Initial Thoughts


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I am not sure how I feel about the shield actions.

You can as an action raise a shield gaining bonus to AC and Touch AC (I will NEVER call it TAC, that's silly)
Then it serves as the narrative version of a shield we are used too...
But you can also Shield Block as a Reaction, deflecting a blow on the shield and potentially damaging it.

They have made some adjustments to how Flight works.
Now ascending counts as difficult terrain, and moving straight down 10 ft for every 5 ft of movement expending. Also it costs an action each turn to remain aloft, as you MUST use a flight action each turn of you fall. (poor formatting here, but it does note you can make an action to fly 0 feet and hover, but that means all flyers could do that?!)

Also apparently the 5 Foot is back, but is nerfed to be useless on rough terrain.

I like that a simple jump does not constitute a skill check.

Why are we detailing things like what "shopping" is... Really..

Also a better word for Stealing (Fatiguing) would be Stealing (Casing) or Stealing (Assessment), Fatiguing in this context makes little sense.

I don't like the hand holding attitude of this so far. Things like "Accelerated" as a condition rather than just noting your speed increased for x amount of time. Also confusingly we have both an accelerated and a quick condition. I get that they do different things, but the thematic make it confusing.

Why are we using the word "bulk" instead of weight. Weight is easy to understand, Bulk is a character in Power Rangers.

Getting into the GM section now.

Why is it giving Watch hrs and durations rather than letting the players hash that amongst themselves.

I like the idea of being able to swap out feats during extended downtime. It gives much needed flexibility to fighters and other martial classes. You can change which Domains or Schools your character uses but not things like bloodlines seems a bit maligned.

Why are magic items being sorted by a rarity system. Are we playing World of Warcraft? In all seriousness, this is silly, I do not want to play an MMO on table top. This was the SAME MISTAKE 4e made that drove so many people from it TO Pathfinder and now we have Pathfinder making the same mistakes. Learn from the mistakes of your competitors, what we lauded you for avoiding in the past, and keep avoiding it.

I kind of like the idea of the Runes for Powers. And the inclusion of a "potency" (find a new name) rune for the + values is appreciated. The costs for some runes seems low however, Vorpal being at 15k for example is for a 20th level character a completely viable outright purchase with a wealth of 140k.

Why are we changing the name of Ion stones to Aeon stones? Seems unnecessary...

I find no list of item slot availability per character. I am SURE I am missing some limiting factor involved here, anyone care to point me in the right direction?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
elvnsword wrote:
I find no list of item slot availability per character. I am SURE I am missing some limiting factor involved here, anyone care to point me in the right direction?

Well, resonance, for starters. Possibly slot exclusivity? (Although I haven't seen that yet, it would make sense that you can't wear two sets of eyewear at a time.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:

If this is best they can do...I'm afraid that they can go beg in front of WotC for spare change. Not that employees there have much :p

Races mean nothing before 9th level.

Racial feats should be improving your race strengths, not get a longbow proficiency at 9th level because you found something more useful before.

3 racial feats and one general feat at 1st level could have save racial problem.

Humans should get extra feat.

what is the range of darkvision? line of sight?
It should be 30ft max.

What is the hate towards longbow?

Is this "pathfinder" or "path to finding best way to bludgeon someone on the head with a hammer"?

multi attack penalties are huge. -3/-6 would be better.

See, this I can agree with. The "Ancestral feats" should define the character WHEN YOU MAKE THEM (I've never used the paizo forums before, I don't know how formatting works here), giving each race 2 or 3 feats and 1 general feats (along with an extra 1 for humans because that's what humans are known for in pathfinder and D&D (variant humans)) just seems to make sense to me. But how do you fix halflings? I need to have a closer look at the ancestral feats for each race, right now I'm going through animal companions and familiars.

Dark Archive

I mostly looked at the Alchemist and the Alchemy section thus far, so my thoughts will center around that. I've been taking notes and stuff too.

Class Table - I never knew I hated the old class tables so much until I saw the Alchemist table, and I spent hours trying to format one of the dang things for a homebrew document I've been typing up. It's a little jarring, but the change is one I welcome wholeheartedly.

Alchemy - There aren't many bombs listed, but there are a number of Class Feats that grant access to new bombs and Additives that add effects to bombs you create too. Elixirs look generally situational with a few all-around useful ones like Elixir of Life and Darkvision Elixir. Mutagens vary from very potent (Beastial) to useful (Quicksilver) to those of questionable use (Silvertongue), but seem generally worth the drawbacks they give. I'm a little confused on Bullheaded Mutagen, as I'm not sure if the RP you lose when drinking it stays lost or if it is restored once the duration ends. Poisons have a decent amount of feat support, and I bet an Alchemist / MC Rogue could do some nifty things with them.

Resonance - We all thought there could potentially be Resonance issues with this class, but it looks like there are a number of safeguards in place. First, you can craft Batches of 2 identical items for 1RP, so you should have multiples of everything you craft. We knew about +INT to RP, but (iirc) we didn't know about Expanded Resonance giving free uses of Quick Alchemy daily, which gives them more longevity than previously expected. Of the alchemical items you can craft, only Elixirs and Mutagens cost RP to use, and thanks to the Infused trait the Alchemist can make use of their own items without spending extra RP. This looks pretty solid.

Will post more later when I get back from the library - our printer is down and dang it, I want character sheets!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm in agreement that Races seem a little anemic at 1st level. I thought the ancestry advancements would be much deeper at later levels, and you could turn regular feats into ancestry feats to get some really impactful stuff but overall the lists are short and bland.

Web Product Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a few heated and unrelated back and forth posts. Let's keep this kind of bickering to a minimum. Thanks.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Reading through the fighter: It feels like they came up with a list of Combat Feats, then made the Fighter and couldn't come up with any class feats so they totally removed Combat Feats as a normal feat option and stuffed them into Fighter.

I'm not really seeing any Fighter Class Feats that shouldn't be available to anyone. Are they saying fighter multiclassing is going to be super popular?

Examples:

Power Attack: Why can't I roll up a burly wizard who takes this feat to hit hard? Rogue?

Reactive Shield: Why can't a sword and board paladin or ranger pick this feat up?

I don't know, the Fighter feels very 4e to me. Like they had to make martials special so they forced a bunch of abilities into them that didn't make sense to be class locked.

I would much rather see as shorter Fighter Class Feat list and allow them to also select Combat Feats which get re-added to the general feat list.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Browsing through character creation now and wanted to put down the one initial thought that sticks out at me that I'm not a fan of. I like a lot of what I'm seeing, and am excited to get rolling.

BUT...

the first thing I dislike is that everything is labelled a Feat. Ancestral Feats, Class feats, Skill Feats, everything Feats. Personally I think having a different name would help differentiate things a bit more than everything being labelled a Feat. I might be the the only one that feels this way, but maybe it's worth some thought to give more unique names to things.

My 2c. My group will start our game on Monday. Think I'll go with a Fighter as my first character.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
That Sean fellow wrote:

Browsing through character creation now and wanted to put down the one initial thought that sticks out at me that I'm not a fan of. I like a lot of what I'm seeing, and am excited to get rolling.

BUT...

the first thing I dislike is that everything is labelled a Feat. Ancestral Feats, Class feats, Skill Feats, everything Feats. Personally I think having a different name would help differentiate things a bit more than everything being labelled a Feat. I might be the the only one that feels this way, but maybe it's worth some thought to give more unique names to things.

My 2c. My group will start our game on Monday. Think I'll go with a Fighter as my first character.

It definitely makes me think they should all be of an equivalent power. I was half expecting to see more conversion feats to get one instead of another.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing that i noticed on the spells list already:

Pathfinder 1 listed not only the name and level, but also the class availability in the header.

I would like to see this return, to reduce flipping back and forth between pages.

Example: magic missile, Spell 1: Arcane; Occult

This means that when i see an interesting spell, i do not have to flip (or scroll) back to my traditions' list to see if i can cast it as well (this is also something that D&D 5th missed)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Reading through the fighter: It feels like they came up with a list of Combat Feats, then made the Fighter and couldn't come up with any class feats so they totally removed Combat Feats as a normal feat option and stuffed them into Fighter.

I'm not really seeing any Fighter Class Feats that shouldn't be available to anyone. Are they saying fighter multiclassing is going to be super popular?

Examples:

Power Attack: Why can't I roll up a burly wizard who takes this feat to hit hard? Rogue?

Reactive Shield: Why can't a sword and board paladin or ranger pick this feat up?

I don't know, the Fighter feels very 4e to me. Like they had to make martials special so they forced a bunch of abilities into them that didn't make sense to be class locked.

I would much rather see as shorter Fighter Class Feat list and allow them to also select Combat Feats which get re-added to the general feat list.

I tend to agree. The Fighter needs things that only a Fighter can have. More Fighter Abilities, not so much generic feats. Things (Non spellcasting things btw) that make a Fighter play different to a Paladin and Ranger for example.

On that note I think Fighter abilities should be called Prowess. I mean if we're looking for a name ;)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Terminalmancer wrote:
Hmmm. Accessibility of the PDF is low, as expected--the icons don't have any text associated with them, so in the event you're using text-to-speech you can't tell what's an action, what's a reaction, and so on.

We are preparing a separate accessible version of the PDF that should be available soon.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
That Sean fellow wrote:
I tend to agree. The Fighter needs things that only a Fighter can have. More Fighter Abilities, not so much generic feats. Things (Non spellcasting things btw) that make a Fighter play different to a Paladin and Ranger for example.

Yeah, and as long as we're talking about it, let's break it down a bit more.

Fighters, despite their name, aren't *just* good at fighting. They're martial experts, they're steely, brave, and flexible. They're the premier weapon masters and at home in battle.

Fighter feats I'd like to see:

1. Add weapon traits to your weapon on the fly
2. Mess with number of required and free hands (Spear and Shield fighter, etc)
3. Turn actions into reactions
4. Bonuses to Medicine use in combat
5. Spend a reaction to cancel an enemy's reaction
6. Copy an enemy's feat
7. Gain improvement to all saves when raising a shield

Edit: Kind of funny that Blind-Fight is a 10th level Fighter feat.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

As others noted: 1st level ancestry feats feel like they need more to actually make you feel like a member of the race.

Half orcs not getting darkvision till 5th level doesn't make any sense. It's like "for no reason my eyes suddenly mutate to be more orclike, even though I wasn't any less of a half orc 1 level ago."

I get that they were probably wanting to make characters less front loaded, but... maybe ancestry should be somewhat frontloaded, particularly where things like how their eyes work are concerned? Otherwise it just seems ridiculous.

I'm pretty disappointed that druids can no longer hang around in animal form all day. Even a wild druid would be pushing it to get more than 15 minutes. It seems every system is against me playing the druid character whose name I tend to use online the way I envision him. Sigh.

Removal of long term flight is similarly disappointing.

Why do most of the martials have fewer skills than spellcasters? Martials look mostly a bit stronger to me, but still... also I agree that nothing in the fighter looks like it needs to be exclusive to the fighter. I mean, unless we're supposed to believe that a wizard learning to use shield would accidentally multiclass to fighter. Is a fighter just anyone that's trained to use weapons and armor better than other people?

First level still seems like it's gonna suck no matter what you're playing. Never been fond of that, it always makes me want to ask to start at level 2. Not even 5, though that's fun sometimes, just level 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

I'm pretty disappointed that druids can no longer hang around in animal form all day. Even a wild druid would be pushing it to get more than 15 minutes. It seems every system is against me playing the druid character whose name I tend to use online the way I envision him. Sigh.

Pretty concerned about wild shaping in general. The animal form spell gives a static armor and attack bonus (and damage I believe).

Does that mean druids are being phased out as the shapeshifting class?


Corwin Icewolf wrote:
I'm pretty disappointed that druids can no longer hang around in animal form all day. Even a wild druid would be pushing it to get more than 15 minutes. It seems every system is against me playing the druid character whose name I tend to use online the way I envision him. Sigh.

Man they really buried this ability cause I missed it too until I went crt-F through the document.

At level 10, you can take control form, which lets you spend a spell and a wild shape use to turn into a form for an hour (of one spell level lower than max)

With the feat to use your own stats instead of the forms, your Icewolf could actually be viable at higher levels.

So you are looking at 2+Str mod hours at level 10 (and eating that many spells to do it). Not exactly All day (sadly), but better than minutes


One peculiarity I noticed; You can't cast Wall spells diagonally. My guess is it is to avoid having to count the diagonal squares and people trying to cheat themselves to an extra 2.5 foot of wall?


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MR. H wrote:

With the feat to use your own stats instead of the forms, your Icewolf could actually be viable at higher levels.

I was looking for that. What is it called? I can't find it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
That Sean fellow wrote:
I tend to agree. The Fighter needs things that only a Fighter can have. More Fighter Abilities, not so much generic feats. Things (Non spellcasting things btw) that make a Fighter play different to a Paladin and Ranger for example.

Yeah, and as long as we're talking about it, let's break it down a bit more.

Fighters, despite their name, aren't *just* good at fighting. They're martial experts, they're steely, brave, and flexible. They're the premier weapon masters and at home in battle.

Fighter feats I'd like to see:

1. Add weapon traits to your weapon on the fly
2. Mess with number of required and free hands (Spear and Shield fighter, etc)
3. Turn actions into reactions
4. Bonuses to Medicine use in combat
5. Spend a reaction to cancel an enemy's reaction
6. Copy an enemy's feat
7. Gain improvement to all saves when raising a shield

Edit: Kind of funny that Blind-Fight is a 10th level Fighter feat.

Very cool list. I haven't read everything that's in the book yet for Fighters but a couple ideas I thought would be cool is:

A Fighter ability to add conditions to his opponent with his weapon. Like Blinded (in game it could be described as a slash above the eyes to make blood fall into the enemies eyes/bashing the enemy's nose with the pommel of his weapon, etc.) And other conditions.

Or maybe increasing his weapon damage by x3 for a certain amount of times per day as he exerts extra effort to land a blow. Maybe even give it to him as many times as a Paladin's smite ability.

I'm just spitballing here. I love playing a Fighter and I want them to be cooler and not feel like they get the short end for not having spells.

Hope the PF dev guys like these ideas :)


MR. H wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
I'm pretty disappointed that druids can no longer hang around in animal form all day. Even a wild druid would be pushing it to get more than 15 minutes. It seems every system is against me playing the druid character whose name I tend to use online the way I envision him. Sigh.

Man they really buried this ability cause I missed it too until I went crt-F through the document.

At level 10, you can take control form, which lets you spend a spell and a wild shape use to turn into a form for an hour (of one spell level lower than max)

With the feat to use your own stats instead of the forms, your Icewolf could actually be viable at higher levels.

So you are looking at 2+Str mod hours at level 10 (and eating that many spells to do it). Not exactly All day (sadly), but better than minutes

yeah I see it now.

And he's a melee druid, so that would be pretty much all day for him, so thanks.

He's a Viking in his backstory, but I never could find a way in 1e of getting handaxe and longsword proficiency without delaying wildshape, which didn't seem worth it when he'd be in wolf form for most combats. So, score 1 for 2e I guess.


elvnsword wrote:

Ok, I am not sure how I feel about the shield actions.

You can as an action raise a shield gaining bonus to AC and Touch AC (I will NEVER call it TAC, that's silly)
Then it serves as the narrative version of a shield we are used too...
But you can also Shield Block as a Reaction, deflecting a blow on the shield and potentially damaging it.

They have made some adjustments to how Flight works.
Now ascending counts as difficult terrain, and moving straight down 10 ft for every 5 ft of movement expending. Also it costs an action each turn to remain aloft, as you MUST use a flight action each turn of you fall. (poor formatting here, but it does note you can make an action to fly 0 feet and hover, but that means all flyers could do that?!)

Also apparently the 5 Foot is back, but is nerfed to be useless on rough terrain.

I like that a simple jump does not constitute a skill check.

Why are we detailing things like what "shopping" is... Really..

Also a better word for Stealing (Fatiguing) would be Stealing (Casing) or Stealing (Assessment), Fatiguing in this context makes little sense.

I don't like the hand holding attitude of this so far. Things like "Accelerated" as a condition rather than just noting your speed increased for x amount of time. Also confusingly we have both an accelerated and a quick condition. I get that they do different things, but the thematic make it confusing.

Why are we using the word "bulk" instead of weight. Weight is easy to understand, Bulk is a character in Power Rangers.

Getting into the GM section now.

Why is it giving Watch hrs and durations rather than letting the players hash that amongst themselves.

I like the idea of being able to swap out feats during extended downtime. It gives much needed flexibility to fighters and other martial classes. You can change which Domains or Schools your character uses but not things like bloodlines seems a bit maligned.

Why are magic items being sorted by a rarity system. Are we playing World of...

A lot of your questions here are quite easy to answer. You're obviously not a new gamer, so a lot of the things you think are redundant and common sense probably aren't to a new gamer. Remember that the game also has to cater to newcomers to the hobby.

A few of the others are due to the larger integration of Golarion into the rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
MR. H wrote:

With the feat to use your own stats instead of the forms, your Icewolf could actually be viable at higher levels.

I was looking for that. What is it called? I can't find it.

Sorry, page 388 Druid's vestments

It's a magic item not a feat (Yay?). 1000g, item level 10.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rholand wrote:
One peculiarity I noticed; You can't cast Wall spells diagonally. My guess is it is to avoid having to count the diagonal squares and people trying to cheat themselves to an extra 2.5 foot of wall?

In other words, any character with access to these spells and half a brain would be fully aware of the grid's existence.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

On my 2nd skim while at work.

I HATE how ability scores are being generated. It creates all kinds of problems.

They hardly matter though, as the ability score modifier is the only thing tied to spellcasting now, re: the DC to resist spells. It is also EXCEEDINGLY loosly tied in, as it isn't actually addressed on the pg 291 reference they give you.

So far I as I see it all spells are 10+modifier instead of the 10+spell level+ modifier that Pathfinder and 3.5 ran at before. So this effectively nerfs EVERY SPELL IN THE GAME?

Effectively the +1, +2 or +3 of a spellcasters "proficiency" would also add in. I see that, but that still means up to 12th level our dwarf sorcerer (forced to have an 8 cha to begin with), his spells would require a 10-2 to resist. All hail the mighty DC 8 Fireball...

Even at maximum level, will all increases put into Cha, you end up at a mere (10+3)(DC 13)just based on this. Not because you didn't build right but because the stereotyped negatives decided it. This is building to stereotype instead of allowing the player agency to build the concepts they have.

Fortune/Misfortune seems awfully close to the advantage disadvantage system present in 5e. This is not inherently a bad thing, but I don't particularly care for that method myself, preferring the old -4/-2/0/+2/+4 system of advantages and disadvantages on a roll.

Looking over spells again, what are you doing with Heal.
Why no Cure Light, Cure Moderate and Cure Serious wounds.
Instead we get 1d8, 2d8, or 3d8 heal spell, made in a touch/range/burst mode... Also why is it a necromancy tagged spell. I don't see any Evil aligned spells so I was assuming the old "don't do necromancy it's evil" was still in effect, yet if so that makes it anathema to a cleric, and thus they lose class features for casting healing spells.
o.O

Back to the shield topic, there is a Fragile If fragile armor takes a Dent, it’s automatically broken.
There is no entry in the same appendices for Dent defining what causes a Dent, etc.

I finally did find the definition (pg 175) but it would be useful to at least place that Pg. ref in the appendices.

I really do like the critical specialization effects, It makes for neat bonuses for specializing in weapons of varying types.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
elvnsword wrote:
I will NEVER call it TAC, that's silly.

Wait...so:

Armor Class = AC is fine, but
Touch Armor Class = TAC is silly?

:P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rholand wrote:
One peculiarity I noticed; You can't cast Wall spells diagonally. My guess is it is to avoid having to count the diagonal squares and people trying to cheat themselves to an extra 2.5 foot of wall?

That's why you make your GM rotate the battle map, no rule against the terrain walls being diagonal...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
elvnsword wrote:
I will NEVER call it TAC, that's silly.

Wait...so:

Armor Class = AC is fine, but
Touch Armor Class = TAC is silly?

:P

Yep, Touch works just fine, the point of an acronym is to shorten the time to say it. TAC takes three syllables, saying "touch" takes one.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

What, 'tack' doesn't work?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So I'm shocked the Fighter isn't getting more abilities that seem from the Advanced Weapon/Armor training from PF1 and instead seems to be getting more 'general combat' style stuff.

Also it seems only the Rogue can get Dex to damage, and a multiclass Rogue can't ever get it unless I missed something. So that bites for my poor finesse fighters. :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
elvnsword wrote:

On my 2nd skim while at work.

I HATE how ability scores are being generated. It creates all kinds of problems.

They hardly matter though, as the ability score modifier is the only thing tied to spellcasting now, re: the DC to resist spells. It is also EXCEEDINGLY loosly tied in, as it isn't actually addressed on the pg 291 reference they give you.

So far I as I see it all spells are 10+modifier instead of the 10+spell level+ modifier that Pathfinder and 3.5 ran at before. So this effectively nerfs EVERY SPELL IN THE GAME?

Effectively the +1, +2 or +3 of a spellcasters "proficiency" would also add in. I see that, but that still means up to 12th level our dwarf sorcerer (forced to have an 8 cha to begin with), his spells would require a 10-2 to resist. All hail the mighty DC 8 Fireball...

Even at maximum level, will all increases put into Cha, you end up at a mere (10+3)(DC 13)just based on this. Not because you didn't build right but because the stereotyped negatives decided it. This is building to stereotype instead of allowing the player agency to build the concepts they have.

Maybe stop just skimming and then come here to complain when it's obvious you've missed a lot just by skimming? You also add level to your modifier. And why are you forced to have a CHA of 8 as a dwarven sorcerer? Again, you're obviously not reading the book properly.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Rholand wrote:
One peculiarity I noticed; You can't cast Wall spells diagonally. My guess is it is to avoid having to count the diagonal squares and people trying to cheat themselves to an extra 2.5 foot of wall?
In other words, any character with access to these spells and half a brain would be fully aware of the grid's existence.

Uhm...how does resolving an infinite number of directions to four (instead of eight) make someone "aware of the grid's existence"?

Aliasing is inherent in translating the "analog" (real world directions) to "digital" (a representation with a finite number of directions). The fact that you appear to believe that eight would imperceptible but four would obvious says more about your perception than it does about your character's!


elvnsword wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
elvnsword wrote:
I will NEVER call it TAC, that's silly.

Wait...so:

Armor Class = AC is fine, but
Touch Armor Class = TAC is silly?

:P

Yep, Touch works just fine, the point of an acronym is to shorten the time to say it. TAC takes three syllables, saying "touch" takes one.

"tee-ahy-see" is still faster than saying tough armor class. Also what TOZ said.

It seems to me that you're confusing personal preference with objective truth. Of course you're far, FAR from alone in that, so...


bugleyman wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Rholand wrote:
One peculiarity I noticed; You can't cast Wall spells diagonally. My guess is it is to avoid having to count the diagonal squares and people trying to cheat themselves to an extra 2.5 foot of wall?
In other words, any character with access to these spells and half a brain would be fully aware of the grid's existence.

Uhm...how does resolving an infinite number of directions to four (instead of eight) make someone "aware of the grid's existence"?

Aliasing is inherent in translating the "analog" (real world directions) to "digital" (a representation with a finite number of directions). The fact that you appear to believe that eight would imperceptible but four would obvious says more about your perception than it does about your character's!

I never said 8 wouldn't be perceptible. Also, there are several examples given in the CRB for non-45 degree angles.


One thing I noticed for the backgrounds, the bonus skill feat requires you to burn a skill choice. I'd be fine with backgrounds giving a lore skill, skill feat and the prerequisite skill for the feat. Giving players an extra bonus skill isn't going to break the system imho.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The greatest problem with TAC is much more than the abreviation.

The heavier the armor, more difficult you're to "touch".

Man... this is a fabric of memes by itself for a bad mechanic that does more than do not fit the concept, it completely goes AGAINST the concept of a touch AC.

Wow...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Preface: I've only read a bit and haven't done character creation or played yet.

The whole "race is now ancestry" feels contrived. If anything, "ancestry" should denote sub-race, not your actual species.

I get it, you are trying to avoid the use of the word "race" because your company is PC and "inclusive" (my assumption, of course).

Ethnicity, Ancestry, Heritage, Culture... all these words refer to SUB-set of the Human Race in the English Language. If it's not Human, it's another RACE... if its a different type of Human... those are varying Ancestries. Taldan, Chelaxian, THESE are ancestries.

Are we going to have different ethnicities of a given ancestry? That sounds extremely redundant.

If anything, use "Species"... that would be a lot closer to being contextually correct.

All of this to say, Paizo... do what brought you to the dance. Take something that folks love and make it better while keeping it familiar enough to remain accessible. That's why Pathfinder worked.

From what I have read, it seems more foreign than familiar.


The Sideromancer wrote:
I never said 8 wouldn't be perceptible.

You didn't explicitly say that, but your whole post is predicated on the assumption, so...

The Sideromancer wrote:
Also, there are several examples given in the CRB for non-45 degree angles.

...all of which would be readily perceptible to any spellcaster "with half a brain."

Again: If you are fine with the granularity in 1E but not 2E, then say that. But don't imply that your opinion is something other than subjective and entirely personal.


Very quick flip and small read of the classes and ancestry...
Starting to boggle the mind a bit, feat for this,feat for that add in abilites, proficiency,traits, the way abilities are generated. This will need a few read throughs to grasp I think. I also don't like the pictures for abilities and spell blocks etc makes me think there will be boxes out with feat cards at some point. Not my thing really.

Complicated is what I get so far. This is one game my group will not play. Some of them find 1st ed hard work so getting them to play this will be out of the question. It's not so much the game it's the character's..way too much info for my players to grasp and remember.
We are all over 40 long time players but need easy games now due to family life and time.

VERY crunchy much more than 1st ed I feel. Few more reads might change this though.


I can cast a wall spell at a 45-degree angle.

Change my mind. =P


Obakararuir wrote:

I can cast a wall spell at a 45-degree angle.

Change my mind. =P

You mean like you must have done in 1E if you wanted to cast a spell at a 22-degree angle?

Having (and expressing) a granularity preference is one thing. Perceiving what you're used to as realistic just because you're used to it is just something else entirely.

If you still don't grasp the distinction after multiple explanations, well...

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I kinda like the symbols, though it took me a bit to get used to it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
elvnsword wrote:

So far I as I see it all spells are 10+modifier instead of the 10+spell level+ modifier that Pathfinder and 3.5 ran at before. So this effectively nerfs EVERY SPELL IN THE GAME?

Effectively the +1, +2 or +3 of a spellcasters "proficiency" would also add in. I see that, but that still means up to 12th level our dwarf sorcerer (forced to have an 8 cha to begin with), his spells would require a 10-2 to resist. All hail the mighty DC 8 Fireball...

Even at maximum level, will all increases put into Cha, you end up at a mere (10+3)(DC 13)just based on this. Not because you didn't build right but because the stereotyped negatives decided it. This is building to stereotype instead of allowing the player agency to build the concepts they have.

First, Spell DC is 10+Proficiency+Modifier. Proficiency is equal to your Level, and then somewhere between -2 and +3 based on whether you're Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, or Legendary. That fixes the majority of the nerf issues you're seeing here.

Second, Dwarves have always had -2 to CHA in their stats, but that just means the highest you can start as a Dwarf is at CHA 16 instead of CHA 18. The -1 to spell DCs stings, but is far from making such a concept useless. In fact, it's far easier in this edition to build a non-standard combo of ancestry and class, since in PF1 it took the majority of your point buy (17pts out of the standard 20) to get a 16 in a penalized stat.

elvnsword wrote:

Looking over spells again, what are you doing with Heal.

Why no Cure Light, Cure Moderate and Cure Serious wounds.
Instead we get 1d8, 2d8, or 3d8 heal spell, made in a touch/range/burst mode... Also why is it a necromancy tagged spell. I don't see any Evil aligned spells so I was assuming the old "don't do necromancy it's evil" was still in effect, yet if so that makes it anathema to a cleric, and thus they lose class features for casting healing spells.
o.O

Healing spells were moved from Conjuration to Necromancy in this edition, but even in PF1 Necromancy was never strictly evil. It certainly had a large number of (evil) spells, but plenty of staples such as False Life and Enervation weren't.

That said, the new Heal spell works a bit differently. You can use 1 Act to heal with a Touch range, 2 Acts to heal with a Close range, or 3 Acts to heal in a burst centered on you. The first and second versions heal the same amount, starting with 1d8+WIS and adding +2d8 per additional spell level when heightened, while the burst version only heals +WIS at Spell Level 1 and adds +1d8 per additional spell level when heightened. Condensing the Cure line of spells into a single spell saves a bunch of page space and is generally easier to use than seven or eight spells that all basically do the same thing.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Just what has jumped out at me so far:

As I've mentioned in other threads, I think PCs should get two ancestry feats at first level. Right now, all the non-human ancestries feel anemic, generic, and "non-fantastic", as in very unlike what players expect when they think of elves or halflings or dwarves from Fantasy fiction, movies, and other games. PF1E racial traits were often good hooks for shaping/puzzling out PCs mindsets and how they perceived (and interacted with) the campaign world.

And as others have also mentioned, the ancestry options seem to vary quite a bit in power levels. Hopefully, the playtesting will help better illustrate this.

Marc Radle wrote:
Also really dislike that monsters just have the bonuses listed instead of the actual stat plus bonus.

+1

I'm not sure it was necessary to change names of spells (disguise self is now illusory disguise, alter self is now humanoid form) that are mostly the same as they were in PF1E. Seems like it'll be one more thing slowing down PF1E conversions, especially for the GM on the fly.

I miss reincarnate being an option, although it'd fit in perfectly converted to a ritual.

I really dislike all the alchemical items -- bombs, elixirs, poisons, and tools -- descriptions/mechanics being mixed together into a single alphabetical block of text. If I'm quickly try to pick out an alchemical item type, like choosing a mutagen, having to pick mentally sort & compare them out of the rest of the items really seems counter-intuitive. Please, please, please group them together by type in the final edition.

I really dislike alchemists having to wait until 5th level to get mutagens. If a character wants to contribute best by Jekyll & Hyde-ing and not by bombs, let them choose that to be their primary focus at level 1 and delay bombs which they'll use less (or not at all) until 5th level (or whenever).

Likewise, I dislike the druid's downgraded wild shaping abilities. I know some rebalancing is par for the course and don't expect them to keep the current power levels without cost, but dang. A druid that wants to primarily contribute by wild shaping, or pairing up with an animal companion, or whatever, should be able to focus on and learn to excel at their preferences/style and delay (or trade out) abilities they won't use.

Kirtri wrote:
Also it seems only the Rogue can get Dex to damage, and a multiclass Rogue can't ever get it unless I missed something. So that bites for my poor finesse fighters. :(

+1. I still think rogues that wish to be more "thugish" (Str-focused) should be able to swap out Finesse Striker for something more useful to them. Maybe change the rogue to offer "Striker Style" instead, which lets rogues pick their primary method of combat engagement: Finesse Strike for Dex-focused rogues and something more useful for Str-focused rogues.

Likewise, I think the Trap Finder rogue feat should be hard-baked into the rogue as a class feature. If the GM isn't clear up front to the player on her/his preference on using/not-using traps, I think many new players will likely take Trap Finder at 1st level and then find out they wasted the available slot when the adventure is trap lite or the GM ignores/glosses over traps. Then the PC has to wait until downtime to set aside a week, find an instructor, and burn gold pieces to retrain the feat, all of which are very precious at those critical early levels.

Wayfinders

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Initial thoughts:

Stealth is weird now.

3 actions is amaze.

Critical skill results being codified as standard is great. Skills overall seem great.

AC seems simple. But it seems difficult to be significantly better or worse than others? Dunno. One play session.

I love static HP levels over rolling.

I miss halforcs.

My wife who in spring played her first pathfinder game said it seemed significantly easier to pick up.

Thrown weapons(darts) seem troublesome. 2 actions to draw and throw 1d4 is rough.

Potions in combat felt like a huge waste and something to be avoided. 2 actions(draw and drink)+ 1 resonance seems super pricey.

Cleric healing is massive. Channel is impressive damage. Generally good cleric feelings.


Some relief when I started reading the classes.

Still not a fan of stat generation.

I prefer BAB, and skill points. Guess I'll have to house rule them back in. (Yes I know this is an unpopular opinion)

Happy that Create Water was made a level 1 spell, and the nerf to Good Berry. Some of the spell descriptions need to be cleaned up and more consistent in presentation. (I'm looking at you Magic Missile!)

Spell casters now all(except for Clerics and druids) have a list of spells they know, and memorizes from. This strongly benefits spontaneous casters, as they in essence have access to their entire spell list when casting. Add in that they can now learn spells like wizards. Personally the drawback of being unable to cast heightened spells (unless they know it at that level), hardly seems like a valid penalty at this point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Anyone else think the Rogue Multiclass Archetype is unbelievably weak? Like, laughably so?

You only get 1d6 sneak attack, ever, and only with agile and finessable weapons, and that's if you spend the dedication feat and another feat.

Meanwhile Wizard multiclassing can get up to 8th level spells?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Anyone else think the Rogue Multiclass Archetype is unbelievably weak? Like, laughably so?

Under what metric?


WatersLethe wrote:

Anyone else think the Rogue Multiclass Archetype is unbelievably weak? Like, laughably so?

You only get 1d6 sneak attack, ever, and only with agile and finessable weapons, and that's if you spend the dedication feat and another feat.

Meanwhile Wizard multiclassing can get up to 8th level spells?

So to get sneak attack through the multiclass feats you need to take 2 feets. To get up to 7th level spells for wizard you need 4 feats and to be legendary in arcana.

This tells me 2 things the first is that likely these aren't the full extent of the rogue multiclass feats, and 2 if you spend 4 feats you are going to get a bigger pay off than spending 2.


Torg Smith wrote:
GreatGraySkwid wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Not only is there no more hit dice rolling, the concept of hit dice isn't part of this game at all.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, says I!
Yeah, I am not a fan of hit point rolling. If a player gets some bad rolls, they force a gimp on the creature I can throw at them.

Which is usually fixed by either just giving everyone max HP, which isn't that new of a solution for PF2, or different roll types.

Personally I let you roll twice and keep the better.

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Initial Thoughts All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.