Ragni's page

Probably because they are playing the 1E AP using 2E rules? And it's just a mockup image for advertising the many different things in the blog anyway?

Homebrewing 1e to 2e is a fair augment but that cone placement is still wrong. It is originating form the centre of a square. If they can't even take the time to get the rules right then thats not a good sign.

Wait isn't gold golem a 1st ed monster, the gold defender in 2e is huge so I assume its not meant to be that. Why have 1e battle scene but show 2e monster stats on the side bar.

What ability is that gold golem using? Nether gold golem(1e) or gold defender(2e) have 15ft cones on their stat block. Also the cone looks a little thin and shouldn't it originate from an edge or corner?

Seems stretch to say they have a "Commitment to Pathfinder Core" when they 1 Use a monster from a previous edition and 2 don't follow the rules for cone placement. It looks like they just threw some of their assets on one of the prebuilt maps and then drops some dice and markers down to make it look mid play without any care for the context of the game they are showing.

Cone rule for context.
"When you aim a cone, the first square of that cone must share an edge with your space if you're aiming orthogonally, or it must touch a corner of your space if you're aiming diagonally. If you're Large or larger, the first square can run along the edge of any square of your space. You can't aim a cone so that it overlaps your space."

Any chance this could be sold as a dlc for Table Top Simulator or maybe as a stand alone PC game? I don't have people near me who would play but I would get an online group in a heartbeat. I would love to play as it reminds me of lords of water deep and I love games like that.

Ok does anyone else find the 3d models on their website a little disturbing?

Do you have any news on how the Runelords will be handled. Both the archetype and the lore. I understand that talking about stuff before its ready can be misleading but some info on stuff like if they will still be sin based and if/how that will link in to the magic they cast now that we assumedly won't have the X sin = Y school.

TBh if it was changed to 1 resonance at the start of the day to attune, that still sucks, its a group item but one person has to give up a resonance for it. Seeing how resonance is used for magic items one group member would basically have to say "I have one less magic use so the party can carry loot".

So there are a few things I'm noticing about goblins.

They are missing some of the flavor from PF1. There is no mention of their ingrained hatred of dogs and horses or their fear of written words. I am also noticing a lack of mentioning the goblin hero gods, it could be assumed that they moved away from worshiping them as part of changing their society but I feel as though it would be worth mention as to explain why they now mostly worship Cayden. Given that the love of fire has survived the change and that as a whole they are redeeming themselves wouldn't Sarenrae make more scene?

The other point I want to make is despite the change to goblin attitudes they still don't come of as particularly pleasant to be around (They love fire, use junk gear, pull pranks and "eat anything") nor would they be considered conventionally attractive by most non-goblin standards. Yet despite this they gain CHA as a bonus. I personally think CON would be more logical as they survive getting set on fire and eating rotten food. Alternatively if you wanted to keep the 1 physical and 1 mental, an argument could be made for INT as they can make stuff from junk.

Have some of the more disturbing elements of goblin culture been ret-coned or while the descriptions be more fleshed out in release ?

I agree with Grey on this one

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1 Yes.

2 Nope still good.

3 I see them as a necessary evil so to speak it's easyier to convince a new player to play them then move on to PF than teach PF straight out(havn't tried the beginner box mind so that could be better).

4 More options is my main want, class balance is a close 2nd and I don't have as much of of a problem with high lvl ability bloat as most people.

5 More Accessibility is good but should never be implemented at the expense of enjoyment of existing players.

6 Yes. I have found this is the case for PF1 and even video games that if a game is good enough and example of it being that good can be given people are willing to effort in to learning.

7 I'm not only willing but expecting to. I am assuming that almost all of the playtest is up for change based on player feadback.

8 In short a system similar to PF1 but with improvements such as new action economy, better clarified rules for things like grappling and mounted combat.

Custom background would solve a lot of the problems of having a unquie backstory but having to fit it in to an existing background so I'm all for it.

I agree that separating ethnicity from races is a good thing I'm not sure how a name change accomplices that. ether way you still need two sections in a rule book and race has the advantage of being what we're used to and being quick to say.

Forthed

I tend to lean towards the rules should represent the world as closely as possible so I'm with OP on this one

I posted a different thread since I didn't know the title of this was referring to this.

Agree completely you shouldn't be incredibly good at something you never used and have no interest in just because you looted some dungeons

My bad in hindsight I should have put a more descriptive title.

The game, like most games, is made to assume you want to be good at things. It's not going to cover corner cases of wanting to be bad at things.

One reason is because being bad at things can make things more difficult for the party, not just for you.

They may have to save you due to a weakness, and therefore put themselves in danger. If they elect to not save you it could cause OoC issues.

I'd just talk to the GM about allowing you to be bad at ____ if that is what you want.

I can see the augment of hindering other players. It might just be my knee jerk reaction of a lvl of control being removed from 1ed where I could fine tune my skills E.G max ranks in one thing, a point in another for to show some lvl of competence, then nothing in a knowledge I know nothing about.

One thing I want to say in addition to my starting point is if no skill can be bad no skill can be particularly good ether. If you have two PCs with the same abilities the score the skill difference is barely noticeable.

I will be playing as written for the playtest ofc but I'm hoping for a more flexable version of skills in release. On the bright side it is still better than DND5ed skills where your forced in to certain skills based on class, I can at least choose to be untrained here even if it doesn't make much difference from being trained.

As far as your ability scores go, you can voluntarily have a lower score for RP reasons. You do not get any bonus points to spend from this.

I've never like this augment tbh, I think it should be possible to play a weakness in ways which don't involve making a objectively worst character charter power-wise. To continue the swimming example in this case lowering my str would drop my swimming (but it still gets better as I lvl which is my concern here) but it also gives a lower bulk among other downsides.

I want someway of my skill not getting better unless I want it to without having to result to housing ruling a penalty. Something along the lines of you don't add your lvl to untrained skills would be fine for me.

So one thing I've noticed is because of +lvl on everything you can never stay bad at something. I use swimming as an example but this could apply to almost any skill

In 1st if I want to play a char which cant swim(lets say they're scared of water) I can roll up with 7 str and never put ranks in it and my swim check would be -2 forever. Pretty good way of playing a non swimmer still a chance at passing simple checks but almost always fail the moment it gets difficult.

Now in 2ed the lowest str you can start with is 8 (I think) but being untrained also gives -2 so starting Athletics of -2. now the problem comes in when you begin to lvl as regardless of whether I want to become a better swimmer I will get better.

So by lvl 8 I have +5 Athletics (the same as a lvl 1 with trained and +4 str) so despite wanting to have a char who can't swim I can now swim as good as lvl 1 who has a good set up for swimming.

I'm left two options 1 arbitrary say I fail any swim check and artificially hamper my char or 2 I have to come up with an excuse for why my char got over what ever was stopping them from swimming. Compare this with 1ed where not only do I not have to artificially limit my char I freed up skill and attributes points to invest in other aspects of my char.

I've always tried to come up with at least one thing my characters are good at and one there bad at as a basic way of fleshing them out but now the worst I can be at something is lvl -3.

I understand(don't agree it's needed but understand) that they want to limit power-gaming/prevent trap builds but would allowing us to take an archetype dedication and a multi-class dedication with out taking 3 in the 1st really be that open to power-gaming ? I just can't get over the situation it causes. I'm repeating myself somewhat but I felt I explained it poorly last time.

Lets say there is a baker archetype, its 1st feat gives you bake cake action you take it at lvl2, then at lvl4 you can't learn to be a ranger because you need to learn to bake cookies and bread before hand. Where as if you had taken any class feat at lvl2 I could learn it fine. Why would learning to bake instead of to hit harder stop me learning the basics of another class?

Ragni wrote:

Right now in 1ed I could be rouge 1 (Pirate archetype) + wiz 1 and be doing it a lvl 2.

And that was the part that was ridiculous in-game. I'm coming from the AD&D mindset where it actually took time to master something. So it's pretty absurd (from an IC perspective) to think you don't know squat about spells and then literally the next day, you're casting all the cantrips and 1st level spells of a Wizard.

OOC, sure I get that players want it without restriction.

While I don't disagree gaining mastery too fast is un-realistic, its not about wanting to be a master pirate rouge wizard at lvl 2 it about being a staby guy who can walk fine on a boat and cast a few can-trips.

For example say a campaign starts on a boat trip to an far off land with an unexplored ruin so at lvl 2 I take Pirate Dedication so I can walk around a boat unhindered by its rocking. Then after making it to shore we found out there is going to be a lot of ancient magic so I spend most of lvl 2-3 RPing that i'm trying to learn to cast can-trips so I can detect magic. LVL 4 rolls around and I look at Wizard dedication and say "thats perfect exactly what I want" but my GM reminds me its a dedication feat so I need to finish off pirate 1st. I need to learn to do a boarding actions to cast detect magic.

Why would I ever need to learn to swing a rope before I could cast a spell? In school we don't teach all of maths then move on English, we learn the start of maths and English along side each other. The same should hold true in pathfinder I shouldn't have to master one skill before I begin learning another.

JoelF847 wrote:

I don't see why being a pirate rogue should make it harder to be a pirate rogue-wizard, but currently, that seems to be the case.

Hunh. To the extent that this is true and the fact that you seemingly have stat requirement to multi-class are the things I like.

It should be exceedingly hard to be a doctor/lawyer and then be firefighter as well. I think the dedication feat requirement is something that adds at least an iota of realism, if not balance, to the concept.

The problem isn't that it takes a lot to be a pirate rogue wizard. Its that you can't start learning the basics of wizarding until you almost master pirating. If you ever see a pirate throw a dagger then use a spark can-trip to light a smoke you know they're a very high lvl but being able to stand on a boat, throw a dagger and cast spark are all low level things. I'm not saying you should be able to do all of them at lvl 1 but it shouldn't take until lvl 8 or so. Right now in 1ed I could be rouge 1 (Pirate archetype) + wiz 1 and be doing it a lvl 2.

I am curious to the thought process behind locking archetypes, prestige and multi-class all behind the same limit dedication. If I wanted to become a rogue pirate who learned some casting I have to ether take most pirate things before even looking a spells or become a pretty good caster before I get my sea-legs.

Quick question, sorry if it's too early to say: will wild shaping be multiclassable?

If the druid feats matches the wizard one it should be as there is a feat to grant a feat (tad confusing wording) and they mentioned wildshape is a druid feat.

How many feats do we get for archetypes, multi-class and prestige? From what I understand they're general feats right? while I like it for prestige classes (as most the good one continue to grant the abilities on your starting class) it seems to me that by also having multiclass and archetypes use the same system it limits the tool kit we have to work with.

I had a druid(Menhir Savant), ninja multi-class in 1ed by lvl 2 I was sneak attacking with produce flame, lvl 3 CL boosting it (alongside other CL boosts) and lvl 5 I upgrade to flame-blade. From there I stuck with ninja.

Now what follows is mostly guess work on my part on how things translate so correct me if I'm wrong but if the archetype existed in 2e play-test to make a similar char I would start as rogue at
lvl 2 take the druid multi-class feat
lvl 4 Menhir Savant Spirit Sense ability feat then
lvl 6 Place Magic (which I'd imagine would have a lvl scaling to also grant Walk the Lines)
Lvl 8 the 2nd druid feat to get second level spells

So by lvl 8 I have the abilities I had at lvl 5 in 1ed (admittedly with more rogue class features in the 2ed version) but I've used all my general feats to do so where as in 1ed I spent them getting crane style. As an additional point the character in question stared as a druid but doing that in 2ed would force me to build a full caster where as in 1ed despite starting as a druid (for backstory) I was able to focus on my ninja abilities.

Edit: Never-mind I forgot you can't progress down 2 dedication feats trees at the same time so based on the wizard version I'd have to take 3 druid feats before taking feats in Menhir Savant archetype. I would also have to have 16 wisdom which is more than I had in 1ed but maybe we get more points in 2ed so not sure if that matters.

So how do I play a non-magical acrobat, low levels ofc I would take Cat Fall it would fit the theme of such a character. So at high levels when I become a legendary acrobat I suddenly don't take fall damage and I'm less questioning why after doing no magic the entire campaign I am suddenly doing something clearly magic? Is this now one of those setting where fighters are magic they just use it internally?

I would prefer a weight based system to bulk. Bulk just seams too arbitrary, where as pounds/Kg are defined things. I think bulk would be perfect for an alternative rule in a "pathfinder streamlined" book/mode . But for the core game I prefer the more simulation like weight as the main rule system.

Thinking about if bulk is intended to be a mix of weight and difficulty to wield/hold how does the game represent things like folding ladders does the bulk change depending on if the ladder if folded? While we're looking in to potential problems how do I know if a immovable rod can support me, the obvious answers is to base it on bulk but that runs the problem of the rod potentially be able hold be while holding a lead weight with convenient carry handles but not when I'm hold a series of light yet awkward objects.

No gobos in dorf hatred? hmm, probably for the best not to have dorfs hate a new core race :)

I like the ancestry heritage feats being physiologic and locked at first level. These seem ripe for retraining abuse otherwise. Also, some unintended multi-ancestry hybrid shenanigans.

I am wondering why make the change here. they're keeping the hatred of orcs so unless half orcs no longer count under new rules then goblins being made core isn't it. The 5 kings mountains were hit during the goblinblood war so the lore reason for hating them is still there (Though to be far that applies to pretty much any non goblinoid race living in Avistan).

I'm not a fan of the logic of goblins being core. Them being core has the implication that they should be more common in games than the other races to come. There hasn't really been a shift in the lore to support goblin adventures being more common than the Outsider-kin or beast races from my view point. While it is certainly not impossible for a goblin to be good and/or adventurous it seems unlikely that people living in the world will just accept them without good reason. There is also the fact the goblins disdain for writing, dogs and horses has not been addressed what so ever when those will be big obstacles to being a hero in the setting.

1.Divine Hunter for Paladin, while the current version isn't really worth it, archer paladins very fun in PF1 so I would like to see this reworked.

2.Menhir Savant for Druid, mostly as an excuse to have more leyline lore but also for the flavor of a druid who hunts out the impure.

3.Something mechanically like Razmiran Priest for Sorcerer but re-fluffed to be more a deity following sorcerer who gains some holy-themed benefits.

4.Royal Alchemist for Alchemist as the interaction with with any new poison rules could be cool

5.A redesigned Crossbowman for Fighter so that crossbows can be good as a main weapon.

I'm not getting the augment of it's not a good fantasy narrative. I can think of multiple stories where the characters are shown using healing gear/powers appropriate to the setting after battle, which in most cases its assumed their fighting fit after. I think it's immersive to regularly show that are characters aren't untouchable and that they sustain wounds that need dealing with, but this being a not too gritty fantasy setting would magic healing is a thing.

How is that un-immersive? You see it in Hollywood all the time, and I prefer my immersion into gaming to be more Hollywood physics than real world physics anyways. Guy gets hit, falls down, falls unconscious, but manages to wake up just in time to be a nuisance at just the wrong time.

And if you don't like that, then watch MMA. Sometimes guys just go stiff and are out for a minute or two, and sometimes guys obviously are knocked unconscious but are awake and able to fight split seconds later.

I don't really want to look to Hollywood for how RPGs are going to play, but I will concede on the MMA guys getting up in a few mins I think a check every minute (to regain consciousness after becoming stable) would be a good balance between hero fantasy and realism since while those guys go though some brutal stuff, getting burned by dragon fire would probably keep you down a bit longer.

It seems a bit un-immersive that without any magical aid you go from being at deaths door to standing and fighting in less than a minute. If i'm reading it right you can that in two rounds. I much prefer the roll every hour to regain conciseness if your below 0HP but stable from PF1.

I would also say the naming of the dying condition could lead to confusion since you can be stable and thus not dying but still have the condition.

So with the addition of a new core class, new core race, archetypes in core, traits in core, more setting lore being in the rule book and artwork being a selling point, it seems the new core-rule book should be significantly bigger page/word-count wise. Is there any thing that can be said of how this is going to be fit in without a tiny font?

If I recall in the Knowdirection interview there was a statement about the page size being similar in page count to the 1st edition core rule book which makes me worried some things will be cut to fit all the new stuff in.

Resolve Points, I wasn't a fan of how similar me and all the other players felt and I think that and the class design was part of it.

Monsters not being built on the same rules as players