Cursed Vampire Guard

Drakhan Valane's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 7 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 1,585 posts (1,604 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Yeah? Monks are also magic, at least the ones that take spells. Monks had (Su) all over their abilities list in PF1 and the only thing that's changed is that being magical is opt-in now.

A Panache based monk sounds awesome, too. I wonder if there's going to be a way to do that in the full APG?


A spellcaster has the [Tradition/Class] Spellcasting class feature. For example, Witch Spellcasting or Primal Spellcasting. Spellcasting is not a requirement for Focus Spells as seen in the cases of the Monk and Champion. Panache doesn't act like Focus Spells/Points at all.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
I am actually quite upset that we are getting more classes into the game, instead of building these new concepts on the existing classes. I thought that the whole point of the feat based classes was so the existing classes could fulfill more roles. Now we're just going to go back to adding a new class for every concept, meaning things they might share with existing classes are now reprinted as new feats, with different names, taking something that was supposed to make things more streamlined actually make them even more cumbersome.

I think it's pretty safe to assume the new APG is also going to have a lot of expansions to the core classes. Of the 4 classes presented, I think only the Investigator could reasonably be considered able to fit an existing class, and I like the adjustments to the chassis they've made for that one. How would you make a Witch as we see here with only class feats on an existing class?


All level systems are treadmills. Stop using the term or admit to yourself you want a system where everyone is identical and no one improves ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ignorance, per definition, is not knowing. It is not ignoring what you know, it is not knowing it in the first place.


Willful ignorance is not ignoring what you know, it's actively avoiding the learning.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That is a system I have zero interest in playing. Unlike the PF2 playtest which I find extremely exciting.


thorin001 wrote:
Chris Parker wrote:

Most DCs don't change by level. For example, balancing on a fallen log is listed on page 338 as a level 1 task that becomes trivial at level 6. As such, it is roughly DC 15. It will always be DC 15. The table for DCs based on level is intended to describe which kinds of tasks make for a good challenge at a given level. That is, incidentally, how the 4e skill system worked prior to Essentials too.

Having said that, I'd much rather see the different levels of proficiency make more difference and character level make much less of a difference than have things as they are currently; beyond the availability of skill feats, there is little to differentiate them currently.

Except that at level 15 it is supposed to be a much more challenging log than it was at level 6. Now it is slippery and has a tendency to roll. Back at level 6 it was just a log.

All logs don't magically change into slippery, rolling logs at level 15. The logs you care about are different, though. Because that plain log isn't an interesting challenge anymore.


Well, part of the benefit of ditching BAB is that there can be far more variation in proficiency gain. I like that Fighter is the only one that gets Legendary in nearly every weapon by 19. But you can give Monks Leg. in Unarmed, Paladins Leg. in their Deity's weapon, Rangers in a specific subset of weapons, and so on without having to be tied to a set level progression. Maybe that's not exactly how the playtest is set up, and maybe that's not what we end up, but the design space and flexibility exists if that works better than the current system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Oh Then we could add 3 more attributes and instead of rolling a d20 we could roll 1d10 per point we invest into the attribute.

Now I really want to play Exalted again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

+Level is a bit passe (SWSE/2006), sort of a gimmicky mechanic; it seems like they tacked it on to highlight the 4-tiers of success thing, and go out of their way to not be like 5th Ed.

Comes across as a Chicken and Egg deal, did big numbers come first, or this critical success/fumble deal came first, and then tack on the + Level to accentuate big numbers.

It's a beautiful way to make the difference between a level 1 character and a level 20 character meaningful. It fits perfectly for the stories I want to be a part of.

Right on, I find those sorts of stories (only on a natural 20, can you hit me, yay!), revolting.

Each to their own, some dig the treadmill (illusion of power through number inflation), some don't.

Yes, let's get rid of the treadmill completely and go leveless. It's the only way. There's no point in having levels at all unless it actually has meaning. HP should not increase with level since that's just HP inflation. Under the reasoning that level bonus is just a treadmill, the ideal system has you pick what you're good at when you create your character and you never improve because that's just number inflation.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely love character creation!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:

+Level is a bit passe (SWSE/2006), sort of a gimmicky mechanic; it seems like they tacked it on to highlight the 4-tiers of success thing, and go out of their way to not be like 5th Ed.

Comes across as a Chicken and Egg deal, did big numbers come first, or this critical success/fumble deal came first, and then tack on the + Level to accentuate big numbers.

It's a beautiful way to make the difference between a level 1 character and a level 20 character meaningful. It fits perfectly for the stories I want to be a part of.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:

These simple houserules have vastly improved my PF2 experience.

+Level is omitted.

Touch Armour Class is omitted.

Spell Attacks are made with your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, etc).

Item (magic) bonus for weapons and extra damage dice is omitted.

Potency Runes are omitted.

Trained Armour, Weapon, and Spell Attack Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level.

Level:
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice

That looks boring and uninspiring. Take away the best part (+level), and nerf magic weapons to uselessness.


master_marshmallow wrote:

I agree they need to distribute more evenly, I also don't like fighters exclusively getting legendary.

Full BAB should follow fighters.
Medium BAB should follow the monk/ ranger progression
Half should follow the rogue/ barbarian progression

I don't like how different it all is.

There is no BAB.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Martial choices have mattered in PF1. You were either Barbarian or Paladin. Any other martial choice was practically worthless or banned (*cough*Synthesist*cough*) and you might as well should have just played Commoner.

You played a VERY different Pathfinder than I ever did.


Feats are things that you get as a level reward that you chose from a list that may have prerequisites (such as minimum level), but they all work in essentially an identical fashion. Powers are not picked the same way as spells are.


Zardnaar wrote:

Not a fan of the PF Paladin so far. It might be OK power wise (I am judging it on its own merits nt vs the PF or 5E Paladin), the main problem with it it doesn;t feel very Paladin.

No Aura, smite has been tweaked ( I don't consider smite to be 100% required though), no mount, no spells. Its just missing to many abilities I consider iconic to the Paladin although its gets some of them and its LG only which is kinda nice if you like ye olde D&Disms (I do BTW).

There are auras and you have the choice to gain a steed (but you get the option of shield or weapon, too). Spells can be easily gained via Cleric multiclassing.


To say that numbers and narrative are separate concepts is mind-boggling. Numbers are an intrinsic part of the narrative. We have people arguing for different narratives based solely on how much of your level is added to every check (some want 0/level, some want 1/level, and others want some fraction). I personally prefer the narratives that 1/level encourage. To claim that the numbers and the narrative are separate is looking at things in too simple a view.


All Backgrounds give a Lore skill. All Lore skills are signature skills.


I would find renaming feats to things NOT feats would be far more confusing. Because they act like feats. Having 20 different names for things that act just like feats is a pain.


For those saying Neanderthal is a separate species from modern humans, that's not necessarily the case. Many consider them to be Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, not a separate species due to the ability to interbreed with humans.


tivadar27 wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
I imagine Paizo set the time based on their past 10 years of playtesting in this way.

Those playtests were vastly different, however, as they all operated under the PF1e framework, and weren't exploring what is, for all purposes, an entirely new game.

We'll have to see if the time is sufficient for a playtest, but call me skeptical.

I'm including the original Pathfinder playtest from 10 years ago. That certainly was exploring a new framework.


It helps me understand what is going on with the character, so I'm glad they use feats when they mean feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think a large number difference should really be the defining trait of a legendary warrior, but rather what they can do with the weapons (i.e. feats or being able to use special properties of weapons better). Anyone can stab someone.


I imagine Paizo set the time based on their past 10 years of playtesting in this way.


Elven "Demon Hunter" Paladin. There are a lot of Paladin Class feats and abilities that really work well for focusing on fighting Demons.

Dipping into Rogue with a few feats (or just being a Ranger) allows for Trap Finding by anyone.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
RunnerAndJumper wrote:
I also think, that level/2 might be a better solution. The Star Wars D20-system did it that way and it worked very well.
That was not SWSE (except for damage), that was 4th Ed, I also removed that treadmill, to everyone's delight.

I liked how Star Wars d20 handled it. I never played Saga Edition, so they might have changed it with that edition. A lot of things in the Star Wars Revised edition were like precursors to 4e.


According to the Post-GenCon update stickied at the top of this forum, all characters have Unarmoured proficiency at least at Trained. And Monks start at Expert Unarmoured per their class entry (Graceful Expertise).


Unicore wrote:
How many folks have made level 7, 15 and 20 characters yet? How many skills are you trying to boost to legendary? I have struggled to have enough skill points to do more than keep up with a main caster skill.

I've made a bunch because making characters is my favourite part of the game. :) There are some characters where I'm fine with the options because they aren't really invested in skills beyond Athletics or Arcana or what have you. But they I have Rangers and Bards that have the deluge of skills at level 1 and feel starved as the levels increase. Some Rogues that are less skill-focused feel the opposite. "Uh, I guess I'll increase Medicine now?"

I like the overall system, but I think the numbers of skills (both initial and when increases are granted) need tweaking.


I think giving non-rogues a free skill increase and skill feat (that can only go towards a signature skill) at 3/7/15 would help the skill disparity quite a bit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, you can identify it in 1 action by taking it.


ErichAD wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Maybe I'm being dense, but how does "Choose a different gender" force binary only? A non-binary selection can also be different gender, I think.

In a linguistic sense, gender is used to denote a binary typically with a "neuter" for things that opt out of the distinction. I imagine there's still some portion of that usage still floating around in its modern usage causing confusion.

You're right though, it doesn't really imply a male/female gender choice, but it does imply you could greatly alter your appearance by going along different gender distinctions. For instance, if you were to use the Basque animate/inanimate gender distinction, you could use this ability to appear to be a statue I suppose. Heck, you could use Tuyuca genders to disguise yourself as entirely hypothetical. That disguise would probably be tricky.

In a linguistic sense, gender has nothing to do with people and their genders at all. Grammatical gender is only binary in some languages, and some (like English) eschew gender altogether.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of giving Signature skills from Int bonus. For each +1 you get to choose a Signature skill.


Skystarlit1 wrote:
vestris wrote:
Megistone wrote:

If you give an higher numerical bonus to proficiency, you go back to a system where to make a challenge for a Legendary character you have to set a DC that is impossibile for any other.

But I agree that, as things are now, high proficiencies feel a bit weak. What about a rule saying that you always get to roll twice (and take the better result) against lower-tier challenges/opponents?

You could still make challenges, where only one of the party has to succeed or where the legendary character can help (aid) the others to make give them the chance.

... Wait... They got rid of the ability to aid another in skill checks?

#1 Thing I despise most about PF2, the skill mechanics.
This just needs a 100% redo

From Page 142:

Quote:

Aiding Skill Checks

Sometimes the GM might allow you to use a skill to help
another character perform a task more effectively. In some
situations, you can simply perform one or more of a skill’s
uses to grant a circumstance bonus to another character’s
check for the task they’re attempting. Other times,
aiding an ally’s skill check requires more exact timing,
necessitating the Aid reaction (see page 307 in Chapter 9).

Also, one of the Human Ancestry Feats gives a bonus to Aid and Assist actions.


MrGWillickers wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
But they're all feats. They are all chosen in the same way and have the same form. The reason you struggle with different names is because they all function in the same way. It makes perfect sense to me. They do the same things but they have different categories (hence Class/Skill/General).

It makes perfect sense to me, just as a writer (and reader) it hurts my brain to see the repetition. I seriously can't look at the class advancement table because I just see the word feat and everything else gets drowned out.

It's not the end of the world, and I fully understand why they did it. I just don't like it.

You used the words "I" and "the" a lot there. Is that not too much repetition?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But they're all feats. They are all chosen in the same way and have the same form. The reason you struggle with different names is because they all function in the same way. It makes perfect sense to me. They do the same things but they have different categories (hence Class/Skill/General).


I'm thinking the intent is to mean that you are automatically seen if no part of your turn had you concealed or in cover, and the choice of wording was unfortunately vague.


Maybe I'm misremembering (or it has changed), but I thought you could start with Expert in skills. I found it a bit difficult to find clarification in the book. I'm not happy with the slow pace of skill increases for everyone not-a-rogue if this is the case. Ranger and Bard can start with tons of trained skills, but after that it's dreadfully slow. Being able to start with Expert in skills would help reduce the feeling of a skill dam with no regulator. Also, maybe Rogues have too many skill allocations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm super excited for Paladin. That said, I'd like to see Bard first.


Why no love for the Oracle? :(


I'd like to see a unified system like how SF does level-ups: 2 points to increase starting at 17. Just expand that to Creation as well and adjust point buy amount appropriately. I'd apply ancestry bonuses after.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I ran a Wrath of the Righteous game (sadly it didn't last long) where I gave everyone an 18/16/14/14/12/10 array then add race, etc. Also full HP at each level. Because if we're going Mythic, why go half-way? :)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Any random element of character creation or advancement is absolutely terrible. Sorry you rolled low, you get to suck forever now.


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
PF2 should move to a far more sensible yam-based economy.
NO! Beets or I'm never buying another Paizo product again!

Why would you fill your yam house with beets?


PF2 should move to a far more sensible yam-based economy.


As long as there is a standard for rounding, it should be fine.


Elves sound really exciting. Although I'll have to wait to see what Humans are like because I really have a hard time giving up the extra skill and feat with the flexible attribute boost from first edition.


I have never heard of this. Can you explain it further?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arikiel wrote:
Well I was generally in favor of 2nd edition... until I found out we won't be getting icecream. ;_;

It always has been and always will be the players' responsibility to supply the ice cream. :)

1 to 50 of 1,585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>