Asmodeus

Alchemaic's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 329 posts. 13 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Mewzard wrote:

Don't forget this revealed Monk ability from the previous blog:

"For instance, a 20th-level monk with Enduring Quickness is permanently quick, and can use the extra action to Stride, to Leap, or as part of a High Jump or Long Jump."

For people who want to move in attack, and leave, this can get you the three attacks with Flurry of Blows being one of your actions.

So at level 20, a Monk gets a single extra attack per round while moving around.
As I mentioned earlier, monks don't get a ton of bonus attacks at low levels in PF1 either. The fact that they only mentioned a "Flurry of Blows I" that lets you use one action per turn for this, does not mean that there isn't also a higher level "FoB II" or "FoB III" available (either as class features or selectable feats) to do it twice or three times per turn. We didn't get the complete class writeup.

I don't see where it said "1" on there either, but I get that. That's more of an issue related to class previews that give incomplete information and leads to arguments over speculation.

Though even if that winds up being the case, that means a capstone for the class winds up being "get more attacks while moving around", which still isn't great. Plus isn't that what Haste does already?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mewzard wrote:

Don't forget this revealed Monk ability from the previous blog:

"For instance, a 20th-level monk with Enduring Quickness is permanently quick, and can use the extra action to Stride, to Leap, or as part of a High Jump or Long Jump."

For people who want to move in attack, and leave, this can get you the three attacks with Flurry of Blows being one of your actions.

So at level 20, a Monk gets a single extra attack per round while moving around.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malthraz wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


I have a notions of how I want Monks to be.

I expect that someone out there has different one. As a matter of fact, I expect there to be many of them.

Limiting a whole class to a single playstyle is terrible game design, turning a whole fantasy into a series of levers to be pushed and pulled. We would only get to choose limited inputs, and optimization is the only variant.

Permitting many different playstyles based upon a fantasy would be more akin to giving a blank canvas with a specific set of colors – within a certain range, create what you want. We would get to choose how to realize our fantasy, and what for.

I actually agree with this. However, I think what we are seeing in the play test is the evasion style of Monk. I think there should be other styles, and I think there will be other styles, but for now it has been pushed to fill this combat niche.

So I don't think it is bad game design, it's just limited game design. I think it is unreasonable to expect Paizo to be able to replicate 10 years worth of character development in a single play test release.

Except Paizo doesn't have to replicate anything, the 10 years worth of character development has been done already and just needs to be ported over to the new rules. There's glimpses of that in the preview above, but that's not what people are complaining about. People are complaining about the basic functions of the class: the defenses, the stat requirements, the way some things get locked out by others, nothing really about the niceties of the class and just the basic parts of it.

Also, as someone who's played an evasion style of Monk, it's pretty meh. Only so many times you can spring attack before it gets old and you'd prefer to just beat people into the dirt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
After thinking about it more, I'm also not a fan of monks have zero weapon proficiency without spending a feat. That means a default monk can't attack an acid blob without taking damage instead of using a bo staff, quarterstaff, etc to save his hands from acid burns (not to mention having no ranged attacks).
He can carry a staff anyway. Being untrained in a weapon just means a -2, right? That hurts, but is OK for emergencies like acid blobs.
I don't see why a monk would be less proficient at simple weapons than a commoner or a wizard though. Those are about as low a bar for weapon use as there is, and a monk as a martial character shouldn't be worse off with them. They would have picked up SOME minor training in a basic weapon or two before they became a monk.

I'm actually thinking Commoners and wizards WON'T get simple proficiency this time around. (To be fair, commoners were only proficient in one simple weapon in PF1. They really sucked.) Also might be worth keeping mind that the untrained penalty is only -2 this time, which admittedly sucks worse than a -2 did in PF1.

I DO think monks should get at least simple weapon proficiency by default, though.

Are the NPC classes (like Commoner) still a thing in PF2?
Maybe not? Can't see why you'd need them.

For that one GM (Rob) who constantly has session 0 as the party playing level 0 commoners.


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

I really hope I didn't just read that styles are now locked to Monks exclusively as a set of "feats".

That's a major blow to my interest. The style feats are probably the most fun I've had in the game, and turning them into monk-only abilities? I seriously hate that change. Make monks better at using them, sure. Make them the only ones capable of using them? God no.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Huh, so Whirlwind Strike is Barbarian-only now?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Finally, an article about feats that are actually feats instead of the not-feat feats that we call feats but are legally distinct from feats.

Also I really hope that there's some way for characters to "cheat"-in a higher level effect, like for Cat Fall (make some check to improve the effects of their fall prevention up a rank or something, though I guess that's kind of the point of the skill check in that case). That could make the feats feel more dynamic, plus give players a little bit of early access to the higher-level effects that, unfortunately, a lot of games will never even see. Might also help bridge the gap a bit between magic and skills.

Though at the same time, I hope that these aren't going to start eliminating interesting options that used to exist. The pidgin one, for example, was Xenoglossy, which was an interesting flavor feat with surprising utility (even if it was kind of overkill because by the time you could get the feat you likely knew the language anyway), and being able to squeeze your head through a hole the size of your head was just a skill check you could make with a high enough bonus instead of a specialized feat that requires legendary proficiency.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Well the last Tar AP was less about Tar, and more Gothic Horror in general. So that itch IMO hasn't been scratched yet.

I suppose, but it still feels a bit weird to me, like if the final area of Return of the Runelords is just the reverse castle version of the final area from Rise of the Runelords.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
But will the PCs actually fight him this time? My guess is probably not. He'd wipe the floor with non-mythic PCs. Although maybe he'd be weakened due to recently breaking free, and that might take him down to a more manageable level.

Honestly I hope he's optimized like crazy. I know sometimes the final bosses are toned down for players, but there's no reason he can't use every dirty trick and rules loophole in the book. Dazing fireballs, chained timestops to Gate in creatures to fight the party, forced teleport traps that dump the party into a pit of acid in an AMF, hiring a Sensei Monk of the Healing Hand to join the party and at a crucial moments remove a friendly NPC from existence, using disjunction, throwing spheres of annihilation, channeling a mage's magnificent enclosure through eldritch conduit, re-inventing Armor of the Dread Emperor, psychic asylum with fast study to prepare his spell list as a swift action, blood money casting wish with sacred geometry through a possessed body with magic jar, armies of simulacra, fighting through a projected image, and just being as much of a cheating jerk as possible. Leave it up to the GM to tone him down, and give everyone else a nightmare they'll remember.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Ryan 783 wrote:
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think the new slayer can kill the Tarrasque.

I mean, it's called a Spawn Slayer for a reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd that there's going to be a second AP storyline based around Tar? There's been overlap with countries and locations and even some NPCs before, sure, but this feels to me like if someone took the "continuing the adventure" section from an AP and rescaled it for 1-20.

That's just my thoughts, but since there's sections of map that have at best only been tangentially touched before (Land of the Linnorm Kings, Realm of the Mammoth Lords, Nidal, Galt, most of Garund, Casmaron) I feel like there's more to work with besides bringing back something older.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Huh, there are three feats in this book that are better for non-magical healers than the entirety of Healer's Handbook. That's already very promising.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
111phantom wrote:
What's the Ioun Kineticist like?

It appears to be a sort of variant of Aether where the Kineticist gets to act like a giant wayfinder.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
How is that useless? There's PLENTY of things that give flight to fighters. :p ;)
Clearly it's just supposed to be something that only works once you get to 9th level and can afford a Carpet of Flying. Leave it to a Fighter archetype to not be able to do the things it's advertised to do without outside help...

Well, if the archetype doesn't replace Weapon Training, there's the option of grabbing the Item Mastery AWT for Flying. Or just taking the feat the normal way.

Still not great though, admittedly.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So is this what's replacing traits? It seems alright, though I wonder how the power level is going to be shifted when comparing "half a feat" to granting a pair of stat boosts in addition to actual feats.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Interesting, this makes me think that they're being designed to function more similarly to a Paladin in WoW or another tanking MMO class, what with their armor focus, one-action debuffs on enemies, and mild healing/protective buff abilities.

Also, please stop calling them feats. Call them talents, because just in this blog post alone you have mercy feats, oath feats, champion power feats(?), and righteous ally feats(?), and it's impossible to tell which ones are the class-locked talents/feats and which ones are feats that are ability locked and may become generally available if another class gets an archetype that also has oaths or mercies or righteous ally or something.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I... really don't see the point of the Interact action. It becomes too all-encompassing and seems to create issues more than it helps. The big example is up-thread where a character would have to spend two actions just to change their grip to open a door. Can't you just say "Using this item/performing this effect takes an action" so you can assume most basic actions are, at base, free actions to perform?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

How bad is it if a cleric does something anathema? Because for Shelyn those look pretty bad if it's more on the side of an atonement or loss of power as opposed to a light slap on the wrist. Protecting art, sure, though the party's going to be pretty pissed off if, in the mad dash to escape a collapsing ruin, instead of grabbing the artifact weapon that lets the party save the kingdom they opted to grab a big portrait that they have to lug back to town. The other two though are veering dangerously close to "too dumb to live" territory, with being unable to turn down a surrender (even if it's false or obviously a trap) and never striking first, which means the cleric gets to twiddle their fingers for a round while everyone else does stuff, two rounds if it's an ambush.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Aw man, I loved Bottled Lightning, being able to shoot a (weak) bolt of lightning around was super fun and a great alternative to just another throwable splash weapon.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This sort of makes it sound like Metamagic feats are getting written out (which is a good thing imo), since heightening is now an innate part of spellcasting, and Still/Silent are effectively quicken with this new setup. It's certainly an interesting approach...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheFinish wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Curious. So, this makes it sound like Alchemists are losing spellcasting altogether to instead get stuff that's more akin to souped-up alchemical items? It's certainly an interesting angle, though it's kind of odd that it locks the ability for the class to become either a melee or casting focus behind 5 levels. Also, I have to hope that alchemicals in 2e are better than the ones we have now, where 90% of them are too weak or situational to use past level 3.

Well, the blog states the damage will scale as an Alchemist advances (beginning at 3rd level), so in that regard they'll be fine.

As for save DCs, the blog mentions a 6th level Feat that upgrades them, though I'm not sure how much. Hopefully it scales with Alchemist level.

I'm not really worried about something like an Acid Flask dealing more damage, I'm more wondering about something like a Tanglefoot Bag which only has a DC 15 Reflex save, and simply fails against creatures Huge or larger. Not the best example since it still has the entangle effect on a passed save, but that's the sort of thing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Curious. So, this makes it sound like Alchemists are losing spellcasting altogether to instead get stuff that's more akin to souped-up alchemical items? It's certainly an interesting angle, though it's kind of odd that it locks the ability for the class to become either a melee or casting focus behind 5 levels. Also, I have to hope that alchemicals in 2e are better than the ones we have now, where 90% of them are too weak or situational to use past level 3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paladinosaur wrote:
So I'm guessing either Return of the Runelords or next AP will change the goblin status quo.

So what you're saying is, there's a chance that the reason goblins are accepted is because "A Runelord Did It."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:

Doesn't seem to be the case for The Terrible Tup, a Goblin that has managed to properly insinuate himself into human culture (like a goblin PC might) as a relatively respected entertainer, spellcaster, and secret arsonist who's more likely to burn his "friends" than his enemies.

Cut out the arsonist part and you have a serviceable PC. Cut out the arsonist part and you also have a Gnome instead of a Goblin, just slightly more deranged.

I've had plenty of PCs of human origin who immediately jump to the "burn down the dungeon" plan at the first available opportunity.

Yes, and they're usually the exception rather than the norm. I mean, as far as characters who are human in Golarion go. As far as PCs go, that's pretty common.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mogo the Goblin wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Kobolds are full citizens of Kyshahn the Kingmaker Kingdom that my players created. In fact beings of any ancestry can be citizens of Kyshahn so long as they obey and respect Kyshahn's laws.

I think GMs who have a kill-on-sight policy for NPCs against monstrous races need to read more Pratchett. Actually, if you want read a book that is specifically about people's racism towards Goblins read Raising Steam and Snuff.

I don't think the Goblins in the Discworld books ever staged large-scale raids on towns specifically for the purposes of killing people and burning their houses. In fact, I don't think they ever actually did anything to be despised beyond being considered repulsive or whatever. Which was kind of the point.

Golarion Goblins, on the other hand, have mostly been burning bridges (literally) since their introduction.

Not Goblins fault if Longshanks don't like to share food, and will chase goblins over bridges to get their sheepies and piggos back.

Doesn't seem to be the case for The Terrible Tup, a Goblin that has managed to properly insinuate himself into human culture (like a goblin PC might) as a relatively respected entertainer, spellcaster, and secret arsonist who's more likely to burn his "friends" than his enemies.

Cut out the arsonist part and you have a serviceable PC. Cut out the arsonist part and you also have a Gnome instead of a Goblin, just slightly more deranged.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Kobolds are full citizens of Kyshahn the Kingmaker Kingdom that my players created. In fact beings of any ancestry can be citizens of Kyshahn so long as they obey and respect Kyshahn's laws.

I think GMs who have a kill-on-sight policy for NPCs against monstrous races need to read more Pratchett. Actually, if you want read a book that is specifically about people's racism towards Goblins read Raising Steam and Snuff.

I don't think the Goblins in the Discworld books ever staged large-scale raids on towns specifically for the purposes of killing people and burning their houses. In fact, I don't think they ever actually did anything to be despised beyond being considered repulsive or whatever. Which was kind of the point.

Golarion Goblins, on the other hand, have mostly been burning bridges (literally) since their introduction.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I sure hope that CR math is getting fixed this time around, because this is going to make encounters comprised of multiple lower-CR enemies into complete jokes.

Well, more than they already were.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Er, wait, so only rogues can consider people flat-footed now? That's odd, and I don't know how well creating a more or less unique debuff would work compared to just a global rule.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I guess this is as good a place as any to ask, but archetypes are going to be in the playtest as well right?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Please Do:

Make new archetypes worth using in one way or another or have them be truly unique, instead of stapling on abilities that could have just been a bunch of talents/class feats or whatever you call them now.

Please Don't:

Print more distinct versions of Bottled Sunlight.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If the archetypes are being "Fixed", then I'd include Ragechemist Alchemist and Trapper Ranger. Ragechemist because the idea of a character who gets stronger as they get harmed is cool, but the execution meant that a Ragechemist was more of a danger to themselves rather than enemies. Trapper because the idea of using traps to fight and outwit the enemy is cool, but requires setup time (which is rare), enemies have multiple chances to spot, avoid, or just save against the traps (which is common because the DCs are typically lower), and the traps themselves are pretty weak compared to ranger spells or just shooting a bow at them.

As for otherwise:
Gunchemist Alchemist: Good solid Alchemist archetype, pretty much functions as you'd want an Alchemist with a gun to function.

Scrollmaster Wizard: Because I like the idea of a Wizard smacking people with rolls of paper and books.

Master of Many Styles Monk: Because, quite honestly, style feats are probably the best content in the game and if possible I'd play a MoMS in every game to use them more.

Siegebreaker Fighter: It's just a fun archetype, being able to smash through people and actually do damage with it as a class feature, instead of one or the other while being forced into chains of feats to do it.

Vexing Dodger Rogue: I like the idea of being able to ride enemies and stab them like Shadow of the Colossus or Dragon's Dogma.

Words of Power Bard: Not really an archetype, but Words of Power should come back.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ah, so now the big question of Class Feats has been answered, in that they're effectively talents for every class. Still though, that's not a great name for them, calling them talents, or tricks, or abilities, or zarglepoofs would be better than calling them feats if they're going to be a completely separate thing from the feats people are used to.

Also, how's XP going to work if it's a flat 1000 per level? Are GMs going to have to do XP calculations to figure out the right percentage for lower-level encounters or what?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:

Here is a related math puzzle to tide the time!

The most fun way to do this puzzle is to first guess what the answers will be from your gut and then solve the puzzle with math and post both to see how close you were.

Suppose you are a wizard who wanted to be a muscle wizard. You managed to keep apace with the fighter's Strength, bought magic swords at the same pace, and generally narrowed the difference between you and the fighter down to mostly the proficiency. Let's say that difference between you two was that the fighter had +3 more to hit than you did. Doesn't seem like much. Now you're fighting a monster that you hit on a 10, and the fighter hits on a 7 (since he had +3 more than you). On that attack, how much better on average, in terms of expected damage, do you think the fighter is going to do, expressed as a percentage (for instance, you might say "15% more damage").

The guess is a 15% difference in damage, which seems to be mathed differently as above.

So, for a Fighter with access to 0 spells this is pretty bad since Robehat Wibbleslinger is doing almost as well as him at fighting on top of 10th level wibbleslinging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
pixierose wrote:
Something that nobody has mentioned that is actually pretty important to me.. Please make it easy to do non-lethal damage, please don't penalize players for trying to do the right/heroic thing. At the very least let it be doable with weapons, I know it may sound silly with magic...but if merciful is a thing then just let it be something anyways.
YES PLEASE!

Or just make Golden Legion's Stayed Blade a free ability or a trait or something.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Quote:
Each one of these choices is very important, modifying your starting ability scores, giving you starting proficiencies and class skills, and opening up entire feat chains tailored to your character.

After reading through this, I think the "feat chains" in question might be more akin to the class-based Talents that each class in Star Wars Saga Edition received, and not the "feat chains" we're used to seeing in Pathfinder.

That would make the more like chained Rogue Talents, which might be cool.

-Skeld

Most classes have that already though, so if that were the case it would be needlessly confusing for no purpose apart from confusing people.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Please do this:

Create feats that are worth taking in the majority of situations but that shine in specific situations, such as the Creature Focus/Focused ____ Expertise feats.

Please don't do that:

Make super hyperspecific feats that only function in super hyperspecific scenarios, or feats that function in very uncommon situations but grant such a minor benefit that nobody would bother taking them anyway.

Make hundreds of feats that only grant +1 or +2 bonuses to specific things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Kyubey_ wrote:
Quote:
Each one of these choices is very important, modifying your starting ability scores, giving you starting proficiencies and class skills, and opening up entire feat chains tailored to your character.

This has me the most worried. Why are feat chain locked off because certain background was selected? Why can my character grow naturally and pick feats that make sense.

Lets say Power Attack is locked away for nomad background, why can't soldier learn to power attack? Why can my arcane warrior/gish learn power attack? Especially this is a background thing.

I think the blog has been somewhat misleading on that front, based on reading comments like these, and I can see why looking back on that wording now. To my knowledge, though the design space is of course still there, there isn't anything in the playtest document that specifically requires a particular background in order to take it. Now there are some things where having a background can give you a nice kickstart towards getting there sooner, but that's a different situation!

So are the background-based feats more akin to what used to be racial traits or feats? I'm going to be honest, while the intent may have been to simplify stuff, creating all these lists of feats is going to be really hard to parse properly. Harder than it is currently I'm not sure about, but it's still going to be a bit of a mess if people are looking for an effect they want instead of looking for what options they have available to them in their current class/background/ancestry.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Actually, it was probably easier to go from 3.5E to 4E than it is from 3.5E to Pathfinder because 4E was fundamentally more streamlined from the sense that the vast majority of a statblock is just words for the sake of words.

I was talking about converting classes mechanically, not general playing. If you owned a 3.5 book and started playing 4e, that 3.5 book is now useless because the two systems are completely incompatible. If you owned a 3.5 book and started playing PF, the book is now less useful but you can still apply the material in that book to your game, albeit with a bit of work adjusting it. It has nothing to do with any discussions on which systems play better or are more streamlined or whatever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Young wrote:
On backwards compatibility - a derail:

Here's the thing though: you CAN convert 3.5 material to Pathfinder. 3.5 and PF have the same underlying skeleton, so with a few minor adjustments in terms of wording adjustments, skill and feat changes, and maybe number changes if you're feeling fancy you can have a fully functioning PF class/feat/ability/whatever or vice-versa. You can't convert anything from 3.5 to 4e, because the game was changed so drastically as to make that almost impossible. The PF-SF conversion is similarly very difficult, except that Paizo did include suggestions on how to rebuild classes which is what makes it actually doable. Note that I said "rebuild" and not "convert", because you still can't use a PF Paladin in SF, you can only make a new class which is an approximation of the old in a different system.

So the hope is that when 2e comes out it releases in a state where, if the old material isn't perfectly compatible with the new, it's at least a simple task to make it compatible instead of requiring a set of rules to do a rebuild.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
marv wrote:

I am VERY excited. I stopped GMing/DMing the over complicated Pathfinder RPG 1st Ed. Rules when D&D 5e rules came out but ... I never left the Inner Sea, running 5e Pathfinder adventures ever since.

My PF 2.0 wish list:
*Advatage/Disavatage
* Monster stats should be simple, only contain elements relavent to play, and not follow same rules as PCs
* Bounded accuracy so high level play is reasonable
* Emphasize rule 0

So your PF 2.0 wish list is... 5e.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Beyond skills, every class now has its own list of feats to choose from, making them all pretty different from one another and allowing for a lot of flexibility in how you play. And just wait until you see what Archetypes can do...

Er, wait, hold on a second, what do you mean by "its own list of feats to choose from"?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Since the playtest is still several months away from being public, this might be a good time to just list hopes and fears for the playtest ahead of time in a little game I like to call "Please do this, Please don't do that". I'll start.

Please do this:

Cut down on feat taxes, so people don't have to dedicate half of their feats to do one thing.

Condense and significantly simplify all the fiddly rules that nobody really uses often enough to commit to memory but happens often enough to be a pain, like breaking/bursting objects and object hardness/HP, environmental/falling damage and strange interactions, the swim and fly rules, etc.

Remove or fix trap options. If someone wants to be the best gosh darn crossbowman there ever was he shouldn't be locked into a single option that still functions worse than a regular person with a bow.

Bring back Wordcasting. It's a pipedream, but I can still hope.

Please don't do that:

Completely remove options, either by just not printing them or writing the rules in such a way that old feats and options are completely incompatible with the new edition.

Make martial characters moderately good at a single thing at the cost of being able to do anything else.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Danubus wrote:
Wow. People just don't dig change. You can always still play 1e. Give 2e a chance. Wait to see the rules. Then, run around waving your arms and hurumph'ing.

You can certainly play 1e. You can even go back and play 3.5, or ADnD, but you can't ever expect anything new. Any fixes, any new classes, any new adventures or ideas can't exist without coming from an outside source. The game is frozen in place. It's not going anywhere, but it's also stuck in place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Just to clarify, but the Playtest book is exactly that right? Playtest rules, and not the actual 2E rules? I'm not too sure that basically charging to give input for a massive undertaking like this is the best idea.
The PDF edition will be free.

Ah alright, so the books are more collectors items then, got it.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just to clarify, but the Playtest book is exactly that right? Playtest rules, and not the actual 2E rules? I'm not too sure that basically charging to give input for a massive undertaking like this is the best idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Can Oozemorphs use skills while in blobform? One can generate weapons from its bodies, but it doesn't say anything about dextrous hands or something. The only thing it retains is its base senses, so it should be able to use passive skills like Sense Motive and Perception, but stuff like Intimidate is doubtful and Diplomacy or any of the physical skills are completely unusable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just a personal opinion, but it looks to me like the reason Fluidic Body is so bad is because it has to balance out getting flat immunity to crits, precision damage, and flanking. Which IS a bit ridiculous at level 1 honestly, I think the only other class that can get full crit immunity is Kineticist by burning itself out completely. But remove the immunities and replace them with maybe scaling 25/50/75% chances to ignore (hey, chimeric aspect and up seem to be good spots for those to come online), and maybe giving the ability to at-will return to your original solid form isn't such a hard pill to swallow.

Also, that shouldn't be a polymorph effect. A 19th level wizard who melts into a puddle of goo at level 20 shouldn't suddenly find himself incapable of casting Alter Self on himself. Just make it so that an Oozemorph is naturally an ooze or humanoid and it supernaturally turns into other forms, but it can still be affected by polymorph effects when in its base forms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cantriped wrote:
Hmm, I didn't really see that much of a problem with the Shifter before, but in terms of ease of use these changes are generally positive for the Shifter. I worry that the ramifications of having two now entirely different class features called "Wild Shape" that are considered equivalent... even though they aren't really comparable in scope of effect or increment of duration*.

It might not be bad if the Shifter gets an ability with the "This counts as Wild Shape for feats and abilities" clause tacked on the end.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm cautiously optimistic. The last time there was a companion book focused on (for lack of a better description) purely roleplay scenarios it turned out surprisingly well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BretI wrote:
If I were doing an oozemorph, I would probably go with something more like a lava lamp for coloration.

Oh hey, that's a pretty good idea for a carrying case. That way when you cease being able to interact with the party you can still be a good conversation piece.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I still think a few things could benefit from wording clarifications regarding Shifter Claws. Not big things, just stuff like for Shifter's Fury it should note that the secondary attacks can still benefit from the DR bypass but not from the increased damage dice, or the same thing for Shifter's Edge. Or make it clear that Shifter Claws in full only applies to two attacks, and only those two attacks get the improved damage and DR bypass and all others are left as they were without the ability.

1 to 50 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>