OK, so they're starting with the core 4 classes and adding more via the Kickstarter as stretch goals I'm assuming. From the website: We’re starting with Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, and Rogue. As part of the Kickstarter, you’ll get to help unlock the next group of classes.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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"!
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.
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. 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. 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. And God forbid I didn't print the pregen you had your heart set on playing... Then I'm a MONSTER!!!
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).
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.
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.You have currently pegged everything at costing a feat 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Everything this person said, I agree with.
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!!!
|
