Nox Aeterna's page

1,174 posts. No reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist.

1 to 50 of 281 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you would have benefit possibly more making this thread on the 2E forums.

Well, it has been a long time since release so I already forgot many of my grips with it. Keeping the bias about my greatest gripe, which is the one I certainly wont forgot, in check is quite hard, so take this with some salt.

It is worth pointing out that what goes for magic in PF1 and 2E is hardly the same. 2E made a point to "balance" spellcasting. Personally i found it a horrid attempt.

- Some spell duration are pretty... restrictive. Many of them being utility spells now quite restricted.

- The new DC system of 4 states in theory is a method to help mages land spells. As now it isnt a simply binary success or fail state when passing a save DC. You can critical success, success, fail and critical fail. In practice, many effects on 2E now require a critical failure by the enemy, by 10 or more, to land the effect you would have in PF1. So often now you need to find ways to decrease a enemy DC before you can land what you want. In simple terms, it is easier to land spells, but they will be weaker when they land too.

- Some spells were completely removed or just rewritten so their to have effects distributed among different levels. For example, haste, which is single target at first, but if you cast it at a much higher circle can target multiple party members. If I remember right, it was for example circle 3 for single target, circle 7 for multiple.

Anyway, like I said, mine is a biased view. The point of the written above is to call your attention to this, so what you check the rules in the future you can see for yourself the changes to this aspect of the game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is kinda old, but it is my performance list:

Lista Total Performances:
Skill focus (feat) +3/6 bonus
Moment of Prescience (spell) +X (Caster Level) insight bonus on a single roll
Aid another (rule) +2 bonus if another person uses , no limit on how many can help

---Ultimate Equipment
Circlet of Persuasion (item) +3 competence bonus
Bracers of the Glib Entertainer (item) +5 competence bonus
Masterwork Musical Instrument (item) +2 circumstance bonus

---Mythic Adventures
Adroit (Legendary Item Ability) +20 insight bonus (cost 1 mythic point)
Display of Charisma (Universal Path Ability) +20 circumstance bonus (cost 1 mythic point)
Surge (Base Mythic Ability) +1dX (6/8/10/12) bonus on skill check (1 or 2 mythic points)

---Ultimate Campaign
Initiate (Reputation and Fame) +3 bonus by making it class skill
Hero’s Luck (Reputation and Fame) +4 luck bonus (cost 1 prestige point)
Intense Student (Reputation and Fame) +2 competence bonus
Magnum Opus (Feat) +2/5 bonus to one performance and take 15 on check
Talented (Base trait) +1 trait bonus on 1 perform and perform is class skill

---Bestiary 1
Nymph Inspiration (item) +4 insight bonus

---Advanced Class guide
Tome of epics (item) +2 circumstance bonus on Perform (oratory) and Perform (sing)
Lozenge of the Songbird (item) +2 alchemical bonus on Perform (sing)
Oil of the Masters (item) +2 alchemical bonus on Performs with instruments
Dust, Storyteller's (item) +2 bonus to tell story
Amulet of the Spirits , Heavens (item) +X (Wisdom modifier) bonus on all Charisma based checks

---Inner Sea Gods
Blade of Three Fancies (weapon) +4 sacred bonus
Inner Beauty (Shelyn,trait) +4 trait bonus on 1x perform check/day
Intense Artist (Shelyn, trait) +1 trait bonus on 2 performs and perform is a class skill
Deific Obedience (Shelyn, feat) +4 sacred bonus
Faithful Artist (Desna, trait) +1 trait bonus on 1 perform and perform is class skill

---Core + Ultimate Combat
Heroism (spell) +2 moral bonus -> Moment of Greatness doubles duration of moral bonus

---Faction Guide
Daring Dancers (item) +5 competence bonus to Perform (dance)
Savant (Social Trait) +2 trait bonus to one Perform and perform becomes a class skill

---Blood of Angels
Azata-Blooded (racial) +2 racial
Variant Aasimar Abilities (racial) +2 racial to one Perform skill or to Char

---Magical Marketplace
Hypnotic Tatto (item) +2 circumstance bonus on Perform (dance)

---Adventurer's Armory
Stage Magic (trait) +2 trait bonus during the perform
Instrument of the Divine (item only for clerics) +2 circumstance bonus MW and +X (channel dice) sacred

---Advanced Players Guide
Hero point bonus (Hero point system) +8 luck on one perform check

---Advanced Race Guide
Inexplicable Luck (feat only for humans) +8 luck bonus on a single roll/day
Samsaram - Shards of the Past (racial trait) +2 racial to 2 skill and they become class skills

---Ultimate Magic
Prodigy (feat) +2/4 bonus to 2 craft/perform skills

---Demon Hunter's Handbook
Portable Altar , Masterwork (item) +2 circumstance to any aided skill by the altars god , in this case any performance

---Occult Adventures
Four-Leaf Clover (item) +2 luck bonus 3x/day

---Cohorts and Companions
Basic Harmony (Teamwork feat only for bards) +X (Result of a perform check by one of the bards) bonus

---Inner Sea Races
Lupine Robe (item) +1d6/10(if kitsune and spend 2 uses) bonus on 4/day on Charisma based checks
Scarf of Glorious Histories (item) +5 competence bonus to Perform (dance)

Lista Total Charisma:
---Second Darkness Players Guide
Luthier's rapier (weapon) +4 sacred (Errated – Costs 25,020 gp)

---Ultimate Equipment
Headband of alluring charisma/prowess/superiority (item) +2/4/6 enhancement bonus
Tome of leadership and influence (item) +1/2/3/4/5 inherent bonus

---Bestiary 1
Profane Gift (special abilities) +2 profane bonus

---Mythic Adventures
Ability Score (base mythic abilities) permanent +2/4/6/8/10 bonus
Enhanced Ability (Universal Path Ability) permanent +2 bonus

---Pathfinder Society Primer
Clever Wordplay (trait) this allows you to use your INT mod instead of your CHA mod on a skill (in this case performance).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My group is still in PF1 and, atleast as long as im a player/GM, i dont see that changing to 2E ever heh.

On a side note, one of my friends got himself some new vampire books, so we will likely start to try that out now while running the running the current PF1 CotCT game.

Honestly, i would rather go into other systems far more than playing 2E.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

I would say magic has an actual high skill ceiling now and a high skill floor. For three editions that was the goal, but mostly amounted to people finding the most binary op spells and spamming them until something better came online.

Now tactics matter for magic. At least that’s how I’ve experienced it thus far. On paper, it looks like a nerf, but in reality it’s still strong.

If anyone here is a fan of mobas, it reminds of when lee sin gets nerfed. Every time it happens people say he’s garbage, and then it turns out he’s not garbage you just play him a little different and he’s still s tier as a champion (haven’t played in years so maybe it’s actually different now).

Nope, i disagree heavily.

There is only on paper for plenty of spells.

There is no high skill ceiling for unseen servant that lasts "10 minutes", if you actually keep it for 10 minutes, oh boy prepare for consequences.

Duration, was nerfed across the board, with one spell here and there being saved. Save or Die became critically Fail or be mildly/lightly inconvenienced for a short while for plenty of spells... Some buffs dont even make sense to me, like haste, i cant see why in gods name i would ever cast this spell till 7th circle and by then i would likely want something else in such slot anyway...

Due to the new balancing, apparently damage spells kinda work, if you spend enough other spells to support landing them well anyway.

I will give you that, when all yours spells are much weaker, you better be by far the most intelligent and capable person sitting on that table, cause you have a limited number of short duration spells to make count, missing will cost you. So high skill ceiling, if that is what you were going for.

Mages became "The guys who are fancy for a few minutes a day". Which for a fantasy setting kills any and all my interest in playing it. Their utility was reduced to pretty much battle and one offs.

Luckily, I have my main group and we will continue with PF1, in which magic is still fantastical, and other systems in which it doesnt have to be, instead of it.

Ofc, i understand it is the game for others, but as long as i can keep it away from this table, i really dont care.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Look OP, it is simple for me really. There are a number of grievances that I could list regarding 2E, but the one that breaks the deal and "can't" be fixed is simple, magic was crap.

I mean... it could fixed if I literally wasted my time rewriting spell after spell and then adding ones removed... but let's be real, no way I'm spending the time doing that.

So yeah, there and then it is over. No way I'm playing 2E, cause I can overlook the rest, but I sure ain't overlooking this.

As long as my main table doesn't either, hey, I'm fine. May others play 2E for the next 10 years till 3E.

Still, it is interesting gaining a perspective about 2E from this forums since I'm not going to be playing it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the end of the day, rarity is mostly an attention call.

In PF1 one wouldnt present a build to the GM with every single lvl planed out most likely.

In 2E you literally have to do that. You want X, Y, Z things at lvl T, R and O...? Then you need to from the start send this to the GM to make sure all this will be available or that the GM shortly after you reach the lvl make it part of the story.

This means the GM now knows exactly what you will get and have all the way to the lvl the game ends.

This does make more annoying to make a PC and it does also means the GM can, or not if he just gives a pass and says everything will be available, take more time prepping since he needs to check each entry he doesnt know which you just requested, but it can lead to a more stable game.

The player answer, just like in PF1 remains the same. If the GM deny something, the player can try to:

1. Argueu in favor of it.
2. Just change characters and present yet another list to the GM with other stuff they want instead. Simply restarting the process.
3. If the player and GM cant come to terms, the player will simply leave the table and that is that.

Time will tell how well rarity works in the end.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hastur! Hastur! Hastur! wrote:

Oh I agree discussions with your GM should be the go to move. I just dont quite understand the "X spell is" is uncommon or rare and now GMs can disallow it and that sucks. I want a rule that forces the GM to allow me to have X spell"

Why? If the GM was against something being in his game and as mentioned above even if you could "force" the GM to allow you to have "X spell" why would you want to do this?

A good GM should be more than happy to help you realize your character design assuming it would not be completely broken or there is another in-story reason for it. The GM should be able to explain why they are restricting the spell.

A bad GM is just a bad GM and you are probably better off not playing with them regardless of what they are restricting or weather you could use RAW to force your way with them.

You cant really "force" a GM to do anything, outside PFS where there is actually something even higher than the GM, so for most it is more of a convince the GM.

Ultimately, again i think it is about weight of your arguments during said discussion.

By default, rarity is a prohibition rule. You cant have X. That is final, that is RAW.

A player literally has no grounds in 2E to have anything that rarity denies. best he can do is request it and the GM can give it or not, that is it.

Now if there was something in RAW that gave the player to power to get it, that would give weight to the players side.

Honestly OP, this is literally the logic behind rarity.

It is all about human psychology and said weight in these discussions.

I will not go deep into this, but to make a simple point, the GM in PF1 could always forbid a spell to begin with, then why rarity?

Rarity is there because now the GM inst forbidding anything, by default it is forbidden, now the GM is in a position of the guy allowing things.

Again, all about the weight and how these discussions go.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Uhhh... inst that all the players got?

The GM is an all powerful, all knowing, all deciding entity as far as the ingame world goes.

The GM per rule 0 can rewrite or change rules, granted per social contract it sometimes isnt something most would do at any random time.

The players, cant change anything, cant decide anything. What they can do is talk to the GM and present their arguments, still, ultimately the GM will make the call. If they disagree to the end, all a player can do is leave the table.

Trying to convince someone of RAW seems easier than making a pitch for your own houserule to covers the GMs idea. Also RAW is something more often know by all players, which might also gather support.

Sure the GM makes the call, but if all players would rather play under the RAW, there is a far higher chance to convince the all powerful GM.

Simply put, being a social game, discussion will end up being the way decisions are made, but I do think the RAW can weight heavily on how those discussions go.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I do wonder why people keep pointing to utility of casters really.

I gave a look to the spells, paizo literally broke the utility to pieces. Spells have crappy duration, buffs were tossed down the hills, many of the tolls in the shed are gone, some arent even caster only anymore.

I mean, the state of how crappy is the utility of casters now can be seen in something as inoffensive as unseen servant, which now lasts ALMOST 10 minutes... IF you stay all ALMOST 10 minutes concentrating on it.

Well, it isnt my problem since im just checking on news of 2E so i can make sure i convince my group to never adopt it, but still, im not seeing the point people are trying to make here.

Seriously... alarm is what people are pointing to the use of casters in 2E. Wow! Amazing!

Casters are then meant to be inferior in combat in some weird trade for utility... very crappy utility, that is then very limited in access since they have less slots too. Well, happy i can see this thread, sure gives me much to talk about to my table.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Better game?

Hum tricky question. Guess it depends on what you are looking for. I can say I don't see myself ever playing 2E. I lurk here just to get a general idea about it, I hear about far more things I hate than things I like.

With this said, I did manage to keep my group grounded on PF1 for now too, so I'm not as affect as some others whose group decided to move on to it.

Design wise I don't see 2E as better either. It would be like comparing a duck and a shark. Both touch the water, but both seek to do completely different things.

Liking one certanly doesn't mean you will like/Support the other.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the game really shouldn't work differently with a party of a Monk, an Alchemist, a Champion, and a Rogue than it does with a party of a Wizard, a Druid, a Cleric, and a Bard.

Guess we really see things completely differently.

I don't think a game could be a greater failure than that actually.

Imagine a class based game where the game doesn't greatly care about which classes you have on the table and what should be the greatest choice a player can make is treated as this irrelevant.

At that point might as well abolish classes. The game will run about the same anyway, just pick some powers and go.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed. It was a good run, 10 years is no small amount of time, but all things come to an end.

Part of the fun was indeed checking out new options that constantly came out, if we are lucky, then the 3rd party like some said will continue to hold the flag... who knows, maybe a new "pathfinder" will be born to hold the torch for another 10 years.

14 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
All magic got nerfed into the ground. If that works for you, good. If not, PF1E will always love you.

Yeah i was wondering after they ended the playtest saying they would take a look into it if they had buffed it back up.

Took one look at Nethys, saw spells still nerfed to the ground, just came here to confirm it is as bad as it looked to me.

Well, guess that is that for 2E and now PF1 wont get new books either...

Oh well.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Loved: Honestly i pretty much love all of PF1. Hell my fav games are run RAW going from, if it is in any book... well outside unchained which i avoid like the plague and only pick very few things from, then it can be added to the game. While true i dont add in every single system every single time due to how big the system is and the amount of possible rules. Then again, i love it because of all those rules and options haha.

Wanted: Even more books, even more options, but above all, even more pet classes.

Hated: Nerfs. How i hate paizo new found need to "balance" everything out. Why they made up this need to balance out everything in a table top game i dont know, but did i hate each time they nerfed eyt another thing. Above all, i hate their unchained summoner, hell i pretty avoid the whole book because of this change alone.

Will Miss: having new options made all the time. Overall ofc, if the playtest is anything to go by, then i will just keep playing PF1, 2E be dammed haha. Honestly, not a single thing in the playtest made me want to change editions, while plenty made me for sure not want to.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Did you talk to the other players about this?

The starting point on this kind of issue is OUT OF THE GAME discussion among players and GM regarding the PCs relations. How to proceed from there it is something you guys should decide together.

From what you wrote, im assuming you made a PC that does not match your party if they keep giving you fire. If you do turn CE, the paladin will literally need to have pretty good reasons to even work in the same party you are without losing his powers, so yeah, chances are this will escalate the situation if you dont deal with this now.

Usually one would either agree to go nice, aka start to go towards good instead of evil much more, make a new PC, aka you just exchange the problem character out of the party and let it be evil as a NPC, or, if you guys are certain you can deal with the ramification of this, you start to allow PvP and greater party conflicts, aka eventually the party is likely to kill your PC if they really dont like you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do find funny what people infer as evil while pathfinder has an entire nation of racists and yet it's alignment is CG. A God of traditional values is LG and so on.

Anyway, leaving aside how alignment can clearly shift drastically based on the GM, OP start to put neutral enemies in there too.

If the enemies are intelligent there could be easily some who just aren't evil, you can also add oozes/animais/constructs...

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, i think spellcasters look rather blah in general, not only damage, but then again, the devs said they will be looking into it, now how the finished version will look only time will tell.

This idea that cantrips could carry over the MASSIVE amount of debuffs spread across the casters was just terrible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did paizo state they will change their publish pattern for PF?

Maybe people are hanging on something that might last them at best an year.

PF1, with just the core, didnt also have such a huge gap from a player trying to do a good PC, aka maximizing using logic, and one who visited forums.

It is when more and more and more books come with tons of options and combinations that forum/guides made the gap grows. One person can read the entire feat section of PF1 core book and make decent calls there, try reading every single feat in the system on the other hand.

Saying that PF2 right now, has a small gap, doesnt meant in an year or 2 the gap wont already be there all over again when there are tons of sources all over again.

This has little to do with PF1 or 2 and all to do with a game that simply has to create tons and tons of choices, choices btw, that people expect to me meaningful.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
*A Sunshine Troll is someone who agrees with bad rules to try and hurt the game for various reasons. A group of us decided to coin a term after one heard a group of people talking about doing just that, up voting bad ideas (that they said they did not like) and pretending and defending said bad ideas.

Haha this sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.

Reality is much simpler than that, people do not agree on what they find fun and doesnt matter how hard it is to some, they arent trolling, they just dont agree and that is that.

Hell playtest is a perfect example, 5th edt players and PF1 players arent looking for the same game, even among those groups there is gaps, but lets keep in the big 2 for simplicity.

Paizo is trying to go for the middle ground at the same time both sides pull for theirs.

There is no way they will appeal to everyone, based on how they are going by vote in the surveys, they are trying to appeal to a majority.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
As for us, we are going heads-down here for a bit as we work on the final version of the game. We will be quiet, but not entirely gone here in the short term, and you can expect to see a lot more about the game in the coming months.

Just wondering what this means for this place.

Because discussions on merits of things are still going on, with the usual lack of agreement on what is fun or isnt, good game design or isnt, has the most support or doesnt... anyway, the same that was the first day.

Will this forum be closed now that the feedback was given? Will the words tossed around here still have any weight on the final game?

35 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, honestly speaking, i dont have high hopes for this game at all, but i will still be checking out the 2E book, if nothing else, for all the years i have been playing PF1.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erpa wrote:

Or the squeaky wheel get the oil.

I'm fine with the memorization system, but it's not a deal breaker to me unless it changes to something worse.

No one asked for Coke II, but when it replaced the original, oh, voices were heard. ;)

Heh reminds me of people surprised suddenly that the survey returned plenty of people against the +1 skill system even when the forums were mostly in favor of it, hell most didnt even bother to show support when it was announced.

It turns out, plenty of people cant even be bothered with this place anymore.

If there is one thing this forum managed to do is indeed not represent people outside of it at all.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Would you look at that, good changes this late in the game.

Hoping their changes to the magic system will also make spells worth taking instead of the crap they were.

Who knows, maybe the release version will actually be decent after all.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Heh yeah, i would totally sit down for a next session of a PF game where the GM just showed a NPC, of my class/race..., with cool power that i can never have, cause he is an NPC, so he gets the cool toys so he can play the boss encounter.

I would totally, 100%, do that /s :P.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I have always hate hate hated playing in the sort of game where players act as if their characters have a copy of the Core Rulebook or Equipment Guide in their backpack, and use it as a shopping catalog.

"Have you guys seen this Awesome Magic Item on page 144? It's only 50k and I'm buying it when we get to town."
Because as soon as the player bought the book, the character instantly knew about all the items in it, and obviously the magic walmart vendor in town has it for the listed rulebook price.
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

I'm not sure what my point is. But I like the rarity system.

I will point out that im the exact opposite.

The moment the game starts, i plan my PC from the lvl 1 to literally atleast 10 if not higher.

This means i expect to be able to get certain items for my build.

Now im not saying i wont accept GM calls on what books are valid and so on, but if i plan my PC to get certain items, that werent ruled out by the GM during session 0,i 100% expect to gather them.

If the GM tells me session 0 he drops whatever he wants and we wont be able to buy things, i will 100% make a full casters that doesnt depend much on items, cause i wont EVER make a build that depends on the GM dropping things for me.

I kinda of despise this system, but i can kinda of accept it, as long as the GM doesnt change anything after session 0, what is valid is valid, what isnt, isnt. This way i can plan ahead.

14 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1: Playing good old fantasy RPGs is great, from simply exploring a good old dungeon, to raiding a dragons treasure, it is with this stories that i spent most of my time playing RPGs. PF1 is the continuation of 3.5, PF1 has a multitude of options, a multitude of PCs that can be carefully crafted and played. PF1 is just that great.

PF2: PF2 to me means the end of an era. Time to move ones tent and look for a new place to set it.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I will miss seeing which new books are out each month. Half the fun was seeing which new things they are creating and getting new toys to play with.

The game itself i wont miss, since i fully intend to keep playing it.

Maybe i will finally actually check out 3rd party content.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The obvious issue with this, that i dont personally mind, but will clearly appear if you are trying to balance them equally is the following:

1 spell, even at lvl 1, might amount to far more than 1 atk. Sure, if the guy cast some spell to hit one single enemy all is fine. If he cast an extra color spray and clear a room, doesnt seem quite the same anymore.

This is lvl 1, when you consider tha caster can do a lvl 5 extra spell while the martial just 1 extra attack, well...

Applying a metamagic feat. That, well, is worth more than than a swift move. Actually this is a very powerful item for this ability alone.

What you can try to do is divide said stones into spell levels like the rods.

Another issue is the word "wielder". Keep in mind the implications for both martials and casters regarding free hands.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:

A jackass on two continents on a backwater planet out in the middle of nowhere. Which makes all of the difference. :P

Honestly, though, Rysky, I'm having a hard time seeing what point you're trying to make. My point was that being powerful and in charge doesn't mean you get to dictate right and wrong. I'm not seeing anything in what you wrote that rebuts that, or, indeed, addresses it. ,':\

Honestly, the one that decides right and wrong is the one above all, aka the DM. If he says evil, then it is evil, if he says good, then it is good.

With this said, she being a goddess that took part on the creation of the material plane and its beings, she being considered the judge and given a position of authority by the others such beings due to they believing she will be fair and so on.

Gives her a hell of good position to be, in the view of a DM, the one that decides right and wrong and thus have her actions always be justified, even if one cant understand how they are.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF is a game meant to be played with tons of magic items, due to that, ofc, individual magic items dont feel all that awesome unless they can do something they player trully, trully values a LOT.

Honestly resonance was full of holes, they were trying to deal with it last i checked, but for PF1 for example, i wouldnt ever apply such a system.

PF2 on the other hand they are trying to build from the get go to have such a thing in place, so it could potentially work. In PF1 you are just gimping your players out.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
doomman47 wrote:
Literally any necromancer ever they don't even need to touch undead, or they could be a good necromancer either using the white necromancer class or the juju oracle(pre errata) or even using stone shape to make a body then using stone to flesh to make it a corpse then using a raise undead spell. All this because she has a grudge against ugagtha or what ever the heck her name is.

Never heard of Pharasma being against "necromancers", if you can even call them such, that never create any undead. If you made a "necromancer", whose only purpose was destroying undead, i believe she would actually side you with you by lore.

Ofc, when we say necromancer, 99.99% of the times are people that raise undead. And that point there are no excuses, no reasons to be given or whatever. If you are raising undead, then you are to be punished by such evil act in her eyes. Cause yes, doesnt matter the reason, raising undead is always an evil act.

I wonder where anyone saw Pharasma punish a white necromancer that never actually have made any undead at any point. What is the source for this?

doomman47 wrote:
Pre eratta juju oracle removes the evil act of it and the undead match your alignment, White necromancer specifically requires you to not be evil, and no actual bodies are being used there for no souls are being used in the 3rd example so no one is getting harmed there for would not be evil. And the personal grudge is against some one who is not you it is a deity who escaped from pherasma's grasp.

Pre errata

It was errated because it is always an evil act, therefore the devs had to literally errata the thing to change it.

White necromancer

Isnt this third party? This doesnt count either.

For the third one i wish i could see the source, but from this list honestly, not the first or second counts as far as im concerned. Nothing here changes official pathfinder lore.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has before, on this, I agree with HWalsh. Paladin must be a Paladin which is a core class, a LG core class.

Ofc, people gave their feedback during the survey, i wonder what the numbers have shown the devs and what, if any, changes will come from it.

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.

7 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.

2 people 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.

5 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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

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.

1 to 50 of 281 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>