2 class feats and natural ambition again. I suppose it might do that?
It seems that way, and I'm a little disappointed about it. I mean in PF1 humans were more prevalent than any other race because their build would come online earlier and it seems that thos will be the case again.I was excited about General Training because it was a good way to keep humans on brand without having the same problem we had in PF1 but with the inclusion of Natural Ambition humans are an even better option since they can pick either feat depending on their needs.
I think is a class thing just like the barbarian in the character generation video got to choose a totem and sudden charge the fighter got to choose reactive shield and sudden charge
The Raven Black wrote:
Crossbows would be the exemption, maybe make an aditional version of bows that does not add str to damage
I'd rather have all bows add str to damage from the get go, I doubt it will break level 1, I asume that the sling is a simple weapon and as such should be weaker than a bow which is why it has the reload property, Im just disapointed because I wanted to try an urban rogue that favored a sling not because I dont understand the design choice. That said I still think that most range weapons should add str to damage from the get go, slings included
Yeah didnt notice at first, my guess is that they dont want it competing with composite bows, on that note why not make all bows composite from the beginning?
Sammy T wrote:
It could be roleplayed in many ways, in your warg example it could be something like the ranger noticing that the target of his hunt is trying to avoid putting weight on its front left paw and exploiting that knowledge to get an advantage and the warg after noticing that it is being taken advantage off simply adjusting acordingly
The martial artist is a popular character archetype that is not necessarily covered by the fighter. Weapons associated with martial arts like the Nunchuck and Bo Staff are as much a part of that character archetype as is the asumption of superior unarmed combat prowess and so I am somewhat bothered by the exclusion of the monastic weapons as part of the baseline monk. On the other hand the mystical part of the Monk like Ki belongs to a subcategory of the Martial Artist archetype and so I'm glad that it is not part of the baseline monk.
Agreed, but I also don't know why you'd need the "2 feats from the pirate archetype" even. Feats are already level limited, and sure, they want to design against dipping, but if dedications are already a thing, then you're already cutting back on the attractiveness of dipping. If archetypes are designed well enough, then they should only need to be as attractive as class feats, maybe a little less, by default, but a little more for certain situations or concepts, which means I don't see the reason for mandating full commitment to the archetype. There's power in a broader selection, but there's also already a cost to get that selection in the first place.
That was just an example but I think that the more powerful feats should need a prerequisite to avoid someone at level 12-13 to just dip and get a feat that would be considered a capstone of the archetype.
I actually like the way the new archetypes are being implemented, but I do not like how the prerequisites are being use for the class feats. I'd much rather have the prerequisites for an archetype feat be to have x amounts of feats in the archetype than a specific feat. For example for Roll with the Ship I'd rather have: For this feat you need to have at least 2 Feats from the pirate archetype. And for a feat like Boarding Action you can add a caveat that if you have Rope Runner you can use this feat While swinging on a rope.
By doing it this way you can add player customability while still limiting acces to the more powerfull feats and so preventing people from just taking the archetype at high levels to get the more powerful feats
The info about Barbarian's fatigue was really interesting, they don't become useless in between rages, which is good, but they potentially open themselves to attacks. This open up some strategy for barbarian players on whether or not taking all of their actions while fatigued, each -1 to AC increases the enemy's chance to crit by 5% up to a total of 20% counting the -1 they start with that round making it the smart move to maybe take only one or two actions while fatigued
I don't think any background should give a mechanical advantage in combat.A Town Drunk could easily get an Alchemy skill feat (after all they should have experience getting rid of hangovers) and for lore a town drunk (does local drunk sound better? drunkard?) could have lore brewery or brews.
GM Aerondor wrote:
Giving Combat bonuses to Backgrounds would be a mistake, as long as they stick to lore training and a skill feat, they avoid creating obviously superior options and thus all options are technically viable.
If not only combat relevant backgrounds would be picked.
**Edited a word**
Weather Report wrote:
Fighters go up to Legendary by level 13 it, was implied that they get it earlier than any other class and so I'm quite sure that other classes will be able to get it at higher levels either through feat investment or as a class feature
I just hope that smite can be used on any enemy regardless of alignment, Paladins are a God's champion they should be trusted to make the right calls. A giant beast with Neutral alignment about to descend on a village can do as much harm as an intelligent and evil creature and a Paladin should have all the weapons at her disposal to beat it.
The decrease in spell slots is more than overturned by the Spell DC being tied to class level instead of spell level. A Hold Person will be as useful in the level that you learn it as when you get to level 20 that is not bad at all.
That said the idea of having to prepare multiple copies of the same spell is not appealing to me
Rules Artificer wrote:
The levels in those Items is the level the Alchemist needs to be to be able to craft that item
In an interview with Gameinformer Jason Bulmahn revealed that Pathfinder is sticking to Vancian Spellcasting though I don't believe that this is an inherently bad idea I think that players will be better served by slightly modifying the spell preparation system in two ways.
First, allow for a single spell to be used multiple times without having to prepare it multiple times. When I introduce the game to new players that want to play a wizard the idea of having to prepare burning hands multiple times if they wanted to use it more than once is always met with resistance and disappointment, so this is a particular feature of Pathfinder that I hope is fixed with the second edition.
Second, allow for heightened spells to be prepared just once and also be cast at whatever level the caster wants to, instead of preparing a level 5 Fireball, it'd be best to simply prepare a Fireball and allow the caster to decide in what level to cast it in the moment, that way more room is opened to pick more spells. Or at the very least If a caster prepares a level 5 Fireball allow it to be cast at level 3 or 4 by spending the appropriate spell slot this way the player is saved from having to prepare multiple versions of the same spell.
I don't think that higher level bombs will do more damage than level one bombs, neither do I think that they should. An alchemist can throw 2 of these bombs on the same round. at level 11 this amount to a total of 8d6 damage, not taking into account the potential critical damage, this damage is not on par with the only level 6 spell we know of which does 10d6 damage but spells are a more finite resource than bombs, at level 11 a wizard can cast a single level 6 spells (if they work like in PF1) while the alchemist will have a higher amount of bombs available to him, plus the ability to actually throw different bombs to get different effects on enemies.
If I play a cleric with the death domain or PF2 equivalent do I get all the Necromancy spells in the game? (At appropriate levels of course.)
Stone Dog wrote:
I'm still in favor of halflings getting Wis for their tenacious spirit and gnomes getting intelligence for their keen minds. All small races getting Charisma seems bland
I actually like the Idea of Halflings being +dex/+wis, but I'd prefer for the Gnome to remain +con/+cha
But I don't mind things staying the way they are now
The laws of a city are not intrinsically "Lawful", though the social contract of adhering to their restrictions in order to improve society is a lawful act.
That is why I said that societies can be chaotic, the examples I gave mostly work in a traditional society but in larger scales like nations and Gods think about it this way.Lawful: Brings Order and Structure to the World/Multiverse.
Chaos: Undoes Order and structure in the World/Multiverse.
Example: A tribal leader that follows tradition and serve as the arbiter of Laws to her tribe may sound lawful, but if her society raids neighboring tribes for food and supplies, that makes her a chaotic leader of a chaotic tribe. Like I said chaos can be organized.
Though in my version a Barbarian can be a perfectly disciplined individual who follows tradition he simply does not enforce the rule of Law. Also a chaotic or neutral law enforcer is possible, a guard who uses excessive force and makes "preemptive" arrests can be CG, while a guard that take Bribes would probably be CN, or CE.
About the Paladin problem, he can be a whole range of Characters while remaining Lawful Good he does not even needs to be a disciplined fella, he just have to respect and adhere to Law, both moral and legal Law, and when these are in a conflict he should probably side with moral law
Chaos in my opinion is not necessarily a criminal but a disruptor of order or someone who attempts to accomplish her goals by going outside of societal norms, an example of this are the Drows in Golarion, they have a perfectly organized society but everyone is trying to find loopholes or ways to trick the system to get an advantage against their enemies and preferably getting rid of them altogether