Rob Godfrey's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 433 posts (447 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 433 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

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 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
BTW the description of Sanya reminds me of John Constantine. Yet another CG in my book

Pretty much, he is much happier and less thinky (things just turn out that he gets to roll in and end a bunch of vampires or fae or beasts from beyond time..because divine providence) this appeals to him so he is made of sarcasm, vodka and big grins.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I forgot to mention the fictional character I see as the paragon of CG : Gregory House
Sanya from the Dresden Files, Knight of the Cross, weilder of Esperacchius, atheist, rocks a sword made from one of the nails of the True Cross, fights demons, talks to angels, still doesn't believe in them (or rather refuses to take them at face value, for all he knows they are really weird aliens).. Anyway, read the books, a guy with a holy sword and an AK is par for the (awesome) course.

Knight of the Cross are hardcore Lawful Good. They have very strict rules on killing(like having to accept fake surrenders) and even refuse to proactively hunt the fallen, instead waiting for them to actively do harm before getting involved. It works because Divine Providence sets things up for them so long as they stick to the code.

In normal Pathfinder, their code would be considered Lawful Stupid.

They are bound by an oath...which Sanya stretches as far as it will go, while ignoring everything else the Angels want him to do which isn't directly related to not making his sword go poof. Sounds pretty CG to me, also remember why they don't hunt the fallen: It is to allow the fallen to use their free will to choose to do evil (or not), exactly the opposite of LGs 'detect evil....PUUURRGGGEEEE' approach.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

I agree OP. Customizable Archetypes are a balance nightmare.

In PF1, you could substitute archetype abilities for class abilities of equivalent power.

If you can pick and choose, people will always sub out their weakest class ability, which really limits the archetype.

Uh...they replace Class Feats with new Feats from an Archetype List (both of which are restricted by level). That's...not actually that hard to balance, IMO.

but as far as we know you can't ditch sneak attack (for instance) for something else, which is what the OP was after, Archetypes that fundamentally change a class. For instance I am not interested in a mad bomber Alchemist and never have been, but the mutagens really appeal, so ditching bomb making for earlier and better mutagens would be great... But afaik couldn't be done.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
I forgot to mention the fictional character I see as the paragon of CG : Gregory House

Sanya from the Dresden Files, Knight of the Cross, weilder of Esperacchius, atheist, rocks a sword made from one of the nails of the True Cross, fights demons, talks to angels, still doesn't believe in them (or rather refuses to take them at face value, for all he knows they are really weird aliens).. Anyway, read the books, a guy with a holy sword and an AK is par for the (awesome) course.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
I do like the intimidate example of a legendary skill. I undertand that many people won't like it, tho. I think it'll be easy to excise from the game. Just allowing only proficiencies up to Master (or whatever is called the one before legendary) should clean the board for the most part. It's certainly easier to remove them, than to build them from the scratch.

and what nerf would casters receive to valance that?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mudfoot wrote:
AFAICT, the OP just wants archetypes with cool names like Sin Eater and Witchguard, rather than the archetype abilities themselves. Because the core classes in PF2 are so customisable, those names become redundant. Though I expect they'll be back in a splatbook at some time in the future, either because the core rules can't cope without an addition, or just to fill the printing schedule.

given the feats in the previews (especially the fighter one) 1e Archetypes look very, very attractive in comparison especially for their ability to go hugely into the weeds cganging core mechanics (mutation warrior springs to mind, as does Eldritch Scion) totally changing the way the class works.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BPorter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


-References were made to a Legendary Intimidate Skill Feat that is a Save or Die effect, as you literally scare people to death (it's limited to no more than one use per target per day). This bodes well for Skill Feats being powerful.

...Yes, the following is a duplicate response to the same post in the other banquet thread. Yes, I feel it's necessary given how much I'm NOT digging the seeming appearance of Legendary tier skills throwing the game completely off the rails that preceding levels will build.

Gah. I truly hope Mark's comments that PF2 can be customized and Legendary skills can easily be excised from the game is accurate. Because while Legendary is being advertised as something that kicks in only at high levels, if Skill Feats or some other mechanic lowers that barrier of entry to mid-levels, then Paizo has managed to re-convert me back to "PF1 forever".

I have been cautiously optimistic to outright "take my money now" for all of the teases thus far, including resonance and that conversion took place at a pace that surprised me. The only exceptions being minor concerns about NPC builds following a Starfinder route and MAJOR concerns about Legendary stuff turning the campaigns into a caricature of itself.

The stuff being touted as Legendary, isn't. It's demigod Mythic stuff. If it's hardwired into the game, it's sadly a deal-breaker for me.

Demi God mythic stuff ahs always been in PF, they were called spells, now it sounds like Legendary skills will actually allow non casters to do things approximately that crazy, and break the 'martials are in Middle Earth, Casters are in the Wheel of Time issues, if only partly.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Like the Fighter Stances and combos idea, sounds like the concept of forms from the Treatises, so thumbs up from me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talek & Luna wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It'd be pretty surprising if Wizards suddenly sucked at using buff spells in PF2 considering that was one of their best options in PF1.
I wouldn't be. If blast spells are an indication, wizards are being nerfed pretty hard for no good reason

apart from them making most other classes irrelevant at high end you mean?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Revan wrote:
I would personally maintain that the PF2 Paladin code, by virtue of its tiered nature, is considerably *less* restrictive than a Cleric's anathema. A PF2 paladin is completely free to be utterly underhanded so long as its in service of protecting the innocent and he doesn't outright commit evil. A Cleric of Shelyn's anathema against denying surrender, striking first, or allowing art to be destroyed, meanwhile, is rather speciific and unqualified.

Thats a good point. I suspect in PF2 we are going to get a lot more complaints about anathema than codes. Its very easy for a Shelyn follower to get in a no win scenario.

But also remember that Paladins get the Code AND the Anathema. So if that's the case, then the Paladin has it much worse. But I see your point, perhaps a tiered version of the Anathemas are in order?... May get complicated tho.

as per the twitch stream Anathema come before the code, at tier 1, so they win any conflict


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
quit changing your argument, if your argument is (as originally stated) crossbows suck because bows are cool, you cannot, when provided with examples of crossbows in pop culture, change the argument to xbows sucking in PF1, so the pop culture xbow would not work, one or the other, please choose.

Because only one argument, or even aspect of an argument, can ever be valid? PF1 Bows were both fashionable and the most powerful martial weaponry in the game; I have never changed my stance on this matter, which means I never changed my argument whatsoever. All you did was attack one aspect of my argument at any given time, and even then you opened up holes in your argument that wouldn't hold water if I applied their concepts to PF1 (or PF2 for that matter).

The whole "crossbows were cool and useful" in Walking Dead would be a major misnomer in Pathfinder simply because of Stealth rules and Perception mechanics. The big draw to crossbows in Walking Dead versus simple firearms was the ability to defeat walkers without drawing attention. Can't do that in Pathfinder, and most certainly not with a ranged weapon attack; at least, without some form of outside help (like a Silence spell, with maybe an illusion).

No, sir, you changed what you chose to respond to to suit yourself, rather than addressing what my argument was, you decided I had posted in response to the mythical other argument (the one you had not made) and claimed I had failed to address it, which is dishonest at best.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Brolof wrote:
Historically shields and crossbows have been used, though that was more a Pavise for cover and an aiming platform than actually holding the crossbow with one hand.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/3a/84/26/3a8426866105e782a2f5fb49b946c76c.jpg as shown here, pavise and fairly large looking crossbow.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
You CAN make an army of LN drizzt clone fighter drow too. It doesn't mean it fits as a major portion of the setting.
and we run into that wall again: is the Paladin the blessed warrior with a code and a patron, or is it a beefed up cavalier order of LG knights? If you see it (as I do) as the blessed warrior class, then yes, Cayden sure would have them, tgey might fight differently, but equipment is props, at least imho.
Except you can't mandate CG and manage a behaviorally restrictive code that holds any meaning at all.
Chaotic gods (good, neutral, or evil) having anathema and chaotic clerics (good, neutral, or evil) abding by those anathema says you totally can.
Yes, it is very true. But Paladins have an anathema AND and a Code. Anathemas are general guidelines that are generic enough to be not too restrictive on the individual. The traditional Code (by its very nature) pushes it much farther and is too restrictive on the Chaotic individual.
Except..it isn't, in RAW it is not, CE Anti-Paladins manage just fine with a code, as do C(whatever) Cavaliers, you can head canon chaotic being gibbering lunacy, but RAW it isn't, another nail in the coffin of the endless LG best G arguments.
Except that the CE anti-paladin code sums up to "be CE" It has VERY little in the way of restrictive behaviors by comparsion. Which is the problem generic Chaotic codes always sum up to "do what you would have based on your alignment anyway" The cavalier codes are all very specific things, a subset of a larger class, they don't fit for crap as a generic all X follow this code, and even then most of them aren't remotely near the behavior restrictions of a paladin code. They are not on the same level.

the CE codes set the precedent, they are apparently restrictive eniugh to grant power(and are more so than the tiered 2e code)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Composite Bows are the master race of ranged weapons, and it has always been this way since the original 1st Edition D&D. There's no reason to change that paradigm now, especially because there's no new fad to make them less appealing.

In fact, more of the new "cool" characters use bows over crossbows due to their excess training and lack of clunkiness with crossbows. So expecting Crossbows to be comparable, or even have a niche in response to Composite Bows is laughable.

a 1250lb span weight windlass crossbow can and will go through things a long bow is challenged by, take an age to reload but the impact power is nuts.
This is abstract fantasy, not articulated science, which means having a 5/8ths ton pull on a crossbow is about as important as having a weapon that's colored purple. Unless that 5/8ths ton pull has a mechanical impact on the game (spoiler alert: it doesn't), it does nothing to make crossbows useful for players.
Except you were using 'excessive training' as an example (besides wrist bows are firmly embedded as cool) and we have crossbows being awesome in the Walking Dead (for instance) so..

"Excessive training" is quantified by levels and BAB and other game mechanics. There are no game mechanics tied to the weight of pull to a crossbow, which makes any mention of such irrelevant and unimportant, because it means nothing in the game.

Hand Crossbows are the absolute worst in PF1, and I won't see that changing anytime soon in PF2. "1D4 damage with clunky reloading and stupid exotic proficiency requirement 2.0" would be a better name for it.

Walking Dead isn't really applicable to how a crossbow shot would work in Pathfinder. Whether you have a Gunslinger or a Bolt Ace in Pathfinder doesn't aid or change one's ability to be detectable after firing from standbys. The first season where Crossbows were in use would have resulted in...

quit changing your argument, if your argument is (as originally stated) crossbows suck because bows are cool, you cannot, when provided with examples of crossbows in pop culture, change the argument to xbows sucking in PF1, so the pop culture xbow would not work, one or the other, please choose.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Composite Bows are the master race of ranged weapons, and it has always been this way since the original 1st Edition D&D. There's no reason to change that paradigm now, especially because there's no new fad to make them less appealing.

In fact, more of the new "cool" characters use bows over crossbows due to their excess training and lack of clunkiness with crossbows. So expecting Crossbows to be comparable, or even have a niche in response to Composite Bows is laughable.

a 1250lb span weight windlass crossbow can and will go through things a long bow is challenged by, take an age to reload but the impact power is nuts.
This is abstract fantasy, not articulated science, which means having a 5/8ths ton pull on a crossbow is about as important as having a weapon that's colored purple. Unless that 5/8ths ton pull has a mechanical impact on the game (spoiler alert: it doesn't), it does nothing to make crossbows useful for players.

Except you were using 'excessive training' as an example (besides wrist bows are firmly embedded as cool) and we have crossbows being awesome in the Walking Dead (for instance) so..


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:


Sounds fair enough, I would like Champions on the Paladin chassis for most faiths (can't see the Outer Gods or Great Old Ones having them, simply because they don't care) as empowered and bound enforcer/champion/thug/hero, works for most deities, and having some arise from the nature of the planes isn't to much of a stretch (heaven chooses it's representatives, champions of a god yet to ascend/be born, so do the Hells etc) then as stated that the Anathema come first in the paladin twitch talk, the code follows, over ridden by the deities quirks, and we have holy warriors down.

Interesting ideas. I'm specifically focussing on the Code itself. But if their were to be Neutral versions of the Code, (for Neutral Deities) I'd expect them to be able to choose whether they take the full Lawful Code or make their own Chaotic like one.

Also side note, I was under the impression point 1 in the Code is equal to the Anathema followed by points 2-4. Not Anathema first, then Code... But that's a minor quibble.

For 'neutral codes' that can also be a stance, a disinterest in Law vs Chaos so focusing purely on the good or evil side (as the paladin code currently basically does anyway), or for LN and CN, a disinterest in Good vs Evil and more into freedom (or savagery) vs order, that leaves out the honest balance keepers of some of the TN faiths, not because they shouldn't exist but because I cannot get a good hook on them, codes are hard work, but they aren't insurmountable challenges. Credit to David Eddings for the 'champions of gods yet to be born' idea. (Read the Mallorean series for more details)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Yes, it is very true. But Paladins have an anathema AND and a Code. Anathemas are general guidelines that are generic enough to be not too restrictive on the individual. The traditional Code (by its very nature) pushes it much farther and is too restrictive on the Chaotic individual.

After giving it some thought, I've come to terms with the fact that though I feel my previous statement is true, that is not how the game is formatted presently. So I've come up with perhaps an alternative... (I am going to present it as my preferred end goal of having the 4 Axis-adins, LG, CG, LE, CE. But it can work for "Any Good" Paladins, etc as well.)

I propose that we keep the 1st point of the Code for the Chaotidins. The other 3 points will be chosen from a list (maybe 6-8) that the player and GM work through to fit the specific Chaotidin. Order of importance can be chosen at this point as well. I can even imagine Paizo publishing multiple fully formed Codes for the Chaotidin for ease's sake...

This separates the Paladin from the Chaotidin (as well as their evil counterparts) mechanically and conceptually. All LG Paladins have the same Code. That way when you encounter a Paladin, you know exactly where he/she stands. But if you meet a CG Chaotidin, you have no idea where they stand because each Chaotidin is so patently diverse. Thus you are embracing the spirits Lawfulness and Chaos...

The only downfall that I can think of is the unfairness to the Paladin players. "Why can't I choose my own code?, etc..." I'm not sure that everyone would understand the reasoning behind it. It's probably just a balancing thing. But as a LG-only Paladin player, I think it would be a suitable compromise for everyone.

Sounds fair enough, I would like Champions on the Paladin chassis for most faiths (can't see the Outer Gods or Great Old Ones having them, simply because they don't care) as empowered and bound enforcer/champion/thug/hero, works for most deities, and having some arise from the nature of the planes isn't to much of a stretch (heaven chooses it's representatives, champions of a god yet to ascend/be born, so do the Hells etc) then as stated that the Anathema come first in the paladin twitch talk, the code follows, over ridden by the deities quirks, and we have holy warriors down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Composite Bows are the master race of ranged weapons, and it has always been this way since the original 1st Edition D&D. There's no reason to change that paradigm now, especially because there's no new fad to make them less appealing.

In fact, more of the new "cool" characters use bows over crossbows due to their excess training and lack of clunkiness with crossbows. So expecting Crossbows to be comparable, or even have a niche in response to Composite Bows is laughable.

a 1250lb span weight windlass crossbow can and will go through things a long bow is challenged by, take an age to reload but the impact power is nuts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
You CAN make an army of LN drizzt clone fighter drow too. It doesn't mean it fits as a major portion of the setting.
and we run into that wall again: is the Paladin the blessed warrior with a code and a patron, or is it a beefed up cavalier order of LG knights? If you see it (as I do) as the blessed warrior class, then yes, Cayden sure would have them, tgey might fight differently, but equipment is props, at least imho.
Except you can't mandate CG and manage a behaviorally restrictive code that holds any meaning at all.
Chaotic gods (good, neutral, or evil) having anathema and chaotic clerics (good, neutral, or evil) abding by those anathema says you totally can.
Yes, it is very true. But Paladins have an anathema AND and a Code. Anathemas are general guidelines that are generic enough to be not too restrictive on the individual. The traditional Code (by its very nature) pushes it much farther and is too restrictive on the Chaotic individual.

Except..it isn't, in RAW it is not, CE Anti-Paladins manage just fine with a code, as do C(whatever) Cavaliers, you can head canon chaotic being gibbering lunacy, but RAW it isn't, another nail in the coffin of the endless LG best G arguments.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I've definitely seen Divine grace as a chaotic thing. Actions have consequences, but Divine grace keeps your paladin from being subject to those consequences. "You cannot bind me!" they might as well say.

I see it as neutral, the forces that empower the paladin don't want their toy/champion/puppet to break....


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
You CAN make an army of LN drizzt clone fighter drow too. It doesn't mean it fits as a major portion of the setting.

and we run into that wall again: is the Paladin the blessed warrior with a code and a patron, or is it a beefed up cavalier order of LG knights? If you see it (as I do) as the blessed warrior class, then yes, Cayden sure would have them, tgey might fight differently, but equipment is props, at least imho.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bodhizen wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
I agree with this, but to repeat what you said at the end, chaotic characters while not accepting outside rules, would accept rules they made themselves from their own ideals and ideas.

That's actually not what I said at all. The chaotic character wouldn't limit themselves with rules any more so than they'd allow an external influence to do so.

willuwontu wrote:
So while they may not follow a rule because it's "god's law", they follow it, because it parallels their own internal rules, and thus they might accept that god more than others (maybe even looking to them for inspiration in their life). And while they may not accept all of that god's tenets, as some might conflict with theirs, they might be granted power by that god for their tenets in common and their looking to them for inspiration.

I don't think that you're grasping what I'm getting at. What I'm attempting to state is this: a chaotic character acts completely irrespective of rules. For them, it's as if rules do not exist, period. It doesn't matter whether rules are "internal" or "external"; they're "rules" and therefore, they "do not exist" for that character. There's nothing to follow, because they simply do not interact with rules, period. If they happen to do anything at all (randomly, or with purpose), that just so happens to follow someone else's "rules", it's a complete coincidence that has absolutely zero impact upon that chaotic individual. They don't accept rules. They don't interact with rules. They simply act.

willuwontu wrote:
This also fits with the theme of Paladins being bestowed power based on their past actions (back when it was the forces of alignment granting their powers to them, now it's the gods), instead of pleading with a deity for them (which could fit certain paladins, I'm not saying it's bad, just I like the image of the former over the latter).
Sure, you could bestow power upon a chaotic good individual as a reward for "following rules" (not that the chaotic...

so your view of a chaotic indivifual is someone who is so random as to br unplayable?


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

So...things I have learned from this thread. I suppose the main thing I've learned from this thread is that that as it has evolved, there is no functional difference between "Law" and "Chaos" and how they're played ingame.

I know that my saying this might prompt the immediate response, that immediate WANT to say, "but there is!" And that's natural. We want to point out the opposite, to look for flaws, to preserve a tradition.

...but think on it, yeah?

Chaos, apparently and as attested to by posters and Bestiary entries, has laws. Law has laws, and yet neither are defined defined by what's legal (otherwise, a PC's alignment changes when they cross a border, or you could simply 'outlaw evil' and other silly things). Either alignment, in the view of posters, may make broad, binding oaths and complicated arrangements. They have broad convictions, and intricate societies with levels of law and structure. Mercy, honor, and hope are not exclusive to either axis. .

..take a look at the thread.

I can't find a functional difference when you get into it. If there is one, it's so fine as to be a mouse's whisker.

Perhaps...there may be by now bare shades of difference, but those mostly lie in personal preference. Those mostly lie in phrases like, "I had a bad experience with organized religion" or, "I had a situation with my GM, and I didn't want to be told how to play my character; it wasn't that my character didn't respect the laws or order of where they were. It was more a personal, and OOC thing at the table."

I know the immediate response is: that can't be true! ...but read, reread. This is what folks are saying, about how they play at their table, and so on. Difference is just this...OOC preference. Functionally, as it's evolved, there is none.

This doesn't mean that there used to be though, you know?

their is a difference (though looking back at old DnD outside of some outsiders the separation hasn't been that big) land its a philosophical one, chaotic is (basically) anarchistic, you consent to rules, then obey them, because you agree, having thought about them. Lawful is authoritarian (comparatively) you obey laws because an outside authority has laid them out (god says so is a perfectly acceptable explanation for instance, especially given with the right spell you can check). So a Chaotic Paladin would find the god whose code they agree with, a LG paladin find the god whose goals they agree with and obeys the code because god says so.

1 to 50 of 433 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>