Twitch Stream - 15 / 09 / 2018

[Almarane]

Here are my notes for the latest Twitch Stream (15/09/2018) :

Updates are posted once every two weeks, the first day of each part of the playtest.

Scenarios are designed to be rough.

Dying rules will be changed again (not enough characters die right now compared to their benchmark).

They know monsters are too powerful compared to their benchmark. Adjustments in the future. But adjusting 300 monsters in the middle of the playtest may be hard (still, they'll make do with what they have)

Next update will have a lot of stuff in it.

Jason finds it weird that the most studious classes (I think he is talking about wizards) only get 2 skill points. It was because the baseline assumption was that they would have high INT.

Monday : class surveys will open. Not tied to DD. 200+ questions. One of the questions will be "What alignment the Paladin should be allowed to take". They know this will be a passionate debate, but now they can have the datas in a survey. You can only take this survey once. You can skip classes you don't want to answer. If you do come back later, you can pop back where you left and answer questions you did not answer.

Monday : Ancestry and Background survey will open (like "What do you think of the goblin being in the game", "What do you think about half-orcs ? How should we include them in the game ?"). Not tied to DD.

Other surveys (spells, information, etc...) will open later.

Jason encourages GMs to not fudge dices and to be impartial in their GMing. The devs need solid data.

=== Q&A ===

Q: How would shields be able to take more than one dent from a Shield Block ?
A: Not sure how to respond. Jason is not sure whether the shield takes one dent and then all other damages are transfered to the user, or if it takes multiple dents.

Q: What are you thoughts on Stamina ?
A: In Starfinder, it is used to reduce resting portions in a Sci-fi scenario. While in med fan you can take time to rest and have magical healing. But they know people want to spend less time resting and longer adventuring days. Jason thinks there's a bug in the healing system. They wait to see more datas. They may boost healing spells in the future.

Q: Counteract levels: how do they work ?
A: Need to dig deeper. They know there are confusions and need to check where the text is failing.

Q: Does it really take an hour to identify healing potions ?
A: Yes. When you are high level you are supposed to take Quick Identification.

Q: Could secret rolls be more called out as secret rolls in the final book ? (In the stream they use to ask the players to do those rolls)
A: They know that people would not always remember which rolls are secret. They will try to make them more loose. Maybe optional secret checks.

Q: Can you explain how Toughness works when a monster uses its Swallow Whole power ? To cut your way out do you need to beat the Toughness with only one damage roll or can it be over multiple rolls ?
A: Not sure. Will have to double check.

Q: Is there a reason the barbarian's rage bonus isn't applied to thrown weapons ? It is odd [...]
A: It is odd.

Q: Will there be more guidelines on when and how to skill gate behind trained, master, etc ?
A: Final version of the game will have better guidelines in general.

Q: Any thoughts on not making healing potions require resonance ?
A: Resonance is not being well received. Resonance does not often come up at low levels. Good ideas has been thrown on the table. They may scrap Resonance. The system was an intent to balance the money system. Healing potions could not require resonance, but they would have to adjust the healing potions' cost. They know Resonance is a limiting system ("a stick with no carrot"). They are waiting for more datas before making changes. Resonance will not make it to the final game in its current form. One of their current idea for Resonance is making it enhance your magic objects instead of limiting them, like increasing the dice of a healing potion if you spend Resonance.

Q: Does the Paladin Ally class ability affect unarmed strike ?
A: Jason thinks so, but he does not seem sure. Need more digging. Those in-depth questions are better asked on the forum board.

Q: Do mounts count as allies ?
A: Jason thinks they do. ("Don't hit the paladin's horse. That makes him angry.")

Q: Any thoughts on Arcanist style casting over Vancian ?
A: There was a point in the early design where Jason wanted the Sorcerer to disappear and blend him with the Wizard to make all spellcasters work the same way, but it did not make it. So no.

Q: [very long question about twin weapons]
A: Rogues don't have many two weapon fighting feats. This will be fixed.

Q: Should people that don't feel fully profficient on the playtest fill up the surveys ?
A: Yes.

Q: Any plans to improve divine cantrips ?
A: Maybe. They are looking at all the cantrips. They want them to be reliable, but not your best option.

[shroudb]

Ugh if they go through with the "resonance makes your stuff better" without scrapping Resonance from the Alchemist altogether it would be terrible :

Everyone else will make their stuff better, Alchemist will just be able to use his class abilities...

[Almarane]

Or Alchemist may be able to use his class abilities and enhance them with Resonance.

[shroudb]

Almarane wrote:

Or Alchemist may be able to use his class abilities and enhance them with Resonance.

This would also require scrapping the base RP cost of his abilities, which was what I was going for in my 1st post. If not, double spending for what others do baseline would be terrible again.

On the flip side, one of the best (imo) RP spenders in the book does use the mentality of "spend to make it better, the holy property.

[Tridus]

I really hope the shield block question prompts them to get together and sort out what it's actually supposed to do. It's clearly a source of major confusion even amongst the team and a clarification would be really helpful.

Was a good stream overall. I'm feeling pretty positive about where things are going.

[Laik]

Thanks alot for this post! A brain-saver for those who don't like watching videos.

[pjrogers]

Tridus wrote:

I really hope the shield block question prompts them to get together and sort out what it's actually supposed to do. It's clearly a source of major confusion even amongst the team and a clarification would be really helpful.

Was a good stream overall. I'm feeling pretty positive about where things are going.

I find this to be a little nuts. The design team is throwing all these brand new mechanics, rules, and concepts into PF2e, and they're not even sure how they work. This doesn't give me a warm feeling about the design and development process.

[Porridge]

pjrogers wrote:

Tridus wrote:

I really hope the shield block question prompts them to get together and sort out what it's actually supposed to do. It's clearly a source of major confusion even amongst the team and a clarification would be really helpful.

Was a good stream overall. I'm feeling pretty positive about where things are going.

I find this to be a little nuts. The design team is throwing all these brand new mechanics, rules, and concepts into PF2e, and they're not even sure how they work. This doesn't give me a warm feeling about the design and development process.

Well, given that they’re new rules, and being tinkered with all the time by a half dozen people, I think it’s understandable that someone can’t remember what the latest iteration of all the rules are off the top of their head.

Heck, I often go the store to buy 3 things, and then can’t remember them all... :P

EDIT: Which is not to say I wouldn’t welcome more clarity on the shield blocking rules. :)

[Data Lore]

Quote:

Q: Any thoughts on Arcanist style casting over Vancian ?

A: There was a point in the early design where Jason wanted the Sorcerer to disappear and blend him with the Wizard to make all spellcasters work the same way, but it did not make it. So no.

They need to revisit this idea.

[Wolfism]

Still hoping they'll at least try the wizard as arcanist and do something really interesting and different with the sorcerer. My personal wish would be to merge it with the kineticist.

[Vic Ferrari]

Wolfism wrote:

Still hoping they'll at least try the wizard as arcanist and do something really interesting and different with the sorcerer. My personal wish would be to merge it with the kineticist.

That's an interesting idea, and elementalist action.

[AndIMustMask]

pjrogers wrote:

Tridus wrote:

I really hope the shield block question prompts them to get together and sort out what it's actually supposed to do. It's clearly a source of major confusion even amongst the team and a clarification would be really helpful.

Was a good stream overall. I'm feeling pretty positive about where things are going.

I find this to be a little nuts. The design team is throwing all these brand new mechanics, rules, and concepts into PF2e, and they're not even sure how they work. This doesn't give me a warm feeling about the design and development process.

i mean, this IS a playtest, and these ARE changes prompted from feedback on their initial draft, so of course they're not going to be entirely sure how they work (in practice). that's kind of the entire the point of playtesting it.

while i still have several large complaints about the system, there's an entire year to bear down on feedback to try and get those fixed, so i am hopeful for the future.

[PossibleCabbage]

I like the idea of "Resonance is for powering up your magic stuff not for using it" since that more closely models "how the occultist works" (you still got a ton of bonuses from your implements even without spending mental focus.)

[Lightning Raven]

Data Lore wrote:

Quote:

Q: Any thoughts on Arcanist style casting over Vancian ?

A: There was a point in the early design where Jason wanted the Sorcerer to disappear and blend him with the Wizard to make all spellcasters work the same way, but it did not make it. So no.

They need to revisit this idea.

They need to revisit Vancian casting for sure, but they don't need to scrap Sorcerers. There's good ways of distinguishing the classes, specially if they make an effort to actually think of them in-setting first then coming up with balancing.

[Data Lore]

Cabbage:

Maybe. I guess it will just fall to DMs to limit any consumable magic item use they find excessive (through house rules, item costs, rarity or whatever).

I do hope they keep the current system for "investing" in permanent magic items though. I don't like slot based systems myself.

[Unicore]

Data Lore wrote:

Cabbage:

Maybe. I guess it will just fall to DMs to limit any consumable magic item use they find excessive (through house rules, item costs, rarity or whatever).

I do hope they keep the current system for "investing" in permanent magic items though. I don't like slot based systems myself.

If they do switch, it will probably be the case that things like consumables have abysmally low effects without resonance. They hypothetical that Jason tossed out (which he stressed was hypothetical) was that a potion that healed for 2d8 with resonance would heal for 1d4 without it. I think for that system to work, most magical items are going to be operating pretty anemically without resonance. If that is enough to get people to buy in to the idea, then I am fine with it, but it doesn't really feel that different to me.

[Data Lore]

Lightning Raven wrote:

They need to revisit Vancian casting for sure, but they don't need to scrap Sorcerers. There's good ways of distinguishing the classes, specially if they make an effort to actually think of them in-setting first then coming up with balancing.

Right now, the only casters I would play, would be a bard or a sorcerer because I hate Vancian magic. HATE IT.

I actually played a high level sorc in 3.5 and 5e in extended campaigns.

From my 3.5 experience, they were only worth it because they were an alternative to terribad Vancian casting (like PF2). In 5E, they were ok despite most casters being like arcanists since they were the only ones with metamagic (but they were still meh).

Sorcerers would just be pointless in this system should arcanist casting be common unless they were given something crazy good in exchange for having a limited spell list.

I say, screw it, just make all these sorc bloodlines into archetypes, scrap the sorcerer and make all casters arcanists. Let folks heighten their spells into higher slots without prep too. Those changes will also go a long way to quiet grumbling casters.

They arent going to do all that though, I dont think. My sense is that ship has sailed. Its a real shame too.

[Data Lore]

Unicore wrote:

If they do switch, it will probably be the case that things like consumables have abysmally low effects without resonance. They hypothetical that Jason tossed out (which he stressed was hypothetical) was that a potion that healed for 2d8 with resonance would heal for 1d4 without it. I think for that system to work, most magical items are going to be operating pretty anemically without resonance. If that is enough to get people to buy in to the idea, then I am fine with it, but it doesn't really feel that different to me.

That should be good though since consumables could still be used, even with lower effects, when you are in a tight situation but out of resonance. Such as when you want to pour a potion down a dying PCs gullet and so on.

[ikarinokami]

I think Jason should have pulled the trigger, and made all casters work like the arcanist.

[Unicore]

Data Lore wrote:

That should be good though since consumables could still be used, even with lower effects, when you are in a tight situation but out of resonance. Such as when you want to pour a potion down a dying PCs gullet and so on.

I think it might be a good idea for all variable effects of magical items to operate as if they rolled a 1 without resonance. A lot of the miscellaneous / wonderous items / skill bonus items are going to have to be reconsidered because static bonus stuff will have to be scaled back immensely as well, and that will probably be harder.

[Lightning Raven]

Data Lore wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

They need to revisit Vancian casting for sure, but they don't need to scrap Sorcerers. There's good ways of distinguishing the classes, specially if they make an effort to actually think of them in-setting first then coming up with balancing.

Right now, the only casters I would play, would be a bard or a sorcerer because I hate Vancian magic. HATE IT.

I actually played a high level sorc in 3.5 and 5e in extended campaigns.

From my 3.5 experience, they were only worth it because they were an alternative to terribad Vancian casting (like PF2). In 5E, they were ok despite most casters being like arcanists since they were the only ones with metamagic (but they were still meh).

Sorcerers would just be pointless in this system should arcanist casting be common unless they were given something crazy good in exchange for having a limited spell list.

I say, screw it, just make all these sorc bloodlines into archetypes, scrap the sorcerer and make all casters arcanists. Let folks heighten their spells into higher slots without prep too. Those changes will also go a long way to quiet grumbling casters.

They arent going to do all that though, I dont think. My sense is that ship has sailed. Its a real shame too.

Sorcerers could have the ability to heighten all their spells at well as well as some Sorcerer-Only metamagics, maybe even being able to cast them earlier than other classes, to show that they're limited in variety but when they know something they can shape it to their will.

[Elorebaen]

Thank you posting the summary!

[Dante Doom]

If it was me I would go:

1) Wizards cast as Arcanist, but needs to prepare heightened spells. This shows theirs study with arcane magics

2) Sorcerer can auto-heighten any spell they now. So we see how they can control their magics

So now a wizard can knows all arcane spell, but the sorcerer is the best with the spells they get

[Data Lore]

Raven:

Make that sort of thing a caster archetype any caster pick up and its even better. Sorcerer was originally made as a way to allow people who didnt like Vancian casting to make a caster. If they were to get rid of Vancian casting, the original point of the class would be gone.

Though, personally, I would just let all casters heighten their spells into higher slots without added prep.

[PossibleCabbage]

Almarane wrote:

A: Jason thinks so, but he does not seem sure. Need more digging. Those in-depth questions are better asked on the forum board.

Is there a good place on the forums to ask these sorts of in-depth questions in order to maximize the chance someone who knows the answer will contribute? If not, there probably should be.

[EberronHoward]

Looks like the devs are very open to altering what they've put into the Playtest.

[Chess Pwn]

Wow, so the devs don't even know how shields work? Like it's only been asked on here since the beginning and they are reading these forums to know what's going on. I feel that the devs, being aware of the confusion on shields, if they didn't know how it works would find out how it works. To say you don't know how shields work at this point you've either intentionally not brushed up on a pretty big new mechanic that you're wanting people to use that you know they want to know how it works, OR the devs don't know how it's supposed to work and they wrote words without knowing what they wanted.

Like none of that seems reasonable. I'm glad that we finally got the clear question about shields, but SUPER sad that the answer was, "lol, who knows"

[shroudb]

one thing of note is that they said that "signature skills need a bit of work to be reworked because there are stuff like the Alchemist feats that grant signature skills that would need to be reworked." And the "alchemist reworked feats" was plainly the removal of said feats for 2/3 of them.

so, seeing them talking about changes once more, I can only assume that this will mean simply the removal of stuff to accommodate the changes where they conflict.

And since the major point of contention is actual "content" (the mechanics themselves work good more or less). I find it pretty bad.

At this point, my group has suggested, and I followed, to simply stop playtesting until there are major overhaul changes, these minor 1 alterations in the bi-weekly errata mean very little to us.

[PossibleCabbage]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Like none of that seems reasonable. I'm glad that we finally got the clear question about shields, but SUPER sad that the answer was, "lol, who knows"

It feels within the realm of possibility that the devs could (in a group chat or something) say "okay so how exactly do shields work" and then tell us whatever they agree on.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Data Lore wrote:

Make that sort of thing a caster archetype any caster pick up and its even better. Sorcerer was originally made as a way to allow people who didnt like Vancian casting to make a caster. If they were to get rid of Vancian casting, the original point of the class would be gone.

This is true and, as someone who hates vancian casting, much appreciated. However....I think Sorcerer has gone beyond that original purpose to fill a fun role thanks in large part to Pathfinder First Edition's bloodlines and taken further by the Playtest giving them access to other spell lists. I'd be sad to see Sorcerer go at this point...much sadder than I'd be to see Wizard transform into Arcanist.

[Chess Pwn]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Like none of that seems reasonable. I'm glad that we finally got the clear question about shields, but SUPER sad that the answer was, "lol, who knows"

It feels within the realm of possibility that the devs could (in a group chat or something) say "okay so how exactly do shields work" and then tell us whatever they agree on.

Right, but that they haven't' when it's been one of the first and longest asked questions is very offsetting. We've had three errata documents, that is at least 3 times they've gotten together to talk about rules stuff that needs clarifications/fixing and decided to not address the shield rules which is either asking how it works or a minute long vote about which to use.

[shroudb]

Chess Pwn wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Like none of that seems reasonable. I'm glad that we finally got the clear question about shields, but SUPER sad that the answer was, "lol, who knows"

It feels within the realm of possibility that the devs could (in a group chat or something) say "okay so how exactly do shields work" and then tell us whatever they agree on.

Right, but that they haven't' when it's been one of the first and longest asked questions is very offsetting. We've had three errata documents, that is at least 3 times they've gotten together to talk about rules stuff that needs clarifications/fixing and decided to not address the shield rules which is either asking how it works or a minute long vote about which to use.

it's actually worse than that.

in one of said discussions, they even agreed, and changed the text, of how items get damaged and how durability works... and then simply ignored shields.

[Doktor Weasel]

Unicore wrote:

Data Lore wrote:

Cabbage:

Maybe. I guess it will just fall to DMs to limit any consumable magic item use they find excessive (through house rules, item costs, rarity or whatever).

I do hope they keep the current system for "investing" in permanent magic items though. I don't like slot based systems myself.

If they do switch, it will probably be the case that things like consumables have abysmally low effects without resonance. They hypothetical that Jason tossed out (which he stressed was hypothetical) was that a potion that healed for 2d8 with resonance would heal for 1d4 without it. I think for that system to work, most magical items are going to be operating pretty anemically without resonance. If that is enough to get people to buy in to the idea, then I am fine with it, but it doesn't really feel that different to me.

It'd be better than the current system (not a high bar to clear), but still feels absurdly artificial and needlessly complex. And making items garbage without resonance isn't much different than requiring it for everything. It'd be far better to tackle consumables and wands directly by simply making their prices better to reflect their utility. Using resonance is just a dirty hack that ignores the source of the issue.

[rknop]

Quote:

Q: Any thoughts on Arcanist style casting over Vancian ?
A: There was a point in the early design where Jason wanted the Sorcerer to disappear and blend him with the Wizard to make all spellcasters work the same way, but it did not make it. So no.

That makes me very sad.

I wish it had made it into PF2E.

[Lightning Raven]

Data Lore wrote:

Raven:

Make that sort of thing a caster archetype any caster pick up and its even better. Sorcerer was originally made as a way to allow people who didnt like Vancian casting to make a caster. If they were to get rid of Vancian casting, the original point of the class would be gone.

Though, personally, I would just let all casters heighten their spells into higher slots without added prep.

That's a good point. I thought Sorcerers exited to represent other approach to magic in the world.

[Moro]

Almarane wrote:

Q: Does it really take an hour to identify healing potions ?

A: Yes. When you are high level you are supposed to take Quick Identification.

If this is true then it is not a particularly good design. If it is assumed characters will have to take something at "high level" then why aren't those classes just given that as a class feature later on?

[thflame]

Definitely still want my Sorcerer as a class, but even DnD drug Vancian magic behind the barn and shot it.

Let Sorcerers cast spontaneously and spontaneously heighten any spell, at the cost of knowing fewer spells, and let wizards cast like Arcanists, who can theoretically learn every spell.

If you want a powerful specialist caster, play a Sorcerer. If you want a generalist caster with a lot of utility, play a Wizard.

[shroudb]

Moro wrote:

Almarane wrote:

Q: Does it really take an hour to identify healing potions ?

A: Yes. When you are high level you are supposed to take Quick Identification.

If this is true then it is not a particularly good design. If it is assumed characters will have to take something at "high level" then why aren't those classes just given that as a class feature later on?

only true for potions of heal mind you. Elixirs of life take 10minutes since alchemical items take 10mins to identify

[Siro]

For my two cents, I don't mind the current system of magic, its more how it was implemented for Sorcerer, and the Sorcerer class as a whole. Mainly, there are short falls for the class that as Raven at pointed out, were and still are, the alternative to prepared casting, which, as the go to example, makes it and how they decided to handle magic less appealing.

For example, I'm ok with how they are handling heigthen spells in general {alot of people I found have been pointing to 5e as an example of how to heighten spells, but you also have to remember you get a lot less higher level spell slots to heighten to in comparison to the slots you get in PF2.) But I do not like how Sorcerers only get two spells that they can heighten. Instead I would like it if they get the Two spells at level 4, an additonal one at Level 6, and another one at Level 8 {So they would automatically get 4 Heighten spells like the bards can have, but without having to spend a class feat to get it.)

On that note, another change I would welcome to see for the Sorcerers is in there bloodline. I love the idea that there bloodline decides there magic. What I find constricting is your locked into that choice form level 1 (For example, 25% of your spell repitore is locked in, and 2-3 class feats are already prespent on set Bloodline powers, which themselves may need other class feats to work.)

What I would like to see is {keeping how they set up the class} is a choice in said set options. For example lets take the Fey Bloodline and the cantrip. Instead of having to be forced to take 'Ghost Sounds', you could instead be given the option to take 'Dancing Lights', and the same either or options for the other spell levels. I would also exstend this either or option to the Bloodline abilites, something thematic for the bloodline, but you have a say in what one you want to pick.

[Shaheer-El-Khatib]

A lot of month ago I spammed the resonance thread with "If you want charisma appealing make it so it boost items, not limiting them".

So I am now waiting for my official notification of Paizo hiring me.

*sit in corner and wait*

Note : they also should look at Intel. It is the new dump stat right now.

[Shaheer-El-Khatib]

shroudb wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Like none of that seems reasonable. I'm glad that we finally got the clear question about shields, but SUPER sad that the answer was, "lol, who knows"

It feels within the realm of possibility that the devs could (in a group chat or something) say "okay so how exactly do shields work" and then tell us whatever they agree on.

Right, but that they haven't' when it's been one of the first and longest asked questions is very offsetting. We've had three errata documents, that is at least 3 times they've gotten together to talk about rules stuff that needs clarifications/fixing and decided to not address the shield rules which is either asking how it works or a minute long vote about which to use.

it's actually worse than that.

in one of said discussions, they even agreed, and changed the text, of how items get damaged and how durability works... and then simply ignored shields.

Maybe they just realised even in the dev team someone understood the rules one way and another one another way and now they didn't found a solution that satisfy both party.

[Ronnam]

Almarane wrote:

Here are my notes for the latest Twitch Stream

Thank you for posting!

[shroudb]

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Like none of that seems reasonable. I'm glad that we finally got the clear question about shields, but SUPER sad that the answer was, "lol, who knows"

It feels within the realm of possibility that the devs could (in a group chat or something) say "okay so how exactly do shields work" and then tell us whatever they agree on.

Right, but that they haven't' when it's been one of the first and longest asked questions is very offsetting. We've had three errata documents, that is at least 3 times they've gotten together to talk about rules stuff that needs clarifications/fixing and decided to not address the shield rules which is either asking how it works or a minute long vote about which to use.

it's actually worse than that.

in one of said discussions, they even agreed, and changed the text, of how items get damaged and how durability works... and then simply ignored shields.

Maybe they just realised even in the dev team someone understood the rules one way and another one another way and now they didn't found a solution that satisfy both party.

that's a problem, considering this forum alone has dozens of threads arguing back and forth what's the correct interpetation.

"not knowing it's a problem" can only occur if they didn't read at all, and we know they do read.

[Mistwalker]

If resonance stayed the same for permanent magic items (investing to activate), but consumables only worked partially unless investing in, would that work for most folks?

That is, a potion of healing, when invested, does 2d8 healing. Not invested, does half that - so what the dice roll, divided by half, round down.

If the consumable doesn't heal damage, or such effect, its duration is halved.

[OmniMage]

Almarane wrote:

Here are my notes for the latest Twitch Stream (15/09/2018) :

Thanks for posting. Not everyone has the time to follow all this stuff. Some people prefer text.

Quote:

Q: Should people that don't feel fully profficient on the playtest fill up the surveys ?

A: Yes.

I guess I'll go fill some out then. Not having opportunities to do much playtesting made me feel unqualified.

[ENHenry]

Tridus wrote:

I really hope the shield block question prompts them to get together and sort out what it's actually supposed to do. It's clearly a source of major confusion even amongst the team and a clarification would be really helpful.

Was a good stream overall. I'm feeling pretty positive about where things are going.

No wonder there’s so much confusion about shields and dents - not even the devs agree with what it should do! :-/

[Joe M.]

Re: shields, the summary here isn't quite accurate. Primary sources, people! Let's not play telephone more than we have to. I posted about it here.

Joe M. wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Well according to the post about the twitch stream "Jason is not sure whether the shield takes one dent and then all other damages are transferred to the user, or if it takes multiple dents."

So with the lead designer not understanding how it works I think it's fair that most players aren't sure how it works.

That's not exactly right. That poster was posting from notes/memories, so lost some details. Here's the timestamped link and a quick transcript:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So there has been a question and to be honest I think we’ve been a little unclear about it ourselves about how shields take dents. Basically the gist of it is that the shield takes damage up to its hardness and it takes a dent then the rest of the damage transfers over to you.

There is some language in there that can be interpreted as the shield takes multiple dents. To be honest, I’d need to dig through the rules to confirm it. I don’t believe it is our intent but I’d have to double check. I think there might have been a portion of the rules that said, “yeah, your shield can get destroyed in one hit”—but I’m not sure that’s something we actually want. I’d need to double-check.

[EberronHoward]

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

Maybe they just realised even in the dev team someone understood the rules one way and another one another way and now they didn't found a solution that satisfy both party.

I wonder if there's office politics going on here. One designer wants it one way, and another wants it another way, and the group is more or less letting playtest and feedback determine which one of them is "right".

FWIW, my GM has interpreted it in the most favourable manner (more damage to dent it, only one dent a hit).

[Almarane]

You're welcome folks ^^

Unicore wrote:

If they do switch, it will probably be the case that things like consumables have abysmally low effects without resonance. They hypothetical that Jason tossed out (which he stressed was hypothetical) was that a potion that healed for 2d8 with resonance would heal for 1d4 without it.

He then said he said those numbers from the top of his head and don't remember how many hit points a healing potion heals.

shroudb wrote:

Moro wrote:

Almarane wrote:

Q: Does it really take an hour to identify healing potions ?

A: Yes. When you are high level you are supposed to take Quick Identification.

If this is true then it is not a particularly good design. If it is assumed characters will have to take something at "high level" then why aren't those classes just given that as a class feature later on?

only true for potions of heal mind you. Elixirs of life take 10minutes since alchemical items take 10mins to identify

No, true for every magic item, not just potions. But yes, the Elixirs only take 10 minutes.

OmniMage wrote:

Almarane wrote:

Here are my notes for the latest Twitch Stream (15/09/2018) :

Thanks for posting. Not everyone has the time to follow all this stuff. Some people prefer text.

Quote:

Q: Should people that don't feel fully profficient on the playtest fill up the surveys ?

A: Yes.

I guess I'll go fill some out then. Not having opportunities to do much playtesting made me feel unqualified.

You should only fill the DD surveys about parts you actually played.

Joe M. wrote:

Re: shields, the summary here isn't quite accurate. Primary sources, people! Let's not play telephone more than we have to. I posted about it here. [...]

This is exactly what I said. Still, Jason was not sure (probably since another dev said that if you take massive damages, the shield should take multiple dents), and concluded that he would have to re-read this rule because he was not sure :

Jason wrote:

To be honest, I’d need to dig through the rules to confirm it. I don’t believe it is our intent but I’d have to double check.

[Joe M.]

Almarane wrote:

This is exactly what I said.

I think we must have different understandings of what Jason meant. Regardless, at least everyone now has the link so they can listen for themselves.