You can save these questions for a later date.
1) In Pathfinder 2nd edition, would a wizard with a divine multiclass dedication be able to use Arcane Bond, Bond Conservation, or Spell Substitution with their Divine spells?
2) If one's deity is Neutral Good, for example, would a Cleric be able to use Divine Lance for Lawful damage or does the neutrality of the deity mean no law or chaos damage? I would think the latter but many online have the opposite view it seems
"I went to pathfinder for its more complex rules system. IMO the more rulings you have the more diverse and thematic the gameplay can be. So with this known should I really get second edition?"
Based on what you prize, I'd unhesitatingly answer: yes.
From what I've read, PF2 is no less complex than 1st edition in my opinion, the potential of character customizability has been increased, combat is more tactical in practice than in PF1, and yet the speed of combat is now much more consistent at all levels.
For some great analyses of the game, I'd read a series of recent posts on Reddit by Ediwir, which can be seen for now at https://www.reddit.com/user/Ediwir/posts/. He does a great job briefly looking at the components of the game.
Offhand I think martials and casters should, so-to-speak, be apples and oranges of equivalent sizes. Martials should be superior in combat, but casters should be able to break the rules of reality within combat (weakly) and outside of combat (strongly). Their breaking of reality should ideally not be imitations of existing skills, but even so should be story building and problem solving in nature.
I love the switch from Charisma to Wisdom, which makes so much more sense and distinguishes halflings a little from other ancestries. But the ancestry feats do not excite me, despite getting love from some theory crafters. They lack flavor (in the sense of character) in my view. They don't highlight the personality of the ancestry. That's my gripe
I played a Strength monk at level 1 and it was fine. It was middling in how much damage it took and upper middle in how much it dealt. I was content. Moving around is helpful. I admittedly didn't have good Wisdom or great Constitution. My highest were Strength and Dexterity. It was fine
That said, the idea of Kai Dodge sounds great
Everyone gets two heritage feats at level 1. One of these feats must come from your ancestry, but one can come from any other ancestry with GM approval. If you pick a heritage feat from another ancestry, you get the corresponding trait and are a half-race.
This is an elegant, simple, and almost perfect solution. I like it.
I can see the justification for a Charisma boost for player goblins, but I really think Intelligence fits so much better and is less injurious to the lore.
The ancestry section on goblins should also mention their traditional fear of writing, dogs, and horses, but add that some goblins have been breaking from that norm.
Also, I love that halflings have a Wisdom boost now. It fits the lore so well that it makes you wonder why it took so long to change
NOTE: I posted an abridged version of this on Paizo's Facebook feed and an even shorter version elsewhere on Facebook and the Pathfinder2e group on Reddit, but this is my first time posting my entire review of our partial first play.
Our group consisted of:
I had been very nervous about it beforehand. Despite wanting to keep an open mind, the public online disputes for and against the system had been wearing on me. And my group included a variety of experience levels. I didn't want the newer players to have a bad time.
And... we had a great time. A few key points:
I see belatedly a feat that implies you start trained in unarmed attacks, but it would be helpful if it explicitly said you started trained at level 1.
Magic Strikes 3rd
Actually you can. Here's an example: I grew up with a mother who played acoustic guitar. I was quite familiar with it and fond of it. But I didn't actually learn how to play guitar myself until later. My familiarity and fondness for guitar -- part of my upbringing -- didn't actualize in my ability to wield a guitar musically until years later when I spent time practicing to do so.
A character can begin at first level with a falchion they practice with in their spare time. Or they can express their love of the falchion, and speak fondly of great performers or warriors who demonstrated great skill with it. They can praise it to others as a superior weapon or lament that they neglected practicing it when younger. Or narrate tales of family derring do with a falchion. Or many other options.
And eventually and unsurprisingly they can later master what they admire.
I do like the overall system of gaining Ancestry feats over time, and think it makes total sense. As folks have said, there's a difference between "I grew up around this and am familiar with it," and "I have intentionally practiced this and am currently skilled in it." An IRL example, my mother and grandmother were musicians...
I entirely echo this. My grandparents were born and raised in Mexico, and my father was born and raised in Germany. I can assure you that despite my ancestry I still -- in my 40s -- acquire new expressions of it. Real life ancestry isn't a cloning factory. Your upbringing provides familiarity, but not actual expertise, which despite the ancestral "Weapon Familiarity" feats are not the same thing. I could give many real life examples of this, though my family my not appreciate a public airing of such anecdotes.
I could also echo the natural talents and gifts, inherited from my parents, that nonetheless are just raw and -- honestly -- wasted unless developed. I still acquire and lose in that area.
This one contested area of PF2 is actually one of the more realistic changes.
Off the top of my head, my top 5 archetypes would be:
1. LORE WARDEN (fighter): Perhaps my favorite fighter ever. I've never wanted to play a dumb character, though I've done so occasionally. It just isn't my preference, and it is nice to put that intelligence to work as a fighter.
2. CHOSEN ONE (paladin): An ordinary person chosen by a higher power for a higher calling is so archetypical in myth and fantasy, as is having a personal mentor or divine emissary to guide the common person to become a true hero. This should be an option for all classes with divine spells. This archetype is also great to provide training wheels for a new player or someone trying a more complex class for the first time. My wife, who is new to roleplaying games, loves playing a paladin with this archetype
As a sidenote, being able to have a familiar as a non-wizard or sorcerer can be quite fun, even without much of the spell-casting usages for a familiar
3. URBAN druid/ranger/barbarian: Allows the use of a wilderness type in an urban campaign without completely losing the wildness of the class. So much fun
4. ARCHAEOLOGIST (bard): So useful and fun. Indiana Jones as a bard. On a related sidenote, I think it's handy for all teamwork-focused classes to have an archetype option that allows them to be more self-centered without gutting the nature of their class, and all self-centered classes should likewise have a particularly teamwork-oriented variant. (Speaking for myself, I generally prefer teamwork-oriented archetypes, but others like the reverse)
5. FEYSPEAKER (druid): A trickster druid can be great fun, and the fey-druid connection makes sense, but this could have been done much better. I've had to double archetype my character to make it work adequately in play as it is lacking otherwise, but having combined it with the "Elemental Ally" archetype for better defense it is great fun. It would be nice if all nature-themed classes, and possibly the roguish ones, could have a fey trickster variant
Gray Paladin (paladin): I love paladins, personally, but this is the only archetype that gets some of my friends interested in playing one themselves.
Reading through the revised rules, I think I have a good feel for them. Sometime this winter I hopefully will begin two separate groups of players in the game. I am curious which of the published adventures would be the best introduction? One group is younger -- tween to teen -- and the other is mid-20s and older.
The adventure design may be a bit ... intimidating ... for those who are more used to a structured scene by scene design, such as those from Paizo's APs and modules, but I quite enjoy it.
My primary experience leading a tabletop RPG in the past involved a fan-made campaign someone had shared online for Decipher's Lord of the Rings game. That one lasted a few years and was great fun. It began more scripted but became less so later on as the players kept diverging from expected behavior. So I had to improvise more in the end.
I also led a disastrous homebrew Pathfinder game that died in four weeks. I aimed for a sandbox game but the players, who I no longer game with, needed more than that.
Beyond that, I've led a few groups in playtests of a homemade superhero RPG. Those were entirely improv on my part. Mixed results with some great game sessions and others less so.
I got my copy a week ago. After the initial read, I am in love with this game...
I hope people won't mind if I resurrect this thread as a search revealed only two threads on this topic, and I'm eager to chat about it, having just bought into the system this week.
The releases have been behind schedule, but the Wilderlands adventures book, the Mirkwood sourcebook, and the "Darkening of Mirkwood" campaign book are out. So are individual dice sets. The Rivendell sourcebook, which includes far more than the Rivendell area, is out on PDF and will be out in printed form in a matter of weeks. At least one of the books was delayed by a printing problem this year. "Ruins of the North" will be out in early 2015 I think. Unsure when "The Adventurer's Companion" will be out.
My copy of the revised core rules arrived today and I am pleased so far by it. Lovely art, good quality hardcover book, and good mechanics. The layout has been reorganized for easier reading I am told, but remain compatible with the previously published books. I'm excited to digest and eventually play the game. :)
I finally gave "The One Ring" a good look early this week, and the reviews and videos impressed me enough that I purchased the revised core rulebook and several source books. The revised rules arrived today. I loved the artwork and the rules are good -- very Tolkienesque. The size almost daunted me, but skimming it reassured me a bit. I also had to remind myself that the core book includes an adventure -- not just rules.
As for adventures, I have "The Darkening of Mirkwood" campaign coming, which I have read good things about, and the Wilderlands adventure book and Mirkwood and Rivendell source books en route too (the Rivendell book will be out in November, though the PDF is already released). I will probably rely on the professional adventures and campaigns to begin with before making my own. I do have many resources from the Decipher "Lord of the Rings" tabletop RPG as well as the free "Hall of Fire" fanzine that lasted for several years (86 PDF magazine-like issues of Middle Earth lore, NPCs, items, and adventures). The fanzine includes info on earlier ages of Middle Earth by the way.
I should add that, though I played and liked the Decipher LOTR game, the mechanics of "The One Ring" seem superior by far.
Anyone have advice on Lore-Master aids for boning up or reminding one's self on core mechanics? I didn't order the Lake-Town and LM screen yet and am undecided on whether I'll do so. I hoped a similar free resource to duplicate the screen's reminders would be around.
I have a level 3 kitsune ranger (Beast Master-Infiltrator-Trapper hybrid archetype) who is a dervish dancing scimitar fighter (yes, he has the Perform skill via a trait) with archery combat style.
1. I know it wouldn't be optimal, but is it at all possible to have a fox as an animal companion?
2. If not, what would be a decent companion(s) with good thematic appropriateness?
My general approach to roleplaying is to pursue a concept that has great style (call it the "coolness" factor) along with enough mechanics behind it that it is at least functional and decently effective.
+ + +
CHARACTER IN-GAME BACKGROUND IF IT HELPS: The character is from the GM's Diablo-inspired homebrew area that is a blend of Persian and Japanese culture. He was kidnapped by slavers and sent off overseas to a rich merchant who lives in an ashen wasteland recently devastated by magic. The merchant now wants the ranger to help the merchant on the long journey back to the kitsune's home city. Technically my character remains a slave and is unhappy with that, but he does have belongings, much autonomy, and his pet fox. Since nothing else is there, he doesn't feel he has much choice but to help. The adventure has been solo thus far, but three other players -- not NPCs -- will join next session: a druid with lions, a cleric, and unknown other character that I suspect will known arcane spells. At this point my character's class and archetypes are long set and not changeable, not that I want to change it.
Honestly you people :) A tank should be a heavily armored fighter. Always, i think its a rule... All this stuff about alternates, variations. why is it that vanilla fighters only seem to be NPC's. sigh.
For me, I shy away from straight fighters because I like to have access to more skills than a fighter offers. A high intelligence could offset that, but then why be a fighter? Being human also helps with skill points of course (+1 per level at least). So would a favored class bonus. But for a fighter I'd rather use the F.C. leveling bonus for hit points.
I will probably try out the armored rogue idea in a week and a half and see how it runs in actual play. I will keep the suggested Antagonize feat after all, I think, and pass on Greater Feint. I may also change a few skills. My two traits will both boost my Bluff ability. But other than that the build will be as outlined above.
9: Skirmisher, Combat Trick (Vital Strike) and Antagonize
I think I would replace Vital Strike with Greater Feint instead, which would allow for both attacks that round to be sneak attacks after a successful feint. That sounds like it would be more useful.
Despite the -1 to Perception, Sense Motive and Will saves, I think I would raise Dexterity to 12 and drop Wisdom to 8. The additional +1 armor (and +1 Reflex saves) is small but even so seems relevant for a tank build.
I would probably also delay Power Attack until level 3 and get Improved Feint at level 1. Power Attack is nice but not essential at level 1. Improved Feint would still have some value at such a low level and it would be nice to have at level 2 alongside the first rogue level.
All in all, a clever unorthodox tank build, InVinoVeritas.
In this thread I describe a Rogue tank that wears heavy armor, carries a shield, and eventually sneak attacks all the time regardless. He has full capability as the party face, as a bonus.
I had never thought of a rogue tank before. Yet, even with the greater AC, wouldn't the lower hitpoints be problematic?
How would a wizard focus on battlefield control? And, by the way, I generally greatly enjoy your posts in the forums, Cheapy. They're very helpful.
By the way, part of what sparked this line of thought for me was that spellcasters are disproportionately represented in parties during local Pathfinder Society play. Tanks and skill monkeys -- in contrast -- are quite rare. Sometimes I participate in groups with no tank at all or anyone able to assume an equivalent role, and I have never participated locally in a Pathfinder Society group with more than one rogue/skill-monkey. (Keep in mind that the parties are assembled more or less randomly.)
Thanks to everyone who helped me create a character last week for a home campaign. This question is unrelated to that character, which I am happy with so far. But, in less than two weeks, the local Pathfinder Society group will start the new season of play and everyone will make new characters to use for a few weeks (or more if desired). That sparked this new question.
I am interested in trying to play a tank who also has versatility outside of tanking. To clarify, I don't mean a tank who can also damage. I mean a tank who has combat or non-combat utility beyond tanking, whether this is via skills, spells or combat maneuvers.
Is this possible? What would be good examples of a flexible skill tank, spell tank or tactical tank? Don't feel obligated to end this discussion after I make my character in a week or so. This is an interesting thought experiment to ponder, I think, even after that.
James Martin wrote:
The problem is that the OP is looking for stories in which the past was better and more pure than the present.
I would echo an earlier recommendation of "The Lord of the Rings" series. It is probably the pinnacle of movies that positively feature a classically conservative mindset.
Other suggestions: "Anne of Green Gables," "Anne of Avonlea," "A Man for All Seasons," "A Distant Thunder," "The Trouble With Angels," and many Frank Capra movies (IE "It's a Wonderful Life").
Out of all these suggestions, if you want a movie to partner with lighthearted "Pleasantville" I would pick the drama "A Man for All Seasons." Despite differing genres, the films are superficially similar in pitting the protagonist(s) against society, and yet are ideologically opposite.
A few hours ago before I came back to this site and saw the most recent posts, I finally settled on a quirky idea that tickled my imagination. I'm going to try an arcane duelist bard from the desert area of the GM's homebrew world who once mined metals before joining a nearby militia and working for them as a smith. (The GM already told the party that we will all know each other at the campaign's start because we belong to the same militia.)
Through official Paizo traits and racial feature swaps, my bard will at first level be able to use a net, prehensile scorpion whip (also augmented with "Animate Rope" spell), two-handed pickaxe, cestus and shortbow plus full casting in light armor. Treeant's bard guide inspired some of those weapon choices. The weapons will give him interesting tactical flexibility at low level although he's probably suboptimal overall and the light armor limit from levels 1-9 will be challenging. By avoiding Dervish Dancer, which I had originally thought I would choose, I'll be able to keep my bardic performance buffs available to the rest of the party, and the Arcane Duelist perks will offer some utility versus enemy spellcasters and also add a little bit of buffing options.
Here's another option... How about a mystic theurge? The tremendous flexibility and low raw power is an interesting challenge as a player.
That's an intriguing idea, and I probably would have seriously considered it if I hadn't already had my brainstorm. It sounds too close to a full spellcaster for comfort though. However it wouldn't hurt me to branch out of my comfort zone.
I think I may try a college-educated fighter someday. It offsets one of the things I dislike most about pure fighters.
Now that there's a cleric that gets inspire competence, I think that'll be a better fit for the party than an actual cleric. Take Glory as your 1 domain. Be a buff-o-matic with a sword. It's like a better bard :).
It would be. A cleric is a better anything usually. :) The archetype you're referring to is the Evangelist, and it sounds fun.
Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. It really helped me to decide, and it gave me a lot to ponder. I probably would have ended up with a monk, ranger or Dervish Dancer bard without your intervention. The pieces for this odd character have finally come together in my head and I'm excited to see how it'll play out.
So I was wondering, have any of you had some success with custom equipment tricks? If so, I would love you forever if you could share some of your ideas (as I've kind of hit a wall myself).
I am interested in the same thing especially as "rope" is an option for the tricks and a whip would seem usable for the same tricks. But even aside from whips, the sample tricks for the shield and scabbard sound fun.