Overworm

PossibleCabbage's page

5,835 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,835 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

ChibiNyan wrote:
Piranha Strike didn't work with Rapier or Scimitar, the 2 most popular Dex-to-Damage weapons to build around (Dervish Dance and Inspired Blade Fencing Grace dip)

Unless you apply effortless lace, thereby daring the GM to put the kibosh on your cheesy damage build by breaking your incredibly fragile 2500 gp item.

Every part of the above causes problems and should in no way inspire PF2 design besides "don't do that".


For a second I thought this was about whether Paizo cared about our input on things like "Should Pharasma be more forthcoming? Does Ng need a sexier outfit? What should have happened to Aroden? etc."


One thing I'm curious about is whether there are feats attached to various proficiency levels with armor, and what kinds of feats these are (fighter feats, skill feats, whatever).

Since "feats tied to expert heavy armor proficiency" would be an excellent place to establish "Str-based defense" as a thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SqueezeBox wrote:
I think that because we have not really seen higher level class abilities and feats that it is a bit challenging to resolve the issue. When we see it on Aug 2nd, perhaps my opinions of the math might change.

My perspective throughout the whole "Playtest is announced, but we don't have the rules yet" period is to be sensitive about how incomplete a picture we have of anything, and to be aware that there's going to be a whole bunch of other things interacting with what we have been shown, so don't start pointing to problems which might not be problems.

August 2nd, once the book is out, the gloves are off, but until then I don't think there's anything to be concerned about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


The only other big difference seems to be the floating stat boosts. Do you honestly think it is bad that someone can now be a dwarf wizard without accepting this decision means they are going to be worse than if they were an elf? Do you really think it was better for min-maxing to always be utilizing the same races for whatever classes?

This is actually one of my biggest complaints about the system.

Elves SHOULD be better at Intelligence based things than a race with no racial benefits for that.

This doesn't mean that Dwarven wizards are bad. In fact, Dwarven wizards are more likely to be battle mages with their tougher Dwarven genes.

An elf wizard might have slightly stronger spells than a dwarf wizard, but the dwarf wizard sure as heck doesn't mind getting caught in melee as much as the elven wizard.

The floating points make your racial boost almost wholly unimportant. If that was the intention of the system, then why even have mechanics tied to races?

Well, the big difference between dwarves and elves will not be apparent in wizards. A dwarf wizard will put their floating boost into Int, because "smart dwarves" find vocations that suit their intelligence. An elf wizard can put it anywhere they like, though it will probably be Con. So the end result will be a Dwarf Wizard will have lower AC (from Dex), higher HP (from Con and Ancestry), and less resonance.

Where the difference will be apparent is how Elf fighters/clerics/rogues/monks/etc. are almost uniformly more intelligent than Dwarf fighters/clerics/rogues/monks/etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seltyiel Fan! wrote:

Re_posts on Magus being possible as just an archetype:

NOOOOOOOooooooo...!

:p

Well, a central question which will resonate throughout PF2 is if we can replicate the mechanics of a PF1 class with a combination of choices in a different class, but not so much the thematics, what do we do with that thematic space?

Like a PF2 divine sorcerer can absolutely mechanically replicate an oracle from PF1, but cannot in any way replicate the Oracle's flavor and concept ("special blood" being an accident and "cursed/chosen by the gods for a mysterious purpose are sort of irreconcilable) and we've had several indications that the Oracle isn't going anywhere.

So the question we're going to keep coming back to is "what is to become of all these gishes" or "is there more to the magus than a warrior who magics or a magic-user who fights?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
Voss wrote:


By what's presented there isn't much that separates a 'dwarf' from a 'tough elf'
Petition to start calling dwarves "tough elves"?

Or Swole Gnomes?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like it's impossible to judge a class in PF2 without reading its full list of class feats. Also, since one can just print more class feats in any splatbook, you can update a class on the fly like every month.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
What's root beer?

It's a carbonated soft drink which my Swedish relatives swear smells exactly like their toilet cleaner. To which I respond - "I wish I could get toilet cleaner that smells like root beer."


What I would like from the first big post CRB release is the PF2 version of some favorite classes (Witch, Oracle, and Occultist are likely inclusions) and race/ancestries (Changelings please, we have a number of retired PC Changelings who are setting-important people).

But what I'm most interested in is how they plan on expanding the core classes with further options. How much cross-posting there is going to be between "feats for new classes" and "feat lists for old classes" say.


I feel like the central reason I like rarity is that "some things are more common than other things" and "this thing is more common in other places than it is in this one" are entirely intuitive and easy to understand notions the negation of which breaks verisimilitude.

Like I get how players often channel their inner Veruca Salts (not the band), but we also all should have no trouble with the idea that it's hard to get root beer or peanut butter outside of North America.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Renchard wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:

Occult flavour is about things like cults, rituals, invocation, forbidden practices, relics, sacrifice, drawing in power from outside, sympathy, spirits, old gods, ascension, etc.

Occult flavor is now more about bard stuff. New edition, new flavor.

Also, even in PF1 the Occult was also about stuff like "predicting the future with harrow cards or similar" or "object reading" or "perceiving people's auras" or "hypnotism" or "faith healing", all of which are wholly in the bard's wheelhouse.

What Milo is talking about is the darker side of occultism, let's have the classic bard hero define the lighter side of occultism.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
I mean I'm kind of happy I can, at least in the playtest, give occult magic a colloquial name like "Black Music" or something. It's creepy, it's wrong, it's soothing, and it's beautiful.

I do like the idea that the dark figure you meet at the crossroads at midnight to trade a price that may well be too high for musical skill might be something with a bunch of mouths and tentacles rather than a western style devil.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I'll probably end up needing to ban this class in my campaigns since it looks like they still want to restrict the fluff to musicians who have magic for no discernible reason.
I'll probably ban Wizards since they still want to restrict the fluff to heavy readers who have magic for no discernible reason.

I might ban Clerics since they still want to restrict the fluff to clergy who have magic for no discernible reason.


Is one's muse an actual concrete being or force or merely an abstraction?

Given the former, if Shelyn is my muse, does she prefer Maestra?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I greatly disliked "dipping" in PF1 and hope it's not back, FWIW.

With how proficiencies work in how classes grant them, I could see a lot of six class characters who are masters of a bunch of things if there's not some limit.


I'm somewhat concerned that Multiclassing will be so easy and not remotely punitive that every character will end up multiclassed and that deliberately single classing is a clearly suboptimal choice.

Sort of like how in Mythic Adventures "Dual Pathing" was so good and so cheap (a tier 1 mythic feat, when the real attractions are the path abilities), that it's kind of silly not to take it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Bard being an occult caster makes a lot more sense when you think "Occult magic is the magic that affects the head and the heart" than "Shoggoths."

I wonder how we're going to deal with that sort of paired, opposing connotations within the game. I mean, it's there, since the playtest occult sorcerer is an aberrant bloodline. I guess eldritch horrors tend to drive you mad rather than blasting you with rays and stuff, so it may be that shoggoths and their like are naturally adept with occult magic.


Tender Tendrils wrote:

Will rarity have the same meaning in how hard an item is to obtain over different categories?

For example - is a common spell or magical item as easy to locate as a mundane common weapon, or is a common magical item equivalent to an uncommon mundane item, or do magical items by default only exist in uncommon or rare?

I feel like price, item level, and rarity are going to handle all of this. Like "arrows" and "+1 arrows" should both be common, but the former is a level 1 item that is cheap and the latter is a higher level item which is less cheap. But if you specify that a certain market has items up to a given level and below a certain price point, you can have the common item which is 5sp and not the common item which is 5000gp.


Mighty Squash wrote:

I like the unlimited use of bard song, but am not certain about it becoming a spell.

Perhaps it is required, until the book comes out in a couple of weeks I can't really see what is happening on the whole spells vs. Su abilities front, but it feels like it will make bard song easier to disrupt.

My guess is that (Su) abilities no longer exist, and anti-magic fields simply prevent "things that are spells" and "things that cost resonance".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if the bard is endlessly extensible via printing "additional muse options" like how the sorcerer is sure to get a bunch of bloodlines.


Cyrad wrote:
Though, with bard as a full caster, I am concerned we might not get good support for a magus or a spellcasting warrior character.

I sort of suspect one of the design goals for PF2 was to first ensure the "pure warrior" (of various types) classes are on par with the "pure spellcaster" (of various types) classes, before we start trying to mix the two together.

Make the Fighter good, make the Wizard good, make sure the Fighter is as good as the Wizard (and vice versa), then later on start mixing the two together to get the Magus.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

I see that the word "occult" is changing its meaning between PF1 and PF2. In PF2, there seems to be no connection between "occult" and "psychic" -- in fact, I suspect that "psychic" spellcasters may end up using all of the existing spell lists but with a slightly different casting method.

Disagree. The PF2 occult list mixes mental/spiritual essences, skipping physical and vital, and most of the PF1 psychic/occult spell lists (certainly the Psychic, Mesmerist, and Spiritualist) had a similar theme.

I half wonder if the PF2 Occultist won't even be a spellcaster, instead being a resonance focused class with spell points, just because "Occult" is right in the name but the Occultist is eminently a "stuff" focused concept.


David knott 242 wrote:
I see that the word "occult" is changing its meaning between PF1 and PF2. In PF2, there seems to be no connection between "occult" and "psychic" -- in fact, I suspect that "psychic" spellcasters may end up using all of the existing spell lists but with a slightly different casting method.

Are we gonna rename the Occultist?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BardWannabe wrote:
...and doesn't making them full casters reduce their distinctiveness from the sorcerer?

I personally hope we get a spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists to go along with the sorcerer who can pick any. Though it is a little strange for the bard to be the primary occult spontaneous caster in lieu of any of the Occult classes from PF1, all of whom (except the kineticist) were spontaneous casters and some of which will be returning for PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think "go ahead and spawn potions,wands, and the like" but leave resonance for stuff like worn magic items and activating your boots of speed is going to be a popular house-rule.

Largely since it doesn't require rewriting every single magic item in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Stride" is way better than "a move action to move".

Like once there are lots of ways to move, you want a term for the "conventional kind, with your legs or leg analogues" and "stride" is as good as any.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it just me or do the icons for "reaction" and "free action" look way too similar? Contextually it's easy to tell those apart, but at a glance that one looks likely to be a problem for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

As for the plot Hook, hmm I dunno. I think allowing 1 spell to effect Triaxian could be a very good hook/arrow to point them at researching just WHAT a Triaxian is and where do they come from. At the very least, have that info be given in character to them to send them on their way, or give it to an NPC.

Hang on this is far more interesting to me than Rarity, bbl, writing up an idea.

I think my version of this plot hook would go something like - A sorcerer wakes up after having leveled up, now knowing a useful but odd spell that they have never heard of, and upon deeper examination that no one has ever heard of, and indeed that no one else can actually cast even if the sorcerer scribes a scroll or similar- the spell is, unbeknownst to the player unique and the person with it is the only person in the multiverse who can cast it. So it was obviously given to them by someone for some purpose, but who and why?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
They shouldn't and your players should ask you about spells that come from a splatbook talking about Other Planets/Planes.

Sure, but the big problem is that one of the most popular SRDs can't legally name check things like "Karzoug" or "Eox" or w/e but they absolutely can put "Rare/Uncommon outside of the plane(t) where this spell was developed" which will signpost "hey, ask the GM".

MerlinCross wrote:
But I'm yoinking this. Sounds like a great plot hook. People suddenly waking up with spell knowledge they have no idea how they know, could make for some interesting ideas.

It's a reasonable plot hook, but at the same time one probably shouldn't be giving the sorcerer spells they have little use for without it being the player's idea. Like "a useful spell, with weird implications" is a fine hook to go investigate something, but "this spell only works on triaxians" probably is not.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
As a side note, I think this further cements that Sorcerers in PF2 are not really spontaneous anylonger, they just don't prepare spells, and that's all. RIP spontaneous casters.

I mean, the reason I like sorcerers is "you don't have to prepare your spells, you're just ready to go". Not "you simultaneously have awareness of every spell, even ones developed on other planes or planets and have never been cast on Golarion."

It seems like *some* limitation on "what spells sorcerers can pick up on level up" being roughly "the spells the sorcerer in question is potentially aware of" is warranted. Like if some Bone Sage on Eox comes up with a spell for "doing certain things in an airless environment" or some Druid on Triaxus invents some way to make transitioning between seasons easier, people who have never left Avistan should not be waking up with unbidden knowledge of these spells.


Seems like with heritage feats separating genes from culture, it's simple enough to house rule what the OP suggests. It's not like ancestries are balanced against each other with "well, gnome feats are awesome, which makes up for the rest of the package being bad."

I'd be wary of people trying to cheese the extra feat from being adopted by humans though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean "a kama should not be exotic, it is a farming implement. However, in the Inner Sea they are hard to find because farmers there use sickles for the same thing" is a sufficient justification for rarity being a thing, from where I sit.

Like it doesn't need to be easy to buy Katanas in Ustalav.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

But "Hey, that spell is rare, you can only get common spells from level up" is going to go over a lot easier than having to explain the context of that spell without spoiling RotRL in case you haven't played it but might want to.

I think there's fundamentally a difference between "GM says you can't have the thing you want" and "you can't get rare stuff by default, but the GM can include whatever rare things as rewards as they want." I'm still going to want to give players the stuff they want, it's just that more of that stuff is going to live at the bottom of the dungeon than in the market after you've sold off all the stuff from the dungeon.

"Shopping and skills checks" are kind of the least interesting ways to acquire stuff, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Blood money now there is a spell I hope doesn't make it into PF2.

Our group destroyed Karzoug's spellbook in hopes that nobody in the world would learn the spell (nobody in the party could cast it.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
On rereading the blog, one thing stands out - the dilemma of a party emerging from some ruins with a spell which no one has seen in thousands of years. Just the question of "what do you do with it, to disseminate or hide the knowledge, to use it for the greatest good, or get the highest price from it is a great roleplaying opportunity and something that was literally impossible to do in PF1.
How's it impossible? I see nothing in the rule book that prevents it.

Because there's literally nothing which prevents a sorcerer from straight up "having Blood Money pop into your head" when they leveled up in PF1, short of GM fiat (which some people seem super-allergic to, I guess), but now there is?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On rereading the blog, one thing stands out - the dilemma of a party emerging from some ruins with a spell which no one has seen in thousands of years. Just the question of "what do you do with it, to disseminate or hide the knowledge, to use it for the greatest good, or get the highest price from it is a great roleplaying opportunity and something that was literally impossible to do in PF1.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
I've just realized that this is the GM version of the Goblin, it will encourage arbitrary GMs to be even worse.

I mean, it's going to take one hell of a bad GM to bar players from taking common stuff. I'm pretty sure the game is eminently playable with 100% common options.

It's just that explicitly specifying that how certain things are rare or unique is how we keep a high level party of an alchemist, druid, and wizard from mass-producing sun orchid elixir short of extreme handwavery- now they just don't have access to the formula, even if they can get the flowers.


Jester David wrote:
And making a homebrew list will likely be daunting.

I feel like if I don't have a pre-existing reason to make something less common (e.g. "guns aren't a thing here" or "death is permanent except in extremely rare cases") it's easy enough to make most things at least as common, but for things that hail from a specific setting detail in Golarion you will need to ask "Do we have something like that?" For example, Hellknight Plate is much rarer in universes that don't have Hellknights.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like I keep coming back to a repeated refrain from the earlier legendary skills argument-

It is easier for the GM to change an existing rule than to create one out of whole cloth.

So it's less that having default rarities gets in the way of one's rules, and more that having default rarities make it clear what exactly you need to alter for your house rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that GMs have always had the right to limit access to certain things, and while tagging items by rarity makes this easier to do, its certainly better than just doing it arbitrarily.

I don't think "one GM might limit access to rarer stuff" as more of a problem than "one GM might ban several classes" (I didn't allow Gunslingers or Summoners).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Why are we assuming things about a limit on access to uncommon stuff in games without seeing literally any rules for this?

Like one of the benefits of stuff being marked "uncommon" is that this signposts "Here are the things you should justify in your backstory" as opposed to the things there's no reason to.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
mmm this sounds like paizo want to erradicate gms in pf2.

I don't understand this line of thinking. For me as a GM the rarity of certain options in the rulebook is supposed to be a baseline for "how common these things are in the default setting" which I can then adjust for the game I'm running or the setting I'm building. It's not really different from how if I wanted to run a bronze age game, "plate mail" would not be available for the CRB price, but having a price for the in the CRB doesn't really get in my way any.

Like the only downside I see is players being super indignant that they can't have all the best options immediately because some of them are less common. But I don't want to run games for people who act like that anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I definitely prefer clerics/druids and other people who had access to all the spells in PF1 being restricted to only having access to all of the common spells in PF2.

I mean for one thing this means I can reward Clerics with new and interesting spells from loot piles or other rewards the same way I can reward Wizards with new spells or Alchemists with new formulae.

It's also just weird when characters suddenly know six new spells because a new book just came out.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
A character should have just as much reason to be aware of an effect of a spell stuck in a runelords vault and an effect the player saw in a computer game - there is no difference - the character has no reason to be aware of either, but the player is aware of both - I see no reason to treat them differently just because one is published by Paizo and the other by SquareEnix.

So the way I envision this working is something like:

Player- I want to be able to cast a spell which does [X]
Me- Well, it's a lot easier to just adapt an existing spell, so let me look and see if one exists and get back to you.
[later]
Me- Well, I found this spell, but it's marked rare so it probably shouldn't be something you can learn by sitting at home with books. I will try to work it in somewhere so you at least encounter it so you can use it as a basis for your personal version.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to note that the ultimate PF1 book, Planar Adventures, has something like this system for planar tuning forks- implying that the material components for plane shift are easier to get for some planes (Avernus is pretty easy to reach) than others (Jandelay is not.)

I figure this is a good system - every wizard should not have a tuning fork for my character's extremely private demiplane in their materials pouch, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Is it just me, or does Kyra not have a Class Feat?...

I don't think spellcasters get class feats at level one, instead they get... spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A game that cares about the difference between the incorrect and correct way to operate a flintlock pistol in its mechanics is not a game I'm interested in playing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So I don't know why a player would have he expectation that they can take literally anything out of like a hundred books even if it makes no sense whatsoever without first asking the GM something like "hey, is this okay?" Like we all understand that a player in PF1 can't just unilaterally declare "hey, so my character is mythic" even though Mythic Adventures is literally in the rules.

Or, like if you're in a game where you can't preclear stuff with the GM, why are you trying to push things so far anyway?

Having a framework like this built into the rules is fantastic. So this way if I let players have access to rare stuff, it at least feels more special "I found it on an SRD, so I took it."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:

If it is not possible to research rare spells, does that mean that research and development is no longer allowed?

How those rare and unique spells came to be? Were they spontaneously generated somewhere? Or does it mean R&D is something that only NPCs can do because reasons?

So if a player has an idea for a spell they want to create and they have the chops to pull this off, we can work together to come up with the rules for the spell (per rules for this when they exist).

If a spell already exists in a book somewhere, and it's marked as "rare" I would require the character to have some idea that the spell actually exists and what it does before they can research it. Spells which have been sealed in some Runelord's vault for several thousand years are spells that a character has no reason to be aware of before cracking said vault.

If a player read about a rare spell in a book and wants it for their character, they can let me know and I will try to work it in somewhere. It's not fundamentally different from when the fighter says "I'm looking for magic fauchards".

1 to 50 of 5,835 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>