Ezren

Dαedαlus's page

600 posts. Alias of Daedalus the Dungeon Builder.


RSS

1 to 50 of 600 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I keep alternating between ‘this will be awesome’ and ‘this will be horrible’ when following PF2 news. At the moment, I’m doing nothing but reading the blogs reserving my judgement until the full thing comes out, but this certainly on the optimistic side. It’s hard to say what exactly I like, but overall it just sounds right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Throw a phylactery into a volcano and let it sink into the molten crust.
Dig a deep hole in a random spot somewhere in the world and fill it back up.
Toss one into the depths of the ocean and let it rest in the deepest trench.
Make it buoyant and invisible, releasing it into the upper atmosphere, drifting in the wind.
Banish it into the depths of space where none could ever hope to follow.

Fire, Earth, Water, Air, and Void. Something of a riddle, isn't it?

Plenty of good places to hide your soul, and eternity will give you plenty of time to bring yourself omnipotence.


I just hope that Aeons can also have descendants- maybe one of those obsessed with life and death left a bit too much planestuff in their creations?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

How do you kill an empyreal lord? That’s easy. Just mention how powerful it is on the forums. In under 100 posts, you’ll have NPCs that are one-shotting it.


No problem, Shadow. You take care of yourself, okay? It's way more important than any game you're playing on the internet with a bunch of strangers. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My interest in PF2 has slowly been dying, but this blog most certainly caught my attention. I love some of the little details, like Cantrips scaling as time goes on, but the number one reason I'm speaking up is a simple one:

THANK YOU FOR MAKING HEALING NECROMANCY. I have wanted that for so long. Still not sure if I'll end up switching (overall, PF2 just doesn't have a lot of why I like 1e), but that bit right there means I'll give it a second glance at least.


Sure thing. Do you want me to stay in “real-time,” on a round to round basis with the other groups, or just go as soon as people have posted actions?


67 people marked this as a favorite.

I still am not a fan of Goblin PCs. This blog does nothing to change that. It adds a level of handwavium that shouldn’t be present in Core races.

That said, getting a bit of info about how races will be handled is interesting, but really my biggest takeaway is this:

Charisma!? Really?


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:

And that’s how we get 4e.

The one-save-or-lose is a uniquely Caster thing, and making it so that all spells do basically the same thing, with only really cosmetic variation, is how to alienate a lot of people who like that Casters operate on a different plane than martials- they might not be able to do as much damage, or certain things as well (at least in theory) but they can do things that martial can’t even begin to emulate.

If PF2 dropped SoS completely, or made it key off of ‘alternate hitpointd’ it would lose a ton of its players.

Do you just say that anything you don't like is 4E or something?

The fact that I can lose control of my character and sit there doing nothing for an hour or more of real world time because I rolled low on one save in the first round of a combat is bad game design. It's that simple.

Running off a "will points" pool, or otherwise requiring multiple success for an incredibly powerful game altering effect like Dominate Person to fully take hold does not take away the caster's ability to do things that martials can't. It just means that they have to actually work for it and not just hit their, LOL auto-win button in the first round of each combat.

I'd like to think that any player who isn't a selfish spotlight hog isn't going to quit the game because it takes their wizard 2 or 3 rounds to take complete mental control of the Barbarian instead of just 1.

What? No. This is the first time I've made the comparison, actually. It's just that this is quite similar to what people don't like about 4e (only cosmetic differences between classes) that it seems like a fair comparison to make.

The problem with 'it takes 2-3 castings of a spell to do anything' is that, often times, Casters don't have that many spells to spare. If they got an at-will, "attack a different pool of not-HP than the rest of your teammates" that would be another story (still not one that I would like, but still a story- if the caster can't do anything to directly help their teammates take down a foe, what's the point of playing one?) but when I, playing a caster, gets a only one or two Dominates a day, there's no way I'd blow them on trying to take down a single encounter that likely won't even matter because after 2-3 rounds of being attacked by the martial characters, there's likely not going to be enough of them left to control. An at-will power would start to solve the problem, but then any encounter in which you spend trying to Dominate your foe is one where you effectively contribute nothing, unless everyone is attacking the same pool, which at that point, may as well be HP. It then breaks narrative if you can spend 20 seconds and have anybody you meet under your absolute control.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And that’s how we get 4e.
The one-save-or-lose is a uniquely Caster thing, and making it so that all spells do basically the same thing, with only really cosmetic variation, is how to alienate a lot of people who like that Casters operate on a different plane than martials- they might not be able to do as much damage, or certain things as well (at least in theory) but they can do things that martial can’t even begin to emulate.

If PF2 dropped SoS completely, or made it key off of ‘alternate hitpointd’ it would lose a ton of its players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:
Furdinand wrote:

"It's tempting to just decide the solution is not to have save or lose effects, but that really cuts off a wide variety of classic feats, monster abilities, and spells from the game."

This mindset hobbles every new edition. If it makes for a better game, why not cut off classic feats, abilities, and spells? Not everything has to be carried forward.

I have trouble imagining that a game would be better without the enchantress able to put enemies to sleep with the wave of her hand or crush the mind of a giant and use it as an attack dog, where a medusa, basilisk or gorgon can't turn anyone to stone, where the evil cleric can't banish their foe to Hell, where the wizard can't turn someone into a newt because they annoyed them, or where the good oracle can't banish a fiend back to their home plane.

All of those are save-or-lose effects, and there's a reason they've been kept. It plays into the fundamental fantasy of the game, and removing them would hardly be an improvement.

I know, imagine a game where massive raging Barbarians have to strike their enemy multiple times with their war hammer in order in knock them out! Imagine a game where the skilled rogue can't simply cut the throat of someone they sneak up on! Where a swing of the Fighter's Sword doesn't decapitate a dozen goblins at once.

Can you imagine a game where knocking out or defeating an enemy required using multiple actions to attack them with each 'hit' depleting some sort of pool of 'points'? To me that would just go against the fundamental fantasy of the game.

Any character of high enough level (roughly level 10 for 'epic' storytelling of the nature I was referring) that has actually made any amount of effort into making their build in that regard should be able to pull off those tricks no problem. A power attacking Barbarian (especially one built around one big stroke) is pretty darn likely to take down a foe in a single round. It's why RAGELANCEPOUNCE is a thing. The rogue actually stands a decent chance of backstabbing someone (though that is admittedly a trope that is sadly lacking, admittedly), and the fighter could have easily invested in Cleave and cut through hordes of goblins with ease.

And the hit point thing is a non sequitur. I can think of plenty of fantasies where fights are won through attrition, small wounds leading up to the final blow.

In any case, are you arguing that because we are missing some fantasy tropes, we should remove more of them? That's... honestly kind of confusing to me.


I would just use the verbal duel rules from UI. They were kind of made with this sort of situation in mind.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Furdinand wrote:

"It's tempting to just decide the solution is not to have save or lose effects, but that really cuts off a wide variety of classic feats, monster abilities, and spells from the game."

This mindset hobbles every new edition. If it makes for a better game, why not cut off classic feats, abilities, and spells? Not everything has to be carried forward.

I have trouble imagining that a game would be better without the enchantress able to put enemies to sleep with the wave of her hand or crush the mind of a giant and use it as an attack dog, where a medusa, basilisk or gorgon can't turn anyone to stone, where the evil cleric can't banish their foe to Hell, where the wizard can't turn someone into a newt because they annoyed them, or where the good oracle can't banish a fiend back to their home plane.

All of those are save-or-lose effects, and there's a reason they've been kept. It plays into the fundamental fantasy of the game, and removing them would hardly be an improvement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:


Yes, but the name being just 1 letter and a slight difference in pronunciation off from Demons tends to obscure their distinctions.
DEE-mons vs DYE-moh-nays is clear enough for me.

Really? I've always said DAY-mons.

Plus, Daemons are a greek supernatural being distinct from demons, so there is precedence to that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I see people are completely misreading my post.

(Side note: I'm not actually 100% of the stance that we shouldn't have a new game, P1e is perfect, yadda yadda- I'm just vocalizing that side)

I think the easiest comparison might be something like this:

Imagine walking up to a die-hard Star Wars fan. The kind with a life-sized Jabba the Hutt statue in his living room, and every model of the Milennium Falcon ever made sitting on his shelves. Now, imagine telling that fan, "You know, the new trilogy and prequels are absolutely the best thing that's ever happened to Star Wars. We got to learn about how the Force works, we get to see Luke be a grumpy old man, we get to see Darth Vader flirting using sand-based pickup lines, we get to see Han die. You know, you really should like them. Oh, you don't? That's okay. You can just completely ignore them and pretend that the original trilogy is all that ever existed and ever will exist, while the rest of the world gets more and more stuff from the Galaxy far, far away. You just sit in your little corner with your toys, that will never change and you can rewatch over and over again to your heart's content."

How do you think they would respond to that? Because that's basically what's happening here. People are saying, "Oh, you don't like the new stuff that they're asking our opinion about? That's okay, because you like how things were, you can sit in the corner with your old stuff while we get shiny new things to play with. You have plenty of things, stop complaining!"

And that's where people have an issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, guessing on what the various examples are:

  • Critical Failure on a banishment spell.
  • Critical failure against earthquake.
  • A critical success on a Bluff check? (Or some variant of suggestion)
  • Probably a critical failure on feeblemind.
  • Gust of wind, critical failure.
  • Critical Aid Another check?
  • My guess, this is a new fear spell (paranoia?) or some variant of a reversed unwitting ally
  • Phantasmal Killer. Interesting enough of a change, I suppose.
  • Critical success on the Heal skill?
  • Critical use of Intimidate.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmmm....
(seems to be my reaction a lot lately)

So, does this mean that a medusa will only turn you into a statue if you fail the save by more than 10? That seems... incredibly counter-genre.

That said, I can't say I'm opposed to the four degrees of success, just that it could prove problematic in certain situations meant to be highly deadly.

Still, I was kind of hoping we would get something new in this blog, not just the crit system, which we've known about for a while.


Necromancy is also an [evil] act, incidentally.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh. It's... cool, I guess? It doesn't really feel all that earth-shattering, and, like with the fighter, I guess it just leaves me with a 'meh' feeling. Not that it's not cool or anything, it's just that nothing in here leaves me particularly excited or terribly interested in trying a rogue in this new system. At the same time, though, I can't say I spot any big red flags, so... good job at making something that doesn't sound bad?

I'll just have to keep waiting for the wizard preview, I guess. But the blogs keep being pretty bare-bones, so I'm not sure if that will excite me either. All the blogs just keep either not revealing anything particularly interesting or framing something in such a way that it makes the final product seem as though it won't work out.


I'm still holding out hope we get the sidebars back (or at least an option to turn them back on)

And it would be nice if clicking on 'community' in the top banner didn't dump you on an empty webpage- perhaps rerouting it to the default formus?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh cool. Rouge blog on Monday? Should be interesting

That said.. there’s just... not a ton here. There’s almost no new information here, and most of the new feats kind of yell TRAP to me. Like... spending a reaction to deal damage to an enemy that’s right next to you... and just crit you?

I guess Handle Animal is wrapped up into Nature now as well? Having multiple skills able to heal now is kind of cool, I guess, but the way it’s presented here is underwhelming.


Breaking other guidelines?
(Posting in a thread after it’s been locked)


Ummmm.... (Flagging this post to bring to attention)


I’m having the same issue on mine. It’s kind of disorienting at times.


I am sad that BRR died. It’s the game that got me into PBP in the first place, and I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody is stealth-bumping it to keep it alive.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aristophanes wrote:
Is it true that there will be a rule in the CRB that will give an auto-crit to the first player at the table to quote Monty Python?

Fixed that for you ;)


Re: the time span

Remember, Pharasma knows basically everything. She knows exactly when every creature in the multiverse will be born, die, be raised from the dead, and die again. I can totally imagine a waiting room in the Boneyard filled with people waiting to be Raised.

And, of course, the one really lonely, really bored Azlanti guy whose fate it is to be raised from the dead in Starfinder time by a Deathstar Coven.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:
54) Will I still be able to blame Cosmo?

If not; you know whose fault it is ;)


Isaac Zephyr wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:
Isaac Zephyr wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:
Full Pouch. Nifty little 2nd-level spell that costs 1 gp, and creates an alchemical item that could potentially sell for thousands of times that. It's about the fastest way to make money in PF.
Augh! Transmutation is a forbidden school for me. XP Can't take it...
Forbidden? Unless you're playing with houserules or as a Thassilonian Specialist, it would only take you double the spell slots to cast.

Alright, you are correct. Double slot cost.

However also not Core, and GM is only allowing core. Nice as it would be to dupe my alchemical items (I use a bunch of them), between needing to talk to my GM about it, and the double spell slots, it would be more effective to just scribe scrolls and sell them.

Core only? Hmmmm... that does make things trickier. What level are you?


Isaac Zephyr wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:
Full Pouch. Nifty little 2nd-level spell that costs 1 gp, and creates an alchemical item that could potentially sell for thousands of times that. It's about the fastest way to make money in PF.
Augh! Transmutation is a forbidden school for me. XP Can't take it...

Forbidden? Unless you're playing with houserules or as a Thassilonian Specialist, it would only take you double the spell slots to cast.


Full Pouch. Nifty little 2nd-level spell that costs 1 gp, and creates an alchemical item that could potentially sell for thousands of times that. It's about the fastest way to make money in PF.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hooray! Finally!

In any case,

Quote:
But how do elves fair in the bustling human courts?

I'm glad that elves are able to maintain their independence and stay fair even in human courts.


Personally, I'm of the opinion that all of PF is completely correct physics-wise. We have concepts of conservation of energy and matter, but in Golarion, alternate realities (planes) are very real and full of very real matter. I always figured that for things like trolls, they gain their extra mass/energy through a wholly natural connection to the planes, and that fire is able to cut off that access. Dragons... yeah, no real explanation for that one. It's possible that they too have semi-access to the elemental planes, particularly that of air, and when they fly, they're actually micro-channeling the plane's negligible gravity, allowing them to ignore most of their mass while flying.

Most of physics as we know it goes out the window with the possibility of any given system not being isolated, but instead multidimensional. Think MCU Dr. Strange- no physics is violated, it's just that extra accessible dimensions full of energy do all sorts of weird things to our assumptions of what is/isn't possible.


Trimalchio wrote:

What I don't understand is what paradigm does the fighter fit when his companion, Dan the level 20 wizard, is forming demiplanes, binding devils, and contacting gods? Most players don't want to play the highly competent butler of Dr strange

Maybe fighters should only have ten class levels and at level 11 they can take class 'lord of nightmares' or 'true queen of fairies', then everyone can be happy.

Isn't that basically what prestige classes are supposed to be?

I mean, if they worked well in PF beyond niche builds.


I mean, yeah. Same. Let Martials bend reality- we have Casters for when we want to break it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Lindley Court wrote:
As someone who has, for years, been confused and frustrated that a 20th level fighter is bound by the logic of reality while a 1st level wizard isn't.

Wait, a wizard sacrifices martial power and uses MAGIC to become unbound by reality. That's why wizard can do stuff-because they don't do martial stuff and access magic. SMH.

Personally, and in my experience with other groups, "legendary" fighters that jump 100 feet into the air and cleave an enemy in half with one shot is a recipe for a no-fun game and a miserable GM.

Wait, a Fighter sacrifices magical power and uses EPIC PROWESS to become unbound by reality. That's why Fighters can do stuff — because they don't do caster stuff and use their own demigodlike potential. SMH

Personally, and in my experience with all groups, "legendary" Fighters who can't jump 100 feet into the air and cleave an enemy in half with one shot is a recipe for a no-fun game (except for the Wizard) and a miserable GM and players, and a game that quickly fizzles out.

See how easy it is to "justify" with such circular logic? There is no argument to be made that casters can break all the laws of physics and have godlike power and martials can't that isn't pure hypocrisy. If you want everyone to be toned down, that's what E6 is for. Otherwise, high-level martials get to become Beowulf and Sun Wukong and Heracles. It's good the developers recognize the need for non-Wizard players to be relevant in the late game, and are giving us tools to do so.

Thankfully you're type of gameplay isn't what PF 1e is and what most players and GMs like to play.

If the endless martial/caster disparity threads on this forum have anything to say about that, you're not completely correct. Well, you may be right in that people want Casters to do stuff that violates science while Martials can't... but it seems the general sentiment is that people aren't happy with that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
jimthegray wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
What if we don't want to use shields? Can we trade out the 8th and 14th level abilities for other abilites?
Even levels are class feats, odd levels are fixed features. The blog was just describing when those feats become available- you'd only pick them if you wanted to focus on shields.

That's not what it reads like to me.

And another thing, why do we have to raise our shields every turn? In a real fight people have their shields raised at all times, they don't lower and raise them over and over again.

no in real life using a shield in a fight is normally an active activity that requires focus

Have you.... ever fought with a sword and shield? Because that's really not true. Holding a shield is about as intuitive as it gets. Almost immediately after picking one up and learning proper shield stance, it becomes more of a subconscious thing. It required more effort to drop the thing than it is to block with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another thought: I really, really hope there are ways to get more than 2 AoOs per round. I've been wanting to play a battlefield-control lockdown fighter for a while, but from the sounds of that, I'll have to get one in before PF2 comes out and that's what most PBPs are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like the fighter is just different from P1e. No longer do you '5-foot step + full power attack,' it's now much more come-and-go, with power attack not being the absolute best.

That said, as someone who has done RL swordfighting with a sword-and-board style, I do not think that having to raise a shield with an action is that great, game-wise or realism-wise. Using a shield often made attacks way easier and I could pull off extra while keeping my guard up, because of the way reach, swords, and shields work. I could see it being an action to raise, but it then stays raised until you do something with it (use a Reaction to have it deflect a blow, shield bash, etc.) but even then it's easier to have the shield up than it is to drop it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmmm....
AoOs now requiring a feat tax for everyone but fighters. Interesting.

I do like the idea of blocking area effects with a shield, though, that's something needed for a while. Does it also grant bonuses to those behind you?

Also, does the power attack scale with level? An extra d8 won't do much if your +4 longsword is already dealing 5d8 or more.


Arssanguinus wrote:
The thing that gets me is seem to think that segment of players is vanishingly small and not worth thinking about in game.

We'll see if it is come August. So far as I can tell, it's mostly 3-4 very vocal posters doing most of the talking (on both sides).


I would imagine that the new identification goes something like this:

Anyone trained in Spellcraft* can spend a round studying an object to glean its properties, but you need to succeed on a check to tell if it's cursed or otherwise has secondary effects.

*Or whatever the PF2 version is


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the simplest solution would just be to introduce a rank below untrained, "Incompetent," which could be something like 1/2 level-4, and you could lower two skills to incompetent in exchange for an extra skill rank at character creation. You could still raise it to Untrained, Trained, Expert, or higher later if you wanted, but then people could be useless at as many skills as they want, but without too much benefit in return (as you essentially lose one skill rank each time). Then everyone is happy (if you're upset that you have a +6 to a skill you started off with a -4 in by the time you're level 20, I really don't know what to say).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

May I ask a question that may shed some light on the situation?

So, let's say we have two characters in P1e:

One, a 6th-level Fighter with 20 strength wielding a longsword, using power attack two-handed, and having weapon focus. His to-hit is +11 on his first attack and +6 on his second.

The second one is a 20th-level wizard with 14 strength (say he has a belt), using a dagger. His to-hit is +12 on the first attack and +7 on the second.

Now, tell me. Which is of them is a better melee attacker? The wizard? His numbers are higher. Well no, of course not. The fighter is hitting for 1d8+13 damage, whereas the wizard is hitting for 1d4+2.

Alternatively, compare the same 6th-level fighter to a 20th level wizard with 8 strength, with the same dagger.
Who's stronger here? The fighter has higher numbers. Both his to-hit and damage are way higher then the wizard's. But the wizard is still, undeniably, the more powerful threat. Why? Because the wizard isn't trying to melee with his dagger. He's summoning extraplanar creatures, throwing disintegrates around like a bloodthirsty Oprah, and fireballing everything that moves. The fighter may have a higher number next on his melee attack line, but the Wizard is doing stuff he could only imagine.

That, in a nutshell, is why your statline numbers really don't matter all that much when it comes to skill. They play a part, for sure, but they are far from the whole picture.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, as for the whole 'wizards are better at climbing at level 20 than at level 1, despite never practicing,' I have three responses:

If the wizard ever had to be hoisted up on the end of a rope, it would make sense that, in some of his spare time, he might do some research on better climbing techniques, and thus have a better theory as to how to climb later on.

If the wizard has never, ever come across something to climb before in the campaign, well, maybe he was always that good, and it just never came up. Perhaps even he didn't know he was secretly a climbing prodigy all along.

Finally, magic (*insert sparkles*) could be the answer. Perhaps he's developed a minor technique that allows him to improve his skill with physical activities/substitutes normal labor for minor magic, to the extent that, with how efficient he's gotten with magic over time, and how much magic he has, it doesn't impact his daily magic power in the slightest.


Zaister wrote:
Leedwashere wrote:
quillblade wrote:

I'll have to look at the actual rules again and make comment on them later, I just have to bring up a pet peeve. It's about words.

Please don't call the skill Thievery. They did that in 4E: it condensed a variety of skills that could conceivably be used for non-criminal actions into a single term that's synonymous with crime. A magician has to use Thievery (instead of Sleight of Hand) to pull a rabbit out of a hat or perform other tricks, for example.

Calling it 'Thievery' seems to me like it will limit builds based on the negative preconceptions rather than open up the skill list. It did with my experiences in 4E anyhow.

If 'Thievery' is literally JUST the skill for 'stealing things', that's one thing, but I fear it will once again be the lump skill for Sleight of Hand and Disable Device... and maybe not everyone who wants to do magic tricks or disable traps wants to have to roll the Thievery skill and be pigeon-holed as the thief of the party.

Ooh, ooh, call it "legerdemain." It sounds cool and has a meaning which covers basically everything you want it to do.

It's been one of my favorite words since the first time I watched Star Trek VI. "What we need now is a feat of linguistic legerdemain and a degree of intrepidity."

Yes, I like this. And incidentally, the word "legerdemain" is borrowed from French "léger de main" which basically means "sleight of hand".

I think 'finesse' would work well, because then that also opens it up to other fine-motor-skill uses. Stuff like high-DC checks to read a book by touch, and that sort of thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Matthias W wrote:

Another area where the numbers "feel off" to me: the ability score vs. level contribution to bonuses, between different untrained characters, even at nondramatic level differences.

Say there's a level 6, Charisma 18 fighter and a level 12, Charisma 8 fighter. How would you roleplay these characters? All else being equal, I'd play the 18 Cha fighter as a lot more socially confident, with better intuitions, better at producing the reactions she wants to get out of people, and overall someone you want the approval of. The first fighter would be one of the most popular people you knew, while the second would tend to be very socially awkward. But if they go out to haggle over the price of goods, or to the tavern to pick up dates, or try to cheer up a friend - all of which are just normal activities that can benefit from specific skills, but don't require them - then the math says Ugly McAwkwardson is better.

I think they're optimizing more for actual play situations- it's rare to have a large level spread in the party. But I would say that the less charismatic fighter has more experience interacting with people, and is able to make up for his lack of personal charm. He's got more knowledge of how to persuade merchants, has more stories to tell, and has a better sense for what somebody really needs when they're down. His confidence is borne out of experience rather than simply being a confident person.

I feel like this is fairly accurate. Am I naturally charismatic? No, not at all. Have I put much effort into improving my social skills? Some, but not really. Am I way better than I was/better than someone younger than me (even if they're naturally more charismatic than I am) at cheering someone up or convincing someone of something? You bet I am. Simply because I've made the mistakes the younger person hasn't had time to make, and I can remember not to do that again.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Sean R wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Sean R wrote:


I won't be happy with this change unless there's a way to push outside of the class structure and allow a measure of flexibility. As a cleric (or Paladin), I should NEVER need to choose between Knowledge: Religion and Diplomacy, simply because I have an average INT score. That makes little sense to me, given how churches tend to operate.
As a cleric or paladin with low Int, you can still choose to start out trained in Thievery or even Arcana as a skill. Whichever skills you want, unrestrained by class skills.

Except that I then have to give up Knowledge: Religion and/or Diplomacy. No class who gets it's powers from the gods should be clueless as to how their religion works.

Likewise, no class about studying tomes to cast spells should be clueless as to how spells work (Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcraft).

You -can- do it in the current system, but it begs the question 'how?' How can this character exemplify these concepts without limiting them to JUST these concepts. If this is core to what the class is about, it should be granted, not limiting. It's part of who the class is.

I could see a Paladin without knowledge: religion, in the case of someone suddenly blessed by the gods who just so happen to exemplify their deities ideals, but someone whom needs to know how to worship? A cleric can't go without knowledge: religion without some extraordinary reach.

To me, I'm okay with a bit of tit-for-tat when it comes to skills, but my biggest pain is looking at the skill list and realizing that I cannot create the roleplaying character in my head, simply because of some rules arbitration. Flexibility is one of the core aspects of Pathfinder I like.

And this can be a deal breaker. I LOVED the background system in 5e. I LOVE the trait system in Pathfinder. Don't pull back and say 'no, none of that' for 2e.

To repeat;

I would say for that cleric basic knowledge about their religion would be considered an...

I think it's more likely that Clerics will be automatically considered trained in Knowledge (religion) (or its replacement).


25 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to get this out here.
THANK YOU, PAIZO STAFF!
Mark Seifter especially, with him always being one of the first to jump into the frying pan, but I really appreciate how much you all are wading into the boiling sea of outraged fans as you handle the PF2 slow unveiling. You guys really don't get enough credit for putting up with us angry geeks. For we are many, we are passionate, and we love our game. This can't be easy, especially with how much work you've put into all of this. So, I just wanted to extend to all of you, a big

THANK YOU!

You've earned it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I'm much more concerned that what skills let you do, the core of the Skill system, is suitably awesome. Remember, this will go through months of playtesting, so I'm sure that by the end of it, bonuses will feel sufficiently distinct, be that with a +5 difference or a +15, it just means a few numbers need to be scaled and DCs to match. I'm far less concerned with that and more with the fact that YOU CAN PICKPOCKET ARMOR RIGHT OFF OF A GUARD.

1 to 50 of 600 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>