Vampire Lord

Friendly Rogue's page

176 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I hope that there's more support for water-based spells. Hydraulic Push always seemed pretty underwhelming to me, considering it was one of the few spells that used water offensively, yet all it did was bull rush people around, so its usefulness is pretty situational. There are no water spells that I can think of off the top of my head that actually cause damage, especially since not all water is cold - the best I can think of is a metamagic feat that allows fire spells to be used underwater.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One of my favorite aspects of P1e's trait system is that you could really customize your character in a variety of ways by virtue of taking multiple traits that aren't explicitly tied together with each other, IE the Voices of Solid Things regional trait from Legacy of the First world letting you use Charisma for Spellcraft, then you could play as a Sorcerer who spent enough time with the Witchmarket to learn a fey-like approach to magic, with a distinct mechanical benefit for such.

While the backgrounds seem more all-encompassing and fine for more generalized backstories, especially with the fact that their benefits include ability boosts, I'm worried that they might cause some of the more specific backstories to be harder to support.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like the blog post! I'm glad that there's now distinct hierarchy for the Paladin Tenets so less-than-honorable GMs will have a tougher time putting the party Paladin into lose/lose situations.

However, there are some important things to bring up. After talking with my players about it, a lot of them are concerned with the fact that the Paladin is the de jure armor specialist; they believe that the Fighter should obtain legendary proficiency with Armor and Weapons by default, and they believe that making the Paladin the one class with legendary armor proficiency limits player agency if they don't want to play a religious character.

For a variety of different reasons, I agree with them. Personally, I feel that locking the armor specialist behind a specific alignment (LG) is particularly limiting - I understand the reasoning behind keeping the playtest version of the Paladin LG, especially since alignment in general is such a touchy subject, but considering being the tank is a pretty serious role, the prospect of that role being limited to one alignment is worrying. This concern is further cemented by the Barbarian, as I can only imagine that, with their heavy focus on damage output, would also have legendary weapon proficiency that is augmented by their rage.

Ignoring the alignment concerns (because frankly it's so touchy of a subject I don't want to focus on it), I believe a good middle ground would be to make the Paladin the armor specialist, the Barbarian the weapon specialist, and giving the Fighter legendary proficiency in both weapons and armor - seeing as the Paladin and Barbarian both have special class abilities that further cement their ability to tank hits and dish out intense damage respectively, with the Fighter being more dependent on feats, I feel that they deserve to get legendary proficiency in both weapons and armor to compensate and help promote build variation for Fighters. However, this is just my opinion, and I'm withholding a cemented opinion on this until after I get my hands on the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Combat Monster wrote:
Charlatan wrote:
And I do think a lot of ppl came here to read more about magical weapons and how they'll work, rather than just normal weapons themselves. I can only assume we're getting more dice, rather than just "half your dmg is fire" ala STF.
I don't want to get ahead of myself but I'm hoping that magic abilities like flaming and shocking let martials use resonance to shoot that energy.

I also hope that the elemental upgrades get a buff, IE having the bonus damage they add being directly tied to the damage dice of the weapon being enhanced, if not having larger damage dice than the base weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I just remembered a question I've been meaning to ask:

One of my biggest pet peeves with P1e's core weapons was the fact that the Morningstar, with its reduced weight, similar damage dice, cheaper cost, and multiple damage types, completely outclassed the Heavy Mace in every single way. I recognize that it was a 3.5 holdover, and as a result I'm fairly confident that this balance issue is going to be addressed.

That being said, I'm curious as to how it's being addressed; is the Morningstar going to have its damage dice reduced? Is it instead going to have its proficiency level bumped up to martial? Or is something else going to happen?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.
I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.
Also, Excalibur's scabbard was actually more OP than Excalibur itself.
I mean few things are as dangerous as a big rock!
There's actually a game where you get "Sword in the Stone" as a weaon. It's a sword with a big boulder attached to the end.

That description just reminded me of the Kirkhammer from Bloodborne, and now I want to see trick weapons converted into Pathfinder in general.

Do you think my players will notice how Soulsborne-inspired my games are if I were to homebrew them myself?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.

I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:

Honestly, considering the terminology has been so heavily ingrained into D&D, and consequentially Pathfinder, the odds of the longsword being officially rebranded into an Arming Sword, and the Bastard Sword being rebranded into the longsword, etc. likely isn't going to happen. However, this is also without mentioning the fact that, at least in P1e, longswords can be wielded with two hands, thus effectively making them hand-and-a-half swords - ignoring the existence and historical usage of the term "bastard sword," keeping the name longsword isn't unreasonable

Probably, and like I said it bothers me more than it should. I'm far from an expert, heck even the term 'enthusiast' would be a bit generous. 'Having an interest' would be the most accurate way to put it.

Regardless, I believe that bastard swords are labeled correctly. As far as I'm aware, the terminology goes thus: Designed for use with one hand = Arming sword. Designed for use with one or two hands = Bastard sword. Designed for use with two hands only = Longsword.

I'm a history buff, and most of the terminology for swords that we recognize today are a relatively modern construct used for categorization; in a medieval context, while there were distinct differences between some swords in regards to the length of the hilt and blade, more often than not they were just referred to as swords (with the one noteworthy exception being the Messer, which was classified as a knife because, in Germany, there was a point in time where commoners weren't allowed to have swords, but the legal definition of a knife was based off of the construction of the hilt rather than blade length.) The actual terms "arming sword," "longsword," and other specific classifications came a few centuries after their use for historical analysis; from a periodic perspective, they were frequently just classified by whether or not is was a one-handed sword, a two-handed sword, or a mix of both, known as a bastard sword.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
That said, the thing that bothers me the most by far as far as weapons go in 1st edition has nothing to do with mechanics, but instead has to do with semantics. In modern usage, the word 'longsword' refers to a sword that is wielded in two hands. Using that term to refer to a one-handed sword is an oxymoron, and it bothers me far more than it should. I'd much prefer if one-handed swords were referred to as 'arming swords,' because that is what the modern terminology is.

Honestly, considering the terminology has been so heavily ingrained into D&D, and consequentially Pathfinder, the odds of the longsword being officially rebranded into an Arming Sword, and the Bastard Sword being rebranded into the longsword, etc. likely isn't going to happen. However, this is also without mentioning the fact that, at least in P1e, longswords can be wielded with two hands, thus effectively making them hand-and-a-half swords - ignoring the existence and historical usage of the term "bastard sword," keeping the name longsword isn't unreasonable


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Baba Ganoush wrote:
I wish Paizo would de-emphasize the mechanics of the weapons. Any weapon is dangerous in capable hands and who cares if a Wizard wants to carry a longsword like Gandalf? Just say any weapon used 1 handed does 1d6 if you "simple" (basic) weapon training. If you have "martial" training it does 1d8 and you can choose something worth 1 pt (e.g. extend the critical range or add a bonus for a maneuver quality) if you have "exotic" (advanced) training you can either bump the damage dice, bump the critical (possibly again) or something else. If you dedicate both hands to fighting with the weapon you up the damage one dice size (and maybe that means using 2-handed when you backhand (like in tennis) or using the open hand to balance a lunge (like a fencer) or grabbing at your opponents cloak (who cares - it just means if you don't use the hand for anything else your round of effort is a bit more effective). Let player's pick any weapon that fits their concept and base how effective it is for them on their level of training (class/ feat).

I don't really understand what you're trying to propose.

For one thing, nobody cares if you want to have a Wizard carry a longsword, or a warhammer, or even a greataxe, all you need to do is invest in proficiency with them and you're good to go; you could do this in P1e too, but from the sounds of it it's going to be easier to have a sword-swinging wizard and have it be fairly viable.

For another thing, with what you suggested, it sounds like you want an entirely different game system. Pathfinder (and D&D for that matter) has always put a fair amount of emphasis on the mechanics of its weapons, regardless of the edition, and what you suggested is a pretty explicit step away from what Paizo is trying to accomplish, putting an extreme focus on story telling with very minimalist game mechanics.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a simple, mechanics-light kind of game style and it definitely has its advantages, but if you're looking for that kind of style baked into Pathfinder, you're looking at the wrong game system.


Igwilly wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:


As such, I'm still sour how Guns (the "democratic" weapon, in many personal meanings) are on a hiatus for the time being...
Fantasy Gun Control and such... It's just not part of the "standard" experience for most people. It's better to wait until they're sure how weapons work and are able to release the Gunslinger or such together with firearms.

As much as I long for P2e firearms, I'm content with waiting for when P2e is finalized for Paizo to actually start working on integrating them. Considering how heavily specialized and hard to use they were in P1e, I'd much rather them be more comparable and in-line with other ranged weapons than having them be hyper-experimental and niche, especially since the main gimmick of P1e firearms is no longer mechanically viable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Catharsis wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:


This is conjecture, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be a general feat; limiting it to rogues only would be cruelly unfair to any non-rogue dex build,

Well, do consider that PF1 Rogues get it as a Rogue-only class feature...

But I'm really hoping Dex-based Paladins, Clerics and Rangers are a thing. :Þ

Mark...?

Unchained Rogues got it as a class feature, and considering we've already gone over the P2e Rogue in a blog post, them getting it as a class ability likely would have been established by now.

Not to mention, in P1e there were a number of feats that granted very restrained dexterity to damage, IE Dervish Dance, Fencing Grace, Slashing Grace, Starry Grace, Two-Weapon Grace...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Catharsis wrote:

So finesse gives Dex to hit...

cricket
cricket
cricket

And not to damage, apparently? Is that a Rogue-only thing? Is it a general feat? Are we misinterpreting Merisiel's 1d8+4? I must know! :Þ

This is conjecture, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be a general feat; limiting it to rogues only would be cruelly unfair to any non-rogue dex build, and considering Merisiel has a +4 modifier to damage rolls at level 1 specifically, there aren't many other interpretations besides it being a feat you can pick up as early as first level, as the only other explanation would be it resembling the P1e Vigilante's Lethal Grace (+1/2 class level to damage rolls), which doesn't match up with the P2e playtests.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
It's a bit odd to get something so uncontroversial like this as a Monday blog. I imagine they must be setting up for Ranger or Barbarian this Friday.

Yeah, this makes me doubt we'll see the Wizard this week. (Barring a three blog week.) But I guess we had a week full of magic last week.

I'd be surprised if we saw the Ranger before the Druid (even if Playtest Ranger loses spellcasting). Barbarian sounds like a good guess.

Turns out it's a fake-out and we're getting the Paladin on Friday


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad to hear that the greatsword is still going to be mechanically distinct from the greataxe despite them sharing the same damage types and damage dice! I just hope that exotic weapons in general bring enough to the table to justify taking feats for them, or if nothing else gaining proficiency with them is a tad more universal, as in P1e most of my exotic weapon builds were with Half-Elves due to Ancestral Arms.

Speaking of exotic weapons, are Golarion staples such as the Aldori Dueling Sword going to be included in the playtest?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:

My point is that if there is still a clear and present need for there to be three resource pools for clerics, why not for monks or barbarians or paladins or rangers?

I mean it fits does it not? But then is it really simpler? At that point why bother with spell points at all, when more class-specific names are cooler?

It's simpler in the fact that, say, you wanted to emulate the Mystic Theurge; because presumably all of the primary casting classes are getting the Spell Pool, and Spell Pool stacks with other sources, there is now a distinct mechanical benefit to multiclassing multiple casting classes, whereas in P1e they would be so distinct from each other there would be no way to create synergy.

Spell Points aren't supposed to replace the defining class abilities of each class, like the Barbarian's Rage or the Paladin's Smite, it's supposed to give the casting classes more verisimilitude in regards to their access to spells via class abilities, which would seem to be the direction Paizo is going to compensate for the removal of bonus spells per day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:

"Spell Points" that you use for everything but actual spells is gonna be the most confusing term ever...

You REALLY NEED to rethink this term. Seriously, you just REALLY NEED.

Yeah I also think that they undercut their own design goal here.

Clerics are still needing to manage 3 different pools of resources, all of which bleed over into each other.

Spell Points(which aren't for spells), channels (which are for spells), and then of course actual spells.

This is somehow less clear than 1e where you have domain powers (some of which are use limited), channels (which are their own thing), and spells. Sure you still have 3 pools to manage but its much easier to delineate them from each other.

While I agree that there might be a better name for Spell Points, I don't believe that they're undermining their intention of simplifying game terms in this case. Spell Points are in fact going towards spells, in this case spells you gain access to via your domains and any other multi-class abilities tied to it, while channels are still their own thing for the express purpose of making Clerics healing powerhouses without cutting into either spell points or actual spells, helping to avoid them becoming little more than a healbot with their magical resources.


Deighton Thrane wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
Yeah, that's fair. It'd be cool to see other potential druid anathemas as well, such as vegetarianism or restricting access to fire spells to avoid the destruction of wilderness (Awoken Bear Druid with this anathema?).

I'm all for anathemas that are specific to certain druidic orders, and as comical as Smokey the bear might be as a character, I think those aren't great choices for anathemas. Vegetarian diets outside of herbivorous animals is usually only a real option because of farming, which is more of an agrarian thing than something that happens in nature. And forest fires are part of the natural life cycle of a forest. A lot of experts think that one of the reasons why forest fires have gotten to be such a serious issue lately is because we've been stopping the spread of forest fires, which means that a lot of deadwood that would have been burned away in smaller fires continues to accrue, then when a fire does happen, it becomes even larger because of all this accumulation of dead foliage. So, you would think that someone who's supposed to be in tune with nature would actual try and control the burns to make sure the entire forest doesn't burn down at once, and there's always somewhere for wildlife to flee.

But, I'm pretty sure there's already parts of the lore where different orders of druids couldn't agree to one philosophy on what it means to be in tune with nature, resulting in warring factions and an eventual peace treaty. So having different anathemas according to different philosophies makes sense.

I've actually rolled up two different druids with the fire domains (one ash subdomain) and I recognize the importance in wild fires, especially considering ash can be a really good source of nutrients for budding plant life, so the inclusion of that was mainly for the Smokey the Bear joke. As for the vegetarian one, I actually had an urban druid who lives in towns and cities to help prevent the encroachment into nature, or otherwise promote nature and encourage preservation in mind when I suggested it.

As for other anathemas, I could imagine more general ones (give a hoot don't pollute), but I could also imagine anathemas for specific environs, like sea druids vowing to protect against overfishing, or desert druids vowing to preserve water and, if possible, natural oases.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
Serum wrote:
I'm excited by Anathema and its potential implications for Druids, Paladins, Barbarians and Monks.
I wish they talk a little more about this: how anathema will work and how much agency the GM is going to have here - that is, other than "house-rule it".
Increasing the visibility of this. If Druids banning metal is non-negotiable, I would prefer the class booted out of core since I will never use it.

I'm personally okay with Druids not having access to metal armor by default, albeit with the stipulation that there are ways around the lack of metal armor, IE non-metal armor options being more widespread, or at least inexpensive.

Also, I would prefer if anathemas were kept with the more religious classes; Paladin, Cleric, and Druid? Great! Barbarian and Monk? Not so much, because the Barbarian is the least religiously inclined of all of the classes Serum mentioned, and the Monk tends to be more philosophically bent than religiously bent, and I'm of the opinion that the Monk's alignment restrictions in P1e were pretty unreasonable.

It was never about balance, dragonhide is cheap (and Wild is expensive enough that you probably won't be getting much of an armour bonus once you could have afforded mithral). It's that metal being considered inherently unnatural is not something I can accept. Sure, there can be a use for the "person with no grasp on the concept they supposedly espouse" concept, but locking a core class (Wisdom-based, no less) behind it is a mistake.

Yeah, that's fair. It'd be cool to see other potential druid anathemas as well, such as vegetarianism or restricting access to fire spells to avoid the destruction of wilderness (Awoken Bear Druid with this anathema?).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
Serum wrote:
I'm excited by Anathema and its potential implications for Druids, Paladins, Barbarians and Monks.
I wish they talk a little more about this: how anathema will work and how much agency the GM is going to have here - that is, other than "house-rule it".
Increasing the visibility of this. If Druids banning metal is non-negotiable, I would prefer the class booted out of core since I will never use it.

I'm personally okay with Druids not having access to metal armor by default, albeit with the stipulation that there are ways around the lack of metal armor, IE non-metal armor options being more widespread, or at least inexpensive.

Also, I would prefer if anathemas were kept with the more religious classes; Paladin, Cleric, and Druid? Great! Barbarian and Monk? Not so much, because the Barbarian is the least religiously inclined of all of the classes Serum mentioned, and the Monk tends to be more philosophically bent than religiously bent, and I'm of the opinion that the Monk's alignment restrictions in P1e were pretty unreasonable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

i like the design of the hobgoblins; keeping the goblinoid look consistent helps hone in the fact that goblins are closely related to hobgoblins, if not the halfling equivalent to hobgoblins


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
To keep the thread on track, and talk about secrets of alchemy, it would be nice if there is some nice alchemical oil to reduce bulk :)

How would that work? Possibly shrink said items down to a smaller size catagory to reduce it? Or maybe make them float?

No no, that sounds too much like magic, no no, we need to make Alchemists non magic based.

Alternatively, it could just increase your effective strength score for the purposes of determining your maximum bulk load.

Finally, a practical excuse to having bodybuilders oiling their bodies up beyond pure aesthetics


4 people marked this as a favorite.

One of my biggest concerns with alchemical items is them being designed around the Alchemist to the point where it's not optimal for anyone but the Alchemist to use them. In P1e that was somewhat the case because Alchemists were introduced later into the game and they had to be able to work around the limitations, but it was also an issue with the Gunslinger, in that firearms were so expensive and had so many overlaying problems that the Gunslinger was explicitly designed to get around, that it wasn't worth it for anyone else to invest into firearm use.

I'm fine with Alchemists being more easily prepared to use alchemical items and take them to higher levels, but I don't want this to be at the cost of only the Alchemist being able to get any meaningful use out of them - they should be a relatively viable option for anyone from levels 1-20, without having to worry about prohibitive costs or them just being so easy to resist/dealing so negligible damage that only the Alchemist can work around those limitations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
One thing I'd like to ask... why is regeneration Necromancy? It's not playing directly with your life force (which is especially obvious since it doesn't have the positive or negative tags), so it seems to make more sense as a transmutation spell: it's directly changing how your physiology works, which is definitely transmutation.

I'd argue because 1.) it helps maintain the notion that all healing spells are under the same category, because dividing all the primary healing spells into different schools of magic seems like more division than it's really worth, especially since Regenerate in P1e was Conjuration (Healing) instead of Conjuration (Healing, Creation), and 2.) it is altering your life force, in such a way that your body can rapidly shrug off wounds and otherwise help you directly avoid death.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
But the Druid gets access to neither Cone of Cold or Fireball by default
The rest of your post made some pretty good points, but are you sure about this one? ;)

I mean this in the sense that they only get access to these through the elemental domains. I'm actually playing as a druid right now with the fire domain and is taking exclusively fire-related spells, so unless I'm mistaken, a lot of the Wizard/Sorcerer blasting spells are only available via domains - not all of them, but a lot of the iconic ones

Wait, I think I get what you mean now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:


Your examples ARE a garnish, descriptive use of the terms provides rather than a prescriptive approach. Material spells involve manipulation of matter and energy of the user and the world around, whether that be transformation or harnessing elemental energy. Now, material spells are something that are fitting for both wizards and druids without a doubt, a druid and wizard should both be able to harness the power of fire and water, and why would the inherent magic methods of the two be different, in a magical sense? Sure maybe the druid felt nature show him the way, and the wizard worked out the math, but the cone of colds and fireballs operate on the same principles, and their manipulation of matter in this respect are similar enough that do the two of them really need a heavily different list of which spells each can use that perform these effects?

But the Druid gets access to neither Cone of Cold or Fireball by default - they only get access to those spells via domains, and in that respect Clerics get access to the same domains, with the same principle. As a matter of fact, there's more spell overlap between the Druid and Cleric in P1e than the Druid and Wizard, but the example you provided contradicts that.

If my arguments for essences are for them just being garnish, let me ask this: is that necessarily a bad thing? Do we need to add an additional factor to spellcasting that not only makes things more complex but also comes off as contradictory to P1e in practice? Having the essence of magic just being flavor text, while the spell lists of the classes remain intact as opposed to adopting universal essence lists, is just fine by me, because it gives magic more flavor and makes it understandable in the game world without adding more moving parts than necessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:

Mark also stated something along the lines of " we wanted to have a stronger connection between magic and the lore of the world" (hard paraphrase because I'm on mobile and can't find it). This isn't some flavour text fluff, saying that wizards wield magic that works best with material and mental power is not saying "wizards mostly learn these kinds of spells as a cute garnish", it's saying that material and mental have something to do with spells classification and that that classification may be very important for what classes can learn a spell.

I'm not saying that it's just a garnish to the magic classes, but I really don't think that it's going to be so big of a thing that it will replace the way spell lists work. The way I'm interpreting it is that the material+mental and spiritual+vital essences are just ways of clearly distinguishing how arcane magic operates versus how divine magic operates, which would lead to some general distinctions as to what spells the classes get access to - in example, more destructive evocation spells would be very material and more exclusive to arcane casters, while hardcore healing spells that involve the restoration of limbs and life are deep rooted into vitality, putting it in the divine camp. If the essences were to become extremely concrete mechanics as opposed to general design/lore guidelines, I feel that the distinctions between the casting classes would become too rigid and interfere with intersectionality between spell lists.


Joe M. wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

So there are only four spell lists correct?

So that would be cleric, druid, wizard/sorcerer, and maybe bard?

Material, mental, spiritual, vital.

Wizard = material/mental
Cleric = spiritual/vital

I don't think we know for sure how the "essences" and spell lists will interact. Mark had this to say upthread:

Mark Seifter wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Notice how Mark didn't say that spell lists weren't divided up based on the essences. I'm gonna take that as a 100% confirmation that I'm correct in my prediction. There's no other possible interpretation of that.
The spell lists are certainly based on the essences in some way. Is it exactly what you guys predicted in this thread? Well, now's not the time to confirm or unconfirm; we have more tricks up our sleeves to share with you in future blogs. I predict if you liked the essences bit in this blog, you will really like a few more of the things to come!

I really do think the whole essence thing is just conjecture based off of Mark's flavor text (which I love), as it would just make making spell lists a lot more difficult and time-consuming in the future as opposed to just sticking with the dogma of class-based spell lists (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard/Sorcerer), that way they don't have to come up with new essence combinations in order to justify new spellcaster classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely love how rituals are going to be core now! Ever since I discovered them in Occult Adventures I've always wanted to incorporate them into one of my games, so the fact that they're core in P2e just makes me excited to see what long-term support rituals are going to get! The fact that healing spells are necromancy now is just a cherry on top.

I think people are somewhat jumping to conclusions in regards to spell traditions, however. To integrate spell lists divided into material, spiritual, mental, etc. etc. focuses would be a lot of book keeping to make, especially down the line, and I'm pretty sure that it was just mentioned for flavor of how magic works in the world. I'm 90% sure the spell lists in the Playtest are just going to be the Bardic, Cleric, Druidic, and Wizard/Sorcerer spell lists; Alchemists no longer get "spells," and I'm fairly confident that Rangers and Paladins (if they still get spellcasting) will just have limited access to the Druid and Cleric spell lists, respectively


I said this in the Alchemist blog post, but if (and this is a pretty big "if") the Oracle is a part of the core rulebook and it's rolled in with the Cleric, I'd imagine it'd only be because the Sorcerer is being rolled in with the Wizard in the same way, since they both share the same spell list.

It'd be pretty similar to how the Sorcerer was treated in 3.5 with it just being tied together with the Wizard. Granted, both the Wiz and Sorc in 3.5 had little to no class features to speak of, but what with the advent of class feats it's a solid work around.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Natasha Salisfer wrote:
I only hope they not going to allow possibility to throw more bomb (actually its to powerfull) and have the same limitation of the spellcaster (Speed not increase number of attack because you still need time to make your bomb preparation, not allowed a third arm, etc..) or only thru a feat with limitation of level like quicken Magic Missile who use a Level 4 Spell Quicken Bomb must have level limitation. They have already benefit from none Spell Resistance on Bomb because is not magic, allow more attack than a single spellcasting is unbalancing the game.

It's important to keep in mind that bombs are no longer a class feature; hypothetically anyone can use them, as the alchemist can now just make alchemical weapons like alchemist fires and (hypothetically) grenades on a regular basis. While ensuring they're balanced when compared to spells is important, they're not hard tied to the alchemist and, realistically, should be balanced to ensure they can keep up with spells when used by anyone.


Rysky wrote:

I rather not they fold Oracle and Cleric into the same thing in some fashion, they're too different in how they function.

Cleric has faith in a Deity and gets power in return.

Oracle gets slapped with powers and a curse and they get no say in it.

Assuming Paizo did that, I'm sure that they would still maintain their distinct differences, much like how the Wizard and Sorcerer are distinctly different, and that they would also do it with the Wizard and Sorcerer to maintain fidelity - the Cleric and Oracle/Wizard and Sorcerer share spell lists, after all, so if they were to do a split akin to the Wizard/Sorcerer in 3.5 it would probably be like that.

That being said, Paizo has not given a distinct number of the classes that are considered core (as far as I'm aware), just that they're adding Alchemist to the core, so it's also likely they'll just throw the Oracle into the mix as a separate class, as a non-advertised addition. This is, of course, all just conjecture.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mass Kneebreaker wrote:
Dracoknight wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:
Cheeto Sam, Esquire wrote:
120. How will i make witches into enemies if there are no witches in p2e?

121 - How do you know she's a witch?

She turned me into a Newt!

A newt?

They got better...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With all of this talk of Oracles being archetypes, I feel that people aren't too far off the mark, but I'm pretty sure what Paizo is doing is by taking a book out of 3.5: folding the Cleric and Oracle into the same general class concept.

WotC did it with the Wizard and Sorcerer in 3.5, and granted it was easily justifiable to do since neither were particularly complex in regards to class abilities, but I have a strong feeling they will be bringing this back, and folding the Wizard/Sorcerer and Cleric/Oracle into the same general class chassis.

This is just conjecture, but considering the Oracle, which (as far as we know) is non-core, is showing up in talks about the playtest for the core rulebook, leads me to believe that they will be taking this approach to the full casters, as it's the only way it makes sense without Oracles being delegated as an archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If Alchemical Crafter, as a feat, gives non-Alchemists four alchemical item formulas, does that mean that anyone can effectively pick up formulas? Are formulas still pseudo-spells?


I know this is satire, but I actually wouldn't mind stats for ogrekin PCs.

I've actually had a character/NPC concept for a while of an ogrekin who was taken in by a warpriest at a really young age (think Quasimodo and Frollo and you've got the right idea for what their relationship is like) and the Warpriest trained him to don specially crafted full plate, use a small cannon that he wields like a Gatling gun, and defend the large town against ogre raids.

Exploring the borders and possibilities of non-hostile monstrous races and how they interact with other societies and cultures, be it how they treat the society or how the society treats them, can really add a lot of depth and complexity into a game or world setting.


Starbuck_II wrote:

Maybe combine Kineticist and monk basically. Elemental monk maybe an archetype:

So like a wind monk can shoot out a ki blast (air blast).

I actually have something similar like this in my home games: Monks mystically train to overcome the physical limitations of their bodies, while Kineticists are able to act as a physical outlet for mystical powers - they're essentially opposite sides of the same coin.

I would prefer to keep Kineticists as their own thing, but developing connections between Kineticists and Monks (and maybe giving Monks a ki blast) would be right by me


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Non-Lawful Good paladins have been part of D&D since they first appeared in Dragon as Paladins of Alignment (I believe I got the article name right). 3.5e had them (Unearthed Arcana I believe), 4th ed had them, 5th ed has them and Pathfinder has them (Grey Paladins?). It won't shock me if they finally make it part of the core book for Pathfinder.

Grey Paladins are actually limited to anything within one step of Lawful Good - P1e didn't have official support for Chaotic Good Paladins, but frankly I feel that changing that in P2e would be a good thing (maybe as an archetype), because considering all of the Lawful Evil shenanigans plaguing the Inner Sea it'd be nice to just call yourself a Liberator and leave it mostly at that.

I could see Chaotic Good Paladins popping up in Kintargo as an explicit countermeasure against Cheliax worshiping and utilizing devils and trying to maintain independence until the rest of the nation cools their jets.


TheFinish wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:

{. . .}

5.) Hallowed Necromancer (Wizard)
Necromancy has gotten the short end of the stick for the longest time. They're almost universally considered evil, and it is considerably difficult in normal circumstances to have a Necromancer character and be able to say they're a good character without suspicion or questioning. The Hallowed Necromancer helps combat that - they are the good Necromancer, using their knowledge to combat evil as opposed to spreading it, being able to recreate (ranged!) cure spells to defeat undead. The inclusion of the Hallowed Necromancer and perhaps more emphasis on Necromancy not being inherently evil in the first year would help combat the stigma Necromancy as a school of magic normally faces.

Related to this, put the "Conjuration (Healing)" spells back in Necromancy, where they belong.

Good news for you, they are! This was confirmed in one of the podcasts.

Oh, really? Huh, that's actually really cool


Quandary wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
I know I'm beyond the time frame where you can edit this, but Hallowed Necromancer should be 1 instead of 0.8. Unless I'm mistaken, I was the only one who suggested it, and it was one of my top 5 choices - I didn't have a 6th, and my second post was exclusively for non-core archetypes.
Working as intended. Perhaps you were expressing your conceptual train of thought by mentioning in the same entry both Eldritch Scoundrel (Rogue) and Child of Acavna (Fighter) but whatever it was, was not a clear indication of single vote for single particular archetype. Thus, with an expression of support for 6 archetypes, the "max 5 vote" methodology kicked in, approximating each vote down to 0.8 value. Had you distinguished between one you wished to vote for, and one you weren't voting for but were simply discussing, the one clearly voted archetype would have received one vote tally... As I did for other cases where 5 votes were clearly indicated alongside mention of non-voted options ("conceptually related" or not). Others where they chose to express vote for "concept" covering multiple archetypes (I recall Urban Druid/Ranger/Barbarian) meant more than 5 archetypes were co-indicated as vote choice, and the methodology appropriately applied.

Ah, I see. I should've clarified then, my bad


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Naturally this isn't really capable as of right now, but I would want to play as a Goblin Arcanist who has the Elemental (Fire) bloodline - she was gonna be a pyromaniac sorcerer but a wizard came along and taught her how to be a wizard, and now she can cast fireballs and aspire to open a bookstore!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

After sleeping on the subject of Goblins being a core race, I'm starting to become more and more warm to the idea of their inclusion in the perspective of Golarion; a lot of their ancestry feats are likely going to be equivalent to racial feats that they had in P1e, so if you could build around it in P1e it should just be more of the same in P2e, and at least in Golarion I'm warming up to it on the grounds that, in the Inner Sea, Goblins are so commonplace geographically that you're bound to run into them eventually wherever you are on the continent.

Again, I'm hoping that outward perspective of them as a core race is justified in Return of the Runelords, but I'm also now hoping that the inclusion of Goblins as a PC race means that races like Orcs and Kobolds and maybe Drow but I'm not getting my hopes up with them will be getting similar elevation beyond "always chaotic evil" and can be seen as more justifiable for PCs now, instead of using this perspective as justification to keep Goblins out of core.

I know I won't have any issues with Goblins as a core race in my games (Hell, it actually gives me a reason to flesh them out more now instead of treating them as just a Halfling equivalent to Hobgoblins), but I know it might have a negative affect on other GMs' home games. If that's the case, and you can't really find a way to work around Goblins being a core option, like at all, then I do encourage just not making them available to PCs, much like how some GMs restrict access to the Paladin class (at least in my experience).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:


Fits those kinds of stories best, too. Say the Monk is facing an enemy of a type that has recently been a lot of trouble, but she leveled up and learned a new, relevant aura.

Monster: "Fists break upon my hide as easily as swords, foolish girl!"
Monk: (assumes a new stance) "Last time was different. I've been practicing a new technique especially for this. Now is as good a time as any to use ... the Silver Crescent Style!"
Monster: (exaggerated shock)

You mean.... "NANI!?!?"

おまえはもうしんでいる


Raynulf wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
Quandary wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
My party has also negotiated peaceful travel with orcs while travelling through Belize’s, characters who had good reason to distrust orcs because of a previous orc attack on their hometown.
Oh... yeah... um...
I think they mean the Hold of Belzken - I could see how autocorrect would change it to Belize.
You mean Hold of Belkzen?

Yes. Like I said, Belkzen isn't very autocorrect friendly lmao


Quandary wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
My party has also negotiated peaceful travel with orcs while travelling through Belize’s, characters who had good reason to distrust orcs because of a previous orc attack on their hometown.
Oh... yeah... um...

I think they mean the Hold of Belzken - I could see how autocorrect would change it to Belize.


Laird IceCubez wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
PCScipio wrote:

Some more food for thought: Goblins of Purity.

** spoiler omitted **

"...all while maintaining the rip-roaring fun that being an arsonist or a baby-eater brings."

"- An exciting reworking of the alignment system that allows you to play arsonists and baby-eaters while still being good-aligned"

This is my point exactly.

You do realize that you're making your point with an April Fools Day joke, right? Kinda like quoting the Onion as a factual source.

I mean, the whole joke is that Goblins being a playable race is a joke. That's what made it funny, the unbelievability of it.

It's a joke made reality. Friendly Rogue is just pointing out that even Paizo recognizes the ridiculousness of Goblin PCs.

I would like to point out that, as a concept, I don't think Goblin PCs are ridiculous, and I don't think that was the intention of that blog post either; I was pointing out that they considered Goblins being a core race was absurd. I'm starting to warm up to the idea, but only because Paizo's writing has been straying away from the "always chaotic evil" trope in regards to monstrous races, and I'm hopeful that they justify it in a way that makes sense.


RogueMortal wrote:
Somehow I just end up expecting lots of shortstack goblin bards with a Con bonus, ranks in Profession: Courtesan, and InCase character art.

Please, not like this...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

I can sort of see how goblins as a core race could have Charsima as a boosted stat. Not that goblins will wind up being nice, or likable, but rather that they are intense.

They could be surprisingly intimidating, shrewd in both honest dealings and deceit, and when it comes to magic items and sorcery, they could have a natural talent for both.

Combine all those features and that sounds like a Charisma boost to me. They just don't normally use their charisma in ways that endear them to other folk, focusing instead on crazed intimidation and setting things on fire with their minds if they can manage it.

Also I like the idea of some well meaning human trying to clear a raid on a goblin tribe with the goblin PC.
"Hey, if you want to stay back from this one..."
"What? Why? Those are Lamasthan cultists and I have no love for the Beast Mother, why wouldn't I want to cut them?"
"Well.. they are goblins and you're a goblin so..."
"I've seen you kill humans plenty, do I nag you about whether you want to go bandit hunting?"

On the opposite side of the coin, you could have goblins who are keenly aware of the general reputation those of their ancestry hold, and as a result take to learn diplomacy as a method of actively staying on good terms with those who would otherwise be intensely paranoid by their presence.

I hope that, with Goblins getting a Charisma bonus baked in, the Halfling and Gnome get a bonus to the other mental scores to compensate, with Halflings getting a boost to Wisdom due to them being able to say optimistic and hopeful during bad situations, and Gnomes getting Intelligence to reflect their ever-present drive for more experiences and knowledge to avoid deathly boredom.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

If there's a need for something for the PCs to slaughter something with abandon and because it's evil there's no need for one's conscience, fiends start at CR 1 and Undead start at CR 1/3.

A thing we slaughter without worrying about it should probably not be an intelligent creature. So now killing goblins will just have to be a matter of killing specific goblins because of what they did, are doing, or will do, just like how killing elves is a matter of killing specific elves because of what they did, are doing, or will do.

Murder goblins not because they're goblins but because they're bandits that stole the wizard's extremely expensive cigar box


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuttlefist wrote:
(Cut for space)

I'll admit, I got a bit overexcited in response to your post. You bring up good points in regards to how their inclusion as a core race likely doesn't make big changes to the common occurrence of goblins in every day life, but I do still remain at least somewhat curious, if not concerned, as to how they will approach the major change that will make Goblins more acceptable as a Core Race, because I remember reading that that was going to be one of the major points in Return of the Runelords (unless I'm mistaken.)

I also still stand by what I said in regards to the lore, but less because of how goblins specifically are changing to be more sympathetic, but more out of worry of how it will contextualize other traditionally "always chaotic evil" races, such as Orcs; will they also be made so that Orc adventurers will be given more support (outside of serving as backstory fodder for Half-Orc NPCs), or will they remain as Belzken raiders with no sympathy for others and a lust for bloodshed? I do retract my statement about how severely it will affect Golarion lore, though.

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>