Wermut's page

Organized Play Member. 134 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BluLion wrote:
I am assuming kobolds won't take long after pf2's release to be made officially, but I am curious to see if it would be possible to homebrew them without too much work. The greater emphasis on racial feats make things more difficult. I just hope the pc race don't end up being made intentionally useless like in pf1.

Kobolds:

20 ft. movement
Darkvision 60ft.
Starting Languages: Common and Draconian

+2 Dex
+2 Int (crafty crafty Kobolds)
one floating boost

Racial feats of course depending on cave life, dragon society, traps and trickery and a dragonfeature feat trees. Start with scale colore for social situations, then divide into more scale stuff (resistance and armor), nimbleness (tailweapons/uses and wings) and two or three feats for breath and such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Because the lore demands goblins become a core race.

I was following you until you got to that point. I don't think the lore demands or forbids anything towards the content of core. We can make grand theories on the basis of quotes from the ISG, but those quotes read as fairly arbitrary classification, and/or after the fact justification. I don't think we can take those quotes as some sort of holy text that would drive the definition of races for ever and ever, even less so in the midst of an edition update.

As far as I can understand, the contents of the Core Rulebook needs to be not more and not less than what is necessary for the great majority of players to fully enjoy the game, subject only to space constraints... and that's about it. I don't see why it should be lore-driven. Anyway, the CRB doesn't equate the Golarion setting, even if it's said to be "more closely tied" to is, a statement that can be interpreted any number of ways.

So the CRB should include just enough races (ancestries), classes, spells, feats, skills, etc, to be able to tell any kind of fantasy story, allowing enough breadth and diversity of characters for any group to enjoy the game for years.

So if someone questions the choice of the goblin as an addition to Core, I think the relevant question isn't about justifications based on lore, but about whether or not this addition makes the game more or less enjoyable to players, and why.

I can agree on this point, then again it was stated there would be some event in Golarion that would make Goblins socially acceptable. My best guess is some sort of mind affecting high level fungal based disease that spreads globally. Adding Goblins to the core is a symptom that describes how far spread this event is.

To the argument "It a game." its missing the point of the thread and after this much argumentation just bait.


johnlocke90 wrote:
Time travel would make more sense than people suddenly deciding to trust goblin, who were literally trying to kill and eat them a year prior.

Not a fan of time travel, but yes thats the point. The problem isnt if Goblins could turn good. The problem is that people have no time change their believes?

Oh and another point: is a good goblin still goblin enough or just a gnome with body issues?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
Neriathale wrote:

Just as a thought experiment on the 'how does the world change' question. I'm working with the following assumptions about Pathfinder campaigns set on Golarion.

1. Most people, when they start a campaign (AP or homebrew plot) create completely new characters for it.

2. The events of the previously played campaign do not have a major impact on the current campaign, and the new PCs don't know the old PCs.

3. When 2e comes out people will start a new campaign rather than converting their 1e ones across.

If all of that is correct, then each campaign exists in its own slightly different timestream/alternate reality/whatever you want to call it. It just so happens that future campaigns will take place in timestreams where goblins (or at least some goblins) are better socialised.

basically what I tried to tell - and if someone doesn't like it they got their timelines where goblins are still a bunch of pyromaniac d***s

Glad to on one hand get a point on the other hand how one would deal with. If it weren't wrong of course. The adventure paths and their outcome are afaik canon. Also a world needs a cohesive history or else it won't develope. There is no possibility to ignore canon without leaving the world and then why play in Golarion at all?

It is completly fine to ignore any established world and to make changes for ones own group. It's not a solution though. Because a group of people prefers adventuring in the "official" Golarion. As long as such a group exists it must be attended too, especially with PFS which requires canon/world building above all else.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Wermut wrote:
But thats the whole point of the messageboard. Discussing things one only knows a part of. You could go through all the threads discussing released information and post "We will see how that works, regarding possible mechanics/information not released yet. /thread".

I actually do precisely this when people are getting really angry or unpleasant about something that only might be true. Reminding people that they may be worrying over nothing is useful when it's actually the case. I would also absolutely suggest that we not talk about other stuff that's already been discussed to death. Beating a dead horse seldom has useful results.

Speculation can be fun and interesting, and if we were just floating various theories about what explanation Paizo would come up with for Goblin PCs, I'd be totally on board. Indeed, I was on board when such discussions occurred. About seven weeks ago.

But at this point, after every point has been discussed several times already, and no new information has been released, that's not what these threads on Goblins wind up doing any more (if they ever did). They become a seemingly very angry argument about whether Paizo should even have done this in the first place. One where we lack the information to clearly even argue about what's really going on, only what we assume to be going on.

In short, having harsh arguments is not usually productive, and even when it is, all the arguments on this topic already happened. At least twice. Almost two months ago. Rehashing them is not useful.

Wermut wrote:
If someone would be disinclined to discuss a certain topic, one could always ignore it? Or are there other reasons to try to shutdown such a discussion?
I like it when the message boards are a nice, relatively civil, place where we can have discussions of new information that hasn't already been discussed to death 80 times. These threads do not, at this point, aid in making that the case. Or provide much of anything else productive.

While I certainly haven't partaken in all those discussions, I also have read some discussions about Goblins. I still do, maybe because I'd like to read an actual theory how goblins could be redeemed, that factors in all known problems. Of course I'd read such a theory as a critic, looking for problems, but thats my personal stance on the topic. So there is still "value", at least for me.

And you have to admit, the goblin thing isn't nearly so bad as the p a l a d i n thing (pronounce every key separately, intelligence is usually their dumpstat).

Still, others might be in a position where they haven't had their chance to "visualize" the topic. So I would always the topic to be relevant. PF2 also aims to widen the playerbase.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Wermut wrote:
So to conclude, it does matter that goblins are perceived as evil, which also means it doesnt matter if goblins are evil by nature or by culture or if they are evil at all. It matters that there race as a whole has a history that makes people recognize them as vermin in the best case.

This argument is not new. I even agree with it. But I can actually think of several options immediately that, over the course of 12 years, could have a significant impact on peoples' feelings toward goblins.

Which is what it really comes down to:

Something needs to happen in-setting to justify PC goblins becoming notably more common. I (and others) think Paizo can and will come up with such an explanation that works pretty well (and people at Paizo have said that they'll provide some sort of explanation), while others cannot think of any such explanations they will accept.

Discussing this further is thus pretty much pointless until we get whatever explanation Paizo is gonna provide. The discussion is just repeating the same stuff over and over until then.

When we get the explanation we can revisit this point and debate whether it suffices...but until then this debate is just so utterly pointless. Can we please stop it?

But thats the whole point of the messageboard. Discussing things one only knows a part of. You could go through all the threads discussing released information and post "We will see how that works, regarding possible mechanics/information not released yet. /thread".

If someone would be disinclined to discuss a certain topic, one could always ignore it? Or are there other reasons to try to shutdown such a discussion?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

I still try to figure out what exactly speaks against goblins as core race because no one could tell me a single compelling argument against it

the only thing I read here all the time "all goblins are evil, blah bla blah" - yeah we know what is written there in the books

So a race being evil is not a compelling point. This will be useful later.

Seisho wrote:
But with release of PF2 your PF1 rulebooks are out of date. The world of golarion changes. Okay so the old books about goblins are (maybe, not even surely) outdated because...stuff (we dont even know what stuff) does it make them inconsistent? no, just outdated (which will also probably be the view on goblins of most intelligent races, especially the longer living ones)

So established lore, is interchangeable right? Thats what a retcon is, because sorry. Stories don't work that way.

You can't go on for years telling a story, reinforcing a point and then suddenly out of the blue decide "Oh that one point, its now different. Because it fits my needs now." Thats bad storytelling.

Seisho wrote:
And beeing evil part of their nature? Please, it is part of their culture. Of course many goblins are influenced taht way. but they are not demons or devils who are bound to be evil (and not even that is written in stone).

It isn't important why there evil. We will also keep that one for later.

Seisho wrote:
And still, if you don't like them, you just have to flip I would guess 2-6 pages in the core rulebook (I fail to see how that ruins your fun with the system) and you would probably see an artwork here and there, probably not even that many more then would have been there either way.

I can't know what others think, I for myself just mourn the loss of immersion. How my group will deal with this, will show itself.

Seisho wrote:
I try to make a step in your direction. But obviously no one here sees that because the answer is binary - the goblins are either in the book or not.

Thanks for making statements about your intention and capabilities of others. I'm sorry to inform you that your point of view is wrong: Goblins are not for discussion, there is no "binary answer", Goblins will be in the book.

Seisho wrote:
All this argumentation that some races are just always irredeemibly evil and that goblins dont belong in the core rulebook makes me want to run a campaign that is against the stupid stereotypes where all goblins, hobgoblins and orcs are nice, just in spite of this cliches

That wouldn't be Golarion then.

So for the argument... the argument on my side was never if Goblins are redeemable or not. I argue, that any redemption over 10 years of a group of beings widly perceived as evil, a group large enough to validate an entry into the core is highly unlikely.

Its not actually not about the goblins, its about the world they live in. Its easy to find a reason why a bigger group of goblins would become neutral. Thats not the problem.

The problem is facillitating an event that would everyone else make them recognize as potentially good, over this short span of time. Whatever the event, it must be so influential that no goblin character will ever face an amount of racism other races won't face. Every race faces racism of course, but you must be able to take all the characters of group to a social situation, without the goblin sticking out like a sore thumb.

Of course half-orcs already face some of those problems. But they are very established and can easily be mistaken for humans or barbarians or incompetent druid shapeshifters or whatever, but goblins?

So to conclude, it does matter that goblins are perceived as evil, which also means it doesnt matter if goblins are evil by nature or by culture or if they are evil at all. It matters that there race as a whole has a history that makes people recognize them as vermin in the best case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Monstrous races in general are still useful as targets you can morally kill them on sight.
This has never been canonically true or well supported in Golarion. I doubt PF2 is gonna make it so.

There are 1 in a million exceptions, but by default these races are evil and PCs will encounter them doing evil things.

For example, the writeup on orcs

Quote:
Orcs are aggressive, callous, and domineering. Bullies by nature, they respect strength and power as the highest virtues. On an almost instinctive level, orcs believe they are entitled to anything they want unless someone stronger can stop them from seizing it.
Quote:
Orcs have few redeeming qualities. Most are violent, cruel, and selfish. Concepts such as honor or loyalty usually strike them as odd character flaws that tend to afflict members of the weaker races. Orcs are typically not just evil, but chaotic to boot, though those with greater self-control may gravitate toward lawful evil.
Writeups like this are very useful for certain kinds of adventures. Nobody has to ask why the orcs are raiding villages. Its just in their nature.

One could now argue, that with the case of the goblins, that all evil races are just longterm redeemable and every encounter with a potential evil creature requires the same kind of procedure as facing a criminal.

"Orcs raided the village? Well, surely not all of them. Some maybe of good nature, attacking their hideout would be evil as innocents may die defending their property. Nothing adventurers can do here. Please go along."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

I don't say that all goblins should be good and of course they gonna have some trouble depending on region and culture

The same as half-orcs do (remember that orcs also eat people? also hobgoblins do that)

*sigh* there are people one can't just argue with...

and the goblin overlord line was of course a joke some people just don't get

I surely could have stated it less controversial (but I feel like I have done this several times).

I feel that every argument about Goblins being quirky, comedy villains, harmless pyromaniacs and so on completly ignores the retcon happening.

Goblins were portrayed as goofy yes, but also as kinda the-hills-have-eyes-evil and in their way, they way charming. Not because there songs were cute or because of there big heads but because they had working theme going on. A complete evil, misformed, clumsy package (with vermin crawling on it).

Were singular good goblins imaginable, yes of course. Would that change the viewpoint of every other person? No. Good goblins get the shovel, like bad goblins and thats okay.

So I'm wondering what earthshattering retcon paizo has developed to make people (NPCs) not mistrust every goblin on sight.

To conclude every argument about how this change is nice and goblins always have been playable, that doesnt takes position on the retcon and loss of identity, is hardly an argument more an omission.

Yes of course the developers can change their setting anyhow they want, but that hardly works for an established world and (for me personal) immersion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

...And I am very glad that paizo got their own quirky goblin instead of the basic goblin you find in every rpg and your grandmothers backyard

I for once welcome our new goblin overlords...

"...after killing the family dog, the Goblin tried to slaughter and eat the eldest son. The adventurers later find the father of the family, his face and parts of his torso eaten."

Yes Goblins are wholesome and nice. :) totally cuddly and very quirky in their own way. And by no means it is anyhow conceivable that making them into a fluffy goody-two-shoes race could be seen as disturbing.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Hey folks, just hopping in confirm that there is not a scheduled post for this Friday or next Monday, as we'll be at PaizoCon 2018.
This saddens me, but that is super understandable.

While such things can be automated, I would assume that paizo has a guideline that requires the author to be available reading the discussion and break up potential bigger misunderstandings (which could be pointing towards the formating/language of the blogs but yes, still required nonetheless). Before someone asks why there is no automated release.

CrystalSeas wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Yeah, even with no blogs I am expecting we will still get some substantial news from Paizocon. I would be utterly shocked if the panels didn't include or confirm some info we hadn't seen before.

Keep an eye on this thread

2018 PFS PaizoCon Bloggery with Pathfinder Playtest

This leads just back to the paizo page.


Catharsis wrote:
First of all, I seem to recall that playtest Kyra has four Uses of Heal and Fire Bolt each, so it would not seem that all abilities are fed from the same pool.

I know nothing about Fire Bolt sounds like a domain power and those use spell points. The free cleric uses of harm/heal are not using spell points (the inconsistency has already been noted in the cleric blog) but I think charisma based uses/day?


Malk_Content wrote:
Wermut wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Toblakai wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Note that currently a heightened MM deal an average of 15*3.5=52.5 hp of damage

Just as a comparison to PF1 a Maximized, empowered, intensified MM does an average of 52.5 damage in a level 7 spell slot instead of a level 9.

Add a quickened, maximized, intensified MM also for another 35 using a level 9 slot and 4 17th level PF1 wizards can kill a lot worse in one round.

Yeah, but then you are comparing someone who has spent 3 or 4 feats on it. So for apples to apples we need to compare your figures above to the damage a PF2 blaster can do with a 9th level magic missile with 3 or 4 feats dedicated to blasting... Which obviously we can't do yet.

Also there is no telling what a level 17 archer can do or a level 17 barbarian.

I wonder if a Magic Missile performs like this heightened to level 9 what a damage cantrip does. Since by logic it has to be weaker than a spell using a spell slot, even if the spell is a heightened level 1 spell.

My guess, for at least the damage cantrips it'll be Heighten (+2) for +1d#. This way telekinetic projectile will be doing 5d10 damage in a ninth level slot. Which isn't too shabby considering you'd have to invest a lot of gold to get a ranged weapon that did the same damage.

Mhm saving gold isn't the issue. We'll see how it plays out, but I if there is no investment required into doing baseline damage through cantrips what could be done (gosh I wanna see how Dragon Disciple turns out x_x).


Captain Morgan wrote:
Toblakai wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Note that currently a heightened MM deal an average of 15*3.5=52.5 hp of damage

Just as a comparison to PF1 a Maximized, empowered, intensified MM does an average of 52.5 damage in a level 7 spell slot instead of a level 9.

Add a quickened, maximized, intensified MM also for another 35 using a level 9 slot and 4 17th level PF1 wizards can kill a lot worse in one round.

Yeah, but then you are comparing someone who has spent 3 or 4 feats on it. So for apples to apples we need to compare your figures above to the damage a PF2 blaster can do with a 9th level magic missile with 3 or 4 feats dedicated to blasting... Which obviously we can't do yet.

Also there is no telling what a level 17 archer can do or a level 17 barbarian.

I wonder if a Magic Missile performs like this heightened to level 9 what a damage cantrip does. Since by logic it has to be weaker than a spell using a spell slot, even if the spell is a heightened level 1 spell.


PF2 story needs to fix at least the whole Goblin mess. They can't come up with something that will please everyone. So I wonder what they come up with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Wermut wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


In other words, the portion of my post that triggered the "as it should be" in terms of doing less damage was the "without spending resources" not the fact it was a martial character doing it.

Apologoies, Mark, but I find myself coming back to this. For me, it's not that the Wizard can out damage just about any generic martial, it's that the Wizard has the flexibility to do that, and also do massive single target damage the very next spell. Or, choose spells that dominate for one setting and then change those spells the next adventure and dominate a completely different set of obstacles. Granted, there's a question of the quality of information that proceeds preparation, regardless, no random martial has that type of flexibility.

At the risk of repeating the same mantra, saying that a martial can do X if they spend the resources, isn't really a fair counter. Even if a PF1 martial could find an AoE build that could out damage a full caster, the martial is pot committed to that build. A caster is not.

In recent thread, Pandora talked about this as character "agency." Her complaint with the Fighter was that it lacked the agency of full casters. My response is that no class should have that type of agency.

Has there been any thought to restricting what spells can do? Why not put serious boundaries on spells and take away all the skill duplicates? Or, be far more restrictive on how many schools of magic a wizard can cast from. Sure, they can always have an offensive cantrip, but if they want skill duplication, then they don't get Evocation/Illusion/Divination. If they wand Evocation, then they don't get three other schools to cast from, scrolls/wands included.

Again, for me, it's not about the highest level of power, its the breadth of that agency, even if it is from day to day and not encounter to encounter. Fewer spells doesn't really address this.

I don't agree, if you ever read through
...

can't fix that quote mess on my mobile, sorry.

Well yes you I've read the guide. Its the one that argues a wizard can do a lot of things but should focus on battlefield control. The one that says that a well build wizard should be aware of his unique role because there is no need to barge into what other classes do? The same guide that argues that a blaster wizard isnt worthy his salt? Thanks for proving my point.


thflame wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


In other words, the portion of my post that triggered the "as it should be" in terms of doing less damage was the "without spending resources" not the fact it was a martial character doing it.

Apologoies, Mark, but I find myself coming back to this. For me, it's not that the Wizard can out damage just about any generic martial, it's that the Wizard has the flexibility to do that, and also do massive single target damage the very next spell. Or, choose spells that dominate for one setting and then change those spells the next adventure and dominate a completely different set of obstacles. Granted, there's a question of the quality of information that proceeds preparation, regardless, no random martial has that type of flexibility.

At the risk of repeating the same mantra, saying that a martial can do X if they spend the resources, isn't really a fair counter. Even if a PF1 martial could find an AoE build that could out damage a full caster, the martial is pot committed to that build. A caster is not.

In recent thread, Pandora talked about this as character "agency." Her complaint with the Fighter was that it lacked the agency of full casters. My response is that no class should have that type of agency.

Has there been any thought to restricting what spells can do? Why not put serious boundaries on spells and take away all the skill duplicates? Or, be far more restrictive on how many schools of magic a wizard can cast from. Sure, they can always have an offensive cantrip, but if they want skill duplication, then they don't get Evocation/Illusion/Divination. If they wand Evocation, then they don't get three other schools to cast from, scrolls/wands included.

Again, for me, it's not about the highest level of power, its the breadth of that agency, even if it is from day to day and not encounter to encounter. Fewer spells doesn't really address this.

I think your proposed solution could work, and might even be desirable for some (me included) but I feel as though we have already let the toothpaste out of the tube with regards to wizard powers.

Any realistic measures of bringing casters in line with martials will either require HUGE nerfs to casters, a not-so-easily justifiable (lore wise) boost to martials, or some combination between those.

There is a significant portion of people who either don't care that casters are better than martials, vehemently deny it, or think that casters SHOULD outshine martials. Any attempt to bring casters in line with martials is going to be met with a good deal of outrage.

Something I will tack on, though: I see that damaging spells are balanced with respect to a martial having a magic weapon. What super expensive items do wizards have to have to pull off their super spells? I mean, if you are going to require a fighter to dish out some serious coin for a magic weapon, should a wizard not have to spend a comparable amount on, say, his arcane focus?

Perhaps a low level wizard can get away with a cheap wand (10gp in PF1 coinage?), but if that wizard wants to cast 9th and 10th level spells, they should have to purchase a +9/+10 arcane focus that costs about as much as a +9/+10(effective) weapon.

So which item can a wizard buy to become even more incredible powerful? That a wizard doesn't buy weapons to do what he does is part of the system. It could be balanced so I don't disagree. But there is no point in arguing that making a wizard spend more money would balance him, as he already can't spend this money to become more powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


In other words, the portion of my post that triggered the "as it should be" in terms of doing less damage was the "without spending resources" not the fact it was a martial character doing it.

Apologoies, Mark, but I find myself coming back to this. For me, it's not that the Wizard can out damage just about any generic martial, it's that the Wizard has the flexibility to do that, and also do massive single target damage the very next spell. Or, choose spells that dominate for one setting and then change those spells the next adventure and dominate a completely different set of obstacles. Granted, there's a question of the quality of information that proceeds preparation, regardless, no random martial has that type of flexibility.

At the risk of repeating the same mantra, saying that a martial can do X if they spend the resources, isn't really a fair counter. Even if a PF1 martial could find an AoE build that could out damage a full caster, the martial is pot committed to that build. A caster is not.

In recent thread, Pandora talked about this as character "agency." Her complaint with the Fighter was that it lacked the agency of full casters. My response is that no class should have that type of agency.

Has there been any thought to restricting what spells can do? Why not put serious boundaries on spells and take away all the skill duplicates? Or, be far more restrictive on how many schools of magic a wizard can cast from. Sure, they can always have an offensive cantrip, but if they want skill duplication, then they don't get Evocation/Illusion/Divination. If they wand Evocation, then they don't get three other schools to cast from, scrolls/wands included.

Again, for me, it's not about the highest level of power, its the breadth of that agency, even if it is from day to day and not encounter to encounter. Fewer spells doesn't really address this.

I don't agree, if you ever read through guides and class builds of casters you will notice that all those state one thing about all: specialize.

Yes a wizard can do amazing damage (with intesified spell, toppling / rime, spell mastery and spell focus in evocation). There isn't enough room to get also everything for decent save or suck spells or summoning.

Yes the same mage can cast charm person, knock and invisibility sphere. Will he have a lot of those spells slotted, probably not.

Fewer spells actually address this, as the wizard will prepare spells for his role and for basic self defense/utility: mage armor, mirror image, fly, stoneskin and so on. Besides spells that are expected of him: identify, glitterdust, haste, teleport.

There are not enough slots to replace the rogue. Besides every wizard worth his 6 wisdom and 20 intelligence knows that the next trap will poke him in bad places. Whatever spells he has prepared.

So the problem of agency you describe is not a problem of every-caster-can-do-everything, but more a these-classes-can-be-build-to-fill-out-a-lot-of-different-roles. Those builds still have to commit to those roles and are inside their class fantasy. So I would argue its not a caster class problem, its an image problem martials have.


No blog on friday? There are only 20 dates for blogs left and soo many topics left. 5 classes and 5 class mechanic blogs, traps, metamagic, companions, conditions, and so on.


So the spellist will remain the staple of the wizard and thats what makes him usefull. But what about customisation? The layered design of the cleric (choose god, choose domain, potentially choose negative or positive channeling, choose daily spells out of all spells available) is very tempting in regards to (choose school or not I am not your mother! And buy yourself some spells!).


Planpanther wrote:
I havent seen school abilities or all the wizard feats so right now its hard to say. The cleric definitely sounds more interesting to play with the small sample we have been given.

Yeah the Domain blog certainly helped a lot since it not only covered the rudimentary basics on domain but also on how gods work and what they provide. Wonder what fridays topic will be.


So with the wizard blog out of the hedges (see what I did there?), it strikes me that the comparison between clerics and wizards is on. While of course a healer might be important (so far he hasn't been). The cleric already gets a healthy amount of advantages that could point into a direction. Yes of course by tradition the wizard has the more flexible spell list, but the cleric could prove to be more efficient. With a powerful spell list on his own and no need to add it to a pesky book and more ways to customize the character up to 3 domains with up to 6 powers (probably not the wisest way to spend those feats, but hey its possible). In the long term if you truly want to have one certain spell that isnt on the cleric list, you probably find a deity you can ask nicely. Sarenrae already hands out those fireballs if thats your stick.

Also clerics get a boatload full of relevant harm/heal spells (always highest level). Whereas a wizard will add 1 spell of the highest level. Both always have cantrips available so thats not taking the cake for one side.

So several points: do you see a lack of customisation when it comes to wizard? Both classes have been starved in the past with meaningful longterm customisation. But the cleric truly seems ahead with additional domains.

Do you think that the wizard spell list, will pull the class "ahead" or even out the playfield, especially with the core spells only? And a lot of probable nerfs to magic in general.

By your guts, you have a fighter, a rogue and a paladin goblin in your party, would you rather take a cleric or a wizard, with the information given?


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

Well, at least the wizard gets more spells per day than the cleric, one way or another.

You made the universalist just directly better than a specialist, because their bonus spell slots per day from the focus are far more flexible than the specialist slots. It comes down to the specialist only gets 1 extra spell per day over the universalist which is not as good as the universalist's huge flexibility, and the school power which is probably not going to be as good as some of the feat options. Not particularly happy with that.

The Universalist is pretty great (whereas in PF1 it was definitely a poor choice compared to a specialist), but I don't think it's far and away better than the specialist because of an interesting nuance of how the focus spells work.

Compare a universalist who prepared fireball, haste, and dispel magic to a transmuter, evoker, illusionist, or abjurer who prepared fireball, haste, dispel magic, and invisibility sphere. If the adventure needs either an extra fireball, an extra haste, or an extra dispel magic, the universalist is set, but if the adventure needed the invisibility sphere, the specialist had the advantage. Getting to pick from a list of three to double is definitely better than adding a fourth (particularly if the specialist ever decides to double up), but then the specialist gets that extra spell on top. I feel that they are pretty comparable options.

I’m a bit confused by this and would appreciative of some clarification. So I have this right,

Universalist: Dispel Magic, Fireball, Haste + choice of Dispel Magic, Fireball, or Haste.
Evocation Specialist: Dispel Magic, Haste, Invisibility Sphere + Fireball

Unless I’m misreading this, it comes across that Universalists will be casting multiple uses of the same spell because how Arcane Bonds work, while Specialists are more suited to having a wider selection of spells...

Yes but the Universalist will still be the better choice when it comes to raw spells as there has always been spells you want to cast several times a day because of how useful they are. Summon Monster, Haste, Mirror Image and so on. The universalist in the example is already better of because he can provide haste in another combat. Whereas Invisibility Sphere might be useful, but still situational.

So far the school powers will make the difference (Diviner's Fortune has already been nerfed by removing attack rolls). If the school powers don't keep up with the power of added flexible spells (and thats a tough cookie) the universalist strikes me already as more powerful. Especially since building up the school powers taxes on additional feats.

Getting the an advanced school ability versus for example the ability which was described to get out additional spells out of every arcane focus spells, is hardly a choice for higher level universalist who have an abundance of those. Assuming Focus Conversation is a level 10 feat you get a flexible spellslot for every spelllevel below 4. At level 11 you get one for every spelllevel below 5.

Different Topic, I think its a wasted opportunity to make the familiar bound to classes and not turn it into a ritual. Which could be more easily referenced in other classes (Witches and Alchemists for example). Putting the familiar progress into class feats will also complicate things more for other classes who have easy access to an familiar. There will be a lot of "This class gets an familiar, grab the other book and read about wizards even if you dont want to play one.". I hope there is another solution for this.

Also familiar could have been made more easily available for non-caster classes. Rangers looking for another scout, to turn into true beastmasters, Rogues looking for an additional skill set or access to spelllike abilities, Powergamers... ahem players with a broad fantasy inspired by comical sidekicks who wanted to have a talking faerie dragon clutching onto a wand as their backstory relevant companion.

I am concerned about depth here, you know.


Besides bad wordplay I really hope the give the wizard more customability. The pact wizard as well as the arcanist were a truly needed addition.


I wonder if the wizard as one of the most controversial classes when it comes to balance of power between classes will make the same impact as that thing-that-shall-not-be-named.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

Also that we get all the polymorph spells for each creature type before the end of the edition.

Personally, I'm curious if they'll play around with those, and the type/subtype templates in simplified monster creation. Starfinder's summon monster spell was an interesting way to go about it; I could definitely see polymorph working to let you take the form of that creature rather than summoning it.

I thought of something while in the blasting thread: what about a spell that lets you exploit a creature's weakness? Maybe it doesn't do much base damage, but it triggers a creature's innate weakness. Possibly several times with a critical failure on the save.

I could definitely see that as a witch cantrip, or a hex (I assume Hexes will be Witch cantrips or powers, or both).

I like the idea but sounds more like something an inquisitor would cast. Something that could be very witchy is a spell that curses enemies with weaknesses.


Dragon78 wrote:
A cantrip that creates a single mundane weapon and/or tool would be interesting.

I guess Since there is a domain power that creates tools for spell points,that there wont be a cantrip like that.


thflame wrote:

I'd like some spells that are designed to be channeled through a weapon for Gish characters.

Perhaps a generic "Arcane Strike" spell that grants the user some extra damage dice to his attacks for one round.

Then, maybe have spells that poisons, elements, or hexes to weapon attacks.

While I like the thought, I wonder what would be more practical spells like this or a feature that allows using spells this way.


Depending on how many cantrips a caster is supposed to cast in a day, diversity will be important. Even if the cantrip does "average" damage just spamming one spell isnt fun. Different cantrips with different mechsnics could help with that. Of course it all depends on how often casting a damaging cantrip is the best/only option.


John John wrote:

So we now know the big 2 items some kind of armor and weapon. Which does beg the question what are the big two items for spellcasters? Do they actually exist?

The second question is "What is the 3rd big item necessary at higher levels, maybe?" Deadmanwalking said its propably a ranged weapon, which is a good guess.

An item for mobility seems more likey as a semi mandatory ranged iten would require investment of proficiencies and feats. Whereas a magical broom takes the barbarian to the fight!


Planpanther wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
It seems like there will be less front-loading in classes, things spread out over more levels, have to wait until certain levels to access/unlock abilities/feats. Have no idea if multiclassing will even be close to its original form; have they mentioned anything at all about multiclassing?
Im sure its an upcoming blog. I'm not especially excited for it...

I hope the Designers will come up with a good solution acknowledging the role of combining classes, combining archetypes, dipping and prestige classes in "character customisation". While those things certainly don't need to stay, removing them would need equivalent substitute.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The sheer railroading when it came to character building was a major letdown with Starfinder and one of the main reasons why my group stopped playing. Dipping and multiclassing are one of PFs deceisive qualities.


I kinda hoped the blog would give some information about natural weapons attacks as well. Maybe in a separate blog, maybe as a part of the druid blog? In my group natural weapon builds are quite common be it barbarian or summoner and I wonder if they still allow a different playstyle to normal attacks. Wouldn't guess so now.


I'd like an infight teleport spell for more than the caster himself. Like teleport, for escaping stuff. :) also works well as a scroll for lower level use.


SteelGuts wrote:
l really like Grasping Corpse. It is a fun and thematic and efficient low level Necromancy Spell.

That would actually make a good cantrip. :D

Flavorful, supportive, battlefield control, could easily scale with level. Worth the action and so on, it doesn't become overpowered through the restriction of need a corpse. Mhm... how often are cantrips expected to cast per day?


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Wermut wrote:


I'd assume they just put in all the spells of the first Edition CRB?
I don't think so. They are adding new ones (Litanies for example) and book is not going to grow. Also other new stuff (like alchemy) need space, so some things have to go. There are lot of spells in CRB which just clutter space, IMHO. Let's see what happens.

You could probably get rid of all the ability spells (fold them into one). Also "Mass" spells will also be part of heightened spells. The detect alignment spells have been confirmed, so I assume the protect and circles as well. Maybe fold them together as well.

Mhm, summon monster/natures ally will probably also be heightened, as well as all the heal/harm spells.

I'd assumae they cut the prestige classes and exchange them for archetypes. That should also save space. I can't think of any spell I would deem "removable" but that might be nostalgia.


Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm pretty sure the Paladin has this in the bag though I'd be happy to be surprised and for the Fighter to end up pushing through.

One would hope that the loud minority is also very charitable like they like to play. Also its not something lost, but something added and for charity so who cares.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

I think a better question would be "which ones should not be there". Assume you have to kill half of the spells currently in the game (probably more), because many of them come from extra books and do not fit into the CRB.

Which ones do you cut down?

I'd assume they just put in all the spells of the first Edition CRB? Mhm thinking about it I hope they add in some spells to test out actions in combat, like Emergency Force Sphere. Also depending on the length of the adventurous day I wonder if in-fight cantrips provide enough variance to be interesting. After all the design idea was to make them more interesting as an filler action.

New spells? Puh, maybe during the playtest its hard to come up with something if you dont know what will be within.


Desferous wrote:

My hope is that spell descriptions encourage creativity on the caster's part and have less focus on dice and numbers.

Spells shouldn't just be about numerical effects.

Let the GM & players decide, maybe let the dice decide.

Either way when I read a spell description and see a +1 to (fill in the blank here) it really does suck the imaginative idea out of spells.

Honestly, most people have their own ideas of how spells should work, so let the RPG groups decide. Sure, groups will be different, and so what is wrong with that? Nothing, unless you are doing tournaments. Paizo could sell tournament guides for those that need numbers for nuances.

You might like the idea of playing a more storytelling oriented system like the White Wolf games? Or Scion perhaps.

At its very core is Pathfinder a dungeon crawler and as such will always be number/math heavy. Sure you can play it like you want, but every possible interpretation of how to play can't be covered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of traditional not so versatile schools to branch out in other directions. Still it remains to be seen if there is enough reason to focus so much on a single school that it validates that a single school touches the purpose of another. If every caster is an "okay" blaster with evocation spells and nearly zero investment there is no reason to give for example divination damaging spells.


While this will not work for several reasons. The backgrounds will be implemented like the traits, so no fixed number, like the cards would suggest and often with a link to certain adventures and content. So the background pool will be small but grow fast.

Then again I really really like the idea of the harrow deck and I hope they will build on that, probably not in the CRB but yes. The harrow deck is fun.


Spell visibility is a must have as its an easy way to balance magic use. While clever casters have ways to mitigate such things it still inspires creativity and strategical thinking. Also manifestations arent necessary on anime level. As someone who started with RPG througb computer games I still like my Baldurs Gate or Elders Scrolls casting.


Mhm I just hope there is an very flexible Background like Starfinder had. I see the value of pregenerated backgrounds fluff-wise but a backup option seems like an good idea.


Quote:
It seems unlikely to me that Paizo will be able to balance these ancestry disparities by, say, giving Halflings better ancestry feats across the board than goblins and dwarves have.

But until now racial abilities always made the choice. A good race not only provide the right stat boosts but also powerful abilities. Yes human bonus feat I'm looking at you!


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Wermut wrote:

The background blog added the following by name:

Lore (Smithing)
Lore (Pathfinder Society)
Lore (Underworld)

also some feats related but without clear purpose.

Those are already covered under Lore (Various).

Still its interesting to note how flexible "Lore" can be and how they differ from the former Knowledge skills (which are of course now a thing of its own). Those were rather rigid, while something like Lore (Smithing) indicates that every form of crafting has a lore skill, or only those relevant to the adventurers life?

Are lore skills so flexible that a player could define a certain field of knowledge as lore skill, without a rigid list maybe given some guidelines bye the rulebook? If I remember correctly Shadowrun had something like that and it worked just fine to fluff out characters.

But if thats the case, I also remember that those skills were kept separately from the "real" skills that gave everyday advantages. If lore skills are spread too thin (how often will Lore (Smithing) play an important role?) do they warrant the investment of ressources that may advance stuff like Medicine or Survival?


The background blog added the following by name:

Lore (Smithing)
Lore (Pathfinder Society)
Lore (Underworld)

also some feats related but without clear purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder, since they fill the same "space" fluff wise and they are apparently tailored to adventures (paths). If the background fully replaces the old traits?


So in roughly 2 hours and 45 minutes. Thank you very much. :)


By the way when is the next blog? "Usually 2pm" tells me nothing when it comes to different timezones.


knightnday wrote:
Maybe something religion-related due to paladins? Something more about the gods, or churches, or holy magic?

Yeah... no I hope not. The original blog was cut short, for obvious reasons. Some of those who are interested in the topic made it pretty obvious that they can't handle those informations well enough.

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>