We were hoping the ability to be especially good at preparing would be seen as more of an interesting/versatility increase, as opposed to a raw power boost, based on the feedback you guys gave us. Of our other ideas, I think the best one we didn't use was customizing your arcane bond from wizard to wizard (something like: amulets give you defensive benefits, staff for the extra spell, etc, with the possibility of adding more in later books) but then that would leave the wizard making two subclass choices as opposed to one for most other characters. Does that strike you as a wizard fan as adding more to the "interesting" factor than the "power" factor?
Power and flexibility tend to be two sides of the same coin for a wizard. Quick Preparation means great flexibility outside of combat, which means great noncombat power, and great power with which to quickly prepare for an upcoming battle.
I would much rather see a little more flexibility with arcane bonds rather than Quick Preparation.
As a player of wizards, I'd rather have the all-powerful ability to change my spells with quick prep than anything an arcane focus could do. Does everyone think a Sorcerer is different enough regarding class abilities to allow a wizard to have quick prep to make the difference? I, for one, think the spell versatility aspect of Sorcerers are their main benefit, but I also am a lover of wizard PCs and see this as a big boon for wizards. Perhaps the Sorc players can describe how they feel about spell versatility in this regard?
Loaded questions, no options to talk about many important changes to things (like the introduction of new forms of magic, adding 10th level spells, redistributing who gets what spells, etc. etc. etc.) outside of 'comments', and a general feel of the survey being kind of only asking half the important questions. and leaving out important options for replies.
I can't tell if they are trying to gloss over these things or just didn't think about it.
These things are addressed in other surveys, including the Class Survey.
It's just a fun combat experiment where they made the two they want to play for the encounter.
For a general rule, I want the leader of the baddies to be a bard/fighter, with his "man" a tough barbarian. The rest need to be the leader's basic guards and at least 2 monstrous (trolls) creatures. I also want the leader to be at least level 14.
In case nobody has noticed, it's the Kingmaker battle with Castruccio Irrovetti I'm going for.
Here's one setup against the players, above. I'm using Herolab's encounter builder to set this up, so I am uncertain how the APL/CR is mathed:
i won't be splitting the party. I'm actually having only 6 players, and they are controlling 2 characters each. It's a fun thing we're doing, and totally willing to go through the slog of combat.
But with the clause showing to APL as 12, and the epic CR being 15, I still don't think designing for CR 15 will match the 12 party members.
The more I think about it, the more it seems to make sense to just match one for one. I mean, in player v. player combat, wouldn't it be fair to pitch a level 10 character vs. a level 10 character?
I want to design one combat encounter for a party of 12 with a CR of +3 (Epic).
At first I thought if I just took the APL of the PC's party and made the CR of the enemies match up like normal encounters are built, it would look like this:
So I thought by spending the XP based on a CR 14 encounter would make it an epic combat.
However, I realize the APL/CR math is based on a 4-PC group, not 12, so using the standard build rules for encounters may not work in this case, mainly due to the group being 3 times as big.
So then I thought this "3 times as big" variable must be something I can also use to help form the enemy group. However, I'm not sure what I'd be multiplying by 3!
Then I thought maybe I can just do one to one and ignore the APL/CR aspect, but that doesn't work, either, does it? In essence, I'd just use the LEVELS of the PCs and make 12 enemies that match the levels of the PCs.
Can I just say that these long surveys (while long) are offering a plethora of information to Paizo and will serve wonders to make this game better.
In my career we utilize these types of deep-delve surveys and they are invaluable. It's my hope more playtest surveys will come out that will focus on every aspect of the playtest, even followup questions if necessary.
The surveys have got to be a great way for paizo to take concise data on literally individual topics whereas the forums may not be used by many.
Wait- casters are having their spell points removed and simply replaced with Focus Points? This as not mentioned at all in the blog, which it should have been. The new update doc clearly shows that casters will no longer have spell points to use on spell powers, and that now focus points will be used for powers...which means all casters are losing their ability to use spell points, but are instead getting Focus points based solely on Charisma- is this right? If so, that's a massive caster nerf, especially when spell points were based on caster level.
I just watched the twitch video of Doomsday Dawn deconstructed wherein Mark Seifter went over some survey details and game data and wanted to point out a couple of things.
During the video, when Mark was talking about murder hobos, he mentioned that 80% of groups used the diplomatic route when dealing with the Cyclops. He then went on to say 50% of groups, during a forced fight with a dragon and giant, actually used the diplomatic route and recruited the giant to join them. Even Mark was shocked.
I'm a bit shocked, but not as much as some. I prefer a game session that has 2-3 combat encounters only, with 2-3 encounters of social interaction. My players do, to, because they seem to have the most fun.
I think the results pointed out here stress the importance of noncombat encounters and combat encounters having an option "out" through social interaction. Hopefully the devs can work this into the new adventures!
My group and I don't even use boons- too much to remember and keep handy, especially when one character has so many to choose from. They aren't worth the effort. Why bother to remember or even write down a boon that gives me +2 to Diplomacy checks with a certain faction in a certain town?
The boons that matter are ones that directly relate to numbers and/or new or additional abilities. For instance, the first boon I ever received in PFS was a permanent +2 Perception bonus. I remember that boon very well.
Boons giving titles is a unique idea. While purely cosmetic, it's something fun to have on your character and shows accomplishment. Plus, devs don't have to work in power ranges when designing scenarios.
How about just giving options for low-magic items as boons? For instance, instead of getting a +2 diplo when speaking with merchants, the merchants give you a magical item instead.
Moving on, Chronicle Sheets are a funny thing. Over the 8 years I've played PFS, I'd say only 2-3 GMs have ever filled out the sections pertaining to purchases, starting gold, and notes. It's just never done. Much like a walkway at a 90 degree angle, people will inevitably take the shorter route and walk diagonal, creating their own walkway that inevitably ends up paved anyway. I realize the sheets are important to fill out for keeping people honest, but that's not the reality. So the old PFS 1 chronicle sheet should go the way of that diagonal patch of grass- just pave it over!
I still think Administer First Aid should not require a med kit. Those are really expensive.. and classes that would really want to use Medicine.. like alchemist. have basically 0 un assigned coinage to put forward for things like Medkits or theif kits
I love that the DC is flat again though. or at least as near as I can tell.
also still wish that Alch could do med with INT. what with medicine (as opposed to heal) being a science
Though I'm still personally waiting for Alchemist mods. Though I also feel like not many alchemists are chosen % wise. or that is the perception anyway.
Well it should require something, right? Can't just strip off a strip of your cloak, wrap up a wound, and expect to be healed. That's silly and just like a video game, which this game is not.
That may be, but plenty of folks play Pathfinder but don’t use Golarion as thier campaign setting, so that should not be relevant. Plus, the Pathfinder rule set is not the same as the Golarion setting, so Golarion-specific rules really should not be baked into the core Pathfinder rules in any case
I believe one of the major changes for Pathfinder 2nd edition is that the core rules are no longer setting neutral. So things like "Clerics of philosophies" are right out. If you want to run a game in a setting which is not the default one, you will need to change some things.
But since the bestiary will almost surely have rules for building all sorts of nasty things using PC rules (for major antagonists who happen to be a specific type of thing), it'll be easy to lift those for PC rules without giving explicit PC support.
If Golarion Lore is a requirement for this system, then that's something that needs to change.
I'm fine with using your lore to give examples and design your APs, but it should not be automatically assumed that you are using Golarion lore when you play PF2.
Fortunately the VAST majority of players like and use Golarion, so this aspect will remain. Thankfully. Those who don't like it are free to pick and choose what they like.
As I stated over and over. My first impression on Ancestry gave me IMMENSE hope for what they could've been.
I was thinking that I would be able to pick feats that would enhance my character culturally and allowing the possibility of making characters raised by other ancestries just by making some choices, while having my biological features remaining the same as 1e or maybe even having them re-balanced to be more interesting and stronger (in the cases of the races that needed the boost).
Instead, we've got watered down versions of interesting races before and the ones less appealing just got even worse. Also, I love playing humans but Natural Ambition and General Training are way too insane compared to anything else in the game and it will only get better over time with new feats. So I suggest you guys start thinking of new solutions to this because in PF1e Humans were already too strong because of this. I would go as far as to say that is more reasonable to give 3 Free ability boosts and get rid of these two feats and change the necessary things from there.
Just to leave my thoughts here since the surveys didn't have the option.
Please, please. Reserve Heritage feat for hugely impactful things in the ancestry, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs is a very good direction but it makes no sense that you need to wait until level 5 to get your first half-elf feat, that's straight up taxing. Since I'm on this point already, give us at least 3 feats from the start and cut back the feats later down the line and if they absolutely must exist, then create new feats that enhance the ones you already got or things that give you plenty of new options, you know... Things that show your progress over time.
Ancestry can be the best part of the system, but they need a complete overhaul on implementation and evaluation of what they can and should do. Adding more depth to the biology and history of these new ancestries can give a lot of room for heritage and cultural feats.
Why can't they provide nonhumans with the same physical abilities, and in the interest of balance just give them less ancestry feats than a human; or, just keep it the same and give humans an extra feat or two? I very much dislike "growing" into the race you already are.
The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.
Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.
We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.
It's pretty discouraging when you take the time to give your honest criticism, some alternative ideas, how the direction of the development is going to affect my gaming and players, only to have the developer turn around and dismiss what we are saying as "hyperbole". I guess the countless hours and money we pour into Pathfinder is just unwanted "hyperbole". Seems hypocritical when we are asked for our critique and then insulted when we give what was asked for.
On the flip side, I am glad to finally have acknowledgement and assurance that the resonance system will be hopefully improved.
Sorry if my opinion is unwanted, I'll keep it to myself from now on, and if I don't like the final product, I'll just find another system. I truly hope PF2 turns out very good and I can continue to use a Pathfinder system.
1) You are coming across as pretty hostile.
2) Your "alternative solution" has zero intersection with Resonance as is. The only thing resonance affects is magic items and you want to get rid of that. You are functionally calling to it to go entirely.
3) We don't...
Jason's "hyperbole" statement rests with the people who are basically calling Paizo designers obtuse. The designers are doing a hell of a job. I hate resonance as it currently stands and entertain ways to make it better. I would never accuse the designers of being dead-set on a set of rules if they didn't work for the game. To do so is being hyperbolic. Saying you will no longer play the game and move to DnD is hyperbolic. Why move? If you like PF1 just keep playing PF1. It's simple. I've stated I won't play PF2 if the resonance rules as they exist now are kept, but ALL of the designers have stated or intimated that the rules will certainly be changed.
It's not insane. The DM takes the skill DC table and tells you what the DC is. It's pretty much like 1e/2e used to work. You all whippsersnappers are just spoiled by your "this is the DC for walking on a 4 inch wide slightly slippery ledge while the wind is 39 mph, the temperature is 211 F and the moon is in crescent phase" tables 3e brought.
My issues :
- Insane table variation. Endless discussion about "are you sure ?"
- Immersion Breaking because players Will ask ten times per minutes "What is the DC again dude ?" And won't be able to decide if an action is worth it on their own.
Like he want to handle his war horse in front of a dragon. How could he known how the GM Will rule it ?
Maybe the GM Will say "The horse is level 1 so it is Level 1 DC but Extreme because of the dragon" (18)
Maybe the GM Will say "Well it is the LVL 10 dragon that frighten the horse so High level 10 DC" (27 !!!!)
Or "Let's look at the Intimidation DC of the dragon" (25)
Or ANY NUMBER between 18 and 27 because the GM may be like "level 1 horse, level 10 dragon so difficulty 5 Extreme (25) ... No. 7 but just High !" (23)
And the player can't possibly know without asking each freaking time
Note : I may have missed some info on the Handle an animal DC though.
Players shouldn't always necessarily know the DCs of their actions.
...simply looking at how often people ran out isn't really a good metric because resonance discourages the use of things that require it.
Agree 100% My group didn't run out of resonance because we were scared to death we'd need it for healing potions.
Personally, I hate the PF1 healing ease; however, it makes the game fun for people because they aren't going down left and right. As a GM, I want to challenge my players but I don't want to kill them left and right due to them not being able to utilize potions they've paid for but can't use due to resonance.
I also dislike Charisma as a dump stat-but you can't dump Charisma in PF2! There are no dump stats. If someone forsakes putting points in Charisma, and this becomes a thing like in PF1, then make more skills/abilities/actions be based on Charisma so people don't take it for granted. In PF1, it's taken for granted because there are only a few skills which utilize it.
I won't be playing in a system that uses resonance points as they are currently written. My group has tried, given the system the benefit of the doubt, and have done really played trying to give resonance a chance. But it's too far afield from what we enjoy.
"twitch": grumble, grumble, grumble... not everyone can or wants to watch an entire video to pull out the few things they want out of it or has to rewatch it and reference a time code if they wish to reference it. An official overview that lists important points in a thread here on the forums would be a huge boon.
Agree 100%. I they plan on removing or changing resonance, they should do so now so the rest of the playtest can move forward using the new version.
Otherwise, groups like mine won't continue; it also seems counterintuitive to continue with a playtest that us using rules that will not be in the core rules.
I've been playing PFS for 10 years and have rarely seen a PC death. In my playtest we had a PC death and almost a TPK.
I've also never, ever seen a player death in PFS at one of my tables I've played at; I have GMed a couple of deaths, but these were one-off players using pre-gens.
Part of the problem with the playtest (in the grand scheme) is that PF1 players are frnankly spoiled. They have options galore, incredibly powerful martials and casters, healing spam, no mid-difficulty encounters (either too easy or too hard).
Removing all knowledge of PF1 playstyle and rules knoweldge is nearly impossible, so playtesting has been biased a bit with that regard. Throw the new rules learning aspect in with this for those players who have limited or no PF1 rules knowledge and you'll get a bias for lack of knowledge and/or lack of combat strategy, all of which affect the outcome!
That being said, I'm not sure there is anything, at all, that can remove these biases.
Nope, you just raise whichever ones you like! Also, fighters, monks, and their other friends with fewer signature skills will now start at a total of 5 skills trained at 1st level before Intelligence modifier.
Confirmation of better skills for martials and any skill raises that a character likes definitely tones down my caution and replaces a lot of it with enthusiasm, thanks Mark!
But casters and others will also get an increase, so will the rest of the design account for this increase?
My fear is that new players will not playtest this game. Lack of new players trying out the game will result in the obvious lack of new player input- vital imput that is needed for a new game.
My other fear is that regular, long-time players like my group and I will no longer participate in the playtest due to reasons of frustration with layout; learning all new rules; and game design.
It's my fear because we will no longer be participating in the playtest. I've been playing Pathfinder since it came into existence, switching from ADnD 2e. I've got a lot of experience; I've played Pathfinder at least 3 times a month for the past 10 years.
Running a playtest is somewhat fun for me. My groups hates it. So we won't be playing the playtest without some changes to the rules. I fully understand the playtest isn't for fun- but losing valuable input from regular players (not playtesters) is a big deal to me.
I'd like to see PF2 succeed whether or not I decide to buy in. I'd like to buy-in frankly, because PF1 will go the way of the dodo, as do all older editions, especially at conventions where I mostly get to play as a character rather than be a GM for my group.
The combats are still just too long, even accounting for newby players reading new rules. My group just doesn't take well to long slog combats, and frankly I'm getting to that point, too. High level play with PF1 is already quite a drag. I wasn't expecting this with PF2 at low levels.
tl:dr
My group's input on the playtest will be lost, as it has not been a pleasurable experience thus far. Maybe that's for the best- leave it up to hardcore playtesters to do actual playtests, but I think Paizo will be losing valuable input from players who aren't hardcore.
Addition:
I want to clarify that there are many aspects of the game we like and we will certainly try the final version should we stop playtesting. I want to reiterate that we are stopping the playtest due to not having fun, not because the new game itself sucks. It's important to note why we aren't having fun: first, my players can be bumps on a log; second, my players just started PF1 in 2016, and never played an RPG before that, so they are still not in tip-top-shape with the PF1 rules, let alone reading through the dry PF2 playtest rulebook; my players like fast, quality combat encounters not long, boring encounters in quantity; the initial playtest format makes it frustrating to playtest.
Now, there are several things about the new game we don't like, and if the game were to be released as it currently exists before the part 3 update, we would not choose to play it. We don't like Resonance, at all. As the GM, I know I can houserule anything I want, but if I have to houserule a core design-a design which is important to the balance and operation of the rest of the game- then the game isn't something I'll be playing.
I believe Paizo is taking all of the feedback put out there- it makes business sense to do so. My group my end up being in the minority of what we want; if so, that's fine, we'll stick with PF! and more money for miniatures and the adventure paths (which I will convert to PF1).
Game balance is vital. Good players will find ways to have fun and create "unbalanced" characters. Every player has the option of removing one of their character's benefits in the interest of roleplaying: no GM should disallow this, anyway.
I read thro "On the topic of Hit Points Healing -- What about Stamina?" forum post and most people there think that they should not be obligatory.
Do anyone think that it's a good thing to always need a cleric or other healing focused class in the party?
No role should be obligatory. However, it's my firm belief that roles not filled should hamper the party in some way- hamper in a way, for example, that nobody should have the healing power a cleric does, or the casting power of a wizard.
If a party wants to forsake playing a wizard, the hampering effect comes in when they need arcane spells. Same with a cleric. If they don't have someone who can heal like a cleric, they are hampered by the lack of that cleric.
Now, can other classes offer a smidgen of healing/arcane casting? Sure, the bard could provide some of this. But any class offering the main role of another class should never be AS GOOD as that main class (unless, of course, you build that bard to be a super healer).
Casters are used to driving a Ferrari, and are losing their minds because Paizo has told them to follow the speed limit.
Meanwhile the rest of us are in a horse-drawn buggy, and they just took our horse.
As a caster-player, I agree with you. I also agree the martials are the exact same way. PF1 is incredibly easy; PF2 seems to actually be making a challenging game.
I just do not see the point of signature skills. Players forget about them until 7th level rolls around, and then whoops, the character's arbitrary list of signature skills is what suddenly pigeonholes them into progressing only some skills while locking out other skills. This can be alleviated with class feats and multiclass feats, yes, but that is just a band-aid for a problem that was totally unnecessary in the first place. I fail to see why a fighter should be unable to progress their, say, Diplomacy at 7th level to be a general-like figure, or why a barbarian cannot progress their Stealth at 7th level to be a silent hunter.
For that matter, the martial characters need more trained skills. They are already struggling enough in the noncombat department compared to the utility of skills. Barbarians, fighters, and monks having only 3 base skills seems quite lacking, and a paladin's base 4 is not much better. Rangers have 6, but they have major problems elsewhere, as another story. Rogues are in a good place here, at least.
Agree 100% players should be able to select one free signature skill. Disagree 100% about martials needing more skill training. Martials are martials, casters are caster. Each class needs their strengths and weaknesses; the weakness of the martial is their weakness in noncombat. Plain and simple, this is how it should be. Weakness with casters is their weakness in melee. Plain and simple, this is how it should be.
Martials should not be able to have their cake and eat it to, but should have, like every class, a free signature skill to add.
Worse is when a character gets dropped to 0 Hit Points by a critical hit. I have GMed two iterations of The Lost Star, two iterations of In Pale Mountain's Shadow, and two iterations of The Rose Street Revenge so far, and more than half of the times a PC dropped to 0 Hit Points was caused by an unexpected critical hit. This places a PC down to dying 2. Thus, even if they spend a Hero Point or immediately receive healing, they are still prone, disarmed, and left with a measly one action with which to stand up. They are easy pickings for a whack-a-moling right there.
In my opinion, that’s pretty much what should happen, however - if you have been hurt to the point of dying and being sprawled to the floor, you will not immediately jump back up even if treated or healed - it’s going to take precious seconds to get one’s bearings, get off the floor and collect one’s self. Even if you are a proponent of magic healing immediately restoring your wits and vigor, you start out sprawled on the floor in a completely helpless position, taking precious seconds to get back in the fight. For me, it checks a pretty important suspension of disbelief box, fun or not.
I agree completely, ENHenry. There needs to be some sort of realism in the game, otherwise it becomes silly.
Now that the forums aren't on fire anymore (for however long that may be), I thought i'd drop the results of my groups run of Doomsday Dawn Ch1: The Lost Star.
Before we begin here's a previous summary of my own likes/dislikes/etc for the system: ** spoiler omitted **...
I would hope those who are unhappy continue to follow the changes made to the system and try again. Paizo has already issued 5-6 pages of rule changes based exclusively on feedback from the playtest like yours.
It's also important for us as playtesters to get out of our headspace of PF1; it's incredibly difficult to do so. PF1 is so innate to me I found it quite difficult to wrap my brain around the proficiency system, but taking a breath and taking some time to read the rules, the boards, and playtest each part will allow Paizo to see what we want. If we stop, they won't know.
We should also realize the Playtest rulebook is sort of a barebones thing; they intentionally left lots of options out in order to test the mechanics of the system with base flavors.
Is it perfect? No way. But stopping and not offering great feedback like you've already done certainly won't help make it better!
Clerics and Sorcerers get 5 Skills! 5! Alchemists and Wizards are limited to 2, but as INT based characters they'll almost always be adding +4. Bards are now Full casters but still get 7 skills!
How does this make sense? Why are Fighters, Barbs, and Monks getting such a pitiful number of skills? Why are they so much worse at skills than every caster in the game (other than the Druid, who has been bumped down to 3 after initially being at 4)?
It's simple- because they do gobs of damage with weapons that don't have per day uses.
So that would seem like if I'm a Master at a skill, then I'd only be getting +1 prof/level modifier, right?
Despite the rules saying:
"At a master rank, you’ve achieved world-class
proficiency in the statistic or item. Your proficiency
modifier is equal to your character level plus 2."
Well, your level definitely figures in; it's baked into proficiency. I mean, I listed it as "+1 level, -2 untrained" but I could equally have listed it as "-1 untrained at 1st level."
So it looks like you and I and Herolab agree on that.
Your Arcana should be
+1 level
-2 untrained
+0 int
------------------
-1 total
Dunno how you (or Herolab) are getting a final total of -2 there. If you're putting 1 as your prof for trained skills, you should be putting -1 as your prof for untrained skills.
I realize there is inconsistency with the rules whcih is why this doesn't make any sense. Per the rulebook, pg. 9, it says
"you’re untrained.
If you’ve been trained in the statistic or item, your
proficiency modifier is equal to your level."
So looking at the bolded line above in your formula, I should have +1 trained, not +0.
I created a level 1 fighter and wanted to double check my math calculations on Herolab Online. Everything seems correct except my Thievery calculation. I believe I should be receiving a penalty of -6, not -5 as HL seems to show:
Unnamed Hero
Human fighter 1
Good, Human, Humanoid, Lawful
Percep +3
--------------------
Defense HP 21 Hero Points 1 Res 1
--------------------
TAC 14; AC 16
Fort +5; Ref +3; Will +2
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 20 ft.
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 18 (+4); Dex 12 (+1); Con 16 (+3); Int 10 (+0); Wis 12 (+1); Cha 10 (+0)
Skills Acrobatics -3, Athletics +0, Intimidation +1, Warfare Lore +1
Feats Haughty Obstinacy, Power Attack
Languages Common
Other Abilities attack of opportunity
Other Gear breastplate, heavy steel shield, longsword, shortbow
The format for search results is quite difficult to read. See example below, modified by me since the copy/paste doesn't translate properly.
The title of the post should be bigger than the information concerning the author/location of the post.
---
Search Results
Armor and shield proficiency are not stacking?
...Rulebook p.176 wrote:Your Armor Class equals 10 plus your Dexterity modifier (up to your armor’s Dexterity modifier cap) plus your proficiency modifier for any armor or shield you are using plus the armor’s item bonus to AC. If you’re using both armor and a shield, apply the lower of the two proficiency modifiers.What I understand from this sentence: ... 1) a 1th-level Rogue with...
Playing the Game forum - 1 of 6 posts, Wednesday, 11:35 am by Chuckbab
blah blah armor shields
...Rulebook p.176 wrote:Your Armor Class equals 10 plus your Dexterity modifier (up to your armor’s Dexterity modifier cap) plus your proficiency modifier for any armor or shield you are using plus the armor’s item bonus to AC. If you’re using both armor and a shield, apply the lower of the two proficiency modifiers.What I understand from this sentence: ... 1) a 1th-level Rogue with...
Playing the Game forum - 1 of 6 posts, Wednesday, 11:35 am by Chuckbab
blah blah weapons?
...Rulebook p.176 wrote:Your Armor Class equals 10 plus your Dexterity modifier (up to your armor’s Dexterity modifier cap) plus your proficiency modifier for any armor or shield you are using plus the armor’s item bonus to AC. If you’re using both armor and a shield, apply the lower of the two proficiency modifiers.What I understand from this sentence: ... 1) a 1th-level Rogue with...
Playing the Game forum - 1 of 6 posts, Wednesday, 11:35 am by Chuckbab
Can you spell out your reading in more detail? I'm not seeing that at all.
It says using echolocation... Treating creatures as "heard" of it can directly hear them, concealed if they're in a noisy chamber, sensed if it had located them, and unheard of they can't hear location at all.
The bit "sensed if it had located them" seems to imply echolocation only provides a sense, as in not full 'sight."
Plus, of. 301 says hearing is an imprecise sense, but with a bat, in real world, it's quite precise.
I cannot find further information on the Quasit's Change Shape ability. Specifically, what size it becomes when changing into a bat, centipede, or toad. The wolf is listed as medium in the text, but there is no "bat" in the Bestiary, only "Bat Swarm" and "Giant Bat."
Pg. 302 details creatures' ability to detect enemies with other senses, like echolocation.
My reading of the paragraph is that a creature using echolocation never has 100% accuracy on an enemy like a person with sight has on an enemy they can clearly see.
Maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure echolocation should be just as accurate as sight (all things being equal).
One more question about the fungus... 'In Detecting a Hazard, it says when approaching the characters have a chance to find the trigger/area before it activates; some are impossible to detect unless PC has a min. proficiency rank as noted.'
To make certain I'm correct, since the fungus lists no such proficiency requirement, the PCs have a chance to notice... But the DC is just the Fungus stealth roll v. perception, right? The characters do not have to be actively searching but can notice it.
If the trigger is "critically succeed at an attack roll," the claw provides the weapon’s critical specialization effect, but doesn't a critically-succeeded attack roll already provide the critical specialization effect?
No. Weapons do not automatically grant access to critical specialization effects. You have to gain this through class features, like Fighter's Weapon Mastery, or other means, like Ancestry weapon feats.
The owlbear claw trinket allows you to use the critical specialization effect once, even if you don't normally have access.
Ah! I was confusing "critical specialization effect" with the weapon trait, like agile, or deadly.
