Gardner

Saedar's page

237 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 237 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good call on the Warlock by DMW. I always loved that class. Ditto to all of the Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic (in theory, if not execution) and Incarnum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meophist wrote:
Saedar wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Im definetly hoping for some sort of charisma based fighter that isnt the champion, more like a warlord or military leader that buffs his allies through the power of TEAMWORK!
+1 for Magical Girls. #SorryNotSorry
A Magical Girl/Sentai/Kamen Rider-style class could actually be pretty neat, I think. I would like to see that.

I like the idea, even if those feel like different classes despite the "vaguely anime" theme.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

+1 for a Magical Girl class.

Also, how about a Ritualist class? Now that magical rituals are part of the core rules, I think there is a good opportunity to have a class (or even just an archetype) based on using longer rituals as opposed to standard magic.

Problem here is that it probably needs to have some capacity for combat as its primary shtick. The game is largely combat driven, so what would a non-caster Ritualist bring to the turn-based combat space?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
arkham wrote:
How about a Tourist class?

That's a monster.


Michael, while you're here, any word on Dreamscarred classes ending up in PF2, either officially or 3PP?


Derry L. Zimeye wrote:

I'm surprised there's so much support for a Shifter return- most other places seem to agree that it rolls into Wild Druid. That being said, I'm totally on board with it, especially if it fits with Synthesist!

Blue Mage copycats would be very fun- I do wonder how they would work, though? Maybe they can copy the abilities of a foe, or maybe they can eventually even mimic the foes appearance, etc etc. I've never played Final Fantasy, but it's certainly a pretty big archetype!

Also, glad to see people agree that a warlord/marshal type class is needed. Paizo, take note!

The problem with "blue mage" type things is the same as "druids can only change form into something they've encountered". Some people will runs it super restrictively and others much more loosely, intersecting at the road called PFS.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
DataLoreRPG wrote:
Another possibility is 13th Age. But its kinda noodly with some rules and you end up using HEAPS of dice.
I don't think you can really accuse a system of using heaps of dice unless you have played a high-level Exalted game. Nothing quite like the feeling of rolling 53d10 for an attack. :P
Nothing's ever going to top GURPS Mecha for piles of dice. But the problem that 13A has is that you will plausibly be asked to roll like 7d8 for damage, and who keeps that many d8s around? Having a bunch of d6s and d10s is reasonable, but d8s?

The above games are amateurs for heaps of dice. I have 180d6 bricks worth of dice for Mythender alone. It. Is. Glorious.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Davido1000 wrote:
Im definetly hoping for some sort of charisma based fighter that isnt the champion, more like a warlord or military leader that buffs his allies through the power of TEAMWORK!

+1 for Magical Girls. #SorryNotSorry


Roswynn wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I starkly disagree with this. In fact 1/2 my playtest group DIDN'T read the book before making their first character. They knew what class they wanted to play, and the class table pointed them to everything else they needed and that was it. The characters we more than viable, you have to try to make an unviable character if you know what the classes "core" stat is. They didn't bother reading every single option available to them in the future, just the level 1 relevant stuff and it took less than an hour to do the mechanics bit (most of session 0 was talking about managing expectations due to the playtests special nature.)
Quoted for truth. My playtest groups didn't read anything, we just created the characters on the spot. Maybe it's a matter of just not needing the character to be perfectly optimized, and/or having the gm helping you out. Although it took a group more because it was all total p&p noobsies.

I think there's a mix here. I build characters to learn the rules. Just how I do.

However, if someone chooses to not read the rules (especially in a test document) and doesn't follow the prescribed char creation process, I don't think they have any business saying the process is written poorly or whatever. You chose to not follow the process and chose to not know the rules. /shrug


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Isabelle Lee wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Spell combat might have been a bad example given the way 2e's action economy works.

The larger point though was just that one of the strengths of PF1's partial casters is the way they created class features and unique spells to blend together martial and magical components to some degree, Spell Combat was just an example of that.

And my worry is that with battlemages being built around multiclassing instead we'll see a bit of a backslide toward 3.5 design philosophy where being a gish is just bolting spells onto your fighter or bolting attack bonuses onto your wizard with not a lot of meaningful interconnectivity between the two and I hope Paizo looks at that when designing feats to support these systems.

It seems to me that an easy (if potentially very wordcount-heavy) first step is making multiclass feats with multiple class prerequisites. So multiclass feats with both fighter and wizard as prerequisite, sort of thing. Then you can design tightly-focused benefits to build off the two classes' specific strengths.

makes a note

METACLASS ARCHETYPES


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Warriorking9001 wrote:
Also unrelated to this 5e talk I just realized, HOW defensively oriented are champions/paladins supposed to be? I'd think they would carry equal proficiency with defense and murder seeing how their most common class feature is the ability to SMITE(!) people.

Champions are heavily defense-focus, or were in the playtest. They were still able to throw down, though.


Telebuddy wrote:
This is just my opinion, and I know that I am in the extreme minority, but I wouldn’t mind getting rid of multi classing all together. I know that this will most likely never happen and people enjoy that sort of thing but I don’t. To each their own.

It is worth noting (repeat of someone above) that multiclass archetypes in PF2 are kind of a build-your-own-class system. You never leave your original class, but can pick up features from others.

Example: In PF2, the Paladin (mechanically speaking) is the LG Champion. BUT, with multiclass archetypes, you can be a Fighter who picks up Cleric Dedication and then call yourself Paladin. Two ways to get to the same concept, with slight differences.

As an aside, this is also a useful way to get to the Anti-Paladin concept.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This conversation has made me realize why I really cared about XP values in high school/college. The GM I played with was incredibly toxic and manipulative and XP was a way for me to make sure I wasn't being "cheated". Since cutting that group of people out of my life and embracing more indie-ish RPGs, hard XP counters just mean so much less to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Ultimate Kobolds

Only if it has a plush cover.

/cackles


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

I want both an Aasimar/Tiefling template for every race, and a stand-alone Aasimar/Tiefling.

I've frequently wanted to play a heaven or hell touched version of many different races, and I've also wanted to play characters that really lean into the planar ancestry.

Seems to me there should be no reason why they can't have both. In the case of the template it's like flavoring for the base race, for the stand alone ancestry the base race is an after-thought.

Multiclass Archetypes but for Ancestries. I like it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Raylyeh wrote:
I don’t mean to derail and it might just be me but I have no issue with the idea (and any mechanics that enable it) of thousands of level 1 characters (an army) being able to take out a dragon or other high level nasty. It makes sense to me and is another reason that said big bads don’t blatantly rule the world (other than PCs and other high level NPCs stopping it.) Meh, different strokes I suppose.

Well, if there's always say a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit a dragon, then if there are 100,000 archers firing, roughly 5,000 arrows will hit. That's a significant amount of damage. How many hit points does this dragon have? :-)

If there's *no* chance that an arrow fired by a level 1 character will hit, then it doesn't matter how many are firing, the dragon will just ignore it all.

So, slight matter of design philosophy here and the role that the rules play in a given narrative. Should the rules exist to represent the world or should they exist to represent the world from the player perspective.

Neither are wrong but, similarly, neither are absolute.


Disclaimer: I'm not trying to shame anyone about going with Amazon. Just want to make sure that everyone is aware of Things™.

If you can afford it, you should avoid buying off of Amazon. They offer super deep discounts, which are nice, but that means that Paizo (or whatever other publisher) is going to see much lower returns on their product. Amazon can do this because they makes enough money from other ventures to eat the deficit.

When able, you should generally try to buy directly from the publisher to offer them the highest amount of support dollars.

If I'm off-base here, I'd love for someone from Paizo to set me straight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Do we really improve things in any kind of a diversity way by having male stereotype versions of female stereotype monsters?

On the other hand, sticking the same stereotype on the monster whether it's the male or female version can get weird too.

For me, it is about leaning less hard into the toxic stereotypes about "bad" behavior of women from the cultures those monsters are taken from.

It is a rough line to walk when presenting something monstrous, but I think the conversation is good.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
...stuff...

I agree with all of this. Just because something is historically done doesn't mean we can't be better in spaces where it is problematic. A+, as usual, Roswynn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Specificly the part of her outfit that has the breast window when she seems to be now as flat as a washboard.
She's really not. Her breast size is smaller, but she still definitely has some. And her outfit seems perfectly appropriate for someone of her personality to me.

I also like that it is a little bit less male-gazey.

Separately, I LOVE Harsk's new look.


Gorbacz wrote:

> more reasons to order online

> not pissing off FLGS owners

Choose one.

All digital, all the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jakewell wrote:
Saedar wrote:


All of PF2 game content will be available, free of charge, on Archives of Nethys at-launch. Presumably, they will be keeping that updated as new content comes out.

Sounds great, my biggest issues with playing 5e right now are

* character creation and management (currently using the free content on dndbeyond)
* quickly looking up spells and monsters
* access to digital maps for your adventure

Will the srd include character content, spells and monsters? Basically: will I be able to look up everything online for free except for settings and adventures?

I'll still buy the stuff in book form because I don't like reading things on a screen.

Historically, they haven't released digital versions of their maps freely. Outside of that, you should be golden.

You can check out d20pfsrd.com for a taste of what the PF2 PRD might look like. It is an unofficial/fan-driven resource, but complies with Paizo's community use policy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
jakewell wrote:

First edition is pretty extreme with regards to content and it's almost impossible to get into the hobby money wise if you have a family. I currently bought into DND 5e because it's possible to get all the official content.

Because I'm extremely dissatisfied with how online content in 5e is handled (you have to buy your content 3 times) and because I got into pathfinder adventure card game I'm inclined to take a look at 2e once it's out.

However I don't want to go broke. How much content will there be per month and how expensive will it be to run games both online and offline?

All of PF2 game content will be available, free of charge, on Archives of Nethys at-launch. Presumably, they will be keeping that updated as new content comes out.

I'm not quite as sure how they will handle setting content, since PF2 assumes Golarion by default in the game mechanics. I know they combined a couple of their lines into one. If they follow a pattern similar to PF1, you should be able to pick up what you want, as you want it. Their APs are going to be monthly and are usually very high quality. Outside of that, someone else may have more info.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Feros wrote:

I waffled on whether or not to use INT or WIS, but went with what was suggested by their Bestiary entry, which showed a definite WIS bonus.

As for CHA as a boost, that's reserved for the Plushie Heritage.

>.>

<.<

;)

PLUSH FOR THE PLUSH GOD (Rysky, mostly)


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Leafar Cathal wrote:
Does anybody feel that, although goblins are Paizo's brand recognition, the new Kobolds would fit the CRB (and the scenario) better?
No
To the plushie dungeon with you!

Best. Dungeon. Ever.


Bardic Dave wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

WotC can afford people whose only job is to vet DM Guild material.

Paizo can't.

I'm not convinced the economics of it are as open and shut as you all seems to think.

I would assume the DM's guild easily pays for itself many times over, so reading between the lines, I guess none of you believe Pathfinder IP is popular enough for a Paizo GM's Guild be self sustaining? Is that the gist of your argument?

More that the return on investment may not be worth the effort of doing so. Without knowing the specific numbers around DM Guild's profits, how they relate to how D&D sells in-general, and how those might translate over to Pathfinder's typical profits, it is incredibly hard to say anything concrete.

TTRPGs are already barely profitable for the vast majority of companies, if not outright losses. PF Guild (or whatever) would have to identify that threshold and be sure they could cross it reliably.


What MaxAstro said. WotC is one portion of Hasbro, which is made of money. Paizo pretty much is Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm fine with "Anathema are particular to player characters, who are special" honestly. If I need a fallen Paladin NPC for something, I can just create one, but there's no reason to ask the GM to track "who all around here is falling"?

It might be a fine way to do things, but I'm pretty sure it's not what Paizo has written in the core rulebook. If you think it is, please justify that; if you don't, please don't use "PCs are special" as the basis for your arguments.

And I don't see that it compels a GM to actually think about which NPCs might be falling in the background any more than they've ever been compelled to think about which NPCs might be changing alignment in the background.

Core Rulebook (as we maybe understand it) Justification: PCs are built using an entirely different system than NPCs. Sure. You CAN build NPCs like PCs, but that isn't the default assumption.

Also: Paizo has established that their setting is woven into the core rules for PF2. On Golarion, Clerics (or Paladins, etc.) are tied to the whims of their deities and anathema represent that contract mechanically. If you don't play in Golarion, go nuts, but that is homebrew or a future supplement, at best.

There's nothing inherently wrong with systems enforcing RP restrictions. There are many successful indie games that do just that and is one of the things I'm most excited about in PF2.

To a point you made above, I don't know that Paizo or most of the posters here expect that a deity is looking for reasons to strip their priests of power. Some might. Others may be more interested in giving their followers some leeway, as long as they don't stray too far, because mortals are primarily how they interact with the world.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Way wrote:
Could Paizo open up the World of Golarion intellectual property for self-publishing via a dedicated venue at DriveThruRPG, à la DMs Guild?

Could they? Yeah. Probably. Would they? Doubt it. There isn't much financial incentive to do so and allowing second-party authors who are not under direct contract likely weakens their IP protections legally-speaking.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Plushies don't tend to have a high strength score, I'll agree.

But they must have high Con to handle all the squish!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rysky wrote:
So you can non-magically heal people in combat quickly now? *scratches head*
Yep, assuming you have the Feat for it (in-universe you presumably slap a bandage on 'em and maybe use smelling salts if they were unconscious). Though only once per person, since they then become Bolstered against Treat Wounds for an hour.
Not sure how I feel about that.

Feels like the John McClane approach to self-care: rub some dirt on and punch terrorists. I'm pretty solidly down with this, since I like to run a more pulpy style of game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Is there a thing where you can completely agree with someone and completely disagree with them at the same time? XD

Like, I would like a book that is like Savage Species, as long as it isn't like Savage Species, you know? :P

Oh, definitely. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a sickness where I am obsessed with monster classes, so something like Savage Species (Savage Ancestries?) would just be tops.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

Perhaps all these "touched" races should just be Ancestry Archetypes.

I love the idea of Ancestry Archetypes. I just don't know if we have enough feats for that, unless they take Class Feats. Then, they would need to be pretty beefy to take priority over core class features.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
BluLion wrote:
ClanPsi wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
Even 5E has Medium playable dragons from the start (albeit without wings and breath severely limited), PF2 should have at least a Small one as soon as possible!
Dragonborn are the single worst thing in D&D. They're nothing but an appeasement of whiny nerds crying that they couldn't play a dragon PC without taking a 10-level prestige class. I don't want that sh*t anywhere near Pathfinder.
Their race features are rather lacking compared to the other races, and the race could have more flavor, to say it's the worst thing in d&d is rather harsh. I always viewed them more as an option for players that like playing reptile/scaly characters (I'll admit, I'm one of them).

Exactly this. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean it is bad that other people do. Let people like the things they like without attacking them as "whiny nerds crying".


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Also: For something that everyone is expected to know, just don't call for a roll. If there's no interesting/meaningful cost for failure and the information is so common that everyone has some general idea, then why roll?

Ex
Is that a dragon? Yes. No roll needed. Maybe you also know that dragons fly (look at it go!) and do breath stuff (my cabbages!).

Save rolls for the lore about specific dragon types and their weaknesses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rycke wrote:
I'd like to see an advantages/disadvantages system where you could do something like my character has only one eye, so he has a -2 to perception checks based on seeing. His empty eye socket unnerves people so that they are anxious to be rid of him. He gets a +2 to Diplomacy attempts involving haggling.

Things like this are kind of problematic in that they treat real life disabilities like a mechanical carrot. That's why I really dislike rules that mechanically incentivize disability. If you want to have a blind character, cool. Let's RP that. I don't think it should give a bonus.


masda_gib wrote:

I don't know the old pact magic so I can only talk about your concept in isolation.

I like the concept as dedication/archetype feats. Note that "trained in will saves" is unneccessary since everyone will be at least trained.

Balance-wise I think the advanced feats don't give enough. Only one spell power per feat seems low. Maybe let "refined pact" either give the whole chain for one pact or give one stage (exprt/master/legend) for all your pacts?

Good catch on the saves thing. I was typing this pretty stream of consciousness while working.

I'll mull over the refined pact stuff a bit and see what might sing a little better.


Tremaine wrote:
Will 1-6 casters, like the War Priest and Magus return? Multiclassing really did not feel like them, to much of what made them interesting was missing (though Eldritch Knight was mostly covered), for instance the Fervor/Arcane Points mechanics, the more focused spell lists, the reduction in casting (really made a War Priest 'feel' more like the ADnD Cleric bought forwards and updated, rather than the Divine Mage that full 1-9 feels like) Given that War Priest is turning up as a Path name I am not hopeful that the partial casters will return, but some of my favourite classes are in that category, and without being able to change it day to day Spell Powers don't have that vibe, while 1-9 is to much emphasis on magic.

At launch? Seems like no. Later on? Who knows?

I think a good mental position to take is that while you won't be able to perfectly duplicate all character builds like they were in PF1, you will likely now be able to build new things that weren't even remotely possible before.

It is a new game with a new system. If what you want is PF1, keep playing PF1. If you want to keep playing the new APs? Take a little extra time to adapt them, where possible.


So, even though the overall quality was pretty inconsistent, I loved a lot of the late 3.5e content from Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle.

One of my favorite parts was pact magic. For some reason, I got the desire to homebrew some PF2 pact magic last night and ended up burning through a lot of my morning at work. Oops.

Here is a very early/poorly balanced attempt at doing Pact Magic. Linky.

If anyone has thoughts or feedback, I'd love to read them. Likewise, if anyone else loves some of those later systems, let's hype about them a bit and what might work in PF2!


Captain Morgan wrote:

One thing I've noticed is that trolls and troll hounds didn't have the look species. Often they kind of look like the do on the PF2 bestiary, sort of just an ugly humanoid, but they also often wind up with much longer snouts and a more bestial look on some of the figures and art. This is true even within the same species of troll. I wonder if their look will get retconned to be more consistent, or if different troll looks within the same species will be like different breeds of dog.

I kind of prefer the long snout look so I hope it isn't completely gone.

But what happens when you boop a troll snoot?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The long term plan is for the LG version to be called the paladin, not the others. But that is not feasible for an update that you guys apply throughout the book.

Is the plan to have the same class chassis or will they have their own unique structures (either "subclass", unique class, something else)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Assassin is totally possible, kill and steal the body is the easiest option, but disintegration, sime spells and abilities that make resurrection impossible etc, mystery is also possible, it requires planning on both sides, and can be a bit CSI:Divination but counters exist etc

Most of that is more in the realm of "Keep the spells available and come up with contorted reasons to prevent various spells from wrecking the adventure," than "Just go with it and accept that this is a high magic world"...

One possible approach would be to acknowledge the standard story-spoiling spells and build convenient counters into the rules from the start.

Teleportation? Solution: There is a common magic item that prevents anyone within a hundred feet / five miles / a hundred miles of it (for lesser or greater versions of the item) teleporting in or out.

Divination? Solution: There are demons around that devote their existences to sending false messages to diviners.

Invisible scout? Solution: Most places are prepared for that and spread things on the ground that you can't walk on without giving away your location.

PCs all have flight somehow, so the pack of wolves encounter becomes trivial? Solution: Flying wolves.

Etc.

If you want examples of how stories can work in these kinds of settings, you should check out Eberron. Magic is near-universal and the stories still are able to happen. I actually loved the setting when I was still playing 3.5.


General curiosity: Do you accept pull requests somewhere if the community wanted to help with the project?


KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:
Will there be an electronic (PDF or HTML) version for purchase. I will definitely buy that!

In addition to what MaxAstro said, you can also find most of their content for free through SRD/PRD sources. I believe they are actually partnering with Archives of Nethys as the go-to online resource for PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bards: Giant, ghostly guitar shaped like an axe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pogie wrote:
The design of 2E seems hellbent on stripping fun out of the game.

That is a hyperbolic statement. The design isn't hellbent on anything. You are projecting your own preferences as a sweeping generalization.

I'm having quite a bit of fun. The design doesn't seem anti-fun, just unpolished in some places. You can insist all day that you have some special knowledge of the game design or developers' intents but that doesn't make it true.


pogie wrote:
Druids are my favorite class. I play a Druid primarily because wildshaping is fun and cool not because of how op or not it is. When I play a Druid I want to be wildshaped the whole day if possible, not because it’s mechanically great, because it’s fun. The design of 2E seems hellbent on stripping fun out of the game.

That's pretty hyperbolic. Fun is entirely subjective. As I said, I really enjoyed the druid.


Elleth wrote:
Kodyboy wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
There is: at level 10, you can take the Form Control feat that makes Wild Shape last an hour.
You would think. As of now who wants to be a druid?

I don't want to come across as snarky, but several of my players.

A pair of them have been more or less arguing over who gets to play the druid in my next campaign.

My group just finished Doomsday Dawn Part 2 and I was running a wild shaping druid. Had a lot of fun and largely kept up with the barbarian on damage.

I certainly would like longer duration forms because, like someone who posted above, I don't actually care about the spellcasting aspect of the class so much and want to spend most/all of my time as a bear. Unfun, though? Nah.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Echo that the playtest has been fine for my group and me. Have there been things that surprised us or did things in a way one or more of us didn't like? Sure, but that's going to be true of every system.

1 to 50 of 237 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>