a thing with Paizo for a long time.
They can't just call it "Pathfinder Second Edition". This is an edition change from everything discussed in the live stream. It might retain backwards compatibility, but it is an edition change. It's not just errata and formatting changes. They can call their product anything they want. After looking at it all, it doesn’t appear to be significant rules changes, just term changes. I do tend to agree with you a bit, however. Perhaps an Edition 2.1 with the changes. But I don't really care what they call it, as long as the game continues to improve over time. No more alignment? At long freaking last!!! Huzzah and hurray!!! Multiple devs have stated that alignment is still a thing, but it will be dealt with as it should be dealt with, not the stark binary-type system used in the past. Which is fine by me. I've always wanted an evil "paladin" or a rogue who worshipped an assassin go that could benefit from divine abilities and spells. It's pretty clear the 9-factor alignment will still be a thing, especially for lore purposes (cosmic organization). If I'm incorrect, please point this out. I do believe there is a widespread fundamental misunderstanding of how alignment works as a mechanic and I think Paizo has and will get this right, especially regarding the whole ambiguity of good/evil. Ability Scores are out. Modifiers only. I don't know how I feel about this. It's been long coming over the years and hinted at. I do like the fact that, as a GM, I can look at something's ability scores and immediately gain knowledge about that creature, but also know I can gain the same thing from the modifiers. Ability scores themselves are such a solid feature of RPGs it's hard to imagine them being gone. I used to love ADnD 2e's books that broke down abilities into further sub-abilities, though, so I can see a lot of potential for design space. Within the last month, I spent over $1000 on books to switch my group over to Pathfinder. This feels like a slap in the face. It does seem like awful timing for Paizo to be trying to capture DnD players after the fiasco, but this would have had to have been planned far in advance and I suspect that Paizo is working furiously to get this done in good time to capture those DnD players and create their ORC environment. I can fully understand that people feel bait and switched, and I hope Paizo can help ease this- especially when many people buy into the community in general, not just the physical product. I would tell those who have made the switch and purchased their PF2 books that the lore contained in the books is still 100% valid. I don't see major changes in relation to GMing or combat, but some of the class stuff will be different; I'm certain Paizo will put out a cheat sheet to reconfigure old stuff- at least that's my hope.
Until another book comes out with additional options for the classes, haha. But this is fine with me, I don't mind this. I heard Rogues were getting martial weapons...this should have been done at the outset.
Oh come on, you shouldn't be playing with people like this. If they want to run their character as they wish, then let them do so. Now, of course, if they want divine power from a good-aligned deity who loves nature, too, then they would not qualify for that power or they would have their power be stricken from them. Remember folks, alignment only really matters with PCs if they are utilizing that alignment for gain. If they do something counter, they lose those gains. It's quite simple. I'm running a Pathfinder 2e game now. Everyone is just getting used to how the system works. Now Paizo goes and changes stuff. I hate change. I don't see why they need to change it. What? This came out in 2019… Will the chromatic and metallic dragons be nixed and redone?Probably. They did namedrop about 5 new dragon types in the livestream when they were talking about how they are not going to be in families based on mettalic or color, but grouped more by the magical tradition themes. I love dragons and only hope the base metallic and chromatic dragons hold their breath weapon types and, in general, their *alignments.* I do love the occasional “evil” gold dragon, though!
I was always a stickler for the Vancian casting system and the slotted caster v. prepared caster, but this is a difficult teach for new players and hard for some people to wrap their mind around. As a guy who loves spellcasters, I understand the key difference between this, but also wish my wizard could cast like a slotted caster. So if there were changes to this in the remaster with “ranks” I wouldn’t be opposed. Especially since casters were *nerfed ;p To @YurriP’s point, what “remaster” changes could also be made, you think? I’m also a bit unclear on the “nephilim” versatile ancestry/heritage change. Can anyone clarify? It certainly appears that many player’s gripes about lack of options will be addressed with the remaster, in that options are being extended and restrictions removed. It sounds like nephilim is going this route. Hopefully those who want to be able to create any type of character with many options can finally see their ideas come to fruition and concerns addressed without house rules.
"Removal" of alignment seems a bit stark. I would've hoped for some alternative, possibly based on the alternate alignment rules from the GMG. Otherwise intrigued by thisLike legally there's probably an argument for this which is why they're doing it, and it'll be good to avoid alignment arguments and things like "certain spells are useless for clerics of Neutral Gods because they do alignment damage." But it's still useful to read "LE" or "NG" in an NPC's stat bloc just as a very broad description of how to play them. Agree 100% that alignment is a necessary trait in many instances, more useful to the GM than players; but some players find it helpful to guide the actions of their PCs, mainly for background purposes. Always good to check an NPC alignment quickly rather than reading 2 paragraphs of their background. A post by Mona shows alignment will still be a key aspect of the game, just not the confusing 9-system. Experienced and common sense players, in my experience, have used alignment somewhat ambiguously anyway, which works out well. I bet that's where PF is headed, not so rules-heavy and mechanically ingrained. Fantastic idea to merge all the classes into one book. This should be very helpful for new people. Too bad a cheaper pdf version isn't available for those who have already purchased the previous books....a loyalty discount would be nice for them. Splitting the GM and Player Book is a good move that will help new players.
Sounds eerily similar to Strange Aeons...
A creature has been a victim of the Volcanic Eruption spell... It wants to cast Dimension Door to get away... Wtf happen?
Can a medium creature with Friendly Toss and Titan Wrestler use the 2 action Friendly Toss to "toss" an ally who is size large or huge?
Can cold iron or other materials be added to animal companion teeth?
Good afternoon everyone, I'm looking into computing the total treasure reward for a group of 4 PCs from level 1 to level 2. I understand the chart provided in the Core book pertaining to wealth by level. I picked out a few items going by the chart. However, enemies they face also have treasure listed. Is the treasure enemies carry*in addition* to what I've picked out based on the chart? Wondering what others have done. Cheers
Good afternoon everyone, I'm looking into computing the total treasure reward for a group of 4 PCs from level 1 to level 2. I understand the chart provided in the Core book pertaining to wealth by level. I picked out a few items going by the chart. However, enemies they face also have treasure listed. Is the treasure enemies carry*in addition* to what I've picked out based on the chart? Wondering what others have done. Cheers
If a 12th level character had the level 10 Specialist Ring, would the spell that it's cast using this ring be: 1. Level of the character 2. Level 10, as the Ring 3. Level of the character if they were a level 10 caster...using wizard, could cast up to level 5
I would like to reiterate OP's post from another post... This has nothing to do with Paizo.
There’s a thread I made in the 5e forum, where this belongs. Paizo has nothing to do with this project. helpful as usual...
First post on this?! If it's not appropriate to post discussion on this I understand. Just wanted to get some thoughts on the news today. Looks like WOTC is really focusing on digital play, both in in-person settings and online play. I prefer PF2 over 5e by far, but tweets I've seen imply D&D One, or "6th Edition" as it will be dually called, will be tested "better" than PF2 was tested and have things that are better than PF2. Perram, previously from Know Direction, made a comment about monsters and spells " no longer critting.". I couldn't find anything further about this big he implied this was a good thing, rather than "false machismo n his it should be." I guess I'm really confused on his statement compared to online what was released by WOTC. The release said the system will basically stay the same but include more options, something that kills 5e for me in personally. The combat is still so slow and boring they'd have to really make some changes. Dunno, I felt like some comments I read were implying this new D&D was on the right track to improve 5e and undo PF2's "mistakes."
|