Aspis Agent

Gavmania's page

Organized Play Member. 2,372 posts (5,316 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 40 Organized Play characters.

1 to 50 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cool concept, but I would change the name. Anyone familiar with Eberron will have an idea of what an artificer is, and this only covers part of it. Not sure what you’d call it, though. Talismaner? Enchanter? Magical Craftsman?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All good stuff. The arcana will need a lot of work. For example, touch attacks don’t exist, so Accurate Strike should probably be changed to give flat footed to an opponent, while Arcane Accuracy shouldn’t give int as a bonus (maybe an alternative?). Which would alter the flavour of them while keeping their intent I think

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Minor monk fix here - alternatives to the Core monk included by trading out Flurry of Blows for other "1st level only" abilities, designed to open up the space a little more.

Early Path to Perfection
At first level, a monk chooses their path to perfection from among Body, Heart, or Spirit. This choice determines which key ability scores they may choose from, which ability they receive at first level, as well as which possible tradition their ki powers may arise from. The Monk depicted in the Core Rulebook is assumed to have chosen the path of Body, and in all ways functions identically:
** spoiler omitted **...

I like your ideas Rainzax. I made a few changes for myself though. It is a small increase in power because it includes 1 free feat for each type of Monk. Let me know what you think:

** spoiler omitted **...

Interesting ideas, the only thing that concerns me is how powerful these abilities can be. A well built monk using ki defence could be adding +3 to ac at 1st level, on a chassis that is only just behind an optimal fighter. Add in access to the shield cantrip (from ancestry feat) and 20% miss chance from ki rush and suddenly they’re untouchable. While my concerns may turn out to be unfounded, it does seem a little op. And at this stage, the build hasn’t even used a class feat.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Karissel wrote:

I don't really understand why they thought that critical's time had come again?

I wasn't aware that it had ever gone.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is similar to what I have been advocating.

Right now, Arcane sorcerers are ok, but Divine, Occult and Primal are all lacking. While returning to Arcane lists only is an option, I don't think it'll be a very popular one.

If this gives options to Divine, Occult and Primal sorcerers that make them viable then I'm all for it.

One of the things that concerns me is the constant demand for channel energy for divine sorcerers; I don't think this is an option (although currently some alternative to Cleric healing is desirable), for the following reasons:
1) Channel Energy is a Cleric thing. It's not right to be stepping on their toes.
2) Divine sorcerers still won't be as good as Clerics (No domain powers, worse weapon proficiencies, worse armor proficiency)
3) Other ways to provide healing may be more thematic

Case in point: Angelic Bloodlines could possibly exude a healing aura (all within 10' heal 1hp/turn). This wouldn't do much in combat, but it would ensure that allies can heal up between encounters in a relatively short time. Thematic, solves the healing problem and doesn't step on the toes of clerics.
Perhaps Demonic bloodlines could have some kind of infernal healing; a spell like power that provides powerful healing, but takes a little time to cast (1 min?) that way, it's not useful in-combat (for that you need spells), but it will cover out of combat healing without using up spells.

Another thing I thought may be a possible innovation is to allow sorcerers to recover a spell slot by spending resonance. (say 1 resonance per level of spell slot?) That would give them a resource to gain extra spells (giving them back their extra spells when compared to a wizard) without having to resort to scrolls (which should primarily be a wizard thing).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
Wolfism wrote:

Also the tight math really helps the idea that my roleplayed combat ideas might actually mean something so that I'll actually use them more often. If climbing a chandelier and jumping on an opponent gives me a circumstance bonus on my one attack that actually matters in the round I get a significant higher chance of getting a crit, and vice versa for flipping a table for cover. That means it feels good to do as a player and I'm actually a lot more likely to actually do interesting actions that interact with the world. I love that.
While that sounds truly horrible to me, like an even slower more cumbersome version of 4e's diseased combat engine, I'm far more curious why/how people are correlating combat tactics with roleplaying? The two are concepts are almost completely unrelated as far as I can tell...

Swinging on a chandelier is more of a trope than an actual combat tactic. What swashbuckling adventure isn't complete without the hero swinging on a chandelier (or rope, or curtain, etc.)? In the real world, doing this would mean placing yourself in an unbalanced position with little control and an inability to shift in response to your opponents moves - in other words, it's a horrible combat tactic. It is however a powerful roleplay moment and should rightfully be rewarded for getting into the spirit of the game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanoskazi wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Zorae wrote:
Although, if you go the Demonic bloodline you effectively get to spend 2 actions and then get an finesse attack that gives you 1d4 Temp HP every time you hit a living creature (scaling with level). Which is pretty neat - you could effectively prevent as much damage as a single channel with just a few rounds.
My reply is "WTF is a sorcerer doing in melee?"
Biting people.

What else would a sorcerer be doing in melee?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Bear in mind that even if you nerf cleric, you STILL need to give the sorcerer "more toys" to bring it up to par. The sorcerer gets less feats, less hit points, less gear proficiencies, less flexible spellcasting, less flexibility in advancement due to being locked into one bloodline, and only one power compared to the two a cleric or Bard gets. While one power is on par with wizard and druid, the powers THEY get are universally better than the bloodline power a sorcerer gets. The only class as bad as or worse than the sorcerer is the Alchemist; it needs major improvements.

I agree. The only thing the sorcerer gets is more spells and bloodlines. If the spell list is unexciting, they have to rely on bloodline abilities to make an impact, and right now they don't cut it.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

As I understand it, the clerics healing abilities are pretty much a must have to survive encounters. nerfing them means nerfing the chances of survival.

But giving divine sorcerers equal healing power would cut in on the cleric (and they still wouldn't be as good as a cleric who gets armor proficiency, weapon proficiency and divine powers); they really need something different but cool to give them back their mojo.

That's why I think some kind of advanced bloodline feat chain would work. Angel bloodlines be coming pseudo angels or demon bloodlines becoming pseudo devils would be cool and give sorcerers something to do besides just cast (lame) spells and be a poor cleric substitute.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They definitely need something. Outside of arcane casters, the spell lists aren't strong enough to support a sorcerer. Who would play a divine sorcerer when a cleric can do so much more? Ditto primal sorcerer and druid; and occult sorcerer and bard.

It is obvious that the idea of different spell lists depending on bloodlines is very popular, so I would be reluctant to abandon that, but whatever is chosen to improve the sorcerer has to be both flavorful and must cost the arcane sorcerer something to implement. I suggest some kind of advanced bloodline chain of feats; taking these would eat into the arcane sorcerers metamagic feats but give other sorcerers something other than second rate spells that they can use.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignment doesn't restrict roleplay. It doesn't dictate what your character wouldn't do, only what they are unlikely to do. If the character acts outside their alignment too often, their alignment changes. For some classes (e.g. Paladin or cleric) this may have consequences, but for others it is about the growth of the character.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been giving this some thought while the forum has been down. While regenerative healing is an interesting idea, it doesn't solve the wider problem, which is that the non-arcane sorcerer doesn't work very well. While they get more spells than their counterparts, all of their various counterparts (Cleric, Bard or Druid) get powers and weapon/armour proficiencies which simply make them a better choice.

That's why I am more than ever convinced that sorcerer needs something that will cost class feats (so it will cost arcane sorcerers something) but which is thematic and unique to sorcerers. I still think advanced bloodline Feats are the best fit for this, such that e.g. angelic bloodlines can become more like an angel or draconic bloodlines can become more draconic, but at the cost of metamagic, etc.

Needless to say some thought needs to be given to when such Feats become available and what they are, but it seems like the basis of a solution.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems to me the divine sorcerer needs some kind of theme it can excel at when compared to a cleric. At the moment, the cleric is better at combat builds and healing, and the divine list doesn't have enough oomph to make
the sorcerers extra spells/level count. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but maybe some more bloodline feats to make them more angelic/demonic might be thematic?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakhor wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
Unless the spells are actually organized I wont look any harder (alphabetically and not by level??? wtf)
I know - it's shocking that it's been done that way ever since 3rd Edition debuted. Incredible, isn't it?

I wouldn't mind that, but powers are included too. Makes finding a relevant spell difficult.

I'm also annoyed that power entries give no indication of who has access to them. I'm left wondering if it's a paladin power, a domain power, a bloodline power, a school power, an ancestry power or a bard power. Also, when I pick (say) a bloodline, I have to flip to a completely different part of the book to find out what my bloodline power does. Maybe it's because it's a playtest, but it's a bit annoying.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the things that I am beginning to find annoying is that many of the things we are being told do not need to be in the playtest (because they know they work) are the very things we want to use to make our concepts. I am increasingly of the opinion that the best way to test a new system is to recreate the concepts from the old (Archer-Paladins of Erastil, lightly armoured fighters, etc.) but without the archetypes we are told should be available (Hopefully there would ones to cover these builds), this becomes impossible.
Such archetypes should also help us mix up signature skills, though I do like the suggestion of a free signature skill to represent an individuals personal choices better.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Given that the only other 6 level semi caster was reincarnated as a full caster with reduced spell slots, I suspect they will do the same with Magus. It would be nice to think I'm wrong, but assuming I'm right, How would they balance spellstrike?
Well, my first thought would be to limit it to Cantrips. Since they scale with level, presumably cost 1 action and have unlimited uses they would become perfect choices. Much would depend on what cantrips are available on the occult list; if there is no touch attack suitable then this idea would be dead in the water. Also it would mean losing things like vampiric touch at higher levels (both good reasons why a spell-less Magus would actually work better).
Alternatively, using certain levels through spellstrike would only come online at certain levels (say 1st at 1st; 2nd at 4th; 3rd at 7th; 4th at 10th; 5th at 13th and 6th at 16th to keep it in line with the original Magus). A Magus could still cast those spells just as a wizard could, but could only use them via spellstrike if the are of the requisite levels.
All in all, it really feels like trying to put a round peg in a square hole, which is why I think spell-less Magus would work better. Since all their other powers are keyed off Arcane Pool (aka spell points), why not spellstrike?
There would be nothing stopping the Magus Multiclassing into Wizard (or any other caster class, like Bard, Sorcerer, cleric, Druid, etc.), then spending a Feat to get Broad study to be able to cast their spells via spellstrike, or multiclassing into Fighter to improve their combat proficiency and increase the chance of getting those all important crits in spellstrike for those that want it.

I would like to add: To those who keep saying that spellstrike could be used to make Warpriests, the Warpriest has never had anything remotely resembling spellstrike. You may be getting confused with spell combat, which allows a spell and an attack on the same round; but spell combat and fervour function very differently. Spell combat is any spell you can cast, at a -2 to all attacks. Fervour is any spell that only targets you but with no penalty.
Spellstrike by contrast is specifically about touch attacks. It's use is very offensive. Fervour is about buffs. It's use is very defensive.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say, I disagree with those who say that many of the concepts from pf1 can be reduced to a multi-class in pf2 CRB.
Take for example, Magus. Magus is just a Fighter/Wizard or Wizard/Fighter, right? (or Sorcerer/Fighter, etc.)
Wrong. While those are interesting concepts, and I have played such multi-classes in Pf1, they play very differently to Magus. The Multi-class concentrates on Buffs (well, mine do) because attack spells get in the way of melee attacks.
The Magus is specifically designed to combine attack spells with melee, so has no such limitation.
I gather there is a wizard class feat that emulates spell combat (it has been alluded to, but we haven't seen it, so I could be misreading the cues).
There is, as yet, no known equivalent of spellstrike. In Pf2 it would allow you to make one roll with your melee attack to get a hit with your spell; a crit would resolve as normal for a spell. This is still more powerful than using spell dcs as combat proficiency rises faster for a Fighter than spell proficiency for a Caster. (Legendary at 8th pretty much guarantees a crit).
There is nothing which even approximates a Magus' ability to enhance their weapon.
Then there is spell recall, and Magus arcana. The latter alone would represent an entire class worth of class feats.
All in all, claiming that Fighter/Wizard is a good substitute for magus is nonsense. Fighter/Wizard is a good choice, and something I would use (or more specifically, Fighter/Sorcerer when it's available), but it is not the same as a Magus.

I could go on, suffice to say that just about every other class in Pf1 has enough options that would make it difficult to boil down to an archetype or a multi-class. While the multi-class option is interesting and powerful, it is no substitute for these many brilliant innovations from Pf1, so please stop saying they can be recreated/reduced to an Archetype. Maybe some will be reduced to an archetype; maybe some can be recreated, but the fact remains that most of them use unique abilities that make them irreducible/irreplaceable.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Gavmania wrote:

Weren't in the CRB...

But we don't have a choice between PF2 and PF1 with only the CRB.

PF2 has to show me something to make me give up all those options I listed and the rest of the options I didn't take the time to list.

I understand that there can't be literally every option, but is it too much to ask that they give us SOMETHING?

Some one shiny toy to make me want to play the game?

I'm asking for ONE singular character that I couldn't play in the previous edition-- and they have said "Goblins and Alchemist! See, it's new!"

Sorry, I don't buy it; at this rate I won't be buying it.

"That wasn't in the CRB, so it doesn't matter that we took it away" isn't an answer to the problem of going from many options to few options--

And NO for the last time, NO feats aren't options. That does NOT make up for losing more than 20 classes and hundreds of archetypes and forty odd races.

I get that. For you, you will have to wait until they bring out some more options in an expansion book before it makes it worth your while to transfer, which will probably mean a few years from now. In the mean time, I hope you continue to enjoy playing pf1. Good luck, and see you in a few years!

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:

I think that 5 hardness shield is just for a low-end shield and that at higher levels you can get shields with more hardness. I seem to recall some mention of that but I don't know where. And as Tristram and Hargert stated, I think the hardness only comes into play when you're using a reaction to reduce damage from a hit, not for just using it for extra AC. So you're in control of if you want to take a dent (or sacrifice the shield if you already have dents) to prevent some damage.

And historically shields did break. Viking duels famously included rules for the number of shields a participant can use (usually three). Might not be quite as fun in Pathfinder to have to go through multiple shields for one fight though. But this is a test to see how things work.

If my memory serves, the indestructible shield has a hardness of 13 and never takes dents, and another shield of adamantine and high hardness had a hardness of 26 or 29, while lacking the nice benefit of never having to worry if your shield might shatter, and those were probably the top end of shields.

iirc the Adamantine Shield was hardness 18 (I could be wrong), but I seem to remember the unbreakable shield as 13, too.

Looking at fight scenes in films, the hero's shield breaking early due to the bad guy's onslaught is a common trope - one I have felt was missing from d&d/Pf for some time (well, forever). I'm glad they introduced it.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Cuup wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Cuup wrote:
You can't change a system without losing something. Instead of focusing on what you're losing, try imagining what could be gained.

I'll focus on what I am gaining as soon as I see a single idea from 2nd edition that feels like gaining something.

So far it's been 100% taking options away and resetting back to nothing.

I haven't seen a single new idea yet, except more ways to restrict what we can do.

So you're telling me you haven't found one single thing to be excited about in PF2? I'm sorry, I find that pretty incredible.

What's the new thing I can make in PF2 that I couldn't make before?

So far we've seen:

Most of the core classes (already had)
Pirate & Grey Maiden (already had)
Multiclassing (already had)

What's the NEW thing I can do?

I'm not excited by Resonance (new limits!), everything being feats (have yet to see one that gave us a NEW option), the Skill system (limiting- very few levels of differentiation!), the action system (super limiting!).

So what new exciting thing is there?

By comparison we are losing:

Probably most archetypes for most classes

They weren't in the CRB (though at least some will be in pf2 CRB, plus many will be replaced by class feats.

Original Multiclassing (replaced by having ONLY a suped up variant multiclassing)

I think the system presented is actually better, but you're entitled to your opinion.

All the Occult Classes

Weren't in the CRB



Wasn't in the CRB


Gunslingers (and guns in general)

Wasn't in the CRB


Cavalier, Witch, Summoner

Weren't in the CRB


Ninja, Antipaladin, Samurai

Weren't in the CRB


Cavalier, Oracle

Weren't in the CRB



Wasn't in the CRB


The rest of the Hybrid classes

Weren't in the CRB



Weren't in the CRB


All but 7 races

Weren't in the CRB (except Goblin)


I never remember an edition that offered so little new on release (other than 3.5 which was sold as a pure rules patch update).

3.0- Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer, Half-orcs, prestige classes
4.0- Dragonborn & Warlords

Pathfinder-- all the stuff from 3.5, but wait- each of them got extra class features added and nothing taken away!

PF2- Here's Alchemist that you've been playing with for 8 years, but this time it's in the CRB instead of the second release.

If none of those things were in the CRB first time around why would you expect them to be in it this time round? Do you have any conception of how huge such a monstrosity would be?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I understand it, the retraining rules will allow you to retrain stats. So you can start with a stat of 14, retrain it to 16, get the multiclass, retrain it back to 14.

This is useful if you pick a background for fluff reasons (and why wouldn't you?) but it doesn't boost the stat you need for multiclassing. I don't think it would work for races ancestries that get a -2 to that stat, they may have to wait until level-up before being able to multiclass, but then there is a reason they are not famous for certain classes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to say, I provisionally withdraw my objections to the multi-class/archetype clash.
The way I see it, there are 3 main reasons for picking archetypes in pf1:
1) for background reasons. Your character went through this background where it just makes sense to pick this archetype
2) for differentiation purposes. What's the difference between my bard and any other bard? I'm a bard (archaeologist).
3) optimisation. While this does include powergaming, there are times a certain archetype is just a straight up upgrade you'd be foolish not to take.

Much depends on how much these are covered by class feats. If they are, it would be no problem multi-classing at 2nd. It would feel slightly unsatisfying not to be able to put a label on your character that automatically differentiated you, but it's something I could learn to live with if class feats (and skill feats, ancestry feats, etc) step up.

I have to admit, the way multi-classing is implemented in and of itself is very good. Personally, I think ranger/,wizard multi-classes will become popular because of the importance of winning initiative for a caster, enabling them to e.g. buff fighters before they attack or cast fireball before the combat zone gets crowded with allies.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

My only complaint is that multiclass archetypes clash with other archetypes. If they had made the dedication feat as a multiclass dedication feat instead of a multiclass, archetype dedication feat it would be possible to have the basics of a character concept by level 4 (3 if human). That would still be bad, but much better than the current system where you have to wait until level 8.

Or just declare no more than 3 archetypes, though ths may see some players front loading their archetypes to maximise their power.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

If I want to play an arhetype and a muticlass, I have to wait for level 8. In pf1 I could have both by level 2. That makes it a step backwards as far as I am concerned.

Also, no sorcerer. Guess I'll have to wait for CRB for that.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the idea is that they normally get 3 actions, but they take 1 to understand and comply with your commands. It takes 1 action for you to command them, too. Overall you get 4 actions left (2 for you, 2 for creature).
In theory you can leave them to do their own thing, but they operate on instinct (which is usually run away for animals, not sure about others but probably go home).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the only requirements for multi-classing are a stat at 16 and a skill, and they don't require a dedication feat, I could live with that. I could multi-class at 1st, then get an archetype at 2nd. It would mean that I would be 4th level before I had any meaningful choice (unless I was human - they can convert an ancestry feat into a class feat), which would hurt, but it's a whole lot better than waiting until 8th to get a choice.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, a lot depends on how archetypes interact with multi-classing. If they are just another archetype, I will not be a happy bunny since my character concept will not come online until 8th level ( 6th if you can start at 11st level).
For example, the GM is running a skulls & shackles campaign, and he "strongly recommends" picking up the pirate archetype . I want to play a gish pirate - sounds like a cool concept, right? In pf 1 this was easy; pick a fighter archetype with pirate flavour at 1st and wizard at 2nd.
In pf2, it appears we have to wait until 2nd before getting an
archetype, then we have to take 2 more class feats (4th, 6th) before we can pick up the next archetype at 8th. This means if I pirate at 2nd, I can't gish until 8th, or if I gish at 2nd, I can't pirate until 8th. When I do, I think I will only be getting 2nd level spells, hardly a gish character!

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The main problem I have with this style of multi-classing is that it costs class feats. What if I have a cool idea for an archetype plus multi-class, that's 6 feats right there; and I haven't even got any class feats for my own class yet. The problem with hanging so much on one resource is that it gets pulled in too many directions; I'd prefer to be able to give up other resources (skill feats, ancestry feats or general feats) so that at least I could get a fair amount of class feats for my actual classes.
Then too it seems that certain options of the new class will be off the table. Again, disappointing. If I have a cool idea for combining two such features from two classes - can't be done (unless there's an archetype).
At the moment, I'm shooting the breeze, until I see the full document and playtest it, I won't know how this works in practice. I'll live with it, but I won't necessarily like it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like very much.

Especially the Leaf and Animal orders; I have had several ideas for an Urban Druid that would fit nicely here (Gardener, Stable Master, Master of the Hounds, etc.). The other orders are cool too.

A Wild Druid may be a good candidate for multiclassing with Fighter (or ranger).

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, let's break this down.

The barbarian gets +14 in law, the lawyer +10

But, the lawyer gets to turn a success into a crit and a failure into a success.
So, against a dc 24 case the barbarian crit fails on a 1, fails on a 2-9, succeeds on a 10-19 and crit succeeds on a 20.
The lawyer crit. fails on a 1-4, succeeds on a 5-14 and crit. Succeeds on a 15-20. He may drop more cases, but he also roflstomps a load more.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

The other big issue came in the sorcerers interaction with heightening spells. It is difficult to really understand the whole discussion as it went on for several pages and went on several tangents, but it came down to the devs not wanting too much time gaps in the games while the spellcasters toiled over their large number of options. Analysis Paralysis. Opponents want sorceress to have free access to heightening their spells, to avoid daily preparations and variables.

This is wrong. Analysis paralysis may have been a consideration, but the main reason the sorcerer was not able to freely heighten is that it would make it too powerful.

Consider this: I am a smart player, If I have Free Heightening, here is what would happen.
At first level, I get 3 spells known. I pick spells that are heightenable to all subsequent level.
At 3rd level, I pick 3 New (heightenable) spells, plus I get the 3 that are freely heightened from my first level spells, for 6 spells.
At 5th level, I pick 3 new spells, get the 3 heightened 2nd level spells and the 3 heightened 1st level spells for 9 spells.

and so on.

Now for a sorcerer, knowing a spell means being able to cast a spell - not like these wizards who have to prepare slots. So while the 5th level wizard has access to 3x4 = 12 spells (because that is the number of spell slots he has), the sorcerer has access to 3+6+9=18 spells, and the gap widens every couple of levels.
The wizard gets 3 new spell slots every other level, so his spellcastng ability goes up linearly.
The sorcerer would get an exponentially increasing amount every other level (3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27 and if he gets level 10 spells, 30). By the time he is 20th level, the wizard could have 30 spells; the sorcerer 165 spells.

So, to limit it they decided that only 2 could be hightened. This still gives the sorcerer 5 new spells/level (except 1st), making it very powerful if used wisely, and the consensus among the devs is that sorcerer may well be more powerful than the wizard because of it.

Oh, and it only costs a couple of 1st level spells known slots not a great sacrifice for a high level sorcerer.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
houser2112 wrote:

I don't understand Paizo's reasoning regarding spell heightening: "Sorcerers have limited spells known, so we'll require them to burn a known spell slot for each level they want to cast it at, and give them this 2/day patch. Wizards have unlimited spells known, so we'll let them learn each spell just once at its lowest level, and freely let them prepare it in higher slots to get its heightened effects."

This is completely backwards. Sorcerers should be the ones able to learn once and manipulate it at will, and wizards should have to learn at each level because they can.

The only conclusion I get from this is that they really like paleovancian casting.

What you have to remember is that both classes come with a bottleneck in their ability to cast spells freely; for wizards it is their spells prepared - it doesn't matter how many spells they know, it only matters how many they prepare (given some time, they can get round this, but in the heat of battle that's what they are stuck with).

For the sorcerer, it is their spells known. Anything they know, they can cast (assuming they still have spell slots available, that is); anything they don't know, they can't (outside of scrolls). If you allow them to heighten everything freely, the number of spells known rises exponentially (3 at 1st, 6x 2nd, 9x3rd, 12x4th, etc; of course this assumes that they pick spells that are heightenable to each of the following levels, but you get the picture). Before long, they have access at any time to pretty much every spell there is of their level or lower and the bottleneck is gone.
So that's why the devs limited it. It's just too powerful and unbalances the sorcerer.
As is, the consensus among the devs is that they now think sorcerer is more powerful than wizard.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:

Well good thing the "Class Feats" are now class features. So the VMC rewards should be much higher, and you'll be giving up class features for it.

Not all class features are now class feats - spellcastng, and attack/armour proficiencies, for example. Since these are one of the main reasons people multiclass, they would have to be converted to feats. As well as making things complex (much against the stated aim of the devs), it would mean spending class feats to get what pure gets for free. While they are spending class feats to improve their features, you are spending class feats just to get them!

I for one would be very disappointed in this. If I multi-class out of a class, it's because I no longer want anything out of it. I don't want to be locked in to that classes proficiency progression while I pick up some of the basic features of another class. What I really want is to be able to pick up some of the class feats of the new class, but without the basic features, that's not going to be possible.

Besides, they have fixed pretty much all the problems with multi-classing in the new system (as far as we can tell). Everyone knows how it works, and it's very flexible. Why opt for a clunky system that was pretty much universally hated in unchained when the existing system has been fixed?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

Hurting your BAB when you dipped in non-full BAB classes was also a problem in PF1

And getting higher saves through multiclassing was another one

What Unchained tried to tackle with fractional advancement actually

This is true, but pf2 seems to have fixed all this with the proficiency system.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, what are the problems with multi-classing in pf1 that need to be addressed in pf2?

a) spellcasters. In pf1, spellcasters, lose out dcs, meaning they fall too far behind the curve versus their pure brethren. If only dcs didn't scale so fast, then we could have spellcaster multi-classing. Well, now they don't.

b) dipping. Because class features were front loaded, dipping a class could get you a load of class features. You lost out on the capstone, but since people hardly ever got to level 20, that didn't matter. You could also repeatedly dip, getting loads of front loaded abilities.
Now, there are fewer front loaded class features and going to 20 is supposedly more common. I wonder if there might also be other restrictions, as there are with archetypes, but it seems they fixed this, too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
You gain proficiencies from the dedication feats. Not as fast as a full spellcaster I'm sure, but you can still get them. And they aren't just getting "wizard feats". These are specific dedication feats that give you abilities that the wizard has. Like spellcasting levels, and spellcasting proficiencies. The first dedication feat probably gives you something like this: You gain a spellbook and a few cantrips, and you are trained in spellcasting.
In other words, you get everything a 1st level wizard gets - so why not simplify things and say that you are taking a level of wizard, which gives you everything a wizard gets. That way you don't have to write out a dedication feat.
No. You don't get 1st level spells, you don't get a specialized school. But you are still leveling up as a fighter. You aren't losing out on your proficiency progression as a fighter. And if you were a spellcaster taking a dedication, you aren't losing out on your spell progression or your spell proficiencies. It's basically a balanced version of VMC. Which would be amazing.

If I were a fighter multi-classing into wizard, I would expect to get spells - otherwise what's the point? and If I'm a wizard multi-classing into Fighter, what do I lose compared to a pure Wizard? Seems to me I only gain.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
You gain proficiencies from the dedication feats. Not as fast as a full spellcaster I'm sure, but you can still get them. And they aren't just getting "wizard feats". These are specific dedication feats that give you abilities that the wizard has. Like spellcasting levels, and spellcasting proficiencies. The first dedication feat probably gives you something like this: You gain a spellbook and a few cantrips, and you are trained in spellcasting.

In other words, you get everything a 1st level wizard gets - so why not simplify things and say that you are taking a level of wizard, which gives you everything a wizard gets. That way you don't have to write out a dedication feat.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious how multiclassing will work in 2e. Every class will have a specific "archetype" version. Which will have some of the proficiencies and some of their skills. Their most general class feats will be available to take as the archetype feat line, casters will give you new spell levels as archetype feats. So really it will kind of be like VMC. You're giving up some class feats, to take new class features from another class.
That would be pretty terrible for multiclassing IMO. Means you wouldn't be able to stop progressing in your first class.

I agree. It also means you won't really be progressing in the new class.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Aiken Frost wrote:
You also have the most trained skills at 1st level except for rogues, just barely edging out rangers. Finally, you begin play at 1st level with two compositions, the inspire courage cantrip (which has been detailed above) and the counter performance power.

Can we *please* don't let spellcasters have more skills than the Fighter? Please?


You perform rapidly, speeding your ally. The ally is quick and can use the action to Strike, Stride, or Step.

The Allegro wording is terrible. It would be better like this:

You perform rapidly, speeding your ally. The ally gets one action he can use only to Strike, Stride, or Step.
The wording is the way it is because Quick is a status effect that doesn't stack with other abilities that give Quick and can be countered by Slow.

So in a counterspell battle, it would go SLOW, SLOW, QUICK, QUICK, SLOW...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the idea of muses; very clever, and everything else is good too. I suspected full caster; and I expected occult caster, but it's nice to see confirmation. Well done.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Honestly, most of the things one would dip a class for do not really fit with being only that class. So why not shift those types of things into Backgrounds or similar? Then make the classes not have a bunch of frontloaded stuff?

Or you could just go better and make a classless system, but with packages of preselected stuff at each level. That way, you get all the flexibility of classless, no multiclassing problems at all, and yet still gain the advantages of having "classes" to inspire concepts and build characters more quickly (since you could for example, take the wizard package, but swap out X for Y).

There are a couple of reasons why we have classes:

(1) tradition. While this is not a good reason per se, there is a large fan base that would be upset if they went, and that would mean loss of sales.
(2) direction. If I take fighter, I know I'm going to be a martial character. If I take wizard, I know I'm going to be a spellcaster. It's easy to underestimate how helpful that is to new players (and some experienced ones). There are already a lot of choices, they don't need more.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:

Mental has thought and emotion.

Considering the Material/Spiritual question, I asked myself what needs the spark of inspiration and affects the material world? The obvious answer to me is Technology.

Who was the idiot that suggested Material/spiritual is technology! Of course it's not. Spiritual is all about alignments, and material is about the shape of things, what's representative of alignment and has a shape? Demon's/devils/angels, etc. (including the denizens of Mechanus, ironically) and also deities. It is the source of domain magic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, it is possible that every class gets a feature (spells of abilities) on odd levels and a class feat on even levels. This could remain the same if you multi-class, meaning you can multi-class at any level

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cat-thulhu wrote:

Cant see spellpoints being the answer to multiclassing. If this were the case id always start as a spellcaster to get actual spells and p the martial abilities via feats. The other side: martial, then pick up my spellcasting as spell points falls a little flatter by comparison.

The issue is whatever they do i suspect they will be hammered simply because multiclassing always requires some degree of sacrifice. You cant possibly maintain full access to both (three, four) class features if you multiclass, it doesnt make sense to do so, otherwise multiclassing becomes the default. Why play a wizard when a wizard/fighter is just as good at spellcasting and gains the martial combat benefits as well?

if scaling is indeed by level not class then that will reduce some of the current issues, if i multiclass i will most likely lose access to higher levels spells but my fireballs (for want of an example) will be just as good as those of a pure spellcaster-the non multiclass wizard will have more variety and access to higher level spells. The reverse is true as well, the multiclass fighter will have access to a greater number of class feats and abilities by virtue of level in the class, the multi will have less but the benefits of the other class(es).

My 2 largest concers in 2e are still long drawn out combats and homogeneity in classes.

I would also go spellcaster, then martial; but really i don't want to have to choose between spellcaster with a flavour of martial and martial with a flavour of spellcaster.

The way I see it, we know that everyone gets class feats at the same time, skill feats at the same time, ancestry feats and general feats at the same time, it's no great leap to assume it's all tied to one table that you refer to even for multi-classing. Spells would be a class feature gained at first level that scales with class level.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't see them denying spellcasting if you multi-class. What would be the point in multi-classing into a cleric, druid, bard, sorcerer or wizard if you can't get spells? It's the main class feature, not to mention the source of too many tropes.
No, looking closely at the sorcerer thread I am more convinced than ever that multiclassing will go the traditional route with this. spellcasters don't even get expert at spellcasting until they are 12th level - and that's if they are pure. That means that multiclassed chracters are only ever likely to be 1 proficiency level behind, and more likely will be the same proficiency most of the time.

This means dcs will be the same or slightly less for most of the time; the only thing separating pure from multiclass is what level they can cast spells up to. a 5th level x/5th level sorcerer will have 3rd level spells; a 10th level sorcerer will have 5th level spells. Proficiency level will be the same, so dcs (all else being the same) will also be the same.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

...I also might not have every little thing mapped out; I may not know if my players want XYZ items available, meaning I have to either fully flesh out things that I feel I shouldn't have, taking up more time than I care to spend, or I have to make something up on the spot (which I usually end up doing if the players veer off-grid, and I may have to retcon that stuff later if I have/had other plans for it)...

No, you don't. You just designate it as uncommon, which in this case is "something I haven't got round to dealing with yet". Once you get round to dealing with it, you can designate it "common" (or "rare", or whatever).

You can justify it by saying that a local retired hero has begun giving tuition, spreading it (so it is now common)


local retired hero moves away (or dies), so it is now rare.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I know my brother's gaming group would like this.

To use pf2 parlance in pf1:

Core is common, Magus is common, Gunslinger is rare, anything else is uncommon.

It's easy to understand. And if the GM allows one of the uncommon options, then finds he likes it, it can be changed to common. If he doesn't like it, he can change it to rare. Simple, really.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Which is worse, not only because it messes up multiclassing, but also it denies dabbling. Oh sure, you could still dabble, but the granularity level really works against it. Additionally, it really begs the question of why they even have skills in the first place, instead of minor feat trees.

Not really sure what you mean by dabbling. Do you mean dipping a few levels of another class to get their class abilities? Characters that did that excessively could easily become overpowered, since most classes in pf1 front loaded their class abilities. This has been heavily reduced to prevent that, but if you are dedicated you can pick up a meaningful number of class abilities.

Not sure what you mean by granularity level, either. Do you mean having to take entire levels in one class or another, without being able to mix bits of the same class in one level?

Really, they are moving away from numbers having any meaning, towards simple pass/fail. The latter has the advantage of allowing lots of leveling without impacting the flavor or narrative, it makes level itself lose meaning, which allows everyone to level up more often.

Yes they are moving away from simple numbers, but not towards pass/fail. They are moving towards Crit pass/pass/fail/crit fail, which is a much more complex system than simple numbers, and those simple numbers do affect the outcome, but so does proficiency (especially Master/legendary).

And I find crit fails can impact the narrative/flavour more than crit successes. When I talk about old times with old friends I used to play with, more often than not it's "Do you remember the time yu failed to do this..."

And levelling is part of the narrative. You have become a greater warrior/ more astute caster/ More mystical priest because of your many's basic to most stories. It doesn't matter f it means you level up more often - if it bothers you level up by milestone.


It is not the only way to achieve that, but it is the most common, and businesses like following the herd. Less risky they say.

But as I've said before, what kept me playing d20 was that numbers had direct meaning.

In the end, that was a problem. At High level, a Cleric's will save had such a high number that any will save that was a reasonable challenge for them was an automatic fail for anyone else.

Ditto Reflex saves and Rogues/Monks
Ditto Fortitude saves and Fighters/Rangers/Paladins/barbarians
Ditto Armour class against Martials attacks
etc., etc. (I exaggerate a little, but you get the picture)


In the end, if pf2 really is as bad as I think it will be, I'd like to still help it be the best it can be at what it does, then I can hopefully get my own system out that goes the other direction to support the stuff that piazo is leaving behind. After all, if piazo stops handling it, then they are not direct ckmpetition anymore.

Still makes me sad though that such things are so undervalued by the industry at large.

If it's that bad, they'll find out in the playtest. Mostly from what I've seen I'd say it won't be that bad. Much of it will be rather good.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I love it!

Creating New worlds is a breeze.

Steampunk: Common Technology, Common Magic
Low Magic: Uncommon Magic
Post apocalyptic: Arcane Magic rare

Special Settings:

Legendary cities may have rare items as uncommon? and/or uncommon as common?

Rare organizations:
The Squirrel Riders Have a common animal companion - Giant Squirrel
The Spearstaff Warriors have a common weapon (the spearstaff)

etc., etc.

All set just by declaring it so.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a difficult one. On the one hand, the trope is that the hero(es) overcomes a series of scaling encounters culminating in the BBEG, on the other there is nothing as boring as facing easy encounter after easy encounter.

1 to 50 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>