Pathfinder Friday answers


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

19 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey folks, gonna post some stuff for those of you who didn't watch today's stream.

Logan's top 3 things in the Game Mastery Guide:

1) Monster Building Rules. Jason mentioned he's committed to not making us wait for the book release, and says they are close to being able to release it but he doesn't want to promise a specific date yet. They really want to make sure they have it right before they release-- though if there are any mistakes, they hope the community points them out so it can be fixed before it goes to print.

2)Victory Points. There's a unified system for building your own subsystems. Stuff like chases, research challenges, and more.

NPC list. Huge list of general NPCs. All will be human, but there are quick templates to change to dwarves or elves or whatever.

Mark's favorite thing: variance chapter. Chapter to show off how modular the game is and how easy you can house rule it. Examples Mark gave include gestalt (what if you got two classes) and giving everyone the pirate archetype for free.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Couple of bugs they wanted to address. They will be releasing a few official updates soon-- focusing on the critical stuff, little stuff will probably be held off on so as to not overload us.

Character sheet folio has several corrections that didn't get touched in the CRB.

1) Humans are supposed to have one more language. Common+Bonus+INT.
2) Whatever proficiency you have in simple weapons is also what you should have in unarmed, including the wizard. (Monk is obviously the exception as they are better in unarmed.)
3) Ki spells cue off Wisdom for Monk.
4) Sorcerer is missing a 17th level Resolve class feature, just the same as the wizard. Master will save, critical success etc.
5) WIZARDS DON'T GET A 1ST LEVEL CLASS FEAT. Not by default, at least. No other spellcaster gets 1st level class feat. They only get them for being universalist
6) Adventure's pack has the wrong bulk. It is actually only 1 bulk.
7) Heroic Recovery takes you to 0 hit points, not 1. (The death and dying section seemed to be wrong here.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
No other spellcaster gets 1st level class feat.

Just a correction. Every spellcaster gets a 1st level feat except the Sorcerer. The wizard is the only one who gets an open feat though.

Shame their solution is to nerf the wizard rather than opening up the Sorcerer. Reducing the number of feats characters get is the absolute opposite of what this game should be doing.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Its not a nerf its a misprint


5 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
No other spellcaster gets 1st level class feat.

Just a correction. Every spellcaster gets a 1st level feat except the Sorcerer. The wizard is the only one who gets an open feat though.

Shame their solution is to nerf the wizard rather than opening up the Sorcerer. Reducing the number of feats characters get is the absolute opposite of what this game should be doing.

It's not a nerf to Wizards, it's how they were designed. It's simply a fix to a typo, to put them at the power level they were meant to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They haven't fully decided if the Witch will be an Occult caster. Lots of similarities to different second edition spell lists. They want to do cooler things with Patrons, especially making them relevant to the game's lore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the summary captain!

I think witch should be occult with bonus off list spells from patron but variable prepared based on patron would work as well. Though if they were prepared Divine/primal would they be Wis based instead of Int?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Alignment Trait thing does seem to be wrong... But they didn't quite give a hard answer I could understand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They also didn't want to answer what happens if an attack deals multiple types of damage, leaving that up to your GM. But they seem to have interpreted this as "well what if I have fire resistance, can I let the fire damage through?"

I THINK this might be implying that hardness doesn't act like resistance against hits that deal multiple types of damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lakobie wrote:
Its not a nerf its a misprint

To expand upon this, the CRB was the thing that went to the printers first, and some two months before some other things. So a bunch of things got flagged as errors really quickly, the "Wizard chart including 'wizard feat' at level 1" being one of them. Only the universalist is supposed to have a level 1 class feat (i.e. a human universalist with natural ambition gets 2 level 1 wizard feats, not 3.)

Universalist Wizards get a feat because they don't get a focus spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
No other spellcaster gets 1st level class feat.

Just a correction. Every spellcaster gets a 1st level feat except the Sorcerer. The wizard is the only one who gets an open feat though.

Shame their solution is to nerf the wizard rather than opening up the Sorcerer. Reducing the number of feats characters get is the absolute opposite of what this game should be doing.

The first bloodline focus spell is the Sorcerer’s 1st level feat equivalent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Call it a nerf or not, the Wizard is weaker than what we have been analyzing in this forum so far. The results were already pretty weak.

I'm keeping that feat.


The wizard didn’t need a nerf, but the two theses that give a feat probably did need more incentive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Hey folks, gonna post some stuff for those of you who didn't watch today's stream.

Thanks!

Captain Morgan wrote:
Mark's favorite thing: variance chapter. Chapter to show off how modular the game is and how easy you can house rule it. Examples Mark gave include gestalt (what if you got two classes) and giving everyone the pirate archetype for free.

This is pretty much the section I want to see: Optional rules.

Captain Morgan wrote:
6) Adventure's pack has the wrong bulk. It is actually only 1 bulk.

I hope that isn't the only bulk they fix: numbers are still off taking this fix into account.


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


2) Whatever proficiency you have in simple weapons is also what you should have in unarmed, including the wizard. (Monk is obviously the exception as they are better in unarmed.)

If this one's confirmed that's amazing. It makes Rogue multiclassing monk viable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizard also didn't need 2 feat equivalent things (Thesis and School) plus a bonus feat.

Druid Orders give 2 feat equivalent things (A focus spell and a feat).
Sorcerer Bloodlines give 2 feat equivalent things (A focus spell and blood magic)
Clerics get 2 feat equivalent things (Divine Font, and a feat from their doctrine)
Bards get 2 feat equivalent things (a feat from their muse and inspire courage).

It's pretty symmetrical.

Paizo Employee Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Wizard also didn't need 2 feat equivalent things (Thesis and School) plus a bonus feat.

Druid Orders give 2 feat equivalent things (A focus spell and a feat).
Sorcerer Bloodlines give 2 feat equivalent things (A focus spell and blood magic)
Clerics get 2 feat equivalent things (Divine Font, and a feat from their doctrine)
Bards get 2 feat equivalent things (a feat from their muse and inspire courage).

It's pretty symmetrical.

And beyond that wizards also have arcane bond, and school gives not only the focus spell but also either +1 spell per level or the feat and more arcane bonds, and sorcerer just has more spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the summary! I'm really excited to hear that the monster rules will get to us before January. Also happy to hear about the fix to unarmed proficiency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lakobie wrote:
Its not a nerf its a misprint

Okay, it's not a nerf, it's just a change to the rules that makes the class weaker than it was before. Got it.

Mark Seifter wrote:
And beyond that wizards also have arcane bond, and school gives not only the focus spell but also either +1 spell per level or the feat and more arcane bonds, and sorcerer just has more spells.

Which is all well and good, but it's still taking power away from a class a lot of people already thought was weak and reducing customization in a game where a lot of people already consider it a serious bottleneck.

Good on unarmed proficiency getting a fix though, I guess.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm very pleased with all of this.

I'm still concerned that alchemist Bulk numbers are too high (Fumbus should, by math, have 6.6 while his sheet shows 4.7...few Alchemists can manage with less than he has) and hopeful that's an additional error, however.

And yes, I am mentioning this basically everywhere it seems remotely relevant in hopes an answer/fix appears. Seems the thing to do.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

If the Wizard is a weak class, and we're actually interested in fixing that, the ways we would go about improving it have nothing to do with "level 1 class feats."

Like you could give every wizard all of the level 1 wizard feats and people would still be complaining about its proficiency schedule or how certain spells are not as powerful as they would like.

I'm personally of the opinion that we're at least a year away from declaring spellcasters "too weak" and doing something about it. Like give people time to play a 1-20 AP as a spellcaster and a 1-20 AP as a non-spellcaster. There aren't currently adventures for characters of 5th level or higher available yet, and the value of forum theorycraft for game design is minimal. I am personally more bothered by "there are not yet enough ancestry feats" than "[whatever class] is not strong enough".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If unarmed and simple are tied together then the text in mutagenist is redundant. I wonder if they'll replace it with something.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tikael wrote:
If unarmed and simple are tied together then the text in mutagenist is redundant. I wonder if they'll replace it with something.

Yeah, 1st level Mutagenists really need something.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

It never ceases to amaze me that people call for an errata or clarification and the when one is provided effectively say they don’t like it and are going to ignore it

As many have said the wizard has not been nerfed by this. It was a simple mistake . I hope those keeping the feat will also be houseruling everyone else getting one extra level one class feat (not a bad houserule for my mind and supported by the modular system of the game)

Of course people can do what they want and will do. Indeed these official rules are meant for PFS which I think was meant for group fun originally not extreme power gaming - this can be inferred by how weak most of the PFS1 encounters were

*

I think of all of the above this wizard is the most important to translate/communicate to those who don’t read these forums closely or regularly as it seems like the main one with first level impact

*

Incidentally I have no desire to join back in the wizard nerf thread as it was already incendiary and with “200+” new messages being how far behinds I am I imagine it has gotten worse

One thing I picked up on from KD was something mentioned about spells that reduce enemy actions even on a successful save and thus potentially scuppering some of the new nasty monster special abilities that require multiple actions. I don’t think this was factored in when I last read the wizard thread and it reinforces my view that white room theory crafting and the resulting bickering only goes so far

The first time a hydra is prevented from attacking everyone in reach even on a successful save against a spell could be when the discussion becomes slightly different ...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:


2) Whatever proficiency you have in simple weapons is also what you should have in unarmed, including the wizard. (Monk is obviously the exception as they are better in unarmed.)

With this change the Mutagenist Research field (pg 73) gives very little at level one. It currently gives:

1. Two 1st level mutagen formulas

2. Unarmed proficiency equal to simple weapon proficiency

3. Allows one to drink mutagens not brewed specifically for them

But mutagen specificity was removed, and now the unarmed proficiency is redundant. Hopefully something can be added in the errata so it is inline with the other research fields.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

thanks kindly.

Yep I'm hoping Alchemist get a bit of a gander.
The bulk issues with what they have to have at base. That they have to buy alchemist’s tools themselves (I don't think the other classes have to buy items required for their class skills).
Also how several class features either don't interact at all, or go against each other (Perpetual infusions. Double/triple batch) or hands issues (quick alchemy 2+items).

Love alchemists though haha.

Would be kind of neat if the content discussion streams become a semi frequent thing. Would be a fun monthly Paizo-community event.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:

thanks kindly.

Yep I'm hoping Alchemist get a bit of a gander.
The bulk issues with what they have to have at base. That they have to buy alchemist’s tools themselves (I don't think the other classes have to buy items required for their class skills).
Also how several class features either don't interact at all, or go against each other (Perpetual infusions. Double/triple batch) or hands issues (quick alchemy 2+items).

Love alchemists though haha.

Would be kind of neat if the content discussion streams become a semi frequent thing. Would be a fun monthly Paizo-community event.

Perhaps the alchemist teething issues are not as surprising as it changed most from 1E to playtest and then again from playtest to 2E

Nitpick on the classes buying items - martial characters all buy weapons and armour. Rogues buy thieves tools. I guess the point is alchemists ALSO buy these things ...


Yep. Some basics are basics that everyone needs of wants. But Alich has to add past that amount or instead of a SOP item. It's not really cheap either not crazy though. Not much of an issue by lv 4 or at least in my limited experience.
I just don't use quick Alich until perpetual maybe. And just drop the bag first action of combat. And rp clumsy over packed otherwise. Which is fun

Yeah no worries on brand new class hiccups. Still my fav of all in 2E.


Zwordsman wrote:

Yep I'm hoping Alchemist get a bit of a gander.

The bulk issues with what they have to have at base. That they have to buy alchemist’s tools themselves (I don't think the other classes have to buy items required for their class skills).

Everyone needs weapons and armor, martial characters usually getting more expensive ones and/or more of them.

Most casters need some additional tools as well - component pouch, holy symbol, instrument, and so on.
Yes, wizards get a spell book for free, but the alchemist gets a formula book for free so that works out.
Rogues need thieves' tools.
Snare rangers need a snare kit, although that's a higher-level thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
6) Adventure's pack has the wrong bulk. It is actually only 1 bulk.

2 bulk might be a miscalculation - if you just add up the numbers from the table, it comes out to 10 light bulk. But if the water skin is full, which it would usually be because it's kind of pointless to carry around an empty water skin, the bulk goes up to 1 + 9 light.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tikael wrote:
If unarmed and simple are tied together then the text in mutagenist is redundant. I wonder if they'll replace it with something.
Yeah, 1st level Mutagenists really need something.

Having just finished a session playing a level 1 Mutagenist, I heartily concur.


Brew Bird wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tikael wrote:
If unarmed and simple are tied together then the text in mutagenist is redundant. I wonder if they'll replace it with something.
Yeah, 1st level Mutagenists really need something.
Having just finished a session playing a level 1 Mutagenist, I heartily concur.

What do you think it was missing that could be easily added ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Rogues need thieves' tools.

We played a game last night, the 10 STR rogue just got the standard rogue package + thieves tools for 8.4gp and 4 bulk. Seems to me that everything is working as intended. No problem for rogues.

I agree that the alchemist needs some love. Standard alchemist's tools should be 1 bulk, not 2. Keep the expanded alchemist's tools at 2 bulk.

The formula book and the spellbook should be the same bulk as a a basic crafter's book or a scholarly journal. Light.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
What do you think it was missing that could be easily added ?

I can think of a few things.

One easy possibility with precedent would be if, like Ruffian Rogues, they got Medium Armor Proficiency and got to up it when they upped Light. That would encourage a different playstyle from bombers, help melee Alchemist AC, and be pretty balanced all things considered. That version's a bit thematically separate from actual mutagens, of course.

Another possibility would be some additional bonus while actually currently under a Mutagen, either a set bonus no matter which Mutagen (maybe AC) or a simple increase of one in Mutagen's existing bonus. The latter would be very powerful, but not unbalanced in context. I like that last one one quite a bit, personally.


Do you mean a bonus only they get not anyone who drinks it? That would be cool and thematic

I was going to question the bulk issue of medium armour but realised mutagenists will go higher strength

(Was crowd sourcing ideas)

The medium armour thing would take the least space if they wanted a quick fix ...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Do you mean a bonus only they get not anyone who drinks it? That would be cool and thematic

Yeah, just them. You can phrase it as 'When you drink a mutagen'.

Lanathar wrote:
I was going to question the bulk issue of medium armour but realised mutagenists will go higher strength

Yup. And lower Dex, hence it being useful.

Lanathar wrote:
(Was crowd sourcing ideas)

Well, yeah. :)

Lanathar wrote:
The medium armour thing would take the least space if they wanted a quick fix ...

I'm not sure that's true. I suspect either of my other fixes would eat equivalent or less word count.


I could see the mutagenist being used to mutagen because he presumably drank a lot of them already, even starting at level 1. So maybe an ability that allows him to ignore a mutagen drawback for 1 minute after drinking it? Could be limited to once par day, I guess.

But medium armor also seems like a good fit.


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

Some things I noticed about the mutagenist building and playing one was that they're very MAD. I wanted INT, but also STR, DEX, and CON.

Medium Armor would be nice to decrease DEX dependency, but there are other incentives for dexterity, like being able to throw the occasional bomb. I think I'd rather the mutagenist path increase the Alchemist's base HP. Taking a hit to your AC in exchange for more melee damage feels fine when you have the Barbarians 12 hp/level, but with the Alchemist's 8 hp, I definitely felt a little too flimsy.

It'd be nice if you could actually stack Juggernaut and Bestial Mutagens before 13th, since it seems that's how you're supposed to do PF1's classic Mr. Hyde now, but as is that's a long time to wait for a build to come online.


Did they say anything about fighter unarmed proficiency starting at 1st level at expert and jumping to legendary at 19th level?

The weapon legend feature (13th) does not mention unarmed strikes, and I think it should since versatile legend increase it to legendary at 19th level.

(Maybe Mark can answer this one here, hehe)


Bruno Mares wrote:

Did they say anything about fighter unarmed proficiency starting at 1st level at expert and jumping to legendary at 19th level?

The weapon legend feature (13th) does not mention unarmed strikes, and I think it should since versatile legend increase it to legendary at 19th level.

(Maybe Mark can answer this one here, hehe)

Already answered in thread. All classes should progress it with simple weapon proficiency.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Already answered in thread. All classes should progress it with simple weapon proficiency.

This doesn't actually change things for Fighters, who remain at Expert in most weapons (including most Simple Weapons and certainly Unarmed Strikes) throughout their career, with only one Weapon Group advancing...until suddenly at 19th they're Legendary at everything.

Still, despite that being tad odd, it seems intended.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Already answered in thread. All classes should progress it with simple weapon proficiency.

This doesn't actually change things for Fighters, who remain at Expert in most weapons (including most Simple Weapons and certainly Unarmed Strikes) throughout their career, with only one Weapon Group advancing...until suddenly at 19th they're Legendary at everything.

Still, despite that being tad odd, it seems intended.

Well, again, they didn't address this but they may very address it in errata #1 or#2. It certainly seems lower priority than the simple weapon thing if it is a mistake.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Already answered in thread. All classes should progress it with simple weapon proficiency.

This doesn't actually change things for Fighters, who remain at Expert in most weapons (including most Simple Weapons and certainly Unarmed Strikes) throughout their career, with only one Weapon Group advancing...until suddenly at 19th they're Legendary at everything.

Still, despite that being tad odd, it seems intended.

Yeah. The answer doesn't specifically fox the fighter thing but I think it makes the intent clear. the fighter thing *should* work how we all thought it should.


I believe the stream is available here for those of us who missed it and wanna take a look: Twitchy Streamy.


There were also a lot of talk about the staff's experience at Gen Con, and several pretty basic questions were answered like why proficiency was designed the way it is and why class feats were listed in the class chapter rather than one big chapter. And really basic rules questions like how shields work. So the arc of the conversation was a little less focused on getting advanced rules answers as I'd like. Hopefully we get more of that in the near future.

Folks might also want to check out Arcane Mark on twitch. It seems like a smaller, more plugged in audience there. Mark and Linda seem to have more space to get into the weeds. However, that does come with the disclaimer that they won't be doing anything like official errata on that channel and sometimes their answer is ”I better check with Jason and Logan on that.” But it does seem to be a good avenue for flagging such things. Pretty sure a couple of the things brought up here were mentioned on Arcane Mark.

It is a little late for my time zone, otherwise I'd be asking questions in their chat myself.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Another possibility would be some additional bonus while actually currently under a Mutagen, either a set bonus no matter which Mutagen (maybe AC) or a simple increase of one in Mutagen's existing bonus. The latter would be very powerful, but not unbalanced in context. I like that last one one quite a bit, personally.

A Status Bonus at 1/2 mutagen item bonus i feel would be good enough. This could be Mutagenist specific or a late game Alch feat, but it feels bad with Mutagens fighting over item bonus of weapons; though it makes sense with other classes in mind.

Liberty's Edge

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
A Status Bonus at 1/2 mutagen item bonus i feel would be good enough. This could be Mutagenist specific or a late game Alch feat, but it feels bad with Mutagens fighting over item bonus of weapons; though it makes sense with other classes in mind.

A status bonus of some sort would be fine, as would increasing the item bonus of the mutagen by one. The point is to have some meaningfully better effect of the Mutagen in question than other people do.


Manarion wrote:


With this change the Mutagenist Research field (pg 73) gives very little at level one. It currently gives:

1. Two 1st level mutagen formulas

2. Unarmed proficiency equal to simple weapon proficiency

3. Allows one to drink mutagens not brewed specifically for them

But mutagen specificity was removed, and now the unarmed proficiency is redundant. Hopefully something can be added in the errata so it is inline with the other research fields.

Sorry for my lack of information as I just start reading about PF2, but where they stated that mutagen specificity was removed?


RuggiStello wrote:
Manarion wrote:


With this change the Mutagenist Research field (pg 73) gives very little at level one. It currently gives:

1. Two 1st level mutagen formulas

2. Unarmed proficiency equal to simple weapon proficiency

3. Allows one to drink mutagens not brewed specifically for them

But mutagen specificity was removed, and now the unarmed proficiency is redundant. Hopefully something can be added in the errata so it is inline with the other research fields.

Sorry for my lack of information as I just start reading about PF2, but where they stated that mutagen specificity was removed?

Only mutagentist can imbile other mutagens not keyed to them is only found under mutagentist so it seems more like error since it should be else where.


Reziburno25 wrote:

Only mutagentist can imbile other mutagens not keyed to them is only found under mutagentist so it seems more like error since it should be else where.

Oh right! Thanks!

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder Friday answers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.