Well, it's interesting because from a technical viewpoint, I find much of the new art superior. Facial expressions are stronger and better rendered, poses are more dynamic and make physical sense, the characters are more proportional, and I think there's a better balance of low to high detail areas.
However there are definitely some things I like better in the old art, mostly relating to shading and shadows. The new art is pretty flat, in comparison. Plus I definitely see that Wayne likes to draw people thinner than he did ~10 years ago.
I can't say which I like better, especially since this is a tad unfair comparison what with the new art being so low res.
I remain indifferent.
I feel that works more against alignment than for it. After all, if it was more deeply and consistently integrated then I could see it as this weird quirk of the system, where different actions and abilities are labeled with alignment, and your alignment would change based on your actions
As is stands, it affects only 2 classes, where they already have far more flavorful restrictions. Alignment pidgeon holes champions as it stands, since there can be only 9 subclasses. I'm sure arguments against alignment have been parroted over and over at this point, so I wont waste to much breath and of topic conversation on it, but alignment is one of my only big pet peeves about dnd & ilk.
I gotta say, I'm all about this non magic healing thing. I want to play an Alchemist with potions and what not, and being able to supplement that with the battle medic and tend wounds...
Regardless, the more I hear from this stream, the more it seems all my qualms about the playtest have been smoothed over. Except alignment, which I hold to being a dumb mechanic that should be excised from the game, at least rules wise. I mean, tenants and anathema already exist, why limit class by alignment? Anyway, I'll hop off my soapbox
Maybe it's because I really latched on to the whole clan aspect of their lore in the 5e handbook, but I love dragonborn. And in my experience, they're very commonly played. They're just cool. (Though even I hate their base stats. Like, a single breath weapon per long rest, and that's it? Wtf WotC)
Kind of like Argonians, but with more dnd flavor. I plan on making some Dragonborn homebrew asap for PF2, even if I likely will never play it thanks to being the ever-DM
Regardless, I like the Kobold art. They cute af. Maybe a bit too cute tbh, kinda makes them less of a threat, when they're small enough to punt.
I'm curious, MerlinCross, do you honestly believe that every class from 1e all have design space to be unique classes in 2e? I mean, I haven't played 90% of them, considering how little pathfinder I've played, but I've definitely read all of the classes, and imo most of the alternate classes and hybrid classes can be binned in favor of archetypes that will allow the same thing.
Most of the occult classes, the Oracle, the Summoner, and the Inquisitor stick out to me as class worthy, and the alchemist, obviously, but otherwise a lot of them could be covered pretty fairly by expanded class customization.
Even the Magus, which I have special reverence for because I am in love with arcane gishes, could be pretty handily covered through a wizard fighter multi class with a spell strike feat(which doesn't currently exist, granted). Or even a class archetype for wizard or fighter that turns it into a magus. Idk.
Point being, I think there are only a handful of classes worth being brought over from 1e, and the rest should explore new ground and concepts.
I kinda agree with Ediwir. Without much concrete to talk about within these forums, most of these topics are people arguing over semantics of this or that since there's nothing else to talk about.
I don't really even know why Paizo opened up these forums so early, lmao. Not much good conversation has happened.
Except It's not a zero-sum game. That implies that both sides gained and lost equally, where ultimately nobody benefited.
This was not a zero-sum game. This was a "Paizo decided one side was right, namely that Paladins are Lawful Good only" game. And the other side got a vague statement that there might, in the future, maybe be non-LG Paladin-esque characters.
This might not have been a problem if paladins didn't hold near exclusive rights over the defensive typed character, with almost all defensive actions and feats as well as Legendary Armor Prof locked down (not that it actually turns out to be worth it in the end cause all it means is a +1, but that's a different argument).
More than that, there are people willing to compromise on the Paladin == Lawful Good argument, as far as making the Paladin a smaller part of a whole in the form of a new class, in which the Paladin holds a selection of exclusive, Paladin-y abilities such as Smite Evil and Lay-On-hands, while the other alignments of the class get other abilities like horse riding and non-righteous divine magics (as that does exist within the confines of Pathfinder). This does in fact fit within your purview of Paladin == LG, unless you will stand for nothing less then Paladin being it's own exclusive class, solely Lawful Good, with no other classes poaching those abilities.
Which, good for you, I guess. You've chosen to die on an uncompromising hill over a game, but with the arguments I've gotten into over Star Wars, I can't really criticize all that much.
It's also pretty hard to take the Historical angle on this as well, because, Historically speaking, Paladins weren't always holy, nor even particularly virtuous. They were, more than anything, Knights of particularly high rank, or simply special. The Image of the modern Paladin of DnD comes, ultimately, from one specific knight of Charlemagne, those knights who were referred to as Paladins, from the roman base Palatine, meaning a government official who worked on Palatine hill. This specific Paladin was noted of being particularly virtuous, and had a number of stories written about him. A better title for a Knight who serves a Holy cause would probably be Templar or perhaps Crusader, but those also run into some possible hangups in terms of definition.
Regardless, history falls apart on many of the names of classes throughout DnD, with especial attention to Monks and Sorcerers vs Wizards vs Druids, so I digress.
As for saying the die is cast, that is explicitly not true. That's kinda the whole point for the playtest, is that the die is *not* cast and that people who want to see it changed should continue to push for it. It is in poor taste for you to condemn those who wish to see change by essentially lying.
The whole alignment debate, I believe, comes down to more of an argument about whether or not alignment is explicit or implicit. In other words, does alignment dictate your actions, or do actions dictate your alignment? A tangent off that, but also important, is alignment actions that you perform or your beliefs?
Personally, I prefer the view of alignment is implicit in mortal creatures, defined by their actions, while it being explicit in immortal beings such as gods and demons, guiding their actions and ideals. As such, Paladins would be implicitly LG as their Oaths would push them to be so, but ultimately not a thing to codify as mortal beings are simply not the same as outsiders and immortals, which can be definably Good or Evil.
Now this whole post has been pretty long in the wind, but I think I got all of my talking points out there. lmao idc tho
EDIT: Rereading this, it comes across as a little terse, and I would apologize for that. Just wanted to get all the factual stuff out in as quickly of a manner as possible with devolving the English language.
I mean, I think dropping the Lawful good requirement for Paladins doesn't mean that suddenly all Paladins will be Chaotic Evil. After all, if we only drop the alignment restriction, suddenly the LG alignment becomes more of an implicit thing, then explicit. With how the oath and anathema are written, people who are paladins would need to be good, and would tend to be lawful. Thus, most paladins end up being LG in the end, as they still need to follow their code, but also allows for interesting characters who have to choose between their instincts, and their righteous powers.
I would argue the same for Clerics, but that would require oaths to each God, and that would take up so much space I can understand making that explicit just to save space.
Has it been clarified anywhere whether or not the use of backpacks, satchels and belt pouches adds any extra bulk usage? For example, does a Dwarf Cleric with 14 str, and thus 7 bulk before encumbrance, gain 4 bulk to a total of 11 bulk before encumbrance with the use of a backpack? And further more 12 max to 16 max?
So, you're given a very limited amount of bulk to work with without becoming encumbered. And there doesn't seem to be any way to increase your bulk limit easily. And the containers seem to hold a set amount of bulk on their own. So I guess my question here is this:
Do items in a container count against your own bulk? and if not, then what exactly is the limiting factor of containers?
I think the best way to go about it is to have a Half blood template, where you pick something like 2 traits from each of the races, and then you pick feats from both races from then on.
That said, Ancestry feats being chosen after level 1 also doesn't rub me the right way. I probably would just have people choose like 4 of them at level 1, and deal with the consequences of them being a little OP.
This is probably the only part of the PF2 that so far I just can't really jive with, though Resonance certainly has me suspicious with how clunky it looks, but that's harder to see the full form of.
No, I get that. What I'm saying is that a Wizard knows Dispel Magic 2 - 10 simply by having it in their spell book, while a Sorcerer will either only know a single level of that spell, waste multiple of their precious spells known slots on it, or know that they might need to cast it at a higher level that day, meaning it's not really all that spontaneous.
Isn't kinda weird that there is a spontaneous feature that you must prepare at the beginning of the day, making it not spontaneous? If the sorcerer know that they'll have to cast that Dispel Magic at 6th level today, then so does the Wizard, and they can now prepare it also at 6th level.
This restriction also means that, by some strange twist of fate, Sorcerers cannot actually heighten their own spells, except by Spontaneous Heighten.
Let me get this straight in my head. If I take Dispel Magic at 3rd level as a 2nd level spell, and when I get to 5th level and get my 3rd level spell slots, to cast Dispel Magic as a third level spell I will have to:
Seems Like a whole lot of rigmarole that Wizards don't have to deal with, in the name of keeping it simple. It doesn't seem too bad, but Spontaneous spellcasting, along with the Resonance system, both seem like they kinda missed the mark on elegant design.