Aravashnial

Nox Aeterna's page

1,087 posts. No reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,087 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ronnam wrote:
dnoisette wrote:
magnuskn wrote:


I have hopes that James Jacobs may influence the PF2E devs a bit, because on the Roll For Combat podcast he was on, he said that in his ideal vision a caster who goes to sleep under PF1E rules and wakes up under PF2E rules could fulfill his role and do what he does just as well as he could in the first edition. Which is... not the case at this moment.
I'm guessing his opinion is quite unpopular at Paizo because the intent was pretty obviously to have Wizards wake up under PF2E rules and realize their magical connection has been severely impaired.

I dunno if it's an unpopular viewpoint, or I wonder if there's a disconnect between the story writers and the rules writers. Anyhow, here is what James Jacobs said around the 55:30 mark:

James Jacobs: My goal is for when the edition changes it should be pretty much invisible to anything in-world so like a wizard who is inside of his house doing wizardly stuff and the day before Second Edition lands and the day after he won't notice any difference in how things work. The rules for how his magic works will change but his role in the world won't change.

Stephen Glicker: So he goes to sleep and its First Edition and he wakes up the next day its like oh its Second Edition, my stuff works a little differently but it's pretty much the same.

James Jacobs: Not even that he just wakes up and keeps doing what he's doing. Every story we told in First Edition needs to be something we can tell in Second Edition, and vice versa.

I question that heavily, but only the end result will tell.

Not only the very races works diferently, feats are locked into certain classes, certain key class features like smite evil are not there at all, some key feats like leadership, which is one of the few ways to get an actual NPC to follow you at all, are completely gone...

Honestly, Paizo must be holding back a ton of things to add to the final version that were core before if they expect any actual PF1 player to "just wakes up and keeps doing what he's doing."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I like having plenty of dice under my control as the GM, this gives me an easier time when I clearly decide on the results whatever the dice I rolled :P.

Sometimes a monster just didn't need to Crit or to hit a certain atk. :P.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"You have a great deal of knowledge about ancient philosophies, esoteric lore, obscure mysticism, and supernatural creatures."

Because this has NOTHING to do with charisma.

It could pass as wisdom, but it certanly would make no sense based on CHA.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly balance isnt all that relevant to me.

I make PCs i know are worse than others at the table all the time, what is relevant to me is that i will try to be atleast decent and go from there.

As long as my PC can have his "thing", i can make it work.

Honestly i would rather have "10 classes" completely different and unbalanced, than take options out of the game and make the game itself poor and bland.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:

I don't understand the aversion to having meaningful differences between players, each with complimentary strengths that cover individuals' weaknesses. That's how real teams work.

Many don't seem to want that anymore.

It is a sad state of affairs indeed.

Well, all each can do is give their feedback to paizo and hope for the best. PF2 will become what PF2 will become.

If it continues to drive PF1 players away maybe at the end we lucky out and another company deem the market big enough to start making content to cover it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fun, unfortunately, is 100% subjective.

What you, I and someone else find fun can be completely different, not only that, but also what we find fun might be frustating to others.

While these forums show many dissatisfied with PF2, me included, we cannot deny that there are those that like the changes.

Will we play together? Hell no.

Clearly we dont see eye to eye on what is fun, but alas, to some this need for balance at all cost is a must in order to have said fun.

Pathfinder is a game about numbers, what you can or cant do is often directly related to what numbers you have written on your sheet. Changing said numbers in itself is one thing that might change widely the game feel and which side is having fun.


Well OP, this is just the playtest, who knows what the final product will look like.

I ofc spoke my mind about what i think of this edition with the others i play with, overall the consensus was "We might just not be the target audience."

There are fast updates, i keep my hopes up many changes will make the game atleast passable by release, but if not, PF1 remains the same and that brings me peace of mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Also yes, anything but fully healed is a huge issue. Anything but fully healed means most of the time parties will quite literally just leave the dungeon over fighting on.

Why the hell would anyone risk their PCs unless there was something more relevant than their lives AT THE END OF EVERY SINGLE QUEST from lvl 1. This is why people talk about 15 mins adventure day and how they keep existing dungeons over and over. There is no reason to risk their necks unless the stakes are THAT high.

Ah. So we're talking less about heroes and just cowardly mercenaries. "Unless I'm assured victory, I'm out."

Brave crew right there. The minstrels will sing songs of their glory for decades to come.

I presume that by that mindset "balanced" also means well below the PCs APL. Wouldn't want them to have to burn up too many resources, now, would we?

1. Heroes are rare in this game. That is one kind of PC and honestly not even one I see often. Even when there is a hero, exploring a random dungeon often doesn't seem emergencial or something that will save lives, so it literally doesn't demand the risk for this PC either.

2. The game demand items. PF2 certanly expects you to have certain items at certain lvls.

So yes, it must be cheap enough that it doesn't get in the way, otherwise it becomes just a slow bleed as you end up with less and less items the game expected you to have.

This would just be a "have a healer or die due to the lack of saves/AC...".

Hell lack of AC alome this time actually makes you a Crit target.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
If anything less than "full strength before every fight" is "too weak", why even call it Treat Wounds or Medicine? At that point just call it "health bar regen" that occurs after every fight and call it a day.

Perception matters. That simple.

It isnt the same to fully heal everyone instantly after each fight and to give them the "option" and ask for something to get fully healed after each fight.

Ultimately this skill, just like the wand isnt costless, there is plenty of cost to go around with this skill if nothing else.

Time isnt a problem until it is and then you have a huge issue. Again, i still think this is too weak due to the time constraints, but lets see how it goes.

Also yes, anything but fully healed is a huge issue. Anything but fully healed means most of the time parties will quite literally just leave the dungeon over fighting on.

Why the hell would anyone risk their PCs unless there was something more relevant than their lives AT THE END OF EVERY SINGLE QUEST from lvl 1. This is why people talk about 15 mins adventure day and how they keep existing dungeons over and over. There is no reason to risk their necks unless the stakes are THAT high.

wizardmark wrote:
I'm curious where the "we shouldn't need a healer" movement comes from. Is it the younger crowd, accustomed to video game-esque mechanics where everything rapidly replenishes? I feel as if older generation players (with roots in 1E or maybe 2E) are less likely to feel that way. I might be wrong, I have no real data to back this thinking aside from other 1E/2E people I talk to who don't seem to mind the need for a dedicated healer (or a spread of classes that give you the same thing).

More along the lines of, being someone who is used to PF1, i would rather not take steps back.

PF1 didnt require a healer, granted it isnt by far a game where everyone can play anything and it just works out either if the GM doesnt put a lot of effort into it, so i would rather PF2 didnt either.

I have yet to see a single player pick in PF1 the job of healer. I mean, sure, there was the occasional PC with channel, but that wasnt ever the focus, just an extra that he had and used outside combat. The only time i have seem "PCs" focused on healing was when me or other GMs literally made them to fill the party. That is it. No human being ever went to this job in a PF1 table i have played.

Being perfectly honest, i would rather not play than be someones healbot, since i also dont believe in forcing others into things i wouldnt do myself, i wont be asking other players to do this for obvious reasons.

Im not against the healer being there and having their thing, but i sure dont expect them to be a must.

Ofc, like you said, ultimately, this is a matter of preference, so i dont expect every to feel the same either. To each their own i guess.


If anything i think it is too weak and it still takes too long to fully heal the party after a fight, in a rushed dungeon this might aswell be forgotten.

Well, will give it sometime before i judge it, could be it works better than it looks, but if anything to me right now it still doesnt look strong enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
PF2 has been a potential win for D&D5e. My group has actually mentioned converting over to it. Before the playtest they were diehard Pathfinder fans.

Well, that seems rather weird to me.

Dont get me wrong, i didnt like PF2 playtest either, i agree with many of OPs points, but ultimately, nothing done here impacts PF1.

So chances are i will just keep playing PF1 and that is that. I dont understand how PF2 being "bad" makes PF1 any worse, that system remains the same.

Now if a company made a PF 1.5 or just new version of 3.5, that i can understand checking out and maybe switching over.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The funny part is that this discussion has been going on since before the playtest, the people in it are mostly the same even and literally nobody changed an inch from where we started.

To me paladins also remain LG on a must basis.

Disagree? Fine, i know many do. Go to the surveys like everyone is doing.

Honestly, this is one pointless thread at this point. People got their opinions, nobody is willing to change them based on threads, it will be what the devs decide at the end, cause the community clearly remains divided and it will remain so even after the release most likely, the difference is that then there will be rules one way or the other.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Davick wrote:
The point of the game is not to play casters and lord over everyone else. The point is to have fun. Sure lording your miraculous spellcasting over others is fun, for you. But again, the intent is that EVERYONE have fun. That means martials need to be fun. That means martials and casters should ideally be equivalently fun. Otherwise one side syphons fun from the other. So arguments based on how "magic should be super powerful yadda yadda yadda" miss the point of the game even if they fit whatever sort of fantasy narrative you like. It's wrong just because of false premise, no matter how much math you can bring to bear.
The false premise is yours, in that you assume people want to "lord it over everyone else". Players of arcane casters want to feel useful and so far the rules have been overnerfed so much that all the areas where arcane casters excelled are now either bad or mediocre.

I didn't assume. I deduced it from reading this thread and from playing this game.

When I've playtested casters I didn't feel bad or mediocre. And the people I've seen who have made those complaints have framed them as not being as overpowered as they were. To borrow a phrase "a loss of privilege is not discrimination". Casters were too good. Lowering their power level is not inherently over-nerfing them.

"Lowering" can go in many ways. You might think how much they lowered is ok.

Ultimately this is a matter of preference, i wont presume to say what you felt is wrong, but considering i felt quite the opposite, i cant say there is any reason to play this over PF1.

Horrid scaling DCs, many spells where you need to land a critical failure to even matter, short duration to utility spells, summon monster that is barely functional... together are enough to make me lose any interest in this edition.

Hoping the devs do give some thought when it comes to rebalancing this magic system.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
The game is designed around Paizo's needs, not ours.
I'm not sure that is a good business approach: screw what the customers want, this is what me and Hal, like.

To be fair, while this system might not make it in more open home games, it could well become popular with said PFS and module crowd that want to just run paizo made stuff and call it a day.

If there is one thing proven is that some do want this new system, granted, probably not as many as paizo would liked, but hey, you cant have it all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well, one thing i find amusing to be honest, is that your complains and reasons to like PF2, are mine to never sit to play it.

Guess that goes to show how they simply arent the same system at all.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to interpret this post.

For starters, who are you addressing?

The OP.

Well he listed reasons he think PF2 is great, i believe those to be the opposite.

1) Min-max is part of the fun of PF1 to me. Granted i use mostly to make my absurd builds viable than to make a war tank, but still, it is min/maxing. Not that i think PF2 will manage to keep up with this math of theirs, assuming it makes to the official release, after many years of content.

2) I also favor leadership. Which i use to get NPCs i like from the story as followers and people that i can keep around and lvl with me. Granted again some use to make wizard crafters that they keep home, but hardly this is a flaw with the feat as far as im concerned. Hell right now we are playing one such game, where i might once again use it to get a crappy NPC that i just saved to follow me from now on heh. Without this feat, this wouldnt happen.

3) Crafting is so-so. I can understand why a new GM would be surprised by it, but honestly, many of the good items shouldnt be hard to find and are staples, so all it does is double the WBL of the party if they have time. Dont care much for it personally.

4) Healing wands were used in most of my PF games. Without healing wands i honestly dont think most tables i played in would even work, nobody wanted to be a healer, so quite literally it is the wands that kept the party going. I quite like said wands. They allow for the entire party to share the cost of healing at the same time they dont force anyone to spend their resources on something they dont want. Two birds with one stone. Wonder how paizo will find an answer to this in PF2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, one thing i find amusing to be honest, is that your complains and reasons to like PF2, are mine to never sit to play it.

Guess that goes to show how they simply arent the same system at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont think the general idea behind your post is wrong OP, but the most important factors require numbers we dont have, thus everything we do here is guess work, including your post.

PF2 still has one year to impress the current PF1 players, but yeah, if there is one thing that brings peace during this playtest to someone like me who doesnt like current PF2 is that PF1 will still be there.

Funny enough paizo is now competing with itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Whenever someone's justifications for their opinions on game mechanics is that some players "tend" to roll higher or lower I just roll my eyes. Give them new dice or something. Rolling isn't some skill that people can be good or bad at. If you're "good" at rolling that means you're literally cheating and rolling it in a way to get high numbers or your dice is unbalanced. Same goes for people who are "bad" at rolling.

It is irrelevant that he is good/bad at rolling.

What is relevant is that he fails his checks and thus gets the party is trouble by doing so.

Thus the party doesnt trust him anymore to roll said checks and when ANY option is given about allowing him to roll or not, the rest of the party moves to deny him to chance to even try.

Again, words are meaningless if you can show when it counts.

If a PC says he is good at X, but keeps failing, well, then he clearly isnt good at it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperSheep wrote:
To those people who want to hit 90% of the time on their optimized rolls... "Why?"

Cause when I say my PC is good at X, i expect him to show it.

One of my current games show this pretty well actually.

One player tends to roll low dices on some of his skill checks, by this point then entire party doesnt trust him to roll it at all. So buff,diplomacy... routes are denied to him, unless no other option is present. The party quite literally will not even give the NPCs a chance to speak if possible.

Ultimately, nobody cares if you say you are good, if you cant deliver, then it is worthless.

And no plan can be made with a bunch of maybes.

So it is best to have 4 PCs that know they can do something, than 4 PCs that kind have an idea that they could possibly do everything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lausth wrote:

You bother because there are other people in your party.

An adventurer group isnt made of people with the same specialization fields. You know some of the plans people make might rely on the rogue never failing that check(well they could because you know spells,blindsight,etc). While some plans might rely on wizard never failing at his job or fighter never failing at whatever his field of expertise is. I think pf 1e is more than just your modifier but i guess that is just me.

It is relevant to point out that depending on the plan, people will not do it if they arent sure everyone can pull off their part.

Lower level the consequences are smaller, but as the game goes foward, often so do the consequences. So if you fail at X at the village, it wont have the same repercursions ingame as failing in the kings casttle.

This also brings into the game a PC looking foolish over and over again to his party and them outright denying him the chance after a while and going in other directions instead. Cause when peoples PCs are on the line, dont expect everyone to sit there and let others put them at risk by sucking.

If you failed that check at the village, pretty sure the party will think twice about the whole thing when it comes to the kings bedroom.

So the game goes from, well let the rogue try, to ok we need to find a way to do it without the rogue doing anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will be direct, if the there is a healer role and it requires any form of decent investiment for a party to work even remotely like a party should, aka being able to fight more than once a day without being damaged, then in my experience there will be issues at tables.

The only time a healer role was EVER picked that i have seen, was when there are less than 4 players and me or the other GMs made a NPC to do it. I have never seen a human being voluntarily pick this role in a table top game.

PF1 healing was pretty much 100% left to the wand and if anyone happened to be a cleric, then often whatever basic channel they had. Even spending spell slots was something people already didnt like at all.

I admit, it will be hilarious if when PF2 launches, a GM needs to ask if any player want to be a main healer or they should just drop the system altogether.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I must admit I find kinda funny people talking so badly about the CLW wands, cause they are 99% of the time literally the only source of healing of any given group I see in PF1. Hell I for sure, and often I dont see other players, EVER spend spells on healing don't who or what is going to die.
So it is no surprise to me PF2 instantly had issues with this by not giving very easy to achieve comparable solution.
FACT: Often nobody wants to be a healer. The needs to easily allow for this to happen.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, i can understand why people would leave this book on the shelves. I personally also gave up getting a copy after checking the pdf.

I literally have no use for this book outside the playtest.

Sure, for the playtest purpose of feedback, the rules are relevant, but that is it. Outside this playtest i wouldnt ever run this system.

Now i do have hope that changes can happen and PF2 might be this amazing thing that i would love to play. I also believe doesnt matter how much people dislike the current playtest, they also believe so, they are here on these forums giving feedback too after all.

Probably much of this would die down and many of us who are negative about this system would leave if the devs simply came foward and gave a list of design goals they think are going to happen for sure, since this would mean there wouldnt be change to certain things.

Like for example that they think magic should be this weak. Or that they think keeping the success rate of players around 50% (or maxed around 60%) is a thing they think is a must...

If they told people are not going to take certain changes that they will happen no matter what, then chances are the negativity will die down due to people simply leaving and finally then giving up hope.


Yeah summoner too, but not the unchained one, have no use for that.

My favorite class for sure, followed by ofc the other two pet classes, hunter/spiritualist.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, if this was the final version of the game, i would have to sit and write again atleast half the book to be worth playing...

So i wouldnt do it.

Anyway: The entire magic system, rebalance and recheck the familiar and AC, check over the items, probably alter the skill system, find a way to remove the expected 50% status the game is trying to build...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for your post.

One thing that is quite critical for me this new edtion is the magic nerfs. Honestly in its current form there is no way i would sit to play PF2 outside the playtest.

I hope feedback during the it makes paizo see the light regarding this subject.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well OP, while i agree with you to a point, it is paizos system. It is somewhat ironic, but while gaming might be for everyone, every single game isnt. Paizo is with this targeting a very broad poll of players, but clearly not all of them. Still, this isnt wrong by any means. They want to create a game that is meant to be played in a safe space, that is a choice they can make for the system they are creating and the stories they will create for it.

Honestly, my games on the other hand, unless real life kids are involved ofc at which point the game will be flowers and sun shines for obvious reasons, can involved any sort of horrid things if the story goes in that direction.

From assault/rape to cold blooded torture... all CAN happen. Ofc, doesnt mean it will, doesnt mean the players will ever see it happening so they more likely wont see descriptions, but sure as hell evil people will be doing all manner of evil things.

I do agree players should be warned this can come up. That NPCs can be major dicks and so on. Players shouldnt ever be forced to keep playing if they feel disconfortable, so it is best if session 0 brings everyone up to speed about this.

Reminds me of one table im playing, where a guy was just raped the other day. Turns out evil monsters arent above mind control and not caring about permission, before that there was a thing with a horse and so on. Some stories takes these turns, it just motivates my PC even more to find aways to deal with the monster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, in my experience as a player and GM, Alignments help a lot.

When making a new PC, one of the things i ask is which one each party member has so i can get a general idea if i could make a good PC or an evil one if the GM didnt set anything. It is pretty much as relevant as which role they intend to fill and so on.

Heh honestly, i think in terms of Alignment when making PCs in pretty much any system i play, even when there is none. It helps a lot keeping my PCs in line and following a logical thread, instead of being "good one session and evil the next" cause a lot of time passed.

As a GM it gives me a general idea of how each PC will act before the first session even starts and allows me to easilly ban general ideas from the table. For example, "no evil PCs" pass an idea to the players with ease.

I suppose to each their own. My experience of alignment is quite positive thus im greatly in favor of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:

BryonD:

I need don't need to show you any evidence. If you don't like the thread, leave it.

I wanted to leave my feedback from the perspective of a player that played 3.5/PF, went to 5E and find the playtest to be fantastic.

This was for the devs. Your negativity does not interest me.

Well, being blunt, if you just made a thread to toss around stuff you like, but clearly is not inviting discussion, then you failed at the basics of making a thread.

Just tossing around stuff you like or dislike is what the survey is for.

The threads are so people can actually discuss those things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bronzemountain wrote:

For people who are dead set on Paladin being a Lawful Good fixed entity, the solution is to make Paladin an Archetype. Thus, anyone in any class who satisfies the requirements of being an unwavering champion of goodness can qualify and advance (similar to Gray Maiden, etc).

This frees up classes to remain broader toolkits for enabling and empowering character concepts. And toolkits shouldn't be so narrowly focused on something as arbitrary as alignment.

And to reiterate, Paladins were not grand champions of goodness, historically (no more or less so than people with any other skillsets), they haven't always been LG in previous editions of dnd, and 'this is how they started' is a problematic argument unless you want Elf to be a class again.

You can say that a hundred times and a hundred times it will be refused.

Actually funny enough, that is how those threads got that far, cause it was the same 3/4 arguments going around over and over and over. Quite literally nothing new was added, just like this thread didnt add any new ideas, it just pointed ideas that were there before too. I can deny such a thing with arguments based on my opinion, you will point out your ideas based on yours and we wont move an inch, just like before.

Ultimately again, no right way out of this lock.

Since the dev team also shares this same divide, we have what we have.

Who knows, chances are they will go for the new classes or they will get a feedback that those surveys that will push for a change.


I will point this out again as it was pointed out before during said hundreds long post threads regarding the paladin already.

Darkorin wrote:
they showed with the second edition that they could keep the pure Paladin identity with a combination of Powers and Orders/Tradition/Anathema/Feats.

To you and some others this was enough.

To me and some others, paladin are a core component of the game and one that MUST BE LG.

Ultimately, as this thread once more points out as people once again tossed the same thing around. There is no right way out of this lock.

I do also agree with time and more books down the line, new classes based on the other alignment should appear, none of them like the paladin ofc, but on their own niches.

Either way, with the current class system i imagine our old hybrid classes like hunter might not make the cut for this edition anyway, so there is already an open spot for where new classes can come from here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The intention to me seems simple enough.

By everyone getting +1 at every lvl, the gap from one to another PC dimishes, this way everyone may attempt a task.

So instead of, one guy being at stealth, but the party refuses to do it cause the others arent, one guy is good at climb, but the party refuses to do it cause the wizard or whatever isnt, the other guy is good at X and the party refuses to do it cause they arent...

You in turn have more situations where everyone might not be as good as the other guy, but they are still willing to try cause they are high enough lvl and thus have a good bonus to whatever it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have rolled perception and saves for my players since the longest of times.

Also roll other skills from time to time if i think there is a need for it.

When i GM i simply use a sheet to keep track of pretty much all my players have and can do.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Exactly because many disagree with you there. That simple.

It was motive of multiple discussion threads even before the playtest started, in which it was more than clear that some want a open paladin, some think it could be only good and me and others believe it should remain LG only.

Simply put, while you might drop the restriction, i would quite literally add it back in my games second one if it wasnt there to begin with. No way im GMing a pathfinder game with a non LG paladin in it.

Ultimately it was left open to change based on playtest feedback during surveys. So who know where the final edition will stand. One can assume some questions they will ask will be referent to this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, will have to agree here.

Im hoping the playtest will radicaly change the magic system, but if it doesnt, then honestly nothing else written in any 2.0 book matters to me.

I will not GM or even sit to play a 2.0 game that is for sure.

With this said, for said negative feedback to be given now when change can still come and hope still remains, i do advise playing the playtest and taking part in the surveys.


Overall higher preset character creation.

Simply put, stuff like background, anathemas that set classes more in line and so on.

Background itself is something im +- about, since until there are tons of them it is a bit iff and ofc, even then some will always be missing, but it shouldnt be hard for a GM to make on the fly for his players anyway.

Anathemas i quite like. It was abhorrent to me how clerics could follow a god, but quite literally not at all represent said god in PF1. So this is a big plus.

Class locked stuff. This needs change here and there, but the direction is great. Simply put, being a class should matter quite a bit to me, so each having unique and powerful tools that set them appart is a great direction to follow. Ofc, right now this needs work, but im considering the thought.


Well, dunno, from my usual table only I cared enough to check out dates and the launch of 2.0. I told them about it, for now as far as i have seen they were neutral about it.

Tonight we will sit to play, i will be giving my first impressions, which to be honest are... mostly negative and we will see from there.

With this said, i do intend to playtest it, if nothing else because i have played PF1 for so damm long, that i think 2.0 should atleast get a shot until it is released and fixed in stone.

The overall idea was nice, the execution, to me atleast, was poor.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Greatly favor the new restrictions.

Honestly in PF1 clerics were far too generic and what god will you serve was a question more of "what domains you want?" than of "what the idea behind the god is?".

More times than i can number i saw clerics that to pretty much all effects forgot what gods they served and just went ahead being generic good or evil guy.

Anathemas are a big plus, but honestly i will take anything that sets clerics of different gods appart from each other.


It is interesting to see the game go more for an anime feeling with skills, which arent magic, allow for normal individuals to perform such feats, like falling from any place and take 0.

Just checking the blogs now, but still cant wait for the book.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

I think game terms are used in game, not in world.

I can say "I'm an assassin" because I'm a killer for hire. I don't need to have the Assassin prestige class, I can be a rogue, slayer, ranger, fighter, or even sorcerer.

Same with paladin. I can say "I'm a paladin of Iomedae's just cause", even if my class is not Paladin, but Inquisitor, Cleric, Warpriest, Cavalier or even sorcerer. I would not be a Paladin, but I would be a paladin.

Well here we can see we play completely diferent regarding this.

I won't go into Assassin cause it is so generic. But the second example would demand bluff checks, cause you are lying as far as I'm concerned in world.

Ofc, the paladin also wouldn't get to call himself an inquisitor and so on and on.

Unless you are a class, then you can claim you are, but that is a lie.

Issue being some terms are so generic that it a bit harder, like fighter or your Assassin example. Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.

The way I see it, you can't say "I'm a Paladin" anymore than you can say "I'm level 6". Those are metagame terms to explain mechanics. Like "attack of oportunity" and "squares" are. Your wizard does not point fireballs to corners of squares, he point them to points in the space.

Yeap, fundamentally different ways to play, that is all.

To me a class isnt divided from what it is ingame.

A PC with the class paladin, is also a paladin in game...

If the PC doesnt have the paladin class, then he isnt a in game paladin...

Ofc this goes for other class aswell, but again, some are harder than others to divide due to being a more generic term, like the assassin case.


Neurophage wrote:
Would they be? What if all of their formal magical knowledge came from studying at a wizard's college, from which they graduated (if only barely)? They cast arcane spells using their intelligence modifier, prepare them out of a spellbook and have to use material components barring taking the Eschew Materials feat. Would it still be a lie for them to claim to be a wizard? Because if that was my magus's background, he would definitely call himself a wizard.

First lets assume he did go to a college, in said college there would be multiple courses, not just the wizard one, he would be well aware there are magus, wizard, arcansists... and that those things are different.

If we go beyond and say that he went on with your story, the player would be well aware his PC is wrong in the claim, cause i would have told him so when he made the PC, but he can still go on with it, i mean, dont people often believe they are things they arent?

Maybe eventually people could caught on with this and so on...

Pretty much how guy can go to the temple and there are people training to be be a paladin or a cleric or a inquisitor... he would know these arent the same from the get go, same way most NPCs that belongs to a religious orders would know a paladin isnt a inquisitor, a cleric...

This ofc gets more complex the more generic a term is.

Neurophage wrote:
And if that's how you want to do things, then more power to you. But if I don't want to, I don't think the game shouldn't assume that I do. How you do things shouldn't have to conflict with how I do things.

By no means im playing the better way here. You do you, i will do me. Ofc, as i said above, i believe in informing players as much as i can about these things, houserules... so after the game starts they suffer for things they didnt know.

Ultimately, they might, simply cause we run them differently. Ofc, there is a room for middle ground, for example, the mounted knight player wanted to call himself a cavalier at all costs, he didnt want this to be a mistaken by any means... i might consider banning the entire cavalier class then, if there are no cavaliers as a class, then the player wouldnt be wrong.

Neurophage wrote:
Would they still need to if their principle responsibility at their temple was clerical work? If their primary function in the temple of Razmir where they serve is to provide general support and assist in the ongoing functioning of the temple in an official capacity, then I think of them, in the most literal interpretation, as a cleric of Razmir.

Yes, because i would explain such to them, because the term cleric wouldnt mean the person that does things X and Y in the temple, it would mean people that belong to this class, who have this skill set...


Malk_Content wrote:

And what happens when a class is added? Was your character lying all along?

PF2E launches and I make a knightly mounted fighter. He refers to himself as a cavalier. He goes around cavaliering for 2 years until the release of a book that adds the Cavalier class. Do I now have to rewrite my character?

This is a very unique case in which no, I wouldn't force a player to get out of his way for something that wasn't even there when the game launched. When he made the PC this was perfectly valid and thus should remain till the next game starts.

Changes made during play should be for very serious reasons as far as I'm concerned. And mostly should be things the entire table can agree on, even more after 2 years of play.

But let's be honest here, classes aren't that common for this to happen all the time.


Malk_Content wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Ofc, the paladin also wouldn't get to call himself an inquisitor and so on and on.

So if your Paladin was tasked with rooting out corrupted members of the order they would be lying if they used the label inquisitor? Thats kind of absurd to be honest.

Yeap he would be lying. An inquisitor is not the same a paladin. That simple.

You may work to enforce the law, that doesn't make you a police officer.

You may know how to build a house, that doesn't make you an engineer...

Just because your head cleric said, go clean the house, doesn't mean a paladin turns into a inquisitor as far as I'm concerned.

Ofc, some stuff blurs this due to being generic, like the Assassin case...


Neurophage wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.
I hope for the opposite. Few things in a class-based game irritate me more than character classes being in-universe terminology. The only purpose it serves is to limit what concepts and character types are allowed to be expressed by which classes. Like, my favorite class is the magus, but not a single one of my magi has ever referred to themselves as a magus. They've been knights, swordsmen, spell-fencers, scholars, magicians and just wanderers. I've never defined a single paladin as just being a paladin. Demon hunter? Sure. Crusader? Sometimes. Hero? only one occasion. As far as I'm concerned, the class name is for the players' convenience and nothing more.

Like I said different strokes for different folk.

A magus would be a magus in mine. Ofc, again, you can call yourselves whatever you want and honestly none of what you said had to be a lie. But let's say you called yourself a wizard, THEN you are lying.

Point is, you can't jump on other classes , without lying anyway, cause they are in world things, but you sure call yourself things that go beyond your class without issues.

To make a simple analogy.

That Razmir for example.

If you have a sorc who is a priest/follower...

If someone ask "Are you a priest/follower... of Razmir" Assuming the sorc is one, this isn't a lie.

But if they ask "Are you a cleric of Razmir" and they say yes, then they are rolling a bluff check.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

I think game terms are used in game, not in world.

I can say "I'm an assassin" because I'm a killer for hire. I don't need to have the Assassin prestige class, I can be a rogue, slayer, ranger, fighter, or even sorcerer.

Same with paladin. I can say "I'm a paladin of Iomedae's just cause", even if my class is not Paladin, but Inquisitor, Cleric, Warpriest, Cavalier or even sorcerer. I would not be a Paladin, but I would be a paladin.

Well here we can see we play completely diferent regarding this.

I won't go into Assassin cause it is so generic. But the second example would demand bluff checks, cause you are lying as far as I'm concerned in world.

Ofc, the paladin also wouldn't get to call himself an inquisitor and so on and on.

Unless you are a class, then you can claim you are, but that is a lie.

Issue being some terms are so generic that it a bit harder, like fighter or your Assassin example. Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
I dont know where this "everybody knows you are a paladin" thing came from.

Honesty it went from paladin is a in world thing that means something on itself.

To people who thought it meant suddenly meant everyone could instantly see you are a paladin.


Honestly, i find it so much simpler than that, it is like our world, people can 1, say they are the thing they are: "Im a paladin/police officer...",yes people could also lie about it, bluff all the way, 2, people can be recognized by others "This man is a paladin *said the town cleric*...", and so on.

Actuallty, funny enough, the false priests fit into this right in. They are lying about being clerics, cause people understand what is a cleric, that is why they get powers to fool people. Just like you could try to fool people that you are a paladin, the issues being when you are caught ofc :P.

Anyway, this wasnt the point you were trying to make.

Your solution does grasp the heart of the matter, which is, paladins are paladins in universe and that they shouldnt have their niche changed. Your solution is far from the worse i saw around actually, it could use some refining and im unsure about the whole any class thing, but it could fit i guess.

The issue I have with this is that, lets be real here, this wont ever happen, cause there is no way paizo is dropping the paladin as a class. In the core book, by the end, paladin will for sure be there, it wont be crusader or whatever else. Ofc, i dont speak for the devs, so who knows, but i dont believe for a second this is happening until i see it.


The Unfortunate Pumpkin wrote:
I'm of the school of thought that you should find ways to incorporate characters backstory into a campaign no matter how crazy it seems, as long as it's done well. this way players always feel like their character has story significance, I mean they are the heroes after all. I had the same issue with traits being forgotten after being picked, because players only wanted to take the good ones and didn't care too much for the flavor of them so they just wrote their backstory completely ignoring the traits they took. This lead to me not really using traits too often.

Well, it is not already possible to easilly integrate stories of the players in the world, even more if they dont know it all to well before they create them, often players simply dont think to ask this kind of information, but the traits point them to it.

Examples from the last game were a native trait, that gave the player a best friend who was also an INN keeper in the main used city, a world explorer which led the player to be well know in certain circles that were very relevant to the game , a favored of god X, which literally made stuff react to a player who didnt even follow the god, but had the trait, differently... so on and on.

This made the players feel a direct impact in the traits they got, instead of some generic +2 to whatever for reasons nobody will remember and so on.

This is what im hoping this system will point to. Even more in APs and other such stories. You start invested, you start set to that world, to that story.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
about what I expected. I like that they have the potential to be really closely tied into an AP, although I agree with folks that it's going to be pretty rough until enough AP's and splats come out to allow a full range of character concepts.

Honestly worthy it for me.

Issue i had with some home games and traits is that they were just forgotten after you pick them, no in world value outside the mechanical side.

Im not blaming any GM for this either, they just didnt stop to create their on traits since the system was often side lined. Im hoping by this being in core, more people will think about making their own gist for their stories, so when you pick one, you can better integrate with the story about to be told.

The few campaigns i played, outside APs which have their own, that had a GM prepare their traits ahead of time were trully awesome from the get go, since you often started with all players already integrated with the story and its NPCs, with motivations...

Had moments were traits had real story significance and a real inworld impact, like completely changing how certain events went because that one guy was there and that one guy had the trait for the situation we got ourselves in...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, on the overall part is find this great, anything that binds the PC more and more into world in a positive to me. So i hope other feats and so on will even further set a PC that not only tells a story, but that has the story build up what he is.

1 to 50 of 1,087 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>