Harkaelian's page

Scale color mutations can be always interesting fluff and player characters anyway tend to exist outside the norm. Since its probably not linked to any exclusive mechanical advantage, I see no reason to restrict players or deny them an individual character design.

There are probably heritage feats linked to scale color but thats just a matter of appropiate colour coding (gold becomes red and so). The only difference I see is the social aspect a society thats aware of the difference between chromatic and metallic dragons might make the step and react more friendly to metallic kobolds but thats a big if and also somewhat farfetched. I don't assume that a cat with a gepard like fur is faster any other cat because foremost its a cat not gepard.

Fast Movement also seems to indicate that abilities that stack have a wording reflecting that.

beowulf99 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Seisho wrote:

Yeah, they have no scores but familars are per definition rather intelligent beeings (at the very least able to understand speech and with the right abilities able to speak with others and use tools)

Speech in no way means intelligence/sapience: My smartphone can understand speech and speak. I can also cast speak with animals but granting those animals the ability to communicate with me doesn't impact their intelligence/sapience. As to tool use, mindless skeletons can do that: Skeletal Giant uses a glaive for instance.

Secondly, Even an intelligent items from the gamemestery guide isn't automatically "fully sapient" even though it has real stats, an alignment trait, and can speak! They even have 3 of their own actions and can do things without command!!! If that isn't "fully sapient", I'm not sure how someone can claim a familiar is...

As far as agendas and personality... That's unsaid: they might have none, being a magic version of a drone.

This is actually a great example. A familiar being a magical being essentially means that they are basically a construct, made entirely of magic. Any evidence of intelligence, or any movement or other abilities they gain are added to them, similar to gray's smartphone example.

It isn't impossible for a smartphone to display real legitimate examples of intelligence, however they can't do it on their own. They need to be programmed to do so. This is a good way to look at Familiars. They can be molded to a ton of different purposes, but must be programmed to serve them.

This is actually an interesting point of view. I had not yet considered the possibility that familars might be something like magical constructs. But it makes sense, you just have to give them some kind of 'artificial intelligence'

I still would consider it a very advanced one - and if they feel emotions, well there was never any kind of rule about it, so I just assume that my familiar loves me and hope it becomes friends with my friends :P

Well thats going down a very deep inbetween the lines. Golarion's equivalent to Black Mirror might cover that topic.

Wermut wrote:

Kelseus wrote:

Wermut wrote:

Kelseus wrote:

This tells you all you need to know.

Snakes are listed as examples for familiars, Vipers have a statblock in the bestiary so what happens with the poison of viper familiar?

The Familiar only gets what the rules explicitly say they get. That's it. If it's not on the list they don't get it.

I'd assumed so, damn having an evil wizard with a bloodseeker as familiar would have been a nice touch for a villain

PC familiar rules dont stop this in anyway. If your designing a villain you aren't bound by pc rules.

All you have to decide really is if the bloodseeker is a minion to the villain or not.

While absolutely true I usually try to emulate player options as closely as possible to make the world more consistent.

I do think they need to be near you to drain, based solely on the lich's drain phalactory ability.

Thats a very good point, thanks for mentioning that.

Wermut wrote:

Kelseus wrote:

This tells you all you need to know.

Snakes are listed as examples for familiars, Vipers have a statblock in the bestiary so what happens with the poison of viper familiar?

The Familiar only gets what the rules explicitly say they get. That's it. If it's not on the list they don't get it.

I'd assumed so, damn having an evil wizard with a bloodseeker as familiar would have been a nice touch for a villain.

Wermut wrote:

Does the old crone (wizard with thesis on familiars) leave hear dear old cat at home several continents away because no rule states that she has to interact with her familiar or does she swing her cat by the tail like a morningstar whenever she uses her "Drain Familiar" action? By RAW the cat musn't even be on the same plane.

This is up to the GM. I would say it has to be present in the room, but otherwise that's it.

I don't know how I'd rule on that one, line of sight is difficult especially in battle, touch is also difficult because it would severly limit the use and "safety" of a familiar which is a relatable concern for a player.

Okay I could live with that. I wouldn't like it that way, but yes I see the intention of pushing down on those PF1 wand-wielding faery dragons, that seems to call for an nerf.

Its probably partly the sad outcome that that would also mean that familiars have no "personality" or agenda, they have no ability modifiers they are completely devoid of intelligence, wisdom and charisma or alignment on that matter. All the familiar abilities that grant more advanced abilities relying on those statistics would require remote control through the master. Kinspeech and Speech lead to the ability for the master to remotely speak, what would an creature without understanding, memory or intent have to say otherwise? Without constitution can a familiar even hunger?

How many 'normal' animals really have darkvision?

Most (if not all) of those who spend a lot of time in really dark places tend to not use sight much, relying on other senses instead.
Low-light vision is quite common, but I don't think your familiar will ever be 'forced' to get darkvision, whatever its form.

That's a good point defaulting to low-light vision seems sensible.

If you look at the Familiar section, it actually tells you the stat block for the Familiar.

This tells you all you need to know.

Sadly it does not. As stated before, I already checked out the rules but I seem to miss like a big part of it and thats why I have questions. I'm aware that there are several discussions regarding statistics that aren't provide by the rules and while this is an issue in itself, my questions asks for those statistics that are provided.

Snakes are listed as examples for familiars, Vipers have a statblock in the bestiary so what happens with the poison of viper familiar? Everyone makes the assumption its gone and yes some rules require interpretation by definition, but this seems like a rather big missing thing. Four of the released classes can have a familiar, a race gets an familiar, its one of the main features of an upcoming class.

So regarding statistics I was wondering where it is worded that abilities become lost? The rules clearly state what a Viper can do, the rules state what a Familiar can do, but doesn't cover the gap inbetween.

Does the old crone (wizard with thesis on familiars) leave hear dear old cat at home several continents away because no rule states that she has to interact with her familiar or does she swing her cat by the tail like a morningstar whenever she uses her "Drain Familiar" action? By RAW the cat musn't even be on the same plane.

Since there are no statblocks for Familiars, I think it makes the most sense to treat them as malleable balls of protoplasm that can be reshaped every morning.

If you want your toad to fly, you give it Flier. If you want your monkey to follow you underwater, you give it Amphibious. If you want your turtle to help you scribe, you give it Manual Dexterity. Etc.

The text regarding owl Familiars being required to take Flier is likely a holdover from the Playtest, when owls had a statblock. If you interpret that line as meaning that every bird must have Flier, then you run into the silly notion of Kiwis or Penguins always having Flier.

A better way to interpret the text would be that your Familiar doesn't get "free" abilities just because of how you flavor it. If you want your "Owl" to be able to fly, give it Flier, but if it's a flightless "Storval Owl", you could give it Burrower instead.

Thank you for the information regarding owls, but yes its mostly interpretation at this point I assume.

Rules on Familiars That page and some of the links should answer your questions on Familiars.

I have read those rules beforehand and thats exactly the reason why I have those questions I have.

-The actual stat blue block is not relevant in most cases (the exception being if they have an ability that can be granted through ‘Familiar Abilities’ list, which they are forced to take.) A Familiar will not have any additional/free abilities of a creature it is based on (a snake Familiar will not be venomous for example.)

Thats the point where I'm unsure, its maybe implied but where is it written? I'd assume there is somewhere a general rule regarding this?

-By RAW, Dimension Door just transports you, your little buddy is left behind.

Sadly what I assume so as well.

-Don’t think there is a ‘House Cat’ stat block. But all Familiars get Low-Light by default, with an optional ‘Familiar Abilities’ for Darkvision.

So there is no statblock that requires cats to have darkvision, thank you.

Hello and thank you for your time,

by my understanding (strictly RAW) the rules on familiars state the following:

- has to be a size "tiny" and of the creature family "animal"
- familiar abilities have to be spent on abilities normally inherent to the creature, but it is possible to take a creature as familiar without an official statblock that would define those abilities
- the rules regarding familiar statistics only cover: saves, AC, modifiers for Stealth, Acrobatic and Perception, hit points, size, senses and movements

This leaves me with the following questions and please if you answer with a interesting table variation or houserule clearly state so.

Are the rules regareding statistics of familiar exclusive or is the actual statblock relevant? Is there a rule somewhere that stats that tiny animals loose their listed abilities because they become familiars? (Vipers and Bloodseekers for example)

Currently under General Discussions there is thread discussing how groups houserule "Dimension Door" and if it allows to transport ones familiar with the caster. What is the RAW interpretation?

Have I missed the statblock for house cats? And do they have Low-Light Vision or Darkvision?

Do I need to interact with my familiar to grant it Familiar abilities or myself Master abilities?

Since the Wizards "Drain Bonded Item" doesn't state that the wizard needs to interact with the item, does the wizard need to interact with the familiar for the "Drain Familiar action"?

As a GM I dislike the loss of player agency. Players should be able to influence those roles through their build. Pure RNG as game design isnt fun when it games to character death or primary class features.

Basic Traits and Proficiencies

A moderate change: the Sorcerer should be proficient in light armor and should have 8 HP per level, the same as the Bard. The Sorcerer doesn't cloister themselves away in study and instead goes about the world using their innate power, so shouldn't be as squishy as the Wizard.

I completly agree, even the concept of bloodlines itself suggests a way more "bodily" magic which in itself could be a reason for toughness.

Spell List

A big change: the spell list granted by the bloodline should be in addition to the Arcane list. All Sorcerers are rooted in Arcane, but gain the flexibility to mix and match their spell repertoire between Arcane and another list as determined by their heritage.

This doesn't really help with identity. It adds flexibility but at the cost of structure and overview.

Expanded Bloodline Thematics

A minor change: the Sorcerer should be granted the language associated with their bloodline as a bonus language.

They could also get a small bonus to all checks (including AC since that's weirdly defined as a check in PF2) against creatures sharing their heritage. Alternately to the more universal bonus, just make it being able to roll twice on Recall Knowledge checks with relation to creatures of the relevant type.

I consider these minor benefit that shouldn't cost a feat, since it's the sort of thing that usually only comes up once a level most of the time, if that. However, it is very flavorful, and evokes that specialness of inborn traits in fantasy like Parseltongue.

Imperial would need a different minor benefit because obviously "humanoid" is too broad and powerful compared to the other options. An extra skill / skill feat would probably be appropriate, representing humanoid flexibility and specifically that of the ancient human / Azlanti mage lords implied to be the root of the bloodline.

A good idea, most of the relevant languages are already a bit of otherworldly. Its mechanicwise not that much of an impact but a lot of flavor. The minor advantage would need working and I wouldn't necessarily grant recall knowledge advantages. Since I feel a sorceror should study his bloodline and therefore be knowledgable.

Bloodline Passives

A moderate change: when you feat into a new bloodline power, it should also come with an ability that you always have and don't have to spend spell points on like the power itself does. This helps represent more of that heritage coming through as you magically and spiritually evolve closer to and resonate with your heritage. It also helps make up for sorcerer powers not really being the best, something I don't see changing, as much I'd hope otherwise.

Weaker or more situational powers can be balanced by getting a stronger passive that is useful more of the time.

Yes, just yes. But also Sorcerors need real alternatives to bloodline powers. Maybe bloodline specific metamagic that applies conditions and buffs to make the spells used more in league with the bloodline (Harmful Aberration spells could apply sickened, draconic spells frightened and so on) or feats that allow them to generally act more like their progenitors (a feat that allows Divine sorcerors to apply positive energy to mundane healing, or aberration sorcerors to make untrained recall knowledge checks under the danger of taking wisdom damage).

EberronHoward wrote:

But don't all the caster classes have customization built into them? Sorcerer Bloodlines, Wizard Spell Schools, Druid Orders, Cleric Domains, and Bard Muses all offer ways to differentiate one PC of the same class from another.

They do. It just doesn't necessarily feel like that. My wizard player before he left the playtest (2 of my players hated it, 4 seem to really like it) felt like human was the only reasonable choice for his level 1 non-universalist wizard, simply because he didn't get to pick a feat at level 1 (I think cleric and druid seem better at face value to players there though?)

Whereas say, the barbarian clocks in and gets to celebrate the fact he can catch fire and take advantage of the action economy with sudden charge.

Mhm well in the case of the wizard I'd play with the idea to make all the schools a feat (Prequisite that no school feat has been taken already). While it wouldn't change anything at first glance it would make multiclassing more interesting and character creation more consistent.

Anyhow, it isn't even a question of power more of flavor. Choosing spells is customization and tells the players what kind of person a character is. But there could be more to it. Feats feel more unique than for example a fireball spell which can be cast by wizards, certain, clerics, certain sorcerors and so on. Class feats provide class identity, whereas spells provide utility.

EberronHoward wrote:

I'm more okay with casters getting less class feats, since spells already give those PCs more choice and differentiation. Weapon Users need the most class feats.

Had this been PF1 spells, totally with you, maybe would have said spellcaster would need a little less then they have now. However given how spells are now {which were problematic in PF1, though your view on wither they were scaled back to much of just enough for PF2 may differ.) I'd be more towards giving equal feats, as many spells have been scaled back in power.

I wouldn't use that comparison. Class feats aren't equal to spells, class feats should be equal to class feats. I agree that with the variety of available spells mundane classes seem a little lackluster. But instead of more feats and even more deviations of a normed class building I'd implement more general options: maneuvers, stances, "teamwork feat" like combat modifier. Acessible through positioning and proficiencies.

However non-spellcasting classes do have one key advantage over spellcasting classes. Non-spellcasting classes tend to have a lot more automatic class abilities given to them as they level up then there spellcasting counterparts. For example, a Bard will gain {not including increases to Spellcasting prof which seems to take up class feats, and of course spells themselves} two performance cantrips, and there Muse at level 1. At level 3, they also gain the ability to heighten 2 spells. Pass that there is no automatic class abilities given to them, which is very similar to other spellcasting classes.

Non-spellcasting classes get a lot more of these throughout there career. For example, the Fighter will be getting constant increases to weapon prof, crit effect access, improvements in armor prof, improvements to Perception, additional fighter feats you are allowed to change out each day ect. This isn't to say that automatic abilities should be lessened, these abilities are what can both make a class functional and fun....

I disagree the rule is, if the casters are burned out of spell slots the adventuring day ends.

I kind of want all classes to have a level 1 feat just so we can have archetypes which cost level 1 feats to take so that you can start as one.

Well that would be neat, making all the level 1 choices for caster classes exclusive feat so addiotional choices could be implemented more easily / sound.

I can't speak as to it being a good decision or not but you are correct about bloodline powers and casting proficiency increases taking place of class feats. Though one of the updates to the playtest has turned bloodline powers beyond the initial one into feats and Sorcerers now get a 6th and 10th level feats.

Good to known, its hard to keep up with updates in correlation with the original rules.

I definitely understand the dislike for those things being preset, though to be fair every class has preset features. Casters just have more (If you count each level of spells as a new feature), or less if you don't.

I'm personally not too averse to casters getting less class feats as they also customize through spell choice but if that's gonna be the case I'd like to see all classes have more class feats than they do now.

I agree, it would be nice if a lot of the class features that create a fixed role like shield proficiency on a paladin became optional. It would create more diversity. Although its easy to see that the playtest requires more linear characters.

Hello,

and thank your for your time reading this.

On the topic, creating a character and looking through the options available I noticed that bards, clerics, druids and wizards have three class feats less than other class, sorcerors also miss another two class feats. In comparison to the other classes. This irregeluraty surprised me.

One of those class feats is easily explained by the choices the classes get at first level be it muse, deity, order, school, or bloodline.

The missing sorceror feat could be explained by the level advanced and greater bloodline powers.

Class feats in their current state are an expression of playstyle choice. They improve aspects of gameplay or open options for different gameplay. As this is a irregular developement of those classes, it is easy to assume that this design choice. Since I luckily can't read minds I have to admit I don't know why this is the way it is. I just have to assume there is a reason.

So in the interest of creating character diversity and individuality what would actually be a counter argument to implementing additional options on the level 12 and 16 for all caster classes?

If the assumption is true that sorcerors choose their class feats for level 1, 6 and 10 at level 1 by choosing a bloodline. In other words class features replacing class feats, is the assumption correct that proficiency increases in spellcasting at level 12 and 16 replace the appropiate class feats?

If thats the case, how could that be interesting? Thats my biggest issue with this, since other classes aren't forced to take a general improvement at a certain level. For example lets say paladins loose their 10th level class feat and get "Divine Will" as class feature. This is only a rough guess of course.

Again thank you for your time.

Please feel free to add other questions that need clarification.

I would like to use this topic to gather errata questions:

On page 13 it is stated that the key ability scores for Ranger are "Dexterity or Strength". On page 113 the class key ability is listed as "Dexterity".

On page 73 the might domains lists "Enduring Strength", the spell descriptions lists only "Enduring Might" on page 221.

I think what the multiclassing-as-an-archetype system does, it it essentially eliminates the ability of someone to "dip" a class just to gain more power. It alleviates the biggest problem of dipping, in that there won't be any unintended consequences of different abilities working with one another in unintended ways.

In other words, the idea is that if you want to multiclass, its because you have a concept that requires the two concepts instead of just to gain more power.

First I'm not debating the idea behind that change, I'm thinking more about the consequences and ways too use these rules within the system. So less the "why" and more the "what now".

Also I don't see the problem with dipping, yes there are some powergamery builds combining 4 classes (and varying amount of archetypes) just for more efficiency. But there also build that combine classes for roleplay and concept purposes.

For example, taking 1 Level Barb, 4 Level Sorc and then Dragon Disciple is a complete concept. Does the dip provide power? Yes of course.

Does it fit that the character struggles with his dragon blood, experiences fits of rage and only learns with time to harness that blood, heck yes.

The same could be said about two levels of paladin in the same build. Yes it has oomph, but its also a whole concept.

Its hardly feasible in the system. Dragon Disciple relies on features that would surely end up class feats, class feats invested into becoming a sorcerer in the first place and so on.

As the title says a lot of talk centers around the need to invest in dedication feats of varying power to unlock progress in another race/class. Part of the problem is the loss of toys.

Well yes a fighter dedicating himself to be a wizard can read scrolls and use wands. But he can't scribe scrolls or has actual spell slots. When does he get those spells? Around level 5 I'd assume. Whereas in PF1 a character mixing barbarian and sorceror has no problems using all his tools at level 2. He might not be the most powerful possible build, but its a rewarding experience.

So with a lot of character concepts missing features they have to unlock with certain levels I wonder if higher level play could even things out a little. Builds using multiclassing and/or archetypes won't be as strong as other characters but still have access to the tools the player wants to have.

I wonder with a lot of mentioning high level abilities in the blog (the famous legendary medic for example), if the second edition aims for a higher level play experience? And if that could remedy that problem?

I am assuming kobolds won't take long after pf2's release to be made officially, but I am curious to see if it would be possible to homebrew them without too much work. The greater emphasis on racial feats make things more difficult. I just hope the pc race don't end up being made intentionally useless like in pf1.

Kobolds:

+2 Dex
+2 Int (crafty crafty Kobolds)
one floating boost

Racial feats of course depending on cave life, dragon society, traps and trickery and a dragonfeature feat trees. Start with scale colore for social situations, then divide into more scale stuff (resistance and armor), nimbleness (tailweapons/uses and wings) and two or three feats for breath and such.

Malachandra wrote:

Because the lore demands goblins become a core race.

I was following you until you got to that point. I don't think the lore demands or forbids anything towards the content of core. We can make grand theories on the basis of quotes from the ISG, but those quotes read as fairly arbitrary classification, and/or after the fact justification. I don't think we can take those quotes as some sort of holy text that would drive the definition of races for ever and ever, even less so in the midst of an edition update.

As far as I can understand, the contents of the Core Rulebook needs to be not more and not less than what is necessary for the great majority of players to fully enjoy the game, subject only to space constraints... and that's about it. I don't see why it should be lore-driven. Anyway, the CRB doesn't equate the Golarion setting, even if it's said to be "more closely tied" to is, a statement that can be interpreted any number of ways.

So the CRB should include just enough races (ancestries), classes, spells, feats, skills, etc, to be able to tell any kind of fantasy story, allowing enough breadth and diversity of characters for any group to enjoy the game for years.

So if someone questions the choice of the goblin as an addition to Core, I think the relevant question isn't about justifications based on lore, but about whether or not this addition makes the game more or less enjoyable to players, and why.

I can agree on this point, then again it was stated there would be some event in Golarion that would make Goblins socially acceptable. My best guess is some sort of mind affecting high level fungal based disease that spreads globally. Adding Goblins to the core is a symptom that describes how far spread this event is.

To the argument "It a game." its missing the point of the thread and after this much argumentation just bait.

Time travel would make more sense than people suddenly deciding to trust goblin, who were literally trying to kill and eat them a year prior.

Not a fan of time travel, but yes thats the point. The problem isnt if Goblins could turn good. The problem is that people have no time change their believes?

Oh and another point: is a good goblin still goblin enough or just a gnome with body issues?

Neriathale wrote:

Just as a thought experiment on the 'how does the world change' question. I'm working with the following assumptions about Pathfinder campaigns set on Golarion.

1. Most people, when they start a campaign (AP or homebrew plot) create completely new characters for it.

2. The events of the previously played campaign do not have a major impact on the current campaign, and the new PCs don't know the old PCs.

3. When 2e comes out people will start a new campaign rather than converting their 1e ones across.

If all of that is correct, then each campaign exists in its own slightly different timestream/alternate reality/whatever you want to call it. It just so happens that future campaigns will take place in timestreams where goblins (or at least some goblins) are better socialised.

basically what I tried to tell - and if someone doesn't like it they got their timelines where goblins are still a bunch of pyromaniac d***s

Glad to on one hand get a point on the other hand how one would deal with. If it weren't wrong of course. The adventure paths and their outcome are afaik canon. Also a world needs a cohesive history or else it won't develope. There is no possibility to ignore canon without leaving the world and then why play in Golarion at all?

It is completly fine to ignore any established world and to make changes for ones own group. It's not a solution though. Because a group of people prefers adventuring in the "official" Golarion. As long as such a group exists it must be attended too, especially with PFS which requires canon/world building above all else.

Wermut wrote:

But thats the whole point of the messageboard. Discussing things one only knows a part of. You could go through all the threads discussing released information and post "We will see how that works, regarding possible mechanics/information not released yet. /thread".

I actually do precisely this when people are getting really angry or unpleasant about something that only might be true. Reminding people that they may be worrying over nothing is useful when it's actually the case. I would also absolutely suggest that we not talk about other stuff that's already been discussed to death. Beating a dead horse seldom has useful results.

Speculation can be fun and interesting, and if we were just floating various theories about what explanation Paizo would come up with for Goblin PCs, I'd be totally on board. Indeed, I was on board when such discussions occurred. About seven weeks ago.

But at this point, after every point has been discussed several times already, and no new information has been released, that's not what these threads on Goblins wind up doing any more (if they ever did). They become a seemingly very angry argument about whether Paizo should even have done this in the first place. One where we lack the information to clearly even argue about what's really going on, only what we assume to be going on.

In short, having harsh arguments is not usually productive, and even when it is, all the arguments on this topic already happened. At least twice. Almost two months ago. Rehashing them is not useful.

Wermut wrote:

If someone would be disinclined to discuss a certain topic, one could always ignore it? Or are there other reasons to try to shutdown such a discussion?

I like it when the message boards are a nice, relatively civil, place where we can have discussions of new information that hasn't already been discussed to death 80 times. These threads do not, at this point, aid in making that the case. Or provide much of anything else productive.

While I certainly haven't partaken in all those discussions, I also have read some discussions about Goblins. I still do, maybe because I'd like to read an actual theory how goblins could be redeemed, that factors in all known problems. Of course I'd read such a theory as a critic, looking for problems, but thats my personal stance on the topic. So there is still "value", at least for me.

And you have to admit, the goblin thing isn't nearly so bad as the p a l a d i n thing (pronounce every key separately, intelligence is usually their dumpstat).

Still, others might be in a position where they haven't had their chance to "visualize" the topic. So I would always the topic to be relevant. PF2 also aims to widen the playerbase.

Wermut wrote:

So to conclude, it does matter that goblins are perceived as evil, which also means it doesnt matter if goblins are evil by nature or by culture or if they are evil at all. It matters that there race as a whole has a history that makes people recognize them as vermin in the best case.

This argument is not new. I even agree with it. But I can actually think of several options immediately that, over the course of 12 years, could have a significant impact on peoples' feelings toward goblins.

Which is what it really comes down to:

Something needs to happen in-setting to justify PC goblins becoming notably more common. I (and others) think Paizo can and will come up with such an explanation that works pretty well (and people at Paizo have said that they'll provide some sort of explanation), while others cannot think of any such explanations they will accept.

Discussing this further is thus pretty much pointless until we get whatever explanation Paizo is gonna provide. The discussion is just repeating the same stuff over and over until then.

When we get the explanation we can revisit this point and debate whether it suffices...but until then this debate is just so utterly pointless. Can we please stop it?

But thats the whole point of the messageboard. Discussing things one only knows a part of. You could go through all the threads discussing released information and post "We will see how that works, regarding possible mechanics/information not released yet. /thread".

If someone would be disinclined to discuss a certain topic, one could always ignore it? Or are there other reasons to try to shutdown such a discussion?

I still try to figure out what exactly speaks against goblins as core race because no one could tell me a single compelling argument against it

the only thing I read here all the time "all goblins are evil, blah bla blah" - yeah we know what is written there in the books

So a race being evil is not a compelling point. This will be useful later.

But with release of PF2 your PF1 rulebooks are out of date. The world of golarion changes. Okay so the old books about goblins are (maybe, not even surely) outdated because...stuff (we dont even know what stuff) does it make them inconsistent? no, just outdated (which will also probably be the view on goblins of most intelligent races, especially the longer living ones)

So established lore, is interchangeable right? Thats what a retcon is, because sorry. Stories don't work that way.

You can't go on for years telling a story, reinforcing a point and then suddenly out of the blue decide "Oh that one point, its now different. Because it fits my needs now." Thats bad storytelling.

And beeing evil part of their nature? Please, it is part of their culture. Of course many goblins are influenced taht way. but they are not demons or devils who are bound to be evil (and not even that is written in stone).

It isn't important why there evil. We will also keep that one for later.

And still, if you don't like them, you just have to flip I would guess 2-6 pages in the core rulebook (I fail to see how that ruins your fun with the system) and you would probably see an artwork here and there, probably not even that many more then would have been there either way.

I can't know what others think, I for myself just mourn the loss of immersion. How my group will deal with this, will show itself.

I try to make a step in your direction. But obviously no one here sees that because the answer is binary - the goblins are either in the book or not.

Thanks for making statements about your intention and capabilities of others. I'm sorry to inform you that your point of view is wrong: Goblins are not for discussion, there is no "binary answer", Goblins will be in the book.

All this argumentation that some races are just always irredeemibly evil and that goblins dont belong in the core rulebook makes me want to run a campaign that is against the stupid stereotypes where all goblins, hobgoblins and orcs are nice, just in spite of this cliches

That wouldn't be Golarion then.

So for the argument... the argument on my side was never if Goblins are redeemable or not. I argue, that any redemption over 10 years of a group of beings widly perceived as evil, a group large enough to validate an entry into the core is highly unlikely.

Its not actually not about the goblins, its about the world they live in. Its easy to find a reason why a bigger group of goblins would become neutral. Thats not the problem.

The problem is facillitating an event that would everyone else make them recognize as potentially good, over this short span of time. Whatever the event, it must be so influential that no goblin character will ever face an amount of racism other races won't face. Every race faces racism of course, but you must be able to take all the characters of group to a social situation, without the goblin sticking out like a sore thumb.

Of course half-orcs already face some of those problems. But they are very established and can easily be mistaken for humans or barbarians or incompetent druid shapeshifters or whatever, but goblins?

So to conclude, it does matter that goblins are perceived as evil, which also means it doesnt matter if goblins are evil by nature or by culture or if they are evil at all. It matters that there race as a whole has a history that makes people recognize them as vermin in the best case.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

Monstrous races in general are still useful as targets you can morally kill them on sight.

This has never been canonically true or well supported in Golarion. I doubt PF2 is gonna make it so.

There are 1 in a million exceptions, but by default these races are evil and PCs will encounter them doing evil things.

For example, the writeup on orcs

Quote:

Orcs are aggressive, callous, and domineering. Bullies by nature, they respect strength and power as the highest virtues. On an almost instinctive level, orcs believe they are entitled to anything they want unless someone stronger can stop them from seizing it.

Quote:

Orcs have few redeeming qualities. Most are violent, cruel, and selfish. Concepts such as honor or loyalty usually strike them as odd character flaws that tend to afflict members of the weaker races. Orcs are typically not just evil, but chaotic to boot, though those with greater self-control may gravitate toward lawful evil.

Writeups like this are very useful for certain kinds of adventures. Nobody has to ask why the orcs are raiding villages. Its just in their nature.

One could now argue, that with the case of the goblins, that all evil races are just longterm redeemable and every encounter with a potential evil creature requires the same kind of procedure as facing a criminal.

"Orcs raided the village? Well, surely not all of them. Some maybe of good nature, attacking their hideout would be evil as innocents may die defending their property. Nothing adventurers can do here. Please go along."

I don't say that all goblins should be good and of course they gonna have some trouble depending on region and culture

The same as half-orcs do (remember that orcs also eat people? also hobgoblins do that)

*sigh* there are people one can't just argue with...

and the goblin overlord line was of course a joke some people just don't get

I surely could have stated it less controversial (but I feel like I have done this several times).

I feel that every argument about Goblins being quirky, comedy villains, harmless pyromaniacs and so on completly ignores the retcon happening.

Goblins were portrayed as goofy yes, but also as kinda the-hills-have-eyes-evil and in their way, they way charming. Not because there songs were cute or because of there big heads but because they had working theme going on. A complete evil, misformed, clumsy package (with vermin crawling on it).

Were singular good goblins imaginable, yes of course. Would that change the viewpoint of every other person? No. Good goblins get the shovel, like bad goblins and thats okay.

So I'm wondering what earthshattering retcon paizo has developed to make people (NPCs) not mistrust every goblin on sight.

To conclude every argument about how this change is nice and goblins always have been playable, that doesnt takes position on the retcon and loss of identity, is hardly an argument more an omission.

Yes of course the developers can change their setting anyhow they want, but that hardly works for an established world and (for me personal) immersion.

...And I am very glad that paizo got their own quirky goblin instead of the basic goblin you find in every rpg and your grandmothers backyard

I for once welcome our new goblin overlords...

"...after killing the family dog, the Goblin tried to slaughter and eat the eldest son. The adventurers later find the father of the family, his face and parts of his torso eaten."

Yes Goblins are wholesome and nice. :) totally cuddly and very quirky in their own way. And by no means it is anyhow conceivable that making them into a fluffy goody-two-shoes race could be seen as disturbing.

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Hey folks, just hopping in confirm that there is not a scheduled post for this Friday or next Monday, as we'll be at PaizoCon 2018.

This saddens me, but that is super understandable.

While such things can be automated, I would assume that paizo has a guideline that requires the author to be available reading the discussion and break up potential bigger misunderstandings (which could be pointing towards the formating/language of the blogs but yes, still required nonetheless). Before someone asks why there is no automated release.

MMCJawa wrote:

Yeah, even with no blogs I am expecting we will still get some substantial news from Paizocon. I would be utterly shocked if the panels didn't include or confirm some info we hadn't seen before.

Keep an eye on this thread

2018 PFS PaizoCon Bloggery with Pathfinder Playtest

This leads just back to the paizo page.

First of all, I seem to recall that playtest Kyra has four Uses of Heal and Fire Bolt each, so it would not seem that all abilities are fed from the same pool.

I know nothing about Fire Bolt sounds like a domain power and those use spell points. The free cleric uses of harm/heal are not using spell points (the inconsistency has already been noted in the cleric blog) but I think charisma based uses/day?

Wermut wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Toblakai wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Note that currently a heightened MM deal an average of 15*3.5=52.5 hp of damage

Just as a comparison to PF1 a Maximized, empowered, intensified MM does an average of 52.5 damage in a level 7 spell slot instead of a level 9.

Add a quickened, maximized, intensified MM also for another 35 using a level 9 slot and 4 17th level PF1 wizards can kill a lot worse in one round.

Yeah, but then you are comparing someone who has spent 3 or 4 feats on it. So for apples to apples we need to compare your figures above to the damage a PF2 blaster can do with a 9th level magic missile with 3 or 4 feats dedicated to blasting... Which obviously we can't do yet.

Also there is no telling what a level 17 archer can do or a level 17 barbarian.

I wonder if a Magic Missile performs like this heightened to level 9 what a damage cantrip does. Since by logic it has to be weaker than a spell using a spell slot, even if the spell is a heightened level 1 spell.

My guess, for at least the damage cantrips it'll be Heighten (+2) for +1d#. This way telekinetic projectile will be doing 5d10 damage in a ninth level slot. Which isn't too shabby considering you'd have to invest a lot of gold to get a ranged weapon that did the same damage.

Mhm saving gold isn't the issue. We'll see how it plays out, but I if there is no investment required into doing baseline damage through cantrips what could be done (gosh I wanna see how Dragon Disciple turns out x_x).

Toblakai wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Note that currently a heightened MM deal an average of 15*3.5=52.5 hp of damage

Just as a comparison to PF1 a Maximized, empowered, intensified MM does an average of 52.5 damage in a level 7 spell slot instead of a level 9.

Add a quickened, maximized, intensified MM also for another 35 using a level 9 slot and 4 17th level PF1 wizards can kill a lot worse in one round.

Yeah, but then you are comparing someone who has spent 3 or 4 feats on it. So for apples to apples we need to compare your figures above to the damage a PF2 blaster can do with a 9th level magic missile with 3 or 4 feats dedicated to blasting... Which obviously we can't do yet.

Also there is no telling what a level 17 archer can do or a level 17 barbarian.

I wonder if a Magic Missile performs like this heightened to level 9 what a damage cantrip does. Since by logic it has to be weaker than a spell using a spell slot, even if the spell is a heightened level 1 spell.

PF2 story needs to fix at least the whole Goblin mess. They can't come up with something that will please everyone. So I wonder what they come up with.

Wermut wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

In other words, the portion of my post that triggered the "as it should be" in terms of doing less damage was the "without spending resources" not the fact it was a martial character doing it.

Apologoies, Mark, but I find myself coming back to this. For me, it's not that the Wizard can out damage just about any generic martial, it's that the Wizard has the flexibility to do that, and also do massive single target damage the very next spell. Or, choose spells that dominate for one setting and then change those spells the next adventure and dominate a completely different set of obstacles. Granted, there's a question of the quality of information that proceeds preparation, regardless, no random martial has that type of flexibility.

At the risk of repeating the same mantra, saying that a martial can do X if they spend the resources, isn't really a fair counter. Even if a PF1 martial could find an AoE build that could out damage a full caster, the martial is pot committed to that build. A caster is not.

In recent thread, Pandora talked about this as character "agency." Her complaint with the Fighter was that it lacked the agency of full casters. My response is that no class should have that type of agency.

Has there been any thought to restricting what spells can do? Why not put serious boundaries on spells and take away all the skill duplicates? Or, be far more restrictive on how many schools of magic a wizard can cast from. Sure, they can always have an offensive cantrip, but if they want skill duplication, then they don't get Evocation/Illusion/Divination. If they wand Evocation, then they don't get three other schools to cast from, scrolls/wands included.

Again, for me, it's not about the highest level of power, its the breadth of that agency, even if it is from day to day and not encounter to encounter. Fewer spells doesn't really address this.

I don't agree, if you ever read through

...

can't fix that quote mess on my mobile, sorry.

Well yes you I've read the guide. Its the one that argues a wizard can do a lot of things but should focus on battlefield control. The one that says that a well build wizard should be aware of his unique role because there is no need to barge into what other classes do? The same guide that argues that a blaster wizard isnt worthy his salt? Thanks for proving my point.

N N 959 wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

In other words, the portion of my post that triggered the "as it should be" in terms of doing less damage was the "without spending resources" not the fact it was a martial character doing it.

Apologoies, Mark, but I find myself coming back to this. For me, it's not that the Wizard can out damage just about any generic martial, it's that the Wizard has the flexibility to do that, and also do massive single target damage the very next spell. Or, choose spells that dominate for one setting and then change those spells the next adventure and dominate a completely different set of obstacles. Granted, there's a question of the quality of information that proceeds preparation, regardless, no random martial has that type of flexibility.

At the risk of repeating the same mantra, saying that a martial can do X if they spend the resources, isn't really a fair counter. Even if a PF1 martial could find an AoE build that could out damage a full caster, the martial is pot committed to that build. A caster is not.

In recent thread, Pandora talked about this as character "agency." Her complaint with the Fighter was that it lacked the agency of full casters. My response is that no class should have that type of agency.

Has there been any thought to restricting what spells can do? Why not put serious boundaries on spells and take away all the skill duplicates? Or, be far more restrictive on how many schools of magic a wizard can cast from. Sure, they can always have an offensive cantrip, but if they want skill duplication, then they don't get Evocation/Illusion/Divination. If they wand Evocation, then they don't get three other schools to cast from, scrolls/wands included.

Again, for me, it's not about the highest level of power, its the breadth of that agency, even if it is from day to day and not encounter to encounter. Fewer spells doesn't really address this.

I think your proposed solution could work, and might even be desirable for some (me included) but I feel as though we have already let the toothpaste out of the tube with regards to wizard powers.

Any realistic measures of bringing casters in line with martials will either require HUGE nerfs to casters, a not-so-easily justifiable (lore wise) boost to martials, or some combination between those.

There is a significant portion of people who either don't care that casters are better than martials, vehemently deny it, or think that casters SHOULD outshine martials. Any attempt to bring casters in line with martials is going to be met with a good deal of outrage.

Something I will tack on, though: I see that damaging spells are balanced with respect to a martial having a magic weapon. What super expensive items do wizards have to have to pull off their super spells? I mean, if you are going to require a fighter to dish out some serious coin for a magic weapon, should a wizard not have to spend a comparable amount on, say, his arcane focus?

Perhaps a low level wizard can get away with a cheap wand (10gp in PF1 coinage?), but if that wizard wants to cast 9th and 10th level spells, they should have to purchase a +9/+10 arcane focus that costs about as much as a +9/+10(effective) weapon.

So which item can a wizard buy to become even more incredible powerful? That a wizard doesn't buy weapons to do what he does is part of the system. It could be balanced so I don't disagree. But there is no point in arguing that making a wizard spend more money would balance him, as he already can't spend this money to become more powerful.

Mark Seifter wrote:

In other words, the portion of my post that triggered the "as it should be" in terms of doing less damage was the "without spending resources" not the fact it was a martial character doing it.

Apologoies, Mark, but I find myself coming back to this. For me, it's not that the Wizard can out damage just about any generic martial, it's that the Wizard has the flexibility to do that, and also do massive single target damage the very next spell. Or, choose spells that dominate for one setting and then change those spells the next adventure and dominate a completely different set of obstacles. Granted, there's a question of the quality of information that proceeds preparation, regardless, no random martial has that type of flexibility.

At the risk of repeating the same mantra, saying that a martial can do X if they spend the resources, isn't really a fair counter. Even if a PF1 martial could find an AoE build that could out damage a full caster, the martial is pot committed to that build. A caster is not.

In recent thread, Pandora talked about this as character "agency." Her complaint with the Fighter was that it lacked the agency of full casters. My response is that no class should have that type of agency.

Has there been any thought to restricting what spells can do? Why not put serious boundaries on spells and take away all the skill duplicates? Or, be far more restrictive on how many schools of magic a wizard can cast from. Sure, they can always have an offensive cantrip, but if they want skill duplication, then they don't get Evocation/Illusion/Divination. If they wand Evocation, then they don't get three other schools to cast from, scrolls/wands included.

Again, for me, it's not about the highest level of power, its the breadth of that agency, even if it is from day to day and not encounter to encounter. Fewer spells doesn't really address this.

I don't agree, if you ever read through guides and class builds of casters you will notice that all those state one thing about all: specialize.

Yes a wizard can do amazing damage (with intesified spell, toppling / rime, spell mastery and spell focus in evocation). There isn't enough room to get also everything for decent save or suck spells or summoning.

Yes the same mage can cast charm person, knock and invisibility sphere. Will he have a lot of those spells slotted, probably not.

Fewer spells actually address this, as the wizard will prepare spells for his role and for basic self defense/utility: mage armor, mirror image, fly, stoneskin and so on. Besides spells that are expected of him: identify, glitterdust, haste, teleport.

There are not enough slots to replace the rogue. Besides every wizard worth his 6 wisdom and 20 intelligence knows that the next trap will poke him in bad places. Whatever spells he has prepared.

So the problem of agency you describe is not a problem of every-caster-can-do-everything, but more a these-classes-can-be-build-to-fill-out-a-lot-of-different-roles. Those builds still have to commit to those roles and are inside their class fantasy. So I would argue its not a caster class problem, its an image problem martials have.

No blog on friday? There are only 20 dates for blogs left and soo many topics left. 5 classes and 5 class mechanic blogs, traps, metamagic, companions, conditions, and so on.

So the spellist will remain the staple of the wizard and thats what makes him usefull. But what about customisation? The layered design of the cleric (choose god, choose domain, potentially choose negative or positive channeling, choose daily spells out of all spells available) is very tempting in regards to (choose school or not I am not your mother! And buy yourself some spells!).

I havent seen school abilities or all the wizard feats so right now its hard to say. The cleric definitely sounds more interesting to play with the small sample we have been given.

Yeah the Domain blog certainly helped a lot since it not only covered the rudimentary basics on domain but also on how gods work and what they provide. Wonder what fridays topic will be.

So with the wizard blog out of the hedges (see what I did there?), it strikes me that the comparison between clerics and wizards is on. While of course a healer might be important (so far he hasn't been). The cleric already gets a healthy amount of advantages that could point into a direction. Yes of course by tradition the wizard has the more flexible spell list, but the cleric could prove to be more efficient. With a powerful spell list on his own and no need to add it to a pesky book and more ways to customize the character up to 3 domains with up to 6 powers (probably not the wisest way to spend those feats, but hey its possible). In the long term if you truly want to have one certain spell that isnt on the cleric list, you probably find a deity you can ask nicely. Sarenrae already hands out those fireballs if thats your stick.

Also clerics get a boatload full of relevant harm/heal spells (always highest level). Whereas a wizard will add 1 spell of the highest level. Both always have cantrips available so thats not taking the cake for one side.

So several points: do you see a lack of customisation when it comes to wizard? Both classes have been starved in the past with meaningful longterm customisation. But the cleric truly seems ahead with additional domains.

Do you think that the wizard spell list, will pull the class "ahead" or even out the playfield, especially with the core spells only? And a lot of probable nerfs to magic in general.

By your guts, you have a fighter, a rogue and a paladin goblin in your party, would you rather take a cleric or a wizard, with the information given?

Mark Seifter wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Well, at least the wizard gets more spells per day than the cleric, one way or another.

You made the universalist just directly better than a specialist, because their bonus spell slots per day from the focus are far more flexible than the specialist slots. It comes down to the specialist only gets 1 extra spell per day over the universalist which is not as good as the universalist's huge flexibility, and the school power which is probably not going to be as good as some of the feat options. Not particularly happy with that.

The Universalist is pretty great (whereas in PF1 it was definitely a poor choice compared to a specialist), but I don't think it's far and away better than the specialist because of an interesting nuance of how the focus spells work.

Compare a universalist who prepared fireball, haste, and dispel magic to a transmuter, evoker, illusionist, or abjurer who prepared fireball, haste, dispel magic, and invisibility sphere. If the adventure needs either an extra fireball, an extra haste, or an extra dispel magic, the universalist is set, but if the adventure needed the invisibility sphere, the specialist had the advantage. Getting to pick from a list of three to double is definitely better than adding a fourth (particularly if the specialist ever decides to double up), but then the specialist gets that extra spell on top. I feel that they are pretty comparable options.

I’m a bit confused by this and would appreciative of some clarification. So I have this right,

Universalist: Dispel Magic, Fireball, Haste + choice of Dispel Magic, Fireball, or Haste.
Evocation Specialist: Dispel Magic, Haste, Invisibility Sphere + Fireball

Unless I’m misreading this, it comes across that Universalists will be casting multiple uses of the same spell because how Arcane Bonds work, while Specialists are more suited to having a wider selection of spells...

Yes but the Universalist will still be the better choice when it comes to raw spells as there has always been spells you want to cast several times a day because of how useful they are. Summon Monster, Haste, Mirror Image and so on. The universalist in the example is already better of because he can provide haste in another combat. Whereas Invisibility Sphere might be useful, but still situational.

So far the school powers will make the difference (Diviner's Fortune has already been nerfed by removing attack rolls). If the school powers don't keep up with the power of added flexible spells (and thats a tough cookie) the universalist strikes me already as more powerful. Especially since building up the school powers taxes on additional feats.

Getting the an advanced school ability versus for example the ability which was described to get out additional spells out of every arcane focus spells, is hardly a choice for higher level universalist who have an abundance of those. Assuming Focus Conversation is a level 10 feat you get a flexible spellslot for every spelllevel below 4. At level 11 you get one for every spelllevel below 5.

Different Topic, I think its a wasted opportunity to make the familiar bound to classes and not turn it into a ritual. Which could be more easily referenced in other classes (Witches and Alchemists for example). Putting the familiar progress into class feats will also complicate things more for other classes who have easy access to an familiar. There will be a lot of "This class gets an familiar, grab the other book and read about wizards even if you dont want to play one.". I hope there is another solution for this.

Also familiar could have been made more easily available for non-caster classes. Rangers looking for another scout, to turn into true beastmasters, Rogues looking for an additional skill set or access to spelllike abilities, Powergamers... ahem players with a broad fantasy inspired by comical sidekicks who wanted to have a talking faerie dragon clutching onto a wand as their backstory relevant companion.

I am concerned about depth here, you know.

Besides bad wordplay I really hope the give the wizard more customability. The pact wizard as well as the arcanist were a truly needed addition.

I wonder if the wizard as one of the most controversial classes when it comes to balance of power between classes will make the same impact as that thing-that-shall-not-be-named.

Dragon78 wrote:

Also that we get all the polymorph spells for each creature type before the end of the edition.

Personally, I'm curious if they'll play around with those, and the type/subtype templates in simplified monster creation. Starfinder's summon monster spell was an interesting way to go about it; I could definitely see polymorph working to let you take the form of that creature rather than summoning it.

I thought of something while in the blasting thread: what about a spell that lets you exploit a creature's weakness? Maybe it doesn't do much base damage, but it triggers a creature's innate weakness. Possibly several times with a critical failure on the save.

I could definitely see that as a witch cantrip, or a hex (I assume Hexes will be Witch cantrips or powers, or both).

I like the idea but sounds more like something an inquisitor would cast. Something that could be very witchy is a spell that curses enemies with weaknesses.

A cantrip that creates a single mundane weapon and/or tool would be interesting.

I guess Since there is a domain power that creates tools for spell points,that there wont be a cantrip like that.

I'd like some spells that are designed to be channeled through a weapon for Gish characters.

Perhaps a generic "Arcane Strike" spell that grants the user some extra damage dice to his attacks for one round.

Then, maybe have spells that poisons, elements, or hexes to weapon attacks.

While I like the thought, I wonder what would be more practical spells like this or a feature that allows using spells this way.

Depending on how many cantrips a caster is supposed to cast in a day, diversity will be important. Even if the cantrip does "average" damage just spamming one spell isnt fun. Different cantrips with different mechsnics could help with that. Of course it all depends on how often casting a damaging cantrip is the best/only option.

So we now know the big 2 items some kind of armor and weapon. Which does beg the question what are the big two items for spellcasters? Do they actually exist?

The second question is "What is the 3rd big item necessary at higher levels, maybe?" Deadmanwalking said its propably a ranged weapon, which is a good guess.

An item for mobility seems more likey as a semi mandatory ranged iten would require investment of proficiencies and feats. Whereas a magical broom takes the barbarian to the fight!

Weather Report wrote:

It seems like there will be less front-loading in classes, things spread out over more levels, have to wait until certain levels to access/unlock abilities/feats. Have no idea if multiclassing will even be close to its original form; have they mentioned anything at all about multiclassing?

Im sure its an upcoming blog. I'm not especially excited for it...

I hope the Designers will come up with a good solution acknowledging the role of combining classes, combining archetypes, dipping and prestige classes in "character customisation". While those things certainly don't need to stay, removing them would need equivalent substitute.