| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can now wear ten rings instead of two, or twelve with a feat! (Provided you've got the fingers for them).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can now wear ten rings instead of two, or twelve with a feat! (Provided you've got the fingers for them).
So you can now recreate the Marvel villain The Mandarin! (the one from the comics, not the Ben Kingsley one from the movie) Mandarin on Wikipedia
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Illusion spells include some pretty good damaging spells that do their own thing instead of just mimicking Evocation effects.
Also, Phantasmal Killer is useful!
No more area of effect spreads. Stinking cloud won't slip around a corner anymore.
Aiding an ally is DC 20 and only adds +1 on a success. Critically failing makes their check worse.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aiding an ally is DC 20 and only adds +1 on a success. Critically failing makes their check worse.
TBF though the math of PF2 makes a +1 worth roughly as much as a +2 was in PF1. And critically succeeding gives them +2, +3, or +4 depending on your proficiency with the check you're aiding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For some of things you can use the Follow the Expert instead of aiding too. Stealth and climbing come to mind.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, Hideous Laughter was always a terrifying spell to me. There was nothing funny about it at our tables, and every time it was described it was with a haunting horror to it.
There are other ways to magically disable an opponent, but forcing them to cackle uncontrollably seemed like psychological warfare on the rest of the party.
TIL that it had those silly material components.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, Hideous Laughter was always a terrifying spell to me. There was nothing funny about it at our tables, and every time it was described it was with a haunting horror to it.
There are other ways to magically disable an opponent, but forcing them to cackle uncontrollably seemed like psychological warfare on the rest of the party.
TIL that it had those silly material components.
Of course it would be terrifying. It's essentially Joker Toxin the Spell.
Aiding an ally is DC 20 and only adds +1 on a success. Critically failing makes their check worse.TBF though the math of PF2 makes a +1 worth roughly as much as a +2 was in PF1. And critically succeeding gives them +2, +3, or +4 depending on your proficiency with the check you're aiding.
Aiding an ally is dead low skill or char level where your chances of failing are bigger than contributing anything. On the other hand you will almost auto-succeed higher level. Having aiding run against a fixed check is always strange. I would have prefered a DC-X method.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aiding an ally is dead low skill or char level where your chances of failing are bigger than contributing anything. On the other hand you will almost auto-succeed higher level. Having aiding run against a fixed check is always strange. I would have prefered a DC-X method.Aiding an ally is DC 20 and only adds +1 on a success. Critically failing makes their check worse.TBF though the math of PF2 makes a +1 worth roughly as much as a +2 was in PF1. And critically succeeding gives them +2, +3, or +4 depending on your proficiency with the check you're aiding.
Aid rules are very loose an open to case by case variation (which i do nit believe is accidental). Aid does not have a fixed DC of 20. It has a case by case determination of DC, based on the task and the method of aid, with a recommended standard of 20.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, Hideous Laughter was always a terrifying spell to me. There was nothing funny about it at our tables, and every time it was described it was with a haunting horror to it.
There are other ways to magically disable an opponent, but forcing them to cackle uncontrollably seemed like psychological warfare on the rest of the party.
TIL that it had those silly material components.
Hideous laughter also takes away an opponent's reactions unless they critically succeed on their save. This proved to be a game changer when my PCs went up against a basilisk. Suddenly the darned thing was laughing so hard that it couldn't lock eyes with anybody.
On the topic of aid, you no longer need to be capable of making the check on your own.
Most of the big ones have already been mentioned, but one that struck me hasn't been, yet. I didn't play the playtest version at all (even informally), so it was unexpected that:
Cantrips have spell-levels now other than 0th.
Not necessarily an unwelcomed one, but it'll take some getting used to on my part. I'm sure there will be tons of little things that I'll "d'oh!" over and will take getting used to if I adopt PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can now wear ten rings instead of two, or twelve with a feat! (Provided you've got the fingers for them).Feat should really let you wear another ten.
A character who lost a hand can still wear twelve rings. There is no such thing as a ring-per-finger limit (tho I’d probably stop after three or four).
Do rings have to be invested?
A character who lost a hand can still wear twelve rings. There is no such thing as a ring-per-finger limit (tho I’d probably stop after three or four).You can now wear ten rings instead of two, or twelve with a feat! (Provided you've got the fingers for them).Feat should really let you wear another ten.
wear them on ears, toes, and (not recommended) esoteric parts of the body.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That kind of exploit seems counter-productive, even if technically legal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do rings have to be invested?
Every ring in the core rulebook has to be invested to be used.
That kind of exploit seems counter-productive, even if technically legal.
I don't disagree. But otoh to each campaign their own. I don't know how many characters will get a baker's dozen of rings worth investing to invest.
But then I personally have never run or been in a game with the 3x-standard "Discount Larry's Crazy WBL-Item-Mart. Shop Smart, Shop WBL-Mart" in every burg. Is WBL even a thing for PF2? (I haven't looked into that).
Edit: OtoH I've also never been too concerned if a character wanted to say "my ring I got altered and is now an earring." Or whatnot. Cosmetic changes that put them on other than fingers (but not bizzaro changes that get out of hand) I never fussed over. But you're right about letting absolute number of ring-items get out of hand.
However I also would find interesting a character concept that involves some sort of ring hypertrophy. Might be lulz. I wouldn't scoff at it, especially since it's techinically legal. It's why the games have a DM - to make judgements. /End of rambling. Rambling is one reason I hardly ever post anymore. Apologies for rambling on.
Can't say, since I don't know what WBL stands for. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The usual negative of WBL is that's it's not an end all be all in actual play, its used as a guideline when planning characters. The other negative associated with it is that crafters in the previous edition could easily get things at 1/2 price and effectively double the amount of magic items you could have.
Another problem with the Discount Larry's Crazy Low-Low Prices WBL Item Appliance Mart* is that it fostered an attitude towards magic items as == appliances to be acquired off-the-shelf with WBL. ("Teh Science" - only not really that, but an engineering product).
Back on topic:
Also yes PF2 does have WBL but it's based on party gold not individual. So everyone has a lot less money then they previously had.
It'll be interesting to see how that works in practice over time. Not every player makes every session or (more significantly, since you can always NPC an absent-player's character) can continue throughout a campaign. I'm sure there are (or in the GMG will be) guidelines how to handle turnover.
*(the chain's full name, and not to be confused with Crazy Character Emporiums, which are contributions to the community IMO. I love character emporiums, they generate useful NPCs and demonstrate creative possibilities, if nothing else).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also yes PF2 does have WBL but it's based on party gold not individual. So everyone has a lot less money then they previously had.
There's individual wealth by level on table 10-10.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wands = useless, I mean, c'mon, ONE casting a day then maybe, MAYBE, a second use then destroyed or broken. What's the point of even having one? Spellstaffs are really limited but at least they have some flexibility in casting charges which are good in a pinch.
Wands = useless, I mean, c'mon, ONE casting a day then maybe, MAYBE, a second use then destroyed or broken. What's the point of even having one? Spellstaffs are really limited but at least they have some flexibility in casting charges which are good in a pinch.
I agree. One per day seems really limiting. I guess they're for spells that are quasi-ritual, like Alarm before you camp at night or something. That saves a spell slot for fights.
One per encounter feels right, but then they'd compete too much with focus spells I guess.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once per encounter for a full powered spell would be ridiculously powerful. Once per day is fine, it gives you a good way to save slots on useful but not always necessary utility spells, but in a way that's much more economical over the long term than potions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wands = useless, I mean, c'mon, ONE casting a day then maybe, MAYBE, a second use then destroyed or broken. What's the point of even having one? Spellstaffs are really limited but at least they have some flexibility in casting charges which are good in a pinch.
Look at how many spell slots you get. One extra casting of a crux spell, or a utility spell that you dont necessarily want to prepare is great.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wands = useless, I mean, c'mon, ONE casting a day then maybe, MAYBE, a second use then destroyed or broken. What's the point of even having one? Spellstaffs are really limited but at least they have some flexibility in casting charges which are good in a pinch.Look at how many spell slots you get. One extra casting of a crux spell, or a utility spell that you dont necessarily want to prepare is great.
Plus in PF2, you are casting it so it uses your DC (et al).
It's like buying an extra spell slot, even if it is forever locked into one spell. While that represents a major change from how wands have been, PF2 wands are still worthwhile, even into high levels.I know I had Pearls of Power explicitly for getting more castings of specific spells. PF2 wands can fulfill that function.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect the current status of wands is an over-reaction to PF1's fifty cast wands. Personally, I would have gone with "you can charge a wand as part of your daily prep. It will take as many charges as half the highest level spell you can cast (rounded up). Once all the charges are expended, you can attempt to use the wand one more time" with the current downsides of that use. Not sure how that fits in with staves, but then I think those could probably use a boost of some kind, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know spell changes have been mentioned, but I'd like to highlight that True Strike and Jump are both solid options out of the box as opposed to their niche applications last edition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, slap mage armor on a wand and laugh. Never need to cast that more than once anyways
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wands = useless, I mean, c'mon, ONE casting a day then maybe, MAYBE, a second use then destroyed or broken. What's the point of even having one? Spellstaffs are really limited but at least they have some flexibility in casting charges which are good in a pinch.
Are you trolling?
Wands can be GREAT! Broken even.
A 160gp 2nd-level wand of longstrider in a game where mobility is king may well be the best investment you can make.
Who wouldn't want a 10-foot speed bonus for the entire adventuring day? It affects your climb, jump, and swim distances, helps you kite enemies better, and increases the efficiency of your action economy (which in Second Edition is HUGE!).
Not all spell wands are so spectacular, but they're hardly "useless."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wands = useless, I mean, c'mon, ONE casting a day then maybe, MAYBE, a second use then destroyed or broken. What's the point of even having one? Spellstaffs are really limited but at least they have some flexibility in casting charges which are good in a pinch.
Wands went from "that thing that eventually gets permanently exhausted (contrary to how wands work in practically ALL depictions in media)" to "something that can (if not overused) last the character's ENTIRE career and thusly be an iconic part of their equipment roster". Nothing but a step in the right direction, though maybe the number of reliable uses per day could be dialed up.
Debuff spells also make pretty good wands, since DCs scale and they basically never become useless (though of course you get better debuffs later and should upgrade the wand at some point). Just pick a debuff spell you cast often, start the fight with the wand drawn, and it's basically a free spell slot.
Damage spells however do not heighten so are still bad wands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, as I see it, they wanted to transition wands from what they had kind of become, a potentially mass produced, most economic bulk consumable, spell slot that easily enabled prepped encounter nova's.
They wanted to change this, but wanted wands to continue to exist. As part of that, they didn't want to 'suddenly' have it seem like they had changed completely overnight.
I think the key thing they wanted to do was take away their Nova ability, so they wanted to limit how many times it could be used in an encounter or day. I suspect they considered both 1/encounter and 1/day options, but decided that 1/day was simpler, as if they did one per encounter, defining how you separated encounters could be difficult. Do you have to rest between encounters, what if you didn't rest, but someone else who hadn't used the wand used it in the second situation. What if two different people tried to use the wand in a single encounter.
I think they decided 1/day was the simplest, safest, most balanced way of handling it. However, they had the 'cannon' of wands being something that can get used up. I think this led to the rule for overcharging. Basically, allowing a wand to be able to be burned up by overuse.
Personally, I agree that the rules have so high a chance of destroying the wand, I have trouble understanding people being willing to exercise the option.
The biggest issue I have with the new wands, isn't really that however. It is that it used to be a specific niche type of treasure. A multi-use consumable. This niche/category of treasure is gone now, with no real replacement. A scroll with four copies of a spell would probably be near the price of a wand.
In PF1 you could hand out a wand, and know it was a temporary thing. You could hand out a wand with a handful of charges of a powerful spell. It would be helpful, but would either get used up, or they wouldn't use it because of saving it and will thus have minimal impact one way or another.
Now giving a wand with a powerful spell is a big impact, something they can then count on from then on, once a day.
That's actually the bigger impact, in my opinion, of the change in wands.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ONLY thing I don't like about wands, is that if you want to be a serious wand user, you need a golf bag of wands, rather than having a single wand that can do multiple things.
I feel single multipurpose wands are more thematic than a golf bag of a dozen. Having a dozen wands to cover all your favorite spells or to allow for more of a given spell a day just reminds me of those cartoonish anime characters with a dozen one shot pistols lining the inside of their coats.
No more holding a charge for a melee touch attack spell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ONLY thing I don't like about wands, is that if you want to be a serious wand user, you need a golf bag of wands, rather than having a single wand that can do multiple things.
I feel single multipurpose wands are more thematic than a golf bag of a dozen. Having a dozen wands to cover all your favorite spells or to allow for more of a given spell a day just reminds me of those cartoonish anime characters with a dozen one shot pistols lining the inside of their coats.
Go watch Tower of Druaga. The main wizardy character on it has a literal golf bag of wands, and even swings them like a golf club. It's hilarious
The thing about Wands was that one of the questions they asked in one of the playtest surveys was about "does it matter if wands are essentially a bulk consumable" and the response was overwhelmingly "no, it does not."
While one use per wand per day seems pretty restrictive, there is additional space for archetypes or feats to enable a character to get more out of their wands.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While one use per wand per day seems pretty restrictive, there is additional space for archetypes or feats to enable a character to get more out of their wands.
That would be seriously cool.