Vampire Seducer

Elizabeth Zeigler's page

13 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Elizabeth Zeigler wrote:

So....a maximum of three spell slots per spell level? With no bonus spell slots? Going to reserve judgement for the playtest, but this deflated almost all of my excitement for 2e pretty much instantaneously.

Keep in mind they jacked up cantrips and osirons which level with you. These will act like the casters xbow. You have an ability pool called spell points (which arent spells, which I know is confusing) its more stuff to do. Finally, DCs level with you also so your 3 slots per level will stay useful all through the game.

As nice as that is, I've always loved having a wide array of utility spells at my disposal. By limiting spell slots, you are directly cutting down that array to a pittance of what it once was. Yeah, cantrips mean more...but I'd rather have more slots. More slots gives you more room for quirky, sub-optimal-yet-fun spells without the feeling that you are hamstringing yourself.

With only three slots, the opportunity cost of taking a fun spell over an optimal one is much greater.

I'm going to withhold judgement until playtest, but it still doesn't change that this puts a MASSIVELY sour taste in my mouth about 2e. I sincerely hope that this plays well, as it certainly sounds absolutely horrible to me with the information given to us.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

So....a maximum of three spell slots per spell level? With no bonus spell slots? Going to reserve judgement for the playtest, but this deflated almost all of my excitement for 2e pretty much instantaneously.

12 people marked this as a favorite.

My only problem with goblin PCs being in Core is because there are *dozens* of better, more played races available that in my opinion deserve to be in Core FAR more than the little green CE Kinder.

Seriously...the majority of the Advance Race Guide would be a better Core choice than Goblins. And Charisma? Really?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand why Katanas are exotic - and they should be considered an exotic weapon even for East Asia inspired campaigns.

Katanas require very careful handling. While it is a myth that Katanas are sharper than European counterparts, they are better at holding an edge; a counterpoint to this is improper usage of a katana can cause severe damage to said edge and the blade would deteriorate rapidly.

Likewise, katana required very specific techniques that are pretty much unique to the weapon...because katanas themselves are not durable weapons. They don't have a whole lot of flexibility, as such if you use them like other swords you risk severe damage to the weapon.

Most other blades are more durable. Yes, with improper technique you can really put the hurt on a longsword, but a katana really is on a different level. Without precise care and technique, it will deteriorate rapidly.

I can't really defend most other East Asia weaponry's exotic status, but even in an Tian Xia campaign a Katana would be pretty exotic. I'd wager a sword such as a Jian or a Dao would be more common.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm fine with Multiclassing as is. Well, as long as some of the Unchained improvements (such as Fractional bonuses) are utilized. I do wish there were more feats that allowed you to use X class levels as Y class Spellcaster levels, but aside from that I don't really have too many complaints.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The day Pathfinder limits Multiclassing mechanics is the day I sell my PF books and switch to 5e. Pathfinder IS character customization, even if it encourages Min/Maxing. Kill this aspect of Pathfinder and you might as well play 5e. Certainly is easier to find a group, that much is certain.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't really play the Core 11+Alchemist, but my favorite Archetype of that group would be the Gray Paladin.

Barring those, I'd be rather upset if PF2 doesn't have a version of Traceless Operative Inquisitor and Magical Child Vigilante, as those are my favorite Archetypes in general.

In fact, I'd be very happy if you slapped a 2E sticker on Ultimate Intrigue as a whole and call it a day. Easily my favorite book - and first PF book I've bought.

Inquisitor w/ Traceless Operative Archetype
Vigilante w/ Magical Child Archetype
Summoner - not the USummoner hack job.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Moreland wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
Micro transactionalize certs
I don't know if the folks at EA would recommend that.

Just in: Pathfinder 2e Loot Boxes confirmed.

(Definitely a joke, but don't get any funny ideas, Paizo)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Alynthar42 wrote:
So. To return to my earlier remarks about proficiency, with far greater detail. I have two primary objections to this change. One, to the mechanic itself. This is a significant degree of customization which Paizo intends to remove. No more can I put a couple ranks into Linguistics to learn a handful of languages to demonstrate my character's background. No longer am I allowed to put a handful of points into Profession (Baking) to demonstrate that my paladin was a cook before he was called to service. No, now it's all or nothing- either you're exactly as good at picking pockets as the master thief who's been doing it all his life, or you can't do it at all.
Seriously—where are you getting all these restrictions from? Is it just because we used the word "proficiency?"

I think because "Proficiency" in relation to skills is so closely associated with DnD 5e these days, its going to be a massive uphill battle to get people to get on board with it. From what I can gather, the 5e Proficiency is kinda reviled by a lot of people, so seeing it pop up so frequently implies the worst. Definitely not the best choice of words, especially when the playerbase is feeling so many conflicting emotions.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Samy wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Samy wrote:
how many people do play 1e *will* affect me when I'm looking for group.
The internet exists. You'll be fine.
Don't patronize me. The situation on the Internet isn't good enough now, and it's only going to get worse.

Yeah, I do wish people would stop trying to shut down those for whom this announcement is basically "switch systems or stop playing". It might not be the case for everyone, but looking for players on the internet is not an option for me and neither is sticking with 1E, as it's a group decision.

Also, (in regard to the 'my books are invalidated' or similar) a big part of why I enjoy Pathfinder is the ongoing support. I love getting new hardcovers, new adventures and new player companions full of options - irrespective of their utility. It's not entirely rational, but I'm more excited to run my upcoming Carrion Crown game because I just received the first installment of War for the Crown.

That ongoing support (for 1E) is going to cease and I think people disappointed about that should be allowed to say they're disappointed. Maybe it's not technically "invalidated" or "redundant" or whatever, but who cares? It's an expression of sentiment not a legal claim.

(FWIW, I don't think Paizo owe me continued support - so I don't agree with those who express this feeling as 'betrayal' or some kind of attack from paizo. It's nonetheless sad though - we don't play PF very much and I had hoped to run a vigilante one day. I suspect that day has been pushed back quite some way now and is going to depend on it coming out in PF2 at a convenient time for my group's switching campaigns).

I agree fully. Online Pathfinder isn't an option for me and playing the game is solely dependent on my group - who have been chomping at the bit to get a 2e of Pathfinder...primarily because they don't like complexity in their tabletops and have been trying to switch to 5e.

Unfortunately, I am the polar opposite of my group and love the complexity of Pathfinder. Worse off, Vigilante is possibly my favorite class (specifically the Magical Child archetype, as while it may be suboptimal, it is a lot of fun and flavorful) is unlikely to be re-released for YEARS after 2e releases. Goodness knows if Magical Child will even return.
While I really hope I like 2e (though from what I've seen from the podcast/blog posts, I've been growing increasingly doubtful), even if it is the best system ever printed I'll be waiting nearly a decade before I can actually play the class that I want to...and even then its a coin flip if I'll be able to ever play an official release of my favorite Archetype again.
Paizo hadn't really been instilling a lot of confidence about 2e, as the Blog Posts, F&Q, and Announcement has been worded in such ways that there is a LOT up for interpretation.

Just a note for any developers who may accidentally skim over this post, while there isn't enough information about 2e available for us at the moment, I would highly recommend against using Skill Proficiency as a term. Regardless of how it is implemented, it conjures the image of DnD 5e in the minds of the masses. A different term might be better in order to help disassociate 2e from DnD 5e, which might make it easier to stomach.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Olorin_Plane_Walker wrote:

Its really ironic that the main reason PF exists was for old fans to keep playing what they loved (playing 3.5 instead of migrating to 4e) and now PF sits with the EXACT same issue... It was bound to happen at some point I guess, I revision would probably even be very good, as long as it stays true to its roots. But still, that's really ironic.


How long till another company brings out a "new" game that plays awfully similar to Pathfinder?

All joking aside, I completely agree with everyone's complaints about having to "re-buy" content they already bought. I guess there's no way around it & Paizo naturally has to turn a profit, they can't just give stuff away for free, but damn...

You may be joking, but I've already encountered some people who are already gearing up to do just that; Its a little early for such drastic actions in my opinion, but depending on what changes in 2e...well...there could be half a dozen Pathfinder 1.5's popping up.

All I'm hoping is that I don't have to wait ten years to play a Magical Child Vigilante, Traceless Operative Inquisitor, or Gray Paladin using an official 2e release. If we even get those three Archetypes (and class, in regard to Vigilante, for that matter) in 2e.

And Dhampir, though I'm less worried about Dhampir from making an appearance.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Of all the things about 2e, this statement has me the most nervous:

"As the new edition of Pathfinder develops, most of your favorite classes, archetypes, feats, spells, and magic items will find a home somewhere in the game."

One of my favorite draws to Pathfinder IS the huge variety of classes and archetypes. Vigilante is one of my favorite classes, specifically a certain archetype of Vigilante; with the uncertain nature of what classes will be rolled out and when in 2e, I could hypothetically be waiting nearly ten years to play that class...if at all. We are flipping a coin to see what classes get an official 2e release, flipping another coin to see what archetypes get an official release, and yet flipping a third for what point of the edition's life cycle that it will be released.

That's a whole lot of coin flips just to reach the status-quo. Last thing I want to do is shell out the big bucks investing in an edition that may or may not even have the classes and archetypes I play.