Mark Seifter to the rescue? Roll for Combat is talking to Paizo about the remaster preview in three hours.


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the announcement and the opportunity to ask some questions.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

And once more, the devs have shown their quality. The very highest.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Calliope5431 wrote:
And once more, the devs have shown their quality. The very highest.

Though Mark Seifter is not a current Paizo designer and very probably doesn't have much to do with the remaster. Jessica Redekop on the other hand is one of the Rage of Elements authors.

Liberty's Edge

Errenor wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
And once more, the devs have shown their quality. The very highest.
Though Mark Seifter is not a current Paizo designer and very probably doesn't have much to do with the remaster. Jessica Redekop on the other hand is one of the Rage of Elements authors.

Mark Seifter is one of PF2 designers and knows very well many people involved in Remastered. So he likely has pretty good analyses and intuitions about Remastered.

Far better than mine, that's for sure.

And yes, Jessica's insight will bring even more value.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So, watched most of it.

Mark pointed out that the focus point change will have huge implications to the point that he thinks that it'll change the meta. He also noted how spell schools were very OGL/D&Desque, pointing out how their removal could potentially add breadth and design space. Spirit damage was also noted as significant.

On the cantrip topic, which is the contentious subject, mark infers that their goal was probably removing ability scores to simplify. The d4 values (2d4 for ignition and 3d4 for the needle cantrip are probably Paizo working with the new numbers, rather than a straight nerf because they thought casters were OP)

One thing both he and Jessica pointed out was that the preview's goal was to make RoE playable/usable, so its to soon to make any assumptions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So they said just the obvious. Nothing new. We have to wait until Gen Con to get more info.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
richienvh wrote:

So, watched most of it.

Mark pointed out that the focus point change will have huge implications to the point that he thinks that it'll change the meta.

Thank you for the summary. Didn't have the opportunity to watch it myself.

I agree with Mark on the refocusing thing being a potential meta changer. But ironically, I don't think it affects casters enough since in many cases you can either use a focus spell or a regular spell, but not both.

The real meta change will come from classes like monk or magus, who use focus spells to enhance the things they already do instead of replacing it. Three Ki Strikes per fight is all you need in most scenarios, so rushing towards those three focus points will definitely come up significantly more often in the future.

But again, that's only based on what we know so far. Here's hoping many focus spells get a significant improvement. Too.any of them are rather lackluster right now, unfortunately.


Blave wrote:
richienvh wrote:

So, watched most of it.

Mark pointed out that the focus point change will have huge implications to the point that he thinks that it'll change the meta.

Thank you for the summary. Didn't have the opportunity to watch it myself.

I agree with Mark on the refocusing thing being a potential meta changer. But ironically, I don't think it affects casters enough since in many cases you can either use a focus spell or a regular spell, but not both.

The real meta change will come from classes like monk or magus, who use focus spells to enhance the things they already do instead of replacing it. Three Ki Strikes per fight is all you need in most scenarios, so rushing towards those three focus points will definitely come up significantly more often in the future.

But again, that's only based on what we know so far. Here's hoping many focus spells get a significant improvement. Too.any of them are rather lackluster right now, unfortunately.

But not too much of an improvement because some focus spells make the kineticists big damage impulses look like scop already (in terms of damage) and when you can do them three times an encounter that not that much different from at will.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
siegfriedliner wrote:
But not too much of an improvement because some focus spells make the kineticists big damage impulses look like scop already and when you can do them three times an encounter there not that much different from at will.

I still say that "and then you have to sit there doing not much for half an hour in order to get them back" is a meaningful cost.

One way to look at it... before this, how many people never bothered to get their first? It's certainly the case that this is going to make picking up a second and third focus power more valuable/appealing... but the builds that never really bothered getting even the first won't have all that much reason to change their minds.


Sanityfaerie wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
But not too much of an improvement because some focus spells make the kineticists big damage impulses look like scop already and when you can do them three times an encounter there not that much different from at will.

I still say that "and then you have to sit there doing not much for half an hour in order to get them back" is a meaningful cost.

One way to look at it... before this, how many people never bothered to get their first? It's certainly the case that this is going to make picking up a second and third focus power more valuable/appealing... but the builds that never really bothered getting even the first won't have all that much reason to change their minds.

I'm not sure any optimized builds for any characters end up with 0 focus spells. It's always something whether it's lay on hands, a psychic amp, life boost, lingering composition, etc.

The only meta shifts I can see are a slight buff to martials' ability to use them, druid actually blasting with tempest surge and bard getting more value out of archetype focus spells since they can use more than lingering inspire.

Champion, psychic and blessed one were already popular and now that you can freely poach more recoverable focus points, you can squeeze more value out of them. Blessed one especially gets you two focus spells very quick and Multitalented psychic will be more valuable than ever with some incentive to pick up psi development.

Of course, the real winner is the magus. 3 focus points at level 2 for amp telekinetic projectile before retraining to IW at 6 is golden.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:
richienvh wrote:

So, watched most of it.

Mark pointed out that the focus point change will have huge implications to the point that he thinks that it'll change the meta.

Thank you for the summary. Didn't have the opportunity to watch it myself.

I agree with Mark on the refocusing thing being a potential meta changer. But ironically, I don't think it affects casters enough since in many cases you can either use a focus spell or a regular spell, but not both.

The real meta change will come from classes like monk or magus, who use focus spells to enhance the things they already do instead of replacing it. Three Ki Strikes per fight is all you need in most scenarios, so rushing towards those three focus points will definitely come up significantly more often in the future.

But again, that's only based on what we know so far. Here's hoping many focus spells get a significant improvement. Too.any of them are rather lackluster right now, unfortunately.

Meta-changing because poaching for Focus spells, which was a rarely used dimension for a build, will now be highly rewarded. So, expect more diverse builds because some will be built to optimize your uses of Focus Points in as many encounters as possible.

In a way, it's opening up a new kind of resource.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:
richienvh wrote:

So, watched most of it.

Mark pointed out that the focus point change will have huge implications to the point that he thinks that it'll change the meta.

Thank you for the summary. Didn't have the opportunity to watch it myself.

I agree with Mark on the refocusing thing being a potential meta changer. But ironically, I don't think it affects casters enough since in many cases you can either use a focus spell or a regular spell, but not both.

The real meta change will come from classes like monk or magus, who use focus spells to enhance the things they already do instead of replacing it. Three Ki Strikes per fight is all you need in most scenarios, so rushing towards those three focus points will definitely come up significantly more often in the future.

But again, that's only based on what we know so far. Here's hoping many focus spells get a significant improvement. Too.any of them are rather lackluster right now, unfortunately.

Ki Strike is not so much of a problem as it is inherently limited to one per round.

It is spells like
Zeal for Battle (enc)
Know the Enemy (div)
Which suddenly become very useful as they are effectively free actions and now become much more viable.
We will see many more builds that multiclass to pick up a good focus spell. Pyschic is going to be even more common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh right I did forget about monk being able to ki strike up to 3x per fight. That's pretty fantastic actually.


What I'm concerned about with power being shifted to Focus spells is how certain options for non-combat domains and such similars are now punished even more. I mean, the changes don't exactly help much if you pick up the Truth or Cities domain. You could say to just take the optimal ones, but what if you wanna... I don't know, roleplay?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BookBird wrote:
What I'm concerned about with power being shifted to Focus spells is how certain options for non-combat domains and such similars are now punished even more. I mean, the changes don't exactly help much if you pick up the Truth or Cities domain. You could say to just take the optimal ones, but what if you wanna... I don't know, roleplay?

Well, I think players will probably be more comfortable firing off non-combat focus spells now because if you use one and end up in combat, you will still have one or two more focus spells left to cast without putting yourself in a bind for the day. I agree that ONLY having one focus spell will discourage people picking non-combat ones, but for second and third focus spells, if you already have one good combat one you plan on using 2 or 3 times per combat, then grabbing your second and third focus points by picking up spells you will cast in other situations will give you a lot of versatility.


Unicore wrote:
BookBird wrote:
What I'm concerned about with power being shifted to Focus spells is how certain options for non-combat domains and such similars are now punished even more. I mean, the changes don't exactly help much if you pick up the Truth or Cities domain. You could say to just take the optimal ones, but what if you wanna... I don't know, roleplay?
Well, I think players will probably be more comfortable firing off non-combat focus spells now because if you use one and end up in combat, you will still have one or two more focus spells left to cast without putting yourself in a bind for the day. I agree that ONLY having one focus spell will discourage people picking non-combat ones, but for second and third focus spells, if you already have one good combat one you plan on using 2 or 3 times per combat, then grabbing your second and third focus points by picking up spells you will cast in other situations will give you a lot of versatility.

But again, what about roleplay? What if the character concept you have works better with a non combat domain, or you're a sorcerer of a bloodline without one? Again, casters don't get level 1 feats, so the earliest you could get one is level 2, and then it feels like a feat tax to acquire the thing that is now mandatory for you to be effective.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This was true from the beginning though. If you only have one focus spell, you only have one focus point and you are in the same position you were before the Remastery. This change only matters once you have more than one focus spell, at which point getting a second that works in combat would probably make sense anyway.

The only thing that changes is that you don't wait until level 12 to consider picking up that other focus spell because you know you are only going to be casting it once a day maybe. So it does shift the pressure on all characters to start picking up their focus points earlier. That is really the only meta shift I really see happening with character building.

I think wizards are going to be in a weird spot. And free archetype variant rules are heavily going to lean into getting focus spells. But the first one was already a problem for wizards, although now I guess sorcerers are going to be getting antsy waiting until 6 to get a second focus spell too. The FA variant is a variant rule and it will be on GMs to decide if they want players focusing on focus spells or not when they set up their games. Without FA, MCing just to pick up focus spells is a pretty heavy cost.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
This was true from the beginning though. If you only have one focus spell, you only have one focus point and you are in the same position you were before the Remastery. This change only matters once you have more than one focus spell, at which point getting a second that works in combat would probably make sense anyway.

I don't like that Paizo, rather than aiming to fix issues that were spotted and mentioned since nearly day 1, have instead chosen to double down on them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Unicore wrote:
This was true from the beginning though. If you only have one focus spell, you only have one focus point and you are in the same position you were before the Remastery. This change only matters once you have more than one focus spell, at which point getting a second that works in combat would probably make sense anyway.
I don't like that Paizo, rather than aiming to fix issues that were spotted and mentioned since nearly day 1, have instead chosen to double down on them.

Tbf, issues known can be different from issues perceived

While I'm not a fan of losing ability mod

It's definitely not a majority that see casters as a problem.


Martialmasters wrote:

Tbf, issues known can be different from issues perceived

While I'm not a fan of losing ability mod

It's definitely not a majority that see casters as a problem.

You like playing the specific kind of supportive toolbox caster that the system supports. I can see why you'd think the system is working well enough.

Now try a character that sticks to a single school or a single element and tell me that it still works.


...So there was nothing about "recall knowledge"?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Tbf, issues known can be different from issues perceived

While I'm not a fan of losing ability mod

It's definitely not a majority that see casters as a problem.

You like playing the specific kind of supportive toolbox caster that the system supports. I can see why you'd think the system is working well enough.

Now try a character that sticks to a single school or a single element and tell me that it still works.

If you think one tricking has ever been good I have a bridge to sell


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
If you think one tricking has ever been good I have a bridge to sell

It's never optimal but when you can still comfortably take on pretty much anything that isn't just outright broken and expect to do well the distinction becomes moot. If you could convince your group not to go full Tier 1 and break things there was a rich vein of specialized builds that were effective, didn't make your GM hate life, and could allow martial characters to shine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
If you think one tricking has ever been good I have a bridge to sell
It's never optimal but when you can still comfortably take on pretty much anything that isn't just outright broken and expect to do well the distinction becomes moot. If you could convince your group not to go full Tier 1 and break things there was a rich vein of specialized builds that were effective, didn't make your GM hate life, and could allow martial characters to shine.

I stopped at tier 1

I don't need to listen to the game any further


Martialmasters wrote:

I stopped at tier 1

I don't need to listen to the game any further

PF1 had a massive build variety but lacked balance. I think you can bring back specialized builds without allowing the excesses that PF1 had.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I listened to about half of it. Good stuff all around, though I wish Mark had ceded more time to Jessica.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Friendly reminder that we don't know what is happening with all of these roleplay or bad focus spells. They might get buffed to be useful. Alternatively, consider that you can't actually take advantage of this rule into you've picked up multiple focus spells anyway. Maybe your cleric of Sarenrae wants the Truth domain, but as long as you also pick up Fire Ray you're fine.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, there are no tier 1 classes or builds in PF2, and we should keep it that way. The bottom and top tiers are empty.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Yeah, there are no tier 1 classes or builds in PF2, and we should keep it that way. The bottom and top tiers are empty.

When did I advocate for that? I merely pointed out that there were plenty of caster builds that ended up as good as, for example, a decently built Paladin and as such did the job. You could easily build a caster to be the top DPS in the party or as a pure battlefield controller with no god-wizard abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gesalt wrote:
Oh right I did forget about monk being able to ki strike up to 3x per fight. That's pretty fantastic actually.

Monk is the biggest winner easily, they have a lot of good focus spells at early levels they can pick up, and even more options if you look into Student of Perfection. Ki Strike can be used more liberally, you can freely mix in Ki Blast's solid AoE blasting or the ki stances. Wholeness of Body is a bit more useful, though it always had value for out of combat recovery.

Magus benefits too, but they have fewer in-class options to pick up more focus points so you're probably needing to use an archetype to get to 3 early. I just don't think it's as game-changing as it is for monks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Magus MC Psychic is going to be even more mandatory.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

(Alternatively, don't do that and use the extra refocus to get your spellstrikes back more frequently if you aren't fussed by Arcane Cascade. Pretty easy to do by getting Force Fang.)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dubious Scholar wrote:
gesalt wrote:
Oh right I did forget about monk being able to ki strike up to 3x per fight. That's pretty fantastic actually.

Monk is the biggest winner easily, they have a lot of good focus spells at early levels they can pick up, and even more options if you look into Student of Perfection. Ki Strike can be used more liberally, you can freely mix in Ki Blast's solid AoE blasting or the ki stances. Wholeness of Body is a bit more useful, though it always had value for out of combat recovery.

Magus benefits too, but they have fewer in-class options to pick up more focus points so you're probably needing to use an archetype to get to 3 early. I just don't think it's as game-changing as it is for monks.

Feels like ki spells are becoming a required part of an effective Remastered Monk build. Sad. I liked that you could build a non-ki using Monk in PF2 and be perfectly viable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Tbf, issues known can be different from issues perceived

While I'm not a fan of losing ability mod

It's definitely not a majority that see casters as a problem.

You like playing the specific kind of supportive toolbox caster that the system supports. I can see why you'd think the system is working well enough.

Now try a character that sticks to a single school or a single element and tell me that it still works.

Single school or element is absolutely extreme. But you can specialize quite much and don't feel any issue. My casters are all blasters and I have absolutely no issue with that.


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

I definitely understand the desire for a more focused caster, a specialist. I play a level 18 elemental sorc as one of my characters right now and at the beginning of the game I envisioned them as being an earth elemental specialist. Fast forward to now and while I do blast a good chunk of the time, most of my rounds are spent casting searing light, slow, synesthesia, etc. They're just too good of spells to pass up. Pretty sure our party would be dead at this point if all I stuck to were earth spells.

But at the same time, I feel it's too late for a true specialist caster. Psychic is about as close as we'll get. Anything further will just be power creep at this point. I would love more variations of the style of play kineticist provides though, some kind of arcane/divine/occult version of the class would be wicked.


The Raven Black wrote:
Dubious Scholar wrote:
gesalt wrote:
Oh right I did forget about monk being able to ki strike up to 3x per fight. That's pretty fantastic actually.

Monk is the biggest winner easily, they have a lot of good focus spells at early levels they can pick up, and even more options if you look into Student of Perfection. Ki Strike can be used more liberally, you can freely mix in Ki Blast's solid AoE blasting or the ki stances. Wholeness of Body is a bit more useful, though it always had value for out of combat recovery.

Magus benefits too, but they have fewer in-class options to pick up more focus points so you're probably needing to use an archetype to get to 3 early. I just don't think it's as game-changing as it is for monks.

Feels like ki spells are becoming a required part of an effective Remastered Monk build. Sad. I liked that you could build a non-ki using Monk in PF2 and be perfectly viable.

Agreed. Non-ki monk was already worse (but not by much). Now you’re pretty much neutering yourself if you don’t go that route. Sucks I like non-focus spell rangers and monks a lot more than their spell versions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BookBird wrote:
What I'm concerned about with power being shifted to Focus spells is how certain options for non-combat domains and such similars are now punished even more. I mean, the changes don't exactly help much if you pick up the Truth or Cities domain. You could say to just take the optimal ones, but what if you wanna... I don't know, roleplay?

If you want to roleplay, and you also want to be semi-optimal, and you also feel that having combat-applicable focus spells is critical to being semi-optimal under the new paradigm....

Then you just archetype. That's all you need to do. You want to have three focus spells and at least one of them needs to have a solid in-combat use. dip into psychic to pick up amped Guidance, or dip into Blessed One for Lay On Hands or....

Actually, it think this is going to seriously up the value of Blessed One in general. Lay On Hands starts out being pretty solid, and Blessed One is all about first giving it to you and then buffing it further.

The Raven Black wrote:
Feels like ki spells are becoming a required part of an effective Remastered Monk build. Sad. I liked that you could build a non-ki using Monk in PF2 and be perfectly viable.

I think that's an overstatement. Focus-heavy monks got a bit of a bump, sure, but I think that non-focus monks are still going to be fine.

Again... this change only matters if your GM is habitually willing to give you half an hour to just sit and chill between encounters without having to do anything else that might interfere with refocusing and has multiple meaningful encounters in a day. Just for one example, there are PFS adventures where "how many 10-minute blocks did you spend on doing stuff before you got to the end" is a really very meaningful question when it comes to degrees of success in the adventure. In an environment like that, trying to convince your fellow party members to rest again so that you can refill your second focus point isn't necessarily going to go over all that well.


Hrrmmm...this is an unexpected development.

Considering the conversations going on here and the released preview content, I actually find myself wondering more and more whether or not Paizo's work to divest PF2 of OGL content is going to work when the core classes inherited from D&D are being retained?

Given The Asians Represent Podcasts excellent discussion of D&D5+'s new version of its Monk class, I wonder if Monk shouldn't actually be jettisoned from PF2.r and its aspects distributed among other, less expendable, classes (e.g., fighter, cleric, rogue, etc.)?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Whilst I wouldn't be surprised if the monk had some major revisions in both name and identity for some future PF3, I feel anything of that sorts would be beyond the scope of what the remaster is covering. Even just a class rename is realistically a larger change than they'd be interested in.


Jacob Jett wrote:
Considering the conversations going on here and the released preview content, I actually find myself wondering more and more whether or not Paizo's work to divest PF2 of OGL content is going to work when the core classes inherited from D&D are being retained?

Well, you can certainly go speak to a copyright lawyer about it. Not sure what help us internet trolls are going to be able to provide.

And this has been brought up repeatedly in the thread announcing the ORC license. Do we really need to do it again here?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Amaya/Polaris wrote:
(Alternatively, don't do that and use the extra refocus to get your spellstrikes back more frequently if you aren't fussed by Arcane Cascade. Pretty easy to do by getting Force Fang.)

I mean, I have a twisting tree magus build in the wings that's a psychic MC; but mostly uses imaginary weapon as a cantrip; saving the focus points for conflux spells or spell swiping witH IW when I have the shot lined up; so you can do both


Unfortunately, I'm edging into the thought pattern that name changes are the minimum necessary to move the bar towards success vis-a-vis the remaster and that fighters still being called fighters essentially moots the other successes of the remaster process. Ultimately, time will tell but, it might have been strategically better for them to kill PF2 early and proceed to PF3 sooner.

In any event, I'm in a waiting pattern until November.

House-rule wise, I'm personally leaning more towards eliminating Monk as a distinct class and distributing bits of it across other classes for my own campaigns.

One of the issues that I think the existing iteration of Monk faces is that it doesn't bring the inherent religious social role that its name indicates it should have among in-game societies to the fore adequately. It's out-of-game motivation, the wuxia genre (and to a lesser extent American interpretations of that genre, e.g., Kung Fu) would argue for it being a fighter variant with a name that has fewer religious connotations since wuxia classics like the series of novels from which Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was derived feature non-religious oriented martial artists more frequently than religious ones. But these concerns are rather tangential to the discussion here.


Jacob Jett wrote:

Unfortunately, I'm edging into the thought pattern that name changes are the minimum necessary to move the bar towards success vis-a-vis the remaster and that fighters still being called fighters essentially moots the other successes of the remaster process. Ultimately, time will tell but, it might have been strategically better for them to kill PF2 early and proceed to PF3 sooner.

In any event, I'm in a waiting pattern until November.

House-rule wise, I'm personally leaning more towards eliminating Monk as a distinct class and distributing bits of it across other classes for my own campaigns.

One of the issues that I think the existing iteration of Monk faces is that it doesn't bring the inherent religious social role that its name indicates it should have among in-game societies to the fore adequately. It's out-of-game motivation, the wuxia genre (and to a lesser extent American interpretations of that genre, e.g., Kung Fu) would argue for it being a fighter variant with a name that has fewer religious connotations since wuxia classics like the series of novels from which Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was derived feature non-religious oriented martial artists more frequently than religious ones. But these concerns are rather tangential to the discussion here.

I am hoping for fighting man, hammer bro or warrior


Jacob Jett wrote:
Unfortunately, I'm edging into the thought pattern that name changes are the minimum necessary to move the bar towards success vis-a-vis the remaster and that fighters still being called fighters essentially moots the other successes of the remaster process.

Well, from what I have heard in all the discussion about it:

Names of specific things like characters, creature types, and abilities are able to be copyrighted. As long as they are not names of those specific things in public domain.

The specific text of how a game mechanic works is able to be copyrighted.

The game mechanics themselves are not able to be copyrighted. Only the specific rules text used to describe them. Different text describing the same rules is fair game.

Generic names of game mechanics, like class names, would also not be copyrighted. Only the names of specific things or maybe unique names for a type. So 'Fighter', 'Paladin', 'Sorcerer', 'Monk' and such would definitely be in public domain. Names that involve specific lore, such as Bellflower Tiller and Magaambyan Attendant probably are under copyright. But even names like Pathfinder Agent would be hard to argue to be under copyright as long as the rules text and lore is different since the name is generic enough.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From what I've heard in the discussion about it... it's messy.

In particular, though, having a chunk of public domain in teh middle of something helps protect you, but if there's enough fo an accumulation of non-public-domain stuff in there, that can be problematic.

So... let's take monks.

First, "monk" as a word to describe people is very public domain. Good start. Further, the idea of monks being martial artists who fight unarmed or with a set of specific kinds of martial arts weapons is solidly public domain, as is the idea that they could do high-mobility flying-wires tricks.

So... the PF2 monk conceptually shares a lot of stuff with the 5e monk (and the 4e monk and the 3e monk, and the 2e/1e monk). All of that stuff is public domain, though, so it's fine. Technically, they could try to make some sort of beef about "flurry of blows" (assuming that's not renamed) but even that's just the name - the mechanics aren't the same, and the idea that monks are capable of punching real fast is very much part of the lore. On the flip side, the whole thing where the monk is a master of stances, which in turn correspond to fighting styles? That execution is only vaguely reminiscent of some of the stuff that went on in 4e, and very different from anything in 5e.

Similarly, "fighter" is about as public domain as it gets, and the idea that it's associated with someone who primarily involves themselves in martial combat is also not a D&D creation. The PF2 rendition of the fighter is... not particularly similar in details of execution to previous D&D versions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was hoping this thread might describe the conversations in the stream that lean into “which decisions were made and why” and “perhaps not why folk [i]thought[/i{ they were made” as teased by an email I was sent after unwittingly being signed up for RFC news when downloading their latest Indigo Isles KS preview doc.

I’d also like a rundown of the RFC “Reviews are in of tje Remaster” stream, but I’ll have to find it elsewhere. I have neither the time nor the inclination to watch people talk, and enjoy reading and learning. It’s a tough cross to bear in an increasingly stream’d hobby.

Liberty's Edge

Sanityfaerie wrote:


The Raven Black wrote:
Feels like ki spells are becoming a required part of an effective Remastered Monk build. Sad. I liked that you could build a non-ki using Monk in PF2 and be perfectly viable.

I think that's an overstatement. Focus-heavy monks got a bit of a bump, sure, but I think that non-focus monks are still going to be fine.

Again... this change only matters if your GM is habitually willing to give you half an hour to just sit and chill between encounters without having to do anything else that might interfere with refocusing and has multiple meaningful encounters in a day. Just for one example, there are PFS adventures where "how many 10-minute blocks did you spend on doing stuff before you got to the end" is a really very meaningful question when it comes to degrees of success in the adventure. In an environment like that, trying to convince your fellow party members to rest again so that you can refill your second focus point isn't necessarily going to go over all that well.

I play only PFS these days, on average once a week. We almost always have as long as we need between encounters so that everybody can be healed back to full with only Medicine or Lay on hands. Which can often take 20 to 60 minutes. We did this just yesterday, as we usually do.

There can be a scenario like the one you mention, I might even have played it, but it is very much an exception and usually presented as such at the beginning so that players know there is a timer and plan accordingly.

There are also PFS scenarios where days pass between encounters. They also are an exception.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Mark Seifter to the rescue? Roll for Combat is talking to Paizo about the remaster preview in three hours. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.