Diego Hopkins's page

Does PF2E have an official dragon person race? Because one of the obstacles right now to my D&D5E campaign transitioning to PF2E is that one of my players (my husband as it happens) is playing a Dragonborn.

I would suggest lizardfolk ancestry with the ifrit heritage. Take the inner fire ancestry feat. You will probably want to house rule the damage die for cantrips up to d6 or d8.

It sounds like you need a narrative system. I would recommend either FATE or OpenLegend RPG. You can build any of the characters you've described in either of those systems without worrying about breaking the game.

OpenLegend RPG

FATE

I'm just going to leave this here:

https://pf2.d20pfsrd.com/monster/graveknight/

GRAVEKNIGHT 10
LE Medium Undead
Senses Perception +19; darkvision

Languages Common, Necril

Skills Athletics +23, Intimidation +22, Religion +19, Warfare Lore +20

Str +7, Dex +4, Con +4, Int +2, Wis +3, Cha +5

Items composite longbow (20 arrows), +1 Resilient full plate, greatsword

AC 31; Fort +21, Ref +19, Will +18

HP 175, negative Healing, rejuvenation; Immunities cold, death, disease, paralyzed, poison, unconscious

Sacrilegious Aura 30 feet. +17

Attack of Opportunity [reaction]

Speed 25 feet

Melee [one-action] frost greatsword +24 (cold, magical, versatile P), Damage 2d12+10 slashing plus 1d6 cold

Melee [one-action] fist +23 (agile, cold), Damage 2d6+10 bludgeoning plus 1d6 cold

Ranged [one-action] frost composite longbow +21 (cold, deadly 1d10, magical, range increment 100 feet, reload 0, volley 30 feet), Damage 2d8+6 piercing plus 1d6 cold

Devastating Blast [two-actions] (arcane, cold, evocation) 6d12 cold, DC 29

Graveknight’s Curse DC 33

Phantom Mount [three-actions] (arcane, conjuration) HP 58; AC 27, Fort +17, Ref +15, Will +14.

About

Graveknights are undead warriors granted unlife by a cursed suit of armor.

CREATING GRAVEKNIGHTS
You can turn an existing, living creature into a graveknight by completing the following steps. It’s best to build a graveknight from scratch, but if you don’t have the time, simply apply the template. A creature should be at least level 5 before being converted to a graveknight.

Increase the creature’s level by 1 and change its statistics as follows.

Increase its attack rolls, AC, saving throws, Perception, and skills by 1, its HP by 5, and its Strike damage by 1.
GRAVEKNIGHT ABILITIES
A graveknight gains the undead and graveknight traits, and its alignment is usually adjusted to evil. It loses any abilities that come from it being a living creature and any traits that represent its life, such as human and humanoid.

DARKVISION
Negative Healing Rejuvenation (divine, necromancy) When a graveknight is destroyed, its armor rebuilds its body over the course of 1d10 days—or more quickly if the armor is worn by a living host (see Graveknight Armor, below). If the body is destroyed before then, the process restarts. A graveknight can only be permanently destroyed by obliterating its armor (such as with disintegrate), transporting it to the Positive Energy Plane, or throwing it into the heart of a volcano.

Immunities death effects, disease, paralyzed, poison, precision, unconscious, plus one energy type (the same chosen for ruinous weapons below).

Sacrilegious Aura (abjuration, aura, divine, evil) 30 feet. When a creature in the aura uses a Positive spell or ability, the graveknight automatically attempts to counteract it, with the listed counteract modifier.

Devastating Blast [two-actions] (arcane, evocation) The graveknight unleashes a 30-foot cone of energy. Creatures in the area take 1d12 damage, plus an additional 1d12 damage for every two levels the graveknight has (basic Reflex save). The graveknight can use this ability once every 1d4 rounds. This energy damage is of the same type as that of its ruinous weapons (see below); Devastating Blast gains the associated energy trait.

Phantom Mount [three-actions] (arcane, conjuration, summon) The graveknight summons a supernatural mount as per phantom steed, heightened to a level equal to half the graveknight’s level. Unlike phantom steed, the steed’s AC and saving throw bonuses are all 4 lower than the graveknight’s, and the steed has one-third the graveknight’s Hit Points (rounded down). If the steed is destroyed, the graveknight must wait 1 hour before using this ability again.

RUINOUS WEAPONS
At the time of its creation, a graveknight chooses one of the following energy types that was relevant to its life or death: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. Any weapon the graveknight wields gains the effects of the caustic, frost, shock, or flaming weapon Rune, respectively, in addition to a +1 Striking weapon Rune. If the graveknight is 14th level or higher, its weapons instead gain the effects of the greater versions of both of these Runes.

WEAPON MASTER
The graveknight has access to the critical specialization effects of any weapons it wields.

ALTERNATE GRAVEKNIGHT ABILITIES
Although the abilities listed above are standard for a graveknight, you can create a more unusual graveknight by substituting one of the aforementioned abilities (except for its rejuvenation ability) with one of the following.

BETRAYED REVIVIFICATION
The graveknight died after being deeply betrayed. Instead of being immune to a type of energy damage, it is immune to mental damage, its weapons deal 1d6 additional mental damage, and its Devastating Blast deals mental damage with a Will saving throw instead of Reflex.

CREATE GRAVE SQUIRE
The graveknight can gift a piece of its armor to a willing ally, which becomes its grave squire. The graveknight can communicate telepathically with its squire at any distance, see through the squire’s senses, and cast suggestion as a divine innate spell through the telepathic link at will; the squire treats its degree of success as one step worse. If the graveknight’s main armor is destroyed, the squire’s piece expands to cover the squire’s body over 1d10 days, after which point it becomes the graveknight’s new body. The graveknight can have only one squire at a time, and must recover the gifted piece of armor if it wishes to create a new squire.

DARK DELIVERANCE
The graveknight has Positive resistance equal to its level.

GRAVEKNIGHT ARMOR
Wearing graveknight armor is very risky, for the graveknight’s essence rapidly parasitizes the new wearer, accelerating the graveknight’s rejuvenation. This agonizing transformation inevitably kills the host, transforming their flesh into the graveknight’s new body. Removing the curse allows a character to remove the armor, but if it ever wears the armor again, the curse returns. If the wearer dies from another cause while wearing the armor, or if the graveknight’s rejuvenation completes before the wearer dies from the curse, the wearer immediately progresses to stage 3.

Graveknight’s Curse (arcane, curse, necromancy) This curse affects anyone who wears a graveknight’s armor for at least 1 hour. Saving Throw Will save; Onset 1 hour; Stage 1 doomed 1 and cannot remove the armor (1 day); Stage 2 doomed 2, hampered 10, and cannot remove the armor (1 day); Stage 3 dies and transforms into the armor’s graveknight.

Section 15: Copyright Notice
Pathfinder Bestiary (Second Edition) © 2019, Paizo Inc.; Authors: Alexander Augunas, Logan Bonner, Jason Bulmahn, John Compton, Paris Crenshaw, Adam Daigle, Eleanor Ferron, Leo Glass, Thurston Hillman, James Jacobs, Jason Keeley, Lyz Liddell, Ron Lundeen, Robert G. McCreary, Tim Nightengale, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, Alex Riggs, David N. Ross, Michael Sayre, Mark Seifter, Chris S. Sims, Jeffrey Swank, Jason Tondro, Tonya Woldridge, and Linda Zayas-Palmer

I would love to see Planar Scions(Aasimar and Tiefling), Dhampir (for all races), Skinwalkers, and Kitsune.

Diego Hopkins wrote:

My only problem with this is that the cloistered cleric, who's job is to heal people

I'm going to dispute this assertion. Divine font is a secondary class feature that relies on a non-primary stat to fuel it. Calling healing the cleric's 'job' seems like a bit of a stretch. You can build a healing cleric just fine, but it's hardly the only thing or even primary thing they do, nor should they have exclusive rights to the role either.

What do you see as the clerics traditional role then?

Diego Hopkins wrote:

My only problem with this is that the cloistered cleric, who's job is to heal people, doesn't have a comparable option.

Medicine + maxed wisdom means they can downtime heal like champs.

This takes a few feats to accomplish (battlefield medic and continuous recovery), which everyone else in the party can also do. Don't get me wrong, I like mundane healing being opened up to everyone.

My issue is that the paladin basically gets the ability to magically heal the party up between encounters and the cleric doesn't. That doesn't make thematic sense to me.

It's also about the balance between martials and casters.

I can take a party consisting of a barbarian, a fighter, a rogue, and a paladin into any dungeon. As long as one of them is trained in medicine and has the battlefield medic feat (easily acquired from a background) we will never lack for HP. At level one, they can only use medicine once per hour, but the Paladin is healing 6HP every ten minutes. This party of martials won't run out of beat-stick, or lockpicking, or magical healing.

If I take a party of a wizard, alchemist, sorcerer, and cleric into a dungeon they will run out of spells and bombs after a few encounters. Then they are relying on cantrips and crossbows(alchemist). They will run out of magical healing because a party of casters is squishy. Again, mundane healing at level one is hourly. I run out of magical beat-stick, and magical healing pretty quickly. This party is likely to have to retreat and rest overnight to regain resources.

I understand that they wanted to break reliance on casters. I think they broke it a bit too much.

Diego Hopkins wrote:

Just add it as a permanent condition.

Limb Loss - You have lost a limb. This condition imposes a -4 penalty on all checks, and Bleeding 5 until the wound is treated. Until the limb is replaced, either by magical or mechanical means, or sufficient training and rehabilitation has occurred as determined by the GM, you are unable to perform actions that require the use of the missing limb.

Yes but... how do you go from losing hit points to losing a limb? There is no game mechanic for combat that can lead to losing a limb, or an eye, or even a finger. Unless the soon-to-be-released critical hit deck goes a lot further than the old one.

I literally just wrote the mechanic. The condition subsystem for P2 is really flexible and modular. You just add a condition and decide what it does.

So for Limb Loss, I'm not deducting additional HP for the loss of a limb. I assume you lost HP when you got hit(probably on a crit), and then you also received a new permanent condition. I think limb loss is pretty self-explanatory. When you initially lose the limb, you gain Bleeding 5 until the wound is successfully treated. Then you take a -4 penalty to all checks until the limb is restored or you have spent sufficient time training to live without the limb. You also can't perform any activities that require that limb until it's restored, or you've retrained. For instance, you can't used two handed weapons like longbows if you don't have two hands.

The rough draft there was unclear. Allow me to resubmit it as this:

Limb Loss - You have lost a limb. This condition imposes Bleeding 5 until the wound is treated. Once the wound is treated, you take a -4 penalty to all checks, and are unable to perform any actions that require the missing limb. For instance, you cannot use a longbow if you are missing one arm. Until the limb is replaced, either by magical or mechanical means, or sufficient training and rehabilitation has occurred as determined by the GM, you are unable to perform actions that require the use of the missing limb and the penalty persists.

Just add it as a permanent condition.

Limb Loss - You have lost a limb. This condition imposes a -4 penalty on all checks, and Bleeding 5 until the wound is treated. Until the limb is replaced, either by magical or mechanical means, or sufficient training and rehabilitation has occurred as determined by the GM, you are unable to perform actions that require the use of the missing limb.

My only problem with this is that the cloistered cleric, who's job is to heal people, doesn't have a comparable option.

Import the stamina system from Starfinder. Medicine heals stamina as normal, but not HP. HP recovers from natural healing and magic.

The conversion shouldn't be too difficult. A Starfinder dwarf soldier gets 6hp for ancestry, 7 from class, and 7 stamina.

A dwarf fighter in 2e gets 10hp for ancestry and 10 for class. That seems like a pretty straightforward conversion.

Also, beast shape was a wizard spell in 1E. Now, for some reason, every transmuter wizard in Golarion has forgotten how to beast shape.

Animal form is the 2e analog of beast shape. For continuity's sake it makes sense that it should be in the arcane list. Additionally, all of the other shape shifting spells (aerial form, dragon form, elemental form, etc) are on the arcane list.

Diego Hopkins wrote:

I suspect that animal form being druid only is a mistake. You may want to hit them up for an FAQ/errata for that.

Pest Form and Animal Form aren't druid-only, anyone with access to the Primal spell list gets them. Fey-bloodline Sorcerers, for example.

I meant that it should also be on the arcane spell list.

Animate dead came online at 5th level in PF1, and you could build for it. I don't think you can hit the 38 needed to critically succeed on this check at 5th level. Assuming expert proficiency and max stat, you've got 4(expert)+5(level)+4(int/wis)= +13. A natural 20 raises your result one step, so that would raise your success at 33 to a critical success. That's pretty much the only way.

Technically, you can critically succeed at level one. The DC is 28. At level one you've got 3(trained)+1(level)+4(int)=8. Nat 20 succeeds at the DC28. Rolling the 20 bumps you to a crit success. That's not how I'd want to spend my gold though.

Find a ghoul, get bitten, fail your save. 3 days later, you're a ghoul. Convince the surviving townsfolk to become ghouls with you. Raid the surrounding villages and towns and turn their inhabitants to ghouls, voluntarily or otherwise. You have an undead army, without having to fish for 20s.

The idea is that druids/transmuters can transform into an animal, but that they can't be as good as or better at rogue things, like infiltration, than the rogue.

Yes, you can change into a spider and sneak into a meeting; but you can only hold that form for 10 minutes. You also move very slowly relative to your normal size (which makes no sense if you're changing into a cat or dog.) You also can't change into anything with a fly speed until you get 4th level spell slots. Also, everything can kill you.

I suspect that animal form being druid only is a mistake. You may want to hit them up for an FAQ/errata for that.

Corrik wrote:

Nethys came down and explained that the Devs didn't think continuity was a big deal, so just do whatever.

Kind of how you could play a shifter and now you can't? Literally unplayable.

The shifter is now the animal totem barbarian, but without the monster options (oozemorph.)

Tengu omelettes are a delicacy reserved for the inhabitants of Geb and the Eye of Dread. The vampire lords and their dhampir offspring dine upon these rare and succulent delights, prepared by the finest Chelaxian chefs, who've sold their souls for their skills in the kitchen. They finish off their meal with a glass of tengu blood, freshly harvested from the mother hen.

This has been Life Styles of the Lich and Famous.

Trained in Medicine + Battlefield Medic + Continual Recovery should keep you covered. This provides in healing combat, and unlimited out of combat healing. Everyone can be trained in this. Or have someone play a paladin.

Do I think Paizo intended to do something racist? Absolutely not. The company has very firmly and publicly stood for diversity and inclusion. I'm sure it's hurt their bottom line over the years, but they've persisted. That is clear.

Do I think they took a misstep unknowingly? Yes. Why? Because there aren't very many black people in Seattle, there aren't very many black people playing TTRPGs, and there are even less writing them. Its difficult to turn to your black friend and ask, if you can't find a black friend to ask. And you can't correct an issue if no one points it out. Most forums ban "political" discourse, so broaching the subject is generally anathema. James was already on the subject, so I took a shot. The tone was probably more gruff and combative than was necessary. I apologize.

Do I think Paizo will make every effort to do better and be more aware? Absolutely. James was already talking about the need to do better. I look forward to reading those stories and playing those adventures.

@James Jacobs, you have been very gracious. Thank you.

Diego Hopkins wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

As I mentioned above; we're doing our best to address things. But that goes both ways; folks posting here should also avoid using racist language as well... and if you don't realize you're using racist language, then when it's pointed out to you, PLEASE take it as a learning moment to make yourself a better person and don't be insulted or get defensive.

I kinda feel sick to my stomach at the implication that "my intention" was to promote racist stereotypes, but I can see how that's had the effect, and I wish I could fix it retroactively, but I can't. I can only work to fix it going forward.

We ALL can do better.

I'm going to threadjack a little, but it's related to what you just said.

I'm not terribly familiar with the official Pathfinder setting, so I'm reading through the Age of Lost Omens section. It seems in your Africa analog ( Mwangi Expanse) you had a kingdom ruled by the Gorilla King? Inhabited by demon infused talking apes?

I don't know how you can know calling Romani the "g word" isn't okay, but not know that black people have been called Apes, demons, and etc. How can you not know that this would be perceived as incredibly racist?

This is a situation where some sensitivity and improvement, and maybe a consultant could help.

Yes that was a nation (was, Gorilla king dead now), but it wasn't the forefront for talking about the Mwangi and in fact a lot of the stories were about those native to the Expanse having to deal with the demon worshipping simians.

So while I can see what they were trying to do, I don't disagree with any of what you said or suggested and second it as well, especially that last part.

I've been using the Pathfinder rules, but not it's setting, for a while. I've got history, and I think I know where the company's heart is at, or I think I do. Still, learning this is upsetting to me. I have been called these things. Recently.

The setting and it's stories matter. This chapter is Paizo's introduction to it's world, it's handshake. For me, and I'm sure for others that have experienced the world as I have, this is less a handshake and more a gut punch.

As I mentioned above; we're doing our best to address things. But that goes both ways; folks posting here should also avoid using racist language as well... and if you don't realize you're using racist language, then when it's pointed out to you, PLEASE take it as a learning moment to make yourself a better person and don't be insulted or get defensive.

I kinda feel sick to my stomach at the implication that "my intention" was to promote racist stereotypes, but I can see how that's had the effect, and I wish I could fix it retroactively, but I can't. I can only work to fix it going forward.

We ALL can do better.

I'm going to threadjack a little, but it's related to what you just said.

I'm not terribly familiar with the official Pathfinder setting, so I'm reading through the Age of Lost Omens section. It seems in your Africa analog ( Mwangi Expanse) you had a kingdom ruled by the Gorilla King? Inhabited by demon infused talking apes?

I don't know how you can know calling Romani the "g word" isn't okay, but not know that black people have been called Apes, demons, and etc. How can you not know that this would be perceived as incredibly racist?

This is a situation where some sensitivity and improvement, and maybe a consultant could help.

So I'm one of the guys who aren't quite happy with the reduced number of spell slots, combined with the need to heighten many spells, which further reduces the number of effective spells per day you can use. Everyone in my group is also in this camp from what I can tell. Seeing the Refocus rules gave me an idea though. How about a way to regain spell slots through the 10 minute rest cycle? It would be similar to Focus Spells in that you have less firepower per encounter, but outside of combat you can exchange time for the ability to regain some of that power, so you're not significantly hampered in how much you can do in a day. I love this mechanic for focus, would it be too out of balance to apply something similar to spell slots? I'm looking for feedback on this idea and ways of making it work so it doesn't dramatically unbalance things.

My first thought was to use Focus points to regain slots, which ties it directly to refocusing. I was thinking 1 focus per spell-level, but now that I see you max out at 3 focus, that doesn't seem to be an option, or else you'd be limited to 3rd level spells or less. So my next thought is to just directly get back slots by spending 10 minutes of study, prayer or meditation per spell-level to regain it. So to get back a 6th level spell slot would take an hour. I'm thinking for prepared casters it just regains the cast spell, like the old Pearls of Power. So if you cast fireball, you can't use this to gain lightning bolt instead. For spontaneous casters it'd just regain the slot straight up. Is this too unbalanced in favor of spontaneous casters? How about adding an extra ten minutes to regain a slot, but with a different known spell? Would that put things back too much in favor of the prepared casters? Would that step on the toes of the Spell Substitution Thesis too much? Should the time be higher? Lower? Does someone have a completely different approach towards the same ends?

It would be simpler to swap out the focus spell from the class for a spell from your spell list. This would make sure you always have an spell appropriate to your character available for most combats. For instance, swap out the Evoker Wizard's Force Bolt for Magic Missile, or the Conjurer's Augmented Summoning for Summon Animal. The spell is automatically heightened. Prepared casters can choose any spell they know to be their focus spell for the day.

Spontaneous casters could use the focus as a rechargeable spell slot, and cast any spell they know.

I missread the title as "are fiends summoning wizards a thing of the past now" and was intrigued as to when that was option.

Fiends summoning wizards seems like a really good plot hook.

This thread has seriously derailed, and grown rather rude. Magnuskn and I are allowed to dislike the changes to magic, and disliking it doesn't invalidate our right to be here. Geez. It's an open forum.

After some thought, here's a summation of my issue with the changes:

I get a limited number of non-cantrip spell slots, and then I'm pretty much done for the day. I want to make those spells count. In PF1 I could do that by pumping my spell DCs. At first level I could get 4 spells (2 for existing, 1 for 18 Int, and 1 for school.) I could cast mage armor at the entrance to the dungeon and fire off one of my three spells per encounter knowing I'd made an impact. Yes, with certain spells this ended the encounter. DC21 sleep would do that. I also entirely get why martial players and GMs would get upset by this.

In 2e I can't pump the spell DCs, and the math has been tweaked so that enemies will save just about as much as they will fail. I have a roughly a 50/50 shot of my three first level spells contributing. I'm not certain that my limited resource will matter. I also have less spells per day. I get three non-cantrips: two for existing and one for arcane school.

This is combined with the fact that the adventuring day is longer, because everyone can be trained in medicine and heal each other. We're no longer limited to the clerics spell slots and channels. (Also the cleric is a less useful healer than the Paladin outside of combat, but that's another story.)

So I have less of a limited resource, it has a smaller/weaker effect, I can't be certain that it will be impactful, and the adventuring day is longer. That doesn't feel wizardly. That doesn't feel heroic. That doesn't fit with the narrative of most fantasy literature, nor with the feel of about 20 years of 3.x. This is why we're upset.

Yes, if you sit down and do the math on the d4 cantrips they aren't as horrible as they seem, but the d4 is a bad first impression. Especially when casters in the playtest were rolling d8s, and in 5e they're rolling d8s and d10s. I said before, that's bad PR. The d6 isn't that much more damage, isn't as off-putting, and hurts less when you step on it. It would have been, in my opinion, a better decision.

There also aren't very many cantrips themed to each school. It's hard to feel like a necromancer if you can only cast one necromancy spell in a day. It's hard to feel like a conjurer if you can only summon one creature in a day.

Yes, encounter-ending magic needed to be adjusted, but there were different ways to go about this.

They could have kept the overall nerfs, but retained the stat bump to spell slots. This makes the limited resource less limited, so there's less of a need to make each one impactful.

My preference would have been to make magic weaker, but at will. The kineticist did this very well. You get a magic attack at will, some utilities, and an mechanic that gave the player agency over using the really crazy stuff at the cost of HP. This could easily be adapted for bloodlines, and you've got a sorcerer.

Another option would be to adapt the witch into the wizard. Take away spell slots, keep the hexes, and give them a scaling magic attack like the kineticist. 2E cantrips work well for this now. Theme the hexes for each arcance school, make sure they're mostly single target, and use the 2E DCs. You could require the wizard to spend an action to keep effects on-going, such as the slumber hex. You've got a wizard that isn't OP, isn't ending encounters every time they cast something, but still feels magical and wizardly.

I am going to give 2E a chance. (I'm currently converting the Emerald Spire, in fact.) I'm also going to test out my homebrew ideas for these classes.

Diego Hopkins wrote:

I think the fact that you have to convince players who enjoy casting to make the switch is telling. I'm having a hard time being excited about it, and I want this edition to succeed. I want Paizo to be around in ten years.

For martial players, this system is awesome. I've enjoyed building barbarians and fighters. They feel powerful, and the 3 action system is quite enjoyable for them.

Casters don't get to interact with the 3 action system if they are casting, which is kinda their thing. (There are 3 spells that take advantage of it.)

So now the argument to recruit people who want to play casters is: your friends get to do cool things, but your overall power is nerfed, most of your utility builds are invalid because spell duration /power are nerfed, and you can't use the shiny new action economy if you do your thing. It's not as bad as it looks, though. If you take a few minutes and do some math you'll see.

That's horrible PR.

And then there's the fact that I enjoy playing a God-Wizard. I like the story of starting as a lowly apprentice and ending up the immortal master of my own demi-plane. The initial feeling I get from this edition is that apparently I was having fun wrong.

When you say there are only 3 spells, are you referring to spells like Heal and Magic Missile that have variable action costs? Those are cool, but I would consider picking between the 1,2, and 3 action spells at your disposal to be "playing with the 3 action system" just as much.

I am referring to magic missile, heal, and harm. I like the way these spells interact with the new action system, and I wish the default for spells was to behave in this way.

Magic missile is the only of those spells on the arcane list, so I can pick one spell. That's not really playing with the 3 action system.

I'm also not a fan of cantrips requiring two actions. I don't think it's game breaking to allow two cantrips in a round. This is especially in view of crossbow rangers being able to attack twice in a round doing 2d8 (hunter's edge precision)+ 1d10 +2(crossbow ace) (Again, I am loving building martials in this system. They are powerful.)

One of the things that I do really like is that they system is very modular. I can house rule single action cantrips, and it doesn't really break anything else. I can make the modification I want to wild shaping fairly easily (-1 spell slot to wildshape into a CR 1 wolf.) A significant amount of attention and consideration was given to the modular design, and it shows.

magnuskn wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

I mean it isn't that telling. We are trying to convince like three people, one of whom seems to just hate the idea of pf2 in general. Its not like there is a vast majority of upset wizards.

Yeah, I'm sure a snapshot of two to three hours with four or five people discussing is indicative of all players, everywhere. :p

My point exactly. Diego was saying it must be bad if three people are complaining. My point is thats a pretty tiny amount of data.

I never said that three people complaining meant it was bad. I've only spoken for myself in this thread, and I've said my initial impression is that I don't like the way casters feel.

I'm sure the math behind the decisions is valid, and aligns with the stated goals of more balanced gameplay between martials and casters. I agree with the need for the balancing, I just disagree with some of the steps they've taken to get there.

I gave the example of the druid I'm building. I would gladly give up spell slots to have at will wildshaping into one CR appropriate creature. I don't see that as game-breaking. Instead of that, we get pest form. I'm sure I can find some use for that, but it's not going to be in combat.

I also don't like that casters get very little interaction with the 3-action system. I think NemoNoName's suggestion of using an action to maintain spells is a great idea, and simple enough to implement. It would mean I get agency over the duration of my spells.

Diego Hopkins wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I think her outfit is fine though. It definitely feels bulkier than her PF1 outfit, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and I think it's a little silly to call anything about her outfit puritanical.

Of course her outfit itself is far from puritanical. However, the general movement towards covering up more naked skin in fantasy and towards making the fantasy genre more PG has been noticeable over the last decade. It's the general trend I oppose. As I said, I am just as opposed to Sayan not showing off his sick abs. ^^

A part of the reason for this trend is that more young girls and women are openly participating, so it's moving away from a male fantasy space and into a shared space. I like this. I have 3 little girls that I'm introducing to the hobby. I would like to discourage them from running into combat with their vital areas and arteries exposed.

Just saying, there's no difference between a sorc running into combat in a bikini and a full robe (replace bikini with banana hammock if you're feeling more male instead). Unarmored is unarmored.

Which is why I'm glad arcane spell failure due to armor is no longer a thing. :)

Squiggit wrote:

I think her outfit is fine though. It definitely feels bulkier than her PF1 outfit, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and I think it's a little silly to call anything about her outfit puritanical.

Of course her outfit itself is far from puritanical. However, the general movement towards covering up more naked skin in fantasy and towards making the fantasy genre more PG has been noticeable over the last decade. It's the general trend I oppose. As I said, I am just as opposed to Sayan not showing off his sick abs. ^^

A part of the reason for this trend is that more young girls and women are openly participating, so it's moving away from a male fantasy space and into a shared space. I like this. I have 3 little girls that I'm introducing to the hobby. I would like to discourage them from running into combat with their vital areas and arteries exposed.

I think the fact that you have to convince players who enjoy casting to make the switch is telling. I'm having a hard time being excited about it, and I want this edition to succeed. I want Paizo to be around in ten years.

For martial players, this system is awesome. I've enjoyed building barbarians and fighters. They feel powerful, and the 3 action system is quite enjoyable for them.

Casters don't get to interact with the 3 action system if they are casting, which is kinda their thing. (There are 3 spells that take advantage of it.)

So now the argument to recruit people who want to play casters is: your friends get to do cool things, but your overall power is nerfed, most of your utility builds are invalid because spell duration /power are nerfed, and you can't use the shiny new action economy if you do your thing. It's not as bad as it looks, though. If you take a few minutes and do some math you'll see.

That's horrible PR.

And then there's the fact that I enjoy playing a God-Wizard. I like the story of starting as a lowly apprentice and ending up the immortal master of my own demi-plane. The initial feeling I get from this edition is that apparently I was having fun wrong.

Maybe you just aren't looking at the dice right. With it's caltropy form, the D4 is the most aggressive die!

With 10d4 at 20th, you're playing with a bag of caltrops.

Diego Hopkins wrote:

It's also bothersome that the damaging cantrips were nerfed into d4s. The medicine skill increases the length of the adventuring day, so your 1st level wizard is going to burn through their spells before the day is over. Now you're back to being a poor crossbowman.

Chill Touch

Playtest Version
1d8 negative damage. On a critical hit, double damage and enfeebled 1 for 1 round.
Heightened (3rd) Damage of 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier

Final Version
The spell deals negative damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting modifier. The target attempts a basic Fortitude save, but is also enfeebled 1 for 1 round on a critical failure.
Heightened (+1) The negative damage to living creatures increases by 1d4.

The Cantrips were actually buffed, in the final version it do between 5-9 damage with 18int instead of 1-8 of the playtest at level 1, even the heightening scales better.

I suppose you're right about the math, but the d4 instead of the d6 just hits me wrong.

Yeah none of your casters are playing correctly. A martial in PF1 can do a lot of damage, but a caster (especially wizards) can end a fight with one spell or completely short circuit an entire dungeon or plot. Look we had enough of linear fighters, quadratic wizards. Maybe it’s time for something else.

I think there was a better way to do it than just nerf batting everything. There's not a good argument for cantrips being d4s. Set that at d6 and leave it. Move more spells to rituals to open those up to everyone, let wizards have rituals known for free/level, and decrease the ritual casting time to make them useful during adventuring. Or just move the whole spell list to ritual, and use the vancian casting slots for rituals held/ quick rituals. This way everyone gets access to the resource, but wizards can do it faster.

Sorcerer=kineticist.

Druid, keep cantrips and permanently sacrifice one of your highest level spell slots to gain at will wildshaping into a single animal of a CR equal to or less than your level. You can sacrifice additional slots as you gain them to gain access to additional forms. One form per slot. This is not game breaking, and lets you feel like a druid.

All casters were nerfed, not just the wizard. This edition is great if you want to play martials.

I've spent most of the day building versions of a concept of a hunter so attuned with nature they become an animal. The barbarian is better at this than the druid. I'm not sure if pest form was meant to be insulting or not.

It's also bothersome that the damaging cantrips were nerfed into d4s. The medicine skill increases the length of the adventuring day, so your 1st level wizard is going to burn through their spells before the day is over. Now you're back to being a poor crossbowman.

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

What's so game/immersion breaking of spending 10 minutes to perform a prayer that lets a holy warrior heal the wounded person in front of them? Haven't seen the episode yet, but it seems like something that is quite flavorful if played up for flavor

When that process can be repeated as long as you like during the day, it's almost easier to assume that everybody will have full HP for most fights and so HP becomes a battle resource - as long as you can rest between the fights, it won't matter that much.

Some parties won't have that healing capability, which makes it harder to design encounters and campaigns.

Besides that, the Champion becomes an Oprah for healing - YOU GET HEALING, let me pray, NOW YOU GET THE HEALING, let me pray, EVERYONE GETS HEALED, let me pray once more. I'm not sure about you guys, but I don't find it interesting as a story teller. The Stamina / HP of Starfinder would be a better approach imho.

I'm a huge fan of giving everyone things to do in their 10 minutes break - I really am. Maybe throughout the levels we'll see more uses of focus points and healing won't matter anymore, but the LOH spam wasn't interesting to watch.

I think that this boils down to table preference. My players and I aren't into gritty realism, and I think PC death should serve the story and not just be about a series of bad rolls. I think abundant healing is a good thing.

As far as the Stamina/HP houserule (the book's already gone to the printers) I would house rule that all magical healing does burn damage, ala the Kineticist. That means it doesn't matter how frequently the cleric can cast heal, or the paladin can LoH. Burn will automatically limit the number of times in a day anyone wants to be magically healed. As far as first aid, it already only works once per hour per person. Just make med kits expendable. Two simple changes and you have grittier play.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Brew Bird wrote:

What if all Changelings have some form of androgen insensitivity? That way even XY Changelings would develop feminine traits. Blood of the Coven mentions that Changelings can be born with indeterminate sex characteristics, and some Changelings grow up to adopt masculine gender identities, you just won't have a cis male Changeling.

I was personally under the impression that male changelings never happen simply because hags murder any male children they have, since they are useless to them.

I'm pretty sure Hags are not checking the chromosomes. Certain intersex conditions can result in a child having entirely female secondary sexual characteristics while still being genetically XY. Could this person become a hag? I figure there's magic involved in the transformation anyway.

"Hag genes cause androgen insensitivity" is an interesting twist; I like it.

I try pretty hard not to think about how genes work in Golarion. Way too many things can interbreed weirdly with some other things.

Hags are magic. It's perfectly reasonable for a magical monster to only have girl children regardless.

I suppose they could add male versions of hags, but then in my mind, they're not really hags anymore. They're just another magic using monster.

Turns out male Bards are the male version of a lot of species.

Does it say something that goblins are now a playable race, but Orcs, who are traditionally associated with African peoples, aren't, and half-orcs are only playable because they're half-humans?

Adding male versions of traditionally female only species is fine. The reverse is also fine. Doing something because that's the way it's always been done is usually a recipe for disaster, especially in a rapidly evolving environment. The hobby is much more open to women and people of color than it was twenty years ago. Change or die.

I would like to see vancian/slotted casting go away.

I would like to see word casting converted, and take advantage of the new action system in place of spell slots.

I would like to see martial traditions/techniques be more mechanically meaningful. We see this start in the monk with stances that change damage type and dice. I'd like more of that, and to have damage escalation tied into it; like stances, techniques, and sequences/combos as full round actions for more damage and status effects.

I believe first aid IS the new coup de grace.

Sorcerer Spider wrote:

Strike this post. I misread the table. Formulas are priced in SP, not GP.

That still raises a valid problem though. The inconsistent use of SP pricing vs GP pricing is going to trip up endless numbers of people endless numbers of times.

It seems that mundane items are priced in silver and magic and alchemical items are priced in gold.

I think wands should be reusable with a fixed number of charges. Investing resonance recharges the wand. Spells loaded into the wand cost 1 charge per spell level. Allow potency and property runes at a cost of additional investment equal to the rune level.

They probably left this out to avoid fights over good vs evil, and whether or not animating dead should be explicitly evil.

I believe the point is that shapeshifting into animals and mauling/eating people is consider fun, in certain circles.

Has anyone noticed that the barbarian can spend more time in any given day as an animal than the druid can? At 8th level the animal totem barbarian can shapeshift into a specific animal form. Granted, it's three rounds at a time, and then rest for 1 round, but they can cycle that up all day.

Meanwhile, the 8th level druid is limited to minutes per day, and the 10th level is limited to a few hours per day.

As far as overpowering other classes goes, animal companion druids seem to be a little out there. Gnomes can pick up a familiar with an ancestry trait which comes with an ability that lets them speak to you. Hello talking raven. Then you can pick up an animal companion to fight for you. It comes with free teamwork feats. What a sweet grizzly bear. I've got a discount scout and fighter before I meet the party. This is way more likely to step on toes than just letting the druid shapeshift.

I agree. Backgrounds should assign signature skills in addition to class, and each class should allow at least five. I would argue that three of them should be variable, to allow customization and differentiation.

As always, top notch customer service.

I'm curious as to what the cantrips are and how useful they'll be.

I don't like that we have to continue to deal with the twenty minute adventuring day because the casters, especially the healer, run out of spells. This is compounded by resonance limiting magic item use. The glass cannon podcast showed the party running out of healing pretty quickly and then having to stop and rest while the big bad had a hostage. I guess that wasn't a time sensitive rescue.

Like others, I'm concerned about the loss of spell slots. This may be mitigated by the cantrips, but that didn't seem to be the case in the podcast.

They've used goblins in their marketing material, the We Be Goblins series, for years now. For many new players, goblins are the introduction to Pathfinder. They pretty much have to include them as core at this point.

KingOfAnything wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

None of them are considered pests fit only for extermination in-setting. Unlike goblins.

And this blog does nothing to dispel that notion, so yeah. If You want to have a Goblin PC, you'll deal with the consequences.

My druid's dire rat gets along fine. I don't see a goblin as being any more difficult of a companion to the party.

As long as the consequences are fun, I'm pretty sure that's what the player signed up for.

Your druid's Dire Rat is...your druid's. It's a pet. Is a goblin PC going to be someone's pet? Someone's slave?

Dire rats are known as pests, sure, but they're animals. They aren't intelligent, malicious, arson-prone intelligent humanoids detested by basically everyone, and with good reason.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

By the by, any intelligent creature being considered a pest fit only for extermination is racism on the part societies unable to consider that intelligent creatures are able to make free-willed choices.

Maybe goblins wouldn’t have to raid and steal so much if anyone seriously considered trading with them? Especially since you can trade your junk and unwanted waste to goblins in exchange for the herbal and alchemical supplies abundant in the swamps, forests and caves they live.

I mean, no. Goblins of Golarion and the Advanced Race Guide basically go completely against this idea. Goblins are despised precisely because they're free-willed, intelligent creatures, and almost all the time they chose to be absolutely horrible.

To be fair, if society's policy was to kill you and members of your culture on sight, you'd behave in a manner they'd consider absolutely horrible too.

First, the attention to feedback, openness to criticism, and willingness to make changes are all greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Second, regarding concerns of power creep, have you compared the shifter to the Moon-cursed barbarian archetype. It grants a modified beast shape into a specific animal at level one, the d12 HD, a hybrid form at 5th level, and the benefit of rage powers. This archetype is also Society Legal.

Simply from an RP perspective, the archetype grants the amazing benefit of being a tiger from level one.

How do you feel the shifter class stacks up against the archetype?

Your company sells books and comics. Put boons in them. Increase sales + get boons out there = profit.

You have customers who are doing things like: working full time, going to grad school, and raising a family. This method would grant them an opportunity to access new races sooner than their otherwise limited time would allow. (This probably sounds oddly specific. It is. :P)

I'd go so far as to suggest a series, comic or otherwise, featuring the misadventures of a plucky crew of Starfinders. Include a boon or two corresponding to aliens they meet, gear they use, ship features they acquire, etc. The publishing schedule dictates a slow enough release cycle that GM's have a chance to prepare for upcoming additions.

Either go mechanic and take minor psychic power and then technomantic dabbler, or go technomancer and build a remote controlled drone with an energy cycle, a turret, and a miniaturized computer with two control modules.