Lunar Naga

Phantasmist's page

107 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cellion wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

I guess that between the "radically redesign PF1 so it's really more like Path of War + Kirthfinder" people, the "adjust 10 random tiny things that don't really make much difference from PF1" folks and the "keep everything as it is, the game is perfect" tribe with the first two groups splintered further into subgroups of different takes on changes, making a commercially viable update of PF1 wasn't really feasible.

Which, maybe, will help people understand why PF2 is basically a completely different game.

Yeah, that "What would you want in PF1.5" thread was enlightening. While there were some commonalities, everyone had their own pet peeve or area for improvement. No wonder Paizo wanted to wipe the slate clean and not come in with as much baggage.

Funny thing is I see it completely different then that. Pet peeves aside I noticed a very clear trend. Other then the action system nobdy (unless I missed something/a post) wanted about 90% of the changes that came with pathfinder 2e. To me this is important, noby wanted feat catogories, nobody wanted proficency levels, nobody wanted the new skill system, nobody wanted the pathfinder 2e archetype system, nobody wanted the new spell-casting system. There's more, the new critcal hit system, the new dying system, and likely more still.

What people are clearly agreeing upon is the generalties, balance is bad, classes need more skill points (selection), the action system needs some investigation, we should investigate feats (again balance problems).

To me the is a very clear message, I don't want pathfinder 2e, and knowling what people don't want, along with the general commonalities actually is painting a picture to me. I just don't have the time or resources to make it.

Funny thing is I thought about doing this before, I even gave it a shot with a test group and one play session. In my case I replaced the d20 with a d30. I won't go into the reasons why, lets just say if you investigate the math the d30 has advantages.

In any case I made many notes about the change and it didn't effect gameplay as much as you might think. But, the test-player's all kinda shrugged, they didn't see why the change. None of them thought it ruined the game, they just found it pointless. I guess it was lost on them. Anyway to me the ogl is classes, feats, skills, the fantasy setting, elves (dwarves, gnomes), open mutliclassing & and lots of crunchy rules. Not a d20. Seems like others disagree.

Ok, lets see.

Combat expertise
I would outright change this to work with fighting defensibly. Fighting defensively typically give you a +2 to AC in exchange for a -4 to hit. With this feat you now get a +4 to AC in exchange for a -2 to hit. No int 13 prerequisite. Done.

Improved disarm
No combat expertise prerequisite, change bonus to +4.

Improve feint
No combat expertise prerequisite.

Improved Trip
No combat expertise prerequisite, change bonus to +4.

Whirlwind attack
No prerequisites feats keep dex 13 and bab +4.

Stand still
No combat reflexes prerequisite.

Two weapon fighting
Drop the prerequisite to dex 13. I'm tired of seeing nothing but dex base build.

Improved two-weapon fighting
prerequisite of two weapon fighting and +3 bab.

Guess could keep going but I'll stop for now, most people can see where I'm going with this anyway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.

Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.

Can't see the poll at all. Do I need to log in with either twitter or facebook?

The options were:

Fighters need to form weapons out of their minds (my thought: that would be a perfectly good archetype but should not be a defining feature)
Theme that gives it various class options (i.e. sorcerers bloodlines, wizards schools) (my thought: a nice idea, but would require us to come up with lots of other ideas to fill out the options)
Fighters need something else (answered in the comments below)
Keep it the way it is in the Core Rulebook
Fighters need area effect abilities (my thought: I think that should be an option for martials but it doesn't fix the narrative disparity issue)
Fighters need more to do outside of combat (my thought: yes, but what?)
Add a point system (i.e. monk ki points or magus's pool) (my thought: Fighters should be simple. They're the traditional choice for players who want a character with very few rules.)
Fighters need to be effective no matter what weapon they have (or even no weapon at all) (my thought: A somewhat good idea. Maybe the 'specialist in one weapon group' core fighter should be an archetype.)

Personally, I would like Fighters to have lots of skill points so they can do stuff outside of combat. I'd like there to be less of an incentive to dump Charisma (Charisma saving throws?) so they're not automatically bad at talking. I'd like spells to be less good at making skills obsolete. And I'd like martials in general not to be reliant on 'stand still and full attack'. D&D 5e has 'make your attacks at any point in your movement' and that seems to work fine.

Thanks for the information.

Fighters need to form weapons out of their minds
Sounds a little to supernatural for a fighter, but I could see an improvise weapon ability that would allow a fighter to make a weapon out of say a broken table leg.

Theme that gives it various class options.
The bonus feats and weapon/armor specialization already do this in a way (at least if I'm understanding it correctly). Just making these options better would be a big help.

Fighters need something else.
I would say the ability to toy with their opponent, My earlier comment about the staredown ability would be along these lines. That would be narrative control to a certain degree. Fixing the combat maneuver system would help in this regard too. For some reason I like the idea of the fighter being able to deny you (lock out) a certain action. Like say the hobgoblin wants to make a move towards the parties rogue for an attack, and the fighter says nope, not while I'm targeting you it's not happening. Sorry if I'm not making sense.

Fighters need more to do outside of combat.
A must is increasing skill points, fighter's should be a secondary skill monkey, in line with the ranger. Diplomacy, knowledge (local & world), sense motive, search & spot added to the class skill list are a must in my opinion.

Add a point system.
Not feeling it, sorry, but I just think it doesn't fit the fighter thematically.

Well that's my take if Dale is still reading.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a fair number of people are still playing pathfinder 1e. I really do think it's worth a companies time to continue support for the system. It might even be worth it to create a pathfinder 1.5 (I'm not really interested in porphyria, it's too different).

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.

Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.

Can't see the poll at all. Do I need to log in with either twitter or facebook?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this isn't helpful and I'm not trying to insult people's opinion either, but most of the ideas presented (about a theoretical pathfinder 1.5) feel off to me. Like maybe they sound good to the poster, but they lose much of the feel of pathfinder 1e. In my opinion I would want to keep that feel, and one of the most important things to me is to keep the options (bloat if you will). For me no consolidated skill list, no parring down of archetypes, no losing 7-9 level spells, nothing like that. Plus I admit for better or worse I didn't like pathfinder unchained (so nothing from that book).

I would do minor changes to the action system, to incorporate a kind of half move, instead of saying you can move 5' or move 30'. I'd add a third option of moving 15' while still full attacking.

I would increase the number of skill points to 4 minimum per class.

I would keep most feats intact (some would be changed) mostly just lower or eliminate the prerequisites (cutting the feat trees to at most 3 feats).

I would overhaul combat maneuvers to make them more functional.

I'd re-balance the classes, for some reason I want to add the 3.5 samurai ability staredown (the one from complete warrior) to the fighter class. Oh, and mass and improved staredown too.

But my craziest Idea, which I've mentioned before, is eliminating prestige classes and dividing each base class into your choice of two archetypes. Every class would be bare-bones, but they would gain archetype abilities without losing any class features. The archetypes would work on a even/odd level basis (the first archetype would give you a new ability every odd level, the second one every even level.) The class feat system in pathfinder 2e felt to convoluted, this just feels better more inline with 1e rules.

Admittedly, I might not be the best one to create a pathfinder 1.5, but hey it's all of this is just my opinion anyway.

The one benefit I can see in all of this. I can picking up books I missed, mostly 3rd party ones, at discount too. Not only the sales going on, but also private sellers on Ebay. So books I passed on for others over the years, now I have a chance to get those books as well.

I mostly GM anymore, but I do still play on occasions. Still I guess I always preferred hybrid classes. Ones with a little spell-casting and some combat abilities to boot. Like the ranger, paladin & bloodrager. I always liked the cavalier over the fighter class (but only played one for a short time). For a couple of years I played a summoner on and off again, loved the eidolon, so customizable.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can definitely say it feels like something has died, which feels a bit of a shame, like there was still potential there. However, I can fully see why paizo's would want to move on after all theses years. It's a clean start for them, and overtime there has been a lot of complaints about those old rules.

I really just didn't like pathfinder 2e. I could go on forever on how I hated the double cost of proficiency and skill feats, and I just hated the new magic system. Further I actually feel that the new action system, isn't all that great.

But what do I know, absolutely nothing that's what. This is what people wanted so paizo's provided it. It makes sense. Hey, if I didn't have a full-time job and other things in my life, I would grab a few like-minded individuals and start a pathfinder 1.5. But, I just can't think of anyway to fit it into my scheduled. Plus, my ideas tend to be a little out there, if anyone read the ideas I posted during last years play-test.

What can I say, I guess all good things must come to an end. And, now I got to head out to work, sigh.

^ Thanks for letting me know. Now I'm thinking of passing on it right now.
I think my problem is I would have been receptive to a revised version of pathfinder, looks like we'll never have that now. Oh well, there's always house rules.

Thanks for the review. unfortunately, admittedly your review left me with mixed feelings.

While the changes to feats, and using skill points to buy proficiencies sounds great. I'm genuinely intrigued by the idea. The changes to BAB, the reduced skill list (a pet peeve of mine), and much of the book being based after pathfinder unchained (A paizo product I didn't like), seems unnecessary. While other changes like to the spell casting system are kinda a mixed bag. Well my feelings are now just mixed. I was hoping for something slightly closer to pathfinder 1st edition.

I also feel like the new races, while interesting ideas, feels to setting specific. And, when I checked out a earlier preview some classes, specifically the druid, where missing. Not sure if it made it into the finally product or is now just a cleric variant.

Don't know still might be worth a pdf download if just to support the company, and steal some ideas.

Guess I'll chime in.

Loved: Like everyone else the wealth of options, but I also really loved that every class sorta did it's own thing, barbarian's raged and had appropriately themed rage powers, paladin's had mercies, fighter's weapon and armor training, the summoner's eidolon and it's evolutions. All of these things worked a little different from one another. Something about making it all into feats (not all of it) takes away all of the character, the charm.

Wanted: I actually prefer 4th level spell full BAB classes like the paladin, ranger & bloodrager, instead of the medium BAB 6th level spell casters. I would have liked to see more of those classes. Also a marshal style class would have been nice. Finally some actual epic level rules and support.

Hated: Pathfinder unchained. Didn't like that particular book as a whole, and since it heralded in pathfinder 2e. I'm just not a fan. Mythic rules, not a fan either would have preferred epic rules instead.

Will miss: The first party support, but as long as third party material keeps coming out, I'll be just fine. Personally I think pathfinder 1e still has about another decade of material in it, no need to move to a new edition.

Good to hear that some companies are supporting 1st edition, I know purple duck games is working on a cleaned up version of 1e, but I wonder if anyone else is.

Anyway I've been doing a little research into pathfinder sales, mostly through ICv2 so far. There has been a drop in pathfinder sales, but I'm not sure how bad it is. 2017 sales still looked good (3rd place overall). Of course I'm likely not seeing the overall picture here, or how bad it actually is, since I'm new to this kind of research. As a footnote fantasy grounds still has the original pathfinder rpg as the second most played game on their VTT.

This thread makes me wonder if my idea, which I presented last year, of stripping all of the classes done to their bare bones and giving each class 2 archetypes advancing in a even level odd level fashion would be well received or not.

Honestly if we discuss changes that seem necessary vs. things we like to keep, for example I would like to keep BAB, a point based skill system, and each class having a distinct resource like rage, chi, smite etc. We maybe able to create our own version of pathfinder 2e. Almost everything paizo creates is open licence so it's usable. It would be a slow project for most of us a part-time endeavor, but why not.

Anyway, for the action system I did have an idea awhile ago about dividing actions (except spell-casting) into 4 distinct and different actions. Attack action, defense action (borrowed form P2), move action & utility action. here is the kicker all of these actions are partial actions and you choose one to become a full action, which means a full attack is the standard multiple attack chart while everything else increases to double it's effectiveness. Like in the case of defense, a higher defense bonus, and move would be you move twice as far. A utility action covers swift and immediate actions and could be used for meta-magic and other feats as well. As for spell-casting (and spell-like abilities), they would always be considered a full action and would replace the attack and defense actions.

Oh well, it's our game at this point. Paizo isn't directly supporting it so the possibilities are open.

I think mostly just some minor clarification and clean up work is all that is really required. Some class/race re-balancing as well. One major change I would make is just outright removal of prestige classes in favor of straight archetypes and base classes.

However, sometimes I think of going a bit farther. I've personally experimented with the idea of rolling a d30 instead of a d20 and even 7 instead of 6 ability scores. Dividing dexterity into two ability scores accuracy and nimbleness.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't posted in a long time, and in truth I've only played 2e twice since I'm not into it. But I'm done, this isn't the game I want, and I hate arguing against people, it's just stressful. No more stress, I'll just stick with what I got. Heck, I don't like anything not even the action system so selling me on anything else is a no go. And, Jason's design goal don't really compel or interest me although I'm not opposed to #5. Good luck to all of you, I'm outa here.

Unfortunately not much interest me, honestly I wouldn't mind a clean slate approach. But here goes nothing.

Racial feats and backgrounds: They need a lot of work but could work. But
I really mean a lot of work. For example I hate that half-elves and half-orcs are not their own separate races.

Maybe the action system, I would like swift actions and full round actions back, but that would make it a very different system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a power gamer and don't care for the new system. But, I've come to accept that people make broad generalizations.

Thanks too everyone so far.

Another minor clarification, when I say accessibility I'm not equating it to play-ability. When I say accessibility is more geared towards making it easier to pick up and play, little preperation, the opposite is something that needs time to prepare more thought and judgement. Think Fate (accessible and playable) vs hero system (not accessible but still playable).

Hope this helps.

Yes, mostly the reliance on symbols and the jumping back and forth from page to page just to understand thing. There's other things too, but those are the big ones.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fury of the Tempest wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
But, accessibility means that there are only 3 actions and a reaction. This interferes with my house rules that I don't want to give up.
... Sorry, but, can you explain this to me? Because I fail to see how the fact there is 3 actions and a reaction not interferes with you implementing your own house rules.

I'm equally confused are you suggesting that I should just drop the action system and all associated mechanics to implement pathfinder 1e system plus my my own house rule. I could do that, yes, then I guess your right. But, why would I want to, why not just stick to what I have and like? You're right, I'm wrong in that it's possible, but why would I?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll admit that pathfinder 1e multi-classing system needed work, but so does this one. Still some like it, so I won't argue to much, but ultimately it's not my cup of tea. Wouldn't mind a complete rewrite.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Fluffy Bunny wrote:

Graystone, would you prefer they continue supporting Pathfinder 1e, or do you think it's approaching a place where they can comfortably say they've "finished" it in as much as you can "finish" a TTRPG?

I know that Pathfinder 2nd edition is quite different and it may not be your cup of tea, which is perfectly fine (the world would be super boring if everyone was the same yeah?). Would you like to see them continue, maybe in a slower fashion, to print new material dedicated for Pathfinder 1e? I know I'll still be playing it for a good long while even if they don't generate new content.

I can see why you might be disappointed if the playtest truly doesn't interest you and your prefered edition is being phased out of the new content schedule. I respect that the new edition isn't neccessarily what you want. If you prefer Pathfinder 1e, I bet you'll still have decades of fun ahead of you even if you never touch another RPG system again. I think we can all celebrate what Pathfinder is after 10 years, even if some of us are ready to try out the next evolution of the game and if 2e isn't for you, that doesn't mean 3e won't catch your eye one day.

Basically, I'm just trying to say if you don't like the playtest and what comes out of it, I hope you still have lots of fun and enjoy gaming with 1e for a long time to come.

The question is for Graystone but if it's alright I'd like to answer, and the simple answer is yes, you hit it on the head. However, there is a caveat to that. I actually still like to experiment, aka house rule. I just like to do so with the 3.5 shell. For example in my house rules you can move your movement -10' when making taking a full round action. The reason I'm pointing this out is because, I like many people here, like to see more movement in combat. This allows a medium sized creature to move 20' and attack, a small sized one 10'. But, I don't like the new action system, even though it should be right up my alley. The reason I don't like it one word "Accessibility". You see in my house rules I use full round action for a lot of thing, also immediate and swift actions too. I also have a defensive action rule which is very similar to reactions. But, accessibility means that there are only 3 actions and a reaction. This interferes with my house rules that I don't want to give up.

Even though, I'm still open to a new and even very different rule set. But, once again accessibility ruins it for me. For instance I would be interested in a very open skill system, one not based around levels. I've even suggested it before. You simply gain skill ranks as you level up, but you can arrange them as you see fit, no class restriction, no skill feats (get to a rank you can do it), nothing extra to buy (like in the case of skill feats), just go for it, the only cap is a max rank say 20 (completely level independent). But, it will never happen, because it's not accessible, the skill system has to work the same way as attack roll, saving throws and so on. Seems to me that accessibility curbs innovation. I can't say I like that.

So much could be said, but I believe that everyone who doesn't like the new rules set has their own reason. It's less of an emotional reaction as people think. I don't think paiso's really thought threw how this going to affect there current player base. I think their main concern is attracting new players. Hence leaving me a bit stumped "Should I stay or should I go", but ultimately there's nothing here for me, or the people I play with. At least if everything stayed the same I could just continue with what I got, even though new ideas or even a second edition isn't necessary a bad thing. Accessibility keeps it from being really innovated, special. That's why I don't like this game, hope you understand.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:

Ok, people keep telling me it's better, but I don't like it, case closed. Sorry if this disagrees with your sensibilities, I don't like the new multi-classing system and don't want to forced into using it.

Stop gaining up on me for having a different play style.

I'm letting my post stand, but I'm not saying the whole ton of feats thing isn't viable, I just don't care for it.

what are you talking about

i'm explaining how spell points replaced 4th level casting and why spell lists were consolidated

in no way or shape i'm mentioning your playstyle

if you liked casting spells as a pally, just get spell points class feats

that's not a playstyle, that's the system

if you like the other system more, it's still there.

I said in a previous post, that I didn't see any alternative way of adding spells to a paladin and ranger other then multi-classing, I even asked if I missed it somewhere. I was told that it's unnecessary because you can multi-class into cleric. If I'm misunderstanding the rule that's my fault, but I honestly believed that was the only way. I honestly missed it saying otherwise.

You have to forgive me, I still in 1e way of doing things and thinking even if I did read the rules last night.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been programmed to say race, so that isn't going to change for a long time, but I think the discussion is ultimately moot since I don't believe Vic is going to reconsider his position, and there are other things that are more pressing. Like that everything is called a feat now. What the heck is up with that.

Mergy wrote:
What is it about the system that goes against your playstyle? Can I ask what is functionally different between trading class abilities for archetype abilities and trading class feats for dedication feats?

It's a fair question, but I just don't know if I like the class feats idea or the way prestige classes work now, since I believe the game is still in flux, they may not make to the end, and I'd rather use 1e multi-classing system (level by level multi-classing) even in if the multi-classing feats stay in it would be easier for me to house rule in the old multi-classing system without having to ad in spell-casting feats for the paladin and ranger.

Basically it makes it easier for me to house rule things I'm not found of, and basically cost you nothing, you can just ignore those feats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, people keep telling me it's better, but I don't like it, case closed. Sorry if this disagrees with your sensibilities, I don't like the new multi-classing system and don't want to forced into using it.

Stop gaining up on me for having a different play style.

I'm letting my post stand, but I'm not saying the whole ton of feats thing isn't viable, I just don't care for it.

I'd rather the option to do both be baked into both of those classes, I'd rather not be forced to multi-class just to play my 1e character who doesn't multi-class.

Anyway, I'd also am mixed on the idea that you will mostly be using your cantrips instead of casting daily spells. 5e does this and pathfinder 1e to some degree but I still used daily cantrips using a house rule of an hour rest to restore a previously cast spell. I also gave casters more low level spells and adjusted spell DC.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's a good thing we all had the courage to step forward and say that the initial reaction is a lacking one, no offense to those who love it. It would have been easier to have said nothing, but this way paizo's sees how everyone stands on the new rules.

Also, I may be the only one but I liked hybrid (4th spell level) casters, why was paladin and rangers spells removed, or did I miss something.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if it is possible to completely gut out this spell system and replace it. It doesn't have to be 1e spell system just something different then this (maybe take a second look at spheres of power). It's seems like a hard sell since the design team seems to be proud of this system, but it's kind of a blah system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azalah wrote:

I'm certainly not a fan of the whole Ancestry mechanic in general. I feel like it's an overly complex replacement for something that should be relatively simple.

Also don't like that Barbarians STILL don't have an unarmored option. C'mon, I can't be the only one that likes bare-chested barbarian hunks.

I find them lackluster.

Honestly the movement issue in 1e could have solved by saying you move 10' less then your max movement when you make a full round attack. That wouldn't have been perfect but that way you'd be able to move and full attack, being stuck with a 5' move, only if you where heavily encumbered, and you still have 4 attacks compared to 3. For me (and only me) that sounds like a better option then what we got here. Anyway, the new action system was more likely created the way it is to attract new players, the reason that about 70-80% of the system is written as it is.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

To Dire Ursus

No offense but if people are having a hard time getting excited about sometime, that is usually because something is making it not exciting. That's not bias, that's a normal human reaction, saying to them something is wrong. I will admit actually playing the game is better still, but I still trust my instincts, as everyone should.

It's life, no mater how much you love something not every is required to do so. Did you you ever hear the saying "One mans fun is another's He.." (Heck, no profanity but I guess you can get the point.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually a little upset to here about the positive feedback with the action system, I don't care for it. I also admit that I'm having a hard time reading the rules, the layout is part of the problem, but it's mostly I'm uninspired by them. I'm trying to work through that, I'm playing for four hours tomorrow. Everyone wish me luck, I have so many concerns, and so do the others I play with.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm having a hard time keeping my own morale up let alone trying to sell the system to someone else. I've read a good proportion of the rule book, but I'm not looking forward to either making a character or running the game. It may play a lot better then it reads, but the layout and seemly weird rules are putting me off.

Apparently Vic said in another thread that the action system has been overwhelmingly well received at the convention play-tests. Not sure how I feel about that since not a huge fan of it, but at the same time it's not the thing that bugs me the most about the new edition.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess I'm in a minority but I would have preferred the reverse of what we got here. Spell-casters can cast a crap ton of spells per day but none are actually majorly powerful. Anyway, I haven't gotten to the spells chapter yet so take my post with a grain of salt.

29 people marked this as a favorite.

the majority of ancestry feats should be upfront at level 1 instead of spread out over 20 levels, I like to think we all deep down inside know this, but for some reason the folks making the game had a moment and simply forgot that it would be sensible to do so.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It really doesn't matter to me since I keep catching myself saying race anyway. I've been trained to say the word for so long by the time I start saying ancestry pathfinder 3rd edition will be out, and maybe then they'll decide to change it back.

Mad Beetle wrote:

Just to re-post my initial post.

Okay, I know that the playtest has not even been out for a day yet, but I need to get this off my chest; I dislike the new way they have done races.
Races are now exceedingly bland, all racial abilities, besides Low-light and Dark-Vision (and that dwarven encumberance ability), are more or less bought with "Ancestry Feats", of which you gain one at first level an then 1 more every four levels (5,9,13,17).
This means, that every person in Golarion is now slowly evolving into their race, instead of starting out as one.
Now, I get that weapon familiarity and other things like that might be more connected to cultural background could be taken as feats, that seems more than fine to me, but having to choose between being trained with dwarven weaponry OR being resistant to poisons just seems a bit off to me.
I get that they have tried to make races less powerful and all that, but it just seems wrong to me, that dwarfs aren´t poison resistent unless they use "Speicies Points" to get it over all the other racial traits that they usually had.
Or that Elves aren´t naturally immune to sleep spells, they have to evolve that ability through adventuring.

Thing is, if you want a character to have the starting racial abilities from 1st Edition, you need to be level 17 to do it. And some races would still not be fully fleshed out.

Now, what I do like about the system; race means something for starting HP and some of the Ancestry Feats are cool and flavorful, I can see quite a potential in the way it is made, I just disagree with the choice to make the races bare-boned and then having to choose between illusion-sense or obsessive for my gnome characters. I´d rather have to choose between starting with a familiar or weapon-training or an expanded spell list based on my race, for example.

Anywho, I´m going back to reading.

I agree with you except the part about racial hit point, which I really don't like the idea of.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Still reading, but I've made it through the ancestries chapter. Put me in the disappointed category, I wonder if anyone would seriously object if half-orc and half-elf became separate ancestries. I don't seem the harm to doing so, and in the long run humans can gain other feat choices that make up for the minor loss in diversity.

Anyway, I'm more disappointed that ancestries seem a lacking at first level. Some of the feats are admittedly interesting, but every race seems too bare bones. I wish I had more choices upfront at 1st level.

Speaking about Mcclain, sometime I personally feel it brings down the game a bit that the battles don't seem bloody enough. Sure you can describe it as in role-play it, and I'm not suggesting tracking every hit location and it's severity it great detail. But, wouldn't it be interesting if instead of having to spend all of this time and energy discussing healing and what is the best approach to it you could just choose to ignore a wound and keep going. Maybe, something along the lines of taking an injury but ignoring the damage, in exchange later that untreated wound comes back to haunt you (like at the end of the game season) doing 50% more damage and having a small chance of inflicting permanent damage (only a small amount), call it a bad wound or scar.

I like the idea, but maybe that's just me.

Constitution was always a stat you wanted a little of but didn't really need too much, if you know what I mean. 12-16 seemed to come up the most often in my game, It rarely got raised except by chance magic item, or for a few very specific builds. But, I don't think as a ability score it was completely pointless either. Dexterity was and by the looks of it still is a problem, at my table we called it the super attribute.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
I would rather remove charisma from resonance altogether. I know it makes charisma more attractive, but it cause weirdness like the magic item only work if it likes you (I know it can be worded in a different way but). I also don't like that alchemists need a special rule to add his intelligence instead, even though intelligence makes more sense for activating arcane things.
Did you take issue with how UMD was a Charisma-Based skill in Pathfinder 1st Edition?

My post was a joke, but I new someone would take it the wrong way. Guess it was a bad joke.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
Blog wrote:
you're really unlikely to run out of Resonance Points unless you're using an absurd number of items

This is one of the things that has come to bug me most about resonance, because it seems patently untrue at low levels. A 3rd level wizard with 10 charisma has only 3 points of resonance. If you've got one invested item by that point, that leaves you with enough resonance to use two scrolls per day. In my books that would qualify as very light consumable usage for a longer adventuring day, meaning running out of resonance is all but guaranteed at these levels.

On the other hand, that same wizard at 20th has 20 points of resonance. Even if he has 10 points sunk into invested items, that leaves him 10 for consumables. That might hit him if he uses a bunch of utility items over the course of the day (scroll of comprehend languages, etc) but is unlikely to come into play very often.

As a secondary issue, it also creates some weirdness with regards to the value of the charisma attribute. At 1st level, charisma could swing you between 0 to 6 points of resonance, while at 20th it's a swing of 19-30. That's a massive difference at 1st, but at 20th it probably won't matter on most adventuring days.

If we get stuck with Resonance in the final version, it feels like a better target pool might be half Charisma score + half level. That way people can actually drink potions at low levels. :| While the results around level 20 are basically the same as the current version.

I would rather remove charisma from resonance altogether. I know it makes charisma more attractive, but it cause weirdness like the magic item only work if it likes you (I know it can be worded in a different way but). I also don't like that alchemists need a special rule to add his intelligence instead, even though intelligence makes more sense for activating arcane things.

Bardarok wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I suspect that I will wait 3 years for PF 2.5 with all the corrections needed to make it a great product.
Just going to point out/remind people that Paizo isn't keen on doing this. They want ten years between editions and, if PF2 is any indication, won't be so much fixing the previous edition as making a new system and dropping the previous one like dead weight.
I hear you, it would nave been better to start of with small changes from Pathfinder 1e and become more aggressive if that wasn't enough. For some reason Paizo's likes to hit you with everything at once, and I'll never understand why.
Like Pathfinder Unchained where a lot of this stuff is coming from?

Yes the same pathfinder unchained I don't use, and never was a fan of. But you are right it was the early testing ground., but if I recall resonance wasn't a part of that book (of course I passed on it after a quick read through so maybe it was).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I suspect that I will wait 3 years for PF 2.5 with all the corrections needed to make it a great product.
Just going to point out/remind people that Paizo isn't keen on doing this. They want ten years between editions and, if PF2 is any indication, won't be so much fixing the previous edition as making a new system and dropping the previous one like dead weight.

I hear you, it would nave been better to start of with small changes from Pathfinder 1e and become more aggressive if that wasn't enough. For some reason Paizo's likes to hit you with everything at once, and I'll never understand why.

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>