Alashra

Demonskunk's page

163 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



7 people marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Ratfolk are pretty cool, and they do make natural alchemists in PF1.

Oh heck, I forgot to mention, they'd make a much better iconic Alchemist than a Goblin because they actually get INT.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:
I'd like to have them both personally. More small races are a good thing!

I explicitly left out any comments about them being a replacement to Goblins because I think Goblins are a fine Player race.

I think they should get +con instead of +cha, but that's a different argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From what I'm seeing, they don't add carrying capacity. A backpack just allows you to drop 4 bulk off of your back as an action.

I hope they change it, because as it is, Backpacks aren't very useful.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Ratfolk should be a core ancestry. Their race writeup makes them perfect as a core race.

They love collecting things, and actually prefer finding trinkets and treasures instead of gold, but in combat they're not afraid of using their collection of goodies to help themselves or others.

They're communal and form close bonds with their families, and will jump to protect their communities if something threatens them.

They are commonly found in cities. They love trade and commerce, and they get along well with humans, and it's implied that they either match or outnumber human population.

They have a stat block that isn't represented (+int, +dex, +free -Str), and they would create a bridge between Starfinder and Pathfinder, since Starfinder has the Y'soki as a core race.

Despite Ratfolk being apparently really common, they're almost never listed in any of the population breakdowns, and are basically ignored. I find that really strange, given their race block.

Here's a link to the PRD ratfolk page


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Bulk is a weird, unpleasant system because I can hold either 1 Longsword or 10 Shortswords as 1 Bulk.

10 Shortswords would be both HEAVIER and MORE UNWIELDY than a single Longsword.

But either way, my main problem is that the limits are too strict. Literally every one of my players has only the bare necessities. No one in my party has an especially high strength.

My Fighter decided he was going to be a Dex fighter because he wanted to use a whip to trip and disarm people (tripping and disarming in PF2 is great, BTW), so he has an average strength and a high dex.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

19: Adventure backgrounds are irritating. You're required to take an Adventure Background, and you only get one background, meaning that you have little freedom when you're doing premade adventures.

It worked better in PF1 when you had traits, because you got 2 traits and then the 1 adventure trait on top of it.

My players were all pissed when we found out you were required to take an adventure background because it felt like it limited their options.

20: You should be able to choose 1 or 2 skills to make Signature regardless of your class. It feels super restrictive not to be able to get Master or Legend in a skill just because of your class choice, and it feels like it limits player expression.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I've ran 2 sessions of Pathfinder 2nd Edition so far, and this is all of the feedback I've collected from my players and myself.

1: Goblins should not get a bonus to Charisma. They are hideous, unpleasant little bastards that society still doesn't like very much. I would give them Dexterity and Constitution because Goblins typically live in kind of gross environments out of necessity and would be hardier because they're used to wallowing in filth.

2: Strike, Stride, Seek and a lot of other things are awkward terminology. My players and I feel stupid saying them, and we frequently make fun of the weird new terminology at the table.

3: Wizards should cast spells like Arcanists. This isn't actually something mechanically wrong with the system, but I hate how they have to meticulously plan every single casting of their spells. I loved the freedom of being able to prepare a small pool and cast from that. I think it creates a smoother play session where the wizard can prepare a situational spell like Knock or something without completely freezing up a valuable, and limited, spell slot just to use that one spell, if they happen to come up against a locked door.

4: you should be able to drop items held in both hands as a single action. It doesn't make sense to have to use two separate free actions to drop the item in one hand and then the item in another. it's silly.

5: I feel that the duration on positive and negative effects should both last until the end of the turn. It feels pointless to make them resolve at different times, and it adds a small extra bit of confusion.

6: Why do creatures hiding in darkness treat creatures in lit areas they can see as 'Concealed'. that's weird. If I'm hiding in the shadows of the rafters, I don't have a hard time seeing the creatures in the well lit room below me.

7: I feel that you should be able to perform activities over multiple turns at the risk of being attacked and losing all of the spent actions. For instance, you could start an activity that takes 3 actions using the last action of your turn, then on your next turn finish it with the first 2 actions of that turn, but if you take damage you have to roll concentration or something to not get distracted and lose it.

8: You should put how far you fall in one turn. I know it's a long distance, but the question "How far do you fall in 6 seconds" is something I've asked a lot, and I feel like you could just put it in there really easly. It's nearly 600 feet or something.

9: You should bring back equipment kits. They're a great way of getting all of the equipment you need without having to meticulously comb through the lists. I don't know why you removed them.

10: Ball bearings. Add them to the game. They're like Caltrops that trip you instead.

11: the Sleep spell says "The target falls asleep" I feel like this should state more clearly that the target "Gains the Asleep condition" for clarity's sake.

12: HP recovery while resting, as it is currently written, would only heal a level 20 character with a 10 constitution by 1 HP.

It's current wording states that you heal a number of hit points equal to your Constitution Modifier x your level (Minimum 1), meaning that if you have a constitution modifier of 0 or less, you will only ever heal 1 HP, no matter how high your level is.

The minimum value you heal should be equal to your level, not 1.

13: I find it weird that you don't get a feat at first level.

14: My players feel that monsters being able to strike up to 3 times a round makes them too dangerous, and increases the chance that they'll hit (or critical hit) by sheer volume. Most low level monsters that I've run so far don't do anything other than attack, meaning that they would logically just attack as many times as they can manage, and the one fighter has to take most of those attacks because he's the first in to the fight.

This also means that a low AC, low HP character, like our Wizard is at extreme danger because a goblin has a much higher chance to hit him multiple times than the fighter, who has more HP and more AC. He could realistically die in one round of a goblin running up to him and hitting him twice.

15: Bulk is not a good system. It's far too abstract, and the number is far too low. Every one of my players, including the fighter, feel that they're being artificially limited by the Bulk system. They each can carry about 1 weapon, a piece of armor and a piece of adventuring gear. My fight has a Whip, a Rapier and his armor and he's at his weight limit. My cleric is much the same.

Also, a dagger should not weigh 5 - 10 pounds, so it shouldn't be a bulk. it should be L.

I would double the bulk limit, as it currently stands it feels far too low.

16: The wording on Afflictions is weird. It states that "On a successful or critically successful saving throw, you are unaffected by that exposure to the affliction. You do not need to attempt further saving throws against it unless you are exposed to the affliction again."

This came up in response to the Fungus room in the first adventure section. It leaves a lingering cloud of spores, and the wording of this paragraph implies that if you walk into the cloud, breathe the spores, and make your save that you shouldn't have to make the save again, no matter how long you spend in the cloud.

That sounds ridiculous, and I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, but the wording suggests that it is.

17: 3 action Heal doesn't increase with your level. 1 and 2 action heal recovers HP equal to 1d8 plus spellcasting modifier, and that increases to 2d8 when heightened. 3 action heal does not gain a benefit from being hightened.

This is a problem given how much damage enemies can deal because of how many attacks they can do in a turn, and also makes 3 action healing a waste of time when you're higher level.

18: The layout of the book isn't great. Spells should be at the back of the book, where they always have been. It makes it easier to find the spell section when you're looking, and it prevents Spells from taking up almost 100 pages in the middle of the book.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Every single one of my party members and I hate bulk.

Everyone in my party can hold about 1 weapon, 1 piece of armor and maybe a shield and then they're at the limit of their bulk.

Back in PF1 you could easily carry a couple of weapons, armor and some adventuring tools without hitting encumbrance if you have a 12 strength.

The carrying capacity needs to be at least doubled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm only a few pages in, and I think one of the biggest potential problems is Strike and Stride.

they're only one letter apart, meaning that an accent can muddle which word they're going for.

My suggestion would be to change Stride to Move, Walk, Run, anything other than Stride.

Strike is fine, but "Ranged Strike" sounds really weird. Honestly I don't see the point in changing them from Attack and Move.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:

Hardness usually does take half from elemental damage(before the reduction from hardness) but it's up to you if that hardness even applies.

Maybe drop a +1 Shocking weapon somewhere?

I'm always wary of giving the players something extra. I subtly pushed one of my players to grab a wand of technomancy, and it ended up making one of the NPCs that's supposed to be important completely pointless.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

the average weight spectrum for a small creature is around 8 - 60 pounds. the ratfolk average weight is a scale-busting 71 - 89 pounds. The BASE NUMBER you add the 2d4x3 to is 65, which is already over the average small creature.

Dayum, ratfolk. you fat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

(apologies for the double post)

CaroRose wrote:

The class features by itself would make for a fun rogue type, and I admit I would rather play a more 'neutral/honorable' killer type and fudge the Evil requirement a bit.

I have to agree however that the basis of the class was meant for those who are paid to kill someone without question, and that is indeed Evil. Their class abilities are specifically for observing their mark, and then murdering them. Assassins have been a bit...romanticized in certain books or games (Assassins Creed), and we find it fun to run the rooftops and get the drop on unsuspecting folk, but in the end it is murder, and therefore Evil, so I have to agree with the others.

As for why it is in the Core Book, you could ask the same of Antipaladin in the APG. The answer: because sometimes we just wanna make an evil character. That, and the GM needs to be able to make one to harry your PC in-game. ;-)

Well that's just the thing - isn't being an adventurer murder half of the time? you're killing a lot of stuff, sometimes just because it attacked you for being in it's natural territory. It's not like you have the law backing you when you're out in the forest defending yourself against the local fauna just because you wanted to shave a few days off of your trip, or in some caves murdering spider monsters because they look funny and happen to be dangerous to you as you loot their caves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Assassin has always bothered me as a class - it's abilities and skills are perfectly fine, but why are they required to be evil? I understand that killing people is bad, but most adventurers kill more people in a day than the typical assassin probably does in a year, unless he's really efficient and sought after.

Outside of the social implications, there's the fact that at any given time there may be a paladin in the group, or a good cleric, or something of that sort that could use Detect Evil, sense the assassin (who the paladin/good cleric would probably not know is evil, given the paladin fluff and the fact that good clerics are generally pretty against evil stuff) and stab the guy right on the spot, or cause some shaky party relations at best.

If it's an evil thing, why is it even in the core rules at all? wouldn't that better be suited as a DMG sort of thing for game masters to use to build characters?

personally I think that assassins should be about as alignment neutral as rogues because assassins aren't always evil, anyone can be an opportunist killer, not just assassins. is a fighter evil because he gets the drop on a gang of gnolls that didn't see him coming? they might have been neutral, or even good, or doing absolutely nothing wrong, but in the fighter's mind, they're enemies and attacking first means a higher success chance.

Furthermore, one can make a necromancer wizard without being evil, even though necromancers are the first thing most people think of when they think of an evil wizard, and all of their spells are pretty evil focused, where as the assassin's abilities are just all about being really good killers.