The Prestige

Deadmanwalking wrote:

On the other hand, there are real people who can hold their breath for more than 20 minutes...and so being able to do so for half an hour (or even an hour) seems a reasonable Master level Skill Feat. That's as good as Water Breathing for most purposes, and has the added functionality of allowing you to ignore things like gas attacks. It's not 'I can breathe underwater'...but it's got similar (probably greater) functionality.

Not if it's being based on an extension of reality. World record breath holders are stationary, not moving around, and certainly not fighting.

And probably best modelled by level 3 characters at max. Master rank is level 7, significantly above real human skill, and utterly reasonable for a 30 held breath while acting.

Not if it's being based on an extension of reality. World record breath holders are stationary, not moving around, and certainly not fighting.

In a world with fireballs, flying dragons, and people who can literally scare someone else to death via a feat, I really don't think "fighting while holding your breath" is on the wrong side of "too unrealistic."

Deadmanwalking wrote:

On the other hand, there are real people who can hold their breath for more than 20 minutes...and so being able to do so for half an hour (or even an hour) seems a reasonable Master level Skill Feat. That's as good as Water Breathing for most purposes, and has the added functionality of allowing you to ignore things like gas attacks. It's not 'I can breathe underwater'...but it's got similar (probably greater) functionality.

Not if it's being based on an extension of reality. World record breath holders are stationary, not moving around, and certainly not fighting.

Okay but if it's being based on an extension of reality high level wizards should be able to do really good card tricks so I think that ship has sailed.

Next week, we'll be dropping an absolutely huge Update 1.6, which adds or adjusts aspects of every class in the game! This ranges from a small alteration in stances that affects the fighter to major changes for the alchemist and paladin.

I'm pretty excited about this! Alchemists certainly need a lot of help right now. Nobody in my playtest group has even considered playing one.

The magic/items survey was pretty good, but I would have appreciated a place to comment about spell durations as well.

Ah, the 'Death to Icons' survey! Finally.

Incidentally, 'The Prestige' as a blog title referring to the end of the playtest does sadly give the implication that the whole thing is an illusion.

I was momentarily really excited for this blog when I saw the title, but then saw what it was about. :<

I mean, still awesome to see them making changes and hopefully fixing up the problems I have with the current playtest, which this particular update looks to be trying at- but ouch. You know EXACTLY what you did with that title, don't even pretend :P

Yeah, I was wondering if that title would work... glad to see some folks got it...

And if you did...

As an aside for folks, writting surveys is tricky business. Not only are you trying to write unbiased questions to get usable feedback, but you often have to try an anticipate all of the questions that people might want to give about... which is impossible.

We do our best.

Fortunately, we have these boards to catch up on some of the issues that the surveys miss. Belt and suspenders... best way to playtest.

I mean... it's not an Acrobatics skill feat, but rogues have a class feat that lets them walk through walls... :P

Actually one of my favorite feats, since I am in the anime weeaboo "martials should have superhuman feats comparable to magic" camp. XD I love the idea of a rogue showing up inside a supermax prison and people just scratching their heads like "How in the blazes did he get in here? This doesn't seem physically possible!"

Indeed, the high level rogue feats that let you effectively walk through walls or mind blank or turn invisible are some of my favorite feats in the game and are indicative of why the rogue keeps up in narrative power late.

At issue is that the thief can always answer "how on earth did you get in here" with "trade secret, I'll never tell." But the Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, et al. don't have skulduggery and misdirection in their portfolio.

It's still weird that the Rogue gets niftier supernatural tools than the monk, who by all means should have access to the most unrealistic stuff of any martial.

It's still weird that the Rogue gets niftier supernatural tools than the monk, who by all means should have access to the most unrealistic stuff of any martial.

I've always thought that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon should serve as a model for monk abilities.

scoutmaster wrote:

I will not agree that athletics, for example, let fly breathe underwater or dig underground. I will not allow Acrobatics to permeate through the walls. The spell must be prepared. it's a big difference

With 10 mins Quick Prep and a 3rd level slot, my 16th level Wiz can outperform my friend's Legendary Athletics Skill Feat of choice with a quick Fly spell using a slot 5 levels lower than max - that doesn't seem a little bit problematic?

I've played climb/jump specialists next to people with fly spells in both Skull&Shackles and Mummy's Mask, and what I've found is that by the time they've cast their Fly spell/activated their Fly item, I've already climbed up the rigging/up the dungeon wall and engaged the problem... You don't need to take time to activate climb. :)

I agree, although you must remember that there's the "I want my martials to emulate casters" camp and there's the "I'm playing Fighters and Rogues precisely in order to NOT HAVE ANY ANIME MAGIC WAZOOO, THANK YOU!" camp and I'm frankly not sure if you can have them both happy at the same time short of having equivalents of PF1 Fighter and PF1 Vigilante in the core rulebook.

I agree it's an issue, but the reality is that high level play requires superhuman abilities.

However, overcoming high level threats isn't the only issue. A big issue is narrative power. Fun ways for your character to impact the story and the world. The martials get few or no abilities like that.

The vigilante is one of the martials in 1st Edition that had good examples of narrative power. While dual identity and renown are not very powerful mechanically, they have great narrative power.

@Jason, I want to say thank you very much on this round of surveys for having more free form answer boxes. I felt like I could give the nuances I want, while still answering the easier to analyze multiple choice questions w/o feeling dishonest with myself.

Indeed, the high level rogue feats that let you effectively walk through walls or mind blank or turn invisible are some of my favorite feats in the game and are indicative of why the rogue keeps up in narrative power late.

Really, something like this would be the ideal:

The Rogue can walk right through the wall
The Barbarian can smash clean through the wall with his raging might
The Sorcerer can dimension door to teleport past the walls
The Druid can use stone shape to create a passage through the walls

Each of these characters has different means of solving the problem with different pros and cons. The rogue's solution has the flaw that he can't take his party member's with him, the druid's solution requires the anticipation that he'd need the spell (which comes with opportunity costs), the sorcerer would need multiple castings of ddoor to ferry the party across (and even that presumes the PF2 ddoor nerf is reversed) which severely taxes his spellcasting resources, and the barbarian's solution will alert the entire dungeon to their presence.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's still weird that the Rogue gets niftier supernatural tools than the monk, who by all means should have access to the most unrealistic stuff of any martial.

I've always thought that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon should serve as a model for monk abilities.

I feel like there's a lot of people who want to envision the monk as some sort of grounded realistic martial artist, to which I say- if you are going unarmed and unarmored to fight heavily armored foes armed with deadly weapons you are either already in the realm of "unrealistic fantasy" or "soon to be dead".

Like at the point where we're assuming "punch the stone golem until it breaks" is a reasonable strategy for someone, that someone is already clearly supernatural. So people who want non-gonzo monks are just fooling themselves about how gonzo the class is by default.

please remove the Vancian Magic system, it's just clunky. most players I have played with since dungeon and dragons 2nd edition basically ignored it. it's the antithesis of fun and doesn't add in my opinion any real strategic value to the game.

2. restrict cure spells to potions and scrolls, and get rid wands.

3. remake the magic items instead of resonance.

4. keep the resonance limit

5. get rid of item focus. spell points where way more fun and thematic.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Indeed, the high level rogue feats that let you effectively walk through walls or mind blank or turn invisible are some of my favorite feats in the game and are indicative of why the rogue keeps up in narrative power late.

Really, something like this would be the ideal:

The Rogue can walk right through the wall
The Barbarian can smash clean through the wall with his raging might
The Sorcerer can dimension door to teleport past the walls
The Druid can use stone shape to create a passage through the walls

Each of these characters has different means of solving the problem with different pros and cons. The rogue's solution has the flaw that he can't take his party member's with him, the druid's solution requires the anticipation that he'd need the spell (which comes with opportunity costs), the sorcerer would need multiple castings of ddoor to ferry the party across (and even that presumes the PF2 ddoor nerf is reversed) which severely taxes his spellcasting resources, and the barbarian's solution will alert the entire dungeon to their presence.

Yep, agreed! You can't be afraid of "awesome" abilities if you want characters to be fun and independent of the Wizard. Why shouldn't a mid level Barbarian be able to smash a 1-ft thick stone wall? Or why can't anyone seem to jump more than 10ft high? Some abilities in this game are really interesting, but a lot of the skill feats feel as conservative as spells ended up being. The background ones specially are really lame! That one that let's you smuggle tiny items is really weak for example, but the concept of it could let players really excercise their imagination if it was less restrictive.

My wife has been turbocharging the backgrounds of her playtest characters to seize narrative control.

What you describe sounds like great fun in the right group (that is quite sincere, btw)

But you have to realize that many (most?) GMs do NOT allow players to have the degree of narrative control that your wife is getting.

The rules need to work well in venues where that degree of narrative control is just not allowed

narrative control to me, just seems like a player's ability to break a game. players having the ability to break the narrative defeats the purpose of having a narrative. one of the best things about the playtest is that many of those abilities were removed or banished to the uncommon list. making them martial abilities doesn't make them any less game breaking or more easily digestible for the GM.

You don't need to take time to activate climb. :)

Depends on characters and level.

Overland flight is a VERY popular spell for a reason.

Druids can spend nearly all their time in wild shaped form (including elemental forms) reasonably early in their careers.

Characters (often spell casters) riding their mounts with a climb or fly or swim speed.

The limitation of "Takes time and knowledge to pre-buff" gets functionally less and less as characters level up. Much better abilities to scout things out before combat, swift action spells, metamagic rods, very long lasting flexible buffs, etc

There are some "utility belt" spell casters that are VERY versatile but often at the cost of taking a round or two to cast the right spells. But there are lots who have some very good constant buffs PLUS their actual combat spells. Even in Core.

narrative control to me, just seems like a player's ability to break a game. players having the ability to break the narrative defeats the purpose of having a narrative. one of the best things about the playtest is that many of those abilities were removed or banished to the uncommon list. making them martial abilities doesn't make them any less game breaking or more easily digestible for the GM.

A good GM takes elements the players add to craft and modify the story itself. For instance, when I was running a Night Below AD&D campaign my players realized things about the game that they thought I had hinted at and I'd smile and congratulate them for their insight before writing down their comments and taking elements of this for the campaign.

It's called "rolling with the punches" and if you are not inexperienced or running on fumes and needing a break, you can take moments that the players come up with and turning it into something spectacular.

Here is an example of a GM who failed to embrace a Player Narrative. From what I remember of the Letter to the Editor in Dungeon Magazine, the Players were in a Ravenloft game and had found three of the four elements needed to unlock the device needed to destroy the Evil Lord of the microrealm they were in. They found water that was protected from a water elemental, soil from the garden, and breath from the corpse of a Paladin's ancestor. The only thing they lacked was flame - the module stated "any magic flame would work" but to be honest that wasn't explained specifically in the module.

The players thought "the fire of the soul within!" They surrounded the Evil Lord with the three Elements and sang. The GM proceeded to kill each and every character and the game ended with failure. Everyone died, a Total Party Wipe, because the GM failed to explain things sufficiently and chose to ignore Player Narrative.

Tell me, how did the Player Narrative break the game? If anything it enhanced the game and was truly innovative and interesting! It was far better an idea than "cast a magical flame cantrip" or "cast Burning Hands" to defeat the Big Bad.

Don't forget: the GM can always ignore Player Narrative if they feel it is abusive or doesn't work. Further, Player Narrative can be built into the story itself - often Campaign Traits are used along these lines already. And for that matter you can have a player who wants to do something OTHER than the Backgrounds given... but a good GM could write their chosen background into a Campaign Trait/Background.

tl;dr - narrative control doesn't break the game, it provides the GM with a means of further involving players and expanding the story itself within the campaign.

Dasrak wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Indeed, the high level rogue feats that let you effectively walk through walls or mind blank or turn invisible are some of my favorite feats in the game and are indicative of why the rogue keeps up in narrative power late.

Really, something like this would be the ideal:

The Rogue can walk right through the wall
The Barbarian can smash clean through the wall with his raging might
The Sorcerer can dimension door to teleport past the walls
The Druid can use stone shape to create a passage through the walls

Each of these characters has different means of solving the problem with different pros and cons. The rogue's solution has the flaw that he can't take his party member's with him, the druid's solution requires the anticipation that he'd need the spell (which comes with opportunity costs), the sorcerer would need multiple castings of ddoor to ferry the party across (and even that presumes the PF2 ddoor nerf is reversed) which severely taxes his spellcasting resources, and the barbarian's solution will alert the entire dungeon to their presence.

Yep, agreed! You can't be afraid of "awesome" abilities if you want characters to be fun and independent of the Wizard. Why shouldn't a mid level Barbarian be able to smash a 1-ft thick stone wall? Or why can't anyone seem to jump more than 10ft high? Some abilities in this game are really interesting, but a lot of the skill feats feel as conservative as spells ended up being. The background ones specially are really lame! That one that let's you smuggle tiny items is really weak for example, but the concept of it could let players really excercise their imagination if it was less restrictive.

I know, right? Back when the Playtest was being previewed and they told us about legendary applications of skills, I was expecting a whole lot more. For example, being able to jump well enough to consistently tag flying creatures (assuming they don't get too high). Instead, Expert proficiency in Athletics PLUS the Powerful Leap feat gives us ... a whopping five additional feet. And there is no upgrade to this feat for Legendary. Color me underwhelmed, but I was expecting something between Samurai Jack and the Hulk. I thought this was how they were baking the Mythic rules into the core system.

Another example: Legendary proficiency in Thievery PLUS Legendary Thief lets you steal things off of someone while they're wearing the items in question, albeit with a penalty and taking a long time. Closer, but honestly, when I hear "legendary thief", my expectation is a scene where the king is celebrating the heroes' safe return and the successful conclusion of their quest on behalf of the realm, and every time the camera cuts back to the thief, he's holding something the king JUST had a second ago (his scepter, his crown, half the rings on one hand), and no one even saw the thief move.

ikarinokami wrote:

narrative control to me, just seems like a player's ability to break a game. players having the ability to break the narrative defeats the purpose of having a narrative. one of the best things about the playtest is that many of those abilities were removed or banished to the uncommon list. making them martial abilities doesn't make them any less game breaking or more easily digestible for the GM.

A good GM takes elements the players add to craft and modify the story itself. For instance, when I was running a Night Below AD&D campaign my players realized things about the game that they thought I had hinted at and I'd smile and congratulate them for their insight before writing down their comments and taking elements of this for the campaign.

It's called "rolling with the punches" and if you are not inexperienced or running on fumes and needing a break, you can take moments that the players come up with and turning it into something spectacular.

Here is an example of a GM who failed to embrace a Player Narrative. From what I remember of the Letter to the Editor in Dungeon Magazine, the Players were in a Ravenloft game and had found three of the four elements needed to unlock the device needed to destroy the Evil Lord of the microrealm they were in. They found water that was protected from a water elemental, soil from the garden, and breath from the corpse of a Paladin's ancestor. The only thing they lacked was flame - the module stated "any magic flame would work" but to be honest that wasn't explained specifically in the module.

The players thought "the fire of the soul within!" They surrounded the Evil Lord with the three Elements and sang. The GM proceeded to kill each and every character and the game ended with failure. Everyone died, a Total Party Wipe, because the GM failed to explain things sufficiently and chose to ignore Player Narrative.

Tell me, how did the Player Narrative break the game? If anything it enhanced the game and was truly...

Bingo, great post.

Again, it's about balance, not being abused, but used to enhance, immerse. Player narrative input can be great, I really encourage it when introducing a new PC into an ongoing campaign, ways to tie them to the ongoing narrative/story/world/universe.

narrative control to me, just seems like a player's ability to break a game. players having the ability to break the narrative defeats the purpose of having a narrative. one of the best things about the playtest is that many of those abilities were removed or banished to the uncommon list. making them martial abilities doesn't make them any less game breaking or more easily digestible for the GM.

I take the exact opposite perspective. The entire point of a roleplaying game is that it's an interactive experience, with the players using the abilities of their characters to solve the narrative and drive it forward. If they lack the abilities to do so, requiring me as the GM to always provide the solution for them to pursue, that just not an interesting game to me. I get that people seek different things from the roleplaying experience, but for me as a GM a big part of the thrill is not knowing how things will play out.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

On the other hand, there are real people who can hold their breath for more than 20 minutes...and so being able to do so for half an hour (or even an hour) seems a reasonable Master level Skill Feat. That's as good as Water Breathing for most purposes, and has the added functionality of allowing you to ignore things like gas attacks. It's not 'I can breathe underwater'...but it's got similar (probably greater) functionality.

Not if it's being based on an extension of reality. World record breath holders are stationary, not moving around, and certainly not fighting.

Tell that to pearl divers. ;3

I'm really hoping those "major changes" for the Paladin don't include non-Lawful Good Paladins.

I'm really hoping those "major changes" for the Paladin DO include non-Lawful Good Paladins, if not a "Fury Totem" equivalent to nix the necessity of a Code of Conduct entirely.

I'm really hoping those "major changes" for the Paladin don't include non-Lawful Good Paladins.

or some active means of prventing people from harming their allies, if paizo is trying to shift them into the "tank" role.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

On the other hand, there are real people who can hold their breath for more than 20 minutes...and so being able to do so for half an hour (or even an hour) seems a reasonable Master level Skill Feat. That's as good as Water Breathing for most purposes, and has the added functionality of allowing you to ignore things like gas attacks. It's not 'I can breathe underwater'...but it's got similar (probably greater) functionality.

Not if it's being based on an extension of reality. World record breath holders are stationary, not moving around, and certainly not fighting.

Master levels stuff (or things of equivalent level) already includes standing high jumps of 20 feet or more and similarly impossible stuff on Martial characters. Holding one's breath for an hour while fighting is no more unrealistic than that.

Also, as noted, Pearl Divers can hold their breath for 10 minutes while doing stuff, and which is perfectly consistent with what I was saying there.

ikarinokami wrote:

narrative control to me, just seems like a player's ability to break a game. players having the ability to break the narrative defeats the purpose of having a narrative. one of the best things about the playtest is that many of those abilities were removed or banished to the uncommon list. making them martial abilities doesn't make them any less game breaking or more easily digestible for the GM.

A good GM takes elements the players add to craft and modify the story itself. For instance, when I was running a Night Below AD&D campaign my players realized things about the game that they thought I had hinted at and I'd smile and congratulate them for their insight before writing down their comments and taking elements of this for the campaign.

It's called "rolling with the punches" and if you are not inexperienced or running on fumes and needing a break, you can take moments that the players come up with and turning it into something spectacular.

...
tl;dr - narrative control doesn't break the game, it provides the GM with a means of further involving players and expanding the story itself within the campaign.

I have an excellent example. The 5th book of the Jade Regent adventure path, Tide of Honor, is considered railroady. for example, TOModera's review of Jade Regent said, "Put your characters on obvious, almost painful rails for the fifth adventure. Heck, there’s rails throughout, truthfully." This is not the fault of the author, Tito Leati. In Tide of Honor the player characters need to lead a rebellion against the corrupt oni-controlled government of Minkai. That task is too big for one module, so Tito Leati set up the rebellion as a montage of key events. That was an ingenious solution that gave great flavor, but it restricted player choices.

My players did not know this. But a quarter of the way through the module, after helping resistance members liberate a stronghold from bandits, the players decided to not lead a rebellion. They had the true heir to the throne, so handled right, the government had to give her control. Their opponents could not openly defy Minkaian tradition, the whole nation was about tradition. They devised a new plan aimed at preventing the oni from interfering in secret. I thought it was a better story that the original, for they were actively embracing Minkaian culture. Because the module was well-written, I was able to repurpose half the material to their new plan and wrote more material to fill in the gaps.

My players loved Tide of Honor because they had their freedom. I loved it for the great story they told. Further details (spoilers) are chronicled at Amaya of Westcrown: Tide of Honor.

And that piece of narrative control was pure decision-making. It did not require a special ability and it did not require good roleplaying. The only way to stop that kind of control is to take decision-making away from the players, by GM fiat, by plot-twist trickery, or by outright begging--and that is railroading.

Here is an example of a GM who failed to embrace a Player Narrative. From what I remember of the Letter to the Editor in Dungeon Magazine, the Players were in a Ravenloft game and had found three of the four elements needed to unlock the device needed to destroy the Evil Lord of the microrealm they were in. They found water that was protected from a water elemental, soil from the garden, and breath from the corpse of a Paladin's ancestor. The only thing they lacked was flame - the module stated "any magic flame would work" but to be honest that wasn't explained specifically in the module.

The players thought "the fire of the soul within!" They surrounded the Evil Lord with the three Elements and sang. The GM proceeded to kill each and every character and the game ended with failure. Everyone died, a Total Party Wipe, because the GM failed to explain things sufficiently and chose to ignore Player Narrative.

Tell me, how did the Player Narrative break the game? If anything it enhanced the game and was truly innovative and interesting! It was far better an idea than "cast a magical flame cantrip" or "cast Burning Hands" to defeat the Big Bad.

The GM not only failed at embracing a Player Narrative, he or she failed as a GM. If the GM felt that the magical fire had to be literal magical fire as the source material said, he could have allowed the players Knowledge rolls to realize this before they staked everything on an alternative. Or he could have had them find an everburning torch in an overlooked chest. The GM's job is to make the narrative possible. The players crafted a new narrative that made it possible, doing the GM's job for him (that could be excellent teamwork of GM and players united to create a great story), and the GM shot it down.

Mathmuse wrote:

My wife has been turbocharging the backgrounds of her playtest characters to seize narrative control.

What you describe sounds like great fun in the right group (that is quite sincere, btw)

But you have to realize that many (most?) GMs do NOT allow players to have the degree of narrative control that your wife is getting.

The rules need to work well in venues where that degree of narrative control is just not allowed

Sometimes I wonder whether I let my wife so much control simply because she is a sexy lady who knows how to manipulate my whims. But I saw that her other GMs--she often played in three weekly campaigns--also let her reshape the stories in their campaigns.

Tangent101's example from Dungeon Magazine illustrate that GMs often need to let players have narrative control.

My definition of a roleplaying game is letting players make choices and then see the consequences of the choices. Every choice is a limited form of narrative control. Sometimes, a GM will have to limit choices further, to prevent abuse or to stick to the module as written or to preserve game flavor, but that is out-of-character event that acknowledges the limits of the GM or the module or the game system. But imposing the limits earlier than necessary diminishes the game.

The designers of Pathfinder 2nd Edition have balanced some tough choices about limits. They reduced choices at character creation to simplify and quicken character creation. They separated combat-oriented feats by class to concentrate the flavor of those classes. They chose those limits as necessary for good design. However, to keep the same freedom and the same degree of choice as Pathfinder 1st Edition, they need to provide other choices.

I like the background system. It bundles up the Pathfinder 1st Edition trait system into a less abusive mechanic. It gives a piece of backstory to every character. And it is a flavorful choice that could be a tool for narrative, a tool that enables the martial characters as much as the spellcasting characters.

Thanks for your feedback on these new surveys too, everyone. In just the one day these have been up while I was getting back from Hal-Con, you guys have already been busy answering and providing plenty of feedback. Thank you for your dedication!

Deadmanwalking wrote:

On the other hand, there are real people who can hold their breath for more than 20 minutes...and so being able to do so for half an hour (or even an hour) seems a reasonable Master level Skill Feat. That's as good as Water Breathing for most purposes, and has the added functionality of allowing you to ignore things like gas attacks. It's not 'I can breathe underwater'...but it's got similar (probably greater) functionality.

Not if it's being based on an extension of reality. World record breath holders are stationary, not moving around, and certainly not fighting.

That's WHY the disparity exists, if casters get to say 'it's magic' and shatter reality, unless non-casters have some way to be at least superhuman, they can never keep up. Angel Summoner/ BMX Bandit. For high level play, Herakles, or Achilles is a model that at least makes sense, as in playing the same game.

Xenocrat wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

On the other hand, there are real people who can hold their breath for more than 20 minutes...and so being able to do so for half an hour (or even an hour) seems a reasonable Master level Skill Feat. That's as good as Water Breathing for most purposes, and has the added functionality of allowing you to ignore things like gas attacks. It's not 'I can breathe underwater'...but it's got similar (probably greater) functionality.

Not if it's being based on an extension of reality. World record breath holders are stationary, not moving around, and certainly not fighting.

That's WHY the disparity exists, if casters get to say 'it's magic' and shatter reality, unless non-casters have some way to be at least superhuman, they can never keep up. Angel Summoner/ BMX Bandit. For high level play, Herakles, or Achilles is a model that at least makes sense, as in playing the same game.

agreed there

narrative control to me, just seems like a player's ability to break a game. players having the ability to break the narrative defeats the purpose of having a narrative. one of the best things about the playtest is that many of those abilities were removed or banished to the uncommon list. making them martial abilities doesn't make them any less game breaking or more easily digestible for the GM.

Narrative control lets the players affect he narrative, instead of just being passive spectators as the DM tells a story. That's the entire point of these games, to me.

If I just want someone to tell me a story that I have no influence over, I have books, movies, netflix, video games, theatre... What makes this type of game unique is that it's collaborative storytelling.

Players have a party to play in writing the story, if they're given the freedom to do it. Hell, I've had players go off on tangents that created entire new plotlines, sessions worth of new content, and flat out altered the world state in ways that affected future campaigns. That's narrative control. And it's awesome.

Thanks for your feedback on these new surveys too, everyone. In just the one day these have been up while I was getting back from Hal-Con, you guys have already been busy answering and providing plenty of feedback. Thank you for your dedication!

Hope you had a good time visiting my corner of Canada. :) We were there too, although I didn't get the chance to interact with you specifically.

I noticed a little bit of discussion on my utility spells being skill check rituals. I agree that the current system for rituals would need to be changed a bit. Having to spend several hours to summon a ghost horse would be less then ideal let alone a day or two. It does give good space for skill feats and unlock-able things. like a skill feats that lets you summon the horse or the guard dog then when you get the next rank unseen servant then next rank maybe something that flies etc. etc. So you would take a skill feat to unlock some specific rituals to be done with your magic skill.

Can I give a "hear hear" for the idea of Barbarians having a "transmute wall to door" high level feat? :D

Thank you for this round.

I'm glad to see more open commentary style questions instead of purely rating and yes/no style questions. I'm sure it is a lot harder to parse the results, but it gives people a chance to go into a little more detail in their responses.

Oh, one thing I forgot to put into my survey:

Can we have rituals which are not 8+ hours in length? Ultimate Wilderness had a ritual for basically "Secure your Campsite" that my players love, and things like this (which happen on a timescale that makes them impractical in combat, but are still not full-day commitments) would be nice.

Can I give a "hear hear" for the idea of Barbarians having a "transmute wall to door" high level feat? :D

or we could bring back sunder and actually make use of the hardness/dents system for something other than shields or emergency force spheres...

I really like it. Special thanks to the designers!

Oh, one thing I forgot to put into my survey:

Can we have rituals which are not 8+ hours in length? Ultimate Wilderness had a ritual for basically "Secure your Campsite" that my players love, and things like this (which happen on a timescale that makes them impractical in combat, but are still not full-day commitments) would be nice.

I'm a huge advocate for shorter rituals of 1, 10 or 60 minutes that don't all require multiple people to perform. And they would go a very long way to helping make up for the much reduced spell slots if most general out of combat utility magic was ritualized.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Oh, one thing I forgot to put into my survey:

Can we have rituals which are not 8+ hours in length? Ultimate Wilderness had a ritual for basically "Secure your Campsite" that my players love, and things like this (which happen on a timescale that makes them impractical in combat, but are still not full-day commitments) would be nice.

I'm a huge advocate for shorter rituals of 1, 10 or 60 minutes that don't all require multiple people to perform. And they would go a very long way to helping make up for the much reduced spell slots if most general out of combat utility magic was ritualized.

I remember when the previews were coming out, I was under the impression that there would simply be no spells at all which had a casting time that couldn't be completed in one round's worth of actions, and that all of the spells that are normally longer than that would be rituals of their usual length - which therefore didn't count against your spell slots. Your spell slots simply represented your combat magic capability, because of the time scale, and a magic person (or a person particularly invested in the skill associated with a magic tradition) could always have access to magic solutions they know for solving problems on an exploration mode or longer timescale. Then there would be the massive rituals, like occult rituals, that aren't exactly normal spells which function on the basis of skill checks and have a downtime-based time scale.

I recently looked back at those early blogs and I'm pretty sure that was just a mistaken impression on my part even then, but man did I think that was a fantastic idea, and would still think so if it were made to be the case.

I recently looked back at those early blogs and I'm pretty sure that was just a mistaken impression on my part even then, but man did I think that was a fantastic idea, and would still think so if it were made to be the case.

Indeed, "the 3 spells per spell level per day" limit being a limiter on what you can do in combat, but "magic which is not combat related" being ritual magic and not subject to that limit, seems like a really good way to solve both "Spellcasters don't get enough spells" and "non-spellcasting classes don't get enough narrative utility" (since rituals are available to anyone.)

Plus, this would give non-wizards/alchemists a reason to buy more Intelligence, if it would help them with every day utility magic. Plus stuff like "determine who is telling the truth" being a 10 minute obvious ritual instead of a 2 action subtle bit of magic would make it much easier for the GM to keep magic from ruining murder mysteries, for example.

The GM not only failed at embracing a Player Narrative, he or she failed as a GM. If the GM felt that the magical fire had to be literal magical fire as the source material said, he could have allowed the players Knowledge rolls to realize this before they staked everything on an alternative. Or he could have had them find an everburning torch in an overlooked chest. The GM's job is to make the narrative possible. The players crafted a new narrative that made it possible, doing the GM's job for him (that could be excellent teamwork of GM and players united to create a great story), and the GM shot it down.

Stu Venable from the Happy Jack's RPG Podcast has always said, "Always be listening in case your players have a better idea than you do." This applies both for things that complicate their lives, as well as things that add awesome details to the arising story. If my players are group brainstorming aloud and come up with the reason the way something is that is far more awesome than I had come up with, then "yes, that is exactly what happened." Some GMs think that changing what's written is unilaterally bad or cheating; instead, it can lead to events that your players celebrate in their retelling for years. I'd rather my players walk away talking about what a fantastic session they had, with energy in their voices, than for me to be right.

Mathmuse wrote:

The GM not only failed at embracing a Player Narrative, he or she failed as a GM. If the GM felt that the magical fire had to be literal magical fire as the source material said, he could have allowed the players Knowledge rolls to realize this before they staked everything on an alternative. Or he could have had them find an everburning torch in an overlooked chest. The GM's job is to make the narrative possible. The players crafted a new narrative that made it possible, doing the GM's job for him (that could be excellent teamwork of GM and players united to create a great story), and the GM shot it down.

Stu Venable from the Happy Jack's RPG Podcast has always said, "Always be listening in case your players have a better idea than you do." This applies both for things that complicate their lives, as well as things that add awesome details to the arising story. If my players are group brainstorming aloud and come up with the reason the way something is that is far more awesome than I had come up with, then "yes, that is exactly what happened." Some GMs think that changing what's written is unilaterally bad or cheating; instead, it can lead to events that your players celebrate in their retelling for years. I'd rather my players walk away talking about what a fantastic session they had, with energy in their voices, than for me to be right.

I generally agree, but if there is too much of that, and things are only established through play, and the multiverse is in some sort of stasis until the PCs interact, that can damage campaign integrity, for me.

I remember when the previews were coming out, I was under the impression that there would simply be no spells at all which had a casting time that couldn't be completed in one round's worth of actions, and that all of the spells that are normally longer than that would be rituals of their usual length - which therefore didn't count against your spell slots. Your spell slots simply represented your combat magic capability, because of the time scale, and a magic person (or a person particularly invested in the skill associated with a magic tradition) could always have access to magic solutions they know for solving problems on an exploration mode or longer timescale. Then there would be the massive rituals, like occult rituals, that aren't exactly normal spells which function on the basis of skill checks and have a downtime-based time scale.

I recently looked back at those early blogs and I'm pretty sure that was just a mistaken impression on my part even then, but man did I think that was a fantastic idea, and would still think so if it were made to be the case.

I vastly prefer your mistaken impression to the playtest's reality.

I'm really hoping those "major changes" for the Paladin don't include non-Lawful Good Paladins.

I really hope they do. The idea of the alignment that scrapes into good on a technicality should be blessed is sickening, tyranny is tyranny, no matter if its for your own good or not.

I just remembered one thing I wish the Magic survey had been asking about: Instead of how well the spell lists fit the theme of their magical traditions, I think it would be more interesting to ask whether the spell lists have well-defined, unique themes.

... And my answer would be, not very much. This is because the lists have too much overlap, in my opinion.

For example, there is no cantrip that's unique to one list. Well over half belong to at least 3 lists. Then when it comes to spells, it's a little better, but still the overlap is large. A small minority of level 1 or 2 spells are unique to their list, more than half belong to 2 lists, and about a third belong to 3 lists or more. This improves a bit at higher levels, but if I add everything up, I find (assuming I got my Excel math right) just 21% of all spells belonging on one list, 56% on 2 lists, 17% on 3 lists and 7% on all 4. The arcane list is particularly limited in that regard: just 8 spells in all are uniquely arcane (shrink item, disintegrate, contingency, spell turning, the 3 power words, and wish).

This is why the feeling of differentiation between the spell lists is somewhat weak.

... And my answer would be, not very much. This is because the lists have too much overlap, in my opinion.

Agreed. As noted in my thread on the subject, I find Occult particularly muddled thematically.