MaxAstro's page

I assume Vidrian IS Sargava; it's located in almost exactly the same place.

Do you have a link to that class? I haven't heard of it.

Also while I do appreciate a good statistical debate over what will happen on dice rolls - I would like to point out that statistics gives you a predictive model and not a measurable outcome. The quirkiness of that little thing called chance can drastically swing any way it wants.

I once had a player in Exalted 1E with a 26d10 combo roll zero successes. It can and does happen.

I think the most soul-crushing roll I've ever seen was one of my players rolling 13 0's on 18 dice... on a damage roll, the one kind of roll where 0's only count as a single success. XD

I wasn't really a fan of the "tick" initiative system used in 2e and in Scion 1e. Excellencies were a little wonky, so we stuck with 1e. 3e isn't a role playing game it's a weapon. That book just is way too big for table use.

3e is such a good system, though! I mean, in a lot of ways it's terrible. XD But the core concept is so good. The combat basically being lifted from Discidia is amazing, and really does a wonderful job of creating the cinematic scenes Exalted is known for while avoiding rocket tag (or at least letting you see the rocket coming).

I do not know what your ST was talking about because the grapple rules in 1e were simple Dex+Brawl or Dex+Martial Arts opposed checks. The writeup for it isn't even complicated. It was literally one paragraph describing the rolls to initiate a grapple and then half of the next page defining what types of grapple holds you could attempt (Clinch, Hold, Sweep, Tackle or Throw) and how damage was applied. Easy peasy

To be fair, I've never actually read the 1e grapple rules, so I don't know what it was about them my ST hated. :)

Sorry, I thought the discussion was about Magus as its own base class. Spellstrike as a feat is an entirely different beast.

Also, multiclassing costs several feats and still doesn't get you more than a couple spells per level. If you want class feats to be the thing Magus gives up compared to Wizard, that's valid, but I imagine a lot of people would take exception to that.

Are we talking 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition Exalted? Because I will disagree with you vehemently about 1st. That game was well put together and required almost no tweaking to make work. Everytime I feel the jitters about a campaign I'm running, my first instinct is to throw it out and just have my players wander the 100 Kingdoms again.

I played 1st Edition Exalted in my younger years, but the systems I ran were 2nd and 3rd. I have a lot of fond memories of playing in that 1e game, but honestly the 2e game I ran is my favorite thing I've ever run.

Even 1st edition had its... messy points, though. I remember my ST telling us that if we ever tried to grapple anything our characters would immediately be struck down by divine retribution rather than trying to learn the grapple rules. XD

ChibiNyan wrote:

Disappointed I haven't seen BINDER in this thread. I know we eventually got the "Medium", a boringversion of the Binder without any of the cool flavor or power, so yeah, Binder gets my vote.

The original playtest Medium was much more like what you seem to be interested in (with 54 spirits based on the Harrow cards). And was basically pared down to the official version because of page count issues.

A whole lot of people, myself included, would love to see something like the Binder/Harrowed Medium for a new edition. Though page count remains a potential issue.

Oh man, how did I forget about Binder?

One of the 3PPs did a conversion of Binder to Pathfinder (Called Occultist, unfortunately, which makes it harder to track down now) and I played one for Rise of the Runelords. Easily one of my favorite characters. I would love something like that for 2e. Specifically the bit about finding new entities to contract with organically over the course of the campaign.

Kinda also scratches the "blue mage" itch a bit, depending on how it is implemented. I remember my GM having a couple bosses in RotR become contractable spirits after being defeated, and that was fun.

Yeah, that's my main line of thinking. Wizard doesn't have really strong class features outside of 9th level casting. It has some, but not in the same way that say Champion has strong class features. 9th level casting is most of the class. To give Magus 9th level casting you'd need to make sure their class features don't totally eclipse Wizards.

Of course it's possible that in the final rules, Wizards have really strong, defining class features. If that is the case, then Magus as a 9th level caster becomes much more plausible.

Items could be an interesting tack. Wizards have always had less semi-mandatory item expenses than martial characters, since they don't typically need magic weapons or armor. The existence of a slot-boosting item that wizards want as much as fighters want a magic sword would be neat.

Of course, assuming staves continue to work like they did in the focus test (please please please), basically all casters are going to want a decent staff, so there is that.

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Reminds of another simple game to recommend. Why play Exalted when you can play Godbound? Plus, the free version is almost complete!

For the setting, to make an example. Not that it's flawless, but it has a lot of very cool and incredibly poignant stuff. In general GB is much simpler (much, much, much simpler) and with some homebrewing would be the best system hands down, but, even though I despise most of the mechanics, Ex does have its own raison d'être, without a doubt.

Yeah, this. The Exalted system is such a mess that I basically houseruled almost every single mechanic at one point or another, but the setting is so fascinating that it was worth the work. And because of how strongly Exalted ties setting and mechanics together, it's hard to port the setting to other systems.

Never underestimate how much a well-designed setting can make a system attractive. Definitely something Paizo has going for it, also. :)

You might check out the 3pp Battle Lord class from Amora Games if this is something you're still interested in. The Commander from Spheres of Might is also a martial leader type; my wife plays one in our Return of the Runelords game here at the office.

I believe Super Genius Games also has the War Master class, which is very much the martial tactician/bard style class and pretty well written.

I love that

MaxAstro wrote:

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Another possibility is 13th Age. But its kinda noodly with some rules and you end up using HEAPS of dice.

I don't think you can really accuse a system of using heaps of dice unless you have played a high-level Exalted game. Nothing quite like the feeling of rolling 53d10 for an attack. :P

Nothing's ever going to top GURPS Mecha for piles of dice. But the problem that 13A has is that you will plausibly be asked to roll like 7d8 for damage, and who keeps that many d8s around? Having a bunch of d6s and d10s is reasonable, but d8s?

Actually, I stockpiled d8s at one point only because detonate is one of my favorite spells. XD

I want to see an artificer, but more along the lines of using gadgets and technological inventions to fight as opposed to just being an item crafter. I want to be a gadgeteer.

Oh! Like the PF2e Alchemist, but for tech items. I'm 100% in favor of that, that would be awesome.

It's also kind of obvious enough, now that I think of it, that I wouldn't be surprised if we got exactly that at some point. Maybe just as an Alchemist archetype.

QuidEst wrote:

It would be like if you had a PF1 caster that got Fireball... but it did d4s instead of d6s. You need those slots to scale your damage now. Unless the gish class doesn’t use damaging spells, it would take a lot of tinkering to get this working.

Maybe that mechanic needs a look at then instead.

More than a little late for that.

I would assume it would be one action for one action spells and two actions for two action spells; nothing else really makes sense. Two actions for a one action spell wouldn't be any actual benefit and one action for a two action spell would be hilariously overpowered.

I remain unconvinced that Magus will be a full caster though. :)

Both a war leader-type Charisma based fighter and a Shifter sound like awesome ideas.

I'm also a little bit enamored of the idea of a magical girl-type character, I must admit. XD Somewhere between Synthesist and Vigilante? That could be a fun design space. :)

Another possibility is 13th Age. But its kinda noodly with some rules and you end up using HEAPS of dice.

I don't think you can really accuse a system of using heaps of dice unless you have played a high-level Exalted game. Nothing quite like the feeling of rolling 53d10 for an attack. :P

6th level casting without tailored spell lists is pretty bad, yeah. Although I think not as bad in 2e as it was in 1e, because of how save DCs work.

Then again, heightening...

Quite the opposite, actually - I mostly run games and rarely get a chance to play. I get to see a wide range of "typical" characters through the lens of my players, so when I do have the opportunity to play, it's usually something out there that I know my regular players aren't likely to ever try.

Prestige archetype probably makes the most sense as a name for the mechanic.

I've always felt that it's a bit of a shame in PF1 that the notion of a wizard hitting someone with a staff past level 3 is absolutely absurd. I would love it if, regardless of class, spending an action to try to hit someone wasn't a guaranteed waste. In fact, if a wizard could do the same damage as their cantrips with their staff with only minimal investment, I'd be pretty happy.

One of my first PF2e characters is going to be a high Strength/low Int Wizard, specifically to see how possible this is. And also because I think it's hilarious that's a viable character in 2e. :)

I definitely think Hellknight is more likely to be a prestige class (is that still what we are calling "archetype you can only take at higher levels"?) than a Champion variant. In particular, a Champion of Abadar being called a Hellknight would just be weird. Plus, I doubt they would change the "must kill a barbed devil" requirement, so I don't see Hellknight being available at level 1.

The problem with Magus as a full caster is that unless Wizards suddenly have bonkers good class features, that would basically just make Magus "Wizard with -2 on spell attacks, better weapon and armor proficiency, and better class features".

MaxAstro wrote:

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply Magus will have a full spell list, just Focus Spells.

Oh. I guess I see what you're saying.

That seems even more limited than I'd like.

Of course, who knows? Maybe they won't even pick up the spellstrike concept and take an entirely different path for a full gish class.

It seems to be the way they are going with partial casters, since sixth level spell lists aren't a thing any more.

It is much more limited than 1e Magus, for sure, although on the other hand Magus had a lot of spells you realistically weren't going to use; I could get behind a tighter design space. As long as there are a variety of focus spell options and you end up with 8-10 meaningfully different, equally useful focus spells by 20th, I don't think that's hugely behind where 6th level casters were in effect.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply Magus will have a full spell list, just Focus Spells.

That means Paladin/Champion would be able to grab it because of Lay on Hands. This would also make the Fighter MC Archetype almost completely worthless since this would be the better option for 7 of the 12 classes; even if Spellstrike was ignored.

It also wouldn’t be as Universal as Cavalier or Pirate, since it requires casting of some kind. I feel something like this would pigeonhole the majority of Gish builds as a ‘must have’ feat choice.

This puts into words really well why I was thinking Magus can't be an archetype and needs to be a base class. Also Captain Morgan's comments about how the disadvantage of having to target regular AC is gone.

Whatever form Magus takes, I don't think there's any chance at all we'll see something that let's you spellstrike with 9th level spells of an arbitrary list. That would have been arguably broken in 1e, and is definitely broken in 2e. Plus it would mean every new spell has to keep Magus in mind for balance reasons.

Not to sound like a broken record, but as the thread goes on I'm more and more confident that focus spells are how Magus is going to be handled, and it'll be a base class instead of an archetype, with spellstrike only working with it's own focus spells. I think most likely even multiclassing won't let you spellstrike with other spell lists.

However, what does occur to me is that gives Magus a lot of mechanical (but not thematic) overlap with Kineticist. Not sure how much of an issue that is.

Designing a bunch of new spells - especially unique spells - is a lot harder than pruning, though.

And doesn't address the issue with how thematically broad arcane is. I'd much prefer "each spell list does different things" instead of "each spell list does the same things but in different ways", because I think the former gives more value to class features that let you poach other lists.

I'm not surprised they changed how melee touch spells worked, since those spells were previously confusing (almost no one I talked to believed me when I said you could cast the spell, move, and then deliver all in one turn) and also hard to use if you didn't start your turn at a distance.

Starfinder fixed it by making melee touch spells not provoke; switching them to saves is another option.

That does leave spellstrike in a weird place, but again - I honestly don't think Magus will be a proper spellcaster when it comes back. I don't see them giving Magus 9 levels of spells, which means Magus spellstrike is going to be entirely based on Focus Spells, which will be custom designed with spellstrike in mind.

~pours one out on the street for Resonance~

Sweet prince, you were taken before your time...

Controversial as it would be, I do hope they prune back the arcane list, though. I feel it's really the only way to have flexible sorcerers work right.

None of the iconics look weak, to me, but I think average is a good term. The 2e versions of the iconics look more like people, and less like superheroes.

I can see that not being to everyone's taste, but it works for me.

I do sort think thesis is separate from school, as stuff like familiars and metamagic were first-level feats, unlike school specialization.

I wouldn't at all be surprised to see certain Thesis choices grant free first level feats.

Yeah, I'm thinking that specialist and thesis are not going to be separate things. Rather one of the thesis options will be "thesis on Evocation".

Strong agreement that I want gish as a concept to be viable starting at early levels - 1 or 2, really.

I do think that if we get a dedicated gish class - Magus or Inquisitor or Hunter or w/e - it's going to be focus spell based. I don't see them giving a class ninth level spells ~and~ good martial proficiency right out the gate, and I don't see them bringing 6th level casters back either.

Much as I agree that 6th level casters were a thing Paizo was really good at writing, I totally understand why they were removed from the system.

Can somebody illuminate for me the reasons for the change from twf to sword & shield style?

In character the reason is that Valeros died and decided to take steps to avoid repeating the experience.

Out of character the reason is that the devs a) wanted an iconic fighter that focuses on a more iconic build for the class, and b) wanted an iconic that shows off 2e's fancy new shield rules.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

No, i can read just fine. I was more curious what Max was starting the thread on

Ah, sorry I didn't get that from your first post. It's easy enough to miss or overlook part of a post so I thought that might have been it. I have to admit I too was curious what subject didn't fit in this one and needed a new thread.

.

To be fair, I wasn't really trying to thread police so much as I was being amused at how quickly the thread seemed to change topics. :)

@Alchemic_Genius I think the combination of spellstrike and focus spells is interesting enough to warrant it's own class, especially focus spells specifically tailored for spellstrike.

I also think it would be a bit weird as an archetype; I'm having a hard time imagining what class that archetype would be a good fit for.

OMG Nick I think you just hit the nail on the head!

Prediction: Thesis works like Bloodline, including granting spells, and the various school specializations are among the choices of Thesis.

Hah, my friend who strongly identifies with Valeros is going to love this.

Also all the comments about the mug being covered by the shield now has me picturing him literally holding the mug with his shield grip hand, so that he can sip from it while he blocks. 10/10 mental image. :P

The problem with it as an optional rule is that it only works if the Arcane list isn't already the most broad list. To make it an optional rule you'd basically need an optional rewrite of the whole Arcane list that narrowed its focus down.

Seltyiel was already the most mercurial iconic - he started as an Eldritch Knight, then was retconned to be a Magus. I think if PF2e keeps Magus as a base class (again, I hope it does, spellstrike-the-class sounds awesome to me) he will continue to be a Magus, otherwise he will probably go back to being a Fighter/Wizard multiclass.

This sure is a thread about gishes, yep. I even split it off from another thread to avoid derailing that thread... :P

Strong agreeance with Ramanujan; I really hope that's the direction they go.

You could add a lot of flavor and uniqueness to any given wizard by letting them pick a few spells of their specialty from outside their class list.

Universalists, on the other hand, could either get fewer outside-list picks but from multiple schools, or no outside-list picks but more spells per day.

Regarding multiclass ability score requirements, my impression was that those are something of a balance factor rather than a realism factor; the idea is that dedication feats are, on the whole, quite strong, and the higher prereqs help discourage people from scooping them up just because.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like one big difference between changelings and, like aasimar, is that a changeling is pretty much always raised by people unlike herself, who eventually figure out she is something different. Golarion has whole communities of aasimar, there are tiefling gangs in Cheliax, etc.

So a changeling pretty much needs to be able to poach ancestry feats from whatever culture raised her, whereas an aasimar need not necessarily.

But then that leaves every single aasimar that ISN'T from one of those communities out in the wind doesn't it? If I have an aasimar spontaneously born in Cheliax that's never seen another aasimar, it's fine if they can't poach any Cheliax culture ancestry feats just because they didn't have the good sense to be born into a community of their own race?

You could make that same argument for a dwarf born in Cheliax, though.

I kinda hope Treerazer gets a different name. Treerazer sounds too mundane to me. I could see like, a level 9 orc warlord named Orok Treerazer or something who famously burned some elven village and the forest it was in to the ground and serves as a BBEG for a mid-level campaign, maybe.

Not so much as the title for an apocalyptic threat and ostensibly the strongest statted creature in the game.

I imagine the name probably sounds more impressive in the original Elven. :P

MaxAstro wrote:

More to the point, I'd like the tarrasque to come accompanied with enough lore and interesting hooks to give a compelling reason to actually use the thing.

How would you do that? The stuff that makes the Tarrasque bland are also kind of its core themes. It's a big dumb killing machine that just runs around hurting things. Trying to patch up its mechanical weaknesses and thematic shortfallings feels like it would invariably leave the monster unrecognizable.

And at that point you might as well get rid of it, which seems like a good answer to me because I feel like the only real claim to fame it has is being the defacto punching bag for CharOp.

Personally I'm not sure. But Paizo managed to make flail snails interesting. Flail. Snails.

After that I believe they can do anything. XD

That's because Divination wasn't a school of magic before Aroden's death.

I believe this is not true. It's stated that the Runelords found Divination magic so indispensable that they all studied it.

Made a new thread.

I'd assume any multiclass prestige thing's prereqs wouldn't be class based, but proficiency based.

I.E. (expert in martial weapons, expert in spells): Do the thing with a sword and a spell!
Since this is more or less turning into a thread about Gishes (with a few extra things thrown in here and there), why not make a separate forum about them?

Continued from the other thread:

The problem with this idea, IMO, is that it limits design space. If the feat just requires a certain proficiency, then any similar feat is going to be directly competing with it and there will be an inevitable "best gish feat". Plus every time you make a new class or a new way to raise proficiency you have to worry about knock-on effects of what old feats you can suddenly qualify for more easily than intended.

All of that is why I'm thinking going with the narrower design space of class feats is better. That way you can have a feat that makes fighters gish, and a feat that makes wizards gish, and they can both work a bit differently and not compete with each other.

I will also mention, though, that I personally hope Magus comes back - not as a "wizard fighter blend" but rather a class with a variety of Focus Spells intended to be delivered via weapon strikes.

Basically "spellstrike the class".

It seems to me that an easy (if potentially very wordcount-heavy) first step is making multiclass feats with multiple class prerequisites. So multiclass feats with both fighter and wizard as prerequisite, sort of thing. Then you can design tightly-focused benefits to build off the two classes' specific strengths.

makes a note

This is roughly what I figured we'd see at some point, although I was thinking more likely we would see something like a fighter class feat that has the wizard dedication as a prereq.

Which I think I'd actually prefer, because then you can have a similar-but-different feat for wizard/fighters so that they are differentiated from fighter/wizards. I feel like one of the strengths of PF2e is providing that kind of distinction - like how Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians, and Rogues all have mechanically different feats for two weapon fighting.

Midnightoker wrote:

What do we call a elf+orc?

I kind of want to play an elforc now (sometimes referred to derogatorily as forks).

Google "voldur". They are fan-made but really flavorful. I actually have a PC playing one in my Tyrant's Grasp game.