Pronate11's page

Organized Play Member. 376 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orikkro wrote:
exequiel759 wrote:

For those asking for the investigator to become a rogue racket; it's way too late at this point, Paizo isn't going to remove a class in the game lol.

What investigators need is not to be a poor man's rogue though, and their playstyle should be changed accordingly to achieve this goal. First, Pursue a Lead should become a one-action activity like Hunter's Prey, and second, Devise a Stratagem should always be a free action, without GM fiat. This change would allow investigators to be played more like a skill monkey rather than a martial, unlike rogues which are clearly more geared towards martial combat, having access to their +1 and eventually +2 from Pursue a Lead at all times. I wouldn't bother if it increased to +3 at some point even. Free DoS also makes low rolls feel less bad because you didn't waste an action with that and because it would push investigators towards using as many skill actions as they can on their turn. Let's say you free DS → move → Feint, Battle Medicine, Demoralize, Bon Mot, whatever. This would be fantastic if methodologies allowed you to use certain actions more than once per X like Demoralize or Battle Medicine, and also new feats that added new one-action skill activities for certain skills would be welcomed.

This also would be an errata-level change which is likely what Paizo is going to do with investigators (if at all) since they didn't say anything about wanting to overhaul the whole class like the alchemist or witch. I feel this would be simple, straightforward, and a huge improvement over what we already have.

All I am going to say is when Rogue dedicated multiclass Investigator functions and performs better then Investigator the class itself is irrelevant. Also Rogues still are better at skills. Just as many proficiency increases and not locked to charisma, wisdom, intelligence ones like the extra Investigator ones are (Also one of the reasons Rogue - Investigator Dedication is superior.)

So make the base class better, so that a rouge can't do a better job. There is a middle ground between "do nothing" and "delete the class"

Going off of how every other class has been changed so far, I think all of you are going to be very disappointed. It has been confirmed as a class in PC2, so it will be its own class, and while it will probably get substantial changes, it likely won't be "completely change its key stat" or "double its damage". It might be "DaS is a free action all of the time" or "here are some great feats to use when DaS misses so you don't need archetypes" or you might get some other cool, useful, and powerful but not class redefining abilities like the witches new familiar abilities. The bones of the class work fine, it just needs a tune up.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorgo Primus wrote:
Extremely mirror error, but it annoys me. On page 79 of PC1 there is an image of a character labeled as Nephilim, which is true but seems like the wrong label was placed in error given that the entire section is on Nephilim and every other character there is labelled as the specific kind they are like Angelkin or the like.

Lineages are not mandatory. They may have wanted to show a lineageless "generic" Nephilim to show off a sort of baseline

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also we get categorizations wrong all the time. How many ways where there to classify elements before the periodic table? And how many elements did we find that turns out, are not elements? Golarion seems to be in a post Greek, pre modern chemistry era, where they have some classifications methods (tags) but don't know which of them are the actual building blocks of magic, and which are just descriptions of vaguely similar things. Presumably, people are still classifying things, theres just no consensus. Perhaps in starfinder, they figure it out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nelzy wrote:

So you can still use it to go talk to the guard captain disguised as an officer without any issue, you just cant walk around question everyone you meet in the street on the way there since that would slow you down to mutch.

Make an impression is an exploration activity, so you could not talk to the guard and have any real effect

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Related: T.rex art with pronated wrists always make me cry...

Whats wrong with my wrists?

Perpdepog wrote:
Something I'm really hoping for, but am not sure we'll see, is the birth of the class-feat-as-skill-feat paradigm with the operative. Your chosen superskill gives you access to some real potent skill feats that push the bounds of what skill feats normally do. That might push the power curve a bit too much though, I'm not sure.

I would be more worried that if the class skill feats are too powerful, there would be no reason to take the normal skill feats

6 people marked this as a favorite.

You could also argue that their theories are not the source of their power, but something else. The Norse used to put bones into their iron to strengthen it with the spirits of the bones. Despite being wrong about the spirit thing, the bones did make the iron into a primitive form of steel, so despite being wrong about the cause they were right about the effect.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:
I kinda of dont like it when they go and make obviously better schools and leave the original ones as relics no one can really choose without being much worse. So if this is the level of power they want for wizard schools I would want that to remain consistent across new additions. If they make new content to make the power of wizards improve it should be in ways that improve all wizards.

I would much rather they focus on making it fun and balanced than making it compatible with content they can't sell any more.

Driftbourne wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Driftbourne wrote:

No species evolves multiple arms without being able to use them. If using multiple arms effectively throws off the game balance built around 2 armed species, instead of penalizing multi-armed species by making them balanced with 2 armed species, have them have a higher level for calculating APL for encounters to adjust for being better at multiple attacks.

The arms aren't vestigial. They are still useful, just not twice as useful, just like how a monkeys apposable feet and prehensile tail are useful, but they can't use either as well as their hands.
I was looking at how multi-limbed animals in nature fight. Octopuses are the only one's I can think of that use all of their limbs equally.

Well, octopi have mini brains in each limb, which is why they can control each one so independently, they control themselves. That is presumable not the case with most aliens.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Sorry, but pretty much anything is a better solution than messing with player level. That isn't a solution, that's creating a problem.

Oh, I'm sure that we could come up with something that's worse.

Admittedly, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything.

3.x-style multiclassing and ancestral hit dice, maybe?

In game microtransactions. To play a 4 armed character, you must pay your GM $5 per session, and Paizo $30 per campaign.

Driftbourne wrote:

No species evolves multiple arms without being able to use them. If using multiple arms effectively throws off the game balance built around 2 armed species, instead of penalizing multi-armed species by making them balanced with 2 armed species, have them have a higher level for calculating APL for encounters to adjust for being better at multiple attacks.

The arms aren't vestigial. They are still useful, just not twice as useful, just like how a monkeys apposable feet and prehensile tail are useful, but they can't use either as well as their hands. As for making them count as higher level, that creates a verity of problems. First, they would need to make extra hands about as powerful as an entire level for all builds. Even with the best of builds, I would rank it as 1/2 of a level, still too good to just have with minimal investment, but not good +1 to every roll and dc good. Plus, how strong it is varies wildly. Casters might not need it very much, while some builds may break the game from them. 2nd, making one character count as higher level than everyone else will make encounter balance calculations much harder. 3rd, While it could be balanced for the group, everyone with 2 arms is going to feel much worse compared to the 4 armed characters, and they are going to struggle more against their foes though no fault of their own, leading to the 4 armed character being the focus of their plans, because they would be the strongest player.

I feel like it should be called something other than AOO (or reactive strike as it will be called in the remaster) for readability reasons and so it can get its own identity. A ranged AOO would not only be very different from a normal AOO, but would also be broken, as things like moving and making a ranged attack would provoke, making it less of a control tool and more of a DPS, as unless you have a melee character that wants to step 5 ft at a time to the sniper, you will be shot. Limiting what triggers it would tone it down, and actually discourage you from doing what does still trigger it.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Tactical Drongo wrote:

no, you understood wrong

you would use the claw blade tags (instead of tiger claw strike tags) but keep the tiger claw damage

Well that's simply not going to happen.

It could happen, they would just have to be weapons with bad enough traits where it doesn't matter or is at most a minor buff.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
thistledown wrote:
That is an EXCELLENT description of what I preferred in PF1 over PF2.

Okay. Why? I mean, it's getting off the topic a bit, but why is "I've finished chargen and build planning and now I really don't have a lot of tactical decisions to make from here on out." a Cool Thing?

Sure, 3.x build planning was fun as a sort of solo game unto itself, but once you got the result to the table?

Personally it was sometimes nice to just know your character was all ready to go and that you could kind of chill whenever combat started because you already knew what you were going to do. It was especially helpful when I built spellcasters, which was most of the time, because having to juggle all my spells could be a pain sometimes, so already being aware of what I'd use and when took a lot of that mental bookkeeping off the table for me.

I mean, that kinda feels like it would be better if you just skipped combat, or used a simpler system.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
And here is the big one, The DM can modify non-combat situations as needed or wave them off if the player comes up with a better solution. You know what? The majority of players enjoy a DM that let's a creative player solution work in non-combat scenarios.
If I can just ignore the rules completely, why am I playing the game?

You can't ignore the combat rules. They work differently. That is why so much time is invested in ensuring they are balanced.

You absolutely can. You can ignore any rule. You shouldn't ignore some rules, but thats independent of if they are combat or not. Also, you are confusing out of combat being rules heavy for being balanced. You can have balanced rules light out of combat rules. You can have unbalanced rules heavy out of combat. You appear to not like rules heavy out of combat stuff, and thats ok, but that is not the same as unbalanced out of combat rules

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, this seems like it could go beyond ships and piloting. That just seems like how computers should work in combat. Like, imagen if in a large chunk of combats, there was one or more computers, each of which either controlled something on the battlefield (like turrets, doors, or poisonous gas) or something in the narrative (piloting the ship, setting off an alarm, finding critical information). Some actions could be done by anyone, others need rolls, some could be done by one side for free while needing a hack check for the other side. This just seems like a great general use mechanic for creating interesting tactical decisions.

I really think that making starship stuff a separate game would probably be the best. Too many people won't use starship combat if its in a non starship game for it to be worth the page spaces for a very detailed game. And if it is a detailed game, it will be stuck to the rest of starfinder, so just using the ship combat and not the character combat will get weird. Separating these two games like Lancer and Battlegroup did will allow both games to thrive and take their own shape and would allow GMs to use one or the other or both much easier then trying to manually separate them from the same game.

Perpdepog wrote:
Shredderslash wrote:
With how a number of their abilities scale based on their proficiency with their connection skill it seems odd that they don't automatically scale that skill.

I'm also wondering what the trade-off is meant to be if you don't raise that skill aside from getting a different one. As it stands it feels a bit like you have to increase that skill or you're leaving power on the table, which feels a bit icky.

On the other hand, I really like this experimental space of tying magical effects to skill proficiency. It's not something we've really seen much before, and it's super cool and has a bunch of potential.

And rhythm also needs to improve performance too for its focus spell. So thats 2 skills locked in, which feels like way too many.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like primal for the rhythm connection is really really weird. Almost none of the sound, music, or dance related spells are on the primal list, while I think all of them are on the occult list. The occult list can heal, so why can't we have occult mystics? The occult list is all about connections between people, just like the mystic, and has so much potential for things like entropy or aberrations. Primal works for some connections no doubt, but rhythm? Is rhythm supposed to be throwing out fireballs and turning into a bear, but not making people clap or dance? If you don't want the mystic to be an occult caster for whatever reason, at least make it divine. Music and rhythm seemed to be connected to the spiritual essence, and while that best fits the occult tradition, it does fit the divine tradition as well, and the divine tradition has way more thematic spells then the divine, although still not as many as occult.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
From wikipedia: " A skilled arbalestier (arbalester) could loose two bolts per minute". That's one bolt every 5 combat rounds. Reload 12? :-)
And they dealt a whole lot more damage, and ignored armor, and ignored tough hides.

An arbalest would not deal more damage than a halberd or great club, both of which also deal d10s. They do get to add str, but the arbalest gets backstaber, and the average str for a soldier is probably around +2.

It also would not ignore armor or thick hides, arbalests have been used sense the 12th century, and plate mail was invented in the 14th century. Getting hit with an arbalest while in armor would not be a good time, but nor was getting hit with a great club or halberd

Temperans wrote:

While 1800s muskets (period accurate for golarion) were 1/minute and were even stronger than crossbows.

But yeah that aint happening in PF2.

Yes, because due to differences in Golarions development, they favored paper cartridges, which are much weaker but fire much faster. For a cartridge based system, pathfinder has it fairly right.

I do hope we get muzzleloading guns in PF as a form of martial focus spell (can't be loaded in combat, but gives you one very powerful attack), but thats nether here nor there

Yea, Produce flame is a 2d6 melee cantrip than has a significant bonus effect that you can still use it at range. I have a feeling gouging claw will get something similar to make up for its lower damage, or they might go crazy and make it like 3d6.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
I am wildly unconcerned about wizard remaster due to the sneak peek.

There is no reason to be concerned, true, since the Death Knell has already been cast, the spell slot has been expended, and there will be no dying checks made for a corpse of a class.

That concern is now disappointment, maybe mixed with frustration, since I (and several others) are of the opinion that more could have been done (since more was done for other classes).

Though I am pretty sure that changing work ethics is not a relevant solution to a class' mechanical issues.

Your acting like the wizard is unplayable. At absolute worse, it is slightly worse. It will still be playable and fun.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
CyberMephit wrote:

The feat is good but the level is too high. Could have easily been a 6 or a 8.

Also the wording... I get the desire to convey academic writing but I shudder to think how many players will stop reading right after the words "force damage". Why not just say it deals damage of the same type as the spell?

The idea of in-world magic schools is great, but the limitation of one specific bonus spell per level is not. There should have been two-three per level to choose from, with feats to get more.

Based on the prerelease doc, theres at least 2 spells per rank, and apparently theres going to be more than that in the final release.

Ed Reppert wrote:

Um. "You can gain an impulse with the composite trait only if your kinetic elements include all the elements listed in the impulse's traits." -- From Rage of Elements, the Kineticist, Key Terms.

So a single, double, triple, quadruple, or quintuple kineticist can't take a six element composite impulse. And a single can't take any composite impulse.

With Elemental overlap a single element kineticist could get any composite impulse that shares one of its traits, which this omni impulse would inherently do.

pauljathome wrote:
WarDriveWorley wrote:

In my view this playtest also offers a tangential remaster playtest as well.

Far, far too late for that. At this point the first remaster books are almost certainly totally and utterly frozen. They may even already have been printed and currently are on a slow boat from China.

I mean, theres a ton of data that could be used for the problem classes that are in the player core 2, which is most likely still being changed. I could totally see some lessons from the animist helping the oracle or alchemist, or maybe lessons from the exemplar helping the swashbuckler or investigator.

13 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Dragonhearth, respectfully, you may need to calibrate your expectations around how a publishing business operates. They don't do a "recall" of an extremely successful class because of a few typos or confusing feats. They also can't continue making edits until the street date, print the books overnight, and instantly transport them to every store which will have it on the shelves. That just isn't how printed media works.
To be fair, Paizo has below-average editing and layouts compared to much of its competition. It is conceivable that WotC might recall a book if it had as many outright errors as some Paizo releases have.

What Dnd books are you looking at? almost all of their adventures have glaring problems, and spelljammer's ship systems just didn't work.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Super Zero wrote:

But my question is, what does that even mean?

How do you "remove" a big chunk from a book that's already been published?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
So, you want to play a caster who is as effective as a Fighter using their favorite weapon but who also benefit from variety in their casting ?
No. I want Paizo to go back to making each caster have their own distinct list of spells because traditions are a mess. Then we could have a caster that gets limited to no utility in exchange for blasting spells and other interesting class features that enable the desired gameplay. Killing bespoke per-class spell lists was a mistake and it makes good game design harder than it needs to be.

So a kineticists? and you want to remove how other spell casters work because otherwise a kineticist isn't a caster? am I getting that right?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

[C]haining low difficulty fights is a very bad idea as it will drain casters without giving any form of challenge.

Casters use spells. It's what their meant to do.

Doesn't this strike you as needlessly bad design when it comes to caster endurance? Why should casters, and only casters, suffer from getting weaker as the day runs on?

different classes can have different playstyles. It's like asking why ranged characters, and only ranged characters, need to deal with cover. Cover is part of what makes ranged combat different from melee combat. also, there are a lot of 1/day abilities like battle medicine, so its not even completely unique to casters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:

I recognize that many people won't find this answer satisfying, but you really don't need Sentinel/Champion for this.

You get a general feat at level 3. Spend that on armor proficiency. You'll want dex of at least +1 anyway. Get your dex up to +2 at 5 and +3 at 10, at which point you don't need medium armor anymore and can retrain your level 3 general feat to something else. You don't get light armor expertise until 13 anyway, so the lack of scaling simply never comes up.

If level 3 is too late for you, you can roll a Versatile Heritage human (not a human with a versatile heritage, but a human with the speceific heritage "Versatile Heritage") and get it at level 1, or briefly take sentinel at level 2 before retraining back out of it at level 3.

Imagine if this is how the barbarian worked. It also has thematic reasons to be lightly or unarmored. But as barbarians are str based, every player

would needed to either pump a secondary stat as high as they possibly could at level 1, or take a 3rd level general feat, still boost that secondary stat to the same levels just later, and then retrain out of that feat later. Is any new player going to pick that up? That player wants to utilize the class feats that work with charisma, like raging intimidation? well better go on this path of specific feats you need to train out of latter so your not stuck with a 12 in cha and con at level 1. No one would be happy with that. Sure, you can deal with it, but you also don't need to deal with it if the barbarian is proficient in medium armor.

Captain Morgan wrote:
I'm pretty sure the remaster will have a lot of classic spells replaced with new versions with these traits. If Long Strider can be turned into Tail Wind, things like Heat Metal and Protector Tree can get metal and wood traits.

At least according to AON, Protector tree has the wood trait

1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
I think the items of legends become a little less legendary since you'll be swapping them out as you level up. Mainly relevant for worn icons like shoes. Your sandals hold your godliness and are quite potent. Until these fancy new boots of bounding come around lol.

King Arthur had like 4 different swords throughout his career. Swapping is a thing that happens in mythology. However, there should be a feat to give one of your allies a hand me down Ikon, still infused with a bit of your divine spark, like how Arthurs other swords ended up with other heroes.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Show someone a old Norse warrior. They will see a old Norse warrior.
Show someone a old Norse Warrior with a hammer. They will see Thor

Show someone an ancient Greek warrior. They will see a ancient Greek warrior.
Show someone an ancient Greek warrior with a bronzes shield, winged saddles, and the head of a gorgon in a sack, they will see Perseus.
Show someone an ancient Greek warrior with a breast plate of a lion, and they will see Heracles.

Show someone a English knight with blond hair, they will see a English knight with blond hair.
Show someone a English knight with blond hair and a very fancy sword, they will see King Arthur.

For many people of legend, there equipment is what turns them from people to legends in the public consciousness.

The thing is, there are exceptions. Sun WoKong's staff is like the 5th most important part of his iconography. Beowulf lacks anything consistent, and most heros here except Perseus have like one thing thats vital to their iconography, not 3. The question, is how much can we cater to the exceptions without destroying the very cool mechanical aspects of the class?

8 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

What the "light armor only" accomplishes, I think is that it strongly encourages you to use a finesse or ranged weapon, since every category of Weapon Ikon has at least one finesse option.

Though I have to say the +2 damage per die from Titan's Breaker makes the Nunchaku a lot more appealing.

You know what would really encourage you to use a ranged or finesse weapon? having the key ability score be dex alone instead of dex or str. If its supposed to be dex, make it dex. If its supposed to be either, give us support for both.

JRutterbush wrote:
I think the idea is that this class is meant to use methods other than the raw AC bonus from armor to survive.

I could see that if getting rid of your defensive bonuses for other bonuses wasn't a main class feature. and the lack of AC only effects str characters. Dex characters gain the AC and the Ikons. and with the amount of flat damage the class is doing, I don't think that the +str to damage is enough to make up for it

1 person marked this as a favorite.

AC is important in pathfinder. While you don't need to max it out at level 1, you should probably have it maxed at lvl 5. with armor, maxing out AC is finding a balance between str and dex. Classes that use str get heavier armors, and classes that don't use lighter armors. Except for the Exemplar. It can use dex or str, but is limited to light armor, meaning it needs a minimum of 16 dex to max out its AC. This is very odd, and makes the exemplar quite MAD, particularly if it wants to use its various cha based abilities. The closest example is the monk, which is also dex or str based and has no armor, but better proficiency so it also needs at least 16 dex to get medium/ light armor AC. The difference is that monks get mountain stance, which gives them good AC without the dex investment. So exemplar is alone as a str based class with dex based armor. I feel like the class needs medium armor, or needs a mountain stance like feat that lets them not need 16 dex. Not inherently heavy armor levels, but at least breast plate levels. Because otherwise, dex based just seems way better, particularly with the various really cool ranged feats the class has.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Zaister wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I’m very surprised to hear someone turned off by these. They’re some of the most exciting class power fantasies I’ve heard in years.
Animist sounds cool, especially with the 3.5 binder flavor, but I don’t think the exemplar makes sense as a class to me, and yeah, it kind of “turns me off”.

It’s a martial with a broken off piece of divinity inside them - not enough to be a true demigod, but such that they can do superheroic things with their bodies and faux-relics.

Hercules and Sun Wukong were both namedropped, and I think pretty elegantly sketch out a class fantasy.

Yes, the exemplar sounds like something that would rather belong in a superhero game, but it’s a superhero that — for balancíng reasons — can’t be more powerful than anybody else. How very sad.

I have no idea who Sun Wukong is, but Hercules sounds like someone who should be on a totally different power curve than anybody else, and to me this simply doesn’t make any sense as a class balanced against the other classes.

You act like high level fighters can't do this

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, while there is something really cool about summoning monsters from the bestiary, I do think templated summoning (either instead of or in addition to traditional summoning) would go a long way towards both making things both more balanced and easier to use. Like the battle form spells, with set base stats and each different form has a unique ability and attack.

The problem with the summoner in PF is that PF has already defined the summoner as the eidolon person. If you change the name, then some people familiar with the PF summoner will be confused, while others be fine as they think the name should be for something that uses summoning spells. If you don't change the name, some new players would be confused by the lack of summon spells, but some would be fine as they are more focused on the thematic that the current summoner still provides. So the question is what option would confuse the least amount of people the least. I have no empirical data for that question, but from personal experience keeping the name seems like the least confusing option.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My proposal is the hemigod. The top half of you is moral, but your legs are divine.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Eoran wrote:
I'm curious if you also think that "Magus", "Monk", "Cleric", and "Swashbuckler" are misleading names for classes since none of those names have any relationship with the mechanics of how those characters operate.

To answer your curiosity.

Magus: While I wish they had gone more for fixing the action economy of mixing both magic and martial, spellstrike does deliver on the "merge two attacks" of what a magic swords man should be. The name is not misleading even if I personally dislike the direction they chose. P.S. I really hate wavecasting.

Monk: The class is great and not at all misleading. The only flaw the class has is that they did not allow mix and matching stances and abiltiies as much as they should have.

Cleric: The only misleading name is "warpriest". What PF2 calls the warpriest is just a regular cleric, while the true warpriest should have been a lot more martially inclined. If Magus is Fighter+Wizard Warpriest should had been Fighter+Cleric.

Swashbuckler: The name fits, the mechanics just needs more polish. Getting panache is too difficult and the reward for getting it is not good enough to justify said difficulty. It also in general the fact the biggest use is just "deal more damage" or "deal consistent damage" is underwhelming. wrote:


noun, plural Ma·gi [mey-jahy].
(sometimes lowercase) one of the Magi.

(lowercase) a magician, sorcerer, or astrologer.

A PF magus is none of these things. wrote:


(in Christianity) a man who has withdrawn from the world for religious reasons, especially as a member of an order of cenobites living according to a particular rule and under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

(in any religion) a man who is a member of a monastic order

A PF Monk has no inherent connection to a monastic order, nor do most monastic orders focus on punching. wrote:


a member of the clergy.

a member of a clerical party.

clerics, (used with a plural verb) half-sized or small-sized reading glasses worn on the nose, usually rimless or with a thin metal frame.

pertaining to the clergy; clerical.

PF Clerics are not inherently part of the clergy, nor are they glasses wrote:


a swaggering swordsman, soldier, or adventurer; daredevil.

An accurate depiction of the PF swashbuckler. If I had to nitpick, they don't need to use a sword, but that's extremally minor

Unicore wrote:

a *necromancer/summoned legion of extraplanar creatures as the minion focused branch all feel possible.

*Like a D12 hp non-casting creature caller that does rituals to have their swarm/troop of non-sentient creatures to command around and get bonuses from the character.

Isn't that just a weird eidolon? Like I could see a swarm/troop eidolon. That seems easier than instead tying that into a defender class

5 people marked this as a favorite.
exequiel759 wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
The problem with commander and the like is A, envoy exists in starfinder, and the class is confirmed to not exist in starfinder too. If Animist isn't happening because its too close to a PF1 class, than commander isn't happening because of the envoy. The second problem is that SF2 is coming out soon, with a PF2 compatible envoy. It doesn't make much sense to make both, especially not if they aren't putting the mechanic in the core SF2 book as its too similar to the inventor.
What does an Envoy have to do with a Marshal-like character? Envoy literally was a spell-less Bard pretty much and afaik didn't have any commanding abilities.

Have you read the envoy? With talents like Get 'em, fire support, coordinated reload, Phalanx fighting, and superior covering fire, all available at level 1 and from early books, the envoy was very much a commander.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with commander and the like is A, envoy exists in starfinder, and the class is confirmed to not exist in starfinder too. If Animist isn't happening because its too close to a PF1 class, than commander isn't happening because of the envoy. The second problem is that SF2 is coming out soon, with a PF2 compatible envoy. It doesn't make much sense to make both, especially not if they aren't putting the mechanic in the core SF2 book as its too similar to the inventor.

Xenocrat wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
"Overdressed" fits the three vowel, three syllable, and the usual Wayne Reynolds art style on display, so I think we have one of our class names on the right side.
"Overdressed" has four vowels.
Not if you ignore the "o."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Missed Finger is 3 syllables and vowels. That seems specific enough for a rare class

I mean, it really depends on why its rare. If its rare entirely because of theme and it could be common with some mild reflavoring, then thats not great, but if its rare because it explores a mechanical space that only a rare class could explore, then I'm much more forgiving, as having that niche filled could be very useful. But again, it depends on what exactly it is.

Draco Bahamut wrote:







Chronomancer, runeblade, and dreamweaver have 4 vowels each, so it can't be those.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Michael Sayre Just posted this, confirming that the two new classes releasing with a playtest on the 31st will have 3 syllable names, and each name will have 3 vowels each. This is oddly specific, but also very vague. We also know one of them will be rare, and they will coincide with the death of a major god, so divine classes are likely but not confirmed.

Some possible names:
God eater
M. Sayre
Fighter two

1 to 50 of 376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>