Pregen previews over at ENWorld!


Prerelease Discussion

751 to 799 of 799 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
People pounce on me when I say such things. But your observation is spot on IMO. However there is a very vocal group here who appear to be championing 4e solutions to fixing 3.5e problem. It could be in the past 10 years the Pathfinder playerbase has changed sufficiently to want those solutions now. Or it could be that they've made sufficient differences in implementation that the end result will play quite differently. Time will tell.

I'm seeing quite a few 4e solutions to 3.5/3.75 issues in these playtest rules so far.

Massive (comparably) starting health, tightened number ranges, encounter powers, rituals, a clear division between combat and everything else, etc.

I didn't care much for 4e, and apparently neither did many others, or this game wouldn't have become a smashing success that pressed the competition into creating 5e. Paizo might have enough rabid fans now that they'll accept 4e with some tweaks now, when they wouldn't have remotely considered it a decade ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It might be more narrative to say that instead of it takes 10 minutes to recharge the shield spell when broken say it takes a three action casting to form a new shield. It would amount to about the same thing in use but for some reason it sits better with me. Thoughts?

EDIT: Maybe its a three action spell that lasts all day or until dispelled which creates an arcane shield that you can raise as an action.... That way it kind of matches mage armor which I think is a 24 hour duration spell.


I do like Burning hands deals decent area damage now at 1st. Not sure about after, but good at 1at.


Note that the recharge time is in the description, heightened versions may recharge much faster, as well as having more Hardness.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
People pounce on me when I say such things. But your observation is spot on IMO. However there is a very vocal group here who appear to be championing 4e solutions to fixing 3.5e problem. It could be in the past 10 years the Pathfinder playerbase has changed sufficiently to want those solutions now. Or it could be that they've made sufficient differences in implementation that the end result will play quite differently. Time will tell.

I'm seeing quite a few 4e solutions to 3.5/3.75 issues in these playtest rules so far.

Massive (comparably) starting health, tightened number ranges, encounter powers, rituals, a clear division between combat and everything else, etc.

I didn't care much for 4e, and apparently neither did many others, or this game wouldn't have become a smashing success that pressed the competition into creating 5e. Paizo might have enough rabid fans now that they'll accept 4e with some tweaks now, when they wouldn't have remotely considered it a decade ago.

Thing is, whatever faults 4e had, simply being 4e wasn't one of them and hence isn't a productive area of discussion.

Starting HP in PF2 for example had to be increased due to enemies receiving more attacks from the RAE and the increased frequency of Critical Hits. It's not a decision I personally agree with (I'd rather drop crits altogether and just reduce weapon damage), but the reasoning behind the decision is pretty straighforward.

Note also that, in 4e, enemy HP was also greatly increased - something that doesn't appear to be the case in PF2 so the flaws related to HP bloat, if they occur in PF2 at all, will be very different to what we saw in 4e.


Sooo....
When do we get the PDFs? I'd love to print these off and test them out.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Is the 10 min cooldown for Shield really necessary?
They want it to be an encounter power, so yes. They've explicitly said they've messed with durations of spells to create spells that last an encounter. So expect more encounter powers to be disguised as cantrips and daily spells.

I totally agree with you, right now Shields is an Encounter Power in disguise. Frankly I rather see Shield nerfed and the cooldown removed, the idea of a cooldown in cantrips is really unappealing to me.


Bardarok wrote:

It might be more narrative to say that instead of it takes 10 minutes to recharge the shield spell when broken say it takes a three action casting to form a new shield. It would amount to about the same thing in use but for some reason it sits better with me. Thoughts?

EDIT: Maybe its a three action spell that lasts all day or until dispelled which creates an arcane shield that you can raise as an action.... That way it kind of matches mage armor which I think is a 24 hour duration spell.

I don't know, you are still adding a recharge time to cantrips that wasn't there before, I just don't like the idea of cantrips requiring time to recharge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean maybe I'm the odd one out but I kind of like the idea of powers that recover between encounters, hence why I like short rests in 5e. My only issue with "encounter powers" was that they were that. Powers to be used 1/encounter that, unless I missed something when I read through character stuff for 4e had unclear usage outside of combat as a result.

Even if "10 minutes" winds up being the effective encounter power interval, it should still have clear usage outside of fights, so I'm fine with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Is the 10 min cooldown for Shield really necessary?
They want it to be an encounter power, so yes. They've explicitly said they've messed with durations of spells to create spells that last an encounter. So expect more encounter powers to be disguised as cantrips and daily spells.
I totally agree with you, right now Shields is an Encounter Power in disguise. Frankly I rather see Shield nerfed and the cooldown removed, the idea of a cooldown in cantrips is really unappealing to me.

You can use it every single fight if you want just the armor class bonus. It is the players option to use it to block and then put it on cool down for 10 minutes. If they don't then it gives the constant AC benefit when they use it and can use it every single turn if they wish. If they would let the shield block be used every turn it would have to take more than one action to cast and would limit any other spell casting you do.


edduardco wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

It might be more narrative to say that instead of it takes 10 minutes to recharge the shield spell when broken say it takes a three action casting to form a new shield. It would amount to about the same thing in use but for some reason it sits better with me. Thoughts?

EDIT: Maybe its a three action spell that lasts all day or until dispelled which creates an arcane shield that you can raise as an action.... That way it kind of matches mage armor which I think is a 24 hour duration spell.

I don't know, you are still adding a recharge time to cantrips that wasn't there before, I just don't like the idea of cantrips requiring time to recharge.

Im suggesting you need to recast it. This way you could re summon your shield every round as it keeps breaking though that would be action prohibitive.

[A][A] summon mage shield which lasts for 24 hours or until broken
[A] Raise mage shield for +1 AC
[R] Sacrifice mage shield to prevent 4 damage


kaid wrote:
edduardco wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Is the 10 min cooldown for Shield really necessary?
They want it to be an encounter power, so yes. They've explicitly said they've messed with durations of spells to create spells that last an encounter. So expect more encounter powers to be disguised as cantrips and daily spells.
I totally agree with you, right now Shields is an Encounter Power in disguise. Frankly I rather see Shield nerfed and the cooldown removed, the idea of a cooldown in cantrips is really unappealing to me.
You can use it every single fight if you want just the armor class bonus. It is the players option to use it to block and then put it on cool down for 10 minutes. If they don't then it gives the constant AC benefit when they use it and can use it every single turn if they wish. If they would let the shield block be used every turn it would have to take more than one action to cast and would limit any other spell casting you do.

Personally I quite like the choice, as IMO it makes it feel like you're actually projecting a force field shield rather than some nebulous defensive buff. E.g. you use it to ward off arrows, you turn around as an orc tries to smash your skull in with a hammer, you throw the forcefield in the way and it shatters.


See, this is pretty much the same as a spell being listed as lasting a minute or two. It's a spell that is designed to last the length of the encounter and not be available for the next encounter.

This is the same thing. You cast shield during combat and you have a single-dent shield available during that combat. It is balanced around the fact does a single block. The difference is they just don't want it recast again during the fight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it's not really a cooldown per se as the wait period is only a factor if your Shield is destroyed as a result of using it to block an enemy attack.

That said, it does suggest that the same Shield manifests every time you use the Cantrip which has some very strange implications for how magic works in the setting, but possibly fun ones as well.


Crayon wrote:

Yeah, it's not really a cooldown per se as the wait period is only a factor if your Shield is destroyed as a result of using it to block an enemy attack.

That said, it does suggest that the same Shield manifests each time the spell is cast which has some very strange implications for the setting...

An arcane outer plane that contains nothing but floating shields. While in that plane they automatically mend themselves over time, but don't have that luxury while here in the material plane.


Gregg Reece wrote:
See, this is pretty much the same as a spell being listed as lasting a minute or two. It's a spell that is designed to last the length of the encounter and not be available for the next encounter.

It's not the same, not even close. A spell with a duration provides the benefit for the whole duration, and when runs out you can cast it again.

Gregg Reece wrote:
This is the same thing. You cast shield during combat and you have a single-dent shield available during that combat. It is balanced around the fact does a single block. The difference is they just don't want it recast again during the fight.

That makes a huge difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You’re recasting Shield throughout the fight, because it has a one round duration.


Crayon wrote:

Yeah, it's not really a cooldown per se as the wait period is only a factor if your Shield is destroyed as a result of using it to block an enemy attack.

That said, it does suggest that the same Shield manifests each time the spell is cast which has some very strange implications for the setting...

It's sort of fun to imagine it in different ways, like being a little spark of your magic power you bud off as a defensive ward, it breaking hurts and you need to gather your wits again before it can work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Shield needs a cool down, without it it would be a cantrip that increases ac and is able to block damage every turn.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Elleth wrote:
Crayon wrote:

Yeah, it's not really a cooldown per se as the wait period is only a factor if your Shield is destroyed as a result of using it to block an enemy attack.

That said, it does suggest that the same Shield manifests each time the spell is cast which has some very strange implications for the setting...

It's sort of fun to imagine it in different ways, like being a little spark of your magic power you bud off as a defensive ward, it breaking hurts and you need to gather your wits again before it can work.

The "same shield every time" conversation makes me think about the ethics of using summoned monsters to fight for you. I don't remember if you normally summon the same monster every time, but that spell has weird moral implications either way.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Crayon wrote:

Yeah, it's not really a cooldown per se as the wait period is only a factor if your Shield is destroyed as a result of using it to block an enemy attack.

That said, it does suggest that the same Shield manifests each time the spell is cast which has some very strange implications for the setting...

It's sort of fun to imagine it in different ways, like being a little spark of your magic power you bud off as a defensive ward, it breaking hurts and you need to gather your wits again before it can work.
The "same shield every time" conversation makes me think about the ethics of using summoned monsters to fight for you. I don't remember if you normally summon the same monster every time, but that spell has weird moral implications either way.

Near as I recall, with stuff like Summon Monster you never actually summoned a real creature, just a copy out of astral gobblygook or whatever. Which is why there's no need for binding/bargaining and explains why you can send the local summoned angel to massacre a church of its own patron deity if so desired.

Silver Crusade

edduardco wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

It might be more narrative to say that instead of it takes 10 minutes to recharge the shield spell when broken say it takes a three action casting to form a new shield. It would amount to about the same thing in use but for some reason it sits better with me. Thoughts?

EDIT: Maybe its a three action spell that lasts all day or until dispelled which creates an arcane shield that you can raise as an action.... That way it kind of matches mage armor which I think is a 24 hour duration spell.

I don't know, you are still adding a recharge time to cantrips that wasn't there before, I just don't like the idea of cantrips requiring time to recharge.

It's still shorter than the old recharge time of 8 hours for the 1st Edition shield spell, since it was a 1st level spell, not a cantrip.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Crayon wrote:

Yeah, it's not really a cooldown per se as the wait period is only a factor if your Shield is destroyed as a result of using it to block an enemy attack.

That said, it does suggest that the same Shield manifests each time the spell is cast which has some very strange implications for the setting...

It's sort of fun to imagine it in different ways, like being a little spark of your magic power you bud off as a defensive ward, it breaking hurts and you need to gather your wits again before it can work.
The "same shield every time" conversation makes me think about the ethics of using summoned monsters to fight for you. I don't remember if you normally summon the same monster every time, but that spell has weird moral implications either way.

That's the general concept I've heard. However, some of them are odd.

Like in the Varian and Radovan novels you'll see Radovan use a scroll to summon a horse (as per the mount spell). It is the same every time (an infernal-looking steed) until something happens to him which changes him at his core. At that point the spell summons a different horse (very non-infernal, I'll leave it at that).

So, summoning spells like that appear to be related to your alignment and certain other characteristics of your persona. Radovan is a tiefling and thus summons creatures that appear a bit more infernal-looking.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if you could prepare Shield multiple times as a Wizard. Like my cantrip selection is Shield, Shield, Shield and telekenetic projectile. That way I can have upto three shields smash every ten minutes (for a minimmum of 12 damage saved every 10 minutes, not counting the as of yet unknown scaling or the benefits of +1AC)


Rysky wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

It might be more narrative to say that instead of it takes 10 minutes to recharge the shield spell when broken say it takes a three action casting to form a new shield. It would amount to about the same thing in use but for some reason it sits better with me. Thoughts?

EDIT: Maybe its a three action spell that lasts all day or until dispelled which creates an arcane shield that you can raise as an action.... That way it kind of matches mage armor which I think is a 24 hour duration spell.

I don't know, you are still adding a recharge time to cantrips that wasn't there before, I just don't like the idea of cantrips requiring time to recharge.
It's still shorter than the old recharge time of 8 hours for the 1st Edition shield spell, since it was a 1st level spell, not a cantrip.

You could still cast it again, but that is besides the point, now is a cantrip, I thought the idea of cantrips was that could be spammed every round.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Now I kinda like the idea that part of preparing the shield cantrip is creating a shield of force in the Ethereal plane that you can call into the Material for moments at a time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Rysky wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

It might be more narrative to say that instead of it takes 10 minutes to recharge the shield spell when broken say it takes a three action casting to form a new shield. It would amount to about the same thing in use but for some reason it sits better with me. Thoughts?

EDIT: Maybe its a three action spell that lasts all day or until dispelled which creates an arcane shield that you can raise as an action.... That way it kind of matches mage armor which I think is a 24 hour duration spell.

I don't know, you are still adding a recharge time to cantrips that wasn't there before, I just don't like the idea of cantrips requiring time to recharge.
It's still shorter than the old recharge time of 8 hours for the 1st Edition shield spell, since it was a 1st level spell, not a cantrip.
You could still cast it again, but that is besides the point, now is a cantrip, I thought the idea of cantrips was that could be spammed every round.

Daze in PF1 could only be used once per minute against a target: a conditional cooldown. Shield can be spammed every round, until you use the emergency red button: a conditional cooldown.


QuidEst wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Rysky wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

It might be more narrative to say that instead of it takes 10 minutes to recharge the shield spell when broken say it takes a three action casting to form a new shield. It would amount to about the same thing in use but for some reason it sits better with me. Thoughts?

EDIT: Maybe its a three action spell that lasts all day or until dispelled which creates an arcane shield that you can raise as an action.... That way it kind of matches mage armor which I think is a 24 hour duration spell.

I don't know, you are still adding a recharge time to cantrips that wasn't there before, I just don't like the idea of cantrips requiring time to recharge.
It's still shorter than the old recharge time of 8 hours for the 1st Edition shield spell, since it was a 1st level spell, not a cantrip.
You could still cast it again, but that is besides the point, now is a cantrip, I thought the idea of cantrips was that could be spammed every round.
Daze in PF1 could only be used once per minute against a target: a conditional cooldown. Shield can be spammed every round, until you use the emergency red button: a conditional cooldown.

Now that you mention it, those conditional cooldowns as you call them have never make much sense to me to begin with, I will like to see them removed too.


Well, ignore Shield’s reaction, and you’re good. Daze causes flat-footed an possibly slows now.


To me I would say if you can block 4 damage you should always block 4 damage. maybe after the goblin attacks you and you block 4 damage then the rest of the party puts the rest of the goblins down. or maybe the +1 won't be enough to make a difference on the next attack rolls. Seems like to me if you can use it you should. Now maybe If I had more reactions I might instead think hmm 4 less damage or other reaction.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
To me I would say if you can block 4 damage you should always block 4 damage. maybe after the goblin attacks you and you block 4 damage then the rest of the party puts the rest of the goblins down. or maybe the +1 won't be enough to make a difference on the next attack rolls. Seems like to me if you can use it you should. Now maybe If I had more reactions I might instead think hmm 4 less damage or other reaction.

Personally, I’d save it for emergencies. Losing 1 AC for the fight is not great, but if that 4 health keeps me conscious, that’s a good deal. But I do see your point- +1 AC only has a 10% chance of mattering on each attack.


Brock Landers wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
But I do see your point- +1 AC only has a 10% chance of mattering on each attack.
Thats quite a bit, though, it would seem the maths are super-tight in this edition.

Well, it does mean that you would expect it to take 10 attacks before that +1 AC specifically mattered. So Vidmaster’s point of just using the block when you’re hit is reasonable, and does free up an action.


Brock Landers wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
But I do see your point- +1 AC only has a 10% chance of mattering on each attack.
Thats quite a bit, though, it would seem the maths are super-tight in this edition.

In previous systems, a +1 bonus (to Attack or AC) would have only mattered once out of every 10 attacks (or about once every other encounter for low-level front-liners - less for back-line casters, and more for higher level characters where multiple attacks are common). However, in PF2, not only do low level creatures get more attacks, but there are now two inflection points where the bonus would matter, rather than 1.

Assume that creatures attack 1.5 times per round on average (the +1 bonus often wouldn't matter for or against the third attack anyways), and that the bonus will matter once out of every 5 attacks (either turning a hit into a miss or a crit into a hit), that means a +1 bonus for a front-liner is highly likely to come up during the encounter.

If a wizard can expect to be targeted by 5 attacks during an encounter, it will probably come up for them as well (although you should also probably factor in the odds of some of those attacks coming in rounds where the wizard didn't cast shield).

But the bottom line is that the +1 is highly impactful in PF2 for multiple reasons.


+1 AC is also super useful if you've gained some way to punish Critical Failures against you (dip into Fighter maybe?)


Insight wrote:
Brock Landers wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
But I do see your point- +1 AC only has a 10% chance of mattering on each attack.
Thats quite a bit, though, it would seem the maths are super-tight in this edition.
In previous systems, a +1 bonus (to Attack or AC) would have only mattered once out of every 10 attacks

1/20. PF2 is 1/10 because critical success/failures provide a second value that can be shifted up a level.


Xenocrat wrote:
Insight wrote:
Brock Landers wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
But I do see your point- +1 AC only has a 10% chance of mattering on each attack.
Thats quite a bit, though, it would seem the maths are super-tight in this edition.
In previous systems, a +1 bonus (to Attack or AC) would have only mattered once out of every 10 attacks
1/20. PF2 is 1/10 because critical success/failures provide a second value that can be shifted up a level.

Not necessarily. The scale isn't used consistently enough for that math to work out. Critical Failure, for instance is functionally identical to a common Failure during combat and there's a suggestion on the Merisiel pregen that certain Critical Successes may only be applicable under very specific conditions.


Insight wrote:
Brock Landers wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
But I do see your point- +1 AC only has a 10% chance of mattering on each attack.
Thats quite a bit, though, it would seem the maths are super-tight in this edition.

In previous systems, a +1 bonus (to Attack or AC) would have only mattered once out of every 10 attacks (or about once every other encounter for low-level front-liners - less for back-line casters, and more for higher level characters where multiple attacks are common). However, in PF2, not only do low level creatures get more attacks, but there are now two inflection points where the bonus would matter, rather than 1.

Assume that creatures attack 1.5 times per round on average (the +1 bonus often wouldn't matter for or against the third attack anyways), and that the bonus will matter once out of every 5 attacks (either turning a hit into a miss or a crit into a hit), that means a +1 bonus for a front-liner is highly likely to come up during the encounter.

If a wizard can expect to be targeted by 5 attacks during an encounter, it will probably come up for them as well (although you should also probably factor in the odds of some of those attacks coming in rounds where the wizard didn't cast shield).

But the bottom line is that the +1 is highly impactful in PF2 for multiple reasons.

A +1 bonus in previous systems comes up once every 20 rolls, not 10. If your DC is 15, that +1 only makes a difference if you roll a 14, IE 5% of the time. Every other time it changes nothing.

In PF2 this isn't always the case (in general, due to the Pass/Fail by 10 Mechanic) but you can see that the value of +1 can vary with the previews we have.

Take Kyra vs Ezren. Ezren's base AC 13 vs Kyra's Attack of +3. In this situation, Kyra Critically Fails on a 1, Fails on 2-9, passes on 10+, Crits on 20. If Ezren uses Shield, he jumps to AC 14. Kyra still Critically Fails on a 1 and Crits on a 20. But now she passes on an 11+. So the +1 AC only comes up when Kyra rolls a 10, 5% of the time.

On the other end, Valeros vs Ezren. AC 13 vs Attack +6. Crit Fail on 1, Fail on 2-6, Pass on 7+, Crit on 17+. Here, +1 AC comes up 10% of the time: when Valeros rolls a 7 (a Hit became a miss) and when Valeros rolls a 17 (a Crit became a Hit).

A +1 in PF2 can be worth nothing (if the enemy has such high Attack they would hit you even on a 1; if the enemy is so bad they can only hit you on a 20*), 5% (if the Attack Bonus= AC -10); 10% (if the Attack Bonus is higher or lower, except when it's so high or low it'd be meaningless) or 15% (if Attack Bonus= AC-19 or less, but without falling into the bonus being worth nothing)

Generally speaking a bonus in PF2 is of equal value to one from PF1, or worth up to three times more, though considering bonuses in PF2 to be worth double is probably fairer (three times assumes the enemy Critically Failing is different from Failing, which is not always the case.)

*Like, 1st level Valeros trying to attack a naked STR 18/Dex 18 20th level Fighter (AC 34). Valeros only hits on a 20, and that chance won't change unless he gets an amazing +29 Modifier, in which case, he hits on a 19 and Crits on a 20. Similarly, the naked man (with +24 to attack) only misses Valeros on a 1, and that chance doesn't change unless he gets a -7 penalty (in which case it also misses on a 2, assuming Valeros raises his shield)


Shield, as a cantrip, should scale up with level, so 4 h.p. at 1st might be 8 h.p. at 5th (or 9th-10th level caster.)
I would think the AC bonus grows too, though likely less than we'd imagine from PF1 standards. Maybe only up to +2 due to tight math.

The 5% per pip broad approach to the math gives one perspective, but another way is to look at % growth/reduction of odds.
For example, if my PC gets hit on 11-20 (setting crits aside for demo purposes), and I get a +1 to AC, then I get hit only on 12-20. That's 10% less damage taken on average. 10 chances reduced to 9 chances.
Perhaps an easier example is if they need a 19-20 to hit my PC, but I make it so they need a 20, they're hitting half as often. That +1 just made a huge difference in effective h.p.
Of course on the other end, the effect shrinks down toward 5%, and mages are unlikely to have top notch AC, but it's something to think about.

Funnily enough, even though worse ACs should make the +1 less valuable, because of the >10< crit mechanic, that +1 doubles in value once it starts affecting both hits & crits.

Arguably, for a standard mage, Shield is more useful for the bonus h.p., while for a low AC or high AC mage, it might be more useful for the AC bonus. Timing when best to exchange the AC for the h.p. likely makes for the most difference though.


I think the dr from the shield will improve but I think the AC will remain static. There might be a non-cantrip spell that does better for AC. I think with all that will add to AC the value of +1 will be static as you level.
ow I'm not saying +1 isn't good but The shield is whether I block the first 4 damage or the last 4 damage I'm going to take. I would feel silly for saving the 4 dr for a emergency circumstance every combat and the circumstance never come up so I take the 4 damage every combat when I could stop it waiting instead for an emergency that may never come.

Now I think there might be some circumstances where I just want the +1 to AC I think vrs a large number of weaker opponents the +1 might be better. Basically its a matter of how many roles can I apply it against.


You can download the sheets as PDF now HERE on ENWorld


I think the AC from Shield will increase by 3 points (to keep up with benefits mundane shields get from quality). In addition the Hardness will likely scale in multiples of 4, for a maximum of 36 (proportional to magic missile progression)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
(to keep up with benefits mundane shields get from quality).

This is almost certainly not something Quality adds to mundane shields. We already know that armor Quality reduces ACP rather than adding to AC, and I suspect shields do the same.

And we know shields don't get Potency bonuses. So shields almost certainly universally max out at +2 AC.

Therefore, the shield cantrip might upgrade to +2 AC, but no further. Hardness is another matter and might go up quite a bit, though I doubt it will notably exceed the highest mundane shields in hardness, which is I believe 18 or so.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
(to keep up with benefits mundane shields get from quality).
This is almost certainly not something Quality adds to mundane shields. We already know that armor Quality reduces ACP rather than adding to AC, and I suspect shields do the same.

No... the blogs have stated that quality improves the same statistics as proficiency does. As both armor and shield proficiency modify armor class, so to does armor and shield quality. Ergo a Legendary Light Shield provides +4 AC

Armor quality reduces ACP in addition to increasing AC specifically because the AC benefit from Armor Quality doesn't stack with the Potency Rune it often carries.

Shields don't get Potency Runes because that would increase the 'tanks' saving throws and AC beyond their bounded range. Or else improve the shield's Hardness too much. It would also impact investment costs for fighters as they'd be required purchases.


Cantriped wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
(to keep up with benefits mundane shields get from quality).
This is almost certainly not something Quality adds to mundane shields. We already know that armor Quality reduces ACP rather than adding to AC, and I suspect shields do the same.

No... the blogs have stated that quality improves the same statistics as proficiency does. As both armor and shield proficiency modify armor class, so to does armor and shield quality. Ergo a Legendary Light Shield provides +4 AC

Armor quality reduces ACP in addition to increasing AC specifically because the AC benefit from Armor Quality doesn't stack with the Potency Rune it often carries.

Shields don't get Potency Runes because that would increase the 'tanks' saving throws and AC beyond their bounded range. Or else improve the shield's Hardness too much. It would also impact investment costs for fighters as they'd be required purchases.

Could be. I find it unlikely, since you don't add both armor and shield proficiency to your AC; you only take the worse of the two if you're using both. It doesn't seem to me like shields can have a scaling AC bonus, since that would mean you're pushed more and more towards them as they get better and better compared free-hand or two-handed builds. (Two-handed damage advantage scales, but it's the same ratio. Increasing shield AC provides greater percentage of damage blocked.)


Cantriped wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
(to keep up with benefits mundane shields get from quality).
This is almost certainly not something Quality adds to mundane shields. We already know that armor Quality reduces ACP rather than adding to AC, and I suspect shields do the same.

No... the blogs have stated that quality improves the same statistics as proficiency does. As both armor and shield proficiency modify armor class, so to does armor and shield quality. Ergo a Legendary Light Shield provides +4 AC

Armor quality reduces ACP in addition to increasing AC specifically because the AC benefit from Armor Quality doesn't stack with the Potency Rune it often carries.

Shields don't get Potency Runes because that would increase the 'tanks' saving throws and AC beyond their bounded range. Or else improve the shield's Hardness too much. It would also impact investment costs for fighters as they'd be required purchases.

I'm really not sure. Mark suggested on the Know Direction podcast that a Bardic +3 to hit would effectively do 1.5x effective damage for the party. If the math on shields is remotely similar to defensive capabilities, I can't see shields going up by that much. They'd be mandatory at that point, which would go against the rest of the design aesthetic


QuidEst wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
To me I would say if you can block 4 damage you should always block 4 damage. maybe after the goblin attacks you and you block 4 damage then the rest of the party puts the rest of the goblins down. or maybe the +1 won't be enough to make a difference on the next attack rolls. Seems like to me if you can use it you should. Now maybe If I had more reactions I might instead think hmm 4 less damage or other reaction.
Personally, I’d save it for emergencies. Losing 1 AC for the fight is not great, but if that 4 health keeps me conscious, that’s a good deal. But I do see your point- +1 AC only has a 10% chance of mattering on each attack.

If you don't use it, then it's 4 HP of damage you could've avoided(kinda). Optimal play would probably be to use it the first chance you get, unless it's early in the fight and you expect the fight to take a while. There are other situations when you want to use it regardless(that 4 HP keeps you above 0), or don't want to use it at all(4 HP doesn't make a difference when taking account current HP and the amount of damage opponent's attacks do, so might as well keep the +1 AC to avoid damage altogether).


The pregen previews were handy for trying to preview PF2 to my players to entice them into the playtest. I sent the following email message out today:

Dear players,

I still have not heard from <name redacted> whether he wants to participate in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition playtest. I am considering beginning it on Monday evening, August 6.

The Pathfinder 2nd Edition (PF2) Public Playtest material won't be released until Thursday, August 2, and the Paizo Blogs offer only teaser previews. However, Paizo has conducted a few outside playtests with pregenerated characters, and those characters are available at [url="http://www.enworld.org/forum/list.php?category/55-Pathfinder-2nd-Edition"http://www.enworld.org/forum/list.php?category/55-Pathfinder-2nd-Edition[/url]. Thus, we can see the 1st-level PF2 characters Fumbus, Kyra, Valeros, Seelah, Merisiel, and Ezren.

These pregen sheets do not match the character sheets. They are designed so that the playtesters can play the characters without a rulebook. They leave off most character-creation details and add detailed descriptions of character-specific abilities.

Some of those names will look familiar to anyone who read the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. Those are the iconic characters that represent each character class and whose adventures fill a column at the beginning of each chapter: Amiri the human barbarian, Lem the halfling bard, Kyra the human cleric, Lini the gnome druid, Valeros the human fighter, Sajan the human monk, Seelah the human paladin, Harsk the dwarf ranger, Merisiel the elf rogue, Seoni the human sorcerer, and Ezren the human wizard. New classes begat new iconics, such as Alahazra the human oracle, Alain the human cavalier, Balazar the gnome summoner, Damiel the elf alchemist, Imrika the half-orc inquisitor, Lirianne the human gunslinger, Reiko the human ninja, Seltyiel the half-elf magus, and others.

Though Damiel the elf alchemist, despite his stylish test-tube-laden longcoat (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lbad?Meet-the-Iconics-Damiel), will be out of a job. Fumbus, the PF2 iconic goblin alchemist, represents goblins as a core race, rather than an uncommon playable race, while also demonstrating the goblin obsession with pyromania.

So let's peek at Fumbus (www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5409-Pathfinder-2-Character-Sheet-1-Fumbu s-Goblin-Alchemist). He has Goblin ancestry, Pathfinder Hopeful background, and Alchemist class at first level. Goblins are small, fast, toothy, green humanoids who usually gather in uneducated tribes, but Fumbus studied up to try to join the Pathfinder Society. Hence, he has Intelligence 18, the highest number possible on a 1st-level character.

Note that all his attributes are even numbers: Strength 10, Dexterity 16, Constitution 12, Intelligence 18, Wisdom 10, and Charisma 12. Pathfinder 2nd Edition got rid of odd-numbered attributes. Each attribute has an associated modifier, (attribute - 10)/2, which is how much each attribute affects the dice rolls: STR +0, DEX +3, CON +1, INT +4, WIS +0, and CHA +1.

Below Fumbus's attribute is an Actions section. Stride is a movement action, and he can go up to 25 feet in a single move. Strike is a plain attack action. Paizo made a big deal about their new action icons, which can be seen at the top of the second page, but did not use those icons here. Each turn gets three actions, so Fumbus could stride close to an opponent with his first action, draw an acid flask from his belt with his second action, and throw it (a ranged strike) with his third action. What Fumbus can draw is listed in his ready gear: two acid flasks, four alchemist's fires, two minor elixirs of life, and a dogslicer sword. Another example of an action is drinking a potion, such as a minor elixir of life.

On the second page, Fumbus's sheet lists an alchemist-specific action called Quick Alchemy. Because he carries alchemist's tools (I don't now whether those tools being stowed makes a difference), he can make a new bomb or potion as an action. This is impossibly quick, so it also costs a little of his magic called resonance. He has will usually have 5 resonance per day to spend, but the pregen sheet says he has only 2 left.

Characters also get free actions for little tasks too effortless to cost an action, such as talking or dropping a handheld item. They don't get a swift action like in Pathfinder 1st Edition. Characters get one reaction per round, which is like an action but it can be used during someone else's turn. However, there are no standard reactions that everyone can use. They are all given by the class or feats. For example, Valeros (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5417-Pathfinder-2-Character-Sheet- 3-Valeros-Human-Fighter) has three reactions: Reactive Shield, Shield Block, and Attack of Opportunity. For you PF1 players, yes, Attack of Opportunity will be reserved for fighters and for people who learn it via a feat; it will no longer be a default ability for every character.

Some actions take two actions. Okay, we have a vocabulary problem here. Peek at Kyra's sheet (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5411-Pathfinder-2-Character-Sheet- 2-Kyra-Human-Cleric). She is a cleric and she casts spells. Most spells take two actions to cast. For example, her Bless spell says, "Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting [[A]] Verbal Casting" where [[A]] is the notation Paizo uses for the diamond-shaped single-action symbol. That means that to cast Bless, she uses one action to wave her hands around in mystic gestures and a second action to chant mystic words. Please roleplay this as two actions worth of simultaneous gestures and chanting. Paizo splits them so that they can make explicit the restrictions, such as no chanting when under a Silence spell.

Also, splitting the somatic, verbal, and material parts of spellcasting lets them pull tricks like with Kyra's Heal spell. That spell can be cast as one action with somatic gestures, but then the single target has to be within arm's reach. If Kyra adds another action for verbal chanting, then she can heal a single person up to 30 feet away, which is much safer than spending that action to rush over and heal someone in combat surrounded by enemies. The three-action version with gestures, chanting, and using a special material or object (I think she holds up the tiny idol of her goddess Sarenrae, as shown in her picture) heals everyone within 30 feet. This is great for healing the entire party after everyone was injured in battle.

Valeros has a fighter-specific attack called Sudden Charge that takes two actions.

Next, let's jump to Ezren's pregen sheet (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5427-Pathfinder-2-Character-Sheet- 6-Ezren-Human-Wizard). He has a two-action (somatic and verbal) spell named Burning Hands. That spell is an example of critical successes and critical failures. It says,
"Gouts of flame form a cone, rushing from your outstretched hands. You
deal 2d6 fire damage to all creatures in the area; they must each attempt
a DC 15 Reflex save.
Success The creature takes half damage.
Critical Success The creature takes no damage.
Failure The creature takes full damage.
Critical Failure The creature takes double damage."
Anyone in the cone of fire makes a d20 roll for a Reflex save. Bonuses to the Reflex save are on the front page of each pregen, above the picture. If the Reflex roll (plus bonus) is 25 or higher, the character has a critical success and avoids all damage from the fire. If the roll is 15 to 24, the character has a success and takes half damage. If the roll is 5 to 14, the character fails to avoid the fire and takes full damage. And if the roll is 4 or lower, the character has a critical failure and takes double damage. Fumbus with +5 reflex bonus and Merisiel with +6 reflex bonus have a chance of a critical success and cannot roll low enough for a critical failure.

Attack rolls also have critical successes, nicknamed crits, on an attack roll that is 10 more than the target's AC. They double the damage. A deadly weapon doubles the damage on a crit and adds an extra 1d8 damage, too. Deadly weapons replace the PF1 weapons that used to triple the damage on a crit.

Ezren also has the feat Widen Spell. He can apply it to Burning Hands, making extra gestures that length the casting time to three actions. That widens the cone from 15 feet (which covers 6 squares) to 20 feet (which covers 10 squares). The only cost is the extra casting time.

Another surprise is more hit points. Fumbus has 15, Kyra had 20, Valerois has 20, Seelah has 19, Merisiel has 16, and Ezren has 16. First-level Pathfinder characters used to have around 10 hit points. AD&D used to have wizards like Ezren with only 3 hit points. PF1 gave out more hit points at 1st level than D&D, because 1st-level characters died too easily. Paizo decided that the extra was not enough and will give out even more in PF2. To compensate, the characters have fewer spells or abilities at 1st level than in PF1.

Erin Schram, Gamemaster


Mathmuse wrote:
Note that all his attributes are even numbers: Strength 10, Dexterity 16, Constitution 12, Intelligence 18, Wisdom 10, and Charisma 12. Pathfinder 2nd Edition got rid of odd-numbered attributes.

This isn't completely true. Odd attributes remain in the narrow case of PC attribute advancement above 18.

751 to 799 of 799 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Pregen previews over at ENWorld! All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion