Crayon's page

323 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

I would hope not. Personally, it seems even sillier and less thematic than setting up camp after every few battles as was allegedly popular in PF1.


My advice is don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
I presume it's intended to solve the scroll/wand golf bag.

Maybe, but it really doesn't. The players can just pass the CLW wand around like a bottle of wine with each using the number of charges needed. Granted, since most items require the use of Resonance to activate, it could possibly act as a deterrent to the practice, but something tells me most items are ultimately going to lose out to the one that lets the characters not die...

I still like Resonance because, in the sense that it replaces Item Slots, it seems to be the only aspect of PF2's rule set that isn't ridiculously complicated, but I'm not crazy about this particular ramification.


Sounds like we now need to track both. Charges to cover total use and Resonance for uses per day...


brad2411 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


There is. Handwraps of Mighty Fists are explicitly a thing and work just like weapons (and cost the same).
Do we know if those are worn or wielded?

I'm not sure it would matter under the new rules for magic items...


As with the Barbarian, this seems to borrow heavily from the Unchained rules. :(


Captain Morgan:
To be fair, I don't think we actually will, but the vote on whether to participate in the Open Playtest was won by the 'Ayes'. I suspect that may change when they actually see the new rules, however.

FuzzyPaws: Maybe, but the fact that ALL the classes now follow a uniform progression will hopefully mean that the remaining Class Features are roughly balanced against each other which will aid in stripping them down for our campaigns (Obviously we'll go RAW for the Playtest itself).


AnimatedPaper:
Nowt. I was concerned it might adversely affect balance, but after seeing some of the options presented, I no longer think that'll be an issue.

NeilsenE:
Even if true the important thing for me is that the Feats aren't essential to the game balance and so should be removeable with minimal consequence.

Rek Rollington:
Not quite one-shots, but certainly low-level and paired with a very slow advancement track.

PossibleCabbage:
Possibly not, but players who don't want to deal with magic can avoid it easily by simply not playing casters. As far as we know, no such option exists pertaining to Feats - hence the necessity of house-ruling...

Captain Morgan:
Mostly because we find the core engine to be intuitive and easy to use so long as the exceptions (spells, magic items, and Feats) are limited...


The Feats the PCs gained upon Levelling didn't seem to come up much which means we should be able to excise them from the game with relative ease. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One of my hopes for PF2 was that conditions would be less prevalent and easier to use. Not really sure about these changes as they seem very much the opposite


Whatever grants the totemic powers in probably substantially weaker than a Deity (though they may also be pettier) and are probably correspondingly easier to placate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Is it just the totems that are giving the anathema? If so maybe the totem options are slightly better then non-totem options?
their are no 'non totem options' as far as I can tell, from reading this they are a core class mechanic.

Yes, but it does seem that "Fury" is a Totem in the same sense that 'Bald' is a hair colour...


Weather Report wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Mind, this is based on the assumption that 5e was going for an OSR-type experience.
Yeah, bad assumption, AD&D scales wildly, and with pretty big numbers, 5th Ed is nothing like that.

Not always since a lot of characters had their Level capped due to Class, Race, or Ability and Magic was less prevalent, but I was referring more in terms of mortality.

EDIT: Also, AD&D isn't usually considered OSR


2097 wrote:

It's not Bounded Leveling, it's Bounded Accuracy — your HP and damage output goes up. You can fight hordes of enemies

what doesn't change is the ability to interact with them at all. The "chance to hit", hence "accuracy". Same for skills.

Yes, they're different. My point is that I think the latter would've worked better. Apologies for any confusion. Mind, this is based on the assumption that 5e was going for an OSR-type experience. It may be that it's more a mimicking of that as aesthetic choice, however.

As in all things, Form follows Function.


ENHenry wrote:
That very facet is what prevents the concern that many people have about "the untrained level 20 fighter is better at stealth than the highly-trained level 1 rogue."

Well, that and the fact that a Level 1 character can't really be considered 'highly trained' by any reasonable measure. At best, they might have more theoretical knowledge or practice, but lack experience using any of it in practical terms.


It's probably far more valuable than it looks even if you drop Skill Feats. Exactly how much more will depend on how widespread Critical Successes and Critical Failures are vis-a-vis the PF2 Skill system


graystone wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.
We KNOW that physics work differently in pathfinder or giants couldn't survive under thier own weight and dragons wouldn't be able to fly. So how do you prove it's against pathfinder physics?

The whole Earthfall thing would seem to suggest that F=MA is still valid on Golarion.

In fact, with falling damage being deadlier than ever in PF2 for without that Feat, gravitational force would seem to have increased, if anything.

It is possible some mass is affected differently, however. Which could explain why the 250 lb orc and 35 lb gnome can have identical Strength Scores.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladinosaur wrote:
Is there a Totem that makes me really good at punching horses?

Background: Newcastle?


Arikiel wrote:
An armored paladin, a shielded fighter, and a toughed barbarian get into a fight... Sounds like the lead up to a joke. Not sure what the punch line would be though. :p

Ask a Monk. They're the experts in all things punch-y!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sculcuvant wrote:
I'm gonna second the appropriative nature of the Barbarian as a whole, but it's so iconic and integral to fantasy gaming that it's unavoidable at this point. But the word "Totem" could be changed, I'm sure there's a word that fits the idea that would dodge issues of appropriation. "Catalyst" maybe? "Trigger" might also be technically accurate, although heavens to betsy using "Trigger" would probably not go over well on the internet dot com.

I was going to suggest "Fetish" myself, but it kinda has the same vibe. As well as certain other connotations.


I'm a little concerned about the Barbarian Feats listed as most of them sound far more complex than I'd like.


Catharsis wrote:

Good stuff overall. I'm wondering whether the rage-cycling won't require an uncharacteristic amount of bookkeeping and strategic considerations for a Barbarian, though.

Also, that bit about being a primary healer was super vague... given that we've had two blogs about skills already, wouldn't it be fair game to divulge how the Medicine skill works, assuming that's what's going on here? Can it be used an unlimited number of times per day...? Is there some sort of resource depletion?

I was going to suggest giving any potential Barbarians three counters/poker chips to be given each round of rage and then returned in any non-raging rounds, but it now occurs to me that you might've been talking about Temporary HP which could indeed be a pain if it works anything like it did back in PF1.


Mark Seifter wrote:
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)

I think it's mostly grammatical, though could add a verb like "helps." Don't understand the second question?

Ahh yes, I can see what you were going for now.

As for question two, it was in response to this:
"These totems are a set of three thematically linked abilities the barbarian can choose, starting at 2nd level. In the playtest, you get a totem right away at 1st level."

Which makes it sound (to me) like the playtest Barbarian will be receiving the feature earlier than was intended for the 'real' game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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)


gwynfrid wrote:
Naturally, every PC does impact the narrative, but the folks Dudemeister is talking about feel that their impact is negligible relative to that of casters at high level. I think that assessment is correct. It's the most common and old complaint about the game, and in my opinion, a major reason why the first couple of books of any AP see a lot more play than the end book.

While I'm sure there are as many reasons for groups abandoning APs as there are groups playing the things, I would think that the fact they're supposed to take 2-3 years to complete is probably a much greater contributor to why many people never finish them.

gwynfrid wrote:

Short list of spells that directly change the narrative of the story: Discern Lies, Find the Path, Heal, Resurrection, Teleport, True Seeing. This is just a small sample of the most famous ones. There is nothing any of the martials can do that comes close in terms of story impact.

And, indeed, the Skill Feats reviewed so far don't match that impact either (except possibly Legendary Medic). Still, they feel like something of import a non-caster can do, closing some of the gap. If top-tier spells get a bit of a tweak down at the same time, then we may get somewhere that doesn't feel so grossly unbalanced anymore.

I'm not intimately familiar with all the spells listed and am away from by books, but those spells I do know don't really change the game's narrative beyond the obvious point of removing an obstacle (similar to hitting things with a stick). Granted, they resolve different types of obstacles, but then isn't that the point of a class-based system?

Besides, even if the GM does mess up and create a scenario where a given spell basically ruins the adventure, how does the inclusion of Skill Feats (Legendary or not) prevent that? If anything, it would seem to make such scenarios far more likely.


Milo v3 wrote:
Crayon wrote:

I don't really understand this line of reasoning. By definition everything the protagonists do and say affects narrative (though I suspect you may be using a nonstandard definition of that term).

PS. It did, briefly, occur to me that you meant 'directly', but very few Spells actually do that in PF1 and none of the Skill Feats previewed for PF2 do so I remain puzzled.

The king the party requires add from is ill and they plan to heal him to earn his favour.

High Level Party of just non-magical 1e characters: The party can use their Heal skill to try to cure the king over a few weeks, or they can go on an arduous quest to get a healing macguffin or certain rare herbs or something.

High Level Party with a cleric in it: Casts remove disease.

High Level Party with a wizard in it: Calls an angel, who then casts remove disease.

High Level Party of just non-magical 2e characters: The party can use their Heal skill to cure the king over a few hours.

None of that affects the narrative though. Besides, all four examples are basically identical - solving challenge put in by the DM. It's interesting, however, that to me your example PF1 sounds far more entertaining than the PF2 one as it leads to potential for adventures rather than just casting a spell that's not a spell or rolling a skill check.

Mind, it's trivial to modify the adventure to work just as well with group of casters (or PF2 healers). Simply change the King's illness to a plague infecting the entire capital. Sure they could just go around healing people, but they just contract the disease again. Instead, they need to discover the source of the plague and put a stop to it once and for all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Weather Report: I understand that it's not the same thing, but I do think it would have kept the numbers low while mitigating some of 5e's flaws.

@thaX: The game's underlying math isn't a player choice by any means. Actually, however, I maintain that 5e would be improved immensely by removing the small number of very specific archetype options and just having a more broadly applicable core. Of course, whether that would constitute adding or restricting player choices is a matter of perspective.


I've never liked 5e's implementation of BA.

I understand the appeal of trying to keep the numbers flatter, but it always seemed to me that you'd get the same effect more easily by simply paring the game down to Levels 1-6 and increasing the amount of XP required to advance.


While I'm perfectly happy to just use the first 2/6 AP books myself, now that I've given the matter some more thought there could be some potential in Paizo experimenting with shorter Adventure Paths from time to time.
1. They could do more APs this way thus providing greater variety of content.
2. The APs would be able to be finished on a more modest timescale.
3. More groups would probably play to completion making the APs better suited as an introductory vehicle.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The biggest complaint I hear from my players when we get to high levels is from the martials/skilled characters (fighters/rogue types) saying that they don't feel they are contributing enough to the narrative. They regret their class choice because without spells they are barely able to nudge the needle as far as narrative is concerned.

So PF2e is directly addressing this issue, which is definitely not localized to my table (see every thread about caster/martial disparity), and people are mad that martials can do rad things and how dare they include this in the core rulebook instead of relegating it to a later book that can be safely ignored (you know like Mythic was).

I don't really understand this line of reasoning. By definition everything the protagonists do and say affects narrative (though I suspect you may be using a nonstandard definition of that term).

PS. It did, briefly, occur to me that you meant 'directly', but very few Spells actually do that in PF1 and none of the Skill Feats previewed for PF2 do so I remain puzzled.


Alvah wrote:

Not having read all of the playtest blogs or posts, one question I have, especially about these skill feats, they work the same for npcs too, I assume?

Or are npcs going to be watered down a bit?

Taking PF1 as precedent, most NPCs won't have stats at all.


Meh with the old APs you could usually just stop after the first book or two with few if any problems. Hopefully, PF2 will be similar.


Pandora's wrote:
I wasn't really speaking about setting agnosticism. Obviously, there has to be something that is the core game that is later expanded upon. There's a difference between acknowledging that not everything can fit in a book and encouraging Paizo to drop aesthetics from the core because they don't like them and don't want to have to reach agreement with other players.

True, but I feel it was sufficiently connected to the idea of keeping the core as simple as possible that it was worth mentioning, if only in passing. As for the other aspect, I think your assumptions about other gamers' motives is pretty off-base. In any event, Paizo clearly wants feedback as evidenced by the public playtests and solicitation of feedback in each and every Blog we've seen to this point.

Pandora's wrote:
I completely disagree. You can just as easily throw existing systems out of wack or obsolete them by adding poorly designed mechanics. Imagine PF1 without magic item crafting or Leadership. Perfectly functional, right? No holes making the system fundamentally not work. Now add those back in. In the opinions of many on these boards, you have wildly unbalanced the game with your additions. And that's ignoring the actual effort of creating the new content. I think your "objectively easier" is wildly overstated.

Maybe. The point was that you can at least see where the points of connection are and thus try to avoid them. On a tangential note, however, my opinion regarding 'balance' as it relates to TTRPGs is as follows:

1. Unnecessary: Players aren't competing against each other and the GM usually isn't trying to win. Since there's no competition, there's no need to make the rules fair.
2. Impossible: Because of variations in party composition, playstyles, and more, there's no really solid benchmarks to balance the game around.
3. Undesirable: Ultimately, RPGs are supposed to be fun. Different players, even within the same group can have vastly different opinions about what they want their characters to be capable of. Forcing a one-size-fits-all approach on as flimsy and ephemeral pretext as balance doesn't go over well with a lot of people.

Pandora's wrote:


I think Paizo would disagree with you that those systems were broken. In the cases where they did think there was serious improvement to be made, they replaced them in Unchained, which I think is to their credit.

Perhaps not the actual authors when they first wrote them, but based on some of the PF2 interviews it seems that at least some Paizo employees seem to feel that now. Also, while alternate and optional rules do exist (as they have since at least AD&D), that's not really the same thing as providing support for actually removing mechanics from the game altogether which I was referring to.

In any case, I'm stepping back here as my personal objection to Skill Feats is that they add too much complexity and I'm having a difficult time trying to comment from perspective I don't actually share regarding aesthetics and/or power level.


Pandora's wrote:

The "its easier to add than remove" argument is troubling to me. As several posters have already pointed out, it's not easier to create balanced, effective abilities than it is to create a list of such abilities that aren't allowed at a table.

But I don't think that's really what is meant by "it's easier to add." I think it's referring to the human cost, the psychology. It's easier to tell your players "look, I've added this new tier of legendary proficiency that allows you to do these cool things" than it is to tell your player "we're not going to use legendary proficiencies in this game." It's the difference between having something you expected removed vs. the addition of something positive that was not expected.

I think this is where people have a problem with goblins or non-LG paladins or Leadership in the core rulebook too. In the minds of some, everything after the core book is more optional and therefore easier to say "no" to, but the core is supposed to be completely allowable and they don't want to have to come across as a jerk for removing what they don't like from the core book.

And this is where I have a problem: the mentality that the core game should be the most restrictive part of the rules (LG-only paladins, no legendary proficiency, no goblins, etc) and that the other stuff can be there but shouldn't be the default. The only way that mentality makes sense is if you plan to use the rules as written as a bludgeon to get your way. It's a plea to be able to argue "but it's the rules" to get what you want. If everyone in your group also didn't like legendary skill feats or whatever other rule, then it wouldn't matter what the default or "most official" way was; you'd decide as a group not to allow it.

I think the "it's easier to add" argument often comes from people who know that their group may not agree with their taste but want their way anyway. And that's deplorable. This is a social game, where the taste of more than one person matters. If a down-to-earth aesthetic is...

Not really. The reason for favoring a vanilla, setting agnostic core is that it makes it easier to learn and play as well as more flexible. If you then want to add stuff to that, Paizo or its 3pp will no doubt be producing supplements to that purpose.

Also, designing new mechanics is objectively easier than removing parts of an existing game engine as you don't need to worry quite so much about unintended effects on other parts of the system as you can freely choose where and how the new system intersects with other rules.

It also related to Paizo's business model which involves putting out new content on a semi-regular basis. How many Paizo supplements in the past have offered suggestions for removing broken systems as opposed to just piling more on in the hopes of achieving some sort of equilibrium?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure Paizo is most interested in feedback based on the adventures they're bundling with the playtests. At the very least, that's what I'll be using if my group decides to participate.


master_marshmallow wrote:
The potential for treating Perception like a skill again go beyond what I think we are going to get, and I think Perception being treated like a skill and having options to enhance it like a skill may end up creating a better game.

I think they want Perception to autoscale roughly in line with the characters best Skills which is why it was divorced from the Skill List. In any event, the option actually being removed is to NOT enhance it like a skill though whether that's a significant difference depends upon one's perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:

The answer is that in real life sleight of hand, misdirection and distraction is key. You need someone deft and highly skilled to pull off the physical part, but if you can't keep them distracted well enough it's over immeadiately. But in fact with sleight of hand in real life you are almost always more likely to be caught by an onlooker than your mark.

Shoes are actually remarkably hard iirc, and pants aren't too bad, the deft guy needs to make sure that they won't trip on them when you move the mark . Jackets and button shirts are supposed to be the easiest when it comes to clothing iirc, with gloves being the hardest.

Most of sleight of hand is knowing psychology more than anything, though dexterity is still important. I'm super clumsy myself so I could never pick pocket someone or take off a piece of clothing, I can still take objects from people's hands or put something in their hands without making them notice, and move them across a building before they realize it. Just look into it and things like real life studies on perception, and you realize just how little we actually notice regularly.

Yes but....how? Like, there is, for example, no physical way to remove someone's T-Shirt, Shirt, Jacket, what have you without your "mark" having to move in very specific ways. Especially button shirts, where you have to unbutton them. The same is true for pants (and doubly true if they're wearing shoes.)

I mean, this is easy to see. Just put on a t-shirt and ask someone else to take it off you, without you helping them in any way. You'll see it's pretty much impossible, let alone taking it off without them noticing.

Like, I can see people taking your hat, your cloak, a belt. But your shirt? Your pants? A breastplate? That's when it goes from "really skilled" to "complete silliness".

Usually this is done with an accomplice, who distracts the mark. It's still possible to do without an accomplice, but requires a much greater degree of skill.

I think he was referring more to the physical removal of the garment from a standing or sitting mark without their active cooperation.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Specifically, in PF1 all you had to really know was whether a Skill could be made Untrained or not and whether the PC could make the DC. In PF2, it sounds like we'll also need to know whether the proposed application is appropriate to their UTEML rank and keep track of these Skill Feats.

We actually have zero evidence of non-Skill Feat skill uses that require a rank higher than Trained.

Skill Feats are an addition, sure enough, but having played many systems where there were things like them, IME they stick in your mind and are not difficult to keep track of.

I'm quite sure I've heard somewhere that the Rank determines the quality of items that can be created via the Craft skill though that may be a special case.

In any event, if you are right then they should be easily removable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Reece wrote:
Crayon wrote:
jimthegray wrote:
Crayon wrote:
How badly would omitting these affect system cohesiveness?

you would make non casters less interesting and useful

but it would still be playable
Disagree emphatically, but ultimately the 'playable' part is what I care about so it sounds like an excellent trade-off

Seriously look at what casters can do at 15th level fully geared up. The legendary stuff isn't all that legendary compared to it (based on level it is obtained) versus what they can do.

Additionally, a lot of it can already be accomplished with pretty low level magical items (feather-fall rings, hat of disguise, etc) and all this does is remove the need for those items. A few things are a little more extreme, but surviving in the void is a mixture of a ring of sustenance and a daily casting of Life Bubble (a 4th level Druid spell that would last 30 hours if cast at 15th).

At that level these things are not that big of an extreme. The Cat Fall one only becomes as good as a ring of feather fall once you reach Legendary in Acrobatics. We're not talking about a level 1 doing these things.

None of these are really relevant to my concerns. To be clear, I'm not really opposed to Legendary Skill Feats per se (I probably would be, but I play under a Level 10 Cap so it's not relevant), but rather the concept of Skill Feats themselves. Mostly because I feel they'll make the game much harder for me to run without any corresponding increase in enjoyment from myself or the players. And frankly, when the rules start to get in the way of the fun they need to be jettisoned. I already know we'll probably be dropping Background, for example, and I'm just curious whether Skill Feats will be as easy to excise from the game.

Specifically, in PF1 all you had to really know was whether a Skill could be made Untrained or not and whether the PC could make the DC. In PF2, it sounds like we'll also need to know whether the proposed application is appropriate to their UTEML rank and keep track of these Skill Feats. While there will, supposedly, be fewer modifiers under the new system, I'm not really convinced the new system will be easier in play and even if it were, our dislike of fiddly conditional mechanics would probably predispose toward the old system anyway.

In addition to the aforementioned Level Cap, our homebrew setting has very few magical items, restricted spell availability, and while there's no actual rule, players generally favour Feats that have passive effects and that provide exemption from conditional rules over those that add new action types or confer situational modifiers. In short, we would like PF2 to be more streamlined and player-friendly than PF1 something Paizo cites as a design consideration, but don't seem to have provided many examples of yet.


jimthegray wrote:
Crayon wrote:
How badly would omitting these affect system cohesiveness?

you would make non casters less interesting and useful

but it would still be playable

Disagree emphatically, but ultimately the 'playable' part is what I care about so it sounds like an excellent trade-off


How badly would omitting these affect system cohesiveness?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm hopeful that Paizo sticks to purely setting materiel and modules for the first year or two so. Can't see much point in rushing out mechanic-heavy books for a new system until they've had some time to iron out the wrinkles.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I can only disagree on this point. Adding new mechanical gimmicks every level is, at best, boring and tend to result in players being saddled with abilities they don't want, can't use, or are thematically inappropriate to their character.

That's only true if you add the same kind of mechanical addition every level. Adding varying kinds (which is what PF2 does) keeps it much more fresh.

Crayon wrote:
More concerning to me, is that the modular approach seems diametrically opposed to Paizo's stated design objectives of making the game easier to learn and play - which to me at least, would point towards an exception-based system.

Why would it be diametrically opposed? They've cleaned up and simplified basically all the base mechanics. That means they can make a much more expansive list of individual Feats (or more accurately, several different lists of Feats, each shorter than the weird grab-bag that was PF1 Feats) and the game remains easier to learn and play anyway, since all the complexity is back loaded into Feats.

Hardcore optimizers will need to learn just as much to properly make the Mechanically Best Character (tm) since they need to learn every Feat. But if you want to play an Elf Ranger your list of options is suddenly very finite indeed and even a casual gamer can probably achieve a good understanding of how that particular combination works pretty readily since they need to learn only a tiny subset of the rules, for the most part.

I mean, at 1st level you need to look over less than 20 Feats (probably more like 15), and that expands at a relatively reasonable rate.

I'm not sure I understand the first part. Care to elaborate?

As for the second, I can't really say I've seen anything that looks demonstrably easier than it was in PF1 and quite a few seem like they'll be more involved.

That said, I mostly GM and so will have to learn everything anyway and none of my players care whether their characters are 'viable' or not. My main source of concern is the number of extra pieces being bolted onto the system in PF2. I had my share of problems with PF1, but 'not enough fiddly conditional rules' wasn't one of them and sadly it seems to be the main one that the designers seem to be focused on.

Most of the problem with Feats may, in fact, be backloaded as you say, but it's not much of a distinction if you don't want them anyway. At this point, I'm just hoping it'll be relatively easy to remove most of the additional features though at present I'm toying with the idea of dividing XP yields by 5 and running levels 1-5 which will hopefully resolve my issues.


While I have my own set of concerns about how this system will actually function in play I don't feel that Skill Feats should be equivalent to magic because:
a. they don't (usually) cost anything to use while spells are much more limited in application.
b. they need to be useful to characters who actually possess said spells.
c. many players explicitly don't want their characters to have overtly supernatural abilities and unsurprisingly these players tend to gravitate toward skill-based/martial classes.


John John wrote:

So if you dont spend a command action they do nothing?

I mean I can see the logic balance wise, but otherwise I don't see how this makes any sense.

In-game, I'm sure the Companion is probably doing something - just not anything useful/productive from its Mistress' PoV...


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do really like that everybody gets to make lots of choices as they advance now. A lot of my favorite classes in PF1 got to choose from lists every other (or even every) level, and it's not like we couldn't differentiate the Kineticist from the Vigilante (a choice at every level) or the Magus from the Rogue (a choice every other level), so I'm not worried about homogeneity really.

If anything, since the majority of one's feats come from their class, we might end up with a lot less homogeneity since you may not be able to build a huge number of classes around the same suite of archery feats.

I can only disagree on this point. Adding new mechanical gimmicks every level is, at best, boring and tend to result in players being saddled with abilities they don't want, can't use, or are thematically inappropriate to their character.

More concerning to me, is that the modular approach seems diametrically opposed to Paizo's stated design objectives of making the game easier to learn and play - which to me at least, would point towards an exception-based system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The decisions regarding which Skills to amalgamate and which to leave as they were is interesting.

That said, it seems like Skills are another aspect of the game being made more complicated for complexity's sake...


Personally, I don't mind the classes having a fairly uniform model of progression, but do rather wish the designers had reduced the number of moving parts (class features, feats, etc). Sadly, however, Paizo's current policy seems to be going in the opposite direction...


Tholomyes wrote:
Aramar wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Three action plus reaction seems cool, but I'm worried that if the fighter is supposed to have a number of reaction-based mechanics, I'm wary that the one reaction might be a bottleneck for some of the class's potential.
The fighter gets additional reactions starting at first level, IIRC, so they should plenty of opportunities to use all of their interesting options. Similar to how, even in earlier editions, characters could attain multiple AoO's per round.

I assume this is something seen at paizocon, because it wasn't mentioned in the blog posts as far as I've seen. If so, I'm intrigued, because I like the idea of a reaction-heavy fighter as a build, though I'm also interested in seeing how ranged fighters shake out in all of this, given that getting AoOs for free isn't as useful for them, but I'm guessing that that's in the realm of feats (maybe something that lets them use AoOs at range, though perhaps only at a specified target, or under specified conditions), which we probably won't see until the playtest launches.

Also something else I forgot, where I'm optimistic about it but reserving judgement, so anyone who's playtested, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say on it: I like the idea that weapons will be more differentiated more than they have been in 1e, but I worry that it could slow things down, having to remember what your poleaxe can do different from a longspear, different from a glaive, different from a... ect. I like the idea for the design space, but it does seem that if there are a lot of things to keep track of, it'd make it more meddlesome at the table.

I believe it was mentioned on 'Glass Cannon' that Fighters get multiple Reactions though I personally understood that to indicate that they had more than one way to spend their Reaction each round...


Quite aside from being lenient to the point even referring to them as 'restrictions' seems disingenuous, I can't really see any reason for their inclusion in the game.

First, no matter how detailed the rules might be, they will ultimately come down to the GM or the character's deity making a decision so why not just cut out the rules altogether and just have the GM inform the player through dreams etc whenever her actions are at odds with the will of her deity?

1 to 50 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>