So my initial reaction to this was "meh, I've seen it before in other systems", but then I remembered that you get more ancestry feats as you level up, and suddenly this becomes very interesting.
Now as a player you can determine how human and how orcish/elven you are.
Very much looking forward to how the ancestry feats will shake out now.
Marco Massoudi wrote:
Ooh I like this idea. Having a new world order style Inner Sea World Guide would be awesome. Extra points if the APs are shown to be canonical to the world's progression.
So are we talking combat-wise, or is utility a factor?
I do like Lady-J's answer though, because commoner is objectively worse than a rogue, with worse BAB, saves, fewer class skills, and no class features. But I assume OP didn't have NPC classes in mind.
been playing persona 5 lately, and I've been thinking of making a phantom thief type class. Currently dabbling with the idea of a vigilante/medium hybrid class, or perhaps just a medium-flavored vigilante archetype or vice versa. My original thoughts on it were that medium itself would be enough, but I think the build could benefit from elements of the vigilante (like dual identity).
So when the Villain Codex was released I was quite happy to hear that it included the new feat "Two-Weapon Grace". Finally, I thought, a Dex-to-damage build for two-weapon fighting that might provide viable builds to stay up to scratch with a two-handed fighter. Y'know something in line to how the Advanced Class Guide tried to patch up One-handed Dex fighter builds.
Quick note: when I say "fighter" I don't mean the class, it's more a reference to the build.
But I revisited that feat this week and was distraught to find that I'd misread it initially, and that it actually imposes a further -2 penalty to attack rolls when used. WHY? Why would you even make this feat if you're going to just add this egregious cost to what is already a feat-heavy build?
I crunched the numbers, and it turns out that you can get maybe 2 damage per hit extra, compared to a strength-based-damage two-weapon fighting build. I apologize for all the hyphens by the way, I swear I'm trying to use them correctly. The problem is that this extra 2 points of damage, comes at the cost of even more feats to make it work.
And feats are only one of the costs associated with two-weapon fighting. The simple fact is that you are less likely to hit on a per-attack basis. Sure, in the long run you land more blows, but your damage-to-attack ratio is way off compared to every martial character who swing a greataxe or a falchion. This problem is only exacerbated as DR becomes the norm for enemies you face up against. DR punishes two-weapon fighters twice as hard, because the little damage they put out gets soaked up that much faster.
The last big cost of two-weapon fighting is the monetary cost. You now have two weapons to maintain and upgrade instead of one. When single-weapon fighters are reaching their +5 enhancement bonus, the two-weapon fighter is still struggling to make ends meat to make sure both their weapons are at a +4.This once again makes DR a bigger problem for the two-weapon fighter.
Now in case it wasn't obvious, I LOVE two-weapon fighters, or rather, the concept of two-weapon fighters. I have three of them in PFS, heck one of them is high enough a level to take on the seeker arc. But they simply underperform at a table when paired with some schlub waving about his oversized hurtstick with two-hands.
Some of the arguments I've seen for nerfing two-weapon fighting is that bonuses are more pronounced, like a rogue's sneak attack, a ranger's favored enemy bonus, or a bard's inspire courage. IF this is the reasoning behind it then I feel unconvinced. My rogue has never landed more than one sneak attack in a round, inspire courage doesn't really help enough with DR issues, and favored enemy is too situational.
I'd really like to know why two-weapon fighting is designed to perform so poorly, I'm probably missing something rudimentary, but I just can't see it.
Yeah, I'd have to disagree with OP's post, there are plenty of high-level world-shaping shenanigans, going on in Golarion. Baba Yaga and Razmir are just the starting point. You have the Runelords, the Wizard rulers of Geb and Nex that have also been mentioned, Tar Baphon who was only taken down by a God. Oh that's right, some people have literally ascended to Godhood in the setting.
The Inner Sea World Guide, pretty much has at least one such game-breaking (read world-changing) NPC per country. And I really loved that when I read it. Because I felt it helped to make sense why there was no singular BBEG, there's several dozen of them all at various stages in their plans for world domination/destruction/etc. and are often the primary antagonists in Adventure Paths.
And that's just Golarion, never mind the Mythic-tier nonsense that occasionally leaks in from other planes of existence.
One tweak I used when running this part that my players seemed to get a real buzz out of, was that opposition schools to a wing's school simply didn't work while in that wing. i.e conjuration and transmutation spells didn't work while in the the Shimmering Veils.
Even though some wings shut down an entire class (e.g. most summoner spells and even calling one's eidolon stopped functioning in the Halls of Wrath), my players loved having to rethink strategies. Suddenly the Dragon Disciple couldn't transform into a dragon any more, and the Arcanist loved the chance to try out different spells that he wouldn't otherwise gotten around to using.
At one stage an enemy teleported to a different wing, but had teleported to a wing where conjuration spells didn't work. So they didn't have the same escape options and were that bit more desperate in the second confrontation.
captain yesterday wrote:
Yup, those would make more sense. Must've had a mental block as I was writing that post :P
Wow, I really wasn't expecting this thread to branch out into so many topics, but its great to see so many opinions and perspectives on it. And I definitely wasn't expecting Tonya to weigh in, but thank you for taking time to get involved!
With the benefit of distance from the event and additional clarity, there was little that could be done. At one stage I found myself moving a problematic player's pawn and realized I'd crossed a line. I realized that no matter how frustrating their actions were, I'd broken the social contract that we were each in control of our respective characters. And if my words couldn't get through to them then I was in no way entitled to play their characters for them.
To be completely honest, I don't think there was malicious intent behind these players' actions. It was more the case of suffering the consequences of the rule system, such as a gunslinger needing to reload their gun, thus provoking an attack of opportunity or a rogue's stealth-ing invariably splitting the party. My experience has shown that a party can sustain one player making poor choices like these, but when half the party begins taking disadvantageous actions there's not a lot to be done.
Tonya, you suggested getting the event organizer involved, but unfortunately in this case, that would have been me. And I suppose I simply didn't have the necessary experience to better handle the situation. Moving forward, I may encourage GMs to go "softer" on tables with so many new players.
I suppose that then raises the question; how much should/can GMs deviate from scenarios as written, or more specifically battle tactics as written? But I'm sure that that topic has been discussed in other threads.
Sorry for the confusion Jeff, Matt, I was playing a Sylph Druid I'd built myself, not a pregen. The problem is that due to the new rules I have to elect which of my characters will get credit before sitting down to the game (i.e. XXXXX-10). So even if it had been a pregen I was playing, my -10 would still receive the chronicle sheet of death. Previously, if you had been playing a pregen you could elect another character number after a TPK, so none of your existing characters would suffer.
I suppose my argument is that at level 1 all characters are transient and can be completely rebuilt before level 2, which puts them on the same level as a pregen. For instance my Sylph Druid could be a Half-Orc Paladin in the next game and would still have all its chronicle sheets. But theoretically, there's nothing differentiating my XXXXX-10 Druid from my (not even yet registerred) XXXXX-11 Druid in terms of what's on their character sheets. So why not assign the chronicle sheet of death to my XXXXX-11 Druid, and save the XP of my XXXXX-10 Druid?
The thing is problematic players aren't really hurt by this new rule, dedicated players who have actually put their time into their characters are. A problematic player is going to be problematic with or without consequences. In fact the players who caused trouble at the previously mentioned game refused to take their chronicle sheets at the end. So I'm just not seeing the logic in why I can't reassign that chronicle sheet to an inconsequential character number that I haven't even built yet.
And Minna is right, it was indeed
Spoiler:which meant that there were thugs hidden among the brawlers looking to do us harm.
Shades of Ice Part 1
So firstly, apologies to the forum mods. I saw that you've already locked a thread on this very discussion. But I feel the need to share my experience this weekend and illustrate why I think the new rule about being unable to reassign level 1 deaths isn't entirely well thought-out.
So pros of the new system: real risk, real play, no messing about. I get that, in theory you're less likely to suffer problematic players.
The problem is that problematic players now have an even greater ability to cause harm, as with what happened this weekend. Now I'm prefacing this by saying I'll be griping about 1 previously earned XP. Just 1, surely I should let that go, right? Well why should I? I earned that XP, I earned the gold, I earned the Prestige. I paid for that game in money, in time playing, in time building the character. That was 3-4 hours of my life playing, and several more building the character. That's time I can spend doing other things, but I didn't, I chose to play Pathfinder and I respectfully played the game and earned my chronicle sheet.
But this weekend I was playing a game at a convention with many first time Pathfinder players. Players not entirely aware of the gravity of society play. Players who did not want to listen to advice on the best way to approach combat. Who deliberately did not engage in combat as I an entire bar brawl turned on us. Because as a Rogue pregen, the first-time player wished to stealth away. As a Gunslinger pregen, could not decide whether to drop a pistol and fight in melee or to provoke attacks of opportunity by shooting in melee. Despite gentle prodding from both myself and the GM, these players refused to assist in combat. And because of this, we were TPK'ed.
I was so angry, because I was powerless to do anything but watch as we were outnumbered and swarmed by NPC who weren't even armed. I couldn't escape because we were surrounded, and I couldn't just play their characters for them. And so my character died.
These players had had Pathfinder Society explained to them before the game. They understood what was at risk, but they endangered my character in the process.
This is a petulant, and childish rant, I know, I should be a bigger man. But after a situation like this I'm not allowed to reassign the death to an unplayed character. That's frustrating. That was a meaningless death and a waste of 8+ hours of my life because of a poorly conceived change to the rules.