Chest Rockwell's page

Chest Rockwell wrote:

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Anyone who feels trapped by rules, and finds themselves unable to use them as merely useful guidelines, has my pity, for they lack the central ability to being a great player/gm, and not merely adequate.

Hahahahahaha, classic, "...I pity you!" *as said by Uncle Glenn in Raising Arizona*

I pity the fool!

I thought you don't like 80's movies, and here you go referencing a classic!

Anyone who feels trapped by rules, and finds themselves unable to use them as merely useful guidelines, has my pity, for they lack the central ability to being a great player/gm, and not merely adequate.

Hahahahahaha, classic, "...I pity you!" *as said by Uncle Glenn in Raising Arizona*

If npcs do not need classes, then why do pcs?

There is no "need" for any of this, and characters and NPCs/monsters do not "need" to abide by the same rules of advancement.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Quote:

D&D and PF as reality simulators are notoriously a joke.

Firstly, HP alone does not makd this statement true.

I never mentioned Hit Points.

Sorry, grabbed from wrong spot. Shinigami said something to this effect, in the same post as everything else I quoted. It didn't copy down from the quote button so I to manually grab it. I got the wrong one, but as it amounted to nearly the same thing...

Ha, and would with this "same thing..." be?

I think DEX-to-damage is worse than online image sharing communities (so pretty damn bad)

Ha, yeah, this is one of 5th Ed's egregious design errors, along with grappling being tied to Athletics (and Expertise).

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Roswynn wrote:

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Roswynn wrote:

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Roswynn wrote:

I don't like 80s movies in general,

Why?

Because my aesthetics were shaped by the 90s.

That seems a very limited and primitive way to think about an art form, I may have been born in the 70s, but I appreciate films from all decades, since they have been made (too many gems to ignore).

Also, watching older films gives you transparency: "Ah, so this is where they got that...".

It's definitely very limited, no s@%*. I just am limited like that, I don't know what to tell you. If I could help myself I would, but I've tried watching many '80s movies and it just, doesn't, compute =/

So, is it just films made between 1980 and 1989, or all films made before 1990?

I have trouble with everything outside the paradigm of current art and entertainment.

Wow, I am very saddened to hear that, especially considering current art and entertainment is generally at an all time low (music and film are severely mediocre), certainly mainstream.

The dogslicer seems surprisingly good

Hate the name, goofy sounding, adolescent, garbage name, like sawtooth anything, that kind of crap.

Before this goes down the same road, Str and Dex both play a part, Bruce Lee and professional Gymnasts and what-not are not just dextrous, they are strong, like seriously strong.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Yeah, I feel like of all the criticisms you can level at a game we don't actually have,"it is confusing" is one of the most eyebrow raising. Yeah, games tend to be confusing when you don't know the rules yet.

The pregen character sheet has really made some things fall into place, for me, not confusing (numbers, etc), at all.

For me I can't really put much stock in the pregens: we don't see what it takes to get to those sheets behind the scenes and they likely picked abilities that are the easiest for them. I doubt they pick the most complex things for them.

It's not hard to make just about any 1st level class look easy if you try. It'll take getting in there and playing around with the options to see.

I can see what it takes to make those sheets, and I am sure many sheets will look simpler, all that alchemist crap (for me), I just glaze over.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Roswynn wrote:

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Roswynn wrote:

I don't like 80s movies in general,

Why?

Because my aesthetics were shaped by the 90s.

That seems a very limited and primitive way to think about an art form, I may have been born in the 70s, but I appreciate films from all decades, since they have been made (too many gems to ignore).

Also, watching older films gives you transparency: "Ah, so this is where they got that...".

It's definitely very limited, no s@%*. I just am limited like that, I don't know what to tell you. If I could help myself I would, but I've tried watching many '80s movies and it just, doesn't, compute =/

So, is it just films made between 1980 and 1989, or all films made before 1990?

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Roswynn wrote:

I don't like 80s movies in general,

Why?

Because my aesthetics were shaped by the 90s.

That seems a very limited and primitive way to think about an art form, I may have been born in the 70s, but I appreciate films from all decades, since they have been made (too many gems to ignore).

Also, watching older films gives you transparency: "Ah, so this is where they got that...".

Yeah, I feel like of all the criticisms you can level at a game we don't actually have,"it is confusing" is one of the most eyebrow raising. Yeah, games tend to be confusing when you don't know the rules yet.

The pregen character sheet has really made some things fall into place, for me, not confusing (numbers, etc), at all.

I don't like 80s movies in general,

Why?

Chest Rockwell wrote:

The Mad Comrade wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

kaid wrote:

It looks like you are either paying money to make them so no resonance or the alchemist is using their resonance to make their daily allotment so those bombs are already "paid for" so you can hand those to party members to fling if necessary.

Yep. And that works for me.

Elleth wrote:

Wait. Does persistent damage stack/ping separately? Because that sounds horrifying.

I believe Mark said that it's not intended to go off twice on one turn, but someone with Weakness 5 would take 6 damage each subsequent turn. Ouch.

The Mad Comrade wrote:

If there is only a 1 or 2 point difference between AC and TAC ... ditch TAC.

It's only 1-2 points different for high Dex characters. For low Dex characters it can easily be a 4 point swing. Combined with all swings mattering more, that's actually quite a big difference (the equivalent of up to an 8 point difference in PF1).

That makes a lot more sense, DMW. Thanks!

Yeah, I get that with the 4-Tiers of Success system every +1 really matters, but I still think there is a more elegant solution than a separate AC type (again, like they pulled with flat-footed), really has bothered me since August 2000.

We tried something like flat-footed for a short bit quite a while back, but in play it usually felt unsatisfying that using touch was an equal amount better against an unarmored monk and someone much less dodgy in a lot of armor or tough hide.

Right on, thanks for addressing this, but still, I think the whole concept can be reworked into something without the need for a second AC-type, maybe the Playtest will reveal something that can be used instead, that's what it's for!

Deadmanwalking wrote:

kaid wrote:

It looks like you are either paying money to make them so no resonance or the alchemist is using their resonance to make their daily allotment so those bombs are already "paid for" so you can hand those to party members to fling if necessary.

Yep. And that works for me.

Elleth wrote:

Wait. Does persistent damage stack/ping separately? Because that sounds horrifying.

I believe Mark said that it's not intended to go off twice on one turn, but someone with Weakness 5 would take 6 damage each subsequent turn. Ouch.

The Mad Comrade wrote:

If there is only a 1 or 2 point difference between AC and TAC ... ditch TAC.

It's only 1-2 points different for high Dex characters. For low Dex characters it can easily be a 4 point swing. Combined with all swings mattering more, that's actually quite a big difference (the equivalent of up to an 8 point difference in PF1).

That makes a lot more sense, DMW. Thanks!

Yeah, I get that with the 4-Tiers of Success system every +1 really matters, but I still think there is a more elegant solution than a separate AC type (again, like they pulled with flat-footed), really has bothered me since August 2000.

Hmm, better than I thought, though, I try to adhere to "The key to a happier life is to lower your expectations" a bit deal, not to be too cynical, but it can help.

I can figure how all the numbers are derived, which is nice, I am only miffed at the reminder that TAC is still in, really seems they could trim that, like they did with Flat-Footed.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

The Mad Comrade wrote:

Right on, and yes, the soundtrack/score for Conan is superb, Carmina Burana, can't go wrong, and still one of my top fantasy movies of all time, don't make 'em like that anymore!

No they don't. Wasn't Carmine Burana featured in Excalibur, not Conan the...

Both, and Excalibur rocks, too.

You're right, Excalibur, that rocks, too. They were to use Carmina for Conan, but they got wind that they were using it in Excalibur, so went for a similar, but original score.

Yeah, and watching Arnie punch out a camel is just special.

Right on, and yes, the soundtrack/score for Conan is superb, Carmina Burana, can't go wrong, and still one of my top fantasy movies of all time, don't make 'em like that anymore!

Ah, yes, Excalibur, that rocks, too. They were to use Carmina for Conan, but they got wind that they were using it in Excalibur, so went for a similar, but original score.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Roswynn wrote:

Chest Rockwell wrote:

The DM/GM playing music would be a precarious point for me, thank god it's never happened; I mean, even if I liked the music, it could feel awkward, but if I don't like the music...

I dunno, I've never had this problem. I played mostly songs I knew everybody loved, and a few *I* loved and turned out to be if not hits at least agreeable.

If you really know everyone and their taste, then I could see it working. Do these songs have lyrics, or instrumental? What genre?

Okay, this was for Exalted, in a custom-made city state with strong Classical Greek flavor. Summarizing, almost all instrumental themes, from:

Battlestar Galactica (plus the beautiful Gayatri Mantra intro, a Hindu prayer to the sun we played before each session as a kind of silly ritual), 300, God of War (all the games but the latest), Conan (the '80s movie... I was surprised at how really great the music was), Dragon's Dogma, Horizon Zero Dawn, The Witcher 3, Wonder Woman, The Last of Us, Pacific Rim, Gladiator, and Sunshine, plus just a couple songs with vocals like Malukah's Reignite, all divided according to: action, ambient, foreboding, and triumphant.

So 99% instrumentals from OSTs of movies, shows and games. I don't think genre really applies with OSTs (although I'm not sure), but you can see there are fast and powerful songs, others which are more mellow for moments of reflection, others still that sound like ballads or even a passacaglia, some electronica-influenced tunes, lots of full orchestras, and just a couple filk ballads, in case.

Right on, and yes, the soundtrack/score for Conan is superb, Carmina Burana, can't go wrong, and still one of my top fantasy movies of all time, don't make 'em like that anymore!

Biztak wrote:

They said that medium and small humanoids use weapons of the same size

No, they said they do the same damage. This is a slight but meaningful difference.

I hope it's not too fiddly, I mean, so there still is some subtle difference we have to keep in mind?

Biztak wrote:

Is it me or is the ogre uding medium sized weapons?

Weapons probably don't change damage dice with size any more. Or not inherently anyway.

Really, so how will they express the damage for a Fire Giant's greatsword, bonus damage dice, static bonus?

Quote:

D&D and PF as reality simulators are notoriously a joke.

Firstly, HP alone does not makd this statement true.

I never mentioned Hit Points.

Gygax states in the 1st Ed AD&D DMG that D&D is game, not a fantasy simulator. You seem to want it to be something it was not originally designed for, and has never been.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

The DM/GM playing music would be a precarious point for me, thank god it's never happened; I mean, even if I liked the music, it could feel awkward, but if I don't like the music...

I dunno, I've never had this problem. I played mostly songs I knew everybody loved, and a few *I* loved and turned out to be if not hits at least agreeable.

If you really know everyone and their taste, then I could see it working. Do these songs have lyrics, or instrumental? What genre?

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

I was playing in a friend's 5e game last week and ran into the "problem" of all 5 party members getting perception checks which turned the "swamp of death" into the "swamp of threats everybody sees ahead of time".

That would be a DM problem and lack of applying the exploration pillar rules correctly.

Could you be more specific?

Should it be stealth checks made against passive perception? I have always found that kind of ruling really odd because it makes it so sneaking past one perceptive guard is just as easy as sneaking past one perceptive guard and his team of 10 slightly less perceptive friends.

Well, in exploration, you generally are not all constantly checking for enemies (it's also an Action to make a Perception check, and only the DM calls for one), one is navigating, one is looking out, one is maybe tracking, mapping, one is gathering/hunting. Also, if you are trying to be stealthy as you explore, you move at half speed, otherwise you are crashing around, and they might hear you before you see them. Stealth rules are rather loose in 5th Ed, on purpose, much to some's chagrin.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

I don't want NPC classes, have detested them since 2000, if a blacksmith needs to have +37 to his Craft skill check or what-have-you, so be it, no artificial inflation of HD/BAB/Saves, etc, in order to achieve thus.

Sounds more like an arguement for a classless system in total, as that really isn't a problem specific to npcs.

Not really, I am not arguing for classless, in any way. NPCs do not need classes, but they can have them, which seems like the approach they are taking in PF2.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

Seriously, it is very disappointing that rangers still have the sacred cow of two weapon fighting due to one drow ranger from the old D&D days.

The weird thing about that, is that TWF was originally a Drow thing, nothing to do with Rangers, it all went wrong with the 2nd Ed AD&D Ranger...I kept using the 1st Ed one.

You are 100% correct. In AD&D 1rst Edition you could dual wield as long as your off hand weapon was a dagger or hand axe although you did so with severe penalties. With the release of Unearthed Arcana drow could dual wield any one handed weapon. 2nd edition AD&D gave this to the ranger as long as the off hand weapon as shorter than the main hand weapon and the ranger had to be in studded leather or lesser armor.

This was done because people complained that the ranger was a walking tank that could track so the ranger was given stealth options and two weapon fighting to compensate for lesser armor.

All true, the "walking tank that can track" is pretty much a direct quote, nice, but the TWF for Drow deal goes back to their Fiend Folio roots.

So, Drizzt is a funny case, his TWF originally comes from race, and his animal companion is a magic item.

He was also an off-the-cuff character RA came up with on the spot when his editor asked about another companion for Wulfgar. Oh, and RA said Drizzt is a cross between Aragorn and Daryth (wields a scimitar), from the FR Moonshae novels.

I was playing in a friend's 5e game last week and ran into the "problem" of all 5 party members getting perception checks which turned the "swamp of death" into the "swamp of threats everybody sees ahead of time".

That would be a DM problem and lack of applying the exploration pillar rules correctly.

The DM/GM playing music would be a precarious point for me, thank god it's never happened; I mean, even if I liked the music, it could feel awkward, but if I don't like the music...

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Benjamin Medrano wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

So exploration mode works like a dial? you're looking for traps or you're looking for ambushes or you're looking for tracks and the rogue can do 2 at once?

When I was playing at PaizoCon, they told us to pick the primary activity we wanted to be doing in Exploration Mode. The rogue could be 'searching' for free due to a feat they had, so also was able to Sneak at the same time. Valeros was standing guard (me, which allowed me to have my shield readied in the opening round of combat), while most of the others were searching. I suspect you can take feats that allow you to maintain multiple activities in exploration mode if you want to, but we were only playing first level characters.

Sounds very granular.

*shrugs*

*shrugs*

See, I can do it, too...

BigNorseWolf wrote:

So exploration mode works like a dial? you're looking for traps or you're looking for ambushes or you're looking for tracks and the rogue can do 2 at once?

When I was playing at PaizoCon, they told us to pick the primary activity we wanted to be doing in Exploration Mode. The rogue could be 'searching' for free due to a feat they had, so also was able to Sneak at the same time. Valeros was standing guard (me, which allowed me to have my shield readied in the opening round of combat), while most of the others were searching. I suspect you can take feats that allow you to maintain multiple activities in exploration mode if you want to, but we were only playing first level characters.

Sounds very granular.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Roswynn wrote:

Chest Rockwell wrote:

sadie wrote:

I think the idea is that somebody can be legendary in some areas and not others. The sage has spent the last 105 years learning everything there is to know about (insert subject here), to the exclusion of all else in life. So why would they have high hit points, weapon proficiency and other things that come of high level PCs?

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about.

Really, if you need an old sage whom you can kill with a single blow don't even stat them up.

That's what I just said...

Sorry! You're right, I messed up - I thought it wasn't you who wrote that, for some inexplicable reason. I swear my brain isn't all there. Sorry again!

It's all good, darlin', I like the cut of your jib, and the Croatia vs. England match has just started, woo-hoo!

dysartes wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

We also know Rogue gets Dexterity to Damage, so there *may* be a way to get that as a Sorcerer as well (I'm guessing there is, as that's *probably* something that will be made generally available).

I really, really, really hope you're wrong about this.

Dex2Dam is a plague upon the d20 system - the game needs a vaccine against it, with the possible exception of class-specific features.

The last thing we need is a Dex2Dam epidemic...

We already know that Dex bonus to damage isn't a default part of the system, because the sample Barbarian that Jason Buhlman prepared on the Paizo Twitch stream used a shortbow, and the PC had a Dex bonus, but it was reflected in the attack bonus of the shortbow, but not its damage.

Whether it's part of certain class features, I cannot say. I will say I don't consider it a "plague" on all of d20 - it works just fine in other systems like D&D5, and the big burly fighters can stock up on heavy armor and massive weapons, and wade into combat with just as much effectiveness (in part because they're in there with equivalent AC, attacks, and damage to the all-dex characters thanks to other design elements.) It's all in the overall design, and if it's accounted for.

I looks to be a Rogue thing, so far. I think Dex mod to damage, as standard, is one of the egregious design mistakes of 5th Ed (along with tying grappling to the Athletics skill, and then you have Expertise...just stupid...).

Chest Rockwell wrote:

sadie wrote:

I think the idea is that somebody can be legendary in some areas and not others. The sage has spent the last 105 years learning everything there is to know about (insert subject here), to the exclusion of all else in life. So why would they have high hit points, weapon proficiency and other things that come of high level PCs?

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about.

Really, if you need an old sage whom you can kill with a single blow don't even stat them up.

That's what I just said...

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Shinigami02 wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

I don't know of any non-D&D mythological or fantasy archetypes that feature dual wielding heroes as rangers.

I believe Legolas is often considered as an iconic non-DnD Ranger, and while his archery is the big, flashy thing (and where most of his class feats would probably be going) when things are too close-quarters for the bow he tends to whip out dual elven daggers and be quite effective with them.

Legolas is not considered a Ranger, that's Aragorn's shtick; Legolas is a Fighter, like Gimli and Borormir, and the dual-wielding thing was in the movies, only.

Aragon was an in universe Ranger yes. Legolas's capabilities are definitely well emulated by modern DnD Ranger though. Faster Movement, Favoured Enemy (definitely) Bond used with companions, Favored Terrain. All seems in Legolas territory.

Elven stuff.

In LoTR yes. Elven stuff doesn't actually cut it if you were to try and make him in PF. The point is, if you wanted to make Legolas, Ranger (the class not specific in world designation) grants him capabilities closer to that character than Fighter would.

Yeah, the problem is trying to map D&D/PF to Middle-Earth too closely, Elves in Middle-Earth are more like monsters in D&D/PF.

IIRC Aragorn dual-wielded torch and sword against the Nazgul in their Dark Riders guise

I've heard that stretch before, opportunistically picking up a torch/firebrand/flaming pointed stick in your off-hand to ward off undead does not suddenly make you a TWF-focused guy.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Shinigami02 wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

I don't know of any non-D&D mythological or fantasy archetypes that feature dual wielding heroes as rangers.

I believe Legolas is often considered as an iconic non-DnD Ranger, and while his archery is the big, flashy thing (and where most of his class feats would probably be going) when things are too close-quarters for the bow he tends to whip out dual elven daggers and be quite effective with them.

Legolas is not considered a Ranger, that's Aragorn's shtick; Legolas is a Fighter, like Gimli and Borormir, and the dual-wielding thing was in the movies, only.

Aragon was an in universe Ranger yes. Legolas's capabilities are definitely well emulated by modern DnD Ranger though. Faster Movement, Favoured Enemy (definitely) Bond used with companions, Favored Terrain. All seems in Legolas territory.

Elven stuff.

I think the idea is that somebody can be legendary in some areas and not others. The sage has spent the last 105 years learning everything there is to know about (insert subject here), to the exclusion of all else in life. So why would they have high hit points, weapon proficiency and other things that come of high level PCs?

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Yeah, you still have the situation of the Legendary sage with 100 hp or something.

Anyone who's Legendary at anything is verging on demigodhood in terms of capability. They are, and should be, a superhero. I'm thus very comfortable with Legendary level skills being restricted to people who actually are fairly superheroic, HP included.

Okay, bad example, people are getting all hung up and pedantic about Legendary being demigod territory and what-not, anyway, the same applies to a big Lore check.

So don't make it a big lore check. Make it a super specific lore check that only someone with the right lore skill (or library) can make.

Or just make the NPC know stuff, no checks involved, and if the PCs want to kill him/her, they just do, again, no need to get out the old battlemat to kill some old sage.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Yeah, you still have the situation of the Legendary sage with 100 hp or something.

Anyone who's Legendary at anything is verging on demigodhood in terms of capability. They are, and should be, a superhero. I'm thus very comfortable with Legendary level skills being restricted to people who actually are fairly superheroic, HP included.

Okay, bad example, people are getting all hung up and pedantic about Legendary being demigod territory and what-not, anyway, the same applies to a big Lore check.

Talek & Luna wrote:

I don't know of any non-D&D mythological or fantasy archetypes that feature dual wielding heroes as rangers.

I believe Legolas is often considered as an iconic non-DnD Ranger, and while his archery is the big, flashy thing (and where most of his class feats would probably be going) when things are too close-quarters for the bow he tends to whip out dual elven daggers and be quite effective with them.

Legolas is not considered a Ranger, that's Aragorn's shtick; Legolas is a Fighter, like Gimli and Borormir, and the dual-wielding thing was in the movies, only.

Malk_Content wrote:

The issue is (and it was an issue in PF1 as well) that I don't want a master scholar who can also take 5 crossbow shots. I want it to be believable when that scholar comes to the level 3 PCs that he has foreseen an upcoming calamity and needs their help. If he needs to be a level 7 with all the strength that entails from a full class, he could solve any issue those PCs could while hardly breaking a sweat. Thats a big problem with the world in my eyes. The two ways round it is to have either weak NPC classes or a rule stating NPCs can have any level of Skill without effecting their other statistics.

Well, as a compromise, the monster creation rules seem to indicate that NPCs can count as up to 2 levels higher for skills specifically (possibly more, though I actually hope not for various reasons involving challenge calibration). If that includes Proficiency, then you can have an Expert Scholar who is level 1 but level 3 for Skills (and has 10-15 HP), and a Master Scholar who is level 5, but level 7 for Skills (and likely has 35 HP or so, though they could be as low as 30).

Yeah, you still have the situation of the Legendary sage with 100 hp or something.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Chest Rockwell wrote:

I hope they rein in the pre-buff, scry, teleport, kill deal.

That require some questionable reading of how Teleport work.

I guess, and there are other ways, greater teleport, etc.

Thread derail:

Did the one scryed upon get his perception check?
** spoiler omitted **
Some emphasis mine.

Great, I appreciate the effort, but the situation is still there, especially with determined casters in the party.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

The Summoning bit, I also think Bards should speak with animals!

Bards have Summon Monster in PF1, I have no objection to them having it in PF2.

Yeah, that one stock spell, but not really an iconic thing, at all, I do not look to Bards for summoning.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

I hope they rein in the pre-buff, scry, teleport, kill deal.

That require some questionable reading of how Teleport work.

I guess, and there are other ways, greater teleport, etc.

tivadar27 wrote:

Occult *really* doesn't fit bard. Yes, fortune tellers, soothsayers also fit in with traditional psychic stuff... but that fits Wizard as well as it does Bard.

Look past the name to what the Occult spell list likely does. As Mental/Spiritual it's gonna have all the mind-effecting stuff with illusions and enchantments galore, plus some divination stuff and summoning, and possibly some healing. It will have limited to nonexistent physical damage stuff, given that seems to fall under Material, and probably not a lot of stuff dealing with the natural world like speak with animals since that'd be under Vital.

What part of that doesn't sound exactly like what the Bard list should look like?

The Summoning bit, I also think Bards should speak with animals!

Not necessarily all of Occult ideas, I'll give you that. But the big names in the area like the Great Old Ones are very clearly Extraterrestrial and not Extraplanar.

Within PF, the fey are not from the Material Plane (instead being from their own plane, the First World). That pretty clearly makes them extraplanar, and I would think the prankster part would be self-explanatory.

Intersting, so Cthulhu and magic associated with, is more closely tied to the Material plane, since it is not exraplanar. Bring on the Aberrant Druids!

Ah, I forgot about Golarian/First World, I was going with the classic Fey are generally on the Material Plane, but some have connections to a Plane of Faerie type deal.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

IF witch makes it in, then I'd say it's up in the air whether bard is occult or primal, the other list that seems to best suit it thematically to me. Or maybe even picking spells off every list. But given the witch is probably NOT present, it's almost certainly occult.

Yeah, now that I think about it, the Bard seems most suited to the Primal list (the original class, well, PrC, was "under Druidic tutelage"), as Occult magic seems to be the sort of psychic/aberration/octopus-boy magic.

Wny is there an assumption that the Playtest *has* to have one primary class for each magic school and then sorcerer?

I have no idea, I make no such assumption, I am just speculating on the Bard and what I would like, the Druid already uses Primal, and I think the Bard should, too.

You know, I'm going to turn that around. Bards are fine with the fey-based Primal, but the psychic/abberation/octopus-boy magic is a lot more associated with the Material Plane and thus the Nature of here and now than one based in those extraplanar pranksters.

Really, Occult magic is closely tied to the Material Plane? What extraplanar pranksters are you talking about?

I don't want NPC classes, have detested them since 2000, if a blacksmith needs to have +37 to his Craft skill check or what-have-you, so be it, no artificial inflation of HD/BAB/Saves, etc, in order to achieve thus.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

IF witch makes it in, then I'd say it's up in the air whether bard is occult or primal, the other list that seems to best suit it thematically to me. Or maybe even picking spells off every list. But given the witch is probably NOT present, it's almost certainly occult.

Yeah, now that I think about it, the Bard seems most suited to the Primal list (the original class, well, PrC, was "under Druidic tutelage"), as Occult magic seems to be the sort of psychic/aberration/octopus-boy magic.

Wny is there an assumption that the Playtest *has* to have one primary class for each magic school and then sorcerer?

I have no idea, I make no such assumption, I am just speculating on the Bard and what I would like, the Druid already uses Primal, and I think the Bard should, too.

You're right, it appears we'll have fewer spell slots per level if I read the blog posts right. That doesn't sound bad to me.

That is great news, I house-ruled out bonus spells for ability scores in PF1 long ago, 36+ spells per day is more than enough.