Loreguard's page

Organized Play Member. 282 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

WatersLethe wrote:
For the record, I think the ability score requirement for multiclass dedications is absolute hogwash and will be never see the light of day at my table.

I suspect that their origin is somewhat tied to the same reason that they arbitrarily limited the feats to second level. I think they feared the Dedication feats were too powerful, so they attempted to mitigate the power by giving them a higher prerequisite.

If the benefits of a dedication feat were tiered, and you only by default got the first tier when you take the feat. You could for instance grant a 'bonus' tier if your relevant stat/stats are high enough, reflecting your aptitude in your new studies. Remaining tiers would be unlocked either via advancing levels or buying additional class feats in the dedication, perhaps. It would also mean that you could have a person dabble in another class even if their stat wouldn't make them a savant in it, it would just slow their progress.

As to retraining a class, it is absolutely a way you could end up resolving it, although playtest had extensive retraining rules allowing you to retrain tons of things, notably excluding class. It makes perfect sense that a potential prerequisite to shifting to another class would be picking up the multi-class in the new class. Then next time they earn a class feat, instead of taking a second multi-class feat in the transition, you could let them switch class, and have them start with 2 multi-class feat in the original class. However, that leaves you at minimum of 4th level, so they jump seems really big. If you could start at 1st level it would make such a transition significantly more believable in my view, opening a potential transition at a lower level.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The weakness of the new multi-classing system is fundamentally, that it does not truly allow for the 'I changed My path' form of character development.

It does a far better job of helping to keep a structure to maintain some game balance in character development.

The reality of the situation is that I think the biggest part of why the archetypes were requiring being second level, was because in the old method of multiclassing, it required it.

That limitation caused the need for creating different hybrid classes, to help people who wanted to play a character somewhere between the starting classes. [granted, the limitation, gave them an excuse to come out with another book to fix the limitation, so there was a fiscal benefit to the business interest for this, but that is a different note]

The simple fact is that as long as they weren't made overpowering, there is very little good about restricting multiclass concepts until level 2. If multiclass dedications are too powerful... that is simply still a problem, if they are level 1 or level 2. If you can't play a fighter who isn't as invested in fighting as his comrade in arms, but has instead dabbled in some magic and might know a cantrip or two at first level it is a sad limitation for little reason.

Saying someone has to fully invest in being a entirely 1st level of a singular class first before they can start to branch out is simply an unnecessary limitation. If that should be the case, then why do we have Champions... make them start out as fighters and pick a archetype at level 2 where they can dedicate themselves and gain anathema and divine abilities? It is because other concepts are important and should be encouraged, and facilitate, as long as they don't destroy balance.

If archetypes as a structure are intended to reduce the need for as many classes, then I strongly feel they need to be available in the end, at 1st level. If we have to wait for the equivalent of a Hybrid classes book, that's fine. Maybe instead of multiclass dedication, they get called hybrid dedications, but in my view, the current multiclass ones could be balanced and fit the need from the gate.

Wanting to give up a choice for your primary class, and instead getting a foot in the door for the most fundamental basic flavor of another class at first level isn't asking for your class paragon abilities at the start of the game. It is asking for a touch of the other classes abilities at the start so your character sheet reflects you concept a little bit, and it can grow naturally to the next step, rather than making it appear like your story elements are a smooth expected development isn't having to be reflected a right angle turn in the mechanics.

I'm all for prestige classes that have requirements that you can't reach at first or even 10th level perhaps. But some concepts are completely believable for a first level character that should not requires 100% investment in a single class from the start. You should be able to have a 1st level Gish if you want, either based off a wizard or fighter base class, and investing some initial class investment in being able to get a touch of the other class starting at first level. It offers way more concepts out of the gate. Saying those concepts should only be achievable at 2nd level is just a sad choice in my view.

Maybe I'm old school and prefer games to always start at 1st level. I know many others often like to start from second or higher, and so those people won't care, but for those of us gamers who almost always start at first, why place the arbitrary limitation?

Ediwir wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Since they were intended as multiclass replacements, coming online at 2nd level made a certain amount of sense. But now multiclassing is going to fill the role of multiclassing, high would push these towards the hybridizations of core classes.
I'm sorry, could you elaborate?

I think that their intent was to say that if Multiclass dedications are supposed to no only take the place of traditional multi-class character concepts, but also provide a means of replicating some of the Hybrid class character concepts.

To give the feel of a hybrid, at first level would require allowing multiclass dedications at first level. And honestly speaking, it seems like a worthwhile addition.

The potential complication I could see is like you said, it might be hard for a first level class feat to compare with many of the dedication feats.

One potential solution, with a slight tweaking of the rules could be to make a multi-class dedication provide a certain benefit the level it is taken, and subsequent additional benefit after they level up after that. Or tie the second half/additional portions of the benefit of to when they purchase their next feat working towards the the requirements of fulfilling the dedication.

For instance, instead of the paladin dedication providing training in Light, Medium, and Heavy Armors, Shield, and your deity's favored weapon. It might grant your training in your Deity's favored weapon, and training in either shield training or one one tier of armor of your choice [this in an exception to the rule you must learn the lower type of armor to gain skill in a heavier one]. If they are already trained in their deities weapon, they can instead select training in either Shield or an armor category no more than one one step away from one they already are proficient in. You choose your deity and are bound by its anathema.
Special: Include the wording about needing to get 2 dedication feats before being able to take another dedication. Also include a mention that either the first level after purchasing the feat, they get to choose 2 of either training in either shield proficiency, or a remaining armor proficiency no more than one step away from an armor category they currently are trained in. (or this additional bonus could be tied to when they get the next feat opened up by that dedication.

Or even simpler, a part of it might simply be opened up at a predetermined level. (so perhaps choice of 2 as described above, and at 2nd level they choose one more proficiency they didn't have yet, and third level they would get to choose a fourth. That would mean if someone bought the paladin archetype at 10th level, they would get the full benefit immediately, it would only really impact someone if they bought the feat at 1st level.

And yes, I gave Paladins/Champions the ability to choose Heavy Armor at first level, without having skill in light or medium. I did this because it seems to expect them to be likely wearing heavy armor, but I didn't want to necessarily give them more than one armor proficiency, and I didn't want to mandate that armor choice be heavy, but wanted it to be available from the very start. Although it is odd, just like with a deity's favored weapon choice, I felt like it would be reasonable for a Champion to be trained outside typical channels, potentially allowing for someone to be comfortable wearing the heaviest of armors without having that same comfort with others that are lighter.

Anyway, if multi-class dedications weren't moved down to 1st level, I'm going to be really tempted to house rule some sort of option like above. Unless there is some other mechanic to allow for those types of concepts to feel like they can be started from 1st level effectively.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
Owen did mention in his character reveal stream that he would maybe get a dedication, but not at level 1. Some of us wondered if that implied that this would be something possible if he wanted to. However, this is pure speculation based on his wording and there is a good chance that people are just overanalyzing. As far as I know, we do not have any concrete news on the subject.

I believe one of the reasons in the playtest they chose to make Dedications require second level was that not all classes got Class Feats at first level.

I absolutely wish Dedications could be available at first level, and incidentally also wish all the classes had a class feat available to them at first level. I guessed there might have been a concern that a multiclass dedication feat might give too much for a first level feat. That might also be part of the reasoning for making them require being 2nd level.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Todd Stewart wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
It never sat well with me that only humans were special enough to have children of the planes.

This was never the case in Golarion's cosmos.

Any planar-scion / planetouched could be of any mortal heritage, be it human, demihuman, other humanoid, etc. PFS had some restrictions on this entirely related to concerns over size category due to non-medium-sized races, but this was purely an organized play restriction, not something otherwise in-universe for Golarion.

They always indicated that a Aasimar could be something other than human with angelic blood. However, Aasimar certainly as per how they were depicted/described defaulted to being of human parentage, and then the rules basically said, an Aasimar of Dwarvish/etc. parentage just uses the same rules as the normal Aasimar. [making them all seem humanish]

Honestly, although I can understand one wanting to play a half-orc aasimar, I can also understand the idea of a child of a half-orc who is born as an aasimar could manifest as either a orc-aasimar or human aasimar. [ok, I'm making the assumption half-orc/half-human] Since Aasimar, for instance aren't necessarily supposed to require a near majority of 'genetic material' to manifest, I am not against the potential existence of a half-orc/aasimar as a mechanical option, but I'm ok with the mechanical choice for a half-orc aasimar beign either human/aasimar or orc/aasimar as well.

I didn't care for the people wanting to apply Human and then add half-devil, half-dragon, half-giant to themselves, saying they had a touch of all of those heritages. My thought being, great you have a touch of all of them. I'll give you Human race, making you seven feet tall, ash skin tone, with split tongue, should someone bother to notice. Oh.. yehh... did I mention, basically, mechanically human.

I like the idea of different plane touched ancestries being closer tied to their actual base ancestry. That would seem to be a decent win. If they can manage to make that work with a multi-ancestry heritage, I'd be fine with it, but we have yet to see an example of it so it is hard to say exactly how well it would work.

If you made an Outsider ancestry and then had heritages taking you closer to the base/native ancestry. I'd tend to feel that would be more likely applicable for someone more outsider blood with a taint of a bit of native blood in them. But it could be defined, as needed I supposed for game mechanics reasons, to be more native just enough of the planar to manifest.

The archetype concept is interesting, it might be doable, but might be complicated how it might interact with class archetypes. It might offer an answer to enable a half-orc aasimar. But again, that is a lower priority for me personally, I'd have to see what else it enabled however. It might well be a good mechanic to enable lots of flexibility for other things as well. I like the idea of some of these mixed race situations potentially drawing a stat bonus from their alternate race, potentially reducing their 'selection' to walk them down the direction they are choosing. For instance, if your race gets 2 set, and one free and a drawback, and you choose a mixed ancestry heritage. It might call for your free boost be taken from one of the other ancestry, unless both are the same as your current. You choose between stat weakness between the two ancestries.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, the concept of a cantrip that makes one be able to make vocal sounds by means of concentration and gestures seems perfectly reasonable concept to me. The voice would obviously be magical/artificial in nature (not something one could use to easily disguise their voice as another person). I certainly see it as one of a few viable solutions.

Yes, while I feel like the game should be inclusive for character ideas that include people with disabilities. I agree that we shouldn't be culturally appropriating them, and making the accommodations for them better than the disability, and thereby making it the 'power' choice.

Those who I've known with disabilities know, and understand that they are at a disadvantage, by that which is their natural disadvantage. They don't generally want people to act like that isn't true. What they want, is to not be prevented from doing what it is they can do, just because there are things they either can't do or find it difficult to do. They want to be able to feel productive. They want to participate. They don't want to ignore how they are different. They want you to recognize how they are still the same.

Making the game welcoming to blind character concepts isn't, as mentioned, giving everyone who is blind free echolocation, so it doesn't impact them. It is making sure they can have a viable character concept even though they have a notable disability which does affect them. You should be able to have a blind warrior, or spell caster, even potentially a thief, although I must admit that one I'd have to think through how to make that one feel viable.

If you ask me, wiping away all the impact of a disability is more disrespectful of those who have disabilities, than working out reasonable impacts for disabilities, and accommodations that may help insure heroic concepts are still viable, while leaving the disability as a real component of that final character concept.

Sorry, I think that tripped up some emotions I guess.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think someone mentioned it, but being Deaf does not necessarily mean one is Mute, so even a deaf wizard could probably cast using verbal components fine. It might be difficult to learn some aspects of such a component they can't hear, I'm sure they can learn methods to adapt to it, and from a game standpoint is should be assumed they would be successful in learning to accomplish it.

Also, there are other established cannon methods to potentially get around verbal components of spells such as Riffle scrolls. ( ) How those will look in second edition, of course has yet to be seen, but I imagine it is something that will likely eventually be touched on.

Simply put, sign language as a language doesn't normally stand in for sounds, so I don't see how learning dwarven sign language would make you be able to make actions to replace non-dwarven words and have it activate magic spells. Signs/gestures replace 'words' which though their own physical syntax build sequences that have a meaning that I would think of as a sequence of verbal words. But in reality they are different languages, both capable of conveying the same message.

While the current playtest rules with each distinct language having its own 'sign-language' contributes to the perception that gestures stand in for sounds. I think that is an awful large number of different sign languages. I don't feel it was the best choice. I think it would be more enjoyable to have sign language be, albiet frequently a little uncommon, something that tends to transcend normal language borders, more than most. I also don't necessarily think that someone knowing sign language necessarily equate to the reading lips feat. I think that should be tied more to a difficulty in hearing, rather than the choice to learn a sign language.

I honestly think there should be fewer distinct sign languages, but several races/cultures would share specific ones. I could see Drow having their own for historical reasons, which would be a secret language. I could imagine a Avistan-Garund humanoids perhaps sharing one, likely allowing Tian to have its own. Potentially, you could allow each continent to have their own, if you wanted to. Each normal language would get tied to a family group based on continent of origin or such and if someone were to learn sign language, the would get the corresponding language. Alternately you might have a different sign language based as a general/default rule on each alphabet, as the alphabet probably reflects a common cultural origin. Things like Druidic and Drow might remain rare/secret separate sign languages.

As for allowing for the existence of a 'sign-language' for magic, I could imagine their being the capability of such existing, although I would kind of wonder if it would make sense for there to be a different one for each of Arcane, Primal, Occult, and Divine by which there might be motions that would be symmetrical in meaning in a magical sense to the magical incantations which might be more frequently employed. You would need to make sure that the mechanics for learning this was not simply hands-down more advantageous than simply using metamagic to cast silent spells.

So, as far as playing a character with a disability. I would permit a deaf spellcaster to still use verbal components. They wouldn't have to be inherently mute. In fluff, learning the verbal components probably take them more work/attention, but they probably have gathered a sense of how forming the words actually spawns the magic and use a slightly increased ability to sense the effects of the incantations to allow them to properly form their verbal components, as they can't hear them.

A mute spellcaster, I'd allow it, but yes there would have to work out a way for them to replace the requirements for verbal components with something else. [Riffle scrolls could for instance perhaps involve a materials and somatic application for instance] Since they are accepting a disability, that can give the GM a reason to offer them a mitigating feat of some sort as a potential result of their willingly taking on the disability. If being able to create riffle scrolls to cast from spell slots was a feat, it could be that choosing the disability might by you that feat. My idea being, by tying it to your spell slots still, it should be able to reduce the cost component of using rifle scrolls down significantly, to make the more practical for spellcasters. Others could also learn that method and use that, even if they are not mute. It would just require the cost of a feat, for instance.

If the player requested, and I were to decide there should be an 'inherently magical' form of sign language for each of the types of magic, I could instead grant them a free additional 'magic-sign-language' known. And then require a free hand [other than the one used by any somatic actions required by the 'activity'] And would be applicable to one type of spells.

Presumably, identifying spells cast that way would also be harder, taking a penalty to the identification check, if the individual who was perceiving the spell being cast was not familiar with that sign-language. Probably not unlike someone trying to recognize a spell being cast if they can't hear the verbal component.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Note that a 'magical' Barbarian Totem, rather than granting you specific significant magic abilities right away, might instead grant access to certain sorcerer feats, not unlike a free pseudo-archetype feat, for instance.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:

So, I'm working in an archetype for Gunslinger and of course needed to create the guns.

What you guys think?

-Pistol- Exotic Weapon
Reload: 1
Damage: 1d6 piercing
Range: 30
Traits: Deadly d10, Versatile Bludgeoning, Backstabber [don't like the name, but still...]

This kind of shows the absurdity of versatile and removing the ability for a weapon to do more than one kind of damage. Morning Star was a pretty good example already. I'm not saying it's a bad choice here, you're kind of backed into a corner, unless you're using versatile bludgeoning to man you can use the gun itself as a bludgeoning weapon, which would totally work. The rest does seem to fit well. I like backstabber there, despite the name.


-Musket- Exotic Two handed weapon
Reload: 2
Damage: 1d10 piercing
Range: 90 feet
Traits: Fatal d12, Deadly d8, Volley 30 feet

Fatal and deadly together seems a bit much. Also I don't think Volley makes sense, muskets aren't inaccurate up close, it's at a distance where they have trouble, much like all smoothbore firearms. There is a lack of applicable traits though. Firearms do seem like they probably should have some of their own traits Maybe it could have a new trait that increases the penalties for range increments. And possibly something for the misfire chance that guns have in PF1.

I originally thought that the reload speed seemed a bit fast. But it's in line with the crossbows, so should probably be fine, especially if there isn't a Rapid Reload ability. And spending a whole round reloading doesn't sound fun, even if it's more realistic.

In a way, it seems like with firearms, being able to shoot a firearm maybe should become a 'common' tier of weapon. However, make being able to reload a firearm take a feat/class feature. Like a crossbow, they are after all mostly a point and shoot. On critical failures, your gun jams, and clearing the weapon requires the same feat that properly (re)loading a weapon requires.

Might have a class/archetype feat that would grant the ability to load/reload/clear firearms in combat as normal, it might also offer simple firearms a bonus weapon trait. Perhaps there might exist a more widely available skill feat, that allows one to load a firearm in a minute or so while in exploration/downtime mode, but not in combat.

Again, I feel like firing a firearm should be a simple weapon. So it probably shouldn't have that many traits by default. Maybe simply Deadly of the same die as the original weapon damage. If they have the feat to reload and use firearms better, boost the die size of the deadly die. They would have the skilled-reload # negative trait, basically meaning user have to have an ability saying they can load these weapons properly to do so.

I like that you made the pistol and musket's range increments lower than a crossbows. They seem appropriate. I also think Piercing damage is an appropriate choice. Honestly, I think that it shouldn't have versatile bludgeoning. [a potential variant ammo that was shotgun shot, with a reduced base damage die, halved range, could perhaps justify versatile bludgeoning]

I would guess that firearms would likely use the same weapon specialization as darts, for instance, although either the sling or spear specializations might be reasonable choices.

As to the discussion of Katanas earlier:

nick1wasd wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

On an aside I have been thinking about katanas and how there should be at least two versions since different people want different things from them based on both anime tropes and on reality.

A str Katana
1d8 S, Two-Handed 1d12, Deadly 1d8

A dex katana
1d6 S, Two-Handed 1d8, Finesse, Deadly 1d8

Or something similar.

What you're describing is actually akin to the swords used in Daisho (Samurai duel wielding), which is a katana & wakizashi pairing, and in that case, it would make more sense to have the wakizashi have agile, since they were extremely close to Europe's shortswords.

My first thought would have been simply expecting the Katana to simply be a oriental bastard sword. So I'd be fine with the Katana having the Two-handed trait. Although looking further at the traits, I could see offering a wielder of a Katana/Wakazazhi pair, the benefits of the Twin weapon trait (superseding the requirement that they be identical, in this case). Of note, the price of a Katana should in my opinion be more than a typical bastard sword, however. They care currently cheaper, since it looks like they were patterned off of longswords and not bastard swords.

I'd be more inclined to have a feat to allow the katana to be used as a finesse weapon than having 2 different versions of the katana.

Creating a Champion of Balance would be really hard to come up with a proper seeming code/anathema or so it would seem to me. It absolutely makes no sense to have a Champion of The Meh version of neutrality of I just do what I feel like at the moment... the doesn't care that much form. While the concept of someone working for maintaining balance makes sense to me, it would be really hard to define. I've seen it portrayed as just moody, I'll be good for a while and then I'll be evil for a while to make up for it. That doesn't make sense to me. That doesn't strike me as a personality that would have the passion and drive that I see as needing to fuel one to rise to the standard of being a Champion.

The closest I can come up with would be 'defending' the right to exist and struggle for both/all sides. Keeping the kingdom's army from successfully gathering per their plan to wipe out the orcs to the north when they plan a pre-emeptive strike. However, the champion and their forcesses will willingly ally themselves with the kingdom, when the orcs over-populate their own lands, and begin to hoard and flow into the kingdoms. Again however, how does this sort of a overally goal equate to the edicts of an individual champion?

With this sort of balance, or key neutrality... perhaps the champion would focus on buffing allies... but allies might be bound by a form of anathema during their boost keeping them from destroying their enemy, only driving them back? Part of the Neutral Champions anathema might be willingly continuing to support allies who don't constrain themselves while allied? Rather than redemption, they seek that parties conflict a bit, but then retreat for another day. Nod move forward and wipe out their enemies for good/finality. Rather than the Glimpse of Redemption and 'consider the evil they have done' reaction. Perhaps a Neutral Champion 's might force the attacker to make it non-lethal or be subject to the damage that was reduced, unless the target of the attacker is was helpless, in which case the attacker must choose to stop the attack or take the full damage of their own attack as well.

Potential Anathema springboard for a neutral Champion: (eternal struggle and balance)
killing a helpless or surrendered/defeated opponent - (They should live to fight another day)
Killing the last of a group of foes (they should be allowed to live to attempt to seek allies in the future)
Allying yourself with the stronger force, save to slow a force whose goals obviously contravene the first two premises, if their goals have a chance of occurring.
Remaining allied to a faction when it has clearly defeated its foe, and is now the oppressor.
Refusing to come to the aid/ally with a group, just because it once was an oppressor.

Someone who may well be your ally now, but you understand that that being true now, does not mean they will stay that way forever. Their interests will likely not always be their interests.

If all things have a right to exist... does that extend to undead for instance? Or would it be ok to have a neutral champion of balance, that still considers undeath to be by nature, unbalanced?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave2 wrote:

Agreed on moving on from hit points since it is such any easy thing to tweak as far as how you view them. I am from the hit points are how much damage can be taken others like the abstract view. Both can be done with no rules tweaks.

My other rules options from Unchained would have been combat feats and conditions baked into the feats and this is already done with Pathfinder 2.

Or rather than having unlimited numbers of 'refresh' available, have a cost of some sort other than just a 10 minute rest.

A simple way would be to arbitrarily limited number of refresh's in a day, or instead it could be that each time you refresh, your max SP goes down by one each time. So if you are casting all day, using up all your SP, by the end of the day you are depleted and aren't going to have SP available to cast your higher level spells any longer. (which seams a reasonable way of reflecting becoming fatigued by your casting) If you start the day with 9SP, deplete all or most of your spells points and know something is coming up, so you refresh, and you are back to 8SP. You only cast a couple spells but somehow know you are going to need to soon cast a 3rd and 4th level spell back to back, and only have 6SP left, so you have to rest again and get yourself back to 7SP. And so on. having slowly reducing max, and potentially longer rests on subsequent rests might help keep someone from simply spamming low level non-cantrip spells, in case any of them could become problematic at mass quantities.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:


Tectorman wrote:

That is indeed the whole theme of Cleric the Concept.
It is the whole theme of the Cleric, full stop. There is no "concept Cleric", again the Cleric was not something tacked onto this class, it is this class. If you want the Cleric class without the Cleric then you're going to have to make a whole new class.

Now I'm going to partially disagree here. You don't HAVE to start with a brand new class... but you have to talk to your GM and potentially other players and find out if a change you would like to make would be accepted by the whole.

If you want to have a Priest of Healing Magics, not tied to any particular deity, existing in your local Golarion, and the rest of the players, GM included are good with it. You have your GO! You have a choice, you can discuss playing a Cleric, but being given dispensation to not need a god. Or you can ask to keep your 'god' but have dispensation, saying that in that Golarion the gods can't take back the Class abilities they have granted.

In my opinion one shouldn't as a player feel like it is your right to insist on that fundamental change. A more comparable analogy on the Fury token would be to say, my barbarian concept gets boosts of power by saying magical words that boost their abilities and get the rage benefits. However, it has nothing to do with anger, it is all magical or even perhaps alchemical. Since its source is not actually rage, I should have no limitations on my actions during the rounds I am raged, since those limitations no longer fit my presented 'fluff' I should be able to do things that require concentration and mental acuity with no problem, if anything I should get the bonus to such actions.

The above analogy is perhaps an exaggeration, and I'm not saying you are requesting this specifically, but it may hopefully help you understand why some, such as myself find it as dropping a component that should generally remain a core part of the class. You are asking to have divine powered magic, which the class presumes a willing/chosen affiliation, with that specific deity, but don't want the limitations that would be appropriate for someone who would have made/chosen that affiliation. Does this analogy make sense now? Rage is a power you are granted, it means you have limitations you have to abide by. Clerical divine magic is a suite of powers you have, and along with it come some limitations that you have to abide by, although there are quite a few choices that you may choose between, to fine one that will hopefully be reasonable to your concept?

Again, if the concept of the anathema really infringes on your concept that much, talk with the GM and other players. Even if the GM doesn't like it in general, if they find out more than half of the players like the concept, they may choose to allow a home rule to bypass the restrictions, for free, or for some other more acceptable limitation you feel fits better to your concept.

Someone mentioned a fallen cleric getting to keep their domain powers, that quite honestly seems completely very wrong, the clerical domain bonuses come from their deities power/affinity over a certain domain. If the cleric lost that link to their divine patron, I don't see how they should be able to keep control over that domain. It would seem they shouldn't be able to pray for their spells the same way, so I'd imagine how they got the spells would need to be explained further somehow, and might not be as simple as praying every morning any longer. Perhaps a new fallen patron might allow clerics to scribe scrolls to be used later, or have certain ways to steal divine energy to fill spell slots. But the existence of this sort of cleric would have significant ramifications for the region of Razmiran, unless he simply refused to allow his faith to utilize such fallen priests to build up his own faith's infrastructure.

It seems like it could be reasonable for completely fallen priests to perhaps still being able to use magical items that provide spell completion and the like for divine spells, as they are used to channeling magic, as long as they somehow don't become 'cursed' into inability to touch divine magic, why not allow them to use scrolls and such.

Anyway, this makes me think. Something potentially wonderful in terms of optional rules would be optional rules on how to deal with breaches of anathema. For instance, a sudden fall in the middle of a combat, first transgression, especially for clerics doesn't seem necessary or in my view. Champions/Paladins in my view have a much higher standard that they hold themselves to. Conceptually, to me, 1st edition Paladins actually probably held themselves to a higher standard than even their own deity would hold them to in reality. But having falling not having to be a binary occurrence could be reasonable. Things could include refusing to provide specific spells any longer, or reducing their spell slots they get fulfilled when their pray. Losing a domain ability, or finding the cost to activate a domain power suddenly higher might all be things that could be a result of an infraction. Atonement would clearly be and option clear such things, but less severe first infractions might clear over time and personal correction, and not require such powerful magic. This could increase the meaning of such stories, so would certainly be a reasonable set of optional rules that could help leverage some interesting stories, that the more binary FALL stories would be less interesting.

Well, you have to decide if the curse prevents them form continuing actions already in practice, or only affects 'starting' new activities. If they can continue activities they already started. The primary impact would be they might be slow to react to a new situation coming about. This seems to be a judgement call on your part.

If you rule that they basically lose half their rounds worth of actions, you could likely cut the productivity of their downtime actions by about half, and potentially give them a penalty to their practice a trade roll if what they do is highly interrupt driven, such as dealing directly with customers, or dealing with things that are highly time sensitive.

You specifically are saying the 6 seconds piece, leads me to believe you are indicating you are keeping the context of the effect, is constrained to the combat turns scale. But even that doesn't clearly define what should happen if someone starts a multi-turn activity.

Does your activity continue as long as it isn't dependent on reactions to external stimuli. Or do you only make progress on rounds that you succeed the check, considering failed rounds as not progressing, but not terminating the activity. Or does a failed round check on an activity cause the activity to fail, and have to be restarted on a round that they can act?

Alternately, as a turn, is a span of time the player gets to make choices for actions, the amount of time each roll covers might be different for your different modes of play. One interpretation, where Downtime is generally per day, would be that you might make a 50% roll to act on a downtime day. On success you succeed in your downtime, on a failure, you accomplish nothing particular on that turn/day.

Where did you get that curse? I would expect the source might need to have more clarification. [how long is it supposed to impact them, for instance]

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm all for using Classes for concepts that aren't traditionally thought of for that class. I've used a Rogue class for a prison guard with great success. But asking for Core for the reliance on a good relationship with your deity for a cleric who is a divine caster who's prime role is to represent the character who acts as that divine powers hands, it just seems to be pushing it.

That doesn't mean you can't come up with a concept, and ask for permission to play it. But for instance, in Golarion, they are quite specific, clerics CAN NOT draw power simply by their belief. Razmirian clergy can not cast divine spells because they believe in their patron.

If in your homebrew world, the only thing that makes divine magic divine, is that it was first taught to the mortals by the divine, and arcane magic was merely invented/discovered by experimentation, then sure... take the cleric class and divorce it from their deities. But it does't make sense for Golarion, which is what they are tying Core to. [personally, I liked the more generic ruleset as per 3.5, but I understand that by tying it to a specific fluff, they can have more meaningful options, than if they try to remain agnostic]

I had a 1st edition cleric concept. It used a specific archetype and tied me to an evil god. This concept didn't have me worshiping that god. Instead the powers coming from the clerical level came not from worship, but more like a curse they were born with. An inseverable tie, which made them channel negative energy, and ended up preventing from truely becoming good. However, they were raised in an orphanage, cared for by a good clergy. Given a choice, they would have personally chosen to say they followed the good god. But they couldn't tear themselves from their tie to their 'godparent' whom granted/forced powers upon them that most others considered evil. [and at least in certain respects were] The character tried to use their powers to be helpful to others, and to protect themselves. They were intended to be generally heroic. Idolizing good more than evil, but never quite managing to get themselves to being able to achieve that completely themselves.

Here's the thing. I don't, in the slightest, feel like I have the 'Right' to play this concept. I have the ability to ask if the GM would permit it, and if they think it can fit in the game. I don't want the rules to tell a GM they have to accept the concept, or they are making a anti-player houserule. I believe it is appropriate to say, enabling this concept is a pro-player house-rule, not that anyone should ever accuse a GM who refuses it as being Anti-player. Some game I was in, if I had suggested that concept, after seeing the other players concepts, I would have been shocked and disappointed if the GM had said yes without pointing out there would be very structural issues that would have to be addressed early on if they let this concept in.

If you want permission to play a Divine Sorcerer concept, using Cleric rules, that should be a question you ask the GM, not something you point to a rule and say, here the rules that you pointed to saying I might not be able to do that are 'taboo rules' that can't be used unless everyone agrees, which I will simply veto since I'm a player. And I apologize if that isn't what you are saying. But it seems like the statements are being made with the emphasis one the GM can't do without the players permission, which in then end is completely contrary to what a GM must do. I fully agree, the GM should be working cooperatively with ALL the players. But they have to make the judgement calls for the group. Not at the whim of all the individuals. There has to be an implied trust and respect of the GM for the whole thing to even work.

Have something that outlines the importance of the GM making sure the players understand the expectations of Anathema's that apply to any classes in general. Make sure they understand they don't have to be super strict with it. Make sure the characters would/should almost always know when they are making choices that violate their Anathema. It should be extremely hard to fall doing something you had no clue would result in the Anathema. Throwing a bucket of water on a burning child, to save their life, and you fine out after the fact that the child was laying on a piece of living flame artwork that had existed for centuries, and got destroyed by the water, probably should not cause a priest of Shelyn to fall. Maybe if they knew about the artwork, but can you not argue the child is a form of art too?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, there is a Cannon story with a priest who obviously was violating Anathema, but the implication was the Goddess didn't know who was responsible for the actual transgression, and there was planar intrigue involved in the transgression.

I don't necessarily feel like individual transgressions should necessarily cause a cleric to fall. Champions (paladin's) I have a stricter feeling about, although I strongly agree that the GM should point out to a player when they feel like they are going down a 'bad' path. It should not be a surprise to the player that they are running into an issue.

In my 'head cannon' the instance of the priest who was definitely willfully violating a KEY premise of his faith, and committing willful crimes to facilitate and cover up said fact, I felt like they were high enough level, that they probably had in game respect taken a feat that was enabling them to HIDE a secret from his patron. Hidden until a servant of the church revealed it by their investigation. This became a life long goal of the individual. It wasn't just a 'poor' choice they made in a moment of passion, it took over their life goals.

So, I'm all for Anathema for Clerics and Paladins. However, you do have Paizo fiction that backs up that clerics don't always suddenly lose there abilities if they do something that others aren't aware of. Indicating the gods don't know everything all of their (even powerful) followers are doing at all times. It doesn't justify that they are not subject to their God's favor however. It seemed clear he clearly feared being found out, and losing his position.

Honestly, I kind of feel like we don't need tons of material on Anathema rules protecting players, etc. all concisely defining everything. Instead I feel general rules, kind of like it seemed like those as I recall them, and potentially some extra 'web resources' available to help GM and Players, to better understand best practices to help avoid individuals feeling like their Gaming 'social contracts' have been broken by unintentional (or intentional) actions that end up feeling like an abuse of the actions involved in the mechanics. (be that by calling for a Fall, or doing actions that are clearly not what are intended in the game to be a part of such a character concept)

Again, I don't see them as needing to be rules published in the core rule-book, as guidelines that can be refereed to if needed to help better understand the rules primary purposes. Key point on making the games fun, being that these parts of Role Playing adjudication involves cooperation between the GMs and the Players. I see this being an article or even perhaps more than one article that could amount to a lot of words, and may be able to be improved upon over time as potential other mechanisms come into play that might offer adjustments to the application of anathema slightly over time..

This cooperation should exist in any games. Trying to play without them, I can only imagine will result in a failed game for at least one of the gamers, if not more likely, most of the gamers. This is why I don't see this particular aspect really fixed by 'rules'.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that Anathema is a positive contribution, helping to assert that the flavor of the character should match their class.

I understand the response that comparing a spellbook being taken away might be more like having all your armor and weapons taken away from a fighter. However, I kind of feel that having a Purveyor of the faith (cleric) of honesty, going around and lying about things and saying they are justified in doing so, and insisting they shouldn't have to have any limitations is more like the fighter with the two handed sword tossing it on the ground at the beginning of every battle and insisting they should still be getting the 1d12 damage from it as they tear into the foes with their attacks. [they after all paid for their two handed-ed sword, so why can't they do the damage they are entitled to, why are they being targeted?]

Saying you have to have an explicit optional rule or choice for clerics/champions so that the GM cannot say you are in danger of falling seems folly. By definition... any GM can claim anyone loses their class powers, because they say. If the GM seems to abuse this, do people play with that GM any longer? Probably not, unless the players feel like there was a good story in it, at which it probably isn't considered abuse, but artistic license. If you want to cast spells you learned from a mystical order, but want the power to come from yourself, why aren't you a wizard or sorcerer, then the mechanics match the fluff?

If you need to have a meeting to discuss how Anathema will be handled in your game by GM and players, that is honestly great, and it is probably a great idea. Everyone being on the same page is absolutely on the good idea side. The player should not be able to say, you can't take this from me, no matter how I behave, because I get to be me no matter what.

Lets say you have a character idea, one where you are a cleric, but you struggle with one of your faith's anathema, but you want to stay a cleric. Talk to the GM, work with the players. Have it understood it will be allowed, and play up the struggle and character development of the priest struggling with their actions and faith. Make it a fun story, and I'm sure it could be a fun game. The GM is in charge of figuring out how to help bring fun to the players in the form of the game. The GM can have a reason why said violations have not distanced them far enough from their deity to be impacted. Getting together with the GM and the players, agreeing how it will be handled, and viola. Game goes on.

Trust you GM, or find one who you can. Or offer to GM yourself, for others, and deal with their concerns of fairness. You aren't going to be able to write rules to prevent a GM from making calls you won't like. Like someone said, long before P2, as a GM I expected clerics to embody their faith enough to be worthy of being a cleric.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't wait to see what the Plushie Heritage choice gets you.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Flat check DC10 + 1 per dying condition level. And you don't want to get a 1.

Well fundamentally, to use the Practicing a Trade, or Crafting Progress parts of second edition rules, the GM would need to decide on how expensive the necessary tunnel would be. You'd technically also then need to pay half that in raw materials, for a pure crafting progress.

Although technically the Practice a trade doesn't have an untrained category, it isn't a horrible stretch to potentially consider the Level 0 job something that one might be able to do untrained, under the supervision of someone who is. That means that you could potentially justify a 5cp per day increase in progress per laborer helping with the work, up to as many as you decide the team lead can supervise successfully getting their own work done. Potentially, instead of doing their own progress, you might allow one or more of them to do Aid action. That aid action could be used to help insure you get a good roll on your craft roll or practice a trade roll. If you base it on Practice a Trade, knowing you have a good chance of getting a boost from the aid, might allow them to try to make a higher level Job roll, to try and make faster progress. [and practice a trade does't require the up-front materials requirement that crafting does]

If you have them make untrained practice a trade rolls to make 5cp a day for an arbitrary time such as a week. If they fail, they only contribute 1cp progress, and might have caused a problem. Have the supervisor have to make an extra crafting check successfully, or the worker creates an issue, a cave in, or other problem that would set back the progress, or create an scene that might have to be played out. [chipping into a pocket that has something in it that is dangerous, or have the cave in do a certain amount of damage to everyone working with some save for half damage, a couple examples]

Something to keep in mind is that technically, to craft something other than a purely common item listed in the equipment chapter, you are supposed to have a Formula to follow at a certain designated level. [Level x: tunnel; for instance]

But the object is to make the game fun, so if it makes sense for them to be able to start tunneling, then let them. However, it isn't unreasonable to consider that things like support beams and such might be materials they might need to be able to make in the progress, so not all of the work may be 'digging'.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Good points on all sides, guys. I remain attached to Champions having their concept be "holy warrior of a deity" - and I see that as very different from the concept of Clerics, which is "divine conduit of a deity" - but y'all make good points and this is a fun discussion. :)

For me a Paladin[Champion] was one who got their divine powers through the intense desire to hold themselves up to an intense standard that they believed in. This made the most sense to me to be a standard and belief in the way/domain of a deity in any setting that had them, although the concept didn't absolutely have to be tied to a deity.

I know that it wasn't a popular aspect, but I felt a key component of the concept of a Paladin was its ability to fall. Although I often heard Paladins referred to as the Knight in Shining Armor, it wasn't the core of the concept to me, which made thee playtest Paladins a bit of a disappointment for me specifically. Since I liked tailoring their martial nature more towards something that seemed to fit with the god, and/or character concept. They didn't have the convenience of being able to claim the ends might justify the means.

I like the inclusion of the deity components of the Anathema to Champions, I think it was a definite plus. I also like that clerics now talk about Anathema as well.

I'm hoping that somehow there will be future rules/archetypes that will eventually allow me to make an Swashbuckler-ish Champion of some sort.

I'm looking forward to see more of the Redeemer as played in Oblivion Oath. I was really surprised to see a Redeemer of Pharasma, but it certainly seemed like an interesting idea.

Honestly, I don't have a big problem with the mechanics being based on being tied to a particular divinity. If you as a GM and player (or if I decided I wanted to) want to have a Paladin/champion of a Philosophy, it only requires defining such philosophy as a 'pseudo-deity' and agreeing on the specifics with the GM. To me the concept/process makes a lot of sense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Loreguard wrote:
First: Option to make multi-classing archetypes available at 1st level, and all classes having at least one class feat at first level. [to be able to pay for a dedication then] I see a potential option to have dedication feats potentially have some portion of their benefit that one only gets after getting to 2nd level, if they buy it earlier. I felt a little bit of loss at how difficult creating someone who actually makes a major life choice change reflected by change in class, but when I thought suddenly the multiclass archetype dedication would actually allow someone to start at first level as a fighter/wizard multiclass or rogue/fighter, I was exited. I was really disappointed that they seemingly arbitrarily forced multiclass archetypes to be 2nd level feats. I'm guessing they were concerned about balance for 1st level characters getting core pieces from two classes perhaps, but I'd think there would be easy ways of dealing with that and make a good optional rule, and they could explain any concerns they might have with enabling it.

FOr some reason, this paragraphed reminded me of the Apprentice Level character variant in the 3.0 DMG, which was basically a set of half level classes you could take in order to multiclass right at 1st level. It wasn't brought forward to the 3.5 DMG, but the concept could be revisited.

Loreguard wrote:
Second: Rules to insure that fighters using non-magical weapons can keep up in damage with level appropriate monsters that are using similar manufactured weapons. What I am wanting is ABSOLUTELY not Automatic Bonus Progression. Magical items need to be able to remain magical, and better than mundane items, and not just because they do something really different. Some magical swords need to just be 'better', 'sharper' swords that hurt more as they cut through their enemies easier.
I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for here. It sounds like you want martials to be able to be fully as powerful with or without basic...

Re: First - if I know what your are talking about, yes, I am aware of, and am pretty sure I played in a game that started out using those rules to facilitate playing a 1st level multi-class although the game didn't go very far due to real life constraints on those playing. I felt it was kind of clunky, as I recall, but was worth having. When they first described the multi-class dedications I was super excited, when I realized that it nicely facilitated it without such 'modification' to allow for a low level multi-class. It only lost the change of life focus type of character development. When I got the book and saw they artificially blocked it until 2nd level I was really disappointed since it broke one of its biggest advantage in my eyes.

Re: Second - Yes, best solution I've come up with so far is some sort of non-stacking bonus that can come from skill or magic items. The inherent non-item one coming up a little slower than typical item bonus perhaps. Best I could come up with was to grant them a +1d minimum inherent damage bonus for each +10 in their to hit bonus, that wouldn't stack with magic items damage bonus. That seemed close to damage advancement I saw in the bestiary for creatures attacking with manufactured weapons. In threads most

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
I would love to see a guide for updating the Pathfinder 1st APs.
Me too, but there won't be room to update them all (and probably not even one) - I think it will be superlative if there'll be enough material to do it ourselves.

Converting Campaign Traits to Campaign Specific Backgrounds would be the interesting part.

And, until the monster creation rules are published, there will be a limit on converting some adventures.

Roswynn wrote:
Also, there'll be a slew of new APs! We'll need to run games 24/7 to catch up... at least I will.
Me also. :)

The Campaign specific backgrounds is a kind of neat idea. However, it also takes over a specific aspect of player creation over completely from the core book. Thus if you choose to take a campaign/adventure path background, you can't create your character with any of the one's in the Core book, or Setting Book background. You are locked out of the normal choices if you want to integrate your character that way.

That was a big strong point of campaign traits. You typically had 2 traits, so giving up one, to take a campaign specific one, did not prevent you from choosing at least one of the non-campaign traits.

You know, if you had some half-feats, and had some campaign ones, that gave you tie-ins. If you don't pick a Campaign background, you can pick a Campaign half-feat. If you pick a Campaign background, you can choose to have a Background, or Racial half-feat. If calling them half-feats is too cumbersome, there could be a name, obviously not trait, as it is used. Perhaps perk?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To start with, they already have seemed to indicate they are going to have optional rules for scaling how many feats you get [pretty sure they said as much], so people can adjust that to reflect their preferred play. I imagine this can include options to open up more Racial feats early on, but will likely and hopefully include options to up how often you get, class, general or skill feats as well.

First: Option to make multi-classing archetypes available at 1st level, and all classes having at least one class feat at first level. [to be able to pay for a dedication then] I see a potential option to have dedication feats potentially have some portion of their benefit that one only gets after getting to 2nd level, if they buy it earlier. I felt a little bit of loss at how difficult creating someone who actually makes a major life choice change reflected by change in class, but when I thought suddenly the multiclass archetype dedication would actually allow someone to start at first level as a fighter/wizard multiclass or rogue/fighter, I was exited. I was really disappointed that they seemingly arbitrarily forced multiclass archetypes to be 2nd level feats. I'm guessing they were concerned about balance for 1st level characters getting core pieces from two classes perhaps, but I'd think there would be easy ways of dealing with that and make a good optional rule, and they could explain any concerns they might have with enabling it.

Second: Rules to insure that fighters using non-magical weapons can keep up in damage with level appropriate monsters that are using similar manufactured weapons. What I am wanting is ABSOLUTELY not Automatic Bonus Progression. Magical items need to be able to remain magical, and better than mundane items, and not just because they do something really different. Some magical swords need to just be 'better', 'sharper' swords that hurt more as they cut through their enemies easier. Monsters using manufactured weapons didn't do extra dice of damage at the same rate of advance like every instance of the 'expected' bonus seen for magic items expected in tables I saw, so I see the distinct ability to have a well skilled martial be able to do extra damage, not too much unlike wielding a magic weapon, even if weaker than expected at that level. Again, I don't want to remove the power of magical weapons, and that individual should do more damage when they are wielding a magical weapon that would frequently be owned by someone at that level.

Third: Options for making mundane healing range from easier to rarer/slower, to help people shift the style to what they like. There should be options where healing even a first level character who is badly hurt will take more than a week, even if treated by a professional. It could even discuss ways to alter access/availability to magical healing to help define the play style. A stamina like system, similar to Starfinder has already been brewing in my mind, drawing a line in the sand between easy to heal/recover damage, and damage that is fundamentally more substantial and requires time or magic to really heal. The idea makes combat situations seem more meaningful to me at least in my mind, without leaving the potential for someone being knocked around a good bit but being able to shake it off after a short time relatively easily, as long as it didn't pass a certain threshold.

Fourth: Option to make two weapon fighting make more sense. At present, without a feat to grant you a combined attack, it makes no sense to fight with two daggers, vs. one dagger. If you are holding two daggers, and make an attack with one, there is absolutely no benefit from attacking using the other dagger for your second normal attack, even though it is a fresh hand that hasn't attempted an attack yet. At least in my mind, attacking with the same dagger a second time should be say a -1 to hit compared to attacking with a fresh hand with a fresh weapon that round.

Fifth: Options to enable replacing Vancian mechanics with a more Arcanist style, which leaves 'spontaneous' spellcasters a niche to be less powerful in some ways, but more in others. There might be more than one option. One option might replace Vancian. An alternate might simply allow casters a choice at creation, to use the Vancian system or the Arcanist method with rules indicting how to handle feat that modify standard behaviors.

Sixth: Home and Business Building and Downtime Capital Financing and Development rules. This can easily grown into Settlement and Kingdom/Government Building. Honestly, this particular one seems to be something that would probably be all potentially packaged together, perhaps less of an optional rules, as a set of new and/or replacement systems for handling these aspects of the game if they are going to be more prominent parts of your campaign. I love some of the base shift of the economics of the game as we saw in the playtest, and sounds like the core rulebook will be very similar. I think that it should make crafting and profession options much more balanced and usable, allowing a more viable interaction between the players and the local economy. I think this will leave the door open for lots of optional/additional rules that could be really run to implement, for players interested in that aspect of the story.

Seventh: Way to use Bell Curve rolls to make rolls be more centered, be it the old 3d6 or maybe some other combination that would get you closer to the breadth of results between 1-20. I imagine it would certainly impact how much higher/lower you would have to get to get a critical, as rolls should generally be less swingy than a single die is.

Eighth: Armor granting DR as option. Pretty simple concept. Might have definite impact on game balance however.

Ninth: Options for playing Ogre's, and other more extravagant ancestries, such as ones that fly. Preferably without feeling like other choices are no longer viable choices.

Tenth: I would also like to see something like 1st edition pathfinder traits(someone else mentioned this). Weaker but story/background based abilities, that you have more than one of to start with. I see how backgrounds fill this in a way. But they aren't as flexible. I'd be good with them typically providing a small Circumstantial bonus (which could easily get subsumed by other bonuses due to spells or such in the future) They don't have to be powerful, potentially even becoming insignificant at high levels, but helping to give you some occasional bonuses at early levels and helping you in fleshing out your character background.

Eleventh: Ways to scale your adventures up a bit, as some have talked about, offering a Mythic playstyle. [probably boosting availability of higher ranks of skills in certain skill domains based on class or path]

Twelfth: Really, I think it is sort of a no-brainer that would almost assuredly exist, will be adjusting the +/level scale for people who want to, and how one would do so. I imagine some may want tone advancement of numbers down just a bit and drop to perhaps +1/2 per level and I see it being relatively easy to do, but may involve some hints on how to round, and how to make sure that as you advance, you don't have dead levels. [i'm guessing round certain things up, while others down, is my first stab at the thought] I've also for instance contemplated options to 'level out' some of the jumpiness of the differences between different ranks of skills and abilities (UTEML) always end up being giant jumps of +3 each time they come out. They for instance always occur when you level up, so they jump by 3 [+2 rank +1 for level] not just 2. I'm inclined to make a Newly trained/Newly expert/Newly master/Newly legendary] and have your first level being at a rank, you don't get your full +1 until you level up again or potentially purchase a feat that has that particular rank as a requirement. They might include such an option, if others might want to level out some of that jumpiness too.

Other supper simple suggestions will, as example, just be suggestions, saying. Have a campaign where everyone gets a bonus Archetype (like perhaps Pirate) at the start, which they can complete as they like, and doesn't stop them from pursuing a different archetype. Class based Archetypes are already defined in the game, even though we haven't seen any examples of them. So I don't really consider that a full force of optional rule, for instance, but it is something I look forward to. As was mentioned, things that are officially blessed as workable practices will probably be more accepted at various tables, and handled a little more consistently.

Lastly: It wasn't very popular, but I see how Resonance was intended to keep people from buying cheap consumables in mass amounts and use it to boost their effective challenge rating above proper design range for their level. Options for potential means of implementing Resonance or something similar seem like something some people would get real use out of. Lots of people may hate it, but I'm sure some would use it if it was effective. I'm not sure I'd be willing to use it, at least without my own tweaks, honestly. But I think some form of resonance may be worth existing as a optional rule in such a future book.

Zaister wrote:

If you're grabbed you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check to perform a manipulate action.

It seems Somatic Spellcasting is no longer a manipulate action, because Owen's character did not hat to make the flat check to cast, only to draw his dagger after casting.

Casting a damaging spell may have an Attack trait, which I believe may not require a flat check to succeed in order to complete the action.

Anguish wrote:
Melkiador wrote:

Both positive and negative energy can heal or destroy, though.

positive energy plane wrote:
It is a place of such overwhelming, fecund energy that all non-natives (including some gods) are generally incinerated within seconds of arrival unless appropriate precautions are taken

That's not really helpful; classic "too much of a good thing". Good. Thing.

Meanwhile no amount of negative energy is acceptable to living things.

I think a key thing to understand is there is a fundamental difference between an Animate an Object spell and an Animate Undead spell. In fact, perhaps describe the difference.

Animating an undead fundamentally in core Pathfinder in Golarion seems to involve connecting the corpse to a negative planar source which acts as a sort of pseudo-soul or driving force. That mindless energy source will naturally seek to consume life and create suffering as that will make it feel more fueled. I think it is the creation of the this negative energy engine and binding it to a body that is considered to be a fundamentally evil or evil-ish act. it isn't simply putting magical actuators on a skeleton from a unspecified power source, it is a very specific power source that even if mindless itself technically is naturally going to drive its animated object to want to harm and kill the living, just like plants naturally reach its leaves and branches towards the sun, and roots towards minerals and water. I feel it is personally, perfectly reasonable to say Good individuals can't bring themselves to preform that particular act normally, or at a minimum without some repercussion.

Could a neutral perhaps see it as a reasonable tool at time, if not abused? I can see it as a possibility. People have evil urges at time, and they don't always abandon them. However, if they actively curtail them and try to moderate them as they don't see them innately as positive, it is reasonable to consider they may not be falling into the Evil range, alignment wise. If you have a necromancer, raising undead, and using them to plow fields to feed the people who would otherwise die if they went int the fields they would be cut down by wild wolves eager to eat flesh? That might easily fall into a Neutral alignment. Not good, because the ends like that probably should not be seen as justifying the ends, but remaining net neutral might be viable. They might even 'idolize' good over neutrality or evil, but just like an addict might want to get away from their addiction, they might simply be unable to stay away, simply working to refrain, contain or control it as best they can.

While there could be something specific about body's that prevent them from being able to be animated with Animate Object, but I have to admit that an old enough corpse that the soul has already made it to its final resting place, I wouldn't really feel like rule-wise, I'd have a problem with it. And I would't consider it an evil act, since it wouldn't be powered by negative energy (and wouldn't have undead stats) instead it would be an animated object. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't still hunt you down and accuse you of disrespecting the dead, and/or accusing you of being a necromancer, because people are often not quite completely accurate in what they see.

The critical thing is according to the Rules, Animating Undead is an evil act. So any such spell doing an animation or creation of undead is invoking an evil and life consuming power. Animating an object using an Animate Object spell is not. If the local science lab skeleton from the local high-school fell through a dimensional rift and landed in the dungeon the adventurers are going through, it can be animated without invoking evil. This seems clearly defined.

Can you use Animate Object to animate a corpse? The SRD limits it to Non-magical objects. So technically, as long as the corpse isn't magical, and isn't being worn(ick), I think it could be legitimate target/object. This would not technically be evil, other than the potential of disrespect for the body. If it was done to allow a corpse to stand and move and return to its rightful resting spot after a earthquake for instance, I could see it as being perfectly respectful use of the ability, for instance.

If you want to create a Animate Vessel spell that binds a elemental (maybe even positive) or some other force to the body so that it becomes animated, that isn't a specifically evil. Feel free to do so. There are even fantasy examples where one might animate a recent dead with the soul of another already passed individual. If the host individual was a willing participant, or legally bound (by sentence, or such) then this might not necessarily have to be defined as an evil act, for instance.

Fundamentally however, I think Core Pathfinder, in Golarion; Raising/Animating Undead is inherently Evil and not a justifiable Good. Animating a Corpse, as an object (animate object), is probably quite frowned upon, but may not actually be an Evil act like doing so as an Undead. You want to play a good 'necromancer' maybe you can talk to your GM about allowing you to swap Animate Undead abilities for some kind of Animate Corpse ability. But if you look at the difference in spell level between animate undead and animate object. Animate Undead is obviously taking a shortcut. So an Animate Corpse ability would probably need to be weaker than the equivalent undead. It would probably need to lack the natural tendency to kill living things, potentially only moving and performing actions if specifically controlled, unable to make any decisions on it own. Perhaps it can't move to keep someone from passing through a doorway, or even attack creatures who attempt to bypass it, unless specifically directed to act at the moment. These limitations would make it less powerful, but potentially justify it no longer being directly evil.

So there are some options you could consider.

Ok, I like the idea of Charisma taking a bigger role as a base characteristic, but have to admit, the idea of using the CHA modifier to be an aid other modifier, while kind of cool, and powerful, is probably too powerful.

If I aid my companion on an attack, then them getting their STR or DEX modifier, plus my CHA on top off all it could become a giant bonus, and I could see it being potentially problematic.

Another potential option however might be to affect the number of people you can influence. I.e. impact the max number of people your aid allies could potentially influence.

If you have a 18 CHA, you get a +4 modifier, so when you do an aid other on something. You can provide that modifier to 1+5 allies who meet the requirements. Your 8 CHA dwarf companion would get 1-1 (presumably min 1) or 1 person that their aid ally could help.

This too, could be powerful. If aiding or assisting allies, and there are more than one person adjacent to you fighting a common foe, if you have a high CHA you may be able to assist more than one of them with a single action.

The other aspect I was contemplating was going back to having something akin to a max # or retainers, which would be historical. With this idea, if someone has more than that many people 'working' for them, it might cause a Inattentive condition that might reduce output of expected individuals actions for the person if they aren't directly involved.

I don't know what the baseline for number of retainers would be, but if it were 5 then anyone with a 8 charisma (-1 mod) would find that if they were depending on more than 4 employee's those employee's would seem disinterested and inattentive, basically taking a penalty on their rolls for things, because of being uninspired and distracted. Someone with a high CHA would keep better attention of their retainers and keep them at a higher performance.

Skill feats might allow a boost to the number being able to be led, based on specific type of activity (and potentially within a certain range of them). Potentially allowing a 'lieutenants' to have a skill feat to double the base number when leading a block of soldiers to work together, allowing them to easily get up to leading 10 soldiers without a negative. A captain then would perhaps have a higher level feat, that instead of necessarily increasing the number, allows them to lead at a greater range, allowing them to lead a certain number of lieutenants.

Maybe CHA would impact how many people you can somehow provide whatever means you have to help unskilled or lesser skilled individuals in your party during exploration mode with their rolls.

It seems like a relatively reasonable aspect that could be tied to CHA and would make sense. The idea of 'retainers' had been tied to CHA to begin with, so having more than some number creating a situation where you take some sort of circumstance penalty seems kind of reasonable to me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lore isn't brand new. They have simplified things in the skill system for 2nd edition, and so they chose a single name for the new rolled up skill which consists of multiple previous part.

One of the things that the new Lore skill took over was the Profession skill, it also however took over the LORE skill that already exists (do a search for Background Skills to find it. I believe it came from Unchained. I also potentially think it may also be taking over options under Artistry.

Look up the the definition for Lore in those rules, and you see some wordier explanations for what they indicated was valid choices for Lore. They also point out that the more general a choice you pick, the less details you know about anything you know. The more specific you choose, the more details you know. If you pick Taverns, you don't know many details about individuals taverns. If you know Taverns in Magnimar, I'd guess you could probably give the name of the bartender, and know what type of people go to each tavern you successfully make a check on. In those 1st edition rules, if you choose too broad a topic, it wasn't valid for making a monster check. Lore (Owlbear) or Lore (Vampire) could be used for Monster Identification checks, but Lore (Elves) as a common grouping would not be considered specific enough, as Lore (Dragons) would be too broad for Monster Id checks.

Can't promise that all the same restrictions that came from first edition will apply to the new Lore skill, but it does give you an idea of what they are likely thinking. The Lore skill obviously represents a 'specialized' knowledge set. They generalized that concept, and realized it encompassed Profession choices.

Lore = choose a topic and use applicable subskill(s) abilities below that would apply.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I'm kind of in favor of the idea of them starting with picking a heritage, and two racial feats at first level. With that in mind, I even consider the potential to spend 2 feats at first level which would give them a second heritage (as long as it isn't conflicting). That would seem to open up a bunch of options, allowing you to encounter a wider range of dwarves with more of the expected combinations of iconic attributes that we are used to imagining.

I kind of wished that base ancestries had more built in, and as WatersLethe mentioned, that Ancestry Feats were more of the Race Feats of P1. Perhaps 1st level Ancestry Feats could be equated to Alternate Racial Traits (and the standard traits that they replaced). But again, that makes you feel like they should start with more than one at first level. I love the idea of the Ancestry feats, within this concept as it does encourage them to, as they gain power, to reflect greater 'aspects' of their Ancestry. It just feels like they should be front-loaded more than it is.

I'd kind of felt like the Ancestry Feats should be more front-loaded than they came out with, alternating between Ancestry and General feats. I'd contemplated trying to swap general/ancestry feats at 3rd level, so that ancestry would matter more in lower levels, but honestly, that pushes back access to general feats. Unless we turned around and gave everyone a General Feat at 1st level, I don't like the idea of making almost everyone have to wait til 7th level to get their first general feat. With that in mind, my current thought is to give an extra Ancestry feat at 1st (making 2 default) and give another bonus ancestry feat at 3rd.

Although, lets be honest, your chosen heritage and 2 ancestry feats at 1st level, along with a general feat would be a good start. that could leave 3rd level in a position it could be switched from general to ancestry with only minimal game impact.

As pointed out, dragons change as they age, so I honestly don't have an issue with Physiological aspects to be included in Ancestry feats. They might need to have a trait, or simply a physiological prerequisite, so that it is easy to know what feats would not be available to an 'adopted' family member from a different ancestry.

Access to expertise with tail weapons might be an example for Kobolds. On simple option to just make them exotic weapons and allow all creatures with tail to access them as such could be an option. Otherwise, giving an ancestry feat allowing a kobold to utilize its tail to hold and wield a weapon seems reasonable, even though it would not be something that an adopted human child could learn. Maybe an addopted troglodyte might be able to however, so rather than making it have a physiological trait, just make the feat have a prerequisite of partial prehensile tail. (and then make sure kobolds start with that from their ancestry)

I am not completely against a half-orc who started with low-light vision over time develop the ability to get darkvision, since it is in deed a magical and fantasy setting. I will admit that find it harder to imagine that coming to pass if the half-orc didn't start with at least low-light vision at 1st level however. All that said, I can imagine some of the things making some circumstances like the above causing someone to lose their ability to see it as being consistent.

I am certainly hoping that they did more than just the small bit they did in the updates, to make the ancestries more significant at level 1.

But even if they didn't, there is probably some really simple ways to turn it up a tiny notch and have a workable house rule. It would just be a little sad if organized play had to feel watered down in respect to ancestry.

I’m posting from my phone, so can’t really look up exact details, but level zero jobs were an exception to the normal setup time. I’m pretty sure that it was always 1day. It also later indicated that if looking for making money from working only one day, that level zero jobs was normally your option.

So even for a level 0 worker, I don’t think there is a four day setup time for the level zero job.

Also, as I recall, the level 0 job setup time was specified as 1 day, and the statement that you could make money workin 1 day at a level zero job, that you get your first income amount after the setup time. The first day on a level 0 job.

But yes, level 1 doesn’t get you to comfortable level. I think there should be a poor level, reflecting healthy enough food intake, but probably having a lack of privacy.

I see substance as minimum food, poor taste, potentially makeshift shelter, little safety or concept of stability or privacy.

Poor (not listed) as a fairly communal shelter with little or no privacy, but with basic food, and at least a touch of safety or stability.

Comfortable, implies a reasonable degree of privacy and security, with a distinct concept that you can meet more than your basic needs.

Charlie in the chocolate factory was in my opinion at a poor level. They had their own place but it was crowded. The had a tiny amount that was extra the used on basic nicety. They probably were not far above subsistence but not comfortable.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Level 0 jobs are still trained jobs (just in this case of labor trained in like Labor Lore). We messed around with the lead-in days for the final so you wouldn't have all that set-up necessarily as a commoner. We generally assume that you periodically do get the option to take some tasks that are better than the baseline over a longer period of time as long as they are available in your settlement (the commoner might even get to gamble on a level 2 or 3 task very rarely, though it might start to get a bit too high in that case). You might also have a situation where commoners alternate a little bit of work with Subsisting on the streets, and I imagine the most unfortunate might be at a point where they are below subsistence some days (going hungry won't kill them right away, and needing to sometimes sleep on the streets or outside the walls somewhere can make them fatigued, so it's not a good situation, but it happens).

Are you saying that you changed the rules for the lead in time so that you don't have as much 0 income time? That would definitely have some impact on one's income potential, if that is the case. I know a little thread talking about things we know. If you wanted to give us a definite on something having to do with income rolls, I'm sure there are lots of people who would be interested to hear. :)

I really have to stress, that in general I liked the shift to an expected productivity per level over the old system that people doing magic crafting, trap crafting, gun crafting, operated under one system, and mundane crafting operated under a different one at a completely different order of magnitude, and job pay operated on yet another different one of a couple systems. All very different ranges for what didn't' really seem like strategically sense-able reasons.

While this one some people might say it over-simplify some types of work's income ability, I still feel like it gives us a better framework to build from, in the long run. Thanks!

For one thing, this forum is for the Pathfinder 2nd edition playtest that completed, primarily back at the end of the year and early January to include some Society Play.

So really this post probably should get moved to a forum about Adventure Path play, especially Kingmaker.

But, for one thing, the Roles are primarily just slots to give the different players a 'piece' to play in the Kingdom Building aspects of that subsystem. Any hierarchy would have to be defined by the players. In the campaign I was in as a player, we had a ruler, but much of the power rested in the council, which was the PCs. some of our trusted NPC's filled some of the lesser leadership roles.

I can tell you however, you should really consider using the more up-to-date rules that were put out from Ultimate Campaign. If you search for Pathfinder SRD Kingdom Building you can find the rules online quickly, or if you have Ultimate Campaign that would be handy to just pull out. It is my understanding it fixed some issues with handling of Magic Item in settlements, for instance as I am sure several other items. So basically, use the module, but use the Kingdom building mechanics from the Ultimate Campaign or SRD to complete the steps.

Enjoy and have fun in the campaign, we only got a little ways past where it sounds like you are at, but we did get to go through several years of Kingdom Building, which was fun, as far as a subsystem went. I was really sorry when the game eventually, fell apart due to real life constraints on us all.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unpleasant is not necessarily non-charismatic. I've seen people who are rude, unpleasant souls who people, for some reason will do almost whatever it is they ask that isn't unreasonable. Is it because then they will leave, or some other reason, I don't know. But then there will be genuine, nice, polite people who ask gently for something, and they simply get ignored.

The first is an example of a high charisma 'mule' and the second is an example of low charisma friend that just seems to get ignored, irrespective of their being cute or nice or moral. They just don't have the 'presence' that moves others to do what they say.

The drunk kung fu master may well be very charismatic. Even if he intentionally fails every single diplomacy check he makes. (since he prefers everyone have at most an indifferent relationship with him, as it simplifies his life, since people who think they are friends just make things complicated for them)

Charisma doesn't mean Cute or Sexy. Cute or Sexy can certainly be a means to acquire influence over others, but it is just one of numerous channels that one can assert influence over others. For that matter, Ugly and Scarred can also be a means to cause influence over people, letting you manipulate them, because you know what they want. (maybe to be away from you, or to not have to look at you) It is a matter of how good you are at being able convert these things you know into manipulative conditions to get what you want out of another person in your current situation.

I've seen people play characters they arrange to have 6-8 CHA so they can play them as Rude and Demanding. They expect everyone to do exactly what they say, and they accept no less. This is not actually playing a low charisma character. If they are used to getting their way by complaining, which they obviously are, they are used to doing extremely well on hard diplomacy checks, meaning they should have to have a significant plus due to their charisma.

If they are a rude complaining soul that is always demanding things, and outwardly expecting things to be done that way, but inwardly not confident in themselves and realizing they likely won't get what they truly want. Now that could be a low CHA concept.

Or at least that's how I see it.

Mark Seifter wrote:
A level 0 laborer probably does a mix of level 0 and level 1 tasks with Labor Lore, with some days off as they have to scrounge for jobs assuming there are limited gigs or firings and hirings and not a steady employment. They also fail a fair amount, making the lower value. So maybe every 2 weeks our level 0 tries 4 level 1 tasks, 2 level 0 tasks, 1 day of failing to find work, let's call it 2 success/2 fail on level 1, 1 success/1 fail level 0, so 5 silver. Better bank that silver because that was a slightly above average week in terms of luck on successes, and some week I might fail all the level 1 tasks if I'm really unlucky, or fail to find jobs more often. Sometimes I might go hungry for a while too and start heading towards starvation if my luck stays down.

Thanks Mark for your reply, but unless I misunderstand the rules, the 1st level peasant tries to get a 1st level job. He has to wait 4 days (in order to line up or find a level equivalent job, right?) So by trying to get a level 1 job he burns at least 3 days income and makes the roll. If he succeeds, unless I'm mistaken, he rolls and finds he'll be getting 1sp/day income. It isn't absolutely clear if he gets paid for that last day or not. If so, he gets one sp, and he'll have 3 more SP coming the next three days if he works every remaining day of that week and I guess will be able to pay the 4sp for a that week. He also will be good to pay the next week's pay as long as the job lasts, until it is over a few day/weeks or months down the line. He better save up. If you don't get the one day's pay for the first 4 days of getting the job, he'll be 1sp short for his cost of living, that week. Hopefully he had some banked. But as long as that job lasts he will be good for a while.

If he failed, however, he gets 2cp in what is presumably severance pay? It really isn't enough to pay the bills so even if he isn't fired, he probably has to go elsewhere and try and find another job, meaning 4 more days of being paid nothing. At this point he's gone over a week and at most got 2cp.

Honestly, I appreciate being reminded that someone could try to get a level 1 job, even if they are unskilled worker. But I really feel like an unskilled worker should have hopes of being able to generally barely rake in a subsistence living based on doing a untrained job, which is likely what they frequently will do, unless forced into a situation they have to support someone else.

You also pointed out to me that I completely forgot to factor in that they would need to make rolls to succeed at even their level 0 job periodically, meaning they'd have days rather than getting 5cp, they'd occasionally just get 1cp. (At which point I'm sure they'd try to get a different job, since there's no penalty for not changing jobs,since it says if you're only going to work 1 day at a time, you need to do a level 0 task) If unskilled labor is a daily check then if they get a 50% chance of success then the weekly income would drop from 35cp to 23cp assuming we are being generous. If a single success is normally enough to last for a week then it would mean that income would probably tend to be something more like 31cp per week.

Actually, with that in mind, it makes me really like the idea of subsistence being more like a 25cp/week level for someone. Especially since most people living on subsistence like that may not have that much in capital to help them earn extra income or get bonuses to their income checks.

But anyway, your indication of failing 2 income rolls for level 1 jobs would push him back 8 days of pay. And as you pointed out, you were probably being generous with their number of successes. that means every failed check would cut his income by around 38cp, and would be especially traumatic at the start, or if they miss more than one check in a row. And at 50% success rate, getting adjacent failures isn't an unreasonable occurrence to need to plan ahead for.

Anyway, I wanted to say, I still like the fact that there is now somewhat of a baseline of expected income and productivity that gets associated with people of a certain level/experience/proficiency. I appreciate it as a much better starting point than we had in 1st edition.

I'm fairly certain that line came out of the 1st edition rules, not out of the playtest rules.

Interesting enough. It appears that Bloodlines GRANT spells, and the spells are GRANTED and are considered Learned. With that in mind, they might be eligible for being traded out in the future. Note, the level they get it, I'm fairly certain they couldn't swap it out immediately, but the next level they learn a spell. As a learned spell, maybe you could do it with 318, but I'm not certain.

It is clear that in 1st edition they made it clearly impossible to do this. In 2nd edition, they did not make any clear indication, meaning they took it out. May have still been intended. They may have edited it out thinking it obvious and unnecessary. I'm pretty sure one reason to have bloodline spells is that certain sorcerer abilities can only be used with bloodline spells. If you retrain it away, you just lost the ability to use it with that new spell. Also, I don't believe all bloodline spells necessarily come from the spell list specific to the sorcerer. So you might be losing access to an specific spell that comes from an alternate list. If they don't intend for the spells to be able to be swapped, they should change how they are worded, so that it is clear they can't be swapped, or that they are added to the repertoire as if they are always considered known. (something to indicate they are 'known' not learned)

And I looked through the update and the playtest rulebook, and didn't find the explicit prohibition, like was in the first edition. Of course we haven't seen the final version of 2nd edition, but at least based on playtest rules, it seems like they may have allowed it in the playtest.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Wouldn’t this just be a readied action?

A Ready action, page 308 in the Playtest Rulebook, requires two actions to set up and a reaction to use. It also suffers a multiple attack penalty, unlike an attack of opportunity. And Ready has the Concentrate trait, so raging barbarians cannot use it.

Ninja's by ChibiNyan, but I proceed on.

Malk_Content wrote:
I actually prefer that stopping someone moving past you involved actually stopping them. Knocking down, grabbing, bottle necking, utilizing terrain etc is way more interesting than just existing.

That sounds like a feat. Let me make it a skill feat, to be open to all classes.

[[Action]] Athletic Reflexes feat 6
General, Skill
Prerequisites Expert in Athletics
You prepare to make an attack reaction that will occur outside your turn. If triggered by a creature within your reach using a manipulate action or a move action, making a ranged attack, or leaving a square during a move action it’s using, then you may use a reaction to attempt a Disarm, Grapple, Shove, or Trip against that creature. This action doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn’t apply to this action. If the attack hits, then your action could interfere with the creature's action, such as interrupting a move with a trip.

I like that it encourages some of the combat maneuvers. I have to ask the question though, why limit it to Experts in Athletics. I like it being a general feat, requiring some extra investment, but I honestly don't think it needs to require expert proficiency. I think trained should be sufficient.

I think general feat works well, since probably they would have a problem with a skill feat basically giving a combat reaction, although otherwise I would at least wonder if it could be considered an Athletics Skill feat. (a potential option for skill feat for a pit fighter background for instance)

It would probably need to be written where the feat grants you access to two actions, similar to how Shield Actions sidebar has Raise a Shield and Shield Block.
Actions would be a normal action:
[1-action] Prepare Athletic Response
This action enables you to take the Athletic Response, reaction.
and a reaction:
[reaction] Athletic Response
Trigger: (as you suggested)
Result: (as you explained)

I like that a quick and flexible option.

I still wonder if it wouldn't be reasonable to have an alternate feat to enable a basic strike. Granted sacrificing their third action to have a specific constrained reaction does't seem horribly unbalance. I've actually got a couple options to consider. The first I suddenly realized I liked, because it gave an actual real reason to hold a second weapon rather than just keep striking with their primary weapon several times.

Offhand Opportunist.
General feat
Gives you access to actions to utilize an non-primary weapon to get reaction strikes, somewhat similar to a fighter. It gives you access to the Ready Offhand action and Offhand Response response when used together.

[Action] Ready Offhand
This action enables you to take the Offhand Response reaction once until the start of your next turn. This action appears to simply be a failed strike on an adjacent foe, or a simple threatening action.

[Reaction] Offhand Response
Trigger: [same as AoO]
Make a strike action. If the weapon is Agile, and the weapon and hand used have not been used in an attack earlier that turn, treat the attack as having 0 MAP. If the Weapon is not agile, and the weapon, nor any hand wielding the weapon has been used in an attack earlier that turn, treat the MAP as 2. Otherwise, if the weapon or weapon hand has been used for prior attack, use any MAP penalties from use of that weapon or weapon hand.

Another more generalized option. It is notably weaker than the fighters' AoO option which is built in, and has no penalty. This chews up an action as well as the reaction, and still has a small MAP applied to the attack, if it comes up.

Prepared Strike
[Action] Prepare Opportunity Strike
This action enables you to take the Opportunity Strike reaction once until the start of your next turn. This action appears to simply be a failed strike on an adjacent foe, or a simple threatening action.

[Reaction] Opportunity Strike
Trigger: [same as AoO]
As per AoO, save that you apply MAP to the attack as if the weapon used in the attack had been used once before in the round. [irrespective if it had been used none to several times in the round] Thus a regular weapon would have a MAP of -5, an agile weapon as -4, for example.

Having a penalty for failure was the thing that stopped you from being able to take 20. I'm fairly certain that wasn't an aspect of the restrictions from take 10, which required the ability to focus and not have distraction.

Honestly, the optional rules in 3.5 for using 3d6 and bell curve rolls, with its rules for take 16 and take 18 made me think about how it was a little odd that someone can preform their average work consistently with no risk of less than average (beyond -0.5 average). Something more like a Take 5 would make more sense to in the long run, without having paid some sort of investment.

As I see Take 10 being something that probably should have taken an investment to get. Assurance is weak enough, I see it feeling potentially a little weak for a skill feat, but see why it might be worthwhile in some circumstances.

I know it isn't technically available, but Assurance in weapon proficiency would have been pretty awesome for a fighter. Who cares about MAP penalty, I'm going to hit everything with 15 AC or less at first level for all three attacks! :)

Response about Cavalier:

I agree, not that the mount wasn't kind of cool, but I like the tactician and challenge aspects more than the companion.

Tactician might be viable mechanic as an archetype as well, I'm not sure. I'd have to see an example of trying it, to see if it could be worthwhile or not.

I wonder if you could make a base class that is bare bones, but begins with two bonus archetype dedications. Hmm... interesting idea.

Apologizes, after I hit submit, I saw the subject and regretted my response pretty quickly.

Claxon wrote:
I'd say this (somewhat) accurately represents the real world and the fact that many people must rely on government assistance, assistance of family and friends, and charitable organizations for survival.

I'd agree that subsistence may often involve living off of the excess, discards or charity of those wealthier than you in an urban area. The subsist off the streets downtime action specifically refers to it. However, I don't see having subsistence costing more than a subsistence job can pay making sense as a built in core mechanic. And technically, smart people would choose not to have a job, as subsisting on the streets gives you a net profit vs. being employed.

Granted, it was true that people (non-good) with power have been known to create situations where they could control the economy, and they elevated the prices of items core to the cost of living to insure that costs always exceeded the reasonable amount of pay one could generally make.

Again, this included an attribute of (non-good) people controlling the economy to benefit themselves, and gain the equivalence of slaves by wielding their economic power.

I think that base assumption shouldn't be included as a core assumption in the base income and cost of living of the game that in theory included good realms where fair business is expected.

If you want to raise the price of subsistence in Cheliax or some areas in the Shackles to more than an unskilled laborer can make, fine, I can see enough reasons to readily accept it. I have trouble with it being the core expectation of the game for your default areas.

(Ok, I said non-good. But lets be honest. In most circles I'm in; people would say that creating a non-win situation, and using resources to advertise it as a great opportunity would be considered an actually a rather Evil act, since it is fundamentally a one-way trap.)

@Gloom: 25cp per week does seem like a convenient price point for subsistence. I believe you are correct about P1 tending to assume a 5 workday week, although I think medieval settings a 6 or even 7 workday week, especially for the poor seems quite viable. But as you say, two unskilled workers might be able to pay for a child if a child gets a bit of discount on their cost of living due to size/age/needs.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember in many feats in the past, as part of what it does, it described what normally happened without a feat. And another section with the 'new' rules if you have the feat.

I think some of the feats that 'give' a new action, if all they describe is 'ohhh... here is an new use for the skill' and they don't bother to explain what would be the case if you don't have the skill. Those may be things that are in danger of just being an idea on how one could use a skill. That doesn't mean it's absolutely bad, as some uses might be worthwhile as a brand new action in some cases.

But lets look at something like quick repair. It shorten's the amount of time it takes to repair your equipment if it gets damaged. Shortening the time from a long term work to a quick exploration task in a quick short rest. I think there were similar feats for identifying magical or alchemical items too perhaps. The rules define something as being doable, but the feat means you can get your results much more quickly.

Cat fall, everyone knows everyone can fall. It lets you fall and not take damage for part (or all) of it, depending on your skill rank.

Looking at one handed climber, I don't necessarily have a problem with someone having to have 'extra' training if you only have one hand available to climb. I'd be willing to say it might only change a DC if you are using a hand with something in it. (so climbing with a dagger in your hand) I'd probably allow that, making it more difficult. However, while climbing, I'd rule the individual would not be able to use the dagger for anything, until they had completed climbing. With the feat, they could use the dagger to make attacks while they are climbing. So the feat would have specific additive usage, in my opinion.

Survey wildlife, seems like something that should probably be a normal skill check, to be honest though.

Pickpocket. I think it might make a bid difference to the viability of the feat if you add the word 'inside' in front of the word pocket. We know people actually can pickpocket items from inside pockets, but being able to do it probably requires very specific training. Pulling a billfold from someone's back pocket, is probably not too much more difficult than slashing a pouch string, or slicing the bottom of the pouch and letting its contents drop. Those sorts of things get covered by thievery skill.

If you really wanted to, you could potentially make attempting the items be a +10 or maybe +5 DC and then the feat removes the DC adjustment if you attempt such a task. Leaving the feat as existing, and having a purpose, but you haven't hard eliminated the availability of the action, to someone with a high enough proficiency.

If you are going to 'Bake In' Assurance, I would suggest you do it only for tasks which are gated to a person with the skill rank lower than the individual's current skill rank. So if that is the case, if someone is Trained in a a skill, they could choose to use 'Assurance' on 'untrained' usages of their skill. If they advance to Expert, they would then be able to use the Assurance mechanic for things that require Trained.

PS: @Ediwir the deception one seems like an interesting usage. I think I like it. I have to admit I don't know for absolute sure if it might create some balance issues, but I like the idea and would likely allow something like it.

Mark Seifter wrote:
3Doubloons wrote:
The last iteration of the Shield rules (where shields could take 2 dents, but blocking only gave 1 at most) meant it was impossible for a fresh shield to break in one block. Is that still true in the final rules?
As you can see throughout the process when we kept answering the question multiple different ways on the streams, that last playtest iteration was mostly a patch on an issue involved with calculating the dents and HP. Using HP, it is possible for your shield to break, or even be totally destroyed, in one hit, but you get to know how much damage is incoming before you decide whether to block, so that only happens if you choose. Looking at how much it would take to destroy Linda's dwarf's shield in one hit, though, even on a crit that's not going to happen unless they're fighting something way beyond their level. Even a balor would be hard-pressed to do that much in a single crit.

I think in the GAMA twitch stream recently, in the fight with the skeleton and the snakes, the statement was made that the shield to 1hp or 2hp damage from snake strikes. That seems at least partially inconsistent with the statement that you reduce it by the hardness. None of the shields took enough damage in the individual battle to really be in danger of being broken however, so maybe the taking 2hp damage was ignored because it was reduced by hardness, but it certainly seems like something that was hopefully clearly worded in the new rules to insure it is dealt with consistently.

I think I like the new rules, based on what you are saying however, but look forward to actually seeing them.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

According to Table 6-15
Subsistence Cost of Living is 4sp per week.
Unskilled labor on a success ears 5cp per day.

That means if you have an unskilled laborer who works 7 days a week, it means they earn 35cp a week, which ends up being 5cp short of being able to pay for a single family members subsistence cost of living.

Even worse, if you do it by month, for 30day, they would earn 15sp, which is 5sp less than the 20sp for a month of subsistence.

I know that's not the focus level-wise for most characters, but it seems to show a potential problem with the floor level of the economics numbers. Also, why should a Trained craftman at 3rd level get the exact same income as an Expert craftman of that level. I understand that is the first level they expect to see that skill rank appear. But it really significantly seems like that rank should make a difference in their income. At that point they can do things they couldn't do before, that should open doors to greater profit.

Honestly, I think subsistence should be more like 3sp a week, and 12sp a month, or 140sp a year to allow an unskilled laborer to live at such a basic level.

AS it stands, unskilled workers can't even subsist.
It takes a full income for a 2nd level person to live a comfortable life (requiring the complete job income to do it) A 3rd level person could with full level appropriate job could afford to support two people at a comfortable living.

None of these offer any spare, to deal with how changing jobs, by current rules leaves you without income for a certain number of days.

Fine living would require a 9th level Master, 10th level Expert, or 12th level Trained job.

Extravagant living would require 13th level Legendary or Master, 14th level Expert, or 17th level Trained job.

Those upper levels aren't necessary bad targets, but it is worth thinking about are those approximately the levels you might imagine a nearby wealthy noble would be who is living an extravagant lifestyle? I imagine there might be ways to boost one's income a little via having some amount of capital, but I'm trying to start with what they have listed now.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I also liked the idea that resonance could be used as an all-purpose pool for "uses per day" items.

I don't like all-purpose pools. Players usually end up identifying the one most useful use of the pool points, and then never use them for anything else.

GM: "Well, in this game you have a hero point pool that you can use to reroll skill checks but you must take the second roll even if it's worse, or to not die when you would normally die..."
Player: "Then I will just save them up in case I ever need to not die."
GM: "...and there are Resonance points that you can use to activate any wand or staff or magic item."
Player: "My best magic item is this wand, so I will only ever use them for that."

This is a small part of the reason I am very happy they did not replace n/day items with powered as many times per day by resonance items. The per day items, in my opinion were interesting and contributed nicely to the story nicely.

If the only limit was some multi-use pool, it just changes the dynamic so much I found it lacking. If they kept a per day max and used a resonance, it was palatable, if the purpose was to keep someone from loading up on so much magic that they were super-charging themselves to be equivalent to several levels higher.

I was actually for some kind of way to limit the number of consumables someone could churn though in a day, such as scrolls and/or wands or staffs for instance. I had a problem with potions being tied into the same mechanic, as I just felt like one should only be able to have one potion affecting them at a time, or have permanent effects like healing potion, make the individual bolstered from additional potion healing for a time determined by potion level. (allowing higher level potions to have shorter bolster time-frames)

As to charisma being a dump stat, as it represents 'ability to influence others', what if charisma mod could be used to eliminate the action tax on one minion per CHA bonus? Basically, returning to being a sort of limit on the number of hirelings someone can have. (and would make classes with a built in minion, want to have at least a 12 CHA)

On the other side of things, I really wonder if WILL Save rolls should be able to use the better of their WIS or CHA bonus (+ the higher of either penalty) instead of only being able to be based on Wisdom. Since Wisdom lets people see through the effects trying to manipulating someone, while their charisma represents their ability to assert themselves (even to themselves). Granted, not everyone good at manipulating others are always spectacular at controlling themselves, sot the current system has some merits, as is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure that the video stream where they came out and talked about wizards having a Thesis, the staffer was talking about how they were putting more fluff into the classes to help spark roleplay. I think that Wizards have Theses that your graduate wizards should define, but I don't think it has an actual mechanical effect on the game play.

At least that was the impression that I got.

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Loreguard wrote:

might be something like when your proficiency bonus hits +10 and +20 you get an extra die of damage. That way fighters would probably get it 2 to 4 levels sooner, but everyone would eventually be able to get two extra dice by around 18th level. (again, fighters much sooner)

When I went through the Playtest Bestiary, I noted that the majority of monsters wielding manufactured weapons, got an extra die of damage when their + to hit was 10 or higher, and got a second die when they were at least +20 to hit. Note, that would be Proficiency, plus Attribute bonus however, rather than just Proficiency. So a fighter with +4+1 (proficiency) and +4 STR bonus would be at +9. So by the next level they would hit +10 and potentially get a bonus die of damage?

The rule given didn't apply, necessarily for natural attacks however, and of course the weapons that were listed as +5 magical weapons, got +5 dice of damage irrespective of their plus to hit, which would have been less that +50.

If proficiency die bonuses don't stack with magic die bonuses, the number might be smaller. If it were per 6, then with expert weapon proficiency, a fighter would hit the first extra die of damage at 2nd level.

I'm hoping that Proficiencies get you extra damage. Expert gets you an extra damage die. Master another. Legend another. So even if you're picking up a terrible dagger, you have 4d4 on it, and if its an awesome one it does 7d4. Sneak attack tossing in a few d6s on that isnt too bad either lol

We know via the Live Stream at some gaming trade show that Fighters are experts, like they were, because of one of them playing Valeros. However, he only got 1 die of damage, until the weapon was enchanted by Kyra.

So we know Proficiency Rank alone in weapons doesn't provide an extra die of damage. (unless the game designer running the game forgot to update the character sheet, and forgot to apply it in combat) It is worthwhile noting he did correct a mistake on the sheet relating to Valeros's move speed, because he had the STR to over come the loss of move from wearing armor.

As far as wizards using melee weapons, I suspect they would likely be using a magic weapon and/or using some sort of spell to buff their damage they do. So I don't think it is unreasonable for a fighter/martials to get a bit of advantage in damage done via their combat specialization by being their chosen class.

As for impact to being non-proficient, ins 2nd edition, you don't want your high level wizard to use a weapon they aren't proficient in. They won't get their level added to their attack roll if they do, which would be far bigger than -4 at higher levels. At first level it would only be -3 though to use a weapon they aren't proficient in, which might be survivable until they get to second level and took a fighter multi-class feat or something like that to become proficient in what they want to use.

might be something like when your proficiency bonus hits +10 and +20 you get an extra die of damage. That way fighters would probably get it 2 to 4 levels sooner, but everyone would eventually be able to get two extra dice by around 18th level. (again, fighters much sooner)

When I went through the Playtest Bestiary, I noted that the majority of monsters wielding manufactured weapons, got an extra die of damage when their + to hit was 10 or higher, and got a second die when they were at least +20 to hit. Note, that would be Proficiency, plus Attribute bonus however, rather than just Proficiency. So a fighter with +4+1 (proficiency) and +4 STR bonus would be at +9. So by the next level they would hit +10 and potentially get a bonus die of damage?

The rule given didn't apply, necessarily for natural attacks however, and of course the weapons that were listed as +5 magical weapons, got +5 dice of damage irrespective of their plus to hit, which would have been less that +50.

If proficiency die bonuses don't stack with magic die bonuses, the number might be smaller. If it were per 6, then with expert weapon proficiency, a fighter would hit the first extra die of damage at 2nd level.

Malk_Content wrote:

I actually want Ribbons to be tied to the various things I pick, even if that means they are tied to "combat" stuff.

Like I don't want "can manifest minor animal features at will" to be something any druid can do. But if I've picked up the shape shifting feat I think it would be flavorful and appropriate ability. Not every feat would work with this, but I think a lot could.

Well, I don't like the concept of 'ribbons' being non-combat features that therefore don't impact the game, because for me, the game is about far more than combat. So I don't like the idea that things that are non-combat are flavor.

I suspect they kept Encounter, Exploration, and Downtime, and abilities that provide benefits mechanically to any of those phases are relevant mechanical boosts.

I definitely feel like Ancestries could do with a significant boost to their flavor and abilities, from where they got left in the playtest, even after the updates. So, if you want some Ribbons for Ancestry, I'm all with you there. But I think they can use some mechanical differences too, so that shouldn't be surprising I'd be fine with getting some ribbons too.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I suspect that Deadmanwalking is correct. Items will have a different scale for modifiers than proficiency ranks do. I suspect they will stay +0/+1/+2/+3 although I could go for +0/+1/+2/+4 to make Legendary be just a bit 'more' impressive.

I'm really curious how they are going to deal with the implied solution to 'martial-classes' not being dependent on magically enchanted weapons to be able to do level appropriate damage.

I thought maybe it would be tied to 'weapon proficiency rank' but with fighters, like Valeros start with expert, but we know from the play examle, he only got 2 dice after Kyra used a spell to enchant his sword.

That provides us evidence that potency runes still do add additional dice. But we don't know if character level, or combination of character level and proficiency might also provide an alternative access to damage boosts like magic weapons give you.

We haven't seen if potency runes might now be available again for shields, and what such a rune would do for a shield. [perhaps for instance providing a DR value for attacks hitting it]

To be honest, I'd toyed with the idea of quality also providing a +1 damage for each quality step that wouldn't stack with magic. Note I was saying +1 not +1d. So an expert quality sword would do 1d6+1 damage, while a +1 magic sword would do 2d6 (since +1d is better than +1). But potentially a master sword might be able to be 1d6+2, or with a +1 rune, it might, adjusting for stacking, might be 2d6+1 (the first +1 from expert gets lost due to stacking with the +1d for the potency rune, but the second +1 from Master might stay. [that is a complexity I easily see not having part of the base rules, but would be an interesting optional rule, letting weapon quality be more significant, even on some of the lower magic weapons]

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What do you mean about the quickstart adventure?

For instance, without the rules, just having an adventure isn't going to give us much to play with, as the rules are obviously different from the playtest.

Are you suggesting they give us the Iconics and perhaps the encounter information for the adventurer's looking for the Eye in the desert, and the stats for the monsters and let us 'try' to play the game based on what we think we know the rules to be?

Or are you talking something like the beginner box, which given all the time they are putting into the core book, I'd imagine they wouldn't want to give away free piece of the beginner box for free, before they release the core book. If anything the beginner box would probably be something they write after they get feedback on the actual core rule book and its chapter 1, and any potential errata.

Releasing the character sheets of the iconic's ahead of time might be interesting. They did that with the playtest, and it did spark lots of conversations. And since it is something that would likely be a free download after the fact, it wouldn't be taking away from future sales.

Something else that they could choose to do would be put out a potential preview with a "We Be 6y Goblins" adventure that might show some goblins and monsters/obstacles statted out and going through some skill and combat encounters for Free RPG Day? Potentially previewing what a module in 2nd edition might look like. (then do a twitch show or two running through it, so people could watch it if any mechanics end up being uncertain.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:

I hope they make most things archetypes and as few new classes as possible. One of the major problems with pf1 was having too many rules to do the same thing. For example: if you wanted to play a warrior-mage character then you could make it it by multiclassing fighter/wizard, or using the eldritch knight prestige class, or the magus class, or... And one of these choices is mechanically superior to the others. This led to many "trap" options that players who weren't rules gurus could fall in to.

Having less base classes and more archetypes for them could help reduce that multiple rules for the same thing problem.

I have to admit I kind of hope for the opposite. Having the option to make a magus-like character via fighter multi-classed into wizard, or Wizard multi-classed into fighter to give different shades of that type of character are in my opinion better. I don't want someone deciding, it should have to be done this way and shepherd everyone into only one way to do something.

That is one reason why I have some slight concerns about tighter 'class identity' and walling off of things. Because I thoroughly enjoyed, for instance playing my rogue who was actually a prison guard. Familiar with security devices and how to incapacitate people quickly and (actually in his case) specializing in non-lethal damage. He was a rogue instead of a fighter, even though he was part of the 'law' of the area. This worked perfectly fine, and I was able to adequately explain any rogue abilities he had according to his background and personality.

I hope they don't build the class design walls up so high that the fluff starts becoming mandated and you have trouble making these interesting characters that don't necessarily fit the immediate assumptions you often associate with a particular class name.

PS: although classes with 2/3 casting may no longer exist strictly speaking, I'm not certain that how multi-classing works you can't effectually recreate a similar casting ability by dedicating some half your feats towards adding a casting class via continuing down a path of multi-classing dedication investments.

One potential case of precedent for being able to cast it without having to have the spell prepared is that Clerics use their channels to cast the heal spell, and do not have to have it prepared. There is the fact that for whatever reason, they chose to separate the channel slots from the Focus mechanics (Spell points mechanics)

I'd also point out, that it says that you can cast the spell without using a spell slot. The interpretation of it needing to prepare the spell, and just not losing the spell slot would be an interpretation that would be saying.

If you say must use a druid spell slot, but instead of consuming that slot, you pay the Spell Point(s) to keep your spell slot. I.e. if you require it to be prepared, you are specifically 'Requiring the use of a spell slot', you are just allowing it to remain available afterwards unlike normal spell casting.

For that reason, I think treating it as a spontaneous casting capability is the more consistent interpretation, since the other interpretation effectively requires the use of a spell slot (which the wording says you are capable of casting the spell without the use of a spell slot).

But it sounds to me like you are looking for an official answer. However, since the developers are focused on finalizing the actual second edition rules, I don't know that they are paying much attention to the old Playtest rules any longer, so you may not see an answer.

My advice is, if you play it like you feel makes the most sense. Until the actual second edition comes out, or we see a play example demonstrating whatever the final version might include based on this.

1 to 50 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>