Druid, and other PaizoCon banquet information!


Prerelease Discussion

301 to 350 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Benjamin Medrano wrote:
Ezren wasn't so lucky.
After how many times he hit the rest of us with acid splash splash damage, I really haven't any sympathy for the old man.

If he'd done that to us, I'd agree with you! Fortunately for my group, he was far more conscientious about spell targeting. Still took 11 damage from the fall.


John John wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

- Animal companions have the minion trait. (No, it's not like 4e minions. Or Despicable Me minions, thank goodness.) That means that they get two actions on your turn if you spend a Command an Animal action. This replaces the normal effects of that action.

So if they are allowed to do whatever they naturally want they get the normal 3 actions?

That seems pretty unlikely. This matches up with the action economy nerfs to companions we say with Starfinder's mechanic drones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So if you dont spend a command action they do nothing?
I mean I can see the logic balance wise, but otherwise I don't see how this makes any sense.

Liberty's Edge

John John wrote:

So if you dont spend a command action they do nothing?

I mean I can see the logic balance wise, but otherwise I don't see how this makes any sense.

It's very possible you only need to command them to do new things. So they'd keep attacking a single target without you spending the action but need a new command for a new target and the like.

But I think they only have two actions whether obeying commands or not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


But I think they only have two actions whether obeying commands or not.

I didn't say so in my post, but that's also kinda weird to me. I can see it maybe working if they need less than 3 action to do certain things, like full attacking for example.

But yeah them having 1 less action because they are minions, I could see this being the case for creatures who are dominated or even charmed or even controlled undead, but what difference has an animal companion vs a normal animal to the point one can take 2 action and the other 3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Part of my playtest feedback, assuming they don’t get actions, will be a simple, weak default, like readying an attack against the first person who tries to hit them. It accounts for the two actions they would have gotten and is generally a reasonable enough thing for an animal to do, without making it particularly reliable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if it means anything, but Occultism is an INT-based skill based on the latest blog post. Religion and Nature are WIS-based, while Arcana is INT-based.

This seems to point that Occultism is for an INT-based caster, although then again, Sorcerer's going to have to have something and is likely still a CHA-based caster, and there isn't really a CHA-based skill to go along with it.


Meophist wrote:

I don't know if it means anything, but Occultism is an INT-based skill based on the latest blog post. Religion and Nature are WIS-based, while Arcana is INT-based.

This seems to point that Occultism is for an INT-based caster, although then again, Sorcerer's going to have to have something and is likely still a CHA-based caster, and there isn't really a CHA-based skill to go along with it.

Oooh~ good catch. It may be possible that Sorcerers will be able to add their Charisma modifier to Arcana Checks as well, much like how the Alchemist gains Resonance for both their Charisma and Intelligence Modifiers.

Or if they choose their Spell List based off of their Bloodline, then they’d add Charisma to their rolls using their Bloodline Skill. Which would be Arcana/Nature/Religion/Occultism depending on which Spell List their Bloodline gives them access to.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd dig it if sorcerers got CHA to at least one magic skill. I know they don't study and all, but man it is weird how little sorcerers actually know about the magic. Adding Charisma would be cool for representing them FEELING how magic works, rather than through logic and analysis.


GentleGiant wrote:
Acrobat - STR or DEX, Steady Balance, Circus Lore

Fortunately, "Circus Lore" is easily changed to "Entertainment Lore" if you don't actually have 19th Century circuses performing in your campaign setting. Feats of acrobatic daring for the purpose of others' entertainment, such as Cretan bull-leaping, the European juggler-acrobats, or the Korean jultagi, existed for a very long time prior to the introduction of the relatively modern circus.

Don't get me wrong though, if you have circuses in your setting, then it is totally sweet and sign me up ;D


Fuzzypaws wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Phylactery of the Occult also grants guidance as an innate Occult spell. I'm pretty sure guidance is not a ritual.

I think we've got Occult pretty well confirmed as our fourth spell list.

Also, that means we've got a skill for each list (Arcana, Nature, Occultism, and Religion).

The interesting part of this is...

who among the spellcasting classes in the core book is an occultist spellcaster?? Bard?

I'm guessing Sorcerer is now Occult, and Bard like Paladin isn't a spellcaster at all but relies on spell point mana abilities.

Alternately, occult doubles down on mentalism type effects and that is the list the Bard uses to influence people, with "sonic effects" and such like Sound Burst now being spell point abilities.

Thematically-speaking, an "occult" spell list would suit a strong focus on psychological spells, effects that target the psyche or soul, and effects that target the undead – and not so much the manipulation of physical or elemental energies. The bard already does a lot of those things, and would probably suit having spell options that draw from the occult list, whereas people would be very sad if their sorcerers couldn't blow things up as well as a wizard ;)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
quillblade wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Phylactery of the Occult also grants guidance as an innate Occult spell. I'm pretty sure guidance is not a ritual.

I think we've got Occult pretty well confirmed as our fourth spell list.

Also, that means we've got a skill for each list (Arcana, Nature, Occultism, and Religion).

The interesting part of this is...

who among the spellcasting classes in the core book is an occultist spellcaster?? Bard?

I'm guessing Sorcerer is now Occult, and Bard like Paladin isn't a spellcaster at all but relies on spell point mana abilities.

Alternately, occult doubles down on mentalism type effects and that is the list the Bard uses to influence people, with "sonic effects" and such like Sound Burst now being spell point abilities.

Thematically-speaking, an "occult" spell list would suit a strong focus on psychological spells, effects that target the psyche or soul, and effects that target the undead – and not so much the manipulation of physical or elemental energies. The bard already does a lot of those things, and would probably suit having spell options that draw from the occult list, whereas people would be very sad if their sorcerers couldn't blow things up as well as a wizard ;)

I think this description fits the blending of Mental and Spiritual that should be the 4th list (ie Occult)


John John wrote:

So if you dont spend a command action they do nothing?

I mean I can see the logic balance wise, but otherwise I don't see how this makes any sense.

In-game, I'm sure the Companion is probably doing something - just not anything useful/productive from its Mistress' PoV...


So, skill to spell list.

Arcana = Arcane (Int).

Nature = Primal (Wis).

Occultism = Occult (Int).

Religion = Divine (Wis).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:

So, skill to spell list.

Arcana = Arcane (Int).

Nature = Primal (Wis).

Occultism = Occult (Int).

Religion = Divine (Wis).

Yup. I suspect that means Prepared Casters from those lists will mostly (perhaps exclusively) use those stats for casting. Spontaneous Casters will mostly use Charisma regardless of spell list, though some may use those stats as well.

And I think I've been convinced that Occult is Mental/Spiritual. That'd make Mental spell lists Int-based and Vital spell lists Wis-based which makes a lot of sense.

That construction makes a Mental/Vital or Material/Spiritual spell list impossible, which would mean the four we've got are probably all we'll ever get for spell lists. Which actually seems workable.

I'm cool with this as long as you can do some healing with the Occult list.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Banquet, recorded by Know Direction


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:

There was also this little critter revealed (sorry if the formatting doesn't quite contain all intricacies of the statblock, such as italized text):

GRIM REAPER - Creature 21
Evil, Medium, Undead
Perception +38, darkvision, see invisibility, status sight, true seeing
Languages Common, Necril
Skills +26, Acrobatics +38, Athletics +36, Deception +38, Intimidation +38, Religion +36, Society +36, Stealth +40
Str +8, Dex +10, Con +8, Int +5, Wis +6, Cha +8
Items Legendary scythe
Aura of Misfortune (aura, divination, divine, misfortune) 20 feet. Living creatures in the aura must roll twice and take the lower result on all d20 rolls.
Death's Grace A grim reaper can choose not to cout as undead of effects that affect undead differently. Even if it does, it still never counts as a living creature.
Status Sight A grim reaper automatically knows the Hit Points and emotions of all creatures it can see, as well as all conditions and afflictions affecting those creatures.

AC 45, TAC 44; Fort +34, Ref +35, Will +36, +1 conditional to all vs. magic
HP 350, Immunities Asleep, death effects, disease, paralysis, poison; Resistances all damage 10
[[R]] Lurking Death (attack, teleportation)
Trigger A creature within 100 feet uses a concentrate, manipulate, or move action or makes a ranged attack.
Effect The grim reaper teleports to a square adjacent to the triggering creature and makes a melee Strike against it with a -2 penalty. If the Strike hits, the grim reaper disrupts the triggering action.

Speed 50 feet, fly 75 feet
[[A]] Melee +5 keen scythe, +37 (agile, deadly 3d10, magical, reach 10 feet, trip) Damage 6d10+8 slashing plus death strike and energy drain
Innate Divine Spells DC 42, attack +37; Constant haste, true seeing (6th); 10th finger of death (x4); 7th plane shift
Death...

This seems to confirm, incidentally, that spell resistance doesn't exist anymore in PF2. If it existed, this creature would have it. And eliminating it works given PF2s switch to levels of success rather than a binary fail/succeed outcome, as well as eliminating boring "must have" feats like Spell Penetration.


Interesting. So is it "adios" CL?

re: the Lurking Death ability, I had understood that Reaction/AoEs would NOT "happen before" triggering action.
Is this an exception to that rule, then? It seems to treat "disrupt the triggering action" as something that's already defined in rules.
(i.e. this doesn't seem such a huge exception that it needs to explain what "disrupt triggering action" does/means)

EDIT: the mention of "ranged attack" reminds me the distinctions of types of attack could be clearer than P1E.
i.e. what is meant by "ranged attack"? does a Hold Person spell count? does Ranged Touch Attacks count?
The game should have clear specific terms for all of these, while also having umbrella terms which encompass all of them.
P1E did not have clear term for "normal AC targetting attack".
I don't think we know enough about "maneuvers" in P2E yet, I believe they use Athletics as "attack roll",
but is it opposed Athletics check, a Touch Attack, a CMD type statistic, etc?


Looking at the video, I don't think anyone's mentioned Disjunction yet. Looks like it's only usable on a magic item (vs an unattended magic item for Dispel Magic), and takes it out for 1 week, destroyed on crit success. Interesting note is that it now automatically fails on artifacts.


Xenocrat wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

GRIM REAPER - Creature 21

Evil, Medium, Undead
Perception +38, darkvision, see invisibility, status sight, true seeing
Languages Common, Necril
Skills +26, Acrobatics +38, Athletics +36, Deception +38, Intimidation +38, Religion +36, Society +36, Stealth +40
Str +8, Dex +10, Con +8, Int +5, Wis +6, Cha +8
Items Legendary scythe
Aura of Misfortune (aura, divination, divine, misfortune) 20 feet. Living creatures in the aura must roll twice and take the lower result on all d20 rolls.
Death's Grace A grim reaper can choose not to count as undead for effects that affect undead differently. Even if it does, it still never counts as a living creature.
Status Sight A grim reaper automatically knows the Hit Points and emotions of all creatures it can see, as well as all conditions and afflictions affecting those creatures.

AC 45, TAC 44; Fort +34, Ref +35, Will +36, +1 conditional to all vs. magic
HP 350, Immunities Asleep, death effects, disease, paralysis, poison; Resistances all damage 10
[[R]] Lurking Death (attack, teleportation)
Trigger A creature within 100 feet uses a concentrate, manipulate, or move action or makes a ranged attack.
Effect The grim reaper teleports to a square adjacent to the triggering creature and makes a melee Strike against it with a -2 penalty. If the Strike hits, the grim reaper disrupts the triggering action.

Speed 50 feet, fly 75 feet
[[A]] Melee +5 keen scythe, +37 (agile, deadly 3d10, magical, reach 10 feet, trip) Damage 6d10+8 slashing plus death strike and energy drain
Innate Divine Spells DC 42, attack +37; Constant haste, true seeing (6th); 10th finger of death (x4);

This seems to confirm, incidentally, that spell resistance doesn't exist anymore in PF2. If it existed, this creature would have it. And eliminating it works given PF2s switch to levels of success rather than a binary fail/succeed outcome, as well as eliminating boring "must have" feats like Spell Penetration.

Aside from the fact that the Grim Reaper literally has the "*teleports behind you* Nothing Personal kid." maneuver, thereby proving he is the edgiest of all bosses, has anyone noticed that he's and Undead with a +8 Con mod?

As a fun anecdote, for a bit of fun, my party of level 18 PF1 characters (Fighter, Swashbuckler, Shaman, Mesmerist, Alchemist) that have been playing for 2 years, and routinely fight things at APL+5 or 6 without breaking a sweat, decided to run an encounter versus this guy. He uses these stats, and the PF2 action + crit system. We had unlimited time to buff, but used PF1 action + crit system. Long story short, he slaughtered us all in 4 rounds. My Swashbuckler lasted the longest through lucky parries and fortification rolls against his crits, but the Grim Reaper was utterly unstoppable.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Remy P Gilbeau wrote:


Aside from the fact that the Grim Reaper literally has the "*teleports behind you* Nothing Personal kid." maneuver, thereby proving he is the edgiest of all bosses, has anyone noticed that he's and Undead with a +8 Con mod?

As a fun anecdote, for a bit of fun, my party of level 18 PF1 characters (Fighter, Swashbuckler, Shaman, Mesmerist, Alchemist) that have been playing for 2 years, and routinely fight things at APL+5 or 6 without breaking a sweat, decided to run an encounter versus this guy. He uses these stats, and the PF2 action + crit system. We had unlimited time to buff, but used PF1 action + crit system. Long story short, he slaughtered us all in 4 rounds. My Swashbuckler lasted the longest through lucky parries and fortification rolls against his crits, but the Grim Reaper was utterly unstoppable.

Given how crazy of numbers or combos it's possible to have at level 18, I wouldn't be shocked if some group could win a challenge set up the way you did (particularly with a GM willing to make friendly rulings on potential auto-win combos), but the numbers alone are really against a normal level 18 group. It has an AC that's standard for a CR 27 monster in PF1 and high attack for a CR 26, but attack and AC are the parts where the numbers scale more in line with PF1. Its saves are all higher than a CR 30's good save, and the save DC is much higher than the primary ability DC of a CR 30.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Remy P Gilbeau wrote:
As a fun anecdote, for a bit of fun, my party of level 18 PF1 characters (Fighter, Swashbuckler, Shaman, Mesmerist, Alchemist) that have been playing for 2 years, and routinely fight things at APL+5 or 6 without breaking a sweat, decided to run an encounter versus this guy. He uses these stats, and the PF2 action + crit system. We had unlimited time to buff, but used PF1 action + crit system. Long story short, he slaughtered us all in 4 rounds. My Swashbuckler lasted the longest through lucky parries and fortification rolls against his crits, but the Grim Reaper was utterly unstoppable.
Given how crazy of numbers or combos it's possible to have at level 18, I wouldn't be shocked if some group could win a challenge set up the way you did (particularly with a GM willing to make friendly rulings on potential auto-win combos), but the numbers alone are really against a normal level 18 group. It has an AC that's standard for a CR 27 monster in PF1 and high attack for a CR 26, but attack and AC are the parts where the numbers scale more in line with PF1. Its saves are all higher than a CR 30's good save, and the save DC is much higher than the primary ability DC of a CR 30.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not salty. I wasn't expecting the systems to play nice when you take a PF1 character using PF1 numbers and put it against a PF2 "We've annoyed the DM" level monster using PF2's numbers and systems. I can't wait to have a rematch one day with a level 18+ second edition party.


Nice catch with the "curiously healthy Undead" (CON score)

Interesting to see how Energy Drain works, simple penalty to everything seems simpler to apply now.
P1E was IMHO too lenient to casters, as aside from CL it didn't really affect their spells at all. (even Concentration)
Spells with Saves should probably be getting that penalty now, although who knows re: no-Save spells?

"A grim reaper can choose not to count as undead"
IMHO this is problematic, when does 'choosing' occur? Is metagaming knowledge of effect on Undead vs Not-Undead reasonable? Better is simply saying "Grim Reaper does not count as Undead for purposes of effects uniquely harmful to Undead". (Is Detect Undead affected?)

"+1 conditional to all vs. magic" Seems like heavy boilerplate, especially if multiple conditional modifiers are in play which isn't that unreasonable. "+1 vs. magic" (or "+1 conditional bonus vs. magic" if conditional is de jure bonus type ala enhancement) seems to do the job IMHO.

"Immunities Asleep" Asleep seems awkward, "Sleep" seems the appropriate term, not sure if this was just type-o?


Asleep is probably a specific status effect (like we've seen Slow 1) that can be caused by a variety of things.


Quandary wrote:

Nice catch with the "curiously healthy Undead" (CON score)

Interesting to see how Energy Drain works, simple penalty to everything seems simpler to apply now.
P1E was IMHO too lenient to casters, as aside from CL it didn't really affect their spells at all. (even Concentration)
Spells with Saves should probably be getting that penalty now, although who knows re: no-Save spells?

"A grim reaper can choose not to count as undead"
IMHO this is problematic, when does 'choosing' occur? Is metagaming knowledge of effect on Undead vs Not-Undead reasonable? Better is simply saying "Grim Reaper does not count as Undead for purposes of effects uniquely harmful to Undead". (Is Detect Undead affected?)

"+1 conditional to all vs. magic" Seems like heavy boilerplate, especially if multiple conditional modifiers are in play which isn't that unreasonable. "+1 vs. magic" (or "+1 conditional bonus vs. magic" if conditional is de jure bonus type ala enhancement) seems to do the job IMHO.

"Immunities Asleep" Asleep seems awkward, "Sleep" seems the appropriate term, not sure if this was just type-o?

"Choosing to count as undead" is reminiscent of some other stuff I've been curious about with how meta information is understood in and out of game. Figuring out what level you need to cast dispel magic at, for example, or learning the reactions enemy's have.

The reaper may he able to subconsciously use which ever creature type would be more beneficial against any given effect, but I can't quite tell how it works or how it will work for other similar cases.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:


"+1 conditional bonus vs. magic" seems to do the job IMHO.

We considered it, but it might be hard to distinguish at a glance from a bonus that only applied to Will saves if we don't say it's to all saves.

Silver Crusade

Captain Morgan wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Nice catch with the "curiously healthy Undead" (CON score)

Interesting to see how Energy Drain works, simple penalty to everything seems simpler to apply now.
P1E was IMHO too lenient to casters, as aside from CL it didn't really affect their spells at all. (even Concentration)
Spells with Saves should probably be getting that penalty now, although who knows re: no-Save spells?

"A grim reaper can choose not to count as undead"
IMHO this is problematic, when does 'choosing' occur? Is metagaming knowledge of effect on Undead vs Not-Undead reasonable? Better is simply saying "Grim Reaper does not count as Undead for purposes of effects uniquely harmful to Undead". (Is Detect Undead affected?)

"+1 conditional to all vs. magic" Seems like heavy boilerplate, especially if multiple conditional modifiers are in play which isn't that unreasonable. "+1 vs. magic" (or "+1 conditional bonus vs. magic" if conditional is de jure bonus type ala enhancement) seems to do the job IMHO.

"Immunities Asleep" Asleep seems awkward, "Sleep" seems the appropriate term, not sure if this was just type-o?

"Choosing to count as undead" is reminiscent of some other stuff I've been curious about with how meta information is understood in and out of game. Figuring out what level you need to cast dispel magic at, for example, or learning the reactions enemy's have.

The reaper may he able to subconsciously use which ever creature type would be more beneficial against any given effect, but I can't quite tell how it works or how it will work for other similar cases.

What if the GM wants to have the Reaper detect as undead, until he doesn’t?

Perhaps the Reaper would toy with its victims by choosing to be affected by some undead-affecting conditions apply and being immune to others, or just cancelling the ones currently affecting it?

I like having the tools to be able to Broken Wing Style with monsters and then see the horror on the players faces as they realise they underestimated it.


Quandary wrote:

EDIT: the mention of "ranged attack" reminds me the distinctions of types of attack could be clearer than P1E.

i.e. what is meant by "ranged attack"? does a Hold Person spell count? does Ranged Touch Attacks count?

Hold person is not a ranged attack, but scorching ray is, that sort of thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also there’s no “I Channel Positive Energy to harm undead” anymore from what I can tell. Now you just pick the target and it either heals them if living or harms them if undead (3 Action burst being an exception that doesn’t target).

There is certainly an opportunity for a truly trollish moment of gameplay.

Cleric: “I spend my 3 actions to Channel Positive Energy in a burst!”
*rolls 9d8 + 7 = 48*

DM: “As your friends are filled with the holy light of your diety, you see the Grim Reaper writhe back in pain!”

Cleric: “That means he’s undead!”

*back to Cleric’s turn*

“Alright, now I’ll cast the 1 action version of Heal, adding another 2 actions to it with Empower Spell* and then use my Metamagic Channeler Feat to add Maximize Spell* to it!
28d8 +7 = 231
*Player rolls nat 20*
“Alright, that’s 462 Damage!! How dead is it?”

DM: . . . *chooses to not count the Grim Reaper as undead*

Players: . . .

DM: . . . : )

(* indicates that the Metamagic Feat in question has not been confirmed to exist in PF2 and only is being used in this example for comedic purposes.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just an update- I made a mistake on the initial Druid post. Signature skills are not ones you start with trained. You get to pick your starting skills. Signature skills are the ones you start out able to promote from master to legendary. There are ways to get more, though.

Source.


I am very pleased that not all monsters have AoO (they can cause combat to be too static), they are merely one of many different Reactions, this is something very easy to steal for PF1. Looking forward to seeing more Reactions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ElSilverWind wrote:

Also there’s no “I Channel Positive Energy to harm undead” anymore from what I can tell. Now you just pick the target and it either heals them if living or harms them if undead (3 Action burst being an exception that doesn’t target).

There is certainly an opportunity for a truly trollish moment of gameplay.

Cleric: “I spend my 3 actions to Channel Positive Energy in a burst!”
*rolls 9d8 + 7 = 48*

DM: “As your friends are filled with the holy light of your diety, you see the Grim Reaper writhe back in pain!”

Cleric: “That means he’s undead!”

*back to Cleric’s turn*

“Alright, now I’ll cast the 1 action version of Heal, adding another 2 actions to it with Empower Spell* and then use my Metamagic Channeler Feat to add Maximize Spell* to it!
28d8 +7 = 231
*Player rolls nat 20*
“Alright, that’s 462 Damage!! How dead is it?”

DM: . . . *chooses to not count the Grim Reaper as undead*

Players: . . .

DM: . . . : )

(* indicates that the Metamagic Feat in question has not been confirmed to exist in PF2 and only is being used in this example for comedic purposes.)

[Robotic voice] You... Monster.

Silver Crusade

ElSilverWind wrote:

Also there’s no “I Channel Positive Energy to harm undead” anymore from what I can tell. Now you just pick the target and it either heals them if living or harms them if undead (3 Action burst being an exception that doesn’t target).

There is certainly an opportunity for a truly trollish moment of gameplay.

Cleric: “I spend my 3 actions to Channel Positive Energy in a burst!”
*rolls 9d8 + 7 = 48*

DM: “As your friends are filled with the holy light of your diety, you see the Grim Reaper writhe back in pain!”

Cleric: “That means he’s undead!”

*back to Cleric’s turn*

“Alright, now I’ll cast the 1 action version of Heal, adding another 2 actions to it with Empower Spell* and then use my Metamagic Channeler Feat to add Maximize Spell* to it!
28d8 +7 = 231
*Player rolls nat 20*
“Alright, that’s 462 Damage!! How dead is it?”

DM: . . . *chooses to not count the Grim Reaper as undead*

Players: . . .

DM: . . . : )

(* indicates that the Metamagic Feat in question has not been confirmed to exist in PF2 and only is being used in this example for comedic purposes.)

BWAHAHAHA

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
- Animal companions calculate their modifiers, DCs, etc. like PCs, with one exception. The only item bonus they can benefit from is barding for +2 AC.

So does this mean animal companions can only have very minimal barding now? Because I'm going to miss my ranger riding in on his griffon companion with mithral full plate barding.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Quote:
- Animal companions calculate their modifiers, DCs, etc. like PCs, with one exception. The only item bonus they can benefit from is barding for +2 AC.
So does this mean animal companions can only have very minimal barding now? Because I'm going to miss my ranger riding in on his griffon companion with mithral full plate barding.

Seems likely, but I imagine heavy armor companions will be a thing eventually. Also worth noting we lack lots of details on armor, but it looks like it will have a much lower bonus in general.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Also worth noting we lack lots of details on armor, but it looks like it will have a much lower bonus in general.

Yes, I would like to see how much plate grants, and if Medium armour is still in, max Dex bonuses, Speed penalties, etc; what I really want is another blog on armour and weapons, because I am a greedy harlot.


Weather Report wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Also worth noting we lack lots of details on armor, but it looks like it will have a much lower bonus in general.
Yes, I would like to see how much plate grants, and if Medium armour is still in, max Dex bonuses, Speed penalties, etc; what I really want is another blog on armour and weapons, because I am a greedy harlot.

Yeah, math wise, armor is the one big pillar we are missing. If we get some more on that Deadmanwalking can probably crunch the numbers for the game in its entirety.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Yes, I would like to see how much plate grants, and if Medium armour is still in, max Dex bonuses, Speed penalties, etc; what I really want is another blog on armour and weapons, because I am a greedy harlot.

We know some of this.

We know that speed penalties are still in because the Dwarf Blog notes that they still ignore them.

We know that max Dex Bonus is still in because it's listed on the character sheet, which we've seen some of.

We know from something someone said after attending PaizoCon that Chainmail exists and provides a +4 to AC.

So, we know some stuff. Personally, I bet that all armor available at 1st level has an Armor Bonus + Dex Mod total of +6 to standardize AC somewhat (and the evidence doesn't contradict that so far).


Captain Morgan wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Also worth noting we lack lots of details on armor, but it looks like it will have a much lower bonus in general.
Yes, I would like to see how much plate grants, and if Medium armour is still in, max Dex bonuses, Speed penalties, etc; what I really want is another blog on armour and weapons, because I am a greedy harlot.
Yeah, math wise, armor is the one big pillar we are missing. If we get some more on that Deadmanwalking can probably crunch the numbers for the game in its entirety.

Yep, that and seeing more monsters are the big ones for me, wouldn't mind getting a peek at a class table. Yes, at one point, Deadmanwalking may be able to beat their August release.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Yes, I would like to see how much plate grants, and if Medium armour is still in, max Dex bonuses, Speed penalties, etc; what I really want is another blog on armour and weapons, because I am a greedy harlot.

We know some of this.

We know that speed penalties are still in because the Dwarf Blog notes that they still ignore them.

We know that max Dex Bonus is still in because it's listed on the character sheet, which we've seen some of.

We know from something someone said after attending PaizoCon that Chainmail exists and provides a +4 to AC.

So, we know some stuff. Personally, I bet that all armor available at 1st level has an Armor Bonus + Dex Mod total of +6 to standardize AC somewhat (and the evidence doesn't contradict that so far).

Right on, ta very much. So, time for extrapolation, if chainmail grants +4, what will plate grant...? Oh, and of course proficiency adds to AC, apparently Paladins only gain Legendary heavy proficiency automatically (fighters have to pay)?

Liberty's Edge

Weather Report wrote:
Right on, ta very much.

No problem, I'm always happy to be of assistance. :)

Weather Report wrote:
So, time for extrapolation, if chainmail grants +4, what will plate grant...?

I'm betting +6. That'd fit the progression just about right (and, with a max Dex bonus of +1, be precisely one point higher than the best Light Armor).

Weather Report wrote:
Oh, and of course proficiency adds to AC, apparently Paladins only gain Legendary heavy proficiency automatically (fighters have to pay)?

This is probably correct, yes.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Right on, ta very much.

No problem, I'm always happy to be of assistance. :)

Weather Report wrote:
So, time for extrapolation, if chainmail grants +4, what will plate grant...?

I'm betting +6. That'd fit the progression just about right (and, with a max Dex bonus of +1, be precisely one point higher than the best Light Armor).

But, Light armour +2 + max Dex +6 (due to soft cap) = +8 vs. Heavy armour +6 + max Dex +1 = +7.

Liberty's Edge

Weather Report wrote:
But, Light armour +2 + max Dex +6 (due to soft cap) = +8 vs. Heavy armour +6 + max Dex +1 = +7.

My suspicion is that it's actually more like Max Dex +5 for light armor by default...but then there's Mithral (or similar materials for non-metal armor), which adds 2 or so to Dex Cap (allowing the full magic item enhanced +7 Dex Mod on Light armor and +3 on Heavy). There might also be something like Adamantine adding +2 to the armor bonus (making for the same Armor + Dex Mod cap but no need for higher Dex).

That makes the math work out perfectly in the long run.


Ok, with your math here are some examples of level 20 characters:

My Sword and Board Paladin: +5 Mithral Full Plate (+11 AC); +3 Legend Proficiency; +3 Dex; Heavy Steel Shield (+2 AC); +10; +20 Levels= 49 AC
The AC seems to be right on, especially comparing to the 45 AC of the Reaper. This also does not include whatever abilities you can achieve at Legendary proficiency. I'm also kind of skeptical whether their will be an armour bonus material, because why wouldn't I put that on the steel shield since I can't enchant it? Also I find no evidence of that in the magic Adamantine Shield at the magic weapon reveal...

Ok, here's his Dex based bow using Ranger wife: +5 Studded Leather (+7 AC); +0 Trained Proficiency; +7 Dex; +10; +20 Levels= 44 AC
Their's a few things we don't know about Ranger but these are all guesses anyways... Rangers may become expert proficiency at higher levels. I don't know what material to make her studded leather. (maybe Darkleaf?) The math between two armours/dex work out to 14 each. The disparity between an armour focused character and his weapon focused counterpart is not so large at first glance. But I'm sure 5AC is a big deal at higher levels with the new crit system. (Also forgetting about Legendary abilities that we no nothing about)

So in the end, I'm not sure that we have a lower AC bonus than 1e. My Paladin here is a vanilla paladin, and doesn't seem to be lower than 1e vanilla sword and board paladin. In fact, I think he is higher... I'd also like to hear some math about the average attack bonus in 2e vs these two...

Liberty's Edge

Well, attack bonus is universally Level + Attack Stat + Proficiency + Weapon.

That makes a maximal Fighter +35 (20 Level +7 Str + 3 Legendary +5 Weapon). Someone without Proficiency beyond Trained but retaining a +7 stat would be +32. With a more reasonable 18 stat they go down to +29.

So it's about a 6 point swing, but a lot of that is stuff that nobody is actually gonna have that low if they intend to attack with weapons.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, attack bonus is universally Level + Attack Stat + Proficiency + Weapon.

That makes a maximal Fighter +35 (20 Level +7 Str + 3 Legendary +5 Weapon). Someone without Proficiency beyond Trained but retaining a +7 stat would be +32. With a more reasonable 18 stat they go down to +29.

So it's about a 6 point swing, but a lot of that is stuff that nobody is actually gonna have that low if they intend to attack with weapons.

So to hit the Ranger (who's usually sniping in the back, away from the fray) the maximal Fighter would have to roll a 9. But to hit the Paladin it would have to be a 14. I like dem odds... But then again that ignores all the Legendary effects for everyone.

Liberty's Edge

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
So to hit the Ranger (who's usually sniping in the back, away from the fray) the maximal Fighter would have to roll a 9. But to hit the Paladin it would have to be a 14. I like dem odds...

Yep, seems a reasonable variance to me. Though I'd personally bet that all 'martial' classes except maybe Rogue (I wouldn't count Alchemist as martial) get at least Expert in armor (and weapons) by 20th.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
But then again that ignores all the Legendary effects for everyone.

Personally, I doubt that Legendary has any effect on attack or AC beyond the +1. Saves clearly do, as do skills but the increased/decreased crit chance is probably sufficient on attacks/AC.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
But then again that ignores all the Legendary effects for everyone.
Personally, I doubt that Legendary has any effect on attack or AC beyond the +1. Saves clearly do, as do skills but the increased/decreased crit chance is probably sufficient on attacks/AC.

I'm honestly not sure I like that. On the one hand, I don't know that Attack/AC boosts should be as effective as others, but I think if Saves are better than simply a +X, I feel like +X to weapons should maybe add +X(*dice, from magic weapons) to damage, but I don't know what AC would do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Master/Legendary etc Armor could gate access to stuff like different tiers of Fortification which would be like inverse of magic weapon damage dice.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
So to hit the Ranger (who's usually sniping in the back, away from the fray) the maximal Fighter would have to roll a 9. But to hit the Paladin it would have to be a 14. I like dem odds...

Yep, seems a reasonable variance to me.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
But then again that ignores all the Legendary effects for everyone.
Personally, I doubt that Legendary has any effect on attack or AC beyond the +1. Saves clearly do, as do skills but the increased/decreased crit chance is probably sufficient on attacks/AC.

Then what does it mean to be Legendary with weapons? It HAS to mean more than the +3 to attack...

I also can imagine it being frustrating for the optimal Fighter to be face off against my Paladin, if what he needs to roll to hit is a 14... And that's optimal.
I imagine my Paladin fighting a clone of himself and how long that would take if my Paladin's attack would be 33. (20 Level +6 Str + 2 Master +5 Weapon) That's a 16 just to hit!

Hopefully, he's an evil clone so I can Smite...er, I mean... Blade of Justice(?!) him... heh.

301 to 350 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Druid, and other PaizoCon banquet information! All Messageboards