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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tim Schneider 908 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I suspect that, if designers do not change it, people ignore it by playing D&D 5th.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
* Increase trained skills at level 1 for barbarian to 5.
* Increase trained skills at level 1 for Fighter to 4.
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.
[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.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Probably a wizard.
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.
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.
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.
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!