Safan Domvesia

Alaryth's page

486 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 486 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am among those that say that the over-nerf is real, but "completely unplayable" seems quite the hyperbole, honestly.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

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".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


When someone does it once, it's cool and a relief. When the same person does it every fight, it becomes a 'Wait, why are we here?' experience for everyone else.

And the latter is very much what happens pretty often in a classic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard party with an optimal Wizard in PF1. It would also happen pretty often within a couple of rounds in PF2 if the Incapacitation Trait just ceased to exist.

You see, people like actually contributing to the group's success and having your entire existence basically irrelevant to whether the party wins is not fun in the...

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.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, "Wait for more books so my character is fun" is something that afflicted a great number of non-wizard classes in the last edition, which nonetheless ended up pretty decent so this is not an unworkable situation.

When designing a new edition, without knowing what those things are, it's probably wisest to err on the side of making the weakest things from the old edition too strong and the strongest things from the old edition too weak. Which is why the CRB rogue and fighter are now excellent and the wizard is a bit underwhelming.

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.


Lanathar wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
Rysky wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
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?

As the rules are, there is no "work out a deal". On a deal both sides participate and have some power on the final result, here all the decision power falls on one side, the DM. I find funny all the talk about having the confidence on the DM to use rarity system well, while players that want uncommon things are presented as whiners. Where is the confidence on the player?

And currently, some characters concepts are so full of uncommon as to barely be playable, like Divination Wizard.

Edit: I find specially problematic the alignment spells case. It seems arbitrary to make some alignment spells the main route to do damage on the Divine casters (looking at Divine lance) and then made so many others uncommon. Either all should be usual spells, or all should be uncommon and take other mechanics as the damage dealing side of Divine spells. The current state made little sense to me.

Coming from a forever GM there is no confidence in the player for a very good reason

Players are presented as whiners because, unfortunately, in the majority of cases they are . The complaints about restrictions are nearly always about “their” fun

An example is a player who dug out Blood Money the other day. I said no because it seems quite obscure. He was also already talking about “it’s great there is no downside because I don’t need strength and can easily heal it back anyway”

He, predictably, said “I found it online on the spell list”

I had to tell him it was a spell only known (in published material) by the BBEG of an entire...

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:
" the vast majority of players have a supreme sense of entitlement and the person running the game and the story often has to allow this especially..."
for me, the game and the story is about everyone at the table, not the DM. I LOVE when my players surprise me, and I have no problem having to improvise a bit if that is the case.
I do 50/50 play/DM (more DM on PF2 on fact), but we play many other games( 5 Rings, 7 Seas, Vampire Mascarade, Mage Ascension...). Some of those games give on rules that gives the players a high narrative powers, things like "if you interpret that disadvantage, you gain X" or "you can use X points to alter slightly the scene". I really like that, because it makes everyone more involved on the story that is done between everyone on the table.

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.
The process of doing the character was shocking. "An Abjurer wizard that don't approach melee and is on the back of the party protecting his companions" seems quite usual. Let's look at the low level wizard feats...
-I don't want a familiar, I don't see it. That takes out familiar feats.
-I'm an Abjurer, so the others specialist feat are not useful. That takes out all those Universalist spells.
-The campaign will have few social/intrigue parts, so I pass on feats that works there.
- I will be allergic to melee. Countermagic requires a miracle to work (the same exactly spell).
That takes out near all the feats available at low levels; Widen spell and little else. This has been the first time I have seriously considered taking a dedication, not because the character concept, but because I can't find enough interesting feats on the main class¡
On the other hand, while I was surprised for the extremely specific nature of so many Wizard feats, I don't find it a serious problem. With more books there will be more available options.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
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?

As the rules are, there is no "work out a deal". On a deal both sides participate and have some power on the final result, here all the decision power falls on one side, the DM. I find funny all the talk about having the confidence on the DM to use rarity system well, while players that want uncommon things are presented as whiners. Where is the confidence on the player?

And currently, some characters concepts are so full of uncommon as to barely be playable, like Divination Wizard.

Edit: I find specially problematic the alignment spells case. It seems arbitrary to make some alignment spells the main route to do damage on the Divine casters (looking at Divine lance) and then made so many others uncommon. Either all should be usual spells, or all should be uncommon and take other mechanics as the damage dealing side of Divine spells. The current state made little sense to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My problem with rare/uncommon is that, ironically, seems way too common. I would have just used it for strange, unique spells like Blood Money, or some specific ones. Not putting an axe on the ability to get some very iconic spells like Protection. I find that the quantity of "mama, may I?" is too high.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The answer right now is "ask the GM". Is not a answer I like, but is what we have.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed.
Even if I have some details I don't like much, the system as a whole is superb, and while some criticism are always needed, we should not forget that the game is a very good game.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

People around here should try to calm a bit. This is a complex affair, and all this heat on the conversation really don't help it.


Player losing the right to roll on some important actions done by the character...
Player having to ask permission to get a good number of character options...
DM having more control on the rules to negate player intended actions...
How do you call that then?
I can get why is done, and why some people like that, but negating that players lose power on the table seems strange. I just happen to not like that.


I really dislike the concept of secret rolls. I'm liking PF2 far more than I expected, but this is one of the few areas I profundly dislike, and near all those dislikes are connected to the same; the loss of player control/agency that put even more pressure on the DM. When I GM (half the time, currently more on PF2)I do near all roll open. I'm of the opinion that the DM is just one more player on the table, the narrative should be as even as possible.


One posibility is use the Mana system, but just say that your highest slots are limited to the same quantity that the normal slots. You can still "spam" spells, but not the most potent ones, and the complexity added is not high. Also, seems easy to justify; you have still not mastered enough the higher spells you can cast, so you are limited to how many you can use.

This all can be combined with the current classes. Seems interesting to say that Wizards and the other prepared casters change to "Arcanist prepared", while Sorcerer and other spontaneous change to this "point system".


I haven't done high level play still (I love it, but we need to know the rules better), but it seems like damage scales way lower than HP, so combats will get more turns to end at higher level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would love to see on this book..
- rules for monsters as PCs
- rules for lowering the importance of magic items, something like the Automatic Bonus Progression from PF Unchained.
- Some official rules to return a bit of the lose power for magic.
- A bit more details on rituals; price, how many to give…

Finally, I know is not for this book, but, is there any idea when will be the non-Good champions? I would really need them for some campaigns.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yesterday I have the real first session with my players and they quite liked the system. ^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are abusive DM. There are abusive players. And there are great players, and great DM. But life is not black and white, there are all kind of grey players and grey DM. Saying "a good DM would not do that" surely is true, but...what about grey DM that is totally against houserules, and have the NO always prepared? That kind of rules would empower that grey DM, approaching it to a bad DM.
This is not my personal experience, I have an stable group with rotating DM. But I find distasteful to give too much power to a single person on a cooperative game. On my mind, on rules discussion the DM should be a sport referee, taking decisions on the best way to apply a rule. But not deciding what the rules are.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A DM has control over the setting, the NPCs, the story...there is one thing the DM can not directly control, and that is the PCs. But that kind of thing, specially for things that previously it was not needed, invades the only thing the players have some control; their characters. "You can give them easily" is still a way for the DM to have extra control over the characters.

When I am the DM (as I said before, more or less half the time)I think about the rules like they where the law physics of the setting. Of course, I have to rule things on the fly, but the less I need to do it, the better. So all this "return power to the DM" on PF2 is one of the parts I like LESS on the game (with the on my opinion overnerf on magic). The laws of reality should not include "ask that person". I find it inelegant.
The DM has always had a near complete control over all. Letting them control over the one thing they can't control is something I don't like specially. On the contrary that others, is not a practical thing; I play with the same group of friends since many years ago, and each one do DM on a different campaign. But still, cutting access from so many things, specially for spells that where common before, I can't really like it.

On the other side, I don't want to seem like a Nayseyer of PF2, I'm liking the system on 90%, and I truly believe that is an improvement from PF1. Is just that those few things I don't like I REALLY don't like.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There may be thing I don't like on PF2 and others I need still be sold, but I think it can be said with safety that is a better game.
On the other side, while PF1 has problems and that is one of the reasons for PF2, reading some people seems a unplayable game, and while is sure not easy, it can be played at high level and enjoy it. I find untasteful the current desdain for PF1, honestly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
theelcorspectre wrote:

I feel like this whole forum (even though it seems like it was not the OPs intention) has partly brought to the front a very old and dangerous concept. The idea of "Player vs. DM/GM".

On one hand we have people who are afraid that with the RAW, players who want to play more unusual character concepts could be easily shutdown by their DMs/GMs just because some of their character choices don't make sense for the setting or their story (ie. are Uncommon).

On the other hand we have people who are afraid that without the RAW, the game will devolve into players automatically choosing the most overpowered and unbalanced options for items and spells

For those in the prior camp, I would say something that has pretty much been said a couple of times. It has been like that for as long as there have been TTRPGs. The DM/GM has always been the "boss" who could set limitations and change rules to his heart's content, because it is his world. However, do I think that the rarity system makes it a little more likely that a DM who wouldn't otherwise limit an option to limit an option? Yes I do. However, you have one ability that the "boss" can never take away. The ability to quit. Just because it's his sandbox doesn't mean you have to play in it.

For those in the latter camp, yes the system does help DMs/GMs veto potentially game-breaking character concepts. However, like I said earlier, DMs/GMs have always had that power, its just now the system has a few more guidelines and justifications for when they use that power.

Games like Pathfinder generally aren't meant to be competitive, but cooperative. Everybody should be able to play the game wanting to have fun and know that everybody else is wanting to have fun also. However, a game like this is more than a game, its also a conversation. That conversation should start before the lights dim and the story begins. DMs/GMs should talk with their players about expectations, desires, and fears and vice-versa. If you realize that you probably wouldn't enjoy yourself...

+1 to all this. Trust is important on both ways.

Just want to make a little note; my personal problem is that some spells that where quite usual and iconic, like Protection, now suddenly are behind a wall. If this has been used for Blood-Money-kind spell, I would be the first to applaud the rule change. But change some very usual spells from "near all casters, at least PC, and many times nPC, use them" to "default, you can not have it", leaves a bad taste on my mouth.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

DMs are not divided on Good DM / bad DM. There is a glorious grey scale. And while I'm quite sure I would play quite happily as Max Astro and other people defending current rarity as a DM, the "grey DM" will see the rarity system as a way to say "NO" to many request, and be totally sure the rules are with him, because that is the way they see rarity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want to be misunderstood; I'm not agaisn't rarity, just versus some of it's examples. I'm not specially happy with it, but not annoyed.

I suppose part of the problem some people have with this is that it may not be seen as a negotation between player and DM, but as a request. On a negotation both parts have some power, while on this case, the final decission on the matter is 100% on the DM side. I can see why some can be not happy with this.

For the record, I'm 50/50 player/DM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On fact, the one shining example of why I'm not very happy with Rarity is not even a Divination spell. Is Protection. I totally get that something must have been done with that spell, but with the "+1 to Saving Throws, +3 versus control" I think the broken part of the spell is taken care of. Why suddenly one of the most ubiquitous divine spells besides Heal is uncommon?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like rarity for items, my problems is with spells. No direct way to get them on the rules, and with the very high number of iconic spells that suddenly are rare, I see three problems.
The first is that seems quite hard to do an Abjurer or a Diviner when an high percentage of your school spells are gated.
The second is just setting consistence. Near all clerics where using spells like Protection, and suddenly they get uncommon. How to explain that?
The third problems is simple character adaptation from one Edition to the other, when a good numbers of spells have restrictions previously inexistent.

Resume: I would have liked far more rarity if it haven't axed so many iconic spells, or at least where a good on rules way to get them.


I thought that would be 0/0/-10 too. Happens the same with Power attack and similar?


ok, thanks ^^


I knew about the duration part, but me and my group have different views on how the radius works.


The Bless spell have an area of 5 foot emanation, but later it says;

"Once per turn, starting the turn after you cast
bless, you can use a single action, which has the concentrate
trait, to increase the emanation’s radius by 5 feet."

How exactly that works? the radius increase is permanent for the spell duration, or reset each turn? If you concentrate to increase the radius one turn, not a second one, and again concentrate on a third turn, what is the radius of the spell?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not talking about the playtest. The playtest certainly has the fault on the other side; too much negativity. I'm talking about NOW. I believe that developers would be interested on criticism on the final version too.

Edit: Insults are wrong on EITHER side, of course.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

Criticism is totally necessary. If a new edition of something you like goes on a direction you don't like, is logic to complain about it.

On general I'm liking 2Ed, but there are things I dislike, and others I have to made a decision still. But I can get why people can come and say "I don't like this change" when something they liked changed. Is NOT a totally unrelated thing to the one they liked, is on theory an evolution and improvement. And while I agree than on general there IS an improvement, I can easily see the reason to complain about some magic changes.

I find harder to understand the people that seems to believe that only positive feedback can be said. Some people have been quite rude to others that just said their opinion on quite polite manners. I even dare to say that developers appreciate to hear different opinions more than an echo chambers of praises.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm liking many things on the game. There are others that I don't like, but I can live with them (like the art of the Bestiary). But there is one thing that I MUST houserule from minute one.

That one thing is Goblins getting bonus to CHARISMA.
(the new art for kobolds is a close second one. I profoundly dislike it)

I'm not a big fan of goblins as core ancestry, there are many others I would have liked more, but the goblin as core is one of those "I can live with that" things. But bonus to Charisma is a resounding NO to me. The question then is...what other attribute to give to them? I find the more thematic to be Constitution, but that would break the rule of 1 mental bonus + 1 physical bonus. The other option could be Intelligence, as I can see the goblins being quite smart on their peculiar way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kineticist, Witch, Oracle and Inquisitor


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I too feel a bit worried that class feats try to do too much, and the lack of weapon choices on many classes is something I don't like. I'm really a "swordsman" if I'm exactly as good with longswords as I am with axes (just an example).
On the other side, I remember some theme on the Playtest when someone expressed similar worries with Class feats being a bottleneck, and some designers agreed saying they where looking for ways to improve that. Sadly, my pathetic search-fu has been unable to find that discussion. We know what has changed for the final version?


On my opinion, Bards are perfect as Occult casters...on the mechanical side, the kind of spells that they get are just appropriate. But on the setting side, I just don't think the change is really thematic.

As an example, I'm working on a setting for PF2 where the separation of the 4 types of magic is important. On that setting, Arcane resembles greatly a science; analyze the reality, mathematical as vital to understand and use the magic...while Occult is the magic you get from "things" out there. And Bards are really not appropriate on Occult like that thematically, even if is just the correct kind of spells they use.

Tangential: My group use Golarion, sometimes. 80% of the times we use homebrew settings, so I REALLY hope that the Golarion lore is not invasive enough to be a problem. I would much prefer a neutral Core books, but that ship has sailed.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Depending on what you call a "hero god"; I'd say Sarenrae should be right at home for a CG warrior-hero.

And PossibleCabbage's example is straight from Gorum's anathema - "preventing a fight through negotiation". If two people are mad at each other and there is the possibility they may fight, doing anything but encouraging them to fight is against Gorum's code.

I guess by hero God I literally mean like Kord from the DnD 3.0 core rulebook. CG good of strength and war. That type of deity has always been the most popular type of god for my players and for me personally, it just seems to fit the adventuring lifestyle very well. My homebrewed version of that god is named... Bardarok and is also associated with the more good leaning orc tribes in the world so I guess it's just a strong personal preference. Sarenrae is a fine god (and I also have basically a Sarenrae proxy in my homebrew pantheon), and the drunk guy is interesting but neither really fill that niche that I think Gorum would be better suited for. That said I guess if I run a Golarion game I'll just house-rule it and stick with the PF1 lore where CG clerics would be allowed.

I think you would like Milani. Is a shame she is not on the core 20.

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Milani


I'm very surprised to see that many people do not appreciate the idea of a PF2 Inquisitor. For me, is one of the most interesting classes on PF1, and honestly, just made it a subclass for cleric seems a huge loss.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Matthew Downie example is totally right, and certainly a serious problem for PF1. Saving throws is another glaring case.
But there should be some happy medium between a difference bonus on dice at level 20 of about 35, making the dice totally unnecessary and preparing adventures a nightmare, and the current situation on PF2Playtest of 5-6 points of difference outside corner cases, making the perceived competence of the character near disappear.
On my humble opinion, Paizo is right see that kind of situations on PF1 as a problem, but they have totally overcompensate, so the Playtest have the opposite problem.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

That's true. But there is a great difference between "assure succes on a 2 versus same level", and "the best you can arrive is to succes on a 9 versus same level, and that with total optimization".
A character with proper optimization on their specialty should have succes on a 6 or around that number. If the difference between total optimization and zero optimization is succes on a 10 versus succes on a 13, the game begins to resamble doing coinflip on all rolls.


That covers Mystical Warriors that also are Martial Artist. But not all Mystical Warriors are Martial Artist.


If the core of the monk is "Martial Artist", what class is the "Mystical Warrior" then? I don't think it will be Paladin, it has to many restrictions, and seems a role too important to not be on Core. I can only think on Bard or Sorcerer. But Bard can be too much generalist to that. Sorcerer is a possibility now that there is not BAB, but is a deep change to the class.

1 to 50 of 486 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>