Massive spoiler dump from UK Games Expo


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I just noticed that these images include the definition text for Class Archetypes. So here's my best transcription of that text:

PF2 Core Rulebook, p. 219 wrote:

CLASS ARCHETYPES

Archetypes with the class trait represent a fundamental divergence from your class's specialties, but one that exists within the context of your class. You can select a class archetype only if you are a member of the class of the same name. Class archetypes always alter or replace some of a class's static class features, in addition to any new feats they offer. It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class's initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype.

All in all, this seems like a promising setup to implement class archetypes within the class design framework of PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:

I just noticed that these images include the definition text for Class Archetypes. So here's my best transcription of that text:

PF2 Core Rulebook, p. 219 wrote:

CLASS ARCHETYPES

Archetypes with the class trait represent a fundamental divergence from your class's specialties, but one that exists within the context of your class. You can select a class archetype only if you are a member of the class of the same name. Class archetypes always alter or replace some of a class's static class features, in addition to any new feats they offer. It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class's initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype.

So, wait, I can't make heads or tails of the nomenclature:

CLASS ARCHETYPES - archetypes only a certain class can take
??? - archetypes anyone can take
PRESTIGE ARCHETYPES? - archetypes you can take only after fulfilling certain conditions
??? - archetypes all classes can take at 1st level
MULTICLASS ARCHETYPES - archetypes giving you a bit of the feats and features of another class

... ?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

I wasn't impressed with heavy armor either. If you need to spend money on it, or one of your allotted magic items must be a suit of it, it'd better give some benefits.

The monetary costs stop mattering at high levels, which is the only point Dex can really catch up anyway, and every character has to spend an allotted item on.

Quote:
Where "Hey, this will protect you if your dex isn't worth s&#%e!" is not actually a valid benefit - having low dex/high str or high dex/low str should be build choices, different for sure, but working for their own intended classes and specs.

No, actually, being able to prioritize Dex less is a valid benefit, especially on casters who want to swing a greatsword in melee, even with 4 stat benefits. A heavy hitting cleric can then prioritize STR/CON/WIS/CHA, for example.

Quote:
If the rogue has a ton of dex and a leather armor allowing her to tank gracefully through the room while the paladin in full plate is actually easier to hit, slower, more awkward, noisier, and a thousand silvers lighter in his belt pouch... well, I really hope Mark & friends apported the necessary corrections.

I just pointed out that this exact scenario wasn't even the case in the playtest. The paladin has higher AC at basically all levels of play and then by high levels has no ACP and barely any speed reduction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, so they’re taking away the stacking archetypes. Interesting. . .

As for heavy armor, it seemed fairly balanced, if a bit lack luster. If a rogue is bouncing around and just as hard to hit, cool. When he finally gets hit he’s going down hard, where as a Fighter, Champion, or even some Barbarian builds, can shove what Dex they don’t need into Con and take a few hits for the team and keep going. I’m not sure on the balance via price, but for AC if there’s too much of a gap, possibly even by 2 AC, it can feel that Heavy Armor would be too popular an option. I’m for giving armor in general a bit more than what they got; but mostly through positive traits along with simple but meaningful ways to work around the ACP.

EDIT: looks like Morgan got to some of my points first :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
tqomins wrote:

I just noticed that these images include the definition text for Class Archetypes. So here's my best transcription of that text:

PF2 Core Rulebook, p. 219 wrote:

CLASS ARCHETYPES

Archetypes with the class trait represent a fundamental divergence from your class's specialties, but one that exists within the context of your class. You can select a class archetype only if you are a member of the class of the same name. Class archetypes always alter or replace some of a class's static class features, in addition to any new feats they offer. It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class's initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype.

So, wait, I can't make heads or tails of the nomenclature:

CLASS ARCHETYPES - archetypes only a certain class can take
??? - archetypes anyone can take
PRESTIGE ARCHETYPES? - archetypes you can take only after fulfilling certain conditions
??? - archetypes all classes can take at 1st level
MULTICLASS ARCHETYPES - archetypes giving you a bit of the feats and features of another class

... ?

I'm not sure where the confusion is. It seems pretty clearly stated. Though for archetypes anyone can take we have Cavalier, Pirate, and probably that rumored Archery archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I do recall seeing somebody at PaizoCon say that prestige archetypes are gone.

And the earlier posting about class archetypes suggests that they are in fact the only archetypes that can be taken at 1st level.


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

I wasn't impressed with heavy armor either. If you need to spend money on it, or one of your allotted magic items must be a suit of it, it'd better give some benefits.

The monetary costs stop mattering at high levels, which is the only point Dex can really catch up anyway, and every character has to spend an allotted item on.

True.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Quote:
Where "Hey, this will protect you if your dex isn't worth s&#%e!" is not actually a valid benefit - having low dex/high str or high dex/low str should be build choices, different for sure, but working for their own intended classes and specs.
No, actually, being able to prioritize Dex less is a valid benefit, especially on casters who want to swing a greatsword in melee, even with 4 stat benefits. A heavy hitting cleric can then prioritize STR/CON/WIS/CHA, for example.

Mmm. So armor lets you "dump" dex and that should make you grateful? Dex is also used for ranged weapons, some skills, ref saves... it's a very powerful stat afaik. You sure it's a valid benefit? I was thinking more of something like having more AC, or perhaps a little damage reduction...

Captain Morgan wrote:
Quote:
If the rogue has a ton of dex and a leather armor allowing her to tank gracefully through the room while the paladin in full plate is actually easier to hit, slower, more awkward, noisier, and a thousand silvers lighter in his belt pouch... well, I really hope Mark & friends apported the necessary corrections.

I just pointed out that this exact scenario wasn't even the case in the playtest. The paladin has higher AC at basically all levels of play and then by high levels has no ACP and barely any speed reduction.

Yes, yes, Morgan, you just pointed that out, and I'm pointing out that wasn't my experience. Get over yourself, not everyone came out of the pt with the same impressions you did. Sure, I didn't overstay, but when the majority of high dex leather armor characters had more ac than the paladin in plates, even briefly for the levels I played... I have to wonder.

Sorry if I'm doubting you. I actually ain't, I'm sure it's the way you say, but it wasn't my experience.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

I do recall seeing somebody at PaizoCon say that prestige archetypes are gone.

Can you find a source for that? The HK Armiger seems to be in direct contradiction to this idea if that’s the case.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:
tqomins wrote:

I just noticed that these images include the definition text for Class Archetypes. So here's my best transcription of that text:

PF2 Core Rulebook, p. 219 wrote:

CLASS ARCHETYPES

Archetypes with the class trait represent a fundamental divergence from your class's specialties, but one that exists within the context of your class. You can select a class archetype only if you are a member of the class of the same name. Class archetypes always alter or replace some of a class's static class features, in addition to any new feats they offer. It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class's initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype.

So, wait, I can't make heads or tails of the nomenclature:

CLASS ARCHETYPES - archetypes only a certain class can take
??? - archetypes anyone can take
PRESTIGE ARCHETYPES? - archetypes you can take only after fulfilling certain conditions
??? - archetypes all classes can take at 1st level
MULTICLASS ARCHETYPES - archetypes giving you a bit of the feats and features of another class

... ?

It's not actually that complicated: you have (1) standard archetypes (e.g., Pathfinder Agent); (2) multiclass archetypes; (3) class archetypes. #1 and #3 are not included in the Core Rulebook, which only includes multiclass archetypes, but we have examples of #1 at least in the Lost Omens World Guide.

As I recall, the design team confirmed on one of the PaizoCon panels that PF2 will not use a "Prestige Archetypes" label, since they can just add entry prerequisites to a standard archetype without the need for a special label.

So what are the differences between these three archetype types? Why do we need these three labels?

(1) Archetype. Dedication feat gives you access to a bundle of archetype feats that you can select. Can't take another dedication feat until you've satisfied the dedication requirement of your first archetype.

(2) Multiclass Archetype. Designed to give you access to another class's feats and features. As above, but you cannot take the dedication if you are a member of the base class—e.g., Fighter can't enter the Fighter Multiclass archetype.

(3) Class Archetype. These are like PF1 archetypes: unlike the above, these actually alter some of your fixed, static class features. (They can also give you access to a bundle of archetype feats to select from.) Because it alters your class features, you need to be a member of the class to take a class archetype that alters it (obviously!). Unlike #1 and #2, you can only ever have 1 class archetype.


Edge93 wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
tqomins wrote:

I just noticed that these images include the definition text for Class Archetypes. So here's my best transcription of that text:

PF2 Core Rulebook, p. 219 wrote:

CLASS ARCHETYPES

Archetypes with the class trait represent a fundamental divergence from your class's specialties, but one that exists within the context of your class. You can select a class archetype only if you are a member of the class of the same name. Class archetypes always alter or replace some of a class's static class features, in addition to any new feats they offer. It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class's initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype.

So, wait, I can't make heads or tails of the nomenclature:

CLASS ARCHETYPES - archetypes only a certain class can take
??? - archetypes anyone can take
PRESTIGE ARCHETYPES? - archetypes you can take only after fulfilling certain conditions
??? - archetypes all classes can take at 1st level
MULTICLASS ARCHETYPES - archetypes giving you a bit of the feats and features of another class

... ?

I'm not sure where the confusion is. It seems pretty clearly stated. Though for archetypes anyone can take we have Cavalier, Pirate, and probably that rumored Archery archetype.

I must have explained myself poorly.

There are a lot of archetypes that apply in different moments, to different classes, for different goals. Do we have a list of names they are called to distinguish one type from another? Other than class archetype and MC archetype, are there other types I'm not aware of perhaps?

Hopefully this was clearer.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
I do recall seeing somebody at PaizoCon say that prestige archetypes are gone.

I'm puzzled by that since a dedication for "you have joined the Hellknights/Lion Blades/Gray Corsairs/Arclords etc. and are thus entitled to special training (i.e. feats)" makes a ton of sense, given that these are organizations who are not looking to sign off on level 1 nobodys.

Maybe we're just dropping the prestige nomenclature, making the difference between a dedication you can take at 2nd and a dedication you can't take until 6th nothing more than "what level you can start them." I guess this opens up space for less prestigious (level 4) and more prestigious (e.g. level 12 certified BAs only!) clubs you can join.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
tqomins wrote:

I just noticed that these images include the definition text for Class Archetypes. So here's my best transcription of that text:

PF2 Core Rulebook, p. 219 wrote:

CLASS ARCHETYPES

Archetypes with the class trait represent a fundamental divergence from your class's specialties, but one that exists within the context of your class. You can select a class archetype only if you are a member of the class of the same name. Class archetypes always alter or replace some of a class's static class features, in addition to any new feats they offer. It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class's initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype.

So, wait, I can't make heads or tails of the nomenclature:

CLASS ARCHETYPES - archetypes only a certain class can take
??? - archetypes anyone can take
PRESTIGE ARCHETYPES? - archetypes you can take only after fulfilling certain conditions
??? - archetypes all classes can take at 1st level
MULTICLASS ARCHETYPES - archetypes giving you a bit of the feats and features of another class

... ?

It's not actually that complicated: you have (1) standard archetypes (e.g., Pathfinder Agent); (2) multiclass archetypes; (3) class archetypes. #1 and #3 are not included in the Core Rulebook, which only includes multiclass archetypes, but we have examples of #1 at least in the Lost Omens World Guide.

As I recall, the design team confirmed on one of the PaizoCon panels that PF2 will not use a "Prestige Archetypes" label, since they can just add entry prerequisites to a standard archetype without the need for a special label.

So what are the differences between these three archetype types? Why do we need these three labels?

(1) Archetype. Dedication feat gives you access to a bundle of archetype...

Nice, this is what I was asking. Thank you, tqomins!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
I do recall seeing somebody at PaizoCon say that prestige archetypes are gone.

I'm puzzled by that since a dedication for "you have joined the Hellknights/Lion Blades/Gray Corsairs/Arclords etc. and are thus entitled to special training (i.e. feats)" makes a ton of sense, given that these are organizations who are not looking to sign off on level 1 nobodys.

Maybe we're just dropping the prestige nomenclature, making the difference between a dedication you can take at 2nd and a dedication you can't take until 6th nothing more than "what level you can start them."

Yes, that is pretty much what they said. They didn't need a whole new category of archetype just to distinguish archetypes you could access at 2nd level from archetypes that you could access only at 6th level or higher.

I can't cite the exact quote because I heard it on the Twitch channel; I did not read it in any sort of transcript or summary.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
I do recall seeing somebody at PaizoCon say that prestige archetypes are gone.

I'm puzzled by that since a dedication for "you have joined the Hellknights/Lion Blades/Gray Corsairs/Arclords etc. and are thus entitled to special training (i.e. feats)" makes a ton of sense, given that these are organizations who are not looking to sign off on level 1 nobodys.

Maybe we're just dropping the prestige nomenclature, making the difference between a dedication you can take at 2nd and a dedication you can't take until 6th nothing more than "what level you can start them."

Yes, that is pretty much what they said. They didn't need a whole new category of archetype just to distinguish archetypes you could access at 2nd level from archetypes that you could access only at 6th level or higher.

I can't cite the exact quote because I heard it on the Twitch channel; I did not read it in any sort of transcript or summary.

Yep, I'm skimming back through the relevant panels to try to find the precise link, but this discussion has captured it.

We do see this in action in the Pathfinder Agent, which was displayed at the banquet, and has the prerequisite of being a member of the Pathfinder Society. No need to call it "prestige" when it operates just like a standard archetype, just with specific entry requirements/prerequisites.

(NB, the Pathfinder Agent is also Uncommon, though with Access—i.e., it's Common for you—if you're from Absalom. This kind of build can capture the other side of some prestige classes, that you might want some of them to be rarer/more special/etc.)

Paizo Employee Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
I do recall seeing somebody at PaizoCon say that prestige archetypes are gone.

I'm puzzled by that since a dedication for "you have joined the Hellknights/Lion Blades/Gray Corsairs/Arclords etc. and are thus entitled to special training (i.e. feats)" makes a ton of sense, given that these are organizations who are not looking to sign off on level 1 nobodys.

Maybe we're just dropping the prestige nomenclature, making the difference between a dedication you can take at 2nd and a dedication you can't take until 6th nothing more than "what level you can start them."

Yes, that is pretty much what they said. They didn't need a whole new category of archetype just to distinguish archetypes you could access at 2nd level from archetypes that you could access only at 6th level or higher.

I can't cite the exact quote because I heard it on the Twitch channel; I did not read it in any sort of transcript or summary.

Yep, I'm skimming back through the relevant panels to try to find the precise link, but this discussion has captured it.

We do see this in action in the Pathfinder Agent, which was displayed at the banquet, and has the prerequisite of being a member of the Pathfinder Society. No need to call it "prestige" when it operates just like a standard archetype, just with specific entry requirements/prerequisites.

(NB, the Pathfinder Agent is also Uncommon, though with Access—i.e., it's Common for you—if you're from Absalom. This kind of build can capture the other side of some prestige classes, that you might want some of them to be rarer/more special/etc.)

Yes, the prestige term is gone, not the idea of having higher-level "prestige-ish" archetypes. The Pathfinder Society's first "test" pre-initiation is "Can you get to Absalom on your own to try to join?" so it's not a particularly hard uncommon archetype to gain access, but those who don't start having trained up in Absalom and join on the spot in distant locales need to impress the Society enough to get a rarer field commission, which puts it into uncommon territory.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
I’m not going to defend the minion trait, but how’re animal companions so weak?

LOL The first fight of the first adventure for us was the animal companion going down in one hit... :P Overall we found them unimpressive.

Now familiars were ok as long as you treat them as items and not creatures: items that grant abilities but something that didn't feel like an independent creature as it sat their like a lump unless controlled like a modern drone.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mechagamera wrote:

For summoning in general, I like the "the summoned monster will take actions according to its nature unless the summoner gives it specific directions" model more than the "hangs around waiting for orders" model. So something like: a summoned daemon will attack the closest creature (which can be the summoner) unless the summoner directs it to attack a specific target. The daemon will move to attack the specific target; however, if a creature gets between the daemon and the specific target, the daemon will attack the intervening creature until it kills or drives the intervening creature out of its reach.

So summoning a daemon is a big deal, dangerous to the summoner and the party, but a canny group will be able to get a lot of damage out of one action.

I could see devils trying to make a deal, angels healing humanoids/fey/beasts, elementals trying to leave, etc.

I agree. Summons and other creatures should have natural 'behaviors' which anyone should be capable of stepping through to determine its actions. The GM could do it, or delegate it to a character OTHER than the 'master' of the minion.

Take for instance guard dogs. If someone buys a guard dog or three, they won't sit there and wait for instructions for each round to designate a new for a new target each round by their owner. The owner will trigger an attack command, pointing to and opponent, and the group will all probably run up and attack the opponent until it is down. At which point, I can understand it waiting to know who else to attack, unless there is something already attacking it, at which point it would probably attack back. (but potentially not pursue)

Anytime a trained animal takes damage, or some threshold of damage, it might need to make a morale roll, adjusted by the handler's CHA or handling skill, potentially becoming frightened, fleeing, or switching into a self defense mode.

A summoner should be able to summon a swarm of skeletons. But I'm fine with it taking an action to designate their target, or instigate a programmed behavior, and potentially having to designate a single target for them all, or potentially having to spend different actions to designate any subsets to have different targets. [Say you summon a group of 5 skeletons, telling 3 skeletons to target Monster A, could take an action, and telling remaining skeletons to target Monster B, could require another action.]

If you summon skeletons, they should arrive and by default attack anything living nearby them, unless they are given a specific other task by their summoner. I'm fine with most minions/summons using at least one action being consumed by some self-preservation type action, or even an action to -pay attention to orders- action.

Animals trained to attack however, don't use their third action for that unless they are trained with the Down trick.

Guess what, even men-at-arms can be designed as minions like this. They have Trained modes. [tell them to guard person A, or attack a designated opponent, etc.] Again, I think a key component is to realize that a Minion's action need not be part of that player's turn. It should be viewed as a party resource, and its resolution can be handed out to other players.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:


Mmm. So armor lets you "dump" dex and that should make you grateful? Dex is also used for ranged weapons, some skills, ref saves... it's a very powerful stat afaik. You sure it's a valid benefit? I was thinking more of something like having more AC, or perhaps a little damage reduction...

Every stat has benefits. The melee cleric needs strength for accuracy and damage, constitution to shore up their hit points and let them bounce back better with Treat Wounds, Wisdom for their saves and spellcasting rolls and Charisma to have enough channels. Yes, getting Dex would be good too. Dex is, as discussed, also a pretty great stat for everyone. But gishes really need to make those boosts count.

Roswynn wrote:

[Yes, yes, Morgan, you just pointed that out, and I'm pointing out that wasn't my experience. Get over yourself, not everyone came out of the pt with the same impressions you did. Sure, I didn't overstay, but when the majority of high dex leather armor characters had more ac than the paladin in plates, even briefly for the levels I played... I have to wonder.

Sorry if I'm doubting you. I actually ain't, I'm sure it's the way you say, but it wasn't my experience.

This isn't about my experience, this is just objective math. Let's look at a Paladin in full plate (12 dex) vs a Rogue (18 dex).

Levels 1-6
Paladin gets 16+level AC with no Dex, 17+level with minimal investment.
Rogue gets 16+level with studded leather/chain shirt and max dex investment.

Level 7-9:
Paladin gets expert armor, now has 18+level.
Rogue still is 16+ level.

Level 10-12:
Paladin still at 18+level.
Rogue can get dex to 20 for 17+level.

Level 13-16:
Paladin gets master, is at 19+ level.
rogue still at 17+level.

Level 17-20:
Paladin gets legendary, is now 20+level.
Rogue still 17+level.

Barring some funkiness with the paladin falling behind on armor runes where the rogue didn't (which to be fair was an early issue with the item levels) the Paladin has higher AC at all levels of play with minimal optimization, and still comes out ahead or breaks even to the fully optimized rogue with no optimization at all. If this wasn't the experience of your players, then someone miscalculated their AC.

Now, you're certainly right that the Paladin is going to suffer a lot of drawbacks from ACP, speed reduction, and increased cost along the way. Probably had lower TAC, even. But what you and necromental said was that a high Dex character had the same or lower AC. That is categorically not true.

You could make this statement true, mind you, by replacing "Paladin" with "any other class but fighter." Then we get into a more nuanced conversation how every core PF1 class except Paladins, fighters, and clerics lost class features by wearing heavy armor. The goal of PF2 seemed to let those other classes wear armor if they wanted to, but not to make it so optimal that every wizard started wearing full plate.

There seems to be a consensus that they didn't hit the mark, because a flip wizard was so much better than a turtle wizard. But there have been enough changes leaked to know the needle has shifted at least a little back to turtle wizards.

The reason I'm pointing this out, Ros, is because your experience is valid even if your specific example was not. But I get frustrated when folks say things that aren't true, even if I agree with their larger point. This is something I struggle with in political discourse as well, when I find the side opposite of me has become so far gone I don't have the common ground to even discuss things anymore, which instead can leave me splitting hairs with folks who are mostly on my side.

I apologize for coming off like a butt. The playtest process drummed up a lot of folks on the forum that I couldn't find that common ground with, many of who I have enabled an "ignore" macro on my browser for to avoid raising my blood pressure. I respect you and consider you worth responding to, but that doesn't mean I can't come off too strong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Loreguard wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:

For summoning in general, I like the "the summoned monster will take actions according to its nature unless the summoner gives it specific directions" model more than the "hangs around waiting for orders" model. So something like: a summoned daemon will attack the closest creature (which can be the summoner) unless the summoner directs it to attack a specific target. The daemon will move to attack the specific target; however, if a creature gets between the daemon and the specific target, the daemon will attack the intervening creature until it kills or drives the intervening creature out of its reach.

So summoning a daemon is a big deal, dangerous to the summoner and the party, but a canny group will be able to get a lot of damage out of one action.

I could see devils trying to make a deal, angels healing humanoids/fey/beasts, elementals trying to leave, etc.

I agree. Summons and other creatures should have natural 'behaviors' which anyone should be capable of stepping through to determine its actions. The GM could do it, or delegate it to a character OTHER than the 'master' of the minion.

Take for instance guard dogs. If someone buys a guard dog or three, they won't sit there and wait for instructions for each round to designate a new for a new target each round by their owner. The owner will trigger an attack command, pointing to and opponent, and the group will all probably run up and attack the opponent until it is down. At which point, I can understand it waiting to know who else to attack, unless there is something already attacking it, at which point it would probably attack back. (but potentially not pursue)

Anytime a trained animal takes damage, or some threshold of damage, it might need to make a morale roll, adjusted by the handler's CHA or handling skill, potentially becoming frightened, fleeing, or switching into a self defense mode.

A summoner should be able to summon a swarm of skeletons. But I'm fine with it taking an action to...

I dunno, while I totally see the point on guard dogs and other pets* continuing to act of their own volition, a summoner or necromancer is literally magically compelling something to fight for it. In those contexts it feels pretty easy to justify you have essentially turned it into a robot who won't act unless acted upon. Especially since for summons you have to keep your concentration going anyway to maintain the spell. So realistically there's never going to be a summon that just stands there not doing anything because it can't exist without you concentrating on it.

I suppose the alternative would be a 5e model where if your concentration is broken the monster suddenly turns on you. Which I could certainly see being more immersive or even more fun to a certain class of players/GMs, but I'm not sure it would make summons more desirable to the majority.

(Undead, at least, I expect will remain around sans concentration, but if they've been reduced to your puppets anyway I could dig them only acting while under supervision. Making them follow a certain script, be it a default combat behavior or perhaps more importantly something like guard duty, seems like it could make for part of a ritual or feat.)

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Loreguard wrote:
Take for instance guard dogs. If someone buys a guard dog or three, they won't sit there and wait for instructions for each round to designate a new for a new target each round by their owner. The owner will trigger an attack command, pointing to and opponent and the group will all probably run up and attack the opponent until it is down. At which point, I can understand it waiting to know who else to attack, unless there is something already attacking it, at which point it would probably attack back. (but potentially not pursue)

No. I'm just going to stat it flat out. No, I disagree hard.

Guard dogs that function this way are 2sp each, and already AS IS with the 1 action per dog command in combat they're already WAY WAY too powerful. Imagine a 1st level Druid spending say, 100sp on this for 50 dogs- Mind you this is STILL less expensive than a single Alchemist Fire Flask. Now, you have a PC who goes around surrounded on all sides, 15 feet deep of animals with nearly as much HP as the Character creating a wall of bites, trips, and HP sponge. Sure they cannot move or act in combat without individual orders, but that still leaves the PC with at LEAST 20-100 HP standing in the way between themselves and any melee threat plus soft-cover versus any ranged attacks.

Minions that can act on their own should NEVER be for sale, available as summons, abilities, or feats- Period. This isn't an imagined scenario, this actually happened to my Playtest group because of a particular player who wanted to "test" the system. Well, he straight up broke it and almost all of my detailed feedback on the Playtest was in regards to how Minions should be handled and why they should be STRICTLY controlled as to how to obtain them, I for one will be sorely disappointed if minions aren't taken off the "Equipment" list altogether, or in the very least given a HARD-CAP on how many Minions in total a given PC can have (Tie it to Charisma maybe?).

The control limitations are a GOOD thing. I don't care if they're trained dogs, adult bears, familiars, summons, whatever- anytime you add another creature to the battle-map, that creature should take away from the number of actions the controller gets otherwise they SHOULD just sit there ineffectively, because as I noted earlier, even if you're not spending the actions to direct them, they're still HP sponges and contribute significantly to the tacitcal combat.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In general, I'm comfortable letting the pet/hireling rules be 100% in the realm of GM discretion. If you want to have a fully fledged creature with its own actions and initiative, it should be up to the GM to decide how it behaves, whether you can acquire it, and everything.

Class feature minions/animal companions/summons/etc need to be strictly controlled as Themetricsystem says, because it's outside the normal discretion of the GM.

For example:

A druid wants to buy 50 dogs? GM can say no there aren't that many for sale in the country, or say yes and let the player realize the mob of dogs don't behave perfectly, and get skittish about being around so many other dogs, chaos ensues.

A player wants to pay for a mercenary? Sure, add up the hazard pay, give them motives and desires, and split experience with them.

These are very important options in a game world where anything is supposed to be possible.

In exchange for having a minion that does only what the player wants, with no individual agency or possibility of going rogue, they have to pay the action cost toll, and have the appropriate feats.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to gloss over the logistics of handling one animal companion that's an extension of your character. But it's an entirely different matter when a player wants to buy a unreasonable amount of animals to fight for him.

This is something that would never fly on my table. Not much because I wouldn't allow it, but because I would make a point of enforcing the rules of the situation. It would get tiresome real fast for the player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel one issue with the summon/companion/minion is the 1 action to concentrate per creature. I mean, it can work and you can have up to three at a time if you do it very carefully. I would like a feat or something that allows you to use multiple concentration actions; at least up to a cap, like Int Mod or something. Even not counting summons and companions, it would be nice to concentrate on multiple spell effects at one time without standing there like a tree.

@Greystone - Our group had the opposite experience; our Ranger had a Cat and a Heavy Crossbow, and did a LOT of burst. The cat ended up critting a number of times as well, so maybe the dice were on our side. I was also playing Cleric and kept the kitty healed. To hear yours got one-shot. . . Wow. They should on average have as much hp as an elf wizard; so they are certainly on the squishy side, but that also means that thing could have one-shot a PC. Let’s hope the math is just a bit less swingy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

I feel one issue with the summon/companion/minion is the 1 action to concentrate per creature. I mean, it can work and you can have up to three at a time if you do it very carefully. I would like a feat or something that allows you to use multiple concentration actions; at least up to a cap, like Int Mod or something. Even not counting summons and companions, it would be nice to concentrate on multiple spell effects at one time without standing there like a tree.

@Greystone - Our group had the opposite experience; our Ranger had a Cat and a Heavy Crossbow, and did a LOT of burst. The cat ended up critting a number of times as well, so maybe the dice were on our side. I was also playing Cleric and kept the kitty healed. To hear yours got one-shot. . . Wow. They should on average have as much hp as an elf wizard; so they are certainly on the squishy side, but that also means that thing could have one-shot a PC. Let’s hope the math is just a bit less swingy.

Well there is effortless concentration at high levels. But generally I'd rather controlling multiple minions get resolved through swarm or troop mechanics.


Well it's technically possible to have 3 summons in the field at the level of Effortless Concentration (would need Quickening to summon the third creature).

If the summon dragon is like summon monster in the playtest then you can summon two ancient white dragons with the level 10 spell slots and adult with the lvl 9 (around 850HP on the field...). With this you basically have 7 actions on the turn, 8 if you have a familiar or animal companion, but in the last case you don't move.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yes, the prestige term is gone, not the idea of having higher-level "prestige-ish" archetypes. The Pathfinder Society's first "test" pre-initiation is "Can you get to Absalom on your own to try to join?" so it's not a particularly hard uncommon archetype to gain access, but those who don't start having trained up...

Does this mean that the Pathfinder Agent Archetype is accessible to anyone who is able to make it to Absalom and join the Pathfinder Society?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
@Greystone - Our group had the opposite experience; our Ranger had a Cat and a Heavy Crossbow, and did a LOT of burst. The cat ended up critting a number of times as well, so maybe the dice were on our side. I was also playing Cleric and kept the kitty healed. To hear yours got one-shot. . . Wow. They should on average have as much hp as an elf wizard; so they are certainly on the squishy side, but that also means that thing could have one-shot a PC. Let’s hope the math is just a bit less swingy.

One issue was it had the lowest AC of the group and with monster critting a lot on the best AC's, the lowest got it the worst [hp weren't just not enough to manage a good crit]. Secondly, using the animal seemed to leave the ranger with no actions a lot of the time Hunt, Stride [melee weapons] and Command is the entire round the ranger didn't attack [and the bear only attacks once with Stride and Strike].

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Wow. They should on average have as much hp as an elf wizard

Oh, everyone took a dirtnap at one time or another: the companions just gets distinctions for the first and I think most often crit.

Now a ranged ranger with the 2 attack single action in the last update would have made a difference I'm sure. I hope they have improved sturdiness of Companions and/or made barding/AC improvements. A bit of extra hp and some natural AC would do wonders IMO and keep them closer to armored melee foes and PC's.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Gloom wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yes, the prestige term is gone, not the idea of having higher-level "prestige-ish" archetypes. The Pathfinder Society's first "test" pre-initiation is "Can you get to Absalom on your own to try to join?" so it's not a particularly hard uncommon archetype to gain access, but those who don't start having trained up...
Does this mean that the Pathfinder Agent Archetype is accessible to anyone who is able to make it to Absalom and join the Pathfinder Society?

You need to be from Absalom to have Common access to the archetype. People from elsewhere on Golarion need to prove themselves to the Society (i.e. unlock the Uncommon archetype)


graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
@Greystone - Our group had the opposite experience; our Ranger had a Cat and a Heavy Crossbow, and did a LOT of burst. The cat ended up critting a number of times as well, so maybe the dice were on our side. I was also playing Cleric and kept the kitty healed. To hear yours got one-shot. . . Wow. They should on average have as much hp as an elf wizard; so they are certainly on the squishy side, but that also means that thing could have one-shot a PC. Let’s hope the math is just a bit less swingy.

One issue was it had the lowest AC of the group and with monster critting a lot on the best AC's, the lowest got it the worst [hp weren't just not enough to manage a good crit]. Secondly, using the animal seemed to leave the ranger with no actions a lot of the time Hunt, Stride [melee weapons] and Command is the entire round the ranger didn't attack [and the bear only attacks once with Stride and Strike].

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Wow. They should on average have as much hp as an elf wizard

Oh, everyone took a dirtnap at one time or another: the companions just gets distinctions for the first and I think most often crit.

Now a ranged ranger with the 2 attack single action in the last update would have made a difference I'm sure. I hope they have improved sturdiness of Companions and/or made barding/AC improvements. A bit of extra hp and some natural AC would do wonders IMO and keep them closer to armored melee foes and PC's.

Yeah, they do have some scary low AC, and even with feat investment it doesn’t seem to scale too quickly. The clunky interaction with melee ranger is interesting to know; i can picture it with PC and enemies able to move around a lot more; makes crowd control a lot more valuable.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
3Doubloons wrote:
You need to be from Absalom to have Common access to the archetype. People from elsewhere on Golarion need to prove themselves to the Society (i.e. unlock the Uncommon archetype)

Seems kinda weird to me, given that there's so many Lodges across Golarian. Oh well, I think it will still work out, and I guess it might be different in a PFS environment lol


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Yeah, they do have some scary low AC, and even with feat investment it doesn’t seem to scale too quickly. The clunky interaction with melee ranger is interesting to know; i can picture it with PC and enemies able to move around a lot more; makes crowd control a lot more valuable.

I had a solid melee ranger with an animal companion by using my bear as a mount. Lost the Work Together benefit but it effectively gave me a free stride at almost double my speed every turn and effectively negate MAP for one of my attacks so I'd say it was worth the feat investment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
In actual practice heavy armor was good for classes it was meant to be used for, which is exactly how it was in PF1.

I feel like pigeonholing gear was one of the flaws of PF1 that PF2 should be embracing, not doubling down on. Stuff that sucks if you don't have specific ways to invest in it or class features that punish you for not using them aren't really good design.

Also level 17 is pretty high up there.


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

I feel like pigeonholing gear was one of the flaws of PF1 that PF2 should be embracing, not doubling down on. Stuff that sucks if you don't have specific ways to invest in it or class features that punish you for not using them aren't really good design.

The rules may change after the playtest, but the only ones who gain any higher proficiency in other armors are the paladin and fighter in the same feats as heavy proficiency increases. The exception is the Monk who gets it in unarmored, so it isnt quite punishing you for not going into heavy.

I feel like paizo is going for more of a "If you want to do x, play y class", sort of like they did for Starfinder. If you want to deal damage, play a soldier.

Squiggit wrote:
Also level 17 is pretty high up there.

level 17 is the level for the PCs in the last playtest adventure.


FedoraFerret wrote:
I had a solid melee ranger with an animal companion by using my bear as a mount. Lost the Work Together benefit but it effectively gave me a free stride at almost double my speed every turn and effectively negate MAP for one of my attacks so I'd say it was worth the feat investment.

That would one way to make melee work but that's both taking a small PC AND waiting until 6th to get a mount. For a medium PC, you only have the horse [at 6th], though a small PC could start off at 1st with a mount.

I'd say it'd be a good time to pick up a lance but with it's reach, but the mount can't attack with it so the only viable option is it's work together: Might a well have the mount attack instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:

Well it's technically possible to have 3 summons in the field at the level of Effortless Concentration (would need Quickening to summon the third creature).

If the summon dragon is like summon monster in the playtest then you can summon two ancient white dragons with the level 10 spell slots and adult with the lvl 9 (around 850HP on the field...). With this you basically have 7 actions on the turn, 8 if you have a familiar or animal companion, but in the last case you don't move.

If you do that you're using both you level 10 slots, a lot of rounds and actions, and you aren't even threatening to 20th level threats. Those dragons have a lot of HP and actions, but they aren't threatening to appropriate level opponents at all. They're pretty much just mobile walls, which should be ignored by remotely intelligent enemies at those levels.

For them to be useful the enemies must be mindless, or you must have a GM who wants to give you a break for wasting all those resources and attacks them anyway.


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

Secondly, using the animal seemed to leave the ranger with no actions a lot of the time Hunt, Stride [melee weapons] and Command is the entire round the ranger didn't attack [and the bear only attacks once with Stride and Strike].

Why would you use Hunt Target if you can't attack more than once that turn anyway? You are removing your ability to hit even once for the benefit of better accuracy when hitting more than once? I get that it was likely the first game but that is a pretty obvious "playing this in a way that makes it seem terrible." This is discounting that all but one of the encounters the player should have been Hunting before the fight even began.


Boomstik101 wrote:


I feel like paizo is going for more of a "If you want to do x, play y class", sort of like they did for Starfinder. If you want to deal damage, play a soldier.

That's sort of my worry. IMO the fact that using certain options (particularly melee weapons and skills in SF's class) on the 'wrong' classes is such a laborious, unrewarding effort is one of the worst aspects of Starfinder as a system and one of the most common points of criticism I see leveled at the system.

Likewise seeing features that force certain classes to wear heavy armor to function properly seems needlessly concept restricting too.

Quote:
level 17 is the level for the PCs in the last playtest adventure.

I know, but in 2e it's probably not going to be the point at which most campaigns are played.

Silver Crusade

Squiggit wrote:
Boomstik101 wrote:


I feel like paizo is going for more of a "If you want to do x, play y class", sort of like they did for Starfinder. If you want to deal damage, play a soldier.

That's sort of my worry. IMO the fact that using certain options (particularly melee weapons and skills in SF's class) on the 'wrong' classes is such a laborious, unrewarding effort is one of the worst aspects of Starfinder as a system and one of the most common points of criticism I see leveled at the system.

Likewise seeing features that force certain classes to wear heavy armor to function properly seems needlessly concept restricting too.

Quote:
level 17 is the level for the PCs in the last playtest adventure.
I know, but in 2e it's probably not going to be the point at which most campaigns are played.

I could be wrong, but wasn't the first AP supposed to end at 20?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Boomstik101 wrote:


I feel like paizo is going for more of a "If you want to do x, play y class", sort of like they did for Starfinder. If you want to deal damage, play a soldier.

That's sort of my worry. IMO the fact that using certain options (particularly melee weapons and skills in SF's class) on the 'wrong' classes is such a laborious, unrewarding effort is one of the worst aspects of Starfinder as a system and one of the most common points of criticism I see leveled at the system.

Likewise seeing features that force certain classes to wear heavy armor to function properly seems needlessly concept restricting too.

Quote:
level 17 is the level for the PCs in the last playtest adventure.
I know, but in 2e it's probably not going to be the point at which most campaigns are played.
I could be wrong, but wasn't the first AP supposed to end at 20?

Yes, but even discounted the vast amount of people who won't make it through the AP or just don't play them, the huge majority of the AP is before 17. One book at the end being 17-20.


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

i liked the basic engine of the playtest and saw there could be a really special system under all the awful math and dodgy feats but it needed a lot of fixing and it seems that this has been done. the minions wasnt really a problem i saw.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
@Doktor Weasel - I didn’t mean to sound like i was calling you out on your rant of animal companions; and like has been said, i’ve gained a better appreciation for those that have expressed a more critical view on the rules and system during the playtest. It gets a little challenging to figure how someone is trying to come across at times.

It's all good. I know it's difficult to read intent on the internet. And I'm not the most expressive writer. And it's actually kind of helpful to realize that I'm coming off as a bit of a doomsayer, which is not my intent. So I'll try to be a bit more careful with how I'm coming off. There were people shouting: "PF2 sux! It takes away your rights! It peed on my dog and gave me Dutch Elm disease!" I'm trying not to be that.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
There has been a lot of criticism and still some to wade through; and it can cover over the good aspects at times. I like that animal companions and familiars are simple to make now; like seriously simple, but i feel familiars could use with some tighter wording. Casters have gotten some nerfs, not gonna deny that, but they also got some really nice things for what they lost. Weather the loss was worth the gain can be argued, but casters did get some serious gains with the Playtest.

Simple is one thing, but when it comes at the expense utility and the all important but nebulous "feel" it's not worth it in my opinion. The minions just felt flat and useless, not like actual creatures. Like Graystone said, familiars are basically just magic items that you take for the Master Abilities and then forget about, while I didn't see much utility in the animal companion in the test other than sucking up feats and actions. Our playtest group's ranger left his companion at home in the first adventure, because he was worried about the kind of one-shot that was described above, with it's low AC and HP. In the fifth part, it didn't really contribute at all, other than taking one of the rocs out of the fight, by being carried off and eaten by it, allowing the group to focus on the second one which was busy trying to do the same to my Alchemist (to be fair, the alchemist contributed about as little as the animal companion, but was a PC so they saved me). We didn't get far into part 7, so I can't comment on how useful his replacement was.

I do understand that animal companions in PF1 could be completely broken and needed some nerfing. In one game we had a Druid with a Saber-toothed cat that got nicknamed "Murderkitty" because it was the most dangerous member of the party. I did a similar thing to a lesser extent with a hunter and a spinosaurus. And issue with all the extra actions is a valid one too. I just think the playtest was way too heavy-handed in smacking them down. Most of the nerfs in the Playtest in general felt over-the-top. I still think there must be a much better solution to the action issue than requiring an action tax for them to do anything at all and still only have 2 actions at that (without that feat that gives them a single action). The issue isn't so much balance, as that "feel" that I mentioned earlier. It feels like you've got a lobotomized creature that just stands there while you're getting your entrails fed to you by a monster. When it comes to the game, perception is more important than facts, even if the perception is wrong, because experience is based on perception. Caster nerfs are a similar kind of thing. Some were needed, but what was done was heavy handed. There were some things casters gained, like DCs scaling with character level instead of spell level (which is really nice), and cantrips useful at higher levels. But all the losses made that feel like a consolation prize instead of something good. Loss aversion comes into this, where losing something feels worse than simply not gaining it in the first place.

I think I've sidetracked enough. It does seem like I've helped derail a discussion of the reveals into a rehash of arguments about the playtest. That was not my intent at all. There are some cool things being revealed, even if there are some others I'm not happy with.


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


Mmm. So armor lets you "dump" dex and that should make you grateful? Dex is also used for ranged weapons, some skills, ref saves... it's a very powerful stat afaik. You sure it's a valid benefit? I was thinking more of something like having more AC, or perhaps a little damage reduction...
Every stat has benefits. The melee cleric needs strength for accuracy and damage, constitution to shore up their hit points and let them bounce back better with Treat Wounds, Wisdom for their saves and spellcasting rolls and Charisma to have enough channels. Yes, getting Dex would be good too. Dex is, as discussed, also a pretty great stat for everyone. But gishes really need to make those boosts count.

You're actually right. I'm really looking forward to see how armor works in the finalized rules - I would like something more than what's been hinted at, but not at the cost of balance.

Roswynn wrote:

[Yes, yes, Morgan, you just pointed that out, and I'm pointing out that wasn't my experience. Get over yourself, not everyone came out of the pt with the same impressions you did. Sure, I didn't overstay, but when the majority of high dex leather armor characters had more ac than the paladin in plates, even briefly for the levels I played... I have to wonder.

Sorry if I'm doubting you. I actually ain't, I'm sure it's the way you say, but it wasn't my experience.

Captain Morgan wrote:

This isn't about my experience, this is just objective math. Let's look at a Paladin in full plate (12 dex) vs a Rogue (18 dex).

Levels 1-6
Paladin gets 16+level AC with no Dex, 17+level with minimal investment.
Rogue gets 16+level with studded leather/chain shirt and max dex investment.

I think I might have been thinking of this, confusedly. I think a paladin in plate with ac 18 being equally hard to hit than a rogue in studded leather didn't sit very well with me and the group in general, but I was misremembering that the rogue actually had a higher AC. I think one source of confusion is a fighter who used dex instead of str and leather armor compared to the same paladin in a breastplate - the fighter was harder to hit, same AC as a rogue, which for some reason didn't feel completely right... but again, if the final version manages to give a little more oomph to armor without unbalancing everything that'd be much appreciated

Captain Morgan wrote:

Level 7-9:

Paladin gets expert armor, now has 18+level.
Rogue still is 16+ level.

Level 10-12:
Paladin still at 18+level.
Rogue can get dex to 20 for 17+level.

Level 13-16:
Paladin gets master, is at 19+ level.
rogue still at 17+level.

Level 17-20:
Paladin gets legendary, is now 20+level.
Rogue still 17+level.

Barring some funkiness with the paladin falling behind on armor runes where the rogue didn't (which to be fair was an early issue with the item levels) the Paladin has higher AC at all levels of play with minimal optimization, and still comes out ahead or breaks even to the fully optimized rogue with no optimization at all. If this wasn't the experience of your players, then someone miscalculated their AC.

I think we calculated it correctly, but that I was misremembering the events.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Now, you're certainly right that the Paladin is going to suffer a lot of drawbacks from ACP, speed reduction, and increased cost along the way. Probably had lower TAC, even. But what you and necromental said was that a high Dex character had the same or lower AC. That is categorically not true.

No, I think we said a high Dex character had the same or higher AC. At least, I don't remember necromental's post, but that was what I was saying. I think this was just a typo though, no worries.

Captain Morgan wrote:

You could make this statement true, mind you, by replacing "Paladin" with "any other class but fighter." Then we get into a more nuanced conversation how every core PF1 class except Paladins, fighters, and clerics lost class features by wearing heavy armor. The goal of PF2 seemed to let those other classes wear armor if they wanted to, but not to make it so optimal that every wizard started wearing full plate.

There seems to be a consensus that they didn't hit the mark, because a flip wizard was so much better than a turtle wizard. But there have been enough changes leaked to know the needle has shifted at least a little back to turtle wizards.

I'm not sure what the terminology means, I'm sorry. Turtle suggests armored, while flip... I dunno. I hope wizards don't need and can't usually access armor (most of all heavy armor), unless they dedicate enough resources to gish as half-tanks. But we can't have everything, and even less right from the start, so if initially gishes aren't strongly supported we'll be fine, I think.

Captain Morgan wrote:
The reason I'm pointing this out, Ros, is because your experience is valid even if your specific example was not. But I get frustrated when folks say things that aren't true, even if I agree with their larger point. This is something I struggle with in political discourse as well, when I find the side opposite of me has become so far gone I don't have the common ground to even discuss things anymore, which instead can leave me splitting hairs with folks who are mostly on my side.

I understand and empathize, Morgan - it can be really bewildering when someone starts pulling facts from their ass and you know them to be factually untrue, or even provably so - it sets the whole debate back to the start. Sorry for working with the wrong numbers.

Captain Morgan wrote:
I apologize for coming off like a butt. The playtest process drummed up a lot of folks on the forum that I couldn't find that common ground with, many of who I have enabled an "ignore" macro on my browser for to avoid raising my blood pressure. I respect you and consider you worth responding to, but that doesn't mean I can't come off too strong.

No problem, Morgan, I too have problems sometimes on this and other forums, and I know it's not easy. I apologize too for adopting a flippant tone in my reply and consider our misunderstanding closed and forgotten - you're obviously a good person and, by the way, way more knowledgeable than me about the pt mechanics (and arguably the end version's too) =)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks Ros. :) To clarify, by flip wizard I meant one with high dexterity and by turtle wizard I meant a slower one in heavy armor. The former was generally better in the playtest but the latter has at least made some gains since then, since Dexterity is no longer used for spell attack rolls and strength can offset armor reductions.

The term flip wizard is a reference to the elf wizard chef Taako from The Adventure Zone.


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

Thanks Ros. :) To clarify, by flip wizard I meant one with high dexterity and by turtle wizard I meant a slower one in heavy armor. The former was generally better in the playtest but the latter has at least made some gains since then, since Dexterity is no longer used for spell attack rolls and strength can offset armor reductions.

The term flip wizard is a reference to the elf wizard chef Taako from The Adventure Zone.

Ah, I don't watch Adventure Zone (everyone: "Boo! Hiss!"), but as I understand it you're very right, since a caster's dex doesn't matter anymore for the purpose of aiming offensive spells, turtles should be gaining a little ground on flips (who are still definitely ahead of the race for now).

I think flips should in general be the most common high defense wizard, but with the right build medium- and even heavy-armor ones should be a potentially balanced option, if not necessarily perfectly optimal. But this is just a personal preference and I'll be very interested even if the opposite turns out to be true.

And thanks to you, dear sir ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Thanks Ros. :) To clarify, by flip wizard I meant one with high dexterity and by turtle wizard I meant a slower one in heavy armor. The former was generally better in the playtest but the latter has at least made some gains since then, since Dexterity is no longer used for spell attack rolls and strength can offset armor reductions.

The term flip wizard is a reference to the elf wizard chef Taako from The Adventure Zone.

Ah, I don't watch Adventure Zone (everyone: "Boo! Hiss!"), but as I understand it you're very right, since a caster's dex doesn't matter anymore for the purpose of aiming offensive spells, turtles should be gaining a little ground on flips (who are still definitely ahead of the race for now).

I think flips should in general be the most common high defense wizard, but with the right build medium- and even heavy-armor ones should be a potentially balanced option, if not necessarily perfectly optimal. But this is just a personal preference and I'll be very interested even if the opposite turns out to be true.

And thanks to you, dear sir ;)

One other nice thing is that you can have a wizard who is neither a flip or a turtle. The geriatric wizard will be easier to hit and more fragile, but won't have their offensive capacity compromised by it. The wisened and intimidating old crone is fun to play but has always felt pretty suboptimal. It still might be, but it will at least be better.


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

Thanks Ros. :) To clarify, by flip wizard I meant one with high dexterity and by turtle wizard I meant a slower one in heavy armor. The former was generally better in the playtest but the latter has at least made some gains since then, since Dexterity is no longer used for spell attack rolls and strength can offset armor reductions.

The term flip wizard is a reference to the elf wizard chef Taako from The Adventure Zone.

Ah, I don't watch Adventure Zone (everyone: "Boo! Hiss!"), but as I understand it you're very right, since a caster's dex doesn't matter anymore for the purpose of aiming offensive spells, turtles should be gaining a little ground on flips (who are still definitely ahead of the race for now).

I think flips should in general be the most common high defense wizard, but with the right build medium- and even heavy-armor ones should be a potentially balanced option, if not necessarily perfectly optimal. But this is just a personal preference and I'll be very interested even if the opposite turns out to be true.

And thanks to you, dear sir ;)

One other nice thing is that you can have a wizard who is neither a flip or a turtle. The geriatric wizard will be easier to hit and more fragile, but won't have their offensive capacity compromised by it. The wisened and intimidating old crone is fun to play but has always felt pretty suboptimal. It still might be, but it will at least be better.

It would be nice if that was an option, currently everyone starts with an 18 int so there's no offense lost investing 16 in Dex. Now if they add something dependent on another mental stat like cha or Wis we could have some interesting differences. Hopefully they add stuff like that soon.


Okay, I distinctly recall tell of a highly detailed map of the entire world coming out in one of the new books. One of the pages I'm seeing here has five individual maps that do not appear significantly detailed that altogether combined take up a whopping half a page.

Is the vaunted detailed map of the world supposed to be in the Age of Lost Omens book instead? Alternatively, is there another, larger world map somewhere else in the book (which still begs the question "Why is this dinky thing here")? Because I hope to God that's not what the hype was about.


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

Okay, I distinctly recall tell of a highly detailed map of the entire world coming out in one of the new books. One of the pages I'm seeing here has five individual maps that do not appear significantly detailed that altogether combined take up a whopping half a page.

Is the vaunted detailed map of the world supposed to be in the Age of Lost Omens book instead? Alternatively, is there another, larger world map somewhere else in the book (which still begs the question "Why is this dinky thing here")? Because I hope to God that's not what the hype was about.

The world map is in the world guide book, I believe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Thanks Ros. :) To clarify, by flip wizard I meant one with high dexterity and by turtle wizard I meant a slower one in heavy armor. The former was generally better in the playtest but the latter has at least made some gains since then, since Dexterity is no longer used for spell attack rolls and strength can offset armor reductions.

The term flip wizard is a reference to the elf wizard chef Taako from The Adventure Zone.

Ah, I don't watch Adventure Zone (everyone: "Boo! Hiss!"), but as I understand it you're very right, since a caster's dex doesn't matter anymore for the purpose of aiming offensive spells, turtles should be gaining a little ground on flips (who are still definitely ahead of the race for now).

I think flips should in general be the most common high defense wizard, but with the right build medium- and even heavy-armor ones should be a potentially balanced option, if not necessarily perfectly optimal. But this is just a personal preference and I'll be very interested even if the opposite turns out to be true.

And thanks to you, dear sir ;)

One other nice thing is that you can have a wizard who is neither a flip or a turtle. The geriatric wizard will be easier to hit and more fragile, but won't have their offensive capacity compromised by it. The wisened and intimidating old crone is fun to play but has always felt pretty suboptimal. It still might be, but it will at least be better.
It would be nice if that was an option, currently everyone starts with an 18 int so there's no offense lost investing 16 in Dex. Now if they add something dependent on another mental stat like cha or Wis we could have some interesting differences. Hopefully they add stuff like that soon.

It is an option. Now that you aren't dependent on Dex for your offense, you can ship that investment to other stats. A Wizard can boost their Will and Perception or their social skills for example. Hurts your AC and Reflex and the Dex skills you probably aren't using, but that just makes avoiding getting targeted a little more important. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
citricking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Thanks Ros. :) To clarify, by flip wizard I meant one with high dexterity and by turtle wizard I meant a slower one in heavy armor. The former was generally better in the playtest but the latter has at least made some gains since then, since Dexterity is no longer used for spell attack rolls and strength can offset armor reductions.

The term flip wizard is a reference to the elf wizard chef Taako from The Adventure Zone.

Ah, I don't watch Adventure Zone (everyone: "Boo! Hiss!"), but as I understand it you're very right, since a caster's dex doesn't matter anymore for the purpose of aiming offensive spells, turtles should be gaining a little ground on flips (who are still definitely ahead of the race for now).

I think flips should in general be the most common high defense wizard, but with the right build medium- and even heavy-armor ones should be a potentially balanced option, if not necessarily perfectly optimal. But this is just a personal preference and I'll be very interested even if the opposite turns out to be true.

And thanks to you, dear sir ;)

One other nice thing is that you can have a wizard who is neither a flip or a turtle. The geriatric wizard will be easier to hit and more fragile, but won't have their offensive capacity compromised by it. The wisened and intimidating old crone is fun to play but has always felt pretty suboptimal. It still might be, but it will at least be better.
It would be nice if that was an option, currently everyone starts with an 18 int so there's no offense lost investing 16 in Dex. Now if they add something dependent on another mental stat like cha or Wis we could have some interesting differences. Hopefully they add stuff like that soon.
It is an option. Now that you aren't dependent on Dex for your offense, you can ship that investment to other stats. A Wizard can boost their Will and Perception or their social skills...

Indeed. If you play a wizard you don't necessarily want to be either a flip or a turtle, you can be a geriatric, as Morgan called it, and just stay the f&%@ away from the first line. In that case I think that constitution is always the most important stat after your primary, because hp, simply (if your tank is managing aggro efficiently you still have to worry about enemy aoe casters, aoe effects in general, some traps even with a superb rogue available, ranged weapons obviously b/c being a wizard is like having a big target embroidered on your chest like a rosemaling...). But then you can specialize in wis skills, will saves and a possible mc in cleric, or cha skills and maybe bard or sorcerer. Or try to be balanced across the board to always have decent chances of hitting a non-specialized dc.

Oh, Tectorman, the full world map is in the CRB, and you can already see it as a globe in this video here, at about 00.28.00.

101 to 150 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Massive spoiler dump from UK Games Expo All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.