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


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
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.

Thanks!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
...Reduce by hardness, then both shield and PC take what's left...

I hope you don't mind me asking, but if a PC takes 10 damage with 8 hardness (as the above example), does that mean they each take 1 damage, or 2 damage?

EDIT: Ninja'd by Mark as I was asking him a question. What an honor

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
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.
Thanks! I guess I was using "hardness" imprecisely :-P

No worries! In your example, that means shield and character both would reduce their HP total by 2 (assuming they don't have other resistance hijinks going on).


Mark Seifter wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
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.
Thanks! I guess I was using "hardness" imprecisely :-P
No worries! In your example, that means shield and character both would reduce their HP total by 2 (assuming they don't have other resistance hijinks going on).

So if we follow the same example, but the attack only did 6 damage, neither the shield nor the character would take anything?

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
FedoraFerret wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
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.
Thanks! I guess I was using "hardness" imprecisely :-P
No worries! In your example, that means shield and character both would reduce their HP total by 2 (assuming they don't have other resistance hijinks going on).
So if we follow the same example, but the attack only did 6 damage, neither the shield nor the character would take anything?

Indeed so!

Or as is relevant in my group, a slightly more complex example: If the Redeemer Glimpse of Redemption's the boss's 30 damage attack for resistance 12 and the fighter blocks for 12, the incoming damage would be 6 to the fighter (who gained resistance 12) and 18 to the shield......except the boss doesn't want to take a big enfeebled for a mere 6 damage to the fighter and instead chooses to deal no damage, which protects everyone. Redeemer + Shield Fighter is a great team-up!


Mark Seifter wrote:
If the Redeemer Glimpse of Redemption's the boss's 30 damage attack for resistance 12 and the fighter blocks for 12, the incoming damage would be 6 to the fighter (who gained resistance 12) and 18 to the shield......except the boss doesn't want to take a big enfeebled for a mere 6 damage to the fighter and instead chooses to deal no damage, which protects everyone. Redeemer + Shield Fighter is a great team-up!

So, based on Redeemer's scaling, I believe we're talking about lv10 or so here, and sure, I can see whatever Red Skull lookalike villain or anti-hero not wanting to eat an enfeebled, but... Hardness 8 for lv1 shields, 12 for lv10?

Is that a lv7 shield that hasn't been upgraded in a while, or has scaling slowed down?
Is it still all about individual specific shields per each level, or is there a way to upgrade a specific shield's hardness?
Overanalysis intensifies

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
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.
Thanks! I guess I was using "hardness" imprecisely :-P
No worries! In your example, that means shield and character both would reduce their HP total by 2 (assuming they don't have other resistance hijinks going on).
So if we follow the same example, but the attack only did 6 damage, neither the shield nor the character would take anything?

Indeed so!

Or as is relevant in my group, a slightly more complex example: If the Redeemer Glimpse of Redemption's the boss's 30 damage attack for resistance 12 and the fighter blocks for 12, the incoming damage would be 6 to the fighter (who gained...

The last iteration of the Shield rules (where shields could take 2 dents, but blocking only gave 1 at most) meant it was impossible for a fresh shield to break in one block. Is that still true in the final rules?

Paizo Employee Designer

Ediwir wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
If the Redeemer Glimpse of Redemption's the boss's 30 damage attack for resistance 12 and the fighter blocks for 12, the incoming damage would be 6 to the fighter (who gained resistance 12) and 18 to the shield......except the boss doesn't want to take a big enfeebled for a mere 6 damage to the fighter and instead chooses to deal no damage, which protects everyone. Redeemer + Shield Fighter is a great team-up!

So, based on Redeemer's scaling, I believe we're talking about lv10 or so here, and sure, I can see whatever Red Skull lookalike villain or anti-hero not wanting to eat an enfeebled, but... Hardness 8 for lv1 shields, 12 for lv10?

Is that a lv7 shield that hasn't been upgraded in a while, or has scaling slowed down?
Is it still all about individual specific shields per each level, or is there a way to upgrade a specific shield's hardness?
Overanalysis intensifies

Scaling and values are about the same as before (which means that the 8 is the bigger error, I have not watched the stream, but I believe if that exists, it's a propagated error from using last year's Garycon/GAMA characters as the baseline for this year's, as I recall they were wrongly using 8 last year). Additionally, I misremembered and the shield the dwarf was using was 13 not 12.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
3Doubloons wrote:
The last iteration of the Shield rules (where shields could take 2 dents, but blocking only gave 1 at most) meant it was impossible for a fresh shield to break in one block. Is that still true in the final rules?

As you can see throughout the process when we kept answering the question multiple different ways on the streams, that last playtest iteration was mostly a patch on an issue involved with calculating the dents and HP. Using HP, it is possible for your shield to break, or even be totally destroyed, in one hit, but you get to know how much damage is incoming before you decide whether to block, so that only happens if you choose. Looking at how much it would take to destroy Linda's dwarf's shield in one hit, though, even on a crit that's not going to happen unless they're fighting something way beyond their level. Even a balor would be hard-pressed to do that much in a single crit.

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
3Doubloons wrote:
The last iteration of the Shield rules (where shields could take 2 dents, but blocking only gave 1 at most) meant it was impossible for a fresh shield to break in one block. Is that still true in the final rules?
As you can see throughout the process when we kept answering the question multiple different ways on the streams, that last playtest iteration was mostly a patch on an issue involved with calculating the dents and HP. Using HP, it is possible for your shield to break, or even be totally destroyed, in one hit, but you get to know how much damage is incoming before you decide whether to block, so that only happens if you choose. Looking at how much it would take to destroy Linda's dwarf's shield in one hit, though, even on a crit that's not going to happen unless they're fighting something way beyond their level. Even a balor would be hard-pressed to do that much in a single crit.

Oh, that's *very* nice. I loved my shield in the playtest, and I'm looking forward to playing a shield character in the final.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, even at low levels, Hardness 5 and 20 HP (the latter based on the GAMA game) at 1st level is enough to make a single hit shield destruction vanishingly unlikely. A raging Barbarian can do 25 damage on a crit...but not much else in that level range can.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
3Doubloons wrote:
The last iteration of the Shield rules (where shields could take 2 dents, but blocking only gave 1 at most) meant it was impossible for a fresh shield to break in one block. Is that still true in the final rules?
As you can see throughout the process when we kept answering the question multiple different ways on the streams, that last playtest iteration was mostly a patch on an issue involved with calculating the dents and HP. Using HP, it is possible for your shield to break, or even be totally destroyed, in one hit, but you get to know how much damage is incoming before you decide whether to block, so that only happens if you choose. Looking at how much it would take to destroy Linda's dwarf's shield in one hit, though, even on a crit that's not going to happen unless they're fighting something way beyond their level. Even a balor would be hard-pressed to do that much in a single crit.

I think in the GAMA twitch stream recently, in the fight with the skeleton and the snakes, the statement was made that the shield to 1hp or 2hp damage from snake strikes. That seems at least partially inconsistent with the statement that you reduce it by the hardness. None of the shields took enough damage in the individual battle to really be in danger of being broken however, so maybe the taking 2hp damage was ignored because it was reduced by hardness, but it certainly seems like something that was hopefully clearly worded in the new rules to insure it is dealt with consistently.

I think I like the new rules, based on what you are saying however, but look forward to actually seeing them.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
If the Redeemer Glimpse of Redemption's the boss's 30 damage attack for resistance 12 and the fighter blocks for 12, the incoming damage would be 6 to the fighter (who gained resistance 12) and 18 to the shield......except the boss doesn't want to take a big enfeebled for a mere 6 damage to the fighter and instead chooses to deal no damage, which protects everyone. Redeemer + Shield Fighter is a great team-up!

So, based on Redeemer's scaling, I believe we're talking about lv10 or so here, and sure, I can see whatever Red Skull lookalike villain or anti-hero not wanting to eat an enfeebled, but... Hardness 8 for lv1 shields, 12 for lv10?

Is that a lv7 shield that hasn't been upgraded in a while, or has scaling slowed down?
Is it still all about individual specific shields per each level, or is there a way to upgrade a specific shield's hardness?
Overanalysis intensifies
Scaling and values are about the same as before (which means that the 8 is the bigger error, I have not watched the stream, but I believe if that exists, it's a propagated error from using last year's Garycon/GAMA characters as the baseline for this year's, as I recall they were wrongly using 8 last year). Additionally, I misremembered and the shield the dwarf was using was 13 not 12.

So in line with the lv9 Master Heavy Steel Shield. Hmm. Have feats that require specifically heavy shield (such as Aggressive Shield) been edited, then? I remember that scaling causing some issues.


I'm curious how we balance shields at the high end. Like incredibly magical shields which are worthy of legend, so should not be very disposable. I mean, some shields somewhere are liable to be artifacts, so those won't be destroyed no matter how long the Balor wails on them (unless that's the specific condition for its destruction). I have to imagine there's some sort of "turns off" condition to keep an artifact shield from just giving you hardness?

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yeah, even at low levels, Hardness 5 and 20 HP (the latter based on the GAMA game) at 1st level is enough to make a single hit shield destruction vanishingly unlikely. A raging Barbarian can do 25 damage on a crit...but not much else in that level range can.

And one thing that PF2 shares with both PF1 and the playtest is that level 1 PC barbarians (or other level 1 big damage hitter PCs) are kind of a special case that do more damage relative to their level than anything else; aside from such characters built using the PC rules, you normally have to get to level 3 or so monsters before you start seeing that kind of carnage.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
3Doubloons wrote:
The last iteration of the Shield rules (where shields could take 2 dents, but blocking only gave 1 at most) meant it was impossible for a fresh shield to break in one block. Is that still true in the final rules?
As you can see throughout the process when we kept answering the question multiple different ways on the streams, that last playtest iteration was mostly a patch on an issue involved with calculating the dents and HP. Using HP, it is possible for your shield to break, or even be totally destroyed, in one hit, but you get to know how much damage is incoming before you decide whether to block, so that only happens if you choose. Looking at how much it would take to destroy Linda's dwarf's shield in one hit, though, even on a crit that's not going to happen unless they're fighting something way beyond their level. Even a balor would be hard-pressed to do that much in a single crit.

Is there any meaningful distinction between using a light or heavy shield, or is it still the kinda janky back and forth that it was in the playtest, where you'd go back and forth if you're just after hardness,even though it messed with your AC?

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
3Doubloons wrote:
The last iteration of the Shield rules (where shields could take 2 dents, but blocking only gave 1 at most) meant it was impossible for a fresh shield to break in one block. Is that still true in the final rules?
As you can see throughout the process when we kept answering the question multiple different ways on the streams, that last playtest iteration was mostly a patch on an issue involved with calculating the dents and HP. Using HP, it is possible for your shield to break, or even be totally destroyed, in one hit, but you get to know how much damage is incoming before you decide whether to block, so that only happens if you choose. Looking at how much it would take to destroy Linda's dwarf's shield in one hit, though, even on a crit that's not going to happen unless they're fighting something way beyond their level. Even a balor would be hard-pressed to do that much in a single crit.
Is there any meaningful distinction between using a light or heavy shield, or is it still the kinda janky back and forth that it was in the playtest, where you'd go back and forth if you're just after hardness,even though it messed with your AC?

It was too weird, like you say, so we just consolidated to avoid back and forth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
3Doubloons wrote:
The last iteration of the Shield rules (where shields could take 2 dents, but blocking only gave 1 at most) meant it was impossible for a fresh shield to break in one block. Is that still true in the final rules?
As you can see throughout the process when we kept answering the question multiple different ways on the streams, that last playtest iteration was mostly a patch on an issue involved with calculating the dents and HP. Using HP, it is possible for your shield to break, or even be totally destroyed, in one hit, but you get to know how much damage is incoming before you decide whether to block, so that only happens if you choose. Looking at how much it would take to destroy Linda's dwarf's shield in one hit, though, even on a crit that's not going to happen unless they're fighting something way beyond their level. Even a balor would be hard-pressed to do that much in a single crit.
Is there any meaningful distinction between using a light or heavy shield, or is it still the kinda janky back and forth that it was in the playtest, where you'd go back and forth if you're just after hardness,even though it messed with your AC?
It was too weird, like you say, so we just consolidated to avoid back and forth.

Sorry Mark but what do you mean by "we just consolidated"? Have you changed how light shield and heavy shield Hardness scales? Have you just removed the distinction between shield types?

Liberty's Edge

Mark Seifter wrote:
It was too weird, like you say, so we just consolidated to avoid back and forth.

While I, too, am interested in whether the distinction is just gone, or if Light and Heavy magical shields are just the same Hardness and Levels as each other now, either way this is amazing news I am overjoyed by. :)

The bouncing back and forth between the two in the playtest was just super awkward and annoying.


Mark Seifter wrote:
... If the Redeemer Glimpse of Redemption's the boss's 30 damage attack for resistance 12 and the fighter blocks for 12, the incoming damage would be 6 to the fighter (who gained resistance 12) and 18 to the shield......except the boss doesn't want to take a big enfeebled for a mere 6 damage to the fighter and instead chooses to deal no damage, which protects everyone. Redeemer + Shield Fighter is a great team-up!

I'm not understanding this at all.

Is a Redeemer a paladin sub-class? And Glimpse of Redemption is a redeemer ability the Redeemer is using on a BBEG attack which offers the boss in question the choice of being enfeebled or doing no damage?

I guess I got confused because shields can have bosses...

As an aside: More than anything I just want the new edition's rules to be simple and easy to understand without having to come to the forums to work out how a shield works. Unfortunately, I too was confused, upthread, by what/who took what damage - the rules language should be super tight so that it is clear - when Mark said "both the PC and the shield" take 2 damage it was, thanks to the interpretation of English, possible to still be confused and require clarification. Both the PC and the shield each take 2 damage.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

I'm not understanding this at all.

Is a Redeemer a paladin sub-class? And Glimpse of Redemption is a redeemer ability the Redeemer is using on a BBEG attack which offers the boss in question the choice of being enfeebled or doing no damage?

I guess I got confused because shields can have bosses...

The Redeemer is the NG Champion just like the Paladin is the LG one. It and Glimpse of Redemption (which does indeed give the enemy the choice of being Enfeebled or doing no damage) can be found in the playtest updates, and from description seem to be relatively similar in the final version.

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
As an aside: More than anything I just want the new edition's rules to be simple and easy to understand without having to come to the forums to work out how a shield works. Unfortunately, I too was confused, upthread, by what/who took what damage - the rules language should be super tight so that it is clear - when Mark said "both the PC and the shield" take 2 damage it was, thanks to the interpretation of English, possible to still be confused and require clarification. Both the PC and the shield each take 2 damage.

What was said upthread was not edited rules text, which I suspect will be double checked for clarity, probably with examples for stuff like this.


Seems like I did understand it then.

Thanks twice for the clarifications DMW...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plot Points Podcast finally posted their audio from Gary Con, which goes back to the OP of this thread...

http://plotpointspod.com/pathfinder-2nd-edition-seminar-from-gary-con-2019- episode-134/

Linkified: Plot Points


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Psychopomps confirmed in PF2's B1. Gooood... Now I can really hope for other surprise inclusions from former Bestiaries.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm curious how we balance shields at the high end. Like incredibly magical shields which are worthy of legend, so should not be very disposable. I mean, some shields somewhere are liable to be artifacts, so those won't be destroyed no matter how long the Balor wails on them (unless that's the specific condition for its destruction). I have to imagine there's some sort of "turns off" condition to keep an artifact shield from just giving you hardness?

Like the Shield of Aroden? ;P

But yeah, I get your point... at the upper end of the magic item / artifact scale a shield should be like the one in that early 1980s film, Dragonslayer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yeah, even at low levels, Hardness 5 and 20 HP (the latter based on the GAMA game) at 1st level is enough to make a single hit shield destruction vanishingly unlikely. A raging Barbarian can do 25 damage on a crit...but not much else in that level range can.

And if you get smashed for 25 damage at level 1, I don't think your biggest problem is whether your shield gets broken or not. Not with your legs and ribcage flying away in different trajectories.


masda_gib wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yeah, even at low levels, Hardness 5 and 20 HP (the latter based on the GAMA game) at 1st level is enough to make a single hit shield destruction vanishingly unlikely. A raging Barbarian can do 25 damage on a crit...but not much else in that level range can.
And if you get smashed for 25 damage at level 1, I don't think your biggest problem is whether your shield gets broken or not. Not with your legs and ribcage flying away in different trajectories.

Spartan moms care!

Liberty's Edge

masda_gib wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yeah, even at low levels, Hardness 5 and 20 HP (the latter based on the GAMA game) at 1st level is enough to make a single hit shield destruction vanishingly unlikely. A raging Barbarian can do 25 damage on a crit...but not much else in that level range can.
And if you get smashed for 25 damage at level 1, I don't think your biggest problem is whether your shield gets broken or not. Not with your legs and ribcage flying away in different trajectories.

True. Though a few 1st level PCs can theoretically take 20 damage and remain conscious if they're at full health, and more than a few 2nd level ones can (and you'll probably still have a basic shield at 2nd).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I can see there being various ways to make permanent high level shields that aren't consumable but still don't give permanent DR that you might not always want to use your block reaction for.

Self regenerating shields is one such example. Whether its an energy shield whose magic is depleted but recuperates, living wood that regrows after ten minutes (the unit of time that seems to be the devs "do something quickly but not combat quick." You could have vampiric shields whose HP regenerates as their weilder deals damage/killing blows. Giant religious icons that require a ritual to restore themselves etc.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Those are some really cool ideas. I get more excited about 2e's shields the more I hear about them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Cayden Cailean could have a massive Hardness 12 HP 40 Battle Tankard that magically repairs itself if you drink enough.


I'm thrilled to hear about Cleric paths, it being my favorite class. The Warpriest sounds amazing for attempting to rebuild my first character ever, a battle cleric, and knowing there's a path to make them stronger full casters is awesome too. I'm assuming it gives them an extra spell slots per level per day somehow like Wizard and Sorcerer but I hope there's more to it.

Paizo Employee Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm curious how we balance shields at the high end. Like incredibly magical shields which are worthy of legend, so should not be very disposable. I mean, some shields somewhere are liable to be artifacts, so those won't be destroyed no matter how long the Balor wails on them (unless that's the specific condition for its destruction). I have to imagine there's some sort of "turns off" condition to keep an artifact shield from just giving you hardness?
Like the Shield of Aroden? ;P

Ha! We'd have way too many "Shattered Shields of XYZ" to go around!

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A couple of other notes:

-Heritage is definitely stuff you get from birth, while ancestry feats reflect cultural upbringing. The exception to this seems to be half-orc darkvision, which I believe was mentioned as a feat you can only get at 1st level. My take on that was that half-orcs get low-light vision as part of their heritage but have to spend a feat for darkvision, but I'm not sure if I'm understanding that correctly.

-There is a way to trade out certain types of feats for other types, but you can't trade up, so to speak. My interpretation was that there's a way to trade a general feat for a skill feat, for example, but not a skill feat for a class feat. But again, I may be misinterpreting what was actually said.


Charlie Brooks wrote:

A couple of other notes:

-Heritage is definitely stuff you get from birth, while ancestry feats reflect cultural upbringing. The exception to this seems to be half-orc darkvision, which I believe was mentioned as a feat you can only get at 1st level. My take on that was that half-orcs get low-light vision as part of their heritage but have to spend a feat for darkvision, but I'm not sure if I'm understanding that correctly.

-There is a way to trade out certain types of feats for other types, but you can't trade up, so to speak. My interpretation was that there's a way to trade a general feat for a skill feat, for example, but not a skill feat for a class feat. But again, I may be misinterpreting what was actually said.

I interpreted the swapping feat categoryou stuff to be about options like the various human things that let you swap ancestry feats for low level general or class feats.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Malk_Content wrote:

I can see there being various ways to make permanent high level shields that aren't consumable but still don't give permanent DR that you might not always want to use your block reaction for.

Self regenerating shields is one such example. Whether its an energy shield whose magic is depleted but recuperates, living wood that regrows after ten minutes (the unit of time that seems to be the devs "do something quickly but not combat quick." You could have vampiric shields whose HP regenerates as their weilder deals damage/killing blows. Giant religious icons that require a ritual to restore themselves etc.

Parasitic shield that feeds on your HP


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I've made a sum up of the seminar for those interested. I've already posted this in the Pathfinder Discord some days ago, but just remembered that some people here aren't there, so...

Warning: Huge text ahead:

- They are doing something new to wands because the more old-school players don't care about wands being scrolls on sticks, since this was not the case before 3E, and the newer players have other references for what wands should be (Harry Potter, etc.), so mostly the only people that really cared about wands working that way were the people that were introduced to the concept in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder.

- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.

- Jason said the way archetypes work now is extremely liberating for design, especially since they can make archetypes that can be taken by any class now. He gave an example of a group he played with that were 5 different classes but they all took the Pirate archetype (which is significantly improved).

- Inflammable Goblin may have had its name changed do Charred Goblin.

- The monster creation rules might just be a table with numbers/level and guidelines into how to edit them, without almost any math required. This was not said explicitly but Jason hinted to this or something similar.

- Backgrounds now give proficiency with a skill.

- Lore skills now are supposed to be something that you can use for almost anything but when it comes to a specific topic. Jason mentioned as an example that one of the backgrounds gives Lore: "Name of the City you grew up in". While you are inside that city, you can use it for basically everything, but when you aren't it's not that useful.

- They want to reduce the overlap between combat choices and non-combat choices. No mention on how though.

- With the new math, Jason said combats take a little longer (as in number of rounds) on low levels compared to PF1, but this number is very stable and almost doesn't change throuhgout the levels now. He mentioned on their internal tests combats were taking 3-4 rounds average at low levels and 4-5 at high levels.

- 120 pages of spells and 100 pages of magic items. He did specifically say magic items, not just treasure. Not sure if this was intentional though, but I hope it is.

- Bestiary has slightly over 400 monsters, including about ~30 brand new monsters.

- They want to release more ancestries ASAP after release. Monster PCs are going to be a thing eventually but they have not yet decided on how to handle that.

- New classes are not going to take very long to come. However, Jason confirmed what we already new, not all old classes will come back as classes.

- Nobody cares about the poor Cavalier.

- They have improved the GM guidelines on how to reward experience that is not related to combat.

- They are still going to release new books in a regular schedule and with a good frequency.

- The feats that gives you access to uncommon things, like ancestry-specific weapons, are still there. I personally hoped for them to be gone, but nope.

- BIG: Now in exploration mode you can use tactics to guide your less-proficient friends to do something and give them a big bonus. For instance, a Ranger can climb a mountain while helping the Wizard to do the same, or a Rogue can guide the Barbarian to stealth better.

- They have tweaked the Bulk values on a lot of items because, quoting Jason "they didn't make any sense".

- Reaction symbol changed to a swoosh arrow. Also, they have made it so text-to-speech programs will read the action symbols as words "action, reaction, 2 actions, etc". Very cool for our blind gamers.
- Prestige classes will not exist, neither on release or later on, but some of them will become archetypes.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Monster Creation: This gives me concerns.

Bulk: This gives me a bit of hope.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

By "prestige classes won't exist" do we mean "we're just going to do prestige archetypes like the Grey Maiden one in the playtest" or are we not even doing that?

Since I really liked the idea of PrCs as multiclass dedications which require at least 6th level. I never saw a PrC at my table in PF1, but there was a lot of interest in "I keep my basic progression, but now I'm a member of this club."


PossibleCabbage wrote:

By "prestige classes won't exist" do we mean "we're just going to do prestige archetypes like the Grey Maiden one in the playtest" or are we not even doing that?

Since I really liked the idea of PrCs as multiclass dedications which require at least 6th level. I never saw a PrC at my table in PF1, but there was a lot of interest in "I keep my basic progression, but now I'm a member of this club."

I'm not sure, Jason just said that the concept of prestige classes was "dead since the beggining", and that some of them will come back as archetypes while others are just going to be scrapped. I don't know if he meant that they will come back as prestige archetypes, or that even prestige archetypes won't exist anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

By "prestige classes won't exist" do we mean "we're just going to do prestige archetypes like the Grey Maiden one in the playtest" or are we not even doing that?

Since I really liked the idea of PrCs as multiclass dedications which require at least 6th level. I never saw a PrC at my table in PF1, but there was a lot of interest in "I keep my basic progression, but now I'm a member of this club."

I mean, archetypes do exactly that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess we can just have archetypes which require higher levels without actually making special rules for them. So I guess the question is how we model something like- okay they won't let you into the Lion Blades without considerable training; you can't call yourself a Lion Blade until you graduate.

So do we need an archetype for "Lion Blade trainee" or do we just assume people meeting the prereqs through their first five levels will count as "having proven you can do the job"?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm hoping they do have "prestige" archetypes that have some lore requirements to them (with there being an obvious rule that this lore may or may not change in homebrew games) as that lends a lot of flavor to the world and can give mechanical rewards for story accomplishments.

I hope the fact that they chose one of the worst ones to show of in the playtest hasn't given them poor feedback and ditch the whole idea.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Monster creation rules hint at something that sounds very much like Starfinder's iteration if so then that will be a welcome change. I originally thought I wouldn't like it but after having used it and become accustomed to building monsters that way I very much appreciate they ease and speed those building rules afford while still providing a great deal of customization.


Prestige Class Archetypes seems suited to Setting material tied to particular setting organization(s) or phenomena etc. I mean, the rules line is no longer hewing to "not Golarion specific" but it also isn't really about deeply detailing the setting in those type of areas. Prestige Archetypes always seemed the most coherent to me, and seemed most well receive during playtest.

Non-Prestige ones just begged the question for me "why does these need archetype system with dedication" (which is really all that distinguishes archetype feats from non-archetype feats). Dropping that, 'universal' Feats that aren't class specific can cover much of same ground, although presentation is mutable there... Even in playtest we had the same Feat show up in multiple classes, without being 'overtly' tagged as universal or multi-class, and how they want to roll with that is up to them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suppose the big question that could’ve been easily answered but somehow wasn’t is “what happened to channel energy”.

We’ve seen people play Kyra, but got no details on this aspect.
To me, channel was a crucial point. I am really hoping they did something good with it. Or binned it, that’d be fine too.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.

If this means making options anyone should have into a choice you need to invest in just to attempt it as a remedy for not having to know about it in the first place to help new players from exploding from knowing too much....it seems like a backwards approach. A new player might ask if they can do something in combat, and might not initially be bombarded with the mechanical options before playing. Only to be told "Yes you can do that...if you have the feat." How has that not increased the amount of "stuff new players need to learn about combat"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for longer combats, especially at lower levels, I'd be very happy with that. The quoted 3-4 rounds quoted feels underwhelming however. I'm always astounded by the concept that a quick combat is a good combat - I prefer setting up for synergies, overcoming smackdowns, regrouping etc.... Granted, I play mostly at the lower levels and am not cognizant of long drudgy drawn out slugfests...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.
If this means making options anyone should have into a choice you need to invest in just to attempt it as a remedy for not having to know about it in the first place to help new players from exploding from knowing too much....it seems like a backwards approach. A new player might ask if they can do something in combat, and might not initially be bombarded with the mechanical options before playing. Only to be told "Yes you can do that...if you have the feat." How has that not increased the amount of "stuff new players need to learn about combat"?

Basically it reduces the size of the rules chapter you have to read before starting to play. Now I'm not sure I agree with the approach of gating them but that depends which ones are no longer default. Regardless I prefer it to the PF1 approach of "here are a bunch of things you think you can do but without several feats you are actually shooting yourself in the foot to even try."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
As for longer combats, especially at lower levels, I'd be very happy with that. The quoted 3-4 rounds quoted feels underwhelming however. I'm always astounded by the concept that a quick combat is a good combat - I prefer setting up for synergies, overcoming smackdowns, regrouping etc.... Granted, I play mostly at the lower levels and am not cognizant of long drudgy drawn out slugfests...

The main thing (at least coming from the playtest) is that those rounds are denser than they were in PF1. Starting from level 1 everyone has more that they could do (about a third extra for most but some classes have economy improvers out that gate which add even more) so it feels like you are doing more and making more choices in the same round span.

101 to 150 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Garycon Pathfinder 2E Seminar: Did anyone attend and was anything cool revealed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.