GameTradeMedia liveplay stream notes - Here for your Assurance


Second Edition

51 to 98 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not a single change I don't totally love. Well done Paizo, well done.

Does anyone know what the tiers for Armor reduction are? I would assume Medium 14 and Heavy 16 or 18, but just curious.

Also, how does Fighter not get a sub class? Seems silly. Even something as simple as the Rogue would make a lot of sense (Str, Dex, and Int based Fighter anyone???)

You could have wrapped up Archer, Duelist, and Regular fighter straight out of the gate. And the former two are extremely popular.

Still overall amazing, but poor Fighter :(

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They said they felt Fighter should be less 'particular way to do things' and more 'build your own style'. I think that's fine as long as it's mechanically balanced.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
They said they felt Fighter should be less 'particular way to do things' and more 'build your own style'. I think that's fine as long as it's mechanically balanced.

I feel the danger here is in once again having the fighter be the conceptually simplest class, so it's recommended to new players, but correspondingly the most difficult and intricate to build class, which makes it less appropriate for new players.

Like nothing in the core rulebook is going to be hard to build, we just might get there eventually again. No matter how many druid orders or barbarian totems we add, we can just have guidelines for "how to build a fungus druid or a swarm totem barbarian" by just taking the feats that go with that.

I mean the big difference between printing new subclasses and printing new feats is that subclasses give you something just for picking that subclass. So I wonder if the concern isn't "fighters don't need to be more frontloaded".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, on Spell Roll vs Skill, I think the main reason for that is the Sorcerer, who can definitely be really good at Spell Rolls with arcane spells and be Untrained in Arcane.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea they have is that fighters are all about building your own combos-- figuring out how to combine open actions and press actions, and whatever this new "flourish" action is.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh! I just realized that one other important thing got left out of the first post:

Bless gives a Status bonus now. Presumably these replace Competence bonuses, which is great given the Competence/Circumstance confusion that often ensued in the playtest rules.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lyee wrote:
Yeah, on Spell Roll vs Skill, I think the main reason for that is the Sorcerer, who can definitely be really good at Spell Rolls with arcane spells and be Untrained in Arcane.

Which is, imho, thematically interesting. I know how to use spells, but I don't really know (or care about) how they work. I know my limitations and I know what can I do.

Talent, not science, is what defines a Sorcerer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We don't need to be 5E with all of the "builds" being just a choice of Subclasses.
Mix and Match can be just fine too!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Oh! I just realized that one other important thing got left out of the first post:

Bless gives a Status bonus now. Presumably these replace Competence bonuses, which is great given the Competence/Circumstance confusion that often ensued in the playtest rules.

That is *excellent* news. I don't think "competence" is right, though?

Playtest bless granted a Conditional bonus, not "competence" (which I don't think appeared in the playtest?).

"Status" is an appropriate synonym for "Conditional" as Paizo has used it (a bonus arising from a PCs condition), so I agree it's likely a change in terminology rather than a new bonus type.

And avoiding the playtest confusion between Conditional & Circumstantial bonuses was high on my wishlist for post-playtest changes. So I'm happy to see this.

Makes me wonder, though, whether PF2 will keep the minimal number of bonus types from the playtest (which basically had three: Conditional, Circumstantial, Item), or if it will add more.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
They said they felt Fighter should be less 'particular way to do things' and more 'build your own style'. I think that's fine as long as it's mechanically balanced.

I feel the danger here is in once again having the fighter be the conceptually simplest class, so it's recommended to new players, but correspondingly the most difficult and intricate to build class, which makes it less appropriate for new players.

Like nothing in the core rulebook is going to be hard to build, we just might get there eventually again. No matter how many druid orders or barbarian totems we add, we can just have guidelines for "how to build a fungus druid or a swarm totem barbarian" by just taking the feats that go with that.

I think I can deal with no subclasses/class paths for Fighters but I'm still hoping Monks get some.

At the end of the playtest those were the only two classes without a class path option, and while I can see the argument for Fighters, Monks are a class that would hugely benefit from different class paths, given the very different styles of Monks that folks like to play.

I think the discussions during the playtest about Monks who didn't want ki powers, or who wanted different ways to access ki powers—and all the different monk and brawler archetypes from PF1—show pretty clearly why Monk would benefit from class path choices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting that conditions don't seem to be called "statuses" now. One assumes their penalties will be "status penalties." Which is slightly more confusing, but probably worth the distinction from circumstance penalties.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Very interesting stuff!

On the proficiency rules, do we know how Untrained works with respect to armor and weapons? Does Untrained still give +level, or does everyone get Trained with unarmored? Or is the wizard in serious AC trouble? :P

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Very interesting stuff!

On the proficiency rules, do we know how Untrained works with respect to armor and weapons? Does Untrained still give +level, or does everyone get Trained with unarmored? Or is the wizard in serious AC trouble? :P

No, a character who is Untrained does *not* get +lvl to the relevant checks & dcs. This was confirmed in the late December "top 5 changes" Twitch stream (timestamped link to video) (link to discussion thread).

I believe every character will be trained in unarmored but I don't recall exactly where I got that idea from. Jason doesn't say as much here, just something like this:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Most PCs aren't untrained in anything except skills and some aspects of like weapons and armor. But no PC is untrained at a saving throw or at Perception or anything like that. And throughout play you will find that there are many ways that your character can improve their proficiency in various scores.

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

One of the early updates to the playtest rules gave every class training in unarmored defense. I would be surprised if that changed in the final version.

Silver Crusade

Charlie Brooks wrote:
One of the early updates to the playtest rules gave every class training in unarmored defense. I would be surprised if that changed in the final version.

Ah, yes. I see that now. Agreed, it would be surprising to take that out.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks. I knew that there was no +level to Untrained, but I saw a comment from one of the devs along the lines of "you don't get level to Untrained skills" and I wasn't sure if they were calling out skills specifically as if different things worked differently. I didn't think that was likely, but I wondered.

Good to hear that everyone is trained in unarmored - that assuages some concerns I had about the combat survivability of caster classes.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Oh! I just realized that one other important thing got left out of the first post:

Bless gives a Status bonus now. Presumably these replace Competence bonuses, which is great given the Competence/Circumstance confusion that often ensued in the playtest rules.

That is *excellent* news. I don't think "competence" is right, though?

Playtest bless granted a Conditional bonus, not "competence" (which I don't think appeared in the playtest?).

"Status" is an appropriate synonym for "Conditional" as Paizo has used it (a bonus arising from a PCs condition), so I agree it's likely a change in terminology rather than a new bonus type.

And avoiding the playtest confusion between Conditional & Circumstantial bonuses was high on my wishlist for post-playtest changes. So I'm happy to see this.

Makes me wonder, though, whether PF2 will keep the minimal number of bonus types from the playtest (which basically had three: Conditional, Circumstantial, Item), or if it will add more.

You're totally right. Which really just goes to show that they were confusing, I never got them right in the playtest either.

But yeah, I'd bet there's Status, Circumstance, and Item bonuses and likely no other types. Or, at least, not very many more.


I am curious how they handled the "put the captive rogue in some splint mail so their AC drops to 7" (and they start taking ACP penalties to like "pick the locks on their manacles") problem.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
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).


MaxAstro wrote:

Thanks. I knew that there was no +level to Untrained, but I saw a comment from one of the devs along the lines of "you don't get level to Untrained skills" and I wasn't sure if they were calling out skills specifically as if different things worked differently. I didn't think that was likely, but I wondered.

Good to hear that everyone is trained in unarmored - that assuages some concerns I had about the combat survivability of caster classes.

Yeah that would be deadly for wizards {or someone planning to play a nudist character} if you weren't trained in unarmored.

Though it does bring up the question= is there a way to improve prof outside of normal class upgrades <or alternatively the system accounts for this> in the final product? For example, at higher levels being trained in armor will do very little against someone whom is legendary in a weapon, having a natural +8 advantage before everything else. Same gets applied to saving throws and saves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still wondering how Harm (or Heal damage to undead) will look. The changes to Heal sound generally positive. The nerf to the one action version makes it feel like it won't necessarily be the most powerful spell in the game, and hopefully leaves room for Lay On Hands to be the premier single action healing spell. The double action version getting maximized healing as a static bonus is probably worth it for quality of life. But I was hoping we would get a more symmetrical version of Harm, which would have gone a way long way to boosting the Divine spell lists offensive power. But getting 1d8+8 damage at level 1 might be excessive, and its damage would get crazier as it heightens.

The 2d8 damage and scaling DC attempts with proficiency sounds extremely reminiscent of the updated Battle Medic. I'm gonna guess that feat will let you just use the Treat Wounds activity at combat relevant speeds, which strikes me as a fairly elegant conservation of detail rather than creating additional mechanics. It may also mean Battle Medic can be used once per hour per target, rather than the once per day it currently has, which would be a significant upgrade.

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).

Ah, but no ability score bonus to the skill? Or, one assumes, item bonuses? That's interesting. It means Assurance will remain better for characters with less extreme stat investment.


Siro wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Thanks. I knew that there was no +level to Untrained, but I saw a comment from one of the devs along the lines of "you don't get level to Untrained skills" and I wasn't sure if they were calling out skills specifically as if different things worked differently. I didn't think that was likely, but I wondered.

Good to hear that everyone is trained in unarmored - that assuages some concerns I had about the combat survivability of caster classes.

Yeah that would be deadly for wizards {or someone planning to play a nudist character} if you weren't trained in unarmored.

Though it does bring up the question= is there a way to improve prof outside of normal class upgrades <or alternatively the system accounts for this> in the final product? For example, at higher levels being trained in armor will do very little against someone whom is legendary in a weapon, having a natural +8 advantage before everything else. Same gets applied to saving throws and saves.

We know that even wizards eventually get expert in staffs and other wizard weapons. So I'd say defensive proficiencies upgrading at a different track than the playtest is a safe assumption, but I can't say how much of it will happen outside of class structure. One imagines rogues will get beyond trained with light armor, for example.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am curious how they handled the "put the captive rogue in some splint mail so their AC drops to 7" (and they start taking ACP penalties to like "pick the locks on their manacles") problem.

That's something that worries me...


It's interesting to me that this group beat the PF2 demo fairly easily, where as I recall from the playtest demo (some of) these same players either wound up in a TPK or came awfully close to it. I wonder how much of it is changes in making the math more forgiving vs better rolls vs better tactics.

Paizo Employee Designer

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am curious how they handled the "put the captive rogue in some splint mail so their AC drops to 7" (and they start taking ACP penalties to like "pick the locks on their manacles") problem.
That's something that worries me...

We thought of that; in the unlikely event this kind of shenanigans happens you can mulligan all benefits of the armor (and I do mean all of them, including runes and such) to use your unarmored proficiency, which everyone has.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am curious how they handled the "put the captive rogue in some splint mail so their AC drops to 7" (and they start taking ACP penalties to like "pick the locks on their manacles") problem.
That's something that worries me...
We thought of that; in the unlikely event this kind of shenanigans happens you can mulligan all benefits of the armor (and I do mean all of them, including runes and such) to use your unarmored proficiency, which everyone has.

That's nice to hear!

Although not a common problem with armor, with shields it is totally different.

Taking a shield to defend yourself should not make your AC worse than it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ediwir wrote:

If Kyra is Trained in Spellcasting, her +7 includes a +4 stat.

She does NOT have 18 dex, but she very well might have 18 wis.

If the key stat controls touch attacks, there's no reason to have a lower Touch AC.

Touch attacks are spell attacks vs AC.

I can Assure you of that.

TAC could also have been replaced by Ref DC. Since they are all on the same scale an attack that just needs to hit just needs to beat Ref.

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am curious how they handled the "put the captive rogue in some splint mail so their AC drops to 7" (and they start taking ACP penalties to like "pick the locks on their manacles") problem.
That's something that worries me...
We thought of that; in the unlikely event this kind of shenanigans happens you can mulligan all benefits of the armor (and I do mean all of them, including runes and such) to use your unarmored proficiency, which everyone has.

That's nice to hear!

Although not a common problem with armor, with shields it is totally different.

Taking a shield to defend yourself should not make your AC worse than it is.

Training in shields worked in too bizarre of a way with a weird exception, so we don't use proficiency ranks for shields any more as a result. Much much cleaner.


Captain Morgan wrote:
The idea they have is that fighters are all about building your own combos-- figuring out how to combine open actions and press actions, and whatever this new "flourish" action is.

I would bet Flourish is a "reset" action that allows you to go back to Open.

And I can get the "make your own combo" but just like the other subclasses, we're talking about incentivising combos not necessarily enforcing them (nothing stops a Brute Rogue from using a Rapier or Feinting in combat).

That said, I guess I can live without, just seems silly to exclude the Fighter from this area since you could also use that to incentivize types of fighting (tactical combat, dirty combat, mounted combat, etc.).

Probably fine, but was hoping the fighter would get more depth.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Siro wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Thanks. I knew that there was no +level to Untrained, but I saw a comment from one of the devs along the lines of "you don't get level to Untrained skills" and I wasn't sure if they were calling out skills specifically as if different things worked differently. I didn't think that was likely, but I wondered.

Good to hear that everyone is trained in unarmored - that assuages some concerns I had about the combat survivability of caster classes.

Yeah that would be deadly for wizards {or someone planning to play a nudist character} if you weren't trained in unarmored.

Though it does bring up the question= is there a way to improve prof outside of normal class upgrades <or alternatively the system accounts for this> in the final product? For example, at higher levels being trained in armor will do very little against someone whom is legendary in a weapon, having a natural +8 advantage before everything else. Same gets applied to saving throws and saves.

We know that even wizards eventually get expert in staffs and other wizard weapons. So I'd say defensive proficiencies upgrading at a different track than the playtest is a safe assumption, but I can't say how much of it will happen outside of class structure. One imagines rogues will get beyond trained with light armor, for example.

Alright cool, as long as there is some sort of gap closing method to keep higher level play in check <ie a fighter should have a really high chance to hit with there weapon, but having a +8 before everything else against someone whom is only trained in armor maybe to much, and in reverse if same fighter has to over come an additional 8 before everything else on a Will save to avoid killing the rest of the party.)


Mark Seifter wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
...

That's nice to hear!

Although not a common problem with armor, with shields it is totally different.

Taking a shield to defend yourself should not make your AC worse than it is.

Training in shields worked in too bizarre of a way with a weird exception, so we don't use proficiency ranks for shields any more as a result. Much much cleaner.

So does that mean anyone can use shields now, or is it a binary "you're either proficient or you aren't."


It's also possible everyone gets the AC Bonus, but not everyone can do the blocking move. To preserve balance, without proficiency, it messes up spellcasters


Siro wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Siro wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Thanks. I knew that there was no +level to Untrained, but I saw a comment from one of the devs along the lines of "you don't get level to Untrained skills" and I wasn't sure if they were calling out skills specifically as if different things worked differently. I didn't think that was likely, but I wondered.

Good to hear that everyone is trained in unarmored - that assuages some concerns I had about the combat survivability of caster classes.

Yeah that would be deadly for wizards {or someone planning to play a nudist character} if you weren't trained in unarmored.

Though it does bring up the question= is there a way to improve prof outside of normal class upgrades <or alternatively the system accounts for this> in the final product? For example, at higher levels being trained in armor will do very little against someone whom is legendary in a weapon, having a natural +8 advantage before everything else. Same gets applied to saving throws and saves.

We know that even wizards eventually get expert in staffs and other wizard weapons. So I'd say defensive proficiencies upgrading at a different track than the playtest is a safe assumption, but I can't say how much of it will happen outside of class structure. One imagines rogues will get beyond trained with light armor, for example.
Alright cool, as long as there is some sort of gap closing method to keep higher level play in check <ie a fighter should have a really high chance to hit with there weapon, but having a +8 before everything else against someone whom is only trained in armor maybe to much, and in reverse if same fighter has to over come an additional 8 before everything else on a Will save to avoid killing the rest of the party.)

Unless PCs are fighting each other this isn’t actually a concern.


Xenocrat wrote:
Siro wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Siro wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Thanks. I knew that there was no +level to Untrained, but I saw a comment from one of the devs along the lines of "you don't get level to Untrained skills" and I wasn't sure if they were calling out skills specifically as if different things worked differently. I didn't think that was likely, but I wondered.

Good to hear that everyone is trained in unarmored - that assuages some concerns I had about the combat survivability of caster classes.

Yeah that would be deadly for wizards {or someone planning to play a nudist character} if you weren't trained in unarmored.

Though it does bring up the question= is there a way to improve prof outside of normal class upgrades <or alternatively the system accounts for this> in the final product? For example, at higher levels being trained in armor will do very little against someone whom is legendary in a weapon, having a natural +8 advantage before everything else. Same gets applied to saving throws and saves.

We know that even wizards eventually get expert in staffs and other wizard weapons. So I'd say defensive proficiencies upgrading at a different track than the playtest is a safe assumption, but I can't say how much of it will happen outside of class structure. One imagines rogues will get beyond trained with light armor, for example.
Alright cool, as long as there is some sort of gap closing method to keep higher level play in check <ie a fighter should have a really high chance to hit with there weapon, but having a +8 before everything else against someone whom is only trained in armor maybe to much, and in reverse if same fighter has to over come an additional 8 before everything else on a Will save to avoid killing the rest of the party.)
Unless PCs are fighting each other this isn’t actually a concern.

Ture part of its speculation, but it can also come up both depending on how NPC's / Monsters are built {ie if they are built with Prof / there stats are built incorporating prof bonuses}. Of course I admit it is probably to early to speculate on these things, and if so I apologise.


Siro wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Siro wrote:


Alright cool, as long as there is some sort of gap closing method to keep higher level play in check <ie a fighter should have a really high chance to hit with there weapon, but having a +8 before everything else against someone whom is only trained in armor maybe to much, and in reverse if same fighter has to over come an additional 8 before everything else on a Will save to avoid killing the rest of the party.)

Unless PCs are fighting each other this isn’t actually a concern.
Ture part of its speculation, but it can also come up both depending on how NPC's / Monsters are built {ie if they are built with Prof / there stats are built incorporating prof bonuses}. Of course I admit it is probably to early to speculate on these things, and if so I apologise.

I would say it does not need to close the gap, it just need to provide something that the fighter can't do.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, this game is gonna have a Retch action?

(slams preorder button)

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Unless PCs are fighting each other this isn’t actually a concern.

This is not true, since using the PC rules to make NPC enemies has always been stated to be kosher in PF2. Therefore, inter-Class balance matters quite a bit (since you can wind up fighting people made with the PC rules).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe Wells wrote:

Wait, this game is gonna have a Retch action?

(slams preorder button)

3-action AoE incoming....

Liberty's Edge

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

Wait, this game is gonna have a Retch action?

(slams preorder button)
3-action AoE incoming....

Or splash weapon I would say.

We now need an internal alchemy archetype (or feat) where the PC ingests the components and regurgitates the results. Even better with bombs, as far as visuals are concerned :-P


Joe Wells wrote:

Wait, this game is gonna have a Retch action?

(slams preorder button)

Note that some type of sickness (such as that caused by Filth Fever) cannot be removed by Retch, because there’s nothing wrong in your stomach - your sickness comes from a fever.


To sate my curiosity, was anyone paying attention to what the snakes' and skeleton's ACs were? Trying to get a handle on where the math is now.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Here's the video, in case anyone wants to check it themselves: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/395207739?filter=all&sort=time
Linkified.

Now you can also watch this on youtube on the Game Trade Media channel : Pathfinder 2nd Edition by Paizo Publishing - GAMA 2019.

Liberty's Edge

FedoraFerret wrote:
To sate my curiosity, was anyone paying attention to what the snakes' and skeleton's ACs were? Trying to get a handle on where the math is now.

The snakes had a 16 and were almost certainly Level 0. The Skeleton (which was level 2-3, I'd suspect) had an AC of 20 or 21 (I don't think anyone ever rolled a 20 total, but 19 missed and 21 hit).


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
To sate my curiosity, was anyone paying attention to what the snakes' and skeleton's ACs were? Trying to get a handle on where the math is now.
The snakes had a 16 and were almost certainly Level 0. The Skeleton (which was level 2-3, I'd suspect) had an AC of 20 or 21 (I don't think anyone ever rolled a 20 total, but 19 missed and 21 hit).

We have to note that the skeleton was described as having a breastplate of some sort, and a shield. He could be an "higher than average AC" skeleton.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Watching the video on Youtube: comparing Kira's AC to playtest, she has a 18 versus a 16. The vipers had a 15 AC in playtest and now appear to have 16s. This could be an example of trained giving a +2 instead of +1.

I also noticed that Jason says some monsters and higher level characters will get special powers versus natural 1 attacks. I do not remember that from the Playtest. :)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Darkwynters wrote:

Watching the video on Youtube: comparing Kira's AC to playtest, she has a 17 versus a 16. The vipers had a 15 AC in playtest and now appear to have 16s. This could be an example of trained giving a +2 instead of +1.

I also noticed that Jason says some monsters and higher level characters will get special powers versus natural 1 attacks. I do not remember that from the Playtest. :)

Pretty sure there was some reactions that had "the foe critically fail" as a trigger, or it was AT LEAST mentioned by the devs as a goal.

[edit]
This is one I found in the bestiary, didn't look in the rule book:

Quote:

Sidestep

Trigger A Strike attack roll against the rogue fails or critically fails.
Effect The rogue redirects the attack to a creature of the rogue’s
choice that is adjacent to the rogue and within the reach of the
triggering attack. The attacker rerolls the Strike’s attack roll at
the same multiple attack penalty against the new target

Found another one:

Quote:

Greedy Grab (attack)

Trigger A creature critically fails a weapon Strike against the
boar demon
Effect The boar demon tries to snatch the weapon used in the
triggering Strike by attempting an Athletics check to Disarm
the boar demon at a –2 penalty. On a success or critical
success, the boar demon takes the weapon into one of its
hands instead of the normal success effect

I also found a couple more that only need a fail to trigger.


Elfteiroh wrote:
Darkwynters wrote:

Watching the video on Youtube: comparing Kira's AC to playtest, she has a 17 versus a 16. The vipers had a 15 AC in playtest and now appear to have 16s. This could be an example of trained giving a +2 instead of +1.

I also noticed that Jason says some monsters and higher level characters will get special powers versus natural 1 attacks. I do not remember that from the Playtest. :)

Pretty sure there was some reactions that had "the foe critically fail" as a trigger, or it was AT LEAST mentioned by the devs as a goal.

[edit]
This is one I found in the bestiary, didn't look in the rule book:

Quote:

Sidestep

Trigger A Strike attack roll against the rogue fails or critically fails.
Effect The rogue redirects the attack to a creature of the rogue’s
choice that is adjacent to the rogue and within the reach of the
triggering attack. The attacker rerolls the Strike’s attack roll at
the same multiple attack penalty against the new target

Found another one:

Quote:

Greedy Grab (attack)

Trigger A creature critically fails a weapon Strike against the
boar demon
Effect The boar demon tries to snatch the weapon used in the
triggering Strike by attempting an Athletics check to Disarm
the boar demon at a –2 penalty. On a success or critical
success, the boar demon takes the weapon into one of its
hands instead of the normal success effect
I also found a couple more that only need a fail to trigger.

I'll also point out that Fighter has a Dueling Riposte that was usable on a crit fail.

Liberty's Edge

Elfteiroh wrote:
We have to note that the skeleton was described as having a breastplate of some sort, and a shield. He could be an "higher than average AC" skeleton.

It also cast spells, for that matter. It was a Graveknight or something rather than a generic skeleton. That said, armor doesn't add on top of what AC a creature has for its level, its armor is taken into account.

Darkwynters wrote:
Watching the video on Youtube: comparing Kira's AC to playtest, she has a 18 versus a 16. The vipers had a 15 AC in playtest and now appear to have 16s. This could be an example of trained giving a +2 instead of +1.

Actually, Kyra may have only a 17, it got cited differently the two times it came up. Also, the +2 is as opposed to a +0, so it's not a strict 1 to 1, with everyone just getting the bonus on top of what they had. Indeed, Valeros has a 17 previously and now has an 18...which means his armor bonus presumably went down.

Darkwynters wrote:
I also noticed that Jason says some monsters and higher level characters will get special powers versus natural 1 attacks. I do not remember that from the Playtest. :)

Nah, that's in the playtest. They may have made them more common, though I wouldn't be sure.

51 to 98 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / GameTradeMedia liveplay stream notes - Here for your Assurance All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.