Just out of curiosity, how would a chaotic paladin even function thematically? The entire idea of a 'Paladin' is that he's a warrior who is incredibly devoted to following his 'code' and his god's ideals.
I can see Lawful Evil and Lawful Neutral paladins working since they can follow codes. However, When you make the class chaotic, why would it care about following codes to such an extreme?
It feels like you need to change the entire premise of the class to make it non-lawful, and at that point you may as well just have a generic holy warrior (like the Warpriest) who can be any alignment but doesn't have as many rules to follow.
Edit: After thinking about it a bit more, I guess one way a Chaotic Good paladin could work is if the rules about behaving honorably and following local laws were removed. They'd have rules to follow, but they'd only be *their* rules.
I like what I see for the Paladin class so far! I'm also very happy that the paladin code has been given an order of precedence, with 'good' on top and 'laws of mortals' on the bottom. I've always believed that a religious lawful good type would care far more about his god's laws than the laws of whatever city he happens to be in, though he generally would be trying to follow good local laws anyway.
I like the focus on defense and the useage of spell-points rather than weak spellcasting. The only thing I'm not a fan of is having to use a reaction for Divine Grace.
I'm neutral on the subject of 'paladins of other alignments'. I can see a desire for Lawful Evil antipaladin types, but I don't even understand how neutral or chaotic paladins are even supposed to work. Paladins are all about following their gods laws to the absolute, but that theme gets weird with chaotic types.
The thing I like the most about this version of the alchemist is that the items he's creating are basically the same as the ones that anyone else can make, just better/faster. The way PF1 alchemists were randomly magical while 'normal' alchemists weren't bothered me a lot, lol.
The one thing I don't like is how long it takes to get Mutagen and Feral Mutagen. I made a melee focused beastmorph alchemist for PFS, and he was one of my favorite characters even at level 1 and 2. Now it seems like I would have to wait until level 5 to even get mutagen, and level 8 for claws?
Hopefully an archetype will be available to work around that, maybe something that trades out enhanced bombs for earlier mutagens and such.
An interesting tidbit:
Another GM in my gaming group has been looking forward to Pathfinder 2.0 since he wants more balanced and streamlined rules. However, once I told him that goblins were going to be a core race his immediate reaction was essentially this: "Darn it, now it will be much harder to keep our problem player from playing a goblin and making our games into jokes. I guess we won't be doing Pathfinder 2.0."
The sad thing is I kind of found myself agreeing with him. This 'problem player' is a friend, but we have to work hard to keep him from derailing our games. If he gets his hands on a goblin character it is going to be terrible. I guess I now have a better understanding of why so many people here are dead-set against core rulebook goblins. It is basically the Chaotic Neutral alignment all over again.
I'm not a fan of playable Pathfinder goblins, but you all are taking this a bit too seriously. Out of all the changes in PF2, this is pretty much the least important one. A race can be banned if your GM doesn't like it, but dealing with issues with the core game mechanics is a much bigger deal. Can we please just focus our energy on the game mechanics instead?
(That said, I would have much rather have had a Kitsune core race ;) )
That might make the "keep them mundane" side happy, but it wouldn't anyone else, since relying on magical items to be superhuman is the system we have already in First Edition.
I think the issue with PF1E was more about the sheer number of magical items that were needed. If PF2E fighters needed a magic sword and magic armor to use some of their upper level abilities I don't think it would be a big deal if it was done correctly.
Personally, I think having the fighters be reliant on having some sort of 'legendary weapon' like King Arthur or Inuyasha I think it could be kind of flavorful. (Yes, I just used a real world legendary figure and an anime character in the same sentence.)
Edit: I agree that this shouldn't be the only path for characters to get those sorts of abilities though.
One way to make both sides of this 'realistic fighters' debate happy might be to make many 'superhuman' feats magic item dependent. For example: there could be a legendary feat that lets you cut down buildings with a single sword slash, but it requires that you use a +5 magical weapon. That way it is less about the fighters themselves being superhuman and more about them making the best use of their magical gear.
This way, low magic games won't have fighters chopping down buildings because the gear to support that playstyle won't exist, but fighters would be able to keep up with spellcasters in a high magic game.
These discussions about human fighters suplexing dragons while totally not being superhuman has me thinking that these characters are secretly demigods. They are just trying to act like they are mortals but are failing spectacularly. "Look at me, I'm this normal human being that fell into a pit of lava and survived. That's a totally normal thing!"
Well, they live in a world where they are surrounded by magic, so there are two main possible answers. One is that over time, their body absorbs some of the magic around them and becomes superhuman, like those superheroes who got their powers from radiation exposure. The other possibility is that the existence of magic in their world has changed the laws of physics in such a way that anyone who lives there has a higher potential than anyone in a non-magical world.
Here is an idea for making martial characters seem more powerful at high levels: At level 15+, martial characters could have a "power attack" style ability that they can activate that increases their melee damage, but also creates a powerful shockwave that damages things (whether they like it or not) beyond their melee attack range.
This would allow you to roleplay the idea that your high level fighter is usually holding back, because if he used his full strength he could unintentionally collapse a building or part of a dungeon. It would be something you only use in emergencies against a truly strong opponent. Something like this would probably have to be built right into legendary level proficiency so all high level martials get this sort of flavor.
Yes, I have been watching too much Dragon Ball Super lately, but this sort of trope also applies to a lot of superheroes and legends.
Hmmm, limiting this to the base classes makes things a bit difficult for me, but here goes:
Ninja (Rogue): I am counting this as a very big archetype. I find the theme of ninja characters to be much more interesting than rogues.
Beastmorph (Alchemist): I had a lot of fun playing one of these. I'm a huge fan of animal shapeshifter themed characters.
Mooncursed (Barbarian): I have never gotten to play one since I often get stuck playing casters, but I have really wanted to try this archetype out.
Scaled-Fist (Monk): I love the idea of this archetype, because I love dragons and the idea of a monk powered by draconic energy rather than normal ki is amazing.
Qinggong (Monk): Another monk archetype, but I viewed this as almost required for making monks with interesting powers.
The "cutting a mountain in half" thing shouldn't be an issue. All the GM needs to do is put someone or something that the players need to save in there.
That said, I think that level of destruction should be reserved or epic or mythic levels of play. Being able to cut a building in half might be more reasonable for a 15-20th level character.
On one hand, I like that it looks like the numbers in this version of Pathfinder look more balanced. On the other hand, if this turns into a game of "You have about of 50% chance of accomplishing anything" it is going to get really boring really quickly. Someone who is "legendary" at a skill should be more than 5 points better than someone who is untrained but happens to be the same level.
Why would this be a bad thing? One of the biggest problems with Pathfinder is that the scaling got out of whack at high levels. If you were a level 20 character (who isn't a paladin) and your bad save gets targeted with the right spell from an appropriate leveled enemy you are probably going to instantly die. Giving everyone the same scaling and making the differences stat based was pretty much the only solution.
Admittedly, I am a bit more iffy about skills auto scaling.
Rather than bounded accuracy, I would love it if Paizo simply gave all characters the same BAB. Just give the frontline fighters some additional bonuses on top of that to show their martial prowess.
If every class had roughly the same bab, we wouldn't have the issue of some classes like rogues being completely unable to hit things in high level games. Having a 10-15 point accuracy difference between rogues and other melee classes (like the fighter and ranger) is just silly. We also would actually be able to use those fancy wizard and arcanist archetypes which give them melee weapons.
Does having a whole edifice of "advancing ancestry features" mean that it's harder to add new ancestry options? Like I was pretty jazzed when recent player companions gave us Cecaelias and like 8 different kinds of Changeling.
This is a good point. Maybe there should be both feats and the advancing progression. I doubt that Paizo will just automatically hand over the like 20 kitsune feats there are for free.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Admittedly, it IS strange that clerics cast with Wisdom, when they seem much more suited to giving their message out with Charisma-
I was going to answer that if you compare a cleric to say... a Catholic priest, a modern priest has to study for years before becoming a priest. But then again, I guess that would make them Intelligence based rather than Wisdom based. Hmmm.
Anyway, I think the Wisdom requirement is often based on the idea that you have to be wise in order to understand the will of the gods or something. Charisma by itself gets you followers, but doesn't get you anything from a god.
I am all for auto-progression of racial abilities. Currently a lot of the most flavorful stuff for Kitsune and Aasimar are hidden behind racial feats that you have to give up actual combat ability to get.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
This alleviates some of my main concerns about PF2E, excellent.
I'll keep my list short....
Also: Please keep it so that monsters and npcs work the same way as players. It is important for immersion that players be able to feel like they're fighting enemies who follow the same rules that they do. I love how in the 3.5/Pathfinder system it feels like monsters often simply have stronger starting races than the players.
Brew Bird wrote:
The bulk system. It's clunky, and kind of immersion breaking. I much prefer PF's weight-based carrying capacities. As they exists in Starfinder, bulk limits create comically weak creatures.
I think Starfinder only uses the bulk system because weight is meaningless in a space game with 0g environments and planets of different masses. We probably don't need to worry about bulk in PF 2.0.
MR. H wrote:
There is a very big difference between constructive and tearing down someone's work, trust me. I know this since I used to dabble in art and story writing. Constructive criticism shows you how you can improve your work and makes you *want* to improve your work. Blunt or flat out unkind criticism makes people defensive unless they're trying *very hard* to block out their emotions on the subject.
Edit: Sure, paizo is made up of professionals and they should be trying to hold back their emotions when reading the playtest forms, but honestly they're human beings and that sort of thing can be very draining for anyone. If we all managed to give Paizo only constructive criticism instead of our usual angry criticism we would end up getting a much better product in the long run since they'd have more energy for working on it.
MR. H wrote:
I think the problem is that when you don't word something kindly, you are implying that you don't have any respect for the person you are talking to. That's the key difference between well worded constrictive criticism and simply going out and calling someone's work trash and giving them a list of fixes. If Paizo ends up thinking that you don't respect them, then it becomes less likely they'll pay attention to you during the playtest.
Monsters and NPCs using completely different rules.
This so much. They way monsters and npcs use the same rules as the players in Pathfinder is one of the biggest strengths of the system. It is very important that players feel like their enemies are the same as they are rather than being a bundle of stats that don't follow the same rules that they do.
In pathfinder, monsters effectively just have a stronger starting race than the players. They can even take class levels. Turning monsters into meaningless stat blocks would mean we lose all of this.
That being said, I am not opposed to monster and npc creation being simplified in some way as long they're still generally interchangeable with players.
I'm not sure that the idea of "dragons aging via worshipers" works with my campaign, but I may take a look at those rules anyway.
I have been building a new homebrew Pathfinder campaign, and I'm currently nailing down what the allowed races will be. So far all of my allowed races have been humanoid. However, I'm toying with the idea of allowing a playable dragon race in the campaign. These would be actual dragons, not half dragons, but of course would have to be weak enough to be on par with the rest of the party. Has anyone had any success with this, or is it a bad idea?
Admittedly, I was inspired a bit by the Dragonkin in Starfinder, though I am aware that this could be harder to balance in Pathfinder.
I'm currently toying with the idea of simply using the "Taninim" from "In The Company of Dragons Expanded". However, even though these dragons are designed to be around the same power level as standard humanoids they still look like they would play *very* differently. Does anyone have any experience with using the Taninim in a mixed party?
I just purchased this since I decided that I'd rather have *actual dragons* as a playable race in my campaign than yet another half-dragon race. Still evaluating the rules however. My one concern so far is that the playable dragon race is much more complicated than the standard races, but I guess this is what you have to do in order to make dragons playable and balanced.
Just curious, does anyone have any experience running a campaign with a mix of dragon and humanoid characters using these rules? Are there any balance issues that I'll have to worry about?
This might be something that's less of an issue in PFS than I thought, lol. Though like I said, my experience with playing a summoner has been mostly in high level home games.
I guess one of the reasons why I'm so against the idea of a 'no gear' ruling is that this feels like one of those cases where we are inventing a problem that the designers never thought of. Kind of like the drama with the Ooze Shifter, lol. I would think that Paizo would have put out some sort of item or spell to work around equipping gear by now if they were even aware of this.
Yea, I think it is a regional thing, since I believe that summoners in my PFS region were allowed to summon with equipment.
My experience playing a summoner has been outside of PFS, so it might be a bit different for me. These were level 1 to 20 games with 25 point buy.
The enemies that we fought in those home games were generally so strong that my eidolon had trouble hitting them even with an Amulet of Mighty Fists and a Belt of Strength, and it tended to die multiple times a day. Surprise attacks at times when I couldn't be expected to have the eidolon summoned were also common. I actually had to buy a wand of "Summon Eidolon" on hand in order to keep the thing around.
I can't help but think that my character would have been useless in those games if the eidolon came in without gear each time I used the Summon Eidolon spell. I guess that's part of the reason why I'm so against the idea of a 'no gear' ruling, lol.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Admittedly, I could have said all of that better, but honestly the way you aren't even acknowledging my attempt at softening what I was saying isn't helping matters here either.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
You cut off the part where I added "In My Opinion" immediately after saying that...
So, you could say that you violated a rule of debating by misquoting me there, so we are both at fault now ;)
That an eidolon should get to hold onto its equipment is so intuitive and obvious (IMO at least) that many players just assume that the class' designer just forgot to mention this part. There has been so much confusion about this as far back as during the original summoner playtest that it is amazing we have never gotten some sort of official word on this.
The summoner breaks a number of rules about how summoning works anyway, so there isn't any reason why they couldn't be breaking the rules for how equipment works as well. ;)
The fact that this is still an unanswered question even after the creation of the Unchained Summoner is kind of annoying.
I will say this: Any sane GM will just let the eidolon keep his gear, because any other rules interpretation just leads to problems. GMs who try to be difficult about it will generally change their tune after you summon your *humanoid* eidolon without equipment in mid battle with the 1 round summon spell.
This is where I feel a need to point out that most people don't even understand how diplomacy checks work. If people were more aware of the rules, then people with low diplomacy skills would not be afraid to roleplay.
There are two actions you can make with diplomacy: improve someone's attitude, and make a request. Diplomacy checks based on making requests, by the rules, *do not cause an NPC's attitude to become worse*. It is the "Improve Attitude" action that has penalties for failure.
Plus, once an NPC has a 'Helpful' attitude they will generally accept basic requests without rolls even being needed.
My rule of thumb is to "Maim my players, but stop short of killing them". You have to make them *think* that their characters are going to die, but if they actually die too many times it makes the game less fun over all.
I give my players a few hero points (about 1 each time they gain a level) that they can spend to avoid the massive death that I'm constantly sending their way.
GM Rednal wrote:
No, they are not. Most effects are straightforward numbers (AC bonus, damage, buffs) or fairly straightforward effects (light a fire, create an object). You may have to fiddle with things a little, and possibly use custom fields to keep track of things, but it should be easy enough.
Thanks for the confirmation!
Weird question: I am thinking of running an online game using the Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might rulesets. I know that some virtual tabletops like roll20 and d20pro support d20 game systems, but are the spheres rules so *different* from standard d20 that the game system support isn't really going to work?
Mythic spellcasting is actually completely ridiculous, and possibly even more game breaking than what the martials can do. With the right combination of powers, mythic spells, and mythic feats you can kill almost anything in one round. You can get AOE damage numbers so high (while also ignoring immunities) that no other character can survive without evasion. Worse than that: you can get save DCs impossibly high while also forcing your targets to roll twice and take the lowest.
When I was playing in Wrath of the Righteous my GM gave up on random encounters because of how ridiculous the wizard in our party was. In book 5 he killed four CR 22 Thanatotic Titans in a single round before anyone else was able to act. There was essentially no point in having us fight anything that wasn't mythic at that point.