Search Posts
On part I think is intentional. Mythic characters are supposed to be greater-than-live heroes, like Gilgamesh or Hercules. And high level characters are naturally closer to that compared to low level ones. That does not mean that you are wrong; is a bit weird. But (to me) not on a bad way. Of course, I can not really talk until I have the book on the next month.
Are Kitsune rewrited on the book? Are they better than the basic version?
Its a benefict for the people on GenCon...on a quite elitist way, on my point of view.
I think all we Euro Paizo fans are on that boat.
I am still waiting for the books to arrive to Barcelona, they are taking forever...
A 9 year necromantic resurrection of the discussion is quite appropiate talking of those two guys.
So this is actively removing options and choice. The specialist wizard of basic PF2 can not use the spells of the remaster, as those spells lacks the schools tags to know which one are on the school. You can play a basic wizard with basic spells while the rest of people play Remaster? posibbly, but is quite weird, honestly.
Looking at how people are analyzing the traditional schools, I am beginning to think that the Mage the Ascension sphere division is better.Was it like Energy, Matter, Life, Mind, Soul, Space, Time, and 2 more? As I never played MtA before, the names should be incorrect... Anyway said classification solely based on WHAT(subject) your magic meddles with is at least way more consistent than D&D-ist spell classifications... Sorry for the late reply. I quite like the division on Mage Ascension. The spheres are... - Matter: Any kind of magic that basically involves matter
The real fun was that if you have various spheres, you can combine the effects.
Sad moment. My dear Drow will be missed.
Looking at how people are analyzing the traditional schools, I am beginning to think that the Mage the Ascension sphere division is better. Anyway, I am not exactly thrilled with this change, I will have to wait and see.
As can be seen on my avatar, I love Drow. While I get the need for the changes, I just hope we can get something similar enough that it can be used to replicate them. Please?
The "no alignment" is quite sure something to put distance from D&D material, so no problems with ORC and all that. Quite sure there will be something VERY similar, maybe with some minor to dodge problems. Even if I am wrong (and I doubt it if this is supposed to be more of a reorganization than anything), the GM Core will cover as a variant rule.
Maybe I should try to explain myself better. With the "Neutral Evil Redeemer" I mean directly a corruptor, someone good to find evilness on everyone and that can use those evil for own profit. That can use exactly the same mechanics as the Redeemer while being fully evil. Of course, a character like that would not call itself Redeemer.
One of my greatest problems with alignment is the Red team vs Blue Team aspect of it. All good are on blue team and all evil is on red team. I would love to do some game of evil religions fighting among one versus other, like you know, should be the norm on places like the Abyss. But no, they only really know to harm the do-gooders that may not show on all the story. I really dislike that.
I have read some (not all, sorry) of the post on the threat, and I was thinking...what about using the Focus not to regain spells on your highest level, but highest level-1?
Don't worry, SuperHero, no harm done, just be a bit more careful another time. ^^ I suppose I will need to homebrew the drow. Is hard to put the homebrew on PathBuilder?
I asked because I found Cavern elf to be quite lacking. There are some heritage with specific feats, but that is not the case on Drow/cavern elf, there would be far less problem with some apropiate feats there. Obviously the most powerful feats on Noble Drow are quite high level feats, at least level 9. I never believed that would be low level.
Edit: as I wrote on the first post, the idea has nothing to do with Golarion, but with a homebrew setting where I want to use Drow/Dark elfs.
It has been quite some time since I posted, but I lurk around here sometimes. Anyway, I have an idea for a homebrew campaign setting, but I have a problem; drow, I need them for the setting. I have always loved dark elfs, (little surprise with my avatar), and while love some of the weird ancestries we have now, like the poppets, I need a decent option for Dark elfs.
Some ideas would be very welcome. ^^
I really like the outsider alignment thing, as someone who was totally in love with Planescape on its day. But there are things on divine classes that I really dislike, specially the "blue team versus red team" part of alignment. Blue (good) is great damaging red (evil) and viceversa, but blue is quite bad damaging other blue. Take any abyss lord that hates other abyss guts, which means all of them. The clerics of those entities are not that good attacking the equivalent people of the other abyss lord. Because they are both on "blue" team. You can say those are very few spells, but some are among the most important ones on divine list, like Divine Lance. That makes no sense to me.
Thanks for the answer. Some of those ideas seems good and I surely will use them. Right now I am thinking something like... Paladin (PLD): Champion Paladin/Redeemer + Cleric (this one looks one of the easier to adapt) Warrior (WAR): Barbarian + Sentinel (theme is near perfect, but mechanics are not, too much damage and lacks the absurd self healing) Gunbreaker (GNB): Gunslinger Drifter / Vanguard + Sentinel (looks good) Dark Knight (DRK): Champion with custom cause + Cathartic Magic (champion is perfect, but no current cause looks adecuate, should look evil but NOT being evil. Emotion should be Anger, Hatred, Misery or Remorse) White Mage (WHM): Cloistered cleric + druid (near perfect) Scholar (SCH):Honestly, no idea. This is one of the XXIV jobs I know less of. Only sure is that needs an useful familiar Astrologer (AST): Oracle with a mix of Cosmos and Lore mysteries. Not perfect, but can work. No idea of which dedication Sage (SGE): Looks more like a Starfinder class with those lasers and medicine in-combat healing. What would be the best analitical/"science" healer? Monk (MNK):Monk, quite easy, even if XXIV monk is more glass cannon Ninja (NIN): Rogue thief + some elemental sorcerer dedication, more arcane than primal. Dragoon (DRG):Here I am more thinking on some variation of acrobat Swashbuckler with spears, dedication mauler. Samurai (SAM): One weapon Fighter, no idea on dedication. Reaper (RPR): Thaumaturge with Tome or Weapon implement + Summoner dedication (wonky dedication, but seems the more fitting one) Bard (BRD):Ranger + bard (near perfect match) Dancer (DNC): Bard + acrobat (not sure here; theme is near perfect, but mechanics are VERY different) Machinist (MCH): Gunslinger + inventor (near perfect equivalent) Black Mage (BLM): Evocation wizard + ocultist witch dedication (something caster-y and spooky for dedication) Summoner (SMN): Summoner + evocation wizard (easy one) Red mage (RDM): Magus laughing shadow + swashbuckler (should do the trick) On ancestries...
Long time since I posted (even if I still lurk around here reading), but I would like to use Pathfinder 2ed for Final Fantasy XIV setting. I have clear how to do some things (Lalafell as halflings, Miqo'te as catfolk, bard is ranger with bard multiclass feats, while dancer IS Pathfinder 2 bard), but on other things, specially regarding tanks, I have no idea ow to proceed. Warrior is totally different on both settings, and Gunbreaker seems really different to anything on Pathfinder 2.
When I was reading the Inventor with the rest of my group of players, there where no complains about the INT bonus part. The problem was the Unstable characteristics. The player that tried Inventor during the playtest was quite down with that changes. I tried to persuade him that it was basically a high risk Focus mechanic. But he said that you can get until 3 focus points, but only 2 unstable (more or less) and specially, there are way too many feats with unstable for something that basically is only 1-battle. And I had to concede the point, honestly.
As a total fanboy of Rozen Maiden, I admit I was on a total SQUEEE mode when I first saw them. And an even greater SQUEEEE when I arrived to the Wind Up heritage. Kashira ^^
As my avatar shows, the ancestry I miss more is Drow, with Samsaran as a far below second interest. Large options would be nice, specially Minotaur.
how is the new Flame druid order? juicy fets for it?
On my much limited that I would like experience on PF2, uncommon spells are somewhat accessible, but rare are not (not that there are that many rare spells), and specially not Rituals. From what I see, the fact that all relevant to rituals is Uncommon makes them near non existent. More people share that?
A proposal for the low level Chirurgeon; just undo the first errata, and let him play as was written on the very first print, with the level 5 healing consumible.
I have an idea on how a Magus can work to combine magic and martial capabilities. On my mind it seems good, but it may have problems that I don't see. The idea is to give Master proficiency on weapons, and Master or Legendary as an Arcane Caster. Then give only 6 levels of spells, like the half casters from 1E. Then give the class, and only this class, some capability to improve the caster DC for Saving Throws and attacks with some martial weapon. That way, with a +3 weapon, the DC of spells improve on 3, exactly the number that lacks to arrive to same DC of 9 level spells. I can see problems with Incapacitate spells (I dislike Incapacitate, but is not for here not now). Also not sure how balanced the lack of 7-9 spells can be, but I think with care it can work. Opinions?
Designing a RPG, specially one as complex as PF (both 1 and 2) is no easy task. Is not just the really high number of rules interactions. I think the most daunting part is the fact that the same set of rules must be played by vastly diferent play groups. Some very tactics, some not. Some highly optimised, some with low optimisation.
This is also my own position, on fact. For example, an alchemist with guns sounds quite interesting.
I just don't get why people want so much to kill Inquisitor, one of the most interesting and varied classes of PF1. "Just multiclass it" seems a very low substitute. I see it similar to say that Champion can just be done with Fighter with Cleric multiclass. I see Inquisitor with at least as much personality as many CRB classes. I'm quite surprised to see so much interest on Summoner and Gunslinger, neither looked so popular on PF1. Kineticist and Magus where expected among the most popular ones.
+1 Inquisitor Kineticist as close second
Also, funny to say
to a comment writen just a few days after the game was published.
Ok, that is what I get for written too fast; I don't explain mayself correctly. You are right, there are damage bonus to substitute the Striking runes. I was talking about the damage from Property runes like "+1d6 acid" from corrosive. Sorry. Edit: I suppose the reason is just to not give innate equivalent to some equivalent property runes, and not to others.
You are welcome to discuss and critique my specific suggestions. I don't agree with all the antagonism on this thread, but I totally agree with this. The title is just "GameMastery guide", not the negative connotations that the OP want on it. So I will say my first impressions after a VERY quick first glance... I like the options for dual class and free archetype, very possible those end on my table. I also like the Automatic Bonus Progression, but the fact that the damage from the runes is not included seems a bit problematic. I hoped to see some options to return some power to spells, as this book seems a perfect place for it, but I suppose that would take too much space.
I certainly like far more specialist casters than generalist, I feel more flavor on them, and currently they not feel much stellar. Maybe is a way for future archetypes or even full classes? Something similar to the True Necromancer or Warmage (not sure that was the correct name) can be an interesting take. Edit: Also, personal attacks and calls to exclude people from conversation are not cool on my book.
I am among those that say that the over-nerf is real, but "completely unplayable" seems quite the hyperbole, honestly.
The system is far from being so unbalanced as the OP says. Is a very good system, with a solid math fundation. However, the OP is not alone on thinking that casters where overnerfed. Quite a good number of people thinks similar, just on a lesser scale. I hope that on the GMG could be some options to return some power to casters. I don't think they are unplayable (that seems an exageration on my experience) but while they can contribute to a team, they feel lackluster to me right now.
I have never understood why so many people dislike getting more classes and more choices. More options are a good thing. When some see "bloat" I see "a rich quantity of options".
Totally agree, Witch debuff themes seem quite better representer like compositions similar to bard than with Focus spells.
Paizo announced it will take a bit more time, and it should be online soon, I think this next week.
I don't really know about that scenario with the barghest, so as an honest question...the players know the detail on the spoiler tag? because if they don't know, it does not make much difference.
I agree that knowing the ST of the enemies seems too required to use spells. Of course knowing details of the enemy must be a great help, but should not be required to do anything on changeling encounters. On the other hand, is true that Level+3 encounters should be quite less usual on PF2 than on PF1. That's a good thing, magic has too many cons on those situations. Edit: on general, the required information to use magic is excessive. Do you think that enemy was level +1? Too bad, it is level +3, you wasted your spell with Incapacitation. You used a spell of the wrong ST? Now you need a little miracle to do anything useful. Do you like thematic casters (enchanters, one-element-focused, necromancers, etc...)? too bad, you need varied spells to be useful on hard situations.
PF2 is not a perfect system, but it improves clearly many of the issues of PF1, like the lack of basic magic attacks for casters, the wonkiness of the maths on too many situations, the 3 actions new paradigna...all those make PF2 a better game.
While I get what you mean, targeting the low save, using all possible debuffs and using the higher spell slot, and then get around 40-45%of success, seems to me like is a 55-60% of losing the higher spell slot AND 1-2 turns of preparation. That can hurt. Is clearly a gamble, but Incapacitate robs the reawrd.It's a 45% chance of them just losing. Mostly, this version results in them having serious debuffs even if they succeed. Dominate would leave them Slowed 1, Frightened 1, and Stupefied 2 even if they succeed on the Save vs. Dominate, just as one example. I don't have access to the books right now to consult, but... Incapacitate makes that this 55-60% miss on the BETTER situation and using the highest slots is a critical success on the ST, not a success. That normally means no effect. That's harsh.
While I get what you mean, targeting the low save, using all possible debuffs and using the higher spell slot, and then get around 40-45%of success, seems to me like is a 55-60% of losing the higher spell slot AND 1-2 turns of preparation. That can hurt. Is clearly a gamble, but Incapacitate robs the reawrd.
And that is one of the main reasons of the change on the maths of the game, and a good thing. But with the current low chance of landing such a spell on PF2, is really necessary also Incapacitate? Seems like overkill to me.
Yeah, I can agree with that. I think they really are are some reality to affirm they are underpowered, but is not something that really worries me.
I couldn't agree more with the OP, I can't stand stuff like the UA options in 5e or the uncommon/rare options in 2e. Either something is a legit option or it isn't, get off the f@#king fence and make a decision. Don't leave it up to the player to work out some kind of deal with their GM to get that option.Every campaign and story is different, so why not leave it up to the Players and GMs to work out a deal? Some post ago I said that Blood Money is an example of a spell where the rarity system works great. On the end, I suppose the problem is one of different game style. I strongly disagree with this sentence here:
Finally, I honestly believe that many of those attitude problem will go down if people where "RPG players" and don't divide themselves on "Player" and "DM". DMs playing more and players doing more DM would help much on this kind of discussion.
One of my players (I'm usually the DM on PF2 currently) wants to try how middle level plays, so a new campaign with him as DM is about to begin. The idea is something similar to Dragon Quest video-games, so an evil overlord, many monster, not much intrigue. And many of those games have a wise old man on the character roster, so I decided to do a wise, old, and caring Dwarf Wizard. As a caring and compassionate person, I decided Abjurer.
|
