Shining Lights and Dark Stars

This conversation is veering toward personal attacks. Please step away from the conversation, or reframe your participation anew the moment you find yourselves assigning traits to the person or otherwise de-valuing their points as being irrelevant. While someone may not fully understand your own point of view and the points you have laid out, it does not make theirs, or yours, any less valid.

Please reframe to deescalate, and avoid remarks which bait an emotional response.

As it stands are we going to get an update to the Multiclass Archetypes? The 1.6 update really changed how a few of the classes work and some of the multiclass archetypes are now inaccurate or have abilities that the class no longer has.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

... so why should the ranger suddenly have every spell from their list prepared (available for casting)?

First off, I'm making this suggestion under the paradigm that Ranger casting will be as limited as it was in PF1, at level 10 a Ranger got two 1st level spells and one 2nd level spell cast as a lvl 7 caster.

So, they would still be able to cast any spell off the list, regardless of preparation and how many spells are on that list, as long as they have the appropriate slot, which is just not cricket.

So uh, this ended as TPK because players tried to focus on the ritual, but were one point away from victory and couldn't get two points in one round after DCs were raised.

Pretty much the skill system and DCs left really sour taste in my players' mouth as whole, but its sad because while we didn't really have fun with majority of test adventures, the final one was actually fun until the "DCs raise by 2" point and final encounter would have been good finale if not for how it was impossible even for bard focused on that skill succeed <_< Like its really not fun to lose just because only single character manages to succeed per round until everyone gets picked off one by one

you know, if wizard is versatility and sorcerer s power, how about not increasing the number of spontaneous heightens but instead make them make them more powerful? When a sorcerer casts a spontaneous heightened spell that deals damage treat it as if it was heightened to the highest level the sorcerer can cast without changing its level. It would have to be damage only as divine sorcerers would be the best healer otherwise and i find the damage spell heightens dont break combat nearly as much.

you know, if wizard is versatility and sorcerer s power, how about not increasing the number of spontaneous heightens but instead make them make them more powerful? When a sorcerer casts a spontaneous heightened spell that deals damage treat it as if it was heightened to the highest level the sorcerer can cast without changing its level. It would have to be damage only as divine sorcerers would be the best healer otherwise and i find the damage spell heightens dont break combat nearly as much.

Due to how damage scaling works that would break a few of the low-level spells wide open (Burning Hands is roughly equal to Fireball, and Shocking Grasp is really strong too).

Personally, I'd add a feature to allow Sorcerers to either spend a limited resource (like a Spell point) to spontaneously heighten any spell they know, or else boost the level of a Spell they cast by +1. Say you're an Arcane sorcerer and chose damage spells but find yourself in need of a Heightened Resist Energy - no problem, spend a Spell Point and you treat it as if you could spontaneously heighten it for that cast. Or perhaps you're a Level 11 Sorcerer who can cast Fireball in their Level 6 slots but you really need that extra damage - spend a Spell Point to treat it as a Level 7 Fireball instead. Stuff like that would be neat.

Seems a shame that clerics have to build charisma for Channel Energy. It really reduces build choice. By my count 22/33 cleric class feats are are built around Channel Energy.

"Paladin" finally caught up with the 90's!!! Oh wait...it's 2018.

Thanks for this Paizo.

So is the class going to have a catch all Divine Champion name, with the LG sub- being the paladin which has a placeholder name of defender? And the NG/CG versions (liberator/redeemer) being placeholders too?

Im hoping they are placeholders. I think retaining the name Paladin for the LG version is a good nod to where they come from, without having to leave it's legacy behind.

Seems a shame that clerics have to build charisma for Channel Energy. It really reduces build choice. By my count 22/33 cleric class feats are are built around Channel Energy.

it actually increases build choice.

if Cha was irrelevant, all clerics would be raising str/dex/con/wis, Now you have to make a choice to sacrifice something for something else.

while the favor is indeed skewered towards Cha( and that could be looked at, although that's mostly a spell power issue), overall it's great that clerics need a secondary mental attribute for more caster focused things (as opposed to raising str for a more martial focused cleric).

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

"Paladin" finally caught up with the 90's!!! Oh wait...it's 2018.

Thanks for this Paizo.

So is the class going to have a catch all Divine Champion name, with the LG sub- being the paladin which has a placeholder name of defender? And the NG/CG versions (liberator/redeemer) being placeholders too?

Im hoping they are placeholders. I think retaining the name Paladin for the LG version is a good nod to where they come from, without having to leave it's legacy behind.

I am pretty sure that is the plan. The current arrangement was done to prevent having to change all current "paladin" references to something else. They have more flexibility to globally change the generic class name to something else in the actual PF2 rules next year.

Chuck Roast wrote:

Seems a shame that clerics have to build charisma for Channel Energy. It really reduces build choice. By my count 22/33 cleric class feats are are built around Channel Energy.

it actually increases build choice.

if Cha was irrelevant, all clerics would be raising str/dex/con/wis, Now you have to make a choice to sacrifice something for something else.

while the favor is indeed skewered towards Cha, overall it's great that clerics need a secondary mental attribute for more caster focused things (as opposed to raising str for a more martial focused cleric).

So much this.

As long as focusing on one attribute doesn't cripple you compared to focusing on another, having classes be MAD is 100% a good thing to increase build diversity.

It does feel that we should give non-charismatic clerics something in lieu of channel energy so contour 18 wis 8 cha cleric of Torag is a completely viable character idea but now gets absolutely nothing from channel energy.

I mean, "light armored characters don't get anything from this is how Unburdened got turned into an option instead of a thing granted by default...

It does feel that we should give non-charismatic clerics something in lieu of channel energy so contour 18 wis 8 cha cleric of Torag is a completely viable character idea but now gets absolutely nothing from channel energy.

I mean, "light armored characters don't get anything from this is how Unburdened got turned into an option instead of a thing granted by default...

chanel could be made (min 1)

but, as i said in my edit, the main culprit are the spells.

18 wisdom gives the top starting dc and spell attack roll and mod, and it's the only way to reach +7 mod on wis.

so, making those spell dcs worth the trade off is the only thing necessary to boost wis>cha once more.

Arnim Thayer wrote:

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

"Paladin" finally caught up with the 90's!!! Oh wait...it's 2018.

Thanks for this Paizo.

So is the class going to have a catch all Divine Champion name, with the LG sub- being the paladin which has a placeholder name of defender? And the NG/CG versions (liberator/redeemer) being placeholders too?

Im hoping they are placeholders. I think retaining the name Paladin for the LG version is a good nod to where they come from, without having to leave it's legacy behind.

I am pretty sure that is the plan. The current arrangement was done to prevent having to change all current "paladin" references to something else. They have more flexibility to globally change the generic class name to something else in the actual PF2 rules next year.

Honestly. I'm still for making paladin an ARchetype with some form of smite evil that fits this version.

but I still like the idea of a archetype or prestige having the name Paladin. Made vague enough to make any class into a paladin of (whatever)
Though. You could probably just do that with the multiclassing. but with the current broken up Paladin I'm not really sure how the multiclass will work with it...

I still would go for Divine Guardian without alignment restrictions, and a Paladin archetype with all the restrictions and punishments.

It does feel that we should give non-charismatic clerics something in lieu of channel energy so contour 18 wis 8 cha cleric of Torag is a completely viable character idea but now gets absolutely nothing from channel energy.

I mean, "light armored characters don't get anything from this is how Unburdened got turned into an option instead of a thing granted by default...

Simple enough... in line with the original type of archetype rules, allow clerics to replace their channel feature with the ability to spontaneously convert any spell slot they have to a heal/harm spell, based on their deity, like would have been for the channel. It is a call back to what they had in P1 by default. And gives non-charismatic clerics a useful ability to swap onto its place.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It does feel that we should give non-charismatic clerics something in lieu of channel energy so contour 18 wis 8 cha cleric of Torag is a completely viable character idea but now gets absolutely nothing from channel energy.

I mean, "light armored characters don't get anything from this is how Unburdened got turned into an option instead of a thing granted by default...

Simple enough... in line with the original type of archetype rules, allow clerics to replace their channel feature with the ability to spontaneously convert any spell slot they have to a heal/harm spell, based on their deity, like would have been for the channel. It is a call back to what they had in P1 by default. And gives non-charismatic clerics a useful ability to swap onto its place.

Being able to just swap out abilities for ones that only care about your main attribute is how PF1e got broken.

Choosing to have an 8 Charisma as a Cleric needs to cost you something, or it's not really a choice.

I mean, having an 8 Wisdom as a Monk costs you something- you cannot use Ki Powers. But the thing is, unlike channel energy, Ki powers are feats and you don't have to select them- you can take something else instead.

A Druid with 8 Strength can't really be an effective Wild Order shapeshifting druid, but there are 3 other orders and lots of other feats.

A Rogue with low dex cannot take advantage of Finesse Striker, but they can just choose one of the other two paths instead.

A Paladin with a low Charisma cannot Lay on Hands, but can multiclass into something that grants a spell pool which keys on a different attribute (e.g. Cleric) and become able to.

So why is Channel Energy special here? I have to have it on every cleric, but cannot make use of it for some Cleric builds.

I want more MADness, all around, and with the generous Ability Score generation method and improvement rate, this could be an edition to really make that happen.

I mean, having an 8 Wisdom as a Monk costs you something- you cannot use Ki Powers. But the thing is, unlike channel energy, Ki powers are feats and you don't have to select them- you can take something else instead.

A Druid with 8 Strength can't really be an effective Wild Order shapeshifting druid, but there are 3 other orders and lots of other feats.

A Rogue with low dex cannot take advantage of Finesse Striker, but they can just choose one of the other two paths instead.

A Paladin with a low Charisma cannot Lay on Hands, but can multiclass into something that grants a spell pool which keys on a different attribute (e.g. Cleric) and become able to.

So why is Channel Energy special here? I have to have it on every cleric, but cannot make use of it for some Cleric builds.

And again, a "minimum 1/day" would fix that.

I don't think that anyone would have an issue if a cleric could Heal once/day for free even without any investment.

As the thread goes on and on, in my opinion there are some cool ideas here tucked in between some posts.

I personally like the Idea of the Sorcerer becoming the Powerhouse like they once used to be.
But i like the new Idea that instead of giving them Power by sheer ammount of Casts/Day, to give them power by a limited resource like spell points to power up their spells.

Cool idea, you have my vote :)

Why are they giving wizards Quick Preparation at 1st level automatically? The commentary was that it was an incredibly strong feat with the potentially to greatly warp the playstyles of wizards (well, outside of the usual Paizo-written premade adventure fare, anyway), thus warranting a downgrade. It definitely did not deserve to be handed out for free to all wizards.

I feel all prepared casters need Quick Preparation.

The spontaneous casters need a LOT of love, but prepared casters need love too.

The one VERY strong impression I get is that a considerable portion of the Paizo staff think that a 15 minute adventuring day is a GOOD thing.

PF2 is very much made for Pathfinder Society play. And those scenarios are short and intense - and often give chances to prepare new spells halfway. This paradigm is also used in many adventure paths.

you know, if wizard is versatility and sorcerer s power, how about not increasing the number of spontaneous heightens but instead make them make them more powerful? When a sorcerer casts a spontaneous heightened spell that deals damage treat it as if it was heightened to the highest level the sorcerer can cast without changing its level. It would have to be damage only as divine sorcerers would be the best healer otherwise and i find the damage spell heightens dont break combat nearly as much.

I could see EVERY sorcerer spell being heightened to max power. The sorcerer's weakness right now is such that something dramatic like this is needed, and this is quite a nice way to make sorcerers feel like the scions of monsters.

Sigh. I wish that the Dwarf Ancestry had some kind of Crafting boost so they could be excellent Chirurgeons. It makes me miss the "Racial Archetypes" from Pathfinder First Edition - something like Dwarf Chirurgeons brew Ale of Life instead of Elixirs of Life.

The ancestry ability modifiers seem a bit off the common ancestry tropes.

Dwarfs should have Int to be supreme craftsmen. Perception doesn't seem like their big thing.
Gnomes should have Int for alchemy.
Elves should have Cha for innate magic and that elven allure.
Goblins should NOT have Cha, for lots of reasons. Con seems the best alternative, but would give them 2 physical ability bonuses. Tricky.
Halflings should get their Cha bonus back, now that both gnomes and goblins shed theirs.

There are currently very few races that get Int or Strength bonuses.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Sigh. I wish that the Dwarf Ancestry had some kind of Crafting boost so they could be excellent Chirurgeons. It makes me miss the "Racial Archetypes" from Pathfinder First Edition - something like Dwarf Chirurgeons brew Ale of Life instead of Elixirs of Life.

The ancestry ability modifiers seem a bit off the common ancestry tropes.

Dwarfs should have Int to be supreme craftsmen. Perception doesn't seem like their big thing.
Gnomes should have Int for alchemy.
Elves should have Cha for innate magic and that elven allure.
Goblins should NOT have Cha, for lots of reasons. Con seems the best alternative, but would give them 2 physical ability bonuses. Tricky.
Halflings should get their Cha bonus back, now that both gnomes and goblins shed theirs.

With the exception of Dwarves being craftsmen, and maybe the Goblin thing, almost none of these are accurate to Golarion. Gnomes are not mostly notable alchemists in Golarion, nor are Elves more 'alluring' than humans while their magic is arcane and more Int than Cha, and Halflings are much better suited to Wis than Cha (which is why they changed it in the first place).

There are currently very few races that get Int or Strength bonuses.

This, however, is true. Especially in regards to Str. Hopefully additional Ancestries will skew more towards those stats which the core Ancestries neglect.

Golarion elves share too strong a resemblance to Area 51 aliens for that whole charisma thing to apply.

Starfox wrote:

There are currently very few races that get Int or Strength bonuses.

This, however, is true. Especially in regards to Str. Hopefully additional Ancestries will skew more towards those stats which the core Ancestries neglect.

Well if future Ancestries prove anything like PF1e's Races, I foresee a lot of Dex/Cha/-Whatever in our future.

Well if future Ancestries prove anything like PF1e's Races, I foresee a lot of Dex/Cha/-Whatever in our future.

I mean, we'll almost certainly get Kitsune back, but I hope we can stop there. PF1 had way too many Dex/Con races.

Shinigami02 wrote:

Well if future Ancestries prove anything like PF1e's Races, I foresee a lot of Dex/Cha/-Whatever in our future.

I mean, we'll almost certainly get Kitsune back, but I hope we can stop there. PF1 had way too many Dex/Con races.

Or all the Dex/Int races. In fact, almost all races with Int bonuses are Dex/Int. I'm only seeing Samsaran (Int/Wis) and Lashunta (Int/Str or Int/Cha depending on sex) as having something other than dex for the other stat.

And very few Str bonuses.

Of course, with the playtest style attribute generation, there isn't a huge advantage to having a bonus to a stat. So stat bonuses aren't as big of a deal. Penalties are more important than bonuses, because they keep you from getting an 18 at first level.

Golarion elves share too strong a resemblance to Area 51 aliens for that whole charisma thing to apply.

This I can accept!

The primary function of a Paladin needs to be Smite Evil, not reactive strikes.

Also, the version of smite evil you did put in - comes just after characters retire, so it might as well not be there.

The primary function of a Paladin needs to be Smite Evil, not reactive strikes.

For all you whippersnappers who started playing the game in 2000, maybe.

thistledown wrote:

The primary function of a Paladin needs to be Smite Evil, not reactive strikes.

For all you whippersnappers who started playing the game in 2000, maybe.

Are we about to get some story time about the days when elves were a class and alignments had a language?

Gorbacz wrote:

thistledown wrote:

The primary function of a Paladin needs to be Smite Evil, not reactive strikes.

For all you whippersnappers who started playing the game in 2000, maybe.

Are we about to get some story time about the days when elves were a class and alignments had a language?

Emphasis mine. Ohhh... those were the days... weren't they!

Are we about to get some story time about the days when elves were a class and alignments had a language?

I think the broader point is that in the 30+ years of this hobby what a class means or does has changed, and that "the Paladin is the Smite Evil" class is a somewhat recent change. So the argument is better phrased as "I like the Paladin better as a smiting class than a reacting class" rather than a statement about what the Paladin is or should be, because the Paladin has been a lot of things and no two people can really agree on what it should be.

I mean, just from an available design space niche, imagining the Paladin as the defensive/protective class opens up a lot more room than imagining the Paladin as a "seriously mess up one particular kind of thing" class.

Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:

Are we about to get some story time about the days when elves were a class and alignments had a language?

I think the broader point is that in the 30+ years of this hobby what a class means or does has changed, and that "the Paladin is the Smite Evil" class is a somewhat recent change. So the argument is better phrased as "I like the Paladin better as a smiting class than a reacting class" rather than a statement about what the Paladin is or should be, because the Paladin has been a lot of things and no two people can really agree on what it should be.

I mean, just from an available design space niche, imagining the Paladin as the defensive/protective class opens up a lot more room than imagining the Paladin as a "seriously mess up one particular kind of thing" class.

Yes, this. Quite agreed.

Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:

Are we about to get some story time about the days when elves were a class and alignments had a language?

I think the broader point is that in the 30+ years of this hobby what a class means or does has changed, and that "the Paladin is the Smite Evil" class is a somewhat recent change. So the argument is better phrased as "I like the Paladin better as a smiting class than a reacting class" rather than a statement about what the Paladin is or should be, because the Paladin has been a lot of things and no two people can really agree on what it should be.

I mean, just from an available design space niche, imagining the Paladin as the defensive/protective class opens up a lot more room than imagining the Paladin as a "seriously mess up one particular kind of thing" class.

I agree about a class having a feature with too narrow a focus, as the ranger's favoured enemy can be (really cool, or totally ineffectual), but smite evil is reasonably broad, as many things fought in adventures and APs are evil.

thistledown wrote:

The primary function of a Paladin needs to be Smite Evil, not reactive strikes.

For all you whippersnappers who started playing the game in 2000, maybe.

That's like 18 years, which is almost half the time that RPG's have even existed as a thing. It's not like people are talking about a feature released in a class splat 2 years ago.

I would submit that "RPGs" have existed a lot longer than you suggest. For example I played "Cowboys and Indians" when I was five. That was 66 years ago. I daresay my father played RPGs of that ilk when he was a kid. That would be... <counting on fingers> almost ninety years ago.

I mean, just from an available design space niche, imagining the Paladin as the defensive/protective class opens up a lot more room than imagining the Paladin as a "seriously mess up one particular kind of thing" class.

Speaking more broadly, pretty much any class can be defined by how it deals damage (Fighters with weapons, Wizards with prepared spells, Cleric with anti-undead/evil outsiders), but that creates a same-iness to them all. If you step back and ask "What does this class do other than damage?", you can create options that truly make them different (PF2 Paladins are very different from PF2 weapon-focused Clerics).

Fighting classes have traditionally differed on how they get their combat bonuses.

* Fighters get theirs by weapon type
* Rangers get their by type of enemy
* Paladins/cavaliers get their a few times per day
* Barbarians get a limited number of rounds and lose some control during this time (they used to loosed defenses too, but FP2 basically removed that)

It seems that PF2 avoids this paradigm. Fighters still work the same, but all the other classes have changed. I quite liked the PF1 way of doing things, and I suspect most of us do. I could accept a new "Defender" class that works as the current paladin, and would have liked an unaligned "cavalier" variant of the smite/challenge paladin in PF2. As it is now, I feel too many PF1 concepts have disappeared to maintain continuity of story. Just as a PF2 arcane sorcerer is unlike a PF1 sorcerer, a PF2 paladin has no continuity to the PF1 paladin.

Fighting classes have traditionally differed on how they get their combat bonuses.

* Fighters get theirs by weapon type
* Rangers get their by type of enemy
* Paladins/cavaliers get their a few times per day
* Barbarians get a limited number of rounds and lose some control during this time (they used to loosed defenses too, but FP2 basically removed that)

It seems that PF2 avoids this paradigm. Fighters still work the same, but all the other classes have changed. I quite liked the PF1 way of doing things, and I suspect most of us do. I could accept a new "Defender" class that works as the current paladin, and would have liked an unaligned "cavalier" variant of the smite/challenge paladin in PF2. As it is now, I feel too many PF1 concepts have disappeared to maintain continuity of story. Just as a PF2 arcane sorcerer is unlike a PF1 sorcerer, a PF2 paladin has no continuity to the PF1 paladin.

it's certainly going to make porting past adventures over more than a little jarring/outright impossible (like [is a powerful spellcaster]), that's for sure.

As there is no survey regarding update 1.6 changes (or I can't find it anywhere), and I already took class surveys before:

Alchemist infused reagents and new alchemical item presentation are a big step forward. The research fields are good, though I'd prefer if you could focus on one field or spread across multiple fields as you progress, for example getting a basic ability of another field instead of perpetual infusion of your initial field.

Barbarian ugh, the random rage duration is terrible. Both the previous 3 round rage, and the 1st edition rounds per day rage were far-far better.

Bard the change to muses is utterly pointless, wasting space on restricting feats to specific muses and Multifarious Muse feat, when you could delete both the restriction and the feat and have exactly the same effect of Bards being able to pick any of their class feats without looking on their muse.

Druid Wild Morph should have single action casting but is a nice replacement for Wild Claws.

Monk Rework to ki powers is fine, though it would be even nicer to have access to any ki power without having to pick Ki Rush/Strike first.

Paladin Improvement to lay on hands is good, as are multiple alignment options, but paladins strongly need alternative to their reactions for paladins operating alone.

All the reactions have a terribly issue that undermines the paladin's theme of protecting the weak though: they can't be used to protect innocent bystanders... (who, as bystanders would be indifferent to you instead of friendly, and neither your allies)

Rogue Rogue's technique is fine, though the rogues should have option to pick Intelligence or Charisma as their key ability score regardless of the technique selected.

Wizard Quick Preparation should be completely removed from the game. If you really feel that playing wizards has to be simplified, turn all prepared casters to arcanist casting instead.