Hullo, Finders of the Path.
So, I stopped awarding and calculating XP for my home games awhile ago, and since I've been leveling up my players whenever I feel sufficient time has passed, but usually after every 3 game sessions. However I felt that they really weren't doing anything to earn that new level, so I'm implementing an alternate XP/Level Up system I took from an RPG called Invisible Sun.
So far it has been working ok, basicly players need to gather 3 points of Joy, 3 of Despair, and 5 Acumen. They get Acumen for completing Character Arcs that are described in the original IS system. Joy and Despair they get whenever something really good or something really bad happens to them in the game. So growth and learning come from both good and traumatic experience through the course of adventuring, and through completing personal or group agendas (Acumen from advancing Character Arcs) like rescuing princesses, founding an organization, crafting a very difficult item, joining a secret cult, exploring a lost ruined city, and so on.
All this stems from the player's actions (and reactions), what their goals are, what they actually do in the game beside murdering and pillaging creatures.
However, my players are finding it hard to get Joy awarded to them, and I'm also finding it hard to come up with story reasons to give it to them, aside from "completing the quest" (also "screwing up the quest" for Despair).
The original Invisible Sun game system indicates three things that might award Joy, and three things that might award Despair, for each "Order" in the game (that's the closest thing the game has to Pathfinder's classes). So I thought of writing three things that would award Joy and other three for Despair for each race and class in Pathfinder. Of course not all of them at once, starting with the Core ones and going up from there.
So, what I came here to ask is: What would give an elf Joy? What would give a Dwarf Despair? What about a Barbarian? Or a Ranger? I'm having difficulty with the more martial classes, given that the Orders in Invisible Sun are pretty much all made up of magical characters.
These should be things that are not super rare, like once per adventure, but also can't be things that are too easy to achieve and abuse.
For instance: a halfling might get 1 Despair by going too long without good quality food. A ranger might get 1 Despair for failing to track his favourite enemy. A cleric that consecrates/desecrates the temple of an opposing deity might get 1 Joy. And so on...
Ancestries were a disappointment to me. Before realising how it actually worked, I thought we were getting the same amount of stuff we did at level 1 in 1ed + various ancestry options as we level up. I thought the idea was to give out abilities like the great racial feats of 1ed for free, like Orc Hewer, Mage of the Wilds, Effortless Trickery etc. instead of having to pick them from your regular feat selection, I was stoked.
But no, you get minimal physiological traits from your ancestry and then ONE ancestry feat at 1st level. The idea of getting ancestry-related abilities for free as we level up and not just at 1st level is great, however it becomes completely void if we don't get the normal racial abilities we got at 1st level in 1ed.
I mean, elves don't get their most iconic feature, Keen Senses.
On top of that, this system destroys the late great Racial Points system from Advanced Race Guide, where you could add a ton of little quirky and flavourful options at 1st level. I wonder if they want to evolve Pathfinder, which has become its own game and not just another D&D clone, why are they throwing original Pathfinder innovations like this out the window?
Designers keep blaring about design space, and even though they have expanded it by, let's say, three steps with getting Ancestry Feats during your adventuring career, they have also sent it six steps backwards with how little we get at 1st level.
I'm quite sure this is another decision to make the game more streamlined for new players by giving them fewer options to begin with, giving them more options in a slower pace with time, and also to set back power creep.
Well, if those are really the reasons... I don't really care about these two aspects, not to be selfish, but is no great help putting in place mechanics like this in order to bring new players in if they also don't appeal to veterans.
This is not the game that appealed to me in the past, I like a lot of options from the get-go, I like how powerful, and grand, and heroic, and full of tiny quirks Pathfinder characters are.
Well that's because I actually like the Skill Feat mechanic very much, even if the feats are underwhelming they can still be fixed, what bummed me out was that really don't have the options (Skill Feats) necessary to invest in the skills I like. So really wouldn't need to get Arcana to Legendary, because as I said only one skill feat available for it, and as you pointed out no need for that. But the thing is I want to get Arcana to Legendary, and I want some cool skill feats to go with it, but nope, we don't get any of that.
As for the weak abilities, well I much prefer to be a weaker starting PC and get super awesomely heroic and powerful at later levels than this dragged down progression that feels like you're always at starting levels.
Yeah, I can be long winded, but dang. I got lost very quickly in trying to read anything constructive in what starts off as a "I don't like it, I'll never play it" feel of post.
Sorry, fixed that, it's because I started writing about 2nd edition in a comment section and decided to recycle the text so I could use it here. Also, I will DM it to two to three parties in the sheer hope of providing feedback to avert the catastrophe of this playtest.
I'm sorry but I heavily disliked almost everything that I read.
All feats, be they general, class, or skill, are very underwhelming, it seems Paizo let the Nerf Hammer completely loose. I can only specialize to legendary into three skills, but it seems Paizo determined that the skills I like aren't worth it, so they get only one or two skill feats that I can select, despite my desire to specialize in them, but skills like Athletics, Acrobatics, and Society get a ton of skill feats. I can't craft magic items using Arcana (1ed's Spellcraft) anymore, so I'm forced to invest in Crafting instead of a more flavourful skill that I'm actually interested in. Lore skills outside Arcana, Nature, Religion, and Occultism are mechanically unatractive despite me wanting to invest in them because of the flavour, why do I have to be punished for wanting to become Legendary in Lore: Planes? If I want to focus in one Lore skill I have to say goodbye to a whole third of all my skill advancement, and as much as I love being the knowledgeable guy it is just too much investment for little return, it's much more advantageous to just have it Trained, after all, being Legendary at it is numerically just three points more. As a matter of fact, I'm hard pressed to find something good about even Arcana, Nature, Occultism, and Religion, Nature being the only one with more than one skill feat. Still on skills, they said during the playtest previews that they were augmenting the number of skills the classes get, citing the Fighter going from 2 + Int to 3 + Int, but they actually reduced the number of skills the Alchemist gets, and the Wizard stayed the same. Also, way to dump Int right? It has no bearing on skills being 1st level, what a waste.
Zero organization, why aren't wizard spells at least organized into Schools of Magic?? That was a flaw of 1ed's supplements in relation to the Core Rulebook, and they made it worse by eliminating the short preview phrase of the spell. Why didn't they put the spell's spell list in its description?? I have to keep going back to the lists to see where they belong to, it's very bad. Who had the brilliant idea of putting the description of powers mixed with the descriptions of spells? That was awful, I have to keep jumping up and down the book to see what my class does. Turning everything into spells just to clarify 1ed's SLAs and Su abilities is bland and boring, just like the gamey term Spell Points, and as pointed out above it screwed the book's organization.
Not only that, now domains and bloodline abilities not only have been reduced but have become just spells, and nothing more, No longer will we get passive domain and bloodline abilities, like the super flavourful Woodland Stride, that now has become a limited Spell Point spending power/spell. Making the Bard an occult spellcaster is just a forced excuse to have the "occult" concept in the game from the get-go in the Core Rulebook. And what's even the difference from Arcane and Occult magic? Why should there be such a difference?? At least with the psychic classes it was a little more fleshed out, but this is just lazy and forced. Why aren't sorcerers arcane spellcasters by default? It's horrible, sorcerers should be the masters of dramatic fireball-slinging spellcasting just like wizards, not of Divine magic, for instance. I mean, I love for them to get spells from other lists based on their bloodline, but to change the whole spell list?? No! It should be arcane just like 1ed, even though I think they should definitely get more spells from other lists than they did in 1ed. If anything, changing their list but reducing their bloodline abilities is less flavourful, so is having class feats that focus on their list instead of focusing on the actual bloodline, damn it.
NASS (Non-Automatically Scaling Spells) is a needless bog of boring choices, I don't want to choose at which level I wanna cast the spell, I just want to cast it. And NASS also had a terrible effect on the sorcerer, because it either makes spontaneous casters too powerful or too weak, in the end the playtest design chose the second option, where the class has to give up one of its known spells for each version of the spell the character wants to pick, automatically scaling two known spells being an ineffective and lazy fix.
They murdered some spells, like Haste and Glitterdust, instead of just making them higher level if they felt they were too powerful in 1ed. 10th level spells are a complete joke, they are glorified 9th level spells that were actually nerfed in relation to their 1ed version, and on top of that you must spend your capstone feat to get them, which allows you to choose TWO from a incredibly long list of THREE. Metamagic feats are few and far between, and although I like the "add one action" mechanic, they are very underwhelming, just like I said of the other feats.
Familiars actually got weaker and less customizable, which is crazy. I'm not saying I wanted them to be combat animals (that's already the role of animal companions), but in 1ed. I wanted to at least get to choose some extra feats for them as we level up, now that's not even in the agenda anymore to save familiars.
Ancestries are just sad, you get minimal physiological traits from your ancestry and then ONE ancestry feat. The idea of getting ancestry-related abilities for free as we level up and not just at 1st level is great, however it becomes completely void if we don't get the normal racial abilities we got at 1st level in 1ed.
Resonance is another joke, they said that resonance was supposed to be a single system to keep track of magic item uses, and yet they didn't get rid of the old systems as well, so I have to spend 1 resonance and 1 charge to activate staffs and wands?? Great Corellon! It should be either one or the other. Also, they want to make the game more streamlined for new players, but having to spend 1 Resonance to activate a one use item, like a potion, is one of the most counter-intuitive things I've ever saw in an RPG
Retraining as part of the core rules is nice, except they aren't really much in the way of rules, since they don't assert how much money you have to spend to retrain a certain ability, only time, and barely.
I think the playtest has some great ideas, like the way encounters are put together, using more silver pieces at the begining, xp awarding, poisons, traps, and other hazards being actually meaningful and not trivial, creating new monsters faster, skill feats if all the skills got the proper treatment they deserve, etc. but its content is awful.
Except for gnomes getting a Charisma bonus, I really like the current 1st ed. racial bonuses. And as people said, floating boost is great because it covers woodsy elves and whatnot.
My view always was that elves were the masters of arcane magic, that was what 3rd ed. told me, even though elves were not really good wizards back then (unless you went gray elf from Monster Manual). So then I was really thrilled when Pathfinder gave elves a bonus to Int.
Reflecting on my home Greyhawk campaign setting though, that changed a bit, I use a system where High Elves get +Dex, -Con and get to choose between +Int or +Cha. Because although they still live in forests I prefer my High Elves more cultured and sophisticated than woodsy lumberjacks. That said, you can still find Legolas in my home Greyhawk setting, that's why Wood Elves get +Wis instead of choosing between Int or Cha. Gray Elves always get Int instead of choosing as well, as they are more scholarly and high-minded even than the High Elves. Wild and Snow Elves get Wis same as their Wood cousins, so you see, as the original poster suggested, elves should be wise, three of my home subraces get Wis, they just aren't a majority in the setting, High Elves being more common than all the other varieties, Grays, Wild, and Snow being positively more rare, in that order of less to most rare.
My Rock Gnomes get Int while their Forest cousins get Wis. Svirfneblins are a thing. And if you really want to get Charisma as a gnomes on my home games use 2nd ed's floating bonus or select a Wildflower Gnome. They get Cha, but aren't a subrace, they are born to either Rock or Forest gnome families at random, and are different than their fellows in that they are much more whimsical and prankish than even a regular gnome, and are born with one vibrant hair colour. They are said to be touched by wild magic.
I really don't like this, because I always liked the idea that Pathfinder was a generic system that gives you the rules and bothers with minimum lore/fluff so you can fit it to any home campaign world you're using. It's still that in general, sure, but this for essences things goes a bit against that, and I don't want it. First because I hate the idea that a wizard, for instance, is limited only to mental and material essences. I mean, why can't we have wizards who practice spiritual magic?? Or clerics that lean more into the mental essence, and so on... This essences fluff reinforces that boring trope where wizards are "scientists of magic", they use "rational" magic. No, I want wizards to be esoteric and occult and weird. Book magic doesn't have to be scientific, magic shouldn't be science-like, magic should magical, mystic. Also, why is there even a difference between arcane and occult magic? Those words mean the same thing! Why cast out arcane magic as more mundane and always have divine and occult magic be more esoteric (hence cooler, IMHO)? Tired of that trope, and the essences fluff just reinforce it. I would even prefer a system where there's no divisions between arcane/divine/occult magic. Second, I much prefer a system where most spellcasters have their own lists, or two, max. three of them share a list, than a system of standardized four (or six in the future) lists. It maybe less unwieldy design-wise, but it has much more benefits. You can differentiate between the casting classes way more with it. Instead of having the Inquisitor just share the divine list with clerics and oracles, make his own list like in 1st ed.! Way better to show how specialized in infiltration, detecting, hunting down and interrogating heretics than the more general (and powerful) divine list. And the 1st ed. list system is also good to show not just differentiation, but where same casters meet each other as well. Because while I think that every divine caster getting the same list is super bland, having some of the casters share the same list is still a feature in a system where most classes would have their own list.
As with variant multiclassing from Unchained, I really like this approach, but only if it is one alternative to multiclassing, "classic" multiclassing still being available. If this though would be the only way to multiclass then I dislike it very much. I want it both ways, in my 1st edition games I allow both classic core multiclassing and Unchained's variant multiclassing, and that's what I want for 2nd edition PF.
Same goes to Prestige Archetypes, I liked the approach, but I still want to have classic prestige classes, because there are some changes that only a whole new level in a class could provide.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I much prefer to get half a dozen weaker but flavourful options than one powerful one at 1st level. A 1st level character should get some 5 or 6 ancestry feats instead of just 1. Also, I don't like heritage feats, the physiological benefits of heritage feats should be granted for free alongside the standard ancestry benefits (speed, ability boosts and flaws, and such). Ok, maybe not the Ancestral Longevity one, but come on, elves don't get anything to Perception as a standard physiological feature?? I mean, that is perhaps the most iconic feature of the elven race. "What do your elf-eyes see Legolas?"
Ancestries was one of the things I was most excited about, the idea of getting free racial treats as we level up is great. However what I didn't realise at first was that we don't get the same amount of stuff at 1st level as we did in 1st edition. So really what ancestry feats have become is just a way of spacing out our racial traits throughout 20 levels, and I'm very disappointed in that. Why my dwarf can't start out with Greed, Defensive Training, Stonecunning, etc. at 1st level and then get his other ancestry feats later as he levels up as well? That would have been great! It would be like getting all the stuff you normally expect to get from playing a dwarf/elf/gnome whatever in 1st edition, and then getting the 2nd edition equivalents of 1st edition's great racial feats (Orc Hewer, Mage of the Wilds, Effortless Trickery etc.) as ancestry feats later on as you level up. I thought the new ancestry feat system was about developing and emphasizing your ancestry throughtout the whole character advancement instead of just at character creation like in 1st edition. Instead it's just getting the same stuff you got in 1st edition, but instead spaced out through many levels.
"Creating unnatural weather patterns that could be damaging to the local environment (such as by using a 9th-level control weather ritual) is anathema to her."
But that's exactly the sort of stuff that I hoped to do with a Storm Druid! Not to harm the environment per se. But controling the weather left and right is something I expected to do.
Disappointed that Leaf druids only get a plant familiar instead of a plant companion. I mean, I love leshies, but I want the option of getting a combat oriented plant companion just like the Animal druid straight forward gets a combat animal.
When Jason showcased one of the polymorph spells at Paizo Con and I saw that I didn't need to invest in physical stats to make them useful, I though "Great! No more just ability score boosts from polymorph spells!" But now seeing that the Wild druid has to invest in Stregnth is just disappointing, just seems forced. At least Constitution would make a bit more sense to me.
The reason I'm really not liking this new edition. If I wanted mundane I wouldn't play a fantasy game.
Also, I don't really think that wands are that big a problem to require Resonance, I mean, maybe they needed so tweaking. But what pissed me off the most was that they said that Resonance was to be a universal system to track magical uses, so instead of uses per day for this or charges for that you would only keep track of resonance. But then they said in one of the item blogs that you need to both spend resonance AND a charge to activate a wand/staff. I mean, come on, you propose something to supposedly make the system less complicated, but it actually makes it more complicated, and just seems like another cap on magic and casting, which I'm sick of in this playtest.
Erik Mona, whom I deeply love and admire as one of my indutry heroes, said in a stream I think, something along the lines of "in what fantasy movie or novel you ever saw/read the protagonists stoped and just went using a wand 15 times to heal up a companion?". Excuse, great sage Iquander, but I have some very good ways of describing that mechanic in a good narrative form. What I do actually find more artificial and "gamey" is potions to suddenly stop working because a stat number is spent.
I tried to give Resonance a chance, but after the "spend resonance AND a charge" I'm just done with it. Are we gonna have Resonance? Okay, but at least make it really replace charge items and make one-use items (potions, scrolls) exempt from it.
I don't want to play both editions, I definitely wanna settle with one and keep tinkering with it. That said, it's a matter of will I keep DMing with 1st ed adapting some stuff that I like from 2nd or will I transition to 2nd edition and adapt some stuff from 1st ed. into it? Ultimately it's a question of what requires less work. I would love to not have to adapt anything and just jump into 2nd. But while I'm loving a lot of things (action economy, weapon traits, backgrounds, skill feats), I'm hating others (spellcasting, resonance, sorcerers, bards as occult instead of arcane spellcasters, reducing the number of spell/day, spell points, the four padronized spell lists). It's very possible that NASS (Non-Automatically Scaling Spells) will make me not adhere to the new edition, and keep me in 1st ed.
Nature is not always pretty and bucolic, nature is also often savage and brutally competitive. I'm trying to channel the dark aspects of nature to form a bloodthirsty cabal of Ur-Flan druids. My idea is that, being a god of the naturalistic Flan people, it would be a great opportunity to present Nerull as a patron of such druids. Nerull is the god of death, and death is a very important aspect of the natural cycle, there can be no life without death, no renewal without decay. The weed feeds the lamb, and the lamb feeds the predator, the predator feeds the worm, the weed, and the flowers. I'm thinking of druids that worship the Decay aspect of nature, much like the Rot in the Swamp Thing comics. Nerull is a great candidate not only because he's a god of death, but also an embodiment of winter. Winter means the death of all life. Spring its renewal. Nerull cuts off the head of Obad-Hai, the Shalm, and hangs it in a tree at the beginning of every winter. In the beginning of spring seeds fall from the head into the ground, and Obad-Hai is reborn anew. So yes, Nerull is a great candidate for the patron of evil druids, even if I'm struggling a little bit with the whole undead aspect of Nerull, and how his druids would deal with that. Is undeath as unnatural to them as it is to most other archetypical generic druids or do they somehow embrance undeath as part of nature? Maybe they only raise spirit-less undead, the soul being departed as the natural cycle demands, but the corpse is still useful to the druid, just like it is to the worm, and the vegetables that grow off of it. Do these druids like to employ Yellow Musk Creepers? I'm fishing for ideas here, people, and for any interesting material/literature on evil druids and/or worshippers of Nerull. I DM Pathfinder, so any mechanical material from 3.X/PF would be great, but I'm more interested in lore about Nerull, and Ur-Flan druids. Of course, I can adapt material from any edition, as long as it is on-theme and/or Greyhawk related. I posted this here because I didn't know where a Greyhawk thread would be best suited to be.
About Heighten, it does fundamentally seem strange for a Wizard to be able to arbitrarily choose any # of spells to Heighten each day (limited by spell slots), but a Sorceror can't. Perhaps a compromise would be allowing the Sorceror to be able to prepare-as-Heightened similar to a Wizard AND have limited spontaneous-Heighten ability on the side. I feel like part of calculus is not letting low-level Spells Known freely "upgrade" to high-level Spells Known, although I feel that concern isn't as strong as it seems at first glance, considering the Wizard is being allowed to gain spells and later freely Heighten them at no cost.
None of this would be a problem if they hadn't choose to overhaul the whole spellcasting system and replacing it with NASS (Non-Automatically Scaling Spellcasting). Not only did they put NASS in place but they even reduced the spells per day. So is double-nerf showdown on casters. And so the sorcerers would get a huge boost in this system if they were to be allowed to heighten at will or they get a huge drawback having to spend a spell known for each spell level version of the same spell they want, and Spontaneous Heighten is a shoddy tool for trying to fix this. But what irritates me a lot on top of all the problems these new subsystems cause is when a hear a phrase trying to sell them as a good thing. Like "now your cleric can choose which spell level he wants to cast his spell with!". I've always loved you, Paizo, but no, don't try to push this on me. State things plainly, "we are nerfing spellcasters", don't sugar-coat it.
I started very hopeful about 2nd edition, now I'm ever more disappointed about it as the new blogs come out. New subsystems like Resonance and Non-Automatically Scaling Spellcasting (NASS) created to solve non-problems turn to ever more clunky solutions. Really didn't like spontaneous heightening, and sorcerer getting fewer spell per day, as many as the wizard gets. If it were not for NASS those need not to exist. And now sorcerers become more atuned to items, which I don't like, sorcerers should have less need of magical implements. Great Corellon, I loathe bloodline-dependant spell lists, sorcerers should always be arcane. In 1st edition it was cool for you to get thematically appropriate spells from other lists, I even think we should be able to get more, but changing the whole list is too much. The mechanical reason sorcerers and wizards were physically weaker in 3rd edition (only one good save, worst BAB, and worst HD) was because their spell list was generally better than divine lists, more versatile, giving sorcerers a different list althogether just throws them off. My idea of sorcerers always was that they did the same thing as wizards, but with a different method/technique, what wizards had to research was something that came instinctively to a sorcerer. Beauty being a different approach to the same art (or rather, Art). I want more intermingling between spell lists, not locking a class away in one of them and giving it just some pinches of magic from other sources.
Only three bloodline powers through out the whole sorcerer carreer? And before you answer "evolution feats", those are thematically tied to the spell list, not the bloodline per se. The individual bloodline should be the focus for thematic customization, not the spell list it is drawing from, the spell list is just another aspect of customization, it shouldn't be the basis for it, that should be the role of the bloodline. Also, bloodline powers always being spells that you cast: where are the passive bloodline powers? Woodland Stride, Unusual Anatomy, Draconic Resistances, Added Summonings??
And why is there even a difference between arcane and occult?? Arcane means occult. Why can't I have a sorcerer or wizard that rearranges the basic building blocks of reality and communes with spirits with the same ease? Or a cleric of Wee Jas [or Pharasma, or Nethys] that has learned arcane secrets from ancient scrolls in her church's library? Why can't arcane magic be as esoteric, mysterious, and occult as divine and psychic magic? Why can't nature magic be arcane magic just as it is divine or "primal"? Also, who will use the occult list? Bards?? Bards are awesome, but they are (or rather should be, imho) arcane.
Having individual [i]and[/i~] shared lists like in 1st edition, with the possibility of getting cross-lists spells (through bloodlines, domains, prestige classes, etc.) was great. You could have lists shared by two or three classes that made sense together, like Sorcerer/Wizard, Cleric/Oracle/Warpriest, Bard/Skald, etc. But you also had unique lists for more specialized classes, like Witch with her mix of buffs/debuffs drawn from the cleric mixed with cackling arcane drama. Or the Inquisitor, with her unique spells mixed with cleric-drawn spells, and whatever spells helped this pragmatic individual to hunt down or rat out heretics. The Shaman, which most people would judge at first to be "just another druid or cleric" when actually it got a singular spell list that reflected its animistic theme. These lists were a great tool to create uniqueness using both the concepts of close magical practice for some and a more apart spellcasting for others. Having just four lists to fit all the spellcasters into is just bland to me. I was hoping that maybe 2nd edition could take the 1st edition approach but providing more accessible options for those who want to get cross-list spells.
This has always been to me a question of whether will I transition to 2nd edition and port somethings from 1st edition into it or the other way around. Now it seems that it will probably be the later rather than the former. I mean, I love skill feats, three-action economy, device-tinkering alchemists, backgrounds, and weapon traits, among other things. But these new lists, Resonance, NASS, spell points, and less spell slots are driving me away.
I agree that, superficially at least, the pirate feats look weaker/narrower than what I expect the class feats they're replacing offer. The only caveat is that they are granting signature skills and from what we've heard so far its possible, but semi-rare, so that might be a large bit of their value.
Yes, I would like some more attention not to make archetype feats so circumstantial/narrow. They should provide big circumstancial benefits and some more general benefits as well if they are going to replace class feats.
I don't know if i like it yet, I think that maybe you should be able to use general feats, not just class feats, to buy archetype feats. Otherwise you'll have to sacrifice you main class all the time.
I also really don't like that the Gray Maiden is the only prestige archetype on the playtest book. Not just because it's only one prestige archetype, but also because i applauded when it was announced that the Pathfinder Hopeful would be in the Doomsday Dawn book instead of the playtest book. Putting in the Gray Maiden, the only prestige archetype in the book, seems more to me than just "Golarion infused". Also, I was hoping they were finally gonna make Loremaster an interesting wizard option, something akin to Arcane Savant. Not that they aren't going to, but I wanted to see the classic 3.X prestige classes that are included in 1st ed's Core Rulebook.
Really like that 2nd edition's archetypes aren't like Starfinder, it's a relief after boring Stamina (Spell Points) made it in.
Oh, I wouldn't kill a red cap, I would make it my faerie kingdom's Warden and call him Papa Smorte (that is a pun in portuguese, which would equate to Papa Sdeath). I actually wanted to make him a my Royal Executioner, but one of the other players wanted that office, so it went to him. My elven gestalt fey sorcerer/wizard/arcane savant was the Ruler of a kingdom to the south of the Stolen Lands, near Kyonin.
I don't like Bounded Accuracy, it limits choice too much. I think some level of numbers crunching is reasonable so that things don't get out of hand and so that high level play isn't broken, but in general I don't like BA. One of the things that pissed me was when I read that in 5ed some kinds of AC protections just didn't stack, I don't remember the example exactly, but something like a monster's natural armor wouldn't stack with manufactured armor should that monster decide to wear it, because you either calculated it one way or another. Although 3.X/Pathfinder has something similar with the "bonus of a same type don't stack" it doesn't even feel like a limitation like with BA and it's much more "organic".
Maybe, that could be a thing.
I understand your point. But well, you'd give them something like a Skill Feat appropriate for that Rank, but weaker, since you're already getting the +1.Also, this would be good because otherwise you wouldn't have reasons to rank up a skill without planning to select a Skill Feat for it later. So not having what I'm calling a "base skill feat/use" each time you rank up your proficiency would disencourage quite a bit builds where you spread out your Skill Rank increases as opposed to builds where you allot them all to only three skills from levels 1 to 20.
I hope Occultism skill feats include Object Reading. And that Arcane, Nature, or Occultism skill feats include natural divinations, like looking at a fire, reading tea leafs, gazing at crystal balls, reading entrails, reading the patterns of dust in the wind, etc.
But the way the progression of Skill Ranks and Skill Feats is right now, I think that gaining a new Skill Rank does you very little good. You get a +1 and it's a gateway for you to get new kinds of skill feats, but only next level. I wish each time you gained a new Skill Rank you gained a Base Skill Use, which would be the same for everyone who attained that rank in the same skill, much like an Occultist gains a Base Focus Power everytime he gets a new implement school.
I never said Paizo needs to do anything. If you had read my post attentively, you would have seen that I used the expressions "I still would like", and if they did A and are doing B then "it would be fine if" they did X. And when I say "it would be fine if" I mean to say that to me it would be reasonable if they did X. I also used the expression "The way I see, the problem is" Q, so I clearly did not say that what I see as a problem is something objective, quite the contrary.
I love that there it´s at least an intention of making fighters and rogues to be more on par with the magic-oriented classes, but there it´s no point to it if it cost them their very soul. I want to play fighter and rogues because they are characters that are tied to certain rules and need to find more or less plausible ways to solve their problems in contrast with just snapping their fingers and fixing everything.
The way I see, the problem is that you can't have both things. So okay, you chose to play a muggle, and you like the flavour of it, you like being a muggle, that's fine. But at the same time you want your muggle somehow to compete with magic at everything, and you don't even have high tech to do it. That just doesn't make any sense. Magic is altering reality, you wanna do stuff on par with altering reality without altering reality, it doesn't make sense.
There are two solutions to that, either you accept you're a muggle and have fun with it, or you do what PF2nd is doing and make everyone magical at high levels (even if you don't admit it). The first option is PF 1st ed, the second is PF 2nd ed, I'm fine with either, but I still would like an in-world explanation for the later. After all, mythic did this to explain its reality breaking shenanigans, and now they want to insert more Golarion flavour text/worldbuilding into the core line, so if they are putting a little more flavour text than in 1st ed, I think it would be fine if they gave me a line or three or four about how legendary feats are not mundane abilities.
Yes, absolutely, if Perception is gonna interect like and with other skills then it should totally be skill, even if, as you said, they want to give everybody proficiency with it.
Wait, I thought you didn't add your level to a check if you were untrained. I thought it was:
Untrained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier -2
You're telling me we add our level even if we are untrained?? That doesn't make ANY sense.
EDIT: I do think it would go better if it was half level, though, like this:
Untrained: 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier -1
Weather Report wrote:
I am hoping of turning some AD&D proficiencies into Skill Feats, mainly Planescape stuff, like using Planes or Occultism or Arcana to shape Aether in the Ethereal Plane.
Paul Watson wrote:
Great Corellon, how I despise that alchemy isn't magical anymore, in 1ed edition it said it wasn't divine or arcane magic, just "magic". I always house-ruled it to be arcane magic, and probably am going to do so again in 2nd ed. I always flavored alchemy very differently, in a way that an alchemist doesn't mix chemicals, he works with mystical ingredients, like if he wants to make a bomb he uses the trapped breath of a fire elemental and stuff like that.
I'm flabbergasted, I was really sure that was the case, I'm sorry for spewing wrong information on that one, folks. Maybe I confused it as a reminiscent of 3.X? I don't know. Again, I'm sorry.
I am quite certain that all constructs stop working inside antimagic fields, and the breath weapon is Supernatural.
Golarion isn't trying to emulate our world's underlying laws. The underlying laws of our world make dragons, giants, surviving a dip in lava, or tanking several hits from a greatsword impossible. These things are mundane in Golarion.
To be fair I always hated surviving a dip a lava without magical assistance just using hit points as a buffer.
To me if it's impossible it requires as magical or high tech... I will not say "explanation" because it's not about explaining how it's done but rather where it comes from, so I'm gonna say reason. However people probably are gonna yell at me and tell me that wrestling a rhinocerous shouldn't be explained as magical, as impossible and ridiculous as that is. So I'm forced to compromise and draw the line further ahead, at the epic legendary abilities, which certainly seem way more impossible than wrestling a rhinocerous. (just for clarification: epic is a descriptive term in this sentence, not using it as a game term, the game term is obviously legendary)
Yes! Exactly! And honestly, what's the problem of admiting those are supernatural in nature?? As an example, I still maintain that Heracles holding the sky should be clearly considered magical, he's not just strong as a mortal is, he is supernaturally strong.
Wut. I was liking this system so much, but signature skills prohibiting you instead of given you something more? Damn, devs, just let people get whatever skill they want and develop it over years/levels. I'm gonna be really pissed if my elf wizard can't get Nature to Legendary or has to spent a feat or similar resource just to make it signature. Also if Wizards in general don't get Occultism, which seems to me like the most esoteric skill of those, I'm also gonna be really sad about it, wizards need to get away from the "scientist of magic" trope and finally be able to be more mystical, and mysterious.
That said, I hope the legendary skill feats for stuff like Alchemy and Arcana and Nature and Occultism be just as epic as falling an infinite distance to the ground unscathed or surviving in the void of space. Really pumped for those. I can imagine nature being things like the Train Plants and Grow Plant Creature feats in 1ed.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I can agree with part of that, but "just being that good" doesn't cut it to me. If they don't wanna explain, fine, don't, but at least in game mechanics terms those abilities should get a Supernatural tag or whatever it is equivalent to that in 2nd ed and don't get to work inside antimagic fields and such.
Wait, what? I thought there were not going to be class skills anymore, you chose a x + Int mod number and you got those as trained in 1st level.
I love Kung Fu Panda, and I love all that wuxia stuff, but just because the guy trained and trained and become legendary at it, it doesn't mean that it isn't magical, that cannot be mundane. To me it clearly derives from ki abilities, and I'm not even saying that a monk needs to spend a ki point to do it, it might be usage of passive ki-relyant abilities, but ki is clearly magical. Why can't we just call it magical??
People choose to play nonmagical characters and then want to be able to do magical stuff, okay, fine, but at least call it what it is.
Now I understand you perfectly. Thanks for explaining it to me, mate.
On the first part, though, yeah, I know it's just a difference of opinion and that it can't really be resolved. But sometimes I raise those matters anyway because it's kinda fun to speculate about magic Lol
I disagree, magic should have a definition beyond how we think about magic. Of course, we can have different opinions of what constitutes magic, and that's okay. To me it's anything that's supernatural, even if the natural world is full of supernatural phenomena. Supernatural is not anti-natural or something apart from what is natural, the way I see it supernatural is just something that's above what is natural, not necessarily apart or in opposition. It's anything that's not mundane, not physical. It comes from what is metaphysical and immaterial. It isn't obliged to work under the rules that govern the mundane, physical elements of the universe.
What's curious to me, though, is that all your personal explanations after the "Edit" lead me to believe that you'd support the Su tag, yet you say you don't want it.
That doesn't make any sense, just because something is common it doesn't mean that it isn't magical. And your examples fall very short, you're telling me that stuff that is common/everywhere isn't magical, but, your examples of god blood and level 8+ abilities are far less common than say 1st level spells.
Wait a sec, you're telling a need to spend a feat to get 10th level spells?? wuuuuuutt Where is that referenced?
Weather Report wrote:
The Chosen of Corellon can now change their sex after a long rest; fun in Vegas.
Not at all the subject, but I LOVED THAT.Because you have a matriarchal society, the drow, what would be the most subversive thing to that society?? BECOMING FEMALE! GENIUS!!
Corellon <3 <3 <3
My elf wizard doesn't worship gods, he's far too proud for that, but damn does he kinda sorta respect Corellon in a tsundere kinda way.
Weather Report wrote:
What?? How does god-blood isn't magical?? Everything that's supernatural is magical! In my opinion, anyway... I find that saying otherwise highly diminishes magic. Makes me sad... like for reals. Of course you don't have to agree with me, kind sir. I'm sorry, yet again I digress.
Isn't some of those D&D trademarked?
It is, however you will see avatar of Elminster and Raistlin and stuff from Dragon and Dungeon Magazine around, so probably they can use stuff D&D stuff that they published themselves, I don't know, really.
Also, somehow Paizo owns and old font used in D&D books, Greyhawk Uncial. How does that work? It's matter for another thread. Sorry for the digression everybody!
YES! That would be great! While we are at it, bring scaling spells back for Corellon's sake!
Also, Paizo, could we get Corellon Larethian, Mordenkainen, Melf Brightflame, and the time wizard from Legacy of the First World Player Companion as available avatars?
I disagree, it's obviously magic, Heracles was a demigod, Atlas a titan, it's clearly magical. I'm not saying it's a spell, an incantation, but it is certainly magical. If they are not giving us an in-world reason for how these abilities come about (see, I said how they come about, not how they work, bc for instance no one explains how spells work), then I to me they should at least slap a Supernatural tag there or whatever the equivalent of that would be in 2nd ed. I'm not having my wizard's magic not working in an antimagic field while the fighter still is a demigod under the beholder's gaze. Also, shadow dancers were not spellcasters in 1ed, but they clearly slapped the SLA and Su tags on their ability, it'd be only fair for the same to be done to Legendary abilities.
Last, but not least, I found the description of the rogue dismantling an enemy's armor in full sight actively fighting against them to do it much more compeling and believable, I like it.
Completely disagree, if they aren't giving us a minimum explanation in the books, then the DM should decide what explains it, or the player should provide an explanation for the DM to approve. I'd approve almost anything (except the stealing armor nonsense) given a good explanation that isn't just "determination!" or "courage!" or "hard work!" uggh