Captain Elreth

Neume's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Captain, California—Los Angeles 158 posts (163 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 30 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 158 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, California—Los Angeles aka Neume

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Firstly: Huzzah?

Secondly: Home Run! Well done!

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Not to be impatient, but

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!!!

I'm so excited for this release, I just cannot wait! GenCon cannot come soon enough!

P.S. /wave Welcome to the madness!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, California—Los Angeles aka Neume

I love this. I would second the concept of loving to see this applied to the 1ed factions as well, with similar requirements.

Sovereign Court

9 people marked this as a favorite.

"The Unnamed Kingdom"

I cannot find a "Shut Up and Take My Money" meme to post. But please understand this post to be that.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, California—Los Angeles aka Neume

Steven Lau wrote:
Cyrad wrote:

I'd much rather have a ledger, like this one. Instead of an ITS or writing everything on the chronicle sheet.

It's a huge pain in the butt to audit and track a character by shuffling through 20+ pieces of paperwork.

In the past they have allowed your own personal tracking method as long as it had the required information. Hopefully in the future they still will.

Ummm... you cannot replace a chronicle sheet with your own tracking method. You can for an ITS.

Ultimately, I was REALLY hoping we'd move to a ledger system too. I do like the removal of the ITS, but as others said, the space on the chronicle sheet will not always be enough, leading to need 2 chronicle sheets?

A ledger would be so much more convenient for everyone (even the environment).

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, California—Los Angeles aka Neume

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As a convention organizer, I LOVE a special that is repeatable by tier! Immediately apply this rule to The Cosmic Captive. Literally no one saw all of that adventure :).

Sovereign Court

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Look I'm loving this and all, but if I lived someone called "Plaguestone" I'd immediately start looking for new living arrangements.

I'm not saying this is their fault, I'm also not NOT saying it either...

Sovereign Court

MOAR FLIP-MATS!!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is so much good stuff happening I can barely focus. This is SOOOOO awesome!

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
nohar wrote:
nice story...was really looking forward to seeing how 2e was going to handle the whole goblin-fear-of-writing thing...one thing that confuses me...the story said he had trouble seeing without a light but don't goblins have darkvision?...or is that being retconned?

They had darkvision in the playtest, I would assume they will in second edition. That said, I think there is a misconception with this ability.

Darkvision is only the ability to see in black and white. Having light on does make it easier to tell things a part. Just mechanically there is no penalty or bonus for the lack of color. In storytelling for Pathfinder (and for D&D) there is still the understanding that having light is better than having darkvision. Meaning you can see better because you have color.

As players who play in the meta darkvision is a great ability because you get no penalty to see AND you have the opportunity to sneak up on others. In most of the storytelling though the opposite is true.

For instance, asking an Orc to cut the red wire because as a human you cannot see any wires due to the lack of light. That Orc is rollin' randomly. I think this is what they are referring to in this intro.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

SO very awesome.

CAN'T WAIT! CAN'T WAIT! CAN'T WAIT! CAN'T WAIT! CAN'T WAIT! CAN'T WAIT! CAN'T WAIT! CAN'T WAIT! CAN'T WAIT! CAN'T WAIT! CAN'T WAIT! CAN'T WAIT!

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm saddened there wasn't at least one goblin trying to light a snowball on fire.

C'est la vie!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
And I LOVE the illustration of the Critamander!

And now we need a Critamander plushie.

Sovereign Court

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The reason Heal gives D8s is because that's all it gives: HP. Lay on Hands gives AC, Soothe gives Saves v.s. Emotional effects, and Goodberry counts as eating food for survival. They are temporary benefits, true, but something that Paizo feels is worth the loss of dice. If we wanted to make Heal have the same dice (which is fine by me, but sacred cows and stuff), it needs to give something in exchange. Maybe temp HP with a duration and value equal to the spell level?

See this is flawed though because Heal/Harm DOES do other things too. In addition to being a single target spell, in addition to being able to be cast 3 times in a round, in addition to being able to heal AND damage all targets within 30 feat it heals/deals more than all the other heal spells. And that is BEFORE being specced into healing.

I still advocate that the issue ISN'T Channel Energy. That was hiding the real issue. The real issue is Heal. Either we have healing parity or we don't. Druids rarely get brought up in the healing discussion because they have access to Heal. They can cast Goodberry in the morning and hand them out (like an Alchemist) and still prep Heal to use during a fight. That is great versatility.

The reality is of the healing classes Cleric is the only one really given class feats to support healing. I think if the other classes had access to Heal - or a spell that has actual parity with Heal - and had additional class feat options to spec into healing specific, things wouldn't be so bad.

I made a suggestion elsewhere that maybe Soothe should get an effect like Inspire Heroics where you take an additional action to do a performance check and based on the result Soothe affects additional targets (the amount of healing is reduced to your casting stat). Maybe there is a class feat that allows Soothe and Soothing Ballad to do d8 heals. This starts to create parity. Clerics are still at the top but the distance between the two aren't as big and a group doesn't feel like picking Lem (who never gets picked anyway) destroyed the group.

I'd love to see Alchemist get some way to do a group heal. I keep saying a Healbomb would be fun. It heals the primary target an amount and those around take splash healing. Or even healing darts that obviously would heal less than an Elixir.

Sovereign Court

I know I've posted a lot of down on PF2 posts lately, but honestly, I am thankful you guys are trying new and different things. I just hope we can find a happy medium and in many places, I think that is where the sweet spot is. The 3 action change is for sure the #1 best change. The addition of Alchemist and Goblin to the core book being #2.

Anyway, thank you all for letting us be apart of this.

Sovereign Court

One thing about the card redesign. It seems you are doing this already (based on the fact you said the "FACES" are being redesigned) but PLEASE DO NOT REDESIGN THE BACKS! I don't mind incorporating new faces with old faces, but changing the BACKS will make things MUCH MUCH MORE difficult to integrate.

Honestly, who am I kidding, if you told me I'd have to buy all new cards I'd do it. But I know I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford something like that and not everyone is.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, California—Los Angeles aka Neume

Koth'Vaul is going down!

Sovereign Court

I was worried we'd never hear about the card game again. I'm very excited to hear about the new difficulty options. I really like the idea of a smaller / faster game. One issue we have during conventions is there is never an opportunity to play a fast ACG game. I'd love to have an option that is 30 to 60 minutes. We could play over lunch or dinner.

Sovereign Court

dmerceless wrote:
Krysgg wrote:

A less silly version would be to prepare those elixirs of life with advanced alchemy in the morning and give them out, so that your ally can pull out and use it themself.

I could totally go for a feat that lets alchemists administer liquids as a dart though. (Bomb would be mechanically fine, but I think darts make more sense)

Oh yeah, that is for sure, and he is doing this, but I'm talking more about an edge situation like "I didn't prepare enough Elixirs with Avanced Alchemy, my ally is dying and I still have some reagents here for a Quick Alchemy".

I'd be all for an option so that Alchemists can have ranged heals that are more action efficient, however... there may be a problem on that:

Let's compare two level 9 characters, an Chirurgeon Alchemist and a Cleric, the Alchemist has 20 Int and the Cleric has 20 Charisma just for Channel Life.

Let's say the Alchemist uses half of his reagents (14/2 = 7) to make Elixirs of Life. With the level 5 Chirugeon feature, they will have 21 Elixirs, with each one healing 7d6 health.

This is a total of 147d6 healing. Average 515 health.

Now the Cleric, he has 6 uses of Channel Life, and let's say he uses both of his 5th level slot to cast Heal as well (which he probably won't).

This is 9d8+5 per Heal, for a total of 72d8+40. Average 364 health.

If the Alchemist's healing is as action-efficient as as the Cleric's, let's say a feat lets you use 2 actions to shoot an elixir-filled dart at an ally up to 30ft away, then he will be... basically straight up better as a healer. And that is not even considering that an Alchemist can give elixirs to people in advance and a Cleric can't "pre-heal" someone.

I don't think Alchemist is an OP healer in their current state, but maybe that could make them be, I don't know. I'd still want a less silly way of giving someone an Elixir though, even if it is just flavor, and it is still melee and costs one action to do + one to move to the target. I can only think of feeding them in their...

You compared a spec'd Alchemist to an unspec'd Cleric. Additionally, you ignored the full healing of a 3 action heal. There is no maths anywhere where a fully spec'd Cleric doesn't grossly out heal anyone. Ever.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krysgg wrote:

A less silly version would be to prepare those elixirs of life with advanced alchemy in the morning and give them out, so that your ally can pull out and use it themself.

I could totally go for a feat that lets alchemists administer liquids as a dart though. (Bomb would be mechanically fine, but I think darts make more sense)

Preparing in the morning and handing them out still has the action cost in combat to draw and drink. As far as healers go, Alchemist has the biggest action cost.

Darts are better thematically. Maybe... A DART BOMB!!!

/micdrop

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is my view you have hit on the problem with healing in 2ed. In the time it takes for an Alchemist to feed one potion to an ally, the bard can inspired courage the party, heal the ally and give them a 1 minute buff. The cleric, in that same amount of time, has healed the entire party to full.

Healing is not equitable in this version at all. By the changes they've made, I think this is intentional. If you want to heal, play a cleric.

I still highly advocate for a healing bomb for Alchs. #ThereISaidIt

Sovereign Court

Cleric - Bard - Sorcerers (and to a lesser extent Wizards) are a in need of help. I feel like the core problem is the below:

Clerics have been given the identify of pure healer and with the Channel nerf (of which I was initially a huge advocate of, but now having played with it a few times, not so much), they are lost. Domains should play a greater role for Clerics as they level and it may be worthwhile to seriously consider putting Heal/Harm on the Occult Spell list and giving Channels back to Clerics. Also, adding back the ability for them to sack a prepped spell for Heal/Harm would be helpful.

Sorcerers got inadvertently nerfed with 1.6 and it hurts. I thought 2ed would lean into bloodlines, but instead leaned into spells (which were weaker). Like Clerics, Sorcerers should have their bloodline play a much larger role as they level (NOTE: This means they don't need to spend a class feat for additional effects. It also means that there are more class feats that take specific bloodlines in new directions). The idea that spontaneous casting is no longer a Sorcerer/Bard thing means both classes need to pick up the slack being original elsewhere. For sorcerer I feel bloodlines is clearly the trick.

Bards are no longer about performance. In 1ed the first thing you did as a bard was select which performance you were going to focus in on. Now with the proficiency system, that's no longer a thing. Worse still 3 of our old abilities - Bardic Knowledge, Bardic Performance, and Versatile Performance are all pitted against one another. Instead of getting these all at first level and choosing how to advance them, they are not really fully available for all. You get to choose two now (if you're human) or wait until late game to pick another one up. I love how Inspire Heroics works and how it makes performance center stage. I really want to see bards go back to that.

Also, bard's heals are so much weaker than Clerics - even after the nerf. I get that we share a buff and bards have a chance to make that better. I posit that Soothe should work the same way as Inspire Courage(Heroics). Add an additional Somatic Casting or Verbal Casting action to do a performance check to have the healing and bonus affect additional targets. A medium DC performance check allows the ability to heal the bard too. A hard DC performance check allows the ability to affect the bard and 1 other ally within range. Finally an incredible DC allows it to affect the bard and 2 other allies within range. When cast in this fashion the spell heals a reduced amount that is equal to the your spellcasting ability modifier. When heightened this healing increases by 1d6 instead of the 2d6 granted to a single target.

Honestly, I like a lot about what we've seen in the playtest, but it just seems there are raw edges that a hurting fun factor. Bards not being focused around performance anymore is one of them. NOTE: I don't mean for us to go back to the 3.5 of required ranks in perform to use abilities. I just want performance to matter - like it does in Inspire Heroics. I also hope we get some combat class feats since things like Power Attack are no longer general feats. Getting Sound Striker-like feats would be cool too.

Sovereign Court

I think the concept of Performance as the bard's casting skill is really good. It would go a long way to returning performing to the center of the bard's core.

Sovereign Court

I like the idea, I'm not sure about the word "Tier" due to its usage elsewhere (like PFS). But I agree, Levels and spell levels have always been confusing to newbies. I think having a generic term like Tiers to identify this specifically is a really good idea.

Sovereign Court

Tridus wrote:
Neume wrote:
There is no world where bards are better than clerics. Once again, clerics get the same amount of spells, shares our party buff bonus, BUT they can fight in melee (gets better armor and expert weapons). Bard's Soothe spell heals 1 person within 30 feat 1d6 + CHA. Your argument is highly flawed.

Every time I played a Cleric with a Bard, what I found was that my buffs were largely a waste of time because they didn't stack with the Bard ones, which was annoying as hell. But that's a general issue with the game. The Bard in question felt pretty effective, though.

Quote:

The fact of the better bard feats is a hoax at best. The bard lost the most abilities of any class in the transition from PF1 to PF2. We no longer get fascinate or suggestion (though we still have the spell), we now must choose between 3 of our once core abilities (Bardic Knowledge / Lore Master, Performances and Versatile Performance).

All we got in return was was, Restoration, Phantasmal Killer and Black Tentacles. Honestly, it wasn't a great trade off.

Clerics lost half of their spells per day in the conversion. They lost free access to second domain, free access to a second power in the domain they do get, most of their good buff spells, and had pretty much every spell that isn't Heal nerfed.

If you want to turn this into a competition of who lost the most in the conversion, just how severely Clerics were nerfed is going to beat Bards.

Of course, turning it into a competition is silly. One class having issues doesn't preclude another class also having issues. It's not a zero sum game, and I'd contend that neither class is where it should be and both need buffs rather than to be in a silly game of "you can't have anything nice because I don't have anything nice."

Everyone should have something that lets the class shine and feel awesome. That was Channel. Now it's... nothing, really. That's a problem.

Quote:
And let's not even get into feat options. Clerics have like 10-15
...

You seem to be replying to my post completely out of context. I was replying the other poster who made the statement that somehow bards are better than clerics. That statement - even after the nerf - is patently untrue. If given the option of the two, EVERYONE would take the cleric. The cleric has the spells, med armor, melee combat AND THE BEST HEAL in the game. Even if they cannot use it 5+ times a day like they used to.

That was my statement. I've played a lot of cleric. I like playing healers, I like bard more, but there is no world where somehow bard is better off that cleric.

That said, my feeling about all this has changed the more I think about it. I get that the devs wanted to create something that was that separate but equal, but this isn't working because equal isn't equitable when you compare Heal/Harm to other level 1 healing spells (specifically Soothe), you clearly see that Heal is heads and toes above it. But that is something for a separate thread, of which I am creating now.

Sovereign Court

ikarinokami wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

Channel feats make Cleric healing superior regardless. All you need is to have it *comparable* rather than overwhelming. A specialist might punch to 150% of someone else's abilities and still be balanced, but there is no such thing as "300% of everyone's best with no effort" balanced.

...also, I was fairly sure nobody liked Clerics being healbots.

druids have a better spells, have better feats, the same goes for bards. the new alchemist has now even better class abilities that it did before. if their healing is comparable to a cleric there is zero reason to play a cleric. why would you play a cleric, when druids, bards et al can do what you, plus way more stuff. the druid spell list is incredible, bard spell list is darn good, and so are there buff feats.

There is no world where bards are better than clerics. Once again, clerics get the same amount of spells, shares our party buff bonus, BUT they can fight in melee (gets better armor and expert weapons). Bard's Soothe spell heals 1 person within 30 feat 1d6 + CHA. Your argument is highly flawed.

The fact of the better bard feats is a hoax at best. The bard lost the most abilities of any class in the transition from PF1 to PF2. We no longer get fascinate or suggestion (though we still have the spell), we now must choose between 3 of our once core abilities (Bardic Knowledge / Lore Master, Performances and Versatile Performance).

All we got in return was was, Restoration, Phantasmal Killer and Black Tentacles. Honestly, it wasn't a great trade off.

And let's not even get into feat options. Clerics have like 10-15 more feat options than bards.

I've played both classes in the playtest at level 1, 10 and 15 (and the bard from level 1-20) there is no way cleric is not far superior. You are imagining this.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In reality, I think the thing that changes everything for Clerics is Heal lands on the Primal and Occult spell lists. We're fighting over this healing thing but as I think about it, the problem isn't Channel Energy. The problem is HEAL is so much better than ALL the other healing spells combined.

So maybe the actual solution is the proliferation of Heal.

Sovereign Court

I don't see how this is a compromise. So Clerics go from 3+ CHA to just CHA and the compromise is 10 + spontaneously popping prepped spells?

Absolutely not.

I don't like the idea of having other classes getting nerfed, but the reality is Heal / Harm is THE best spell in the game and Clerics get an alarming amount of uses with it. Even if CHA is required to up their uses.

And for sure, without any other channel feats a base Cleric heals much better than a Bard can AND the Cleric gets Expert Proficiency with their weapon.

I would be open to Channel Energy being able to spontaneously pop a prepped spell for Heal/Harm. Maybe a base amount for low level (like 3 free). But no way should they get one a level.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion one key issue here is that Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, and Bard class abilities are divided up via Class Feat, while the martial classes get base abilities that grant automatic bonuses while they level AND class feats.

For instance, at level 1 the bard in PF1 gets: Bardic Performance with 4 performances (technically 2 are the same performance), Bardic Knowledge, Spells (2 known, 1/day + Bonus for CHA) / Cantrips (4 known). They then automatically gain additional strength with 2 of the performances they learn, as well as a more powerful bonus for Bardic Knowledge.

In PF2 the level 1 bard gets: 2 Compositions, Spells (1 known, 2/day) / Cantrips (4 known) and 1 Muse which grants access to an additional spell known and one of these 3 feats: Versatile Performance, Bardic Lore, or Lingering Performance. Only the Bardic Lore ability (if chosen) grows with level and only to Expert proficiency.

So basically in the playtest, abilities that were core bard are now "options" that we have to choose between. As we advance we continue to have to choose between increasing the power of those options or selecting new options. By contrast, the martial classes get their base abilities that increase (like the Rogues sneak attack) AND new class feat options.

I think there needs to be more "class" in the class' automatic abilities to allow for more "options" in the class feats.

Sovereign Court

WHY AREN'T WE FUNDING THIS!!!

I was talking about the playtest with my brother and one of the things I dislike about the system is "Class Feats". It feels like we're forced to pick between my favorite children. For instance with bard you get a choice on 3 feat lines: Versatile Performance, Compositions, or Bardic Lore. We used to get all three by level 2, now we have to choose one. That sucks.

This type of system would work much better for the game imho.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree, the CLEAREST anwser is no text that isn't relavant to the ability. However, like Fuzzypaws, I will absolutely accept "italicized text" or some other clear indicator that something is not rules text. This is an issue we have in PF1 so I'd really like it to be resolved in this version if at all possible.

And if we're using some type of indicator, the book MUST IDENTIFY THAT INDICATOR AS "THIS IS THE RULES, ANYTHING NOT THIS IS NOT THE RULES"!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, California—Los Angeles aka Neume

Bob Jonquet wrote:
I can see the appeal of the AL system, but there are reasons why people prefer PFS to AL, so we should be cautious changing our system to much to resemble their’s else we could start losing players. Some areas already have challenges to keep player interest.

So then we should not do option 2 or 3 because AL did both (and dropped both for option 5). Oh and we should definitely get rid of the suggested log sheet because it is almost a carbon copy of ALs (as others have already pointed out).

The idea that we should or shouldn't do something because of AL is so horribly flawed I don't know where to begin. We should do something because it is the best choice for the campaign regardless of what any other OP is doing.

Having said that, I actually think this ledger idea is strong. Unlike the log sheet here or the one AL uses, a ledger could be simple, straight forward and really easy to audit.

Each row could contain XP Earned, Final XP, Gold Earned, Gold Spent, Final Gold and then a line describing the source.

Example

Date | XP Earned | Final XP | Gold Earned | Gold Spent | Final Gold | Description | Notes

10/10/18 | 300XP | 300XP | 58sp | 0 | 58sp | PFS2 1-01 The First Adventure | Earned "Wayfinder" boon
10/11/18 | 300XP | 600XP | 56sp | 50 | 64sp | PFS2 1-02 The First Adventure II | Purchased Potion
10/12/18 | 400XP | 1000XP | 65sp | 50 | 58sp | PFS2 1-03 The First Adventure III | Purchased Potion. Used Potion x 2. Earned "Rare Find" reward (100XP bonus)

Or something like that.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is spot on one of the things I've been saying about Bard being nerfed. To me, very clearly RAW you cannot use both. It is one of the reasons I've been saying there are issues.

I don't have the book in front of me but I'm pretty sure these two Feats are chained off each other (you need one to get the other). But because the Bard doesn't synergize well with itself, we're left with two abilities that used to work together, but now clearly don't.

I don't know if this was an oversight or what but it is a primary issue with the class. As Bard's level they get less and less powerful.

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, California—Los Angeles aka Neume

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shalandar wrote:
Jon-Enee Merriex wrote:
caubocalypse wrote:
Everything outside of Option 1 would be annoying to keep track as a player (I could see many of these getting lost). If printing is an issue, you can get sheets printed cheaply in black and white at any office supply store.

I run 3 T1 conventions a year. We have 75 to 100 tables a convention. We have to print 6 player chronicles and a GM chronicle for each table. That's 700 sheets of paper. Using the corporate rate discount at Kinko's (which is by far the cheapest you'll find in the Los Angeles area) on the cheapest paper it is still $0.06 a copy. Or $42 out of my pocket every con and that doesn't Account for things like pregens, boons, and faction journal cards.

Just because you don't pay it or don't see it, doesn't mean it is not a real problem.

I'm asking an honest question here....is there a reason you can't ask players to donate €1 per person to help offset administrative costs? I don't mean per person per table, I mean, just per person.

Or even work something out with Paizo to get, say, a special boon to auction off, where proceeds go to the organizer to help offset out of pocket costs to the admins at cons?

Players already pay $45-60 for a badge plus travel expenses. We are not allowed to charge players extra unless we're doing some type of tournament where there is prize money or all proceeds must go to an approved charity.

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Is there a convention fee? IMO you should recoup your printing costs there.

The convention gives us a budget which is completely used to pay for rooms and parking reimbursement for our GMs. And even then I end up spending money out of my pocket to cover parking for GMs because it takes a lot of GMs to run 100 games.

Having attended this convention for over 20 years and having been a VO in this area for over 5, you can bet I've stopped to do the math and worked every possible angle on this. The reality is our friends in AL don't have this problem because they've gone with option 5 - end chronicle sheets and boons completely.

Instead they use a log system that players can create how theyd like and if there is a boon or special magic item, the player records it on their log sheet. I don't understand why we can't do the same.

Additionally, I'm appalled at the cavalier attitude that "shifting the costs" to players is unfair. Currently, the people who do the most volunteer work to make games happen end up paying the most and somehow that's "fair". Asking people to buy sheet protectors for $2 is unfair, but me spending $150 a con on printing is not.

Price Example

And God forbid I didn't print the pregen you had your heart set on playing... Then I'm a MONSTER!!!

Sovereign Court ***** Venture-Captain, California—Los Angeles aka Neume

caubocalypse wrote:
Everything outside of Option 1 would be annoying to keep track as a player (I could see many of these getting lost). If printing is an issue, you can get sheets printed cheaply in black and white at any office supply store.

I run 3 T1 conventions a year. We have 75 to 100 tables a convention. We have to print 6 player chronicles and a GM chronicle for each table. That's 700 sheets of paper. Using the corporate rate discount at Kinko's (which is by far the cheapest you'll find in the Los Angeles area) on the cheapest paper it is still $0.06 a copy. Or $42 out of my pocket every con and that doesn't Account for things like pregens, boons, and faction journal cards.

Just because you don't pay it or don't see it, doesn't mean it is not a real problem.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Siro wrote:
So, you start out being generalized {arguably all class start out like this a little bit] just the bard is better then most at this. However as you go further up in level PF2 assumes you have specialized, and unlike other classes, the bard does not have a really good ability to do that.

Also, all of this.

Everyone I talk to who say bards are fine have not played one past level 5 or have just accepted that Inspire is so good nothing else matters. Inspire for one action every turn then sit down.

But if the class is reduced to 1 action, what's the point.

Personally, I don't understand the world in which a bard exists but performance doesn't. So I'm all for creating a more for performance> I previously stated I thought it should have functioned like Lore, but Alchemy/Craft works too. Mundane effects anyone can do.

I really like the "taunt" effect (-1 to everyone but the person using the skill. +2 to them).

Sovereign Court

Siro wrote:

Hmm… Didn’t really think about performance being used for a more downtime activity, although now it has been pointed out to me, it seems obvious.

Though getting into the meat of it, I do agree a lot of classical fantasy performance is routed in encouragement, and encouraging effects would be one from of performance. However this would not be the only from a performance can take. For example siren song is known allure, a shaggoth maddening sounds are known to madden, and many rituals incorporate chanting to contact the sprits, or to summon creatures. The use of Performance as bolstering is a very good start, but don’t be limited by it.

The idea I was having would be Performance itself would consist or more mundane effects that could be caused. For example a ‘Inspiring Word’ performance that would take one Verbal action and have the effect “Target gains +1 against Fear until your next turn.”, on a passed check. Or an ‘Insulting Joke’ {Perhaps 2 actions} where you make a performance check against the targets Will DC. On a pass they take a -1 on attack rolls, -1 AC, and -1 on Perception checks made against everyone except you for 1 round. Regardless of the result the target gets a +2 on attack rolls, AC, and Perception against you for one round.” Or, incorporating what Performance already has with a “Delightful Ditty” that gives the user a +1 to its next Diplomacy check against the target, as long as its made within the next hour on a pass check. Or “Marching Drum” which you use at the start of...

This. All of this. This is exactly what I'd been saying. Performance should be much more robust than it is.

I also really like the idea of a way to restore spell slot. I think though, it may be better that the ability restored spell points. Every caster (and several other classes) have them and they do things that are worthwhile. This is also a LOT easier to balance than a spell slot.

Sovereign Court

ErichAD wrote:
Neume wrote:

<snip>

I say all that to say, performance is about a lot more than "diplomacy" and "acrobatics".

The idea isn't that the character doesn't study in order to perform, its that they've studied a practical field and can use that knowledge for entertainment purposes. Rather than asking a gymnast if doing a flip means they can plan a routine, ask them how valuable their ability to plan a routine would be if they couldn't do a flip.

Charisma is a weird stat, it certainly doesn't translate to modern usage of the word. And the player is still investing skills so they aren't just "grooving to the music".

This is where I'm confused. You're saying that because you know how to talk to people you can play the clarinet. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works...

Sovereign Court

I would also say that in 1ed Bard was the one who benefited the most from Archetypes and multiclassing. This is mostly due to the fact that many archetypes traded out "social" abilities for "combat" abilities in a way that was satisfying.

I say this to say, it is entirely possible the issue is that at its core bard has always had this issue. Now that it has been striped bare in the playtest this has revealed itself.

I too feel like Fighters, Rogues and Clerics feel really solid in comparison. Bards aren't even good at the thing they should be (buffing the party) when Clerics can do it just as well with Bless (which doesn't stack).

Sovereign Court

The idea that all you need to perform is a good charisma makes me a sad panda. Ask any gymnast and they'll tell you, being able to do a flip is a lot different than planning a routine to perform. Just because you are charismatic and can "groove to the music" doesn't mean you have what it takes to put on a dance show that people will care about.

This dovetails back into what I was saying about Bards in general. This idea that it's all CHA and no study, no practice, no skills is baseless. I know I'm doing a lot of real world comparisons but, just because you have a high diplomacy doesn't mean you can play like Yo-Yo Ma.

I've studied music for well over 30 years and I can say, I know music better than 90% of the world's population. That said, a new kid joined our church chorus last week. He's quite gregarious, handsome and more than anything he sings like an angel. That said, he cannot read music, he has no breath control, he has no experience on the stage, he doesn't even know how to hold his music. But he's the nicest guy in the world and we're thrilled to have him and teach him those things he doesn't know and must learn.

I say all that to say, performance is about a lot more than "diplomacy" and "acrobatics".

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've now played 5 different bards at various levels and 1 from level 1 to 10. Cantrips are not living up to the hype, especially after level 5. Spells in general are a big problem.

Part of me feels bard may feel very different is spellcasting wasn't so pointless at the moment. Not only do you not have enough spells, you run out quickly (at least in the play test) and are left with cantrips that don't do a lot. Like melee combat, around 7 or 8 the effectiveness of spells wear off. Bard is suffering from all the problems Wizards and Sorcerers are seeing.

I know the design team is aware of both the issue with melee for casters and casting, however, cantrips do not in any way "save" the bard from the issues we're talking about. Though, I agree, if one or both of those issues are fixed it would make bards feel more relevant.

Though, I think one vein that bards are lacking on the class feat spectrum is actually combat feats. Maybe Diva Style type feats for a new Melee focused Muse. This would add both new options for bard and help shore up weaker points. Maybe there is a Caster Muse introduced as well that introduces more spell options.

But spells are in a not good place right now and that includes cantrips and compositions.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
You have currently pegged everything at costing a feat

Hmm.. I have seen this, or something like it, in quite a few places. Its interesting because I think we are using the term feat for these options because they are selected and applied to your character in a shared way.

What they do not share is an equal value. A class feat is better than a skill feat. An ancestry feat is not meant to be the same value as the others. I see a lot of comparison between the categories and that alone might be the biggest problem with using the word "feat" for all of them. Useful to learn the system, but the baggage from existing users applying to word to mean "a rule with a specified amount of power and utility" is a barrier to overcome.

Except humans can choose a class or a general feat as an ancestry feat, which kind of implies they are equal. Or else humans can get stronger ancestry feats than anyone else.

The feat choice that Humans can make is limited to level 1. Meaning, my level 17 Ancestry Feat Choice can be a level 1 Bard Class Feat or a General Feat. This is an intended bonus to being a Human. It seems to be a clear exception that is meant to be a balance to the options and abilities other Ancestries get.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Neume wrote:
Marco Massoudi wrote:

<snip> As it stands now, i'll not be playing 2.0, but 1.0.

The playtest is not second edition. In my opinion, this it the thing people misunderstand the most. The playtest was specifically designed to test a number of concepts. Those concepts may be bad and may get reverted back to 1ed or they may get updated to something else. But we're testing these ideas, NOT testing 2ed.

Sorry friend , we (the disenfranchised) are not clueless. If a person is vegetarian and their favorite vegetarian restaurant introduces "a new menu we're working on, but not all the details are decided", and the menu is full of meat, and then the test menu gets some alterations, which are all changes to which animal the meat comes from, that person is well-informed that it's time to plan to eat elsewhere. Not-meat isn't on the menu.

To be really, really clear, I've chosen this analogy because I adore meat.

PF2 isn't wrong or bad or even a mistake. It's just not what I want to eat.

But to imagine that somehow we can't tell from the playtest and the adjustments since, and from posts by devs (and lack of specific posts), we aren't equipped to tell what the end-result is going to look like... isn't realistic, I think.

But the devs themselves have said they don't for sure know what the final game is going to look like. Which is why the Playtest isn't 2ed. If you look, they never refer to the Playtest as 2ed. 1ed was wildly different from its playtest. The devs have repeatedly said, we're testing things they were pretty sure would have to be cut or changed. By giving feedback (like on Resonance) about how those things make us happy or sad the team will be able to develop the final game in a data driven direction.

I say this to say, walking away will just ensure the game looks nothing like you want. Giving your opinion will at the very least give the team a data point of feedback to build from - even if the overarching design goal is contradictory. Because maybe a LOT of people give feedback about a design goal being contradictory to what they want the game to be.

Sovereign Court

10 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Don't juxtaposed orthogonal choices. I shouldn't be choosing between Wild Empathy or a Full Grown Companion. I should be choosing whether Wild Empathy gets a bonus on vermin or magical beats or Animals. I should be choosing whether a...

I feel like this is what I'd want more than what we got for all classes. Like Bards should have gotten Versatile Performance and chosen one performance at first and then choose others later on. They should start with Inspire Courage, and choose other performances as they level. At the moment it feels like I'm choosing between my favorite children.

You've absolutely hit the nail on the head here.

Sovereign Court

32 people marked this as a favorite.
Marco Massoudi wrote:

<snip> As it stands now, i'll not be playing 2.0, but 1.0.

The playtest is not second edition. In my opinion, this it the thing people misunderstand the most. The playtest was specifically designed to test a number of concepts. Those concepts may be bad and may get reverted back to 1ed or they may get updated to something else. But we're testing these ideas, NOT testing 2ed.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Siro brought up a point that I think is important in my head. Bards are Jacks of All Trades, however in 1ed, Bards started that way and could specialize in one area or stay more generalized in all.

In this edition, so far, as they progress Bards don't specialize well and they don't generalize well. The result is they end up becoming more and more lackluster as they grow. That's one of the reasons I was thinking of creating something that is "Bardic" in nature to tie bards to that can grow so they don't get left behind the other classes that specialize.

Again, Bards began to shine when the Archetype system was released in 1ed. With the way the Class Feat system works they should be doing more and their path should be clearer. I was thinking more about this when I realized, what needed to happen was their tie to their muse should get stronger as they choose feats that are connected to the muse.

For instance, each muse should have clearly defined feats. Such as the Lore Muse: Bardic Lore -> Loremaster's Recall -> Mental Prowess -> Mental Stronghold. Instead of the feats giving additional skill points, they should increase based on how many feats you have with that Muse. In this way you're rewarded for sticking with your Muse, but you still have the flexibility to do what you want.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure I want to see performance removed as a skill. I think there are a lot of generic uses for performance, we just aren't seeing them used in 2ed. For instance, performance combat should be rolled into the skill. I also think it needs to return to being like Lore as it was like Knowledge in 1ed. You should specialized in specific things: Sing, Oratory, Combat, Percussion, Wind, etc. Making it specific again allows for a design space to create skill feats for things like:

"Rally (1 action): You use Combat performance to get the crowd on your side allowing your allies the ability to re-roll one dice in the next round. This re-roll cannot be paired with any other re-roll and the ally must take the result, even if worse."

The more I think about it, the thing that urked me with the Performance skill (and feats) is they took a magical bardic performance (Fascinate) and gave it to everyone. I think that should return to bards and Versatile Performance should be the skill feats for Performance (And maybe give bards suggestion again...). That way there can be a skill tree to gain versatile performance for different usages based on the performance skill.

It makes way more sense to give that to everyone and have bards focus on control through performance. IMHO

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like this idea. I too felt that VP was too limited in its current form. It also hurt that basically there is a level 2 skill feat that did the same thing (Impressive Performance).

Personally, I would like this to be a feat you can take multiple times and each time it applies to a different "allowed" skill.

Maybe Versatile Performance gives you the Virtuoso Performance skill feat for free and allows you to use performance in place of a skill based on the specialty you choose?

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I come to talk specifically of this topic and I find it here. Huzzah!

1. MUSES: If they don't mean anything, then why have them? At the moment they don't really mean anything. I get not wanting to create restrictions like Domains, but in my mind, the bard isn't like the Cleric so why add something like this if they don't need it. I say cut it.

2. I agree with the OP, the more I play, the more I feel that bard feels like it has fewer choices and worse still, it plays second fiddle to everyone else. This may have something to do with how the Perform skill turn out in this edition, but the things that made "bard" unique are gone. While we got 10 spell levels, we didn't really get anything that feels bardy.

3. Ear Piercing Scream, the Inspiration Spells, and the Finale spells really must make a comeback. OR we need to rethink bards and spells all together. Occult just doesn't feel so bardy - especially as we move up in levels. I feel like I'm playing a shadowcaster, not a bard.

The more I think about it, the more I think that maybe, it is time to rethink spells and bards, maybe even remove them have bards focus on compositions (similar to 1ed's Masterpiece system). Maybe bards do everything with Spell Points.

As someone who studied music and acting in college and professionally I can say the idea of a bard sounds more like someone who has a "repertoire" that they study to remember what they are doing that day but then can switch out for something else next week.

This is just more comments on real life stuffs:
At the moment, I am in 3 different Christmas Caroling groups. I have a binder full a music for each. Some of the songs are the same, some of them I have committed to memory (because it's the Hallelujah Chorus and you just commit that one because you've performed it more times than you can count) some of them I read from my songbook on Sunday because we're only doing that one a few times for the little, old, blue-haired ladies, and some I refresh my memory on just before we sing at a party because it was a "special" request. We'll probably never sing that one again.

Acting is the exact same thing (albeit the time frames tend to be longer). I'd memorize all my lines for a show and perform it a million times in about 30-60 days, then forget them as I begin memorizing for the next show. At the same time, some soliloquy I've got down for life (I'm looking at you Marcus Anthony's mount speech from 'Julius Caesar') and others I keep for a short while, maybe for an audition or a film. It's the same concept.

To me, it would be cool if bards casting was more like the Esoteric Scholar Class Feat, in general. Bards mix the study of Wizards with the talent of Sorcerers. So casting with a crossover system would be cool. Cooler still would be if bards could write Arcane, Divine, and Primal spells to their repertoire book and attempt to cast them using Spell Points and a performance check. You fail the check you lose the spell points with no effect.

This would mean now bards WANT to find new texts, stories, and arcane lore to add to their rep. Re-enforcing the lore that bards are looking for new texts to add to the repertoire.

Compositions should be different from spells because their outcome depends on the bard's performance result. Where as spells bards relay on magical effect, Compositions relay on the bard's skilled performance. If they fail the result should be lessened, but if they do well the effect should be empowered.

Or, maybe compositions fill the design space masterpieces left behind? Performances bards can learn in place of a new spell or class feat.

Sovereign Court

Thanks for the reminder. I forgotted. Purchased :)

1 to 50 of 158 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>