I've been using stripped down NPCs for years when I need to - Scribble down the numbers I reckon I'll need and look close enough to what I want. It saves a ton of time. If they become more relevant I can flesh them out. Players never see the numbers so a little massaging and it's all good if they later become a PC (which has never happened - most players IME want to play their own creations not a hand-me-down).
But then by that logic you need to make every longsword exotic to eastern folks and that particular rabbit hole is going to get messy real fast.
I tend to agree with the OP, but it's also somewhat counterintuitive as to me those weapons are (mostly) inherently exotic to my admittedly euro-centric world view.
Milo v3 wrote:
Nothing I say will change your mind, but I for one am looking forward to characters being good at a broader range of things, to parties being able to attempt scenarios in ways that don't involve combat because Job didn't put a rank in disguise (or whatever).
And I'm saying that as someone who, 'til now, has enjoyed hyper- specialising in a skill so that I can take 1 and succeed at a DC 40 skill checks at level 10.
Aren't they? I've seen this mentioned a few times now, but the only rules I see on the matter are an encounter of Y level should force the party to use X% of daily resources. I can't find any encounter design rules that hints or suggests the party should be entering combat at less than (or close to) full health.You never know when you will hit a major encounter, not healing up after an encounter (or retreating if unable to do so) is a recipe for disaster unless the GM is going to pull punches.
I have GM'd for more player deaths from a player forgetting to heal after a fight than any other single cause (except my own mistakes -
Staffan Johansson wrote:
The presence of healing items is largely because clerics, who had all these cool spells, couldn't cast them because they were always converted into healing spells. It made the game very unsatisfying to play a cleric or other healing class when you were pigeonholed like that/cut off from fully utilising one of your major class features.
And I'll echo Angel Hunter D. when you give players plot immunity to injuries, then you can do away with convenient healing. This isn't a story and the authors aren't fully in control of how hurt characters get, the dice are. At it's heart it's a game used to tell a story, but you need to make allowances for the game part.
And whether that healing is CLW spam or some other mechanism won't change your underlying narrative (it takes 30 seconds in game to say "I use 5 charges and heal 23 hp", it doesn't have to be particularly intrusive unless you make it so).
In short if you remove CLW spam either insulate your players from some of the damage they should be taking or give them access to some other form of healing (which may or may not make any more sense than CLW spam) or 'encourage' someone to play a healbot.
AD&D Kits and Player's Option were better. Fourth Edition's Feat, Paragon, and Hybrid multiclassing were better
Having played with both of those - nope! or more to the point you may have preferred their implementation, that doesn't make them better. If they were objectively better then I wouldn't hate them so much I wouldn't touch either with the proverbial 11' pole.
I understand some folks dip to build a character concepts not supported by the existing classes / archetypes. I don't have a problem with this. but I've never actually seen anyone do it (not even for an oradin). On the other hand I have seen dips used for powergaming reasons to make something thats rather strong for its level, I intently dislike that.
Again your powergaming is someone else's normal and a third persons 'awww, that's cute'.
One of the flexibilities of PF is that it can adapt to different power levels, it just needs the GM to set appropriate limits. It is a lot easier to say "you can't use this" than it is to create something new. So I really don't want to see too many hard limits on a new system.
Scott Romanowski wrote:
That is not a universally held view of class.To me most classes don't define what you are, it just describes it mechanically.
And I have done the 'start as a commoner' game - it wasn't fun.
The problem is I'm seeing a lot of suggestions flying around that if adopted would suck a lot of fun out of the game for me.
Bloodrealms fear of what the new skills will do to the game is a perfect example - to me they sound awesome and fun, if anything I'm hoping the cool ones aren't all gated to too high a level.
I don't want to tell these other people they can't play the kind of games they want, but I also don't want to lose the things I enjoy.
Why should anyone have to adapt to a different playstyle to the one they obviously enjoy?
Or, you know, don't stop the one level class dip.
Some of us like the fact that you can tweak your characters with little perks, gain a little edge or fulfill a concept that can't easily be done with a single class.
Calling it min/maxing like it's a bad thing isn't going to change the fact that we enjoy that. It's an integral part of the fun of the flexibility of pathfinder as opposed to a more generic game. If it's not for you, you can just not do it.
I'd rather they made multiclassing more attractive for casters than deny it to everyone.
enhanced mind blade wrote:
If this would reduce the enhancement bonus on the mind blades to 0 and weapon special abilities are applied, the soulknife must reshape her mind blade to make the options valid.
Your mindblade follows all the normal rules of magic weapons. So it needs to have a +1 enhancement before you can add special qualities.
Also bear in mind that many enchantment abilities do not stack. For example, having keen on a weapon twice does not further increase the threat range, only one applies.
Can you spend 8 points on augments 1 and 3 to effectively negate the ability damage?I suspect not due to timing. Augment 3 would trigger first and try to remove the damage before the delayed damage from augment 1 actually kicks in, but I thought a double check might be worth it.
Exemplar Brawler: Inspiring front liner. I am awaiting the fighter archetype that can bard (or I've missed it and it should be on this list). Not one of the core 11, but consider this a sub for the fighter.
Drill Sergeant (Fighter): teamwork feats! (I'm un-apologetically a fan)
Skirmisher (ranger): Sometimes you want a ranger without spells, also moves a bit of the focus back to the animal companion, which is never a bad thing (Make boon companion core if the rangers AC is still hindered /aside).
Master of Many Styles (monk): Bruce Lee - adapt and use different fighting styles, seamlessly melded!
Planar Sneak (Rogue): I wish it also had more ways to mitigate hostile environments/survive on the planes beyond the save vs effects and/or move between the planes.
I am seeing a lot of posts that want to change some of the default assumptions of PF1 - things like easy access to magic, wand use and out of combat healing, the accumulation of multiple small bonuses, and so on - these all give the game a distinctive feel - one that I actually like.
I hope that PF2 has enough flexibility and the guidelines to handle a game that matches what I'm looking for and the things that someone looking for a different feeling game is seeking.
Will PF handle the transition from low to high magic? Heroic fantasy to grim and gritty?
Should it have that kind of flexibility?
Nope. I like defined roles and classes. I really do not like suggestions to gut a key element of what makes this game this game and not some other game. If I want a classless system there are dozens out there that will fill that role just fine.
HIstorically accurate for Golarion? or the world of Dragon Age?
There is little to no gain for most of the intended audience, ultimately it really doesn't make the game any better, and as I've said before, near as I can tell even the experts can't always agree on terminology for the most part so why hold a game to a higher standard?
conceals tindertwig and torch behind back
Chess Pwn wrote:
One thing is flying combat. Like it's hard to know if my bow can shoot in the first range increment or not all the time.
Quick and nasty way to work out range from different elevations that I use is take the longer of height and distance and add half the shorter. It's not going to be right, but it's close enough for a TTRPG.
I have issues with resonance. It feels forced. I don't really like the idea that only the charming adventure - it will need to be very carefully managed such that you don't suddenly need to max charisma at the expense of your primary stat(s). It limits the number of trinkets you can attune if you wanted a number of small cheap magic items rather than 2-4 big ones. By about level 10 or so I want to light up like a x-mas tree!
I will give it a fair shake, but on first blush I don't like the concept at all.
Am I the only cynic who reckons if you get rid of the need for the big 6 then it won't be long before the replacements are decided upon whatever they may be and we are right back to people complaining about the new 'big 4' that everyone has to have.
i would be very surprised if there wasn't a variable xp track system in the final product, but I would be equally surprised to see it in the playtest.
except that you know your munchkin is my standard and a third persons 'so weak, I wouldn't even bother'. I enjoy the mechanical aspect of the game the little tweaks and uplifts to make a synergistic whole greater than its parts.
I guess I am having badwrongfun again!
There is a difference between flying amphibious humans and what you are asking for - your minutiae that really has no significant impact - I certainly don't care about the nomenclature, and near as I can tell those that do care can't always agree anyway )or at least there are contradictory expert sources).
And illusion and enchantment are dramatically different in theme, I for one am not seeing the parallel.
Mark Seifter wrote:
As long as it's clear that it is repeated. You know you will get people claiming they get two general feats...
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Because naming everything talents would be less confusing? or alternatively giving these functionally identical abilities different names would be less confusing?
It doesn't seem that confusing, and the alternatives look at best the same if not worse on the face of it.
yep, it was only in 1ead&d I did have to double check ... 2e had a flat%, but I don't recall any 100% or better MR on creatures in 2e (it's been many years though, so not going to swear to that :)).
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Seconded - hex grids come with their own baggage. They are not an instant fix.I imagine this is one of those things that will depend on what you are more used to though :)
I think your perspective kind of means you don't get the point I and others are making.
What you say is perfectly correct, and changing a races background is one of the easier changes you can make. Paizo however has created a specific character for their signature creature. That character has been well developed and well established. While many hate them, they do have a huge fan base. It will be interesting to see how Paizo establish goblins as a PC viable race and stay true to their own canon - I can't see how they can, but that's why they are in that job and I'm not
That's a given Zhayne. It's not about creating your own family friendly goblins though. This is a discussion specifically about Golarions goblins.
And sure playing against type is fun, but then so is playing the archetype and with the current canon that is next to impossible outside of 'we be goblins' type set up.
If you change the canon then they aren't the same Golarion goblins we are familiar with.