Lunar Naga

Phantasmist's page

90 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Unfortunately not much interest me, honestly I wouldn't mind a clean slate approach. But here goes nothing.

Racial feats and backgrounds: They need a lot of work but could work. But
I really mean a lot of work. For example I hate that half-elves and half-orcs are not their own separate races.

Maybe the action system, I would like swift actions and full round actions back, but that would make it a very different system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a power gamer and don't care for the new system. But, I've come to accept that people make broad generalizations.


Thanks too everyone so far.

Another minor clarification, when I say accessibility I'm not equating it to play-ability. When I say accessibility is more geared towards making it easier to pick up and play, little preperation, the opposite is something that needs time to prepare more thought and judgement. Think Fate (accessible and playable) vs hero system (not accessible but still playable).

Hope this helps.


Yes, mostly the reliance on symbols and the jumping back and forth from page to page just to understand thing. There's other things too, but those are the big ones.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fury of the Tempest wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
But, accessibility means that there are only 3 actions and a reaction. This interferes with my house rules that I don't want to give up.
... Sorry, but, can you explain this to me? Because I fail to see how the fact there is 3 actions and a reaction not interferes with you implementing your own house rules.

I'm equally confused are you suggesting that I should just drop the action system and all associated mechanics to implement pathfinder 1e system plus my my own house rule. I could do that, yes, then I guess your right. But, why would I want to, why not just stick to what I have and like? You're right, I'm wrong in that it's possible, but why would I?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll admit that pathfinder 1e multi-classing system needed work, but so does this one. Still some like it, so I won't argue to much, but ultimately it's not my cup of tea. Wouldn't mind a complete rewrite.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Fluffy Bunny wrote:

Graystone, would you prefer they continue supporting Pathfinder 1e, or do you think it's approaching a place where they can comfortably say they've "finished" it in as much as you can "finish" a TTRPG?

I know that Pathfinder 2nd edition is quite different and it may not be your cup of tea, which is perfectly fine (the world would be super boring if everyone was the same yeah?). Would you like to see them continue, maybe in a slower fashion, to print new material dedicated for Pathfinder 1e? I know I'll still be playing it for a good long while even if they don't generate new content.

I can see why you might be disappointed if the playtest truly doesn't interest you and your prefered edition is being phased out of the new content schedule. I respect that the new edition isn't neccessarily what you want. If you prefer Pathfinder 1e, I bet you'll still have decades of fun ahead of you even if you never touch another RPG system again. I think we can all celebrate what Pathfinder is after 10 years, even if some of us are ready to try out the next evolution of the game and if 2e isn't for you, that doesn't mean 3e won't catch your eye one day.

Basically, I'm just trying to say if you don't like the playtest and what comes out of it, I hope you still have lots of fun and enjoy gaming with 1e for a long time to come.

The question is for Graystone but if it's alright I'd like to answer, and the simple answer is yes, you hit it on the head. However, there is a caveat to that. I actually still like to experiment, aka house rule. I just like to do so with the 3.5 shell. For example in my house rules you can move your movement -10' when making taking a full round action. The reason I'm pointing this out is because, I like many people here, like to see more movement in combat. This allows a medium sized creature to move 20' and attack, a small sized one 10'. But, I don't like the new action system, even though it should be right up my alley. The reason I don't like it one word "Accessibility". You see in my house rules I use full round action for a lot of thing, also immediate and swift actions too. I also have a defensive action rule which is very similar to reactions. But, accessibility means that there are only 3 actions and a reaction. This interferes with my house rules that I don't want to give up.

Even though, I'm still open to a new and even very different rule set. But, once again accessibility ruins it for me. For instance I would be interested in a very open skill system, one not based around levels. I've even suggested it before. You simply gain skill ranks as you level up, but you can arrange them as you see fit, no class restriction, no skill feats (get to a rank you can do it), nothing extra to buy (like in the case of skill feats), just go for it, the only cap is a max rank say 20 (completely level independent). But, it will never happen, because it's not accessible, the skill system has to work the same way as attack roll, saving throws and so on. Seems to me that accessibility curbs innovation. I can't say I like that.

So much could be said, but I believe that everyone who doesn't like the new rules set has their own reason. It's less of an emotional reaction as people think. I don't think paiso's really thought threw how this going to affect there current player base. I think their main concern is attracting new players. Hence leaving me a bit stumped "Should I stay or should I go", but ultimately there's nothing here for me, or the people I play with. At least if everything stayed the same I could just continue with what I got, even though new ideas or even a second edition isn't necessary a bad thing. Accessibility keeps it from being really innovated, special. That's why I don't like this game, hope you understand.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:

Ok, people keep telling me it's better, but I don't like it, case closed. Sorry if this disagrees with your sensibilities, I don't like the new multi-classing system and don't want to forced into using it.

Stop gaining up on me for having a different play style.

I'm letting my post stand, but I'm not saying the whole ton of feats thing isn't viable, I just don't care for it.

what are you talking about

i'm explaining how spell points replaced 4th level casting and why spell lists were consolidated

in no way or shape i'm mentioning your playstyle

if you liked casting spells as a pally, just get spell points class feats

that's not a playstyle, that's the system

if you like the other system more, it's still there.

I said in a previous post, that I didn't see any alternative way of adding spells to a paladin and ranger other then multi-classing, I even asked if I missed it somewhere. I was told that it's unnecessary because you can multi-class into cleric. If I'm misunderstanding the rule that's my fault, but I honestly believed that was the only way. I honestly missed it saying otherwise.

You have to forgive me, I still in 1e way of doing things and thinking even if I did read the rules last night.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been programmed to say race, so that isn't going to change for a long time, but I think the discussion is ultimately moot since I don't believe Vic is going to reconsider his position, and there are other things that are more pressing. Like that everything is called a feat now. What the heck is up with that.


Mergy wrote:
What is it about the system that goes against your playstyle? Can I ask what is functionally different between trading class abilities for archetype abilities and trading class feats for dedication feats?

It's a fair question, but I just don't know if I like the class feats idea or the way prestige classes work now, since I believe the game is still in flux, they may not make to the end, and I'd rather use 1e multi-classing system (level by level multi-classing) even in if the multi-classing feats stay in it would be easier for me to house rule in the old multi-classing system without having to ad in spell-casting feats for the paladin and ranger.

Basically it makes it easier for me to house rule things I'm not found of, and basically cost you nothing, you can just ignore those feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, people keep telling me it's better, but I don't like it, case closed. Sorry if this disagrees with your sensibilities, I don't like the new multi-classing system and don't want to forced into using it.

Stop gaining up on me for having a different play style.

I'm letting my post stand, but I'm not saying the whole ton of feats thing isn't viable, I just don't care for it.


I'd rather the option to do both be baked into both of those classes, I'd rather not be forced to multi-class just to play my 1e character who doesn't multi-class.

Anyway, I'd also am mixed on the idea that you will mostly be using your cantrips instead of casting daily spells. 5e does this and pathfinder 1e to some degree but I still used daily cantrips using a house rule of an hour rest to restore a previously cast spell. I also gave casters more low level spells and adjusted spell DC.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's a good thing we all had the courage to step forward and say that the initial reaction is a lacking one, no offense to those who love it. It would have been easier to have said nothing, but this way paizo's sees how everyone stands on the new rules.


Also, I may be the only one but I liked hybrid (4th spell level) casters, why was paladin and rangers spells removed, or did I miss something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if it is possible to completely gut out this spell system and replace it. It doesn't have to be 1e spell system just something different then this (maybe take a second look at spheres of power). It's seems like a hard sell since the design team seems to be proud of this system, but it's kind of a blah system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:

I'm certainly not a fan of the whole Ancestry mechanic in general. I feel like it's an overly complex replacement for something that should be relatively simple.

Also don't like that Barbarians STILL don't have an unarmored option. C'mon, I can't be the only one that likes bare-chested barbarian hunks.

I find them lackluster.


Honestly the movement issue in 1e could have solved by saying you move 10' less then your max movement when you make a full round attack. That wouldn't have been perfect but that way you'd be able to move and full attack, being stuck with a 5' move, only if you where heavily encumbered, and you still have 4 attacks compared to 3. For me (and only me) that sounds like a better option then what we got here. Anyway, the new action system was more likely created the way it is to attract new players, the reason that about 70-80% of the system is written as it is.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

To Dire Ursus

No offense but if people are having a hard time getting excited about sometime, that is usually because something is making it not exciting. That's not bias, that's a normal human reaction, saying to them something is wrong. I will admit actually playing the game is better still, but I still trust my instincts, as everyone should.

It's life, no mater how much you love something not every is required to do so. Did you you ever hear the saying "One mans fun is another's He.." (Heck, no profanity but I guess you can get the point.


I'm actually a little upset to here about the positive feedback with the action system, I don't care for it. I also admit that I'm having a hard time reading the rules, the layout is part of the problem, but it's mostly I'm uninspired by them. I'm trying to work through that, I'm playing for four hours tomorrow. Everyone wish me luck, I have so many concerns, and so do the others I play with.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm having a hard time keeping my own morale up let alone trying to sell the system to someone else. I've read a good proportion of the rule book, but I'm not looking forward to either making a character or running the game. It may play a lot better then it reads, but the layout and seemly weird rules are putting me off.

Apparently Vic said in another thread that the action system has been overwhelmingly well received at the convention play-tests. Not sure how I feel about that since not a huge fan of it, but at the same time it's not the thing that bugs me the most about the new edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess I'm in a minority but I would have preferred the reverse of what we got here. Spell-casters can cast a crap ton of spells per day but none are actually majorly powerful. Anyway, I haven't gotten to the spells chapter yet so take my post with a grain of salt.


29 people marked this as a favorite.

the majority of ancestry feats should be upfront at level 1 instead of spread out over 20 levels, I like to think we all deep down inside know this, but for some reason the folks making the game had a moment and simply forgot that it would be sensible to do so.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It really doesn't matter to me since I keep catching myself saying race anyway. I've been trained to say the word for so long by the time I start saying ancestry pathfinder 3rd edition will be out, and maybe then they'll decide to change it back.


Mad Beetle wrote:

Just to re-post my initial post.

Okay, I know that the playtest has not even been out for a day yet, but I need to get this off my chest; I dislike the new way they have done races.
Races are now exceedingly bland, all racial abilities, besides Low-light and Dark-Vision (and that dwarven encumberance ability), are more or less bought with "Ancestry Feats", of which you gain one at first level an then 1 more every four levels (5,9,13,17).
This means, that every person in Golarion is now slowly evolving into their race, instead of starting out as one.
Now, I get that weapon familiarity and other things like that might be more connected to cultural background could be taken as feats, that seems more than fine to me, but having to choose between being trained with dwarven weaponry OR being resistant to poisons just seems a bit off to me.
I get that they have tried to make races less powerful and all that, but it just seems wrong to me, that dwarfs aren´t poison resistent unless they use "Speicies Points" to get it over all the other racial traits that they usually had.
Or that Elves aren´t naturally immune to sleep spells, they have to evolve that ability through adventuring.

Thing is, if you want a character to have the starting racial abilities from 1st Edition, you need to be level 17 to do it. And some races would still not be fully fleshed out.

Now, what I do like about the system; race means something for starting HP and some of the Ancestry Feats are cool and flavorful, I can see quite a potential in the way it is made, I just disagree with the choice to make the races bare-boned and then having to choose between illusion-sense or obsessive for my gnome characters. I´d rather have to choose between starting with a familiar or weapon-training or an expanded spell list based on my race, for example.

Anywho, I´m going back to reading.

I agree with you except the part about racial hit point, which I really don't like the idea of.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Still reading, but I've made it through the ancestries chapter. Put me in the disappointed category, I wonder if anyone would seriously object if half-orc and half-elf became separate ancestries. I don't seem the harm to doing so, and in the long run humans can gain other feat choices that make up for the minor loss in diversity.

Anyway, I'm more disappointed that ancestries seem a lacking at first level. Some of the feats are admittedly interesting, but every race seems too bare bones. I wish I had more choices upfront at 1st level.


Speaking about Mcclain, sometime I personally feel it brings down the game a bit that the battles don't seem bloody enough. Sure you can describe it as in role-play it, and I'm not suggesting tracking every hit location and it's severity it great detail. But, wouldn't it be interesting if instead of having to spend all of this time and energy discussing healing and what is the best approach to it you could just choose to ignore a wound and keep going. Maybe, something along the lines of taking an injury but ignoring the damage, in exchange later that untreated wound comes back to haunt you (like at the end of the game season) doing 50% more damage and having a small chance of inflicting permanent damage (only a small amount), call it a bad wound or scar.

I like the idea, but maybe that's just me.


Constitution was always a stat you wanted a little of but didn't really need too much, if you know what I mean. 12-16 seemed to come up the most often in my game, It rarely got raised except by chance magic item, or for a few very specific builds. But, I don't think as a ability score it was completely pointless either. Dexterity was and by the looks of it still is a problem, at my table we called it the super attribute.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
I would rather remove charisma from resonance altogether. I know it makes charisma more attractive, but it cause weirdness like the magic item only work if it likes you (I know it can be worded in a different way but). I also don't like that alchemists need a special rule to add his intelligence instead, even though intelligence makes more sense for activating arcane things.
Did you take issue with how UMD was a Charisma-Based skill in Pathfinder 1st Edition?

My post was a joke, but I new someone would take it the wrong way. Guess it was a bad joke.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
Blog wrote:
you're really unlikely to run out of Resonance Points unless you're using an absurd number of items

This is one of the things that has come to bug me most about resonance, because it seems patently untrue at low levels. A 3rd level wizard with 10 charisma has only 3 points of resonance. If you've got one invested item by that point, that leaves you with enough resonance to use two scrolls per day. In my books that would qualify as very light consumable usage for a longer adventuring day, meaning running out of resonance is all but guaranteed at these levels.

On the other hand, that same wizard at 20th has 20 points of resonance. Even if he has 10 points sunk into invested items, that leaves him 10 for consumables. That might hit him if he uses a bunch of utility items over the course of the day (scroll of comprehend languages, etc) but is unlikely to come into play very often.

As a secondary issue, it also creates some weirdness with regards to the value of the charisma attribute. At 1st level, charisma could swing you between 0 to 6 points of resonance, while at 20th it's a swing of 19-30. That's a massive difference at 1st, but at 20th it probably won't matter on most adventuring days.

If we get stuck with Resonance in the final version, it feels like a better target pool might be half Charisma score + half level. That way people can actually drink potions at low levels. :| While the results around level 20 are basically the same as the current version.

I would rather remove charisma from resonance altogether. I know it makes charisma more attractive, but it cause weirdness like the magic item only work if it likes you (I know it can be worded in a different way but). I also don't like that alchemists need a special rule to add his intelligence instead, even though intelligence makes more sense for activating arcane things.


Bardarok wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I suspect that I will wait 3 years for PF 2.5 with all the corrections needed to make it a great product.
Just going to point out/remind people that Paizo isn't keen on doing this. They want ten years between editions and, if PF2 is any indication, won't be so much fixing the previous edition as making a new system and dropping the previous one like dead weight.
I hear you, it would nave been better to start of with small changes from Pathfinder 1e and become more aggressive if that wasn't enough. For some reason Paizo's likes to hit you with everything at once, and I'll never understand why.
Like Pathfinder Unchained where a lot of this stuff is coming from?

Yes the same pathfinder unchained I don't use, and never was a fan of. But you are right it was the early testing ground., but if I recall resonance wasn't a part of that book (of course I passed on it after a quick read through so maybe it was).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I suspect that I will wait 3 years for PF 2.5 with all the corrections needed to make it a great product.
Just going to point out/remind people that Paizo isn't keen on doing this. They want ten years between editions and, if PF2 is any indication, won't be so much fixing the previous edition as making a new system and dropping the previous one like dead weight.

I hear you, it would nave been better to start of with small changes from Pathfinder 1e and become more aggressive if that wasn't enough. For some reason Paizo's likes to hit you with everything at once, and I'll never understand why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucid Blue wrote:

The action economy would benefit from separating the mechanical from the narrative elements. This is a usability issue. You NEED to know how many actions right up front. What those actions ARE is a contextual narrative thing that often doesn't matter. Right now, the occasionally needed info is mixed into the essential info and it forces us to parse it out. My vote is: don't bury the relevant information in action categories that the 3 action system was designed to remove.

Actions: 2 (Verbal, Somatic)
Actions: 2 (Focus, Activate)
Actions: 1 (Drink)

Have to admit I like this wording better, it would clarify things.


Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

To be frankly the real reason behind Resonance is "let's make Pathfinder Society Modules easy to play!"

And to frankly again, if this poor conceived mechanics survive after the playtest, PF2 is dead for me.

While I wouldn't go as far as you have, I have to admit something just feels off about the whole mechanic. My own whining aside (I really haven't like or even felt the least bit inspired by anything) I still hold out hope something will ignite me enough to give it at least a try. Maybe you should wait and see what's in-store, then make a final judgement.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
graeme mcdougall wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
Paizo Blog wrote:
A potion requires you to spend an Operate Activation action to drink it. A necklace of fireballs requires you to spend 2 Operate Activation actions

Urgh.

It's possible that I'll get used to this sort of phrasing, but right now it just seems... no.

The wording definitely cast Induce Greater Headache on me, yeah. >.>

Seriously, what's wrong with saying "A potion requires 1 action to drink" or "A necklace of fireballs requires a total of 2 actions to use: 1 to pull a bead loose and 1 to throw it."

Do we seriously have to overdefine every single possible action in the game? This isn't a computer program which requires that sort of thing for the machine to understand your intent.

If you really really have to define the actions, say Use Action or Operate Action instead of Operate Activation Action. Say Focus Action instead of Focus Activation Action. Etc

100% agree. It's really destroying the elegance of the 3-action economy. If Resonance requires this over-definition, then it's Resonance that should go.
The wording is completely unrelated to resonance, it's all a question of style and clarity. We originally had it as Operate, Focus, and Command, but Activation was added during editing to make it clearer. If people think it doesn't make it clearer, that's good feedback and it's easy enough to change if that's widespread.

Yes it is unclear, but the reason people are pointing it out is not because it relates to resonance but it makes the whole article less clear, consequently making it harder to understand how all magic items will work, which indeed is part of resonance. At least from my perspective.


Honestly I'm wondering if we just slim down resonance to a simple you have to spend some downtime to charge up reusable items, like 15 minutes up to a max of so many charges say 5 (or/and use reagents in addition/instead). When you run out of changes it's down time again to recharge, and not worry about any point tracking beyond that. Also, just eliminate any ability score involvement, so low charisma characters are not penalized at all.

I'm actually not sure if I like my own idea, oh well. I'll keep thinking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

I am definitely not a fan of this system. I'm somewhat confused on how this system is easier for new, or old, players to use as compared to the previous system other than you can use multiple rings, necklaces and so forth. We've just added something different to keep track of.

I am also very much not a fan of terms like "Interact Action" which just sounds awkward to my ears.

Again, not a fan and would probably strip this out of any game I ran unless something comes along in the play test to persuade me otherwise.

I agree it's a little hard to get your head around on the first read. Admittedly I found the language a little obtuse, almost unnatural. I keep reading it and the only thing I get from it is now you only have one resource pull to draw from for magic items resonance instead of multiple charges for different items (which I already new). That does streamline things but now the awkward wording and weird activation language (requirements) makes it a little confusing (at least for me). I also wondering if this couldn't have been handled in a much simpler way. I'm thinking about it.


Feat burnout was already a thing in pathfinder 1e, although not as much as class burnout (which i admittedly didn't have), so we'll have to see if it becomes overwhelming in 2e. For me personally it comes down to seeing the same thing over and over again, after some splat books filled with more and more feats, I know I'm going to say no more feats anything else but another feat.

But, others seem to be fine with it so who knows maybe paizo's crew is on to something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty much what I was afraid of. Not liking it. I know it's irrelevant, but a couple of years ago I experimented around with the idea that every class was made of two archetypes, with only a couple of class abilities at 1st level (Like rage for barbarians). Every even level you got a new ability in your first archetype and every odd level got ability in your second choice. I like my idea better even though it never reach fruition.

I rarely post because I've been unimpressed so far. I either not liked what I've read, or been very neutral in a ho hum kind of way. I don't want to a downer so I guess I'll just crawl back in my hole, viewing things from the shadows.


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.

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>