![]()
![]()
![]() I think the lore adequately justifies the lack of access to the Divine tradition. I don't necessarily believe the patron even needs to have access to those abilities themselves, ignoring the fact that the deities are cosmic level beings. The way I see it, instead of providing the power from themselves, they are connecting their Witch to a source of power and perhaps that source of power is more an indication of how the patron expects the Witch to act on their behalf. ![]()
![]() 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? ![]()
![]() You'll have to forgive me, I've typed this up on public transport. Not as thorough or formatted as I’d like. Disclosure:
So looking at the monk their are a number of things that stand out. One thing that was apparent even before the playtest was released was that, for me, many of the problems I'd have with the class would be derived from the class’ identity. What defines the Monk in my eyes is the Ki resource. Yes they punch stuff well but that is a function of their Ki, channelled into their fists for greater damage, into their bodies for faster strikes and improved mobility (or immobility in the case of mountain style). Last night a thought struck me and from there branched out into a novel approach to the class that permits a broader range of archetypes going forward. But that comes later. To preface, there are two things that bother me about the current class design. The first is general, class locking options that could be applicable to a number of class builds. This covers things like basic combat feats from PF1 to metamagic feats being included in every caster instead of just including a general list and all classes have a single feat they can take multiple times. With regards to Monk, this refers to Martial Arts. From what we’ve seen and what the Devs have said, this is perfectly suited to an archetype. You're already spending class feats on them, so at least open it up to other classes. I would however make Monks a special case, perhaps allowing them to ignore the typical entry requirements, if necessary, and minimum progression requirements for selecting another archetype. The other thing is the class identity, many of the features baked into the class progression build a particular kind of Monk. In PF1, some of these features were swapped out by archetypes which is now no longer possible with the archetype and multi-classing rules Pazio is presenting. Also, the core identity presented for the class is the unarmed master. I'm not arguing that this shouldn’t be part of their schtick, just that it’s only one aspect and by cleaning to it, you limit a number of character concepts. Other martial, especially the Fighter, should be able to seriously progress in unarmed combat. As I mentioned at the start, what makes the Monk stand out as an unarmed combatant is the Ki empowerment. So in addition to making Martial Artist an archetype, opening up options for other classes and creating an opening for more interesting Monk abilities, what is there? Along with class feats like Power Attack, Monk feats that can be ascribed to mundane physical prowess (Extraordinary abilities of yore) be made general combat feats. Add a level one class feat for the relevant classes that allows them to take a combat feat they meet the prerequisites for, up to their current level. Anything that is a pressure attack (Stunning Strike, Quivering Palm) remain as it can be argued that you use Ki in some form to facilitate these attacks. Shunting out these feats opens up more interesting options permitting broader Monastic traditions. Here you could facilitate a kinetisist, ninja, sohei, etc. Also, make monk weapons a feature, and opting to use it be a choice. An alternative to specific character themes is streams for the areas of Monk self-improvement. Mobility (speed, wall running), Enhanced fists (counts as metal, block as if hands were shields of said metal) Endurance (soaks damage instead of avoiding using temp up mechanic) , Body control (wholeness of body, Ki breathe) to complete out-there woo nonsense (Ki blasts, etherealness). Either approach can be rigid, open or synergistic as has been applied to different classes thus far. There are a good number of Monk feats that satisfy this already and they're pretty good. So this bolt of inspiration I had? I was wondering about what the interaction between Ki and Resonance might be. Alchemists can boost their Resonance pool so it isn’t some immutable force. Then came the idea, Monks master their resonance whereby it becomes Ki. Thematically, they use Ki to enhance themselves just like Resonance is used to enhance characters generally through the bonding of magic items. I can see justification in sticking with Charisma as much as swapping to Wisdom; force of personality to master internal forces versus mental discipline to do the same. So, like Alchemists get formulas for alchemical items, Monks could get a small list of Meditations (or any appropriate term) that mirror certain magic items, that is a list of magic items thematically appropriate for the class: Handwraps, Bracers of armour, etc. During a rest period, the Monk can meditate on a scripture, focusing Ki into particular effects. The number of active Meditations is limited but increases as they level. Meditations themselves would also scale up automatically at the same points magic items would. I have been musing on potency and runes a little. I have no issues with potency scaling but I don’t think runes should automatically be granted so as to make the actual item Meditations reflect feel more valuable and encourage some diversification. That said, class feats could make certain runes available, like spending a point to ignite your Ki and grant the flaming rune. Stuff like that. ![]()
![]() For things like combat training against a particular foe or skill with a bunch of weapons the rationale is easy: you never received the associated training. The rationale for you receiving it at later levels on the other hand...is less so. Unless you also spent downtime like Milo suggests, returning to you people to become more Ancestry-y. ![]()
![]() Heritage feats should only represent an expression of Biology. I don't think it has been applied consistently to feats across Ancestries. It's disappointing that the options are a mix of what was once race features and race traits. What should be a common phenotypical expression for a given race is now made a niche. I'd appreciate more abilities from Ancestry to be front loaded. Subsequent Ancestry feats should be about becoming a paragon of something your race already does, a novel expression of what your race already does that isn't crusical at first level (e.g. Elven longevity should be a feat they take instead of starting having lived a life time) or assimilating into the culture of another race or region. As ancestry does absorb some of what used to be traits, I imagine generic NPC's won't possess any of the features represented by Ancestry feats. I think additional heritage feats for voluntary flaws is better than no trade off. ![]()
![]() Too far down this path and monsters just get gimmicky. That way lies 4e. I think for humanoid races, level of identity with regard to ancestry and heritage could be expressed to better differentiate. The other thing is having their tactics and fighting styles better represented. Pact tactics, prey on the weak, anti-caster, racial prejudice, etc. ![]()
![]() I like the idea of STR to Hardness for shield based DR. Also for absorbing the blow with regards to dent accrual. I'd rather dents reduce a shields Hardness by one, becoming broken at 0 Hardness and Destroyed the following blow. Although this is all based on the scraps of information we have to work with. I'm sure it'll look completely different when the playtest drops and make it's own kind of sense. ![]()
![]() If it was to be a whole class package, it'd need to do something not done by other classes, or do something they do but in a unique way. One thing I've noted in another thread is that as the Alchemist pushes the boundaries on Resonance, perhaps the Magus could too, with regards to weapons and armour (maybe free investment in one item based on your order/circle/college/school). Another unique thing they may do is increase the maximum number of potency/runes permitted on a weapon or armour than it's potency/quality would allow. ![]()
![]() 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. ![]()
![]() I think Mark noted on the Multiclass thread that between an existing wizard class feat, Fighter multiclass and the new action economy, Magus is more or less sorted. While I like the Magus, I think it will come down to how classes use their spell points. Will it just be on spell 'powers' or will there be more novel uses for the resource than we have seen to date that may make a Magus more achievable. My preference is for it's own class. I even think you could even do a 'spell-less' version in the same way that Paladin is. Instead of 1 good damage added to attacks, you add 1 elemental damage for instance. Spells were just a resource whose effects could be implemented in other ways. this would truly give Magi a unique identity. ![]()
![]() Aside from misinterpretation about the cost/value of Multi-classing vs Class feat, I think people are also failing to see that the majority of Class archetypes from PF1 are now just Class Feats without a dedication entry cost. Multiclassing gives you access to another class worth of archetypes. It is only the unconventional pigeon-holed 'themes' that will exist as 'Archetypes' in PF2, with quite a few probably being achievable through a mix of background, class feats and skill feats instead, maybe even more so. ![]()
![]() Witch, Summoner and Oracle. I'd definitely like to see the Oracle get more towards the Divination side of things, maybe play with the reaction economy a little. I think there needs to be a Class chassis for Grit/Panache as a spell point equivalent for martial characters. I'd also fold the Cavalier/Samurai in here with Resolve and Challenge using the same mechanic. ![]()
![]() Doktor Weasel wrote: 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. ![]()
![]() For the new edition I'm concerned about the Alchemist. The changes from PF1 presented in the blog make me worry the class has been shouldered with the burden of carrying the new crafting and resonance systems into the new edition. Leaves me wondering which one is the chicken and which is the egg? Also, the spreading out of core abilities worries me. I'd rather Bombs and Mutagen function like specialisations much as we're seeing with Druid orders. Not prevented from mix and matching but start strong on one and benefits for specialising. In terms of the playtest itself though, I'm concerned about the Paladin. Given the threads that popped up after it's blog I don't think it's going to have balanced feedback which may obscure otherwise meaningful feedback. Not worried about the Rogue in the slightest. I agree that skill feats is where the Martials, especially Fighters, will get a bit more of an edge in high level play against spellcasters. I think fighters are also likely to get improved usage of the action economy, losing action cost to some key features (like initiating/changing a stance). Combined with how potency works, it does help close the gap. ![]()
![]() 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. ![]()
![]() On the topic of altering landscapes and environments I am reminded of something that occurred to me while reading the post that I haven't commented on. It pertains to Leyline Conduit and where it can be used. Given it functions by tapping into Leylines, are there areas where it wouldn't function, such as cities, where the strength of the conduit is dampened by destruction of the natural environment? ![]()
![]() Friendly Rogue wrote:
What if it was established change but of anthrogenic origins? I'd probably allow that, though maybe discuss the timeframe so it isn't a sudden change like a life's quest(alla Robo in Chrono Trigger). ![]()
![]() Neo2151 wrote: 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:
I don't disagree with using the term for Druids outright. However, I think in the game it should be reserved for religious groups, where druids are more a philosophical group.I'd also happily accept sect, fellowship or lodge (though that may be better saved for Rangers) in place of Circle. I don't think WotC has exclusive licence of the term. ![]()
![]() RicoTheBold wrote:
Crazy cat person thank you very much! ![]()
![]() PossibleCabbage wrote:
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'! ![]()
![]() Quandary wrote:
Yep, totally get all that. Just querying about the middle ground Totemist, rather than Menagerist and Shapeshifter. Also, the ability to specialise in a particular group of animals over others Feline/Lupine/Ursine etc. ![]()
![]() 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. ![]()
![]() One thing that someone pointed out to me was that there are very few spells you'll want the option to cast at all spell levels. Others, you'll swap out as you level for the higher slot version. While this'll burn through your ability to adjust your spells for better higher level options as they come online, a canny player will plan ahead or carry some minor redundancy. In a similar vein...Has undercasting officially been confirmed? ![]()
![]() 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. ![]()
![]() Hi all, I'm wondering what the first section of the Playtext you're going to dig into. There are a number of big shake ups that we'll all want to absorb and process but we have to start somewhere. Will it be Ancestries, a particular class, or will go straight to character gen and observe how the nuts and bolts fit together by trying to make a character? For me it'll be spells, namely the Occult list and what it represents. For me this came out of left field with regard to fantasy RPG legacy on which the game was built. ![]()
![]() PossibleCabbage wrote:
If you want to think of it differently Arcane is High Art magic where as the Occukt is more like hedge magic, still gets the job done but it requires a different way of thinking. Leaning into the hedge magic side of things, it reminds me of Pratchett's Witches and Headology. It's a perfect fit for the discipline involving mental and spiritual essences. ![]()
![]() Friendly Rogue wrote:
I imagine the Paladin-esque Magus would bend/push the limits of Resonance in much the same way the Alchemist has been pegged to do. Although in this case it'll focus on weapons and armour while including going beyond the limitations of potency and rune slots too. I nominated Paladin as a starting point because they add a bit of divine power to a martial chasis, much like a Magus or Eldritch Knight does Arcane and removes much of the feat tax of modding a full caster. For what the Magus does, it doesn't need a full caster spell allotment. ![]()
![]() Doktor Weasel wrote:
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). ![]()
![]() Mark Seifter wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() Mark Seifter wrote:
Am I wrong in guessing that spells of a single essence may exist on multiple lists, where relevant, to limit refluffing a duplication? ![]()
![]() ErichAD wrote:
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! ![]()
![]() AnimatedPaper wrote:
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.
|