Paper Golem

AnimatedPaper's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 588 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 588 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Alchemaic wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:


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.

Just give the player their ancestry and background, I suppose.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I assume Expert, Adept, and Warrior are subsumed into the NPC arrays in an Unchained Simple Monster creation or Starfinder NPC creation system. If you want an NPC-level npc, use the array. If you want one that acts more like a PC, use the PC class to level them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Have they said somewhere else that totems give you free powers? Because the blog post says "These totems are a set of three thematically linked abilities the barbarian can choose, starting at 2nd level." Bolding mine. Since you already pick the totem at level one that "choose" has to be refering to something else. Picking abilities at level 2 sounds an awful lot like the old rage powers (would be called class feats now, I think?). So it seems possible (and even likely, depending how often you can take them) that characters could have most of their chosen class abilities tied up in totem powers. If that's true then there's no way it's "just as good as PF1 Barbarian" after violating its anathema.

In the bolded sentence, the blogger is talking about totems in PF1, which you can select once you get your first rage power at 2nd. In PF2, it's moving to 1st.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I bring it up because there's a segment of players and DMs that feels if the player manages to say the right word or line, the character should be able to accomplish their diplomacy task no matter what the roll says. There was the old advice that you could almost always afford to dump charisma because effective roleplay could override a low charisma skill bonus, and that seems wrong to me. If I'm getting the advantage of my character's high skill bonus when as a player I'm just mumbling, I should also have to take the result of a low skill check even if I say the exact right thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I just want to point out that the PF1 social combat rules do cover skill checks to find the right topics to talk about with the target, and encourages modifiers based on the person that is talking and how they choose to make their approach. The War for the Crown and Hell's Rebels/Hell's Vengeance APs have been putting those rules through their paces.

I won't claim it is perfect, but it is something that they've been working and tinkering with while designing PF2. I'm virtually certain we'll see something along the lines that Quandary suggests.

As a side note, despite my loquaciousness while behind a keyboard, while talking I am extremely blunt and the type that won't use three words when one will do. This translates directly to the table, so my RP leaves something to be desired (and is the reason I more often assist GMing rather than pull the full duty myself). So I'm one that relies on those diplomacy rolls turning my bare descriptions and sentences into honeyed words, just as we all would rather roll a d20 instead of whacking the DM about with a foam bat for attack rolls.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benjamin Medrano wrote:
Purity would imply that magic is impure, and I don't think Paizo is aiming for Conan the Barbarian, where all (almost all?) magic users are evil.

That could be a belief held by adherents of the purity totem, yes. It doesn't have to be something a majority, or even more than a handful, on golarian believe for the totem users to believe it.

I believe I have been swayed to liking this as the totem name.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A choice between four different options at first level, and ten further choices to select up to an additonal five of seven other options as you level up is limiting customization?

If the devs went the route you suggested in the eminent domain blog, I would rather they just don't have domains at all.

Secane wrote:

Would it be possible for Deities to give multiple spell options at each level?

To avoid a deity becoming too 1 tracked and ending up being "that" deity that give so and so.

Like if deity starts giving a bunch of damage spells, then won't that shoehorn that deity as the go to deity for making an offensive caster cleric?

But if a deity have a selection of spells at each level, then Clerics can pick the spells they want to use to make them unique.

I agree it will limit choices and guide clerics of certain deities towards certain builds. That's kind of the point. In the fullness of splatbooks, I'm certain we'll have ways to further customize choices, like a separatist cleric or a heretical cleric that allows you to choose domains beyond the main ones for your chosen deity, but for now I think a smaller pool of choices for the playtest is best.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I was going to make a joke, but I will not speak it into existence.

I look forward to tomorrow's blog whatever the topic winds up being.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Meanwhile, back at the farm....

Is anyone else annoyed at "superstition" as a name for that totem? The word is basically pejorative, carrying a strict implication of irrationality.

A distrust of magic to the point that you resist even healing is pretty irrational in golarion.

Sure, but do the distrustful barbarians feel the same way?

IRL I don't think people usually refer to themselves as superstitious.

I do.

willuwontu wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

How about you can choose your anathema, and then get powers that relate to that anathema. Call the collection of powers something like a ‘totem’.

Seriously, adding options to each totem is much more headache than it is worth when the totem itself is a choice.

Or they could list all the anathema on one page, and then have under each totem something like

Allowed Anathema: Strength, Superstitious, Bravery, etc.

Allowing each totem to limit the anathema to a suitable list.

This is also a great option. Certain totems like Superstitious which are more powerful than others can have a Major Anathema as part of their writeup which is tailored as a counterbalance. Others just get the line entry, selecting from a main list of Minor Anathema.

Then in a later book, when adding more anathema, they can even say stuff like "Counts as Bravery." That way, it's always forwards and backwards compatible. New anathema added later can be used for earlier totems without having to remember to specify every applicable totem in the game, and new totems don't miss out on later anathema.

Exactly, they could also have the anathema categorized by something like: nature, battle, skills/competition (anathemas for competitions of speed, endurance, athletics etc) and so on, with totem specific (major) anathema as their own category.

And then totems could instead give a list of categories or specific totems (major anathema (superstition), etc.) if they want to limit them more.

Stayed out of this thread entirely for the week, but I really like the idea of choosing anathemas to mix and match character concepts. I don't have a real problem with anathemas as concept (as others have said, this is almost identical to the edicts Cavaliers and Samurai have worked with for years), but being able choose from a menu of general options could make for some interesting character building and probably provide a compromise between GMs that aren't comfortable straying from RAW and players that REALLY want a character concept that is juuust out of reach with the currently presented approach of every totem having a single set taboo. Providing a general list of anaethemas to choose between also fits with PF2 modularity pretty well.

I do sympathize with players discombobulated by having a new restriction placed on the class when none previously existed. I also have little sympathy for the argument that players, given a choice, as going to gravitate towards the one that provides the least resistance to their character concept. That will happen, I agree. In my opinion, that makes for a more pleasant table though, not less (min-maxers leeching the life out of the game being a separate problem that no amount of dev intervention is going to fix).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That...doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you aren't getting feats as you level, what else would you get? Maybe I just misunderstood your post.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

While I like the idea of minimal classes being expanded via player customisation of flexible chassis, in my view the plethora of classes is one of the defining features of Pathfinder as a system.

I wonder if “preserving the feel of the game you love” is going to include aesthetic considerations such as this.

Oh, I'm sure there will be plenty of classes. I just don't think they all should be the same classes as last time.

Neither do I, but I do want every PF1 class to at least be an archetype or an obvious build within a class (or even just a class feat in the case of something like the Magus or Brawler, named after the class in question). Once that is mostly accomplished, I look forward to seeing what else they can accomplish within similar lines, and also of course what they can do that steps further beyond PF1. Edit: Although the point about waiting for the meta to settle is well taken. You're right, that would be the smart thing to do from a balance stand-point, but rushing on ahead would be the thing to do from a "stave off the raging hordes" standpoint.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
Tangentially, we have the spiritualist for an occult version, summoner would be arcane, Hunter as primal, I wonder if there will be a divine variant? Or will the summoner be the divine version, and they make a new arcane spin?

For instance, I realized that thematically, we don't have a golem master/artificer class, so that could be the fourth version. Other alternates: a leshy-master, fey companion, undead companion, something that builds on the familiar rules instead of animal companion, or a class that allows you a cohort from level 1 that is simply called "leadership feat."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I could see the hunter being another “take” on the summoner chassis, although hopefully they’ll rename it.

So yeah, there’s definitely room to explore the concept, even if no major characters are members of it.

Tangentially, we have the spiritualist for an occult version, summoner would be arcane, Hunter as primal, I wonder if there will be a divine variant? Or will the summoner be the divine version, and they make a new arcane spin?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

We already know that you can get more than one reaction per turn, yeah. Dazed could interact with that, or instead of Dazed maybe we get "Stunned 1" that removes reactions, and so on.

I also figured Dazzled would just be "Blinded 1."

That was more or less what I was thinking for dazzled, and that's a great suggestion for removal of reactions. The daze spell itself could apply Stunned 1 and Slowed 3 for one round, maybe?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:
I only wanted to add a last thing - it's better not to use the word "oriental" anymore, it's usually considered a pejorative, othering, demeaning, and rather unfounded in reality - I know you didn't mean to offend anyone, but East Asian is much better for a samurai, and better safe than sorry - wouldn't want other players to feel uncomfortable for a mere misunderstanding... sorry, that's all!

Since we're talking about East-Asian inspired elements in a game written by Americans, "oriental" sounds like it's the correct word here. I agree that people do take it as a pejorative even when it's technically the correct term, so why ruffle feathers needlessly?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I am very pleased at the cutting down, I think Dazed and Dazzled can be rolled into one, while we're at it.

Because having problems to see because the light is too strong is parent of being unable to act?

Maybe not?

Yeah, that one didn't make sense to me either. I could see Dazed being rolled into either slowed or stunned though.

Or being a whole new thing entirely, like "Dazed 1: you lose one reaction. Dazed 2: you lose all reactions." I can't remember if more than one reactions per round is a thing, but it ought to be, and why not future proof against it if its not already a thing?

Dazzled fits well into blinded.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Speaking personally, I would be extremely disappointed if they said "Just multiclass" and leave it at that. One of the reasons I like pathfinder is that they incentivize staying in the same class from 1-20. I wouldn't have been sorry to see multiclassing go away entirely.

Again, even a very basic "to emulate a bloodrager, use a barbarian but allow your players to select sorcerer class feats; here's a new totem and a couple class feats that help make that work" would be acceptable, if it truly lets you pull off the character concepts.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
edduardco wrote:

Wow PF2 really went hard on caster, I will check the playtest but looks like PF2 is not going to be do it me

Some people like playing things that aren't casters without feeling like they've made a mistake because casters always do their job better.
Is that martials cannot have niece things without taking something from casters?

What was taken away from casters in this instance? Haste already doesn't allow you to cast two spells a round with it. Giving wizards a method in which they can do that is boosting them, not nerfing them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

While everything you say is true, Captain, there's still a certain benefit to actually taking the time to crank out the classes, and do the mixing and matching necessary at an official level.

I agree that the new modularity and action economy is going to render many classes either redundant or able to be approximated with some tweaks. I even pointed out that Gunslingers and Vigilantes would be prime candidates for becoming archetypes, some others will be able to be approximated by allowing classes to pick up other class's feats; a bloodrager could just be a barbarian that can pick sorcerer class feats, a bard might just need the Contagious rage feat and a basic rage ability instead of inspiration to make a skald.

None of that matters. People are going to want to have their classes as soon as possible, If the changes are fairly minor, and don't disrupt the core game and wind up being only a page or two (a couple new class feats, with a note listing which core class feats you also get access to), so much the better.

I feel that, rather than take up all the design ground, this will clear the creative decks. Instead of demanding to know where their witch is, when is the arcanist going to be updated, players can look forward to what ELSE the developers can come up with when they put out Ultimate Arcane.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Joana wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Furdinand wrote:

*Looks at two pages of questions/arguments about how 2E conditions work*

Ah yes, this will be much simpler.

A lot of those questions only exist because we lack the full rules. Also, many only exist because it's new, and there's always gonna be a learning curve.

So once we have the full rules and are used to them, it might well decrease complexity. We don't know that for sure yet, but the current confusion isn't really indicative of anything.

The other question is, is it simpler for beginners? Obviously, those of us with heads full of P1e rules are going to get them mixed up with playtest/P2e rules for a while, just like going from 3.x to P1e. The real goal is to make a ruleset that's easier to pick up from scratch than 3.x/P1e.

I make the same argument regarding spell points. WE'RE going to get confused, because what good is a spell point that doesn't equal a spell slot? But for a beginner: "Most spells are cast from spell slots, some (called powers) you use a spell point, and some, cantrips, have no cost to cast," is probably not all that complicated.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:

2) Some people full stop won't buy a book that is just updates of existing content. To get those consumers, you really need to mix in new material as well

I mean, some people won't, but I don't think they're planning on migrating to PF2 anyways. The entire PF2 playtest is an update to the PF1 core rulebook.

Lets say they hypothetically update 20 classes in a book. That's all the APG, and most of the other base, hybrid, and occult classes. Some like the Vigilante and Gunslinger might be archetypes; some could be new suites of class feats like the brawler, ninja, or samurai. Just updating those classes and putting enough spells and feats into the same book to make them playable will add a TON of new content to PF2, quite a bit of it also usuable by the core classes. Even if I didn't plan to play any of the reintroduced classes, I'd probably look at the new primal cantrips that were written for the shaman but available to a druid, or the new divine warrior class feats that a warpriest rocks but a paladin might also select.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
edduardco wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
edduardco wrote:


Considering that it will require a caster at least level 17 and spells per day is capped at 3, I don't see any issue in that.
5, and that's just counting the options we know about, and not including preparing 9th level spells in 10th level slots.
From where do you get 5? Only Wizards has 4. And for what I have seen in other threads there will not be 10 level slots, the so called 10th level spells are just feats usable one per day.

Wizards get 5, including their arcane focus. Cleric's effectively get even more, although that more is just a bunch of heals.

I have not seen the same regarding spell slots. I've seen that the spells were feat locked, but haven't seen the same regarding the slots themselves. I recall the opposite in fact, but I may simply be misremembering or misconstrued that post. And to be honest I wouldn't even know where to start looking for it.

Edit: fixed the quote

Wizard get 3, +1 in the field of specialization (if any), + you can repeat one of the used spells if you drain your arcane focus.

So 3 + maybe 1 from a more limited list + 1 from a 4 spell ist. Not 5 spells without limitations.

I didn't claim there weren't restrictions. I was correcting the number of 9th level spells a caster tops out at. And it's 5, with restrictions.

Of course, even that is just spell slots. Powers and Cantrips are also a thing.

Xenocrat wrote:
They can also take a feat to get an additional use of their arcane focus, so that's 6 available to a specialist.

Good catch, I forgot that.

Hmm, does it stack with generalists ability to use their arcane focus at their max level, and again at every level (including their max level again)?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
edduardco wrote:


Considering that it will require a caster at least level 17 and spells per day is capped at 3, I don't see any issue in that.
5, and that's just counting the options we know about, and not including preparing 9th level spells in 10th level slots.
From where do you get 5? Only Wizards has 4. And for what I have seen in other threads there will not be 10 level slots, the so called 10th level spells are just feats usable one per day.

Wizards get 5, including their arcane focus. Cleric's effectively get even more, although that more is just a bunch of heals.

I have not seen the same regarding spell slots. I've seen that the spells were feat locked, but haven't seen the same regarding the slots themselves. I recall the opposite in fact, but I may simply be misremembering or misconstrued that post. And to be honest I wouldn't even know where to start looking for it.

Edit: fixed the quote

Edit edit: rereading the cleric blog, it looks like I was wrong about everyone just getting 10th level slots regardless if they get spells for them. I think 10th level slots might still be a thing, but I'll concede I misunderstand that part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
Not a big fan of “quickened” giving you different types of actions depending on the source. Really unintuitive and messy, and basically means that haste and that monk ability don’t actually give you the same condition, but it has the same name anyway. Would quickened just giving you an additional action you can use for whatever really be that overpowered?
Probably not, definitely something to mention during playtest
I dunno. Casting 2 9th level spells in one turn seems pretty potent to me.
Considering that it will require a caster at least level 17 and spells per day is capped at 3, I don't see any issue in that.

5, and that's just counting the options we know about, and not including preparing 9th level spells in 10th level slots.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Could the "when" be shortly after the release of the production version of Pathfinder 2nd Edition?

Alas, it's FAR more likely that the "when" will be never. We simply cannot compile every Adventure Path we've done into a hardcover edition. We've done 3 so far, counting Shackled City, for the duration that Paizo's been a thing, and we've done a LOT more Adventure Paths than that and are doing 4 or more a year now (counting Starfinder). If we do another one, chances of it being Second Darkness are, frankly, minuscule. I wouldn't say it's the LEAST likely one to be done, but it's far from, say, the top five.

As much as I'd like to revise it, the Office of Expectation Management suggests you don't hold your breath for this one.

I've always considered it a shame that neither Paizo nor Wizards was able to do a hardcover for Age of Worms, although I don't know the legal and copywrite complications of it all. It's just such an iconic adventure path.

Although, for my money, my favorite of the three Dungeon APs was Savage Tide. Age of worms was cool, and as I said iconic, but that one was awesome.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JRutterbush wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
Okay, I'm calling it now: getting reliable access to the "Quick" condition is going to be a staple of high-level play.
And then, three or four books from now, we'll see the first ability that gives access to the fabled "Quick 2" condition.

That is 100% going to be a thing eventually, although it might be a monster ability first.

I wonder if they also have a new condition that allows extra reactions? The fighter blog mentioned they get an extra reaction each turn for AoO, didn't it? Seems like a natural alternate condition alongside Quick and Slowed.

Edit: I also wonder how two different types of quick interact? Do you get all of the potential actions for that extra actions, or do you have to pick between various subsets?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Furdinand wrote:

I want them to just make a book that is just updated versions of the non-core classes and related feats/spells/etc. Nothing for core, no new classes. Just a book that lets me play the classes I already like and lets me play them ASAP.

I don't want to wait eight years for a hardcover that squeezes in a few pages for the Inquisitor.

I imagine a revised class book will come out VERY quickly. Can't predict how complete it will be; I would be more interested in getting as many classes out as either all-up classes or archetypes, and only package the classes with new sub-systems if absolutely needed to support the class itself. Perhaps the psychic might not make the first class book, but the mesmerist and kineticist might. But they may disagree, and spread the new classes out instead of quintupling the number of legal classes all in one go.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:

They have added new product lines as the demand fluctuates (note that the separate modules line has atrophied and the campaign setting line decline whilst the player companions with a larger target market continues strong).

They haven’t split the APs into three tightly focussed product lines. Doing so would be good for us and commercially disastrous....

That's fair. And the strongest evidence that you're right is that they've been putting out the APs with little change in format for a decade. If anyone could split it up, it would be them, because they used to run the two separate magazines. So clearly they side with you on this.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
I'm a little surprised the Barbarian has wound up being controversial. Admittedly, it still seems mostly well received, even by the folks who don't like Anathemas. But I didn't see it generating quite this much arguing.

I blame myself.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
Oh no. Now you've challenged them to find a way to make us fight over Barbarians

Wait. I was replying to your post Captain. So it's YOUR fault.

Edit: I'm hoping for the human and half-human ancestries today. That would fit with Barbarians.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:

I think this would be better for the consumer but likely worse for Paizo commercially. It’s similar to suggesting the APs get broken up - one line of adventures, one of monsters, one of backmatter articles. That way, the customer can pick-and-choose which bits of the AP they want.

This would be great for us, but almost certainly result in a significant hit to profits. Those who wanted it all would now have to spend more, some would opt out of the monsters, some the backmatter and some the adventures. The way thing are currently set up (as a pseudo-magazine, really) we are all buying stuff we don’t want from time to time, but overall we’re getting enough of what we want to make it worth it. Doing it this way allows a more diverse product, since those fringe topics get covered collectively (whereas there’d never be the market to produce them otherwise). Occasionally we’re buying stuff we don’t really want so others get their pet area...

Well, we know that's not quite true, because what you're saying is effectively what happened with Pathfinder. Remember, the AP was the combined replacement for both Dragon and Dungeon magazines, and originally had all the content. And, really, still does have quite a variety. But they've since introduced totally separate lines with different focus, including one for each of the aspects you outline in the quote post (we have a several lines of just adventures, a beastiary every couple of years, Pathfinder Campaign Setting and Pathfinder Companion lines for the two types of backmatter articles), as well as continuing to introduce an AP installment every month.

But, regardless, while your post was almost totally wrong ( :P ), your logic on not splitting things up with regards to 1-20 play remains sound. The reason we have a CRB that combines the old Players Handbook and Dungeon Master Guide was to make it easier to have one point of reference for play. Since they plan on producing 1-20 APs, it make sense to provide the framework to run those games in one product.

I, like others, hope they diversify the product offerings and start and end APs at different points, but the initial intent is 1-20.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ah, thank you all for so helpfully illustrating how divergent our definitions and perceptions of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil. I disagree with *everypne* of course, but that's to be expected.

That's why I said upthread Law and CHaos is functionally useless. It's great for RP! DOn't get me wrong, especially if you encounter beings of pure law or chaos. BUt when it comes to applying standards of behavior, or interpreting the same in another character, none of us can agree.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Related to Sadie's post, I'm really hoping the exploration mode rules will turn out to have a coherent skill challenge ruleset. They put out various specific skill challenges over the last few books (Occult rituals and psychic combat, chases, research and social combat, wilderness exploration rules), but combining them all into a basic chassis would be nice. I'd also like options to dial the complexity up or down depending on how much time your players want to spend on it.

I really liked the Skill Challenge book, and hope some fashion of that becomes part of the core rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Barring something catching my eye in the doc, I’m going to play a particularly cranky Halfing Druid with a merchant background. I’ll be kicking the tires on the downtime and exploration modes, and also looking for ways to combine and swap class abilities to create non-core classes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Contagious Rage makes me curious, because I wonder how a bard might get that and become a Skald.

Actually, speaking of bards, are they also going to use the 3 rounds up 1 round down for inspiration?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Crayon wrote:

Look like a piece of text might be missing in the penultimate sentence of the final paragraph. Although it might also be an artefact from a previous draft.

Also, if you don't mind us asking, I'm curious why Totems are being made available earlier in the playtest than they will be in the final book (tentatively)

The blog was referring to how you could only select totems at 2nd level or higher in PF1, but now you select them at lvl 1, and everyone chooses one.

The important question for me though is: will barbarians have death curses as class feats?

Edit: I'm curious if the rounds-of-rage to round-of-downtown ratio will be tinkered with. Rather, how quickly it'll be tinkered with. I could see a feat letting you rage a number of rounds equal to your con modifier before being hit by fatigue, not stackable with the normal three rounds. I could also see feats that increased the number of rounds of fatigue in exchange for a strong rage power, sort of like the meta breath feats in 3.5 (a low-level one could allow you to not enter rage for two rounds, but not be fatigued when you exit rage).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Not everyone will be happy no matter what is decided, as we've all seen. Aiming for "everyone will be happy" is kind of useless.

Also, the opinions of what constitutes "law" and "chaotic" behaviors are so divergent and individual that they are functionally meaningless, so I wouldn't want to base any mechanics at all on that particular dichotomy. Why try to build a house on quicksand?

Edit: I wouldn't mind Law and Chaos remaining in the game as a spring-off point for RP though. Defining what lawful and what chaotic behavior means to your player is something that can make for an interesting story. But due to the table by table variance, and heck even person to person variance, I wouldn't want it as more than an RP system.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ENHenry wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
No, there is not. There is a chart that lists a suggested price range for the DM to pick within. That is, in fact, a lack of a specific item price, and the source of my annoyance.
On the other hand, as soon as you list discrete magic item prices and/or discrete formulas for all magic item creations, you have the return of Magic Mart, because people are people. Even back in AD&D 1st edition, people were buying and selling magic items in some campaigns; it wasn't as wide-spread because Gary Gygax's influence and the influence of the first generation of of RPG gamers was still a pretty strong one, but given the influence of both online ordering and computer RPGs, as soon as discrete prices come in, Magic Mart returns widescale, IMO.

Agreed, but I actually don't have a problem with that. I can simply ban magic items, or magic items above a certain rarity (that part I like in the 5e approach, and look forward to seeing spells treated the same in PF2).

Assuming I'm going for that flavor, anyways.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Game Master Q wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.
There is one. It's in the DMG and the price is based on rarity.

No, there is not. There is a chart that lists a suggested price range for the DM to pick within. That is, in fact, a lack of a specific item price, and the source of my annoyance.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.

THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ElSilverWind wrote:

Perhaps to replicate Jack-of-All-Trades, Bards (as Class Abilities) become Trained in all skills at 10th level, Expert in all skills at 15th level, and Master in all skills at 19th?

The idea being that Rogues gain more Skill Ranks and Skill feats so they can specialize in the skills they want and reach higher proficiencies more quickly, while Bards slowly gains a wider range of skills at a lower proficiency.

I could also see Bards counting as trained/expert/master for the purposes of selecting and using skill feats without actually getting the proficiency. Bards would become those people that could do neat, niche tricks without the underlying competency. Like you can select Cat Fall, and even unlock the progressive benefits, all without actually investing in Acrobatics.

I'm not sure if that would be a good or bad idea, but it might be worth trying to see.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And if you weren't careful, you could accidentally break the level expectation.

I had a very broken eberrron character once because, when the "Master of Shrouds" prestige class was converted to 3.5 in Libris Mortis, the prerequisites become "Will save +5" instead of requiring a certain caster level. I was able to qualify for it by lvl 3 by multiclassing, and by character level 7 could summon a wraith 6xs a day as a spell-like ability. It was for a one-shot, so my dm let me get away with it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:
Dunno, I think that if people think "Monks are anime", they either don't want to do the research and lack the imagination to apply it to their own setting.

Some euro-centric influenced monks:

I really liked the flavor of "Oath-bound" in Arcana Unearthed by Monte Cooke. People that would swear an oath for temporary power was very interesting to me. It didn't quite gel, but still, it told an interesting story. I could see an entire peasant army rising up in the space of a day with that class.

In my old college campaign, Monks acted as a praetorian guard in the setting's theocracy because they were in theory neutral among the various competing religions. Their lack of weapons and armor allowed them to blend into a household's staff until the last possible moment, or go into another church's territory completely unarmed and unarmored but still battle ready.

Another monk character I had took the Thief-Acrobat prestige class and would have made a better scout than the rogue if she'd been able to detect traps. I only played a few sessions with her, but I liked her so much I wrote the beginnings of a novel starring her as a class assignment (the class dubbed her "Ninja Granny").


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

World of Warcraft seems like an obvious addition. PF2's crafting system and alchemy rules seem promising, and could be expanded on if desired.

I like quite a few of the other suggestions, and Discworld would also be something I would throw money at.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like both Malk and Frost_ace's ideas, and wouldn't mind either being the way they ultimately went.

A couple ideas I've had: rather than free actions, style feats allow a monk to apply a weapon quality to their unarmed attacks, and possibly (or requiring higher level/a ki point) monk weapons as well. Want an unarmed strike that is deadly, sweeping, and deals slashing damage? Monk styles have you covered, and can even let you swap out for the next fight if other qualities would be better. This could be combined with Malk's idea pretty easily, and would make the weapon qualities table a tactical tool for every monk.

I also want to see monks tap the entire spectrum of magic types. Have wardens of the church that Frost_ace described access divine magic powers off the domain powers list, and maybe even off the paladin powers, an elemental manipulater that's using esoteric arcane magics, a chakra channeler that dabbles into Occult magics, and a primal focused monk that gets minor to major wildshape powers and possibly replaces the shifter class. And that's before getting REALLY interesting, like a transmuter that manipulates time itself or Fiend Worshipers that call hellfire and wrack their opponents with pain.

An entire monastic tradition is going to be, what, ten class feats max? And more realistically around five to seven? You can have all kind of weird powers and varying levels of anime inside the same monk chassis.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I definitely wouldn't mind a general unarmored archetype. The unarmored paladin might be especially entertaining.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
This actually seems built in to any Class Feat that gives additional uses for the Spell Points rather than something separate from Class.

For once my friend, I hope you're wrong...

The bucket of Class Feats is large enough, that adding general combat/spell feats to the mix would be too much. Especially since most Class features from PF1 are now feats. So if you want to build a PF1esque class, you are at a serious disadvantage... Then throw in things like Archetypes, Orders, Oaths, the various styles of combat with various weapons, and the various spells, and the like and you have a large bucket indeed. I'm expecting from what we've seen that the class feats pool is roughly 30 feats.
Spell Points should be separate from class feats as well because they they are not tied to ONE class. Most classes have them, they just use them for different abilities... So it would be fitting to put them in General feats.

I disagree. The way it's shown to work is that every time you pick a new power, which is determined by your class (for instance, Paladin powers are a bit more powerful for their cost than a clerics), you get additional spell points added to your pool. The class you get the power from doesn't matter; in theory you can pick up a wizard school power, a cleric domain power, and a paladin litany power, and each time you gain that power your spell point pool gets a little bigger, and you can use that pool to cast any of them. We don't know exactly how many new points you get per day yet, but limiting it in this way seems reasonable to me.

I could see a general feat that just adds point without giving you a new power though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dragonborn are Kobolds with better marketing, which is possibly why Kobolds weren't seriously considering for core.

Yes I'm aware of the 3.5 book which introduced them. I stand by what I said.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
I still want more specificity in spell description format. Maybe I am alone, but it feels weird to me that spells like acid splash and ray of frost use the word target in their descriptive text, but do not call out what it means to be a target in the stat block. If the word Target is designed to be universal enough not to be required in a stat blcok, that is fine, as the assumption would be that what is a target is adequately defined in a general magic session, but a game creates unneeded complexity by having the "target:" appear in the stat block of some spells and not others. Limited targeting should be moved entirely to the stat block so that limitation can be adequately explained in a sentence of text.

I really am not sure what you mean by this. Some spells have targeted effects, some spells do not. Having a target line is only appropriate for spells that you target. If you're instead creating an area effect, or summoning a lantern archon, that target line is unneeded and would create clutter.

Also, the PRD does go into targets, areas, and effects when it comes to spells. I see no reason to assume PF2 would be different in this regard.

Edit: I see what you mean now. I get the logic they're using, but you're right it is a bit inconsistent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thaX wrote:

Kay, have two posters that say something...

Stone Dog wrote:
It takes a character who has more proficiency ranks (through skill feats) to know...
GentleGiant wrote:
You have skill proficiency (untrained, trained, expert etc.), your skill bonus (ability modifier + level + numerical bonus/penalty from proficiency + items (- armor check penalty)) and skill feats.
So, Stone Dog and GentleGaint. What does the actual Skill Ranks you get at first and odd levels actually do other than give another +1 to the skill?

It's been said a couple times now, but getting that increased skill rank unlocks additional tasks you can attempt using the skill, as well as what skill feats you can take. Some skill feats also get better at higher ranks, although I don't think we have examples of that yet.

This is all in addition to the +1 to the skill.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
quillblade wrote:

The consolidation of the Thievery skill also seems a bit of a stretch. Unlike Acrobatics and Athletics, the actions involved in opening a lock, disabling a trap, cutting a purse and feats of prestidigitation seem to be very different skill sets.

Since all of those tasks involve being very nimble with your fingers, as well as having very sensitive touch sense, I can see the consolidation. Although I'd just call it "Sleight of Hand" and avoid the connotations that Quillblade brings up.

Benjamin_Mahir wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
ElSilverWind wrote:

Arcana = knowledge regarding Arcane Spells, Monsters, and Rituals

Religion = knowledge regarding Divine Spells, Monsters, and Rituals
Nature = knowledge regarding Primal Spells, Monsters, and Rituals
Occultism = knowledge regarding Occult Spells, Monsters, and Rituals

Calling it now . . .

Society = knowledge regarding Social Spells, Monsters, and Rituals!

(Joking. But would be somewhat fitting for a Bard.)

I wish, but bards are likely occult casters. Which I'm weirdly against. I'd be just fine if bards wound up being psychic casters, but for some reason occult annoys me.

I'm sure it'll make sense in context.

Part of me still feels like both the Bard and Sorcerer are going to be able to choose which spell list they have access to. That way Bards traditional bardic college dabblers with Arcane magic, lore singing Skalds with Divine magic, fairy ring panpipes dancers with Nature magic, and Gypsy tarot card readers with Occult magic. An similarly Sorcerer with Dragon bloodlines get Arcane magic, Fey bloodlines get nature magic, Celestial/Fiend magic get Divine magic, and Aberration bloodline get Occult.

I could see that, and would add that Monks might belong to "schools" that differentiate themselves by tapping into different power sources, from Arcane wielding elementalists to Occult Chakra channelers to enigmatic Primal "shifters", even some that weild no ki powers at all and just double down on their martial skills.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I'd be just fine if bards wound up being psychic casters, but for some reason occult annoys me.
Has Paizo said anything suggesting they are departing from P1E equation of Psychic/Occult?

Not that I've seen, although a few people have assumed.

To be clear, the issue i have is with the name occult being applied to bards. The actual class and style of magic I'm fine with. And I genuinely don't understand why.

1 to 50 of 588 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>