Campbell's page

From my perspective it just runs counter to the way I see roleplaying games - as games we play together (including the GM) where everyone's contributions are valued fairly equally. I say this as someone who is behind the screen about half the time.

It basically validates the GM as servant / Story Teller model which is just the opposite of what I want from either side of the screen.

I see streaming differently because there people playing a game together. I know allowances are made to make it more entertaining to the audience and are generally more scripted than I would like at the gaming table, but it feels less off to me.

If it's your thing go ahead and do it. Have fun. It's just a different experience than I would enjoy on either side.

Honestly, summon spells could have just always summoned creatures twice the spell's level minus 3. That would keep level 1 and 2 spells the same, increase the summoned level for 3rd level spells by 1, and increase the rest by 2. Meaning a 10th level slot could summon up to 17th level creatures rather than 15th, which still feels fair.

I think this is the way to do it. Summons start fairly relevant, but quickly become irrelevant as levels go up.

Here's where I stand. Both Wizards and Sorcerers could do with some tuning, particularly in the crucial 1-5 level band. I think it was probably not the best choice to give away some of the best Wizard spells to Druids and Bards. I also think some low level spells should be tuned up in damage.

I do not believe there are systemic issues that need addressing. I generally like the game moving away from being primarily about attrition. I generally like martial classes being better within their specialties and spell casters having more breadth. I do not want to return to the days of fighters being less relevant than wizards in boss encounters.

There are tuning issues at low levels, but the game is structurally sound in my opinion. I also think this is a case of judging PF2 more harshly than we do other games. Over all balance is pretty tight - a little too tight in certain areas.

So at the end of the day I tend to view the armor and weapon proficiency differences as mostly ribbon abilities. HP matters a bit more than that, but only in the event that difference in HP would cause one to get knocked out, but not the other.

The really important differences lay in the class features that actually support their skillset. Composition cantrips are stronger than a supplemental feature for a spell caster probably should be. Not sure how you can downplay it though given it affects the core math of the game.

The entire reason Int was a good stat in PF1 was because it gave you more skill ranks. It was not that it was used by knowledge checks.

Paizo deliberately removed the bonus skill ranks which removed the only reason to ever get more Int on a class not based off Int.

Not to mention Int classes are still being punished with less starting skills, even if its just 1.

Not really punished. So when design a game that assumes players can freely assign their attributes its not really punishing to assume a Wizard is going to have a high Intelligence.

There's not much of a game balance reason why Bards, Clerics, and Druids get better armor, better weapons, and more HP compared to Sorcerers, Wizards, and Witches. There was in previous versions, but the more martially oriented casters have gotten some pretty big upgrades in the spell casting department. Druids are not worse spell casters than Wizards anymore. They really weren't in first Edition that much either.

I think it's mostly tradition, but also the fiction. Like Wizards and Witches are not these dashing figures who mix it up in the same way Clerics and Bards traditionally do.

It's also far less of a real gap then it's ever been. When acting in archetypal ways really only the HP difference matters.

I think they were overly conservative with summoning spells. It's tough because you really do not be in a situation where it effectively becomes Summon Fighter.

Just going off of experience here. I find that you pretty much want to optimize AC while still doing the things your character was designed to do. You probably do not want to carry a shield on a rogue, ranger, or barbarian.

I do think the mitigation from a higher Dexterity is worth quite a bit more than extra hit points from Constitution particularly given that we get the whole die worth of hp now.

I generally do not mind it, especially for a new player. However everyone gets to play their own character. Someone being that insistent about what other players should do would result in a table discussion.

I do not see how being Trained in Nature is particularly onerous. Every character without an Intelligence flaw starts out trained in at least 5 skills. You can pick up an additional skill in lieu of a skill feat. If playing a Human (including one from a versatile heritage) picking up additional trained skills is trivial.

Nature is generally a skill I see quite a large number of Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues take. It's Wisdom based so it naturally fits in with a fairly stereotypical ability score profile. It makes sense that a typical adventurer would know the lay of the land, be able to recognize local flora and fauna, and identify beasts they come across.

I would not be surprised to see a fairly typical Fighter trained in Athletics, Intimidation, Medicine, Nature, and Survival. Not a given, but not out of the ordinary to see.

As a note that I didn't see anyone else mention (I think), The scales give a status bonus to AC which allows the wearing of armor or Mage Armor to stack.

The bonus applies when unarmored. It should be compatible with Mage Armor, Bracers of Armor, and enchanted Explorer's Clothing. It should not be compatible with actual armor.

Monks are pretty much the best at running interface against secondary targets. With high mobility, strong defenses, and decent nova potential they are fairly well equipped to burst down priority targets. They also have some pretty potent control effects.

In PFS I have seen monks completely jack up enemy spell casters that no one else in the party can get to. I think they are solid 5th or 6th party member. In a smaller group there are other bases I would want to cover first.

A couple things.

A fair amount of the examples I see when discussing this issue seem to come from hypothetical players reading skill feats and attempting to do the exact same thing without having the feat. It's generally described in terms of the outcome they want and not something they are attempting to do in the fiction. Basically they are being weasels. Tell them to being a weasel if they are real.

That's not to say the underlying concern is not a legitimate one. Anytime you have a game that has something to say about how a given fictional situation works it's going to constrain your ability to freely handle those situations on an ad hoc basis.

Pathfinder Second Edition has stuff to say about how sneaking around works, how personal interactions work, how exploration works, etc. In doing so it allows the designers to build in a meaningful sense of progression, character customization, and build niches that complement rather than compete with magic into skills.

We do not get the sort of hallow martial characters we see in Fourth Edition and Fifth Edition that are almost entirely combat focused.

This does not come free and there is a danger in like going too far. For me personally I have not seen anything that sets off my danger sense, but we'll see.

The good thing is that Pathfinder Second Edition is an incredibly modular game and empowers us to make changes. If we see Survey Wildlife as something that everyone should be able to do just add it as a skill use and let players pick a new skill feat.

This does not seem super constricted or complicated to me.

I might have fallen in love with the orc, particularly their relationship to their ancestral pantheon. "I'm coming to take your place. Get ready."

Dave2 wrote:

TThis is also same conversation now. Casters were rebalanced for PF2 and many see that as nerf. I am happy with it myself. It is not new topic conversation though. Seen it come up various additions of the game.

happy with it in that you primarily play wizard and you enjoy the new PF2 wizard, or happy with it in that you don’t play wizard?

I kind of feel like most of the “happy with new wizards” posts are from people that don’t actually play wizard (not intending to single you or anyone else out); and ‘the people who do play wizards in my group enjoy it’ posts kind of give off a “my wife doesn’t mind my snoring” vibe. Okay, if you say so.

Happy with it in that I play a wizard (Illusionist) and a Barbarian (Dragon Instinct) in Pathfinder Society. I find spell casters feel far more engaging to play in Second Edition. Coordination, timing, and spell selection really matter. The action economy is working against you, but managing that is a lot of fun for me. I also love how capable my wizard is at using skills.

I will say that I have never really been focused on power fantasy. My enjoyment of PF2 spell casters come from how challenging and compelling they feel to play.Also a Soulsborne super fan.

My response here would be "Don't be a weasel."

On a practical level if we do see something like this down the road it would probably be a ritual anyone can learn rather than a witch-specific hex. I would probably give it the Evil trait if it were up to me.

Honestly I would probably just move Will over to Charisma. Perception already has significant defensive value.

On a conceptual level I just like Paladins/Champions and Sorcerers being more stubborn/intractable than Druids.

So when it comes to things that are opposed to either a Save or Perception the issue is that nobody is really a dabbler in those things. PCs are least expert and NPCs have values pretty close to PCs here. An edge was definitely given to defense here.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm inclined to prefer other routes for "A Wizard with a non-Wizardy weapon" than "let Wizards use weapons". Like "Arcane Bards" or "Rogues with Spells" or "bring back the Magus" all feel like better options to me.

The Wizard should be first and foremost an academic.

I mean, sure.

But there are other ways do that other than just cut out the option with no trade-off. A similar theme based argument could be made for druids and metal armour or a bunch of other themes, but they didn’t materialise in the system.

That is a poor example. Using metal armor or shields is an Anathema for all Druids and could result in them losing access to their Primal spell casting and other magical abilities.

Over all there are thematic restrictions all over the place. Barbarians, Champions, Clerics, Druids all deal with specific anathema.Wizards, Bards, and Rogues have very specific weapon proficiencies. There is a very specific set of monk weapons.

I personally would be fine if Wizards were proficient in Simple Weapons. I just think it's a bit much to act like they are in a unique position here.

I am hoping we start to see some Bestiary errata. *Looks over at Clay Golem's Ancient Curse*

Other primary casters at that level are only getting proficiency level upgrades to saves or perception.

At 5th level

Bards are Expert in Perception, Will, and Reflex.
Wizards are Expert in Will and Reflexes.
Sorcerers are Expert in Will and Fortitude.
Druids are Expert in Perception, Will, Fortitude, and Reflex.
Clerics are Expert in Perception, Will, and Fortitude.

At this point every caster except the Druid is playing catch up to the Bard's proficiencies.

The ability for any class to be good at any skill makes it a lot easier to deliver on a character concept. My Dragon Instinct Barbarian is a disgraced noble and thanks to the changes to the skill system feels like a credible socialite.

Pathfinder Second Edition is a game where player skill, group composition, enemy composition, the round to round decisions during combat and how you prepare and transition between encounters has a huge impact on the outcome of encounters.

You could have two different groups go through the same adventure playing the exact same characters and end with dramatically different results.

The General feats in the CRB are just pretty lackluster. Regardless of class there are often cases where you are better served by a skill feat.

This is a spoiler for Absolam Initiation, the introductory Pathfinder Society Scenario for Second Edition.

As mada_gib says generally when interfacing with anything magical you use the skill for the relevant tradition. Like with Recall Knowledge you might grant the ability to use a skill for one of the other traditions at a higher DC. The skill chapter also covers using different attributes for a skill at GM discretion.

A caster multi-classing into a martial class does not feel underwhelming because martial classes have a better chassis. It feels underwhelming because their chassis is already so close. A spell caster that has access to decent weapon proficiencies like a cleric, a druid, or an elf anything is already only one tier behind most martial classes. They do not have much to gain because if they gain anything they would match most martial classes. There is no room to grow without becoming on par with a variety of single class martial characters.

The baseline for martial characters is Master level proficiency. Some classes get Legendary proficiency in areas where they are stronger than other martial classes, but the baseline is Master level proficiency.

Getting "only" Expert level proficiency in martial weapons or heavy armor puts a caster one tier behind most martial classes. Just like master level spell casting puts a martial character one tier behind spell casters that are not warpriests. They do so with much less investment. It's just that one tier behind is exactly where they are already at in their existing armor and weapon proficiencies while most martial characters start untrained in spell casting so there's a lot more room to grow.

I am not discounting that it feels like less structural growth, but that is because the gap is already so close.

If the item is intelligent I would just use the normal social influence rules. Either stat it out as a creature or just give it a Will Save and an initial attitude. That way players could deceive it with Lie, Coerce it, or Convince it or even use Charm and other spells against it.

Besides some that were deliberately removed like war priests that were just as good at melee combat as fighters and disarm specialists I think mostly reflecting the more versatile classes from First Edition like Rangers and Paladins can be difficult to realize.

On the flip side any concept that is more skill dependent seems easier to model. You can build a strong Assassin or Knight off the Fighter chassis with a lot less work. You can build a very thief like Illusionist without multi-classing. Also multi-classing into a caster feels way better to me.

Generally speaking the 80/20 rule applies to most martial classes in PF2. Your pure throughput options are generally low level feats. Higher level feats are all about responding to unusual tactical situations.

Here's what the Lost Omens character Guide has to say on Uncommon Ancestries:

While these ancestries are uncommon in the same way a magic item, a feat, or a spell is, an ancestry is something you choose at the beginning of the campaign. Specific campaigns might provide a list of uncommon ancestries that are particularly appropriate for that setting, such as hobgoblins in a campaign set near Oprak, or lizardfolk for a campaign in the Mwangi Expanse, and grant access to those ancestries. In other games, these ancestries are as available as your group desires them to be.

Basically it just signifies an ancestry that might not be appropriate for every campaign and might not be part of "civilized" society. It's basically a matter of your GM making them available by default based on where the game takes place or asking your GM.

A given game element being Uncommon or Rare is not about game balance. An Uncommon spell like Teleport is not designed to be more powerful than a Common spell of the same level like Repulsion. Teleport is Uncommon because it shapes the sorts of stories the game is about.

It's not really spelled out anywhere in the rules. Treat Wounds is the only skill action I can see in the rules that has this sort of if Expert you can do this thing. This sort of thing is fertile ground for an FAQ question.

The status of my order shows as delivered, but I have checked with my previous apartment complex and they never received the package. I also setup mail forwarding and have not received it at my new address. What are my next steps?

Both lore and mechanics are important to me, but I look at every edition change as a brand new game. Quality rather than continuity of lore is what matters to me. A big part of the reason I am such a fan of Exalted Third Edition is because I think the lore changes make for a better game.

I do tend to run shorter 1-2 year campaigns.

More important than Intelligence here is culture. Here's what the Bestiary has to say about Orcs:

Orcs are violent, monstrous humanoids that live by the rule that might makes right. They amass in brutal warbands both large and small, decimating and robbing those unlucky enough to cross their path. Countless small settlements, outposts, and forts have fallen at the hands of orc raiders, whose fecundity and sheer destructiveness leave an indelible mark on the lands they conquer. Survivors of orc invasions are as likely to be fed to the orcs’ war beasts as they are to be taken as slaves. Unspeakable atrocities await any outsiders brought back to orc encampments, and to many, death is a far more preferable outcome compared to capture by orcs.

Physically, orcs tower over most humanoids and look practically custom-made for violence with their rough flesh, sturdy bone, and iron-hard muscle. For all their tough looks, however, orcs are far from invincible. They lack the discipline to conduct large-scale campaigns, for one thing, and they typically lose their heads in the heat of battle. Even their skin scars easily—though this is a source of pride to the orc people, since scars signify strength and experience in battle. To orcs, the crisscross of old wounds are a much a badge of pride and honor as any beheaded foe or claimed trophy.

Orcs are a people of violent passions in all that they do, not just war. Bonds of blood are especially strong among orcs, and lineage is important. The strongest orc bands are typically made up of brothers and sisters in more than arms; orcs fight harder when they are protecting their own kinsfolk, and orc warriors will fight tirelessly to avenge fallen family members. This emphasis on bloodlines is not an altruistic one, however, and is in fact a double-edged sword. Orcs whose families have been killed find themselves at the bottom of the clan’s totem pole, and even a famous chieftain can become powerless overnight if their brethren aren’t there to back them up.

The chaotic and fractious nature of orc culture results in a great variety of beliefs, superstitions, and legacies among different clans. This cultural divergence causes substantial infighting among orc bands, in many cases preventing the rise of larger orc nations. It can also frustrate many attempts at diplomacy, as the taboos of one band may be commonplace and thoroughly accepted practices among others. Navigating a specific band’s culture can often mean the difference between life and death to those who deal with orcs off the field of war. Although orcs, as a rule, rarely deal with outsiders, they recognize the benefits of trade and willingly swap resources with other violent peoples like hobgoblins, drow, and many humans.

Orcs are proud, emotional warriors. They lack discipline. They fight as much for personal glory as the aims of the group. Wounds are a badge of honor. They fight among themselves as much as outsiders.

I could see this sort of skirmishing tactic from hobgoblins or goblins, but not Orcs. They want to be the one to get your head.

I might be missing something, but my response as a player here would be ready an action to Grapple one of those suckers as soon as they got close. Then we would smash it so it cannot do that crap anymore. The other orcs should get the message.

I have no experience from the other side of the screen, but so far as a player I love the secret rolls. I am a real big fan of the sort of fog of war it creates where you have to work on uncertain information. It just feels more real to me.

As written once an unconscious character who is not dying takes damage they automatically wake up.

Temperans,

I was speaking mostly to thematic rather than game balance concerns. Probably best to move this tangent to another thread.

One of the reasons I personally like rarity and additional content being at the GM's discretion is the creative freedom it provides to Paizo to create niche content. Fairly early in the life cycle of Second Edition we are getting playable Lizardfolk, Hobgoblins, Orcs, and Kobolds in player facing books. In an environment where everything is open by default we would probably not be getting those things.

When you open things by default nearly every option has to fit nearly every game. Taking this tact means Paizo is free to experiment and provide things that are a strong fit for some tables, but would not be a good fit for other tables. They get to create subversive and potentially disruptive material that they would otherwise not get to write because its inclusion is based on GM judgment.

In my experience Fifth Edition is played in a very open way. Because of that Wizards of the Coast has a very rigorous approval process that means most niche content is either cordoned off in GM centered material or just does not get printed. I do not want that.

I had to move unexpectedly. I changed my address in my subscription settings and just wanted to make sure that my Lost Omens Character Guide will not be shipped to my old place.

Party Cleric: You know Fireball is not the best solution to every problem.

Party Wizard: That's why I occasionally prepare Lightning Bolt.

Matthew Downie wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

if your using a weapon attack to point out the square I hope it's a thrusting weapon. Otherwise a slashing or bludgeoning weapon really only narrows it down to a few squares.

How wildly are you swinging your club if we can't work out what you're aiming at to within a few feet? Normally you'd need a Cleave feat to swing your weapon across multiple squares.

How precisely can you watch someone else without expending actions to do so?

Exactly. Seek is an action. I think you would be justified in using it close to the area your ally attacked, but you would still need to use it.

Wisdom is a pretty good stat to have anyway, particular in an environment where you get 4 ability boosts. It boosts a critical saving throw that protects you from effects that can often take you out of a fight. It improves Perception which affects searching, detecting lies, not being sneaked up on, and Initiative. It has a host of incredibly useful skills like Nature, Religion, Survival, and Medicine. Wisdom is an incredibly stat to have. Maybe too good.

The "in this book" limitation makes a lot of sense if it's intentional. Druids and Clerics have a huge cognitive load right out of the gate since they get access to the whole list. If that keeps growing it'll get out of hand for new players. Looking at the specific language:

Cleric: "...the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access."

Druid: "...the common spells on the primal spell list in this book (page 314), or from other primal spells to which you gain access."

Wizard: "...the common spells on the arcane spell list from this book (page 307) or from other arcane spells you gain access to."

It all looks pretty intentional.

I also like that it makes it easier to square in the fiction. If a new book comes out and all of a sudden Clerics and Druids are preparing all these new spells they previously had no access to it can be hard to square like where those spells came from. Obviously the release of the Advanced Player's Guide is not like a world changing event.

Font is strong and healing is nice, but even if your Cleric never casts a single offensive spell there is lots of nasty stuff to remove in this version of the game. You will want Wisdom for Remove Disease, Remove Curse and all sorts of other important spells. Not to mention if you intend to be a full service healer and not just a combat healer you will probably want to invest in Medicine.

Neovancian spell casting also makes the wizard play almost exactly like the Sorcerer. It also has a massively constrained casting environment where any spell with a meaningful duration cannot be cast with other spells that have any kind of duration. Even then spell casters feel entirely too flexible to me.

Your Wisdom also impacts your DC when someone tries to counteract one of your spells. Having a low Wisdom on top of your lower spell casting proficiency is a recipe for having your buffs be dispelled away easily. If you play in a game where dispel magic does not get thrown around its less of a big deal.

While not designed for role playing games the Gamer Motivation Profile and Board Gamer Motivation profile at Quantic Foundry might help you assess what players value in games. This can be really helpful in tailoring the games to what players are looking for on a game level.