PaizoCon Remaster changes compilation.


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Horizon Hunters

How will Champions change, as alignments are gone?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

That's in Player Core 2, so they haven't given any hints that I've found.


So the "Champions of Good" are just going to be the Holy sanctified champions and the "Champions of Evil" are going to be the Unholy sanctified champions.

No word yet on whether deities will restrict "which of the three kinds" you're allowed to be and how. Also there's a possibility of unsanctified champions.


Given the overhaul to Wizard subclasses, I’m crossing my fingers for bigger changes to Champions than that. We’ve yet to hear anything because they’re in Player Core 2.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They've indicated that there will be more Monster Core and Player Core 2 info at GenCon. I expect that we'll get a bit more about MC than PC2 because it's coming out first. PC2 is pretty clearly the GenCon 2024 book anyway, so I don't expect too much about that until PaizoCon 2024.

ETA: Alchemists, Champions, and Oracles are the three most heavily redone classes in PC2. I expect some pretty big changes to them. For the Alchemist, there will probably be some changes to Bomber and Mutagenist to make them more combat oriented. I think there will be a number of themed subclasses for the Champion, and each deity will sponsor some but not others. The Oracle will be revamped to reflect the changes to Focus Spells, but I highly doubt that's all they're doing.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Evan Tarlton wrote:

They've indicated that there will be more Monster Core and Player Core 2 info at GenCon. I expect that we'll get a bit more about MC than PC2 because it's coming out first. PC2 is pretty clearly the GenCon 2024 book anyway, so I don't expect too much about that until PaizoCon 2024.

ETA: Alchemists, Champions, and Oracles are the three most heavily redone classes in PC2. I expect some pretty big changes to them. For the Alchemist, there will probably be some changes to Bomber and Mutagenist to make them more combat oriented. I think there will be a number of themed subclasses for the Champion, and each deity will sponsor some but not others. The Oracle will be revamped to reflect the changes to Focus Spells, but I highly doubt that's all they're doing.

I hope they do not mess with flame oracle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So the "Champions of Good" are just going to be the Holy sanctified champions and the "Champions of Evil" are going to be the Unholy sanctified champions.

No word yet on whether deities will restrict "which of the three kinds" you're allowed to be and how. Also there's a possibility of unsanctified champions.

We've seen two deities in Rage of Elements previews, one of which requires worshipers to be unholy and the other allows worshipers to be holy. So basically the same as it is now, some gods care a lot about if you act good or evil and some gods don't.

Liberty's Edge

Arachnofiend wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So the "Champions of Good" are just going to be the Holy sanctified champions and the "Champions of Evil" are going to be the Unholy sanctified champions.

No word yet on whether deities will restrict "which of the three kinds" you're allowed to be and how. Also there's a possibility of unsanctified champions.

We've seen two deities in Rage of Elements previews, one of which requires worshipers to be unholy and the other allows worshipers to be holy. So basically the same as it is now, some gods care a lot about if you act good or evil and some gods don't.

I definitely hope it will not be the same as far as Unaligned (= Neutral) Champions are concerned.

Currently, they do not exist.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So the "Champions of Good" are just going to be the Holy sanctified champions and the "Champions of Evil" are going to be the Unholy sanctified champions.

No word yet on whether deities will restrict "which of the three kinds" you're allowed to be and how. Also there's a possibility of unsanctified champions.

We've seen two deities in Rage of Elements previews, one of which requires worshipers to be unholy and the other allows worshipers to be holy.

Were those word choices—require vs allow—intentional? If so, that’s potentially promising.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So the "Champions of Good" are just going to be the Holy sanctified champions and the "Champions of Evil" are going to be the Unholy sanctified champions.

No word yet on whether deities will restrict "which of the three kinds" you're allowed to be and how. Also there's a possibility of unsanctified champions.

We've seen two deities in Rage of Elements previews, one of which requires worshipers to be unholy and the other allows worshipers to be holy.
Were those word choices—require vs allow—intentional? If so, that’s potentially promising.

Yes. The traditional evil earth elemental requires unholy. The crystalline queen allows holy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We've also seen Atreia's write-up. He requires Holy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I dig that the Elemental Lords don't have the same attitudes toward sanctification.
Sairazul allowing holy, but Atreia requiring it make them feel more distinct from each other than previously.

I wouldn't be surprised if all the evil Elemental Lords require unholy sanctification though, maybe with Hshurha as the outlier.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

During Paizo Live, it was also stated that Iomedae demands you choose holy, while Sarenrae allows it. Pharasma forbids both holy and unholy. Asmodeus is all about that unholy sanctification. Lastly, Norgorber allows unholy, if I remember correctly.

This essentially rules out mandatory sanctification as part of the champion class. That's between you and your god.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering Sarenrae's history out of game, and lore in game I'm a little surprised she's optional holy. Her having only good followers was kind of a topic in the shift to 2e, to say nothing of the revelation that she was the first Good-centred deity in the cosmos.

On the other hand I can totally see her offering support to those working for redemption but who haven't made it into the holy echelons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:
This essentially rules out mandatory sanctification as part of the champion class. That's between you and your god.

Oh, and the stubborn pessimist in me wants to say that technically this doesn't completely rule out Champions being restricted to deities who allow or require sanctification, but considering Champions of Pharasma were a thing from the first days of 2e, I'm increasingly hopeful that mandatory sanctification couldn't possibly be coming down the line for the class. Not the least of which reason being I don't think I've seen anyone who actually wants Champions to only apply to a specific subset of gods and probably kill a lot of existing champions who squeak by with a god who doesn't personally care about holiness but still permits good worshippers.

This is why I don't let the stubborn pessimist in me talk me out of enjoying things often.

On a related note, I feel like this actually confirms there's no 1-to-1 equation for "This deity only accepts good-aligned worshippers" to "this deity requires holy sanctification", or "allows good and non-good worshippers" to "permits holy sanctification."

ADDENDUM: Nethys is also mentioned in the stream as a deity who allows both holy and unholy sanctification.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sarenrae's Dawnflower Cult probably explains why she doesn't demand Holy and also that she's a lot more chill with her commandments, while Iomadae is a militaristic goddess about fighting evildoers.


I would be all about a non holy champion of sarenrae. How do yall think causes are going to work without allignment? Just pick whatever? I think there are still going to be restrictions but i would not know what they would be. Do we still get legally distinct lay on paws or touch of unpleasentness if not sanctified? I'm really hyped about this

Scarab Sages

Karmagator wrote:
Pharasma forbids both holy and unholy.

This is kind of disappointing. Isn't holy good for fighting undead as well as fiends? Fighting undead is a large part of what Pharasmins do.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If sanctifying is all about aligning yourself with one of those planar forces and Pharasma is supposed to be a neutral arbiter or all those things I could see why she would forbid her followers from doing so.

Edit: plus therr is still positive/vitqliyy energy for undead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Pharasma forbids both holy and unholy.
This is kind of disappointing. Isn't holy good for fighting undead as well as fiends? Fighting undead is a large part of what Pharasmins do.

The problem is that holy vs unholy seems to be much broader than that - it's good vs evil. Pharasma doesn't fight undead because they are evil, but because their existence directly threatens the River of Souls and thus reality. As pixirose said, her entire thing is being neutral in everything else.

So this makes a lot of sense. If undead somehow interact with sanctification, I wouldn't be surprised if her worshipers didn't get an option to affect undead as if they were holy or something like that.

RaptorJesues wrote:
I would be all about a non holy champion of sarenrae. How do yall think causes are going to work without allignment? Just pick whatever? I think there are still going to be restrictions but i would not know what they would be. Do we still get legally distinct lay on paws or touch of unpleasentness if not sanctified? I'm really hyped about this

Unless you want to eliminate like half or more of the gods from being able to have champions, you have no choice but to loosen the current restrictions. The least invasive option would be that the current good causes only require you to not be unholy and vice versa. They still give "totally not lay on hands" and "bad touch", there is no real need to change that since it isn't necessarily related to morality. The tenets of good/evil become the tenets of holiness/unholiness and are purely about RP. Feat requirements are transferred from tenets to sanctification, with unsanctified getting options for stuff like Blade Ally for the first time.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Pharasma forbids both holy and unholy.
This is kind of disappointing. Isn't holy good for fighting undead as well as fiends? Fighting undead is a large part of what Pharasmins do.

no fighting undead is what vitality damage is for, there are no common undead with weakness/good and I very much doubt there will be any undead with weakness/holy either


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Double post.
From what I have gathered holy/unholy seems to be "aligned or allied with the upper/lower" plains rather than a statement on your personal behavior/morals


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the thing about "Sarenrae doesn't give spells to bad people" will be covered by edicts and anathema. The thing about not requiring holy sanctification is that she doesn't require you to have achieved redemption, only to be actively seeking it.


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Considering Sarenrae's history out of game, and lore in game I'm a little surprised she's optional holy. Her having only good followers was kind of a topic in the shift to 2e, to say nothing of the revelation that she was the first Good-centred deity in the cosmos.

Good and Holy are 2 different things. You can be good without being Holy. And as Cabbage says: The whole concept of redemption means that you don't start Holy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think the thing about "Sarenrae doesn't give spells to bad people" will be covered by edicts and anathema. The thing about not requiring holy sanctification is that she doesn't require you to have achieved redemption, only to be actively seeking it.

Yeah, that's exactly why I can see it. Her anathema can keep out more Dawnflower nonsense while allowing non-adherence to holy for her clergy who have embraced her doctrine of redemption at the hands of her faithful and wish to spread the light while still working on themselves.

Liberty's Edge

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think the thing about "Sarenrae doesn't give spells to bad people" will be covered by edicts and anathema. The thing about not requiring holy sanctification is that she doesn't require you to have achieved redemption, only to be actively seeking it.
Yeah, that's exactly why I can see it. Her anathema can keep out more Dawnflower nonsense while allowing non-adherence to holy for her clergy who have embraced her doctrine of redemption at the hands of her faithful and wish to spread the light while still working on themselves.

Way I see it, Holy is all about fighting cosmic Evil, and Unholy the opposite. But there are other ways to do Good than battling Evil.


I wonder if the sense good/evil feats (and other feats) will just be "detect sanctification" and you must be sanctified to take the feat, and/or if there are feats that do X, but if sanctified they also do Y; might be a good way to keep those Oaths interesting and a little spicier.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Wow! I'm surprised by the breadth of changes coming with the Remaster. But "good" surprised ... I'm looking forward to the final, printed books.

(I'll have to come back to this thread and really give it a good read).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Someone with rage of elements on the reddit saw that the remaster has changed Grab, Knockdown, Shove and similar automatic maneuver conditions for monsters.

These actions now all require an athletics check and are no longer automatic successes but they ignore and do not contribute to MAP.

This seems like a pretty significant change. Especially to summoners and summons. Player facing options that greatly enjoyed the beastiary features.

Heres the Link.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
StarlingSweeter wrote:

Someone with rage of elements on the reddit saw that the remaster has changed Grab, Knockdown, Shove and similar automatic maneuver conditions for monsters.

These actions now all require an athletics check and are no longer automatic successes but they ignore and do not contribute to MAP.

This seems like a pretty significant change. Especially to summoners and summons. Player facing options that greatly enjoyed the beastiary features.

Heres the Link.

I wonder if that'll be the same for the automatic maneuvers player characters can get; fighters especially. It'd be a pretty significant nerf but perhaps not an unwarranted one (I've always hated that a Fighter can be the best fear build without investing anything into Intimidate).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not sure I like that nerf. Especially because it has weird effect of making certain high athletics soloboss monsters now more dangerous because they will restrain pcs instead of just grappling them


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I can see many a restrained caster in the near future


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It also means more rolls slowing things down. Yuck!


Tangorin wrote:
I can see many a restrained caster in the near future

In a mindboggle way; spotted in ama reddit post, there is cantrip w/o spellcasting ability modifier in damage.


So I watched the interview - anyone know what this means for non divine people? Do fighters get to sanctify at all? For that matter, are holy weapons still a thing? I can see a universe where they exist and deal 1d6 spirit damage (holy) but does anyone know more?

Seems sort of weird if fiends just murder sanctified characters but the non-sanctified, outright villainous fighter can blender them because of weapon choice.


Calliope5431 wrote:

So I watched the interview - anyone know what this means for non divine people? Do fighters get to sanctify at all? For that matter, are holy weapons still a thing? I can see a universe where they exist and deal 1d6 spirit damage (holy) but does anyone know more?

Seems sort of weird if fiends just murder sanctified characters but the non-sanctified, outright villainous fighter can blender them because of weapon choice.

So far it sounds like most characters, like rogues, don't care about sanctification one whit. Clerics and Champions make natural choices for sanctification and we know that for example several divine spell react to sanctification. We don't know for sure if divine casters aside from clerics can sanctify, but it seems plausible. It also seems plausible there might be an archetype which lets non-divine characters buy-in to some sanctification-related powers, too.

Holy weapons are probably still a thing if only because the idea of a warrior wielding a holy weapon against a fiend remains a cool concept and probably the most obvious way a Champion might interact with sanctification--though we won't see what the Champion does until many moons hence. Considering that holy weapons as they exist so far are not able to be wielded by evil creatures without penalty, it may be that holy weapons will require holy sanctification. It's possible on the other hand that the holy sword will have some other kind of anathema requirement so that non-sanctified wielders can use it to smite demons but also put a minimum standards of behaviour so that evil individuals can't use it...

On the third hand, holy sanctified characters already have tools to slay fiends usually. Even if cruel characters can benefit from a holy sword to also slay demons alongside the rest of the party, it may not really be considered all that much of a contradiction. Nothing makes evil characters immune to fiends, after all, and we don't really know if being sanctified makes you unusually vulnerable to them. The benefit of a holy rune might just be that it puts you on even footing without sanctification for the cost of adding a rune to your weapon instead of a moral code.


You *could* print the Holy Rune basically unchanged just replacing "evil" with "unholy" and "good" with "holy."

The issue is that the local bandit leaders is far more likely to be evil than they are to be unholy. Because "bandit leaders" are more often "murderous criminals" than "dedicated to the cosmic cause of evil."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'd guess the Holy rune becomes a lower level rune with just the effect of "your weapon's damage is Holy", seeing it's just a trait now instead of its own type. Then it'll still trigger the weaknesses but not adding the extra damage.

Alternatively, I could see it still doing extra damage, just that the extra damage is Holy spirit damage (though then it'd probably need a slight price increase). Could even do both of them!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Eldritch Yodel wrote:

Personally, I'd guess the Holy rune becomes a lower level rune with just the effect of "your weapon's damage is Holy", seeing it's just a trait now instead of its own type. Then it'll still trigger the weaknesses but not adding the extra damage.

Alternatively, I could see it still doing extra damage, just that the extra damage is Holy spirit damage (though then it'd probably need a slight price increase). Could even do both of them!

That would be my guess.

A 'Sanctified Rune' that deals spirit damage and enables sanctification.


I really HOPE they dont make Holy/unHoly (and their weaknesses) pure polar opposites like in vanilla 2e.

What I mean is that I hope they take into account how the different concepts differ due to their nature. Unholy should be decent against pretty much anything while Holy is only good against fiends etc. So unholy is relatively easy way to gain power and damage (just be evil, support evil or powerhungry). Holy is powerful against fiends but pretty much useless against other targets and demands more from the user (it easier to be evil than to be good).

Not sure I am being clear. Its too late overhere


3 people marked this as a favorite.

How does unbalancing them that way help tell better stories?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Dimension Door is apparently being renamed to "Translocate"


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sorry Erk Ander, but we pretty much know for sure that's not how it is going to work. Spiritual damage works on anything with a soul (pretty much anything but constructs) and holy and unholy will just deal with weakness/resistance shenanigans like cold iron and silver do.

Dancing Wind wrote:
How does unbalancing them that way help tell better stories?

I mean from a purely story telling perspective they have a point. Taking the evil path to power SHOULD be easier. If volunteering at the orphanage and eating babies gives you the same amount of power, then eating babies is just evil for evil's sake which isn't very interesting.

Worse yet, it becomes kind of dumb because you're risking retribution for no real reward. To use an in-game example, making constructs and undead uses the same rules and costs for basically the same effect, but the latter is fundamentally evil and will get you lynched. So why does any bother making undead? The answer might be that the necromancer is just mentally ill and not taking rational action, but that gets boring fast. The most interesting villains are ones whose motivations make sense, if only from their warped and selfish perspective.

In the real world, evil institutions endure because they are profitable for those in control. Political coruption, child labor, slavery, drug cartels... These things exist because they make give people money and power they otherwise wouldn't have. For something like the Church of Asmodeus to successfully recruit people instead of the church of Erastil, it should need some kind of fundamental advantage.

The problem is this isn't just a story. It is a game. And that intersection means balance is important, and incentivizing people to be bad winds up leading to edgelord stories becoming the norm when they want the game to be about heroics. One thing I didn't like about alignment damage is it meant playing a good character was actually bad for your chances of survival barring very specific things in your party composition, like a cleric casting Divine Wrath.

Liberty's Edge

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


Sorry Erk Ander, but we pretty much know for sure that's not how it is going to work. Spiritual damage works on anything with a soul (pretty much anything but constructs) and holy and unholy will just deal with weakness/resistance shenanigans like cold iron and silver do.

Dancing Wind wrote:
How does unbalancing them that way help tell better stories?

I mean from a purely story telling perspective they have a point. Taking the evil path to power SHOULD be easier. If volunteering at the orphanage and eating babies gives you the same amount of power, then eating babies is just evil for evil's sake which isn't very interesting.

Worse yet, it becomes kind of dumb because you're risking retribution for no real reward. To use an in-game example, making constructs and undead uses the same rules and costs for basically the same effect, but the latter is fundamentally evil and will get you lynched. So why does any bother making undead? The answer might be that the necromancer is just mentally ill and not taking rational action, but that gets boring fast. The most interesting villains are ones whose motivations make sense, if only from their warped and selfish perspective.

In the real world, evil institutions endure because they are profitable for those in control. Political coruption, child labor, slavery, drug cartels... These things exist because they make give people money and power they otherwise wouldn't have. For something like the Church of Asmodeus to successfully recruit people instead of the church of Erastil, it should need some kind of fundamental advantage.

The problem is this isn't just a story. It is a game. And that intersection means balance is important, and incentivizing people to be bad winds up leading to edgelord stories becoming the norm when they want the game to be about heroics. One thing I didn't like about alignment damage is it meant playing a good character was actually bad for your chances of survival barring very specific things in your party composition,...

If Evil is more powerful, it ends up winning.

It has to be a faster way to power, but not a sustainably more powerful one. Which fits Evil's short-sightedness.

The dark side is NOT stronger. But it is quicker, easier and more seductive.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

i think that's best left to be used narratively rather than actually mechanically.

so, you can have your evil necromancer that has his "free" supply of corpses from killing people to make his undead corpses, while the hard working wizard has to spend tons of resources to gather the materials to make his constructs.

so, in world, you can have this justification of evil having an easier time doing similar thing, but that doesn't need to translate to direct mechanical bonuses for actual creatable player characters since that would mess up the "balanced" feel that you try to have in-between different characters of the same group.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Worse yet, it becomes kind of dumb because you're risking retribution for no real reward. To use an in-game example, making constructs and undead uses the same rules and costs for basically the same effect, but the latter is fundamentally evil and will get you lynched. So why does any bother making undead?

Mostly because they're easier to repair in the heat of combat, can be granted intelligence with less fuss to make self-willed servants, and, at least in 1E, were just overall way, way less expensive.

That last point doesn't hold up as well in the narrative of 2E with how creature creation rituals' costs scale, though when you toss intelligence into the mix undead still come out on top, at least for player-facing options.

I mean Captain Morgan's broader point still totally stands, but I like minion caster types, so I've been thinking about this a lil.


Erk Ander wrote:

I really HOPE they dont make Holy/unHoly (and their weaknesses) pure polar opposites like in vanilla 2e.

What I mean is that I hope they take into account how the different concepts differ due to their nature. Unholy should be decent against pretty much anything while Holy is only good against fiends etc. So unholy is relatively easy way to gain power and damage (just be evil, support evil or powerhungry). Holy is powerful against fiends but pretty much useless against other targets and demands more from the user (it easier to be evil than to be good).

Not sure I am being clear. Its too late overhere

I've actually made this change in one of the games I run - good damage plays as per the book, while evil damage functions pretty much as they've described spirit damage working - hits everything with a brain, up to and including fiends and other evil creatures (and yes I suspect unholy sanctified spirit damage won't hit unholy tagged creatures but we wanted to play it this way for reasons described below).

At first my players thought it was kinda busted, but we all quickly realized the advantages. It gets rid of the silly incentive to play a neutral character in a "good" party (since you'll take evil damage anyway) while also allowing for "good" parties to be vastly "friendlier" with their attacks (such as divine wrath, divine decree, etc). Since good aligned PCs basically never fight other good creatures, and even neutral enemies are somewhat rare, it didn't really feel unbalanced between the two damage types.

The big payoff is evil characters though. The reason I implemented the change was because we were playing blood lords and the evil cleric was getting sick of all her damage bouncing off the (extremely numerous) evil enemies. This change means that evil characters (who tend to fight more creatures that share their alignment compared to good PCs) can actually use alignment damage while also not creating perverse incentives not to play good characters in a "good" party.

Obviously I know that's not the route they're going down with the remaster (I am certain that spirit damage will be symmetrical, and probably the only things immune to good sanctified spells are going to be holy tagged creatures) but thought I'd share my experience running something more asymmetrical - it works!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the Monster Grab action has been modified. It no longer automatically grabs the target, but instead allows the monster to make a grapple attempt while ignoring MAP (both the penalty itself, and it doesn't increase further from the attempt). Also can be used as one action to extend the grab automatically.

(I apologize if anything I share has been covered, but I did a cursory review of this thread and didn't see this brought up.)

EDIT: wow, I literally just needed to scroll up that someone else had referenced this.

Yes, Grab, Knockdown and Push are all no longer automatic, but grant the creature an attempt that ignores MAP.

EDIT2: It's worth noting that this change to Grab may be considered a buff in some instances, especially with higher level creatures with improved grab, since it is now properly a Grapple attempt, which means on a crit they can Restrain.


Wrong thread sorry


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
FlySkyHigh wrote:

the Monster Grab action has been modified. It no longer automatically grabs the target, but instead allows the monster to make a grapple attempt while ignoring MAP (both the penalty itself, and it doesn't increase further from the attempt). Also can be used as one action to extend the grab automatically.

(I apologize if anything I share has been covered, but I did a cursory review of this thread and didn't see this brought up.)

EDIT: wow, I literally just needed to scroll up that someone else had referenced this.

Yes, Grab, Knockdown and Push are all no longer automatic, but grant the creature an attempt that ignores MAP.

EDIT2: It's worth noting that this change to Grab may be considered a buff in some instances, especially with higher level creatures with improved grab, since it is now properly a Grapple attempt, which means on a crit they can Restrain.

Assuming the grapple action stays the same, yeah. But I don't hate the idea that getting grappled is a little harder to ignore and just wail on the grappler.

201 to 250 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / PaizoCon Remaster changes compilation. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.