Halruun

Deadmanwalking's page

RPG Superstar 8 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 11,885 posts (12,091 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 11,885 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
With monsters going with their own rules (ugh...) we cant really start these comparisons yet. Though if blasting isnt a great option and forces casters to be more team players, im all for it.

As I said above, PCs can explicitly be used as adversaries of appropriate CR in PF2 (unlike Starfinder) so it's not so much that we're lacking monster information as that we're lacking any information on what kind of Save DCs or Saves to expect at a paricular level for either PCs or NPCs (well, except for 1st level anyway...we know DC 15 is reasonable there, which tells us nothing).

My personal guess would be that a 10th level Wizard in PF2 would likely have 22 Int (for +6), +2 from Proficiency and +10 from level for a total of DC 28 on spells (rather than the 24 hypothesized in the OP), but that the Saves would likely be something like Level + Proficiency + Dex which probably averages more like +12 than +10...but that's entirely constructed of a tissue of assumptions, some of which are almost certainly wrong.

And, once again, there's also the issue of Metamagic and other Wizard (or Sorcerer) Class Feats.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
As I mentioned before, I believe PF2 is going to take a hint from 5e with lower DPR and higher average HP to avoid OTK or DPR races and give defensive tools more importance than right now in PF1.

We know they're giving out extra HP. We don't know that damage is gonna go down as well, though.

Indeed, some quick math based on weapons adding damage dice for every +1 indicated to me we probably aren't. I mean a 20th level Fighter with a +5 Greataxe probably does a minimum of 6d12+12 or so, for 51 average in PF2...a PF1 Fighter with a +5 Greataxe and Power Attack sans Class Features is 1d12+38 for 44.5 average. That goes to 50.5 if you add Weapon Training and Gloves of Dueling.

Those numbers are close enough that I'm pretty sure there's no damage drop. Indeed, individual attack damage may have gone up a bit (since the PF2 example was sans Class Features). Now, they do have less attacks, I suppose so total DPR on a Full Attack may have gone down a bit...but probably not since crits have also gotten more common.

Gorbacz wrote:
That's a lot of work done under the completely unverified assumption that PF2 monsters have follow the same rules for hit points as PF1 monsters.

We know that you can use PC rules for enemies and meet the CR guidelines, and those PC rules would result in a 9th level Human Fighter with Con 14 having 116 HP (9 x 12 Fighter Levels = 108 + 8 Human = 116). So the HP assumption is within the expected range.

It's all the other assumptions involving PF2 Wizards not getting cool tricks that are the problem.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They've said they want (not promise, but want) to enable all characters from previous editions within the first couple of years of the game. So that'll hopefully be doable by 2021 or thereabouts.

Of course, for some classes that probably means being able to play that character with an existing Class. You may not need a new edition of Swashbuckler if the PF2 Fighter and Rogue handle that character archetype well for example.

The only classes we seem really sure to get based on commentary from people at Paizo are Oracle and Witch, though Psychic Classes also seem pretty likely (and they have specifically mentioned Occultist as something they'd find interesting).

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This assumes Metamagic is no longer a thing in PF2 and that the Wizard wouldn't have it. When, in fact, Metamagic has been stated to exist in the new game in some form. And we have no idea how it works.

So that PF2 Wizard is casting with one hand tied behind his back, since the PF1 Wizard has access to a couple of Metamagic Feats (ie: invested resources) while the PF2 Wizard has nothing. This despite the two having equivalent number of Feats available (actually, the PF2 wizard has slightly more).

If the PF2 Wizard can Empower at 5th level spell for two Spell Points, just to pick a random example with no real basis yet, then his DPR suddenly skyrockets past the PF1 Wizard's. How plausible is that specific example? We have no idea. But I'd be shocked if there weren't several Class Feats to be a better blaster if you want to be.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cynicalpleb wrote:

Player : hey i am a rape survivor do you mind not including rape?

DM : oh sorry I didn't know I will remove it is

Unless the DM is a dick but in that case you have another problem.

If you're okay talking about it? Sure.

But my point wasn't that this was an insoluble problem or anything, and making it clear that not all Half Orcs are the result of rape (which is what I've been advocating) makes avoiding the subject easier for a GM who is, in fact, trying to avoid that sort of thing.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
The Genghis Khan and his Hordes were not the kind of people you should be using as an example of something good . . . .

The Mongols enforced religious tolerance, instituted fair laws, and were generally pretty good rulers to the people they conquered.

There is of course the small matter of them killing entire cities and even countries who defied them, but they weren't quite as unambiguously awful as sometimes portrayed.

Cynicalpleb wrote:
If you find the rape stuff unacceptable can't you just use your DM powers to remove it? Instead of trying to dillute the official version of orcs ?

What if you're a player not a GM? And, say, a rape survivor?

Now, that's not to say they should remove any references to anything that might be traumatic for anyone (and indeed I wouldn't remotely advocate removing all references to rape), but it's also not quite as simple as you're making it out to be.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll repeat that we actually have Good Orcs in setting. Heck, there's a whole tribe in the Belkzen book led by a CG Warpriest of Sarenrae. No lore change necessary.

Now, they're canonically very much in the minority (at least around Belkzen) but they do exist.

Liberty's Edge

DR does make a difference if you're making multiple little attacks vs. one big attack. PF2 Power Attack, as previewed in the Fighter Blog, is better vs. a foe with DR, for example.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
The unsettling part is that the write-up for the PF1 half-orcs is 'rape-kids' (though there are some outliers).

This is pretty much solved just via the new edition being Golarion infused. As I noted repeatedly above, Half Orcs in Golarion are actually mostly not the children of rape (though a significant minority probably are). The setting neutral books are the only ones that treat them like they all have such origins.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
I for one don't. I'm perfectly fine with it being one of the styles in the game. That, however, wasn't what I was talking about.

It's what I'm talking about and always has been.

graystone wrote:
And? I've seen WAY more paladin and alignment issues over the years and they are still in the game... I've NEVER had a table flipped over a image in the game but I have with a paladin.

Okay. Unfortunately the plural of anecdote isn't data. I've heard a bunch of anecdotes of women being made deeply uncomfortable by game art (far fewer in regards to Paizo than some others, mind you).

graystone wrote:
IMO, it's YOU that's conflating them being in world with their being a trend...

Uh...no?

graystone wrote:
As a business? I think it's a large factor.

Numbers are a factor, certainly. I'm just saying they aren't the only factor.

graystone wrote:
The thing is, the people that are playing the game and the people most likely to play the game have managed to work with it up to this point. If you look at video games, comics, movies, ect it's not uncommon. What about it HERE makes it more offensive/upsetting than the countless other places there it exists and the products do well? You have to look no further than wonder woman and how big a hit it was. If they want to bring in new people, why would they shy away from successful images like wonder woman?

You'll find that a lot of people do, in fact, have huge issues with all the tings you just listed and comment on this issue in regards to them as well. In fact, it's a major ongoing social trend.

graystone wrote:
Lets say I agree. Isn't THAT the same thing here? how many discrete people with issues can you identify? How do you know they to aren't 'very loud' and "actually post on it much"?

I can do a search and find dozens of threads on this and similar issues over the years. Most with a variety of people talking about the issue. The same is not true of goblins as a PC option in core (though that's inevitably partially because it hasn't been brought up before).

graystone wrote:
I think the sheer amount of paladin threads dwarfs the posters on this. Or alignment...

Paladin and Alignment threads do indeed dwarf this issue. If there were any consensus something could perhaps be done about that but there really, really, isn't.

Liberty's Edge

John Lynch 106 wrote:
How is that not effectively the same thing? I mean, it makes sense from an in-universe perspective. But it seems to effectively be what Starfinder does (just magic instead of technology).

Well, it's definitely still scaling damage, but it means you don't need a half dozen different named versions of each weapon. It also doesn't necessarily mean weapons have a set level.

I think it's pretty different, even if it results in a few of the same things.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
My preference would be automatic scaling items. So that greatsword I'm using at 15th level? It's the same one I got at 3rd level. I haven't had to apply any special magic to it. It's just I'm able to use it so much better because I'm much more skilled.

They have said they're aiming for something where you can keep a certain piece of gear your whole career, but I think it's more Legacy Weapon than 'don't need magic weapons'.

Liberty's Edge

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

Wow! That's a lot of damage.

Are monster hit points being increased to compensate? Or, will they stay about the same?

If they stay the same, this will make fights go faster!

HP are likely to go up a bit since PCs have more and the PC rules can be used for enemies. Static damage may also go down a bit.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
But that wasn't the issue: we were talking about NEEDING a specific culture for the armor to be around: if it's ANYWHERE then pathfinder allows it to be everywhere: common? that was never an issue.

No, that's precisely the issue. Because we're talking about art and what it conveys about the world, and art that comes up a lot, like Iconics or the styles used by random NPCs, define what is common in the world.

I couldn't care less if a particular PC wants to buy such armor. I care if the art normalizes such armor.

graystone wrote:
I don't know that a significant number are. Do we have numbers on that?

Specific numbers? No. A lot of people who've commented on this issue over the years? God yes.

graystone wrote:
And a 1st level expert could create molded armor and it's useful/life saving... it's a matter of style/preference on what aesthetic you pick. If someone wants it, is that bad?

You seem to be conflating me asking that they not make this a trend in art with it not existing in-world. These things are not equivalent.

graystone wrote:
Goblins as PC's can bother people. Having a game with devils and demons can bother some people. Having a Book of the Damned can bother people. It's down to a numbers game: how many people does it attract vs how many does it repel vs how many don't care.

It's not strictly a numbers game. It's also about why it bothers people. People find goblins annoying, but almost nobody feels traumatized or excluded from the game because they remind them of real world issues that cause them real problems. All things that bring up real world issues certainly shouldn't be removed, but something like a particular art choice that doesn't add anything to the story and brings up unpleasantness? Yeah, that should probably be removed.

graystone wrote:
I don't know that there is any evidence that it's more of a con than a pro or that a "significant" number of people are uncomfortable about it. I hear some 'rabble, rabble, rabble' but it seems that more people cared about goblins being in the game and we seem to be getting them.

Actually, no. People were very loud on the goblin thing, but only a few seemed to actually post on it much. They (we, if you include both sides) just posted a lot. Meanwhile, this is an issue I've seen many times over the years posted on by lots of people.

And even if more people are talking about the goblin thing, it runs smack into the 'why' aspect I mention above.

thflame wrote:

Source for this please, because I HIGHLY doubt 1/20 people in Golarion is an adventurer, let alone a level 3 Cleric WITH Brew Potion.

In a small village of 20 or so people, I'd expect to find one or two characters with PC class levels AT MOST, unless the plot demands that the heroes are in town.

I actually said 'over 20' and as noted, the Settlement Rules say as much. Indeed, I once did a Level Demographics analysis that matches up with published settlements and the like pretty well.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
Undead are evil because they lack free will EVEN IF they are capable of seemingly intelligent thought. Prove me wrong (hint: you can't).

Actually, I can. There's a LN vampire in Kaer Maga. He's LN because he doesn't do bad things unless someone tries to blackmail him.

Disproved.

Liberty's Edge

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Do more Halflings on Golarion work as entertainers or like, farmers and kitchen staff?

If it's the latter I would think Wisdom would be more appropriate (since "Profession" has been a wis-based skill).

From what we've seen it's something of a mix, but yeah I'd say more are farmers and kitchen staff, just playing a numbers game.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I just don't see why this would be. I can wander into any market in pathfinder and find a katana, Gnome hooked hammer, Klar or Madu but molded armor is SUPER restricted to a single group? That's not how pathfinder works.

This is technically true mechanically, but they certainly aren't all equally common even if all are available. How many people use any of the items you list in art? The answer is not very many. They are uncommon. And yet for some reason almost every female character has this odd armor style...

Having a particular Iconic (like, say, an ex Grey Maiden) with such armor would be acceptable (especially in combination with the male version from Iblydos I mentioned previously). But practically everyone? No. That's not realistic or reasonable, is included purely for titillation, and makes a significant number of gamers uncomfortable.

graystone wrote:
If you look at it logically, every town, village and outhouse shouldn't have a cure light wounds potion but every one seems to have a chance for you to buy one.

A 3rd level Cleric can make them relatively cheaply and they're life savingly useful. Why wouldn't Potions of CLW be common? By the rules just about every community of more than 20 people probably has a 3rd level Cleric among them, so it'd be a lot weirder if they weren't common.

graystone wrote:
As to the rest, I'm not saying ALL the images should be of ANY one kind. I'm against removing any style wholesale. I'd rather not every man, woman and child look like they are wearing the exact same style armor, anymore than I'd want to see every image be of all one race, sex or class.

Sure, but a few styles of armor that make many people who play the game uncomfortable being minimized or even removed seems like a perfectly reasonable idea that doesn't result in this at all.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Quite honestly, the one part of this I have no idea where it came from was iconics. I'm thinking npc #126 from an AP and it's images: You want to show a fully armored character and want to clear who it is, it creates a clear difference.

If we're talking Random NPC #126...who cares what gender they are? Distinguishing that is, frankly, not that high a priority.

graystone wrote:
I think the correct question would be 'does it look ridiculous IN GAME?'. Clearly it doesn't as they show up often, so there must be #1 acceptance of it and #2 a source of it. The hoplite armor just illustrates a 'proof of concept' and pathfinder has a HUGE amount of different cultures, races, ect in comparison to earth. In such a enormous melting pot, not seeing how such armor can come into being just seems odd.

Sure. But like I said, it'd be restricted to specific groups. Cultures, warrior societies, whatever, but that's a distinct enough style that it's gonna be mostly restricted to specific groups who reinforce it.

graystone wrote:
Cool. I just don't see the need for a specific culture: It could have just been a trend in Andoran noble society that caught on or a copy of some tech armor from Numeria [without the energy shield], or even a vain adventuress' armor equivalent of a padded bra.

Possible as a one off, sure. But we're talking about the majority of illustrations here, not one specific NPC with a good justification.

graystone wrote:
The thing here is how representative are the images in the books to "most people"? If the images are the special, odd, important, ect people, they tend to be more extreme.

In terms of Iconics and unnamed characters, what we show them wearing becomes, in the minds of all those examining said pictures, the norm for the world. That's just how game art works. And I would prefer that to be relatively non-sexualized (like most real armor) and definitely not sexualized in a gender biased way.

An individual weird NPC is something else entirely, but frankly I'd expect them to appear in a non-armor sexualized outfit in art simply because, as mentioned, Glamered is a thing. And, frankly, even if doing this some gender parity seems a good call.

graystone wrote:
Also, "weirdly sexualized"? Having an appealing profile doesn't seem odd. I've had people modify robots/power armor to give there armor a feminine look in a sci fi game, so I don't get the issue.

It's weirdly sexualized not because all sexualization is weird, but because of the gendered nature of it combined with the degree to which it's unrealistic in most contexts.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We are not. Instead, each +1 a weapon has from magic adds the damage die again. So a +1 longsword does 2d8+Str damage instead of 1d8. A +3 Greataxe does 4d12.

This does mean you might need as many as 6 dice for damage, but no more, and it also follows much more logically from the way Pathfinder is structured.

Liberty's Edge

Slyme wrote:

After reading some of the comments and explanations, I am more on board with doing away with flat bonus items.

I still HATE the idea of resonance for general magic items...I would be fine with it, if it were only for activated items like wands, or things like Boots of Speed...but for items which are supposed to be always on, it just makes no sense. Why would I need to spend resonance to turn on something like a Ring of Sustenance, which is supposed to be an always on ability?

With those items it's only one Resonance per day, and it replaces the 'this only works after wearing it for 24 hours' thing (which was always a bit odd).

Slyme wrote:
Is resonance going to have an effect on things like Bags of Holding or Handy Haversacks?

We don't know. Magic Weapons don't cost Resonance though, so things like a Handy Haversack might not either.

Liberty's Edge

Majuba wrote:
Blog wrote:
ancestry entries suggest some backgrounds you might choose that are common for those of your ancestry. Halflings are often entertainers, acrobats, or street urchins. Many come from hard lives as criminals or laborers.

...

Entertain me or you're a poor criminal?

Just a bit surprising, since most of the famous halflings are aristocrats, or farmers.

Not in Golarion. Halflings are very much an underprivileged minority in much of the Inner Sea region, most notably Cheliax where they are universally slaves and there's an underground railroad to get them away from there in the Bellflower Network.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
yronimos wrote:

Yes, killing and mass-murder ARE OK and better - indiscriminate killing and mass-murder are, after all, the default heroic behavior for parties of PCs when encountering groups of orcs, goblins, trolls, ogres, and other people, is it not?

The game NEEDS rape and sexual violence in it as the only real defining difference between heroic PCs, and the anonymous hordes they are expected to slaughter. Otherwise, the good and evil alignments look suspiciously similar.

This is basically completely untrue in all Paizo APs and every Pathfinder game I've ever played. In basically all of that, the difference between Good and Evil is that Evil kills people because it wants to (or wants their stuff), while Good only kills people and things in defense of themselves or to protect or save others.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
It's just easier.
I'll take your work that it's easier for you. Can you take my word that it isn't easier for me?

Sure. Evidence does, however, suggest that Bulk is easier for most people. And, in a game designed for a wide appeal, it being easier for most people is what's important (in terms of ease of use).

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
I just want to know at what point my magic armor can show off all the hard work I've been doing at the gym.

Since glamered armor can appear like whatever you want it to and still provide all the same protection somehow, you could just put on plate mail and have it look like short shorts.

Going whole hog (ahem) like this is perhaps preferable to trying to make plate mail look like plate mail that also shows off your rad bod.

On that note who's to say all that boobplate isn't glamered?

It's an easy enough enchanment to get.

Most people aren't gonna make their armor look like weirdly sexualized armor with glamered. They'll just make it look like non-armor clothing.

I'm thus cool with glmaered as an explanation for what Alahazra (the Iconic Oracle) is wearing...less so about what various people actually shown in armor are.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I don't have too much trouble distinguishing between the Pathfinder Iconics (for example) without this sort of thing.
But would you if they have a helmet and unisex armor? And would you note the iconic and a normal guy next to each other if they wear similar Unisex armor?

Who said anything about similar? Or about adding helmets to everyone? The only two in full plate, for example, are Alain and Seelah. They do not look alike and neither does their armor even ignoring breasts.

They're still really easy to tell apart.

graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, if they introduced a culture where everyone did this (men and women) I'd actually be totally fine with it.
Why would you need a culture? Why couldn't it be a blacksmith/armorer that makes that kind of armor? I mean we have people that buy gold armor and ornamental ones. Why is it SO hard to imagine a style of that kind of armor without a culture behind it.

Because it looks pretty much utterly ridiculous to anyone not from such a culture. Gold armor is also a bit ridiculous, but less overtly absurd looking.

graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
What's weird (and clearly for purposes of titillation) is women everywhere having this sort of thing while no men do anywhere. And that's what I'm objecting to.
Maybe we should petition that the new pathfinder have more nipples on male armor then?

Like I said, I'd prefer to mostly go the other way from an aesthetic perspective, but I wouldn't object to a guy from Iblydos (ie: the Greek-like area) with some nipples on his armor.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wild Spirit wrote:
There are no 'plus armors' and 'plus weapons' in PF 2.0.

Off topic, but we do know there are +1 weapons and +4 weapons. Assuming the same is true of armor is pretty reasonable.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Is it though? Or is it more to make it simple to differentiate between male and female characters? I see it much like the eye/hair color in anime: The use unusual colors to easily tell characters apart. I'm sure a more appealing profile is another factor, but I doubt it's the only one.

I don't have too much trouble distinguishing between the Pathfinder Iconics (for example) without this sort of thing. I don't think most others do either. It's not like their face shapes, skin tones, or gear aren't super distinctive already.

graystone wrote:

Secondly, I've seen Hoplite armor that comes with sculpted abs, a belly button and nipples... From 700 BC... The current theory is that "It was mostly aesthetic: The introduction of toned armor seems uniquely Greek — and the reason is more aesthetic than functional. There was no structural reinforcement that came from having six-pack outlines or little stylized nipples. "All the abstracts were for show," Brice notes. That's not limited to the cuirass — the crest on the helmet made a warrior look taller, but also made him look good.

"It seems possible," Van Wees says, "that even when thoroughly covered up, they liked to appear as naked as possible." There's also evidence that sometimes the cuirasses were painted, since archaeologists have found traces of red paint."

So it's totally realistic to have armor that's made for aesthetics as well as practicality. If the greece wanted to look like they had 'ripped' abs and pecs, it seems unrealistic to say other armor aesthetic are wrong.

As I mentioned earlier, if they introduced a culture where everyone did this (men and women) I'd actually be totally fine with it. Heck, someone earlier mentioned the Grey Maidens, and having run CotCT and knowing their history, I'm fine with them having such armor as well (for various reasons involving their specific situation).

What's weird (and clearly for purposes of titillation) is women everywhere having this sort of thing while no men do anywhere. And that's what I'm objecting to.

Liberty's Edge

Weather Report wrote:
The necessary part is disappointing for me to hear.

Well, given that I doubt Monks use either, I doubt it's entirely necessary, but yeah, those seem to be needed most of the time. That said, with only two or three items, an Automatic Bonus Progression system is a lot easier to set up.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
suspension of disbelief
Out of ALL the things in the game, like giant sized weapon wielding barbarians, THAT is a bridge too far?

What I actually said was:

'breaks my suspension of disbelief more or less purely for purposes of titillation.'

The bolded part is actually the important bit. I'm willing to have my suspension of disbelief violated for purposes of making the game more awesome. Or more fun. Or easier for new players. Or several other reasons.

But like I said above, having it violated to make things sexier? Nope. And, as stated before, especially not when it makes a significant number of people uncomfortable and causes them to enjoy the game less.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They have specifically noted that most such items are nonexistent in PF2 (specific mention was made of Rings of Protection and Cloaks of Resistance).

Magic weapons and armor are still around and necessary as you level, and there's one other item that's maybe necessary by mid levels...but that's it.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

As I noted earlier, and I think is true of most people objecting to boob plate, I find it distasteful because it generally (though not always, I suppose, given the mention of 'chiseled male chest sculpted armor') breaks my suspension of disbelief more or less purely for purposes of titillation.

If I want my suspension of disbelief broken so things will be sexier, I will go watch porn, thanks all the same. I don't need or want that in my RPG artwork. Especially if it makes some people feel uncomfortable (which it absolutely does).

Now, I don't think anyone is arguing we need to get rid of all sexy illustrations. Some (including myself) think that sexually charged pictures of women should not vastly outnumber sexually charged pictures of men, but that's not actually the same thing at all.

No, people are arguing that sexualizing women in unrealistic ways makes them feel uncomfortable and is generally unpleasant.

For those making the 'I want my art to be fantastical' argument, I ask the following: What about putting the same kind of sexualized armor on men? Because, frankly, I don't think I've ever seen a sexualized man in full plate or a cod piece on any male armor in Pathfinder's art. Doing sexualized armor for everyone would be an odd art style, but it would be consistent and say things about the world that are interesting, rather than simply reinforcing unfortunate trends in the real world.

But that's not something I've seen in Pathfinder, and under the circumstances I'd prefer not to see things go in that direction now.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
We actually don't know stat-boost items in the sense of Thor's Belt are gone.
I know that...? I was replying to what people were saying in the thread.

Yeah, my post was composed before you actually posted about that. Sorry about that.

Milo v3 wrote:
Because stat increasing magic exists, randomly deciding that all magic can go into items Except for stat increasing items would be insanely arbitrary and ridiculous in-setting.

Uh...we have absolutely no evidence stat-boosting magic in the strict sense exists. I mean, I'd be shocked if there wasn't something, but it might easily all be of quite limited duration.

And we have no idea that all different kinds of magic can be made into magic items. It seems likely most can, but stat-boosting could easily be one that's very difficult if not impossible to do along with certain others.

Another possibility is that you can build an item that boosts stats, but only temporarily and thus at Resonance cost. We really just don't know enough to know how this is gonna work.

Wermut wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Also, even if they are ditching stat-boosters, you only get bonuses to 4 stats every 5 levels. That makes the following stat layout totally possible at 20th (assuming +2s at every stage):

26, 22, 20, 16, 16, 10.

Even if everyone got that same set of stats arranged to taste (and they don't, 26, 24, 22, 20, 10, 8 is also a valid array assuming those bonuses) that's a very meaningfully different set of stats depending on where you put which stat.

Thats the whole ruleset of character generation right there. Source please :D

-1st level Kyra in the Demo Games has 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10 stats (the 10s are actually speculative, but very likely). How that's arrived at it is still unknown, but it's pretty much a sure thing that she has those stats (the top four are a sure thing).

-All evidence seems to be that you could also arrange that more or less the same and have 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 if you weren't human.

-They've said you raise stats in a way very similar to Starfinder, which is bonuses to 4 stats each at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th. It always being a +2 in PF2 is an assumption, but almost certainly a correct one if there are no stat-boost items.

-The rest is just math.

Slyme wrote:

Look at all the items Frodo had over the course of his adventure. Sword, Armor, Ring, Brooch, Cloak, and The Light of Eärendil. The elves also gave out magic items to the entire rest of the party.

I disagree with all the people complaining about the big 6 or the christmas tree effect. Half the fun of these games is gearing up your characters...if I wanted a game where gear wasn't important I would go play a game like Champions.

I never viewed items like rings of protection to detract from the game at all, and I personally have never run into this mythical party that carries around a sack full of wands of CLW to top off between fights.

To me it just feels like they are trying to dumb down every aspect of the game and make D&D 5.5...if I wanted that I would just go actually play D&D.

And, aside from the armor, how many of those gave him a static +1 (or even +2 or +3) to something and did nothing else? Was he considered stupid for taking an Elven cloak for stealth instead of holding out for one that gave a Save bonus?

Because that's what they're getting rid of, not having a bunch of magic items if you want them.

You can still stock up on magic items if you want, I mean, assuming Cha 12 Frodo could have all those items at 4th level and have Resonance to spare (since the sword doesn't count and the Light of Earendil is almost certainly use activated).

You just aren't required to have all that many items if you don't want to.

Liberty's Edge

doc roc wrote:

I disagree.... in fact I would say the initial signs arent that great!

Paizo are hanging on to the cursed albatross that is channelling like their entire balance sheet depended on it... and quite bizarrely and despite plenty of head vs brick wall, it looks like core cleric will still be walking around with a mace, shield and chain shirt, doing the usual ineffectual and redundant gish impersonation!?!?

Uh...Channel Energy is gone. The Cleric may have some built in healing, but also may not (Kyra does, but she's always been a Healing Domain Cleric).

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, for the record, we also know for a fact that Rogues get Master Reflex Save Proficiency as a Class Feature and that all Classes get at least one Class Feature (and likely more) every odd numbered level (though for spell casters this likely includes new levels of spellcasting as a feature). Plus the Rogue gets one Skill Feat every level as you note, and gets a Class Feat at 1st as well as every even numbered level

That's already 41 features from class alone (though at least 10 are static features that may be hard to ditch...of course so are several PF1 Rogue Features). 46 including ancestry Feats. 51 including normal Feats. Possibly quite a few more based on stuff we haven't heard about yet.

The choices from Race/Ancestry are a lot less front loaded right now, but you do get 5 of them eventually, and every other kind of choice seems to have been expanded.

Liberty's Edge

Arssanguinus wrote:
Isn’t the limited use pool of resonance going to stop any usage of most of these items cold? At least the magical ones.

No? Only items that would've had limited uses per day or charges in PF1 cost more than one Resonance per day. Most items proposed don't fall into that category.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
The issue with removing numerical bonuses from items is that it means the mages in the setting are seriously dumb. Especially since there are stat-boosting items in myth (Thor's +6 Strength Belt for example).

We actually don't know stat-boost items in the sense of Thor's Belt are gone. They have said that at high levels there might be three necessary items. This would presumably be armor, a weapon and...something. Stat boosters (ie: actual +Str or +Int items) are a definite possibility for that third necessary item.

And this is magic. It's entirely possible any such items that don't exist are impossible to create. Why would that indicate people were stupid?

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Speaking of that milo I do kind of wonder what they will do about that. I have a hard time believing all stat boosting items will be gone but at the same time I thought that was one of the goals.

Their goal is to limit the number of items that are required by the math and get rid of those that aren't cool. Stat boosters that actually raise an Ability are not necessarily uncool, and they've never said they were getting rid of all items that were required, just most of them.

So we'll see how that works out.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Magic armor breaks all the rules. Glamoured Plate Mail can look like a g-string bikini if the maker wants it to.

In that case an attractive person may want to look sexy while being protected without sacrificing defense. It's a powerful magical enchantment though. Not a common thing.

This is absolutely true, though if we're talking about art, it should probably be showing actual common armor types, not this sort of unique exception to the rule.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:
I personally like the idea of stat increasing items...giving every character massive stat boosts just makes stats unimportant in the long run. When every character has every stat at godlike levels, why bother even having numbers at that point?

Ability boosters (like a Belt of Strength) are actually not something they've stated they're ditching. They might be but we don't know.

They're just ditching boring items that give pure number bonuses like Ring of Protection and Cloak of Resistance. Which is a slightly different category.

Also, even if they are ditching stat-boosters, you only get bonuses to 4 stats every 5 levels. That makes the following stat layout totally possible at 20th (assuming +2s at every stage):

26, 22, 20, 16, 16, 10.

Even if everyone got that same set of stats arranged to taste (and they don't, 26, 24, 22, 20, 10, 8 is also a valid array assuming those bonuses) that's a very meaningfully different set of stats depending on where you put which stat.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

My point is, this shouldn’t be a consideration. (I’m viewing this more broadly than just armour - it’s part of the bigger issue of art direction).

If women express concern about the way they’re being depicted “that’s how things were in medieval times” is an irrelevancy. Equally “that’s how things weren’t” is inviting debate on something that shouldn’t matter.

The art for pathfinder should be concerned about representation of women and that’s where the debate should be centred. The debaters should be women and boys should do ourselves a favour and just listen.

I think this is taking it a bit too far, personally. It's sort of a Stormwind Fallacy for art in a way. Nothing about making art realistic makes it ignore representing women properly, nor does anything about representing women properly ignore realism.

The two are not incompatible at all and people who want both can be pretty easily satisfied by some of the same things.

Steve Geddes wrote:
Hygiene back then was pretty lousy - how about men argue over whether all the iconics should be dirty and missing half their teeth?

Totally off topic, but this is mostly a myth. Hygiene standards have varied wildly from time to time and place to place, and saying anything about it in regards to any but the smallest possible periods of history (ie: down to the decade and specific city) is gonna get weird and inaccurate really quick.

Also, Golarion is not Medieval Europe and does not behave the same way culturally (it's polytheistic, with universal literacy and a drastic reduction of many widespread prejudices such as misogyny and anti-LGBT sentiments as compared to Medieval Europe). Assuming a relatively modern hygiene standard (at least in terms of number of baths) is totally reasonable.

This sort of 'it's not Medieval Europe' sentiment is also partially applicable to armor (inasmuch as stylistic stuff can be very different) but only somewhat since what kind of armor is protective and functional doesn't change with culture (hint: boob shaped plate is not helpful, leaving a bare chest is a good way to get stabbed in it).

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Resonance only costs one point per magic item worn (in terms of ongoing effects).

When was the last time your 5th level character had 5 magic items worn on their person? Or your 15th level one 15 of them? And that's assuming Cha 10. It's also not counting weapons since they don't cost Resonance. Really, most parties already abide by this better than 90% of the time.

Frankly, my current Reign of Winter group are well into 7th level, have a PC with Craft Wondrous Item, and all would have some spare Resonance by the PF2 rules with the exception of the Cha 6 Dwarf Monk, and even he wouldn't be over, just at 0 Resonance.

They'd have even more Resonance free if you got rid of their Cloaks of Resistance, Rings of Protection, and Amulets of Natural Armor, all of which have been said to not be around any more in PF2 (since they're trying to avoid items that merely provide a mathematically necessary numerical bonus as much as possible).

So...no, the game isn't becoming low magic. It's just getting rid of the 'christmas tree effect'/'big 6' where you need certain items to make the math work (well, they do say you still need something like 2, but they're cutting the number way down). You can still have magic rings, amulets, and belts out the wazoo if you want, they'll just do things a tad more exciting than +1 AC or similarly bland bonuses.

Now active items, like a staff or wand take one Resonance per use...but that replaces their previous charges, so I'm not sure that qualifies as making the game 'lower magic' either.

Liberty's Edge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Just give the succubus high sex or natural armor.

If unintentional, this may be the best typo ever.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'm pretty much on board with this statement.

Having characters who don't wear armor dressed in a provocative manner is fine (and many drow and succubi fall into this category, though some gender balance in this regard would be appreciated...male drow, for example, should actually be more sexualized than female drow if anything), but armor actually looking like armor would be really nice.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Rules Artificer wrote:

From the Friday podcast, item levels seem to scale from 1 all the way to 20. Which is a relief for me, as I was worried that Paizo was saying that Bravo's Brew was on par with a 3rd-level spell.

They listed the Philosopher's Stone as an example of a 20th-level alchemical item.

What are these podcasts, and where can I find them?

They're every Friday and can be found here.

As a side note to Paizo, I don't use Twitch much and, when last looking for these yesterday, I couldn't find them from this, the official Paizo website (I eventually just went to Twitch and did a search). Maybe put a link to the Twitch channel in the'Community' section?

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Developer bias is a thing (see Guardians of the Veil from the initial Mage the Awakening - or just look at Starfinder's Operative) and this smells all kinds of suspect to me.

Y'know, I missed this bit the first time through. I just want to stop and take a moment and boggle at the Operative being thought of as favored over other classes in Starfinder. Operative has something like half the DPR of a Soldier or Solarian (okay, a little more, but less than 60%), and lacks the spells of a Mystic or Technomancer. That leaves only the Envoy (who's actually better at the skills they specialize in than the Operative, plus an excellent party buffer) and the Mechanic (who has some advantages, but I guess can honestly be argued to have less impressive ones).

That's not being overly favored. Spells are still the most powerful thing in the game, even with only 6 levels of spontaneous casting, and DPR is still super relevant. Operatives tend to be the kings of skills, but even there Envoys are on par and they truly excel nowhere else. They're a good class, certainly, because skills are useful in Starfinder, but basically every other Class (except maybe Mechanic) is notably better within their specialty.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Alchemy is a major systems change. Ask yourself, if Alchemist didn't exist would the Alchemy changes, as listed, still be worth a Blog?

The answer is definitively yes given the vast expansion of Alchemy and what it can do and its availability to any character with a single Skill Feat. It's at least as relevant a change as the magic changes listed in the Spells Blog.

Since that's true, I'm pretty sure any accusations of bias are highly premature.

Liberty's Edge

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fair enough. Whenever I think of PF1e's magic items I always think of the weapons section because it is such a significant departure from how D&D 4e items looked so it always stood out in my mind.

Yeah, okay, that makes sense. In fairness, my point is partially that the weapon properties section might well still look like that, since this is clearly the Alchemical Items format rather than necessarily a generalized one, and for full items not modular properties.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

I then saw items having a level, the level being marked out in the same spot as 4e items were, the fact it has keywords which PF1e items don't (but 4e powers did) and the activation method is exactly where I'd expect to see a 4e power telling me if it's a standard action, minor action or move action. My mind instantly went to the similarities with 4e and overlooked the similarities with PF1e items.

Point well made.

Yeah, we all leap to conclusions sometimes, just noting why this one might be an error.

And thanks. :)

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Take a look at this page of magic items from D&D 4e and now take a look at this page of magic items from Pathfinder 1e.

What does the PF2e item style look like to you? Do you think a page of these magic items is going to resemble a page from a D&D 4th edition book? Or do you think it will resemble a page from a Pathfinder book? While I'm sure we're not going to get the 4e clinical white background, I can't see how a page full of these items isn't going to look like it belongs in a D&D 4e book.

That's a very misleading page choice. It's showing Item Properties from PF1 rather than full items.

Full items look like this (more or less) and quite a bit more like the above alchemical item stat blocks than either of the pages you linked.

In short, Pathfinder items are already formatted pretty similarly (in a structural and aesthetic sense) to the above Alchemical Items and I find you not realizing this kinda odd to be honest.

Liberty's Edge

From the other thread where it was off topic:

graystone wrote:
Neriathale wrote:
graystone wrote:


Most new players understand basic math and weights they use in real life though.
Except that the Imperial measures system is only officially used in the US.
There IS a difference though: if you use another system, there is a conversion that allows you to get a total you CAN understand. So 15 pounds is 6.8 kg, something you CAN visualize/understand while there just isn't a way to do so for 5 bulk.

Actually, it seems likely there will be at least a rough measure of how much weight one bulk is. In Starfinder it's explicitly between 5 and 10 lbs, which is a bit of a wide range to work with IMO, but narrowing that amount is easy enough for a new game.

If each bulk is roughly 10 lbs (or roughly 5 kg), for example, you can guesstimate how much things weigh pretty readily if you really need to know. And when you don't need that degree if precision you can just ignore it.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Isn't this the second freaking article on Alchemists? I guess we know that Paizo's favored class is.

Nah, this one's on Alchemy the general thing anyone can use, not the Alchemist Class.

Liberty's Edge

Actually, daily alchemical items are also considered unstable (and cost Resonance to create and for people other than the Alchemist to use).

No, it's the permanent ones made with money and time that are not unstable and (if my theory is right) could be used to Batman one's way through an anti-magic field.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:


tl;dr - what the **** is resonance and how the **** does it actually work?!

My theory, which is that normal alchemical items work fine anywhere and don't cost Resonance, but the 'unstable' ones created by alchemists using Resonance are using magic, which wouldn't work in an AMF, is gone into above and I think holds up pretty well, consistency-wise.

1 to 50 of 11,885 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>