Rule book overview

[Kringress]

For the most part Paizo did a very good job on the design of the rule book, I think there a few organizational changes that need to be made and the dropping of Resonance.

Let’s look at organization. I would move Advancement and Options to right after Classes and change the name of the Spells chapter to Magic, with breaking out Powers and Spells into two different listings. And finally moving Alchemical items from the GM section to the Equipment section.

In the Character Creation section I would take and create a single level up chart that can be used by most classes, and have any unique features placed in the class description. I do not need a second chart that shows the alphabetical listings of the level feats. There are not that many feats that keeping track of them should be that hard.

I love the encounter modes. With the three action economy for encounter mode, the action economy helps move the encounters, but it does power down melee after tenth level. This is due to shield being a separate action instead of an automatic action.

Explorer Modes needs some work, but overall a great idea. Explorer Mode is where I would assign a 10 Skill check for how people are exploring, instead of secret GM checks. Doing this will decrease the time for a GM to handle stuff, and keep the players happy.

With the spells please change the superscript from H or U to the 2 letter College abbreviation. As a caster I need to know the college well before I need to know if it can be heightened. In the spell/power description the Trait Word box needs to be consistent with Alchemical Items. People will look at the Trait and if it is not in the box but in the description, they will say the spell description does not apply.

Resonance. Again a solution looking for a problem. With the removal of the protection items and placing protection into armor, the only character that Resonance applies to is the poor Alchemist and his bombs. For the most part Paizo fixed the wand issue with dropping wand charges by a fifth but only cutting the cost by a third, and by making Trick Magic Item a feat that you have to have training in the skill you want to use. It is cheaper, easier, and more convenient to have scrolls and potions than a wand. In our play tests we have only run out of resonance three times, twice on the Alchemist, and once on the Cleric until the cleric figured out that Combat Heal is a great downtime heal feat.

Lastly the character sheet itself, Remove the T,E,M,L circles and just put in a line for the -2, 0, 1, 2, or 3. This will help anyone who is running the pregenerated characters. This will also save room on the sheets that could be used for other things.

[Tsa Vol'rae]

Great suggestions provided. I hope these are considered.

[corwyn42]

When reading the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, I found numerous areas where I was not sure what was intended and the wording used did not clarify the author's intent. Included below are a list of areas where the text could be improved:

1. The term "Armor Class".

Under BASIC CONCEPTS on Page 7:

'This way, when you see the statement “a Strike targets Armor Class,” you know that both Strike and Armor Class are used with their rules meanings.'

Under ARMOR AND SHIELDS on Page 176:

'ARMOR CLASS
Your Armor Class (AC) measures how well you can defend against attacks. Your Touch Armor Class (TAC) protects against attacks that need only to touch you.'

Under ROGUE FEATS on Page 121:

'You nimbly dodge out of the way, gaining a +2 circumstance bonus to your Armor Class against the triggering attack.'

Source of Confusion:
Does does the +2 circumstance bonus apply to the Armor Class (AC) or to both Armor Class (AC) *and* Touch Armor Class (TAC)?

Since the term "Armor Class" is both a meta-term - applying to both (AC) and (TAC) and an individual type of Armor Class - that which measure how well you can defined against attacks that are not touch attacks (AC). There are several places in the Rulebook that use the term "Armor Class" and it is not clear if the text is referring to both (AC) and (TAC) or just (AC).

Possible Improvement:
Use a different term for the meta-term or the first type (AC). Perhaps Weapon Armor Class (WAC) instead of just (AC)?

2. Assumed Feat Traits.

There are many places in the Rulebook where an feat indicates "Make a Strike", but the Trait box for the feat does not include the Trait "Attack". It is unclear if this was simply an editorial oversight or the intent of the author. This potentially impacts the multiple attack penalty that should be applied on subsequent actions.

Under Multiple Attack Penalty on Page 305:

'The second time you use an attack action (anything with the attack trait)'.

Under FIGHTER FEATS on Page 89:

The DOUBLE SLICE and POWER ATTACK feats both indicate to make a Strike, but neither feat includes the "Attack" trait. However, the Strike action on Page 308 includes the "Attack" trait.

Source of Confusion:

Does making a Strike automatically infer the "Attack" trait (even though a feat does not specifically state it)? Or was it the author's intent to not include the "Attack" trait? If after making a POWER ATTACK, the player decided to use an action that could not be used if an action with the "Attack" trait had already been used, the GM could interpret that using a POWER ATTACK before this action is acceptable - even though this was probably not the author's intention.

Under CLASS FEATURES on Page 97:

The FLURRY OF BLOWS action does not include the "Attack" Trait, nor does it include any text about the Multiple Attack Penalty (as other feats/actions have done).

Source of Confusion:
Does using the Flurry of Blows as the first action not incur any Multiple Attack Penalties? This would imply that the second Strike action would be made at the highest attack bonus. A GM could easily interpret the two unarmed Strikes made as part of the action as two attacks and require the player to use the Second and Third Strike actions with a -10 multiple attack penalty. During game play, the GM would want to search the forums for a general ruling - slowing down game play.

Possible Improvement:
Add text to clarify how the multiple attack penalty is applied by using the FLURRY OF BLOWS action.

3. Placement of KEY TERMS.

On the same Page 89, the KEY TERMS section is *very* important. The feat FURIOUS FOCUS includes the "Press" Trait which indicates the action can be used only if you are currently affected by a multiple attack penalty. Our playgroup did not notice the Press Trait's importance and allowed the feat to be used as the *first* action of the round - which was clearly not the author's intention. Either an improved location of the KEY TERMS and/or a reminder under Requirements - something like "Can only be used if you have a multiple attack penalty" would have avoided this oversight on our part. Of note, this oversight is significant enough to cause the player to make an alternate choice for the fighter feat - say POWER ATTACK instead.

I will follow up with additional Rulebook feedback in subsequent posts.

[corwyn42]

Found the answer to the Nimble Dodge question. Under Touch Armor Class on Page 292:

'Anything that gives you a bonus or penalty to Armor Class also gives you an equal bonus or penalty to Touch Armor Class unless stated otherwise.'