Ulfen Raider

GameDesignerDM's page

152 posts. Alias of Aerodus Baradin, The Dawnlord.


RSS

1 to 50 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
It's a bit strange seeing Metal and Earth being separated out considering their overall thematic similarities. I'm curious as to what that's all about.

In Wuxing (Chinese Five Elements) where they probably took from, Metal and Earth are distinct elements.

Metal represents firmness, rigidity, persistence, strength, and determination. It can also relate to having strong impulses, being forceful, ambitious, and stubbornness.

Earth represents patience, thoughtfulness, practicality, hard work, and stability, as well as seeking to bring the other elements together to create harmony.

Thematically, anyway, they are very different - I'm curious to see how it reflects in the mechanics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Awesome news! Congratulations, UPW!


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously not, but it is a step in the right direction and something that is needed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sent in my letter of support!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Nagaji and Vanara!


Kyrone wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Are there new 1st level feats for the Gunslinger that weren't in the playtest?

Crossbow Crackshot - When you reload a crossbow increases the circumstance damage to +2 and if it's a simple one increases the die size.

Dual Weapon Reload - Same as dual weapon warrior.

Munition Crafter - You gain reagents equal to your level to create bombs or simple/alchemical ammunition, the level of the item is 1 and don't increase, at lvl 6 have another feat to scale it to your lvl -3.

Oh, Munition Crafter is awesome and fits my Gunslinger character concept so well. Thanks!


Are there new 1st level feats for the Gunslinger that weren't in the playtest?


The Raven Black wrote:
Dargath wrote:

If one was playing a long ranged Ranger to be a Sniper Assassin is there anything within the Gunslinger that supports hunting a specific target and eliminating it from long range?

Also is there a decent sniper rifle type weapon? Hunt Prey makes sense for an Assassin, does Gunslinger have anything similar?

I would base a Sniper Assassin on Investigator. Stay hidden, Devise a Stratagem every round, wait for the crit. With the Assassin archetype.

Maybe Gunslinger (Way of the Sniper) with Investigator MC Dedication and later Assassin archetype would work better. I will check when I get the book.

More of a NPC build IMO. I think adventuring does not usually give PCs opportunities to really do the wait and snipe at your leisure thing

I'm planning a Way of the Sniper Gunslinger with the Scout Archetype for an upcoming game using the Free Archetype variant. Crazy good synergy with Hide and Stealth.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Taçin wrote:
...there is no such thing as a confident 5e DM simply because of how easily things in that system can get volatile...

I don't know - I've been running a campaign for nearly 3 years and I'm a confident 5E DM.


keftiu wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I would absolutely love an Adventure Path set entirely in Tian Xia that is a full 1-10 (or 1-13, or whatever) that has big wuxia adventure vibes and maybe hits places like Quain, the Wall of Heaven, Shokoro, and Goka. Maybe something dealing with stuff related to Lung Wa? Something cool like that.

And, of course, I'm one of the many clamoring for a Jalmeray or Impossible Kingdoms AP.

We have two Impossible Lands APs coming! One in Alkenstar, one in Geb.

Oh, yeah, I know of those! I meant Vudra, but was using its nickname, hah.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would absolutely love an Adventure Path set entirely in Tian Xia that is a full 1-10 (or 1-13, or whatever) that has big wuxia adventure vibes and maybe hits places like Quain, the Wall of Heaven, Shokoro, and Goka. Maybe something dealing with stuff related to Lung Wa? Something cool like that.

And, of course, I'm one of the many clamoring for a Jalmeray or Impossible Kingdoms AP. Iobaria is up on my list too, maybe a wilderness themed AP where druids, rangers, and beastfolk can shine?


17 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't speak from a perspective of a lot of posters here, being a straight cisgendered white male, but not only am I hurting from the allegations, but also that I keep seeing so many posts that either directly tell or insinuate how our LGBTQIA+ friends should feel.


I'm planning on revamping my old Inquisitor character.

He's a Dhampir raised by a sect of Pharasmin priests/clerics who took pity on his existence and raised him within the faith, and he became a vampire hunter and eventually a larger occult hunter/investigator and destroyer of all things anathema to the world and his faith. Partially inspired by the Hugh Jackman Van Helsing vibe, and the "wandering monster hunter" tropes.

For implements, Weapon -> Amulet -> Lantern is the progression I'm thinking, and then eventually taking the Pact feat that makes a deal with psychopomps for the extra Pharasma flavor.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't a lot of that stuff just like... roleplaying that part? Not every single thing has to have itself represented by explicit mechanics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one thing I wish certain people understood is that empathy isn't just about feeling for your fellow human, but also learning through that and growing yourself as a person.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The implements aren't really the grab bag thing, though. They're just more like your larger occult focus - like your signature occult item.

Everything else is the grab bag - the esoterica you carry around or have attached to yourself.

It's pretty common for characters of this theme (signature hunting items and then often having random extra stuff used to hunt specific things).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, please give thanks to the hardworking folks in the warehouse!


My main Thaumaturge is definitely going to be my Dhampir from 1E retooled into this. He's from Ustalav (obviously) and I always envisioned him as someone who started off hunting his vampiric kin, but dovetailed into hunting all sorts of evil and occult things and keeping their secrets to use against other monsters.

Very much a cross between Van Helsing, John Constantine, and Mages from Mage: The Awakening (come to think of it, the thaumaturge is basically a Mastigos what with a lot of their stuff being built around connections and such). Anyway, the class fulfills all of that to a T.

I loved the occultist in 1E, but the concept was always better as an Inquisitor (and I didn't much like the 3.x tradition of multiclassing), but the Thaumaturge is basically this character written out as a class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know exactly what I was expecting with this class, but I absolutely love it. The thematic nature of it was really nailed in the feats and features and just... I really love it. Very, very excited to play one.


Probably going to retool my Dhampir Inquisitor from 1E as a Thaumaturge with a Weapon Implement as his primary.

We play with Free Archetype, so maybe Fighter, Rogue, or Swashbuckler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So is the Thaumaturge basically going to be the class hinted at in the Magus survey of "would you prefer a non-spellcaster with more emphasis on focus spells" or whatever the specific language was?

Since I absolutely want to see that class. The "focus caster that spends most of their class budget on being really good at focus spells" has been a thing I wanted since day 1.

I could definitely see that - maybe you even can switch what Focus Spells you have access to depending on what Implement you are currently attuned to.


I'd be interested to know as well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've never played at a table that banned Gunslinger, and I don't know any groups IRL my friends have played with that have either.

It's clearly not all the time and I for one would be massively disappointed if they changed the name. Gunslinger is an iconic name and it's not like Alkenstar hasn't existed since forever.

And a book called "Guns and Gears" should have a class called Gunslinger, and I think having one book with a class some tables might ban sometimes isn't that much of a deal. They still put out a bunch of stuff for Gunslinger in 1E and clearly there's enough interest in the class to put it out in 2E.

We don't have access to their internal data, after all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:


That's fair and not that surprising, honestly. It's interesting that part of the problem might be the openness of the ability; at one point during the development phase, the gunslinger had defined "backup weapons" from specific categories. Off the top of my head I think drifters got one-handed swords or axes, pistoleros got thrown weapons, and snipers got bombs.

I am not going to lie, that actually would have changed my whole initial perception of the class from "eh" to "okay this is sick".

Guns+ as a Class Path would be a fantastic way to handle that IMO.

Now, how selective you limit the "+" option could certainly hurt things in some areas (like my way of the drifter John Wick unarmed build), but I feel like if you opened up the trait system for the selection process you could make it work a lot better.

In short, here's one vote to go back to that idea. I love the sound of that.

Yeah, I second this. This sounds awesome - and kinda already how I was planning to build out my Alkenstar Sniper.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:
Just pick a class from core like Cleric. Make a Cleric level 4-5 and compare that with what a Cleric from 5e or a Cleric or Warpriest from PF1 can do. In terms of impact, action economy, tankyness, burst magic,

I don't really feel this is a fair comparison at all. They are VASTLY different games, and of course the same classes are going to be different because the systems have wildly different expectations. And this is honestly the first time I've heard someone express an equivalent class in 5E is better.

I'm sorry your group feels that way about PF2E, but my own couldn't disagree more with your opinion.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

And do you have data of your playtesting with internal friend groups? And all of your iterative design changes when things conflict with inherent system expectations and balance - which it always will on a first pass? Do you have your pillars of design that you are using when designing the class, and ensuring it does conflict with PF2E's wider design pillars?

And, since you constantly say you want a weak summoner but a strong eidolon, what is your solution for people who vehemently do not want that? That is both balanced against your own chassis desire, and does not sacrifice your Eidolon customization needs in order to make the summoner more powerful?

(I'm being deliberately facetious because it's not so simple as "just balance it" and expounding design in a vacuum philosophy which is basically what you're saying.)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

You keep arguing from the assumed perspective of the Eidolon being the true player character and thus are entitled to the same breadth of feats.

They are not, and so are not entitled to them. They are a class feature, and their customization is from class feats. That's all.

We all understand it is what YOU want, but it is not what they are.

You obviously never played pf1.

I did for years.

But this is PF2E. And we are discussing the PF2E playtest version of Summoner. Quite different - which has been pointed out plenty of times.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

You keep arguing from the assumed perspective of the Eidolon being the true player character and thus are entitled to the same breadth of feats.

They are not, and so are not entitled to them. They are a class feature, and their customization is from class feats. That's all.

We all understand it is what YOU want, but it is not what they are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jesse_Carl wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

Well, yeah, because they shouldn't. The Eidolon isn't coming from the Ancestry, and the Summoner gets the General and Skill feats, and Eidolons also don't have classes, so.

If there was a Feat to share your multiclass feats with your Eidolon, that'd be neat, but they shouldn't get them on their own. The Summoner should remain the one who gets the same breadth of feats as all other characters.

To be clear, I am asking for a class rework. The way I want the class to be reworked, the Eidolon would have more than 50 percent of the power, and a good amount of customization. Of course, that is not true right now, but I think it should be redesigned that way.

So when you say "The Summoner should remain the one who gets the same breadth of feats as all other characters.", that is exactly what I am disagreeing with. And it is not a disagreement of balance or understanding, it is a disagreement of class philosophy should be. I understand what the current class philosophy is, and I think it should be changed because it would make the class more interesting and more fun to play.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a thing is likely to happen - we may get changes to certain things here and there, but a class rework of the sort you want would likely delay SoM and invalidate the Summoner's portion of the playtest.

It's just not something I see Paizo doing in any kind of form.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
No, the majority of customization comes through feats. Ancestry, Class, General, Skill, Multiclass, Archetype, All feats.

And yet, the only ones of those that the eidolon gets are Class Feats. They don't get Ancestry*, General, Skill, Multiclass, or Archetype feats.

*They sorta do with their eidolon-type-things that kick in at 7th and 17th. But you don't have a choice with them.

Well, yeah, because they shouldn't. The Eidolon isn't coming from the Ancestry, and the Summoner gets the General and Skill feats, and Eidolons also don't have classes, so.

If there was a Feat to share your general/skill/multiclass feats with your Eidolon for a brief time, that'd be neat, but they shouldn't get them on their own. The Summoner should remain the one who gets the same breadth of feats as all other characters, and Eidolons a limited number of things to customize with that comes from the Summoner class and Summoner feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No, the majority of customization comes through feats. Ancestry, Class, General, Skill, Multiclass, Archetype, All feats.

Spells, equipment, and certain classes that can choose things in the chassis is hardly '90 percent'.

They mean the Eidolons shouldn't get a different type of customization solely for them that can just as easily be accomplished with the system structure of customization that is feats.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Whether you put nothing on your burger, cheese on your burger, cheese, lettuce, and tomato on your burger, or whatever-- you're still making burgers... and in this case, you're still summoning.
Yeah except the rules explicitly point out that you're making sandwiches and NOT burgers.

Burgers are a type of sandwich, so maybe not the best comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And on the topic of Vanguards and names and such, it immediately brings to mind the Vanguard from Mass Effect. Like when I was reading the class during the playtest, I immediately went "Oh this is the Mass Effect class, and the entropy powers are just their version of biotics" - so it definitely works and fits with a space fantasy setting.

Summoner also works perfectly fine, especially if we many of the classes have names that really aren't that related to anything except "the name has always been this" - barbarian, druid, sorcerer, ect.

I also don't really consume any media that has a 'Summoner' type so the one I know the best IS the Pathfinder Summoner - and that's what I think of when I see the word Summoner. Which the 2E version still fits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
I want to treat my summoner as powerless and my Eidolon as powerful. Where is the second body?

I don't think this is ever going to happen. They will always split the difference in terms of balance, that's just going to be what happens. And the Eidolon as such is likely not to be size up to a tried-and-true full fledged Martial.

And I highly doubt they'll drop spellcasting, anyway.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's honestly starting to sound like what would suit Verzen better is a monster Ancestry they can then make a martial class.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I think we all understand what you're saying, Verzen, but we feel that's fundamentally at odds with what Paizo is intending, and is very unlikely to change.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Finishers being a special martial trait/concept/theme that the swashbuckler is unique in accessing didn't exist until it did.

Manifesting as a special trait/concept/theme linked to a special kind of advanced summoning only a summoner gets access to didn't exist until it did.

It's clearly still summoning, they just get a special phrase because it is unique to them, like finishers are to swashbucklers.

(Or pick any other special traits/concepts/themes certain classes get access to that others don't - the same idea still applies.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Verzen wrote:

No. It wasnt. What defined the summoner was having a customizable pet. Not a completely watered down but mathematically enhanced summon monster spell.

Where is the FLAVOR ? Its just not there.

Verzen, the flavor is there. Flavor has nothing to do with mechanics.

Its the "customization mechanics" that you're missing.

What defined the 1E summoner was the "man and his summoned companion dynamic" - the customizable pet was just how that was implemented.

The implementation has changed, not the concept.

There's a joke about how the British sailed all over the world in search of spices and then decided they liked none of them.

Same concept here. The playtest summoner is the equivalent of the British while all the other classes make up various different cultures where they enjoy flavor for their food.

In your opinion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It also can become particularly frustrating for players who focus on non-combat situations such as social encounters, where they have to make numerous rolls just to talk to someone and then end up failing a lot in a single encounter with an NPC, especially when their roleplay is otherwise exceptional. (As is often the case with my group - I play with a lot of actors and theater kids.)

Contrasting with say, combat, where someone playing a combat beast just steamrolls and succeeds more often than not and the social character is left feeling frustrated.

2E mitigates this a whole lot, with only really needing one roll in most situations, and is super welcomed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a phrase in game design of 'kill your babies' - that you might get so hung up on a certain design or system that you get blinders to how it might adversely be interacting with the rest of the game. I think it's applicable here in the sense of the PF1 Summoner being some folk's babies and that you have to 'kill it' and move on with what we'll get for the class in 2E.

It happens to everyone - I'm sure I'll have to do the same if/when they release the PF2E Inquisitor.

Even if they adjust the things that need tweaking - which there are - it's never going to be the same as PF1 Summoner, in terms of damage, utility, or customization. It's a new paradigm and classes have to adjust to it - and often that means making concessions in areas that previously may have been draws to people.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Eidolons are whatever Paizo decides they're supposed to be. They can change it from 1E all they want - it's their creation. Whatever they say it is, it is now and has always been.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I explained the mechanics to friends who have LDs and often struggle with the more crunchy bits of tabletops and they had absolutely 0 issues with it.

It's really not that complicated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
How many times must I repeat myself that synthesis removes casting?

Yeah, you can manifest your Eidolon not fused and then you have casting. Point still stands. You have that inherent choice baked into the class options, and you are giving things up for that choice - the ability to be as good at fighting as the fighter, for example.

And I'm not considering any hypothetically fan-suggested things that aren't in the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, if I was playing a fighter or barbarian or any of the other martials, and the dude over there playing the class that can also cast and a bunch of other neat utility things suddenly is on par or better than me, I'd feel really s$%&ty and just ask why isn't the whole party just playing Synthesist Summoners.

Differences are what makes classes appealing, and sometimes those differences mean that you are not as good at fighting as the fighter. That's fine - every class makes concessions.

I get it, Summoner is some people's favorite class. But this is a new edition, and things are going to change and that means you will lose some stuff from 1E. You just have to accept that and learn to work with what we've got and have fun with that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Eidolons, Familiars, and Animal Companions not being actual characters is certainly not a take I thought I'd read this morning.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
I am not the only one who wants a build-a-bear. A ton of people want that option.

What constitutes a 'ton' in your anecdote? Because I doubt this forum is actually at all a good idea of the total number of people who actually play the game.

We're a minority.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

Paizo is also free to change/alter/retcon anything they wish to in terms of Summoner lore/iconics or whatever else.

It is their game and they can do as they wish. If that means it conflicts with your idea of what a summoner is, that sucks, but it is their game and if they decide something is the new lore paradigm, then it is.

Where have they said they retconned him? Picking a new iconic doesn't mean it is retconned and he ceases to exist.

I didn't claim they did anything - I'm simply stating they are free to do so, if they wish, in order to better fulfill their vision of the summoner in 2E.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo is also free to change/alter/retcon anything they wish to in terms of Summoner lore/iconics or whatever else.

It is their game and they can do as they wish. If that means it conflicts with your idea of what a summoner is, that sucks, but it is their game and if they decide something is the new lore paradigm, then it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also I really don't think a book called Secrets of Magic is going to have a class that doesn't have - in some form or fashion - the ability to cast spells that aren't Focus Spells.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Redblade8 wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Mainly asking because I want a cutlass - you can reflavor the look of a shortsword easy enough, but I'm sure y'all have some official version that would be much nicer.
I don't know, the shortsword covers a lot of ground, especially now that it's a versatile weapon. I'd hate to see more weapons added just so that something specifically has a name added to it, if that makes sense...
The trait system means there's a lot more reason to add similar weapons than there was in PF1; it was entirely pointless for both the scimitar and the cutlass to exist in first edition, but now I could see a cutlass as getting agile instead of forceful to make it an appropriate swash weapon.

I'd see it as Agile, Finesse, Parry for traits, maybe. But, that's just my image of all the fights in PotC.

1 to 50 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>