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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 s&%#.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You know, I was going to say that letting you sell spellbooks for 1/2 cost of each learned spell was going to be too much, because it breaks the economy and make spellbooks too lucrative an item, but doing the math I'm not sure.

Let's say you find a 5th level wizards book. Thats 10 cantrips, 7 1st rank, 4 2nd rank, and 2 3rd rank spells. All together that's 90 gp, halved to 45, which overall isn't that much gp.

Karmagator wrote:

The only thing I've seen so far that SF2 for sure will not replicate is extreme character-internal synergies.

Oooh, yeah. Good point. That is another thing that they mostly got rid of. I actually miss it, kind of. It means that I can't seriously get my CharOp on as a form of recreational solo play. If I'm going to run serious character optimization in PF2, I need to know who my fellow party members are - both what their rough intended builds are as characters and what kinds of strategies I can expect them to support as players.

Even weird little detail stuff like "how many of my fellow players can be generally expected to have empty hands at any given time" can make a notable difference. Questions like "Can I trust my allies to hold back and wait for the enemy to come to us when appropriate rather than just charging in immediately every time?" are a much bigger deal.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

It is in no way , shape, or form "ridiculous", munchkining, or any of the other aspersions you're casting on other players to want a character with four arms to act like they have four arms and have it be SOMEHOW different than just slinging things in your pack.

That's true, and we're all hopeful that the four-arms thing will work out well an feel satisfying. That's not what they're talking about.

I've never actually played PF1 or SF1, but I have played 3.x, and I understand that the results were toned down but not by any stretch eliminated. I once put together a spiked chain specialist who could opportunity-attack basically everyone who did anything in his absurd-tier reach, and then trip them after he hit them... where "standing up", "crawling", "casting spells", and "making ranged attacks" all counted as "things I can punish you for". He was great at level 6, and would likely have been largely obsolete by level 10. I built a character who was able to consistently pretend to be four different races to four different magical items in order to punch... well,...

Sometimes I miss the combing through PFSRD or Nethys for every feat, looking up info on forums or reddit, cross referencing bonuses and what stacks with what, trying to backtrack through splatbooks to find out the wording on specific archetype abilities. I remember the first time I discovered stupid combination of things like Crane Stance and Swashbuckler nonsense because Dodge bonuses all stack, or when I found out the Power Attack + Furious Focus and trying to get Vital Strike to work with it on a Unchained Barbarian.

I've had other friends who made absolute beasts with stuff like grappling enemies or absolutely cracking magics, and it is fun...at first, for me. But the novelty has worn off as I have aged. Perhaps it's because I work as an accountant, or perhaps just having a job vs having more free time from when I was a full time college student. I have found my love of combing through all this infromation to build a character has turned from joy to dread, and turns a hobby I use to relax into one of tedium that I dread.

Even now I still get a lump in my stomatch when I realize I need to bust out the Excel spreadsheet to calculate what's happening with my character in PF 1e. Starfinder 1e doesn't have as much bloat, but I can see it now that I've played a more streamlined experience. I can see how Starfinder was written to be easier than Pathfinder in terms of what you need to make a good character. But it was done in the lense of someone whose favorite program is excel and who loves nothing but to dedicate a weekend to researching and theory crafting the highest bonuses one can get for a character to succeed.

It's not surprising, that audience was the cornerstone for pathfinder 1e, why wouldn't that audience also eventually move over to try starfinder out and bring that same energy with them. But building and trying to find out if I'm building a good character has dredged up those old negative feelings of needing to comb through Nethys to find out what I need to not make my character fall behind an invisible curve of game expectation, while also trying to not over-shoot it so that I end up overly dominating the game and cause the difficulty to raise for my less optimized party members. I do not enjoy this tightrope and it is why I am looking forward to SF 2e, so I can just pick up the game, make my character in 15 minutes, and be ready to just go knowing whatever I pick, as long as my stats are decent and I'm playing what my class is designed to do, that I'm going to be a-okay no matter what I pick.

The only thing I've seen so far that SF2 for sure will not replicate is extreme character-internal synergies.

One of the explicit goals of the system was to not have the game be won or lost in the character creation/advancement phase. So synergies were limited internally and many of the components distributed so that you would have to work together to achieve them. Hence the higher emphasis on teamwork is far from "corporate execuspeak".

And I don't see SF2 deviating much from this line, because that sacrifice helps solve a couple of very important problems. Those extreme synergies are one of the main reasons why characters don't fit into the same party. They are far too often either too strong or too weak for that level of play. It is also a core reason of why games like this break tend to break down long before the theoretical maximum level. Past a certain point it becomes a matter of trading super-attacks (aka "rocket tag"), as the monsters have to keep pace to still provide a challenge. Combat stops being fun, so people stop playing.

In my experience this sacrifice was absolutely worth it. On the other hand, if that is a main part of your fun playing games like this, then yeah that sucks.

I definitely am looking forward to a retooled CR system. Getting to experience old school CR has given me a reinvigorated appreciation to how good the PL XP based system for PF 2e is.

Crouza wrote:

As someone currently playing Starfinder and starting at level 1, I do not see this mystical wheee factor that's being talked about. We've almost died 3 times during our playing of the beginner box.

you're playing level 1, just learning to play, playing the beginner box rules not the actual starfinder rules, and haven't had the chance to max out your credits going through the Sears Santa Catalog goodie list of gear for stuff yet.

That makes it a very hard reference point from which to see any real differences.

Your statement, word for word, "Starfinder lets characters do things at lower levels , ie, the levels you will get to AND the levels where you will spend most of your time even if you DO get the higher levels. Ysoki can have scurry and swift action cheekpouches right our of the gate whereas you need to be level 10 as a ratfolk and still don't have all the goodies that come with those feats."

I'm at lower levels. I'm at the lowest of the levels you can be. I ain't seeing what the you mean when you talk about this.

Maybe you can help me out here. What is it at lower levels that I should be doing to experience this wonderful bredth of variety that puts Pathfinder 2e to shame? Like, what lower levels is lower levels to you, so perhaps I know when I should expect to encounter this amazing time of expression that is currently lacking in my playthrough?

As someone currently playing Starfinder and starting at level 1, I do not see this mystical wheee factor that's being talked about. We've almost died 3 times during our playing of the beginner box.

I've made a Rogue for SoT and an Operative for the BB, and I feel like my Rogue has had a tremendously more expressive start. I made them with a 16 in their attack stat in PF 2e, and I have felt less punished than I do in SF 1e playing a 17 in my dex.

I have all these skills but nothing feels like it matters right now because I literally have nothing to do with them outside of Acrobatics. Trick attack lands 25% of the time I use it because I either fail the DC 21 checks or I fail to land the hit with my +3 to hit against KC.

Our engineer seems to be having a ton of fun hacking cause they've done stuff like shut off gravity or vent areas into space, but for the rest of us the enemies hit so hard and moving is so punishing, our only real engagement has been make an attack, miss, and than wait to get hit.

In PF 2e my Rogue was a Ruffian Rogue, so they focus on strength. I've felt like I'm able to actually rp my character in more inventive ways in PF 2e. My character got Survey Wildlife at level 1, and I feel like i've been able to rp with that and my strength to make a Steve Irwin esque person whose thrilled to wrestle and learn about dangerous animals. I've felt my character develop more and more into a vetrenarian who also applies their healing arts to their comrades by focusing on medicine.

So I guess from my POV, I feel like SF 1e doesn't have this facilitating freedom that I see priased as a selling point above PF 2e. To me it feels like the opposite, where I didn't pick the correct flavor of Operative, or didn't build them right, and now I get punished for it in-game vs PF 2e where I can make a less optimal build but still feel like I'm contributing to the game and having fun.

Operative being legendary was a mistake, sadly. It has the normal martial progression.

I'll wait for the actual preview for the Operative like we got with the Solider to see if that's the case. It's all in the air till we have something approaching concrete to actually see.

Prof.Dogg wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

I look at it as more of a "moving on" rather than a "burning down," myself.

That's a fair assessment for now, but I also foresee it as the obliteration of a fun game as it's assimilated into a larger game that is differently focused. All of these universal game systems (GURPS, HERO, etc) have their place but I've found a real comfort in Stardfinder being a unique world / system (even one based on Golarion's history). You can always bring in more PF elements as you wish but the universe of SF is so much greater. I especially like third party content that could be set in nearly any Science Fantasy universe. Grimmerspace had so much potential. I really wish it had gotten off the ground.

But it's not? Like, none of the things you just said are happening. Starfinder is no more being assimilated into PF2E than it was assimilated into PF1E or D&D 3.5; it's just using the same game engine. The two games are going to be compatible, but not perfectly so--this has been stated multiple times in multiple places. The baseline assumptions of Starfinder, everyone has guns, folks can easily fly, etc, are still going to be there ... all of which would make it a nightmare if it was being assimilated into PF2E, which hasn't got those assumptions.

As for the claims of PF2E being a "universal game system," and Starfinder's world going away, I've got no idea where those came from. I haven't heard any inklings of Paizo intending to broaden PF2E's engine out into becoming a full generic/universal system anywhere, and I consume far more Paizo and Pathfinder-focused content than is good for me. Starfinder's world is, as you've noted, one of its big selling points; it's pretty universally beloved, pardon the pun. Paizo would be shooting themselves in the foot to get rid of it.

It's wild to me as well to claim that PF 2e is a universal game system akin to Gurps or HERO because Paizo only makes the two games, and they make them with a ton of pre-established lore to boot. Universal game systems don't usually come with any lore, because they know the lore changes between the tens or hundreds of splat books. Paizo isn't publishing like a ton of different settings and then just having PF 2e do back flips and loop-de-loops to fit into whatever setting it has.

It's got Golorion, and then Post-Golorion, and that's it. That's your two settings, or arguably their one setting. Feels a lot like just doomposting if I'm perfectly honest.

1 - Character Development: I don't see any reason to use an AI for this like, at all. If I'm theory crafting I don't care about a bio or anything like that for a character. If I'm running something and I need a character on the fly, I'm a creative guy with some Improv training, I can make up an NPC faster than typing some junk into an input box. There is nothing in this realm that AI can do better or faster than me. Useless.

2 - Artistic Endeavors: I've tried using art for characters. I hate it. Very little pulls me out of my game faster than "Hey look at this picture of my character!" It does less than nothing for me. When my friends and I were starting a Return of the Runelords game I got all excited and comissioned art of my character so I could show her off. I've looked at it like three times, showed it to my friends once, and then it's just sitting in a corner of my drive unused. Waste of money. When I play online over some VTT, I can just grab an image of a sword or a bow or whatever weapon my character is using. If I'm feeling really picky I can design a character in hero forge or something, download the png, and then make a token out of a part of that. No endless typing of lengthy descriptions that you have to retype and retype and fiddle with words or anything like that. So again, AI is useless.

3 - Game Mechanics/Rules: Theoretically I am already using an AI to look up information on AoN or whatever. I just use the search bar on AoN, or Google, or whatever. Just as fast, get my results, and works within my whole "Okay, we're going to give it 3 minutes before I make up a ruling that we can revisit later." Three in a row, AI is useless.

Honestly, aside from my pedantic gripe that it isn't AI it's just some advanced algorithims, I honestly cannot find a use AI at all in my life. I'm not saying that my life and 'AI' don't interact, just that I don't make any effort to use it.

Especially the first part, and I hate to get all boomer, but this is a game about creativity and you want to hand that...

I'm going to be brutally honest, it feels less like this is a shortcoming of AI art as much as it is that you as a person simply do not have interest in certain kinds of creative expression. Not caring what your character looks like and seeing biography as irrelevant doesn't seem like it's something exclusive to AI art, at least from my pov.

The algorithms aren't doing anything that artists haven't already been doing for centuries. All art is, to some extent or another, derivative of someone else's art or idea.

I'm an artist (graphic designer/ technical illustrator) by trade, and regularly work with and associate with numerous other artists. Most are excited for the new technology and some will tell you that they would be flattered to hear that someone was trying to emulate their work. That's how artists are made.

I can totally understand the fear of losing one's livelihood, but demonizing the tech itself just doesn't make any sense to me.

The problem is the tech has no guard rails against abusive actors. Example, in the vtubing space an artist vtuber angered a group of people by simply saying she didn't wish her art to be used for AI. This group had their AI draw exclusively from her social media accounts so it was trained to specifically imitate her style, and then had it draw porn of her model in her art style and flooded said social media with that.

And there's nothing you can really do about that. Since so many places use algorithms to detect stuff, people reporting the porn got her own accounts punished for it alongside the harassers. It took the actual devs stepping in and manually banning the offending accounts IP address and tracking their IRL info down((this occured in china)) for it to stop, and even then the damage was already more or less done.

Such a thing can be done to anyone. Anyone can have their art specifically targeted as a narrowed training model. Until there is like, any kind of recourse at all besides "Grow adamantine skin and power through the harassment", I don't blame anyone for feeling intense fear at AI when it's already shown to be a powerful tool of targetted harrassment.

1. Character Development: I personally find that most AI's tend to be super generic in what they come up with character-wise, unless you find a way to like, trick them into thinking they're someone else? Like telling the AI "Pretend you are a famous horror author, who is making a character with these traits". Just telling it to generate a character with traits you want often turns out incredibly bland regurgitation of what you typed.

Personally, I find it more trouble than it's worth. The time it takes to finely craft and narrow down on a description means it's not good for creating stuff on a time crunch that a simple RNG prompt generator couldn't replicate. And without the time crunch, I already have enough time to write a flavorful idea without needing the AI.

2. Artistic Endevours: Yeah this is basically a great boon for anyone without art skills. I personally rarely need this due to my massive hoarding of character art scrounged from all over the internet over the course of like, 15 years I've been into TTRPGs and creative writing. But on those rare occasions you need something like "Elf whose skin is made of wood with vine dreadlock hair" it cane save me time to create than then trying to find it in my massive collection or find something similar on google.

3. Game Mechanics and Rules: Do not do this. The AI is very dumb and will lie all the time. My friend has ended up making wrong rulings or giving out treasure that doesn't exist because he used AI as if it were google to "Find me interesting treasure for a level 3 pathfinder 2e party." or "Tell me the pathfinder 2e rules for using a rope to cross a river." It has generated loot from 5e and 3.5, loot with 0 rules on how they work, said once than a Moderate Healing Elixer heals 2d12+12, and that monsters can use an extra action at the end of initiative if they are a higher level than the party.

The AI is f#&*ing stupid and a pathological lair. Do not rely on it for rules.

Look, I'm not going to pretend like I've never gone on pintrest or google images, searched out a image that matched my character idea close enough, and than grabbed it to use as a token in a game. Hell, that has been the majority of how I've visualized my characters, as I do not have 50 to 100 dollars to spend on every single character I've ever played, especially when the one time I did spend 76$ on a commissioned art piece for a character, they died 2 sessions later from blind bad luck.

AI art is basically that same methodology but done by an algorithm instead of manually. It's definitely not an okay thing to do in a professional setting, and for home games it's iffy. The iffiness comes from a need for moral consistency, and the idea that if you start carving out exceptions to when AI is okay and not okay, than it becomes a downward spiral to all your favorite artists and writers being replaced by a corporate-run and trademarked line of code.

Personally, I think using AI to create character portraits is fine, because 90% of all TTRPG players were going to just go ahead and use stolen art from a google search, deviantart, twitter, pintrest, tumblr, or wherever else they see cool art of a character, if not just straight up lifting it from other commercial art like concept art, video games, anime, films, and character design sheets posted online. You will always be a bigger person and more respected for commissioning a character, but I don't think people deserve shame for using a free tool to make character art for personal use in a homebrew game.

Crouza wrote:

There is also a pretty sizeable contingent of people who believe vehemently that Dinosaurs should be as they have always been portrayed, as giant scaly lizards essentially, and reject the idea of feathered dinosaurs. As it is a rather niche issue, people who believe this can proliferate all areas of society, including the art world. It's possible one of Paizo's artists felt this way when drawing the art, and there simply wasn't any time to care enough to get a new piece done from this artists.

That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh. Imagine if we still reconstructed iquanadon like the original reconstruction.

Also for fun here is a cool gif on the changes to the reconstruction of iguanadon over the years courtesy of Your Dinosaurs are Wrong:
iguanadon

I don't want that art as Iguanadon, but I do want that art as a fantasy beast in the game. That wrong construction of an Iguanadon is absolutely adorable in an ugly dog kind of way.

Harm font on a cloistered cleric, tbh, feels a bit like you have a bunch more focus spells. Like, harm has bad scaling for damage in a lot of ways. A single 1d8 per spell rank means that at rank 3, it does the damage of a acid arrow, which is a 2 rank 2 spell, and woefully behind the curve.

However, it is basically Elemental Toss but with a saving throw instead of an attack roll. Viewed in that lense, getting 4 and eventually 6 of these for free with the remaster means you have damage that is higher on the damage curve than cantrips, but can't be replenished like a focus spell. So it's a bit awkward of a design space. But hey, Harming hands can make your damage a d10 instead of d8, which does help punch up the damage a tad if you don't mind sacrificing one of the many very good other feats to get it.

Honestly I think that Warpriests are better able to utilize a harm font better than a cloistered cleric. Channel Smite helps you really get a lot out of a harm font by letting you stack accuracy buffs on yourself, and possibly true strike if you pick the right deity to get it, without needing to worry about dealing with fort saves on tanky creatures.

On a cloistered though, I'd say its a little disappointing but there is absolutely an argument to be made for having some free damage that does more than cantrips on hand.

TOZ wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

And here is the big one, The DM can modify non-combat situations as needed or wave them off if the player comes up with a better solution. You know what? The majority of players enjoy a DM that let's a creative player solution work in non-combat scenarios.

If I can just ignore the rules completely, why am I playing the game?

You can't ignore the combat rules. They work differently. That is why so much time is invested in ensuring they are balanced.

Why are you playing an RPG? To role-play in creative ways. Not to be rigidly bound by rules in non-combat scenarios where the DM decides everything by a roll regardless of how creative you as a player are.

You absolutely can just ignore combat rules in the same way you ignore social or exploration rules. Hell, I've done that in my own game via an adhoc'd fisticuff duel my barbarian initiated when he punched someone in a bar for no reason and started a fight.

I just smashed together the victory point system and a hard DC with the players Athletics checks to do a bar fight. It was 3 hours, 42 minutes into a 4 hour session and I did not have a statblock so I took a combat and turned it into a social rp where at the end of the brawl, they were buying each other drinks and he'd earned a reputation in the town as a good brawler.

Combat, Social, and Exploration all function the same way. And you can adhere to or disregard rules as you and your table desire. There's nothing that really elevates combat or lowers social/explorations importance other than a GM's preferences and parties habits.

I think given the information, perhaps a mixed media approach would work better. Dndbeyond will sometimes upload YouTube videos where Jeremy Crawford talks about design philosophy or developer intent for upcoming releases. Perhaps paizo would benefit from doing this, since they have a channel mostly used to release AP trailers and such, they could use this and make videos covering the iconic and perhaps going through a level 1 through 20 character leveling. It may prove not just more cost efficient, but more up to date with how a modern audience might want to consume such content.

Takes a lot to admit when one's been wrong. For what it's worth, I hope you find success.

I'm blown away by the assertion that int is the worse stat when it gives you more skill proficiencies, which is massive in my book given how useful skills are in this edition.

As it stands now, Intelligence for Magus is in the same boat as Wisdom is for Ranger and Monk. If you want it, it's there for you to make use of it. If you don't, you don't need to. That's not a bad place for intelligence to be in, in all honesty.

Also, perhaps this is just a weird take, but you seem oddly fixated with optimization, to the point it seems like it's directly impacting your ability to have fun with the Magus class. Buffing up your spell DC is a choice but you always have spells you can cast. They're called cantrips, and you have the ability to spellstrike with them just as you do with your normal spells. Keeping a saving throw cantrip for AOE's isn't a bad idea to cover your bases.

Hell, even as someone playing a Magus, 16 int and a fireball have done wonders when we had to deal with a long ranged group of enemies. Additionally, having a little bit for blazing dive when the enemy is far away is a good way to get into the action vs just "I shoot ray of frost and walk 25 ft up" for 3 turns if the enemy is far away enough.

Would it be neat to see a few new class features for magus? Sure, that's always fun. Is magus in this state where if you aren't picking Psychic Dedication and getting Imaginary weapon than you can't play the class? No it isn't.

I'm tired of seeing this topic spammed on the forums, but yours is one I can weigh in on.

You're asking for something Pathfinder just doesn't do, period. Something pathfinder cannot do without completely throwing internal balance out the window. You're wanting to use 1 spell for every situation and wanting it to be not just an option, but the best option, every time.

This isn't how the game works. Martials do not get to do this. I for example like my swords but there are enemies who just do not take slashing or piercing damage, or who take more damage via bludgeoning, or just resist all physical damage period. My sword doesn't need to be the best weapon in every single encounter because I want to be a sword master. Because the guy who wants to be a hammer master, or a spear master, deserves opportunities to shine as well.

Lightning spells in fact have a tendency to over-preform to the determent of spellcasting in general. Electric Arc for example completely dominating cantrips to a unhealthy degree of the games life. Smaller examples include magus being way too reliant on shocking grasp, to the point they ignore any other spell for just shocking grasp. That isn't healthy game design and it shouldn't be something encouraged because it's counter-intuitive to game design, it means you shouldn't bother making any new content because the content you made is the best solution to a solved problem.

That said, by the amount of times you bring up exclusively wizard, It feels like your title, like the title of other threads, is misleading. You're beef seems to be just that the wizard isn't doing this, not that there aren't "Casters" that do this.