zag01's page

So is the (stand-alone) Adventure line going to still be a thing or is it getting combined with the Adventure Path line?

Yes, Paizo definitely likes "to play" around with greek words.

They eliminated the huge power difference between casters and martials by making the two functionally identical.

This was my biggest complaint against 4e. Not that they made casters and martials functionally identical, but that they made ALL class functionally identical.

In this campaign I'm playing a sorcerer called a fighter. In the next campaign I'm going to play a sorcerer called a rogue.

Except all Reload Actions are indeed Interact Actions,

You have yet to prove this via RAW. You keep saying it is so by proxy or that it is implied. Proxy and implication are rules interpretations, not RAW.

because there is no other form of Actions to be made for Reloading.

I am asserting that RAW says the Strike action includes reloading for reload 0 weapons.

While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.

That "same action" being the Strike action.

While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.

The way I interpret this RAW is that reloading is not automatically an interact action as others assert.

If you reload quickly (reload 0), you do that as part of the Strike action (no Interact). If it takes longer (reload 1+) then, and only then, those other actions are labeled as Interact actions.

This interpretation does give bows another benefit. However, when viewed in this context the other rules that build from here: AoO specifically stating ranged attacks provoke, Mobile Shot Stance, etc. all make more sense... to me.

I believe Uttini is talking about just the Rulebook line. I'd like to second that.

It would be nice to get the 2e rulebook downloads cleaned up into one section. I had to hunt for my Bestiary 3 and found it with my APG under “:Hardcovers”. Meanwhile Bestiary 2 and the GMG are under “:Second Edition Rulebooks”, and the CRB and Bestiary 1 are under “:Rulebooks”.

All the First Edition stuff got moved to a “:First Edition” heading. Can’t you put all the 2e rulebooks together?

When we have an target release date for Pathfinder Lost Omens: Absalom, City of Lost Omens we will promote it. However, you will not have to wait long for the gillmen. :)

So I downloaded my subscriber copy of the Ancestry Guide today and for gillmen it says:

For information on playing an azarketi, see the “Azarketi Ancestry Web Supplement” on paizo.com or Absalom, City of Lost Omens.

Any ETA for either of these?

I don't see a problem with being able to get both dedications at 1st level. It's not like you're getting them for 'free', you're actively choosing them over other heritages/rackets.

You can only ever have one (1) heritage and one (1) racket. While some heritage benefits can be gained by other means, most cannot.

Racket benefits are not reproducible.

I would argue that, due to each being a one time selection, heritages and rackets are 'worth more' than class feats (to include dedication feats). Therefore, the 'bonus' of not having to use a class feat later to select the second dedication feat is actually a poor trade and could be seen as balanced from that perspective.

... We have no plans for Bestiary 4 and will deliver monster content in a different format after this.

I'd love to have more details as to what this means.

Thanks all. Any thoughts on Item level? I like the idea of applying only to cantrips. Perhaps for a lesser version.

My current thought is to utilize Rods & Orbs since those seemed to be dropped in 2e.

Lesser Rod (+1 with cantrips) - level 4
Rod +1 (all spells) - level 10
Rod +2 - level 16

Orb +1 (DCs) - level 12
Orb +2 - level 18

My thought being to keep it a plus behind weapons of similar level and require actions to swap out between rod and orb.

So I'm running an Pathfinder 2e Eberron game converting 3.5 and 5e modules as we go. I came across this item:

WAND OF THE WAR MAGE +1
Wand, uncommon (requires attunement by a spellcaster)
While holding this wand, you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls. In addition, you ignore half cover when making a spell attack.

I assume this is a fairly common (or uncommon as it says) 5e item. [I don't play 5e.]

I've noticed that while +1 weapons and +1 striking weapons are very common in 2e there seem to be no similar items for spellcasters. I'm sure that was a conscious design decision by the Paizo folks, but I'm wondering how much would it break the game if I introduced this type of item. ??

I know I can put what I want into my home games, rule 0, etc. What I'm looking for is advice on what to look out for, power-creep specific. I'm still getting used to the tighter math of this system over 1e/3.5. Would this item seriously skew things? Would also adding +1 to DCs or a separate item that does so be the same/worse?

Right now I'm considering introducing it as only a +1 attack boost and making it tradition specific (arcane, divine, etc). Then a separate item that boosts DCs, also tradition specific. Could use advice on what level to place these at too.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Hello All,

I've started running an Eberron game using the 2e rules and have been converting different things from the original 3.5 ruleset that I haven't seen (or haven't liked) from others.

I'd appreciate feedback on my work thus far:

Artificer

Dragonmarks

Warforged

I haven't seen anyone else tackle the Artificer yet. I modeled it off of the Alchemist which I know people have mixed feelings towards so I'm curious to hear opinions.

The Dragonmark conversions I've seen have mostly adopted the 5e approach and made/treated them as backgrounds. I prefer the original 3.5e style of feats that give spell-like abilities and have modeled them as such. I'll admit these may be a bit OP but that has been the flavor for me.

I've seen a few warforged conversions and most have been good. I even cribbed one that I liked and then tweaked it. (credit given in document).

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge John Templeton's Shardfinder 2 as it's obvious he has put a lot of work into that and I'm stealing regularly for my home game from there.

zag01 wrote:

Can someone provide sources for the info in this thread? Or is it all speculation?

The Glass Cannon podcast and the Alchemist Blog contain most of the info in my original summary. Bits are probably from elsewhere but I can't recall where precisely.

Thanks. I just saw there were more than 2 podcasts. Link to 3 & 4 for those that haven't heard them:

Podcast 3-4

About the 10th time in 10 minutes that you tell a DM that you activate your cloak, that restriction is hand waved, and becomes an always on item. At that point it's just a d10 roll at the beginning of every combat to determine how many rounds you have left.

Do you let everyone with the Resistance cantrip/orison spam it like that too? If that's your GM style I don't see how you can really complain about a 'broken' anything.

I think this has already been mentioned but I'd like to see potion belts, wand/rod sheaths and scroll organizers that offer the same draw advantage as weapons (move action or combined with move action if character is moving and has a BAB of +1 or more).