

Thanks for the response. I can definitely see the martial “cop on campus” and Chime Ringer in medium armor working well for Virgil Tibbs. But yes, the flavor text for Runesmith is well short of a medium armored war-caster - “scholar and artist” doesn’t scream “combat magic” - there is a slight nod in “channel powers greater than yourself” but no mention of martial prowess or capability.
It isn’t really a complaint, as I don’t really like Pathfinder (and legacy DnD in general)’s concept of “cloth casters”. These are folk (“adventurers”) who engage in bloody, gruesome violence - in my campaign I give all classes (except Monk) Trained in Light armor at least at 1st level to reflect that these are folk, no matter their expertise can be caparisoned for war, and have at least the training for it.
(I always imagine mathematics and music as akin, able to describe each other beautifully, so mathematics has always seemed like an art to me. Though such distinctions likely do more to hinder creativity than to foster it!)
@Mathmuse: I must admit I completely don’t understand the point of playing a runesmith thematically. I’ve always loved runes, but the tracing magic runes to get “effects in combat stuff” just feels super…weird, and the medium armor makes me think of an armored runescrawler who does…what? Scrawls…runes. Feels like a strange type of caster who just likes to deal out damage by drawing on things. How did playing Virgil Tibbs feel thematically? Was Virgil very runic in terms of his personality or interests, or did he just happen to know how to trace funny script in the midst of combat?
I really disliked the faux-runic “names” of the runes, they felt like ersatz Nordic affectations, with absolutely no direct connection to what they did, and moreover, why would such words be universal across all languages? So I definitely support your changes at least as far as aesthetics go.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Justnobodyfqwl wrote: I can't for the life of me imagine not playing a TTRPG ancestry because of details you don't like in the art. I've never felt that beholden to one specific artist's interpretation. Often one artist is tasked with creating a “design template” for other artists to follow. There will always be leeway for each artist’s particular style and approach, but they tend to stick to the design template. Paizo goblins have a head shaped like a football. That’s pretty ingrained. Kent Hamilton’s design for the jotunborn seems like a pretty solidly…solidified and coded approach to what they look like.
To me they look like the aliens from Prometheus in the Aliens franchise, only somewhat majorly weirded out in the neck and shoulders….and legs….and head. I definitely am turned off by it. So it makes me completely not interested in playing one from an aesthetic starting point. I get a lot of mileage out of aesthetics, so….I guess I can’t imagine playing a TTRPG ancestry that I find unappealing. Not that Kent hasn’t done an amazing job - I always find his sketch pages thoughtful, inspired and creative.
Having said all that, I do like the arthropod companions creatures and the use of shell and silk. It is definitely an interesting take on the current iteration of the age old fad of “monster parts” that everyone from Battlezoo to Kobold Press are jumping on lately.
I also imagine that if the “alternate dimension” isn’t detailed clearly it on the one hand gives players a lot of room to create their own narrative but that precise lack of clear detail could lead to some quite jarring table variation in that narrative. Also not sure how I feel about alternate dimension as a stand in for “super exotic way out planar space”. I’ve always felt a tension between “dimensions” and “planes of existence” and the conflation of the two.
[EDIT - the article actually doesn’t say “alternate dimension” but “alternate plane of existence”, but my general point still stands. Could be a mistranslation by the author also…]
The only thing I really want for a giant race is actual massive size and strength - reach, Strength bonuses and ability to smash objects and throw smaller creatures. Offset by the problems of fitting into regular corridors, and being flanked by just about everyone in the room.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
YuriP wrote: My point that I still kept is that the class is weak, clunky and conceptually strange to what its proposes. Making it a subpar class. Well I don’t have enough experience with “weak” but I considered making an Inventor and definitely found it clunky and conceptually strange. There were almost zero options I was interested in across all three Innocation types, and the core mechanics of Overdrive and Unstable seemed…massively clunky.
I should add that I derive a great deal of fulfillment personally from emulating a particular “class fantasy” for each class, so the root “functions well in combat” or “hits appropriate markers” do absolutely nothing for me. The idea that anyone would choose an ancestry to maximise their class, or take a class dedication like Kineticist to shore up their AC is so anathematic to my approach that I am definitely “playing a different way” than others here assessing things like viability and balance or the relative lack thereof.
But for me, Inventors were something I was quite interested in thematically but found lacklustre in the available options and conceptually strange in that it felt like the class concept was first rendered into powder, then rehydrated and poured into a “combat mechanic capacity” alembic. Then stirred, and poured into a the hope a “fun class” came out at the other end. For this individual, it completely failed. No real inventing. Innovations thematically hamstrung by strange core mechanics across the board and topped off with lacklustre and too few options.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It’s disappointing that folks can “cheese” their “build” with such obviously token narrative choices.
It’s disappointing that the playtest classes can be “cheesed over” with a known exploit, and still be less than stellar.
It’s disappointing that Beastmaster, rather than be a master of beasts, becomes a Mounted Cheesemaster.
At least those are the three ways I felt the use of Beastmaster (and not just by the OP given the general credence the concept was given) was disappointing.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Also ladders, ropes, hatches, tight corridors, water and other terrain “obstacles”.
I’ve mostly found Mounted options almost never applicable, so while I have some fondness for the concept generally I’m surprised the archetype has reached this level of cheese-ubiquity. Ubiquicheese?
That it is so ubiquitous that it enters playtesting considerations is disapppointing.
Can someone explain the many references to “Beastmaster” - is taking this archetype somehow useful in action economy for both Runesmith and Necromancer?!? What am I missing?
I like YuriP’s ideas for thralls, but I feel it might be something the devs considered initially but then dispensed with for making the map swamped with Necromancer minions/bogged down. I also agree there should be something akin to Trip H’s concept of allowing the thralls a strike upon/before being consumed - as YuriP states there is currently no tacit impulse for enemies to destroy them.
I do find there seems to be a lack of consensus among GMs as to how significantly enemies perceive the threat of thralls, and wonder about thralls making foes make extra rolls (to RK?) necessitated where…regular foes..wouldn’t.

Exocist wrote: OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote: Exocist wrote: Most of the time, this class' best contribution was simply casting muscle barrier over and over again. Given YuriP’s assessment of the ubiquity of Muscle Barrier, I have to ask: how “necromantic” does it feel to…buff your allies with viscera…goo? Like I get that there will be more options in the final release, but this isn’t what I would be looking for to be “necromantic”…
I guess I’d like to know more about how the class…feels narratively. I’ve made my distaste for the thralls clear both in terms mechanically AND aesthetically, but I’d like to hear others thoughts on the aesthetics… Official flavour has never mattered to me. Even if the text says it’s viscera goo, I’d probably just reflavour it to bone armor, the undead literally throwing themself into the way of attacks or whatever.
My issue is more from a mechanical perspective - when I think Necromancer I don’t think “guy who applies a shield”. I think we are on the same page - I have no problem reskinning “flavor” text. By aesthetics I mean larger narrative concepts like “is a necromancer a support caster who clads allies in necro-stuff?…” and for me the answer isn’t exactly a yes. If concepts like Muscle Barrier were in addition to what I actually want to see (as opposed to “legacy” concepts of what necromancers have been) then I might be more interested.
Tridus wrote: Like you, I'm not a fan of conjuring stationary meat sacks out of nothing and then using them to give large amounts of temporary HP to the Fighter. It doesn't really scream "necromancer" to me at all, mechanically or narratively. .
And again, I would agree,
I think what is really interesting for me is that Paizo has never had a problem making things their own, and I applaud them for moving the needle slightly and occasionally away from classic fantasy tropes that have bogged the genre down for decades. And perhaps most interestingly for me is Pathfinder 2e’s absolute mechanical focus on party teamwork means that a class concept can totally be rewired from “legacy expectations” to be, as in this case, a support-enabled class. At least as so far presented in the playtest.
And ultimately, while plenty of players are going to have no prejudice and play with the chassis and building blocks I am absolutely going to have no truck with either Necromancer or Runesmith in terms of narrative agency and in-built mechanical flavor (same with Exemplar or Animist; Commander and Guardian are still pending mechanically). Much like some APs are a complete snore for some subscribers, some of the new classes are for me. It’s been a long bunch of months since anything interesting come out for me, and the last one was the Thaumaturge, but ultimately, having played one, it fell flat. Tried the Inventor, and it was…anemic.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Exocist wrote: Most of the time, this class' best contribution was simply casting muscle barrier over and over again. Given YuriP’s assessment of the ubiquity of Muscle Barrier, I have to ask: how “necromantic” does it feel to…buff your allies with viscera…goo? Like I get that there will be more options in the final release, but this isn’t what I would be looking for to be “necromantic”…
I guess I’d like to know more about how the class…feels narratively. I’ve made my distaste for the thralls clear both in terms mechanically AND aesthetically, but I’d like to hear others thoughts on the aesthetics…

2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I have seen a lot of posters make really good, inspired and insightful posts on perceived problems both narrative and mechanical and proposed solutions, both as derived from actual play-tested games and “theorycrafted”.
I have not seen a single post from any developer. Not one. That seems…super weird. And if that is the new normal then that is beyond disappointing. I get that it was stated from the very outset that there wouldn’t be a second round of playtesting, that there would ‘t be any feedback in the blog until after the playtest period but as I stated in my “Welcome to the Playtest?” thread the radio silence has been deafening and, to tell the truth, demoralising.
The surveys for the Commander and moreso the Guardian were anemic and obviously hyper-focused on incredibly narrow data points that did not allow for other points of view that clearly the devs had zero interest in.
I haven’t looked at this batch of surveys yet. Sadly, the runesmith holds absolutely zero interest for me as a concept and this iteration of a “placeables” Necromancer repels me narratively. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is an interesting mechanical concept that has been seen before, but it’s not one I particularly want to either play or run a game in which one is being played.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I will echo Mathmuse in that I look at PFS scenarios as a GM as a way of taking smaller episodes and splicing them into my home games. I haven’t yet, but I am on the lookout.
I’m finally running a home PF2 game for some family/extended family members and given it is a conversion of a third party PF1 adventure the learning curve is steep! I’m hoping some PF2 PFS scenarios will help with getting a greater understanding of challenges, encounters, hazards and expectations. I’m sure standalone adventures or AP volumes could also help…

2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I definitely hear that part of the attraction of PFS is the flexibility: allowing players to try out different class/ancestry/concept combinations; and allowing forever GMs to finally play!; and allowing players to jump to the “other side”.
I only have experience with PFS via PbP, although my character was not PFS-conversant I was still a player - I found almost the entire group lacked role-playing skills and have since learned at least some of them are self-confessed “rollplayers” with little interest in interpersonal roleplaying. I don’t need a small novella with every post (in fact more than a few paragraphs has me scratching out my eyeballs) but at least some understanding that there are characters rather than wandering statblocks would be nice.
It was however a fantastic education in PF2 - running through both Otari sequences (Menace/Trouble) in their entirety - and a particularly tense final battle in the first arc was super fun. The GM was/is fantastic and ran a smooth game both in terms of pacing and setting but also in terms of combat (recaps each round, explanations of rulings etc).
My main problem with PFS is more aesthetic - I find Golarion’s world a little too “banality of fantasy” whereby the Star Trek style “humans with funny heads” actually makes fantastic elements mundane by their ubiquity. As I get older, I tend to want my character to be fairly simple - my character during that Otari opus was a fairy vanilla Human Fighter - wandering around with a Catfolk monk, Leshy sorceror, Halfling cleric and duskwalker warpriest. The only other true “human” was an old witch but she died in that battle under Otari and her player replaced her with an Orc Druid who was fairly wild and ferocious but not very personable.
Interestingly enough, that group decided to move on to a conversion of CotKK but I dropped out (mostly because I found my own character [the Human fighter] had the personality of a cardboard box so the roleplay lack was also mine… ) but also because I was already in another PF2 CotKK and the group added a few more players, and had all changed characters and the group seems to have at least a modicum of RP going on…
So all groups are going to be different, and even the same group will be different moment to moment or scenario to scenario. And PFS allows for those moments to change with frequency.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote: WatersLethe wrote: I think we all know that the point of PFS is to act as a scapegoat for why someone's pet rule issue needs to be written in airtight legalese, since obviously PFS GMs operate like punchcard computers. Ah, but we don't.
I have never run PFS that way, and now the official rules reflect that.
Hmm Pretty sure WatersLethe was being sarcastic, but thanks for the link to that thread - had a quick look and found it pretty enlightening as to the changing cultural norms of Society play.
GameDesignerDM wrote: You can just make up your own story to work with the class, then. Sure. Reskinning is as old as the hobby. My point is that where mechanical strictures are seemingly arrived at by narrative that isn’t universal, the strictures end up being mechanically meaningless, and often problematic. I don’t need any flavor “with” my game mechanics, and most of the time it is not only superfluous but also at odds with my campaign world.
PossibleCabbage wrote: It is always easier to tweak existing Golarion lore to make it work with your own homebrew than it is to create something out of whole cloth to justify how something works. So I appreciate PF2 justifying things in its own lore instead of just having flavorless mechanics. I have to disagree - it is no effort to create one’s own campaign world and ideas. It is yours after all.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
PossibleCabbage wrote: It's entirely plausible that the tradition of Necromancy as represented by the class specifically developed over time in order to avoid divine attention from the likes of Pharasma or Urgathoa. It's not like you really want attention from Tar-Baphon or Geb either.
The sorts of "actually raising the dead" or "making mindless undead that last longer than you have use for them" or "creating intelligent undead" is specifically the sort of thing that will get you attention from powers that want to control or destroy you, so you figure out how to play with the energies of life and death in a way that doesn't create those kinds of problems.
All of which speaks to the issue with Pathfinder 2 being so embedded into the lore of Golarion. For those without these narrative “barriers”, they…don’t exist.
So while it might help Paizo craft an identity for their necromancer, and give some reasons for mechanical limitations/boundaries, it leaves those of us who play largely outside of Golarion…bereft of equally interesting mechanical options because “story”.
Rise of the Return of the Runesmith, or, the lack thereof. I feel like Karzoug et al would be disappointed.
Not sure you need spellstrike to hit your thrall. They are always autohit and are destroyed…. [quickly ducks under table]…
In all seriousness, these seem easy to adjudicate RaI, but RAW….not so much. Definitely feel like they need…edits.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
AestheticDialectic wrote: Dragonchess Player wrote: Personally, I don't want to go back to a bunch of class-specific spell lists (that end up with 80-90+% overlap; at which point, why were they differentiated).
If there is a specific small selection of divine spells (harm or heal, necromancer's generosity, etc.), then a class feat that adds those 3-5 specific spells (similar to the way a cleric gets a handful of spells added to their available list based on deity) is IMO the best way to handle this within the paradigms of PF2. You can have a "White Necromancer" that adds heal and a few vitality spells from the divine list and a "Black Necromancer" that adds harm and a few void spells from the divine list.
only looking at the divine list and not on occult:
Vitality Lash, Admonishing Ray, Heal, Infuse Vitality, Boneshaker, Bone Spray, Share Life, Sudden Blight, Life Connection, Positive Attunement, Life's Fresh Bloom, Soothing Spring, Vital Beacon, Healing Well, Spiritual Guardian, Gray Shadow, Necrotize, Raise Dead, Suffocate, Eclipse Burst, Execute, Divine Armageddon (by technicality), Moment of Renewal, Massacre, Revival
It's not 3-5 lol So…those are all Divine spells…that the Necromancer…doesn’t get? Ouch. Definitely don’t want raise dead or necrotize. No sirree. Phew! That was close! Almost had thematic spells there.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
AestheticDialectic wrote: Class feats, and by extension focus spells, are also not unlike class specific spell lists in posing the same problem of needing to be continually updated...
I really don't want this class to be pick-a-list and will grit my teeth at occult to avoid that. Pick-a-list is such a thematic void
Yep. I see that. I agree, pick-a-list can be seen as a thematic void, but given that there are folks like me that see the traditions as a thematic fail through being a poor fit, and pick-a-list as a thematic possibility, I’d prefer pick-a-list on a Thrallmaster. For a Necromancer….I guess I see Occult working, but it still is a thematic kludge.
We are playtesting the Necromancer. I get it. I just think that this selection of a class to be in this playtest is a conceptual missed opportunity - the mechanics, though familiar, are interesting, and I would actually loved to have seen Paizo’s take on a Golarionic “placer of turrets/thrallmancer” rather than what I see as a “Necromancer that doesn’t”. So it kinda burns both ways. Even before you get to spell-lists.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
RPG-Geek wrote: It's tough to see the 4 traditions of magic as a good pillars of design when we're having this much debate about an iconic type of spellcaster with a very easy-to-assign list of spells. A Necromancer's spell list should be an easy slam dunk, but the inability to narrow down a caster's list of spells has led to debate and discord and will surely lead to friction for the entirety of this class's existence. Yep. The fact that there exist the focus spells as a workaround proves to me that this isn’t a slam dunk.
Teridax wrote: Each tradition's spell list as we know it now was visibly designed around each of the four tradition-specific CRB classes, which is why the arcane and occult lists are overloaded with plenty of spells that affect vital essence (because Wizards had to wield the eight OGL schools of magic, and Bards had to be able to do a little bit of everything), and the primal list has poor access to void damage or undead healing (because Druids can't be allowed to create or manipulate undead, or do anything that goes against nature). Ah. Thanks for pointing that out so eloquently. I just don’t like the tradition approach, and now I know a little more why it feels unhelpful.
Teridax wrote: Even beyond iffy delineation, part of the discourse around the Necromancer is that spell lists are too broad: the occult list of course has lots of spells that don't fit a necromancer at all, because it's got tons of mental effects and other stuff tailored around the Bard, but even the divine list has lots of spells that wouldn't really fit the class, to say nothing of the other two traditions. Even if the class were given divine spells, which in my opinion would have been a better fit, that would not have been fully satisfactory either, which is presumably also why the Necromancer's feat lists gives us tons of focus spells to really dig into their specific flavor through spellcasting. Yep. It really has to straddle list-and-focus-spells just to be a Tigger.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Or, more simply, how does the Necromancer, with Int-based casting and summoning of thralls, function with each spell-list? Is a Primal Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?
Is an Arcane Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?
Is a Divine Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?
(Lets forget for the moment about the nomenclature of the thrall powers, bony barrages and necrotic bombs can be refalvoured….)

All of this discussion takes me back to the lack of clarity of intent and scope as delivered to the player-base, and the intent of the classes very much informs their design path.
Because we don’t know what theme the book these two classes are appearing in, we must accept them at face value. Here we have a Necromancer, who uses an Occult power source for their spells and summons undead thralls.
Due to carryovers from this edition and the previous edition, some folks are getting tripped up on the Occult list. “Surely the Necromancer should be Divine” they say. And have healing, as in former Necromancy lists.
Others wish for a broadening of “the concept”, so that we might have Primal or Arcane Necromancers.
However, as “the concept” hasn’t been fully explained, and we have the fairly tight flavor blurb at the beginning of the class becoming for some an ur-text, and for others merely a…flavor blurb, there is more disconnect in trying to work together to understand “the concept”.
If Paizo had introduced a truly new take on…let’s call them…Thrallmasters, who can call on thralls and who like Witches, Sorcerors and Summoners draw from a myriad of sources (neatly divided into four useful traditions) and who have a rich, story-driven introduction at the start of the playtest document that explains why they are an Int-based caster that summons thralls of a chosen tradition exists now in Golarion then…well, folks could still argue about “I think it should be Cha-based” etc….but the endless bickering about “well, actually-factually historically thrallmasters were in the original texts of the lost peoples of….” and “thrallmasters in popular culture have always been…” or even “before the Remaster, and in PF 1 (and 3.5 IIRC) thrallmasters had a definite…..” would be a lot…less.
Unfortunately, Paizo have decided to drag out a popular and spiky subject, and then subjected them to all the worst know it alls on the internetz. Us. Was the Necromancer chosen to be in this playtest because it actually fits the theme of the book it will appear in? Perhaps a stupid question, but I’d say, being generous…more than likely. And was the theme of a book that will contain the runesmith and the necromancer chosen because Paizo’s survery, marketing and feedback all points to said book being popular and drawing a certain 13.7% of the player base further in to the consumer pool? Possibly.
I guess I feel the playtest is like coming in at the end of the first movie in the remake of a trilogy you’ve seen already , and being asked to help write the next movie so that the third movie will be awesome.
Paizo have proved, occasionally, to be incredibly creative, and to mesh their narrative of Golarion with awesome mechanics. The Kineticist, though drawing perhaps on real world and popculture cultivators and benders became a standout class for Paizo, and the 280 page Ultimate Kineticist Compendium by Legendary Games proved the design space was compelling. I’m sure folks had a lot of arguments about the Kineticist…..but the point is that it was/is a great chassis for a class)
All water under the bridge. Just feels like a broader newer concept, with a strong, new theme and tight narrative concept that the player base can get behind for a book they understand will garner better results than a rehash of an old and much-beloved concept (necromancer) shoehorned into mechanics to fit the system (thralls) and given only one source of power (occult) which admittedly fits, is nowhere as interesting or as fulfilling as a new concept (thrallmaster) with mechanics that fit both the system and the theme (thralls) and a choice of spell-lists to suit the source (pick-a-list). All of which could definitely provide a necromantic option. Which isn’t to say the current Necromancer won’t be a good class, just a lot narrower than it could have been, and Golarion is likely poorer for it.
Well, that runesmith and necromancer containing book better be good!
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Squiggit wrote: In another world, I think most spellcasters should be pick a tradition unless there's some extremely compelling reason not to allow it.
But given that Paizo puts a lot of value on nailing certain classes to certain traditions Occult is really the best choice here.
I’m finding more and more that I dislike the four traditions and the thematic delineations that they necessarily attempt to shoehorn - and the fact that classes do get…nailed to certain traditions. It seems incredibly limiting conceptually, and I wonder at the efficacy of any mechanical reasoning for it.
I do also wonder if, for the Necromancer, Occult is the “best choice” or merely a “strong choice”, given that there seem to be a lot of personal opinions floating about for the application of each tradition. A primal Necromancer would be, to excuse the pun, wild. Or, just a reflavored Druid. ;p

Mathmuse wrote: Runescribing weapon trait: A runesmith can etch or trace runes with a held runescribing weapon rather than a free hand. The runescribing weapon counts as artisan's tools for this purpose. Tracing a Rune with a runescribing weapon can reach only as far as the weapon, but tracing this way loses the manipulate trait.
GIANT PAINTBRUSH
Disarm, Runescribing, Sweep, Trip
Based on Flail
Price 8 sp; Damage 1d4 B; Bulk 1
Hands 1
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Flail
This weapon consists of a hefty wooden haft adorned with paint-laden brush bristles on one end.
IRON INKBRUSH
Concealable, Runescribing, Thrown 10 feet
Based on PF1 Iron Brush and Stiletto Pen
Price 5 sp; Damage 1d3 P; Bulk L
Hands 1
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Dart
This scholar’s inkbrush has a sharpened iron handle. Though it does little damage, it is easily concealed and can be thrown short distances.
WOODWORKING KNIFE
Agile, Finesse, Runescribing, Versatile P
Based on Flyssa
Price 1 gp; Damage 1d4 S; Bulk L
Hands 1
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Knife
This single-edged blade, decorated with mystic etchings, can is reinforced for wood carving.
HAMMER AND CHISEL
Runescribing, Shove, Versatile P
Based on Maul
Price 3 gp; Damage 1d10 B; Bulk 2
Hands 2
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Hammer
This pair of tools (treat as one object) can apply blows precisely to engrave letters on stone.
PALETTE SHIELD Item 1
Based on Wooden Shield
Price 2 gp; AC Bonus +2; Speed Penalty —
Bulk 1; Hardness 3; HP (BT) 10 (5)
This wooden shield holds an array of paint blots along its circumference, allowing a runesmith to Trace a Rune in their space or an adjacent space with the hand holding the palette shield. This tracing still has the manipulate trait.
PAINTBALLS
Based on Sling Bullets
Price 2 sp (price for 10); Bulk L
Type Ranged; Category Ammunition; Group Sling
These are paint-filled hollow balls, designed to be used as ammunition in slings, but they deal one dice size smaller weapon damage than the sling's usual weapon damage dice. If a runesmith Strikes with a paintball, then they may Trace a Rune on the target or the target's gear as a free action instead of dealing damage.
Yep, the Runesmith 3rd party base class for PF1 by Interjection Games took a similar approach…
Interjection Games, Runesmith wrote: Methodology (Ex): At 1st level, choose one of the following methodologies, which represent the way the runesmith tends to prepare his runes. He gains the corresponding weapon proficiencies.
Calligraphy The runesmith is proficient with the switchblade knife and the whip.
Chiseling The runesmith is proficient with the light hammer, the warhammer, the lucerne hammer, and the maul.
Fingerpainting The runesmith gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.
Gouging The runesmith is proficient with light picks, heavy picks, and the pickaxe.
Painting The runesmith is proficient with the starknife and the syringe spear.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote: To me, Lamashtu's faith is here to embrace monstrosity, reject beauty, corrupt purity, and to feast upon those who would oppress them (in their minds: everyone), which is a dark, twisted nightmare, but a fascinating one to play with at the more ambiguously evil aspects. Her ideal of family may be the most twisted and monstrous imaginable, but to her followers it's still family--with all the usual toxic justifications that can imply.. This is exceedingly well put. Thanks SEO. I’ve always been drawn to Lamashtu and her story (apart from her real world name, that is just…annoying) but this makes me love her and her followers all the more. Families are hard!

Some folks don’t get involved in all the disgusting politics or faux morality - they are admirers of the architecture of forms whether physical or spirit, released from “living” ties, and freed to act in new ways, pushing boundaries of what is considered “life”.
White necromancers use the undead as just another tool, deadly power bent to holy aims.
Spiritwhisperers provide succour and solace to those spirits that are trapped, hurt, lost or even haunted by their own form and function, and might be repaid in aid or make pacts and bargains for same.
And then, yes, there are twisted vile souls who live for nothing other than to be…knee deep in the dead, doom…ed to scour the lands for body parts and grisly keepsakes, to wrest wicked control over poor souls rotting in the spirit world, using and abusing tortured spirits, twisted bones and rotting flesh, wracked by the desires for power and control.
Of course, none of that particularly pertains to the narrative constraints and strictures of Golarion.

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote: So, once animated summoned created, when they get their appearing attack, can the thralls *do* anything on subsequent rounds? Apart from the necromancer using actions to turn them into bony spears or blowing them as bombs, or being dismissed to power your focus pool, or being dismissed to have your spell start from their position is there any ability that just lets the necromancer make another basic strike with them? Do they have AoO’s or do they just….be…there? I’m a little confused as to what they…do. I mean I can see that they…get in the way, but beyond that they seem very inert. Currently. Sibelius Eos Owm wrote: Presently thralls are more of a tactical resource than a horde of independent minions. This seems to be the intended balance for being able to pop out dozens of them in a few turns, both as a trade-off of power vs. having one strong minion, and as a solution for "Necromancer has to take 27 actions per turn" time drag. Yep, makes sense.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote: To some, this means the Necromancer isn't even truly a Necromancer unless the thralls all act on their own. Others simply advocate for the ability to command thralls to move (in or out of combat) even if only for its roleplaying value rather than any combat utility (that is, it's been noted that commanding a thrall to move and attack is strictly weaker than spawning a new one in other than freeing up a space). Not being able to have them open doors, spring traps that require more than a modicum of interaction (as opposed, or perhaps as well as Interact) or apparently pour a nice….red…Absolom 4068 is, I have to admit, a bit odd. Makes thralls exactly an artifice for grid based RPG combat only. I guess there are other undead servitors to be achieved to perfectly coiff my wig. But to argue it isn’t a Necromancer is a bit silly.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote: But yes, to summarize, thralls as written are an attack cantrip that fills a space and provides flanking and can be consumed for focus spells. They don't act on their own at all except arguably the attack they make when they emerge. Thanks! I’d have to say the flanking is still pretty useful, but it does seem a bit of a missed opportunity, regardless of how it might need to be balanced/rectified, that they don’t “threaten” or make any further basic attacks. Sure, explode, spearsnipe etc. But no further active threat is sadface.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So, once animated summoned created, when they get their appearing attack, can the thralls *do* anything on subsequent rounds? Apart from the necromancer using actions to turn them into bony spears or blowing them as bombs, or being dismissed to power your focus pool, or being dismissed to have your spell start from their position is there any ability that just lets the necromancer make another basic strike with them? Do they have AoO’s or do they just….be…there? I’m a little confused as to what they…do. I mean I can see that they…get in the way, but beyond that they seem very inert. Currently.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I can see both sides of Int or Cha. Using a force of will and…spirit (Cha) to control and call forth spirits/undead works perfectly for me, as does long hours of study, reading, rereading, memorising and interpreting musty fungus covered tomes in dank ossuaries and mental gymnastics (Int) required to do same. Anyone decrying that they are absolutely sure that necromancy “is definitely all about study” is as unfortunate as anyone railing that necromancy is all about “awesome force of will being spirits to their power”.
Many of these instances of quests for power and urges to control can be provided for both ways - those that seek to gain knowledge to gain power, and those that seek to bend others will to their own to…gain power. It’s more a innate tension between just what Intelligence and Charisma are - in terms of where does one end and the other begin. Emotional Intelligence. Social Awareness. Locations on certain spectrums.
Apart from all that, it does seem as though it might be better for Necromancers to be Int based given the unfortunate relation between Int and Skills.
As for Dirge: Not sure why people think “dirge” is some odd, uncommon word, but I totally understand it being used here. I can totally get the long quiescent mumblings in the ancient arhythmic tongueless tongue of the abdead or whatever. It’s a little…forced, but I have to admit it totally fits the theme. And I really like the absence of a spellbook. Spellbooks are very twee, and the less said about them the better. For sure, a Necromancer could have had a grimoire, or tome or whatever else, but a memorised litany or connection to a songtrain bubbling below the surface of their febrile mind is perfectly sufficient. And while I’m sure dirges *have* been written down, when I think of a dirge I think of a sad haunting droney dirgey song for the dead, not its written form.
Though I haven’t taken the current playtest’s survey yet, I’ve found previous playtest surveys to both both hopelessly skewed, and completely leading, in that they seem to be hyperfocused on, unsurprisingly, what they obviously want data on, without leaving much room for interpretation; while also seeming to lead the survey taker into confirming certain points without there being sufficient consideration of outlier points of view. Compounded by being incredibly short/brief. I don’t think the surveys are very well utilised as an information or data gathering tool. More work needed.

Justnobodyfqwl wrote: Im a little bit shocked at how much of a sticking point this is for people, so I want to gently say: the idea of making me physically track corpses to use Create Thrall sounds really unfun to the average table. I’m personally not surprised, given how popular the concept is, and perhaps the passion for the concept engenders such strong feelings - one way or the other. I don’t wish to track corpses either. That sounds boring. But it shouldn’t take a genius to locate a fallen foe in a pitched battle, especially if you just killed them.
I take other posters points about the setup being inordinately problematic if you have to kill your resources-to-be first and have already mentioned the problem with minionmancy in PF2 (let alone PF1!). But I’d personally be happy waiting raising a dead foe as a honest-to-bloodness minion. Especially if I have other abilities too.
I guess I feel there was a lost opportunity two ways: firstly a Necromancer that wasn’t engaged with not-quite minions and secondly a battlefield controller with placeable “chits” that wasn’t necessarily necromantic.
And I’m not looking for the devs to *do* anything. I’m just providing feedback.
Justnobodyfqwl wrote: I bought into the pitch of "oh ok, thralls are weak undead I can summon whenever I want" instantly. There are multiple Necromancer spells, abilities, and dedication feats I can take that are increasingly specific about using real corpses. And I just as instantly recoiled from weak thralls that don’t really have much substance. And yes, you are absolutely right that there are these other options, but the “sticking point” for me isn’t the flavor of the Necromancer but the flavor and the power of the thralls. It turns me off the class to the point that I wouldn’t want to play it.
Justnobodyfqwl wrote: If you don't feel like a Necromancer, bring the corpses yourself. Maybe even roleplay a little, you can personally name every zombie you raise. Touché. That does sound…boring. :p
OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote: I do wonder if the strictures of Pathfinder 2R’s balance and elegant design are to me, a straitjacket that stifles truly engaging or inspiring class design, or if conversely, I wish for too much from the system (or something just thematically different - I hear that the kineticist is inspired, but I have no interest in it at all) - I imagine it is a little of column A and little of column B. Squiggit wrote: It sounds like neither, tbh. You have some very specific design choices you prefer and Paizo has chosen to do things in a different way. I don't see why that has to be some innate failure of the system. Well, once or twice, I might agree with you. But there were plenty of classes designed for PF1 both by Paizo and 3rd party publishers that I found inspired or interesting, but PF2, not so much. It seems tight and constrained. I live in hope.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
@Blave: I totally get your points, and I alluded to them in my OP - there are definitely downsides, but that could definitely be creatively approached.
But I don’t disagree that this playtest Necromancer is a Necromancer it’s just that…well let me put it this way. I always thought the band KISS were…weird, but I couldn’t put my finger on why. Then, it hit me - if you close your eyes, the fact that they wear demonic/wild costumes has almost entirely nothing to do with their music. All that facepaint and leering and heels and spikes and armor only to sing “I was made for loving you”. Absent the theatrics, it’s entirely staid rock. And that’s how I fee about this Necromancer. It wants to dress in all the right get up, wield a scythe, shoot bony projectiles etc, but it’s not really singing an interesting tune.
So, yes, it’s “valid”. But sadly, I wouldn’t want to play it. And I love necromancy as a narrative trope. And the thrall mechanic is interesting, as has been seen previously - it just doesn’t necessarily need to be necromantic…
@Sibelius Eos Owm/kwodo: yes Inevitable Return does utilise a slain enemy. To make a thrall. That you can already create a totally different way elsewise, but to create the same unsatisfying thing. And not until 3rd level.
@Sibelius - your POST in the Necromancer name thread is well reasoned (and I especially like the Groundless Speculation spoiler!), and I agree that a certain kind of Necromancer just wont fit in PF2’s paradigm.

While the playtest Necromancer is definitely necromantic, it definitely isn’t what I want to play, and isn’t how I want to play it. I’ve seen posts suggesting that the playtest necromancer “fulfills the fantasy” and even is akin to the Guild Wars necromancer in every way. Except, in the latter case, every way except the most important: the Guild Wars necromancer actually turned defeated enemies into corpses whereas there is no tacit connection between felling foes and rasing them as undead for the playtest Necromancer. Currently, thralls are….unsatisfying apparitions that emerge from the necromancer’s power and apparently have connection to dead creatures, but not necessarily recently and not sufficiently identified.
So there is a major disconnect between killing and raising. Yet, there is sufficient narrative and mechanical design space that has explored this before. Dreamscarred Press’ Akashic Veils product for first edition Pathfinder (interestingly enough the lead designer of which was….Michael Sayre) introduced the Black Templar that had a 3rd level ability called… create husk:
Black Templar, Create Husk wrote: Starting at 3rd level, the black templar can transform his victims into shambling husks under his control. Whenever a black templar reduces an opponent to 0 or fewer hit points with his drain essence ability, he can take 1 point of essence burn to transform the defeated opponent into a zombie under his control. The zombie has a number of hit die equal to the base creature. The zombie may act immediately on the templar’s turn and moves and attacks as the templar directs. The darkened energy empowering the zombie fades quickly however, and after a number of hours equal to the templar’s class level plus his Constitution modifier the zombie becomes an inanimate corpse. This is not in any way to suggest that PF2 would or could in any way encompass such an ability - the constraints of companions in PF2 are such that if, for example, you have two animal companions, you can only have one active at any one time and any other/s are “nearby, foraging” or similar. And I get it, minionmancy can be terrible for groups where endless minions not only bog the battlegrid but also soak up all of everyone’s precious time, and PF2 has made the concept anathema.
But the point is that, for a Necromancer akin to Guild Wars, or any dark fantasy involving slaying foes and raising them to fight their own friends, this playtest Necromancer completely fails. And that should at least be acknowledged, whether or not that is important to you.
Another odd thing about the playtest Necromancer is that folks have rightly pointed out, that, given this lack of connection between slaying and raising, the playtest Necromancer could just as easily be reflavored to just about any minion-esque hordemancer - apart from undead-conversant riders/traits that could be easily washed/rinsed, the essential chassis of creating “thralls” could just as easily be as plants, poles, sprites, spores, dire-floofs or constructs - there isn’t much except flavor going on. And when you remove that flavor, you can see extremly interesting similarities to yet another 3rd party first edition Pathfinder class - the Onmyoji published by Interjection Games, and written by Bradley Crouch. The main schtick of the onmyoji, apart from having a Shikigami familiar (poor playtest Necromancer, no buddy for you!) and an interesting array of both arcane and divine cantrips, was the placing of talismans on the battlefield that have….various…powers. And the talismans have no actions, and while having HP they can easily be destroyed and, in the case of the ofuda talismans, don’t….move. So…hauntingly… familiar:
Onmyoji, Interjection Games wrote: Both ofuda and omamori talismans never allow saving throws. A talisman of any kind has hardness equal to the onmyōji's Wisdom modifier and hit points equal to three times the onmyōji's class level. Melee attacks made against an ofuda talisman are automatically successful, while melee attacks made against an omamori talisman are automatically successful if the subject of the talisman is willing to have its talisman struck; otherwise, the attack is made against an AC of the touch AC of the subject +2. Ranged attacks are made against an AC of 9 if the target is an ofuda talisman or an omamori talisman worn by a willing subject, or made against an AC of the touch AC of the subject +2 if the subject is unwilling. Onmyoji, Interjection Games wrote:
Ofuda: Ofuda talismans were originally designed to ward entire households at once, keeping out evil spirits and bad luck, or promoting fortune and cheer within its boundaries. Taken out of its traditional home and made a tool for the adventuring onmyōji, ofuda talismans are the gold standard for area warding. When an ofuda talisman is placed on a solid surface in an unoccupied 5 foot square within reach, a standard action, it affects a 10foot radius centered on the talisman. Once placed, an ofuda becomes affixed to that surface and cannot be moved unless it is destroyed or its duration ends.
What is even more all over again kinda weird, are the Omamori:
Onmyoji, Interjection Games wrote:
Omamori:Omamori talismans were originally designed for personal protection, and this translates well to the adventuring profession. When an omamori talisman is placed on a creature occupying a square within reach, a standard action, it affects just that creature. If the creature is not a willing recipient, then the onmyōji must make a melee touch attack. If successful, the talisman is affixed to the subject and cannot be removed unless it is destroyed or its duration ends.
which kinda feel like the playtest Runesmith’s rune placement, except, even weirder again, Interjection Games also published a Runesmith class that traced runes (and compound runes at later levels)…though a Runesmith/runecaster isn’t in itself that original, 4e DnD had one…
But I digress…
For me the playtest Necromancer firstly doesn’t even fulfill the most basic narrative trope that I would want to explore of the Necromancer - that I need to kill in order to raise; and secondly it is wifty-wafty in the narrative expression it doespresent, that is also not exactly new, and that even then, is much more suited to a more broad class that doesn’t necessarily even need to be necromantic.
Now I should admit that I love undead and necromancy aspects of fantasy, I was creating undead druid archetypes when the devs at Paizo were adamant that undead=evil, but thankfully that has gradually become more…elastic, and I’m all for it - Book of the Dead is a fantastic narrative thing for Golarion in my opinion, if not the game mechanics within for Pathfinder 2R. The skeleton ancestry feels half-baked. The options mostly feel underwhelming. And so, the playtest Necromancer is a great disappointment. Don’t get me wrong, I feel it is an exciting playtest class, just one that a) doesn’t make we want to play it, at least not as a Necromancer and b) feels like a retread of old ideas that should perversely belong to a different class entirely, perhaps one that can have a necromantic archetype.
And perhaps I should add that the first Necromancer I saw mechanically statted up as a Necromancer was in a White Dwarf ADnD adventure in the early 80’s (though the stats were somewhat haphazard as befit the times…). So there’s a history behind what I “see” and a depth to what I “want”, and this playtest Necromancer doesn’t cut it.
I don’t want ersatz “thralls” that I conjure out of thin air to act as stationary “attack points”, I don’t desire to try to line three opponents up to turn my conjured thin air “skeleton” into a bony blade and attempt to strike them in a piercing line, I’m not interested in turning my blob-bags into explodobombs every time I get to the end of my turn.
I’d like to draw power from death, to enervate and curse and riddle my enemies with chaotic choleric pustules or cover them in dread spiders that gradually drain their life force. Yes, there are similar spells and abilities even in the playtest, but the focus, as so far presented, has a “schtick” that I won’t enjoy. Thralls are completely unsatisfying. As a whole the playtest necromancer feels totally…well, completely necromantic to be sure - it definitely hits *most* of the death…notes….but I have to say I’m disappointed.
Which leads me to think that this really does have the mechanical chassis to be something more, but was chosen to be Necromantic because of “Impossible” reasons. This is the Impossible playtest, and for some reason, that undisclosed future publication will require a Runesmith and a Necromancer.
As for what I’d personally like, in case anyone is interested: more of a gish, in the same way that oldskool Dragon Warriors fabulous Warlock class were: Medium armor, actual martial competence - while I applaud the designer’s attempts at providing *some* support for gish-like prowess it appears to fail miserably, and ultimately, too late. In terms of “necromancy” I’d like some tacit undead rather than thralls, and more focus on dread powers and a connection between the necromancer and actually, you know, raising the dead. Baleful, draining auras that drain the living and fuel my powers. None of this might fit PF2’s paradigms, and some would find having to wait to kill enemies supremely unfulfilling (though you might keep them for at least a small time, like say…the next battle) and some folks will see a gish Necromancer as unfulfilling. We each have our own opinion and desires. This playtest Necromancer is not mine.
I do wonder if the strictures of Pathfinder 2R’s balance and elegant design are to me, a straitjacket that stifles truly engaging or inspiring class design, or if conversely, I wish for too much from the system (or something just thematically different - I hear that the kineticist is inspired, but I have no interest in it at all) - I imagine it is a little of column A and little of column B. But I haven’t liked any of the six classes in these past three playtests. And I would have liked to play a Necromancer in PF2R.
Was there not also an issue where the Commander couldn’t assist the kineticist/kineticist couldn’t take advantage of Commander abilities during the Battlecry playtest? Or was that not so much the Kineticist and more the wording of the Commander ability?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Trip.H wrote: GameDesignerDM wrote: Hey, can we stop assuming what Paizo is doing, has done, or has 'lost', or whatever? It's all mostly speculation, anyway.
It's unproductive, and its stuff like this that makes ANY dev not want to engage with the community.
The whole damn point is that it IS productive to discuss negative feedback. And it is necessary to confront and deal with negative things instead of pretending they don't exist. Because eventually, pretending becomes impossible, and you get situations like "where did this dev go?" where a potential PR disaster is averted only because of the fast reflexes of some employee making a snap decision to stop the buildup of rumor milling right when the post starts going viral.
Again, even NASA struggles against this "no-negativity" mask issue. But ignoring the problems, pressuring people to self-censor against negative feedback, only makes things worse because real problems do not fix themselves.
The reason why negative feedback seems to clog up the forums is because it IS clogging up the forums. Clog, as in a backlog of untreated and unfixed problems that Paizo knows about, but refuses to so much as *admit* they know about them, let alone do something to help lessen them.
Yep, the “no-negativity” is so prevalent as to be stifling. It really feels like more open engagement would at least clear the air. Many times. Instead of endlessly blaming the community, the people who post here in the hopes of better dialogue, as being toxic and speculative.
I can be terse and dismissive at times, but I truly wish for Pathfinder 2R to be the best it can be. And it seems that often Paizo doesn’t care enough about that and would rather it be “mostly functional” except where a) we know there’s an error and b) we’ve published more content that accumulates the known error of a). And that seems…like malfeasance. I’m not sure how else to put it, and I’m not being toxic, or attempting to be.
Fix the known errors. Don’t exacerbate them. To me that seems like a baseline, not an especial bonus.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thanks for the kind words Trip H. I and others have been decrying the strange process of just bulldozing on through with shiny new instead of fixing the glaring errors for…years at this stage. And the usual folks keep justifying it for Paizo that “new content is necessary to pay the bills”. But where is such obvious abrogation of essential quality control “necessary”?
The prevalence of Necrotic Bomb use is a bit…narratively underwhelming. I guess, when mapped to an RPG being a Necromancer, turning your undead minions into exploding void-stuff makes sense, but it definitely feels very video-gamey. And much more akin to an Alchemist lobbing a different kind of bomb. Creat your thrall, have them attack and then…at the end of your turn…when well positioned between a bunch of enemies…blammo. And…repeat.
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Well, it would be great if someone would step in and say “yes, we are definitely looking at including gemeral out of combat functionality for Necromancer’s undead (whether thrall or otherwise) akin to a Kineticist’s Base Kinesis” but I’m not expecting that given the trajectory of successive playtests. So really all I would have hoped for was a post to say “Hi, we’re really excited and hope you are too. Try not to x, don’t bother to y and here’s to having some Impossible fun.” or a more individual post stickied at the top of each class for the individual dev in charge to keep track of really, glaringly superduper important changes or keep us informed of same. Iunno, it certainly helped before.
As to it being close to Christmas, that isn’t really that meaningful either. Either you organise to commit, when it works, or you…don’t. Otherwise, do it after Christmas. When you can.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
keftiu wrote: It's right there on the blog, just like every other playtest launch post has been. Please, try checking the place Paizo has always posted their communications before acting like the walls are closing in. No, that’s the “Welcome to the Playtest” blogpost. Which every playtest has. And which is usually linked to the Playtest General Discussion, but hasn’t been. But generally there is a separate post, either in this subforum, or in each of the particular class subforums to say hi, lay out some expectations and ground rules for what the devs do and don’t want.
I’ve read the blogpost. That’s how I got to the playtest forum. But there was no thread in the Playtest General Discussion subforum. I think that is…new.
If anything, it isn’t that the walls are closing in, it’s that the place is….deserted. It’s not a good feeling.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I find it odd that there isn’t a welcome thread here in General Discussion from James Case or even Joshua Birdsong. Given the number of posts from either developer during the last playtest could be counted on a few hands, I’m also not surprised. Also given that the playtest doc confirms that:
Impossible Playtest wrote: We don’t expect to release any changes during the playtest itself, only in the final book, but keep an eye out for a blog or two after the playtest period where we might debrief some of our observations! I feel the nature of playtests is becoming more and more opaque. Perhaps Paizo have decided that the cost benefit analysis is that a lighter dev hand during playtests is favourable, and that engaging in minutiae is just not worth their time. Or it could be argued that there just isn’t the time available, which begs the question - why commit to something you can’t commit to?
Regardless, it feels a little lonely and empty without at least a welcome thread and a few housekeeping comments to at least guide some of the chaos. Even some guidance as to posting writeups of *actual playtests conducted* perhaps here in the Playtest General forum so the devs can easily find them.
And finally, given the disappearance of Michael Sayre as the “Director of Rules and Lore” without any kind of community notice I feel a little more bereft. What is going on at Paizo?
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
willfromamerica wrote: Didn’t he just become Director of Rules and Lore this year? The titles at the back of the Playtest credit Adam Daigle as “Director of Narrative” and Joe Pasini as “Lead Designer (Games)” with James Case and John Compton as “Lead Developers”. So there has been some shakeup. Hard to tell when Michael’s position as “Director of Rules and Lore” ended with reagrd to (before/during?) the development of this Impossible Playtest.
I hope Michael is ok. We’ve had our disagreements (usually during playtests!) over the years, but I have always found him to be an incredibly gifted designer and thoughtful and well-intentioned “explainer of things” whether they be design intent, game mechanics and their associated consequences/reasoning or just…life.
I don’t know about power creep, but there is definitely some mission creep in this thread. Anyone have anything further to say about the Exemplar Archetype?!?
Well, in the absence now, after 250+ posts, of official engagement; and as the self-nominated reverse shill of Paizo, I feel it is incumbent upon me to say something egregious in the hope that Michael Sayre pops in to patiently and cleverly correct my wild accusations, show some of the elegance of the behind the scenes math and generally introduce the deeper conceptual thinking that created what I obviously misconstrue as “borked”. So here goes:
“Perhaps the reason the Exemplar (and the dedication/archetype!) is so gosh-darned popular is because it is completely broken.”
(Sadly I am only a first level reverse shill, so I can only attempt summon Michael Sayre once per thread, and I’ve never really tried it *on purpose* before. Hope it works, because usually he presents some pretty interesting, well thought out stuff that folks wouldn’t otherwise be privy to except maybe on reddit or someone’s insta….)
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Blave wrote: If you have issues with the class itself and its balance, maybe take that to a separate thread? The thread title says “input welcome”. I think, given the link is to something that both a guide AND a review, and “in progress” at that all points of view are fairy useful here.
@GM Glynn - can you switch this game to Inactive so it doesn’t show up in my active games…

Aristophanes wrote: Tactical Drongo wrote: OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote: Gnomes, dwarves and halflings.
Leshy, goblins, poppets and shoony.
Gnomish flickmaces.
Elves called Anthony, or Justin or Frances.
All banned.
I get shoony and kinda everything behind it
but why ban half the core races? This is just a guess on my part, but I surmise that it's because those Ancestries tend to bring out the..."Whimsical" side of some players, which can be disruptive if the GM is trying to run a more serious campaign. Aristophanes is closest. I just…don’t like the way people play them. I would say that almost every halfling I’ve ever played alongside was a cheery git who liked food, jokes and had a rustic double-barreled surname that contained at least some pipe, food or drink noun. Bonus points for being a bard. Almost every dwarf was a dour proud alcholic warrior either hidebound or exiled by clan and had a double-barreled surname that contained at least some anvil, ale/drink, forge, fire, ore or metal in the surname. Bonus points for Scottish accent or general Scottishness. Almost every Pathfinder gnome I’ve played alongside was an eccentric quixotic natterer wearing ridiculous outfits and had a first name that was completely ridiculous and a surname that repeated three to four syllables and also burnt my retinas. Bonus points for being an Illusionist caster of some kind.
It’s not just that they are…goofy, but incredibly stale tropes.
Goblins are often numbskulled “savages” with “funtimey” misunderstandings. I like the real-Earth mythology of Leshy, but here everyone plays them as some kind of botanical idiot-savants. I have a penchant for vegepygmies from old ADnD (and definitely not as illustrated in the PF1 Bestiary) and would allow one over a leshy. Inability to speak and all. Puffs of pheromones anyone?
Sure all these things are thematic. And can be reskinned. I guess both mechanics and themes are to me interrelated, and my point (somewhat abbreviated above) that “modern GMs are afraid to change the game” is actually this whole thing put in practice. I’m not afraid to excise half the core races because I hate them. The books are guidelines for how to run the exact game you want to run, and don’t be afraid to do that.
Now if you had a different take on dwarves, halflings and gnomes, or goblins or leshy then sure, I’m all ears. Poppets probably got thown in there in a fit of pique, but they might work.
But not shoony. And not gnomish flickmaces (have you actually seen what that looks like, and how it is supposed to…work? I care not for how jank the mechanics are…it’s the optics….) and no elves with a name you might see at your local bowling alley. I was going to say “no Samurai called Jack” (as a nod to my displeasure at Elves called Anthony), which actually comes from an ancient Dragon magazine article whose title was “Whaddaya mean Jack the Samurai?” but then someone made a cartoon called… Samurai…Jack.
|