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

General Discussion

 1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

 8 people marked this as a favorite.

So guys, we had some news todays!

1) In two weeks we will probably see new rules for "Dying"

Mark said they are not satisfied how the system is making people make several rolls befora waking up, so they will definitely change that. They are working in the new system so will take more than a week until we get it

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

3) Sunder

There is no way in the actual playtest to sunder worn items. Mark said that this was a type of attack that players usually don't like so they are testing without

4) Class Feats and general feats

There is no plan currently to make class feats into general feats

There were other things, but i forgot... Lol

 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Other things:

5) They will try to launch new erratas weekly, so stay tuned

6) There will be a game of Doomsday Dawn played by the Paizo Staff next thursday

7) There is no actual plan to increase the stats from proficience, since little increases are a lot more meaningful in second edition. A +1 increasing critical chance by 5% and decreasing critical failure by 5% (i think was 5%... Maybe wrong, lol!)

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

What does the hardness thing mean? The calculation for dents is done without first substracting hardness from damage?

So object with 5 hardness is hit by a 5 damage attack = It takes a dent? Or it reduces damage by 5 so it's 0 and No dents?

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

What does the hardness thing mean? The calculation for dents is done without first substracting hardness from damage?

So object with 5 hardness is hit by a 5 damage attack = It takes a dent? Or it reduces damage by 5 so it's 0 and No dents?

First example "So object with 5 hardness is hit by a 5 damage attack = It takes a dent"

That's what he said... Hope they change or double the hardness

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

3) Sunder

There is no way in the actual playtest to sunder worn items. Mark said that this was a type of attack that players usually don't like so they are testing without

Actually, per RAW there are (almost) no Attacks which can legally target an object of any kind at all. It isn't just worn objects.

There is Break Open, but it is a check versus a DC, it doesn't cause damage. And there is Disintegrate which can target an unattended object (or a creature), but against objects it doesn't even offer a saving throw.

Most Attack spells can only target "Creatures", and explicitly fail if you select an invalid target... Furthermore, the Strike action also only offers the option to target Creatures. The kicker being that Hazards are explicitly "non-creature dangers"; meaning that per RAW they cannot be the target of Strikes or any damaging attack spells.

The rules imply there is supposed to be an action called Smash for destroying unattended objects and demolishing structural elements like Doors and Windows and Walls instead of Breaking Them Open... Or at the very least there was supposed to be a clause somewhere allowing you to treat unattended objects as creatures (with an appropriate AC for their item level and hardness for their material and quality) for the purpose of damaging attacks. But it must have been ommited without realizing the impact it would have to a literal reading of the RAW, because the rules cetainly refer to damaging and destroying objects like it was something the rules actually allowed you to do.

 5 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

What does the hardness thing mean? The calculation for dents is done without first substracting hardness from damage?

So object with 5 hardness is hit by a 5 damage attack = It takes a dent? Or it reduces damage by 5 so it's 0 and No dents?

First example "So object with 5 hardness is hit by a 5 damage attack = It takes a dent"

That's what he said... Hope they change or double the hardness

Those wooden shields are feeling really flimsy right about now. 3 Hardness lol, goblins can oneshot it. (Granted they seem to oneshot a lot more things this edition)

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:
7) There is no actual plan to increase the stats from proficience, since little increases are a lot more meaningful in second edition. A +1 increasing critical chance by 5% and decreasing critical failure by 5% (i think was 5%... Maybe wrong, lol!)

Or, not and. If you succeed on a roll of 12 (or worse) then a +1 on top of that reduces the chance of critical failure by 5%. If you succeed on a 10 (or you're even better) then a +1 on top of that increases the chance of critical success by 5%. These do not both apply to the same roll, and if you succeed on 11 before the modifier neither applies.

Edit: obviously if the particular roll has no crit success/failure which matters to you then a +1 is just a +1 there also.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

What does the hardness thing mean? The calculation for dents is done without first substracting hardness from damage?

So object with 5 hardness is hit by a 5 damage attack = It takes a dent? Or it reduces damage by 5 so it's 0 and No dents?

First example "So object with 5 hardness is hit by a 5 damage attack = It takes a dent"

That's what he said... Hope they change or double the hardness

Yeah, otherwise magical shields kinda seem pointless, if they will be turned into confetti after the first high level monster hits one.

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

What does the hardness thing mean? The calculation for dents is done without first substracting hardness from damage?

So object with 5 hardness is hit by a 5 damage attack = It takes a dent? Or it reduces damage by 5 so it's 0 and No dents?

First example "So object with 5 hardness is hit by a 5 damage attack = It takes a dent"

That's what he said... Hope they change or double the hardness

Yeah, otherwise magical shields kinda seem pointless, if they will be turned into confetti after the first high level monster hits one.

On the other sid eof the equation, it's now a lot easier to just destroy the doors! Much easier than trying to lockpick them imo.

 8 people marked this as a favorite.

The other significant announcement was that they're working on an update to "significantly" loosen the restriction embodied in signature skills. Alas, it didn't sound like they're planning to do away with them entirely yet (yet!), and it was left deliberately unclear what "significantly", ahem, signifies here—but still a step forward imo. Mark also mentioned that this was a lot harder to update than death & dying, since more feats and other parts of the system interact with it (e.g., if the supposed value-add of a feat was in part that it granted a new sig skill, then what will it give you when they loosen the system?).

I also enjoyed the discussion of death & dying rules. Mark said they literally had three or four different systems in the playtest rules until the moment they had to pick one to send to the printer, and that they've continued to debate it internally since—so it was definitely on their list of issues that needed work and they've heard the playtest feedback so we're getting something Monday after this one.

(phone post, disclaimers for autocorrect and typos)

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:

The other significant announcement was that they're working on an update to "significantly" loosen the restriction embodied in signature skills. Alas, it didn't sound like they're planning to do away with them entirely yet (yet!), and it was left deliberately unclear what "significantly", ahem, signifies here—but still a step forward imo. Mark also mentioned that this was a lot harder to update than death & dying, since more feats and other parts of the system interact with it (e.g., if the supposed value-add of a feat was in part that it granted a new sig skill, then what will it give you when they loosen the system?).

I also enjoyed the discussion of death & dying rules. Mark said they literally had three or four different systems in the playtest rules until the moment they had to pick one to send to the printer, and that they've continued to debate it internally since—so it was definitely on their list of issues that needed work and they've heard the playtest feedback so we're getting something Monday after this one.

(phone post, disclaimers for autocorrect and typos)

This was a really great interview. Mark does a really thorough job of answering some of those questions at the end that I almost want to copy and paste into a number of other threads.

Signatures skills really are a tricky thing because they don't become relevant really until 7th level, but they are mostly determined in the first couple of levels and make characters feel like they are going to be good at a skill, even though you probably (unless you are a rogue) never going to have more than 3 skills at legendary status and maybe 1 or 2 more at master. I am betting that adding 1 free signature skill to every class will pretty much enable any concept that a person had that was possible within the limited framework of how many skill increases you get anyway.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

Does your background skill become a signature skill? Should it?

A free Signature Skill would be ideal... we won't get that. Most likely we'll get either a Signature Skill General Feat (or worse a Human-only Ancestry Feat), or Backgrounds will start giving out Signature skills as their description indicates they might.

Eventually a comprehensive list of Archetypes will also solve the problems of lack of access to signature skills and increased combat proficiencies of choice.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Does your background skill become a signature skill? Should it?

All lore skills are signature skills, per page 151.

Which has the effect that literally anybody can become the world's greatest cheesemaker, even if they come to cheesemaking later in life (trained at cheesemaking lore at 7th, expert at 9th, master at 11th, legendary at 13th), but whether or not you can be super-good at being sneaky, or lying, or surviving in the wilderness, or making things that aren't cheeses hinges on choices you make at level 1.

 Designer

 25 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
The other significant announcement was that they're working on an update to "significantly" loosen the restriction embodied in signature skills. Alas, it didn't sound like they're planning to do away with them entirely yet (yet!), and it was left deliberately unclear what "significantly", ahem, signifies here—but still a step forward imo.

Significantly. Never underestimate the significance of significance.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:

So guys, we had some news todays!

1) In two weeks we will probably see new rules for "Dying"

Mark said they are not satisfied how the system is making people make several rolls befora waking up, so they will definitely change that. They are working in the new system so will take more than a week until we get it

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

3) Sunder

There is no way in the actual playtest to sunder worn items. Mark said that this was a type of attack that players usually don't like so they are testing without

4) Class Feats and general feats

There is no plan currently to make class feats into general feats

There were other things, but i forgot... Lol

I'll be intrigued on how the new Dying rules work. Maybe it'll be a bit less swingy or arbitrary. I can just picture somebody being knocked out from a really hard hit and just never waking up with the current rules, so hopefully those kinds of shenanigans can be fixed (or don't exist anymore).

Shields are a lot easier to break now, so Fighters and Paladins are wasting half their WBL on Shield usage. It might actually be a little better than what it is, but it's still pretty bad.

Honestly, I don't think any combat maneuvers are a thing, and really haven't been since PF1. They're all way too weak compared to just swinging my weapon or lobbing my cantrip, which gives enemies the Dead condition if I use it enough times, making them both not do anything and giving me rewards for doing it, too. Half the enemies I want to Disarm usually have good Athletics and/or don't have Weapons to Disarm, so that's out (plus it requires training only). Trip just makes an enemy slightly easier to hit, but they can still beat on me without remorse, which is just a waste of actions on my part compared to just hitting it. Grapple usually ends up being worse for one who doesn't have Natural Weapons than one who does, and since we never have Natural Weapons, combined with having less physical attributes and being arbitrarily chosen, monsters will be better at any of those things than us. And Sunder in PF1 just ruins your treasure. Overrun in PF1 was broken, and Dirty Tricks was for those who could afford a 13+ Intelligence or other shenanigans. Combat Maneuvers were never worth it in PF1, and I'm not seeing that change in PF2, whether Sunder is a part of the mechanics or not.

They kind of already did this design space with the archetype/multiclass feats. It makes no sense to include further class-poaching rules. If they were gonna do that, they'd make building a character entirely freeform, with characters only being "classes" in name only, and you building them with whatever mechanics you want that the rules provided.

Quote:

5) They will try to launch new erratas weekly, so stay tuned

6) There will be a game of Doomsday Dawn played by the Paizo Staff next thursday

7) There is no actual plan to increase the stats from proficience, since little increases are a lot more meaningful in second edition. A +1 increasing critical chance by 5% and decreasing critical failure by 5% (i think was 5%... Maybe wrong, lol!)

New Erratas aren't going to be fun if they're every week. I'll probably end up spending more time changing the game rules than I am actually reading them, and remembering what changes are to where will be just one giant headache to keep track of that I really don't want to do. (It can also skew playtesting results between all the different versions of errata being used, which is problematic since houseruling poses a similar problem.)

I seriously wonder if the Paizo staff can properly play this game without some form of cheap metagaming. It's kind of hard for me to play a game I once played in the recent past (or rewatching a movie, for a more accurate example) without remembering "Oh great, this is where X happens." It might be slightly different from when I last played (or watched the movie), but the hardcore facts are remembered and the results are going to be mostly identical. Even worse, I wonder if their playthrough will be an accurate playtest, since the developers running something that everyone and everything is familiar with won't have some major form of skewed playtest data.

I wouldn't expect proficiency increases, but I would like some clarification on how proficiencies for things like Armor work. Is it a case of "If you wear armor you are not proficient in, you take penalties to X," like PF1? Or is it a hard limitation of "You can't wear X until you are Trained in it"? Nothing in the rules tells me any of that.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?

 4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
On the other side of the equation, it's now a lot easier to just destroy the doors! Much easier than trying to lockpick them imo.

My players decided it was much easier just to smash all the chests open rather than bothering to deal with their locks.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So, my take away here

1) Hardness probably needs an update then, or shields need more dents available. If you subtracted the hardness 1st, it would make it a lot more palatable.

2) I'd much rather have higher proficiency bonuses and lower item bonuses. Heck, lower stats too if it lets proficiency be higher. (I have a feeling that armor proficiency is holding us back here *as well as on the armor chart*)

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Technotrooper wrote:
Quote:
On the other side of the equation, it's now a lot easier to just destroy the doors! Much easier than trying to lockpick them imo.
My players decided it was much easier just to smash all the chests open rather than bothering to deal with their locks.

Yep. Ours did too as it requires dozens of rolls and a wagon full of spare picks to pick the lock vs a few damage rolls...

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:

4) Class Feats and general feats

There is no plan currently to make class feats into general feats

They kind of already did this design space with the archetype/multiclass feats. It makes no sense to include further class-poaching rules. If they were gonna do that, they'd make building a character entirely freeform, with characters only being "classes" in name only, and you building them with whatever mechanics you want that the rules provided.

"Class poaching" is kind of a strong phrase. Most of the push I've seen has been for giving the Fighter and Barbarian actual class feats and letting other people get some combat-focused feats without a tax.

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?

It takes 2 dents and becomes broken

 4 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:

4) Class Feats and general feats

There is no plan currently to make class feats into general feats

They kind of already did this design space with the archetype/multiclass feats. It makes no sense to include further class-poaching rules. If they were gonna do that, they'd make building a character entirely freeform, with characters only being "classes" in name only, and you building them with whatever mechanics you want that the rules provided.
"Class poaching" is kind of a strong phrase. Most of the push I've seen has been for giving the Fighter and Barbarian actual class feats and letting other people get some combat-focused feats without a tax.

A better solution would be to create General feats that fill this niche instead of encroaching on class niches as they stand. (To be fair though, several class feats should be general feats anyway.)

This ruling on shields makes them worthless.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:

4) Class Feats and general feats

There is no plan currently to make class feats into general feats

They kind of already did this design space with the archetype/multiclass feats. It makes no sense to include further class-poaching rules. If they were gonna do that, they'd make building a character entirely freeform, with characters only being "classes" in name only, and you building them with whatever mechanics you want that the rules provided.
"Class poaching" is kind of a strong phrase. Most of the push I've seen has been for giving the Fighter and Barbarian actual class feats and letting other people get some combat-focused feats without a tax.
A better solution would be to create General feats that fill this niche instead of encroaching on class niches as they stand. (To be fair though, several class feats should be general feats anyway.)

I... think we're agreeing. More or less.

Kodyboy wrote:
This ruling on shields makes them worthless.

Incorrect - Steel Shields are still useful. Steel Shields that are magically reinforced are still useful. Steel Shields that are magically reinforced and made out of adamantine and enhanced by a Paladin Shield Ally are good.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kodyboy wrote:
This ruling on shields makes them worthless.

If it were accurate, I want it in writing before I take it seriously. i.e., Hardness 5 takes 8 damage, no Dents. 10-14 damage 1 dent, 15+ Damage 2 dents.

It’s a slip of the tongue, I refuse to believe that something that took no damage becomes damaged. Yes read that again, this supposed “ruling” has something that didn’t take ANY damage, TAKE DAMAGE that eventually breaks it if it doesn’t take damage again.

He was under pressure, stress, long day, lack of or too much caffeine, any reasonable excuse over what’s been said. I’d been more than fine if it took a Dent if it was only in excess of Hardness. If this ruling stands, just rework it into something else but this.

[Insert Reasonable Suggestion Here]

Sad they are reworking Dying, but I can understand why, the up and down game was strong last session.

 7 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that they're not even looking at fixing the siloing of class feats is really bothering me. Class does not equal fighting style.

 Designer

 8 people marked this as a favorite.

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!

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:

4) Class Feats and general feats

There is no plan currently to make class feats into general feats

They kind of already did this design space with the archetype/multiclass feats. It makes no sense to include further class-poaching rules. If they were gonna do that, they'd make building a character entirely freeform, with characters only being "classes" in name only, and you building them with whatever mechanics you want that the rules provided.
"Class poaching" is kind of a strong phrase. Most of the push I've seen has been for giving the Fighter and Barbarian actual class feats and letting other people get some combat-focused feats without a tax.

I watched the show. What Mark said was they weren't going to make things like Double slice free to everyone to take, because they don't think a one size fits all option is right. He mentioned they need to add more options, and will, like a rogue 2 weapon attack. He also mentioned that the ranger 2 weapon attack might be different from double slice to be more flavorful. Basically, once they add more content in the class feats, we will see support for more combat styles spread out among the classes, but not necessarily the same way for each class.

err. didn't realize Mark answered it right above me...lol, should read to the end of the forum first....

 Designer

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordredraven wrote:
err. didn't realize Mark answered it right above me...lol, should read to the end of the forum first....

I like your answer better, so I've just left the other part of my post!

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

yeah lordredraven said it pretty well. Its basically what I was thinking they should do too so cool.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi Mark, are you guys taking a look at some elements that don't scale well (aside from Power Attack) like the Animal Companion and the Barbarian's Dragon Transformation?

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lordredraven wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:

"Class poaching" is kind of a strong phrase. Most of the push I've seen has been for giving the Fighter and Barbarian actual class feats and letting other people get some combat-focused feats without a tax.
I watched the show. What Mark said was they weren't going to make things like Double slice free to everyone to take, because they don't think a one size fits all option is right. He mentioned they need to add more options, and will, like a rogue 2 weapon attack. He also mentioned that the ranger 2 weapon attack might be different from double slice to be more flavorful. Basically, once they add more content in the class feats, we will see support for more combat styles spread out among the classes, but not necessarily the same way for each class.

I suppose that's one way to do it, but then I guess the issues would be increased page space to accommodate multiple fighting styles for each class, and then possibly having to compare the same feats across multiple classes because some of them function slightly differently.

It kind of feels to me like the classes have been painted into a corner with their design, and fixes just add new issues at the same time.

EDIT wow. i took way too long and got too distracted writing this that what i was trying to reply to topic has long passed

i'm ok with the idea of classes having combat styles. if they change the multiclass/dedication thingy to open up any feats from that class you qualify for.

simply because that would make almost super customizing classes.. But. the base class effects (advanced alchemy (i assume alch dedication will give empower bombs), Aoo, sneak attack, etc) keeps those specific classes relavant to people who want to focus on that concept.. but other people could pull off some of the concepts.
Basically the class would be the best at X. but everyone could become decent at X if they so wished to build out of a different one.

Though i'm sure folks won't really think thats a good idea.. but I really love that idea.

...but a lot of that is probably related to me building mostly Alchemists and many of their class feats have a hard time c ompeting with me taking Ranged assist, shield feats from fighter. quick draw, poison blade, twist the knife from rogue. only 3-5 class feats interest me haha.

as a random sidenote..

I still can't figure out if Twist the Knife works via Rogue Dedication. it is suppose to do 1 less sneak attack die. but rogue multiclass only nets you 1d6.. but it started as a 1d4 and upgraded. So i'm not sure if that works... Also kind of surprising there is no minimum sneak die mention. just as a future proof against other effects that reduce your sneak attack. The sneak attack feat uses "advances to d6" which makes me sort of think it would work

Alchemaic wrote:
lordredraven wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:

"Class poaching" is kind of a strong phrase. Most of the push I've seen has been for giving the Fighter and Barbarian actual class feats and letting other people get some combat-focused feats without a tax.
I watched the show. What Mark said was they weren't going to make things like Double slice free to everyone to take, because they don't think a one size fits all option is right. He mentioned they need to add more options, and will, like a rogue 2 weapon attack. He also mentioned that the ranger 2 weapon attack might be different from double slice to be more flavorful. Basically, once they add more content in the class feats, we will see support for more combat styles spread out among the classes, but not necessarily the same way for each class.

I suppose that's one way to do it, but then I guess the issues would be increased page space to accommodate multiple fighting styles for each class, and then possibly having to compare the same feats across multiple classes because some of them function slightly differently.

It kind of feels to me like the classes have been painted into a corner with their design, and fixes just add new issues at the same time.

Didn't 4E do this? "Oh, now that your fighter leveled up you get this new power! And your friend gets that same ability but for Ranger, just changed the name and damage type!"

You'll just get asked for more, people won't be satisfied until all 12 classes can get TWF like before. Could write 12 feats or 1, but some Wizard player will at some point ask for it.

I don't think multiple page count is bad for paizo also why would you have to compare feats across classes?

If by painted into a corner you mean will be different from other classes then I'm down with that.

 Designer

 5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I don't think multiple page count is bad for paizo also why would you have to compare feats across classes?

If by painted into a corner you mean will be different from other classes then I'm down with that.

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.

Heh. I just ran a game where the Wizard rolled 6 consecutively failed Recovery checks, so the errata feels very timely for me!

Are we going to see all the different "Dying" rules, or has one rules set been chosen?

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why not go with the druid specialization version of personalizing options to the character that took them. Write out the base feat, then add some riders at the bottom based on class/archetype or some other variable.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I don't think multiple page count is bad for paizo also why would you have to compare feats across classes?

If by painted into a corner you mean will be different from other classes then I'm down with that.

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.

Sounds cool.

I was running a playtest game when the stream happened so I missed it. :(

 6 people marked this as a favorite.

Great to see the dying rules gone. Hopefully Resonance and +Level to Skills follows soon

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:
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?
It takes 2 dents and becomes broken

With the clarification on hardness in the original post and how Shield Block is written (as my only two sources on this subject) I would be inclined the believe otherwise.

"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."

That reads to me that it would prevent damage up to its hardness and then take the damage it prevented, thereby possibly causing a dent (possibly because the damage could be less than the hardness, and not cause a dent).

So I see it as the following:

- You are about to take 6 damage.
- You use Shield Block. You have a shield with 3 hardness.
- Shield block prevents you from taking 3 damage and takes this damage instead.
- You take 3 damage and your shield takes 3 damage, causing 1 dent.

Another counter argument is that if the attack were to deal 6 damage and your shield prevents 3 of it from reaching you while the shield itself takes 6 damage, wouldn't that be a total damage dealt of 9 (3 to you, 6 to shield)? Wouldn't that be inflating the actual damage?

Hythlodeus wrote:
Great to see the dying rules gone. Hopefully Resonance and +Level to Skills follows soon

I would be very surprised to see the second actually happen. First, it'd create a random exception in the proficiency system, and second, that would just make it basically guaranteed that we have level 20 people that can't jump over a 10-foot pit again.

Let's be honest here: removing level to skills really only screws over martial characters (and also completely breaks knowledge-type skills, as a side note).

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

 5 people marked this as a favorite.

The info mentioned here is quite interesting, looking forward to more details.

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

 1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>