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.
Ed Reppert wrote:
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.....
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....
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.
No one played a barbarian in my playtest group. I will have to take a look at them. Thank you.
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.
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 always thought the real explanation was: if an evil PC summons an angel, he/she can make it kill orphans, because it isn't a real angel. Of course, the second time one my player's PC's does that, a bunch of real angels will show up (Marketing is Very Important to the cosmic powers in my games....).
Also the Elemental Liberation Front (ELF) has been teaching passive resistance to elementals so as to reduce their value to the slavers who keep grabbing them out of the elemental planes and forcing them to fight in battles they have no interest in.
For summoning in general, I like the "the summoned monster will take actions according to its nature unless the summoner gives it specific directions" model more than the "hangs around waiting for orders" model. So something like: a summoned daemon will attack the closest creature (which can be the summoner) unless the summoner directs it to attack a specific target. The daemon will move to attack the specific target; however, if a creature gets between the daemon and the specific target, the daemon will attack the intervening creature until it kills or drives the intervening creature out of its reach.
So summoning a daemon is a big deal, dangerous to the summoner and the party, but a canny group will be able to get a lot of damage out of one action.
I could see devils trying to make a deal, angels healing humanoids/fey/beasts, elementals trying to leave, etc.
I think even things like the World Wound closing aren't supposed to be that big, since there are still a bunch of demons running around (they just can't get reinforcements easily)-which may be balanced out by the lessening of support to the crusaders from distant lands who might see less threat to their survival by a finite number of demons a long ways away than from infinite demons (and possibly demon lords) coming out of the Abyss.
I like Truth Vulnerability and Peace Vulnerability a lot. I think I would add that the Glabrezu gets a small regeneration effect (maybe 2) every round that a non-demon makes a deception check or casts an illusion spell in its presence, unless something triggers Truth Vulnerability, just for a little extra nastiness for my players....
I can see that. My thought is that someone who wanted just a touch of otherworldliness could just dip into one of those classes.
It is probably a moot point, though; if half elves end up as a feat, I will be quite surprised if all the other hybrid ancestries don't as well.
I think D&D/Pathfinder could really use a "martial sorcerer" who hits things better because of "bloodlines", without all those pesky "only human" limitations of the fighter. I think between that type of class and the sorcerer (which covers casting spells because of "bloodlines"), I am not sure we would actually need planetouched races, since by being in one of those two classes (and picking the right bloodlines), your PC was either born that way or were remade that way.
I admit I was a big proponent of planetouched as racial feats, but this thread has opened my eyes on the limitations of that approach.
The Raven Black wrote:
You don't make cake taste bad because you are going to put frosting on it--frosting is a bonus for good-tasting cake. In case I am too cryptic, the cake is the sorcerer, and the frosting is focus. They didn't say "let's make the sorcerer weak because focus", but more of "let's keep focus cha-based (assuming it still is), because that benefits the sorcerer which is a little weak."
Maybe instead of just blank antimagic, each TN champion could have specific areas that they are antimagic to: Pharasma's champion could disrupt undead-creating magic, Gozreh's champion could disrupt any magic that lets you control beasts, plants, or elementals (what, that earth elemental I just summoned wasn't happy about it?), and Nethys' champion (who is probably a bard multiclass) could disrupt magic that disrupts other kinds of magic (he/she is a walking anti-anti-magic field).
That would be ideal. I guess I have just seen too many "its going to be too hard to figure out the CR for my orc barbarian 2" posts, so this seemed like something that could be easily manufactured. I definitely like moving from class level to just level.
If each monster is going to have a special gimmick (which is a good thing in my opinion) and we want the majority of special gimmicks to be worthwhile (the devs are only human and each person's idea of what is worthwhile will vary), then I think it will slow the bestiaries down a bit.
I could see books like "Advanced Humanoid Enemies and Allies" with tables like this:
Estimated Challenge Rating for Adding Levels of Wizard to Humanoid:
Base CR Level 1 Level 2 Level 3.......Level 20
With some premade NPC examples
And similar books for dragons and giants, outsiders (maybe two books, one for fiends and one for nonfiends), fey and elementals, and undead. That could fill the first couple of gaps between bestiaries.
Sorcerer aside, the design of most classes is heavily influenced by the connotation surrounding the classes name. It is why barbarians rage, wizards study, and rogues sneak attack. In an edition where you are focusing on existing players (PF1, for example), you can focus on the connotation internal to the gaming culture. The more you are trying to get new players (which I believe is a goal of PF2), the more you should consider the external connotation (which can be influenced by the gaming one, as seen in paladins).
That means that, in the beginning, clerics and paladins are going to be servants of the gods with mechanics that support that. Over time there will be more alternatives for dedicated players, but they aren't going to confuse the new players with that.
I could see something like certain kinds of monsters can sense if you are doomed (could also do this for wounded, just different monsters). It would certainly inspire a party to "fix" a doomed member if every undead for 10 miles in all directions (more if you are more doomed) started following the party around.....
In a world where you run a big risk of being eaten by trolls or manticores every time you leave a community (and sometimes even when you are still in the community), I would argue that Joe Human Commoner has a lot of incentive to lean to lawfulness if not actually be lawful, because stronger communities increase your odds of safety, and historically the best method for making stronger communities is to have community members having high levels of buy-in (and lets face it, lawful="tendency to buy in to a social group").
Crazy adventurers who willingly go into undead-filled dungeons are another matter all together....
You got my vote.
The Raven Black wrote:
It seems like it would make coming up with paladin mechanical abilities easier, particularly interesting mechanical abilities. It also seems useful for developing abilities for new outsider types....
I could see the Pharasma champion being an undead hunter (I wanted to be a ranger with undead favored enemy, but I had better charisma than wisdom).
As for the champion of Nethys:
Aspiring champion: Oh great Nethys, I desire to be your champion.
Nethys: Do paladins...sorry I mean champions even cast spells in 2e? [sudden mood change]. Any "champion" of Mine better be a full caster or ELSE. [sudden mood change again]. A champion of Nethys? Cool, we can always use another wizard.
Aspiring champion: I am not so good at studying, but the ladies love me and I have a strong right arm.
Nethys: Bards are full casters in 2e, and you sound like you would make a good one.
I did ask Mark on an early playtest thread if they were going to "fill the grid" for the other two combinations of essences. He said "no", but I don't recall if it was just for the playtest or for longer than that. This maybe PF2, but it is still Pathfinder, so I would be surprised if by 2 years in, the grid hadn't been filled at least once.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Clearly TN paladins are Champions of Indecision (and they fall by making a decision, or do they?).
I am not sure how much design space for giving Champions of different alignments different abilities (like armor proficiency), but I do hope they push it as far as they can. Anything to avoid the creatively bankrupt idea of "paladin of alignment X is exactly the same as the LG paladin, but with 'evil' replaced by some other word."
I think the main goal is to make a system easier to GM. I have to wonder how many new GM's have entered the game in recent years and how many veteran GM's have decided it is too much headache to run PF1(especially since both 4e and 5e are more GM-friendly); and please no one bring up "you don't have to do everything"; we all know the PF culture is very strong into "allow all the options or you are a bad GM." Eventually if you run low enough on GM's, all you are going to have is the charop forums. Likewise, I wonder how many "core only" games were occurring in PFS.
Making it easier on new/casual players is a very important side benefit. The fewer complications a GM has to keep track of for a PC means there are fewer complications for a player to keep track of. So these things feed into each other.
The idea I think that is best to borrow from 4e would be that utility spells have their own spell slots. That way they could keep "utility overload" from complicating game design. Even classes that would have the highest utility to general ratio (probably bards and clerics), could have a ratio of 1:2.
If wizards picked a school, then school spells could count as general or utility for that wizard.
You are missing the most important reason to be worried: NPC's don't need to be built with PC rules anymore. Just because the Big Bad NPC can send a 100 skeletons to attack the PC's doesn't mean that a PC should ever be able to get 100 skeletons.
If I was masochistic enough to design PF2, I would probably give the necromancer a swarm of undead. The mightier the necromancer, the bigger the swarm (or maybe better quality, like having to decide if you want to move from a large to huge swarm of zombies, or change to a large swarm of ghouls). You control a lot of undead with one action, and you don't waste a lot of game time doing so.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Your post is exactly the reason I think they should not have released the design goals.
It is probably worth repeating that there are five goals, and that not ever design decision is going to weigh each one equally. So if on a design decision there is a conflict between #3 and #5, they might chose #5 over #3, and on another decision, they might prioritize #3 or #5.
I know it is too much to hope that before people complain about how "this isn't consistent with goal #2" (or which ever goal they obsess over), that they spend two seconds thinking that the decision maybe more about one of the other goals, but I wouldn't mind being pleasantly surprised.
I don’t think current issues are driving Paizo’s decision (even the success of 5e). I think they are looking down the road and seeing a slow death of Pathfinder. I posted more about this on other threads, so I will just summarize:
Given all the complaints about how monsters are too powerful, if they gave PC's the ability to mass produce monsters, none of the powergamers would play anything else, and how would they get useful playtest feedback on anything else?
I am pretty sure that the post-playtest material will have create undead, long after monsters have been nerfed.
Personally, I hope they went the SF route for summons. The templates work pretty well (barring some wonkiness caused by editing), allow for a wide variety of different looking creatures without disrupting the balance, and also future proofing the spell while still allowing for exapndability by completely divorcing it from all but one beastiary entry. The example I came up with is some future splatbook coming up with a custom summoning template for followers of Calistra that had a sting attack and a charm innate magic ability in place of the default abilities; new and interesting, while not game breaking if used by a caster AND not requiring very much page space.
That is a good thought. It might be best if they made a generic critter for each role: spy/scout, defender/meat shield, melee attacker, hunter, support/healbot, ranged attack, and (as a 9th or 10th level spell) battlefield control. That way the defender (for example) is actually good at defending instead of hoping the player cobbled together something good at defending.
I think the idea is that the ranger is supposed to stalk his/her prey, and use hunt target the round before the fight actually starts (i.e., when the barbarian and paladin charge in and make as much noise as possible).
Yeah, yeah, I know, let the PC that is good at scouting actually do some scouting? There is no place on the DPR spreadsheet for that.