Massive spoiler dump from UK Games Expo


Second Edition

151 to 200 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Malk_Content wrote:
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.

Because they were dex built and was using a shortsword: a d6 + a low str wasn't much damage and most likely not going to kill anything while a second round of 2-3 attacks [normal, -3, -6] especially if flanking and other bonuses come on line. A good round of multiple attacks [even if some missed] felt a lot better than a single miss and then having to go next round with either less attacks or worse bonuses. The player herself also complained 'how do we playtest multi-attack abilities if I never get any?' Now if they'd have had double slice, they'd have used that before hunt.

Secondly, I don't recall a lot of situations where we got free rounds within 100' of an enemy to use actions before combat: I assume something has to be seen vs sensed/unseen [ei, no targeting through walls and such]. In general if they were far away, replace hunt with a stride action and the result isn't any different except even the bear didn't get an action as minions can't move as far as PC's or monsters.

Malk_Content wrote:
but that is a pretty obvious "playing this in a way that makes it seem terrible."

Sigh... It wasn't. Should I go about and point out people 'playing this in a way that makes it seem great' and ignores things that felt bad to our group in other posts? You'll notice, I even mentioned that there would have been little issue if we'd had an archer with the 1.6 two shot ability so if I was JUST making trying to make the game look bad, why point that out?

So please, leave your assumptions about intent to yourself in the future.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Gah! I can't wait any longer! I need to get back to some classic fantasy gaming and this is the system with which I want to do it!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Jesikah Morning's Dew wrote:
Gah! I can't wait any longer! I need to get back to some classic fantasy gaming and this is the system with which I want to do it!

I hear you, sister -__- Today I was able to give my friends the sock-rocking news that we've found another player for Age of Ashes... which will start IN AUGUST O_____O

... I can't possibly wait another 2 months without going batty. I swear, I'm coming out of this alive only if I up my dosage of meds. Lemme call my therapist...

Dark Archive

I mean, I find it weird ye want to run the game without all six ap parts ._. Plus by time all six parts are out, we'd have lizardfolk ancestry


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, I find it weird ye want to run the game without all six ap parts ._. Plus by time all six parts are out, we'd have lizardfolk ancestry

It depends on how often the group is able to meet and how well they can pace the content. Our group is getting together for a Starfinder AP, and when Age of Ashes comes out we’ll switch DMs. We can only do a couple hours 2-3 and planning once a week, or every other week. If we get caught up with AoA then we switch back to Starfinder.


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

That looks like the half-page map I already saw (albeit, yes, put on a globe) in the previews on Imgur. I'm rather underwhelmed, if that's all the hype is going to amount to. Hopefully, QuidEst is correct and the world guide will have the real world map.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm anticipating that multiclassing casters is going to be extremely valuable, and will likely be in many of the pure caster build guides. Those extra spell slots up to 8th level spells are pretty sweet. In that case, a Cha/Int Sorcerer/Wizard or Wis/Int Cleric/Wizard will be seriously compelling feeble wizard builds.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
I'm anticipating that multiclassing casters is going to be extremely valuable, and will likely be in many of the pure caster build guides. Those extra spell slots up to 8th level spells are pretty sweet. In that case, a Cha/Int Sorcerer/Wizard or Wis/Int Cleric/Wizard will be seriously compelling feeble wizard builds.

Sorcerer/Bard, Druid/Cleric for pure-Cha and pure-Wis builds.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, I find it weird ye want to run the game without all six ap parts ._. Plus by time all six parts are out, we'd have lizardfolk ancestry

You find it weird we want to play 2e as soon as humanly possible if not sooner?...

... What is wrong with you??

;P


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

The wise old wizard will also have better initiative, which is very important for a wizard. Dropping the fireball or battlefield control spell before the enemy disperses or gets mixed into your own frontliners is clutch, as is getting your buffs and debuffs put before people start rolling attacks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
I'm anticipating that multiclassing casters is going to be extremely valuable, and will likely be in many of the pure caster build guides. Those extra spell slots up to 8th level spells are pretty sweet. In that case, a Cha/Int Sorcerer/Wizard or Wis/Int Cleric/Wizard will be seriously compelling feeble wizard builds.
Sorcerer/Bard, Druid/Cleric for pure-Cha and pure-Wis builds.

Following up on this, here's a reminder of the structure of multiclass spellcasting benefits (taken from the UK Game Expo screenshots, though it looks basically the same as the playtest):

Spoilered For Space:
DEDICATION (Feat 2)
• You become Trained in spell attack rolls & spell DCs for your tradition.
• You learn 2 cantrips.
• You become Trained in 2 skills (Wizard only gets 1).

BASIC CASTING (Feat 4)
• You gain a 1st-level spell slot.
• You gain a 2nd-level spell slot at level 6.
• You gain a 3rd-level spell slot at level 8.

EXPERT CASTING (Feat 12)
• You become Expert in spell attack rolls & spell DCs for your tradition.
• You gain a 4th-level spell slot.
• You gain a 5th-level spell slot at level 14.
• You gain a 6th-level spell slot at level 16.

MASTER CASTING (Feat 18)
• You become Master in spell attack rolls & spell DCs for your tradition.
• You gain a 7th-level spell slot.
• You gain an 8th-level spell slot at level 20.

BREADTH (Feat 8)
• For each spell level granted by this archetype except the highest 2 spell levels, you gain 1 additional spell slot (and, for Bard and Sorcerer, +1 spell to your repertoire for the same levels). [It's not clear to me from what I can make out in these pages how spell repertoire is handled otherwise. Just 1 per spell level, like in the playtest, would be pretty punishing for Sorcerer and Bard MC, but it might be that!)

***

That's a lot of class feats! You get 11 class feats total. Spend 4 of them for 1 spell slot for spell levels 1–8, bump up to 5 feats for +1 spell slot for spell levels 1–6. It's a pretty hefty investment, but for a pure-caster Theurge type it may well be worth it!

Note that Sorcerer (either base or multiclass) can get some extra oomph out of this in two ways: (1) At the cost of some versatility, if she lines up her two spellcasting traditions: because the proficiency is based on tradition, not class, she can use the higher proficiency granted by her base class; (2) By lining up with Bard or Cleric to get Charisma synergy.

Druid/Cleric multiclass gets the Wisdom synergy too, of course. (And as Captain Morgan notes, will dominate Initiative!)

Wizard benefits from the spellbook, and Druid and Cleric from being able to prepare from their entire spell lists. (If Sorcerer and Bard do indeed only get 1 spell per level in their repertoire, with Breadth adding +1 more for each spell level it affects, this would be a big versatility advantage for these other MCs.)

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
The wise old wizard will also have better initiative, which is very important for a wizard. Dropping the fireball or battlefield control spell before the enemy disperses or gets mixed into your own frontliners is clutch, as is getting your buffs and debuffs put before people start rolling attacks.

Our very sneaky WftC wizard tends to do pretty well at that also, despite his not-great Perception. Granted, the rogue is even faster and Linda's dwarf fighter is just as likely to beat him if she's using Perception, and they've toyed with (but never executed) giving the fighter spell immunity to fireball or fire resistance to help lower the amount of friendly fireball damage the wizard puts out. But in the larger fights I throw (the group has up to 7 players with usually 5 or 6 showing up, so I add enemies per the rules in the PF2 CRB), fireball *really* gets the job done!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, I find it weird ye want to run the game without all six ap parts ._. Plus by time all six parts are out, we'd have lizardfolk ancestry

You find it weird we want to play 2e as soon as humanly possible if not sooner?...

... What is wrong with you??

;P

Well I definitely waited until all parts of Dead Suns were out before running it :D Though sadly I still haven't been able to run it :(


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:
That's a lot of class feats! You get 11 class feats total. Spend 4 of them for 1 spell slot for spell levels 1–8, bump up to 5 feats for +1 spell slot for spell levels 1–6. It's a pretty hefty investment, but for a pure-caster Theurge type it may well be worth it!

A semi-related aside on this, Rings of Wizardry, if it looks similar to the Playtest (and hopefully we get rings for the other traditions too!) are even better for MC mages than full mages, as the extra spell slots compared to your own number of slots is much better.

Three extra spells, even low level ones, means more when you only have one or two per spell level instead of three or four. And there aee plenty of spells in those levels that stay relevant at high levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, there's the answer on the multiclass Bard & Sorcerer spell repertoire. I didn't notice this language in each archetype's Basic Casting feat:

Sorcerer: "Each time you gain a spell slot of a new level from the sorcerer archetype, add a spell of the appropriate level to your repertoire: a common spell of your bloodline's tradition, one of your bloodline's granted spells, or another spell you have learned or discovered."

Bard: "Each time you gain a spell slot of a new level from the sorcerer archetype, add a common Occult spell or another spell that you have learned or discovered to your spell repertoire."

So those archetypes are hurting for repertoire.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, I find it weird ye want to run the game without all six ap parts ._. Plus by time all six parts are out, we'd have lizardfolk ancestry

You find it weird we want to play 2e as soon as humanly possible if not sooner?...

... What is wrong with you??

;P

Well I definitely waited until all parts of Dead Suns were out before running it :D Though sadly I still haven't been able to run it :(

I always wait until the second book of an AP is released before I start it, but at the rate my players go, it's not worth waiting much more than that. I started Tyrant's Grasp a week and a half after getting book two, and they aren't even half way through book one yet despite meeting every week. XD


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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?

Not just end at 20 but get to 20 a fair amount away from the ending so that players can enjoy 20th level


1 person 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.

What about a level 6-10 ability that is a 2 action ability which lets you give orders to a number of companions equal to your charisma mod?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to try Plaguestone on my friends rp see what they think then go from there. Should be fun!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
I'm going to try Plaguestone on my friends rp see what they think then go from there. Should be fun!

I'm curious about the XP and treasure Plaguestone provides. If it's low enough, you could probably run Fall of Plaguestone as an intro adventure and then take the same party into Age of Ashes. That'd let a group start in August, but give a bit of time for the second AP part to get released before they get much into Age of Ashes. Well depending on how often they meet and how quickly they go through the module etc. Or you could just run Plaguestone without XP, like a sort of prologue adventure, to keep the xp progression on track. Treasure is a different beast, but the advantage of an extra 1st level adventure's worth of treasure will be very much front-loaded and wear off as you go on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:
Note that Sorcerer (either base or multiclass) can get some extra oomph out of this in two ways: (1) At the cost of some versatility, if she lines up her two spellcasting traditions: because the proficiency is based on tradition, not class, she can use the higher proficiency granted by her base class; (2) By lining up with Bard or Cleric to get Charisma synergy.

That's a good point, actually!

When the multiclass rules for the playtest were explained for the first time, I considered an arcane Sorcerer multiclassed to Wizard. Use Sorc to cover your all-day spells and Wizard for the more situational spells. Seemed like pretty great idea until the Playtest ways released and sorcs were stuck with only 6 class feats, which made full caster multiclassing extremely painful.

In the end, I went with Wizard>Cleric. But if all classes do indeed get 10 or 11 class feats, the original build could easily become the ultimate arcane caster.


CorvusMask wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, I find it weird ye want to run the game without all six ap parts ._. Plus by time all six parts are out, we'd have lizardfolk ancestry

You find it weird we want to play 2e as soon as humanly possible if not sooner?...

... What is wrong with you??

;P

Well I definitely waited until all parts of Dead Suns were out before running it :D Though sadly I still haven't been able to run it :(

If your reasoning is along the lines of "I want to see if I like the AP first", I totally understand - ideally I'd want to run every AP ever, but I doubt I'll be able to.

I can also dig wanting to know the whole plot to fully understand themes, arcs and so on.

But my players and I are just waiting right now - 2 of them are playing a bit of 3.5 Pool of Radiance, and I might join them, but that's no PF 2e by any means.

And I vastly prefer running than playing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:


I always wait until the second book of an AP is released before I start it, but at the rate my players go, it's not worth waiting much more than that. I started Tyrant's Grasp a week and a half after getting book two, and they aren't even half way through book one yet despite meeting every week. XD

Why exactly the 2nd every time? Is it a personal ritual or does it apport some concrete benefit I'm not aware of?

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

In my case its definitely about wanting to know the whole plot to help with foreshadowing and knowing which npcs are important and making plans around future stuff to come.

Heck, it kinda sucks if AP is like "Oh hey, this super obscure god worshippers get tons of cool stuff, but no pcs worships that god, sucks to be them". By reading everything in advance I can give hints to players at character creations what classes and options get supported a lot by the ap


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PFSocietyInitiate wrote:
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?
Not just end at 20 but get to 20 a fair amount away from the ending so that players can enjoy 20th level

Exactly, and not just the first AP: the devs have said they aim to design every AP from now on for levels 1-20. Extinction Curse too should cover lvl 1-20, and the idea is to have them all do the same.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Its really cool if they succeed at it :D (which also makes me sad that Starfinder APs seem to be rather stubborn about remaining as 1-12 level aps. I mean even just one 12-20 or 1-20 should be enough to show case what the heck high level starfinder is like...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

In my case its definitely about wanting to know the whole plot to help with foreshadowing and knowing which npcs are important and making plans around future stuff to come.

Heck, it kinda sucks if AP is like "Oh hey, this super obscure god worshippers get tons of cool stuff, but no pcs worships that god, sucks to be them". By reading everything in advance I can give hints to players at character creations what classes and options get supported a lot by the ap

I totally understand and agree, it's something I normally do as well. For instance in Kingmaker knowing about the dryad BBEG helps integrating her in the rest of the AP too, and in Carrion Crown you could start sending letters from the villain to your pcs and not have him be such an ass pull, just to name two occasions I remember right now.

Also being able to build a coherent party tied to the themes and arcs of the ap is a big plus for the way I like to run.

But we already have to wait another 2 months... I wouldn't be able to wait another 6 on top of that (and I know there's Plaguestone and there will be other modules, and so on, but I wanna play AoA!!)

^__^


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:


I always wait until the second book of an AP is released before I start it, but at the rate my players go, it's not worth waiting much more than that. I started Tyrant's Grasp a week and a half after getting book two, and they aren't even half way through book one yet despite meeting every week. XD
Why exactly the 2nd every time? Is it a personal ritual or does it apport some concrete benefit I'm not aware of?

I tend to make a lot of tweaks to APs, usually customizing them to fit my players and work their backstory into the plot. Waiting until I have book 2 lets me make sure any tweaks I make in book 1 will transition smoothly into book 2 and not mess anything up.

From there, the speed my party moves at means that I'll have book four or five before they finish book one and the whole AP before they finish book 2, so plenty of time to plan the rest of the campaign out.


Looking at the pages, I find it interesting that the text for the metamagic is slightly inconsistent in the wording for the usage.

Quote:

Reach Spell, Feat 1, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell that has a range, increase that spell's range by 30 feet. As is standard for increasing spell ranges, if the spell normally has a range of touch, you extend its range to 30 feet.

Widen Spell, Feat 1, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell that has an area of a burst, cone, or line and does not have a duration, increase the area of that spell. Add 5 feet to the radius of a burst that normally has a radius of at least 10 feet (a burst with a smaller radius is not affected). Add 5 feet to the length of a cone or line that is normally 15 feet long or smaller, and add 10 feet to the length of a longer cone or line.

Conceal Spell, Feat 2, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell, attempt a Stealth check against one or more observers' Perception DCs. If the spell has verbal components, you must also attempt a Deception check against the observers' Perception DC. If you succeed at that check (or checks) against an observer's DC, that observer doesn't notice you're casting a spell, even though material, somatic, and verbal components are usually noticeable and spells normally have sensory manifestations that would make spellcasting obvious to those nearby. This ability hides only the spell's spellcasting actions and manifestations, not its effects, so an observer might still see a ray streak out from you or see you vanish into thin air.

Silent Spell, Feat 4, 1 action (prereq Conceal Spell): If the next action you take is Casting a Spell with a verbal component and at least one other component, you may choose to remove the verbal component. This makes the spell silent and allows you to cast it in areas where sound can't reach. Note that the spell still has visual manifestations, so this doesn't make the spell any less obvious to someone who sees you cast. When you use Silent Spell, you may choose to gain the benefits of Conceal Spell, and you don't need to attempt a Deception check because the spell has verbal components.

At least, according to my transcription. Also I do like how Silent Spell requires Conceal Spell, since a lot of people tried to use it as that anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Looking at the pages, I find it interesting that the text for the metamagic is slightly inconsistent in the wording for the usage.

What is inconsistent?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Looking at the pages, I find it interesting that the text for the metamagic is slightly inconsistent in the wording for the usage.

Quote:

Reach Spell, Feat 1, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell that has a range, increase that spell's range by 30 feet. As is standard for increasing spell ranges, if the spell normally has a range of touch, you extend its range to 30 feet.

Widen Spell, Feat 1, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell that has an area of a burst, cone, or line and does not have a duration, increase the area of that spell. Add 5 feet to the radius of a burst that normally has a radius of at least 10 feet (a burst with a smaller radius is not affected). Add 5 feet to the length of a cone or line that is normally 15 feet long or smaller, and add 10 feet to the length of a longer cone or line.

Conceal Spell, Feat 2, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell, attempt a Stealth check against one or more observers' Perception DCs. If the spell has verbal components, you must also attempt a Deception check against the observers' Perception DC. If you succeed at that check (or checks) against an observer's DC, that observer doesn't notice you're casting a spell, even though material, somatic, and verbal components are usually noticeable and spells normally have sensory manifestations that would make spellcasting obvious to those nearby. This ability hides only the spell's spellcasting actions and manifestations, not its effects, so an observer might still see a ray streak out from you or see you vanish into thin air.

Silent Spell, Feat 4, 1 action (prereq Conceal Spell): If the next action you take is Casting a Spell with a verbal component and at least one other component, you may choose to remove the verbal component. This makes the spell silent and allows you to cast it in areas where sound can't reach. Note that the spell still has visual manifestations, so this doesn't make the spell any less obvious to someone who sees you

...

They've changed the (kind of silly) playtest version that had a "free action" that read "you add an action". I like the result very much as that is something I specifically requested.

As I understand it, I n terms of number of actions, widen, reach and conceal metamagic cost you an extra action while Silent spell,, (for which you have invested 2 class feats) allows you to replace one action and so does not increase the total. That's a good thing I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Looking at the pages, I find it interesting that the text for the metamagic is slightly inconsistent in the wording for the usage.
What is inconsistent?

I had the same question. The wording seems to be the exact same for each one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
morphail wrote:
As I understand it, I n terms of number of actions, widen, reach and conceal metamagic cost you an extra action while Silent spell,, (for which you have invested 2 class feats) allows you to replace one action and so does not increase the total. That's a good thing I think.

Not to be a downer, but IIRC they've changed the formatting of spell descriptions. Rather than, say, Verbal action and Somatic action, they are list as "2 Actions (Verbal, Somatic)". This seems like no more than an organizational change but in actuality it decouples components and actions which means removing the verbal component does not mean you remove an action necessarily.

That said I think that's for the best. Silent Spell does quite a bit here with the casting-in-silence plus making Conceal Spell MUCH easier to succeed at, so I think it well justifies it's 2 feat usage even with the action cost. In fact I feel like it'd be a bit much if it didn't take that action, at least IMO.


Interesting. Didn't think of it that way. Still cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Looking at the pages, I find it interesting that the text for the metamagic is slightly inconsistent in the wording for the usage.
What is inconsistent?

Mainly the last one. I'm looking at it after typing three of the others the same way and wondering what makes it different that it suddenly decides to use "Casting a Spell" as a verb. Not that it doesn't work, but pedantry.


morphail wrote:

They've changed the (kind of silly) playtest version that had a "free action" that read "you add an action". I like the result very much as that is something I specifically requested.

As I understand it, I n terms of number of actions, widen, reach and conceal metamagic cost you an extra action while Silent spell,, (for which you have invested 2 class feats) allows you to replace one action and so does not increase the total. That's a good thing I think.

Oh thank gods. These feats that at first came along as free actions and then are "Surprise! You need to add an action!" where annoying and confusing.


Quote:

Conceal Spell, Feat 2, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell, attempt a Stealth check against one or more observers' Perception DCs. If the spell has verbal components, you must also attempt a Deception check against the observers' Perception DC. If you succeed at that check (or checks) against an observer's DC, that observer doesn't notice you're casting a spell, even though material, somatic, and verbal components are usually noticeable and spells normally have sensory manifestations that would make spellcasting obvious to those nearby. This ability hides only the spell's spellcasting actions and manifestations, not its effects, so an observer might still see a ray streak out from you or see you vanish into thin air.

Silent Spell, Feat 4, 1 action (prereq Conceal Spell): If the next action you take is Casting a Spell with a verbal component and at least one other component, you may choose to remove the verbal component. This makes the spell silent and allows you to cast it in areas where sound can't reach. Note that the spell still has visual manifestations, so this doesn't make the spell any less obvious to someone who sees you

The way it is written, you can't combine Silent Spell and Conceal Spell, since both require the next action to be casting a spell.

So you can't make a spell silent and then try to succeed only one stealth check to hide the visual manifestations. That's a bit sad and counterintuitive.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The fuller text of Silent Spell above (from Cyouni) has in its last line 'stacking' for that -

Copying from above:
Silent Spell, Feat 4, 1 action (prereq Conceal Spell): If the next action you take is Casting a Spell with a verbal component and at least one other component, you may choose to remove the verbal component. This makes the spell silent and allows you to cast it in areas where sound can't reach. Note that the spell still has visual manifestations, so this doesn't make the spell any less obvious to someone who sees you cast. When you use Silent Spell, you may choose to gain the benefits of Conceal Spell, and you don't need to attempt a Deception check because the spell has verbal components.

So that covers you masa_gib, I believe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uh, it specifically says you can gain the benefit of Conceal Spell when using Silent Spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah thanks! This line was cut off in the quote text in morphail's post.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

As I also don't wish to take away from all the cool stuff being revealed, I'm going to make this short.

I hope that the final release has better minion rules and flavor text, because the playtest version broke the game's verisimilitude for me.

You are telling me that somehow the creature that I have a mystical bond with that is supposed to be a special member of it's species with the strength and endurance to be an adventuring companion is always slower and dumber than a random wild animal I may encounter and have to fight?

Balanced game play be damned if I have to suspend my disbelief to this extent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LordVanya wrote:

As I also don't wish to take away from all the cool stuff being revealed, I'm going to make this short.

I hope that the final release has better minion rules and flavor text, because the playtest version broke the game's verisimilitude for me.

You are telling me that somehow the creature that I have a mystical bond with that is supposed to be a special member of it's species with the strength and endurance to be an adventuring companion is always slower and dumber than a random wild animal I may encounter and have to fight?

Balanced game play be damned if I have to suspend my disbelief to this extent.

I justified with the creature wants to make sure my commands are correct so it does not take full advantage of it's speed instead having to match my pace. While summoned creatures s basically the opposite most times they are bound to me so they fight my commands off.

But yeah the minion rules will be kept from the way the dev team is talking, 20+ minions each with a full turn will not be a thing anymore.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I am really glad they explicitly spell out spell manifestations in multiple places. That was a very important piece of information that was not made very clear in PF1.

I also like how the feats and such are doing more of "as normal this works like X." I just hope they didn't lose too much page space doing that. But all in all the rules are looking much clearer thus far.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LordVanya wrote:

As I also don't wish to take away from all the cool stuff being revealed, I'm going to make this short.

I hope that the final release has better minion rules and flavor text, because the playtest version broke the game's verisimilitude for me.

You are telling me that somehow the creature that I have a mystical bond with that is supposed to be a special member of it's species with the strength and endurance to be an adventuring companion is always slower and dumber than a random wild animal I may encounter and have to fight?

Balanced game play be damned if I have to suspend my disbelief to this extent.

Is it really that hard to imagine that a mystically bonded pair moving in perfect concert with one another would be less able to perform a large number of actions, but better able to put the actions they do take to precise and perfect use?

If you were to team up with a slower and dumber random wild animal somehow, they'd get their own turn and spend half of it fulfilling its instinctual methods of hunting... that is waiting until the enemy is busy fighting you.

Look at players when they're prevented from meta-gaming and cross-talk and don't have a standard engagement procedure. The fighter might block line of sight for the archer, or the monk might grapple the thing about to be hit with a fireball.

My take is that because the companion does exactly what you want, when you want it to, you sacrifice some of its initiative and ability to act swiftly and independently.

I wouldn't be opposed to letting the GM take control of animal companions if you wanted the full action economy, but you can't complain if the tiger moves to get into high grass first, or the ice elemental takes an extra move action to avoid the campfire.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

As I also don't wish to take away from all the cool stuff being revealed, I'm going to make this short.

I hope that the final release has better minion rules and flavor text, because the playtest version broke the game's verisimilitude for me.

You are telling me that somehow the creature that I have a mystical bond with that is supposed to be a special member of it's species with the strength and endurance to be an adventuring companion is always slower and dumber than a random wild animal I may encounter and have to fight?

Balanced game play be damned if I have to suspend my disbelief to this extent.

Is it really that hard to imagine that a mystically bonded pair moving in perfect concert with one another would be less able to perform a large number of actions, but better able to put the actions they do take to precise and perfect use?

If you were to team up with a slower and dumber random wild animal somehow, they'd get their own turn and spend half of it fulfilling its instinctual methods of hunting... that is waiting until the enemy is busy fighting you.

Look at players when they're prevented from meta-gaming and cross-talk and don't have a standard engagement procedure. The fighter might block line of sight for the archer, or the monk might grapple the thing about to be hit with a fireball.

My take is that because the companion does exactly what you want, when you want it to, you sacrifice some of its initiative and ability to act swiftly and independently.

I wouldn't be opposed to letting the GM take control of animal companions if you wanted the full action economy, but you can't complain if the tiger moves to get into high grass first, or the ice elemental takes an extra move action to avoid the campfire.

This is well put. An attack dog might spend all its actions on tearing into a target, but it would also potentially attack a random child on the street. Your animal companion has to be trained NOT to attack, or be ready to call off an attack, just as much as it attacks things.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone animal would probably defend itself when it's being attacked while the Master is busy. It would at least try to run away or something. AC here will literally sit on hazardous acid pools unless you spend an action to tell it to move away.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's a game, folks. Since it doesn't simulate reality, there will always be a hit to a game's verisimilitude. What matters is where the line of acceptability is drawn, and of course that will vary by person. I'll happily sacrifice a bit of believability if it means combat is less likely to be bogged down due to a summoner having a dozen minions in the battle.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Anyone animal would probably defend itself when it's being attacked while the Master is busy. It would at least try to run away or something. AC here will literally sit on hazardous acid pools unless you spend an action to tell it to move away.

Yep, somehow has the memory of a goldfish: It knows that the master asked it to attack this creature last round but a whole round went by and it suddenly forgets that...

Fumarole wrote:
It's a game, folks. Since it doesn't simulate reality, there will always be a hit to a game's verisimilitude. What matters is where the line of acceptability is drawn, and of course that will vary by person. I'll happily sacrifice a bit of believability if it means combat is less likely to be bogged down due to a summoner having a dozen minions in the battle.

There is a limit to how far you can push game's verisimilitude. They can limit having "a dozen minions in the battle" by simply stating a hard limit: Just SAY you can only control a familiar and either an animal companion or a summoned creature. Easy, simple and does what you want without making the minion dumb. Heck, if people are STILL worried, make the minion only be able to strike or stride to keep up with the current target: You could also have a subset that will do the above except it'll attack the closest target after it's first is dead [for demons and such].

For me, the "game's verisimilitude" really gets torn to shreds when the minion is intelligent [maybe more so that the summoner] and STILL needs consent supervision: they somehow can't understand 'attack that creature/object until I say not to...'. Nope, I summon an elder elemental to destroy a wall and I have to remind it every round of that. :P


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm with graystone on the minion/AC topic. The "minion gets one action unsupervised" feat that druids get as the default behavior would have gone a long way to make minions more believable.
It's just the notion that they do nothing when not constantly commanded that is so weird.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
masda_gib wrote:

I'm with graystone on the minion/AC topic. The "minion gets one action unsupervised" feat that druids get as the default behavior would have gone a long way to make minions more believable.

It's just the notion that they do nothing when not constantly commanded that is so weird.

I'll probably house rule that they get a move for free and +2 AC if not commanded. That seems quick, reasonably balanced and represents, "if not otherwise commanded looks after itself"

151 to 200 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Massive spoiler dump from UK Games Expo All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.