Lunar Naga

Phantasmist's page

50 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Mostly pathfinder 1e with some minor clean ups and re-balancing. Nothing drastic, no changes for change sake. I still want D&D 3.5.


Sorry not interested, wish they keep individual spell lists and rituals feel unnecessary. Sorry just not my thing, it's just my personal opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its funny, pathfinder 2e isn't exactly blowing me away, but it is renewing my interest in old ideas and homebrew rules I had in the past. One of those ideas was a personality trait system, where you got to pick a trait like brave, compassionate and so on. You actually got mechanical benefits for role-playing that trait. Anyway all day today I kept thinking about it, like I want to explore this more, I want to flesh this out.


While I‘m a pathfinder 1e loyalist I still agree that wbl should be highly altered our removed outright. So count me in on that one.


It really is a sensible thing to do. But, I still like D&D 3.5 (which is why I haven't been to excited about what we‘re hearing) and tradition would keep the ability scores to the big 6.

Athough if a seventh ability score was added I‘d probably be more likely to except it then other things.


For some reason I always liked how rolemaster divided dexterity into two attributes one for accuracy and one for Nimbleness (thats not the names though). I'm not suggesting that for 2e but I always thought it was surprisingly sensible.


A simple hold person spell or trip maneuver could also be very effective in this situation. Likewise a dwarf wizard with a bow coul still be a threat to an elf who likes to run away, and well there's a lot more. For my money the HP and fort save bonus (if that still applies) seems just better.


Hey everyone I know my original post was controversial, I still stick by it, but I‘ll admit until we see the rest of the playest I don't really have all the information, elves may have something to make up for it. Also, I personally have no issue with characters starting with more HP and wasn't implying that. The three attacks per round kinda dictates that has to happen.

Now I‘ll let everyone cool down a bit.


Not a fan of ancestral hit points anyway. It makes a already attractive race like dwarves more so, and a less attractive race like elves less so. Heck even for wizards dwarf is already the better choice since you can simply exchange your wis bonus for int and get 4 extra hit points and your higher con bonus and the dwarven resistances. Sounds like a better deal to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think hit points should be devorced from race, just don't like the idea that elves can't be burly. But, I mostly can't complain this is just pathfinder 1e with that silly everything must be a feat thing. There maybe some issue with movement rates but it‘s likely minor. Overall not bad.


Well for me I'd like bab to stay regardless. If I'm asked for my opinion I'll give it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:

Congratulations! We've taken a thread that had the active engagement of four Paizo employees, and turned it into a flame war.

... this is why we can't have nice things ...

It's not so bad. People love Pathfinder. It means a lot to them. Sometimes things get heated. I wish that folks would not treat dissenting opinions as a threat, but unfortunately, that's not how the internet seems to work.

In the end, I'm happy that folks are sharing their opinions. It's what we want, after all.

This may sound weird but Stephen I've posted under a lot of names and I've only occasionally hear your opinion, and sometimes I even don't agree with you. But, you are always a joy, you seem to understand intimately why people get so passionate about the game. Thank you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like Golarian, but I don't mind a dusting as Eric suggests, but ultimately I don't think I‘ll be playing pathfinder 2e anyway so it‘s kind of moot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I‘ll also chime in by saying while I am very wary about skill system, the basic idea of forced universal math, the magic system, the resonance sytem, and naming everything a feat. Openning up the classes and action system could work with only minor changes. I'm indifferent on goblins.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like unified progression to go away. I know it‘s a popular idea right now, but it was never an issue for me in the past and feels like an unnecessary feature. Something else I'm going to vote against.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like bab personally, I think the change is due to the extra math (athough subtract 5 shouldn't be hard) and if ability scores become to unbalanced like strength of a 10 verse 40 then it causes issues (which is more of an issue with ability scores). Anyway I‘d like bab to stay, hopefully there be a vote on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This might seem weird, but I would like a brute race (high strength, low intellect). I could care less about goblins one way or another (I'm honestly completely ambivalent), but I would love a race of brutes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally Vic and Owen's respective posts give me hope. As someone who believes from the information given that 2e is going to far, especially in reguards to the skill and magic system, being able to turn it back a notch or two would be great. I know a new edition is going to happen, but I would have preferred more of a revision with minor changes where necessary, then what I'm seeing so far. However, if the majority overrules me, so be it, I don't want another edition war.


This blog is by far the most contested, but i can understand why. Originally I thought most people where onboard with the changes I'd wager a gues of about 66% to 75% positive, but now I'd say it‘s closer to 55% to 60% positive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:

I don't like the way this works for skills at all. What if I don't want my level 20 character to have a +20 proficiency modifier in any given skill? Wat id I want him to have a +10 proficiency modifier in one skill, +2 in another skill, and +10 in a third skill?

Also, besides better skill feats, why pick up any skill ranks beyond trained? The difference between a +20 modifier and a +23 modifier isn't much.

The mechanics do imply you could have a much larger difference due to non-proficiency and ability scores, but I agree it removes player agency without guaranteeing everyone a fair chance to succeed due to them needing a feat to do some things like jumping 20 feet straight up. It feels like the worst of both worlds, why not let a 1st level barbarian quote Shakespeare, or a 4th level wizard be super stealthy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate to say it, but this sounds like another thing people are going to say "this is such a great idea" now but two years from now really hate it. Hopefully I'm wrong on that, I'm still trying to be hopeful an not cause any drama (cause everyone including me hates drama). Who knows maybe in the playtest I‘ll warm up to it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Not a fan, I'd rather completely divorce the skill system from the level system altogether. If we keep skill points and ranks but instead of having the skill cap being your level+3, but made it 25 and non-class skills 20 you could make a level one character a world class blacksmith or diplomat. I know this completely throws DC off balance, and I‘m sure many people would hate this, since you could drop all of your points (stupidly I might ad)d into one skill, but I would love the freedom. This system feels too restrictive.


As someone who has used both, I found the crossbow was far more difficult to load, but seemed to fly truer. The bow was the opposite, while I think it would be slower then a knife or sword it was surprisingly quick but hard to aim. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I used to help newbies set up at archery ranges, why the actual expert would do the formal training.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Years ago I had an idea of replacing the current alignment system with a persona system, one where you picked individual personality traits based on your charisma. The system worked by giving you so many personality traits based on your charisma score, which included concepts like you're honest, or brave, or vengeful, or cowardly. It‘s a little complicated but playing your personality got you a small bonus, everything gave a bonus even the before mentioned cowardly, which gave you a bonus to beg for your life. Anyway its neat but a little involved since it required role-playing and the GM and other players judgement if it worked, by how entertained they were.

I'd also have charisma affect will save and wisdom affect a perception save.


I believe it‘s a wash when it comes to critical hits. Both pathfinder 1e and 2e systems have intersting ideas and consequences. The 1e system worked well if you wanted to do additional damage, like roll another 20 on the conformation roll for an even greater hit or a death blow instead (in addition too). That's a lot of rolls, but the 2e sytem is cleaner and faster. You could still make a chart for the 2e system, but you just made a degree of difficulty system, and roll on the chart system.

Hate to say it but I can see many people about 2 or 3 years from now begging for it to back to 1e‘s method since AD&D 2e skills and powers tried the whole chart thing and people (at least as my group where concerned) didn't like it. Hopefully I'm wrong.


Is the system fun, is it changing things for change sake or with purpose, is it easy to modify or if i don't care for a rule can i change it, does it feel like pathfinder, is it backwards compatible.

(Sorry for the formating, I'm really tired.)


I'm fine with everyone using a skill untrained unless the GM says otherwise. The resonance subsystem seems slightly ham fisted but not terribly so. It also sounds like UMD on steroids.


With all of these class feat thingies comming out maybe some of them can increase damage enough to deal with the hp inflation. Of course that would be another change for change sakes and also make those feats a requirement to you know having fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Admittedly, this is better news then what we've been hearing so far. We need this clarification like this, but i still like playing with points better.


Quick question for Mark if he reads this. If i'm not a fan of this spellcasting system, as the gm, how easy will it be for me to house rule out? Related, if i want to incorporate a unique spellcasting system like magic of incarnium‘s alongside this system will they work together?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insight wrote:
Formatted class "feats", skill "feats", and ancestry "feats" received every level in a standardized format for all classes sounds a lot like class powers, racial powers, and skill/utility powers from D&D 4th edition. In addition, the standardized automatic progression system (level + ability)for all training and proficiencies sounds a lot like 4th edition's unified automatic progression system (half level + ability). Further, stat increases in 4e assumed increasing a number of different stats at certain levels. 4th edition also introduced assumed retraining. All this - coupled with a revised action economy, modernized and standardized formatting, and many other small details like hero points (read: action points) and magic item limitations inherent to the character (see: milestone recharging) - lead me to believe that Paizo is not so much as going after 5e players (which I am sure they are), but trying to attract 4e players that wished that 5e had been closer to 4e. This would not be unprecedented, as it mirrors their original successful strategy to attract 3.5 players that did not want to move to 4th.

At least to me it doesn't seem so, while there is common ground enough sounds different and unique. I just wish it had more common ground with pathfinder 1e, nothing so far indicates an easy conversion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do like the non modular approach to classes, but everything else so far has been off-putting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
the call it a Do (doesn't mean anything, but is short), every two levels you gain a Class Do. With the space you save in that book, you can include all Dune novels in the appendix

Considering the length of Dune that's impressive.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
Is it just me or is naming everything feats confusing anybody else?
Would "Cleric talent" be better?

I only skimmed over the article, now i went back and read it in full and I get it, but yes it‘s a and counter intuitive naming convention. Maybe it‘s just me.


29 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it just me or is naming everything feats confusing anybody else?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To much division of resources, but i believe harnmaster does this and hackmaster at least attempted two versions of the same rules-set for different tastes. So, I don't know, maybe.


Role-playing games never die, the old guard still swears by OD&D and it virtues. Likewise an upstart my come along and decide it‘s worthwhile supporting 3.5 player. Who's to say. In the end I'm not really worried even if I like pathfinder 1e.


Agreed.


I'm more concerned with house rules (and custom content), since i have a ton. Converting them to p2 maybe a chore, in which case its not worth it. However, p2‘s success is not going to be effected by my lack of support, i'm humble enough to admit that. And, although the responses to p2 have been varied about 2/3 seem hopeful, so success seems likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Epic only, no mythic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it helps i'm not a fan of starfinder or pathfinder unchained, but i don't hate them. I do hate 5e from a rules standpoint. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding the simularities, but i still feel underwhelmed by what little we know so far.


Don't like it. I wish the option to move and attack more then once was a martial only option built into those classes specifically, but otherwise don't touch the action system. Fat chance of that happening, this is by far the most liked change by most poster‘s opinions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would never stop someone from playing (as a gm) one or their inclusion in the rules, but i never liked the pathfinder goblin. I never cared for their dipiction in the art or their implyed personality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1 or maybe 2, while i can agree that somethings need cleaned up and rebalanced so far this is to much of a dramatic change for me.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I mean the thing is I did not go for 5th edition but their was things I liked about it. Their is nothing wrong with grabbing the good parts and leaving the bad. maybe the parts they grab are bad from your perspective (I haven't seen enough yet to tell.) and thats fine but just because it has some similarities are no reason to drop it. After all their is guaranteed to be some similarities because their all based on D&D.

Your words are kind, thank you, but i didn't like anything in 5e other then the common d&d troops (races and classes). I'm trying my best to keep an open mind until the playtest starts.


I'm trying to keep an open mind but so far I'm sticking with 1e. I'm not excited about a system that has so much in common with 5e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like it either, although i don't mind martial characters getting the boons that Mark suggests. Wow i really lost here, so much so simular to 5e, why. I guess it dosen‘t help that I'm not a fan of 5e.


1 or less


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing unfortunately, i really hated 5e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So far i don't like what I'm seeing I still need to see it first hand in play to make a judgement. The podcast that people mentioned won't load for me. I'm likely in a minority, but i like spending points, like in 3.5 and pathfinder 1e.