Doktor Weasel wrote:
Ovens is good places! Small, like goblins, have shield-doors, and fire! for after you get out and get the longshanks!
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I can understand not wanting the crossbows, slings or maybe javelins to be usable with Flurry (to avoid them having an easy flurry-able ranged weapon that does more damage than a shuriken, but reloading time already does that for the first two).
Which reminds me... I'd like a Shuriken that doesn't break on impact.
I just wish that level 1-20 playtest adventure they're putting out could be reasonably completed before the playtest is over. Maybe if my group played more than once a week it could be possible, but likely not too fun.
Personally I think I will test out multiclassing and seeing if a certain character concept I really enjoy is capable with ot without it.
To be fair this has the hallmarks of the most extreme version of a thing that they indicated they were going to put out there when they had several options.
Which sounds a lot like we're being distracted so what they really want in the game(which we might not/probably won't see in the playtest) can make it in and we'll get a "it's not as bad as resonance" response.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
With no context this isn't the most helpful of posts. How many magic items did they have? Did they use wands? Potions? Scrolls? What level were they?
Is there going to be an archetype for people that want to be a walking wand armada? That's still a concept that has never worked out. Eternal Wands in 3/3.5 got close though.
I apologize, but at this point in time I don't see how this streamlines the game at all.
That is an absolutely awkward way to try and make Charisma relevant and useful.
I have a friend who will go all kinds of 'nerd rage' if I bring up a blog post about surfing dwarves. XD
With the archetype that gives you a domain in Pathfinder 1, you can pick up Rage and a coup,e rage powers as a paladin. :)
In a planar book Druids got an archetype that changed their alignment restrictions to LG, CG, LE, or CE based on which plane they were working with.
Martial Artist for monk removes the alignment restrictions all together.
Paizo is not afraid to mess with restrictions a bit. That's promising.
Who exactly is throwing DC 50 skill checks at anyone if they want the party to be able to succeed at the check without a specialist? Actually, who is throwing DC 50 skill checks at all? And who is making these characters with a +42 in a skill?
Rise of the Runelords has insane Knowledge(History) DCs in the first book. You know, the rank most players never seem to put even one rank? I think they were around 30-35 DC checks.
For level 1-3 characters.
"It is what my character would do" is not the characters fault. It is the player for making a disruptive personality. I've played a lot of goblins. Like, a lot. Know what I've never done? Been an a#$%#~& about it.
Funny how that works for Paladins too, not that I think about my Paladins... and my goblin paladin.
I don't know. I haven't had any problems thanks to the guide to the Blockbuster Wizard. You can also blast with single target effects too, or debuff.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Now, if they change to another class, then fine, with the requirements goes the lore and deference an actual paladin would get ingame, which im fine with, it is no diferent than playing a cleric or warpriest, your more standard divine servant.
What lore and deference? You don't get authority and privilege just because you took a level in paladin.
And Bracers of Armor, Ring of Force Shield, etc.
Fun Fact: The paladin's code does not mention anything about not committing chaotic acts or even being Chaotic. It just cares that you are Good and do not commit Evil acts.
Asmodean "Paladins" can also be a thing now.
Milo v3 wrote:
Paladins don't require a deity in 1e, I hope that does not change in 2e.
Well you are likely to be disappointed. In the Golorian setting, as they devs have said in the past, all divine casters need a deity(even druids, who worship the Green Faith as their deity).
2E is going to much more setting infused than 1E.
This means, most likely, that the days of characters worshiping ideals are over.
Well thank you for your permission, I surely needed it to give my views on the company's most recent blunders.
As for the actual mechanics.. enough to allay the many worries floating around that not many people from Paizo are doing anything but deflecting? I've only noticed Mark giving actual, helpful information. It's part of the reason I respect him so much. He listens and answers. Without any of the backlash from the community to get him to do so.
I might be passive aggressive, I admit and recognize that, but some people are actively aggressive.
I will give you this though, nothing in you reply was censored. Nicely done there. Most people getting upset would be using expletives.
Vic Wertz wrote:
We said that something opened up. What has led you to the conclusion that something else has closed?
Not that it was closed, just that it never opened. If taking a background opens up feats tailored to that background it is not a big leap to think that also means you can't take feats a different background would have 'opened up' for the character.
Well, if PF2 tanks, my group will just switch to savage worlds. But I'm hoping it won't, and will give it a chance by participating in the play test. Until we get the rules, we are just guessing.
I hope, if it tanks, we'll get P1 back.
I do not want it to tank though. I want it to be something I enjoy. I just doubt it will be so far.
But Half-Orcs make me sick. They're moody, brooding, cliched little jerks who either whine at not having a great home life or are portrayed as dumb brutes barely able to speak. Half-Orcs are a ridiculous, watered down version of something that I love, and they SUCK.
If it helps/matters, I have never played a half-orc like that.
So are the background-based feats more akin to what used to be racial traits or feats?
Oh how I wish the people at Paizo would answer this instead of letting the worry grow higher. It doesn't help people that want to like the product but are scared off by the(apparently?) poor wording.
Raphael Bressel wrote:
Having played 5E before I can say this sounds exactly like 5E. I wonder if someone will come along to say it's not going to be the same, but when the playtest rolls around...
Whew, finally caught up.
Agreed. Starfinder wasn't supposed to cause any problems and then we got Shifter. Now that we know it was half Pathfinder 2's fault it doesn't make things look any better. Now that they are publicly working on 2E we can only guess how much errata and FAQs we will be able to scrounge from Paizo in the future for a system they will no longer be supporting. Kudos, Paizo, really...
Steve Geddes wrote:
The designers are probably itching to design a game unshackled by the 3.5 constraints and there’s probably good business reasons to launch the change now.
If it didn't sound like they were shackling it to 5E I'm sure more people would be excited.
Swashbuckler. Dervish Dance Magus. Magus in general.