Advance Players Guide preview from GTM


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

251 to 298 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Charon Onozuka wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Darkvision in general causes group division and it’s one of my least favorite things in the game honestly as a GM.
My issue with darkvision as a GM is that it routinely becomes "blame the stupid Human for having normal eyes" because everyone else in the party has it. Even in PF2 thus far, nearly every low-light vision ancestry just grabs the upgrade to darkvision heritage and continues leaving Human PCs as the only one causing an issue for the group. [Which also makes it kinda odd that Elves seem to primarily live in caves now.]

Thus why I wish it was just gone.

Vision/Perception is such an integrated mechanic to the agency of a player, that having division of "can't see" vs. "sees fine" at level 1 is just weird to me.

Think of how easy as a GM it would be if you know that when a room was dark no one could see. Think of how much more cohesion and focus on being able to see there would be from the team.

Instead we have "punish the human" or "dwarf never gets to really use Darkvision because the rest of team needs a torch".

I'd nuke darkvision out of the game if it didn't mean I'd have to rebalance all the heritages that got it, but I digress.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition Subscriber

The bulk of my players never choose darkvision (thank god this isn't 5e, where almost everybody always has darkvision).

Typically they just cast Light on the champion's shield and those who can try to slink out of harm's way in the darkness or dim light. It's really hard for me to keep track of, though. I'm usually juggling a lot in fights for them and I don't want giant chunks of every encounter taken up by me double checking light sources and all that. I probably will buckle down on it when I end up in a darker campaign (both Plaguestone and book 2 of Age of Ashes are pretty legitimately well-lit.


I ended up slapping a 30ft range on darkvision to try and mitigate this issue. None of my players were particularly bothered, and it has served tolerably well to rein in the worst of it.

Horizon Hunters

Sporkedup wrote:

The bulk of my players never choose darkvision (thank god this isn't 5e, where almost everybody always has darkvision).

Typically they just cast Light on the champion's shield and those who can try to slink out of harm's way in the darkness or dim light. It's really hard for me to keep track of, though. I'm usually juggling a lot in fights for them and I don't want giant chunks of every encounter taken up by me double checking light sources and all that. I probably will buckle down on it when I end up in a darker campaign (both Plaguestone and book 2 of Age of Ashes are pretty legitimately well-lit.

Yeah nobody in my group cared overly much when they made characters about vision. Like your group, they just cast Light on our Fighters sword.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I kinda wish darkvision wasn't really a thing. It's too prevalent as both a PC and NPC facing option.

An overabundance of NPCs with darkvision makes light-based tactics kind of quickly irrelevant and for a lot of bestiary entries it doesn't really feel like it makes sense.

As a player option I don't think I've ever been in a game where darkvision hasn't either been a massive, borderline overbearing boon to the character who had it or completely irrelevant and options that hand it out might as well just give out nothing.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Forget darkvision, I want an ancestry with echolocation! Let me scream to create a mental image of the room around me!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What if Darkvision was simply "You treat creatures in no light as if they had concealment, but not as hidden".

That'd still be good, but actually make sense. Then Greater Darkvision can be the "I see as good as you do in daylight" niche instead of just forms of magical darkness (which literally to me makes no sense, like how did a creature become accustomed to seeing well against magic?)

EDIT: Since we're getting off topic...

What Ancestries coming in the APG are going to have Darkvision? I would assume Tiefling Heritages and Dhampir, but not sure what else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The bestiary ratfolk, kobolds, and orcs have darkvision, so probably them. Catfolk will probably also get a heritage that gives it.

EDIT: The bestiary changeling, aasimar, and duskwalkers also have it, so it's fair to say all of them will either get it inherently or be able to spend a feat on it like half-orcs.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

From the dhampir preview, it doesn't necessarily give darkvision, it just upgrades your vision one level (so a human dhampir gets low-light), with a Feat to upgrade further if necessary.

I suspect aasimar and tiefling will be the same.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

From the dhampir preview, it doesn't necessarily give darkvision, it just upgrades your vision one level (so a human dhampir gets low-light), with a Feat to upgrade further if necessary.

I suspect aasimar and tiefling will be the same.

That’s a good point. I wonder, would that apply to the current half orc across the board too, it would at least differentiate it from half elf if that too were flexed to any ancestry being allowed.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
That’s a good point. I wonder, would that apply to the current half orc across the board too, it would at least differentiate it from half elf if that too were flexed to any ancestry being allowed.

Uh...that's exactly how Half Orc works already, aside from only Humans being allowed to take it. They upgrade the human vision to Low Light and have a Feat for Darkvision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Midnight, I am right there with you on the darkvision thing. Didn't know anyone else was bothered by it. XD

Literally had my Age of Ashes party leading the one human party member around in the dark so that they could use their darkvision to sneak...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
That’s a good point. I wonder, would that apply to the current half orc across the board too, it would at least differentiate it from half elf if that too were flexed to any ancestry being allowed.
Uh...that's exactly how Half Orc works already, aside from only Humans being allowed to take it. They upgrade the human vision to Low Light and have a Feat for Darkvision.

I guess I meant explicitly changed to “upgrades” instead of how it’s written just for human which reads “you gain low light vision”. I understand it’s effectively just a nuance.

“MaxAstro” wrote:

Midnight, I am right there with you on the darkvision thing. Didn't know anyone else was bothered by it. XD

Literally had my Age of Ashes party leading the one human party member around in the dark so that they could use their darkvision to sneak...

Yeah it’s like one of those oddities that I’ve just always hated.

There’s something thematic about the dark and the light, almost inherent to the genre as a whole.

Light should be the ally of the player and the dark should be an ally of the gm. Thematically it makes sense and it sets the tone for a dungeon adventure IMO. Darkest dungeon light mechanics are actually kinda fun. I wish light in TTRPG was more fun and easy. To be completely fair to PF2 it is my favorite iteration thus far but still chained by the “but how would dwarves operate their mines!!” (....with torches like everyone else, or maybe they get special mine vision because of tremors.. idk... grumble)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

There’s something thematic about the dark and the light, almost inherent to the genre as a whole.

Light should be the ally of the player and the dark should be an ally of the gm.

Now that's quite poetic, to me at least.


One can never underestimate the attraction of the exotic, too; its one reason with some groups that every character group looks like a freakshow (in terms of being entirely composed of random rare heritages and class/archetype combinations). This can be okay on occasion, but its easy for it to happen damn near ever time (and that's if said odd combinations aren't especially mechanically attractive) and that sometimes can get pretty old from a GMing POV.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
That’s a good point. I wonder, would that apply to the current half orc across the board too, it would at least differentiate it from half elf if that too were flexed to any ancestry being allowed.
Uh...that's exactly how Half Orc works already, aside from only Humans being allowed to take it. They upgrade the human vision to Low Light and have a Feat for Darkvision.
I guess I meant explicitly changed to “upgrades” instead of how it’s written just for human which reads “you gain low light vision”. I understand it’s effectively just a nuance.

It’s also excess word count.

Although I’m sort of curious why they didn’t just make “vision upgrade” a defined term from the get go. Would have saved even more word count, if it was written in such a way that it wasn’t too confusing to figure out (no guarantees on that). Spells and conditions could have keyed off it too.

I do like your alternative suggestion for “darkvision.”


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Salamileg wrote:
Forget darkvision, I want an ancestry with echolocation! Let me scream to create a mental image of the room around me!

No need to scream, just tongue-click like real world echolocating humans do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It’s not perfect, but at least it provides everyone an incentive to want good lighting even if you do have darkvision and it provides a solid benefit for those that invested in darkvision.

Plus it still allows stealth checks, which in general I think should be allowed in the dark if all you see is black and white anyways, since concealment always applies.

And if I was having it all my way, I’d say darkvision the spell allows you to ignore the concealment because vision spells deserve more value IMO.

I think it’s a net buff to PCs considering how many monsters have darkvision for seemingly no reason anyways (hyenas get lowlight but hey gnolls get darkvision... even as a fan of gnolls meh).

Edit: I think we should make another thread on the darkvision stuff so we don’t clutter this. On mobile so will do tomorrow if no one else has, but my last one here.


Salamileg wrote:
Forget darkvision, I want an ancestry with echolocation! Let me scream to create a mental image of the room around me!

Were you watching What We Do in the Shadows last night? :)


I'm interested to see what feat support was added to the monk. I have a dual fighting fan wielding monk concept that doesn't feel as great as I'd like it to feel right now, even if he's all kinds of flavorful. Here is hoping Monk weapon users get a little love...


We have zen Archer confirmed and it's been hinted that drunken master is coming. Other than that just the high level ki form. But who knows, could have some other feats outside of those feat trees, and there could definitely be some archetypes built around dual wielding. I think so far we have archetypes confirmed for shield users, one hand users, and archers, so it could be paizos going to try to get an archetype for all the basic fighting styles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:
We have zen Archer confirmed and it's been hinted that drunken master is coming. Other than that just the high level ki form. But who knows, could have some other feats outside of those feat trees, and there could definitely be some archetypes built around dual wielding. I think so far we have archetypes confirmed for shield users, one hand users, and archers, so it could be paizos going to try to get an archetype for all the basic fighting styles.

Actually, I recall the hint for drunken master monk was something along the lines of a popular monk thing, I almost wonder if the super powered ki form is part of a line of "DBZ Monk Feats" and that's what was being discussed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The hint I saw was Logan Bonner on the APG retrospective saying that zen archer was confirmed, and there is one more subclass but he wasn't gonna say what it is he was just going to do something - and then he took a long drink. Not sure what other hints have been given.


While darkvision is nice, I haven't really seen it be abused yet. In our 2 P2 groups we had only one PC in each that has darkvision (goblin in one and cavern elf in other).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:
The hint I saw was Logan Bonner on the APG retrospective saying that zen archer was confirmed, and there is one more subclass but he wasn't gonna say what it is he was just going to do something - and then he took a long drink. Not sure what other hints have been given.

Ah, then yeah, drunken master sounds likely


QuidEst wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
rainzax wrote:

...Cool feats deeper down the Book Line that list "Cavern Elf" as a pre-requisite.

"Paragon Feats" if you will.

Has it been stated there won't be Cavern Elf feats in the APG? I would assume that all heritages got at least a few goodies.
It seems like it'd be taking up a lot of space to create feat lines for every heritage when they could just make a couple and use the space for ancestry feats that aren't heritage-locked.

In a Book geared towards "Advanced Players" or Advanced Classes" I would tend to agree with you.

In a Book geared towards "Advanced Ancestries" or "Advanced Elves" I would tend to disagree with you.

We are in Year 1!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have a friend who is wanting to build a Duskwalker Superstition Barbarian.

Really hoping that we can.
Its his main character and mine is a Tiefling Witch. We are hoping that the APG will have everything we need to update our main characters for 2E.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Witches will have 1 action at-will hexes! yay!!

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aristophanes wrote:
Witches will have 1 action at-will hexes! yay!!

Yesssss! That's fabulous and exactly what I was hoping for. Specialized cantrips like Bards get is exactly where Hexes belong in terms of design space.

I was admittedly also hoping for Witches as strictly Occult, but I'd happily have conceded that to get this, since this is far more essential to them feeling like the same Class as in PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Prince Setehrael wrote:

I have a friend who is wanting to build a Duskwalker Superstition Barbarian.

Really hoping that we can.
Its his main character and mine is a Tiefling Witch. We are hoping that the APG will have everything we need to update our main characters for 2E.

Congrats! They confirmed both Duskwalkers a while back, and they confirmed the Superstition Instinct for Barbarians in the APG stream!


Aristophanes wrote:
Witches will have 1 action at-will hexes! yay!!

Did they say one action ones? I am sure they said cantrip ones but I don’t recall actions mentioned

Remember that one action hexes would need to be less powerful that what was already tested and probably what people are used to one hexes so might not be the best things ...

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Witches will have 1 action at-will hexes! yay!!

Did they say one action ones? I am sure they said cantrip ones but I don’t recall actions mentioned

Remember that one action hexes would need to be less powerful that what was already tested and probably what people are used to one hexes so might not be the best things ...

To be clear in regards to my previous statement, I'm cool with cantrip Hexes however we get them (well, assuming they're mechanically decent, anyway).

I also don't think this is necessarily true. Dirge of Doom is a 1 action cantrip, and it's pretty sweet and at only a reasonably low level, to boot. Something single target could presumably be even more powerful, as could something allowing a Save.

Dirge of Doom probably is the high end of one action cantrip power, but it's an area effect with no Save, so there's room for fairly potent effects, IMO.

I'd definitely expect such effects to be debuffs rather than fight enders, but that's to be expected of cantrips anyway, and was true of most Hexes in PF1 as well.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ezekieru wrote:
Prince Setehrael wrote:

I have a friend who is wanting to build a Duskwalker Superstition Barbarian.

Really hoping that we can.
Its his main character and mine is a Tiefling Witch. We are hoping that the APG will have everything we need to update our main characters for 2E.

Congrats! They confirmed both Duskwalkers a while back, and they confirmed the Superstition Instinct for Barbarians in the APG stream!

I know, we are now so excited!!!!


Lanathar wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Witches will have 1 action at-will hexes! yay!!

Did they say one action ones? I am sure they said cantrip ones but I don’t recall actions mentioned

Remember that one action hexes would need to be less powerful that what was already tested and probably what people are used to one hexes so might not be the best things ...

I'm pretty sure one of them mentioned using them as your third action every turn, though I suppose that could have meant sustaining.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Witches have reportedly gotten the following:


  • - Specialized Familiar mechanics along with special familiars and unique interactions (also the introduction of "pet cache" for safety). They lose a spell at every level for this, so it's likely to be powerful.

  • - Cantrip hexes, so hexes are all day

  • - Cackle removed as a default ability, now a Class Feat

  • - All four divine spell lists

  • - Loose Patron identity that highly depends on the GM

I can't speak for everyone, but this version of the Witch sounds amazing to me.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
  • - All four divine spell lists
  • It’s even worse than I thought! XD


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Midnightoker wrote:

    Witches have reportedly gotten the following:


    • - Specialized Familiar mechanics along with special familiars and unique interactions (also the introduction of "pet cache" for safety). They lose a spell at every level for this, so it's likely to be powerful.

    • - Cantrip hexes, so hexes are all day

    • - Cackle removed as a default ability, now a Class Feat

    • - All four divine spell lists

    • - Loose Patron identity that highly depends on the GM

    I can't speak for everyone, but this version of the Witch sounds amazing to me.

    I hope Cackle actually does something now. Imagine using a Class feat to change the concentrate trait for auditory on sustains...


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Rysky wrote:
    Midnightoker wrote:
  • - All four divine spell lists
  • It’s even worse than I thought! XD

    HA!

    <3

    I owe it to you to at least build something remniscent of Mellisandre once it releases I think.


    ChibiNyan wrote:
    Midnightoker wrote:

    Witches have reportedly gotten the following:


    • - Specialized Familiar mechanics along with special familiars and unique interactions (also the introduction of "pet cache" for safety). They lose a spell at every level for this, so it's likely to be powerful.

    • - Cantrip hexes, so hexes are all day

    • - Cackle removed as a default ability, now a Class Feat

    • - All four divine spell lists

    • - Loose Patron identity that highly depends on the GM

    I can't speak for everyone, but this version of the Witch sounds amazing to me.

    I hope Cackle actually does something now. Imagine using a Class feat to change the concentrate trait for auditory on sustains...

    Pretty sure it's gonna do something. Before, Cackle didn't have any room to give the Witch more power- Witch already had Wizard's number of slots without the restrictions, a souped-up familiar, and a focus spell.


    ChibiNyan wrote:


    I hope Cackle actually does something now. Imagine using a Class feat to change the concentrate trait for auditory on sustains...

    I mean, maybe. That'd still be better than what Eschew Materials does.


    Squiggit wrote:
    ChibiNyan wrote:


    I hope Cackle actually does something now. Imagine using a Class feat to change the concentrate trait for auditory on sustains...
    I mean, maybe. That'd still be better than what Eschew Materials does.

    I'd disagree, mildly- Eschew Materials frees up a hand. Changing sustaining without doing anything for casting doesn't do much.


    Is Eschew materials a bizarre legacy feat that is now useless?

    The only thing on the cackle is that it seems odd that only human witches will be able to do it from level 1. But I guess it was always optional (in theory) in 1E anyway...


    It will be interesting to see how, or if, Familiars are incorporated into the Witch Multiclass Archetype.


    QuidEst wrote:
    Squiggit wrote:
    ChibiNyan wrote:


    I hope Cackle actually does something now. Imagine using a Class feat to change the concentrate trait for auditory on sustains...
    I mean, maybe. That'd still be better than what Eschew Materials does.
    I'd disagree, mildly- Eschew Materials frees up a hand. Changing sustaining without doing anything for casting doesn't do much.

    Sadly, it doesn't free up a hand.

    CRB, p.209 wrote:
    Eschew Materials... Unlike when providing somatic components, you still must have a hand completely free.


    More on topic, I'm behind the decision of Witches getting more familiar options and at-will cantrip hexes in exchange for bumping down to 3 slots a level instead of four.

    I feel like, in general, what we've seen so far is that the 3 slot casters tend to have much more interesting overall kits.

    Although I'm a little wary about 'specialized familiar mechanics.' Worried it might end up feeling bad for everyone else who specializes in familiars and gets locked out of options. Especially with how maligned familiars seem to be when in a lot of discussion.

    Probably will be fine, though.


    Squiggit wrote:

    More on topic, I'm behind the decision of Witches getting more familiar options and at-will cantrip hexes in exchange for bumping down to 3 slots a level instead of four.

    I feel like, in general, what we've seen so far is that the 3 slot casters tend to have much more interesting overall kits.

    Although I'm a little wary about 'specialized familiar mechanics.' Worried it might end up feeling bad for everyone else who specializes in familiars and gets locked out of options. Especially with how maligned familiars seem to be when in a lot of discussion.

    Probably will be fine, though.

    From what I understand, those who want to specialize in familiars but don't want to be a witch should pick up the Familiar Master archetype. The stream mentioned that it even gets a couple features witches don't get.

    The Exchange

    Squiggit wrote:

    More on topic, I'm behind the decision of Witches getting more familiar options and at-will cantrip hexes in exchange for bumping down to 3 slots a level instead of four.

    I feel like, in general, what we've seen so far is that the 3 slot casters tend to have much more interesting overall kits.

    Although I'm a little wary about 'specialized familiar mechanics.' Worried it might end up feeling bad for everyone else who specializes in familiars and gets locked out of options. Especially with how maligned familiars seem to be when in a lot of discussion.

    Probably will be fine, though.

    They do seem to be working on mitigating that with the Familiar Master archetype, which will also have specialized mechanics even distinct from the Witch so anyone looking to get one of these souped up familiars without multiclassing with the Witch will get their chance.


    I don't like the existence of Eschew Materials at all. In general, I dislike anything that basically has no benefit, but isn't explicit about this fact (playtest cackle was the same).

    Feats and features like that confuse new players - they think the feat has a purpose (why wouldn't they?) and so they inevitably misunderstand how the feat works because the truth that it's actually completely meaningless is both counter-intuitive and silly.

    I don't have a problem with "ribbon" abilities that are there mostly for flavor, but it's very important that the rules are very explicit about what these abilities actually do, and honestly every ability should have at least some part of it that's an explicit upside.

    251 to 298 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Advance Players Guide preview from GTM All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.