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.
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.
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.
Combat Monster wrote:
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.
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?
That description just reminded me of the Kirkhammer from Bloodborne, and now I want to see trick weapons converted into Pathfinder in general.
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.
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Joe M. wrote:
Turns out it's a fake-out and we're getting the Paladin on Friday
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?
It's simpler in the fact that, say, you wanted to emulate the Mystic Theurge; because
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.
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:
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.
The Sideromancer 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?).
The Sideromancer wrote:
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.
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
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.
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:
Wait, I think I get what you mean now.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Oh, really? Huh, that's actually really cool
Ah, I see. I should've clarified then, my bad
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!
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
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).
Yes. Like I said, Belkzen isn't very autocorrect friendly lmao
I think they mean the Hold of Belzken - I could see how autocorrect would change it to Belize.
Laird IceCubez wrote:
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.
Stone Dog wrote:
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.
Murder goblins not because they're goblins but because they're bandits that stole the wizard's extremely expensive cigar box
(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.