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'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.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
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).
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.
Stone Dog wrote:
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.
Ezren the Wizard is out now.
edit: Not much to comment on.
Does showing two different action types in a spell indicate it requires both actions or only one of the two possible types?
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'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.
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.
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.
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]".
The Raven Black wrote:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.