PossibleCabbage's page

10,086 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 10,086 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's also likely something to how some fraction of the wizard partisans are going to be people who gravitate to the class because it is the most powerful thing in the hands of someone who knows how to pilot it. When the Wizard is brought down to the level of everyone else, they feel like something has been taken from them.

Well, I mean there was a Lucerne Hammer...

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious how they're going to handle this in the first AP that's set in a place where your less common ancestries are concentrated. They're probably setting the first couple in the main inner sea region since that's what they have the mechanics to support, with a few new ancestries under their belt they have the tools to set APs in places with significant non-core ancestry populations.

Or even if these things are thematically related. Like if you're setting an adventure near the gravelands that's about "taking the fight to the Whispering Tyrant" then you should be able to play an Orc, because the Orcs of Belkzen are at war with Tar-Baphon and their lands abut the gravelands.

I mean if APs and PFS seasons (or whatever they're called) specify "these uncommon ancestries are available to players", is "some popular things are uncommon" really going to be a problem?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of the Wendigo on the cover.

They are pretty scary looking and I would not want to meet them.

Malk_Content wrote:
I quite like the idea but would probably go for a 'everybody gets only one' cap

I think the thing that makes it safe to give out "free feats" somewhat liberally is that feats are now essentially "versatility enhancers" and not "math enhancers". Like if you were to give a character every single fighter feat, they wouldn't be better at archery than a fighter who just took all the archery feats; they'd just be able to pick up a polearm or two kukris, or a flickmace and a shield and do better than the archer could.

I mean, the animal folk are still part of the setting. We just got the lizard people, and the APG is going to have the cat people and the crow people. I'm more hoping we get stats for the cuddly spider people as a playable ancestry than concerned about not getting the fox people or the snake people or whatever.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
But there's also nothing stopping your GM from providing class feats at every level up.

The one thing I'm interested in exploring is offering bonus feats as a narrative reward. Like if you were to help out an organization and they repay you by making you members (granting the dedication as a bonus feat), or the old hermit teaches you to make snares for helping him out of a jam, or after putting down the blight-corrupted wolf you can adopt the surviving puppy as an animal companion, etc.

I think a lot of time the ancestry of a given character is a core part of the concept and the player comes to the GM with "Hey, I really want to play [whatever weird thing]" in most cases the GM is not going to say "no" without a really good reason (e.g. a Hobgoblin PC in Ironfang Invasion is a lot more work for the GM), or unless it's something truly weird (like a Kasatha or an Astomoi).

If the concept of your character is "a Cecaelia explorer who is a good-natured flibbertigibbet" You're probably going to get to do that most of the time if it's not singularly inappropriate.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the rules for uncommon ancestries are just "in general, ask the GM if this works for the game" with certain ancestries being called out as good choices for certain campaigns (because of where they are set.)

It's entirely possible that the GM will have a general policy of "a Nagaji in Cheliax? Everything's fine, really" but other GMs will want to keep the Dhampirs near Ustalav, the Androids near Numeria, etc.

If you think about it "check your character with the GM in session 0" is a much less onerous implication of rarity than "so, how do I get myself a Katana or the Teleport spell?"

I'm not sure what the nomenclature should be for the variation in rarity of various people's across the land. Like if we're playing a game in Casmaron, would geniekin be "common" or would you just have access to a geniekin character because of where the campaign is set?

5 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
That was a note on population in the area and not a limitation on PC's though. The guide didn't prohibit kitsune from playing the AP for instance.

It also says

Other races could work, but they may seem a bit too exotic or out of place for the adventures in Iron Gods for some groups.

Which is precisely the same as saying "Kitsune (etc.) are uncommon in Numeria."

Tectorman wrote:
Campbell wrote:

Here's what the Lost Omens character Guide has to say on Uncommon Ancestries:

Lost Omens Character Guide wrote:

While these ancestries are uncommon in the same way a magic item, a feat, or a spell is, an ancestry is something you choose at the beginning of the campaign. Specific campaigns might provide a list of uncommon ancestries that are particularly appropriate for that setting, such as hobgoblins in a campaign set near Oprak, or lizardfolk for a campaign in the Mwangi Expanse, and grant access to those ancestries. In other games, these ancestries are as available as your group desires them to be.
Basically it just signifies an ancestry that might not be appropriate for every campaign and might not be part of "civilized" society. It's basically a matter of your GM making them available by default based on where the game takes place or asking your GM.
I shudder to think of the precedent this sets. When the Advanced Players Guide comes out next year with yet more races and the new classes, are those going to be uncommon too?

Probably. I mean, the Player's Guide in PF1 APs already did this. Consider the following from the Iron Gods Player's Guide:


in Numeria, the following races are common enough: aasimar, changeling, orc, and tiefling.

Of special note in the Iron Gods Adventure Path are androids—this race is more common in Numeria than elsewhere in the Inner Sea region, yet they still remain relatively rare.

Translating to PF2, this would mean that for the Iron Gods Adventure Path the Aasimar, Tiefling, Changeling, and Orc ancestries are common and the Android ancestry, normally rare, is uncommon.

I mean, "Wait for more books so my character is fun" is something that afflicted a great number of non-wizard classes in the last edition, which nonetheless ended up pretty decent so this is not an unworkable situation.

When designing a new edition, without knowing what those things are, it's probably wisest to err on the side of making the weakest things from the old edition too strong and the strongest things from the old edition too weak. Which is why the CRB rogue and fighter are now excellent and the wizard is a bit underwhelming.

Maybe what people are resisting is the notion that you can't just summer in Minata to get better at shocking grasp or joined the rebellion in Chu Ye to get better at punching and be back to Ustalav in time to fight some vampires.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like uncommon is a useful concept to have in the game just to point out "some things are more common in certain parts of the world than others." The problem with a "if it's in a book, you can have it" approach is that it's kind of a pain to continually justify how Arcadian magic guns, Minkaian blade techniques, Vudrani psychic magic, and a Storm Kindler all ended up in the River Kingdoms. It's even more of an issue when it's less "essential to the notion of the character" and more "this thing I saw in a book is neat."

Like I played a Terrakineticist in Ironfang Invasion, which was a very thematic choice. But in the middle of the campaign Heroes of Golarion came out and I had to weigh "I should take the clockwork talents because I can and they're useful" versus "there's no plausible way I would have picked this up in the course of the campaign."

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally prefer "you cannot have a spell, item, feat, etc. just because you happened to see it in a book or a SRD" to be the baseline assumption of the system.

Tender Tendrils wrote:
To be honest, if they release feats to make heavy crossbows better, I would much rather they be fighter feats, as the heavy crossbow generally isn't a weapon I picture being used by a ranger. (the heavy crossbow is probably similar to what historically was known as an arbalest, which was usually wielded by a guy in a mixture of plate and mail hiding behind a pavise, who generally wasn't very well suited to the scouting and skirmishing we would associate with a ranger).

I imagine we're eventually going to get repeating crossbows as an advanced weapon, and the fighter is absolutely the best chassis to use any advanced weapon with. That's probably close enough. But with how armor works it's going to be a hard sell to combine "high dex, because you use a crossbow" with "wears heavy armor".

Zapp wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Running reload lets you move, but not do any of those other things you might want to do.

If you might want to do a lot of stuff without being preoccupied by reloading a heavy crossbow, the solution is to not use a heavy crossbow.

Or rather, to shoot it once, and reload it when circumstances permit but not build your entire character around that weapon alone.

Well, if we're doing this on a ranger (because we keep talking about ranger feats) we might want to also have an action occasionally to use the ranger's signature class feature- hunt target.

Zapp wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Two action reload, one action shoot is a fine turn, provided you never need to move, hide, hunt target, identify a monster, etc.
But wasn't you the poster pointing to Running Reload...?

Running reload lets you move, but not do any of those other things you might want to do.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Blood of the Coven player's companion for PF1 included the option for your Patron to be a Celestial, Hag, Outer God, Devil, Fey, a Manifestation of natural forces, a Shadow plane denizen, etc. So it's not like this is unprecedented in Pathfinder.

Two action reload, one action shoot is a fine turn, provided you never need to move, hide, hunt target, identify a monster, etc.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This is the real issue on the matter. The two action reload makes it too difficult to be used consistently. Certain feats like Penetrating shot and Deadly Aim make it good, but not a much better choice over a regular Crossbow.

I feel like what we need are feats that improve the action economy, not "reducing the number of actions needed to reload" since the heavy crossbow is fine as a one shot/round weapon, but things like running reload that let you combine interact actions to reload with "other things you might want to do anyway."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My sense was that the Lost Omens line is replacing both the Player Companion and the Campaign Setting lines and will release approximately quarterly.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, if you want a character to be a master cabinetmaker and not an armorer, bladesmith, or farrier just have them make cabinets and not those other things.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

I'm also for prepared Occult, with patrons adding spells from other lists.

Otherwise Pick-Arcane-Witch steps on Wizards toes and pick-Divine-Witch steps on Clerics toes too much. Plus occult is very thematic for them.

Whether or not it's the witch, I want a "prepared pick-a-list" class eventually. It doesn't need to step on the toes of the Wizard, Cleric, or Druid any more than the Occult sorcerer steps on the toes of the Bard or the Divine sorcerer steps on the toes of the Oracle.

I personally want a dedicated prepared and a dedicated spontaneous caster for each of the four lists, and a "pick a list" option for both prepared and spontaneous. If we get a third kind of casting, then that's five more classes I want.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the feats that make the heavy crossbow viable just haven't been printed yet.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klart McCather wrote:
Unravel Mysterious seems so situational and a waste of a feat choice. I could see GM's just handwave things like that.

I figure situations like "my GM doesn't let the feat I picked be very useful" is why the retraining rules are so generous.

Power creep is pretty much inevitable, since even if all you're doing is adding purely situational options, the overall power level is going to be higher since those options are going to be better in the situations they are tailored for than previous options.

Plus, it's not necessarily a bad thing, since it helps the lower end of the power curve more than the higher end. Like the Fighter gained significantly more from the Player's Companion line than the Wizard did.

I think the Giant Barbarian is going to eventually outdamage the Animal Barbarian, just because the Giant Barbarian gets extra attacks (because of AoOs with their huge threat range, or the fact that they don't need to move to attack.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had always heard the quote as "baseball is 90% Mental, the other Half is Physical" implying that he plays 40% more baseball than other people.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Really, the things that exclusively affect player characters (like how class abilities or spells work) changing when there's a new edition is no different from how these same sorts of things change when a new book comes out that has options that weren't previously available. Golarion had no shapeshifting martials at all before the Metamorph alchemist in Ultimate Intrigue and when Ultimate Wilderness came out suddenly the Shifter class had always been part of the world.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Only on the coarsest terms. Like if Pathfinder 2nd edition was never going to specifically enable "Witch" as a thing, that would bother me because canonically Irrisen is ruled by witches.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Rasputin Must Die" came out in 2013 and has the PCs visiting earth- in 1918 by earth reckoning.

So Currently it should be 1924 on Earth in the universe that contains Golarion.

So we're 15 years away from Batman.

-2 is really just the difference between a different level of proficiency in whatever armor, so it's hardly the end of the world especially on the "you can take a hit with the best of them" class.

Anguish wrote:
Flexibility and wiggle-room opens doors to enjoyable, playable, fun concepts at our tables and the moment the CRB says "these are the alignments allowed", the doors close. Sure, you can petition a GM for variance, but you've got to expect a "no" on the basis that the GM will look at the book and say "Paizo indicates this shouldn't happen".

Well, what if we just did heretical or idiosyncratic clerics who nonetheless get powers from the god as a class achetype?

It seems reasonable to do it this way since this says "the overwhelming number of clerics of [whomever] are [these alignments]" while allowing the possibility of some different ones to be rare or unusual.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My War for the Crown character is a Brazen Deceiver Bard based on Emperor Norton who claims he is the true emperor of Cheliax and wants to reunify with Taldor under Eutropia.

Yes. You are not directly responsible for whatever your ancestors got up to, you make your own choices. It's no different from how Tieflings can be good, Aasimar can be evil, Ganzi can be Lawful, and Aphorites can be Chaotic.

A Medium, Fractured Mind Spiritualist, or Mesmerist can definitely work well in the Str/Cha mode.

Technically Fractured Mind and Phantom Blade stack, but you should ask your GM if you can have an emotional focus which does nothing just to figure out what SLAs you get.

Where I think Wizards suffer in comparison to other classes is that their class feats simply aren't as exciting as class feats that other casters get. Primarily the Wizard's feats are about getting more, or more versatility out of spell slots... which is all well and good, but it's not exactly as evocative as wild shaping or that mime spell.

The thing about Wands was that one of the questions they asked in one of the playtest surveys was about "does it matter if wands are essentially a bulk consumable" and the response was overwhelmingly "no, it does not."

While one use per wand per day seems pretty restrictive, there is additional space for archetypes or feats to enable a character to get more out of their wands.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Int in PF1 effectively gave you "legendary" proficiency in an additional skill. You got 1 skill rank per level, so you could maximize one other skill. These aren't exactly comparable of course, but I feel that's a reasonable way to look at it. Level to everything (trained) does make this equation significantly different.

I think you're wrong about this. Trained is precisely equivalent to "one rank per level"- it's literally "add your level." Legendary is like "one rank + per level, plus skill focus, plus a class feature like trapfinding or consummate liar."

I guess my question is- is Int less valuable for people who don't key class features off intelligence in PF2 than it was in PF1?

It seems like the only sense in which this is is true is that no classes are saddled with the 2+Int skill ranks thing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Deskari seems far too weak to take out Aroden, particularly since the WotR party wipes the floor with him.

Realistically, what GM is going to run a combat via "the monsters attack once and run away, using their superior speeds"?

If this was a PvP game, the OP's concern would be reasonable, but it decidedly is not.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, there is Desna...

Pharasma had Achaekek kill Aroden, because Aroden caught wind of Pharasma's scheme.

I'm not saying the Lady of Graves has a nefarious scheme, but she was the last one out alive from the last version of reality so she's almost certain to take steps to be the last one out alive from this version of reality, even if doing so is not for the ultimate benefit of this reality.

I say gnome, just take the optional flaw to start at 18 strength. It's certainly the funniest option. Vivacious Conduit gets silly when you have real high Con.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It feels like "your PC intersects the path of a traveling circus" is a vastly looser hook than "your PC is from Kintargo" or "you were visiting Sandpoint on the wrong day" or "you have a prior relationship with a specific Ustalavic academic/noble" (they did this one twice!).

The circus needs lots of different people, after all, and lots of different kinds of people will find "traveling with a circus" to be useful for them.

I think perhaps dex-to-damage for throwing weapons (but not crossbows etc.) would just be another rogue racket - something flashier than the thief.

1 to 50 of 10,086 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>