Catfolk

Meowvelous's page

16 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On top of other aspects, a lot of iconic Paladin abilities in 1e also came past first level, which seems like something that would translate well to a Cavalier style setup.

Having it be an Archetype like Cavaliers are also opens up more options for paladins themselves, being able to be a Cleric-Paladin or Fighter-Paladin and so on, without needing to set aside the concept of a tanky defender class/multiclass for just lawful good characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Have any designers commented on the intended functioning of shields yet? I didn't see anything about them in the errata itself or the comments, but haven't been sure if I missed a post in a thread somewhere.
My group is currently going with the "shields don't dent unless the blocked attack ignores hardness" interpretation, but it would help for playtesting to know how the shield rules are intended to be read and if we're doing it wrong or right. Like, if shields are supposed to dent easily then that can have a big impact on how sessions flow, since it means prioritizing more repair abilities and using shield blocks less often.


Scythia wrote:
Unarmed attack. True, there's still a penalty to do lethal damage with it, but it's now included with simple weapons, which everyone other than Wizard gets.

I don't think there is a penalty? At least not that I've read. Near as I can tell stuff like nonlethal-immune enemies just can't be knocked out(and the final hit KO is the only difference nonlethal has from lethal).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've seen a lot of discussion about shields being flimsy, but by the playtest rules as written unless an attack ignores hardness and gets blocked by one they will never take damage themselves as the hardness reduces their damage taken to 0, and they never take more damage from an attack than their hardness.
I've heard that some devs have provided feedback saying they are meant to take 1 or more dents from many attacks(even though the rules as written do not reflect this), but what about just letting them go as currently written? It would allow you to trade actions for limited damage reduction and there wouldn't be the fear of constant breakage.


I was looking through the magic item list in the playtest when I noticed that Bags of Holding are noted as having an activation activity, which means it currently costs 1rp for every activation due to the rule(on page 376) that the activation of magic items always costs at least 1 rp unless otherwise stated.
Is this an intentional cost? And if so what does the activation of a Bag of Holding refer to since the description seems unclear?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While reading through the armor in 2e I got to wondering, is it a good time for Studded Leather to get a new name and/or description?
From everything I've read it sounds like the original idea in Dungeons and Dragons(and possibly earlier) was due to misunderstanding various reinforced armors that involved studs and leather, where the studs were actually a side effect of whatever method was used to strengthen the armor(metal plates being the most common, if my memory is right) being fastened to the leather.


Found one more fun archetype today; The Knight of Coins paladin. Trades some more normal paladin abilities for skills such as locating items, detecting magic, an improved number of skills, and bonuses when buying/selling items.


Okay, already gave my five core... but there is one more non-core archetype who's concept might be nice to see in some form at least; Living Grimoire from the inquisitor.
The idea of a priest who uses just his scholarly knowledge for his magic seems cool!~


For me... hmm.
Eldritch Scoundrel for the rogue, since it provides a very cool change to playstyle, while also providing a rogue-y mage with wizard style spell acquisition(which could potentially fit a treasure hunter or thief well).

The Martial Artist and Sohei archetypes for the monk as well. One allows for a more power(including the ability to ignore DR and hardness) focused monk while the other allows for a weapon wielding monk with an animal ally fighting alongside them.

For alchemist, the Herbalist archetype seems cool, giving druidic magics and improving their ability to find and collect herbs(as well as a nifty seedpod themed attack).

Finally as number five; the Freebooter ranger. It's a pretty short archetype, but being able to spend actions to buff allies is pretty cool(the rp aspects of being a sort of ship's commander are cool too!).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, just found out they really do plan(or at least have said they plan to do) a real "how to add a thing from 1e to 2e" guide... so yay!.. I just wish I'd found out before worrying.
Given that... yeah. I guess it isn't a gamble. ^_^
If most 1e content can be converted with relatively low effort, it means playing some crazy catfolk rogue who wields whips might be an option still(or maybe even odd classes like vigilante or shifter?)~ :3


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Ask WotC what ignoring backwards compatibility between 4e and 5e did for them.

Besides, 3PPs will be on the ball right away, just like they always are.

One issue though is... it's sounding more like the 3e dnd to 4e change? Like, a case where converting content from 1e to 2e just won't work without loads of guesswork.

Plus... is people relying on 3PPs really a good outcome for Paizo?
If people end up wanting the non-Paizo 2e(or even 1e) stuff more, it reduces sales profits that could've been retained more easily with a safer backwards(or... forwards? Like, something easy to convert 1e stuff to) compatible system, making funding of 2e more difficult... unless 2e somehow makes a surge in 1e purchases. But at that point, 1e is now beating 2e.

2e being incompatible just seems like a huge risk for Paizo to take, especially given it means people are far less likely to try to swap over mid-campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I have been thinking more on 2e and... one issue did hit me after reading peoples views from both sides of the arguments and such...

How possible will it be for 2e to gain a foothold if it does indeed lack much/any practical backwards compatibility?
Like, for anyone who's invested a lot of time/money into 1e, will having to reset to just core concepts and scrap the 10 years of books they've collected/read really be a risk they are willing to take?

While having 1e books still for sale will help a little, I worry the sudden content dropoff will prevent enough current players from taking enough of a plunge for 2e to be viable(or that people may favor 3rd party producers more than Paizo.).

I mean, if 2e DOES have enough backwards compatibility for someone to play a skinwalker shifter or an elf psychic or whatnot, huzzah!..
...but I keep hearing people talk about stuff that suggests that really won't be the case, which turns 2e into a very big gamble/downgrade for anyone who isn't fresh to the game.


Unsure how to, honestly. I did flag my own post, so that might get one to notice that I want it removed, maybe?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Calmer now, had a glass of water, and 2e isn't the end of the game or anything. Still... I do sort of hope they at least consider small 1e things once in a while after it's release. I mean, they are still going to be selling the books, but I mean maybe new content that isn't some third party thing of random balance.
Honestly, I think I just got anxious due to Starfinder feeling so different from what I'm used to, along with worries that pathfinder was going to become an odd game-heavy-rp-second thing like 4th edition DnD was. Even though logically I know that is unlikely.
I sort of wish I could delete my first post in this thread.
I feel stupid for having let a gut reaction and tiredness make me panic like that.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

So... I can't be the only one baffled by the 2E announcement. The desire for a system similar to 3.5 DnD is what drove Pathfinder's creation and what kept people coming back... why drop all of that now out of the blue?
If we give feedback, we can stop 2E. Surely Paizo will listen and realize this isn't what we, as a community, want.


So I decided to make a one-dagger rogue for an upcoming campaign a friend is running...
But I'm a little stuck on feats. Class is unchained rogue "ninja"(since as far as we can tell, it can be applied in a similar way to an archetype), and the race is human.
So far I've gone with possessed hand... And maybe wave strike and combat stamina?
It's level 7, and we're using the automatic bonus progression system, giving me a stat layout of 10 str, 20 dex, 10 con, 14 int, 10 wis, and 15 cha.

Weapon-wise, I'm aiming for a focus on wielding a single dagger, maybe with an offhand shield to boost defenses.
As for skills... acrobatics, bluff, disguise, perception, and stealth for sure.