Twitch 9-21: Preview of Rules Update 1.3


General Discussion

151 to 200 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I've seen nothing in the communication from Paizo or the changes in the Updates that indicates there is any reasonable chance of the game matching something my group will enjoy.

THAT is a perfectly reasonable position to take. You're assuming that, in broad strokes, we now know enough of what PF2 is likely to be to conclude that it isn't likely to match your tastes.

I concur that at this point we do, in broad strokes, have a reasonable idea of what PF2 is likely to be.

Nothing like a certainty, mind. I'd urge you to check the final product (or even the playtest a month or two from now) to see if it unexpectedly changed in ways that you DO like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:

Seem like all good changes and address many concerns we had, looking forward to it.

I'd be even happier if they changed Administer First Aid back to DC 15, so it's not so deadly and I don't have to houserule it in my healer-less game.

I forgot that changed. Yeah.. that really needs to get back

AND not require a healing kit


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Makeitstop wrote:
Quandary wrote:
I don't think they want to return to negative HPs which equate 1:1 with damage...

It seems pretty apparent that they don't, but I'm going to keep arguing that they should. The dying rules are needlessly complicated and completely rob the game of any sense of reality. They aren't more fun, they aren't easier to run and understand, they are just more random and convoluted.

Is counting below zero really that hard? Was the possibility of being killed instantly upon being hit for ridiculous amounts of damage so bad that it was worth the chance of dying from a tiny flesh wound because "lol, rolled a 1" and eliminating the possibility of predictably leaving downed characters alive?

OK, just to clarify this (feel free to have different preference), the REASON I see for not tying CON score or modifier to damage/HPs directly (ala negative HPs) is the numeric relationship doesn't stand. Damage expectation and CON score or modifier don't scale identically from 1st level to 20th level, so even if apply perfect ratio at 1st it won't track damage expectations. It's fine to want some relationship or involvement of CON, but that's why a DIRECT relationship like negative HPs is problematic.

I fully recognize that negative Constitution being the point at which you die leads to a scaling issue. There are multiple possible solutions to that issue however, which do not require getting rid of negative HP altogether.

The most basic solution would be to make the death point scale, as Fuzzypaws suggested. It's the simplest and most direct approach.

Or, you could rebalance damage to not scale, though I imagine that would not be very popular.

Alternatively, you could keep the concept of saves against death, and initiate them either while in negative hp or while at or past your negative constitution. This can be done with an automatic point of death if you like, or with no hard limit on how far down you can go, as I tried to suggest earlier. This way you still get the save, but it isn't as easy to pop back to 1 hp, and you have an actual number to represent how hurt you are which can be used to determine a DC. A hybrid of the two systems which mitigates some of the issues of both.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Main rule-change I want is not needing magic armour and weapons to keep up on Saving Throws, To Hit, and Damage (the weapon damage dice one really sticks in my craw).
I feel like we could pretty easily reimplement Automatic Bonus Progression by just having "potency" being an inherent property of characters which increments at appropriate levels.

Yeah, I am currently going with:

Trained Proficiency Bonus (Armour Class, Weapon Attacks, Saving Throws, Skills, and Spell Rolls)/Extra Weapon Damage Dice, by Level:

Level
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Main rule-change I want is not needing magic armour and weapons to keep up on Saving Throws, To Hit, and Damage (the weapon damage dice one really sticks in my craw).
I feel like we could pretty easily reimplement Automatic Bonus Progression by just having "potency" being an inherent property of characters which increments at appropriate levels. Now there's only two things to worry about, so it's simpler than ABP was.

Agreed. It's simple enough to implement on the player end of thing, but it seems pointless not to make it automatic in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Do you REALLY think Paizo has the time and inclination to come up with several versions of the rules so that they can back off to a known position? And have the desire to actively fool their customers?
I do not think they are trying to deceive their customers, but I am sure they have several versions/iterations of some rules (certainly floating around in some of the designer's heads), and are ready to dial back some stuff.

No deception needed. They told us that is exactly what they were doing.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
I was concerned about not giving themselves enough time, but apparently even the release date is not fixed, which is great news. After all these years, I can wait a bit longer for another d20 game (hopefully one I enjoy).

Bet you a $1 that it gets released at GenCon 2019.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I was concerned about not giving themselves enough time, but apparently even the release date is not fixed, which is great news. After all these years, I can wait a bit longer for another d20 game (hopefully one I enjoy).
Bet you a $1 that it gets released at GenCon 2019.

"...one dollar..." *said like Louis Winthorpe III*


Vic Ferrari wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Main rule-change I want is not needing magic armour and weapons to keep up on Saving Throws, To Hit, and Damage (the weapon damage dice one really sticks in my craw).
I feel like we could pretty easily reimplement Automatic Bonus Progression by just having "potency" being an inherent property of characters which increments at appropriate levels.

Yeah, I am currently going with:

Trained Proficiency Bonus (Armour Class, Weapon Attacks, Saving Throws, Skills, and Spell Rolls)/Extra Weapon Damage Dice, by Level:

Level
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice

I'd love inset "character specific" potency..

So you could make weapon throwers. or Casey Jones with many weapons for specific purposes.

..hell it would have a side benefit of increasing Alch Bombs, as Empower bombs doesn't feel like it does enough damage yet for the cost/amount.

Mostly for shuriken/dart/future prooffing cool weird weapons.
(random sidenote.. would do nothing for Blowguns. It is weird. I wish that did 1d2 or something)


Zwordsman wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Main rule-change I want is not needing magic armour and weapons to keep up on Saving Throws, To Hit, and Damage (the weapon damage dice one really sticks in my craw).
I feel like we could pretty easily reimplement Automatic Bonus Progression by just having "potency" being an inherent property of characters which increments at appropriate levels.

Yeah, I am currently going with:

Trained Proficiency Bonus (Armour Class, Weapon Attacks, Saving Throws, Skills, and Spell Rolls)/Extra Weapon Damage Dice, by Level:

Level
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice

I'd love inset "character specific" potency..

That's where E, M, and L proficiency could really open things up.


21 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Um, Paizo planned a whole year ahead to have the time to make changes....

And they specifically told us that they went with the most drastic changes for the first draft meaning they did have plans to tweak things....

Some people have been taking this statement and making the assumption that they added terrible changes with the intent to change them for the sake of just showing changes, which would make no sense; it’s far more reasonable to assume that they introduced changes that they felt would work and be better for the game, but had more conservative “plan B”s in place should they not work as intended.

But this “they introduced it knowing it wouldn’t survive” suggestion? It would be a colossal waste of money and time that would make no sense.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Um, Paizo planned a whole year ahead to have the time to make changes....

And they specifically told us that they went with the most drastic changes for the first draft meaning they did have plans to tweak things....

Some people have been taking this statement and making the assumption that they added terrible changes with the intent to change them for the sake of just showing changes, which would make no sense; it’s far more reasonable to assume that they introduced changes that they felt would work and be better for the game, but had more conservative “plan B”s in place should they not work as intended.

But this “they introduced it knowing it wouldn’t survive” suggestion? It would be a colossal waste of money and time that would make no sense.

Exactly. Whether or not various things survived contact with us, they at least clearly hoped everything would work out okay. I don't see any "bad faith" here.

The closest to that would be the unreasonable cherry picking of questions / data to hold onto some belief that resonance was good. But I don't see that as actual bad faith, just someone really really wedded to the idea of resonance. And on even that, it looks like someone - maybe the publisher / owner? - has finally stepped in and put their foot down, so they're finally working on an alternative. So I'm actually pretty optimistic atm.

Now if we can fix magic, especially the quality of life utility stuff... 0:3


7 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
it’s far more reasonable to assume that they introduced changes that they felt would work and be better for the game, but had more conservative “plan B”s in place should they not work as intended.

There is also the very realistic option that they introduced some flawed systems to see where and how they'd break, in order to tweak those systems that they knew would be better but would not show their flaws as quickly / effectively.

If it's gonna break, make it break quickly and then make sure you patch those stress points in the next one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Like the changes in a vacuum, but.

Lowering the floor of untrained instead of increasing the bonus for higher specialization while lowering skills CD shows that they are tring to increase the 50/50 chance homogeneously instead of rewarding specialization, keeping the adherence to the 4e philosophy of "everyone is decent, no one really shine". As is also shown by the ranger rework, there still is lack of willingness of tacking on a more serious rework to the current system of tying general stylistic choice (i'm talking about combat styles, armor specializations ecc.) to specific class feats instead of generally available feats.
Resonance, everyone knew it had to go. But they are still refusing to lay it to rest. Let's see what they come up with.

All in all, the changes are nice, but the general trend they show to me is the lack of willingness to make big changes to the "4th ed" style of "Compartmented class roles. High floor but chockingly low ceiling. 0 narrative power on feats and spells, everything is there only for combat"

At least they put their s~~& together for that damn question about shield dents.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Dekalinder wrote:

Like the changes in a vacuum, but.

Lowering the floor of untrained instead of increasing the bonus for higher specialization while lowering skills CD shows that they are tring to increase the 50/50 chance homogeneously instead of rewarding specialization, keeping the adherence to the 4e philosophy of "everyone is decent, no one really shine". As is also shown by the ranger rework, there still is lack of willingness of tacking on a more serious rework to the current system of tying general stylistic choice (i'm talking about combat styles, armor specializations ecc.) to specific class feats instead of generally available feats.
Resonance, everyone knew it had to go. But they are still refusing to lay it to rest. Let's see what they come up with.

All in all, the changes are nice, but the general trend they show to me is the lack of willingness to make big changes to the "4th ed" style of "Compartmented class roles. High floor but chockingly low ceiling. 0 narrative power on feats and spells, everything is there only for combat"

At least they put their s*## together for that damn question about shield dents.

In the stream Jason specifically said that they dont want the 50/50 dice power and want to make people that specilise have a higher success rate than not. So I don't see how you got that from these changes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
it’s far more reasonable to assume that they introduced changes that they felt would work and be better for the game, but had more conservative “plan B”s in place should they not work as intended.

There is also the very realistic option that they introduced some flawed systems to see where and how they'd break, in order to tweak those systems that they knew would be better but would not show their flaws as quickly / effectively.

If it's gonna break, make it break quickly and then make sure you patch those stress points in the next one.

It's almost always wiser to assume a mistake than clever plotting. That said, if the next update fixes resonance I'm good with the fix, whichever is the reason behind it being broken in the first place.


The next update wont fix resonance.

Resonamce fix wont likely be done as part of the main playtest.

In a month, they will give us a taste of the resonance fix by modifying a PFS adventure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LiquidLeoc wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:

Like the changes in a vacuum, but.

Lowering the floor of untrained instead of increasing the bonus for higher specialization while lowering skills CD shows that they are tring to increase the 50/50 chance homogeneously instead of rewarding specialization, keeping the adherence to the 4e philosophy of "everyone is decent, no one really shine". As is also shown by the ranger rework, there still is lack of willingness of tacking on a more serious rework to the current system of tying general stylistic choice (i'm talking about combat styles, armor specializations ecc.) to specific class feats instead of generally available feats.
Resonance, everyone knew it had to go. But they are still refusing to lay it to rest. Let's see what they come up with.

All in all, the changes are nice, but the general trend they show to me is the lack of willingness to make big changes to the "4th ed" style of "Compartmented class roles. High floor but chockingly low ceiling. 0 narrative power on feats and spells, everything is there only for combat"

At least they put their s*## together for that damn question about shield dents.

In the stream Jason specifically said that they dont want the 50/50 dice power and want to make people that specilise have a higher success rate than not. So I don't see how you got that from these changes.

Because the DC changes affect everyone.

If a person with legendary had a 60% chance to make it. Now they will have 75% chance to make it.

If a different person in the party is only trained he would have a 45% chance to make it before and a 60% now.

(75/60-1)*100=25% increase in the chance to make the check.
(60/45-1)*100=33% increase in the chance to make the check.

So the improvement for the player that's not focused on the skill is larger. So the difference in skill between a person that is legendary and trained smaller than before the change.

They say that they want to do the opposite and increase the difference. So specialization feels more rewarding.

what they say and what they do are not the same thing all the time. Do the math to see what the rules changes do.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Zwordsman wrote:

I personally like the wounds/dying levels idea. Sure there is the danger of nat 1=dying faster than you thought. But. I always kind of hated how you could literally calculate the damage output of what is on the field and know exactly if you could die or not. I rather like that death is kind of unpredictable. Baring magic, I don't think many people, even medical professionals could glance at someone and "Fine slice" how close to death they truly are. Just a guestimate.

All of that said.
I do think it needs to be altered a bit.
The modular DC? I hate it. book keeping is a bit annoying-more so because as a player I have no clue what DC i'm rolling against unless I sorta guestimate or know the monster situation.

I guess I'd be fine with something like a Flat check that increases via wound amount. Though that could get messy so damn quick that it'd be hard to scale. starting at 10 would be terrible. Starting at DC 5 might make it too easy to get up.. as it would scale to DC8/9. though that woudl be close to 50% failure to die die.. which i guess might be fine. You'd have to ask someone more knowledgable.

Well said.

I likewise am generally a fan of these changes to the dying rules. But I share the concern that the variable DC requires too much complicated bookkeeping.

1. This is a rule that won’t come up all the time, so it’s not something we need complicated rules for to differentiate between characters. (Unlike, say, attack bonuses, or AC, or saves.)

2. Going down in a high powered fight is going to be stressful/high stakes no matter what — we don’t need complicated opponent-relative DCs to make things tense.

3. Having to stop the game to figure out complicated DCs isn’t fun. Having to spend a bunch of time figuring this out, and make everyone wait around for a while, robs the moment of its drama and tension.

Pairing the current rules with a flat DC, or flat con adjusted DC — DC = 15-con bonus, or something — would avoid these worries.

It’d be easy to calculate, wouldn’t slow things down, and would still make things tense — if someone goes down, they have a good chance of dying without assistance. Bam! Tension and drama!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

People need to play the game and realise the only ones with a 50% success chance are the people playing Bounded...

*headshake*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

People need to play the game and realise the only ones with a 50% success chance are the people playing Bounded...

*headshake*

I do not know the "Bounded" reference.

In my playtesting so far, I honestly crit failed more times than I've succeed (in general, skill checks, attacks, dying) with my Alchemist (dex secondary to int. Although after level stat boosts that difference is negligible).
I've had a ton of bad luck though. More than a few 1s. although 2 20s so far. Most rolls between 5-11. I've never managed to hit with a damage bomb.
So I rather expect my results to be skewed. and why I wish Assist was on a lower DC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

People need to play the game and realise the only ones with a 50% success chance are the people playing Bounded...

*headshake*

That is not accurate at all. It shows a pretty large and fundamental misunderstanding about both the structure of the game and what playing Bound does to it.

Hell, the 50% reference everyone is making shows a large misunderstanding as well. Sure, certain things are calculated off the 50% benchmark, but many things shift one way or the other. This was done for a very specific reasons, usage of the critical success and critical failure rules. For instance, Trivial DCs are a 50% success rate for someone with a 10 Ability an is untrained. Now, any character that increases the related ability, or proficiency, or gets an item bonus greatly increases that 50% towards 75-100%. Both Low and High DCs can be out paced. Severe is set at the 50% benchmark opposite of trivial, scaling with an optimized character.

Many things like monster ACs are set a couple of points around that moving 50% for a trained martial with effectively optimized item and ability. And of courses, as you look at relative level you really push those up or down. Bound stil has movement of ~.5/level, and stock has ~1.5/level. Don’t knock Bounded players, they’re “50% experience” isn’t much different than normal players and against equal level, it’s identical.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zman0 wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

People need to play the game and realise the only ones with a 50% success chance are the people playing Bounded...

*headshake*

That is not accurate at all. It shows a pretty large and fundamental misunderstanding about both the structure of the game and what playing Bound does to it.

What does "playing Bound[ed]" even mean? As far as I know, its not a game term.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread should really stop being about "forum posters I dislike" especially in regards to sniping at Collette, who has gathered a lot of relevant, RAW feedback. Yes rules are easier when you handwave them, so what? Modules are easier when you Rule 0 things you don't like, so what? The TPKs based in RAW play are relevant information made in good-faith testing.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Simon Dragonar wrote:
This thread should really stop being about "forum posters I dislike" especially in regards to sniping at Collette, who has gathered a lot of relevant, RAW feedback. Yes rules are easier when you handwave them, so what? Modules are easier when you Rule 0 things you don't like, so what? The TPKs based in RAW play are relevant information made in good-faith testing.

Statistical outliers are not relevant. There's no indication whatsoever that 11/11 TPK is anywhere remotely close to results others are getting, so there's either something very wrong with how rules are being interpreted or applied with that group OR/AND that's the 0.0000001% percentile. In any case, that's an anomaly, and if your data goes into five or six digit samples and you've already stated that the result indicate that the ruleset isn't deadly enough, well, go figure.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


Statistical outliers are not relevant. There's no indication whatsoever that 11/11 TPK is anywhere remotely close to results others are getting, so there's either something very wrong with how rules are being interpreted or applied with that group OR/AND that's the 0.0000001% percentile. In any case, that's an anomaly, and if your data goes into five or six digit samples and you've already stated that the result indicate that the ruleset isn't deadly enough, well, go figure.

Collette's reports are detailed and transparent. The events in those sessions are still valid. There's a difference between considering collected data as an outlier and advocating for completely ignoring someone's feedback while personally calling them out.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Dragonar wrote:
This thread should really stop being about "forum posters I dislike" especially in regards to sniping at Collette, who has gathered a lot of relevant, RAW feedback. Yes rules are easier when you handwave them, so what? Modules are easier when you Rule 0 things you don't like, so what? The TPKs based in RAW play are relevant information made in good-faith testing.

I think at some point you have to wonder, though, given the average number of deaths is 5%. 11/11 TPKs is a bit of a significant outlier, and arguing it's because everyone else is handwaving or Rule 0 seems questionable.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Simon Dragonar wrote:
This thread should really stop being about "forum posters I dislike" especially in regards to sniping at Collette, who has gathered a lot of relevant, RAW feedback. Yes rules are easier when you handwave them, so what? Modules are easier when you Rule 0 things you don't like, so what? The TPKs based in RAW play are relevant information made in good-faith testing.
I think at some point you have to wonder, though, given the average number of deaths is 5%. 11/11 TPKs is a bit of a significant outlier, and arguing it's because everyone else is handwaving or Rule 0 seems questionable.

Pretty much.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:


I think at some point you have to wonder, though, given the average number of deaths is 5%. 11/11 TPKs is a bit of a significant outlier, and arguing it's because everyone else is handwaving or Rule 0 seems questionable.

The majority of responses to awkward RAW wording are "just RAI" or "just use common sense." It's how I would personally rule them as well, but still irrelevant to ensuring RAW is written clearly and specifically. That too is important feedback. Being overly literal and acting as something of a lawyer is not necessarily ideal in play, but IS invaluable to work out problems in a playtest.

I find the responses to it are unfair, same with the personal attacks which are apparent as soon as the second page of this thread. Same with personal attacks towards John Lynch 106. I do not think "stop attacking other posters" should be a controversial comment.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Simon Dragonar wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


I think at some point you have to wonder, though, given the average number of deaths is 5%. 11/11 TPKs is a bit of a significant outlier, and arguing it's because everyone else is handwaving or Rule 0 seems questionable.

The majority of responses to awkward RAW wording are "just RAI" or "just use common sense." It's how I would personally rule them as well, but still irrelevant to ensuring RAW is written clearly and specifically. That too is important feedback. Being overly literal and acting as something of a lawyer is not necessarily ideal in play, but IS invaluable to work out problems in a playtest.

So, you're saying that the game is deadlier if you follow RAW? If yes, how so? Are you saying "well if everybody was playing like Colette you'd have the same results as s_he, and if you don't, it means you're handwaving things and ignoring rules"?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


So, you're saying that the game is deadlier if you follow RAW? If yes, how so? Are you saying "well if everybody was playing like Colette you'd have the same results as s_he, and if you don't, it means you're handwaving things and ignoring rules"?

I'm saying it can be, particularly with the common aversion to closely examining and dissecting RAW here. You wouldn't have the exact same results, as there are other factors present. Luck of the dice. Player actions. More people than Collette run strict RAW, but I've noticed Collette is usually the one treated with the most hostility for it.

Gorbacz wrote:
In 13 playtest games I ran/played in while ya'll been busy arguing about treadmills, camel speeds and wrought of drought, I've seen 3 PC deaths (two of which were *cough* a result of everybody at the table forgetting about Hero Points) and 1 near wipe. So I'm kind of going to say that 11 TPKs out of 11 games is a statistical outlier.

Have you written play reports of your own? How did you resolve factors such as exploration, or combat, or camel speeds? I'd like to know.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

30 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there folks,

I just cleaned up a few posts sniping back and forth over the concept that there is some sort of conspiracy going on. This thread is no place for that sort of nonsense. Every change we did, we did out because we hoped it would be an improvement to the game. If you honestly believe that we are acting in bad faith, I am not sure what I can do to convince you otherwise.

As for those discussing TPKs, we have seen a very low reporting of those occurring. I am not going to debate the methodology or testing acumen of any playtester. Their data goes into the mix along with everyone else. We have removed a number of bad faith reports, but a TPK does not fall into that group. That topic is also not germane to this thread and should be dropped.

conspiracy:
Of course, if there was a conspiracy, I would naturally delete any mention of it... dun dun duuunnnnn! :)

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

25 people marked this as a favorite.

I also want to say that it is heartening to see a lot of folks excited for this next round of changes. We know that we can't please everyone, but we are working hard to make this game better every day, and all of your feedback is helping us make that happen.

151 to 200 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Twitch 9-21: Preview of Rules Update 1.3 All Messageboards