Ulfen Raider

GameDesignerDM's page

97 posts. Alias of Aerodus Baradin, The Dawnlord.


RSS

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Yeah, it'd be a whole cloth swap, basically. Anything that relates to the animal would be crocodile instead of the one from the chart.


The Iruxi are super cool and I have a concept for an Animal Instinct Barbarian who reveres the crocodile, buuuut I'm waffling between three options to substitute.

Shark, Snake, Wolf.

All three could work, but I'm leaning towards shark?


David knott 242 wrote:

For most of the playtest, it was impossible for a shield to be destroyed in a single blow. I think the main problem with shields in the current rules is that this insurance has been lost.

I doubt that too many people would complain if the first hit could break but not destroy a shield. Then, the standard strategy for a sword and board type would be to raise shield each turn and do shield blocks until the shield is broken, then raise shield only but not use Shield Block until the next short rest when the shield can be repaired.

Alternatively, the trigger for Shield Block could be rephrased so that you roll the damage before deciding whether to use that reaction.

I think you do get to know the damage before you use the reaction.


I'm in love with shields for the sole reason that it let me fulfill my fantasy of an Ulfen berserker who wields an axe and shield both as weapons at level 2 and that's easily enough for me to love shields in 2E alone.

To the OP, I think the rules are fine and we'll probably get more support coming, but it works well enough for the CRB.


PFRPGrognard wrote:

Yeah. Everyone is the same in PF2 so you always succeed. No need to worry.

Gonna take a hard pass on it. Don't care for what's been done to combat in the slightest. It's been watered down much too much.

Not even remotely true at all. Where does this statement come from?


SuperBidi wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

For you, maybe. I played the entire Dead Suns AP with two Technomancers and a Mystic in the party and none of what you're describing was a problem.

This is the first I'm even hearing there is a problem, in fact.

You realize that:

- You can't dismiss my experience by bringing yours.
- Especially when your experience is very different. I was the sole spellcaster, hence my issues. In a party full of spellcasters, the rythm is obviously not the same.

I'm not dismissing your experience - but you also can't say it's an actual problem with the game, when it might just be a problem with a particular group.

I'm playing in a game right now with a single spellcaster, and it's also not an issue.

And, to 2E, I don't think it's an issue here either.


SuperBidi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Have you really experienced a "don't you dare bring a spellcaster to Starfinder" culture? I haven't.

Yes.

I play Dead Suns with my Mystic and I'm the sole caster in the party. As a result, I've never been able to push for a long rest. I started to buy truck loads of spell gems after part 2, after a frustrating gaming experience. I play SFS, so I can do that between parts, but in campaign mode, you can't do that as you are far away in the Vast. Without these spell gems, I would have stopped before part 4 and rerolled a martial.

It's not "don't you dare bring a spellcaster", it's "long rest? What for?".

For you, maybe. I played the entire Dead Suns AP with two Technomancers and a Mystic in the party and none of what you're describing was a problem.

This is the first I'm even hearing there is a problem, in fact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

When I think about it, there are 2 annoying things in this system:

- My alchemist will be trained in all skills but one at level 20. And I've not even tried to do it, it's by chance. So, trained is the new untrained.
- The new system is far better to handle very different skill level thanks to the 2 level of success. A character that is just trained can aim for the success, when the legendary wizard could aim for the critical success. So, even when you have an enormous score in a skill, you still need to roll the die.

I agree with Claxon, for me, they overdid it.

It baffles me. You are wanting to make the rolling of the dice irrelevant in a game where rolling the dice is the game mechanic.

And a major fault of PF1, in my opinion, was that at a certain point you had such a huge bonus that the main mechanic of the game became irrelevant outside of combat. If you had a high enough bonus, it was like "well, you could roll, but you're not gonna fail" - frankly, anything that prevents that is a good step.

I think it's also important to remember that from what it seems like, the baseline competence for EVERYTHING if you're an adventurer is so far above non-adventurers, because if you're an adventurer, you probably know how to handle things. (Such as why an Alchemist could be almost as good at Stealth as a Rogue at certain levels.)

Otherwise you wouldn't be an adventurer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I felt considerably more versatile than most PF1 characters are at low level.

And that's kind of my point. More versatility, less specialization and skill checks are all about the die :)

If I take the example of Starfinder (that I find at a good spot when it comes to skills):
My Envoy started with +1d6+8 in Diplomacy. My Mechanic started with +10 in Engineering and +9 in Computers. My Mystic started with +14 in Mysticism (the highest you can get at first level).
Level 1 average checks are at DC 16, so all my characters still had to roll the die, even my over-specialized Mystic. But they were far above the other characters, so I was feeling my competence.

Well, I think there you really are bumping up against some of the design goals of PF2 that I think are showing through:

* Very few checks where the outcome is basically assured. So letting you have a +14 at level 1 when a typical DC is 16 would be against the design goal.

* Keeping characters who "are at least trying" and "trying really hard" in the same ballpark. The maximum skill bonus for a character at level 1 is +7, while the floor is -1. But the distance between someone with a 10 ability and trained is the distance between +3 and +7; a noticeable difference if you do a couple of checks, but not so much that you just have to give up altogether.

PF1 had trouble with setting up challenges that challenged both the specialist and the dabbler. Something that was achievable for the dabbler was trivial for the specialist, and something challenging for the specialist was entirely out of reach for the dabbler. PF2 brings them closer together, but you still notice the specialist being successful more often and critically succeeding more often.

That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no...

Our game hasn't seen this at all. We've seen more successes, and people have found the less guaranteed success meaning more meaningful choices with what you look into specializing in with your skill increases and feats.


Kasoh wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?

To each their own.

The die represents chance. And in some cases, the situation requires chance. In others, like the skill level of someone who is a specialist in their area, it is just an opportunity to engage in bufoonery because fate was fickle. (Thanks, critical failure on skill rolls!)

I mean, sometimes s&&$ happens. And the GM could just make a DC lower if they want. I still don't see how it's a problem. Even the most expert person can fail. Fate is fate, luck is luck.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?

To each their own.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

It is a change that no matter what you do, you can't get far beyond schmuck status at level 1.

But I think that is honestly the intended direction.

If you play a character from 1st to 15 you will really feel the difference in power.

Early levels of PF2 feel awful in my opinion. I don't enjoy them. It's basically just adventure by RNG. At high levels though, you feel powerful and like your choices matter and you can do amazing things in your specialties. But the low level experiences make it unpleasant to get there.

I've had the complete opposite experience. I feel FAR more powerful in early levels in PF2 than I ever did in PF1, both in-combat and out.

I'm pretty sure the intention of the design was to make adventurers MORE capable starting out than they were in PF1. Hence the removal of a lot of 'now you're just baseline good at this' feats - Precise Shot, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

The question didn’t come up because PF1 didn’t set the same expectations. By having a fairly traditional and generic core and then 3 years for that core to be pretty firmly established, in my experience most people didn’t stray very far from that core. Contrast that with PF2e...

How about this: if next year’s APG has an iconic that is of an ancestry not from the core Rulebook will people concede that PF2e is setting different expectations with its ancestries compared to PF1e? Because I just went through all the PF1e iconics and with the exception of villain iconics they were all core Rulebook races.

And if they are all core ancestries I will concede they are not pushing new ancestries like D&D 4e did.

Does that sound fair? :D

I would guess that the iconics for Witch (Human), Oracle (Human), Swashbuckler (Half-Elf), and Investigator (Human) will be the same ones as they were in 1E, just with updated art.


FrostFox wrote:
"GameDesignerDM wrote:
I seriously doubt it's all going to be the exact same shade of lavender or blue, in every art piece ever produced for Drow for inclusion in Paizo products from here until the end of time.

I should hope so, and part of the reason for creation of this thread to advocate for variation (which should be built into the description of the Species/Variety in its first introduction. They aren't described as being of various shades of Lavender or Blue, they are just Lavender in the Bestiary.

"The hues of their eyes became sinister red or bleached white, and their flesh adopted an unearthly lavender sheen that made the drow instantly recognizable."

And both depictions are the same flesh tone. Although I think it's too close to how an Arctic Elf could be perceived, so not so instantly recognizable but we don't have any art for Arctic elves.

We do, actually. Here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FrostFox wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
FrostFox wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
FrostFox wrote:
Rysky wrote:

To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.

As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.

But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.

With populations of good varieties, dark no longer = evil. In Drow case, it would be because of history and specific elves that may have performed evil acts. It's a corruption of them, in that case. It goes back to the case, why even have them change skin tone at all? Changing skin tone at all because evil is just as bad as changing to a specific skin tone because evil by the same logic.

Probably because there aren't any actual people in real life with blue or purple skin. Pure black doesn't really exist, either, but that color has been used to mock people and so it carries connotations - blue and purple don't.

It's similar to why any changes to orcs to make them farther away from Tolkien's original depiction is a good thing - because that was hella racist.

Where has it come from in this thread that Drow have to be Elven Blackface and be pure black? Where have I said they absolutely can't be dark-blue or dark-purple tones and that they -must- go to pure black depictions in art?
They still can be dark blue or dark purple, go nuts. The connotations come from a long history of it with the drow, and thus Paizo (rightfully) moved away from it - it always comes up in this conversation, eventually, that's why it's being discussed.
Not canonically. The Bestiary says -only- Lavender. The art that will be used for the direction going forward is -only- Baby Blue.

I seriously doubt it's all going to be the exact same shade of lavender or blue, in every art piece ever produced for Drow for inclusion in Paizo products from here until the end of time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FrostFox wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
FrostFox wrote:
Rysky wrote:

To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.

As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.

But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.

With populations of good varieties, dark no longer = evil. In Drow case, it would be because of history and specific elves that may have performed evil acts. It's a corruption of them, in that case. It goes back to the case, why even have them change skin tone at all? Changing skin tone at all because evil is just as bad as changing to a specific skin tone because evil by the same logic.

Probably because there aren't any actual people in real life with blue or purple skin. Pure black doesn't really exist, either, but that color has been used to mock people and so it carries connotations - blue and purple don't.

It's similar to why any changes to orcs to make them farther away from Tolkien's original depiction is a good thing - because that was hella racist.

Where has it come from in this thread that Drow have to be Elven Blackface and be pure black? Where have I said they absolutely can't be dark-blue or dark-purple tones and that they -must- go to pure black depictions in art?

They still can be dark blue or dark purple, go nuts. The connotations come from a long history of it with the drow, and thus Paizo (rightfully) moved away from it - it always comes up in this conversation, eventually, that's why it's being discussed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
FrostFox wrote:
Rysky wrote:

To certain groups black humans are indeed perceived as evil.

As for Duergar, that’s a valid concern. I’d like to see more non-evil examples form them.

But to my understanding their skin tone didn’t change due to their alignment.

With populations of good varieties, dark no longer = evil. In Drow case, it would be because of history and specific elves that may have performed evil acts. It's a corruption of them, in that case. It goes back to the case, why even have them change skin tone at all? Changing skin tone at all because evil is just as bad as changing to a specific skin tone because evil by the same logic.

Probably because there aren't any actual people in real life with blue or purple skin. Pure black doesn't really exist, either, but that color has been used to mock people and so it carries connotations - blue and purple don't.

It's similar to why any changes to orcs to make them farther away from Tolkien's original depiction is a good thing - because that was hella racist.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's also the idea that these adventurers might understand that if they solved every single problem in the world, then no one would ever try to do it themselves, and rely on them to do everything.

After all, the world will always need heroes, and new heroes must become that themselves.

I look at it like Gandalf and the other Istari - sure, they could have solved a bunch of problems, but it wasn't their purpose and Gandalf in the end existed much more as a catalyst to push others to do great things.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

There's always been something interesting with drow being beautiful in roleplay - "How can something so beautiful be so cruel?"

I've played with a lot of people who roleplay as good drow or half-drow and a lot of them play on the idea that they feel they're hideous - when they likely aren't - as an extension of everyone's first assumption about their ancestry.

It's a neat thing to explore in RP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FrostFox wrote:
LizardMage wrote:

What exactly is nonthreatening about that Drow? Is it simply his color, because the color is not detracting from the cold demeanor of that particular character. The artist has drawn a very self assured and calculating character, and that is intimidating. Is it a physical intimidation, no...it's a force of personality.

I don't have a copy of the bestiary yet, and that picture from the book you posted looks like a Drow to me. First impression was "yep, drow swashbuckler." There is nothing about that art that is detracting from the Drow as a whole.

If anything, opens up more color options for miniature painting and artwork for future books. Which, is awesome.

In color theory, light blues and purples are comforting colors, and also the fact that his hair and skin are nearly the same shade.

"Blue is considered beneficial to the mind and body. It slows human metabolism and produces a calming effect. Blue is strongly associated with tranquility and calmness. In heraldry, blue is used to symbolize piety and sincerity.

You can use blue to promote products and services related to cleanliness (water purification filters, cleaning liquids, vodka), air and sky (airlines, airports, air conditioners), water and sea (sea voyages, mineral water). As opposed to emotionally warm colors like red, orange, and yellow; blue is linked to consciousness and intellect. Use blue to suggest precision when promoting high-tech products. "

"Black is associated with power, elegance, formality, death, evil, and mystery.

Black is a mysterious color associated with fear and the unknown (black holes). It usually has a negative connotation (blacklist, black humor, 'black death'). Black denotes strength and authority; it is considered to be a very formal, elegant, and prestigious color (black tie, black Mercedes). In heraldry, black is the symbol of grief.

Black gives the feeling of perspective and depth, but a black background diminishes readability. A black suit or dress can make...

I'd note a lot of this is a very western interpretation of the color black, which is fine, as it's where most of us live presumably.

But, it's sort of also the reason moving away from black skin color is a good thing, because it's not exactly unknown that a lot of older fantasy has connotations with monstrous races and the like.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
FrostFox wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
FrostFox wrote:


As I expressed in that thread, I feel that the decision to make Drow Lilac in color (having looked at the Bestiary since they're more of a Baby Blue or at best Periwinkle - see below) is a poor one. It makes them non-threatening and even though the drow in the Bestiary front and center has an eye-patch he's downright -cute- (see picture: Bestiary Image of Drow ).

I have some bad news about Drow for you... they've always been downright cute.

Like... every single drow has been dangerously boyfriend material this whole time.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe the color of a creature shouldn't have too much of an impact on how threatening it appears to you.

The appearance of a creature directly impacts how threatening it appears. A grizzled, scarred human by default appears more threatening even if they're a cuddly bear. If trolls looked like gnomes they'd appear less threatening, or even if they were bubblegum pink but largely looked the same.

Quite simply, the Drow don't look -badass- anymore. I'll stop using threatening as it doesn't quite get the point across.

I think they've always looked badass in Pathfinder, and they've had blue/purple skin color for a long time, too.


sherlock1701 wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

"but the GM might adjust this number."

Covers it imo. Remember, bulk exists because too many people were handwaving encumberance and finding it a pain. So this is a way for it to still have an impact but be less stressful to track.
For a person carrying another character you are dragging them in most cases. Meaning you require both hands and move slower.

Keep in mind bulk is not weight, and if the creature is concious and holding its self up on the back of a creature in riding equipment, there is no way the creature is feeling the same level of difficulty in carrying it as if it were a limp corpse laden in gear.

So you wearing bulky stuff makes it harder for you to move about, but not necessarily the same level of difficulty for others to move you about.

Bulk is an extreme abstraction.

How do you get 12-13 bulk in equiment? That is a huge amount of large weapons. Remember that 1 bulk items are all treated as light for a horse. The 14B 1L I mentioned above included 6B for the person.

I would still wager paizo intends mount restrictions to be size, training/willingness and to not be bulk based though.

An average limp, unconscious medium person only weighs 30-60 pounds. It's very important to keep this in mind at character creation so you don't make your character heavier than they should be.

Most likely closer to 30. Unconscious people are hard carry, so it would have to be the lower end of the weight range per bulk.

The strongest man in Golarion can never carry more than 190 pounds (19 bulk), and then only if it's optimally shaped for carrying. It's likely that most large furniture is built in place and never moved, since a more average human probably would struggle to budge it.

If Bulk is a part of the game, then it's a part of the physics of the game, and we must consider its ramifications.

Much like how the lack of any mechanical effect due to age suggests that the elderly of Golarion are neither feeble nor wise, but instead...

To that last point, I don't think that's true at all. I think Paizo just got rid of the mechanical penalties because it was an unpopular holdover from earlier editions. A lot of people I know who play have always ignored those rules.

And I think the elderly still are.. well, less strong and robust as they were, when they were younger. It's just that they don't penalize the player characters for choosing to be hold, but the CRB even says "There aren’t any mechanical adjustments to your character for being particularly old, but you might want to take it into account when considering your starting ability scores and future advancement."

NPCs are probably still going to be less equipped for adventuring and things if they're elderly, just not player characters because they didn't want to have those penalties anymore.

Sometimes things in the game are made the way they are to make it less complicated for us as players, but in-world it's not actually how it works. Bulk is one such thing - a weapon might be 1 or 2 bulk, but when you're talking to a shopkeep or whatever, you would say "this is a 5 lbs. weapon". The actual numerical weight might be important to the story, but it's not systemically.

It's simply that the actual weight of things is not important in the sense of how we track our encumbrance, so they abstract it with bulk. I'd also think it's less bulk on certain mounts because they have more ways to distribute the weight than humanoids do, so it's less cumbersome for them, hence the lesser bulk.

I see it a little like the scale of what you're talking about matters - like how in Starfinder, a starship weapon might deal 1d8 damage, but if you were to shoot it at a human standing on a planet, it would completely destroy them with one shot. Similarly, what is 5 bulk to a human is not going to be 5 bulk to a dragon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...
Legolas also clearly used a shortbow

Longbow.

Rohirim used shortbows.

The longbow as a concept was way outside of the time period that Tolkien was romanticizing in the Lord of the rings. If he had wanted to draw comparisons to the english long bow, it would have been talked about at much greater length.

I think it is the D&D tradition that has confused people about the long bow and made it seem like the weapon that everyone would and should carry.

The Gondorians used longbows, for sure, as did certain Elves, since they passed their knowledge to Men. The Gondorians had heartwood bows, 68 inches tall.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...
Legolas also clearly used a shortbow

Longbow.

Rohirim used shortbows.

The Bow of the Galadhrim is probably a longbow - but Tolkein was never specific, only that it was longer and stouter than his Mirkwood bow. The Mirkwood Elves definitely used shortbows, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weapons in PF2E (and most fantasy tabletops) are not meant to emulate the actual weapons 1v1, they never really have been.


Unless the term 'swashbuckler' means something specific in the context of Golarion, that might differ from what we know the term to be. The class then is that, and not the thing we're thinking of.

Similar to how the 'oracle' in Pathfinder is not a prophet or seer, but that's what we know them as in real life. Same with 'witch' and 'barbarian' and many others.

Paladins in real life have nothing to do with paladins as they are in TTRPGs, but they had such a specific connotation, that when Paizo wanted to break away from the 'divine warrior being locked to Lawful Good', they changed the name entirely.

Perhaps 'swashbuckler' in Golarion means someone who has an almost supernatural ability to harness luck and charisma in combat, so the class is named that because of it.

Just spit-balling, but what I'm saying is basically that PF2E seems to be a lot more rooted in the setting than 1E was on a meta level, and the classes seem to be 'as Golarion would see them', so they might be trying to define what a 'Golarion swashbuckler' is with this iteration.


It's hard to say it invalidates a combat style of the Fighter when we don't really know what the Swashbuckler will do just yet.

Perhaps they are built such that they get a feature where the Stride action for them can be a free action if they do something else after it, or whathaveyou.

They did mention the Swashbuckler will play around with the action economy even more than the Fighter, and in ways people may not expect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also entirely a thing a GM can do where they just strip out the flavor of a specific Dedication or Archetype if it doesn't fit with their homebrew world or whatever else.

I can't really fault Paizo for making things tied to their specific setting, when it's such an important part of their game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can make about 10 characters in an hour. I don't really plan ahead ever - never did it in PF1E, and don't really plan to do that for PF2E, either.

I just use a form-fillable PDF of the sheet and a PDF copy of the book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because it hit my LotR brain, Gandalf would be a Cleric of Ilúvatar or Manwë and probably of the Warpriest doctrine, since his power is divine and he was handy with Glamdring.

(Gandalf the White may have even become a multiclass Fighter, at some point, maybe.)

"Wizard" was just what the folk of Middle-earth called him - he's really more equivalent to an angel or divine spirit. Aasimar Warpriest Cleric of Manwë or Ilúvatar would be my build, eventually.

>.>


Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Jib916 wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I cannot wait for the Lost Omens World Guide. The most exciting book of all the initial releases to me. :)

I'm out of the loop, what does that book contain?

Is there a list of soon to be released books?

It is the world guide!

"This indispensable 136-page guidebook to the world of Pathfinder presents everything you need to know for a lifetime of adventure in the uncertain Age of Lost Omens. The god of humanity is dead and prophecy is broken, leaving adventuring heroes like you to carve their own destinies out of an uncertain future!

This gazetteer features 10 diverse regions packed with thrilling and deadly possibilities and is accompanied by a giant two-sided poster map depicting the heart of the Pathfinder setting."

Future Books in The Lost Omens Setting Line:

Lost Omens Character Guide
Lost Omens Gods and Magic

Future Books in the Core Rulebook Line:

GameMastery Guide
Bestiary 2
Advanced Player Guide

Ooh, aaah!

I need to read up on lore again. I take it that PF2 sort of resets the setting, or does it continue where PF1 left off with things?

It picks up right after the end of Tyrant's Grasp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not a catch-22, though. Like, at all.


Colette Brunel wrote:

It is a catch-22 because it places enemies in a "damned if you do, damned if you do not" situation. The playstyle of the champion class itself revolves around catch-22s: "I am in heavy armor, and I have my shield raised. You can attack my allies and take a Champion's Reaction, or you can attack durable me and go through my Shield Block."

If the champion class had no catch-22s to it, then it would not be a decent class.

Tumble's failure mentions reactions because you never move out of your space to begin with, yet provoke reactions anyway.

Or the enemy moves past the Champion and attacks an ally 30 ft. away from said Champion. Or backs up out of your reach and shoots the ally. Or does... a whole lot of other things that aren't going to get Retributive Strike, or attacking the Champion.


Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:


As for two things doing the same but one being miles better, one costs a different resource, which has different value to different games and builds. Kind of how it costs a rogue a class feat to get some cantrips, or he could mc into a wizard. Both things give spellcasting

This is mostly because the Spellcaster MCD are basically the gold standard of MCD.

I wish that the other MCD were as involved as the caster ones, because those actually do supplement character concepts.

Also, as a shoutout, I did a MCD into Barb on a Ruffian Rogue for a "kingpin" style character. And not gonna lie it looks pretty good on paper.

The above wasn't possible in Core PF1 without a lot of bending over backwards and enduring bad levels. The fact that I had a character in mind that was so simple to conceive with a build was a breath of fresh air.

Speaking of Barbarian, I glanced at it for a weeby angery character. If I read right, you can now MCD into barbarian and use rage all day? Wasn't multiclass barbarian weak ragewise before since you had really limited rage duration?
More or less, yeah. I'm playing an Ulfen Fighter with Barbarian Dedication for a 'viking berserker' feel and I've basically achieved that at level 2, which is awesome.
Rage has never been tempting to me, but now it is, mostly for aesthetics but also because of the set durations/cooldown, and if i read right, no more fatigue after rage?

Correct! You just can't rage for 1 minute, which is fine. The only fatigue with rage is if you have the Second Wind feat, which lets you rage without waiting the 1 minute, but then you're fatigued.


Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:


As for two things doing the same but one being miles better, one costs a different resource, which has different value to different games and builds. Kind of how it costs a rogue a class feat to get some cantrips, or he could mc into a wizard. Both things give spellcasting

This is mostly because the Spellcaster MCD are basically the gold standard of MCD.

I wish that the other MCD were as involved as the caster ones, because those actually do supplement character concepts.

Also, as a shoutout, I did a MCD into Barb on a Ruffian Rogue for a "kingpin" style character. And not gonna lie it looks pretty good on paper.

The above wasn't possible in Core PF1 without a lot of bending over backwards and enduring bad levels. The fact that I had a character in mind that was so simple to conceive with a build was a breath of fresh air.

Speaking of Barbarian, I glanced at it for a weeby angery character. If I read right, you can now MCD into barbarian and use rage all day? Wasn't multiclass barbarian weak ragewise before since you had really limited rage duration?

More or less, yeah. I'm playing an Ulfen Fighter with Barbarian Dedication for a 'viking berserker' feel and I've basically achieved that at level 2, which is awesome.


graystone wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
graystone wrote:
Abyssiensis wrote:
As wizards get an automatic twelve in int
10 not 12.

Only if you are an Ancestry that has a penalty to Int (which is none as of this moment), or you take a voluntary flaw to it. All Abilities start at 10 - assuming you're using the default method - and Wizards bump Intelligence, so yeah, 12.

You just explained how you can get a 10, hence not "automatic": The default method includes this "Assign any free ability boosts and decide if you are taking any voluntary flaws."

Saying "wizards get an automatic twelve in int" is factually wrong.

No, abilities base is 10 - and then you apply any boosts to that. And since flaws are voluntary - and a GM might not allow them, anyway - someone taking a voluntary flaw to Int as a Wizard is either fulfilling a very specific concept that requires that for some reason or are trying some weird out of the box math weirdness.

Since I wager we're talking about the baseline 'default' Wizard here - as we should anyway when it comes to broad class discussions, since all of these would be better off that way and not have to try and debate around niche concepts the Core rulebook isn't assuming - and no Core Ancestry has a penalty to Int, you will get a 12 at minimum, since the Wizard boost is to Int.


graystone wrote:
Abyssiensis wrote:
As wizards get an automatic twelve in int
10 not 12.

Only if you are an Ancestry that has a penalty to Int (which is none as of this moment), or you take a voluntary flaw to it. All Abilities start at 10 - assuming you're using the default method - and Wizards bump Intelligence, so yeah, 12.


Game also just have limitations. With what it seems like Paizo was going for in PF2E - classes being a much, much greater part of a character's identity than before - such a limitation comes into effect where certain classes just can't do something or use something without significant investment elsewhere.

Thus, wizards at baseline aren't meant to be running around in heavy armor. This is not "all wizards ever in 2E" cannot use heavy armor heavy, but right now, with only Core out and the 'basic' wizard is not a heavy armor user. The general feat might be there as Unicore said to just be like "yeah, you can do it, but it's not as good as a class archetype would be, or a MC archetype".

PF1E had limitations, too, just different ones. Frankly a lot more limitations in some places. Yeah, it sucks you may not be able to fully realize a very specific concept from just Core, but that's fine. The concept is, after all, very specific and may not be all that common to the general playerbase - which the vast majority of I'd wager is not on the forums.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Except this is not a poorly designed feature. Nor are so many things in PF2 that people have been saying are.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

A player wants to play a totemic rager/barbarian warrior that can shapeshift into an animal. This gives them the mechanics to do so.

That seems to be the point.


N N 959 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

This is more just nitpicking over the OP's terminology than actually addressing what their issues are one way or the other though.

Agency is a sense of control and ability to influence things. How much flexibility and control a player does or does not have in realizing whatever character concept they're imagining is absolutely part of their agency.

I don't think it's nitpicking. In order to solve problems, one has to accurately understand them. Understanding the actual source of the player's concern is critical to finding the right solution.

Essentially, players have access to the same tools as before. The only difference is that there is more opportunity cost. If, for example, no player option in PF2 allowed the use of spells and shapechanging, then I would say this is a restriction on player agency. But saying you can cast spells or shape change, isn't a limit on player agency, it's a limit on the character's agency.

The questions is whether my distinction is more useful, because we could just lump it all under "player" agency? I think it does because it allows a designer to categorize more rigidly and reduce the problem. Using my definition, I can differentiate between the game having the same conduits of interaction versus the number of conduits that can be accessed at any one time. Put another way, PF2 offers the same number of facets but limits how many of those can be accessed simultaneously.

I'm sure there are other ways to frame the problem that others might find more helpful. So part of examining the problem is figuring out the most useful way to categorize it.

Exactly.

One of the biggest hurdles as a game designer - whether it be video games, board games, or tabletop games - is trying to parse out feedback from players. Often times, it's super broad and general and hard to get to the meat of the issue, so designers will correct for one thing when the players actually meant something else.

Being as specific as possible and trying to really widdle down to the root of the issue is way more helpful. It's why playtests will often go "Okay, in this round, we're only testing spells" or "We want to see how this one change works with everything else".

Specificity breeds better innovation, and its helpful for us as players to do that, too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

That's not what player agency is, though. Player agency is (broadly speaking) the ability to impact the story through game design or gameplay.

Now, games often allow player agency in different ways, so it's hard to nail down like one specific thing that defines it, but that's what we use in my line of work, and is usually the common definition.

You can still do that wholeheartedly in 2E - in just a different way. Games which don't let you customize at all still have player agency.

Player agency has nothing to do with hyper-specialization, customization, or anything like that.

This is more just nitpicking over the OP's terminology than actually addressing what their issues are one way or the other though.

Agency is a sense of control and ability to influence things. How much flexibility and control a player does or does not have in realizing whatever character concept they're imagining is absolutely part of their agency.

Not when specifically talking about game design, no. Player agency is agnostic to character concept. It's directly relating to the impact the player has on the story/play through the game design or gameplay.

Uncharted, for example, offers no ability to realize a concept because everyone plays Nathan Drake, but it has loads of player agency.

The player can impact the story of a PF2E game in many different ways regardless of their concept, so it's not related.

Terminology is important when we're discussing concepts of design.

"Has the ability to realize your concept to the fullest extent taken a hit?" would be a better title for this thread.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

@GameDesignerDM: You may be right about this. I had read the original poster's comments, where he had defined player agency differently. I was responding to that definition, which may actually have more to do with Character Diversity. Acknowledged though, the players have as much ability to impact the story as they did previously.

@Rysky: I'm sorry you don't like my opinions. I have no problem with players being happy with the system, I'm commenting on the design goals of the system and the fact that they limit "Character Diversity" (see my reply to GameDesignerDM). Now you're choosing to be directly antagonistic without actually debating any of my actual points... But sure. If you're arguing what GameDesignerDM is, I concede that point. I was addressing the original comment, where they likely used somewhat incorrect terms for what they were trying to express.

It's no problem, really. Industry concepts and terms are really obfuscated from the general populace, and it's not often easy to find what one term means vs. another. You can find it, of course, but it requires a heavy interest in the nitty gritty of system design, and reading designer blogs and such.

Tabletops are actually some of the most player agency filled games - it's when we get to video games where that can become limited, because tech and such.

Something like 'character diversity' would be more accurate in this discussion, I think, and even then it's more of a subjective thing, since people view that differently.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

That's not what player agency is, though. Player agency is (broadly speaking) the ability to impact the story through game design or gameplay.

Now, games often allow player agency in different ways, so it's hard to nail down like one specific thing that defines it, but that's what we use in my line of work, and is usually the common definition.

You can still do that wholeheartedly in 2E - in just a different way. Games which don't let you customize at all still have player agency.

Player agency has nothing to do with hyper-specialization, customization, or anything like that.


It was explicitly a design goal for PF2E to give the DM a little more power innately with the system, so I doubt you're alone!


NemoNoName wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I think the issue with that would be that the narrative conceits around the classes in Golarion mean that casters generally don't wear heavy armor - that is, we don't really have things like Arcane Warriors from Dragon Age when it comes to the 'baseline' casters like Sorcerers and Wizards.

PCs end up being the exception, not the rule, so they might do some wacky stuff with feats/archetypes, but generally, "Wizards and sorcerers don't wear heavy armor" is baseline true to the narrative of the world.

Why are you even worrying about this??? If the proficiency scales with other proficiencies, at best the Wizard gains 1 AC and loses 5ft of movement for investment of 3(!) General Feats. This is going to be used by negligible number of Wizards.

My dude, I'm not worrying about it. I was simply stating that the setting likely influences Paizo's design of the base system, and in their setting if wizards and sorcerers aren't running around wearing heavy armor on the regular outside of a very specific group in a very specific circumstance, then it's not something they want to make the way some people want it.

I was just responding to another poster. Relax.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the issue with that would be that the narrative conceits around the classes in Golarion mean that casters generally don't wear heavy armor - that is, we don't really have things like Arcane Warriors from Dragon Age when it comes to the 'baseline' casters like Sorcerers and Wizards.

PCs end up being the exception, not the rule, so they might do some wacky stuff with feats/archetypes, but generally, "Wizards and sorcerers don't wear heavy armor" is baseline true to the narrative of the world.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A classless system wasn't what they were going for, and would strive too far from the identity of what they want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
It would be nice if you didn't call people dishonest and their views reductionist just because they disagree with you. It is not really polite because calling someone dishonest is pretty much calling them a liar. Something which you have no way of knowing

Very simple:

* dishonest : we do not ask to be equal to Fighters and Champions. We're asking to have the General feat scale together with the feats a class provides for free. Which will never even match the level Fighters and Champions reach, and we are not asking that it does. Furthermore, this leads me into:
* reductionist : by saying that giving class-matching proficiency in weapons and armour the character uses General feat is encroaching on Fighter and Champion design spaces, you are treating them as if those proficiencies are class defining - reducing them to mere proficiency bonuses they provide.

Except, proficiencies and how they scale in both of these classes are part of their progression and its base chassis. For Fighters and Champions, yeah, they are part of the identity of the class, and how they function and why their feats work the way they do.

It's a plain fact that those proficiencies matter a lot to them, and isn't reductionist at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think little about any of the classes. I just don't agree with the other side of the debate, and think it's perfectly fine if sometimes things are just not the way you might want in a system.

You can house rule things to make them that way, but the designers clearly had an intent and that intent was "this feat only lets you go up to this level of proficiency".

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>