Silver2195's page

In general, I find characters with few but versatile supernatural powers more interesting than ones with numerous but narrow ones, if that makes sense. I never found D&D-style Wizards particularly interesting, for example.

That's why the Kineticist is probably my favorite existing PF2 class. It's also why I'd like to see PF2 versions of the Mesmerist and Shifter. Classes specifically focused on things like necromancy or manipulating space could also be interesting. The difficulty would be balancing them against standard casters.

More non-arcane bounded casters (especially ones more like Rogues and less like Fighters) could also be interesting, in part for similar reasons - the non-arcane lists have more specific themes. I guess that might be the PF2 interpretation of the Mesmerist - an occult bounded caster with a somewhat Rogue-like chassis. (The Inquisitor might be the divine counterpart to that, but it looks like we're already going to be getting something similar to that as a Rogue class archetype.)

In general, though, there are surprisingly few "missing" concepts left, especially post-Battlecry. The only PF1 classes without a PF2 counterpart (via class, subclass, or archetype) will be the Mesmerist, Shifter, Skald, and Medium. (The Animist has some similarities to the Medium but also some important differences.) There's also the Samurai, but that feels less necessary - maybe it should be an archetype, or maybe not even that, just a few class/skill feats for things like iajutsu.

3.x didn't start out as a mess, it became one.

Not really. A lot of the most overpowered and underpowered stuff in 3.x was in the PHB. The Bard was the only core class with a reasonable power level. If anything, the later material was more balanced.

The obvious justification for Shifters is precisely the "borrowed from fiction" thing. People who turn into animals are a common fictional trope, and most of them are not generalized "nature wizards."

Yeah, what people want (at least what I want) from the Shifter is a class that shapeshifts without all the Druid baggage. No edicts/anathema, no spell slots, just someone who is very good at turning into animals.

The basic idea of the Skald is that it's a combination of the Bard and the Barbarian. This differs from other PF1 "hybrid classes" (with the exception of the Bloodrager, of course) because it's not something you can do with PF2 multiclass archetypes; the Barbarian's Rage ability makes it very difficult to do effectively. The Warrior Muse Bard is not the Skald; it doesn't really have anything to do with the Barbarian.

Looks like the guards just went down. Would anyone object to Zarzuket casting stabilize on them? I feel like it would be the in-character thing to do and unlikely to cause any problems, but I guess it's theoretically possible someone else will come along and heal them and we'll have to fight them again.

Imagine if Tolkien had suddenly decided, 'Oh, I believe orcs are depicted as too malevolent in my book. It's clearly discriminatory and detrimental to readers' mental well-being. I'll revise this aspect. Henceforth, orcs in Middle-earth are a proud warrior race who vehemently oppose slavery and rape.' If he had really done that, I highly doubt his legendarium would have become as famous and masterful as it is.

I mean...Tolkien didn't put it in those terms, but in his letters he actually did have some second thoughts about orcs seemingly being inherently evil, pointing out that it seemed inconsistent with them otherwise seeming to be free-willed, intelligent beings.

And sexual violence wasn't a topic Tolkien was ever very interested in exploring.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

One thing I don't like:

The Changeling and Nephilim heritages are still dead choices for ancestries that already have darkvision built in (like Dwarves,Goblins, and Orcs). Since there's the clause to upgrade low-light vision to darkvision, and fully 3/8 of the ancestries in Player Core 1 have Darkvision, you'd think they'd have a clause for "what happens if you take Changeling as a Versatile Heritage on an Ancestry that has Darkvision already."

Do you not take the Heritage for its feats ?

I do not remember players taking this kind of Versatile Heritage just to boost their PC's vision from Low-light to Darkvision.

Sure, but how this works is if you want to play a Changeling and take Changeling feats it works out that if you pick an ancestry other than Dwarf, Goblin, or Orc you get something from your Changeling Heritage that you wouldn't if you picked Dwarf, Goblin, or Orc. So there's an opportunity cost (you only get one heritage) about making your pitborn or angelkin PCs a less-subterranean ancestry.

You can see how they accommodated for some ancestries already having low-light vision, with the clause " you gain darkvision if your ancestry already has lowlight vision." So there's no reason they couldn't have another clause for "what you get if you already have darkvision". They just didn't do that.

The game is generally good about refunding you if you gain a redundant feature through a character choice, so places where this doesn't happen stand out.

I understand, but I do not see what they could give that would not be too strong.

If outright greater darkvision would be too strong, maybe something like full-color darkvision?

Silver2195 wrote:

Mostly agreed. It's interesting to note that PF2 and D&D5 both have full-caster Bards and at-will cantrips. But this is coincidental; PF1 and D&D4 also had at-will cantrips, and PF2 made Bards full casters to give all four traditions a full caster class in the core rulebook. (I have no idea what D&D5's reasoning for making Bards full casters was. Bards were the only "Tier 3" core class in D&D3.5; they didn't need "fixing"!)

Probably two-fold:

1. Bards were seen as weak in 3e, and they thought they could use the buff.

2. 5e doesn't have 2/3-casting like in 3e. There's full casting, there's half casting (what paladins, rangers, and artificers have), and there's third casting (what eldritch knights and arcane tricksters have).

"Seen as weak" by who, exactly? Bards weren't weak except in comparison to the (overpowered) full casters.

Jerdane wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

he thought this game was just a copy

Why would anyone bother producing a ttrpg that is "just a copy" of another one? Even aside from Intellectual Property theft considerations?

I don't think such an assumption is too unreasonable. Pathfinder 1e was a modestly-patched replica of D&D 3.5, after all, so maybe they figured that Pathfinder 2e was a modestly-patched replica of D&D 5e?

I would argue more of a modest spiritual successor to 4th edition D&D personally. I find way more 4E DNA than I find 5e. It feels like this game has very little in common with 5e aside from commonly named Classes and uses a d20.

Mostly agreed. It's interesting to note that PF2 and D&D5 both have full-caster Bards and at-will cantrips. But this is coincidental; PF1 and D&D4 also had at-will cantrips, and PF2 made Bards full casters to give all four traditions a full caster class in the core rulebook. (I have no idea what D&D5's reasoning for making Bards full casters was. Bards were the only "Tier 3" core class in D&D3.5; they didn't need "fixing"!)

I'm seeing a lot of debate in the "Remaster dislikes" thread about interpretation of the changes/clarifications to wounded/dying, including whether there was some sort of unresolved internal argument at Paizo over how it should work. Some of this strikes me as wishful thinking from people who just don't like the Remastered wounded/dying rules, but further clarification probably can't hurt.

Nalinivati also gives 9 spells.

I think I find myself liking the idea of the 4 traditions than how they've actually been implemented and while I don't think we should go back to specific class lists but I do think we need something better than just 4 lists.

Technically, we have five lists, thanks to the Elementalist archetype.

I think it would be interesting to see more classes with Elementalist-style bespoke spell lists. It should be possible to use the trait system to effectively do this without actually writing out long lists, as the Captivator archetype shows. (Technically, Captivator uses spell schools, but I assume the Remastered version with just say either "mental or illusion" or "emotion or illusion" instead of "enchantment or illusion.")

Of course you would have to give those classes other benefits to make up for their limited spell lists.

Calliope5431 wrote:

Well, the fact that they don't actually exist in PF 1e for starters.

Hell's Vengeance is a canon line of APs and it has its final book start at 15th level. I could easily create said cheese Wizard play that module, and have a character that participated in a canon event using those rules. That would satisfy my conditions for that character existing in canon as I don't think a TTRPG should get to pick and choose between what happens at the table and what happens in lore. If we did that half of D&D's settings and thus Golarion which is built from the bones of D&D wouldn't exist.

This is silly. What happens at the table differs wildly by table.

Edit: Is there any tabletop RPG with a substantial number of adventures/splatbooks that actually fulfills your standards of lore consistency?

Interchangeable for Int and Cha based casters isn’t the same as interchangeable for Wis based casters, though. The arcane list being so much longer than the other three doesn’t matter much for Cha based casters (who have a limited repertoire) or Int based casters (who have to add spells to the book/familiar individually), but it’s a big deal for Wis based casters, who know all common spells on their tradition’s list.

Edit: This was in response to Calliope.

I see the magical traditions as focusing on two particular essences each, but not strictly limited to them. My impression is that casting spells that involve the "wrong" essence generally involves some sort of workaround, such a specific deity granting a spell that fits their nature for divine casters, or moving physical objects via the Ethereal Plane for occult casters. The arcane list is so long in part because Wizards are especially good at finding workarounds (although they still can't heal because they're not good enough at manipulating vital essence).

Antonio Jackson D'Angelo wrote:

Relying on squishy pets for benefits is concerning, particularly if there is a spell slot tax just to keep them alive.

Phase Familiar is a focus spell, not a slot, and witches get it for free. Witch familiars also revive at your next daily preparation. If you can get enemies to waste actions and MAP to murder your resurrecting pet instead of your non-resurrecting witch or allies, that may be a win for your group. The only downside is you lose the ability to refocus, and obviously the familiar abilities themselves, until the next morning. How much that matters will depend on the time pressure you're under. (This also assumes nothing else changes about refocusing or reviving. It may very well.)

There's also a lot of familiar abilities which can keep them alive. One simple option is flight, which doubles as a useful scouting power. Rage of the Elements added a bunch of new defensive options, too.

The witch is going to be in an interesting spot that kind of out-wizards the wizard without time pressure. Like a wizard they need to manually add spells to their preparation options. But they also have familiar abilities which can be swapped daily. And depending on your GM's rulings familiars make excellent scouting tools.

It is potentially a bit weird in flavor terms to be sacrificing your familiar frequently, even if it revives the next day. It can potentially make sense for certain character concepts (Homura making Kyubey suffer is funny), but if the familiar and the Witch are actually supposed to be friends it's kind of awkward.

I would love to see a class that works like a wizard but with Divine Spells, like learning them in a Ritual book and being unfettered from a god.

Isn't this just a Fervor Witch?

It's a bit strange that the Jann, unlike the Wish ritual, doesn't have the Rare trait.

Reading the Wanderer's Wish discussion really got under my skin. Like, are you guys actually playing with people who would seriously do that? I'd much rather sit at a table where everyone can trust one another not to nuke the campaign for the sake of munchkinnery, and honestly resent how paranoia against said munchkinnery has been baked into so much of PF2's design. It's demoralizing to see that the one time they don't drown a gameplay feature in caveats, people on this forum are already zeroing in on the abuse potential.

This is why we can't have nice things.

The issue isn't even really players abusing it so much as what the potential to abuse it like that implies about the setting. I guess the "growth and exploration" language is the best explanation here, or even "the loopholes here are artifacts of the rules, and it works differently in-universe - maybe wishes have to be granted freely."

You cannot be a killer robot from the future with a gatling plasma cannon for an arm.

You pretty much can be, actually.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=3104

I also prefer the idea of themed casters to generalist ones, but many of your proposals seem more like PF3 things than Remaster things.

Having said that, I think the PF2 framework has room for more classes with more specifically themed supernatural powers (even if they aren't "casters" in the normal D&D sense), like the Kineticist. The obvious one would be a Shifter class. You could also have a "Warper" class that manipulates space, maybe a "Gray Necromancer" class that manipulates positive and negative energy, and maybe something like a Captivator as a class instead of an archetype (the tricky thing would be making it not just a worse version of a Psychic or Bard).

I think tightly-themed casters were generally suboptimal even in 3.x; it's just that 3.x full casters were so overpowered that themed ones were still reasonable options. Note that the only "Tier 3" full caster classes were the Shugenja and Healer, the most clearly themed ones.

Ravingdork wrote:

Title quote by James Mattis, retired US Marine Corps general.

With the Remaster doing away with alignment, has anyone else read through the creatures in Rage of Elements or the Remaster Preview documentation and thought "Everything is dangerous, everything is deadly, and everything could be an enemy" or something similar cross your mind?

No? Just me?

It seems so strange not having any guidance whatsoever. There's no telling if that angel atop the hill is truly a benevolent being from on high, or a fallen angel turned fiend waiting for you to approach to rip out your soul. Or if the dragon that moved into yonder cave is planning on robbing your kingdom, razing it to the ground, or elevating it into prosperity.

Nothing can be taken for granted anymore. If you want to survive in this strange new world, you best have a plan.

I'm curious to read your own thoughts on the subject and how you expect it will impact your perceptions and your games.

I was more amused by the fact that janns can hand out 3-action divine ascensions as creature 4s, with no immunity to the dominate spell, honestly.

But really, couldn't care less about alignment. Unholy and holy tags are the only things I need for most of my games.

I had the same thought about Janns. Then someone on another site pointed out the existence of Achaekek, god of killing people who try to do that.

Object Reading doesn't strike me as particularly witchy or bardic, really. Perfect fit for the Psychic class, though.