High-level play has sucked in every variant of D&D produced to date and PF2 shows no signs of breaking that trend based on the current rule set.
In your experience. My group has successfully and happily played a dozen or so campaigns up to 20th level with Pathfinder. It's been a blast and honestly I've thought that the focus on the lower level end of the power spectrum was a little limiting and honestly boring.
I play this game to play heroes. Big, bold, bright stars that make a difference. Now, if you don't dig that, it's easy enough to limit your game to the lower tier options. But it's harder to play what isn't provided.
The thing is, hostility to 2e is legitimate feedback. There is a portion of the fan-base that want to have nothing to do with this new edition. They get to vocalize this. And Pathfinder should want them to so they can be aware that there could be some impact to the size of the audience they're selling to.
Trying to dismiss that voice isn't going to help 2e at all. It's simply trying to deny that 2e might not have the same number of fans that 1e did.
The Rot Grub wrote:
That's a player/gm issue, not a rules issue. Once PF2 has been around for a couple of years there will be these same combos and the like. Because Paizo will create new content and someone with the eye for it will figure out how to work it into something truly impressive.
Changing the rules isn't going to change the people. It only gives Paizo a chance to sell us much of the same, but with modified mechanics. Which is smart for them. They are a business. They gotta sell to be successful.
The Rot Grub wrote:
I think you have hit on exactly what the disconnect is for the OP.
He wants to have fun. He wants to play a wild and loose game with lots of options at his fingertips. He wants to be able to come up with a concept and through delving into the rules find a way to make it happen.
And PF2 isn't about that. It's designed for you. For PFS play. It's designed to put a brake on the wild and wooly designs. See, no design can break a game. You're the GM, you have everything under your control, you have the entire universe at your fingertips. But, if you don't want to have to study as much as the player does, if you don't want to have to keep up with all the various options out there then it can be difficult to keep the game balanced. So you, and others, look to Paizo to do it for you.
And they have. Slammed a big fat brake on the way options and the like can be applied. Limit starting stats. Hamstring what "multi-classing" actually means. Etc. Etc.
And to you, this is a good thing. And that's fine. You can run the game that you enjoy and possibly that your players enjoy. But it's not going to be fun for OP.
The change in the rules isn't for everyone. Some folks will be just better off finding a group that is sticking with PF1.
By being awesome. Fun. Effective. Full of flavor and style.
Since it looks like the book is more setting heavy I would be surprised if there was going to be any new classes.
Funny you should ask! Something nifty this way comes by way of Lost Spheres. Very planarly, I suspect as it's been described it will fit beautifully into most planar campaigns. And, so far they've revealed one core-class (available to backers for playtest) and two races. More has been teased.
Hi. I'm a play-tester for the City of 7 Seraphs. Yeah...it fits real well as an add in to any homebrew. Since it's on the Plane of Shadow (one of the Transitive Planes) it's way easier to see it as being more "connected" and "available" when compared to places a little more planarly far-afield.
Also, part of the story is that the Lattice, the road on which the City is based, was very damaged quite some time ago and has been in a state of repair. So it's a super simple declaration of "Hey, the portal plaza that connects to Setting A has just been fixed. Welcome to the new, shadowy, kewl, awesome."
Orfamay Quest wrote:
There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.
Much respect to Forest Guardian here. And thank you for pointing out that yes, there are more steps to the process than I understood. Like I said, I don't want to be a jerk here. I really enjoy 3pp stuff. Use it in all my games. Currently running a Direlock and an Aegis in the two campaigns I'm playing in and one of the characters in the campaign I'm running is well..a WHOLE bunch of stuff, a lot of it 3pp.
Okay, I know I have asked about cross-pollination of 3pp stuff before but this one doesn't seem like such a big deal and I'm curious if any 3pp would be willing to do it?
If you create classes as part of your offering what about creating the Favored Class benefits not just for the core races, but races from other 3pp? Or visa versa?
I ask because as I sat last night, putting together my Lizardfolk (from Kobold Press) Aegis (from Dreamscarred) I sighed yet again that I had only the base options for favored class bonus.
My group uses 3pp and we don't only use 3pp from one publisher, I doubt most people who have embraced 3pp restrict themselves to just one publisher. And a little cross company support is only going to encourage me to buy more.
I enjoy using as both a player and DM 3pp races, classes, archetypes, spells, feats and occasionally magic items. I've grabbed a couple of Campaign settings but that's for the races, classes, etc included therein.
I don't tend to use monsters for an absurd reason: Art. Paizo spoiled me when it comes to presenting new monsters with really awesome portraits and the lower quality of most 3pp art turns me off. Like I said, I know it's an absurd reason. Art is expensive as hell to add in to a book, and a monster book is more art heavy than most.
I never use Adventure Paths, but that's across the board, Paizo and 3pp.
Now, that's what I use, what do I use them FOR? Increased options. A wider array for my players to pick from so that they can play the characters they want to play. Playing a Conduit, Godling or Vizier is significantly different enough from the Paizo offerings that they bring an appreciated diversity to our games.
Gonna disagree here. I think they are AMAZING. The camera sits right the hell still and lets the actors/stuntmen show us how it's done. We see the ballet of some serious gun fu at it's finest.
Sicilians are great liars. The best in the world. I'm Sicilian. My father was the world heavy-weight champion of Sicilian liars. From growing up with him I learned the pantomime. There are seventeen different things a guy can do when he lies to give himself away. A guys got seventeen pantomimes. A woman's got twenty, but a guy's got seventeen... but, if you know them, like you know your own face, they beat lie detectors all to hell. Now, what we got here is a little game of show and tell. You don't wanna show me nothin', but you're tellin me everything. I know you know where they are, so tell me before I do some damage you won't walk away from.
As someone who kvetched about silly presentation of an iconic.
I'm a father of a 14-year old girl who is now a part of my gaming group. Started a few months back, joined a group that has been in existence for over 17 years.
I am not interested in her seeing a world where a woman's beauty is determined by how much skin she's showing. I'm not interested in her being shown that for a woman to be considered attractive she has to be flauting flesh while a male is considered attractive even if covered to his chin.
I am not interested in supporting aspects of culture that portray women as objects to be treated as prizes to be fought over, won, stolen, etc.
I am not interested in supporting any aspect of culture that shows women's sexuality as something owned by men or owed to men. That's not puritanical, I'm actually very sex-positive and anti-slut-shaming. What I want is for females to be shown as they actually are; as complete humans defined by a multititude of traits, not just as eye-candy.
Trust? I don't trust any company. Companies (with very few exceptions) exist for one singular reason, to make a profit. Any ethics they exhibit usually exist only due to limitations of law.
As for WotC, they exhibited a number of business decisions I disliked enough to decide that I didn't need to continue to give them money as our relationship wasn't equally profitable anymore. It used to be I'd give them money and allow them financial profit and they'd give me a product that gave me profit of entertainment.
The quality of their minature line took a severe nose-dive. Compare the Kuo Toa fig to the Kuo Toa from a couple releases prior.
They sold fluff-books under the guise of "introduction to" the new system in a manner I didn't appreciate.
Their actions led to the loss of acccess to purchased pdfs.
Their new system wasn't to my liking at all.
They decided to re-release 1st and 2nd edition books at what I believe to be a greatly inflated price given that the work was exactly what was created decades ago, so there was no new content, art, etc to justify a price-point at the same level of a book of new material.
But nothing of the above was an abuse of my 'trust'. I was a customer, not a friend or a boon companion. I gave money, they gave material. I stopped liking the material they gave, so I stopped giving money. No big.
Adam Daigle wrote:
Meh, not sure I buy the comparision. She may be a brawler, but she's out in the world, fighting stuff with pointy and slicey bits. I just am not a fan of it for anyone who is supposed to be wearing armor.
Because Pathfinder is one game that is trying to be fun for all sorts of players and GMs. Some of them enjoy high-powered godlings capable of remarkable feats right from the get-go and others want as gritty and mundane a game as possible. So the Summoner is offered as a choice. It's not rammed down your gullet, it's simply an option to be there in the game for folks that dig it.
What doesn't work in your game might be a remarkable and joy-inducing addition to mine. You and I will never play together, but Paizo has created a game where you have the tools and materials to put together your game and I have the ones I need for mine.
So, with the other awesome thread collecting a comprehensive list of the 3PP Base classes I'm blown away with how MANY of the bloody things there are.
So what have y'all played on that list? What was your take on them in actual game-play rather than just reviewing the build.
My group has played serveral, in my personal experience:
Time Warden: Fun and odd. Different but definitely not over-powered. I would suggest you have complete buy-in from your GM with this one. Time-travel can be awesome, but only if the GM really digs the inclusion of that to the game. Note, the Time Warden is specifically noted as NOT being an Arcane or Divine caster so if you're using 3.5 prestige classes you will have trouble qualifying for most.
Riven Mage: Fun and reletively simple. Be good at a lot, excellent at pretty much nothing. Fun to play a skillmonkey with some magic slinging ability.
Godling (In various flavors): Very fun, very variable. But honestly, a number of the Divine Power paths and the Scion Talents are so much better than the other choices you have to really force yourself to not chose the same options over and over again. And you would have to be a bit of a masochist to play a non-human Godling and pass up the Favored Class options available to humans versus other race choices.
Spark: Well...it's fun. Like Time Warden you have spell like style abilities but you aren't an arcane caster and that can make for some oddness. Now, it REALLY changes the flavor of the game. When the Spark looks at every single magic item as simply fuel for their fire treasure because little more than numbers to be moved around. If a DM really digs creating items with history and detailed descriptions they can get a little bummed when the Spark goes "Who cares who made it or what it looks like? Or even what it does? It's getting remade into something specifically suited for our group at this moment in time!" But if you're a player who has some sadistic bastard of a GM that insists on rolling for random treasure at all times, well then it could be a godsend.
I'd love to hear about your experiences.
Ellis Mirari wrote:
While it is informal, the tipping system is a currently accepted (by the majority) way in which waitstaff is reimbursed in our country. So long as that is adhered to there is nothing moral, nor immoral about that situation. You have waitstaff who are paid for their work, restraunt owners who make profit on goods sold and a public that received goods and service in exchange for their money.
The only weakness in the system is that tipping isn't "mandatory". That system allows the self-centered, selfish, rude or cheap to opt out of the currently accepted way of doing business. And in doing so the only individuals negatively impacted are the waitstaff. The rude human gets a cheaper dining experience and the management's end of the deal isn't impacted.
Now, could the waitstaff as a whole get together and have their own little revolution, demanding "fair" wages? Maybe. Maybe not. Fact is, waiting is an "unskilled" job. There will always be people ready to replace you if you make waves. Only during those rare times when unemployment is exceptionally low will waitstaff have any sort of influence. So I strongly suspect it's less a realistic chance for that happening and more a dodge spoken by those who don't tip.
If the system is adhered to, it's neutrally moral. If they received good wages without tips, again, neutrally moral. The only immorality that occurs is when someone knows the accepted rules and decides to ignore them, taking no consequences to themselves but cheating someone else of their part in the equation.
Internet discussions like this fascinate me. Someone is able to express what is generally held as a contemptible opinion and can stand firm, confident in their unpopular stance, because they suffer little to no repurcussions. This is a near-anonymous situation, they will not suffer social stigmatization because we don't actually move in the same social groups. Their actual name and identity won't be impacted because those they know as themselves are not privy to thie conversation (usually).
It appears to be one of the few instances where a sociopath can express their repellent opinions and be perfectly safe in doing so.
I wonder the same thing. Rite Publishing is a business, they put out many products and have a number of designers, correct? It's not like Paiso or WotC only have one person work on one thing. Isn't this an option for Rite?
Also, I'd be more than willing to purchase an expansion of the class that included some of the various other domains that have been created in other 3pp releases. My group has had several Divine Channelers in play and it appears it's an easy class to 'play out' reletively quickly because of the limitation in options. But still damn fun to play.