When building an iconic dwarven paladin, I ran into an issue with spell points. I relayed this story in another thread, though that thread was more focused on builds. I'd like to take this thread to ask about SPs.
My questions are:
The reason that I'm asking is in part, PF2 already removed bonus spells from attributes. Why not decouple further and make spell points an initial number? Say, 3 base + 1 per Powers Feat chosen? This would make access to Spell Points more equal access across the board.
With a -2 on the dwarf, I felt starved in what concepts I could play, and encouraged to make decisions that did not fit the story of my character. This was all so that I could gather enough numbers to make those few points.
Is there a good way to transform the PDF to lighter text on a dark background, to reduce eye strain? Has anyone found a method?
I'm partially blind, and work on computers during the week (not a smart decision, I know, but I can set adaptions on my work computer, if it makes sense). The playtest PDF has wonderful language, but it's hard to read more than a few pages at a time without pain.
I would convert it to a Word Doc and adjust it then, but my computer goes boom, given the size of the document.
I may resort to slicing it into smaller files, and re-rendering it then, but if someone's found a method, I'd rather try that, first. Converting to DOC can rearrange text, unintentionally.
Paizo has done a lot to address the usability of previous editions. As a first time reader though, I see areas where text could be shortened or formatted into neat lists or tables to make it easier to digest or reference.
This is different than addressing typos. It has to do with how information is written or portrayed. It potentially has to do with reducing pagecount, or making material easier to understand.
I'd like to make a thread for posts like these! As first-time readers, we are excellent usability testers!
Page 10 > Rarity wrote:
...what areas could you see cleaned up? I expect most of these changes to be small/cosmetic.
In the title! I'm hopeful that martial classes will get basic access to all maneuvers, with options to specialize. Sort of like all martials would (eventually) get Improved X, with the option to take Greater X as class feats.
Monk would come out first, of course, but maneuvers are a fun area that let martials have battlefield flexibility. Plus, they're fun!
There are threads like this elsewhere. I'd like to see if we could make a gamer one. :D
Guidelines: Share vanilla, gently amusing, or everyday things about your gamerlife.
Life can seem hectic, or sometimes caught up in toxicity. The intent of this thread is to not to deny those moments, but to share the chill of others and that can be...benign gamerlife.
Today, I realized it was humid and that my precious gaming books might suffer. So, I carried a dehimidifier into the office and pressed the power button. My books are now happy, or I imagine they are. In the meantime, my office sounds as though it is inhabited by a rather large bumblebee.
I thought it'd help to compile some data. :D
For my own:
I'll always remember the story of the dad who was teaching his son how to play Pathfinder. The son looked seriously at his dad, and pointed to POWER ATTACK on the sheet.
He was going to POWER ATTACK, and defeat the bad guys in the cave!
They shared that story on this forum.
I started at age 8, myself, with my sibling who is younger than I am. We kicked it with 1st edition. I was running my own games a few years later, and that taught me more than anyone wanted me to learn about Public Speaking.
How about you?
In that spirit, I'd like to say, hey. It would be pretty cool to have some family-centered playtests. Encourage youngsters to pick up the book. I have no kids of my own, so I can't offer anything here but a please. :D I suspect Paizo can't ask either, but--maybe we could ask one another?
To say involving kids would mean "dumbing things down" would be silly. I mean, 1st edition. Come on, guys. :D These are gamer kids. They're building rockets in the back yard because they're bored for just 5 minutes.
Sssh. Your daughter's being quiet. You know she is. >.>
But, 1e had the advantage of fewer rules and fewer parts you needed to read if you were just playing. What I'm getting at is that testing as families might help us gauge things like organization and new player friendliness. It would mean we can send Wayne Reynolds better thank you notes for his awesome art, like 13/10, it made my kid want to play a druid.
Having families onboard is also a good test because it keeps us in the real world. Gamers gettin' older, yo. Let's make PF2e for all of us.
So I'm one of "those people" who love the paladin as the iconic it is. Apparently this makes me a terrible person who hates chaos. I say that tongue in cheek, because it's pretty silly.
I've done so many things that've gotten the cops called on me, oh man.
...Because I and friends were being inspired, silly, and having fun. All art involved, no substance abuse or anything like that, just high on what we were doing at the moment. We were just people a little outside of the rules and loved it that way.
Come on down. :D
What I'd love to do is come together with you guys and share ideas for a Chaos Knight. I'd like to explore ideas both past and present that would make this concept, in the words of Immortal Bill and Ted: ROCK, like the Wyld Stallion it could be. There's a third movie in the works, by the way.
Even if Paizo doesn't make one for 2e, I'll set my head to this (after I redo artificer, oh gods) because I selfishly want these on my goblins, and something about it cried out for a chaos-inspired fire-haired elf who thunders down from above, flying through the force of a chaotic warp while wielding a flaming sword. Hell, I might even be making a subrace of goblin that looks like the Fireys because ohmigosh Jim Henson I love you. >.>
Is that too much? Have I said, revealed too much?
We can be honest with eachother.
Cool Ideas That are Out There Already!
I did some quick webcombing for existing concepts tied to chaos knights. Some fun themes stood out:
* Ability to warp reality: This might be a defensive ability (in place of armor or shield) or an offensive attack.
Chaos as a Force of Personality
Chaos is less collectively focused than Order, so we /could/ say it's more based on the force of the will of the individual and their personality. So, this would be a Charisma-focused class with a high will save.
Just roll with me, here. I'm going somewhere.
Taking the Force of Personality angle lets us re-imagine some of the more destructive abilities associated with chaos. I mean, look at the Proteans, amiright? Many of the abilities I've seen tied to Chaos knight concepts also, are destructive. A 3.5 version of the class showed abilities like Brutal Aura, or Fear Aura. Intimidate is a huge element, which is like having a strong, intimidating personality.
So I get that. I do. Force of personality and all that. But, a CG version of Fear Aura might be Inspiring Aura, that was tied tied to the arts and inspiration.
Aren't gods of inspiration largely chaotic? Inspiration doesn't need to mean instruments; it can mean inspiring others, too. In any direction, good or bad. Let's get back to that personality thing and how it opens things up.
To cover both bases, whether someone wanted an Evil Chaos Knight or a Goodly one: we could offer class feats (aka "class talents") that let them choose an Intimidation effect, or an Enthrall effect where the force of their personality gets used different ways. Maybe they get bonuses when Influencing someone!
Intimidate, Inspire therefore, are two "force of personality" options that give life to the Chaotic concept. I suspect we could expand this much further.
Chaos as the Power of the Primordial
What was at the beginning of creation? We don't know, but we know there was a lot of power, potentially a lot of chaos! The Proteans want to get us back there. Plus, this is a really cool theme because it's both powerful and unknown.
I suspect this idea could be expanded hugely.
High Level Chaotic Powers
I'm basing these on Proteans, but you've got things like:
There is a lot of "meat" here. I'd love to dig in. What've you got that sounds awesome to you? :D
You know--it strikes me, with the rewrite, that gish is core, and that maybe Warpriest is, sneakily, already Core. (And that this needed its own thread.)
So, please bear with me here.
The following things we know or suspect:
...to me, this suggests we can suggest ideas for the cleric to be able to branch into multiple pathways, based on class choice:
What do you think?
It would be pretty awesome, imo.
Just tossing my hat in the ring that it'd be pretty awesome to have in Core a base framework for these sorts of things, possibly tied to ritual magic.
Some groups--like witches, priests, and so on--in the Land of Stories have thematic reasons to come together to perform magical acts. They're called Covens, Convocations, or may relate the ritual magic of a culture, performed by that people.
Would these be Group Feats, maybe? I'm not sure. Or perhaps a "favored class" "like" bonuses to ritual rules, where you get a bonus if it's a themed group? This could let cultures have their own localized magic that they're especially good at than other groups, because they're dedicated towards it--not dissimilar to how a Coven might be really good at a curse if they got together.
I'm just tossing things out, here. It'd be pretty cool to see some sketchwork in Core for this type of thing, and have it expanded in later supplements. The Witch (and other classes?) would for sure make use of it!
The Invulnerable Barbarian was a strong option that some called OP...I'm not arguing if it was or wasn't.
However, the FLAVOR of this magical archetype was delicious and delightful and it fulfilled a specific playstyle that is dear to the hearts of so many: the smashy tank.
1. Describe your ideal barbarian playstyle. :D
2. How do you think they might accomplish a tanky or "invulnerable barbarian," based on what we've learned so far?
This will be my last new thread for a while. There are certain great topics though, that I'd just wanted to bring up. And fwiw, I love the barbarian, too! They deserve a spotlight!
PF1e has its troubles, but overall it's a fantastic, fun, and flavorful game. Its amazing number of options speaks both to its development team, and its 10 years history in publication. Its options reach to the stars!
Some of the anxiety in recent threads comes from wanting to make sure that some playstyle options that we've come to know and love stay available to us. That can be a lot to pack in a Core book, compared to 10 years of history.
It doesn't render those options unimportant. It puts us in a position though, of arguing the value of one idea over the other, when part of what we are upset about is space. Space in a book, space in publication. Space and time given to it by developers.
This doesn't mean our concerns are not valid.
Frustration over this is a real thing. It can pit us untentionally against one another however, and have us saying, "your idea is worth less than mine," when part of our frustration is really, "I want to play my cool thing, but it might not be out for a while, and I'm frustrated."
What are some of the options in PF1e that you really, really want to see published soon after PF2e's launch?
In my own case, my players love, love the bloodrager and inquisitor. I'm going to be hard-pressed without these. On top of that, I'll be in the position of adapting a lot of custom-made systems and classes. Oh, man!
I don't think I'll be able to adapt the new alchemist into an artificer, and that is going to hurt. That's going to affect my players in a real way, and I will have to find a solution for it before we upgrade.
How might you mitigate some of those options in the meantime?
For artificer, I may open source the artificer here on the boards. :D Y'all are up for that, right? :D
For bloodrager, I may make it easier for people to multiclass sorcerer and barbarian, though I'll have to see how PF2e handles MCing first.
For witch, I may can hack together some nice system options shortly after launch. A lot of witch can be flavor, while we're waiting on the mechanics.
Alignment will remain part of PF2e.
However, alignment concerns are often the lurking shadow behind other concerns--sort of the man behind the mask in some cases. This doesn't mean those other concerns aren't real. It does not. It does however, point to a common or added complication that "spurs" other concerns and may make them worse. Perhaps it's the cause of those concerns in the first place.
So let's talk alignment ideas, as well as areas that alignment can make muddy ingame. How can we address these?
How would you improve alignment in PF2e?
1. Remove Law and Chaos, and have Good, Neutral, and Evil as primary alignments.
Alignment is part of PF2e. Areas alignment affects that've caused concern enough though that a reader's natural response might be "oh gods not one more thread."
On the other hand, it's a familiar discussion. It's sort of like going into a painting class and going, "What is ART?" Alignment is kind of like that for us gamers.
What areas of the game does alignment cause you concern?
* Necromancy and evil undead
...am I missing anything?
So I am in a bit of a pickle. There are some classes and options my players just love.
Will there be some general guidance available for adapting those older, loved favorites in the meantime?
Bloodrager, inquisitor, witch, swashbuckler are some of them. Cavalier I imagine can now be fulfilled by fighter with a skill focus in Nature?
Oh, and early firearms! I know they aren't for everyone. Some guidance though, there in particular, would help.
Please halp. XD
I'm a dork.
I mean, a HUGE dork.
I also have a tiny background in finance.
One of the things Paizo promised is that we'd be able to run PF1e modules on the fly with PF2e rules. (Can we get that community center for user-made content and conversions, pleeeeaaassee??? :D)
This implies that to an extent, the final stat numbers will be if not the same, similar enough that they work (wizard BAB excepted, but why was that wizard punching someone? WHY??? Inquiring minds want to know!).
I suspect that Paizo is shuffling numbers into better, cleaner boxes to do this.
LET'S DISSECT THIS THING.
Here is my theory #1:
OLD: +5 Sword!
NEW: ...is now things like Skill With Sword (+3) plus Sword Quality (+2).
Anyone want to help? (Aka, "Is anyone as much of a dork as I am? Come on, come on! It's okay! We'll form our own club and there'll be pizza every Thursday!" :D)
Over the years, PF has come out with some great social systems and mechanics.
I haven't been able to use many of them, much to my lasting regret. Most of them have been cool and awesome and it's that sort of thing you look at longingly, while knowing that adding it in adds an entirely new subsystem to your and others' gaming world.
And in my case, a lot of code as well.
A simple, simple way of attaching social rank and influence in Pathfinder can be done via a straightforward hack to the Craft and Profession skills. I realize these may be going away, but I'd like to outline the idea--and then leap from there, and see what you guys come up with as a PF2e alternative.
Here is how it currently works:
* Craft & Profession gain bonus functions: Knowledge and Diplomacy/Intimidate skills within their area of focus. This represents professional respect and influence. A dwarf skilled in weaponsmithing would be respected for her skill among other weaponsmiths. Craft/weaponsmith also serves as her knowledge of her craft's history.
In a way, this creates a simple social influence system that can flex inside of any existing game. I love the subsystems, but in my own case, I wasn't able to add them, and this hack offered a "Core" way to do it.
Other examples: Skill in Profession/Guide is influence and rank among guides, for example. Profession/merchants among merchants. A person's craft/profession reflects their influence in their profession.
Using this hack in PF2e, Profession/merchant could become a means of initiative, reacting while working out a dangerous deal on the docks, or reading the merchants' responses better than your compatriots before they attack!
To make it a more holistic system, say that at L10, maybe the PC gets to choose 2 'related' professions, and apply a certain percentage of their ranks, as a bonus, when influencing those areas.
Anyhow, this is a relatively simple "hack" I and others have used to add some social dimension and influence to existing PF games. I wondered what folks thought. :3 If enough do, maybe it's something we can look at as an adaption for PF2e?
Liberating slaves and freeing slaves is a complicated business.
Slavery as it tends to exists is a powerful and pervasive institution set within a society. It's an evil practiced by ordinary men rather than supernatural beasts. Killing the landowner might be as simple as knifing a L3 commoner. Or a L4 commoner, if we're generous.
The liberator is a builder of networks like the underground railroad to get the abused out of enslaved areas. With so many vulnerables they're suddenly, directly responsible for (who are often starved and defenseless, themselves), the liberator can't afford to get caught. They operate in the middle of dangerous territory to protect groups of vulnerable people.
They may possess the defenses of a rhetorical firebrand, arguing in forums for slaves' release. They may use that rhetoric to build their railroad, convincing people on the fly to work with them.
So...their talents by necessity are more subtle, and they aren't fighting massive beasts so often, but are fighting within institutions. They are involved in search and rescue.
A liberator PrC exists; it focuses on the ability to disarm manacles, to sneak past guards and to uplift the endurance and spirits of the slaves you've freed who've been underfed, beaten, and overworked for some time.
We have a rogue PrC as well. They gain an aura effect (how cool is that?) to stealth and disguise, to get the slaves out alive. It'd be cool to combine some of these great ideas, as well as add some sort of "underground network" ability at mid/higher levels, sort of like what the Vigilante has for influence. Or some sort of "firebrand speech." :D
I know this isn't a democracy. But, hopefully we'll get some fun, and geek-laden historical perspectives in here as well.
I'd love to see it continued as a rogue, or inquisitor, archetype, but especially rogue. The rogue deserves some sparkle and prestige from concepts like this one. I think the firebrand angle could give it some pizzaz!
Anyhow, as always, thank you for reading and thank you for all the work you've done. :D
Back in 1 and 2nd edition DnD, the rogue was the only class who could find and remove traps. Fast forward, and the rogue is often associated with these things.
That the rogue has an ability isn't a bad thing, you know? It's when those abilities encourage/force the rogue to operate separately from other party members, that combination can sometimes make it seem as though "solo adventure" is a class feature. A wizard might be the only one who casts a spell--but scouting, investigating, is an activity worthy of an adventure, or a subset of an adventure.
The emphasis on solo skills that encourage solo adventuring encourages the GM to handwave most of the scouting mission or other solo activity--since the scouting involves only one character. This unintentionally ends up cheapening some class abilities.
The rogue himself or herself though, isn't the only culprit. It's less fun when Clank McClanksaLot has only 2 skill points per level and gets labeled as a "liability" and "can only hit things."
Addressing it doesn't mean making every class the same, and I've got faith in Paizo to address it going forward. So long as we're "going back to Core," though, it brings up memories of the old solo adventure problems. Consider this my hope that those don't come back!
It's with especially the new classes, which possess more flexibility and create fewer issues; everyone has their own way to contribute, making it much less likely someone can feel locked out of part of an adventure. Losing those classes makes me somewhat concerned, even if we may regain them later on.
The rogue is an excellent debuffer, sneak, a skill expert. The "solo rogue" though, is an old issue. It would be nice to see it lessened or addressed in some way from the core forward.
Consider this thread my statement of concern. :D
Hey, there. So...my favorite adaption of Mounted Combat rules came from Rules of the Game, published by WotC back in the ancient days. One of the things that RotG did was begin to tie together the mount and rider's actions.
Dire Destiny's excellent mounted combat rules also did that to some degree. It offered other excellent ideas, but the action tie-in simplified and contained the action economy immensely.
I was later able to use the action economy tie-in, conceptually, to help tame some of the intelligent weapon quirks--and therefore open intelligent weapons to more players, while giving fewer headaches to GMs. ...and have fewer initiative slowdowns.
So...I guess I'd like to make a plea for mount balance to include shared action economy from the start. Yeah, this caused some issues in PF 1.0, but if it's built as an expectation from the start, it shouldn't run into those same issues. Plus, it's easier for the player to pick up on, and helps simplify and speed up the initiative round.
If the mount is taking a move action, so is the rider. If the rider is stopped for a standard action, and so on. It's just easier for a new player to pick up, and doesn't slow things down so much.
Shared action economy, if it's worked out for mounts, could also provide a basis for approaching other character options in ways that don't slow down initiative. Maybe when a familiar is in "bonded mode" it gains the same restrictions as a mount, but gains other options as well. Perhaps it could be used to address intelligent weapon action economy issues.
Just tossing that out there. :D