I remember one thing that I absolutely love about the new edition: the character statblocks are way smaller. I haunt the PbP forums as a player and onlooker, and check the 2e recruitments to look over the created 1st level characters. They look pretty simple. Which is great.
@Deadmanwalking: good points. Still sad about multiclassing and archetypes. ;)
I have to say the presentation isn't grabbing me as a "thing". And it is jarring to find rules elements in the class section - for some reason the Barbarian section suddenly has a break-out box with rules for Flourish/Instinct/Open/Rage. But they aren't all unique to Barbarians. And there is Flourish again under Paladin. Sure, it's handy, but a waste of wordcount. Do they appear again in a discrete rules section? I kinda hope they do...but I'm not there yet.
And again, for presentation, the whole "class goes for pages and pages coz feats" is really like the 4e books. And I liked 4e as a ruleset, so this is no "4e clone you suxxorz"' complaint. One of the very few things I actually didn't like was the "playbook chapter" per class form of presentation.
Finally, as "streamlined" as this attempts to be...it really totally isn't. These rules are arcane. Convoluted. Likely simpler, but not easy by any means for beginners to read. I'm still hoping that it
a) get's easier [almost a lock] and b) is still as if not more fun than PF1. Still sad about archetypes and multiclassing but I need to move on...
I need to stop making excuses and sit down with the rulebook.
Yep, just bought mine a week or so ago. Weirdly Pathfinder 2 was thrown haphazardly on a table in a bunch of random piles of Bestiary/CoreRulebook/occasional AoA AP/Fall of Plaguestone. The corners of some almost looked damaged and curled.
Starfinder however had a magazine shelf section to itself and was all spread out and well presented.
It made the act of buying the Second Edition somewhat underwhelming, like buying a Prime Minister's (or President's for you 'Muricans) memoirs the day it released from the 50% off bin. Except this cost $104. Shoulda bought it online...
The Raven Black wrote:
Yep. That’s the one, now linkt.
Beyond the Pool of Stars by Howard Andrew Jones is an excellent Pathfinder Tales novel featuring lizardfolk characters. It was the first novel in the Tales line I listened to on Audible and is still my favorite. I was very much looking forward to the Audible version of the follow up novel, Through the Gate in the Sea, but the audiobook never released.
Read the reviews of Beyond the Pool of Stars - seems the author has created very believable and engaging lizardfolk characters and culture.
Agreed! The Thunderscape Campaign Setting's Rapacian (reptile/lizardfolk) race (to use the old 1e term) had an Alternate Racial Trait "Feathered".
Thunderscape Campaign Setting wrote:
Feathered A rare few rapacians bear brilliant plumage, marking them as the diplomats and speakers of their tribes. Rapacians with this trait gain +2 Charisma instead of +2 Dexterity, and gain a +2 racial bonus to Diplomacy skill checks. This trait replaces natural weapons.
High-level superheroes everywhere: lore implications for the "post-adventure-path cinematic universe"
Through an unfortunate blend of happenstance, misinformation, lack of understanding of scale and a dose of hubris, after completing the adventure path the powerful heroes left for another planet and were swallowed by a passing dog. Woof.
Right. Time for another cup of tea. Which AP should we address next?
High-level superheroes everywhere: lore implications for the "post-adventure-path cinematic universe"
Heh. The feliform hyaena discussion. My favorite aspect of gnolls.
Ok, so it's Wikipedia, but it's probably fairly accurate:
I could definitely get behind two streams of gnolls, or a flind/gnoll or even aard/hyaena breakdown. Pretty sure a 3PP did an aard-gnoll race - was it penned by Mike Welham?
I like the art direction (not really a fan of the second pic, a little too real world derivative, even if the first pic relies on the “Imperial Romanesque warmonger” hobs trope) and the kingdom. I had a technologically “advanced” mid/hob-goblin civilisation in a homebrew setting many years ago, so this resonates with me.
As for the Int bonus, it makes sense to me. A certain goblinoid cunning raised to higher intelligence in a much different cultural approach than the elves.
And the elf-bane antimagic - I can see that non-arcane magic users might still take that option, but arcane wizards taking it makes no sense.
Great to see Wayne's renditions of draconic kobolds and the various goblinoid cousins in 3Digital.
Those kobolds look like they each share bloodlines with a different chromatic dragon. Love the green kob's horn array. What would metallic dragon derived kobolds think about this severe lack of representation...
Yep, thanks shroudb, I neglected to look at that, though I had checked the symbols on FoB. Good catch, and beneficial for my understanding!!!
I’m very sorry to derail the thread.
So Power Attack is only one action, a Melee Strike but it causes the following attack (if there is one) to receive a penalty as if two attacks had been made instead of one.
Is that right?
Multiple Attack Penalty wrote:
Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.
Just a question on nomenclature. Why “check”? Is this a shorthand/code for making a roll? I’m still trying to wrap my head around Actions, attacks, Strikes etc. It’s simple, eventually, but the capitalisations and their usage are awkward, even though they are meant to be keywords.
@Garretmander: thank you. Hopefully that is all correct. I have no idea what feinting is, but I’ll check it out.
In the first example you gave, is it possible to make a fourth attack with my third action (two strikes with first action, attack with second action, attack again with third action, but at some impossible penalty?
For people like me, all the discussions and -x/-x/-x/ looks like so much algebra until a crystal clear example breaks it down. For folks who have digested the playtest, and played the playtest and now have the rulebooks it is second nature. For me, I have no understanding of the relative weight of options. Thanks for being patient.
Power Attack wrote:
You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit unsteady. Make a melee Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty...
What does that mean? I use the penalty for making a second attack as the penalty for this attack, even if it is my first attack? What if the Power Attack is my second attack? I’m sorry DMW, but honestly, for a beginner, it isn’t clear. I’m sure it will be once you explain it to me and I understand the explanation.
Flurry of Blows and Power Attack. Neither is especially unclear.
Ok, let’s see.
Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally. As it has the flourish trait, you can use Flurry of Blows only once per turn.
For a beginner. Is that symbol “one action”? And I have three actions, but Flourish means I can only use it once per turn. Where in the turn? Can I use flurry as my first, second or third action? And if I do, do I apply my MAP to both of the flurry’s strikes as if they were that first, second or third attack/action?
Already, attack and action are getting confusing. Multiple attack penalty, due to using multiple actions. Hmm. I’m sure it will come together over time. At the moment, clear isn’t helped by having no examples.
So it seems there is some confusion about how Power Attack and Flurry work with MAP. Is there a concise, simple presentation of the rules for either that we can link on d20PFSRD or AON? I’m kinda frustrated by nt having any physical books, which is exacerbated by these discussions of what I feel are basic functions. This doesn’t feel streamlined.
Interesting list of new classes. I would love to know why those were chosen, though I guess the investigator's sleuthing and swashbucklers cinematic combat would be great for APs and Society play moving forward, and the oracle and witch have always been fan favorites.
Any word on whether the 60 archetypes are class specific or generic/available to any class?
I really hope some monster creation rules drop before January's release of GMG.
Numeria. So tropey it's delicious.
Sandpoint. It feels very contained, yet full of possibilities and there's so much support for it, both officially (including one particularly awesome painting of it that was shown off in the blog) and in the RotR forums.
The Harrow. Not an amazing stretch from Tarot-derivative, but still very nice, and it works well in-game.
The relative, actual weight of coinage never bothered me. Coins in bulk are heavy, and....bulky.
That the financial system made no sense never bothered me. Real world capitalism and credit systems make no sense either...
I was never wed to the prices, so that it has changed doesn’t bother me. It’s a reset. Of a fantasy world. My characters aren’t real, and adjust in an instant, retroactively.
But there is something somehow relaxing about handing over silver coins generally, and perhaps a gold coin here or there. Maybe because here in Oz we use $1 and $2 coins that are “gold”...We even call them gold “Gold coin donation” etc...
Just as a counter to the “dislike” thread....
* Thassilon. Well, the Fall of Thassilon, and that the Varisians and Shoanti are the descendants of the two servitor peoples of Thassilon. Definitely like the Shoanti clans, only ai think there should be a lot more...
* Sarkoris, and anything Kellid, especially all the disparate tribal groups scattered and smattered about. The God-Callers get a special mention. I’m looking for all modules, gazzetteers and scenarios involving Sarkoris and Kellids...
* Fleshwarping and Drow. Ok, so Paizo’s treatment of Drow...it’s a little derivative, but the fleshwarping is nice. Because fleshwarping=nice, right? I need to get all of Second Darkness, just for the Drow and fleshwarping.
Ok, I’ll think of some more...
*Asmodeus. Preety weirdly Earth culture. Then again, we have Baba Yaga, Rasputin and a bunch of Earth-myth creatures. Oh well.
* The Gap.
* Pharasma’s hatred on undead. Chill, P!
* Osirionot-Egypt. Except it is. And Galt. The French Rev just ain’t that diverting, Les Mis notwithstanding.
* Art of vegepygmies. Wooden surfer doods with vinelocks? I’m gonna stick with the original art style...
* Orcs. I don’t get any sort of flavor from these guys, then again, I haven’t come across too much Golariona about them.
* The First World. I don’t think I grok it.
* Aboleths and Qlippoths. Oh, and leshies. They all totes go together right? I just don’t see the attraction, or feel for the deep tension of the former too, nor empathise with the fandom for the latter.
That’s just for starters. I could go all day. Instead, I’m going to start a “What aspect of the Pathfinder Universe do you really like....” thread.....
You need to accumulate 1000 xp, every level, every time. I’m not even able to understand how that could be complicated, and I’m the obtuse one.
I’m even grokking Power Attack, though the nuances of why and when you might choose to use it on your first or second strike have not cascaded about me with radiant elucidation just yet....
Plain dice-max HP, plus Con, every level? Yes please. Been playing since ADnD 1e. Rolling for hit points is a randomness I could do without. There are enough ways for the DM to kill y....um...the game to be difficult, challenges increased, rolls to go badly etc each and every time you roll them - no sense on being crippled by low HP right off the bat...
I just stumbled across this. Stubbed my metaphoric toe too. Hope it helps.
Genuine History of Golarion wrote:
I have come across the concept of “you fail but something interesting happens” or “you succeed but also...” in Dungeon World rules, and it seems like an awesome way to increase agency (both players and the GM) AND keep players on their toes/keep the GM improvising. Not all Players nor GMs will respond to this positively.
“Fail Forward” as nomenclature must be the least appropriate term I have ever come across, and I have studied Accounting, Project Management, Marketing, Bush Regeneration, Latin, Japanese, Screenprinting, German, French, Visual Art, Permaculture and completed a Traffic Offenders Intervention Program. A heady, heady list. Which leaves out games like Traveller, Gamma World, Talislanta, Ahlmabrea, Rüs, Tunnels and Trolls, DnD, PF1 (!), AGTFOS or computer games like Legend of Blacksilver, early Ultima or Bard’s Tale etc.... I can make sense of those systems and languages. Not “fail forward”.
I guess they all wrote Very Angry Letters to Marvel once it was blidningly obvious that most of Thanos' decimation from Infinity War will be undone in Endgame.
Wait. Wut? What I thought they would spinelessly do they spinelessly did? Oh noes mean bag of meanness, you totes spoil'd what I already thought. Now I need to rageflip a tablequit somewhere. Or something.
Seriously, thanks tho'. Now I know I can watch it and be happy I was right about how anticlimactic it would be.
Careful: spoilers ahead:
Oh well. Nerds. Making them happy is a thankless task.
I think we should end up with some feats that can give us some proficiency. I hope so anyways. Maybe not get us to where multi-classing gets us too but they could help a little and be less of an investment. Right now My primary worry is that everyone is going to be multi-classing.
I think this is a valid point, though where you are worried others may not be. I think we will see almost every character “dipping” via this system. The rewards are just too great not to.
My problem, that I have stated before, is that this pokes great holes in the “class” system, and creates a “talent” based system where you just pick the talents you want to fulfil the concept to create your character. Which is fine, but then why have the classes. I for one really value the class system, and the multiclass system of PF1. But as I have said, you can’t have a multiclass if you only have one class and then some ersatz class-feature-poaching feats labelled “multiclass feats”. That is one class + some badly nominatively-challenged feats.
I do find it unfortunate that feats are being utilised this way. I’m sure I will eventually get used to it. It does remind me of some grognardy hero-characters/demigods as statted up in the old Rogues Gallery and Deities and Demigods. And anyway, it is this way. No sense crying over lost multiclassing.
I clicked on the image to get a full shot of it and...it looks great. The shield isn’t s glaring red, nor the breastplate too bright. To me. I can see how it might be for others.
@Wayne - the level of detail here is quite incredible. The way you’ve painted the light and shadow catching on the padded skirt to create puffs and shallows is amazing. Deep kudos. Also, is there anywhere we can see the three pages of shield sketches? And just somehow, this shield evokes old Basic and early Advanced DnD module/book art... Very nostalgic...
Doktor Weasel wrote:
And as if to demonstrate that, Lini's picture is the one that I dislike the changes the most. The first one looked like an non-human adult, while this new one looks like a big-headed child. She really doesn't seem so non-human or fey to me, just underage. I always thought the design of PF gnomes was always one of the better ones, so I didn't see the need for proportion changes and the like. She's also the best/worst example of the simplifying of design. She's going from complex silver patterns to simpler lines. And the clothing itself looked more like something sturdy you'd wear in the woods, and now it looks like a cheap fabric. It really gives me the impression of a home-made school play costume. Her eerie long fingers are still kind of around, but toned down a bit.
Agree with every one of these points. Especially on the non-human adult/big-headed child. If anything, Lini looks less non-human than before, and her eyes have lost their fae quality.
And, though chevrons be my spirit guide, the general simplification of equipment/apparel (and across all the Iconics) is lamentable. I understand it works for replication by other artists. Apparently there are some. ;)
Sword seems a little wavier. I like that.
Sarenarae's symbol is not so proud, and somehow her stance is more adventurer than apostle of god.
Nice work as ever Wayne. Puffy pants are good, the change to the maile makes sense, and the details (you think feet are hard? try folds and billows of cloth....) are awesome.
As for the shape, looks to me like she has a lot going on what with layers of gambeson, maile, shirts, pants, accessories etc and that somewhere under there is a woman with a figure.
Almost twins, Set. Gnolls and lizardfolk have been my favorites for a long time. My brother could never understand why I would play monsters. I "played" (more really DMPC'd) an orc called Br'luk Screltch back in the ADnD days. My brother played ... elves. And humans. And once, a half-orc.
To be honest, mostly now I like Humans - my current PbP characters are 4 humans, a sylph, a woodborn (3pp plant race), a warforged and two elves - the elves are a rare departure and a sign of me "branching out".There is a goblin but that is in a We Be... game that didn't get past the first pageful of posts. My penchant of old for gnolls and lizardfolk is tempered by the "humans, except with funny masks" concept, so I do try to limit them to games where I really feel the need and where I'm feeling the passion for the race. I liked "lizardmen" ever since finding an encampment of them on the outskirts of the Keep in the Borderlands in Basic DnD. Gnolls? I don't really know why I love 'em. Possibly their ADnD demon god Yeenoghu or their relationship to flinds and the flindbar in the old ADnD 1e Fiend Folio. Golarion's Lamashtu worshipping gnolls continue that theme. Also, being hyenaesque they are more feline and not at all canine...
Yes, I see that, although that hasn't seemed to stop me nor has it others apparently. I guess I lament the added complexity that makes such maneuvers such a process-fest. Reading the d20PSRD explanation of Grapple, now with two new extra flowcharts!!! makes my brain bleed through my earballs. I'm sure it doesn't have to be that complicated, and what I read of my Playtest book seemed simpler. Here's hoping.