Ask for what you want for goblins, but some of us have argued very passionately, and I think, rather well, for halflings to get the wisdom bonus instead of the Charisma bonus. So leave that one alone, please and thank you.
No, it's not the bigger numbers. Rather, it is exactly because of those lower and higher challenge level monsters, and the narrowed effective challenge that you mention, that I prefer. When I am (or my players are) level 10, I want to steamroll through a bunch of orcs, and have them simply fail to stand a chance. And, I want an Ancient Dragon to scare the pants off me and make me run the other way. I DM 5E, and challenging my players is more difficult (for me) than it was in Pathfinder 1st, and will be, I expect, in Pathfinder 2nd.
I don't know. I kind of detest bounded accuracy in 5E. It's one of the (admittedly) few things I dislike about it. The changes in proficiency are too negligible for my taste. That said, I could support a 1/2 level added to everything, instead of the full level. Less than that, and... I'm not too interested.
Disagree. Feels like a beta(playtest) to me, but yeah, obviously. Can't wait to try it tonight. GMing it for my 5E group. They're pumped too. Probably my new system, just going off a cursory read-through.
And I disagree, VEY STRONGLY. I am incredibly glad that they're all Feats, and differentiated by the preceding adjective. For how my mind works, MUCH easier to sort out. But I understand that isn't the case for everyone. I just wanted to make sure that people know that some of us like it this new way.
I mean, Kobolds make traps... Santa's elves make toys... They're both small...
Yeah. This checks out
Really? I don't think it makes sense at all, considering what the blog actually says:
"...it would be easy to create a spellcasting build of the ranger later using Spell Points (like the paladin)..."
Considering they mentioned Spell Points, like a Paladin specifically, and not "regular casting," I doubt that's what they meant as the possibility.
I agree with all of this, for sure. I actually think Kobolds would be a decent choice (down the road) fot a small +2 Int race. Good trap crafters and tactically inclined. Seems reasonable, no? Then, probably +2 Dex, and either -2 Strength, or maybe even -2 Charisma because they're arrogant/unlikeable. Well, except to me and some others. We like Kobolds. :)
Oh, and this of course goes off the presumption that Kobolds don't need to be hideously underpowered anymore.
We're worried the Fighter is going to outdo the other classes in something? Well, congratulations, Paizo. You made the Fighter not the worst. That is (zero sarcasm, btw) rather commendable.
I... I... I hadn't even thought of Arcane Archer yet. Oh. Boy. I have my second character concept now. Thank you very much. :)
I don't exactly like how this is handled, now that others have pointed out some flaws. But, you can consider me in the camp that considers it better to have Half-Elves and Half-Orcs NOT as separate ancestries. It was always weird to me. But obviously, many people don't feel the same way. So... Yeah. Not sure how to fix all that.
Yeah. I don't love reloading for slings. Especially if crossbows are exempt. Just kind of weird.
EDIT: Especially because "the sling is now a more formidable weapon than in Pathfinder First Edition"...
Larger damage die, but still needs to reload, and only half strength mod...
Mark Seifter wrote:
Well, obviously the... actually, what about the... No, I meant the... Or maybe the...
Dang. Never mind... Ha!
Umm, it doesn't? Not to me, anyway. I'm actually a big fan of the icon system. I like how neat it is. I will agree with the free action/reaction similarity complaint. That's a little too unclear of a distinction.
Brother Fen wrote:
Hmm. That was kind of rude. And also wrong, in my opinion.
No, I don't feel intimidated - at all - by the options. Worn out, maybe. And discouraged, because I prefer Pathfinder to D&D, but a group of friends I DM for play 5E because they were overwhelmed with Pathfinder. The concern regarding Bloat does not spring from my own feelings from it, but rather from a desire to involve new people in this pastime.
I would willingly sacrifice some of my own options and even enjoyment (to an extent) if it meant involving more and more new people in the awesome world of TTRPGs. It's a wonderful thing, and I'm all for more people getting involved who haven't experienced it before.
it was essentially that the PF1 archetype Vindictive Bastard - in some form - should be in Core... Maybe as some sort of oathbreaker/fallen Paladin?
And I like how Oath of the Ancients just focus on Light and Goodness without more specifics than that.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
On the other hand, I can build the Spontaneous wildshape-less Druid I've always wanted. So... I'm happy!
EDIT: I too hate prepared casting. So I've been wanting this for a while.
For me, and I think many others, it's important that the name Paladin be associated with Lawful-Goodness.
So, I'll try this again. I am aware it's not perfect, but with such fundamentally opposed sides, nothing could be. Here goes, with adjustment for the fact that 4 Corners seems to me the most likely alternative to only LG.
Class in the CRB: Champion
Each a champion. Each in his or her own way.
As for what features they share and which are unique, well, someone more qualified than me can figure that out. :D
I feel like it should maybe be a(n unofficial) rule when discussing this topic that neither side can criticize the other's stance, but rather can only offer alternative solutions and comment on those. That way we actually get somewhere.
With that in mind, it's been floating around that the "4 Corners" is potentially the most likely option (from the devs' side of it) besides just an LG Paladin. So, instead of attacking each other's opinions, why don't we talk about how we'd like to see that work?
I'd prefer all-good to the 4 Corners, so it's already a compromise for me. But that's okay. For me, I'd like the name Paladin to remain LG, but the Hands Laying, Aura Bearing, Smiting, Armor Master Chassis - with balanced variations, of course - would be spread out amongst the alignments.
Don't know much about WOW, but isn't the animal a very important part of the Hunter, as well as it's ranged capabilities? Whereas I plan on building (and seem to be able to) a melee focused companion-less Ranger. I'm not saying you're wrong; I just wanted to point that out.
And this is how I would build my Ranger for the playtest. I've never been big on Animal Companions or Ranger Spells, so this is definitely what my Ranger will be investing in. Also, I want to see if snares suck or are awesome, since, well, isn't that the kind of thing that the playtest is for?
Mark Seifter wrote:
... On the one hand, this is awesome, and thank you for taking the time to give this info... On the other hand... I'm back to square one.. yay... Haha!
I like this. If Sorcerer doesn't blow me away (which it probably will, since I love them so much I usually help them over whatever bar I set), this will be the class of my first Pathfinder playtest character.
Ooh. Unless Bards can be built to be nasty debuffers. Then I'll actually have some thinking to do.
And I wholeheartedly disagree. I prefer the "Champions of Virtue" to "I fight for a god... But not in the way a Cleric does... Or a Warpriest. I'm different and special!"
But I don't think you're wrong to prefer what you do. And I don't think my preference is wrong. But it is part of the reason the Paladin is so complicated and controversial.
It's... Hmm. I don't know. But I sure as heck don't envy Paizo as they try to figure out what to do with it.
The biggest issue I have with this is it means I can play a (rules-supported) CG, LE, AND CE Paladin before I can play a NG one... Which to me just feels wrong
Eh. It's always irked me that the trained martial character is less skilled than the instinctive martial character.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Mark, I'm pretty sure this is going to be one of those "I can neither confirm nor deny" moments (which is fine), but your description of the Mental/Spiritual blend sounds rather... Bardic. :)
I like short rests. I do think they should take more time if you try to do them more than once. So maybe a 30 minute short rest the first time, 1 hour the second time, 2 hours the third time. After that you don't get any benefit and have to take a long rest.
A staggered duration short rest system is interesting. My biggest issue with short rests in 5e is that their usefulness varies widely from class to class.
1. I have never been interested in or a fan of Barbarians. Until now.
2. I kind of called the animal Totem feature of Barbarians' that essentially lets them be non-spellcaster-limited-wildshapers. Which is insane, because I never am right on stuff like this.
I wanted Sorcerer or the last Ancestries so bad... But this was good. Real good.
All I'm going to say is: Kobolds better be a player race in the PF2 equivalent of the APG