Regardless of whether Gouging Claw is there, I think it is a safe bet that anything printed from player core onwards won't have attribute modifiers added to damage. From the blog:
Cantrips
We’ve made several revisions to damaging cantrips, with the broadest change being to use only damage dice rather than adding an attribute modifier. Like with most changes we made to the system, this was decided after examining multiple factors that were causing problems together.
Consistency with how other spells work. Most spells deal just dice for damage, and cantrips were an outlier. Making spells look and function more consistently across the board helps in understanding the rules, especially for new players.
Match their damage to our intended spell benchmarks. One-target cantrips were supposed to deal around 6 damage, with focus spells and spell slots dealing a bit more. Adding the spellcasting attribute modifier pushed all the damage numbers off their baseline.
Avoid penalizing characters who have damage cantrips from innate spells or multiclassing twice. Characters who got damaging cantrips from multiclassing or as innate spells from ancestry feats or the like often have a lower attribute modifier than a dedicated spellcaster and were dealing with both a lower chance of success and lower damage if they hit. This is a smaller issue, but often led to players being unhappy with their character options.
Cleaning up how cantrips work for monsters. This is another smaller issue, but a pain point for GMs. It was unclear how to apply the spellcasting attribute modifier for monsters with cantrips.
After I thought about this one, it was a good change. More benefits than negatives. I didn't like it at first, but now I think it will simplify the game and make taking caster on things like eidolons and multiclass casters and magus easier to run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Realizing that the existing cantrips were also getting better, not just trading for even made it easier for me to see the upside too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like we are talking in circles.
At this point, Player Core 1 is less than three weeks out. I plan to make my judgement when I can actually read the rules.
Are cantrips going to be 1d6 damage now instead of 1d4?
Are cantrips going to be 1d6 damage now instead of 1d4?
Most seem to deal multiple dice. Like needle Darts with its 3d4. Or ignition with its 2d4 that become 2d6 in melee.
I'm intersted to see what Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claws will get to keep up with Needle Darts.
Telekinetic projectile being d6s scaling is already pretty good. If it is 2d6 starting plus d6 heightening, that will keep it in the top tier of cantrips for using at higher levels…assuming needle darts hasn’t mostly replaced it. Have we seen that Telekinetic projectile is a school cantrip?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the battle magic school has Telekinetic Projectile as one of its cantrips. (The other being shield.)
|
Magi no longer have Shocking Grasp as a spell since the Remastered version did away with it, meaning Shocking Grasp is at-best a "GM May I" spell, and at-worst banned from the game (especially notable for PFS players). And Thunderstrike doesn't work with Spellstrike unless you take the Expanded feat, which is already pretty bad anyway unless you're using non-save spells like Magic Missile.
We had extremely good news on the PFS side recently : spells with a different name between CRB and Core are all still available.
Spells with the same name are considered errata though : you have to use the new one. I'm pretty confident they will remaster Wayfinders so that the Light cantrip they give keeps on working.
Are cantrips going to be 1d6 damage now instead of 1d4?Most seem to deal multiple dice. Like needle Darts with its 3d4. Or ignition with its 2d4 that become 2d6 in melee.
I'm intersted to see what Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claws will get to keep up with Needle Darts.
Odds are, they'll be bumped up to 2D6 as a base (with Telekinetic Projectile's benefit of being able to use items of different materials to avoid resistances/exploit weaknesses, and Gouging Claw's ability to inflict bleed upon a critical), and keep the same scaling.
We already know that Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw increases by D6 per spell rank, and Needle Darts increases by D4 per spell rank, meaning as you add in character levels, Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw will begin to outpace it by 5th level onwards (since 5D4 will have significantly less damage than 4D6).
Magi no longer have Shocking Grasp as a spell since the Remastered version did away with it, meaning Shocking Grasp is at-best a "GM May I" spell, and at-worst banned from the game (especially notable for PFS players). And Thunderstrike doesn't work with Spellstrike unless you take the Expanded feat, which is already pretty bad anyway unless you're using non-save spells like Magic Missile.We had extremely good news on the PFS side recently : spells with a different name between CRB and Core are all still available.
Spells with the same name are considered errata though : you have to use the new one. I'm pretty confident they will remaster Wayfinders so that the Light cantrip they give keeps on working.
Interesting, I guess organized play isn't at risk of utilizing OGL content like Shocking Grasp then.
I don't think they'll really need to errata Wayfinders that much; just make it to where the activation is a 20 foot radius of bright light centered on the object (or the creature attending the object), and call it good. The rules for otherwise adjudicating other aspects of it are there (such as counteract level, modifiers, etc.), so no need to re-invent the wheel.
We already know that Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw increases by D6 per spell rank
We do?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are cantrips going to be 1d6 damage now instead of 1d4?Most seem to deal multiple dice. Like needle Darts with its 3d4. Or ignition with its 2d4 that become 2d6 in melee.
I'm intersted to see what Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claws will get to keep up with Needle Darts.
Odds are, they'll be bumped up to 2D6 as a base (with Telekinetic Projectile's benefit of being able to use items of different materials to avoid resistances/exploit weaknesses, and Gouging Claw's ability to inflict bleed upon a critical), and keep the same scaling.
We already know that Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw increases by D6 per spell rank, and Needle Darts increases by D4 per spell rank, meaning as you add in character levels, Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw will begin to outpace it by 5th level onwards (since 5D4 will have significantly less damage than 4D6).
Telekinetic Projectile benefitting from materials is not a shared understanding of the RAW. Hopefully it will be clarified.
Telekinetic Projectile benefitting from materials is not a shared understanding of the RAW. Hopefully it will be clarified.Are cantrips going to be 1d6 damage now instead of 1d4?Most seem to deal multiple dice. Like needle Darts with its 3d4. Or ignition with its 2d4 that become 2d6 in melee.
I'm intersted to see what Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claws will get to keep up with Needle Darts.
Odds are, they'll be bumped up to 2D6 as a base (with Telekinetic Projectile's benefit of being able to use items of different materials to avoid resistances/exploit weaknesses, and Gouging Claw's ability to inflict bleed upon a critical), and keep the same scaling.
We already know that Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw increases by D6 per spell rank, and Needle Darts increases by D4 per spell rank, meaning as you add in character levels, Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw will begin to outpace it by 5th level onwards (since 5D4 will have significantly less damage than 4D6).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with you on this. I'm not sure why they are doing this.Not everybody loves lugging around a giant brick once a week (or more). Also, D&D before Pathfinder used to have the Player's Guide and Dungeon Masters Guide.
It is odd that to "move further away from D&D" they are going to split the core into 2 books...like D&D :/
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It kind of already was.Telekinetic Projectile benefitting from materials is not a shared understanding of the RAW. Hopefully it will be clarified.Are cantrips going to be 1d6 damage now instead of 1d4?Most seem to deal multiple dice. Like needle Darts with its 3d4. Or ignition with its 2d4 that become 2d6 in melee.
I'm intersted to see what Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claws will get to keep up with Needle Darts.
Odds are, they'll be bumped up to 2D6 as a base (with Telekinetic Projectile's benefit of being able to use items of different materials to avoid resistances/exploit weaknesses, and Gouging Claw's ability to inflict bleed upon a critical), and keep the same scaling.
We already know that Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw increases by D6 per spell rank, and Needle Darts increases by D4 per spell rank, meaning as you add in character levels, Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw will begin to outpace it by 5th level onwards (since 5D4 will have significantly less damage than 4D6).
That is about improvised weapons. Not the same. For example, improvised weapons can have traits whereas TKP cannot.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is odd that to "move further away from D&D" they are going to split the core into 2 books...like D&D :/I'm with you on this. I'm not sure why they are doing this.Not everybody loves lugging around a giant brick once a week (or more). Also, D&D before Pathfinder used to have the Player's Guide and Dungeon Masters Guide.
I mean, first of all. core was already two books crb and apg, those where "core rules" and "core expansion" they are just shuffling the content around between them so that the layout and content is better laid out and you have for instance, all the core ranger feats in one book rather than two.
Second, original Core rulebook was already an incredibly large book, to the point that a lot of lgs's where hesitant to carry more than a couple copies at a time due to the amount of space they took up, and this problem would have gotten much much worse if they tried to combine the two of them into one behemoth 1200 page monstrosity. by splitting one really big book and one standard book into two slightly above average books it makes stocking them much more manageable for physical stores.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting, I guess organized play isn't at risk of utilizing OGL content like Shocking Grasp then.
They are not, insofar as the "Shocking Grasp" comes into the game because a player, using books they bought that were published under the OGL, is the source of the spell.
Don't expect any NPCs in PFS scenarios to know the spell though. Nor will you find a "Scroll of Shocking Grasp" in a loot pile since PFS scenarios are going to be published under the ORC most likely. But anything that lets you "learn a common spell" will still give you access to it.
Yes, we do.We already know that Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw increases by D6 per spell rankWe do?So by your logic we also "know" that it will deal 1d6 + casting ability modifier base damage.
Despite knowing that this is not the case.
That's a strawman.
This is about asking whether Gouging Claw and Telekinetic Projectile will keep their heighten scaling. Their base values are irrelevant in determining what their heighten scaling currently is, which is what you asked about.
We already know that the original damage values will change because ability modifiers to cantrip damage is going away, likely to be replaced with just another additional damage dice of the same value.
That is about improvised weapons. Not the same. For example, improvised weapons can have traits whereas TKP cannot.It kind of already was.Telekinetic Projectile benefitting from materials is not a shared understanding of the RAW. Hopefully it will be clarified.Are cantrips going to be 1d6 damage now instead of 1d4?Most seem to deal multiple dice. Like needle Darts with its 3d4. Or ignition with its 2d4 that become 2d6 in melee.
I'm intersted to see what Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claws will get to keep up with Needle Darts.
Odds are, they'll be bumped up to 2D6 as a base (with Telekinetic Projectile's benefit of being able to use items of different materials to avoid resistances/exploit weaknesses, and Gouging Claw's ability to inflict bleed upon a critical), and keep the same scaling.
We already know that Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw increases by D6 per spell rank, and Needle Darts increases by D4 per spell rank, meaning as you add in character levels, Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw will begin to outpace it by 5th level onwards (since 5D4 will have significantly less damage than 4D6).
It's similar enough in that the video example outright says "special materials still matter when using an actual weapon as an improvised weapon."
There's also the TKP wording:
No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage.
Given that Cold Iron for weaponry is not a magical property, and it's not a specific trait, it is therefore factored into the attack/damage of TKP.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is about improvised weapons. Not the same. For example, improvised weapons can have traits whereas TKP cannot.It kind of already was.Telekinetic Projectile benefitting from materials is not a shared understanding of the RAW. Hopefully it will be clarified.Are cantrips going to be 1d6 damage now instead of 1d4?Most seem to deal multiple dice. Like needle Darts with its 3d4. Or ignition with its 2d4 that become 2d6 in melee.
I'm intersted to see what Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claws will get to keep up with Needle Darts.
Odds are, they'll be bumped up to 2D6 as a base (with Telekinetic Projectile's benefit of being able to use items of different materials to avoid resistances/exploit weaknesses, and Gouging Claw's ability to inflict bleed upon a critical), and keep the same scaling.
We already know that Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw increases by D6 per spell rank, and Needle Darts increases by D4 per spell rank, meaning as you add in character levels, Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw will begin to outpace it by 5th level onwards (since 5D4 will have significantly less damage than 4D6).
It's similar enough in that the video example outright says "special materials still matter when using an actual weapon as an improvised weapon."
There's also the TKP wording:
No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage.Given that Cold Iron for weaponry is not a magical property, and it's not a specific trait, it is therefore factored into the attack/damage of TKP.
There are already threads in the Rules forum about this. No need to rehash it here. We'll soon see if Remaster adds any further clarification one way or another.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a strawman.Yes, we do.We already know that Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw increases by D6 per spell rankWe do?So by your logic we also "know" that it will deal 1d6 + casting ability modifier base damage.
Despite knowing that this is not the case.
No, its actually not. If you are going to do logical fallacy name-calling, at least get the right name.
This discussion about Gouging Claw is talking about the Remaster. Where we know that the spell will not be keeping its attribute bonus to damage. And we don't know what damage die size or quantity or scaling it will have.
We know what the current printing of Gouging Claw lists, but that is irrelevant to what we are expecting for the Remaster version. That is what Blave is pointing out.
That's a strawman.Yes, we do.We already know that Telekinetic Projectile and Gouging Claw increases by D6 per spell rankWe do?So by your logic we also "know" that it will deal 1d6 + casting ability modifier base damage.
Despite knowing that this is not the case.
No, its actually not. If you are going to do logical fallacy name-calling, at least get the right name.
This discussion about Gouging Claw is talking about the Remaster. Where we know that the spell will not be keeping its attribute bonus to damage. And we don't know what damage die size or quantity or scaling it will have.
We know what the current printing of Gouging Claw lists, but that is irrelevant to what we are expecting for the Remaster version. That is what Blave is pointing out.
It is, though, because they are taking the obviously-going-to-be-errata'd portion of the existing ability, which is already acknowledged to be changed, saying that is my argument for determining scaling, and then trying to counter it, for something completely irrelevant (spell rank scaling), when that obviously-going-to-be-errata'd portion is not the portion I am referencing.
We already know what is changing, and that what isn't changing is going to stay the same. If we change the baseline spell from 1D6+modifier to 2D6 (because that is the only part that needs to change, since modifier to damage is going away from spells), then acting like everything else needs to change as well (or is going to change when it's not listed as something that will change) makes no sense and isn't warranted anywhere. It's not broke, so why act like it's going to be changed or fixed?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strawman is when someone misrepresents your position on something and argues against that misrepresentation.
But this is clearly what your stand is on the subject. Blave isn't misrepresenting your position.
We already know what is changing, and that what isn't changing is going to stay the same.
Blave is arguing against this statement. That you did indeed make. You don't actually know what isn't changing. Just because a change hasn't been announced doesn't mean that it isn't changing.
Blave asked for a reference indicating the damage die size and scaling of Gouging Claw post-Remaster and all you did was link to the current printing. Which isn't valid evidence of post-Remaster information.
If we change the baseline spell from 1D6+modifier to 2D6 (because that is the only part that needs to change, since modifier to damage is going away from spells), then acting like everything else needs to change as well (or is going to change when it's not listed as something that will change) makes no sense and isn't warranted anywhere. It's not broke, so why act like it's going to be changed or fixed?
And this would be better described as slippery slope: if one thing is done then another must follow. So at least get the name of the fallacy claim right.
Strawman is when someone misrepresents your position on something and argues against that misrepresentation.
But this is clearly what your stand is on the subject. Blave isn't misrepresenting your position.
We already know what is changing, and that what isn't changing is going to stay the same.Blave is arguing against this statement. That you did indeed make. You don't actually know what isn't changing. Just because a change hasn't been announced doesn't mean that it isn't changing.
Blave asked for a reference indicating the damage die size and scaling of Gouging Claw post-Remaster and all you did was link to the current printing. Which isn't valid evidence of post-Remaster information.
If we change the baseline spell from 1D6+modifier to 2D6 (because that is the only part that needs to change, since modifier to damage is going away from spells), then acting like everything else needs to change as well (or is going to change when it's not listed as something that will change) makes no sense and isn't warranted anywhere. It's not broke, so why act like it's going to be changed or fixed?And this would be better described as slippery slope: if one thing is done then another must follow. So at least get the name of the fallacy claim right.
Which they did. They took the "D6+modifier portion" of the spell (which we already know is being changed, so it already makes no sense to do this) as my argument, when my argument was in regards to the D6/D4 per spell rank entry listed in the heightening category, which is what the question was about ("Do we know how the spells are going to scale in the Remaster?").
Nobody but the developers know for certain, in which case they aren't going to get an answer for another 2-3 weeks, if not longer. But it's not difficult to ascertain the balance point of the spells and extrapolate that balance point to its apparent conclusion, and if that's not "valid evidence," why post baiting rhetorical questions in the first place?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strawman is when someone misrepresents your position on something and argues against that misrepresentation.
But this is clearly what your stand is on the subject. Blave isn't misrepresenting your position.
We already know what is changing, and that what isn't changing is going to stay the same.Blave is arguing against this statement. That you did indeed make. You don't actually know what isn't changing. Just because a change hasn't been announced doesn't mean that it isn't changing.
Blave asked for a reference indicating the damage die size and scaling of Gouging Claw post-Remaster and all you did was link to the current printing. Which isn't valid evidence of post-Remaster information.
If we change the baseline spell from 1D6+modifier to 2D6 (because that is the only part that needs to change, since modifier to damage is going away from spells), then acting like everything else needs to change as well (or is going to change when it's not listed as something that will change) makes no sense and isn't warranted anywhere. It's not broke, so why act like it's going to be changed or fixed?And this would be better described as slippery slope: if one thing is done then another must follow. So at least get the name of the fallacy claim right.Which they did. They took the "D6+modifier portion" of the spell (which we already know is being changed, so it already makes no sense to do this) as my argument, when my argument was in regards to the D6/D4 per spell rank entry listed in the heightening category, which is what the question was about ("Do we know how the spells are going to scale in the Remaster?").
Nobody but the developers know for certain, in which case they aren't going to get an answer for another 2-3 weeks, if not longer. But it's not difficult to ascertain the balance point of the spells and extrapolate that balance point to its apparent conclusion, and if that's...
Talking in Circles. At this point why are we arguing?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m just happy Nelzy posted the word “dumbster” upthread. I can die happy now. In a dumbster fire. It’s the Remastered burning hands?
I’m just happy Nelzy posted the word “dumbster” upthread. I can die happy now. In a dumbster fire. It’s the Remastered burning hands?
I believe that would be closer to fireball.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m just happy Nelzy posted the word “dumbster” upthread. I can die happy now. In a dumbster fire. It’s the Remastered burning hands?I believe that would be closer to fireball.
But only if you let it loose in an enclosed space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like pretty much everything I've seen so far. Or at least I can't think of much that's negative to me. I'm indifferent about the alignment removal, for example.
The only two (potential) downsides I can see so far:
1. The new Grab monster ability could be a bit much since many creatures have pretty high Athletics scores, especially when used as a level+2 (or higher) boss. That makes them very likely to outright restrain someone with the new Grab. Their high Athletics also makes any Escape attempts very hard and they can just keep Restraining their target with an action every turn without even rolling another check. While using one action per turn is a significant downside for a boss encounter, it also means the player is probably not really participating in the fight.
2. The Wizard. I won't go into details because everyone here who cares about it probably know them. I'm hoping that remaster Wizard-blogpost they mentioned on reddit is from the in-depth line of remaster blogposts and not from the "here are the remaster basics" line.
After seeing how destrucutive auto-succeed grabs are in, say, Sky King's Tomb, I think even a chance for failure is an improvement here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assume that Core has been rushed due to WotC stuff about OGL before, will this be the case for Core 2 or is there now more time to QA stuff?
I'm a casual user at best, but I've heard people mention erratas being needed before the book is even out, so I'm a bit concerned about future books, especially with things like Inventor's Invent feat becoming essentially useless it seems, and Magus cascade's dependancy on magic school being just, not mentioned at all? Or the strap shield phrasing and the new swap action.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assume that Core has been rushed due to WotC stuff about OGL before, will this be the case for Core 2 or is there now more time to QA stuff?
I'm a casual user at best, but I've heard people mention erratas being needed before the book is even out, so I'm a bit concerned about future books, especially with things like Inventor's Invent feat becoming essentially useless it seems, and Magus cascade's dependancy on magic school being just, not mentioned at all? Or the strap shield phrasing and the new swap action.
They've mentioned plans to errata content from existing books that is now non-functional, but in the meantime almost everything from those books should work with pre-Remaster content; if one is concerned about arcane cascade, you can still select the pre-Remaster spells and it will all work exactly as it did a month ago. Day-1 errata is pretty normal, to be honest - we're talking about 800 pages of books released, no matter one's QA policies there will be some issues slipping through. Core 2 has some extra time, and is only one book rather than 2, so it probably will have slightly fewer issues - but early errata for a big chunky book is something that's inevitable, if you're committed to a high-quality product at least and actually do fix your mistakes! :)
I assume that Core has been rushed due to WotC stuff about OGL before, will this be the case for Core 2 or is there now more time to QA stuff?
I'm a casual user at best, but I've heard people mention erratas being needed before the book is even out, so I'm a bit concerned about future books, especially with things like Inventor's Invent feat becoming essentially useless it seems, and Magus cascade's dependancy on magic school being just, not mentioned at all? Or the strap shield phrasing and the new swap action.
Wouldn't all errata technically be needed before the book has even come out? The only thing that makes Player Core unique jn that respect is that we've seen a lot more of the Player Core prior to its release than we usually do of a new book, and a lot of people have had reason to comb the text with an eye for details.
As for Magus, it was never going to be addressed in these books because it is not from any of the books that were part of the remaster. Presumably when SoM gets its regular errata pass, that would be the time to check if Magus got a patch. For now it doesn't really seem that difficult since the few Magus abilities that reference wchool either already default to damage type first, or can be trivially worked around in the meantime.
For your general question, since none of PC1, 2, GMC, or MC were planned by this point last year, and there's an ongoing schedule to maintain while shoving all these new books into production, it is likely they are as we speak being assembled as quickly as can be managed so that there is a complete ORC set of core rules. Though actually depending how much work needs to be done on the Monster Core, it may be that some elements were chosen specifically for PC2 and pushed back so that they would have more time to work on those while players enjoyed the first wave of content in PC1... it's conceivable.
I assume that Core has been rushed due to WotC stuff about OGL before, will this be the case for Core 2 or is there now more time to QA stuff?
I'm a casual user at best, but I've heard people mention erratas being needed before the book is even out, so I'm a bit concerned about future books, especially with things like Inventor's Invent feat becoming essentially useless it seems, and Magus cascade's dependancy on magic school being just, not mentioned at all? Or the strap shield phrasing and the new swap action.
Okay, you're lumping some thing together, and I think I see why it looks bad to you.
There are two categories of errata needed.
1. Errata to the books coming out. This is minor stuff, and this is the normal time for it to be found. It turns out that having dozens of people read over a book, looking for every difference, is a really good way to catch things that slipped through the cracks. This shouldn't make you concerned about future books, because this is how it's always worked and you seem to have been okay so far.
2. Errata for other books. No amount of editing would make the slightest dent in this. Inventor had a feat that helped badly patch the terrible crafting rules. Fixing the crafting rules was guaranteed to break this, and the only other option was leaving crafting broken. Also, Inventor's feat is only useless because crafting got such a big buff. Inventors are still better off. Magus had a feat that relied to Wizards of the Coast's magic system. The only way to not break it would be continue using WotC's stuff. The feat still works just fine with all the old spells, so Magus is fine for the time being. These will likely get fixed up at some point through errata, and there might be Pathfinder Society guidance you can use at your own tables even sooner than that. This shouldn't make you worried about future books because the remaster is an unusual situation. Paizo doesn't normally go back and change sections of the core rules. But, it does explain why there's much more talk about errata than usual.
Looking forward, PC2 is mostly options rather than rules changes. You probably don't need to expect a lot of out-of-book impact for anything other than maybe alchemy and mutagens. New rules books will be using the remastered rules, so there won't be much conflict there. The period between PC1 and PC2 is going to be weird, of course, but things should smooth out.
|
Well just got access to the PDFs so here is my take...
1. I persoanlly like how they handled the removal of alignment. In my game it really only mattered with classes like Cleric and Champion. Everyone else it was just a roleplay prompt that was ignored most of the time.
2. I like the changes to Wizard, spell schools being actual schools makes way more sense and is thematic.
3. Rebalancing and renaming cantrips/spells seems to works out and seems to make sense.
4. The renaming of everything will take a while to get use too..lol I still ask for sense motive checks :)
5. Atrributes vs Abilities Modifiers is fine. The modifier was really the only thing that mattered, I feel they could have dealt with the two points to raise anything over 4 a little better but it will work.
6. Little perlexed by the removal of the Eldritch Trickster racket I guess it will come abck as an arch-type
7. The removal of the fighter Open trait is welcomed :)
8. Not sure I understand Druid Order Animal....does it really only ever get one focus spell.
Just a few thoughts over it looks like a good update to PF2 to me :)
I haven't gotten the PDF yet how much was renamed? Is there a single reference somewhere to all the name changes, or do we have to find them one at a time?
4. The renaming of everything will take a while to get use too..lol I still ask for sense motive checks :)
As I understand it, Paizo can't provide such a list, because the legalities require them to pretend they've forgotten all the naughty, naughty words like "half-orc."
But I bet someone on the boards (not me) compiles and distributes such a thing RSN.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not my work, someone else's. There's a thread about it around here somewhere.
I assume that Core has been rushed due to WotC stuff about OGL before, will this be the case for Core 2 or is there now more time to QA stuff?
I'm a casual user at best, but I've heard people mention erratas being needed before the book is even out, so I'm a bit concerned about future books, especially with things like Inventor's Invent feat becoming essentially useless it seems, and Magus cascade's dependancy on magic school being just, not mentioned at all? Or the strap shield phrasing and the new swap action.
Wouldn't all errata technically be needed before the book has even come out? The only thing that makes Player Core unique jn that respect is that we've seen a lot more of the Player Core prior to its release than we usually do of a new book, and a lot of people have had reason to comb the text with an eye for details.
As for Magus, it was never going to be addressed in these books because it is not from any of the books that were part of the remaster. Presumably when SoM gets its regular errata pass, that would be the time to check if Magus got a patch. For now it doesn't really seem that difficult since the few Magus abilities that reference wchool either already default to damage type first, or can be trivially worked around in the meantime.
For your general question, since none of PC1, 2, GMC, or MC were planned by this point last year, and there's an ongoing schedule to maintain while shoving all these new books into production, it is likely they are as we speak being assembled as quickly as can be managed so that there is a complete ORC set of core rules. Though actually depending how much work needs to be done on the Monster Core, it may be that some elements were chosen specifically for PC2 and pushed back so that they would have more time to work on those while players enjoyed the first wave of content in PC1... it's conceivable.
Learning new stuff every day, I appreciate the info.
Is there a reason the books had to be printed and it couldn't have been PDFs until things are vetted properly?| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a reason the books had to be printed and it couldn't have been PDFs until things are vetted properly?
Same reason why PDFs aren't sold before the books hit the store, most likely: Paizo likes to work with local gaming stores and having those books on the shelves is free advertising.
If they sold the PDFs months before the books are actually printed and available in stores, the demand for the printed version would diminish and the stores would no longer carry the books at all, reducing the exposure of RPG fans to PF2.
I'm a bit flummoxed that the lance is still a sub par option for mounted combat unless you are a small boi
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit flummoxed that the lance is still a sub par option for mounted combat unless you are a small boi
Well that one I do know the answer for that. They don't believe it is a problem. See here.
I still don't recall anyone using one in PF2...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the one hand it’s not a problem because no one uses it. On the other hand no one uses it because it’s a problem.
I have seen numerous small ancestries use a lance, but not medium ones. Divorced from the narrative fantasy of knights and jousting, I don’t have a problem with a weapon existing that is better for small folk than large. I am sympathetic to people wishing it wasn’t such an iconic fantasy weapon though.
Most adventurers seem to spend most of their time well, adventuring, which usually involves situations in which lances are not a very good choice of weapon. Seems this ought to be independant of the size of the character, but I guess it's no big deal seeing a goblin using a lance while riding his goblin dog. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit flummoxed that the lance is still a sub par option for mounted combat unless you are a small boiWell that one I do know the answer for that. They don't believe it is a problem. See here.
I still don't recall anyone using one in PF2...
Yeah, I presumed that since basically everyone agreed with me on that specific post and that members of the staff actually took time to answer, they would have got the hint and do something about the lance. Showed me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
6. Little perlexed by the removal of the Eldritch Trickster racket I guess it will come abck as an arch-type
It was a really sub-par Racket. It gave pretty much nothing (you get a level 2 feat equivalent and can choose Wisdom as Key Ability), and it interacted very, very badly with Free Archetype variant rules - which are very popular.
Thief Racket, Scoundrel Racket, or even Mastermind Racket taking the Multiclass Archetype at level 2 and Magical Trickster at level 4 all end up being better characters overall.