The 10 MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES in the Pathfinder 2e Remaster! (Rules Lawyer)

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

My back is feeling so TENSE lately! =) ADDITIONS/ERRATA: "Enfeeble" having the Attack trait is strange. I honestly think it will be errata'd. Here are the previous things I've said that I mention in the video: "Does the Critical Specialization effect for hammers and flails need a nerf?" (10/28/21): www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/qhtwja/does_the_critical_specialization_effect_for/ "Let's fix RECALL KNOWLEDGE" (3/22/22): kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYi6eWx9n8uBfc0 "5 rules to ignore in Pathfinder 2e" (3/28/22): kzbin.info/www/bejne/onWWYXennZ6Xbc0 "Why Pathfinder 2e's removing the 8 schools of magic is a good thing" (8/10/23): kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnaueWt5aLtjiqc "10 things to FIX in the Pathfinder Remaster" (9/19/23): kzbin.info/www/bejne/gaLInYSjaJuljtU "Let's fix AID" (9/22/23): kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqe8q3dtd9OUbJI

[@chrono9288]

There's a few misprints I have noticed - GM core still makes reference to crafting having a 4 day startup at least once, the Gouging Claw cantrip doesn't have the cantrip trait, a few other things. There's also some definitely 'are you sure?' changes, like the talismans losing a lot of Free Action stuff - I do think that the idea behind it is that previously you weren't supposed to be able to use them on subordinate actions, for example. The wounded change is...interesting. I think there's probably some disagreement of interpretations on the dev team, because there was a note in the old CRB to add wounded when you failed a recovery check, but it was outside of where wounded was defined - the GM screen also had it. I don't think it will actually make much of a difference in practice, but the biggest problem is it makes Wounded 2 kind of a useless level of wounded? My change would be to make is so that when you gain dying by taking any damage, you added Wounded - this keeps recovery checks alone, while still increasing potential lethality. Definitely think all the class changes are buffs, the only one arguable is Wizard losing some variety, but their flavor scored a big win. Ruffian rogue now getting sneak attack with any weapons (but only on a martial or advanced if they are d6 or lower) is my dream come true. Brawling's crit spec is still completely worthless on a reactive strike, which continues to be annoying, I might change it to 'until the end of their next turn' instead of 'the start of your next turn'.

[@messyb2071]

I love the shade, you really are carrying paizo with those ideas

[@kevinpatrick6080]

Let's be honest, the Recall Knowledge changes go a long way towards fixing spellcasters. Previously, a caster could not really say, "I only want to know what the weakest save is" or "Are they immune to anything". Instead, the GM decided what information was most pertinent in the encounter. Most GMs I played with interpreted that as "most pertinent to the party", informing everyone that it has Swallow Whole or a Breath Weapon long before ever telling the Wizard that half his spells would be ignored... It sucked, especially considering the limited nature of spell slots. The fact that it was usually the spellcaster doing the Recall Knowledge heavy lifting, only to get no benefit from it was even worse. My Occult Sorcerer has a plethora of Poison and Mental spells... which happens to be some of the traits that have widespread immunities. It could suck at times to start Recall Knowledge fishing for what I could use in an encounter, get no useful information, and eventually use all the wrong spells with no chance of ever affecting the foes. The frustration was infuriating.

[@Ahglock]

I can see that being a issue, reducing table variances like that can help. it would never cross my mind as a DM to give anything other than resistance based information pertinent to the caster first in most cases. I can see in some niche situations where the party really needs to know about its secret death move or something going with that. But that would be exceedingly rare.

[@Quandry1]

I was always of a mind to give based on the player/character. If wizards do most of the work in PF2e then it should be mostly aimed at them unless they are the type to want different.

[@Shadow-bk1im]

For me I always ask the player doing the recall knowledge the information they want specifically.

[@jamesripley8031]

Perhaps I have been overly generous, but to me if a player spends a whole action to Recall Knowledge, I am very happy with that. It means a player is thinking about playing smart and tactical, rather than just walk up and attack blindly. So I would ask a player trying to Recall Knowledge whether they wanted to learn about offensive or defensive details, and I'd just give them everything from that category. If they want defenses, I'm giving best and worst save, any weaknesses and resistances, stuff like that. For offense, I'm letting them know about key spells (though only on a crit if it's a caster that's not super famous), any fancy attacks, all of that stuff. Maybe I'm overly generous, but I've also trained my players to actually use Recall Knowledge, and even as a person who loves this aspect of the game, there's GMs that I just don't use the action with when I'm a player because they don't give me enough information for it to be worth my while to spend an action.

[@artstsym]

And meanwhile on the GM end, it wasn't fun having someone like an investigator constantly trying to recall knowledge after they'd already tried once (because of abilities that gave them mechanical bonuses), trying to determine exactly how much info I should parcel out. Now, it feels great. Ask me anything! I'll give you exactly what you asked for (pursuant to your actual knowledge of that subject).

[@LordRenegrade]

One thing I didn't mention before (during the video that discussed Aid Another) is that I personally think Aid Another should be easier for the aiding person than the main check is for the person actually doing the action. Is a nurse as capable as a surgeon at surgery? Hell no. Can they successfully aid a surgeon? Absolutely! I would have made the DC of the Aid action to be the DC of the main action being aided, minus 5. That is, if someone's doing a DC 18 check, it's only DC 13 to aid them. I think it also makes sense from a balance perspective: it's not like you're duplicating the action, you're trashing a reaction AND action to ... add maybe as much as +4 to the roll? Usually a lot less? The harder it is to succeed at Aid Another, the less viable it becomes compared to just attempting the main action yourself (where possible).

[@Can-uj5pv]

That was exactly what I was thinking of implementing in my Kingmaker game as well! Great minds think alike, eh?

[@SandClockMan]

I think the best homebrew for aid is: the dc should be the same as the check you aid for and then you give +1 if it's failure, +2 if success, +3 if critical success and -1 if critical failure. That's it. +1 is good enough, +2 if your PC really knows what he's doing and +3 for critical is because +4 is too much at higher levels.

[@malkyn9998]

I initially liked the DC-5, but that actually hurts late-game Aid in a big way. If a nat 1 can always inflict a -1 and the most frequent payoff stays a +1, the cost of an action and a reaction makes frequency use fall off a cliff. Nowadays I recommend ignoring whatever one's proficiency level is and just use the Simple DC chart to determine the bonus given, nat 1s and 20s adjust accordingly. Example: roll an attack to Aid an ally, get a nat 20 for a 28 total. 20 beats Simple Expert, so a +2. Nat 20 bumps a category, so you give a +3, even if you're only trained in the underlying skill. Similar token, roll a nat 1, still got a 23 total, that's a +2 base, but downshift 1 so you provide a +1. Makes the roll matter into the late game but makes it unlikely you'll hurt your ally, you just might help less. I do similar with Medicine checks because a legendary doctor shouldn't have a 5% chance to trip and stab a party member when Battle Medicining.

[@TacticusPrime]

But even +1 to an important role can be all the difference. You could even turn a regular success into a critical success.

[@malkyn9998]

@@TacticusPrime No one is saying a +1 isn't useful. But especially as level goes up, the opportunity cost of an action and a reaction goes way up, so the scaling keeps it worth using.

[@Animaznman]

0:00 - Intro 2:22 - #13: Spell Buffs? 3:32 - #12: New Character Sheet 4:05 - #11: Hammer/Flail Nerf 5:11 - #10: Simplified Spellcasting 6:35 - #9: Shield Runes 7:50 - #8: Buffing Disarm 8:56 - #7: Easier Crafting 10:14 - #6: Changing Recall Knowledge 12:50 - #5: Change to Aid 14:42 - #4: Universal Spellcasting Proficiency 16:40 - #3: No Alignment 19:54 - #2: No longer 8 Magic Schools 22:15 - #1: Buff to Focus Spells 26:47 - Closing Statement That's a lot of back patting, sir. You might want to invest in a back patting machine.

[@ericcooke2661]

I think the +4 aid change is fine because at higher levels, sacrificing an action and reaction is much more costly, and Aid at this point would be to try to confirm a critical more than just a success.

[@swingspst]

Fake Out doesn’t require the action however. Will be nerfed at my tables

[@deadpoolegor]

How it can be more costly at higher levels ?

[@Slysheen]

Opportunity cost. Higher level characters have more powerful and specialized uses for their actions that they have to sacrifice to aid instead of using them for a second or third attack that will likely miss at low levels.

[@Captainpigraven]

@@deadpoolegorBecause at higher levels most players are going to have their reactions spoken for via feats or inherent class abilities. That’s most definitely the case with martials. Most martials can pick up their Reactive Strike variation by level 8, some even at 4 (ex: Monk), or 6 (ex: Barbarian). These tend to be some of the most prime options for these characters. Some characters will even completely build around these reactions. Most of said martials will also pick up a different reaction option or two for when their reactive strike isn’t applicable. The Monk, for example, has a bazillion really good combat options for their reaction. Meanwhile, spellcasters are often in search of a really good reaction each round and are more likely to be willing to use it on an Aid check. But in many such cases, they might not be Master or Legendary in a particular relevant skill. So even on a Crit the bonus tops out at +2. Creating a diversion is a common choice in my campaigns, often via the Create A Diversion skill action. But even many Charisma-based spellcasters will bypass boosting their Deception proficiency beyond Trained if it doesn’t otherwise play a big role in their character concept. There are a few “cheat” builds, primarily as options for Bards, Swashbucklers, and anyone MCing into one of those classes. But those classes, Bard in particular, is support-heavy both mechanically and conceptually, so it works out. Anyone can MC into those classes to pick up the relevant “cheat” feats, but you’ll need at least a +2 Charisma attribute modifier to do it. Plus you’re spending your feats on those options over other options, so it falls in line with most other balanced choices.

[@MiphSylvan]

Completely agree. Also worth mentioning that there is still some suspense, in that the main action that is being aided can still fail, even with the benefit of the aid effectively automatically succeeding.

[@Eddrian32]

Regarding the Aid rules, I think a big part of it is that you're *supposed* to be critically succeeding at higher levels, considering you spend an action and a reaction to grant the bonus

[@christianmichaels5162]

I wonder if the reason Paizo didn’t add scaling to the Aid reaction, despite almost certainly knowing what change the community has been asking for, is because they actually expect players to use it and want them to succeed that often. We know that they want to emphasize teamwork, so perhaps it's their intention that as the PCs level up that they get increasingly competent and reliable at aiding each other. Additionally, the Action + Reaction investment is a pretty high cost to Action Economy, so making the effect really powerful could be assuring the player that it's worth it.

[@PlatonicLiquid]

Right, thinking in terms of attack rolls, a lot of support characters don't have much to do with their 3rd action after a few turns, so it feels much better to Aid instead of Striking uselessly for low damage. And for martials who have a higher proficiency, it is a big investment. Also for skill checks outside combat, it gives an incentive to continue to double up on skill training, which is also a huge investment. They probably should have changed the Crit Success to only give a +2 if you are Expert, and restricted it to the same type of check besides for special exceptions, but overall it makes aspects of the game feel better at lower levels

[@Zyrodil]

Thanks for uploading these. I'm a GM that usually GM Fantasy Flight's 40k games, Fragged Empire and Call of Cthulhu 7e. Just recently I've been invited to be a Player in a Pathfinder 2E campaign and I have to say I'm really impressed with how intuitive the system is compared to 5e D&D. I'm playing a little Pumpkin Leshy who looks like a super cute little creature but acts like a brooding Call of Cthulhu investigator. The other people in the party are a Cleric who's very closed off, very secretive and yet very holy looking, an Automaton Maid (Monk) who lost her Master and now seeks to punish evil doers, and finally, a Fletchling Gunslinger who has an eye for adventure, profits and tinkering with his guns. _I live in a backpack._

[@Cyraneth]

Excellent coverage, Ronald. You’re quickly becoming my go-to channel for PF2 news.

[@megavore97]

My one counterargument for aid being “too good” at higher levels is that at high levels, characters have so many options that spending both an action and a reaction to aid is fairly steep price and has a high opportunity cost. I finished GMing Fists of the Ruby Phoenix earlier this fall and even with an item that the AP rewards (Headbands of Translocation, reprinted in Treasure Vault as a common item) which let you aid with ONLY a reaction, aid still didn’t feel too egregious to me.

[@HenshinFanatic]

Besides, only Fighters and Gunslingers can really give a +4 on attack rolls.

[@DraconianMeasures]

​@@HenshinFanaticyou can aid with skills other than attack rolls

[@HenshinFanatic]

@@DraconianMeasures true, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

[@iranoutofideasforausernam1703]

​@@HenshinFanatic You can aid an attack with something other than attack proficiency, such as Diplomacy with One for All.

[@HenshinFanatic]

@@iranoutofideasforausernam1703 is that something new in the remaster? Because I've never heard of it.

[@beldaras6787]

My group just did session 0 yesterday for pf2e and are starting a Strength of Thousands campaign on Sunday. Im pretty excited. Thanks for all the great videos.

[@queenannsrevenge100]

That's what I love about Ronald's videos - he doesn't feel the need to pat himself on the back😂 Awesome, and thank you for the update!

[@climbernerd5995]

I actually think the ease of critical success on aid actions is a good thing. So I'm gonna put forward a defence of it here: There are broadly 2 categories of circumstance aid might come up in that operate quite differently: Encounter mode and Exploration mode. In Encounter mode I feel that we need those bonuses to be large enough and reliable enough that higher level characters can justify the action cost of aiding. In Exploration mode I feel that we need those bonuses to be high so that multiple characters investing in the same skill doesn't feel redundant. Personally I feel this second reason is more important than we (most players and GMs including myself) typically realise. Because players all the time come to tables wanting to play characters with similar abilities and having a powerful and reliable aid reaction helps to ensure that we never end up in the old 1e situation of "Oh... Well I was gonna play as an charismatic elven emissary, but we already have a silver tongued enchanter so I'd be redundant. I guess I'll think of something else...". It helps to secure one of Pathfinder 2e's greatest virtues as a system which is that the system (/Paizo) work very hard to ensure that player's can always play (and really 'feel') any character they come up with (so far as possible). Now you could achieve this same level of strength for the aid action while still including a degree of uncertainty and I'd be curious to hear about potential ways to do that. However the disadvantage of that is if you increase the risk, and want to keep the same potency the same, you need to increase the reward. And with the rewards already being quite high and aid being so broadly applicable I worry that it might end up breaking too far out of normal maths assumptions. That wouldn't always be an issue but because aid is so broadly applicable I worry that it might end up interacting with an unusual rule system, build, or unusual part of a campaign in a way that breaks something. Perhaps moving higher bonuses down into successes would work with scaling DCs however? Or having a scaling difficulty balanced around having a small chance to succeed (instead of crit succeed)? Each in order to introduce some uncertainty without altering the potency of the action much. But see my final point for a criticism even of those methods. I don't actually think I mind assurance or the flat DCs removing the uncertainty from an aid check. It isn't on the campaign influencing check itself (only on the aid check to provide a bonus to that check) so it isn't going to remove suspense for everyone or from the scene in general (/for everyone) and I think that the aiding player is likely to be involved enough with the rp of their method of aiding and invested enough in the other character's (still uncertain) check that their experience won't suffer from the lack of randomness on their own check. Finally I think that one significant issue with giving aid scaling DCs and greater uncertainty is specifically that it makes them seem similar to the checks they are aiding. While it's not necessarily a 'rational' thing I think that if the aid check 'feels' similar to the check itself then we invite "Eurgh! I could have just rolled the check myself!" type feelings (and when a players roll well no less). While having aid become an action you can do because you're good at a skill that "just helps" and doesn't really feel like a check at all

[@Quandry1]

To me aid is potentially s lot more valuable if you know you will give something to the other person and potentially do so with things you are less good with that might aid them. Particularly for the action cost.

[@climbernerd5995]

@@Quandry1 Good point! Especially, you highlight that this makes the use of aid more productive with less good skills as well which hadn't even occurred to me but has multiple positive benefits. It leads (ofcourse) to more use of aid (which is good, cus collaboration creates the fun)). It leads to more players being involved in scenarios even when that scenario is somewhat outside their skill set (like skill scenarios eg. library research) (which is good cus... we want players to get to play? and more collaboration again). And it even helps to make characters' non-primary skills being redundant!

[@brianlane723]

22:00 A loophole I discovered playing an evoker wizard - You can use a bonus spell slot to prepare a staff.

[@francescocazzola2440]

These are all great changes, I'm positively surprised by the disarm buff in all honestly, and I love Aid so I'm happy for that buff aswell. I will however say the thing I've said a couple times already in other occasions, removing spells schools is a way to make wizard design more free, but it's not necessarily the only way. Pf1 wizard is bound to the 8 schools but still has 43 options to choose from (31 "normal" schools and 12 elemetal), so while this is definitely the easiest option it wasn't the only one. And we all know the real reason why they had to remove schools to begin with. Anyway, can't wait to hear more info about the remaster!

[@evrypixelcounts]

I like the change to disarm, it'll be a nice boon for swashbucklers and rogues, but did they change the fascinated condition? As is currently stands feats and spells that grant the fascinated condition are pretty under tuned compared to other conditions.

[@Ramperdos]

My current character is focused on Recall Knowledge and Crafting, so all around great news.

[@Stephen-Fox]

As someone in a PF2e group, but who mostly plays those 'genuinely rules light' systems you keep mentioning in your videos to emphasize that 5e isn't actually rules light, removal of alignment is the change I'm most looking forward to. In the systems I'm used to, if it had anything comparable to alignment it would be a broad adjective or short sentence (or multiple) that you could look down and use to figure out how I should play my character in a situation where I'm not sure how they'd act. I'm not in _love_ with Edicts and Anathemas - they feel a bit too _specific_ to me. Still, they're a far better tool for roleplay than 'chaotic good' or 'lawful neutral' since the issue of being too specific is a lot less of a problem (and comes with the side benefit that the GM can put characters in situations where two of their edicts/anathemas are in opposition to each other, and... That's a recipe for juicy roleplay moments) than being too abstract as alignment often feels to me. (And I kind of needed to put about as much work to figure out a character's alignment as I'd need to work out a character's edicts and anathemas, so taking them isn't going to be any more work in creating a character, it's just going to result in something on the sheet I can use in some situations, and my GM can use, rather than resulting in vague nonsense that feels too abstract to have any meaning but has mechanical impact.)

[@pynk_tsuchinoko8806]

The aid changes are really nice but I totally agree there needed to be some more detail regarding task difficulty or level based DC. I know most will say "but your the GM you can adjust it" you're right, but the amount of times I GM fir players you who expect the DC to be the suggested one and are annoyed when it's not say otherwise that's all. I think over all it's better for low level play and the beginner box which is a net gain.

[@hellfrozenphoenix13]

How I would rule it myself is bigger bonus tied to higher DC. So for the basic +1, it's dc15. Then for +2, it's DC20 or DC25. And Crits are 1 more than the attempted check, making it a risk reward system. And getting a hard dc40 or dc45 check at legendary and getting a +5 would be so satisfying!

[@thatguydownthestreat]

You know what's a surprisingly REALLY indepth and SUPER crunchy potential video idea? Ranger animal companion feats and their interactions with the Beast Master archetype. you'd Think that these are super synergistic, but there are so many nuanced difficulties when trying to interact between the two, and I'm really not entirely sure how they are supposed to react to each other, especially when using the Free Archetype alternate rule system.

[@mr.cauliflower3536]

You deserve those pats for suggesting good changes. But do you know who also deserves pats? The people who listened and fixed those issues. And do you know who does not deserve back pats? People who were doing a huge revamp of their rules, perhaps even a whole new edition, and did not make many changes which people wanted.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

Ikr? I am baffled that they retracted the Exhaustion changes that were almost universally praised

[@opscontaylor8195]

@@TheRulesLawyerRPG - Probably too hard to code for their planned internal VTT. Almost every move I have seen them make is trying to make a VTT with a season pass model out of it for monthly income.

[@GMRayJ36]

Another great one Ronald! Thnx 👊 🤓 Looking forward to all your deep dives into the Remaster. I really appreciate your cansor, and smile often at your sarcasm. 😅

[@ZombieApocalypse09]

I feel like in order to solve the desire to shape a build around getting 3 focus spells quickly I might just house rule at my table that if you have at least one focus spell then at level 2 you have a minimum of 2 points and at level 3 you have 3 focus points. No reason to force a player to do build acrobatics to try to rush to 3 points.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

I think that's a pretty good idea, tho maybe make 3 points available at Level 4 when feats are taken

[@blobjorn3248]

That could make classes like the Psychic feel a little less cool.

[@79AlienFinger79]

Wait, so no changes to Slow *or* Synesthesia? That's wild. I love that your Spellcasting DCs are shared now, though :)

[@realdealsd]

Regarding Aid, it's probably fine. Yes, you can get an automatic +3 by being a master in the skill, but that means you have 2 masters in that skill in your party. That shouldn't be that common.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

One of my concerns is that some skills can be pretty universally applicable (they don't have to match the main check). "I give encouraging words [Diplomacy]" or "I distract the enemy to help your attack [Deception]" are pretty broadly applicable

[@realdealsd]

@@TheRulesLawyerRPG GM decides which skills are applicable, so in some case yes, but as the GM you are going to have to convince me specifically how they will help. Encouraging words are not going to be allowed at my table unless you can give me a really good reason how it directly contributes.

[@lassesandstone8961]

Are you sure about the attack roll not being needed on Enfeeble? The spell still has the attack trait, which normally would indicate that an attack roll is needed.

[@lizzy532]

I think that might have been an oopsie on Paizo's side. Usually, when a spell has the attack trait, it'll specifically call out in the spell's text (make a spell attack roll), which the old enfeeblement did. The new one simply states that the creature needs to make a fortitude save. I think if they intended to keep it having an attack roll, it would make that specification like they do with every other that has the attack trait. 030

[@madhippy3]

It might also add to Map without an actual roll. We do see this with actions like power attack which is one attack but two for map. But it is probably an oversight.

[@TonganJedi]

Some abilities have the attack trait but don't require actual attack rolls. The attack trait associates the ability to the multiple-attack penalty.

[@realdealsd]

Could be that the rules are now baked into the trait rather than having to be spelled out for each spell: Attack: If you cast a spell with this trait, attempt a ranged spell attack against the target. If you succeed, that creature creature is affected by the spell. If you critically succeed on your attack roll, the spell deals double damage. If the spell has this trait and also allows a save, use the outcome for one degree of success worse than the result of its save if you critically succeeded on the attack roll.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

@@TonganJedi What are some examples?

[@SheenaTigerspielt]

I am slightly confused about crafting and not needing a common formula anymore. You never had to get those separately if you simply bought the book as it contained all formulas for all common items... and was dirt cheap, some even got it for free. To me it reads as if they simply removed the formula-book.

[@Alex319]

The basic crafter's book only has formula's for level 0 common items, not all common items

[@stuartalt7418]

You don't need a formula to craft the Common items, but if you do possess the formula the time to craft said item is reduced.

[@icefirepython]

That one only gave all the formulas for 0th level common items, not ALL common items.

[@wap23]

Formula book only gave formulas for equipment from chapter 4/ No u can craft any magic item from lvl 1-20 without formula< unless it has uncommon or a rare trait.

[@Fyre11]

That was an error and got errata'd. Like other people are saying, the book is level 0 items only, so pretty much no magic items, alchemy or cool equipment.

[@pacattack2586]

One thing I really hope is that they fixed the Alchemist (Listen - if your going to have a build specifically named 'toxicologist ' in your Alchemist class - I shouldn't need a gosh darn poisoner archtype to actually make it work worth anything - give me non-bomb feats before level 10)

[@BotchFrivarg]

Thinking about it, I would say the re-adjustment of the focus spells is also a (slight) boon to the animal companion using classes, making it possible to keep your companion more easily topped off (since you can cast it more than once per combat more easily), this then also makes the other feats giving focus spells more interesting due to them granting the much needed focus points (besides the spells themselves)

[@Feragore]

Hopefully the planned post-APG class errata comes with the book release; psychics have lost a bunch of their toys relative to other casters, including where maybe they have to speak now. Disarm is interesting now though and I'm glad they rephrased that one dwarf edict, used to be something like "Destroy your enemies"

[@OldCodgerCoA]

No attack roll hurts Magus, who needs spells that use a spell attack roll in order to work with the normal Spellstrike.

[@theforlornknight]

Enfeeble doesn't call for an attack roll, but still has the Attack trait? Sounds like something was missed.

[@Mark73]

When GM picks a skill to roll Recall Knowledge for, I think they should have to tell the player which skill they picked. The character would know what prompted them to come to the recollection they did, wouldn't they? Thoughts?

[@aidankircher8865]

Did they remove the ability to spend additional days to reduce the price with crafting? I dont see it mentioned in the screengrab of the new Crafting you showed. If its not, I wonder if they touched the Earn Income table it went off of.

[@AdderMcBannon]

Any word on how the crafting changes affect Alchemist? If it's applicable to their daily free crafting, just the ability to get ALL the common recipes at level saves a huge amount of gold for learning their formulas and also greatly expands their already high versatility.

[@ThePF2EWizard]

I wonder how psychics will be reflected in the revision. One of their shticks was replacing verbal components with mind components. Thus, in situations where you couldn't speak, they were actually still capable of casting spells. It's a small thing that rarely came up, but it's neat to be underwater or trapped in a gelatinous cube and still be able to cast spells simply because you were projecting your will through your mind rather than speaking. I'd probably still run it this way, I'm just curious if they'll change the language to reflect this. Psychic may or may not be one of my favorite classes. I'm excited for the revision! They made a lot of great changes to the system. I've already employed some of them even before the revision came out.

[@PlatonicLiquid]

Not to mention another one of their schticks was 2 amped cantrip per combat instead of 1. Oracle has the same problem but worse since they essentially got free refocus feats, and their focus spell casts are limited by their curse. We'll see in the second book I guess

[@ThePF2EWizard]

@@PlatonicLiquid Also good points, thanks for mentioning them!

[@natthebug2]

Haha I'm glad you got validation for your (at the time) hot takes! Those are well-deserved pats on the back.

[@agsilverradio2225]

I love the new character-sheet, and I like the buffs to crafting and focus-point-regeneration, because I would like to be able to use those abillitys more. I dislike the removal of allignment and schools of magic, edit: because it makes spells harder to CtrF if you don't know the spell's name. ... edit 2: I'm also unsure if any caster buffs were nessisarry; expecially giving bards more weapon proficencys. It's fine for rogues thoguh. I say this as a wizard main.

[@sparklingwater925]

Alignment lacked nuance and was restrictive. Glad it's gone.

[@ShadowAraun]

​@@sparklingwater925it didnt lack nuance, people just didnt understand it. There a different types of lawful, there are different types of good and evil and chaotic.

[@sparklingwater925]

@@ShadowAraun All up for interpretation by the DM and never clarified satisfyingly.

[@agsilverradio2225]

​​​​@@sparklingwater925 You both have a point there. Allignment is only seen as restrictive because it's poorly understood; because it's only poorly understood because it's never well explained.

[@eliburry-schnepp6012]

I'm so grateful for focus spells being buffed because as it was, a lot of very iconic class features became WAY more limited than they ever had been before

[@rayvalkren1950]

I believe the main crux about recall knowledge was whether you can recall knowledge after u fail the first one or not since some people take the "recall additional knowledge" section to apply to the first recall knowledge check whether or not it was successful or not (based on different people's opinions on what "additional knowledge" constitutes

[@PlatonicLiquid]

I was wondering if there is clarification for followup Recall Knowledge checks now? If you fail a question I assume you can't ask the same question again, but are you allowed to ask a different but related question? (as currently if you fail once against a creature you can't try again, unless I've been running that wrong).

[@Magicwillnz]

The best change from WotC to Paizo is actual, non-AI art.

[@RedsByrd]

For wizards school they should just make the required spells flexible so that any battle spell can be prepared in any of your free slots. For example a battle wizard would be able to just prepare breathe fire in every one of the free school slots.

[@Delboy_1999]

I’m surprised that’s not how it’s meant to work anyway. Isn’t a wizard’s whole shtick that they can freely heighten spells that they have learned

[@zachw9656]

@@Delboy_1999That is how it works, @RedsByrd is just misunderstanding Ronald's criticisms a little bit. Since Wizards get an extra slot at every level from their school, a level 20 Wizard will be stuck with at least one Rank 1 Breathe Fire/Force Barrage/Mystic Armor, which is wholly useless to them. There are other "evergreen" spells which retain their usage across all levels, even in Rank 1 slots, such as Gust of Wind. A lot of the Curriculums lack evergreen spells, perplexingly.

[@nikidelvalle]

I dunno why they even kept the concept of 12th-level feats that allow you to refill your entire focus pool, but don't do anything else. If Refocus is an unlimited activity all that feat now does is save you 20 minutes. For a 12th-level feat, that feels terrible.

[@megavore97]

Mileage may vary imo. Before, those feats felt pretty mandatory at 12th & 18th level if you wanted to rely on Focus spells a lot. Now, it’s a nice perk, but you don’t have to take it if something is more enticing for a focus caster.

[@Captainpigraven]

Honestly, that’s just Paizo being Paizo, lol. I understand having a feat like this still, but it should have been available much earlier. As you said, it’s really only saving 20 min. Fine for certain dungeons and when the GM is feeling salty and opts for a series of ambush-style attacks I guess. But otherwise completely useless. And being level 12 is just Paizo staying true to their character.

[@PsyrenXY]

The new spell schools are interesting, grouping them more by function than theme.

[@austinblake4079]

I may get flak, but I always just ruled aid as an automatic bonus lol. Trained = +1, expert = +2, etc. No check needed to aid, just the necessary actions/time spent doing so.

[@eamk887]

If this works at your table, I think it's completely fine to run it like this. However, I think you fail to see how big of an impact a +1, especially a +2 or +3, has on the game. A youtuber once made a video about calculating the power of a simple +1, and he came to the conclusion that a single +1 on attacks raised its potential damage by up to 25%. That has a pretty big impact on combat.

[@austinblake4079]

@@eamk887 Yah? So the result is, they may kill a monster possibly 1 turn faster some % of the time? Having a check need is just unnecessary hoops to slow the game down. I didn't fail to realize anything. and am fully aware of the "tight math" of this game. YOU are awfully presumptuous.

[@eamk887]

@@austinblake4079 I'm really not trying to be mean here, I just don't think you fully grasp how big of an impact a +2 has if you're giving them away for free to players. Like, Courageous Anthem/Inspire Courage is a spell that only Bards can cast (and which, btw, is considered one of the best spells in the game), that gives a +1 bonus to rolls, which last for one round, so doesn't an action, that literally anyone can use, that gives possibly up to +4 for the same cost, with an additional reaction cost, sound a bit unbalanced? But again, if it works at your table, you are completely free to run it this way. And really, liking your own comments? Dude, why?

[@austinblake4079]

@@eamk887 Damn everyone is treating this system like its a damn video game. Balance lmao. Barbarian/Ranger goes bleh, Fighter goes brrr, I'm not concerned about balance when the system isn't. Oh NO! I stepped on the Bards toes who... is not... even in my group of players? Hahahaha yeah I liked my own comment, it's the internet, we're screaming into the void and the points literally dont matter hahahaha. Why do you even care lol

[@eamk887]

@@austinblake4079 I mean, you yourself said that P2e has tight math, one of the main reasons why the math is so tight is in order to make the game balanced. But if you, and your players, don't care about balance, once again, you are free to play the game however you want. And if the points don't matter to you, why do you even bother upvoting yourself? I mean, if they really didn't matter to you, you wouldn't waste time upvoting your own comments, would you?

[@TheMexRAGE]

Fighter's (and Duelist dedication) Disarming Twist gonna be far more useful now

[@Nanan00]

Instead of refocus and spells per level just going to a mana pool and making spells cost mana would make more sense in that you could spend an extra point to focus a spell or channeling spells could cost say 3 points to cast and 1 point per round to channel.

[@astrid2432]

6:30 technical as most heal spells will come from clerics, they can use a religious symbol as material compounment the thing is: with a feat you can use a shield as a symbol, so probally most already solved it like that 19:10 I usual give my characters a deity or pantheon, trying to find one who fits the concept/the principles of it and the allignment of how my character is at the moment I play a dwarfen ganzi gunslinger who comes from alkenstar/dongun hold who left home to help around and somehow landed in otari as a hunter or something like that in the swamps doing smaller stuff for the village and keep an eye at the swamp. and allingment would be chaotic good, as it represent the ganzi part and the "being more outside of a village as inside" - but at the same time he would defend these one he was close to or liked that was represented via the deity/pantheon "demon bringers". thought first a dwarf god, but nobody would fit who would let CG, so I took demon bringer, as dwarf was included via torag and my dwraf lifed close enough for that to work and it fits into the: protecting and going out hunting part and the change to edicts and anathema wouldn't affect to much, as I usual go after "which way of representation would fit the best" and the allignment was just a small part heck in the campaign I'm not really sure how well I fit into CG xD

[@haydenhuffines8648]

Any chance you can chime in on the Alchemist remaster? Especially after this much time has passed since the Treasure Vault. There's plenty of focused (enough) talk on the pf2e forum discussing its issues and potential improvements, and even if you don't think you have the specific experience w/ the topic, you can get up to speed very quickly. Lots to dig into, such as the odd spot of being both a prepared !caster and a spontaneous !caster, being a Martial with lower accuracy (making everyone else better at using their bombs & injury poisons), ect. I'm partial to the idea of a Feat/Feature that would enable them to hold multiple L items in each hand, meaning they still need the Draw action, but get much more out of that action cost. I'm not a super big fan of all the action-skipper Feats, but enabling all/1 p turn free Draw is the most common house rule / suggested change for a reason.

[@haydenhuffines8648]

@@satyavankepper9505 That's the idea, there's still time for ideas spread by TRL to affect the outcome of what's printed in the book.

[@Turnyourtruth42]

My table has been playing the focus point rule since it was leaked some months ago. So far it really hasn't changed encounters too much. We still have very difficult challenges. I play a monk. Playing with a full focus pool really has made the game more engaging. To those saying it removes a need for resource management, we've had several encounters back to back at different points since we started playing that have prevented refocusing beyond 1 point. This has put into the mind to be strategic still about use of the full pool. Most of the time it is still possible to get it back but it provides a fun dynamic of thinking about location and where we are after the encounter.

[@slb797]

So for the “dead spell slot”, related to schools, perhaps something like the multiclass dedications where if you have spell slots X ranks below your max spell rank, it is simply a free spell slot, you can put in anything you can cast into that slot. This will permit in the shown example of battle wizard to maybe use the 1st rank slot for a more utility spell. Probably max spell rank minus 3 it becomes free to any spell you can cast as part of your class or something

[@ShizaanSil]

Could you please consider putting chapters in the video? This is one of those that i will definitely look for specific stuff for a while

[@3_14pie]

in my games, I let the aided player choose how hard the aid will be, and I always use standard DC for the level. if the aided player choose a harder DC, I increase the benefit from aid and the penalty for critical fail accordingly, and if the player want an easier aid, I lower the benefit and the penalty (it becomes basically the same thing as the standard DC on average, but my players don't know that)

[@Mushezable]

Looking forward to Witch changes. Hopefully it can give my familiar more agency than just knowledge checking.

[@FireBorn790]

So Enfeeble doesn't need an attack roll... and yet it has the Attack trait? So if you Enfeeble soemthing then shoot it with a bow you suffer MAP, I wodner if that's intentional and designed to make you think about the roder of your actions...?

[@archmagemc3561]

There are some monsters in some modules that have Regeneration that can only be turned off by Chaos or Law damage. So the only way to kill them is to hit them with alignment damage. So those will have to be changed since they weren't good or evil, just lawful or chaotic.

[@cheezeofages]

Prefacing this with clarification that my intended tone isn't as harsh as this might come across. This is just me talking passionately about a subject, not trying to attack: I don't really consider the RK thing to be changes. Just clarification. How would you use the action that describes itself as recalling specific information without asking a question? How is the GM supposed to know what specific information you are trying to recall? That question then gives you a clearer idea what to give and often falls into the one result per successful check and a bit more on a crit of basic actions. Why would you be locked into randomly guessing what skill is applicable for a check you don't even roll and then fail if you guessed wrong? That would make so many checks fail. Plus it's a Secret check that the GM decides what skills are applicable. If the GM takes your pick as a suggestions and then allows another skill every thing is fixed. All these "changes" are just natural conclusions to make from the old wording and all the problems listed with Recall Knowledge rely on assuming Paizo wrote something that's complete nonsensical gibberish that doesn't function. A while ago I posted the clarifications on Reddit when they were previewed (you cited the thread in a prior video) and the VAST majority of comments and the ones with massive upvotes were all to the effect of "Oh, nothing's changing then. I already ran it exactly this way." & "This is how I thought it worked already" with big push back against the couple of people saying it didn't work this way before. Because it's the only possible interpretation that fixes all the issues. It's not a buff. It's a clarification. This is literally how it already worked but worded better.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

I would still maintain that the text did not support how people ran it - it's kind of like the Refocusing change. The way many people ran it is what Paizo decided to go with, and I think it's a good thing! I personally ran it as asking a question after a while after I decided to ignore the "Creature Identification" section, but I think that was derived from my experience in PF1. I think a fair number of GMs don't have similar experience to fall back on.

[@tentacle_love]

I'm not a fan of the removal of the schools of magic - but that's because my personal campaign setting revolves around them! Not a problem, because I'll just add them right back.

[@AdamX222]

I don't know if I'm jumping the gun, because I haven't run or played a game in PF2E yet, but I feel like when I do, I will just run with the DC of Aid being 10 lower than the normal DC to do whatever action they are assisting with. That probably makes it a (mostly) guaranteed success most of the time, but my thoughts are, that still is only a +1 to a single check for an action and a reaction if you succeed, and you need a result that would have accomplished the task in question in order to critically succeed at aiding (unless you are assisting in some creative way that isn't just making the same check, but I would want to reward that creativity anyway). I'm sure there are reasons that this approach would make Aid overpowered in certain situations, but think it's worth it if it results in my players trying to work cooperatively and help each other on rolls at every opportunity; I think that would make for a more fun and engaging party experience.

[@mudscuffer]

7:28 according to the Core Rulebook pg. 586 ("Shields" under crafting), "magic shields can’t be etched with runes". So I don't think you can have a reinforced Lion's Shield. Or a reinforced Sturdy Shield for that matter. Unless this is changing as well?

[@bryanstrahm9961]

Do they address at all Quick Setup and Complex Crafting from Treasure Vault in relation to the updated crafting rules?

[@Jian13]

They should reduce the damage box on the character sheet and expand the attack sheet so it includes MAP.

[@BardWannabe]

As a GM, I’m going to miss the schools of magic because I loved giving the vague clue after the players read aura that the item or area was necromantic or divination, etc.

[@cameronkirby9479]

I personally think the change to the meta from focus points will be positive. For martial's getting more focus points comes at the expense of powerful early martial feats so it's still a major tradeoff. This just makes a magical martial viable rather than outright better imo. Take Monk for example, at lvl4 they could have 3 Ki points from taking the Ki Strike, Ki Rush and Wholeness of Body feats. Previously this was pretty suboptimal as you can only use one per combat. Now it's a viable build but it's still a tradeoff as you're giving up other great feats like stances, stunning strike, stand still etc. Champion is the problematic edge case because they both get a focus spell for free and have (had?) subpar low lvl feats. But the fix for that, and hopefully what they've done in the remaster, is to improve their low lvl feats so Deity's Domain isn't an auto pick.

[@Chadius]

Recall Knowledge really, REALLY needed this buff. It was too vague (and some gameplay videos I've seen lead to evil GMs giving vague or useless information.)

[@xdragoonzero0]

The remastered version of Aid seems to be making it very clear that auto success/crit success at higher levels is intended. When you say a Master can automatically grant a +3, you have to consider what situations they would do that instead of just making the check themselves. If someone invested into a skill to reach the +3 or +4 bonus and they aren't the one making the check then they deserve worthwhile payoff when helping someone else. Making it a scaling DC in any manner just devalues the skill investment they put in, not even mentioning kicking the Trained only people to curb. They're only ever going to grant a +2 bonus at best, and since they're only scaling is level (and maybe ability bonus) they'll probably even get worse at Aiding at higher levels.

[@duncbot9000]

Just after Ronald says "Alignment is gone!" there are sirens in the background 🤣

[@honorableintent]

Aid specifically says "the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks", so it is already technically a flexible DC. Sure, they don't give you other specific values to use, but they leave it optional for just that case. If your players are abusing it when they shouldn't, make it harder.

[@PpAirO5]

I prefer using a foci, or other objects, movements and gestures to cast spells. Makes it more difficult and unique.

[@jonathanbennison9220]

6:28 Did they universally add the traits that I have been frustrated by being hidden? Ie. Manipulate Trait on a spell? That would be so good, for our AoO reaction that procs on, Movement/Manipulate/Concentrate

[@Augustaguy2010]

@TheRulesLawyerRPG i am confused on the "universal spellcasting" section. I understand what you are saying, but when you go to the archetypes section, it clearly states that with basic spell casting you are trained, expert is expert, and master is master like in the old rules and that you can't become legendary in a archetype dedications spellcasting. Is this a contradiction in the rules, or am I just misunderstanding how this works?

[@eamk887]

Let me explain with an example: You are a Cleric, meaning you are trained in spellcasting, but you just use divine spells. You take the Wizard archetype, which are arcane spells. When you level up to level 9, which is when your spellcasting proficiency goes up to expert, you not only apply this to your Cleric spells, you also apply this to your Wizard spells as well, even though they are from a different tradition. The reason for this, is because when you reach level 9, you simply become expert in spellcasting, meaning ALL spellcasting, meaning you become expert in all traditions you have, which is divine and arcane. What this means, is that if you play as a class that is trained in spellcasting, and you take an archetype that gives you spellcasting on another tradition, you do not need to take the archetype feats that raise your proficiency on the archetype's spellcasting, since your class automatically raises the proficiency for you. This also means that you can indeed now become legendary with an archetype's spellcasting.

[@thrawn82]

at my table i've found that by 10th level plus, the players feel that their reaction is just too valuable to spent on even a plus three +3 to a roll. Even were it automatic at that level i think they would only be aiding in the most dire circumstances against an over level boss-type creature.

[@climbernerd5995]

I do have a suggestion about improving the aid rules I think would be really valuable though (you don't need to have read my other comment to understand this one). I think I would like Paizo to give us more guidance in terms of adjudicating aid and more than just guidance I would like specific examples of common aid actions for different types of check. Default options that players can choose from without any uncertainty. The ability to adjudicate unusual aid actions is (imo) a strong virtue that lends great flexibility to the action. The aid actions suffers hugely however from the uncertainty about how it will be adjudicated. It's easy to say "trust your GM" but from my perspective it seems like the aid action gets consitently sidelined in many games partly because player's (justifiably or otherwise) don't feel confident that the action will have a meaningful impact on gameplay. (Also partly because of a number other reasons, misperception of a +1 bonus for new players, unaware of the unscaled DCs, seeming tertiary to another character's actions, and the action being hidden in basic actions which are often missed when learning). And then there is the real world challenge of needing to 'invent' how you are going to aid on the fly. Which between need for imagination, time pressure at the table, the difficulty of social interaction for many people and the genuine complexity of trying to facilitate flow and ensure everyone gets heard in a ~5 way collaborative conversation with the inherently eccentric (tech meaning) dynamic of players with their GM, doing the process of 'inventing' or 'imagining' what your character might do in order to aid a check is actually potentially asking quite a lot. I think the solution is to write a set of reliable options that cover the most common aid actions and their DCs. That way players have some degree of security and something to work off when imagining how they will aid, and GMs have a lot more to work off when deciding the DCs and effects. Something like: "Aiding an attack roll by engaging an enemy in melee requires 1 action, the reaction has the attack trait and uses the reach and bonus of one of your melee attacks, normally against a DC of 15. This might increase to 20 against foes with unusual flexibility or more than 3 limbs to attack with. It does not work against formless foes, foes who your weapon could not touch, and foes who can engage many combatants at once (eg. a hydra)." "Ranged attack rolls are not normally an effective method of aiding an allies attack roll. In a ranged combat like a firearm shootout they might be used to aid an ally's ranged attack rolls or stealth with normal DC 15 attack checks that require firing/throwing your weapon but without a chance of hitting. Depending on the specifics of positioning they might even give different benefits from usual (at your GM's discretion). Firing on one side of a tree a foe has taken cover behind to encourage them to expose themself on the other side may reduce or negate their cover or temporarily alter their position for line of effect. While firing over a foe crouched behind a table may ensure they duck at the right moment and deny them line of sight during your ally's sneak attempt (quite radically altering that action's outcomes)" "Aiding a coerce attempt by being larger than the target and staring menacingly requires using your exploration activity for the duration of the coerce attempt. The activity and reaction have the concentrate and visual traits and the check can be an intimidation or athletics check. The DC is 15 for most people butmight be as high as 25 for people who are comfortable in their ability to single handedly fight larger foes. A player with a larger animal companion may train their animal companion to aid them this way without requiring direction." "Aiding a climb attempt by pulling them up or supporting their feet or back from beneath would typically require a DC 15 athletics check to climb with the manipuate trait. If done as an exploration activity you can climb with them at half the speed you would normally. Supporting their feet or back is not normally possible while unless they are 2 or more size categories smaller than you. If you get a critical failure you worsen their degree of success by one as your hand slips while they were using it. If you are also climbing your GM would normally require you to make an additional climb check of your own at that point too."

[@recka5000]

My table is using a slightly modified version of Ronald's Rules of Aiding and so far LOVING it. It's maybe a bit strong? But I'd rather players be a little too strong when aiding with skill checks than not help each other out.

[@opscontaylor8195]

I really want to see that character sheet in detail. Really hoping they have LEVEL separate from PROFICIENCY to make it easier to add across on new players.

[@RioDrake]

How many Focus SPELLS actually got buffed as opposed to the REFOCUS mechanic getting buffed?

[@christopherg2347]

Nice changes all around. #5 The aid rules you showed are definitely better. #4 I still have no idea why Spell DC and Spell Attack modifier are seperate proficiencies. I never even heard of any caster that has different proficiencies for either. #2 Runelord can now be simply a bunch of Schools.

[@Pixie1001.]

I really hope they fix up some of the more niche focus spells - some of them were just not worth the action cost, or incredibly niche, especially for casters. If they don't I think the majority of players who aren't trying to min/max by picking deities or subclasses with good focus spells are just gonna find themselves even further behind martials, whose focus spells are paradoxically nearly all universally good.

[@ishmiel21]

Thank you for this very well done breakdown of Pathfinder third edition. Excellent job

[@SpatialStorm]

Very informative video. Waiting for more videos like this^^

[@robinbernardinis]

A level 1 slot you can put Force Barrage into is not a wasted slot. An orc just used Orc Ferocity? 1-action Force Barrage for a guaranteed coup-de-grâce. The boss is being described as barely alive? Level 1 Force Barrage. A prisoner you knocked out is escaping, and you know they have at most 6 HP, having been brought back with a Minor Elixir of Life? 3-action Level 1 Force Barrage is a guaranteed kill.

[@gabrielrognon6238]

question, do you know if paizo provided a short checklist of every change? Your video are pretty useful but reading back everything and remembering the changes is going to take some times ^^

[@eamk887]

Not sure about Paizo, but I found this google doc someone made about the changes: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YuP3JGjqpLNM2eminGcYZ5sG_V_vzxzd5yhKGR4Kc7Q/edit#gid=1785076980

[@DawidSikora]

Since formulas disappear what with things like alchemical crafting - does it now gain uncommon formulas, or does it not contain anything at all?

[@TheJohnpocalypse]

Edicts and Anethemas are a useful tool for handing out Hero Points when it complicates the Player's adventures.

[@iranoutofideasforausernam1703]

14:05 - 14:40 I can't help but notice you auto-crit-success the exact same level as Helpful Halfling becomes available now, which means you're not waiting until level 15 for a guaranteed +4, you're getting it at level 9. As much as I love resourceless support, this strikes me as both baffling and terrifying, and I suspect tables may start banning the combo, especially with One for All or similar abilities.

[@Randomdudefromtheinternet]

How does the new Crafting rules apply to reverse engineering items for learning their formulas?

[@angmori172]

Haven't watched the video yet, so if you answer this question just ignore it: PREBUFFING??????????? Prebuffing is a goddamn nightmare in WotR without Bubble Buffs, so my main question regarding PF2 and PF2 Remaster is: how is the prebuffing?

[@Zuginator]

The Disarm effect on success shouldn't have taken this long. It should have been in one of the four erratas. I'm glad it's finally fixed and with the effect I had been advocating since PF2 released.

[@kendiamond7852]

I don't advocate alignments. In fact, I'm from BECMI where there were only 3 and it's the best it ever worked. I also love mystery games and run them quite a bit. However, removal will always seem to cater towards those that want moral ambiguity because they openly plan to be evil and just don't want to be labeled as such. And we're not going to debate "What is evil" There are obvious evil actions regardless of circumstance or justification.

[@LimakPan]

I don't get the new casting rule. If you can tap in code on your staff to cast, it's an option. You don't need to be disabled to learn how to tap.

[@harktischris]

re: alignment, i thought it was a bit unfortunate when it was first mentioned that pf2e remaster was dispensing with something that i've basically known since my childhood. then i played BG3, which doesn't surface alignments like at all despite it being a part of the system and it was... fine. probably actually better? no peeking for character spoilers to see if Shadowheart is Evil aligned, or what kind of Evil, if she were. Is Lae'zel evil? Or is she just kind of a blunt jerk with more nuances to her character than one or two letters on her character sheet? anyway, thanks to BG3 i'm on board with this shift to (optional) edicts/anathema.

[@davewilson13]

As someone who plays out of a hard bound rulebook, this isn’t errata plus, as there are too many changes. It’s not 5.5/6 edition, but it’s at least 2.25

[@PorterPickUp]

Why wouldnt they make the AID dc dependent on the level of creature you are trying to use it against?

[@Dudeman715]

On alignment I allways had the detect family of spells use the perspective of the diety when determining someone's alignment. One God could call the same man good and another God would view them as evil.

[@helenacrispim3744]

Love your videos! I can't wait to see the whole list of Edicts and Anathemas, they sound really fun and flavorful. Also... I didn't see the Champion class on the list of videos, it's my favorite archetype to get as a defensive caster and I really would love to know more about their changes... =X

[@Treehouse22009]

Champ isn't in Player Core 1, gotta wait for Player Core 2 for them.

[@helenacrispim3744]

@@Treehouse22009 oh! I didn't know. Thank you! ♥

[@shainedge6651]

I'm thinking that the person you need to aid, you need to check vs the DC of the skill/activity they are using. So if it is low level, They have a +5 to-hit, making the DC you need to hit a 15. So you might use Perform, to distract the target of the character you are Aiding.

[@Jian13]

From what I heard, alignment came from Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone.

[@BarskeMannen]

Damn Enfeeble seems really good, Enfeebled 2 for a whole minute?

[@jonathanbennison9220]

6:33 Eschew Materials... For all? Nice.