no good scallywag's page

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.

I sure do miss those days.

Would love to see a return in an in-person PaizoCon next year.

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!

Does Paizo have any way to print this edition? I'd be glad to pay!

Ridge wrote:

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.

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.

The Drow finally took up the offer to abandon the world of Golarion!

If Paizo is going to use the OGL as a reason and it’s such a huge factor then they should have not converted or brought over any OGL content at all imo. Otherwise it just seems contradictory that a whole bunch of stuff can be brought over into the Remaster OGL notwithstanding.

So I can see why some poster see social issues as one of the reasons why. As I said before if Paizo is bothers by the origin of the Drow just say it as a company.

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.

The difference is that instead of a 12/4 class split with the latter book having options for the previous 12, it well now be an 8/8 split with all the options for the class in it's book

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.

I've played/run RPGs without alignment. I don't like them. As teenage boys playing fantasy games where there is no guideline as to how your character's morality would actually influence their actions makes it easy for a "Good" character to slaughter baby deer, just because. You, as the GM, cannot tell them it's against their character's morality, because the player will find ways to justify otherwise abhorrent actions. If Alignment becomes an "Optional" aspect, it will always be used at my table. That's my pair of coppers, do with them as you wish.

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…

Donald wrote:

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!

OK let's start speculating!

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.

Lebombjames wrote:

"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 this

Like 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...

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."

I am pretty disappointed with Paizo for GenCon 2022. The PFS presence in the Sagamore was a quarter what it used to be. Hardly no personalities were there. I did see John Compton and Luis, who are of course shining examples of Team Paizo and do fantastic work in setting and out.

No hype whatsoever at the Con. Only time all tables were full was for the special Saturday night. Quality of GMs I had were poorer then past Cons.

I won't ever play an interactive special again. Combat all night is just plain boring, and stopping in the middle of a combat to move onto the next area just breaks the story.

It is my understanding there were a lot of GM no-shows as well. Doesn't seem to bode well. I get the bad feeling Paizo is now on the downslope of success.

I hope I'm wrong.

no good scallywag wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Aaron Shanks wrote:

I believe, with Paizo’s strong relationship with freelance authors, the company is better positioned than most to identify and promote new talent. I trust in that.

M-O-O-N! That spells Hilary Moon Murphy!

I sincerely apologize, but I just listened to a Know Direction podcast from April wherein Ron said Paizo wasn't going to produce any more adventures for PF2 and was going to release 5th edition versions of them instead. But i can't find anywhere else that this is the case.

I am thoroughly confused.

Perhaps you misheard him? He will no longer be creating any more Pathfinder Second Edition Adventures and Adventure Paths for Paizo, as a freelancer, or via his own publishing company.

Paizo will produce Pathfinder Second Edition Adventures and Adventure Paths for the foreseeable future. The two 5e conversions announced are the Kingmaker Adventure Path Bestiary (September for backers, October for retail) and the Abomination Vaults Adventure Path Compilation (November).

It's been revealed to me that he did say this but it was an April fools joke, and my buddy cut the clip off. I have to say, i nearly panicked! I am glad to see the conversions as long as PF2 rules are still created and living! It's a far superior system to 5e. And the world of golarion is of course second to none.

Aaron Shanks wrote:

I believe, with Paizo’s strong relationship with freelance authors, the company is better positioned than most to identify and promote new talent. I trust in that.

M-O-O-N! That spells Hilary Moon Murphy!

I sincerely apologize, but I just listened to a Know Direction podcast from April wherein Ron said Paizo wasn't going to produce any more adventures for PF2 and was going to release 5th edition versions of them instead. But i can't find anywhere else that this is the case.

I am thoroughly confused.

There's nothing for it....we'll all end up getting COVID most likely, no matter what precautions we take. Simply breathing air that a positive person had just exhaled can transmit it, let alone all the surfaces we touch and unknowing face touching we all do. It's unfortunate that things have come to this. Hopefully everyone heals up and is ok! I'm not letting the virus damper my attendance at conventions, though, but will play it as safe as possible so I and others can keep enjoying Pathfinder and gaming.

incredibly sad to see him go. Unfortunate that Paizo can't seem to tinker their pay scales to keep people like him.

Mike, I'm sorry to have left you out of the mentions! It's like one of those oscar speeches where someone has to list names and just ends up naming everyone lol!

I've played Pathfinder since 2010, jumping over from my longtime love of ADnD 2e. Since then, I've fell in love with the world of Golarion, went to GenCon every year it's been held, and attended the last in-person PaizoCon. I've purchases thousands of dollars worth of miniatures, books, and accessories and ran and played thousands of hours of Pathfinder 1. I also jumped aboard the PF2 bandwagon and am happy with its direction.

Yes, there have been bumps on the road which made me upset, angry, and despondent. Things like the Ninja Division fiasco where I lost $300 (looking at you, Eric); the (for my preference only) poor convention specials (although the GenCon '19 was a marked improvement!); and the lack of presence at Gen Con 2021. Quality of editing has been hit or miss, and I cannot understand how to this day a company like Paizo doesn't catch misspellings and grammar mistakes. I DO understand that developers and creators should not be editing their own material-so how about some of the higher ups get into editing and help out? Just my thoughts on that.

One thing the creators have done tremendously, however, are the quality of their ideas. Add to that their constant willingness to engage with the fans on the forums and in person during conventions makes for top-tier class acts. While the upper management of Paizo has some serious issues, I still play PF2 because of the people who actually create it.

Another poster stated something about new APs being "strange and weird." I agree, but PF has such an extensive library already there is nearly something for everyone. I am very comfortable with adapting PF adventures to PF2 (I'm currently running Mummy's Mask). I understand that new players may not want to do that work, but PF2 is still young, and I'm certain more content is to come. Personally, I'm glad Paizo is doing an around-the-world approach (although I'm still waiting on that Galt AP).

I wanted the developers and creators, especially those who I routinely see on Youtube and Twitch, to know that you make this game what it is. I get through my workweek knowing I will be playing PF2 the coming weekend. I'm glad to see Bulhman's face on the tube, or Seifter's cogent explanations with Arcane Mark. His partner in crime, Linda, always brings cheer and has an ability to bring things back into perspective. James Jacobs seems like the most caring person I've ever met, yet some of his creations make me think he might be diabolical.

I wanted to thank you all for your hard work despite the employment issues that many of us face.

As I've leveled characters up to 20, the options for skill feats and general feats become incredibly sparse. So much so that every character of every class ends up getting nearly identical skill and general feats. While I do appreciate the silo-ing of feats into classes and archetypes, I am going to open up dedication feats to all players regardless of class because there aren't enough options. Not sure if this is a result of the game still being young or the closing off of options is hurting. I agree that the game needs some more quality skill and general feats that unlock outright new abilities rather than just improving proficiency.

As a GM, I appreciate the quick combat that occurs in PF2e. I like the way challenges can be set up. I like it when my party has a distinct fear of dying, which PF2 offers. However, I've noticed some issues. Encounters at average party level of the group tend to be on the easy side, and the sweet spot seems to be APL+2. But going above that to APL+3 is a big enough jump to nearly party-wipe them. I made an APL+5 encounter but used a bunch of creatures 8 levels below the party average. It wasn’t even a challenge, which seems a bit silly.

Regarding the dying rules, I hate that I have to move character initiative. My style of administering battles is to write down player turns and simply put a check mark or tick mark when that player has gone. But if someone goes down, I effectively have to create a new list with a new order. Yes, I realize the players get one whole turn to then try and heal the player who went down, which is why I've kept this rule, but it's constantly a thorn in my side as the battle progresses. I like to be very efficient in my GMing. I also agree that dying is anti-climactic. There is no more sudden death, ever. Characters only die slowly, constantly failing their stabilization roll or from an already-high wounded condition.

One encounter resulted in 3 out of the 4 going unconscious, unable to stabilize, for 3 entire rounds when the 4th person tried desperately to heal himself, the others, and keep the monsters at bay. It was the most boring 3 rounds of combat ever.

Being a caster is boring. Leveling up a caster is even moreso.

I’ve adapted Mummy’s Mask and have been running this every weekend for one year now. I love the rule mechanisms for monster creation and encounter building. This is Grade A Prime game development right here.

Over my experience with this game since its release, it appears the magical item issue is working for us. The characters don’t feel like they need to have certain magical items to compete. Buuuuuuuuut…..there are some things that are still necessary, like weapon and armor modifiers. Without even a baseline, low magic rune, it’s difficult for me to see the PCs being successful. But we’re fine with that! It’s working good so far. In fact, we’d rather see more unique items available. The current stock are uninspiring.

3-action system is still great. It does take some time for players to become accustomed to, though, and not waste their 3rd action on a low-chance hit.

Worldbuilding is second to none! I only play using Golarion.

I miss monster templates.

I do not like using Perception for Sense Motive.

Summoning is a bit weak. Monster levels are too low for the encounter they’re usually summoned for.

Someone mentioned the awkwardness of non-CRB class features and they are correct.

The union and Paizo will now undoubtedly show others in this industry and other industries that unions and companies can work together, develop good product, and have everyone win.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Paizo is a pretty small company. Not sure what a union would do at Paizo.

A real, and important, function of unions in a context like this is to create a formal means for employees to bring issues that are in need of redress to management before these issues flare up and become a real problem.

So while certainly something like "an individual employee approaches a manager about a problem" is a way problems *could* be headed off, there are anecdotal reports that "relying on the manager's good will and positive intent to fix the problem" is not working. If you have a collectively bargained contract, and language in that contract to point to, that has more weight than getting an "oh sure, I'll do that."

The employees of a company are just as valuable as the management. People often forget this.

I really wish we could get a solid definition of "physical effect." This would solve the issue immediately.

By RAW, is energy damage a "physical effect?". I can't find that anywhere. Otherwise the definition is ambiguous.

Very disappointed this isn't in person.

Guess my time and money will just have to go to GenCon this year.

These dice are always go cool looking, but difficult to read and impractical :(

I've been against pay-to-play GMing since... Always. I'm never one to stop anyone from their "hustle," but turning a game into a job seems so antithetical to what I think a GM should be doing. I don't tell a story because I'm incentivized beyond having a good time. That's personal for me, and I understand other people have different motivations for gaming, but I think paying the bills is a really awful/woefully capitalistic one.

I would also be against paying for friends which this feels like it butts up against.

Whelp- guess all these Paizo developers "hustling" their trade is just evil capitalism.

I'd gladly pay Jason Bulmahn to be my GM if I could afford it. In a way, I pay GM at conventions to run the games I play with them, too. Guess all those folks who do online entertainment play throughs are "grifters," too.

Good GMs, if their players are willing, should certainly be able to get paid for GMing! It's ridiculous to tell other people what they can spend their money on.

Great points everyone. Looks like I will keep that rule in.

There must be a reason that the creature getting the dying condition moves their initiative to after that of the turn of the effect which caused the dying condition- whether it be a trap or an enemy's weapon.

But I can't for the life of me figure out why it's necessary to take that extra step. I assume it has something to do with the dying creature's turn and rolling to stabilize, to allow for their allies to heal or help? If that's the case, I thought combat generally took place at the same instant every round...

It's a hassle- yes, I know, a small one- for those of us who use pen and paper only to keep track of initiative and if you're like me, very meticulous and careful and orderly on paper. Once again- a small hassle, but one nonetheless that is time consuming for my games as I then have to start a new set of lines and round ticks since I use straight line paper to keep track.

I'm considering houseruling it out, but wanted to make sure it wouldn't cause issues with the balance of the game.

This is a game and not a simulation of anything.

Uh, think about what you just said.

My group is looking into using the Free Archetype Variant to open up some of the options.

I'd only like to address one issue that has come up.

What should be done with the player who does not want an archetype? Provide them with a similar general or skill feat of the same level?

I'd rather lose some sales and drive the bigots out, tbh.

YawarFiesta wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Spoiler alert: it still costs sales.

Not as much, as opposing it or being perceived as opposing it. This is the mainstream opinion now. Paizo did it before it was cool. Remeber that, back in the day, Paizo was underground.

Yawar,

Still, it's 2020 and you're getting people asking to delete their Paizo.com account because of political views Paizo has or asking "why are you getting stupid politics in my game?" when Paizo changes their social media profile pic to a rainbow golem. The situation might be better than 10 years ago, but there's still a long way before full acceptance of non-heternormativty becomes the default with intolerance as a single digit percetnage outlier.

Incredibly disappointing but not surprised. Next dreaded prognosis be is that GenCon will be cancelled. This year will go down as the worst...

I've gone through the trouble of recalculating the class kit values after the errata has changed some things. I could not find where someone has already done this. Google Sheet file here:

Class Kit Errata GDrive.

Item Price (GP) Bulk

ALCHEMIST
studded leather 3 1
dagger 0.2 0.1
sling 0 0.1
10 bullets 0.01 0.1
10 bullets 0.01 0.1
adventure pack 0.7 1
alchemist tools 3 1
bandolier 0.1 0
basic craft book 0.1 0.1
caltrops 0.3 0.1
caltrops 0.3 0.1
sheath 0.01 0
total: 7.73 3.7
Total Price 7 gp, 7 sp, 3 cp
Leftover 7 gp, 2 sp, 7 cp

Item Price (GP) Bulk

BARBARIAN
hide 2 2
javelin 0.1 0.1
javelin 0.1 0.1
javelin 0.1 0.1
javelin 0.1 0.1
adv pack 0.7 1
grappling hook 0.1 0.1
sheath 0.01 0
sheath 0.01 0
total: 3.22 3.5
Total Price 3 gp, 2 sp, 2 cp
Leftover 11 gp, 7 sp, 8 cp

Item Price (GP) Bulk

BARD
studded leather 3 1
dagger 0.2 0.1
rapier 2 1
sling 0 0.1
10 bullets 0.01 0.1
10 bullets 0.01 0.1
adv pack 0.7 1
bandolier 0.1 0
handheld instr 0.8 1
sheath 0.01 0
total 6.83 4.4
Total Price 6 gp, 8 sp, 3 cp
Leftover 8 gp, 1 sp, 7 cp

Item Price (GP) Bulk

CHAMPION
dagger 0.2 0.1
javelin 0.1 0.1
javelin 0.1 0.1
javelin 0.1 0.1
javelin 0.1 0.1
adv pack 0.7 1
crowbar 0.5 0.5
grappling hook 0.1 0.1
sheath 0.01 0
hide 2 2
total 3.91 4.1
Total Price 3 gp, 9 sp, 1 cp
Leftover 11 gp, 9 cp

Item Price (GP) Bulk

CLERIC
advpack 0.7 1
bandolier 0.1 0
caltops 0.3 0.1
caltops 0.3 0.1
holy symbol wood 0.1 0.1
total 1.5 1.3
Total Price 1 gp, 5 sp
Leftover 13 gp, 5 sp

Item Price (GP) Bulk

DRUID
leather 2 1
javelin 0.1 0.1
javelin 0.1 0.1
javelin 0.1 0.1
javelin 0.1 0.1
longspear 0.5 2
adv pack 0.7 1
bandolier 0.1 0
holly and mistle 0 0
total 3.7 4.4
Total Price 3 gp, 7 sp
Leftover 11 gp, 3 sp

Item Price (GP) Bulk

FIGHTER
hide 2 2
dagger 0.2 0.1
adv pack 0.7 1
grapplin ghook 0.1 0.1
sheath 0.01 0
total 3.01 3.2
Total Price 3 gp, 1 cp
Leftover 11 gp, 9 sp, 9 cp

Item Price (GP) Bulk

MONK
longspear 0.5 2
staff 0 1
adv pack 0.7 1
bandol 0.1 0
climbing kit 0.5 1
grappl hk 0.1 0.1
lesser smokest 3 0.1
total 4.9 5.2
Total Price 4 gp, 9 sp
Leftover 10 gp, 1 sp

Item Price (GP) Bulk

RANGER
leather 2 1
dagger 0.2 0.1
longbow 6 2
10 arr 0.1 0.1
10 arr 0.1 0.1
adv pack 0.7 1
sheath 0.01 0
total 9.11 4.3
Total Price 9 gp, 1 sp, 1 cp
Leftover 5 gp, 8 sp, 9 cp

Item Price (GP) Bulk

ROGUE
leather 2 1
dagger 0.2 0.1
rapier 2 1
adv pack 0.7 1
climbing kit 0.5 1
sheath 0.01 0
total 5.41 4.1
Total Price 5 gp, 4 sp, 1 cp
Leftover 9 gp, 5 sp, 9 cp

Item Price (GP) Bulk

SORC
dagger 0.2 0.1
slingshot 0 0.1
10 bul 0.01 0.1
10 bul 0.01 0.1
adv pack 0.7 1
bando 0.1 0
cal 0.3 0.1
cal 0.3 0.1
sheath 0.01 0
total 1.63 1.6
Total Price 1 gp, 6 sp, 3 cp
Leftover 13 gp, 3 sp, 7 cp

Item Price (GP) Bulk

WIZARD
staff 0 1
adv pack 0.7 1
materi pouch 0.5 0.1
write set 1 0.1
total 2.2 2.2
Total Price 2 gp, 2 sp
Leftover 12 gp, 8 sp

I guess I'll have to wait until the Windsong Testaments is published by Paizo!!!

I'll say again, I'll buy any book that deals with this topic!

I would buy a hardback book called the Windsong Testaments if Paizo put this out.

I agree with Tender Tendrils and Gleeful Grognard. As a professional in this field it takes a bit of time to sort through your thoughts and memories, to draw on experience and . Add in the observation part, the general pandemonium and noise of combat, and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that you'd realistically have to spend several rounds to recall specific pieces of information in the middle of an encounter! :)

I do find it hilarious that many think it takes the brain sooooo long to process information. Our brains are made to utilize visual data extremely quickly (just see sports). If I see a gorilla charging at me, I'm going to know he's going to either beat me down with his fists or bite me. Doesn't take 3 seconds to think it through- and that's me being a non-combat-trained layperson who sits at a desk.

I'll be making that action a free action for my players in light of the lack of credible evidence to the contrary.

Not a perfect time comparison, but each action takes about 1.5-2 seconds. You spend 1.5-2 seconds thinking about the thing you are recalling knowledge about because it could be a lot of things and you could easily get things mixed up about the creature. Especially in an inherently hectic and confusing environment, such as a combat where you need to constantly be prepared to avoid attacks and look for openings to move and attack yourself.

For instance, let's say you are fighting a blue-grey creature 3' tall with tentacles and a football-shaped head. Could be a Grindylow or a Mutant Goblin, one of these can shoot ink and swim super fast and the other is drawn to fire and pickles, it might take a second to determine what the creature is and which features it possesses. Now, if you are a lifetime expert on goblinoid physiology you can probably do this more reliably (using Goblin Lore) and faster (using Automatic Knowledge) but if you are just a travelling wizard who knows a lot of things about a lot of things, it probably takes a moment.

Yet the listed free actions take just as long...including casting some spells and speaking; drawing a weapon which could certainly take longer than the synapses in your brain firing; speaking. Besides, it makes sense that adventurers are "trained" (not in the technical use of the word) to think quickly in combat- hence no facing, too. Just like horses can be combat "trained" to maintain some semblance of control. I don't really buy the cost of recalling knowledge when the PC is basically just thinking. It's not like they're doing a math problem or counting from 1-100.

I think concentrating on a spell is even a free action!

I'm trying to wrap my head around why it is necessary to use an action to recall knowledge during combat. It does seem a bit silly to have an action for this. Any particular reason other than to use an action?

Despite sort of despising big melee characters in full plate, Hellknights of all sorts are my absolute favorite.

Cheers to this news. I hope Elaine and Paizo can work something out for more novels.

Please let this be a prelude to a few more novels from her about hellknights...

Errors in printed material is expected, as is the errata to fix found errors. I'm fine with this, as long as they are able to put out an errata soon and not wait until the 2nd printing. Does anyone know when the 2nd printing of PF1 CRB came out/how long after?

The PF2 CRB does contain a lot of errors, which is always disappointing. It's amazing how many errors don't get caught in premiere printed materials.

Has anyone with Paizo stated anything concerning an errata? It would be nice if they could start one immediately.

On buying the Playtest- people knew they were purchasing a playtest and that the rules in that book were going to be changing. No reason at all to complain about the rules not be useful now.

As someone who has created a strength-based dwarven monk, I decided against taking Mountain Stance because of the "touching the ground" requirement. I understand that flying will be less of a thing in 2E, but this is a restriction that makes me nervous. For example, is standing on the 2nd floor of a wooden building considered to be "touching the ground?" Under most definitions of ground, I don't think it would be.

Thanks for this mini-guide though. It provides much food for thought.

I'm certain "touching the ground" means a flat surface wherein you are able to brace yourself and "ground" yourself. I don't think "ground" in the RAW literally means the ground with dirt.

I see it as a major problem of the core design of magic items if a whole core group of said items are better sold that used simply because their cost:value is so abysmal.

So i trully think that this is a core problem that will lead to actual gameplay disappointment.

Loot should be exciting, not "oh another 50gp worth of pots to sell"

And as pointed above, you don't even need to search for magic-mart, with current crafting rules you can keep breaking the items down yourself.

Hmmm, this thread is interesting.

My experience as a GM with regard to parties using potions is this: they often simply forgot they had them. When we finished Serpent's Skull, the party literally had a total of 43 potions stored which they never even bothered to use. The cost to sell them was only 25gp, so they often just kept them.

My own characters which I play usually keep a pot or two for utility, but I usually sell them for the gold in PF1.

We haven't played enough of PF 2 to see how pots will work. I do agree on principle that it would seem reasonable for a consumable to cost far less than a permanent item...but I'm also on board the "item-restirction" train which seeks to limit the amount of magic and prevent christmas tree-ing.