Aravashnial

Camellen's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 20 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I like the idea of Aasimar as an ancestry where the heritages are things like Angelkin, Musetouched, etc. than I do with Aasimar as a heritage or archetype available for any ancestry.
This is my preference by far.

Going along the same line of thought, we could add something like "Native Heritage," granting access to feats of an ancestry you specify and changing your size to fit the ancestry (or work the size differences into the planetouched as a base).

I'd really prefer not to resort to "humans by default," and pretending nonhuman planetouched only exist in homebrew.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

It seems likely we'll get them eventually.

They may well be Heritages (in the vein of Half Elf and Half Orc) rather than Ancestries per se, though. My personal theory is that they'll be 'modular' Heritages you can apply to any Ancestry the GM allows. Which would be pretty cool, IMO, and make a lot of sense.

I'm personally in support of the modular heritages as well. It fits really well, and we might be able to use it for templates that previously had a level adjustment as well (separating stronger abilities into ancestry feats).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bardarok wrote:

There was treat wounds again but I don't think it was any different from before DC 15 heals 2d8 takes 10 min.

The Fatigue condition that Jason mentioned was a little less bad than in the playtest. Only -1 to AC and saves no mention of Hampered 5 or of the penalties increasing with every action you take.... but they didn't get into combat so maybe those are still there and just didn't come up.

They also didn't benefit from exploration tactics, if I recall (due to fatigue).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Eh, I feel like I might go the easiest route myself; dump the PF1e adventure loot and use the recommended loot progression for PF2e, using the original loot as a guideline.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Consider me part of the kobold plushie cult fan club!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paizo Blog wrote:
Beyond what this means for half-elves and half-orcs, using an ancestry feat to unlock a more diverse heritage gives us a lot of options for the future. For instance, aasimars, tieflings, and other planar scions come from a wide variety of ancestries in Golarion, instead of just defaulting to human. In Pathfinder First Edition, there's a sidebar to that effect, but it provides no mechanical adjustments for non-human planar scions beyond their size category. The playtest treatment would allow you to build a character whose ancestry really reflects their combined heritage. And if your setting has half-elves and half-orcs where the other parent isn't human, say half-orc/half-dwarf characters, you can just allow the half-orc feat for dwarf characters and the rest of the work is already taken care of. This also opens up a lot of design space (in the form of feats) to explore what otherworldly parentage might mean, giving you different options based on what type of outsider has influenced your heritage, similar to the popular subcategories of aasimar and tieflings (pitborn, musetouched, and so on). Having a solar in the family might grant access to entirely different feats than if your ancestors were blessed by a hound archon.

I'm personally really excited about the potential for planetouched and template race heritages. Not just tieflings, but stuff like balanced half-dragons and the like. I do wish (if and when it's released) that it remains an Ancestry-neutral heritage, instead of having to adapt it. You could even have ancestry feats to become increasingly demonic as you gain in power. A Half-Dragon Heritage where you can gain natural armor, breath weapons, resistance. A powerful Aasimar that's practically a living angel, without being an 18th level paladin (as cool as that feat is).

Blog Source: Born of Two Worlds.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bleachlings are an option! 10/10 fantastic update!
Humans can multiclass into anything! 10/10 will maybe break the game but hilariously fantastic!
Goblins get annoying songs! 10/10!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Blog said wrote:
Resonance continues to be a topic of discussion amongst players, and our surveys are just starting to give us a picture of how it is working in play. Only about 1 out of every 4 players ran out of resonance once during Part 2, and only 1 out of every 10 players failed their check when overspending resonance and became cut off during Part 2 (usually alchemists). Now, the important thing to note here is that this is not really showing us how resonance is being used, merely that players aren't running out very often, so be on the lookout for survey questions in upcoming parts that will delve a little deeper into exactly how you're using resonance at your table.

This is really discouraging to read. It still feels like a defense and justification of resonance instead of actually addressing the issue. I've already pointed out in last update's blog how simply looking at how often people ran out isn't really a good metric because resonance discourages the use of things that require it. And frankly, 1/4 is too many in my mind. The 1/10th failing their check is also more than it should be. Especially since actually having to do a check at all is a strong incentive to never attempt it unless it's a life or death situation.

I do like the Paizo does seem to actually listen to what people are saying. Except that really doesn't seem to be the case with resonance. They seem extremely protective of it for some reason. Other major bits like signature skills have been ripped out entirely, and others they've expressed openness to changing. But with resonance it's just full defense. Instead of fixing it just keep restating the reasoning for it and trying to show how it's not completely kneecapping every character, as if that's a good baseline. The fact is, it's not fun. Even those who don't mind it always point out the massive problems with it as is. And those of us who don't like it, really hate it. It needs...

In the "Positives and Negatives" blog, they've expressed that they're already looking into alternatives for resonance due to its lack of popularity, as well as highlighting some of the issues they've run into with it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm surprised that the unconscious rules weren't changed to specify crit failing reflex saves (considering that applies for the sleeping condition). My group didn't have a particularly difficult time running out of resources, but it was a large group- and they returned to town a couple times to rest. They had the most trouble with the second goblin encounter. The trap, along with the increased number of goblins, butchered them with a plethora of crits and maneuvering. The alchemist in the group was afraid to do much, thanks to both his splash damage and limited supply. His meager bulk meant he resorted to using light bulk weapons to fight, thanks to his armor, bombs, kit, and other great taking up a large chunk. I found that the hero points made a lethal encounter far less so, especially if you run shorter sessions with free encounters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sorcerers and bards, the two spontaneous casters we will see in this playtest. Bard was previously a "half-caster," with reduced access to spellcasting in return for a plethora of abilities. In PF2e, this is reflected by lower overall spellcasting capability compared to its dedicated caster relative (sorcerer, gaining an additional spell per level), and having several powerful cantrips that interact with its other abilities.

Now, with sorcerer established as the "spellcasting class," it seems odd that bard would be the class to have the 8th level "additional heightening" feat, directly related to having more powerful spellcasting capability as opposed to the typical bard abilities (dealing with powers augmenting their cantrips and so on). I'm not sure if this is an oversight, or simply a quirk written in for an unknown reason.

That leads to a final point, the case for Universal Class feats. I've seen many complaints about certain feats or techniques being gated behind certain classes. Now, take the "Additional Heightening" feat described above. Imagine this was made into a "Universal" class feat, available to any who meet the prerequisites "Spontaneous Heightening class feature." Or Power Attack/Double Slice, "Trained in a martial weapon." Widen Spell, "You are a spellcaster."

You could add a variety of depth to character creation without taking too much away. Fighter could still have access to many open/press feats not available to other classes, with some unique abilities besides. As an added bonus, you might save page space avoiding the extra entries on the classes that would normally gain them. The problem comes in when you look at terms of balance. Martial classes will likely have more to benefit from in variety, since many spellcasters will already have access to a feat that would otherwise be made Universal. Would Double Strike be too powerful in the hands of a Barbarian or Rogue, and how does a Monk's ability to take Power Attack change things? Of course, these are all questions that would have to be asked to address multiclassing balance anyways. A potential solution would be to increase the level requirement, with a special note at the end stating "Fighter and ranger treat -X- as a level 1 feat," as an example. Thoughts on how a universal class feat system might affect balance? Would adding another group of feats make character creation needlessly complicated?

TL;DR for Developers:
1. Sorcerers don't have access to additional heightening. Oversight?
2. A universal class feat system including feats such as additional heightening, power attack, Double Slice, some metamagic, etc.?
3. Would said universal class feat system adversely affect game balance?
4. If yes to 3, does multiclassing adversely affect game balance?
5. Would the cost in game balance be significant compared with the improvement in enjoyment to the players?
6. Would it make the game significantly more complicated?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Answering the question created additional questions. The shove mechanic (in athletics) explains that it can be used with enemies up to two size categories larger. Does this increase that limit to three, or does it actively make it worse? In addition, the shove mechanic states you can move in the same direction as the opponent. Does that also apply to non-shove abilities that utilize shove?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Exotic Weapon Training has it gain proficiency and crit effects as if it were a martial weapon, so you improve your progression with that weapon.

Press effects can be used while you have a multiple attack penalty, but the penalty must be at least -4 to get an effect on a failed attack roll.

Adding questions:

Improved Brutish Shove: Specifies that it can be used on a creature one size larger. Is that a reference to the Shove mechanic, or an oversight due to Brutish Shove not containing size-specific limitations?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I could not find rules related to creating custom NPCs to use as antagonists, so I'm going to do a bit of guesswork based on the NPCs provided in the bestiary.

Cleric of Rovagug (CR3) vs level 3 cleric:
-Both have spellcasting ability of a level 3 cleric
-NPC has 41 HP vs a PCs 38, or a PCs 42 (W/ Toughness)
-NPC has one higher ability boost, but also an ability flaw
-NPC has no obvious class feats
-Reflex and Fortitude are higher than you'd expect vs PC

Demonologist (CR5) vs level 5 sorcerer:
-Spontaneous Heightening Summon Monster & Darkness
-Identical spells known/per day as PC sorcerer
-Identical ability boosts vs PC
-NPC has 58 hit points vs a PCs 53, or a PCs 58 (W/ Toughness)
-Class Feats Reach Spell, Steady Spellcasting, missing one vs PC
-Saves are each 2 higher than you would expect vs PC
-NPC Potentially has Great Fortitude and/or Lightning Reflexes

Mercenary Scout (CR3) vs level 3 ranger:
-NPC has 45 HP vs a PCs 41, or a PCs 45 (W/ Toughness)
-Perfect Aim doesn't require being hunted, but doesn't grant a bonus to hit as per ranger's Favored Aim
-Identical ability boosts vs PC
-Saves are each 1 higher than you would expect vs PC

In conclusion, although I did not do an in-depth analysis of their proficiencies and various other scores, it seems that NPC classes can now be considered an equivalent challenge for their level. Feat decisions seem to favor simple choices such as toughness, and many class/ancestry feats seem to be canned in favor of simpler presentation and artificially boosted defenses. Does anyone have anything to add?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not sure if this is an error... Bard pg 64, spell repertoire states that they begin with one first level spell and gain spells as they gain spell slots. However, this leaves them with less first level spells known than any other level, 2 (gained from 2nd) compared with 3 spells known (starting at 2 and gaining another the following level) for every other level.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In descending order:

1. Undead Master (Wizard) (This was pretty much the perfect necromancer archetype for me, but I'd love some pale master/true necromancer archetypes from libris mortis)

2. Synthesist Summoner (Summoner) (I love how it played, it felt like you were playing a genetic monstrosity that constantly evolved)

3. Empyreal Knight (Paladin) (Giving up Divine Grace hurt, but ascending to become an angel? How much cooler can you get?)

4. Zen Archer (Monk) (I loved the idea of an archer monk, a monastic dedication to the art of the bow)

5. Forgemaster (Cleric) (A master craftsman with rune magic? Casting bonuses versus armor and weapons? Sign me up!)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have room for one additional player in my upcoming playtest campaign. The campaign will be an adapted version of the Tomb of Annihilation campaign.

Disclaimer: In the spirit of having a diverse party to playtest, each player will be playing a different race and class (with human as a possible exception). Each player will have a random number to prevent disputes.

Platform: Fantasy Grounds (You only need the demo)

Time: Every other Saturday night at 6pm eastern.
Meet up on August 4th for character creation and rules discussion, first session on the 25th and playing every two weeks from then on out.

It will be primarily text, with voice used for roleplaying through Discord's chat

Characters: Non-evil preferred, no homebrewed content. This is a playtest, so feel free to make as powerful a character as the rules allow. We will start at level 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Would fungi and molds be considered plants for the leaf druid anathema, or might there be a fungus-based druid introduced later? Because a druid focused on mold and decay sounds pretty sweet.

Edit: Nevermind, saw that they were considered different! Decay Druid, here I come!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ectar wrote:
Camellen wrote:
I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)

I read that differently from you. To me: "usually you're flat-footed to a creature that's flanking you " means that only the flanking creatures treat the one in the middle as flat-footed.

Can anyone clarify that?

"Some things make you flat-footed to everyone, but usually you're flat-footed to a creature that's flanking you or that otherwise has the drop on you."

I should have re-read that bit. Oh well, we can always hope! I'm always excited for options that might make combat a little more exciting. Maybe a feat (like the teamwork feats) that treats an enemy as flat-footed to you if allies are flanking you? We could get some pretty exciting builds out of this!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think y'all are missing the potential of a flat-footed condition vs a flanking bonus. For one, assuming the condition is applied universally (and not just to specific actions), that means a rogue can sneak attack with a ranged weapon when their allies are flanking. The big bad is distracted by two beefy swordsdudes, and the rogue can unleash holy retribution on those heretics. The sorcerer now has a higher chance to crit their ray of disintigration by virtue of their allies flanking it. This is just speculation, but could open some really awesome strategic options! (Summon monster anyone?)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:

Quote here

James Jacobs wrote:

I often see this type of sentiment on the internet, and it frustrates the hell out of me.

The ONLY person who gets to decide if something is insulting is the person being insulted by it. If someone says something that ends up offending someone else, the responsible and mature solution is not to justify their insulting/offensive actions by trying to describe how they don't see it's insulting. That just digs their hole deeper and makes them condiscending as well as insulting to the person who's offended.

The right solution is to either nod your head and stop using that sort of offensive behavior (preferably altogether, but certainly when speaking to the person you, perhaps inadvertently, offended).

This is why alignment needs to go. Any other part of the game that causes as much hurt at the table as alignment is gone over with a fine tooth comb or given BIG WARNINGS ABOUT CONSENT (such as in the horror rules book).

Morality is SUBJECTIVE and as such has no place being used as a game mechanic. The rules of pathfinder are crunchy - morality rules are squicky, moist, and libel to smell like last week's cheese.

When the creative director (and company honestly) understand why trying to explain away why something is insulting/offensive is in fact just digging in deeper - after so many years of anguish about alignment and codes and evil spells and how it ruin's peoples games why is this still a core mechanic?

New edition - time for alignment to go - at least for player characters who should have sole authority over a subjective category that two reasonable college professors who spent lives studying ethics and morality could argue all day over.

The largest problem, while many of the commenters claim that morality is an objective truth in Golarion, the fact is that morality is subjective for the real-world GMs and players that deal with a morality-based system.

A player decides to kill a cursed innocent to prevent the curse from spreading to the rest of the town. The player argues that it is a good act, he's doing it to save the town. The GM argues that murder is always an evil act. What about when attacking monsters? Or evil creatures? If you attack a drow first without proof that they have done wrong, is it an evil act? Is laying ambushes for monsters evil? Eating meat as an omnivore? What about the town over, that considers it evil to burn their dead due to spiritual beliefs? Would it be evil for the paladin to cremate their dead? For the sorcerer to use burning hands on the town's zombies? Or is it only evil if you belong to the town?

I'm not saying you can't have a system of objective morality. But, because morality is not inherently objective in the real world, the constraints of this morality need to be clearly written and defined. Not a paragraph detailing what evil is, but a defined list of what constitutes an evil/good act, what would cause a shift in alignment, and how a clearly-stated intention can affect it. This way, if there is a rules concern about an alignment-based mechanic, the player (or GM) can bring out the book and read, "According to X, this is an evil action." If such rules are not clearly defined, it will continue to be based on the subjective beliefs of the people playing the game- which is only fine so long as the players have the same moralistic views.

If the game cannot have a defined list of good or evil acts (It does not need to be pages long, but it needs to be clear and precise), then it is clear that morality cannot be used as a game mechanic due to its subjective nature.