Coutal

JiCi's page

2,775 posts. 2 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,775 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

For those wondering, I feel like with the end of P1E, many champions could be revisited with all the new archetypes and classes.

For instance, Ahri can now be Kitsune Sorcerer with the Nine-Tailed Heir archetype :)


Oddly enough, we don't have a single deity for roads, paths and tracks...


EltonJ wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Honestly, some sort of "Uplifted <Creature>" template or rules for creating them would be really cool.
A template would honestly save the designers' time in making more "Uplifted <creature>"s.

Not to mention that AA2 had basic monster stats for dinosaurs and predators:

1) Pick your predator
2) Apply the Uplifted graft
3) All good :)

Speaking of this... we don't have a Colossus Creature Graft... for some reason...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SunKing wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:

Loved: Archetypes. Best idea Paizo had.

Wanted: A Pf2 that was a natural upgrade from PF1, but depowered the OP core caster classes.
Hated: The bleeding-edge dope published from especially from 2015 onward. (I recall the overpowered 3.5e splats heralding the end of that system as well.)
Will Miss: PF1, warts and all, as it was the d20 system I love.
I too support the ‘natural upgrade’ path PF2 could have taken. I hope this forum remains a great place to support a fan-generated ‘natural upgrade.’

I keep saying multiple times: I'm perfectly fine with Paizo upgrading the aging d20 system for something better, simplier more streamlined.

I am salty that I essentially need to "get down the hill, change my gear and climb again" instead of just "getting better gear in mid-ascension and keep on climbing". In short, I kinda wished that at least 50% of P1E was converted for 2E, be races, classes, spells AND monsters, have the 50% coming shortly after and THEN getting brand new materials.

For instance, we just got the Shifter class... only to be dropped from P2E until further noticed... You would think that after so many revisions, they would have given the Druid something equivalent in 2E ^^;


Considering their alignment, they might be "monkey-pawing" their wishes...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My issues with multiclassing:
- The requirements are rather steep and can mess up your builds.

- Some requirements are solely for lore reasons, such the Shadowdancer's Perform skill, which is never used again in the PrC itself.

- A PrC basically halts progress for your base class[es]. Since many base classes state the "per class level" rule for scaling/advancement, PrC levels don't count toward them unless specified, not to mention that several class features are even tied to specific levels.

- As a few others stated, since the addition of archetypes, PrCs have become almost useless. Sure, you trade features, but your key abilities aren't affected. Even more, the Assassin was essentially rendered useless thanks to the Slayer's class.

- Many PrCs could have been turned into archetypes, such the Battle Herald for Bards, Horizon Walker for Rangers or Rage Prophet for Warpriests.

- I understand that Prestige Classes are supposed to be a special membership card, but in many situations, you cannot simply be "part of the organization". You always had to be a "member in becoming". There also can be an issue due to how the lore has to be adapted for homebrewed campaigns... or how it will be implemented in an existing one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Loved
- The Kineticist, Occultist and Vigilante
- The support for 3.5 players
- The Adventure Paths and its content
- The archetypes
- The artworks
- The consistent format

Hated
- The prestige classes, mostly because after the introduction of archetypes, they felt restrictive and repetitive.
- The feat bloat, as many could have been merged into one single feat that scales with your levels.
- Lack of extra information for monsters, as some of them didn't get descriptions due to the page space.
- How they treated the Shifter, I would have loved more transparency...

Wanted
- A dragon-like PC race... or a Medium Kobold...
- An AP compendium, like 4 or 5 APs bundled into a single book. Same with modules and booklets.
- An AP Bestiary, full of reprints.

Will miss
- Pretty much everything missing from 1E... Yeah, I'm a little tired of seeing companies hitting the Reset button...


masda_gib wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Look, that they are upgrading their rules, I'm perfectly fine with it.

That they aren't upgrading everything from the start, I'm not fine with it.

I shouldn't have to wait more than one year to play an Occultist, Kineticist or Viligante...

Are you serious? There is a reason those PF1 books came over the span of years. It's work to create them.

If there should be everything available from start, PF2 would not come out in a bit more than a month but around August 1st 2024. Oo

The problem is that newcomers will not see that; veteran players will...

To a newcomer who wants to start playing PF with 2E, s/he will see that there are 12 base classes.

To a veteran who wants to play that same game, s/he will see that there are 28 missing base classes.

Ok, fine, maybe some of them could be reworked into their base classes, but still...

Also, I'm not asking to get everything from the start; I'm asking to get everything 1E ASAP.

- 14 classes next year, next 14 classes the next next year
- Bestiary 1 2E being made of B1, 2 and even 3, Bestiary 2 2E being made of the rest.


A fast conversion cycle...

- Have a second "player's handbook" with 12 converted classes and more races.
- Have a second bestiary with 90% of B2, 3 and 4.
- Have a second rulebook with 90% of the Adventures and Ultimate books.
- Have a release schedule similar to Starfinder, with smaller or more booklets.

Look, that they are upgrading their rules, I'm perfectly fine with it.
That they aren't upgrading everything from the start, I'm not fine with it.

I shouldn't have to wait more than one year to play an Occultist, Kineticist or Viligante...


I get that the Monk and Rogue got unchained, but... were there serious issues with the Summoner and Barbarian?

The Fighter should have been unchained prior to those two...


Of the top of my head...
- Dragons can have minions of any kind, so it's possible to exhaust PCs with them first.
- If not, dragons often set traps in their lairs. Missing a Disable Device check can be costly. Scrying/spying on a dragon is also as risky.
- Dragons are terrifying in wide open spaces. They can fly, rain down with their breath weapons and spells.
- You can always capture your PCs, strip them of their gears... and then escape the dragon :P


#7 Deep into the jungle used to strive a settlement of vanaras. However, a few years ago, a tribe of charau-kas stormed over and conquered the settlement, now leading it with their iron fists. Furthermore, the charau-kas are led by an awakened ape... and its megaprimatus pet.


Golems and Clockworks are two different kinds of constructs: one is a humanoid-shaped statue animated via magic, and the other is an actual machine that requires mechanical tuning.

Clockworks are partially magical and that's why they need winding. Golems don't have mechanical parts that keep them running.

A Clockwork Golem is a simply a Golem made of clockwork parts, so no winding is necessary.


Edward the Necromancer wrote:
With all of the Campaign Supplement and Player Companion books that have been published I would like to see everything put into combined volumes every once in a while to consolidate everything.

That would be great :)

I wonder why they haven't compiled APs into single books, aside from Runelords. I get that APs are sold similar to a subscription service, but at some point, they could merge all booklets into a single book for easier use.

At best, they could offer PDF-only products, but it would be a good thing to get multiple APs in one single place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about a topic to brainstorm ideas for civilizations, clans, tribes and whatnot for your next campaign?

I'll start.

#1 The PCs stumble upon a hidden city (naturally or magically) where all citizens are celedons, who are all worshipping Brigh, The Whisper in the Bronze. They do not fear or shun mortals, but they are cautious to keep their society a secret. They practice construct crafting and it has become one of their primary (and most lucrative) trade. They have also discovered soul binding, and it is something that many celedons would like to get their hands on, as being transferred from one body into another (particularly a golem) is a sense of pride, accomplishment and prestige.

As a society, celedons aren't much in discord. They all worship the same deity and work on various tasks. Classes of any kind can be found, even non-construct-related like druids, as their studies in nature help them develop new things for their city. Of course, they do not need to harvest food, but they are aware that natural resources are needed for their work.

Rumors have it that many explorers who found the city didn't return. The story is that the celedons use soul binding to also condemn criminals and transfering their souls into machines with little to no control. Soul binding doesn't allow body restoration as long as the soul is traped in the soul stone. While celedons aren't afraid or xenophobic against mortals, they do punish outsiders as such if they cause trouble or jeopardize their existance.

The laws are as any standard society, but celedons themselves aren't much concerned as breaking the rules, as they know that they may lose their sentience. They were built to serve a deity and rare are the ones who diverge from that path. There have been pragmatic incidents in the past, such as celedons wanting to dominate mortals (mostly of evil alignment), but according to stories, Brigh herself intervene and supressed the opposers.


Keep up the good work ^_^


Melkiador wrote:
5E was really a move back closer to 3E, because of the 4E flop. If Paizo can survive that long, I assume we will see a similar trajectory, with PF3 being a move back closer to PF1.

Here's the thing though: PF2 doesn't look terrible... at all.

They took some complicated rules and simplified them. They nerfed some abilities, but didn't outright remove them. So the rogue's Sneak Attack and the alchemist's Bombs are weaker and deal 1 die of damage per 3 levels (versus 1 die/2 levels), but these classes still have them... and they're usable like you did back in PF1. I will command them for streamlining attack routines to 3 attacks maximum, regardless of how many strikes you want to do. In fact, they managed to reduce stat blocks to a few lines, similar to miniatures' cards.

Most of what you knew in PF1 will go into PF2. Even the iconic characters remain the same, thus with the same classes and races, in addition of the overall story going forward. It's just that they made the rules easier to learn and to use, because they were too complex for newcomers.

That being said, it is just sad that they won't offer PF1 players support to convert to PF2. I kinda wished that they took all 6 Bestiaries, cram them into 1 book called Bestiary PF2 1 and then start from there.

Same with races and classes. "Oh you want to play an Occultist, Kineticist or Vigilante in PF2? Well, too bad, they might not come." This is what happened in 4E, this is what WotC had to do in 5E... and this is what might happen for PF2.

Back on topic, when it comes to class options, I would have loved them to rectify archetypes that don't seem as good as they looked when first released.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
I am baffled by the negativity of some people who seemingly want the new system to fail commercially, just so they can then say "told ya so".

I get the feeling that it's because of how poorly D&D 4E got received... which was why so many players jumped off the boat and joined Pathfinder. They didn't like 4E's system (me included) and preferred the old one, so seeing that Pathfinder will be changing systems soon too doesn't please those who joined them in the first place.

Pathfinder is now known to be a "better version of D&D 3.5", so many people want PF2 to flop as hard as D&D 4E, so Paizo can backtrack, keep the D20 system and make it "3.75".


Lelomenia wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Are there any spells that can be used to further enlarge the familiar?

It would be great if a spell could be used to make a Mauler go from Medium to Large...

Size changes don’t stack, but you could get it polymorphed into an even larger creature, without using the mauler size change at all. An improved familiar could do this even easier with the use magic device skill and some wands or scrolls. Those items could get expensive fast though and you may not want to rely on them.

And I just found the spell Polymorph Familiar... which behaves like Beast Shape 1 to 4... which can turn a familiar into a Large Magical Beast if desired.

It's a 3rd-level spell, so... make it into a wand and make it 7th level to get up to Beast Shape 2 with the option for a Large animal, or 11th level to get Beast Shape 4 with the option for a Large magical beast.

polymorph familiar works like beast shape i-iv except it turns into a small animal. Which is problematic if the goal is making your familiar big.

You can just do Beast Shape, or better, Monstrous Physique.

Yeah, regular Beast Shape can work just fine. Beast Shape 2 can be turned into a wand, or an amulet with 3 uses per day to turn your cat into a tiger :P

Monstrous Physique would work too, for any familiar I might add. Since your familiar is smarter than the base animal, it would not be dumb to "operate" a bipedal body :D You... couldn't ride it though :P


Melkiador wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Are there any spells that can be used to further enlarge the familiar?

It would be great if a spell could be used to make a Mauler go from Medium to Large...

Size changes don’t stack, but you could get it polymorphed into an even larger creature, without using the mauler size change at all. An improved familiar could do this even easier with the use magic device skill and some wands or scrolls. Those items could get expensive fast though and you may not want to rely on them.

And I just found the spell Polymorph Familiar... which behaves like Beast Shape 1 to 4... which can turn a familiar into a Large Magical Beast if desired.

It's a 3rd-level spell, so... make it into a wand and make it 7th level to get up to Beast Shape 2 with the option for a Large animal, or 11th level to get Beast Shape 4 with the option for a Large magical beast.


Are there any spells that can be used to further enlarge the familiar?

It would be great if a spell could be used to make a Mauler go from Medium to Large...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look, PF2 is looking to streamline and clean up a LOT of the previous D20 rules, which BTW, are going to turn 20 years old soon. It's outdated in several departments, so yes, I approve Paizo's initiative to upgrade the rules from an aging system to a new one, and they seem to keep it together and try to recycle all possible options so that players won't be left out.

They're not removing gnomes, for instance :P but they are converting half-elves and half-orcs into human bloodlines instead of races, like subraces.

What I kinda don't like about PF2 is that they're essentially hitting the RESET button on everything. They're not going to convert every single PF1 rulebook under 2 years and then start from there for new materials; they're gonna go back all the way from your standard Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master Guide and Monster Manual 1 and work their way back up.

If they are leaving things unwrapped in PF1, but will eventually wrap them up in PF2, I'd be fine with it, but it won't happen. They won't take all races, classes, feats, items, spells and monsters from all previous rulebooks, convert them to PF2 as soon as possible and then start from there to add new stuff.

It's like if they climbed a mountain at a certain altitude, going back down to get new gear and climbing it again instead of calling a chopper to bring the new gear at their level. Please note that they didn't reach the summit yet ^^;


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
They also don't have rules for the Massive creature ability in either Alien Archive.

You're right...

Considering that kyokors are the same size as kaijus, I assume that this is the ability:

Massive (Ex): Because colossi are so massive, uneven ground and other terrain features that form difficult terrain generally pose no significant hindrance to a colossus’s movement, though settlements or areas of forest are considered difficult terrain to a colossus. A Huge or smaller creature can move through any square occupied by a colossus, and vice versa. A colossus can make attacks of opportunity only against foes that are Huge or larger and can be flanked only by Huge or larger foes. A colossus gains a bonus for being on higher ground only if its entire space is on higher ground than that of its target. It’s possible for a Huge or smaller creature to climb a colossus — this generally requires a successful DC 30 check, and unlike the normal rules about colossus and attacks of opportunity, a Small or larger creature that climbs on a colossus’s body provokes an attack of opportunity from the monster.


In the 1st Alien Archive, we have the Kyokor, a Colossus native from Daimalko, and it has the Colossus subtype. However, if you go to the Creature Subtype Graft section of the 1st Appendix, the subtype is not available as a graft. You cannot "create" new Colossi, and no, the 2nd Archive did not add it on its own appendix.

So...
1) Why isn't the subtype available as a Graft?

2) When will it be available as a Graft?


The lack of options to get an Animated Object as a familiar is questionable :S

How about a floating sword, like Alucard can summon in Castlevania: Symphony of the Night?

BTW, if your book familiar is a reference to Nier, you get bonus points ;)


If I may add something else, I feel like it's possible to make an entire party composed only of vigilantes, if you play with the archetypes:

- Fighter: normal (Avenger), and a bunch others
- Rogue: normal (Stalker) and Teisatsu
- Cleric: Zealot and Avenging Beast
- Wizard: Cabalist, Magical Child and Warlock

Some archetypes can fill more than one role too.

I will say that some archetypes aren't well-designed, which can be said for all classes:
- Brute: no control over your form, no ability modifiers when transforming and not even access to Barbarian rage powers.

- Experimenter: no bombs or infusions... which is kinda what gives the alchemist its charm.

- Faceless Enforcer/Masked Maiden: the only problem I see is that they're part of an organisation... and not using them can weaken them in some ways.

- Mutated Defender: no actual Mutant Creature template applied, Mutant Blast is weak and should have been the Kinetic Blast instead and the evolutions don't work. Why? Because some require other higher evolutions, which you cannot access, and no, there's no progression where you can select higher costing evolutions.

- Wildsoul (Ursine): underpowered abilities, and Beast Shape 2.

- Gunmaster: no access to more Gunslinger's grits


- You get more social abilities and skills; the social identity is basically the playable version of the Aristocrat and the Expert.

- You get Vigilante talents are feats, in addition of feats.

- The archetypes mostly changed the vigilante alter ego. Then again, they could have made them specializations and nobody would have noticed :P

- Many archetypes can replace classes... to a certain extend. You can have an Avenger, a Stalker, a Zealot and a Warlock... and you have your typical Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard party ;)

- The class was playtested to the ground... and many problems were resolved, like the changing time.


MysteriousStranger wrote:
The Gun Chemist(chemyst?) Is an archtype for "alchslinger" but you jib bombs to turn your gun into a dragon's breath weapon basically with the damage discoveries

I discovered it the moment it went live on the Archives :)

I completely forgot that I made that topic XD


4 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
JiCi wrote:

I can understand that Paizo wants to "stay away from dragon-related stuff" in Pathfinder. However, it's still disappointing taht it wasn't capitalized on.

{. . .}

What did the Half-dragon template got? Kobolds... which are the equivalent of goblins... Good luck swallowing this pill.
{. . .}

If they hadn't made Kobolds so horribly nerfed out of the box, this wouldn't have been so bad. Would it have been so game-breaking for them to have not had a -4 Strength penalty?

They currently have these modifiers:

+2 Dexterity, –4 Strength, –2 Constitution: Kobolds are fast but weak.

Ouch...

These would probably be a better set:
+2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, –2 Strength

They,re fast, physically weak, but they have a tendancy to compare themselves to true dragons. You can say they're boastful, but at this point, just show that they mean business.


I can understand that Paizo wants to "stay away from dragon-related stuff" in Pathfinder. However, it's still disappointing taht it wasn't capitalized on.

I'm on the fence about what can and what cannot be used by other companines when it comes to D&D stuff. They cannot take Beholders and Mind Flayers (being major antagonistic figures)... as well as the Displacer Beast, which has little impact :S

Ever since dragonborns have been made a core race in D&D 4e and 5e, people have been wanting something similar in Pathfinder. Furthermore, Paizo nerfed the Half-Dragon template so it wouldn't be overused in campaigns. It wasn't just to "stay away", it was also because the template was very powerful on its own.

Here's the thing though: many templates received actual playable races, whether be intended or not, in addition of receiving a lot of racial traits, feats and such to match the template they came from.
- The Half-celestial template got aasimars.
- The Half-fiend template got tieflings.
- The Lycanthrope template got skinwalkers.
- The Vampire template got dhampirs.
- Elemental templates got geniekins.
- Construct templates got wyrwoods.
- Plant templates got both ghorans and vine leshies.
- Fey templates got gathlains.
- Aphorites, dustwalkers and ganzis are planetouched races.

What did the Half-dragon template got? Kobolds... which are the equivalent of goblins... Good luck swallowing this pill. Wyvarans? They're a cross between kobolds and wyverns, and both races weren't pushed enough to match the template. It's not just true dragons, but drakes, linnorms and others.

Personally, wyvarans should have been Medium humanoids with the reptilian subtype, instead of dragons, but that's beside of the point.


Aside from class options, there are still several things that I wished were addressed:
- Words of Power being expanded, as they were cut short in Ultimate Magic

- Mythic rules not being expanded in later books after its initial release

- No Medium Dragonborn-like race... outside of a Giant Kobold or Wyvaran; kinda wished you could apply the oversized Goblin trait to a Kobold

- No warhammer equivalent for the Dwarven Waraxe (Exotic One-handed 1d10, B, x3)

- No stronger staves (Martial 1d8/1d8 and Exotic 1d10/1d10)

- No reworked rules for staves (recharging them should be simplier)

- No scalable magic items from Unchained... from Unchained Classes are constantly updated with archetypes

- No booklet to further expand more deities, especially Demon and Empyreal Lords

- No booklet to wrap up kaijus


UnArcaneElection wrote:
With respect to scalable magic items, I'd like to see a blend of built-in magic and character-level-dependent scaling. Right now we mostly seem to have either all one or all the other, with the notable exception of Staves (which, however, are enough of a pain to use that almost nobody does, as far as I can tell).

Staves require the user to have the spell or a Use Magic Device check, and take forever to charge back. You need a spell to charge, but it'a always 1 charge per spell, regardless of the spell's level. A 5th-level spell should restock 5 charges.

Magic items in general have a fixed value, such as damage, bonuses and DCs. There's no way to attune them to a character to make them more or less powerful.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Weapon training used to be not so useful (unless you needed every last nickel and dime of bonus), but with the release of the Weapon Master's Handbook, it has become the Fighter's best class feature. Several of the Advanced Weapon Training options are awesome, hurt mainly by the fact that you aren't allowed to take them very often. Even with this limitation, depending upon how many weapon groups you want, you can replace all of the Weapon Training instances after the one gained at 5th level with Advanced Weapon Training, or you can let these build up in the old way and use the Advanced Weapon Training feat to get Advanced Weapon Training. With respect to how many weapon groups you might want, I could see a versatile Fighter needing a weapon group (for instance, Heavy Blades) for primary melee, another weapon group (usually Bows) for ranged combat, and yet another weapon group (probably Close) for situations like being Grappled. So that's at least 3 weapon groups.

I didn't know that. That is a good alternative. I thought they were feats, at first.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Good point. On the other hand, having followed part of an Ironfang Invasion PbP campaign having a Kineticist who accidentally one-shotted a Dragon that was at least Adult, I would argue that Kineticists are just overpowered.

If it was a composite blast that scored a critical, it's an happy accident :P

The Kineticist itself is fine to me. It's like the Warlock back in D&D 3.5, which had an at-will blast, with invocations to shape it.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
As for making a Fighter BBEG, Cartmanbeck's Guide to the Iron Caster might show a way . . .

I feel like it's more about its purpose than its abilities. What can a Fighter do best? Using weapons... that's it... You can have a gladiator champion, but that's all I can think of.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Butchering Axe. Just add "Orc" to the name to fix it the rest of the way.

Considering that the weapon's description explicitly says that it was forged by orcs, I question the design choice of not making it a racial weapon.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Same problem for Gnomes.

Actually, gnomes got a lot more racial weapons than halflings. It's not pretty surprising.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
This is partly true, but also some archetypes and even whole classes should be turned into prestige classes. Prestige classes should be classes that have Prestige -- leave the generic multiclassing options, like Arcane Trickster and Arcane Archer, for archetypes or hybrid classes, and reserve prestige classes for concepts that involve having a special place in an organization, like Inquisitors and Paladinoids (I guess 2nd Edition calls them Champions now -- actually not a bad idea), using Hellknights (both types) as a guide.

I could live with that, but then again, just added an archetype that starts to give alternate abilities at 10th level if you join an organisation.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Kirthfinder actually has an idea like this -- although I need to study it more to be sure I know just how it works, the basic idea is that with a bit of investment, you can be a Fighter, dip Wizard, and use a feat or talent (I forgot which) to progress your spellcasting slowly with your Fighter levels.

As I stated many class features are dependant on class levels, not overall character levels. If your early class features would keep on getting better regardless of your path, that would make multiclassing less penalizing.


Temperans wrote:
Those are some good ideas JiCi.

Thank you :)

Temperans wrote:
However, regarding multiclassing, you are practically defining gestalt rules. And it would certainly be a power up for classes. Instead, how about multiclassing uses the XP cost for the new lv, not for the highest lv; and only 1 lv up per session? I know it's more complex, but it makes it so players can have multiclass at high lv without using all the XP for just a lv1 dip.

A 20th-level Magus is going to be better than a Fighter 10/Sorcerer 10, because none of its abilities stop scaling.

If you multiclass, you stop progressing. It's logical, yes, but it's not practical, as several, if not all class features are based on your class levels, not character levels. If a class would have received a feature upgrade at 11th level, but you pick a second class instead, you're not getting that upgrade. The abilities that you received stop getting stronger if you change classes, limiting your options.

Temperans wrote:
Prestige classes being archetypes is kind of weird since it implies you are trading you abilities away anyways (also how would archetype stacking work?). How about just giving them all the Aligned Class feature? That would make PRC more prestigious while keeping the their rules seperate from any 1 class (unless it's a pre-req or part of a theme/story).

Prestige classes have the same problems with multiclassing: they often halt your base class' progress. They also have some of the most ridiculous requirements that barely pay off. Finally, you're already "specialized" when you're picking an archetype; you don't need a PrC, IMO.

A few examples:
Battle Herald (cavalier)
Arcane Trickster (magus)
Assassin (rogue)
Loremaster (wizard)
Holy Vindicator (cleric)
Nature Warden (ranger)
Horizon Walker (ranger)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Scalable feats instead of having to pick 3-4 feats. For instance, TWF grants you Improved and Greater TWF as you level up.

2) Make Knowledge checks more useful. It was nice to get a Knowledge chart for monsters.

3) Make Perception a class skill for every single class. I get that you get a class bonus instead of having to spend 2 points for 1, but please stop justifying that your guard (Fighter) doesn't need Perception...

4) Scalable magic items. Ok, true, Pathfinder Unchained had that alternate rule, but that should have been made into a mainstream rule. Unchained classes got more exposure than any other Unchained rule...

5) Make any 1st-level abilities at-will usage. Someone's gonna have to explain me why a Domain's or School's most basic abilities aren't at-will. The Kineticist's Kinetic Blast is at-will, so why not those?

6) Make the Fighter unique, because there are a LOT of problems with it:
- Bravery is too weak; make it +1 / 2 levels, especially for a specific effect that requires a Will save... and that the Fighter doesn't excel at.

- Weapon Training is useless, because you will never use 4 different types of weapons. You have your melee weapon (one type) and your ranged weapon (one type), that's it.

- It lacks a fighting style. Every archetype could be layered on top of the base class without trading and the Fighter would be fine. Weapon Training should be replaced with fighting styles, where the Fighter gets abilities and weapon mastery feats.

- It lacks a key special ability. Barbarians have Rage, Cavaliers and Samurais have Challenges, Ranger and Hunter have spells, fighting styles and companions, Brwalers and Monks have fighting styles, etc. What does the Fighter have? Nothing. If you want to make a BBEG, you cannot purposefully pick the Fighter, not even for the evil general of the opposing army, as the Cavalier or Samurai would be better.

- A good example of a key ability would be a "focus strike", where you deal your weapon damage / level + modifier, one time / 5 levels.

- Another example would be that the Figther gets to choose one Critical feat for free every 4 levels.

7) Make the Monk less stat-intensive... and make its speed enhancement useufl or give it a ability to trade said speed for power when it cannot run back and forth.

8) Dwarves still don't have the warhammer or heavy pick equivalent of a Waraxe (exotic, 1d10).

9) Orcs don't have racial two-handed axes and swords.

10) Halflings don't have many melee racial weapons.

11) Prestige classes should be turned into archetypes. I'd rather be able to progress in a base class than be halted.

12) Multiclassing should be progressing your base classes equally or to some degree. If your a Fighter 10/Wizard 10, you either have your abilities scaled to Fighter 15th or Wizard 15th, not being flat out halted at 10th.


Hold on, this I need to know.

Does Paizo have plans for a comic book based on the Starfinder Iconics, like they did for Pathfinder?


Great work as always ^_^


SuperBidi wrote:

If you want to create a new power level for characters, you have to reflect the class system, otherwise you force your players to create their characters under two scales. That's the main conception error Paizo made with starship combat: Having a properly balance party doesn't make a properly balanced crew.

So, if you go for Mechas, you need melee focused mechas using solarian powers, droned Mechas for your mechanic, etc... If you don't do that, you'll have, like for starship combat, some players unable to contribute much during Mecha fights.

So, for me, Mechas must not become widespread equipment. Having a planet or a system where Mechas are a thing, that's ok (you play here or not), but having Mechas all over the universe with a new power level for them would be too hard to balance, or half illogical if you bring all the class features into Mecha fights.

The Siege Robot can act as both a monster and a vehicle, so... how about a Colossal Robot (60 ft. space with 60 ft. reach) that does the same?

Ok, it's not something to give away to the players, but if they're running a errant on Daimalko and must fend off a Colossus, I can see them reactivating an "ancient warrior" in order to defend settlements.

Take it as reactivating both Quantium Golems as a dormant defense mechanism.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
JiCi wrote:

If we're talking about archetypes that don't benefit the base class, there are a lot to choose from...

- Blade Adept (Arcanist): you trade exploits for a Magus' Black Blade, except that you don't get exploits that temporary grant you a better BAB.
{. . .}

I've got a fix for this. Completely Rules As Written, to the best of my understanding. And doesn't even use Eldritch Knight.

You're multiclassing though...

I see multiclassing as extremely limiting, because you stop progressing in one ay in order to go another way. That's why I like archetypes that grant access to other classes' features or base classes that are considered hybrid classes.

I see archetypes as "alternate ways to multiclassing". If you need to dip in another class to make the archetype even viable, that's a clear indication that the archetype isn't good on its own...


Melkiador wrote:

The blade adept isn’t “as” bad. You get a bonded object, so that’s a bonus spell per day, though you do have to be holding your sword to cast any spells, which can be bad in certain situations. And the black blade has a lot of the benefits of a familiar, which is worth an exploit on its own.

It gives a lot of combat options that will go to waste, but there’s at least 2 exploits worth of good stuff in there for a non-fighter. So, it’s not a “good” archetype on its own, but it’s not as bad as some of the archetypes that give combat stuff to casters.

The Blade Adept would be better if it received an exploit that temporarily grants Base Attack Bonus = caster/character level, for 1 round/level. For me, that's the deal breaker here.

You're supposed to be a melee character, but your attack bonus just cannot match it. You will also rely mostly on regular melee attacks, not touch attacks. Finally, there aren't many exploits that would benefit from the Black Blade. For instance, Flame Arc and Holy Water Jet cannot be used, because these are cones or lines, not ranged touch attacks.


Cavall wrote:

My original response to you actually answered that.

Wilderness origins book. Paizo realized that printing 4 beastiaries after the cavalier class and 5 after ranger meant the lists originally given were woefully short of representation. So they updated classes like cavalier paladin ranger...

It's just at the back of the book. Well worth the few dollars given the feat options for shifters and these lists being updated.

Thanks for the information.


Cavall wrote:

Medium Cavaliers:

Axebeak, Camel, Elk, Giraffe, Horse, Seahorse, Giant, Tortoise, Giant, Zebra

Small Cavaliers:
Antelope, Boar (requires 4th level), Capybara, Dog (requires 4th level), Kangaroo, Lizard (Giant Gecko), Pony, Ram, Reindeer, Stag, Weasel, Giant, Wolf, Wolfdog

I... didn't know about that list at all. Where did you get it? I noticed it on the Archives of Nethys, but... when was that added?

This is what I have in the book:

Advanced Player's Guide, Cavalier, p.33 wrote:
The creature must be one that he is capable of riding and is suitable as a mount. A Medium cavalier can select a camel or a horse. A Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level. The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts.

And yes, I have downloaded the latest version. (initial release in 2010, updated in 2012)

Ok then... I stand corrected.


CorvusMask wrote:
I'd think because of the whole "cantina feel", it makes much more sense for iconics in Starfinder not have to be from core rulebook.

I agree.

Furthermore, Paizo have been introducing a LOT of playable aliens, so... they could select 3 fan-favorites and make them "core aliens", not that the selected race should matter in selecting your class though ;)


Cavall wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Lelomenia wrote:
ranger doesn’t have a ‘wider range of companions’. Historically they’ve been restricted to ‘handful of bad non-mountable companions’ where cavaliers/paladins work with a ‘handful of bad mountable’ options. Because paladins and cavaliers have it through a feature called ‘mount’.

You'd think that any Large companion, or any companion that gets Large, would get on that list. Druids have access to every single companion, regardless of size.

Large cats, wolves, grizzly bears, sharks, bulls and others can be ridden from the start, at 4th or at 7th level, and that's only for Medium riders. Badgers, weasels and wolverines would fit for Small riders.

Druids are friends to all animals. So they have an open list. Cavaliers use animals that for the most part are trained mounts, like camel and horse.

The classes are like this from design. If you want to ride more wild beasts that is exactly what the archetype is for.

Not all races have camels and horses...


Lelomenia wrote:
ranger doesn’t have a ‘wider range of companions’. Historically they’ve been restricted to ‘handful of bad non-mountable companions’ where cavaliers/paladins work with a ‘handful of bad mountable’ options. Because paladins and cavaliers have it through a feature called ‘mount’.

You'd think that any Large companion, or any companion that gets Large, would get on that list. Druids have access to every single companion, regardless of size.

Large cats, wolves, grizzly bears, sharks, bulls and others can be ridden from the start, at 4th or at 7th level, and that's only for Medium riders. Badgers, weasels and wolverines would fit for Small riders.


"Best" is subjective, but...

I really love the Brawling Blademaster (Samurai; Martial Arts Handbook). You trade your mount, banner and archery for the ability to TWF with both your fists and your weapons.

The Grenadier (Alchemist; Monster Codex) is also pretty good. You replace poison-related abilities with extra bomb-related abilities. I personally never understood having poison stuff for base alchemists, outside of feats and archetypes.

The Elementalist Shifter (Shifter; Ultimate Wilderness) is good one too, mostly for the extra elemental damage. That might not sound like much, but... TWF this bad boy and you're in for a treat.


Lelomenia wrote:
JiCi wrote:

If we're talking about archetypes that don't benefit the base class, there are a lot to choose from...

- Blade Adept (Arcanist): you trade exploits for a Magus' Black Blade, except that you don't get exploits that temporary grant you a better BAB.

- Beast Rider (Cavalier): you trade heavy armor proficiency to get a more exotic mount... which is a rather odd choice considering that you can talk to your DM to replace your standard mount by something else as a regular cavalier.

- Two-Weapon Warrior (Fighter): Improved and Perfect Balance add absolutely NOTHING if you want to TWF with 2 one-handed weapons.

i believe the gm option for cavalier is generally interpreted as ‘your dm may also approve some other crappy horse-comparable setting appropriate mountable animal companion from the companion list’ not ‘really just pick anything that’s squintably mountable’.

Huh... if the Druid and Ranger have access to a wider range of companions, why not the Cavalier and Paladin?


If there's one thing GMs mustn't do to break the immersion is to "prevent players from acting during cutscenes". If they can technically act during your villain's speech, don't forbid them.

I see a few options:
- Have the PCs captured and brought to your villain.
- Have the fortress equiped with "speakers"
- Have the mission to infiltrate the fortress while the villain is talking to its troops.


If we're talking about archetypes that don't benefit the base class, there are a lot to choose from...

- Blade Adept (Arcanist): you trade exploits for a Magus' Black Blade, except that you don't get exploits that temporary grant you a better BAB.

- Beast Rider (Cavalier): you trade heavy armor proficiency to get a more exotic mount... which is a rather odd choice considering that you can talk to your DM to replace your standard mount by something else as a regular cavalier.

- Two-Weapon Warrior (Fighter): Improved and Perfect Balance add absolutely NOTHING if you want to TWF with 2 one-handed weapons.


blahpers wrote:

Good kaiju?

Gamera is really neat!
He is filled with turtle meat!
We all love you, Gamera!

Gamera is more a protector of Earth itself, not its inhabitants though...


doomman47 wrote:
It's perfectly fine as a pc template since the player has to give up 2 levels to even have it. Yes you could also play an aasimar or teifling instead of a half celestial or half fiend but it wont work for some concepts especially if the character needs to have a different race or more closely wants to embrace their outsider heritage which aasimar and teifing can not do.

Are you sure that CR adjustments work like this for PC races? I keep thinking that it's more complex than trading class levels for CR.

Still, it would have been much easier to simply give us a new dragon-like race, or expand the kobolds and wyvarans. The kobolds could have gotten a Medium variant as well as Chromatic and Metallic heritages, while the wyvarans could have been modified from wyverns to drakes, pseudodragons or linnorms.

1 to 50 of 2,775 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>