I Played Pathfinder 2.0 Demo at GaryCon (My Thoughts...)


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

did you see the paladin?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marc Radle wrote:
Healing spells are now in the Necromancy school (I approve!)

That should be once again in the Necromancy school. They were Necromanic (Reversable) in both first and second edition of AD&D. I think they were there for the boxed set as well, but am not certain.

They got moved to Conjuration in 3.0.

——

I don’t like criticals or fumbles, so moving that concept to skills is not an improvement in my opinion. That is especially true if they continue to use a linear D20 to resolve skill checks.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
Healing spells are now in the Necromancy school (I approve!)

That should be once again in the Necromancy school.

WHERE THEY BLOODY BELONG!

#PardonMyInnerGrognard


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only things I am concerned with are:

1) Using a Shield is an action (and the implications of this on TWF)

Someone specifically trained in the use of a shield should be able to attack and defend simultaneously without much effort. I don't mind this being a mechanic for someone who is not proficient in shields, but for someone who is, you should get your shield bonus automatically, and the Shield Reaction should just be one of your reaction options.

2) Opportunity Attacks being only a default option for Fighters and requiring something similar to a feat for other classes.

This just feels like something anyone should be able to do. I get that anyone CAN do it by spending one of their Actions to prepare an attack, but this doesn't make sense to me.

I am already envisioning an instance where one of my players is standing next to a caster who is casting a spell that will ultimately kill a character.

GM - "The necromancer starts casting a spell."
Player - "I hit him!"
GM - "Do you have the Attack of Opportunity Reaction?"
Player - "No. Do I need it?"
GM - "Well, as per the rules, only fighters can make AoOs, but there is a feat."
Player - "I have to have special training to do this?" *Reaches over to the guy sitting next to him and Gib-Slaps him*
Player 2 - "Hey, don't use me as an example!"
GM - "Well, you see, if I let you make an AoO without having the special fighter training or the feat, then I am devaluing the fighter's class feature and that feat, so I can't let you do it."
Player - "Fine, let's just continue."
GM - *clears throat* "The necromancer finishes his spell. Roll a Fortitude Save."
Player - *rolls dice* "15?"
GM - "Sorry, that's not quite enough. Finger of Death kills you."
Player - "SON OF A @#$%&!!!"


6 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

The only things I am concerned with are:

1) Using a Shield is an action (and the implications of this on TWF)

Someone specifically trained in the use of a shield should be able to attack and defend simultaneously without much effort. I don't mind this being a mechanic for someone who is not proficient in shields, but for someone who is, you should get your shield bonus automatically, and the Shield Reaction should just be one of your reaction options.

2) Opportunity Attacks being only a default option for Fighters and requiring something similar to a feat for other classes.

This just feels like something anyone should be able to do. I get that anyone CAN do it by spending one of their Actions to prepare an attack, but this doesn't make sense to me.

I am already envisioning an instance where one of my players is standing next to a caster who is casting a spell that will ultimately kill a character.

GM - "The necromancer starts casting a spell."
Player - "I hit him!"
GM - "Do you have the Attack of Opportunity Reaction?"
Player - "No. Do I need it?"
GM - "Well, as per the rules, only fighters can make AoOs, but there is a feat."
Player - "I have to have special training to do this?" *Reaches over to the guy sitting next to him and Gib-Slaps him*
Player 2 - "Hey, don't use me as an example!"
GM - "Well, you see, if I let you make an AoO without having the special fighter training or the feat, then I am devaluing the fighter's class feature and that feat, so I can't let you do it."
Player - "Fine, let's just continue."
GM - *clears throat* "The necromancer finishes his spell. Roll a Fortitude Save."
Player - *rolls dice* "15?"
GM - "Sorry, that's not quite enough. Finger of Death kills you."
Player - "SON OF A @#$%&!!!"

You're making a lot of assumptions here.

Grand Lodge

Marc,

Where do you see your Warlock, Priest, Battle Scion, Theurge, Trickster, Tinkerer, Spell-less Ranger, Savant, White Necromancer, Skin-Changer, etc., etc. in say, August 2019? Or maybe December 2019?

Thanks!

(And thanks for soliciting the book to me after PaizoCon; all my group has a copy now and uses it as we use the APG and ACG!)

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
thflame wrote:

The only things I am concerned with are:

1) Using a Shield is an action (and the implications of this on TWF)

Someone specifically trained in the use of a shield should be able to attack and defend simultaneously without much effort. I don't mind this being a mechanic for someone who is not proficient in shields, but for someone who is, you should get your shield bonus automatically, and the Shield Reaction should just be one of your reaction options.

2) Opportunity Attacks being only a default option for Fighters and requiring something similar to a feat for other classes.

This just feels like something anyone should be able to do. I get that anyone CAN do it by spending one of their Actions to prepare an attack, but this doesn't make sense to me.

I am already envisioning an instance where one of my players is standing next to a caster who is casting a spell that will ultimately kill a character.

GM - "The necromancer starts casting a spell."
Player - "I hit him!"
GM - "Do you have the Attack of Opportunity Reaction?"
Player - "No. Do I need it?"
GM - "Well, as per the rules, only fighters can make AoOs, but there is a feat."
Player - "I have to have special training to do this?" *Reaches over to the guy sitting next to him and Gib-Slaps him*
Player 2 - "Hey, don't use me as an example!"
GM - "Well, you see, if I let you make an AoO without having the special fighter training or the feat, then I am devaluing the fighter's class feature and that feat, so I can't let you do it."
Player - "Fine, let's just continue."
GM - *clears throat* "The necromancer finishes his spell. Roll a Fortitude Save."
Player - *rolls dice* "15?"
GM - "Sorry, that's not quite enough. Finger of Death kills you."
Player - "SON OF A @#$%&!!!"

You're making a lot of assumptions here.

In that hypothetical situation, I'm just confused about how does someone play the game into high enough levels without learning about how aoo in the game work


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

The only things I am concerned with are:

1) Using a Shield is an action (and the implications of this on TWF)

Someone specifically trained in the use of a shield should be able to attack and defend simultaneously without much effort. I don't mind this being a mechanic for someone who is not proficient in shields, but for someone who is, you should get your shield bonus automatically, and the Shield Reaction should just be one of your reaction options.

2) Opportunity Attacks being only a default option for Fighters and requiring something similar to a feat for other classes.

This just feels like something anyone should be able to do. I get that anyone CAN do it by spending one of their Actions to prepare an attack, but this doesn't make sense to me.

I am already envisioning an instance where one of my players is standing next to a caster who is casting a spell that will ultimately kill a character.

GM - "The necromancer starts casting a spell."
Player - "I hit him!"
GM - "Do you have the Attack of Opportunity Reaction?"
Player - "No. Do I need it?"
GM - "Well, as per the rules, only fighters can make AoOs, but there is a feat."
Player - "I have to have special training to do this?" *Reaches over to the guy sitting next to him and Gib-Slaps him*
Player 2 - "Hey, don't use me as an example!"
GM - "Well, you see, if I let you make an AoO without having the special fighter training or the feat, then I am devaluing the fighter's class feature and that feat, so I can't let you do it."
Player - "Fine, let's just continue."
GM - *clears throat* "The necromancer finishes his spell. Roll a Fortitude Save."
Player - *rolls dice* "15?"
GM - "Sorry, that's not quite enough. Finger of Death kills you."
Player - "SON OF A @#$%&!!!"

I keep seeing people go off about only fighters having AoO's. They are not the only ones. From what I am getting every class will have "AoOs" of one sort or another. In your example the player may not be able to "attack" him if he is not a fighter but if he is spellcaster or someone in the party is, they can reaction with counterspell. Or maybe you're a Monk so you can't "attack" but your reaction is a comabt maneuver. Who know's at this point.

Also in your example, literally, the necromancer takes a 5' step back and still casts it in PF1e, you fail and die. No change unless you are a reach character. We do not know even how reach will work with what we have heard either.

Edit: Also in PF2e from what we are seeing the caster could still take an action for guarded step and then still cast the spell negating the AoO. This new system seems to allow more options for "AoO's" such as a party member who can counterspell saving you from a distance (speculation) instead of only being able to attack with an AoO. In PF1e that same wizard that counterspells in PF2e would not have the opportunity to save you. (Once again anything PF2e is a little bit of listening to what has been played and the majority is speculation).

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed - folks should probably step back and take a breath on the Attack of Opportunity thing. My understanding is that there are lots of ways for this to still happen - I think this is one of those "relax a bit and wait for the final release before getting upset" kind of things

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:

Marc,

Where do you see your Warlock, Priest, Battle Scion, Theurge, Trickster, Tinkerer, Spell-less Ranger, Savant, White Necromancer, Skin-Changer, etc., etc. in say, August 2019? Or maybe December 2019?

Thanks!

(And thanks for soliciting the book to me after PaizoCon; all my group has a copy now and uses it as we use the APG and ACG!)

That's a great question!

We spent some time during GaryCon discussing how this impacts the 12 classes in the New Paths Compendium. Obviously we need to wait until we get the final for the new edition so I can really dig into how the Pathfinder class mechanics might impact the New Paths Compendium classes, but I think it's safe to say we will certainly update the book to be compatible with 2.0 (while keeping the PF1 version available for folks opting to stick with PF1 most likely)

Thanks so much for the kind words about the New Paths Compendium!!

By the way, as much as I would LOVE to keep talking about the New Paths Compendium :) we should probably keep this thread on topic, but please feel free post New Paths Compendium and PF2 questions etc here:

New Paths Compendium


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't find anything inherently immersion-breaking about gating AoOs: if you're fighting with a necromancer and she's casting a spell, you're presumably not just standing there - you're already trying to attack her to the best of your ability (or whatever else you're doing) with your ordinary actions. Reading body language enough to immediately change up your attacks in a good enough way to effectively double (or whatever) your offensive output, while in the midst of adrenaline-rush and tunnel vision, isn't so crazy to think of as something that experienced soldiers and mercenaries, but maybe not most outdoorsmen or thieves or apothecaries, can pull off.

Likeise the action-for-shield thing: with shield bonuses for actions, you're simulating the ability for someone to pay more or less attention to offense or defense, to situationally adjust their footwork and hand positioning to be more or less guarded; with automatic flat bonuses for having a shield you're simulating the ability for someone with a shield to do the best job they can balancing those. Neither is inherently unrealistic, although both are abstractions that sacrifice some granularity to just let the game go on.

Of course, the effect these have on the speed/balance/tactical depth/&c. of gameplay is a separate question; that's what intensive playtesting and theorycrafting (with actual math rather than just intuitions) is for.


Marc Radle wrote:
The active use of shields (instead of the more passive "I have a shield so I'm just always using it") was very cool.

Can you please explain how it works at all?

For what I heard, seems that a character need to choose to use and action to attack or rise its shield. And it just seems that martial character where handcaped this way...

Looks like now they can make less attacks (in higher levels) because they need to pay attention rising the shield.

Please kill my curiosity :D


when all the way to grey-con and missed this came on Sunday sadface. glad someone saw it and was able to pass on info


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I get that other characters might have alternate reactions to handle a similar situation, but that is irrelevant. It is nothing to swing a drawn weapon at someone who lets their guard down. It is common sense. Easy. Trivial.

The point is, you are keeping a character from doing something that they are literally physically capable of doing, because the game mechanic says no. Not that there aren't rules for it, or that it is too complex for the game to emulate, but because the rules specifically say, "no".

This is something that 4e did that turned a LOT of players away. Heck, PF1 does it with some feats.

I can always just houserule that everyone gets the AoO reaction and I'll just make up something else for the fighter to get as a class feature, but I really wish the Devs would think about the general feasibility of a mechanic before they lock it behind a class feature or a feat.

And, no, I will not wait until the final release of the game to address the flaws I see. At that point it is too late. This is the entire point of the playtest.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey everyone - a quick request.

Can we PLEASE try not to turn this thread into a general discussion / argument about game mechanics? There are *plenty* of other threads here on the forums for that.

I'd really like to keep this thread just for talking about the actual playtest / demo please

Thanks!


A question, if I may:

Did a shield provide its usual AC benefit regardless of its wielder's use of the new "shield block" action?

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Redblade8 wrote:

A question, if I may:

Did a shield provide its usual AC benefit regardless of its wielder's use of the new "shield block" action?

It did. Basically, you just have to use action(s) initially to ready / get the shield up and into position. Once you do, you just use it like you always did.

If you know you are about to go into combat, you can do this before hand.


The more I hear about this, the more I like it. Sounds like the change in Valeros' gear is probably an effort to showcase sword and board as "it's not just a form of TWF anymore!"


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Marc, thank you for your reports. Do you feel confident talking about anything rogue related? Sneak attack, Seek action, Trap skills and such?


Marc Radle wrote:
Grumpus wrote:
You say starting hit points are higher. Is the average damage dished out still lower or raised to compensate for more HP?

Damage did not seem to change - first level characters just have more hit points so they are a bit more resilient :)

If I remember correctly, I think Jason said you now derive your total hit points from your class, your race (sorry, ancestry - gonna take some time to get used to that!) and your background.

Seems like how HP is derived is a bit more static and similar to how starfinder did HP. Your race gives you some specific HP to start with and your class gives you some specific HP and then your con bonus.

I think it is a pretty sane way to handle the normal first/second level problems of accidental player killing. It gives you enough buffer so there is a chance to heal or retreat before getting smote. If it is like starfinder in this the bigger or more durable your race will give you a bigger racial HP than smaller ones.


Matthias W wrote:
I don't find anything inherently immersion-breaking about gating AoOs: if you're fighting with a necromancer and she's casting a spell, you're presumably not just standing there - you're already trying to attack her to the best of your ability (or whatever else you're doing) with your ordinary actions. Reading body language enough to immediately change up your attacks in a good enough way to effectively double (or whatever) your offensive output, while in the midst of adrenaline-rush and tunnel vision, isn't so crazy to think of as something that experienced soldiers and mercenaries, but maybe not most outdoorsmen or thieves or apothecaries, can pull off.

The reason why low level fighters in PF1 can only attack once is that they aren't skilled enough to find openings to exploit. The idea is that the necromancer (in this case) is normally actively trying to keep you from hitting her and not leaving an opening for you to attack. When she casts a spell, she is dropping her guard (unless stuff like casting defensively, which makes casting harder), leaving an opening that anyone could exploit.

The other problem is that my character actively has a resource to respond, the Reaction, but because I don't have the right flavor of Reaction, I may be prohibited from reacting in a way my character realistically would. Again, nothing is stopping the average commoner from throwing a punch (however ineffective it may be) at the orc shaman as he ominously starts chanting and waving his arms rhythmicly (besides maybe fear).

Quote:
Likeise the action-for-shield thing: with shield bonuses for actions, you're simulating the ability for someone to pay more or less attention to offense or defense, to situationally adjust their footwork and hand positioning to be more or less guarded; with automatic flat bonuses for having a shield you're simulating the ability for someone with a shield to do the best job they can balancing those. Neither is inherently unrealistic, although both are abstractions that sacrifice some granularity to just let the game go on.

Except that anyone properly trained in shield use knows how to close off angles as they attack. As I mentioned earlier, the new mechanic makes sense for someone who doesn't know how to use a shield effectively, but the example we were given was a fighter that presumably was proficient.

I actually like the idea of the Shield Reaction though. I just think it should be a default option for anyone holding a shield that doesn't require burning one of your actions earlier.

Also, we already have a mechanic for focusing more on defense, it's called "fighting defensively". You get a slight bonus to AC in return for a larger penalty to attack rolls. It's something that anyone can do.

Quote:
Of course, the effect these have on the speed/balance/tactical depth/&c. of gameplay is a separate question; that's what intensive playtesting and theorycrafting (with actual math rather than just intuitions) is for.

Granted it may not be "balanced" for players to exploit these mechanics based on the new system, but that isn't really a good excuse for locking them behind class features or mechanics. Not to mention that this was relatively balanced before, why change it now?


Bruno Mares wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
The active use of shields (instead of the more passive "I have a shield so I'm just always using it") was very cool.

Can you please explain how it works at all?

For what I heard, seems that a character need to choose to use and action to attack or rise its shield. And it just seems that martial character where handcaped this way...

Looks like now they can make less attacks (in higher levels) because they need to pay attention rising the shield.

Please kill my curiosity :D

It is my understanding that shield usage you as one of your three actions raise your shield. Doing this gives you the ac boost of having the shield and then lets you do a reaction to one attack that round to reduce its damage by the hardness of the shield.

If you are in close combat you could still attack twice while doing this or move and attack once.

If you are trying to do three attacks the penalties for the third attack is -10 to hit. Chances are you are either desparate or you are attacking lesser powerful minions. In the first case then going full offense is probably warranted because it is kill or be killed. In the second you probably don't need the shield ac boost or damage blocking so going full attack makes sense.


Redblade8 wrote:
The more I hear about this, the more I like it. Sounds like the change in Valeros' gear is probably an effort to showcase sword and board as "it's not just a form of TWF anymore!"

Was it ever JUST a form of TWF? You can Shield Bash in PF1, but is was generally less efficient than using TWF. The point of a Shield in PF1 is to grant you more AC at the cost of being able to use 2 handed weapons. Shield Bash was just a feat you could take to let you attack with your shield instead of blocking with it.


Marc Radle wrote:
Redblade8 wrote:

A question, if I may:

Did a shield provide its usual AC benefit regardless of its wielder's use of the new "shield block" action?

It did. Basically, you just have to use action(s) initially to ready / get the shield up and into position. Once you do, you just use it like you always did.

If you know you are about to go into combat, you can do this before hand.

This isn't how it worked in the GCP, so maybe they have changed it since then? If so, this is good news.


Thanks for the glimpse at the new rules Marc.

Marc Radle wrote:
Healing spells are now in the Necromancy school (I approve!)

That's pretty old school. I like it.

Did save bonuses seem normal? Or unexpected?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:
And, now that I think about it, the couple of time someone rolled 20 (both in combat or on a skill check) we were NOT asked to confirm ... so it looks like you no longer need to confirm crits (which I really like - much more like earlier editions of D&D)

Um..prior to 3.x, there weren't criticals, at least, not outside of optional rules and perhaps splatbooks.

thflame wrote:
And, no, I will not wait until the final release of the game to address the flaws I see. At that point it is too late. This is the entire point of the playtest.

Um, I think the current thingy is that we're in pre-playtest now. Playtest hasn't even started yet, that's Aug 2, and will go on for about a year at that point before PF2 is formally live.

My group "participated" in the last playtest, but only in that we partook of Paizo's free PDFs so I can't comment on how responsive they are to feedback ^.^;;

I can't imagine they're worse than WotC though ^.^


kaid wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
The active use of shields (instead of the more passive "I have a shield so I'm just always using it") was very cool.

Can you please explain how it works at all?

For what I heard, seems that a character need to choose to use and action to attack or rise its shield. And it just seems that martial character where handcaped this way...

Looks like now they can make less attacks (in higher levels) because they need to pay attention rising the shield.

Please kill my curiosity :D

It is my understanding that shield usage you as one of your three actions raise your shield. Doing this gives you the ac boost of having the shield and then lets you do a reaction to one attack that round to reduce its damage by the hardness of the shield.

If you are in close combat you could still attack twice while doing this or move and attack once.

If you are trying to do three attacks the penalties for the third attack is -10 to hit. Chances are you are either desparate or you are attacking lesser powerful minions. In the first case then going full offense is probably warranted because it is kill or be killed. In the second you probably don't need the shield ac boost or damage blocking so going full attack makes sense.

Marc already said that it works like always did, but now a new action can give you DR.

I'm just glad this is this way now :)


Marc Radle wrote:
Redblade8 wrote:

A question, if I may:

Did a shield provide its usual AC benefit regardless of its wielder's use of the new "shield block" action?

It did. Basically, you just have to use action(s) initially to ready / get the shield up and into position. Once you do, you just use it like you always did.

If you know you are about to go into combat, you can do this before hand.

Thanks for this!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

30 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:

...if they continue to use a linear D20 to resolve skill checks.

I just asked the design department if we can switch to a nonlinear d20—perhaps one numbered using the Fibonacci sequence. I was beaten soundly.


Planpanther wrote:
I believe Mark mentioned something about crit fails in combat just being a straight up miss. Sounds like they are not adding in the crit fail stooges deck to the game. Just leaving space for it to be added if tables like nyuck nycuk.

I saw that too. In which case the term probably shouldn't be "critical fail" or "fumble" or the like. More like "Auto-fail." to reinforce the idea that it's just that 1s always fail but aren't worse than a standard failure. Critical Failure just brings to mind something extra happening.

Designer

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
BretI wrote:

...if they continue to use a linear D20 to resolve skill checks.

I just asked the design department if we can switch to a nonlinear d20—perhaps one numbered using the Fibonacci sequence. I was beaten soundly.

Clearly the only viable options are linear d20, quantum d20 that rolls all 20 results simultaneously and calculates all possible outcomes, roll a Klein bottle labeled with various numbers, call a relative and ask them to pick any number between 1 and 20, or draw from a deck of popsicle sticks numbered 1 to 20 without replacing until you draw a 20 or a 1.

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
I believe Mark mentioned something about crit fails in combat just being a straight up miss. Sounds like they are not adding in the crit fail stooges deck to the game. Just leaving space for it to be added if tables like nyuck nycuk.
I saw that too. In which case the term probably shouldn't be "critical fail" or "fumble" or the like. More like "Auto-fail." to reinforce the idea that it's just that 1s always fail but aren't worse than a standard failure. Critical Failure just brings to mind something extra happening.

There is a category of success called "Critical Failure." But not everything you can attempt needs to have a special effect on a critical failure. Similarly, not everything has a special result on a critical success, if it doesn't fit or isn't useful.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
BretI wrote:

...if they continue to use a linear D20 to resolve skill checks.

I just asked the design department if we can switch to a nonlinear d20—perhaps one numbered using the Fibonacci sequence. I was beaten soundly.
Clearly the only viable options are linear d20, quantum d20 that rolls all 20 results simultaneously and calculates all possible outcomes, roll a Klein bottle labeled with various numbers, call a relative and ask them to pick any number between 1 and 20, or draw from a deck of popsicle sticks numbered 1 to 20 without replacing until you draw a 20 or a 1.

Go by Dead rules, break out the Jenga bricks.

Silver Crusade

What are the skill proficiencies like? Is it as bad as it seems to be from what they're saying, that you essentially start with -1 ranks in a skill I can only ever get up to 3? How many ranks did characters seem to start with?


What was the Agile/Finesse weapon multi-attack penalty? I keep hearing -2/-4 and -4/-8. Which one is it?


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
What are the skill proficiencies like? Is it as bad as it seems to be from what they're saying, that you essentially start with -1 ranks in a skill I can only ever get up to 3? How many ranks did characters seem to start with?

That's for proficiencies, which are also tied to your level in some manner. Things like perception and possibly other previous skills that everyone had access to.

For skills, you'll still have ranks to purchase.


ryric wrote:
The fact that someone can fumble a DC10 check implies that Nat 1s are fumbles even if the DC isn't failed by 10 - I'm not sure I like that. I'd rather the +-10 rule replace nat 1/nat 20 for fumbles and crits and not be in addition to it - especially with skills. I really don't want Olympic class swimmers failing to stay afloat in calm water 5% of the time or people jumping to the moon 5% of the time. If it's just +-10 for crit you avoid that by setting the DC appropriately.

Well, in that case just don't ask for a skill check and assume the character is taking 10 on his check, if you are the GM. If you are the player, just take 10.

And if you are in combat, you can just assume that the character failed the check because he was distracted, not because he cannot swim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redblade8 wrote:
The more I hear about this, the more I like it. Sounds like the change in Valeros' gear is probably an effort to showcase sword and board as "it's not just a form of TWF anymore!"

But couldn't they have just used the iconic paladin for that? She already is a sword and board person. So they could showcase it, and still have a TWF character, and keep the ranger as a ranged character (hopefully they make crossbows not suck).


Vic Wertz wrote:
I just asked the design department if we can switch to a nonlinear d20—perhaps one numbered using the Fibonacci sequence. I was beaten soundly.

One good punishment deserves another.


Thomas, A wrote:
when all the way to grey-con and missed it. came on Saturday sadface. glad someone saw it and was able to pass on info

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, crits still have consequences (you make more dmg) but fumbles not? (you just miss).okay, that's nothing that a houserule can't change, but c'mon

the rest of the notes I'm pretty okay or indefferent about. even skill crits (rolling 20s on skills was houesruled as auomatic success in a couple of or games 15 years ago already)

eric i think gave an example where there was a fumble check going down a hill and it have a hendered condition until a rest but i could be mistaken


jimthegray wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, crits still have consequences (you make more dmg) but fumbles not? (you just miss).okay, that's nothing that a houserule can't change, but c'mon

the rest of the notes I'm pretty okay or indefferent about. even skill crits (rolling 20s on skills was houesruled as auomatic success in a couple of or games 15 years ago already)

eric i think gave an example where there was a fumble check going down a hill and it have a hendered condition until a rest but i could be mistaken

As I recall someone saying, it was something of a hazard that in the PF module originally did like... 1d4 Dex damage, but in this case did Hampered 5, reducing the speed of the character by 5 feet.

I don't have the module, so I'm not sure on that, though.


Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
BretI wrote:

...if they continue to use a linear D20 to resolve skill checks.

I just asked the design department if we can switch to a nonlinear d20—perhaps one numbered using the Fibonacci sequence. I was beaten soundly.
Clearly the only viable options are linear d20, quantum d20 that rolls all 20 results simultaneously and calculates all possible outcomes, roll a Klein bottle labeled with various numbers, call a relative and ask them to pick any number between 1 and 20, or draw from a deck of popsicle sticks numbered 1 to 20 without replacing until you draw a 20 or a 1.

I was thinking linear vs. standard probability curve. I suppose you could do this with a special D20 that had six possible results: 0, +1, +2, -1, -2, and crit. Sort of fudge dice, only using a d20. That or use 3d6 for checks.

The reason for Take 10 is the standard deviation on a d20 is so high.

Still, I would like to see the Klein bottle dice.

Liberty's Edge

Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
What was the Agile/Finesse weapon multi-attack penalty? I keep hearing -2/-4 and -4/-8. Which one is it?

Pretty sure it was -4/ -8


Marc Radle wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
What was the Agile/Finesse weapon multi-attack penalty? I keep hearing -2/-4 and -4/-8. Which one is it?
Pretty sure it was -4/ -8

Aw, bummer. I was hoping it'd hit a happy middle ground. Ah well, at least with increased BAB, Rogues and other Dex types will be able to hit this new Flatfooted. (Looking at you, Starfinder. Why the hell is Operative 15 BAB?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gozer "Bone Splitter" wrote:
If you listen to the playtest on glasscannon one of the characters crit fumbles a skill on society. He gets incorrect information, but the other characters are able to correct his mistake. Taken in that context I really like the crit fumble of skills idea.

Yes fumbling things like knowlege make sense of giving wrong answers. Dropping your sword fumbles kind of got old once I turned 18.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
doctor_wu wrote:
Gozer "Bone Splitter" wrote:
If you listen to the playtest on glasscannon one of the characters crit fumbles a skill on society. He gets incorrect information, but the other characters are able to correct his mistake. Taken in that context I really like the crit fumble of skills idea.
Yes fumbling things like knowlege make sense of giving wrong answers. Dropping your sword fumbles kind of got old once I turned 18.

It's already been addressed repeatedly that a critical fumble on an attack is just a miss unless and only unless the opponent has a Reaction that can take advantage of your fumble. This appears to be one of the things that might be geared toward rogues, monks and fighters.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Marc Radle wrote:
I was lucky enough to play in Jason's final Pathfinder 2.0 demo at GaryCon this Saturday. Here are my thoughts ...

Thanks for posting this. You're one of the very few people to have first-hand experience with the new proposed rules, and you're a longtime poster I have a lot of respect for. I appreciate your assessment.

-Skeld

Silver Crusade

Fuzzypaws wrote:
doctor_wu wrote:
Gozer "Bone Splitter" wrote:
If you listen to the playtest on glasscannon one of the characters crit fumbles a skill on society. He gets incorrect information, but the other characters are able to correct his mistake. Taken in that context I really like the crit fumble of skills idea.
Yes fumbling things like knowlege make sense of giving wrong answers. Dropping your sword fumbles kind of got old once I turned 18.
It's already been addressed repeatedly that a critical fumble on an attack is just a miss unless and only unless the opponent has a Reaction that can take advantage of your fumble. This appears to be one of the things that might be geared toward rogues, monks and fighters.

Reaction idea #23, ability to smack the business end of the flail back into the person's face.

1 to 50 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / I Played Pathfinder 2.0 Demo at GaryCon (My Thoughts...) All Messageboards