Saithor's page

Deadmanwalking wrote:

It sounds to me like your group is not actually engaging with the social skill rules much. You may well be rolling Deception and Diplomacy checks and the like, and doing social encounters, but you aren't using the actual rules as presented.

Which, to be clear, is fine. But obviously social Skill Feats are gonna be underwhelming if you're ignoring the rules they're based on. That's...really not a problem with the game so much as a play style disconnect.

There might be something to this, because I remember thinking this when looking over the feats. That they just weren't going to feel useful in the game.

Is there a group like the people on Critical Role that plays PF2 where I could see some of this in full value?

Geek and Sundry has a series called Knights of the Everflame, it has two seasons of eight episodes at three hours each. Last one is December 2019, I do not know why there haven't been any since.

While I'd approve of just making gun rules a thing you slap onto very class if you want to include, that would probably be a supplement all on it's own if you want to adjust all the classes to a gun-centric world.

There's a big giant creature flying around with scales as hard as steel that breathes fire and can lift itself on wings. If some groups want guns to try and deal with this strange thing known as a dragon, I see no reason why not.

More seriously I get why some people don't like Gunslingers, but I don't see the inclusion of the option as necessarily a reason for why you can't just ban them from your group if you really want to. It's not like they were immensely powerful from the builds I saw, and I'm not sure that the gun-using elements of Golarion have been retconned out.

I'd be more in favor of the first rule if I didn't see it used to excuse changing literally anything about he game at any time. Hello 50 HP level 1 Orc, how ya doing. Or the amount of godawful fights I've gotten with players used to their GM's version of 5e's stealth rules.

As is I'm still going to raise my objection that active traps like arrow traps as they are typically used are essentially nothing but attrition tools that in some cases can one-shot a player. From a narrative perspective obvious traps as a sign of narrative threat still do not differ from monsters, which you can usually put in places where it's plausible the players can see them but they can't see the players back, and do not have the unintended consequence of sniping the wizard.

To borrow something someone else said that I agree with (If you lurk here deaddmwalking, thanks for this little spiel you gave on traps), traps work best as one of a few different categories that allow a lot of interactivity with the group. One is the puzzle trap, the obvious trap you need to succeed to get past, ones that can be succeeded with either skill checks or maybe common sense solutions (Maybe not the latter because of Tomb of Horrors). Another is the trap that takes a long time to kill you. This is you room filling with water, your moving walls trap, your boulder chasing you etc. Give the group multiple possible solutions, set up a ticking clock, maybe have some enemies inside the trap that they have to fight while trying to stop the trap from going of. Another is traps with a reward, traps that have some kind of reward for disabling them or successfully passing them beyond not getting hit for damage. Like say a pit trap that if you notice and descend down has a door to a lower level in the dungeon/castle/wherever the group is.

Hugolinus wrote:

I'd like to see an unreliable yet viable magic class, whether a charlatan, accursed, or wild mage.

I'm definitely in the market for some sort of "primal magic" class where your schtick involves rolling on tables. The "Chaos Mage" is far and away my favorite 13A class.

Don't make it like the 5e version and I'd be behind this.

Saithor wrote:

My complaint was again I think those options would make a better choice for Core Races.

Aside from the case of "well I only own one book..." why does core matter?

No one cared in PF1 that their aasimar arcanist or their tiefling bloodrager or their caligni kineticist wasn't "core". You didn't see more (core) rogues, monks, dwarves, and gnomes because those things were "core".

It's [current year] and people don't really discover options from dead tree books- they find them on the internet, and the weird stuff is in the same section as the "core" stuff. AoN and PFSRD aren't hiding the Shoonies and the Iruxi.

I've seen it make an actual difference. I've had GMs require core-only races under the assumption that they are more balanced than the other races.

Hobgoblins, lizardfolk and leshy are already playable for a couple of months already, they were published in the Lost Omens Character Guide. But, of course, nobody noticed because people who come down here to kvetch pretty much never read the stuff they complain about :)

To make your life easier, aasimars, catfolk, changelings, dhampirs, duskwalkers, kobolds, orcs, tieflings, ratfolk and tengu will be out in 3 months with Advanced Player' Guide.

Also, the indomitable Shoony, the pug-people, were published in a recent AP instalment. I think some here might flip out at the notion of pugfolk in their xxxxtreme dark and edgy fantasy grimdark :D

My complaint was again I think those options would make a better choice for Core Races. I did read the Hobgoblins section from Lost Omens, it's pretty good. Personally dislike the art, but that's a mild issue.

Step 1) Sneakily slap a PF 2e label on the Horror Adventures
Step 2) Edit text for the optional Alignment change rules to mandatory.
Step 3) Give to naive GM
Step 4) Explain crunch disconnect as experimental rules/Playtest
Step 5) Become Lich, cast Protection from Evil 6 times
Step 6) Profit

More seriously, you want non-evil undead in your game, houserules it. Because after a lot of threads on it I still don't think it's going to change.

I mean, I'll be the first to admit Witch was in a lot of ways a Wizard variant with a unique class feature slapped on, a slightly more favorable (probably not better) spell list. So if it's even more samey this time around that isn't good. I'll take a look at this playtest tomorrow.

But keeping on theme for the topic, I'd also like to see a class that actually does go for a more defender style role (Yes, I'm stealing the forbidden 4e ideas). Less offensively capable than Barbarian/Fighter, more capable defensively, and some way to draw enemy attacks.

Ah I'm a fan of Ol' Witch, I hope it all works out. Oracle really ended up that badly off?

I mean, I'd pick Gnomes but apparently 4e got backlash for doing that. Even if it doesn't appear a core race is popular it probably will turn out to be so just because it's a core race and it will get the most exposure. I have a soft spot for Halflings but that's thanks to a lot of players who did some fun RPing in contradiction of the usual RP. Cold dead assassing halfling is terrifying :)

Playtest swashbuckler did a really good job of standing out. It has a whole mechanic around using finishing moves that was really engaging. I liked it a lot (though also maybe a little sad because that could have been a cool general mechanic).

Playtest Investigator on the other hand really was just a slightly different rogue. Really hoping the final version of that class has an entirely new combat mechanic, because giving it something so close to sneak attack did no favors to the class in terms of making it feel unique.

Ahck, yeah investigator is another class I never really got a solid sense of identity for, that one really felt like just a smash up of Alchemist and Skill Monkey Rogue. Of all the skill monkey classes it was always the one I noticed last.

I never saw Swashbuckler as a branch of Rogue, and their concepts were pretty different to me. But you will definitely see that they are different now.

anyways probably not the best thread to discuss about Swashbuckler.

*******************

Another potential new class is an Acrobat like class. Not something like Swashbuckler or Monk that just move a lot. But something like a combination of a Bard with a Swashbuckler, giving/getting buffs based on movement, and then dealing damage not through big hit but many tiny ones that just keep building up.

Very much death by a thousand cuts.

Maybe it's just me. Light Armor, Light blades, focus on Dexterity with a probable minor into Charisma, acrobatics. Swashbuckler certainly had differences, but I still always felt like Swashbuckler was like a very big archetype, in concept, not in mechanics. An Acrobat class....not sure if I'd want that as an archetye or class. I'd like a Warlord first personally.

When it comes to Kender, there's two different kinds: the version actually written into the Dragonlance books, and the version that are described all over the internet.

The difference is that while the former have no sense of ownership and would absolutely end up with other people's belongings, they'd willingly and readily give them back especially if they were needed - the latter is the result of bad players trying to say "the book says I can" in defense of their rampant and deliberate disruptive behavior, and people scape-goated Kender instead of laying the blame for disruptive behavior at the feet of the player choosing to interpret something as permission to be disruptive.

Kinda the same reason there are a lot of groups that say "No evil characters" or "No chaotic neutral" - not because those elements are actually inherently disruptive, but because disruptive players will argue their disruptive play is what those elements told them to do.

I'd argue the issue partially comes in how you fluff those elements up, although disruptive players are always disruptive. I think what made Kender stand out was the idea that no matter what they did they were purely good, that they were incapable of evil. At least with evil and chaotic neutral characters the paladin can smite them into the ground and not risk an alignment change. Anyway, I really just used the comparison for a joke. Goblins don't really sit where Kender are, and I'm okay with them being in the game, I just wish another race has been made Core instead.

If you want to go Skald, there is a guide for that, but it is four years out of date

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lHp_ioueUwkoZzxBKYg4ha3uVV07K8RNngL4J5E qtYU/edit

For races, if you want to go Strength/Charisma, Suli is really good, those elemental resistances can be really nice to get.

Do check it out Playtest swashbuckler was the best class in it. Also it was all about moving.

I've got high hopes since AOO became a thing that got gated off, might be the one benefit to that change IMO. I did always think Swashbuckler and Rogue should have been merged (Obviously the combo wouldn't be as good as both combined) back in 1e because they felt so similar in concept, I've always thought of Swashbuckler as a branch-off from Rogue. Hoping the difference is more defined this time.

No, nobody has an idea of what kender are. I've literally asked 20 people I regularly game with and 1 person recalled something Dragonlance. Then again, we're not Americans and most of us are below 35, so there's that.

Chances of kender (and the perceived issue with kender) being recognised among a group of people that aren't hardcore D&D nerds that get all the jokes and memes are about as high as with Warduke, Illithiad or Pun-Pun.

And kender were not designed that way. The iconic kender was a likeable, Chaotic Good, selfless hero. The fact that you see them as purposefully introduced to blow up other people's fun kind of tells everything I need to know.

My phrasing was off in that last post. Their original design was because Hickman and Weiss had hang-ups with thieving being treated as a morally good act and trying to square that with their dnd group needing a rogue. So they introduced Kender, and the character trait perfectly slots into being for the chaotic neutral character.

As for the recognition, most of my group recognizes them, and I've never heard of Warduke or Illithiad. Have heard of Pun-pun but can't remember if that Kobold is a 3.5 build or if it's that joke blow up the universe build from a GURPS supplement.

What, may I ask, is a "comedy relief race"?

Is it like a 3-legged race, or a potato sack race, or what? Because I am certain that it's not thinking that the ancestry of a character is enough by which to determine whether or not the character is "a joke" or "nothing but comic relief."

Depends on portrayal, traits, combinations. I'm not saying there's never been a serious Goblin character in Pathfinder, but their depiction has been humorous a lot of times. Same thing for why you get the ever cheerful halfling or the cowardly kobold (Thank you 5e /s) which also tend to be the source of humor. Not that it's a bad thing necessarily but it depends on what parts are emphasized. Maybe it's misinterpreting their portrayal then and in the past but I feel like Paizo goblins tend to be used for comedy and their race entry points you in that direction. Not as badly as the 5e Kobold. And again, just my interpretation, I could be off in this.

Folks, it's 2020. Nobody knows what kender are. Dragonlance is out of print. It's a dead reference outside of people who are still playing D&D with the same group since 1978.

That game in 1988, when Joey played a kender and kept stealing underwear from your Paladin and made silly jokes and instead of being the heroic bulwark of Light and Goodness you spent most of the game having Joey make you look like an idiot? The problem was Joey, not kender.

I've been playing Dnd since 2010. Guess what, I still know what Kender are because the internet community around DnD has made it very clear what they are. Nobody knows what Kender are if nobody has seen the stories, checked out DnD memes, knows any older RPG players, or even just visited TvTropes.

Secondly, Kender were the problem in that they were a race designed to have a perfect in-character reason to steal the other parties gear, and have any action against them in response be treated as evil in-universe. For groups that focus heavily on roleplaying in accordance with the setting, I can see why that would be a major issue.

Saithor wrote:

So from what I'm getting from this is that Traps have the same issue that they did before in RPG's where they either one-shot and feel arbitrary and unfair, or they just act as HP drains that do even less than they did before because the Cure Light Wounds out of combat heal is essentially always around just as different methods.

It can be both: if time isn't a factor, a trap that one shot you to dying but doesn't kill you can still be just a road bump: the fact that it's a road bump though doesn't change the fact it doesn't feel good if you get one shot.

I've seen games that do the ticking clock method on dungeons, but that's also very hard to pull off without grating on players. Some groups really like endurance runs, some don't. Either way, yeah the one-shot issue should be reconsidered for dice roll traps. I'm more forgiving for slow-acting puzzle traps because those don't kill players immediately, give a longer time for the player to get out and so on.

It is important to remember that traps also serve a narrative function in the game. Even if they do no damage and the party spots it, they realize that someone doesn't want them in their current location. The important thing is that their placement is not arbitrary and meaningless unless there is a very specific reason to demonstrate that the trap maker is cruel and has no regard for their own safety.

I'd argue a troll performs the same function without the chance of the player not realizing the troll isn't there.

To answer the OP, because Kender /s

I've never been a fan of comedy relief races (I really hate 5e for that Cower ability because I do like Kobolds). I...just kind of don't see the point of the Goblin when the Gnome and Halfling are Core. There's races I'd like to have seen first that I think offer more things to the table like Strix, Hobgoblins, Bugbear, Kobold, Gnoll, Dhampir, Fetchling. I get why goblins (Company mascot at this point, etc.) I just don't find them very interesting. Also in some cases disturbingly kender-ish. At least in-universe that behavior is seen as a bad thing.

Either a mobile skirmisher class that works better than the Rogue or Swashbuckler did (Good ideas, never really seemed to fit the concept well enough for me) Or an adaption of the 4e Warlord, which I've felt the absent of in 4e games a lot. And no I haven't really checked out the playtest Swashbuckler yet.

So from what I'm getting from this is that Traps have the same issue that they did before in RPG's where they either one-shot and feel arbitrary and unfair, or they just act as HP drains that do even less than they did before because the Cure Light Wounds out of combat heal is essentially always around just as different methods. I mean, threading that needle is pretty much impossible, not surprised it didn't happened here. I do think that if you are going to level gate dungeons, Age of Ashes should probably have telegraphed a bit harder? A big giant stone tree with hammocks I'd assume is just part of the scenery, which works as a hazard, less so as a sign that you are treading into really dangerous territory. I'd maybe put that after some big creature that the group has to deal with to progress, is above their level, but can be escapible. Animated Statue, one the level 3-5 Oozes, those could work.

Been playing 1st edition the past four years. Will probably continue to do so well into the future. Gestalts, Paths of War, Spheres, not likely to run out of content for a long while.

Certainly the number of reviews and that Warhorn statistic are great indicators that 2e is performing quite well - possibly even better than Starfinder, and Starfinder was certainly a critical success.

I imagine there's another portion of the playerbase you are missing though, Kasoh - people who liked 4e and didn't like 5e. That's not super common, but they do exist. I've even seen them on the forums here.

While 2e avoids the worst mistakes of 4e, there are enough similarities there that it seems to be appealing to people who liked that system and wanted to see it done better.

Critical success is a bit suspect when I've personally yet to see a mainstream big name RPG that didn't get good reviews. The only one digging into the subject finds is Shadowrun 6e, which got middling reviews...and has also united close to every shadowrun fan against it.

On a PbP note (Yes I am aware people in this thread have said PF 2e is not suited for PbP. Ah well) Pathfinder 1e is still the main game on MW. The most PF 2e games that have had advertisement at the same time has been two, both times at the release of playtest and the core book. I think one additional time during the APG playtest release? Outside that the occasional one and long stretches of none available. PF typically ranges from 4-8, dnd 5e 4-10. We typically have more World of Darkness or Shadowrun games advertising than PF 2e.

There's more:

- charge no longer being an universal ability means that if you have speed advantage over your opponent, you can kite them while attacking - something that was rarely possible in PF1;

- there are far fewer "you lose your full round action so you're bascially screwed now because action economy" effects;

- conversely, any "lose X actions" effects is very important, because it can shut down multi-action abilities, some of which, in particular on monsters, can easily swing the battle around.

Kiting isn't necessarily a good thing to promote. What you are describing sounds like whichever sound has ranged weapons, enough room to maneuver, and equal or higher speed can kite and attack with near impunity until they are out of ammunition. It sounds like a smaller scale battle of Hattin. And actually going and attacking someone with slower speed than moving out of range for melee doesn't even work. Move-attack-move, can be pretty easily countered by move-move-attack. The other two work.

In Encounter tactics are promoted by:

- No more Full-attack. 3 actions for everyone means that standing still and rolling attacks isn't the best option a character has.

- Multi attack penalty and tight math make the third/last swing very unrelyable (except for very specific builds), so you best do something else instead: move, raise shield, maybe auto-trip,...

- Less Attacks of Opportunities means combat is more dynamic, with PC's/NPC's moving around more freely, also thanks to 3-action-system.

- That also means casters can't be as easily protected by front-row-characters.

Removing attacks of Opportunity from near everything has from what I can tell from the combats I've played made things worse. People care about positioning a lot less, people are more willing to pull out Leeroy Jenkins all the time now. The only who cares about positioning are the casters, and waiting for them to figure out if they can stay out of charge range and cast has quickly become the new time sink of our party, and I can't even complain since they mostly keep the wet tissue status.

As for no full-attacking, the fact that the best condition is dead still promotes the full-attack ideology. The amount of abilities that give you virtual actions to do things besides attacking so you can attack promote this as well.

And finally, the math isn't tight. The bonuses are smaller but thanks to the new critical rules can make attacks everything from a near guranteed crit to more of a risk to do than an advantage. Sure, people are inventivized to not attack...because doing so can have a major chance of a critical fumble.

Okay, for an explanation of why PF 2E promotes in-encounter tactics, can I get something more than "they reduced the numbers and made everything more swingy"? I'm genuinely curious why people think that is the case in comparison to 1e.

It doesn't even really work, either, because 4e is a hot mess when it comes to balance.

If you are saying it doesn't work because PF 2e is balanced well, I'm going to have to disagree there. So far the balance has been around what I expect of Paizo, I think that they lack of feats has made less outliers, so people aren't noticing it as much.

No, It's not fair to ask people to judge 2e while the new game smell is still on it. People need time for the hype to either die down and for us to see if this edition will be supported like 1e, or supported like SF. Personally I feel like the claims of easier to run are over-exaggerated, since this edition has decreased the sheer number of options, but has increase individual complication. And the "At least it isn't a massive system weighed down by it's supplement" will inevitably come up in ten years when people are demanding a 3e.

Loved: The fact that after 2e comes out, I will still be playing 1e with my friends, the fact that the content is not magically disappearing, and that 3rd party content is still a thing that exists. The Alchemist. The Paladin (Yes, even with the stupid alignment restrictions) Ninja and Samurai. Paths of War. Spheres of Might and Power. Building characters and enjoying using crunch to represent fluff and vice versa.

Hated: A lot of things, several specific classes (Vigilante's fluff, Shifter's Crunch, the over complicated nature of Occult classes which despite that they were still weak choices.) Water balloons beating crossbows. Vow of Poverty. Diagonal squares math. Ultimate Equipment nerfs. People acting like 2e will magically slay 1e in the same way DnD 4e fans claimed that 4th edition had killed 3.5 and made it so that it would never be played again.

Miss: Future content. Admittedly I haven't rated a paizo made sourcebook as majority good in around four years, but there is stuff I enjoyed. I enjoy the concept of the Shifter. I enjoyed parts of Ultimate Horror. I enjoyed the Kineticist despite it's issues. The release of 2e will also likely mean some 3rd party content will transfer over there even if 2e flops even worse than I predicted.

Frankly though I hope DSP and the Spheres people and FFD20 and the like stick to 1st edition. Same for Purple Duck and the wonderful N Jolly. I don't really have the desire to see Maneveurs as feats or N Jolly doing an alchemist rating guide for 2e.

Considering how much the game deviates from it's 3.0 or 3.5 roots, and my own personal opinions, I second whoever was arguing for dnd 2.5.

Actually found Mask of the Mantis, which also is rather decent.

Ah....forget what I said about it's usefulness then. For a Standard Action a DC 20 Finger of Death is pretty bad. It's been too long since I've played, forgot about Command Word. Time to find another Head Item.

Grenadier is a good Alchemist archetype if you want to focus bomb heavy, but it's by no means the default archetype people should go for.

Vivisectionist is probably the second most popular alchemist archetype for enabling an entire build with Mr Hyde the melee alchemist, and is fairly popular for being really good at what it does. Taking it also makes Beastmorph a really good option.

Clone Master is also a fun generalist archetype as having copies of yourself is never a bad thing, and having copies of your team to prevent TPK's is also good.

Preservationist is also a really nice generic archetype as long as you take Planar Preservationist, since having Summon Monster spells on your list is always a good tool to have.

So, I was checking out Head Items since I was trying to find a replacement for Jingasa on an older build I was re-using when I found this

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/m-p/mask-of-the-skull/

Now yes, this thing is fricking expensive, and it's effects aren't amazing for when you are likely to have it, but as far as I can tell, anyone can get a use out of it, using it doesn't cost an action, and it's a cool, hilarious item that you can send zipping around to Finger of Death the dragon for you. At the very least it's better than the Judge's Wig. So have I actually found a decent Head Item for any character or am I in delusion out of desperation for a Jingasa replacement?

Zhayne wrote:

I don't think any class should have power-loss mechanics.

While I agree in general, I think it fits divine powered classes.

After all, clerics and paladins get their abilities, spells and powers from their deity/divine source. It's not their own power, it's borrowed.

So if your power comes from a deity in exchange for worship and following their rules, it's makes sense that if you don't uphold your end of the bargain, they take away what they're providing. ie Divine power.

If your power comes from your fundamental belief in/worship of a philosophical position, then if you aren't following the tenets of that philosophy, you likely don't believe in it as strongly any more. So your ability to generate power from that belief is also compromised.

as always ymmv

The issue is as you say, YMMV. GM's and layer's can have wildly divergent views on what fits the codes of conduct or not, and some GM's see stretching codes of conduct as a way of storytelling. While falling certainly fits from a fluff perspective, from an OOC perspective it's always a risk to put ways to strip class abilities from a character into a game.

Saithor wrote:

Phranklin wrote:

So... STR-based, half-orc, full BAB DIRE BEAR at 4th, yes? with possible amulet of might fist / magic fang items applicable to the build yes? wow...

Yeah, it's pretty nice for 4th level, but as people have pointed out, as soon as two levels later they aren't that strong anymore and two levels after most other options surpass it. The Major Forms suffer from a major lack of scaling, both in the fact that they don't scale that much at all, and what does scale isn't that much for the levels you get them. So the class becomes an early-game beast at fourth level but very quickly loses that status.

Interesting, thank you for your insights. If what you say is true, I think a 4-level dip could be interesting for some half-caster builds like bloodrager and fighter child of amaznen and avcavna (I apologize in advance for the botched spelling of that last one).

Do they suffer from the same problems druid face? (i.e. need the wild armor enchantment for high AC builds and need natural spell feat in order to cast in dire bear form?)

Well, first off you won't need Natural Spell because Shifter has no spellcasting capabilities at all. Also, it's AC is mostly a Wis to AC bonus out of armor or half-wis while in armor. Shifted form AC is probably just by animal. Painful Bugger ran the math, and it generally looks like the Druid is a better shifter than this.

Duke of Dosh wrote:

Phranklin wrote:

Just took a quick look at the book; can someone please confirm I'm reading this right? i.e. can a 4th level shifter wildshape into a dire bear or dire tiger?

Yes, they can- albeit, in Tiger's case, limited. The Rakes don't come in to play until level 15. It definitely starts strong, but when you hit level 6, other options (as seen in Painful Bugger's posts) catch up, and by level 8, surpass it entirely.

You also only get to choose from one form at level 4, which is a little disappointing.

So... STR-based, half-orc, full BAB DIRE BEAR at 4th, yes? with possible amulet of might fist / magic fang items applicable to the build yes? wow...

Yeah, it's pretty nice for 4th level, but as people have pointed out, as soon as two levels later they aren't that strong anymore and two levels after most other options surpass it. The Major Forms suffer from a major lack of scaling, both in the fact that they don't scale that much at all, and what does scale isn't that much for the levels you get them. So the class becomes an early-game beast at fourth level but very quickly loses that status.

I'd argue no to this, the Paladin's code of honor is enough of a problem for people who want to play it as is, adding it to other classes would just be irritating for people who play those classes as well. Paladin's code of conduct and falling from it is just too easy to abuse and can make you question why you even chose the class if you keep losing the abilities because the DM is tossing in situations where you can't keep up the code.

Now if we're talking about this as balancing on class abilities, I'd be happy to go along with that if it's that every full caster gets the vow of poverty and pacifism :)

Matrix Dragon wrote:

these sort of nasty forum arguments are the very reason why we may never see another playtest, lol.

It's been downright civil around here compared to other forums. The shifter has NOT gone over well at all. IMO, even if there hadn't been an actual playtest, 'testing the waters' with a preview of proposed abilities could have gone a long way in managing expectations: it's not that the shifter is awful/unplayable, it's that it's not what people wanted/expected so a little heads up might have 'let people down' easier.

Well, while I agree that these arguments are a lot more civil than people here think, because they definitely are, Shifter not being a horrible class is up for debate. Going over it all real quick

1). The Chasis: This part of the class is actually one of the best things about it. 4+Int Skills, 2 good saves, Full BAB, D10 HD. This is rather nice.

2). The Non-shifting parts: These are pretty lackluster and lacking, but that's too be expected. However the abilities themselves aren't great. The AC ability is not that good for a class that is going to be a frontliner and lacks the options to occupy other roles. It's two-stat dependent in a class that is also going to want Strength and Constitution as well. The rest is just bland stuff ripped from Druid and Ranger.

3). The Claws: These just make me irritated because they steal so much of the focus of the class. For a class focused on full-body shifting and becoming a variety of animals, being stuck with a pair of claws for the first four levels does not help. It also doesn't help that the max damage scale they get is D10. At level 20. Which any other class can achieve by spending a small amount of money at any level for a weapon. Oh, and I have no idea if you can attack with both of these without using TWF. Points on the DR shredding abilities, those are nice.

4). The Shifting: This is just a letdown throughout. It's limited in use and duration, limited in forms, the forms don't scale that much at all, the minor forms bonuses are mostly small ones that are probably better when stacked but start off as worse than A Barbarian's Rage and similar abilities.

5). Lack of Versatility: Overall this class just lacks in options. If this is backlash against the class ability bloat from Occult Adventures, it's a good move, but the baby's been tossed out with the bathwater. The lack of options at all means the class lacks versatility in what it can do and be, and contributes to making the class feel bland and like I can level it up on auto-pilot, and if there are no good alternatives, I can play it on auto-pilot as well. This class would greatly benefit from spells, which I usually hate to see because of how often they are shoved into classes these days.

I won’t go into the people who were expecting X and getting Y. That failure is down to Paizo not choosing to go that way or not knowing it’s own audience, but is moot to discussing the classes balance as is. As is, this class is pretty obviously a Hybrid Class, not a Base Class like the description of Ultimate Wilderness says, mostly of Monk and Druid, with a dash of Hunter, but without even some of the class specific abilities of those hybrids.

On the idea that this was designed for new players and was designed to be more easier for them to get into Pathfinder, why would that be done with a splatbook that most new players are unlikely to pick up? If it would be done to anything it would be to the Core classes before a hybrid class in a very late splatbook.

This along is more than enough reason for me to put Feat Tax into any PF games I run at all. Size category changes and the fact that CMD is scaled of rolling a 15 for CMD under the older D&D rules makes Combat Maneuvers hard enough already.

Assuming you mean Combat Maneuvers with a weapon. An unarmed trip against someone with a sword is pretty obvious.

Performing a Combat Maneuver requires limiting the attacker's options. If I want to disarm you, I can't wait for any good opening, I need to manufacture an opening to hit your weapon just so. Without special training (a feat), it requires me to take more risks, thus exposing myself.

The same thought process applies to all CMs. If I want to bullrush a guy swinging a mace, I need to pass through the danger zone of that mace to get my shoulder into him.

It really does make sense. It's also an important balance consideration. If disarming was as easy as hitting, the first to act always disarms his opponent. It would be foolish to do anything else. That turns the entire combat into an initiative roll-off. That's not the game I'm looking to play.

Waiting for an opening to disarm versus manufacturing it doesn't work as an argument because Pathfinder only gives one option to disarm anyway. And it can be argued that doing an attack is manufacturing an opening vs waiting for one as well.

If I want so swing my sword at my target, I give him an opening to hit me back with the same mace.

And having Disarm is not as simple of a choice as your making it out to be. A lot of threats that you fight in Pathfinder have plenty of ways to hurt you besides basic attacks using manufactered weapons. Spells, SLA, multiple weapons, and natural weapons are not affected by Disarm

The AOO abstractly represents the combatant not being trained or an expert in the maneuver...think of the difference between a bar fight where one guy tries to trip another versus a trained judoka attempting the same move.

But these aren't really martial arts moves. Disarming and Sundering is something I imagine would be included in weapon training. It doesn't take much skill to throw sand into someone eyes or bash them with your shoulder or to ram them.

So, I want to bring up a question that I've had a for a long time regarding Combat Maneuvers in Pathfinder, which is why do they provoke Attacks of Opportunity when used? This does little besides counter-act whatever incentive a character has for actually using the combat maneuver, and makes it so that each character needs a half a feat (the various Improved maneuvers chain) to make a single combat maneuver as viable as hitting someone with a sword.

Also, it makes no sense from a fluff perspective as well. Why should hitting someone with a sword not provoke an AOO, but shoulder bashing them, aiming at their weapon instead of them, trying to trip with your leg, throwing sand in their eyes, ramming them, using a free hand to grab a body part or something they have on them somehow does provoke one.

So, why do Combat Maneuvers have an AOO then?

@2097

Sorry for the gender confusion on my part. As for 5e as a whole, I get the rules-lite approach, and think it's a good style of game, but for me 5e tries to do that while still being rules-heavy D&D of the past, which doesn't really mesh well for me. There's still feats, a massive list of spells in the back, big weapon list and so on.

There is definitely stuff I approve of, like Concentration is a good nerf to buff masters and CoDzilla, Advantage/Disadvantage is a good way to represent house rules moment of cool actions.

I also get the represnt difference through fluff vs represent through mechanics, and PF does do it too much. Ideally a middle-ground game between the two would be better IMO.

I wonder how much money Paizo makes selling Adventure Paths vs. Player Companions vs. Campaign Setting.

If the average group consists of a GM and 4 players, you would expect the Player Companions to sell like hotcakes compared to the Adventure Paths or Campaign Setting material.

But somehow my hunch, maybe from the forums and my own buying habits, is that it's not so.

In any case, Wizards of the Coast is reporting that 5e is their best-selling edition despite their slower release schedule.

Yeah, however, they're basing that off their sales on Amazon, a retailer where it was being sold at a discounted cost than through other retailers. So that statement can be misleading.

The Elder gods are statted out in one of the Bestiary's if you want to use those. And if you consider things like the Color out of Space similar in principle as well.

Davia D wrote:

Hm would Vigilante hybrid well with anything, or since it already is highly variable in it's archetypes would that be pointless...?

Yeah, you can probably make an archetype or vigilante specialisation for most "hybrids". It's basically a hybrid class to begin with tbd.

I have never really liked the Vigilante for that reason. The only really unique thing it has going for it is the social aspect...which is useless in the majority of games people play. If you play in a dungeon or wilderness campaign, that part of the character is practically useless.

One of my friends really likes it though. Because you can make a better fighter than an actual fighter out of it. But those are not hard to reach goalposts. If any class gets released next, it should probably be Fighter Unchained.

@2097: Couldn't quote your post for this reply, because the reply function could not literally copy it all. So in sections

@Character Creation: I mostly agree with you here, 5th edition is not my style of character creation, but I've had to deal with a lot of repeated character designs. Just an example, the only Great Old One warlocks I've ever seen are the ones I've run, most of the time it's either Archfey Enchanters or Hellbound Bladelocks.

@Combat: I can understand the benefits behind the glass-cannon nature, but it also comes with some drawbacks.
-With characters themselves being very glass cannon like, this means that it's a lot easier for them to be killed fast with just a few unlucky rolls. This can help build tension and promote tactical thinking, but it can only be frustrating for players when they die because of some bad rolls and not any fault of their own.
-Shorter combats also mean less tactical thought IMO. There's less time to enact plans and do more complicated means of combat.
-Anti-climax. Either on one end or the other. It does work at lower levels for the humanoid BBEG to go down in only one or two or three rounds of combat, but when things start scaling up to larger fare, then it breaks when I can kill a giant in the same amount of time. Also when I can hire a bunch of hireling to do the same job as me but cheaper.

@Slower Release Schedule: Here's the thing, argue small number of splat versus large, by releasing so few 5e is hurting it's own sales very badly. Outside of the core 3, and Sword Coast and maybe Volo's, the only products on release will appeal to GM's alone. Or maybe one player who wants the GM to run it.

@Whip to grab the Goblet: That's because you sound like a decent guy who doesn't pull stuff like...setting the DC after the skill check. Which I heard was actually encouraged at the playtest. I'm sure this will get replies of "if a GM is like that, just don't play with him." but I just don't like giving too much power to the GM.

Which isn't even going into how it can be confusing to new GMs or how it can mean that character's can have a 50% chance at failing to do something you'd expect a functioning adult to be able to do with ease.

@MM vs DMG: I blame poor editing. And the fact that something weird was going on with that schedule. Anybody else remember the DMG errata being released before the book itself?

@Pure Heritage: This is a big issue. We need a new setting that is not the old ones, because while the old ones are good, how many times have they been ventured into. I've seen a few posts getting exasperted with the next book being Forgotten Realms yet again

@Fluke: I understand the love for Rule-lite systems. I play them from time-to-time. But only with people I know who will not stretch the capabilities to beyond the breaking point, or who will not mess with my character for the heck of it.

I was going to make a long post about my frustration with what most players today consider "choices" and then after typing up a paragraph and a half I abandoned the effort.

If you feel that your "choices" in building characters are too limited in fifth edition, that is your right, I suppose.

My opinion is that it is rare to find any players these days who are willing to make "choices" while playing the game and limit their participation to being obsessed with building their characters.

For me, the game as it is played is where I get all my fun, not in the nuances of having to select from seventeen different classes only after the DM has told you in great detail what the challenges of the adventure will be so that your "choice" of character class, skills, feats, and equipment is matched appropriately.

Some people are builders, who like to do that. And sometimes it's not "how can I be the best?" I have a friend who has practically memorized the entire Pathfinder selection of everything not to optimize, but because he likes to do cool concepts like an inquisitor focused on throwing Star Knives.

And just because people focus on the building of the characters does not mean they don't care about the RP. Most I've met care even more because of the higher investment they've put into the character. I care way more about my PF characters than my D&D 5e characters at the start because I invested much more time into them, and gave them abilities to fit the story I made.

Talos the Fighter in Pathfinder has Weapon Focus (Polearms) to represent his training with a spear since the age of twelve, and has a mechanical benefit to reinforce it. Talos in 5e is no better with a spear than he is with any martial weapon, and gets no opportunity to change this until level 4, at which point his spear technique is just as good as any polearm.

Oh, and also because us Martials can use every source of help we can get, because what we're spending for +1 to-hit the wizard is using to learn Meteor Swarm.

I could see how an optimizer might see 5E design as an attack on them, but that's just an unfortunate side effect of the design goals. The first was to speed the game up. Being able to level up mid-session was a desired result, which can be done in the time it takes to smoke a cig. The second goal was to lesson the gap between noob and system master that exists in 3.5/PF. System mastery still exists, however, so there really wasn't a "counter munchkins" goal ever in mind.

Here's the thing, and this is from a non-optimizer (my head swims looking at the feat list for PF), it's not an attack. Even unintentionally, it really doesn't do anything. If anything, it attacks character diversity. If Talos can use any weapon with the same skill till level 4, why do I not just choose the automatic best version of his fighting style and never stop using them? If anything, that reinforces the idea of always choosing the best option, because there's no incentive to try any other weapon.

As for mastery gap, they could have done that without making every character have only a few choices, and as far as speeding up level-ups, yes and no. For the fighter, sure, all he grabs is an increase in BAB and maybe a few other knick-knacks he's locked into. Wizard? Unless the player decided beforehand (which defeats the purpose of mid-session level-ups), then it's going to be a while before they decide which of that levels spell/s they want.