So let's say I cast Detonate, using Selective Spell. Supposing I exclude myself from the AoE, do I still take damage?
I feel like I do, as it says "You automatically take half damage from the explosion..." and "automatically" suggests I can't avoid it.
However, it also say "from the explosion", which implies the only reason I'm taking any damage at all is because I'm in the explosion (makes sense) which could potentially mean that if I get out of the AoE somehow I avoid the damage.
Today I tried to build a gnome paladin. Seems like something that ought to be doable, and I've done in in PF1. Now, the first thing I noticed is that since Full Plate comes in at a whopping 4 Bulk its pretty darn difficult to carry everything you want while wearing it. 4B for my armour, 2B for my weapon, 1B for a heavy shield, 1B for a repair kit so I can fix my shield, 1B for a medicine kit because, y'know, I'm a paladin- oh wait I'm already over. That's 9 Bulk and my encumberance limit is 8. This is without any basic adventuring necessities like rope, rations, ranged weapon, etc.
So I go look up the encumbered condition, and, well, it's brutal. -10 to speed is a ridiculous penalty when you're already at -10 from full plate and puts my poor gnome at a 5ft speed even with Fleet. I think maybe the encumbered speed penalty and the armour speed penalty aren't supposed to stack, but I can't find any rules supporting that.
So, this is pretty bad, and honestly if I wasn't a gnome my Bulk limit would only be maybe 1 higher (from STR 18 raterh than 16), so it's not just because I chose a STR penalty race. Full plate is now brutal, and very difficult to deal with. I feel 3 Bulk would be enough (and even that would be annoying).
But then I remembered, hey, I'm a Paladin. I can get me a horse to help carry my stuff AND let me move faster. Two birds with one stone! So I head over to the animal companion section and discover that a medium horse (which I would have thought would be a suitable mount for a small paladin) has EXACTLY THE SAME CARRYING CAPACITY AS ME. Meaning that if I'm encumbered and I get on it it'll also be encumbered. In fact, if I got all the adventuring gear I wanted and put in on my horse it would be holding too much to move (13+ Bulk) and that's not even taking into account the fact that it would also have to carry me.
In PF1, these problems were solved by having small sized gear weigh less and giving quadrupeds a higher carrying capacity. Sure, a small character might have trouble carrying things on occasion, but if they were mounted it was never an issue. As it is in PF2, even though a large horse can carry and medium rider, his full plate and all his gear easily (due to Large size creatures having ten times the encumbrance limit of medium/small creatures, assuming I understand things correctly) but a medium horse with a small rider is overburdened if it tries. I would have thought the ratio of medium:large would be the same as the ratio of small:medium so this seems absurd to me.
So in the end I have three problems:
1: Full plate weighs a (non literal, thankfully) ton and it makes it very hard to carry even the basic necessities.
2: Mounted combat with small sized riders on medium sized mounts is equally difficult, verging on impossible if you want your rider in heavy armour and/or you mount in barding.
3: I didn't really cover this previously, but how on earth do I calculate my PC's weight? This is really important for working out whether or not my mount is encumbered, and I can't find anything more specific than "... and item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 bulk..." which is woefully unspecific even if you ignore the fact that nowhere in the rules does it tell me how many pounds my gnome weighs (sure I can go look it up in the PF1 rules, but those shouldn't be relevant for PF2 stuff).
Anyway, that's it. Am I missing something? It's entirely possibly that making full plate weigh a lot was an intentional design choice (I mean, it most likely does in real life) but I feel like making the combination of Full Plate + Lance + Shield + Heavy Barding + Repair Kit(14 Bulk total) to be impossible for a small rider (14 Bulk vs 13 carrying capacity on a medium horse at 4th level) but easy as anything for a medium rider (14 Bulk counts as 1.4 Bulk on a large horse) to be utterly ridiculous.
TLDR: Please bring back higher carrying capacity for quadrupeds. As it is, a small sized knight on a medium horse is unviable if they are appropriately armoured.
Wow, came home from work to discover my Playtest rulebook on my doorstep. As I've said earlier, I'm in Australia (NSW) I was genuinely sure I wouldn't see it for another week or two at the very earliest. I was steeling myself to wait until September.
The packaging was fully open, and my book vulnerable to the elements (thankfully it didn't rain or snow today) but on inspection it was still (somehow) in flawless condition, so while I am confused and concerned about it arriving like it did I can't really complain.
Anyway, thank you Paizo for being so communicative about this and I hope everyone else gets their books ASAP.
So basically if you don’t have your order by the 9th in Australia forget about the Doomsday Dawn playtest you’ll be too far behind to meet the deadlines since you probably won’t see your books till September
Not really; the PDFs are free and we can download them whenever we want. I certainly have. Sure, many of us (myself included) would prefer to playtest with physical books, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that we'll miss out entirely. Is it ideal? No. Am I going to "forget about the Doomsday Dawn playtest"? Also no.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Yeah there's still hope, I suppose. Fingers crossed.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Okay I hadn't realised this. That sucks for us, I guess. Thanks for letting me know.
Big V wrote:
Fair, although the estimates Vic posted suggest it (hopefully) won't take that long. Regardless, the fault lies with Amazon.
Seriously though, you guys at Paizo are being great about this (I certainly wouldn't have expected $15 credit as recompense for a screw up that wasn't even your fault) and while this is unfortunate I'm mostly just annoyed at all the people who (apparently) can't want another week after waiting several months. Come on. We can survive. I'm in Australia, and I'm not complaining so ya'll should feel bad if you're giving Paizo grief since most of you are getting your books earlier than me.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I like this idea. You're right it doesn't work with the 3/1 system, but just add something like:"After a rage ends, if one minute passes in which the barbarian does not take any damage or make any attacks she immediately takes X damage as the thrill of the battle leaves her (where X is the number of temporary HP the barbarian gained on entering the rage)."
The chances of going a full minute in combat without attack or being attacked are extremely low, so this basically means you don't have to worry about taking the damage until well after the battle ends. At which point your party should be in a good position to help you, so there's little risk. But it preserves the flavour (and I think it's also fairly straightforward to manage?).
Yeah, this is true. The PF1 method is more complex, and that does need to be kept in mind. I want barbarians to take some of/all the damage they avoided taking whilst fighting as I feel like it mirrors the kinds of fictional heroes I want to play better. I actually can't think of a mechanical way of doing that which wouldn't be at least a little annoying from a bookkeeping perspective. Maybe that means that the barbarian I want isn't good for that the game, I don't know. I didn't think the PF1 barbarian was that bad though, personally.
I have to admit this is a good point, and thinking of it that way does make me feel a little better about the 3/1 system. However, in an ideal world I'd still like to take some of the damage I'd avoided taking when the combat ends.
Barbarian is probably my favourite PF1 class. In fact, my second AND third characters were both barbarians, iirc (my first was a cleric, a class I didn't play again for a long time, mostly because I wanted more skill points). So I've been waiting for this preview with a mixture of anxiety and excitement.
And overall? I like it. The feats look neat (Vicious Evisceration is a great name), the 3/1 rage makes things more strategic, the totems look great (I'll add my name to list of people who agree that Superstition as a totem was a fabulous idea) and I absolutely ADORE the concept of lawful barbarians. I was just thinking the other day that (imho) the barbarian was always the class whose alignment restriction made the least sense. I also like that they have good will saves (at least eventually).
All of that said, there's something that I dislike and its the same thing that I disliked about the unchained barbarian. I'm probably alone in thinking this (200+ comments so far and no one else has mentioned it) but I don't like giving barbarians temporary HP. I MUCH prefer a CON boost. Yes, it makes the barbarian more likely to die, but that's the point. How often in fiction are barbarians presented as being insanely durable while raging, shrugging off blows that would have killed anyone else, but then finding themselves in mortal peril when their rage ends and their wounds catch up with them? That (at least in my opinion) is cool, and one of the reasons I like to play barbarians. The PF1 method mirrored this perfectly. The PF1 unchained method, 5e's method, and this method all do not. Rebalancing the PF1 barbarian's rage is fair enough, but I'd argue losing the HP you gained when you stop raging is key to the flavour.
The 3/1 rage thing is also part of this. As previously mentioned, I like the tactical elements of it, and I love that it limits rage without resorting to an annoying rounds/day mechanic. But honestly, is that how bararians work in stories? Rarely, I'd argue. Rarely do they have to worry about ending their rage until after the fight, and when they do it has more dire consequences. Honestly, I actually liked 5e's rages/day mechanic for this. It limited my rage so I couldn't rage all the time, but didn't make me have to quit raging in the middle of combat (I can't think of a single work of fiction where this happens to a barbarian useless they'd just suffered a grevious wound/got hit with magic of some kind) and I didn't have to track rounds/day. If only 5e had forced me to take the damage my resistences had let me avoid once my rage ended, or something. Then it would have been pretty good.
Anyway, overall I do like everything else, and I will definately be playing (and playtesting) the barbarian. But I just wish there could be a balanced, fun mechanic that ALSO mirrors what happens in fiction. Good job with everything else though!
I'd just carry on with the inquisitor and go with the Sanctified Slayer archetype. Inquisitor's are pretty solid at skills already, and spells add even more to your utility. The only thing it doesn't have that you want is a way to ensure your sneak attack (other than Greater Invis at 10), but with Bane you honestly won't need it. It'll be a nice boost when you can get it, but you'll do fine if you can't get a flank. From my experience in PFS they'll be someone to flank with most of the time anyway.
You do realise the page count issues in the Starfinder CRB, right? They had to, with a smaller page count than the Pathfinder CRB, fit in all the same stuff AND starship combat AND setting information AND the legacy section. Sure, the spells chapter is a lot shorter already, but that was never going to be enough.
Honestly, melee Operatives (and sniper Operatives) are not the only people with this issue (although they are arguably the worst off). A Melee soldier is essentially choosing between a Tactical Pike or a Tactical Doshko at level 1, and the Doshko isn't a great choice since you can't full attack with it. Yes, at later levels they have more options. But the choice is still pretty limited (especially compared to pathfinder) particularly if you want a semi optimal character. Basically, there isn't that much variety for any of the classes.
This is, however, a problem that will solve itself. I doubt we'll have to wait long before we have options streaming out our ears, even with the fact that new Starfinder book will be coming out far less often that their Pathfinder equivalents.
So yeah. Don't panic. Take another look when the Alien Archive hits the shelves, and if that isn't to your tastes there's always third party stuff.
1) You cannot use both Manyshot and Vital strike. Manyshot requires a full attack, and a Vital Strike is not a full attack.
2) No, you cannot. As you say, Manyshot requires a full attack and since full attacking requires your move action you cannot both take a move action to use Bullseye Shot and still full attack.
3) If the spell is a swift action to cast, you can cast it on the same turn you full attack. Otherwise you cannot full attack and cast a spell in the same round. Most spells are standard actions, so you can't normally even make a regular attack and cast a spell in the same round.
4) This is covered in my answers to 3 and 4.
This is an issue that several people have noticed.
Honestly I'm not too worried about it. Its a problem that will solve itself, when we slowly get more and more options to increase skills. Part of me wonders if this was done on purpose so that when power creep happens it'll make the game MORE balanced, not less.
Of course, its easy for me to say. I doubt I'll play much if at all at the levels where this will matter.
I just noticed the Tarrasque speaks Aklo and has a really bad sense motive. So, I guess you could just bluff it away.
I'm torn. Part of me is like: "What? That's the stupidest plan I've ever heard."
The rest of me is being like: "I have a vigilante with a ridiculous bluff bonus. I should put a rank in linguistics next level to learn Aklo."
Very powerful, imo. Intelligence is already a very powerful stat, ergo I feel anything that boosts it is unnecessary. Have you considered just giving them a CHA penalty and if they want to use logic in social situations they can do it one of the standard ways (Orator or Student of Philosophy or whatever).
There is in fact already a race with no emotions (android) and they don't automatically get to use INT for CHA based stuff. They have no emotions, so logically they should (by default, at least) be bad at CHA based stuff.
Yes you would get the Operative's Edge bonus in all of those situations.
I think you're under the impression that if you have Skill Focus in the skill, you just DON'T GET the Operative's Edge bonus? This is not true. You still get the bonus, but because it is an insight bonus is doesn't stack with the insight bonus from Skill Focus.
Insight bonuses do not add together, you just take the highest one. So at first level your bonus from Operative's Edge will be +1 whilst your bonus from Skill Focus will be +3; they don't stack so you just take the higher (Skill Focus' +3). However, later on (at 11th level, to be precise) the Operative's Edge bonus will be greater than the Skill Focus bonus and so you'll use Operative's Edge instead.
Hope that helps?
Your proposal doesn't solve the problem, unfortunately. Mystic Cure for example works differently on humanoids than constructs. On humanoids it heals HP damage. On constructs it does nothing. It works differently, and "doing nothing" is clearly worse than being healed. Ergo it does nothing, both by the original wording and your altered version.
This certainly needs to be fixed, but I don't think your proposal does what you want. Honestly I'm not even sure what the developer's intent was for this.
I mean, maybe? But in the end people who bend rules are going to bend them.
That's not to say that it isn't nice to have a system with concise, clearly defined rules with few edge cases. Its just that even in a good rules system there will be gaps. And those gaps will be exploited. That's the fault of the players exploiting them.
So looking for "munchkins" to gauge the quality of the system is probably not a good measure, since you'll end up finding them no matter how good it is. And I'd argue you'd find a similar percentage regardless of the quality of the system. People who bend rules bend them. People who follow rules follow them. That's not the system, that's people.
While everyone is worrying about comm unit batteries my character is running around with a Sarcesian Tactical Sniper Rifle XD
More seriously, though: Munchkins are not really a product of the system. Some people will always manage to misinterpret and break systems regardless of how well they're put together; some people are just like that.
I presume that a computer's level is equal to it's tier.
This would be a reasonable assumption but the crafting rules suggest otherwise; you need skill ranks equal to the level of the relevant item in the associated skill in order to craft it. For computers, however, you need double the computer's tier in skill ranks:
Starfinder CRB page 235 wrote:
This I feel provides enough evidence that we can infer that computer tier doesn't equal item level. Which means computers don't have item levels. So who knows what the answer is.
1: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 6) = 9
2: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 5) = 16
3: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 6) = 17
4: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 2) = 6
5: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 6) = 12
1: 1d6 ⇒ 1
Looks like I'll go with set 17, that gets me 18 17 17 16 16 16. Not too bad, and I couldn't be bothered rolling any more anyway, lol. Probably going to be a Paladin (Shining Knight)/Summoner (Spirit Summoner) at the moment.
If you really want to make Wurrzag, you need to find some way for him to go without armour. Some kind of Monk/Druid build would be extremely thematic, but I'm not sure it would actually work very well. Monk WIS to AC could count for his magical tattoos. Grab undersized mount so you can ride you Boar companion. You don't need much WIS to be a successful druid, but unfortunately you do need it for AC . . .
Whether or not this is possible depends pretty heavily on how powerful he needs to be, and what level he needs to get to. In a friendly, fun game with little concern for whether or not he is actually effective I imagine he could be a fabulous character.