NorthernDruid's page

80 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Fun fact: GMs who don't allow flavor-only reskins are missing the point of the game, and usually don't remain GMs for very long.

Funner Fact: The limits of what kind of reflavour is appropriate often vary from game to game, system to system and campaign to campaign. And is also often accepted or not on a case-by-case basis, for instance, you might be allowed to flavour your Masterwork Bastard Sword as a Katana (let's pretend eastern weapons haven't been introduced yet). But not your studded leather to full plate (though gambeson would likely be fine).

More starfinder specific, if you want your lazer pistol to fire physical bullets, then suck it up and buy an auto-pistol. If you want it to shoot schorching rays that's fine.

And you can even GM like this for over half your life!

Anyway, back to topic: I wanna see

Actual support in the rules for dual wielding.

More weapon fusions that are actually useful.

More magic/hybrid items.

Custom weapon&armor rules.

Weapon/armor upgrade rules (including scaling up items without pre-existing upgrades and otherwise just increasing item level).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I take issue with the implication that wanting to succeed at high level side activities (like recognizing spells) is the same as wanting to succeed all the time at everything.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, Pathfinder is about Character-centric High Fantasy High Magic High Power Action and Adventure.

It's about the strong individual identity of my character within the scope of the story, their unique and specific abilities, and how they clash with forces far outside the scope of realism and grow from those experiences.

The character-centric nature of the game was driven primarily by mechanics of the game, in form of strong class identities stemming from the many abilities each class got, and in the form of customization in terms of discreet playstyles within a class, Archetypes, multiclass and Prestige Class options (the latter which is woefully underexplored in Pathfinder), and of course the core identity of a character with different races and the plethora of different options for such.

The High Fantasy came from the prevalence of magic, and how easily obtainable it was as well as how shaped the world was by it's supernatural elements, the High Magic from the power of said magic and its' permanency in the world through items and artifacts. The High Power, came directly from the mechanics, the permissiveness of high levels of play, the excellence you could achieve if you reached for it.

And of course, Action and Adventure is what the game is ultimately about on a per-session basis.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
jakjr15 wrote:

So please help me. I'm not following what seems to be the main point the keeps being brought up here. Why is it that having an ability that grants you a reaction automatically make it so you are a passive tank who sits there and waits for his trigger? Every character gets three actions and one reaction per round. So if I have a class ability that grants me a reaction, cool. I can use my one reaction per round. But that doesn't stop me from using my three regular actions during my turn to charge into the fight and start pounding someones face in. I see the two as two completely different things. Now if you have nothing but reactions granted by the class and no special actions then I could see the issue.

That being said I am not married to the idea of the Paladin gaining abilities according to his alignment. I would personally much rather see it be a special martial ability granted by your Deity. But that might just be me.

If you want to see a full description of my idea for the paladin, go to the thread...

The short answer is that the Paladin has no core offensive ability against non-undeads, and has a core ability that is dead in a duel with an Evil Dark Lord (such as an antipaladin).

In some more depth;

You can get abilities that help your offense at higher levels, if you specialize correctly. The main one (Smite Evil) is quite high level since many campaigns don't last that long, or don't last much further.

Retributive Strike is a good option, much the same as Attack of Opportunity (except AoO still works when you're alone). But fails to help the Paladin actually be a tank, it just artificially helps them conserve aggro/threat in a kinda MMO-ish way. It's an ability that works best from the backline with a reach weapon, which goes very much against the idea of the champion of good who rushes in before anyone to face down the forces of evil.

All these ally focused reactions also work poorly with archer paladins (who may well want to stay further away from the frontline than the range of their abilities), and for tank paladins who don't have any other melee combatants in the party (which can easily be the case in a 3 or 4 man party), meaning if I'm a paladin (of any kind) then I've got core class features that kinda depends on the other players building their characters around it, which is kinda bad.

It also kinda kills the idea of a Knight Errant style paladin, who wanders the countryside alone, helping people and fighting evil where they find it. Because most of your abilities are focused on aiding teammates in combat, and you can't really do that if you're on your own.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the problem with the current structure is that it's a half-hearted attempt at a drastically different approach to character structure.

A lot of what some archetypes did (like the ranged or shield focused paladin archetypes) are now baked more into the basic structure of the class (like shield ally being a basic option from the get-go). At least in theory.

In addition, a lot fewer static abilities per class (most prominent is spellcasting which is already modular in nature), and a lot of what was previously core abilities being turned into pick-one options directly opposed to each other.

Inherently, making everything more modular isn't a bad idea. It even makes sense to kind of pre-empt Archetypes being a thing that's necessary for the system flourishing again. (No need for alternate playstyle archetypes if you can just plug in the class feats to support your archer-monk or what have you). And then Archetypes can be for the more narrative stuff like the Black Blade Magus archetype, or Shadowdancers. Things that are more in-setting iconic than "I shoot a bow instead".

My main problem, is that it still tries to hang on to the 3.Finder class structure instead of breaking away from it entirely.

If you built your own character out of Feat points (or proficiency points or whatever), with things like general combat styles being free for all, with more specialized things which were previously class bound being more costly gated. And then archetypes were just feat-packages you can buy into (just as they are now). Then that would make more sense, but it would also be very new and very different from the old class structure.

I still think the current class structure is problematic because it's leaning so hard towards all-modular while still clinging to the old more rigid system from D&D 3.5. And I think it's just never gonna become something food unless it moves further back towards that, or breaks free of it entirely and goes more fully modular.

On a semi-unrelated note, you should absolutely have a progression separate from class feats for your archetype. With a wealth of them, including an option for each class which is meant as the default for that class (while neither being mandatory nor exclusive).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
NorthernDruid wrote:

On Quiet Allies: It's pretty decent if people are willing to invest in stealth (which is usually actually not as hard to do for the non-skill monkey classes because you get more skills trained relative to the number of skills there are, and because of ample opportunities for extra skills, especially so for humans.)

It's main problem, eventual obsolescence as Mithral and high quality level armour renders ACP equal to 0, is in part remedied by robust retraining rules.

One absolute trap option I've found though: Long/High Jump and all support feats. The DCs are prohibitive and you're much better off improving your Leap instead. You're seriously better off taking Fleet to get up to 30 movespeed instead of taking Quick Jump or any other option that helps you with Long/High jumps.

Another trap option is the Crit specialization for the Knife and Dart groups. Because wounding is a bit weaker but works on non-crits. Which means it's nothing to consider building for.

I don't think you are really describing traps though, because I don't think there's much you can build into long jumps or crit specializations.

Quick Jump is the only thing I can think of that doesn't enhance leap in some way, and the long jump failure condition moves you the distance of the leap anyway. And generally speaking the only reason you'll ever attempt a long jump or high jump is because you need to jump further than leap allows for. The math does seem like it could use some tuning there, because if you invest in jumping your leap distance can get pretty crazy and you have to be rather high level to reliably beat that distance +10 or whatever. But it's pretty hard to build yourself into a corner there.

Similarly, I don't think you can build to focus on critical specializations at all. Crit fishing isn't a thing anymore, and specializations are just a nice little extra reward when you get that lucky roll. If one is using knives or darts, there's probably reasons besides the small possibility of...

Quick jump specifically is a trap feat because Powerful Leap is better in every conceivable way. And with increased leaping distance the DCs for Long/High jumps become basically impossible to achieve.

There's also the Monk 4 feat Flying Kick, which lets you Long Jump and Strike as 2 actions (saving one action).

Which is again outdone by Dancing Leaf, which increases your Leap distance and has a bonus perk of negating falling damage in some situations.

Anything that helps or improves your Long/High Lump capability is a waste of time because the DCs are so impossible.

Taking either Powerful Leap or Dancing Leaf (or be in Crane Style), a lvl 4 Monk can leap 20 feet. meaning their only useful long jump is 25 feet or longer, which is DC 30 which is only doable on a 20 if your athletics is maxxed out. Take both for a 25 foot leap (which is hillarious), and you can long jump further than that once you reach like, lvl 10-12 or something. You can high jump higher than that, never.

There are at least a couple of options for improving Long/High jumps, and they're absolutely trap options compared to improving your Leaps.

Also I was actually looking at speccing into crit specialization via Rogue multiclassing for my dagger throwing bard build. Where True Strike would give me a decent shot at critting my one attack per round.

At least the Wounding Rune will save me a feat.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

On Quiet Allies: It's pretty decent if people are willing to invest in stealth (which is usually actually not as hard to do for the non-skill monkey classes because you get more skills trained relative to the number of skills there are, and because of ample opportunities for extra skills, especially so for humans.)

It's main problem, eventual obsolescence as Mithral and high quality level armour renders ACP equal to 0, is in part remedied by robust retraining rules.

One absolute trap option I've found though: Long/High Jump and all support feats. The DCs are prohibitive and you're much better off improving your Leap instead. You're seriously better off taking Fleet to get up to 30 movespeed instead of taking Quick Jump or any other option that helps you with Long/High jumps.

Another trap option is the Crit specialization for the Knife and Dart groups. Because wounding is a bit weaker but works on non-crits. Which means it's nothing to consider building for.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

While some of my favorite classes in PF1 were 6th level casters (after Witch of course), I feel like this is primarily because they just felt like they got more from their class when compared to full martials or full casters.

6th level casters felt like they got both a strong core class ability and access to spellcasting where other classes only got one or the other. Someone like the Barbarian had Rage, but not much else, while Wizards obviously had casting, but forgettable class powers from their arcane school. Meanwhile, someone like the Inquisitor had powerful core abilities in Judgement / Bane and got some casting on top of it.

As such, I'd be okay with 6th level casters getting largely replaced by multiclass dedication and potential archetypes as long as the current classes got a bit more meat on them in the form of notable core abilities (especially spell powers like Bloodlines/Domains/Schools being largely useless as they are now). Other than that, I could see some type of spell point system working for the 4th level casters, and even using it to roll optional spellcasting into some of the martial classes (Barbarian/Bloodrager really don't need to be separate classes).

Not to mention that I think some 6th level casters could really benefit from becoming an archetype. Magus was cool because they blended magic and swordplay together. Having a Magus archetype that could apply to any spellcasting tradition rather than just Arcane would be awesome to see.

I want the magus as a real class, not just a series of feats to enhance wizards who wanna go into melee.

The Magus wasn't just cool because you could cast spells while swinging your sword, it was cool because it wielded arcane power with martial aptitude.

A Magus could phase their sword through their opponent's armour, a magus could backhand spells back at the enemy.

They weren't just a wizard who also did swords or a fighter who also did magic.

They were all these things you can't really replicate with a series of feat chains.

I could see it become an archetype, similarily as I can see the Bard and the Paladin become an archetype. Just not under this pretend system of feat-chains. At the very least it would have to be an iteration where the baseline is that everyone has an archetype.

And honestly, spellcasting isn't even that important for the magus to me. Or at least, it's meaningless without a solid chassis for the abilities that separated the magus from the eldritch knight.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of giving AoOs to weapons you have Master or Legendary proficiency in, and then fighters still get it for free. In combination with making it possible to feat into mastery.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd love for something fancy to ride for my paladin mount.

Guess I'll have to settle for a horse rather than anything seriously cool.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of mundane HP recovery being capped in some way.

If there was a quick way of tracking "fresh" damage it could work better, then you could just set a limit for how high you can go. Basically, if taking damage temporarily lowered your max HP, possibly even requiring more powerful healing (or just different kinds of magic healing even) to recover.

In a way, that's what I like about the various system tweaks that split up the hit points abstraction (like Starfinder and the vigor optional rules from ultimate combat) into actual wounds and battle fatigue/stress. If the buffer is right, and actual wounds are hard enough to recover, then encounters can be harmful without being severely limiting or severely lethal.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadeRaven wrote:
10% of 2 is not 0. :P

10% lower chance to score a homerun could take you from 10% chance to 1% chance.

If running say, 20 tries, the 10% chance yields on average 2 and the 1% chance yields on average 0.

If we're discussing 10% as in the difference between -2 on a d20 and +0 on a d20, then it's the same idea on a less extreme scale.

Because we're measuring the chance to achieve results not the statistics of the results.

Sorry But I Thought That Was Obvious.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

3.Finder in general has pretty few checks on how high a bonus you can get on a given level.

There's no max cap to how high a bonus you can stack and a solid bonus is usually something like +3-5.

Similarily, there's quite a few damage bonuses that stack multiplicatively in one way or another.

As such, it's very hard to predict or estimate how high spell DCs, how high skill/save/attack bonuses or how much damage, a PC is likely to have given their general build description.

3.Finder's math is very wide in it's span, and very loose in terms of what it let's the players do.

Tight math in this case, refers to more controlled scope of not only how high you can go, but what the overall span is.

It's not just limiting what you can stack together and what bonus range you'll be in though, it's also about normalizing things like AC vs to-hit so you don't end up with a non-martial, a secondary martial and a tank with ACs of 18, 27 and 36 respectively, and a general monster balance around +30.

In short, it's about creating consistency in what is achievable and therefore estimatably expectable.

At least that's what I get out of the term.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Class feats really need to be bounded in larger level groups, new feats every 6th level instead of every 2nd would be a much better idea. More feats to start with, more potential interesting combinations and less incentive for designers to balance around you keeping up with your level instead of going wide with lower level abilities.

In general, the way classes are designed isn't very appealing to me, very few set features and lots of floaty semi-customizable options. Might as well drop classes and make them feat-chains/trees just like multiclassing and archetypes. Let me truly pick openly which option I want. (And maybe don't lock dualwielding... or what they're trying to pass off as it anyway.. to two classes)

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Thoughts on the video:

First, can anyone else agree with me that if 3.5 had too many different bonus types then at least their bonus types meant something? The most infuriating thing about the playtest is their bonus types, two which are basically synonymous with eachother, and "item" which is a purely game-mechanically term. Bonus types in 3.finder were a good piece of the system because they meant something, and you could understand what it meant and connect the bonus type to what was happening in the game world, or use circumstances in the game world to assign bonuses.
The new bonus types would've fit in better if they just labeled them stacking types 1, 2 and 3.


pet peeve aside.

Item slots are older than d&d 3rd edition. The earliest I've encountered them is Diablo, which released 4 years earlier. It even uses the same abstraction to justify only being able to wear one ring on each hand etc.

SECOND pet peeve aside... <.<

I really don't mind Resonance as a replacement to item slots. I mind several other things about resonance though.

I mind the arguments used for implementing it - stacking bonuses is a problem with bonus stacking rules - players selling (or just not buying) higher level items for them not being good enough for the cost is a problem with item design and balance (laughable DC's, overcosted niche items, overcosted very limited use/day items) - CLW wand spam is an issue with encounter balance more so than anything.

They're just not convincing me that items not being heavily restricted not is the real issue here.

Item slots does have a pretty important flaw, but not one they often use as a justification for Resonance (as far as I've seen anyway). And that is the best-of-slot semi-mandatory items (the big six and some others).
If I value my AC, I effectively only have 1 ring slot and no neck slot. If I value saves I have no back slot. If I'm a Magus I have no bracers slot. Anything in the Belt or Headband slot needs to be seriously broken to compete with general statups.

With Resonance, or any implementation where items are limited by number instead of category, this balance gets easier as you can simply just use all the various things you want (though balancing the items get harder as you can't just toss unbalanced combinations into the same category to block them off anymore).

In any case, Resonance oversolves the problem of people spreading out too much, and forcibly so. And it also makes the previously questionably worthwhile low-charges/day items much much worse (because they now compete for a long-term resource with short-term effects) while dragging the often useful bunch-a-charges/day items down with them (RIP gloves of seeing through walls).

I mind that all activated effects cost resonance by default, I mind that all items cost resonance by default, I especially mind that consumables cost resonance at all.

Most of the things I hate with resonance can be fixed though. You can tune items to being worth their gold value considering opportunity cost, you can cut consumables out of it so they're actually ever worth using if you're into that sort of thing (and also so you don't need a 2 resonance healing potion budget), you can make it so only powerful abilities or those of underprised items drain your resonance when activated.

And I'm sure you can fix the flavour so it doesn't make magic items feel like glorified training wheels or placebo effect inducers.

And honestly, if you can fix that, I could theoretically live with not using consumables (which I already don't anyway) and also only using the most powerful activated abilities at high levels and high charisma. If the rest of the system was perfected that is.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The first and foremost problem with resonance, is that it's brought in with the intent to solve three different problems (players spam money-bought, portable healing in PFS; Too many X per day use items with imbalance or tracking issues; too much imbalance in item slots with swapping in and out stuff to alleviate cost and/or best-in-slot non-variety)

It attempts to solve these three separate issues with poor balance in the design of individual items, by solving a different issue on another layer entirely: Item slots is a kind of really thin abstraction and doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

It's a single solution to a non-issue (a hand-wave abstraction that everyone accepts and which no one cares about) meant to solve three other semi-issues (encounter balance, resource-opportunity cost and build diversity/viablitity), without trying to tackle them head-on at all.

Resonance could conceivably be designed to tackle one of those three issues, or to just replace item slots with a better and more functional abstraction.

Trying to make it the driving force behind consumables and activateable effects though... I mean, we already have Spell slots/points to limit the adventuring day. We don't need a third mechanic to do the excact same thing and nothing else except provide another way to render items beyond useless.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No dual wielding is the biggest dealbreaker in the game for me, currently.

Take a feat to be allowed to take less penalties on one attack is not good enough.

S~!+ty Forceful weapon quality with more than double the cost of the weapon is not good enough.

Hell, I'd be happy if dual wielding worked by way of you just counting iterative penalties for your weapons separately.

I think a somewhat reasonable system for it would be something like

When wielding two weapons, one in each hand, your Strike actions beyond the first gives you 2 attacks, one with each weapon, both suffer full iterative penalties. (so if you spend all three actions attacking you get one at -0, 2 at -5 and then 2 at -10, before agile)

And then dual wielding feats could help lessen the penalties and make those attacks worth something. As well as letting you do other useful things.

But those niche sanction-entry points to this playstyle which plays like s+!~ty flurry of blows just doesn't cut it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One positive function is that it makes 16/16 top stat builds a viable long term strategy.

But I'd really rather there just was a max cap at like, 22 (or even 20, with a max of 16 before racial ancestral? modifiers)

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Without reading the thread; I really don't like hybrid races being a feat tax instead of a base choice. I really don't like starting racial traits being stripped down into feats either but that's a balance consideration for when I get to see the playtest material in full.

I'm more worried for Paizo's game sense though, when apparently a language is an option on the same level of cost as a proficiency or Low-light vision.

Either languages are meant to be really really important, or the other options are really cheap. (Or there's just a bad imbalance in the half-race feats and all half-elves have diplomacy and low-light vision).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

(I skimmed the thread)

One of the ideas for system tweaks I'm toying with in my mind is tying the level bonus to your proficiency.

So, for example you get 1/2lvl to things you're Untrained in, 3/4lvl to things you're Trained or Expert in and your full lvl to things you're Master or Legendery in.

It's a very interesting tweak I think, especially since the difference between two adjacent categories is "only" +/- 5. But it'll be interesting to see how it adds up to the math.

But if it doesn't upset the math too much, it would be a rather easy houserule to implement.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I'd like to see in stead of straight up dex-to-damage, would be increased crit-range (decreased Crit-threshold?).

Something like; lower the crit-threshold by 1/2DexMod. So at 18 dex you'd crit at AC+8 instead of AC+10.

That would feel much more appropriate to me as an abstraction for hitting more vital areas.

Could be feat locked, or even class-locked to rogue.

Dex-to-damage just feels cheap and as pointed out makes Strength redundant. And if we're going to have Dex-to-Damage with certain weapons should at least not benefit from strength to begin with.

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's see if I can remember all the thoughts I had on Resonance over a month ago and also make a coherent post about it...

Firstly, I like Resonance as a replacement for item slots for limiting how many magic items you can have on at once. It's about as hand-wavey in how you deal with magic item auras clashing but stands up better under scrutiny.

I like the limited resource being used to empower niche but cool items that had 10 or fewer rounds per day and to give items a bit of activateable oomph by spending an otherwise long-term resource in the moment.

I'm worried that Paizo will take the one-size approach and just make every activateable ability cost one RP per use (effectively killing cool-and-not-too-expensive items like Gloves of Reconnaissance), or that they'll put an "investment" cost on flavour/luxury items like our groups favourite Apprentice's Cheating Gloves or the good old Sleeves of Describe Your Outfit Freely.

There's also the question of whether items will remain "invested" by you? to you? what the hell is investment in-setting anyway? when you take them off to use another item in the same slot for a minute or two. Or whether items aren't magic enough for that.

So those are my main concerns with the system on a conceptual level. Mostly just a case of balancing items so they're useful enough or doesn't cost too much compared to how short-lived their effect is.

If it was me, I'd probably also change resonance to being Racial Mod(2-5)+1/2lvl+Cha and balance costs around that.

Overall I'm positive to the concept, I like the additional setting element of innate ambient magic, and I like how adding an additional resource and opportunity cost can make niche cool items cheaper or more powerful.

It's especially a cool lever to tweak costs, an item that's more powerful than it's GP value might require more Resonance points to keep it's magic aura balanced for instance, or a magic item with a powerful activated effect might require RP expenditure per activation.

Of course there's the above concern that they'll err on the side of restrictiveness and make less powerful items cost more RP than they should and make all activations cost RP. and then also make the items to expensive to be worth getting in the first place.

Now for the current excecution of the concept:

I hate it, if resonance stays this way I'm not getting the final version.

Firstly, because it's too setting intrusive. I love magic items, but I hate them being placebo enablers for my own magic powers. Investing myself into an item for it to work in the first place is entirely different from the item being magic but multiple different items interfering with each other.

A cloak of Invisibility or Levitation are magic items because the magic in THEM make what's hidden behind it invisible, or causes it's wearer to fly. Not because it enables the wearer to use their own magic power to turn invisible or levitate.

There ARE cases where it makes sense to pour your own magic into something for it to have power (like a magic staff). But (to pull from LotR, a major source for the entire genre of Fantasy) while Earendil might require a bit of extra oomph to will into shining, Real Elvish Rope is just Real Elvish Rope, and is magic all on it's own accord. Same with the magic elven swords which glow when orcs or goblins are near, or the elven cloaks which magically hide you from your enemies.

I'm totally on board with Magic items putting a strain on your innate ambient magic, whether it be a complete rewrite of them being taxing in a way other magic isn't or whether it be a new solution to the classic idea that magic items interfere with each other and so you need to deal with that (perhaps by letting each aura Resonate with your innate ambient magic and use that to sort themselves out. I prefer the latter as it's an actual improvement to the problem item slots had with breaking down if you looked too closely at it (magic items need to be kept far enough apart or they interfere with each other but Ring, hand and wrist are all compatible slots...).

I'm never gonna want to play in a game where magic items aren't magic enough to work on their own and you need to push your own magic into them in order for them to actually be magic. If the magic items are only conduits for my own magic power then they're just vehicles for the placebo effect or spellcasting training wheels.

It's fine to have magic items that interact with spellcasting of course, or even magic (in general) that interacts with your innate magic. But if all a magic item really does, is make you able to use your magic in a new way. Then the flavour of items with magic effects aren't really there anymore.

Secondly, potions and other consumables taking resonance is just bad. It's bad design because it undermines the function of a consumable, to be powerful or effective but transient and comparatively costly (5 times the price of spellcasting services for a 1st lvl potion in PF1 and even a 50% markup for a wand charge), by making them compete with permanent items for space they now gain another downside by taking up a permanent resource yet still for a transient effect.

The design of course, also limits the number of other things you can spend resonance on because you'll always want to have enough leftover for 2-3 emergency healing potions.

Consumables (and most activated effects) competing with permanent effects is the worst decision about this entire thing.

On top of this I'm certain my initial concerns will be legit, that items with infrequent small effects will be completely devalued as even if they cost little enough to be worth having around, activating the effect would cost 2 RP or more (if you have an item you must take off and then reinvest). And that flavourful luxury items will never be worth it because they take up a resource which you ought to spend on things with actual mechanical benefits.

I just hope we can impact enough change to the system that the flavour remains interesting to me and that the cool relatively minor items aren't dropped entirely.

There's a lot of interesting levers with Resonance, like uses per RP spent, the power level of abilities which are free to use versus abilities which cost RP, powerful items with increased RP cost to alleviate gold cost, etc. I just hope Paizo is interested in using those levers more than they are in over-committing to the must-fit-one-size design.


P.S. Cloak of Elvenkind would seem a lot more like a lvl 10 item if the invisibility was of a 10 min duration.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

As many others have pointed out this isn't really Archetypes as we know them from PF1, it's feat chains with some extra exclusivity rules on them.

Archetypes were what made Pathfinder great, what made it stand out on it's own from 3.5. And Archetypes were great as much from what you gave up as what you got from them. This system is not only lacking that in it's entirety, it's also eating into the already limited-seeming class feats that you want to spend on getting the basic things your class should do (like Smite Evil).

I like the idea of Archetypes giving you access to new Class Feats, and I don't inherently dislike the system. Pirate looks to be kinda meh design-wise though, if it's a campaign where it's good enough to take then everyone should probably have it, and if everyone should have it everyone should have it for free. That's an ok design if that's highlighted and suggested in the rules, but if it's something the GM has to come up with on their own and something that those kinds of campaign-centric archetypes aren't designed around then it's just kinda messy.

The Gray Maiden looks pretty neat, I'm a huge fan of Prestige Classes and I'm glad to see they're making it in though I hope we'll still get proper multiclassing support. I also wish we'd get to see some more classic and setting-agnostic ones like the Arcane Trickster or Shadowdancer. It'll be especially important to see how hybrid/multiclassing based prestige options like the Arcane Trickster or the Mystic Theurge are gonna work to evaluate whether the system ends up fulfilling the function of letting your character branch out into more advanced and unique stuff.

I'll be missing the option for variant class features for the times when you don't want things like sneak attack though. It can be alleviated by offering alternatives for stuff (like the various Divine Bond archetype-enabled alternatives for armour and shield being baked into the ability now). I'd love to see every class get a bit more variety in static abilities without turning everything into interchangeable feats, either through a PF1-style archetype system, or through Barbarian-style totem options or just pick one and only one (and maybe one more as a feat later) options.

I'm very interested in this subsystem as a whole. But Class Feats feel rather limited to me already, so while in the past picking up an archetype was a question of finding the one you wanted, now it might be a question of budget and campaign duration more than anything.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So my first and immediate thought without reading the thread:

I hate how flurry of blows now makes you more efficient at doing stuff other than punching people instead of being useful for an all-out offense. That cumulative penalty just doesn't make the 3rd or 4th attack in a round seem very worthwhile. So now flurry is for letting you do more non-punchy stuff during your turn.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I think someone asked for an example of a LG Barbarian. Drax the Destroyer from the Guardians of the Galaxy's movies is a prime example IMO

I super disagree, he's definitively not lawful. Maybe neutral, but never lawful.

From the top of my head on his list of chaotic acts in the movies.:

-Calls Ronan the Accuser to Knowhere without consulting with, confirming with or even telling his allies.
-Leaps inside the huge monster they fight in the opening sequence of vol.2 again on his own, spur-of-the-moment instinct.
-supports (and finds humorous) Rocket's stealing from their employers.
-lies repeatedly to Mantis about his perception of her.

I can't think of a single truly lawful thing he does. His vengeance quest is inherently chaotic (best exemplified when he finishes his quest,by helping kill Ronan, but decides to keep going with it anyway).

Like Good and Evil, the Lawful and Chaotic alignments aren't defined solely by one thing.

For me some key points lie in
-planning vs spontaniety (acting over long term vs acting in the moment)
-working with others vs working by yourself (that's in a momentary sense rather than a communal one)
-reasoning and logic vs passion and emotion

there's more i'm sure, but nothing I can put to words at the moment. Consistency vs Inconsistency might be one (sticking to your word or a higher principle or a code vs tworking on a case-by-case basis).

I feel difficulty seeing a Lawful barbarian because their main feature (Rage) is all about being overcome with emotion in the moment. barbarians don't have to be chaotic, but I don't see one remaining lawful for long if they keep raging (up to multiple times) every combat.

I feel similarly about the monk, discipline over long time doesn't leave much room for spontaneity, and the ordered routine and form relies more on a structured basis than on what "feels" right. Though I strongly agree with neutral monks being a thing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
I've never actually played a barbarian, but this intrigues me greatly. Hopefully the totems at least have the ability to be more spiritualistic than physical (which I'm guessing they will, since it seems like investment will largely be through feats, if the Druid is any indication), but I'm liking the idea of Breathing fire (or probably in my case, Spitting Acid) at enemies, as a Barbarian, though I'm not sure Sprouting Wings is as much my jam, at least thematically.
If you want the wings to sort of be spiritual-looking (or like the animal you turn into to sort of look like a ghostly outline of an animal around you or something), that seems like a cool visual.

Can we have some language in the (finished product) core book about what kind of degree of refluffing stuff the game assumes is fine then? It's nice to have some official guidelines on how much leeway you have with making your own interpretation (especially in a world where Archetypes have made you expect things to be kept kinda concrete).

Also, does anyone have any references to ideas or examples of what you'd consider a lawful barbarian? I'm not particularly opposed to opening up the class at all, but I'm not getting any ideas myself and would like to see the concept examplified.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That skill list seems a bit... empty. Like it's missing one or two things here and there. I'm also not a fan of Thievery, it's the traditional reason for having Sleight of Hand (and i'm guessing disable device?) but I don't like skills being named for what they're often used for rather than what you do with them.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
Limiting item crafting by level is frustrating. It's going to warp the setting monstrously if you can't have a lot of items on the market without a large number of high level characters supplying them.

Paizo: "We aren't changing the setting."

Mechanics of new game: "Yes we are."

Me: "Oh, so this is an alternate reality Golorian. Got it."

Nowhere in any setting book do you have low level people crafting epic items. Or pulling CLW Wand abuse. Or most other changes that are being made.

Player Behavior =/= Setting Assumptions, and it's the first that's being forced to change, not the second (or at least not mostly).

They're also changing class features and racial traits which are pretty directly translatable to the setting.

For instance, paladins with an aura of courage now are merely resilient to fear rather than outright immune to such effects.

And I can see many favourite clerics no longer being setting-accurate with the new restrictions on cleric alignment by deity-approved list rather than the old one-step away and you're good.

Some gameplay mechanics don't shape the setting and are clearly a removed abstraction. Action economy is a good example there.

Some rules and mechanics are more directly tied to the setting and shape it, and what stories we can tell in it (for another example; spells, I'm gonna be somewhat saddened if the X person line of humanoid only spells and my Native Outsider Sylph Magus' pet peeve/rant trigger with their naming scheme goes away)

If potions require channeling magic energy to power all of a sudden then that's a major setting change.

If Paladin's can't use a Spell-like ability that mimics Detect Evil anymore then that's a major setting change.

And if you have to be an epic level adventurer to craft high-end magic gear when previously any level 10 Expert could do almost all of it. Then that's also a major setting change.

No matter how little it matters what systems we use to determine whether we dodge that fireball or hit with that sword or how hard that barbarian hits with his axe, or how we arrive at those numbers. They're still changing the setting my altering the systemic parameters for what's possible.

It's fine, it's par for the course with a new edition that some things might have to get retconned into an alternate universe.

But I'd still miss my Sylph being pissed at whoever did the naming for those spells not considering her a "person".

On another note, there's two things I see missing from the list of downtime activities in the playtest, and from the blog post at all.

1) Adding spells to your spellbook. Possibly because this isn't time consuming enough for a downtime activity. Which means downtime definitively needs to have rules for:

2) Spell Research. AKA the reason to play a wizard in the first place. (and what you do when stupid human(oid)s fail to create an adequate and properly descriptively named shrinking spell)

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I'd love it if they just switch to plain [A] and [R].

And I don't even have an accessibility problem, it's just much easier to read, especially out of context.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I definitively want an AC break down, and for it to be easier to break down what bonuses to attacks and saves etc. comes from.

Also, does the blood soak ability of the Redcap cost 1,3 or 5 actions?

that is, 1 action to use the ability, potentially plus...

2 actions to take a hand off of the schythe and then put your hand on again after dunking the cap in blood.

potentially plus...

2 actions to remove/replace the cap from your head.

Since IIRC switching a grip on your weapon costs an action now, I figure taking off/putting on a cap (or other headwear) could also probably cost an action with the right GM.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish Martial classes like Fighter and Paladin could choose to an extent where they want their higher level gear proficiencies, so I can gear my fighter to play tank better. Or go for weapon proficiencies for a paladin dedicated to the smiting side of things.

I hope sawing things off into class feats don't make classes be thinner than they were before.

Also where's Site and Detect evil?

Oh, and kinda importantly missing from the blog...

How high up is your deity's Anathema in the tenets priority ranking?

Would preserving art be higher or lower than not comitting an evil act? Or is not striking first below following local laws?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Falling distance in a single round is pretty much it for me.

More to the point, I want to know how far I have to fall before I get to do stuff.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spell Points needs a name that doesn't make it sound related to ordinary spellcasting.

And please tell me Artistic Flourish can be "Permanencied" in some way, to create an effect reminiscent of the Masterwork Transformation spell.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Magus has a lot more going for it than just Spell Combat (which may not be a necessary feature with the new action economy).

It's not just proficiencies with weapons and armour either, it's the arcane pool points, the recall abilities, Spellstrike (which I guess could easily be a class feat for the wizard) and Magus Arcana.

The Magus is not a Wizard who also does swords or a Fighter who also does spells, but a through and through martial spellcaster. The Magus gets to enhance their weapon with arcane energies, use those same arcane energies to reflect spells back at their opponents or phase their weapon through armour. They get to apply select Metamagic truly on the fly. Things a Wizard doesn't need and a Fighter doesn't train for.

It's not a generic Red Mage who does both magic and fighting at a subpar level. It's a Spellcaster who uses magic in conjunction with martial combat.

There's certainly room for that in the game as more than a hybrid class archetype. Though it's probably not something that needs to be in from the start.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm mildly miffed about Channel being spell-like now. I like class abilities that are more unique than that.

I hope Paladin Lay on Hands is still it's own thing unrelated to any spell.

And "Spell Points" that you use for everything but actual spells is gonna be the most confusing term ever.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm less than impressed.

First off I really hope we can get a comprehensive blog on Resonance soon. I'd like to know what it is (and I really hope the end result is far from what we've been presented with so far, I'm spectacularily un-keen on magic items and potions being robbed of their own magic so you can power it yourself).

I want the opportunity for a solid discussion and exploration of the subject, based on more than basic rules explanations.

Secondly, I don't understand how elixirs are nonmagical (as in not even supernatural) if they create real, kinda supernatural effects... and still require Resonance to oomph them up with magic... The mad science angle doesn't really mesh well with the more traditional fantasy elements. At least not when played the way that breaking the laws of nature is not supernatural at all. I like more low-key magic-like effects which are not quite codified as such but are definatively more than just extraordinary (like the Shadowdancer's abilities, which are quite clearly supernatural but aren't really classified as magic, at least not what is commonly referred to as magic). I hope this is mostly just interpretation though. Or at least better explained when in not-blog format.

Also, Item bonus? please no. Let bonuses come from actual effects and not just the source of an effect. If you want the beer of courage effect to stack with morale bonuses so badly, make a new drunk bonus instead of a generic game term like item.

It's cool that more room is created in the system for alchemy as a more strongly separated discipline from spellcasting. But I'm gonna lose immersion quickly if the world portrayed suddenly goes with one reality-breaking concept being mundane and another being supernatural, based on arbitrary differentiation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


And, from a narrative perspective, aren't changes that people actually notice in-universe what would be a problem? I mean, if all that changes is an OOC thing like what's written on...

Alignment isn't an OOC thing though. Not as long as there's in-setting elements (like "detect [alignment]" and "protection from [alignment]" spells to point out the example that was brought up in the group I played with).

Just wanted to nitpick that out there.

I'm also new to the forums... hi. *shy wave*