Kbold Chieftan

RoastCabose's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 33 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Instead of removing +level entirely, you could just halve it. You get +1 at level 2, +2 at level 4, etc etc. It would flatten out the curve quite a bit, while not completely wrecking the balance of the game. Has anybody tried doing that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
RoastCabose wrote:
Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really don't care for "dragon people" personally.
Kobolds are better. And plushier.
I mean, of all my wants Dragonborn are kinda least on my list. I just like having breath weapons, and I would rather be a dragon race than a half-dragon. Feels a little too OC do not steal. Plus I've always been into the idea of sapient non-bipedal creatures, and dragons fit that bill pretty well in dnd.

...I had totally forgotten half-dragons were a thing. I wonder if that will be a universal heritage at some point.

I don’t need them though, I’m just curious. We have kobolds, as Rysky correctly points out.

Well, that's not quite fair, is it? Kobolds are quite distinctly undragon-like. They worship dragons, but are otherwise diminutive, cowardly, and don't have a breath weapon. As much as I like kobolds, and I love kobolds, they are far from dragon people. They didn't even have scales and strict association with dragons until like 3e, if I remember correctly. They used to be more dog like.

Regardless, I'm not really advocating for Dragonborn in Pathfinder. While I would thinks that's neat, and would love to see their ancestry feats and what not, they are ultimately a dnd property. I do want a "dragon people" in pathfinder, but I hope they're more creative then Dragonborn, who are pretty bereft of decent lore, imo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm going to agree with Old_Man_Robot on this one. I take Cloud Jump as two abilities. First is the extension of Long Jump and High Jump. When you long jump, you jump 3 times the distance set by the DC. When you high jump, you follow the rules of long jump without tripling the distance. The implication being that you can leap 60 feat for a single Long Jump. Since Cloud Jump modifies Long Jump, and being able to leap 60 feet would be otherwise impossible, I'd say that you can now jump longer than your speed.

The second ability then is being able to further extend your jumps by your speed again. If the implication was that this was required to make the 60 ft jump possible in the first place, then putting an example of an impossible jump without explaining it was impossible without the use of this second ability would be absurd. Additionally, the wording

Cloud Jump wrote:
You can also increase the number of actions you use (up to the number of actions you have remaining in your turn) to jump [i]even[i/] further.

would be problematic, as the words "also" and "even" imply that this happens in addition to what is said in the paragraph previous, not as an explanation to how it happens.

I also have to say that while this is powerful, its still not flying, and you can only go so far in a straight line. It's not even a situation that comes up frequently, and just makes you feel cool more than anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really don't care for "dragon people" personally.
Kobolds are better. And plushier.

I mean, of all my wants Dragonborn are kinda least on my list. I just like having breath weapons, and I would rather be a dragon race than a half-dragon. Feels a little too OC do not steal. Plus I've always been into the idea of sapient non-bipedal creatures, and dragons fit that bill pretty well in dnd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ditto on the Xcom Vipers. I was leaning on the side of Serpentfolk should be playable up until I saw they're another human with an animal head deal.

It is kinda weird how Pathfinder has 3 snake races and they range from humans with snake-y traits to scalie human with snake head. Seems a little redundant, especially considering none of them have tails or are legless.

My top choices for Monstrous races are probably Lizardfolk (check), Xcom-Viper snake people, Kahjiit (check), and Dragonborn (or really, a dragon race, not even necessarily humanoid, but still medium sized and ready for adventuring). Elder Scrolls is definitely an influence on those choices, but what can I say :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:


I still remember one time in my old Dark Sun campaign..

I used to love Dark Sun. I haven't played it since 2E AD&D.

AD&D 2E is almost as different from 3E as PF1 is from PF2.

Almost as different? What? AD&D2e is definitely more different from 3e than 3e is from PF2e.

And I wish I could bring myself to homebrew a wholebunch of Dark Sun stuff to run a game in the setting, but every time I try I set the bar too high, and end up giving up once I try to figure out defiling, and class changes.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The issue with metagaming is that it is impossible to not metagame. You cannot separate player knowledge from character knowledge. Simply having the knowledge changes your decision making process, as making a choice without knowing its outcome and purposefully making the wrong choice and fundamentally different.

However, that doesn't mean you could come into my game with the Bestiary memorized and think that you'll be gucci pulling out a cold iron dagger at the first sight of a Redcap, because people in universe don't have encyclopedic knowledge of Fey and all their types (unless they do).

In this conversation, the subject chosen was unfortunate as it really isn't a good example; Trolls are super common knowledge, and people love fire. I'm not going to slap somebodies wrist because they pulled out a firebomb against a troll.

I think a better example would be oozes. They're really a dnd only thing, and not even that common place within the settings. They're resistances to slashing and lightning are interesting for a few reasons. Slashing could easily be figured out with very few context clues, namely that oozes would sensibly not be harmed by things cutting it, cause it just falls back together. A savvy adventurer could probably deduce that, even if the players might not be able to, in kind of a reverse metagame problem.

However, lightning resistance doesn't make intuitive sense. There's nothing to suggest why oozes are resistant. Maybe you could say something about the fact that they're liquid, or something like that, but eeeeehhhhhh, I'd probably call b#%$%@~*.

My point is that since it is impossible not to metagame on some level, there has to be an understanding from the DM that the more common the monster they use, the more likely a player is just going to know something about via osmosis, and really that's okay. It usually just makes the player feel empowered, which I generally see as a good thing. kudos to them. BUT! There is no hard and fast rule about this, and it just has to be a case by case basis.

I think its also important to remember that this is ultimately a game, and you cannot avoid playing it like a game. Recall Knowledge is a very gamified thing in the first place, and is more to fill in the gaps of player knowledge than to define character knowledge, imo.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Idward Evanhand wrote:

Alright, let us see if I have my math correct.

Party of 6 players and I want to have a big patrol they will stumble onto. The party level is 3 and I want this to be an extream encounter. So That is an XP budget of 160+40*2 (240).

Monsters
Level 4 Gnoll Sargent XP:60*1
4 Level 2 Gnoll hunters XP:30*4
6 Level -1 War Dogs XP: 10*6

Hits 240 XP in the budget and then I award 240 XP for the fight? If I were to add in a Gnoll Cultist XP 40, totaling a 280 XP budget spent would I still award 240? It seems like the XP award would be 280 in this case.

Or if I were to remove two of the dogs now the XP would be 220, I would then award 220?

You're close, but not quite. You would still award 160xp, because it is an extreme encounter. Character adjustments don't effect the xp given. Also, you don't have to match your budget exactly, just close. Always give the xp value for the encounter type.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
Unicore wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:


That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no...
PF2 actually can easily support this "training wheels" method of play as well. Just shift the difficulty of all desired tasks down by 4 levels. Untrained characters will still sometimes struggle with a task, but it will shift the math to right about where you want it to be.

That's not fun, you don't have to work for it. In PF1, to achieve that level of success, you had to build your character right and use the right buffs. In PF2, anyone optimizing something has around the same number range. It's zero effort to be the best you can be. And even then you still fail 30 to 50% of the time.

And to those saying "then what's the point of the die", crits or "beating by 5 or more", obviously.

The whole numeric advancement is just so shallow and simple and it's really a huge step back.

You just hate the way things are done in PF2. You literally said "Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play" as if it were some inherit truth. You've made it pretty clear that you don't care for anything PF2 cause it isn't PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This discussion on how the games are going to be less generic fantasy now in PF2 is kinda baffling to me, considering how PF1 in my eyes was all about the crazy weird races and classes that didn't fit anywhere. I mean, goblin alchemist is downright cliche in comparison, not to mention goblins have never been taken too seriously, it's not hard for me to see them as a core race.

Now granted, I'm much more loose-y goose-y with lore than a lot of you it seems, and I value having a fun and interesting game far, far above having an absolute consistent game world, but that's my 2 cents on Gobies and non-core races.

As for experiencing PF2, I'll have my first real session of it this Thursday, cause it can be hard to really people for a new system out of the blue when you're neck deep in a another campaign. Regardless, I've built a few characters and gone through most of the rules with a fine toothed comb, and I've come up pretty please.

Rampant errors aside, most of my issues aren't worth mentioning, or have to do with sloppy work in certain sections, like the Alchemist im general, or how shield stats scale(or don't) at higher levels. I'm excited to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
larsenex wrote:
Hey now. Old school 1rst edtion > 1978 here. Its the Monster Manual and we will include Githyanki, Githzari, Illithids and Purple Worms....

Well, you'll have to homebrew that stuff. Not Purple Worms, but the rest of it you'll not find in the Bestiary.

You can guarantee that you'll find conversions easily though.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

How well do martial weapons stack up against each other? Especially within the same category, such as the difference between a Longsword and a Warhammer? Or a Greataxe and Claymore?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aiden2018 wrote:
RoastCabose wrote:

I am preparing to run a PF2 campaign as soon as possible now that Second Edition on the horizon. This will likely mean I won't be able to make my own campaign, and instead will be running one of Paizo's (most likely). However, I've never been too crazy about sticking to default settings, at least with everything as is. I play pretty fast and lose with canon, to say the least.

With that in mind, I've played waaaay more D&D than I have Pathfinder, and I've grown attached to many D&D staples. Even my avatar here is supposed to represent the closest thing to Dragonborn, being my favorite D&D race (in spite of how s%%!ty they are in 5e lol).

I've started drafting my first homebrews for D&D classics like Dragonborn, Warforged, and Planescape-style Tieflings with concessions to modern depictions. I want to make some kind of Warlock Archetype, and some exclusive monsters like Mind Flayers and Beholders but that will have to wait till I have a better grasp on the rules.

Are there character options from other settings (not necessarily D&D, but more of a wide net of non-paizo material) that you are seeking to "import"?

I'm curious, does your version of Dragonborn have tails?

As for your question, I'd like to try and implement werecreatures, alternate pantheons, firearms and blackpowder weapons, the Slayer job from Warhammer Fantasy (they are SO cool!), Dragonborn with tails, and maybe cambions if I can get them to make sense in the setting.

Apart from those, nothing mechanical. Just custom lore and maybe a slightly adjusted magical presence.

Yes. Dragonborn should be digitigrade and have tails, imo. Always felt weird about the plantigrade feet with big ole claws.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am preparing to run a PF2 campaign as soon as possible now that Second Edition on the horizon. This will likely mean I won't be able to make my own campaign, and instead will be running one of Paizo's (most likely). However, I've never been too crazy about sticking to default settings, at least with everything as is. I play pretty fast and lose with canon, to say the least.

With that in mind, I've played waaaay more D&D than I have Pathfinder, and I've grown attached to many D&D staples. Even my avatar here is supposed to represent the closest thing to Dragonborn, being my favorite D&D race (in spite of how s~@@ty they are in 5e lol).

I've started drafting my first homebrews for D&D classics like Dragonborn, Warforged, and Planescape-style Tieflings with concessions to modern depictions. I want to make some kind of Warlock Archetype, and some exclusive monsters like Mind Flayers and Beholders but that will have to wait till I have a better grasp on the rules.

Are there character options from other settings (not necessarily D&D, but more of a wide net of non-paizo material) that you are seeking to "import"?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
I'm sort of curious if anyone else has similar or differing opinions about this.

I can see what you're saying. If you're relying on dedications especially, it might take several levels to get to your 'starting point'.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
One thing that's nice is that since feats represent "a new option you have" rather than a math enhancer, is that this allows a GM to just give people extra feats without really breaking anything.

While this sounds great, it's going to vary wildly from GM to GM, game to game. I know for myself, It'll most likely take a bit of effort to find a game like that and there isn't any guaranty I'll get in. Secondly, with the followup feats for dedication having level restriction it'd still take a bit to get your character around with some extra feats.

PS: an interesting option might be is giving away a certain amount of multiclass feats to everyone to use when they want [once per level]. Then people could spend them at start to enable builds or hold them for those "Silver Raven dedication" type situations.

I've always been of the opinion that everybody wanting all character builds at level 1 to be a dumb, imo. Not that wanting it is bad, but how can everybody expect to be 100% of what they want to be at level 1.

I'm also of the opinion that Paladin, Bard, and Druid are higher level ideas, and that one works towards being that kind of character, rather than starting out that way, but I digress.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Aiden2018 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


That aside, I know people want Ki-less Monks for..., flavor or mechanics reasons but what do you DO as a monk if you don't have your Not magic but totally magic powers?

For me is mostly about flavor. I personally like mystical monks as much as I like mortal/brawler monks. I just don't like the idea of not being able to choose the latter.

As for what you do without mystic powers? ...Well, I would hope you do what comes natural and punch bears in their stupid faces. From what I hear they are still very viable as combatants.

And yet at least from what I saw of the playtest, Monk is still very much a trained, drilled, and schooled Unarmed combatant. Put a different way, I can't flavorly make the Brawler I have now(Washed up, half drunk former tavern bouncer who fights well due to his job and the fact he's seen like 50 adventuring parties throw down in a pub and recalls their tricks) with PF2 Monk. If anything, he'd probably be closer to Fighter and even then that's still not close enough.

Monk to me always says "Path of Dedication, Training, and Self Betterment through Practice/Martial Arts". Removing Ki doesn't change that, especially when the other choices seem to be "Pick your School Stance". Monk doesn't seem to a good pick if you want a more Travern Brawler, Street Fighter, or Boxing Master.

Monks without Ki sounds like Sorcerers without Bloodlines. Or Alchemist without Bombs. Or Rogue without Sneak Attack. And everyone complains about Casters doing too much but no one wants Monk to do magic stuff with Ki.

Sure you're still viable but you're going to need some extra help to get over hurdles and from what I understand, Magic isn't as helpful as it was last edition. Well not as helpful to other people, it seems more damage focus/selfish this go around. Why buff you when Spell X can do your damage better?

I'm just confused by PF2 monk and the community.

I'm confused by you being confused. Monks are the unarmed martial class. They're martial artists. Would you feel better if they were called such? What exactly stops you from making your tavern brawler? They apparently have full support for non-ki monks, meaning they don't need powers to keep up.

What exactly do you mean by needing "extra help to get over hurdles"? And then I can't figure out whether or not you like monks not requiring ki or not. Please explain your position, it's actually driving me crazy lol.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Put me in the "Sorcerers should be able to spontaneously heighten all their spells" camp.

I approach it from a few different angles. Narratively, Sorcerers are inherently magical. They literally cast by feeling. As a result, they can fine tune the amount of power they put into a spell, because it's as natural as moving a muscle. It makes sense that when they get a spell, they are better suited to manipulating it on the fly than say a wizard, who needs to formulate their spells. So the fact that wizards are able to extrapolate all levels of a spell while sorcerers cannot seems like a reversal of their narrative roles, and imo a favoritism for wizards, but I digress.

As for choice paralysis, it really comes down to if you want to cast a spell at its highest level possible or not. The extra choices brought by free heightening are less of a choice then the choice between the actual spells. The people who suffer from choice paralysis in spell casters will be exactly as bad with or with out the heightening in my experience, because the heightening is a matter of magnitude, not action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Tbh, the only piece I think I have a major issue with is Amiri. When compared to her classic look, she is looking thin. I like how Wayne made her pallid and gaunt, giving her a haunted, crazed look which I think is apropos for a barbarian, but she is really thin.

That said, I've always been partial to beefy characters. I don't find issue with Merisiel's new design, on the other hand, so idk.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
RoastCabose wrote:
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
In fairness, 10/12 Classes don't ever care about Alignment at all. And Cleric only cares about it inasmuch as it effects what God you can have. Only Champion cares about Alignment for its own sake.

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.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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...

Di Molto

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


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
14 sided die wrote:
Okay, I've largely avoided paladin alignment threads because frankly nothing of value ever seems to get done. This is one of the most contentious this community has ever gone to war over. I frankly don't give a crap about what alignment paladins wind up with. I do have two issues with the current set up however, Firstly the mechanical roles of heavy armor dude and divinely powered non-spellcaster( spell points/powers, i don't really know how to word that one, but lay on hands, domains, you get the idea) are locked to one alignment, unless you want to kind of put the monk in that second, but that's iffy at best. I feel like that's bad design, those are both kind of wide concepts that I feel like should be pretty open to anyone from the start. The second is more to do with the way the decision has been handled. I went back and read the paladin blog again, and yes, I understand paizo claims to have listened to both sides of the argument. I really have trouble believing that. At this point I would love to see something from the devs at least discussing what considerations each side was given, because at present it kind of reads like they looked to the LG only crowd and kissed their boots, then turned to the people advocating for more openness, to varying degrees and said, eh, maybe someday we'll throw you a bone. That seems, disrespectful. It doesn't help that neither side of the whole mess has really acted all that paladin like through the whole thing. Frankly at this point I'd almost like to see the paladin not just removed from core, but from the game in general. The community just isn't mature enough to handle it. Sorry that the whole post went a little bit long and blocky, but hey, my 3 cents

All I feel I need to say is this:

Just because they didn't give the non-LG Paladin crowd what they asked for doesnt mean they kissed the other side's boots. This was a zero sum game. There was no way to please everyone. One side, no matter what, was going to be unhappy.

They don't...

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You do realize they get like 40 something spells by 20th level, right? And they know all of them always? And can retrain those spells a week per spell in downtime right?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gavmania wrote:
Xoltes, the Dragonborn Fighter wrote:

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:


  • Select it as my spontaneous heightened spell at the beginning of the day, or
  • replace my Dispel Magic level 2 with a Dispel Magic level 3, meaning I can no longer cast it at 2nd level, even with spontaneous heightening, or
  • get Dispel Magic level 3 as one of my new spells known, meaning I have to waste to of my spells known slots on a single spell.

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.

Actually prepared casters have to deal with it too, they just do it on a daily basis but don't get option 1 (though they can take a feat that means they can prepare it with ten minutes notice).

Assuming Dispel Magic also comes in Dispel magic (1), you would do better to take that and use spontaneous heightening to automatically give you dispel magic (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (if you have the feat) (10). At any time you can cast the relevant spell (provided you have the relevant spell slot), so you only need to use a spell slot sufficient to dispel the spell. The prepared caster would need to prepare 1 of each spell and then hope he has no need to use more than one of the same level to achieve the same effect. What's more you have only used one spells known slot at your lowest spell level to get it, so you can still have 2x2nd level spells known, 2x3rd level, etc.

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.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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:


  • Select it as my spontaneous heightened spell at the beginning of the day, or
  • replace my Dispel Magic level 2 with a Dispel Magic level 3, meaning I can no longer cast it at 2nd level, even with spontaneous heightening, or
  • get Dispel Magic level 3 as one of my new spells known, meaning I have to waste to of my spells known slots on a single spell.

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.