Paper Golem

AnimatedPaper's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 849 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 849 << 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
Fuzzypaws wrote:

There is a HUGE amount of redundant text from feats being reprinted multiple times for various classes. Reach Spell etc are printed in full many times and that is a huge waste of word count / space. If a feat is open to multiple classes, just go all the way and strip the class requirement and make it a general feat, and give a general feat at level 1. Each class could have a little sidebar indicating "These are some general feats you might want to consider too."

Skill feats should be listed under the relevant skills, just like feats are for ancestries and classes. That might also help make it more obvious to the designers that some skills really got shafted on feats compared to other skills, and need some more love.

Rituals should be organized alphabetically like the rest of the spells. (Frankly I feel all the spells with expensive material components and casting times of minutes+, like Alarm, should be rituals instead of spells, and they should get rid of the weird requirement that rituals must be 8+ hours with multiple casters. But that's a separate issue from just layout.)

Definetely agree with all of these points, especially regarding rituals. I'd love if alarm became a ritual that anyone with the training could do.


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

I had such high hopes for exploration mode too. I wanted it structured more like the 4e skill challenges. In that context, breaking these down to specific tactics and getting specific kinds of "hits" each round (you ARE investigating and searching at the same time, but this round you want a information reward, and next round you want to know whether or not the room has any secret doors or traps) might make some sense. Tying it to initiative seems less ideal.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:

Honestly... just double everything. I don't think it's overly game-breaking, and it simplifies things a ton. Though, obviously the exception for things that are tacked on with a critical hit (that should be fairly intuitive.

I think that's a pretty good table variant (one I'll probably adopt in fact), but a lot of people like rolling dice. Tracking the penalties and bonuses...not so much, although I think Pathfinder is to a certain extent written with the players that like that in mind.

Quote:
Result of a roll = number on the die + ability modifier + proficiency modifier + circumstance bonus + conditional bonus + item bonus + circumstance penalty + conditional penalty + item penalty + untyped penalties

Honestly, I think that right there should be the litmus test for new players. You're either going to run screaming or see so many variables to game. And if you are the type to want to line as many marginal factors in your favor as possible, have we got the game for you...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I agree with John's proposed solution, and would push again that humans should get a bonus ancestry feat on top of the one they already get. It would help Halfhumans feel balanced against their parent races, and vanilla humans might get the ability to really customize their base character traits.

I don't think I've fully articulated, but I'm really not compelled by the argument that half-humans are balanced by the fact that they can cherry pick the best of three different buckets of ancestry feats. If those buckets aren't roughly equal to each other (and right now they aren't), something went awry. Plus, a great many options is only good if you have the chance to bounce between them all on the same character.

Hmm. Actually, that might work. If humans had as an option for a 5th or 10th level feat a "flexible" ancestry feat that allowed you to pick a new ancestry feat of lower level each morning, I would probably stop insisting they need more than the other ancestries. I'm not sure how practical an option it is, but it sounds fun to be able to selectively channel some aspect of your ancestry every morning.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Here you go
From this post

James Jacobs wrote:

This is a correction we're looking to make that is in many ways long overdue to the world.

Ethnically, Chelaxians are identical to Taldans and really always have been; they've been traditionally treated as their own ethnicity mostly due to the fact that their government is diabolic, which is a weird reason to do that. Especially since that didn't hold true for the nation pre-Age of Lost Omens. (Note that they don't even have their own ethnic language.) So with the new edition, we're adjusting that to include them under the umbrella of the Taldan ethnicity.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Completely off topic:
But I am definitely rolling up Dorothy the Maser Basketweaver as a 7th level cleric to Torag. I already know who she is as a person, might as well go with it.

Ultimately, I agree that some of the points could be better worded to prevent odd rules interactions. But some of the points brought up are just matters of taste, and I don't think we'll fully reconcile it all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sam Phelan wrote:
Please keep this thread on topic concerning questions about how to give feedback. This is not an appropriate place to discuss any other topic. Please follow the advice laid out in this very thread if you want your concerns or feedback heard.

Question, what is the best way to flag a post that is sidetracking the original topic? I would like to assist the mods in helping keep the information clean for the playtest, but I also don't want you to have to divine what I mean by "Breaks other guideline" unless that really is the best one to use.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lucid Blue wrote:
Battle Medic: "You can use a healers kit to clean and bandage the wounds of living creatures. Using this feat expends one use of the healers kit."

Hate to bring this up, but Healer's tools don't have uses. So I've no objections to the first part, but the second part is not needed.

Another way I might accomplish the same goal is to put in the Medicine skill description itself that you need healers tools to attempt any use of the medicine skill (except Recall Knowledge. Also I would add a Recall Knowledge task to the skill), and that not using healer tools imposes a -2 penalty because you are considered to be improvising it. There's a couple other skills I'd want to add something like that to as well. Edit: actually, no, it's just Medicine. Craft and Theivery already have something close enough.

Edit: edited to be less of a jerk


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Then there's the whole completely cancerous idea of the mundane martial. No. If you're level 10-15 then you shouldn't be mundane anymore. I use examples of actual legends a lot but they really did do all sorts of wacky stuff you can't do in real life because the gate called "physics" bars your way. A level 15, even a Barbarian or Fighter, isn't just a guy at the gym - he's a guy who's surpassed all gyms that will ever exist. Hercules carried the sky on his back. That's right, he kept the earth and the sky apart, despite having nothing to hold onto for the sky part, but he did it anyway because nope he's just that strong

Well, in fairness, Combat Medic is a level 2 feat, so there should be some grounding in reality.

TheFinnish and OP bring up good points about the wonkiness of the feat's rules text, but I think asking for any explanation at all of how the feat works beyond the rules of it is folly. For example, much of the thread's angst would have been avoided if the hadn't added the second sentence to the Planar Survival feat. Trying to give an example of how it worked without being too specific clearly backfired in this case.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
epicmusic42 wrote:
Now, I imagine that what Battle Medic is intended to mean I essentially Administer First Aid at a higher DC. Though a clarification that that's what I'm doing would be appreciated. (Now as someone who enjoys getting into the nitty gritty realism of fantasy settings, I would prefer it if those hit points were fully temporary in a you lose an equal number in half n hour if you don't get proper healing kind of way, but I digress).

There might be a rules interaction that prevented them from saying that. It would have to be worded very carefully to both keep you form using that first aid action to heal HP more than once per day, but not simultaneously lock out the ability to use first aid normally on the same day.

Also, that tent full of naked medics patching up an army is called a mobile army surgical hospital unit. There was a long running TV show in the 80s about one, And a movie before that. I'm absolutely amused that something like THAT is unrealistic, but a single cleric patching up everyone is apparently more believable.


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

I think much of the time spent depends on how familiar you are with the ancestry/background/class of choice, and how high of a level. My lvl 4 Halfling storm druid took a LOT longer than the bard (like an hour longer), because I was less familiar with the options and kept getting distracted. Hopefully the level 7 crafting cleric will be shorter.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Honestly it'll probably take me longer to type than it took to write, but here you go:

Memorio, Human Bard, Pathfinder Hopeful (1)

Spoiler:
Str 12, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 18
Saves: Perc +2, Fort +1, Will +1, Ref +4
AC 14, TAC 13. HP 16

Spell +5
Longsword +2 1d8 s/p
Shortbow +3 1d6 p (deadly 1d10)

Spell pool 6
Trained skills: Arcana +3, Deception +5, Diplomacy +5, Intimidation +5, Lore (Pathfinder) +3, Lore (Galt) +3, Nature +1, Occultism +3, Perfomance +5, Religion +3, Society +3, Bardic Lore +3

Spells
Cantrips: Inspire Courage, Daze, Detect Magic, Message, Shield
Powers: Counter Performance (1), Lingering Compostion (1)
1st: True Strike, Soothe

Equipment: Longsword (10), Disguise Kit (20), Bell (8), Leather Armor (15), Short bow + 10 bolts (31). 66 silver


backstory:
1. Scion of the house Sorbonne, it was Memorio's destiny to be a fine courtier in a palace of intrigue and delights. Sadly, the revolution came when her parents were children, and they relocated with other noble families one step ahead of the mob to Taldor.
2. Both parent entered Taldor's military, and were drawn together by their shared background. Neither is sure if they like each other, but mutual respect runs very deep.
3. Rather than join the military, or get married off to another Galtan in Exile family, Memorio ran away at the earliest conceivable opportunity to join the pathfinders. She still intends to do so one day.
3. Memorio is female, but presents as male when she feels like it. It helps throw off the people Dame Admiral Madeline Sorbonne née Glacé (her mom) set to find her.
4. Memorio wandered through Avistan, even briefly entering Galt, but quickly moved on through to Varisa.
5. A lore bard, Memorio prefers to make her living writing stories that romanticize the kingdom's earlier history, including the early revolutionary days and the nobles in exile. Oddly, they sell decently enough to pay her expenses.
6. This has led to her third identity (Musette Sorbonne being the first, "Memorio" the second) of Citizen Souvenier.
7. Now in Maginar, she hopes to trade on that name in order to find fresh story matter and perhaps an introduction to the pathfinder society.
8. Her instrument of choice is a band of bells.
9. Her father was the one to teach her how to use a sword, her mother the bow. She thinks of them while she fights. She taught herself to weave the spell daze into her strikes.
10. She never fully understood how to move in heavier armors, but she's been practicing and hopes to be able to figure out how to move effectively in it soon (intention to multiclass fighter).

Edit: to be clear, I only did the sheet earlier. The background I wrote out fresh, but its an old character so I knew it before I started.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lucid Blue wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Yes, because while she could make a master level sword, her bonus at making master level baskets (and what a weird picture that conjures) is still higher than for blacksmithing. She probably knows how to make more items too.

Hmm. In that case, I guess it comes down to supply and demand.

If you just need a bunch of middling level katanas, you go talk to Hattori Hanzo the expert smith.

But if you need a TRULY master crafted blade. Go see Dorothy the basketweaver.

Exactly! Especially since she learned it specifically to spite him (bad divorce, she got the dog, he got the forge, but forgot to specify that she leave the master level plans in the forge).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes, because while she could make a master level sword, her bonus at making master level baskets (and what a weird picture that conjures) is still higher than for blacksmithing. She probably knows how to make more items too.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Lucid Blue wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Lucid Blue wrote:
Except that Dorothy has never made a sword in her life. Dorothy has only ever made baskets. Hattori has made swords for 30 years. Doesn't matter. Dorothy can make the master level katana. First time out. Hattori can't even try.

Because Dorothy knows how to make that sword. Hattori does not. She's just that good.

If, as Renchard points out, you'd prefer craft be a bit more specific in how you apply your bonus (i.e., the speciality crafting feat was built into the skill, rather than on top of it), fine. But in PF2, the craft skill doesn't work like that, and you are getting mad at a cat because it isn't a dog.

Isn't that the entire point of a playtest? To say "hey you made this a cat, and I think it should be a dog?"

Why should Lore be partitioned out then? Let's just let one skill give us access to the knowledge of everything? One point, and we're essentially omniscient? Why should that be a problem?

If I can go buy the plans for anything... A master level katana, the golden gate bridge, maybe a cathedral, the Mona Lisa, hell pretty much everything. And I don't need to find a master painter. Or an architect. Or a mason. Or an engineer. Or a weaponsmith. I don't need any of them.

I've got a pile of plans. And I've got Dorothy the master basketweaver, who's never done anything but make baskets her entire life. But she can build all of it.

If that situation is palatable and believable to you, then more power to you. But you should be just as on board with a single master Lore skill. That gives you access to every bit of knowledge in the universe. Because it's exactly the same thing.

Did they change how Craft worked in 2e? The book was a slog to read through and I might've missed some stuff.

Technically Craft had subtypes in 1e and 3.5, a lot of people just ignored them because it was a pain to spend ranks in Craft (Weaponsmith) or Craft (Baskets) or Craft (Cooking) unless your backstory...

Yes. In order to craft a thing, you need: a formula, to be of the appropriate rank, to have the appropriate tools, to be of the same level as the item or higher, and have the raw materials. You don't need to be specifically trained in a subcategory, although you can take a speciality crafting feat to be better at crafting a subcategory of items if you choose.

In the example Lucid and I are batting about, Dorothy is a Master Crafter with the speciality crafting feat (weaving). Hattori is an expert crafter with the same feat for smithing. Assuming they are of the same level, give Hattori an expert level sword to make, and he's the better crafter. But if you need a master sword, Dorothy is the only one who can even try, even though she only knows the theory and has no swordmaking practice.

Edit: Now, due to the way Lore works, Dorothy has a shot at making a living as a sword crafter, but she'd do better to simply stick to basket weaving and let Hattori make the swords. Both of them earn more sticking to their specialities in that respect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lucid Blue wrote:
If that situation is palatable and believable to you, then more power to you. But you should be just as on board with a single master Lore skill. That gives you access to every bit of knowledge in the universe. Because it's exactly the same thing.

I mean, sure. That's why my first character is a bard, who gets exactly such a lore skill, though she can't raise it past expert.

I don't know about believable though. No TTRPG skill system I've encountered has been believable. It's a game, why would I expect that? I just accept the rules work that way, and move on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:

I have no idea if I'm going to actually PF2e. Some of the big fans of the current version of the rules may come to hate the new version so I would argue most people don't know if they'll play it.

For the playtest can we please pledge not to threaten to walk away or to post to people telling them to "just play 1e so the rest of us can enjoy 2e"? here are two examples with the names redacted of what I'm talking about

Name Redacted wrote:
In which case, you'll be happy playing 1e and I'll be happy playing 2e.
Name Redacted wrote:
that's the point where people like me who came to pathfinder because it was the opposite of 4E/5E, lots of customization and variables, wave goodbye to the good people of paizo

This playtest is going to be volatile and (likely) toxic enough without us piling fuel onto the fire. Let's all try to restrain ourselves as much as possible and not posting these sorts of sentiments will help dramatically in the tone of the boards.

Just a small request from a fellow poster.

Knowing how you feel about PF2, I would like to thank you for posting this. It means a lot to see this coming from you, and I look forward to seeing your point of view throughout the playtest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, if I'm sending my players to the Negative Energy Plane it's presumably to encounter something interesting there, not just to kill them.

That one word caused me to laugh, because I mean, "since you're there anyways, roll to see if you explode."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lucid Blue wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Lucid Blue wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Since the expert level swordsmith likely has the Specialty crafting feat for smithing, no, they'll still be better.

Only at a basic level. The expert swordsmith CANNOT forge a master level katana. But the master basketweaver CAN.

"Step aside Hattori Hanzo. Dorothy here is going to show you how to make a REAL samurai weapon!"

Oh, we're talking about master level swords now? We weren't before.

But yes. Dorothy, one of the best crafters in the region with years of experience under her belt, and who also happens to know how to make master level katanas, can make one. Hanzo, who while no longer a journeyman has probably not been in the game long, but has been crafting swords this whole time, just doesn't have the experience to make a master level sword yet. He might not ever. The swords he can make, he can make better than Dorothy could (his experience and training aren't useless), but there are tasks he can't do yet.

Except that Dorothy has never made a sword in her life. Dorothy has only ever made baskets. Hattori has made swords for 30 years. Doesn't matter. Dorothy can make the master level katana. First time out. Hattori can't even try.

Because Dorothy knows how to make that sword. Hattori does not. She's just that good.

If, as Renchard points out, you'd prefer craft be a bit more specific in how you apply your bonus (i.e., the speciality crafting feat was built into the skill, rather than on top of it), fine. But in PF2, the craft skill doesn't work like that, and you are getting mad at a cat because it isn't a dog. Outside of a skill feat, you don't get better at crafting specific things, you get better at crafting ALL of the things you know how to craft.

Nothing about any game's skill system makes a lick of sense, except for stuff like Skyrim or WoW where you get better through direct practice (edit: weird that I've seen people complain this is "videogamey," but video games have the space to let you level skills independent of your class level). I really think you're kind of overthinking this one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lucid Blue wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Since the expert level swordsmith likely has the Specialty crafting feat for smithing, no, they'll still be better.

Only at a basic level. The expert swordsmith CANNOT forge a master level katana. But the master basketweaver CAN.

"Step aside Hattori Hanzo. Dorothy here is going to show you how to make a REAL samurai weapon!"

Oh, we're talking about master level swords now? We weren't before.

But yes. Dorothy, one of the best crafters in the region with years of experience under her belt, and who also happens to know how to make master level katanas, can make one. Hanzo, who while no longer a journeyman has probably not been in the game long, but has been crafting swords this whole time, just doesn't have the experience to make a master level sword yet. He might not ever. The swords he can make, he can make better than Dorothy could (his experience and training aren't useless), but there are tasks he can't do yet.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lucid Blue wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Because Lore doesn't require you to have a formula for every thing you are making. I have to have plans to craft anything I know and can do anything under my lore.
So, if I bring the formula for a katana to my local master basketweaver... She should be able to forge that katana better than any expert level swordsmith?

Since the expert level swordsmith likely has the Specialty crafting feat for smithing, no, they'll still be better. If she also has the specialty crafting feat for smithing, then yes, because while she works as a weaver, she is also a master level blacksmith. Why on earth she would choose to do that is up to you, but that's firmly a character RP choice, not as dissociated as you seem to think.

Without that skill feat, at best she could match an expert blacksmith with the skill feat once she was a legendary crafter, at which point some hand waving is allowed. I'm certainly not going to tell her she can't make a piddly little pigsticker at least as well as her ex, who never progressed past Expert.


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

I mean, I'm 100% down with the paladin being excised from the CRB to give them time to do it correctly during a later release. If the current chassis is too restrictive and can't be salvaged, we're better pulling it rather than it being the new Rogue or Monk.

Passing legendary armor skill to fighters would make sense as well. Revised-Paladins can share it as a selectable option, but they don't have to be forced into it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sure. Like John said, Rogues and Barbarians in PF1 had a lot of modularity built into their classes. Every other level, you get to freely pick a talent among a list, which gradually gets bigger and stronger as you move up. Many later classes, like Oracles, Witches, and Magi, followed a similar pattern, cumulating in the Vigilante, the pinnacle of talent picking. To a lesser extent, Fighters also had this modularity, although that came in the form of bonus combat feats. Rangers and Paladins had options, but they were pretty constrained and didn't have as much. All of the casters were fairly constrained, to a greater or lesser extent, as their modularity was seen to be their spell selection.

Edit: Monks were just a mess, which is why they were redesigned to be more flexible. On the flip side, summoners were redesigned to be less flexible, so it's a balancing act.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
willwrk4internet wrote:
The change I would love to see is a bestiary that scales with player level. Essentially I want every monster to be "buildable" like the entry for dragons. This would dovetail with the trend towards bounded accuracy. I am not saying that we get rid of static monster entries. I very much like that each dragon entry in the bestiary has three pre-made dragons of differing level. Keep that system for every monster, but also add a quick and easy way to scale up or rebuild monsters at a different level.

A gentle person after my own heart. I too loved the way monster roles in 4e helped build an encounter. Actually I sort of loved every aspect of 4e's monsters, and going into PF from 4e was a step down.

That said, one thing PF did correct was simple monster templates. I think your wish for a way to edit a monster so that you can make it a biggger or lesser threat will be included. The devs also indicated we would also get an Unchained or Starfinder ruleset for building monsters in the full rules, although we did not get that for the playtest. The need to control variables is probably why they didn't just print them in the playtest beastiary.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Hrödulf Domhnall wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I have to strongly disagree on modularity. Class feats are just: bonus feats, rogue trick, rage powers, etc. now not all classes got those, but most did. This is just the same modularity repackaged with a whole heap of combat feats taken out of circulation (some were made class feats).
I personally love how modular the classes are. It make it feel a lot more organic to me, wherein character classes are more or less just archetypes (the traditional meaning, that is - a recurrent symbol or "classic design") that are then customized and custom tailored to a specific play's style. I will wholeheartedly agree that it is hard to get an outright feel for a class with this new system, but with the same breath I will argue that this is an improvement over the previous system's "this class it good with x and y archetypes plugged in, but don't play it with a or b."
Did you mean to quote my post? Because you have addressed nothing I said and simply rearticulated what I argued against. There is no improved modularity. This is PF1e modularity regurgitated.

Perhaps "improved" is overstating the case, although that level of modularity is improved for many core classes. If they had, coming out of 3.5, designed the PF1 classes with that level of modularity in mind, I think archetypes in PF1 would have looked much like they do in PF2. It was the rigid framework of classes like the cleric that forced the design of archetypes in PF1, and they made a conscious step to eliminate that rigidity and bring all classes up to the baseline established by barbarians and rogues.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tholomyes wrote:
But that being said, I could probably accept a Powers section, if (and likely only if) it categorized powers by the class that grants them, first, then by the aspect that grants them (i.e. the domain and advanced domain powers are both grouped together and organized in a sensible way), and even then I'd hope that every power gives every aspect of how it is used (most notably absent being the cost of each power in its entry).

That lack of entry cost is the strongest indication to me that there will eventually be cross-class powers, or at least the devs saw the value in setting themselves up for the option in the future. Different classes might access the same power at different costs and by way of different class feats; most of the powers are written in such a way that the same power could be cast by a druid or a paladin or a bard with no change to the wording. Augment Summons is a notable exception, which is weird because I would have expected that to be class/spell-list agnostic even if most are not.

*shrug* Basically, I disagree with your premise that the powers are, or should be, defined by the class or even feat that grants them. For example, the domain power "Fire Ray" would make sense to be granted by an eventual fire elemental sorcerer bloodline. I'm honestly surprised evocation wizards don't currently have a way to pick it up (which is evidence that I might be totally incorrect, honesty compels me to add), or that bards can't pick up soothing words.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
“When I think of Paladins I think of Heroes” isn’t a bad tradition I would say.

Having a narrow vision for what makes a person "a hero" is though.

Not that you're advocating that, but that is what having only LG paladins comes across as saying.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've seen couple people say mention how long item shopping seems to take, so this would probably be good to include.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm willing to see how the action penalties work out (summoning was very strong in PF1, this might be an overcorrection, but it might not too), but I am disappointed they didn't go with the SF summoning spell. I really liked how it worked in Starfinder.

I imagine space might have been an issue, but still.


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

I kind of like it. They specifically didn't want to allow two ability scores added to AC, so this replacement option should fly.

Alternatively, I might add to some of the style feats "while in this stance, you may choose to use your Con/Int/Wis/Cha instead of Dex to add to your AC". Your feat might be considered a feat tax, but adding it as a bonus to some of the style feats might make them more interesting and reward that diversity of builds, including having more or less even stats all the way across.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm afraid that one is beyond me, although I'm sure people are working on it. I'd be surprised if it took more than a day or two for someone to put up a fillable character sheet form.

I'm a decent spreadsheet mechanic, but beyond that my technology skill is fairly limited.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Of course.

Attribute allocation will be a pain to randomize, I think. It's super easy to do it in your head, less easy to make Excel do it in an intelligent manner (excel is very not intelligent).


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

...I just made a first level bard in 20 minutes. Hardest part was picking spells, since I had to look them all up individually with no short description of what the spells actually do. Also that I was doing it by pencil. If I had a spreadsheet, I could have done it faster. Mind, my approach to equipment was "sword, armor, bell, coins."

Bother. I'm going to be making a spreadsheet for this, aren't I? Oooh, I could add in a random number generator and make it spit out characters with their ancestry, classes, feats and spells already selected.


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

I agree with nearly every suggested change to the layout you had, except one section.

Tholomyes wrote:

Powers, where applicable (which should be true for most things, as they tend to have little overlap), go into their respective classes' listing. If necessary, at the end of the class' listing, but preferably next to where it is granted. For the few cases where I do see overlap, such as paladins being able to gain a domain, those domains already require cross reference between cleric and paladin, so including them in the cleric listing isn't necessarily a problem. For things such as the Bardic performance cantrips, treat these as powers, as they cannot be gained typically by other classes.

While I agree that powers would be helpful to have separated out from spells, I actually disagree with having them in the class section. It would throw off the layout of that section too badly, and probably would take up too much space. In addition, almost certainly there will be more overlap of powers shared between classes, and I'd rather not set it up to have them reprinted with every class that gets them

Instead, I would place powers in a chapter distinct from spells, starting with a list of powers broken down by what class gets them. Alternatively, I would like such a list in either the class itself, or simply at the start of the spell section if they have to be included in the spells.

One of the things I admired of the spell section was how densely they packed spells in there, even as I knew it would cause issues with finding them later. I'd hate to lose so much of the space saving nature of spell descriptions, but ultimately I agree that SOMETHING has to be done.

Edit: forgot to add, but my kingdom for a simple description of the spell in the initial lists that begins the spell chapter. It took me forever to find the spell that bards use to heal (soothe, by the way).


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


PF2e has taken a step backwards from what I can tell. It seems simple at first, each character only needing 1000XP to advance each level. However, then you read about how the party earns XP. Obviously monsters cannot be worth the same for a 1st level character as a 10th level character, especially if the XP requirements are the same. However, rather than even go with the structure of the CR system of 3e, they go with something even more arbitrary. The DM decides on whether something is Trivial, low threat, standard, High Threat, Severe Threat, etc. and then from that decides the XP award. It seems VERY arbitrary.

To me, this is a fatal flaw with the system. What may be a Severe threat for one group and hence they gain XP for that...will be a Low level threat for another and they will get less XP. The same encounter could net vastly different amounts of XP to different groups dependant on the DM. In some ways this may even seem unfair or unjust among some groups and between various characters.

I think you might have the wrong end of the stick regarding XP for encounters (although I had to reread it to be sure). Instead of weighing how difficult the encounter was for your group and assigning an XP reward after the fact, there's a chart in the beastiary that lists how much XP a monster rewards, based on its level relative to the party.

A monster that is the party's level +1 rewards 60 XP whether it was a more or less a speed bump or they were fingers from death. It is also considered a "low" challenge to the party, again regardless of the actual difficulty these players had with it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Agreed. One of my character concepts was a Galtan scion of a noble house in exile. I intended to use the Chelaxian ethnicity, but I suppose I can just use Taldan.

Hopefully they'll return in the CRB and this is mostly just to condense that section.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ly'ualdre wrote:

Just gonna shove an Elixer of Life down this threads throat.

Perhaps Damiel can be reclassed as a new artificer-esqe class combining the science of alchemy with the magical teachings of the arcane. Could be a new class, but could easily be an alchemist/wizard hybrid.

I was spitballing how I would do the Occutist, and realized there were two concepts running around in the current class:

1) Hedge Mage: A resonance king "alchemist" that specializes in trinkets, weapon and armor buffs. Like the alchemist, not an actual caster, but lights up like a Christmas tree under detect magic. Also a ritual specialist and some kind of crafter.
2) Invested Wizard: Using implements as preparation instead of a spellbook, this caster chooses his spell list using the same invested method as the PF Occultist and the occult spell list. Unlike everyone else, he has a flexible power class feature that allows him to "prepare" a number of powers each morning in addition to his spells, up to three.

I figure the current Occutlist Iconic could take the latter, but perhaps Dameil would be good for 1?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The monk class should have you covered. It might require a fighter multiclass to pick up the variable class feat, but possibly not. I could see the use for it on a monk.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
See to me a must-have feat is not the same thing. It just confuses the issue too. When someone calls power attack a feat tax I'm like What? I took power attack so I could take power attack.

An example of power attack as a feat tax might be if for my character concept I really want cleave. Right now, not in two more levels. Sure, power attack is better, and almost certainly something I'd want to take eventually anyways, but right this second it is in my way to the land of cleaving.

Even really good choices become annoying if I'm forced to make that choice. Sort of like if a boss you dislike tells you to do something you were about to do anyways.


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

A flat leveler, maybe.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:


Here, I'll even pick out the exact part for your convenience:
Michael Sayre wrote:
you are in fact changing numerous underpinnings of the game's expected math, particularly as it affects encounter design.
That's not the point, yes, we know due to flattering, that changes monster CR/encounter challenge, no longer need a natural 20 to hit 20th level monsters, but that does not change the inherent maths of the game, just removing a treadmill, like you can with +1/2 level in 4th Ed.

Actually, instead of removing a treadmill, it will add one. Your characters will move through levels, but for all the experience they gain they won't get much better or worse relative to the world around them. Which is, as has been said, contrary to the way the game and the math behind it is supposed to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
I disagree. The "choices" you got to make in PF1 were often faulty in one way or another.

I disagree. My Ranger (Trapper) 2/Rogue (Spy) 2 is just as viable as a Rogue 4 would have been. Plus I now have poison use for all the poisons our group keeps finding.

You can almost certainly duplicate almost every aspect of that character with a Rogue 3 in PF2. Possible even with a Ranger 4, although it might be more difficult since you don't get as many skill feats.

I know that was just an example, but I really do think you are underestimating the customization the PF2 "everything is a feat" mindset does offer. The ability to create snares is a general feat. Trapfinding appears to be a rogue class feat. Poison use is a skill feat or general feat, I would imagine. I don't think the bluff bonus will carry over into PF2, but if it does it sounds like a skill feat.

Edit: Even having said all that, I do continue to wish they'd allowed both kinds of multiclassing in the playtest. I'd have wanted both tested alongside each other, with clear rules on that feats were character level dependent, and which were class level dependent. And the reason I'd want both is to see if one was clearly more powerful than the other, and what might be done to reconcile that (winding up deciding that dedication multiclassing is the only viable and balanced option being on the table).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Meophist wrote:
I don't think a Magus class is necessary. That said, I do think it could be a nice thing to include. It could even be possible to allow the Magus to choose a spell list in a similar way to the Sorcerer.

That was my initial thought as well, but honestly it would probably work just as well to have the magus be a set spell list and let anyone pick it's multiclass dedication if they'd like to have the martial abilities.

Or simply have a magus be an archetype requiring a character with cantrips rather than an all up class on its own.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
So could we structure the PF2 Magus class around something analogous to Druid orders, like "What is your relationship with your weapon" so the choice of having an intelligent black blade, or a weapon you manifest out of pure magic, or a weapon you forged and inscribed the eldritch runes on yourself, etc.?

That would make the most sense, yes. At least in the way I'm interpreting the class. I wasn't kidding about those anathemas by the way, so that fits neatly. Although I would prefer it if magi had a less structured environment and were more master/student in flavor, like Jedi I suppose (who also fit the Magus flavor).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a Magus, we just might need to come up with something that defines it more than what it's good at. Like "why would someone choose to play a Magus instead of a different gish, other than 'it does the job better.'?" Since we shouldn't be definining one class or combination of options built for a thing should automatically be better at a given thing than a different class or combination at that specific thing, at least not this early in the game.

*grumbles at the unfairness of being presented with a really good argument*

Just slap an anathema on them and call it done.

*grumbles further*

Alright, alright. More seriously, a Magus isn't just a wizard/fighter. They're closer in flavor to being a wizard/monk by way of martial weaponry and armor (bear with me a moment), in that they don't just fight, they are artists with their weapons. Except instead of learning how to stun with a fist, they learn to make their weapon strikes into magical gestures.

Blade Bound, Escotericists, Staff Magus, Arcane Archer, even Eldritch Knight (to a lesser extent) imply a certain mystical approach to combat. And that's not even counting the archetypes that literally conjure their weapons out of magic, such as the Mindblade and Spellblades. I would also offer up the classic Mage-Smith concept in literature as fitting within this concept, and it isn't one that is currently overlapped with by a core class. Also the various kinds of rune warriors that 3.0 and later games have introduced.

So if I was leading the class lore, that might be where I'd start. Mages that REALLY focus on their weapons as much as their spell books, or that see spells as another form of martial arts.


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

It wouldn't be terrible if the Mystic Bolt ability from Ultimate Intrigue wound up rebalanced and ported over to be a new cantrip or ability of some kind.


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

If we have to wait a year or two for them to feel comfortable enough with the system they have to introduce alt-classes, I think that might be for the best.

One aspect that they do have extensive enough testing on is that we as a community like the ability to swap out class features. A cleric that loses access to any domain, a rogue that doesn't get sneak attack or piles of skill feats, a fighter that gets legendary armor instead of their second variable class feat, all of those the community is ready to see and will accept whenever they get around to providing them.

These dedication archetypes on the other hand didn't exactly go over well in Starfinder, and so getting it correct or scrapping the plan altogether is possibly a more immediate concern.

As an aside, I wish they hadn't called them archetypes. I wish they had said "We aren't going to be putting out class feature altering archetypes in the playtest; instead, we are trying out a new system that is similar to an archetype for every class, called a dedication." It's a semantic difference, but acknowledging the separate concept space might have saved some friction.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cantriped wrote:
My favorite Alternate class was the Antipaladin. It deserves to remain one.

I think they mentioned that there was an antipaladin in Doomsday Dawn. I have no idea how complete the rules to build such a beast are, but someone I'm sure can take it apart and reverse engineer it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Humans still can be covered. But honestly, almost anything I can probably wait the couple of days.

About the only thing I'd want to see would be the table of contents or an overview of the testing process. Anything else would be quite welcome, but those are the pieces I'm most keen for at the moment.


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

I wonder though if it's an actual 1-to-5 trade. A fighter dedication might be equal to 3-5 general feats, but not necessarily that many class feats. This is an instance where being clear on what bucket Mark meant would have been helpful.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Eh. It would involve reformatting the character sheets, which might prove annoying.

Can be done. My personal solution would be to simply allow the weakest two of the four to double dip into a second spell list. Like Occultism could cover a new "Eldritch" spelllist that covers the Material and Spiritual essences, while Arcane picks up "Empathic" magic that keys off the Mental/Vital.

Another method, which would involve more work, would be to link those spell lists to underutilized skills, like Society and, idk, Diplomacy . The caster feats would need to be expanded to accommodate the skills as caster related, but honestly if we're doing that we may as well redo the character sheet.

A third method might be to reduce Arcana, Nature, Occultism, and Religion to be four types of Lore skills (or a different skill with a similarly open ended set up), which would future proof against new sub skills being added later for new spell lists. This actually makes somewhat sense considering many skill feats treat those skills as if they were the same skill. Obviously this wouldn't be ideal going from the CRB to a later rulebook, but might be something to consider as once they move from the playtest to the CRB.


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


To be fair, I cringe too every time I see the word "feat" - but then I remember that it basically boils down to a "character choice", which is a good thing. Also, I can't think of a better name. Abilities? Powers? Features?

Someone in a thread proposed we could, at the very least, demarcate class feats, general feats, skill feats, and ancestry feats a little better by calling each one a different thing.

-Class talents
-General feats (or just Feats)
-Skill unlocks
-Ancestry traits

The change would be pretty cosmetic, as they'd all amount to the same thing and all follow similar rules, but it might help with organization and help us all not be overwhelmed by feats.

That seems like redundant demarcation to me. You are already have the adjective.

I tend to agree, but there are many who would disagree. Just like I go cross-eyed when adding eight or nine different integers but plenty of people can do it instantly in their heads. Or our earlier disagreements on whether the little action symbols are as helpful as advertised (now that I have a full example of them, I can flat guarantee I will read a three action activity as two, at least at first, but I believe you that you won't make that mistake). Sometimes a little extra differentiation is all someone needs to make the concept easier to grasp, and different people will have that threshold at different places.

1 to 50 of 849 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>