DataLoreRPG's page

Organized Play Member. 168 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Crayon wrote:
I know it's a joke, but that's what my group and I recently decided to do. We passed originally due to some annoying bits, but with some judicious application of houserules I do think it'll be a better fit for us than PF2...

I'm in a similar boat. I like alot of what PF2 has to offer. The action economy is inspired, the enemy design can be fun, degrees of success can be cool, Paizo adventures are great, the character building is neat, the magic items are cool but... I dunno. I will reserve judgement until the final hits. But I suspect I will be sticking with 5E. I dont need super rigid rules, complicated bonus stacking, all these conditions or wierd numbered/shifting afflictions. And the magic system. Ugh. 5E casting slots (or as PF terms it, Arcanist style casting) is much more to my liking. We'll see, I guess.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I just dont see DM fiat as adversarial though. I find it far more adversarial to assume that the DM is somehow bound by some rules. The more detailed and intractible the rules, the more rules-lawyering. With super detailed rules, folks assume that the ultimate arbiter of what happens is some distant designer who put some stuff in a book. That leads to appeals to that authority instead of quick acceptance of a ruling. It also leads to folks gaming rules instead of playing games.

We each play our own way. But don't assume my table is adversarial. Its not. I very much adhere to the XDM notion of using the rules as a guideline and tossing them out when I see fit. I have not had a rules disagreement in years and the players keep coming back.


Also, I'll leave this link here since Matt Colville said it best. The map is not the territory.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
I'm not playing tabletop games to play in a GM's mental/narrative/Fantasy Heartbreaker™/solo-sandbox. Are there people who enjoy that? Sure, but I would say that the game is an excuse for tabletop improv rather than a game to play directly.

Elements of those things are part of any game run and adjudicated by a human. Unless you are playing a cooperative board game like Mansions of Madness that has an app adjudicating for you, you are playing a game that is run through the lens of another human's perception. I wouldn't use the "heartbreaker" pejorative here but you want to stamp your point, so whatever.

From my perspective, I put in far more work into a campaign as a DM than the players do. All they have to do is show up. If they aren't willing to work with how I decide the game works, they aren't welcome at my table. *shrug*

Saedar wrote:
From what I remember, XDM advocates for a very hostile relationship between players and GM.

Two things:

(1) That was not my take from the book. But it might make an interesting side discussion where you can point to where exactly it says this. Ultimately, it does state that the XDM does get rid of rules or even players that impede the good time had by most at the table. I wouldn't call that adversarial. That's just good advice.

(2) I used XDM to illustrate how Hickman boiled the game down to target numbers (not in reference to the DM/player relationship). You may have been mixing issues a bit there.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I'll advocate to get every ambiguity possible removed. DM fiat/table variation might not be an issue for you as you play a home game but it's an issue for those of us that play with strangers

I like Matt Colville's take on it: there are no Dungeons or Dragons. The entire game is what comes out of the DM's mouth and mind. Its all DM fiat. Tracy Hickman in his excellent XDM made much the same point when he boiled down the entire game to target numbers that the DM feels is appropriate for whatever situations he presents.

If you have some kind of adversarial relationship with your DM and you feel the way to fix the gameplay issues that arise is to make super complex and detailed rules to tamp down on "DM fiat", then, frankly, you arent really addressing the core issues you have at your table.

For the record, I DM for strangers in online games as much as I do home games. I run long campaigns. Everyone has fun. Plenty of DM fiat. I make crap up constantly. *shrug*

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Harles wrote:
42 conditions? Good lord. Would've liked to have seen that streamlined. I can easily see ways to get it down to less than 20 by combining existing conditions.

I emphatically agree. This is a real shame. Add in the "levels" of conditions (if thats still a thing) and it gets a bit much, IMO.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am all for deep character customization and meaningful tactical choices. I just am not crazy about staged afflictions, complicated stacking rules or having a litany of conditions. Its a mistake to assume, I think, that one could not be had without the other.

It may do folks well to divorce themselves of the notion that wanting ease of play is the same thing as wanting a simplistic game. Games can be deep and rewarding without be baroque and confusing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davido1000 wrote:
Well it comes down to do you want a more indepth but complicated combat system that is pf2e or do you want to stick with the simple but easy combat of 5E. i personally find 5Es combat too simple and the conditions are all basically slap disadvantage or advantage on yourself.

Two things:

1. I think you can have PF2's character development, 3 Action Economy, and so on without necessitating color coded condition cards. I have played plenty of games that were crunchier than 5E that did not require nearly as much book keeping as the PF2 Playtest.

2. I did not post this to convince you or anyone else of anything. The game is in the can. Its been done. I came here to ask for information.

Gorbacz wrote:
Wait, are you seriously saying that PF1's damage to stats poisons (or other effects) that forced you to stop for half an hour to recalculate what effects on your character does having -2 to STR and -4 to DEX have were fine but PF2 conditions are bad?

I frankly left all that behind when I stopped playing 3.5E (happily, I might add). I am a 5E player now (mostly). Most of my experience with Paizo comes from the APs Ive converted (or my play thru of Age of Worms and Savage Tide back in the day).

I am considering PF2. But, speaking only for myself, some of the fiddly bits of PF2 make me think twice. I left that stuff behind for a reason and am not happy with that kind of book keeping.

I hear what Malk is saying about the players tracking that stuff but I dont think its that simple in actual play. You have multiple pcs and npcs causing all these conditions on eachother either in one go or nested in these staged affluctions. Its just not tenable to have players track this when there are multiple actors in play.

Again, I am just looking for specifics as far as how many conditions do we have now, do they still have these staged afflictions? Have they worked to simplify them if they are still there? Have they done more to improve the headaches bonus stacking had during the playtest? Etc etc.

Thats OK for fear in the absense of other crap. But once players start getting abilities and start fearing this, hampering that, stupifying that, sluggishing that guy...its gonna be a real chore.

It was already terrible in Doomsday Dawn on the very first adventure when we had to track that Centipede Poison at level 1.

I cant imagive what it will be like with items, spells, feats and crit specialization effects at higher levels.

This baby is already made, so I am not trying to convince anyone. I am just hoping its not as bad as it was in the playtest. Literally the only way I would play something like the playtest again would be on Fantasy Grounds with high levels of automation. But my local group? Man, no way.

Dunno, dont think an rpg should all but require cards to keep stuff straight. 5E did a great job with conditions. They are few, meaningful and easy to manage. Other medium crunch d20 games (Shadow of the Demon Lord, 13th Age, etc) also succeed here.

It may simply be that PF2 just isnt for me and thats ok. No game is for everyone. But, I really hope that the end product is less finnicky than the playtest since I like the rest of the system and think Paizo APs are top notch. By lessening the number of conditions and simplifying how to adjudicate them in play, more players like myself would buy in.

I just cant see myself playing a game with timers going on multiple pcs and npcs, where im busilly tracking what stage of what effect each combatant is in and how that confers what level of what condition at what point for how many rounds. Determining whether or not x effect stacks with y effect, etc. That just sounds like work to me and its not work I want to do.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "nested, leveled conditions" like how instead of shaken, frightened, panicked in PF1 we just have one "frightened" condition with a number attached to indicate severity?

Nested Conditions (examples)

Entangled: A snare or another entrapping effect holds you back. You’re hampered 10 (see the condition). If you attempt a manipulate action, activity, free action, or reaction while entangled, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; attempt the check after using it but before any effects are applied.

Grabbed: You’re held in place by another creature, making you immobile and flat-footed. If you attempt a manipulate action, activity, free action, or reaction while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; attempt the check after using it but before any effects are applied.

Thats just the basic ones and are, admittedly, not that bad. It gets way, way worse when you look at the poisons and crap that npcs can confer. Those are leveled and have nested conditions which vary by stage. Lets look at the very first one in Doomsday Dawn.

Centipede Venom (poison) Saving Throw Fortitude DC 13; Maximum Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 1d6 poison and flat-footed (1 round); Stage 2 1d6 poison, flat-footed, and sluggish 2 (1 round)

Man, imagine, different pcs and npcs at different stages of effects having different levels of different conditions. That just sounds incredibly unfun to me. Then add in how some conditions count down (like frightened) and factor in the funky stacking rules. Ugh...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My original points are outlined here:


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I stepped away from PF2 after running a couple groups through parts of the playtest. I liked alot of what I saw but I had significant misgivings about ease of play.

The leveled, nested conditions were the biggest offenders.Then the sheer number of conditions. Then the multiple AC types, the stacking rules and other overly fiddly bits.

Have folks who have followed Oblivion Oath or interviews noticed what, if anything, has been done reign this in? I like the 3 action economy, the multiclassing, the items, the gated feats and alot more. But the fiddly stuff (the nested, leveled conditions especially) kill me. Theres no way I can handle that at midnight after 4 beers, you know?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am running this for 13th Age and made a Lizardfolk race available to players. I also made a player's guide to Diamond Lake which included info on the Free City's encroachment on Lizardfolk lands. I plan to have a few Lizardfolk in Diamond Lake itself and in the Bronzewood Lodge.

So, they will exist as sentient humanoids with a legitimate gripe. Some may even help the party out in the first couple adventures.

So, when Blackwall Keep happens, the party may think twice about wholesale slaughter. I hope the narrative nature of 13th Age also helps the players come up with more out of the box solutions. We'll see.

MaxAstro wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
DataLoreRPG wrote:
Reminds of another simple game to recommend. Why play Exalted when you can play Godbound? Plus, the free version is almost complete!
For the setting, to make an example. Not that it's flawless, but it has a lot of very cool and incredibly poignant stuff. In general GB is much simpler (much, much, much simpler) and with some homebrewing would be the best system hands down, but, even though I despise most of the mechanics, Ex does have its own raison d'être, without a doubt.

Yeah, this. The Exalted system is such a mess that I basically houseruled almost every single mechanic at one point or another, but the setting is so fascinating that it was worth the work. And because of how strongly Exalted ties setting and mechanics together, it's hard to port the setting to other systems.

Never underestimate how much a well-designed setting can make a system attractive. Definitely something Paizo has going for it, also. :)

I always find setting material to literally be the least important material as far as what is needed to hit the table and run. But to each his own.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I prefer simplified npc stat blocks. I dont need all the detailed nonsense when im trying to dm. Even 5e could be more simplified, imho. I think 13A has the best enemy stat blocks since it even has npc ai built in AND the stat blocks are fairly simple.

I remember an interview that Kevin Crawford, the author of Stars Without Number, did with Adam Koebel. Crawford said it perfectly when he said that his job as a designer was to make the job of the dm as easy as possible since without DMs you dont have players. Thats exactly right. If a game is a pain to gm for, I pass.

MaxAstro wrote:
DataLoreRPG wrote:
Another possibility is 13th Age. But its kinda noodly with some rules and you end up using HEAPS of dice.
I don't think you can really accuse a system of using heaps of dice unless you have played a high-level Exalted game. Nothing quite like the feeling of rolling 53d10 for an attack. :P

Reminds of another simple game to recommend. Why play Exalted when you can play Godbound? Plus, the free version is almost complete!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chance Wyvernspur wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
DnD 5e or even a Powered by the Apocolypse game might be better for those folks. Of course as long as everyone is still having fun that is what is important.
Hence the stress. What has been a coalition of DMs under PF1 is now uncertain where it will go. When the primary DM started looking at D&D 5e, I was very surprised. I've not played D&D 5e, so I don't know if it is a good choice. Oddly enough, I was thinking of Original D&D for a couple of sessions to see how it went.

I have a simplified 5E variant I have trotted out a few times when playing with some folks. There is no proficiency bonus just ICRPG style Hard/Easy rolls (+ or -3) and target numbers for areas.

It doesnt even use initiative. I use good ole ODnD Simultaneous Resolution. You win the initiative when you hit and the other guy misses.

Toss hordes of enemies at them with like 1 to 5 HP. Let them cast all they want with spell rolls just depower the spell if they succeed but roll low, always take into account bell curves when sussing out how much damage a spell should do and really lean in on spell misfire.


Call an area a target number 11 (for example). Anything easy is 8. Anything hard is 14. Throw a bunch of 1 to 5 hp mooks at them . As they progress to the boss, the target number climbs to 14 or so. The boss has like 20 hp. He maybe has a tough buddy with 10 hp. There could be some more mooks too. Everyone does one thing. Action is fast.

I have played a few sessions with it on beer and pretzels nights. It requires the dm to juggle alot and basically be the arbiter of everything but for players that dont give a darn about noodly rules, its fun.

Other suggestions:
ICRPG (Probably your best bet, steer clear of the recent magic book though)
Shadow of the Demon Lord (its 5e, but simpler, yet somehow more tactical and grittier)
DCC (uses weird and, therefore, pricey dice, otherwise super gonzo fun)

5e is OK but the above systems are better for your crowd. With DCC, just use the Crawler app on a phone to roll the random tables and even dice.

Another possibility is 13th Age. But its kinda noodly with some rules and you end up using HEAPS of dice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

At first I was moderately negative on Treat Wounds only healing one target, because I'm a big fan of "patch the party up over a 10 minute rest".

But then I realized this is probably an "open the design space" move, and there is a 90% chance there will be a Skill Feat that bumps it back up to multiheal.

So I think it's a good change.

But then, is it really a choice? Or is it the illusion of choice? Sometimes I really think the game hasnt really changed beyond DnD Basic and all these options are just an illusion.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
ograx wrote:

The Critical Role podcast had the proper marketing and the blind dumb luck of being on at the right time in D&Ds life.

None of the other editions had any chance of having that kind of streaming popularity.

The reason?

It’s so easy to learn and play. It’s exactly the reason I’d never play it or enjoy it. It’s just too simple and flat rules wise.

And that is the exact reason PF and SF will never have the same kind of capability for streaming and liveplay audiences.

People for the majority want easy and simple. Only those of us that want a deeper game ever even consider playing the more rules heavy rpgs.

Thats nonsense. Some of the best and most enjoyable campaigns I have been in are with light rulesets. Playing the hell out of ICRPG at the moment. Savage Worlds (Deadlands) was an absolute blast. Loved Shadow of the Demon Lord. High numbers and rules cruft do not a good ruleset make. But streaming? Ya, poor ease of use is the death knell of streaming.

I saw Adam Koebel try to stream the playtest and they seemed to have given up rather quickly after they started. Even the PF pros at Glass Cannon couldnt make PF2 work well for streaming (the best parts were when they ignored the rules and just played). Part of that was a bad set of playtest adventures and part of that was the poor ease of use of PF2. I mean conditions of multiple levels nested within eachother for varying durations, funky bonus types, etc etc.

I dunno. PF2 will have to become a drastically different game for it to become a streamers game.

I walked away from PF2 in November and am curious if any juicy tidbits have been released on how the game is shaping up.

My main concern last year was ease of play (leveled conditions, number of conditions, finnicky +1 modifier this, funky +2 modifier that, etc). Has there been any word if that stuff will be streamlined a bit?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I recommend something bog standard done super well. This is what made the 5E starter set so successful.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Folks here are claiming that casters need a total redesign to make them demi gods and that even melee characters should be redone so they play similar to Tome of Battle characters. Thats just silly. Completely silly.

A set of small, measured changes can address most issues casters are experiencing at the table.

The main issue I see with casters in my game has little to do around the power of their spells. Its more around how reliably they can land their spells to full effect. This is doubly important early on when the amount of slots are so few. It will be interesting to see what this feels like at higher levels with more spell slots.

I still feel part of this is lack of system mastery. However, a few small tweaks to allow casters to land spells more reliably may be in order. This may come down to NPC design (lowering saves) - especially early on when spell slots are less numerous. Once thats addressed, casters won't feel "lorded over" or whatever.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is not a low magic game. Thats hyperbole. A low magic game is like Conan d20 (or 2d20), Beasts and Barbarians (Savage Worlds), and the like.

This is a fantasy game. It has the trappings of assorted fantasy sub genres but "low magic" is not something I get from reading the rulebook or playing the game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually think PF2s cantrips are a fair middle ground. Not strong but an ok option in a pinch.

Like I said, PF2 is fairly close to my ideal in alot of ways.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We all know what opinions are like

1 person marked this as a favorite.



3 people marked this as a favorite.

The current power balance and power set is fairly close to my ideal.

Maybe healing clerics could be optional (see stamina thread). That would let them cast more stuff.

Maybe spells should be slightly easier to land. Maybe not though since I am sure once players get more system mastery over conditions and buffs, it wont be as much of an issue in play. One of the things I hate about 5e is what a snoozefest combat is since spells land so easily.

Maybe the game needs a wider array of class feats but those will come one way or the other. There is already more build variety than base 5e. Martials already have tons of options when you factor in weapons too.

I dunno. The sky isnt falling. The game is solid but just needs to be tweaked slightly. This is what playtests are for. There is no need to turn the game into a supers game. Let them come up with an epic level supplement for that nonsense. That way the rest of us can ignore it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.


Naw, I meant MAP will affect successive attacks on the javelin, so you should work that into your calculus.

Frankly, cantrips should be worse. One of the things I dislike about 5e is over reliance on cantrips by casters (especially by cheap Warlock multiclassers).

Acid Splash is subject to MAP since you make an attack. Its probably an error that the tag isnt there. Similarly, electric arc has no attack so it shouldnt have the attack tag. Bow shot + electric arc seems pretty sweet.

As an aside, I think its hilarious you guys are hung up on javelin reloading.

Anywho, this thread is getting funny. First some dude asks for casters to be OP again (then to make martials a different kind of OP - so the game becomes Exalted or something). Then another dude ups the ante and says casters should be even more op by having at will cantrips be as good as magical weapons. Sigh.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If its in their hand, they don't need an action to put it in their hand. There is no more loading to be done. RAW/RAI arguments are silly here.

Whats wrong with returning javelins anyways? Who cares if cantrips are worse generally. Cantrips should be worse than attacks from magical weapons.

The benefit of the cantrip is it uses the spell casting modifier for damage and spellcasting TEML prof bonuses +dex for attack. A javelin uses strength for damage and weapon TEML prof bonuses +dex for attack. So, unless the caster is a muscle wizard who somehow has good weapon TEML bonuses, that cantrip will be better for him generally speaking (especially when you factor in MAP and all that).

Or better yet, toss a returning javelin and follow that up with an electric arc - Zeus Style.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me, its an issue of degrees.

Needing some healing on occasion isn't a terrible thing (whether it be through mundane or magical means). Needing a specific, hyper focused healbot is a bad thing, IMO.

Something like Stamina would certainly lessen the degree to which a healer is needed but I don't think it would make the role unwelcome or unappreciated.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Telefax wrote:
The lack of enthusiasm for the martial classes...

I think the martial classes in PF2 look great. We do need more feats to cover more character concepts but what is there looks very promising.

If they were to buff up casters again, then the current implementation of martials may not be sufficient and they will have to mess with it. Frankly, I prefer they not do that as I like whats there for martials at present.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

My sense is that they are trying to fill the niche of a complex, option rich game that is also fairly easy to play/learn, in order to cater to 5E folks who maybe have grown bored with the system/release schedule, as well as maintain a certain segment of the current PF player base.

also to make a game that will be easy to use with adventure paths as well.

Speaking as a 3.X player who moved to 5E but is now considering PF2, you just described me.

I hope Paizo seriously considers Stamina. Its amazing how much consensus there is around it. There are folk who disagree strongly on many topics pretty much nodding in agreement at this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
If martials were brought up to a closer level to casters in PF2E, we still would not have something even near mythic levels (which I've GM'ed for, the entire Wrath of the Righteous AP. It... was not a pleasant experience.), it would just make them more equal to their caster colleagues. The Tome of Battle from 3.5 would be a good goal in terms of design. You just have to compensate with the monster design a bit.

I played a goliath swordsage (spiked chain tripper), gnome swordsage (shadow line, if I remember right) and a human crusader (my fave was the Divine Bard/Crusader modeled after the singing knights from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail). I liked Tome of Battle but, ultimately, it was real gamey. I felt it kinda took me out of the fiction and it felt very much "not martial." Alot of the criticism folks level at 4E (mmo design, overly gamist, etc) could pretty easily be leveled against ToB (though, it wasnt nearly as bad).

Frankly, I like Paizo's approach. Toning down casters a bit, giving them some solid cantrips and then boosting martials slightly. Its a good approach. This is especially true with all the neat weapon abilities they have right now. Martials feel good right now. Adding a bunch of ToB funkiness and wacky special powas would foul that up, IMO.

If Paizo implements something like Stamina, the Sword and Sorcery/Dark Fantasy vibe will be even stronger. I will absolutely get to go full Black Company with this game.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never enjoyed play above level 8 as much as I enjoy the journey going 1-8.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I would trust Paizo to implement this however they wish (should they choose to do so). You have to figure they must be swimming in data on how Starfinder plays at all sorts of tables and there are plenty of lets plays online they may well have looked at. They would likely know best if Resolve is a good idea or not, how big the HP pool should be, etc.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I cant speak from experience since I have not played SF. I was put off by the level of crunch though I loved the aesthetics. But I was very intrigued by how it did stamina.

I think something for Paizo to consider is that, from a purely business minded standpoint, you want to differentiate yourself from the market leader if you want to gain market share.

The 3 action economy absolutely does that. I think something like stamina would do that too. It would be a great way to market the game too since you can trumpet how you get rid of the 15 minute work day and all that.

Seriously, this is a brilliant idea. Kudos to the OP for putting it out there. Literally, healing is my only major concern with the game. Everything else is tiny class balance stuff which usually works itself out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I were to merge ranger with anything, it would be rogue.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I said this in another thread (more or less) but I will say this again here: Paizo, please feel free to innovate and take chances. Please slay those sacred cows and make big moves. Playing it safe won't inspire anyone. GO BIG.

This is a prime example of where yo can really make PF distinct. This meets a need. This solves a problem. This works well with your system. DO IT!

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I like this Stamina idea. Clerics are too darn required now and its the thing I like the least about the current system.

As an aside, there is plenty of fantasy fiction that doesnt have clerics.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Channel to me, is not really working. It smells like a bandaid fix. It functions nothing like any other class ability. Every other class that wants to do special stuff keys that off their Spell Points or Spell Slots. Clerics get this extra third thing that triples their highest level slots for healing basically. All I hear from folks that think this is good is that "It works! We live with it!" Well, ya, but it doesnt work at making parties varied or gameplay better.

Unless they are going to start hacking in a bunch of random bandaids like this onto the Druid, Bard, and Divine Sorc, then we are stuck with the DM likely running a DMPC Cleric just to keep a party alive and that is just not good design. If they do put in a bunch of such hacks, survivability may go up but the design would likely be clunky (like channel) and be harder to balance.

PF2 would be a far better game if there were no channel and parties could survive with a variety of healing options. Suggestions that fail to address that fail to fix a large problem (the only major one I have with this edition) and just kick the can down the road.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you increase the power of healing options (curative magic, items, etc) then just get rid of channel and give clerics spontaneous conversion, you will still keep clerics as good healers but you simultaneously improve the healing ability of everyone else.

Tripling one class's highest level slots does not address the underlying issue that the heal spell is not up to the task at present.

Again, just jack up the healing value. Make is 2d6+spell mod (or 1d6 + spell mod in an area). Do similar stuff to LoH and other curative magic. Make some downtime mundane healing feats (see 5e). Remove resonance costs for curative items.

Then, bam, channel isn't needed. Non-clerics can heal. Clerics are still the best healers (especially with the healing domain power) thanks to spontaneous conversion.

The game is pretty good as-is in my book. I would just focus on class balance issues.

1. Healing: This, to me, is the most important change (and the most drastic) since I don't want mandatory clerics. I would remove channel energy and give clerics spontaneous conversion instead (ala 3.x). I would then buff up everyone's healing powers (heal would do like 2d6 per spell level plus spell mod - d4 plus spell mod when you hit an area). Paladin LoH would be at d6 plus Cha, d10 plus Cha with the feat (no channel feat - its silly to have all these LoH and trump them with a channel option). I would then put in some kind of doctor general feat chain (the first obtainable via background) that lets you do limited downtime healing with healing kits and medicine. That way, using spell slots for Heal isnt a waste and the cleric isn't the only viable healer. I would also probably exclude curative magical items from any resonance restrictions. If folks can't survive with all that, dunno what else can be done.

2. Spontaneous Casters: Sorc's would get light armor proficiency so they don't need mage armor. Sorc and Bard would get to heighten spells freely without needing feats. Sorc bloodline stuff should absolutely be option and also way more awesome.

3. Rogues: No dex to damage and I would make their Sneak attack only go off once per turn (maybe up the damage at higher levels - once per turn is fine at lower levels - rogue in one group I Dm for is murdering things too easily, IMHO).

4. Ranger: I would modify his double slice to take advantage of hunt target somehow if someone played one.

5. Dunno, probably other minor class stuff to be dealt with as it comes.

The basic effect of the backpack is that it takes an action to take it off your back and another to take something out it. So, its worse that just strapping everything to your body.

I would recommend a pack give an item bonus to Bulk capacity (a pack over half capacity could maybe grant a +1 item bonus to bulk capacity or something). Because its an item bonus, only the highest bonus applies (so you can't load up on backpacks).

The bonus would have to be dependent on stuff being inside of it, I think.


So, Heal shouldnt be a spell then. There should be no heal spell to hear you describe it. If its not worth a slot, it shouldnt be a spell. Instead now we are talking of giving all these classes special pools of healing juju they can pull from...

Man, how far this rabbit hole will we go before we just make the heal spell worthy of a slot and nix that OP cleric ability?

How hard can it be to make a decent healing spell?


I look forward to your write up. I have two groups I have run PF2 for. I cant imagine a group making it through without a cleric. So congrats to you guys.

Zorae: Good call. Seems to me that with something like healer's blessing and an improved heal spell (have it heal 2d6 per spell level to make that blessing extra juicy; maybe half as many die when you heal an area) you wouldn't need channel energy. You would be better off removing it and putting in something like Spontaneous Conversion.

Channel Energy is currently way too much of a draw because its basically tripling your highest level spell slots. I can see it for the Paladin since he gets no spells and LoH is their schtik.

But, honestly, why play something other than a cleric? I can think of nothing as fearsome as a party of 4 clerics in this edition. They get tons of healing through channel, have great armor/shields and can toss out some decent spells too. Heck, take Fighter Dedication and some feats, then you can be decent in melee too. Its Channel that puts them over the top, though.

1 to 50 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>