Goblin

Pumpkinhead11's page

Organized Play Member. 342 posts (526 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 342 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

graystone wrote:
Chetna Wavari wrote:
They're also drastically reducing the sources of all of those pluses.
Yes, that's my point: one of the few ways to get more pluses is your stats, so if you don't max your stat, you're behind the curve making it more likely you'll fail [or crit fail]. A few points can change works ok to doesn't feel fun. As such, the further a stat is from max the less likely I'd think of someone tossing resources like getting a skill to legendary for skills that are behind as far as stats bonuses.

On average it seems like the numbers are balanced around a stat of 14. An 18 has an easier time and a 10 has a harder time. The other thing is that level, for the most part, should be a much better balancer than it was in 1e. Until we have the actual Rulebook this remains speculation; but the DC chart, i believe, is suppose to remain static since one issue people had was the misguided assumption of DC’s arbitrarily scaling with level.

This means a Trained DC of 15 to climb a tree will be impossible to crit fail after a certain point. Also, Master and Legendary getting unlocked isn’t suppose to mean DC’s jump to those standards, but rather that those DC’s will start to pop up more regularly. By the time you come across Master level DC’s you should still be coming across Trained and Expert level DC’s. The only exception would be Legendary where Trained DC’s, even for someone with a 10 in that stat and no item bonuses, will auto succeed; with the exception of a nat 1 roll.

EDIT: tl;dr: as First World Bard said.


Lanathar wrote:

I wonder if it is 3 days of filming that produces x amount of content and then Jason goes again in y number of months to do the same thing?

Or whether the 3 days is an entire adventure that has been recorded and will be it once done

I think the latter...

If they’re an average of 1hr long episodes with 12hr/day of filming then possibly 30 episodes i’d Assume? Up to 60 if 30min episodes, but that’s where i’ll Place my bet.


Squiggit wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This is pretty much devolving into Crit Fail doomsaying nonsense
It's good that we've resorted to throwing around insults at people who don't like a rule now. Talk about devolving arguments...

It’s not an insult if there’s no real evidence to support the discussion. As i’ve also said and will repeat; if someone doesn’t like crit fail as a mechanic i can respect that and just disagree. Saying that this can or will be a prevalent thing and use numbers that don’t support any statistical average other than rare cases or deliberate sabotage, then yes, it’s not much of an actual discussion and more of a pointless argument.

Also, i talked about the discussion as a whole, the fact that you or any others took it as a personal jab was not intended that way; but my point still stands.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

This is pretty much devolving into Crit Fail doomsaying nonsense and pulling out absolutely niche scenarios that the player actually has to work to fail at. Some have stated they don’t like the fumble mechanic as a mechanic and i can respect that and just agree to disagree; but all this talk about ‘balance’ based around a 10 stat which is the worst you can get and actively have to maintain while pouring skill points into the relevant skill and calling it a bug is a pure logical fallacy. In the rare case this does become an issue we have been told about the new Assurance Skill-Feat that will 100% not allow you to crit fail a check; because if you would crit fail on an assurance roll then it is meant for a higher proficiency and would be gated off to begin with. Any argument about needing Assurance for a skill someone refuses to put investment into aside from skill point investment is not a discussion worth taking seriously.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
High level PF is like any level 1st edition D&D in that one bad or good roll could end a combat immediately. It's very rocket tag but with prep work. So you go well I know they are gonna fire a rocket at me but I have my protection from arrows but they know I will have that up so they will probably napalm me but I have fire shield which means I will be hit by disintegrate most likely but I have volley ready and ofcourse they will too so it will be 50/50 who gets nuked. This has always been high level play to me so it's what I expect however I wouldn't mind for it to be less rocket taggy.

So like a casual game of 4D chess then.


This also means a crit fail/success should be on average a 5-10% for the appropriate DC. The Untrained 10 DC for example ends up being 50% pass/fail and 5% crit/fumble. So a 5% chance to confuse a Goblin Raid for a Squirrel Parade.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Sherlock -

1) This is a fair personal opinion. There are some that find the shrinkage in numbers to track as a bonus rather than a downgrade.

2) This is just outdated information that was true to the PT but has since been said and shown have changed. The 50-75% success rate is now not a regular occurance to those that specialize in the task.

3) There are other that don’t like the bulk system as well, so you aren’t alone in this.

4) I don’t think this is entirely true, but it is for small and medium. Size also had issues tied with it as well so while size bonuses left; size penalties left as well.

5) No AoO is somewhat more complicated. AoO no longer being as common as the pennies in your average couch has actually shown players tend to make more bold actions and more more in general.

6) It’s rather early to say that half-casters got thrown out altogether. With the buff to Bard and the change to Paladin/Champion. It’s a reasonable assumption for the time being.

7) I mean, 1e low level spells became useless at some point as well even with scaling CL; also this meant that the same spell had to be printed multiple times with slightly different names for a better version. Everything else has been addressed elsewhere a number of times including Damage and Duration. As for rarity, if a GM is going to limit things based on rarity they’re gonna limit spells either way. That said others have asked for rarity guidelines rather than arbitrary rarities that new players may not understand the reasoning for.

8) Would need actual examples of this that aren’t using PT numbers to understand your reasoning for this. Even with PT numbers there are certainly ways to plan and build around combats before hand, but it did limit the choices significantly.

9) The problem with static bonuses was it lead to some builds and damage where the die was meaningless. Contrast that with casters that literally just got bonus die with higher spells and issues start to arise way too quickly. The adding of damage die actually allows Casters and Martials to be closer in balance without trivializing either. i.e. it’s a reasonable solution to minimize the linear vs quadratic dynamic between Martials and Casters.

10) This was true in 1e. 1eCRB had NPC classes, just compare and contrast that with PC classes. Also many people had a tendency to increase Monsters stats by giving them class levels. Even in 2e you can still treat NPC’s as PC’s. This issue is more hyperbolic than an actual issue.

11) This is purely untrue. Higher system mastery just doesn’t have such a contrasting difference as 1e. System mastery still allows for better and more intricate builds; this is actually a rather rash claim at best.

12) You would have to give examples of this. The item bonuses was lessened, but they even gave an item preview that specifically addresses this idea in the way of ‘uniqueness’ of magical items w/o giving massive numbers.

13) Animal Companions are definitely in an awkward spot from what we know. This is fairly true.

14) Calling this ‘Lazy Design’ is a very steep claim. Especially when they included it to start with and decided to do away with it. Flat-foot is still valuable and more commonly possible to do now that was in 1eCRB.

15) I assume you’re talking about charge here? Use two actions to move and one to strike. Charge was previously a Full-Round action; now the Fighter can Charge and Strike twice in a turn with a two handed weapon. Clearly an upgrade from 1e.

16) Honestly bringing reality into defining mechanics gets old after awhile. Switching from 1-h to 2-h grip is simple, but also includes adjusting your stance since people will attack differently with 1-h as they will with 2-h. Otherwise, yes, this is a mechanic and one that others have complained about as well.

17) This seems more gamey than 1e that dealt so much with numbers that people can pirerce a heavy armored target with a bow at 90% accuracy in the heat of battle every 6 seconds? To each their own.

18) This is still a thing. Part of the ‘Raise a Shield’ action is you ‘bracing’ for an impact. In 1e it is shown as just an AC boost; in 2e it is represented as a way to mitigate damage. Personally i’d Say preventing damage is more immersive than equip shield and forget it exists.

19) This is the exact same in 1e. Not sure where you’re going with this one.

20) This one has a point. it does allow Races to have access to better abilities later on that before were racial specific feats that took from your general feats; but it does make for certain racial choices such as stryx to seem much more complicated than they are in 1e. Otherwise the Race/Ancestry terminology isn’t a discussion to really bring up. I’m sure everyone here know what you mean if you use Race rather than Ancestry.

With your last responses it’s fairly obvious that the system, setting, and Edition in general are not to your interests. Sorry to hear and nothing wrong with liking other systems, but why post it here?


Justin Franklin wrote:
So one of the interesting tricks you can do with PF2e is you can just limit the proficiency level that you allow in the game. So say you want a less gonzo game you can say players can only get Master or even Expert proficiency max in the game. You can still go up in level, but can't get most of the over the top powers. And you can set a Spell level limit to match that.

Wait, what powers are limited by proficiency? Or are you talking about Skill-Feats? Either way the same result comes about more naturally by just limiting level to a max of 6 or 8; since one of the things mentioned by the OP was high numbers.


@Greystone - With the example you gave about confusing goblins for squirrels; i’m just picturing a GM saying that with a straight face while you start in SandPoint. Though if we’re talking higher level Goblins or a Goblin Shaman, a crit fail would seem more like ‘they look less important than the standard ones’ or ‘you’re honestly confused why one decided to where a dress and occasionally sings while going in a circle; but the others seem entertained by the actions’.

I also thought we got an example of the new DC chart somewhere? You did point out a notable difference though; that being 1e untrained could know up to DC10 info and 2e must be trained to attempt. We’ll have to see how much of an issue this becomes overall, but i can see your point on a stickler GM forcing Recall Checks on basic/common info.


Well, let’s take the idea of ancestry feats for example. For a natural born Lycan, Ancestry Feats make sense. Though what if someone gets infected at 8th level? Would they get extra Ancestry feats? Born Werecreatures i think would work the way you have set up; as a Heritage. Infected might work as a single extra Ancestry Feat (or similar) that gains benefits and drawbacks at later level; like the weakness to silver could go up by 5 every 5 Class Levels.


graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
graystone wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
The rolls are infrequent enough that it didn't usually bother me too much; even if I wasn't feeling creative it wasn't too hard to come up with stuff.
There is a learning curve here: I saw a LOT of these rolls starting out as everyone can roll for these checks. Not knowing it was a bad idea, even those with low or no bonuses rolled to see if they happened to know anything, resulting in quite a lot of incorrect data, often more than correct data.
Proof that too many hands in the kitchen isn’t always useful. They should definitely be informed that there is a down side though.
It's not quite that easy. If a player asks if they've seen or heard of that monster before the reply is a recall check. This leads people to feel they don't know anything unless they train in the skill vs being able to pick up info. It's totally different from PF1 in that the check was if you knew something or not. Now it not just that you don't know it but you get your hand slapped for asking. It doesn't help that an unlucky secret trained roll can be worse than a lucky secret untrained roll. So it not so much not knowing bad things can happen but relearning how things work and going against inertia: it doesn't seem right to say 'do I know what that is? A recall check... Forget I asked, I guess I don't want to know anymore...'.

Wasn’t this a thing with 1e as well though?

‘ Hey, do i recognize what that is?’

Or

‘Oh, hey! It’s a Kelpie; does my Wizard know what they can do?’

“Roll me a knowledge check”

I honestly can’t imagine that if a DM gives you knowledge on a creature, like from an open book on manticores in an earlier room, that they would force you to roll for it. I mean, they could if they were a stickler about it, but i feel they would do the same in 1e if they’re that hard up on it.

I mean, maybe it’s just a reflexive thing for my group, but i can’t imagine it feeling like a ‘slap on the hand’. If that’s how you feel it might play out i guess i’ll agree to disagree for now.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Secret Rolls aren’t anything new; and like was said before, ignoring the rule doesn’t mean the dev’s are gonna bust in and force your roll to be secret; as amusing as that would be. I’m more surprised that a Secret Roll tag has become as controversial as it has. *shrugs*

1) How rules are presented is an important part of how they're reacted to. I can't recall secret rolls being marked out as a default use for all knowledge checks, perception checks, insight checks, stealth checks and disable device checks in PF1e. Even if those were part of the PF1e core rules, they were perceived differently because of how they were presented.

I don't know why it's so hard to understand people will react differently to the same rule when it's presented differently.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
As for the Knowledge check, it only does something on crit fail and success;

2) This is probably the worst part of skill checks in the playtest. Bad thing on crit fails mean people won't try things unless they have a big bonus on that action. That seems to stifle creative play rather than encourage it.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Proof that too many hands in the kitchen isn’t always useful.
3) Or proof that you shouldn't try something unless you have the biggest bonus in the group.

1) You are right. I feel it immensely valuable that a new DM should know that if they don’t want their players to know the number to a roll they don’t have to; rather than feel like they’re somehow cheating. This was something i was learning to do with my group for certain rolls and only learned years later that others had a similar idea. Some groups don’t like Secret Rolls, and that’s fair. I’m simply surprised that most of the comments against it have been more ‘passionate’ rather than dismissive. In the end it’s my opinion on the take.

2) I just feel the absolute opposite about this. If someone is so worried about crit failing a secret roll then they would be worried about crit failing a normal knowledge roll. Also, ‘Unmistakable Lore’ was a 2nd level skill feat; so literally anyone that was planning to use ‘Recall Knowledge’ even semi-regularly could take it and not worry about crit fail. Assurance also got a nice buff in the final version which would take the secret roll away all together.

3) This is more of a debatable point than a definitive one. I feel most would agree that the one with the biggest bonus does the roll on average, so i’m not sure where this is suppose to go. . . Also, from being in beginning groups where the trained expert fails a check, so the untrained guy rolls next just bogs down time on average so the less dice spam is incentivized the better IMO.


I think a Werecreature Heritage could actually be interesting now that you mention it. Maybe there should be a difference between born from Lycan parentage and infected curse personally speaking, but it looks interesting at a glance.


WatersLethe wrote:


Saying you're not looking forward to anything is a bit like going out of your way to go to a wine tasting to tell everyone you don't like wine.

But how will wine enthusiasts know that beer is obviously the better choice if they aren’t told so?

As for things i’m looking forward to? Persistent Damage. I fell in love with DoT damage after playing Battle Chasers and making a simple DoT build. When i tried to see what i could make in 1e everything i found was negligible due to magic healing. Rogue and Alchemist have some good support for the concept and with the new rules it’s actually viable.

@John Lynch - nobody is saying ‘only good things have to be said’. It’s possible that Sherlock was responding to a question previously said but didn’t mention it in their post; making their post stick out all the more. They are welcome to their opinion and if they don’t find much interesting then sorry to hear. At the very least i’d Suggest they post in the Hombrew Worlds thread where they at least have a welcome opportunity to explain about their Homebrew and why the new edition doesn’t fit as well. Personally that would seem more constructive then posting it here.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
Why did anyone ever throw Alchemist's Fire in PF1 when a Greatsword was doing 2d6+9 damage? They did it because it was worth it at the time due the situation they were in and the enemy they were fighting. Why would this not still be the case in PF2?
Because in PF2 there's a class built, at least partially, around using alchemical bombs as their primary weapons. So at least for them, using bombs should be viable as a default tactic.

Also towards the end of the playtest the damage was able to scale; True Alchemist Fire did 6d8 fire damage and 6 Persistent fire damage. Anyone is able to craft and use it, but Alchemist is the class that can craft it in Bulk for free.


sherlock1701 wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Leotamer wrote:

You are comparing a ranged, thrown weapon which hits an elemental weakness and has extra utility to a club.

If we compare play-test acid splash to an acid flask, then they are both 1d4 acid damage plus one splash damage at ranged for two actions. Except for the acid flask deals 1d4 persistent acid damage, whereas acid splash only deals one persistent damage on a crit. The flask also has ten less range.

And the next step in the argument is both acid flask and acid splash are weak, but you also need to consider both were against touch AC, and so hopefully now that TAC is gone, they get more damage or something else to compensate.

But either way for a non-alchemist, their primary use is probably going to hit a specific weakness or enable a secondary effect, which is fine. And if you want to use bombs regularly, you can get the quick bomber feat with two feats into the alchemist dedication. Having to invest in the bomber dedication if you want to bomb things seems reasonable to me.

I missed that they removed touch AC. Another nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. It's absolute nonsense that armor would protect you from freezing rays and splashing acid just as well as from a sword.

They also need to make specific armor weak against specific weapons, and vice versa (e.g. maces should ignore 1/2 of the AC from plate, but swords should treat it 50% higher). It's a pain having to houserule stuff all the time.

I would hope that armor would block a bit of the splash or frost; otherwise the Smith is getting some words about defective products.

The weapon/armor interaction sound interesting, but oh so very unnecessary and complicated.

Armor is going to do very little to protect you from a near 0 Kelvin blast. It also tends to let liquids through pretty well.

Unless you're advocating for armor taking some of the damage and getting broken over time, which I would wholeheartedly support.

Freezing ray doesn’t do near 0 kelvin. If the acid splash hits dead on, sure; but if it glances off cause of the armor then obviously no.


sherlock1701 wrote:
Leotamer wrote:

You are comparing a ranged, thrown weapon which hits an elemental weakness and has extra utility to a club.

If we compare play-test acid splash to an acid flask, then they are both 1d4 acid damage plus one splash damage at ranged for two actions. Except for the acid flask deals 1d4 persistent acid damage, whereas acid splash only deals one persistent damage on a crit. The flask also has ten less range.

And the next step in the argument is both acid flask and acid splash are weak, but you also need to consider both were against touch AC, and so hopefully now that TAC is gone, they get more damage or something else to compensate.

But either way for a non-alchemist, their primary use is probably going to hit a specific weakness or enable a secondary effect, which is fine. And if you want to use bombs regularly, you can get the quick bomber feat with two feats into the alchemist dedication. Having to invest in the bomber dedication if you want to bomb things seems reasonable to me.

I missed that they removed touch AC. Another nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. It's absolute nonsense that armor would protect you from freezing rays and splashing acid just as well as from a sword.

They also need to make specific armor weak against specific weapons, and vice versa (e.g. maces should ignore 1/2 of the AC from plate, but swords should treat it 50% higher). It's a pain having to houserule stuff all the time.

I would hope that armor would block a bit of the splash or frost; otherwise the Smith is getting some words about defective products.

The weapon/armor interaction sound interesting, but oh so very unnecessary and complicated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Also it doesn't inherently make Chirurgeon break down, it means Chirurgeon is a different brand if healer. It'd be a little bland if -everyone- approached healing the same way IMO.

Different is only good of the distinctions offer varied options and playstyles.

Right now this thread is suggesting the main ways the chirurgeon is different is in all the ways that it's worse, which isn't worth a whole lot.

Except this is rather subjective to what one would find as useful to begin with and treating it as a direct comparison while showing a bias towards a preference that is being set as a loose standard.


Okay, let me clarify further. 30 Elixers should be absolute overkill and i compare 30 Elixers to a Cleric preparing nothing but Heal spells for the day. I don’t feel an Alchemist should ever need to prepare 30 at that early of a level, but they can; the same as a Cleric can prepare nothing but Heal spells and be an Omni healer.

Action economy - this doesn’t have to only be DPR, it can be any action. Battle Medic, positioning themselves on the map, time sensitive skill checks; this is a clear benefit of planning ahead where the Cleric has to take a moment and 2/3 of their turn to focus on someone. Also the 3-action heal takes coordination to be effective under normal means.

Healing - The example i gave means each party member had 6 Elixers for the day at 6th level. The Melee might run into issues with them because of needing a free hand, but as has been said the Alchemist can run up to the ally and administer an Elixer if needed. When it comes to ranged characters though, they just need to take a drink and keep on going. When it comes to non melee focused characters Elixers seem like a much better choice than Heal spells.

Other notes - I’m only focusing on heal potential at the cost of versatility. I’ve already admitted and agree that Cleric will probably be the ‘best bang for your buck’ type healer. Alchemist seems like they will be more rewarding for good planning. This discussion has also been excluding actually buying/finding/looting/crafting literally any other healing items and completely relying on the class; which i would find to be rather extreme in practice.


graystone wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
The rolls are infrequent enough that it didn't usually bother me too much; even if I wasn't feeling creative it wasn't too hard to come up with stuff.
There is a learning curve here: I saw a LOT of these rolls starting out as everyone can roll for these checks. Not knowing it was a bad idea, even those with low or no bonuses rolled to see if they happened to know anything, resulting in quite a lot of incorrect data, often more than correct data.

Proof that too many hands in the kitchen isn’t always useful. They should definitely be informed that there is a down side though.


graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
At level 4 an Alchemist with 18 INT can craft 16 Elixers and at level 5 they can craft 27 Elixers total.
It's very hard to do a 1 to 1 comparison of uses when channel can heal everyone in the party: if you have a 5 man party and everyone is wounded that's more healing that 5 elixirs.

I’d agree, and I would say that ‘s the first sign of engaging balance; when classes can overlap roles and not be 1 to 1 comparisons to each other. Morgan said Clerics are the ‘better’ healer, and i take that to mean they will probably heal the most per resource (heal) spent and possibly the most versatility with each heal cast (1, 2 or 3 action). This does come with the drawback of needing to heal in the moment and sacrificing focus from elsewhere. A level 6 Alchemist making 30 Elixers for a party of 5 is basically delegating the healing to individual agency allowing their focus to be completely free. Both i would say are completely viable so long as the numbers remain comparable.


At level 4 an Alchemist with 18 INT can craft 16 Elixers and at level 5 they can craft 27 Elixers total. I don’t think Clerics are going to outshine Alchemists in healing. Channel Energy, I believe, isn’t going to be as high as it was in the PT so if a Cleric wants to be the best then they have to sacrifice their spell slots to do so; and this ends up being the same with an Alchemist crafting Elixers. Both i believe will have good Medicine Skills so Treat Wounds will be good with either Character, though Clerics will have the advantage of Wis as their Key Stat. I’m pretty sure no class is going to feel like a ‘Primary Healer’ unless you build them that way.


This is actually pretty cool to hear. I don’t expect it to compete against Critical Roll or 5e, but it’s a good call on ‘going to where the audience is’.


From what was transcribed in another thread, the ‘Healer’ Alchemist path can make 3 healing pots per daily batch at 5th level, and 13th level i think, all healing pots heal for max rather than rolling. They seem like they will have a good place for anyone looking to fill that roll.


Secret Rolls aren’t anything new; and like was said before, ignoring the rule doesn’t mean the dev’s are gonna bust in and force your roll to be secret; as amusing as that would be. I’m more surprised that a Secret Roll tag has become as controversial as it has. *shrugs*

As for the Knowledge check, it only does something on crit fail and success; there are skill feats in the PT that take away the crit fail part, which someone relying on knowledge checks regularly i imagine would want anyway so it’s not like the DM can screw you over with that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Landon Winkler wrote:

One thing about D&D's roots in war games that doesn't get mentioned as much is that, up until 3rd Edition in '99, it was assumed in the rules that PCs would get involved in kingdom building and politics around 9th level.

Now, that's not necessarily gritty intrigue. They become actual movers and shakers in the setting. But if they've been in the shadows for the first half of their career, being able to move out into the light is a nice progression.

Personal power is another reason for NPCs to actually give start-up adventurers the time of day, divinations and improved skills give access to evidence needed to make informed decisions, and teleportation means you can meet face-to-face with contacts anywhere in the world. In a political game, all that power cuts through a lot of non-political time.

Obviously, this can get boring if no-one else in the world has the same level of power, but I've personally found high-power systems lead very naturally into political games.

And now i’m thinking of Log Horizon; when combat becomes trivialized the real issues become the powerful movers and shakers bumping shoulders and creating tangible political issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
duje wrote:
Point i was trying to make, in vertical system if someone in a city, like thieves or thugs can challenge you, they are g~& d$@n epic and heroic, they are friking heroes that could slay dragons and s%$~, but live in a city as thugs.

The better question is, why would they go and risk dying to try and kill a dragon when they can safely rule a city with an iron fist? Not everyone wants to do good or go out adventuring. A boss of a thieves guild is set for life staying where he is and killing people/adventurers that try and upset their lifestyle.


duje wrote:
JohannVonUlm wrote:
duje wrote:
Fobok wrote:
duje wrote:
Isnt Pathfinder like fork from DnD?
And D&D forked off of a wargame.

I dont consider a DnD or Pathdfinder a Wargame, Wargame is completely another genre.

Warhammer, Infinity(altho this could be more of a tactics game), historical wargames and so on.
To me wargame or tactics game is a game where you dont have a close attachment to the army or squad you are using, there is no leveling but point buy, nor any kind of social interaction with the world, you are simulating a battle or skirmish on a map against other people in a competitive manner.
Chess is probably oldest wargame in existance

Pathfinder and D&D certainly aren't wargames now. But Kraege and Fobok are right, D&D had it's roots in a wargame, Chainmail. Gary Gygax's innovation is that you could marry a story with it and give depth to the experience.

If you're looking to tone down high-fantasy, you need another game mechanically. I'd look at the One Ring - (not the 5e version, but the system unique version). Tolkien done right really is a low-magic game. You could also look at the RPG based on George Martin's Song of Fire and Ice. It's another low-magic game. Both would let you focus on the story and intrigue and less on the tactical combat.

I think shadowrun is also a good example of balanced not over the top RP game, i dont know any pure fantasy game like that, as you bassicaly start as finished charachter, and all the karma(xp) and money you get is basically just to expend your options, at the end of the day no matter how much stuff you did, you are still just as helpless dude in a dangerous world :D

Then check out World/Chronicles of Darkness games. You can build completely Horizontally or Vertically and still be relevant. It’s designed around lethal and quick combat with out of combat solutions being just as viable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
thistledown wrote:
but that's the goal of character building.

As someone who has made a great sword wielding halfling bard* and an elven paladin I respectfully disagree.

*I did have to cheese him out pretty hard with that handicap

This is more a difference in building characters. I prefer to pour over splatbooks for any concept i think up; though i agree that everything is better with less cheese. Even cheese is better with less cheese.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Shadowdancer is a little tricky cause Dimentional Steps was a focus spell and we don’t have the full rules on focus pools. If it’s possible to get a focus pool of 6 i’m Fine with it. The DR/- can be translated into Resistance like for Barbarian and Grey Maiden. Summon Shadow can be auto heightened summon monster or similar. Hide in Plain Sight as a skill feat. Etc.

Summon Shadow is probably closer to some kind of pet, since it’s permanent and is based on your total level and not just a spell.

They would definitely have to get a focus pool, not just for steps but also for shadow conjuration and evocation. In fact I’d say the dedication feat for it would have to give you a pool and you start with Hide in Plain Sight and Dimensional Step as a focus power.

Hide in plain sight can work w/o focus. There’s a thievery skill that lets you steal the magic writing and allows you to place it on another blank paper (wizards and scroll shop owners beware) so a skill feat that allows hiding in dim light or near shadows seems fine. As for the Dimention Steps/Shadow Walk. . . That could actually get farther and farther based on number of feats; like range of 20ft per Shadowdancer feat.

Summon Shadow would be interesting with new companion rules, and Shadow Evocation would be perfect as a Focus Spell.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Not to mention "rogue that uses magic items to supplement their routine" is WAY more viable now, since wands and scrolls have non-crap DCs.
Now I am imagining Merisiel but instead of having hundreds of daggers it have hundreds of wands, unlimited wands works.

If you click on the Pathfinder tag at the top, and after the page loads you scroll down to Age of Ashes, it shows Merisiel using a wand with a Dagger in her other hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:
From what has been spoiled so far, has there been anything that could really support a magical trickster build. From what I have heard, I am pretty sure you could grab cantrips from just ancestries, but cantrips seem quite limiting. It might be as simple as taking the right multi-class dedication and grabbing the right spells and support, but I am not sure that will be enough. And maybe will have the right items or powers to make it work, but I don't think I have seen any so far.

Multiclassing into a caster gets you up to 8th level spells; some Focus Spells that could match with it; magic items with ‘Trick Magic Item’ Skill Feat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Shadowdancer is a little tricky cause Dimentional Steps was a focus spell and we don’t have the full rules on focus pools. If it’s possible to get a focus pool of 6 i’m Fine with it. The DR/- can be translated into Resistance like for Barbarian and Grey Maiden. Summon Shadow can be auto heightened summon monster or similar. Hide in Plain Sight as a skill feat. Etc.

I agree with Garretmander for the most part with the exception of a capstone. Multiclassing or Archetypes in general are good just being a dipping pool, and not feeling pressured to ‘go all the way’. 6-8 feats would be a good rule of thumb to go by since you can go in, grab 2-3 feats you want or that fit, and dip out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
I wonder if it will be tough to get ranged sneak attack like before
Having one Alchemist or Fighter in the party basically makes the enemy flat footed forever and you can always hide to make the enemy flat footed against your attacks too.

How come ? I haven’t read through all the paizocon spoiler cards

I guess tanglefoot bags are the alchemist thing?

Bootled Lighting caused the Flat Footed condition to any enemy that it his until the start of the next turn of the person that used it.

Yeah, Bottled Lightning is a Rogue’s best friend right after that knife looking hungrily at some poor bandit’s kidney. Especially with access to Quick Draw, and if it remains cheep to craft a low level version, i imagine a Rogue carrying a couple regularly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
Witch is something that I wondered, does the relationship of the Witch and her Patron always need to manifest in an familiar? Classes are really different from their PF1 counterpart in the new edition so an Witch class could choose at first their Patron that will give acess to some spells know and their specific hex and then how their pact will manifest, be it the familiar or something else like an ritual dagger or even an ritual book.

I think this is based on Witches being iconic with a familiar of sorts that they occasionally even talk to. Most notably a Black Cat, but I vaguely remember some other choices.

As for classes; definitely a handful of magic casting classes. There are some old Prestiege Classes that can be turned into Archetypes, such as one player of mine would enjoy a Geometer and Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

Some others are Effigy Master, Magus, Wu Jen, Beguiler(possibly); and some optional rules and feats for spell casters.


Mechalibur wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Caster/caster multiclassing is going to be a big deal, I'm calling it now. More slots and more spell options are going to be VERY attractive.
Especially if you're able to match casting traditions or ability score used. I think an occult sorcerer/bard could even manage both.

A pure occult Sorc/Bard or Bard/Sorc is the most powerful combination at the moment, simply for spending 4-5 feats for 8-14 extra spell slots.


Last i heard, regaining focus had a specific activities one could do; the Champion doing some form of prayer or paying respect. Any stacking of 10 min activities as we currently know of will have to be subject to houseruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some people like the aesthetics more that the functionality. One of the things to like about 3.5 and PF1e is it allows you to get into the nitty gritty to truly flesh out a concept no matter how simple or complex. If i make a character that focuses on a specific weapon it makes sense that i’ll want to focus on it. If someone isn’t focused on the aesthetic then functionality becomes more important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
You publish a feat like that, and anyone who wants that ability is now pressured to stick with that one weapon and not use any others. That's not something we need in this system.
That's something the system already has though: look at monk's stances once. More than pressure, you're forced into using the stances unarmed attack as your sole weapon while in a stance. Secondly, with the ability to move around runes I'm not sure why it'd be an issue if stick with that one weapon. What breaks if you "stick with that one weapon and not use any others"?

Point-Blank Shot and Slippery Shooter are Stances that rely on Ranged Weapons, so. . . I guess there are feats that pressure players to favor some weapons over others already.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

One of my big problems with Lethe's argument is that to satisfy the guidelines they've given the only solution would be to make specific feats for every single weapon in the book that anyone can take within the first couple of levels.

I'm not sure that's reasonable, and I'm not sure that's something we should have, it's a big step back to PF1 hyperspecialization.

That really isn't true: a feat that makes you pick a single weapon would work just as well. For instance a trick shot feat that works with any single ranged weapon isn't a huge strain on the system and does what they want. A similar melee feat, lets call it unusual moves, could cover the rest of the weapons.: You look at the character sheet, see trick shot[long bow] and know that they prefer using a longbow.

Except there's two problems with that.

One, it makes someone who takes that feat with x weapon no different than someone who takes it with y weapon. Which admittedly isnt a big issue I suppose, feats like Double Slice work no differently with shortswords as with hatchets.

But the much bigger issue is what I said about hyperspecialization. You publish a feat like that, and anyone who wants that ability is now pressured to stick with that one weapon and not use any others. That's not something we need in this system.

Except for retraining being a core thing. Also there’s the counter argument of picking up a better weapon of a different weapon group you can use being better; anyone in that situation is now pressured to use that one weapon and not use the one they prefer.

@Leotamer - Catagorizing by weapon group might be good enough. With the example given, if ‘Trick Shot’ simply required a bow or crossbow it might be a good enough distinction.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Yeah, I dunno, I think in a game where "I want to supplex dragons" is a legitimate goal you can set for your character but that starts you off fighting kobolds... sometimes you are just gonna have to wait a few levels.

Also, there's numerous ways to hack armor, weapons, or cantrips over to your character at level 1 through ancestry feats, so there's a lot of ways to get "Battle mage" going at 1st level. Including just playing a bard or cleric, for example. But I also think that if you are going to point to a non-core class, it is probably worth waiting to see if they just make a new version of that class before complaining that you can't do it properly. As we discussed in another thread, it is possible that the magus could return as an 8 hitpoint, 3 spellslots per spell level arcane caster with weapons and armor proficiency.

Huh? I mean, this example technically falls under Gish, but i don’t believe that is the main point of the example.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:


Quote:
Like a dedication which gives longbow proficiency and access to archery feats seems a solution for every level except one.
I'm starting to feel like dedications starting at level 2 is a design paradigm that causes more issues than it actually solves.
This has me curious. Could you elaborate?

I think the idea is that if you allow them at 1st level it solves a whole lot of problems with concepts not being available. Which there's a fair bit of truth to.

Of course, this is perhaps the easiest fix in the history of fixes (you just allow people to take Dedications at level 1).

But from my understanding that’s not Water’s core issue. Correct me if i’m wrong but it’s been more around ‘proof of investment’ and a reason to choose it over an otherwise more optimal choice. The soonest you can grab Point-Blank would be level 4; a fifth of the way into your character. Double shot ends up being at level 8. Those end up as rather long gaps that didn’t exist as prominately in 1e for this class; even if it was because of grabbing feat taxes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

I feel like with this example is that "druids with bows" is not great because it trending very close to ranger, and the only bow druid archetype I found in 1e is the survivor which is forced into animal companion, has a bonus to surprise rounds, and does stuff with traps (with only proficiency with bows) sounds like a ranger archetype.

We have feat-classing, we have ancestry feats that can be expanded later, and we might get a archery dedication, thus avoiding the need to multi-class. How much more do we need? Esp. when we have a marital class heavily associated with bows and primal magic.

And I am not sure that I see the problem in having a niche character build open at level 2 instead of level 1. Do you really need your build fully functional before level 2? This could be my own ignorance.

Could use another class as an example. Sorc, Wizard, and Bard end up coming across the same issue from a technical standpoint.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Other than "proficiency with a bow" what would an archer druid need to feel like an archer? Like, if we gave them the ability to take archery related feats instead of druidy feats, isn't that essentially "you can choose to be less of a druid and more of something else"? Short of "printing archery feats specifically for druids" (which is sort of off-theme) what could we do?

Like a dedication which gives longbow proficiency and access to archery feats seems a solution for every level except one. I feel like "my character concept does not function until level n, n>1" is not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.

They have been pretty clear that for the most part they’re looking for something to show proof of specific investment within a reasonable level range. Water has said they’re okay with a skill feat, so long as it focused on bow (simply as an example) rather than a general array of weapons. No comment has been made if a Bow specific Archetype that gives a benefit with the dedication (like increased proficiency or +1 to hit with the bow just to spitball) would be good enough or not though.

Their complaint has been if they use a bow and come across a +1 dagger or something there is nothing that would be prioritizing the bow since the dagger would even give a better hit chance.


Squiggit wrote:


Quote:
Like a dedication which gives longbow proficiency and access to archery feats seems a solution for every level except one.
I'm starting to feel like dedications starting at level 2 is a design paradigm that causes more issues than it actually solves.

This has me curious. Could you elaborate?


Well, it seems like it may get handwaved in home games; but i believe it’s able to stack with glad-hand, so you walk into a group of strangers, yell at them, and hopefully they like you for it. This would mean that you could also use Group Impression on other skill feats in the future that might not seem like they would work with multiple people.


Actually making some class specific skill feats could fit nicely into it. When we see an Archetype that has skill feats we’ll be better able to figure out a balance with it.


@WaterLethe - I’m feeling the general combat feats thing can be solved by making general Combat Archetypes. A similar conversation cropped up around Paladin/Champion wanting to use ranged. I agree with you that a class should have an identity but not have to be exclusive to it; like having an Elven Druid that favors a bow where another druid may favor the classic Sickle of some such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracala wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
Regardless of the reasoning for it I’m glad that is going away. This type of optimization makes the game less fun for other players and makes it very hard for DMs to make content that challenges both you and the other less optimized players. Now if you’re lucky enough to get a party where everyone does that then yes it can be cool. I was able to do that with the one 4e campaign I played in. But in a regular table it’s not a fun experience for anyone but the optimizer.
I'm really sorry to tell you this, but just because there's a new edition coming out doesn't mean this is going to go away, eventually, there will be enough material for this to happen Again. This type of thing doesn't just go away, it builds up over time. But that doesn't change the fact about Multiclassing feeling bad now... In all of the things I listed for my character, did Multiclassing really seem like the real problem of my build? Heck if I had gone full class I probably would have gone Full Alchemist instead Mad Bomber style or maybe gone Almost Full Vivisectionist w/ 2 Ninja Levels instead and would have had everything (except bomb damage, which didn't matter to me as much as the smoke) or maybe even 2 lvls of Base Rogue, anyways x.x

Have to agree with Drac on this one. I can make a couple builds akin to this with what we have just with the PT and the updates. His build isn’t particularly optimized or anything out in left field. Even if something of this caliber isn’t possible from launch, it’s only a matter of time; and personally people who invest the time to learn and experiment should be rewarded for their efforts. The real problem comes with how much of a gap that creates.


Shadow Kineticist. . . You have my interest

1 to 50 of 342 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>