RussianAlly's page

There's definitely not enough about this class to warrant it being a separate class in the Play Test. Everybody I've shown the pdf so far came to the same conclusion, too.

An Investigator as is, is a bit too similar to its PF1 version, where a lot of classes were just hybridizations of existiing classes with very few unique mechanics of their own.

Right now, the Investigator seems to me to be the less interesting of the four new classes because it doesn't have neither a strong mechanic nor flavor identity to separate it from existing classes.

Mind me, this might change if Paizo gets this feedback and strengthens the Investigator's identity in some way.

I actually kinda prefer the vancian system because it means characters with potentially long lists of available spells like Druids, Clerics, or Wizards, do not require the player to be checking the whole list all the time, which to me seems easier on new players and players who aren't that invested in the system.

In Pathfinder 1e we got 3 years before alternative races appeared as player options in a hardcover.

You mean there were 3 years between the CRB and Bestiary 1? D: 'Cause Aasimar, Drow, Duergar, Goblins, Kobolds, Merfolk, Svirfneblin and Tengu character options all appear in Bestiary 1, and I think it was more like 2 months.

I like it. Then again, I really enjoyed the intricacies of monetary systems in Exalted and like to differentiate different coinages in my games, especially at lower levels or in civilized settings.

Hmm jokes aside, I don't see how "socially interact in this social game" is a bad rule.

That said, there is a rule.

Unless you decide otherwise, the players can choose from any common options they qualify for, plus any uncommon options granted by their character choices - primarily their ancestry and class.

If you don't have access to a GM, then what are you playing? If you're creating characters in a vacuum - absent an ongoing game, that's not really affected by rarity. Go nuts and create to you heart's content.

If you aren't creating in a vacuum and have a GM running or intending to run a particular campaign - then you have access to a GM. Ask them!

This. Theorycrafting in 1E meant you're pretty much assuming that the character survives and that a theoretical GM allows you to make the choices you're making. Theorycrafting in 2E is pretty much the same. You're your own theoretical GM. Go nuts.

Seen from a different perspective, rocks not falling down and killing everyone is definitely an Uncommon event.

In 1E it was pretty common in the games I played and ran to limit access to any Player Companion or 3rd party material pending GM approval, mostly because it was pretty hard to keep up with the amount of crunch Paizo put out.

I see the rarity system pretty much as an extension of this. It's not that you can't have it, it's just that you have to actually talk with another human being to see if their narrative would benefit from your character having that particular mechanic, and whether it would make sense inside their world for your character to do something in particular to learn that spell/feat.

I usually like to encourage interaction between GM and players at every point of character advancement in the games I run. Don't bring me a progression checklist at lvl 1, let's just sit down every once in a while and see where your character is going and let's see if I can give you ideas or accomodate the story to be a bit more what you're trying to tell with your character.

Is there like a sample somewhere of how these look?

DnD 3.5, PF1 and 13th Age are too complicated for a lot of my friends that I want to play with. DnD 4 and 5 are too boring for me. Dungeon World is pretty good at scratching the dungeon delving part of my brain, but doesn't really work well for most of the weirdness DnD-inspired games offer past 3rd Edition. What I've seen of PF2 makes me think the intention is to be somewhere in the middle of the first two groups while also trying out a couple new and clever mechanics neither of those games cover.

My money is also pretty tight though, so I'm probably going to run a couple games with Archives of Nethys before making a commitment.

Interestingly, I felt exactly the opposite, I wasn't even watching it properly and the issues with not having a representation of combat was painfully obvious just listening to it.

Though in general I do enjoy miniatures and think they significantly improve the experience.

Oh, it totally might be that the lack of miniatures was contributing to what I perceived as a bit of discomfort on the players' side. It'll be very interesting to see the next sessions and how this evolves.

It was a pretty awesome game! I loved the fact Jason went with mind's eye for this, as the possibility of running games without miniatures is something I'm pretty interested in. I did feel the players weren't completely comfortable with the ruleset. I suppose it's a combination of a new system and its general complexity. Looking forward to the future games and seeing how fast they get comfy.

Everybody know bards have a mind bordello to store knowledge in.

I think it will certainly depend on how Rarity is used in the expansion books. Most of the games I've ever played or ran have already had the implicit rule of "talk to your GM before making a character", and I usually prefer to dedicate a whole session to it so that my players know what everyone else is doing, can help each other out, and can tie their characters together.

But some players do either get really hyped up for the game or just prefer to begin picking out stuff beforehand, so Rarity might end up replacing our general rule of "if you're picking something from outside the Core/Ultimate books, definitely ask first" to keep them in check even if a little bit.

I feel that system mastery should be rewarding when it shows through intelligent strategical and tactical application of the systems in play to achieve unexpected and interesting results. It should not be a reward for having extra 20 hours to spend on manuals or the SRD reading build options.

I'm actually pretty happy about there not being many AoO because it should make not using a board and miniatures quite a bit more simple. Tracking everybody's positions and making gamey tactical decisions instead of trying to roleplay has always been a bit of a mood kill for me.

Just in time for my birthday, awesome!

I never do random encounters

I for one love goblins, and always run one of the Goblin adventures at local events (we don't have that many down here, and definitely don't have mortar and brick hobby shops, but we manage :P), but I feel like a significant part of the kobold community has been neglected since the very beginning.

Most people don't know the basic information about how their law enforcement or firefighter units work :P

I actually only read info on Erastil in Rivers Run Red and always thought his preference of men was awesome 'cause it led to a lot of possible rich character development.

Given I haven't read mostly any of the old books and the rest of the "corrected" tidbits seem awesome, I'd really love to have them all in one place so I can pick and choose for my group. Thanks!

Wow what´s wrong with the new FFG Star Wars?

My experience with it was... weird. On one hand, the book is gorgeous. On the other, you need to also buy special dice. I usually enjoy mechanics that provide narrative control to the players, but here it bogged down really quickly, especially in any kind of combat. The core book also brings really few options for players, especially considering that when someone proposes to play Star Wars, inevitably somebody will want to play with a Jedi. It kind of felt like we had to get all the three books to be able to actually have an interesting range of concepts viable for play. This is my experience with it, of course. I'd much rather stick to the old D6 system or use Fate.

I think we weren't as much advocating that Paizo should "make their own L5R", but rather saying that there will be no new major products for Asian-themed fantasy games for at least two years and maybe it's a good time to get a book or two focused on that part of Golarion.

I'd really like the rest of old APs written for 3.5 OGL to get updated for Pathfinder in a nifty hardcover volume like RotR. I don't think updating those oldesst APs would affect their business model much, and it would be really helpful for those of us who are relatively new to the game, want to run the old APs with their groups (I personally feel that running them in order works well to introduce the group to Golarion), but are too lazy to look for encounter conversions.