It was the night monarch vardo.
Thank you sir.
Search Posts
I have a vague memory of an item from one of the earlier contests that was like, "Varisian Funeral Vardo," or something similar. But, now I can't find it. Does anyone else remember this item and/or have a link to the entry post? Thanks!
Selection bias at it's finest. You have cherry picked half a dozen times that you believe you predicted something (questionable) and claim to have a perfect track record. You have neglected to recollect the many times that your predictions have run aground or have simply not met with anything close to majority consensus. But go ahead and favorite your OP so that you can revisit it in 3 years to see how you did. I predict this is much ado about nothing.
What are “additional resources”? It is the comprehensive list of rulebooks, supplements, and options permitted for use in pathfinder society games.
Like, I do not want standard unarchetyped Paladins to be alignments other than Lawful Good, full stop. It’s about 8 years in coming. (Sorry, my memory isn’t as sharp on this as I would prefer.) In the hype machine for either the Advanced Players Guide or Ultimate Combat there were promises of Paladin variants of all flavors. People were excited, eager, and ready to chew on them. However, the concept was unceremoniously pulled from the book and folks were (rightly) disappointed. It was later revealed that one of the staff (I think Jacobs, my apologies James if it was someone else) was very passionately against it, and they felt it completely flew in the face of what it meant to be a paladin and so it was pulled. So basically, there has been a desire for character support on that front for a very long time (before PF1 came to be as you mentioned) and there is an added angst among some that comes from being teased and left disappointed.
Damn, TOZ, the T stands for "troll" today, doesn't it? : ) Today?
Yes, but... It seems like they aren’t finished yet. There are several top level links, header links, and breadcrumbs that I would expect them to put back to maintain parity with contemporary web design aesthetics. I hope it happens before the play test launch.
Honestly PFS should really get 0% consideration when it comes to game design in my opinion. That is Wultram’s point, PFS gets far more consideration in the core game than it should. PFS should use the levers at its disposal (its own FAQ, approved play list, campaign structure, guide to play, and its scenarios) to adapt the core game for its purposes instead of influencing development of the rules. Putting PFS’s needs into the core rules just forces the majority of the player base to adjust based on someone else’s house rules.
I GM, exclusively. Which one of us is pushing a narrative again?
The problem isn't multi classing, it's that some multiclassing is objectively stronger than a single class focus. This is partly because many people in this thread are falling for the “squeaky wheel” fallacy. Multiclass characters have a way of peaking on a particular level or range of 2-3 levels. However both before and after that range they are dismal. No one ever notices the “broken” crappy build from level 3-8 or from 12-20 they just see “OMG MARGINALLY ABOVE THE CURVE FOR WHAT I THINK LEVEL 9-11 SHOULD BE!!” You also don’t ever hear about the multi class builds that stay inside the power curve of the table they play at because the player knows where the edge is for their group. Or the builds that lag behind for all 20 levels. 959 wants to “fix” a few rogue levels of a few interesting combinations by taking a hacksaw to the thing that 9/10 pathfinder players say is the thing they like best about the system; customizability.
I really really like this idea. I’ve got a different idea about how to implement it. If a feat (or whatever) allowed you to reduce iterative attack penalties by your dex mod then it would really be interesting. Your first hit gains no benefit but the subsequent ones are strengthened. I think that plays a bit closer to your thinking of the fighting style. It also has the benefit of capping the effective value. However I think that mathing these ideas is probably of dubious value until we can see the full play test document.
1d20, six times, in order.
80-100% congruent with the baseline. Ie, if a (typical, general, everyday) feat should give "10 awesomes" under practically all circumstances then I expect most feats to deliver somewhere between 7-11 awesomes most of the time. Situational feats should deliver more awesomes during their useful times. So, if you have a "be awesome underwater" feat, I would expect it to give 12-14 awesomes when you are underwater.
Im not on board. I might not be able to see the way forward here. Help me out. VMC which is very restricted like it was in 4E, basically, whatever your first class is your class, and you can add a single piece of one other class to diversify a little. A hybrid system, but not really a multi-class. Or you pick a single class and then you can cherry pick the class feats of other classes until you dont resemble your beginning class at all. That's all I can see and I want to be in the middle of all that. I would be ok with a VMC that looked like the Eldritch Heritage feat chain, and less OK with one that worked like Unchained VMC. Though, I would really prefer the current multiclass system PLUS a robust set of feat chains like Eldritch Heritage.
What are general conditions? Anytime that you don't care about what terrain you are on, and times that you don't need magic to survive. Including death from falling, drowning, suffocating, freezing, or frying
Man, so much stormwind breaking in here it stinks! See, thats what gets me though. 959 seems like s/he is a Stormwinder, but then literally everything s/he describes about how s/he actually plays the game is super gamist. Like, all they care about is the mechanics of the class, they aren't interested in rolepaying at all. They just want to metagame converse about characters at the table and play their pieces on the board like a chess match. And I think that is why they don't like multiclassing, because it disrupts their preset notions of what the different chess pieces can do. "What? Bishops can't jump in an L shape, only knights can do that!" It is a very niche and specific position for a person to take. I've never really seen anyone else who had this exact position. It's almost like s/he multiclassed...
I'm not even hiding anything - I'd be happy to divulge my abilities in-character. But passing around character sheets sounds like metagaming for the sake of metagaming.It's a game. It's not reality. There are aspects of the game that can only be communicated OOC because there is no IC analogy. You aren't killing the game by telling someone OOC that you are 2 Rogue / 3 Monk, or that you have an 18 STR. You really aren't, but to each his/her own. What I find really odd, is that for someone who is so bent up about nerfing multiclassing because it’s “roll-playing,” you seem to have a very gamist approach to RPGs.
It’s a known issue to the web team. Meanwhile, replace curlys with brackets: {url=www.hyperlink.com/example}displayed link text{/url}
All of which point to 1GP being not $100 to me. Soap at 50c sounds more reasonable, as does a night at somewhere pretty low end being closer to $25. If you use $100 most starting weapons cost over a grand.It really depends on exactly which items you're looking at. You can pick specific prices to justify a higher or lower conversion rule of thumb, since the pricing tends to be all over the map. For instance, a bar of soap is 1 CP ($1), a hammock is 1 SP ($10), and a one night stay in a typical inn is 5 sp ($50). Have you been shopping lately? Or stayed at a motel?
I would definitely appreciate some guidelines to help new GMs understand to help their players select relevant abilities. Honestly, the guideline should be, “in the CRB? GTG!” Feats like the aquatic combatant above are good (if not even great) feats for the Skulls and Shakles players guide. But they don’t belong within a 10 foot pole of the CRB. The CRB feats need to be all 4-5 stars for general conditions.
I keep hearing "this aint a preview of PF2 its a preview of the playtest" Which is fine. Though it would be nice to get something of interest about the playtest itself. Instead of saying vague things about the classes, how about some discussion on how you are designing them?I’d like this too, but I’m not sure the meta stuff has the same broad appeal. I'm not sure what we are getting has broad appeal...
TBH, I would be OK with it at 16th if that is indeed the effect. I don't understand the design philosophy of giving the wizard first crack at particular effects, but I can accept that it exists. It is just frustrating that the wizard will have access to that (landmark) ability of the Rogue a full level before the rogue gets it. At least give the Rogue access before the Wizard if you are going to give away class abilities as spells. ... meh. This is all true. Precedent leaves me less than optimistic. But... hopeful? Yes, hopeful. :D
PF2 Fix: Spellbooks can't be stored in pocket dimensions (e.g. handy haversacks). The energies involved cause increasing chances or erasing a spell or something. Now Wizards have to carry their spellbooks and their associated bulk and risk. I actually think this is a very smart idea, particularly if expanded to include any spell completion/spell trigger/use activation magic items. Make the caster carry all their scrolls, wands, potions, and spellbooks out in the open.
Yes, but you can have somewhat balanced options with a variety of flavor and make most people happy. Or, you can produce unbalanced options with a variety of flavor and some people will still be happy. I understand that you fall into the later category. That's fine. But advocating for most the rest of the community isn't "one true wayism" it's just advocating for balance. Unless you are saying that your prefer poorly balanced options. Which is true of at least a vocal minority on the boards... but then we get back into trap territory, thus the topic of this thread.
TBH, I would be OK with it at 16th if that is indeed the effect. I don't understand the design philosophy of giving the wizard first crack at particular effects, but I can accept that it exists. It is just frustrating that the wizard will have access to that (landmark) ability of the Rogue a full level before the rogue gets it. At least give the Rogue access before the Wizard if you are going to give away class abilities as spells. ... meh.
No, mind blank is much more powerful. It even blocks the effects of wish and miracle, and confers a resistance bonus to mind affecting effects. Now, if they just gave the rogue 100% on all the time mind blank at 14th level THAT would be interesting!
Empty gold mine That you fall down into.
Are there any things from PF1 which we can agree up on as "trap options" the sort we want to avoid having in PF2? Spell Resistance
Are there any things from PF1 which we can agree up on as "trap options" the sort we want to avoid having in PF2? Whirlwind attack
I think I threw up a little in my mouth... :PKenderSomeone stealing your PF1 books? You know, that’s not the kind of thing I’m typically unsure about. I am fairly confident that I *know* at any given point in time whether I have, in fact, thrown up in my mouth or not. :-)
And, sorry to say, I think it's a bit ridiculous that you ask for this evidence and then dismiss it with "I can fix the problem, so there is no problem." It works for your games, I'm sure, but you play the game... I think you are missing two important things. (1) The people in here are talking about ways this could potentially be addressed in a new version of the game. We are all (mostly) competent GMs that have taken measures to address these issues at our own tables. What we are saying is, “hey, this is something I’ve noticed I consistently needed to fix game after game. Maybe you guys could just look at fixing it in the core rules?” Telling us that there is a way to fix it at the table doesn’t mean that there is no problem, but quite the reverse, it means that there indeed is a problem. The fact that some people are so accustomed to fixing it by default is a very telling sign of just how deeply rooted the issue is. (2) New players and GMs are running into this issue on accident (ie, not intentionally setting out to overshadow other players/encounters) and it has a negative impact on the community. Some people don’t even realize it and make accusations which typically involve hurtful phrases like, “min-maxer,” “powergamer,” and “munchkin.” When I first started playing 10 years ago I had these names tossed at me even though I (literally) had no idea what I was doing. I almost stopped playing because it made me feel unwelcome. BadWrongFun is a serious problem facing newcomers to the community, and hedging off issues of game balance in the core rules is the most direct way to help alleviate that problem; rather than leaving it to each table to figure out for themselves. EDIT: lots of spelling and grammar. Apple autocorrect has lost its damn mind this week.
Full disclosure: my guy was a vivisectionist beastmorph alchemist and the game was the Iron Gods AP - run as written. So my guy could fly, see invisible, etc, with a high AC. But he basically acted as a martial in combat as he rarely ever did anything but charge in combat. Wut? Well, thanks for making that point for us. The MOST OP martial you ever played was actually a caster?[/thread]
Because it makes math for 10 rounds = 1 minute work out. And 10 rounds = 1 minute is pretty darn handy.
Essentially, who wants to play the BMX Bandit?
The power of presentation matters a lot. This thread wouldn't be happening if they just called them talents. There would also be a clear divide between "feats" which can be picked up by anyone or a general list of classes, versus talents being 100% "only this class". I disagree that it is simply a matter of presentation. If they had “fighter stunts” and one of them was “give up an action to make your opponent flat footed if you also hit them” then that would give me pause as well. It may be that calling everything a feat helped to bring a little scrutiny to this issue, but the underlying concern is there regardless of what it is called.
Here is a graphical representation of what the OP is asking The average on 2d20 take low is ~7.2
However, it isn't a normal distribution so you can't just say +/-3.3, although that may be good enough in a pinch.
I agree, give them unique things that only they should be able to do. If that was what we were seeing I would be all onboard. But right now we are seeing “give up an attack to make your opponent flat-footed.” Which doesn’t feel particularly fightery to me. If anything it seems like it would be more useful for a rogue. Now, you want to combine spring attack, whirlwind attack, and vital strike in to a 3-action (read: full round attack) maneuver with a d4 rounds cool down period then I promise to be excited, and completely happy with locking it up into the fighter class.
I mean that’s kinda like seeing just one or two more genera I Rogue talents and saying they should be available to everybody and then extrapolating a pigeon-holed character concept to class emphasis. All classes could very well get similar feats, it’s just these were examples of how the Barbarian gets rid of fear and fighters give it.I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less. I would agree if I had just seen the first two on an alphabetical list; but the ones I have seen are the ones that are being teased in blog posts. I have to assume that the teasers are at least somewhat indicative of the final vision.
I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less. True enough, if there is a general rule that we don't know about yet that essentially says, "You can take any class feat 2 levels delayed." Then I would be thrilled to death.
So did you allow Weapon Specialisation and Greater Weapon Focus to be taken by clerics, rogues, paladins, rangers and bards in your games? These are examples of "class feats" in Pathfinder 1e.I'm fine with class feats that largely only modify class features - barbarian feats modify rage, druid feats modify wild shape, rogue feats modify sneak attack, etc. I never had a player ask, and I never thought to offer, but yes, I would have allowed it. But even from a more design-thinking standpoint than a rules exception in my home game; if weapon specialization had prereqs that read like, "Weapon Focus Feat, Character Level 6 (Fighters may take this feat as their 4th level bonus feat.) That would be the best of both worlds. <-- I mean, aside from it is a boring feat. Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pigeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less. Yeah, I'm not saying that it is the worst thing I've ever seen, it's just headed in the opposite direction of what I would like. For example, my biggest issue with archetypes is that about half of them should be PrC's. Why should 'admixture specialist' be relegated to the wizard class? It even thematically works better better for a sorcerer, changing up stuff on the fly, etc, etc. Anyway, it's just a thing I am noticing, and I wanted to put my 2 copper in on it. It isn't that I don't understand what is happening, I didn't get confused, I just actually don't like it.
I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E. Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.
I think it is entirely unclear if this is really the case, yet. I haven't seen anything to would lead me to believe that spellcasting, for example, is now a feat/progressed by a feat.
I'm fine with class feats that largely only modify class features - barbarian feats modify rage, druid feats modify wild shape, rogue feats modify sneak attack, etc. I strongly agree with this, but would even push against it a little more. There shouldn't be class feats at all. Anyone should be able to take any feat. If I get access to sneak attack from some alternate pathway that comes out in a book 6 years from now, I want to be able to take that sneak attack feat. You may not gain any benefit from a particular feat, but they shouldn't be locked up. Now, if we want to reduce prereqs for feats for certain classes, I'm all for it.
As an interesting aside, this is a good point. People complain about the use of CLW wands because it is cheesy for a high level group to use 1st level spells for primary healing. But it is entirely a price concern. I too have noticed that picking up higher level wands (or higher CL wands) is pretty rare in my games. Perhaps the elegant solution people are looking for is to simply rebalance the price of wands. EDIT: Perhaps instead of SLxCLx750 it was (SL+CL)x750 for the price of a wand? SL1CL1 wand -> 1500gp
GP/HP:
So, CLWW is still the best bang for your buck, but it is much tighter curve that way. Math for those interested: CLWW (1+1)x750 = 1,500 ((1 x 4.5)+1)x50 = 275 1500/275 = 5.4545 CMWW
CSWW
CCWW
You gave all 3 eagles a flanking bonus. Only 2 should get it. DPR for the eagles should be 22 (21.97)In my example none of them are benefiting from flanking. Check the included link to the augmented celestial eagle stat block. You are giving them +5 to attack, why?
Which is a fairly strong indicator that there is something broken there.
You gave all 3 eagles a flanking bonus. Only 2 should get it. DPR for the eagles should be 22 (21.97)
Fixed your links.
CLW -> CL x 10 ceiling of up to 20 HP total
This method also makes abilities like channel energy MUCH more relevant.
Wait, that is pretty brilliant. Cure slight (orison) -> restore character to 0 hp.
Adjust those numbers as appropriate. I just spit balled them. I like this a bunch. Trader Oleg Leveton has not created a profile. |