Rat

Fuzzypaws's page

875 posts. Alias of Bug Underfoot.


RSS

1 to 50 of 875 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Hurká wrote:

Yes there might be a background that is more fitting for this character. I just pulled something out of my portable hole. I wasn't thinking too hard about the specifics :P

Maybe I should have said that my character is an inter-dimensional ferry runner and so it makes sense to get +2 to knowledge (planes). Maybe they run a ferry courier service between two hostile nations so it makes sense for them to have +2 Diplomacy instead. And on and on and on... It's easy to come up with backgrounds that don't fit a generic mold at all.

My example was to illustrate a general problem: No matter how extensive the list of stories and benefits to match, if those stories and their associated benefits are inflexibly attached to each other then there will always be large gaps in the stories people want to tell about their characters and the mechanic that underlies those stories.

Yeah, this is actually a good point. Hopefully every background will include some floating stuff, with some thematic suggestions for how they could be applied.

So maybe the Merchant has +2 Cha +2 float, and grants Diplomacy and a floating skill. Then has some suggestions for how those choices can be flavored as examples, such a suggestion that maybe picking Medicine as your Merchant's floating skill might mean you have a background as an apothecary, or picking Society might mean they are a courier or supply the masquerade craze among the Nobility of (insert city here).

I think providing examples like that in the book is useful, and can help get players' minds and imaginations going. As long as they are clear at the start of the Backgrounds chapter that the suggestions are just that - suggestions. :)


More specifically, Friday seems to be about Deities, with Domains being part of that. That's how I read it, anyway!

Currently hoping Monday is either Wizard, since everyone is very curious about it in the context of the Cleric rebuild, or Resonance, which is another big important topic we need to know more about to understand the context of other articles.


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 would like to see the the druid's anathema represented as taboos, which you select from a list of sample options that are (in theory at least) semi-balanced against each other. So, not using metal would be one of those taboos for tradition's sake. Another would be not touching a dead body, which would hamper them vs undead and lock them out of casting Reincarnate. And so on.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
They just talked about magic this Monday so it's probably the cleric, the least likely caster to be controversial. It was so bland in (core) PF1 that there is really nowhere to go but up.

I'll cop to being wrong about thinking the cleric blog wouldn't be very controversial... XD

Still a powerful class and still looks more powerful than the fighter and rogue to me, but man some of the opinions in that thread. Haha


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
You see, the Oracle has the potential to heal far more than the Cleric while at the same time having the ability to cast other spells if needed and thus prove to be more versatile as its healing isn't based off of Channel Energy.

Is there a misunderstanding about Channel Energy here? Because that's /bonus/ Heals per day, not the cleric's /only/ Heals per day. If the cleric wants to play healbot arms race with the oracle, the cleric can /also/ use spell slots to heal. And probably take the Healing domain with even /more/ healing.

But there is almost no circumstances under which even half of a full caster's spells per day past low levels should need to go into healing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
My one, big, huge gripe is still the Vancian spellcasting. That needs to DIE IN A FREAKING FIRE. Make the prepared spellcasters Arcanist neo!Vancian casting, give the sorcerer etc more options, just finally freaking ditch ye olde terrible og!Vancian system that everyone hates. Then I really will be all on board, and will happily call this take on the cleric superior to the original.
I love vancian spellcasting, many others love vancian spellcasting. Stop pretending that you speak for everybody. You don't.
I like Vancian spellcasting too, but isn't arcanist also Vancian? From what I know about Vance's books arcanist spellcasting is a closer fit.

Arcanist is still a form of Vancian. It's just a much better form than the kind we've been stuck with in the past.


Tangent101 wrote:

Small note: as written, I don't see how people aren't going to just dip one level into Cleric to gain access to the Channel Energy/Heal option and then play a Rogue or Fighter who can dish out healing. They'll get probably 4-6 Heals a day given that Charisma is going to be a fairly important stat for even non-casters, and seeing Channel energy isn't based off of Resonance, it would benefit the crew for probably until 10th level at which point they can probably just Retrain and eliminate Cleric as other abilities will be better suited.

Also, unless the Sorcerer/Oracle is nerfed to the point that it's unplayable, I still don't see how an Oracle won't be a superior healer than a Cleric. An Oracle with a 22 Charisma at level 12 would, even if limited to four castings of each Tier per day, have up to four Heal 1s, four Heal 2s, four Heal 3s, four Heal 4s, four Heal 5s, and four Heal 6s. Those Heals will be doing 2d6 times their Tier +6 each, so a potential of 168d8 of healing if they went full-time healing, while STILL having the potential to cast other spells if needed.

The Cleric won't max out Charisma. It would probably be no more than 18. That's 7 uses of Channel Heal or 84d6 of healing and then if they memorized more Heals they could boost it further but at a loss of versatility - meanwhile the Oracle remains versatile and could use those spells for other things if needed.

BTW, that's saying that the Sorcerer and Oracle are gimped to a maximum of 4 castings per Tier per day. It likely will be set at 5, at which point the Oracle's potential Healing ability is significantly higher as a result.

So. What's the point of playing a Cleric outside of waiting for the Oracle to be available? You're limited to 3 spells per Tier per day. You're forced to increase Charisma constantly to provide more healing. You're tossing away Class Feats to increase the number of Heals further OR wasting Spell Slots for more Healing while further limiting how much you can do otherwise.

Why limit the spells to the level...

You have across multiple posts complained about clerics having to healbot and complained that the cleric can't healbot enough and now proposed that someone should play an oracle as a healbot with all their spells per going into healing.

I am not entirely sure what your angle is.

Also if a /barbarian/ can with a few skill feats generally keep the party in good condition between fights, as they have been fond of pointing out, I really wouldn't worry about the /cleric/ somehow not providing enough healing.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

The more options you have, the more problems you have balancing those...

Wait... are you advocating for few options? In a Pathfinder game?

This confuses me too. Part of the whole reason we're here and (presumably) haven't abandoned Pathfinder for 5E is that Pathfinder allows more options and depth of character customization.


Hex works better for diagonals, sure, but not cardinals. It works better for wilderness but doesn't map well to the straight line layout of most buildings, cities, roads, ships and dungeons... the most common places for adventures to have combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smite Makes Right wrote:
What about for classes that don't typically channel energy, like a wizard? The reduced number of spells would be crippling.

We still don't know how the wizard works though. They could very well still get bonus slots for their specialty school, or even a better alternative to Channel that X times per day lets them cast a spell from their school without using a spell slot. They could have the ability to designate signature spells to cast with spell points instead of spell slots. They could just get more spell slots generally as their trade for having less HP and weapon / armor options. Way too many unknowns to get too worried yet.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:


The Cleric is akin to the Wizard.

Ehhhh not really.

Cleric has always filled this bizzarre design space between beatstick, healstick, and spellstick where it can do one, two or all three with relative ease in different ways.

(snipped)

Yes, really.

Look at the Wizard spell progression chart.
Look at the Cleric spell progression chart.

Outside of the fact the Cleric gets +1 to each because of Domain spells, they are identical. Now look at the Sorcerer and the Oracle Spells Known and spell progression charts. Guess what: they are also identical.

(snipped)

You've rather missed the point.

That both get the same number is meaningless. As both use their lists in radically different ways. It's like you pointed out that the paladin and barbarian are the same because they like their melee combat and throwing huge numbers at things.

While you are correct about how this will affect playstyle I feel this will impact the wizard a lot more as clerics have traditionally been able to go in directions that require minimum amount of spellcasting to be efficient.

In short you can't ignore the differences and tell someone to look at how one chart of numbers is the same as the other one.

You are ignoring what I'm saying.

This isn't just about Clerics and Wizards only getting a maximum of three base spells per spell tier.

This is about Clerics and Wizards only getting three spells per spell tier TOTAL.

Before I talked about level 12 Clerics. Now I'll look at your theoretical 12 level Generalist Wizard. She started with an Intelligence of 17. At level 12 she has an Intelligence of 20. She may very well have a Headband boosting Intelligence by +4 at this point, so her Intelligence is in fact a 24, which gives her two extra spells of first, second, and third level, meaning her spell selection is six 1st level spells, six 2nd level spells, six 3rd level spells, five 4th...

Again, for emphasis:

A. Rituals. These are where some of the utility is going to be, they don't take spell slots, they're just extra stuff you can do per day on top of your actual spells.

B. Cantrips. These are on top of your prepared spells. You can keep using them. We already know some, e.g. Shield, aren't just attacks, so there's a variety of stuff here and it can cover some of the utility too.

C. Domain powers / school powers / whatever. These are way beefed up over the equivalent powers you got as a 1st level whatever in PF1 and also scaled with your level, like cantrips. Except this blog says even more powerful than cantrips, closer to spells. So that's more options.

D. They said they're going to talk more about domains on Friday. Wanna bet that Domains still get associated spells, and you will be able to spontaneously cast into them? That seems pretty likely to me.

E. Channel takes the place of trading out your actual spells for cures, and options are stronger than the PF1 options.

Like, I get it. On the face of it, it's less spells. It probably actually is in practice too even with all these metaspells. But then again cleric and wizard were the two strongest classes. So it also makes since to pare them back a bit. They still look like they are going to be /very/ powerful.

My one, big, huge gripe is still the Vancian spellcasting. That needs to DIE IN A FREAKING FIRE. Make the prepared spellcasters Arcanist neo!Vancian casting, give the sorcerer etc more options, just finally freaking ditch ye olde terrible og!Vancian system that everyone hates. Then I really will be all on board, and will happily call this take on the cleric superior to the original.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh yeah ugh, missed the bit about the prepared spells. And this bit from the spells blog:

Spells Blog wrote:
Heightening a spell works much like it did previously, where you prepare a spell in a higher-level slot (or cast it using a higher-level slot if you're a spontaneous caster).

Don't do this to me, haha. We need prepared spellcasters to move to Arcanist spellcasting and for Spontaneous casters to be buffed in other ways. Teaching players new to casters how old-style prepared casting works is such a pain in the tail, and it's never been especially fun to play either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Indeed, we're eliminating the tyranny of forced (or pressured at least) conversion of the stuff you wanted into heals by giving you a bunch of free heals.

They're not free heals. They're Channel Positive Energy. It's what Clerics already had.

You took away several spells per spell level and said "look, you can heal using this mechanic (that Clerics already had), isn't it nifty?"

Oh, and you nerfed it by taking away the ranged aspect. So you can focus a channel positive energy or use one that is effectively two levels lower in power.

Ummm... how do you read the healing as nerfed? The Heal spell line is stronger than the old Cure spell line. And you can still use the longer casting time version of Heal when you are Channeling it, so the ranged aspect isn't gone.

This implementation gives you more flexibility - you can move, attack and heal, or cast a quick spell and do a ranged heal, or focus into the area heal.

Remember that in addition to the spells per day there are also cantrips, which can be used forever, and scale to keep up with your level. They're not as strong as your main spells, but they're still pretty decent, and I'm pretty sure there's going to be a variety of effects including utility, not just blasty stuff. You put the stuff that actually matters in your spell slots, and can lean into cantrips for mopping up mooks and taking care of basic utility.


For people concerned about damage output, we /really/ can't judge that without knowing how enemies are usually built in PF2 and what their HP and saves look like. Moreover, this is probably something they're already aware of as a concern and likely to be a focus of one of the playtest missions / surveys. I would fully expect them to be soliciting information about how the math works out and if Fireball, for instance, needs to have d8's instead of d6's and/or if it needs +3d per spell level instead of only +2d.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty good overall! I guess someone other than Mark is also allowed to write detailed blogs once in a while, haha.

I'm glad to see in Anathema something similar to what I've been recommending about a Code for classes dedicated to a deity. Now just add the Obeisances / Obediences from later PF1 books to give the class even more flavor, and we'll be good. :D

Confirmation of what we expected re classes giving a bonus to the relevant ability score, and this does seem to put the nail in the coffin for point buy being a thing. I kinda expected there would also be a floating ability bonus or two at this step, but maybe they just left that out, or the rest of the floating stats come in an as yet undescribed fourth step.

Interesting about the lesser number of spell slots. This is probably to counterbalance the fact that you can now use scaling cantrips and also have all those free heals. Works for me, though I'm still very curious about the actual execution of the 10th level spells. I can wait for that blog though. :)

I still don't like the name Spell Points. And I'm confused about Channel Energy using its own separately determined pool per day when the implication was that abilities such as that would be folded under Spell Points. Huh. I guess we'll need to see more for me to get a read on that.

I do like that healing or harming with your Channel is based on your deity, rather than your alignment!

I like the execution of metamagic adding actions to a spell, rather than spell levels. I would venture that you could potentially make a spell take two rounds to cast if you were willing to risk interruption and wanted to apply lots of metamagic? Just a guess. Looks like we were wrong about metamagic costing spell points, but actions works just as well.

Tying Turn and Command Undead to your use of the Heal or Harm spell makes sense, especially since Channel is changed to be focused on those spells.

One important thing - this article gives confirmation that you DON'T always get class feats at every even level. Some classes, like the cleric here, "break the rules" and thumb their nose at the supposedly universal class advancement table they've been touting. Considering how much they've been leaning into that, is that a good thing? Or maybe it's still universal and EVERY class does something other than a class feat at 12th and 16th? I guess we'll have to see.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It'd be nice if all the elementals were improved and given more flavorful abilities.

For example: the fire elemental. When it has fuel to burn, it should become more powerful, essentially getting a free self buff that doesn't take an action. It should also be able to control fire around itself and raise the local temperature. Stronger ones should have at-will ranged fire blasts.

The air elemental should be able to suck the air out of your lungs, should get stronger when the winds are up, and should automatically increase local wind speed by one step. Still air becomes a breeze, a gale becomes a hurricane. It should also count as an incorporeal creature for most purposes other than walking through walls, but be the most frail elemental. (Fire could be like this too.) Stronger ones should have at-will gust-of-wind or lightning blasts.

Earth elementals should get materially stronger in contact with earth or stone. They should be able to make the entire area difficult terrain for everyone but its allies. It should be able to collapse and reform elsewhere when on an earthen or stone surface (a trait the water elemental should also have on water or snow). Stronger ones should be able to heave chunks out of the ground to create a pit then throw those chunks like a giant.

Water elementals should have ooze defenses. They should get materially stronger in the rain or in contact with a body of water, and maybe should be able to constantly put water into the environment around them like a Decanter of Endless Water based on their tier. They should be able to envelop enemies and stronger ones should be able to shoot geysers at range.


Ilina Aniri wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Ilina Aniri wrote:


the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b$*%&!&$ creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.

instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Creatures should have immunities where it actually makes sense, where it fits their abilities, not just because they're an angel or demon and so are randomly immune to multiple different energy types and status effects they don't even use.
sorry, piling on immunities doesn't make a creature interesting. immunities are one of the most bland and boring abilities you can give, just as boring as resistances. unique reactions would be more engaging than flipping an on/off switch.

You realize I was basically agreeing with you, right? XD Flavorful reactions are good, less random immunities are good.

I'm just not hardline against immunity. I think immunities have a place. But they should be much less prevalent and restricted to creatures that actually heavily use the elements and status effects in question, or otherwise have a /really good/ justification for it. Such as oozes and swarms being immune to weapon crits and precision damage. Or a nightmare being immune to fire because it snorts fire and its hooves are on fire and its mane and tail are literal fire.


David knott 242 wrote:

One thing I can see them doing (assuming that humans get two floating ability score bonuses) is tie human ancestry feats to the selected bonus stat -- for example, there might be a "Natural Leader" feat that requires you to have applied one of your floating racial bonuses to charisma.

That's a fairly interesting and flavorful idea, and I could see that working well :)


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Ilina Aniri wrote:


the unique reactions could easily be beefed up to replace a lack of immunity to make things less easy. just because a highly dedicated Pyromancer can burn a fire elemental's fuel supply as a means to damage it doesn't mean your average generalist would have that option.
Fire elementals needing to have fuel supplies rather than just being amde of elemental fire would be a change I would not support.

See, there's finesse here too though. A fire elemental should not require fuel sources to /live/... But it should be able to /buff itself/ if it does get fuel. The same fire elemental summoned into a forest should be more terrifying than if summoned into the desert sands, and not just because of environmental collateral damage, because by actively burning fuel it will get stronger.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My big frustration with this thread is that I was hoping to finally get an article on Resonance as this Monday's blog. An in depth explanation of what is apparently one of the most important features of the new system. But now we're less likely to get it, because even have a single sentence about the Alchemist will apparently be decried as "alchemist bias" :|


I'm generally all for monsters having less HP and having more in the way of interesting abilities instead. I certainly hope that's the direction they go. It would help reduce the slog of higher level play.


As for other classes, I think we'll likely get all or at least most of the non-psychic base classes in some new version of the APG, and the psychic book will probably come out in a couple years instead of many years. The hybrid classes probably won't exist anymore, since (hopefully) the classes, archetypes, and multiclassing /should/ be built in such a way as to better enable such builds from the start.


An alternative to "Complication" with a long history in gaming is "Botch." It doesn't carry the full negative connotation of "critical failure" so should be less likely than "critical failure" to give people wild ideas about fumble tables. But it still conveys that idea of "worse than just failing."


I very much agree. I actually like bombs, but have pizza every night and you'll eventually get tired of pizza, you know?

I will be watching the wording of the alchemist's boosted damage ability, "exclude people from a splash" feat, and so on when they talk about it more or when the playtest book drops. If they all specifically say "bombs" I definitely WILL complain, in the hopes of having that changed to "alchemical weapons." Heck, even with what they've shown off already it should still be changed, because an alchemist should be able to boost the hit point damage that comes with poison in the new system.

I want Bottled Lightning to regain its original flavor. I want fireworks and weaponized roman candles to be useful. I want liquid blade to be able to make any kind of weapon, and for there to be a "+1 liquid blade" and "+2 liquid blade" and so on that come with the magic weapon multiplier. I want "bottled ooze" to be an item you can choose to learn to make rather than locked behind a class feature.

And I want new items too... at least I assume these are new since I don't have the Alchemy book. Things like caltrops or shuriken made of a solidified chemical that dissolve into acid when they pierce the skin, or powders with damaging and debilitating effects beyond just sneezing itching or poison (such as a powder of rusting perhaps?).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually really like Complication. It suits better, since for example, we already know an attack roll that critically fails doesn't actually fumble - it's only a miss, that happens to provoke relevant reactions. Which isn't really a critical failure. So count me in on that or a similar term.

From the Alchemy blog, the currently pending "Operate Activation" is terrible. Especially in the context of needing "3 Operate Activations" to apply poison to a weapon. Let's have a term that doesn't give people headaches, please. Why can't it just be "Operate Action"? Or even "Manipulation" since that isn't being used as a skill name to replace Bluff? Poison requiring "3 Manipulations" or "3 Manipulate Actions" or "3 Operate Actions" to get out and smear on a weapon sounds way better to me than "3 Operate Activations."


I definitely prefer the flavor of how PF2 is doing it to the flavor of how SF did it. When I think of scifi stories, I think of characters who are mostly keeping the gear they had near the start of their adventure, just getting better with it, occasionally tweaking and upgrading it without replacing it. When they do replace it, like Luke making a new lightsaber, it's a more personal item rather than a more powerful one. Han didn't go through a succession of better and better blasters, Worf doesn't have a better phaser than the rest of the security team.

The starfinder weapon system would be suited to, well, the world of Diablo or Destiny. But isn't really applicable to most stories.


LuniasM wrote:
2) Metamagic feats use a different cost than a spell level increase, such as a use of Resonance or Spell Points for example. This would allow them to make Metamagic really strong but also limited in daily applications.

I feel like this is both the most likely and most desirable outcome :)


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the double standard where an article having a paragraph on the wizard only counts as a fraction of an article, but an article having a paragraph on the alchemist counts as an entire article. ALCHEMISTS TAKING OVER THE GAME OMG

Seriously, there's 29 articles left to go as of this posting, more if they throw in some wednesday ones or if we count more inevitable interviews. There's /plenty/ of time to touch on stuff relevant to /every/ class /multiple/ times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilina Aniri wrote:
Talek and Luna wrote:

Yes, but those are poor examples because a fighter can do the same for weapons. What if I wanted to role-play Chandra Naalar from Magic the Gathering? All I want to use is fire. I can't because immunity to fire is the most common immunity in the game. If its unfair to punish a fighter because he overspecialized in swords than it should be unfair to punish my fire mage as well.

the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b$*%&!&$ creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.

instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Creatures should have immunities where it actually makes sense, where it fits their abilities, not just because they're an angel or demon and so are randomly immune to multiple different energy types and status effects they don't even use.


Cuttlefist wrote:

This would be amazing, having most monsters have some kind of drop listed and either a standard value or alchemical and crafting use. Like Goblin ears and their value being included.

And can we have the Ranger specialize in this? Like maybe favored enemy could yield bonus items harvested, or special benefits from these harvested parts that other classes don’t have. Like a goblin ear being used as a whistle that causes everybody in a small range to become flat-footed for a turn.

Or the Ranger is the only class that is able to harvest most items at all, I think that would be a cool benefit to having a Ranger in your party. Or at the least requiring levels in lore or nature for non-rangers to have access to.

I would think harvesting would be based on Lore or Nature, yeah. But the Ranger just being better at it would be a good part of their niche.


I would definitely be down for at least each weapon group (axes vs light blades vs polearms etc) having an intrinsic action associated with it, that you get once you're Expert in that group.

Probably best to leave it to groups if it makes it into core. Then when they inevitably do an Ultimate Equipment book, that's where they would have the space / page count to do alternate special moves for each and every individual weapon, if that was something people wanted to see.


I'm sure if a DM doesn't want magic weapons or magic armor in their world, it's easy enough to fold the benefits you would get from those into leveling. Like the damage multiplier from magic weapons at levels 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19. It's a lot easier to do it for just a couple items like weapons than to try to account for the whole panoply of necessary items in PF1.


I thought they said there are still free actions. Things like dropping a weapon, etc that don't actually take one of your three actions per turn.

I can definitely see it taking an action to "seek", if that's what it's called, to actively look at something and make an active perception check. But if you're just trying to identify a foe you can already see, I would think / hope that would just be a free action. When I look at a dog, I don't have to spend time processing that it's not a cat.

EDIT: I /guess/ I might be okay though if the free action only got you monster name, type and basic information, whereas taking an action got you more detailed information like strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully there would be a skill feat to then reduce that to a free action, though.


This is what I think of in terms of orcs.

Wayne's hobgoblin as presented in the article is a great starting point for distinguishing from that, and building type identity. Just, as before, it needs to not be an emaciated anorexic corpse. It may be female, but as an archer it should have the basic body structure of a female sports player.

Also agreed with Weather in that I actually did dig the quasi-Asian vibe hobs used to have going on. Helps distinguish them from the quasi-Celt/Hun thing of the orcs.


Polymorph.


CrystalSeas wrote:

"Classic"

Yeah, right. Classic objectification, classic male gaze, classic sexual harassment.

Sure, let's keep all that "classic" stuff. They're only drow women, they obviously don't matter.

Oh, you were "just joking"? So I shouldn't be upset?

That's pretty classic too.

No joke, and elf men and women don't even do it for me. Too... angular.

I just think it's an iconic image.

As for everyone else, yeah, ditch it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like pig-orcs with the /very/ specific exception of the Legend of Zelda series with Ganon and his moblins. But man, they definitely need to keep the tusks. It's one of the only things that distinguishes an "orc" from "generic cursed ugly humanoid."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except for drow. Some things are just classics~


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They have already said they're going to experiment with the Starfinder-style 3 issue AP in a year or two after PF2 is off the ground. So I imagine we'll have a quarter where it's a low level path, than a quarter that is a separate mid-high level path, with some ideas given for linking them together but with the stories technically being separate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is an inherent problem of monster-based XP. It's why I always use "progress"-based XP, that I award at the end of the session. Simple enough to calculate XP for a number of "encounters" of the party's average level based on how much or how little they "got done," regardless of whether they fought tons of monsters or didn't even get into combat at all.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'd really prefer they find a new word for bolt on and replace nothing "archetypes" (4e called these themes. If we're getting the mechanic might as well get the same as well. They were also a late in life addition so most Pathfinder players will have probably stopped playing 4e if they disliked 4e before themes came out so they won't necessarily make the connection). Keep archetypes for when they realise they need a way to replace core mechanics (which is what 3.5e eventually discovered and what Pathfinder immediately discovered).

Maybe they can add on to their A(ncestry), B(ackground) and C(lass) paradigm with a D: D(irection). This is the direction you are going to take your character. This can encompass something like your bolt-on path, or maybe also a choice built into the class like whether to be an Evoker or Enchanter wizard. It's what makes you different from another character of your race and class, and gives something for you to grow into over time.


29 blogs actually, if they keep on their Monday and Friday schedule. More if they occasionally post on Wednesdays again like they did originally, or if you include the occasional interviews like the one Jason did this week.

Definitely PLENTY of time to cover all the remaining classes and plenty of other stuff besides :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I'd like to see from PF2 is for the energy types in spells, items and monsters be more evenly distributed, and for special effects related to them to be more consistently applied. Is that something that can happen, please?

So say each energy type has consistent effects on a critical hit. For example, fire effects like a Fireball or a Flaming Weapon always inflict Burn. It's okay if non-damage effects for a given element are different from each such that they are weaker at lower spell / monster levels and stronger at higher levels, such as a lightning effect causing flat-footed at low levels and stun at high levels, as long as they're consistent about it.

Likewise, are there passive benefits to choosing effects of a given energy type? Does lightning always have a better chance to hit / inflict a penalty to saves when used against someone wearing metal armor? Does sonic/thunder/concussion/whatever damage always do more against constructs and objects? If these are things that always happen, we can build them right into the description of the energy types in the rules, instead of having to constantly remember to spell them out in every spell and monster description and then being inconsistent with all the times we forget.

And like I mentioned, have some more parity in all the non-fire energy types showing up more often this time. You shouldn't have to have sonic damage always being a die step lower and having weaker failed-save effects just because resistance to it is less common. If it's roughly as common as lightning or acid, and resistance to it is also roughly as common as resistance to lightning or acid, then it can operate at full equivalency to these other elements.

On the flip side, let's see less random immunities to elements. Bones get brittle in the cold so why the heck are liches just randomly immune to cold? Why are demons and archons immune to electricity? What about being an angel makes you immune to acid, cold and petrification? Who the heck knows? Let's clean this up and get rid of every random immunity please. Give resistances to individual creatures where appropriate but do not just build them into creature types and subtypes... with the obvious exception of the elemental subtypes like Fire.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A spyglass that doesn't cost 1000 gp to merely double how far you can see.


I'm definitely feeling them boosting cantrips for sorcerers. They could simply add a sub-entry to every cantrip,

Class Boost: Description goes here.

And do leave it as "Class" rather than specifically saying "Sorcerer." That way, you can put it on divine etc cantrips as well, and it would work with archetypes that also get it... or even with the Sorcerer, if they either have Advanced Learning to dip other spell lists or if their base spell list is determined by their bloodline (Divine for a Celestial bloodline etc).

This way, you can specify boosted effects for the non-damaging cantrips as well and sometimes do more unique boosts for blasting cantrips, rather than just saying "Sorcerers raise the damage die of damaging cantrips by one step." Maybe when the Sorcerer casts the Detect Magic cantrip, they get all information immediately instead of having to wait 3 rounds, making it more useful in combat. Maybe when the Sorcerer casts the Shield cantrip, they get one free reaction for the Shield to block for them instead of having to use their own reaction. Etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
So Animate Dead using souls to Animate skeletons is optional too?

If they want to actually put that in the rulebook and not in an obscure forum post, and come up with some kind of hecking good explanation of why this is evil but binding an elemental into a golem against its will in an "And I Must Scream" situation somehow isn't evil, they can knock themselves out.

Until then, Jame's explanation is a handwavey attempt to justify the copy-pasted 3E descriptor, and will be suitably mocked.


KingOfAnything wrote:
We haven't seen much of anything about backgrounds yet. As I understand them, they represent the strongest influence of your upbringing. I think that being adopted would have a stronger influence than whether your dwarf parents taught you blacksmithing or brewing.

For most adopted people I know, it was basically irrelevant to their life. Everything else mattered more. Only Hollywood makes adoption into this huge crazy deal.

Bear in mind, being raised in a different culture or with a ton of exposure to a different culture doesn't even have to mean you were adopted. Maybe you grew up in Elfland because your parents are diplomats posted there as ambassadors. Maybe you live in the town right at the border of Elfland and there's friendly relations, so it's fairly regular for elves to spend lots of time in Humantown and for humans to spend lots of time in Elfland.

TLDR: There's lots of reasons for this sort of thing to not have to consume your background slot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:

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 is 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.

This is a concern for me too, and I noted it in the main alchemist thread. I want alchemical bombs to be useful to a fighter even at level 15-20. It's really the bombs that this feels like an issue with, since at least everything /else/ seems to scale... At least, I sure hope so!

Rather than this multiplier thing, I would rather there are just /better bombs/. There can be a bomb that is just 15d6 damage. Then the alchemist, instead of getting an outright multiplier, gets bonus dice like PF1 or like a rogue with sneak attack. That way, the alchemist (or any bomb-focused archetype of another class) can be the best at bombs... But they're still good for everyone else!


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Here's something I haven't seen anyone post: Poison being more fully developed in the game will help give Rogues (and maybe even some rangers) something unique that they can do that more martial and magical classes can't do as well.

Yeah, I'm really stoked about this! Especially if the listed save DC is just a baseline and improves for a higher level user, and if we get a LOT of poisons, and if they're relatively affordable.

That last one is key, poisons in particular in PF1 were way overpriced. Someone made a concerning comment earlier that the 5 gp you see above is actually equivalent to 50 gp in PF1. On the one hand, great, I've wanted / houseruled the base monetary unit of the game to be silver for quite a while. On the other hand, don't just keep the ridiculous prices from PF1 and divide them by 10. I want them to really re-examine what stuff is actually worth, so they don't price basic but useful things out of reach.

Wandering Wastrel wrote:


One question I do have that I don't think has been answered: some of the bombs seem to have additional effects - like the bottled lightning making its target flat-footed.

Does that allow a save, or is it an automatic effect if the bomb hits?

Does it apply to anyone hit by the splash damage as well? Honestly, if there's a rogue in the party then I wouldn't even care if the splash damage is only 1 if it makes them flat-footed.

As I've mentioned before, I want bombs to be actual area weapons, and for splash damage to be half damage and not 1. I think rather than actually being normal thrown weapons like a dart using an attack roll, they should just use Reflex saves, but with a DC based on 10 + your ranged attack bonus.

This way, you can even apply any range penalties that would normally affect a thrown attack at a given distance to the save DC. If throwing would give -2 to the attack roll, that is -2 to the save DC.

I've already seen someone whine that they don't want to hit their allies. Tell that to the blaster wizard and watch them laugh and laugh and laugh... It is a single feat to get rid of that. Seems like a pretty good deal to me, if your party set up is such that you would be throwing into melee a lot. And if your party is mostly ranged, you don't even have to take that feat!


totoro wrote:
If you put the 100 greatest ideas in a game, the game might suck because the greatest ideas don't work well together. I think that is the fundamental reason why game designers only expose pieces of it to the public. They can't spend all day sifting through feedback.

This is very true. You can have systems that control their one thing flawlessly in a way that everyone loves... But then they either don't work with the rest of the game system, or by keeping all these disparate systems you make the rules impossible to learn / remember for the average person. Part of the compromise of game design is trying to find a best fit solution that models everything as well as you can get it while still being manageable in the context of everything else.

1 to 50 of 875 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>