Barathos's page

I mean, I am glad that weapon focus (and it's ilk) are gone. Issues of specificity aside, "add 1 to a number on a specific situation" is kind of the least interesting thing you could do with a feat.

I'd posit that feats gatekeeping mundane abilities is even less interesting.

I, for one, really like how you can transfer runes from stuff you found to stuff you find. So if you want to keep your grandmother's axe for the whole campaign, you can make it keep up with you.

I always thought this was just how it worked in PF1, you just handwaved that a wizard scholar NPC did it. Oberoni fallacy bait on my part aside, I agree that this is an excellent part of PF2.

You know all those feats and class features that let you do things that any person could reasonably try? I'd delete them.

DYE-MOAN

It is closer to the Greek pronunciation.

Classical Latin, too, says DYE-MOAN.

PF1e is "juryrigged" because Paizo chose not to ever attempt a "rigorous and complete" rewrite of the CRB. At any time over the past 10 years, Paizo could have cleaned up the PF1e rules, but it didn't do so. Even now, Paizo could apply this "Build from the Ground Up" principle to create a more evolutionary PF1.5e that I would certainly welcome in place of the PF2e mess that currently exists, and I which I suspect many others would similarly welcome.

I'd suspect that the things I'd want rewritten for PF1.5 and the things each individual poster would want would be vastly different. One poster's PF1.5 is another poster's PF2.

I, too, dislike rolling a heap of dice in an additive system. I don't even like rolling more than a d20. Too many dice just slow down the pace of the game, especially if any players have dyscalculia.

I'm not trying to be stubborn here, but do you have some examples where just patching things when they occur (i.e. vetoing a player's pick) wouldn't suffice?

That would quickly cause players to jump ship to a different table and game. Pathfinder isn't so popular that that is a viable option from my perspective. I only know two other Pathfinder players, both whom I taught Pathfinder to, that aren't the fedora m'lady neckbeard "um ackchyually" crowd. Every other roleplayer at my local game store is playing 5e.

I've gotta say, after GMing PF1 for 4 years, I still have to lookup almost every condition every single time one comes up in-game. The few I don't lookup are the simple (staggered) or the intuitive (unconscious, prone) ones. I'm not going to remember 42 conditions, nor 32, nor even 12.

It slows down the game. every. single. time.

Like:
1) 3 action system
2) Crit system
3) premise of the modular class feat system

Dislike:
1) skill-unlock gating things that anyone should be able to try.
2) "class" gating things that anyone should be able to learn/try without being that class.
3) """legendary""" skill unlocks not being legendary.

Seems interesting. A muscle rogue might be viable as a barbarian or fighter multiclass out the box.

Finding out about the barbarian healer really just being a cleric is a kick to the face. There's no point to the medicine skill if a specialist can't deal with level appropriate challenges.

Why can't I be a half-dwarf? Think outside the D&D box!!!!

Why not if the setting you use has them. It should be easier to make a half-dwarf feat than a whole race.

Half-breeds all round!

I'd strongly prefer it if every martial were viable for every fighting style. Whether that's bows, weapon+shield, twohanded, reach, two-weapon, freehand, unarmed, thrown, crossbows, etc, or any dex- or str-based variation of those. Classes being intentionally worse at a martial style than another style is bad game design as it limits player choice and options.

I vote Kobolds.

Even the smorfy kind?

Unless Fighty McMartial is better at and/or has more skills than Casty Wizard, even if skills let you swim up waterfalls, leap several floors vertically, climb across a flat ceiling without hands, and pick locks with a simple tap with your knuckles, it won't matter because Mr Wizard can do all that and more because magic. And I'm pretty sure Fighter gets fewer skill rank-ups than most.

Plus having a party where no one speaks the same language is one of those things that only sounds fun right up till you have to start playing with it.

Could just have PCs start with common + racial language while most NPCs only have racial language.

I agree it's a bit weak, but it seems worth noting that all characters have fewer languages this edition. You appear to get starting languages, a single bonus one at Int 14+, and then nothing else without Feat investment.

So it's a lot stronger than it would be in PF1. I'm just not sure it's nearly as good as the other three options.

Unless every PF2 NPC Elf you come across only speaks Elven and not common, it's still not really useful outside of maybe intrigue games. A thematically appropriate addition might be improving your Lore(elves) skill (assuming I've understood how Lore skill works) to reflect your upbringing in an elven culture.

I generally like this so far. It should make it easier to publish all my favourite planetouched/etc races. I'd definitely advocate for the extra 1st level ancestry feat (possibly with restrictions).

The Elven Tongue option for half-elves seems incredibly weak, even compared to the not-exactly-strong alternatives. I don't think I'd ever pick just a single language ever unless something else was tacked onto it.

This system might make it harder to make a half-giant ancestry for my homegame though.

Everyone wasn't special at everything. Nor were they special in the same way.

If everyone can sneak past a guard, then the Rogue being able to do it stops being amazing. Everything else you state just demonstrates that the Rogue has invested in a lot of resources to be able to do the same thing as the fighter and cleric (succeed). What a critical success looks like in this example scenario has yet to be determined, so the rogue the benefit for the rogue being able to critically succeed is somewhere between no benefit at all to EPIC. More information is needed to know if the rogue actually is amazing or if he wasted a lot of resources.

Being a stealth specialist in PF1 means being able to succeed. If it means the same thing in PF2 then it's a waste of resources to invest too heavily in it.

I agree with you, but we don't know what higher Stealth proficiencies unlock. For all I know, that Rogue with Expert/Master/Legendary (depending on level) Stealth could be able to hide fully lit in plain sight, while everyone else has to stick to shadows and never be in plain sight.

I'm confused what is the purpose you think his suggestion was meant to address?

I would've assumed making dex and str focused rogues comparably useful in combat, creating more versatility in builds.

Alternatively, his suggestion might be intended to encourage non-combat focuses by already covering combat, making it unnecessary to focus on combat statistics in your build. This would not work either. Giving a bonus to combat statistics only encourages further focus on combat statistics. It would be an unusual occurence for a PF1 Fighter player to say "golly gee! I don't need to get so many combat feats or enhancements to my weapons and armour. High bab, weapon spec, armor training and fighter feats make me good enough at combat :) ".

Well thats idea is that a str rogue would us an agile weapon I think. He gonna still need dex for a lot of things.

That's not really going to change anything then? It's not like the rogue will be proficient with greatswords, so he'd probably use a beefy agile weapon even without this. It just increases the rogue's damage compared to other classes (which is already covered by Sneak Attack).

Would it still be an unacceptable DPR boost if it was instead:

Finesse Striker
First level ability grants Rogues +1 damage with Agile or Finesse weapons, +1 every five rogue levels.

Since there's nothing there limiting it to dex-focused/-using characters, that just encourages Muscle Rogue to use an agile/finesse weapon with high strength. Solid first draft idea though.

What I'm looking forward to is PF2 having more capable adventurers as levels increase. Fighters that can at least have a decent chance to sneak about without spoiling the whole groups stealth. A cleric who can manage to climb enough that the party doesn't have to drag her around like a lead weight. A wizard that can do basic first aid without killing a companion.

That's assuming we don't need X feat to do [thing that anyone should be able to try and possibly succeed at]. And what we've learned about pickpocketing doesn't bode well for that.

I find it a bit odd that a sling requires an action to reload but a crossbow doesn’t.

Nice catch. It also seems odd that the crossbow is just called "crossbow", possibly meaning there is only one type of crossbow.

Ezren the Wizard is out now.

edit: Not much to comment on.
I hope Acid Splash scales quickly, because 1d4+1 isn't worth anything after 1st level.

Does showing two different action types in a spell indicate it requires both actions or only one of the two possible types?

• Make a mixed high str AND high dex character worth playing for every martial class.

Merisiel the rogue is up now.

Edit: Dex-to-damage confirmed for rogues with Finesse Striker class feature.

The Disarm weapon feature seems unfun. It indicates you otherwise need a free hand to attempt a disarm.

Depending on how the Pathfinder community processes this rarity system, it could be a great help in getting players to accepts non-Golarion setting differences or it could create entitlement for everything labelled common (which might actually be an improvement over the "assume everything paizo is always ok in every setting, region, time period, campaign" mentality).

Pathfinder isn't and has never been popular enough in my community that I can just shuffle out bad players ad infinitum.

I'm disappointed to see that slings need an action to reload ...

They also made them only get half STR mod to damage.

... I've never seen the mythical swarm of low-levels that AoE is supposed to be best used on. Now maybe I've just not played the *right* games for that, but I've played a lot of things. ...

It doesn't help premade adventure design, but I once had a party of 3 level 7s encounter 60 orcs and a spellcaster leader orc. It was one of the most intense encounters I've seen so far.

Funny, because at least 2 women in this thread have pointed out it sure didn't feel like a power fantasy. [insert that Shortpacked! false equivalence comic here.]

Also, 1e Seoni looked like she was about to fall on her dang face.

You and everyone else are entitled to express their opinions. Being a woman doesn't make you any more able to confirm or dispute a character's confidence providing a type of power, which could be used in a fantasy context, this is in no way limited to feminine characters (see Schwarzenegger's depiction of Conan, David Bowie every day, or Dan Avidan in NSP music videos).

Near any character would look like they would fall on their face in a still image depiction of a point in their walking cycle. A strut is preferable to a poor posture, especially on a high Cha character.

The depictions of a premade character are of no consequence in tabletop RPGs, as anyone can make a character that looks anyway they like, including like old iconics, new iconics or your own character.

I don’t share the same assumption that near-nudity equals confidence. While I do like women to own their sexuality, I also like it when adventurers are dressed in clothes that allow them to adventure. Her garments are still a bit unwieldy to me — long enough to trip upon — but at least she won’t fall out of her outfit in the middle of battle.

Fair enough. I'd rather have a confidence-based power fantasy than worry about how trip-prone an outfit would be in reallife.

It's not the lack of clothes itself, but her obvious confidence in that state. Compare the strut and posture of PF1 Seoni to the slumped defeatest posture of the artwork above, her face says "I'm waiting in line at the DMV and someone just farted. All I can do is give them a sour look. I'm powerless to otherwise act."

Apart from the drawing itself being incomplete, she looks identical to her PF1 version to me. What's changed?

She looks less confident to me. I could just be associating being scantily clad with confidence in your own appearance, as well as the placement of her lack of clothes and her sheer presence showing her to be the master of her own sexuality.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I was very proficient in Survival but I couldn't track without having some specific feat. That's pretty much the main reason I'd want survival skill in the first place.

Seems rather superfluous that this Class wasn't simply folded into the Fighter...

Yeah. Everything here seems like it should be do-able by selecting a few feats. Seems like the brawlermonk again.

Of the core 12 iconics, there's 3 "white" humans and 4 "non-white" humans, each of a different ethnic background. Sounds like a real diversity problem.

1) So your view is that even if the mechanics are neat, that because I'm not playing in Paizo's setting my group shouldn't be allowed to use the archetype?

Not without houserules. Nothing wrong with that, I use more than my fair share of houserules in PF1.

I hope not, that'd mean it'd be intentionally overpowered in non-Golarion games.

You could never meet the prereq membership in a non-Golarian game without introducing houserules, so it's a non-issue.

And their supernatural powers can be used multiple times a day.

Their 100% optional feattax supernatural powers that let them be the tiniest bit mystical and more than just Fighter2.

Fighter is, and should be, better at using weapons. Unarmed should be the Monks schtick - at least without significant cost to the fighter.

Therein lies Paizos dilemma, they can't please both of us.

I also believe that a weapon using monk should not be as good as an unarmed monk without a significant cost - as that should be the fighters bailiwick.

A Fighter using several of his feats and weapon training on unarmed/twf is a pretty significant cost.

They can, in my opinion, by making the Monk more wis/ki based, and having many ki powers supplement the unarmed/martial aspects of the Monk. Then, while the Monk has ki to use, he can outdo an unarmed-focused Fighter.

Either way, the Monk we got is just a heavily restricted Fighter to me.

Wait, Why? one of the defining features of the monk is being the best unarmed combatant - any martial being able to match that is undermining (one of) the central foundation of the monk - IMO.

I cannot agree with you. (unless you missed a 'not' in there)

Not true. A Fighter in PF1 gets better damage unarmed than a Monk. In my view, a fantasy Monk is a ki mystic first and foremost. Making another class better at being a """mundane""" martial artist than the Fighter would "[undermine] (one of) the central foundations of the [fighter]".

So almost everything that makes a Monk different from an unarmed-focused Fighter is optional? Sounds like a critfail on one of my favourite classes. Any martial should be able to be as good an unarmed combatant as a Monk.

Wise halfling would also explain how Frodo, Bilbo, even Smeagol (except for that critical failure at the beginning), resisted the lure of the One Ring for so long and far better than a measly human king

It's all about Will saves really

I'm somewhat sure the one ring's allure is based on ambition, a thing most hobbitses have a distinct lack of. Dwarfs and human lords have a great deal of ambition, so they're vulnerable to the effects of the ring.

Looks good so far. Rage not having to be tracked obsessively suits how I want to play a barb better. I very much so hope that a variety of fighting styles (2h, twf, w&s, thrown, projectile, reach) are viable and we aren't just strongarmed into greataxe/[any 2h melee weapon] brusiers.

Barathos wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Barathos wrote:

the acolytes haven't done anything wrong

[Citation Needed]

You don't get an Evil alignment for not doing anything. Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic ACTS cause alignment shifts, not thoughts.

Burden of proof is on the claiment, so you claiming they've done bad things :)

I already stated my proof. Alignment is based on acts.

Regardless of which, you made the first claim. "They have not done anything" is as much of a claim as "They have done something", but the former has much less evidence backing it up than the latter.

Barathos wrote:

1. Having Evil intent (which is just THOUGHTS) pings you as Evil.

2. Having recently had infernal healing cast on you pings you as Evil.

Oh look at that, two ways to ping as Evil without actually being Evil.

Yes, I'm sure every member of the evil cult just happened to be thinking evil thoughts and/or had a specific spell cast on them all at the same time, coincidentally just as the Paladin comes by.

Apply Occam's Razor, here.

Regardless of which, people always leave out a very important word for number 1. ACTIVELY. Detect Evil will detect ACTIVELY Evil intent. Meaning they aren't just thinking bad thoughts, they are currently in the process of carrying out these bad thoughts.

So:

Barathos wrote:

Let's take Joe the peasant as an example of someone who has done no Evil but is still Evil. Joe wants to rape and murder his neighbours, not necessarily in that order, but Joe doesn't want to get executed or end up in pound-in-the-arse prison. Joe decides not to rape or murder his neighbours because he fears the consequences. Is Joe still Evil? F#!*ING YES! Only a phychopath and an Evil person would say "No.".

Very nice set up you have there. Pretty sure that's a formal fallacy of some kind, actively saying that anyone who disagrees with you must be "evil or a psychopath" but I can't be arsed to look it up.

Regardless, Joe per RAW does not ping as evil....

You haven't stated any proof. How exactly do you propose someone would prove a negative? You're literally asking me to prove a negative. You know that's a fundamental impossibility, right? This is one of the reasons "Innocent until proven guilty" is a thing.

Simply being Evil isn't grounds for murder. The players are just contract killers in this case. The "enemy" had no qualms with them until they agreed to kill them for profit and power.

Occam's Razor doesn't suddenly give you the right to murder someone in their home.

"1. ACTIVELY. Detect Evil will detect ACTIVELY Evil intent. Meaning they aren't just thinking bad thoughts, they are currently in the process of carrying out these bad thoughts."

Actively could just mean it's not in the back of their mind, it's thinking they're thinking about right now. They could just be fantasising.

"Very nice set up you have there. Pretty sure that's a formal fallacy of some kind, actively saying that anyone who disagrees with you must be "evil or a psychopath" but I can't be arsed to look it up."

The "anyone who X is Y" is not my arguement, it's a personal comment. I occacionally think "maybe I'm not a good person", but then I come to threads like this and realise I'm head and shoulders above many people on moral superiority.

I never claimed Joe would ping as Evil, simply that he IS Evil. He would ping as Evil if he had at least 5 HD or 1 of an anti-paladin/cleric/etc.

Mind linking some kind of source on "only Evil acts counts"?

Edit: @"but that logical fallacy makes your arguement invladid" it's not an arguement, it's a comment, and since you're so aware of various fallacies I presume you're aware of the fallacy fallacy.

Edit2: I'm seconds away from GMing a game, I'll jump back in later. Don't swarm me too much :P

Barathos wrote:

the acolytes haven't done anything wrong

[Citation Needed]

You don't get an Evil alignment for not doing anything. Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic ACTS cause alignment shifts, not thoughts.

Burden of proof is on the claiment, so you claiming they've done bad things :)

1. Having Evil intent (which is just THOUGHTS) pings you as Evil.
2. Having recently had infernal healing cast on you pings you as Evil.

Oh look at that, two ways to ping as Evil without actually being or doing Evil.

Let's take Joe the peasant as an example of someone who has done no Evil but is still Evil. Joe wants to rape and murder his neighbours, not necessarily in that order, but Joe doesn't want to get executed or end up in pound-in-the-arse prison. Joe decides not to rape or murder his neighbours because he fears the consequences. Is Joe still Evil? F~+!ING YES! Only a phychopath and an Evil person would say "No.".

This isn't carte blanche to kill anyone who pings evil, of course, but these people are your direct enemies. They're aligned with and guardians of a man you're sent to kill.

1. They're only "your" "enemy" because you've chosen to attack them for personal profit and power gain, incredibly selfish and Evil goals.

2. Just because someone is your enemy doesn't mean it's not Evil to kill them.

Honest question for those that see this as evil:

Would you still call it evil if the party woke up the acolytes, cast something like Forced Quiet (allowing them to defend themselves), and then killed them?

Why does killing a defenseless evil enemy that would attack you as soon as he saw you as a threat in an attempt to kill you be evil?

I would. It's Evil to me because the acolytes haven't done anything wrong, the players are just killing them for profit and power. It's not like they found a known enemy camp near/in their territory, they broke into someone else's house and proceeded to act like a typical pack of orcs.

Wait, why does killing helpless evil make it an evil act?

Helpless doesn't make them innocent. Only Innocent slain is an evil act in the alignment description.

Just because someone is Evil, doesn't mean they deserve death or that they're not innocent.

Maybe it's all a scheme by Asmodeus to gain their power?

Thought they could use the feat "extra slot" to buy the shoulder and waist slots.

So is "weapon"/"grasped" a viable slot for this?

Is there any dev comments or official builds that gives credence to one interpretation over another?

Typically I'd agree with you, but from the phrasing I'm more inclined to side with your player. 'Assassinate' for example simply states that the executioner must take the talent at 10th level, whereas painful strike states the executioner automatically gains the talent. Plus it swaps out an 11th level class ability.

Seems like a bit of a freebie having it work 7 levels before the thing it replaces, and it seems strange that is even bothers to mention the slayer talent if it doesn't affect it.