Figurine

Tangent101's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 4,422 posts (4,424 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,422 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I must admit curiosity as to how Paizo managed to get a levels 1-20 campaign out of this. Is this using the Fast Advancement rules? How will we release enough XPs to get people past level 18? (I mean, Hell's Rebels had to potential to reach above level 18 with the extra-large sized Issue #100, but chose to just include other content instead. Even then I'm not sure we'd have gotten more than one level out of it.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Mosaic wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
What would be better is if some unknowing team of adventurers (say, around Book Two or Three) accidentally undid a 'time lock' that Thassilon had been 'sealed away' under and suddenly there was 'New Thassilon'
I'd love to see an AP where the PCs screw up early on (bad information, deliberately misled, insurmountable challenge) and have to spend the rest of the AP fixing whatever they unleashed.

Like the "You are all captured and put in prison and have to escape" plot, this is a plot line that works best when it rises organically in play and can be tailored by the GM as it unfolds.

Deliberately planning this, or setting up an adventure whose whole point is to make the PCs expend time and resources playing only to screw something up and then expect them to want to KEEP playing after they realized the GM has stacked the deck against them the first time is a good way to get a campaign an early grave after the players lose interest in my opinion.

But if it happens organically, and the players DON'T learn or believe that they were supposed to fail or do something foolish all along, the storyline can be really compelling and interesting.

It's just basically impossible to do in a published adventure.

Yeah. I had my adventuring group refuse to continue the Slave Lords modules after they all got captured without a chance of avoiding their fate. They were royally POed by the railroading and I ended up having to run a new campaign after that. It's a shame as I'm fairly certain they'd have excelled especially as I think one of the characters was a psionicist.

This AP leaves me conflicted though. Is there going to be an effort to translate this into 2nd Edition Pathfinder? Because my Skype Pathfinder group is going to start up the Playtest, and assuming they don't all hate it we'll switch over to 2nd edition afterward. But the campaign we just finished was Rise of the Runelords (ran for over five years meeting online every three to four weeks). I have a sneaking suspicion they'd love playing this "sequel" of sorts rather than Hell's Rebels, and they're kind of looking forward to HR so....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here is a suggestion for the Secret Rolls for overworked GMs:

Have the Player roll and record 20 rolls of 1d20 and write it on a piece of paper with their name on it. The GM keeps the piece of paper and when it comes to a Secret Roll they check on the roll (they can also write the Perception stat on the paper and any other stats that might be important for a Secret Roll).

The player thus made the rolls, the GM only has to look something up quickly and can cross it off afterward, and minimal time is taken.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lordcirth wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
they were trying to choose the Skill Choices, not the Skills themselves.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you give an example, please?

Choosing "Tumble Through" instead of "Acrobatics" for a Skill.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing. I would recommend in the final version to do a step-by-step Character Creation process, not just with the character stats. My players had problems comprehending the Character Sheets, what the TEML meant, and on choosing Skills - they were trying to choose the Skill Choices, not the Skills themselves.

For that matter, having a trial combat with actual examples would also be helpful so the players have a better idea of how Actions and Reactions work in an actual game setting. The original Pathfinder Rules included such examples.

Now I must add a caveat. My players are lazy. The only reason one player had a character sheet ready was because he contacted me online the night before and we struggled through character creation - and it also took me insisting he needed to download the Pathfinder Playtest rules rather than have me tell him everything. (Seriously. *sigh*) My other two players? They hadn't downloaded the rules either and had no idea what they would do for characters.

I do play online via Roll20 and Discord so it's easy for my players to get distracted by online shiny things. But even so, after we wrapped up the Goblins module (which took barely two hours) it was over two hours of game time of me struggling to figure out the Character Creation rules (as I'd not actually MADE any characters - I only do GMing so character creation isn't quite as important for me) and explain it to people two timezones away. And we ended without having finished the character creation when we called it a night (I'll work with them via e-mail). The fourth player never showed unfortunately, but it probably would have been even more hectic working with building a third character at the same time.

tl;dr - the Character Creation process is not intuitive and can be confusing to new players. Please have a written-out demonstration of the character creation, from stat selection to Ancestry Feats to Class feats, and on down the line. It will make things a lot easier to have examples to show. The same will hold true for combat.

Addendum: Maybe include an example of Leveling Up in the next PDF Download? After all, we've people who will be creating higher-level characters. I just know that leveling up isn't going to be any easier than character creation was.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My friend? Either drop them or run the last battle of Book 5 without them because you gave them advanced notice and they did not tell you ahead of time they were not available. It is on them. Not you.


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

You could always ask which players want to drop, and then only run the half of the group interested in playing.


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

So is this the final Blog prior to the Playtest Launch?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kaelizar wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
(Fighter Dedication would take 5 feats to replicate for a wizard, and an average of around 3 feats for most other characters)

Hopefully this is hypothetical feats and not actual feats? I would hate for the list of feats to get so large in 2nd that someone who's new to the system would pick their feats, only to have another player more experienced make the same exact character but using the 'more powerful' feats and having a better character only because they knew which feats provided more/better benefits than others.

I just don't the amount of feats cause problems for players. Say for example you wanted a wizard who has Armor proficiency, so you take the Armor proficiency feat.. but wait, they could have just multi-classed into Fighter as you said and get that and then some. Why would a Wizard (Who didn't intend to multiclass into other classes) ever take any weapon or armor Prof. feats? They should always take Fighter Multiclass? and if you pick the weapon/Armor feats then you're making a bad/wrong choice. I hope I'm conveying this right

Because the character in question would need a Strength of 16. Your Wizard who has a low Strength but wants to wear heavy armor could likely take Feats piecemeal and despite having a low strength eventually have heavier armor.

There are times when you cannot go with Multiclassing. So you go with a different method that takes longer.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

First, concerning the renewed argument on adding a hand to a weapon being an Action. This makes sense if the players are in combat. Why? Because your blade is already moving around. We're not talking about just putting a second hand on the weapon. We're talking about slowing the weapon, putting your hand on the grip in a manner that allows you to make better use of your strength. That takes far more effort than just letting go of a weapon.

Now maybe there is a Fighter Feat later on that lets Fighters do this as a Free Action. We don't know yet. But from a stylistic viewpoint if you are whirling a blade around in one hand and then try to add a second hand, you're not going to have a good grip (especially not good enough to have it improve the power of your blows) unless you take a moment to secure your grip. That's the Action.

---------------

Next, this is to the folk threatening to Rage-Quit Pathfinder 2 because of a multitude of reasons. First, tl;dr - try out the Playtest first. You might find what you thought you'd hate actually works quite well when you see more than just a bare bones snippet in a blog.

And now... *puts on a storyteller hat* Back nearly 40 years ago, I was first introduced to a fun roleplaying game called Dungeons and Dragons. It was a lot of fun and when I tried to find it I found something called "Basic Dungeons and Dragons" and then "Expert Dungeons and Dragons." I asked for more D&D stuff for Christmas. My Uncle, not knowing there was a separate game system called "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons," picked up the rulebooks for that game instead and gave them to me.

I was quite disappointed. You see, I had heard that Elves didn't have magic in AD&D. I didn't know much about it, but I liked Elves being their own class (and Halflings and Dwarves) and didn't see a reason to mess with what worked. But after I started reading the rules all at once I got excited because I learned that elves had the option to become wizards and learn magic... or multiclass wizard with rogue or fighter (or both). My uncle was bemused when an hour after I was meh about the gift all at once I was really really grateful and thankful for it.

If all I had gone by was what I thought was for the best for the game, I'd never have gotten into AD&D. I'd probably have never really found a group to play and never would have gotten into Pathfinder. I would have missed out on a lot of fantastic content and excellent campaigns (and some not-so-great content as well, to be honest).

So as I said in the tl;dr - go through the Playtest and play the game without modifying it. Take the elements that you believe you hate and play them with a neutral mindset to see what works and what doesn't work. Provide suggestions on what you like and dislike and what works and what is clunky.

If there is more to Pathfinder 2 that you like than you dislike when it is released in its non-playtest form, then buy it. You'll likely enjoy it, much as I enjoyed AD&D after I realized it expanded on things that Basic and Expert D&D only touched upon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JRutterbush wrote:
I gotta say, I find it a little off-putting that I can start out as a Wizard with a 10 Intelligence and have full access to all class features, but if I want to dabble just the tiniest bit without having started out as a Wizard, suddenly I have to have a 16 Intelligence.

As I said before, it's the difference between the barely adequate student spending all of his or her life in hard study to learn magic, compared to the dabbler who is really gifted but went a different path... but decided to learn a few things on the side.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For the folk complaining about Archetypes and Multiclasses not working together, you do realize if an Adventure Path requires an Archetype then it is likely it will provide the Archetype Feats for free when the characters reach certain levels, so to avoid the "Archetype Feat Tax" folk are complaining about.

This sort of thing has happened in the past - for instance, bonus Feats provided in the Hell's Rebels AP.

Also, Mark, once more I kindly request that we have an Airship Pirate Adventure Path. It would be absolutely awesome.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Bardarok wrote:
It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.
They only seem to scale at half the normal rate, which is somewhat limited, option-wise.
Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).

Okay! Sorry, that was confusing the first time. It sounded like the Cantrips would be half the power of a Wizard's or Cleric's cantrips.

Instead what you're saying is your Cantrip is level 1 for a 1st and 2nd level character, level 2 for 3rd and 4th, level 3 for 5th and 6th, and so forth. (And this is why we need to use something OTHER than "level" for "spell level" as it gets bloody confusing quite quickly.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Mark, I don't suppose you could give us a taste of some other Multiclass Feats, like for the Rogue or Fighter? Or for that matter what might be in the works for the Druid or other classes?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thflame wrote:
Voss wrote:


Wow, um. You made me feel worse about that.
I hadn't caught that retconning was in the game. 'You were a Multiclass wizard all along' makes me even less happy.

I get that some people really like retraining as a protection from trap feats and bad decisions, but it's the kind of video game feature that really aggravates me. Doesn't connect to the world or make any kind of sense. 'Because I went to chainsaw training, I've now completely forgotten C# programming!'

I personally don't mind retconning under certain circumstances.

If you grabbed an ability and realized that it doesn't work the way you thought it did or never used it and want a new ability, then I have no qualms with that.

If you just want to trade away something that has lost it's usefulness for something else, then I have a problem.

The retraining in core has been explicitly stated to allow your character to grab feats/abilities that they want just for a certain "mission" and retrain them away after the mission.

In the archetypes blog, the example was given of a party retraining into the pirate archetype before going to sea, then retraining out of it once they are back on land.

It's not retconning either. It's retraining. This is something that people do in real life, including in athletics. Heck, you do it when you cram for an exam.

So rather than "you were a multiclass wizard all along" it's "you spend a month of time in constant study working on something you dabbled in as a youth and have a breakthrough which allows you to start casting spells."

Of course it's easy to word things in a way that is very negative... and also fairly easy to reword them so something sounds good. It might be a matter of mindset. It's something you can retrain yourself on in bringing about personal change and growth in the real world. ;)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:

I am not a fan of this system.

Not only does it have the same issues I have for the archetype system, but also it feels clunky with all the awkward feat taxes (why does Basic Arcana need to exist? Why can't there just be a feat that gives you a wizard feat with a level restriction?). It stinks of how 4th Edition D&D handled multiclassing with its awkward multiclass feats.

I don't understand why this needs to be implemented as archetypes. Given that the math has changed and classes are less front-loaded, why can't multiclassing work as it did in 1.0?

With what we know of the system so far, I feel you should have many better tools than this at your disposal to implement multiclassing.

Because the Multiclass system in Pathfinder 1 was broken. You either had situations where multiclassing ended up with an inferior character that lost out on powers and abilities as a result of multiclassing, or with an uber character who thanks to powergaming had abilities a straight build could only dream of and could never beat.

We've seen examples posted here on this very forum discussion. The current Multiclass system is broken and should be scrapped. I'd rather we didn't have any multiclass at all, or go back to the 1st Edition AD&D dual-class system, than keep the 1st Edition Multiclass system. That's how broken it is.

This new system might have a class "weakened" slightly but in turn provide new abilities by having you utilizing Class Feats... but don't forget, Class Feats are not General Feats, and both of those are not Ancestry Feats. That sounds far better than the old system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Armenius wrote:
What's the reasoning for requiring 16 in the primary stat? I remember it being stated a cleric with next to no wisdom would be viable. Strange that a rogue who spends one feat on clericdom has to be wiser than a pure cleric.

From a roleplaying perspective? I can see this. You have someone who hasn't spent most of their adolescence (and possibly childhood) in prayer in a church and learning the ways of their God, or with their nose in spellbooks in the case of Wizard.

For Fighter or Rogue, it is more iffy, but we don't know if that is the prereq. For that matter, for Cleric it could be Wisdom and Charisma of 14 each. And getting that 16 in Intelligence even at 1st level isn't too difficult - just about any Ancestry (those without an Intelligence penalty at least) could use their Floating Bonus to Intelligence and then a couple other Background builds to help push their Intelligence to 16. They might not have an 18 for their main stat, but you're also striving for a multiclass character at level 1, so they're not going to be as strong as a traditional Fighter or dexterous as a traditional Rogue, but have other abilities that compensate for that - to an extent at least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

So it took two and a half hours, but we finally made it to CfA, after shopping for new speakers (my old ones have started sprouting battery acid, in addition to being right/left finicky for the last ten to fifteen years, so I figure it’s time for an upgrade - instead of spending the bare minimum $20, I went for a real splurge and spent... $35! That’s cray-cray!) so, the shopping process went thusly: I find the speaker section, get to the speaker section, grab the (second) least expensive set of speakers, and head out.

Takes an hour? Sounds about right to me!

I want to know what kind of speakers have batteries in them, much less battery acid...

Wireless speakers for surround sound systems (and for that matter even just dual-speaker systems. They need to get power from some source. It's why I refuse to do wireless speakers, I don't want to keep dealing with batteries dying. Instead I trip over wires all the time. ;)

When I replaced my speakers just recently, I think I spent $40 or so and got a good surround sound system with wires. If I was willing to spend twice that amount I could have gotten wireless.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

She had a variety of options for healing (She rarely had more than one heal from it, but she could if she wanted). Her cleric multiclass wasn't the main part. It was one piece of the puzzle.

EDIT: Ninjaed by DMW, who once again has analyzed the blogs so thoroughly he's managed to figure it out without the books yet!

But the cleric feats were the "piece of the puzzle" that allows her to do more than just heal HP prior to Legendary levels, I would guess.

Be clear, Mark: Can a party with zero spellcasting resolve healing situations as dire as (for example) Mummy Rot on curve without having to visit a Cleric?

You already know that answer. You just need to be Legendary in the Medicine Skill Feats. They included Mummy Rot as an example of things that could be cured with it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One thing this will do is lessen the number of classes in future books. I mean, this almost decimates the Hybrid Class system - I think the only class you can't replicate in that is Swashbuckler (and even then you can come close).

So, we'll have a second book with the following: Witch, Oracle, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Cavalier (maybe? Did anyone ever play one?), Inquisitor, and Summoner. And maybe the Vigilante.

Shifters can probably be handled with a Druid multiclass and focusing on shapeshifting instead of spell use.

To be honest, the Vigilante probably could be handled through Archetypes... though multiclassing with Vigilante would allow most of the interesting Vigilante Archetypes they had (I rather liked the concept of the Magical Girl even if the class didn't work that well).

This also raises the question: will Base Classes and those from the inevitable Occult Classes have their own Multiclass templates? Or will Multiclassing remain only for the Core classes? (I mean, it doesn't make sense that someone can't multiclass Gunslinger to have access to guns but... after a while it risks getting messy and broken.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Moro wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
The problem with it is it limits the classes you can multiclass... and encourages people to play classes such as Bard, Alchemist, or Ranger and then take the Multiclass Archetype to get a core class.
From what I am reading the limited multiclass archetypes are for the playtest book only, and they expect to have all of the core classes' multiclass archetypes sorted out for the actual CRB release.

Except it would make sense for us to playtest all the multiclass archetypes. Otherwise you could get unintended results.

If there will be multiclass archetypes for all classes, then it will be added as a PDF addendum during the playtest after we've done some work playing with the multiclass system. Otherwise it'll hold off for another book... assuming they even do that, seeing that even just doing the Core Four Classes you end up with some powerful choices including the ability to emulate almost every Hybrid Class out there.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is rather interesting. So... can a Sorcerer Multiclass into Wizard? Because that could prove most interesting. And it also allows a Prestige Class of sorts - a Wizard or Cleric Multiclassing into the other class can build a Mystic Theurge, and actually have a viable character out of the affair.

The problem with it is it limits the classes you can multiclass... and encourages people to play classes such as Bard, Alchemist, or Ranger and then take the Multiclass Archetype to get a core class. Also, I have to wonder just what the Rogue and Fighter Multiclass Archtypes bring to the table because they either risk being lackluster and not taken compared to the Wizard and Cleric, or they steal enough thunder from the Fighter and Rogue classes that people don't see a need to take them and instead just Multiclass.

I don't suppose you can give us a couple examples of Rogue and Fighter Multiclass Archetypes to help fill things out a little?

Side note: Once we get alternative-alignment Paladins out there, I can see a lot of Warrior Priests with players running a Paladin that multiclasses Cleric to have spellcasting abilities. And for that matter, you can have Rangers build a "Hunter" build by multiclassing with Druid should that ever be allowed. (Or the Slayer by doing Ranger multiclassed with Rogue.)

In fact, this basically allows ALL of the Hybrid classes.
Arcanist? Sorcerer multiclassed with Wizard.
Brawler? Monk multiclassed with Fighter.
Investigator? Alchemist multiclassed with Rogue.
And on down the line. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I found a way around that, NobodysHome. I run a GMPC and when the group is waffling, she went Leroy Jenkins on them. They started calling her Danger Lemming as a result. And then around level 12 she suddenly became scarily competent and ended up being their Front Line. Sadly, your two Leroy Candidates stayed out of the latest fight from the sounds of things so...

Interestingly enough, we never really had a leader in the Runelords game. I suppose it wasn't exactly needed, seeing there were four players and an NPC, and everyone was ranged but the NPC. I was quite amused though when the Eldritch Knight, despite having the highest hit points in the group, squawked whenever I targeted him (seeing Danger Lemming was impossible to hit so higher-level enemies soon learned "ignore the scary little girl with glowing blue markings on her skin"). I mean, Danger Lemming was a Glass Pistol. Did a goodly amount of damage when she hit but it took a Belt adding +4 to her Constitution and Dexterity along with Toughness before she stopped dropping after one good strike by a Stone Giant.

My tabletop group had the opposite problem. One of the players was tactically minded (though not to the extent of the Sorceress player from my Skype game) and basically herded the older AD&D groups... and tried avoiding doing that so he'd not dominate things this time. But after people just... kept not knowing what to do he started taking up the leader baton again and people would listen. It helps that I run for an older crowd though and half of my players are women.


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

That's always been a problem - multiple casters with the same spells. Because I don't care how uber your group is, if you get hit with 60d6 of Fireball damage, you're going to go down.

Yes, I'm looking at you, Rise of the Runelords. Fortunately I decided that the pseudo-clones of the Enchanter dude wouldn't just all cast the same exact spell at the same exact moment... after all, they're based off of a genius, and he'd know that if the group were immune to fire or had fire resistance up, then that first round would be wasted.

So I take it your group decided to continue the game as-is?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

I wouldn't mind orcs in core... But man, it would have to be handled carefully. Orcs have been associated with crimes that are way more triggering than anything goblins do. You'd need to really carefully navigate those waters if they become core. If an NPC accuses a goblin PC of being a pyromaniac murderer, the players can roll with it. If an NPC accuses an orc PC of being the... Shall we say typical villainous orc, it creates a much larger stumbling block for the players.

While I do believe it would be good for dispelling the all orcs are evil myth, in game and out, it almost feels easier to soft retcon some of the Canon on orcs.

All crimes of orcs were crimes of men first.

Certainly, yeah. But the crimes of orcs outright created their own core race. That's a pretty long shadow to cast.

If Pathfinder moves away from tragic and violent origins as the default for half-orcs as other systems have, orcs in core seems more reasonable.

Only if the player chooses to have it be so. I had a player run a scholarly half-orc barbarian whose mother was an orc and had fallen in love with a human. She was an old grey-haired badass who stepped out and attacked stone giants gleefully when stone giants raided her adoptive town to keep her husband and son safe.

You can have half-orcs who are descended from other half-orcs... and who married or have otherwise harmonious relationships. You can have half-orcs born of orc mercenaries hired to guard caravans who spent the night with a human prostitute and the birth control tea failed. You can have someone born of two human parents but who had orcish blood in their past and it just happened to be enough that the orcish traits came out with their child.

You can decide whatever you want.

And also, you can have a half-elf born of a scoundrel elf who seduced a woman and then left her pregnant... oh wait, that actually happened in Rise of the Runelords. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ah, thanks Cap. I forgot about that while skimming through the complaining about incorporating half-elves and half-orcs into the humanity ancestry.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

How sneaky. I was not expecting a new blog today. I have to wonder if this will happen tomorrow as well. And the next day for that matter.

Note: Ignore the rest, already answered by the above blog, I'm not deleting it because I don't believe in erasing past mistakes. Or in other words, I made myself look stupid so I'll wear the blonde locks. ;) (Okay, silver. I'm old, what can I say?)

Now as for the half-elves and half-orcs... I have a recommendation. Please, have a couple half-elf-only and half-orc-only Feats. Because it makes sense - hybrids in nature often have attributes not found in either parent (for instance the liger (male lion, female tiger) is larger than both the tiger and the lion, while tigons (female lion and male tiger) can have spots, and litigons, the children of tigons and asiatic lions are even bigger than ligers).

So a couple specific ancestry Feats for beings with parents of two ancestries would allow extra diversification. You can even have these abilities be more powerful but only accessible at high levels. It would help provide a sense of uniqueness to half-elves and half-orcs (and other beings of different ancestry parents) rather than have them be just a mixture of two ancestries.

And let's be honest. They are more than just the sum of their parents. Half-elves and half-orcs should have something extra to make them of interest to more than just power-gamers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Mad Comrade wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
I know the feeling. Half the time when I schedule a game I have no idea who is going to show and who isn't. Okay, I know that one girl will always be at least an hour late... *eyerolls*
If you schedule the start time session by session, e-mail her that it starts an hour before what time you tell the rest of the players. ;)

That's not exactly viable seeing I ask for times during the previous game session, so everyone knows what date and time the game will be. I've joked to her that I should do that but...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If I were to say a few words about the Druid?

.
.
.

Stupendous!
Marvelous!
Unbelievable!
Radical!
Fantastic!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I know the feeling. Half the time when I schedule a game I have no idea who is going to show and who isn't. Okay, I know that one girl will always be at least an hour late... *eyerolls*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jhaeman wrote:
Associating bards with the occult is a pretty weird leap to me. The conflict between performance (a public expression of artistic creativity) and occult knowledge (by definition secretive and insular) just doesn't work. I respect people trying to reconcile the concepts here, but if the connection isn't intuitive to readers, why use it? If you were to tell me that *any* major spellcasting class had a link to the occult, bards would have been last on my list.

That is because you are interpreting "occult" to mean something different than what Paizo has interpreted it as.

And truth be told, occult probably doesn't quite mean what you think it means. Its meaning is "to hide from sight." A meaning closer to its use here is "supernatural practices and techniques" - this is according to Dict.org, a website that does an excellent job of defining words, listing its sources, and finding alternative words.

Or in other words, "occult" is perfectly suited for this sphere of magic, especially given the range of "essence" includes mental magics which would in many ways be "hidden from sight."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

This was a mad masterpiece, and truly beautiful. Did you craft it? Because I'm really tempted to post this over at Tumblr and want to attribute it properly....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
First World Bard wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
How much intermix do the spells from Occult, Arcane, Divine, and Primal have? I mean, I'm not alone in wanting to have fairly unique spell lists for each of these. It's one thing that really turned me off of Occult Adventures that so many 'psychic' abilities were just "reskinned" spells that Wizards and other classes already had.

Tangent, read up on Magical Traditions (specifically the four "essences") from the blog post here, and search that thread / other places for e.g. Mark's commentary on the subject. As further reference, the Primal List is Vital/Material, while the Occult list is Mental/Spiritual.

Yes, I understand about spell essences.

What I'm asking about are the spells themselves. I heard about Bards getting Magic Missile potentially and that seems... well, it feels a little off, especially seeing Bardic spells are mental and spiritual in nature.

Having an underlying foundation for spells is a good thing, but only if the building you put on top of it sets firmly on that foundation. Otherwise the building risks falling off the foundation and you end up with a right mess. :/


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Mark, I have a question for you and the other designers.

How much intermix do the spells from Occult, Arcane, Divine, and Primal have? I mean, I'm not alone in wanting to have fairly unique spell lists for each of these. It's one thing that really turned me off of Occult Adventures that so many 'psychic' abilities were just "reskinned" spells that Wizards and other classes already had.

Each of the four spell categories should have its own distinct flavour and be distinct unto itself. And if that means the Wizard class ends up losing certain spells and the Cleric class loses others, then that's a good thing. It means there is actual choice involved in each class. When you choose Bard, you are getting spells that you don't get with the Wizard class, and Wizards can't just slowly accumulate everyone else's spells with future books.

This should also be set in stone with the Spell Research. Wizards should not be researching Occult spells because someone feels Charm Person or Suggestion should be an Arcane spell instead of an Occult spell (if, for instance, those spells were Occult only).

And thank you again for all your hard work and in spending time to expand on the blog in the forum posts :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Talent Points.
Or even Ability Points.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Okay. We're getting Multiclassing as the very last Blog then. ;)

I'm rather liking this modular version of classes. It will allow for more diverse types of classes in the future - for instance, you can have a Wizardly version of the Arcanist, or a Sorcerer version. Similarly, you can build a Skald for the Bards, or a Brawler for the Monk (or possibly even Fighter).

Thank you once more for this blog. I'm rather excited about this class, and feeling a tad better about 2nd Edition as a result. :) Which is kind of what Bards do - they lift our spirits and encourage greater resolve among us. :) So it's quite apt!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Will there be a Composition that would allow Bards to be Skalds? It seems like the Skald is a natural offshoot of the Bard now, and I have a player who was really looking forward to playing a Skald in my next game (which I'm holding off on until 2nd edition and we'll be doing stuff with the Playtest).

Let's see. We've got the Druid left... and that's pretty much it. So I suppose the last Blog on the 30th will likely be either a racial Blog or some other element touched upon previously.

Thank you for posting these :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
So you, LIKE the fact you can get away with not having to explain plot points about your world? First example I get a good setting idea. PF2 "Oh it's Rare" tells me... that it's just hard to get. No reason why just "it's hard to get". Your players can also do this in PF2, I don't see how this changes anything. "Ugh we have to go do this LONG quest we didn't want to" sounds about the same in both manners.

I like being able to say to a player "the rules say X" when they protest that my campaign design is being arbitrary. And yes, there are players who get up in arms over having to go on a quest to find a specific item rather than just check it off a list and having bought it. The former takes time. The latter is just playing Dungeons and Diablos - something I detested from the 3.5 version of DND which encourages speed gaming - get everything done as quickly as possible because your buffs are going to run out in three minutes.

There being a specific RULE in the books turns the argument from "you are being arbitrary and unfair for not letting me have this" to "well I don't like this rule and I think you shouldn't use it." Hmm, what does this ultimately do?

It shifts the onus from the GM to the player. Before the player could have a valid point. Was I unfair for not allowing Raise Dead to be commonly available in my games? Was my decision to not use a generic gaming world with all the magic available actually detrimental? Should I sacrifice my setting because I'm forcing my vision down the players' throats?

Now it becomes "you are upset because you don't like these rules." The GM can take a closer look at the argument because it is no longer about the GM, it is about the player. Is their argument valid in protesting this RULE, or is it the player is upset because they can't get that little toy?

-------------

BTW, Rarity doesn't need to just be magic items. Nor does Unique items. Let's take some of the firearms that players could acquire in Book 5 of "Reign of Winter" - now let's say a player brought back a rifle and some ammunition as a memento.

That rifle is now Unique in the Golarion setting. In order to GET that rifle, a player would have to track down one of the heroes who fought to free Baba Yaga and convince them to part with their memento, either offering them a lot of money for it or try to steal it.

It's a good rifle. It's better than mundane firearms in the campaign setting because it was created by people who have crafted guns for centuries rather than novices who haven't even begun to think about mass production of firearms. It isn't any better than a 10d6 Fireball Wand - if anything, that wand is probably the better weapon in many circumstances. But it's Unique.

Now let's say that character is a Gunsmith and carefully manages to take it apart and learns something from the manufacture of that rifle. They may be able to replicate a bit of it. Their own next-generation rifles will not be as good as the original... but will still be far better than the firearms currently out there. If they are able to put that rifle back together it is still Unique and it may very well be other firearms built along that lines will have a greater chance of misfiring and do just a little bit less damage.

We now have a prime example of Unique items and how they can be replicated... but still remain unique. :)


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

@MerlinCross: How is the GM stating "I do not allow that spell" differ from the GM not including that spell as it's a Rare or Uncommon spell? Seriously, if a GM doesn't want a spell then they will state it. Players can complain all they want about how unfair it is... but that doesn't change matters.

For instance: I ran an AD&D campaign where Resurrection was extremely rare. There was an in-game reason for that due to the God of Healing being murdered and the Goddess of Death (who isn't evil, mind you) gaining his Portfolio (thus being the Goddess of Death and Healing). The players came across a Scroll of Raise Dead. It wouldn't work unless a God empowered it, so they went on a quest to try and convince the new Goddess of Healing (daughter of above Goddess of Death - long story) to empower the spell. It would have worked but they killed a unicorn that some elves were riding while attacking the party. She got pissed and refused to empower the spell, so they ended up going another route to eventually get their companion back.

Under the Pathfinder 2 rules I can state "Resurrection is a Rare spell" and that explains things. Now there are plenty of players who would insist that in an AD&D setting they have every right to use the spell Raise Dead or Resurrection because it's in the books. It doesn't matter that my setting had a dead God of Healing, a God-War as a result of this, and thematically an explanation for limited access to healing and no real access to Raise Dead. The players could end up disrupting my campaign because they feel it is unfair that their character or their buddy's character was dead and that they'd have to go on a long quest to get their friend back.

Having a rule that states X (spell or item rarity) helps the GM keep things in order. The GM can choose to waive a rule if they so desire but the rule is still there and they can state "this is a one-time event because of X" (say a background aspect) and allow it for that one time but still have the option to say no because it's in the rules.

2. The GM can then state "You can't use that because it's not available." When the player complains the GM can say "it states X in the rules." End of argument. If the player comes up with an effective argument as to why they should be granted an exemption, then good. If it's just whining and powermongering? Too bad. Rules exist to create a framework from which we game.

3. Not all Choices are for Players. For instance, the Red Mantis Prestige Class was not intended for players, but for NPCs. In the Red Mantis write-up it STATED as such. Just because something is in the books doesn't mean players get to use it.

4. We'll see.

5. That's not an effective argument.

As for the time for spell research? I didn't remember it. I have no idea where it was. So it doesn't matter. I will say this: if a spell is Uncommon it should take longer to research. If a spell is Rare then it should take even more time.

If it is Unique then it should be something which takes months or years to create - you are talking about what is essentially breaking research. It is akin to Elon Musk building a rocket that can land and then be reused. You are not just recreating someone else's work, you are designing something brand new using concepts that haven't been shown before and that may end up eventually in hundreds of spellbooks. It is a Masterpiece in spell creation.

That's not something that you just whip out in a week.


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

I use Hero Labs.

It makes the game a lot easier in some ways - bookkeeping becomes far easier and I can look things up fairly quickly and also print out character sheets for players.

But it also makes certain things more difficult. The sheer number of spells available can make it increasingly difficult for players to make choices when leveling up. Believe it or not, but choice is not always a handy thing for many players, especially more casual players who haven't memorized the books.

I suspect Hero Labs will have an option to click on a "Common Spells only" function so when someone levels up, then the spells that are Common are the ones that show up. This reduces choice which speeds leveling. (Mind you, I got around this with my Sorcerer player seeing she had a Cold theme (her character was from Irrisen) so I'd suggest spells that had Cold descriptors or that I thought would be of use for the campaign... and let her decide. She'd have a half dozen choices.

Meanwhile my Cleric player basically just memorized a few spells multiple times and ignored 90% of what was out there. She didn't want Choice. She wanted to just kill things and have fun. The game was a means of destressing for her and leveling up became stressful.

Only one player ever bothered learning spells and the like, and he was a bit of a powergamer to be honest. He's also the one making the most noises of distaste on PF2. He naturally hates the Common/Uncommon item or spell system.

Having Common/Uncommon/Rare encoded into the rules themselves means that Third Party systems will incorporate it as well. This makes my job easier and makes it easier for my players. So for those of you who are protesting it... let me ask you. Why is this a problem?

------------

One thing to consider also. Anyone could try to learn Blood Money by creating their own spell. But how long will that take? Why should creating a whole new spell without any outside notes take only a week or two? Even a low-level new spell should take at least a month and probably multiple months to create. This is not something a player could do while adventuring. So they have a choice: Do they try to create a new spell? Or do they go out adventuring?

And if they do stay and create their spell and convince their comrades to spend time back home doing stuff... well, the world doesn't wait on heroes. If some wizard were trying to create a new spell during Rise of the Runelords, I'd have their home base end up attacked by Karzoug's forces or the like. Remind them that they have an adventure waiting for them... and that the clock is ticking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
edduardco wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

So if a player has an idea for a spell they can research it, but if it is already printed they need to justify why they can research it?

If I have an idea then that can be treated as my character inspiration, but if I read it somewhere it can't? what about a spell I read about in another game? or an effect I see in a film? does my character have to justify that too?

Yes. And for that matter, I may very well do this even if it's a unique spell if I feel it would unbalance the game in some way.

Unless you have a history of your character coming up with various interesting spells and then have your character constantly doing spell research, then if I find you created Blood Money for a spell you want to research, I'm going to suspect you got it from Paizo.

After all, what would you do if your GM just said "I don't approve of this spell and am not going to allow you to research it" - say "okay" or argue the point?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Quote:
So we went from GM Fiat to an actual rule. The GM can always choose to ignore the rule... but by providing an official rule for this, the GM can go "it's in the rules" and not have to worry about players whining about the GM being arbitrary and unfair.

And why do we need the rule?

If a player is complaining to me about the rules, then I simply tell them that they are not looking for what I provide and they can either sit back and watch everyone else till they figure out what it is I am providing, and take part in that, or they can buzz off and find some other GM.

I envy you that you can just tell a player to go take a flying leap. I've two groups - one Skype-based, one tabletop. The latter has only two players. The former slowly grew to be four players but for some time was just three. And my players in the Skype group don't always get along (and at one point I had a player quit because she had a problem with another player's connection issues).

In the past I've tried to implement things like common/uncommon weapons. It wasn't easy and I gave up after a little bit. That Paizo is including this out of the box is a good thing in my eyes. And if you don't like it, you can easily ignore it. I suspect some rules (such as Bulk) will be just ignored by many GMs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Elorebaen wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Seems decent enough. Though there could have been a lot more meat to this blog post, how hard would have it been to give a good amount of examples. That being said my major concern is the return of. "Oh yeah this npc totally gets to do this thing, and no you can't learn it." Now just masked as rarity.

You act as if they is inherently a negative thing. It isn’t. There are some(maybe many thibgs) that an NPC knows that a PC will never be able to know. I could see a great many things taking a lifetime to learn, or many years and access to great libraries, etc.

I guess I just don’t even get this comment.

Because it doesn't make any damn sense? And that GM fiat is bad and anything encouraging it is bad game design?

Just and example NPC wizard level 5 had a rare version of lightning bolt spell they came up with, let's say it works like the from times of old that bounced of things. Now we have a PC wizard level 20, he decides to research such a spell, nope can't do it. No matter that you are working of the same magic and that you are vastly more knowledgable and skilled on the subject. Or let's say it is a martial feat some sort of sword technique. Assuming the npc and pc are both of the same race, they follow the same laws of biomechanics and as such they are able to execute the same excat movement required for the technique. Verisimilitude is important. All that said important part of that statement was using it as an excuse, basicly hiding GM behavior that should not be tolerated.

To me, GM fiat is not only a good thing, it is what makes or breaks a game. A good gm is one who uses GM fiat well, and a bad gm is one who doesn't.

Without GM fiat, there is nothing of substance to the game beyond combat minis.

That said, a large part of doing GM fiat well is using it to maintain narrative milieu, consistency, and verisimilitude. That means, if a spell exists, anyone capable of learning spells should be able to...

I think a spell not being commonly known is more than reason enough.

For instance, take the spell Blood Money. There are two sources for it - Karzoug's spellbook, and an artifact the players may or may not stumble across (and even then it's hit-or-miss whether they learn it from the artifact). If my players wanted to know it, I see perfectly justified in saying "no" because it is a Rare spell. They may insist they should be able to learn it because it's on the PRDs and the like. Having Paizo put out rules on how common an item or spell is provides a legal justification for the GM to say "no" - because the rules themselves say no.

So we went from GM Fiat to an actual rule. The GM can always choose to ignore the rule... but by providing an official rule for this, the GM can go "it's in the rules" and not have to worry about players whining about the GM being arbitrary and unfair.

And it also already exists in Pathfinder 1! Look at the rules for firearms. Revolvers are not something you can just buy off the street. Metal jacket bullets only exist in specific settings. There are specific rules on this. And there is even an exception provided - the AP "Reign of Winter" in Book 5 includes a foray in World War I Earth where the players can come across advanced firearms.

Now, there are rules on automatic firearms existing thanks to Reign of Winter. The GM does not need to allow these weapons in the game despite the fact they exist. Similarly, the GM can choose not to allow specific spells... and by providing a game mechanic (common/uncommon/rare spells/items) you reduce arguments and complaints.

The game is supposed to be fun after all - both for the players, and for the GM.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
edduardco wrote:

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

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

Why would the player want to research the spell? How would the character even conceive of the spell? Powergamers using spell research to get around rules is still powergaming and still disruptive. Besides, who is to say there isn't some extra element needed for the spell that doesn't exist anymore, or some philosophical concept that the character needs to conceive of before they can get the spell to work?

Hell, I could very well see the research attracting attention... so the person starts being hunted by the Hounds of Tindalous or the like. They looked into the Abyss, it noticed them, and is now seeking to destroy them. But then, if I say "no" and a player tries to abuse the system to get around my saying "no" then I have the right as a GM to utilize game elements to make them pay a price for their actions. Just as if a player has their thief looting homes that they have to pay the price for their lawbreaking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Mark, I'd like to second someone else's question. Well, third it.

How does Spell Rarity affect Spontaneous Casters? Would a Sorcerer be unable to normally learn an Uncommon spell? Under what circumstances would a Sorcerer or other Spontaneous Caster be able to learn an Uncommon spell (or for that matter a Rare spell)?

You can add anything you have available to your repertoire, which puts you in the same boat as everyone else. If you gain access to a rare lower-level spell that you've already fully chosen spells of that level, you can use retraining from Downtime to quickly and easily access it or just do it when you level up.

Hmm. I'm not sure if you already did this or not, but it might be a good idea to add an added metadata tag to the tag on if an item is Common or Uncommon (or Rare). Something like (Uncommon/Region) or (Uncommon/Ancestry). For instance, the Race book included racial spells. Those could be Uncommon (or even Rare) and primarily known by that Ancestry or people from a specific region.

In a way there already is something akin to this with Drow Sleep Poison. But in this case it would be Sleep Poison (Uncommon/Ancestry or Background). So the only people who could brew Sleep Poison are Drow (or other Ancestries with that capability) or their slaves/former slaves - and this further would give a RP hook in that the Drow may very well want to get their slave back.

Just something to consider for the final rendition of the Core Rules. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Mark, I'd like to second someone else's question. Well, third it.

How does Spell Rarity affect Spontaneous Casters? Would a Sorcerer be unable to normally learn an Uncommon spell? Under what circumstances would a Sorcerer or other Spontaneous Caster be able to learn an Uncommon spell (or for that matter a Rare spell)?


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

There is of course one simple solution. It's called "intelligent adversaries." This can even include the Goblin. But the most infamous is that of Tucker's Kobolds.

The thing about Tucker's Kobolds was they fought intelligently. They lured in the players and then struck with ambushes. They attacked in a way that wasting high-level spells was basically pointless and wouldn't do more than kill a handful of them. Now, that GM made them lethal... but what's important is this: they fought intelligently.

There are contrasting examples in the Rise of the Runelords AP and the Serpent's Skull AP - in Serpent's Skull you have telepathic snakemen in one area that even after an alarm is raised will wait for the PCs to reach them and get cut down piecemeal. In Runelords you have a situation where once the bad guys know you are there, they will send waves of giants and other targets to attack as soon as they reach you... resulting in one huge ongoing fight that usually will eventually break a party and cause a retreat.

The second is the far more realistic scenario and one far too few APs and modules go with. It can quickly overwhelm an adventuring group, even a 15th or 16th level group. But it is essentially what the enemy SHOULD be doing.

So. You have a group of enemies who have some sort of alarm set up. The moment the alarm is sounded - say because of the sounds of combat, an actual alarm being given, or even someone encountering dead bodies left by the PCs - then it makes sense for a patrol-in-force to be sent out to find and attack the party. If the PCs have squandered most of their resources and then suffer a counterattack which forces them to retreat further? Good! And then attack them again. And then again.

The players will soon learn they either have to fight intelligently or that they will end up facing retributive strikes. They will conserve resources and fight more intelligently. And that means the Adventure Paths need to be designed so the enemy isn't a bunch of turtles who exist only to be slaughtered.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Honestly, with the way all casters are getting less spells per day and limited resonance, I fear that Paizo is doubling down on the 15 minute adventuring day, instead of trying to alleviate that problem, even with scaling damage cantrips.
I sort of worry about that too. Like: I totally see some chump blowing both of their top level spells in the first fight of the day and then complaining about how the party needs to rest. That was only not a problem in 1e because fights only lasted like 2 turns, though.

You DO forget one thing though: Clerics and Wizards (and Sorcerers) have Orisons and Cantrips which scale upward and are "infinite" in being reusable over and over again. So really the thing that will determine the end of the combat day is when the healing runs dry. And depending on the Rituals for Healing, it may be more you do several encounters, hole up, do a Ritual to heal up, and then continue fighting again.

Wizards and Clerics would use actual leveled spells against bigger foes... and may start off doing a Magical Girl system of using their lowest level (and Cantrip/Orison) spells against foes initially and then escalating to powerful attacks against foes who are actually a real threat.

It means Wizard/Sorcerer and Cleric players will have to change HOW they fight... but really, smarter players tend to hold off on using their heavy-hitting spells unless facing larger numbers of foes or something they know is a clear threat.

Amusingly enough, the fact we have Scaling Cantrips means that Wizards and Clerics may very well be the ones pushing past the time when their more potent talents are used up... because they can STILL do something useful in a fight.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To be honest, the "limited" Bloodline abilities isn't that limited. The 1st Edition Pathfinder Sorcerer didn't have many Bloodline abilities either. Three abilities seems about on par with what was provided in the past. I just hope that there isn't a lot of replication in abilities between Bloodlines - one problem I had with the Sorcerer's abilities was how essentially similar certain Bloodlines ended up being (usually encouraging melee combat which is NOT what most Sorcerers want to get into!).

----------------

The kicker is that Casters of all sorts are going to be required to have a high Charisma now, lest they end up massively underpowered. So say farewell to the days of the gruff uncharismatic Wizard who never became socialized because she was always busy with her nose deep in the books and doesn't know how to deal with people except with her magic. Now she would need to either have a "heart of gold" or the like because otherwise she is going to be significantly limited on devices that expand her spell base - wands and staves (and scrolls).

That also goes for the Cleric. If they don't have a high Charisma then a core ability of their class goes unused - they would be limited to three uses of Channel Energy. So the quiet bumbling Cleric who is unsure of themselves and doesn't preach to the masses but is quietly faithful ends up losing out because they need Charisma to utilize both Channel Energy and Resonance for magic items to enhance their now-limited casting abilities.

(That does make me wonder though - will Clerics, Divine-path Sorcerers, and perhaps Bards have a Feat that would allow them to "channel" a couple points of Resonance to someone else for use in drinking Potions? After all, if Potions fail to work because Resonance runs out (and I'm not sure if I want to risk a 50/50 chance of that healing potion failing when push comes to shove) then having someone else be able to use their Resonance for their comrades seems very much in character for these classes.)

Sadly, we won't find out today. The Devs have fled this thread, though it is Thursday (I was on the road through Tuesday so I missed the start of the conversation).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Okay. Seeing I previously discussed the Sorcerer and Heighten Spells in the Wizard blog thread, I thought I should answer concerns about the Heighten Spell ability and how it's limited for the Sorcerer.

Let's say the Sorcerer could Heighten just one spell for each spell level. It starts slow, but at higher levels it ends up with a huge amount of choice that will cause a lot of delays and also overpower the Sorcerer. Seriously, it doesn't seem like much at first, but it quickly becomes quite overpowered.

If the Sorcerer has three spells and one Bloodline spell without ANY Heighten Spells, then at 11th level they have 20 spells (four for each Spell Tier) and however many Cantrips. But if you have Heightened Spells for just ONE Spell of each Tier, you end up with effectively 30 spells - because that Tier 1 spell is good for the 2nd through 5th Tiers, that 2nd Tier spell is good for the 3rd through 5th Tiers, and on down the line.

Further, each Tier ends up with a larger and larger selection of spells to choose from. A level 18 Sorcerer with just one Heighten Spell per Tier would have 13 9th Tier spells (including the Bloodline spell). It doesn't matter that they only have 4 spell slots to cast from - they have a huge selection that Wizards definitely don't have. What's more, they would have a total of 72 spells to choose from leading from the 1st Tier (with 4 spells) to the 9th Tier (with 13 spells). It would quickly become quite confusing and would massively slow down the game. Worse, it constrains the Sorcerer to make sure at least ONE spell is chosen not for their image of their character but because it is the best spell of that Tier to Heighten as the character levels up.

Even if the Sorcerer's Heighten Spell ability only goes to the maximum Spell Tier and can't be utilized for lower Tier slots (and that seems unlikely), they STILL would have 33 Spells available with a vast selection of 9th Tier spells compared to the Wizard.

Meanwhile, the Wizard at 18th level has 29 spells (and three or four 9th Tier spells), and with their Focus they can recast any one of those spells once. Why the heck would anyone want to play a Wizard when it's so underpowered compared to the Sorcerer?

The new system STILL has the Sorcerer with a slight edge in some ways over the Wizard. Depending on when they get the spells that Heighten, they STILL would (at 18th level) have six 9th Tier spells available... and (depending on how Heighten Spell works) potentially six 8th Tier spells, six 7th Tier spells, and so forth. They are constrained in their spell selection, but even that can be worked around through Scrolls, Wands, and Staves - and with their higher Charisma they can utilize these more frequently, though I'm sure the Wizard has other benefits that Sorcerers lack.

And yes, a huge spell selection slows the game down. I've stated this before. I've SEEN this before. While I think the spell selection has been cut far too much (Clerics, Wizards, and Sorcerers should get at least one extra maximum spell for each Tier), by reducing the number of spells available you speed up the game. Nor does this mean a Wizard or Sorcerer (or Cleric!) who uses up normal spells is out of luck... they can still use Cantrips and Orisons which level up. They're not as good as a spell of the same level but they can cast it several scores of times a day (in theory "infinite" but given there's 24 hours in a day, assuming six-second rounds and non-stop combat for every moment of that day it's a little over 17,000 times in that day - so not quite infinite due to how time itself works).

So, tl;dr - Paizo, Developers, I like what I've seen. I've not exactly been the most positive of folk on the forums especially after the Wizard came out... but it looks like the Sorcerer is going to be an interesting and enjoyable character, with elements of the Oracle and other Spontaneous Casters mixed in.

I just wonder how you're going to fit in blogs for everything you have left to tease us with - we've not had the Human or Demi-Human Blogs yet, we've Druids and Bards still to discuss, and a half dozen different topics you've hinted at that could be touched upon as well.

While I've not liked everything I've seen with PF2, I look forward to seeing the Playtest Rules and with my group help shape the final form that PF2 takes through our playtesting and input.

1 to 50 of 4,422 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>