166 posts. Alias of Oceanshieldwolf.


1 to 50 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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’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.....

@Thanks for the notes on Power Attack Quandary. I’m piecing it all together bit by bit, though actual play will help me get used to the options and their relative strengths and weaknesses...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow! So HYPE! I'm dying to know...are there words on p.348 of the CRB? What is the 78th word?

Seriously, pretty excited. But I think I can wait as I haven't even decided where/how to buy any 2e stuff yet. Shipping to Oz - much less hype...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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 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...

Naked Doom/Slave Pits of the Undercity start! Sounds like a great adventure, with maps too! Very enticing...

Because they are revolutionary? Unfortunately not...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the wrap up DM! Dashiell Hammett would be proud,. Something interesting should happen else why are the dice being rolled. You rolled a number. Some numbers shouldn’t just mean...nothing happened.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just stumbled across this. Stubbed my metaphoric toe too. Hope it helps.

Genuine History of Golarion wrote:

First there was the word, and the word was with James.

Then Lisa Stephens said “Make it, so!”

And James did, with help from Paizonians, high level Creators.

Golarion became a thing, a world whose name, if you took all the letters out and put them all back in, in a different order, spells:

“Origonal”. Which it is.

Ten ....years passed. Many adventures were had and tropes smooshed.

Wars happened and unhappened. Books were published.

Another war happened, only this time it was the Eddishun War.

Voila! Pee’eff Tû was born. It is your friend. OK!

And finally Lizardfolk were a thing. Oh and goblins.

Plus things have changed, rather than staying samey. Which is a thing that happens.

Or, as someone said once: “Time is nature’s way of stopping everything happening at once”.

Just like PF2 is the multiverse’s way of having adventures, only the same-but-different.

And the people rejoiced. Except those that didn’t, which is sad. For them.

I choose to move forward, except when I want to play a PF1 game until I don’t want to any more.

Which may happen later. Or not.

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”.

Gorbacz wrote:
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:

Gorbacz wrote:
Oh well. Nerds. Making them happy is a thankless task.

And impossible.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Heh. Lizardfolk for all the wins. And especially a leader who isn’t officially a leader of a faction that also isn’t officially official. Which is just as nature intended. Before it destroyed everything ushering in a glorious rebirth. Just around the riverbend.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I clicked on the image to get a full shot of 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...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Echoing Charlie Brooks: Paladin in Hell keeps on giving, edition after edition after edition.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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. ;)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.
If this means making options anyone should have into a choice you need to invest in just to attempt it as a remedy for not having to know about it in the first place to help new players from exploding from knowing too seems like a backwards approach. A new player might ask if they can do something in combat, and might not initially be bombarded with the mechanical options before playing. Only to be told "Yes you can do that...if you have the feat." How has that not increased the amount of "stuff new players need to learn about combat"?
Basically it reduces the size of the rules chapter you have to read before starting to play. Now I'm not sure I agree with the approach of gating them but that depends which ones are no longer default. Regardless I prefer it to the PF1 approach of "here are a bunch of things you think you can do but without several feats you are actually shooting yourself in the foot to even try."

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.

Malk_Content wrote:
As for longer combats, especially at lower levels, I'd be very happy with that. The quoted 3-4 rounds quoted feels underwhelming however. I'm always astounded by the concept that a quick combat is a good combat - I prefer setting up for synergies, overcoming smackdowns, regrouping etc.... Granted, I play mostly at the lower levels and am not cognizant of long drudgy drawn out slugfests...
The main thing (at least coming from the playtest) is that those rounds are denser than they were in PF1. Starting from level 1 everyone has more that they could do (about a third extra for most but some classes have economy improvers out that gate which add even more) so it feels like you are doing more and making more choices in the same round span.

That's a good point. And I am a fan of the greater number of actions, not so sure about any iterative penalties to later attacks tho'. I can definitely see that more agency will give the PC's a good chance to at least hit something every round at level 1, as much as I like low-level play, missing with your only Standard Action attack can be quite demoralising...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for longer combats, especially at lower levels, I'd be very happy with that. The quoted 3-4 rounds quoted feels underwhelming however. I'm always astounded by the concept that a quick combat is a good combat - I prefer setting up for synergies, overcoming smackdowns, regrouping etc.... Granted, I play mostly at the lower levels and am not cognizant of long drudgy drawn out slugfests...

7 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.

If this means making options anyone should have into a choice you need to invest in just to attempt it as a remedy for not having to know about it in the first place to help new players from exploding from knowing too seems like a backwards approach. A new player might ask if they can do something in combat, and might not initially be bombarded with the mechanical options before playing. Only to be told "Yes you can do that...if you have the feat." How has that not increased the amount of "stuff new players need to learn about combat"?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry for the Assurance derail, but per the thread title - what should be baked in? Everything a skill is and does and requires should be part of the skill. Skill feats should not exist. Not enough feats to go around and we don't need IMHO to spend them on making skills work.

Even were we to get separate feats just for skills I'd still be against them on the basis that they clutter the game that I had hoped would be streamlined and take some of the overload of "yay, if I choose just this I can do this one super specific procedure".

PF2.0 seems just as if not more confusing with additions to the system (UTEML, to pick one) that are apparently an aid to simplification but don't really feel useful, to me, yet. Take this as someone who has next to no Playtest experience and leverage that with holdovers from PF1 legacy system inertia. So I'm not a new player learning a great new system, but a fan of the old looking for improvements and every now and then being tripped up by "changes".

My current excitement for the game is probably the highest it has been given all I've read, and I've been pretty terse and likely dour on some bits since Day 1 - I'm happy with a lot of post-feedback changes but still a little frustrated that things like "Skill - Feats" exist. Just saying skill feat gives me a headache.

I think I would definitely be a customer who would appreciate a product that could carve off subsystems. And then again, I crave options and choices, love new classes etc...but I like meaningful options and not entire nooks and crannies dedicated to "how I learnt to choose my way out of a paper bag instead of just opening it".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I read the post about the Int monk I was thinking about that very Sherlock Holmes scene...

Seems like I did understand it then.

Thanks twice for the clarifications DMW...

Mark Seifter wrote:
... If the Redeemer Glimpse of Redemption's the boss's 30 damage attack for resistance 12 and the fighter blocks for 12, the incoming damage would be 6 to the fighter (who gained resistance 12) and 18 to the shield......except the boss doesn't want to take a big enfeebled for a mere 6 damage to the fighter and instead chooses to deal no damage, which protects everyone. Redeemer + Shield Fighter is a great team-up!

I'm not understanding this at all.

Is a Redeemer a paladin sub-class? And Glimpse of Redemption is a redeemer ability the Redeemer is using on a BBEG attack which offers the boss in question the choice of being enfeebled or doing no damage?

I guess I got confused because shields can have bosses...

As an aside: More than anything I just want the new edition's rules to be simple and easy to understand without having to come to the forums to work out how a shield works. Unfortunately, I too was confused, upthread, by what/who took what damage - the rules language should be super tight so that it is clear - when Mark said "both the PC and the shield" take 2 damage it was, thanks to the interpretation of English, possible to still be confused and require clarification. Both the PC and the shield each take 2 damage.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A great piece of short fiction James. Paced incredibly, and adroitly given the format. And enough tantalising snippets to engender lots of inspiration and questions. Glad Ezren got some reward out of the box after all...

And yes, loved the asides about Seoni's spells and the exact timbre of flaming warrior-calls...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
The Core Rulebook defines these kinds of archetype (called "class archetypes"), even though it doesn't include them. They're just too core a concept and too fertile a ground for future rules expansion not to define them well so everyone is ready for them and can find the relevant rules in the CRB. This also has a side effect of making it easier for 3pps to have a framework to write them too.
This is wonderful. I'm pleased my prediction that we'll have them eventually is actually enshrined in the book. That's super nice and comforting to those who really want such Archetypes (myself included).

With the removal of Resonance, greater feel for your Ancestry from the get go mechanically, and the inclusion of definition for Class Archetypes I'm pretty stoked so far. I'm very surprised that I keep finding out about all these things dotted around in different threads, rather than a blog post or one thread to rule them all, so far it's been this thread (via a link from another thread) and then another thread that broke down two Twitch or Know Direction (can't remembe now which it was, or both?) streams/discussions on the ongoing changes behind the scenes...

I'm just sadface about the difference between the sketch as shown on the link to the YouTube and the final treatment - seems half of her face tattoo was removed. I know the original didn't have it, but it looked great. ;_;

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember a lot of publicity shots of Keira Knightly in King Arthur, "woad" notwithstanding - she looks pale, underfed and feral. As HERE or HERE. Having lived with and worked alongside folks with addictions or substance ab/use issues they have run the gamut from "healthy looking" to "unhealthy looking". Physiology is amazing.

Like Rysky, I don't sleep a lot during the week and invariably have bags under my eyes. So does my son, who stays up late reading every night. He's fairly healthy looking apart from that while I might look a little undernourished, mostly because I have an insane metabolism coupled with a fairly constant physical activity cycle.

It's nodda toomor and it's nod druks. She's a lean, mean, pale, unkempt, possibly hungry, more than likely pissed off, killed-her-own-clanfolk-after-they-betrayed-her fighting machine.

Unless it is drugs. Maybe ritual ingestion of mushrooms - maybe a dose of fly agaric insufficiently prepared? ;p

But this is far from saying Amiri looks like she has a substance abuse issue. And as a pale person who is thin and has dark rings under my eyes I'd say such a balnket supposition speaks to a certain stereotype that can be harmful to civil society - thin pale folks with dark rings under eyes = drug addicts. Ouch. Didn't realise they carried swords around. Or equating the same "look" with being Undead. Double Ouch. If you have the stomach for it, watch Ghosts of the Civil Dead and maybe recalibrate your intolerances.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From my perhaps limited ynderstanding the Kellids are a Cimmerian analogue and the Iobarians were more Celtic analogue...

11 people marked this as a favorite.


@Wayne, kudos for moving on. While your new "realism" might find some folks challenged it shows you are evolving as much as your portrayals.

Yes, a lot less proud glamazon and definitely much more feral menace. As a pale European who is more whipcord than bodybuilder I can relate - my workmates call me the Machine even though I'm whip thin. I actually find the sword currently almost believable - rip that sucker in an arc and let the weight do the rest - a good friend of mine used this philosophy when he was getting old and frail - he picked the heaviest hammer he could find to pound metal bars flat - as long as he could lift it up he didn't need to bring it down hard with brute strength, the weight itself would do the rest. Same mad, even whipcorderer than me English bastard who taught me how to invert my blocksplitter midair with the round attached and let the round split itself when the back of the blocksplitter hit the anvilround.

I'm not arguing that I'm right, it's a picture after all, of a fantasy character. Just that it feels incedibly verisimilitudinous and aligns with my own physiology and experience. Except the meth, addiction and undead. Any three of those conditions do not ugly make in and of themselves. Ugliness comes from the heart.

As for healthy, well strength and constitution are strange bedfellows in the DnD/PF world. Amiri just looks wild. Maybe underfed. Possibly couldn't catch a coney or stag this past few days - look she lost her spears trying to pull down a snowdeer. But she's still vital. And quite annoyed by you. And me. Too much talking.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Someone had to replace gobs now that they are an ancestry...

*cue all us Kobold fans to scream for kobold ancestries and get us ready to patiently explain to regular players of traditional ancestries like goblins and chaosbeasts why kobolds and half-niliths should totes be biological character choices in PF3's Age of New Options.*

Ah. I see all the other products. So that is the new logo.

So is that the new font/type/logo for "Pathfinder"? I'm guessing that cover artwork is not final, but the branding feels like it might be. I like the small designation of Second Edition.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good to see you here Michael, and heralding the shock of the new too! A fine short intro to a divisive figure, and carried off with apickle...err...aplomb. A bomb?

Ennyway, nicely done.

And now for my critique, which has nothing to do with your story. "Fumbus". Doesn't sound gobliny to me, nor even faux-silly. Not a fan. Then again, I am wholly unfamiliar with the extent of Goblin nomenclative fashion in the Chitterwood nor Golarion generally...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And for those of us unaffiliated with PFS there is...a week's wait for any new information.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:

It's weird you know. This is a Game I think I would enjoy playing, but I never want to make a character for it.

The Core systems are good, and with a little polish now that they have a lot of playtest Data I'm convinced that they will be better.

but the systems they have chosen for Character design are just full of stuff I hate. I hate the level gating, the compartmentalization, the checklist of balance to make sure you have X-number of skill options and x-number of combat options and x-number of race options. I hate that all the options for actually customizing my character are fighting over the same real estate. Coming up with new characters and interesting combos was half the fun of the game for me and making a character in PF2 is not fun. It's this narrow, restrictive, color inside the lines, slog. and that pretty much ruins it for me.

So my Plea - Find someway to open character creation up more and let it be fun. Let me color outside the lines

I think this is the biggest problem for me too. I read with interest the Customisation Bottleneck thread where Jason B agreed there was a problem. I haven't found the ABC system at all enticing. Coupled with the critiques of multiclassing mentioned elsewhere and in this thread and my own dislike of the current offering for archetypes then I'm left with what might be an interesting or even robust system...that I don't want to actually make a character for...

So far we have folks interested in:

* "moar feats"
* scaling feats
* paths or greater/lesser feats
* point cost to buy class feats

[sorry if I missed any]

As someone who detested the feat-chain paradigm, I'm mostly interested in scaling feats, particularly if they give you more functions (as apparently some 5e feats do). I imagine these scaling feats would need to be presented across all classes, and be class feats to ensure a modicum of, if not balance, then availability and interest.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Yup.. this is a problem...

If it is a problem, what are some solutions? Much as I wouldn't want to say "moar feats!", given the feat-centric nature of the playtest, are more feat slots given through leveling a way to go? Or is the inherent feat-centrism problematic, and a distinct option-suite/system being examined?

As someone who is not a fan of the playtests archetypes or "multiclassing" (dedication feats) and having seen the rumor that PF1 style archetypes might also be seen (i.e. archetypes not via feats) I'm hoping something shakes out.

"Paladin" finally caught up with the 90's!!! Oh's 2018.

Thanks for this Paizo.

So is the class going to have a catch all Divine Champion name, with the LG sub- being the paladin which has a placeholder name of defender? And the NG/CG versions (liberator/redeemer) being placeholders too?

Sounds like a fun book. And those two sample images are awesome - I hope we see more from both those illustrators in PF 2E...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

* I think some of the less inspired Heritage names are a simple function of the design turnover, and as Jadon said, they are concepts to be proved, not stellar nominative final appellations...

* I'm yet to have Session 0.1 with my son as the changes are coming thick and fast. The first Session 0 was ok, but now should be much happier. However:

- Not to be greedy, but the first General Feat at 3rd level is totally annoying.
- Not to beat a dead horse, but growing into your Ancestry is totally annoying.

I'm really pumped to finally play a new, streamlined version of Pathfinder, but these two participles are sticking in my throat. Gah.

I love level 1 and level 2, low level play. I don't care if I'm squishy (now not such a problem with all those lovely HP) but a general feat to get us going actively would be awesome.

And as I love low level play (quick lebelling in the new system notwithstanding) I don't want to wait until level 9 to flower as a scion of my race. If this were "a youth maturing-finder" sure, and I like those games too, but sheesh, not every time...

Massive public outcry about goblins!
Massive public outcry about goblins!
Massive public outcry about goblins!
Massive public outcry about goblins!
Massive public outcry about goblins!

I love goblins. Especially as PCs. Always so wise, and those kewl Jedi Powers. Also the Force Ghost stuff that one Paizo-Pathfinder-looking-goblin learnt in the last episodes of the Lost Missions, that was That was Yoda. Who isn't a goblin. But he sure looks like a Paizo Pathfinder goblin

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
StratoNexus wrote:
That said, generic combat styles should NEVER be used as the basis for an Archetype. It is perfectly OK for an Archetype to feature a single combat style (Cavalier and Mounted Combat, for example). But the Archetype should be about something else primarily. The Gray Maiden is a great example, there is definitely a strong element of the armor, but there is equal focus on other forms of hardiness.

This is where I think terminology and thematic focus has distorted the fundamentals of system. "Class Feats" are really just the most powerful & combat focused tier of Feats. "Prestige Archetypes" should not be definitive of what else you can do with with "Class Feats".

I don't think "Archetypes" is even ideal as sole frame-work for other things you can do with "Class Feats" (outside own class), there should be simple Universal "Class Feats" with no Dedication requirement (although their pre-reqs could de facto or de jure make them not 100% Universal). Framing them as "Universal "Class" Feats is clearer to see how "mere" combat style focus is perfectly fine. That doesn't mean "Archetypes" with Dedication can't exist, probably offering MORE over-all than a simple Feat (i.e. packages of proficiencies along with discrete abilities), but that doesn't need to, and shouldn't, be the ONLY paradigm.

Likewise, as people complained about lack-luster-ness of Pirate Archetype, thematic skill abilities should be typed as Skill Feats EVEN WHEN part of Archetype mechanic, and that goes for Class-excusive Feats as well... Which should also be able to be typed as Skill/General as appropriate...

I think the greatest problem I'm finding with the distortion of terminology and thematic focus is that...I have absolutely no idea what your paragraphs are about. Class Feats. Dedications. Archetypes. Prestige Archetypes. I understand what each of those are, but that's about it. They all cost a feat? And a Dedication is how you Multiclass, except you are still your own class. And archetypes are feat chains, and some anybody can take, others are the multiclassing thing. Then what is this Prestige Archetype? Is that a Prestige Class? Are you still the one class like with the multiclassing via archetypes via feats?

Even with the rad discussion about how all feats weren't created equal, the nomenclature feels like it is a weird mishmash of "hey we did something really different, but the kind of different where it's still samey except we changed the relative value of some uses of, say, one word (feats) and made it really clear that it is still the same - different depending on the word that appears before it. Get it? Then, to make our something really different... different, we changed how we did something we already did last time (archetypes), so that it is different, and that it changes how you did something else you already used to do differently (multiclassing) so it is the same as some of these different uses of the same word we started with (feats). Only we made a kind of promise that maybe we will still keep the old way, which will be different to now but the same as before, only in the new edition (archetypes). Plus, like last time, there is a huge emphasis on feats (feats)."

8 people marked this as a favorite.

@Jason: thanks not only for the long blog post, but for the bunch of posts clarifying/answering folks' questions and replying to their comments.

1: I'll echo those who don't - use traits and multiclassing et al as a means to power, but as a way to create interesting characters - being somewhat disappointed at the approach to limit flexibility in an attempt to wrest control over power-focused players. Heck, I don't even really like traits, and I do frown or eye-roll whenever I get suspicious about a character only to find the usual suspects dwelling out in trait-land. So I see that it happens, but you are throwing the baby (me, and those like me) out with the bathwater.

1b: Again, a Dedication feat and its following feats is not a class, so there currently is no multiclassing in the PF1/3.0 sense. Also, it feels ersatz on one level, and then extremely cheesy on the other. It also speaks to the lack of flexibility if you are offering all of this choice and flexibility by having to take a feat to be partly another class. One shouldn't have to, or if you do, take the other class and truly follow that too.

Many posters in this thread have mentioned how versatile we had it in PF1, where different concatenations of classes could perform with synergies, and overcome and outgrow the "roles" version of "bases-covered". The answer to that seems to be "this is the playtest, more options will come" and fans of PF2 seems to think this will come as a plethora of class feats, or general feats or more... feats. I know I've labelled this Featfinder, which is apparently unfair, but I don't want a million feats when character classes, their combinations and their archetypes made more choices and general feats madethem even more. I don't hunt down many interesting feats. I don't invest in traits. I like the class level based abilities, and sprinkle lightly with a few feats.

I've also seen posters in other threads who are in favor of class feats call for multiple iterations of the same ability slightly tweaked, so Bards will two-weapon fight in a Bardy-way, or Paladin's will archerise in a Paladiny-way. All I see at the moment is that the playtest seems to offer very limited and completely arbitrarily chosen options. I don't think a million ways to slightly differently do the same thing is a goal we should have - a general approach to letting all characters be able to generally fight the way they want to should be. New players will not appreciate their class choice has precluded them from fighting the way they want.

2: If feats have different scales of power levels, call them different things, or explicitly state that they have different power levels. I dunno why. But it seems to be very confusing. For PF1 players. And for newer players, why wouldn't you think two things both called feats might be feat-power level? As a category.

3: So currently the game feels a little clunky, like a kit bashed game with some strange hanging on pieces. Cut them back, otherwise it won't be a simple tomlearn or run shstem for new players. Happily all of the changes I've seen have seemed to go in that direction.

4: "Thrive in their defined role" sounds like 1984. What role is appropriate for which class? How are they "defined". Reading this thread it seems the PF1 versatility was legion and roles were for playing. I'd like to see Pathfinder 2 be awesome, not Pathdefinr 2, which probably won't be - for me.

Steve Geddes wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I was in this boat too until a year or so ago, when I started listening to the Glass Cannon Podcast on the way to and from work.

I rarely stick with an actual play podcast for more than half a dozen episodes. Nonetheless, I find them useful inspiration for my DMing style, even if the game itself doesn’t grab me for long.

I find podcasts a difficult medium in general. They force me to do nothing but sit still and listen, which I find difficult to do. But If I do anything else while listening I notice that I keep missing stuff. Also, like audio books, it's just too slow. I do not drive, so I cannot say anything about listening while driving.

Yeah, I’m with you. I couldn’t just sit and listen.

I travel a fair bit between clients, so I have several hours a week of dead time in the car.

Well, you have plenty of time to answer my texts then!!! ;p

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I keep seeing people refer to "multiclassing". Under the current playtest rules, you can't.

You can take feats that give you a different class' abilities, but you do not have "two" (or more) classes. It's disingenuous.

I want to be able to multiclass. I want archetypes that are changes to a class to broaden their concepts.

I did like the post that essentially compared hexes/talents/revelations/ki powers etc with "feats", and that mollified me a little. But not a lot. In PF1e, those powers/suites/choices still had feats to assist/change/provide choice to them.

I am no munchkin. I don't use the words chargen or char op or develop "builds" 20 levels in advance. I make characters. I make them interesting, and interestingly. Often they are "underpowered" or "weak" on paper. Here's the thing - it's how you use what you've got. And how you get through the game. I like choice. Paizo says choice is their mainstay. And I had choice.

With this edition, they've mauled multiclassing, erzats'd archetypes and gated feats hodgepodge all over the place. The magic has gone away. Sure it's early, it's a playtest, but having gone through a session 0 I'm really disliking it. It will suit a segment, but many will be more than disappointed, they will be put off.

Look at the way multiclassing and archetypes were revealed on the blog. Right near the end. Up until then, except for Resonance, I liked it. Now, I just don't.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Session 0, or how it was all actually ok and I was too.

(Apologies for long post is long)

My son and I had our session 0.1, and got as far as Point 8 in the character generation guide that starts on page 12.

CubWolf is 7, has played the Beginner Box adventure (albeit with a party consisting mainly of goblins and elementals) but also a homebrew adventure with the Beginner Box characters (Ezren, Merisiel and a few others) and a homebrew with other characters that ran through the Beginner Box map that was set halfway up a cliff that was arrived at after a sandship adventure based loosely on the sandship pirates of the newset version of Thundercats. Right? So he has a pretty good grasp of the rules, and from a fairly steady diet of CRPGs/roguelikes as well as a stream of cartoons and manga he understands many of the tropes and traditions.

So we arrive at the Pathfinder Playtest. I'm currently down with the dreadest lurgy, and my crab-level is on Legendary. How did it go? Pretty simple and straightforward, even considering that cubwolf decided to make a Goblin Wizard. There was a little flipping back and forth, but no flipping out. And there were some serious pros to the current way things were organised, if not laid out.

* Stat generation was simple, and cubwolf decided to add points to everything, ending up with 12, 14, 12, 14, 14, 12. Not optimised for Intelligence, but balanced. I admire his naive approach, and did not try to get him to make the array different in the quest for power. We'll see how that goes.

* First, why is the TEML system presented on page 291 (literal cubwolf was all "you have to read through 291 pages to get to the most important system?") I'm even of the opinion that the TEML modifiers should be printed as some sort of footnote/superscript on the bottom of every page. I have zero problems with the +1/level system, don't really understand the issue, but it isn't intuitive yet. It feels like more math to work out a figure, then either subtract your -2 or add your +1, 2 or 3 to that for everything on your sheet. Luckily it is all over the character sheet, but still...

* What is "SIG" on every skill field on the character sheet? Oh. Just worked it out. Signature Skill. Which seems highly closeting, and useless until later. And has been abandoned.

* Yup. There really aren't enough feats at first level to express your ancestry, and the ones provided aren't great. So, it's a Playtest, and we should get plenty eventually. BUT, I agree with folks who feel more should be baked in, whether they are swappable in or out - like "you receive two/three heritage feats for free at 1st level to round out your ancestry" chosen from a list. Cubwolf chose Junk Tinker, and not being able to choose razor teeth or very sneaky didn't seem to bother him - "getting one feat is better than getting none". If only he could apply that to episodes of his favorite TV show, dessert or other things.

* He also chose Animal Whisperer as his Background. Backgrounds should be distinct in the chapters from Ancestries.

* A Wizard, eh!?! So our junk tinker goblin chose to be a universalist so with two feats chose familiar (raven) and reach spell to make his electric arc work at 60 ft with a little extra action. In terms of layout and presentation, Arcane School should be "Specialist Wizards", I was confused for a while (not being a caster player generally) whether you could still choose a school without having to be a specialist. I also couldn't work out why you wouldn't be a specialist given it took me half an hour to find "Universalist Wizard" at the end of the school section written in the same font/size as the schools. I was also a little unclear whether the specialist wizard could only choose the extra spell from his school, or whether all his spells had to be from his school. I'm thinking it is the latter?

Also, not getting a spell point pool as a Universalist seems really harsh, the extra possible uses of Drain Arcane Focus per spell level (instead of per day) notwithstanding - and at 1st and 2nd level that will be exactly NO benefit.

Again, in terms of presentation, why does it tell me under Wizard that I get another Ancestry feat at 5th level (and thereafter)? I'm sure every class does, but this really isn't the place, and much space could be saved in a character generation section. I think this is an attempt to make the game easy for new players, but I'm finding the game currently as presented really [i]isn't[i/] for new players. The Wizard alone, though on the one hand straightforward, is still an overly complex class.

Looking at Table 3-21 there are seven entries for what you get at 1st level. Arcane school shouldn't be there, as it doesn't universally apply (should be changed to approach or tutelage or style or something - either Specialist or Universalist) and ancestry feat shouldn't be in there either - it is a function of Ancestry, NOT class. Same with background. It doesn't need to be this complex, and ironically it is the attempt to clarify the presentation that clutters it.

The character sheet doesn't really work for Wizard proficiencies, as they have a short list of trained weapons, not simple designations of Simple/Martial.

N.B: Cubwolf liked the "spamming" of cantrips concept.

* Again with Layout - putting the class feats in the class writeup is distinctly weird, and reminds me of the "class as miniplaybook" that was 4e. Now, I'm no hater of 4e, so this is just an observation. Mostly class feats as a distinction seems to contain the class as concept rather than be an offering of options that provide true choice across characters.

* Then, "General Feats" is confusing, because the "traits" of feats can be General, or General and Skill, or even General and Move and Skill. The Feats chapter doesn't even start by explaining anything, like how many general feats you get at first level. Does cubwolf's goblin wizard get a general feat at 1st level? Apparently he gains one at 3rd level, unless he isn't "most classes" (p.160). Then again, a whole bunch of them are listed as 1st level, so how are we getting those? Nowhere on pp. 12-17 is that detailed, unless I've missed something.

And that's where we are at. Writing this up, it doesn't seem as straightforward as it was last night, but we did enjoy it and things were't too complicated, though now I am a little confused about a few things. How do you get 1st level General Feats? Did we add the stat bonuses from Background? (Just did a reverse engineer, and all is as it should be - putting that down to his precocity and me not following along due to mental aberration...errr sickness...)

Anyway, this is a rambling feedback of character creation, if you have any queries or clarifications for me, please provide or ask away!!! (1st level General Feats - what page is that described, what did I miss???)

I'm giving this a go, and will provide more feedback as I go - Next up - Equipment, making the second character (should be quicker?!?!) and maybe, the Adventure!!!

1 to 50 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>