Aaron Shanks wrote:
Thanks so much for the reply! Good to know! :D
I've tried to write and re-write this a thousand ways to not sound so argumentative. At this point, I'm just going for it.
So far, for Secrets of Magic, we've heard A LOT about Arcane, Divine, and Primal casters. Is this book going to be like Gods & Magic and not really have much for the game's sole Occult caster? Put another way, WHAT ABOUT BARDS?!?!?!?! lol.
Like, I assume Bards are going to get updates that are more general, such as new spells, new rules regarding making custom staves, etc. It just feels like everything is being talked about through the lens of Arcane, Primal, and Divine casters but not Bards. Even Haunting Hymn was introduced as a Divine spell and we didn't really get clarity if that spell is also going to be Occult. It sounded like yes, but nothing was confirmed.
I'm really excited about this book either way, I'm just trying to prepare myself for what to expect because I was crushed by the dearth of Bard content in Gods & Magic.
I was sad they didn't say anything about the primary occult caster, bard. Like, they mentioned a new cantrip, Haunting Hymn, which got me super excited but then said it's a Divine spell... Or maybe both. It wasn't clear. I hope it's Divine AND Occult because that sounds like an awesome bard spell.
It just felt like they went through the spells and were like Arcane > Divine > Primal and then pulled a John Travolta on Occult...
Seriously though, I get boiling a 250 page book down to 57 minutes is going to leave some things out. I think I'm just spoiled from being a bard in 1st edition where every new book had a bard archetype :).
That said, everything sounds amazeballs, I'm just hoping for some bard magic love.
So in the live stream it was mentioned that there would be options for non-casters to have some casting they can take. Which really sounded like John Smedley and Star Wars Galaxies when he said that if you didn't want to be a Jedi you could always just be force sensitive - AKA a Jedi. This was horribly unsatisfying for those who really didn't want to be a Jedi.
This really made me a sad panda when I heard it. So I wanted to come talk about Legend of the Five Rings and the Yojimbo. Specifically the Yojimbo of the Phoenix Clan who were bodyguards for the Shugenja. They studied in the same schools together but the Yojimbo never learned spells. They learned to protect their Shugenja, to increase the spells cast upon them by their allies and resist those cast by their enemies. Yojimbo were always melee artist, without any casting ability. But they learned at magic schools with the casters.
That is all.
If my players knew how little work I do prepping for games since 2ed launched they'd be very upset. The ease with which I can whip up an encounter with 2ed is truly the best part of the version change.
Online this has been difficult because, well in person I can just grab a flip-map throw it on the table, get a few minis, the Bestiary, and run. Online it will take sometimes 20-30 minutes to get ONE image to fit.
This new change to digital maps will literally mean I will spend half as much time prepping now. Less time prepping means more time drinking and who doesn't need more time for that.
Soooo I am having an issue where every PtP Boon I get is assigned to the same character, even if I change characters in the drop-down. For instance, I purched the level 3 boon for my character Mwindaji. Then I went to purchase the level 2 boon for my character Motigba Danseyre. Both boons appear to be purchased by Mwindaji (which probably shouldn't be possible anyway).
I thought I fat fingered it, so I decided to test again and purchase the free wayfinder PTP Boon for Mwindaji, no problem. Then I bought it for Motigba and immediately got an error saying I'd already purchased it for that character. When I look at my purchased boons I do not see any for Motigba, just 3 for Mwindaji (the level 3, the level 2, and the wayfinder boons).
I know for sure I changed the characters. ESPECIALLY, the second time when I purchased the wayfinder boons.
I was doing this on my Android phone on Chrome.
We quietly (unofficially) phased out 7 player tables in the Los Angeles area unless it was a group that plays together or the only other option was someone couldn't play. Making this official is the best birthday present ever. Even if it is just for 2nd ED.
7 player tables is/was our #1 complaint source.
Umm... that list includes a bunch of Focus spells that you can indeed have in Society play. They generally require a Class Feat. For instance Dirge of Doom, Allegro, Counter Performance and more are all available to Bards who have selected them as class feats. That list includes a host of others from other classes that are totally available if you select that class feat.
Steven Lau wrote:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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"!
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.
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
Or something like that.