When is the next blog?


Playtest

451 to 500 of 597 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sleep is for the week. Today, blogs shall sustain me.


I would like to see either Bard or Monk, since both should show LOTS of new stuff.

Also sorcerer. Really hoping for a full decouple from Wizard-lite 3E legacy.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I strongly suspect that we'll get Sorcerer and a discussion of how Spontaneous Casting works in general before we get Bard. I'd be very pleased to be mistaken, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm kinda worried about the idea of the Bard being a full caster, largely because I love bards but hate full casters...

Ironically I think I have the exact opposite feel about them. I've never been a big fan of bards but having one as a full caster would really encourage me to give them a try.

I think its a style and flavour thing - I've never been a big fan of bards with the traditional lute, goatee and rapier and I always find the notion of them juggling playing an instrument with using a melee weapon a bit jarring.

However, I could really get behind a wise old storyteller type with lots of lore as well as spells or a siren like enchanter whose spells come out in song. Having 9th level casting and less combat stats would really work for me there.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the devs will try and find a way so that you can develop your bard in whatever direction you prefer. Maybe gating high-level spellcasting behind Class feats or Skill feats

Liberty's Edge

Personally, I'd expect that, much like Clerics in PF2, Bards will be a full caster who can either do the offensive casting thing, or do melee combat (or archery) at the player's option (with somewhat different builds being ideal for each).

Performance plus greater Skill options can basically be equal to Domains plus Channel Energy in that case, and be the basis for a variety of Class Feats.

That seems sufficiently balanced to make for a good and interesting Class, but we'll have to wait and see.


Its the barbarian!

Liberty's Edge

So it is.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I was tempted to be sneaky after everyone guessed bard and say like "My ouija board says....B....A.....R....." but I figured people would realize my sneakiness, plus if not then it's kind of mean.

Liberty's Edge

Mark Seifter wrote:
I was tempted to be sneaky after everyone guessed bard and say like "My ouija board says....B....A.....R....." but I figured people would realize my sneakiness, plus if not then it's kind of mean.

That's fine Mark, but the Bard Blog better be a DOOZY now that say that!


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

Sorcerer, please. I'm dying here to know what has become of my favorite class.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I felt bard or ranger were most likely -- sorcerer the least -- and barbarian and monk were middle. So this was an interesting twist.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
NielsenE wrote:
I felt bard or ranger were most likely -- sorcerer the least -- and barbarian and monk were middle. So this was an interesting twist.

This blog was literally very nearly the monk and originally planned to be the monk (we needed the barbarian because there was risk of the class being spoiled at Origins, which I'm leaving for very very soon), so your middle tier was very accurate, and take that as you will for monk futures (will it be soon, or has it lost its chance for a while? Find out next time on Pathfinder Playtest!)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Darn, would have loved to see the monk(or bard, or sorcerer).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
NielsenE wrote:
I felt bard or ranger were most likely -- sorcerer the least -- and barbarian and monk were middle. So this was an interesting twist.
This blog was literally very nearly the monk and originally planned to be the monk (we needed the barbarian because there was risk of the class being spoiled at Origins, which I'm leaving for very very soon), so your middle tier was very accurate, and take that as you will for monk futures (will it be soon, or has it lost its chance for a while? Find out next time on Pathfinder Playtest!)

I think I'm in a playtest at Origins, so looking forward to see more tidbits!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I was tempted to be sneaky after everyone guessed bard and say like "My ouija board says....B....A.....R....." but I figured people would realize my sneakiness, plus if not then it's kind of mean.

Bardbarian! So, Skald! ;)

Silver Crusade

Cross-posting because I like this thread:

Joe M. wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Huh, so Whirlwind Strike is Barbarian-only now?

Well we've previewed Whirlwind Strike for fighter as well, so...

(then again, things have sometimes changed since the preview. For instance, fans of the halfling ancestry would find it wise if they check out the final playtest book for the new cool stuff)

*eyes emoji*

I hope this hint means what I think it means ...

(emphasis added)

Liberty's Edge

I'm curious about the bard because I wanna know what happened to 2/3 casting, as the Alchemist completely scrapped it.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Paladinosaur wrote:
I'm curious about the bard because I wanna know what happened to 2/3 casting, as the Alchemist completely scrapped it.

I'm guessing Sorcerer covering what spontaneous casting is like is a bit of a prereq.


Spontaneous casting never jived with the feel of the bard to me. I've always felt their spells are where their supernatural performance tricks should live. And songs, dances, etc are definitely things that you can "know" any number of but have to rehearse - ie, prepare - before you "go live" with them at an event - ie, adventuring day.


For the Friday blog I would like to see the Arcane Schools. It would give us more insight into the Wizard.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I'm hoping for totems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe itll be transformation spells to go along with animal totem transformations


I'm a little surprised the Barbarian has wound up being controversial. Admittedly, it still seems mostly well received, even by the folks who don't like Anathemas. But I didn't see it generating quite this much arguing.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

THIS IS INTERNET !!!

;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Barbarian's pretty tamed compared to other classes... Haha, never thought I'd see the day!


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Barbarian's pretty tamed compared to other classes...

I agree, one of the reasons Barbarian was low on my list of hopefuls was mostly because with all the other stuff we've already seen and Pathfinder Unchained, there was very little that was a surprise with the Barbarian blog.

Assuming they're not doing a class on Friday (follows trend but nothing says has to), I could see maybe Animal Companions, since we already have most of the other Druid stuff. Maybe a blog on traps, poisons and diseases. Or more generally, a blog on conditions. We know some of this stuff that has been gleaned from the Glass Cannon play test pod cast, but not a ton.

If they did decide to do a class on Friday, I could see a Ranger since they should be uncontroversial as well. Just need to know how favored enemy works and if they still get free fighting style, I would expect no spellcasting or very limited with spell points like Paladin (may be more controversial if they significantly redesign the class, but I would be surprised).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I may be odd, but I actually would like a blog on General Feats. We know all the other types: Ancestry, (ok missing three of them) Skill, Class. (missing some of those as well) But what do they classify as General Feats? Obviously Skills, but what about general combat feats (Power Attack?) general Spell feats, (Spell Focus type?) Perception feats?. I was thinking Saves, but now I doubt it. So many questions...


As far as Ranger is concerned, I think the modular nature of the class feat system makes the concept of choosing a codified fighting style entirely redundant. I also fully expect them to be a spell point only caster like the Paladin.

Reaching a little further, I think it would also be cool to use some class feats to delve a little deeper into the concept of favored enemies and terrains. Perhaps assimilate some of the Horizon Walker abilities as spell point spell options for terrains. So at those higher levels you can choose between expanding to another terrain, or further specializing the one(s) you already have. Based on the way other classes have been built I would be surprised if favored enemies don't work similarly as well, either choose to further specialize in existing enemies or add some more. So you don't have a character with a bunch of non-sequitur favored enemies/terrains because they had to pick a new one, but the concept doesn't support the idea.

EDIT: I could also see favored enemies working like an increase in proficiency against specific creature types. So, in an organic sort of way, you'd essentially have character X who's an expert in combat, but a master dragon-slayer.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I suspect Ranger will have no built in spells, but some Spell Point options available by Feat. That might be controversial, but would make me pretty happy.

I do also suspect that there'll be no fighting styles per se, just a set of Class Feats encouraging TWF or archery. And I'd expect Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain as Class Features, but I have no idea how they'll work mechanically.


Leedwashere wrote:

As far as Ranger is concerned, I think the modular nature of the class feat system makes the concept of choosing a codified fighting style entirely redundant. I also fully expect them to be a spell point only caster like the Paladin.

Reaching a little further, I think it would also be cool to use some class feats to delve a little deeper into the concept of favored enemies and terrains. Perhaps assimilate some of the Horizon Walker abilities as spell point spell options for terrains. So at those higher levels you can choose between expanding to another terrain, or further specializing the one(s) you already have. Based on the way other classes have been built I would be surprised if favored enemies don't work similarly as well, either choose to further specialize in existing enemies or add some more. So you don't have a character with a bunch of non-sequitur favored enemies/terrains because they had to pick a new one, but the concept doesn't support the idea.

EDIT: I could also see favored enemies working like an increase in proficiency against specific creature types. So, in an organic sort of way, you'd essentially have character X who's an expert in combat, but a master dragon-slayer.

I don't find that codifying a fighting style is redundant at all. So far they seem to be Class locking combat feats (Whirlwind attack for the Barb and Fighter for instance...) So it makes the most sense that Ranger would have the same thing, since it fits so organically. I agree with you on the spell point caster bit.

When it comes to favourite enemy and terrain, I figure they'll follow the same vein as they have been with other classes signature abilities... Trade one limitation for another. Barbarian and Paladin are good examples. Barbarians get to rage all day if they'd like, but they get the 3/1 ratio. Paladin's likewise can smite (now called Blade of Justice) any evil enemy in sight all day long, but have to spend an action/round to do it. I'm guessing that Rangers would have something like the assassins ability to study their target. We'll see. I'm also curious if they will make those core features (favoured enemy/terrain) OPTIONAL. They made Smite Evil optional, so why not?! I doubt it, but we'll see.
Though, I have to say that I'm really digging your ideas there Leed. I would be happy to see them come into fruition...


Iron_Matt17 wrote:

I don't find that codifying a fighting style is redundant at all. So far they seem to be Class locking combat feats (Whirlwind attack for the Barb and Fighter for instance...) So it makes the most sense that Ranger would have the same thing, since it fits so organically. I agree with you on the spell point caster bit.

When it comes to favourite enemy and terrain, I figure they'll follow the same vein as they have been with other classes signature abilities... Trade one limitation for another. Barbarian and Paladin are good examples. Barbarians get to rage all day if they'd like, but they get the 3/1 ratio. Paladin's likewise can smite (now called Blade of Justice) any evil enemy in sight all day long, but have to spend an action/round to do it. I'm guessing that Rangers would...

I agree with you on the Fighting Styles, just be "gated" feats or maybe "ranger can select General Feat XXXXX as a class feat" with say a high level feat that builds on the general feat but is only available to Ranger.

I would say that I am leaning toward what Leedwashere suggested for favored enemy. I also really like the in character statement that I am an expert/master dragon slayer.

Something else that occurred to me, think of the build options that were mentioned in the Cleric blog. The idea that you can hyper specialize in one class feature or generalize to several. This option could also be used for the Ranger (and the Monk for that matter). Depending on what class feats you take Ranger Adam could be the consummate woodsman and tracker, where as Ranger Bob is focused fully on maximizing favored enemy, Ranger Chris is a legendary archer a la Robin Hood, and Ranger Dan is a generalist, good at woodslore, has a minor FE bonus, is decent with two weapons but isn't a true master of any.


j b 200 wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

I don't find that codifying a fighting style is redundant at all. So far they seem to be Class locking combat feats (Whirlwind attack for the Barb and Fighter for instance...) So it makes the most sense that Ranger would have the same thing, since it fits so organically. I agree with you on the spell point caster bit.

When it comes to favourite enemy and terrain, I figure they'll follow the same vein as they have been with other classes signature abilities... Trade one limitation for another. Barbarian and Paladin are good examples. Barbarians get to rage all day if they'd like, but they get the 3/1 ratio. Paladin's likewise can smite (now called Blade of Justice) any evil enemy in sight all day long, but have to spend an action/round to do it. I'm guessing that Rangers would...

I agree with you on the Fighting Styles, just be "gated" feats or maybe "ranger can select General Feat XXXXX as a class feat" with say a high level feat that builds on the general feat but is only available to Ranger.

I would say that I am leaning toward what Leedwashere suggested for favored enemy. I also really like the in character statement that I am an expert/master dragon slayer.

Something else that occurred to me, think of the build options that were mentioned in the Cleric blog. The idea that you can hyper specialize in one class feature or generalize to several. This option could also be used for the Ranger (and the Monk for that matter). Depending on what class feats you take Ranger Adam could be the consummate woodsman and tracker, where as Ranger Bob is focused fully on maximizing favored enemy, Ranger Chris is a legendary archer a la Robin Hood, and Ranger Dan is a generalist, good at woodslore, has a minor FE bonus, is decent with two weapons but isn't a true master of any.

In general, that's the direction they are taking all the classes. No matter if it's Rogue Adam, Paladin Bob, Wizard Chris, or Barbarian Dan. Which I'm super stoked for.

I'm going to call it here, but since every class has a Legendary ability, I'm going to say it will be Legendary Perception. Also wondering if they would make a Ranger Legendary at fighting a specific creature. That'd be sweet, lots of flavour in that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Increasing weapon profiency (and maybe even save proficiency} against specific enemies could be really cool depending on what weapon proficiency actually does. I think critical specializations will be unlocked through them, for example.

Two problems there: it becomes harder to figure out favored enemy outputs when it isn't just adding numbers, and it doesn't age super well. Getting proficiency bumped up a tier is great early on, and you can add more enemies to your list as you go. But you can't progress anything past Legendary. I guess it could work if the Ranger's base weapon profiency never actually improves, but that feels pretty lame.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Increasing weapon profiency (and maybe even save proficiency} against specific enemies could be really cool depending on what weapon proficiency actually does. I think critical specializations will be unlocked through them, for example.

Two problems there: it becomes harder to figure out favored enemy outputs when it isn't just adding numbers, and it doesn't age super well. Getting proficiency bumped up a tier is great early on, and you can add more enemies to your list as you go. But you can't progress anything past Legendary. I guess it could work if the Ranger's base weapon profiency never actually improves, but that feels pretty lame.

I guess my ultimate opinion on that would depend on what other kind of neat tricks and spells they get instead.

That said, I have never really cared for favored enemy. It is just a boring math bonus but as a result, the ranger either reigns supreme for damage or lags far behind depending on the enemy type you are fighting. A wand of "instant enemy" or a stack of pearls of power goes a long way in remedying that situation but it is still not a super satisfying solution.

I think the slayer's studied target is a much better solution for battle and I am sure there is some otherwise good solution for the ranger's out-of-combat checks.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Increasing weapon profiency (and maybe even save proficiency} against specific enemies could be really cool depending on what weapon proficiency actually does. I think critical specializations will be unlocked through them, for example.

Two problems there: it becomes harder to figure out favored enemy outputs when it isn't just adding numbers, and it doesn't age super well. Getting proficiency bumped up a tier is great early on, and you can add more enemies to your list as you go. But you can't progress anything past Legendary. I guess it could work if the Ranger's base weapon profiency never actually improves, but that feels pretty lame.

I guess my ultimate opinion on that would depend on what other kind of neat tricks and spells they get instead.

That said, I have never really cared for favored enemy. It is just a boring math bonus but as a result, the ranger either reigns supreme for damage or lags far behind depending on the enemy type you are fighting. A wand of "instant enemy" or a stack of pearls of power goes a long way in remedying that situation but it is still not a super satisfying solution.

I think the slayer's studied target is a much better solution for battle and I am sure there is some otherwise good solution for the ranger's out-of-combat checks.

I'm with you that favored enemy has always been janky and I wouldn't hate to see it go, Ranger fighting styles did a lot to keep them competitive thanks to skipping prerequisites. But since prerequisites will be less of a thing, they won't have that to fall back on.

They won't out weapon the fighter or out skill the rogue, so they need something unique.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Increasing weapon profiency (and maybe even save proficiency} against specific enemies could be really cool depending on what weapon proficiency actually does. I think critical specializations will be unlocked through them, for example.

Two problems there: it becomes harder to figure out favored enemy outputs when it isn't just adding numbers, and it doesn't age super well. Getting proficiency bumped up a tier is great early on, and you can add more enemies to your list as you go. But you can't progress anything past Legendary. I guess it could work if the Ranger's base weapon profiency never actually improves, but that feels pretty lame.

I guess my ultimate opinion on that would depend on what other kind of neat tricks and spells they get instead.

That said, I have never really cared for favored enemy. It is just a boring math bonus but as a result, the ranger either reigns supreme for damage or lags far behind depending on the enemy type you are fighting. A wand of "instant enemy" or a stack of pearls of power goes a long way in remedying that situation but it is still not a super satisfying solution.

I think the slayer's studied target is a much better solution for battle and I am sure there is some otherwise good solution for the ranger's out-of-combat checks.

I'm with you that favored enemy has always been janky and I wouldn't hate to see it go, Ranger fighting styles did a lot to keep them competitive thanks to skipping prerequisites. But since prerequisites will be less of a thing, they won't have that to fall back on.

They won't out weapon the fighter or out skill the rogue, so they need something unique.

Well, I believe it is already confirmed that they will at least get an option for an animal companion. They will also probably get spellcasting options, I think.

I agree that they should also have some kind of martial specialization, though. Maybe it is as simple as giving the class a handful of unique ranger feats that make them masters of particular combat styles but fall behind fighters in other core competencies such as health, armor, or martial versatility.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Increasing weapon profiency (and maybe even save proficiency} against specific enemies could be really cool depending on what weapon proficiency actually does. I think critical specializations will be unlocked through them, for example.

Two problems there: it becomes harder to figure out favored enemy outputs when it isn't just adding numbers, and it doesn't age super well. Getting proficiency bumped up a tier is great early on, and you can add more enemies to your list as you go. But you can't progress anything past Legendary. I guess it could work if the Ranger's base weapon profiency never actually improves, but that feels pretty lame.

You're right, we don't know what weapon proficiency does. But I'm guessing critical specialization as well, maybe it takes a +7 over the DC at Master and +5 at Legendary?... But getting extra proficiencies against certain enemies is a great idea. (I enjoy the idea of gaining saves) That way the Ranger can get things like Evasion or Imp. Evasion, but only for certain circumstances.

I don't see the problems so much. Rangers should eventually get Expert proficiency in their respective fighting style. So that's a +1 at later levels. (probably 10+) So they would start with a +1 to Favoured Enemies, and maybe some other goodies in damage. At around level 7 the Saves proficiency would kick in. Granting the Ranger Evasion or the Juggernaut ability against the FE. Then later on, (say level 12) they get bumped in proficiency for all attacks. That makes the FE bonus +2, and now the Ranger can crit with only +7 over the AC score. Then at Level 16(ish), the bonuses against FE goes up TO +3 and the crit is only with +5. On top of that the Ranger would get Imp Evasion or Imp Juggernaut. These are relatively simple to keep track of, and together they would be very powerful... against the FE.
All speculation of course, in fact I would guess this isn't the direction they will take. But it's fun to hypothesize...


As I said before, they may make Favoured Enemy/Terrain optional. So what would be the core of what it means to be a Ranger? I think tracking and hunting are a big part. So that's the skills section. And if they take the direction I mentioned above for Favoured Enemy, then they can be as good as the Fighter killing the FE. (actually better with the saves included) Animal Companions, Spell Points, Weapon Styles, etc would be fluff.
But I agree, I'd like to see more of a unique flavour. Just don't know what. Though I'd like to see the list of Favoured Enemies be not so narrow and make more sense thematically.


No blog post today?


It is only lunch time on the West Coast. It could be three hours or so before the new one lands. Maybe a bit more if they are busy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
I'm a little surprised the Barbarian has wound up being controversial. Admittedly, it still seems mostly well received, even by the folks who don't like Anathemas. But I didn't see it generating quite this much arguing.

I blame myself.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
Oh no. Now you've challenged them to find a way to make us fight over Barbarians

Wait. I was replying to your post Captain. So it's YOUR fault.

Edit: I'm hoping for the human and half-human ancestries today. That would fit with Barbarians.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:
Or more generally, a blog on conditions. We know some of this stuff that has been gleaned from the Glass Cannon play test pod cast, but not a ton.

Called it. :P


Gah! I missed Friday!
Now, should I wait until Monday and have two blogs to read, or should I spread them out to avoid overdosing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I'm a little surprised the Barbarian has wound up being controversial. Admittedly, it still seems mostly well received, even by the folks who don't like Anathemas. But I didn't see it generating quite this much arguing.

I blame myself.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
Oh no. Now you've challenged them to find a way to make us fight over Barbarians

Wait. I was replying to your post Captain. So it's YOUR fault.

Edit: I'm hoping for the human and half-human ancestries today. That would fit with Barbarians.

oh noooooooo

Grand Lodge

I think it will be Bard.

Grand Lodge

I think it will be Monk.

Grand Lodge

I think it will be Ranger.

Grand Lodge

I think it will be Druid.

Grand Lodge

I think it will be Scorcerer.
*that should cover it!*

451 to 500 of 597 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / When is the next blog? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.