Search Posts
Smart/Knowledgeable =! Skillful Wizards are smart, but they are dedicating their initial smarts to learning magic and writing their Arcane Thesis.
Since Razmir and Tar-Baphon are both "pet characters" for Jason Bulmahn, I doubt that their lives or presence in the setting will be threatened in any meaningful way.
Is it just me or does being "cloistered" not really lend itself to a life as an adventurer? Wizards do fine.
I'm not a big fan of Golarion having elves as a race in declineThis isn't actually a thing. Elvendom is thriving in Garund and under the seas. The group in decline are the hyper-Aryans who abandoned the world for their own gated-community refuge, and good riddance to them. I feel that Pathfinder 2 missed the memo, since the entry for elves say, "Elven culture is deep, rich, and on the decline." Even if they are back and rebuilding, the flavor texts says that they have already peaked and on the decline. Telling me about elves elsewhere that aren't doesn't really work for me when the flavor text for all elves without reference to Kyonin say that elves are on the decline.
I am definitely keen on using PF2 for Eberron. I recently began running a 5e solo campaign set in the Nentir Vale for a complete TTRPG novice. As a general practice exercises for PF2 character creation, I have been converting some of the NPCs that are part of the player's squad. Most conversions are fairly easy; however, a few character options lack direct correspondences. I did convert the Half-Elf Celestial Warlock to a Half-Elf Angelic Sorcerer. I made an incomplete Dragonborn Champion (paladin) using Kobold Press's Dragonkin for PF1 as a guide. I have not converted the Tiefling Wizard yet. I am excited about the APG next year, because I already know that some possibilities, such as tieflings or aasimar of other ancestries or even half-orc dwarves would potentially fit more to what I would possibly want for a few of the NPC character concepts. And one character who is now a Rogue would arguably fit either the Swashbuckler or Investigator better. And that aforementioned Angelic Sorcerer would likewise potentially make for an appropriate Oracle.
Inquisitor would, IMO, make for a good cleric doctrine.
Because Erik Mona has made statements about bringing the Kineticist back because of how much he likes Occult Adventures. Inquisitor: I like the idea of making the Inquisitor a cleric doctrine. That would also open up more paths to the cleric than the binary cloistered priest or war priest choice. Magus: Sure, you can MC Fighter/Wizard or Wizard/Fighter, but it will take a bit before you can actually get your concept to function properly. Not only that, but a Magus will likely have trained to coordinate efficiently their spells and strikes in conjunction with the new action economy. I am also hoping that we will get new classes and not just re-hashes of PF1 classes. With the expansion of Runes and Runic magic, perhaps Paizo could try their hand at a rune-caster/priest/thane.
Switzerland.
Hmmm...if you are going for more of a Spanish flair in the culture but also a bit of Robin Hood, then why not provide a Varisian folk hero "the Fox" who exists as a legendary Zorro figure for the people?
I highly doubt we'll see Paizo break their "Core Only" rule for iconics, so I'd put my money on the replacment iconic being a Goblin What I'm hearing is that kobolds should be core.
What would you say if I told you that we've already illustrated the new iconic and you've all seen them? And no, we're not updating an existing NPC to iconic status.It'd probably be Freiya if I have to guess, but then I'm not happy since design wise I love her, but then I love all of them.They specifically said Feiya was safe, so that leave Quinn, Lirianne, and Alahazra and her huge hat. So which kobold have we seen before will become the new iconic?
It's time for a KOBOLD ICONIC!!!
I am not going to speak for John, but my continued issue with this model of fail forward is the assumption that the initial challenge was only interesting to the story if it was accomplished successfully. IMHO, that's not an accurate way of framing it. As others have mentioned, a lot of fail forward approaches usually only recommend calling for a roll if there are interesting possible consequences for success AND failure. So it is quite the opposite assumption than "the initial challenge was only interesting to the story if it was accomplished successfully." It may even be more interesting if failure occurs. Either way, it will push the fiction forward.
A minor quibble: I have said nothing about a party, as I spoke only of a singular thief. A lot of advice around "fail forward" typically embraces the idea of following the fiction. Were the guards always there? I would say that they were a potential possibility that existed in the fiction so it is not necessarily that the GM is arbitrarily willing them into existence. We could even imagine that the thief succeeds and then the GM narrates that the thief sees guard patrols below who don't manage to see him. The GM may have felt that it would heighten the sense of success for the thief: they successfully dodged a bullet. Has the GM arbitrarily willed them existence? Possibly, but the GM has always had tremendous latitude when it comes to these things (e.g., wandering monster table rolls anyone?). Then why didn't the thief stealth? I don't think that that following the rabbit hole of how the fiction reached this point is pertinent. As to whether or not an additional stealth check was needed once the guards appear, then I would say that largely depends on the fiction and what the GM regards as the best call. But then calling for an additional skill checks because the guards entering the fiction is a narrative complication triggered by the initial climbing failure. Use your best judgment call. That said, I know a number of old school GMs who prefer "atomic rolls," where every action requires an associated roll. There are a number of games and GMs that prefer tying in a series of ideas and stakes into a singular skill roll. So for example in Blades in the Dark you are likely rolling for more than a binary climbing check (prowl?), but for whether or not you can ascend the wall with your loot. This ties stakes and intent into the roll, and a number of narrative complications can arise from this. Fail forward a general GMing principle and not a hard-fast causal code of "if X happens, do Y." Over and over again it seems like “fail forward” is being described as the GM deciding what needs to happen next on a failed check, rather than asking the players what they want to do now that the first check failed. It's not so much "the GM deciding what needs to happen next on a failed check" and more about how failure pushes the fiction forward in new ways.
Fail forward removes all player agency. It says “no matter how much you mess up we WILL reach that predetermined outcome because nothing you do matters.” I have yet to see an example of failing forward with skill checks actually being good. If anyone thinks they have one I’d be willing to discuss it. If you enjoy games where the players will successfully reach the final battle no matter what, then that's great. IMHO, fail forward is about trying preserving play momentum/pacing rather than directing play direction/outcome/trajectory. It's the idea that even failure will produce interesting, dynamic outcomes for the players that keep the game flowing. Let's take climbing a wall. The player is attempting to climb a castle wall. Escaping? Infiltrating? Either way. They fail the check. Instead of simplying saying, "You don't make it up the wall" or "You fall," the GM may instead say, "Your struggles climbing the wall is causing a scene, and you draw the attention of the guards below who are now drawing their bows at you." The player has still not succeeded at climbing the wall. They may be half-way up and struggling to get higher. But their failure introduces a new complication to the narrative that has to be resolved: hostile guards below. The GM complication does not give the player a successful outcome nor does it railroad them towards a set outcome (i.e., you climbed the wall!), but it does keep the story moving. Agency is still in the player's hands. If the player's goal lies on the other side of the wall, then it is up to them to find an alternative path, but their failure climbing it has complicated things for them.
....Bring back ‘Leadership’. Ok, no need to get the bouncer, I’ll leave now. :p I believe that Matt Colville uses something similar in his 5e book Strongholds & Followers where the number of personal retainers a player has is equal to their Charisma bonus.
My post was less about having things spoiled but the nature of those spoilers. I don't mind spoilers. But not minding spoilers is not the same as liking the narrative revealed in those spoilers.
Sure, but this also sounds like this horror desperation theme is frontloaded more towards the beginning. Tragic disasters and such will occur later, but heroism is still a prevalent aspect. I don't necessarily think that an AP ending with confronting on a lich attacking Rome-Jerusalem to ascend to godhood would fall within the expectations of horror survival. That IMHO leans more heavily into Paizo's superheroic sort of feel.
I wish that you would have helped but feeling that since I am a person who is otherwise thrilled about many things that are PF2 related. But I suppose it's easier for you to badmouth others than attempt a modicum of understanding.
It's not the spoilers that I mind, but having Tar Baphon essentially free on the Isle of Dread after the AP does not seem like a psychologically rewarding payoff. You "defeat him" much in the same manner of a Saturday morning cartoon where the villain gets away after you thwart their plans and plots their revenge for later. At the very least, I hope there will be an AP for PF2 that involves hunting down his phylacteries and ending him for good. Liches can be fun, but they can also overstay their welcome.
It's not just a bit spoilery, it's also something of a buzzkill.
I'm not a big fan of Golarion having elves as a race in decline, giant swaths of mustache-twirling diabolic kingdoms, or how non-humans play second fiddle to humans.
Releasing a bestiary for 5e seems like it is sending mixed messages about the future of PF2 even before it has been released.Actually, this seems more like an instrument to get D&D 5E players interested in Pathfinder and maybe get them to convert. Maybe but this speculative intent does not appear to be the primary way that this announcement is being read by 5e fans elsewhere. Many are hailing this as further evidence that 5E is the way forward for the FRPG tabletop genre.
Releasing a bestiary for 5e seems like it is sending mixed messages about the future of PF2 even before it has been released.
Versatile? Yes. Powerful, no, not even a little bit.Some first-level class feats are amazing. Getting an extra one is SUPER powerful. Especially since that grows in versatility with new content added for classes. It's a feat that essentially creeps in power alongside the game's power creep.
+1 for goblins not being a core race And that is a separate argument entirely.
Anyone proposing anything other than a +2 X, +2 Y, -2 Z spread or +2 X and +2 Y spread for a core PHB race are being delusional. The only sensible options for playable options appear to be Set 1 (+2 Dex, +2 Cha, -2 Wis) or Set 2 (+2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Wis), or variations of the prior two that provide a -2 Str isntead.
Kobold
I vote for paladins of any alignment, and I indicated as much on my survey. I would be okay with any good, but LG only is a no-go for my group.
I have submitted my survey indicating that my group and I would prefer if half-elf and half-orc had their own separate ancestries and ancestry listings.
I will throw my voice of support behind the OP's suggestion.
Because the entry is in the human section they can't walk between worlds? So if they got their own entry **but would work mechanically exactly the same** that would be somehow different? That makes no sense whatsoever. Erroneous assumption detected. The pathfinder setting is not that of Eberron or D&D, although you can certainly use these settings for your homebrew pathfinder campaign. I recognize that, but people have been using Pathfinder 1 to continue their D&D 3.X and Eberron campaigns. They have been using it as a D&D 3.X game for their own homebrew settings. I know that PF2 wants to stick more closely to its Golarion setting, but it risks alienating others that want a more setting neutral approach. And I can tell you now that this current approach risks alienating many in my own group.
Cool. And how are goblins depicted? This might not fit your personal preferences but you can always do your homebrew campaign and change aspects of the game. Just don't expect that your personal view needs to be canon and be reflected in the rules. Need? No. Want? Of course. But I will continue to reflect that my play group collectively dislikes this change to the half-races and that this will undoubtedly affect their decision about whether to pick Pathfinder 2 up or not. Though I imagine that makes no sense whatsoever for you.
And D&D 5e has no subrace options for half-elves in their core rulebook either. That has been added in the Sword Coast Adventurer guide. Of coruse, but do you realize that is also a ruleset that actually bothered to make the half-elves distinct from both humans and elves and not just a subset entry of humans?
That makes no sense. It makes no sense for you maybe but it certainly made sense enough to Wizards of the Coast to include elf subrace options for half-elves in D&D 5e.
That's certainly depending on personal taste. I like that half-X don't have their own seperate ancestry because it reflects that they are walking between worlds. Finding their own identity is a big part of playing any half-X in my opinion. This system allows the players to give the character depth. Is the half-elf following his human roots and take human feats or does he explore his elven roots? This allows so much depth and characterdevelopment. Especially with the option to get more ancestry feats during the course of the career. Except they are not "walking between worlds," as they are crammed into the human entry, which communicates walking human. My own preference is something akin to Eberron's half-elves where they are not "walking human" or "walking between worlds," but are instead walking their own paths. They are something distinct. This is also a direction that 4e-5e D&D has taken with half-orcs and half-elves.
Only humans get access to half races because further down the road the other races will get feats for their subraces. Elves will get feats for aquatic elves, drow, etc. Your proposal is just another thread to plead for more feats to spend at first level. No thanks. Which eliminates the possibility that half-races can be half of a given ancestry subrace, which seems silly: "Oh, now I'm learning how to be a half-drow..."
I can agree with you. It takes up to 17th level to gain all the Dwarven Ancetry abilities you start out with at 1sy level of PF 1... and I’d be okay with that if the base Ancestry compared equally across the board. Deadmanwalking has an excellent comparison of all the listed Ancestry options for PF 2 HERE for those interested. Looking at that, the proposed change to add an extra Ancestry feat at 1st level STILL doesn’t balance the playing field. The dwarf base package in PF1 was STACKED! and it's not something that I would like to see replicated in PF2.
After discussing the Pathfinder playtest half-races with my group, almost all it seems would prefer if the half-orc and half-elf had their own separate ancestry entries rather than being swept under the rug as "human." It's not just a mechanics issue but also about the messages that it sends regarding the place of half-elves and half-orcs as ancestries. It made my players who liked playing these half-ancestries feel like their preferred choices were being half-arsed, no pun intended there. If the standard two half-ancestries were given their own ancestry entries and not just part of the human one, then there could be alternative ways to build them. Maybe the half-ancestries are blocked from the level-one only human and elven heritage feats but have their own. I don't know. I do not that my group is not happy with the half-elf and half-orc as they are in the PF2 Playtest.
I would have given them a healing spell instead since that's one of the glaring absences of the bard's occult spell list.
Neat idea. I would worry that it steps on the Sorcerer's toes flavorwise, but neat.
In therms of GNS Theory, Simulationism =! Realism. Simulationism is about simulating a genre or source material rather than any notions of "simulating realism." This is what makes a wildly different game system such as Fate also "simulationist" in how it often seeks to approach a variety of genres.
I will stick around to offer my playtest feedback, but based upon this initial draft, I am inclined to agree with you. However, I am not dealing with children but with adults who love roleplaying but hate wading through . They don't care for game philosophy or 90 percent of the internet debates I read about here on tabletop game theory or design theory. They just want to play. They (mostly) enjoyed the Cypher System, Fate, D&D 5e, 7th Sea (1e), Index Card RPG, and Fantasy Age's Titansgrave. Several are playing Warhammer RPG. We have Blades in the Dark on our to-play docket. I shudder thinking about their reactions if I ever handed them this playtest pdf as a hardcopy book. Yet, I would feel confident with handing them a copy of D&D 3e, Pathfinder 1, or D&D 4e. This games does not explain itself well. It's a problem of layout. It's a problem of jargon. It's a problem of the writing style. I hope that Paizo considers adopting clearer language and making another pass at the layout.
I would be okay if Goblins received a +2 bonus to Intelligence instead of Charisma, but I will not be upset if it is Charisma.
I hadn't heard any of that. The canon as far as I knew was that halfbreed + human = human and halfbreed + elf/orc = elf/orc. If it's otherwise, then Pathfinder is taking a page from 4e D&D and I'd expect to see more halfbreed communities in Golarion than there seem to be. It seems like overall it's a world of humans with a few pockets of other stuff. That would not so much be taking a page from 4e D&D, but, rather, from 3.5e D&D courtesy of Eberron. In Eberron, half-elves were originally born from the union of Aereni elves and Sarolonian humans on the continent of Khorvaire thousands of years ago, but nowadays most half-elves have half-elf parentage and live in half-elf communities. Many even insist on being called 'Khoravar' rather than half-elves, as they see themselves as the true "children of Khorvaire." Half-elves are fairly populous on the continent of Khorvaire with communities all across the Five Nations. They are common in Breland, Aundair, Thrane, and Valenar. They even have two of the twelve Dragonmarked Houses: House Lyrander and House Medani. Eberron also made half-orcs relatively common, though less so, due to the intermingled populations of peaceful druidic orcs and outlander humans of the western Shadow Marches. I would say that 4E likely took a page from Eberron by turning them into a true-breeding "race" rather than simply the offspring of a tragic interracial love story.
On this topic, I find it incredibly frustrating that Sneak Attacks are relegated to specific weapon types a la 4e. It eliminates a lot of interesting and fun rogue builds, most notably archers and sword-wielding rogues. And also in the wildly popular 5e. So it is not just a 4e thing. A rogue can, however, sneak attack with ranged weapons in 5e.
Pretty much. Most Austrian gamers I know will usually pick up the English versions of titles. One of the local game stores even stocks both, and there is more game variety in the English-language books. My first gaming group here in Austria were entirely Austrians (plus little ole American me), and they told me that they played Pathfinder using English.
I so wish the Arcana Evolved (Monte Cook) spell system were still being used in a supported FRPG. That was a fun magic system. I would not be surprised if it didn't have some measure of influence on 5e via Mike Mearls, who did freelance work with Malhavoc Press.
Some "1st Edition BASE RACE FEATURES" were incredibly overboard when it comes to how many goodies they gave out for free - dwarves come immediately to mind - while many also were not thrilled with the in-baked cultural aspects of the races. So a healthy balance between what they have in PF1 and PF2 should do the trick. That and actually restoring Half-Elves and Half-Orcs to proper ancestries.
I think that these could stand to be replaced by some other flavorful minor benefit appropriate to half-elves and half-orcs, though I could not suggest anything myself.Maaaaaaaaybe actual fully detailed Ancestries instead of Feat Taxes :3 Agreed. I am already poised to drop my group's feedback on this.
I'm sorry, but this seems like it does a massive disservice to the legacy and identity of half-elves and half-orcs alike. I don't play a half-elf or a half-orc to be a "slightly better human"; I play them to be half-elves and half-orcs. It turns standard racial/ancestry options into feat taxes. Not cool. This kinda ruins how I tend to run half-elves and half-orcs in my campaigns.
Same. This is what I like about half-elves in Eberron. They were turned into their own pure-breeding ancestry and given their own cultural identity.
At first glance, it seems weird that both Ki and Monk weapons are gated behind feats. I know that feats will be given out like candy, but it still seems like there might be a bit too much rev-up time in purchasing feats.
Tiefling and Aasimar are fairly esoteric as terms outside of D&D/PF, but I would suggest that the concept of "Planetouched" are not. For example, you could say that "Dragonborn" are alien outside of D&D/PF, but the moment that you call them something akin to "Dragonmen," it doesn't take a college degree to get the gist of the concept. A lot is wrapped up in a name. What is a Tabaxi? But the moment you say "Catfolk," then people will get it (and then roll their eyes and groan).
Torag's the god for you if you want your Paladin to be really racist. He doesn't even accept surrender from the enemies of dwarfkind! All I have gotten out of your contributions to this thread is that you have a major beef with Torag.
|
