Corwin Icewolf's page

*** Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 505 posts (512 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 52 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 505 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My main frustration with it is that I, after all this time, am still really confused as to what exactly is enforcing barbarians' anathema. And I'd rather they just be roleplaying guidelines than something where... I dunno... The platonic ideal of a giant gives you your rage and also takes away if you're insufficiently gianty.

Which is the best explanation I can come up with for why a barbarian needs to follow anathema. And explanations like that still feel rather goofy when applied to martial classes rather than spellcasting ones.


Finoan wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Finoan wrote:
And it needs to be official because... You want to play it in PFS?
You're picking up what im throwing down. =)

I'm just not sure that it is enough of a valid reason to request Paizo to scrape it from a different content creator.

You might be better off requesting the PFS organizers provide boons that allow certain 3rd party content.

I find the idea of them sanctioning third party content LESS likely than them making their own take on it, if anything.


I certainly hope it'll make a return.


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
I wouldn't hate for there to be some Soul Eater vibes up in here. Don't necessarily see any good way to implement it, but then I haven't read any of this Roll for Combat design.

You can't really do the soul eater thing RAW. You have the choice of:

1. manifest your own avatar wielder. Probably the closest thing you can do to soul eater.

2.Be wielded by a random mostly useless person, who you make good at wielding just you. They also happen to be good at one skill, so...

3. Be basically a permanently dancing weapon and dance the fights away.

4. Be like soul edge and possess someone.

Which is all neat enough.

2/5 *

Vanities were never terribly useful, but they were nice anyway. It's cool for your sailor PC to be able to have their own ship that they use in scenarios that require a ship. It's cool for your character to have their own mansion, or wizard's tower. It's cool for your character to have a spy network, or be a member of the thieves' guild.

Useful? no, or at least there were much more optimal uses for prestige points. I miss them dearly, nonetheless.

2/5 *

I feel like I show pictures more often than say creature names, then thereafter refer to the monster in a generic way. Eg, If it's undead it's a zombie or skeleton, even if it's not. Most GMs at my lodge do this too. So if someone wants to make an assumption, then I'm okay with that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
A kineticist isn't a satisfying "elemental wizard" to some people simply because it isn't called a wizard

Well... And probably because the kineticist isn't int based. For me at least, that's more important than the name.


Maybe not, but psychic is a great class imo. Everyone I know who's played one found it fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I did not notice familiars in Harry Potter unless Dobby was what was viewed as a familiar. If Dobby was a familiar, even he was far more powerful than any familiar in PF2.

Apparently the animals that each Wizard gets are officially supposed to be pets (you can buy them at the pets & familiars shop though). But the way they seem both linked to their specific Wizard and do not really act that much like typical animals really makes me think of familiars.
Did any of the main characters have them in the movies? I don't recall any . I only remember Dobby.

Harry's owl, Hedwig, was in the movies.


Errenor wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
You're learning spells and hexes via your pact, but you're still essentially using your own power at the end of the day. The patron is important, crucial even, but ultimately a background element, your character is the adventuring hero here.

You are an adventuring hero, but no, witches don't have any their own power at all. Even now. At most some knowledge, and not even spells - they are in the familiar. All the magic is patron's. No familiar - no magic.

More like a cleric, actually.

Yeah, I find that irritating. Back in 1e they got knowledge from their patron, not so much power. Lessons seem like a nod to that, but I'd rather it be more clearly knowledge of magic that they gain.

Though there's nothing stopping you flavoring it as knowledge right now, but if they go the more active patrons route...


NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

But patrons are so varied. Why would every single one provide access to only the occult list? Why would a patron who's, say... A kami not give the primal spell list?

It makes more sense to me as a pick a list.

You may as well say, "Deities are so varied. Why does every single one provide access to only the divine list? Why would a nature deity such as Gozreh not give the primal spell list?"

With clerics there's a built in answer that's pretty simple to understand. Both the divine list and clerics are tied to worship in a way the other spell lists and classes are not.
Oracles, divine sorcerers, and divine witches don't need to follow a deity, but they cast spells from the divine tradition.

Never said they did, and RAW I think they'd even be perfectly legal as atheists. But that doesn't mean it's intended for them to commonly be atheists, or even ever be atheists at all. It just means they didn't put a rule in forbidding it.

Quote:
I think that limiting classes, such as wizard or druid, to a single traditions help give them their own identity, which witches lack. The question of why witches are occult could be answered with flavor text from a book like Secrets of Magic.

I don't see how it's helping the wizard any, it has a still really vague class identity as "scholar of arcane magic." One that could theoretically be changed to just "scholar of magic," without changing its flavor very much.

Not that I'm advocating for wizards to be pick a list, mind you, but I think pick a list fits the witch.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

But patrons are so varied. Why would every single one provide access to only the occult list? Why would a patron who's, say... A kami not give the primal spell list?

It makes more sense to me as a pick a list.

You may as well say, "Deities are so varied. Why does every single one provide access to only the divine list? Why would a nature deity such as Gozreh not give the primal spell list?"

With clerics there's a built in answer that's pretty simple to understand. Both the divine list and clerics are tied to worship in a way the other spell lists and classes are not.

But there's nothing specifically tying witches to the occult list, and I don't see how tying it to that would give it more identity in and of itself like you're suggesting.

It could. Depending on how it was done. But they could also give witch it's own identity while retaining the pick a list aspect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Occult only witch kills so many builds and fails to live up to the legacy of the original class and doesn't really give you anything positive in return. Hard pass.

It's about giving the witch its own identity. I don't see a lot of builds that use the witch class (and you didn't menion any), TBH, and "living up to the legacy of the original class" doesn't mean anything with regards to 2E's magic traditions.

The witch needs decent hex cantrips as a USP. I think it will get more familiar abilities instead, which are a lot of mental overhead for very little benefit, IMHO.

But patrons are so varied. Why would every single one provide access to only the occult list? Why would a patron who's, say... A kami not give the primal spell list?

It makes more sense to me as a pick a list.


Squiggit wrote:
Hexes that come from Lessons derived from the entity helping you learn and study magic. That uh... sounds pretty damn scholarly.

When I hear scholarly, I think of college, and Wizards do have their PhDs. I think... Anyway witch comes across more as paganish folk wisdom, to me. Mysterious spirits whispering in their ear for uncertain agendas.

Now maybe some witches graduated from the magic college of mysterious spirits, (actually, I kind of like that idea... ) But it's not how the class's flavor feels to me.


Temperans wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
Gortle wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Gortle wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.
Perhaps. But I always thought that is was a designed balance point in favour of the Druid - good, commonly useful, focus spells.

Why would the Druid need this over the Wizard ?

Not trying to be antagonistic here. I'm really curious about what could be the balance reason.

Because wizard gets the arcane list and more effective spell slots.

My impression was that was what Paizo intended. They continued this with Psychic class, which arguably has the best focus spells and even less slots.

Psychics are more of the cantrip-caster than the focus spell one. While they have good focus spells, its more their unique (and unique enhancements) to cantrips that set them apart.

Psychics have a good few things ongoing on besides, its not a straight spellslots <> Focus spells conversion.

List based balancing doesn't really seem to be present all that much when it comes to pick-a-list style casters either.

Arcane pick a list is generally worse in what they get.

The current pick a list casters are sorcerer, witch, and summoner. I'm not sure this is enough to establish a trend.

Quote:
Sorcerer is workable because it makes the class pseudo prepared, stepping on the toes of the Wizard. While also having Crossblooded so they can access spells from other lists.

Yeah... Feats for specialists to spontaneously cast certain spells would have been and would still be nice given sorcerer's evolution feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:


The most hated casters were the super buffers and super debuffers because they trivialized the encounters. That was always bard and diviner wizards. They buffed bards and nerfed wizards, and here you are saying "the balance is good because it was Bard that they buffed". See the issue there?

I think that was because you could pile on 30 buff spells before a combat and stomp enemies 8 levels higher and probably about half of said buffs would still be active all day. As that's no longer a thing you can do, people don't have as big an issue with buffers.

Quote:
As for the martials, fighter was buffed from "build-a-warrior" to "you can make a better wizard by playing a fighter with wizard dedication". Right now you can make an entire team of just fighters with archetypes and it will be a better party than most other combinations.

Yeah, no, I really disagree with this. Even if you take wizard dedication as a fighter, you're still a fighter. Your spells are likely relegated to buff spells because you don't have the int to make your save spells worth casting. And you might throw a cantrip at an enemy that's at range since it means not having to drop your sword and draw a bow. A fighter with wizard dedication plays very differently from a wizard.


Perpdepog wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ashanderai wrote:
Fighter should just straight up become Warrior. Man-at-Arms sounds cool, but the name is too binary.
Man-At-Arms

No point in changing to avoid a fight with WotC, only to wind up in a legal battle with Mottel, right?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Rogue should be renamed "Scamp" because that is more fun.

I would also accept "Rascal".

How about scofflaw, hornswogglor, abractor, or swindlebob?

I like Rapscallion, personally. Or scallywag.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Jacob Jett wrote:
And you have to think, most monsters are highly mobile and allergic to damage. So at best acid storm will do damage twice.
Being able to pressure monsters to avoid a given area is not a bad effect. You can also pre-cast terrain control spells, making acid storm great for an ambush or for defending an area you know enemies will have to come through later. Terrain control spells just have different balance considerations.

Especially if your party has ways of making another large area a bad option to be in.

Or if you're fighting in a room, cast resist energy acid a couple times and then cast it.

Cast it at a chokepoint and have the fighter stand in front of it.

Archers firing at you from above? Note that it has a range of 120 feet.

There are many ways that an ongoing large area damaging effect can be more useful than an instantaneous one, I guess is what I'm trying to say.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

If we're going the animal hybrid route again, it'd be nice if they had some kind of modular monster or template so that we could literally have everything in this thread as an option.

A swarm of piranhacondas...hehe.

Heck yes! Just have a combined animal monster and give it modular abilities based on different animals.

Gorillapotamus, elephanturtle, rhinocemoose.

The only drawback is if the GM uses too many and it'd start to feel like they're copying ATLA...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

The difference is the guy with the cards didn't have the resources to fight back. WotC likes a small target to bully; WoW could bully them right back.

I am curious about mimics, though. Mimics are super common in media, and the name is pretty generic. They might squeak by, but I bet the "stock mimic" art might stop being a chest, and the name might change. We'll see!

You don't think the fact that they're depicted in every video rpg ever as treasure chest monsters and are usually even called mimics will help?

I just feel like at this they're way too ubiquitous as treasure chest monsters to copyright.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

Frankly, I think the best way to deal with the gripes about how Prepared Casters aren't flexible enough is to simply let them prepare more and/or give them ways to better customize, their existing prepared spells, not simply cave to the sentiment that they should be given more spontaneous-lite options.

Action-tax-free ways to boost/heighten/metamagic prepared spells using Focus Points would be a great option but in terms of bringing them closer to Sorc/Bard/Orc, nah, big no, that's moving in the wrong direction IMO, they need to make prepared casting more appealing and interesting, not just move them closer toward the schtick that defines other Classes.

I keep saying that they should bring back prepared metamagic as that was what made Wizards compete with Sorcerer despite Sorcerers having 6 spell slots. But every single time it gets shot down with "it was too powerful back then".

I still say people are vindictively against the Wizard being good because of some horror stories that aren't even the Wizard's fault.

As someone who's favorite class in 1e was the wizard, and who feels the 2e wizard is way too bland, mostly in the class feats department: I'm mostly against it because I never liked prepared metamagic. It's needlessly complicated, and unintuitive.

Then again, vancian casting is really unintuitive to begin with, but why add an entire other layer of unintuitive mess on top of that?


Jacob Jett wrote:


I mean part of the issue here is I'm making changes for my game and you're like why would you do this? And part of it is, I like a more realistic take on the setting for the game.

No I just wanted to know what feats you're missing

Quote:
Right now, fighters best simulate individual heroes, like Celtic warriors, skirmishers, scouts, rangers, etc. that don't fight in organized, regimented groups (unlike say, cavalry, phalanxes, legionnaires, pike blocks, etc.). Fighters really only have 2 feats that support building fighters like this: United Assault and Shield Wall. However, once I select the Hobgoblin ancestry, suddenly I have a smorgasbord of thematically appropriate feats, such as Expert Drill Sergeant, Formation Training, Fell Rider (for actual cavalry), Squad Tactics, Formation Master, We March On, and Rallying Cry.

Okay, so that answers that. I do still think that soldier sounds like something that should be an archetype, that way a barbarian or ranger could take it to represent a very disorganized sort of warrior moving to a very organized one.

Or even a spellcaster if the archetype had feats that allow for using spells in combat in such a way.

Quote:

I mean part of the issue here is I'm making changes for my game and you're like why would you do this? And part of it is, I like a more realistic take on the setting for the game.

So sure, sure, sure. I'll attempt to explain my position but I fear that you're so entrenched in your "don't do that" position, that it'll all be nonsensical from your point of view.

Quote:
So yep, I'm going to argue that an enterprising houserule writer can totally substitute abilities that are similar to some of those Hobgoblin feats I mentioned above in place of abilities the fighter...

I feel like I'm being confused with someone else...?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
nephandys wrote:
How are you not able to build a convincing soldier with the Fighter chassis? I feel like a lot of people playing this game have surely done that before.
Yeah, that was gonna be my question. Like, legit question, what does the fighter need in order to be a soldier that it's missing?
To build a fighter as a soldier you have to select Hobgoblin for ancestry.

... Because?

Quote:
Or you could sacrifice combat flexibility abilities to do things that look very similar to Hobgoblins' bespoke ancestry feats.

I... Then I guess my question is: what ancestry feats do hobgoblins have that are more soldiery than what fighters have?

Or maybe it should be: what flavor exactly are you looking for when you say "soldier?"


nephandys wrote:
How are you not able to build a convincing soldier with the Fighter chassis? I feel like a lot of people playing this game have surely done that before.

Yeah, that was gonna be my question. Like, legit question, what does the fighter need in order to be a soldier that it's missing?


Rysky wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
No, it started over whether a GM who looks at cackle and says "I think you have to laugh, actually. Sorry." Is inherently a bad GM. You said it makes them a bad GM here:

Thats not what you said, as you later quote what you said via my post.

“I’d like to let you, but the book says this and I the GM cannot overrule the book” (paraphrasing the last bit) is bad GMing.

Wow, that's definitely not what I said. But I'm glad we seem to have pinpointed where the misinterpretation happened.

Inexperienced GM: hmm... This gosh darned ability is called cackle and very specifically says "laughter." I'd like to let you chant, but I guess there must be a reason it's so specific.

This is not to imply that our inexperienced GM is blaming the book or saying they don't have the authority to override it. But that they may be thinking in terms of some hypothetical monster ability or item effect or the like that's triggered by laughter, and thinking that it may cause balance problems for such an ability. Hence "a reason it's so specific."

RavingDork wrote:
*snip*

Oh well, that settles it, I guess. After all, everyone's experiences are exactly the same as yours in every way.

I confess I don't think the issue of "can my witch chant instead of cackle" has come up at my lodge, but I believe the similar question of "can my 2e bard give a speech instead of sing?" Has and if I'm not mistaken the answer was no.


Rysky wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Say no to what? GMing? You have to do it to get better at it. Or say no to cackle?
Say no to reflavoring if you’re not comfortable with it rather than making it the book’s fault, going off your example.
It kind of is, though. I wouldn't have to worry about saying no or yes, were it named in a more flavor neutral way.
You moved the goalposts.

I didn't, at least not intentionally. This is an online discussion between dozens of people. Goalposts are going to get moved. Things will be misinterpreted.

Quote:
This argument was against a GM refusing to let players reflavor abilities and blaming the book and saying they, the GM, had no power to change it. That’s a bad GM.

No, it started over whether a GM who looks at cackle and says "I think you have to laugh, actually. Sorry." Is inherently a bad GM. You said it makes them a bad GM here:

Rysky wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Bad GMs are gonna bad GM. No amount of rules are gonna change that.

(No idea what alignment has to do with stats)

They don't have to be a bad GM, they could just be an inexperienced GM.

Cackle wrote:
You can extend one of your spells with a quick burst of laughter.

Inexperienced GM: hmm... This gosh darned ability is called cackle and very specifically says "laughter." I'd like to let you chant, but I guess there must be a reason it's so specific.

Disappointed player: well dang it! Now my extremely serious, stern faced witch has to laugh hysterically like a dum dum every time they cast a spell!

That is a bad GM by your example.

GM: I’d like to let you but…

Player: what’s stopping you, you’re the GM?

A non-bad GM would take this as a learning experience.

Then you said "just say no to reflavoring it if you're not comfortable with it" even though making it clear somewhere that you don't actually have to laugh would prevent me from having to worry about whether to say yes or no.

Player: oh wait, it says right here I don't actually have to laugh. Just make a vocalization.

New GM: Oh hey, you're right. That's fine then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Say no to what? GMing? You have to do it to get better at it. Or say no to cackle?
Say no to reflavoring if you’re not comfortable with it rather than making it the book’s fault, going off your example.

It kind of is, though. I wouldn't have to worry about saying no or yes, were it named in a more flavor neutral way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
If you want to say "I'm batman" instead you can, even in PFS games!

I'm not sure that that is accurate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
If you're new to gming, you already have a hundred new things to learn and a billion things to focus on. Wanting to maintain simplicity at first is reasonable.
Then just say no instead of shoving the responsibility/blame elsewhere.

Say no to what? GMing? You have to do it to get better at it. Or say no to cackle?

YuriP wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
drain bonded item doesn't force your character to sound like a complete and utter lunatic when used. And it's not so much about never laughing. I don't know if you've ever heard someone cackle, but cackling does. Cackling isn't just laughter, it's extremely loud and extremely annoying laughter and sounds like this. Even the most stern faced people might chuckle sometimes, but they wouldn't cackle.
The spell texts only says "With a quick burst of laughter, you prolong a magical effect you created. You Sustain a Spell". Nothing says that you need to "extremely loud and extremely annoying laughter and sounds like this". And in the end it's just a flavor text, the only thing that matters is that is verbal and that you Sustain a Spell. So don't matter! You can just smile while humming a laugh or cry instead of laugh it all will be valid to cackle!

The ability probably shouldn't be called cackle, then.

Quote:
You can also laugh like a Ojou and Sustain a Spell! :D (ohohoho)

I'd argue that that is also cackling, so yeah definitely.

Though, slight off topic: It's been said that a cackle is to laughter what a shovel is to a face. If so, then that particular laugh is to a cackle what a cackle is to laughter.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Wizard needs massive upgrades all around:

* Skills the same as other casters.

I feel like they could take it or leave it, they already get a bunch from being int based, after all.

I mean, shoot, spare a thought for the sorcerers, they get 3 or 4 trained if they don't add anything to int.

Quote:
* Reintroduction of prepared metamagic.

Hard disagree. Prepared metamagic wasn't particularly fun, and made everything a lot harder. Plus I'm pretty sure 2e wants to limit the advantages you get from being a system master, and I feel like that be harmful to that goal.

Quote:
* Upgrades to existing school abilities.

Agree.

Quote:
* More feats period (seriously, they have given wizards so few feats).

And more interesting feats. I'd like if the class feats they get can stand on their own in regards to flavor.

Quote:
* More archetypes that actually care about Int and work with Wizard's proficiency. Way too many are more focused on literally any other class. (Only Con gets less love).

Would be nice.

Quote:
* More poaching of other classes. If all other casters are going to get feats that let them take spells from any list, why are Wizards being left out when their thing is studying magic?

Yeah. Call a feat "elective studies" or something and let them pick from a handful of spells from other spell lists.

Quote:
* Rebalance Thesis because right now some are clearly way too weak. Not to mention that Spell Substitution should had been either a feature or a feat if wizards had actual features.

I like spell substitution as a thesis. But a lot of them might need a boost, that's true.

Quote:
* Related to more feat, more metamagics and way to modify said metamagic. As well as ways to modify spells period.

Seconding more metamagics.

Quote:

* If spontaneous casters are going to get ways to get prepared spells, Wizards should have ways to get spontaneous spells.

Eh... Wizards kind of can do that by picking the flexible casting archetype. I'd rather they get feats to get a couple more prepared spells so they don't have to reach outside their class to do that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Bad GMs are gonna bad GM. No amount of rules are gonna change that.

(No idea what alignment has to do with stats)

They don't have to be a bad GM, they could just be an inexperienced GM.

Cackle wrote:
You can extend one of your spells with a quick burst of laughter.

Inexperienced GM: hmm... This gosh darned ability is called cackle and very specifically says "laughter." I'd like to let you chant, but I guess there must be a reason it's so specific.

Disappointed player: well dang it! Now my extremely serious, stern faced witch has to laugh hysterically like a dum dum every time they cast a spell!

That is a bad GM by your example.

GM: I’d like to let you but…

Player: what’s stopping you, you’re the GM?

If you're new to gming, you already have a hundred new things to learn and a billion things to focus on. Wanting to maintain simplicity at first is reasonable.

Interestingly, this is kind of the opposite of the 1st edition cackle problem. Since it was a supernatural ability, people weren't even sure if you had to make any noise, and it led to big ridiculous discussions quite like this one.

Clearly marking optional flavor text as optional actually sounds like a good way of dealing with this to me.

YuriP wrote:

I am completely in favor of witches having Cackle as a class feature.

If your witch conceptually doesn't laugh, then she's probably exotic enough to also not have a familiar, or is a wizard, as much of pop culture ends up calling wizards as witches due to there not being a clear cultural distinction between them, like agent has within the RPG universe.

I am completely in favor of witches having Cackle as a class feature.

If your witch conceptually doesn't laugh, then she's probably exotic enough to also not have a familiar, or is a wizard, as much of pop culture ends up calling wizards witches due to there not being a clear cultural distinction between them, like agent has within the RPG universe.

The most important point here is the mechanical importance of the thing. Nobody complains about the mage having drain bounded item as a class feature even if conceptually the character has nothing really establishing that he should withdraw extra powers from an item, but they complain about the witch having cackle because the character they want to make doesn't want to laugh.

drain bonded item doesn't force your character to sound like a complete and utter lunatic when used. And it's not so much about never laughing. I don't know if you've ever heard someone cackle, but cackling does. Cackling isn't just laughter, it's extremely loud and extremely annoying laughter and sounds like this. Even the most stern faced people might chuckle sometimes, but they wouldn't cackle.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Bad GMs are gonna bad GM. No amount of rules are gonna change that.

(No idea what alignment has to do with stats)

They don't have to be a bad GM, they could just be an inexperienced GM.

Cackle wrote:
You can extend one of your spells with a quick burst of laughter.

Inexperienced GM: hmm... This gosh darned ability is called cackle and very specifically says "laughter." I'd like to let you chant, but I guess there must be a reason it's so specific.

Disappointed player: well dang it! Now my extremely serious, stern faced witch has to laugh hysterically like a dum dum every time they cast a spell!


Jacob Jett wrote:

I mean, I think I would basically count pest form and in some cases animal form as shrinking spells as well.

However, regarding spell-casting times, shrink is obviously an "attack" spell that polymorphs am unwilling subject. So I would take that it's streamlined for stressful situations in a way that utility spells like shrink item is not.

Are you sure about that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh. Every time I try to get it to gm something for me it tells me something like "as an AI language model, I can't serve as a full gm, but I can help you gm your own game by generating dungeons and npcs." So I guess you're lucky you even got what you did out of it. Heh.


Squiggit wrote:

tbh, I think part of the problem with executing the idea is that being freakishly strong is relatively mundane in Pathfinder.

There is an upper limit to how strong you can be and everyone who is strength-based is going to be exactly that level of strong. So being 'the strong guy' is only really an option if you're in a party with no other strong guys, because once you do those characters will be just as good as you purely because the game's math demands it.

Eeeh yeah, but they could still make like... A half giant style race that gets ancestry feats that gives you things like hefty hauler + bonus. And maybe a heritage that gives you some other strength related benefit.

You still wouldn't technically be over 18 strength, but there's room for workarounds that don't break the game and still let you feel like a strength beast is all I'm saying.


HumbleGamer wrote:

Aggressive advertising on Golarion would be like having npc with message wandering from town to town and harassing people in a similar way:

"Hey, are you happy with your current deity? New followers of XXXXXX gets an extra lvl 2 spell slot and +1 circ damage on all damaging spells for 24 sessions!"

"Tired of keep missing your attacks? The last time you scored a critical hit was for your birthday? Leave your old class and Join the fighter academy! With awesome weapon proficiency you'll be having +10% extra hit, critical hit and fun!"

GM: You're walking through the woods and suddenly you receive a sending spell. The message is: "we have been trying to reach you about your carriage's extended warran-ty."

Player: shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JstCurious wrote:

When I saw the Anadi, I instantly wanted to play one. Shapechanging, intelligent spider PC? Count me in! Reading the class though, even after the errata, they are a very nerfed ancestry (still playing one for my first pf2e game ever!).

While an amazing concept with some cool lore, it’s clear the developer(s) that came up with it never went through a period in their life where they found spiders fascinating. I’ve seen some in this post mention pedipalps, which is a good step, but no one has mentioned that spiders have 2 claws on every foot, and web weaving spiders have 3, which they use to grip, climb and yes, manipulate things (read: fingers). While I don’t see them wielding a sword, the manipulate issue was only somewhat solved by the errata. I think a creature with 16-24 opposable thumbs can do a lot more manipulating than described. And surely, knowing how weak their fangs and venom were, an intelligent race capable of magic and weaving would have developed some sort of weapons or tools, even armor that they could wield? Especially after they met people who screamed “kill it with fire!” How they weren’t hunted down to extinction is a mystery.
Also, as the only real thing they get is 1d6 fangs, there surely should have been other things they could have done.
No low light vision or dark vision, even though spiders are commonly portrayed in fantasy settings as subterranean or nocturnal? Surface dwelling elves get it for some reason… in fact, the list of non-humans that get at least low light vision is extensive, without any logic behind it. 15 foot imprecise tremorsense at 9th level is weak, mainly because you can’t get it until 9th level. If you do, you never get a climb speed.
Web weaver is ok for a 1st level feat, especially considering most Anadi can’t spin webs. But it never gets better. The thing that kills the lore, is it still doesn’t allow for Anadi “weavers”, since anything created must be maintained daily, or dissolve away into nothing. That Anadi blanket being displayed by the peacock...

If you can't take lower level ancestry feats then I've been doing it wrong. And if you get to level 17 you may as well, since there's currently no 17th level ancestry feats for Anadi. Which is its own problem, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
Are people also seriously forgetting that the kineticist has access to walls, movement control, and other utility?
Maybe, possibly, depending on their feat selection (and depending on how your GM rules how magical those features are).

Especially since, if I'm not mistaken, in this case your GM would technically be perfectly within the RAW to rule that not a single one of the kineticist's impulse feats affects a Golem, unless it's one of the specific magical effects that does something to it.


Temperans wrote:

One of the biggest issues with the whole "Its fine if they just preemptively buy these very specific item" is that it is by definition metagaming. Which is one of the most derided parts of playing and why so many people love to do the whole "This looks like its X but it actually has different stats LOL". People know about trolls, and you still have plenty of GMs that complain about how using a torch is bad if they don't recall knowledge. You think they won't complain about the Kineticist specifically doing that?

Kineticist have it even worst off given that they have literally no in class option to deal with creatures who are straight up immune. Having to rely on a consumable item, and even more specifically punching things, when you wanted to be shooting fireballs is literally the worst.

Go tell the fighter that the only way they have to fight a specific monster is the weakest of cantrip and nothing else, bet they wouldn't stand for it.

I agree with everything you've said, though in my experience melee fighters forget to bring ranged weapons all the time till they run into flying enemies and begrudgingly buy a longbow. So certain specific fighter concepts aren't immune to this problem. Slashedy Mcgreatsword occasionally using a bow usually isn't as big a departure from their character concept as a kineticist pulling out a mace, but still...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
on the subject of "respectful" shamans who would they even be respectful to?

The people it originally applied to, if we want to be respectful. A more generic name might be the better approach, though. It might be a bit confusing, but with the equivalent of the pf1 spiritualist being folded into the summoner, we could reuse that name.

Quote:
based on what I've read the term originally referred to religious figures in Siberia, Mongolia and associated areas but has since been applied to native Americans from Inuit through to indigenous beliefs in Peru, not to mention aboriginal priests in Australia, and spitualists in Africa and through the Indian ocean. Other than a general belief in spirits these groups have basically nothing in common that you could use as a basis to ground what a Golarion shaman is.

It was white Christians who barely knew anything about those practices who started applying the term to those other people, though, so it was already a bit racist to do that. Like, "Oh you talk with spirits and lead your people in their religious beliefs, you must be exactly the same as these other people on the other side of the planet."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems worth noting since no one's mentioned it, that the term shaman originally came from northern Asia, and Christian white people started applying it to native American medicine men, and other indigenous religious leaders because they looked the same to them.

So I'd start there if we want it to perfectly reflect real world shamanism.

Either way, primal or occult sounds right. Divine but with ancestor themes to take the place of deities for the class would sound interesting, too.

What someone said upthread about them using diplomacy in place of religion sounds cool, if we take that idea and run with it, they could be charisma based and have an ability that let's them identify magic items and such by speaking with spirits.


graystone wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
happyninja42 wrote:
...like a filthy caster memorizing spells.
Was that really necessary?
We're playing around with water and earth and you're surprised to see someone tossing around a little mud? I don't think fictional wizards are getting their feelings hurt.

Not fictional wizards, but the players of those fictional wizards might get rather upset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chase young from xiaolin showdown for lawful evil. Gleefully sets lava on innocents but let's the heroes go for no other reason then "I gave my word, accepted your challenge, and lost"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
A Humble Calf wrote:
You just have to weight them to se if they weight the same as a duck.

No, that's for witches. Wizards hang out with kings and kings sit on thrones, and thrones are cushioned, therefore you need a butt that's very cushioned with fat to be a wizard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Should note that the signature kasatha fighting style in 1e was dual-wielding bows.

As someone who is cross dominant this always bothered me. I'm right handed, but left-eyed so in order to shoot accurately (with a bow or a gun) I need to shoot left-handed.

It seems very difficult to hold two bows in your two right hands (since they're going to get in each other's way), and it seems impossible to hold a bow in your left set of hands and your right set of hands.

FWIW, I have also always been bothered by the "gun in each hand" thing you see in action movies. This accomplishes nothing unless your only goal is "put a lot of lead down range without any particular preference about what you hit with it."

Which makes sense to do in a world where most people can survive one bullet, to be fair.


Would it be problematic to lean into the "answers to their god and their sense of justice alone" aspect? It's definitely something I'd want still in the class... Not that it's a huge deal to me, personally.

aobst128 wrote:
What if it's a rogue racket?

Then it'd likely overlap too much with a divine based eldritch trickster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AceofMoxen wrote:
Thess wrote:
The stakes are real, and they could party wipe with bad planning or bad luck. In a Pathfinder game, they’d just run into the cave and use some power or another to win and I, the GM, would be bored to tears.

Coming from 5 years of 5e, this is the opposite of my reaction to PF2 combat. Compared to their biggest competitor, Pathfinder is already much harder. Your group must be real pros if they just randomly clear Level +3 encounters.

I think they were talking about 1e, where everything they said was 120% accurate, for good or ill. They said upthread that they hadn't had much chance to try 2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thess wrote:


2 Progression is too steep. A fifth level character can fight 1st level villains all day without breaking a sweat. We have been playing OSR games with flatter curves and have been much happier.

PF2E isn't any better in that, to be honest. Pretty sure it's intentional, too. A lot of people in playtest, myself included, wanted level to really matter, and as a result pretty much anything 3 or more levels lower than you is a bug to be stepped on.

PF2E does reward specialization less than 1E though. Mainly in that using the same tactic in all situations ever is eventually not going to work. But also there's a lot less of x stat to y going on.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like the fact that I accidentally hit refresh and lost the entire page of gripes that I just wrote... *Sobs*

I don't understand barbarians having anathema. Do Giant barbarians worship Giants, and the Giants give them the power to rage in return? If not then what's enforcing the anathema? If so then how are Giants and dragons and animals giving out power like gods.

I don't like the ancestries being so bare bones.

I didn't like material components for spells the way they were presented in pf1e and I'd prefer 5e arcane foci than a bag of random garbage powering your spells. I also don't like that wizards need to spend a feat just to avoid using said bag of random garbage.

I don't like how weak player characters are without magic items at higher levels. "Oh you're a level 5 fighter? You got stronger, but not stronger enough. Time to go buy/steal someone else's power. Or learn to craft magic weapons yourself I guess..."

As someone said above, I don't like that casters don't get a level one feat because it discourages playing non human casters.

I don't like how weak low levels are in general. I don't like how hard it is in PFS to start at a higher level than level one. I've done the level one song and dance so many times at this point. I'm sick and tired of having to take characters up through the rat slaughtering levels.


Xethik wrote:


Moment of Clarity is only first level, so a later career boost to it seems reasonable. It could even be a class archetype like the Gunslingers, locking you into a specific Instinct.

It could also itself be an instinct that gives you sorcerer dedication, and some new tricks along with it. Of course, presumably they'd have to figure out anathema for it.

1 to 50 of 505 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>