I'm reading the core book, and I'm quite impressed with what I saw.
Only if the author actually writes them to be. Sometimes, this stuff is just in your head. The tapestry being blue just means the tapestry is blue. Just because you see it, it doesn't mean it's there.
Detect Magic wrote:
Why can't an entire species be psychologically different from humans, especially when they're from a weird, chaotic plane of existence? Personally, I'm not a fan of "everything is basically human, just looks a little different".
This.Fantasy humanoid races and general monsters aren't human to begin with. They are not a metaphor for any human groups, etc. They shouldn't all behave as human.
That said, I don't know where the "we can kill them because they are evil" comes from. There is always a valid reason given by the plot, and these guys tend give many good reasons for that.
Also, it has been said multiple times that PC goblins are the exception, not the rule. We should not talk about LG goblins being the norm. They aren't.
Thank you!As an OSR player, logistics like that, such as weigh and resources, are part of a fun experience for me. Had a lot of discussions about this, with squires guarding most of the weight outside the dungeon and stuff like that ^^
Just commenting about the monk.
That's what I was looking for!
Hey, I’m back! Did someone miss me? No?...
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to keep up with the playtest, real-life issues, so I missed this opportunity. But I hope the feedback collected here helps you create a better version of the game you have put forward, because that's the purpose of a playtest. I like the direction the game is taking, although there is much room to improve - otherwise, there wouldn't be a playtest XD
I'm trying to think how that is actually possible. A Minor Elixir of Life grants 1d6 HP. The worst case is 4 HP for 4 of these.I believe in anything else, though, but I just got really curious about this case.
I'm trying to gather friends here in order to play the playtest, but schedule problems kept me from playing it so far now. I really want to play.
My most important adjectives for RPG systems are: cool and uncool.
Pretty much. Playtest needs trustful data. This is not the kind of thing that goes on there.
I personally think all playtest print products are basically "collector's stuff". Just for bragging rights.I save my money for the big release ^^
Not very exciting, but good articles nonetheless.
Quadratic W wrote:
WotC's 4e was worse than 4e :PBut enough talk about editions! Now we fight like men! And ladies, ladies who dress like men! For Gilgamesh, it's morphing time!
(I hope anyone gets it).
P.S.: Why this avatar image popped up here, it's a mystery.
Stone Dog wrote:
Thought about that, too. It would be better to create demi-generic Muses than going with specific ones, and I think they just chose the easy way of naming the mechanics by what the bard is going to be, I guess.
Stone Dog wrote:
I thought Occult was just re-named Psychic Magic. However, I can see that…I guess we’ll find out soon ^^
First World Bard wrote:
When it comes to the classic Sword-and-Spell Gish, I think one should be doable by multiclass. We could have a new class just for that but...Now, if we enter into Spell Blade territory, then we need a new class. Or a new prestige something...
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Well, the main cause of repetition in 4e was the always exclusive power-list. I don't think they will do that here, but perhaps include other classes with those same spell lists later, varying in features, feats and all of that. Or at least I hope so.
Ok, I admit, the theory is true: the Bard is an occult caster.
As a note: in my table , it will be a house-rule: everyone's first bard must be named Edward.
Really? For me, saying "This spell is only available to this NPC" is pretty much like saying "No, you cannot play as a gelatinous cube".I mean, there's no reason that all abilities must be available for PCs.
Of course, spells have quite an esoteric flavor on them, so this wouldn't happen with science.
Damn goblins. You may not know, but I'm the wizard who invented firearms. I wanted to keep those for myself, but some meddling goblins arrived, and now my world doesn't use armor anymore...
It seems you are missing my point here. My point is that an adventuring party has very different needs from a fictional world. Things are balanced mostly with PCs in mind - the rarity system may be viewed at least as an attempt to create a rules set that doesn't implode the world if played even barely realistically.
Well, the current system obviously fails at what it was supposed to do. Rarity can be a much easier-to-implement one if done correctly.
"What do you mean, I cannot just buy a Ring of Three Wishes here? This store sells all sorts of magic items! Even the strongest Bag of Holding or something..."
"Well, you will have to work more to get the ultimate Reality Warper power for 3 uses."
I agree with Elleth.
Well, I actually liked it.
I personally like the Wizard and the Paladin above all classes, but spellscasters sure come first in general - except perhaps the Tome of Battle (3.5) classes and the Warlord (4e).After dealing wit 3.X/PF for some time, let's face it, casters need a good amount of non-violent correction ^^
If I ever "lie" to my friend, saying there won't be a surprise party for his birthday, while I'm just concocting that, I wouldn't be seriously called a liar.
Anyway, that's not my main point. My point is: the bard being occult is a too big change to just "assume" it's going to happen because of a sorcerer's bloodline.
First World Bard wrote:
Weird. I never said the Bard wasn't in the playtest, just that I would like to wait the Bard preview ^^Bard is there, but I still don't know how it is.
I'm pretty sure they've said all the classes which will be in the playtest are the core classes from PF1 plus the alchemist- there will not be surprise classes.
So, people never lie or backtrack to create surprises, huh?I just think we should wait until we have the bard preview before theorizing something like this ^^
Ok, people, I just want to say it's best not to assume things about classes which didn't even show up.
And an angelic sorcerer could very well be a mistheist who thinks all gods are superpowered jerks and only prey on mortals, and be of a "Fallen Angel" heritage.
It's an awesome drawing, and I'm a big fan of black-and-white (or something close like this) drawings :)
That's what I'm saying about 3.X and PF1's ranger: it got his spells out of nowhere. There was not much (if any) explanation behind this.Of course, the previous explanation was lost in the edition change, so we had spellscaters that got spells from the game's designer itself just so an old artifact, which made no sense now, could be maintained.
If people want Rangers with divine magic, at least give Rangers a pretty good reason to have so.
I liked pretty much everything here, nothing to complain ^^
Thank you. That is exactly how I feel, too.