Direct from publisher is typically the best way to get the most dollars back to the company. So, the Paizo Webstore is probably the best place.
It may not be design you like but that doesn't make it bad design. Like the above people have indicated, it is likely intended to inform/reinforce the party composition.
Just steal the Fronts and Countdown Clocks concepts from Apocalypse World.
Fronts: Groups/individuals/animate concepts/etc have motivations and things they want to accomplish.
Front: Mine-Dwelling Kobold Clan (they like to mine, set traps, be surrounded by other kobolds)
Disclaimer: This kind of thing is for when time should be a meaningful narrative constraint. If you don't care about the passage of time, let them rest however long they want.
On the flipside, like with more standard ancestries, adventurer dragons are pretty unique relative to their peers. Most dragons spend time chilling with their hordes, hunting their meal of choice. They fat and lazy, like me.
Adventurer Dragons, though, are Important™ and advance more quickly because they are constantly testing themselves against ever-increasing odds.
So, I was reading through the Lost Omens World Guide and hit the part where they make vague reference to the kingdom that gets created during Kingmaker. I really liked that they included it and figured it might be fun to write up my version of the River Kingdom that I built.
If anyone wants to post their own, I think it would be cool to read and discuss! It could also serve as inspiration for people's home games if they didn't do Kingmaker or just needs a little inspiration.
There may be another way to spin this.
If the Ancestry/Heritage is known for wielding Large weapons, does that necessarily mean that they ALL do that? Instead of providing a flat damage bonus or the ability to wield Large weapons, why not provide something that intentionally compliments the type of character who would pick a Giant-Instinct Barbarian or otherwise is fond of big (but Medium-sized) two-handers?
Some quick and dirty ideas:
This way all members of the Heritage are known for being physically imposing. The legendary members of the Heritage, though, take on the Giant Instinct and can grow to great size and wield incredible weapons.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If one is going for Rollplay over Roleplay, then yeah, Runescarred uses a horrible stat.
This idea needs to die in a fire. Mechanical competency and strong character motivation are not mutually exclusive.
I just flipped through the existing Heritages and couldn't find any example of a flat (or really even situational) damage boosts. That would make this particular Heritage one-of-if-not-the-strongest option for smashing fools. Seems a tad overpowered, relative to existing Heritage options which seem to grant either situational bonuses, additional scaling survival features, or some quirk that increases options.
I could see something like the above as a series of Ancestry feats that expand options around being "just wow big".
Having said all that...
Let's go, dude. Keep in mind that overlapping options are thing and are part of the design conceit of the game.
If I wanted to build this as a Heritage, I might consider something like...
I still think this is on the high-power side of Heritage abilities.
(Also: Flagging this as wrong forum, as it should probably be in Homebrew.)
Worth Noting: If you are going to question how the devs intend things to be played, be aware of who you are responding to. Ssalarn IS a dev. Organized play, perhaps, but they all work alongside one another and a new edition is pretty all-hands.
It is a useful if odd power but I am just confused why they bothered to leave it as a focus spell. The whole focus mechanic seems based on in combat encounter type powers that come back often but everything about goodberry makes that not viable for it.
The game is primarily a miniatures combat sim. I'd imagine they'll hit with more utility/non-combat stuff as time goes on.
I make characters to learn the rules of games. One of my attempts was to make a goblin character for each of the classes.
Disclaimer: I made very little attempt to optimize. These should be considered functional. They may not be entirely complete and haven't been updated to account for the clarifications from last week's stream.
Had a lot of fun with most of them but bard and alchemist were...ehhhh....
Evil Hat does linking with all/almost-all of their PDFs. Keywords are hyperlinked, as are pages. I'm not a layout designer but I imagine that InDesign has markup options for mapping one part of the document to another.
That said, it is probably expensive and time consuming to do it well. The question is whether or not the added benefit justifies the cost. Personally, PDFs and online resources are almost exclusively how I consume RPG stuff, so it would be a huge benefit to me. I also think it makes for a more polished product.
A good point Rysky made above, though, is the added cost for when they do reprints. Probably not a huge amount of extra overhead but certainly non-zero.
Cubert Farnsworth wrote:
Major factors seem to be:1.) Do you care about cover art? If yes, Wayne Reynolds' cover art is incredible and not present with the SE.
2.) Do you intend to actually use the book or will it sit on a shelf? For actual use, normal might be better. For shelf, SE has an awesome spine.
Saint Evil wrote:
An innate Divine spell NOT on the divine list will bother some people.
Any given thing at all has the potential to bother some people. The core rules of the game allow for rare and entirely unique options. If they don't like it, their options are deal, homebrew, work with the GM to find that option, or find a different game. /shrug
Sure. Any game run by a human will have some drift, but that isn't the game. That is you and your group. The game might encourage it through intentional or unintentional design choices but it isn't the game. Also, the my-way-or-highway style of GMing is very consistent with the XDM tone and can be pretty hostile. If your group is down with that, fine, but it doesn't work for me.
To me, gaming is about collaboration and fun. When I run a game, I get pretty close to perfect information with my players. If the thing I'm running isn't fitting with what the other people are wanting, I run something else. NBD
All of this is just a long way of saying: either approach to gaming isn't good or bad in and of itself. Do what works for you and yours.
My Point Is This: A game is only its rules. If the mechanics of the game don't do something, the game itself doesn't do that thing. I'm not playing tabletop games to play in a GM's mental/narrative/Fantasy Heartbreaker™/solo-sandbox. Are there people who enjoy that? Sure, but I would say that the game is an excuse for tabletop improv rather than a game to play directly.
For some people, like Graystone, all they have when deciding whether a game is for them is the rules in the book. PF2 may not fill that individual's need, which is sad they were looking forward to the thing, but isn't bad on a design level.
Disclaimer: It has been quite a while since I read through XDM.
From what I remember, XDM advocates for a very hostile relationship between players and GM.
You claim that wanting to ask clarifying questions about the game is adversarial because it means you don't trust the GM. Hard disagree. It is entirely reasonable to want to understand the scope of the game you are playing and the GM should be on the same page as their players because they themselves are also a player in the game.
Now, I don't personally have any issues with the "about a week" language because that level of granularity is basically meaningless in terms of a typical PF game. That said, I don't blame Graystone for not being down with that. Their use case for gaming is very different from mine. I'm also fine accepting that not every game is for every person and "vague terms" is as valid a design choice as "explicit tables".
Tome. Of. Battle.
Pretty sure Bestiary Ancestries are out for PF2. I think they've said they want to dedicate word count to more GM-focused content for Bestiaries. All of those "PC Race" options would eat up a lot of word count over the course of the book and we'd get fewer creatures to use in our games.
Not even this. You need a blacksmith with stats for some reason? Assign a level them based on how badass they are at the thing they do, give them an appropriate set of related skills at a level appropriate value, and any special effects. Don't even need to focus classes at all.
Also, for PC-like creation, you still wouldn't stack levels like that. Just isn't how classes work in PF2.
Secret Wizard wrote:
You can have all kinds of monks. They may just have 'Fighter' written on your sheet.
Ah. Got nothing on that one. :)
Largely, I think all ancestries should be roughly the same, though I really like morphail's breakdown above. You could also leverage the rarity system, though that seems like mixing rarity with power. Would let you do things like unlock certain ancestries via campaign play. Help a minotaur tribe? Unlock minotaur. Dunno how common that would be, though.
Multiclassing doesn't mean the same thing as it did in PF1. More like build your own class.
If it is about RP, I don't get how multiclassing impacts that at all. There's no RP reason why a LG Fighter/Champion can't call themselves a paladin. Or champion. Whatever.
Retraining is a core part of the downtime rules in PF2. I don't remember if spell retraining was a part of that in the playtest.
As far as your worry about changing with the game meta I have not had your experience. We have always been very restrictive about retraining spells outside of leveling and the leveling mechanic is very limiting as by the nature of the game you will want to release an old spell that you have attained their big brother in order to gain a lower level utility spell. If you have a gm letting sorcerers swap out their spells known easily that might be the source of the problem. In PFS it is really expensive to do a rebuild on even a low level spell much less anything level 5 and up.
Do we actually know how PFS is handling PF2 retraining? Retraining is core part of the rules in PF2, so it may be more common and available. If you restrict retraining in your home games, well... You're in homebrew territory. There be monsters.