Berserker Cannibal

GameDesignerDM's page

76 posts. Alias of Aerodus Baradin, The Dawnlord.


RSS

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

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.


6 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.


4 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".


5 people marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

There's also just the idea that some classes aren't meant to have access to certain things by design. Like, yeah, if you're playing a weak wizard or whatever, then yeah... maybe you don't get to wear the armor the way the Champion or Fighter does.

And maybe that's explicitly by design.

And that's just fine.

Maybe then don't include Weapon and Armour proficiency feats if you do not want the players to use them.

And maybe that was AD&D, and there's a reason almost no-one plays it anymore.

I said "wear the armor the way the Champion or Fighter does" - you can still wear it, just not the same way.

Same with weapons. You can still use the weapon you want if you make the choice to do so, but the Fighter will be better at it, because being better than you with weapons is what the Fighter does.


There's also just the idea that some classes aren't meant to have access to certain things by design. Like, yeah, if you're playing a weak wizard or whatever, then yeah... maybe you don't get to wear the armor the way the Champion or Fighter does.

And maybe that's explicitly by design.

And that's just fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the game really shouldn't work differently with a party of a Monk, an Alchemist, a Champion, and a Rogue than it does with a party of a Wizard, a Druid, a Cleric, and a Bard.

Guess we really see things completely differently.

I don't think a game could be a greater failure than that actually.

Imagine a class based game where the game doesn't greatly care about which classes you have on the table and what should be the greatest choice a player can make is treated as this irrelevant.

At that point might as well abolish classes. The game will run about the same anyway, just pick some powers and go.

I don't think that's at all what they're saying. I think they're saying that the game shouldn't work different because one set of classes is so drastically more powerful than the entire paradigm shifts for both the players and GM.


N N 959 wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

Or if your concept is a dual-wielding warrior with an animal companion who relies on tracking and hunting down quarries better than their peers.

Rangers are not 'Fighters with a sleeping bag'.

The Animal Companion path for a Ranger involves seven feats. You have at most, eleven. That leaves you with four feats to :

Dual wield
Track enemies

In 1e, you got five Combat Style Feats and none of them came at the expense of your tracking or animal companion.

Yep, that means I can do it. That's the path I want to take, so I'm doing it. And I was specifically talking about Hunt Target, which is baseline. I was basically saying my concept for my Ranger, which I did at 1st level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Or if your concept is a dual-wielding warrior with an animal companion who relies on tracking and hunting down quarries better than their peers.

Rangers are not 'Fighters with a sleeping bag'.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really think you can claim objectively that 1E or 2E Ranger is better, hence why I stated it was my opinion that 2E is better.

It's more about what you want from the class, so simply a 'wilderness warrior' is probably a better version for people who just want that.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I always find it odd how spells are often considered a big core feature of the ranger, where the inspiration and iconic ranger from fantasy wasn't a spellcaster, and his only real 'magical' aspects came from his race and being heir to to a legendary bloodline. Pitfalls of the original design, I guess.

I've always preferred spell-less rangers, but to each their own. The 2E Ranger seems like a big improvement over the 1E version, imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Odraude wrote:
keftiu wrote:

Y’know, you could phrase this thread as “how long until the content /I/ want?” instead of “the current options are boring” and not broken anything.

We’re having four new classes playable in October and gonna have bare minimum 15 archetypes by the end of this year. Complain that you don’t like what we’re getting, sure, but there’s 0 comparison to 5e’s glacial release cycle.

Just curious, where is the listing for these classes? I'm looking for the 2e APG but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Investigator, Oracle, Witch, and Swashbuckler. There's also going to be 60 pages of archetypes so plenty of toys for the existing classes to change up their style.
Right, but I don't see the APG 2e under the products section. The only upcoming book I see is the GMG for 2e

They just announced it at GenCon for release next year at GenCon. I doubt it'll be up until... next year at some point, after the Class Playtest in October.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

Master proficiency seems to be the equivalent of old Full BAB (and fighters are now a cut above)

Alchemists never got full BAB so why would they get the equivalent now?
There have been so many posts about people who want Master proficiency on every class - but then that would really eat into the strengths of those who currently have it

Surely you beast mutagen is not the ONLY thing that a level 11 alchemist can do at that level?

But from your tone it sounds like you are just expressing outrage rather than actually wanting an answer. For example the reply above about 4d10 agile is something you shot down in 5 minutes. So what do you want to achieve from your post?

I'm fairly new to 2e, but I been noticing what you said. It seems everyone wants master/legendary armor, weapons and casting and classes seem to be compared as if going in a pvp chamber?

That's sort of how it goes with a lot of these discussions, yeah, and never really gets anywhere because comparing classes directly against each other this way never ends up with satisfying answers to anyone, since I don't think they're meant to be discussed this way.

It's something a lot of hardcore math/optimization/theorycrafting fans do, which is great for them to share that, but it won't matter at like... 80% of tables you play at, likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, that's fair, too. To each their own with sort of thing, I think. That PF2 doesn't systemically punish you as much, even if you don't care about that, is a boon too.


Arachnofiend wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

Maybe because the character wants to have some other stat higher than 10 or 12 or 14 because of RP reasons.

Since it is a roleplaying game. I think it's fine if the bad guy takes one extra hit to kill or something. It works just fine.

I think saying you'd want to raise other stats "because of RP reasons" is actually a bit misleading and dismissive. To start with an 18 in a stat you have to raise your main stat in all three phases of character creation - that's a legitimately high cost that limits your access to some powerful abilities.

A Barbarian that doesn't start with a 16 in charisma isn't getting Terrifying Howl later. A Barbarian that starts with an 18 in strength and a 16 in charisma is going to start with a 10 in one of dexterity, constitution, or wisdom - not the worst thing in the world but there are legitimate risks to that.

Not being dismissive at all - my group has several players who do this sort of thing all the time, in most every system. They have fun and still totally viable, since in my opinion, viable is "are you having fun playing this character?" - and I don't think there's much of a good answer to this sort of question, anyway.

Viable has different meanings to us all, after all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe because the character wants to have some other stat higher than 10 or 12 or 14 because of RP reasons.

Since it is a roleplaying game. I think it's fine if the bad guy takes one extra hit to kill or something. It works just fine.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems a little weird to me that people would be adverse to roleplaying their character learning/finding something new in a roleplaying game, but to each their own.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes in games you just can't do something if you pick a certain role or class.

That's fine.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Translucent Wolf wrote:
Looks like, basically, a 'feat' every level. But you don't actually have an entire character till several levels in.

You absolutely have an entire character at 1st level. Characters are more than just numbers.


Unicore wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
WHy not dump most of the "no you can't" mentality of 3.x and rpelace with "well you can and this feat instead of removing a restriction makes you better".

I'm sorry, but as someone who was a gamer well before 3.x came along, this is just wrong.

One of 3.x's biggest achievements was a blanket "Yes, you can do that, here's how". You want a wizard in full plate and a greatsword? You could do that. You'd have penalties and restrictions, but you could do it. D&D2e? You flat out could not do it. You want to TWF? Sure, big penalties, but anybody could do it, and then burn some feats to make it easier to do.

PF2e? Rogues can't dual wield, thats a Ranger only feat (Double Slice). The iconic dual dagger wielding rogue, a staple of fantasy for decades, cannot be built in PF2e without "multiclassing" into Ranger.

3.x (which I include PF1e in, as it was basically 3.75) said "Yes, everybody can do it, maybe not well, but they can try", PF2e is flat out "No, you can't do it at all unless its a class ability."

But you absolutely can just pick up a great sword and put on plate mail as a wizard. And the penalties for it are not even as bad as they were in PF1.

And a rogue can wield 2 weapons and make two attacks around, same as a PF1 rogue could, with no penalty on their first attack and a much lower penalty on their second attack (especially if using an agile weapon), and you can do so and move.

It just feels different because it is not two attacks with one standard action.

Yeah, I was a little confused at people saying you can't do these things, especially the rogue iconic image, since it's easier to do now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've already made three characters and can't wait to make more. Took me maybe an hour on the first, but the second and third were only about 20 minutes at most.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

2E also seems to be going more the route of 5E where your class is one of the biggest parts about who you are, so it's not just a mechanical toolset. It's a fundamental part of your identity, even more so than I'd say even Ancestry in 2E.


Lucid Blue wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Aren't most uses of skills something that we can't explain before they are attempted, so you can't help but provide mechanics before context?

Not at all. The diplomacy skill says what it does. You are talking to the person and trying to convince them. Or persuade them to react a particular way. That's why you have to speak the same language. If they can't understand you, you can't persuade them.

It doesn't say, "spend one action and the creature thinks better of you."

Yeah, but it doesn't state how every single use of Diplomacy is going to go, because the narrative is always shifting.

Same for Planar Survivor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Edymnion wrote:

Agreed.

I'm infamous for just utterly tossing out every last shred of flavor text on items, spells, even entire classes and keeping nothing but the base mechanics.

My favorite 1e character is my gnome Synthesist Summoner. Do I play that whole "semi-transparent outsider overlay" thing? Hell no, she's my Pacific Rim style giant mecha pilot. Its not some mythological beast, its a Colossal arcane magitech golem robot thing stomping on people.

Or my Vigilante (Magical Child)/Witch (Gravewalker) who is basically Sailor Necromancer.

The default, generic, and frankly often completely uninspired flavor text on stuff in any system is usually crap. Its a nice "Well here's what we think it would be good for" example, but thats it.

Or, you know, veterans could just ignore that bit since it has no impact on us, and for new players who may need some inspiration, they might find that section immensely useful.

A few new players I've recently introduced to PF loved those types of blurbs in the Strategy Guide and Inner Sea Races.

2E is also about attracting new people, and those blurbs are likely meant for new players.

But the class blurbs are uninspired and boring, often not even presenting character development hooks. Even the PHBII's backgrounds are more inspiring and those are basically very small and often inaccurate history lessons.

Maybe to you. I showed the book to one of the people I play with in a PbP who is new to the system (1E, and new to tabletops in general) and they loved them and found them helpful.

Don't like them? Just ignore them. *shrug*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:

Agreed.

I'm infamous for just utterly tossing out every last shred of flavor text on items, spells, even entire classes and keeping nothing but the base mechanics.

My favorite 1e character is my gnome Synthesist Summoner. Do I play that whole "semi-transparent outsider overlay" thing? Hell no, she's my Pacific Rim style giant mecha pilot. Its not some mythological beast, its a Colossal arcane magitech golem robot thing stomping on people.

Or my Vigilante (Magical Child)/Witch (Gravewalker) who is basically Sailor Necromancer.

The default, generic, and frankly often completely uninspired flavor text on stuff in any system is usually crap. Its a nice "Well here's what we think it would be good for" example, but thats it.

Or, you know, veterans could just ignore that bit since it has no impact on us, and for new players who may need some inspiration, they might find that section immensely useful.

A few new players I've recently introduced to PF loved those types of blurbs in the Strategy Guide and Inner Sea Races.

2E is also about attracting new people, and those blurbs are likely meant for new players.

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>