Catfolk

Tectorman's page

835 posts. No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists.


RSS

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

Also encountering this, at least on a PC (haven't been to the website on a mobile recently). Minimizing the screen lets me see what was obscured, but it's still an annoyance.


One thing I liked on a conceptual level from Iron Kingdoms was that Meckanikal (their version of magi-tech that I might have misspelt) weapons could be upgraded to do various things (like flaming or frost damage), including just straight up more damage or accuracy. But it was only the one time. Putting an Accuracy rune on your weapon's runeplate gave you a +1 to hit and was the total bonus to accuracy you were ever going to have. There was no +2 Accuracy or +3 or higher. Characters in fiction might go around with weapons that, due to their magical enhancement, hit more often or harder or both, but they don't go around with a Sword of Accuracy, only to upgrade to a Sword of Accurate Accuracy, and then to a Sword of Really Accurate Accuracy or a Sword of Really Really Accurate Accuracy. That's when it really gets boring. We've already had the accuracy of a weapon being magically enhanced in the story; we don't need to do it again, so let's kindly move on to anything else.

Edit: it also had the advantage of not letting weapons get so upgraded that a character using a weapon with a fully decked-out runeplate became hopelessly crippled if he ever had to go back to a stock normal un-upgraded weapon. Han has his trusty blaster that he's tinkered with and tricked out; he doesn't just sit down and give up fighting if he's stuck with a borrowed Stormtrooper rifle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DeltaPangaea wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:
I'm always a bit surprised to see people railing against "Vancian magic" by saying that's not how magic works in fiction. Really we rarely see the same spell or effect repeated in multiple instances in most works. How do we know that Vancian magic is not at work? We don't. It's just an assumption that smart players make because they don't like the term for whatever reason. How many spells does Gandolph cast? How many are cast in infinite progression? Doctor Strange? Harry Dresden?

First off, since none of these characters ever say 'darn if only I had prepared X spell today', claiming that it IS vancian is more outrageous than saying it isn't. If you wanna say they're vancian, you'll have to present some proof of that. Also, Dresden I know specifically is explained as NOT being vancian.

"I didn't prepare this today" doesn't come up anywhere in most examples of fiction, and the ones it does are Vance, derivatives, or D&D.

"Well it COULD be vancian!" is reaching so hard you might as well be stretch armstrong.

Agreed, though I would say you can also throw in Pathfinder fiction, too. In all the books, we never hear a character complain about not having prepared enough uses of this or that specific spell. We have characters either know a spell or not (a la Sorcerers). We have characters that are supposed to be divine casters; in which case, the novel treats practically every spell they can cast as something they can spontaneously cast (there's never a point where any divine casting character says "Oh darn, why didn't I pray for XXXX today?"). The closest we have to Vancian is still more Arcanist/5E, where the character either prepared the spell or didn't, he never says anything to the effect of "Oh darn, I only prepared that spell once; why didn't I prepare it twice?".


Rysky wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Is there a non-mobile option? I like having the larger mobile screen so I don't have to scroll as much. Then I can zoom in where needed.
I do the same, so I second this request, please :3

Thirding this request. I liked being able to read more before having to scroll down.

Joana wrote:

Favoriting a post no longer opens up the "You marked this as a favorite" box. The + changes to a -, but until you reload the page, that's all you get.

Using Chrome Version 67.0.3396.99 in Windows 10.

Yep, I'm encountering this, too.

Using Version 11 on iPhone SE.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
.... Why would it need to? Greatswords are already high damage dealing weapons, and don't really fit the "finesse" style of things like sneak attack.

Because when I'm picking Rogue, there are several things the class offers that I might be picking the class for, and I don't want my choice of "Hey, I want to be the skills guy" to somehow dictate "So of course, I only want to be using a dagger". Yes, with the way weapon damage dice go up, Sneak Attack with heavier weapons might need to be tweaked (half SA dice on non-finesse or non-agile weapons, or reduced SA dice, or both, or some other kind of tweak to keep the math working), but I still want to be able to inflict whatever kind of not-damage debilitating conditions come along with SA (which would not require a math tweak). Mostly I just don't want to see "I'm the skills guy, so of course you can predict what hyperspecific list of weapons I'm capable of using" like in 4E, 5E, and the Operative in Starfinder.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

So I want to go ahead and say some thoughts I've had about this.

The reason I don't like the prospect of a non-LG paladin is because I'm worried a NG or CG paladin will be the same as the LG one, but with a less restrictive code, and therefore strictly and objectively better.

In the Paladin blog, we learned that and how the LG code is being made less restrictive. If this version proves to be more popular than the PF1 one, and people prove less hesitant to play it out of fear of having to be LG, I'll be a lot less fearful that people will abandon LG paladins altogether.

As things are there's such a stigma around paladins that I once saw a thread where someone panicked and asked the whole forum what to do because one of their players wanted to be a paladin, in roughly the tone that would have been appropriate if they'd wanted to play a CE Gargoyle cleric of Rovagug in a non-evil campaign. In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I think the real problem is that as things stand, being chaotic perceived as being better than being lawful in general. I think the real fix isn't to disallow CG paladins forever, but to figure out what makes LG characters in general so unattractive and fix it. As of now, I think it's the perception that LG characters are disadvantaged because they have fewer options in a situation. We need to either figure out a corresponding advantage (better reputation/relationship with society?) or, and this is the worse of these two options, slap Chaotic characters with some limitation. (Inherently worse reputation? Being treated more harshly by most authorities?)

What's unattractive about lawful good characters? Two examples:

One: I'm playing what I consider to be a lawful good character. He has lawful traits and good traits. He's not a caricature of the alignment, so he also has evil and chaotic traits (as well as neutral traits on both axes), but I intend for them to be exceptions and outliers. In good faith, I believe that I have described a character that fits more into LG than anywhere else, and that I am portraying that character in a way that will be taken as LG. When I advertise my character as LG, that is what I'm communicating.

But that isn't what is being communicated. You see me write LG on my character sheet, and naturally, you think what I'm portraying should fit into your idea of what can fit within the bounds of LG. That what I estimate to be the natural and obvious tolerances for "well, that might have been a deviation on LG, but the character is still LG overall" will be the same as your estimate. And if/when I disappoint and have the character do something that I do believe to still be within the standard accepted deviation of LG but that you do not, then I must be doing it wrong. Cue unwanted and unwarranted scrutiny.

Two: I play precisely and exactly the same character as before. I still think he's more LG than anything else, and I don't portray him one iota differently than I did in the first example. The difference is: I don't pass him off as LG. He's as LG as I know how to make a character, but I write TN on the character sheet. So whatever I have the character do, with all his lawful and good actions and occasional chaotic and evil actions, it's all taken as the standard accepted deviations on True Neutral. Anecdotally, the conversation always ends after I say the character's alignment is TN. Somehow, it invites less scrutiny to do it that way (and not just LG, but practically any non-TN-alignment).

The character did not change. The apparent open invitation to pause the game and rip me a new one over personal differences on a subjective topic went away; that certainly changed. But the character did not.

You want LG (or alignment in general) to be less unattractive? Get rid of the impetus to subject players to scrutiny they never asked for and don't deserve. Make alignment have nothing at stake. No one argues if I declare my character to be decisive rather than wishy-washy, and you think that, while the character isn't wishy-washy, he isn't decisive enough to be decisive. With nothing at stake, the argument dies before it starts and you and I can simply agree to disagree.


GlennH wrote:
For a more focused fix, look at Magical healing, it forces the body to heal quickly. It’s easy to imagine the process of forced healing causing stress to the body and that repeated forced healings within a day could have a negative effect.

I feel like this doesn't need to cover healing from character-derived resources (spell slots, a Monk's ability to heal himself (if P2E Monks get something like that, Lay On Hands, etc) since they already have their own limitation, anyway. The in-game justification could be that healing magic stresses the body, but the caster shares that stress with the recipient. And then the explanation for when the caster IS the recipient could be that the body learns how to handle that potnetial for stress when the caster learns how to cast the spell (or otherwise magically heal himself).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
It will never not dismay me to see the bolded as something still being pursued for the purpose of being inflicted on others.

I feel like it's not a big ask to require Druids to respect *something* though, and making it specific to an order means that you're free to have druids who don't remotely care about nature outside of their purview. So you can have a Swamp Thing villain who wants plants to dominate animals, or a Druid who cuts down all the trees in an area so storms are more powerful, or a Druid who has cursed a city with endless unnatural weather, or a Druid who is a spoiled aristocrat- but those people aren't welcome in the orders whose central unifying goal those actions aren't welcome in.

I wonder if there are rules for switching orders. Like a storm druid who falls because they did some really bad juju with the weather to get revenge on some city who had wronged said druid switching from Storm to Wild.

Yeah. Asking for a class that gets their powers from the forces of nature to respect one particular aspect of nature seems like a rather reasonable restriction. To argue otherwise is to want a system where the source of magic is completely unexplained. Which to be fair, some people do want. We have folks who want godless clerics and what not.

But while I can see wanting a cleric who draws power from an ideal instead of a god, I have a really hard time picturing a druid who isn't drawing their power from nature, given what their spells do.

Plus, we have Primal Sorcerers if you want nature magic without an anathema.

It's only the same thing as realizing there are those that want to play a Barbarian, those that do not want to have something hanging over their head, and that these two things do not contradict each other. Yes, it may make aspects of the system result in sources of magic not being explained. It also results in the system not springing a stressful Sword of Damocles on a player for having the unmitigated gall of being interested in the Barbarian class (or the Druid class).

I just don't have it in me to value the former over the latter. It's anathema to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheburn wrote:
necromental wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the thing about the anathemas of the various orders is that the order which gives you the most power over a thing also expects you to use those powers most responsibly when dealing with that thing.

So a Leaf druid can make it snow in the Sahara desert, a Wild druid can kick every puppy she sees, an Animal Druid can cut down every tree in the forest, and a Storm Druid can enjoy every vice civilization has to offer, but a Storm, Animal, Leaf, and Wild druid respectively cannot do those things.

Since no feats are order-locked (you just get extra benefits with them if you have the right order) this is just a "Great Power = Great Responsibility" thing.

That's good insight on the way the orders work.
It would also be insightful to see that some people don't want it to work that way. Me included.
And that other people, like me, feel it's both thematically appropriate and a light burden in terms of normal roleplaying.

It will never not dismay me to see the bolded as something still being pursued for the purpose of being inflicted on others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wasn't going to look through all the pages, but did anyone else notice all those weird months in the deities' stat blocks for their various holy days? July, April, February, December? Where'd they come from? Is that some kind of weird consequence of the Rasputin Must Die adventure?


I don't get the title. Is it supposed to be a joke?

Edit: Oh, I see. "Shattered" is made up of the words "shat" and "turd". Heh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Davor wrote:
Wait, did I miss something, or does sneak attack simply apply to all attacks that meet the criteria? It currently looks like, if you want to be a damage-dealing rogue, going Str. with a two-handed is the way to go, unless I missed something somewhere that said you need a finesse weapon to deal Sneak Attack damage.

You did it needs to be finesse or agile melee weapon or any ranged weapon. Max damage will probably be a composite longbow if you can find a way to get your enemies flat footed.

Check the second page here

Wait, that's what they're doing with the Rogue's choice of weapons? Copying 4E, 5E, and Starfinder's decision to say "Hey, since you're playing a character that is otherwise best expressed by the Rogue/Operative class, we're going to go ahead and assume that you must want him to be stuck with a hyper-specific selection of weapons"?

Ugh. Hopefully, we can tweak SA between now and P2E's launch to nip that character-concept-crushing restriction in the bud. And even if not as a function of the default class feature, maybe with a feat or a class feature allowing the Rogue to expand his weapon repertoire beyond "Ye Olde Stock Limited Liste".

I mean, this is P2E. Last I heard, one could jump dozens of feet straight up into the air. Or steal the pants off someone while they were still wearing said pants. If such things are possible, then surely I can shank someone with a claymore (or, for that matter, a ballista).

Now, yes, I get the numbers require some separation. Assuming the same modifier to damage, a 1st level Rogue with a finesse weapon doing, let's say: 1d6 + stat + 1d6 SA or 1d6 + stat in non-sneak attack situations will easily get outclassed by a Rogue with a greatsword doing 1d12 + stat + 1d6 SA or 1d12 + stat normally. And that gap would only widen with additional weapon dice.

That just means tweak the numbers.
*1st level finesse SA: 1d6 + stat + 1d6 (min 2 + stat, max 12 + stat, avg 7 + stat)
*1st level finesse normal: 1d6 + stat (min 1 + stat, max 6 + stat, avg 3.5 + stat)
*1st level greatsword SA: 1d12 + stat + 1d6 (min 2 + stat, max 18 + stat, avg 10 + stat)
*1st level greatsword normal: 1d12 + stat (min 1 + stat, max 12 + stat, avg 6.5 + stat)

3 avg dmg per hit difference favoring the greatsword

*20th level finesse SA: 6d6 + stat + 10d6 (min 16 + stat, max 96 + stat, avg 56 + stat)
*20th level finesse normal: 6d6 + stat (min 6 + stat, max 36 + stat, avg 21 + stat)
*20th level greatsword SA: 6d12 + stat + 10d6 (min 16 + stat, max 132 + stat, avg 74 + stat)
*20th level greatsword normal: 6d12 + stat (min 6 + stat, max 72 + stat, avg 39 + stat)

18 avg dmg per hit difference favoring the greatsword

Too large. So let's tweak it. What happens when we halve the SA dice a sneak-attacking greatsword Rogue gets (besides making it where a greatsword Rogue isn't even using SA until later than 1st level)?

*20th level greatsword 1/2 SA: 6d12 + stat + 5d6 (min 11 + stat, max 102 + stat, avg 56.5 + stat)

18 avg dmg ahead on regular hits, 0.5 avg dmg ahead on SA hits

Okay, let's also say that SA dice for non-finesse weapons are d4s instead of d6s.

*20th level greatsword 1/2 reduced SA: 6d12 + stat + 5d4 (min 11 + stat, max 92 + stat, avg 51.5 + stat)

still ahead on regular hits, but behind on SA hits now

That's just off the top of my head. Undoubtedly, there are more and better ways it can be tweaked. And certainly other factors that would also need to be accounted for (crits, weapon properties, etc.). But if the math concerns of allowing a Rogue to use a greatsword (or other large weapon) can be resolved without resorting to "You're using a greatsword? No Rogue for you!!", isn't it infinitely preferable to go to every other length necessary before we redefine "Rogue" to mean "that guy who's not allowed to use a greatsword"?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Brock Landers wrote:
Ever since 1st Ed AD&D the Druid has had some good blasting spells, better than the cleric. The balance lies with not letting it get out of control, like in 3rd Ed (Wild Shape casting feat, etc). A spellslinging bear, with a buffed bear sidekick, and summons more bears, can get unwieldy.

You mean it would be...

...

unbearable?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Thinking about it more, Bard is actually a perfect fit for the Occult. After all, how many evil cultist rituals involve the leading of brainwashed followers in ominous chanting and demonic linedancing? How terrifying would it be to come across people singing:

"'Cthulhu fhtagn!' What a wonderful phrase!
'Cthulhu fhtagn!' Ain't no passing craze!
It means 'no worries, for the rest of your days (are numbered').
It's our problem-free end to humanity!
'Cthulhu fhtagn!'"

*Someone more familiar with Lovecraft can finish that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

It's certainly not the most common use of the word perform, but there's a reason the verb often used to indicate someone is doing something in a ritualistic fashion is "performing" a ritual.

I imagine most bards will play it pretty straight with the use of Performance, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Now that example was for polymath muse, which has some Performance-related options. If you were to go pure Lore muse, the sole option you'd necessarily possess that uses the Performance skill at all would be counter performance, which works even if it's just you and the bad guys and you're using as a mantra for yourself. That's equal or fewer than the number of abilities that the bard had built in that used the Perform skill in PF1.

Plus, P1E never (to my knowledge) allowed Performance to connote an action without witnesses or intention of popular acclaim or regard, which made Bard an intimidating choice of class as it seemed to necessitate the player to WANT the spotlight.

Thanks. This helps. Though, this expansion on what "Performance" is allowed to entail should probably find its way somewhere into the final product...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
It falls apart when you HAVE to be a performing music-y dude. When you can't NOT be the performing music-y dude. And even having the performance be an oration like a military drill sergeant is still an obligation to have the character be someone who fundamentally can't function if people aren't paying attention to him (which even the Om manipulator concept doesn't require, since it's more like the Truenamer in concept and more concerned with talking to the universe than any particular resident).
Sometimes, it doesn't matter if another living being hears you, but only if the universe does. There is ritual in the ways we perform and interact, and the act of composing is the act of formulating and writing down the ritual's formula.

So how does that reconcile with this?

Mark Seifter wrote:
I don't think it will cover for people who don't want to do anything involving performance, but it might do well on the niche of a batman bard that some took with archaeologist. The polymath is the muse for you if you're always thinking "Oh, I want to do this...but wait, I could do that! Why can't I do it all?" Prepare a spell to spontaneously cast, get more spontaneous heightening, use skills in a versatile way so you can succeed at a wide variety of stuff? That's the polymath's shtick.

Are you saying that "Performance" as used by Paizo in the context of the Bard includes conducting rituals with absolutely no witnesses (besides the universe itself) and with no goal of entertaining anyone or even being acknowledged by anyone?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
And yet the magic bards have picked up has never been shown to be occult in flavour. Just because something manipulates minds does not make it automatically fit the occult flavour. It sounds like bards are only occult casters because they want psychic-style casters later to use the occult spell list so the occult spell list is where mind-manipulating stuff will be focused, despite the fact the bard flavour has zero occult elements. And if they're studying magical lore, then why doesn't their spellcasting style reflect the fact their power comes from learning with it being charisma based?

Alright, then what is the occult flavor? I can easily associate the Bard to occult themes due to 1.) their constant theme of extensive knowledge, which makes sense that those who are worldly and delve into ancient knowledge forgotten by traditional scholars would have occult knowledge (and, consequentially, the ability to cast spells), 2.) occult works in general tend to have themes that coincide pretty naturally with the bard, such as H.P. Lovecraft's The Music of Erich Zann as discussed upthread, especially considering Azathoth is frequently associated with music, and 3.) the fact that the Bard spell list focused primarily on mental and force effects, much like how the Occult spell list is going to focus primarily on mental and force effects, and as a result they tie in really close together.

From the sound of things, though, you can't divorce the concept of a spoony luter making a fool out of himself and trying to seduce everything from the Bard, which, frankly, sells the Bard short on what it represents as a whole, be it in the playtest or P1e.

As far as your point about Paizo just wanting a core class to have the Occult class so other classes in the future can quickly adopt it... so? As far as I'm concerned, there's already plenty of justification to have the Bard be the core Occult spellcaster, but even if there wasn't, what are they gonna do, give the Occult spell list...

As far as I can tell (and Milo, correct me if I'm wrong), the bolded is the only point of contention for Milo (and definitely me).

Edit: Milo was already writing his response while I was writing mine; oh well.

I totally buy the Bard having extensive esoteric knowledge, including the obscure and best-left-forgotten (and therefore, the Bard is Occult).

I totally buy one expression (no, not all of them, but certainly one) of the occult being music (and therefore, the Bard is Occult).

I totally buy the Bard spell list being focused on the mind and force effects (and therefore, the Bard is Occult). Heck, my favorite refluff of the Bard is to make them manipulators of the universal Om from Hindu traditions; nothing says "music equals magic" quite like vibrating the fundamental metaphysical strings of existence, and having reality rewrite itself to match.

It falls apart when you HAVE to be a performing music-y dude. When you can't NOT be the performing music-y dude. And even having the performance be an oration like a military drill sergeant is still an obligation to have the character be someone who fundamentally can't function if people aren't paying attention to him (which even the Om manipulator concept doesn't require, since it's more like the Truenamer in concept and more concerned with talking to the universe than any particular resident).

It's not WE who can't divorce the concept of a spoony luter from a Bard. I already asked if performing was optional. The closest I heard to an answer was "no". Paizo is saying the Bard must include the concept of a spoony luter.


pirateprincess23 wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

The first problem: A starship is a certain difficulty to hit (or rather, to hit in a fashion that does damage) due to its AC which is influenced in large parts by the pilot’s skill and by the ship’s armor. Perfectly reasonable. Weapons fire either misses outright or it hits, glances off, and does no harm. Makes sense. And with ships that don’t have shields, the entire order of operations is coherent and sensible. But let’s say that the starship has shields. Well then, they come into play after we’ve determined that the ship took a damaging hit.

Let me repeat that: a starship’s shields do not come into play until after it’s been established that the ship took a hit. Okay, simple question: how is that even happening? How does a ship’s armor do its job before the shields? Aren’t the shields the energy barrier projected OUTSIDE the physical ship? And isn’t the ship’s armor the dense plating on the outside of the ship (but you know, still INSIDE said energy barrier)?

Like you said, the pilot adds their skill to the AC, meaning its implying that the pilot was unable to do its job. An energy field lessens force spread across the hull, so of course it will not function until actually hit with something. It lessens the damage taken by the actual hull until hit after hit causes it to disapate until engineering can get it back on track. It makes perfect sense.

It makes sense if the so-called "shields" are really a force field within the hull (or a structural integrity field or the hull armor being polarized or any technobabble that doesn't imply a bubble IN FRONT OF and BEFORE the physical structures of the ship). But they used the word "shield" which carries a certain expected meaning (i.e., not something that would be functioning in the manner you describe).

Let me put it this way:

"This morning, I got into my rake and drove down the speech to get to my apple."

Nonsensical, right? Obviously, I'm trying to communicate something to you and you're completely justified to think I could have done a better job. So what if I had tried this?

"The following uses the word "rake" to mean "car", the word "speech" to mean "highway", and the word "apple" to mean "job". 'This morning, I got into my rake and drove down the speech to get to my apple.'"

Still aggravating to get through, but at least now, I'm acknowledging that I'm not using the words that typically have the meanings that I'm trying to convey and I'm giving a guide as to how to go from what I said to what I actually meant. Now what if I had tried this?

"This morning, I got into my car and drove down the highway to get to my job."

No aggravation or confusion. Not even any hint that someone somewhere out there could mess up a sentence like that. See the difference?


So many "OW"s in that last panel!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

How required is music/performing/being-the-party-face?

I.e., I look to the Bard class for the jack-of-all-trades blend of spells, skills, and some combat ability; using music is as peripheral here as it would be for any other class. My favorite P1E Bard archetype was the Archaeologist (since it traded out almost everything music-y for features I'd actually want to use instead). The Archaeologist's only failing was that his spells still had to have a Verbal component even if they normally didn't, and that he was still barred from taking Silent Spell (and I'm almost certain those were only oversights on the part of the writer who wrote that archetype).

We can sub in playing an instrument for a spell's Verbal and Somatic components; I take this to mean you don't have to. Do we have similar freedom of expression elsewhere, or is the Bard stuck with having to be musically- or performance-inclined?

Even in PF1 you could just take Oratory as your perform skill and make your bard be something other than a musician (commander barking orders is a pretty popular one). I imagine such refluffing will be equally as applicable in PF2, though if you want drastic mechanical changes like the Archaeologist had you'll likely have to wait.

That's still a kind of performing, though (and the Archaeologist still HAD to have Verbal components for his spells whether they normally had them or not, and he still couldn't take Silent Spell). And I don't consider any of what else the Archaeologist got to be a "drastic mechanical change", especially not when they were almost (all?) core Rogue abilities, and especially given P2E's more modular nature.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

How required is music/performing/being-the-party-face?

I.e., I look to the Bard class for the jack-of-all-trades blend of spells, skills, and some combat ability; using music is as peripheral here as it would be for any other class. My favorite P1E Bard archetype was the Archaeologist (since it traded out almost everything music-y for features I'd actually want to use instead). The Archaeologist's only failing was that his spells still had to have a Verbal component even if they normally didn't, and that he was still barred from taking Silent Spell (and I'm almost certain those were only oversights on the part of the writer who wrote that archetype).

We can sub in playing an instrument for a spell's Verbal and Somatic components; I take this to mean you don't have to. Do we have similar freedom of expression elsewhere, or is the Bard stuck with having to be musically- or performance-inclined?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
Coffee Demon wrote:

Cool thanks. Once that POD option is up, I guess someone will post here?

(One of my players wants to play a Scholar, but I don't allow classes / archetypes that I don't own in printed form. I can't deal with PDF's.) :)

Adam verified that the POD option will be available through DriveThruRPG once the proofs are approved. I'll try and pop in here with a link as soon as learn that they're available (assuming Adam or someone else doesn't beat me to it).

Because I haven't seen a post already saying this, the POD appears to be available now.


@Ravingdork: Yeah, I know I can just re-name them. "Starfinder ships do not and have never had 'shields', they have 'force fields' or structural integrity fields' and any rules references that use the word 'shields' are doing so incorrectly" is something I'm already familiar with. My gripe is that I'm the one having to do that, though.

The traditional depiction of a shield is "the bubble outside the ship". The traditional depiction of armor is "the outer surface ON the ship". If they want Starfinder so-called "shields" to be more like "structural integrity fields" or whatever, then there's no problem as long as they call them out as operating in that non-traditional method. Or even just reference a semi-mainstream scifi franchise where that is the standard way shields work. No, Star Trek doesn't count because the things that would be the closest analogues (polarized hull armor and/or the SIF) already have their own names and aren't called "shields".


Temperans wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
We already have this with weapon special abilities being runes. You upgrade your weapon from +1 to +2 and move your old runes over to the new weapon. The dull part is already in, we're just removing the part where you need to go to shop to replace your sword with an almost identical sword.

If we are talking about making upgrading easier, then you must be forgetting (or maybe it was ruled out for you) that in PF1, weapons can definetly be upgraded without needing to trade it.

What PF2 did was make it so that you didn't need to exchange the weapon to get a replace ir remove an enchantment. Ex: exchanging the +2 for +1 flaming or just a +1.

PF2 also got rid of the quadratic price scale.

AFAIK, you can only put in a certain number of runes/potency/properties if your weapon isn't well-made enough; otherwise, you will have to get rid of the ancestral family blade that you started the game with and therefore is only so-so in terms of quality. Has there been any word on reforging (or alchemically treating or Masterwork Transformation spelling) an existing blade into a better quality weapon? I've been looking but haven't seen anything yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Well yeah damage traps are gonna feel lame if all you have to do is pull out a wand to heal the damage.
No, in games without a wand, damage traps still feel lame. They are pure speed bumps with little redeeming value: they are about as unfun as possible. Seriously, the wand isn't a factor here, pure damage traps don't hold much excitement for me. You find a bunch and you throw out a fast healing/dr summon that goes around and just trips them [which is easier than the wand and cheaper!!!]
We buy pigs.... (ok that was just the one time and I feel really bad for the pig. after that it was only low level evil humanoids)

Don't feel bad. Pigs are intelligent creatures; that's why we have so many different ways to eat them, to keep them from rising up against us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I would like to see Pathfinder magic work this way. Sadly without spell creation rules it doesn't really for me as I would expect someone having near mastery of the "language" of magic to be able to create new spells, but the rules don't really cover that.
That's fair. Wish and Miracle come close to doing what you'd like to see, and 3.5 Epic spellcasting also hit those notes (as did incantations), but PF doesn't really do much along those lines.

And when P1E did have spell creation rules (Word-casting), they never got support outside of their debut book (UM).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
BretI wrote:

I think they need to consider consistency of feeling.

If the narrative description in a book (such as any of the Pathfinder Tales) would change because of a rules change, that is probably a bad thing.

Potions used to be reliable in Golarian. The new system makes it so a perfectly crafted potion can fail to work. There is no basis for this in all of the things that were produced for PF1.

I haven't read any Pathfinder Tales, but how often would characters really chug so many potions in a day to have resonance be an actual issue? Honest question, because I really don't know, but if it's not often, then does it really change the narrative?
It's pretty close to never. Pathfinder Tales characters don't adhere to the PC standards very closely (though they adhere to the world standards quite well), often having more like NPC level WBL, meaning a potion is a bigger deal.

Or... more like Unchained Automatic Bonus Progression wealth? Unless the author specifically writes them to have magic weapon after magic armor after magic cloak of game-math-correcting, most Tales characters MIGHT have A magic item.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Intended or not, it's what comes across. Yeah, it's all about world-building or legacy or some such. It still comes with "Hey, Timmy, you're going to have to take a master class at negotiating to play the character you want to play because someone several states over would be bothered by that sort of character being freely available". I don't care that your goal isn't stymieing another player; I care that said stymieing is occurring, period. Especially when said stymieing would not be occurring in the reverse were Paladins any alignment (or do you want to tell me about how the "dismantling" of the "humans only" restriction has completely prevented you from playing a human Paladin?). And I just don't have it in me to consider any world-building or legacy in combination with that sort of stymieing as having any kind of net positive.
The bolded tells me you're not really listening. Taking away the restriction does in fact stymie my ability to make my character. I know you don't understand that, but it's pretty disingenuous to continually tell me that my motivations are in fact that I get sadistic glee out of taking away other people's options. You seem to be on the far end of the "in-rules flavor" spectrum, but at some point you should probably accept that not everyone agrees with you, and that other people are allowed to be at the other end of the spectrum. Letting people play any character they want is an important part of the game. But it isn't the only consideration.

I understand you think you're being stymied. I'll even agree that opening up the Paladin to any alignment does take something away. What I don't agree on is that the thing being taken away was ever yours to begin with (yes, my dice analogy). Your idea of your Paladin concept is "champion of lawful goodness". We're good so far. Your idea of your Paladin concept is "champion of lawful goodness where no one can use that same class how they see fit, at least, not without having to move Heaven and Earth first". This is essentially the same as making a Dwarf in a gaming group with the intention of your Dwarf PC being the only Dwarf PC, and then getting bent out of shape when someone else wants to play a Dwarf, too. Your character sheet is yours. Their character sheet is theirs. You have no primacy regarding Dwarf characters being PCs, other than to say yours is one. In like fashion, they don't get to foist an "Elf in a party with no Dwarves". Somewhere you got it into your head that the integrity of your Paladin characters was in any way, let alone in a significant way, dependent on how other people that you will never meet or game with played theirs.

You bolded that section, but let's talk about what I asked immediately after that you didn't bold. A question with variations that I've asked and I know has been asked by others:

How does the "dismantling" of the "humans only" restriction prevent you from playing a human Paladin?

How does Bards being able to be lawful prevent you from playing a nonlawful Bard?

How does Samurai being able to be nonlawful prevent you from playing a lawful Samurai?

How does Fighters being able to use weapons besides axes prevent you from playing an axe-only Fighter?

How does Gnomes being an available race require you to play a Gnome?

In each of these other cases, we can examine them based on their own merits, and find them lacking. I can decide for myself not to play a Gnome. I have less than zero say saying no one else should be able to. You can decide to play an Elf. Do you get to just declare that you're going to play an Elf in a no-Dwarves party? Your character's "Elf-ness" is not contingent on everyone else being prevented from playing a Dwarf. My character not being a Gnome is not contingent on no one else being able to play a Gnome, and if I thought it was, I'd be wrong. No, I am not just allowed to be at the other end of the spectrum; pushing "no Gnomes" is just plain not something I get to do for anyone else but myself. Why can we identify this for what it is everywhere else, but sub in "the Paladin and what alignments he can be" and it gets a free pass?

I'm not calling it a sadistic glee on your part. I'm equating your concept of the Paladin depending on how closely others hew to it with the guy who gave you my dice in my dice analogy. I do believe you think the Paladin is just naturally supposed to be that way, just like you did nothing to take my dice in the aforementioned analogy. Nevertheless, those hypothetical dice were never yours, any more than your concept of the Paladin should depend on whether or not I had to take a master class in negotiation just to play a Paladin without something hanging over my head. I know you did nothing to sinisterly graft that aspect onto your image of the Paladin; it's still my hypothetical dice.

Malachandra wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
But hey, if you really care about adding options and opening up new character types, care to comment on the plethora of compromises the LG-only crowd has offered up?

You mean the ones that boil down to "Shut up and hope you get thrown a bone at some point in the next 10 years"? Or maybe the "Settle with a weakened piece of trash". Or of course there's the ever classic case of just "Shut up and play another class", such a great compromise.

Because, quite frankly, a vast majority of the "compromises" I've seen from the LG side have been "we get our option in core, and maybe other options come out down the line, that might, maybe, be worth playing."

EDIT: And yes, some people aren't that way. But that's the majority I've seen.

Well, you could just look up thread for a good compromise. Or you could go here (and next few posts). I mean, how much clearer can I get that I would like to see equally powerful but flavor-fully different sub-classes right from Core? Short of me saying "I guess I'll just ignore what I want and defer entirely to you, sacrificing my character so I can never play it again" what more do you want?

That said, I'm not seeing your "vast majority". What I am seeing is that the only ones who are offering up compromises right now are the LG-only crowd. With the exception of Malk_Content, the only ones who are even accepting the validity of the other sides' opinions right now are the LG-only crowd.

We're not accepting those compromises because those aren't acceptable compromises. "Hey, we're going to keep these fall conditions (because that's apparently the crux of the Paladin) hanging over your head, but we decreased them by one. Can't you settle for that?" You stated your minimum in that thread, so I'll do the same.

The Vindictive Bastard. It was the best Paladin P1E ever had because it had no alignment requirements of any kind (not even "don't be LG") or code of conduct of any kind (not even "don't turn right around and go back to upholding the stock code") and because its class features were laterally different enough from the basic Paladin's that one could halfway pretend they weren't insultingly lesser token appeasements. I.e., the player didn't have something hanging over his head.

Some Paladin, or archetype of Paladin, or specific selection of class features in place of RA and the SP that's still just as worthwhile, that is not contingent in any way on having something hanging over the player's head. Essentially, the Barbarian's Fury totem, but for the Paladin. Some acknowledgement that in the Venn Diagram of "players that want to play a Paladin" and "players that don't want something hanging over their head", there is overlap. Where in your alleged "many good compromises" is one that resembles what I just described?

Or to borrow your own phrasing:

"Not gonna lie. Seeing this come up again and again is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that only opening the Paladin class by a few alignments is all the compromising necessary. That keeping something hanging over the player's head while slightly increasing the Paladin to only the four corners isn't maintaining the same headache as before (*hint: it's not about what alignments I can play a Paladin as while having a fall hanging over my head, it's the 'there must be a fall hanging over my head'*). And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to explain to me how the crux of the Paladin must be "has to have a fall, can't let the player not worry about falling, the player must be a stressed-out nervous wreck 'cuz game and fun'"? Can we just accept that I have this opinion that any emphasis on falling or restrictions is overemphasis and results in the Paladin missing its own point, and that that opinion is valid?

Now, I understand that the Paladin has a pretty specific legacy. But it's a legacy with a high cost that players that don't buy into said legacy shouldn't just automatically be expected to pay. And I'm certainly not saying there's no room for the LG-only Paladin as a concept. Having that in the game and NOT be at the cost of other players enjoying that class (again, not saying that cost was ever sadistically pursued, just that it's there) is great, and leaves room for both playstyles. But it needs to not be a forced marriage of class and concept."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One reason I don't like the CG Paladin to be like the LG one is because "there are a large number of rules, you must follow them without exception, there is very little wiggle room available, these rules exist in a hierarchy, and these rules govern most of your life" frankly doesn't seem very chaotic to me.

I'm all for champions of alignment existing, I would just like these champions to actually mechanically embody the concept of that alignment. By all means have a master of armor CG class, but make its powers be unpredictable and variable in a way that the LG Paladins are not (with higher peaks and lower valleys). Let me roll on tables to see what my stuff does, let me feel like I am channeling something I cannot control and I'm just hanging on for the ride. I don't just want to play the same kind of character with "CG" written there and a different set of rules.

It would be a shame for LG, and all the other alignments, to have all of the other alignments exemplars play exactly like the LG one.

Not saying that idea for a, what, Chaos Knight? isn't a good one (the trickster nature of the UA Oath of Treachery for the 5E Paladin is my second favorite part of it), but why is that randomness so necessary in the mechanics? Clerics of Cayden, Desna, Calistria, Gorum, Lamashtu, and Rovagug don't come with unpredictable tables. Such a character multiclassing with a Fighter wouldn't introduce those tables. Why would a class that takes that multiclass combination and makes it more cleaned up and coherent?


The Raven Black wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
unfortunately Ryan , that is just you and is the problem. its the problem with everything... it is just someone( whether its you, me, or someone else)

No the problem is that there are people who are bent out of shape that alignment exists at all, so they continually create disingenuous threads attacking anything that uses it rather than simply playing games that don't use it, or being ok with the idea that it can be modified out, to the point that they'd rather have absolutely generic base classes representing divine champions rather than classes that fit the deity.

But that's just it. YOU can make that call for YOU in YOUR gaming group. And there should be no obstacles infringing on your ability to make that call how you see fit for the gaming group that IS your purview. And simple courtesy says we get that same call for what's in our purview AND the same lack of obstacles. And that is exactly and only what the exclusivity adds: it doesn't bolster how you play your Paladin (since you can already play your Paladin the way you see fit), it limits everyone else.
People who care about the exclusivity have said repeatedly why and it has never been just so that other people cannot have what they want

Intended or not, it's what comes across. Yeah, it's all about world-building or legacy or some such. It still comes with "Hey, Timmy, you're going to have to take a master class at negotiating to play the character you want to play because someone several states over would be bothered by that sort of character being freely available". I don't care that your goal isn't stymieing another player; I care that said stymieing is occurring, period. Especially when said stymieing would not be occurring in the reverse were Paladins any alignment (or do you want to tell me about how the "dismantling" of the "humans only" restriction has completely prevented you from playing a human Paladin?). And I just don't have it in me to consider any world-building or legacy in combination with that sort of stymieing as having any kind of net positive.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Tectorman wrote:


After all, except for the RA and the SP, you keep EVERYTHING the P2E Paladin class has when you "fall", and therefore, ALL of those other class features ARE the class features of the not-LG Paladin. We already, right now, this very minute, have in print (or will have in print once it's printed) 95% of the not-LG Paladin. And it DOES use that much of the same chassis as the LG Paladin.
I'm not sure you understand how much the 2e Paladin loses when he falls... Spell points effect all your Lay on Hands abilities. So no healing of any kind. (including Mercies) Spell points effect Litanies as well or anything else that's "Magicky". Righteous Ally has a feat tree attached to it that you can choose but that could potentially be 3 good feats to lose. Not forgetting the sweet bonus to your Mount, Shield, or Weapon. That's 4 out of 12 class abilities (that we know of) and around 14 feats. So yeah, falling effects more than 5% of the Paladin.

That's why I phrased the bolded how I did.

Tectorman wrote:
Champion of Caiden IS Paladin minus "Righteous Ally" and "Spell Points" plus "something replacing Righteous Ally" and "something replacing Spell Points (or keeping the Spell Points and tweaking what they can be spent on)".

You say that like it's some major undertaking. It'd be like if Clerics back in P1E were non-evil only and had the ability to channel positive energy and spontaneously cast Cure spells, with the developers scratching their heads wondering where they'd even start with making an evil Cleric, when such a hypothetical situation (and indeed, how P1E actually has it) is resolved by nothing more than changing the channel positive to channel negative and spontaneously casting Inflict spells instead of Cure spells.

Except it's even easier here, given how modular and exchangeable all the various classes' class features are supposed to be. If Pathfinder has ever been geared towards making class features easily swappable, it's more so here.

Voss wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Hmm I think we need two different threads for this. one for people with Extreme uncompromising views and one for people more casually open to compromise and change.

I say this because I read people trying to work out something reasonable and the interests me then I see some people Hard balling it and I just want to ignore the thread and let them argue at different walls.

I actually feel fairly neutral about the whole time. As long as the OG paladin remains an option to play I'm fine.

You aren't going to get that here with any thread about paladins. Many with the uncompromising views feel any openness to compromise and change is in itself an extreme view.

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

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I dunno about everyone else, but I'd be a lot happier with the critical results indented as a sub-entry. for example (but omitting the line before the critical effect):

.
.
.
Success You throw a big party for everyone with cupcakes.
___Critical Successes As success, and the party also has ice cream.
Failure No party for you
___Critical Failure EVIL CLOWNS!!!

Whew! I knew I couldn't have been the only one to see this as a solution. Developers, please give this as much further consideration as possible. Indenting (whether success then crit success is first or failure then crit failure is first, it doesn't matter) allows the two usual outcomes (success and failure) to be visually listed together without being interrupted by crit success or crit failure (in either case, going unintuitively out of order), and still allows for crit success/failure to say, " As success/failure, but additional yay/boo".


MerlinCross wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
The only difference I can see with the counting up is that you count up instead of down. That is it. Unless I'm missing something. Which is fine if you prefer it, some folks count damage up rather than HP down and that is fine too.
I think logistically, counting down is easier, because while it's not a hard subtraction problem, it's still another step to determine if you're trying to plan ahead in deciding whether this potion of Bull's Strength, or whatever, will be worth it. But for the immersiveness factor, counting up is probably what I will do, as it not only works better in the flavor of 'you're able to withstand the effects of magical items on you', but I like the flavor also of "as you level up, your magical tolerance increases" more than "as you level up, you get more innate magic points."

Except that resonance being your tolerance, and counting up, makes less sense, than it being your innate magic, and counting down as you use it.

Why? Because if you are hit by a spell your tolerance doesn't start building up for the day. And when using magic items amounts to casting spells on yourself, not having your tolerance be built up by spells getting cast on yourself breaks the idea of the system.

Magic has to be pretty close to you to affect your aura's tolerance. Just being affected by a spell doesn't do much. Activating a magic item, however, grounds some of the magic through your body.

More so if you drink it.

So if you drink too many potions, you might just magically blow up or something.

Or this is how spell blight comes back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
The only difference I can see with the counting up is that you count up instead of down. That is it. Unless I'm missing something. Which is fine if you prefer it, some folks count damage up rather than HP down and that is fine too.

Even that can be a tangible difference; after all, isn't it why we don't use thAC0 anymore? While in this case, it's a world-framing issue as opposed to the ease-of-use issue of thAC0, framing the Resonance as being something introduced into your body and your body having a tolerance limit could make all the difference in the world (though not likely given that that isn't Resonance's only issue).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Voss wrote:

Which is what more books and the (inevitable) more feats are for. You're straining the fruit metaphor. They've got a base class and several really easy ways to bolt on new (or re-built PF1) stuff.

Variations of paladin are trivially easy to do, especially since the theme work is already done.

Yeah, and i've offered one, that fits better with the concept of divine champion of a god and is more thematic than trying to slap a champion of caiden on the same chassis as a champion of milani or desna.

But it DOESN'T fit better with the concept of a divine champion of a god and it ISN'T more thematic than trying to slap a champion of Caiden on the same chassis as a champion of Milani or Desna. Or it indeed might fit better and/or be more thematic. Obviously it is to you. And that's your call. It isn't to me. Champion of Caiden IS Paladin minus "Righteous Ally" and "Spell Points" plus "something replacing Righteous Ally" and "something replacing Spell Points (or keeping the Spell Points and tweaking what they can be spent on)". That's my call, and as long as we're not in the same gaming group, you are as much a nonentity when it comes to having a say on what hoops I should have to jump through to express a character I have in mind as I am when it comes to having a say on how you should or shouldn't be able to express one of your characters.

After all, except for the RA and the SP, you keep EVERYTHING the P2E Paladin class has when you "fall", and therefore, ALL of those other class features ARE the class features of the not-LG Paladin. We already, right now, this very minute, have in print (or will have in print once it's printed) 95% of the not-LG Paladin. And it DOES use that much of the same chassis as the LG Paladin.

You want to talk about being disingenuous? Alright, it's disingenuous to say the LG and the not-LG Paladins cannot be expressed by the same base chassis when they factually already are.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
unfortunately Ryan , that is just you and is the problem. its the problem with everything... it is just someone( whether its you, me, or someone else)

No the problem is that there are people who are bent out of shape that alignment exists at all, so they continually create disingenuous threads attacking anything that uses it rather than simply playing games that don't use it, or being ok with the idea that it can be modified out, to the point that they'd rather have absolutely generic base classes representing divine champions rather than classes that fit the deity.

But that's just it. YOU can make that call for YOU in YOUR gaming group. And there should be no obstacles infringing on your ability to make that call how you see fit for the gaming group that IS your purview. And simple courtesy says we get that same call for what's in our purview AND the same lack of obstacles. And that is exactly and only what the exclusivity adds: it doesn't bolster how you play your Paladin (since you can already play your Paladin the way you see fit), it limits everyone else.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Voss wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Alternately, as there are no generic divine powered classes in 2.0

Did they change their minds and remove clerics and paladins? I'm pretty sure I remember previews for those.

But yeah, 'make it a dedication feat' (with or without follow up feats) is a pretty obvious route for PF2 if you want more of a specific god all up inside you.

Clerics and paladins have to pick a god. There's no "paladin" You're a paladin OF someone.

And while they're picking a god, they're using the same base chassis. A Cleric of Shelyn uses the same generic divine powered class as a Cleric of Lamashtu and a Cleric of Nethys and a Cleric of Gorum. Even adding an archetype won't change that (depending, of course, on how extensive P2E archetypes are). So while a P2E Inner Sea Gods book may have one or two archetypes per primary deity, Paizo is not going to be printing 20 different Cleric base classes.


Voss wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Voss wrote:
Because we've got a better understanding of culture and identity, and a better thesaurus than 1970s Gary Gugax?
Chevalier also sounds good. It rolls off the tongue. What's your alternative suggestion?

Paladin.

I don't have much use for two-letter distinctions (LG vs NG vs LN vs.. etc, etc, etc) between divine murderhobos that favor swords over spells.

Especially with feats carrying most of the weight for class design in PF2. There's clearly a bunch for each class (and in general) and each subsequent splatbook is going to bring more and more to the table. The PH2.0 can bring the white bricks, the APG2.0 can bring the blue bricks, the ACG2.0 can bring the grey bricks, and so on and so on. Eventually you can Voltron up whatever theme Lego divine warrior you like.

This made me realize the LG-only/not-just-LG argument strongly resembles Lord Business and Emmet in the Lego Movie. There's nothing wrong with having Batman team up with a robot pirate on an 80's spaceship *SPACESHIP!!* They were able to put the Piece of Resistance on the Kragle; so can we.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

So items can only have a certain amount of potency or properties depending on how well-made they are. So what happens if I'm a low-level starting character and I can only afford a lesser quality weapon, but it's important to me that that specific weapon (and not some substitute that I come across at higher levels) be the weapon I use for my entire career? Can it be reforged (by me or a hired NPC) into a higher quality weapon? Will the CRB have the Masterwork Transformation spell?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kjeldorn wrote:

oh and T-man too:

Tectorman wrote:
Because his "dismantling" only goes so far as to take out the "your Paladin MUST behave this way or lose class features". Nothing about it takes away the "your Paladin CAN behave this way".

*blinks*

*cleans glasses*

*reads again*

I have a nickname, now? Holy crap, you just made my day!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I think the Paladin should embrace being a specific alignment rather than shy away from it

For the record, I too entirely agree with this. Some aspects of being a Paladin seem alignment agnostic (Divine Grace leaps to mind), but far more are tied to their Alignment in some fundamental way, at least thematically.

Being superb at Armor strikes me as very Lawful, for example, while the more Chaotic versions could favor Weapons instead, while healing is quintessentially part of the Good versions (Evil should get harm stuff ala Touch of Corruption). I'd also be cool with party-buffing stuff being Lawful affiliated, while the Chaotic version would get more self-buff powers (Chaotic being more associated with individualism, after all). Oath Feats also seem fundamentally Lawful to me, though I suspect the Chaotic versions would just get more non-Oath affiliated stuff rather than an equivalent category.

I see this come up not irregularly, and I've got to ask: Why is Armor the domain of Lawful? I can see literally nothing about being able to defend yourself that is the domain of the Lawful axis. Party Buffing, that I could see (Good of the Group and all that) but I just don't see Defense being strictly the domain of Law.

Ironically, I thought the Vindictive Bastard's alternative class features and how party-centric they were in comparison to the base Paladin's class features made for a better case for the VB being lawful than the base Paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like a second pass at the Warpriest would make it a reasonable "divine champion" workable for any alignment. Since mostly people were annoyed at the WP was not full BAB (no longer an issue), inherited a lot of the fighter's problems (no longer an issue), and lacked the Paladin's tremendous defenses (which are somewhat muted in PF2 seemingly.)

Like in PF1 the Paladin was an incredibly strong mechanical chassis, and the WP really wasn't. We can fix that with new versions of these classes.

I mean, I don't want the Paladin to be a *divine* champion, I want it to be a champion of goodness and law. Let's make another class for divine champions, and have it be a good class.

See, this is completely reasonable. I see the Paladin as just one hyper-specific take on what that base chassis can represent amongst many, many, many uses for that same chassis, but that would have been chump change had almost the entirety of P1E not been so against ANY passable *divine* champion. The Warpriest, conceptually, was EXACTLY what we were taking the Paladin for, and amazingly, neither the game nor the setting imploded in a puff of logic when it was right there alongside the Paladin, not infringing on the Paladin's conceptual space. But it had the mechanical issues you described and that, combined with the Anti-Paladin being released in the APG as the CE version of the Paladin (and it not being the first of many such not-LG versions) and the Gray Paladin being the lackluster token appeasement, puts A LOT of distrust in Paizo's willingness to do right by the *divine* champion class.

So I can get behind this willingness for a *divine* champion class. My objection to this not being the same chassis as the Paladin is a logistical one. I feel the *divine* champion, being able to cover the Paladin and other concepts (just as the P1E Cleric covered both deities AND concepts, including being a Cleric of Goodness and Law), should have AS HIGH or HIGHER a priority for a CRB class (that is to say, one with that level of refinement, that level of continued support as supplements come out, and that level of respect as a class that players should never have had to fight for for multiple editions but should have naturally and obviously been a part of the roster from the getgo) than the Paladin's more limited take. And since we know the CRB class lineup is going to be the eleven original plus the Alchemist, I cannot pick anything but the hyper-specific Paladin to get the boot in favor of a *divine* champion perfectly capable of covering said hyper-specific Paladin (again, as capable as the P1E Cleric was).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Evil Kjeldorn wrote:

Short answer: Yes

Longer answer: Yes!!!

Detailed answer: For f~!&s sake Yes!!! Gods dammit!!!

Don't care about the name.
Don't care about the class' 'pedigree'.
Don't care about the traditions associated with it either!.

Once the play test comes out, I'll be taking a crowbar to the class! Beating it into a nice modular pulp, so I can re-assemble the pieces into a more pleasing image of a "Paladin"!
Why? Because I don't care about Alignment maybe?...
Listen, I just care about the story that any future 'paladin' players want me to help them tell, and as far as I can tell, there are more stories possible the less requirements we keep weighing down, that durned class with.

What's that I hear Mr. Player? You wanna do a witch-finder general type character, kicking down cellar-doors and dragging demon cultists to their fiery doom in the town square? Heck that could be done on the Paladin-chassis! Its a great fit! But oh no...there's all these requirements you have to operate under, oh and there's some questions about alignment too…
Phooey!
Why the heck shouldn't it be possible to modify that chassis to that idea fluently, simply and gracefully?

Orthodoxy!
That's why. No other reason is really needed.
Double Phooey!

No that's why the Paladin is getting the crow-bar. Because if we don't question him and his ilk, then all we have is orthodoxy.
Well, come playtest time, I'm nailing my theses to his fore-head! Orthodoxy be damned!

Some players actually want to play the LG Paladin as the knight in shining armor who strives to uphold his code even though he is a failible mortal. They love the class as it is in the PF1 CRB

How does your dismantling the class with the ardor you describe helps them telling the tale they want ?

Because his "dismantling" only goes so far as to take out the "your Paladin MUST behave this way or lose class features". Nothing about it takes away the "your Paladin CAN behave this way". The old edition requirement of "humans only" is dismantled in the same fashion. Are you prevented from playing a human Paladin due to said dismantling?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

But nobody wants Paladins of any alignment, as opposed to Monks and Barbarians.

The debate is always about the Chaos-Law axis and never about the Good-Evil axis

That is completely false, but I'll chalk it up to you being genuinely that unaware.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I want "Deific Champions" of all alignments, since there are deities of all alignments.

I do not want "Champions of Goodness and Law" of all alignments since that makes no sense.

I see the Paladin as the latter, and the former to be a different class entirely

Okay, why do those have to be different classes if 95+% of the chassis is going to be the same for both? Clerics of Desna get their divine empowerment from just about as opposite a source as you can get as Clerics of Asmodeus. Now how many separate classes do we need for a Cleric of Desna as opposed to a Cleric of Asmodeus? Heck, P1E had the Cleric class used for those gaining their powers specifically from deities and those drawing from a concept; the Paladin is nothing more than the "less castery, more combaty" version of the LG-concept Cleric. How many other concepts were out there, all being represented by one class?

We don't have twenty different classes for all the different Clerics of the Inner Sea deities. We don't have eight different classes for each school of Wizard. Why MUST LG-concept Cleric get its own separate class when it becomes "less castery, more combaty"? It's the same difference between a two-weapon Fighter and a two-handed-weapon Fighter at best; something distinguished by an archetype at the max (and before the APG, not even that).

And for the record,

Ryan Freire wrote:
Alternately they could leave paladin the hell alone as its own thing. and implement divine champion archetypes that slot in well with specific classes that are more in theme with the specific gods interests.

We have been leaving your Paladin alone. When we're not in your gaming group, forcing you to bear witness to our not-LG Paladins or preventing you from playing your LG Paladin, that's leaving your Paladin alone. When we're not on these boards, asking Paizo to make every other kind of Paladin but to take the LG Paladin out of the game, that's leaving your Paladin alone. That's just common courtesy, and I'd dearly love to see it returned by you leaving our Paladins alone.

Ryan Freire wrote:
No but an archetype for a divine champion for each god is absolutely an achievable goal. Something that could be released in say Gods of the Inner Sea 2.0. Because there is never going to be a 1 class thematically fits all for every god but thanks to the archetype system, divinely empowered wizard champions of nethys and divine rogues of Norgorber are not out of reach.

I addressed this overall point above, but I have to ask again: how does the Cleric not qualify exactly for the bolded and why would dialing the casting down and the mundane fighting ability up change that?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

I think it's important to be able to have a dialogue in paladins - a minority of posters (some of which I suspect have been banned?) has tended to drag these discussions into arguments in the past, but our goal is to make PF2 the best game it can be and the best way to reach that goal is to keep the conversation going. Each and every one of us have to do our best to keep the boards positive and productive, and trust Paizo to do their part by removing any overly argumentative elements. :)

As for the topic... I think some kind of alignment restriction is pretty much unavoidable, it's too heavily tied to the class identity to be removed. That said, it feels strange that a class that's presented as "the armor master" has such a specific flavor and concept, and that "the divine champion" can only champion about a third of Golarion's pantheon. That the god of farming has a martial divine champion and the god of battle does not seems a self-contradiction. I hope that they include a martial divine champion in Pathfinder 2's CRB* that offers more alignment options than just LG, one that can represent all the gods in Golarion. That said, I'd be perfectly happy if they break the class down into alignment-restricted sections and call the LG version Paladin. That seems the best compromise to me. :)

** spoiler omitted **

They got free reign with barbarians and monks, leave paladins alone.

"They already replaced three blown out tires. Can't they let the fourth one just stay flat?"


Touch AC was already conceptually redundant with Reflex saves, in that both represent you dodging an incoming threat without the benefit of armor. The only differences were the specific game mechanisms by which they were resolved (one is the caster of the Disintegration ray rolling to try and hit you, the other is you rolling to try and dodge a Fireball), and that always felt like a clunky artifact of the system. For example, if you were also flat-footed, that Disintegration caster has an easier time trying to hit you, but you aren't any worse off trying to dodge that Fireball. They're both supposed to represent you dodging, so why would you be worse off dodging one but not also the other?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's official Monks have no Alignment Restriction.

While there's always the possibility that the Monk class itself won't have alignment restrictions but selecting even one ki ability saddles you with alignment requirements, edicts, codes, and anathema (and you can only pick a ki ability if your name has an odd number of letters; no, not your character, you the player), I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic that we're finally free.

Because mere words can't express how welcome this news is.

Because this is the victory slide this announcement deserves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

These are just head-canon speculations.

1. Imagine the Earth and its many layers of tectonic plates, mantles, and cores. Your drift drive puts you into the drift, the better the drive, the deeper you go. Once there, you move about using your conventional engines. Exiting the drift, no matter how deep you were in, puts you at the normal space equivalent location. So using the Earth analogy, a lesser drift drive will put you a few hundred miles below the surface. Traveling a couple of miles at that layer will translate to more distance once you get back to the surface. On the other hand, a better drift drive would put you closer to the core. If you're close enough, then even only a mile or two will still put you on the opposite side of the planet once you translate back to the surface.

2. Not sure, but Wingblaze's answer seems like the most reasonable take.

3. For the galaxy at large, ease of travel still doesn't equate to successful travel. That is, they still have to know that Absalom Station exists as a destination to go to in the first place before they can go there on purpose. I think you can go to destinations accidentally (doesn't Triune have a city/station in the drift that you can accidentally come across?), but Absalom Station would only be in danger of a sudden coordinated attack by a fleet if said fleet cranked up its engines one day with a sudden urge to conquer something and it didn't matter what, where, or who.

Not sure about the Azlant empire, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alaryth wrote:

Just want to say that I do not hate the existence of Alignment itself, spells and creatures based on alignment, and all that. I'm the first that like hardcore alignment on outsiders, I loved Planescape after all.

But, sadly, is NOT true that alignment is only a way to help define character motivations and that it not define your actions. Why? Alignment restrictions. If I lose like 80% class power because the DM interpretation of some action says that is contrary to my alignment, then is hard to negate that it is a straightjacket.
Alignment restrictions on not divine characters need to go, and I have hopes that the ones on Monk are gone. Things like "drunken masters need to be lawful" have zero sense. I would love to have alignment restrictions disappear from divine classes too, but there they can have some sense.

I've seen some rather interesting discussions on the paradigm of law versus chaos (and what law versus chaos should even mean), the recent explorations of what a CG code of conduct would look like, I remember one intriguing take on the Incredibles (Bob as NG, Helen as LG, both in terms of their strengths and flaws), and I still value my copy of the 3.0 Manual of the Planes. Even if I don't agree with the concept of the spectra of behavior being parsed out into 9 general boxes and those results being knowable to mortal mind, it's not like alignment as a concept is harmful or toxic.

As long as there's no agenda. But when I need to be able to continue taking levels in Monk, that requires being lawful, and therefore I need to all observers to agree the character is still lawful no matter what, then it's crossed the line.

Alignment is a lot like riddles, actually.

The comments on this webcomic page delved into the nature of riddles and how difficult it can be to successfully use them in an RPG. Namely, that riddles more often than not have multiple correct answers that can be intuitively arrived at, and the trick is knowing/guessing/licking into the specific correct answer the riddle-giver was looking for. Fun enough if you're into that sort of thing and the riddle is little more than an exploration into different ways to view the world with nothing at stake if you guess the wrong-but-still-intuitively-correct answer.

Now consider the Riddler and his deadly stakes and why everyone in Gotham prefers it when he's locked away in Arkham. Running afoul of alignment restrictions and thereby being forced to express your character in a manner you had no intention of is practically the same thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

A+ Roswyn

Your introduction sprouted a thought –

Q: Can a Paladin abide their code without being Lawful Good?

If not, why do we need the aligment restriction?

Can a Paladin/Knight/Oathbpund/pick-a-name in a game without alignment have a code? If so, then your answer is "yes". And therefore, we don't need the alignment restriction from a roleplaying perspective. And we already know from earlier designer statements that the code isn't meant as a drawback to counter extra powerful class features/mechanics.


Pagan priest wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
You're not wrong, but remember that you're saying "could". SF ships "might maybe can" do all of those things, hoping nothing goes terribly wrong enough to seal the ship's doom. But what happens when a modern carrier completely runs out of food? They get more shipped to them. "Less than a planetary diameter", remember? SF ships that run out of food in between star systems are vastly (pun loosely intended) worse off. So for all that they "could" rely on recyclable air or hydroponically grown food alone, there are probably volumes of textbook examples in every flight academy in the Pact Worlds explaining how many different reasons why that's a bad idea. So, repetitive, repeating, redundant, repetitious redundancy at minimum.

"Could" only in the sense that might be better options, including magic, that I did not mention. If those are the best available, then any combat ship would be using all of them. For air and water, other than magic replacement, there is no real option other than recycling with stores to replace battle damage losses.

As far as a modern carrier that ran out of food, 1) the captain would be "allowed" to retire just about immediately, 2) the carrier would radio the supply ship that is accompanying the battle group and arrange for a couple of hours steaming along side for underway replenishment. However, I would not say that that being only 1 planetary diameter or less from resupply is very helpful. That carrier may be a week or more away from any port from which they could be resupplied. A SF ship is always within 1d6 days or less from Absalom Station.

And I'm not saying they wouldn't also be exercising those better options. But that would be in addition to those lesser options, not in place of. Remember, this is my attempt to provide a rationale for why the ships would be bigger while the crews would be smaller, by saying that the space is taken up by, for example, not the ship's water reclamator and atmospheric reconstitutor, but the fifty water reclamators and seventy atmospheric reconstitutors per person, with spare parts enough to make another few hundred of each (also, per person).

And remember, an SF ship is only 1d6 days away from Absalom Station IF they have a working Drift drive and IF they have working thrusters for once they get into Drift space and IF they don't get a random encounter along the way. It's like Bruce Wayne's line about Superman in BvS; if there's even a 0.00000001% chance of those factors contributing to stranding them away from help, simple prudence demands that they treat it as a 100% certainty.

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