Paper Golem

AnimatedPaper's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 1,078 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,078 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If it was a full class, it would also immediately become an archetype through the magic of multiclassing, so why not both?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
4. NPC classes. Don't give me that look. I want to play a commoner from level 1 to 20 even if it doesn't make sense.

...this actually gave me an idea. What if, instead of class feats, Commoners got bonus ancestry feats and an extra heritage or two?

Actually let me think out loud. Adept, Warrior, and Expert can be three subclasses. Adepts of course get spellcasting, Warriors weapon and armor training, Experts get skill training. Perhaps they only ever get up to trained in saves, but have a focus power they can spend as a reaction to temporarily get higher levels for one roll.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, for a change of topics, I note the “Magic Warrior” archetype. Do we think this will replace Magus class, or at least push back the need for one for several books?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have a small list.
Medium, Oracle, and Magus I have the clearest ideas of where I’d want to land on all of those (largely absorbing the Inquisitor and Hunter classes as I go). I have thoughts on others, but those are the ones I have strong concepts on what I want to see.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I still would have liked about 12-15 general (and underpowered) ancestral feats that could be selected by multiple ancestries. Combine base stats of an ancestry, a single heritage for each, and a list of 8 or so of the general ancestry feats that the ancestry had access to and you could make a lot of placeholder ancestries fairly efficiently until you got around to making the complete versions.

Something like "Touch of the First World: Choose a single cantrip on the primal list. You may spend a point from your focus pool to cast it, with a caster level equal to half your character level."


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Hmm, I thought it was said that you had to pay for 1st level archetypes by paying at lv2, I didnt see how that would had applied to dedication archetypes given how those cost feats to use.

Hmm, now that you mention it, I do recall seeing that, but I can't remember exactly what that was referring to. I'll have to search the forum.

Edit: Yep, you're right. That's...silly. I'm going to go with silly. And limiting on how far they can stretch classes before having to write a whole new class.

PF2 Core Rulebook, p. 219 wrote:

CLASS ARCHETYPES

Archetypes with the class trait represent a fundamental divergence from your class's specialties, but one that exists within the context of your class. You can select a class archetype only if you are a member of the class of the same name. Class archetypes always alter or replace some of a class's static class features, in addition to any new feats they offer. It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class's initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
It also doesn't make much sense at least to me to change a Class feat for an PF1e archetype by default. I can see a Class feat charge to get get Class feat access to said archetype, but not for the archetype itself.

Somehting that got missed in the shuffle, but PF1 style archetypes, that is, an archetype that replaces your base class features rather than the opt-in parts, won't require your class feats to work. In PF2, those will be called "Class archetypes" and will function the same way they did in PF1. (edit: I was wrong) We aren't going to actually have any at first, but the rules for them are being incorporated into the base game.

As an aside, I dearly wish they hadn't decided to use the same word for both. My refusal to accept that they did (these are smart people WHY DID THEY DO THAT) is why I keep calling the class feat archetypes "dedications" rather than "archetypes."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

1. If casters shouldn't natively get any weapon-centric stuff, why do things like Savage Slice exist?

1.a. If Savage Slice exists, why can't similar options exist for any fighting style?

1.b. If Savage Slice is just druidy flavor, why was it arbitrarily decided that druids like slicing?

I agree with you here. That feat sticks out like a sore thumb. Even if Savage slice was meant to work with wild shape, there's no reason not to include piercing and bludgeoning as well. Pest form specifically says piercing, in fact (it also says you can change it as a DM call, but still).

I don't actually have an opinion on which way they should have landed with this, but I do wish they'd been consistent with their decision. If you give a spellcaster martial feats, I prefer ones like "Bespell Weapon" or "Channel Smite." Even Magical Striker. For druids specifically, I would think something that keyed off natural weapons would be a lot more Druidic.

WatersLethe wrote:
2. Is a martial classed character spending skill points to be able to perform rituals stepping on caster class toes?

I don't think so. If they could spend skill points or general feats and gain the benefits of MC basic spell casting, then that would be more troublesome.

WatersLethe wrote:

3. Is the Fighter's baseline kit comparable to other class's (e.g. spells, barbarian rage) or is their class niche disproportionately dependent on their feats?

3.a. If Fighters are all about their feats, does that make them inherently step-on-able because this is a system about customization with feats?

Yes and no. They do have a baseline kit that is mostly comparable with other classes, but one aspect of that baseline kit is their facility with feats. The reason fighters don't have subclasses is that you are intended to create one by selecting appealing feats. The same is true of Monks though, and we don't see nearly as much angst around them. Is it because their niche is still more or less what it was before, while fighters have built their niche around what used to be available to everyone: weapons mastery?

As to how step-on-able, that's kind of a judgment call. I don't foresee any fighters feeling threatened by someone MC-ing into their class, because fighters can still do their class thing better. If all the fighter weapon feats became general feats for everyone, then yeah I can see them feeling redundant. But the same would be true of most classes, I think. If all druid feats became general feats, would primal spellcasting be enough for druids to not feel unique within their playstyle?

Edit: Upon reflection, I decided I was wrong there. Most classes woulnd't lose their identity if only their feats were parcelled out. Fighters and Druids were both designed so that their class feats don't interact as much with their base kit. Compare that to a cleric, which could easily lose all their feats to general and still be fine, since all of their feats interact with their two major base features: channeling and their deity.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Edge93 wrote:
I've tried for a while now consolidating feat chains into single feats and pairing some other feats together also. It's worked better, doesn't feel like so much in the same way, but it has another problem. For people not multiclassing, you often end up with all the feats for your chosen style, path, etc., sometimes with more room left. This sounds nice but honestly, eh...

I did wonder if that's how it would turn out. I guessed that consolidating feats in that manner would lead to feeling forced to branch out of your chosen style, or out of your class entirely, because there's nothing left in your own class to look forward to picking up.

I also wondered what the functional difference between rewriting feats so that the 1 feat gave the benefits of 3 in the CRB, versus simply giving players 2 extra feats. The latter seems like it would be less work on the DM's end, even if it is more for the players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:

I mean I'm down with infusions being class features, but it would be hard to do right in my mind. There was multiple infusions to choose from each odd level to customize your playstyle. If everyone got a set one every odd level (and a separate track for each element) it would be a little disappointing but they probably have to cut corners somewhere I guess.

I know it'll probably be a good while before we get more classes and kineticist will be more work than most to get right. But it's my favorite class and I won't be able to fully make the jump until it's in! Still going to dabble in 2e though.

I didn’t mean you’d get a set infusion progression. I meant you’d get a choice between several every time you get a new one, much like sorcerers pick new spells.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Most characters get class features at odd levels and class feats at even levels (plus level 1). There’s some variation there, but that’s the general layout. So for the kineticist, I’m guessing your wild talents would be your class feats, and your infusions would be part of your class features. You could easily get those on top of other features like Elemental Overflow and Gather power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
As to WatersLethe's quote, I can agree with her. It wouldn't be bad to have some non-class feats that deal with weapons. Something like Prehensile Whip "if it were a rope with a grappling hook at the end" or Scoot Unattended Object's move a 'Tiny or smaller unattended object within the first range increment": things that aren't combat upgrades per se but "show that they *are* focused on something".

Something on that power level, or whatever power level skill feats wind up on, would be cool. It would be especially cool if having certain weapon, spellcasting, or armor proficiency gave you bonus options during exploration mode. Like letting you roll a staff or polearm attack roll instead of perception to Seek for traps.

*imagines a Halfling rogue poking away at dungeon walls with her staff sling.*


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
So getting basic proficiency in a style DOES NOT require a class feat. Expanding beyond that does.
Are we sure of this? I don't recall a info on a general feat or something similar for this. It'll be great if we are.

That's how it worked in the playtest at least. Proficiency was either an ancestry feat (like the elven bow stuff) or a general feat that let you be trained in increasing levels of armor (light/medium/then heavy), increasing levels of weapons (all simple, all martial, then 1 exotic each time you got the feat), or shields.

They could have changed that since, but I hope not. That really would be locking you into whatever your class gave you, and that's too far. NOw that I've thought about it a little, I really do hope they went the other way, and let the proficiency feat also let your proficiency scale with your class's proficiency (or at least put in another couple feats that let you bump it to expert/master when your class gets those options).

graystone wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I think the hang up here is that all the Fighter stuff in PF1 was "you have extra feats so we can gate combat styles away from other classes while letting you use them." and PF2 is "you have distinct combat styles and other classes have to pay extra to get them, the same as every thing else."
Hmmm... I'm not sure, maybe? It really depends on what WatersLethe meant by weapon style.

Here's where they go into it the most:

WatersLethe wrote:
And for those mentioning it: Getting rid of feat taxes for bare minimum competency is great! I still need my characters to have some firm investment to show that they *are* focused on something. If it ends up just being a feat that lets them do trick shots with a bow, or a feat that gives them more options with a sword, then those represent investment. As it was in the playtest, though, getting those also meant pushing out serious, important class features that wouldn't have had to have been pushed out in PF1.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Since you're seemingly posting against WatersLethe's, I'll say I agree with her: I don't see why basic proficiency in a style would need class feat. Now past the basics, if it replicates or equates to a class feat it should cost one.

That's how it works currently though, and they are not satisfied with that. Nor should they be if they want something more out of the game (having fun is the point, and being frustrated isn't fun).


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Some characters just aren't meant to be tied to a fighting style that involves weapons, and have little to no in-class support for those options. At least not yet; I'm sure the Lost Omens Ultimate Combat (or whatever they decide to call it) will have class archetypes and dedication archetypes meant to allow those kinds of characters.
I mean, I know where you're coming from and it's not your fault, but I categorically reject the notion that some classes are inherently not meant to be built a certain way. I would sooner burn down the whole game than tell a player they can't seek to gain capabilities in whatever weapon style they want. The general feat is a good way to get proficiency and goes a long way towards avoiding the "your class can't" problem. The ability to pick up one or two more weapon style feats of absolutely any kind without multiclassing is extremely important, and would be just about the only thing that would get me to abandon my extra feats house rule.

And that's fine, but it's not currently supported by the base game. I'm sure it will be, as I said, but it isn't right now beyond multiclassing, or tweaking the number of feats you get as you said.

It seems to be part of the intent behind putting combat feats into your class feat pool; those feats are meant to represent your class's powers, including the powers that class brings into combat. In fact, even if you double the class feats your character picks up, you're still looking at going outside your class's training to pick up the fighting style you want from another class. Those extra feats you'll use to enable the character you're looking to build, have you considered what that same character would look like if you got the same number of extra feats and sank them all into druid feats instead of using some of them for a fighter dedication?

Again, I'm not trying to tell you you're playing wrong. Those extra feats sound like a good way to make you more comfortable with the game. But if you're making modifications, maybe there's other modifications that would suit you better? Like say, instead of extra feats to spend on whatever, your game treats the fighting style fighter, rogue, or ranger feats as if they were general feats?

Also I assume you can still get trained proficiency with general feats, but probably not past that without being a member of the right class. Although they could always do what Starfinder does, and let the feat that gives you training also give you the later ranks as if they were class weapons.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Also do Druids get bow proficiency at base? If not then I'd argue that grabbing that proficiency constitutes an investment making you different from a base druid. And I feel like most (if not all) classes that DO get bow proficiency have feats within their own class to expand.
They do not, and I glossed over it for a couple reasons. 1. I was conceptually using elf weapon familiarity for all these characters because that's just the race I happened to pick while making these characters. 2. Weapon Familiarity gives you longswords and rapiers so it's hard to think of it as specifically a bow investment. 3. The premise of the discussion doesn't matter what weapon we're talking about, if I wanted to make a crossbow focused druid it's the same sort of thing.

Something has bugged me about this hypothetical since yesterday, and I finally put my finger on what it was. Specifically: it kind of goes against the class flavor if you're a druid that focuses on weapons at all. The PF2 version of the class is about being one with your primal self, and who cares what weapon you use on the way, be it bow, knife, scimitar, spear, whatever.

You can do it, of course, but it should (and does) take a signifigant investment out of your druidness to pick those options up, because your basic druid learning does not involve weapons training beyond the basics.

I'm not saying you're playing wrong, and it doesn't take away from the larger points of class feats and what they are meant to do now, but maybe you need to take that change on board when you're coming up with your character concepts. Some characters just aren't meant to be tied to a fighting style that involves weapons, and have little to no in-class support for those options. At least not yet; I'm sure the Lost Omens Ultimate Combat (or whatever they decide to call it) will have class archetypes and dedication archetypes meant to allow those kinds of characters.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

True, but that also describes, what, 4, maybe 5 different base classes in core alone?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So...I just got my shipping notices about 20 minutes ago.

*personal hype INTENSIFIES*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Somewhat random, but I have 2 copper pieces on the “Order of Cockatrice” being reimagined as a Champion Cause. That’s the natural class to absorb the good cavalier bits.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm planning on redoing my 5 playtest characters from level 1:

Memorio -Human Lore Bard. She was a Pathfinder hopeful, so I'll need to pick a different background for her. Her hobby is writing novels about the glories of old Galt.

Krista - Halfling Leaf Druid merchant. She's angry 65% of her existence. The rest of the time she's asleep. But buy something and she'll pretend to like you.

Dorothy - Dwarf basketweaving Cleric of Torag. This character spawned from a discussion on this forum. She divorced the village blacksmith, who will die mad that she can make better swords than he can, even if she's primarily a weaver.

Hnikarr- Elf Liberator, entertainer. He was a paladin in the playtest, but I'll bump him over to his proper alignment. My image of him is stronger in his 5E incarnation, so I don't much know how he fits into the Lost Omens setting.

Madeline Glacé- Human rogue. Naval officer and minor noble of Galt (who doesn't live there anymore since she likes having a head). Happens to also be Memorio's mother. She was a fighter in her original incarnation, but made her a brute rogue in the playtest so she could take the pirate archetype easier (also because the playtest said to make a skillheavy character). I'll see if she works better as a rogue or fighher in PF2.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

What has happened with NPC classes, Commoner, Expert etc.? Are they gone? I can imagine they might be for simplicity and as things in the new bestiary are simplified it's esy to make a low-level Human 'monster' without many features.

When we get the monster creation rules, which should resemble Starfinder and Pathfinder Unchained's version of those, it would be nice if instead of "Combatant, Expert, Spellcaster" they call the initial arrays "Warrior, Expert, Adept". Bring the old NPC classes along to the new NPC class rules, at least in part.

Assuming the rules have arrays, of course.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

Is this due to new vulnerability rules where despite the liquid ice having limited base damage it adds 5 or 10 depending on the creature

Yes, that is the thing with weaknesses. And while bomb damage scales decently, especially as alchemists don't have lower level slots,the splash damage really shines on weaknesses since it happens on a miss. It also makes bombs amazing against swarms or troops.

I had a giddy moment last year when we were getting the preview blogs, and hypothesized "Alchemical Marbles", items that did only splash damage, but that you could potentially throw several at once, each triggering that splash damage separately.

I can't wait to see the final rules to see if such an item would fit in there. Or at least how close I can get it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, yeah. My earlier characterization was correct.

In the playtest, which was what my comment was about, wizard specialization didn't add spells. The arcane list was bloated specifically so that specialists could experience a full list despite specializations in the playtest not adding those spells for them (at least in part, I'll concede misremembered it being the only reason).

Quote:
there are eight schools of magic and the wizard specialist in a given school demands a place at the table, even for schools that mostly match an essence that isn't part of arcane.

Yes, they could change that. I would prefer that they had done so. But, as I said, them not doing so for the playtest, choosing a different method to solve the same problem, doesn't give me hope they ultimately changed it for the final product. In fact, given that there's apparently an additional pressure to allow the arcane list to cast a wide net even beyond just letting specialists have their toys, as Mark discusses in that post, now makes me feel it's even less likely.

Quote:
The idea that arcane is a big tent that covers most spells is real; pretty much all of occult's occult-only spells were created after a push to give occult some unique spells, and yet alpha playtesters still asked me why they weren't on the arcane list

I don't particularly like playing wizards, so the need to let wizard players feel like they can have the majority of all spells genuinely hadn't occurred to me as a concern. That's probably why I hadn't remembered it, and only focused on the bits about specialists.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
That one of the stated reasons that the arcane list is so bloated was so they specifically didn't have to allow specializations to add spells to the arcane list like bloodlines do (for the playtest at least) doesn't give me hope though.

This isn't quite how this was phrased (it was always phrased as specialists needing spells, not them being unwilling to do the Bloodline thing), and was always presented as a problem they were looking for solutions to.

Doesn't mean they'll have done it, but I think the likelihood is higher than you're implying.

If I'm wrong, if that wasn't exactly how it was phrased, then by all means give the exact phrasing. Because what I recall was them saying they wanted to make sure the arcane list was large enough and had a deep enough breadth of spells that all specialists had something to do with their specialist ability. The implication was that they added these spells to the arcane list, not the wizard spell list (which includes the arcane lists and any spells their class abilities would add). Afaik, there's no evidence that schools add spells (focus spells aside), merely enable more casts per day.

If that has changed, I would be pleased to hear it.

As an aside, was this a complete list of the CRB rituals, or just a selection, do we know:

92. Rituals by Level wrote:

2 Animate object, consecrate, create undead, inveigle

3 Geas
4 Atone, blight, plant growth
5 Call spirit, planar ally, resurrect
6 Awaken animal, commune, commune with nature, planar binding, primal call
7 legend lore
8 Control weather, freedom, imprisonment


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Medicine, Religion, and Nature are potentially as strong as Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidation when you take rituals and "treat wounds" into account.
True enough if you focus on them. Perhaps a better phrasing would be 'I'm not sure Perception is as good and essential as a Save'.

Like I mentioned before, recall how many illusion spells require you to roll a perception check (specifically using the Seek action) before you're even able to roll a save. I would also want to just make those a perception check to disbelieve instead of a will save at all (I might do that anyways, just to simplify things), but it's not fully necessary to keep the value of perception high under those circumstances.

Between those two changes, I think it would smooth out the value of perception and will, and wisdom and charisma, but you're certainly correct about needing to see the full rules before making that call.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

They also sound like the fun but optional rules that APs sometimes incorporate.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I doubt it. Soul/Spiritual magic is not one of the essences Wizards mess with.

This is likely correct for the arcane list as a whole. But if they went the route of Schools adding out-of-list spells like Bloodlines do, Soul Bind might wind up available to a Necromancer.

Alternatively, there might well be a Ritual for that, in which case anyone with ridiculous amounts of the right skills could do it.

True on both points. I've said before, it would be my preference for them to have gone that route for wizards, so hopefully they were able to make that happen.

That one of the stated reasons that the arcane list is so bloated was so they specifically didn't have to allow specializations to add spells to the arcane list like bloodlines do (for the playtest at least) doesn't give me hope though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't think I ever mentioned, but another part of why I pushed the "Cha to Will saves" is that, currently, all mental stats and all physical stats are considered to be roughly equal to each other in power. And that's not really true. With perception, initiative, and will saves all tied to wisdom, that almost pushes it into physical stat territory, while Cha lingers.

Moving Will saves to Cha would depower Wisdom, true, but I feel it would wind up equal to Int and Cha afterwards, which is where it should be.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
First World Bard wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
In any case, it makes it highly likely there will eventually be ways for martial characters to get spellcasting without multiclassing, which is pretty neat.

That seems to me like a distinction without a difference. Either way, you are taking an archetype (just not necessarily a "multiclass" archetype) and paying class feats for spellcasting. I guess for story reasons you could feel like it's more of a "prestige" opportunity, even though they've gone away from that specific terminology. Presumably it will still be a dedication, though.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a dedication archetype. What if there was a cleric "Mystic Theurge" class archetype that did away with your domain and diety and gave you basic-expert-master spellcasting appropriate levels?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I doubt it. Soul/Spiritual magic is not one of the essences Wizards mess with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:

What gets me is that I've seen comments from some Paizo folks deprecating prestige classes, yet in PF1 there are nearly three times as many prestige classes as there are base classes.

Will there be prestige classes in PF2?

Doesn’t hold a candle to the number of prestige classes in 3.5 though.

I’m happy with the archetype approach to most old prestige classes, though my hope is that some will wind up subclasses or even base classes. I long argued Hellknights should be a champion subclass (I’ve changed my mind now, but I still argued it), and I hope harrowers take what could have been the medium and runs with it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Mostly because people enjoy it and are willing to pay money for it.

New classes expand the game. Almost every class, good or bad, pushed the rules out a little further and added new options to tell stories and affect play.

Plus PF1 multiclassing often sucked (YMMV) and even a not great class could be fun to play if it exactly what you wanted to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Golarion has people who worship nature, their ancestors, a totemic protector spirit, the spirits in all things, etc. Some of these people even get spells out of it, but they are not Clerics- they are Druids, Oracles, and Shamans.

On Golarion Clerics are always one deity. For all the other devotional arrangements, you use a different class.

No one said cleric but you... "a thematic option in the core rules of first edition to have a divine caster worship an ideal (like balance or peace) rather than a specific entity", then "But it went away in the playtest and I'd be shocked to see it reappear in 2nd ed." I know I wasn't talking about clerics: druids are divine casters in Golarion that specifically worship a philosophy instead of a "specific entity" as the first poster asked about and they'd have to change something is that isn't so in PF2: it's why I posted, because it wasn't about clerics specifically.

The original comment was specifically about clerics and their relationships to gods.

Milo v3 wrote:
cleric god-restrictions

Edit: not trying for a “gotcha”, but that was what Cabbage was talking about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Like an all-day blaster class with endless magic who doesn't run the risk of overtaxing their bodies shouldn't be Con-based.
I think this is partly what I was trying to get at. All day blasting , some kind of removal or lessening of the burn ability and being con based strikes me as far too good

Worry not. Something like that goes against Paizo’s general design philosophy. They’ll do it, but they clearly far prefer cooldown abilities.

Lanathar wrote:


It is interesting trying to think of other examples that fit this class outside of avatar . Avatar is just such an obvious one that it blocked my view!

I’m guessing you aren’t American in that case. Because for us, the cartoon we all reach for first is Captain Planet. During the OA playtest, there were a ton of cracks about how the class was missing the “Heart” element.

Lanathar wrote:


I think the design space also allows for some fun elemental themed reactions as well. Obviously water shield doing blocking is one (but it being able to be destroyed should probably be a thing)

Yes please! That sounds awesome.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yep. Only get 1 hour to edit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For THAT, I hope they take notes from the Solarians and make overflow "elemental attunement" where you slowly gain bonuses to defense as the fight goes on.

Oooh, what if they combined both burn and that. Instead tracking burn at all, you would slowly gain stacking defense and offenses bonuses equal to your level of attunement. Once you hit your con modifier+1, you'd drop out of your attunement until you refocused. Past a certain level, you could also choose to start a combat at a higher level of attunement, or use some high damage or utility abilities at the cost of more attunement.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You know, that's a point. Stuff like burn is usually more associated with Horror than Fantasy. Or at least Low Fantasy instead of High. Appropriate for Occult Adventures, since that steps a bit outside of genre, although not to the extent that Horror Adventures would, but different.

--
If they did reintroduce burn, I hope it gets implemented differently. In PF1, you had several ways to reduce your burn by taking extra actions to perform the task. That works well with PF2, but honestly I'd prefer the opposite: you take burn to reduce the number of actions your activity takes. I also think they should remove the number of things that uses burn (in either direction), which might help you out Graystone. If most of your utility powers were just focus, and burn only really interacted with metakinesis and kinetic blasts, you might not find it so annoying.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
I gather the idea of burn comes from the idea of pushing the body beyond limits. Is this a theme from Avatar as I don’t think it is a warlock thing from 3.5

Strangely enough, the people that make up fantasy games for living occasionally get ideas that aren’t direct translations of something else. If anywhere, that came from Wilders in 3.5, who had a similar overclock ability. But could easily have come from the slew of literary precedents where magic is physically taxing, such as Dragonlance.

But like graystone says, it doesn’t have to be a thing. I would personally prefer something along those lines, but not enough to argue about it.

Edit: but since it’s the topic, I’ll move my thoughts from the mesmerist thread to here:

Quote:
I’ve mentioned before, but my preference would be to give kineticists a unique debuff, and once they hit 4+con modifier (or whatever, can be tweaked) they become unconscious, rather than them directly manipulating their HP.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
Kineticist makes a big jump away. So I can only assume warlocks were popular but considered too weak?

All three were considered to be on the weak side. As these were all experiments, no one had a solid bead on how powerful having a slew of at-will SLAs would wind up. Ironically, warlocks were the first to be published, and are probably the most playable of the three (dragonfire adepts can be salvaged with a good DM and metabreath feats, but dragon shaman are just not good).

All were fun to play, IMO. Even my poor DS (admittedly, I gestalted mine with the Paladin class).

As to why CON as a casting stat, you’d have to ask Mark why and how that came to be. That kind of came out of nowhere for everyone, but pairs well with Burn. If you search the forums, he may well have explained it at some point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I don’t think anyone is going to give you a satisfactory answer, because frankly it just comes down to personal taste and you simply expect different things than other people.

Well my original question was actually about the origin of the concept. As in is it purely from Avatar or does it have other traditions

People seem passionate about “all day blaster” and I am wondering if this had another origin or if it is just the one source

All day blasting seems a little video gamey to me but as you say it could be personal preference. But things getting too close to a video game was a major flaw with 4E. So I wouldn’t want that route

Oh. That was 3.5 warlocks, dragonfire adepts, and to a lesser extent dragon shaman. All were introduced, like the kineticist, to be all day casters without actually having to track spellcasts. And yes, the rise of MMOs probably contributed.

There’s been some other attempts over the years, but the warlock especially was the most successful iteration.

Edit: to some extent, I think all of the OA classes were inspired by Wizards “throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks” phase of late 3.5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don’t think anyone is going to give you a satisfactory answer, because frankly it just comes down to personal taste and you simply expect different things than other people.

Edit: and in case I’m not clear, your opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s. Especially since none of us work for Paizo and will get final say on how the kineticist is translated anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Only if the party’s enemies can also use them as a target beacon.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
If I was a betting man, I'd probably guess that Burn will be replaced with either Focus or some sort of Con-based pool of points, while a Kineticist's blast will be a cantrip while a lot of their stuff will just buff said cantrip.
I would be pretty disappointed if the Kineticist's "nova" mechanic does not involve hurting yourself at all. "Pushing your body to and past the limit" is an important identity of the class and the whole reason they are Con based to begin with.

The big problem with this is that in PF1, you risk knocking yourself unconscious. In PF2, you risk accidental suicide if you get papercut after burning yourself to the limit.

I’ve mentioned before, but my preference would be to give kineticists a unique debuff, and once they hit 4+con modifier (or whatever, can be tweaked) they become unconscious, rather than them directly manipulating their HP.

Garretmander wrote:

Alternatively, mesmerist could be a psychic archetype.

I forget if one of those missing combinations (mental+spiritual, etc) was one that neatly matches psychic magic flavor or not.

I still say Mental/Spiritual would best reflect witch spellcasting. I wish it was primal, for my own personal flavor reasons, but my spreadsheet insists otherwise. Psychics feel closer to Occult than anything, but I haven’t run the numbers yet. It’s harder to do anyways, since there’s less overlap between Psychics and the other class lists.

A thought just occurred to me. I suggested in a different thread that they could at some point decide to make single essence spell lists. Still runs into the problem of “ I thought we were keeping it to 4 lists and that’s it?”, but at least what skill you’d roll isn’t an issue (mental essence can be identified by either arcane or occult, your choice). But if they did that, the various psychic casting classes might get parceled out to an essence a piece. Psychics could become Mentalist, Mesmerists Spiritualist (ug, THAT’LL be confusing, and almost reason enough on its own not to do this). Occultists and Kineticists are two ways you can approach Materialist. Spiritualists might make good Vitalists. And mediums can go wander off to become the Harrower and Dilettante classes (see discussion in “New Classes” thread).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To clarify, what I would want to do would be to strip almost all illusions out of needing a will saving throw to resist their effects, and simply make their “saving throw” perception.

Many illusions already effectively split will saves out from their effects by calling for a Seek action to interact with it before you roll a will save to disbelieve it. Making perception the effective saving throw for those spells would actually simplify those spells; you’d just roll once instead of twice to reduce or eliminate the effects. A handful, admittedly fewer than I had assumed, don’t even mention a will save, just the seek action (Hallucinatory Object is one).

Another benefit to using perception instead of will save for these spells is that every character has a score in it, and because it also drives initiative, few will want to dump it.

I’m intrigued by the idea of letting cha boost flat checks or hero point rerolls. Both sounds pretty cool and I’ll have to think about them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kyrone wrote:
Or just make that CHA is Will Save, Wisdom already have perception anyway lol.

This is my preferred fix, for the same reason. I’d need to go through and make sure no spells require both a will save AND perception to disbelieve. I think there were a couple that had you till both, iirc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
IMO, it never made sense for "you use your ki to cast dimension door" to not be a spell.

I'm more thinking about an ability that doesn't replicate a spell. Ki allowed extra movement, another attack, ect. Ki strike and such abilities [that add simple numbers] don't jump out as spellcasting: all those untagged, NOT su abilities that ki was used for.

SO for me, if a monk has to cast a spell to get a +1 to strike then a grit user would have to cast a spell to use their abilities: that's really all I'm saying.

I don't see why monks couldn't also get spell-less focus down the line. It would make for a good class archetype; the default assumption is that monks are semi mystical in their martial art practice, so a class archetype that did away with that might add interesting options to the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That can be solved. Give the non magical focus spells the keyword “grit” or “stamina,” and say that tag means the “spells” aren’t actually magical.

There will be oddities, like that you can potentially use focus for both magical and not magical abilities. I think that’s fine as a game simplification, but some will want a separate pool for stamina. Actually I guess that would work as a variant to the rule.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RicoTheBold wrote:
I'm curious if people think that the separation between Curse and Mystery needs to be maintained.

I would prefer complete mixing and matching. Like, for instance:

PossibleCabbage wrote:
life oracle taking the lich curse or a community oracle taking the tongues curse.

Those genuinely sound like interesting characters to role play. Or, heck, GM at my table.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
That's basically what sets bard apart from the sorcerer: HP, spells per day, starting proficiencies, and compositions.

*takes notes for my eventual fan-conversion*

Spoiler:
I've got solid ideas for the Medium, Magus/Inquisitor/Hunter, and now Oracle, some vague ideas for the Arcanist and Swashbuckler/Gunslinger, and a few notes on Thaumaturgist (Summoner/Spiritualist), Witch, Psychic, Kineticist, and Occultist.

Can't wait to get my hands on the CRB, the first couple world guides, and the gamemastery guide to start getting actual numbers for all of this.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
You're looking for a more direct port of the class than I'm thinking of. I don't really have a preference myself, I'm just thinking either way could work.

Fair enough. And yeah, there’s plenty of ways it could be done including how you proposed. I actually hadn’t hammered out my own preferences until my second post, but I’m sure any ways that it’s done, I’ll be satisfied.

1 to 50 of 1,078 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>