Erastil

Makarion's page

565 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 565 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For #1, I would suggest installing Baldur's Gate again and inviting Boo into your party. He comes with an endearingly stupid ranger, although we know, of course, who really is in charge.


Ranger or Slayer taking the Weapon & Shield style is very viable. Improved Shield Bash at level 2, Shield Master at 6, both skipping prerequisites. Medium armour and shield is solid enough, and shield bash, combined with bull rush if you want, is totally viable close quarters battlefield control. Add in Enlarge Person for reach, if you are so inclined, from UMD / a wand or from a party member, and it's not bad at all. You might even be able to swing Combat Patrol, although it gets feat intensive at that point.

Obviously, aim for a mithril breastplate and darkwood or mithril shields, to get that ACP down.

Alternatively, a Lore Warden fighter with a polearm and combat reflexes can be a solid frontliner, too. Add trip to taste and go to town.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjoint wrote:
Calistria. Most of them are problably of a NPC class (adepts, commoners, experts, possibly aristocrats for the more luxurious ones). From the PC classes, the most fitting are cleric, bard and rogue. There is also a prestige class Enchanting Courtesan.

Worth pointing out that, according to the lore, it's specifically the Chaotic Good branch of the church of Calistria that supports the temple prostitutes (or is supported by them, of course).


gwynfrid wrote:
I really don't like rolling something like 1d8+40 for damage in PF1, it makes the roll pointless. So, I guess I'm in favor of rolling more dice as a better alternative. I can see how it may become tedious, though. In that case, I'd just roll over some app, or roll20.

That's interesting. To me, the fact that the roll is pointless (which I agree on, by and large), is an *advantage*. The narrative of the action should lean more heavily on the understanding between player and storyteller, rather than the luck of the dice. As a result, I love having options on how to affect a tactical / social situation, but also reliability in *how* to affect them, once I make a decision. Which, in turn, makes the current chances of succeeding at skills, landing attacks or pierce saving throws in PF2 fairly disappointing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

So... Survey question; Attack of Opportunity, question 8, Option 1:

Quote:
I would like it better if tank-type characters got Attack of Opportunity automatically (such as paladins and barbarians)

Barbarians are tank like? Are you kidding?

Bad enough that this concept (tank) is in your design thinking at all, but that a class so squishy, with limited armor and even AC penalties is at all tank-like is patently absurd.

And no, the 9th level DR doesn't matter. It isn't even a blip compared to enemy damage numbers at that level (let alone higher).

Haven't you heard? There's only three allowed party roles: bruiser, mage and healer. Anything else is dangerously subversive and not enough akin to the computer games our target audience supposedly love over actual roleplay.

Love it or loathe it, but PF2 has set out it's stall to see whether they can do D&D 4th edition better than WotC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
True - but I confess that I am much less concerned about what's easy for game developers and rather more interested in a game that's actually fun to play and lets me build the character concepts I want.

I'm with you. By and large, that's why I prefer systems that are class- and level-less. Balance becomes a discussion between player and storyteller, so it's mostly unsuitable for the typical players attracted to D&D style adventures, especially in organised play, but it's far more engaging for people who want to represent the mental image they have of their characters, especially (in most level-less systems) with regard to non-combat focused PCs.

Since Paizo's traditional customer base seem to appreciate character build flexibility, PF has always had an open door policy towards muticlassing, so this particular itch could be scratched. Since PF2 is, in many ways, going back to basics by necessity, it will feel rigid for a good long while: players have become used to "flexibility creep" from all the splat books that PF1 has published, and those won't be here for a while. But for PF2 to be a success, it needs to force us to wait for the new splat to arrive, so for the time being, we'll do with a more rigid, less flexible system. C'est la vie.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
My gosh. That rules survey took forever. Great questions though.

Not sure I agree. Many of the questions came down to asking me whether I preferred cats to be green or purple, frankly. That is, when they weren't leading, of course. I'm not sure who composed the survey, but they need remedial training.


MaxAstro wrote:

This comes mostly from having run a lot of Exalted, but I've always used "Circle" for spells. As in, fireball is a third-circle spell; wish is a ninth-circle spell.

Sounds nicely mystical.

Now I need to dig up my Earthdawn books.


Requielle wrote:
Makarion wrote:

How about this one for a radical idea? Have using consumables cost xp! Not to craft them, mind you, but to consume. I bet that solves the problem right away, especially if you scale the cost with character level.

Granted, that may unduly punish frontliners, so perhaps some finagling needs to take place, but moving the cost away from gold, I feel, is the crux here..

Why do we have a zillion different ideas for punishing players and their characters for using the items the GM makes available? Why are the players bad if they intelligently optimize their resources?

I GM'd through the making-items-costs-xp days of D&D3.X, and that was one of the first rules we houseruled away, because of the incredibly detrimental effect it had on player morale and party harmony. I can only imagine that charging xp to use magic items would be significantly worse in terms of fueling inter-party resentment and meta-gaming.

There are a bunch of folks posting detailed breakdowns of the badly balanced incentives. But no, let's keep suggesting ever more inventive ways to slap players' hands when they reach for the cookie jar that we parked directly on top of their character sheets.

The problem is never the items that the GM provides, but the fact that many, and likely most, players expect a magic mart around the corner. If wands of CLW and potions aren't in easy supply, and especially if you take away magic item crafting as a practical player option, it really is no issue at all.

Granted, this necessitates the group to have a dedicated support player, but I don't see that personally as a problem. The fact that only the cleric currently suffices in that role, however, is a bit awkward, especially since there seems to be a relatively common dislike among the younger gaming generation to play religious characters.


Bluenose wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
the end result being that if someone at the table wants to play merlin by the endgame, he should totally be able to--and the guy next to him should be just as able to play beowulf, or cu'chulainn, or diarmuid, or siegfried, or fergus mac roich, or finn mac cumhaill (i'm not even touching japanese/greek/roman or even other european history and mythology, which gets even crazier!), as he likes around the same level.
Well, part of the problem here is that Merlin falls well short in terms of the spells he casts of what a high-level PF caster manages (Polymorph Other, Flesh to Stone, some illusions that aren't higher than 3rd level, and possibly Teleport are the top end of his repertoire except for one particular feat). If he's a model for the caster, he's either a mid-level one or the nerf to magic is quite extreme. And if the top end martials are supposed to be equal to Merlin, and the top end casters exceed his power by as much as they currently do, then you've not really solved anything.

Actually, I'd be all in favour of a setting where only the most legendary of spellcasters can cast a 5th level spell, and where martials are on par with that. Maybe want to eliminate levels as such a hard power-up experience a bit, or create half-levels somehow, but as a general power gage, I'd be cool with it.

Granted, that is not what most PF and D&D players are likely to enjoy, but I bet I'm not alone in longing for some good old Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, and similar, fantasy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tim Schneider 908 wrote:
Leedwashere wrote:

You don't have to make it relevant across all player levels. You only have to make it relevant for its own (item) level, as a function of the others.

In the other thread I posted what those numbers would have to be to make that happen. It's not a hard calculation. It can be tweaked to be more or less generous (I decided to go with nice, round numbers past level 1), but as soon as the higher-level items become worse than the lower-level items in value, your incentive to buy them becomes an incentive not to buy them. (You don't want to die, so you still have an incentive you use them if you find them, but you're literally throwing your money away if you buy it.)

Except that when you lower the price of the higher level items to the price of the lower level items you haven't stopped the problem you've just packaged it in a higher level purchase.

The problem not be addressed is that if healing is going to remain remotely expensive (e.g. Making healing between fights a decision & not just a "Obviously we use all the consumables") you need to be able to set a price on healing which is actually relevant to the players. Health and gold scale at very different rates. Any price you can put on healing for a level 1 character will either be pocket-change to a level 10 character or completely unaffordable for the level 1 unless there's some other cost outside gold. Lowering the price of high level consumables to the same cost per HP or even lower just makes the price of healing even more inconsequential at high levels.

The idea of using resonance as a buff on the heal really doesn't seem to work to me, as if we maintain the current rough economic pricing the second highest potion (lvl 12) charges 4.8g per HP on average. Which is to say the designers while writing felt that was a fair price to keep healing a relevant expense at that level. To lower that to the non-resonance d4 option it has to be lowered to 1.2g per HP which is 1/4 the price... or 1/8th...

How about this one for a radical idea? Have using consumables cost xp! Not to craft them, mind you, but to consume. I bet that solves the problem right away, especially if you scale the cost with character level.

Granted, that may unduly punish frontliners, so perhaps some finagling needs to take place, but moving the cost away from gold, I feel, is the crux here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thflame wrote:
I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)
I'm of the opinion that any ancestry which can literally only be a single alignment is inappropriate. Like Pathfinder canonically has more non-CE Succubi than non-CE Drow.

even if we assume that, a few things stand out

1) some people don't play in Golarion. It is easy to change drows background in your home world, but it is harder to build a race mechanically if you are not a game designer. Certainly I easier to pick up Paizo 's vision
.

2) being always evil is not a problem for evil campaigns. Which some people play.

Drow is an inmensily popular race, because of certain guy with 2 scimitar. It is wise to give people popular things

I mean it is.

BUT aren't you losing something when copying the guy with 2 scimitars that's a horrible outcast of his race that's fighting the good fight to help put things to right when and where he can going against the sins of his people....

And then said race is just as good to evil as humans?

I suppose you can swap race to "OH My Town/city/house/family is SO evil so I fight against that temptation!" but I feel the 2 scimitar man wouldn't have been so popular. Who knows.

To a lesser degree, you had the same thing happening with Minotaurs in the *Dragonlance* setting. Makes me wonder whether that is why that option was available under the future ancestries query.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
The class survey resets to the first page after a few classes. You can go through the class pages again and your options have been noted, but when you get to the last page you already filled out, all your stuff is gone and it is a dice roll if the second time around it will take or you will get booted back again to the first page. I suffered through this from the Monk to the Ranger, but now I'm getting tired of going through dozens of pages only to get thrown back to the first one. Could this please get fixed ASAP?

That is very odd. We will look into the survey logic to see if there is a problem floating in there... otherwise we will have to kick this up to surveymonkey to fix. Can you tell us specifically where this happened and what occurred?

I had the same thing happen, as soon as I completed Paladin. Waiting did nothing, so after several minutes I gambled and hit refresh on my browser (Chrome), which progressed me with all data preserved to Ranger.


WatersLethe wrote:

Went through some of the class surveys and I'm a bit disappointed. There were no options to say things like "All of the feats on this tier are boring"

There also wasn't an opportunity to comment on the Paladin's new role as a babysitter.

Personally, I love playing Guardian types, but it would have been so nice, had they actually been equipped with competent tools for the job. The Retributive Strike is *not* the answer (and if it is, I wonder what the question actually was). PF1 mercies were closer to doing an appropriate job than the PF2 ones, as well. I *do* enjoy the spell point approach, which feels flexible and encouraging in emphasizing choice in the class builds.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanmei wrote:

So... you spend a chunk of GP to heal small amounts of health if you can succeed at what is likely to be a fairly stiff DC on everyone's behalf?

I mean, it's gorgeously thematic, but the way 2E is being set up, you might as well just stop and rest for the day.

Why would the storyteller allow you to? It's not like it's remotely realistic to quit an endeavour after you've not even reached lunch. I'm not sure about you, but the people I play with would refuse such a ploy as being an immersion-killer, and so would GMs, much of the time.

If the rules seemingly force you towards wholly unrealistic behaviour, the rules need to change, or creative solutions need to be brought to bear, assuming that the storyteller was using appropriate challenges, of course.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

The OP's post is irrelevant, frankly. It has nothing at all to do with the playtest (which they havenot participated in, by their own words!), but it's a genre discussion, and one with faulty premises at that. I suggest you take it to another forum, where it may have more merit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
We definitely want feedback on whether people think there's not enough setting info, or too much, or just enough. Setting aside a chapter (like we did in the Starfinder Core Rulebook) is possible, but adding a LOT more would be difficult, as we can't let this become a 600-page book.

Personally, I *love* detailed cultural info for my characters - but much of that can wait until there's books for the appropriate regions, ethnicities and/or political entities. In the meantime, it would be good to have 4 lines or so for each ethnicity - and please add ethnicities for non-human races, too, where they are widely-enough represented in the world. For instance, the Snow Elves are not common enough to warrant a section, but at least mentioning Kyonin and the Five Kings Mountains would be good.

Having said that, I would personally remove the Tian from the core book entirely. Reducing a third of the world to a oneliner about generic fantasy Asians is a massive disservice, and also opens the door uncomfortably for (accidental) racism. For the Vudrani, a mention that a kaleidoscope of subcultures exists elsewhere in the world will suffice, I suspect, since they *do* form a presence in the Inner Sea region to a much greater extend than the Tian.


Knight Magenta wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Crayon wrote:

Based upon the contents of the pdfs and certain comments by Bulhman and company, I believe the primary goal seems to be making a system that's easy to publish canned adventured for.

This isn't a bad target to be sure and may prove a lucrative model for Paizo, but isn't really what I'm looking for as a player or GM...

This is a worry I have. It looks great to publish stuff for or at least okay. It also seems pretty easy to maybe run PFS games in.

At home? ....eeeeeeeeehhhhhhh....*Waves hand a bit*.

I actually think this is a good selling point.

"Pathfinder 2 is kinda meh, isn't it?"
"Ya, but its good enough and there is tons of content for it!"

That seems like a reasonable outcome. I mean, every game system has snarls.

The problem is that they truly need to drastically out-content D&D 5th edition, which has a huge headstart, both for fanbase and content. I don't see a way for the PF1 content to be compatible with PF2 (at least not more than PF1 is with, say, 5th edition), so they'd start on the backfoot for sure.


Travis Enright wrote:

A party of four sorcerers, two divine, two arcane is pretty powerful right now. Aside from being able to cover both arcane and divine casting, with 2nd level Fighter Dedication, 4th level Magical Striker and 8th level Fighter's Resiliency they can pretty much cover the important bases of an adventure party, with two divine sorcerers and two arcane sorcerers.

With the Divine Sorcerers wielding a shortbow, having a free hand except when attacking, they can cast two-action heal (heightened to any spell level needed) to heal an ally at range, and empower their single bow strike. If there's no one to heal, they can throw down banes and blesses, deepening crit ranges and padding ACs with -1 attack penalties. There's very little need for any other divine spells, since this is effectively a martial build that can heal, so they have, in effect, 4 heals at each spell level, per day, times two sorcerers of this build.

With the Arcane Sorcerers wielding a d12 weapon, casting True Strike (which is Verbal only, single action) then attacking with advantage. Either they have a high crit chance on one attack, or they're rolling an average between 13 and 14 on 2d20High, with an extra +1 bonus, practically overtaking the -5 Multi-attack penalty. In addition to True Strike, at second level spells they get Mirror Image, third level Haste and fourth level Weapon Storm.

That really only works if you like 5 minute working days. Good luck maintaining anything like that on your 5th encounter of the day - where the true warrior keeps on trucking. Well, once you add enough clerics, otherwise everyone's long dead by then, of course, but that's a whole different discussion.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Frozen Yakman wrote:
By modern standards, AD&D is poorly designed.
Yeah, but AD&D has character...character goes a long way...*said like Jules/Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction*

At least we get to make our character with cheese in the metric system, like they do in Paris!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zorae wrote:
Makarion wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I would like to see options for self-healing or recovery, something like the short rest mechanic would be great. Especially when Battle Medic takes such a high check to be effective, and only functions once a day.

Goodness, I hope this will never happen! As one of seemingly many healer fans (both in RPGs and MMOs), we do *not* want more self-healing, as it will convince people healers are pointless. Instead, can't we please get more pro-active abilities? Temp hits points (and significant amounts per action, please - at least as much as current heals of the same level), reaction-based AC or DR buffs, more support for Shield Other type playstyles, and so forth. Please?

Some different offensive-support tactics would be good, too. Maybe some ranged debuffs that target TAC, rather than saving throws?

I fully support self-healing/recovery if it's non-combat. It's not really fun to be blowing your limited resources out of combat. If they introduce such a thing, healers will still be super necessary for fighting the bbeg, or for any fight where people are rolling poorly/the GM is rolling well. And if they do actually gave them some reasonable buffs, then they definitely won't want to be forced to decide between using their resources on those (fun) vs saving them to use out of combat (not really fun but necessary when there are no alternatives).

Thing is, for many of us, those things *are* fun! As a dedicated healer, it feels awesome to know you carried the day. In fact, I wish more fights were attritional, rather than rocket tag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:
Here is a thought to reduce the impact of four degrees of success. What if we remove the bonus damage on crits and replace it with the critical specialization effects. That way we could have a wider range of bonuses without breaking the damage math.
Or drop critical hits/fumbles, completely. From RPG history, not the most solid of bedrock to build a game on.
Actually, I feel like the current system really discourages fumble house rules for attack rolls

Right on, but not talking about fumble houserules and how PF2 encourages them or not.

The best critical/fumble rules-tables are in Arduin Grimoire: "Buttocks torn off. Fall. Shock".

I miss the days of Arduin and Rolemaster Classic. Sure, rules were generally needlessly complicated, but at least you knew to laugh about stuff, and keep trucking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I would like to see options for self-healing or recovery, something like the short rest mechanic would be great. Especially when Battle Medic takes such a high check to be effective, and only functions once a day.

Goodness, I hope this will never happen! As one of seemingly many healer fans (both in RPGs and MMOs), we do *not* want more self-healing, as it will convince people healers are pointless. Instead, can't we please get more pro-active abilities? Temp hits points (and significant amounts per action, please - at least as much as current heals of the same level), reaction-based AC or DR buffs, more support for Shield Other type playstyles, and so forth. Please?

Some different offensive-support tactics would be good, too. Maybe some ranged debuffs that target TAC, rather than saving throws?


Davor wrote:
Frozen Yakman wrote:

This thread highlights one of the problems I have with the system too. It's a game where you only get to play the characters the designers want you to play rather than the characters you want to play. That's why all the feats went from well-designed general purpose abilities to highly restrictive no-creativity-allowed abilities that you only get by taking the class. The lack of a good multiclass system only exacerbates this.

The alchemist (for example) would be infinitely better if you took the PF1 alchemist, turned all the Discoveries into proper PF1-style feats. Give all the feats the Discovery keyword (and any other applicable keyword such as Combat, maybe add Mutagen and Bomb as appropriate to open up design space) and change the discovery class feature to granting bonus Discovery feats. Fix multiclass spellcasting while your
at it and you've got an Alchemist mark 2 that is really awesome.

Similar things could be done with Rogue Powers, rather than having Ninja Tricks and Slayer Talents (and the similar abilities for Investigators and Vigilantes). Turn them all into feats and just give the classes bonus feats that have the right keyword. Rogues would get bonus Trick feats. If you really don't want too much class sharing, then use a variety of keywords. Make some of the Ninja Tricks into Trick feats but others into Ki feats and give the Ninja bonus Trick or Ki feats while the Rogue only gets Trick feats. The important things is the feats are general purpose and anybody can take them if they meet the prerequisites.

I think there is such a thing as having too much freedom, particularly when it comes to games. Having some elements of tight or cohesive design is beneficial, particularly involving things like decision paralysis. I just think that there is a balance between a totally open system and an extremely rigid system.

Not only that, but the degree of freedom that is enjoyable differs from player to player, and from group to group. Having an open and honest conversation, *before* the campaign starts, about mutual expectations is critical. This, then, will form a compact that everyone involved is more or less bound by. If the agreement is a gritty game of level 10, max, urban explorers, there's not going to be complaints about the lack of holy avengers or vorpal attack elephants without a smack with a newspaper to the snout, one would think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Our group filled out surveys, and found the experience .... ok. There was danger, but it wasn't excessive, and we didn't run out of resources (although it was very close). This was due to two circumstances:

1. Our barbarian rolled a natural 20 *three* times. She probably did two-thirds of the damage in the party, as a result.

2. We focused heavily on conflict-avoidance, being close to paranoid in searching for traps, clues and other ways to avoid actually engaging enemies. We never fought quasits, centipedes, etc, if there was a way to avoid it. We also intimidated the group of goblins in their HQ by presenting them with the head of their boss that we had decapitated. They gave up - another potential TPK avoided.

The reason for this somewhat extreme approach is that we, as a group, felt incompetent to be heroic in the usual manner. We are committed to the playtest as a matter of grace to our GM and a promise we made, but there's zero chance we would stick with it, were this a chance encounter. It's just not fun enough.
So far, the playtest has been the most effective advertisement for D&D 5th we have seen in a long time, and we're not even habitual D&D / d20 players.

Note, please, that three of us have extensive PF1 experience, and two others a little. It didn't appeal more (or less) to the experienced PF players than to the others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:

FWIW, my group is going to test unoptimised PCs with "Raiders of Shrieking Pass". Mind you, it's very hard to make numerically bad PCs on purpose. Ancestries and Backgrounds always allow you to put one Ability Boost anywhere, presumably for your Main Ability. Even something like a Wizard with Fighter Multi-class is doable: with Pathfinder Hopeful background and Human or Elf ancestry, you can start with INT 18 and STR 16 and qualify at level 2.

But if you want to deliberately make your main ability lower, the one that governs how well your main class abilities work? Well, then you're worst, I guess.

16s are easy. Just play a Gnome Barbarian, Goblin Cleric, Dwarf Bard, or indeed anyone who wants several 14s in other stats.

14s in your main stat are where it starts getting unlikely for most PCs and should definitely fall behind.

Another reason for reduced main stats is when those main stats are non-saves and people are defensive, or when they plan on dual classing. For instance, my main character in the playtest is a frontline bard (dual classing fighter based on STR). That's two non-save stats to focus on. As a result, I started with a 14 in my main stat, a 16 in my other main stat, and prayed for the best. This would have applied to, essentially, all casters but Cleric and Druid.

We had a second character with a similar problem - a halfling druid. You might think that halfling, being a +wis race, is a good fit, but this was a shapeshifter, so needed STR, which was a penalised score.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Laik wrote:

This is extremely clunky and unintuitive, and the game actually expects players to describe this in natural language as opposed to going "Combining Investigating and Searching for 9 minutes, then only Searching for 9 minutes, then Investigating and Searching for 9 minutes, then only Searching for 9 minutes, and repeat."

True. The system is very game-breaking as it is, absolutely requiring metagame thinking. If designers do not change it, I just end up ignoring it completely and playing old-school, free-mode.

I suspect that, if designers do not change it, people ignore it by playing D&D 5th.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There's also an elephant in the room: spells auto-scale, but martials need to spend their class feats to scale, which gives more room to casters for conceptual development, rather than running to keep up with the tide.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yossarian wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:

Not everyone's story is the same.

I'm 43. I spent age 30 to 40 in lock-up for a non-violent offense. Pathfinder kept me sane in that awful place. I'm not on Facebook or Tinder or any of those.
When I left, I was young. When I got home, I was middle-aged.
I hear people on TV sometimes talking about being identifying as a non-specific binary gender-neutral unqueer pansexual. Or whatever. I don't know what any of it means. When I left home, there were men and women. I got home and everyone is whatever.
I appreciate the apology, Talonhawke.
I just need to stay out of discussions.

Thank you for sharing, and it's great that Pathfinder is this to you.

If you like sci-fi, I really recommend reading the book The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. It's exactly about the sensation you are describing you experienced when you got home. Wrapped in a great sci fi story.

Ursula LeGuin's "The Left Hand of Darkness" is also a good read, and thought-provoking. Note, please, that the author in her later life regretted she used several cop-out elements in the book, rather than truly addressing the gender-identity questions at the core of the narrative. It's still a ground-breaking moment in fiction literature.


magnuskn wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Ars Magica, Gurps, Rolemaster, Exalted, some modifications of Runequest, and a few other games extant at the time handle high fantasy and are more simulationist than any version of D&D. Turns out when they were suggested that people desiring simulationism didn't want that much simulation after all, just the exact amount present in D&D 3.x/PF.
You gotta find a mix which suits you best. :)

I'll admit, I adore Ars Magica, but even there, I find that not too many people enjoy my level of research and historical reference. Surprisingly, in a game that's labelled to be about magic, they want to sling magic at pretend problems, rather than deal with social consequences! Silly people :)


Visanideth wrote:


I can totally see how those people would feel betrayed. Rough awakening, also because there's fundamentally nobody now that is producing a game that adheres to the most strict definitions of simulationism. To be clear, I'm working on a yet unreleased RPG system and while the dev team agrees that simulationism is one of our core goals, I'm convinced in its current status our game wouldn't satisfy the definition of "simulation" a lot of people are asking for here. Weird situation, and I hope someone with more interest in strict simulation will raise to meet that demand eventually.

Funnily enough, I find that virtually any d20 game out there, including Pathfinder, is rather gamist. If I want simulationist, I want a system with fatigue rules, realistic encumbrance, *much* better outdoor survival rules, preferably a non-level/class structure, and most importantly, an engine that isn't adhering to some sort of "balanced on combat value" measure. GURPS would be better, for instance, or HERO, or any number of other offerings. Heck, even Rolemaster would trump d20. I would also prefer a randomizer with more of a bell-curve, which rather tosses RM out on its ear, of course.

Mind, I'm not sure that the above systems are more enjoyable, as they tend to not work nearly as well for adventuring in the "heroes versus pre-ordained evil" power fantasy style that a lot of gamers prefer. At the end of the day, a game is only as enjoyable as the company you keep while playing it, so some appeal to available audiences is critical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:

I see similar friction in just getting player desire to play the game.

So much this. It feels like the book was written by an accountant with a bad case of bleeching. I don't mind crunch (heck, I like Rolemaster, and that's rather notorious for it), but the way things are written is actively discouraging the reader to become invested. As it stands, you need to be willing to play the game in spire of the system - and that means that it will not appeal to new players. And the existing PF1 players will, too often, find that this is not the game they know and love, and likewise drift away - or stick with that they already own.

All in all, it seems not the way to go if you want to sell new product, especially with D&D 5th being very well received.

Note, please, that this post is purely speaking about presentation, with no opinions offered on the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Look at it this way: they likely compared it with Wildshape from the druid, which lasts minutes at best (unless you pay a level 10 feat). Given how iconic that is, as a class feature, they didn't want to be responsible for the ennui of an entire class by making familiars too fancy.

Mind you, I find familiars still eminently worthwhile myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meophist wrote:

There is the level 4 Fighter feat, Dual-Handed Assault:

[[AA]]
Requirements: You are wielding a one-handed melee weapon and have a
free hand.
Strike with the required weapon. You quickly switch your grip during the Strike to make the attack with two hands. If the weapon doesn’t normally have the two-hand trait, increase its die by one step for this attack (see the Increasing Weapon Damage Dice sidebar). If it has the two-hand trait, you gain the benefit of that trait and a +2 circumstance bonus to damage. When the Strike is complete, you resume gripping the weapon with only one hand. This action doesn’t end any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free.

The problem with that approach is that by defining the ability as a class power, no one but members of that class can use it. That's how you end up in a game where no one dares to sit down, because it's undefined what kind of action (if any) getting back to your feat is.

KISS - keep it simple, stupid. Let's get rid of pointless bloat that only limits people. Giving people three abilities per level but making each of them terribly narrow is just bad design.


The only real use I can think of is to be a monk with a reach weapon, or alternatively to pick up as a character that multi-classes into monk. It's not good enough for typical armed monks, as it is written, in my opinion, which is a pity.


Compare a melee ranger to an archery fighter. Assuming weapons already drawn for both.

Ranger: move, hunt target, move. May not be in strike range yet, and if there's tricky terrain, it only gets worse
Fighter: can at least get one attack off, possibly two if no movement for LOS is required. There's a fair chance that the once-per-day target of the ranger's Hunt is dead before they get to use the ability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's a bit early to compare the combat efficacy of spells versus martial powers, but at the very least, it would be nice to give martial starting skills on par with the casters! There's no excuse for a barbarian to have less skills than (for instance) a cleric or druid, in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm baffled that martials have so few skills. Bards having 7, versus Clerics 5, sounds about right, but Barbarian 3 in comparison? barbarians are rugged survivors, thematically, and should have wilderness skills. As it stands, their signature skills do not support this at all, and with only 3 trained skills (plus Int), there's not a lot of room for them, either. The same goes for Fighter, although they probably should have slightly different additional Signatures.

Barbarian Proposal:

* Increase trained skills at level 1 for barbarian to 5.
* Add Survival to the Barbarian Signatures.
* Add a trained skill to the barbarian at level 3, specific to each totem. At level 9 and 15 this skill increases to Expert and Master, respectively. This skill is also added to the Signature list, of course.

Fighter Proposal:

* Increase trained skills at level 1 for Fighter to 4.
* At level 3, 9 and 15, a Fighter can add Deception or one Lore skill to their trained and signature skills. They do not automatically advance.


Berselius wrote:
Hoping we get options for a dancer-type bard who works without an instrument.

I'm still hoping for a mime. The idea that performers must make noise (and cannot use non-vocalized spells) is pretty silly.


2bz2p wrote:

No - scrolls can only be written by a person who can actually cast the spell, and remains the type of spell (Divine/Arcane) it was when created, even if the spell exists on another types spell list.

The familiar must be able to scribe scrolls to scribe a scroll from the familiars spell list.

And then the Witch would need UMD to use the scroll, if it's not also on the witches' spell list, of course. Mind, the faerie dragon, being a familiar, is probably well-disposed towards using scrolls on behlaf of the character - especially if the witch provides the materials (ie, gold cost) for the making of the scrolls in the first place.


Ascalaphus wrote:

The technical conclusion of the big bad bladed brush thread was leaning more towards "doesn't work with Slashing Grace but maybe should have" than "it does".

The logic is as follows:
- You're treating the brush as [1H and your off hand not attacking] for [feats and class abilities that require that, such as precise strike].
- Precise strike requires your off hand to be not attacking. Fine.
- You're still holding the brush in both hands, because your off hand only counts as not attacking for some things that require it.
- Slashing Grace requires your off hand to be unoccupied. But "unoccupied" is stricter than "not attacking" and not satisfied by Bladed Brush.
- Since you're wielding the brush in two hands and only treating it as 1H for some specific things, it's a 2H weapon for everything else. Like 1.5 Str damage and Power Attack.

The conclusion is: no Slashing Grace, but going for about 14 Str and Power Attack but a whole lot more Dex gives you the defensive/initiative benefits of a build focusing around Dex, the damage output of a 2H character (nearly) plus one with precise strike. Which is a LOT. (And Daring Champion lifts it over the top with Challenge.)

This isn't so bad for you. If you build with a strength of 14, if for any mission it would be too conspicuous to go around with a polearm, you can just take a dagger instead. You'll be doing a bit less damage, but you still have strength, power attack and precise strike. Whereas a pure dex to damage build has to fully specialize in a single weapon. Your backup options are much more robust.

[Excuses for the moderate thread-necro.]

This interpretation should make the Vigilante's Lethal Grace talent very good - and it can be picked up at level 2. Since Lethal Grace has scaling damage as well, it may be interesting to go Swashbuckler 1 / Vigilante 4 / Devoted Muse. Bonus points for picking up the Cunning Feint talent along the way, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Paizo has been very clear that they're not going to stat up gods. Gods are gods and outside what mortals can comprehend. Similar to how the test of the Starstone is not explicitly spelled out. Immortality and absolute power is easy (hello Wizard!), even granting spells is available (Divine Source), but divinity is something completely different.

Now, that being said, I have seen someone's idea for Gorum that I really loved and wouldn't mind seeing statted out. Gorum is just the strongest warrior in the world. Once they hit their peak they get to fight the old Gorum (before they became a god) and whoever wins becomes the new Gorum. But that's just some kind of high level martial. Might be interesting to see what Paizo thinks a good high level martial looks like though.

Probably a wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

CLW isn't healing - it's just hit point restoring. Healing is a package that includes (Lesser) Restoration, Cure Disease, Remove Curse and several other such spells. The Paladin mercies really help, but to make those do the job you need a boatload of Lay on Hands available per day.


If you're a paladin healer, can you really manage without Selective Channelling and multiple Extra Laying on Hands, plus Power Attack? Those should more than likely cover you for a long time to come. It's probably too late to take Fey Foundling, though, if you don't have it already.

Given that Eldritch Heritage requires Skill Focus, you'll be spending a minimum of 2 feats on what likely will amount to a tertiary function to your role. Not necessarily a disaster, but I would think it would put quite the strain on your role as a healer, for which you are already not a natural choice.


Thank you1

I don't post homebrew stuff very often, but at times there's a lacuna where a moment of inspiration and a whisper of grace can find a way.


The more I think about it, the more I feel that you are correct. I had wanted to use an Armour bonus, rather than a Dodge bonus, to reduce stacking opportunities, but I see how this may actually work against it.

AC Bonus (Su): Sune smiles upon those spreading her word, and protects those who show off Her grace with confidence. As long as Heartwardens are unencumbered and not wearing any armour, nor shields (not even a buckler), they receive a Sacred bonus to their AC equal to their Charisma bonus. This effect requires no activation, and works similarly to the Monk ability of the same name, with two exceptions: it works at all times (even when helpless or immobilized), and it does not add to CMD. As with the Monk ability, this bonus increases by +1 at 4th level and every four levels thereafter, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

Fervor: The number of times per day that a Heartwarden can use Fervor is equal to 1/2 her Heartwarden level + her Charisma modifier, rather than 1/2 her Heartwarden level + her Wisdom modifier. In addition to the other uses a warpriest has for Fervor, a Heartwarden can choose to spend a use of Fervor and add +1 per die to the bonus granted by an Aid Another attempt (eg, +2 at 5th level).

Mercy: At 5th level and every five levels thereafter, Heartwardens learn to heal others (and themselves) to a greater extend than other warpriests are able to. This works identical to the Paladin ability of the same name, using Fervor instead of Laying on Hands. The Paladin's 3rd level Mercy is gained at 5th level, the 6th level at 10, the 9th level at 15, and the 12th level at 20. This replaces all versions of Sacred Armour.


Oh, I hear you! One of my first was a paladin of Shelyn. Spent a trait to get Perform, since that was more important than Percpetion, obviously. Not everyone agreed with me, but I'm pretty sure I made the right choice for her.


Hmmm. I guess that's fair although a lot depend on the gaming environment you're used to. I tend to play in campaigns were wealth-by-level is ignored or reduced, and where magic-mart does not exist, so attributes tend to end up not to spiral out of control as much.

Also, since the spellcasting is still based on Wisdom, I figured Charisma would not run out of hand quite as much (especially since you'll want either dex or strength, plus some constitution, as well).

Do you feel that, with the above in mind, the Charisma will replace armour outright too early, and turn them into veritable charisma-turtles? I realize that in the long run it will happen, and that's part of the idea - Sune is all about being confident in your appeal, after all.

Mind, I'm not adverse, conceptually, to changing Sacred Armour to some kind of bardic-style inspiration ability, even though that seems like a really powerful exchange to me on first thought.


Erkus wrote:
Makarion wrote:

I think you're overlooking one very major aspect of spellcasters at higher levels - you have no bonus at all to Spell Penetration. Spell resistance is rife at high CRs, and beating it is far more important than your DC beyond level 10 or so.

You also lacka good perception skill, so you're far too likely to be surprised and possible dead before you get to take any actions in the first place. Initiative is only useful if you know there's a fight coming!

(1) See above on spell penetration.

(2) Yes, I have definitely overlooked perception. Hmm... Is this not a class skill, or something a like?

It's not a class skill for a lot of classes who should nonetheless take it to the best extent they can. Granted, being a non-Intelligence, non-Wisdom based class with 2 base skill points per level makes it harder, but it's no less important for it. Consider an ioun stone to help out for startersa,d perhaps a trait to make it a class skill and/or gain a bonus to it.


I think you're overlooking one very major aspect of spellcasters at higher levels - you have no bonus at all to Spell Penetration. Spell resistance is rife at high CRs, and beating it is far more important than your DC beyond level 10 or so.

You also lacka good perception skill, so you're far too likely to be surprised and possible dead before you get to take any actions in the first place. Initiative is only useful if you know there's a fight coming!

1 to 50 of 565 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>