Pregen previews over at ENWorld!


Prerelease Discussion

251 to 300 of 799 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Elleth wrote:
QuidEst wrote:


Huh. My guess is that with all their features compared to Wizard (casting, armor proficiency, a martial weapon proficiency or upgrade to a simple weapon, a bunch of heal/harm spells, 8 hp, and a domain power), Cleric doesn’t get a class feat at first level. The feats still have level 1 as their requirement, because (as seen in Valeros) humans can get an extra class feat at first level.

Or it’s a sheet error.

Valeros has the same total number of class feats + features as Fumbus, so I don't think that extra feat is coming from human. Though maybe I'm wrong and that's what natural ambition does, which wouldn't be too surprising I guess. Kyra's ancestral feat is spent on a general feat (toughness) it would seem.

I think is a class thing just like the barbarian in the character generation video got to choose a totem and sudden charge the fighter got to choose reactive shield and sudden charge

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladinosaur wrote:
wait, isn't Valeros supposed to be charismatic and dumb?

No, he's supposed to be charismatic and smarter than he lets on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So it looks like the breast plate has an ACP of 5. That is quite a bit. Luckily item quality lowers it. I wonder if that armor has any other traits.

Wondering what that Natural Ambition feat does. I can't quite spot it.

It also looks like shield bashing isn't trained by default.

Longswords actually seem kind of boring with just versatile. I guess light weapons seem to get the lion's share of traits. Then again versatile is now.twice.as.good.with both weakness and resistance.


Shisumo wrote:
Paladinosaur wrote:
wait, isn't Valeros supposed to be charismatic and dumb?
No, he's supposed to be charismatic and smarter than he lets on.

If you guys check his stats for PF1, not much has changed.

The one who's "not the sharpest knife in the drawer and overcompensates by carrying a lot of them" is Merisiel (who's not very good at book learning only by elven standards, actually).


Shield hardness is only 5 here, it was 7 in previous playtest discussion.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
So it looks like the breast plate has an ACP of 5. That is quite a bit. Luckily item quality lowers it. I wonder if that armor has any other traits.

Probably not. Breastplates tend toward the boring end of armor.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Wondering what that Natural Ambition feat does. I can't quite spot it.

It might give a second Class Feat, with Fighters normally getting only one (plus AoO and Expert Weapons). That'd be my bet.

Captain Morgan wrote:
It also looks like shield bashing isn't trained by default.

Not quite. They mentioned somewhere that the shield gets a -2 unless you buy a shield boss or shield spikes (presumably for being improvised). So someone who wants to do the shield bash thing regularly just needs to buy a shield boss or shield spikes.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Longswords actually seem kind of boring with just versatile. I guess light weapons seem to get the lion's share of traits. Then again versatile is now.twice.as.good.with both weakness and resistance.

I think it's more damage die than 'light' (though there's some overlap). Kyra's scimitar has two properties, after all. Finesse (or Agile) may also be free if applied to 1d6 or lower weapons (or count as one trait when applied together).

Damage die means a lot more this edition, after all.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Shield hardness is only 5 here, it was 7 in previous playtest discussion.

Actually, it was 9 if I recall correctly. This may be another artifact of these being early versions. That'd be consistent with some of the other info not quite lining up.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Surprised to see that the dagger does not get the backstabing trait


Biztak wrote:
Surprised to see that the dagger does not get the backstabing trait

Perhaps they gave it, say, to the stiletto and let the generic dagger deal normal damage. Perhaps.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Shield hardness is only 5 here, it was 7 in previous playtest discussion.
Actually, it was 9 if I recall correctly. This may be another artifact of these being early versions. That'd be consistent with some of the other info not quite lining up.

So you think they changed shield hardness from 5 to 9? That'd be interesting. Or just the opposite and I misunderstood?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

With hardness 5 getting your shield completely destroyed in one hit is a real posibility when taking a hit from a great axe


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Shield hardness is only 5 here, it was 7 in previous playtest discussion.
Actually, it was 9 if I recall correctly. This may be another artifact of these being early versions. That'd be consistent with some of the other info not quite lining up.
So you think they changed shield hardness from 5 to 9? That'd be interesting. Or just the opposite and I misunderstood?

I actually think it may have fluctuated between 5, 7, and 9. I vaguely recall it being 7 in the first parts of the GCP playtest and 9 in the second.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
It also looks like shield bashing isn't trained by default.
Not quite. They mentioned somewhere that the shield gets a -2 unless you buy a shield boss or shield spikes (presumably for being improvised). So someone who wants to do the shield bash thing regularly just needs to buy a shield boss or shield spikes.

You know, this bothers me a little. Shield bosses actually were there to protect and leave room for the hand of the wielder, not to deal any more damage than a shield bash already could deal, or to make it easier. A shield is a rather effective offensive weapon by itself, apart from being a great defensive weapon.

I hope that the combo started by sudden charge (which has the open keyword) follows into a nasty shield bash. That would at least make me happier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It also feels worth noting that -5 is for an ACP on only medium armor. Heavy armor will almost certainly be more.... Which makes Assurance look like a pretty solid feat, IMO.


Biztak wrote:

With hardness 5 getting your shield completely destroyed in one hit is a real posibility when taking a hit from a great axe

That's why you don't actively block greataxes wielded by angry barbarians, you just raise and deflect.

If a heavy steel (-covered, one presumes) shield had a little more hardness though I'd be even happier.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
It also looks like shield bashing isn't trained by default.
Not quite. They mentioned somewhere that the shield gets a -2 unless you buy a shield boss or shield spikes (presumably for being improvised). So someone who wants to do the shield bash thing regularly just needs to buy a shield boss or shield spikes.

You know, this bothers me a little. Shield bosses actually were there to protect and leave room for the hand of the wielder, not to deal any more damage than a shield bash already could deal, or to make it easier. A shield is a rather effective offensive weapon by itself, apart from being a great defensive weapon.

I hope that the combo started by sudden charge (which has the open keyword) follows into a nasty shield bash. That would at least make me happier.

Well, we know there's a feat which makes your shield block either make a foe flat footed or push them back 5 feet. Which IMO is a pretty dang good representation of shield bashing without any sort of spikes to create openings.


Captain Morgan wrote:
It also feels worth noting that -5 is for an ACP on only medium armor. Heavy armor will almost certainly be more.... Which makes Assurance look like a pretty solid feat, IMO.

At the same time, iirc it's the heaviest of medium armors. I *think* there might be heavy armors with less ACP (and probably less AC and TAC bonus, costing less than a breastplate). But I also want to check Seelah's full plate on Monday.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really disappointed with the Shield. Only 2 dents to break, 3 to destroy completely, anything that doubles the hardness does 2 dents, and the hardness is only 5?

Weak.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
It also looks like shield bashing isn't trained by default.
Not quite. They mentioned somewhere that the shield gets a -2 unless you buy a shield boss or shield spikes (presumably for being improvised). So someone who wants to do the shield bash thing regularly just needs to buy a shield boss or shield spikes.

You know, this bothers me a little. Shield bosses actually were there to protect and leave room for the hand of the wielder, not to deal any more damage than a shield bash already could deal, or to make it easier. A shield is a rather effective offensive weapon by itself, apart from being a great defensive weapon.

I hope that the combo started by sudden charge (which has the open keyword) follows into a nasty shield bash. That would at least make me happier.

Well, we know there's a feat which makes your shield block either make a foe flat footed or push them back 5 feet. Which IMO is a pretty dang good representation of shield bashing without any sort of spikes to create openings.

That's pretty awesome, but it definitely sounds like a counter. I (and one of my players) would like to have a circumstantially efficient shield bash option to use as an action, not a reaction (even gated via feat of course).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Biztak wrote:

With hardness 5 getting your shield completely destroyed in one hit is a real posibility when taking a hit from a great axe

That's why you don't actively block greataxes wielded by angry barbarians, you just raise and deflect.

If a heavy steel (-covered, one presumes) shield had a little more hardness though I'd be even happier.

Ah yes, the strategy of letting a great axe hit in you in the face because your shield will shatter and become completely useless if you use it to do the thing it was designed to do.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
So you think they changed shield hardness from 5 to 9? That'd be interesting. Or just the opposite and I misunderstood?

Yeah, I was speculating they were 5 at one point and raised to 9. It might also have gone the other way, or might just vary by specific shield and they switched which one they gave Valeros.

Actually, that last one sounds the most likely based on the info we've got. I bet it's 5 for a Light Shield and 9 for a Heavy one, and there was some confusion at some point about which Valeros should have and a bit of text got in that shouldn't have.

Roswynn wrote:
You know, this bothers me a little. Shield bosses actually were there to protect and leave room for the hand of the wielder, not to deal any more damage than a shield bash already could deal, or to make it easier. A shield is a rather effective offensive weapon by itself, apart from being a great defensive weapon.

From a mechanical perspective making you buy the 'weapon' part of a shield separately makes the rules play a lot nicer with each other. I agree it's terribly unrealistic, but I'm willing to roll with it.

Roswynn wrote:
But I also want to check Seelah's full plate on Monday.

At 1st level, Seelah has a Breastplate, based on previous demo stuff. Full Plate remains a tad out of the price range of 1st level characters.

Captain Morgan wrote:
It also feels worth noting that -5 is for an ACP on only medium armor. Heavy armor will almost certainly be more.... Which makes Assurance look like a pretty solid feat, IMO.

The -5 probably includes the Shield. Which I imagine has a -1 or -2 on it.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Biztak wrote:

With hardness 5 getting your shield completely destroyed in one hit is a real posibility when taking a hit from a great axe

That's why you don't actively block greataxes wielded by angry barbarians, you just raise and deflect.

If a heavy steel (-covered, one presumes) shield had a little more hardness though I'd be even happier.

Ah yes, the strategy of letting a great axe hit in you in the face because your shield will shatter and become completely useless if you use it to do the thing it was designed to do.

Yeah, not exactly that, no, I specified raising your shield, that gives Valeros an AC of 19.

Although of course if you've come here to willingly misinterpret comments, please, go ahead, I'm used to this.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yeah, I was speculating they were 5 at one point and raised to 9. It might also have gone the other way, or might just vary by specific shield and they switched which one they gave Valeros.

Actually, that last one sounds the most likely based on the info we've got. I bet it's 5 for a Light Shield and 9 for a Heavy one, and there was some confusion at some point about which Valeros should have and a bit of text got in that shouldn't have.

Well, I'm fine with hardness 5, but if a heavy has 9 I'll be happier.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
You know, this bothers me a little. Shield bosses actually were there to protect and leave room for the hand of the wielder, not to deal any more damage than a shield bash already could deal, or to make it easier. A shield is a rather effective offensive weapon by itself, apart from being a great defensive weapon.
From a mechanical perspective making you buy the 'weapon' part of a shield separately makes the rules play a lot nicer with each other. I agree it's terribly unrealistic, but I'm willing to roll with it.

No objection, your honor.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
But I also want to check Seelah's full plate on Monday.
At 1st level, Seelah has a Breastplate, based on previous demo stuff. Full Plate remains a tad out of the price range of 1st level characters.

Of course! Although I'm so used to seeing her in full plate I didn't even think about it. But sure, it makes sense, full plate *should* be too costly for a 1st level character.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
It also feels worth noting that -5 is for an ACP on only medium armor. Heavy armor will almost certainly be more.... Which makes Assurance look like a pretty solid feat, IMO.
The -5 probably includes the Shield. Which I imagine has a -1 or -2 on it.

That makes sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm alright with most of the sheet, I just have two points:

- Reactive Shield is a weird feat in how it interacts with Shields and the system in general. It prioritises Full Attacking to the fullest while forgoing defense. Since you activate it when you're Hit/Critically Hit, you'd obviously only use it when it'd actually deflect a blow (or lessen a Crit), and then it's Raised until the beginning of your next turn. It's weird because it de-incentivices using the Raise Shield action on it's own unless you know the +2 AC won't be worth anything and you just want to Shield Block. Which brings me to my second point.

- I do hope the hardness values got revised. Five is incredibly low. If you look at it, Valeros destroys his own shield in three blocked attacks. If valeros had a greataxe, attacking himself (for 1d12+4. Or is it +6? I don't think you get 1.5 STR now but I could be wrong). But assuming 1d12+4, he breaks it in 1 hit on average, completely smashes it in 2; and can actually completely demolish it if they get an 11 or 12 on the damage dice. No need for a critical.

And remember, the man using the shield has to actually spend a Raise Shield Action to block, you can't use Reactive Shield and Shield Block in the same round, since you don't have more than one reaction until about 8th level, per the Fighter Blog. So you're at an action disadvantage compared to the greataxe wielding marauder. And AoO doesn't trigger on a Critical Failure on an attack, so it's not like the other guy has any reason to not full attack all the time.

So I really do hope Hardness got re-worked because as it is they seem incredibly weak.

EDIT: It also just occured to me, regarding Hardness....how does it actually work? The text for Shield Block seems to contradict itself, it says:

"Your shield prevents you from taking an ammount of damage up to its Hardness- the shield takes the damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken"

But then it goes on to say the rest, about dents or such.

But the thing is, if the Shield prevents damage up to Hardness (in this case, 5), how is the shield ever taking more than 5 damage? Wouldn't the shield block 5 Damage, and the rest goes to the user, per the first line? The shield taking 10 damage would mean the user wouldn't take 10 damage....but that directly contradicts the first line, which says the Shield can only prevent damage up to it's hardness. Or is excess damage applied to both the Shield and the wielder?

So many questions...


TheFinish wrote:

I'm alright with most of the sheet, I just have two points:

- Reactive Shield is a weird feat in how it interacts with Shields and the system in general. It prioritises Full Attacking to the fullest while forgoing defense. Since you activate it when you're Hit/Critically Hit, you'd obviously only use it when it'd actually deflect a blow (or lessen a Crit), and then it's Raised until the beginning of your next turn. It's weird because it de-incentivices using the Raise Shield action on it's own unless you know the +2 AC won't be worth anything and you just want to Shield Block. Which brings me to my second point.

- I do hope the hardness values got revised. Five is incredibly low. If you look at it, Valeros destroys his own shield in three blocked attacks. If valeros had a greataxe, attacking himself (for 1d12+4. Or is it +6? I don't think you get 1.5 STR now but I could be wrong). But assuming 1d12+4, he breaks it in 1 hit on average, completely smashes it in 2; and can actually completely demolish it if they get an 11 or 12 on the damage dice. No need for a critical.

And remember, the man using the shield has to actually spend a Raise Shield Action to block, you can't use Reactive Shield and Shield Block in the same round, since you don't have more than one reaction until about 8th level, per the Fighter Blog. So you're at an action disadvantage compared to the greataxe wielding marauder. And AoO doesn't trigger on a Critical Failure on an attack, so it's not like the other guy has any reason to not full attack all the time.

So I really do hope Hardness got re-worked because as it is they seem incredibly weak.

Correct analysys, although while you're at 1 action disadvantage to the marauder, you're also at +2 ac advantage. Blocking is the icing on the cake.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

"Valeros, you dolt, why didn't you block that Greatsword with your shield? It could have killed you!"
"You see, Kyra, my shield already had one dent. I didn't want the shield destroyed, so it made more sense to protect my shield by using my skull to absorb the blow. Unskilled warriors will foolishly sacrifice their shield just to avoid getting hit with a deadly weapon, but truly skilled Fighters like myself will calculate the value of our shield's AC against the amount of damage we're currently fighting through, and make the smart decision to just let the weapon hit us. Our bodies are more durable than the shield anyway."


Ninja in the Rye wrote:

"Valeros, you dolt, why didn't you block that Greatsword with your shield? It could have killed you!"

"You see, Kyra, my shield already had one dent. I didn't want the shield destroyed, so it made more sense to protect my shield by using my skull to absorb the blow. Unskilled warriors will foolishly sacrifice their shield just to avoid getting hit with a deadly weapon, but truly skilled Fighters like myself will calculate the value of our shield's AC against the amount of damage we're currently fighting through, and make the smart decision to just let the weapon hit us. Our bodies are more durable than the shield anyway."

You *are* funny. Favorite'd.


Roswynn wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Biztak wrote:

With hardness 5 getting your shield completely destroyed in one hit is a real posibility when taking a hit from a great axe

That's why you don't actively block greataxes wielded by angry barbarians, you just raise and deflect.

If a heavy steel (-covered, one presumes) shield had a little more hardness though I'd be even happier.

Ah yes, the strategy of letting a great axe hit in you in the face because your shield will shatter and become completely useless if you use it to do the thing it was designed to do.

Yeah, not exactly that, no, I specified raising your shield, that gives Valeros an AC of 19.

Although of course if you've come here to willingly misinterpret comments, please, go ahead, I'm used to this.

Ah, when you said not to block a greataxe I must have misinterpreted that as you saying not to block a greataxe. My apologies.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Biztak wrote:

With hardness 5 getting your shield completely destroyed in one hit is a real posibility when taking a hit from a great axe

That's why you don't actively block greataxes wielded by angry barbarians, you just raise and deflect.

If a heavy steel (-covered, one presumes) shield had a little more hardness though I'd be even happier.

Ah yes, the strategy of letting a great axe hit in you in the face because your shield will shatter and become completely useless if you use it to do the thing it was designed to do.

Yeah, not exactly that, no, I specified raising your shield, that gives Valeros an AC of 19.

Although of course if you've come here to willingly misinterpret comments, please, go ahead, I'm used to this.

Ah, when you said not to block a greataxe I must have misinterpreted that as you saying not to block a greataxe. My apologies.

Go ahead honey, you're still pretty funny.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Real question.
Is there likely to be a Sweeping Agile weapon? For stupidly niche ranger builds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:

Real question.

Is there likely to be a Sweeping Agile weapon? For stupidly niche ranger builds.

Maybe the Handaxe? Or the Kukri? The first one because I recall axes getting Sweep too (in the What's your Weapon? Blog), the latter because the Scimitar gets Sweep and the Kukri was always the Scimitar's baby brother in PF1. And both are Light weapons, which would probably make them Agile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
Elleth wrote:

Real question.

Is there likely to be a Sweeping Agile weapon? For stupidly niche ranger builds.
Maybe the Handaxe? Or the Kukri? The first one because I recall axes getting Sweep too (in the What's your Weapon? Blog), the latter because the Scimitar gets Sweep and the Kukri was always the Scimitar's baby brother in PF1. And both are Light weapons, which would probably make them Agile.

Lol, if that's a thing then that's a hilariously great choice for the Iconic Ranger to be suddenly rocking two of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interestingly enough, I remember Seelah rocking the chain mail. And I am curious as to how Shield Block works. In the GCP Podcast Keith's shield broke after one hit. Reading from here, it takes two hits (or one big hit) to break it.
And I'm pretty sure Natural Ambition gives another Class Feat. Seelah had two Class feats and she had Natural Ambition as well...


I'm also looking at Valeros' Athletics skill. Does everyone who is trained in it get a +5 to Grapple, Shove, or trip?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
I'm also looking at Valeros' Athletics skill. Does everyone who is trained in it get a +5 to Grapple, Shove, or trip?

I'm guessing ACP doesn't apply to Combat Maneuvers. His normal Athletics score is +5 (+1 level, +4 Strength, +0 Trained), but his ACP lowers it to +0 for skill uses.

However, much like it doesn't apply to Attack rolls, it doesn't apply to Shove, Trip, etc. Which is why he uses his full value for those.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Really disappointed with the Shield. Only 2 dents to break, 3 to destroy completely, anything that doubles the hardness does 2 dents, and the hardness is only 5?

Weak.

I look at this as a way to make different materials relevant again beyond just mithril/darkwood to reduce armor check penalty/carry weight, adamantine for DR/because your GM likes to sunder unexpected things, or dragonhide because you're a Druid that wants full plate.

If shields had rune slots (other than the shield boss/shield spike ones) this would probably be worse, but eh.

Plus, shields getting damaged allows fights to wind down if they're going long. Game systems where everyone is too defensive can drag battles out.

The last big (mechanical) benefit I can think of is that it helps balance the "single, big attack per round" against "many smaller attacks per round." By limiting how many times a shield can take high amounts of damage means that you avoid the crane wing problem of completely negating what should be a very powerful attack every single round using one reaction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:

I'm alright with most of the sheet, I just have two points:

- Reactive Shield is a weird feat in how it interacts with Shields and the system in general. It prioritises Full Attacking to the fullest while forgoing defense. Since you activate it when you're Hit/Critically Hit, you'd obviously only use it when it'd actually deflect a blow (or lessen a Crit), and then it's Raised until the beginning of your next turn. It's weird because it de-incentivices using the Raise Shield action on it's own unless you know the +2 AC won't be worth anything and you just want to Shield Block. Which brings me to my second point.

Are you sure? I read it as the Shield bonus only applying to the attack that triggered it.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

I'm alright with most of the sheet, I just have two points:

- Reactive Shield is a weird feat in how it interacts with Shields and the system in general. It prioritises Full Attacking to the fullest while forgoing defense. Since you activate it when you're Hit/Critically Hit, you'd obviously only use it when it'd actually deflect a blow (or lessen a Crit), and then it's Raised until the beginning of your next turn. It's weird because it de-incentivices using the Raise Shield action on it's own unless you know the +2 AC won't be worth anything and you just want to Shield Block. Which brings me to my second point.

Are you sure? I read it as the Shield bonus only applying to the attack that triggered it.

From how it's worded, you activate it when you're hit/critically hit. Which would mean the Raise Shield action would do nothing for that attack, because it's already hit. Therefore the last line caveat, to tell you that it actually does (and so can turn a hit into a miss and a critical into a normal hit).

Raise Shield specifies it lasts until the beginning of your next turn, so I think the sequence is:

Normal AC -> Get Hit -> Activate Reactive Shield -> Compare new AC to attack to determine if there was a change -> New AC remains until the beginning of your next round.

At least, that's how I see it. But I could totally be wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
So what does untrained assurance give you?
It's also probably impossible without a Background giving it to you.

If anyone's curious, there are only three backgrounds in the playtest rules that grant Assurance in a skill as the built-in skill feat. They all fit on two pages and were shown by Jason Bulmahn at a banquet that I believe took place after the final book designs were sent to the printers.

Farmhand grants Assurance with Athletics; Nomad grants Assurance with Survival; and Scholar lets you choose Assurance with Arcane, Nature, Occultism, or Religion. All the other backgrounds grant a named skill feat, and I don't know if any of those feats have been spoiled yet.

Backgrounds and the skill feats they grant:
Acolyte: Student of the Canon
Acrobat: Steady Balance
Animal Whisperer: Train Animal
Barkeep: Hobnobber
Blacksmith: Specialty Crafting (for blacksmithing)
Criminal: Experienced Smuggler
Entertainer: Fascinating Performance
Farmhand: Assurance (with Athletics)
Gladiator: Fascinating Performance
Hunter: Survey Wildlife
Laborer: Robust Recovery
Merchant: Bargain Hunter
Noble: Courtly Graces
Nomad: Assurance (with survival)
Sailor: Underwater Marauder
Scholar: Assurance (with Arcane, Nature, Occultism, or Religion)
Scout: Forager
Street Urchin: Pickpocket
Warrior: Quick Repair

Note that Fumbus's sheet shows he has the background "Pathfinder Hopeful" which isn't on that list. I'm guessing it was cut for space (they used all of both pages for the backgrounds). It presumably granted the "Additional Lore" skill feat that doesn't get a full write-up on his sheet, but most likely explains Fumbus having both Lore (Pathfinder Society) and Lore (Underworld) since all the backgrounds shown grant a single, specific trained Lore skill.

This is a pretty strong case for DeadManWalking's prediction that these demo characters were not built/updated using the final version of the playtest rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Hopeful is a Doomsday Dawn background, shown off in the blog.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TheFinish wrote:

From how it's worded, you activate it when you're hit/critically hit. Which would mean the Raise Shield action would do nothing for that attack, because it's already hit. Therefore the last line caveat, to tell you that it actually does (and so can turn a hit into a miss and a critical into a normal hit).

Raise Shield specifies it lasts until the beginning of your next turn, so I think the sequence is:

Normal AC -> Get Hit -> Activate Reactive Shield -> Compare new AC to attack to determine if there was a change -> New AC remains until the beginning of your next round.

At least, that's how I see it. But I could totally be wrong.

That's my interpretation as well. It might be slightly more clear if they changed the wording a little. Right now I can see how someone who isn't going back to look at the wording on "Raise a Shield" would get the impression it only happens "immediately/this attack" instead of "as per the action, but also it can change the outcome of the attack that triggered this reaction."

Maybe easier wording:
You use the Raise a Shield action and gain your shield's bonus to AC as normal for the action, including when you're determining the outcome of the triggering attack.

TheFinish wrote:
It's weird because it de-incentivices using the Raise Shield action on it's own unless you know the +2 AC won't be worth anything and you just want to Shield Block.

The main downsides of Reactive Shield are the opportunity costs by using up your reaction: You can't use Shield Block to further reduce the damage when the AC difference wouldn't prevent damage. You also forego the option to make an Attack of Opportunity (which is at less of a penalty than a 2nd/3rd+ attack, and can cost your opponent one or more actions). I think those both offer decent reasons to not full attack every turn in favor of raising your shield as an action, especially compared against making a 3rd attack at a -8 or a -10.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Pathfinder Hopeful is a Doomsday Dawn background, shown off in the blog.

That also makes sense. I hadn't even considered that there would be additional character options specific to the playtest adventure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Theye did mention there were 19 backgrounds in the playtest, and 6 more in the Module (or was it five) to demonstrate how Backgrounds are supposed to be something your GM can easily tailor to a campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

From how it's worded, you activate it when you're hit/critically hit. Which would mean the Raise Shield action would do nothing for that attack, because it's already hit. Therefore the last line caveat, to tell you that it actually does (and so can turn a hit into a miss and a critical into a normal hit).

Raise Shield specifies it lasts until the beginning of your next turn, so I think the sequence is:

Normal AC -> Get Hit -> Activate Reactive Shield -> Compare new AC to attack to determine if there was a change -> New AC remains until the beginning of your next round.

At least, that's how I see it. But I could totally be wrong.

That's my interpretation as well. It might be slightly more clear if they changed the wording a little. Right now I can see how someone who isn't going back to look at the wording on "Raise a Shield" would get the impression it only happens "immediately/this attack" instead of "as per the action, but also it can change the outcome of the attack that triggered this reaction."

** spoiler omitted **

TheFinish wrote:
It's weird because it de-incentivices using the Raise Shield action on it's own unless you know the +2 AC won't be worth anything and you just want to Shield Block.
The main downsides of Reactive Shield are the opportunity costs by using up your reaction: You can't use Shield Block to further reduce the damage when the AC difference wouldn't prevent damage. You also forego the option to make an Attack of Opportunity (which is at less of a penalty than a 2nd/3rd+ attack, and can cost your opponent one or more actions). I think those both offer decent reasons to not full attack every turn in favor of raising your shield as an action, especially compared against making a 3rd attack at a -8 or a -10.

With the hardness of a heavy steel shield at only 5 and 2 dents breaking it, I can't imagine that trading an extra attack (or other action) for Raising you shield to ever be worth it outside of situations where I'm facing some sort of High AC/very Low damage Dex based enemies. The bonus AC from having a non-broken shield in hand + An extra attack is worth a lot more than DR 5 (breaks on 10) against one attack.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, does the shield take the full damage and you take none, the shield takes full damage and you take damage - shield hardness, or something else?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
With the hardness of a heavy steel shield at only 5 and 2 dents breaking it, I can't imagine that trading an extra attack (or other action) for Raising you shield to ever be worth it...

It's all about the marginal benefit. You're potentially trading your worst attack (in your turn) for your best (in the moment) reaction. Valeros with longsword/shield equipped would be making his third attack at a -10 penalty for a total bonus of -4. That's just not a very valuable attack, frankly.

Sometimes the big bad evil guy rolls a critical hit, maxes (or nearly) the damage dice, and drops you, leaving you at Dying 2 and a high Fortitude DC to stabilize. If your shield is already up, you have the option of trading a dent for the damage by using Shield Block.

Or, if you're really close to running out of HP, you're probably much more likely to trade a dent or even a broken shield for the last hit that would drop you, because the marginal benefit is so much higher than the circumstance bonus to AC you won't while lying unconscious on the ground.

And, again, Attack of Opportunity potentially gives you a better attack that can "disrupt" a manipulate action. Action denial is super powerful here, because you're probably trading your worst attack for something critical to their turn, like the somatic action of a spell or the use of a magic item. This one is more situational, but the context is what makes the decision relevant. If it's fighter v. fighter, probably no one is triggering AoO very often, so the option to Shield Block or just Raise a Shield is more relevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Paladinosaur wrote:
So, does the shield take the full damage and you take none, the shield takes full damage and you take damage - shield hardness, or something else?

You know, until you asked that I thought it was clear that it prevented all the damage (based on the extra dent from taking 2x hardness), but a literal read makes it sound like the shield takes full damage and you take damage minus shield hardness, which is weird.

I'm trying to remember how it was in the Glass Cannon podcast. I'm sure someone else will chime in with that answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
Paladinosaur wrote:
So, does the shield take the full damage and you take none, the shield takes full damage and you take damage - shield hardness, or something else?

You know, until you asked that I thought it was clear that it prevented all the damage (based on the extra dent from taking 2x hardness), but a literal read makes it sound like the shield takes full damage and you take damage-shield hardness, which is weird.

I'm trying to remember how it was in the Glass Cannon podcast. I'm sure someone else will chime in with that answer.

Yeah, I editted an earlier post about this. Shield Block states the shield can only block up to it's Hardness, which would mean it can only take 5 damage.

But then the rules go into explaining Dents and mention a shield can take 10 damage for 2 dents....but how does that work if the shield can only block up to 5?

If I get hit for 12 Damage and shield block:

- Does the shield take 5 Damage, and I take 7?
- Does the shield take 12 Damage, and I take 7?

It's pretty confusing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think both you and the shield take 7 damage (since it's hardness protects it as an object). Since the shield doesn't have HP, that damage becomes 1 Dent, or 2 Dents if the damage it twice its hardness. That shield appears to have a total of 3 Dents before it is garbage.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure the book itself has a slightly more complete version of the mechanic, but I suspect Cantriped is right. That's certainly how the demo games have played it (the demo games, even very recent ones, also had the Shield at Hardness 9, which is why I think that's likely correct).

251 to 300 of 799 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Pregen previews over at ENWorld! All Messageboards