I think it is mostly a "them" to contrast the "us". I imagine the Thrune had something against halflings from way back, but I don't know what. And of course, it is reminiscent of the antisemitism of the Nazis, or the slavery of the United States. It makes sure that we don't look too favorably at Cheliaxians. They are bad guys, or at least good people suffering through a bad situation.
I understand that at that hidden ends when you move. Spring from Shadows calls this out. But what about move and strike in a single action? Sudden Charge and Skirmish Strike both allow movement and striking in the same action. I wouldn't think it would be allowed for Sudden Charge because it spans multiple actions. But Skirmish Strike allows a step and a strike in one action. This seems reasonable, especially as it is only a step.
So I guess I'm asking if you loose the hidden condition only at the end of an action, or if it can end within an action. Basically, are actions atomic relative to stealth?
You've just unwittingly aided the band of assassins and murdered the carriage's only guard, ultimately leading to their targets' demise, and possibly yours as well. Even if you survive the encounter, you will have been responsible for a young noble's death, and quite possibly branded a criminal.
As-is, that is going down a dark path, and sounds like no fun. My immediate reaction would be to call out the GM and ask where this game was going, and verify that I wanted to play it. My RPG time is too limited to squander on nonsense.
Tweak it a bit and it would be a good intro to a "The Fugitive" type scenario. Instead of them killing the guards, the PCs disrupt the defense, and accidentally allow the bad guys to win. Then from there they have to bring justice to the assassins while not being arrested. That sounds more like a story worth my time.
I don't mind the GM "tricking" the players as long as it is setting up something interesting. Think of it as exposition, but with some player involvement. But this sort of thing has to be infrequent. People play RPGs to have input/agency, not to be be told that they got things wrong.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Some kind of mechanical specialist- someone who might be less than great at picking pockets or conning people, but who can open that lock- YES, that one- something a BIT like the Thief racket (since Thievery is the relevant skill) but without Stealth, and with some kind of Engineering Lore synergy with Disable Device and Pick a Lock.
Isn't that just thievery and lore? Any rogue can do that. Easy for any class with enough skills. It even seems natural for alchemist and wizard.
The thing for Thief is DEX to damage. Ruffian has armor and extra weapons. Scoundrel can feint. What are you saying you want? Just a Thief who replaced stealth with engineering lore? Even if this racket allowed INT rather than DEX, it doesn't seem distinct.
You mention some kind of synergy. What kind of synergy?
I imagine the Order of the Chain goes wherever fugitives do. Local jurisdiction is mostly meaningless, although if the local cops have arrested said fugitive, all is right in the world. Likewise, I think there are valid reasons for many of the orders to send knights to foreign countries. The rule of law transcends borders.
So, it is clear that they mostly operate in Cheliax, Isger, and Korvosa, they can be anywhere. Since quite a few went to Mendev to fight the demons of the world wound, I wonder if they have some chapter houses up north. They can still fight demons and trample the locals traditions.
J. A. wrote:
Sarenrae? Why? She is the patron of the Kellesh Empire, and they've not taken out Geb. Why would she care about Eox? Can those undead be redeemed? She dislikes undead, but it isn't high up on her to-do list
Pharasma is the who would take on Eox. And I bet she is. Crusades don't seem to be her style. I imagine she is important to the surviving Elebrians ,just like she is with the living in Geb. But I would guess her worship is prohibited by the Bone Sages. I can imagine a Pharasma and Norgorber pantheon focused on quietly killing the undead.
Nym Moondown wrote:
Still I have the sensation that we are losing something (in relation to PF1) in every single class progression, not only in nerfed classes. If I wanted to make a characters with the same features as in PF1 (not speaking of power, just of features) I wouldn't be able to do so in this edition.
That isn't my impression. What is an example of a character concept that you could build with pre-APG PF1 that you cannot build properly with PF2?
Anthony Adam wrote:
Yes, please. I always has a soft spot for Parl Dro from Kill the Dead. And Dresden-esque makes it all the better.
Hellknights have very strict rules, and they follow those rules to the letter, regardless of local laws. Generally local laws do not conflict with order structures, so there are no problems. By nature, they follow all rules even if they don't respect the local government.
The Order of the Torrent is lawful good and focused on freeing kidnap victims. If that means breaking into a jail, then so be it. If the local government is involved, then they will be treated as part of the problem.
Likewise, if the Order of the Nail decided that some local practice is preventing growth of civilization and society, then they will fight it. If that is Cheliax, Molthune, or wherever the order will do whatever is necessary. Preferably using the local government, but that is not required.
There are also plenty of games that update themselves significantly with each edition, just like D&D and PF. It is not, as you say, a D&D phenomenon. In fact I’ll go as far as to say that 20 years of support for a largely unchanged game is a uniquely D&D 3.X phenomenon.
It is uncommon, but not unique. The latest version of RuneQuest is almost totally compatible with RuneQuest 2 from 1978. There are new rules, but the existing stuff mostly works as-is. Closer than 3.5e to PF1. And they are still using the Glorantha setting which first was published in a board game in '75.
If continuity is your thing, they deserve your respect.
Garund, eh? I don't know squat about the southern two thirds. I think lizard folk, cat people, and dinosaurs hang out there. The top third is inner sea, and the two uber powered nations are Geb and Nex. Neither one is expansionist, but with Geb being back on the scene, that could change. And I could see Sarenrae worshipping Kellish forces provoking Geb. Other than Geb himself, I don't see much of a reason for anyone to tangle with Nex.
For details, see the wiki, or better still the ISWG.
Ferious Thune wrote:
Then why do Backgrounds exist at all?
I think it is for two reasons. The first is a list of easy to understand concepts is less daunting than "build your own." The other is that if they introduce special backgrounds that have bonus skill feats, general feats or whatever, this mechanism is a bit more future proof. "Here, use this background as-is" doesn't require explaining deviations from the normal rules.
Had I designed PF2, I'm not sure if I would have gone with backgrounds, or just free form choices like you want. But I didn't, and this is fine.
I have used the custom background editor in pathbuilder2 to (re)build a beloved 3.5 character that I never was able to get quite right a decade ago. None of the existing backgrounds were exactly what I wanted, although "noble" was close and would have worked.
I was pondering an option where you could try to cast faster. At the end of the first action, flat DC11 (aka coin toss) and it casts or not. If not try again for your second action. If you that fails, you can go for a third. If that fails, or if you bail on an earlier failure, then you lose the spell. That means
One round: 50%
Maybe allow this to continue to the next round, but no movement and no reactions makes me think that would not be popular.
No clue if this should be a class feat, a skill feat, or just a choice available to all casters. It should not be alliwed for your top few spell levels.
Honestly, I'd trust your players and just let them know your expectations of armour and what you're looking for.
Bingo. RPGs are co-operative story telling with dice (usually). Session Zero is for getting everyone on the same page. In addition to alignments, goals, and theme, it should include setting. If your story works better without heavy armor, say so up front. Then ban it and move on. If you are running an evil game you say "no paladins", right? Same thing.
Mark Seifter wrote:
... allowed the party to avoid I think over 20 encounters in a 30+ room dungeon, fighting only 4 times (negotiating once, so 5 encounters).
This is heresy to some folks. Encounters and conflict are why many people play. My son is unhappy when one of my diplomancers talks us past an encounter. His logic is that I basically soloed it and prevented the rest of the party from participating/enjoying that creature.
Perhaps for casual gaming. I like Cheliax and how its sense of unity itand destiny have been corrupted by hell. This is playing with subtleties on the lawful end of the alignment spectrum. For a while now that has been my thing
I haven't seen an interesting concept of true neutrality yet, unfortunately. A true champion of balance would have to be truly horrific from time to time to balance out the heroic acts involved in saving the world or whatever that happens in most APs. The three neutral deities in CRB (Nethys, Pharasma, and Gozreh) are all very different from each other.
The common thread for those three is the relative disregard for mortals. Magic, nature, and a well ordered life/death cycle are what is important. Basically a TN champion is dedicated to a cause that has little to do with people. Focusing on something like that seems a bit niche, but in sure someone somewhere will come up with a good story based using them.
Must we have pan-neutral champions? I want one champion group for each of the four alignments. We have good, so evil, law and chaos are what I want to see. And I think the corners have to pick. A LG champion in the Godclaw has to be the lawful variety, not the existing good one.
I read a lot of Michael Moorcock when I was a kid. I want more law vs chaos to balance out good vs evil.
That said, I don't mind a true neutral champion, but it should be distinct, not bundled with LN and CN. I still don't like how Faiths of Balance handled things. LN and CN have as much in common as NG and NE, but no one tries to lump those two together.
I think most Rahadoumi would like to be gods. Most folks have power fantasies. They might want to follow in Irori's footsteps, or maybe Nethys. And the starstone appeals to them as well. They just won't subjugate themselves to any divine overlord to get there.
Refusing to follow a god is not the same as opposing that god. An artist might be glad that Shelyn inspires works of art, and might even hope for inspiration, but won't actively ask for divine help. Some things are not worth the cost.
Hmm. Replace magic traditions with ritual learning. That makes sense for communal witches but hurts the self taught variety. I don't see Granny Weatherwax being limited by what she is taught. Adding to known spells via eating scrolls just means more expensive spell acquisition. So this means broader choice than most at the cost of fewer spells and less loot.
I like this flavor for some witches, but this will be painful in PFS and published modules. As you are off saving the world, there will be little/no interaction with your coven, so you will feel the downside of the limited choice of spells. I think this will be mostly for NPCs, or home games.
I like hexes all day, but real spells being infrequent. Witch != Wizard.
I never had much patron interaction as one of my witches was PFS and the other was Skull & Shackles. Premade stuff doesn't encourage the GM to adapt. :-( I'd like for patrons to matter more, but I'm not not sure how.
Potions are cool, but need to be optional. In S&S our ship was a floating chemical factory as that was a potion focused witch. And it pissed me off that alchemists could do it better. Most witches might not care about potions, but those who do should be among the best.
That witch also had flight and water breathing, so really was into utility abilities. I never thought that it felt witchy, but it was useful in play.
I don't think of the familiar as being an independent creature, but as a projection of the witch. It has its own personality and free will, but it exists because of the witch. This is a bit like an Eidalon in reverse.
The first thing a patron teaches is how to create this being and how to bind it into an animal. The only spell a witch can prepare without a familiar is Bind Familiar. This means when a familiar is killed, the next day the witch prepares and casts Bind Familiar and is back in business. Finding a vessel (the right animal) is up to the witch. This could be tweaked for mirrors, crystals, etc.
This does nothing to stop the familiar from being so squishy, but it gets the familiar back on line more quickly. It does mean losing spells makes no sense.
What do folks think of lucky familiars? They always have Fortune for making saves, and attacks against them have Misfortune. It seems thematically right, and makes them tougher but not indestructible.
There could be a greater or major lesson that teaches the familiar summon fiend or celestial. No reason the lessons (except for the first lesson) have to be restricted by tradition.
That is pretty much what I was thinking, but I was trying to hand wave the mechanics a bit. I could see the spell or the ritual as the vehicle. The key is it is made available via a class feat.
Initially I thought the witch should be able to access all four traditions, but I've come around to no divine witches. One of the cornerstones of witches is figuring things out. They are not granted powers, they are taught secrets and figure the rest out on thier own. That seems reasonable for arcane and occult. Primal is a bit more of a stretch, but OK. Divine is not self taught, even with a patron/mentor. Clerics, divine sorcerers, and oracles all do thier thing without understanding it. Totally different vibe.
The thing I really don't like about this is summoning demons and devils. Getting an imp or quasit to spy and cause mayhem feels right. If I remember summoning correctly, Summon Fiend is divine only. That means the Planar Binding ritual is how a non divine witch would have to do this. For some GMs, that won't be an issue. But for PFS, I expect it to be very rare. Summon Celestial is in the same boat, so Glynda cannot summon Archons either.
Would it make sense for the witch to have a class feat for summoning rituals? More generically, some mechanism to learn any ritual? Perhaps at the cost of fewer spells? I've never thought that standard spells were the bread and butter of this class.
Dubious Scholar wrote:
That just makes the last focus point needlessly punishing to spend. I'm not a fan of the grit/panache 1+ stuff in 1e for the same reason. Anything that makes spending a resource more painful is bad - people already hold off on burning resources as is.
Agreed. I like cantrip hexes for weak, spam all day effects that are relatively small, plus focus hexes for the bigger stuff. I don't see any reason to limit the first because you have no mojo for the second.
I kinda like this. But it is a huge win for the witch. Wouldn't a single action to cast a spell break the action economy? Maybe it would be better to spend the actions normally, but the spells come from the familiar. Sensible witches will hide thier familiar on themselves (shirt pocket or whatever), but the risk takers can send it forward to engage the enemy at close range. Presumably the next round will be run and hide.
Yeah. I was kinda hoping that PF2 was going to have just 4-6 classes that provided less than classes do now, and everyone has one or more archetypes/subclasses which provide more than just feat options.
My preference is towards fewer classes, so I have mixed feelings about this witch. I like the old witch better. As-is, it doesn't stand out, so I am not sure it deserves a class
To justify a full class, it shouldn't just be a spell caster. All hexes all day was the schtick, and I liked it. Some nerfing is fine. My main witch stopped using slumber because it was no fun. My second witch never took that hex.
I think I'd like fewer spells. That along with most hexes converted to cantrips would make the witch distinctly non wizard.
Overall I don't think the focus power mechanism feels witchy. Maybe for big stuff, but certainly not the basic hexes. And focus point cost with 24h immunity seems like a double whammy.
I think a focus spell to remove hex immunity for making a save would be good. Basically burn a point and two actions to gain the chance to try again. And perhaps a cackle variant that burns focus to sustain all active hexes.
Also I'd like a bigger tie in to rituals. Getting things done without spells feels right.
Finally I want to mention patrons. I lean towards keeping them vague. If you know who your daddy is, you are a cleric. I prefer The-Magic-Sword's approach #1 because I now *must* create a witch whose patron is the collective Godclaw. Hellknights and witches together is too awesome to pass up.