HWalsh's page

Posting this here...

Though I officially stopped actively participating in the Pathfinder 2 playtest over irreconcilable differences regarding the Paladin Alignment changes as announced in the 1.6 update, my group did ask me to finish my campaign for them.

I agreed to this on the condition that we will not move beyond 1.5 for the duration.

I stopped all other PF2 activity in order to focus on my Elysia Project.

However I was asked to keep this thread updated, so I acquiesced to that request.

-----

Yesterday our story continued.

My players found the citizens of Nybor were gathering at the Welcoming Breeze Inn as the large force of Gnolls and Goblins circled the small village. There was no escape.

The players made their way to the inn, while their ally Buenor Sandhammer slipped away into the night and began organizing what Defenders they found and set a number of traps. The enemy started coming in waves. The players rushed to meet them.

The enemies were engaging in a combination of ranged and melee combat. Occassionally (every 1d4 rounds) a hail of arrows would be incoming, adding extra challenge. The enemies would get reinforcements (every 1d6 rounds) as well.

It was a desperate battle as the PCs used their new weapons and armor against the superior numbers. The PCs suffered some devastating hits, but in the end survived the first two waves. They retreated back to the inside of the inn as the enemy noise tightened and prepared to make their last stand... Hoping for a miracle.

-----

I will not be checking this thread until I make another update as I generally don'tfrequent the boards anymore. My players, as always, are free to respond to and questions and make statements as they see fit.

Until next time.

Arssanguinus wrote:

Feros wrote:

I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.

It seems pretty much every decision is going against the traditionalist group. I’m not seeing much leaning the other way.

I like many of the changes they have made though far from all (Resonance, the Hero Point system, much more are on my "Yech" list). I have gone through all the edition changes over the years and have found things that are good and not-good in each version. I admit to being willing to let go of traditions if they restrict games choice, so I rather like the new changes.

All that said, I get where the traditionalists are coming from: wanting to play the game they have been playing for a long time with just continual support. It would be great if that was viable, but sadly it looks as if that model is not economical going forward. As Jason Bulmahn put it in his post upthread, they understand the price for making any of the changes they are making. Finding the balance of what has to change with what they can keep the same is what the Playtest is all about.

Oh come on. They didn't find a balance. They literally tossed every tradition. Come on, call a spade a spade.

I was a huge supporter of PF2 but they don't and apparently never did, care about us. They wanted to keep us as customers but they couldn't let us keep one thing of actual consequence.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I think with that level of fanaticism you should seriously consider stepping back from role-play or at least D&D inspired ones and maybe try some other hobbies for awhile. There is to much obsession behind your words and its not healthy. I

Well, that's just marvellous, really, really fantastic stuff, I mean, with that approach, it's sure to help the situation, people's views and what-not, all very positive and constructive...

As for the topic at hand; non-LG paladins have a bit of legacy:

-1st Ed AD&D, you have the Anti-Paladin (Githyanki), and there is a Dragon article with paladins of all the alignments ("A Plethora of Paladins").

Unofficial non-canon material.

-2nd Ed AD&D, there is the Speciality Priest of Horus, which is a CG Paladin.

Specialty priest, not a Paladin.

-3rd Ed, you have Paladins of the extreme alignments in UA.

Optional, non-canon material.

-4th Ed, went for whatever.

This was one of 4ths many, many problems.

-5th Ed, is sort of vague, yet implied, and as usual, seems to encourage deciding for your table/world. I think of the Oath of Devotion as the classic LG Paladin, the Oath of the Ancients as the NG Green Knight, and the Oath of Vengeance as the LN Avenger.

I do not play 5th specifically due to this.

Ediwir wrote:

SO WHO’S EXCITED FOR MONK POWERS???

there hasn’t been a single alignment paladin since 2004’s Unearthed Arcana, so can we please move on after almost 15 years?

Actually, Paladins for Every Alignment was a thing as far back as Dragon 106 ("A Plethora of Paladins") from way back in 1986.

Unofficial non-canon material doesn't count. Nor do unofficial optional rules from UA.

Feros wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

It does seem in general a theme of 2e is that the traditionalist portion of the customer base is not one there is much interest in serving anymore.

That is very much the feeling I've gotten. This isn't so much just Paladin, mind you it is just that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm not saying it was malicious on Paizo's part either. I just think someone crunched the numbers and did a gains/lost analysis and said, "We can make more money, or gain more players, if we follow this more open path. We'll probably lose some of the older players, but newer players are better and we're pretty sure gains will exceed losses."

Or... Quite simply... Paizo realizes that we might bail, but we're not as important to them.

It's just the way the cookie crumbles. It is, after all, a business.

I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.

It seems pretty much every decision is going against the traditionalist group. I’m not seeing much leaning the other way.

This is my analysis as well. They're willing to say kind words to us, but I see no action to actually do anything for us. So it's an actions speak louder than words situation.

This seems... A bit over the top.

1. The other alignment versions will have different class names. Why is it an "I cannot stand to play this game" moment just because there happens to be three similar classes when only your favorite one will still be called Paladin: "The long term plan is for the LG version to be called the paladin, not the others." - Mark Seifter

I have said since day one that this was the line. I wasn't kidding.

I like Mark he is a good guy, but the name is by far not enough. There needs to be significant, and I mean extreme dramatically significant, differences for this to potentially salvage me.

2, If you actually like the game, this is an extremely easy houserule to disallow all non-LG paladinish classes. One wave of your hand and boom! All paladins are LG. Comparatively, It's much, much harder for everybody else to add non-LG paladinish rules. So, the devs gave EVERYBODY the perfect solution: "Here's all the hard stuff, making up entire classes with [hopefully] fun, balanced, and unique rules based on alignment. Use them if you want to, or houserule them out of existence."

Three letters.

P. F. S.

I can't house rule things.

3. Ultimately, falling on your own sword over a few words in a million-word rulebook just doesn't add up.

But either way, have fun.

Oh, and CIHYS?

There isn't much to give. I doubt I can give you the 75+ PF PDFs I have.

It does seem in general a theme of 2e is that the traditionalist portion of the customer base is not one there is much interest in serving anymore.

That is very much the feeling I've gotten. This isn't so much just Paladin, mind you it is just that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm not saying it was malicious on Paizo's part either. I just think someone crunched the numbers and did a gains/lost analysis and said, "We can make more money, or gain more players, if we follow this more open path. We'll probably lose some of the older players, but newer players are better and we're pretty sure gains will exceed losses."

Or... Quite simply... Paizo realizes that we might bail, but we're not as important to them.

It's just the way the cookie crumbles. It is, after all, a business.

Im happy that paladins are now any good.

that said , Id like to point out that the 5e paladin did not scream any alignment to me but any good.

so now atleast it will be interesting to see howthe playtest pf2 looks monday.
same chassis with different other class feats that can be taken to add the flavor of the characters alignment.( IE say a smite evil like ability now has a feat that will add more damage done to target if its evil alignment is opposite of the palyer. LG doing more damage against CE whereas a CG would smite the tyrants of LE and yes the NG would still likely have to chose 1 and only 1) but all 3 would still have access to abilties like divine grace

oh and Hwalsh, don't walk out the door without looking at the final product first and don't make up your mind without doing so first. though you can if you want, im not stopping you.

Funny thing though, I wanted paladins to open up to any good and I could not end up liking the final product and end up only buying the inner sea guide 2.0...

While I will look at 1.6, I'm not confident that Paizo will make it mechanically different enough to retain the exclusivity aspect that was fundamental to the class.

This game is built on excruciatingly incremental differences. It's been a core legitimate complaint since day one.

There isn't even a significant difference between attack rolls for Wizards and Fighters (a maximum of +3 at level 13+).

So what do you think the odds are for major extremely significant differences between 2 members of the same class.

I even feel like keeping the name "Paladin" for LG ones is kind of just giving us a pat on the head. It feels like a token gesture. We won't know until 1.6 hits Monday, but I would think if significant and dramatic differences were a key factor they'd be emphasized and they certainly haven't been.

Paizo was well aware that this would shove a lot of us over the edge and away as customers. Jason knew and said as much. I'm only haunting around at the moment because I want to ensure our position and the reasons for it are heard and understood.

Then well, as I said. I wish Paizo success even if I won't be financially supporting them.

I think with that level of fanaticism you should seriously consider stepping back from role-play or at least D&D inspired ones and maybe try some other hobbies for awhile. There is to much obsession behind your words and its not healthy. I like the classic paladin and removing it would of been pretty terrible for me but they are just making other similar classes that have a different focus then the paladin. I'm sure you've read it all so I won't bother going to into details but I think your position borders on unhealthy fanaticism. I'm not saying this to taunt you or be mean its out of worry. I just want you to know so that maybe you can internally process this better. Where your at is far beyond the normal nerd obsession and to a completely other place. Your level of emotional investment in this one facet of a game looks unhealthy from my perspective.

You're quite incorrect.

All my "fanaticism" translates to is I won't financially support Paizo. Worst case scenario?

I play other games.

Literally that's my plan. With the consideration of spending some of my time publishing a d20 compatible game to create a PF2 alternative that respects the older traditions.

As I've said before, I've got tons of other games to play, but it's important to understand why people get so hot about this topic. The reason is as I said.

To call this a "slight shift" is pure hogwash.

Making the Warproest was a slight shift, this is demolishing the building's foundation.

Hey there folks,

This update was one that I have been looking forward to for a while now as it is drawn almost entirely from our playtest and survey data, looking at ways we could make the core classes of the game better.

It's a small step on that road, but one I felt was critical to show the progress we are making.

That said, I knew some of these decisions would leave a few folks feeling out in the cold.

To those getting what you want, understand that change comes at a price, that for some that price is too big to bear. Give them space to come to terms with the change. It is not your job to convince them of its merits.

To those seeing shifts they dont like, we understand your frustration. We hope that you will still give us a look when the final version comes together to see the ways in which we are trying to honor our past, as we move into the future.

Have a good weekend folks. Update 1.6 drops monday!

I'm going to be brutally honest Jason.

I like you, you're a good guy, nothing in my heart but hope that you see great success.

I don't, honestly, think that you understand what the Paladin means, or I should say meant, to some of us.

This isn't just a shift some of us don't like. This goes far beyond that. This change is taking one of the most endearing and enduring things about the game out for no real reason.

And yes. This is taking it out. This change is stripping the Paladin of one of the key things that made a Paladin a Paladin.

I was willing, personally, to support everything else.

Did I utterly hate Retributive Strike? Absolutely. I hated the very idea and concept of a forced playstyle based solely on class choice.

Did I stick with it after that? Yes. I ran at DragonCon putting players through 2e games literally until I hospitalized myself. I ran through home scenarios, I ran through printed scenarios, I knew DragonCon was my last con and I gave it everything I had left.

I ran my first game at 8 years old on September 10th 1988. I was playing the D&D redbox that I bought at a flea market with money I earned from picking up pinecones for our next door neighbor. (My family was poor, so we learned early to earn what we wanted.)

So it was nearly 30 years as a gm. Granted those early games were, uh, very bad. Regardless, in time I worked my way up, improved my skills, and eventually got 2nd Edition AD&D.

I got to be a player, and through the grace of RNGesus I rolled 3d6 down the line and the GM gasped seeing 16, 13, 12, 11, 16, 17. He whispered, "Well, that's a Paladin for sure."

That was the first character I ever played. I was hooked, even if the 2nd Ed AD&D Paladin kind of sucked mechanically.

The years passed and 3.X came around. I still played Paladins, and they still sucked.

4th ed... Lost me... I hated it.

5th ed was... Just no.

The idea of Paladins of any alignment was just repulsive.

Then a friend suggested Pathfinder.

I was hooked again. Pathfinder had REAL Paladins. Not only that, but for the first time ever, they didn't mechanically suck.

The Paladin, to me, was not about the mechanics. It wasn't about the deity. It wasn't even just the alignment. It was the special aspect of what a Paladin was.

They weren't just a class. They were lightning in a bottle. They were amazing because they were the closest thing you can do in a game to be a destined hero, chosen by the universe, a living embodiment of Order and Justice.

The Lawful part that people often scoff at? That was the promise of the natural order of the universe. That when evil would rise, a champion would come. The Paladin represented a hero who restored the natural order to the universe when things went wrong.

You can't do that as Chaotic Good. You can't represent the universal order when you dont actually believe in that order.

You can't do that as Neutral Good. You dont have the dedication to it. You dont really have an investment in doing things the way they are done because it is the way it is supposed to be done.

That is the promise of the Paladin.

Now sure, there are other heroes out there who aren't Paladins. And it isn't about the most good, but Paladins stand for more than just good. They stand for that divine order, that conviction, and that Mr. Bulmahn is the source of a Paladin's power.

It's not something a God can give. A God can give spells. A God can do a lot of things. What a God can't do is make a Paladin.

The universe makes Paladins. The agents of the universal order.

If the powers granted to the Paladin as the Agent of its will can be gotten without being a representation of that order then I suspect you can see how it tarnishes the very concept.

That is what this change does.

The only, and I mean straight out only, way this can be palatable to me and those like me is if you can promise us that the NG and CG versions will be radically mechanically different to a degree that they don't even resemble members of the same class aside from: "They wear armor and use weapons while having powers."

I mean CG? No LoH. No smite. They get other stuff. NG? Complete early different stuff. That's the only way I see this playing out in a way I can personally accept.

I don't think it's about other people having fun. It looks more like those most offended by non-LG paladin-alikes are those who still feel that LG is the best, most 'good' alignment, and who are deeply offended by anything which might imply otherwise.

Or we're offended by disregarding long established traditions. There is no reason to try putting words in our mouths to try to belittle our stance.

No one said you had to pay pathfinder in Golarion or use the other paladins. You can anyways just not, that's the beauty of tabletop.

I can also find something else to play. No offense to the devs at Paizo, theyre doing what they feel is best, but changing this, to me, shows that we aren't on the same page. I just, dont feel confident now. It's all good.

Arssanguinus wrote:

I’m fine with alternate alignment equivalents. But not alternate alignment paladins with little difference save a different nameplate glued on top of the word paladin.

I mean, you haven't playtested the 1.6 verson, let alone the final. How the heck do you know that the class chassis wont be changed to be more like how you want it, or that the Paladin won't be different enough from the other sub-classes to fit your idea of a Paladin? You said that the chassis of the current Paladin isn't Paladin-like for you but this update is said to be a major change so for all you know it could be adjusting more to your liking rather than less.

It's kinda hard taking any decrying of the 1.6 Paladin seriously, let alone the final version, when you haven't even seen either yet.

I don't think you understand that the exclusivity of the class was important. To you the important bits were the abilities. To us it was a combination of things, a perfect storm, and widening it so that there are others who are only a slightly bit different... That's enough to damage one if the main elements that made a Paladin a Paladin.

It is honestly like saying, "You guys played LG this whole time? Dealt with all that BS for years? Ha! Suckers! It never mattered! Losers! Now we're giving them to CG and NG no strings."

Yeah. No thanks.

To HWalsh:

May the Paladin you wish to play be out there somewhere, with hopes that PF2 will eventually make that Paladin. If it is to be the case may that future for when you come back be a bright one, and should that future never come, and you find your Paladin in another game and in another table, may it be with steadfast allies and stories of glory.

Much appreciated. I'll find my game out there. Be safe.

I don't know why I'm so surprised people dedicated to Paladin are dying on a seemingly arbitrary hill because they refuse to compromise but hey, we're here now.

Did I miss a substantial balance change that turned them into clerics or fighters (took away their magic hands or weapons)?

It's not about the weapons, or the powers, or what you can do with it, or even just the name.

It was the idea of this person, a rare person, with a soul aligned with specific energies that was empowered by them to right wrongs and triumph over evil.

When you allow anyone to access it, even anyone good, it cheapens the rarity.

Arssanguinus wrote:

The warpriest wasn’t a paladin and is significantly different from it. Not just a paladin with the numbers filed off and a different word pasted on the placard.

But I mean, wasn't that the Antipaladin/Gray Paladin/Tyrant in Pathfinder 1E? tweaks of the Paladin chassis?

I agree that the Paladin should be LG only, but it seems like a subclass option, if the other variants are sufficiently different, is a good middle ground.

To some of us this was really important. The Paladin meant something and represented it. This change, if just switching out the name is, to us blasphemous.

That was...remarkably non-inflamatory. Sorry that this issue was a deal breaker for you, it always seemed to get people on both sides fired up. Hope when you check back in you find something worth continuing to play.

Nah.

I gave PF2 my all. Everything I had. I pushed and pushed. I was running playtests around the clock, but this issue was super important to me.

There's no need to be inflammatory, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Paizo ran the numbers and decided that those who would leave over this weren't necessary for their market share and/or decided that keeping them LG only would lose too many others.

I mean... Am I angry? Sure. Absolutely furious. Though screaming at the people who won? Eh, it's not going to accomplish anything. The choice was made.

In the end... It is one game.

I'll find something else.

Barring that, heck, I'm a professional designer... I'll make something else.

But for now I don't see any way I can contribute to further testing of PF2. I'm morally opposed to this change. I have been up front from day 1 that this was my line in the sand.

Some people thought that was a threat, it never was, it was just the truth.

For now I'll play some M&M, get my superhero on, and enjoy that.

Well, you may want to know the plan DOES seem to be for only the LG version to be called Paladin in the final book. They just don't want to have to errata the bazillion times the word Paladin appears in the playtest document so it's Any Good for now. But the final class will be called something else, with a LG Paladin subclass.

Unfortunately that really isn't good enough. The Paladin under those rules is just a class with a name. It's no longer special. A lot of us felt that way, and a lot of us felt like this was a line in the sand.

For me it was.

Regardless, I'm sure Paizo will do fine without us. I imagine we were a minority of players. We'll just find something else to play. It'll be ok.

Unicore wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

This is still the playtest time. Nobody has won yet. It makes sense they want folks to try out what an alternate paladin class could be like, that would still have meaningful connections to alignment beyond just good or not, before they head into their final run on the play test. IF folks who wanted it to remain a full class limited just to lawful good are not even willing to play with the new test class and provide feedback about how the class has lost something through this change, then the developers are not going to get the playtested feedback, that probably came through the class survey that inspired them to try out these changes in the first place.

Whatever they supply, the paladin itself is pretty much killed off. It does not any longer exist in a meaningful form. It’s pretty clear here that there isn’t any real chance of the old paladin remaining at this point.

That's how I feel too. It'll be ok. We'll find other games to play. No worries

Arssanguinus wrote:

So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

This is still the playtest time. Nobody has won yet. It makes sense they want folks to try out what an alternate paladin class could be like, that would still have meaningful connections to alignment beyond just good or not, before they head into their final run on the play test. IF folks who wanted it to remain a full class limited just to lawful good are not even willing to play with the new test class and provide feedback about how the class has lost something through this change, then the developers are not going to get the playtested feedback, that probably came through the class survey that inspired them to try out these changes in the first place.

I suspected that Paizo was going to do this eventually months ago so I started working on an OGL game/setting built off of the Pathfinder 1 chassis with a few other Paladin purists.

So I'll at least have that to distract me.

Elysia Paladins will *always* be Lawful Good. That will never change. So at least there is that.

The thing is - I can't play a game that isn't respecting that legacy. I left 5e for the same reason. So I leave 2e as well for it.

I'm sure the devs are working hard and for a subset of players this is great, even for a majority maybe, but for me it's not.

I lost this one though, and can do so with grace. There's lots of alternative games out there. We'll be ok.

So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

Yup.

I'm super upset, but I planned on this being a possibility. So I've got something up my sleeve. It just means it's time for us to look elsewhere.

Well, the day I feared came to pass and with it went my final connection to the life I once had, with that I say my farewells and prepare to head out.

To those who got that which they wanted, I'm happy for you.

For me though, that was it.

So with that said, I leave the rest to you.

The Paladin is yours now.

I'll pop in to see how things go, but the appeal is gone and the spark has faded.

Be safe guys, stay well, I wish you good fortune.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

I am more than happy to dance on the grave of a core class being restricted to a single alignment. I still wish it could be all alignments (restricted by deity like cleric), but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion.

That said... I wasn't a fan of the Alchemist's infused reagents from the Resonance Test, so I'm disappointed to hear about that. Just a new type of class pool added to the others (channel, wildshape) that weren't supposed to be needed anymore after the introduction of spell points.

The class redesign allows for the possibility of any alignment/cause to be added, but the three presented here are the ones Stephen mentioned (just like we can add more muses, druid orders, etc). So the idea is to design the framework to be flexible enough to cover for the future.

I appreciate what you tried to do, but am heartbroken beyond words. Thanks for trying to stand with us. With that I think though it's time for this old gamer to pack up my minis, roll up my board, and roll off into the sunset.

It is clear that my time has ended.

Until one day down the road. Be well.

Gorbacz wrote:

Take away a Cleric's holy symbol and her component pouch, what is she? A miserable little pile of secrets! Take a Fighter's +3 holy shock corrosive sonic burst greatsword and what is he? Well, a 1d4+5 death machine!

Seriously, it's the People Who Wanted More Exalted in Their D&D vs. HWalsh. Can I get ringside tickets, because this is going to be glorious?

Everyone who felt like HWalsh already left for the 5e

Barf.

I do not play 5e thank you very much.

Bingo, great post.

When everyone has the same type of narrative input, it can lead to homogeneity, which is what caused me to become disillusioned with 4th Ed at one point.

Having said that, I would like Legendary to open up for some gnarly shenanigans for martial types.

Sure. It doesn't have to be some insane One Punch Man, Naruto, Mountain Cleaving crud though.

I'm fine with legendary jumping leaping 40 feet in the air. With legendary climbing granting the ability to scale a mountain at full speed while gaining a +5 bonus. I'm totally fine with a legendary swimmer swimming against a whilpool's tide. I'm fine with things like that.

I'm not cool with phasing through walls, running at the speed of sound, or leaping 200 feet in the air then dancing on clouds.

HWalsh wrote:

If I want a martial to swing their weapon around so fast that they take flight I'll play Mutants and Masterminds.

If I want a Fighter to unleash a wind blade from swinging their sword really hard I'll play Big Eyes Small Mouth.

If I want a Rogue that can phase through solid matter I'll play Exalted (or M&M, or BESM, or Nephilum)

I have plenty of games that the anime stuff gets into. I don't want it in Pathfinder.

I can't avoid it either if I don't like it because I do play PFS. It's bad enough that I'm planning to walk away if Paladins get a new alignment spectrum, I'm already going to have to deal with the most annoying race ever made available to players (Goblins, ugh) and now people are trying to turn this into Naruto.

Edit to add:
The ONLY exception I'd even remotely agree to is if these WERE actual magical abilities. Namely instead of being just uses of skill the...

Here's my question for you, then: In your mind, how does a straight fighter attain meaningful narrative power comparable to a wizard from their class features?

Answer? They don't.

Not everything is 1:1 equal. Note that I mostly play martials.

A Fighter is a Fighter. They do as a Fighter does. They aren't going to teleport, or summon demons, or reshape a mountain. That's not what they do.

What is a Martial good for? They are the fantasy of the common man. They don't have super powers, they have their wits, a sharp blade, and they get by on skill. It's not as easy as a Wizard, or Cleric,or Sorcerer, sure... But that's the point. That's the challenge.

They are self made. They don't rely on magic spells, they don't need a God,they don't have ki, they don't need to sleep for 8 hours, they don't get nullified by a case on insomnia. They're dependable. They do things the hard way.

They need to be smarter than the smarties and sneakier than the sneakies as a certain McDuck once said.

Generally the people who actually play martial don't care about narrative power. That's a complaint by a very small minority of only the most hard core members of the community. If you want that kind of power... Play a Wizard.

If you want a challenge, to think of different ways to succeed, to be pushed to your limits... That's when you play a martial.

Did Lancelot have the same narrative power as Merlin? No.

The whole narrative power thing is especially moot in 2nd edition because spells on the whole took a power loss anyway.

Generally, in stories, martial characters don't have narrative influence. What they do have, however, is the human factor.

What does the wizard do when the chips are down, they're out of spells, and there's no safe way to rest for 8 hours? He sits back and sobs while the Fighter draws his sword, hefts his shield, and says, "Don't worry. I've got this."

MaxAstro wrote:

Yeah, that's exactly my thought, too. I want Legendary skill feats to blow me away in the way that Catfall does, and I want high level class feats to do the same.

How does a character get so good at Athletics that they are completely incapable of hurting themselves falling, even accidentally? No one knows, no one tries to justify it, it just works because it's awesome and high level characters are awesome.

I want more of that.

EXACTLY! I can't understand why anybody would not want martial classes to do awesome stuff. It's like magic- users saying: "No! No! You can't have as much fun as me!" I play D&D/ Pathfinder to feel like my charcter can do something unimaginable from the viewpoint of our world- Fighting stone giants with a dagger, jumping 4 meters high, holding breath for half an hour while swimming upstream, turning a group of kobold into ashes by flick of a finger etc. etc. And I always felt that magical classes just have too much to say in... everything? It's great that they are making martials step up to similar level and I want more of this stuff!

If I want a martial to swing their weapon around so fast that they take flight I'll play Mutants and Masterminds.

If I want a Fighter to unleash a wind blade from swinging their sword really hard I'll play Big Eyes Small Mouth.

If I want a Rogue that can phase through solid matter I'll play Exalted (or M&M, or BESM, or Nephilum)

I have plenty of games that the anime stuff gets into. I don't want it in Pathfinder.

I can't avoid it either if I don't like it because I do play PFS. It's bad enough that I'm planning to walk away if Paladins get a new alignment spectrum, I'm already going to have to deal with the most annoying race ever made available to players (Goblins, ugh) and now people are trying to turn this into Naruto.

Edit to add:
The ONLY exception I'd even remotely agree to is if these WERE actual magical abilities. Namely instead of being just uses of skill the feat allowed the character to gain an actual magical ability. Namely the Rogue is so good at Stealth they have somehow gotten in touch with the mystical element of the shadows and then said ability doesn't function in non-magical areas (like AM fields etc).

HWalsh wrote:

I'm so terrified that 1.6 is going to strip LG only from Paladin. I've been [s]ick to my stomach coming to these forums since the announcement.

Hope you'll forgive the edit.

Probably don't need to worry too much. Throwing in paladins of more alignments (even just antipaladin and paladin) mid playtest is likely too poor an idea mid-game for them to do it. It'll cause flame wars (because it always causes flame wars when paladin alignment comes up) polluting these forums, and it will turn some of the most dedicated pro-paladin crowd away from giving good data for them. Too many mechanical issues to hammer out with the playtest to throw in a paladin smokescreen that makes it harder to actually find them. If they want non-LG paladins they can probably tweak the class between playtest and release, then leak the info in a blog/interview after they stop taking playtest data to let the two paladin crowds hash out the flame wars before the game is released.

Further, they aren't likely to throw in non-LG paladins in the final product. LG-only has been said to be the most popular paladin stance in paizo's staff, so if they include non-LG paladins it'll probably be in further supplements so those sources can more easily be restricted.

Don't mind the edit at all. Thank you for it.

I do hope you're right.

HWalsh wrote:

I'm so terrified that 1.6 is going to strip LG only from Paladin. I've been dick to my stomach coming to these forums since the announcement.

Might want to edit that...

Paladin is very one dimensional, but at least it worksish.

I'd rather have them completely revamp ability score generation, armor, magic items and spells. But that won't happen.

Lol should've been "sick to my stomach" I was on my phone and the d is next to the s. I can't edit it unfortunately, as it is too late.

I'm so terrified that 1.6 is going to strip LG only from Paladin. I've been dick to my stomach coming to these forums since the announcement.

Dasrak wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Indeed, the high level rogue feats that let you effectively walk through walls or mind blank or turn invisible are some of my favorite feats in the game and are indicative of why the rogue keeps up in narrative power late.

Really, something like this would be the ideal:

The Rogue can walk right through the wall
The Barbarian can smash clean through the wall with his raging might
The Sorcerer can dimension door to teleport past the walls
The Druid can use stone shape to create a passage through the walls

Each of these characters has different means of solving the problem with different pros and cons. The rogue's solution has the flaw that he can't take his party member's with him, the druid's solution requires the anticipation that he'd need the spell (which comes with opportunity costs), the sorcerer would need multiple castings of ddoor to ferry the party across (and even that presumes the PF2 ddoor nerf is reversed) which severely taxes his spellcasting resources, and the barbarian's solution will alert the entire dungeon to their presence.

Yep, agreed! You can't be afraid of "awesome" abilities if you want characters to be fun and independent of the Wizard. Why shouldn't a mid level Barbarian be able to smash a 1-ft thick stone wall? Or why can't anyone seem to jump more than 10ft high? Some abilities in this game are really interesting, but a lot of the skill feats feel as conservative as spells ended up being. The background ones specially are really lame! That one that let's you smuggle tiny items is really weak for example, but the concept of it could let players really excercise their imagination if it was less restrictive.

I really don't want to see every class have those kinds of abilities. Mundane and magical capabilities should not be equitable in my opinion. Magic should be more powerful, demonstrably, than legendary mundane skills.

Otherwise, magic becomes pointless.

I'm really hoping those "major changes" for the Paladin DO include non-Lawful Good Paladins, if not a "Fury Totem" equivalent to nix the necessity of a Code of Conduct entirely.

Honestly I'm the opposite. I really want to stay with Pathfinder 2, but I have to be true to my beliefs on that one. That is really make or break for me. We'll find out in 5 days I guess.

I'll be sick to my stomach for the entire coming week.

Tbh while I think RetStrike should most definitely benefit from a free step (and 30ft usability with ranged weapons), I also believe that reach weapons are benefitting a bit too much from the "hit both adjacent AND reach".

Don't take me wrong -I love it and it makes them so much more usable- But AoOs with reach are massively better and RetStrike itself kinda demands one right now because it is so much better and regular weapons just don't cut it.

So... I think reaction strikes like AoO and RetStrike should only allow you to attack adjacent targets. Unless they are meant to work with ranged, or allow you a Step (as I hope RetStrike will one day).
Not everyone should feel compelled to choose a Glaive.

Yeah, but we shouldn't hold our breaths. We're not likely to see any changes in time to test them.

That's why I ramped down my own testing.

Paizo wasn't giving me any changes I wanted to test so I eventually stopped.

We've been begging for something like this from the start of the playtest.

From my understanding of what was said in another thread though we won't see any Paladin upgrades until they fix the "contentious issues" with the class.

(I'm assuming alignment.)

So, with the playtest ending in a month, I wouldn't expect any Paladin upgrades. We're just going to have to hope that a change helps us in the final version.

HWalsh wrote:

I've seen a Rogue/Fighter hurl out 40d6+28 at level 20 in one combat cycle with short swords.

(Haste, flanking, +5 weapon, +7 dex modifier, Doubling Ring, two uses of Double Slice.)

An average of 168 damage. That is a lot of damage. Even at level 20.

Nobody can use Double Slice twice in one turn - it takes 2 Actions, and the Quickened condition granted by Haste only allows either a Stride or Strike action (both of which are specific 1-act actions). At best that Rogue/Fighter could do Double Slice / Strike / Strike, which doesn't really change their attack bonus or damage but still gets hit by Resistance an extra time.

While 168 average damage looks high, it isn't the true expected damage - you need to compare it to enemy AC to find that. Fortunately, I have those numbers. TL;DR, the Rogue/Fighter invests class feats and resources to optimize their damage and when they're in the most ideal scenario they deal very slightly more damage than an optimized 2H Fighter using no class feats. I feel like that's not a big problem, especially given how hard it is to get to that scenario.

** spoiler omitted **...

The issue is there that the Rogue (at the cost of 2 feats) should not be anywhere near Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin damage as long as the Rogue is also miles ahead of them in skills.

There has to be balance.

I took Skill Focus diplomacy once - Just to try to keep up with Bards in PFS.

And for that matter, why are weapon proficiencies and saving throws not also rolled into skills? Or a general "proficiency" category, if that fits better?

At first glance, I thought "Hey, Perception has been separated out as its own thing. Good, so it will grow automatically like BAB and saves as it should, because it is so important to every character."
Except that goes for *everything* now. The +1/level system has obviated the reason for which Perception as a mere skill among others was problematic in the first place. Classic "two fixes applied to one problem" situation, there.

Generally, if you are determined to go with the +1/level mechanic, there are ways in which you could and should simplify things:

a.) The mechanics description should be changed to begin with the idea that a check is performed by 1d20 + character level, + modifiers for ability and proficiency (which are both fixed values independent of level.) That is clearer and for lack of a better term more honest than sneaking in the fact that your level is added to any check in the description of proficiency bonuses.

Alternatively, you could simply increase ability modifiers, which also figure into every check, by +1 every level. Whether you do this by increasing all ability *values* by 2 every level and keeping them meaningful or by ditching the 3-18 paradigm altogether and have ability bonuses be the only remaining stat is a matter of preference.
In this case, the description of a check would be: 1d20, +your ability modifier, +your proficiency modifier

b.) There is little need to distinguish between skills, weapon proficiencies, saving throws and perception if they all work according to the same "level check" paradigm. Even if you want to keep saving throws separate for nostalgia reasons, rolling weapons, armor, perception and skills back into the general category of "proficiency" would simplify and clarify things. I cannot see any rationale to keep them as separate things, but if there is one, I'd like to hear it.

Regards...

One problem... Rogues.

Suddenly Rogues get legendary weapons, armor, and perception. Everyone else? Sure if they want anything else.

Dasrak wrote:

While they may not technically be traps, I do agree that these are good points about jumping. It's absolutely a problem that leap is on the opposite side of the book from high jump and long jump. Those rules need to be side-by-side. Also the DC's are senselessly high given the other things in the system. DC 30 to high jump 5 ft as a 2-action activity is already quite punitive, but when you can automatically succeeding at leaping 5 feet as a 1-action activity with a 2nd level skill feat it just doesn't make sense. Also we don't have a Legendary Leaper feat for some reason?

Yeah I don't know why jumping was nerfed so hard. It already wasn't easy to get anime-tier jumps in PF1, but you could do them. One of my players who wanted to build Super Mario is very disappointed by this unwarranted change. For how superhuman some characters can end up, they can't jump at all! I would make the jump DC = distance (without the +5) and the height is equal to 1/3 the result. It was a lot more intuitive that way.

#Freejumping

I hate to be that guy, but...

I'm glad that we don't get a lot of Anime shenanigans. The reason being that allowing such ruins the tone of the game.

You can't do a more grounded - Lord of the Rings - style game if people can run around leaping like, as you put it, Super Mario.

One of the things that ruins Fantasy gaming for me is when people show up with goofy off-the-wall stuff like showing up as video game characters and/or comic book characters.

Bear in mind that I've adventured in PFS with Samus Aran, Simon Belmont, and Captain America.

s/fighter/wizard

shroudb wrote:

if you pick a spell with a feat, and you're a wizard, you have to use charisma to attack with it (because it makes sense to use Charisma for innate spells, that's the whole premise of what innate magic isin pf)

Does it still make sense?

Yes, because the feat grants innate magic.

Easy way to explain it:

There are two types of "magical energy" in Pathfinder. Let's use the shorthand mana, even though that's not a pf term.

So you have external mana, which is what Wizards and Clerics use. This is magical energy from some outside source. Be it energy granted from a deity or natural ambient energy that takes years of study to utilize.

Then you have internal mana, which is inherent to the body and uses it's natural reserves. In PF1 this was the power source for Oracles and Sorcerers. In PF2 it is the Sorcerers, and natural power wells of Paladins, as well as "Resolve/Focus" pools.

As such, if it is internal magic, for cosmological consistency it should use Charisma.

For Paladin my optimal stats were:

Human

01: 18/12/10/10/12/16
05: 19/14/12/10/12/18 (Str/Dex/Con/Cha)
10: 20/14/14/10/14/19 (Str/Con/Wis/Cha)
15: 21/14/16/10/16/20 (Str/Con/Wis/Cha)
20: 22/14/18/12/18/20 (Str/Con/Int/Wis)

Final stats:
24/14/18/12/18/20

My level 1 build used Natural Ambition to get Warded Touch and Diety's Domain as a Paladin of Iomedae.

4 Spell Points per day for 1d4+3 Healing is kind of poor, but it's not too bad when combined with using a Heavy Steel Shield it works.

Forget Ret Strike, it is rare that you'll get to use it.

- For the two handed Paladin you use the same stats, swap Deity's Domain for Hospitalier Knight and follow Shelyn.

Using a glaive means that you'll use Ret Strike far more often and the extra healing helps mitigate the lack of a Shield.

In order to make the dump stats (Str/Int) matter you need a system where people HAVE TO interact with them.

Dex = Reflex Saves/AC
Con = Con Saves/HP
Wis = Will Save/Perception
Cha = Focus? (I still say this is a nerf to charisma casters)

Notice what 2 things nobody has to interact with?

Str = Bulk (can be circumvented)
Int = Skills (I think this is higher value than others it seems)

So we need some way to make Str something others have to interact with.

Sadly, I don't have a way to do this. I wish I did.

-----

One possible method:

Impact
A combat maneuver that has weapon damage type dependent effects. On a successful attack roll vs 10+Target's Level+Strength Modifier the effect listed for the damage type is applied. This is effected by MAP. This cannot be made with a weapon or attack that uses Dexterity to calculate attack bonus

Slash = Target is Slowed 1 until the end of the attacker's next turn. On a Critical Success they also take 1d6 bleed damage.

Pierce = Target is Slowed 1 until the end of the attacker's next turn. On a critical hit they are also at -2 to attack rolls until the end of the attacker's next turn.

Bludgeon = Target is Slowed 1 until the end of the attacker's next turn. On a Critical Success they are knocked prone.

-----

This kind of reminds me of the "Operatives got too much attention compared to Palad...Solarians" Stafinder threads for some weird reason.

Because it's a very similar situation. There is a reason why Operatives rule Starfinder. The same can happen here.

If you allow a class to cap all saves, attack, hp, and still have a free Ability increase every level to place without losing efficiency it's a recipe for disaster.

Now - Rogues aren't as overpowered as Operatives because they don't get a free 1/2 level to (virtually) everything on top of investment.

Rogues in PF2 do, however currently work extremely well. Especially if they dip. Rogue/Monk and Rogue/Fighter especially.

Rogue/Fighters are known for (at level 5) being able to deal out 8d6+8 with double slice (Rogue/Monks similarly, but a little later) with 0 MAP.

I've seen a Rogue/Fighter hurl out 40d6+28 at level 20 in one combat cycle with short swords.

(Haste, flanking, +5 weapon, +7 dex modifier, Doubling Ring, two uses of Double Slice.)

An average of 168 damage. That is a lot of damage. Even at level 20.

I guess it seems odd to me.

The argument seems to be that people want their character to be utterly and completely terrible at skills they don't or can't invest in.

I'm not saying some people don't genuinely want that - I'm sure that some people do.

My fear, I guess, is that it will really be used to put low skilled class players "in their place" as it were.

Rogues - They'll be fine, they get a bazillion skills.
Wizards - They'll be fine.
Bards - Also fine.

Paladins? Ha! They'll suck. I mean they already kind of suck by default being Strength and Charisma. They'll suck worse.

Fighters? Serves them right for being big and dumb eh?

I mean that's my concern. Taking away +level is going to hurt classes that already aren't good at skills even worse.

Rogue tent to die because they are fairly low hp, light armor, they have to move into (usually bad) positions to do any serious damage and when they do good damage they become targets of monsters designed to attack tanks with lots oh how and heavy armor.

I love playing rogues, but in combat you either feel useless or your about to die.

The AC argument doesn't work.

A light armored rogue has the same, if not more, AC than a heavily armored one.

HP maybe? But the HP differential isn't much to be honest. 1 hit maybe 2 at the most.

Albatoonoe wrote:

As I said earlier, I think there is a design space for being incompetent at something in the system. However, this shouldn't be default. Adventures are designed for a baseline, and the baseline being some more general competency opens up a lot of options and closes off none.

Even if it isn't in the core book, we could get drawbacks down the line and you can be truly bad at something. This shouldn't be the default assumption, though.

I’m not being prescriptive as to the solution - this kind of thing would suit me fine. I’m not arguing that everyone should have glaring weaknesses, merely stating my preference that I’d prefer the mechanics allow it.

As an aside - deliberately failing something (a commonly put forth solution) isnt the same feel as not being able to do it. It’s kind of like running slowly to let the kid win vs going full pelt and being beaten by a child - the suggested approach would be identical mechanics wise, even though it’s modelling two very different events. I would feel comfortable with that solution in a storytelling/narrative based game but in PF2 with its heavy numbers based simulationist approach, such a solution would always feel like a fudge, I suspect (as in, I’d always notice that “the game says I can do this, but I’m going to deliberately overrule the mechanics and fail, because I don’t want to be able to”).

Thing is - You're forcing us to suck at things completely (instead of the normal sucking I've proven the system grants) simply because you want to. I'm not down with that.

You also don't want people to just suck - I've shown +6 vs +19 is seriously sucking.

You want -4 vs +19

You want PF1 levels of skill imbalance.

Ephialtes wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

heretic wrote:

In all candour I find it almost impossible to be receptive to anyone who includes a “ if you don’t like this then this game isn’t for you etc.”.

Especially during a playtest where Paizo have said that everything is potentially up for change and they want to hear about what we do and don’t like. It’s premature to declare “this game isn’t for you”.

I don’t like +1/level more broadly than just this. However, the real problem for me is the way it applies to untrained skills my character has never attempted. I figure that distinction is worth bringing up to the design team.

The fans of +1/level may not be able to think of a way to reconcile the system as it currently stands with what I’m looking for. They may also think the cohort of people who share my opinion is negligible and safely addressed via “just overrule your PC’s stats or go find another game”.

I’m not really speaking to them. I’m addressing my concerns to the design team who are both more informed as to the state of the market and more experienced at crafting RPG subsystems. Maybe it will help improve the game or maybe not. It doesn’t hurt to put it forth during an open playtest (nor should it be shutdown by people who like the system as is - they can explain what they like without arguing over whether what I like “makes sense” or is “crazy”).

In the end it's about numbers and majorities. You and your cohorts dislike +1/level, there might be legions (including me) who like +1/level.

As you said, we all lack the knowledge of the true numbers supporting each approach. It might as well be that what appears to be cohorts shows to be the tiniest minorities as people content with a rule rather tend not to post in forums.

There’s another overlooked wrinkle here, an Achilles Heel of sorts in the playtest as a whole. It’s not just about the current Pathfinder enthusiasts and whether or not a majority agrees one way or another. The need for a new edition has just...

To quote the following players I've run for who did not like Pathfinder 1e regarding the skills:

Player 1: J
"I hated the skill system in pathfinder. I felt it was dumb that after so many adventures I couldn't identify a skeleton on sight."

Player 2: W
"I felt it (PF1) was stupid. You had to have Perception. You needed Acrobatics. You wanted Climb. And you couldn't just get away with a couple points, no you needed max ranks. I was a Fighter. I had 2 skill points per level. In real life I'm more competent in skills."

Player 3: M
"They (PF1) skills were terrible. Unless you were a bard or rogue or maybe a spellcaster you were all but useless. If 5e I felt generally competent in a bunch of skills. I like this (PF2) much better."

HWalsh wrote:

But you're NOT going to be at 50%

Right. You are going to be at 10-25%. The person that is hyper optimized for the task is going to be at 50%. Everyone else is going to be worse.

That's still not fun.

Now the goal posts are shifting.

I just invalidated the "good at everything" argument, and now it is, "but it's not fun."

The fact is - We know the DCs are being lowered.

We know that you *can* suck at a skill.

The argument that +level makes you good has been soundly defeated.

HWalsh wrote:

I really don't understand the desire to be completely and utterly incompetent at skills needed to survive.

It's not that we want to be, but that we want to be able to be. The issue applies to skills in general. It's just that desert dwellers swimming is the most evocative mental image.

I'll use book 3 of Hell's Rebels as an example. (Spoilered just in case)

** spoiler omitted **

Sometimes failing spectacularly is what makes a game fun, and always sitting around a 50% chance of success doesn't provide that.

EDIT:

Or in the same book,

** spoiler omitted **

But you're NOT going to be at 50%

You're *NOT* going to be anywhere near as good as someone who focused on it.

Person A:
Strength 20, Master in Athletics, +2 Item, Level 10.

5+2+2+10=+19

Person B:
Strength 10, Unskilled in Athletics, No item, Level 10.

0-4+0+10=+6

These two characters DO NOT have the same chance of success.

One is FAR inferior to the other.

We're not going to be able to do a conclusive update on the paladin until we're sure how to handle the very contentious questions that swirl around the class, whereas the path to the rogue change was clear and simple.

I think we all know what contentious question you mean.

I dunno why it's so contentious to be honest. It's been that way for like 40 years. It doesn't need to change, mechanically it never has broken the game before.

It's as much part of the class identity as Lock Picking and Trap Finding is for Rogues.

Ugh I just saw that horrid typo in my reply - I hate this phone.

Like I said, I trust Mark, I just think we're not going to have time to test any changes as the playtest ends in one month.

:(