I would like to use this topic to gather errata questions:
On page 13 it is stated that the key ability scores for Ranger are "Dexterity or Strength". On page 113 the class key ability is listed as "Dexterity".
On page 73 the might domains lists "Enduring Strength", the spell descriptions lists only "Enduring Might" on page 221.
First I'm not debating the idea behind that change, I'm thinking more about the consequences and ways too use these rules within the system. So less the "why" and more the "what now".
Also I don't see the problem with dipping, yes there are some powergamery builds combining 4 classes (and varying amount of archetypes) just for more efficiency. But there also build that combine classes for roleplay and concept purposes.
For example, taking 1 Level Barb, 4 Level Sorc and then Dragon Disciple is a complete concept. Does the dip provide power? Yes of course.
Does it fit that the character struggles with his dragon blood, experiences fits of rage and only learns with time to harness that blood, heck yes.
The same could be said about two levels of paladin in the same build. Yes it has oomph, but its also a whole concept.
Its hardly feasible in the system. Dragon Disciple relies on features that would surely end up class feats, class feats invested into becoming a sorcerer in the first place and so on.
As the title says a lot of talk centers around the need to invest in dedication feats of varying power to unlock progress in another race/class. Part of the problem is the loss of toys.
Well yes a fighter dedicating himself to be a wizard can read scrolls and use wands. But he can't scribe scrolls or has actual spell slots. When does he get those spells? Around level 5 I'd assume. Whereas in PF1 a character mixing barbarian and sorceror has no problems using all his tools at level 2. He might not be the most powerful possible build, but its a rewarding experience.
So with a lot of character concepts missing features they have to unlock with certain levels I wonder if higher level play could even things out a little. Builds using multiclassing and/or archetypes won't be as strong as other characters but still have access to the tools the player wants to have.
I wonder with a lot of mentioning high level abilities in the blog (the famous legendary medic for example), if the second edition aims for a higher level play experience? And if that could remedy that problem?
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
Starting Languages: Common and Draconian
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
So a race being evil is not a compelling point. This will be useful later.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
"...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.
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.
This leads just back to the paizo page.
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
N N 959 wrote:
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.
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!).
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?
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 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.
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:
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!
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.
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.
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:
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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!
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?