Ezren

Dαedαlus's page

631 posts. Alias of Daedalus the Dungeon Builder.


RSS

1 to 50 of 631 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh yeah, I’m absolutely aware it’s not even close to RAI (hence why I called it a typo), but it’s still unclear in wording (even though the intent is obvious). It’s still jll just a funny thing that needs to be fixed before the final release.


So, I'm pretty sure this is just a typo and by pointing it out it's sure to be corrected in the next errata, but still.

So, if you decide not to become a specialist, this is the ability you get for not getting 1 extra spell per level:

Universalist wrote:
If you do, youcan use Drain Arcane Focus once each day per each spell level you can cast, instead of only once per day.

The interesting thing here is exactly what Drain Arcane Focus allows you to do.

Drain Arcane Focus wrote:


You expend the magical power stored in your arcane focus. This gives you the ability to cast one spell you prepared today and previously cast, without spending a spell slot. You must still complete the required spellcasting actions and meet the spell’s other requirements.

So, the Universalist gives you the ability to use this 2 times/day at level 3, 3/day at level 5, 4/day at level 7, and so on.

What makes this a little on the OP side is that Drain Arcane Focus doesn't care what level spell you cast, meaning at level 3, you get 4 level 2 spells/day instead of just 2. Granted, it can't be 4 different spells, but you could still do 1 cast of 1 spell, and 3 of the other, or 2 and 2.

This only gets more insane as you keep leveling up, topping off at level 20 (assuming you took the Archmage's Might capstone) with the ability to cast Wish (or a different Level 10 spell) 11 times per day.

So... yeah. What the Universalist loses in flexibility, ironically enough, it gains in sheer power and the ability to cast tons of high-level spells each day.


I think there should just be a ‘general’ class fest pool- that way, a martial-inclined Wizard can take a combat feat or two without multiclassing, and Paladins and other partial casters can benefit from a bit of a magical power boost. Why be restrictive? Throw the gates wide open!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here’s my problem with the “Resonance fixes Cha as a dump stat!” arguement.

There is no such thing as a dump stat in PF2. Unless you’re a dwarf (which should be naturally decent at magic items anyway from a lore perspective) or decide to willingly handicap yourself, you’ll never have a CHA modifier in the negatives. And you definitely won’t gain anything from a lower score.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Resonance might be best used as a sort of ‘mana’ system that replaces and encompasses both Spell Points and Resonance. It would need to have extra points available, though, and I think the most important part should be that items come pre-charged with their own mana. So that Cloak of Elvenkind? Maybe it takes 1 Mana for the passive ability, and 2 to activate the Invisibility, but when you equip it you get 3 mana points added to your base. Obviously, you need some sort of cap (maybe your CHA score) for the number of items you can have equipped at a time, but I think that some variation of Mana would work wonders. The real key is that every time something would cost mana to use, it also adds mana to your pool, this giving you one or two ‘free’ uses before it starts using your limited innate amount.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not entirely sure where to ask this, or if it's been asked elsewhere, but is it the intention that it's better for wizards to wear armor than not to? Because as it stands, with no classes (other than the Monk) being Trained in Unarmored, there is no circumstance where not wearing armor would be better than wearing armor. Not sure if this is intentional, a typo, or if I'm missing something. Wouldn't it make the most sense if all classes were at least Trained in Unarmored, so to provide even a small incentive to not wear armor?


Okay, finally done. I think I’m feeling a bit more optimistic for the system as a whole, as I think a couple little changes would go a long way, but still not thrilled about a lot of parts. As soon as I can get google drive to cooperate, I should be ready to go.


Going Pathfinder Hopeful, and making my Evoker now. It's... time consuming, that's for sure. Fortunately, I mainly just have spell selection left.


Yeah. I'm... hesitant, as it seems a lot of the design decisions are there to almost exclusively spite me (I like to think of character design as a problem and figure out all the ways I can accomplish my goal, whereas this seems like a puzzle with only one 'correct' solution) and nothing really excites me overall, but I suppose that's what playtesting is for. Who knows? Maybe the 'feel' of the game is still just what I like. With a bit of luck, I'll finish reading the rulebook and make my character today.


Sweet. Probably going with a wizard of some form (a blaster, perhaps?).


So, when I first heard about PF2, I was excited. That excitement quickly fell away as the blogs started rolling out, with just the occasional tidbit to actually keep me interested.

Now the full thing is here, and I absolutely plan on being part of the playtest. Why?

Because I have to. I want to make my voice heard and to have actual experience playing when I do so. So, what's the problem?
I don't want to. I'm reading through the classes, through the feats, through the spells, looking for something that might interest me that I can build my character around (I usually play wizards, so I'll probably try to play one in the playtest to get a feel for how they're different). Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything. Like, absolutely nothing has sparked my interest. Occasionally, something will catch my eye, I'll say, "oh, that looks cool," and look at it a bit more, only to realize it's actually nowhere near as good as it looked.

Now, I understand that, if everything is equally bad, then it should be all equal and balanced. But that only comes into play if it's actually used. And no matter how much I want to be part of the playtest, looking at my options, I just... can't imagine actually enjoying myself. Character creation (usually my favorite part) just seems.... bland and uninteresting. I can't find anything that seems even remotely enjoyable, and that's a problem.

So, in addition to simply bemoaning my situation, I was hoping this post might serve an additional purpose: can the vast hivemind let me know what sorts of options are either cool and interesting that you can't wait to play in the play test, and hopefully help me find something I have even the slightest interest in playing?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fun fact: it’s actually cheaper to hire someone to cast the spell you want than it would be to learn the spell yourself and cast it once.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:

I don't like it, either. It removes a lot of the nuance in the religions. Not only for evil deities, but for the good ones too. The Glorious Reclamation and the Cult of the Dawnflower don't make sense if Iomedae and Sarenrae can't have Neutral worshippers.

Asmodeus should allow LN as well.

To be fair, the Glorious Reclamation were pretty hardline good. They were simply zealous and short-sighted. ^_^

I 100% agree about Asmodeus, though. This hurts a lot of potentially interesting concepts and stories related to Cheliax.

Heck, forget just Chelaxian storylines. What about the Godclaw? What about that one place that worshipped Asmodeus as a LN goddess? Are they just suddenly screwed?


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it’s more of a symptom of a larger problem that a lot of the playtest shows: Paizo’s new attitude of playing “our way or the highway.” Between this and then cracking down on anyone who actually wants to, you know, make a character much better than average (or worse than average) thy seem to be pretty clearly saying “this is how to play the game, and screw you if you disagree” which is basically the opposite of P1e and seems to run contrary to their stated goal of making it a “game that everyone can enjoy and everyone feels comfortable playing.”

It kind of reminds me a bit of Apple’s management philosophy, really. And that’s not a good thing.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I have absolutely zero interest in playing the playtest as it’s written if my first impressions are even remotely similar to how it actually is.

I’m still going to play it, though, because I want my voice to be heard and to actually comment on things that come up. However, I highly doubt that I’ll ever play PF2. Why?
It’s not because of the foundation. I kind-of like the new skill system, though I have issues with it, I mostly like the new way classes work, it’s at least workable. I also like the new action economy, and Resonance will still bug me regardless.
It’s not the lack of options or the limited ability to customize, along with general nerfing across the board. That can be fixed easily through the playtest and future supplements.
What is the problem, then? It’s the direction the designers are going with design. I could care less that a few spells here or there are a little nerfed. I’m not concerned that some of the racial abilities are really weak and underwhelming. What is concerning, though, is how all interesting or slightly powerful options have all been dialed back to the point where nothing stands out, how virtually no racial options are interesting or powerful in the slightest, and you can’t have a central concept to build a character around. What the designers seem interested in doing in PF2 is so fundamentally different from the reasons I actually like P1e that I can’t imagine any amount of playtesting or revamping could change what the developers are trying to do with the new edition.

They seem to be making it so someone’s first character and their hundredth are only different in a few abilities and options. I enjoy playing (and continuing to play) P1e for the very reason that it allows me to grow my skill as a player and figure out better ways to accomplish my design goals. My 1st character and latest character, despite being built around the same concept, are astonishingly different, and that’s what I like.

....And now I’m ranting/rambling. I’ll stop now.


Is there any penalty to wearing armor you’re not proficient in? I don’t have my book at the moment, so I can’t check, but I don’t remember anything being said.


No bonus spells from ability scores, max of 3 per level, plus 1 more for specialists. So, yeah. On the other hand, Spells seem to be pretty uniformly nerfed, so there's that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why isn't PF2 as bad as I thought it would be?

Oh, that's easy. Because it's so much worse.

No, seriously. I skipped the Goblin ancestry, forced myself through the endless repeats of when you get your general feats... and your skill feats... and your ability boosts (seriously, rewriting them on every class?!?) cringing at the Stealth skill, trying to understand why remembering something is now an Action, being aghast that identifying a spell is now a feat tax and takes your Reaction (which would prevent you from actually counterspelling it, since they're both Reactions? Or do you just automatically know if a spell you could counter is being cast, in which case why is it a Reaction to ID it, and could you Counterspell even if you don't actually know what spell is cast...) flipping back and forth on my PDF to figure out what spells a Wizard can learn, and getting constantly messed up by the intermixed Powers and Spells, before finally giving up upon reading the Avatar spell description and despairing at the general nerfing of all spells except for Cantrips....

...I haven't even made it to Resonance yet, and I've already lost almost all my small amounts of enthusiasm for the system. And that's not even including some of my smaller nitpicks.


So, you're an aspiring cleric (or divine-blooded Sorcerer), and you've made it all the way to level 20. This is it. You're the High Priest of your religion. Now, you have ULTIMATE POWER in your grasp. And because you don't cast enough Heal (or Harm) spells to make the other capstone worth it, you decide that, as your 20th-level capstone, you want to be able to cast 10th level spells! You get one a day, and so you choose, as a good, faithful servant, to pick Avatar, to channel your god in the purest way possible. So, what does that give you?

An AC of 42. Okay. It's a respectable AC (so far as I can tell), and seems to be on par with most characters paying attention to AC

Attacks with a +31 attack modifier. Again, it doesn't seem to be too bad, but it's also kind of average for anybody with level-appropriate melee ability. I'll come back to this in a minute

30 Temporary HP. It's there. It's not a lot (maybe enough to take a couple of hits) but it's there. Clearly the draw for this spell is elsewhere.

Darkvision. I guess it's helpful, I suppose, if you don't have any light sources. But at level 20, I'm not sure how often darkness would (or should) present any sort of a problem.

Athletics bonus of +31 (feels kind of weird that this holds as true for Gorum as it does for Desna, but whatever) It's something. Nothing special, and seems average for what someone interested in Athletics would have.

And, for your GODLY attacks, what do we have?

a 6d10+3 Crossbow for Abadar.
a 6d10+6 mace (or 6d6+3 ranged attack from Asmodeus
6d8+6 for Iomedae.... Nethys gets a 6d6 ranged attack... Sarenrae has 6d6+6.... Torag gets 6d8+6 damage as his attack....

Yeah, this is at level 20. As your CAPSTONE. You can assume this form for ONE MINUTE. And what do you get? You get to become the party fighter. ONCE PER DAY. I haven't gotten the chance to actually break down all the bonuses availible, but a character that maxes their attack stat, with Legendary for their +5 weapon, will have, if I understand it all correctly, a 20+3+5+6=+34 bonus, before factoring in class abilities, bonuses, or feats of any kind. And if they're 2-handing a Bastard Sword, they're dealing 6d10+6 damage at a minimum, with other abilities boosting that.

So, right there, your average skilled frontliner has an attack that's just as damaging as Avatar's attack, and is more accurate as well.

When I heard 10th-level spells, I didn't imagine that I might be able to almost be as good as a fighter for a minute a day at fighting.

Oh, and fun fact: Ray of Frost, the cantrip, deals 4d8+(probably) 6 damage (average 24) points of damage by the time you hit level 17. Nethys' attack, dealing 6d6, only does 21 on average. If a Cantrip is dealing more damage than a 10th level spell, there's a problem.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't looked at DD or the Bestiary (trying to avoid the GM side while playtesting the Player rules) but from what I've seen of the Playtest doc, it's almost (with the exception of the maroon Iconic sketches) 100% recycled from older Paizo material.

Now, the reason for this is of course because this is a free playtest doc, and they wanted to focus on, you know, making the rules instead of ordering a ton of artwork. When we actually get the rulebook for PF2, I'm sure it'll be packed full of nice, pretty new artwork.


I have to agree. I naturally skim when I'm reading, and even though I'm trying *really* hard not to skim through the rules, I keep finding my eyes glaze over when I read for the 5th time that you gain General feats at 3rd level and every 4 levels thereafter, or that you can use Religion to Identify Magic (you can study an area you know has magic.....) and it's the exact same text as Arcana, Nature, and Occultism. It's making it way harder to find anything that might be different, and it's cutting out tons of space that could have, you know, actual content in it.

Here's an idea for formatting a lot of the repetitive skill uses (looking at you, money-makers and Magic knowledges):

Skill Use Name
Description of ability

You may use your *skill names listed*, **, or ** skill bonus for this Activity. The GM may decide that certain skills may have slightly limited or different aspects depending on the situation.

There you go. Now I'm not zoning out reading through skill descriptions, and you guys can rename 'Class Feats' into 'Class Powers' without worrying about the extra letter.


RafaelBraga wrote:

Well, roll your stats them, of all the crappy rules of the playtest, that one is the easiest to solve and the option is even there on the book itself.

It's not just ability scores (though that is part of it). In any case, that doesn't do a thing- you're still limited to no higher than 18.

Also, I never once mentioned ability scores in my first post. If anything, the fact that it's the first thing everyone thinks of says quite a bit too....

Forget the fact you can't increase above 18 by level 1 normally anyway unless you're rolling. That would be... acceptable. I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't agree with it, but I would accept it.

Saying flat-out "you can never have an ability score above 18 at level 1" just feels like a slap in the face to players like me. There's a reason I don't play 5e, and stated hard caps is a very large part of that reason.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

...Yeah.

I die a little inside every time I read 'you may never have more than X' or 'you cannot have a value greater than X'.

The whole reason I like PF is that it allows me to scour a ton of options, trying squeeze out the last bonus, and this system just... does away with that completely.
I understand why it's done. It's to future-proof the game, I know, to avoid something unexpected coming up and breaking the game. But just make it so that something is impossible on your Big List of Design Rules hanging on the Paizo HQ wall, don't tell it to the players if you have to do that.

Even better, don't put hard limits on anything, just make it exponentially harder to make something higher and higher as you go on. Because as it stands, if there's no way for me to ever improve my skill as a player when making a character, if I can't come up with new and exciting ways to push the limits of the game further and further without hitting a brick wall if I go an inch past normal, and what any new player could make day 1, why would I ever want to keep playing?


Oh, yes please! That sounds great.


Oh, yes please! That sounds great.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmmm....

So all multiclassing is now VMC, in a sense? I’m.... not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, in P1e, I would hate it completely. On the other hand, class progression is completely overhauled, so...

Well, it’s not much longer to wait at least.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm.... Still not sure how I feel about everything becoming Spells. I want Domain Powers, Bloodline Abilities, and whatnot, to actually be unique rather than just an Uncommon spell or something.

And it seems to me that Leyline Conduit will be the new Wand of CLW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is one of the few changes I unequivocally like. Good job!


15 people marked this as a favorite.

Wasn't the whole point of Resonance to reduce the number of fiddly uses-per-day charges to begin with? Now I need to keep track of not only how many items I'm wearing, how many runes are on my armor/weapon (and what material it is...), how many potions I've drunk, how many times I've used my Invisibility rune, how many charges are left in my staff, and estimate how much I'll need healing for the rest of the day?

...Yeah, no. If we do keep resonance in the final version, it's going to have to bear little to no resemblance to how it is now or I imagine that'll be the first houserule that is in place in more tables than it isn't. All the speculative upsides of Resonance from when it was first brought up are gone if we still need to keep track of uses and slots.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah, so we finally have official confirmation as to how resonance works.....

And it's everything we feared.

I like... the idea. It'll be nice to play as someone with a ton of magical necklaces that all do something different, and to have the 'Batman toolbelt' of magic items, and avoiding cracking open a pack of healing wands after every fight. It also allows different types of items to have different uses based off of their resonance usage.

The unfortunate part? It seems to do none of that. I'm not saying that Resonance can never work, but it needs a ton of revision to be remotely feasible and enjoyable. Make staves a battery of Resonance, where you can fill it up at the end of one day and cast from it the next. Make wands have a resonance-charge ratio, so you can get a lot more use out of a low-level wand at higher levels for the same resonance. Allow Resonance to be flexible, so you can Invest a point in your Cloak of Elvenkind for your stealth mission, but move that point over to your Boots of Climbing and then back again as situations arise.

Nothing in this blog gets me even remotely interested or excited about Resonance, and really kills my enthusiasm for 2e as a whole. Like I mentioned a few blogs ago, sometimes a bit of 2e news will leave me excited, sometimes they dampen my enthusiasm. This all but kills it in its tracks. But, so long as it's possible to do anything to it during the course of the playtest (up to and possibly including removing it from the game entirely), there's still hope in my opinion.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm... a lot of this sounds cool, but I’m really worried that it could be implemented in a way that actually works. For example, what’s keeping STR-based builds from falling drastically behind all other classes in AC? How is any monk, especially with ability scores coped much more than in P1e, supposed to use Ki powers at any amount? A lot of this ties back to some of my problems with the core of the game, but the monk just seems particularly vulnerable.


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?


68 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.

1 to 50 of 631 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>