The primary reason why my group plays 5e instead of Pathfinder is that in 5e, it is more difficult to make a ridiculously overpowered character. My group tries to be roleplay first, and in Pathfinder, it is too tempting to over optimize. 5e's power curve seems more "flat", in that characters don't get as strong as they level, and there's generally no way to achieve ability scores over 20, skill modifiers that are super high, etc. I REALLY like this, as it means that there isn't as ton of a difference between a perfectly optimized character and a character that was made more with roleplaying in mind. I would love for a similar design philosophy to affect PF2e.
What I really MISS about PF, as a 5e player, is the character customization, and the crunchiness of the rules.
Is it even *possible* to have all the great rules complexity and options of pathfinder AND the avoidance of min max hell of 5e? I hope so, but I doubt it lol
I see. Thanks, I should probably demo the game at gencon this year and see how it plays. Is it expensive?
If you want to buy all the base sets and adventure decks so you can play at home, yes. (Though I think it's money well spent!!)
If you want to play in Organized Play at a game store, no. All you need is a class deck, which retail for $20 (but you can often find them for cheaper).
I hope it's Jade Regent too! My sister-in-law loves things with an Asian flair, so I think it'd be easier to get her to play a Jade Regent set.
This thread seems to agree with the idea that if you use X skill instead of Y, it is still a Y check
I have been playing under the impression that if encounter a monster that lists combat, I don't use a weapon, and I use Varril's power, I am now making a noncombat divine check INSTEAD of a combat check (thus enabling blessing of Shelyn to add 2 dice). Am I incorrect here?
Sorry if this has already been answered...didn't see anything in the FAQ.
Last night, a monster caused me to shuffle a random card from my hand into my location deck, and it just so happened to be Holy Radiance (a loot card). The loot card doesn't have a check to acquire on it. My brother was lucky enough to encounter it from the location deck the next turn...but there is no check to acquire it. We decided that he would just acquire it automatically.
Did we play that right?
Got a chance to play as Varril last night--really enjoy him! And now I have an opinion on whether I actually *want* his power to be able to be used on straight combat checks (without using weapon or spell).
The inquisitor deck doesn't have anything in terms of offensive combat spells, and Varril has two weapons in his deck (one more with a card feat). So he has a relatively low chance of having something in his hand that will let him roll something in combat besides just his strength (d6, skill feat only allows up to d6 +1). He doesn't have stellar evading options (caltrops only work for so long), and he doesn't have an abundance of armors (one slot to start, only one card feat upgrade). And with a starting hand size of 6, he's pretty squishy. There's also only one cure in the inquisitor deck, so you don't have the option of using a second cure to get the first cure off the bottom of your deck to be used again in a timely manner.
So basically, he's pretty easy to get killed. I think that either of the following would help:
1) making combat a skill, or
2) rewording his ability to specify that it applies to listed skills AND as your (non-skill) combat check
Thoughts? I don't personally think it would be overpowered, but I could be missing something. I don't want him overpowered, because that takes the fun out of it. But currently, he feels pretty vulnerable compared to many other characters.
Thanks for your reply...this makes sense to me, so I'll go with it on Saturday if we don't hear anything official before then. I know Vic floated the idea of combat being a skill, but I'm uncomfortable going with that until it's official, because I share your interpretation of the rulebook as it currently stands. (If they do make combat a skill, that's good news for Varril, though! )
Mine arrived today and I'm hoping to play Varril on Saturday. Did we ever get an official official ruling on his power?
Situation A: If a monster lists combat, can I play a weapon that lists strength or melee for the combat check and discard a card to use my divine skill in place of the strength or melee?
Situation B: If a monster lists combat, can I discard to use divine in place of combat? (Not using a weapon or spell here).
Followup question: Situation A clearly remains a combat check. But in Situation B, is this now a noncombat check? I ask for purposes of using blessing that add 2 dice to noncombat wisdom checks.
(edited for clarity and to add a question)
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
Ah, that makes more sense. I never played as an iconic in the RPG because I preferred to make my own characters. But I can see getting attached...I'm a big Seelah fan even though I never played her in the RPG.
Keith Richmond wrote:
Oh, I wasn't meaning to take a shot--just found it humorous. I know you guys probably have to talk about it before giving an "official response" :)
Gotta love how the developer pops in to talk about language use but not the raging rules debate going on :D lol
Whether or not you can use Varril's power for combat (I hope you can!), he looks super fun! This deck is a definite buy for me. Imrijka looks powerful (though I've never loved her big red hat) and I'm looking forward to seeing Salim's skills and powers.
Gwyns Firstborn wrote:
whatever happened to the good ol' days when we would use "their" when referring to a random person? Varril says "random card from her discard pile". I know nobody wants to use "his" anymore, but what's wrong with "their"?
"Their" is grammatically incorrect when referring to an individual. It's only appropriate when referring to multiple people.
I think the pattern they're going with is that for a male character (e.g. Varril), they use "her" when referring to another character's discard pile, and for a female character (e.g. Seelah), they use "his".
Check out Seelah's first ability--it's very similar. http://static1.paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderACG/PZO6808-SeelahFront.jp g
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
Wow, what a great response! Thank you everyone--you've given me a lot of great ideas. I really appreciate the help, as I have trouble playing if my storyline doesn't "make sense" to me. I think the Mendev crusades into the Silver Crusade is probably where I will start...that sounds rich with opportunities for backstory.
Thanks so much :)
So I'm pretty new to Pathfinder and Pathfinder Society. In other RPGs I have played, I have always worked with my GM to develop a specific background and motivation for my character to explain why she is where she is at the beginning of the campaign, as well as a general idea of where she's head.
I am interested in playing a paladin (Iomedae) in PFS. I've been poking around the web and can think of how to roleplay a paladin that's already *in* PFS (working with the Silver Crusade to use PFS as a tool for good in the world), but I'm having trouble explaining to myself why she would join PFS in the first place. To me, it seems sort of illogical for a LG paladin to join this somewhat unorganized group of random adventurers with differing motivations. It's easier for me to see her starting a campaign being sent on a mission of some kind from a local temple cleric or something like that. But obviously, that's not really an option because she has to be a member of PFS! And I'm not complaining...I think Paizo sponsoring this kind of organized play is awesome!! I'm just struggling with it from a roleplaying perspective. Can anyone help me out with some ideas? I love the tactical combat of Pathfinder, but I do also want to do some serious roleplaying.
TL;DR: What are some roleplaying reasons that a Paladin of Iomedae would join the Pathfinder Society in the first place?