News from Paizo Twitch 17 / 08 / 18 - Mark Seifter


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:

So, 3 4 and 7 basically means "the system works we don't care what the forums says". I hope for them that we really are the vocal minority.

At this point from Mark comments about class feat is clear they are aiming at recreating a 4.5 edition, probably with the aim at catching all orphaned 4e players. I guess it's time they too deserve something new to play.
All I know is that I can now declare with utmost certanty that there will be no PF2 in any of my groups. I'll still hang around the forums out of curiosity, if this does not offends anyone. I've grown attached to this place with the years after all.

Just as long as you don't spend the whole entire time complaining I don't care. Carry on. Carry on. (I keed I keed!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
At this point from Mark comments about class feat is clear they are aiming at recreating a 4.5 edition, probably with the aim at catching all orphaned 4e players. I guess it's time they too deserve something new to play.

Kinda how pf1 was for orphaned 3.5 players, except there's also the expectation of similarities to pf1. This brings in some good things (the idea of the Alchemist class, rage for Barbarians being more than daily powers etc) but also keeps some things for no reason other than grandfathering (huge ACP & speed penalties for heavy armour, triple punishment for using finesse weapons, fewer options for martial attacks compared to magic)


23 people marked this as a favorite.

watching the archived stream, i'm kinda worried at the lack of any commentary around the various kneecapped classes:


  • everyone--paladin in particular (who already has huge action bottlenecks like reactions)--tripping over the manipulate/handedness action costs (casters/alchemists are never allowed to use anything in two hands or use a shield, ever, making "Link" bard builds impossible through sheer action economy limitations).
  • alchemist's incredibly restrictive resonance pool issues, and notable lack of means to expand it unlike spell point pool classes (there's the +2 RP feat, but that's a one-off and a general feat, which is currently a straight up tax on alchemists), despite their lack of a "Cantrip" style option for all-day damage or actions, and have a very poor selection of weapons and armor if the intent is for them to wade into battle once their shallow pool of items runs dry.
  • druids getting to choose wild shape at level 1 (i can turn into a housecat and take more damage from everything! ...yay? i mean hey, it completely trivializes the stealth skill, so that's one thing), but not really getting wildshape until level 4. or wild order druids requiring a high strength for their transformation pool, but none of their forms actually making use of their strength stat (they all have predetermined attacks and damage bonuses)
  • sorcerer being pretty much universally worse compared to:
    the wizard (equal spells/day, less flexibility and FAR less spells known, limited heightening, and requires relearning the same spell over and over to keep it relevant despite their much shallower pool of spells known)
    the cleric (worse proficiencies, less hp, worse auxiliary power options, channel energy once per day at level four, and never scaling)
    and the bard (worse proficiencies, less hp, less heightening despite both being spontaneous, zero utility)
    depending on which spell list they decide to use.

appearing to be largely unconcerned with the extreme pigeonholing of options like differing weapon styles hasn't helped us much either: for example, you cannot gain a weapon outside your listed proficiencies until level four, so if you wanted to play an alchemist with a glaive (even ignoring the twohand action economy nightmare you're now bringing into your life, and nevermind that you'll never have/gain access to any feats that can make you better at it without shucking out your class abilities to multiclass into fighter--and only gaining access to those fighter feats at all at level 4+), you're not actually playing your character, the character you thought up and sat at the table to play, until then. which depending on your gaming schedule (because people have work and families now) can take months.

i bring all these up because i've had to specifically talk these out with my players during character creation leading up to lost star next saturday (best we could work out due to scheduling issues, which means we'll miss the survey window for it), and they've completely lost interest in several classes by this point because they'll start with a character idea, and then over the course of an hour i'll have to repeatedly say "that doesn't work like that" or "that doesn't work at all" or "sorry, you can't do that until level halfway into your career", and on an on until they just give up on it (my alchemist player has decided to tough it out, but had to change her entire character backstory because she HAD to be a human to have glaive proficiency at level 1 via their general feat option).

once the game rolls around and we finish lost star, i'll be making a feedback thread for how the various systems play out ingame vs on paper and we'll be putting the system down for the remainder of the playtest (and beyond) unless something major happens to improve things.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

I really hope they come to their senses regarding the class feats. I'm okay with certain classes having specific and thematic options. However I'm not okay with having feats that are generic, and appropriate to many kinds of characters, being arbitrarially restricted to specific classes. It is a terrible design conceit, and an ineffective way of balancing a game. Seriously, why can't a Sorcerer take Additional Heightening? Why aren'r basic, generic, metamagic feats available to every spellcaster)? Why are there two completely different versions of both Counterspell and Cantrip Expansion with the same name? The designations for nonidentical game elements should always be unique. In other words, the Cantrip Expansion feats should be renamed Cantrip Expansion (Prepared) and (Spontaneous) respectively; or else rewritten to accomodate all applicable spellcaster types. The same goes for Counterspell.

There are more than enough cross-class feats just in the Playtest Rulebook to justify a seperate list of feats available to multiple classes, and thus which should have multiple class tags (as opposed to the same feat being reprinted with a different tag just to pad your lists). The only downside to such a consolidation is that it will make it obvious just how much generic, uninspired filler the various class lists include.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Cantriped just said that better than I could.

The main thing I'll add is while these need to be added to the pool of general feats in order to make the game feel right to me the number of general feats also needs to be doubled, getting one at every even level and an additional one at level one again.

It would let you start a character with the look and feel you want from level one instead of level four.

When Pathfinder first came out it doubled the amount of feats and therefore character customization from 3.5 before archetypes and other concepts became a thing and vastly expanded it. A lot of the people who came to this game came to it because of that feeling of agency and it feels like that is being pulled back unnecessarily.

Also as one of those orphaned 4E players even I hated the repetition of the exact same power over multiple classes. There has to be a more elegant way to handle that and still give classes something unique of their own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Website issues allowing, will there be another playtest blog this week? I'm interested to see some of the survey results.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

So if someone can answer this from the thing that'd be awesome.

I raise a wooden shield hardness 3 and use it to block.
The attacker rolls 6 for his damage.
Is my shield destroyed or did it only take the 3 damage it blocked which causes 1 dent?

By RAW it can only soak up to its Hardness so you take the rest, which means a shield can currently never be broken in a single hit. Maybe Mark Seifter can clarify this point for us?

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


To be honest I hope that Resonance and +Level to everything stay right now.

The only situation where I think Resonance makes lots of sense is if we have short rests or stamina or any other mean to heal out of combat, otherwise if you cannot even drink potions to heal you NEED healbots and even with them your adventure days will be 2 encounters. Without healbots you'll probably need to do long rests every encounter which makes no sense to me as it force people to spec healers just to keep the party going for one or two more encounters.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
I really hope they come to their senses regarding the class feats. I'm okay with certain classes having specific and thematic options. However I'm not okay with having feats that are generic, and appropriate to many kinds of characters, being arbitrarially restricted to specific classes. It is a terrible design conceit, and an ineffective way of balancing a game. Seriously, why can't a Sorcerer take Additional Heightening? Why aren'r basic, generic, metamagic feats available to every spellcaster)? Why are there two completely different versions of both Counterspell and Cantrip Expansion with the same name? The designations for nonidentical game elements should always be unique. In other words, the Cantrip Expansion feats should be renamed Cantrip Expansion (Prepared) and (Spontaneous) respectively; or else rewritten to accomodate all applicable spellcaster types. The same goes for Counterspell.

I agree. The current system really bugs me, because there is not enough freedom to assign a relatively generic thing like, say, two weapon fighting to any class. What if I want to be a monk with two sais, or a ranger with a bow? There just aren't feats to support those builds because the two-weapon feats or archery feats are pigeonholed into specific classes.

One idea that I heard (I think on Know Direction) was that much like how there are now four spell lists (Arcane, Divine, Occult, Primal) and your class determines which you can pick from, there could be a few Feat lists and your class lets you pick feats from those lists.

So, for example, you could have a Weapon Master list, a Primal list, a Metamagic list, etc. Then you could say, for example, that the Ranger gets to pick class feats from the Weapon Master and Primal list, whereas the Druid gets to pick from the Primal and Metamagic lists. The names are all just examples, but you get the idea... you could allow things like weapon styles (two handed vs. ranged vs. dual-wielding) to be chosen by multiple classes. And the individual classes could each have a few feats that are class-specific and deal with their own unique class abilities or niche.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Mark Seifter wrote:
As a note, I found out just after the stream that we've changed to once every two weeks for errata, corresponding with each section's timeframe, so it should be easier to handle all around!

Does that mean that the next update will be on the 27th, and then every 2 weeks after that?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wolfism wrote:


When Pathfinder first came out it doubled the amount of feats and therefore character customization from 3.5 before archetypes and other concepts became a thing and vastly expanded it. A lot of the people who came to this game came to it because of that feeling of agency and it feels like that is being pulled back unnecessarily.

Also as one of those orphaned 4E players even I hated the repetition of the exact same power over multiple classes. There has to be a more elegant way to handle that and still give classes something unique of their own.

I would note, one ..concern? issue? hiccup? no.. uhm. Note? for general feat every 1/2

currently, as far as I can understand, you can actually pick up Skill Feats with your general feats. All skill feats I've seen have the "general " tag. and most classes get skill feats fairly often~ mostly.

So I think they'd adjust things if they gave more general feats.
I don't think it'd be much of an issue or anything. but just a note on that.

----
I think they should have a pool of general "class feats" things like Quick draw and such.

but there are some repetition I think should be in the game..
Alchemists dearly need Rogue's Quick Draw, and Poison Weapon to operate really.

Well.. ok i think they should have their own quick draw. One that lets them "draw and use" rather than speciccally attack. I think it should allow them to draw and throw darts, or bombs. but. should also let them draw and drink an elixer or antidote, etc.

because right now, in addition to all the other Alch issues..
Their action economy is kind of silly bad. Worse than anything else I've noticed. I assume it was done in an attempt to "balance" vs casting? but.. if its far more limited resource, i think letting them draw and use alchemcial items/thrown weapons in one action would be valid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tamago wrote:

One idea that I heard (I think on Know Direction) was that much like how there are now four spell lists (Arcane, Divine, Occult, Primal) and your class determines which you can pick from, there could be a few Feat lists and your class lets you pick feats from those lists.

So, for example, you could have a Weapon Master list, a Primal list, a Metamagic list, etc. Then you could say, for example, that the Ranger gets to pick class feats from the Weapon Master and Primal list, whereas the Druid gets to pick from the Primal and Metamagic lists. The names are all just examples, but you get the idea... you could allow things like weapon styles (two handed vs. ranged vs. dual-wielding) to be chosen by multiple classes. And the...

I like that idea a lot. It allows classes to carve out niches (via exclusive lists) while allowing basic, generic options to be readily available without reprinting the same feat over, and over, and over. It works well within the trait system as well.


Tamago wrote:

I agree. The current system really bugs me, because there is not enough freedom to assign a relatively generic thing like, say, two weapon fighting to any class. What if I want to be a monk with two sais, or a ranger with a bow? There just aren't feats to support those builds because the two-weapon feats or archery feats are pigeonholed into specific classes.

One idea that I heard (I think on Know Direction) was that much like how there are now four spell lists (Arcane, Divine, Occult, Primal) and your class determines which you can pick from, there could be a few Feat lists and your class lets you pick feats from those lists.

So, for example, you could have a Weapon Master list, a Primal list, a Metamagic list, etc. Then you could say, for example, that the Ranger gets to pick class feats from the Weapon Master and Primal list, whereas the Druid gets to pick from the Primal and Metamagic lists. The names are all just examples, but you get the idea... you could allow things like weapon styles (two handed vs. ranged vs. dual-wielding) to be chosen by multiple classes. And the...

I proposed a similar idea on another thread. I think this may be the best compromise, offering general weapon style feats to martial classes, at the same time you could still offer niche options to specific classes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
When it should be the same, we can make it the same. But a lot of time it's better for a class to have something a little different. For instance, ranger might do well with something other than Double Strike for TWF that saves actions instead of avoiding multiple attack penalty, based on their mobile fighting style and their Hunt Target ability.

Mark, interesting idea. I was initially na advocate for standardized combat style feats, but I guess that tailoring specific feats to suit a class needs is a good idea, TBH.

I do, however, have a few concerns:

For one, we should get enough options to have a diverse playstyle for each martial class. A Generic feat list with basic functionality for various styles (and for the matter, metamagic and other feats, such as expanded heightening) could be made, while at the same time certain classes could have different versions or specific feats to tailor their needs.

If this leads to a feat (and page count) bloat, maybe consider condensing some of the weapon style feats. That can also free up some space and lower the opportunity cost of some feats at certain levels.

I do fear that tailoring too much for speciic classes can make the game feel cheesy or "gamey". Restricted feats have to make a LOT of sense world-wise to be specific to a certain class but not available to others.


I sort of prefer instead of many options being made universal, we can instead have bespoke options for a variety of classes enabling a given combat strategy reflecting how this class does that thing differently than the other class.

I mean, we won't be able to fit them all in the CRB, but this is Pathfinder so we can be sure there will never be any end to new feats. We had to wait for a few books to come out for a Monk to be an archer last go around, anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
Tamago wrote:

One idea that I heard (I think on Know Direction) was that much like how there are now four spell lists (Arcane, Divine, Occult, Primal) and your class determines which you can pick from, there could be a few Feat lists and your class lets you pick feats from those lists.

So, for example, you could have a Weapon Master list, a Primal list, a Metamagic list, etc. Then you could say, for example, that the Ranger gets to pick class feats from the Weapon Master and Primal list, whereas the Druid gets to pick from the Primal and Metamagic lists. The names are all just examples, but you get the idea... you could allow things like weapon styles (two handed vs. ranged vs. dual-wielding) to be chosen by multiple classes. And the...

I like that idea a lot. It allows classes to carve out niches (via exclusive lists) while allowing basic, generic options to be readily available without reprinting the same feat over, and over, and over. It works well within the trait system as well.

I've been really liking 2ed, but I loved this idea


So, regarding the shield -> hardness rules - in what scenario could a shield become destroyed?


also is 2 dents a hard limit or does it scale? If a hardness 3 shield that can take 3 dents is hit with 9 damage does it take 2 dents or 3 and be destroyed?


Chess Pwn wrote:
also is 2 dents a hard limit or does it scale? If a hardness 3 shield that can take 3 dents is hit with 9 damage does it take 2 dents or 3 and be destroyed?

As currently written, a 'Sturdy' shield can take an extra dent, but that's the only mention of that sort of capability.

The issue I see is that a shield can only be destroyed if it takes a dent while broken - but it cannot be raised while broken, so it will never get destroyed.

Personally, I don't see the point of the dent mechanic if you are going to have to end up tracking how many dents an item has - might as well just track the hit points. The only way to get around tracking a number would be to have Dented, Broken, and Destroyed conditions, and stop talking about the 'number' of dents. Otherwise, just bring back hp damage, and hardness reducing it like before.


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

So...I tried posting this more than a week ago here. Better late than never.

My sense that the community struggles with, and the devs might be undervaluing, is customization within the class role.

Classes generally have a role baked in. For example the fighter and paladins are tanks or defenders. Before I go any further, I hope people don't get hung up on this terminology. If you feel the class is described differently, use that, but my point is that classes have roles that they fill within the game.

In PF2, I feel the fighter serves as the best model for bringing forward the custimzations that players of PF1 want to see in the new edition. The fighter maintains its role and niche as a tank or a defender. Yet, there are very different playstyles available in the class. If you want to customize to being more damage dealing (a striker), a 2 handed weapon approach seems to support this. If you want to be even tankier, the shield approach supports this. If you want flexibility for multiclassing into a wizard, the one handed approach supports this. My point is that the class is very flexible allowing multiple play styles, builds and changes to your role within the bigger tank role that the fighter class provides. I think these are the types of customizations (feats) that players are looking for in PF2.

In contrast, other classes are not as flexible in this regard and the class role so overwhelms its options that there is little room to customize within the bigger overall class role. I think a good example is the paladin. It's very difficult to take options that turn you into a striker paladin or a controller paladin. One feat over the life span of the Paladin that bumps the paladins damage in some way just simply does not convey a striker approach.

As further evidence, Mark Seifter brings up in the video that in PF1, bow wielders often had to choose a path of feats designed to overcome mathematical penalties in the game. While his point is correct in one context, the other context that may be ignored, is that players going down the long bow feat route were actually choosing to go down the striker role within the bigger class role that they were playing. This freedom existed in spades in PF1. They could choose a sub role within their class role.

I think these are the customizations that the PF1 crowd wants to see in PF2. It's possible the devs feel these customizations exist but it is either not obvious to a large portion of the player base or is not done in the way that the play base would like.

In either case, I do hope the devs look deeply into this. I think addressing this issue would bring a lot more support from the PF1 crowd that are still wary of PF2.


I like that class feats are gated. Every dude with a two hander having the same 5 feats doesn't make my character feel unique (especially considering that many feats are tied to a special actions).

I agree with the dev that more are needed and he is on the right track to more closely tie those to unique elements of the class. Having a Ranger and a Fighter use a bow differently is cool and it meshes very well with their multiclassing system.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:

I like that class feats are gated. Every dude with a two hander having the same 5 feats doesn't make my character feel unique (especially considering that many feats are tied to a special actions).

I agree with the dev that more are needed and he is on the right track to more closely tie those to unique elements of the class. Having a Ranger and a Fighter use a bow differently is cool and it meshes very well with their multiclassing system.

Can't agree there.

An Inquisitor with the same 5 two-handed feats as a Slayer does not feel like the same thing. A Bard with the same 5 archery feats does not feel like the same thing as a Paladin with the same 5 archery feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
DataLoreRPG wrote:

I like that class feats are gated. Every dude with a two hander having the same 5 feats doesn't make my character feel unique (especially considering that many feats are tied to a special actions).

I agree with the dev that more are needed and he is on the right track to more closely tie those to unique elements of the class. Having a Ranger and a Fighter use a bow differently is cool and it meshes very well with their multiclassing system.

Can't agree there.

An Inquisitor with the same 5 two-handed feats as a Slayer does not feel like the same thing. A Bard with the same 5 archery feats does not feel like the same thing as a Paladin with the same 5 archery feats.

I can't agree with you on this. When it comes to performing the tasks granted by the same feat chains, the class name hardly matters. They might differ in other ways, but when it comes to those feats, they behave the exact same way.

In 3.5, a Fighter using Power Attack is no different than a Barbarian using Power Attack.


I think "Barbarian-ey Power Attack" reflecting how Barbarians are and "Paladin-ey Power Attack" reflecting how Paladins are, and in contrast the two show how the classes are different, but nonetheless both classes have the option to be good at the same basic combat strategy is the ideal state of affairs.

Of course, this requires printing a lot more feats, but this is Pathfinder so they'll do that for sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
DataLoreRPG wrote:

I like that class feats are gated. Every dude with a two hander having the same 5 feats doesn't make my character feel unique (especially considering that many feats are tied to a special actions).

I agree with the dev that more are needed and he is on the right track to more closely tie those to unique elements of the class. Having a Ranger and a Fighter use a bow differently is cool and it meshes very well with their multiclassing system.

Can't agree there.

An Inquisitor with the same 5 two-handed feats as a Slayer does not feel like the same thing. A Bard with the same 5 archery feats does not feel like the same thing as a Paladin with the same 5 archery feats.

Agreed. Classes were varied enough that they each could use the same feats in totally different ways and the characters would feel very distinct.

For example in archery, only the Fighter really got ALL Archery Feats, Rangers could ignore some pre-requisites and have strange permutations of the feat chain, but some guys like Inquisitor and Paladin could make up for missing a few with their built-in abilities that Fighter didn't get. Rogues used them to snipe instead of spamming arrows in the middle of the battle, Slayers could overcome some of the -hit penalties by setting up their abilities, Monks were just silly, Eldritch archer Magus had very different priorities, and even Wizard/Sorc could look at the Arcane Archer cheese if they wanted. If you got a Cleric of Erastil, you could at least play it properly and use buffs to make up for the feats.

There was nothing samey about 2 classes picking the same feats. Ideally in PF2 these would't be 6 feats just to be an archer, but maybe 1-2 so they could use the remaining slots to further differentiate. I don't believe that was a flaw of PF1, but one of the best features. It wasn't perfect and could certainly be improved. Don't think removing it was a good idea at all.


Pramxnim wrote:

When it comes to performing the tasks granted by the same feat chains, the class name hardly matters. They might differ in other ways, but when it comes to those feats, they behave the exact same way.

In 3.5, a Fighter using Power Attack is no different than a Barbarian using Power Attack.

Exactly. Having fighting styles vary by class absolutely makes characters more different.

The answer is not to homogenize folks by making everything general. Paizo is on the right track.


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

As long as every class can pick up every fighting style, it can work, but man do I not envy the task of creating all those class specific feats.

And I think it's highly unlikely that they'll make a set of 2-hander, TWF, archery etc. feats customized for the Wizard, for example.

I don't see how it's a feasible long term approach without arbitrarily limiting each class to a select handful of combat styles.


WatersLethe wrote:

As long as every class can pick up every fighting style, it can work, but man do I not envy the task of creating all those class specific feats.

And I think it's highly unlikely that they'll make a set of 2-hander, TWF, archery etc. feats customized for the Wizard, for example.

I don't see how it's a feasible long term approach without arbitrarily limiting each class to a select handful of combat styles.

I don't think every class should get every style. But every MARTIAL class should have access to multiple styles.

With that and multiclassing, you should be able to realize many character concepts.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
DataLoreRPG wrote:

I like that class feats are gated. Every dude with a two hander having the same 5 feats doesn't make my character feel unique (especially considering that many feats are tied to a special actions).

I agree with the dev that more are needed and he is on the right track to more closely tie those to unique elements of the class. Having a Ranger and a Fighter use a bow differently is cool and it meshes very well with their multiclassing system.

Can't agree there.

An Inquisitor with the same 5 two-handed feats as a Slayer does not feel like the same thing. A Bard with the same 5 archery feats does not feel like the same thing as a Paladin with the same 5 archery feats.

Personally, I think that the other class abilities/feats you have make more difference in how your character feels than which combat style they end up taking.

Also, it irks me from a simulationist standpoint that, say, a Barbarian can Cleave but a Fighter can't. If a class feat doesn't depend on a particular class feature and isn't strongly tied to the flavor of the class, it seems to me that any character who meets the prerequisites should be able to take it.

Another example would be the Rogue feat "You're Next". It lets you intimidate a foe as a reaction after dropping one of his allies. If I'm playing a big, scary Viking-style Barbarian, this feat would be perfect! But I can't take it because I'm not a Rogue. I don't see any in-world reason why this should be the case. It perfectly fits the Barbarian's build. But it's just plain inaccessible.

(And yes, I know you could technically multiclass, but that would require a minimum of 2 feat slots, plus cut off other potential options. Unless something were *really* essential to your character concept, it probably doesn't make sense.)


Tamago wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
DataLoreRPG wrote:

I like that class feats are gated. Every dude with a two hander having the same 5 feats doesn't make my character feel unique (especially considering that many feats are tied to a special actions).

I agree with the dev that more are needed and he is on the right track to more closely tie those to unique elements of the class. Having a Ranger and a Fighter use a bow differently is cool and it meshes very well with their multiclassing system.

Can't agree there.

An Inquisitor with the same 5 two-handed feats as a Slayer does not feel like the same thing. A Bard with the same 5 archery feats does not feel like the same thing as a Paladin with the same 5 archery feats.

Personally, I think that the other class abilities/feats you have make more difference in how your character feels than which combat style they end up taking.

Also, it irks me from a simulationist standpoint that, say, a Barbarian can Cleave but a Fighter can't. If a class feat doesn't depend on a particular class feature and isn't strongly tied to the flavor of the class, it seems to me that any character who meets the prerequisites should be able to take it.

Another example would be the Rogue feat "You're Next". It lets you intimidate a foe as a reaction after dropping one of his allies. If I'm playing a big, scary Viking-style Barbarian, this feat would be perfect! But I can't take it because I'm not a Rogue. I don't see any in-world reason why this should be the case. It perfectly fits the Barbarian's build. But it's just plain inaccessible.

(And yes, I know you could technically multiclass, but that would require a minimum of 2 feat slots, plus cut off other potential options. Unless something were *really* essential to your character concept, it probably doesn't make sense.)

You are incorrect. A fighter can (CONCEPTUALLY) cleave. Just not as good as a barbarian. For him (and others) this is modeled by the sweep weapon property. The barbarian is better so he gets cleave and can use sweep weapons. And, yes, he can multiclass to be as good as the barb.

People are forgetting that alot of customization lives in weapon choice now. Thats where the general stuff is.


I prefer swords for the crit chance.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:
Tamago wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
DataLoreRPG wrote:

I like that class feats are gated. Every dude with a two hander having the same 5 feats doesn't make my character feel unique (especially considering that many feats are tied to a special actions).

I agree with the dev that more are needed and he is on the right track to more closely tie those to unique elements of the class. Having a Ranger and a Fighter use a bow differently is cool and it meshes very well with their multiclassing system.

Can't agree there.

An Inquisitor with the same 5 two-handed feats as a Slayer does not feel like the same thing. A Bard with the same 5 archery feats does not feel like the same thing as a Paladin with the same 5 archery feats.

Personally, I think that the other class abilities/feats you have make more difference in how your character feels than which combat style they end up taking.

Also, it irks me from a simulationist standpoint that, say, a Barbarian can Cleave but a Fighter can't. If a class feat doesn't depend on a particular class feature and isn't strongly tied to the flavor of the class, it seems to me that any character who meets the prerequisites should be able to take it.

Another example would be the Rogue feat "You're Next". It lets you intimidate a foe as a reaction after dropping one of his allies. If I'm playing a big, scary Viking-style Barbarian, this feat would be perfect! But I can't take it because I'm not a Rogue. I don't see any in-world reason why this should be the case. It perfectly fits the Barbarian's build. But it's just plain inaccessible.

(And yes, I know you could technically multiclass, but that would require a minimum of 2 feat slots, plus cut off other potential options. Unless something were *really* essential to your character concept, it probably doesn't make sense.)

You are incorrect. A fighter can (CONCEPTUALLY) cleave. Just not as good as a barbarian. For him (and others) this is modeled by the sweep weapon...

On the one hand, you are correct in that a lot of the things that were gated by general feats before are generally available now. The prime example of this is ranged weapons: before, you had to invest a bunch of feats to offset penalties that don't exist anymore in PF2. So from that perspective, everyone can be an archer!

The problem is, it doesn't really feel that way to the players. If I'm building a Ranger and I want him to be really good at archery, my first step will be to look at what cool archery-related class feats I can take. There aren't any, so I end up feeling like I can't build the character concept I want.

Could my archery-feat-less ranger still use a bow effectively in combat? Possibly; I haven't played that build yet. But during character creation, I got very discouraged that there was no path to let me specialize in the thing I wanted my character to be really good at.


Huh, it seems the video has disappeared. That's unfortunate. I'll have to do this from memory.

1) Shields: I am pretty sure the specific question Mark was asked was about how dents generally work for objects. I don't recall him or Dan ever mentioning shields in this bit of the conversation. Mark really just seemed to repeat the rules straight out of the book here. Therefore, I don't think this has clarified the intent behind shield hardness yet. All the same arguments for why shields seem different still apply.

2) Combat styles as class specific feats: Another specific point that Mark got into was that in PF2 you don't NEED feats to make a particular combat style functional like you did in PF1. Examples:

Archery no longer gives you -8 penalty on a regular basis for firing into melee-- at worst your allies can provide an enemy screening, which is only a +1 circumstance bonus to AC. And only if they are actually in between you and the target. In PF1, you took -4 regardless of positioning if they were in melee with each other and another -4 if an ally was actually in the way. (Cover is +2 circumstance bonus that can only be provided by terrain. It also doesn't stack with screening.) That means there isn't a need for Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot, or the feat tax of point blank shot.

You are also less likely to need stuff like Point Blank Master when AoOs aren't the norm.

And the archery feats available to Fighters and Rangers aren't anywhere near as good (and therefore mandatory) as the PF1 archery feats. Compare Double Shot (PF2) to Rapid Shot in PF1. The latter adds a free extra attack action that can be on any target. Double Shot costs the same number of actions as two strikes but can only be used on two different targets.

Where the PF1 archer needed 2 feats (point blank shot/Precise shot) just to be competent, and beyond that their feat choices were pretty locked in as well. Now you just need to be proficient to be competent and the Ranger and Fighter feats serve to give these guys a leg up on say, the bard. (And the Bard can gain access to those feats through multiclassing, it just costs more for them.)

Two Weapon Fighting is now waaaay easier and built in. You don't need weapon finesse, and you don't need a Two-Weapon fighting feat. Double Slice is pretty dang good, but using a big one handed weapon in one hand and an agile weapon in the off hand is a solid strategy without any feats. It lets you get a big first hit while reaping the agile bonuses on iteratives. It also lets you mix and match two different set of weapon traits, which can come in handy in a variety of situations.

Two handed weapons really only needed Power Attack before, so they don't feel this change nearly as much as archery. But Power Attack is no longer so good it is mandatory like it was in PF1.


Tamago wrote:
he problem is, it doesn't really feel that way to the players. If I'm building a Ranger and I want him to be really good at archery, my first step will be to look at what cool archery-related class feats I can take. There aren't any, so I end up feeling like I can't build the character concept I want.

That simply isn't true. If you had said archery paladin, you would have had a point. But the archer ranger has Favored Aim, Stalker's Shot, Skirmish Strike, Distracting Shot, Greater Distracting Shot, and Impossible Volley. Even Quick Draw may be desirable. That's a pretty substantial amount of feats that strictly make you better at archery. The other third of your ranger feats may not directly make you a better archer, but I'd be shocked if they couldn't do something to flesh out your concept more, because those feats are hella Ranger-y.

They have less archery feats than the Fighter has, but the Fighter's whole shtick is being the best weapons while the Ranger has other stuff going for them too. Unlike the PF1 Ranger, that had other stuff going for them AND could be as good or better than a Fighter with some weapons. Also, the PF2 Fighter currently just has the most feats printed in this book. That's going to be fixed, whether it be in core or subsequent books.

Edit: And your archer ranger can always just multiclass into fighter and cherry pick feats from both lists. And if you want to spend THAT many feats strictly on being better with one weapon, it feels odd to not at least take fighter dip or even just play a fighter who is trained in survival.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do not like the idea of taking away feats from the combat styles, it takes away part of what identifies the characters.

I would prefer that each style were represented equally, with class abilities that compliment particular groups of styles indirectly, rather than mandating a specific weapon style.

I believe firmly the goal of equally rebalancing the same combat style across the classes is an impossible goal, and it will over complicate the already deeply layered complex system.

Tl;dr: Make hunt target better, leave double slice alone.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Tamago wrote:
he problem is, it doesn't really feel that way to the players. If I'm building a Ranger and I want him to be really good at archery, my first step will be to look at what cool archery-related class feats I can take. There aren't any, so I end up feeling like I can't build the character concept I want.

That simply isn't true. If you had said archery paladin, you would have had a point. But the archer ranger has Favored Aim, Stalker's Shot, Skirmish Strike, Distracting Shot, Greater Distracting Shot, and Impossible Volley. Even Quick Draw may be desirable. That's a pretty substantial amount of feats that strictly make you better at archery. The other third of your ranger feats may not directly make you a better archer, but I'd be shocked if they couldn't do something to flesh out your concept more, because those feats are hella Ranger-y.

They have less archery feats than the Fighter has, but the Fighter's whole shtick is being the best weapons while the Ranger has other stuff going for them too. Unlike the PF1 Ranger, that had other stuff going for them AND could be as good or better than a Fighter with some weapons. Also, the PF2 Fighter currently just has the most feats printed in this book. That's going to be fixed, whether it be in core or subsequent books.

Edit: And your archer ranger can always just multiclass into fighter and cherry pick feats from both lists. And if you want to spend THAT many feats strictly on being better with one weapon, it feels odd to not at least take fighter dip or even just play a fighter who is trained in survival.

I never got that far. I built the character at 1st level and then ended up throwing it away for a different concept because none of the 1st level Ranger feats work for bow-based characters.

I suppose it could be good at higher levels. But I got very disappointed when there didn't seem to be a way to make an archery ranger out of the gate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A first level PF2 archer with no feats is more competant than a first level PF1 archer.


Tamago wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Tamago wrote:
he problem is, it doesn't really feel that way to the players. If I'm building a Ranger and I want him to be really good at archery, my first step will be to look at what cool archery-related class feats I can take. There aren't any, so I end up feeling like I can't build the character concept I want.

That simply isn't true. If you had said archery paladin, you would have had a point. But the archer ranger has Favored Aim, Stalker's Shot, Skirmish Strike, Distracting Shot, Greater Distracting Shot, and Impossible Volley. Even Quick Draw may be desirable. That's a pretty substantial amount of feats that strictly make you better at archery. The other third of your ranger feats may not directly make you a better archer, but I'd be shocked if they couldn't do something to flesh out your concept more, because those feats are hella Ranger-y.

They have less archery feats than the Fighter has, but the Fighter's whole shtick is being the best weapons while the Ranger has other stuff going for them too. Unlike the PF1 Ranger, that had other stuff going for them AND could be as good or better than a Fighter with some weapons. Also, the PF2 Fighter currently just has the most feats printed in this book. That's going to be fixed, whether it be in core or subsequent books.

Edit: And your archer ranger can always just multiclass into fighter and cherry pick feats from both lists. And if you want to spend THAT many feats strictly on being better with one weapon, it feels odd to not at least take fighter dip or even just play a fighter who is trained in survival.

I never got that far. I built the character at 1st level and then ended up throwing it away for a different concept because none of the 1st level Ranger feats work for bow-based characters.

I suppose it could be good at higher levels. But I got very disappointed when there didn't seem to be a way to make an archery ranger out of the gate.

1) Those are feats I mention start at second level. I'm sorry you got discouraged, but if you had turned the page past the 1st level feats you would have seen them.

2) A first level Ranger in PF2 is already a better Archer than any non human could hope to be. Only humans could start with both PBS and precise shot. Now you don't need them.

3)The Ranger gets the only class feature that directly helps archery at first level: hunt target. Not needing to move between targets means more opportunities to hunt mid combat, and the range increment stuff coupled with stealth makes the Ranger an incredible sniper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, to clarify my position a little, I'm not actually saying Rangers shouldn't get archery feats at 1st level or Barbarians shouldn't get power attack. I'm saying these classes have stuff that makes them good at their job without them.

Also, I don't necessarily want, say, clerics to be able to get those combat feats without having to jump through some hoops. If you make martial class feats into general feats you erode the reason to play those martial classes over casters in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree. I think those sorts of feats should be gated behind martial classes. If casters want them, they should need to multiclass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Also, to clarify my position a little, I'm not actually saying Rangers shouldn't get archery feats at 1st level or Barbarians shouldn't get power attack. I'm saying these classes have stuff that makes them good at their job without them.

Also, I don't necessarily want, say, clerics to be able to get those combat feats without having to jump through some hoops. If you make martial class feats into general feats you erode the reason to play those martial classes over casters in the first place.

I would rather each class inclined to martial style builds have more feats that enhance their ability to do so more effectively than other characters.

I'd rather see more martial characters be able to take advantage of the +10 crit mechanic, and considering many trade offs to martial feats comes in action taxes which cut into your ability to fight anyway, it makes sense that such abilities should give martial characters that edge in engaging the crit system.

It works on attack rolls specifically with respect to other rolls because there are no consequences for critically failing them.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:


2) There wasa clarification about Hardness / Dent

You should just apply the damage. If equals hardness they take 1 dent, if double hardness they take 2 dents

Was this a direct clarification on the shield block reaction?

Because if so, they need to change the wording in the reaction.

<> SHIELD BLOCK wrote:

Trigger: While you have your shield raised, you take damage from a physical attack.

You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow. Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness—the shield takes this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken. See page 175 for rules on dented and broken items.

(bold is mine)

The RAW states clearly that the shield only takes damage up to its Hardness and not a point more. Thus a shield cannot take more than 1 dent when using the Shield Block reaction. If the intention is for the shield to take more damage and create the risk of 2 dents they need to reword the reaction.

(EDIT: Also note the rule says "possibly becoming dented or broken." It doesn't mention being destoryed.)

Also from Dented and Broken Items:

Broken wrote:
Broken is a condition that affects objects. A broken object can’t be used for its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses.

(bold is mine)

This means that you can't use the Raise a Shield action if the shield is broken, and thus cannot use the Shield Block reaction. This also means that taking the two bolded rules together you cannot break a shield by using the Raise Shield reaction.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I sort of prefer instead of many options being made universal, we can instead have bespoke options for a variety of classes enabling a given combat strategy reflecting how this class does that thing differently than the other class.

I'd rather the feats be made universal and if there is something that would better reflect a class it's gets a special section like some of the druid feats.

So:
Cool archery feat
Does x, w and z.
Special: rangers that take this can also to Q. Rogues that take this can do W. Ect.

That way we aren't reinventing the wheel to give each class their own version of the exact same feat with a super minor personalized twist.


CalebTGordan wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:


2) There wasa clarification about Hardness / Dent

You should just apply the damage. If equals hardness they take 1 dent, if double hardness they take 2 dents

Was this a direct clarification on the shield block reaction?

Because if so, they need to change the wording in the reaction.

<> SHIELD BLOCK wrote:

Trigger: While you have your shield raised, you take damage from a physical attack.

You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow. Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness—the shield takes this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken. See page 175 for rules on dented and broken items.

(bold is mine)

The RAW states clearly that the shield only takes damage up to its Hardness and not a point more. Thus a shield cannot take more than 1 dent when using the Shield Block reaction. If the intention is for the shield to take more damage and create the risk of 2 dents they need to reword the reaction.

(EDIT: Also note the rule says "possibly becoming dented or broken." It doesn't mention being destoryed.)

Also from Dented and Broken Items:

Broken wrote:
Broken is a condition that affects objects. A broken object can’t be used for its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses.

(bold is mine)

This means that you can't use the Raise a Shield action if the shield is broken, and thus cannot use the Shield Block reaction. This also means that taking the two bolded rules together you cannot break a shield by using the Raise Shield reaction.

This guy gets it - People seem to be conflating the general rules for damaging an object with the shield block rules. When using shield block the shield cannot take more damage than it's hardness, so can only ever get a maximum of one dent at a time (the rest of the damage goes to the shield wielder).


dragonhunterq wrote:
People seem to be conflating the general rules for damaging an object with the shield block rules. When using shield block the shield cannot take more damage than it's hardness, so can only ever get a maximum of one dent at a time (the rest of the damage goes to the shield wielder).

The Shield Block on the ENWorld pregenerated characters, such as Valeros, dumped the general rules for damaging objects into the Shield Block text, including the line about if an item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its hardness, and then gave twice the hardness of Valeros's shield in parentheses (10). Thus, it appeared relevant there.

Shield Block on page 309 of the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook says, "You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow. Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness—the shield takes this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken. See page 175 for rules on dented and broken items."

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

It's curious that the character sheets do that, and I can see where there is some confusion there. I have a dozen theories how that happened or why they chose to do that but won't speculate here.

I'll just add again that there needs to be some cleaning up of the language around this mechanic and a unification of RAI and RAW everywhere it shows up.


graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I sort of prefer instead of many options being made universal, we can instead have bespoke options for a variety of classes enabling a given combat strategy reflecting how this class does that thing differently than the other class.

I'd rather the feats be made universal and if there is something that would better reflect a class it's gets a special section like some of the druid feats.

So:
Cool archery feat
Does x, w and z.
Special: rangers that take this can also to Q. Rogues that take this can do W. Ect.

That way we aren't reinventing the wheel to give each class their own version of the exact same feat with a super minor personalized twist.

that doesn't really seem like a huge difference to me. the main difference at that point seems to be whether its listed under class feats or general feats. Plus that way is a bit less future proofed. They can put out a new class and add a new special 2 weapon feat for it or they can put out new class and add a section retroactively under the general feat for when that class takes 2 weapon.


So my issue with class feats becoming general feats is it makes them much harder to parse for what classes need them and what classes don't. Currently the class feats are incredibly well organized IMO. And the skill and general feats are... not. I'm actually glad we don't get general feats or skill feats at 1st level right now because having a new player parse that chapter when they build their first character sounds awful to me.

I guess you could make a chapter for combat feats, a chapter for metamagic feats, etc. But frankly that strikes me as still being harder to use than what we currently have for class feats. I think I'd rather keep the formatting we have and just get more class feats to broaden the selection for a given class. (Which is pretty much a guarantee. I wouldn't hate it if we got some class specific player companion books.)

I do think General Feats feel a little underwhelming right now-- for something you get so few of, they seem to be rather underpowered compared to every other category of feat. Perhaps more than underpowered, they seem a little bland. And class feats are generally awesome but I can't help feel like I want more of them. So I might be down for a General Feat that lets you take an extra class feat.

AndIMustMask wrote:
watching the archived stream, i'm kinda worried at the lack of any commentary around the various kneecapped classes:

  • everyone--paladin in particular (who already has huge action bottlenecks like reactions)--tripping over the manipulate/handedness action costs (casters/alchemists are never allowed to use anything in two hands or use a shield, ever, making "Link" bard builds impossible through sheer action economy limitations).
  • alchemist's incredibly restrictive resonance pool issues, and notable lack of means to expand it unlike spell point pool classes (there's the +2 RP feat, but that's a one-off and a general feat, which is currently a straight up tax on alchemists), despite their lack of a "Cantrip" style option for all-day damage or actions, and have a very poor selection of weapons and armor if the intent is for them to wade into battle once their shallow pool of items runs dry.
  • druids getting to choose wild shape at level 1 (i can turn into a housecat and take more damage from everything! ...yay? i mean hey, it completely trivializes the stealth skill, so that's one thing), but not really getting wildshape until level 4. or wild order druids requiring a high strength for their transformation pool, but none of their forms actually making use of their strength stat (they all have predetermined attacks and damage bonuses)
  • sorcerer being pretty much universally worse compared to:
    the wizard (equal spells/day, less flexibility and FAR less spells known, limited heightening, and requires relearning the same spell over and over to keep it relevant despite their much shallower pool of spells known)
    the cleric (worse proficiencies, less hp, worse auxiliary power options, channel energy once per day at level four, and never scaling)
    and the bard (worse proficiencies, less hp, less heightening despite both being spontaneous, zero utility)
    depending on which spell list they decide to use.

appearing to be largely unconcerned with the...

Paladins have mostly solved the hands issue by the recent errata. Lay on Hands was the big problem, Litanies are verbal only. (Heal runs into the issue if you take Channel Life but honestly Lay on Hands has the AC boost so is probably better for in combat uses anyway.

Wild Druids have options to fight in melee without polymorphing themselves, including Wild Claws, and the STR based pool is meant to reward that focus.

I actually think a lot of the Sorcerer complaints are overblown, but I do think it is weird that the bard gets more heightening options,I think bloodline powers could use another look, and I think Quick Preparation is a bonkers feat to give wizards at 4th level.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Captain Morgan wrote:


So my issue with class feats becoming general feats is it makes them much harder to parse for what classes need them and what classes don't. Currently the class feats are incredibly well organized IMO. And the skill and general feats are... not. I'm actually glad we don't get general feats or skill feats at 1st level right now because having a new player parse that chapter when they build their first character sounds awful to me.

I guess you could make a chapter for combat feats, a chapter for metamagic feats, etc. But frankly that strikes me as still being harder to use than what we currently have for class feats. I think I'd rather keep the formatting we have and just get more class feats to broaden the selection for a given class. (Which is pretty much a guarantee. I wouldn't hate it if we got some class specific player companion books.)

I absolutely agree! It is definitely much easier to look through the 4 possible feats you have access to at any given level, rather than having to comb through a huge list of feats to see which ones might apply to your character.

Though, as soon as the next book comes out, that starts to go out the window, since now you need to check multiple places again.

However, as a player, it really bugs me when there are things that would be perfect for my character concept but I can't take because of artificial limitations. For example, in PF1 I had a Fighter with the Viking archetype who got a version of rage. I can't remember what it was specifically, but there was a feat I was interested in that had a prerequisite of "Barbarian Level X" rather than just "Mighty Rage" or whatever. It was very discouraging to have to throw out options that seem like they should be applicable to my character, because of arbitrary class/level restrictions.


Tamago wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


So my issue with class feats becoming general feats is it makes them much harder to parse for what classes need them and what classes don't. Currently the class feats are incredibly well organized IMO. And the skill and general feats are... not. I'm actually glad we don't get general feats or skill feats at 1st level right now because having a new player parse that chapter when they build their first character sounds awful to me.

I guess you could make a chapter for combat feats, a chapter for metamagic feats, etc. But frankly that strikes me as still being harder to use than what we currently have for class feats. I think I'd rather keep the formatting we have and just get more class feats to broaden the selection for a given class. (Which is pretty much a guarantee. I wouldn't hate it if we got some class specific player companion books.)

I absolutely agree! It is definitely much easier to look through the 4 possible feats you have access to at any given level, rather than having to comb through a huge list of feats to see which ones might apply to your character.

Though, as soon as the next book comes out, that starts to go out the window, since now you need to check multiple places again.

However, as a player, it really bugs me when there are things that would be perfect for my character concept but I can't take because of artificial limitations. For example, in PF1 I had a Fighter with the Viking archetype who got a version of rage. I can't remember what it was specifically, but there was a feat I was interested in that had a prerequisite of "Barbarian Level X" rather than just "Mighty Rage" or whatever. It was very discouraging to have to throw out options that seem like they should be applicable to my character, because of arbitrary class/level restrictions.

Yeah, checking multiple books will get harder (than PF2 currently is, I don't think this will make it as hard or harder than PF1) but I think the current set up will also age better for database feat categories. I read a lot of PF material online, and having a single list of "Fighter 4 feats" across all books is going to be much easier to parse than the current PF1 model, IMO.

As for arbitrary class limitations, yeah, I hear you. There's two easy fixes to that with the PF2 model though. One is simply making sure that every class gets an appropriate feat for whatever purpose. As mentioned, this won't necessarily mean every class has access to every feat, as some feats are essentially now class features, but for example the Paladin should get some paladin specific archery feats.

The other is of course multiclassing. The Viking Fighter probably won't exist if we keep the current multiclass system. Instead, you'd build it as a Fighter who multiclasses into barbarian. Which I imagine should bypass silly situations like the one you mentioned with Mighty Rage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Forcing palaidns to take a feat so their class feature functions is not a good plan, and it is not good design.

Hospice Knight is wasted ink, all of its effects should just be part of the class.

Without it, the healing is no where near as good as Heal, and clerics even get a feat to cast that with a weapon in hand, so clerics are still much stronger there. And their feat works on all their spells, not just LoH/Heal/whatever.

Medicine is locked behind a class feat now to get access to signature skill status. WTF

And taxing the feat just to have a functioning class feature is BS, and if the design continues to hamper all the classes then the selling point of customization is a blatant lie.

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / News from Paizo Twitch 17 / 08 / 18 - Mark Seifter All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.