Mechagamera's page

582 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 582 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

James Jacobs wrote:
Voss wrote:
Desna comes across as profoundly true neutral in this snippet. More concerned with opposites and duality existing than creating weal and avoiding woe.

Neutrality being obsessed with balance is more of a D&D thing.

Desna's more trying to say that "Ugly people can be nice, and beautiful people can be awful—don't judge a book by the cover, and you should try to approach any new thing with the assumption that you might be meeting your new best friend rather than assume that the thing you just met needs to be killed or put down or ostracized because it looks different."

Cool. It makes me think of how nihilistic evil is mostly a CE (demon) in D&D, and it is more a NE (daemon) thing in PF. I appreciate the variety.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suspect that the material plane is unpleasant to the elememntals. It may even be painful. Think of the poor fire elemental--it is bitterly cold and there humidity in the air--it may not do damage in the game sense (no hit points lost), but it can still be unpleasant.

They may regard organic life as an unnatural aberration, maybe akin to how the average humanoid would view something from the Far Realm. No one badmouths John Q. Dirtfarmer if he uses his shovel to smack some tentacle horror that pops out of a dimensional portal without waiting to see if it will suck out someone's brain.

In my games, I have the Elemental Liberation Front (ELF), a group of elementals trying to end the slave taking practices of the material plane's magic users. No reason to assume that elementals don't talk to each other, and stories of mistreatment by humanoids may be widespread.

If a PC found him/herself in an unpleasant environment and met some hideous monsters that were widely regarded as hostile in the PC's culture, what do you think he/she would do?


Tender Tendrils wrote:
I kinda like the idea of an int based racket being about tax fraud.

Bring on the white collar rogue.


WatersLethe wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
To my mind, a warlock is a male witch. Other than sex, there's no difference.

I reserve the term Warlock for the D&D class that focuses on all-day blasting, is charisma based, has limited casting, and requires a pact.

The PF1 Witch was not even close to that to me.

The 4e warlock could be either an int caster or a cha caster and spent all day making sure that warlock's curse was on somebody (and a lot of somebodies at higher levels) and could hang around a summoned minion. By 3rd level, the 'lock only used eldritch blast if he/she ran out of creepy encounter or daily spells. I don't know about you, but that seems just a cackle short of being a lot like the PF1 witch to me.

The 3.5e warlock was cha based, didn't have regular casting, was focused on the Eldritch blast, could wear armor, and had a better BAB.

5e Warlock doesn't have regular casting, is cha based, and does lots of Eldritch Blasts (Or so I've heard).

If the Witch had an offensive blast they could spam, and was a spontaneous caster, and had either 6th level casting or a reduced number of slots, I would have seen them as a much closer Warlock imitation.

The 4e warlock is clearly the inspiration for the witch. It doesn't matter what the 3.5 or the 5e version does. It is just as relevant to talk about what the 2e ranger or 1e paladin did as it is to bring up either of those warlocks.


WatersLethe wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
To my mind, a warlock is a male witch. Other than sex, there's no difference.

I reserve the term Warlock for the D&D class that focuses on all-day blasting, is charisma based, has limited casting, and requires a pact.

The PF1 Witch was not even close to that to me.

The 4e warlock could be either an int caster or a cha caster and spent all day making sure that warlock's curse was on somebody (and a lot of somebodies at higher levels) and could hang around a summoned minion. By 3rd level, the 'lock only used eldritch blast if he/she ran out of creepy encounter or daily spells. I don't know about you, but that seems just a cackle short of being a lot like the PF1 witch to me.


I admit that a wide variety of patrons is an assumption (one I feel good about but still an assumption). It all depends on what is the most important part of being a witch. If it creepiness, then no need to go farther than the occult.

If it is getting magic by being the student of some otherworldly being, then different types of patrons seem worthwhile. That being said, there are some missing outsiders from PF1 that if they became occult would go along way to filling the fiend/celestial/fey patron roles. Kytons in particular practically scream occult as does their home, the Plane of Shadows. Oni, Rakesha, or Qlippoth are also possibilities. For the Qlippoth, maybe the demons have finally driven them totally out of the Abyss or they left to strike a major blow (I mostly included them for the creepy factor). Agathions are a little tougher sell as the good occult guys, but I could be persuaded by a good story (they collectively decided to sacrifice their place in Nirvana to more actively battle evil). Not sure who could be the occult stand in for the fey off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be some.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I'm not sure we really need prepared any and to be honest the idea of just checking off every box for the sake of checking it off sounds.. not great. We don't really need ten flavors of 10th level spellcaster just to check off boxes.

Not to say that more casters aren't bad, but they should have some really strong thematic thing tying them into the game, not just exist to fill an arbitrary niche.

Like, Wizards and Arcane Sorcerers already feel really similar. Throwing a third caster in there feels like it would be pretty suffocating unless it has something really compelling to set it apart, which is in and of itself hard to do with how minimalist full caster class features actually are.

Regarding Witches, while I don't think it's necessary for Patrons to define spell lists, I would still like to see them be a lot more meaningful than 1e Patrons. The fluff of the Patron is really neat, thematically... but in practice there just isn't much there.

I like Hexes as a combination of cantrips and focus spells like the Bard has... maybe we could even get a damage dealing one so I can snag a patron and a big nuke and pretend to be a D&D warlock.

Inquiring minds want to know: how is prepared occult any less "checking off boxes" than prepared any? You might be able to argue that it is a more important box, but ultimately it is just a box.

Its about the reason for making the decision. The point is that the choice shouldn't be made just to fill a box, and you shouldn't just keep adding classes just to fill those boxes. The decision should be "I have an interesting and fun class concept, what tradition and method of spellcasting best fits that concept and helps to develop its distinctive identity".

While I am actually all for the sorcerer being pick a tradition (as it best fits the concept) I feel that making the witch pick a tradition doesn't feel right for the witch, and that occult magic is what the witch should be all about. (As the...

I get magic because my daddy is a devil is okay for that magic to be divine, but I get my magic because I learned it from a devil means the magic is somehow occult? On the surface, that doesn't feel right to me.

Now if they say something like "devils and fey lords teach witches occult magic in order to disguise their influence", I could buy that (assuming they explained how a nonoccult patron can teach occult magic [for devils I assume it would involve mining knowledge from occult casters souls in Hell]), but I haven't seen anything like that either (especially on this thread)


Squiggit wrote:

I'm not sure we really need prepared any and to be honest the idea of just checking off every box for the sake of checking it off sounds.. not great. We don't really need ten flavors of 10th level spellcaster just to check off boxes.

Not to say that more casters aren't bad, but they should have some really strong thematic thing tying them into the game, not just exist to fill an arbitrary niche.

Like, Wizards and Arcane Sorcerers already feel really similar. Throwing a third caster in there feels like it would be pretty suffocating unless it has something really compelling to set it apart, which is in and of itself hard to do with how minimalist full caster class features actually are.

Regarding Witches, while I don't think it's necessary for Patrons to define spell lists, I would still like to see them be a lot more meaningful than 1e Patrons. The fluff of the Patron is really neat, thematically... but in practice there just isn't much there.

I like Hexes as a combination of cantrips and focus spells like the Bard has... maybe we could even get a damage dealing one so I can snag a patron and a big nuke and pretend to be a D&D warlock.

Inquiring minds want to know: how is prepared occult any less "checking off boxes" than prepared any? You might be able to argue that it is a more important box, but ultimately it is just a box.


TOZ wrote:
Well, it's not like fighters take notes of how they used to swing their sword...

Is that the nice way of saying it doesn't really matter what happens to martials?


Eh, Nethys is erratic, so He changed stuff. Heck, magic users were getting pretty lazy (when is the last time a wizard created a new spell?), so weakening magic is a good way to spur innovation.

Also, it is remarkable how little anything martial is mentioned in this thread.


If clerics were really the source of their power, then it would make sense for gods to grab any of them they could into their service. But that isn't how it works in Golorian, not to mention that "being the source of your divine power" is the divine sorcerer's gimmick.

I could even see if it clerics were charisma casters, since maybe they could draw large groups to worship the god, but even though PF 2 clerics can benefit from charisma, they are still primarily wisdom casters.

Which brings us to wisdom. You are really great at noticing things, except the nature of the god you are worshipping?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am assuming the witch will be the prepared version of the sorcerer: your patron might be, for example, a dragon (arcane), a devil (divine), an archfey (primal), or a GOO (occult). The hexes will be the focus spells. Int caster, which will also solve "it isn't right that my wizard can't summon a demon", since a witch/wizard multiclass should be a good combo.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Norgorber, maybe? One of the few things capable of killing a god would be another god, and as a god of assassination it wouldn't be out of character for him.

I have other reasons for believing this as well, but they're more related to my conspiracy theory that Galt's Gray Gardeners are a front for Norgorber's church and they're deliberately keeping Galt from stabilizing to perpetuate a culture of violence, misery and paranoia that thieves, assassins, poisoners and serial killers can thrive in, as opposed to the prophecy in the Book of 1,000 Whispers that "Galiti shall be liberated from the rule of the Crown and become a bastion of peace, prosperity, and learning." All while pulling off the ultimate heist by stealing souls from Pharasma via the final blades!

In a new golden age, there'd probably be no place for a god like Norgorber, so maybe he assassinated Aroden to make Golarion a playground for his kind instead...

Maybe Norgorber got him in the same way as "Darth Vader killed your father, Luke" actually played out. It would explain the whole "kill anyone who knows my secret identity" bit.


I figure lay followers can be any alignment, since all they know is what they have been told. It wouldn't be hard to make Asmodeus look "good" (if not Good) or at least a necessary evil (and Hell as Meritocracy isn't necessarily a punishment (although it is)]. No Internet on Golorian to tell people Asmodeus is evil (or that he is secretly Desna). It seems like you could play someone like that as LE with a big chip on their shoulder and contempt for those not trying to move up in the world (at least as you see it), since PC's are generally trying to level up, and thus are "worthy of respect."

Someone drawing divine power from the Big A is opening themselves up to him. If you have high wisdom, there is no excuse for not knowing Asmodeus's nature (no one expects that much mentally from high charisma classes, so if you want to play a divine caster who doesn't know what is going on, divine sorcerer or paladin should be fine).


Quandary wrote:
How's that go? "...Yup, nobody understands you when you're purple..."

I think the purple worm appreciates it when the food announces itself.


That is just spending money that could be better spent on booze. I kid, I kid. The good part about CC is that if you think you are doing good, even if you didn't think it through enough, He won't hold it against you. A talking beer mug might tell you to do differently next time, though....

Now some deities might want to know why you didn't read through 300 volumes of dwarfish religious texts to see what the accumulated wisdom before you did this, but CC isn't one of them.


Doesn't the bulette do most of its traveling by burrowing? Since that is digging through the ground instead of some kind of magic phasing, it seems like that would be hard on the rider.

If the bulette's preferred form of travel is burrowing, making it stay above ground seems egregious like riding a seal on dry land.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
Unless the evil champion's reactions are going to be "if I am going to get hit, I push my buddy in front of me", I am not sure how evil champions are actually going to work. (or maybe "if someone else is getting healed around me, and I am less than 100% on hit points, I use my reaction to steal the healing").

The playtest included an Antipaladin NPC. The actual effect was the same as Retributive Strike, but instead of triggering when an ally was attacked, it's triggered when someone scores a critical hit on the antipaladin herself.

Whether they will stick to that specific version, I don't know, but I'm positive it'll be triggered by someone attacking the Evil Champion personally.

Thank you. Reacting when someone attacks you seems more LN-N-CN than evil to me, but I am sure you are right, unless they decided to make the evil champions super cliché evil (which would actually be my preference--what's the point of being a champion of evil when you are barely evil?)


Mellored wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:
Maybe this leaves design room for the Inquisitor (or some new class) to be the offense oriented holy warrior? Not at convenient as having it from the get go but could be something.

I would go with crusader myself. Both names have cultural baggage, but crusader has less "I have to tie them up before I hit them", and more "militant invasion" which seems like what is missing from the champion.

Unless the evil champion's reactions are going to be "if I am going to get hit, I push my buddy in front of me", I am not sure how evil champions are actually going to work. (or maybe "if someone else is getting healed around me, and I am less than 100% on hit points, I use my reaction to steal the healing").

4e had "Avenger" for that. Light armor, mobile, and high accuracy 2-handed weapon.

I like Paladin as a defender. Protector of innocent should be good at protecting. Not smiteing.

Maybe a "demon slayer" ranger for the offensive part. They can go full van helsing.

I figure Disney might have issues with anyone trying to copy write "Avenger" for anything. Even WotC with Hasbro $ backing them chose to go "oath of vengeance" instead of "avenger" this time around....

Other than that, avenger would be a good name.


Uchuujin wrote:
Maybe this leaves design room for the Inquisitor (or some new class) to be the offense oriented holy warrior? Not at convenient as having it from the get go but could be something.

I would go with crusader myself. Both names have cultural baggage, but crusader has less "I have to tie them up before I hit them", and more "militant invasion" which seems like what is missing from the champion.

Unless the evil champion's reactions are going to be "if I am going to get hit, I push my buddy in front of me", I am not sure how evil champions are actually going to work. (or maybe "if someone else is getting healed around me, and I am less than 100% on hit points, I use my reaction to steal the healing").


You could have damage-dealing spells treat the target as neutral the first time it hits, but mark the target as having an alignment that takes extra damage by the spell (the mark fades in a minute). You might power up the alignment damage a little bit, since you won't get it the first time you use it.


Modern bureaucracy has totally solved any issues involving clerics worshipping pantheons. Simply put, when the cleric prays in the morning, his/her magic Outlook calendar tells him/her which god is powering spells for the pantheon that day. Some days that might suck (Xeroxus, the TN God of Stationary won't help your divine lance any...), but if you wanted dependability, you should have picked a single god (as anyone who has ever worked for a council, commission, or other group where you have a lot of bosses will tell you).


I think it is supposed to be simplified in some manner. The last time they did something like that was in PF Unchained, which involved monster roles. If roles are a thing in PF 2, that will negate any value of "typical monster stats by level", since you would have to know the level and the role. It might mean that monsters with the brute role will get a "brute bonus" to an attack that is unrelated to their stats (but related to their CR or XP) in lieu of juggling feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe for sorcerers, "your deity" picks you instead of the other way around. If you are infused with their power (and maybe you didn't do a single thing to try to get that power), it seems like you are already "picked", regardless of who you pray to. Seems like a good source of Plot to me.....


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Kobolds discover that metallic dragons are also dragons. Some kobolds come to serve their new metallic overlords (undoubtedly a social engineering experiment by one or more gold dragons). Better living conditions produce healthier (and thus better for being a PC) kobolds.


An alternative approach would be to make some area effect spells with undead themes (yeah, I saw a commercial for Zombie Tidal Wave). It seems to me the benefits would be that:

1) you are getting "a lot" of undead but aren't adding to GM headaches by having to keep track of where each of those undead are.

2) since the necromancer isn't micromanaging 30 skeletons, the necromancer's player's turn shouldn't take 45 minutes.

3) an interesting heightening effect could be that the spell leaves behind a zombie/skeleton/whatever appropriate undead when the spell ends.

4) when the party goes to sleep at the end of the day, the necromancer doesn't have to worry about a random group of gnolls or ghouls eating half of his/her zombies (for some reason the "I've got an army of undead" necromancer has never been popular at my table--it is a real mystery).

5) This becomes good precedent for other themed area effect spells (I'm looking at you Impnado or Lantern Archon Thunderstorm).


Watching the medusa fights in both Clash of the Titans movies (the main reason to watch the remake) and the Percy Jackson movie, it doesn't seem like she just sits there hoping someone just happens to catch her gaze. She is doing stuff to draw attention. Admittedly that should take one of her actions, but it does make me think most gaze attack types aren't passive about it (except in the white room, where they are standing still with their eyes closed).


I can't speak for the accuracy of this list (and definitely not for the formatting), but take a look at the last half of http://pf2.d20pfsrd.com/rules/bestiary/.


I think witches will end up parallel to sorcerers with devil/demon/daemon divine patrons, fey primal patrons, Great Old Ones occult patrons, and dragon arcane patrons. Hexes can be focus abilities, so there won't be as much difference between witches of different patrons.


Vali Nepjarson wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
On a related note, I would have liked all major outsiders to have their old CR 2 and CR 20 variants in the first Bestiary. The ship has sailed though... (and Proteans never had the 20th variant at all)

Yeah they did. Izfiitars.

I do agree with your statement though. It seems odd that Lawful Neutral, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral, True Neutral and all the Good aligned outsiders are missing their Level 20 counterparts, but we still have Balors, Pit Fiends, and Pleromas.

Plus, where are the Agathions at all? Are Angels replacing them as Neutral Good?

I just kinda want to have a game which heavily revolves around a level 20 lord of all 9 alignments are involved. I feel like that'd be fun.

I was wondering that about the agathions as well. I suspect that they were trying to keep 1 outsider type per alignment, and angels took over the "main NG" spot from the agathions, but that doesn't mean they can't show up later. I think if they were going to have angels absorb agathions (like aeons did to inevitables), there would have been an example in the Bestiary.


How much of a swarm has to be together to remain a swarm? It would be pretty easy to narrate a scenario where Ang-gar the Barbarian tries to grapple a swarm of rats and half (or more) of the rats wiggle free. What percentage counts for actually grappling the swarm? If he holds 40% of the mass of the swarm is he grappling the swarm? 50%?

And since this is the rules forum, I expect a rules-based answer.

If all the rats in one hand don't fit, then you must acquit.


Sorry, I don't have the book in front of me, but what do the grappling rules say about grappling more than one creature at a time? If the rules set any sort of limitation on how many creatures you can grapple, then the definition of swarm (specifically "a mass or cloud of creatures") means you can't grapple the swarm, and you wouldn't need to say that in the swarm definition because it is in the grappling rules.


Sorry, don't have the book in front of me, but are there limits on how many creature you can grapple at a time? "Functions as one monster" is not exactly the same as being one monster (and might have been better to have been stated as "acts as one monster"), so if there is a limit on how many creatures you can grapple in the grappling rules, then by that rule it would be impossible to grapple a swarm, which is "a mass or cloud of creatures."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even if the rest of the designers decided that "I'm feeling evil" is how they meant for this to play out, I think they should clarify it, since RAW + unconventional often equals problems at tables.

That being said, I would be fine if Mark changes it. If that is the case, I hope they find something more imaginative than "eventually you will turn evil/good/lawful/chaotic"--maybe every time a nonevil type casts the spell an imp teleports into the vicinity (you don't have to be evil to use this spell, but you are helping evil get a stronger foothold in the world every time you do). Last I heard, imps are still worth xp and have loot, so it is a win-win for the murder hoboes.


As for alignment traits, having the player declare "Bob the sorcerer is feeling evil" (and thus for the time being Bob's alignment is one of the evil ones) solves that. Now, undoubtedly, Bob's player will claim he is over it after the spell is cast (and Bob is back in his previous alignment), but part of being the GM is to notice that Bob has been doing a lot of evil but not a lot of nonevil lately...


I think "My PC is suddenly feeling evil" solves this (followed by "he/she is over the evil feelings"). Not only do you get to use the spells, but temptation is preserved (and documented for when the GM wants to know if the sorcerer's alignment has changed due to all the evil spells he/she has been casting...).


I wonder if there are monster roles rules like in PF Unchained (obviously using different #'s). If so, the Goblin Warrior could be a brute and get some kind of brute bonus....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the fulness of time I am sure there will be more options. Still, I imagine the devs "to do" list is pretty big, so official "other good champions" might be a couple of years away (3rd party might be a lot sooner).


In terms of "cosmic goodness, I think the best solution would have been to make the champions more like the Hellknights, focused on a particular kind of celestial/fiend/monitor. There are nine kinds of outsider in the Bestiary with enough info to flesh out the outsider-based champions, and I am sure the other 6 big fiends types and 3 big(ish) celestial types will show up eventually. But that would have started with outsiders, not gods, but wouldn't have worked with the "Power of Love" or whatnot unless the player decided that "angels are Love."


I think if you are getting power from something other than gods, it should look different/get different abilities. It isn't like there is an excess of "magical, but largely non-spell casting" melee classes, so it is an opportunity for a new and interesting class. Ideals or ancestor spirits seem occult to me, so that is what I think they should make the "non-god paladin" (assuming they make one).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
BadHairDay wrote:
Thank god. I hated psionics from the moment it first came into D&D. It always just felt wrong because D&D requires magic and telepathy always seemed much more an element of science fiction.

If you can find a copy of it, read P.E.I. Bonewits' Authentic Thaumaturgy. It explains that the ability to do magic comes from innate psychic abilities, of which telepathy is just one, or actually two, sending and receiving. :-)

AT presents a magic system that could replace the system in just about any RPG. It doesn't provide a lot of spells - the emphasis is on using your innate psychic abilities and the laws of magic to devise your own spells. He does give a couple of examples, like "finger of blowing out of saddle", which requires a cheroot and a serape as materials. :-)

Oh, and "a spell is a process, not a thing." (It's the process of putting yourself in a mental state in which you can access your psychic abilities).

Those are great spell components. That does make me think of those old Weird Tales (and Dune) where psychic powers often involved sniffing something or drinking something (hmmmm, maybe the alchemist is already psychic). Maybe black lotus, hallucinatory mushrooms, Spice, and Granny's Moonshine as archetypes.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
IIRC hags were arcane casters in the playtest bestiary, so I'd assume they will be an arcane bloodline, as much as occult would make sense.
Ah well, I'm a little sad to hear it but thanks for the info. I'd love for classic monsters to really carve their niches into the "new" spell lists to give things more identity. Witches being occult seems to make sense for a lot of people, so Hags following suit would be great.

I agree. It would be nice to account for occult being available on Day 1. On the other hand, in the "why is bard occult" thread, Mark Seifter said: Fey are tricky! It's slightly different metaphysically, but Mechagamera was right on the money that fey were "cheating" and doing weird things with their magic, hacking the essences they have rather than using mental/vital combo, but very similar.

Maybe Hags are good at hacking too....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arcaian wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
You mean medium won't be the occult archetype for the oracle (or maybe the oracle will be the divine archetype of the medium)? The gods give visions, the spirits give me visions, six of one, half dozen of the other.
Oracles have always been varied in the abilities available to the class, but not the character - you can have a melee tank oracle, a blasting oracle, a summoning oracle, etc, but you couldn't have one oracle change between all those easily. Medium's mechanical niche is flexibility of the character, not the class, and that doesn't share much with the oracle. Thematically they're not that similar either - oracles are cursed/blessed by gods, whereas mediums channel the spirits of dead mortals. I see far more ground for similarity between a Shaman and a medium than an Oracle :)

You go see the oracle to find out what quest the gods want to go on. You go see the medium to find out what quest your dead aunt wants you to go on. That seems very thematically similar to me. It is basically mad libs.


You mean medium won't be the occult archetype for the oracle (or maybe the oracle will be the divine archetype of the medium)? The gods give visions, the spirits give me visions, six of one, half dozen of the other.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you could think of occult as powered-up hedge magic, which seems very appropriate for bards.


Stone Dog wrote:

Not that you are wrong about Bards and fey being chummy, but fey are more keyed to the Vital essence, which freds both Primal and Divine magic. The Vital essence draws from the First World.

However, fey are also pretty happy with illusions and enchantments, so have a lot of common ground with how Bards do things. It wouldn't be a surprise if some of the Bards tricks come from fey teachings.

I'll buy that with the First World and all, but I wonder if the fey will be focused on just one power source. Maybe mortals can't access vital/mental, but that would help make the fey a little more alien if that was their default. It makes sense for fiends/celestials/monitors to be Spiritual, since getting souls is a big part of their gigs, but it seems like fey have wider interests.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
I would like a more transfigural class, like the 4e warden (but not limited to "nature"). I think of it as the martial sorcerer, but instead of a weird connection to magic giving you spell casting, it temporarily turns you into a being of stone, a half-dragon, a half-angel, a humanoid bear, etc. Transformations + being inherently good at hitting things with weapons (like fighters, paladins, barbarians, etc.) is what I am going for.

Isn't this basically the PF2 barbarian? Some of the barbs totems have the Primal, Arcane or Occult trait, meaning they are Powered By Magic (TM) and they do transform you into a dragon etc.

If there is an elemental totem/instinct in the future, it probably will also transform you into a stone being.

No one played a barbarian in my playtest group. I will have to take a look at them. Thank you.


It seems like they could make the fey into an occult thing pretty easily, and bards seem like a good mix with fey, so that would be a good "in" for why bards are occult.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like a more transfigural class, like the 4e warden (but not limited to "nature"). I think of it as the martial sorcerer, but instead of a weird connection to magic giving you spell casting, it temporarily turns you into a being of stone, a half-dragon, a half-angel, a humanoid bear, etc. Transformations + being inherently good at hitting things with weapons (like fighters, paladins, barbarians, etc.) is what I am going for.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, we know what the minion trait does, so the issue is which of these three scenarios is most desirable-

1) Animal Companions have the minion trait.
2) Animal Companions are significantly less puissant and durable than player characters; they are likely to die in fights against same level opposition.
3) Animal Companion focused PCs essentially are twice as many characters as all the other players get.

4) The expected damage and versatility increase from Animal Companions is about the same as a similar feat or feature investment.

Or if we can't believe balance is possible, then outcome 2 isn't all that bad. I don't think ANY option should be viable all the time. If the level 12 Companion user has to be careful when stumbling upon an Adult Green Dragon, thats fine! Just like how a rogue doesn't get to sneak attack all the monsters in the book, or your choice of spells might fail against a monster with particular resistances/immunities etc.

5) There could be a pet class where almost all the power is in the pet (the pet can have 3 actions, and the "owner" gets 1). I call this the Lassie/Little Timmy solution.... The "owner" is pretty much there to talk to people (and interpret Lassie's actions).

If the "owner" dies, Lassie just finds a new one, the same way a ranger finds a new animal companion.

I am both shocked and intrigued by this as a class concept.

I am sure it is too far out for serious consideration, but I think in a case where there are legitimate concerns on both sides of an issue and compromise is failing, sometimes you have to go pretty far out in left field to propose a solution.

It basically flips things so the "animal companion" is really the PC, and the "owner" is the class feature (who talks, carries loot, and gives Lassie belly rubs and rawhide treats, so not an unimportant class feature).

I thought about suggesting "beast races", but that doesn't fit well with existing classes. The Lassie class can have archetypes derived from rogues, barbarians, monks, and maybe even champions (reactive attacks seem pretty reasonable for this class). Actual multiclassing is the biggest hitch, maybe Timmy could be the beneficiary of the multiclass. If the Lassie class multiclasses 7 levels of any combination of other classes, Timmy gets 2 actions which he/she can spend as a member of those other classes (Timmy gets all 3 actions if the Lassie class multiclasses 13 levels of any combination of other classes). Other classes just won't be able to multiclass in levels of Lassie (I admit this is a big drawback).

1 to 50 of 582 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>