Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I'm sorry but WHAT?!?!
I've only ever seen you sitting down behind a GM screen or doing lore interviews! I had no idea you were 6 foot 7 inches! You just blew my mind!
How the system pushes a personality onto your character. In 1st edition I can't tell you how many PC's made by my friends didn't have a background or personality. Now you have to choose a background as well as have spaces on your character sheet to talk about yourself which I will definitely be making my players fill out each time
You're missing the point. If bullets are so fast that you can't dodge them, as you keep saying, then it shouldn't matter if you are in motion because even if you are you can't dodge them according to you.
Also dragon fire breath isn't instantaneous yet still goes against reflex. Reflex is being used as a way to calculate how good you are in avoiding something, ie how hard you are to hit ie if the thing touches you, you take damage.
A simple way to resolve it is have firearms work in the following way. You roll to attack, targeting the opponents reflex DC for a standard save. If the target is unaware of you or flat footed treat the attack as one degree of success better for the purposes of resolving the hit.
Get out of here with your common sense!
Touch AC is 10+DEX+Size... If bullets are too fast to dodge then you shouldn't be adding Dex to your AC against it because Dex represents you actively trying to dodge it. This isn't that hard to understand.
No I believe reflex is the closest thing we can get to touch and that it creates a weapon which feels very different from bows or crossbows which should be the goal if you are adding guns to your fantasy game otherwise what's the point?
Following your logic that it's hard to dodge bullets, I can assume that you think guns in PF1E should ignore both armor and Dex to AC cause bullets go through armor and it's too hard to dodge them. Meaning all guns just have to beat 10 +/- the size effect on AC in 1st edition.
I can't speak for objects but you're thinking of "basic saves" which follow the
Critical Success=No damage
Not all saves follow that formula and for balance reasons a gun shouldn't either because it means you're always dealing d6 worth of damage which is too strong.
In 1E maybe but just using one randomly would mean you are untrained so it would be 10+Dex. The most Dexterous person with a gun would have a 14 DC. A skeleton which is a -1 CR creature has a +8 to reflex. Meaning they only have to roll a 6 or higher and that's against someone with an 18 in Dex...
Seems pretty great to me since like I said on a success they don't take damage because you would have missed.
If you aren't happy with the numbers (cause you think it's not extreme enough or isn't in Celsius), then just use the descriptions as a baseline.
Your party is in Irrisen? Determine where they are and how much you want the cold to be a challenge. Maybe if they are in the southern part of Irrisen it's normal because you don't want survival to be a big part of the campaign so you only take minor cold in the most northern parts. Maybe you do in which case the southern part is minor cold and the farther north you go it gets colder.
It isn't rocket science. Truthfully though as someone who lives in a temperate area with cold winters and hot summers, this seems pretty accurate.
I know devs said they were looking at them for being heritages. I'm okay with the elemental races and Dhampir being that...
But pleeeaaase don't do that to Aasimar and Tiefling! If they are heritages then they won't get heritages and you won't be able to choose what type you are. A kyton Tiefling and qlippoth Tiefling should be different just like an archon Aasimar and azata Aasimar should be. I know that any race can be them but reducing both to heritages would be so disappointing. If they want to make each possible fiend or celestial type a heritage I would be okay with that though but if you look at blood of fiends, most are so different looking from their parent race on the Tiefling side it would be weird for them to be just heritages
I imagine it can be handwaved/knocked down a level if taking proper precautions (nice airy clothes, lots of water, staying in shade). You'd have probably something around 10-15 hp (human+class HP+Con) so if average is 3.5 damage without proper damage you could be outside for 30-40 minutes before suffering adverse effects. I don't live in Arizona but seems accurate to me. Especially since you don't drop dead but instead enter a dying state.
Rogue's favored skill boost can be Dex, Str or Cha. Happy it's based on your racket and not just always Dex. I hope we eventually see rackets for the other 3 stats. Something like a lookout for Wis, informant/intelligence agent for Int and a Con version which I don't have a name for but it seems silly to leave out a singular stat.
If Pathfinder 1 classes are eventually trickled back into second edition, which do you hope return first?
I imagine playing a champion could work very well. Ultimately, being solely defensive can make combat a little difficult, but being a combat medic using Lay on Hands and using a shield to defend allies could work very easily. Your milage may very
I think fighter gets a bonus to shields so redeemer champion for armor mutliclassed into Fighter for the best probably. You could boost con and dex too
The order says it will expire on July 10th (a week after I ordered it) is that normal or not?
It might be terrible but it should be possible and it definetly was possible for the last 10+ years even before pathfinder and even through 5e.
It's still very possible. Complaining that getting bonuses to using a longbow also gives you bonuses to a certain type of melee weapon is like complaining you were given a free pizza. At worst just don't eat the pizza, at best make some room for that pizza.
It honestly seems like the person I was replying too wants their cake and to eat it too. "I want to be hyper-focused on 3 things but if I have viable options besides those 3 things I won't be happy" is such an odd complaint.
I can't remember who said it but this reminds me of a favorite quote I have. "Don't build a concept. Build a character". You can have a Elf who likes longbows and wildshape but that should be an afterthought, not the identity of the character. Focusing on hyper specific builds who do things A, B and C and only A, B and C is a terrible way to play RPG's. That's just my 2 cents anyway.
As far as Giants are concerned, human bones aren't strong enough for something that size and weight. Also I once got an RPG book about how fantasy races would deal with various illnesses and assuming everything is scaled up for 20 foot tall Giants, they would be prone to strokes cause the human heart wouldn't work efficiently enough at that size.
Back to the topic, Im not that well versed in the diety specific channels in 1e, what did they do exactly?
You can read them below
Some are definitely better than others but it was always a hard choice of do I want to heal/control undead or do I want this cool effect? I think making them class feats based on your deity where you could then channel your original energy and your variant version by spending a feat would be awesome.
I know we're 7 months from release for this book but I need to just throw this out there. I would love for variant channeling to make a comeback and this would be the perfect book to do it in. In case you aren't aware of what variant channeling was in 1E, at first level as a Cleric you could choose if you wanted to channel energy in the traditional sense or you could choose a different effect based on your dieties domain.
With an exhaustive list of Gods coming, I'd like to see this fun little option make a return but as a class feat you could take which would have the requirements of channel energy, worshipping a specific deity for each choice and level.
I'd like everyone else's thoughts on if this should make a return or not.
How is this copying 5E? I'd love to see you actually try and defend such a ridiculous statement.
I took other as meaning you could choose any alignment to be boosted but Dex is the preferred for most Rogues.
Strength works for the Enforcer style Rogue, Dexterity for the thief, intelligence for the Rogue who can do anything, wisdom for the street smart/perceptive Rogue and charisma for the Rogue who is a face for his group. The only one I can't think of is Constitution but you could lump that in with enforcer, even if you don't maybe they realized Rogue can fit 5/6 and just shrugged and gave Rogue the option to boost any skill which would be neat for the Rogue to have
It's cool they added both gender and pronouns to the character sheet since I remember a lot of discussion over what was the correct choice to include and with this I hope it satisfies both groups of people.
(Still hoping against all odds that core rulebook uses they/them for all pronouns cause it's gender neutral and can include a group if being read aloud even if it's not grammatically correct)
I would like Dhampir to be a heritage that you can add to any ancestry. It would act similarly to half elf/orc where you could take any ancestry feat from your base ancestry or from the Dhampir which would have feats related to vampirism.
As far as Tiefling and Aasimar, it's a little complicated
They are half ancestries. You choose Aasimar or Tiefling first, then you choose a heritage which tells you what type of fiend or celestial you are related too. Each heritage gives you a specific ability tied to that parent outsider race as well as 1 stat getting +2 and another getting -2. Then you choose a second ancestry that is not an outsider race and a second heritage. You apply the stat bonuses and penalties of that ancestry. You don't get access to a first level ancestry feat however as a trade off. The next time you gain an ancestry feat you can choose from either ancestry. The Tiefling and Aasimar would both have feats related to just being a Tiefling of Aasimar as well as ones tied directly to the unique heritage you chose for them, preferably represented by a feat line.
I can't read anything (though I have a basic idea of what is what). Gotta say, hate the colors. It almost hurts my eyes to look all the dark blue and brown. I would have much preferred the coloring of either 1e or the playtest.
That's assuming this is the official version and not just a recreation of what the official looks like in Portuguese. Which it could very well be.
If it is the official official version then I won't be too hurt cause I used the filter on my phone to see it in black and white and it looks decent in that color.
and also add it to Hero Point rerolls (we're not talking number of hero points here, just the rolls).
Now that's an idea I love! You get 1 hero point at least every session meaning it will always be useful but it's not way stronger than every other passive ability the other stats have.
oh yes i really want a occult race peharps a kind of Mind Flayer specialised in telepathic power. Perhaps wizard of the coast can join pathfinder to make her product made of this second edition and Illithid becoming a player race.
I don't think WOTC will ever let Paizo touch their special monsters. That said Munavri already fit this and aren't evil.
Not gonna lie, I'm kinda nervous still
I would either flip it +2 STR, +2 WIS and -2 INT since I always figured wisdom was a sort of street smarts and the makes more sense for Orcs imo
Or you could get crazy and give Orcs +2 STR, +2 CON and -2 INT
Am I the only one here who likes the idea of magical +1's? I see it in 2 ways.
Scenario 1: As loot. Would you rather find an expert quality blade or a blade forged and then magically enchanted to become harder and always sharp? Second one sounds cooler imo
Scenario 2: Realism. Yeah yeah I know it's a fantasy game but a non-magical sword wouldn't retain it's +3 forever as it would slowly dull or weaken due to combat. With magic you can wave your hand and say it never decreases in quality
That does stink but on the upside, we may get a monstrous races book that adds stuff like minotaurs and ogres but expanded to have various heritages and ancestry feats
My group actually just picked up a resin 3d printer too and I gotta say, I'd love for official Paizo STL files. There are plenty of goblin files out there but only a handful are the iconic bobble headed pyromaniacs I've come to love. Dragons too would be great since Paizo dragons all have different, unique, features on them that set them apart from others tabletop dragons
I like the idea a lot actually and right off the bat I can think of an easy example. You could choose a neutral champion or if split into how I would prefer it an Arbiter and then decide if you want to focus on protecting nature or serving pharasma. Both fit a N champion/Arbiter very well and realistically would be VERY different from each other
Moving the discussion on Champions from the what classes do you want thread to this thread to make sure we didn't get too off topic on the old thread. I will restate my position here for ease of continuing said discussion.
Firstly, the name for neutral class would be Guardian. LN sub-class would be Gray Paladin. N sub-class would be Arbiter. CN sub-class would be Renegade. The name for the evil class would be conquerer. LE sub-class would be Tyrant. NE sub-class would be Defiler. CE sub-class would be Antipaladin.
Currently it seems the intent of the champion class is to add 6 more subclasses to the class. One for each alignment which is currently not represented in the CRB.
I think taking that route would be at best a missed opportunity and at worst an error that causes a lot of headache for future players and GM's.
Keeping the same core class means skills, HP and presumably proficiency will all remain the same across each class. Whether you are a CG liberator or a LE Tyrant (assuming that would be the name as it's the name of the LE Paladin in first edition) you'll have the same HP and skills as your opposite. This would make all champion subclasses feel similar. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to you but right off the bat you are limiting future creativity. Assuming the sub-classes don't have all those core stats the same, then why even put them in the same umbrella in the first place as that could cause even more confusion?
Of course each sub-class in this case has a unique special ability. I expect non-good alignment sub-classes to also do the same. A problem arises with class feats however. Currently we only know 2 champion feats. Blade of Justice and Divine Reflexes. Blade of Justice is unique to the Paladin sub-class however divine reflexes can be taken by a LG, NG or, CG champion currently and when other alignment sub-classes are added they will gain access to the feat as well. Divine Reflexes being able to be taken by a LN, LE, CE or CN champion isn't a big deal. Mechanically it fits them each and the word divine isn't limited to good guys. However if there is another feat which has no limitations on which subclass can take it but is obviously meant for good aligned people, it could be used by CE Antipaladins. Since all 3 current champion sub-classes are linked by Good, I can safely bet there will be a good ability that isn't sub class orientated.
Finally, the page clutter. If the options for non-good champions are made in an Advanced Players Guide style book then abilities to create a full class will be presented alongside 5 other sub-classes info and may be presented alongside more if in said book they add more good champion abilities. Each book after would also see options for sub-classes paired alongside each other making people flip through extra pages when building a champion.
All this would be alleviated by simply having a neutral class with a LN, N and CN sub-class and an evil class with a LE, NE and CE class. I can't even see problems with this approach either. It would even keep class archetypes and dedications for the 3 classes simple as well.
Is there a need for neutral champions? Like even if you are a divinely empowered representative of a neutral deity, all of the neutral deities allow for good or evil clerics.
I see it as fighting against the opposite alignment. LN gets bonuses against all chaotic creatures, CN gets bonuses against all Lawful creatures. If true N is represented, maybe they can choose to keep balance between law and chaos and get bonuses against them or good and evil and get bonuses against them? There bonuses would have to be weaker though since it covers a wider group then everyone else (or they have a stricter paladin code?)
Lay on hands is future proofed but is every current paladin class feature future proofed as well? If it is then it isn't a big deal but if it isn't then I think we need to split it up for simplicity
It's no extra bookkeeping than any other added class. Once you have the framework for the classes, you release feats just as easily as if it was all under champion.
Creating different classes for each let's you change up the proficiencies to make each more unique then if they were all mixed together.
The current champion doesn't have requirements based on alignment, meaning you would have to reprint the CRB to make sure all initial Champion abilities are tied to Good or release an addendum. Both of those would require extra bookkeeping. Or you can let any alignment take any feat in which case you may end up with CE antipaladin having the blade of Justice class feat which seems really odd.
Names are easy though
Guardian for the Neutral class.
Conquerer for the evil class.
It's easy to say "just pick the obvious good feats" but many people will choose what's optimal or what's cool. Your solution doesn't give any reason why it's a good idea to not split up the 3 alignments, it's just a messy solution you want for seemingly no reason. I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see why you wouldn't split it up into 3 classes