Cuttlefist's page

Organized Play Member. 164 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I agree that they need to be better, or at the very least more durable. If dealing a lot of damage is unbalanced, which i could see being the case since your Pc will also be dishing out hurt, they should at least not go down in a single round.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never been a fan of Paladins, and one of the biggest reasons was the alignment restriction. The other big reason was how much stronger they were than the other base martialclasses. The idea that the alignment restriction was some kind of balancing drawback was BS, if you are wanting to play a knight in shining armor and champion of justice then why would you ever steal or lie anyway? So in good campaigns where the goal was to save the land from evil along with a solidly good party you just got a bunch of buffs and extra damage with no drawbacks. All it did was limit what your other PCs could be.

But now that the class has a goal other than to be a beefy evil slaying super hero, it’s a perfect opportunity to open them up to other alignments. Use the anathema from their chosen god to determine their “code” and have them lay on hands/bad touch and smite based on their good/evil alignment. Or have that be determined by their deity like how cleric’s gods determine the spontaneous casting they can do. Super easy.

Truth be told, I also do not like alignment at all and would rather it gone, but as long as we have it we shouldn’t restrict classes based on it. Having (un)holy champions of all alignments will open up so many more character possibilities.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do like Bookrats suggestion for alchemists to have persistent healing effects, would be an interestingly niche support slot and also mirror their bombs that deal persistent damage. Be the DOT and HOT class.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
This feature had an interesting evolution, and that evolution is in some ways a vestige of an older stat system than the one we have now. First it was a feat, but it was definitely a feat tax, so we added it for free, but then we changed to our current ability score system and didn't reevaluate. I'm sure you guys will be able to help us on that front in the playtest.
What if we could do away with dex to damage at all by having the feat give a flat +2/3 or 4 damage with finesse weapons? Functionally, this would allow a rogue to make up a fair bit of dumping STR in character creation, without essentializing DEX as the default stat of rogues world wide. It would even allow strength based rogues to get the benefits of using lower damage die/more rogue-ish weapons, without forcing it.
Yeah, that's an interesting proposition. It's quite similar to the solutions I came up with for PF1 in vigilante Lethal Grace and the like.
How about this: if you don't deal Sneak Attack damage, you deal +1 for each Sneak Attack dice?
We actually have a feat to just flat-out deal half sneak attack damage whenever you don't sneak attack. I'm definitely looking at responses and alternatives that can help give rogues more options while still making sure Dex-based rogues are awesome.

That sounds pretty awesome. I really like that you are looking to make dex based rogues awesome, they should be. My knee-jerk reaction is that leaning into dex to damage while giving a feat tax for not using finesse weapons doesn’t feel very good. I appreciate that you are looking for feedback on how to make this work. Why not lean on the crits? Allow the rogues to deal sneak attack damage on crits as well as against flat-footed enemies. The finesse rogues are already going to focus on having a high attack by putting everything into DEX for their defense as well, so seeing that bonus damage more often can be a great benefit. But that also benefits STR Rogues...

Are we still not able to stealth in combat? If a Rogue could duck behind an ally or an object and literally sneak attack from the shadows they get more damage and benefit to focusing on their DEX based skill. If the math is as tight as it is, a character having 18 points in their DEX will get a bigger benefit to using that skill than someone with 18 in STR. Just an idea.

Edit: I really also want to add another big deal I have with this: a I want Finesse fighting to be different from Strength fighting. If I say a I am a Finesse martial, and somebody asks how that works, my answer shouldn’t be “Exactly the same as any other martial, but my stat I use for attack and damage also boosts my AC, Reflex saves, and most instances of Initiative. DEX to damage doesn’t set a difference between the fighting styles, except STR characters have to rely more on armor.

Edit 2: You know, I forgot about weapon abilities. If Finesse weapons have enough abilities that set them apart, which it looks like the Rapier is at least very distinct, then that would definitely be a good way of setting the fighting styles apart. Gotta make finesse weapons something that people want to use, but not want to use otherwise because of the lack of damage.

ChibiNyan wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:

I am also really bummed that the default Rogue is Finesse fighting. And you need a feat to sneak attack woh anything else? So if I want to play a strong-arming thug with a club I will automatically be setting myself behind players who put everything into DEX? That’s pretty poor game design to make one fighting style best option.

I had said before I don’t like DEX to damage, but making it a core feature of the rogue will just lead to making feel-bad moments for people who want to play anything but nimble cat-burglars.

It does seem like Rogues are really pigeonholded into being that build, which is a bit disappointing even if the class looks really good! Granted, that has been the issue since Unchained, where they also got free Dex to damage. I think Dex to Dmg should be a lv1 class feat and they can get some other default ability in return.

That, or an archetype that doesn't get finesse and can sneak attack with other stuff, but not sure we'll be seeing these short of archetypes before 2020.

Agreed it should be optional, I would have no issue with that. Like the Muses of the Bard you could get three options to determine what kind of weapons you sneak attack with and whether you get dex to damage. Options people, we need options!

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Why would a Rogue need to be a catburglar, and not a thug, by design?

I think the short answer is:

Because a thug is a Barbarian or Fighter with the Criminal Background, not a Rogue.

I mean...literally nothing about the 'I have all the skills and fight with trickery and finesse' Rogue screams 'thug'.

I'm actually very hopeful for Str Rogues and think we might well get some options in that line, but I wouldn't describe them as 'thugs'.

‘Thug’ is an occupation and an attitude. It’s a way of life yo. One that does not discriminate, so even the most nimble of elves can be a thug right along the most British of orcs. All it takes is a willingness to break the law and a desire to hit enemies where it most hurts when they least expect it.

Also, the idea that being skillful means you are a finesse master is one of my least favorite parts of the presentation of this character sheet. Nothing says the guy who can pick locks and slip gold out of a strangers pocket won’t decide to just bash in skulls when the going gets tough. Relying on the high skill rank numbers of the class to offset a low INT and DEX is one of the most fun parts of building a Thug Rogue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am also really bummed that the default Rogue is Finesse fighting. And you need a feat to sneak attack woh anything else? So if I want to play a strong-arming thug with a club I will automatically be setting myself behind players who put everything into DEX? That’s pretty poor game design to make one fighting style best option.

I had said before I don’t like DEX to damage, but making it a core feature of the rogue will just lead to making feel-bad moments for people who want to play anything but nimble cat-burglars.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
No, it's not Irony, because my only view of Ranger isn't Aragorn. I'm pointing out the fallacy in your logic that the ranger is only what you think it is. Aragon is a counter example, not the only example.

And now Paizo has made it possible for both of us to play the way we like. I'm no longer required to be a spellcaster in order to play a Ranger.

I count that as a win.

You weren't required to spell cast at all. If you had a 10 Wisdom, you weren't doing any spell casting. But you had a choice.

Now, we don't get a choice. That isn't a win, it's really a loss. Spell casting gave the class some flair, something unique. There's a reason why it was incredibly popular and it had nothing to do with snares. I've never seen a Trapper ranger in PFS. Not in six years of playing.

But they had to balance the rest of the class around you having access to spells, without them being auto-included it opens up to much more power for people who don’t want to use them while leaving open design space for people who do want to invest in them to be able to.

Really digging this version of the Ranger! The Ranger was my second least favorite class after Paladin, and you have piqued my interest in both once again(less so with the Paladin until non-LG is an option) with these changes.

I love the swap to Hunt target over favored enemy, mechanically improved and great flavor as well. Basically focusing on the targets weak points to make up for the loss of energy after each attack by striking at weak points. Great way to play a savage character as well, instead of hulking out like a Barbarian you jump in and tear away with multiple strikes. Loving it.

Lack of spells is also a big plus! The spells always seemed like a kinda nice bonus but in actual practice just caused developers to hamper other facets of the class to make up for their inclusion. The Spell-less Ranger was one of my favorite 3pp archetypes and am very pleased to see this be the default.

Snares... I’m glad they are not a default class feature but a potential focus. That’s nice, because unless you are able to prepare and have a favorable battlefield I don’t see them being overall useful. Great in certain situations, like a narrow hall or a doorway, but more often than not how are you going to predict where an enemy will be standing? Will need to see more examples before deciding if they are too resource-investment heavy.

A cool nod to favored Enemy I think would be an archetype of class feats that allow trophy collection. Like when you kill an enemy, you can spend a few actions to collect a piece of them to get a morale bonus (or whatever those fall under now) against enemies of that species or creature group.

Or, something I thought up in other threads, each monster type can drop race-specific loot like poison glands or claws or wings, that can be used as expendable items or sold or used in crafting, and Rangers can collect an extra one of these items, or have a higher chance of getting them if it is random, if the enemy is the target of their hunt ability when killed. Just an idea to give them more of a hunter vibe.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Definitely in the minority, but I am actually really excited about resonance. I think it is a great solution for streamlining magic item inventory and curbing unwanted item abuse. I do understand the concerns from people on it discouraging consumables use, but I don’t actually think it will be an issue once playtesting begins. I do share in the disappointment in seeing items with daily uses, as the resonance system is supposed to replace that, just makes it wonky to have both in my opinion.

One thing I absolutely do not understand is the complaint that it is narratively inconsistent with the previous edition. How is that an actual concern? This is a new edition of a game, mechanics change and it doesn’t have to have a narrative explanation. It’s not hand waving, it’s a new game. It’s not like there are any significant plot points that revolved around a character being able to chug 30 potions and then shoot off 50 magic missiles from a wand. As far as the setting is concerned this could always have been the norm but it just never came up.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I LOVE the way that the stances make your unarmed strikes act as different weapons essentially, super cool concept that i think adds some great flavor and options to the class.

Not super excited about how being a Dex or Strength based warrior is the default, and doing a Ki based mystic warrior has a feat-tax. Essentially puts those builds a level behind the other two and seems like setting players up for a feel-bad moment. I was really hoping for mystic warrior being more heavily leaned into, but am very ok with the decision to get away from the class being MAD. So mixed feelings to say the least.

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Not a big fan of “quickened” giving you different types of actions depending on the source. Really unintuitive and messy, and basically means that haste and that monk ability don’t actually give you the same condition, but it has the same name anyway. Would quickened just giving you an additional action you can use for whatever really be that overpowered?

PF1 has not really aged all that well. As other systems have been developed and shown what quality of life improvements can be available to TTRPGs it has made what could have been done in Pathfinder originally. This is the perfect time for a 2nd edition, there is more than enough material to derive characters and adventures for years, and the developers have had plenty of time to experiment and improve on the issues in the original edition.

It is understandable to feel upset about Paizo no longer publishing 1E, but that doesn’t render your current collection obsolete. Those books still work, but they could not and should not publish books for the same system forever. After 20 years, it’s time for 3.X to be moved on from.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:

And I think you made the wrong choice.

Even though I am on the complete opposition side from you, I will say this. You have a right to that opinion. It is not one I, or many others, share.

I don't want another fantasy game with the name Pathfinder slapped onto it. I want a better version of the game we already have. A 2nd Edition of Pathfinder.

I respect your right to your opinion, as fantastically different from mine as it is. I don’t think that the way Paladins currently are is even remotely integral to what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder. It can still be just as much a better version of 1E while changing the flavor of one class, in my opinion that will make it every bit better in this particular case.

In contrast to your lengthier post, I don’t think the Paladin as a concept really works. I do think it needs to be fixed. And with how wildly they are changing so many of the base mechanics of the game I don’t see how making a change to the Paladin flavor would be the big thing that makes this not Pathfinder anymore.

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

We knew the Paladin was going to be a bit contentious. The class has provoked strong emotions and discussion since the earliest days of gaming. In designing this class, we really had two routes we could take. Traditional, but very flavorful, or Reimagined, but ultimately more generic. I chose the former.

And I think you made the wrong choice.

On a very personal reasoning, I don’t think the flavor of the Paladin as it has been is worth preserving. I tend to go out of my way to snub tradition as much as possible, but the traditional Paladin is especially offensive to me. I don’t think it adds anything to the game, I have never had a desire to play one, none of my players or players at other tables I have played at had any desire to play them (I know that I am an anomaly in that regard, guess it’s just the circles I hang out with. Don’t know if it has an correlation to the number of piercings and tattoos on the people present.), so keeping it that flavor has, as I said before, ensured my group will give absolutely no helpful feedback during the playtest other than “Ew, change this please.” I also hate the argument that they get extra power because they are harder to role play. It’s not a good argument, LG is not difficult to role play, it’s boring and monotonous. I actually remove alignment entirely from my games, because to me it is stupid and nobody, real or fictional, can actually be boiled down to where they land on a simplistic axis. It’s extremely limiting and Paladins are the poster child for everything wrong with it.

On a lesser but still personal reasoning, I think that the game suffers for having a class that flies so hard in the face of the overall design goal of the game. everything else revealed up to this point has shown that the game overall is aiming towards having as many options for as many character concepts as possible. Having an entire class that limits all of it’s options to one alignment and then having one code that they must follow does not accomplish that. Dedicating one class to a finite pool of concepts is poor game design in my opinion, that is what archetypes and prestige classes are for. Base classes should be flexible and support a variety of ideas, and having just one code to follow with one alignment is not that. Especially when that restriction is gating potentially the best Tank in the game.

I like EVERYTHING else revealed about the class so far. I think you can keep it very flavorful while breaking from tradition. Them being martial paragons of their god’s ideals should be more important than them being paragons of honorable goodness. Have Lay on hands and a Draining touch attack, and have each deity determine which one their Paladin does or give them a choice. Have them be under the same alignment restrictions for each god as clerics as well. Have a code for Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic axis, and combine that with their God’s Anathema to determine what actions cause them to lose their powers. It’s not hard to see how the class can be done while preserving the idea of a holy warrior who sets the standard for their deities followers and be of any alignment.

If that is not acceptable to do to Paladins, I think they should be removed from core entirely, then added later on as an Archetype or PRC. Take what we have so far, use my suggestion above, and slap the name Crusader on it, and let people play LG Crusaders take an Oath or archetype that makes them Paladins. But as is, I think the Paladin is a huge mistake to move forward with such extreme character limitations.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

In my almost 20 years of playing D&D 3.X and other similar tabletops, I have never played a Paladin and have never had one at my table. Nobody in my circles have ever had any interest in them, it’s not a well designed class and letting tradition hamstring it has just guarantee that my table will not give any helpful feedback about it in the playtest.

It’s somewhat hopeful that it was said “when” other alignments get added, but unless that is in the final core rulebook I really have no interest. It really wouldn’t be hard to have a pair of core abilities that are based on your alignment, like other users have suggested. You would still have the ability to have them have an alignment based playstyle and open them up to people who want to play a heavy armor type but don’t want to play a traditional Arthurian holy knight.

So I definitely hope that the LG-only restriction goes away after the playtest when you have figured out how to reach your goals with the class without being held back by tradition. I was really hoping after the Alchemist and goblin were added that we were going to get all sorts of great surprises about the other classes, but this blog post really disappointed me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Eh, I am not a fan of alignment. But it is super easy to ignore when creating a campaign, so I don’t really mind them keeping it in. I do think they are moving in the right direction with anathema for the different gods, so it is really easy to have no alignment but still have cleric’s (and potentially Paladins) with very little effort needed to convert. Them also including the form of channel energy being defined by the god Not alignment is another great step.

The fact is that very few classes have mechanical functions tied to alignment, and removing them before wasn’t super hard, but seems to be getting easier.

In other words, as long as alignment is less relevant to actual class abilities, they can keep it in all they want and I will just ignore it.

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
If the only thing they did with Pathfinder 2 was improve weapons like this, then it would have made Melee characters more fun to play compared to casters. So why the massive nerf of full casters and lavish love to melee folk?

I think it is probably due to just how big the gap between casters are martials really was in 1E. Giving martials more options but not so much it becomes silly probably still brought them up short compared to 1E casters, so they could be losing some of their max power while bringing up their minimum power with boosted cantrips.

I also really don’t feel like power level from 1E should be used as the baseline for 2E, we shouldn’t be looking to make everything stronger than it was, and instead look at this as a new opportunity to have a proper balance with a new baseline.

Was hoping for a class blog like Wizard or Ranger, real curious what they are going to do with Ranger, but this is awesome info. I love how they are looking to make different weapons really weigh in on character build.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whatever the reader wants.

I would totally be down with Paladin being a sublclass to a chassis with a greater amount of flexibility. Call it the Crusader, to go with Inquisitor when that is introduced.

Like Graystone, I think most of the mechanics should be based on god chosen. Your smite and what it targets, your Lay on Hands effect (Heal, or drain health, or boost an attribute or something like that), their armor type they specialize in (Class abilities that defend but only work in your set armor type maybe), aura type, and also the code with anathema for each god. Then of course class feats that add more abilities to your base powers. And each alignment combo has a different title, like LG being Paladin, that has it’s own base set of anathema that cost you your abilities.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
...or: fun is subjective, and often not something one can consciously choose to have or not have, even if someone on the Internet calls them names over it.

I dunno, the fact that the fun being defended is “Other people can’t have this” which to me is not a fun to be concerned with to the degree it is being defended. People want a narrow and restrictive class to be opened up to allow more players to enjoy the concept, and the response from the opposition is “I won’t enjoy that, sure I could still play the way i want to, but other people being able to play in a different way ruins my fun.” This is not a definition of fun that i care to respect, as by going against it you create more fun for more people than you ruin t for.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Spyglass Archon wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Come on. Leave the Paladin alone. Why are you people so insistent to take it away from us?

Nobody is trying to take your f~%@ing Paladins away from you, you self-righteous knob-goblin.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between other people playing with something and you losing it proves that you're too stupid and immature to adjudicate matters of moral reasoning-- which is exactly why class powers shouldn't be subject to the GM's subjective moral opinions.

How is changing something group A finds enjoyable in order to make it palatable by group B in such a way as to spoil the aspects of that thing that group A find enjoyable NOT taking something away from group A?

I think it is important to consider what it is that group A finds enjoyable and whether it is detrimental to others without actually giving any benefit to group A before asking this. And in the case that the only thing being taken away is the exclusivity that kept other people from enjoying the thing being changed then I think it comes down to not being worth any concern. The net benefit outweighs the loss at that point.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

At 30, I actually delight in doing away with traditions when they get in the way of fun. And the traditional Paladin is not fun. I have never played a Paladin, and have never had one at my table. They weren’t banned, just literally none of my friends in 20 years of playing different forms of D&D wanted to put up with the headache of playing one just for their abilities.

I am 100% in favor of recreating the class to be a more general knightly class with defensive, armor-based abilities like the devs have hinted at so far. But they could easily still have RP restrictions and still be improved. I think Anathema are key to that. With Anathema you can have a Paladin of any alignment but have a code based around not violating your deities anathema.

Would immediately make the class more appealing, and the only people who would lose anything are the ones who get off on the exclusivity of the current version of the class that I and other players/GMs won’t touch with a 100 ft pole. More options and more variety is all upside when it comes to classes in my opinion.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m excited about some of the bold risks they are taking, and really look forward to what other surprises they have in store, because it really looks like they are not afraid to experiment and go in some directions nobody had considered before.

I like that idea a lot. My main desire is for weapon choice to mean as much as possible, so that you have incentive to choose between a dagger or a long sword other than one deals more damage than the other. Like, what ways can a dagger weilder approach an enemy that a longsword weilder can’t? Mechanics to really push different weapon styles baked into the weapons themselves.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would think having everybody with access to part harvesting would be best, maybe Rangers have a class feat to harvest additional parts? Or be more likely to find those parts if they are not 100% guaranteed with every kill.

or of course special ranger-only uses for parts. I like the idea of a Ranger killing a manticore, ripping its stinger off and then throwing it in the face of a nearby Bugbear, poisoning and grossing it out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I would definitely be down for at least each weapon group (axes vs light blades vs polearms etc) having an intrinsic action associated with it, that you get once you're Expert in that group.

Probably best to leave it to groups if it makes it into core. Then when they inevitably do an Ultimate Equipment book, that's where they would have the space / page count to do alternate special moves for each and every individual weapon, if that was something people wanted to see.

I had another post about higher proficiency in the different weapon groups would give special bonuses unique to those weapon groups, like bleed effects on axes and reroll I g ones on heavy blade damage dice,but special actions would be a great option as well. It would be pretty legendary of a swordsman to be able to cut air or something else goofy like that.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really wonder what your definition of bias is, because getting mentioned in a few articles doesn’t exactly imply that they are actually getting more attention or preference. And your example of how it could develop into bias does not seem to take into consideration all the articles that could feature the classes you think are not getting enough love. You think an article about combat maneuvers will not mention the fighter? An article about animal companions won’t talk about druids, wizards, Sorcerors and Rangers? They are very likely going to have one or more articles on God’s that will talk about clerics. An article about energy damage that will bring up clerics and druids, and an article about alignment that will include info about clerics and paladins. An article on item enchantment that will talk more about casters able to do it.

Nobody is saying that you are calling fire where there is smoke, you are calling smoke where somebody vaped five hours ago. There is little reason to believe that the trend of alchemists having a tiny number more article mentions than any other class will continue to hold true or worsen, and you trying to draw attention to the possibility it might be is not enhancing or adding to the discussions on this board in any way. You might as well be warning people of raccoon attacks in the White House. Yeah, it could happen but there are adults and professionals who are making sure it doesn’t and it hasn’t happened yet.

And on the designer commenting here that you say validates your post, I actually read it as more of a “Yeah we are fully aware of how things can be perceived when they are presented in certain orders and time periods, but even when we do take steps to avoid problems like that, conspiracy theorists are still finding a way to infer what we were intentionally avoiding.” Not trying to put words in his mouth. That response was not forced because you did good journalism and they had to be held accountable for the rate they have released info, it was because the topic you brought up was reflective of an anecdote, which is the extent of value it brought to the discussion.

Of course Sith had a bias for them, they are better in every way and the developers were just doing the right thing.

Seriously though, being right on that is not very impressive. There were only two sides to divide attention to, so some imbalance is a lot easier to overlook. And also Sith are by nature cooler and have broader appeal than Jedi, everybody wants to be Dartb cader or Maul, nobody wants to be Quigon or Luke, so the odds of there being more people playing Sith was easy to place your bets on.

In Pathfinder there are 11 other classes for the devs to balance focus and development between, it ‘s going to be significantly more difficult to have bias towards one class without it being glaringly obvious, and that has not occurred yet. The odds of Paizo’s team somehow missing that the Alchemist gets cooler toys and more advertisement than other classes to their detriment is pretty slim.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again I didn’t have an issue with the way Starfinder did it or the way it is flavored. The game takes place in a post-industrial revolution setting where weapons are mass-produced, so you are going to have more consistent availability of higher quality items and more variance allowed in their quality for different price points. I liked giving each different level a brand that they could be recognized as being clearly bargain level or a premium weapon. Players weren’t forced to use weapons of their level, you could use ones above your pay grade if you could afford them, but the levels were a guide as to what levels would be likeliest to afford that item at the earliest.

totoro wrote:

I hated Starfinder equipment scaling. Oddly, I think it is pretty much the same as Pathfinder equipment scaling, just with tech instead of magic. The BP of starships (which had no corresponding credit value) didn't help, either. It's just that the game balance screws were so obviously showing. You don't want to see the game balance screws every time you consider what kind of weapon to buy. Time for an Advanced Baton? 540,000 credits, please. Ugh.

Some SF systems do not use abstract wealth systems and some do. Traveler handles "high level" play pretty well with battle dress and plasma rifles, as well as outrageously expensive ships, and it does not have any wealth abstractions. Fragged has an interesting "current resources" abstraction. Neither of these systems expect every single character to trade in their azimuth laser pistols at 6th Level, which is just jarring.

I’m not totally sure what you mean by the balance screws showing. Do you mean that the mechanic was too gamey?

Also confused what you mean by Starfinder Expecting you to trade in your laser pistol at 6th level? Did you feel like Starfinder encouraged upgrading your weapons more often than Pathfinder does?

I actually really liked the scaling from Starfinder, loved how streamlined it made the ability to have improved weapons. I don’t think it would make sense in Pathfinder though, so i am glad they took the route of magic weapon bonuses granting more damage dice.

I get how it might be a pain to some people having to roll a ton of dice, but it really is the best solution for closing the caster-martial gap. Increasing their damage dealt and reducing the dependence on a full-attack.

Rules Artificer wrote:

I agree that the 3-action system opens up a lot more options for special strikes since you don't have to worry about something screwing you out of your precious full-attack anymore.

Some players will definitely be against anything remotely similar to D&D 4E's combat powers. Personally, I think it should be fine as long as these special strikes are generally at-will options you have available just by virtue of using a particular weapon, just like having a shield allows you to spend an action to raise it and a reaction to block damage with it.

Particularly, I think that it's this direction that the 2E Monk should go in. Given the 3-action system, making extra attacks like 1E's flurry of blows is a bit contrary to the 2E's design philosophy.

I say have 2E monk double down on the special martial arts maneuvers (style strikes in 1E for the unchained monk). An uppercut that requires a strike and an Athletics check which knocks an enemy upward. A leg sweep that combines a strike and a trip attempt. And so on.

Groovy, I am right there with you. Giving Monks a bunch of special strikes as they level up would be an awesome approach to the class. And you could have the option for supernatural spell-like abilities, or spend those on additional strikes or maneuvers. I like it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They basically have something similar in 1E without being considered anime-like. Many weapons allow you to make trip or disarm attempts without normal penalties or having a special response in case you fail your attempt. It would be a bit like Dark souls, which would be a plus for me though.

I like the idea of proficiency being required to use these actions at all, and getting access to better actions as it increases. That could be a super cool way to demonstrate skill with each weapon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really think this is the perfect time for a reset on the rules. It will be so nice to go back to just a few races and classes and feats to choose from for a little while, and to finally kill some sacred cows and fix some of the numerous issues that PF1 had.

I was around when 4th was announced, and it soured my opinion of D&D so much that even when I was participating in the D&Dnext playtest I couldn’t help but feel like I would rather be playing Pathfinder, which had become my dear TTRPG love by that point. But there are a lot of things 5th edition did right, and to learn from that and other developments to RPGs over the last decade is just thrilling if they can pull it off with this edition.

I was thinking about how cool it would be to have weapons that have special actions that can be made with them in addition to their special abilities. Things like a Scythe allowing you to spend two actions to make an attack that trips the target, Rapiers having a two-action costing disarm attack, bows having a two-action “overdraw” that allows for you to add your strength bonus to damage, two action Attack with a Katana that can only be made with the Katana starting in it’s sheathe and catches the opponent flat-footed, and other cool unique functions.

I saw a user online suggesting a huge sword that takes additional actions to use at all, so like a vertical strike that takes two actions to make, and a horizontal strike that takes three actions but makes a strike against three enemies in range, starting off with a penalty on the first target due to the weight but then a smaller penalty on the second and a bonus on the third as you built momentum.

Might be a level of complexity that the devs want to keep to special and rare weapons, but I think it would be awesome if most weapons, even if just kept to martial and above and not simple, had a special attack that they could do. Would make weapon choice an even bigger part of what makes the character build what it is.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I definitely fall into the camp of not so impressed by ancestry feats so far. With how few you will get, they need to have stronger effects than what we have seen, making the gap between them worth the wait. As is, I feel like most players would forget about even getting an ancestry feat at level-up, and when reminded just roll their eyes and pick something.

We need feats that make the racial choices worth it, like Elves getting bonus damage dice to bows or adding bonuses to the negative effects of creatures who fail their saves against their spells. Dwarves getting their blacksmith proficiency bonus to sundering attempts. Halflings getting a feat chain that allows them to siphon luck from their enemies. Gnomes being able to shapeshift into rocks or greenery. Give us things to look forward to and really reward the choice of race on character concepts.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This would be amazing, having most monsters have some kind of drop listed and either a standard value or alchemical and crafting use. Like Goblin ears and their value being included.

And can we have the Ranger specialize in this? Like maybe favored enemy could yield bonus items harvested, or special benefits from these harvested parts that other classes don’t have. Like a goblin ear being used as a whistle that causes everybody in a small range to become flat-footed for a turn.

Or the Ranger is the only class that is able to harvest most items at all, I think that would be a cool benefit to having a Ranger in your party. Or at the least requiring levels in lore or nature for non-rangers to have access to.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

So, funny story, you were at one point going to get a bunch of alchemist information in more rapid succession. After I wrote the alchemist blog, we are going to do the alchemical items blog later that week. Because Tech Raptor was keen on doing a story about alchemy that same week, I argued to give the alchemy blog a bit of space, and we did the blog on gnomes and halflings later on in the week.

In short, we have a list of topics to cover as we approach the release. That list was made months ago, but we change things up every so often in the attempts to split up topics, so you're not getting "too much of a good thing" in quick succession. Obviously, you believe we missed the mark this time, but it had nothing to do with dev bias. If anything we spaced it out a little more than we were first planning to because of interest from outside groups about the subject.

I love these kinds of comments. We get so many people posting on here and Reddit and other places who assume that because Paizo isn’t doing something the way they would do it, that means that they aren’t actually thinking that thing through. But this kind of comment shows that you are taking every aspect of this product and it’s release into consideration.

The folks working on this are not infallible, but I think that a lot of the concerns that have been brought up from people on things like Goblins and alchemists being added to core, or the way old abilities will work in the new action economy (Saw one redditor trying to argue that because Sudden Charge and Power Attack both take two actions each, it would mean that no players would take both and thus it would result in fewer feats being chosen because they are obviously not as good) seem to come from people thinking that paizo doesn’t take things like new players, existing lore, balance, old players, leveling, and pretty much every other aspect of the game into consideration. But it’s reassuring to see that even little details like the rate of information release is thoughtfully considered, as it looks like all other major aspects of the game are.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with this thread. I would love for other options that alchemiss can specialize in. Like the Liquid Blade. Be great if you could take alter the blade into different kinds of swords or upgrade the material into admantium or other substances, auto-include poisons into the tube it comes out of, and get a damage boost.

9 people marked this as a favorite.
vorArchivist wrote:
If we can't critique what they give us what's the point of even having a playtest forum?

I always hate seeing this line of argument being thrown up to deflect from topics that don’t actually add to the discussion being shot down. Just because something is a criticism doesn’t mean it is worth being brought to others attention. It really makes no sense to argue that any and every concern needs to be aired out and taken seriously, because plenty of concerns are simply not valid no matter how real they may feel to some people.

The idea that there is a bias towards alchemists just because they are being added to core (?!) and got two blog posts that go into their mechanics, out of like what? 10 or twelve so far? And it is four months until the prerelease? So that’s like another 16 blog posts coming in the meantime? And some random person can’t understand how it is crazy talk to suggest that there is a bias towards this one class, but because it’s a critique their opinion is above criticism and should be seen as contributing to the discussion?

Nah, HWalsh gave no good argument to why alchemists have gotten preferential treatment to an extent it will be detrimental to the game, this topic isn’t really adding to the discussion. I’m not sure what signs would indicate we should be keeping an eye out for detrimental bias but there sure haven’t been any yet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reading the article, I really couldn’t guess as to what makes him think there is less customization, except if customization to him is based on stacking lots of small bonuses. I get how some people enjoy min-maxing over making actually fleshed-out characters, but with how many options players will get to choose from level after level it should be painfully obvious that players will have lots of opportunities to make varied and unique characters.

Also, on his note about no more Pathfinder meaning no more work for him, come the £#{% on. He can’t honestly think that Pathfinder was going to be published forever can he? And if he is refuses to adapt to a new system in the event the one he is accustomed to then he deserves the same fate as coal miners or factory workers who refuse to move on when the demand for their profession has dropped.

Planpanther wrote:

1. Where did you hear new ancestries are coming in bestiaries? I cant see that happening since monsters now have their own rules.

I suspect that a single page would be enough to provide enough ancestry feats for each race to have like 15-20. Do we know how many you will get over your career? I think it seems like 10, so 20 should be enough. So each entry that will be playable can have like 2/3rds of a page dedicated to monster stats, the last third with their base attribute bonuses, speed and other abilities, with another page for ancestry feats. Shouldn’t be too big a deal to use the bestiary and still have enough room for a good monster selection.

I still like the idea I posted another thread about automatic bonuses unique to each weapon group for each proficiency level. And I presume that there will be skill feats that require certain proficiency levels and give different weapon groups different benefits.

The fact that people are arguing about what fictional people who are 100% under the control of people sitting at a table is the most fascinating thing about this entire debate. Like, the only things that these people will or won’t do is whatever the GM wants them to do, and if the GM wants to make the game difficult for the players then they will have random NPCs attack party members of certain races. And if they don’t want things to be difficult for the party, they will work out a way for the party members to progress that will make at least enough sense. What these NPCs would or would not do is pretty irrelevant, because they will literally never ever make any decision.

MidsouthGuy wrote:

If being in the core rules doesn't mean most commonly encountered anymore, then what does it mean?

Maybe we will need to wait until we have the 2E rulebooks in our hands before answering that, becausethat is the only source for the definition of “core races” that will matter in 2E.

If it means 'most commonly selected by players' we should remove most of the core races and replace them with tiefling, ratfolk, kobold, and orc. But nobody is saying we should do that, and Paizo certainly isn't going to do it even if people want them to.

People are saying that. Lots of people actually. There is an entire thread about wanting to add more races like the ones you mentioned to balance out for the goblins being added. But Paizo is still probably not going to do that.

And as far as the average Golarion resident encountering more goblins than half-orcs or half-elves is concerned, that just doesn't make sense. Half-elves and half-orcs live in towns. There may be only a few of either in a given village, but the residents would see them daily since most people in fantasy worlds spend their lives in the same town or city where they were born and don't roam about the wilderness, swamps, dark caves, and junkyards. Which are the places where goblins live. So no, the average Golarion resident wouldn't encounter more goblins than other core races.

Most villages won’t have a single half-orc or half-elf. That’s how uncommon they are. Some will have a few, but most won’t. Cities will have a good small fraction of their population be half-breeds, but they are by no means common even then, except in rare cases and areas. There are multitudes more goblins, and even if most people don’t encounter them regularly, more people do than they will half-breeds.

TheFinish wrote:
Revan wrote:
MidsouthGuy wrote:

If being in the core rules doesn't mean most commonly encountered anymore, then what does it mean?
It means 'published in a particular book.' If you insist it's any more significant thaan that, maybe, 'considered iconic enough to be a major part of initial marketing and branding.'
Well, no, according to the developers themselves it means:

If you had read the comment that MidsouthGuy was responding to, you would see that the question was in regards to Paizo changing the meaning of core from most commonly encountered races in 2E, so there is no more irrelevant material to reference than 1E books. Because those are not 2E.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
So if you don’t like goblins, don’t play them.

As someone who is very nearly been won over to the pro Goblin camp, I have to stop and call out that talking point wherever I see it. If you don't like it don't X it is normally ludicrous thought stopping cliche that, if accepted as valid, would mean there could be no valid criticism of any piece of media ever, but it's especially non-applicable when people are arguing that the inclusion of goblins is going to directly affect them by encouraging bad behavior in others and breaking their verisimilitude.

As I said, I've been persuaded that paizo has the ability to provide adequate explanation to render the latter premise false, and that, while I still think there will be an uptick in bad behavior, most players simply wouldn't act that way regardless and those who are newly willing to in the presence of goblins are just outing themselves as people who never respected the group as a whole. However, the fallaciousness of that particular infuriating arguments deserves to be called out wherever it pops up.

You are not wrong, but I don’t think it is a universal truth that that cliche is fallacious. There are definitely times that it is a valid, although dismissive, retort. Don’t like pineapples on pizza? Don’t order them. Don’t like same-sex marriage? Don’t get into one. When something so evidently does not negatively impact the person arguing against it, it just validates their stance to do anything but respond in such a manner as to not take their concern seriously.

Admittedly, that was how I viewed pretty much all complaints against goblins as a core race. I still have yet to be convinced it will have any negative impact on the game outside of a few people who were going to do something awful like rolling a nightmare character as soon as being given an easier path to it, but also realize that dismissing the concerns on such a theoretical debate is not going to change the minds of people who are concerned.

So, in the context that it has been proven by playtest and actual release that goblins as a core race have not ruined PFS or anybody’s home game that doesn’t have edgelord jerks at their table, if you still do not like Goblins being in the game don’t play one and don’t make it difficult for the players who do like them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dracula made a great point. It’s important to note that this game is not being developed in a vacuum. I think something also important to note is that all of the posters on this forum are a minority of Pathfinder players. Out of these people, those opposing the addition of goblins are a minority. Out of the players of the play test, we’ll be a bigger chunk but still a minority of all the people involved. The vast majority of players won’t care. The majority of players of the play test won’t care. These people will see the goblin in there and either shrug or get excited and start rolling. The players who care enough about the specifics of the lore or what core races are supposed to be limited to are the ones on this forum passionate enough to take the time to create profiles and comment. That is such a small percentage of who will be buying these books. Casual players who just homebrew their settings won’t be upset goblins are core. New players who have never played a TTRPG will not be upset goblins are in core. Players coming over from 5th Edition won’t care that Goblins are in core (they may be upset about a lack of Dragonborn though). All these demographics that Paizo is targeting are not on these forums. We who are make up a small percentage of the overall player base, and those of us who oppose the inclusion of Goblins for lore reasons, for “core” purity reasons, or for a desire to prevent problem players from having a boner induced seizure when they see all the potential that I supposedly baked into the race are more than likely not going to have the collective buying power to really influence a decision this big that has already been made. So if you don’t like goblins, don’t play them. But the rest of us are here to have fun, so don’t spoil it if we are at the same table.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

They don't have too.

1. Deny the group entry in the town or place because of the goblin.

2. The group denies and proceeds anyway.

3. Call for reinforces and proceed to escalate the problem.

4. The group resists and again appears to strong for the NPCS to deal with.

5. Escalate the problem further, the guard and town now proceed to pass on to the big city of the region a call to deal with this particular group who doesn't listen to their orders. Now actually capable NPCS with...

What you are describing is the interaction of an awful table.

1. The GM sees that one of the players is a Goblin, decided to punish that player and the group by impeding their progress instead of having an NPC work something out with them. Dick move one.

2. The players, having had enough of the GM’s passive aggressive BS ignore the wishes of the townspeople and instead willingly become an invading force. Dick move two, electric boogaloo.

3. Instead of deescalating the situation by creating a situation that shows the goblin is not a threat or having an NPC work out a deal with the PCs, the GM downs another bag of Doritos in one Pelican gulp and raises threat level to Dreamsicle Orange.

4. The players have now decided that their greasy GM is not worth the respect they had once shown, and take it upon themselves to spit in his face by destroying his creation and going full bandit mode.

5. The GM realizes if his only remaining power play is to throw the entire world at the players, they have become enemies of the state and he must now live with the fact that all of the things he creates eventually destroy those he thought he loved and loved him.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mewzard wrote:
graystone wrote:

It's not evil in the least, it's self defense. Being mistaken isn't evil as the intent WASN'T to kill a good or neutral creature but protect himself and the community. If someone is disguised as a devil and get axed by a paladin, does the paladin fall? The 'good' goblin is 'disguised' as a murderous, psycho-pyromaniac and it's not the fault of anyone they didn't see through it.

So "lack of understanding" totally does impact the alignment of the action. If the person understands that demon and goblins are both naturally evil, why is killing one evil and the other not?

It's not self-defense unless the Goblin attacked him. It is absolutely an evil act to murder someone good because you feared and/or hated someone for their race.

No amount of "belief" or "understanding" makes a good person evil because they have green skin and pointy teeth.

Arguing ignorance in the court of law isn't a defense, it's not much of a defense against murdering the innocent anywhere.

Absolutely this. And as has been said before, anybody who attacks a goblin who is traveling amongst a group of well armed adventurers without provocation would have to be a raving lunatic. Anybody with half a brain would know that the goblin is with them and an attack on them is an attack on the whole group. So unless they either have a death wish or think they can handle a group of seasoned murder hobos then they are usually going to mind their own damn business.

1 to 50 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>