| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love that the Remaster now clarifies that you DO get to apply the Agile trait to combat maneuvers (disarm, grapple, reposition, shove, trip) when you use your free hand to perform them.Can you point out where so I can be mad about the agile trait applying but finesse not applying despite both being defined as affecting attack rolls?
It should be in the sidebar on page 234 of Player Core according to the GenCon preview stream.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh dang, Courtly Graces is actually useful on high-charisma characters now! If you use the regular skill instead of substituting, you get a +1 circumstance bonus. It was such an annoying situation where many characters who would take backgrounds that grant Courtly Graces would find it useless. Now it does something for anyone moving in high society.
It should be in the sidebar on page 234 of Player Core according to the GenCon preview stream.I love that the Remaster now clarifies that you DO get to apply the Agile trait to combat maneuvers (disarm, grapple, reposition, shove, trip) when you use your free hand to perform them.Can you point out where so I can be mad about the agile trait applying but finesse not applying despite both being defined as affecting attack rolls?
Right where you said it was. Thanks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's at the very least strongly implied that an Agile Trip weapon will allow you to Trip at -4/-8.
Hasn't it always been that way?
The multiple attack penalty you take with this weapon on the second attack on your turn is –4 instead of –5, and –8 instead of –10 on the third and subsequent attacks in the turn.
With 'attack' being defined in the game rules as an action with the Attack trait, the weapon's Agile trait would apply to the MAP that is applied to Grapple, Trip, Shove actions.
The problem pre-Remaster is that the Agile trait mentions 'weapon' and unarmed attacks aren't weapons.
I love that the Remaster now clarifies that you DO get to apply the Agile trait to combat maneuvers (disarm, grapple, reposition, shove, trip) when you use your free hand to perform them.Can you point out where so I can be mad about the agile trait applying but finesse not applying despite both being defined as affecting attack rolls?
Further discussion on this topic should go here.
Let's keep this thread focused on the positives.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem pre-Remaster is that the Agile trait mentions 'weapon' and unarmed attacks aren't weapons.
The main difference is that your hand is Agile, which was not the case pre-remaster. The Fist attack was Agile, but lacked any maneuver traits and as such was not valid for a maneuver.
|
Which does make Agile Maneuvers a bit pointless.It's likely to go, or provide a further bonus.
Having it stack like Combination Finisher does would be really snazzy. Especially for a Gymnast. Maybe a bit too snazzy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You no longer need a different formula to Craft a different type of given item that’s just a higher-level upgrade.
No more spending 1,200gp on that major [item]'s formula when you can spend 5gp on the lesser [item]'s formula.
Question: Are there MULTIPLE versions of the various "tiered" Alchemical Items listed in the Remaster books, are they absent, or is there a new format ala there only exists Alchemist Fire (X/Y/Z level) with specific rules about the Damage Dice, Effect, and DC when it's improved to Y/Z level?
They still list multiple versions, lesser, moderate, greater etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the buff to See the Unseen (aka See Invisibility). It lets you also see incorporeal creatures inside surfaces AND gives a +2 bonus to disbelieve illusions.
My question is about the Dying condition.
The Player Core says:
Failure Your dying value increases by 1 (plus your wounded value, if any). Critical Failure Your dying value increases by 2 (plus your wounded value, if any).
Is this just a rewording of the Core Rulebook? Or is dying more deadly now?
There's a thread discussing that over in the rules forum.My question is about the Dying condition.
The Player Core says:
Failure Your dying value increases by 1 (plus your wounded value, if any). Critical Failure Your dying value increases by 2 (plus your wounded value, if any).Is this just a rewording of the Core Rulebook? Or is dying more deadly now?
Thanks!
You no longer need a different formula to Craft a different type of given item that’s just a higher-level upgrade.
No more spending 1,200gp on that major [item]'s formula when you can spend 5gp on the lesser [item]'s formula.
Oh dang. That's huge for alchemists if the wording lets it apply to them. (Hopefully it is cemented by player core 2.) Not getting to "heighten" mutagens and bombs is super annoying.
Where is that specified?
Just found out that the Monk trait has been added to the staff, the spear, and the khakkara!
So many hidden gems throughout!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just found out that the Monk trait has been added to the staff, the spear, and the khakkara!
So many hidden gems throughout!
A Warpriest of Tsukiyo with Flurry of Blows sounds amazing!
You no longer need a different formula to Craft a different type of given item that’s just a higher-level upgrade.
No more spending 1,200gp on that major [item]'s formula when you can spend 5gp on the lesser [item]'s formula.
Oh dang. That's huge for alchemists if the wording lets it apply to them. (Hopefully it is cemented by player core 2.) Not getting to "heighten" mutagens and bombs is super annoying.
Where is that specified?
Page 294 of the player core iirc.
The section on Formulas is a little oblique, as it's not written like a changelog.
That Formula blurb doesn't even give numbers for crafting time and how much the Formula shortens it, just that
"Their primary purpose is to reduce the time it takes you to start the Craft activity, which is helpful for items you'll make frequently."
Found the bit in the Craft downtime activity. pg 236
"The item must be common, or you otherwise have access to it."
Really? Def could have worded that better. Not sure there's any way to craft an uncommon/rare even if you have an example of the original. You've got to de-craft and reverse engineer a formula, so that wording is pretty unhelpful. Makes me wonder if there was debate about Formulas still being a thing at all. Literally 0 mention of the word Formula in the Craft activity, yikes.
Ah there it is, next page in a pop-out box.
A written formula for an item helps you create it with less difficulty. This has two functions. First, it reduces the time needed to start Crafting from 2 days to 1, as you have less preparation to do. Second, you can Craft uncommon and rarer items if you’re able to acquire their formulas. See the rules on page 294 for information on formulas.
Another Remaster benefit being the refuced Crafting times. Can't believe I forgot about that one.
Is there still a rule about formulas having the same rarity as the actual item?
Another Remaster benefit being the refuced Crafting times. Can't believe I forgot about that one.
Is there still a rule about formulas having the same rarity as the actual item?
Not sure that it would be necessary. If the formula only further reduces the amount of setup time needed rather than letting you craft the item in the first place, then the formula wouldn't need rarity at all. Being able to set up faster for an item that you can't craft isn't helpful.
Now, if an uncommon or rare item still requires the formula in order to craft the item at all, then I would expect that the formula would have the same rarity as the item.
You no longer need a different formula to Craft a different type of given item that’s just a higher-level upgrade.
No more spending 1,200gp on that major [item]'s formula when you can spend 5gp on the lesser [item]'s formula.
Where are you seeing this? I can't find it.
Where are you seeing this? I can't find it.You no longer need a different formula to Craft a different type of given item that’s just a higher-level upgrade.
No more spending 1,200gp on that major [item]'s formula when you can spend 5gp on the lesser [item]'s formula.
It's in the Craft downtime activity (pg 236) and the Formulas bit (on 294).
"Their primary purpose is to reduce the time it takes you to start the Craft activity, which is helpful for items you'll make frequently."
"The item must be common, or you otherwise have access to it."\
And the Formula pop-out box just after the Craft activity:
"A written formula for an item helps you create it with less difficulty. This has two functions. First, it reduces the time needed to start Crafting from 2 days to 1, as you have less preparation to do. Second, you can Craft uncommon and rarer items if you’re able to acquire their formulas. See the rules on page 294 for information on formulas."
----
Def could have worded that better, but there's no requirement to have a formula to craft common items.
Where are you seeing this? I can't find it.You no longer need a different formula to Craft a different type of given item that’s just a higher-level upgrade.
No more spending 1,200gp on that major [item]'s formula when you can spend 5gp on the lesser [item]'s formula.
To Craft an item, you must meet the following requirements:
• The item is your level or lower. An item that doesn’t list a level is level 0. If the item is 9th level or higher, you must be a master in Crafting, and if it’s 17th or higher, you must be legendary.
• The item must be common, or you must otherwise have access to it.
You have access to common items so you can craft them without a formula. Uncommon and rare need access which can be provided by a formula
Second, you can Craft uncommon and rarer items if you’re able to acquire their formulas. See the rules on page 294 for information on formulas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Trip.H and gesalt, but none of those quotes was what I was referencing. I'll post the source just as soon as I remember where I saw it.
EDIT: Found it.
Some items with multiple type entries get special treatment when it comes to formulas and upgrades. The existing knowledge you have about the item means you don’t need to start from scratch with these items. If you have the formula for an item, you don’t need a different formula to Craft a different type of that item that’s just a higher-level upgrade. For example, if you have the formula for a +1 weapon potency rune, you don’t need to secure a new formula to etch a +2 weapon potency rune. This works similarly with items such as a spacious pouch with its multiple types or doubling rings with a base version and greater version. You can also upgrade an item or rune to a stronger version. This essentially means you Craft a permanent item from a lower-level version of the same item. For example, you might upgrade +1 weapon potency rune to a +2 weapon potency rune or upgrade a spacious pouch type I to a spacious pouch type II. The cost for this upgrade is the full difference in Price between the items, and the Crafting check uses a DC for the item’s new level. You don’t have to upgrade step by step either! You could upgrade a spacious pouch type I directly to type III or type IV. If the different types in an item entry are wildly different, such as with aeon stones or marvelous miniatures, you need separate formulas and can’t directly upgrade the items. If a type of the item has a higher rarity, that type requires its own formula. The GM will make the determination if it’s unclear and might bypass these rules in special circumstances or if it suits the theme of their game.
Looking into it further, it looks like the pre-Remaster rules don't specify the rarity of Formulas. It simply says:
Formulas for uncommon items and rare items are usually significantly more valuable—if you can find them at all!
Which implies that they have the same rarity as the item that they are a formula for.
If a type of the item has a higher rarity, that type requires its own formula.
That sounds like (bad example, but it illustrates the idea) if Elixir of Life minor, lesser, and moderate were Common items, but greater and major are Uncommon and true is Rare, then the first three could be crafted without a formula, or crafted faster with the formula. But you would need a separate formula for the greater and major Elixir of Life, and you would need yet a third formula for the true Elixir of Life.
Looking into it further, it looks like the pre-Remaster rules don't specify the rarity of Formulas. It simply says:
Formulas for uncommon items and rare items are usually significantly more valuable—if you can find them at all!Which implies that they have the same rarity as the item that they are a formula for.
I am looking into this further as well.
So far I've found a sidebar on GM Core 223 that also says "...formulas [for Uncommon items] are often guarded and not readily available. Unless the GM decides otherwise, a character cannot purchase rare items, and their formulas are lost to time."
EDIT: I've finished scouring both books. It's clear that formulas vary in rarity, but I've not been able to find an explicit rule that says a formulas rarity matches that of its item, or any real guidance for determining a formulas rarity.
Thanks Trip.H and gesalt, but none of those quotes was what I was referencing. I'll post the source just as soon as I remember where I saw it.
EDIT: Found it.
Some items with multiple type entries get special treatment when it comes to formulas and upgrades. The existing knowledge you have about the item means you don’t need to start from scratch with these items. If you have the formula for an item, you don’t need a different formula to Craft a different type of that item that’s just a higher-level upgrade. For example, if you have the formula for a +1 weapon potency rune, you don’t need to secure a new formula to etch a +2 weapon potency rune. This works similarly with items such as a spacious pouch with its multiple types or doubling rings with a base version and greater version. You can also upgrade an item or rune to a stronger version. This essentially means you Craft a permanent item from a lower-level version of the same item. For example, you might upgrade +1 weapon potency rune to a +2 weapon potency rune or upgrade a spacious pouch type I to a spacious pouch type II. The cost for this upgrade is the full difference in Price between the items, and the Crafting check uses a DC for the item’s new level. You don’t have to upgrade step by step either! You could upgrade a spacious pouch type I directly to type III or type IV. If the different types in an item entry are wildly different, such as with aeon stones or marvelous miniatures, you need separate formulas and can’t directly upgrade the items. If a type of the item has a higher rarity, that type requires its own formula. The GM will make the determination if it’s unclear and might bypass these rules in special circumstances or if it suits the theme of their game.
Wow.
If there isn't language contradicting this in the Player Core 2 Alchemist, this is a major disruption of Alchemist Economics. I spent 1,750 gp on Level 11 formulae for my PFS Bomber... and the vast majority of those were upgrades, not new formulae. That's a lot of gold to get back.
Which is why I'm skeptical. I can't believe that Paizo would just throw that much gold at Alchemists, particularly Bombers. At least the other Research Fields have an interest in Weapon Runes (unless they go with Bombs, which they can, with difficulty.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Trip.H and gesalt, but none of those quotes was what I was referencing. I'll post the source just as soon as I remember where I saw it.
EDIT: Found it.
Some items with multiple type entries get special treatment when it comes to formulas and upgrades. The existing knowledge you have about the item means you don’t need to start from scratch with these items. If you have the formula for an item, you don’t need a different formula to Craft a different type of that item that’s just a higher-level upgrade. For example, if you have the formula for a +1 weapon potency rune, you don’t need to secure a new formula to etch a +2 weapon potency rune. This works similarly with items such as a spacious pouch with its multiple types or doubling rings with a base version and greater version. You can also upgrade an item or rune to a stronger version. This essentially means you Craft a permanent item from a lower-level version of the same item. For example, you might upgrade +1 weapon potency rune to a +2 weapon potency rune or upgrade a spacious pouch type I to a spacious pouch type II. The cost for this upgrade is the full difference in Price between the items, and the Crafting check uses a DC for the item’s new level. You don’t have to upgrade step by step either! You could upgrade a spacious pouch type I directly to type III or type IV. If the different types in an item entry are wildly different, such as with aeon stones or marvelous miniatures, you need separate formulas and can’t directly upgrade the items. If a type of the item has a higher rarity, that type requires its own formula. The GM will make the determination if it’s unclear and might bypass these rules in special circumstances or if it suits the theme of their game.Wow.
If there isn't language contradicting this in the Player Core 2 Alchemist, this is a major disruption of Alchemist Economics. I spent 1,750 gp on Level 11 formulae for my PFS Bomber... and the vast majority of...
I've been hoping they'd do this for years. Buying different formulas for the same items is annoying as heck and just makes playing the class more tedious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Trip.H and gesalt, but none of those quotes was what I was referencing. I'll post the source just as soon as I remember where I saw it.
EDIT: Found it.
Some items with multiple type entries get special treatment when it comes to formulas and upgrades. The existing knowledge you have about the item means you don’t need to start from scratch with these items. If you have the formula for an item, you don’t need a different formula to Craft a different type of that item that’s just a higher-level upgrade. For example, if you have the formula for a +1 weapon potency rune, you don’t need to secure a new formula to etch a +2 weapon potency rune. This works similarly with items such as a spacious pouch with its multiple types or doubling rings with a base version and greater version. You can also upgrade an item or rune to a stronger version. This essentially means you Craft a permanent item from a lower-level version of the same item. For example, you might upgrade +1 weapon potency rune to a +2 weapon potency rune or upgrade a spacious pouch type I to a spacious pouch type II. The cost for this upgrade is the full difference in Price between the items, and the Crafting check uses a DC for the item’s new level. You don’t have to upgrade step by step either! You could upgrade a spacious pouch type I directly to type III or type IV. If the different types in an item entry are wildly different, such as with aeon stones or marvelous miniatures, you need separate formulas and can’t directly upgrade the items. If a type of the item has a higher rarity, that type requires its own formula. The GM will make the determination if it’s unclear and might bypass these rules in special circumstances or if it suits the theme of their game.
SWEET MERCIFUL GODS OF GOLARION HALLELUJAH!!! This makes the ranked paradigm of PF2e items so much more manageable. This is the kind of language I wanted from the start (or close enough to accept the good graces).
Yeah, I have a handful of characters that, should I convert them over to Remaster, will recoup quite a bit of their starting funds that was previously spent on various scaled items (such as formulas for all of the hats of disguises, or for all levels of an expensive staff).
Knowing that we won't have the remaster rules for the Alchemist and Alchemical Science Investigator, there is a chance that they won't get the benefit. Quick Alchemy and Quick Tincture don't actually use the Craft action, and they both specify that you have to have the formula for the item you wish to create. So technically those actions might not fall under the changed rule. While you might not need higher level formulae for Crafting, you would need them for both of those abilities. Advanced Alchemy might work.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to get the benefit here, and I think it would be weird if you didn't. But RAW, it might not benefit Quick Alchemy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leshy seedpods now have a range increment of 30 ft rather than 10 ft and strikes with them no longer have the manipulate trait.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When taking archetype feats with the Skill trait, you used to be required to select them in place of your skill feats rather than in place of your class feats.
Occasionally, an archetype feat works like a skill feat instead of a class feat. These archetype feats have the skill trait, and you select them in place of a skill feat, otherwise following the same rules above.
The wording in Player Core 1 has changed.
Some archetype feats in other books have the skill trait, allowing you to take them in place of a skill feat rather than a class feat.
You are now allowed to select them in place of your skill feats rather than required to, so presumably you could also take them in place of your class feats.
(You probably don't want to do that since class feats are usually more valuable than skill feats, but it's interesting that we now seem to have the option.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When taking archetype feats with the Skill trait, you used to be required to select them in place of your skill feats rather than in place of your class feats.
Occasionally, an archetype feat works like a skill feat instead of a class feat. These archetype feats have the skill trait, and you select them in place of a skill feat, otherwise following the same rules above.The wording in Player Core 1 has changed.
Some archetype feats in other books have the skill trait, allowing you to take them in place of a skill feat rather than a class feat.You are now allowed to select them in place of your skill feats rather than required to, so presumably you could also take them in place of your class feats.
(You probably don't want to do that since class feats are usually more valuable than skill feats, but it's interesting that we now seem to have the option.)
This will be helpful in games with Free Archetype, for Archetypes that only have a skill feat at some of their early levels (like Sentinel)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
New Remaster errata finally fixed Arcane Cascade.
""
Consumable items take less time to craft.
If you must make them back to back (as is typical for non-consumable items), then you are not making them "all at once."
Therefore, you can make four consumable items in the same amount of time it would take you to make one non-consumable item.
Consumable items take less time to craft.
If you must make them back to back (as is typical for non-consumable items), then you are not making them "all at once."
Therefore, you can make four consumable items in the same amount of time it would take you to make one non-consumable item.
What makes you think that batches aren't benefiting from economies of scale such that one 4-item crafting is equivalent to four 1-item craftings?
That might possibly be why the rules never mention this approach.
What makes you think that batches aren't benefiting from economies of scale such that one 4-item crafting is equivalent to four 1-item craftings?
That might possibly be why the rules never mention this approach.
Please rephrase. I am having difficulty parsing your meaning.
Please rephrase. I am having difficulty parsing your meaning.What makes you think that batches aren't benefiting from economies of scale such that one 4-item crafting is equivalent to four 1-item craftings?
That might possibly be why the rules never mention this approach.
Sorry!
It looks to me like you're assuming there is some amount of time to make 1 consumable and that the time to make a batch of 4 of the same thing is quadruple the 1-consumable time. That's not how production usually works; making a batch of something is almost always easier/faster than making the same amount one at a time. So making a single consumable should take longer than a quarter the time of a batch. So doing that four times (i.e. making one each of four different consumables) should take longer than the time for one batch of four of the same thing (a.k.a. the time for one non-consumable).
Sorry!
It looks to me like you're assuming there is some amount of time to make 1 consumable and that the time to make a batch of 4 of the same thing is quadruple the 1-consumable time. That's not how production usually works; making a batch of something is almost always easier/faster than making the same amount one at a time. So making a single consumable should take longer than a quarter the time of a batch. So doing that four times (i.e. making one each of four different consumables) should take longer than the time for one batch of four of the same thing (a.k.a. the time for one non-consumable).
Thanks for the clarification.
I've had loads of people on and off these forums tell me that, except for the upfront preparation days, you don't save time when batching items. I'm disagreeing with that and citing text in the Remaster that supports my stance.
I get your meaning better now, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, but it's still not quite clear to me which interpretation you fall under.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation is "Making anywhere from 1 to 4 of a particular consumable takes the same time as one non-consumable; you save no time by trying to batch different consumables."
So you can't make one of A and one of B and one of C and one of D simultaneously, and the time to do them sequentially is the same as for four of A (one simultaneous batch of A) and four of B and four of C and four of D.
Otherwise they'd just say either "You can make a single consumable in one-quarter the time for a non-consumable," or if for some reason they really like the number four then "You can make any four consumables in the time for a non-consumable."
My interpretation is "Making anywhere from 1 to 4 of a particular consumable takes the same time as one non-consumable; you save no time by trying to batch different consumables."
So you can't make one of A and one of B and one of C and one of D simultaneously, and the time to do them sequentially is the same as for four of A (one simultaneous batch of A) and four of B and four of C and four of D.
Otherwise they'd just say either "You can make a single consumable in one-quarter the time for a non-consumable," or if for some reason they really like the number four then "You can make any four consumables in the time for a non-consumable."
Seems we're in agreement then. :)
Wait, when you saidSeems we're in agreement then. :)My interpretation is "Making anywhere from 1 to 4 of a particular consumable takes the same time as one non-consumable; you save no time by trying to batch different consumables."
So you can't make one of A and one of B and one of C and one of D simultaneously, and the time to do them sequentially is the same as for four of A (one simultaneous batch of A) and four of B and four of C and four of D.
Otherwise they'd just say either "You can make a single consumable in one-quarter the time for a non-consumable," or if for some reason they really like the number four then "You can make any four consumables in the time for a non-consumable."
Therefore, you can make four consumable items in the same amount of time it would take you to make one non-consumable item.
did you mean four consumables of the same type or of different types?
AFAIK the former is not any kind of change, so I figured you meant the latter.