Captain Elreth

Neume's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Captain, California—Los Angeles 145 posts (150 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 29 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Thanks for the reminder. I forgotted. Purchased :)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So, I now feel I've played enough Bard to talk more knowledgeably about how the class feels at low levels (1 and 5).

Character Creation (Layout): Flipping back and forth looking at compositions and spells was very frustrating. BUT, I am glad for the page number to the composition.

It's been said elsewhere but I'll say it again, Spells and Compositions should not be in the same place. If a Wizard cannot take a Composition unless she multi-classes into Bard, then Compositions should be found in the Bard section. This was SUPER confusing.

Spell Points: I get trying to reduce complexity, but I will always miss the specific over the general. Bards have performance rounds. I know this is semantics (because the current use isn't "rounds"). I don't know, I want Spell Points to be specific to my class and not a generic, homogeneous thing.

Also, the more I think of spell points and Compositions, I get confused as to why I'm tracking two resources for the same thing. If Compositions are spells then they should be tracked with spells. If they are not spells, then they shouldn't be with the spells and tracked with a completely separate pool. It's so confusing.

Inspire Courage: OMG thank you! Being able to freely inspire has been so great!

Action Economy: Right of the bat, the change to the action economy gave Bards a wonderful boost. Being able to begin a performance, move up to a baddie and attack them in one round has been phenomenal!

Spell Casting: So... while we got a buff (now 10 lvl casters) we also go a nerf. It's an odd feeling to not be able to cast as many spells. I've continually run out of spells. This is especially bad when I'm the sole healer of the group (going to get to this in a second). 2 spells at level 1 and 4 Spell points are gone in 2 encounters. Which leaves me swinging for the final encounter. I've overcome this by just not using resources in the first encounter. Which means people die. "I'm saving it for the BBEG" is the worst excuse to someone who is on the ground with the dying condition.

Bardic Healing: Sit down, this is going to be a long one. Overall, healing in the playtest is immensely difficult. The only spell in the playtest with descent through-put as far as healing goes is "Heal", however, that is only available to Clerics and Druids. And Druids who bring heal suffer from the same issue the Bard does I mentioned above in Spell Casting. You get 2 and you're done. With Resonance this means that there is very little healing going on if you don't have a Cleric.

Having said that, as a player that enjoys healing, "Heal" is the BEST spell in the game and it is blocked to Bards :(. Not only that, "Heal" is a fun spell. It's versatile and effective and makes healing exciting. I'd love for Bards to have heal but, in reality, what I really want is for Bards to heal their allies as well as Clerics, if their spec'd for it. The discrepancy isn't just in the 1d6 vs the 1d8, or the range, but also in the fact that at first level the only spell that heals multiple targets at range is Heal.

One thing I was thinking is what about a bonus if you are using an Inspire ability (Courage, Competence). Instead of the range being touch, it is "one target affected by your Inspire abilities". Then maybe Soothing Words allows you to choose between it's current effect or choose to allow your Soothe spell to affect multiple targets, however, all targets need to be affected by your Inspire ability and within 30 feet of you. The through-put wouldn't be as great as a Cleric's "Heal" but it would offer up another viable healing class.

Of course a lot of this would change if spell casting changes, but the main thing I want to point out is that healing is on the fritz. I've played games where I was the only healer, I've played games where it was me and an Alchemist or me and a Paladin or me and a Druid and I've played when it was me and a Cleric. It is night and day having a Cleric. I think the problem lies in the fact that they are the only class that can mass heal the team. This has caused the side effect of everyone NEEDING a Cleric. Not HEALER - CLERIC. This greatly diminishes Alchemists, Bards, Druids, and Paladins if Clerics are the clear winner of the healing wars and no one can touch them.

Add to that the fact that, it seems, a lot of people don't like healing, relegating it to just one class means even fewer healers. Not only do I have to like healing now, I have to like Cleric, even though I love Bards more. This was an issue in PF1 too. I hated this. If you want to heal you have few choices, even though you could have many.

This creates fewer and fewer healers because all the hoops they have to go through to play the spec they like. However, if classes that have healing can spec into healing, it adds many more opportunities for more healers. Today, as the playtest sits, Cleric is the game's healer, everyone else is pointless.

So I say all that to say, I like SOOTHE, I like the idea that Occult does healing differently. But differently cannot completely inferiority, otherwise there's no point to learn Soothe, if I always have to get next to the person dying and I can only heal one person and I do less healing than the other "better" healing spells. It cannot be all those things.

Having said all that, I have really enjoyed the rest of Bard. Muses are great (I cannot wait to see more) and there is so much good stuff packed into the class, from shadow spells to buffs. I am sad we don't have Ear-piercing Scream, the Finale spells and the Inspiration spells (Timely Inspiration, etc). However, so far (levels 1 and 5) the class feels very bardy and performs (pun intended) well - outside of that healing bit.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I agree with Singularity. I like this idea but the term needs to be much more of a "keyword" and "basic" doesn't feel like it fits. Maybe "primary"?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I KNEW there was something happening there. I thought it was just stray text... FOR YEARS!!! OMG, I am SOOO happy to know, I'm not insane!

Sovereign Court

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Bards should get "Heal" #ThereISaidIt

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
BPorter wrote:

Are six-volume Adventure Paths too long for your group?

Frequently. It's been the biggest barrier to getting my groups to sign on to playing them.

Would you like to see more content that starts at higher levels?
Yes. Back in the days of Star Frontiers and AD&D, have story arcs that covered different ranges of levels was useful.

Or do you prefer the dangerous thrill of those first few levels?
Yes, part 2. Having many of these to choose from is never a bad thing so long as other levels, especially levels 3-12 get lots of love also.

I also wish to comment on this:
Sure, there will be a slight change of tone in the adventures, but if your group doesn't mind the shift, then you should go for it!

I think this is sorely needed, honestly, especially for a game setting as broad and deep as Starfinder's setting. Six AP installments of same/similar theme & tone is...challenging. If everyone in a group is onboard, it can work, but see my answer to the original question above. Most of my players' resistance to the 6-part APs stems from a feeling like they are "committing" to something that they worry they may tire of or want to try different characters and stories. Even though I've assured them they aren't being held to a multi-installment commitment, there's still resistance.

To put it in a different context, look at how the MCU movies can still hit different themes and genres yet remain a consistent whole that provides a superhero experience. THAT is the style of experience I want from Starfinder science fantasy (and Pathfinder fantasy) APs.

Everything this person said, I agree with.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I too feel MORE ancestries should be included in core. I have no doubt we'll get more ancestries, I was just disappointed there weren't like wood elves and sea dwarves and stuff at the very least.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

If I didn't say it before, Crystal's my favorite adventure writer. I've loved reading War of the Crown and can't wait to get to run it. The Harrowing will forever be my favorite module, but War of the Crown has been one of the best APs. Definitely up there with Runelords and S&S.

#First

GAH! Thwarted by TriOmegaZero - AGAIN!!!

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I like these, this is much more flexible than SF and I'm happy about that. I Bard Bard Bard Bard Bard Bard. Bard Bard Bard Bard Bard Bard Bard Bard Bard. Bard Bard Bard Bard Bard, Bard Bard Bard Bard.

~Bard

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

CONGA RATS!

Also, you should add conga rats as a new playable species for Starfinder. #justsayin

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
kaid wrote:
Varun Creed wrote:

If you wouldn't want a 'Legendary' style game, your campaigns wouldn't go above level 15 anyhow in Pathfinder 1.

In PF1 once people start slinging around wish and opening new dimensions and some of those crazy spells a thief who is really good at stealing pants does not seem to be that far fetched.
I have literally watched someone steal a person's pants without the victim being aware of it, with my own eyes. Which means it's something which can happen in real life so shouldn't even be legendary. Master at most.

OMG I was going to say the same thing. In my fraternity days there was a guy who was highly skilled at this.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Honestly, they should just sell a encounter update document for PF2. I'd buy that in a hot second. Everything else would be the same basically. Just update the mobs and maybe some skill checks.

Honestly, if they were going to revamp anything, I'd think Kingmaker or Skulls & Shackles because both have extensive sub systems that could be really great additions to 2nd edition imho.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

This blog has made me fear greatly for my favorite class - Bards. The fact that we keep hearing about Rogues getting 20 skill feats and that they get the most makes me think that Bards are either A - getting more than everyone else but less than Rogues or B - they're getting the same as everyone else.

I was OK with that until you revealed Fascinating Performance... which sounds like anyone can now do the magical coolness that was previously Bard territory. Then I thought, well maybe Bards will get all skills as trained. But that presents a new problem directly tied to the issue with proficiency making the difference between untrained and legendary 5.

... I'm trying to withhold judgement, but this blog has me terrified. PLEASE TELL US ABOUT BARDS!!!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Gorignak227 wrote:

I noticed the Heal touch attack on an undead opponent didn't list a save for half like the 2 action ranged attack does.

I wonder if they've applied the no save vs to hit spells for cleric spells now? (i hope so...:)

Yeah it looks like this is 1 d20 roll now and the roll is by the caster.

1 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>