Lightwire's page

I’m hoping to see some webbing type option back.

What about an ability to lay traps? Say

Plant trap 6
Prerequisite: damage tag or the web evolution
AAA
Your eidolon creates a trap at a chosen point within reach. The DC to perceive and and saves are equal to your class DC. If your eidolon has a damage tag the trap deals 3d4 damage of the same type as a chosen tag, basic reflex save. Increase damage by 1d4 for each to levels after 6. If your eidolon has the web evolution then they make a reflex save crit success no effect, success clumsy 1 1 round, failure clumsy 1 & immobilized 1 round, crit failure clumsy 2 & immobilized 2 rounds. If your eidolon meets both qualifications a trap may do both and the same save is used for both effects. An eidolon may not have more than one trap active at a time and all active traps disperse.

I’m going to need a giant trap door spider for my summoner poisoner.

Lightwire wrote:

Something like that should have a cost though. Getting locked out of your eidolon might be too much but focus points are in the right area.

The damage as written is too little since you’ll never knock yourself out, and with the arrival abilities summoning your eidolon, with burst of damage and then Desummoning it once an enemy has successfully attacked waisting at least one action isn’t a bad move so long as you keep yourself safe. Even if you spend most of the fight at 1 HP doing it.

Even if you boost the damage then it’s either always worth it because your group will effortlessly heal up through medicine because you’re not worried about time. Thus there is no cost to the feat. Or it’s never worth it because your group can’t take the time to patch you up for an extra 50% of your HP when they could just patch you up from unconscious. Thus invalidating the feat.

I wouldn’t be opposed to an ability like this, in fact the option of one could be vital for many players. But it should be a focus spell or something else, perhaps with a very low heal attached. Focus points are a simple currency and one well used. You’re only going to lock yourself out of it that way if you’ve chosen to use your points for other things that you believe to have been more valuable. It’s a good way to...

My musings on the idea was that a focus point cost instead of hit points was a lesser cost, not a greater one. It could be in addition to the ability, but I wouldn't do it instead.

This is because it takes just 10 minutes to recover focus. It takes substantially longer to heal back up to full health with Treat Wounds. At level 7, using this ability with a focus point cost would allow a Summoner to return to full efficiency in 10 minutes. With a half life clause, a Summoner with Assurance (Medicine) and Expert proficiency would return to life in around 2 to 5 uses of Treat Wounds (at best, 10 minutes a piece, at worst 1 hour).

This is assuming Focus Points are paid to...

Whether or not HP is a cost outside of combat is something with enormous table variation. There have been a lot of threads about why it is or isn’t. The thing with focus spells is while you them back after ten minutes, something you can probably presume to get between any fights, but you’re only recovering 1 at a time. So in an average day you could use evolution surge, or this ability. And once per day you could do both, or summon your eidolon mid fight and use this a second time. By the time you can recover more points you’ll have more spells to use them on. All of that doesn’t vary much between tables, so it’s a more balanced cost.

So the cost of a focus point isn’t ten minutes, it’s not doing something else with that focus point. What other options you have stay fairly flat across tables and levels from a value standpoint. While the cost of health outside of combat is either huge or irrelevant depending on your group and situation.

I considered a frequency or focus point cost, but I decided against it.

The oracle showed that being locked out class features for an adventuring day (or being knocked unconscious) is too heavy a penalty for a class.

A focus point cost would effectively have the same impact as losing life, but arguably would be even less of a time sink.

And functionally, this 'feature' already exists in that an Eidolon demanifests at zero and a Summoner can be treated by allies out of combat and re-manifest the Eidolon. So the out of combat cheese is already a part of the system, enough so that a feat tax probably doesn't need to have a timing restriction when the base behavior doesn't have one.

Something like that should have a cost though. Getting locked out of your eidolon might be too much but focus points are in the right area.

The damage as written is too little since you’ll never knock yourself out, and with the arrival abilities summoning your eidolon, with burst of damage and then Desummoning it once an enemy has successfully attacked waisting at least one action isn’t a bad move so long as you keep yourself safe. Even if you spend most of the fight at 1 HP doing it.

Even if you boost the damage then it’s either always worth it because your group will effortlessly heal up through medicine because you’re not worried about time. Thus there is no cost to the feat. Or it’s never worth it because your group can’t take the time to patch you up for an extra 50% of your HP when they could just patch you up from unconscious. Thus invalidating the feat.

I wouldn’t be opposed to an ability like this, in fact the option of one could be vital for many players. But it should be a focus spell or something else, perhaps with a very low heal attached. Focus points are a simple currency and one well used. You’re only going to lock yourself out of it that way if you’ve chosen to use your points for other things that you believe to have been more valuable. It’s a good way to keep limited use while still getting to keep going with the day.

Yes! Going with something that’s very close to the leshy glide should be perfect. Thank you.

I think adding qualities through boost would work. I’d also like to see a variety of feats that add weapon traits to the attacks. With a kicker, to make it worth a full feat or make up for not getting part of the functionality for things like trip.

Hamstring 1
Add the trip weapon quality to your eidolon’s natural attacks, though it cannot avoid being tripped by dropping anything. Against prone foes your eidolon gains +1 damage per weapon damage die.

(The advantage of trip here is getting to gain item bonuses to the attempt.)

Wide blows 1
Add the sweep weapon trait to your eidolon’s natural attacks. When your eidolon is flanked add +2 damage to attacks against enemies flanking it.

Defensive stance 1
Add the parry weapon trait to your eidolon’s natural attacks. If your eidolon takes the action to guard itself with this trait it can select one enemy who cannot be considered for flanking purposes.

Some things like reach of course are too good not to be higher level and perhaps by themselves. But this avenue alone could yield a dozen plus new feats that would each let an eidolon feel more unique during a fight. Which is something they’re currently a bit lacking in from my perspective.

Basic flight: 6th level

Your eidolon gains limited flight, only usable in short bursts. Your eidolon gains a fly speed equal to half it's speed or 25 ft, whichever's less. If your eidolon ends this moment in the air, it falls as normal.

bomb, lowish level flight that's not over powered. About the same power of a climb speed, and unlocked at the same level. Gives the feeling of flight to those who want it early, and true flight can still be unlocked at 16th level.

As of 9 all eidolons can fly for a limited time via the focus spell. I don’t think a significantly more restrictive version of flight is needed at a slightly lower level. And as noted elsewhere of it weren’t as restrictive as what you propose it would climb into unbalanced territory at these levels. Perhaps a glide evolution instead? I can’t look right now to see what if any standard gliding rules there are so I’ll just leave something as a placeholder/suggestion.

Glide 6
Single action
Must be airborne.
Move your eidolon in the air up to its speed, minimum 10’, reducing its altitude by 5’ for each 10’ moved. If the eidolon does not take this action once a turn while airborne it falls to the ground at normal speed. Your eidolon doesn’t take fall damage.

I like decoupling appearance from effect when it comes to evolutions. A friend of mine had significant difficulty in first edition because they really wanted a spider eidolon, but you simply couldn’t afford enough legs at low level. When we’re creating a creature that you’re character may have literally dreamed into existence it seems silly to say you can’t have vistigial legs that don’t provide a benefit because you don’t have enough points for them. And that’s whay linking does.

For my suggestions on evolutions.

Change the name for energy Emanation, say to energy burst. And it and the versatile energy evolutions should add the chosen damage type as a tag to your eidolon like breath weapon does. This is so you can use that tag for more abilities.

Destructive enimation 8
Prerequisite: eidolon has a damage type tag
Two actions
Your eidolon can emit a wave of destructive forces into all around them. Any creature in a square within 5 feet of them takes 4d6 damage of one of the types your eidolon is tagged with, basic save. At 12 and each 4 levels thereafter add 1d6 to the damage. At 10 and each 4 levels thereafter add 5 foot to the area. May not use this ability for 1d4 rounds.

Persistent damage 10
Prerequisite: the eidolon’s last action was to damage an enemy and that enemy is within reach.
One action
Your eidolon tears the flesh, injects poison, or sets the foe aflame. The enemy your eidolon damaged takes 2d6 persistent damage. This damage may be bleed or one your type your eidolon is tagged with, chosen when you take this feat.

Not strictly en evolution but a feat with similar effect.

Prescient coordination 4
An enemy is flat footed to yourself, your eidolon and your summoned creatures so long as it is within reach of at least two of them.

I like the idea of a benevolent arrival. But I’d rather the base feet get expanded so that it heals, does damage, or maybe something else depending on what you summon and it’s tags or spell. The feat now seems a little lack luster, and expanding its flexibility would help give summoners a reason to regularly summon creatures instead of saving spells for more traditional casting.

It’s important enough that when they went to design a more balanced stat set they Removed it and swept it’s effects under another stat?

Honestly though, third least important? Personally at least, and specific characters may differ, and are just as likely to drop it more.

The HP is a significantly smaller percent now, and generally you’re not “just barely” knocked to 0. Which is the only time a slightly higher con would help. The fort save part can matter, but then you’re talking about one single line on a character sheet as the only reason to have the stat. Plus in most games I’ve been in so far it’s also the least common save needed, so it feels even less important. Doubly so since most of those rolls will require multiple rolls, so multiple changes to succeed and improve your chances.

I’d avoid having an 8 in it for about the same reason with any other stat. And I’d normally bump it as I level, but I could definitely see reasons to skip it for something else.

In a home game that’s probably workable, more skill bumps fewer combat boost. That or just doing normal Hellknight with the mask reskinned in. Both will be challenging to do too fast. As to the VIP note it’s worth remembering that aside from a single order a normal Hellknight outranks a signifier.

@masda_gib

I'm sorry, but how is that?

Quote:

"Mystery Benefit

You are no stranger to the trappings of warfare. You are trained in medium and heavy armor. At 13th level, if you gain the light armor expertise class feature, you also gain expert proficiency in these armors."

Quote:

"Oracle Dedication

Choose a mystery. (...)"

Why wouldn't it be constant?

I know it's for the Battle Oracle - that's why I would pick it while taking this dedication.

If you read the full text of the oracle dedication feat you’ll see that it specifies you only gain the mild constant effect of a mysteries curse and the skill. So no armor or anything else. Most of the MC dedications are limited like this.

That’s definitely one you’ll have to stretch for. You could probably get to normal Hellknight quicker. You need casting, so 3 class feats, you need armor so 2 general feats, you also need hellknight Armiger. So if you don’t take any class feats after level 1 you could be a signifier at level 10.

Anything that includes an archtype is going to take until level 10 to get the first feat for signifier. And unfortunately investigator is one of the worst classes to get to that archtype.

Alternatively, presuming GM cooperation with your Hellknight membership, you could take sentinel at 2 and med armor proficiency at 3. Then wear the plate as a member in training. They obviously would object to just anyone wearing it but I don’t know you much have specific archtypes to in game be a member. Then next time you get a general feat take the next armor proficiency and train out sentinel for Armiger. Then when you hit 10 do some more retraining to get the full signifier. It’s not everything you want any faster but it gives you what you want as quickly as you can get it in reasonable bites.

Most of my groups are larger, your mileage may vary but I wish you luck.

For encounters build up. With this many adding more things is always the best choice not making them stronger. It’s a sad fighter who rolls poorly on initiative and doesn’t even get to hit a mook because the ranger crit everything to death.

Keep combat moving. As mentioned if someone’s turn comes up and they’re not ready then they go into delay. They can come back in when they know what they’re doing. This is not a punishment and should not be implemented with exasperated tones, this is just to keep going and make it clear to them that you look forward to their turn as soon as they’re ready.

As a small addendum to the above. If like me you have someone who really isn’t paying attention and when their turn hits they ask you to explain everything that changed since their last turn? Then If it’s a regular thing you might just say that everything is shown in the map with some of that exasperation and if they’re not ready move onto someone else until they are. The other players may fill them in on the awesome things they’ve done, or they may just make decisions with less information to take a turn. While I don’t expect everyone to pay constant attention, the other players shouldn’t have to keep listening to the GM explain things they just did, likely in increasingly shorter tones, for a single person.

Outside of combat keep things moving. Try not to spend too long on any single person’s request. This is prime time to guess at the rules and correct for the future later. I highly advise going round table with the questions about what they’re doing and when collecting rolls. If you’re in an intense RP situation with a single player then occasionally single someone else out for the NPC to ask a targeted question. Don’t then penalize them for this, but maybe offer a chance for a free aid with a nonstandard skill. If you penalize them for Bob the Barbarian’s low Diplomacy answer when you’re the one who picked him out and the players realize this then Bob might not only not get to talk when they meet someone important he might get left outside.

And lastly take note and make sure you talk to all your players about their character’s history and desires. In large group’s its easy to forget to make the game interesting for your quieter players. I can say from experience that it’s a Lot less fun to write a backstory and create an interesting to you character when no one ask about them or talks to you. And even less when the GM starts raising other players through various levels of divinity, while not always remembering your character’s name.

Keeping the board and getting reactive shield is probably the way to go. The extra damage from a 2-handed is nice but if your plan is to get in the middle of everything the extra AC and the occasional block is better. And if you’re having trouble getting it raised now then going with a lower bonus spell won’t fix that, though an automatic reaction may.

As for healing I’ve found the medicine skill does a lot of work, more than you’re likely to get out of a few cleric spell slots and with medic and similar archtype options it’s even better. The only downside is that you’ll have to fix the fact that you’re missing a free hand you need for battle medicine. My rogue went double gauntlets for the easy way, but most of my damage isn’t related to the weapon. If they aren’t already you may want to mention to your rogue the healing issue, they really should have the free skills and feats to pick up some of the slack without issue.

If you find a way to keep a free hand while making the rest work then sudden charge can serve a double purpose for getting you in range to help. You can move, move, strike & still battle medic, and possibly then also get a shield up if needed as a reaction.

If it’s not too counter to your concept though, you might consider switching over to cleric as a base with either fighter or one of the martial archtypes as the add in instead. You’ll have enough spell slots to actually provide healing with a little charisma and still self buff if you like. It all comes down to your priorities here, martial first or support first? Neither is wrong.

Party jealousy. Because anyone who claims they don’t want a pet slime is clearly fooling themselves.

This is a really nice write up and sounds like it’s a very close approximation to the spirit of my character. I enjoy that. I had looked at soothing mist and a few other feats like Hunter’s Aim and Far Shot for flavor and solidifying the concept.

In practice the animal companion in 2E do feel very squishy and easy to kill but I may have built mine wrong.[

An animal companion is going to be about as squishy as a wizard of its level. But as mentioned each hit it takes is one less a party member doesn’t, your party should thank you when your bird eats a crit acid arrow that the wizard didn’t. Plus yours can fly, and do so without you’re direction once it’s mature. So if it’s low just have it leave. That plus the backup options if you want them can give you some real staying power. And don’t forget you can medicine it up between combat same as the rest of the group.

I’d have to spend more time with the books than I have right now to say on what should happen RAW. But I would certainly lean towards the second interpretation in my games. It’s minimal damage at that point and one of the only uses that one of their other abilities is likely to see too. That being the boosted DC as otherwise its always better to make an at level poison that’s save is likely to be at least as good as your DC. We do have some dry points for poison that the ability fills in as well but those will also vanish as more books make it out. Its certainly in line with the potential power the other alchemist get at that point. Handy but unlikely to break anything.

I agree that it’s best to take a very loose interpretation of things when transferring characters and it’s generally best to start with new characters for a system change. I personally like PF2 a lot but many characters in RPGs end up with the mechanics or exactly how something bleeding into their personality.

However if you don’t really have the option, then I’d do the following. Please note that this advice is to try and hit your RP goals while still being mechanically functional.

Priority is sniping, take the Precision ability and various feats for Crossbow. This works doubly since the crossbow feats lean on heavy damage and slipping into stealth. Perfect for a back line sniper. Crossbow ace and running reload. Still works just as well for reskinning only now you’re also farting around the field and your foes don’t know where the shot will come from.

Secondary is the animal companion. To keep this up I expect you’ll need a good portion of your class feats. Getting the free archtype thing going would be an obvious power boost here but it also might be more moving parts than you want to try in your first foray into the system. I’d use the bird here, or a reskinned bat, since it’s support ability particularly fits what you’ve said you use it for. Get it, get it mature, and likely nimble after that. I’d also strongly consider taking the beast master archtype as well. May seem silly since most of the companion feats are already in your class at a lower level, but the archtype lets you have multiple companions. So if one goes down then after the fight you can patch him up. By which I mean swap in another identical one.

And lastly you mentioned support. Which you primarily took up due to a lack of healing. I’d suggest you ignore spells completely here and use your skill feats to master battle medicine and post combat medicine use. It’s way more handy than other editions of D&D type games and your using an entirely different resource to do it. So you save all the feats you might have used to get a heal spell or such. Depending on how deep you want to delve you should still have some free for other aid boosters or something to help you stealth, or even underworld connections.

I think martial is a good fin for gun proficiency. Mainly to explain the training to load them at a combat speed. Plus this gives them more room for damage and traits within the currently existing weapons system which people will want.

To make them something people use you could have a gunslinger class, though I’m still not sure what you’d give it to make it unique enough I’m sure they could. And also one or two specific archtypes like a musketeer for rifles and another for pistols(just as an idea), which give sliding proficiency like the archer archtype does as well as level appropriate abilities.

If you need them before that then I agree that modified crossbow is the way to go. Just try and keep them somewhat balanced. If you really want to go out on a limb and want something central you could Make a proto archtype with archer and the ranger crossbow feats as a base.

As thenobledrake said, even if you don’t feel it’s appropriate to add more creatures adding the elite template can help, or you could add in a small natural hazard to make the terrain more dangerous. You could also recalibrate the EXP, bringing what was was a serious encounter down to a moderate.

Personally I’d probably try and adjusted the encounter. And if I can’t find a good way to do that leave the experience alone. The players thought ahead enough to recruit help which is worth some reward. And the difference between the two experience totals is fairly small, it’s unlikely to add up to even a level over time. If my players started doing this all the time I might start building for those stronger encounters regularly to keep the fights interesting but That’s about it.

It is kind of a fair/weird point though that Athletic Strategist 'takes away' your ability to reroll a bad DaS by changing tactics though.

Might be the only feat in the game (at least off the top of my head) that actually removes your ability to do something that a character who didn't take the feat can.

I can see the point here. But the other argument Would be how likely are you to make that athletic check without the feat? Since you want intelligence, and also dexterity, some constitution, and probably wisdom, depending on the game even charisma seems more impactful than strength. You loose a way to ditch bad rolls but attacking other places or trying to apply some debuffs are still solid. And you can then use your likely much higher stat bonus.

I like the idea of splashing in some martial artists, but I can be a sucker for classics. I also like the idea of a linguist interrogator, though that’s less combat capable.

Thinking more about it, yes, there is power creep in the APG in one specific domain: Archetypes. Old Dedications are now kind of worthless. You want your Wizard to be a good archer? Go Archer, not Fighter.

You can now have a Specialized Companion while in the past you were limited to Incredible Companion unless being a Druid/Ranger.
It will, in my opinion, enable more gish builds (and at least easier ones).

It feels much less like creep and more like things are starting to work as intended. There were a lot of mixed concepts that didn’t work with just the multiclass options, or didn’t work until too late since we had to double the requirements. It seems like the increased archtypes just let you hit a concept sooner, at the cost that your concept is more limited. Essentially what I mean is that I don’t think Archer is just better than MC Fighter or Ranger, but it is better for specifically shooting a bow. So an option but not something you automatically take.

MaxAstro wrote:

I don't see this being an issue. Sure, from a strict powergaming perspective it is, but out of all the various player options, ancestry is by far the one most likely to be made for a flavor reason. The "cost" of tiefling is being a tiefling, which isn't going to mesh with all character concepts.

I have a player, for example, who specifically took Cavern Elf over Dhampir because she wanted to be a drow, not a dhampir. That sort of thing is pretty common. The variant heritages pack a lot of baggage onto your character.

Thread was asking for examples of power creep, and I'd certainly classify a new option doing the same thing as an old option + more as fitting the definition.

Plus yes, you can always choose inferior options for thematic reasons, but that's a rather poor excuse for thematic options being mechanically inferior in the first place. And as for baggage... you didn't really mention Aasimar, whose only baggage seems to be that common people think they're awesome (& mechanically can eventually gain flight).

Those options are restricted by rarity so not automatic picks. And it’s worth noting that all are obvious, you don’t get the effect of being an Aasimar without it being obvious that you are one.

And at least from my perspective the perceived bonus is a rather small one. Sure you can pick the ancestry for some additional options, but in the standard game you only get 5 picks over a full character. There are already a swath of good picks for any given ancestry. In fact most ancestry’s already have more options each than all three of the plainer scions, each fairly equivalent in power. So to me getting an extra dozen options I might maybe pick one of isn’t enough to qualify as power creep.

Still working through it all, but I don’t think so. I think it raised the general power level but just because we’ve gotten more options not because those options are better than what we had before. More feat options for classes that were limited, and the number of archtypes makes it much easier to pick up desired abilities more directly than what we had. So more power, but no creep because it’s in the flexibility that we were going to end up with unless paizo stopped printing after the core book.

I don’t think it’s seeing a lot of use that I’ve noticed so far. That said I think it’ll be a lot more appealing in a week when all the archtypes in the APG are available. Too few choices for many concepts just yet. I also agree with others that it’s best used in a restricted fashion, where everyone gets one or one from a list to better fit theme than just letting everyone have one for free.

@Duskreign I don’t see any reason why the math on that wouldn’t work fine in general. You’re just moving the leveling effect from a positive bonus to a negative, should be a fine way to keep numbers low with just a bit of math as the cost. But unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re doing it won’t give me the flattening effect on the world I’m looking for. A group of level 5 characters would still need to roll At least 4 higher To hit a level 9 monster, while they could roll 4 lower and still hit a level 1 monster than they would have at level 1.

@Unicore I will if the game gets off the ground any. Based on the players previous experience that I’ve been told of I think the normal gains of feats and features will be plenty. If not then I’ll certainly pipe up with a warning.

@Loreguard & Salamileg after rereading the relic section I think that’s definitely the way to go. And yes, I’ll probably have them actually be relics due to how they were brought here. Very few of the abilities will really cause issues used like that and since I’ll be handing out the powers at appropriate times I can control for that. A double thanks for the idea.

I may see if the table wants to switch to the skill point system down the road, when it might make a difference and they have the knowledge to choose. But I think it’ll be extra complexity They don’t need at the start. I don’t mind handling extra complexity on my end but at trying to limit it on theirs. Thank you for the point though, I hadn’t really considered it.

As to 5E? This is a personal opinion but I find the system dull and overly static. You can’t make enough personalization choices, and gaining levels doesn’t feel rewarding since nothing changed but your HP. I’ve played it and can run it, but I don’t want to try running a game in a system I know I dislike because then GMing is nothing but work.

As to the conflicting goals, it’s just a personal choice to reduce those effects. Finding the balance that to me feels right for the game I want to run. I could see doing it with all those aspects right up front but it’s just not what I’m planning to run.

I suppose I should mention I’m a fairly experienced GM and have been running PF2 off and on since it came out. This isn’t my first try out of the gate. I specifically limit my groups to the book as written when We’re all starting on a new System though.

As for the custom abilities my plan was to keep them around The rank of a low level feat, a cantrip to use, or a proficiency. That sort of thing. But I also hadn’t thought of the relic system. I think I’ll go reread that, it could be a good fit for this. Thank you

I am familiar with the kind of changes that the No level to proficiency Will entail. I’m not worried about the work on my end, it’s not really anything I can’t do. Please take my word for that.

There were good points to keep in mind about the summon spells though. Same with single creature fights, though I’m not a big fan of big single creatures anyway, particularly against new players. Fights can get too swingy.

I considered the skill point system but ended up dismissing it as it felt like an extra level of complexity without a real payoff in the way of difference, at least until higher levels. Did your group find a real difference in the low-mid levels on what level or how many skills you had vs the core rule?

Also, thank you all for your replies thus far.

I’m looking at running a new campaign, and for reasons involving the campaign concept, I’m looking heavily at including a large number of variant rules. I’d appreciate if anyone has some thoughts on the use of these and how they’ll act together. Also interested in any other thoughts people may have.

The concept is an Isekai type game. The players would play themselves transported to Golarion. With visible game aspects, so they would know they’re level x and and so would the rest of the world. That said I want to limit how much the game aspect of things intrudes on them. Said players will also be new to the system in fact so I plan to take it a bit slow. I’m also fine with giving them a bit more power than normal within certain lines.

Rules I’m intending to use and why.

Alternative attributes: I would prefer this more balanced Option since this way when people distribute their boost in a way that feels right and natural to them they Don’t end up mechanically in the pits because they feel charisma and con are their best stats, but want to play a ranger. Won’t solve it completely but it’s a fairly significant balance.

Moral intentions: I expect it to be harder on me to rework things as appropriate but this system feels more natural and less limiting for people trying to play people instead of caricatures.

Level 0: instead of people trying to choose a class that they think applies to them right off I’m planning to have them at 0, and when they hit 1 give a few options based on how they approached things during play.

As an addition to level 0 I plan to give them each 1 or 2 free extra abilities based on things they want or try(knowing ahead of time that this is an option). This would be them Wanting to hurl fire, and getting a produce flame cantrip, or wanting to fight better with a sword and getting a proficiency. I feel confident I can keep the abilities balanced to the level of a feat, and I can’t think of a good way otherwise to give them a chance to approach things like a spell caster without a way to use some spells.

No level to proficiency: as part of my attempt to reduce the visibility of game parts Id much rather flatten the world like this. It will also make leveling easier.

Automatic bonus progression: this way neither I nor they have to remember the “essential” items. I still plan to add in magic equipment using the property runes.

Any thoughts? It seems like a lot of modifications to use at once but I think I can handle the adjustments. And I like the presumed end result I get from this combination.

Took a quick look and it’s on page 233, along with a sidebar on how this only applies to the trained proficiency. The text mentions first level, and that’’s when this is most likely to occur, but it doesn’t ever say this stops applying after first level. For instance a rogue taking the cleric multi-class dedication will likely already have religion trained and thus could take something else.

I’d have to dig for the rule. But I believe that there is a rule stating it does. This is specific to trained and skills though, if something gives you expert proficiency for instance you don’t get to change your trained stat in a skill to something else.

While it does use the same dice sets, and a lot of the same terminology and parts such as attributes it is not what I know as a D20 system like 3.5. It’s a separate system and for best results I suggest trying to learn it separately instead of risking getting the two mixed up in your mind.

That said, it’s one of the easiest systems to play and learn I’ve seen in a while. Something like 80% of a character runs off the proficiency system for instance. Learn that, and it’s not particularly complex, and you’ve learned most of how to play. Some parts can feel counterintuitive based on previous editions, such as spells getting more powerful only from heightening and never from caster level, but if you don’t get caught up in presumption you should be fine.

@siegfriedliner I don’t really agree with your opinion on alchemist. I do feel they fall behind the other classes in specific task but make up for it in flexibility.

No one else can afford to heal, & deal decent ranged strike with poison arrows, and throw bombs to hit groups and weaknesses, and apply debuffs, and apply party buffs, and fight in melee and also play the stride/strike/stride game.

At mid level all of those can actually be done in the same fight if you choose to, though that would burn through more of your pool than you need to use. And The pool of alchemical items will only increase. To me that’s flexibility. Yes they do each of those worse than another class. But let’s please not drag the arguments about it in here, there are plenty of other threads for that.

I that of all the classes, wizards are the least unique because of Arcane sorcerors. As a wizard player, I say wizards can be summarized as being INT-based AND prepared casters AND having the Arcane tradition AND having more spells than most other classes.

The Arcane Sorcerer also has the latter two, so whether or not you consider Wizards to be unique comes down to how important it is to be an INT-based prepared caster as opposed to a CHA-based spontaneous one.

I think both the wizard and the sorcerer suffer from the current lack of class feats. Both classes only have one or two options at each level right now and it really hursts their ability to demonstrate their specialty. I do think the wizard has a lot of room to become the master of metamagic and similar off the book magic Personalization, the thesis’s seem to lean that way with flexible spell slots, metamagic and more familiar abilities. But they lack the class feats at this point to really show off what the class seems to want.

Same with the sorcerer, too few class feats mean that you can’t personalize your angelic blooded caster enough to differentiate it from a cloistered cleric.

Thankfully I think these problems will go away as more options hit the books. Unfortunately I think they’ll take much longer to go away than people want due to the current product speed.

While the idea loosely holds true for now I expect that a few years down the road what we’ll have is the best 2-3 classes at anything With each having a different way of getting there. Even now it seems like you have to pick carefully to avoid this.

For instance, I’d say that the druid and alchemist both excel at filling multiple roles as they choose, presuming they don’t over specialize. The druid can bring higher numbers to a particular role, but really it needs to choose what it’s doing for a given day ahead of time. The alchemist can either focus at the start of the day and fill that role longer, or stay flexible and fill whichever role is needed right then.

Personally I prefer this, not every class needs to be great at everything, but each thing people want to do should have a few options to get there that are equally valid. Otherwise the game will end up weighted towards the things that are more frequently used and we get less variety.

I’ve found the ABP to work really well. My party uses it and aren’t around a city. With it they don’t have to stubble into specific items to keep up with the math curves.

I sidestepped the number of hands issue for my rogue with a pair of gauntlets. Fairly little of my theoretical damage comes from the weapon anyway. And having both hands frees me up for any number of shenanigans. I do a fair bit of debuf, decent flanking damage and have more skills than the rest of the four person party combined to work with outside of healing.

I suppose it’s just my perspective, but why would someone with magic devote much time to training as a doctor? It would seem that a leaf druid for instance would almost always have a better magic option available, learning a doctor’s skills would be a lot of extra effort. I’m not trying to be critical of the character choice, you do you is my general stance. But I’d be curious as to the thoughts behind the mindset, since this is a RP focused idea. If someone wouldn’t mind giving a bit of explanation, I find character Ideas interesting.

I have a healer rogue and it’s worked fairly well in my group. The big benefit is that you get your concept in play in a reasonable amount of time. If you want to be a full on medical character you’ll really need the extra feats to pick up those you’ve mentioned and the others.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Again, give me a potion of fly and I will.

On topic, round by round initiative. I'll just take zero, thanks.

What, you mean like pilot checks for initiative every round?

I had to do that in a different game, it’s definitely disruptive and makes things harder to follow. It also makes things a nightmare to make sure no one gets missed. Purely by coincidence my character in that game quickly built initiative bonuses into themselves until on a 1 they beat anything else on a 20. Made it much easier when I knew when I was going regardless of the roll. I think I’d have even taken the inverse if necessary rather than constantly shifting.

I think perhaps you guys have missed the context of this thread. All of my posts have been in response to a person who assigned stats to the actual players, and decided to not even ask them to roleplay their social checks because they were bad at it. I think that this is a toxic and negative mindset.

Actually the last post was in response to and quoting the person who stated they were autistic and that for them performing a bluff to the standards their GM required was as doable as shooting fire to cast a spell. If you didn’t realize that before you might see why you got quite so enthusiastic a response.

I do think a GM needs more info for use of the diplomatic skills than that you’re using them. But there are multiple ways to get that info as have been mentioned.

As to the stats thing? I don’t think that’s particularly toxic in it self. It absolutely could be so, but it comes down to how it’s done. I’ve had various discussions to that effect in groups I’ve been in and for us at least it’s much more likely to be a positive discussion as as persons A & B point out that person C definitely has higher ___ than that. Or that yes they have a low ___ but it’s balanced by ___. We never got around to putting them on sheets but I can certainly see that particularly if they wanted to play a transported to another world type game. As with most things it depends on how it’s handled.

breithauptclan wrote:

I was planning on leaving this thread alone. But this one got to me again.

And I don't mean to call you out specifically, ExOichoThrow. But I do want to illustrate the point I am trying to make.

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Social skills are exactly that: SKILLS. They can be worked on and improved. Instead of categorizing your supposed friends based on levels, why not allow them to just practice those skills and get better as players too?

Fly is also a skill usage just like intimidate and lie are. Try practicing that one and let me know how much you improve.

I dont understand. You think this is a good point? Because you cant shoot fireballs IRL you shouldnt have to attempt to use language to make up reasonable lies??

There have been several threads of discussion about deception use, at least as I read the thread. Though they seem to blend a bit.

Breithauptclan’s point seems to be that for some people those skills are not things that they can gain out of game. At least not in a span of time relevant to any gaming group. And I don’t think that’s an unfair or untrue point. Their complaint that GM(s) have required the use of out of game abilities they didn’t have to use in game abilities their character did have.

To take a less absolute position, though in another genre. How would you feel if you you wanted to play a Decker(hacker) in a shadowrun game. But any time you went for a dive the GM required you to breach a computer system they choose? Computer use at that level is also a skill, and very likely one that could be as useful as any social skill in today’s world. But it certainly doesn’t seem like something you should be required to have to play in game.

Not every skill is something everyone can master. And for some regardless of effort they will continue to have issues that others don’t.

I dislike rules that amplify the effects of 1s & 20s. A lot of them seem like they shouldn’t matter in the first place, because of how rare that level of die rolls should be. So to me why have them at all? If they do matter then they matter in a way that hurts the PC, because sure the PCs May roll that triple 20 that auto kills something more often. But it’s most likely to be on a mook. The GM only has to make that roll once in the campaign to ruin someone’s entire game. The same with failure. They also make player luck, which is already important, even more impactful. It’s already no fun to be the player who can’t roll over a ten, why are we making that person’s day worse?

On the bluff discussion I highly suggest working with others at the table. Someone else is likely willing to offer suggestions on what to say, and it takes some of the pressure off the GM to come up with both your lie and their character’s reaction. I don’t have trouble with this but I do basically the same thing when my group plays high tech games. I like playing building characters, but I’m no where near as computer savvy as our GM and another player who both work in computers and programming. So when I need to do something more delicate I just point them at each other and let them go while I make rolls.

So I’m creating a rogue pregen for a game. They’re a tool for every problem type of character and the game in question is going to involve not having access to purchasing items for a extended period of time, so I need to remove as much reliance As I can on consumables.

I recall, I thought, a magic item that was two glass Vials, one inside the other. You put a potion in the inner one and water in the outside. Then a few hour later the water would act as the potion, thus you could Get a potion’s effect once a day without spending it. Or maybe I dreamt it because now I’m not finding it anywhere. Anyone know what this thing is called and maybe what book it’s in?

Additionally, does anyone have a suggestion for items I should look at for a character like this? It’s also going to be using traps when possible, so any items that could help it produce traps without needing to buy parts would be helpful. I know that’s not something completely doable but it’s a minor investment in abilities and fits really well with the character setup.

Thanks in advance for any help.

@mathmuse

I think the problem is less that the of two shields you compare The non sturdy shield blocks slightly more but a limited number of times a day. To me that’s completely valid and a the shield does a neat thing. It’s more that the HP of the two means the non sturdy shield stands a good chance of not surviving a hit from on level foes, or multiple hits from lower level foes, if used to do that neat thing. Consider the difference between the spine shield and the level 4 sturdy.

The spine shield Blocks 12 damage a limited number of times, and has 24 HP

The level 4 sturdy blocks 8, more than the spine after it’s done it’s limited run, and has 64 HP.

That’s thee times the HP on a shield that’s half the level of the other. I’d absolutely take the lower level shield and toss the other if I was a shield using character. Who wants their main bit to shatter if you use it?

@Castilliano

I’d actually say that being a support focused character is both easier to successfully pull off and more impactful in PF2 than 1. In 1 a bard’s song at my table was very rarely high enough to matter with the numbers that were going around. In 2 the tighter math means the numbers stay relevant. Support in PF1 was largely limited to some song and then you just slapped out buff spells until you ran dry. There are far more options here.

You could sing, move into flank and then demoralize. That’s a +4 swing, a 20% higher chance of both hitting and critting for at least double damage. All things a bard can do and excel at. And not even touching on their spell list which shouldn’t be ignored. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have some means of offense. Just that it’s not necessarily necessary to use all the time.

I haven’t seen enough aid use in combat to say how well it works. With the right feats though I could see it being very effective, particularly against a boss.

I would take care picking out focus spells, mostly because you’ll spend most of your adventure unable to sustainability use more than one a fight. Some like lingering performance have seen some good use at my tables though.

I like elf for skill monkey, the ability to change around some of your skills(with the right ancestory feats) based on what you’re facing can be a big deal, depending on how the campaign goes. Though bardic lore can make that less important you aren’t looking at enigma. Elf also gives you a noticeable bump to mobility and the option of the elf step feat, so you can dart around giving flanking or demoralizing with more ease. Con isn’t as big a deal because no matter how high it goes it’s still a much smaller portion of your HP, get it up to at least 10, and keep up Dex since you can use it both to attack and defend.

Getting used to the action economy can take a bit. I’m glad to see your ranger, who was most likely to fall into the habit of just full attacking has been trying more. I might suggest printing out an action list of what the generally available actions are for each player. And adding some of the skill actions as the characters gain access to them(based off of training). Having the details for how to do something and what it does at their finger tips might help them experiment more. Including the list of status effects can also help with that as it’s not necessarily apparent how much they do.

Perhaps add an enemy who specifically does some of those things to you next few fights. Showing that the minus one has a similar and stacking effect to the plus one they’re already using from the bard may help them follow suit.

As to the board gamyness complaint? Fairly valid actually, IMO. The system is much more specific about what you can do and how, and what you can combine(in so many ways to its own benefit and playability). Similar in several ways to D&D 4ed which had that complaint. It’s all handled much better and is much more free from than that was but their are definite similarities and some people will pick up on those. I certainly haven’t had anyone I know of actually make that complaint but I can also see where some could. How much weight you want to give that though as opposed to it just being someone grumbling about change is your call though.

Also, once the quarantine in your area is over you might find it worth your while to search for Pathfinder Society in your area. They should be used to people who are new to the game, and it’s easier to slip in and out as schedules demand. Plus it should be much easier to play with strangers since the setting is specifically about that. There’s some variation in all that due to people of course but in general. This also serves two other goals. One, you get a chance to play even while you GM. And two if you use the Society scenarios to run your home game then you can get a chance to play through them first, which is a good way to improve your running of them. Just a suggestion though.

PF2 is a good system to learn in, I could suggest some others like Savage Worlds too. PF1 isn’t bad, though it’s a bit of a rougher start for people just learning. If you go system hunting I’d avoid anything too rules light like vampire or fate, they require a lot more GM calls during running, which takes a lot more energy and focus from what you’re otherwise still learning the skills of. I’d also avoid anything too crunchy since the more rules you need to learn before you really start to play the less your likely to enjoy.

I think con is getting valued at more than it’s worth. In this edition what a given level of con provides is a much lower percentage of HP and a bump to probably the least common and impactful save outside of nitch games. It’s also worth noting that when the designers stopped and looked at the stats for the GMG Con was the think they felt was worth just removing and adding its few benifits to something else. That con is typically allotted a boost has much more to do with the spread of boost we have to use than the value of the stat. I think it’s definitely bottom three for importance to most characters. And probably actually bottom of the barrel for actual use in most games.

That said I think some con based characters would be very interesting. I particularly like the idea of a Blood Mage class now that it’s been mentioned.

They could probably take the theme and idea of the stalwart defender prestige class and expand it to a full class. A martial defensive class could be a fun design space and con would make a ton of sense there.

To expand slightly on what I meant by commentary on things that aren’t changing. What if the Developers posted in this theoretical form that they’ve reviewed the alchemist and while there are some minor tweaks that might be done the class is at this point working as intended. That while they know many consider it as having to spend too many feats to mathematically keep up where other classes spread out, the alchemist starts spread out by having access to an ever expanding pool of alchemy items which it doesn’t have to pay anything but be the right level for use of. Thus it’s a class that will ever increase upwards in both power and versatility as new products are launched without needing to spend anything else. And boosting the class as it stands now would end with it overpowered once a more reasonable level of products are out there.

Do I think that would make everyone happy and stop forever the constant threads on issues with the class? No, but that don’t think infinite wishing fairies would make everyone happy. The goal is to make a reasonable number of people happy for the effort used, and knowing that agreeing or not that the “problem” was reviewed will typically do that.

Lightwire wrote:

I think the TTRPG sector could learn a decent lesson from the video game companies.

I think you don't realise the fact that the money video game industry brings and capabilities of companies there exist on a different plant than the TTRPG industry. They're not even comparable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to Paizo fixing obvious errors (like forgetting to print a range of a spell), but I'd rather have them design new stuff than engage in lengthy explanations and debates aimed at a tiny segment of the playerbase which has a tendency to be unhappy no matter how hard you try to make them.

I do realize, and I at least am not asking for anything particularly lengthy. A paragraph of explanation if that would fit the bill for most that I can think of.

Over all what I’m talking about is an increase in community engagement. Some way to get FAQ’s answered with a level of explanation that cements understanding. A tendency to tell players that something is actually being looked at for errata or balancing even if nothing is changed in the end. A short explanation as to why something isn’t being changed could even help settle people. An increase in engagement does two things. It increases the players interest and attachment to the product and thus should increase sales, and it it can help the developers know what’s working best and holds the most interest with a wider audience. These are both good things which would appear to provide more benifits than cost.

Did you stop buying Paizo books because of broken feats, archetypes, bad classes? You didn't.

Did people less invested than you stop buying them? Heck, they likely never even noticed what you perceive as issues.

Will you stop buying Paizo books if they don't implement an easily accessible path online with the designers hand behind to use in your home games? Nope.

So, business-wise, what's the point of implementing that? "Well that would make me feel better" doesn't count.

I did! So did my whole normal group in fact. Or to clarify to a less absolute standpoint bought significantly less. Among my group probably a difference of 20-40 fewer books of various types. So not exactly breaking the business model but also I’m just one person who happened to be online, see this post, have had a change in purchasing, and also was willing to make a post. Please consider how small number 1, 2 & 4 as a percent of players before dismissing 3 as worth considering.

We play Pathfinder as a system for something like 60% of our games. We got much less willing to buy the products until we’d really reviewed them after running into too many problem products. There are some particularly infamous items like the advanced class guide(everything in it or related to it is considered banned without serious work), but even before that there were issues. And due to the need for review we don’t really have any duplicates among the group after a point.

Personally I find a reasonable level errata healthy. Too much of it is a sign that the publisher lacks someone doing a core piece of work like what happens with most shadowrun products. But it still shows that the publisher cares enough about their game to do the corrections when they realize they’re needed. Honestly if my group was looking at a game and the subject of errata was actually raised we’d be far more worried about none than ten pages.

I think the TTRPG sector could learn a decent lesson from the video game companies. We don’t need constant balance changes like some of the games mentioned, but there is obviously room for corrections and clarifications. And getting some of the thoughts behind that is something that some of us would obviously like. Take poison, there was some definite argument before the errata that you couldn’t poison an arrow, but that by RAW you had to poison the bow which then transferred to the arrow but somehow only if you hit. The errata corrected this and a bit more explanation could be helpful for those who care on judging edge cases. Not needed but useful. Honestly even just knowing that something is being reviewed for errata would be nice. It might not help with the debates because people like to argue, but on the other hand it might after all.