Lunatic Barghest's page

Hero Points have always felt a bit wonky to me (and I mean the concept, mechanically; I had a similar feeling on D&D's Inspiration system, just for slightly different reasons). It's supposed to be such a core rule to the system, but it is such a subjective thing, and it puts this weird kind of pressure on both GMs and players to figure out how to incorporate them. This, in turn, leads to common problems like Hero Points feeling less heroic, or "forced", or GMs forgetting to award them, etc.

I like Kobold Catgirl's ideas here. I've thought of trying out refunding them on a failure before, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to mess with the equillibrium of the system. But I think refunding them on failures (the players still face the consequences of the failure, so I think it's fine) and giving "floating" ones based on a PC's concept will feel better, and reduce the amount of Hero Points that need to be awarded over the course of a session.

I think I'm going to try that out.

Ayavah, 1000%.

I plan on increasing her role in the story when I run Return of the Runelords (with things I've been setting up in the earlier APs I'm still in the midst of running). Would love to see the writers' perspective of what she's up to, which was slightly alluded to in one of the chapters of Return. She's long been one of my favorite NPCs in the setting, and it would be just a sensational window into New Thassilon and how worship of the Redeemer Queen is shaping there.

Also love Sabriyya Kalmeralm, and am so, so curious as to how Magnimar is taking to her in her new position.

As a slight aside, it's looking like Sabriyya may end up Lord-Mayor of the city in my campaign, entirely organically; it's a thread that started before it was ever mentioned in print. Just makes me more giddy for a potential official look into that whole situation.

There are no places in the setting I actively dislike, but a couple definitely don't do much for me.

Very much not a fan of Numeria. My interest in sci-fi in general is quite limited in scope, and that scope definitely does not extend to the "sci-fi, but in the middle of savage lands" thing going on there. The place just exists decidedly out of my wheelhouse.

Katapesh is terribly drab when compared to its surrounding areas, in my opinion. It's probably the only location on the map that has never piqued my interest or curiosity for even a single moment.

Never been a fan of Mwangi, either, but I've warmed to it with the recent material set there. I'm just personally not a particular fan of jungle adventures, honestly.

The Saga Lands, basically.

I fell in love with Varisia from the moment it was introduced 15 or so years ago. The frontier setting, with vastly different people and cultures struggling to co-exist with an ever-present threat of conflict roiling beneath the surface. All the while building upon the ruins of an ancient magic civilization. Just love it.

Irrisen has the fantastical fae/occult stuff going on that makes me giddy. The dynamic of the common people chafing under the ruling dynasty of witches has myriad applications for interesting stories and adventures.

Not generally a fan of viking culture, but the Lands of the Linnorm Kings has somehow always held interest to me. Maybe because it reminds me more of the power struggle of ancient Chinese dynasties, which is a period of history that has always fascinated me.

Realm of the Mammoth Lords interests me less so than the others, but I've warmed to it recently and am excited about the upcoming AP set there.

Crown of the World also interests me. Loads of untapped potential there.

Looks like I might have to beguile some of those half-witted--
er...
I mean, earnestly and legitimately rally a goblin resistance in response to this existential threat!

...Or maybe I'll just go back to sleep. Those useless buggers are hardly worth the effort.

Paizo has definitely made mistakes on this. It's clear, and has been stated, that the project may have been overly ambitious and that they underestimated the toll it would have and the resources (particularly staff) it needed to progress healthily. The pandemic and other noted issues that have caused the project to stymie are significant factors, but they aren't the whole story, Paizo definitely shares some responsibility.

That said, it's also extremely unfair and disingenuous to charge Paizo with pushing the project back "because they've already got the money", or some similar nonsense. See pixierose's post above, she stated it fairly succinctly: This was a kickstarter project. It was never advertised to integrate seamlessly into their project lineup. Paizo will not, and should not be expected to, compromise their regular business model because of this project's delay.

Again, it's fair to say that they underestimated the workload and to be disappointed with the delay; however there's absolutely nothing that would indicate to me that Paizo isn't doing their utmost to honor their commitment to the project and those who've supported it.

It's unfortunate that it's been delayed for so long. I suspect Paizo is not any happier about this than many of their customers are.

My goodness.

This back-and-forth has been exhausting just to read, I can scarcely imagine partaking in it. I almost have to abstract this whole discussion into an elaborately written AI program for my brain to absorb it.

I'd like to add another voice of appreciation to those of you who continue to exhaustively engage on all this.

As someone who often has not inconsiderable difficulty engaging and communicating with others, I've found that it can help a lot when we examine our own preconceptions. The more we engage with a person, especially one we've had disagreements with, the more we both consciously and subconsciously entrench our own preconceptions of how we interact with that person. This can and does lead to perfectly avoidable escalation and conflict.

It is laughably common, in my observation, that a conversation devolves (sometimes with utterly startling speed) into people entrenching themselves completely, making little to no attempt at listening to or understanding another perspective. It's understandable-we all do it to some degree or another, we all have ego that will sometimes take control of the pilot seat. If we recognize that and take steps to approach a disagreement in a more neutral fashion (not completely neutral, mind you) and clarify our biases and preconceptions, it can lead to much smoother discourse.

We're all real people under these aliases, and we're part of a greater gaming community that often brings us together for conventions and other events. Knowing this, I try to imagine the real people that I'm responding to, every time I post.

This is where it all starts and ends, though. It's of utmost importance to approach a conversation with the understanding that you're communicating with real, actual people. It's too easy in online conversation to reduce a person down to their politics, their morality, their beliefs; all of which are heavily influenced by our perspective built upon whichever preconceptions we've ascribed to these people in our minds. Sometimes people will do this deliberately, and if that's shown to be the case, all I can say is that it's not worth engaging with that person until they can approach a discussion in earnest.

It helps to evaluate how we approach a conversation and how we allow our biases to influence our actions.

I'm so very pleased to know that someone is reading this - I have a TON of stuff coming and it's a lot of work to sit silent.

I am currently in the midst of threading a fairly robust continuity that entwines not just the Runelord trilogy, but much of Curse of the Crimson Throne and Jade Regent, parts of Reign of Winter, and pretty much the exact same PFS scenarios you included in your original post. This, as you might expect, leads me to be very interested in your work. I've been eyeing this thread quite closely. Not sure if I can contribute to it overmuch, but I'm definitely following.

Keep up the great work. Not only am I interested due to the contributions it can bring to my own continuity, but also just because it is an interesting read by its own merits.

I'd recommend two solutions.

As others have stated, simply removing Hemlock from his heavily player-facing role and replacing him with an NPC the players like more (since it sounds more like an issue of players collectively not liking the NPC, not the characters). There's nothing about Hemlock that makes him particularly important to the the AP, transitioning his role to another NPC should be pretty easy.

Otherwise, it sounds like you may need to have a true heart-to-heart with your players. Go to them as a group and explain that their antagonism towards one specific NPC is affecting your enjoyment of the game. Your enjoyment of the game as a GM is just as valid as their enjoyment as players. Go into detail about what it is they are doing that is frustrating you, and have them explain why they're acting that way. In detail. Not "he just doesn't do enough". Details. What is it that he's not doing? Why are the instances you've shown of him accomplishing something not enough?

Just make sure the discussion is civil and that it isn't about throwing blame around for the situation. Talk about it and come up with a solution that works for everyone at the table. Whether that's removing Hemlock, or adjusting the way you and/or the players handle situations with him, or something else entirely.

Is this really a discussion about the difference between milestone and XP based progression, or is it about how players perceive the differences? A lot of the discussion is framed around how players engage with each style.

What I mean is, I don't think that when it all comes down to it, XP and milestone progression are much different. It's more a matter of player perception, which of course changes from player to player. In my experience, if a player comes to the game with that more MMO, video-gamey type of mindset, they will game either system in an attempt to hasten their progression, or get that feeling of reward from growing in power.

And that's why I think the difference between the two methods generally boils down to the difference in how players feel rewarded, rather than any intrinsic difference between the methods themselves.

Your table will probably fear Barghests for a long time to come

Ah, yes. Music to my ears!

Sounds like a fun encounter. What a finish; timely crits can make for exciting finales and crescendos. My interest in this AP has been piqued. ^^

I love the rarity system. It introduces a satisfying dynamic both in and out of game. Especially after the ridiculous free-for-all that PF1 has been for the past four or five years that was exhausting as a player, not to mention as a GM.

That said, I absolutely understand the concern some people have about it. One of PF2's main design goals seems to be tailoring the play experience for each individual table, which is going to enable, and even encourage in stronger cases, everyone in a particular gaming group to come to the game with wildly varied expectations for the game. In such cases, it's definitely going to require a degree of compromise. That goes both ways, however. The GM should be willing to compromise with the players to allow them to fit their concept to the game (key word being compromise; ie NOT caving in to all requests or demands). Of course, not all GMs are going to relinquish this amount of control.

The system doesn't feel like a straitjacket to me as a player. It's true that I'm more often a GM, though I still appreciate the system as a player too. But I can see why others would feel that way, because if you go into a game as a player with vastly different expectations than the GM, you risk undermining your own character concept, and it can be frustrating if those involved can't reach a compromise that allows everyone to get what they're looking for out of the game.

My perspective is colored by the fact that I don't seek out games with random people. All games that I play these days are with people I know well and that we understand our expectations of what we want from the game. It's a different beast when you're looking to join a new group, and it's somewhat of an obstacle to overcome in that case. How much of an obstacle it turns out to be is going to vary based on each individual member of the prospective group.

A better idea would be to incorporate some version of spellstrike or similarly thematic Magus abilities without tying it to any class. Since NPCs aren't just "PCs, only crappier" anymore, they can incorporate any kind of Magus-like spread of abilities they want, without having to worry about tying it to a class.

Use it to figure out how well it works, and how best to incorporate it later as a PC option. Discover whether it will work better as a standalone class, or something like an archetype or class path.

Whatever they do, I hope it isn't pushing out an arguably superfluous class, while simultaneously pidgeonholing it onto an NPC, after recognizing one of the major design improvement of PF2 is that NPCs don't need to use PC rules.

EDIT:
Though, to be fair, if they mean for the NPC companions from the game to occupy a different role than just NPC, they could certainly use it in a number of unique ways, including trying prototype designs (or fully-fledged designs) for a new class like the Magus or Inquisitor.

And as the table suggests, how we experience heat is also highly dependant on humidity. I find 42 C (108 F) heat in a nice, dry place like Arizona to be very pleasant, but 26 degrees C (81 F) in an extremely humid place like Toronto can be absolutely brutal.

Indeed. I have vacationed in Florida during late spring/early summer a handful of times. I definitely prefer a dry heat 20 F higher to a humid heat 20 F lower.

My spouse is exactly the opposite, finding Florida summers much more comfortable.

It all leads me to figure that ascribing mechanics to such minutiae is fairly irrelevant. I agree that celsius should be represented in the book, though. Fahrenheit actually makes almost no sense as a system of measurement.

I lived in Arizona for 26 years, and still have a few friends there.

Every single summer, I see a "meanwhile, in Arizona" meme, highlighting the people who are uncomfortable with 90 F summers an their complaints, while Arizonans are out in 115 F and are perfectly fine.

I mean, it IS a meme, but it's based in hard experience.

So, yeah, "hot" and "cold" are fairly relative, depending on the environment you're accustomed to.

I never bothered to track encumbrance, but I will definitely be tracking Bulk.

I can serve as another tangible example. I have looooong since been completely over the "track every bit of weight, from .1 to 60.0!" jam.

I'll take tracking instances of specific .1, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. I actually recently started on a conversion to such a system not long before the Playtest was announced. Paizo saved me some work, for sure.

Now, whether Bulk and its relation to encumbrance is in the right spot is another discussion -- I will probably be slightly more lenient than the rules suggest, because I believe Graystone's assessment is fair.

But as far as tracking is concerned, Bulk is the new standard for me. Just a matter of finding the right spot for its encumbrance tolerance.

TOZ wrote:

15 days! That's almost two weeks!

But how do I know if it's almost two weeks at my local gaming store compared to your local gaming store?

What if we did 1d4+12 days to approximate almost two weeks?

You beat me to it!

And by 35 minutes, no less! :o

One thing I have thought about doing is limiting the number of uncommon things PCs can have at chargen without having mechanics to dictate that you have access.

PCs are extraordinary, but should not be extraordinary in every conceivable way.

I have had a similar thought.

"They're special ;) " is not a good enough answer to the question "why is your character's spellbook filled with spells that aren't particularly well known?" or "why is your character carrying around three weapons not typically found in this region?".

That's how I plan to use Uncommon in general. At character creation, having several uncommon things need to be justified by your ancestry or background. During play, uncommon would be less important and generally hand-waved.

Rare would be used basically as described: Not something a character could ever pick up themselves, but rather discovered during an adventure.

I will say given how generic the Fighter is, and how much "Rogue" flavor is present in the Swashbuckler, that it's going to be very difficult IMO to not step on either of the other's toes.

This encompasses the situation I find Swashbuckler in right now.

A GMPC in my home game was a Swashbuckler, and it was ridiculously easy to convert to Playtest rules without sacrificing mechanical identity with a simple Fighter/Rogue multiclass. The swashbuckler was easier to convert to the new ruleset than the majority of core classes. In PF2, Fighter/Rogue fills the concept of a swashbuckler better than the Swashbuckler class did, IMO.

And I don't see any particular reason to bring the class back simply because they were tied to a resource pool in PF1. I say just ditch the resource management and go Fighter/Rogue. They would have to make the Swashbuckler class fundamentally different than its PF1 iteration in order for it to seem like its inclusion was anything more than a legacy throw-in.

Not to say they couldn't make it mechanically distinct. But in that case, it would likely feel like something quite different than it was before.

TL;DR on Swashbuckler - Fighter/Rogue already represents the concept mechanically equally well in the new system, if not better, than the Swashbuckler class did in PF1.

Gunslinger is a bit more complicated, but in short I don't see why a class needs to be based around a single weapon type. Gunslinger has no more justification to be its own class than something like a polearm master. Just let the Fighters and Bards and Rogues and (insert whatever class best fits the concept of whoever your gunslinging character is) use guns.

Witch is something that I wondered, does the relationship of the Witch and her Patron always need to manifest in an familiar? Classes are really different from their PF1 counterpart in the new edition so an Witch class could choose at first their Patron that will give acess to some spells know and their specific hex and then how their pact will manifest, be it the familiar or something else like an ritual dagger or even an ritual book.

I think that's an interesting take on it. I baked familiar into the class in my conversion, but that's because it was a conversion of a character from a PF1 home game, and as such, obviously, the character has a familiar already.

I think drawing from 5e's Warlock could give the class more variety.

The patron could even take a more direct role, maybe even foregoing a representation entirely by requiring some form of direct commune with the witch to grant their abilities. There's certainly a lot of room to tinker with mechanics to allow for more diverse concepts.

Failing forward is a tool for GMs to use. Like any tool, any particular GM can choose to use it, or not. It very much hinges on GM perspective, and whatever social contract the GM and players have set with regard to the game.

It is a useless tool in games in which the players wish to be held strictly accountable for every mistake or bad turn of the dice. If that's the game that is fun for the people at the table, it makes very little sense to include most kinds of "fail forward" ideals.

As a few others have noted, I think it is a useful tool when the table wants to have a more open or nuanced style of game that moves away from the strict pass/fail binary. But it's best used sparingly, according to situations to enhance enjoyment and add complexity to a given check or activity.

And for those who like a wholly narrative experience, heavy use of failing forward is quite useful. It limits (or outright eliminates, depending on how heavy it's used) player agency in regard to the chance of success, but in a game in which the players and GM all agree they want a more straightforward play experience that hinges more on the narrative to determine the consequences of success and failure, there's nothing wrong with that.

I tend to fall in the middle. Sometimes failure meaning a penalty or hindrance in lieu of a hard "you lose" can enhance the game, but there should, generally speaking, be a chance for players to entirely fail a given task.

Witch here, too. Like Bardarok, I've already homebrewed a Witch class, in a similar way as Bardarok, from how they described. Many hexes converted using Bard compositions as a baseline.

You know what would be kind of cool? Spending a focus point to gain the unlimited use of a hex, then refocus lets you change hexes, or refresh your ability to do the 1/day/target thing again.

I just really liked the all-day nature of hexes!

That's why I like using Bard as an inspiration for hexes; some hexes can be focus spells, while others can be unique cantrips.

One of the main characters in my home game is a Witch, and converting it with Playtest material into a Wizard-Bard cross has worked adequately.

Using Wizard with Occult spells as a base and adding composition-like effects to represent hexes -- one that works really well without any real conversion is Lingering Composition to emulate the Cackle hex.

I'm also giving the familiar extra bonuses, but that's just something I added personally. My imagining is that Witch familiars are more versatile. Other casters can gain familiars, but if you want the BEST familiar, mechanically, you go Witch.

When the full ruleset comes out, I'm sure it will be much easier to convert things more flavorfully. I suspect with the increased volume of material it'll be easier to do interesting things with patrons and familiars and stuff like that. I imagine it'll work well enough for us until the class is officially released.

Is anyone's homebrew world influenced heavily by Greek Mythology? Just curious.

That's how I got my start in homebrewing. I was a super nerd in middle and high school when it came to Greek and Roman mythology, so I naturally incorporated it into my setting lore. Pretty sure I still have notes for it around somewhere; I've been so content with Golarion as a setting that I've mostly abandoned my old homebrew work. Hasn't seen more than tertiary use in about 8 years, honestly.

Another tortoise answer here, but it's noteworthy not solely because of the animal, but the reasoning accompanying it.

It was a hobgoblin fanatic who had been following and spying on my party for a while. We finally captured her and interrogated her. A true fanatic, she did little but spew how much of a glorious honor it was to die in service to her terrible, evil deity and how eager she was to serve it in her afterlife.

Then she insulted a party member who died on an earlier adventure.

She now has 100+ years to regret that course of action, if she still has the capacity to regret. Gonna have to wait for the whole service-after-death thing, though.

WatersLethe wrote:

I just really want to start building characters :c

Same, tbh. Character building is how I grock new D&D-type systems.

Yep, me too.

I still have about 60 character sheets filled from top to bottom with stats and notes from when I dove into D&D 3.5 over a decade ago. I've used about 3 or 4 of them. But I have them!

...I had a problem -- I'm better now.

Still, though... want to make PF2 characters...

I did say better, not cured. :0)

PossibleCabbage wrote:

One thing that's nice is that since feats represent "a new option you have" rather than a math enhancer, is that this allows a GM to just give people extra feats without really breaking anything.

While this sounds great, it's going to vary wildly from GM to GM, game to game. I know for myself, It'll most likely take a bit of effort to find a game like that and there isn't any guaranty I'll get in.

Hopefully, this will be less of a problem with this edition. Since it will be much easier for a GM to control the power creep, there should be less of an issue with allowing players to have bonus feats.

It remains to be seen if GMs will see it that way (and, really, until the final game is out we're not certain it will truly be that way; it will certainly be better in that regard than old Pathfinder, but that isn't really saying too much), but I am hopeful.

I share those fears, honestly, but I'm with PossibleCabbage in that it seems fairly simple to ease that burden. Granting more feats has been easy enough for me, and hasn't led to any real problems -- it primarily just gives characters more options rather than allowing any kind of stacking that breaks something. It seems much like the problem I had with PF1, where an early house rule I developed was giving certain staple feats (weapon focus, spell focus, power attack, etc.) for free, allowing players to use their feats to fine tune their concept. So far, it's been similar with the playtest rules, except there are fewer math boosters and more just general options.

I also think the "it takes too long for concepts to come online" complaint is a bit overblown, at least in comparison to original Pathfinder. A great deal of the front-loaded features were just math spikes that didn't lend a great deal toward enabling concepts. And then there are most archetypes and all prestige classes that exist to enable concepts, but take several levels before getting into full swing.

And one of the designers (Mark, I believe) has said that there will be official rules guidelines for something like handing out extra feats, which helps alleviate my concerns.

Things that I loved:
The massive upgrade that it was over D&D 3.5.
The huge emphasis on customizability that has spoiled me on tabletop rulesets.
The art. Pathfinder was the first tabletop game that I could open a book for and sometimes the first thing I did was scan the book and look at the art.
Archetypes. A massive improvement over prestige classes in almost every way.

Things that I wanted:
Nothing, if I'm being honest. Pathfinder sated my needs for a tabletop RPG in just about every way. Actually, for the last few years of its run, I've found myself mostly not wanting, and wishing that rules content and features would slow down.

Things that I hated:
ALL of the finicky bits inherent to the 3.x system. The fractional math; the bolted-on nature of many of the systems that often conflicted with each other; the enormous gulf between character capability, particularly with skills and saves; 6th-level casters; the massive house rules document I have to make the system any more than the most basically functional, etc.
The silly amount of feats, spells, and classes. There was just too much. Picking feats and spells was an actual chore for the second half of PF's run. It turned one of my favorite parts of the system (character creation and progression) into something that I had to work through to get the enjoyment out of it.

Things that I will miss:
Hm, what would be the best word to use here? Nostalgia? Despite the grotesque horror-monster that 3.x has become in these 20-ish years of support and evolution, it is honestly saddening to move on from the only tabletop rules system that has ever truly engrossed me, or that I was ever truly satisfied with. Certainly the only system I ever enjoyed GMing for.

It is very bittersweet; I will truly miss 3.x and Pathfinder, but I am glad to move on. I am excited for and encouraged by PF2's direction, and hope it will become the second tabletop system that fully satisfies me. Perhaps, after an ample break from the terror it has become, I will return to it with a refreshed state of mind and find the passion I once had for it again. If PF2 fails to satisfy me, I'm certain I will.

K-K-Kender? Why in all that's holy would you invoke such a name?

*flips table on its side, taking cover behind it as character sheets and notes flutter to the ground in the chaos*

I'll take a goblin pyro over those every day of the week.

*beings preemptively drafting manifesto outlining goblin bans at the table*

No mental ability score is low enough to justify acting like a kender. I'd rather argue over alignment for an hour.

Personally, I suspect (emphasis suspect) that blowing up your main attribute for your class will matter more when you're playing with serious optimizers. The 14 v 18 is going to matter more when comparing it with the rest of your party than it will when comparing with monsters and npcs.

So, at least in part, the "mandatory 1st-level 18" will be self-fulfilling by the community.

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.

Finally, in 1E you could take a trait to make CHA the basis of specific Will saves (charms, compulsions, etc), so perhaps breaking Will Saves into I dunno, emotional and non-emotional saves could be a thing.

I was going to bring this possibility up. That trait inspired its adoption as a house rule for me, because not only did it make sense, but it helped Charisma without eroding Wisdom too much.

I also am not satisfied with the straight swapping of WIS for CHA on Will saves. I think it's a fine way to help CHA, but I dislike the erosion of other stats for the sake of it. I used it for a time and found that it made the divide between Will and the other saves too wide. Low-level, Will saves became too easy in comparison; high-level, Will became the only save strong enough to keep up with the broken math, creating a massive floor disparity in efficacy between it and the other saves.
Theoretically, I like this solution more for PF2 because the math aims to be standardized at every level.

Anyway, I like adding CHA on saves against charm and emotion, and that works better for my own games since I already took measures to disarm the massive importance Perception has on the game.

I also toyed with the idea of making some flat checks into CHA checks, because I dislike flat checks in general (with notable exceptions), but I share the misgivings of Loreguard and others that suspect it will be too much of a bonus.

I've also tried making CHA influence the amount of magic items you can invest, as I've always been a fan of the idea that CHA is somehow tied to magic item usage, but have not been satisfied with it so far. Perhaps there's a happy medium I can find, but thus far it has eluded me -- it simply doesn't make enough of a difference.

Ah, I see. I misunderstood the rule and thought you could gain another boost to an attribute sans the flaw at the ancestry step. I think the misunderstanding was based around the word "fixed".

My apologies for the slip-up.

In that case, it doesn't seem like it would make a major difference from a min/max perspective. Even with the tighter math, "stat dumping" would be fairly difficult, in theory.

Besides, those interested in min/maxing will find ways to do it, unless item bonuses and ability boosts are removed/more restrictive. I don't know if it'll be as much of a problem in PF2 as it was in Pathfinder.

It's also something you would only do at 1st level, since there are lots of free stat boosts at you level up. Adding in the fact that you can go from 16 to 18, but only 18 to 19, it really only benefits you at low level.

This is a good point that I hadn't fully considered. The diminishing return at higher than 18 will do a good deal to curb high-level min/maxing.

But the more I consider it, the more concerned I'm becoming with characters starting with two 8's and two 18's. A +/- 5 swing means quite a lot in this edition. How much of an effect will that actually have on low-level play?

Anime is a medium, not a genre.

What people usually are referencing when they say something is "anime" in a game context is a particular subgenre of shounen anime/manga. Yes, it's often used as shorthand......

Thank you, I couldn't think of the word at the time (dysnomia can be a pain : \ ).

If the powers are regularly rechargeable and generally assumed to be available, is it really novaing?

A well optimized full attacking fighter can drop most enemies in a round or two, but nobody would really call that "going nova" either.

Whether or not it's considered nova, isn't the principal that it would result in the same sort of turn loop that often makes encounters feel stale? Not saying I necessarily agree that that would be the case, but I think that's the issue at the heart of nova-ing.

That full-attack loop was one of the main criticisms of Pathfinder I've seen.

Bit too metagame for me, I'm afraid.

Besides, this is 'every +1 matters' edition so, clearly, every -1 does too. Saddling the rest of the party with someone who's going to penalizing them with 2 (or even 3!) sets of rolls at -1 is pretty poor form. Why are they bringing this one along into life or death struggles?

So they can knock things over, drink poison and say exactly the wrong thing to the king? I've seen people excuse poor or 'funny' decisions with 'roleplaying' their stats too often to have much tolerance for it. Like CN, its too often used as the D&D excuse for FishMalking- some player at the table wants to be a problem (and possibly ALSO min/max), and I 'm just disappointed to see this particular excuse codified again.

IMO, it would be best for the game if +0 was the lowest ability modifier to a roll. It's similar to why I think the game would be better if they did away with ability scores. I understand why they didn't do that and I'm not complaining -- it's not like it's some sort of deal-breaker; it would simply have made a cleaner game.

But as far as min/maxing is concerned, I don't think this rule is going to have too huge an effect on it. It's still impossible to get more than 18 and less than 8.

Isn't it also true that the Fighter will have more class feats and more variation of them? I thought I remembered hearing that somewhere...

If I'm indeed recalling that correctly, it makes them the most mathematically powerful and arguably the most varied and customizable martial class.

As for the rest... I'm not really on board with using anime to describe 'over the top'. Anime covers slice of life and dramas like Heidi, Girl of the Alps or Kare Kano were NO supernatural or over the top elements happen. We don't do the same with american blockbusters like john wick, the matrix or avatar do we?

This is an important distinction to make. Many people (its detractors, more often) reduce anime to its most extreme, and paint over the nuances. Anime is as variable as any other genre, and it's dishonest to act as if the over-the-top examples are entirely representative of anime.

This coming form someone who doesn't really enjoy very much anime.

Lunatic Barghest wrote:

It certainly sounds great in theory. Whether or not it will prove so in practice remains to be seen, I suppose. There's the possibility it could lead to some janky start-stop loops that feel shattered and inorganic.

I lean towards the former being the case, but it's tough to be sure until it's been thoroughly worn out by the public and its vast difference in styles and methods at each gaming table.

In 4e encounter powers removed all choice from the game. You always opened with your most powerful encounter power, then worked your way down until you just had at-will powers left. I'm not surprised to see encounter powers being praised given the tone of the playtest, but I'll need to see it in action in its final form before I sing its praises.

I definitely see the point. I myself was rather wary at the beginning of the Playtest due to its parallels with 4e. The trickle of details we've received about the final product has eroded this wariness for me to a degree. It's looking more and more that PF2 can find a good balance that 4e lacked, but, of course, we won't know for sure until its release.

Every GM makes mistakes. Even in D&D 5e, where half of the rules in the handbook are "the DM makes it up", mistakes are going to be made. It's simply too much to expect a single person, no matter what level of system and rules mastery they possess, to adjudicate every detail perfectly.

I'm sure that a couple years from now, after PF2 has been cemented more firmly and there are fewer versions of rulesets floating around in his head, Jason will still mess it up from time to time.

Until we reach the level of technology which allows us all to perfectly recall details in an instant. Should we reach that day, D&D and Pathfinder will make for somewhat different experiences. :0)

For crunch, there's room to have a spontaneous occult caster besides the sorcerer and have it feel distinct. No reason the Oracle can't exist as a class that gets 8 hit points per class level and 3 slots per spell level, plus weapons and armor proficiency and some unique features. You could make their revelations like 5e warlock invocations that a small number of spells as at will abilities.

That feels preeeeetty explicit to me. That's basically what sets bard apart from the sorcerer: HP, spells per day, starting proficiencies, and compositions.

This is the reason it's particularly easy to see Oracle as a class being distinct from divine Sorcerers. Bard has already set a standard that is clear and simple:

An Oracle could follow this formula, with curses filling in for compositions, and it would probably have more overlap mechanically with Bard than a Divine Sorcerer. And that's with the bare minimum of design work.

Curse is a concept with a ton of versatility. There are many ways to take that concept and make it interesting in play.

For the most part i don’t think that many people have an issue with Magus as an Archetype. More specifically i believe what Cabbage is talking about is some peoples odd hesitancy with allowing new classes that can be partially covered with the classes that we currently know of. So far this thread alone has had some people try to push Oracle into a Sorc Archetype simply cause of a few similarities. This has been vocalized in a number of threads that ‘there’s no need for X or Y cause we already have Z.’ The problem with this idea is that it should be used as a critique on a fleshed out idea rather than at a suggestion or discussion topic as has been happening.

I'm not sure I would call it odd. It is important for classes to have an identity without treading over too much covered ground. It's just that people have different ideas of where the exact point of retreading is. It's worthy of discussion, is it not?

Generally, the hybrid classes are the weakest links, in a sense of making them classes in PF2. In PF1, they make perfect sense, and fill some interesting themes. However, the main reason they exist is because it was very difficult to effectively make a combination of two or more classes into a mechanically viable character. Even with a dozen or more archetypes per class and the option of multiclassing, the system just didn't support those kind of hybrid concepts intuitively.

In PF2, with how much more open and flexible archetypes, multiclassing, and even just classes in general are, the old hybrid classes are much more viable to build simply with those existing options.

IMO, a class needs only be a class if it can justify itself both mechanically AND thematically. For example, "Sherlock Holmes" is an iconic character with a very specific and rich theme. Investigator was an exceptional way to facilitate such a concept effectively by simply combining Alchemist and Rogue with slight tweaks to the features of each. It is a great class in PF1 due to this, but moving it to PF2 makes it somewhat vestigial. It is great thematically, but does not differentiate itself from its parent classes enough mechanically to warrant consideration with the increased flexibility of PF2.

That's not to say Investigator should not be a class in PF2 -- it simply needs significant retooling. If there is a way to make it mechanically distinct from other classes, it can fill an iconic theme with power and ease.

The same goes for all the PF1 classes. A PF1 class does not necessarily warrant being its own class again in PF2 simply because it was a class before. If it does not offer something very distinct both mechanically and thematically, it can result in bloat the same way feats did in 3.X by offering an abundance of options that are entirely vestigial.

One of the biggest strengths of PF2 appears to be the way its modularity will make customizing much easier, theoretically making the need for an ever-expanding suite of classes less necessary.

It certainly sounds great in theory. Whether or not it will prove so in practice remains to be seen, I suppose. There's the possibility it could lead to some janky start-stop loops that feel shattered and inorganic.

I lean towards the former being the case, but it's tough to be sure until it's been thoroughly worn out by the public and its vast difference in styles and methods at each gaming table.

If you disagree about the absurd degree of thematic and mechanical overlap here, how would you differentiate Oracles from Divine Sorcerers and Clerics? What would you do to make it obvious that they're completely distinct classes that don't step on each others toes in any meaningful way?

I agree that, in Pathfinder 1, Oracles aren't much more than Sorcerers with the divine spell list and slightly different mechanics (Mysteries being essentially Bloodlines, Revelations being slightly more customizable Bloodline Powers, Curses being much like Bloodline Arcana, etc.). The flavor is much different, but the mechanics match up fairly closely.

However, I think both mechanically and thematically that the most interesting aspect of the Oracle is the interplay between Curses and Revelations. There is so much room to work with with them to make Oracles feel incredibly different than both Clerics and Sorcerers.

I'm not actually that concerned over Divine Sorceror / Oracle overlap, although I get why it might immediately appear to be a concern. People fixate on [Magic Type] [Casting Type], but IMHO spell slots are less important part of things over all anyways. Curse has plenty of scope for huge impact (more than 1E) which I expect to include totally different dynamic re: Focus (Burn might be analog for escalating Curse, mixed with compulsory Anathema).

I think this points out the crux of it. There's much that can be done mechanically with Curses alone to allow for a great deal of flexibility, while still enabling character concepts that would be much harder to achieve via a divine Sorcerer.

I think it would be interesting to do away with Mysteries entirely and channeling all of the Oracle's features through their curse. Whether through expanding via focus spells, or allowing players to select stronger spells from different spell lists as their curse grows more debilitating, or something similar to the Kineticist's Burn.

I think Oracles being a subset of Sorcerer would be as needlessly limiting as Bards being a subset of Sorcerer.

In a perfect world, Crimson Throne would be updated to PF rules and cleaned up and revised from top to bottom. As many have pointed out, it's a solid AP teeming with atmosphere and truly memorable moments and characters, but it is at times very disjointed.

I'm currently running a game that is a combination of CotCT and my own adventure design. The AP is a gold mine as far as good concepts and frameworks. Combining it with original content and trimming out the obvious weak points (such as the chapter 4 railroad) has worked pretty well for me so far.

Also, am I the only one who immediately came to the conclusion that Warpriest is a perfect fit for Laori?

Finally got my RotRL game started after one of the players came back from a long Christmas vacation. Here's the group I'm running it for:

Gliviel - Player declined sharing a last name. A LG female elf Greatsword Weapon Master Fighter. Born in Crying Leaf, but shortly into young adulthood she grew weary of her elven kin's more stereotypical traits and left to find a place in the world that wasn't mired in elven tradition. She took on with one of the caravans in Varisia and learned to use greatswords. Eventually, the caravan mostly disbanded and she found herself in Sandpoint, where she became a part of the town guard for a while. After the Chopper's murdering spree and the death of her friend Casp Avertin, she quit the watch in order to find more productive ways to grow as a warrior.

Norrel - A CG male catfolk Carnivalist Rogue. He was abandoned as a baby via mysterious circumstances and found by a traveling troupe. He grew up in the circus and was raised by one of the halfling families. He has no knowledge of his family and thus, no real knowledge of his catfolk heritage. He felt the call for adventure as soon as he came of age and his parents let him go on one condition - the he take and pass out fliers for the circus so that his home was never too far from reach.

Paeryn Briskaldar - NG female dwarf Cleric of Pharasma. Trained as a midwife in Janderhoff. Became demoralized after the death of her husband and left. She has found herself falling out of touch with her goddess and is looking to reaffirm her faith. She wandered until she saw a whippoorwill seem to direct her toward a specific person. She took this as a sign to protect that person, and she travels with them until another whippoorwill appears and links her to a new person. The last whippoorwill led her to the side of Gliviel, the elf resident of Sandpoint.

Wisp - Using a taken name. A CN female gnome feyblooded Tattooed Sorcerer. Grew up in Urglin under the watch of foster parents. Her brother died in a goblin attack and her father scolded her for not being his "real" daughter. These events sort of drained her willpower and she spent the next several years in a self-destructive spiral. She began feeling the beginning effects of the Bleaching, but happened upon a Sorcerer who managed to bring out her natural talent. They traveled together for a while and the man renewed her vigor for life. She decided to try to learn about who her real parents were and what her past really was. With a new purpose, she finds herself in Sandpoint, directed to one of the local residents there, hoping they have the first real stepping stone to answering her questions.

Good for you if you actually read all that. Figured if I was going to share, I may as well try to give all the information I can.

First off, I make a couple of class edits:
I give Sorcerers 4 + Int for skills because I don't think they should lag behind Wizards in skills.
Paladin alignment corresponds more closely to their deity.
Monks get full BAB.

I give bonus traits for players who make great backstories. Usually one that awards an extra class skill and +1 bonus. Though I really like Kelazan's occupation idea. I might start using that.

I give bonus feats at certain levels:
Level 1 - Choice of Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus or Point Blank Shot.
Level 3 - Choice of Power Attack, Dodge or Spell Focus.
Level 5 - Choice of Toughness, Skill Focus or one of the +2 to two skills feats.
Level 7 - Choice of Iron Will, Great Fortitude or Lightning Reflexes.
Level 10 - Greater version of whatever feat they took at level 7.

This frees up players to make more flavorful feats. It also frees me to make encounters basically as challenging as I want and know they can handle it.

I also use a system to reward players for creative use of skills. I give them points when they use a skill awesomely or roleplaying something out well. Once they have enough points, I give them little bonuses. It usually starts with a +1 bonus for that skill but if they accumulate a lot of points I'll give them something like a free reroll with that skill once per day or a free hero point apart from their regular pool that they can use specifically with that skill.

I actually had pretty much that exact idea with the pit fiend, but I never considered trying to extend it to some of the major NPCs. I'm not sure how to go about that without coming off a bit ham-fisted.

I definitely like the idea of dropping some sin-themed treasure somewhere. It wouldn't be hard to explain its existence and I could easily tailor the items to the PCs.

Thanks for the ideas. Any others would be welcome. :0)