Friendly Rogue's page

I will admit that, beyond Spellstrike, there is not a whole lot of reason to port the P1e version of the Magus into P2e because of the nature of multiclassing now, and that the Magus was initially created to support the gish playstyle that was difficult to pull off otherwise.

However, there is still enough of an identity to the Magus itself in the realm of their Arcana and Arcane Pool and, again, Spellstrike that we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. All that needs to be done is that we need to expand upon the concept of the Magus, be it by emphasizing pre-existing aspects of it or by introducing new mechanics through it, and then we can fully justify having the Magus in P2e.

There's already been a wide variety of good suggestions in here as to how it can be achieved, so it's less of a matter of "why" but more a matter of "how".

Frankly, I feel like the Magus, if the Spell-Point-focused approach is taken, might be a good opportunity to introduce a non-vancian caster into the game, where they get an extended pool of Spell Points and they cast somewhat similarly as psionics would.

This would work doubly well if they go the Sorcerer route and give them the choice between which spell list they get access to, and maybe even which mental stat their Spell Points are based off of.

Would a magus without spell slots (i.e. a point-based caster like the Paladin) be satisfactory? Since with the new rules "how do we handle casters who are less good at casting than a wizard or a druid, but still have a significant amount" is going to be a tricky thing for PF2 what with how the math works now, so I imagine we're either going to be printing "full casters" (oracle, witch, possibly the occultist) or "non casters/point-based casters" in the first several splatbooks.

I'm not sure a Magus works as a 10 level caster, since we're not likely to do custom spell lists for classes, just the basic four, so a 10 level casting Magus would have access to the full wizard list.

The more that I think about it, the more I actually wouldn't mind a spell-point based Magus - it would still give some room for the Magus to be able to use Spellstrike-like abilities (assuming it's possible for them to get Cantrips), and it would also open up the path for spellcasters to multiclass into Magus to get their spellstrike, enabling a more traditional Magus playstyle.

Spell strike can be covered by a feat. Doesn't need a whole class.

The feat should be generic and available to all casting traditions.

It can be covered by a feat, but should it?

No other class, regardless of how adept they were at both casting spells and fighting in a melee, has had access to spellstrike unless they were either a magus or entirely based off of it (as is the case for one of my favorite archetypes, the Phantom Blade Spiritualist). Being able to channel the force of a spell into a melee weapon, at least in my opinion, seems like the sort of thing that would be impossible to manage unless you have the specific training that would require it, which makes the existence of the magus - a class entirely devoted to mixing magical and martial combat - justifiable by that fact alone.

The inherent problem with lines of argument such as "oh why create a P2e Brawler class when you can Fighter/Monk multiclass" or "fighters being able to multiclass as either cleric or wizard combined with the new action economy completely makes the Magus obsolete" is that, with only a few exceptions like the Slayer, pretty much every single class has unique class features that allow them to stand out from other classes, like the Investigator's Studied Combat/Strike, or the Oracle's Mysteries.

While, mechanically, the new multiclassing and class options open the door to being able to play as a close approximation to the Warpriest, or the Magus, or the Investigator right out of the bat, that ignores the possibility of, when they're reintroduced to P2e, they'll be changed and updated to better fit the environment of P2e, such as the Magus getting access to unique cantrips and class feats that allow them to put a lot of special qualities on their weapons.

Instead of thinking of it as "why would you need to bring this class into P2e?", try to think of it as "how could they change and update this class to help solidify their place in P2e?"

I hope strength rogues are supported in P2e. Even though I tend to prefer dexterity builds over strength builds, the fact that a strength rogue in 5e was explicitly unable to use sneak attack at all was a major put-off for me.

If the fact that Sneak Attack only works with Finesse/Agile weapons without a feat is true, well... I guess a feat tax is better than being without the option entirely, but it's definitely not ideal. That being said, though, things might look slightly better if there are agile weapons that greatly synergize with strength.

I feel like "should we make this area that was once not-a-desert but is now a desert" is a thing that Druids should disagree on. I can see Leaf and Fang/Wing druids wanting to reverse desertification and the Storm druids wanting to do the opposite.

Conflict between different philosophies among druids is definitely a good thing, especially from a narrative perspective; in one of my games, I had the party run into a Druid who actively sacrificed human chattel in order to improve the yield of his crops because he was a Life Channeler, a rare and extreme order of Druids who saw humanoids as a corrupting force and transferred their life essence to animal and plant life to maintain the closest approximation to natural superiority. While all the other druids in the rural area where he lived were extremely against what he was doing when it came to light, it still hurt their overall reputation among the non-druids once the news left the town.

Conflict is crucial to most good story telling, so Druids belonging to different orders with different priorities should definitely have differing values and anathemas to maintain the potential for conflict.

"Tries to repair an environment from desertification" *Falls*

:P

If an ecosystem has been a desert for a while, that means it is a desert - all the local animals, plant life, etc. have specifically acclimated to that environment, and to suddenly attempt to change local weather patterns could have devastating effects on all that live in that area.

In Las Vegas, when it rains for extended periods of time, the ground can't absorb all the rain water, which causes intense flooding that, were it not for a complex and meticulously crafted drainage system created around the city, would cause extreme structural damage. It can handle short bouts of heavy rain (albeit it happens extremely uncommonly), but long-term torrents of rain would be absolutely devastating to all that live there, even with the draining system.

There's a difference between changing the weather for a short period of time (causing a rainstorm to appear in a desert to create lightning) and actively causing long-term damage to an ecosystem in a futile attempt to change the environment (giving a desert long term weather patterns more akin to a rain forest).

Blog wrote:

a creature can attempt a Nature or Survival check against your class DC to determine that the plant is new to the surrounding area

Does that mean that it can take a DC 30-something Nature check to identify that a Redwood should not in fact be growing in a dark cave miles below the surface?

"Hey Bhalqex, why is this tree growing so close to the city limits of Zirnakaynin?"

"I don't know, man, you know that wizard Xonya has a weird fascination with the surface, she probably just planted one here to study it."

I really like what I see so far! The order of the leaf scratches my itch for an Urban Druid that tries to improve society and lead communities away from harming the local environment.

I do need to ask, though, since I don't see mention of it in here and I'm genuinely curious as to what's going to happen... what's the situation looking like with metal armor? Are they anathema for Druids still, or is that being toned back in the Playtest?

Gavmania wrote:

Gorignak227 wrote:

Just to get everyone using the same terminology...

Wizards can't spontaneously heighten.
Only sorcerers have that capability (for 2 spells chosen every day).

That's true. The wizard version is called autoheighten, presumably because they can't cast spontaneously. It amounts to the same thing, however.

Sorry for my ignorance but what exactly is AutoHeightening?

Is it like the cleric's channel ability to have their additional max heightened Heal spells?

Or is this referring to the standard feature that both wizards and sorcerers can prep/know a spell in a higher slot, i.e. prep/know a Magic Missile heightened +2 (for an additional missile/action) in a lvl 3 slot.

I don't recall anything from the Wizard blog post implying that they can get auto-heightening for their spells - that only happens with things like Cantrips, and that's a universal thing for all spellcasters, or with their Spell Pool, which is entirely separated from spellcasting.

If Wizards want to heighten the effects of their spells, they need to actively prepare them in higher spell levels. They don't get the ability to heighten them on the fly like a Sorcerer.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Friendly Rogue wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Yep, that's definitely an issue when it comes two different flavours of classes are forced to use the same list. Tbh, I'd prefer if Occult List but cast as an Arcane caster just to keep the flavour consistent.

...What? They haven't even implied that Bards wouldn't be using Verbal/Somatic components for their spells - they're going to be casting just like every other spellcaster in the Playtest, so in essence it pretty much is just them casting off of the Occult list as an "arcane" caster, in the sense that they have Verbal and Somatic components. With how the way spellcasting classes seem to work in P2e, I actually wouldn't be surprised if the use of Thought and Emotion components become exclusive to just a few classes, like the Psychic and Mesmerist, when they eventually bring the Occult Adventures classes into P2e.

There is a difference between the spells and essences intrinsic to the occult tradition and the trappings of casting psychic magic. It's possible to make a bard a caster who follows the occult tradition and doesn't use psychic magic.

So Occult and Psychic are separate things? Can you have Psychics that use say the Arcane, Primal, or Divine Spell lists?

Yup; Occult and Psychic are two different things in P2e. I actually predicted in this thread that Psychic spellcasters will be a specific category of casting gained by specific classes, if not flat out going back to a non-vancian style of casting. While I predict that the Psychic and Mesmerist will stick with the Occult spell list, I also predicted that, if the Kineticist gains spellcasting, it will be from the Primal spell list.

Cantriped wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Personally I think all non-core iconics should be half-orcs to make up for the race/ancestry getting snubbed again.

Why do we even still have half-orcs? I don't see Orcs amongst the core races. Is it the origin-by-rape fantasy, or just legacy considerations? Pathfinder 2 needs Half-Goblins, because the purple golem loves their goblins.

Seriously though, An Iconic of every race would be the way to go, though I would be happier still if all the Iconics were Human... except that the Iconics (especially the Core ones) are part of Paizo's brand identity and its too late to change the whole line-up now.

Maybe we could have seen Kyra replaced with Oloch (warpriest) or Imrijka (inquisitor) since the hybrid classes are probably all dead.

We have half-orcs as a compromise because D&D-style writers are cowards. An instance where you can say "Blizzard Entertainment wrote them better" is a very sad one indeed.

I wouldn't care at all if half-orcs were removed in favor of actual orcs. Most anyone who play half-orcs that wouldn't play an orc are... very bad at playing half-orcs.

I feel the same way that Orcs in general need more love, but honestly I would still like to keep Half-Orcs around - hell, I actually wouldn't mind if Paizo went all out and included half-human ancestries for more ancestries, like Dwarves, and even Hobgoblins.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Renchard wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Occult flavour is about things like cults, rituals, invocation, forbidden practices, relics, sacrifice, drawing in power from outside, sympathy, spirits, old gods, ascension, etc.

Occult flavor is now more about bard stuff. New edition, new flavor.

Also, even in PF1 the Occult was also about stuff like "predicting the future with harrow cards or similar" or "object reading" or "perceiving people's auras" or "hypnotism" or "faith healing", all of which are wholly in the bard's wheelhouse.

What Milo is talking about is the darker side of occultism, let's have the classic bard hero define the lighter side of occultism.

If you want to think of it differently Arcane is High Art magic where as the Occukt is more like hedge magic, still gets the job done but it requires a different way of thinking.

Leaning into the hedge magic side of things, it reminds me of Pratchett's Witches and Headology. It's a perfect fit for the discipline involving mental and spiritual essences.

If Witches are prepared occult spellcasters when they're released, I swear to God the first 2e Witch I make is just gonna be an expy of Granny Weatherwax

Down the line, I imagine magus would go the route of Paladin in 2e using class feats and spell points to give powers.

I don't know, the thought of the Magus not getting spellcasting seems really off to me, and it somewhat clashes with the concept of someone who melds arcane study with martial training. I feel like leaving the door open for a new Arcane Paladin-esque class in the future would be a better fit. I would suggest the Bloodrager would be a good fit, but considering the Sorcerer is no longer exclusively Arcane, it doesn't have as strong a fit into the concept anymore.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Felinus wrote:

Am I wrong in guessing that spells of a single essence may exist on multiple lists, where relevant, to limit refluffing a duplication?

You are not wrong. Spells with two adjacent essences (they rarely have two opposing essences) may even be on all three lists that border either essence, depending on how they work.

Will these essences limit the possibilities of adding more spell lists down the line when more classes are created/updated? I can see the witch possibly using the occult list, but having them use the same list as bards is a bit odd. Psychic maybe the occult list, but a dedicated psychic list makes more sense to me.

And I'm very curious how former 6 and 4 level casters are going to be dealt with now that all of the core classes are all or nothing for spell-casting. Magi with full 10 level casting? Inquisitors with only powers instead of normal spell slots? Summoners really need a list of their own or maybe it'd be something like all conjuration, abjuration and transmutation spells from the Arcane and Occult spell lists but nothing else.

I think one of the major design goals with spells in the playtest is to step away from the design concept of each class having its own individual spell list, and instead having them refer to pre-existing spell lists that are almost communal for certain classes.

In that respect, it's a pretty logical conclusion that, since the Bard, the one 6th level caster in Core P1e, is now a 9th level caster but with slightly less spells overall than its other spontaneous counter part, the casting-focused Sorcerer, that the other historically 6th level casters will follow a similar path, having less spells than historically-full casters and having more focus on their class abilities.

In example, I could see both the Magus and the Summoner having default access to the Arcane spell list, but with slightly less spells known/per day/slots, and more emphasis on their ability to use combat-focused magic in a skirmish and their ability to summon, respectively. Same goes for the Warpriest and the Inquisitor for the Divine analogy, except with being a spell-casting tank and delivering judgement to enemies of your faith, respectively - hell, now that Paladins don't have any conventional spellcasting, Warpriests and Inquisitors being the divine gishes is more justifiable, especially since the Warpriest and Inquisitor by themselves are pretty distinct in how they operate (IE Prepared vs. Spontaneous).

Associating bards with the occult is a pretty weird leap to me. The conflict between performance (a public expression of artistic creativity) and occult knowledge (by definition secretive and insular) just doesn't work. I respect people trying to reconcile the concepts here, but if the connection isn't intuitive to readers, why use it? If you were to tell me that *any* major spellcasting class had a link to the occult, bards would have been last on my list.

I don't want to be that person, but if we're going off of definitions, Arcane is the one that is more strictly defined as mysterious, secretive, and insular. While the actual word Occult has its roots with the Latin word for "secret," most modern definitions tend to more closely tie it with explicit magical/supernatural beliefs or practices. Either way, both the terms "arcane" and "occult" are practically synonyms in practice, so you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

Are you saying that "Performance" as used by Paizo in the context of the Bard includes conducting rituals with absolutely no witnesses (besides the universe itself) and with no goal of entertaining anyone or even being acknowledged by anyone?

I mean, in the context of a lot of the class abilities, you're going to be using your Bardic Performances to directly buff people and, as a result, there will be (corporeal) witnesses, but in the context of using Bardic Performances to only buff yourself or otherwise not effect other characters? That could entirely be the case.

Besides, for an example of how Oration could work in the context of a Bard, one of the major NPCs in one of my games is an Elf Studious Librarian Bard who does the bookkeeping for her family's estate; she's used to searching and delving into old, musty tomes, creating records for relics and artifacts some of her relatives find on expeditions for the purposes of keeping track of finances, and occasionally she has to set up meetings where she has to discuss events such as mysterious persons gaining access to the family fortune - to her, using Oration for Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and her Bardic Performances is a result of her falling back to rehearsed and trained slogans and speeches to gain the upper hand in situations and otherwise bolster the morale of her associates, even if she leans more on the introvert side of things.

Yep, that's definitely an issue when it comes two different flavours of classes are forced to use the same list. Tbh, I'd prefer if Occult List but cast as an Arcane caster just to keep the flavour consistent.

...What? They haven't even implied that Bards wouldn't be using Verbal/Somatic components for their spells - they're going to be casting just like every other spellcaster in the Playtest, so in essence it pretty much is just them casting off of the Occult list as an "arcane" caster, in the sense that they have Verbal and Somatic components. With how the way spellcasting classes seem to work in P2e, I actually wouldn't be surprised if the use of Thought and Emotion components become exclusive to just a few classes, like the Psychic and Mesmerist, when they eventually bring the Occult Adventures classes into P2e.

And yet the magic bards have picked up has never been shown to be occult in flavour. Just because something manipulates minds does not make it automatically fit the occult flavour. It sounds like bards are only occult casters because they want psychic-style casters later to use the occult spell list so the occult spell list is where mind-manipulating stuff will be focused, despite the fact the bard flavour has zero occult elements. And if they're studying magical lore, then why doesn't their spellcasting style reflect the fact their power comes from learning with it being charisma based?

Alright, then what is the occult flavor? I can easily associate the Bard to occult themes due to 1.) their constant theme of extensive knowledge, which makes sense that those who are worldly and delve into ancient knowledge forgotten by traditional scholars would have occult knowledge (and, consequentially, the ability to cast spells), 2.) occult works in general tend to have themes that coincide pretty naturally with the bard, such as H.P. Lovecraft's The Music of Erich Zann as discussed upthread, especially considering Azathoth is frequently associated with music, and 3.) the fact that the Bard spell list focused primarily on mental and force effects, much like how the Occult spell list is going to focus primarily on mental and force effects, and as a result they tie in really close together.

From the sound of things, though, you can't divorce the concept of a spoony luter making a fool out of himself and trying to seduce everything from the Bard, which, frankly, sells the Bard short on what it represents as a whole, be it in the playtest or P1e.

As far as your point about Paizo just wanting a core class to have the Occult class so other classes in the future can quickly adopt it... so? As far as I'm concerned, there's already plenty of justification to have the Bard be the core Occult spellcaster, but even if there wasn't, what are they gonna do, give the Occult spell list to the Cleric? Just have the Bard bum off of the Arcane spell list even though it makes absolutely no sense mechanically? No matter which way you spin it, the Bard being given the Occult spell list is perfectly justifiable.

Friendly Rogue wrote:

Did you read the blog post? Bards get their spellcasting from piecemeal collection of occult knowledge and lore they're exposed to over the years, and Bards are by no means exclusively musicians - they weren't in P1e, and they especially aren't in the playtest.

Except that occult lore doesn't seem to have anything else to do with the rest of the classes fluff. They just randomly find occult lore that doesn't seem to exist outside of their own class it because they're performers...?

Bards have always been associated with magical lore, especially considering in P1e one of their key class abilities is Bardic Knowledge. Bards are just as much collectors of lore, orators, and scholars as they are performers who prance around the battlefield while tooting a flute - the fact that they're not shoehorned into being exclusively musicians is part of the reason why they're my favorite class.

Besides, the P1e Bard spell list focused heavily on spells that affect the mind and evoked occult themes on their own, including Hideous Laughter, Mad Hallucination, Mad Sultan's Melody... Bards are more than qualified to be considered Occult if you ask me.

I'll probably end up needing to ban this class in my campaigns since it looks like they still want to restrict the fluff to musicians who have magic for no discernible reason.

Did you read the blog post? Bards get their spellcasting from piecemeal collection of occult knowledge and lore they're exposed to over the years, and Bards are by no means exclusively musicians - they weren't in P1e, and they especially aren't in the playtest.

I like moving the songs over to spells. Much slicker. I wonder though, since we have inspire courage as an occult cantrip, does that mean a sorcerer with the occult spell list has access to it, or are cantrips class locked rather than spell list locked?

Compositions like Inspire Courage are basically Bard-exclusive cantrips, so they're not available to any occult caster, just the Bard.

As a matter of fact, from the looks of things, so far Bards are the only class that get cantrips exclusive to their class, so it's pretty interesting where this sort of concept might go in the future.

ErichAD wrote:

I'd think the occultist would make for a simple archetype for alchemist. Sub out alchemy/bombs for wonderous items/trinkets, give them a boost to rituals, add some spell point casting and you're good to go. When it comes down to it, they're the same sort of class with a focus on magic items rather than alchemical items.

Sub out bombs and alchemy. I mean, sure, but since "alchemy" includes basically all class abilities I'm not certain that it is as minor a swap as you're thinking.

Although I do agree that the class when it arrives will likely focus around trinkets, spell point powers, and have the same increased resonance that alchemists have (possibly even more). Hey, maybe they can call it a hedge mage.

Honestly, while I don't think making it an archetype would be either simple or practical, I feel that basing the Occultist pretty heavily off of the Alchemist (no spellcasting, but a lot of neat tricks involving magic items and class abilities that focus in on these abilities) would be a really smart way to approach it, especially now that 6th level casters are somewhat being phased out in favor of default full casters (and this is assuming this doesn't change in the future, or that it's easy for classes like the fighter to invest into spellcasting and get partial magic).

This is hands down one of the best previews in my opinion. The bard is one of my favorite P1e classes, so reading that not only are they now full casters, but they also have a specifically defined spell list and are tied to occult themes? At that point, everything else is just a lot of icing on the perfectly moist cake.

I must ask, though, especially since the Occult spell list is also going to be accessible to the Sorcerer and presumably other classes in the future, what are the combat options like for the spell list? Are they particularly limited, or are they just more focused on mind-affecting effects?

I really like how flexible the Monk in P2e seems to be, especially with Wisdom being pretty optional now!

I would really like to see what the status is on their alignment restrictions, like a few others in here. Beyond mechanics, one of the reasons why I wasn't particularly fond of the Monk in P1e was the fact that they had to be Lawful, and it would be a relief to hear if they were instead bound by anathemas that the player could choose, much like the Barbarian Totem anathemas but perhaps stricter.

I never really vibed with the notion that Lawful=Disciplined inherently, because it's entirely possible for Neutral or even Chaotic characters to be disciplined in regards to their physical and spiritual training.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?).

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.