Felinus's page

It seem's that choosing a style should do more than determine how you gain Panache. Limiting the level of MAD is something it should also address.

It would be good to see the familiar become more robust with each teir of Lessons learned. I'd like to see patrons more fleshed out and as a result have that have some affect on your familiar too makes choice more meaningful.

Looking to up the Gyronna factor in a running of Kingmaker. I was looking at Blood for Blood and noted that the Black Sisters were driven from Brevoy over 40 years ago but later in the adventure it is noted that they are ashamed of their youth. Using recommended starting ages and the time that's passed makes them in their early 60's at least and well into the 'Old' category.

Anyone else notice this?

It's probably worth noting that some of the non-core classes that will be 'lost' in the new edition only really existed because of a failing/weakness of the 3.x/PF1 system. The fact that certain things can now be achieved a particular way is not necessarily a bad thing and is probably more an indicator of the strength of the new system.

Maybe there won't be the same set of options you had 10+ years into the old edition, but there seems to be a hell of a lot more achievable than the when CRB dropped back in August 2009.

16 is the new 12.

This might be the reason for the 16 Int requirement and Dedication mechanics, to make it more of a deliberate choice to go that direction instead of a "Well I can't see a better feat at this level, I'll take another class." I had concerns that this might be too restrictive, and I still do. But perhaps it needs to be this restrictive, or maybe more-so but in a different way.

My concern is that the As is are very generous so the 16 requirement feels like a minor hurdle, with some stats having more value than others, some dips may be more common than others.

Is getting a signature skill necessary at the dedication stage? Does it becoming a signature skill automatically grant training in it?

I really like this system for several reasons which I needn't go into 10 pages into the thread.

However, I'd like to give voice to my concerns. The dedication feats seem very powerful compared to the class feats they are using as a 'cost, so dipping is still going to be a thing, though how jarring that'll be is yet to be seen.

I think all Archetype feats should have the Archetype/Class as a descriptor. I don't know if multi-class needs to be a descriptor but if it does it should be used on all Class Archetype feats.

I have my reservations about the spell progression on Basic Wizard Spellcasting. I think the progression of spells should key of your Wizardiness not your base class progression. I.e. the more Wizard Archetype/Class feats you have. Maybe fold basic spells into the dedication feat but only grant 2 cantrips. I'd also settle for having the first casting action available at dedication, with the others unlocked through an expert and master spellcasting feat, uncapping casting new casting levels and giving an additional cantrip. I don't know if that'd be crippling their casting too much from the outset.

Further, by having the Archetype/Class as a descriptor,you don't need feats like Basic Arcana and Advanced Arcana. Instead, you could just have a flat statement for multiclassing to the effect of "You qualify for Class feats for any class you have taken the Dedication feat for. Your level in that class is equal to the number of feats you have of that class." Given the limited number of class feats gained, it has thdd same effect.

Here's hoping they improved their system in anticipation of the spike. I may postpone thinking about downloading it but I'd like to have something to read on the train.

For me the problem is that HP is an abstraction of a number of things, including stamina. The various things HP represents also have different rates of recovery.

I'd prefer there to be a flat post-combat heal, like level + Con mod, to represent catching your breath (perhaps like a 10 min rest) so long as you are consious. Another idea would be to half actual HP and grant a pool of Temp HP for the remaining half that refreshes at the end of combat.

An approach such as this still allows the deadly meaningful combat but reduces the need for out of combat heal spamming and helps break the thematic disconnect that activity can bring.

I'm on the fence with this. It works in it's own way. My problem is with Ancestry/Heritage feats at later levels. Namely, getting more of stuff that is available to the general population of that race/culture. I think that the baseline dwarfiness or elfiness should be locked in by adulthood, level 1 for most PC's.

I am all for more Ancestry/Heritage Feats down the line though. However I think these should be Feats that make you a paragon of the race or culture. Elven high magic and dwarven rune magic could be gated in such a way. I believe what already becomes available at higher levels in the playtest qualifies as this sort of thing.

I suppose it makes sense to take entry heritage feats at higher levels if you've been assimilated into a culture after some time too.

Right, but Mark's examples are exactly what you would use Control Weather to do. Kinda makes the spell pointless, no? (Or if not pointless, terribly unexciting.) :P

I think there is room for interpretation. I mean, you could create torrential rain or even a snowstorm (in a climate where it snows) to hamper an invading army, particularly if it is deforesting a wilderness area to build camp and siege equipment. In the case of snow, as long as it isn't a long term duration, it'll have negligible effect on the environment, melting within a day or two depending on the seasonal weather patterns naturally expressed at the time.

Snow in the desert though...wouldn't a sand storm be preferable both in ease to accomplish and general function?

Captain Morgan wrote:

RicoTheBold wrote:

The other key Druid build for me is obviously being wild shaped into an Allosaurus with an Allosaurus animal companion and a Compsognathus familiar. Just one big dinosaur family. (Cats are probably the lesser but thematically similar version).

That one certainly seems doable, albeit not all day unless we get some big wild shape extenders we haven't heard yet. But that wouldn't be crazy once we start getting into legendary feats.

With cats, it's clearly the crazy cat lady druid build. (Bonus points for summon nature's ally, for as many cats as possible.)

Crazy cat person thank you very much!

Felinus wrote:

On that, I think there is also a current in this thread that being Evil automatically requires a character to kick puppies. I think an evil Druid can have the utmost respect for animals and plants because they are free of the sin that corrupts nature but their attitudes to wards civilisation and humanoids is outright malicious, or callously indifferent for the more Neutral leaning. A an evil Wild Druid may be savage in their combat, even against animals, but they may also use all of the kill or at least honour it in some way (e.g. eating the heart to gain it's strength); leaning into the 'apex predator' concept.

Indeed, I very much prefer my "evil druids" to be invested in the destruction of civilization and putting humanity (etc.) in its place, than I am in the "kicking puppies" kind of evil.

Or just druids deeply committed to entropy, rot, and decay (which need not be evil druids, but evil druids fit in well here.)

Definitely would love a Fungal Druid that focus on decay as part of the natural cycle. I imagine they'd hate undead and magic that extends lifespans unnaturally (outside those granted by primal attunement ;D). Also, has cordyceps-esque fungal 'zombies'!

I'm not concerned by Goodberry given over to Leaf Druids. The only reason it was iconic was because it was pure cheese. I imagine a limited amount of it's function could be covered in the primal version of Prestidigitation or by more mundane means through Survival skill feats.

I'd prefer 'Circles' to 'Orders' as, to me, that is more thematically aligned. Think Stonehenge.

I think some of the concerns about the Anathemas are warranted, particularly where differing interpretation causes a Druid to fall. Comments here highlight that there is a significant gulf between RAW and RAI. I recommend a rewording to close off that gap and prevent character bullying. I think good progress was made with the Paladin on this front but because what is being added to the Druid is relatively new, more thought is needed.

Looking at how Animal and Wild is split, I was hoping there'd be a greater overlap where the Animal Lord archetype sat (taking on characteristics of the animal in a non-shifter sense as well as bonding with those beasts exclusively). Will something like that be achievable in core or maybe something down the line?

I like the role play suggestions, not too restricting and aligns with the various facets I identify in a druid. It'd be good to see a darker reflection included for more misanthropic druids to inspire GMs and illustrate how the Anathema can be bent to accommodate Neutral Evil.

On that, I think there is also a current in this thread that being Evil automatically requires a character to kick puppies. I think an evil Druid can have the utmost respect for animals and plants because they are free of the sin that corrupts nature but their attitudes to wards civilisation and humanoids is outright malicious, or callously indifferent for the more Neutral leaning. A an evil Wild Druid may be savage in their combat, even against animals, but they may also use all of the kill or at least honour it in some way (e.g. eating the heart to gain it's strength); leaning into the 'apex predator' concept.

I agree that there is certainly a lot more hanging on Dex than there is strength. One thing to note with regards to what each attribute gives is noting that AC parity for the 2 stats is not on equal footing. For heavy armour users it also comes with increased material cost as well as sacrificing mobility. I quite like the idea of having it reduce ACP as a result, though I'd have the speed penalties negated by sufficiently high strength as well.

One thing this thread has me reflecting on is what each adds to the melee combat equation. There are main areas, 'to hit' and 'to damage'.

Both Str and Dex contribute to the 'to hit' part in terms of accuracy and overcoming defences (armour penetration). Fair enough.

Rationalising Dex 'to damage' is harder particularly where precision based damage is supplied by other means (e.g. sneak attack). To me, if you are hitting areas where precision makes a difference to damage, then you may as well be scoring a critical hit.

With that in mind, perhaps 'to damage' should be the sole jurisdiction of Str. Confirming critical hits should be conveyed using Dex based attack, representing the hand eye coordination to hit critical target areas, giving more damage through increased critical chance.

For those interested in the discussion about essence

Mark Seifter wrote:

Felinus wrote:

Am I wrong in guessing that spells of a single essence may exist on multiple lists, where relevant, to limit refluffing a duplication?

You are not wrong. Spells with two adjacent essences (they rarely have two opposing essences) may even be on all three lists that border either essence, depending on how they work.

Will these essences limit the possibilities of adding more spell lists down the line when more classes are created/updated? I can see the witch possibly using the occult list, but having them use the same list as bards is a bit odd. Psychic maybe the occult list, but a dedicated psychic list makes more sense to me.

And I'm very curious how former 6 and 4 level casters are going to be dealt with now that all of the core classes are all or nothing for spell-casting. Magi with full 10 level casting? Inquisitors with only powers instead of normal spell slots? Summoners really need a list of their own or maybe it'd be something like all conjuration, abjuration and transmutation spells from the Arcane and Occult spell lists but nothing else.

The combination of the four essence types gives six potential lists. There is another thread that discusses and hypothesises this if you're interested in that side of things.

I agree that the Witch will probably be a prepared occult caster. I imagine the distinction will arise from class powers and patrons adding non-occult spells to the Witches spellbook/familiar much as it does now.

Some of those other casters you mentioned could probably be partially achieved using core classes and the right archetype and class/skill feats. Inquisitor as a stealthy, lored-up Paladin for instance. Magus would be harder, though a wizard would just need to dump a lot of feats into combat boosts. Down the line, I imagine magus would go the route of Paladin in 2e using class feats and spell points to give powers.

I'd love to see the Summoner go the way of Sorcerer, with a different spell list determined by what type of Eidolon it has (Primal-Beast, Arcane-Construct, Divine-Outsider, Occult-Aberrant).

It's certainly not the most common use of the word perform, but there's a reason the verb often used to indicate someone is doing something in a ritualistic fashion is "performing" a ritual.

I imagine most bards will play it pretty straight with the use of Performance, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Now that example was for polymath muse, which has some Performance-related options. If you were to go pure Lore muse, the sole option you'd necessarily possess that uses the Performance skill at all would be counter performance, which works even if it's just you and the bad guys and you're using as a mantra for yourself. That's equal or fewer than the number of abilities that the bard had built in that used the Perform skill in PF1.

I definitely intend to use the recitation of a mantra to ward off evil as Counter Performance. This applies to certain visual 'counters' as well. From personal experience, gestures used in Italian culture to ward off evil and bad luck are particularly resonant with the Occult spell-list. Throwing salt, flipping the horns, etc.

Really loving the direction Bard is going Mark.

Well this thread went some places. I guess I shouldn't be surprised the bard thread went into song, huh?

Mark's parody and reference to "inter-species romance fan fiction" have made this the best blog thread ever.

Brock Landers wrote:

The Occult thing is cool, but I secretly (double-secret naughty) wanted them to be Primal, take Bards back to their "Druidical tutelage" roots!

If we go back to their roots, would Bards end up with primal magic, or would druids end up with occult magic?

I imagine a future Muse could reflect inspirationfrom natural splendor or even fey and the first world, dipping into Primal magic and replicating the odd Druid/Ranger class feature/feat!

Felinus wrote:

Side note: I wonder if the hang ups with the term Occult for the spell list is just a result of Christian influence on western appreciation of magic (all of which is technically 'occult' in their minds).

Weirdly enough, for me the term "occult" is jarring for literary reasons. I associate the term with certain genres of fantasy, more commonly called "Urban Fantasy" that is low magic and where magic usually revolves around particular focii. If any of the core classes had to pick up that feel, bards with their magical melodies are it, but I'll be honest and admit the term has always felt a little inappropriate to me in this high fantasy game.

Admittedly, Occult Adventures did a great job of maintaining the feel of low magic, focus dependent casting even inside the high fantasy, but still. And now I wonder if the Occultist is going to be able to access Occult magic, or if they'll more closely resemble alchemists as we discussed upthread.

Yeah, the first use of the Occult list we saw was with the Sorcerers Aberant bloodline, so when I saw it applied to Bard as the Primary user of the list I was taken aback. It didn't take long for the realisation that that list is the perfect home for Hideous Laughter. Also Musica Universalis (Harmony of the Spheres) has a certain Old Gods vibe to it. Also of all the class hunting out weird bits of Lore for their spells, it's Bards.

So much to like...and then there's Spontaneous Casting.

This wasn't addressed in the pages of comments I managed to get through but it seems that not only do the have a finite liat of spells known, but they have to spend some of that limited repertoire knowing spells as heightened versions. This seems horribly limiting and the value spontaneous casting adds is variable depending on the scaling baked into the spell.

This now begs the question: do Wizards have to have scibe those spells into their spellbook at the heigher level as well before they can be prepared in the apprioriate spell slot?

It'd be good to have a "Thrill of the Hunt" ability baked in early on (sat level3) allowing you to reassign your target as a free action if you land the killing blow on your existing target.

I feel like one of the things about Snares costing money is that potentially these things could win a fight before it's done thereby eliminating any expenses needed to fight off attrition (e.g. healing) so they probably should not be "free" though I haven't seen enough items to know what a good cost is.

Yeah, the cost to win fights is either as an investment (snares, etc.) or paying off the incurred debt (healing potions).

It makes me wonder why you even need to take a Deity and it's Anathema. It's not like picking one opens up Domain Feats for you. Can you just be a Champion of Virtue?

They really need to pick the core identity for the Paladin and only build to that. You need to separate the deity worship and focus on virtuousness for the Paladin or keep it but drop alignment/code of conduct and make it a souped-up Warpreist.

But if Paizo are building the former, please make the core class able to absorb the other corners at a later date using the base class.

One thing that I've noted arround the contention of Paladin alignment seems to be that it's restriction to Lawful Good draws more scrutiny on those characters than any other class had they chosen that same alignment. And this comes down to DM adjudication (read: their bias).

I think if you were actually following the Paladin's code as written in Mark Seifter's blog, then it wouldn't matter what you wrote in the "Alignment" blank on your character sheet, you'd be Lawful Good, anyway, no matter what you called yourself.

I think this is a good point to be made. One thing that removing the alignment restriction from the class but leaving the LG aligned Code would achieve is permitting the character to be however they like in much of their behaviour but when it comes down to them doing their job (i.e. applying their class abilities) in given situations those interactions would be measured against the code.

Reflecting on this with regard to the Paladin's class features, there is a heavy focus on a single pillar of play: Combat. Given the 'Moral Quandary - Paladin Falls' stigma, giving them some tools in the Social pillar would be a wlecome addition to the tool set. Maybe that can be achieved by skill feats, I don't know. Previously some of the best non-violent options were high-level spells, which were never going to be available or effective given MAD. Curious to see how this is addressed.

I feel like a second pass at the Warpriest would make it a reasonable "divine champion" workable for any alignment. Since mostly people were annoyed at the WP was not full BAB (no longer an issue), inherited a lot of the fighter's problems (no longer an issue), and lacked the Paladin's tremendous defenses (which are somewhat muted in PF2 seemingly.)

Like in PF1 the Paladin was an incredibly strong mechanical chassis, and the WP really wasn't. We can fix that with new versions of these classes.

I mean, I don't want the Paladin to be a *divine* champion, I want it to be a champion of goodness and law. Let's make another class for divine champions, and have it be a good class.

I agree, though for my money the Cleric was always the 'divine champion' of yore. I appreciate that the focus on spell-casting sort of dulls the champion side of things for some people. Until there is that Warpriest class in 2e, people will once again have to multiclass to Fighter to achieve some approximation (noting here that the Warpriest was a Fighter/Cleric hybrid class). Certainly not as satisfying as a comprehensive class.

I've offered a couple of takes on Paladins in the past. With setting lore featuring the Runelords and ties to sin magic, a logical direction for Paladins and their evil counterparts in 2E would be to align with the seven Virtues and Sins respectively. Shed some of the D&D baggage and make it PF interpretation.

1 name that overarches the four Classes would be good (or going with Paladin for the Good ones and Antipaladin for the Evil ones...but a lot of people wouldn't like that). The issue is that if Paladin is 'demoted' to the name of one of the four versions (the LG one), I suspect people will be upset about that as well.

If it is a base class that services each of the 4 alignment extremes I'd go with Exemplar. With Paladin, Liberator, Tyrant and Reaver for the four alignment extremes.

I'd rather Anti-Paladin not be used. As I noted elsewhere in the post, the origins of the class relate to dedication, in this case it seems we're talking about dedication to the alignment extremes (and not specific deities, who are more patrons for Paladin orders/sects). I recommended Reaver because the CE version tends to represent slaughter and destruction. Blaggard/Black Guard has some legacy value but might also warrant use as a (prestige) archetype.

With something like the exemplar you'd have your base class chassis for things like armour/skill/save progression and whatever common features you'd warrant (e.g. +cha to saves reaction). That'd then allow a suite of class feats to grant those aligned abilities. You'd have entry level, with feats aligned to only one axis. This is your Lay on Hands (Good) vs Corrupting Touch (Evil). More advanced feats would specialise the basic abilities toward your extreme or grant novel abilities (like unique auras for each extreme).

One of the big things I see driving the more heated discussions about classes is their identity. Monks and Paladins in particular. I think Paladin alignment needs to considered in regards to the identity of that class.

IRL Paladins better align with the Cavalier, warriors dedicated to a cause. Yes that cause may be holy but the distinction is the dedication. I don't think they need to be dedicated to a deity, nor that they be Lawful Good (though a general lawful bent would need to be acknowledged). The later is sufficiently covered with the Code of Conduct and Anathema.

Paladin is a class I carry a torch for but I'd be equally happy with it being served with the Cavalier and (prestige) Archetype feats.

If the identity they want to push is the holy warrior, I agree with others that you're better off going with a name change.

Magical healing, to the point where needing to be a 'good healer' is a thing, is a crutch. Generally required to make up for poor playing or poor DMing.

Having more options for battlefield control would be far more interesting than needing to worry about which cure wounds wand to spend your resonance on.

Yes and No. A lot of those archetypes were really redundant, but not all of them. For example, the Gun Wizard/Magus could fire spells from the gun and the Rogue one had some gimmicks with concealing small arms and sneak attacks. So there were some that actually manage to combine their class abilities with the gun in unique ways! This could still be done by printing class-specific archetype feats down the line, with just the Dedication giving the gun and needing the other ones to get the combos.

Anyways, hope we don't lose that design space by making everything too broad.

That redundancy is definately noted as is attempting to shoehorn in questionable features just to round it out enough to warrant creating an archetype. There are bunch that really feel padded out. This also played into the class-dipping culture.

From what the devs had said, they haven't closed that design space off just yet. This seems like an avenue they'd be excited to pursue. I certainly hope they allow for the more specific interactions between class features and archetypes in the future.

For my 2-cents of things i'd like to see:
Harrower
Pathfinder Society themed
Scout / Explorer
Assassin
Hedge mage (limited access to divine magic for arcane lists users)
Noble
Luckbender (for halflings and catfolk)

I like the way that Shadowrun did contacts. You have to barter favours with them (using your charisma), trying to get the better deal. This covers the level of assistance they are willing to provide and the level of returned favour you have to provide in return. They are stated for the level of your relationship with them and their level of influence.

Limiting the number and relationships by an means would not help the system. Those that don't care for it (or role playing in general) would not use it and not be affected by it. Those that want to use it may feel unnecessarily limited. In the way pathfinder runs, the Contact system should be a function of how you play the game with reference to the three pillars.

If you're feat gating Ki powers, shouldn't the speed enhancement also be feat based as that is thematically a Ki derived enhancement. You could then scale it of the size of your Ki pool which could scale comparatively with level based progression.

One of my favourite Monk tropes is the Mountain style doesn't really needing the speed as a Core feature. Unmovable, you try and budge one and get thrown on your backside. . I imagine that a lot of Str monks wouldn't need it so long as they have mobility (quality over quantity in other words).

Here's some more attached musings of mine (obviously, as I said nothing is directly in the book, but I like speculating about these intriguing essences and associated ideas ever since James and the others first mentioned the idea): Spiritual and vital essence are intrinsically linked to alignment. A creature completely without spirit has no capacity to change its alignment from the one ingrained by its basic instincts (which it gets from vital essence). Vital essence carries instincts that are capable of nudging or even catastrophically shifting a creature’s alignment; for instance, even a good creature almost always becomes evil when it becomes undead as its life is replaced by this twisted unlife antithetical to negative energy's role (these "instinctual cravings" for what is missing lead to things like ghoul hunger and vampire blood thirst, perhaps in a sense trying to get normal vital essence back inside). Creatures with neither spiritual nor vital essence (like many constructs, even some smart constructs like a mechanistic non-self-aware AI robot) are always neutral, as they have no instincts to push them to an alignment, nor the ability to change their alignment, but inevitables for instance would have spiritual essence, and androids have vital too.

This is something I've thought about, particularly in relation to necromancy, negative energy use and alignment.

I'd have thought Mental and Vital would be the two essences that inform alignment. As you said, the Vital is those core instincts and probably where sin and sin magic resonates strongest. The Mental essence is what takes sentient beings above the beasts and allows conscious thought and self-determination, those attributes being what permits the changing of alignments. Spiritual essence would certainly be affected by alignment, like magnetic pull for the soul's journey in the afterlife. Spiritual essence is the substrate on which alignment is coded.

This is particularly relevant when it comes to mindless undead, which are typically 'programmed' by their creator and devoid of instinct, according to the mechanics of the game at least. To me, they have more in common with constructs than intelligent undead. The justification for their alignment has been more on the process that creates them than the entity itself and that doesn't make sense to me.

Speaking on the Vital 'instincts', in the examples you gave, the lore at some point has noted that those types of undead could spontaneously generate if the person was particularly depraved in life. I guess their vices, left unfettered, invite the undead state instead of being conferred by it. Undeath would certainly amplify the expression of those vices. It be interesting to only being able to create certain types of undead where predispositions of sin are already prevalent, not including 'create spawn' where a biological or supernatural (curse) agent informs the mechanics.

The planar expressions of alignment, Angels, Devils, Demons, etc. would be all Material and Spiritual. Those alignments given form and function. I don't think there'd be much disputing that those entities don't have self-determination in the grander sense. Barring the odd exception, they are hard-coded by their alignment.

Mixed feelings.

Leaning too heavily on the unarmed combat and martial arts as the Class's core identity instead of the mystical warrior (ki enhanced) side. If you are going to focus on that aspect of the class, start with the brawler and use a ki granting archetype to make the Monk.

Making Monastic Weaponry a feat feels like a tax to a range of thematic styles and archetypes.

I like the martial arts Style feats and that they grant new attack option. I'd like to see some weapons work with styles too, such as Mantis style for dual wielding and monks with a Red Mantis bent. I imagine there may be a style for weapons too, maybe some focused on a particular weapon. I'm hoping other classes can pick them up too.

I like the idea of the Ki feats and powers. The implication that you have a limited pool of spell points but it expands the more feats you take is nice take. I wonder if there will be any passive benefits for having Ki points in your pool? I'd like to see some variety in the Ki powers tying in to styles and key attributes. Like going strength you can generate Temp HP with attacks or you get some DR to make up for the AC gap between you and a Dex Monk.

Explain how a curse or exotic heritage is applied internally.

Whether it is internal or external is irrelevant. The thing that people seem to be getting caught up on is: "Does the totem have AGENCY?". I think the point Milo v3 is making is that totems don't have agency, and thus cannot revoke totem powers.

In breaching the anathema of the chosen totem, it is more that the barbarian loses focus or has a crisis of confidence in their chosen path. That is why they only lose totem benefits. Once they take a moment to sort out their thoughts regarding their totem, they regain those powers.

More seriously though, it doesn't have to be a complex like that. Pride is only one angle on it, I think and it could represent ambition or an honest desire to actually rise up above the character's ability or curiosity about how far the character has come. When the text comes down we might see enough flexibility that they can ignore challenges that they've already done and proven and/or turn a specific challenge to a different one.

I completely agree. That is just the rational I applied to that particular pairing of ability and anathema, more for humour than a concrete reasoning. I'm sure there will be a clause of "you can discuss an alternative with your DM", however I think it'd be good if they had a range of suggested anathema for each totem and you can pick one or use those to inform making your own. Beast Totem should definitely reflect the totem your are trying to emulate.

"I bet you can't snap the neck of that horse!" doesn't necessarily have to be answered by actually trying that specific challenge and maybe you can actually role-play out of it.

"Why would I want to do that? Seems like a waste. Looks like a good horse! Maybe I should toss you up on that roof instead, how does that sound?"

"Um.. never mind."

"That's what I thought. Don't be cruel to animals, that is not what muscles are for!"

"I bet you can't snap the neck of that horse!"

"Better still, I could snap yours. The horse is actually useful..." I agree that you can respond with words and role play your way out of it (maybe require an Intimidation check?) instead of requiring a physical altercation in every instance.

I'm wondering now more than ever whether the class feats such as those presented for the fighter are [Fighter] feats or are they [Shield]/[<Weapon Class>] feats, tied to said proficiency, that fighters can use their class feats on. I'd certainly like to be able to take martial oriented feats on a Paladin. Otherwise I imagine there will be duplication between classes to achieve similar effects, albeit with slightly different flavour text.

Arachnofiend wrote:

A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.

This. On the other hand, there is one anathema in the book that a very particular character can opt into that's legitimately also a (quite restrictive) mechanical restriction, and we gave that one a significant mechanical benefit. I'm very interested to see further playtest of it, actually, though so far the one playtest character that chose that very specific option was awesome.

Thanks for the response, and I do feel like Paizo is making an effort to lift the burden on RPing Paladins and Clerics. Having played them in the past, RP restrictions can feel mechanical, albeit not in number-crunching terms.

Also for clarity, where do anathema sit in order of preference against a Paladin's code. Does the 'not striking first' anathema trump 'inaction causing harm to an innocent'?

I do understand the Cha bonus. Goblins really put themselves out there, no holds barred, no inhibitions. They’re the ultimate extroverts, and they make natural Sorcerers.

Charisma is not about being universally liked or attractive, it’s how well you can exert your force of personality on the people and the world around you.

They are also horrid little cowards. Whiny, conniving wretches. Not exactly endearing. I can see an argument for no Charisma penalty, but the bonus is a bit of an ask.

Hobgoblins I could see. I played a hobgoblin bouncer at the Golden Goblin in the Second Darkness AP. No issues integrating with the party.

PF Goblins on the other hand...the elements that make them unique and fun are also the ones that make them unsuitable for play. If you needed a new core race that highlighted the improvements the Ancestry approach brings to races, Tieflings would have been much better. Particularly given how prominently Cheliax has featured in the Adventure Paths to date.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Monk Wishes:

No Lawful alignment, but they must follow a Path to Enlightenment.

Why? What's wrong with Body Refiners without concern for spirituality as an option?

It's more so they can skip leg day.

There is a LOT of discussion about Paladins, Alignment and how the two should be handled in PF2. I'd like to throw out a wish list item of my own that may be polarising.

No Monks in the Core Rule Book.

My rational is this, the class is heavily reliant on the ki resource, steeped in Asian mythology and kung-fu movies. Barring Monks, the core material is euro-centrist (I'm including the middle east in there, because Crusades).

Rather than release it in the core books, hold off and release it in a Tian Xia supplement that includes the Ninja, Samurai, a martial arts subsystem and ki power-source that feels unique.

If the monk is to be included from the start, make it a generic Pugilist class with eastern variants as archetypes with feat trees for variety and flavour.

This is inspired by a few lacklustre entries in this years voting list. Not using templates, incomplete entries, pointless skill competence bonuses.

Magic Item
This item is magical. It's magicalness gives you a +5 competence bonus on Use Magic Device Checks.

From my experience as both a player and GM in Adventure Paths, it comes down to whether you have a party or a group of individuals. Some level of awareness of how one persons actions affect the rest of the group is the tipping point.

I expected goblins to be a bit squeakier, and faster spoken. The iconics are really good!