I'm not sure how such a change would promote build diversity. No one is going to take both of them anyway, so combining them doesn't open up anything new.
I didn't mean diversity within builds, but between builds. If you can compact these two Paizo can maybe fit in another feat at the level that let's you play swashbuckler a little differently. I probably should've made that clearer :)
Aesthetically, absolutely there is adufference, yeah.
But mechanically? With both you spend an action to get +2 AC, one is called 'interact' and the other is called 'raise a shield', but I honestly don't see the meaningful mechanical differentiation?
At second level, the swashbuckler has two sets of feats that I feel are somewhat redundant: Buckler Expertise and Dizzying Parry, two feats which increase the AC bonus from Parry weapon and bucklers respectively to +2, bringing them to parity with 'full' shields.
Then at 12th level, each style gets a feat granting them stances guaranteeing uptime on this defense, Buckler Dance and Storm of Parries (which are both great names!)
Each tier of these feats have the same level at which they become avaliable, the same mechanical effect and similar themes in off-handed defence.
Wouldn't it be economical to reduce these feat pairs to two, one for the AC bump, one for the stance? These four feats very much seem to be two ways to achieve the same goal. Maybe include duelling cloaks as well!
Merging them would save page space (I am not in layout I'll admit, but I think you'd save space on headers and formatting), allow for a more diversified feat selection, and allow characters to switch between bucklers and main-gauche/clan dagger etc as gear is acquired and lost, or as the situation demands (perhaps you're fighting a Rakshasa and your Buckler has a shield boss and not spikes).
In terms of comparative advantages between Parry weapons and bucklers:
A lot of fiends have weakness to good damage, and some double up: the
The Pit Giend has weakness 15 to good, and regeneration 30, turned off by good damage, and the Balor has Weakness 20, +60 from three ticks!
Litany of righteousness also gives weakness 7-10 for a round.
Honestly, I think expert in unarmed defence is just.... incredibly insufficient on the monk. You've fit a whole 1 more AC than someone running around naked, and you need strength for damage, dexterity for AC, constitution for not dying and wisdom if you want ki powers.
I player a 4th level human monk, alongside a barbarian a friend of mine played, who had: slightly less speed (Faster Raging, slower not), better damage, better AC (Same while raging), same accuracy, more HP, and a THP buffer from rage.
Over him, I had really good jumping, slowfall, and could ignore difficult terrain
flurry of blows didn't turn out to be much of an advantage because while he was attacking at 10(4+4+1+1*)/5/0, I was attacking at 10(5+3+1+1*)/5/0/0 (Proficiency+Str+Item+Conditional)
I've also found combats in the playtest extremely frustrating, most recently a fire giant against a level 9 druid, Wildshaped into a Huge wolf.
It needs a 7 to hit my static of AC 27 with its sword, I need a 12 to hit with my jaws. My second attack was a hail mary, and my third attack was just fishing for 20s. Which means most of your attacks will miss, and your best attack in this case is an unfavourable coinflip, which means rolling a lot of dice for not much effect
So clearly I should be throwing spells at it, except it's lowest save (which unexpectedly is reflex) is +14. As far as I can tell, I had best possible spell DCs at 23, so it needs a 9 to save, on its weakest save. Its got a better than even chance of passing it's worst save.
At the moment, combats means whiffing a lot of attacks,band getting hit a lot, which feels really, really bad.
I recently also played IPMS, and wanted to give side feed back as well. I had a pretty miserable fight against the Manticore, and did okay against the elementals.
Fundamentally, my monk had a +9 to hit (+10 with bless or the extremely limited Ki Strikes), which just didn't cut it against the 20AC of the manticore and large elementals, having your most accurate attack be a coinflip I found was incredibly dispiriting, especially when your best option for most turns in a combat is Flurry+Strike+Strike, with the two Strikes needing 20 to hit, (19 with backswing)
I also tried to climb the wall and drop attack the Manticore but flubbed the climb check. I flubbed a lot of rolls that session.
I played wild order in Lost Star and honestly I'd have been better served in the Storm order.
Because of tightish confines and party having a melee rogue and paladin as well as me, I often ended up throwing cantrips from the backline until it was prudent to swing with my staff. It was never a good time to cast wild claws, and pest form is just.... well not bad,per se, but highly niche.
I'd rather of had tempest surge.
Is it me, or are the rules for stripping persistent damage incredibly rough?
You get clipped by, say, acid arrow, and start taking 1d6 acid damage/round. If you want to get rid of this, it's a flat DC 20 check. so you could reasonably expect to each 10d6 damage off of that one spell over time.
That said, you can reduce that flat check to.... DC15. That's still a really hard check, and consequently a lot of damage.
Does this seem...problematic, to anyone else?
I mean, I wouldn't call someone with 4/11 BAB a great military anything. :p
Scaled Fist/Tortured crusader/Sage Sorcerer/Eldritch Scion: I love archetypes which alter a dependent ability scores, as they can aid in non-standard multiclassing (such as monk-magus, or sorcerer/alchemist) to ajm for novel builds.
Eldritch Scoundrel and Child of Amaznen and Acavna: Giving casting to the muggles is good, in my opinion, as fighters in PF1E were possibly a little too straightford in play, abd casting gave them something to think about.
Guide Archetype for the ranger is cool, but kinda got superceeded by the Slayer, but was an interesting exploration of a varient on the ranger.
Virtuous Bravo: while getting 4x level to damage was certainly problematic, the VB was very cool as it was still a paladin, but traded out the 12th/13th century knightly aspects for a renaissance fencer.
Qinggong monk: "Monk as ascetic magician" was a very cool idea, allowing players to build a monk less focused on melee combat, and it opened up some nice build options for a class which was a little threadbare.
To be fair, I very much doubt the potion misses your face, or that you're inside of dino b6 the armor, it'd be much more sensical if you simply didn't get the magical effect of those actions without resonance.
As for analysing the tidbits that have been released so far, can we not doomsday the changes by plopping them into PF1E, without the context of the rest of the system? It's not building well-founded hypothess on 2e. An edition change implies broad, systemic changes from 1e.
It's all well and good to say "hit by ten+=crit is broken, because of a 1e magus arcana", but the magus isn't even in 2e, let alone that specific Arcana, or what rules there there may be regarding touch attacks ability to critical hit, seems like a farly direct consequence to account for.
There are two different things bung talked about in this thread, and even in the OP's post.
One is veracity with the real world, which I weigh negative to neutral in a fantasy game.
The other is adherence to current historiographical norms, which I'd weight neutral to positive, if done sensibly.
Realism is full plate armor making you immune to slashing attacks, historiographical normality is calling a double edged straight blade of 70-80cm for wielding I one hand an arming sword, rather than a Longsword.
That said, we also don't need the armoury to have detailed breakdowns of the entire Oakeshott typology.
Mechanics and narrative are intertwined. A character that cant hit or do damage in combat will struggle with fulfilling a traditional heroic champion narrative. An illiterate barbarian is going to have trouble with being a scholar.
I like that it is more complex than 5e, but less than so than parts of 3.5, and it could be a little simpler.
I like that characters evolve mechanically and refine their identity as they level up, through feats and menu optioslike rogue talents and alchemist discoveries.
I like building mechanics puzzle characters, like the dwarf with the dorn-dergar which cleaves every enemy in 35ft foot square.
I like the diversity of options and the multitude of classes: hellknights and investigators and slayers and magi (oh my!)
I don't get to play in Golarion that much, but I like the diversity of the setting: ifferent cultures, non-human peoples that aren't just real-life ethnicities or cultural groups with different bodies. I like that LGBT inclusivity is built into not just the culture but the divine metaphysics.
I like the wealth of 3PP options and the freelancers that work in the player companion line.
...amazing, you'd resent being given something new if it didn't give you enough choice, even though it's free?
Also based on the podcast, the fighter had two, one of which was only useful if you had a shield, I'd be surprised if they expected polearm users or archers to pick it up.
...it's no more restrictive RP wise than an immediate action. We also dingy know what a given clclasses reactions are or how many they get.
What if in 1e they gave every class a set of immediate actions they could take. Would you say that is restricting rolplay?
Is charging not a thing anymore (as in gaining a +2 to hit and -2 to AC) since you now can move, attack?
The fighter had a thing which let him move 2x his speed and make an attack as two of his actions, but I don't think there were bonuses or penalties. Didn't have to move straight either!
It's really easy to end up removing any meaningful distinction between ability scores this way, ending up in de facto 4E-land.
Ability diversity was not 4e's problem. 4e's problem was that it pidgeonholed classes excessively.
Ability score divesity can be used to differentiate classes and make them interestingly and meaningfully distinct from each other.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
It sounds like they're using SF style character creation, so RHD are thankfully going the way of the dodo, is my guess.
Do not want:
I'd love to see: Dragon Empire's World a guide, Impossible Kingdoms primer. Likewise, more coverage of southern garund would be amazing.
Also, expansions on Dwarven and Halfling society works be fantastic, especially outside the Inner sea (The Ouat were amazing, but Dwarven Samurai? Dearvwn Samurai.)
When my group ran the first fight on the Sunrise maiden, we found the rear-mounted flak thrower invaluable.
For context, we weren't using many stunts, adn the Gm wasn't using any. The enemy ship in that ombat has no rear-mounted weapon, so we would fly around it, into it's rear-arc, tilt our rear arc to face it (we were coming from the front, so this was closer) and fire into it's unarmed arc with our two most powerful weapons.
Is negative energy inherently evil? i guess i've always thought so but i dont think its specifically stated anywhere.
It's an association not causation thing. Negative Energy associated things are often evil, but not inherently so, just like how positive energy things are often, but not also good (Looking at you, Jyoti. Jerks.)
I don't think it's is a good equivalency. Agent Orange was a poisonous Herbicide. Necrotic weapons are guns that don't hit the undead. Yes, they kill living things, thats an inherent property of all lethal weapons.
A Frailty Rifle fired at a living creature doesn't do anything that a Zero Rifle wouldn't, the sole difference is that the undead are immune and are instead bolstered.
Mecrotic weapons aren't more directly dangerous than common cryo weapons. They're actually less so, as there are.
Two other things I think are worth noting: these are made specifically by the Corpse Fleet, not Eoxian corporations.
Also, the Frailty Cannons are weapons with the Line special, and without unwieldy! This is surprising, but it does mention that they're easier to control than zero cannons.
Caste based themes make sense for Tau, that's a good idea.
Regarding the vision, in the 3e codex at least, I think, they have sharper long range vision, but their eyes adjust to distance changes slower that a human.
The other option I can see would be to set the tau up like the lashunta. They get a +2 dex, amd then each cast gets an additional good and bad stat, amd a different skill bonus
Fire: +Con, -wis, perception or piloting