Search Posts
I hope "more general feats" evolves into "divorcing all feats from every class unless the feats are central to the class identity like wild shape or lay on hands"
I didn't come here to validate my own interpretation of what I read. I don't have to do that and I don't owe that to any of you. Frankly you should all be ashamed for trying to lessen the experience of someone just because you don't agree with it or share it. Speaking as an agnostic atheist, a non-straight person, and a racial minority (and also presumptuously speaking for everyone else in this topic whether they like it or not, dohoho), no one here is trying to do that. But could you please elaborate further on exactly what caused those feelings? It seems that you've confused everyone who's replied in this thread. Perhaps quote the passage and say what you think it implies?
This thread does seem a bit silly. Especially this part:
One could reasonably interpret that non-religious characters are against the rules. It very explicitly says that non-religious people do exist. But then you follow up later with: In the same way that before this edition one could reasonably assume nonbinary characters are against the rules. Lack of explicit inclusion has never implied explicit exclusion when it comes to non-mechanical character traits. Aspects of personality, beliefs, identity, psychological and physiological nature (aside from, perhaps, racial options) have always been open to the player. And I really do hate to have to tell you this (and please do not read this as any sort of endorsement of this behavior), but any GM that would reject your nonbinary characters before could still do so today (outside of organized play, like PFS). Rule 0 and all that. I will always recommend finding a table that suits you and is not hostile toward you. All the book is saying with regards to those who are non-religious is that they will meet a possibly unsavory end. In this particular instance, non-religious characters are explicitly part of the rules. That you are unhappy with the fact that the powers that be in the universe don't enjoy that idea isn't an issue you take with the rules, but with the implications of the setting. That is unless I am misunderstanding your arguments.
Without changing the prices of things, all paying in Silver does is just make everything 10x more expensive. Or breaks wealth by level the first time the team gets a hold of a good amount of gold if the prices aren't handled well.Why on hell would you change to a silver standard but not change the prices? What changes is that you now have 2 higher standard currency denominations (GP and PP) instead of just 1 (PP). It allows for much friendlier numbers on price tags when you can condense the price 100 times instead of just 10. So that 1000sp cloak can be bought with 100gp or 10pp, where before the lowest you could condense would be 100pp.
my tiny quibble of those examples (sans knife-slashing, which may now be an issue as sunder isnt in the game anymore) If a GM doesn't let you slash canvas with a knife without a combat maneuver, that's when you get up and go home.
It's honestly kind of cute seeing so many people complain about the caster nerfs. These nerfs were definitely needed with how dominant 9th level casting was in PF1... but then they've been coupled with major nerfs to the martial classes as well, with powerful tools moved much further back and more restricted (I'm looking at you, Spell Sunder). The best class in the playtest is easily the Cleric, and surprise surprise the Wizard falls in line at #2.Yeah, they were really not needed, IMO. What was needed was moving the martials up to the level of casters in many respects. But I know that it is basically religious dogma for some that casters needed to be nerfed into the ground. I could not agree more strongly, and this is the direction I thought they were going with Legendary proficiencies and such. Basically that mundane characters of a certain skill level are, for all intents and purposes, magical in all but technicality, like many mythological heroes.
Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects Not only do I think so, I would actively encourage it. Creative use of resources is rewarding for everyone at the table except railroading GMs. Know what else can have huge narrative powers? Pickpocketing a key. Or slashing a painting with a knife. Or spreading a lie. Or any number of an infinite set of options that require zero resource investment whatsoever.
Also, I'm in general agreement with this topic. Looking through the entire thing, there is nothing that I find exciting. Even a little. I like some of the systems (actions, etc.), but nothing fills me with wonder or "wouldn't this be fun!" It seems they went sooo hard on balance and trying to stamp out every little possible exploit that they ended up needlessly screwing things that are just plain fun (Prestidigitation and Unseen Servant come to mind).
...? D&D is booming, right now. Unless I missed something.
Now you have to ask whether it's saying 16 is doubled or normal :P
An overabundance of terms is explicitly one of the reasons they changed everything to "feat."
What's wrong with a hero that can't swim? Sounds like great narrative potential to me.
Speaking of closed-mindedness... It would be extremely dishonest to imply that the majority of complaints here stem from fear of change. I also see posts around that discount people's opinions because they think people are upset they won't have access to a decade of content. I see that claim more often than the actual complaint. And, even if some people are upset because of change...so what? "You can't judge this system on the merits of the old system" is basically saying "using an external reference point for what works and what doesn't is invalid."
I feel like this is as close to a "mods are asleep" topic as these forums are gonna get.
Weirdly enough, it doesn't seem like it's the notion of welcoming and kindness that turns people away. Seems more like it's being told to be welcoming and kind.
Sure! PFS is a poison that's killing the base system for home games.
Which is ridiculous. Identifying something that you flat-out know should take no time (and certainly not conscious effort). If someone starts singing the words "o say, can you see", not only do I identify that they've begun singing the Star-Spangled Banner (US national anthem), but I quite literally have no choice in the matter. My mind will identify it whether or not I choose to make the effort. The same goes for any incantation you may know well. Or hand gestures, or formation of frost on their fingertips. An action makes sense for recalling details. It does not make sense for strict identification of something that does not need to be closely examined.
Those aren't solutions. The point is that you can't sneak attack...by sneaking.
It's a shame the options include language that could skew the results. I get that it's not a proper scientific poll, but "Overall Positive, Overall Negative, Mixed, and Indifferent" would have been much better.
The nature of complaints I see popping up a lot here boil down to "This class can't do whatever I want it to do." I mean, seriously? That's kind of the entire point of a class-based system. Different classes play differently. One of my biggest complaints of PF1 was that it got to the point where I felt like my class wasn't actually doing enough to distinguish my character. They had a couple unique gimmicks, sure, but a witch I made didn't feel fundamentally distinct enough from an Enchanter or a Fey Sorcerer. When someone comes out and says "I want X class to be able to do whatever I want," I have to wonder to myself why they're even playing Pathfinder instead of a system that uses build points to create characters, or maybe an STG. This is such a blatant misinterpretation of people's arguments that I can only assume it is willful and in bad faith. Please, go make a light armor fighter. Or a ranger with a two hander. Or a rogue with a spear. These are not "I want to do whatever I want" requests. These are "why does a master of weapons and armor not get any bonuses to 2/3 of the armor choices as options when that used to be a thing they could do?" Or "why can I not take a general combat feat to use a two hander better?" Or "why can I not sneak attack with a weapon that has been used in sneak attacks for all of history?" These are basic, basic things. SO MANY complaints would be resolved if there were just more general feats, and class feats were used specifically for things that make a class special and unique (animal companions, channeling energy, etc.).
Seems like "Taboo" would be a friendlier term, but eh. "Anathema" is a single, distinct word. Not quite like the massive word salad of feat types.
The more I read, the more I'm convinced that there is simply no way for character creation/progression to be meaningful or even fun without them making a TON of feats universal, rather than class-locked. And, in addition to that, adding in feats that just don't exist for whatever reason. For instance, why is Double Slice locked behind only Ranger and Fighter? Why, as a Ranger, can I not take feats to improve two-handed weapons without multiclassing? Why, as a fighter, can I not improve light armor? Why, as anything, am I limited in which skills I can max out, provided I'm willing to invest so much into them? It feels like every class has been shoved into a tiny box. And in this tiny box, they've disassembled the classes into feats and called it "freedom of choice." It's totally cool if only rangers and druids can get animal companions, or clerics getting channeling, because these are central themes of the class. What is not cool is that you can't actually deviate from the class, all while being told that the modular system is somehow freeing.
So, the Druid has a massive tool box of wild shapes. A number of these tools invalidate something another class does. Solution: nuke the entire toolbox? There must be a more nuanced solution than "burn in hell, wild shapers."
Whether or not crossbows are generally worse than bows is not the issue. The issue is that there is no crossbow option in any form (feat, martial weapon, or otherwise) that makes them in any way competitive in any form at all. Hell, with the new cantrips, they don't even qualify as a wizard fallback, anymore. Flavor-wise, crossbows are an excellent option to have. However, they need to at least have some mechanical relevance. Whether that's feats to make them work (there is currently no rapid reload) or a martial option, something should exist.
A world with a martial crossbow option for the first time in tabletop RPG history, apparently.
You mean Druids will no longer be able to make the non-Druid scouts in the party feel completely useless from level 4? As someone who intends to play a non-Druid scout, it shouldn't matter. Being able to turn into animals for extended durations is core to the class's identity. Balance on the sheet isn't worth gutting RP.
It seems that, in their eagerness to increase modularity, they forgot that living beings have traits that they can't just pick and choose.
Personally, I'm convinced that this is quite literally the only reason they opted for the name change, and the rest of the reasons came after.
I guess I should be less harsh about it. You can, but it will almost necessarily always take the form of "I know all this but neglected it so now I have to actually spend time on it." "You can't" is better suited to the biological feats, which simply should not exist.
You can't.
Crossbows were quite literally the first thing I checked. Not only is there still no martial option, they're straight up worse than bows in every conceivable way but range, and there is no quick reload feat. Of all of the things that could be done with crossbows, "nerf them" is what Paizo went with?
I personally can't wait for the first race supplement. Hobgoblin Ranger/Alchemist, here I come
Who knows? Maybe in a few years, they'll release a supplement for building your own class or something.
Right, so your definition of "flexible" is "more choices." Then PF2 is definitively less flexible for you. This is the gap that can't be bridged. The rest of us (by which I mean the seeming majority in this topic) look at it and see "Wow, I can make a bunch of class combos that would've been absolute hot garbage in PF1!" You're looking at flexibility of options. We're looking at flexibility of viability.
John, is your definition of "flexible" something like "I technically have to ability to make a character with 10 classes of 2 levels each that is awful at absolutely everything it sets out to do"? If it is, there's a fundamental disconnect in how you and everyone else understands flexibility, and it's a bridge that can't be gapped. EDIT: "bridge that can't be gapped"? lol whoops
Because classes are more than the sum of their parts, and removing them entirely would frighten away both new players (due to learning curve/complexity) and old players (due to loss of brand identity/game feel).
The people bugged about the 4 spell lists really aren't thinking forward very far. It would be trivial for Paizo to release the Witch and say: "The Witch gets access to the arcane spell list, and also adds these spells as options: ~list of spells to add to the arcane list for Witch~"
It sure looks like a conflict problem to me. If left as is you'll see a lot less non-multiclass archetypes in play simply because taking them has actually become a fairly major sacrifice, and if the pirate is anything to go on, they kind of aren't that good. They certainly don't appear to be any competition for multiclass archetypes. Somehow I don't see bonuses to boarding actions competing with spellcasting levels regardless of how much time you spend on ships. Personally, I feel like that's a major loss to the game. This is a really solid take. Multiclassing and other archetypes shouldn't be competing with one another unless they're legitimately comparable. And if the archetypes are going to be as good as multiclassing, why not just make them into full classes with their own MC Dedications? Granted, with what we've seen of pirate, archetypes are probably better off just being onesie-twosie feats, rather than dedicated packages.
The deddication feat themselves are not 'losses'. As far as I can tell, the dedication feat alone adds quite a lot to a character. For starters, cantrips are incredibly useful in the new system with the way they scale. It was already mentioned that the fighter dedication grants martial proficiency and all three armor proficiencies. Each of those things are pretty impressive in a single feat, even if you never take any other 'archetype' feats beyond just the dedication. Assuming Cleric and Rogue are equally useful, I am really excited about the opportunities. I was referring to this: Special You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the wizard archetype. You can only dip into a single class, because trying to dip into another class requires 3 feats in the first.
While I like the system overall, I do hope that the multiclassing requirements are relaxed a bit. The dedication feat requirements make it so that dipping into more than a single class is impossible, either way, which I think is probably restriction enough. As it stands here, if you want a fighter that happens to have buffing cleric spells, it might be more economical to go 10 Wisdom Cleric and dump all feats into Fighter MC than it is to go Fighter and be forced to meet these ability score requirements.
You are not wrong that they are very good. But we wanted to test them like this,*** It's actually easy to tweak it up or down in power depending on what people think, though we're hoping it works out to be strong but not must-have right about as-is!I find this fascinating. I obviously don't know anything about your design meetings other than what you've shared, but is it Paizo's experience that players will routinely complain that something they like is too good? How will you know to tweak it down? What is Paizo going to use as an indicator that they've gone too far? I would fully expect the majority of players who want to multi-class to complain they aren't powerful enough, regardless of how good it is. It's not the people that benefit from broken things who will complain (typically). It's the GMs whose game has been made ridiculous and the weaker players who feel overshadowed.
Quick question, sorry if it's too early to say: will wild shaping be multiclassable?
Just now realized that this is a viable alternative to hybrid classes (the less creative ones, anyway).
I really, really like this. I'm very excited to be able to create "dabbler" characters. Now if we could somehow make this work with a polymorphing fighter...
That's fair. Sorry if I came off as harsh.
Ahh, good then. We can skip all ancestry feats then and just give each ancestry the ability scores adjustments they have at present. Nothing else, since people seem to only take their ancestries for the interesting backgrounds and the RP opportunities they provide. Do you really think this absurd reductionism makes a point? Or contributes to the discussion in any meaningful (not to mention mature) way? Obviously ancestry choices matter to a build, such as the aforementioned half-elf for weapon proficiency. The post in question implied that half-races are only good for mechanical purposes.
Agreed. I don't know where the notion of "you don't take half heritage feats just to say 'I'm a ...'" would even come from. Munchkins who treat every character decision as a means to power are actually rarer than people think, in my experience. I pick half-races (they're actually my favorite) because I feel they make for interesting backgrounds and RP opportunities.
. Then where do all these weird sorcerer bloodlines come from?Mmmm I don't know, I've never believed that all humanoids could interbreed between them, quite the opposite actually, for me racial interbreeding is a Human only characteristic, that is why one of the halves of half-bloods is always Human.If only it wasn't tied to Human... ;-) Me want's some Dworcs or Half-halflings. Almost all of them are dragon/extraplanar/otherwise very magical.
Ling ancestry in core or we riot!
Timing is never on my side. Had I waited 10 minutes for your post, Quandary, I would never have made mine. Your arguments are much sounder.
|
