Mbertorch's page

It's not much weirder than someone being Coup de Graced while at max HP with a sleep ability, even though the damage could be much less than the target's maximum HP. Arbitrary mechanics would dictate Bob being CDG'd for 30 HP out of his 110 can be an instakill by a bad save. Just like arbitrary mechanics would dictate Bob dies at taking 10 damage 3 times.

It's really a matter of if you like vanilla or strawberry ice cream...

My two favorite ice creams... Uh oh

I kinda hate that Sorcerers are the worst at multiclassing.

Mbertorch wrote:

But why would a Bastard Sword be only Slashing, and a Greatsword versatile? That makes no sense to me...

Balancing :/

Oww... My immersion hurts. Haha

But why would a Bastard Sword be only Slashing, and a Greatsword versatile? That makes no sense to me...

What about giving an extra trait like forceful or sweep or something to Greatsword?

EDIT: And maybe something like parry to the longsword?

@DanceYrself - Ya know, I'm going to put myself out on a limb here for saying this, but I'm like 90% sure the only reason they added Alchemist was because of the Goblin Bombarder everyone wants to play. Considering their alchemist skills and trap making, and the fact that they are SMART enough to learn they need to ask for help to survive, Intelligence makes much more sense than Charisma. Something like:

"Naturally curious by nature, Goblins are quick to learn - especially when it comes to making things blow up."

@ Paizo - If you are listening, what do you think of the whole idea of Goblins being +Dex/+Int and switching back Halflings to +Dex/+Cha like the old ones we used to know and love?

@ Grimcleaver - Waylangs and Vine Leshy would like to have a word with you.

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.

Mbertorch wrote:

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.

May I ask why? Is it the bigger numbers? Because compared to your party mates there is absolutely zero difference, you're just comparing bigger numbers. Same thing against equal level monsters. The only time there is a difference is against lower or higher level monsters, and it really narrows the difference in effective challenges.

For me, being put on a treadmill is an absolute nonstarter. I abhor it. It got to the point I simply refused to play 3.P, but when 5e came around it got me back in and got me spending money. Looking at a system that is on a treadmill means I'll spend $0.

For me, bigger numbers are meaningless when the world moves on the treadmill with you. I want the numbers to mean something. I want to know a +10 to hit is good, not that it could be good or bad depending on where on the treadmill we are. I want my Str10 Wizard who is untrained in athletics to always be bad at running a race, I don't want him once he hits mid levels to be about to outrun every young and fit guy in an entire town just because of bigger numbers.

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.

I'm not sure if this qualifies as errata, or if it's already been discussed somewhere else, but why is the hand crossbow 1 hand, and not 1+ hand like the bows and the sling? so your other hand can be completely occupied, and you can just reload it... How?

I was floored by how well it went. So, nice job, folks!

Ronin_Knight wrote:

Funny because everything I've read so far makes it seem far worse than I feared, before I thought it would have hints of 4e or 5E, maybe a bit of both. Instead we got the mutant hybrid of those two with not a shred of PF1E or 3.x left in sight.

Agreed, its WORSE than it looked, and it looked pretty bad to start with.

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.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

rainzax wrote:

To be fair, I cringe too every time I see the word "feat" - but then I remember that it basically boils down to a "character choice", which is a good thing. Also, I can't think of a better name. Abilities? Powers? Features?

Someone in a thread proposed we could, at the very least, demarcate class feats, general feats, skill feats, and ancestry feats a little better by calling each one a different thing.

-Class talents
-General feats (or just Feats)
-Skill unlocks
-Ancestry traits

The change would be pretty cosmetic, as they'd all amount to the same thing and all follow similar rules, but it might help with organization and help us all not be overwhelmed by feats.

That seems like redundant demarcation to me. You are already have the adjective.

I tend to agree, but there are many who would disagree. Just like I go cross-eyed when adding eight or nine different integers but plenty of people can do it instantly in their heads. Or our earlier disagreements on whether the little action symbols are as helpful as advertised (now that I have a full example of them, I can flat guarantee I will read a three action activity as two, at least at first, but I believe you that you won't make that mistake). Sometimes a little extra differentiation is all someone needs to make the concept easier to grasp, and different people will have that threshold at different places.

Agreed here. People tend to remember nouns and forget adjectives. "Ohh you can spend a feat on that" is something that could get very confusing depending on what bin that feat falls into. Naming these differently might help that, even if they do all have the same formatting. After all, we don't call them "casting feats", we call them "spells" for a reason.

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.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Yeah Its kind of weird how jumbled all the fantasy races seem to be. Also is it just me or are santa's elfs more likely to be gnomes?

Or possibly even dwarfs really... IF they had beards.

They're clearly kobolds in fat suits.

I mean, Kobolds make traps... Santa's elves make toys... They're both small...

Yeah. This checks out

MerlinCross wrote:

I'm sorry, I liked having unquie spell lists. One reason I'm ticked about Alchemist is that we're losing that. Witch too ail just share with Druid or Bard now.

But this is more about spell lists not multiclassing so ill drop it. Well after one more bit. They said they wouldn't give Rangers in the playtest spell casting. Want to see how how the core mechanics do and maybe add them in later. An option to do so.

If the option is to just Splice into Druid, I feel ... Not cheated but mislead.

Oh, I agree. I think they're getting a bit too cute reducing all of those spell lists to just four. I'll give it a chance, because I see why they did it and can recognize the balance advantages, but I'll definetely miss the use of custom spell lists as a developer tool to make a class unique.

I hadn't even thought that they might have meant "We'll totes give you a spellcasting ranger later" as "druid archetype." That makes a horrible amount of sense and I'm vaguely annoyed if that's what they meant.

I mean, at least throw in some powers.

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)..."

AnimatedPaper wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

And this any unique spell list is dead if everyone is expected to share Bard, Druid, Cleric and Wizard as their multiclass.

I'm pretty sure unique spelllists were mostly dead anyways heading into PF2. One of the issues they ran into as time went on was that, everytime they added a new spell, they had to think about how it fit into everyone's spell lists. Making everyone run off the same four spell lists intead of the, what, ten different lists we had in PF1, will make updating and adding to those lists a lot easier. Especially with the four essences guiding those decisions behind the scenes.

I'm sure there will be some variations. We see Bards get unique cantrips, and the powers aren't on any spell list and can be assigned to a class as appropriate, but those will be the exceptions.

I'm sorry, I liked having unquie spell lists. One reason I'm ticked about Alchemist is that we're losing that. Witch too ail just share with Druid or Bard now.

But this is more about spell lists not multiclassing so ill drop it. Well after one more bit. They said they wouldn't give Rangers in the playtest spell casting. Want to see how how the core mechanics do and maybe add them in later. An option to do so.

If the option is to just Splice into Druid, I feel ... Not cheated but mislead.

Considering they mentioned Spell Points, like a Paladin specifically, and not "regular casting," I doubt that's what they meant as the possibility.

Secret Wizard wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

As small races go I think something like:

wis halfling
Chr kobolds
int gnomes/goblins

INT Goblins is not a Golarion thing.

It's PF1 thing, a WoW thing, but not something we've seen represented.

Yeah, comparing Golarion Goblins with Azeroth Goblins really shows that Golarion Goblins are not an Int race. Goblins in WoW are renowned geniuses that can build anything as long as you accept that it will explode. While Paizo's goblins are not astoundingly stupid they certainly aren't notably intelligent either.

Personally I think goblins aren't very charismatic either and their stat distribution should have been +Dex and Con/-Wis, though Paizo likely thought it would be OP for an ancestry to be capable of getting stat boosts in all three physical stats. If goblins have to have a strong mental stat, then the next step is to ask "what mental-based class should goblins be naturally good at?" and I think the easy answer there is Bard.

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.

But everyone is okay with the Gnome Druid? What mechanical synergy does she have that a goblin Alchemist lacks?

I really like this idea in theory, and want to see more from it. My big concern is Fighter, though.

Presumably the dedication feats are class feats, which fighters get every level, yes? So what's stopping a fighter from doing everything and still having some class feats for their own base class?

They get their weapon proficiency increase baseline so they wouldn't need to feat out for that, meanwhile they also have 8th level spellcasting in 2 other classes, if they'd like, and some rogue skills. I know there's a dedication limit for the feats, but still, 20 levels of class feats doesn't make that feel totally like a stopgap.

I'm absolutely on board with this and I want to see where it goes, as I said, I'm just voicing concerns I have. I know we haven't seen the full system yet and there may be reasons NOT to be that monster I mentioned building above, but it's worrisome to imagine it'd be easily achievable for fighter; does that make sense?

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.

MerlinCross wrote:

Well I think this kills doing BOTH at the same time.

True. I don't see being able to build a classic Half-Elven Fighter/Mage/Thief or Fighter/Mage/Cleric with this, at least not easily or being able to function as this across the level spectrum.

But I am willing to try the system as a whole and see how it works out.

Really interested to see how I could build some sort of Arcane Archer with this, especially with the new casting and action economy mechanics.

I... I... I hadn't even thought of Arcane Archer yet. Oh. Boy. I have my second character concept now. Thank you very much. :)

RafaelBraga wrote:

even the wickest blow would be even wicker ( i dont know if this word exist at all)

Coming to help you

It seems like you meant to say weakest and weaker.

Or you may have meant

Even the most wicked blow would be even more wicked

Wicked good job theah

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.

Why do some people get mean so quickly? :(

Anyway, it's the playtest. So now, we've got to use Half-Elves and Half-Orcs, and if they suck, we've got to let Paizo know! It's not set in stone yet, folks!

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"...
(From the Halfling and Gnome blog)

Larger damage die, but still needs to reload, and only half strength mod...

** spoiler omitted **

Well that was awesome.

I personally like Power Points. Then your Powers use Power Points. Would there be something wrong with this that I'm missing?

ENHenry wrote:

Anyone else besides me blowing a gasket while trying to figure out what classes to play for the playtest? :) I know that Doomsday Dawn will have at least two chances for players to make PCs to play, but I can't narrow it down from twelve choices!!!

Mark, why couldn't you ladies and gents have intentionally made at least one or two classes suck, to make my life easier??? ;-)

If you are playing all of Doomsday Dawn and you never repeat classes except when it's the same character, you will get to play 5/12 classes. Still doesn't help you though, I think. Sorry, which do you recommend we make suck?

Well, obviously the... actually, what about the... No, I meant the... Or maybe the...

Dang. Never mind... Ha!

Wow. :)

:')

Tears of joy, my friends. Tears. Of. Joy!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to figure out how to break space-time so August 2nd will be here in the next 4 minutes...

BECAUSE I CAN'T WAIT!!!

Symar wrote:

Ugh, those action icons. The two-action icon looks like it means 3 actions. Being a Diamond+Chevron for a single action is okay as long as its just the single action symbol. As soon as more chevrons are added on it looks like it takes more actions than it does. Please spell out the number of actions taken as well.

Why does it look like the two-action symbol is three actions?

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.

I didn't mean that drastic of an increase, though. Just... Something.

Anyway, it was just a thought.

Mbertorch wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

As I said recently, I wanted a spontaneous casting druid from day 1 and never got one. So my hope is that we can get at least one spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists (distinct from a "pick one of these four" spontaneous caster like the sorcerer.)

I will say this: maybe you can approximate that by multiclassing a primal Sorcerer and Druid? Is casting from charisma a problem in itself by any chance?

I just think it's better to do a whole other class devoted to primal casting. Sorcerer gets all 4 lists because of its theme ("Special Blood") and I don't want to have to buy into that notion (and also be extremely squishy) in order to cast spontaneously from a given list.

Like there's no reason to conserve classes- there's going to be a lot of them in a few years no matter what. So if we can establish clear thematic or mechanical niches, fill them.

I understand the desire, but all I can think when I see this is: "BLOAT."

If you feel intimidated by game options just play the Dungeon! board game. "Bloat" is a nonsense pejorative that gamers like to throw around.

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.

Mbertorch wrote:

Aaargh. I had an idea that would be (relatively) easy for Paizo to implement and make a lot of people happy (I think), but mentioning it doesn't follow the rules of this thread... :(

So, I guess as a regular contribution... one of the only things I like about 5E's Paladin is the Oath of the Ancients. So something like that, maybe?

Alignment I'm guessing?... Sorry, not here. We'd like this thread to be kept open. ;^)

Oath of the Ancient has a very Fey/Elf/Druid vibe to it. I could see that coming in a later book. Though I could see Elf Paladins taking that Oath, it is very Elfish...

Well...

And I like how Oath of the Ancients just focus on Light and Goodness without more specifics than that.

I hate prepared casting with a passion. I want a spontaneous wizard.

In 3.x, I could do that fairly easy.

PF1, much harder.

Now, seems even more difficult.

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.

This is everything I wanted from this class in PF2. Well. Freakin'. Done.

Wow. Just wow. This... This is nice. I...I don't know what exactly to say yet, but this is good.

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
(Basic class intro) Champions are Holy - or Unholy - Warriors who not only dedicate themselves to a deity, but also a Code of extreme Principles. Their resolve and drive comes from both of these, and it is not a path for the faint of heart. These Codes are so essential to their being, that oftentimes Champions are known first and foremost by the Code they follow.
The Paladin devotes himself to upholding goodness, first and foremost, and then the importance of laws, traditions, and honor.
In a similar way, the Vindicator is devoted to all that is good, but then departs greatly from the Paladin, in that she always safeguards the freedom of the individual and cannot abide tyranny, no matter how minor.
A Tyrant, like a Paladin, is a defender of law and order, but is a servant to evil instead.
Finally, the Antipaladin is, appropriately, the antithesis of the Paladin. Selfish. Cruel. Always going out of her way to hurt others and spread evil and chaos.

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.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Bruno Mares wrote:

Snares/traps can be an ok/nice/interesting option, but as a permanent/common/fixed/main class feature, you're doing totally wrong...

They are a nice/interesting option. They are not a fixed class feature.

Does this means spellcasting could still be an option for rangers?

Also, the Hunt Target and Traps/Snares is giving this Ranger preview a very strong feeling of World of Warcraft(WOW)'s Hunter.

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.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Jinjifra wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Bruno Mares wrote:

Snares/traps can be an ok/nice/interesting option, but as a permanent/common/fixed/main class feature, you're doing totally wrong...

They are a nice/interesting option. They are not a fixed class feature.

How does the DC work for the snares? You mentioned that quick snares have a lower DC and that a ranger can use a scaling DC instead of the fixed one for their traps.

Thanks for answering all of our questions!

It depends; is this just some random guy or gal who spent a single skill feat on snares, or is this a ranger who's actually sinking class feats into snares? For the former, you use the DC in the snare, but for the latter, you can use a strong scaling DC. The lower DC is for the no-cost snares; setting them quickly does not decrease the DC.

Oh okay, that sounds pretty solid. Is it a two or three feat investment to be able to quickly set snares at the scaling DC? IT seems like if you are focusing on it you could be build a pretty interesting character based around traps.

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?

Mbertorch wrote:

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.

If you want to be the debuff master, there's a lot of classes that can do that now (even fighter, Luis put together what I called a "Malboro" fighter who chained together up to 4 conditions if his turn went really well for him (and bad for my monsters!). Bards can be nasty buffers or debuffers and more besides, but you'll have to wait for the bard blog for details!

... 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.

Thing is, flavor wise majority of paladins in 1e had a deity, but rules wise 1e paladins didn't actually need a god despite being divine casters and all.

Like with ranger and druid it makes sense since they get their divine power from nature itself, but with paladins apparently they just got divine powers from being uber goody two shoes?

Anyway, yeah, I've always preferred "Warrior of deity" paladin to "I'm super knight of goodness" paladins. I do gotta admit that warpriest is bit weird in that it overlaps flavorwise a lot with clerics and such, like idea is that warpriest are militant priests, but clerics depending on build and domains can also be mainly melee characters instead of mainly wizard like "stay afar to cast spells" characters.

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.

Xerres wrote:

I mean, I'd overall prefer four separate classes for the four corner alignments. But at best, that'd be Paladin first, and then the others... eventually.

First of all, Hi Xerres! Long time no see.

Now, I want to address this concern that I hear from the CG group time and again.
When I was at Paizocon, I had an enlightening conversation with Mark (and others) about Paladins. The topic came up because of two reasons: One, the Gauntlet Blog unexpectedly (for Mark anyways) was posted during Paizocon. And two, I love Paladins. Plain and simple. Anyhoo... Mark spoke about the design process behind the Paladin. He spoke about his "quest for the Holy Grail" from the Paladin blog, but he gave further info that was not revealed in the blog. Mostly everyone agreed that Paladins should be at LEAST LG, but he mentioned a close second to the LG-only stance. The Four Corner Alignment stance. There's serious backing to the 4 corner alignment classes at Paizo. And I can confidently say that Mark was onboard with that. (Mark if you're reading correct me if I'm wrong please) So to me it's not a question of if, it's a question of when... Yeah, they can't officially say that. They can't promise anything; but why would they straight jacket themselves with a promise?
Warning: Potential Future Predictions incoming...
Ok, so let's be honest here guys. (in a logistical way) The Paladin is not going anywhere. The class is too iconic, and has too much D&D/Pathfinder history. (even with Seelah) They are not taking the class out of Core, even if it's a "Prestige Archetype" in the Core book. You don't take classes away from the Core. That'd be too catastrophic. So what does that leave? Opening the class to other alignments, or keeping it closed. Picking one or the other is going to cause a lot of strife. (I'm including Paizo internally as well) So how do you prevent that and appease the two sides?

The Four Corner Alignment System.

Keep the Paladin in Core as is. (LG included) Make the class as...

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

Dragon78 wrote:

Is signature skill like a class skill?

It's a Skill you can get to Master level or above, all others cap at Expert.

There are a variety of non-Class ways to get more of them (the Pirate Archetype Dedication gives Acrobatics, the Pickpocket Skill Feat gives Thievery, presumably etc. etc.), but they're still relevant. They also seem tied to the number of skills you get, which is interesting.

Mbertorch wrote:

Question: if there are 3+, can there be 5+ or 7+?/, for skills?

Presumably, yeah.

Mbertorch wrote:

Personally, my order would be something like the the following:

Least (+3?):
Sorcerer, Cleric, Wizard, Druid

2nd Least(+4?):
Barbarian, Paladin

Middle(+5?):
Monk, Fighter

2nd Most(+6 or 7?):
Alchemist, Ranger, Bard

Most(+8?):
Rogue

I'd put Alchemist way lower (as an Int-based Class), and wouldn't put Barbarian lower than Fighter (that seems weird and unwarranted). But really, I'll just be satisfied if everyone who isn't a spellcaster has 4+, and nobody who is a spellcaster has more than 4+ except for the Bard.

Eh. It's always irked me that the trained martial character is less skilled than the instinctive martial character.

Tholomyes wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

They are primarily lore and don't appear in the playtest rulebook, even though they shape magic from behind the scenes.

Material/Physical Essence is on the Material Plane and much derives from the Elemental Planes.
Mental Essence is associated with the Astral Plane
Vital Essence is associated with the Positive Energy Plane and the First World
Spiritual Essence is associated with the Ethereal Plane and the Outer Sphere, like Heaven and Hell and such.

Incidentally, the druid's primal magical tradition, previewed at the Paizocon banquet, draws upon Material and Vital Essences. This means that primal magic is rooted in an instinctual connection and faith in the world around, a faith in the cycle of day and night, the cycle of the seasons, and the natural selection of predator and prey. It also means druids get great Material Essence attack spells and Vital essence healing spells, which is a potent and versatile combination.

Since Arcane is Material/Mental, and Divine is Vital/Spiritual, and Druid is Material/Vital, that makes me suspect that Occult is Mental/Spiritual, which seems accurate.

Certainly the Astral Plane and Ethereal Plane were major focuses for the various occult classes. Magic that blends mental and spiritual, whatever it might be, would have spells focusing on thought and emotion, as well as those that influence the mind and elevate the soul, and it might involve an eclectic study of disparate esoterica rather than more scientific study of the physical world and the schools of magic common to a member of an arcane tradition like a wizard.

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.

Ssalarn wrote:

Corrik wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

That's not quite right. The Inner Sea World Guide describes the core races as being "The most expansive and populous of Golarion's races[...]" which goblins absolutely are. Goblins actually significantly outnumber several of the core races; half-orcs in particular are nowhere near as numerous, and goblins outbreed dwarfs by a ludicrous factor, since dwarves rarely have more than 2 children and reach adulthood at 40 years, while goblins breed continuously and reach adulthood in only 5 years. Goblins can also be found throughout Golarion, including across the Inner Sea region, throughout Tian Xia, and across the caverns of the Darklands. "Populous and expansive" is not even remotely the same as "generally well-liked by others".

it

Then why aren't Kobolds a core race? Why only the murder mascots?

Because kobolds are rarer than goblins, for one. Their light-sensitivity prevents them from living in many areas that goblins typically occupy, they reach adulthood at half the pace goblins do, and while scattered bands of kobolds are found throughout Golarion, they tend to be clustered near caverns that connect to the Darklands, their primary habitat. They are also well-known for, and frequently called out as, being inherently cowardly, which makes them a poor fit for a core race of adventurers. Also, because there's a finite amount of space in any given book, and there's probably only room for one new core race.

They are still far more numerous than the majority of the core races if we are going to claim that numbers are a qualifier. And to understand correctly, Goblins cruel and chaotic nature makes for fine adventures and qualifies for core, but kobold's penchant for guerrilla warfare disqualifies them?

All I'm going to say is: Kobolds better be a player race in the PF2 equivalent of the APG

It kinda blows my mind when people act on the assumption that everything that existed in PF1 will of course be in PF2.