| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grab special attacks automatic with an associated attack hit.
Criticals: Roll damage normally then double.
Which brings up something: Should we also confirm what has been kept from the Playtest in this reveal?
I suspect deltas/changes from playtest are most useful to the dedicated forum members who have tracked everything.
The deltas/changes from 1e are more useful to people who haven't followed every iteration/just tuning in now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Acid Splash dealt 5 damage (plus 1 splash) which would indicate an upgrade from the 1d4 damage in playtest. Probably to 1d6. More would seem a bit excessive, I think.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How Shields Work:
Spend an action to raise it. Gives some amount of AC bonus. Can be used to block damage, as per playtest. Shield has a Hardness, which absorbs that much damage from the blow without consequence. If the damage exceeds the Hardness, the excess is applied to both the shield and to its wielder. Starting level equipment is enough to have a shield with Hardness 5 and 20hp.
Example: PC raises shield, is struck for 8 damage. Uses the damage block reaction. Shield has Hardness 5, so PC and shield both take 3 damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like it, yes.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Acid Splash dealt 5 damage (plus 1 splash) which would indicate an upgrade from the 1d4 damage in playtest. Probably to 1d6. More would seem a bit excessive, I think.
Yes, it was a flat 1d6 (the die roll is shown on camera).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Acid Splash dealt 5 damage (plus 1 splash) which would indicate an upgrade from the 1d4 damage in playtest. Probably to 1d6. More would seem a bit excessive, I think.Yes, it was a flat 1d6 (the die roll is shown on camera).
Thanks for pointing that out.
I didn't look in that moment, but I figured it would be a d6. Next best option would be a d8, but if you add the splash damage (and the potential for persistent damage on a crit, should that still be possible), acid splash would greatly outperform most other damaging cantrips.
I don't know if I've missed this being discussed elsewhere, but from the attributes for the characters they all seem to have been built with a total of 9 boosts and 0 flaws. Do none of the ancestries have flaws anymore?
I don't know if I've missed this being discussed elsewhere, but from the attributes for the characters they all seem to have been built with a total of 9 boosts and 0 flaws. Do none of the ancestries have flaws anymore?
3 boosts from ancestry, 1 flaw, 2 boosts from background, 1 boost from the class and 4 from the buy.
They just used one boost to cover the flaw i think.
I don't know if I've missed this being discussed elsewhere, but from the attributes for the characters they all seem to have been built with a total of 9 boosts and 0 flaws. Do none of the ancestries have flaws anymore?3 boosts from ancestry, 1 flaw, 2 boosts from background, 1 boost from the class and 4 from the buy.
They just used one boost to cover the flaw i think.
Yeah, that would make sense. Weird that they all decided to do it though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speculatively, it could mean a negative in a stat means a bit more {ie even in a dump stat, it should be avoided}. Though there could also be 100's of other reasons why, from rollplay, to what they are planning to do with there characters in the future.Yeah, that would make sense. Weird that they all decided to do it though.I don't know if I've missed this being discussed elsewhere, but from the attributes for the characters they all seem to have been built with a total of 9 boosts and 0 flaws. Do none of the ancestries have flaws anymore?3 boosts from ancestry, 1 flaw, 2 boosts from background, 1 boost from the class and 4 from the buy.
They just used one boost to cover the flaw i think.
The dwarf champion has a strong mechanical reason to buff Cha. And the goblin sorcerer being more wise than normal for his ancestry makes a lot of sense based on his backstory.
Not sure on the other two, some folks just don't like seeing negative numbers.
It's also possible none of them wanted a negative stat while showing off the game for the first time
Could sorcerers always choose what components they use for their spells? They mentioned something about being able to make both components somatic because they we're a sorcerer.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could sorcerers always choose what components they use for their spells? They mentioned something about being able to make both components somatic because they we're a sorcerer.
That was how they worked in the playtest - sorcerers could substitute somatic components for material ones; I'd bet that holy lance normally has a material component of presenting the caster's holy symbol toward the target.
Could sorcerers always choose what components they use for their spells? They mentioned something about being able to make both components somatic because they we're a sorcerer.That was how they worked in the playtest - sorcerers could substitute somatic components for material ones; I'd bet that holy lance normally has a material component of presenting the caster's holy symbol toward the target.
That makes alot of sense and I figured as much but wasn't sure. Thanks for that ^^
OK, I understand STR negates some Speed reduction from Encumbrance,
any clearer understanding of that from actual gameplay examples?
Or insight to how speed works for Small / Slow races (Dwarves) and such?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, I understand STR negates some Speed reduction from Encumbrance,
any clearer understanding of that from actual gameplay examples?Or insight to how speed works for Small / Slow races (Dwarves) and such?
Nothing yet, but we only have 1 hours' worth of gameplay so far...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little sad to see touch AC go. I liked that some creatures had it worse than others, and I thought it made sense for limited resources like spells or bombs to have a higher chance of success. On the other hand, reducing caster reliance on dex is probably a good thing because that stat doesn't need more going for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, most instances of targets touch AC that were cool to have around can be replicated by something like a circumstantial bonus to hit people wearing metal armor when you grasp shockingly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, most instances of targets touch AC that were cool to have around can be replicated by something like a circumstantial bonus to hit people wearing metal armor when you grasp shockingly.
But leaves the one about targeting giant dragons and stuff out. Should be almost impossible to miss some moves against them, like firing at a brick wall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
New divine spell: holy lance - ranged attack spell that deals good (or, I suspect, evil, depending on alignment) damage. Did anybody catch the die size?
It's divine lance. And it seems to be 1d4+Cha for sorcerers. Link.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good job guys, not having been able to see the episode yet I'm glad this thread is already giving me some previews. Will also make it easier to follow the video. So essentially: thank you!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My burning question is what replaces TAC? Is it Reflex DCs, regular AC, whatIt looks like most stuff just uses AC. Given that casting stats are now used to attack with spells, this is probably fine.
Honestly spells and other attacks using the same mechanics is a lot easier for new players to understand. I get what touch AC was doing but in the end probably easy enough to get the same effect with just some ability based modifiers instead of having a different mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had hypotesised the removal of TAC from the last game stream, but apparently we’ve later been told that wasn’t the case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worried about what, exactily?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure adding casting stats makes up for not targeting TAC. An optimized caster could have 18 in their casting stat and 16 in Dex at level 1. Switching their casting stat in for accuracy only represents a 1 point bump in to hit, and potentially nothing at all from levels 5-9. This is a net gain when fighting things with identical AC and TAC like Shadows, and is a net 0 when fighting stuff with like the boar (15 AC, 14 TAC.) But a zombie had a 3 point swing between AC and TAC, which is not uncommon in the playtest bestiary. Some creatures had even more of a swing. In these cases, this is a net loss.
And this assumes that spellcasting proficiency gets bumped up to stay even with weapon proficiency, because currently it isn't. This feels like a safe assumption because martials having 2-4 points of accuracy over casters until level 12 seems absurd. But it also probably means casters need earlier access to item bonuses. And that is just to keep them even. They should not have a lower to hit chance on burning a limited resource than a martial has on an at will ability.
There are of course various ways they could have fixed this. Having cantrips target AC while spells target reflex or reflex DC spring to mind. I'd assume since they specifically were increasing spell chances of success that they are factoring in attack roll spells and not just monster saving throws.
(It is worth noting that this assumes the optimal ability scores. I can imagine many people would go for an 18 in their casting stat but not a 16 in dexterity, and this benefits those folks more. Which as I mentioned before is probably good for build diversity and making DEX of a god stat.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, hadn't noticed that. I'd be surprised if classes were untrained in perception though, especially with it being used for initiative. Might have just been a mistake?
I really wish they would do a lot of "things that have changed from the playtest" info dump.. the current trickle if preview information just makes me worried rather than hyped.
They did that months ago. It was the top 5 changes stream, and it's linked in the "What do we know thread."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Qundle, early on, made a perception check -- he rolled a 1 and his result was a 2.
Qundles Wisdom is 12
This suggests sorcerers are untrained in perception.
It also reveals that certain classes generally are untrained in perception.
That's... not good. I already have enough issues with Sense Motive uses being rolled into perception while removing the ability to raise it. If now my sorcerer or other character is forced to be completely incompetent at reading things socially... I'm really not happy about that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one said you'd be unable to raise it. There was a skill feat in the playtest to raise perception to expert, I could imagine the existence of a similar feat to train yourself in it.
Personally, I like it. Not everyone has to be good at perception. The introverted antisocial wizard, for instance, who has better things to do than take his eyes off the arcane rune he found scribbled on the wall.
That's also not to say that your perception score won't increase on its own at level 5 or something. We just don't know enough yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will certainly say that monsters shouldn't all be trained in perception, because some things should be easy to sneak up on.
And I'm sure if player characters start off untrained in perception they will be capable of choosing to become trained in it. I suppose it is also possible they rolled perception back into a skill, although I hope not.
Director of Game Design
|
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Qundle, early on, made a perception check -- he rolled a 1 and his result was a 2.
Qundles Wisdom is 12
This suggests sorcerers are untrained in perception.
It also reveals that certain classes generally are untrained in perception.
Yeah, I caught that afterwards. It was a mistake...