# Pathfinder 2 Character Sheet #3: Valeros, Human Fighter



## EthanSental (Jul 14, 2018)

So does he start off with 4 feats?  Ancestry, assurance, reactive shield and sudden charge? 

Based on Wayne's art - To don his armor Valeros either never takes it of fire while he's drinking in the tavern from the night before or wakes up 45 minutes before the rest Party to start getting strapped in


----------



## dave2008 (Jul 14, 2018)

I don't know the mechanical distinction between "ready" and "stowed", but in the picture provided the bow looks "stowed" to me.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 14, 2018)

I like the look of Valeros.  He seems like a fun type of character to play.

My one caution is that I hope there is not going to be many reactive shield type abilities in the game.  I really dislike the turn back time type of reactions like getting a AC bonus after being hit.


----------



## Koloth (Jul 14, 2018)

Nit pick on the sheet - sure wish they would create a damage column in the actions area so the damage would be in a consistent spot.  The current layout makes you have to scan the sometimes multiple lines of text to find the damage info.


----------



## The White Sorcerer (Jul 14, 2018)

Is there a special requirement for using a versatile weapon's alternate damage type? Unless there is, it seems like it would be much more efficient to simply list the damage as "piercing or slashing."

EDIT: And Valeros totally sold out, abandoning dual wielding to go sword & board.


----------



## Nathan Fish (Jul 14, 2018)

Have shields been nerfed a ton since the Glass Cannon podcast?  They had a fighter with a Hardness 9 wooden shield, and Valeros has a "Heavy steel shield" that has only Hardness 5?


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 14, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> My one caution is that I hope there is not going to be many reactive shield type abilities in the game.  I really dislike the turn back time type of reactions like getting a AC bonus after being hit.




Yeah, this kind of stuff is a real big turn off for me.


----------



## jrowland (Jul 14, 2018)

DaveMage said:


> Yeah, this kind of stuff is a real big turn off for me.




I can certainly respect that opinion. But if I may (well I suppose I am going to anyway), I'd like to offer my explanation to players who feel the same:

There is the narrative (I attack the orc)
Then the resolution (To hit roll, reactions, etc.) which is not IN the narrative
Then the narrative continues with the resolution described.

In other worlds, rolling a dice and getting a hit doesn't instantly translate to 'in world'. Only when the resolution phase is complete can we narrate what happened.

It's not perfect, but it works for us. It allows for keeping gaming elements in their proper place, and narration in its place.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 14, 2018)

Odd that Reactive Shield can only work against enemies and not traps, dominated allies, natural hazards, etc.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 14, 2018)

I'm not sure what help Reactive Shield would have against crits.  Aren't crits auto-hit still regardless of the target AC?


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Jul 14, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> I'm not sure what help Reactive Shield would have against crits.  Aren't crits auto-hit still regardless of the target AC?



Crist are hits by 10 or more. So Reactive Shield can potentially turn a crit into a normal hit.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 14, 2018)

HomegrownHydra said:


> Crist are hits by 10 or more. So Reactive Shield can potentially turn a crit into a normal hit.




Oh okay, didn't know that.


----------



## Jeff Carpenter (Jul 14, 2018)

Does having his mug "ready" give him a bonus to his  "party"  initiative.  Or Chug: You can raise your mug as a reaction to subtract 4 from your sobriety saving throw.


----------



## Blue (Jul 14, 2018)

Early in the playtest reveil there was a lot of talk about how it seemed very similar to D&D 5e.  Looking at the precise definitions and the keywords we've seen in these character sheets is the opposite direction.  Looking for players who want things more codified and precise then "rulings not rules" 5e.  Which is great - both are valid approaches with lots of adherents.  This is good news for everyone - more choice for us all in finding what works for us and for our table.


----------



## Adso (Jul 14, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Odd that Reactive Shield can only work against enemies and not traps, dominated allies, natural hazards, etc.





Lately, I've been doing an overview of triggers in the playtest version of the game, and I have the same note in my spreadsheet. Don't be suprised if this gets changed in the final version. 

Stephen
Pathfinder RPG Senior Designer and map guy


----------



## Adso (Jul 14, 2018)

Blue said:


> Early in the playtest reveil there was a lot of talk about how it seemed very similar to D&D 5e.  Looking at the precise definitions and the keywords we've seen in these character sheets is the opposite direction.  Looking for players who want things more codified and precise then "rulings not rules" 5e.  Which is great - both are valid approaches with lots of adherents.  This is good news for everyone - more choice for us all in finding what works for us and for our table.




Yeah, I'm always puzzled by folks who tell me "it looks like 5e." I like 5e. Some of my best friends made 5e. P2 is not 5e. It's a very different approach to some of the same issues.


----------



## mellored (Jul 14, 2018)

Nathan Fish said:


> Have shields been nerfed a ton since the Glass Cannon podcast?  They had a fighter with a Hardness 9 wooden shield, and Valeros has a "Heavy steel shield" that has only Hardness 5?



by my reading, it blocks up to 5 damage at once.
And a total of 10 damage.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jul 14, 2018)

Adso said:


> Yeah, I'm always puzzled by folks who tell me "it looks like 5e." I like 5e. Some of my best friends made 5e. P2 is not 5e. It's a very different approach to some of the same issues.




Seems to me that the only similarity to 5e is that they both use a d20 and are fantasy RPGs in the D&D tradition. (Okay, maybe a little more than that, but not much).


----------



## Deverash (Jul 14, 2018)

Yeah, up to 5 damage at once...but it can block 4 damage forever.  Which is interesting to me.  Do I take the damage, or take a dent?  Knowing if i take a Dent now, I may have to choose between destroying my shield, or dropping to 0 later.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jul 14, 2018)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Seems to me that the only similarity to 5e is that they both use a d20 and are fantasy RPGs in the D&D tradition. (Okay, maybe a little more than that, but not much).




All versions of D&D including Pathfinder share the fantasy Paper & Pencil RPG similarity with Pathfinder 2.

In the D&D tradition is a strong important similarity.  4e didn't stick to it and ended badly.  

Pathfinder 2 is still very much in the D&D tradition.  There's just already a lot more to it in playtest than in  4 years of 5e.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 14, 2018)

So shields have 5 hardness and 1 hit point. Shouldn't a steel shield be able to take a dozen "dents". Are shield users supposed to go into dungeons with a palette of shields they drag behind them? At most levels, the first two hits against a shield will do more than 5 damage each time. And frankly, if 3rd level creatures aren't doing 10 damage in one strike frequently, the hit point economy will have changes A LOT.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Jul 14, 2018)

The designers have said that PF2 will expect the use of a grid for battle, but I'm not seeing anything in these sample PCs that would make grid combat interesting. It looks like you will want to minimize movement because moving directly reduces the number of attacks and shield use you get, and there aren't any abilities that would produce really dynamic combat. So combat looks to be a very stationary affair with everyone just standing around until their current opponent dies, and then they move to the next opponent and stand around some more. If the designers are going to expect the grid to be used, it would be nice if they actually take advantage of it.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 14, 2018)

HomegrownHydra said:


> The designers have said that PF2 will expect the use of a grid for battle, but I'm not seeing anything in these sample PCs that would make grid combat interesting. It looks like you will want to minimize movement because moving directly reduces the number of attacks and shield use you get, and there aren't any abilities that would produce really dynamic combat. So combat looks to be a very stationary affair with everyone just standing around until their current opponent dies, and then they move to the next opponent and stand around some more. If the designers are going to expect the grid to be used, it would be nice if they actually take advantage of it.




That’s an awesome example of glass half empty! 

It looks like you will want to minimise attacks because attacking directly reduces the amount of movement you get. So combat looks to be a very dynamic affair with everybody running around until they accidentally run into a foe.

In other words, both are true. You can do either. It’s what you choose to make of it.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Jul 14, 2018)

Morrus said:


> That’s an awesome example of glass half empty!
> 
> It looks like you will want to minimise attacks because attacking directly reduces the amount of movement you get. So combat looks to be a very dynamic affair with everybody running around until they accidentally run into a foe.
> 
> In other words, both are true. You can do either. It’s what you choose to make of it.




You don't win a battle by running around. Attacks are inherently worth more than movement because it's the attacks that end a battle. So the PF2 method isn't much different than Full Attacks from 3e/PF1 which similarly discouraged movement.


----------



## Deverash (Jul 14, 2018)

HomegrownHydra said:


> You don't win a battle by running around. Attacks are inherently worth more than movement because it's the attacks that end a battle. So the PF2 method isn't much different than Full Attacks from 3e/PF1 which similarly discouraged movement.




The more pressing reason you didn't move in PF/D&D, was attacks of opportunity.  You not only lost out on 1+ attacks, but gave /them/ a free attack.  If they other guy can't punish you for leaving and especially if you have a higher speed than they do, then move.  You lose 1 attack, but they lose 2 to get back to be able to attack you.

You win by dealing damage to the opponets, yes.  But you have also have to not lose.  And all of this assumes there is nothing else going on the battle you might want to take advantage of.

Flexibility is good, even if you use it to simulate the inflexible system we have now.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 14, 2018)

HomegrownHydra said:


> You don't win a battle by running around. Attacks are inherently worth more than movement because it's the attacks that end a battle.




I’d argue that says more about your tactics than it does about the game rules.


----------



## Adso (Jul 14, 2018)

HomegrownHydra said:


> The designers have said that PF2 will expect the use of a grid for battle, but I'm not seeing anything in these sample PCs that would make grid combat interesting. It looks like you will want to minimize movement because moving directly reduces the number of attacks and shield use you get, and there aren't any abilities that would produce really dynamic combat. So combat looks to be a very stationary affair with everyone just standing around until their current opponent dies, and then they move to the next opponent and stand around some more. If the designers are going to expect the grid to be used, it would be nice if they actually take advantage of it.




That may be what it looks like to you on paper, but this is not what happens in actual play. In fact, the last event I was running demos for (a retailer thing in Chicago) the comments over and over again is how the play is more flexible and cinematic. Folks were amazed at how much movement was opened up in the game. 

I love grids. I love designing interesting ones, running on them, and even designing interesting kinds of combat puzzles that utilize grid movement. I'm going to go out on a limb and say were are taking full advantage of the grid.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Jul 14, 2018)

Adso said:


> That may be what it looks like to you on paper, but this is not what happens in actual play. In fact, the last event I was running demos for (a retailer thing in Chicago) the comments over and over again is how the play is more flexible and cinematic. Folks were amazed at how much movement was opened up in the game.
> 
> I love grids. I love designing interesting ones, running on them, and even designing interesting kinds of combat puzzles that utilize grid movement. I'm going to go out on a limb and say were are taking full advantage of the grid.




That's good to hear.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 14, 2018)

Adso said:


> Yeah, I'm always puzzled by folks who tell me "it looks like 5e." I like 5e. Some of my best friends made 5e. P2 is not 5e. It's a very different approach to some of the same issues.




I would bet it has a lot to do with some of the earliest information spoiled. Without any further context, phrases like “unified Proficiency system” or “encounter, exploration, and downtime modes” sound, on a very superficial level, like 5e. People often form snap judgments based on superficial details, and as they say, you only have one chance to make a first impression. Once folks had it in their heads that PF2 was going to have similarities to 5e, confirmation bias does the rest of the work from there on in.

Anyway, excellent job on the fighter! I look at this sheet and I get excited to play a PF2 fighter. As the kind of player who loves reactive play and interacting with the action economy, shield fighters just look like so much fun for me to play. I’ll probably be GMing for my playtest group, but I can’t wait for a chance to try out playing a fighter.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 14, 2018)

One thing I note as interesting is the verbage, the use of new "special" words in place of attack and so forth.  It reminds me of the change that MTG did recently, which while a little awkward at first, really helped clear a lot of things up.  Now you can attack your opponent with a Strike instead of attacking your opponent with your Attack.


----------



## ENWorldUser (Jul 15, 2018)

have the weapons changed?

Surely a Fighter 1 doesn't have a longsword +6, etc? These can't be magical bonuses..


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 15, 2018)

jrowland said:


> I can certainly respect that opinion. But if I may (well I suppose I am going to anyway), I'd like to offer my explanation to players who feel the same:
> 
> There is the narrative (I attack the orc)
> Then the resolution (To hit roll, reactions, etc.) which is not IN the narrative
> ...




I would prefer that when you are doing the resolution phase that your numbers are not constantly changing.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

Morfiedev said:


> have the weapons changed?
> 
> Surely a Fighter 1 doesn't have a longsword +6, etc? These can't be magical bonuses..




+4 from Strength, +1 from Trained proficiency, +1 from level = +6 total to hit.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jul 15, 2018)

jrowland said:


> I can certainly respect that opinion. But if I may (well I suppose I am going to anyway), I'd like to offer my explanation to players who feel the same:
> 
> There is the narrative (I attack the orc)
> Then the resolution (To hit roll, reactions, etc.) which is not IN the narrative
> ...




Turn based initiative makes those resolutions strange, too.

Should you just be able to walk past a fighter just because its your turn not his.  No.  So he gets to react to it.  Reactions keep the game from becoming weird in this narrative you all are so hung up on.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 15, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> So shields have 5 hardness and 1 hit point. Shouldn't a steel shield be able to take a dozen "dents". Are shield users supposed to go into dungeons with a palette of shields they drag behind them? At most levels, the first two hits against a shield will do more than 5 damage each time. And frankly, if 3rd level creatures aren't doing 10 damage in one strike frequently, the hit point economy will have changes A LOT.




I have to generally agree with this.  At low levels I can see a monster dishing out 4-5 points in a hit (lets face it, most characters will have 8-12 HP, and we don't want to one-shot every other low-level PC).  But it does seem low.  On the same token, it would be unreasonable at low levels for a shield to be something of an attached "extra character" with just as much HP as the character!

EDIT: and of course, this shield HP becomes increasingly worthless as levels progress, unless shield HP increases with character level, which would be good in keeping with the sort of "heroic fantasy" PF2 seems to be shooting for.  A 15th-level Fighter's shield is tougher than a 1st-level one, for no real reason other than "this guy is tougher than that guy."


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 15, 2018)

HomegrownHydra said:


> The designers have said that PF2 will expect the use of a grid for battle, but I'm not seeing anything in these sample PCs that would make grid combat interesting. It looks like you will want to minimize movement because moving directly reduces the number of attacks and shield use you get, and there aren't any abilities that would produce really dynamic combat. So combat looks to be a very stationary affair with everyone just standing around until their current opponent dies, and then they move to the next opponent and stand around some more. If the designers are going to expect the grid to be used, it would be nice if they actually take advantage of it.




I think you need to remember these are 1st level characters. In PF1, there are a ton of feats you cannot access that allow you to bounce around the battle field.


----------



## benofwater (Jul 15, 2018)

So I guess I'm a little confused.  With the "Raise a Shield" Shield Action is the implication that you have to raise your shield each round in order to gain its AC bonus?


----------



## benofwater (Jul 15, 2018)

What does an "Open" equipment trait mean?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

benofwater said:


> So I guess I'm a little confused.  With the "Raise a Shield" Shield Action is the implication that you have to raise your shield each round in order to gain its AC bonus?



That is the correct interpretation, you do have to raise your shield each round in order to gain its AC bonus. Keep in mind, +2 AC is a much bigger deal in this edition because it's not just a +10% chance of turning a hit into a miss, it's an equally increased chance of turning a critical hit into a normal hit (and a miss into a critical miss, but that distinction usually doesn't matter as much when it comes to attack rolls.) Also keep in mind the new action economy and the multiple attack penalty. What you're most likely trading for that +2 AC is one of your three attacks, which would have been made at a -10 penalty if you didn't move that turn, or one of your two attacks at a -5 penalty if you did.



benofwater said:


> What does an "Open" equipment trait mean?



As per the bottom of the sheet, the "Open" trait (which goes on actions, not equipment) means you can't use the action if you've already used an action with either the "Attack" or "Open" trait on the same turn. Basically, it's an opening move, so you can only use one of them each turn, and you have to use it before making any attacks.


----------



## mellored (Jul 15, 2018)

HomegrownHydra said:


> You don't win a battle by running around. Attacks are inherently worth more than movement because it's the attacks that end a battle. So the PF2 method isn't much different than Full Attacks from 3e/PF1 which similarly discouraged movement.



Except it is, because each action is independent, and caped at 3.

You have +6 to-hit vs 17AC.   So your first attack is 50% (45?).  That's something you want to take, as you say, damage wins.

The second attack is at -4/5.   So only 25% chance to hit, half the damage as the first action.

The third attack is with a -8/10 penalty.  Unless your facing a bunch of low level creatures, that's almost always going to miss.   So nearly any other action will be more valuable.

So you would very likely attack once, move once, and the last action is an interesting trade off.  100% more move vs 50% more damage vs raising a shield.


*This assumes they keep the AC and attack bonus scaling equal.  The other thing 3e has was attack scaled faster, scaling offense a lot.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

mellored said:


> Except it is, because each action is independent, and caped at 3.
> 
> You have +6 to-hit vs 17AC.   So your first attack is 50% (45?).  That's something you want to take, as you say, damage wins.
> 
> ...




That’s also assuming only the basic options. Feats will give you even more ways to use your actions. For instance, Valeros can spend two actions to double-move _and_ Attack, and his third to either attack again, raise his shield, or move even further. There’s plenty of incentive to stay mobile.


----------



## mellored (Jul 15, 2018)

Anyone know out how shield block is supposed to work?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

mellored said:


> Anyone know out how shield block is supposed to work?



Yup. You need to have raised your shield since the start of your last turn to use it. If you have, you can use your Reaction in response to being hit by an attack to reduce the damage from the triggering attack by an amount equal to the shield’s hardness, and the shield takes that much damage instead.

The rest is reminder text about how damage to objects works. If an object takes damage equal to or greater than its hardness in a single hit, it takes a “dent” (essentially a point of structure damage), or two dents if the damage wasvequal to or greater than twice its hardness. An object can take a certain number of dents before breaking (essentially its structure). If an object that has reached its maximum number of dents would take another dent, it becomes “broken”. It’s not entirely clear what the specific effects of being broken are, but presumably you just can’t use it until you get it repaired. If an object would take a dent while broken, it is destroyed and can no longer be repaired.

Valeros’s shield has 5 hardness and can take 1 dent before breaking.


----------



## mellored (Jul 15, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Yup. You need to have raised your shield since the start of your last turn to use it. If you have, you can use your Reaction in response to being hit by an attack to reduce the damage from the triggering attack by an amount equal to the shield’s hardness, and the shield takes that much damage instead.



so if you block 4 damage, then block 4 damage, then block 4 damage = shield took 12 damage as is now broken?

Or if your hit by 9 damage,  and block 5, but the hardness is 5 so the shield takes no damage?

Is it possible for the shield block more than 10 damage at once?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

mellored said:


> so if you block 4 damage, then block 4 damage, then block 4 damage = shield took 12 damage as is now broken?



No, I don’t think so. I believe if you block 4 damage, the shield does not take a dent, because 4 is not equal to or greater than the shield’s hardness. If you then block 4 damage again next round, the shield still does not take a dent because 4 is still not equal to or greater than its hardness. Think of hardness like damage reduction for objects.



mellored said:


> Or if your hit by 9 damage,  and block 5, but the hardness is 5 so the shield takes no damage?



No, if you are hit by 9 damage, the shield blocks 5 of it, which is equal to or greater than its hardness, but not equal to or greater than twice its hardness so it takes one dent and is not broken (but if you block another 5+ damage attack with it next round, it will would take a second dent and break). You take the remaining 4 damage.



mellored said:


> Is it possible for the shield block more than 10 damage at once?



I don’t think it’s possible for the shield to block more than 5 damage at once, since the shield block reaction only blocks damage equal to the shield’s hardness. But if someone attacks the shield in an attempt to break it and the attack deals 10 or more damage at once, then it would take two dents, which would break it.


----------



## mellored (Jul 15, 2018)

So...

1-4 = completly blocked, no dent.
5+ = block 5 damage and take a dent.

Seems a bit odd...


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

mellored said:


> So...
> 
> 1-4 = completly blocked, no dent.
> 5+ = block 5 damage and take a dent.
> ...




More odd than a skeleton (which has resistance 5 to piercing and slashing)?

1-5 = completely resisted, no HP loss.
6+ = resisted 5 damage and lose the remainder in HP.

I mean... this is pretty much the same way object damage worked in PF1, it’s just that dents are a bit more abstract than structure.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jul 15, 2018)

mellored said:


> So...
> 
> 1-4 = completly blocked, no dent.
> 5+ = block 5 damage and take a dent.
> ...




Seems sensible to me. (Shrug)


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jul 15, 2018)

I'm thrown by the term "Open", having played several games where the term is used to mean "open as in open-ended, with fewer timing restrictions than normal" rather than "open as in opening move, with more timing restrictions than normal". I'd pick another word with less potentially confusing ambiguity. Netrunner used "Priority" for the same effect. At the very least, "Open_er_" would be clearer on which meaning is intended.


----------



## Adso (Jul 15, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm thrown by the term "Open", having played several games where the term is used to mean "open as in open-ended, with fewer timing restrictions than normal" rather than "open as in opening move, with more timing restrictions than normal". I'd pick another word with less potentially confusing ambiguity. Netrunner used "Priority" for the same effect. At the very least, "Open_er_" would be clearer on which meaning is intended.




We threw around a lot of terms. In the end, we went with open as in the opening of your attack and its sister term, press, which must be used after you have already used an attack action that turn (including an open). So far we haven't seen any confusion with this terminology, but of course, we will keep looking at it as the playtest progresses.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 15, 2018)

These character sheets are neat and all, but when will we get to see how PF2 deals with the bard?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> These character sheets are neat and all, but when will we get to see how PF2 deals with the bard?




Probably soon. There are, what, 5 previews left before the playtest rules are released? And we’ve now had a preview blog for every class save the bard and the Druid. And we kind of saw the Druid at the banquet livestream. So the Bard has to be coming soon. I assume they must be holding it back because it’s got some big changes. Maybe it’s a non-caster? Or has some off-the-wall new nonvancian way of casting spells. Ooh, maybe it’s Psionic! That’d be weird. Or maybe they’re going really old-school and making Bard a Prestige Class.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Probably soon. There are, what, 5 previews left before the playtest rules are released? And we’ve now had a preview blog for every class save the bard and the Druid. And we kind of saw the Druid at the banquet livestream. So the Bard has to be coming soon. I assume they must be holding it back because it’s got some big changes. Maybe it’s a non-caster? Or has some off-the-wall new nonvancian way of casting spells. Ooh, maybe it’s Psionic! That’d be weird. Or maybe they’re going really old-school and making Bard a Prestige Class.



Well, we know that Occult is one of the 4 spell lists.  We don't have any caster that's primarily Occult yet (I'm assuming that Wizard is Arcane, Cleric is Divine, Druid is Primal, and Sorcerer is catch-all depending on bloodline.)  Bard is really the only class left, so I would believe that Bard is primarily Occult, unless Occult is specifically being used as add-on for certain class archetypes.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 16, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Well, we know that Occult is one of the 4 spell lists.  We don't have any caster that's primarily Occult yet (I'm assuming that Wizard is Arcane, Cleric is Divine, Druid is Primal, and Sorcerer is catch-all depending on bloodline.)  Bard is really the only class left, so I would believe that Bard is primarily Occult, unless Occult is specifically being used as add-on for certain class archetypes.



It could also be in there just for future-proofing, since I'm sure they'll eventually add more spell casting classes to the game. But yeah, you are probably right that the bard will use the Occult spell list.


----------



## Henry (Jul 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> More odd than a skeleton (which has resistance 5 to piercing and slashing)?
> 
> 1-5 = completely resisted, no HP loss.
> 6+ = resisted 5 damage and lose the remainder in HP.
> ...



No, I think I see what   [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] is saying - why would it not block 5 damage and take no dents if it’s hardness is 5? If it’s hardness is 4, I could understand it, but a hardness 5 thing takes no damage if it takes 5 damage...


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 16, 2018)

Henry said:


> No, I think I see what   [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] is saying - why would it not block 5 damage and take no dents if it’s hardness is 5?



Because that's what the rule says?



Henry said:


> If it’s hardness is 4, I could understand it, but a hardness 5 thing takes no damage if it takes 5 damage...



Good news, I have a solution for you. Take a pen. Cross out the number 5 on the sheet. Write a small number 6 above it.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Probably soon. There are, what, 5 previews left before the playtest rules are released? And we’ve now had a preview blog for every class save the bard and the Druid. And we kind of saw the Druid at the banquet livestream. So the Bard has to be coming soon. I assume they must be holding it back because it’s got some big changes. Maybe it’s a non-caster? Or has some off-the-wall new nonvancian way of casting spells. Ooh, maybe it’s Psionic! That’d be weird. Or maybe they’re going really old-school and making Bard a Prestige Class.



I hope so. The bard, for me at least, says a lot about an edition, as it seems that every single version of the bard varies between edition to edition: e.g., fighter/thief/druid, rogue/wizard, 6th level arcane caster, arcane leader, 9th level spell caster, etc. So I am curious how Paizo will choose to express the bard in Pathfinder 2. The bard felt like a persistent red-headed stepchild of 3rd Edition.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It could also be in there just for future-proofing, since I'm sure they'll eventually add more spell casting classes to the game. But yeah, you are probably right that the bard will use the Occult spell list.



You're not wrong, but it does seem odd to future-proof playtest material.  If it isn't used anywhere except the one bloodline of sorcerer, easy enough to leave out of the playtest.  So I have to assume it has other utility that we haven't seen yet.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 16, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> These character sheets are neat and all, but when will we get to see how PF2 deals with the bard?



Ask and you shall receive.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Ask and you shall receive.




I would also like a Pony.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Ask and you shall receive.



Full spellcasting occult spellcaster.  Makes sense.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I would also like a Pony.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I would also like a Pony.



Nah, that only works when I do it.


----------



## Bromjunaar (Jul 18, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Yup. You need to have raised your shield since the start of your last turn to use it. If you have, you can use your Reaction in response to being hit by an attack to reduce the damage from the triggering attack by an amount equal to the shield’s hardness, and the shield takes that much damage instead.
> 
> The rest is reminder text about how damage to objects works. If an object takes damage equal to or greater than its hardness in a single hit, it takes a “dent” (essentially a point of structure damage), or two dents if the damage wasvequal to or greater than twice its hardness. An object can take a certain number of dents before breaking (essentially its structure). If an object that has reached its maximum number of dents would take another dent, it becomes “broken”. It’s not entirely clear what the specific effects of being broken are, but presumably you just can’t use it until you get it repaired. If an object would take a dent while broken, it is destroyed and can no longer be repaired.
> 
> Valeros’s shield has 5 hardness and can take 1 dent before breaking.




Do you choose how much damage is done to the shield and how much is done to you, or does all go to the shield without the shield user getting any say in it?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 18, 2018)

Bromjunaar said:


> Do you choose how much damage is done to the shield and how much is done to you, or does all go to the shield without the shield user getting any say in it?




From the wording, it looks like as much damage as possible up to the shield's hardness goes to the shield and the remainder goes to you.


----------



## Erdric Dragin (Jul 18, 2018)

Wow, even more complexity? Now we gotta remember when to "raise shields" for defense and need actions for it? What exactly is the benefit of NOT having a shield raised? A flat shield bonus already took into account a shield providing defense. 

I don't understand this edition at all. Why do we need any of this again instead of fixing and enhancing what we already have? I can't wrap my head around it.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 18, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> From the wording, it looks like as much damage as possible up to the shield's hardness goes to the shield and the remainder goes to you.




I wonder if there's a way they could KISS it.

Lets say, a Shield has a Hardness 5.  That means when it takes damage, it "absorbs" in sets of 5.  Each time it takes 5 damage, that creates a "Dent" essentially reducing its hardness by 1.  A shield with 5 hardness can take 5 "dents".  So...

Raise your shield, it takes say 7 points.  The Shield eats 5 and gains a dent.  2 damage rolls over to you.  Your shields hardness is now 4.
Raise your shield later, lets say it takes 5 points.  It eats 4, gains a dent, and 1 rolls over to you.  Your shields hardness is now 3.
So on and so forth, each time taking less damage and allowing more (to use a MTG term) to Trample over to you.  
Eventually the shield takes enough damage to break and becomes useless (except maybe as a blunt object for the party barbarian to beat someone to death with).
But the shield would have, in total, absorb 15 damage.  About the same amount of HP as a level 1 character!
-Which IMO, does not seem unreasonable for the party defender.

Perhaps Fighters could have some kind of "Shield Mastery" feature, where their shield's Hardness increased equal to the Fighter's level, keeping shields relevant without needing "Super Shields of Incredible Defending +A Billion".

Not sure if PF2 is angling to include a loot grind.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 18, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> I wonder if there's a way they could KISS it.
> 
> Lets say, a Shield has a Hardness 5.  That means when it takes damage, it "absorbs" in sets of 5.  Each time it takes 5 damage, that creates a "Dent" essentially reducing its hardness by 1.  A shield with 5 hardness can take 5 "dents".  So...
> 
> ...



That seems far more complicated to me than the current system. You'd have to track maximum hardness, current hardness, maximum dents, and current dents, and the amount of damage a shield can absorb would be dependent on current hardness. As opposed to just having one fixed Hardness value that the shield takes a dent after absorbing.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 18, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> That seems far more complicated to me than the current system. You'd have to track maximum hardness, current hardness, maximum dents, and current dents, and the amount of damage a shield can absorb would be dependent on current hardness. As opposed to just having one fixed Hardness value that the shield takes a dent after absorbing.




Yeah, I was just kinda stream-of-consciousness writing there.  Didn't really realize how complicated I made it until looking back at it.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 18, 2018)

Erdric Dragin said:


> Wow, even more complexity? Now we gotta remember when to "raise shields" for defense and need actions for it? *What exactly is the benefit of NOT having a shield raised?* A flat shield bonus already took into account a shield providing defense.



An extra attack, movement, etc. You may be holding the shield, but not be as focused on using that shield for defense because you are prioritizing other actions.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 19, 2018)

I also feel like “what, even MORE complexity in Pathfinder???” ignores the fact that the entire action economy (among other things) was significantly streamlined.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 19, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I also feel like “what, even MORE complexity in Pathfinder???” ignores the fact that the entire action economy (among other things) was significantly streamlined.




And the fact that "complexity" seems to be something PF2 _wants_.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 19, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> And the fact that "complexity" seems to be something PF2 _wants_.



Not really. If they wanted complexity, the streamlining of things like the action economy run counter to that goal. No, what they want is depth, and they are comfortable with that depth coming at the cost of complexity. But they are also reducing complexity where it does not add depth.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 19, 2018)

Erdric Dragin said:


> Wow, even more complexity? Now we gotta remember when to "raise shields" for defense and need actions for it? What exactly is the benefit of NOT having a shield raised? A flat shield bonus already took into account a shield providing defense.
> 
> I don't understand this edition at all. Why do we need any of this again instead of fixing and enhancing what we already have? I can't wrap my head around it.



Because depth is FUN.  That's like asking why Street Fighter has all those different combos, or why does Starcraft have so many different units.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 19, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I also feel like “what, even MORE complexity in Pathfinder???” ignores the fact that the entire action economy (among other things) was significantly streamlined.




The thing that I dont really understand is that having streamlined the action economy, why do there seem to be so many different types of actions?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 19, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> The thing that I dont really understand is that having streamlined the action economy, why do there seem to be so many different types of actions?



You mean like “Stride,” “Strike,” “Step,” “Verbal/Somatic/Material Casting,” and “Interact Action”? Those are all just actions. The keywording allows them to interact with different rules, like how 5e has “Attack,” “Disengage,” “Dash,” “Cast a Spell,” etc. They’re not different types of actions, they’re just specific things you can do with one of your three actions.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 19, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> You mean like “Stride,” “Strike,” “Step,” “Verbal/Somatic/Material Casting,” and “Interact Action”? Those are all just actions. The keywording allows them to interact with different rules, like how 5e has “Attack,” “Disengage,” “Dash,” “Cast a Spell,” etc. They’re not different types of actions, they’re just specific things you can do with one of your three actions.




Yeah, the Action Interact Action or Action Operate Action ones.  The description ones like Stride at least make sense.


----------



## dco (Jul 19, 2018)

wow, 5 skills, one negative and you don't need to roll Athletics, how boring.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 20, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Yeah, the Action Interact Action or Action Operate Action ones.  The description ones like Stride at least make sense.




Those are descriptive ones too, they just have the word “action” after them. The same way that you can Strike with a longsword or Strike with a mace and both are Strikes, you can Interact with a door and you can Interact with a backpack and both are Interact Actions. You can Operate a smokestick and you can Operate a Cloak of Elvenkind, and both are Operate Actions.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 20, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Those are descriptive ones too, they just have the word “action” after them. The same way that you can Strike with a longsword or Strike with a mace and both are Strikes, you can Interact with a door and you can Interact with a backpack and both are Interact Actions. You can Operate a smokestick and you can Operate a Cloak of Elvenkind, and both are Operate Actions.




But you do not need "Operate" actions.  You can open a door, it costs one action.  You can search your backpack, it costs one action.  You can use a smokestick, it costs one action.  You can use a Potion of Dragons breath, it costs two actions.

Do you need to Action Operate Action a Door when there is a perfectly suitable word for opening a Door already?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 20, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> But you do not need "Operate" actions.  You can open a door, it costs one action.  You can search your backpack, it costs one action.  You can use a smokestick, it costs one action.  You can use a Potion of Dragons breath, it costs two actions.
> 
> Do you need to Action Operate Action a Door when there is a perfectly suitable word for opening a Door already?




You do if you want other rules to interact with all Operate Actions. You don't need to call opening a door an Operate Action in casual conversation, but having that keyword makes it possible to have rules like "You are Quickened and can use the extra action only to take Operate Actions."


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 20, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> You do if you want other rules to interact with all Operate Actions. You don't need to call opening a door an Operate Action in casual conversation, but having that keyword makes it possible to have rules like "You are Quickened and can use the extra action only to take Operate Actions."




My first impression is that it sounds like a way to stop people casting extra spells per round.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 20, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> My first impression is that it sounds like a way to stop people casting extra spells per round.




...Huh?


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 20, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> ...Huh?




Why would you give everyone three actions that they can use to do anything and then give them Quicken which only lets you do a specific action?

My first impression is to stop you from casting extra spells.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 20, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Why would you give everyone three actions that they can use to do anything and then give them Quicken which only lets you do a specific action?
> 
> My first impression is to stop you from casting extra spells.




Oh. Yeah, the point of Quickened only allowing you to use certain actions with your extra action is to restrict what actions you can do in one round. Go figure. You really latched onto that one example of rules text referencing a specific type of action, huh?


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 20, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Oh. Yeah, the point of Quickened only allowing you to use certain actions with your extra action is to restrict what actions you can do in one round. Go figure. You really latched onto that one example of rules text referencing a specific type of action, huh?




What are you going to cast this round?

Well I was thinking Quicken Action Operation Action 1  but maybe I should heighten it to Quicken Action Operation Action 2 so that I can open the Door and then shut it again.

You mean after you go through?

No, I can only do extra Action Operation Actions I dont get to do any extra Action Stride Actions.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 20, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> What are you going to cast this round?
> 
> Well I was thinking Quicken Action Operation Action 1  but maybe I should heighten it to Quicken Action Operation Action 2 so that I can open the Door and then shut it again.
> 
> ...




Or, you know, “I cast haste, then open the door, walk through it, and close it behind me.”
”Do you have enough actions to do all that?”
”Oh, I guess not, since I can’t Stride with that extra action. I’ll just leave the door open then.”
Like a normal human being.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 20, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Do you need to Action Operate Action a Door when there is a perfectly suitable word for opening a Door already?






Charlaquin said:


> Or, you know, “I cast haste, then open the door, walk through it, and close it behind me.”
> ”Do you have enough actions to do all that?”
> ”Oh, I guess not, since I can’t Stride with that extra action. I’ll just leave the door open then.”
> Like a normal human being.




That really sounds like something that I would say.  Oh wait.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 21, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> That really sounds like something that I would say.  Oh wait.




It’s almost like your use of hyperbole is so extreme it doesn’t actually illustrate your point. What was your point again?


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It’s almost like your use of hyperbole is so extreme it doesn’t actually illustrate your point. What was your point again?




I dont mind you disagreeing and on the other hand it would be helpful if you could at least remember what you were disagreeing with.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 21, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I dont mind you disagreeing and on the other hand it would be helpful if you could at least remember what you were disagreeing with.




I could, if you were presenting any kind of consistent point. You’ve been all over the place.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I could, if you were presenting any kind of consistent point. You’ve been all over the place.




I dont know what is so inconsistent about wanting to use Natural language instead of Jargon.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 21, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I dont know what is so inconsistent about wanting to use Natural language instead of Jargon.



Your posts, much like natural language, did not clearly communicate your intent.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Your posts, much like natural language, did not clearly communicate your intent.




OOOOO SNAP!

Seriously though.  We've all had the discussions over in the 5E forum about difficulty and confusion arising from the "natural language".  

The problem with "natural language" is that it can come across differently because of both internal (what's in the game book) context and external (the people reading/talking about it) contexts.  It especially becomes difficult when you start using the same word in different contexts within the game, such as an Attack (an action wherein you may make multiple attacks) and an attack (where you roll a d20 to hit) while you're making an attack (a contextual description that you're engaging in combat with someone).  Which can lead to such wonderful statements of "I make my attack with my Attack while I attack the orc."

_Again_ this is why I keep going back to MTG for reference.  "Jargon" can seem jarring at first and its easy to say "Why can't we just do things the way we've been doing them?" or "Why can't we just use "natural" language?" but the reality that even long-term MTG grogs came to realize, is that the jargon was _exceptionally_ helpful in clarifying what was going on and where it was happening.  "I Cast Cardname into the Battlefield from my Hand."  When before we always used "I play Cardname." and the rest was assumed.  The latter is natural, but unclear.  Casting is a specific action.  The Battlefield is a specific location.  The Hand is a specific location.  These are referenced in the jargon because it is important for _the game_ to know what Point A and Point B are and how Cardname got from A to B.

The same is true in PF2 (and all games really).  It's important from a mechanical viewpoint to know how you got from A to B and what A and B are.  

You don't _have_ to actually use the jargon.  Many MTG players still don't, but mostly because they're playing with other people who understand the natural language of "I play Cardname."  

You can always _walk_ up to the door instead of Stride and _turn the knob_ instead of Interact with an Object and attack your enemy instead of Strike them, as long as the people you're playing with understand how you're using the language.  But from the perspective of _the game_ it is important to know that mechanically you used a Stride to get to the door and an Object Interaction to open the door and then a Strike on the Crazy Cat Lady.


Yes yes I know I know I got TCG all up in your RPG.  Booo hiiisss.


----------

