Rob Godfrey's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 518 posts (532 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 518 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Leafar Cathal wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:


If I wanted to get someone with 0 experience into the game, I would use Basic D&D, 2nd Ed AD&D, or 5th Ed.

Let's face it: introducing someone to 5e will just make them to stay there. Unless someone really enjoy more complexity (which, in my experience, most don't), people will stick with 5e. It's the trend. People are talking about 5e, streaming 5e, podcasting 5e, it's the best seller fantasy RPG. It has D&D in it's name.

Tabletop RPG isn't a niche anymore. Either you make it easier for people to get on (and GM it) or your product will disappear.

Yes, which is all the more surprising they would go with such a fiddly, micro-laden system. I was hoping for more streamlining.

More streamlining begs the question, why not just play 5e? They are in this place now of not really being custmosable, riddled with MMO mechanics to force characters into fixed roles, a feat tax of a 'Multiclass' system, which isn't multiclassing, at all,just a feat tax to gate what were core combat and casting feats for 'reasons', the horrible general and skill feats (why are they a thing? Get rid of them totally and save the page count for things worth the name feat)..yea, oh and the Golarion 'super caster overlords' such as the whispering tyrant or the runelords? Given the state of spells right now, why haven't they been cut to mince meat? Pure casters are awful right now.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tholomyes wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Isn't the thing about the ECB that it's really quite long and thus awkward to carry? Falchions are pretty compact.
Falchions are also, IRL, one handed weapons, so it's hard to really get a grasp on what they're supposed to be like in Pathfinder. I never pictured them as that compact, simply because otherwise I couldn't find them convincing as two handed (or at least some form of hand-and-a-half), over one handed.

I always visualize them as grosse messer, which are broad, brutal blades and two handed, (also light and surprisingly fast in hand)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tholomyes wrote:
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

A really amusing scenario would be when a high level player fails to roll a DC 30 to climb a tree, only to watch a child climb it a few minutes later.

Player: "What? How did he roll a climb check of 30?"
GM: "Well, he's only level 1, the DC is 11 for him and he rolled a 13."
Well then, it's a good thing PF2e doesn't work like that. Like, at all.

tell that to the people writing the modules.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bardarok wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
There is another term for siloing: feat tax.
That is blatantly wrong. Feat tax is when you need to take a feat you don't want in order to get something you do want. At worst you could say siloing causes wasted feats if you literally cannot find any skill feat worth taking on your character.

like having to take Fighter Dedication to get power attack (for instance)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arnim Thayer wrote:
Emn1ty wrote:

Honestly, I think the real solution is to create a Paragon class that is the Paragon of whatever deity is selected, and depending on the alignment that opens up "paths". Which can be anything from Paladin, to Anti Paladin, to Crusader, etc.

This leaves paths, or archetypes, open so that you can really make whatever alignment you want and pick and choose just how restrictive your character is for a given reward.

I suggested this very thing. The framework of PF2 makes it possible to open up the Paladin for other alignments without having to rework every class ability, such as was done with the Anti-Paladin. The name though is problematic; it evokes the “holy knight” from previous editions. I propose the name “Champion” instead of “Paragon” though. Champion is far more open-ended in concept, while paragon means “the best”... a label that should not be applied to any one class.

that could work. Also for the benefit of the LG is special heritage, possibly have a LG ability to be the only Patronless Champions, (still called Paladin, as the LG version would be), so all champions must have a patron deity, Ephemeral Lord, Deamon etc, except LG ones....


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

I personally like the idea of Paladins as defenders of the meek instead of divine fury (save that for Warpriest), especially since "defender of the meek" is a role that at least gives some logic as to why Paladins must be LG.

But Retributive Strike is in a weird place where if it is working correctly you never use it.

I definitely think it needs a buff, and being able to step 10 feet and use it sounds amazing.

the fact they are LG is what makes them dogmatic wrath, no compromise punish the evil doers and damn the cost.... (and given the portrayal of Shalyns Paladins in Kingmaker, which I have to assume was an approved story line, engage in some flat abusive and controlling behaviours if the 'Chosen One' wont take up the mantle)


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dire Ursus wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


If I have to sacrifice being a Paladin to wield my bow, then I'm not really a Bow wielding Paladin, now am I?

Well what are you sacrificing really? 2 class feats at level 2 and level 4. So let's look at those feats.

Level 2 feats: Divine Grace and a bunch of Oath feats. I'm not sure if I'd ever not multiclass at this level with any Paladin build. Unless I absolutely know for sure I'll be fighting a certain type of creature for a bulk of a campaign then I might take an oath. So this is a really easy cost to start multiclassing imo and does not make you any less of a "paladin".

Level 4 feats: Aura of Courage, Channel Life, Divine Life, and Mercy.

Here are the more paladin-like feats. But even still I'm not a completely neutered paladin if I spend my class feat on a multiclass archetype instead here.

I just don't understand how multiclassing like this is at all different from how in 1e you would have to spend every feat you obtain on bow feats just to be viable and keep up... You could not spend any multiclass feats and instead just spend all of your class feats on paladin feats and just keep an upgraded magic shortbow and a high dex and you would probably be completely fine and deal decent damage.

So yeah you can make a bow paladin in the playtest. Will it do the most damage in the game like how the bow paladin in the 1e core rulebook does? No, but that's fine imo.

Because you have to spend 'class feats' on what used to be class features now, so you are sacrificing being a paladin to use a bow. As an aside don't get me started on the awful that is the entire concept of Retributive Strike, Paladins are the Wrath of a Deity, not a Pavlovian conditioning trainer.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dire Ursus wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Using a Bow, and being able to realistically wield one without being entirely handicapped are two different things. It's quite clear this falls into the latter scenario.

I find this part kinda hilarious because that's one of the things that PF2 got rid of. Anyone can use a bow fine as long as you have training. You don't need to spend 2 feats right off the bat just to not fire with a -4.

And honestly I think you can probably make a pretty sweet paladin build with bows. Here I'll build one for you:

16 str 16 dex.

Use a composite shortbow and take blade ally (doesn't specify it has to be a melee weapon.)

Take either hospice knight or a domain for your first level feat your choice.

Multiclass fighter and get the point blank shot stance then upgrade to a longbow.

Get blade of justice at level 6 (2e version of smite evil)

And then spend the rest of your feats as you see fit either on utility paladin feats or on more fighter feats to increase your combat ability.

Will you be able to use your retributive strike at all? Nope, but right now that ability is really underwhelming and is probably going to be changed in some way in the core rulebook. And really, it doesn't matter much. I ran a playtest game with a shield based paladin and he didn't have the opportunity to use it once but he was still pretty happy with the paladin.

That seems like a pretty viable build. You do lose out on some stuff if you decide not to wear heavy armor, which will net you lower AC because of max Dex bonuses but being a ranged character is just such an advantage you're probably still well off even without those features.

you lost as soon as you multiclassed. You cannot build a bow paladin.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dire Ursus wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


Expecting to be able to play a Paladin that uses a bow in the playtest, that seems extremely reasonable.

I mean there's nothing stopping you from just using a bow as a paladin and multiclassing into fighter for bow feats. And I wouldn't say that a bow paladin was really an "intended" character concept in the core rulebook. It's just the fact that smite does more damage if you have more attacks, and one of the best ways to get a lot of attacks is to use a bow.

Anyways, during the class surveys you should have been able to answer questions about paladins. If enough people think that a bow paladin is popular enough they might just put that kind of stuff into the core rulebook.

The Multiclass archetypes should befor extreme edge cases and weirdness, not core concepts, they are a clunky feat tax to make standard builds, and really not very well done as Multiclassing tbh, so worse of both worlds, they are a tax to get over the feat gate that kludges up the system, and don't work as multiclassing either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gratz wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
By being a new edition in the same setting ,that setting still has to work, and right now it doesn't. The Rune Lords for instance (without massive fiat) would be a complete joke, and if you do use fiat you state clearly that PCs are deliberately made to suck, which is how the you are terrible at everything maths feels tbh, like a punishment for playing.

Runelords could and should have access to a bunch of uncommon and rare spells and rituals, which the PCs wouldn't have access to. I think that falls perfectly in line with the setting and the narrative that they are enormously powerful and ancient wizards and casters, which have cast through long forgotten Rune Magic.

If you consider that a massive fiat, than I think we should agree to disagree on the topic, but I don't see that scenario as a problem.

It would be, if they have clearly more powerful spells at each level, so 'reskinned longer lasting buffs at the same level' would definitely count as Fiat for instance


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gratz wrote:
Skyth wrote:
The biggest issue is that PF2 is not being marketed as an entirely different game. It's being marketed as a replacement for PF1. Thus it is understandable that people are upset that they can't still do the same thing. It feels like something got taken away from them.
So far I haven't seen PF2 being marketed as anything, as it doesn't exist yet. The Playtest hasn't been marketed all that much either in my opinion (understandably), but from the interviews I have watched and read I felt that the devs rather clearly announced it as a new edition, instead of the "next step", so maybe you are projecting your expectations onto the sparse marketing?

By being a new edition in the same setting ,that setting still has to work, and right now it doesn't. The Rune Lords for instance (without massive fiat) would be a complete joke, and if you do use fiat you state clearly that PCs are deliberately made to suck, which is how the you are terrible at everything maths feels tbh, like a punishment for playing.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
did we get the survey reault then?

No. The comment that the 4 Corners model was second is in relation to them asking various people in-house. We'll see what the survey says...eventually, maybe.

For the record, I would like to state my agreement that I prefer Paladins not needing a deity. I'm fine with that being a flat (minor) mechanical disadvantage (can't take Domain Feats, no free Favored Weapon), but in my mind Paladins have always been powered by their own righteousness (and Antipaladins their own wickedness), with a deity being a common addition, but not an inherently necessary one.

This actually strengthens the argument for the 'Four Corners' model, since you can then say that you need 'extreme' beliefs (on the Alignment scale) in order to gain such power.

Here we get an edge case: I see the LN, CN, NE, and NG as 'extreme' or rather being useful to characters who are so utterly devoted to one ideal that they do not have space to care about the other Axis, so Judge Dredd is LN (some times depending on the writer etc) , so utterly and totally devoted to the law at all costs that he has no space to care about good and evil, (for instance) their is only and can only be Law or Chaos, motive does not matter only compliance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks for this, I to found Ret Strike far to passive an ability, especially given the lack of offensive options (excluding worship Iomadae and take a Domain for Weapon Surge), Paladins to me are anything but passive defenders, they are Divine Judgement and Wrath, and Smite made them feel like that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paradozen wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

...That they would still restrict them to LG, CG, LE and CE only to make them reverse druids :P I'm not really fan of the "9 paladins for each alignment" thing or "Paladins without alignment restriction at all" since I do like the flavor of warrior really devoted to specific alignment plus latter options would change setting so that now every god has paladins apparently.

That said its kinda moot point because druids don't have alignment restrictions in 2e anyway. Still, I prefer the flavor of extreme aligned without neutrality to "everyone is free game" if I had to choose.

(I don't really care whether paladins remain LG only though, especially since other alignment restrictions were already removed. Still yeah, considering how acting in certain way is part of paladin flavor, thats why I think it would be more interesting to have extreme alignment paladins than neutral something paladins)

IIRC, one of the devs said the second most popular paladin alignment choice behind LG Only was the Four-Corner Compromise, so odds are good that if they ever include non-LG paladins they probably will be 4-corner. Of course, there is no promise that they ever will, but if they do it seems like your preference will also be theirs.

did we get the survey reault then?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Catharsis wrote:

Am I supposed to keep all that food I find? Is it used for making «Hearty Meals»? (In random combinations?)

Is it worthwhile to buy camping supplies to avoid having to hunt? Sometimes that takes, like, 16 hours.

Switched governing to auto mode now. Let's see if that helps.

BTW, are there no Strength-rated bows in this game...?

You find recipes, will be a single page named 'Haggis' or w/e in your inventory, right click to copy it, you can then select it in tha camp management page, hunting never takes longer than healing would anyway (or does not seem to) but supplies are needed for ahort falls and when you cannot hunt (dungeons mainly), all 'Composite' bows use str to damage, but aren't limited to a set amount.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Elorebaen wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
now Golarion feels like a low fantasy setting, and 'mage kings' no longer make sense, they simply are not powerful enough...[...] Not saying I'm not having fun, but it is the fun of the grittier, more deadly game, which wasn't what Golarion was about, it was heroic high fantasy, it no longer feels like that.

Rob, not specifically calling you out, just using what you said as the example. I've heard folks talking like this lately, and I feel compelled to speak. =)

From the beginning days of Golarion, I ALWAYS thought it was supposed to be a grittier place. From where I stand, it was never intended to have the feel of the Forgotten Realms. Lovecraft is writ large all over the place ... distinctly NOT high fantasy.

I'm not saying that you cannot play high fantasy in Golarion, in fact many do, but I think it is incorrect to say that Golarion was intended to be high fantasy, and now PF2 seems to be moving the setting to a grittier place. Golarion was always a grittier place.

Of course, that is not stopping anyone from playing it High Fantasy, or anywhere in between.

Lovecraftian horrors are indeed in the setting..as things you can beat up, which immediately makes it high fantasy, as the entire point of the horror of them is as unknowable, unchallenged transcendent and uncaring beings, (and that is just Shoggoths and Mi-Gu, let alone the actual Great Old Ones) not super monsters (Which Cthulhu is now, the ultimate crown to go for after you do the Planar high level play Arch Devil and Demon Lord maim and loot tour). Yes those beings are in he setting, and they are targets... Gritty games and settings are a lot of fun (hell Eclipse Phase 1e is my favorite system that I don't get to play enough, the big bads in that are so far beyond the characters that they are actual beyond the entire species, as a whole, to defeat) Golarion and PF have never been that, you explicitly get to become powers on the Planar stage, capable of killing the Lords of Outer Planes etc, doesn't get much more high fantasy.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Belisar wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Belisar wrote:
Those claims about the superior flexibility in char advancement in PF1 are very dishonest.
Not agreeing does make the other party dishonest.
Okay then, Vic, let numbers speak why it is dishonest in an objective way. The PF1 fighter has "tons of feats", from level 1 to 20 he gains 21 feats. The PF2 fighter, though, gets 31 feats, that's 10 feats in addition to what a PF1 fighter gets. Even if PF1 classes get more fixed abilities, the amount of choices in PF2 is way superior. In fact in PF2 I can decide myself to chose the abilities while PF1 simply lacks this choice. Before this background, yes, claiming that PF1 is more flexible is objectively dishonest.

it gets 31 things called feats..a lot of which go on buying back ancestry abilities you used to get baked in, and on the really lackluster general and skill feats, so claiming that a Playtest Feat is the same as a PF1 feat, is to use your own words, 'very dishonest'


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Thanks for posting the design goals. Alas all but point 3 if those goals are literally met by D&D 4th ed, D&D 5th ed or any other fantasy tabletop RPG.

Unfortunately I don't see very much of point 3.

The flexibility of background traits have been excised from the game in place of predefined background choices. Archetypes no longer meet their PF1e goal (swap out the non flexible parts of a class) and exist solely to require a feat tax to get certain combat feats/rogue talents.

Multiclassing has been removed from the game in favour of allowing minimal access to certain combat feats/rogue talents/barbarian powers/spells. Alternate racial traits have been removed from the game (along with racial traits themselves) in return for racial powers that are slowly doled out across 20 levels.

I can't really point to any advancement in PF that has made it into the playtest (except those from Unchained). I could point to plenty from other game(s) (automatic universal level based bonus that applies to everything. Class abilities that limit what fighting styles a character can apply based on class gated feats/powers, items having a level that is used to govern how they're handed out, parcel based approach to treasure acquisition in place of WBL). That's not to say these things are bad. Simply that if I was looking at a game's heritage I would struggle to say it's descended from PF1e vs an entirely different game.

John, I have seen you post on here a lot over the past few months and to be honest, I can tell that you care deeply about this game and its future, but I am not sure we are going to able to make you happy.

Yes, our goals are similar to the goals of other games. We share a heritage and that is not too surprising. I am not sure why you seem to think that is a bad thing.

A lof the flexibility you seem to be looking for were some of the things causing us the biggest rules problems in the previous editions. Traits, multiclassing and alternate racial traits were...

that ability to build powerful interesting characters was the fun of PF1, now everyone feels really bad at what they are supposed to do, the amount of misses, by melee specialists, and the amount of times they are crit by random mobs..well they don't feel like PF1 characters did, and the throttling of magic items makes the feel of the setting fundamentally different, now Golarion feels like a low fantasy setting, and 'mage kings' no longer make sense, they simply are not powerful enough...you have taken the need to re-balance casters vs martials, and hammered casters down to where martials were, when, at least for me the opposite was desired, lifting martials up to the high level demigod status that are some of the greatest moments of the system. Not saying I'm not having fun, but it is the fun of the grittier, more deadly game, which wasn't what Golarion was about, it was heroic high fantasy, it no longer feels like that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
easiest way IMO is just to bring back Arcane spell failure chance.
Then you would have to un-nerf spells. They really aren't worth having right now. (Except healing and some buffs)
I feel your exaggerating quite a bit.
not really, playing a sorcerer with fighter dedication and medium armor in Sombrefell Hall, haven't cast a single spell except healing, and one use of Swamp of Sloth, hitting things has always been the better option, maybe that will change, and other players have cast a few spells, (Divine Wrath springs to mind) but everyone, with dedication or not, defaults to beating things up.

So, you're playing a Gish and you gain benefit from hitting stuff with your weapon.

I see that as working as intended, not as a problem.

If you spent the ONE high level item on a weapon. Your class feats on augmenting weapon damage, getting weapon proficiency and armor proficiency.

Then,shouldn't "hitting with a weapon" be one of your best things to do a normal thing?

Our sorc went with bard dedication and I don't think he did a single attack the whole adventure.

if it was just the gish defaulting to beat things, that would be true, it isn't, everyone's go to tactic is hit/shoot stuff, spells aren't worth it, to few of them, and they take to many actions, unless you (for instance) get mobbed, then dropping divine wrath or channel at your feet makes sense. If this is the new normal, ok, fine, but expect people to notice and build characters and tactics, accordingly (mind you no Bard, performance cantrips are probably worth the actions)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
easiest way IMO is just to bring back Arcane spell failure chance.
Then you would have to un-nerf spells. They really aren't worth having right now. (Except healing and some buffs)
I feel your exaggerating quite a bit.

not really, playing a sorcerer with fighter dedication and medium armor in Sombrefell Hall, haven't cast a single spell except healing, and one use of Swamp of Sloth, hitting things has always been the better option, maybe that will change, and other players have cast a few spells, (Divine Wrath springs to mind) but everyone, with dedication or not, defaults to beating things up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
easiest way IMO is just to bring back Arcane spell failure chance.

Then you would have to un-nerf spells. They really aren't worth having right now. (Except healing and some buffs)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zarkias wrote:

Sorcerers in full plate doesn't bother me. Having them all have LG alignement is more of a problem IMO

Do Paladins need to be LG ? They should more reflect the alignement of their deity, shouldn't they ?

That particular can of worms needs to atay unopened, until the survey comes back.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
manbearscientist wrote:

For those thinking Paladins are can't deal damage, I'd recommend taking a look at the bestiary. Paladins can deal great damage, but it is through the exploitation of weaknesses. Particularly weaknesses to good.

A Paladin with just a nonmagical dagger and a Blade Spirit is going to deal more damage than a Barbarian with a level-appropriate greatsword. Take for instance a Treachery Demon (level 13) vs a level 12 Paladin and Barbarian.

The Paladin's attack deals just 1d4 + 5 (he is still strong). The Barbarian's +3 weapon is dealing 4d12, and he's adding on another 10 while raging. So baseline, the Paladin is dealing 7.5 damage, and the Barbarian 36. In fact, the Barbarian critically hits for 72 damage.

The Paladin spends their turn casting Litany of Wrath (demon fails), and the Blade of Justice. Their last action is to walk to the Barbarian. They do not attack.

They do more damage than the barbarian.

The Treachery Demon Strikes at the Barbarian for critically hitting it. The Paladin responds with a Retributive Strike. It hits. The demon now takes:

1d6 + 12 from Holy (Blade Spirit) = 15.5
6d6 + 12 from Litany of Wrath = 33
1 + 12 from Aura of Faith = 13
1 + 12 from Blade of Justice = 13
4 + 12 from Holy Smite = 16

So with one tiny swing, the Paladin deals 98 damage.

This is something that really isn't apparent just from reading the rulebook. Skimming through it, you'd expect the Paladin's abilities to top out at adding around 10 damage. But weaknesses really matter. In more normal scenarios, being able to get an extra weapon property or using Lay on Hands against the undead is a good way to compete or beat even min-maxed martials against the right foes.

I think two of those weaknesses don't stack because they come from the same hit, but even if so, that's still 74 damage and your point still stands (imagine if the paladin used a more legit weapon!). Plus that 16 damage from Holy Smite is persistent damage...

doesn't stop retributive strike feeling incredibly passive amd meh, Paladins are not 'tanks', or any other MMO based filth infecting table top, they are the bloody handed wrath of god, and they don't feel like it right now, they feel like a walking trip hazard.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Let's do a by-level breakdown (ignoring Virtuosic Performer, since the equivalent is only available for two skills):

At 1st, a completely optimized character succeeds at High DC checks on a 10. 55% chance.

At 5th, a completely optimized character still succeeds at High DC checks on a 10 (assuming a +1 Item). Still only a 55% chance.

At 9th, a completely optimized character now succeeds at High DC checks on a 9 (assuming a +2 Item). Now a 60% chance.

At 13th, a completely optimized character now succeeds at High DC checks on a 7 (assuming a +3 Item). Now a 70% chance.

At 17th, a completely optimized character now succeeds at High DC checks on an 6 (assuming a +4 Item). Now a 75% chance.

I've noticed some mentions of the fact that there seems to be a bigger gain between 9 and 13 than in other places based on this analysis, but there's some things to think about:

If we take apart the High DC column, it raises by 2 at 5, 8, 9, 15, and 17, and nowhere else. By choosing your benchmarks at 4 levels above 1st level which include 3 of those 5 increase levels (the one that wasn't 13th, is the one that comes out looking like it makes a bigger jump for this reason), it makes the numbers look lower than they generally would be (you might ask "Shouldn't there be no effect if the bumps to DCs always correspond to the increases to skills?" There are a few reason that these DC bump levels are not exactly the same levels as when the max person raises their skills centered around the fact that the Hard DC is not focused on catering to the Max possible character).

Let's consider a character with 14 in the stat for a skill, not maxed out. He starts with a 45% chance on the skill. He's not in a class with a prime stat for this skill, but he considers it his second skill priority, picking up Expert at 5th, Master at 9th, Legendary at 17th (second chance to do so each time) and grabbing a new item on the other odd levels for math convenience (so 3rd level before getting an...

I thought part of the point of this edition was to avoid mandatory items? So why are you assuming stat and skill boost items in the DCs (which btw stops them feeling powerful)? It should bd having those items feels good, not makes you barely competitive.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DaveMage wrote:

Mine's not starting properly (Steam, Win10 machine)

*sigh*

had that issue, updated to 'optional' graphics drivers fixed it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Boli32 wrote:

This actually reminds me of the time I was playing AD&D and we rolled "evil" characters and went on adventures against good aligned creatures and the like.

What made it different was our GM did something different - he did not adjust the difficulty of the encounter but made our enemies work in co-operation and as a team.

Advancing into a dungeon dealing with well thought out ambushes traps, archers targeting spellcasters; and went we went out the dungeon to heal - they did likewise strengthing their own defences against raiding during the night so we could not rest for spells.

The good 'party' was 'sub optimal' as well; no casters only fighters & rogues and 1 captain with a magical weapon against our pary of a cleric, mage, fighter and a thief

-----

In much the same way I have noticed from watching a couple of playtests is they all struggled initially; but they become more efficient when they started to do things like raise shield+shield block flanking and using the terrain to their advantage they progressed much faster

It was no longer just 'I charge in with my sword raised and slice off a couple of heads' but - hold on... how can we work things to our advantage.

why was intelligent monsters acting intelligently novel? Team work, ambushes, traps, deception etc should be standard, Evil is not stupid.

Evil isn't necessarily stupid, but they also don't work and play well with others. An evil character is not going to truly put themselves at risk to save an ally. Evil is not the opposition team in a game.

Evil tends to be opportunistic and antagonistic to each other as well. So if there is a big bad in charge of two baddies, as is often the case, and baddie one is going to flank the enemy as part of his brilliant plan, baddie number two has a lot of things to consider.

If baddie one succeeds then he'll look better in the eyes of the big bad. That means that baddie two will have less power and prestige. If, however, baddie one's...

Chaotic Evil enemies for sure, NE enemies usually, and Lawful Evil...really depends, how loyal are they to the cause? How disciplined? How well organised? For instance Hell Knights should not be sabotaging the mission for arrogant gain, they will screw each other over all day every day off mission, but on mission? That is duty and honour and they will do it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The mount retributive strike wording is left over from and old version, thr alpha build if you will. You find things like that turning up in weird places.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Romanowski wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Yeah. I'm not big on Golarion at all, but it really does seem like they should probably get guns and gunslingers going as of the release Core book if that's the setting they're pushing, so people argue about it less later.
I'd rather not see guns in a FRPG. I want Paizo to leave them out of 2e.

Golarion fundamentally changes if they do, and it would require an apocalypse to justify.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Belisar wrote:

Actually a fighter in PF2 get's 31 feats till level 20 while the same fighter just receives 21 feats in PF1. So actually even if a PF2 char multiclasses via archetype to receive some wanted gated feats he will still be better of in PF2. And this archetype feat approach is way more flexible than stuffing fixed subclasses and fixed abilities to fixed levels. I like it to be able to choose class abilities via class feats than gaining fixed abilities like it has been in PF1.

I do not understand why assigning fixed class abilities are making characters more unique than chosing from a pool of plenty class feats, like many argue.
And if you want to have every feat being accessible for every char you can literally scrap the class concept and then have everybody choose abilities freely like they see fit. Create feats to access spellcasting, create general feats to access rogue abilities and everybody can truly make unique characters.

How many of those 31 are skill feats? How many ancestry feats?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PMárk wrote:
ErichAD wrote:

I see the merit in both ways. But I think for the purpose of framing the breadth of the world, and distinguishing Golarion from generic D&D settings, it's going to be more valuable in the long run.

And it further prompts a move away from "rarity" to regional and cultural restrictions which I think will be needed as the game moves forward.

I'm agreeing with this. Actually, the fact that Golarion is (by and large) more "renaissance", than forced medieval-but-not-really is one of the things I much like about it. What could I say, I like settings like that (WHFRP, Ravenloft's various domains, Aarklash of the old Confrontation wargame, etc.).

Honestly, I'd even like firearms being presented as more common, at least in the more central, more developed nations. PF1 assumed emerging guns, but surely, 10 years should be enough to get their hands on a bunch of pistols and muskets and reverse-engineer it.

you'd be surprised how long it took for firearms to spread irl, before large engineering and chemical factories. For instance the first recorded military use of a gun in Europe was at Agincort in 1415, a single man was shot dead, it took decades for firearms to be widespread after that, and for another comparison the first firearm, the ancestor of all later firearms was the 10th century Fire Lance, beginning as what amounts to a roman candle on a lance, it evolved into a blast stick style shot weapon (basically a sawnoff shotgun full of stones to be fired during a charge, then used as a lance). 10 years is nothing on that sort of time scale, artificer based crafting means really slow transmission of technology and ideas.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RealAlchemy wrote:
To me, the core class features for paladin were smite evil, immunity to disease, lay on hands, and divine grace. Because of this, I was disappointed that a lot of those abilities were set up so that if you wanted them you could not get other abilities.

Pretty much, adding options to make them the tank ok, I guess, if you want to make the classic roles more explicit, removing things to force that on them not so much


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rules Artificer wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Oh for the days of PF1e when people would be gently ribbed for even using the word "tank".
I'm just glad we don't have anything that compels enemies to drop everything and attack you regardless of circumstances; that's a line I'm unwilling to cross.
Agreed, a Taunt that determines "aggro" is a line in the sand for me. If I see something like this it's getting house-banned faster than limp lash.
Well, Retributive Strike has been working pretty well to get my GM to always attack me instead of the other PCs. I personally don't think it's that enforcing, but then again, neither was Divine Challenge in 4th edition.

As a means of tanking that doesn't involve Aggro mechanics, Retributive Strike does a good job. Enemies don't want a free hit on them (that comes with a debuff), so they hit the Paladin instead.

I do, however, have some pretty significant issues with Retributive Strike being the Paladin's primary class feature.

- It is only effective countermeasure against particular threats, and even then isn't clearly defined.
RT's trigger is "A creature within your reach hits an ally or friendly creature." Does it trigger on ranged attacks? What about spells that deal damage? What about harmful effects that don't require an attack roll?
Then there's the issue that Retributive Strike always requires the Paladin to be within reach of the opponent, and never upgrades from this requirement. For melee, a creature can easily move to the opposite side of a creature and strike. Ranged attacks (including most spells) can easily circumvent this requirement. Where's the mid-level option to be able to at least move up to our speed before making a Retributive Strike? Also, what's a ranged weapon build Paladin to do?

- Retributive Strike is a class feature you want to never have to use. It's the threat of being walloped that makes an enemy reconsider attacking your...

Retributive Strike feels really passive, I have had it go off to good results(and other fights it never activated), but as a core class feature it feels off, a Paladin isn't (or wasn't) about being the meat shield, they get in the face of the enemies of the faith and end them, that is a totally different philosophy to being a walking kick me sign, and by it's nature forces one true buildism, pretty much reach weapon (to maximise RS chances) and heaviest armour you can find. Which leaves Abaddar and Erastil in the cold for starters, and really changes the feel of the class from the Smite based, aggressive play style to hanging out next to other characters hoping they eat a charge so you can RS the attacker.. I mean when it works I debuff a target, but it doesn't feel heroic, it's almost like the character is a terrain hazard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Boli32 wrote:

This actually reminds me of the time I was playing AD&D and we rolled "evil" characters and went on adventures against good aligned creatures and the like.

What made it different was our GM did something different - he did not adjust the difficulty of the encounter but made our enemies work in co-operation and as a team.

Advancing into a dungeon dealing with well thought out ambushes traps, archers targeting spellcasters; and went we went out the dungeon to heal - they did likewise strengthing their own defences against raiding during the night so we could not rest for spells.

The good 'party' was 'sub optimal' as well; no casters only fighters & rogues and 1 captain with a magical weapon against our pary of a cleric, mage, fighter and a thief

-----

In much the same way I have noticed from watching a couple of playtests is they all struggled initially; but they become more efficient when they started to do things like raise shield+shield block flanking and using the terrain to their advantage they progressed much faster

It was no longer just 'I charge in with my sword raised and slice off a couple of heads' but - hold on... how can we work things to our advantage.

why was intelligent monsters acting intelligently novel? Team work, ambushes, traps, deception etc should be standard, Evil is not stupid.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Nettah wrote:

Ohh I do agree that suboptimal characters should probably fare better than they do atm. It's just important to realize whether you are truly optimized or not when evaluating the data in the playtest.

MerlinCross said wrote:
So the only way to play a Dex fighter is to... play a completely different class.

Or go for ranged weapons, two weapons or perhaps do a single weapon with free-hand style. But if you go for 18 dex and 12 str, an agile weapon with shield and take power attack as a class feat, then you are kinda building the character in 3 different directions.

An agile weapon is likely better for double strike synergy or 3 attacks to actually get more than a +1 on the second attack. So are not really utilizing the agile trait if you have to spend an action to raise shield or often use Power Attack.
All melee damage with 12 str is going to suffer, so might as well try to engage with a ranged weapon and let the enemy come to you and then switch weapons instead.

I can imagine bulk being an issue with that build as well.

But I do think that in the final product suboptimal builds should be available without feeling incompetent. In the playtest is fine to test whether the more optimal builds can break the game.

K.

We're already trying to build to the point of "This is the one way to play a class/build. You are doing it wrong, build right".

In the playtest. Why do I even bother.

You were the poster who said the party was optimized though. So, of course, thinking they optimized made them feel weak when they weren't optimized.

Your Monk, on the other hand, sounded like he did mechanically spec for combat.

In the playtest, this is how we players identify trap concepts. For example, the character creation process hints that putting an 18 into the Key Ability Score optimizes a 1st-level character.

Fighter class says, "Key Ability: Strength or Dexterity." That implies that a Dex...

Power Attack is very situational, and best served with a high damage dice weapon, it is the inverse of what it used to be, you now want it against high AC targets were the follow on attacks are marginal, or the target has DR, either via shield blocking or some other method. It's PF1e Vital Strike basically. Betting the farm on one roll e (and for high strength characters, or someone with a magic weapon it becomes obsolete fairly fast)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ranger suffers from being focused on a junk weapon... The crossbow, seriously they are so bad right now. Focus them on bows, and have a look at snares and we may get somewhere.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
The other one? The Vindictive Bastard? It is specifically a fallen Paladin and not a Paladin.
No, what the Vindictive Bastard was was a Paladin that put into practice what this Paladin said about enforced good sullying the very good it enforced.
But also, by the nature of the archetype in the context of the book it was printed in, very much a fallen paladin.

Yup.

Vindictive Bastard wrote:
Such a vindictive bastard, as these fallen paladins are known, strikes out for retribution and revenge, far more interested in tearing down those who have harmed her or her companions than furthering a distant deity’s cause.

Emphasis mine.

Edit:
I think people have a weirdly skewed image of what a Vindictive Bastard is. They are former Paladins who abandoned their oaths and broke the promise they made to a deity they claimed to serve. This is not behavior to be applauded and cheered.

I think, also, that many people have a really skewed vision of what Lawful Good means.

was your Paladin who made that statement earlier Fallen btw? Because as far as I can tell LG Paladins cannot let it slide. At all.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:

I will point this out again as it was pointed out before during said hundreds long post threads regarding the paladin already.

Darkorin wrote:
they showed with the second edition that they could keep the pure Paladin identity with a combination of Powers and Orders/Tradition/Anathema/Feats.

To you and some others this was enough.

To me and some others, paladin are a core component of the game and one that MUST BE LG.

Ultimately, as this thread once more points out as people once again tossed the same thing around. There is no right way out of this lock.

I do also agree with time and more books down the line, new classes based on the other alignment should appear, none of them like the paladin ofc, but on their own niches.

Either way, with the current class system i imagine our old hybrid classes like hunter might not make the cut for this edition anyway, so there is already an open spot for where new classes can come from here.

so none of them the blessed and anointed holy warriors of a faith? Because their isn't much space to be 'nothing like the paladin ofc', I can't see Gorum's chosen being all that different, for instance,


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
What you said is absolute right...for Faerun in ADnD 2e. It is absolute false for Golarion, you hark back to a game by a different company for support, can I then call on Call of Cthulhu? Or Hackmaster? That is the problem, this is not TSRs game, and we should cast of the last aspects of that (especially with Paladins being regarded as 'common' seen as often as bards, or clerics or sorcerers) and your utter insistence that no other empowered champions can be allowed to exist, that the Paladin has to remain the way it was decades ago in a game by a different company, and remain as it was in that fluff, the ultimate champion (and it was in ADnD the ultimate champion, all others where explicitly less worthy) and that any other champion existing is a fundamental threat to you enjoying the game,leads me to the conclusion that the only possible way forward for the class is it's removal, if, as you claim, it has to cling to lore owned by another company, and become less common than the other classes, it should be removed, or made a prestige class, and the space saved by doing so used to expand the other classes

I have to talk about specific aspects of this reply:

It is absolute false for Golarion, you hark back to a game by a different company for support, can I then call on Call of Cthulhu? Or Hackmaster?

No, it isn't false for Golarion, because Golarion is built off of D&D 3.5. This specifically is the case in that 3.5 material still exists in Golarion officially. Pathfinder is tied to D&D we can't, and shouldn't deny it. Thus it is completely fair to make a comparison to the source material for Golarion rather than CoC or Hackmaster.

It is fair for you to say that you think Paizo should cast off all of that, which you do here, but that (and the other parts of your reply as well) is an opinion and not a fact.

And I respect your belief to that, I respect that you feel that Paladin shouldn't be an exception, but the fact that we do have restrictions on it, which make...

hang on, your stance is just an opinion as well, that being that all non-LG deities are to weak and stupid to empower champions (because you have argued against that compromise as well, paladin being the LG champion of a sanctified/empowered class bracket at least makes sense, keeping a class based on genocidal lunatics and pedophiles as a hero does not, at all.)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
you just claimed LG as best good, and then also claimed you didn't. make up your mind, either LG is best good, has this 'spark'you speak of to make paladins..ones that you claim HAVE to remain the most powerful martial class, and still be linked to LG, with your compromise being: these inferior alignments can have an inferior class, because they are scrub peasants unworthy of respect, given your lack of respect for everyone elses views, and your lying about claiming LG as best good, why on earth should we show you anything but the condescension and contempt you show us? Also the hyperbolic lies about 'what a paladin is' is self serving dishonesty and propaganda, please stop being so arrogant to assume we all have head injuries extreme enough to fall for it,

Maybe you should read what I wrote Rob.

I have never said that LG was the best good. Just that they were the alignment that got the Paladin. Go back and check my post history. You will find I have never said those words and have, in fact, refuted the claim over a dozen times (14 to be exact).

You never use the exact words, just make the implicit claim over, and over and over, that the ultimate champion of good has to be LG...if that is not a claim of superiority, what exactly is it?

I have never said that they are the ultimate champion of good. I have never insinuated that. I have insinuated that the Paladin is a champion of good, which it indeed is, and that it is an archetypal kind of hero, which it also is, but that doesn't make it the only champion of good or the ultimate champion of good.

The Paladin is unique in its lore and what it represents.

If you ever played the original Paladin then you'd also know that they weren't even all that good mechanically. (Your average AD&D 2nd Ed Paladin would get its teeth kicked in by a Fighter for example, mostly because the ability score requirements meant you had to put at least a 17 in Charisma which did...

What you said is absolute right...for Faerun in ADnD 2e. It is absolute false for Golarion, you hark back to a game by a different company for support, can I then call on Call of Cthulhu? Or Hackmaster? That is the problem, this is not TSRs game, and we should cast of the last aspects of that (especially with Paladins being regarded as 'common' seen as often as bards, or clerics or sorcerers) and your utter insistence that no other empowered champions can be allowed to exist, that the Paladin has to remain the way it was decades ago in a game by a different company, and remain as it was in that fluff, the ultimate champion (and it was in ADnD the ultimate champion, all others where explicitly less worthy) and that any other champion existing is a fundamental threat to you enjoying the game,leads me to the conclusion that the only possible way forward for the class is it's removal, if, as you claim, it has to cling to lore owned by another company, and become less common than the other classes, it should be removed, or made a prestige class, and the space saved by doing so used to expand the other classes


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
you just claimed LG as best good, and then also claimed you didn't. make up your mind, either LG is best good, has this 'spark'you speak of to make paladins..ones that you claim HAVE to remain the most powerful martial class, and still be linked to LG, with your compromise being: these inferior alignments can have an inferior class, because they are scrub peasants unworthy of respect, given your lack of respect for everyone elses views, and your lying about claiming LG as best good, why on earth should we show you anything but the condescension and contempt you show us? Also the hyperbolic lies about 'what a paladin is' is self serving dishonesty and propaganda, please stop being so arrogant to assume we all have head injuries extreme enough to fall for it,

Maybe you should read what I wrote Rob.

I have never said that LG was the best good. Just that they were the alignment that got the Paladin. Go back and check my post history. You will find I have never said those words and have, in fact, refuted the claim over a dozen times (14 to be exact).

You never use the exact words, just make the implicit claim over, and over and over, that the ultimate champion of good, and in fact the only divinely empowered champion we have has to be LG...if that is not a claim of superiority, what exactly is it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
My compromise (and i'm like in a weird spot officially where as long as I have my LG paladin I'm ok with most other things) that people seemed to like was something like what you said with a champion option. so It wouldn't be a paladin by name or alignment but would have a lot of the same abilities but themed more so around the alignment they end up as. sort of how the anti paladin is a CE or LE paladin but not at the same time.

That just doesn't work for me.

For me the concept of the Paladin is a unique class. None of this "most good" rhetoric or anything, it simply is what it is, a unique special class that is created when someone with the inherent potential (originally called a spark), is a natural conduit for elemental law and a completely pure conduit for good. After that, a deific call can ignite it, or the Universe itself can, and if the individual accepts then they become a Paladin.

It is special because of its uniqueness and rarity.

It isn't something you could just choose to become, you didn't just go to an academy and study, you either were or were not a Paladin.

I'll get to Antipaladins in a minute...

If the class is opened, in any way, that uniqueness is lessened. Open it up? Well now it is just a class. I'm sure the idea of a divine warrior that isn't a cleric and has divine powers is a draw for many - But that isn't just what a Paladin is.

The setting loses something as well. It loses mystery.

Originally nobody knew why sparks existed. We only knew that they couldn't be created by Gods. We knew only Lawful and Good in a VERY specific ratio, with 0 margin for error, could make the powers appear, but no idea why nothing else did.

If we open the class, well, suddenly that is no longer a thing at all. Suddenly it would be that Gods create Paladins and alignment ratios don't make sense. It becomes just a Holy Warrior empowered by your God and well... Since that isn't what Paladins were... You lose something.

What about the two...

you just claimed LG as best good, and then also claimed you didn't. make up your mind, either LG is best good, has this 'spark'you speak of to make paladins..ones that you claim HAVE to remain the most powerful martial class, and still be linked to LG, with your compromise being: these inferior alignments can have an inferior class, because they are scrub peasants unworthy of respect, given your lack of respect for everyone elses views, and your lying about claiming LG as best good, why on earth should we show you anything but the condescension and contempt you show us? Also the hyperbolic lies about 'what a paladin is' is self serving dishonesty and propaganda, please stop being so arrogant to assume we all have head injuries extreme enough to fall for it,


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:

Personally, I think the Paladin alignment issue became almost irrelevant with the creation of Warpriests (PF1) and Fighter/Cleric multiclasses (PF2).

There is now a very good chassis to build your Holy Warrior with. I just don't see the niche that its attempting to fill any more.

At this point I pretty much think that paladin should just go away as a core class. Its not worth the bother. Its not worth all the alignment arguments or all the Paladin falling arguments.

If a Paladin remains at all I think it should transition to something a lot closer to the PF1 Cavalier. An armored warrior who follows a Code of Honour. Probably with Mounted and unmounted variants.

Hmm. Making it an archetype would work very well in PF2

In both cases I disagree, their isnl a fundamental difference between a blessed and empowered champion, with a few divinely granted powers, and a cleric who casts greatsword a bunch, I like that paladins don't cast spells, because flavour wise them doing so didn't make sense, they are the Mortal Swords of a God, not scholars and theologians using sacred ritual and prayers to call down a rote effect, it is a different and mote personnel relationship with the deity (and actually writing this shows something to me, the archtype Paladin invokes for me is that of Mortal Sword from Steven Erikson's Malazan series, the war leaders and champion of a god, who live, die and kill by that Deities whim)

Also for people who want a more historic inspiration for Paladins, I do not see why the Jomsviking are less valid than Templars, even in the white washed mythical version of both.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

Far from 'across the board'. It is quite rightly LG only.

Also not a surprise, they spoke about this and if they do paladins of other alignments they want the time to do them properly and not just a lazy switcheroo of "evil" to "good" or "chaos" or "mercy" to "cruelty". Which can only be a good thing, because the only thing worse than a non-LG paladin is a non-LG paladin with bad and lazy mechanics.

because LG is ofc the one true alignment, the only one capable of empowered holy warriors, whose detect/smite subroutine and demands to dictate what everyone else plays aren't a huge malignant sore on the hobby at all.... Oh wait, honestly at this point they are, if paladins stay LG only, remove them from core, stop wasting valuable CRB pages on such a game distorting blight of a class, and drop war priest or Inquisitor into the holy fighter slot. Seriously they have been nothing but trouble, every edition they have been in, and the passionate defence of them remaining such a party dominanting class says alot about the people defending the current situation with party alignment and actions having to pass muster with the guy playing the paladin.

Ah! so of course we should all defer to your opinion, as you put it so eloquently...

Paladins are cool and deserve a place front and centre. If you don't like them, there are 11 other classes to play. It's all good. There are at least 4 classes I have no interest in (Alchemist, Barbarian, Ranger and Sorceror for those who need to know) and will never play - I'm not calling for their removal.

except I have never been micro managed by any person playing the other classes you list, I have by the majority of people playing paladins, they immediately try to dominate any party, because the code requires them to, and that fact appeals to the LG tyranny mindset we see on these forums, LG is somehow special and super deserving, and a class named after genocidal nut jobs must be the pinnacle of heroism, to the extent of enforcing those rules on other players... Want to be a rogue? To bad paladin says no, rough house barbarian? Paladin says no, mercenary fighter... Paladin says no the list goes on, and until and unless the myth of paladin divine right is purged, they will be by far the most problematic characters for ruining the play experience of everyone else at the table. The fact that only LG having Divine champions also makes no in setting sense also helps with this argument, are the non-LG gods so weak and foolish that this hugely beneficial idea never occured to them? But it is mostly the 'requirement to be a complete asshat and fully signed up member of the no fun patrol' that bugs me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Data Lore wrote:

Bellona:

Why should PF2 be beholden to replicate another system's builds? Also, how can it given that other system had a crazy number of splat books and the like.

I mean, come on, the oracle isn't even core to PF1.

If you took core PF1 and compared it to core PF2, I think you would find that some concepts PF1 did, PF2 couldn't do, sure. But the reverse is also true.

Moreover, PF2 multiclasses solves problems beyond just build variety. It addresses issues such as barriers to entry and balance far better than typical 3.X multiclassing.

it 'addresses barriers to entry' by putting up huge statistical barriers, meaning you pretty much have to have built the character from the ground up to multiclass, thus preventing it emerging in play. Since I tend to have abuild in mind and stick with it (the MC gymnastics of making an Aldori Sword Lord worth the name are long and complicated, but you end uo worthy of being a Lord of the Blade, rather than the horrible PrC option) this isn't much of an issue for me, but most people who had major issues with dipping wanted a more organic RP based experience which this Dedication model mostly blocks, you simply wont have the stats to decide to learn some sword play, or take some singing lessons, and with so many feats now class gated you can't even fake it. However for faking Magus or Oracles or War Priests, Dedication works well, and pretty intuitively, if you are planning it from the get go.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:

Far from 'across the board'. It is quite rightly LG only.

Also not a surprise, they spoke about this and if they do paladins of other alignments they want the time to do them properly and not just a lazy switcheroo of "evil" to "good" or "chaos" or "mercy" to "cruelty". Which can only be a good thing, because the only thing worse than a non-LG paladin is a non-LG paladin with bad and lazy mechanics.

because LG is ofc the one true alignment, the only one capable of empowered holy warriors, whose detect/smite subroutine and demands to dictate what everyone else plays aren't a huge malignant sore on the hobby at all.... Oh wait, honestly at this point they are, if paladins stay LG only, remove them from core, stop wasting valuable CRB pages on such a game distorting blight of a class, and drop war priest or Inquisitor into the holy fighter slot. Seriously they have been nothing but trouble, every edition they have been in, and the passionate defence of them remaining such a party dominanting class says alot about the people defending the current situation with party alignment and actions having to pass muster with the guy playing the paladin.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.
You mean the only functional culture in the setting :p. Ok Cheliax is toned down from a real medieval/Renaissance society in some ways, and over blown in others, but it at least would likely not obliterate itself in civil war,
Uh, that's EXACTLY what they did.
The city states had and survived civil wars, because everyone involved had enough brutal pragmatism to make actually taking and holding the place possible, a LG society would obliterate itself, it would be endless mindless factional slaughter, as no one has the pragmatism and savagery to actually RULE, LG is great in a saint, and terrible in a king.
Wow there's a whole lot of wrong in there. Like, every bit of it.
citaion needed. Like any evidence at all. The lost when someone harder, and crueler came along, that is what lets a medieval society survive.

1) I probably could, but I have no interest in diving through the entire history of every civilization of our world.

2) We're not talking about our world we're talking about Golarion, where there's a bunch that completely laugh in the face of that thought process.

1) you mean that spiral of savagery broken by the end of Monarchical dictatorships? (Hell look at the last Monarchies and Dictatorships, still the most brutal places on earth)

2) yea sure you can have a god change human nature via mass mindbending to make a 'good'autocratic society function, but you end up with a nation of Stepford Smilers.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.
You mean the only functional culture in the setting :p. Ok Cheliax is toned down from a real medieval/Renaissance society in some ways, and over blown in others, but it at least would likely not obliterate itself in civil war,
Uh, that's EXACTLY what they did.
The city states had and survived civil wars, because everyone involved had enough brutal pragmatism to make actually taking and holding the place possible, a LG society would obliterate itself, it would be endless mindless factional slaughter, as no one has the pragmatism and savagery to actually RULE, LG is great in a saint, and terrible in a king.
Wow there's a whole lot of wrong in there. Like, every bit of it.

citaion needed. Like any evidence at all. The lost when someone harder, and crueler came along, that is what lets a medieval society survive.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.
You mean the only functional culture in the setting :p. Ok Cheliax is toned down from a real medieval/Renaissance society in some ways, and over blown in others, but it at least would likely not obliterate itself in civil war,
Uh, that's EXACTLY what they did.

The city states had and survived civil wars, because everyone involved had enough brutal pragmatism to make actually taking and holding the place possible, a LG society would obliterate itself, it would be endless mindless factional slaughter, as no one has the pragmatism and savagery to actually RULE, LG is great in a saint, and terrible in a king.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

You mean the only functional culture in the setting :p. Ok Cheliax is toned down from a real medieval/Renaissance society in some ways, and over blown in others, but it at least would likely not obliterate itself in civil war, as most of the others would, being that soft and merciful, hell the Borgias or Medici would own any other state inside a week, do a solid purge (auto-de-fe, hang draw and quarter, you know the drill) and have them on the path to long term survival and stability inside a month....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, filled in the surveys, 2 biggest gripes remain: how passive paladins feel with retributive strike, and how tight maths means no one really shines, no one really sucks, it's all a bit meh.

1 to 50 of 518 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>