Rob Godfrey's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 456 posts (470 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 456 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Cryo Chamber: Azathoth 1 This is the kind of sounds I think of when the Mythos comes up..not orations and arias...except for The King in Yellow and you only get to sing that once.. so can a Lore Bard be a sanity blasted cultist who DOESN'T sing or make speeches or generally go near Performance? Because we totally need a way to represent the mind melting horror of the Blind Idiot God.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Wultram wrote:

Well your numbers got corrected but that is not really relevant here. And yes you can die from 5ft fall, also the average 5 year old has enough strenght to kill an adult with a strike to certain areas. Are either of these likely? Like 20ft is a height that I regularly jump down from to just avoid the hassle of climbing, granted with somewhat favorable ground to land on.

Now let's look at those numbers 20ft=10 damage. A greatsword wielded by one in peak condition does average damage of 10.5. If you had to choose one or the other IRL which one would you choose?

So... you as a human being commonly jump off the roof a 2 story building to avoid going down two flights of stairs? Right... And yes, a hit from a greatsword is should probably cause about the same amount of damage as a jump off a 2 story house.

Given parkour is a thing I can actually believe people jumping 20ft to avoid stairs, not. Understand mind, but believe that people do it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Slim Jim wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
the Munich Cut and Thrust is a thing of beauty, and would be a complex hilt Pathfinder long sword.

The Munich Cut 'n Thrust would be another example of an "S or P" straight-bladed arming sword with a one-handed hilt.

Which isn't to say they're aren't proper Munich longswords.

hence the qualifier 'Pathfinder long sword' (which as far as I can tell are arming swords) with actual long swords being called 'bastard swords'


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Hey everyone, thanks for your comments. I like the different perspectives. I wasn't expecting everyone to agree with me, I was just answering the question honestly.

Grey Star, Rob Godfrey, & willuwontu

I don't play Lawful Stupid. Never have, probably never will. So I guess the "easiness" factor of Lawful Stupid doesn't even register in my mind for me. Backing down from a fight because it's unfair? Using the Lawful aspect of LG to not fight an injustice? Both are cowardly to me and inherently evil. So I see those as Lawful cop outs, and not what I was talking about when I spoke of Paladins being restrictive. Then there's Chaotic Stupid... I haven't seen this in play, I hope I never do. Having to fight every single institution because its the institution, is really, really dumb. Yikes, do people play like that? Ugh. I find that Chaotic Good players have the choice to follow the rules, or bend them for the greater Good. (of course!) That's what I'm talking about when I say that NG and CG are less restrictive. LG don't have the choice. (unless the rulers are illegitimate) Also, notice I didn't say that it's EASY to be Neutral or Chaotic. I said LESS restrictive. You can disagree with me and that's fine. I'm happy to be proven wrong. This is my point of view.

Voss

Just two things to clarify... The art example is not to say that the other alignments are "dirty". This is how I feel about what 5e did to the Paladin by opening it to other than "Good". (so my example excludes NG and CG) I was trying to give a word picture of how I felt, and I guess I chose a bad one. I'm sorry about that. Also notice that I split Lawful from Good. I wanted to speak about them separately. So when I spoke about Paladins being the "Ideal of Good" I was excluding the Lawful part there. I don't believe that LG is the best Good.

My comment about other alignments being harder to do is based on the fact that I can do LG, I don't enjoy it all that much, but can do LG Paladin, I could not do a champion of the Four Horsemen, I can see what the Code might look like, but that dedicated nihilism and focused world ending ennui? No, I couldn't they would 'fall', same with CE actually in that the focused rage and hate would escape me, so saying they are less restricted is a failure of imagination (everyone has them, I don't get why people enjoy the smite-a-din playstyle of Paladin you see, but then maybe that ens of fantasy escapes me entirely anyway I look at the Jedi and see a code designed to mass produce child soldiers with serious disassociation disorders for instance, I look at the Chivalric Romances and my knowledge of what knights actually got up to intrudes..) Paladin or *insert title here* is someone with a faith or belief so unshakable they warp the planes, and deities notice, not for them rote prayers and theological debates, they believe so utterly that the world bends to that belief that their wrath smites their enemies, cutting through magical defences put in place by the hells or heavens. That is the level pf conviction we are talking about, and it is by its own nature restrictive, even though the Paladin doesn't notice those chains, because the chains are the iron core of who and what they are, the code is an abstraction for the player, the character doesn't even need to know they have a code, and for none lawful alignments probably doesn't, the player and GM need to know ut for RP and game mechanic reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
willuwontu wrote:


Quote:
Taking away the restriction does in fact stymie my ability to make my character.

Could you elaborate on why?

preferably without using terms or things of the nature of "exclusivity" or "tradition" in your explanation.

I am not sure that people who wish for LG-only Paladin and enjoy their character striving to follow rules imposed from outside can avoid referencing tradition (a deeply Lawful notion)

Sometimes I feel like I did cast Detect Law and Detect Chaos on this thread :-D

They could reference the aspects of their character that removing alignment restrictions makes them unable to play.

Ex: opening up paladin to all alignments prevents me from being the LG righteous defender of justice, because ____.

I'd like to answer this. But first I want to say thank you for taking the time to listen to the other side, it is most appreciated.

I'm going to answer this in two parts, but first I'd like to comment on the question. I'm not prevented from "being the LG righteous defender of justice" per se, it's that you'd gut the class of meaning to me. Let me quickly explain...
GOOD: A Paladin who is not Good, is not a Paladin. The Paladin is the Ideal of Good. That's how I see them. I look at the 5e Paladin and grimace at what they've done to the class. Sure, I can play an LG Paladin but they've gutted/lost the core flavour of the class. It's like taking a beautiful, expensive piece of art then dragging it through the dirt. You can still see some of the beauty behind the dirt, but its ruined. That's why I will be ok with an Any Good Paladin at the MINIMUM. I will fight tooth and nail to keep the class "clean".
LAWFUL: Paladins are Restrictive. That's how they are, and that's how I like them. It's HARD to be the Ideal of Good, and that is how it's supposed to be. Opening them up to Neutral or Chaotic loosens the reigns of the restrictions. Honestly, I find that cheapens the class. I'm learning...

wait who said being the embodiment of pure unsullied and unpolluted good (NG) would be EASY? Or that doing what is right, no matter the personal cost, no matter what the law said was easy? Or indeed enforcing the law, totally and utterly, without mercy, yet without cruelty would be easy? (LN), or that liberating the oppressed, be that by pact, by nobility, by whatever tyranny would be easy (CN), or working to convince people to forsake all hope and admit the pointless hopelessness of existence was simple (NE), od being the iron merciless fist of absolute order and tyranny is easy? LE. Being the Embodiment of a faith or philosophy should be hard, it is the idea that only LG should grant that duty and power that grates.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

How can LG be horrifying when it is Good, ie protect the innocents ?

I am missing something I think

Because it uses magical surveillance to determine who is innocent, and some races are naturally evil, so not innocent.... also look at the Glorious Reclamation etc, for some nasty, nasty things done by paladins in the name of good.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mbertorch wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:

I feel like it should maybe be a(n unofficial) rule when discussing this topic that neither side can criticize the other's stance, but rather can only offer alternative solutions and comment on those. That way we actually get somewhere.

With that in mind, it's been floating around that the "4 Corners" is potentially the most likely option (from the devs' side of it) besides just an LG Paladin. So, instead of attacking each other's opinions, why don't we talk about how we'd like to see that work?

I'd prefer all-good to the 4 Corners, so it's already a compromise for me. But that's okay. For me, I'd like the name Paladin to remain LG, but the Hands Laying, Aura Bearing, Smiting, Armor Master Chassis - with balanced variations, of course - would be spread out amongst the alignments.

4 corners still doesn't work. Any faith, any deity should be capable of empowering champions, and you can find philosophies that fit all the alignments, so could have a code. For instance NE gives us the 4 Horseman, nihilism, despair, cruelty, the end of all things, that would have champions, (Basically PoE Bleak Walkers tbh).

Actually that works, look at the Pillars of Eternity Paladin Orders, they are coherent philosophies (Well coherent enough to roleplay, which is as much as we need) that fill the compass very well, with Bleak Walkers on the NE side, Gold Pact as LN super mercenaries (hello Abadar, maybe Gorum) Darcozzi Paladini taking CG, Kind Wayfarers as NG, and Shield Bearers as classic LG, that leaves us points to fill, but the method of doing it, with a core class and the Orders being better at specific aspects, so a slightly better lay on hands, or smite, or what ever.,

Okay, interesting stuff. For sure. In the meantime, let me ask you, would you accept if it was the 4 Corners in Core, with the others to follow? And how about the name Paladin itself being exclusive to LG? Are these things you can stomach?

NAme for sure, it is the concept of Divine Champion who is blessed and empowered (rather than a spell caster or hybrid with some tricks) that needs filling, the Crusader or Zealot, or Sohei, that vision of the defenders of the faith/warriors of the temple needs filling, as the only vision of that we have so far is called Paladin, that is the name that is used, but I am not married to it. The 4 corners is a place to start, but really making them less about alignment as a mechanic and more about the philosophy or faith that empowers them (you still end up as a single alignment in each grouping, but they get to it by creating the concept then finding the fit, rather than saying 'they are LG' and then bending things to fit that, it, in my view, would make things more coherent, with the focus on the faith or idea, the 'this is the good bit, ohh we forgot lawful' issues are reduced, and as a bonus you don't end up with Anathema conflicting Code [as we may find])


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:


Also, as I said all I see is 'not being lawful good stops them being the champions of good' arguments, which implies LG is the only alignment worthy, and indeed is the best good. (When in fact LG is as tyrannical as LE, it just has better PR for it's psychotic savagery and aims of eradicating all 'evil' races and people from the world. )

Are we now claiming that LG is actually Evil ?

I see how this could hurt the LG-only Paladin crowd, as well as many others beside

I'm saying it's Tyrannical, which is not the same thing. Benevolent Dictatorship is a thing, and the Detect Evil- Pala Smite game play that even shows up in the Lore gives that impression as well, it is totalitarian, it is brutal but it has the mandate of heaven and an omniscient morality license, so as the game-universe works, not evil, as an alignment and structure for a nation to live in? Horrifying.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mbertorch wrote:

I feel like it should maybe be a(n unofficial) rule when discussing this topic that neither side can criticize the other's stance, but rather can only offer alternative solutions and comment on those. That way we actually get somewhere.

With that in mind, it's been floating around that the "4 Corners" is potentially the most likely option (from the devs' side of it) besides just an LG Paladin. So, instead of attacking each other's opinions, why don't we talk about how we'd like to see that work?

I'd prefer all-good to the 4 Corners, so it's already a compromise for me. But that's okay. For me, I'd like the name Paladin to remain LG, but the Hands Laying, Aura Bearing, Smiting, Armor Master Chassis - with balanced variations, of course - would be spread out amongst the alignments.

4 corners still doesn't work. Any faith, any deity should be capable of empowering champions, and you can find philosophies that fit all the alignments, so could have a code. For instance NE gives us the 4 Horseman, nihilism, despair, cruelty, the end of all things, that would have champions, (Basically PoE Bleak Walkers tbh).

Actually that works, look at the Pillars of Eternity Paladin Orders, they are coherent philosophies (Well coherent enough to roleplay, which is as much as we need) that fill the compass very well, with Bleak Walkers on the NE side, Gold Pact as LN super mercenaries (hello Abadar, maybe Gorum) Darcozzi Paladini taking CG, Kind Wayfarers as NG, and Shield Bearers as classic LG, that leaves us points to fill, but the method of doing it, with a core class and the Orders being better at specific aspects, so a slightly better lay on hands, or smite, or what ever.,


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachandra wrote:
But would removing the alignment restriction even do anything for your issue? If you hate the real world "paladins" so much, making them any good doesn't actually do anything to fix that...

Making them able to be what they always should have been, brutal, fanatical enforcers that work for any god would fix it, also how is 'paladins should be LG only' not equal 'lg is best alignment, all others are to weak/stupid to make one of the most powerful classes in the game? (and lets be honest in the story, the ONLY blessed and anointed warriors who don't feel like, and play like, clerics who have been to the gym a bit, take a paladins spell casting away, and you have a divinely empowered fanatical killer, enforcing their deity/philosophy's will with fire and sword, do the same to a war-priest and you have a bad fighter, they do not play the same, do not fit that mold, and do not fulfill that concept.)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't
...

so the elite guard and executioners of a Roman General (or maybe Welsh warlord) :P yea, nice chaps as well.

Also, as I said all I see is 'not being lawful good stops them being the champions of good' arguments, which implies LG is the only alignment worthy, and indeed is the best good. (When in fact LG is as tyrannical as LE, it just has better PR for it's psychotic savagery and aims of eradicating all 'evil' races and people from the world. )


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to
...

You mentioned the Paladins of European Myth, who were the Companions of Charlemagne, who he rewarded with sex slaves taken from massacred cities....which was viewed as the perfect embodiment of law and good at the time I grant. As to the origin of the word, it was probably Palatine, for the Scholae Palatinus of Constantine, an elite guard and enforcement squad for the Emperor, with Charlemagne using the title for his goon squad, and translations and repeated copying by scribes turning it to Paladin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

I honestly think that it is a deep misunderstanding of the LG-only Paladin crowd to believe that they think LG is the best or truest Good

I think it misses their point completely and thus is not useful, but rather damaging, in trying to find common understanding and palatable compromises

then the defence of LG only should stop being LG is the only alignment capable/worthy of having paladins, because whether you realize it or not, that argument sounds exactly like LG best and smartest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
The thing that’s bugging me is in large part that if a character wants to get full progression in something flavorful, it’s going to cost extra on top of giving up a more practical option. I doubt Monk gets Perform as a class feat signature skill, or Sorcerer gets Lore except by picking a certain bloodline. I really don’t see Fighter getting many of these at all.
I’m not sure I understand the desire to spend multiple skill-ups in a skill, but not a single skill feat.

Because they are referring to Class Feats, not Skill Feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Erk Ander wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
Hollywood fight-scenes have never accurately depicted technique with a longsword; they are always shown as cumbersome bashers even though historical examples seldom weighed over 3 lbs and were frighteningly nimble. The so-called German school of fencing ("Deutsche Schule; Kunst des Fechtens") specialized in longsword and trained to defeat armored adversaries. In the Orient, the spear was considered superior to the sword on the battlefield; in the West, the longsword was superior to the spear.

Never ever heard that the longsword was superior to the the spear in Europe. Sure it was a nobles weapon and at least one Master said it was the weapon to start with (due to complexity). But its actual superiority to the spear is very questionable.

Slim Jim wrote:
No culture without longswords developed fully-enclosed, articulated plate armor, and no such culture's best lesser armor would have stopped a longsword whose point was designed to be levered into joints. But to this day, games treat it as a cheap "starter" sword that your hero almost immediately throws away upon acquiring a better weapon, when in actuality they were the top-shelf and far beyond the monetary means of the commoner. They were the apex European war sword for over 400 years.
This is also a very questionable claim. The emergeance of plate armour has less to do with longswords. A maiille or even gambeson can stop the cuts of a longsword. Let alone plate, which is barely scratched. Yes you can thrust with the point but you can do that with a LARGE variety of weapons just as well. And thursting through the mail and gambeson in joints, armspits of plate (because you can't thrust through plate) is very hard. Even if you half-sword. Swords (longsword. katana) as a weapon are not very good against maille or better. Yes you can strike with hilt, pommel etc. But you can also just use a mace, warhammer. LongsSwords were secondary weapons and were good SECONDARY because of the versatility, since in a pinch they can...

on that note, the Munich Cut and Thrust is a thing of beauty, and would be a complex hilt Pathfinder long sword.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

Tell me about it. I'm here with the extremely reasonable view that, as a game, as a Saturday afternoon diversion meant to be enjoyed and anticipated, a player should be able to default to "no worries/has nothing hanging over his head", no matter what class happens to catch his interest. That in the Venn Diagram of "Players that enjoy the Barbarian class" and "Players that don't want something hanging over their head", there will be and must be overlap. God bless them, that's why the developers put in the Fury totem. I wish they'd made "totems that don't put things hanging over the player's head" as the default rather than the exception, but at least they recognize "not wanting something hanging over their head" as a valid concern amongst players of Barbarian characters. Except that it's not just players of Barbarian characters, it's also Alchemists and Fighters and Rogues and Rangers and Wizards and Monks. And every other class in the CRB. And every other class yet to be printed for P2E. And yes, that does include the Paladin.

And on the other hand, we have people bothered by just the idea that someone out there is playing his Paladin character his way, without something hanging over his head, and he might not have to move freaking Heaven and Earth to do so. Oh, shocker, crime, and scandal!

Some view it as a role-playing tool and flavour, not "something hanging over them". Some people like restrictions on their character's behaviour, can be more immersive, the extreme opposite being the CN, carte blanche to excuse any behaviour character.

and for their character that is fine, telling us 'all other deities are so weak and pathetic they cannot have champions' because 'legacy' isn't just your character, it's obliterating the very idea of war gods empowering their followers, of the god of boozy swashbucklers granting his power to people who please him..they are somehow not strong enough to do so (or to stupid to see how crushingly powerful an advantage paladins are, to the extent that a temple without them would get their faces kicked off by one with, in any confrontation) but no, our divine champions are invalid because LG is best and smartest alignment.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to explain to me how making a class more bland doesn't take away my...

how do the genocidal serial rapists of Charlemagne have anything to do with LG?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

If that is the game you want then the whole game should be balanced around resources that are predominantly per-encounter rather than resources that are predominantly per-day.

It is totally fine for that to be a game, but it is a very different game than I have been playing for years.

No, because you are still limited by spells per day and powers per day and all that good stuff. But healing should not be the deciding factor on that, because of the problem that every new encounter could have that heavy hitting guy who crits you from 100% to 20% of your HP... or from 50% to -30% if you go into it wounded, because reasons, Die Hard is how I want to play, blablabla.

And since I've been playing officals adventure paths for the last ten years, I have to assume that the game you've been playing is very different from the official baseline.

I do not understand how what you are saying is a counter point to my proposition.

If you want every encounter to be potentially deadly and challenging rather than occasionally being a resource puzzle then that game should be designed around short rests and resource management within the encounter (ala the warlock in 5e DnD) to make that happen. Most things should be encounter driven with a small handful of dailies to get you out of trouble when things go pair shaped. If things go pair shaped too many times in one day then it is probs a party wipe.

Also, if you want to look at the sort of games that I am describing then you should listen to the glass cannon podcast playtest. That podcast was almost all low threat encounters that ate through healing and other daily resources and then a high threat encounter at the end.

I am really lucky to get 10 hours a month to play, and I don't get to house rule, please don't build the game around attrition, it eats that little time on uninteresting grind encounters...
I don't think lower...

then we totally and profoundly disagree, they are boring, they are pointless and they are not fun (apart from extremely rarely as a 'time to look like badasses' moment.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like we just need a different word since I can't see "Paladin" applying to anything that's not LG, since the word is almost definitionally "the hero who always does the right thing in the right way."

It's fine to have a deific champion of any alignment, but that isn't (to me) a Paladin, even the champions of LG deities. Personally, I think of a Paladin as someone who values fundamental goodness and order more than any particular deity. A "you are the chosen warrior for whatever god" should be a totally different class, just don't call it a Paladin.

I would rather see "Warpriest" become a core class and have the Paladin go away entirely than see non-LG Paladins.

i have explained this before, but War Priests do not feel like blessed warriors, far to much casting far to little blessings, a Blessed Champion should have little or no spells, for they are not clerics, but have resistances, immunities, passive abilities basically as the deity empowers and protects them, smite thematically fits, the deity needs its champion to be a killer, as does a weapon or mount, being a hybrid caster really does not. Sorry pet peeve 'just play war priest' is like telling someone who wants to play a rogue to play a mage, completely the wrong feel and abilities.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

If that is the game you want then the whole game should be balanced around resources that are predominantly per-encounter rather than resources that are predominantly per-day.

It is totally fine for that to be a game, but it is a very different game than I have been playing for years.

No, because you are still limited by spells per day and powers per day and all that good stuff. But healing should not be the deciding factor on that, because of the problem that every new encounter could have that heavy hitting guy who crits you from 100% to 20% of your HP... or from 50% to -30% if you go into it wounded, because reasons, Die Hard is how I want to play, blablabla.

And since I've been playing officals adventure paths for the last ten years, I have to assume that the game you've been playing is very different from the official baseline.

I do not understand how what you are saying is a counter point to my proposition.

If you want every encounter to be potentially deadly and challenging rather than occasionally being a resource puzzle then that game should be designed around short rests and resource management within the encounter (ala the warlock in 5e DnD) to make that happen. Most things should be encounter driven with a small handful of dailies to get you out of trouble when things go pair shaped. If things go pair shaped too many times in one day then it is probs a party wipe.

Also, if you want to look at the sort of games that I am describing then you should listen to the glass cannon podcast playtest. That podcast was almost all low threat encounters that ate through healing and other daily resources and then a high threat encounter at the end.

I am really lucky to get 10 hours a month to play, and I don't get to house rule, please don't build the game around attrition, it eats that little time on uninteresting grind encounters...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:


When you MUST save your spare Resonance for HEALING quickly because if you don't you could DIE then there is something wrong.

I coudn't disagree more, a PC who isn't willing to reserve some of their personal equipment and "potential" for healing themselves should they get hurt (At least in a party without a dedicated Healer) SHOULD be punished.

If a PC can go in loaded to the gills having spent EVERY Copper piece they own on magic equipment to buff themselves, they would be remiss not to reserve some of that potential for healing. This is EXACTLY the kind of character who thrives in a 15 minute Day, they blow all their APL on powerful x/day effects and just wait until they can exploit them again.

I just don't understand why people think magical healing should be cheap, free, or easy.

No magic armor, no rings, no necklaces,no cloaks, you need it for healing. That's the problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

Perhaps you guys misunderstood my meaning, not enough coffee I suppose.

My point here is that players should NEVER be able to bloat their APL beyond reason with consumables WITHOUT having any downsides. If Consumables are going to be as inexpensive as they seem, they NEED to put a limit on how many you can use in conjunction with the rest of your magic equipment, PERIOD.

The whole point of the system is to give players interesting choices to make. Letting Players use an unlimited (Cash/Alchemist Party member limited) number of Magical Items that grant effects JUST as powerful (If not moreso) than those you need to spend Resonance on is just silly.

Which misses the othersides point it's not 'wands shouldn't cost resonance' it's 'nothing should cost resonance, it's an anti-fun system'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Finally remembered where I have seen something like this before: Earthdawn. Just an aside, carry on.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The question that needs to be answered is why barbarians have anathema at all? Whta doe sit achieve? If its balance are mages going to have a 300 page contract to keep spell casting? Because so far they make no sense at all. (apart from superstition and that is easily covered by 'this resistance applies to all spells beneficial as well as detrimental) I mean the base idea makes no sense as a concept.

Not 300 pages at a shot, but Wizards and Magi do have to read their spellbooks to prepare spells each day. And for the more diabolically-oriented of these, these probably do look like sets of Infernal contracts . . . or credit card agreements.

reading the spell book is about the level of equipment maintenance (something that has to be done, but that outside of edge cases doesn't effect game play.)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
theshoveller wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:


Just like the entities that supposedly act as witch patrons?

I'd seriously appreciate being pointed at an example of such an organization in any Pathfinder material.

Order of the First Law (Rahadoum Pure Legion)

Order of the Ennead Star (Hellknights)
Order of the Eclipse (Kaoling Hobgoblins)

More specific ones in the archetypes.

Every Pure Legion member is a cavalier, and is part of that specific order? Every Hellknight?

(Order of the Eclipse actually might be. Anyone got a copy of Distant Shores handy?)

Every Hellknight follows the code of the appropriate order or gets clobbered, whether that is due to the Cavalier order, or the prestige class, or being an aspirant to either of those. And it's a fir bet for the others, if your scheme doesn't work, you got the edge case that isn't, but it was worth a shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pixierose wrote:

I have played many characters who are barbarians or bloodragers who have had codes.

One could most certainly play an honorable warrior/samurai using Barbarian as a class. Just like one could build one using a Paladin, or even a slayer(as I have). Or how one could build a detective as a Rogue.

But ultimately I feel you would point to one sentence that is really meant to be inspiration fuel more than anything definitive or absolute. We have our ways of viewing the classes and the world and they seem to inherently clash. So nothing else can be said I suppose.

a pure rp code chosen by the player is fine, great in fact, having one forced by the rules onto a class where such codes make absolutely zero sense is the problem.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
There's no actual Order of the Cockatrice that cavaliers across Golarion sign up for membership with, with accompanying badges and heraldry.
This.
And I quote the SRD: 'organizations do exist that are comprised of cavaliers that all belong to one specific order.' If you cannot do it straight of heraldry you do it by observation (with the awareness you may be looking at a fighter, or possibly a paladin, but they tend to be obvious in different ways)

Just like the entities that supposedly act as witch patrons?

I'd seriously appreciate being pointed at an example of such an organization in any Pathfinder material.

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Knight also, not everyone plays Glorion, (and I am not cool with how far it is polluting core). Witches having patrons, again makes sense, they are supernaturally empower, barbarians explicitly aren't, to make them so now fundamentally changes the class, like turning paladins into arcane casters would.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I've never seen a game where enemies metagame stuff like the cavalier's order. We must play in very different games...
it's not metagaming, it's research: The guy wears THIS Orders colours in his heraldry, their power comes from THIS oath, so we can take advantage of that oath in THIS way, exactly the same as figuring out a Clerics deity or Mages school, or Sorcerers Bloodline, you gain intelligence and use it. If you aren't trying to do the same as a player, looking for and taking advantage of weaknesses, everything from knowing what DR the monsters/beasties have, to what the tenents and doctrines of the other guys faith, what aspect of the Cleric of Lahamatsu's faith can I use, what should I be aware of, what am I likely/unlikely to face etc. The advantage of fighters, barbarians and rogues was that it was individual, you had to get to know that one guy, you couldn't (for instance) say 'oh oversized weapon, ok Giant Totem, obssesed with strength, how can we use this?'

You...are aware that exactly like totems are, orders are things personal to the cavalier, right? (It remains to be seen if you can retrain into a different totem if your ideals or traditions change.)

There's no actual Order of the Cockatrice that cavaliers across Golarion sign up for membership with, with accompanying badges and heraldry.

and for cavaliers they make sense, for barbarians they have no place, at all. Barbarians are not and should NEVER be oath bound warriors, it is completely alien to the idea of being a barbarian (ha, in fact you could say anathema are anathema to barbarians)Basically Anathema/codes are a huge flaw for an intelligent enemy to exploit and require a commensurately large payoff in both RP and mechanics terms to be worth it, the joy of characters without them was that freedom, since barbarians are by definition supposed to be free of restraint, straight jacketing them with anathema breaks the concept, utterly.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
There's no actual Order of the Cockatrice that cavaliers across Golarion sign up for membership with, with accompanying badges and heraldry.
This.

And I quote the SRD: 'organizations do exist that are comprised of cavaliers that all belong to one specific order.' If you cannot do it straight of heraldry you do it by observation (with the awareness you may be looking at a fighter, or possibly a paladin, but they tend to be obvious in different ways)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
I've never seen a game where enemies metagame stuff like the cavalier's order. We must play in very different games...

it's not metagaming, it's research: The guy wears THIS Orders colours in his heraldry, their power comes from THIS oath, so we can take advantage of that oath in THIS way, exactly the same as figuring out a Clerics deity or Mages school, or Sorcerers Bloodline, you gain intelligence and use it. If you aren't trying to do the same as a player, looking for and taking advantage of weaknesses, everything from knowing what DR the monsters/beasties have, to what the tenents and doctrines of the other guys faith, what aspect of the Cleric of Lahamatsu's faith can I use, what should I be aware of, what am I likely/unlikely to face etc. The advantage of fighters, barbarians and rogues was that it was individual, you had to get to know that one guy, you couldn't (for instance) say 'oh oversized weapon, ok Giant Totem, obssesed with strength, how can we use this?'


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
Just for informational purposes the 1st edition D&D barbarian did in fact have a similar mechanic. In fact barbarians could not use magic items starting out and could gradually as they level be allowed to use magic items. They would destroy most magic on sight and had bitter and typically dangerous relationships with spell casters (dangerous for the spell caster!)
Yes, and the paladin had features that made the entire class notorious for years. I'm glad that those sorts of bugs were gradually fixed as the editions upgraded.
Are you referring to the item restrictions they had? I believe it was 4 weapons a shield an armor and 4 misc magic items. I might be forgetting one or 2.

no, the code that utterly dictated what and how everyone else could play.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
That's not an example of a totem, though. Totems are described as "a representation of how and why you rage". Big weapons are a consequence of choosing the giant totem, they aren't the totem itself.

Except totems have been said to just be a result of belief or states of mind? Why would there be a mental block preventing anyone who lacks a strength complex from learning how to use big weapons when it isn't magical in nature. It is literally a skill (standard english definition not RPG Skill definition) that the can barbarian learn without needing to tap into anything supernatural or special.... so why does a skill require you to have a very specific personality if you want to learn it without supernatural aid?

The inconsistency is what is creating this friction. Hopefully it will become more clear once everyone has the playtest rules in our hands and/or devices.

You are learning it without supernatural aid but it is still an esoteric technique that perhaps requires you to first attain a specific state of mind to access. I do not see any disjoint from a storytelling standpoint at all:

The barbarian class interact with these primal concepts/mind states/mythic archetypes that result in them unlocking techniques that are unattainable through traditional martial education.

What is mechanically important is that these mind states are mutually exclusive. -w-

You're making stuff up. Just straight up. In an effort to justify a specific anathema that doesn't particularly make sense you're inserting fluff where it does not exist.

Earlier in this thread I came up with a concept for a Superstitious Barbarian that got the Mark Seifter badge of approval who's totem isn't related to a state of mind in any way; she was the subject of scientific experiments to turn her into an antimagic supersoldier, and her body and spirit

...

It is acceptable for the cavalier because the core concept of that class is honor bound warrior,(And yes their code is a nerf the cavalier button for intelligent enemies to play them with, using characters codes against them is smart play, making them fall is the goal of any decent villian, then kill or turn them when they are at their least dangerous) the core concept of the barabarian is berserker with no code who wields huge weapons. Except now they have an off switch, and I didn't see the 800 page list of mage anathema, because the only justification for this possible is balance, and it isn't barbarians who need hitting with the nerf nuke.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Temperans wrote:
I have a question to people asking for less or more varied anathema, did any of you have a problem with: Cavalier/Samurai orders, Monk vows or Oracle curses? (Just want to see if there is a difference, and sorry for the side track).
Cavalier and Samurai, nope the core concept of those archetypes is honour bound warrior fighting for a cause (be that a Lord, a philosophy, or something else), a Barbarian isn't that, they are rage and hate given big choppy things, Oracle's curses are different, they are explicitly external, and as the spells are divine, restrictions make sense.

I don't see why I couldn't play a LN Samurai via a Giant Totem Barbarian. The Totem represents my desire for strength so that I may better serve my Lord, and challenges to that strength if left unanswered bring such shame upon me (and thus my Lord) that I must seek atonement for my loss of honour before taking up my Zanbato again. In battle I achieve intense focus which, although both mentally and physically tiring, allow me to perform great acts. I do all this in service to my lord.

Nothing about that goes against any of the barbarian stuff shown so far, or the flavour of an honour bound character. To say you can't use the class to represent those archetypes is a severe lack of imagination.

that... May be an interesting Samurai archetype, it is not the Barbarian class.. At all, in fact no, just no, anathema are no win traps waiting to happen, and it requires playing enemies as stupid to not be trying to trigger those traps (not all would, some have their own honour, but some should for sure)

How is that not a Barbarian as is presented in the blog post?

EDIT: And it is only a trap for enemies to use if you play in a world where enemies can identify your class features and have knowledge of their rules. Now a well researched enemy who has studied a characters behaviour might, but it isn't an assumption...

because it is a Samurai, not a Barbarian, and anathema for any class whose power is not divine make no sense, if it is for balance reasons the MAge Anathema list should be longer than The Hobbit.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
That's not an example of a totem, though. Totems are described as "a representation of how and why you rage". Big weapons are a consequence of choosing the giant totem, they aren't the totem itself.

Except totems have been said to just be a result of belief or states of mind? Why would there be a mental block preventing anyone who lacks a strength complex from learning how to use big weapons when it isn't magical in nature. It is literally a skill (standard english definition not RPG Skill definition) that the can barbarian learn without needing to tap into anything supernatural or special.... so why does a skill require you to have a very specific personality if you want to learn it without supernatural aid?

The inconsistency is what is creating this friction. Hopefully it will become more clear once everyone has the playtest rules in our hands and/or devices.

You are learning it without supernatural aid but it is still an esoteric technique that perhaps requires you to first attain a specific state of mind to access. I do not see any disjoint from a storytelling standpoint at all:

The barbarian class interact with these primal concepts/mind states/mythic archetypes that result in them unlocking techniques that are unattainable through traditional martial education.

What is mechanically important is that these mind states are mutually exclusive. -w-

You're making stuff up. Just straight up. In an effort to justify a specific anathema that doesn't particularly make sense you're inserting fluff where it does not exist.

Earlier in this thread I came up with a concept for a Superstitious Barbarian that got the Mark Seifter badge of approval who's totem isn't related to a state of mind in any way; she was the subject of scientific experiments to turn her into an antimagic supersoldier, and her body and spirit simply repels magic automatically whether she wants it to or

...

no it does not, its a 'nerf the barbarian button' for intelligent enemies to press, when no such button makes any sense


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Stone Dog wrote:

There is no evidence that all guys with big swords are strength obsessed jerks or that they fully lose their core ability if they don't act like jerks OR that jerkiness is implicit in their behavior. The extent of how Anathema impacts a Totemist isn't clear yet aside from the blog stating "relatively low impact."

As mentioned earlier in the thread, it is also possible that Totems are not limiting. Druidic orders can take feats outside their order so Barbarians in one totem might be able to take feats from other totems, just at a later level. So the downside may not be much of an opportunity cost at all.

As for why in general, it is something new they are trying, which is the whole point of a playtest, to try it out before the corebook is finalized.

It sounds like awesome roleplay hooks and world building to me... potentially. It really will depend on how it actually reads in the full version and I admit, from here I'm being optimistic.

and with the lack of sense of this mechanic, I am not. For divine casters, and honor code based orders, anathema make sense, they don't for any other situation at all. If it's fpr balance then where is the novel length code limiting mages?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Is it just the totems that are giving the anathema? If so maybe the totem options are slightly better then non-totem options?

their are no 'non totem options' as far as I can tell, from reading this they are a core class mechanic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Stone Dog wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I’d much prefer looser connections that can be interpreted in a wider variety of ways. Learning to rage from studying giants has a different take on accepting challenges of strength than by fighting giants and both are different from a giant’s curse. That single anathema can be expressed in many different ways. Tying the anathema too closely to the giant theme would limit those possibilities.

I sort of agree. I think that an Anathema drawn from the Giant Totem should be pretty giant centric and likely strength focused, but not necessarily on the "always take a dare" side of things.

I've been toying with "Always answer strength with strength" with the clarification that such strength doesn't have to be physical and doesn't have to match a direct challenge type for type.

So while what we have now is all too easily defined as a Marty McFly style of taking any strength based dare after being called chicken, a Giant Totemist should be able answer a Biff's challenge with a stare down, a fist fight, a sound rebuttal of how the challenge is beneath him, etc. Basically anything that shows the totemist has strength to overcome, even if that strength is something less tangible than raw brawn.

EDIT: Or something to that effect, anyway. Nice and broad in application, but specific in theme.

but why does ot need to exist at all? The 'downside' of a totem is the opportunity cost of not having the other totems, why are all guys with big swords strength obssessed jerks to the extent they loose their core ability if they don't act like strength obssessed jerks?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The question that needs to be answered is why barbarians have anathema at all? Whta doe sit achieve? If its balance are mages going to have a 300 page contract to keep spell casting? Because so far they make no sense at all. (apart from superstition and that is easily covered by 'this resistance applies to all spells beneficial as well as detrimental) I mean the base idea makes no sense as a concept.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Temperans wrote:
I have a question to people asking for less or more varied anathema, did any of you have a problem with: Cavalier/Samurai orders, Monk vows or Oracle curses? (Just want to see if there is a difference, and sorry for the side track).
Cavalier and Samurai, nope the core concept of those archetypes is honour bound warrior fighting for a cause (be that a Lord, a philosophy, or something else), a Barbarian isn't that, they are rage and hate given big choppy things, Oracle's curses are different, they are explicitly external, and as the spells are divine, restrictions make sense.

I don't see why I couldn't play a LN Samurai via a Giant Totem Barbarian. The Totem represents my desire for strength so that I may better serve my Lord, and challenges to that strength if left unanswered bring such shame upon me (and thus my Lord) that I must seek atonement for my loss of honour before taking up my Zanbato again. In battle I achieve intense focus which, although both mentally and physically tiring, allow me to perform great acts. I do all this in service to my lord.

Nothing about that goes against any of the barbarian stuff shown so far, or the flavour of an honour bound character. To say you can't use the class to represent those archetypes is a severe lack of imagination.

that... May be an interesting Samurai archetype, it is not the Barbarian class.. At all, in fact no, just no, anathema are no win traps waiting to happen, and it requires playing enemies as stupid to not be trying to trigger those traps (not all would, some have their own honour, but some should for sure)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
I have a question to people asking for less or more varied anathema, did any of you have a problem with: Cavalier/Samurai orders, Monk vows or Oracle curses? (Just want to see if there is a difference, and sorry for the side track).

Cavalier and Samurai, nope the core concept of those archetypes is honour bound warrior fighting for a cause (be that a Lord, a philosophy, or something else), a Barbarian isn't that, they are rage and hate given big choppy things, Oracle's curses are different, they are explicitly external, and as the spells are divine, restrictions make sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The really important question not answered is whether entering rage requires an action.
It was a free action in PF1, what makes you think that would change?

because raisinv a shield now costs an action. If something thay instinctive anx basic costs an action pretty much anything could.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:

BPorter, you're not alone in your views. I was thinking more about the example Legendary skill abilities, and what came to mind is that they felt like great examples of what Mythic rules might look like in PF2, but aren't something I want in the core rules. I strongly believe that there's room in the game for full 20th level high fantasy support without it simply becoming mythic.

By adding "mythic" style legendary rules into core, I strongly feel like it's getting peanut butter in my chocolate. I might like both separately, but don't necessarily like them combined (which admittedly wasn't the point of the Reeses Peanut But Cup commercials). It's great to have these types of abilities as an add on system for games that want to emulate characters becommming demi-gods and such, but please keep it out of my high fantasy heroism default game.

then remove either casters or martials from the game. CMD is really that bad.

At that point you can remove the game from the game.

There are good games with very little magic or magic only in the hands of NPCs, but those aren't D&D derivates. Very far off from Pathfinder intended target.

and to keep competitive martials need to be mythic (in fact it works fairly well as a fudge in PF1 as well, give martials a mythic level or 2 and they matter again), otherwise it has been wall to wall hybrid and pure casters in my experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JoelF847 wrote:

BPorter, you're not alone in your views. I was thinking more about the example Legendary skill abilities, and what came to mind is that they felt like great examples of what Mythic rules might look like in PF2, but aren't something I want in the core rules. I strongly believe that there's room in the game for full 20th level high fantasy support without it simply becoming mythic.

By adding "mythic" style legendary rules into core, I strongly feel like it's getting peanut butter in my chocolate. I might like both separately, but don't necessarily like them combined (which admittedly wasn't the point of the Reeses Peanut But Cup commercials). It's great to have these types of abilities as an add on system for games that want to emulate characters becommming demi-gods and such, but please keep it out of my high fantasy heroism default game.

then remove either casters or martials from the game. CMD is really that bad.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheFinish wrote:
Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

I skipped a bunch of pages due to the flame wars emanating from them, so...

The legendary feats look amazingly overpowered, but you only get a limited number of them (3-6 I believe), so it's not like you're pulling these legendary stunts with everything you do all day long.
If they applied to every single thing your PC ever did, I'd be totally against them. but occasionally being able to do something amazingly overpowered is pretty damned cool.
So, as long as the accessability limit remains, I'm fine with them.

If you're a normal dude you get 3 Skill Feats past level 15 (where you can first get Legendary Proficiency). If you're a Rogue you get 6.

Still, Cat Fall shows you don't need a Legendary feat to do something bananas, though that just moves the house rule from "No Legendary Feats" to "No Legendary Proficiency" which is easy enough to do.

Besides, how often does the need to "fall from orbit without taking damage" actually come up in a game? maybe once every 5-10 years (that's actual real-world years, not game downtime years)? I really don't see it being an issue.

Well it doesn't need to be orbit. Anything over 50 feet triggers the Legendary upgrade (50 or less and Master has you covered) and when you're fighting flying shenanigans, that's pretty easy.

Heck, 50 feet is what? 16 meters? Which is approximately 5 stories. I can see a lot of ways for a PC to fall more than 5 stories. "Fall from orbit" is just the "reductio ad absurdum" to show how silly the feat as written is.

Not that it matters much since it's pretty easy to excise whatever bothers people, which is a plus.

I hope while they do so they take out all spells past about 3rd.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jhaeman wrote:
I'm a bit torn. I do think the master/caster disparity was a real issue that needed to be solved. But I would have preferred an overall lower power setting that isn't quite so super-heroic. On the third hand (!), I understand that marketing PF2 has to be about "look at all these awesome things your character can do!" I'll definitely stick with it because I love Paizo and its APs, but I do wonder if I should give some low-magic, grittier RPGs a try as well--does anyone have some good suggestions?

for so gritty your teeth ache Legend of the Five Rings, dying of a secondary infection after a fight happens to even the hardest characters in that, for a low fantasy european setting Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, that is cthonic horror and pitchforks, and for swashbuckling with a chance of death 7th Sea.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
"Many magic items have special crafting requirements, such as access to certain spells, as listed in the item entry in Chapter 11." So... you can't actually be an item crafter unless you're a spellcaster. :/

given that some spells are now rituals, having learnt a crafting only version of a spell isn't to much of a stretch,


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:

If PF2 does continue down the road it is currently headed, I will have to play a different game. Although I worry without Paizo's excellent adventure paths my group won't be sustainable in the long run (and yes, we have worked our way through most of Paizo's APs). I'll stick around for the playtest in the hopes enough of us feel the same way that aPaizo removes the most egregious issues (removing +level to untrained skills would be a great start).

As for being inherently magical in PF1e, that was a choice. You got to choose between magical classes and non-magoval classes. In the name of balance it seems you are right in that the only way to justify characters capabilities is to say everyone is inherently magical. Hopefully we're both wrong on that front.

and because of that 'magical vs non magical' divide we enxed up with martial classes being totally over shadowed


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DropBearHunter wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Seems at some point you just have to use the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) rule otherwise your just spending all your game play trying to recreate realism and getting nowhere.

guess so;

but four days flat, not need to think about what you're doing...
just feels like crafting is made cheap.

maybe go with a bit of Smorgasboard of crafting:
Light & one Handed Weapos: 1 Day
Two Handed Weapons : 2 Days
Ranged: 3 days

Armor: 1day per 10lb

Masterwork: double time

Exotic anything: add 1 day per Exotic (weapon type, material etc)

working in the Magic: 2 days for the highest crafter level the Character can make.

Why would exotic weapons take any longer? Or indeed two handers any longer than 1h?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DropBearHunter wrote:

4 days to get the +5 worth of magic into the masterwork sword, ok I‘d get that.

but 4 days to create a masterwork sword??
you guys may need to watch some people crafting things and re adjust your time table.

A week for the Bladesmith to make the blade, the guy who does the guards (can't remember the name of that job) to make and embellish the hilt furniture, the sheath maker to make and embellish that, all of this to be bought together for fettling and finish? Seems fast but not amazingly so. No power grinders remember, everything is water or wind (or possibly magic I guess) powered.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
Scaring someone to death sounds more like a monster ability then a class ability or at least the use of the Intimidate skill.

it's an Intimidate based Legendary skill feat (so the hell knight commander can literally scare malcontents to death, their corrupt hearts bursting in terror) or similar. You are just that terrifying.

1 to 50 of 456 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>