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.
Hmm. Some good points, which I'll have to consider. Part of the issue is that I haven't DM'd much for higher levels, so everything is usually still a challenge for my players. Also, as much as I love LOTR, those characters are not really as powerful as higher level Pathfinder/D&D characters, especially not casters of these games.
And this may seem like nitpicking, but while 3 levels is a bit short of a range, 6 seems like too much to me.
My main experiences with CR in 5E can be summed up with this story:
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.
Having played 5E a lot lately, and Pathfinder longer ago, I see a lot of PF1 in PF2. BUT, since you're approaching it from a different angle, I can see why it may look different to you. Which is okay. I hope it is able to thwart your current feelings, though!
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.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
This of course is a very big tangent as a result of people wanting to pretend that the Pirate Archetype is a prestige class. It isn't. We have Gray Maidens as an example of a Prestige Class. Pirate is an actual archetype and under the new multiclassing rules you get to choose whether or not you want to multiclass or take an archetype. Which is in fact less choice. Pretending otherwise does not help the discussion at hand.
But it in itself is a new choice, since this kind of Archetype (the kind anyone could take) didn't exist previously.
And, maybe the archetypes that alter specific classes alter class features, and not class Feats, and will therefore not be incompatible with the other things.
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.
Early and on mobile... Haha!But yeah, no worries. Just didn't want you to be unhappy about something I actually knew wasn't the case and could do something about correcting.
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. :)
Paladins though... I love this "Chaodin" dialogue, because it has such awesome ideas, but my (current) solution has a probably simpler (though not necessarily better) execution. Most here are familiar with the Vindictive Bastard archetype of PF1, right? And some may be aware 5e's Oathbreaker Paladin from the DMG? Essentially, wedding parts of these two ideas together. Like, in the CRB, an option for a Paladin who breaks her Oath to become, say, an Avenger (name unimportant as long as it's not Paladin). An Avenger would be an ex-Paladin more concerned with protecting her companions that the specifics of any Oaths. And an Avenger would get abilities like a PF1 Vindictive Bastard, but could still be good. Or neutral. Or even evil. Could even still be devoted to a deity. Just not above all else. And, this wouldn't even preclude things like a Chaodin down the road; rather, it would just allow for an option for people who want to play a devoted, principled, warrior, with some supernatural abilities - unlike Fighters - without having to be Lawful Good, in the CRB.
EDIT: And leave the people who want the name of Paladin to be LG only (relatively) happy.
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.
Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
Cleric is Divine. Druid is Primal. But also, Bard, the Occult caster, can probably fish pretty well too. I don’t see what’s stopping Wizard and Sorcerer from gishing. Proficiencies? Eh. Just get those too. You probably don’t even have to archetype out for those.
This. This made me laugh so much.
Thank you. :D
This is next to useless, but I'm pretty sure one of the devs at one point said there is a Feat that a Sorcerer or Wizard who wanted to get in the thick of it would be interested in taking.
This is next to useless, because it is literally all I remember about it.
Secret Wizard wrote:
What a can of worms I'm sure this will be, but... What about "Half Dex" to damage with a Feat? At least at first. Maybe full Dex could be unlocked automatically at a later level, or with a second feat?
Alric Rahl wrote:
Umm. Monday, August 1st? Not exactly...
All I hope is that making a Sling on par with these weapons is not locked behind the Halfling Ancestry. If Halflings can be better at it sooner, then fine. But if a Fighter or Ranger of a different ancestry can never be as skilled with a sling as a Halfling, say, Cleric, well, (to me) that's a problem.
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!
First World Bard wrote:
Oh really? Because I've been a (passionate) proponent of this very thing, but I've not seen it indicated by any official source (developer). I want you to be right. But why do you think it?