Rob Godfrey's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. 726 posts (741 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 726 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

KYRA IS THE WARPRIEST PATH OF CLERIC!!! (Gets heavy armor) There's also a spell-focused version!

SO much for the class! But this can be good!

and I hope that doesn't stop us getting actual war priests... Because a cleric in plate is way less interesting.
The new action economy, multiclassing archetypes, insuitability of partial casters, and weapon balance are what will stop us from getting actual war priests.

welp, looking more and more likenno PF for me (and before someone says 'just play first edition' I have never had that work, whether it's Warhammer Fantasy, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, what ever, I have never found a previous editions group, they apparently exist, but I have, in over a decade of looking l, found zero, not likely to find one this time either)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:

KYRA IS THE WARPRIEST PATH OF CLERIC!!! (Gets heavy armor) There's also a spell-focused version!

SO much for the class! But this can be good!

and I hope that doesn't stop us getting actual war priests... Because a cleric in plate is way less interesting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:

Cut for brevity.

For CR: I'm not sure I can envision a functional system that allows monsters to be "naturally" a certain CR without some number padding (if thats what you want to call + level.) I mean past a certain level thats just going to mean all monsters have massive attributes, which is just padding of another kind. The only way this is avoidable is to go for a 5e style game, and even that has arbitrary padding of HP just because something is of x level.

For feats: Still not seeing the functional difference between "this concept takes several feats to work in a chain but classes we want to do it get bonus feats" and "this concept requires taking a dedication feat before getting a second feat." Or even the fact that many class feats are the functionally equivalent of class features that you would have had to multiclass for in the first place.

Because the dedications lock you in. You can have one, be it archetype or class, and to have another you HAVE to take 3 feats in that archetype/dedication (so no pirates with double slice, til really late game, for instance), and the merging of what were universal feats and class features into class feats means that you have to have multiple versions of a feat chain (so we shall keep using twf, just for brevity) so you have rogue twf, ranger twf, fighter twf, and one will clearly be the best (in this case fighter), so you waste pages making sub-standard versions of a feat that could have easily been done as a single feat that anyone meeting the stat pre-requisites could take.

On monsters: My point was: if your sand worm analogue needs a str of 50 to be CR 8...it should not be CR 8, make the creature with stats dictated by a logical, consistent system, and see what CR that makes it, if that is cr5, then it's cr5, don't mess with numbers to buff it to 8, it bugs me in pf1 when I catch it, and PF2 makes it a core design philosophy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
It all boils down to the style of story you want the game to tell. Personally, I think +level helps differentiate this game from D&D, and I think everybody benefits if Pathfinder and D&D tell different kinds of stories. However, removing +level should be very easy to do for those who wish to do so.
Differentiate between D&D 5e and PF2, maybe. But there’s another version of D&D that incorporated that treadmill that I ditched for PF1.

PF1 used the same basic treadmill PF2 does. +level to attack, or a fraction of +level with an additional bonus that basically resulted in +level.+level to CMB. +level to CMD. +level to any skill you kept maxed. Caster level was almost always +level. AC was preeeetty close to +level if you actually kept up with all the big 6 boosting items the game assumed you got. Saving throws were a fraction of +level, though probably the most divergent example of it.

This notion that level didn't matter in PF1 doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny.

Level mattered less, it still mattered, but it wasn't the character defining, story crushing monolith it is now, with the horrendous monster system (don't get me wrong, PF1 suffered from forcing a monster to fit a CR as well, but it was a bug that should have been resolved, not a feature to double down on, if a monster needs a 'bonus from nowhere' to be a CR...then it isn't that CR, lower the CR to a rating that reflects the 'actual' creature, not give it random bonuses to fit a math requirement) making matters even worse, the 'stay in lane,no quirks, no fun, no escape' class feat system chaining you to an endless mind numbing treadmill, and the dedication system just spitting in your face, with the feats that you actually need to make an idea work blocked off behind a feat tax (not being awful at two weapons or swinging really hard being fighter only for instance) which throws on even more chains, and seems to scream 'badwrongfun' at any idea to be actually good at something.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
More like “dumbed it down” is an asshat way of saying something has been simplified, because it expresses contempt of people who prefer the simpler model.
I like the way Seifter (I think) phrased it, something like "Complexity is the currency with which you buy depth." Complexity for its own sake is like "spending for the sake of spending" and complexity which buys you comparatively little depth is poor allocation of resources.

I think I did say that, in a venue talking about how it's possible to increase depth while lowering complexity if you're careful how you spend it. If you think of it like a graph with two axes, x for complexity, y for depth, you want to include pieces that are relatively tall but slender while removing pieces that were long and short.

As to the surveys, obviously you can never know anything about the people who didn't take any of them, that's the risk of any survey, period, even ones performed by professional survey scientists and with high stakes surveying the entire populace on an issue. But we do know that the people who proportionately dropped the surveys after their first survey were those who liked the game and were very positive about it. People who disliked it were most likely to keep answering the most surveys, followed by people who really really liked it (extremely positive). But the interesting adn really cool thing? There were a lot of areas where you could find major agreement among the people who disliked the game and people who really liked it. It was easy to see that people had varied and nuanced opinions. For instance, it's not like there were people disliking the game and just rating everything as bad or loving the game and just rating everything as good. Even the people who disliked the game, as a whole, overall rated a lot of aspects positively, which shows that the amount of negativity they picked up from just a few areas they really didn't like were enough to change their overall...

Sadly, in my case I can think of only one thing I like about pf2e, and that is champions being per alignment ( don't like the extremely passive mechanics of the class, but at least that one aspect is good), everything else I dislike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
You are just a bundle of positivity, I bet undead recoil at your presence.

HA! Touche, sadly doesn't change the fact I really found only 1 thing in the Playtest to like, and that was Champions, and even then only the creation of non-LG holy warriors, the actual mechanics...hell no :(


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Quote:
Jason B on skill Feats to help compensate

Yikes... not exactly helping the bottle neck at all unless the skill Feats are going to be able to pick up non-skill like Archetype Feats, that does nothing to solve the bottleneck we're discussing here.

If that's the only thing they concede that's pretty disappointing.

I don't think Jason was saying those archetype changes are going to solve the customization bottleneck. It was part of a question about extreme changes and archetypes, not him saying "We solved this other only somewhat related problem." Mathmuse is connecting dots with his post there. Dots that make sense to connect, as these changes could help the bottleneck a little, but they weren't dots Jason intended to connect.

The reason why I actually listen to the twitches despite hating twitch as a format is that summaries often miss context like this, and then people run wild with misinformation. I'd advise that if you hear about something on a twitch secondhand that makes you find concerning, you should listen to the relevant twitch yourself. Playing telephone with this information can get bad fast.

Yes, I do jump to a conclusion like that. I would use the mechanics of class-locked skill feats to solve the bottleneck problem, so I presume that the Paizo designers would do so, also.

For example, I did so when Draco18s complained that my rewritten snare rules where ineffective for combat (my snares are pre-combat) and he would not want to spend class feats on a ranger's snares. I moved my rewritten Snare Savant ranger feat into a ranger-specific clause in my skill feat Hidden Snares.

I don't think that class feats were meant to be solely about combat, but many people in these forums complain about spending a class feat for a perk that does not help combat.

Class feats are the only feats (apart from proficiency) that do effect combat, given we have so few, and are so forced into a set role, (paladins are walking traps, clerics are healers, rangers....erm...yea, anyway) spending them on anything else seems to violate the point (without seeing the math for 2e we don't know how hyper optimised you need to be merely terrible in the full game, instead of non-functional, but it would have to be a huge swing to change the optimise or don't bother playing of the playtest. )


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

I think Reach spell is a bad example - that is a place where Paizo was caught between "this is a basic metamagic that most casters should have" and "the design of the system is such that metamagic feats are class feats".

Invariably there will be one or two of those cases. However, taking a look at how the other metamagic feats work gives a much broader view - each caster has their own "flavor" of metamagic, which gives more distinctness to them.

A major reason I'm in favor of this is because I like classes to be distinct. I'd rather have 12 classes that each have their own one-of-a-kind approach to problem solving than 30 classes with massive overlap - something I feel started to be an issue in 1e.

Not that I want classes to be pidgeonholed, that being said. Every martial class should be able to two hand, two weapon, sword and board, etc. But each class should have a different way of approaching it with their class feats.

Which gives the current issue: if you want the good version of the characters fighting style, multiclass fighter and suck up that feat tax.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
PF1 I'm not forced to pick between between a class Feature and Power Attack as a Monk. If I want it in PF2, I have to give up 2 monk abilities. Or post pone them till later and question, after a certain point, is it REALLY worth going back for lower ranked Feats?

I think this is more of a "not enough space in the playtest" issue than anything else, as with a lot of similar cases.

Paizo has, imo, a very cool idea in the playtest of having different classes have different versions of similar feats. I strongly expect that to be expanded on in the final version, with a lot of the holes in the playtest closed that way.

For example, I suspect Monks will have a class feat similar to Power Attack that the same kind of builds are going to want - but instead of working exactly like the Fighter version, it will have a Monk flavor to it and slightly different mechanics.

I think this approach of "each class has a slightly different way of achieving a given effect" is wonderful both for giving each class a thematic niche as well as increasing the amount of customization that multiclassing can provide.

Basically agreeing with what Captain Morgan said above, about how just giving Barbarians Double Slice doesn't really make sense with their action economy, and it would make a lot more sense for them to have their own TWF feat that matches their style better.

or it could (and probably will) be simply a waste of pages making dozens of feats when 5 would have done


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Idk if rapid shot was too powerful as it was effectively the TWF of bows and gave throwing builds an extra attack if they chose to TWF.

After reading your post and thinking of how casters used to work (the first recommendation was to never multiclass). I thought that they might have probably been thinking the same thing for martials, and they forced it by having all those pre-reqs for the trully game changing feats.

I dont know how pre-reqs would change going forward in PF2 besides what we have seen so far.

Rapid shot was actually better than the TWF feat for at least 2 reasons.

1) Archers have to move less than melee combatants, meaning archers got more full attacks off.
2) TWF, as a fighting style, means giving up the raw single hit damage of two handed weapons. You still use the same bow whether or not you use Rapid Shot, so getting the extra attacks is a no brainer.

But what really got dangerous was when you started to combine rapid shot with manyshot, plus haste, plus some sort of static damage booster like smite, favored/instant enemy, or weapon training/specialization. The sheer number of attacks archers could pour out round after round was absurd, and represented no meaningful reduction in damage per hit. Even the bane of flurry, DR, was easily bypassed by archers. This made the archer the best combat style in the game and created this "one true bowman" path.

Comparatively, there are a lot more ways to do a ranged character than following that one feat path now. The Ranger's crossbow feats and precision edge actually creates a heavy single hit damage alternative to being a machine gun. Casters have magical striker and can easily cast and attack in the same turn. Rogues are better served using their actions on stealth, distraction, or Dread Striker to make enemies flat-footed than they would be by fighter feats. Paladins can survive on the front-lines with their armor and punish enemies with ranged reprisal.

The end result is that ranged combat...

ye folks, Paladins are a terrain hazard now, anyother vision is forbidden, all they are is a slap wrist machine, want to be the holy knight smiting the enemies oc the faith? Tough, you have to be tied to the sickening, horrendous retributive strike mechanics, no opt out, no escape, no choice, no customisation away from that pile of crap.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, we know there are going to be a lot more class feat options than there are in the playtest. We also know that some of those feats are going to allow for combat strategies which were hard to pull off in the playtest without multiclassing (e.g. twf for rogues, archery for most). Even if "archer paladins" aren't yet a thing in the core rulebook, we can nonetheless make them work by printing more feats, a thing which is certain to happen.

it is, but the experience of the playtest was that new feats were almost all worse than existing ones for another class. Rangers got an updated twf... Worse than double slice, they got archery... Worse than the fighter feats again. Chaining classes to horrible concepts (paladin as passive wrist slap trap for instance, or the utter dumpster fire that is hunt target or removing partial spell casting to be replaced with static, dull powers) breaks so much fundamentally that print more feats cannot save it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Pathfinder 2nd Edition appears to restrict classes more than Pathfinder 1st Edition. The players cannot mix-and-match abilities by level-based multiclassing. Many classes have branches, such as the bard's muses and the druid's orders, that force them to specialize. In contract, their skills are mostly independent of class, determined by a one-size-fits-all proficiency system. Proficiency prevents specialization for better bonuses.

While I agree with most of the rest of Mathmuse's post, I disagree with this.

Most branches allow you to dabble in others (indeed, you can easily have a full two of them as a Bard, if you like), and for the most part I think Multiclass Feats allow as much freedom as level-based multiclassing in most (though not all) circumstances. While Skills are easier to think outside the box with, and I feel like (especially with the new doubled Proficiency bonuses) Proficiency in and of itself is specializing in certain skills, and doing so quite effectively.

The big area where customization is gonna be reduced from PF1 is Feats, specifically in regard to how Class Feats work, but I think it makes up for that in other areas.

This doesn't net as much customization as PF1 had, but it probably does do more than the PF1 core rulebook, which I feel is as much as we can expect a core rulebook to allow.

I am still waiting to see if two weapon and great weapon fighting worth the name is going to be gated behind Fighter (as is archery come to think of it) as it is in the playtest (Ranger being linked to hunt target makes their version really bad, and as bad as Vital Strike... Soryy two action huge penalties power attack is, it is the only hit stuff really hard option) also waiting to see the offensive champion, but so far classes look far more straight jacketed, simply because the few combat-feats worth having are alk fighter, so everyone else is pick something that doesn't suck to badly until I am forced to pay the feat tax for something passable. I also am nervous how badly screwed the 1-6 casters will be, thematically and mechanically they were among mt favourite classes, and PF2 multiclassing does not do them justice at all, so hope they make a stronger showing of holding to theme than champion and ranger have.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

He/It is an eldritch abomination of the Cosmic horror school, he/it may have reasons, but a mortal would be insane to grasp the merest edge of those reasons. Or because world ending super deities are cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks for releasing this, now to hope the Adventure doesn't mess up the Tyrant and the Whispering Way (they being, along with Cheliax, Nidal and the Hell Knights what interests me about Golarion, shining beacons of ideas among a bland fog of 'good' nations, seen in every setting in one variation or another)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks for making this available..now to hope this adventure doesn't ruin on of the interesting things about Golarion, The Whispering Way and the Tyrant, (the other interesting things being Nidal and Cheliax, and the Hell Knights), and replace them with yet another bland good nation that we have seen in hundred times in a hundred settings


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
dirtypool wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


If we are going to put it in Pathfinder mechanical terms, the Mountain won because he had more HP than Oberyn thought he did, or some ability like Ferocity.

Ah... so the higher AC of the armor was of no value to the Mountain in that fight where three blows glanced off of his armor?

as he was stabbed repeatedly and poisoned, nope. Was a very RPG style fight actually, real plate vs agile guy usually ended with dead agile guy, as the plate wearing combatant was still mobile and very difficult to hurt. Mind you a spear is a very good choice vs plate, if used right (which is why polearms tend to have 'and a spear point' on the can opening end)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
A ranger having to buy spells with feats isn't fundamentally different from how a monk has to buy ki powers with feats or a druid has to buy new ways to wild shape with feats or a sorcerer has to buy bloodline powers with feats.
It is fundamentally different. Rangers, in all (i think it's all) previous versions of D&D have had spells as part of the class. They don't have to "buy" them. So your analogy isn't accurate. It's more like a Rogue having to buy Sneak Attack dice.

I'm not understanding how it is different - if I am not mistaken, Monks have had something resembling Ki powers in every previous incarnation. And druids have had automatic wild shape progression in every previous incarnation I am aware of.

"Some things that used to be intrinsic to the class are now options" seems to be a running theme of PF2e. Ranger spellcasting seems to be in that same paradigm. As I've said before, I imagine Mark's "as soon as possible" comment means we will see Ranger focus spells in the core book.

focus spells don't cut it, they are an unchangeable, fixed 'spell' rather than the tool box of a spell list, this also hurt paladins l, but not as badly as replacing Smite with being a trap did.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
There is also the fact that they've removed a lot of the "you suck unless you have special rules" from PF2. So when guns do come along I suspect you'll be able to make a perfectly okay mounted gun fighter without archetyping (probably a General Feat to train in a category of guns) its just you then have the choice to develop that even further with the archetype if you like.
it would be two archetypes still, one not to get an animal companion mount, one for the gun. Unless Cavalier gets to be a full class again.

You can have a non companion mount without being a Cavalier. You can buy a war horse for 300sp and take the Ride Feat. Or the Bonded Animal feat (which is incredibly open and could allow you to keep replacing your animal with more powerful mounts.) If guns follow a similar vein you can probably do it with 0 archetypes if you really want.

It really is quite nicely open. I had a non experienced player who just said "I'd like to try playing with a mount" and I ended up finding something like 6 or 7 different ways to achieve it.

you fatigued inside 10 minutes riding with those two feats, and keep upgrading isn't all that practical.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
There is also the fact that they've removed a lot of the "you suck unless you have special rules" from PF2. So when guns do come along I suspect you'll be able to make a perfectly okay mounted gun fighter without archetyping (probably a General Feat to train in a category of guns) its just you then have the choice to develop that even further with the archetype if you like.

it would be two archetypes still, one not to get an animal companion mount, one for the gun. Unless Cavalier gets to be a full class again.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, to a certain extent archetypes are simply "feat packages which are mutually exclusive to other feat packages." So making a "good with guns" archetype simply serves the purpose to make it difficult to make a "mounted gunner" by combining the cavalier and the gun archetype.

aince mounted gunner was a real thing, and interesting concept ( the Reiter and Harquebusier cavalry of the 16th and 17th centuries) and the original users of the carbine rifle concept, making that idea harder gets a meh from me ;p I like my ‘guy in a breast plate and buff coat charging about and shooting things’ archetype, as much as I like horse archers, or mounted knights, and in universe it wouldn’t take long for someone to spot that same potential.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
. I didn’t like the random bonuses monsters got in pf1, this is doubling down on a tendency I see as a flaw, dragons having abilities because they need them to fit the myth is fine, random bonuses given without explanation because they need to hit numbers isn’t, build the creature, then assign cr, not target a certain cr then make random adjustments to fit, if it turns out your giant worm critter isn’t that dangerous to PCs....then it isn’t tha5 dangerous, if it turns out a monster like a Dragon needs to study and train, then, well it’s very intelligent it can certainly do that.

On the one hand, the principle is sound and I definitely see where you are coming from. If I hadn't designed adventures myself I'd completely agree with you.

The problem is that the situation "I have a monster I want to design in isolation" almost never comes up. The actual situation is either, from a GM's perspective, "my party is 5th level and I need a creature that will fit into this sidequest they've gone off on" or, from Paizo's perspective, "We need enough variety of monsters at each level that GMs can have a variety of creatures they can use against their players".

From both of those perspectives, you need to be able to answer the question "how do I make a level 5 monster?" Making a monster and then realizing, 'oops, it's the wrong level and not actually going to work for what I need it for,' is just wasting time that neither Paizo nor the typical GM has to waste.

. Their is something to that, hav8ng consistent rules fo4 adding templates or class levels to monsters as appropriate should relieve that in a more satisfying way than the current ‘bonus fron nowhere’ model. The Lich wants a sand worm type critter? Fine he has one captured, realises it needs more zing, and starts experimenting on it, feeding it the essence of summoned daemons to add a template...boom, more threatening critter, explanation as to why it is a threat, and internally consistent rules (and a future adventure hook if the PCs find those research papers.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

Thanks, I will do that.

Although another aspect of the problem is that I'm not a huge fan of running online games compared to in person.

But still, I will definitely check that out and I appreciate the advice.

your welcome. I found online games strange at first as well, but with the right tools they can really work ( played a Wraith the Great War campaign on Roll20, the party had 3 native english speakers and a German, the characters lined up with that, having only accented voices, and character portraits to go on made it much more intense, the character was the person, in a deeper way than sitting at a table and imagining it, at least for something like Wraith, with very human themes, i5 really worked, especially as the storyteller had a sound board of artillery bombardment, screamed orders, the sound of the maelstrom, wailing people etc....man that was an experience) wasn’t a paid game, but honestly the Storyteller was good enough it could have been.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Except the rules for monsters is fudging. And there's nothing about the "tight math" here because there is no math to be had. Want an enemy to have +13 to hit? Who cares if they have a 5 Dexterity and Strength and are only 6th level, you're the GM, so it has +13 to hit. Same with damage dice. Don't have +X in potency? Who cares, now they do because they can, because you, the GM, willed it so.

The ends justify the means when it comes to PF2 monster creation, and people (myself included) don't like it because the math doesn't reflect that at all when it's supposed to for the PCs, which is where the real upset lies.

This is, quite frankly, flatly false. We don't have the monster creation guidelines yet, but looking at the monster stat blocks, their damage dice and to-hit seem pretty strictly tied to level.

That's not the same as being tied to Ability Scores, certainly, and is different from how PCs do it, but it's also not 'fudging' or 'arbitrary' at all. It's a hard and fast rule that can be examined in detail if you wish.

It can have certain realism issues in terms of how someone with Dex 5 and Str 5 can hit things (though even in PF1, fudging that is as easy as saying it uses another stat for attacks), and in the playtest had the weird issue of 'Why can't PCs get extra damage dice independent of weapon?' (though the hints about the final version seem to indicate they fixed that by giving PCs extra damage dice independent of weapon)...but saying it's fudging or not objective when all Level 5 monsters have within a point or two of the same to-hit is just not true.

It is asymmetric with PCs, but asymmetry and fudging are, in fact, not the same thing. You can certainly dislike it based on the asymmetry, but the asymmetry is not really new (it's less obvious in PF1 but still definitively there...PCs can't take levels of 'Dragon'), and that doesn't make it 'fudging' by any normal definition of the word.

. I didn’t like the random bonuses monsters got in pf1, this is doubling down on a tendency I see as a flaw, dragons having abilities because they need them to fit the myth is fine, random bonuses given without explanation because they need to hit numbers isn’t, build the creature, then assign cr, not target a certain cr then make random adjustments to fit, if it turns out your giant worm critter isn’t that dangerous to PCs....then it isn’t tha5 dangerous, if it turns out a monster like a Dragon needs to study and train, then, well it’s very intelligent it can certainly do that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

Becoming a paid GM is something I'd love to do - I really enjoy GMing and I've had lots people tell me I'm good at it.

But I really wouldn't know where to start, and I currently live in a city small enough that basically everyone who plays Pathfinder is already in one of my games. :P

look on Roll20, plenty of paid GMs there, and they forums lay out rules and guides for how to do it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, PF1's been going for 10+ years, and I never multiclassed a character until this year. It seems like you should be able to be fine without using mechanics you're not fond of.

I don't generally., unless it makes RP sense (I have a Cavalier who is levelling as Paladin, because his focus shifted from his Order to his Faith, for example) and didn't have to because archetypes and hybrids had my back for concepts. That is altered to mush all those ideas into multiclassing, and tied multiclassing to combat feats (if things like the shield feats, power attack and imbue weapon were General feats this reaction would be less severe, but they are bound to class now... Yea.)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I see two major problems with favored enemy just as an idea:

- First it requires metagaming in a way no other class ability does. Perhaps you've guessed right, or your GM is making sure you get to use your thing some of the time, but a significant portion of fights it´ll just be useless (barring instant enemy).

- It just doesn't make diagetic sense for people in the game world to place a huge emphasis on creature types, at least that should be more so for academics and less so for worldly folks. Like you run into situations where "Well, Giants are my favored enemy, but that's not useful against titans because those are outsiders, you see." It feels like whatever techniques people use to fight against especially large humanoids would also apply against the largest humanoid shaped things too. Like "that there is an aberration" feels like a weird thing for a character to say.

. paladin Oaths come close.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

As I said in the other thread, I think once it gets a few splatbooks PF2e will have more concepts than 1e - rather quickly even. Plus Paizo is definitely looking at increasing versatility, so they definitely heard that feedback; see for example archetypes being able to grant Skill or General feats so that they don't always compete for your class feats.

Assuming that the multiarchetyping rules remain the same, that will also fix a lot of the "it take six levels to get another archetype" complaints - or at least help. For example, if you took an archetype at level 2 you could take a skill feat for that archetype at the same level, grab a general feat for it at level 3, and qualify for another archetype at level 4.

On top of that Paizo has also confirmed that level 1 archetypes that replace base class features will be coming back.

With all that put together, it's hard to see PF2e not eclipsing 1e in number of viable concepts eventually.

and it will require interaction with the loatsome multiclass system, I am out at that point, I viscerally loath that system.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
nick1wasd wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
nick1wasd wrote:
I feel like the Eldritch Knight that's a main stay archetype will cover the holes that people want a theoretical Magus archetype to fill. Plus Ninja might be covered with Arcane Trickster/Assassin since Ninjas are just those two mixed together. You have to think about what they said they intend to bring over that they didn't because they didn't want to overwhelm the tester-base.
. Archetype? Nit without spell strike and spell combat, and a curtailed spell list.

Aforementioned archetype WOULD HAVE Spell Strike and Spell Combat. And why do you need a curtailed spell list? Just say "Arcane spell list (only up to nth level) if it's a stand alone class? Because that's what Magus WAS essentially since the Wizard spells you missed out on didn't even work very well with what you would try to do, so there was little point in trying to even learn them.

You sound like a hard man to please Godfrey, I don't know what mechanics these hybrid classes could have that wouldn't step on how multi-classing works now. Because if they have to choose between a new fancy system and an old system that only a few people enjoy(don't get me wrong, the hybrid classes are some of my favorite, but DAMN were they clunky) there's no choice here, they're picking the new system they made.

. Given that I hate the new system, that is me out of luck. Hell apart from Champions 8 have difficulties thinking of anything I like about the playtest.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Edge93 wrote:
Gratz wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
An sadly, they have chosen to nerf everything into a bland, joyless mush, where everyone sucks, no one is powerful and altering the math wont change that feeling of classes being this stodgy concrete you are dragging around.
Hm, I guess we playtested different games, because I enjoyed myself mostly and don't share your experience. Also changing the math will have an effect on success rates, which should have an impact on how you feel about how well a character performs. But I guess you have already decided for yourself how the changes will play out, even without having seen them.
Yeah, I think my group and I were playtesting that other game as well. Everyone had a grand time, characters were plenty diverse except maybe in chapter 3 (heck even then they were plenty distinct), and even the notion of everyone sucking because math doesn't hold up in actual play for us (Not that it was a legitimate notion in the first place) because my players play smart and use flanking, buffs and debuffs and the like to end up with great levels of success throughout the Playtest.

. The maths thin* was analysed to death, and in my experience whiffing attacks and saved spells happened with such regularity it impacted enjoyment, but that wasn’t th3 biggest thing, the removal of combat feats was, the rail roading of class roles far more than 1e also was, the feeling o& suck was strong, and the feeling of being locked into an MMO niche was also strong, fair enough if that wasn’t your impression, it was mine, it was a very similar blandness to an edition we aren’t supposed to mention, and I hated it then as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

I mean - this is still a game where a 20th level wizard can wade naked through an army of 1st level orcs and kill them all with his bare hands one by one, without the aid of any magic.

I'm pretty sure ridiculous characters doing world shattering things will still be part of it. The big difference as I see it is going to be that it will still be possible to actually challenge those characters if you want to.

I agree that the playtest has significantly less versatility of character concept than PF1e. But I think that's a matter of content rather than design; I would be amazed if five years from now PF2e doesn't have the same level of versatility. Probably even more, considering that multiclasses that were terrible before (fighter/wizard) are actually viable characters now.

Heck, in the playtest wizard multiclassed as fighter was so strong as to be almost broken.

. If the price of that is the removal of the hybrids, who are fundementally not, multiclass characters then totally not worth it. At all. Also you coul£ challenge 20th level characters, the rightly went hunting Arch Dukes and Demon lords. Oh and tha5 because o& lvl to ac thing is a loss, a wizard without spells should get lynched by a mob, the power is in what you can do by playing to you4 strengths, if you do something that silly the bookish guy who knows world altering spells is not counter intuitively also unstoppable a5 fisticuffs, and the local blacksmith can pound his head in with a rock.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
I don't mind the freedom to accidentally make a terrible character; what I mind is that PF1e makes it easy to make a terrible character. That's the thing I'm excited about changing in 2e.

. The price of lost concepts andthe ironclad niche enforcement is to high for me. Also versatility and utility is gone, skill feats do not come close to replacing that.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:

Age, height and weights here: http://legacy.aonprd.com/advancedRaceGuide/ageHeightWeight.html

In gainin* that lvl of wizard, you lost progression in the main class, in the playtest you don’t, that is the issue, you sacrifice an awful class feat, and gain hugely by doing so (so much so our playtest group had no one who wasn’t multiclassed) anyway that is not hybrid classes and never will be, not a conceptually consistent class, just a horrible patch to hide the brutal niche enforcement. Played a Sorc multiclass into fighter, felt nothing like a magus, was just a dull, uninteresting pile of abilities straight jacketed by design into blandness,

Ah so optional rules (not in a core rulebook.) So nothing mandated in the main body of rules. I don't see that as an applicable arguement as it is incredibly easy to not have that book (I don't and have been playing PF for its lifetime) and thus not have those rules apply.

That level in Wizard still didn't take the years of book reading you state it did. It took a few days of fighting kobolds. This actually makes the Advanced Race Guides age rules even more ridiculous. You can spend 1-4 years becoming a Fighter (as a Human) then go on a trip through the forest for a week to become a Wizard. Much more economical time wise than spending the 2-12 years it takes to become a wizard!

Our Sorc multiclass felt quite Magus like. With Magical Striker it felt very much like he was empowering his weapons with magic. Although funnily enough he was a divine variant, something that PF1 far more restrictive design didn't allow out the box. Hybrid classes were needed in PF1 because outside of specific combinations multiclassing largely sucked outside of dips, thus splitting Fighter and Wizard just made you s##@ at both and a new class was needed to fill that niche. Not so in PF2.

I do think you are right that multiclassing might actually give too much, but I'll take "most people dabble in an area outside of the class because its effective" over...

mine did not (and the Infernal Sorc rerolled, because they really wanted the Oracle) but we are arguing impression and opinions now, mine is that proper hybrids are superior to this system and the freedom to accidentally make a terrible character are worth it for payoff of at least some consistency and opportunity cost, yours is the opposite, fair enough.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
An sadly, they have chosen to nerf everything into a bland, joyless mush, where everyone sucks, no one is powerful and altering the math wont change that feeling of classes being this stodgy concrete you are dragging around.
I, too, strongly disagree with this. The 'everyone sucks' thing is pretty much purely a math thing, the actual Class Designs mostly feel very fun and effective. I mean, Ranger and some Sorcerers have power level issues, and Paladin and Alchemist could use some cleaning up, but for the most part, the Classes feel pretty nice.

fair enough, I didn't enjoy the playtest, neither did the group I played with, we abandoned the main plyteat after sombrefel hall, did a coupk eof sessions of the PFS test to see high level play, and, not a fan, good luxk to those who like the philosophy behind the design of the playtest, but what was lost in terms of agency and Versatility was to much for me, I play PF to make ridiculous characters doing world shattering things, that is no longer possible, so, not for me, and it is gone by design, nit because the playtest is stripped down.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One consistent refrain I have heard from folks that I simply do not understand is this notion that "being able to do too much of a thing hurts a class or a character thematically."

Sure, if someone can do something too well, that might be a mechanical issue but I don't see how "people are too good at swimming" or "bards cast too many spells" are thematic issues. Like I don't care (thematically, obviously this is a game balance problem) if fighters have full spellcasting from all 4 lists simultaneously, I care if they are good enough at *fighting*.

. Wizards and Clerics spend years studying to get their spells, druids spend time in ritual and communion with nature, sorcerers neglect book learning and physical training to delve into the mysteries of their own bloodline,
Ah crap I missed all the rules which mandate those things. Nothing in the game actually reinforces that, and actually runs against it (it takes the same amount of xp to level all the classes, experience you can gain in a matter of days in the right circumstances.
. The srudy was previous (hence the different starting ages etc) yet it costing the same xp is another argument for hybrids not being full casters, and against this multiclassing system, indeed also against hybrids being as good at the other class they are crossed with, they, by lore choice and mechanical intent exchange depth of skill for breadth of skill, making them full casters destroys that in story choice, removes mechanical support for the core theme they have, it’s the same if Champion was juts a fighter with religion, mechanics reflecting story matters, it is in fact the only purpose of mechanics, and making hybrids full casters removes that.
There are no starting ages in PF 1 or 2. At least not anywhere I can find. The fact is that in PF1 you could spend 4 days in a dungeon and become a wizard. No long years of study. The rules do not...

. Age, height and weights here: http://legacy.aonprd.com/advancedRaceGuide/ageHeightWeight.html In gainin* that lvl of wizard, you lost progression in the main class, in the playtest you don’t, that is the issue, you sacrifice an awful class feat, and gain hugely by doing so (so much so our playtest group had no one who wasn’t multiclassed) anyway that is not hybrid classes and never will be, not a conceptually consistent class, just a horrible patch to hide th3 brutal niche enforcement. Played a Sorc multiclass into fighter, felt nothing like a magus, was just a dull, uninteresting pile of abilities straight jacketed by design into blandness,


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

I see qhere you're coming from but again that's not broken, that's a feature.

I myself hate what it can lead to if misused. Just like freedom. Freedom can lead to awful things if used for bad ends.
It's still inherently neutral. I like freedom. I like order, too. It depends on your priorities.

Feature for some, broken for others. The critical point, I think, is that it is broken for Paizo; they have clearly reached a point where they would rather design a new system than continue to face what they see as the limitations of the existing system.

And ultimately I think that has to be reason enough for anyone. If Paizo isn't having fun designing for their own system anymore, it's time to move on, especially with the Adventure Paths being their flagship product.

There is also the financial reason that Mathmuse said, which is part of the equation as well, but it's very clear from Paizo's stated goals that the mechanical reason is a big driving force for them.

. An sadly, they have chosen to nerf everything into a bland, joyless mush, where everyone sucks, no one is powerful and altering the math wont change that feeling of classes being this stodgy concrete you are dragging around.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One consistent refrain I have heard from folks that I simply do not understand is this notion that "being able to do too much of a thing hurts a class or a character thematically."

Sure, if someone can do something too well, that might be a mechanical issue but I don't see how "people are too good at swimming" or "bards cast too many spells" are thematic issues. Like I don't care (thematically, obviously this is a game balance problem) if fighters have full spellcasting from all 4 lists simultaneously, I care if they are good enough at *fighting*.

. Wizards and Clerics spend years studying to get their spells, druids spend time in ritual and communion with nature, sorcerers neglect book learning and physical training to delve into the mysteries of their own bloodline,
Ah crap I missed all the rules which mandate those things. Nothing in the game actually reinforces that, and actually runs against it (it takes the same amount of xp to level all the classes, experience you can gain in a matter of days in the right circumstances.

. The srudy was previous (hence the different starting ages etc) yet it costing the same xp is another argument for hybrids not being full casters, and against this multiclassing system, indeed also against hybrids being as good at the other class they are crossed with, they, by lore choice and mechanical intent exchange depth of skill for breadth of skill, making them full casters destroys that in story choice, removes mechanical support for the core theme they have, it’s the same if Champion was juts a fighter with religion, mechanics reflecting story matters, it is in fact the only purpose of mechanics, and making hybrids full casters removes that.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One consistent refrain I have heard from folks that I simply do not understand is this notion that "being able to do too much of a thing hurts a class or a character thematically."

Sure, if someone can do something too well, that might be a mechanical issue but I don't see how "people are too good at swimming" or "bards cast too many spells" are thematic issues. Like I don't care (thematically, obviously this is a game balance problem) if fighters have full spellcasting from all 4 lists simultaneously, I care if they are good enough at *fighting*.

. Wizards and Clerics spend years studying to get their spells, druids spend time in ritual and communion with nature, sorcerers neglect book learning and physical training to delve into the mysteries of their own bloodline, the hybrids don’t, they neglect that part of their education to train in the skills and disciplines of another field of study, and that lack of focus should bar the, from the deepest mysteries and most complicated spell formula of the sphere, in the same way they should not hit full mastery of the other half of their career path, they are not specialists, and to make them as good as a specialist damages their ‘jack of 2 trades master of neither’ theme, amd cheapens the theme of dedication and focus the full casters have, Bards sacrifice this focus for a broader education, and being professional entertainers...except now they don’t, apparently full casting can be picked up as a hobby.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Oh, I agree they're on par with the Bloodlines weirdness-wise. I just meant that you couldn't do the exact same things as an Abyssal or Undead Bloodline with the current Totems...but that making an Abyssal/Fiend Totem that gave you most of the stuff from Abyssal Bloodline would be pretty easy.

. They would suffr the same problem as all totems; the completely concept destroying anathema system. Barbarians witha code of conduct makes zero sense.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
oholoko wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
So make them as dull and uninteresting as 2e bards are? Full casting destroyed that class,
To me bards are one of the best and coolest classes lol. To you it might have destroyed the class but to most people it seemed to work too well xD
which is fine, 8 ain’t going to call badwrongfun, but I don’t enjoy them and didn’t enjoy the gish multiclass characters I played (sorc/fighter and Cleric/fighter, the Paladin/Cavalier was ok) they did not feel like hybrids, nothing made them stand out from either class, and the role enforcement and get in lane feeling was really strong, the cleric felt nothing like a pf1e War Priest, that juggling buffs and fervour, that lookin* for 3very type of bonus was mechanically gone, and the feeling of bein* 5he empowered wrath of a deity was absent, it wasn’t fun. The Sorc was during sombrefel, and he couldn’t fight well, or cas5a worth well spell that wasn’t heal...ao healing burst was his main activity...which was meh. Sorry fo4 typos posting from ipad
Can agree. You are on the lines of... Well you dislike where pf2 things are going, and i can see that. I feel like paizo promised pf1 with new mechanics and delivered... Well PfNext with a new core set and a different focus. Just like people stayed with 3.5 when 4e came. Or 3.5 when PF came xD I doubt you will migrate to PF2 but still at least i can see the reasons why you are staying.

honestly likely to jump to something like Zweihander or Warhammer Fantasy RP, and use Exalted for batso insanity, because staying with last editions doesn't work very well, for all the talk of legacy campaigns in various things (from Oldhammer on down or OWoD) I haven't found a reliable group either near me or in the same TZ.. Ever.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
oholoko wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
So make them as dull and uninteresting as 2e bards are? Full casting destroyed that class,
To me bards are one of the best and coolest classes lol. To you it might have destroyed the class but to most people it seemed to work too well xD

which is fine, 8 ain’t going to call badwrongfun, but I don’t enjoy them and didn’t enjoy the gish multiclass characters I played (sorc/fighter and Cleric/fighter, the Paladin/Cavalier was ok) they did not feel like hybrids, nothing made them stand out from either class, and the role enforcement and get in lane feeling was really strong, the cleric felt nothing like a pf1e War Priest, that juggling buffs and fervour, that lookin* for 3very type of bonus was mechanically gone, and the feeling of bein* 5he empowered wrath of a deity was absent, it wasn’t fun. The Sorc was during sombrefel, and he couldn’t fight well, or cas5a worth well spell that wasn’t heal...ao healing burst was his main activity...which was meh. Sorry fo4 typos posting from ipad


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the point is that thematically we can replicate most of the hybrid classes simply with smashing two classes together via multiclass archetypes.

Like since barbarian totems already warp your body, all we really need to do to let Barb/Sorcs be bloodragers is "some way to cast while raging." A Fighter/Monk is a passable brawler. A Cleric/Fighter fills the same thematic niche as a warpriest.

Since we're changing the mechanics with a new edition "this class has a thematic niche that cannot be filled with existing options" is more important than "this class had a mechanical niche in PF1."

. Full casting nukes the concept to dust, sorry, pf2 multiclassing is in my opinion utterly terrible, and its ‘hammer a broken and straight jacketed niche protection system into a twisted enough ruin you see maybe 40% of what you actually wanted’


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So with archetypes now including skill feats as well as class feats, I wonder if one thing we couldn't do with this space is give some skill feats a class tag meaning that via the appropriate multiclass dedication or "just being that class" you would become eligible to take that feat.

I figure that opens up a potentially nifty design space for classes like the ranger. A bunch of classes could benefit from this, since something like "Wall Run" makes more sense to me as a skill feat requiring Master Acrobatics and "Monk" than a class feat.

I quite like this idea, and would very much like to see exactly this. Giving at least a few to every Class would actually be very cool and create some interesting design space (a Fighter Skill Feat to analyze weapons or fighting styles in some unique way, or a Barbarian Skill Feat to become truly physically superhuman while raging, or a Sorcerer Skill Feat to gain some sort of Intimidate bonus while casting flashy spells).

Rob Godfrey wrote:
All of the hybrids are more interesting and more thematic than the core classes except for Paladin and maybr ranger, and no in no way what so ever does multiclassing, especially this ‘but not really’ mess of a system replace them, but then it becomes increasingly clear that pf2 has zero to offer me, so....

PF2 Multiclassing is very much 'build your own Hybrid Class', and seems to me to work quite well mechanically. I believe it's also pretty popular, so I suspect it's sticking around.

And I strongly disagree that the hybrid Classes mostly brought much new thematic stuff to the table. They often brought absolutely awesome mechanical stuff (Slayer was great in just about every way, for example), but most just took existing fictional archetypes (there were plenty of swashbucklers out there before the Swashbuckler Class came along, mostly as Fighters, Rogues, or a combination of the above) and made a Class around them. That's not a bad thing, but they were not fundamentally unique...

. We have exactly opposite impressions of multiclassing, I loathe this systems method of doing it, and find it the granite hard role enforcement bores me to tears. And yes to me the hybrids and archetypes are far more interesting than anything pf2 has to offer, except the long over due Champion


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

Preface: This turned into a much bigger rant than I intended so please try not to pull at any one thread too hard lest the shoddy craftsmanship of the post fall to shreds, this is intended to a discussion launching point about how best to position the mechanical components and "power level" of PF2 against it's competitors.

I've read the criticisms, the praise, the back-tracking of a few design decisions, the theorycrafting, pitfalls of the tight math, the endless circular debates about the "true" role of a number of classes, bemoaning of loss of backwards compatibility, and the million and one discussions about the caster/martial disparity that is being discussed around here.

One thing that I haven't seen much of, that I personally see as one of the best potential components to the future of PF2, is one that I think is being skirted by Paizo intentionally for the VERY reasonable fear that they'll be stepping on toes or infringing on someone else "zone" but nonetheless I think represents a function to enable more cross-pollination between different play groups and also to be attractive to new players.

This being, the degree to which published 5e D&D Adventures and player Content can be EASILY AND QUICKLY be converted for use with Pathfinder 2E. The Dice & Slice Podcast has tackled this discussion point HEAD-ON and I applaud you guys for doing so and jogging my imagination.

As it stands many people have been apt to compare the various components of the PF2 crunch to that which is present in 5E, some levying talk of how it is a bad idea or that it would serve to dumb things down, but they rarely touch on the idea that it is inherently in everyones best interest to line things up in such a way that a GM could take a published 5E Adventure such as the Temple of Elemental Evil, and with only a little bit of tweaks implement almost the whole Adventure with minimal pain. As it stands with PF1 being puffy and swollen like a Bloatmage at level 20 it is nearly impossible without rewriting EVERY statblock,...

. Because it isn’t in everyones interest if I want to play 5e i can, that ‘bloatmage’ is what makes pf great.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:


Is it really though? I'm genuinely curious because you're the first person I've ever heard express that opinion. My understanding has always been more that partial casting was more about mechanical balance than theme; i.e. magus doesn't have a 6-level spell-list because there's something inherently attractive about having fewer spells, it has a 6-level spell list because the balancing mechanisms of the PF1 system mean a character with that much combat ability would be imbalanced with a full 9-level spell list. Now that all the classes are rebalanced so that e.g. clerics and wizards have more class features and fewer spells per day, there's not really a reason to have "partial casters" from a mechanical perspective anymore. With the bard being a 9-level caster I'd expect that the main variances we'd see in casters would be:

1) Casters who only get focus powers/spells, like monks and paladins.

2) Casters who only get a 9-level spell progression but not focus powers/spells (I'm not sure if there actually are any of these...

Bards do have a somewhat different progression than other 9 level casters (getting one less spell per level, correct?), so that is another way to differentiate casters. I could see some of the other 6th level casters following suite.

. So make them as dull and uninteresting as 2e bards are? Full casting destroyed that class,


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Letric wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
The "point" of overspecialization IS to "trivialize" their thing, that's what they've invested everything into. They go and say, the game has 10 types of challenges, and the player says, I want there to only be 9 and then spends everything to do that. As the GM you shouldn't scale up the world and make that challenge a challenge again. You should allow them to shine at their thing and have the challenge be in the remaining 9 things.
Do you believe CM/D exist? If yes, why would you want something to be trivialized? The whole idea behing the Disparity is Caster trivializing every bit of content with a single spell.

. The problem of CM/D is martials not being able to trivialise, not casters beng able to,


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Would giving the Ranger more skill increases and feats than other classes, but still less than the rogue, be a way to fix things?

Like most classes get 10 skill feats and 9 skill increases, the rogue gets 20 skill feats and 19 skill increases. Could we give the ranger, say, 15 skill feats and 14 skill increases?

That's my basic suggestion, yeah. Possibly, depending on how on-theme you want to enforce them into being, with some limitations on where the 'extra' Skill Ranks and Feats can go (I threw out the list of Medicine, Nature, Stealth, and Survival at some point in another thread).

A lot of the Ranger's more skill-related Class Feats would then become Skill Feats, suitable for being taken with their bonus Skill Feats, and they'd get some additional combat options plus the Spell Point stuff. A change to some of the Hunt Target options to make all of them actually good, and a few other curlicues and this seems workable to me.

And I, too, am fine with most of the ACG Classes being devoured in the changeover to PF2 (the only ones that seem unique in any way are Arcanist, Investigator, Shaman, and maybe Swashbuckler, and for Arcanist and Swashbuckler that's mechanical rather than thematic), with the rest better done in PF2 via multiclassing and maybe Paizo adding a few new Multiclass Feats to enable them (something to allow Rage Casting lets you do a Bloodrager as a Barbarian with a Sorcerer Multiclass really easily, and I'm fine with Slayer as a Rogue with Ranger Multiclass or vice versa even as-is).

. All of the hybrids are more interesting and more thematic than the core classes except for Paladin and maybr ranger, and no in no way what so ever does multiclassing, especially this ‘but not really’ mess of a system replace them, but then it becomes increasingly clear that pf2 has zero to offer me, so....


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

For the most part I think the hybrid classes are the ones which are least necessary to bring back. So if the Ranger consumes and somewhat becomes the Slayer, that's fine. Studied target both makes more sense and is easier to use than favored enemy, so that's just an upgrade.

It's not like the Warpriest, Bloodrager, Swashbuckler, Skald, and Brawler need to come back either.

. Yea they do, absolutely a 1-6 hybrid caster of that type has more of a place than bard or fighter do as full classes, more than none arcane sorcerers as well. They are among THE defining things I like about PF. I£ play War Priest over cleric every single time, and magus over mage, given the choice (which I won’t be) get rid of all core classes before the hybrids, and put bard back were i5 belongs as a 1-6 caster.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
nick1wasd wrote:
I feel like the Eldritch Knight that's a main stay archetype will cover the holes that people want a theoretical Magus archetype to fill. Plus Ninja might be covered with Arcane Trickster/Assassin since Ninjas are just those two mixed together. You have to think about what they said they intend to bring over that they didn't because they didn't want to overwhelm the tester-base.
. Archetype? Nit without spell strike and spell combat, and a curtailed spell list.
Spell Combat isn't a necessary class feature anymore, it's an inherent ability that every spellcaster naturally has. Similarly, curtailed spell lists seem like a thing of the past; I'd imagine that if there is a magus class in 2E it will be a 9-level arcane spellcaster with a set of heavily combat-oriented feats.
. Then it wouldn’t be a magus, and they shouldn’t put it in. The point was not to be a full caster.

Is it really though? I'm genuinely curious because you're the first person I've ever heard express that opinion. My understanding has always been more that partial casting was more about mechanical balance than theme; i.e. magus doesn't have a 6-level spell-list because there's something inherently attractive about having fewer spells, it has a 6-level spell list because the balancing mechanisms of the PF1 system mean a character with that much combat ability would be imbalanced with a full 9-level spell list. Now that all the classes are rebalanced so that e.g. clerics and wizards have more class features and fewer spells per day, there's not really a reason to have "partial casters" from a mechanical perspective anymore. With the bard being a 9-level caster I'd expect that the main variances we'd see in casters would be:

1) Casters who only get focus powers/spells, like monks and paladins.

2) Casters who only get a 9-level spell progression but not focus powers/spells (I'm not sure if there actually are any of these...

. I don’t like focus powers either, not as a replacement for 1-4 casting. And yes I like the limited casting o& the Magus, War Priest, Hunter, bloodrager etc, gives weight within the rules to the story decision to walk a different path, rules following lore in a satisfying way, which the bard no longer does.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Would giving the Ranger more skill increases and feats than other classes, but still less than the rogue, be a way to fix things?

Like most classes get 10 skill feats and 9 skill increases, the rogue gets 20 skill feats and 19 skill increases. Could we give the ranger, say, 15 skill feats and 14 skill increases?

. That is the slayer in a nutshell tho, so we close off that niche to get a ranger that only fulfls so,e of the concepts the pf1 version did.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
not without chaining youself to the horribl3 multiclass system, you do that you maybas well make a fighter/druid and bin ranger as a class.

I mean this seriously, what is the difference between being able to spend class feats to buy spellcasting off the primal list as ranger feats and being able to spend class feats to buy spellcasting off the primal list by multiclassing?

Like the monk has to spend one class feat per spell, and earlier in the playtest ki strike was a straight up tax. So to get a power I actually wanted I needed to be at least 4th level and spend 2 feats. In order to get sorcerer spells up to 3rd level I need to... be at least 4th level and spend 2 feats.

. Multiclassing should be for edge cases not core class abilities, or it can flow fro: roleplay as one class is discarded, and another taken up, say findin* a calling an£ multiclass into cleric to represent that, while neglecting the original class as the past.

1 to 50 of 726 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>