Qbalrog's page

I'm very much against them having their own classes.

Doing so rapidly launches us into the 'old days' of ethnic stereotypes.

(Hopefully I got my quote attribution right.)

I'm not looking for an "oriental" reskin of existing classes either. Aside from any cultural squikiness, it isn't necessary as you point out.
My group had a Tian Xia themed champion in a game that was well played both mechanically and RP-wise, with no need for a new class or archetype.

Rogues are also a good example: there have always been archetypes and backgrounds that add particular flavor to rogues without making new classes, like assassins, but also pirate brotherhoods, spy associataions, and what have you.

I'd rather not see new classes for concepts better played with RP and/or possibly an archetype option. I do like classes that have their own mechanics like the upcoming kineticst so not opposed to new classes.

Overall, though, rather than new classes, I'd rather see more ancestry, class and archetypes feats, maybe some more archetypes, although there are a lot of archetypes already. More APG and Lost Omens ancestry guides without the new classes :)

And more regional focus, Darklands, other continents, maybe the solar system (not my thing but a lot of players really like that and would build on several existing AP)

Great book, will post a review when it's open!

as often with books that take a new direction, give it a few reads before deciding on how you feel about it.

have to say, I'm an old school "I can do it myself d*m it, guy" but the flavor text is extremely well done. Kudos to the writing team!

Wasn't a fan of 4E although it was an interesting experiment. So if you love 4E, my opinion will probably not resonate with you.

As someone who has played all D&D editions since before there was even a Greyhawk supplement as well as lots of 1E and 2E, I love the 2E system.

The action overhaul and spell/special affect overhaul is well done, as is making almost every critter in the Bestiary unique in some way. I love the take on ancestries, backgrounds, and classes as well.

As a ref, I love the precision in the rules. As a (prospective) player, still only ref'd it so far :S, there are many character concepts that appeal to me. 5E doesn't grab me as a player (it's too simple and not well balanced across classes) or ref. 4E... it was interesting but found it hard to ref. Seemed more like a draft of a CPRG than something usable on a table top. And I would love it in a CRPG.

I hope Drow are one of the remaining ancestries... unless they are planning an underworld setting book in its own right which I would happy to wait for.

Looking forward to this!

This is 1E?

There are some places where the 2E and 1E items are segregated but if you go to the setting section, for instance, they aren't. Why is this?

To be honest, it makes me *less* likely to buy setting items because I don't want to accidentally buy something 1E (and I've supported Paizo with pleny of 1E purchases in my time :) ).

There should be a market place filter option to filter by 2E. I *want* to be buy 2E stuff. Make it easier for me :)

Cheers

How does this work with the gamemaster guide chase system? Are they completely different?

I look forward to playing it as they roll out more material. But my immediate take-away is that it is basically a really interesting framework and won't feel (to me anyway) complete until the equivalent of the advanced race and player guides come out.

Right now, it seems a little thin. Not a lot thin, just not quite enough customization options to get my players to want to run it at present, aside from some short forays into the new rules. In the end, if we didn't like the customization options of PF, we'd play 5E. Even core rules aren't 5E but they are far less than mature 1E :)

So, we're starting another PF 1E campaign and will see how it looks when that ends. Of course, I've been devouring the rule book and plan to do a few trial one-shots. If my players are happy enough with what's there now, we may end or convert the earlier game and go to 2E. We'll see.

Are occultists supposed to receive the mundane implement for free as part of the class feature, similar to a wizard's bonded object?

I have been playing one for a few sessions, starting at level 1, and it is a long valley of "meh"... but it isn't like low level wizards have a ton to do either.

In a min-max campaign where maximum effectiveness counts, I don't think Occultist would be a good choice. And honestly, that's usually my group's style of play but it happens that we are doing a campaign where it is a lot more about occult investigations and RP. In this setting, it's quite fun to play, although, so far, my direct Occultist abilities have had little directly useful impact on the game. But I don't think that in this campaign, a mage or sorcerer at low level would be doing all that much either.

My take on occultist: it has some great color, it has some very different mechanics, it eventually might be middling in effectiveness compared to other classes. If you care about standing out as a major source of power, healing, etc., it probably isn't the right class. If you have the right campaign and are more interested in roleplaying, it has some potential.

I think it is a good addition to the game. Not every class is for everyone or every campaign. If I've ever played a monk in my almost 40 years of gaming, I can't recall it... or a gnome for that matter. Glad to have them in the game, though, and glad to be playing occultist now.