Garycon Pathfinder 2E Seminar: Did anyone attend and was anything cool revealed?


Second Edition

51 to 100 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Isn't that much weaker than in the playtest ?

Not per check, or not necessarily anyway. 2d8 at 1st level is significantly better than the baseline level there was in the playtest.

Per hour, it's probably weaker (we can't know for sure until we know amounts healed) given it's once an hour instead of six times, but that only matters

The Raven Black wrote:
Mundane healing being on par with magical healing for out-of-combat was a great thing. Have we lost that ?

Depends on time scale. If you have hours or days it's still as good as it ever was. If you're not doing it more than once an hour, it's as good as ever, probably better. If you were taking half an hour between every fight to heal completely, it's probably worse.

I think that's probably better for the game all things considered. It means you can rely exclusively on mundane healing, but it's a lot more time intensive than it was in the playtest, and there's much more real incentive to supplement it with magic even outside combat.

So, no healing magic means that all racing the clock stories are out ?

Won't that end up with the same problem of required magical healbot in the party that we had before ?

Only in "race the clock" style stories. There's more stories than that.

But then of course there's magical healing items.

I have painful memories of low-level PF1 games without a positive energy healer and admittedly no CLW wands per GM fiat.

It is not something I am looking forward to in PF2, and I was happy we got rid of it by the end of the playtest.

And, really, so many adventures rely on racing the clock to avoid the 15-minutes day syndrome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread became about the Twitch which is fine, but there was a ttrpg podcaster that was at GaryCon and recorded Jason's event -- Plot Points Podcast. On Facebook he said he'll have it within the month. His podcast can be found here:

Plot Points


I mean I am running an against-the-clock lv2 adventure using playtest rules and most players heal 2 or 4 HP per Treat Wounds.
I’d say 2d8 would be well received.


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

Yeah and isn't the point of race against the clock style stories that your resources are being drained and you don't have much time? Isn't this version better for that since you can get one big heal fast rather than having to spend an hour just to fully heal yourselves.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Folks are talking about once per hour, but that’s per person. So you can rotate through the party, taking ten minutes per person. If you want to make a point of avoiding magical healing, you can have multiple people healing at once.


QuidEst wrote:
Folks are talking about once per hour, but that’s per person. So you can rotate through the party, taking ten minutes per person. If you want to make a point of avoiding magical healing, you can have multiple people healing at once.

Unconfirmed.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ediwir wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Folks are talking about once per hour, but that’s per person. So you can rotate through the party, taking ten minutes per person. If you want to make a point of avoiding magical healing, you can have multiple people healing at once.
Unconfirmed.
Quote:
(…) they are immune to that treat wounds effect for one hour.

So person A treats person B for ten minutes, then moves to to person C for ten minutes.

While person A is treating person B, you could have person C treating person D.

(I didn't mean to say that person A could treat multiple people at once.)

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

QuidEst wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Folks are talking about once per hour, but that’s per person. So you can rotate through the party, taking ten minutes per person. If you want to make a point of avoiding magical healing, you can have multiple people healing at once.
Unconfirmed.
Quote:
(…) they are immune to that treat wounds effect for one hour.

So person A treats person B for ten minutes, then moves to to person C for ten minutes.

While person A is treating person B, you could have person C treating person D.

(I didn't mean to say that person A could treat multiple people at once.)

If it's similar to Treat Wounds from the playtest, a person with Medicine could treat a whole party at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, Quid, I meant that it’s unconfirmed that it bolsters only toeards that specific character’s Treat Wounds. For all we know, that part is gone and you’re immune to ANY treat wounds.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ediwir wrote:
No, Quid, I meant that it’s unconfirmed that it bolsters only toeards that specific character’s Treat Wounds. For all we know, that part is gone and you’re immune to ANY treat wounds.

I agree. That’s what I think as well. You can still have multiple people healing at once to get everyone healed/immune to treatment faster. You can still rotate a healer through the party, healing everyone by taking more time.


Bolstered should mean that you're "immune" to that effect, no matter the source. And Treat Wounds makes you Bolstered towards Treat Wounds for 1 hour.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It varies, though. Some monsters, for example, have abilities that bolster you against that monster's use of the ability, but not others of the same kind.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
GentleGiant wrote:
Bolstered should mean that you're "immune" to that effect, no matter the source. And Treat Wounds makes you Bolstered towards Treat Wounds for 1 hour.

Strongly disagree.

In general I don't think it's good game design to have a party with multiple members able to inflict a condition but a given PC prevented from using their abilities because another party member has already done so. In fact, I can think of exploits behind condition-immunity, such as (and this is a generalization, not based on specific rules since we don't have them) a party deliberately blinding themselves and removing it right before facing a monster whose greatest weapon is the ability to inflict blindness. "Nope, sorry, we're bolstered against that because our cleric already made us blind within the last 10 minutes. Doesn't matter how bright a light you shine in our faces... we're bolstered."

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
ASSURANCE: TREAT DIE ROLL AS 10, GET BONUS. TAKE 10!

If just hope it's better defined than take 10 was, so many people ran it so different I just stopped using it in my games.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Angel Hunter D wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
ASSURANCE: TREAT DIE ROLL AS 10, GET BONUS. TAKE 10!
If just hope it's better defined than take 10 was, so many people ran it so different I just stopped using it in my games.

I always understood it as, rather than actually roll your d20, just pretend you got a 10.

I must admit I have trouble imagining any other interpretation.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It sounds like it doesn't fully work as take 10; from the comments above it looks like it gives you 10 + proficiency, with no other bonuses.

So if you are level 5 and Expert, Assurance gives you a result of 10 + 5 + 4 = 19. If you are level 20 and Legendary, it gives you 10 + 20 + 8 = 38.

MUCH better than it was in the Playtest, and still avoids the "binary pass/fail" problem of old Take 10. I like it.

Although it does become less useful if you optimize - if you have an associated stat of +6 and an item bonus of +3, then it's always better to roll unless you are scared of natural 1s. Seems like it's mostly awesome for people who want to be reliable with skills that don't align with their main stat.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

...

Although it does become less useful if you optimize - if you have an associated stat of +6 and an item bonus of +3, then it's always better to roll unless you are scared of natural 1s. Seems like it's mostly awesome for people who want to be reliable with skills that don't align with their main stat.

That's exactly what I thought they wanted it to be used for, so this seems like a solid success.


MaxAstro wrote:

It sounds like it doesn't fully work as take 10; from the comments above it looks like it gives you 10 + proficiency, with no other bonuses.

So if you are level 5 and Expert, Assurance gives you a result of 10 + 5 + 4 = 19. If you are level 20 and Legendary, it gives you 10 + 20 + 8 = 38.

MUCH better than it was in the Playtest, and still avoids the "binary pass/fail" problem of old Take 10. I like it.

Although it does become less useful if you optimize - if you have an associated stat of +6 and an item bonus of +3, then it's always better to roll unless you are scared of natural 1s. Seems like it's mostly awesome for people who want to be reliable with skills that don't align with their main stat.

It's just "instead of rolling, you treat your die roll as a 10" but you still get your bonuses.

Liberty's Edge

Cyouni wrote:
It's just "instead of rolling, you treat your die roll as a 10" but you still get your bonuses.

This is slightly unclear. Mr. Bulmahn says this version at first but then makes reference to it adding Proficiency only later. I suspect the version you cite is true, but the evidence is not definitive.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

From the other thread:

Mark Seifter wrote:
Elfteiroh wrote:
-The feat Assurance lets people take 10 (plus bonus). Can be done in any situation but is limited to one skill. Scaling unspecified and unconfirmed, feel free to speculate.
It's rather important which bonus, (it's proficiency bonus). This is a really swift scaling, especially compared to before, that plays very well with the game's DCs (Assurance takes care of most DCs, but the big hard thing is still a roll).

Emphasis mine. This makes it sound very strongly like you only add proficiency bonus.


Yeah, interesting how it's disproportionately useful for people with low/no/negative other modifiers including Stat. Although it still incentivizes Proficiency Tiers themself, which people otherwise might not bother getting if they have crappy modifiers for that skill. With this, going deep into Proficiency Tiers can be viable for ALOT more character builds + skill combos, although it doesn't really disupt the balance re: the most difficult skill checks.

I am curious about something I didn't think was deeply fleshed out in Playtest, but supposedly Proficiency Tiers were supposed to be major "gate" in terms of what you can even try to do with a skill (etc). Is that the case here, e.g. Proficiency Tier gates the types of checks you can use Assurance for, excluding the highest tier checks? From what I've heard, it sounds more like everything is just function of DC, which ignores the Proficiency Tier Gating concept.

The "don't use any other bonuses" dynamic DOES have interesting flip-side in that all "DC reductions" would still apply, even though those are normally thought of as basically the same thing. Hmm.

Paizo Employee Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

It sounds like it doesn't fully work as take 10; from the comments above it looks like it gives you 10 + proficiency, with no other bonuses.

So if you are level 5 and Expert, Assurance gives you a result of 10 + 5 + 4 = 19. If you are level 20 and Legendary, it gives you 10 + 20 + 8 = 38.

MUCH better than it was in the Playtest, and still avoids the "binary pass/fail" problem of old Take 10. I like it.

Although it does become less useful if you optimize - if you have an associated stat of +6 and an item bonus of +3, then it's always better to roll unless you are scared of natural 1s. Seems like it's mostly awesome for people who want to be reliable with skills that don't align with their main stat.

That's correct. As you mention, PF1's had a huge problem in that you either had an important check that was auto-success or that the PCs probably failed (because it had to be 50/50 or worse), each of which is potentially fun for some groups that want to auto-win everything or want to have a gritty situation where they rarely succeed. But most groups like it better if their characters can be great at things, even the really hard ones if they work to be good at that thing, but not auto-succeed there. And they still want some assurance for the easy stuff so they always make those. New Assurance has you covered (old Assurance....did not). It'll handle all those tasks for you that you wanted to just have covered while leaving a roll for the big ones!

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

Yeah, interesting how it's disproportionately useful for people with low/no/negative other modifiers including Stat. Although it still incentivizes Proficiency Tiers themself, which people otherwise might not bother getting if they have crappy modifiers for that skill. With this, going deep into Proficiency Tiers can be viable for ALOT more character builds + skill combos, although it doesn't really disupt the balance re: the most difficult skill checks.

Also true! If you want your fighter to take Arcana and keep raising proficiency because her father was a wizard but you really can't afford much Int, Assurance still has you covered. It raises the diversity of character/skill combinations pretty well, as you say.


Anguish wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Bolstered should mean that you're "immune" to that effect, no matter the source. And Treat Wounds makes you Bolstered towards Treat Wounds for 1 hour.

Strongly disagree.

In general I don't think it's good game design to have a party with multiple members able to inflict a condition but a given PC prevented from using their abilities because another party member has already done so. In fact, I can think of exploits behind condition-immunity, such as (and this is a generalization, not based on specific rules since we don't have them) a party deliberately blinding themselves and removing it right before facing a monster whose greatest weapon is the ability to inflict blindness. "Nope, sorry, we're bolstered against that because our cleric already made us blind within the last 10 minutes. Doesn't matter how bright a light you shine in our faces... we're bolstered."

That makes Bolstered into not-really-bolstered, but a strange, circumstancial, semi-sentient status that can somehow discern where and who your positive or negative effect comes or doesn't come from.

Also, unless you know that removing blindness makes you bolstered against blindness (or, if it does, how long the duration of being bolstered is) it's a bad example.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GentleGiant wrote:
Anguish wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Bolstered should mean that you're "immune" to that effect, no matter the source. And Treat Wounds makes you Bolstered towards Treat Wounds for 1 hour.

Strongly disagree.

In general I don't think it's good game design to have a party with multiple members able to inflict a condition but a given PC prevented from using their abilities because another party member has already done so. In fact, I can think of exploits behind condition-immunity, such as (and this is a generalization, not based on specific rules since we don't have them) a party deliberately blinding themselves and removing it right before facing a monster whose greatest weapon is the ability to inflict blindness. "Nope, sorry, we're bolstered against that because our cleric already made us blind within the last 10 minutes. Doesn't matter how bright a light you shine in our faces... we're bolstered."

That makes Bolstered into not-really-bolstered, but a strange, circumstancial, semi-sentient status that can somehow discern where and who your positive or negative effect comes or doesn't come from.

Also, unless you know that removing blindness makes you bolstered against blindness (or, if it does, how long the duration of being bolstered is) it's a bad example.

It's also a bad example because it doesn't fit the examples we have seen. You are bolstered against abilities not the effect. (The specific blinding attack not the blinded condition)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
ASSURANCE: TREAT DIE ROLL AS 10, GET BONUS. TAKE 10!
If just hope it's better defined than take 10 was, so many people ran it so different I just stopped using it in my games.

I always understood it as, rather than actually roll your d20, just pretend you got a 10.

I must admit I have trouble imagining any other interpretation.

It wasn't the interpretation of the numbers, it's when and what skills that gave me headaches (can I do it on Disable Device, Perception, Diplomacy? I've heard everything from yes to no and all sorts of shades of grey).

Assurance sounds a lot cleaner, and I have high hopes for it being clear. From what Mark has been saying it sounds like it, but we'll see once we get some GMs using it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:

KYRA IS THE WARPRIEST PATH OF CLERIC!!! (Gets heavy armor) There's also a spell-focused version!

SO much for the class! But this can be good!

and I hope that doesn't stop us getting actual war priests... Because a cleric in plate is way less interesting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

KYRA IS THE WARPRIEST PATH OF CLERIC!!! (Gets heavy armor) There's also a spell-focused version!

SO much for the class! But this can be good!

and I hope that doesn't stop us getting actual war priests... Because a cleric in plate is way less interesting.

The new action economy, multiclassing archetypes, insuitability of partial casters, and weapon balance are what will stop us from getting actual war priests.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Have to agree with Xenocrat, especially with the new action economy. Cleric subclass is the warpriestiest we are going to get in this system, otherwise they wouldn't have named it Warpriest.

I'm fine with that; I can't really think of a good way for it to work standalone, either.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

KYRA IS THE WARPRIEST PATH OF CLERIC!!! (Gets heavy armor) There's also a spell-focused version!

SO much for the class! But this can be good!

and I hope that doesn't stop us getting actual war priests... Because a cleric in plate is way less interesting.
The new action economy, multiclassing archetypes, insuitability of partial casters, and weapon balance are what will stop us from getting actual war priests.

welp, looking more and more likenno PF for me (and before someone says 'just play first edition' I have never had that work, whether it's Warhammer Fantasy, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, what ever, I have never found a previous editions group, they apparently exist, but I have, in over a decade of looking l, found zero, not likely to find one this time either)

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Cleaned up a few posts here.

Folks, wandering into a thread to throw around insults and argue with folks is not what we are doing here.

Move along...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:


That's correct. As you mention, PF1's had a huge problem in that you either had an important check that was auto-success or that the PCs probably failed (because it had to be 50/50 or worse), each of which is potentially fun for some groups that want to auto-win everything or want to have a gritty situation where they rarely succeed. But most groups like it better if their characters can be great at things, even the really hard ones if they work to be good at that thing, but not auto-succeed there. And they still want some assurance for the easy stuff so they always make those. New Assurance has you covered (old Assurance....did not). It'll handle all those tasks for you that you wanted to just have covered while leaving a roll for the big ones!

Neat. Gives me the same feeling I had with a "headband of intelligence" - you had x skills that improved as you did regardless of what you put into it.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

A recording of the actual seminar is found here.

Important information revealed is as follows:

-A fair amount of spells being buffed is just monsters being worse at making saves vs. your Save DCs.

-Most (but probably not all) of the math tweaks, aside from the Proficiency change we've already heard of, are to monsters rather than PCs.

-Backgrounds now give you one non-Lore Skill at Trained as well as a Lore and the other stuff they already got.

-There are 35 Backgrounds in the core rule book.

-Some Classes will be back as Classes eventually, other will be Archetypes or may be made unnecessary by the new multiclass rules.

-There are more robust guidelines for non-combat XP awards.

-Exploration Mode choices have been made more complex and interesting.

-Dents are gone. Items just have HP. Bulk, contrariwise, is still more or less the same, though the numbers have been tweaked.

-The OGL will remain. The compatibility license is getting tweaked, but not much.

-The Reaction symbol has been tweaked (it's now a 'swooshy arrow') and all symbols use ligatures, so if people use a text to speech converter they read as the word they symbolize.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Good stuff!

I'm a little sad dents were gone, I thought they simplified object damage rules and, like Bulk, made it something people are more likely to actually track.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

6 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Good stuff!

I'm a little sad dents were gone, I thought they simplified object damage rules and, like Bulk, made it something people are more likely to actually track.

It came down to complexity vs ease of use. Dents were a different way of handling damage, when we already had the HP scheme that everyone has to learn.

On the other hand, you already had to learn about your carrying capacity and the weight of things, so bulk just allows for easier tracking with no added complexity (or at least, a small enough amount the it passed muster).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing I liked about dents was it sometimes let me skip looking up the hit points of a given item or material-- many monster abilities just gave it a dent instead.

One thing DMW didn't mention: exploration mode will now include mechanics a tactic to guide fellow party members using your expertise, giving them a substantial bonus to make up for their low skills. The example given was that if your party is climbing a mountain, which is easy for the Ranger but not for the wizard, the Ranger can help Sheppard the wizard through the terrain while the rogue acts as the lookout instead. This sounds like a good change, especially in light of level no longer being added to untrained.

Paizo Employee Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

The thing I liked about dents was it sometimes let me skip looking up the hit points of a given item or material-- many monster abilities just gave it a dent instead.

One thing DMW didn't mention: exploration mode will now include mechanics a tactic to guide fellow party members using your expertise, giving them a substantial bonus to make up for their low skills. The example given was that if your party is climbing a mountain, which is easy for the Ranger but not for the wizard, the Ranger can help Sheppard the wizard through the terrain while the rogue acts as the lookout instead. This sounds like a good change, especially in light of level no longer being added to untrained.

I'll admit, switching away from dents specifically with monster abilities was sad for the simplicity of the ability, but it made it much easier to learn than the other system which is more important

The best part about following the expert in exploration mode is that it also helps even if the group is actually all pretty good at something, I'm thinking particularly with sneaking around. My War for the Crown group is pretty amazing at Stealth. Even the dwarf fighter is trained, and over half the party are masters. But the rogue is the best, and when she takes the lead, she gives even the other masters a boost. That's useful because you usually have to roll for each sneaker, and without the extra boost, it could become pretty hard to succeed at all of them. This way the rogue actually pulls the other masters to a modifier even higher than her own, so as long as she makes it, it's really down to the dwarf fighter unless the other masters get very unlucky. But then the rogue took the new version of Quiet Allies, which works alongside the new exploration tactic and, oh man! You'll have to wait and see how it works, but the group's sneaking potential is really excellent.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So does Bulk make sense now?

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

The thing I liked about dents was it sometimes let me skip looking up the hit points of a given item or material-- many monster abilities just gave it a dent instead.

One thing DMW didn't mention: exploration mode will now include mechanics a tactic to guide fellow party members using your expertise, giving them a substantial bonus to make up for their low skills. The example given was that if your party is climbing a mountain, which is easy for the Ranger but not for the wizard, the Ranger can help Sheppard the wizard through the terrain while the rogue acts as the lookout instead. This sounds like a good change, especially in light of level no longer being added to untrained.

I'll admit, switching away from dents specifically with monster abilities was sad for the simplicity of the ability, but it made it much easier to learn than the other system which is more important

I haven't listened to the discussions of hp on shields. Could somebody who has explain how it works? Specifically, how is damage from an attack distributed between the shield and the character?


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

The thing I liked about dents was it sometimes let me skip looking up the hit points of a given item or material-- many monster abilities just gave it a dent instead.

One thing DMW didn't mention: exploration mode will now include mechanics a tactic to guide fellow party members using your expertise, giving them a substantial bonus to make up for their low skills. The example given was that if your party is climbing a mountain, which is easy for the Ranger but not for the wizard, the Ranger can help Sheppard the wizard through the terrain while the rogue acts as the lookout instead. This sounds like a good change, especially in light of level no longer being added to untrained.

I'll admit, switching away from dents specifically with monster abilities was sad for the simplicity of the ability, but it made it much easier to learn than the other system which is more important

I don't doubt you, but I'm still sad to see them go. I think having monster dents was also nice for consistency-- it is unlikely the creature will roll well enough to one shot the piece of equipment that just happened to be flimsy. That means the player sweats but has an opportunity to respond, which seems important.

Quote:
The best part about following the expert in exploration mode is that it also helps even if the group is actually all pretty good at something, I'm thinking particularly with sneaking around. My War for the Crown group is pretty amazing at Stealth. Even the dwarf fighter is trained, and over half the party are masters. But the rogue is the best, and when she takes the lead, she gives even the other masters a boost. That's useful because you usually have to roll for each sneaker, and without the extra boost, it could become pretty hard to succeed at all of them. This way the rogue actually pulls the other masters to a modifier even higher than her own, so as long as she makes it, it's really down to the dwarf fighter unless the other masters get very unlucky. But then the rogue took the new version of Quiet Allies, which works alongside the new exploration tactic and, oh man! You'll have to wait and see how it works, but the group's sneaking potential is really excellent.

Fascinating. This shoots my theory that you shared you let your other party members borrow your proficiency bonus in the foot though.


Joe M. wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

The thing I liked about dents was it sometimes let me skip looking up the hit points of a given item or material-- many monster abilities just gave it a dent instead.

One thing DMW didn't mention: exploration mode will now include mechanics a tactic to guide fellow party members using your expertise, giving them a substantial bonus to make up for their low skills. The example given was that if your party is climbing a mountain, which is easy for the Ranger but not for the wizard, the Ranger can help Sheppard the wizard through the terrain while the rogue acts as the lookout instead. This sounds like a good change, especially in light of level no longer being added to untrained.

I'll admit, switching away from dents specifically with monster abilities was sad for the simplicity of the ability, but it made it much easier to learn than the other system which is more important
I haven't listened to the discussions of hp on shields. Could somebody who has explain how it works? How is damage from an attack distributed between the shield and the character?

I think the only hard data we have on it was what happened in the game trade media demo.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
The thing I liked about dents was it sometimes let me skip looking up the hit points of a given item or material-- many monster abilities just gave it a dent instead.

With the more prominent use of item damage, due to shields, hopefully the HP and hardness of materials will be more prominently located, so you don't have to go search for it. There needs to be a space on the character sheet to track item HP and hardness too. Sunder in PF1 was a pain, because it came up so rarely and the relevant info was hidden away in a dark corner of the book instead of laid out prominently, and sheets didn't have any place to keep track of them.

Silver Crusade

Captain Morgan wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
I haven't listened to the discussions of hp on shields. Could somebody who has explain how it works? How is damage from an attack distributed between the shield and the character?
I think the only hard data we have on it was what happened in the game trade media demo.

That sounds right (don't know if more was said in this seminar). I wasn't able to piece together, from the forum posts about that game, exactly how this is supposed to work. E.g., if a shield has 8 hardness and blocks an attack that deals 10 damage, how is that distributed?

(A) Shield takes 8, character takes 2;
(B) Shield takes 10, character takes 2;
(C) Shield takes 10, character takes 0.

I would assume (A), but some posters made it sound like (B) or (C).

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
I haven't listened to the discussions of hp on shields. Could somebody who has explain how it works? How is damage from an attack distributed between the shield and the character?
I think the only hard data we have on it was what happened in the game trade media demo.

That sounds right (don't know if more was said in this seminar). I wasn't able to piece together, from folks confusing forum posts, exactly how this is supposed to work. E.g., if a shield has 8 hardness and blocks an attack that deals 10 damage, how is that distributed?

(A) Shield takes 8, character takes 2;
(B) Shield takes 10, character takes 2;
(C) Shield takes 10, character takes 0.

I would assume (A), but some posters made it sound like (B) or (C).

It's the simplest possible operation that still applies damage to both the shield and the PC (A would never apply damage to the shield under any circumstances): Reduce by hardness, then both shield and PC take what's left. The dwarf axe and shield fighter in my WftC game has tended to have even greater durability with her shield from this method than from dents, I think it hasn't been broken since the change, but that depends on the exact amount that's dishing out.

51 to 100 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Garycon Pathfinder 2E Seminar: Did anyone attend and was anything cool revealed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.