Wizard

Joe M.'s page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,592 posts. 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 13 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,592 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade **

John Compton wrote:
You can now download the pregenerated characters off the Pathfinder Playtest page (see the bottom of the page near the scenario download links on the right).

This file only seems to include: Alchemist, Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer. (Each at level 1 and level 5.)

Is that intended, or will we be seeing pregens for all classes?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:
Malthraz wrote:

My first session was awesome.

I generated characters for 3 of my players, the final player made their own.

Also, your wife sounds like a charming lady.

That is what I did for 4E- made the PCs for the players as I had DDI.

Your idea may not be a bad. Make the characters for the players and get them playing.

The recently-released pregenerated characters (found HERE) might also be a good way to have a first session or two just to get the rules without messing around with character creation. That way, when you sit down to create characters of your own for the first time you have some more context.

I definitely agree that opening up the book and just creating a character, without knowing the system in advance, is pretty confusing right now. (Erik Mona was posting to this effect yesterday, too, so I know this is very much on Paizo's radar!)

Zardnaar wrote:
And then we got to the actual Rogue. And this is where things fell apart. Put simply there is a lot of moving parts in PF2. She had to go and read the class feats, then the feat section and the skill section, then cross reference everything if required. One could actually see the enthusiasm die. Note she is an ex 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder player, currently she likes 5E but will play OSR games if that is what I want to play.
Zardnaar wrote:

That may actually happen. We handled the complexity of 3.0, 3.5 and SWSE fine though, 4E's complexity was not the reason we stopped playing that.

It doesn't drastically bother me to much I want something with more complexity than 5E, but without the math problems of 3.X and 4E.

Complex moving parts are fine, complex fiddly math not so much.

I'm curious to hear more about what specifically tripped yall up. Was it just the learning curve? You say that you've played 3.X and PF1, but those seem a lot *more* difficult—is the difference just learning a fiddly new system for the first time?

As a 1st level Rogue, when you get to the class part, you need to pick: 1 class feat (out of 4, listed right there) and 1 skill feat. What about those two selections was so enthusiasm-killing? How might that problem be addressed?

For the second quotation, what "complex fiddly math" was involved in character creation that was un-fun?

I recently had a session-0 with three players, all of whom have some PF1 experience but not too much. I have my own thoughts on the "speedbumps" in the character creation process (which does seem like it could be improved for new players, for sure!), arising from their experiences and feedback, and will be writing those up in my playtest thread when I start one to organize my thoughts.

(E.g., I think one of the biggest problems right now is equipment/gear selection. You've gone through and made all of these choices and then ... here's 150sp and a long list of adventuring gear. Who wants to go through and think about lamps and rope at that point? Nobody! it's just un-fun. My players took one look at that and said, "can we just skip this and get to playing?" So we did. It would be a huge help to list a few premade adventuring bundles/kits so a new player can pick a weapon, pick an armor, and grab a kit and go. They can worry about a la carte shopping later, if they want to. But right now it's a major speedbump for a new player trying to create a character.)

Silver Crusade

Bruno Mares wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Nice to hear that!

If possible, also keep in mind that the gear selection is hard to new players and boring/annoying to experienced players (beyond armor and weapons, everything is boring to have to choose). Since I can remember, this is the worst part ever in character creation.

Since the beggining of PF1 beta (actually, since D&D 3.0), as a GM I always had to create "basic kits" that cost a predefined amout of gp, with a predefined weight, with "all the basic, needy items to survive" to my players buy and "just write down" in their sheets. Otherwise, the character sheets always resulted with a big blank, empty items section.

Yes!!! x1000.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Oh, that's great to hear. I had a first session this week with three players who have just a little PF1 experience, they all found the presentation of character creation to be confusing. (And without the context of having read months of preview blogs I probably would have been kinda lost too!)

Silver Crusade

Joana wrote:

Or put that table on the GM screen. :)

Hey, am I right that there's no penalty for shooting into melee in the playtest rules? I didn't see it anywhere, but I certainly haven't read the book cover to cover.

1. A few weeks ago, Mark referred to the DC table as something that "certainly" would be on a GM screen.

2. Correct, no penalty for shooting into melee per se, just the possibility of screening.

Silver Crusade

MMCJawa wrote:

I watched the Twitch last night...really a good chunk of that is wroth watching if you want spoilers, since not only do they list 5 (and a 6th later on) things that will be in the errata document, but during the question and answer period They also provide strong hints on future other possible changes. It's about an hour and 15 minutes, and at least a half hour if not more of that is relevant to confirmed errata and things they are considering.

For instance, they mention they are likely to address concerns with ancestry being barebones at the start, and signature skills, the latter by perhaps dropping them entirely. Also they are considering some changes to how bows work.

It's about an hour and 15 minutes, and at least a half hour if not more of that is relevant to confirmed errata and things they are considering.

Great, thanks! Glad to hear about ancestries and sig skills, looking forward to watching the full thing.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Beast Weener wrote:
vestris wrote:
rknop wrote:
Erik, a request: please don't have crucial updates and explanations only on a video feed somewhere. Text is faster to process, and far easier to refer back to or point somebody else to. You can also skim it if there are parts of it that aren't relevant to what you're looking for. Having to watch video to get crucial information is just too time-consuming.
The twitch thing is just a weekly spoiler for said document.
Be nice to have a brief summary or time code for the rulesy stuff, though, for those of us chomping at the bit. But really, I’m more interested in what the format of these updates is going to be. If there are a significant number of new changes even every month, iterative errata style updates would become a bit difficult to keep up with.

In addition to the Twitch streams, Paizo folks have mentioned forum posts, blog posts for more centralized announcements, and an errata PDF that's already in the works.

As for the Twitch videos, I agree that a time-stamped summary is helpful. I made a few of those for some of the preview Twitch streams and hope to do the same for the Playtest streams. (Alas, I'm traveling this weekend or would be going through the first one today.)

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MidknightDiamond wrote:
I also find it funny that people continue to argue that there's not enough "options" but this isn't even the final release, it's a playtest. It's a sample of all the potential and not meant to be every possible option ever - quite the opposite, it's a framework to make sure that they can spend the next ten years (give or take) easily adding in more options for people that will add flavor, expand possibilities, and extend the horizons of their game.

If this part was in response to my post, allow me to elaborate the nature of my "character options" worry.

(1) Yes, it's a playtest. And where the worry is "not *enough* options" (and it is, in places, with a pretty small number of feats to choose from at different points), your point is apt: that we should probably expect, e.g., more class feats in the final Core Rulebook and more options as the new system expands.

(2) This, along with the reasons below, are a big part of why I ended my post saying that I'm looking forward to hearing Paizo's engagement and response to playtest feedback. I'd like to know what they're hearing and what they're eyeing to change and/or build out for the Core!

(So, e.g., I was very excited to see Jason hint in a recent post that he'd like to release more multiclassing archetypes *during* the playtest—that's a major area where a raw lack of options is hurting us right now, and I'd love to see how character building feels with a full suite of multiclass options.)

(3) But my main concern is not "there aren't enough options to select right now", and your post doesn't address my main concern. What I'm worried about arises from the combination of a set list of class talents and the change away from PF1 archetypes (and multiclassing) meaning you can't customize that set list in any way. This combination has the unfortunate result of making classes very restrictive: want to play a light-armored, bow-wielding Paladin? You're out of luck: all of your set class features are built around heavy armor, a shield, and a melee weapon. Want to play a light-armored Fighter? Too bad, your light armor proficiency never advances. Want to play a Strength Rogue? Too bad, your class is built for Dexterity builds.

(4) So yes, part of the concern could be addressed by more class feats (e.g., a couple basic archery feats for each martial class). But (A) that doesn't fix the problem identified above of the straightjacket imposed by unalterable class features, and (B) there you start to run into the problem of, do you really want to reprint the same feat for every martial class? (Maybe you do, that's a layout question, but it is a question.)

(5) So really what I'm *most* interested to hear from the designers about is whether they like that inflexibility in classes (oh, just build a Fighter multiclass Cleric if you want a bow-wielding Paladin, just build a Fighter/Rogue if you want a Strength Rogue!), or if it's something they intend to address going forward.

Personally I would be pretty dissatisfied if the designers decide to keep classes with such an inflexible "spine" that locks you into some build/play styles and keeps you away from others. (This is mostly a problem for non-spellcasters, I guess—spellcasters just select different spells—but it's annoying to think that one martial class just can't use some types of weapons. I just don't see why Paladins should be locked into sword & board melee heavy armor. That doesn't make any sense to me. If I want to play a Paladin of Erastil shouldnt I be able to use my god's weapon?)

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
Palidian wrote:


Lots of people on these forums have been expressing concern about the market demand for PF 2e and where exactly the new edition will fit into the rpg world. And thus far, the standard response from Paizo staff has been "The people at GenCon loved it!"

That's actually not completely accurate. While it is true that the general reception of actual play of the new system at Gen Con was largely positive, that has ALSO been the case at the GAMA Trade Show, the Origins Game Fair, and UK Games Expo. Which is to say "everywhere people have actually played the rules, the response has been generally favorable."

So it's not just Gen Con, even if that's the convention we were all at and up to our eyeballs in when the books dropped.

Thanks, as always, for the thoughtful engagement on the forums. This bit shook loose something I'd been pondering. Had my first playtest session this week (running for three players, who have a little but not too much PF1 experience). All four of us *loved* the basic engine of the game. Very excited with how it played.

But the parts that have had me worried and feeling a little dissatisfied when reading the rules and putting together characters have all had to do, not with the basic game engine, but with the current character options. (Mostly how class locks in so much that you can't make "against-type" characters, and "type" can be pretty restrictive—e.g., Paladins use heavy armor and shields, period.)

It occurs to me that these dissatisfactions wouldn't necessarily be surfaced at conventions, where folks are playing with pregenerated characters and can't see the full system. So you'd get a lot more of our "oh wow we love this game engine" and not the other part. This may explain some of the apparent disconnect between con reactions and some of the negative feedback now that the game's out.

(Similar with the preview blogs, which showed a lot of things to be excited about but couldn't give the perspective to see how limiting the classes might feel.)

The great thing here, I'd think, is that character options are probably much easier to change than the engine. So if that's in good shape the game's on a great track already!

So I'm looking forward to hearing more from the design team and everyone else responding to playtest feedback going forward. (I haven't had the chance to catch today's Twitch stream yet but will soon.)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
We're at 99.3% of orders shipped, and of the remainder, all but 7 are "fully prepared but haven't yet left the fulfillment center."

Guess I drew a very short straw then, because I just got these emails from Paizo customer service:

Customer Service wrote:

Dear Joe,

Thank you for your Pathfinder Playtest order! Unfortunately, we have learned that Amazon Fulfillment was unable to ship this order.

We are sorry for any inconvenience with that. A replacement order has been set up to ship directly from our warehouse. Contact us ASAP if you would prefer to cancel it.

Customer Service wrote:

Shipping Method

Standard Postal Delivery
Estimated 4 to 8 business days in transit
Package Tracking
Originally expected to ship in 1 to 7 business days

If I'm counting right, this replacement order would arrive between August 17th to August 31st? No thanks! You'd think the least you could do at this point would be to overnight the dang thing. What a horrible experience. :-/

I've canceled with customer service and placed an order with another retailer that's promising me delivery Monday or Tuesday. Should've done that when this whole fiasco started.

Silver Crusade

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
velwein wrote:
Overly complicated, while I've played my fair share of rpgs. New players might look at all these options and be overwhelmed. There is so much to choose from, that and when you add supplements?

Actually, one of the goals is to simplify these options in some way. Take a look at P1 now. Not only does it have an abundance of options that can be overwhelming to new players there are more silos for those options.

Personally, I have found that newer players have no problem with the current range of silos and find it much easier to navigate them than the current mix of feats, racial traits, talents, powers, spell-like abilities, traits (and the various sub-categories of those), exploits, evolutions, mysteries, and so on.

Of course, my observations, while broad, are anecdotal, and hence the reason why we are doing this playtest. Thank you very much for the feedback. It is appreciated.

Made characters with three less-experienced players last night. They all appreciated the clear "pick one of this list" option selection and had found PF1 very overwhelming.

That said, as a more experienced player I found the class-gating of some basic combat styles to be pretty frustrating: I wanted to make a ranged Paladin and quickly realized that there's no great way to make that work (I'm not saying, oh no it's not optimal, I'm saying, from a quick read it looks like I'd lack basic archer functionality and a ton of my main class features that I can't select out of just wouldn't do anything for an archer concept). Even the bow ranger I ended up with I was forced into an animal companion, against the concept I wanted going in, because the other options were worse fits (or, in the case of the monster ID feat, which I was going to take, it just seemed incredibly weak as a mechanical choice).

Silver Crusade

Joana wrote:

We found all the ability boosts in character creation hard to keep up with. It feels like you don't really know where you want those extra +2s until you've added all your fixed boosts, but then you have to go back and figure out where the extra boosts came from so you're not putting them into the same ability scores as the fixed ones from that level. Also, the character creation walkthrough on page 11 seems to skip over the four free ability boosts altogether. I only found them when I thought the scores we were ending up with didn't look as high as the characters I'd seen generated in some of the preview threads.

I let my kids distribute their boosts as they chose, with only mild reminders of what their classes' key abilities were. I was totally inwardly cringing at my son's decision to go with a 14 Cha and 12 Con, although he's thrilled with his first-level Raging Intimidation feat, and my daughter didn't put any points into Wisdom, despite the fact that she took the Keen Hearing ancestry feat. I view this as a chance to see if the playtest rules are more forgiving than P1e rules to non- (anti-?) optimizers.

In all, character creation for two newbies took probably three hours from sitting down with character sheets and pencils to finalizing purchases. There was a lot of flipping around pages and PDFs around the ability boosts. I should note that my husband, experienced gamer and noted micromanager, is still flipping around the PDF as I type, trying to find exactly the right options for his PCs. We'll see to what extent the PCs that were agonized over outplay the ones that were put together on a whim.

All of this is very similar to my own experience. Just had some friends put together characters, they all have some but not a lot of experience with PF1. Took 3 hours, they found it kind of confusing and not very well explained (all three of them missed the four floating ability boosts and found the different steps of ability score generation confusing, for the reasons you discuss), lots of flipping back and forth (especially for ability scores and even more so for spells).

Also noticed the lack of space on the character sheet for extra senses or for Lore specifications that you point out below. (And I'd add, the AC area doesn't have space set aside for shields, which annoyed my husband who was building a sword & board fighter.)

Silver Crusade

Paladins who want to play any style that's not heavy armor sword & board are my current frustration.

This seems inevitable in the current class system.

One possible solution would be to create a pool of basic combat feats that any character could select as class or general feats. As it is, a ranged Paladin has the unappealing option of taking Fighter dedication (granting her nothing) and then spending additional fighter multiclass feats to get see basic stuff. Why not let the basics be available to anyone?

Silver Crusade

Try this one: LINK

Silver Crusade

Steve Geddes wrote:

Sounds like the forum for the Chicago Manual of Style is where people should bring this up.

Paizo can't run around to every employee/contributor/freelancer and explain what their specific policy is on every contentious issue (and is there anything more contentious than grammar?) They point to the Chicago Manual of Style and say "follow that".

It's pretty easy to see the advantages of such an approach (even if the cost is that from time to time one adopts an approach that would otherwise be avoided).

I guess the other approach here would be to suggest an alternate style guide for Paizo to adopt, but I daresay The Chicago Manual of Style wasn't chosen lightly.

Do you really think that Paizo does *not* have an internal style manual for writers? I would be *shocked* if they didn't have one. For example, the Playtest rules consistently refer to a generic GM with she/her/hers pronouns. That's a consistent style choice. Chicago won't answer that. So presumably it and others are witten down somewhere.

Silver Crusade

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

There are rules that we are using internally to create monsters, but they are much more like those in Starfinder than the ones in Pathfinder 1st edition. All and all, I have found using them make my life as a GM immensely simpler, especially when working on the fly in the middle of an adventure.

For example, when running Crypt of the Everflame for charity at Gary Con, my players decided to explore the lake in the beginning of the adventure, the one that contains a giant snake. Not having the stats on hand, I was able to create a snake using the new guidelines, including giving it special attacks and actions, in about a minute. Now, I know I have more expertise than most in that regard, but that is a huge step up from 1st in terms of time and utility at the table.

Of course, as always, this system is also open to review and your feedback.

Are there plans to release this system externally for the purpose of gathering that review & feedback? (Or is it in the GM materials already released? I haven't read those yet.)

Silver Crusade

Vic Wertz wrote:

We follow the Chicago Manual of Style. The playtest materials were prepared under the 16th Edition guidelines, which recommended against using "they" as a gender-neutral singular possessive pronoun.

This past September, they released the 17th Edition, in which they have relaxed their attitude on this in speech and informal writing, though they do still recommend avoiding it in formal writing.

This raises an interesting question of whether the standards for formal writing are the right standards for game rulebooks. My impression of the playtest rules is that they're a bit more relaxed, perhaps, than the PF1 rules. (More contractions and other casual language was my impression, but I don't know if that's really the case.)

(Separate from the question of whether the standard is the right one in this case. I go back and forth on whether I like the generic singular "they" in formal writing.)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I will add that the claim about newspaper and magazine writing pervasively using a generic or indefinite singular "they" does seem a bit too strong.

For example, about a year ago the AP stylebook recognized the singular "they" for folks who use it, but cautioned strongly against the use of the singular "they" as a generic pronoun. See here:

Quote:
They/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and/or gender-neutral pronoun, when alternative wording is overly awkward or clumsy. However, rewording usually is possible and always is preferable. Clarity is a top priority; gender-neutral use of a singular they is unfamiliar to many readers.

If the AP stylebook is representative (which seems like a reasonably fair assumption), your impression of the state of newspaper and magazine writing may be a bit ahead of the curve.

Silver Crusade

Madame Endor wrote:

We don't need to use (and few people in formal settings do use) gendered pronouns for nonspecific people anymore.

I do technical writing as a part of my job, and no writes like that either, nor does anyone write like that in most other non-fiction writing, including newspapers and magazines.

. . .

It's not necessary to apply a gender to something or someone when the gender is unknown. Most of the English speaking world doesn't do it. It doesn't need to be in the rulebook either, and it's somewhat ridiculous when people read it.

I can see lots of good reasons to go with the genderless singular "they" as a generic pronoun in the ruleset. It does have some small cost here or there (primarily in circumstances contemplating two generic figures, e.g. the GM and a player, where gendering the pronouns can help keep clear who is who in the example). But I doubt that cost outweighs the benefit.

I will say, however, that I was taken aback by the above claims about how pervasive the genderless singular "they" is in professional settings and formal writing ("few people", "no one", "most of the English speaking world"). These claims do not at all track with my own experience. Of course, the empirical question (how common is it?) isn't really what's important here. But I was taken aback to see such strong claims in that regard that felt so off to me. Sounds like your experience has been very different from my own (likely a function of geography and/or specific professional field, I imagine?).

Silver Crusade

Very nice. Does this include the backgrounds from Doomsday Dawn?

Silver Crusade

I'm also wondering about No Escape. Especially with abilities like Raging Athlete or the dragon wings that grant alternative movement, it seems less than great to have that ability limited to land speed. (I believe that restriction to land speed only comes from the Stride action itself, but would have to double check.)

Silver Crusade

Build idea: whip-wielding Fighter using the grab feats

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Texas Snyper wrote:
Yes they are retroactive. It's a terrible place to have it but the magic item quality potent addresses that.

Okay, thanks. Potent (p. 345) definitely suggests that ability boosts to Con and Int from leveling up *should* be retroactive. But (of course) that does need to be put in the actual leveling up/ability boost rules!

Silver Crusade

GRuzom wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

There appears to be an inconsistency regarding the Ranger's Key Ability Score.

In Table 1-2 (p. 13), the Ranger's Key Ability Score is listed as Dexterity or Strength.

But in the Ranger class description (p. 113), the Ranger's Key Ability Score is listed only as Dexterity.

(This matters, of course, because the Key Ability Score determines the class-based ability boost in character creation.)

Guess devs are all busy at Gencon now? But does anyone know the answer? (anyone from Paizo that is - the rest of uss can only make guesses.)

Yeah, I'm sure that we won't be hearing from the designers till after the con. That's understandable! Unfortunately, nothing in the Ranger preview blog answers the question. So we're left wondering for now.

Silver Crusade

In PF1, raising Con or Int as you leveled up had retroactive effect, granting additional hit points and skill ranks as if you had enjoyed the higher ability score from level 1.

But I don't see anything to that effect in the Playtest rules.

Is that correct? Are the benefits of these increases only prospective, not retroactive?

If so, that significantly affects character planning, making it much more valuable to invest in Con/Int at level 1 and "catch up" your other scores later. For that reason, I'd prefer that the ability boosts do have retroactive effect.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

I'm generally concerned about how class choice locks you into specific play styles. Want a Paladin who *doesn't* go for heavy armor and a shield? Congrats, you're wasting a big chunk of your class features. (This one inspired by my desire to create a spear-wielding fighter and trying to think about how each martial class would handle it.)

Especially since you can't swap out core class features with archetypes, and can't multiclass away from or retrain out of your initial class choice, the spine of your character is completely fixed, and has built in some pretty specific choices. And this is everywhere! Key ability score, signature skills, class features. It feels pretty restrictive coming from PF1.

Yeah. Paladins and Fighters both being basically forced into Heavy Armor is seriously weird and concept damaging. I'm very against it, and will be going into it in my eventual 'Classes' post in this thread. It's one of a few such things.

Yeah, I just noticed that about the Fighter, too. You don't even get medium and light to match the heavy! You're just flat worse off if you want to play a lightly-armored Fighter. :-/

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm generally concerned about how class choice locks you into specific play styles. Want a Paladin who *doesn't* go for heavy armor and a shield? Congrats, you're wasting a big chunk of your class features. (This one inspired by my desire to create a spear-wielding fighter and trying to think about how each martial class would handle it.)

Especially since you can't swap out core class features with archetypes, and can't multiclass away from or retrain out of your initial class choice, the spine of your character is completely fixed, and has built in some pretty specific choices. And this is everywhere! Key ability score, signature skills, class features. It feels pretty restrictive coming from PF1.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

The Adopted Ancestry feat, as written, seems to stymie rather than support many adopted-PC stories.

Because it is a general feat that does nothing other than give you access to ancestry feats of your adopted culture, the earliest any PC can take it is 3rd level (or 1st level if Human using the General Training human ancestry feat)—and then the earliest a character can actually take an ability or feature from their adopted ancestry is 5th level. That doesn't make much sense to me: if a character is raised by Dwarves and trained in Dwarven weapons, shouldn't she be able to use those weapons from level 1?

The feat is also just pretty disappointing in general: a feat that lets you take another feat two levels later. It might only really make sense if you retrain into it at the same time as taking an ancestry feat from the adopted ancestry, but should the feat really require that kind of tinkering to get its basic flavor?

This connects to what looks like a general problem with ancestries that folks were worrying about from the previews: that the selection of benefits is so limited at 1st level that pretty basic concepts like weapon training can't come online till your character is quite far along.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There appears to be an inconsistency regarding the Ranger's Key Ability Score.

In Table 1-2 (p. 13), the Ranger's Key Ability Score is listed as Dexterity or Strength.

But in the Ranger class description (p. 113), the Ranger's Key Ability Score is listed only as Dexterity.

(This matters, of course, because the Key Ability Score determines the class-based ability boost in character creation.)

Silver Crusade

Joana wrote:
Galymyr wrote:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Just got this email....

It's also posted in the Paizo blog and in the Customer Service subforum.

Disappointing that Amazon seemingly took care of their own customers but dropped the ball on Paizo's. I hope Amazon is refunding some of whatever Paizo paid them to handle the shipping.

I ordered the book from Paizo and then, quite late, the flipmat from Amazon. I got the map today. The book? Who knows.

Very disappointing.

Silver Crusade

I recently ordered the map from Amazon after not preordering it, and they're shipping me one. I imagine they're not the only store that's purchased some extra copies. Good luck finding some!

Silver Crusade

The way Mark was talking about essences on the recent Know Direction podcast about the Bard was interesting. Definitely more of a narrative element and background design principle.

To your thought he mentioned that some spells are shared between lists because of the idea that different essences could produce the same effect. (I think Dispel Magic may have been an example?) This sort of thing, and the design flexibility it suggests about not sticking too rigidly to an essence categorization, seems like a good reason to keep the essences more in the background to me.

He also spoke, I believe, about essences being "opposed", which made it sound like a four-point setup, with each essence having two adjacent and one opposed. That would give the 4 spell lists, for the 4 possible complementary pairs and leaving out the 2 opposed pairs.

Silver Crusade

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I didn't say that the witch almost made it. The oracle is the one that was close-ish behind the alchemist. The witch wasn't even close.
I thought someone from Paizo said the witch was under consideration for the playtest, or did I mis-remember something? I"ll look through my favorites, I don't want to be disseminating misinformation.

I think Erik Mona *might* have said something in this ballpark in the first interview he gave after the play test was announced. Maybe on Know Direction? Talking about adding the alchemist, might have said the Oracle and the Witch were contenders for a bit but ultimately went Alchemist to get alchemy fully integrated into the core. But I don't know that it was ever a statement as strong as "almost made it."

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Umm, but in 1e you also reduce your clericness to increase your whatever-issness. Your criticism is coming across as "Its different so I don't like it".

That is also assuming there aren't class features at all that every cleric gets(which might be the case but I really can't remember)

If there are we don't know about it?

But we DO know that channeling is only accessed by a feat.

This is incorrect. As I mentioned before, classes get class talents every odd level. Leveling up blog:

Quote:

That's why every class gets specific class talents (which include spells for spellcasters) at 1st level and every other level thereafter, increases to skills every other level, and feats at every level!

...
Every class has special feats just for them, which you gain every other level. When your cleric hits 2nd level and gets that cleric feat...

And channel energy is a class talent for clerics that all clerics get. It is not "only accessed by a feat". Cleric blog:

Quote:
At 1st level, clerics get several class features, including their deity and domain, anathema, channel energy, and of course, divine spellcasting (which we'll talk more about in a bit).

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure, there's a cost. But I was thinking specifically of your claims that "you don't get anything real from your "main" class either" (not true, since you still get all of your class talents/features at the odd levels) and "and by the way everything that was a feat in PF1 is ALSO a feat so you get none of those either?" (not exactly right, since you still have all your general feats and skill feats (plus the other 6 class feats)).

I don't think I'm on board with your assessment of the costs here. (Especially the idea you started with that there were lower costs in PF1 for multiclassing.)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
So it takes almost half of your 10 class feats, and by the way all your class abilities are also now class feats so you don't get anything real from your "main" class either, and by the way everything that was a feat in PF1 is ALSO a feat so you get none of those either?

Ah, I think you may have a slight misunderstanding of the advancement system in the playtest. Playtest characters get class talents (like PF1's class features) every odd level and class feats every even level, I believe. They also get ancestry feats, skill feats, and general feats. So spending 4/10 class feats on a MC archetype still leaves you with all of your other goodies.

See e.g. the leveling up blog: http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lklr?Leveling-Up

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
I like to play characters who will usually have 2 or more classes and 1-2 archetypes per class. I like to use every possible combination to make each character completely unique, something which is only possible in PF (and to a lesser extent 3.5), but was impossible in previous editions and in 5th Ed DnD, and apparently in PF2.

This type of concern is probably at the top of my list, too, I think.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Nathanael Love: Ah, I didn't see that the feat count wasn't in the blog. Thanks. Per this post from Mark upthread, it takes a total of 4 feats to get 8th level spells.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

Overall I am really happy with the specific examples shown and their implications for feat-based multiclassing. The scaling notation of the Cantrip confused me at first. But now that I understand it I am very happy with it. I like that a basic Bookish Rogue is so easily built with just Wizard Dedication, or you can take Basic Wizard Spellcasting if you desire all the classic arcane trickster spells.

I am curious how it will progress beyond 3rd level spells. How many more feats does it cost to gain those 8th level spell-slots?
I imagine at least two, but dread it will be as many as five.
Just two more, your minimum guess!

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

Eating all your choice resources for not good enough spellcasting is just bad, bad, bad.

It's a half step from "No multi classing ever" and ensures that the type of characters I like to build/play will NEVER be able to exist.

Hold up a second here. Isn't PF1 multiclassing much *worse* on this count? Eating choice resources (levels) for "not good enough spellcasting." It takes what, three or four class feats in the playtest model (out of 10?) to get 8th level spellcasting.

So compare, e.g., a Fighter 16/Wizard 4 in PF1 to a Fighter/Wizard in the playtest who sinks 4 class feats into Wizard MC. Who's better off here? Pretty clearly it's the playtest MC (both in terms of fighting prowess and in terms of having "good enough spellcasting").

So, genuine question: What kind of "characters do [you] like to build/play [that] will NEVER be able to exist" in this kind of system?

I have some concerns about this system and will push it hard in the playtest. But I'm not following your concern as articulated in this post, would be interested to hear more.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
It's also a really good post. The partial info from the leak made multiclassing sound way less flexible than it will actually be. And Jason very much couched it in language of "hey guys we are trying something new, we will change it if you don't like it." Which has been true of several other things people got upset about, but I feel like saying it up front, repeatedly, may have minimized the damage.

I agree. This was a very well done blog. I definitely appreciated, in the blog and in the thread, a little more insight into how the designers are thinking about this. I'm not sure what I think about it yet but definitely more open minded toward the idea now than from what I saw from the leak. Excited to dig in and playtest it, see how it feels in practice. Is it Thursday yet?

So do y'all think we'll get blogs this week? I'm hoping we'll at least get a thorough overview of the playtest process. I think I understand it by now, but would help to have a summary post to point folks to.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't know how I feel about this. Will be high on my priority list to playtest. Especially disappointed we won't see spontaneous caster multiclass feats.

Silver Crusade

Charlie Brooks wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
I'm still waiting for the multiclass blog that was promised back in the fighter blog The window is closing, folks! Give us a blog talking through this thing!
It's gotta happen on Monday, right? What better way to lead into the playtest release than a blog that unpacks the mother of all controversies?

I'm sort of hoping for today. We had the half-elf/half-orc blog on Tuesday, and putting the biggest controversy since the Paladin out earlier rather than later seems smart, to let off some steam before release date. But the most likely result, I guess, is either Monday or no blog at all and just slip into release without talking about it.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still waiting for the multiclass blog that was promised back in the fighter blog The window is closing, folks! Give us a blog talking through this thing!

Silver Crusade

Most worried about: Fighter, Ranger, Alchemist

Alchemist: it seems pretty complicated and it'll have to be done *just right* to play well and to integrate into the new item/crafting/resonance system.

Fighter: all the reasons folks have stated.

Ranger: I kinda just don't get it from the preview and am concerned it may have some of the same issues as the Fighter.

***

Least worried about: Wizard, Bard

Wizard: They'll be fine, obviously.

Bard: I'm *very* into the Bard as previewed. I'm slightly concerned about how complex the mechanics might feel in play, but I really like the general direction they've previewed and think it's probably going to work very well with a little playtesting.

Silver Crusade

16 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say there's about a 100% chance that the website crashes for at least several hours when the playtest PDF drops.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like it. I'm sure it will benefit from playtesting, of course, but it's a promising direction and feels like the best way to handle these in the PF2 ancestry system.

(Unrelated: if we're going on an accelerated schedule ahead of the release, maybe this means we'll see a multiclassing blog tomorrow. A boy can dream.)

Silver Crusade

This sounds like it might be a really good setup for multiclassing in the new edition. Will be interesting to play with. Especially want to see things like, how a Fighter/Wizard and a Wizard/Fighter compare.

My first reaction was like the above: Why wouldn't *every* martial drop a few feats to get some casting? Curious how the tradeoffs look.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Combat, then Spells, then Skills—the core engine, the mechanics, what I'll need to GM. Then maybe monsters.

Only once I really understand all that will I head over to character options.

Silver Crusade

Bardarok wrote:
Gyor wrote:
So Occult and Psychic are separate things? Can you have Psychics that use say the Arcane, Primal, or Divine Spell lists?
I think on the know direction podcast mark made the distinction that psychic was the casting style where you would replace Verbal and Somatic components with Thought and Emotion components. Similar to how a bard can replace Verbal and Somatic components with instrument components.

Link? I can't find this.

Silver Crusade

RazarTuk wrote:
How would you handle a singing bard or an orator bard? It's one of my greatest concerns about the class after for D&D 5e handled them. In that system, while there aren't any rules against singing or giving speeches for bardic performances, the fact that all 5e bards learn to play 3 instruments and start with "a lute or other musical instrument" certainly doesn't encourage things like a bard as a military commander whose performances are rousing speeches.

Upthread:

Mark Seifter wrote:
Quote:
P.S. Really appreciate the way you're not tying it just to more traditional modes of performance! Lots of room for a battle-dancer or storyteller. Anyone with art in their soul and soul in their 'art should be able to be a Bard.
This part is really important to us. Bards aren't just musicians, they are just as you describe, and the soul in the art is a strong part of what ties them to the spiritual essence as well as mental!

And:

Blog wrote:

You inspire your allies with words or tunes of encouragement.

...
Choose an auditory performance if the trigger was auditory or a visual performance if it was visual,

But:

Blog wrote:
Also, as I mentioned in the spells blog, bards can replace the Somatic Casting and Verbal Casting components of spellcasting by playing a musical instrument, in case you want a bard who plays the violin to cast his spells!

1 to 50 of 1,592 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>