Crouza's page

What did everyone expect in a gish class?

Im confused by all this expectation a gish class wouldnt have bounded casting.

People mad at getting exactly what they described they wanted, "A wave casting divine caster all about using weapons against enemies".

Sometimes I wonder if a +1 is really going to make any difference for casters, or if it will just end up being one of those endless shifting goalposts situations. Where like, we start with +1 to hit, then it becomes wanting +1 to DCs, then the demand for a striking equivalent, and then a greater potency version, etc etc, while casters still feel as if they were behind their non-caster brethren.

I don't know if its just fatigue for this topic or what, but I feel like at this point, the only thing that will make people feel satisfied is something massively game-changing for casters. Something crazy like removing incap from like, 1/2 the spells in the game or something like that. I don't know anyone who complains about casters are is like "a small boost to attack spell accuracy solves my complaints", it's always about just feel and vibes of not being stronger, so it feels like this only stops being a recurring issue when casters get broken again by removing their save or suck limiters.

It's annoying to see the conversation go from "We should come up with more interesting things for the wizard to do" to "Just make wizard busted again because that's the only way it'll feel good to play". This happens every time the wizard is talked about.

SuperBidi wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

since simplicity has intrinsic value

It's more complicated than that: Simplicity has a player-dependent (and also community-dependent) intrinsic value. Players with high tactical acumen will find low value in simplicity when players with low tactical acumen will find a lot of value in it. As such, there's no way to balance a simple and a complex class all across the board. The point of balance of PF2, which is on players with high tactical value, is a valid one. Even if I agree with you this is a rather elitist point of balance.

I disagree that you can't balance complexity versus reward, but I will agree that it is much harder or practically impossible to do in this system without breaking the game, simply because the basics already are pushing the balance of power as it is. It is not like being more complex means you get access to a new tier of proficiency, or that you get more proficiencies than other classes by being more complex, either.

It isn't elitist, though. The design principle of PF2 is literally "The simplest classes push the math to its limits, adding complexity does not and cannot change this." So again, if complexity is not rewarded through power, it needs to be rewarded in some other fashion, otherwise it lacks an incentive to play it.

And the thing is, the other options it can be rewarding for (flavor, efficiency, etc.) are not present or can simply be waved away, leaving the only other option (self-imposed challenge) as valid.

What's wrong with that? What makes that an issue?

Crouza wrote:

You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.

You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.

Being rewarded doesn't necessarily mean being rewarded with more power, at least not vertical power.

I personally have no problem with the Wizard being more complicated than other classes on a matter of principle. I consider myself to have a high level of system mastery, so its not a impediment to me. That said, I also don't personally feel like the Wizard is a particularly difficult class.

It's the reason that people consider the Wizard more complicated to play that is the my general issue. The Wizard is often considered harder to play right mainly because they have less than other classes. The Wizard is just a standard prepared caster really. It's casting is no more of less complex or difficult than other prepared casters. The reason the Wizard has a higher curve is that it lacks the same sort of safety-nets that other prepared casters tend to have for when preparation goes wrong, and so the classes ability to function well in its role can live and die on the value of that spell selection alone.

It's not a satisfying sort of problem.

A class can have of complicated mechanics, where its payoffs happen when you really utilise them and their timing really well. That can feel satisfying in itself because pulling off your synergies and combos is difficult to do. But that isn't the sort of thing we have here.

You bring up an interesting point that I think I can agree with. I do not have problems with Wizard in it's current iteration, but I can see what you're getting at where a reward for complexity/system mastery could be made to be easier to obtain on the wizard by giving it a few more mechanics to reward that effort.

Not so much power but perhaps in flexibility. The common idea of giving Spell Substitution and Spell Blending as class features instead of thesis's could, for example, give you those aforementioned safety nets as well as give it a horizontal increase to its power via flexibility.

Controversial as it may sound, I enjoy the school colleges. But I also love flavorful options, even if they're weak, and like working with my GM's to achieve that flavor. Perhaps a focus on further refining the schools with more spell options at the different ranks could be nice, or give each school its own version of Spell Blending where they can sacrifice a school spell slot to cast unique spells to the wizards. A kind of psudo-focus spell on top of other focus spells and pools.

Crouza wrote:

You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.

You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.

So then why have complicated classes versus uncomplicated ones if the only fundamental difference is that one just requires more effort for the same effect?

Thanks for proving what makes the Wizard an obsolete class with that post. Why play a Wizard when a Sorcerer does the same thing except better and simpler? Unless you want to actually handicap yourself as some sort of self-imposed challenge, it makes no sense to do so.

Because people want different things in order to enjoy the game? Some people enjoy really simplistic and straight forward gameplay, while others enjoy having more complexity to juggle while playing. That's not really been an unknown in TTRPGs, and as part of the whole "We're going to make the classes balanced and not have the tier system for class power" thing that everyone loves in PF 2e, that necessitates that all the classes have close to the same power levels as one another?

"Why have complicated classes" is the same question as someone asking "why have uncomplicated classes". It comes down to a purely preferential choice. Sometimes I really like playing a barbarian who attacks twice in their turn and doesn't need to think of anything beyond that. Other times I prefer to have to strategize my spell selections as a druid to try and gauge what we'll be facing that day. It's fun, and some people need that simplicity or that complexity in order to find a class fun.

And if being stronger is what makes you feel good while playing, it's literally right there for you in the more simplistic classes. PF 2e caters to a wide array of playstyles, without punishing you for choosing a playstyle the game devs decided was incorrect, IE martials vs casters from PF 1e and how the more complex you went, the objectively stronger you got.

You can't make the class with more complicated parts more powerful just by virtue of being complicated. That doesn't work in this genre of game because it makes that option, by default, the best option while also creating an artificial gate from normal players enjoying it.

You cannot, in you tabletop game, balance this game as if it were a fighting game, where the answer is "Well yeah the more complicated character does way more damage when you master it. Game mastery is the point of the game." We tried that approach in 3.5 and PF 1e, and it led to way more problems than it solved.

This games visuals reminds me of Moonbreaker. And that's good, because Moonbreaker is amazing.

All I ask is to please, PLEASE, let us go into a little menu in the character customization to paint our characters like they're real minis.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I still do not understand how so many undervalue lower level slots in PF2 where DCs are not based on spell level at all.

Experience. If at the end of the day I have all my rank 1 slots sitting idle then I should have blended them away. Simple.

I never use all my Rank 1 and 2 spells past the very first levels. I must admit I even forget about reactions like Blood Vendetta but they are so unimpactful it doesn't change my point much. So blending Rank 1 and 2 spells is basically free.

Rank 3 spells are useful for longer, but exchanging 2 rank 3 slots for a rank 5 one is a net gain: The rank 5 spell has the same power level than both rank 3 spells combined but costs twice less actions to cast.

I don't understand that mentality. I can prepare a ton of useful spells in those slots even if I'm combat focused. Stuff like Command, Enfeeble, Grease, Fear, they're all spells that are useful even at higher levels. And it's better to sometimes just have those on deck instead of carrying 10 staffs and 20 scrolls and needing to constantly waste actions pulling out and dropping items on the floor constantly, at least imo.

I like the idea but yeah, it is basically lifting from other classes homework in order to solve the issue. Perhaps some of the ideas the community has given could be good. Maybe giving them a choice at first level for spell substitution or spell blending in the same way that cleric picks warpriest or cloistered, as well as keeping Arcane Thesis as a separate way to further tailor your wizard and reworking those options. That alongside expanding the amount of spells a school grants could help smooth over some of the pain points people have complained about with wizard.

Crouza wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

I've seen a lot of discussions about whether the wizard class is balanced or in need of fixing. Honestly, after checking out other systems, I've noticed that their wizards are all spectacular. Then I look at the 2e wizard and wonder: is this seriously the best we can do? We can do better than this! Fingers crossed that the new rune archetype improves things a bit, because this shouldn’t be the best the 2e wizard can ever be.

Pathfinder 2e shouldn't need to break it's system just because other systems cannot make a balanced Wizard and let it break their games. Wizards/mages break every system I've played it, from DnD to Shadowrun to World of Darkness, 13th Age, Pathfinder 1e. They always are unbalanced and force the entire game to bottleneck around them and their playstyle, and force the gameplay to center entirely around what those players want to play. I applaud 2e for not doing this and actually forcing wizard players to play as part of a team and being just another class you can pick, instead of the best option that gets to force the GM to play around their BS or have nothing matter mechanically.

You're bringing in issues from outside PF2 to colour your opinion of what is being asked for by people who want to improve the Wizard.

Literally no one is asking for whatever you think people are asking for.

PF2's Wizard has specific issues which are true for it within the context of this edition and how it interacts with the game as a whole.

It's important to read what people are saying, not what you think people are saying.

How exactly am I supposed to not jump to that conclusion, when the entire premise of the post i am replying to is "other systems wizards are better so PF 2e should be like them."

I've seen a lot of discussions about whether the wizard class is balanced or in need of fixing. Honestly, after checking out other systems, I've noticed that their wizards are all spectacular. Then I look at the 2e wizard and wonder: is this seriously the best we can do? We can do better than this! Fingers crossed that the new rune archetype improves things a bit, because this shouldn’t be the best the 2e wizard can ever be.

Pathfinder 2e shouldn't need to break it's system just because other systems cannot make a balanced Wizard and let it break their games. Wizards/mages break every system I've played it, from DnD to Shadowrun to World of Darkness, 13th Age, Pathfinder 1e. They always are unbalanced and force the entire game to bottleneck around them and their playstyle, and force the gameplay to center entirely around what those players want to play. I applaud 2e for not doing this and actually forcing wizard players to play as part of a team and being just another class you can pick, instead of the best option that gets to force the GM to play around their BS or have nothing matter mechanically.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The one thing going for it is the 4 spell slots per rank. Cutting it down to 3 makes them infinitely worse than Sorcerers, as if they weren't already. Again, it is like capping Fighters at Master in weapons.

Have you ever even considered a Spell Blending Flexible Specialist Wizard? Because stating it's "worse than a Sorcerer" is clearly missing how strong it is: More high level slots and more spell flexibility. If what you're looking for is a combat powerhouse, then this is exactly what you want. If what you're looking for is an out of combat toolbox, then Spell Substitution is what you want. It's 2 very competitive Wizard builds that I give you.

Now, I agree that not all options are made equal in the Wizard. On that, I fully agree.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

And no, you can't sacrifice school slots for it, so nice try on that.

I've never said anything like that. And anyway it's pointless as these slots are already sacrificed to Spell Blending.

Neat idea. I think I might try this out as a wizard and see how I like it. Play a war wizard focus on being a walking WMD.

You can't fix what isn't broken and wizard isn't broken. Not liking the playstyle that wizard has is fine. But that isn't enough to claim it's broken.

One has to also consider GMing style and preferences when it comes to the difficulty. As I've experienced myself being that kinda braindead GM, you can fill an encounter with enough XP to be 140 with just a horde or PL-2 enemies, and end up not really challenging the party thanks to just not playing the enemies strengths well.

However, compared to 5e, there is less guesswork involved. The less enemies there are, the stronger the enemies the players face will be. The numbers put the scales set to what they will likely be, even with the GM style. I'd say from experience rather than needing to make the Players feel like they're in danger even if they aren't, you instead put the players in danger because they have the tools to fix it.

Healing spells, battle medicine, heal for large numbers. Which means a PC can be hit for a crit that deals 2/3rds of their hp, and a casting of heal or soothe can help get them up enough to survive another hit, alongside ways to keep the enemy from just attacking 3 times in a row and garunteeing killing a PC unless they're very stupid or extremely unlucky.

And at that point, nobody is really mad that it happens. It just becomes a funny moment for the table to joke about post-fight. Versus having to fret about entering that death spiral in 5e because healing is absolutely anemic and once a pc goes down, it's going to be a never ending loop of them going down, getting revived, standing up, and getting downed again, to turn the encounter into an absolute stressful slog and war of attrition.

I can't help but wonder if what people would want is like, wave casting but with like 3 or 4 slots over just the 2. Because I can't image just having like, 15 spells in total like how Kinetcisit works, or just having cantrips and the psyhics amp feature is really satisfying to most casters.

Maybe this is my own bias with casters but I like spellslots. I like being able to punch above and bending the rules that spellslots allow. Feels like trading that for just spamming damage spell is trading the bounty of the ocean of a lagoon of cheap tricks. I've gotten tons of usage out of my lower slots being for utility options or evergreen spells vs the big heavy hitters of my higher level spellslots, and cantrips do decent enough that I don't feel outpaced by my fellow players.

I've never had more than like, 3 encounters in a game and I don't see myself wanting any more than 3. I don't see the so called value of "You can cast all the time" when that kind of game would be absolutely boring and soul crushing to play through for me. I just do not see this as a selling point and I do not get why this is the be all and end all measurement for if a caster is good or bad.

Crouza wrote:

I mean if you're going to go that route and just not have spell slots, are you prepared for all spells across to the board to receive massive nerfs to bring their power in line with cantrips?

I can't speak for everyone else here, but I personally would, yes. I don't think cantrips would necessarily have to be the benchmark, given that the Kineticist is a clear example of an at-will magic-user and their impulses are definitely stronger than cantrips, but I would personally prefer a world in which casters were no longer bound by daily attrition to one where they were, but got a handful of moments in the day where their turn was much bigger than anyone else's.

I'd also go as far as to say that a world in which casters are no longer bound by daily attrition or spell slots need not exclude those high moments either: if we keep a mechanic like focus spells where you can recharge in-between encounters, make those above-average in power, and make other effects slightly below-average in compensation, then you'd still get to have those big bursts of power that would let your class shine at their brightest, and every encounter to boot. We all assume that casters need spell slots to have that differentiation from martial classes, but I don't think that's necessarily true, and a game without that subsystem is still one that could make casters feel different from everyone else.

What's the point of being unbound by attrition? Like, realistically, how many encounters between long resting are you actually want to play in a session that casters need to lose their ability to nova or provide stronger utility in exchange for like, what? Being able to run 10 encounters in a row? Is that honestly what people even want when playing this game? More Combat?

Crouza wrote:

I mean if you're going to go that route and just not have spell slots, are you prepared for all spells across to the board to receive massive nerfs to bring their power in line with cantrips?

If cast w/ 0 FP, then yes, of course.

I think the healthiest thing to do is not only to require multiple FP to boost spells up to max potency, but for the genuinely 0 FP option to be sub-par, and certainly no more potent than current cantrips.

In pf2, as crazy as it is, cantrips like Electic Arc can genuinely do more dmg than slotted spells. That causes all kinds of player weirdness in reaction to that.

========

I think a good base spell design that could work with an "expect to burn FP to get to base spell power" would be for spell text to include:

Heighten: this is mostly unchanged, spell guidance for how they scale with increasing Rank. Note that spending FP now affects the end Rank.

Focused: this entry can keep portions of the spell's power to only activate when any # of FP is spent casting the spell.

This new idea is the main tool for all spells to have "cantrip versions" that keep their identity intact, but power limited. Something like Fireball could start as a 2x2 burst when cast at 0 FP, gaining its usual AoE, airburst mechanic, etc, in its "Focused:" entry.

Amp: not required, but it would be super great if some/most spells came with their own specific meta-magics listed that can cost FP to achieve. If all spellcasters have & use FP at baseline, this becomes a new possibility enabled by the system change.

===========

In that system, cantrips as a concept would become L 0 spells that do not hold much, if any, power behind a Focused: entry, Heighten smoothly, and therefore are comparatively friendly to being cast w/ 0 FP.

Focus spells would be more akin to "always memorized spells" that you have at your disposal every day. And if they also cost FP to cast at baseline power, then Class Feats/Features have much more power budget room to be generous...

This doesn't seem to solve anything. You're just taking the so called problem of "I have only these high level slots and then i'm worthless" and turning into "I only have 3 spells I can cast and then im worthless".

I mean if you're going to go that route and just not have spell slots, are you prepared for all spells across to the board to receive massive nerfs to bring their power in line with cantrips?

A lot of the sustainability thing makes me also curious on how people run PF 2e. Because depending on how a person runs it, you can have running out of slots be a constant problem or not a problem at all. Like for example, a lot of my game usually involves like, a singular fight that entire session, and very rarely do we do dungeons where it's fight after fight after fight. And in those, spell resources are rarely an issue because that's the style of game being run. There's no minimum "Run this many encounters a game to make a balanced experience" at least not one that i've seen, so it feels like if people are noticing players struggling with resource management no matter how much they try to optimize their castings, maybe just cut down the amount of encounters?

I like the theory I've seen circulating that Gorum was a false deity, and that discovery made him fair game for Achaekek to take him down. Perhaps Grandmother Spider or Norgerber let Achaekek know that bit of information, but it wasn't known amongst the wider gods, and thus sparks a massive war off that misunderstanding.

Or perhaps Gorum does something that makes him lose what one might call the divine spark, or is subjugated to some form of powerful magic that makes it so? I'm going to have to buy so many AP's to find out, because I wanna read it with my own eyes.

Im not going to say the name of a PF 1e class I want, but more the concept I want. I want a character who channels primal magic into themselves in order to empower themselves in combat. Barbarian doesn't quite hit this and summoner is a different vibe. Basically I want more a Champion with like the heaviest or hardest Druid dedication to them, but as a bespoke class with primal magic baked right in.

Crouza wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.

Sure, WotC was trying to eat everyone's lunch. I'm not going to argue that. Still, there were some pretty strong indicators that some of it was explicitly targeted. Like, at one point when WotC was backpedaling about the "and we get 20% off everything you make forever just because" they said, in essence "Oh, we didn't mean that to target the small producers - just the big companies that make millions of dollars." As far as I'm aware, at the time the set of "big companies that make millions of dollars" using OGL was pretty much just Paizo. Then, too, there was the fact that they kept up a pretty strong front until Paizo came out and said "actually, we don't *need* the OGL. It looks like it's time for us to make our own license." Then they crumpled hard shortly thereafter.

...and, of course, there were the occasionally unpleasant arguments in various places in the months and years leading up to the whole thing where people were trying to convince each other to switch, and influencers were occasionally hopping sides and so forth.

I mean, it's not a hard guarantee or anything, but it sure looked to me like WotC was perceiving Paizo as a competitor and a threat (at least potentially) and hoping to use this to break them.

Didn't turn out like that.

It's critical role. What you're basically missing is that WOTC is seething that critical role has as good of brand recognition as DnD does, along with all the other homebrew companies. They've been on amicable terms but this was new management seeing the old managements decision to let Crit Role still operate without paying royalties and license fees and absolutely fuming about it.

Also the VTTs and the rest of the digital ecosystem. Imagine AI OGL...

I agree that they want to create a singular ecosystem for all of DnD, roll20 and foundry and the like are most likely seen as competition, and even dndbeyond was seen as competition even after they bought it.

But what I think really sparked the OGL and its wording specifically on royalties and all future profits was CritRole, and I can pinpoint the exact moment they got it in their heads to change the OGL. That being when Critical Role got to put the Legend of Vox Machina on Amazon. Not even in terms of like, a rivalry to their streaming or anything financially damaging. Just the fact they released a major commercially popular product using their IP, and there wasn't a single thing they could do to weasel their way into that Amazon deal.

I genuinely believe that was the moment WOTC decided to shoot themselves in the foot, a moment of just petty jealously that another company could use the game they own and make a successful property with it, and now do the kind of things DnD was aiming to try and do in becoming a multimedia brand.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

And while Paizo was certainly affected by the OGL scandal, I don't think Paizo was meant to be the sole target of it; while Paizo is a notable utilizer of the OGL, it certainly wasn't the only one.

Sure, WotC was trying to eat everyone's lunch. I'm not going to argue that. Still, there were some pretty strong indicators that some of it was explicitly targeted. Like, at one point when WotC was backpedaling about the "and we get 20% off everything you make forever just because" they said, in essence "Oh, we didn't mean that to target the small producers - just the big companies that make millions of dollars." As far as I'm aware, at the time the set of "big companies that make millions of dollars" using OGL was pretty much just Paizo. Then, too, there was the fact that they kept up a pretty strong front until Paizo came out and said "actually, we don't *need* the OGL. It looks like it's time for us to make our own license." Then they crumpled hard shortly thereafter.

...and, of course, there were the occasionally unpleasant arguments in various places in the months and years leading up to the whole thing where people were trying to convince each other to switch, and influencers were occasionally hopping sides and so forth.

I mean, it's not a hard guarantee or anything, but it sure looked to me like WotC was perceiving Paizo as a competitor and a threat (at least potentially) and hoping to use this to break them.

Didn't turn out like that.

It's critical role. What you're basically missing is that WOTC is seething that critical role has as good of brand recognition as DnD does, along with all the other homebrew companies. They've been on amicable terms but this was new management seeing the old managements decision to let Crit Role still operate without paying royalties and license fees and absolutely fuming about it.

I'm someone who might be considered a grognard by age, long in the tooth as it were. I've seen the entire systems where 3e exploded, 4e became a thing, pathfinder blew up, and then 5e took over everything. I've seen a ton of different systems go through edition changes and I have seen entire systems and settings razed to the ground to make way for a new thing. I'm going to give you a bit of advice that I think you need to learn to embrace.

The system you love will never die as long as you're willing to play it, but nothing is meant to last. Pathfinder 1e had it's time, it lasted long, and then it's time passed. That is the reality and nothing is changing that, and no throwback will happen to recapture that if it has not already happened. Hell, 2e will have it's time in the sun now, but even 2e will one day be left to slowly shrink. But, you will find a lot of people willing to keep it alive, to put in the work to do so.

There are people even now who think 1st or 2nd edition dnd was the best and keep it going within their own community. People who actively still work to keep 4th edition games running. Speaking of, 40k for example is currently in it's 10th edition but you can find small pockets of people willing to play 4th edition and aren't interested in newer rules. Warhammer fantasy was destroyed and ended for Age of Sigmar but people still play fantasy. Shadowrun is in its 6th ed but there are still dedicated die hards playing 3rd or 4th ed or 5th ed. Heck I'm pretty sure you can find a few people who even still play Chain mail.

You love pafhfinder 1e. Do not think your option is limited to what paizo is doing. You can find people out there who still want to play pathfinder 1e, and explore the decades of offical and 3rd party content to make new build horizons to discover. Just do not expect it to ever come back beyond that, and you will do fine.

I would be incredibly concerned if Paizo announced PF 3e now, after slating all of their big releases, their remaster, and everything else they've done.

It is inevitably that PF 3e will someday arrive. Hell, as some pointed out, its possible it'll be in the next few years at 2029. However, while I could see the Developers making some changes to the games balance, perhaps loosening the math slightly, or perhaps not at all. What I can I say I cannot see is them returning to the PF 1e dark days of "I'm just your class but better" era of class design.

I remember the days when Rogue got all of its features poached by other archetypes cannibalizing it, fueled by the need to always be making more options, than it had to be given a complete overhaul in Unchained. Archetypes where the fighter could just give up some features and be a better gunslinger than the gunslinger class. Hell, when casters could replicate some of their martial counterparts with just a wave of their hand and a proper spell cast, while still having their entire arsenal of spells to rely on.

Nobody on the team looks back to those times and goes "Yeah, this was when pathfinder was great." and that's just an immutable truth. As others have said, what you want is accomplished via variant rules. They are kept variant for a reason, and there is where they should remain.

I'm curious what this class will do that the Marshall archetype doesn't, but I haven't played the battle lord or whatever Michael Sayre called his 3rd party class. But Path of War rocked so I'm optimistic.

Wait did he actually cite the Warlord from Path of War as a inspiration? I wasn't able to catch the stream when it happened.

Kilraq Starlight wrote:

I am not sure "lot" is the right word there. To my eyes only about 3 posters really have potentially political focuses in their divine focus. Some of them could be political if you stretched what was said though for sure.

The most common political stance is fighting intolerance: seek to understand the struggles of others (Anathema) Force others to accept your customs and ideals, actively seek converts to your religion, proselytize, dismiss or judge others or their creations for being different, Hold onto prejudices when confronted with truth, spread false generalizations of other people, Dismiss someone's expression of themselves, Disapprove of a person just because they're weird or abnormal, Disapprove of or oppose a mutually beneficial relationship just because it's weird or abnormal, Judging another hastily, attempt to change others to be more like yourself

With the subsets of anti-racism: (anathema) advocate for the superiority of one culture over another
anti-specism: (anathema) Show needless cruelty to animals
And anti-ableism that I read a lot in Ardee but that I can't really quote.

There's also a lot of individualism with the subjects of:
Self expression: help people to express themselves, Events in life are not fair but people should strive to be
Self acceptation: follow your own laws, strive to be true to yourself, Be true to your own desires even when doing so harms others, if you’ve done no harm then you don’t owe people explanations for who or what you are, Redeem yourself for past regrets
Self improvement: train to achieve perfection, Try to suck a little less today than you did yesterday, learn from your past mistakes and successes, learn from the failings of others to better yourself and how you treat others (anathema) Refusing to admit you were wrong when you are, Waste not the talents that come natural to you.
I could even add: Seek advanced technology and use it

Anti-slavery positions: fight those who would oppress others (anathema) abuse...

To be completely fair though, this was going to be the natural course of the exercise. It's what "you" would be like as a deity, which means people are going to look at their own values, their beliefs, and their drives, passions, flaws, etc and make them into a deity.

Which means, if you're here engaging with pathfinder and the myriad of changes that have come about, you're likely not going to be the kind of person whose edicts and anathemas are gonna read like the biggest and loudest self report ever.

If the question was "You get to make the next Starstone god", the answers would be radically different because people would be looking at interesting characters to elevate, not their actual selves.

Like, I myself tried to look at my positive and negative traits. I'm tolerant of others and often am used as a person to give advice to others when asked, because I feel it's my duty to help others with that. I'm also very much someone who pursues entertainment and fun to my own detriment, I wouldn't have issues with time management and weight if that weren't the case. Stuff like nationalism, cultural supremacy, and the like just never came up because they aren't important to me, and in fact tend to annoy me enough to get me into a foul mood when I see people spouting about it. The only reason I didn't include family and stuff is like, if I were to include all aspects of myself as a deity there'd be like 15 domains and 10s of edicts and anathemas.

And when trying to fit into the confines of what Paizo does when printing a god, and sticking to that format as part of this mental exercise, you tend to prioritize what you care about the most. Which is what makes it fun in the first place, imo.

Crouza, The Ruinous Revelry

Areas of Concern: Pursuits of happiness, seeking joy in difficult situations, taking pleasure in others misfortune, tearing down those who oppose you.

Edicts: Find joy and fulfillment in living and help others do the same, help people to express themselves, fight those who would oppress others, make mockery of those who stand in your way.

Anathema: Dwell on topics of sadness or pain, Allow an insult to go unanswered, Stop another from pursuing fun unless it is harmful to others, Dismiss someone's expression of themselves.

Sanctification: Holy or Unholy

Domains: Introspection, Dreams, Freedom, Destruction, Zeal, Indulgence

Divine Font: Harm

Spells: 1st: Liberating Command, 2nd: Enhance Victuals, 3rd; Firework Blast

Divine Skill: Diplomacy

Favored Weapon: Machete

I am not that good of a person, I wish I was better but I know who I am, and I know that as a god it would take my best and worst tendencies and only make them worse. I myself have been known to pursue those things that make me happy to the determent of other things in my life, be it staying up a little too late playing games, scheduling too many pathfinder games in my life, eating a little too much, or spending more than I should have on dice and minis. Additionally, my own post history should show I am more than willing to fight others and die on hills in internet spats, especially if its to stand up or defend things I like, and make passive aggressive quips at those I don't like.

Combining all of this into a divine being would not make a good god. It'd make a god who can have good aspects, but taken to the extreme with nothing to ground me back own to reality. And the fact I know all of this about myself I feel would be incorporate as well, hence the desire to be true to who you are and be genuine, even if who you are is a genuine piece of shit.

This was a fun mental exercise, thank you for posting this prompt.

In this installment of Godsrain prophecies, Razmir seethes, copes, and malds, as cayden the lair does what he couldn't.

To me it's not even a debate, the character that killed the bandit did an evil act, full stop. Because if you've already managed to subdue the enemy enough to where all they can do is lay there and answer questions, the encounter is over. The threat this person poses is done, and it doesn't seem like there's any kind of pressing time limit. You should have killed them when you were fighting if you didn't want to be evil, instead of ending the fight and then killing them anyway.

A DM of ours did this for 2 players when they had to make new characters, they started 1 level lower than us and cause we did milestone, after they completed an adventure with us, they'd level up.

It was surprisingly okay, but I definitely do not recommend it. It caused way more issues than it was worth, and those tended due to a combination of poor tactics and lower level ended up going down more often than the rest of us.

I love this. I love the idea that the doomsday prophecy can't come true as is, because all prophecies ceased to work when Aroden died. But, that whatever force was aiming for this end of the world scenario is instead trying to manifest itself in a different way.

It makes sense in this system since bombs are just a martial item anyone can pick up and use. There's no point in treating them like any other weapon and excluding them from consideration for weapon familiarity.

I mostly take the view that there is room in tabletop roleplaying for the dark themes and sanding the edges of everything leads to everything becoming duller.

But that's mainly a stance I take for people complaining about darker themes in media, massmarket censorship where material doesn't get published because it could offend because most subjects with any weight can offend someone.

I believe that their are some roleplaying games that can reach the level of art, I have seen one or two streamed call of chuthulu games that were genuinely chilling and I have had moments in games I have played that transcended the game and the mechanic and became something more.

Most of the most memorable scenes I have roleplayed or seen were people (pc) standing up in the face of unspeakable darkness and horror and so I have to believe there is a space for such in roleplaying games.

You realize they aren't getting rid of combat, right? You still roll dice and resolve issues via those dice rolls. You people talk like Paizo staff came here and say "Violence is bad. No more combat in any APs" like a bunch of weirdos hyperbolizing when the Ogre's don't *check notes* sexually assault people as a joke.

Yeah real "endeavors to be art" there, making a reference to The Hills Have Eyes and Deliverance. The reason I harp on this specifically is I'm sick and tired of stuff like this being used as some kind of rallying cry to "fighting against censorship" that grips certain fandom communities. You for example use a ton of flowery language to frame this as a great loss of art and creativity and "Sanding down the edges" but what we're talking about is Ogre's violating people against their will and engaging in non-consensual sex.

You still face unspeakable darkness, you still face off against world ending evil, you still face off against monstrous people. The difference being is that Paizo is endeavoring to not just go for an easy shock value shlock for their players. Like f%+!ing Christ, they literally just got done releasing an entire horror themed AP and you're like "Mass Market censorship has killed the dark themes of pathfinder".

If the only dark themes that matter to you are SA and Slavery, that speaks more to you than it does to the setting at hand.

The Contrarian wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

What you're seeing in Pathfinder, Aenigma, is a reflection of how society has grown and matured and become more open-minded and welcoming to their fellow person in the past 20 years...

I just don't see it. People in the last 20 years seem to have become FAR more closed-minded and defensive then they've ever been in my lifetime. So, so many people today are just too terrified of even talking to others for fear that they will say the wrong thing and end up with a mob putting a target on their back.

Thing that I think is different is that 20 years ago people seemed to care less about people hurting other people :P

Back to ogres, as far as I can see, Ogres were never retconned to be nicer in pathfinder, it just become one of those topics that aren't discussed on screen in published material. Like discrimination, people enslaving individuals(they removed slavery as institution, but that would't mean that group of bandits wouldn't kidnap people to force them work as labor or etc), etc, exists in Pathfinder setting, but they are considered uncouth topics to explore in published adventures and left to home gms.

I don't really see why they would be retconned in future, I think people are kinda overly afraid of setting becoming sanitized when we have velstracs, eldritc horrors and plenty amount of body horror still around.

20 years ago you could casually just call other people slurs and that was seen as peak comedy. That was the entire joke as well, someone did something stupid and you called them R****d, or someone did something slightly effeminate and got called a F****t.

SA against a woman was not a monstrous trait that should only be tackled seriously but a joke to play up for laughs about how a character was "Just a bit of a touchy guy" with a laugh-track to accompany it.

For me, I do not get the mindset of someone who wants to return to those times. As someone who was both the out-group receiving the negative behavior, and as someone who committed those vile acts on others, it was a horrid time that is better off remaining dead and gone.

As for Ogres, I don't want to open up an AP and read "The Orge r**es the female NPC" as a plot point. There is nothing about it that services the plot than to make the Ogres seem more reviled. And if you're encountering Orgres they're already likely looking to kill and eat you, or possibly kill you by eating you. That's already vile enough for the PC's to want to fight them, without adding an element of sexual violence into the mix serve as meaningless edgy flavoring.

keftiu wrote:

I think the fanbase and Paizo's bottom line both prefer books with mixed player-GM usage, rather than books only a GM would ever buy. You can sell one Bestiary per Pathfinder group... but *everyone* in it might grab a book that also has new classes!

It annoys me and has actively turned players of mine away from buying certain books.

It is at its worse when they do a Dark Archive and stupidly split the GM content up and scatter it through the book.

I also wonder how many players are buying books these days with pathbuilder around. I know some folks like analogue, but they are getting fewer and fewer; collectors were buying everything anyway and can be discounted. I guess there is exploiting PFS players, but I know more than a few players who are annoyed at paying for a full book when only 1/4 to 1/3 is player facing.

You know sometimes, even when something is free, people willingly give their money to the maker of that product as a way of thanking them for the product that they get to enjoy. There are also those who enjoy the lore and stories those books have inside of them, the expanded descriptions that the Apps/Nethys do not post, and the art inside said books.

I want them to organize their book better than Dark Archieve, but the way you describe the process of getting this content makes it sound so...utilitarian.

I love the idea of changing directions of some monsters to be closer to their mythological counterparts, even if I do love the more pop culture versions of them. I also enjoy the transparency.

Funnily enough, the Mummy's abilities remind me of the 1999 mummy for some reason. I think it's the taking away abilities from creatures and sharing pain just for some reason strikes a familiar cord with me on it.

On the topic at hand, it is a little disheartening to see how long it's taking to implement the content. I've given to the patreon because they honestly deserve it, but it's starting to cause issues. I've had players who are used to using nethys citing the outdated rules for things, and it's definitely caused some confusion in our foundry game. "What the hell is Courageous March" type moments where they don't realize it's just the new term for Inspire Courage.

Sometimes I think the ambition to make a toggle may have simply been too much compared to creating a new tab for the Remaster. I can see why they might be hesitant to do that though, as its a ton of repeated content if they do. I really hope the manage to make a breakthrough and this doesn't end up becoming a major delay for the site.

Jacob Jett wrote:

IMO, Paizo could seriously help them out by handing them a copy of the manuscripts going to the printers so that the AoN devs can get a jump on encoding all of the changes. But the changes are so major that the workload is much greater than standing up AoN in the first place. (And speaking from experience, I might have simply rebuilt the whole thing from scratch since I think that might actually have been less work. Data and information are tricky this way.)

AFAIK they received a copy two months earlier than release, which I think is nearly a few weeks after the first previews of the Remaster were revealed.

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

The main issues is that they are really underfunded. It's just pateron and ads to work with as far as hiring people. If they are working as the official place to get information on the game mechanics they should be funded as such and not have to ask for donations

To this day I don't know what Paizo was thinking with Pathfinder Nexus. I get the wanted to have their D&D Beyond, but why give yourself the trouble to pay another company for a rules reposity + character creator when you already have Archives of Nethys and Pathbuilder. If anything, pay the guys behind those two to work on their respective projects faster and with more dedication. Archives of Netyhs in particular already works with Paizo, since they have DNAs and other stuff to not filter the content of the books earlier, so this whole situation seems really weird.

In this case though, I think something should have happened to the AoN staff because it is really weird is taking this long. They initially stimated a 2-3 week delay with the Remaster content, and it's not like they are unexperienced programmers that didn't know how much time it would really take for them to entry all the data and program whatever was necesary, so I assume something behind the scenes happened which slowed down everything.

I enjoy the way they format their content over both Nethys and Pathbuilder. That and the ability to get the PDF's when I want to from Paizo is also an added security to me should something happen to nexus. The normal PDF's feel a bit cramped for me compared to Nexus. I enjoy having links like Nethys does but formatted in a way more similar to the PDF, with the accompanying imagery and descriptive text not normally in Nethys.

The only real reason I use Pathbuilder 2e is because the mobile option is hands down the best way to play at my IRL games. If I am playing at my computer, I'm likely going to end up playing with Nexus because the layout for the sheet is more appealing to me, and I have the capital to give it while being happy knowing that the money I pay also goes to Paizo.

Low key, I hate the look of it.

Part of the beauty of R20 and Foundry character sheets is that they resembled the physical sheet.

Its one thing to improve the automation and make everything work better.
But don't reinvent the wheel: present it in a form where people don't have to hunt for things

Interesting. I'm the opposite if I'm completely honest.

To me it's like imitation meat. I'd rather eat the beans, tofu, or veggies prepared in a nice way that makes them taste good, then to see them pressed, contorted, and mashed into a "close enough approximation" of something else. I don't like being sold 1 thing being making it look like it's something else that I actually like.

Much the same way, if I want something that looks like the physical sheet, I'd rather just use the physical sheet for the full experience. The lead smears from erasing and rewriting my ammo and hp. The feeling of the paper, the actual look of it changes depending on the light you have available.

Comparable, digital paper copies just don't feel good to me. If it's digital, I want the interface to be a good digital interface that takes advantage of what makes digital interfaces good. Sleek design, collapsible tabs, easy navigation, links that can jump you to other sections or open up book entries, etc.

I will say that a full on rework of Fury would be greatly appreciated, as it does feel like it's lackluster compared to the other instincts. Perhaps make it's gimmick getting damage resistances earlier, or higher than other barbarians, in exchange for the lower damage. Would be nice to have something beyond Animal Instinct for those defensive barbarians.

Also the proposal for making rage just give Clumsy 1 is intriguing. Making it something that's likely to stack with other sources of -1 but also making it lower your saves could have some pretty interesting gameplay implications.

I don't think people really think things through when they ask paizo to get rid of the drawback to rage. The entire balancing point of giving you such large static damage bonuses and allowing you to use them the entire fight is because of that -1.

Without that, Rage damage and potentially Barbarian HP is going to be reduced. Or, Rage is potentially going to become an on/off state for the barbarian that is lost after 1 attack, and then has to be regained in combat. This brings a non-penalty rage in line with other abilities like Finishers, Spellstrike, and Unleash Psyche. Unleash Psyche is actually probably a good indicator of how Rage would be balanced, get a big bonus that lasts a fixed number of rounds, and then gain a negative condition that lasts a number of rounds.

Personally, I'd prefer rage remain as is. It's a risk/reward that works for the simplistic mechanic it is, and there's no reason to take apart a fence that's serving its job just fine as is.

Ravien999 wrote:

They don't have ownership of a common dictionary term being utilized for its understanding of a common dictionary term.

Yeah, Hasbro would never sue for saying "Humans, Vesk, and Shirren are different species" any more than they would sue a Star Trek RPG for saying "Humans, Romulans, and Klingons are different species" or a Babylon 5 RPG for saying "Humans, Minbari, and Centauri are different species."

Hasbro would never, except for early 2023, when they tried exactly that to leverage their market dominance over the TTRPG space. I never say that people would "never" do something once they've already proven they would.

I want to just say that I love expanding ancestries to include more details about them. I enjoy learning about their cultures, beliefs, and expectations because I love to play my characters either leaning into or going against those as the basis of my rping. Just more details are always appreciated and I personally think the strategy of making sure there are more ancestries in every release is a good way to approach the volume that existed in SF 1e.

I mean, Pathfinder already has ancestries that don't have parents or even relatives: poppets, skeletons, leshies, etc.

But I don't think having one-for-one substitutions replacing fantasy word for SF word or vice versa is really a problem, since the point of using the same basic rules is not so that specific characters are interchangeable. Like if they wanted to rename "Thievery" as "Security" and "Craft" as "Engineering" that would be fine, so I'm fine with either Species or Ancestry.

There's also another fact to consider. 5e changed their terminology from "race" to "species". So yeah, can't have that in the ORC.

That's so much extra bookkeeping and so much more homogenization for extremely little return. For myself, I already have a somewhat hard time remembering all the feats I've taken. Now I'm going to be adding 25 to 50 feats that I need to write down on my sheet, just because my character has a couple of proficencies in skills.

Playing a Rogue or Investigator with your rules would be an absolute pain because now every decision is going to need to be looked at thinking of every possible skill feat in the entire game and how it applies, all because some people didn't like this extra step in customizing their character.

IF you had this house rule at a table, I would legit request the ability to opt out of it. No thank you, I have enough choice paralysis leveling up than to have to deal with this horse shit.

The issue is balancing "I can fall off a skyscraper, dust myself off over 10 minutes, and be fine" with the hideous grind of editions like AD&D.

You really don't want to have to balance combats around PCs entering them with variable hit point pools. That way lies a barrage of TPKs. They did the right thing with 10 minute rests.

The issue is that it makes for some WEIRD interactions that you would never see in real life, where PCs are willing to walk through hellfire at the drop of a hat because they know it's just damage and they'll heal at the end with no consequences.

But that was an issue in PF 1E and 3.5 too. If you don't believe me, talk to my sack of wands of lesser vigor.

I was going to say, is it any different from the 2 room adventuring days that you'd get in pathfinder 1e where once your healer hits their limit for the day, you pack it up and try again tomorrow, even if it means the dungeon turns into like 7 in game days despite it being 1 session of time.

Crouza wrote:

My least favorite as of this moment is Lay On Hands because it feels like a must-pick option for any caster via blessed one. The bang for your buck return on a reliable 6 hp per spell rank every 10 minutes is just way too good not to snag, and I wish there were like, 3 different lay on hands style heal focus spells to make a bit of variety to this choice.

How does it have anything to do with "caster"? It's an archetype that has no requirements, based around a spell that doesn't care what your casting proficiency is. If anything, I'd think it was stronger for front-line martials than for casters, as the "range: touch" is much less of an issue when you yourself are likely to be the one that needs healing. There's one feat in the entire archetype that is significantly more advantageous to a caster than a martial.

Now, it is a pretty efficient way to turn class feats into party healing capacity, but it's one that anyone in teh party can do... and I feel like if everyone is doing it, then you might find that the market for party healing is a bit glutted.

Casters get easier, built in focus points. It means you can use lay on hands more often, and regain more of your focus spells. The new remaster rules for refocusing means casters get slightly better benefits from focus spells.

Granted however, Monk does get the same benefit. So yeah, it's good for all classes. I just wish there were more healing focus spells to make Blessed One/Champion not be so frequently picked.