Loreguard's page

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber. Organized Play Member. 315 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 315 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
It seems to me that "reward system mastery" and "avoid trap options" should not be mutually exclusive goals.

Agreed. I personally would like to see NO trap options intentionally in the system, but I think once a game gets enough options you'll get them unintentionally.


I kind of worry a bit about the No Trap options concept, because that could come to mean that someone is going to be gatekeeping insuring all feats are 'powerful' enough to make muster in their singular view.

Although I try to make characters that can pull their weight in general, it is equally, or even more important for there to be something special to their story. Quite honestly, it is normally something a little counter intuitive, and unexpected. [sometimes it can involve a potentially surprising synergy that might be really effective, but in some cases it might not be that effective]

I would consider it a distinct negative if they do away with flavorful feats just because they can't make it attractive enough for a power gamer. So, if there is concern about people falling into 'traps' by choosing a cool sounding ability that may not be as effective as it might sound from the fluff, maybe they could add a Fluff trait, as a warning not to build a character across several such Fluff traits. [or at least when playing a game where keeping up with the Jones' is an expectation] But I hope that not all feats have to be exactly the same power, just in a different direction.

A desert based Feat is going to be much better in a desert campaign, as a general rule. A maritime feat better in a seafaring campaign. A combat feat, in a high-combat game. Intrigue related feats much more valuable in a social campaign with lots of downtime than a chain of dungeon crawls type of campaign. The thing being... all of these types of feats should absolutely be able to exist. If someone builds a desert based character for an underwater campaign, expect someone to accuse them of having made trap choices. But on the other hand, as long as it doesn't cause the death of the other PCs, and they player enjoys playing the non-fish in the middle of the water, it should be able to happen.

I hope the can't have trap options kills the potential variety that one would hopefully be able to explore in both mechanical value, as well as fluff.

Sure, try to make feats of the same type and level as generally equivalent as you can afford to, but don't stop it from making specialized options that are truly impactful for a character concept even if it can't be called a first tier choice in most general circumstances.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Interesting! This sounds to me as sort of like a replacement for the Pathfinder Society Traits. But in this case, giving you consistent access to some useful consumables, rather than necessarily some numeric bonus (likely circumstantial) to some skill or attack roll. If you specialize a bit, you can get yourself a skill training however, which is also a little trait-like. I really like the potential for this, and also see it as opening a potential option for a similar type of pick a 'situation' that can act as a similar type of boon for campaigns, that might replace campaign traits. I like that it should encourage the use of consumables a little bit, as it sounds like it says at the start of an adventure you get a choice of consumable. Which would seem to mean each new adventure, you get to restock one if you have used yours already. (or if you hadn't, I'm imagining you would be allowed to swap consumables to something else, if you still had the old one, you'd just turn it in and get a different one)

Some examples I could imagine being choices that could be granted at start of an AP/campaign.
You are friends with NPC (so-n-so) they begin encounters with you as friendly.

You found a key hidden on a friend of yours whom you found murdered. It was hidden someplace you knew they hid things that would have been important to them. [GM Note: key was stolen, and accesses the normally locked barracks room in Encounter C.]

You met a local priestess of Sarenrae, who invited you to a service and offered you a potion of minor healing, or silver holy symbol of the faith to entice you. [GM Note: if a member wearing this holy symbol runs towards and into the recently rebuilt shrine of to Saranrae in Encounter E: The priests at the door will block the thugs attacking them from following the party into the shrine.]

You were a part of a local gang. You left on reasonable terms, so if you have encounters with the gang they will begin as indifferent rather than hostile like normal. [unless some future event sours your relationship with the organization] Diplomacy can be used to improve the relationship up from indifferent.

You made your living as a messenger on the streets for at least a year. You count as being trained in Magnimar Businesses Lore, and can use this skill to find ways to speed up travel or lose tails as long as you remain within the city.

Basically, creating things that can be applicable within the confines of an adventure path, but isn't necessarily a game breaking situation in the long run.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
necromental wrote:

I would say that Intelligence is more powerful since we're having fewer skills.

Sense Motive was rolled into Perception, so it's under Wisdom.

Strength is still dumpable if you don't use it, but bulk and reported reduction of speed penalties for heavy armor make it useful.

INT is more important because there are less skills to choose from as you start.

However that importance shrinks as you level since your INT affects your starting skills, but not your progression. After your starting allocation, INT no longer gives you additional bonuses. Granted, if you choose to increase your INT, I believe you get the extra skill allocation as if you'd had it to begin with. So INT progression helps, and I suppose those with high INT to begin with will likely continue to increase it, getting additional bonuses as they level up.

It is just an interesting dynamic of both, more important at the start, eventually growing to be less important with respect to key/top skills at higher levels.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Edge93 wrote:
Loreguard wrote:
Alternately, instead of universal AoO. What if there were a teamwork style feat, that gave allies the ability to preform AoO attacks on enemies, but only if the enemy has become flat-footed? This would improve the benefits of making someone flat-footed above and beyond that conditional numerical bonus/penalty and increasing the desire to move and impart the condition, potentially making someone willing to risk it in return.
I doubt I'll use it but this is an interesting idea. Especially since it would have the consequences of activating if an enemy, for example, ran directly between two players (since it would put him in flanking and thus be flat-footed as he left).

Exactly, although it increases the complexity of the battlefield situations, making placement very important. It doesn't create a default stifling of movement.

If you are worried about a spell caster casting a spell, you need to get someone on the other side of them, or use one of the several other options that can create a flat-footed situation.

Because of the added complexity, it is really not surprising it wouldn't be a default option they chose for the new game. [easily, by default, rules] However, as an opt-in rule for a table, it could make a lot of sense for a group that really loves getting into the tactical decisions that make movement and placement be very important. Who knows maybe something like that will make it into the GMG as an official variant for Tactical AoO.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Edge93 wrote:
Aiden2018 wrote:

I recall that in PF1 animal companions didn't need to be micromanaged. If I'm wrong, then that's because in the games I played DMs ruled that companions always behaved as one would expect a creature of that type to behave, unless they were given an order that they could comprehend. Like, y'know, a wolf is a pack animal. It follows the lead of those in charge. If people are sneaking around then Wolf Buddy is going stealth mode too. If folks are running away then Wolf Buddy isn't sticking around. And she never needs to be told to flank with her companions and trip opponents. She's a wolf, she'll just do that instinctively. When battle starts, what you will NEVER see happen her just standing their awaiting orders. She'll either run for cover or prepare to bite someone's face.

In the playtest minions needed to be ordered around or otherwise they just defended themselves? Yeah, I'm going to amend that so that minions simply behave as they would ordinarily. Basically NPCs under the GMs control. If players want to take direct control of them then sure, spend an action to command them, then take control of that NPC for two of their actions. But otherwise they'll would (hopefully) be competent enough that this will never be necessary.

Maybe Wolf Buddy needs to be told to go and protect an ally who's bleeding out. But she should NEVER be told to disengage and run away from a full grown dragon. If this sort of thing isn't addressed in the final version then I'll will hammer it out as a house rule.

You'll want to make sure to weaken animal companions accordingly then, otherwise that's just unfair to the rest of the table as the companion character now basically has 6 actions per turn going on instead of basically 4 (I say basically because of things like needing to spend actions to move both into position and such since they are separate bodies, though that is also an upside) as they did previously and you're right back to the problems PF1 had with companions, summons, etc.


An inaccuracy, the companion character does not have 6 actions. The player has 3 actions... if they want to control their animal's actions directly, they can spend actions of theirs to control one or more actions of their companion. With feats that might even net them an extra action. I feel your statement that the gm would then need to nerf the animal isn't accurate. The only thing the gm might need to potentially adjust would be the might choose to 'consider' adjusting encounters because the Party as a whole has more actions potentially available to it. But keeping in mind those potential extra actions the party has are animal intelligence, I don't know that will normally be a significant balance threat.

Stop assuming that the player of an animal companion OWNS the actions of that companion. Flat out, they don't. If they want to directly control, sure, and they have to pay some of their actions. If not, those actions belong to the animal companion, not the player. The GM decides how these get adjudicated. I'm not controlling the GM. The GM can give them to any player they choose to, however they want, with what ever limitations, expectations along with that responsibility.

So back to the idea of what potential rules I'd be interested in potentially seeing if I can port into P2.

Yes one would be
1. Animal Tricks - [potentially translated to including all forms of Minions]
Notably as a completely options opt-in rule system for those people who can accept that minions are not PCs. Raising complexity a small bit and enabling animals to behave much closer to how animals would be expected to behave in a story, rather than a chess game. I also see mindless-instinct driven undead being another example of type of minion, which would have different sets of tricks they might be able to learn, as well as different default behaviors.

2. Campaign Traits - Although Campaign backgrounds are cool, I want to be able to give someone with a World Book background a free tie-in to the campaign without forcing them to recreate their character with a far more limited set of backgrounds. As I was thinking this through, and I don't know if I heard/saw this suggested before, but I know Trait obviously can't work since the name has a new meaning, but it suddenly occurred to me that it makes perfect sense to offer every character one of a select set of Campaign Boons. The boon would give them a small circumstantial benefit, along with a story tie in to the campaign. If necessary it can be limited to the duration of the campaign, or can be allowed to extend past that. It basically would be utilizing a mechanic that will probably exist and be tied into organizations. Campaign Boons would just be things that aren't necessarily specifically tied to a certain faction/organization. They exist due to your relationship to the campaign. They could involve having a local friend, or knowing people, or an emotional tie-in that offers you certain circumstantial bonus under certain conditions. Bonuses less than a feat, unless perhaps the boon is expendable, then it might actually be capable of reproducing an appropriate feat once, for instance.

3. Firearm rules - Ok, I might not get around to this before they come out with their own, but it does come up in my thoughts.

4. Kobold ancestry - Ok, anyone else have friends from Kingmaker?

5. Weapon specialization - Ok, I'm happy it isn't there any longer to be a feat tax to enable a tree of many math boosters and limiter for other feats. But on the other hand, it used to be that you could make a martial character who was, actually better, at using one type of sword over another. It doesn't have to be a humongous bonus, and it doesn't even have to stack with everything... it might be a conditional or status bonus so it doesn't stack with certain things. It may require practicing with the weapon 30 min a day, and maybe even re-trainable after a week for all those that think such specialization from the start is too rigid. But, come on, let a martial actually be able to specialize a little bit. (I'm inclined to think either +1 Status or Circumstantial/Conditional bonus, which would be less than a skill rank increase)

6. Kingdom/organization building - Ok, might not get this done by the time the Anniversary edition of Kingmaker comes out, but will at least be contemplating Kingdom building and downtime building of buildings/shops/organizations and potential economic and story impacts of it.

Off above topics, the discussion of AoO. At first I didn't like losing them, it but I agree, them not being 'default' really did open up people making the choice to make those formerly risky actions, which then enabled situations where those few monsters will get to surprisingly trigger them. Or it now allows you as a GM at legitimately have an monster move such, so as to trigger one, when you would normally have avoided it unless you are giving the players a freebie. I've had two thoughts about if someone were to suggest opening them up more, what I might consider. One, rumor is GMs might be able to give Feats out as 'treasure' to characters. If you like having more open AoO rules, you could offer a 'weaker' version of AoO to those who don't have it. Such an option might include. Unskilled Attack of Opportunity. [reaction] You may make an attack against the individual who would have triggered an AoO from a fighter. However, it is made at the same MAP as the last attack made during your last round. Additionally, it also consumes the first action of your next round. With that, you aren't hurting the value of the fighters full version, as much as opening up some other potential uses.

Alternately, instead of universal AoO. What if there were a teamwork style feat, that gave allies the ability to preform AoO attacks on enemies, but only if the enemy has become flat-footed? This would improve the benefits of making someone flat-footed above and beyond that conditional numerical bonus/penalty and increasing the desire to move and impart the condition, potentially making someone willing to risk it in return.

In general however, I think I like that AoO aren't simply ubiquitous now, so I wouldn't want them to return just as they were, in first edition.

Honestly, in order of importance, I'd probably look at/consider my Campaign Boons idea, and Kingdom building concepts first. Others as they came up, from character ideas I or any players I run for want.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

My subscriptions page says that I am eligible for two Complimentary Society subscriptions, but it offers radio buttons to select either the Pathfinder or Starfinder ones. I tried to confirm them both, curious if I had to accept them both one at a time to approve accepting them. However, confirming one, makes that one show as Complimentary, but makes the other show as inactive, and vice versa. It only seems to leave one at a time.

I doubt this is horribly time critical issue, as I know you are working on preorders and getting all the subscriptions and helping all the customers work out their orders with all the changes with 2nd edition hitting. I know those things are time critical at this moment. I'm just hoping for some confirmation that I should get both despite what it says, or that I won't right away but that it will all get resolved in time, or if there is anything that I need to do to make things right, what I need to do.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Roswynn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
Have you considered delaying starting Age of Ages by a few weeks? That'll give you time to better digest the rules by the time the World Guide is out. If you absolutely must play 2e ASAP there's always The Fall of Plaguestone.
Also keep in mind, as long as your group doesn't zoom through 1st level, you won't fully need those archetypes until the PCs hit level 2.
We can totally wait for the archetypes, what we would've liked to have from day 1 are the LOWG backgrounds. But since the AoA players' guide has specific backgrounds tailored for the AP, not as much a problem as I thought!

I am curious if they would consider allowing the Archives of Nethys to publish the Backgrounds from that book at the same time as the core rules, thereby offering them as options for those starting the AP or Module. Granted, I suspect people should strongly consider using the backgrounds from the AP if they are planning on playing the AP, so not having the world guide backgrounds seem less important.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
In PF1, I could do both and even more importantly I felt like I was actually investing in my concept

The feeling that you need to pay for something in order for it to have value is one that you might want to examine in yourself.

In PF1, you had to invest in a concept; in PF2, you can simply realize a concept.

This is going to be a point of contention.

In my opinion, RPGs are all about investing in concepts. It's one of the reasons I hated Diablo 3, since everything was equipment based rather than character build based.

If I build a character who has no mechanical reason to favor a particular weapon type or fighting style, I am under a constant conscious and subconscious pressure to select the most mathematically optimal weapon at any given time. It becomes very easy to talk myself into shifting gears for no other reason than because of numbers, even when I set out at character gen to play a certain kind of weapon user.

That's fine for people who want to play a character that's good with lots of weapons and doesn't particularly care, but it's irritating on many levels when my knife rogue has zero mechanical reason to argue against using the strictly better magical bow that just dropped. Until you get to town to trade it in, you're a bow rogue!

Mechanical weight is a big part of the game for me, and I like having rules behind decisions my character has ostensibly made.

I see both sides. I had a Paladin character a long time ago, (2nd edition of the old game if I recall correctly) who was built using a swashbuckling kit. Wore light armor and owned a rapier, if I recalled correctly. The party came across a magical flame tongue that was a two handed sword, and I was the only one who could wield it, and we were going to fight something that could only be hit by magical weapons, of which it was the only one we had at that point. My character to was in part this memorable because they had to choose to use a weapon they didn't prefer, but which they were competent with, in order to help the party to succeed. I still love remember loving the concept of my paladin tumbling down a hallway with other monsters in it, forcing their way to the boss, to keep it from being able to do whatever power it had against the other party members.

So having to use something that isn't your preference, is fine with me as a plot device at times. It can may your story stand out in the end if in the end it is enabling a benefit for you. I'd probably have hated it if I chose to intentionally prefer a rapier, and then have all my things taken from me, and never have the opportunity to recover or find another rapier. That would have been more upsetting. Having to be the one to use the party's magic weapon against the foe, that was a benefit, despite the reduction of effective choice.

However, there is a certain oddity that in this circumstance, the best knife fighter on the local block, isn't really just the best knife fighter on the block. They are really simply the best fighter on the block. If they picked up a longsword, they would be best at that, or a mace, or a warhammer, and so on. That is a bit of a loss to options at lower levels. Now at some of the higher levels, some of the weapon groups get to play a part and you can have someone better with swords, than flails, however. So at least there is some ability to protray that at the higher levels where it is perhaps more important a concept to have.

BTW: I appreciate reading those who at least feel that some/many concepts can catch up with options as they get higher level. I'll admit, I felt like one of the issues with PF1 multi-classing was how most classes were front-loaded too much. I'm imagining that my own impression of agreeing one would feel feat starved is tied more to the early levels due to that, and with how races have been cut back from many of their traditional bonuses and/or options. I'm rethinking some of my prior thoughts, thinking that I'd still like to see more early feats, it may not be as important to have more across all the levels.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tim Emrick wrote:
Slyme wrote:
My general rule for organized play boils down to "Is it appropriate to play this in front of someone else's child?" If the answer is no, I either don't do it, or explicitly play the character in question with a group of adult friends who I know won't object to it.
As a parent, I very much appreciate this attitude (and it informs many of my own choices). My own kids are 15 and 14, and have had some pretty comprehensive sex ed courses, so they *will* understand the adults' references now--and call them on it if necessary.

I would generally appreciate this as well in an open/public gaming group. I'm a lot more forgiving with the idea of established groups having and understanding what is acceptable within their own.

But I'd say, as far as 'role-playing' specifics of something, the above is a really good rule of thumb. If I question that being appropriate, I would fall to the mode of 'newspaper report'. Rather than describing the specific ways a character flirts, I'd stick to a general description or summary of the action. 'Try to convince them to let us by.' Without having to dive into the specifics.

Ok, I have to say I'd try to stick with an initial reaction to someone with 'assuming positive intent'. as people can get honestly offended by something that is not intentional, or not even inappropriate. I'm not discrediting their feelings, I'm just saying, I don't think that the most appropriate response is, if you offend someone, you are booted from a game.

Instead, we need to get better at finding a way to make sure people feel comfortable enough to be able to express when something is making them uncomfortable, and the people I would want to play with, would do their best to work with it and adjust or clarify. You can't assume you are ever going to be able to pick up any clue by someone very different from yourself to know you have made them uncomfortable. [They laughed... they must have liked that joke... nope they might have just laughed as a coping mechanism, because they can't believe that just happened.]

Actually, with that in mind, would it be reasonable to have a suggested practice of discussing a sort of rating-target for a game session, so people have a shared understanding of what their expectations or preferences are. As potentially simple as using moving ratings for a starting point. If half the players would suggest G (how do we do this with combat, ok-maybe cartoon violence, or not resulting in lethal damage, ok) or PG13 while another half are tossing out, they were thinking somewhere between R or X. If you know that at the beginning, you are probably better off, since you almost assuredly would discover that at some point in the middle.

You could even discuss any known areas of concern. For instance, it was a long time ago, but I ran across someone who was uncomfortable with a character as being played as very religious and vocal about their faith. Playing a paladin that would be openly thankful to their deity for good favor or magic, or even suggesting to others the party could donate something to the local church was offensive to them personally as a player. I honestly considered it something very common and natural for some instances of a typical cleric. I had to adjust my character to not offend them. It annoyed me at first, but in the end I was willing to do so, since I wanted to play and it was clear it was honestly a problem for him. I discovered that after my character was made, not before, so I had to silence some of my character's activities. I still donated from my own earnings, and made my choices based on their faith, but didn't talk about it.

It reduced my fun a little bit, but it was better than not playing. Being inclusive mean including people that are different than you. That means being willing to include someone who doesn't believe the same thing as you. It might mean tolerating something that might otherwise offend you, if you can realize that is isn't intended to offend you. But yes, it also includes being willing to leave some things off the table if they aren't really necessary in the game, if you realize it will offend someone else at the table.

Lets take a player who is highly excitable and enthusiastic. This sort of player, you could easily imagine might frequently, without realizing it, interrupt other players at the table in the heat of their excitement in playing. I know people who get to the point of being physically agitated by being interrupted. In the name of being inclusive, I would suggest that there should be an effort by the table as a whole to be told of, and recognize that the physically agitated player is getting that way because of being interrupted. And that player should try to reign in their behavior as physical agitation can be viewed as being disrespectful and generally disruptive to others. But obviously it doesn't stop there. The table needs to also help the one who keeps interrupting, to understand that that is disruptive as well, and seen as disrespectful, and they need to do what they can to help that player work on reigning in that behavior as well.

The other players need to understand the person used to interrupting may not simply be able to 'stop'. And the person who gets interrupted may not simply be able to 'stop' their agitation and the potential effects of it. But who knows, maybe the two can help each other, with the help and encouragement of the other players, and may come to become closer friends, for trying. Note, I didn't just say... the person interrupting is the root cause of the issue, because they aren't solely the cause. Often one minor thing triggers someone else who has a more specific response that escalates things back, or triggers someone else's response that ends up tipping over the situation.

So should one perhaps discuss an expected rating system at the start of a game/campaign with new players or new environment, to establish an expected baseline? Should there be a defined way of flagging that someone is beginning to feel like it is heading towards an uncomfortable place? Perhaps an escalated signal to say you have arrived there if it happens that fast?

But yes, I think the core of this is being mutually respectful. I don't believe that the real issue is someone playing a different gender. It comes down to the perception that the person is being disrespectful in how they are portraying someone. That isn't something that only happens because of gender.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
And to respond to customization vs PF1 core it’s pretty silly to think that PF2 has less customization.

It's not silly, it's outright true if you evaluate the choices available.

Add up total Class Features available in PF1, Add up Combat Feats from PF1. Even if you eliminate math oriented Combat Feats, you still have the choice issue of not being able to have both the Class Feature and the Class Feat at any given time.

I think it's silly to not at least acknowledge the fact that where once I could get Smite (in this case now RS) and also choose TWF/Mounted Combat/Cleave/etc. I cannot.

It's as simple as that. There is a net loss as of the Playtest.

Just being able to multi class between each of the 11 classes gives huge amounts of options available.

Not accurate, because before you could multiclass to those options. At best, we're a net even here.

Not to mention, these are likely going to supplement things like Magus as a Class. Given how you can't even accomplish any of these choices until Level 2, it lines up as a net even (at worst).

PF1 core didn’t even have archetypes much less functional multiclassing. Prestige classes were mostly a trap and most classes couldn’t multiclass for fear of giving up their good class features and screwing their BAB progression.

PF1 Core had plenty of Archetypes.. so no idea what you're trying to say here.

It also had functional multiclassing, in fact Oradin was extremely popular (if not meta).

Even with the incentives that PF1 put on staying your same class, I wouldn't say Multiclassing was at all out of place. Archetypes were literally more common than Core classes, so really disagree there.

I think they are refereing to the core rulebook itself didn't have Archetypes in it when it first came out. (is was much closer in usage to the old 3.5 rules) You are saying that the core Classes had plenty of archtypes when Archetypes were finally introduced to Pathfinder. So I think you are both talking about different things. Both right, in your vantage point, but disagreeing because a difference of definition of what Core was.

Technically, PF2 has more customization when you get down to it. As you said, things that each druid had, are now a choice. Pick one. If there were three things you got for being a druid as part of the base, you now pick one and get only it instead. (you might be able to pick up the other two by paying another feat later on) And that is another choice. So you have more choices. But those choices all add up to a subset of what one would have started with if you started with PF1.

OK, one shouldn't make everything about direct comparing the two games as if they are the exact same game. However, it is a valid point to look at from the standpoint of if a starting character concept can be closely approximated in the new system or not, since the rules are supposed to allow you to tell the same general stories.

Honestly, I like the concept that Archetypes enabled by turning certain class features into feats that can be bought if you want them, or used for something else comparable. That in and of itself would cleanly simply and make obsolete a number of old style archetypes for several classes, while enabling a variety of alternate mixing of archetypes, just picking up the pieces you were interested, rather than having to take a 'whole' archetype if you didn't want all the swaps.

The issue isn't lack of customization that exists, but that your base line is lower than people expected. Before you had two or three class features and a feat. The feat was a choice you could make, you could choose an archetype or two to swap out one or two of your class features if it made sense to you, although they were a single choice at start that you had to commit to.

Now you have a class feature and a feat. At present you can't trade out the class feature, but in the future you will be, for the cost of a feat (at second level paying for your trading out a first level class features). So you have your class feature, and you get to pick a class feat, which means you can get one of the features you might have been accustomed to, or you might be tempted to pick up a multiclass feat, which means you don't get your typical expected class feature, you get some lower leveled class option from a different class.

Now your old 'general' feats which were often used to improve your class abilities are split in half between racial feats, and the somewhat traditional general feats. This again feels like it is a subset of what things were. Technically more choices since instead of having feature 1, Feature 2, feature 3, + one of ten options, you now have the choice of having either Feature 1, Feature 2, Feature 3, or one of ten options. That is sort of an increase of custom-ability of 30%, but is a net loss of ability to make concepts you are accustomed to, everything having become a subset of what it used to be.

Honestly, it feels like so much of it was reduced down to, make sure you make one or two choices each level, no more. Rather than make sure you have relevant choices each level.

Honestly, I think the distribution list of how many feats, class, general, skill and racial that seems to be present seems to me like a reasonable scale to present in an eventual Beginner Box version of PF2. Obviously fewer beginner options and feats in that book, and probably fewer staring classes, for instance. In the Transition guide, it then explains that as you are now more accustomed to how the game works, everyone has an increased distribution of feats, giving people more choices. Not that much harder, you just have a wider selection, and get to choose more from the wider list. Things I would be would be like starting by default with 2 racial feats in addition to their heritage choice. They get a free skill feat not tied to background at first level (but must meet the requirements of the feat), and also gets a bonus class feat at first each even level. Each level they earn a general or racial feat, they get one of each. (ok, honestly, I'd rather it be two class feats first level and one each level after, and two racial feats at first level and one each odd level after, and a general feat each even level, skill feats... not completely sure how many of those to give. Although, I was tempted to give a bonus skill feat with level'd skill advancements, where the bonus skill feat needed to require the skill you just advanced. I know they want rogues to be the staring king of skill feats and advancements, so I'm not exactly sure how to expand them without impacting the rogue too much one way or another.

In retrospect I feel like the core rules are more like the beginner box rules. And maybe that was intentional, as they tried to simplify the game. But I think most people who play beginner box, probably start using the more advanced options pretty soon after they get the feel for the game. So I kind of feel like the 'default' play should be at a higher tier than the 'beginner box' level. With that in mind, I'd wonder, will society play be defaulted to this lower tier, or will it allow a more fuller play experience? Perhaps I don't have enough society play experience to be able to make that comment, but it is something I'm interested in experiencing, but can see how it could be discouraging for someone used to PF1.

The above might be seen as complaining, but in general, I honestly like a lot of the direction of what we've seen, it just seems like my first level character is going to have less options of abilities to use than before, or choices to improve something. (now to be honest, some people are pointing out many of that last one have simply been removed) You aren't as allowed to become better at something than someone else who has that thing by making a choice, beyond putting a training in it for instance. I feel that loss, although I understand not wanting the twenty different ways one could improves something in PF1 to be able to stack up and give you a +20, and agree that getting rid of that was an improvement. I'm just trying to figure out if training being the only thing you can improve (and only on a very tight schedule) is really how restricted it should be.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I want to put a vote in for the discussed CHA based martial. Such a character class shouldn't have to revolve around sneak attack, or having to be using occult spells.

Of course a large part of the inspiration for the idea was of course the Marshall class but I was trying to come up with a different idea for names. Noble/aristocrat was too pigeon holed on a particular social tier. The idea that came to me first was Officer, but if we wanted to pick something more Envoy like, not having to be completely martial based, it could potentially be an Influencer. Ok, that might be a little too generic a name, but Officer certainly helps to provide the idea of someone who is improving the others abilities, by leading a squad or team.

At first I thought the idea someone mentioned of giving up an action to give another ally a bonus action seemed awful, but I realized it began to seem a bit more reasonable, especially if it isn't the only thing they can do. It might be really useful if it could even grant certain reactions (say AoO) for a team member that wouldn't otherwise get one.

Another ability I had contemplated was allowing an ally of a lower level to boost their effective level for the purpose of d20 rolls while under the leadership of the officer. [basically, allow a 0 level warrior to get to roll as their level were level 1] This would presumably be limited to being boosted on up to either the officers current level, or perhaps up to at most one lower than their current level. I like the idea of it, but I have to admit I am not certain how to judge the power of such an ability, so don't know if it becomes to unbalancing too fast. It could be limited in several factors, as mentioned. Max effective level on roll being the Officer's current level, or potentially one lower. You can limit how many people it affects. You could limit how many rolls per round an individual being led gets to utilize the boost. If only once per round, they could choose to use it to make an attack, or choose to keep it to make a save, or potentially keep it to apply it to AC to prevent being hit by someone. Or instead of only one roll, the Officer or Ally might pick a specific thing to have it apply to.

This would have really no impact on fellow party members of the same level, but it would boost any tag-along NPCs that might be around. [so it might be less useful for players than NPCs then sometimes]

Otherwise, you might simply be able to have them learn from a set of leadership auras, and simply have them be able to have a language-dependent boost of something like a +1 to a specific chosen strategic type of rolls while the aura is in place.

Auras and being able to grant bonus actions to key allies might be enough. Actually, it might be like granting teamwork feats, granting your allies access to some set of circumstantial bonuses they can apply. Options might be something as simple as getting a +1 to hit if two allies threaten a particular opponent no matter if they are flanking or not (potentially boosting the normal flanking bonus for them by +1 if they are flanking). Or it might grant any one of the allies the ability to utilize an AoO reaction, if the Officer gives up their reaction, as well as the reacting individual. If any of these abilities that are granted seem kind of powerful they might require either the Ally or the Officer, or even both to use up their reactions to trigger it.

So Aura's would become tactical teamwork abilities that would be largely conditional and the Officer would learn new ones as they advance in levels, and they can teach a certain number to their allies, and as long as the Officer is leading them, they can utilize whichever one(s) are currently made active by the officer.

Some auras might be contingent on having a Banner to boost the allies, for them to focus on(banner like bonuses from the Cavalier). Others might be contingent on focusing on a specific opponent yourself of for other allies and might not be too different from different forms of Challenges (from the Cavalier as well).

Hmm... I'm going to have to think about this a bit further.

Ohh... as for another potential class, I wouldn't be against some type of Skill based class, such as an Expert or something that doesn't include the built in Sneak Attack which is iconic of Rogues. I know it is often seen as a more NPC sort of class, it might however work for a Scholar or Investigator type heroes better than Rogue, Alchemists, or Mages, for instance.

Last for now... Something with a Panache/Grit mechanism that can with Path/subclass pick up the concepts that are presented by Gunslinger, acrobat and Swashbucker classes. Something that can potentially be multi-classed in to enable a wide range of concepts.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mr.Dragon wrote:

I'm fine with trying to make different species more balanced for players but I feel overall the current playable species are all a bit too... bland, safe, flat.

Compare PF2 elves to PF1 elves for the absolute base level species.
PF1 Elves simply just have more content in their statblock baseline, making them feel very different from the Dwarf or Gnome in the party.

I don't think asymmetrical 'power' is much less important than asymmetry in general and if different species simply had more numbers and features to tweak and dial things would already be more satisfying.

I think it may not be an uncommon house rule to offer two ancestry feats at first level as a simple example of how the base rules facilitate scaling your campaign the way you want. Feeling the current base level ancestries are a little paler in comparison to their earlier version seemed like a common concern in the playtest. I however, am looking at it more from the sense of example of how scaling of feats can help give one more of the feel they want for their game.

Yes honestly, 1st level first edition elves seemed to have the equivalent of perhaps 3 ancestry feats, just making a guess based on all the different things that could be swapped out via alternate racial traits. (edit: although I need to remind myself that the Heritage choice bundles them and offered different choices so influences the number of choices available, when first writing this I admit I'd forgotten about it.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Pretty good first draft. As Oholoko and Malk say, I also think the bonus of 1/2 level to d20 rolls is way out of balance. Basically +1/2 level to damage or resistance is supported in the new mechanics, but not to d20 rolls. With the way they dropped level from untrained, you could add level, or half level to untrained skills if you wanted to, if applicable. You could also probably grant a skill as trained as well.

As far as Tail Warrior, I'd say giving a +2 circumstance bonus to Acrobatics checks or Athletics checks to climb would work when the tail isn't holding anything, instead of the 1/2 level bonus you gave.
(perhaps allow the bonus to apply even when wielding tail attachments, if they have expert proficiency in the attachement)

The scales option and lack of natural armor does make for an interesting challenge doesn't it. Actually, do I remember hearing that the Iruxi might have an armor bonus of some sort as an option. If so need to find out how they did it.

You could perhaps make it 1/4 level (min 1) resistance to your choice of Slashing or Piercing damage.

Another interesting option would be to make Scaled be a Reaction that triggers anytime an opponent hits or critical hits exactly. The kobold then can spend their reaction to make the hit a miss, or a critical hit a normal hit. It could be worded that you have learned how to use your natural armor to deflect some blows sometimes. It is powerful in that you don't have to burn your reaction, unless it will make a difference, but it limits its use to only 1 use per round, and would stop the use of another reaction.

Otherwise, you might also be able to simply make it a +1 circumstance bonus to AC(which wouldn't stack with other circumstance bonuses, or it might count it as a +1 item bonus to any Armor or their Unarmored AC. (then it would probably not stack with magic bonus from armor)

I think the Plushie Bold heritage should get 1/2 level(min 1) resistance to bludgeoning weapons. With the given +2 on deception checks to appear harmless, and +2 circumstance bonus to stealth when hiding with toys (the bonus doubles to +4 if they are stuffed animal toys).

Tail Terror seems problematic with its +2 to hit, it would make a trained combatant equivalent to a fighter in combat with their tail. That seems problematic, or even worse if applied on top of a fighter being considered an expert with such a weapon. I understand you are trying to give them a synergy bonus, but I'm not sure it is a good choice.

Also I'm not sure any of the tail weapons should be considered simple weapons, some could probably be martial, but I think many should be exotic (or I think I heard they are called advanced now)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For those who mentioned that potential conflict between choosing to raise CHA for potential bonus to Cha based skills vs. raising INT to buy the Cha based skill as trained. I had an old potential system I'd come up for Pathfinder v1.

It somewhat devalues INT, but not completely. It does make bonus skills a little more complicated.

The premise is that your Attribute bonuses dictate the availability of bonus skills. The total number of bonus skills is actually theoretically dictated by your highest attribute modifier. However, for all attributes other than INT. The bonus enables that numbered slot to get a skill keyed off that stat. Your INT bonus allows you to buy any available skill irrespective of what stat it is associated with.

So if you have 16 STR, 12 DEX, 14 CON, 12 INT, 10 WIS, 14 CHA, you theoretically get to get 3 bonus skills. the +1 bonus you have STR, DEX, CON, INT, CHA all as having at least a +1 modifier. Since INT is included, the bonus skill can be any skill. To fill in the second bonus skill slot, only STR, CON, and CHA have modifiers of at least +2. Since INT isn't one of them, this skill will be limited then by what modifiers are available at this slot, meaning only a Str or Cha based skill, since there is no Con based skill. The third slot, only STR has a +3, which means that slot can only be filled with a STR based skill.

With that, you might as well put Athletics in the +3 bonus slot, and that leaves any of the Cha based skills in the +2 bonus skill slot. The +1 slot can be filled with any skill.

This means anyone with STR being their highest attribute would in the end probably be trained in athletics.

Note, after this character raises their INT, they would not necessarily get another skill. Instead it would free up the +2 slot to be something other than a Cha based skill. But if they aren't willing to retrain this skill, a boost in only INT would not get them another skill. If they boosted INT, DEX, and STR they could move the +2 and +3 bonuses up one slot, leaving a +2 slot open to fill with any skill (since the bonus level includes INT)

This would likely reduce the difference between the number of skills people have, instead tending to affect more of an impact on which skills they have available.

I came up with it to try to deal with the issue of fighters having so pitifully few skills in first edition. This would enable someone with a higher CHA than INT being able to potentially purchase some of those CHA based skills anyway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
So I just noticed under the Nature skill that the Handle an Animal action is gone, and Command an Animal is still around. I can't make out the text well enough to know what it says, but ditching Handle an Animal was almost certainly a good call. That stuff was way too complicated.

I felt absolutely opposite from that.

I understand a little better the other point of view after having read an interesting blog post, and then the comments to it, about Animal Companions who have get to have an INT raised to 3.

I think I came to basically understand that although quite simple (I would argue). The concept of the tricks and the 'programming' they allow animals caused a whole lot of controversy, especially once someone got their animal companion to 3 INT and wanted to simply describe any action they wanted and have the animal preform it immediately, since the animal in theory had the capacity to understand a language at that point. I understand now how they probably didn't want that controversy in the core rules.

I think, we are now left with working with animals (and maybe any minions) basically requires a sort of Push Animal action (the control animal) action, allowing the player to specifically control it.

I have to admit, as I thought about it further, I was encouraged by some thought. This may still leave room for an Opt-in Animal Training subsystem that could come to exist that would allow animals to do things on their own without direct supervision, as long as they have been properly trained to do such things seems like it could be within the realm of potential design, since it would be an Opt-in complexity to enable things that for some people are going to really seem fundamentally necessary for being able to tell certain relatively key stories.

Lunatic Barghest wrote:
Voss wrote:

To a point. I think they should be able to 'reserve' one of their actions so the companion/minion can perform ongoing actions. (Like chase, harry or hunt)

Maybe conditions- the companions get 'tasked' which let's its use its actions without being ordered to follow an ongoing command.

Meanwhile, the PC gets 'overseer' (not entirely thrilled with the word) which automatically sets their actions to 2, to represent their divided focus on what the companion is doing.

That way the companion doesn't need to stop or retreat once given a straightforward task within its capability (and there would be a list of qualifying ongoing tasks)

I have adopted a similar method for my home game: If the animal companion is given a general task, it gains a third action so long as it uses all of its actions to accomplish that task.

It is mostly just a quick fix, though, as it's subject to GM discretion as to what tasks can be used in such a way, so it would make a poor general rule. Attempting to implement this as a general rule, I've found, has made it too finicky, usually creating roughly as many problems as it solves. But it is fine as a patchwork for some of the issues we've had with the minion trait.

It was implemented due to a discussion my player and I had when we decided to convert to using a PF2 Playtest chassis for our game that resulted in us asking the question "why is the character's animal companion 30% slower at top speed than literally all other members of its species?", and this fix has worked adequately for solving that particular problem.

Actually, this seems a pretty reasonable stopgap, to where if all three actions are part of the animal's current basic activity and it doesn't have to pay careful notice to listening for a down command or such, giving the animal three actions to move to keep up with, or return to the party seems perfectly reasonable. And I'm fine with moving and attacking being only two actions. But for instance three moves to keep up with the party should be perfectly viable action for an animal to accomplish. It doesn't fix animals needing to be controlled at all times, but at least is a reasonable. You can repeat a basic action such as a move repeatedly to get somewhere/keep up.

I hope to see in more detail exactly how animal's (not just animal companions, which should be a step above) get handled. Things such as seeing how guard dogs, or messenger birds would all be treated, in the new system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ok, the OP seemed to have slightly mixed goals. From one standpoint he seemed to say he wanted some races to simply be at least marginally better than others in a general sense (such as Aasimar, or Tieflings) In another sense, he didn't want it to be so powerful that it was a whole-step better. I think it is kind of wanting your cake and eating it too. However, from a perspective I might understand something that might give you a feeling of both.

In any case I absolutely think their current general goal, has been to have player races remain relatively equal to one another in a general sense. Note, context can play a big part in how this plays out specifically, however. For example, a mermaid may have a really hard time in a landlocked desert campaign. While on that other hand, that mermaid might have amazing advantages in a seafaring and/or underwater campaign. I kind of feel like this situation is completely reasonable. And this could create a bit of a situation like the OP suggests, where a certain type of character might be well-or ill suited to a particular setting. However, this would absolutely be due to player choice, not game balance forcing it on them. I don't think all races should be balanced so that no power could seem really useful in certain circumstances, while not useful in other settings. Races should have that variety, and players can work with GMs to insure they will feel good about their choices.

Another thing I want to point out. Some races, while not necessarily OVERLY or OVERTLY powerful may have much more magical or fantastic seeming abilities, compared to say a human. Most human abilities don't seem overly magical in nature, seeming a bit more mundane. Gnomes or Elves may have more special seeming abilities as options. It is easy to imagine Tieflings or Aasimar having like-wise, or even more-so, mystical abilities, compared to a human.

As far as the other topic that has come out of this. I think one option to make Aasimar's feel a little more awesome would be to insure they have enough racial feats to let them select a couple feats to have that sort of awesome feel to them. Guess what, to make things more equal, the GM can give the other ancestries' players the same number of extra ancestry feats as bonus so they can get something extra as well. Again, the human ones may not be as flashy, but the opportunity to grab another human ability is none the less useful. Roughly equal, but some might feel more 'special' or beyond human, to someone, if that was what was important to them.

I can't help but think that making some Ancestries 'fundamentally functional' will potentially end up requiring a number of extra racial feats, and potentially even requiring/expecting a minimum starting level for a mature member of that ancestry. A simple option with minimal game impact would be some ancestries might basically have their early ancestry feats consumed by their base ancestry choice.

But say we want them to have ancestry choices... well, if you know you are going to have a character with such an ancestry in the party, grant everyone an extra 1st level ancestry feat. Then the player with that ancestry gets to pick an optional ancestry feat. Meanwhile the other players will probably get to pick 2 ancestry feats.

Some Ancestries might scheduled ancestry feats they would get at specific levels to get them to their typical baseline abilities, and thus if using that ancestry in a campaign, they might get a 'prescribed' Ancestry feat at second level. A couple choices for the GM there, it might cost them their class feat, or skill feat for that level, or the GM might offer all the players a bonus ancestry feat at second level to 'pay off' the bonus needed by the ancestry.

I think this is a pretty simple way of allowing some new ancestries to scale up a bit. And in any case, I might be tempted to give players 2 ancestry feats anyway in the first place, since I know in P1 races were kind of front-loaded, and they were trying to reduce that a bit, but I sort of feel they might have gone a bit far.

Anyway, I think ancestries should generally balanced, by design. But the potential of allowing a sort of Level Adjustment in terms of 'expected feat costs, that can either becomes feats sacrificed by the player, for their choice of that ancestry, or the GM can grant appropriate bonus ancestry feats to everyone to equalize things across the board.

As far as your idea of having flight potentially use focus, it isn't a bad idea. A potential option would be to make their baseline flight require they end their turn on the ground, unless they spend a focus point. You could also say they cannot use their flight on a round after having used flight, unless they spent a focus point to continue flying an additional round. If the ability to potentially 'run' with flight would let them get too high, bypassing obstacles, one could even modify the requirement to be that they have to 'land' in between each individual move action. Future feats could eliminate or stretch out the time/limitations place on flight moves.

Something else to consider, make flight enabled ancestries rare, so that GMs can basically say, sorry, I plan on using obstacles that flight would nullify as part of may campaign, so I'm not going to allow these races. While other GMs could say, ok, that is fine with me, it isn't a concern to me.

Somewhat similar to P1 Gunpowder rules. You can be No Gunpowder rules, or Early Gunpowder rules, or even Advanced Firearms ages. And each stage/selection has affect the commonality of things, and impacts certain default limitations on some rules elements. If playing an Advanced Flying availability campaign. The racial limitations on low level flying ancestries gets removed unless the ancestry mentions otherwise, and certain spells and such relating to flying may drop down in rarity.

It isn't something that has to be directly addressed in core rules, because it would instead be a 'scaling your campaign setting' choice. So it would probably fall in some future Gamemastery Guide.

One element that could be addressed with a subsystem to deal with 'Powerful Ancestries and scaling. Showing examples of some powerful ancestries, and a few methods to deal with paying for the extra 'equivalent' ancestry feats, ranging from eating up existing ancestry choices/or even general/class feats, to gifting bonus ancestry feats to all the players.

A different element that might be tied to the above if Flight is considered a powerful ability, it might might show an ancesteral flight progression system. That provided some base rules/restrictions for lower level races that allow flight. Along with some additional rules to explain how a GM could rule flight as no longer uncommon, or tightly restricted. If living in a world of common magic carpets, clockwork zeppelins, solid floating cloud islands, etc. you as a GM might not care if someone chooses a flight enabled race any more than a swim enabled race. (or water breathing race, for instance, might be an example of abilities that might have a big impact on campaign settings, where water breathing might decidedly either be common or rare)

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If you are including Beginner Box items, which were written for the simplified version of P1, there are several short adventures available as part of their Beginner Box Bash Demos

Beginner Box Bash Demos - Part 1

Beginner Box Bash Demos - Part 2

I'd expect you could complete one or more of these in a session, and I suspect they wouldn't be too hard to convert to Second Edition. Price is pretty good too. ;) [free]

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I sent in an email to in early afternoon on Friday and haven't seen any reply in any form, or confirmation that the email was received or any sort of information specifying an expected time before it would be being worked. I know there was a glitch that was being looked at, so I'm wondering if things are backed up some. I'm not so worried about it is that pressing, but on the other hand I'd hate to find out for some reason they didn't even get my message, and I get shipped some things I didn't want.

I'm new with subscriptions, so I wasn't exactly sure of timelines. But it seemed like it was my understanding I'd get a notification showing what items would ship before they ship, in enough time to contact customer service and get them fixed. I just know looking at them that it is showing wrong now, so was trying to get it taken care of.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I agree that adding CHA to all flat checks seems too much. I understand that CHA represents your ability to influence, and luck is seen as an ability to influence the 'universe' in a fundamental level. But a +5 (25%) to all flat checks seems too much for the impact of for instance a 20 CHA.

I kind of like the idea of applying your CHA modifier on top of re-rolls bought using hero points. That seems reasonable and comes with its own built in limitation (hero points used to buy re-rolls). It also helps increase the max accomplishment you can get when you are willing to spend a hero point. I even sort of like the idea of giving temporary HP when HP are used to cheat death. However, I think I'd make it = # of hero points spent(making the number of points provide a bit of value, since they have to burn all them) + CHA modifier. With those temporary HP lasting either a minute or perhaps something like 15 minutes, which would give them a chance to preform a exploration action afterwards.

Potentially allowing the CHA modifier to be applied to magical devices to try to coax out additional uses seems potentially viable, but I find it hard, based on what we've heard so far that it would get used very often as most won't want to potentially destroy their permanent magic item very often for one more use in a day, unless it is an extreme situation.

I of course like the idea of CHA getting tied to languages(especially spoken/signed/interactive), and that seems pretty simple house rule with pretty basic impact that shouldn't cause too much trouble.

While I also like the idea of Will saves being tied to CHA, I have to admit that using best of still allows room left to do stat dumping, if you have a high WIS already, or enables WIS dumping if you know you are going to have a high CHA. To discourage dumping you could apply the greater of both the bonus and penalty (i.e. +2 wis bonus and -1 CHA penalty = +1 to will save). But that starts getting complicated. You could apply CHA to initial Will saves and Wis to ones related to illusions or subsequent Will saves, but that seems to get really complicated. Actually, an interesting simple option would be to make a will save be based on the lower of your CHA or WIS. But it would make WILL saves a harder save for many. It might be interesting if reflex were the lower of Dex and Wis, Fort the lower between Con and Str, and Will the lower of Wis and Cha. All that seems interesting options, but might seem kind of big in scope at the moment. I'm hesitant to really strongly advocate any of them without seeing more first, or having players that were strongly for it.

The following potential boosts, I think are definitely relevant to the CHA characteristic, but may not solve some of people's need to make CHA relevant to most or all characters so that it doesn't become the default dump stat. The following would be relevant to some types of characters, but many might feel they could ignore it. I definitely feel like CHA should impact # of henchmen, and could be tied in to impact number of minions one could be directly influence. It could be a modifier which would affect the Morale of minions to determine if when they are injured they continue doing as they are told, or if they might instead flee of drop to some other instinctual behavior. While these sort of subsystem uses would make CHA useful, many character concepts might not care about minions/henchmen or other social interactions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Roswynn wrote:
Elfteiroh wrote:
Roswynn wrote:

This sucks... I was really looking forward to having Golarion-specific backgrounds for Age of Ashes and other adventures/APs.

I hope at least the AoA players' guide has some backgrounds for the PCs, similarly to how other APs have customized traits.

I mean, it's possible to start playing with CRB backgrounds, but they're very generic afaik. We could try them out and then switch to LOWG backgrounds on the 28th, I guess...

That have been confirmed, so rest assured. :3
Sorry, you mean AoA Players' Guide backgrounds are confirmed? That'd be great. Or did I misunderstand?

Yes, last I understood, each Adventure Path with have its own backgrounds you should be using. One slightly disappointing aspect of the Backgrounds system, that it is taking the place of the Trait system, which was much smaller and still left you with a non-campaign trait slot.

With Backgrounds as I understand it... you can have a background that integrates you into the adventure path. Or you can not have that tie in and pull something from another book you read, but potentially not be prepared for something planned for the game.

Still looking forward to seeing what is available. [the players being able to peruse and see the backgrounds available for that path might give some clues what skills and skill feats might be useful in an adventure path, for instance, and might narrow other selections down that might be similar]

While I'm disappointed they won't come out together, but still look forward to seeing what they have in them when they get here. Given how busy things are at the moment, I may not get to play it right away, so that probably won't be a giant impact in the end.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
R0b0tBadgr wrote:

One thing to note: if item bonuses are a thing (like for the aforementioned +1 lock pick kit) then we can definitely have epic dwarven smiths who have been smithing for hundreds of years and who come from a long line of epic smiths who were smiths for hundreds of years granting a +1/+2/+3 item bonus that would stack with a +1/+2/+3 magic bonus. I really hope this is a thing...

I do realize that one of the things the devs wanted to do was reduce the number of stackable bonuses. Because having a magic bonus, an item bonus, a conditional bonus, a class bonus, a weapon bonus, a status bonus, an awesome bonus, a bonus bonus, a fractal number bonus and a few untyped bonuses leads to insanity. And you don't even have to add in your unworldly extradimensional Cthulhu bonus!!! O_o

Just as a clarification, my plan wouldn't allow them to stack bonuses. Although you could have a +3 magic weapon whose fundamental +3 runes were scribed on a +1 masterwork weapon. You'd normally get the +3 bonus, but if some form of anti-magic affected the weapon it would revert to the highest remaining bonus, namely a +1.

I'm curious about the impact of impact of the potential loss of masterwork items from the perspective of armor and/or shields.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Edge93 wrote:

As with all of my house rules I'll wait on seeing implementation but that said I think I'll very likely use the non-magical quality flavor.

I'll probably keep the +1/2/3 naming though, to avoid confusion with the bonuses of E/M/L.

Honestly, I'm inclined to plan on allowing +1/+2/+3 Magical weapons, but I will almost assuredly also allow +1/+2/+3 Masterwork weapons as well.

Honestly, the Masterwork ones may actually be a little more expensive since as mentioned, things like anti-magic or plane-hopping might have less impact on them. [did Pathfinder have the rule that magic weapons moving away from the plane they were enchanted for dropped a +1 for each plane distanced] So a +3 sword on the material plane dropped to +2 on ethereal and astral planes, and +1 to the various outer planes or elemental planes?

Masterwork plus weapons should be create-able by greater crafting skills, and using better materials. Magic ones get their strength and sharpness as mentioned, by magical materials energized into them via the enchantment.

Masterwork weapons wouldn't overcome magic DR (if it exists) but would not lose their plus in anti-magic environments. Might actually be kind of fun to allow Dispel magic, cast in combat to potentially be able to temporarily deactivate a rune or magic ability on a weapon/armor.

I agree the loss of masterwork weapon qualities seem like a significant loss. But as mentioned. If GMG is going to re-introduce it as a potentially even recommended optional rule. From the standpoint of making item plus bonuses always magical is a definite 'simplification' from a rule standpoint.

However, does that mean they also made lockpicks that give you a +1 to pick locks also magical lockpicks. If not, I'm afraid they just added the complexity they were avoiding, but made it inconsistent, rather than consistent, which actually increases the complexity beyond having the option more across the board.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

They encountered Talismans in their adventure. I’ll have to rewatch to write down the effects, but if I remember correctly, one made the attached weapon magic for a short time. They replace the trinkets.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think the playtest rules had a bit of a PR failure in calling the ability Spontaneous Heighten and the rules being something you had to prepare daily like a prepared caster.

That and the creation of the equivalent of prepared casters getting spontaneous learning ability that made them automatically learn spells that are heightened. This wouldn't have been horrible, save for the argument... no the sorcerer can't cast that spell in that level because it is technically a different spell they would have to learn.

If they had given the original Spontaneous Heighten ability a different name, such as signature spells it might have been taken more as a useful ability, if prepared casters that learn spells, wouldn't have automatically gotten the new spells at level up.

I think it could have been as simple as allowing a wizard a chance to a 'free' roll to upgrade their knowledge and learn a heightened version of any spell they know, when a heightened version becomes available. Maybe even make a a relatively simple roll. One they can reroll if they fail when they make a new level.

But here is a point of comparison. Unless I am mistaken, if a sorcerer wants to make a 5th level summon monster spell available to themselves via downtime, they would have to buy a 5th level heightened spell version of Summon monster, they would have to succeed at learning the spell to make it on list of ones that can be selected. Then they would need to use downtime to retrain their spell choice to get that 5th level summon spell.

The wizard wants to learn the 5th level Summon Monster spell, that he'd never seen before and wants it. He goes and buys a 1st level summon monster spell scroll and learns the 5th level spell.

Either they are the same spell (which I think is wrong), or wizards need to treat them as different spells as well (even if linked in a way).

As an example, it used to be that spell level determined how many pages a spell took up in the spellbook, or how much space in a scroll. Does a magic missile only ever take one page in the spellbook, or when you are casting a 9th level version of it, does it involve extra knowledge whose notes take an extra 8 pages in the spell book?

Again, in my opinion, they should be consistent about if they are the same spell, or aren't the same spell. Prepared casters shouldn't get to treat them as the same spell if spontaneous ones can't. Either that or basically spontaneous casters are becoming the clumsy replacement of arcanaist casters. They have to prepare their known spells ahead of time using downtime and heightening abilities as if they are basically pseudo-prepared casters.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Technically speaking, I will point out. Jason would be sticking to his guns, even if someone who was tagged as [Paizo Employee Jason Bulmahn Director of Game Design] happened to post card number 85, in this thread.

The important part sounded like it was that they all showed up in a single thread. Not where they came from specifically. So as long as #85 shows up here from someone with access to it...

You know...

Looking around expectantly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kyrone wrote:

I like the minion rule because this way one player don't take like 20 minutes to do their turn with the amount of crap that they summon.

And if/when Summoner comes back it will not be stupidly overpowered.

Only if you assume that the minions have to be controlled by that player. Simply put, any other player should be able to be delegated some of the minions to determine the specifics of their actions within the direction originally provided by the summoner or companion.

In that sense minions are a party resource, not entirely/completely a specific character's. it solves a lot of the play imbalance, and simply means minion rules have to provide understandable 'tricks' or orders that minions can operate under, and the resolving player simply acts according to those specifications.

A guard with five guard dogs should be able to use a single action to sic the group of dogs onto the players. The dogs would take down their foe. Once a dog has taken down its foe, I'll grant, designating a new foe might require an action by the guard, but this example of for instance trained guard dogs, should not require an action for the dog to continue its attack every round. If the 'Guard' is a PC they should be able to do the same, vs. an attacking band of attackers.

Most animal companions should be capable of behaving at least as competent as a trained animal, whom should be able to behave at least as above. Now, if a character who has an animal companion they want to more closely control, it is fine for that to eat up a greater portion of their own actions to give the animal more specific directions/instructions. Basically taking their own actions to take control over the animal's actions outside of simpler trained patterns.

Guess what, if your (trained/companion) animal doesn't have the Attack trick, you can't use a simple command to trigger it to attack. If it doesn't have the more advanced version of Attack trick that allows it to attack 'strange' creatures such as oozes and elementals, you can't use the trick to target such a foe. There choices are limited by their training.

Again, adjudicating the specifics of their actions and making the die rolls for the minion doesn't have to be done by the summoning/companion player. If there is a play time issue, or an issue with the player putting too much of their own 'interest' into the actions of their 'less intelligent' minions, assign the action resolution to someone else who will do a more neutral job of resolving it.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ok, I could be wrong, but I don't think that anyone has an issue with the idea of a Magus being able to have a spell they have cast that has a touch range go off when they make a strike with a weapon.

I think the only question is, that potentially getting a free attack with a weapon with the same number of spell-casting actions for the spell-casting activity might make the weapons + spell damage too high without some reason for someone not to do this.

What if Spellstrike were an action that allowed you to take the charge of a touch spell you cast and make it part of an attack with a weapon you were holding at the time you cast the spell. The attack is resolved as a normal strike with the weapon in question.
The damage/effect of the spell triggers on your successful attack with the weapon. The damage from the two sources of damage are combined with respect to resistance/weakness. A miss I presume you would lose a charge/application/attack from the spell.

Spell Combat is different. If the caster casts a spell using spell combat. If the spell has at least one Somatic component, after casting is completed, the caster is treated like they are hastened, and enabling them to use their extra action only to take either a strike or spellstrike action with their weapon. However, the somatic component from their casting gets counted as a successful agile attack for MAP purposes prior to their attack, so the bonus strike or spellstrike will be at a agile weapon's MAP penalty.

Spellstrike itself then doesn't give you an action economy boost, but lets you combine damage. (not unlike the different two-weapon fighting feats) Spell combat, on the other hand, gives you an action economy boost, to hep mix spell-casting and attacking, but at the cost of accuracy, which was consistent with the old method.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
tqomins wrote:

I just noticed that these images include the definition text for Class Archetypes. So here's my best transcription of that text:

PF2 Core Rulebook, p. 219 wrote:


Archetypes with the class trait represent a fundamental divergence from your class's specialties, but one that exists within the context of your class. You can select a class archetype only if you are a member of the class of the same name. Class archetypes always alter or replace some of a class's static class features, in addition to any new feats they offer. It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class's initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype's dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype.
All in all, this seems like a promising setup to implement class archetypes within the class design framework of PF2.
Found this in the ‘MASSIVE SPOILER DUMP FROM UK GAMES EXPO‘ thread. So it seems like there will be no 1st level archetypes.

It also provides a precedent for allowing someone to pay for potential application of an archetype at first level with the firm commitment of their second level class feat.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pirate Rob wrote:
Razmir is the 4th, right? :)

Don't be silly, Razmir's power obviously doesn't come from the Starstone! That would be sacrilege. If you understood the steps, you would know, without a doubt that he merely followed the steps to divinity as their true nature had been revealed to him. They are after all his nature, and his path, not subject to some fallen rock.

The misinformation that some people spread these days!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
QuidEst wrote:
A homebrew suggestion for people who need level one multiclassing: use the hitpoints and proficiencies of one class, but instead of your level one class features, get both multiclass feats. Then at level two, resume a normal build.

Perhaps, an Anti-Gestalt. Take the lowest of HP, Skill points, etc at first level and get to count yourself as 1st level for both classes for other purposes. However, the only class features you get from either are the MC archetype abilities from both classes. At second level you rebuild, adding any better boosts or first level class features from the class you decide to make your primary class. Your second level class feat remains the multi-class dedication for the other class.

I haven't tried it, but that definitely sounds like something that could be a workable starting point.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mechagamera wrote:

For summoning in general, I like the "the summoned monster will take actions according to its nature unless the summoner gives it specific directions" model more than the "hangs around waiting for orders" model. So something like: a summoned daemon will attack the closest creature (which can be the summoner) unless the summoner directs it to attack a specific target. The daemon will move to attack the specific target; however, if a creature gets between the daemon and the specific target, the daemon will attack the intervening creature until it kills or drives the intervening creature out of its reach.

So summoning a daemon is a big deal, dangerous to the summoner and the party, but a canny group will be able to get a lot of damage out of one action.

I could see devils trying to make a deal, angels healing humanoids/fey/beasts, elementals trying to leave, etc.

I agree. Summons and other creatures should have natural 'behaviors' which anyone should be capable of stepping through to determine its actions. The GM could do it, or delegate it to a character OTHER than the 'master' of the minion.

Take for instance guard dogs. If someone buys a guard dog or three, they won't sit there and wait for instructions for each round to designate a new for a new target each round by their owner. The owner will trigger an attack command, pointing to and opponent, and the group will all probably run up and attack the opponent until it is down. At which point, I can understand it waiting to know who else to attack, unless there is something already attacking it, at which point it would probably attack back. (but potentially not pursue)

Anytime a trained animal takes damage, or some threshold of damage, it might need to make a morale roll, adjusted by the handler's CHA or handling skill, potentially becoming frightened, fleeing, or switching into a self defense mode.

A summoner should be able to summon a swarm of skeletons. But I'm fine with it taking an action to designate their target, or instigate a programmed behavior, and potentially having to designate a single target for them all, or potentially having to spend different actions to designate any subsets to have different targets. [Say you summon a group of 5 skeletons, telling 3 skeletons to target Monster A, could take an action, and telling remaining skeletons to target Monster B, could require another action.]

If you summon skeletons, they should arrive and by default attack anything living nearby them, unless they are given a specific other task by their summoner. I'm fine with most minions/summons using at least one action being consumed by some self-preservation type action, or even an action to -pay attention to orders- action.

Animals trained to attack however, don't use their third action for that unless they are trained with the Down trick.

Guess what, even men-at-arms can be designed as minions like this. They have Trained modes. [tell them to guard person A, or attack a designated opponent, etc.] Again, I think a key component is to realize that a Minion's action need not be part of that player's turn. It should be viewed as a party resource, and its resolution can be handed out to other players.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Providing the option of getting extra languages via CHA bonus actually seems perfectly viable. With languages being both a social and an intellectual construct.

I guess rather than saying INT + CHA, I would at first be more inclined to say use the higher of the two bonuses.

Or another alternative would be that you could make it where you have to pay for both Written and Spoken languages separately. With INT you have to have already bough the written version of the language before you can buy it's spoken or signed versions. With CHA you have to pay for an interactive version (spoken or signed) version before you can buy it as written. Since before you had to have a +2 INT to get a language in the playtest, having to pay 2 bonus slots to get both seems like it could work, especially since investment in CHA could boost it too.

Another interesting option, since Charisma is often expressed as willpower, would be 'allow the option' of CHA to be used for all First attempts at WILL saves. However, any re-rolls or followup saves would need to be made using WILL based on WIS. Similar to the idea that if you fail your Will Save for fear or otherwise. You've convinced yourself you have a valid reason to be fearful. It would be your perception and wisdom that would let you see the internal inconsistency, not your sheer not wanting to be afraid, because now you are convinced that you want to be afraid.

I have to admit however, if you have a WIS penalty, I'd be inclined to apply it as well as the CHA Bonus. I don't necessarily think you should be allowed to massively dump the one to get an exceptional save via the others.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

A friend of mine is running Emerald Spire and one of our players is a gnome paladin/gunslinger/cavalier. He wanted to eventually have a riding dog, but with his build he was going to be 7th or 8th level before he could actually get one. So what he did was start play with a pet dog that adventured with him all the time but stayed out of combat, and then when he finally got the appropriate class feature made a big deal in character about how he'd finally finished properly training his dog.

...Then we ended up giving the dog a magical cape we found that allowed it to turn into a lion, which was especially funny because the dog's name was Courage and it started the game running away from combat all the time, but that's a whole other story. :P

So his riding mount was Courage, the cowardly dog?

Edit: Also, a thought came up with some of the info revealed during PaizoCon. They mentioned about getting access to the HellKnight MC features and all the HK MC feats counting as the same class for things like Dedication Feat requirements, which had me thinking; i don’t much care for level 1 MC dedication feats, but i could see them making Backgrounds that give you a Dedication Feat and a stat boost in the key stat, and restricting access from the same class.

Example: Wizard (Background)

Gain two ability boosts. One must be to Intelligence, and one is a free ability boost.

You gain the Wizard Dedication feat, and you’re trained in the Arcane Lore skill.

Special: You cannot select the Wizard class with this Background.

Fascinating idea on the background concept. Certainly a skill feat basically giving a full dedication feat is too much for balance purposes. However, having a Hybrid Dedication that costs a skill feat, that pre-starts the Multi-class dedication process, granting something like about half of what the multi-class dedication grants, might just be balanced. When they buy the Multi-class dedication, the skill feat's effect changes to provide something skill-feat level ability that is relevant for that multi-class.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the reason having multiclass dedications being available at level 2 seems reasonable to me, is that multiclassing always required 2 levels- one can't be a Rogue 1/Wizard 1 at first level.

Dedications like the pirate one or the hellknight one should be available at level 1 generally.

So I guess the question is- if someone wants to play a sort of "hybrid of two classes" is asking them to play one level as just one of those classes reasonable? Like if you're making a bespoke magus, arcane trickster, or mystic theurge just play level 1 as a wizard and go from there.

Technically, if you go back far enough, to be multi-classed you had to start all of them together at 1st level. What we are more recently used to called multi-classing, was called Dual-class and had limitations on using old class abilities until your new class level exceeded the old one.

So, I firmly believe the requirement to have to be 2nd level to do multi-classing is unnecessary baggage coming from the last implementation of it.

Honestly, I wish the multi-class dedications granted less. The primary skill should be a prerequisite. It shouldn't need to front load all the proficiency at level one or first feat. I also think that taking a multi-class dedication could 'dedicate' one of your attribute boosts for the classes primary stat, so the next time you earn one you have to spend dedicated ones.

So if you want a fighter who multi-classes into wizard. You'd need to plan ahead a bit and insure he starts trained in Arcana. You buy the dedication feat at level 1 or 2 and it commits you to increasing your INT next time your attributes go up. That would have required less front loading, and while adding the class would widen their choices some, it would also commit some minor but understandable choices in their future. It also would have required less front-loading in the dedication feat.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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?

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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

1 to 50 of 315 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>