|
JiCi's page
3,982 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.
|
pixierose wrote: Goblins literally have feats about bring pyromaniacs, being trash scavengers, and singing "annoying" songs. All things that i feel like show case their "flaws." Those aren't flaws IMO...
pixierose wrote: 1) some people do like the characterization of Kobolds as "whimpy" under-dogs. So having feats that reflect that characterization is fine especially since they arent the only ones. When were kobolds ever wimpy?
pixierose wrote: 2) the feats mentioned can simply be parts of tactics, a kobold can lean into whimper without it being a genuine aspect of their character. Playing up the sterotypes so that others may underestimate them. That's ONE interpretation though, because at its core, you fake weakness, because you can, not because you immediately trick the opponent afterward.
TheCowardlyLion wrote: … if you wanna play an overly confident kobold why would you take those feats? They’re not mandatory.
Swolbold Barbarians are really cool too.
Because some of the those feats could be beneficial gameplay-wise. These are attached to a very dumb "name" however.
keftiu wrote: JiCi wrote: I'm not talking about making kobolds OP, just NOT like Halo's grunts who run away after seeing Master Chief. They have draconic origins, but they're small. They're physically frail, but they are cunning. They are not accustomed to open spaces, but they can utilize small openings for traps. It's a great thing they have Feats for snares, slithering through tight spaces, adding the backstabber trait to their attacks, casting draconic magic, breath weapons, flight, natural attacks and venom, bonuses to intimidation and successful saves against fear... What Kobold character are you wanting to build that the current options don't let you?
For such a fan of Kobolds, you're choosing to only see the worst in them. There's more than enough support for a non-silly one as a PC. I'm not saying that they don't have the actual advantageous feats. I'm just saying that they have more flawed aspects that shouldn't be part of their characters, probably more than any of the core ancestries. I've found... one feat for elves highlighting their aloofness towards others... and zero feat for halflings highlighting their "laziness". Goblins don't get feats highlighting a huge flaw either.
If anything, one more reason I would love to see kobolds as a core ancestry is that they would get more support. For instance, halflings have 14 feats at 1st level, while kobolds have 9. This goes for heritages as well. I'm still waiting for a Wyvaran heritage for kobolds... that or a feat that makes a kobold Medium.
keftiu wrote: JiCi wrote: I just wish they made Kobolds less of a joke and more of a "pint-sized draconic powerhouse".
"Hey! Look! A tiny red lizard!"
*belches a cone of flames*
*joker turns to ashes
"Oh, I'm sorry, who's tiny now?"
Kobolds have like two silly feats. They’re not any more comical than the average Ancestry, and we’ve seen them be totally-sincere roles like diplomats and craftsmen in published content… on top of also being the Paizo union’s logo.
I see a lot of “I wish Kobolds weren’t jokes!” and very little of Kobolds being jokes, y’know? Then explain to me these:
Quote: Others Probably... Assume that you are cowardly and won’t stick around in the face of danger. Quote: Cringe: With pitiful posturing, you cause your foe to pull back a deadly attack. Quote: Scamper: You instinctively know how to flee danger. Quote: Ally's Shelter: In stressful circumstances, you find strength in your allies' example. Quote: Grovel: With obsequious words and begging gestures, you convince your foe you're less of a threat. which all goes against THIS tidbit:
Quote: If you want a character with oversized confidence, deadly cunning, and the ancient power of dragons flowing through their veins, you should play a kobold. What kind of "overly confident" character would fake weakness again???
- CRINGE should have been related to a Dragon's frightful presence, which would ASLO cause an enemy to recoil and "pull back" an attack.
- SCAMPER should be related to skirmishes, which would be in line with the kobolds' trap-making and "leading someone into it".
- ALLY'S SHELTER should be about a kobold's own draconic charisma to inspire in teamwork.
- GROVEL should have about mimicking how a dragon can be a smooth talker or an unpredicatble creature in order to feint.
I'm not talking about making kobolds OP, just NOT like Halo's grunts who run away after seeing Master Chief. They have draconic origins, but they're small. They're physically frail, but they are cunning. They are not accustomed to open spaces, but they can utilize small openings for traps.
If anything, goblins should be Pathfinder's own grunts, not the kobolds...
I just wish they made Kobolds less of a joke and more of a "pint-sized draconic powerhouse".
"Hey! Look! A tiny red lizard!"
*belches a cone of flames*
*joker turns to ashes
"Oh, I'm sorry, who's tiny now?"
qwerty3werty wrote: Paizo is not downsizing the number of dragons in Golarion. The previous named NPC dragons are not gone or retconned into something else. For the meantime they would exist as "an evil dragon that is blue" rather than "an evil blue dragon". The non-chromatic and metallic dragon groups are staying are we are getting a new group of dragons (2 each for each magic tradition) for the remaster. What I mean by "downsizing" is more that "Paizo doesn't use dragons this much, making them more unique and rarer".
SpaceDrake wrote: JiCi wrote: I'm just getting tired of NOT having a substitute for the Half-Dragon template. Okay, on this front: I'm afraid you're never, ever, ever getting that thanks to editorial tilt.
JJacobs, Erik Mona, and many other vets from the Dragon/Dungeon era got thoroughly sick of of half-dragons a long, long time ago. We are not going to see a half-dragon in print in an official Pathfinder book.
So I would absolutely not hold your breath for half-dragon anything. Here's my reasoning:
(using D&D 3.5 / P1E terms)
Half-Celestial? We got the Aasimar.
Half-Fiend? We got the Tiefling.
Lycanthrope? We got the Skinwalker.
Half-Elemental? We got the Geniekins.
Vampire? We got the Dhampir.
Half-Dragon? We got... nothing... absolutely nothing... not even Paizo's answer to WotC's Dragonborn.
We got Kobolds, which became wimpy cowards instead of cunning hunters specialized in traps with a deep hatred for gnomes, all while honoring their draconic heritage. We also got the Wyvarans, but as of today, they have yet to return.
That's why I wished Kobolds became a core ancestry, to FINALLY fill that gap. If Paizo also wanted to downsize the number of dragons in Golarion, there wasn't a need to nerf kobolds this much either. Finally, Dragonkins were made into a playable alien race in Starfinder, and it doesn't feel overbearing or more powerful than others.
For goodness sake, Kobolds became more available to players since WotC's Races of the Dragon, as it was revealed that Kobolds' alignments usually match their scale color, including metallic dragons.
Failedlegend The Eternal Gish wrote: JiCi wrote: Failedlegend The Eternal Gish wrote: dissapointed halflings didn't get a real name for their race like half-orc and half-elf but 2/3 ain't bad :D I think both "Kender" and "Hobbit" are trademarked names...
I would have replaced leshies with [not wimpy] kobolds...
For real, Paizo's denial of a draconic ancestry is seriously getting annoying... I meant a new one like Aiuvaren and Dromaar. If anything, "halfling" is as common as "dwarf".
I do hope that MORE "half-human" versatile heritages are added. I mean, how have we NOT get a gnome/halfling hybrid ancestry by now is beyond me.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Aaron Shanks wrote: JiCi wrote: Failedlegend The Eternal Gish wrote: dissapointed halflings didn't get a real name for their race like half-orc and half-elf but 2/3 ain't bad :D I think both "Kender" and "Hobbit" are trademarked names...
I would have replaced leshies with [not wimpy] kobolds...
For real, Paizo's denial of a draconic ancestry is seriously getting annoying... Well we get to publish a whole set of new dragons in March with the Monster Core and then we’ll see what happens. I'm just getting tired of NOT having a substitute for the Half-Dragon template.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Failedlegend The Eternal Gish wrote: dissapointed halflings didn't get a real name for their race like half-orc and half-elf but 2/3 ain't bad :D I think both "Kender" and "Hobbit" are trademarked names...
I would have replaced leshies with [not wimpy] kobolds...
For real, Paizo's denial of a draconic ancestry is seriously getting annoying...
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Arbalester wrote: Can we please have LESS weapons, not more? I don't understand why we can't just borrow the rest of PF2e's weapon system: Basic stats at level 1, apply bigger numbers at these given levels, can add other runes/fusions to add other features. That's what I hope.
Each weapon template could have slots for you to customize the damage type, output and traits.
Shocking Grasp should have been a cantrip, not a 1st-level spell.
Electric Jolt sounds more powerful than a cantrip IMO, especially if you can select one or two targets with it.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dubious Scholar wrote: JiCi wrote: Isn't acid used to stop regeneration (such as for trolls and hydras)... or was the rule removed? It may not be used for a weakness, but that's a good reason to use acid. It's a nonstandard weakness of those creature types, yes. However, in both cases fire damage also works. True, but... sometimes you have access to one, but not the other :P
If you prepared Acid Splash, but not Produce Flame, you still have a chance ;)
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Isn't acid used to stop regeneration (such as for trolls and hydras)... or was the rule removed? It may not be used for a weakness, but that's a good reason to use acid.
If you guys are removing Shocking Grasp as a usable spellstrike spell, could you add an Electric cantrip that does just that ^^; ? or make Electric Arc a ranged attack?
BTW, it's now a regular spell that drop a lightning bolt on someone's head.
MEATSHED wrote: JiCi wrote: The Raven Black wrote: JiCi wrote: Faemeister wrote: That's where I believe a considerable part of their class identity lies besides simply being the best at hitting things: feat selection and customization. If a fighter's identiy is "having none", I don't call this an improvement...
What's the fighter's equivalent of a barbarian's rage, a monk's ki powers, a magus's spell, a ranger's edge, a rogue's sneak attack and rackets, a gunslinger's way, a swashbuckler's style or a champion's cause? AoO for free from the start, early Legendary in a weapon group, fighting style feats, better proficiency at advanced weapons ... "Wow, I have a slightly better chance of hitting my target with my favorite weapon out of a 10-weapon group."
Riveting...
I'll gladly take a class feature at 6th, 12th and 18th level, where you add an extra damage die on your favorite weapon ON TOP of runes.
THAT's something unique and THAT's something that would make sense as weapon masters... I don't really see how extra damage on hit is any more interesting than extra accuracy. What if I told you that the Kineticist can deal up to FIVE damage dice with their blasts at 17th level? Combined with Weapon Infusion, it literally makes it slightly better than the Fighter.
Seriously guys, if the Fighter's gimmick is to be "better at weapon wielding than anyone else", there should be SOMETHING that blatantly demonstrates it.
Every other class has something to improve a fighting style that a Fighter might take, like how the Ranger may be special with archery, while the Swashbuckler may be special with free-hand.
The Raven Black wrote: JiCi wrote: Faemeister wrote: That's where I believe a considerable part of their class identity lies besides simply being the best at hitting things: feat selection and customization. If a fighter's identiy is "having none", I don't call this an improvement...
What's the fighter's equivalent of a barbarian's rage, a monk's ki powers, a magus's spell, a ranger's edge, a rogue's sneak attack and rackets, a gunslinger's way, a swashbuckler's style or a champion's cause? AoO for free from the start, early Legendary in a weapon group, fighting style feats, better proficiency at advanced weapons ... "Wow, I have a slightly better chance of hitting my target with my favorite weapon out of a 10-weapon group."
Riveting...
I'll gladly take a class feature at 6th, 12th and 18th level, where you add an extra damage die on your favorite weapon ON TOP of runes.
THAT's something unique and THAT's something that would make sense as weapon masters...
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
*inhales*
- Void element
- Vitality element... although... give it something that doesn't render it useless against living creatures
- A 2nd feat to add a 3rd energy type for each element using Versatile Blasts
- A 2nd feat to more weapon traits using Weapon Infusion
- Versatile Heritage feats related to kineticists
- Impulses that mimic spells, especially with the illusion/figment trait
- More composite feats, and push it to tri-elemental feats
- A composite feat that combines all SIX initial elements (Air, Earth, Fire, Metal, Water and Wood)
- Feats that combine but impulses and manufactured weapons, so you don't end up that screwed ^^;
- Golarion organisations of kineticists, like a band of outlaws or an order of apprentices
*exhales*
Sorrei wrote: In theory the Fighter is the Martial Counterpart of Wizard.
They are potentialy versatile, flexible and do what there name suggest fight. (Pls no Wizard Martial discussion, we have other threads for that)
Even then, you can specialize your spell list as you see fit, in addition of feats.
Sorrei wrote: But there flavor is more selfmade in nature.
Maybe this fighter is a Weapon Master from distant land or noble knight or squire of local lord.
The issue here is that you have a "brainless meathead" adventuring...
A knight or squire would be better as a champion or with the cavalier archetype.
At this point, the fighter would be better off with "having an archetype for free"...
Faemeister wrote: That's where I believe a considerable part of their class identity lies besides simply being the best at hitting things: feat selection and customization. If a fighter's identiy is "having none", I don't call this an improvement...
What's the fighter's equivalent of a barbarian's rage, a monk's ki powers, a magus's spell, a ranger's edge, a rogue's sneak attack and rackets, a gunslinger's way, a swashbuckler's style or a champion's cause?
Martialmasters wrote: In paizos words
"No need to mess with perfection"
Fighter is fine and is not being changed in pf2e
I... just wish it would receive focus spells that mimic maneuvers...
My weapon's damage die times (my level divided by 4) equals the fighter's equivalent of the cleric's Fire Ray... or the Swashbuckler's Lethal Finisher.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The fighter may be balanced, but I feel like it's missing unique class features to differenciate it from other martial classes.
Some will be quick to defend the Legendary proficiencies, but... what else?
Or they could add "a single target can only be affected by one attack"
I've seen this a few times.
Could the 2e edition make it that translation is now a common thing thanks to magic :P ?
Hey if there were weird glitches in the 1st edition, now's the time to fix them ;)
That's a term I haven't heard in years :P
I never expected translation to be a problem...
Were sci-fi TV shows and movies lying to us this whole time XD ?
I posted this on another topic, but I'd love to get modular weapons:
- take every single TYPE of weapon (sword, axe, doshko, pistol, assault rifle, sniper rifle, launcher, etc)
- start with a damage die
- give a number of "slots"
- fill those slots with extra range, increased damage, different damage type, critical effects, ammo count and other abilities
Say you have an Absalom Pistol, dealing 1d6 piercing points of damage, 30 ft range, 9 rounds, 1 shot/usage and 5 slots.
1) change from piercing to Fire (laser)
2) add Conceal
3) add 3 rounds to capacity
4) add 30 feet to range
5) add Burn 1d4 as a critical effect
Lord Fyre wrote: JiCi wrote: It sucks that it basically boils down to "renaming stuff and changing the rules 4 years in the 2nd Edition to avoid WotC's lawyers"...
When WoTc did it with 3.5 or even 3.75, it was to rectify some mishaps with the rules. However here, Paizo's doing this not to correct stuff, but to "clear their names". That doesn't mean that Paizo isn't trying to use the "opportunity" to correct stuff. Oh, if they can errata stuff, they can go ahead. It is a prefect time for that.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote: Having some people complain that changes are going too far and some complain that changes are not going far enough is a solid indicator that the amount of changes is just right. Don't go crying when Paizo removes your avatar, because they may fear that WotC could come after them for using a Bag of Holding, lifted straight from the OGL...
Aren't universal translators dirt cheap, if not given out to people like candies?
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It sucks that it basically boils down to "renaming stuff and changing the rules 4 years in the 2nd Edition to avoid WotC's lawyers"...
When WoTc did it with 3.5 or even 3.75, it was to rectify some mishaps with the rules. However here, Paizo's doing this not to correct stuff, but to "clear their names".
A chance to rework weapons...
I would love to have a customization aspect to them.
- Take every weapon type (pistol, assault rifle, sniper rifle, heavy cannon, sword, staff, axe, spear, etc.)
- Have them have slots
- Slap traits that affect damage input, damage type, range, critical effects and abilities
If I want a pistol that starts at 1d6 points of damage, deals both Piercing & Electric damage, at 60ft., with the Pulse critical effect, Analog, Operative and Professional traits, I should be able to do so.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Here's something worth mentioning:
Core Rulebook pg. 635 wrote: A target can't be under the effect of more than one polymorph effect at a time. You cannot have both the spider and wolf shapes. The wolf shape would prevent the use of the spider shape, but NOT vice-versa, because an afflicted lycanthrope WILL feel an urge to shapeshift, regardless of its actual form.
Reza la Canaille wrote: JiCi wrote: An anadi... can have the Beastkin Versatile Heritage... which comes with its own Change Shape ability... ON TOP of the anadi's own Change Shape ability.
If an anadi can also be a Beastkin, it surely can contract lycanthropy.
Now, could you MERGE the shapeshifting abilities to have a "wolf spider hybrid"? I don't think you can. A werecreature anadi would have its humanoid form, its spider form, the werecreature's animal form AND the werecreature's hybrid form, but not 2 or 3 at once ^^; There is a point where you just become a very confused wild order druid. One's your ancestry, one's your versatile heritage, one's your class and one's an unwanted and unfortunate curse... Those are all legit.
Wanna go further?
- An Anadi can have a spider hybrid form with Hybrid Shape, but it's now redundant with the Beastkin's primary Change Shape ability unless it's another creature than a spider.
- A Beastkin can have a full animal form with a few feats, but it's now redundant with the Anadi's primary Change Shape ability unless it's another creature than a spider.
- A Wild Order Druid has access to a plethora of shapes.
Basically, you could have...
- a Spider form with the Anadi.
- a Beetle form with the Beastkin.
- an Ant form wtih lycanthropy/entrotropy (wereant).
- whatever Tiny insect with Pest Form through Wild Shape.
- A Centipede, Mantis and Scorpion form with Insect Form through Wild Shape.
- A Wasp form with Soaring Shape through Wild Shape.
An anadi... can have the Beastkin Versatile Heritage... which comes with its own Change Shape ability... ON TOP of the anadi's own Change Shape ability.
If an anadi can also be a Beastkin, it surely can contract lycanthropy.
Now, could you MERGE the shapeshifting abilities to have a "wolf spider hybrid"? I don't think you can. A werecreature anadi would have its humanoid form, its spider form, the werecreature's animal form AND the werecreature's hybrid form, but not 2 or 3 at once ^^;
Sanityfaerie wrote: Gunsnake! You've seen Rango, haven't you :P ?
Ben Momentum wrote: This looks honestly amazing, I'm just sad there are no Pachyfolk, that's my to go ancestry and I've been at lost since coming to PF2E T.T That term is often related to elephants, rhinos, tapirs and hippos... but according to zoology, those animals have been recategorized.
- Proboscidea (represented among living species only by three species of elephants)
- Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates, including horses, tapirs and rhinoceroses)
- Suina (pigs and peccaries)
- Hippopotamidae
- Hyracoidea (hyraxes)
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
On a sidenote, I feel like each element should get TWO cantrips: an offensive one and a defensive/utilitarian one, that you select either upon picking the feat.
AIR: Deep Breath or Gale Blast
EARTH: Scatter Scree or Tremor Signs
FIRE: Ignition/Produce Flame or Illuminate
METAL: Detect Metal or Needle Darts
WATER: Draw Moisture or Spout
WOOD: Root Reading or Timber
I mean, that would help diversify your character options, outside of houseruling at least.
Ravingdork wrote: JiCi wrote: Elementally Infused... for Wood... you get Root Reading instead of Timber... when the other 5 elements get an offensive cantrip...
This HAS to be an error, right? Wood always was softer than metal. ;P At this point, it's a bad joke on the devs' part...
Elementally Infused... for Wood... you get Root Reading instead of Timber... when the other 5 elements get an offensive cantrip...
This HAS to be an error, right?
Why the Witchwarper instead of the Technomancer though?
That would be like having the Magus instead of both the Sorcerer and Wizard in an alternate playtest...
I'm surprised that the Inventor and Gunslinger weren't changed from Uncommon to Common by now.
If Golarion is entering an industrial revolution storywise, so be it, and those classes should be more common.
A Rare class, to me at least, should have a requirement, like "must have witnessed this event" or "must come from this region".
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My wishes:
1) SHINOBI, a mix of Arcanist, Brawler, Ninja and Samurai.
2) MYSTIC, a mix of Medium, Mesmerist and Spiritualist.
Driftbourne wrote: JiCi wrote: My major concern is that they'll wipe the slate clean and start over instead of converting everything for S2E...
We just got the Evolutionist as a new class, for instance, so I do hope that they don't remove it. There are only 13 classes in Starfinder, so no need to ditch some. The Evolutionist could benefit from the PF2e ancestry feats, part of the evolution process for the class could be at some level switch which ancestry they get feats from, or use their ancestry feat slots for some other type of transformative feats. Look, at this point...
- Make the Evolutionist a Biohacker's Field of Study
- Make the Witchwarper a specialization of the Technomancer
- Make the Precog a specialization of the Mystic
- Make the Nanocyte an archetype, because the nanomachines should be treated as gear, not a class.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote: JiCi wrote: Seriously, slashing 3/4 of the classes from P1E to P2E was brutal... Half of non-core classes were "This class exists because multiclassing the two parent classes sucks" and from the other half that had some design value, the best ones (Kineticist, Magus, Summoner) are already in. There's not much left to translate over, and the two new classes we're getting playtested in two weeks are going to be completely original. Let's see...
- The Inquisitor still hasn't been converted... and this is one big request.
- The Arcanist, Bloodrager, Brawler, Medium, Mesmerist, Ninja, Samurai, Shifter, Skald, Slayer and Spiritualist still haven't been converted into class-specific archetypes or similar.
Unless we get a new class that combines the Medium, Mesmerist and Spiritualist and another new class that combines the Arcanist, Brawler, Ninja and Samurai, we're still short of what we had back in P1E.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote: They’re not gonna launch with a 1,000 page book no Given that they may use the same writing style as P2E, with shortening down descriptions and such, I do expect all 13 classes and 15 ancestries to be available from the start. Seriously, slashing 3/4 of the classes from P1E to P2E was brutal...
Maybe they could make weapons more modular with adding and trading traits and damage types instead of having 4 to 5 versions of the same weapon.
My major concern is that they'll wipe the slate clean and start over instead of converting everything for S2E...
We just got the Evolutionist as a new class, for instance, so I do hope that they don't remove it. There are only 13 classes in Starfinder, so no need to ditch some.
What about Power Armors, which are similar to mechs?
Squiggit wrote: JiCi wrote: The diference is that non-cantrip spells are limited by their slots, while impulses are not. Yeah that's how they're designed. Which is something to be cautious of if they add new impulses.
If you give the equivalent of Mirror Image to an element as an impulse, it will be used way more often than the spell version, which isn't a cantrip.
You can customize one Mech with 2 or more pilots, pooling everyone's points.
The diference is that non-cantrip spells are limited by their slots, while impulses are not. If you give the equivalent of a 1st-level spell as an impulse that scales up, that's gonna be more powerful than its spell counterpart.
Balance would be required, but then again, it's not out of the question either.
|