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 ;) )
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ;)
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.
I think the problem is that you're restricting your imagination of how Evasion works. He could be doing things other than jumping out of the way of the attack. There are all sorts of ways that evasion could explain how a character evaded something.
Falling Roof example: The rogue ducked under a table or a counter. He could even have used the party's fighter for cover.
Electrified Water Example: The ring is allowing the character to have magically enhanced reflexes. He briefly jumps out of the water as the lighting strikes, or stabs his sword into the water in such a way that the electricity is drawn away from him (like the force lighting in Star Wars Episode 3).
Spider Climb: There is no reason why a character using spider climb couldn't choose to jump. Even if he didn't, he could have just flattened himself down and let the fire flow over him instead of being hit by it.
I hope that you're not assuming that *those* are my reasons for wanting characters and NPCs to work the same, lol. I don't really care whether or not the players have access to everything that the NPCs have as long as it is plot or setting related.
For me, it is very important that everything follow the same rules just for the sake of consistency. Telling me that an NPC works differently just because he isn't a player is like telling me that the laws of physics are different for the players. For me, there are few other things that are more immersion breaking.
Barachiel Shina wrote:
Unfortunately, playtests only seemed to work well for Paizo when they had a smaller number of fans. Now that there are more people on the forums, the noise from troublemakers is too much for them to deal with during playtests. That's my best guess.
The Shifter class's levels count as Druid levels for the purposes of Wildshape feat prerequisites. However, the Shifter doesn't count as having druid levels for any other purposes.
This makes many wildshape feats useless to the shifter. This includes wildshape feats that would have been used to advance the character's effective 'druid level' for wildhshape when multiclassing.
I'm assuming this was not intended, and it should probably be put on the errata list for the shifter.
Personally, I think if you give yourself some more time off from the setting eventually things will 'calm down' a bit. Eventually you should be able to start thinking about the campaign setting itself without thinking about the stuff that your brother did. It is probably just still too fresh in your mind and you're obsessing about it a bit, lol.
I have to ask, was anyone else really bothered by the design of those ridiculously bad bombers that the resistance used at the start of the movie? I could spend an hour ranting about those things. Starting with: Who would use gravity reliant bombers in SPACE and why would you ever design a bomber that required you to eject your crew into space to drop the bombs?
That's combined with the fact that the things were basically sitting ducks and powder kegs rolled into one.
I love the idea of the Weretouched Shifter and (generally) how it works. I just wish that it had more than two class features to gain after level 5. This lack of class features is essentially the shifter's main issue IMO.
I really wish that there was a feat that gave additional Wild Shape uses per day so we could just use the shifter for multiclassing purposes. That alone would at least make the class worthwhile. Normally stuff like the Shaping Focus feat would work, but since Shifter levels don't count as druid levels it doesn't do anything useful.
Yea, this is why I gave the book 3/5 stars instead of 1 or 2/5
David knott 242 wrote:
I think the issue with the shifter has more to do with it being boring to play rather than it not being a strong class. The thing is, in combat it is basically just a pounce machine. We already have plenty of those, and the other pounce classes have other tricks in addition to the pouncing.
Just a thought: it is super high level, but the Arcane Bloodline Bloodrager eventually gets something about as good as (if not better) than druid wildshape at level 16. They can get Beast Shape IV or Form of the Dragon I for free at the start of every rage.
So, I guess there is at least one full BAB class that effectively gets unrestricted wildshape even if it doesn't happen until near the end of a campaign. The funny thing is at that level an Arcane Bloodrager is a better shapeshifter than the Shifter class, though the Shifter has longer durations.
Yea, the druid's wildshape is kind of nuts. I totally understand why Paizo didn't want to give that to a full BAB character.
So the Shifter, unless they pick up a weapon (hey there Elemental Shifter), doesn't actually benefit that much from full-BAB except for qualifying for feats (of which they don't have many to spare.)
The Weretouched Shifter can use weapons as well. Though, in my opinion, if you're using weapons as a shifter you probably should just switch classes. Natural attacks are one of those class features that are overvalued, and thus come at the cost of other potential class features.
Benjamin Medrano wrote:
Personally, I've never been a big fan of "Master of Many Forms" style characters. I've been a fan of shapeshifters that specialize in one or two forms. So I'm actually on the other end of the spectrum of people who dislike the shifter, lol.
With the lycanthrope archetype, the shifter came *very close* to being my ideal class. It hit all of the right buttons for both theme and being fairly combat effective. Since this was so close to being my ideal class, the fact that it seemed boring to play and hampered by dead levels was kind of upsetting. There's also the issue that I'm going to feel forced to use one of the two forms that grants pounce, since they are by far the most combat effective.
Sure, this class may get upgrades with new archtypes in the future, but those archetypes will never be able to fix the dead levels in the Lycanthrope archetype that I had such high hopes for. It really would take a huge errata or an Unchained Shifter to fix this class for me.
Benjamin Medrano wrote:
Yay! Honestly though, this feat chain might be one of the best things to come out of the book. It might require a lot of feats, but I know a lot of people who want to play 'mobile' melee characters. I finally have something I can point them to other than a few archetypes.
I might be adding the spring attack feat chain on my list of 'automatically upgrading feats' (like vital strike) to make it easier to get.
I noticed the new spring attack feats lately, and the possibilities they open up intrigue me. Aside from the obvious ability to make characters more mobile in combat, I'm thinking that these feats could be very useful for characters and creatures with a single natural attack. Characters who wildshape into a wolf form and then use that feat chain to trip two or three different enemies could suddenly be viable.
I don't have the feats in front of me to confirm this though, for all I know they require that you use an attack with itteratives.
Personally, I think the Shifter class can be good at combat if you go with a pounce form. It is hard to be bad at combat if you have Full Bab and pounce. The class also has good flavor and archetypes.
I think most of the complaints are that the shifter is awfully limited in what it can do. It can grow claws, gain a few animal abilities, shape shift into a few animal forms, track... and that's it. It is competing with the fighter to be the most bare bones feeling class in the game.
There were two basic crowds of people who wanted the shifter. Some people wanted a character who was "the best shapeshifter", who could change into everything and shift forms to gain advantages in mid combat. Other people wanted a shapeshifter who focused on a single alternate form, be the *best* at that alternate form, and have a lot of fun abilities to use in that form. I don't think either crowd was satisfied.... partly because there are other classes that can fill both of those roles much better than the shifter can right now.
Uh, it gets Track, Wild Shape, and Final Aspect on all the levels it gets its AC boost.
I didn't mean to say that they aren't getting something on those levels. I was just pointing out that the Shifter's ability list is so *thin* compared to most other classes that they had to put those defensive bonuses on the main ability column.
It is like Paizo thought that wildshape was such a powerful ability that a full BAB character didn't need anything else. The problem is that there are already several other full BAB classes that have a version of wildshape (beast shape spells) in addition to all the other abilities that their class has.
The way you can tell that something went wrong with the shifter is that they had to fill in its level progression table with reminders that your AC increases by +1 every four levels. If the monk didn't need that, then the only reason the shifter has it is to hide the fact that they aren't getting any new abilities.
Edit: It has been pointed out that the monk *does* have this reminder. It is separated it into its own column on the progression table however.
That Sean fellow wrote:
Wait, there's a lycanthrope archetype?!
Yep, it is limited, but nice and flavorful. The shifter only gains one animal type, but gains DR/silver equal to half his shifter level. At level 4 he can also enter a hybrid form (of his size I believe) which has all of the animal form's abilities and automatically gains his shifter claws if he wants. Yay for werewolves that actually have claws!
The only problem I have with it is that it *still* struggles to be as good as something like the mooncursed barbarian (unless I am mistaken). Though the sheer amount of DR this archetype can get is nice, since most creatures can't bypass DR/silver.