Hard as iron,
As I destroy,
Don't fall into the stereotype of being a joke. Get hard!
Remember, the remaster was to disconnect Pathfinder from DND. Not republishing a spell doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't viable. It means the name had to go. That's certainly the case for these spells. Maybe Paizo didn't have time to rewrite them yet. You're welcome to use them in your games though. Some groups use the remastered version where one exists, but if a spell doesn't have that, then do what you like. Meanwhile, check out the remastered version.
There are more ways to become immune to death effects than being undead. Can the spell target an undead? No. Can it target someone protected by a death ward? Yes.
The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride. This is the relevant RAW. Triggers have to specify something a character can see and experience, not just a mechanical stage of resolving game actions. Opponents are constantly moving and targeting, looking to find an opening to land an attack. You cannot trigger on things like ending movement or being targeted unless the feat or ability granting the reaction specifies it. Trying to argue around that is rules lawyering and meta-cheese. Can you do some strategic things similar to this with Ready? Sure, if it's something legitimately observable by the character: - "I run (stride) as soon as a foe gets within 10' of me." - Yes
Spell called Paralyze causes paralysis. I wouldn't roll a save if the target is immune to paralysis. I would tell the caster they're completely unaffected so it's clear. Trying to argue the target would be stunned by this spell on a successful save is classic rules lawyering.
I'm playing my second wizard who uses summons, and I'm happy with the outcomes. There are levels where attacks and athletics are good. There are cool spells you can leverage from your summons. There are nice 2A abilities you can get off on round 1. Folks complain about the 3A cost to do a summon, but a better way to think about it is 2A for casting it and 1A to command it do 2 actions of its own right away. That's pretty fair. They also waste enemy actions with 100%+ effectiveness. Sure, they can get taken out easily, but they can also get lucky and last a whole fight, especially with clever play. Hits on a summon don't require healing and waste the enemy's 0 MAP attack. If you like details and research, it's easy to build a list of summons and what they can do for you. Then it's not hard to pick one that's ideal for a situation. I like this sort of thing, and it's one of the reasons I like wizard. I have reasonable expectations that a summon is not an I-win button and won't outshine anyone. I also view that as a challenge to try to apply them as smartly as possible to get a lot out of them. Summons are sweet in that context.
Sounds like cheese when you apply the same logic to different scenarios. You have an ability that imposes a -2 circumstance penalty to attacks against you for a round. An enemy attacks you with an ability that gives them a +1 circumstance bonus to hit. You think their +1 should be treated as the same thing as your -2 and nullify it? No, it makes sense to treat penalties and bonuses as different things.
I hear a lot of "it's not supposed to do that," "it's not supposed to increase damage," "that's what picks are supposed to do." None of that is written anywhere. To me you come off as an adversarial GM. It boils down to this: Two enemies are side by side, which let's pause right here, is not common... and your axe player can get into reach of both of them, which pause again, puts them in risk of high damage... and in this situation where they've invested in a feat and invested in the CRIT spec of axe, and they happen to score a crit, you disable the CRIT spec effect of axe, because... pick, because target, because you personally think your player having a feel great moment with their axe isn't how the game should be played? The game isn't that fragile. You don't need to protect its integrity by dying on this hill. Let your player have their moment and celebrate it. I would feel robbed if I were your player, and I'd probably find another game if the GM were rules lawyering against me with "target" wording.
Hi, GM. You are wrong in several ways. First, axe crit damage is only the weapon die. It's a small bonus for scoring a crit. It's not close to pick crits. Second, you are singling out axe to shut down its crit effect. I can't guess why, but think about the non-swipe scenario.
Now, you're saying that because of wordage in Swipe that somehow axe crits stop working against targets beside each other. It doesn't make sense. You should support your player trying to make this very situational and niche weapon attack work. Give them the damage and be happy for them if they are ever in a scenario to use the feat and manage to score a crit. Avoid being adversarial.
I already heard from JJ. It's a runelord collaboration with the Mandalorian. Baby Yodas are the new ancestry.
Started playing in the 1980s and D&D with the red box, then went through all editions while also playing other games like Call of Cthulhu... Ditto. We were up to 3.5 heeavily modified in a Mystara campaign when one of our teen players mentioned one day that he was playing Pathfinder, and it was awesome. Ok. So I checked it out and was really impressed. We converted and switched for the rest of the campaign. Everyone was happy. 4.0 came out. I read it. I read it twice. Nope. If I want to play WoW, I wouldn't do it on tabletop. I was so impressed with Paizo and P1, that I committed to P2 for the playtest and beyond. It is the most elegant version of D20 I have ever seen, yet if you had shown it to me in the early 80s, I would have recognized it as the same game I loved. It's such a win to have it. I can see myself playing it for a long time.
And I already really dislike surface-only spells in this game full of flying enemies. Then people start saying ground isn't a surface... LOL
The ground or floor is fine. They are incontrovertibly a surface and usually flat. A vine could come out of them just as easily as a wall, and if history has proved anything, you can crush people against the ground just fine. It's a primal spell. I wouldn't even care if the ground weren't flat. There's no point trying to limit this spell except to be antagonistic.
Assuming TheyDidTheMath correctly, The second wand would only take 103 days to earn. We're at 219 days.
We're starting to pick up speed here. Let's spend another year at the grind. It only takes an hour of time per day, so it's not like a job, more like a hobby. 5th - 77 (473 days)
In 2 years and 2 weeks, you could assemble 10 wands. Using those alone, you could earn 70gp per day which is over 25,000gp per year. Those numbers don't seem very boring for an hour of "work" per day, then a few minutes once you have the wands.
This is it. If you're arguing that you can take an L3 general feat and use every lore skill that exists to lower the DC of your RK checks, that is quintessential rules lawyering. It's too good to be true, but you're pretending it's an RAW/RAI discussion. It's not reasonable.
Foundry runs P2 mechanics as close to flawlessly as possible. It's an upfront price, not a subscription. It's under constant development to keep it up-to-date with new content. Try a game someone's hosting on Foundry to experience it yourself for free. Once you get it, there's no going back to any other system.
Fun. Optimized. Sub-optimal. I think we're missing the point of what options enable. It's easy to argue that Giant beats Fury, but what if I have a different goal than move, biggest possible damage strike? You can still argue that other subs have Fury beat, but here's an example of a "monster" I played my way. Fury enabled it to come online very quickly. - Lizard folk, frilled for its demoralizing approach
You can absolutely make a case that a human snake animal barbarian does this build better or that it's generally sub-optimal. However, Fury enabled it to have all the things I needed to be optimal in the ways I wanted: Enhanced senses (dark vision, scent), demoralize, able to take advantage of multiple natural attacks (S/P/B), shield + free hand + non-arm natural attacks, multi-target attacks, and athletics maneuver dmg. The other subs would have sacrificed some options, delayed others, and they tend to focus on other abilities. Fury enables builds that want more L1 feats. Was this build more effective than a giant who just Sudden Charged and smacked everything? I don't know. It was the top damage dealer and controller in melee plus demoralizer, and it had a lot of options in any given round even at low levels. It was definitely more fun for me to play than another sub-class, because as a player, I need a lot of options. This delivered from L1. Heck of a fun build and enjoyed the RP to boot.
I enjoyed reading the sentiments on this thread. Thematically, summoning things out of nothing is not my first thought when imagining necromancers, but making mechanics easier in practice is understandable. The class is unique and fun, and I agree there's huge potential to make this plants, constructs, astral forces, or whatever you dream up. I think it's a huge space for a third party publisher to expand upon. Overall, I'm not disappointed in the theme of class name. I'm more interested in how you can wield the new mechanics. In that regard, it's looking great so far, Paizo.
The drivethrurpg discord has a Looking for Work channel. You can check that out. No matter the platform, building a portfolio requires writing. Write your own material. Have it available to share with publishers. Start an easy build website to post it. Try publishing on Pathfinder Infinite. Learn by doing not by waiting for opportunities.
Balkoth, P2 is the right kind of crunchy. Think of it as "sustainable" crunch. You can plan out awesome, collaborative characters and effective combos that give your team the edge. There are endless ways to do that, so the crunch options are really fun. You can give your team the edge, but you can't press the auto-win button by spamming a tactic like P1. Grapple will rarely shut down a foe for more than 1 round, but even on a success, it gives you and your team a round to deploy more effective combos -or- it strips actions from your enemy while increasing their MAP (multi-attack penalty). In the action economy battle, that's a solid win with a big attack debuff. Combine grapple with higher level maneuvers, and you're not only doing all of the above but inflicting damage and other debuffs as well. Deployed against a foe with weak or weakened Fortitude, it's significant. The crunch is excellent, especially because it's not overpowered. Your players will get it if they explore the system further.
Reposition and Shove seem like the same thing, but there are significant differences. Shove is limited in direction. You are pushing your target away from you. That's a limitation that Reposition doesn't have. On the plus side, you can follow the target, and you can push them off a cliff. The downside means that if you want to push your target into an obstacle, you may have to move into the right square to set it up. Reposition on the other hand allows you to move the target anywhere within your reach. That's its flexibility. You can't move with your target, and you can't push them off a cliff which meets the definition of an obstacle without any mental gymnastics. If that doesn't seem useful to you, think about pulling them between you and a nearby ally for instant flanking without having to move, trigger reactions, or do anything to set it up. It only costs 1 action.
Ruffian would not be my first choice for a bomber rogue. Ruffian is for strength. I would go thief for max dex and dex to damage when I need to melee. That gives you the best accuracy with bombs.
These are good examples of why Stun isn't a balance issue. "- someone moves within range of my Power Word Stun spell" -> This is a valid trigger. A creature takes an action involving a movement into your range. However, this comes with a risk of the loss of your two readied actions. What if they attack you instead? Cast a spell on you? Breath weapon? Your opportunity cost is that you could have cast Slow on them and made them lose actions automatically before their turn began. "- someone moves within reach of my flurry of blows/stunning fist" -> Same problem, plus what if they do something else, even if it's a single action to manipulate an object, do a ranged attack, etc? Then let's say you get the Stun when they move into your reach: You knocked off 1 action? And that's generous. The odds of stunning on FoB are low. They require 1 success on your part and 1 failure with the incapacitation trait on their side:
"- someone starts casting" -> Disagree. Starting to cast is not an action. Neither is "start to swing." "Cast a spell" is. That means their spell should go off before yours. That means if their first 2 actions were to cast, your stun is only going to limit 1 action, and that's exactly what it would have done if you had just stunned on your turn and not wasted the extra action plus reaction readying. This stun topic comes up frequently, but it's so white room. Yes, at first glance, stunning someone on their turn seems powerful. The reality is it's much messier and harder, and it's a better tactic to just act on your turn and pursue other strategies. The statistics don't support the Stun is OP argument.
It's not possible to ready a stun action and use it on a creature's turn to eliminate the creature's ability to act before it has taken an action. There are no abilities that do that. It's not how triggers work. Take Reactive Strike as an example:
Triggers take place after actions. Actions are what trigger triggers. As a GM, I don't think intention to take action is a suitable trigger. It's too gamey. There are triggers like the rogue's Nimble Dodge that let you apply an AC bonus before a strike hits, true, but they call that out as an exception. Reactive Strike also calls out its exception to this:
As far as Stun shutting down remaining actions on a creature's turn due to a readied action, I don't see a problem. In most cases it's so statistically unlikely to be successful, it's not going to happen enough to break the game. I also don't think a wizard with an 8th level Power Word Stun is going to break the game by skipping their chance to cast a spell and moving within 30' of a creature to wait for it to attack them. It's going to work sometimes. It's going to get them badly hurt sometimes. It's also going to expend a super high level resource. It's never going to take away the target's entire turn. Stun is an awesome effect to shoot for. It's going to elicit massive cheering if a player ever pulls it off. You might never see it in a campaign though. If someone wants to discuss a build that somehow delivers this easily and often enough to break the game, please put it up and let's see it.
Chat GPT is not infallible. It straight up lies sometimes. You can point it out. It will apologize. Then the next question it restates the lie. Last week I was tracking a package that got held up at a UK city. Interested to know if the shipper had an air hub there or not (so I would understand if it was about to leave the country or not), I asked GPT who confidently explained it did indeed. It went on to tell me how important it was as a logistics hub. I was so impressed with my knowledge acquisition speed, I texted my friend about the scenario. We marveled at how well informed we were. That package ended up not making it any further and was returned to the shipper. This week the package arrived on its second attempt. Guess which city it flew out of to my country? Not the one GPT told me had an air hub. It went to another city and flew out from there. I did some searching on my own, and sure enough GPT was wrong. There was no airport at all there. I still use GPT. This was a good reminder, however, that before you use any knowledge it provides, you should double check it yourself.
Edicts and anathemas are written to be general so that players can have some flexibility. The point is not to follow them "correctly" in a way that ruins fun at the table. Try to use them as roleplay supports instead of limiters.
It's possible to fit everything a character can do including attacks, spells, feats, and items on a single page without resorting to tabs. The amount of wasted space on the sheet is a non-starter. The icons for the actions on this sheet indent their section which eliminates a significant vertical block of real estate in a prime location. For my preference, a superior design is to use tabbed sections to enter feat, skill, attack, and spell choices, but then consolidate the outputs of those onto a Play tab with hover-over or drill-in information. During play, you rarely need to navigate the character sheet, because everything you need to see is on the main Play tab for you. My preference is the information. I don't care about graphics. They waste space that could be used for information.
This is not an honest argument. That's not how holding works. Pour a beer in a mug. Hold the mug in your hand. You are holding a beer in your hand. It's in a mug, but no one will agree you aren't holding a beer because it's an object removed. Put a bolt in a crossbow. In your hand is now a crossbow and a bolt. If the ranged weapon's ammo isn't covered as valid esoterica for the bow, it isn't covered by the crossbow. The bolt is in your hand. Saying it isn't is mental gymnastics. As for the handedness, I quoted Michael Sayre saying that's not how the rule is intended to be read. Take it however you like at your table, but it looked clear to me. It's clear the extra damage for the class is intended to compensate for, not add to, 2H weapon damage above d8. Bows don't do that kind of damage, so it doesn't make sense why they wouldn't be valid weapon implements. I agree the ammo is a tangent. There are responses saying the class isn't broken in general terms or that other classes break the rules. I disagree other classes break rules. You compare the abilities of the new class against existing dynamics to get a sense of balance. I've listed specifics. They are significantly off the typical power scale in each case. It's the kind of imbalance I see on the Pathfinder 3pp channel when new classes pop up. The most egregious is Scroll Thaumaturgy, a single L1 feat that replaces 90% of the Scroll Trickster dedication and all its feats through L20. On top of that, it eliminates the need for a free hand. That's bonkers. The class is full of stuff like this, but that alone is way off.
I disagree. The CRB p276 describes 1+ thusly: "You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requiresusing a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free." Nowhere in the 1+ description does it say you ever wield the weapon in two hands. If people are making the argument that the arrow is not a valid esoterica item to be holding, they are forgetting that that holds true for the hand crossbow and sling as well. Every ranged weapon also holds ammunition before firing. By that logic, no ranged weapon is valid. Since the weapon implement reaction clearly does not intend for that to be true by allowing a 10' trigger for its reaction when wielding a ranged weapon, ranged weapons, and therefore their ammunition, must be valid implements.
Just trying to get ahead of the players argument and understand what the consensus is. I'm new to the thaumaturge ability conversation. Thanks.
of P2, steals abilities from other classes, and adds those abilities in better forms. There are no restrictions on all its whack mechanics, and I can't understand how it was released by Paizo. - Esoteric Lore is an uber lore, but unlike Bardic Lore or the Loremaster, it auto-scales at the minimum level. The other lores cap at expert when you've spent 4 skill increases to reach legendary at 15th. It's also Charisma based?!? What sense does that make? Why does Charisma have anything to do with knowing things? 1 feat let's you apply it to any topic at a -2, but the accelerated, free skill increases nullify and blow past that compared to Bardic/Loremaster. Further, those other lores are Int-based. Thaum's class stat is Cha, so this is pretty much assured to be maxxed. There's another thread arguing that this is required for the Exploit Vuln shtick, but that grants bonus damage even on a fail, so why does lore have to break in favor of this 1 class?
I'm late to the game. Yes, I'm just reading the class now to help build a 10th level replacement character. Scrolls are dirt cheap at this level. Thaum has a bow in one hand along with a scroll of some debuff like Slow. In free hand is a Sure Strike scroll.
It looks fun as heck to do some combination of the above, but it ignores and rewrites basic mechanics and feats in order to advantage the Thaumaturge more than other classes. It's on a full martial chassis that automatically grants Master spellcasting (L1 scroll feat) with no feat investment beyond that and with the class stat also being the spellcasting stat. I rarely take the time to post something this critical. I'm truly a Paizo fan and don't enjoy casting shade. Thaumaturge looks like a third party class more than a Paizo level class, what am I missing?
Thanks for chiming in, James. It's a challenging situation, and your team is making awesome sauce out of it. I can't wait to get my digital hands on the remaster. After learning these names since 1980, I am excited to let them go in favor of something completely disconnected from that other company. Anyone who wants to keep calling things by their legacy names is welcome to. The safety of being disconnected from legacy is such a relief when I think about the future of Paizo and the best iteration of the game... ...That is about to get even better! I still can't believe how much feedback is being acted on to improve the game after just a few short years of P2's release. I've never been more excited about the game as now.
There was some news about fire actually iirc. Communities like Absalom will stop demonizing fire as a destroyer, and fire will become a playable ancestry. Others may think you're looking for an opportunity to spread your people at any cost by lighting them on fire, but fire does a lot of good, too. It cooks, it cleans, and it spreads warmth. In combat, you look for opportunities to spread your people by setting things on fire.
Hasbro and WotC are fools. If they wanted a piece of the action, they should have contributed to it. Writing premium content (Critical Role) is a ton of work. They could have offered to put a team on it and then advertised the adventure for sale. Spreading goodwill by fostering a great community is where it's at. That's always been the way. Now Paizo has the initiative and a strong enough position that people are excited to see some sacred cows removed at last. It's turning out to be a great year for the game.
I don't want to come to the forums anymore, because there's so much remaster discussion ongoing. I heard so many awesome things coming, I'm too excited now. The best iteration of the game to date is getting better. There's way more goodness coming than I expected in my wildest dreams. It's overwhelmingly positive, and it says incredible things about Paizo recognizing its ability to change in this tumultuous moment. I just want to send my money and get my pdfs, and I want it now. The wait for the remaster is killing me. Also, thanks, WotC!!! None of this would have been possible without you.
Since we're back on this topic, and ignoring the 7th level premise, I think the cheaziest way would be... Start at L1. Start young, not ridiculously young, but something with a fantasy precedent like 12. Start with assurance in your lore. Work 7 days a week for 10 years at L1 tasks. Start the game with over 11,782 gp at a respectable adventuring age of 22. (It's late. I didn't really do the math.)
One of the reasons for this, narratively speaking... Excellent post. I love hearing from the Paizo team like this. You all should participate more often. Thank you.
OP, I have been playing since '81, and I am a third party publisher. Your view of pricing structure and TTRPG business practice is unrealistic and frankly toxic. In the history of publishing in the industry, Paizo has a fair track record. They're not perfect (looking at you paizo.com cookie corruption), but they're a positive force for the hobby that my company tries to emulate. You should self reflect, and if this community isn't for you, that's fine.
You get a lot of grimaces talking about the failings of the lance in regards to mounted combat. It has the Jousting and Reach traits, so not getting use out of that combo shuts down most consideration of the weapon. I've looked at it theorycrafting an L1 ranger with Horse animal companion looking to charge in for max damage. There's no point lowering your damage to d6 to get some circ dmg bonuses. You're better off with a maul. It's a martial spear though. 2H but it has Reach. That's a plus. D8, the damage is poor for 2H, but at least it has strong crits thanks to Deadly d8. Then there's the overlooked crit spec effect. Spears inflict Clumsy 1 until the start of your next turn. That's nasty. Is this a viable weapon for your martial dungeon explorer? Absolutely. No, this doesn't fix the mount-reach issue (sad, yes), but can you use it as your primary (reach) weapon and be effective? Absolutely.
My next ready-to-go character is based around being able to use Call of the Grave "for free" in every fight. Combined with True Strike, it will occasionally end an encounter and will almost always have a significant impact. With a Reach weapon, you can easily set this up to give you a flanking bonus to your spell attack roll. Even against an above level threat, you can give yourself a 30% crit chance. Focus Points are a renewable resource, and True Strike is easy to get a lot of. Two actions for this Focus Spell never crossed my mind as expensive. One action to remove Sickened 1 plus a -1 to everything is good effect and action economy. When you score Sickened 2 and Slowed 1, you automatically shut down a boss' entire next turn or the next two or more if they fail any of their Sickened checks. IMHO, Call of the Grave is Sick! ;)
I'd give AoO to my players swallowed. Why wouldn't I? They're already in a super bad position. If the swallower was dumb enough to swallow a fighter still wielding sharp stabby things instead of the cleric, I'd let the fighter use the class abilities they invested their character in. Stab away.
A top tier RPG company producing a version upgrade to a proven AP with "thousands and thousands of players" who played the 1e version should have high quality maps. There's no excuse for what went into the player's guide. Dozens of high-end maps by amateurs can be discovered with a quick google search for "fantasy hex map." One of the stand outs near the top is The Mule Abides' map for interestingly enough Adventurer Conquerer King. Paizo could have hired one any one of these cartographers for a few hundred dollars to produce something nice to play on without rivers that flow up mountain ridges.
I've been anticipating Kingmaker 2E eagerly and looking for a group to play it with, so when I got my hands on the Player's Guide, I devoured it, twice, and then some more. Here's how it looks. Concept 5/5
As for the concept, it's super cool. Paizo isn't the first to expand the game's ruleset into dominion management, but they hit the sweet spot for a campaign that provides rules for the play style. Carve out my own kingdom with my friends? Run it the way we want? Politics, resource management, AND monster bashing? Awesomeness! Mechanics 4/5
- Suggested Character Options: This is a bit of a head scratcher. I get the idea: here's what will or won't work in this campaign, or put another way, here's what's easiest to run. I don't think it succeeds very well. Why is there an Alignments column if you recommend "Any" and don't recommend "-"? Why is there a Not Recommended Row if nothing isn't recommended against except Cleric of a deity that isn't specified or hinted at? The format is poor. - Prominent Citizens: I'm torn on these. They are information on an NPC but specifically a quest NPC. The details can be deep, and then the quest is described, sometimes in detail along with motivations, triggers, and reactions. If they are presented as, "Here's what you know about these NPCs based on rumor, but it may not be true," then that's a cool angle. I like the idea of my character recognizing people and having a prejudged opinion formed about them. I don't understand why any quest information would be shared here though other than the basic hook. I can see that being offputting to GMs or wading into spoiler info for players. I'm also open to the idea of it being a bit gamier than usual in some ways, so again torn on these. - Backgrounds: There could have been more effort put into these. It's a player's campaign guide, and there are only 7. Cartography 0/5
The maps are so bad, I had to write this review. I can't see myself playing the AP until someone in the community releases their own decent version. Paizo!? Dang, girl.
Finding above level items is incredibly fun. That's a staple in my campaigns.
Where's Ravingdork in this thread? You always start interesting threads. I want to hear more details from the questions raised. In particular, what was the negative consequence for the party, and what was their reaction?
Read thread title as you playing your first game with a table full of people who were strapped, lol. I need to go to bed! Lol nothing like a group photo of the party packing heat around the christmas tree! /s
I love the high fantasy genre. Being separated from technology and living in a time with the old ways and magic is a fantasy for me. The arquebus made a debut in 2nd edition D&D, and I recall thinking the concept was interesting. However, I was never interested in adding guns into my fantasy genre. When I heard about them for Pathfinder, it was still a no for me. No, I don't even want to think about what that means for the game world. I just want to stick to my high fantasy fantasy. Funny though, my campaign entered an alternate timeline where I had a bizarre goblin community (think Dragonbone Chair trilogy goblins) using them, and my players armed up. So as much as I considered myself a no-guns, high fantasy only gamer, perhaps my stance had room for openings. Fast forward to P2 today, and I'm in a new group playing a RotR conversion. Someone rolled up a shoony gunslinger, and I'm wondering how I'll reconcile this double slap in the face to my precious genre. I'm not a fan of animal-headed ancestries. They feel low effort from a creativity standpoint: Here's a new ancestry, but instead of a human head, it's a cat's or a dog's or a bird's or a <insert your favorite pet>'s head. Ok, whatever. I get to play instead of GM for once. I'm already stepping outside of my normal magic-using, optimized characters and playing a heavily handicapped martial for a unique roleplaying challenge. We get through session 0 and session 1, and I didn't have a problem with the guns. I was having too much fun roleplaying, and the shoony's roleplay was great, so what did it matter what ancestry he was using and that he was using guns? Has this changed my mind? No, but it was a reminder to stay open-minded. I probably won't block guns from future campaigns, and I may or may not employ them as GM. I'm going to continue focusing on group fun and relaxing with friends.
Also, you don't have to block. You can keep casting it solely for the AC bonus.
|
