Skeletal Technician

Squiggit's page

1,371 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

I also hope they don't publish new classes when archetypes could do the job, because class inflation will mean that all classes will receive less support.

That's kind of the reason I hope they don't go too overboard by making everything archetypes, because archetypes don't get long term support and classes do.

Things like the Cavalier or Vigilante or Swashbuckler absolutely didn't need to be classes. I was even annoyed to see them be classes when I first encountered them.

But there are cool things Paizo built off their various chassis that simply wouldn't exist if they hadn't been made their own classes.

Roswynn wrote:

As for the narratives, yes, in Golarion witches are definitely a narrative that should be explored, since a whole kingdom is ruled by them, and they're an integral part of various cultures. Yes, the summoner is a narrative that should be explored, because Sarkoris was a realm full of summoners and their "little gods", and those traditions still live on.

While true, it's worth remembering that the setting is something that is actively being developed along with the game. If Paizo wants something to be narratively worth exploring or not, they can make it so pretty much at their own discretion.

You say witches need to be explored, but they could just as easily be a spin on wizards or clerics or druids instead of something wholly unique and Paizo has the means to make that work both mechanically and narratively if they wanted to.

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Back in the day of D&D 1e, the GM would weave revelations into the storyline and combat situations -- and did not rely on die rolls.

Doesn't that kind of step on the concept of a character who knows stuff? If there's no mechanical way to reflect it and all information is given to the party only at GM discretion through these revelations, then it seems like you've pretty much invalidated any and all character concepts that involved studied backgrounds. The goblin hunting ranger doesn't know any more about goblins than anyone else. The wizard who studied the magic of lost empires only has information about the ruins being explored when the GM wants to give the players a bit of insight or hook.

This seems comparable to, say, removing stealth checks from the game and only allowing sneaking where the GM thinks it's appropriate (at which point everyone can do it). It might improve gameflow but it makes the sneaky thief kind of a dead archetype unless the GM is willing to throw them a lot of bones.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
So, one thing I really love about this concept is that it's a martial class with "mystical" ability (like the monk) to perform astounding feats of acrobatics, even at early-ish levels, while also wearing armor. It's distinct. I would probably model it after the monk mechanically.

In general I feel like mystical characters that aren't explicitly spellcasters is design space that could be explored more. PF1 has... the monk, shifter and kineticist and that's pretty much it. I think there's a lot more one could do with that concept.

Malk_Content wrote:
I don't want a Marshall class. I want awesome skill feats for the social skills that let you do things you'd want a Marshall to do, Fighter class feats that leverage the idea of being a superior tactician and/or a archetype like the pirate that lets anyone lean into that trope.

I get where you're coming from and I sort of agree, but invariably bolting an idea onto an existing class means you're not likely to get much long term support or fleshed out, fully realized designs.

Like on a surface level I think there's a compelling argument to be made that the PF1 Cavalier, Samurai, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Vigilante and maybe even Monk could and should have all been things you could build with the Fighter instead of their own classes. They're narrow concepts and all kind of build off of 'guy who fights well' anyways.

But at the same time, if that were the case I think most of them would be pretty underdesigned and forgettable. They wouldn't have the same level of support a real class gets. I mean I guess you could make the case about some of them even as they are now, but still.

WatersLethe wrote:
I'm probably biased against it because of the 4E incarnation of the Marshall, the Warlord, was so narrow in scope, that it felt super restrictive.

Really? I always thought the 4e Warlord was one of the best executions of that concept, even a lot of people I know who hate 4e still think it's neat. It even manages to have a few really distinct archetypes you can build into despite its ostensibly narrow scope, from the very bardlike chalord who throws out combat bonuses and temp HP to the more backline intlord that literally orders allies around, to much more aggressive middling builds that act almost like full damage dealers in their own right with a smattering of support.

Though I do agree in general that classes that are too specialized can feel really iffy.

I'll echo the support for a warlord/marshal style character. Though in general I'd like to see more martial characters that care about their mental stats. Smart Fighter was another archetype that was kind of hard to execute in PF1 without adding in magic.

Also think a dedicated synthesist as a sort of re-imagining of the Shifter would be neat.

Beyond that I'd kind of like to see Paizo take another crack at the baseline Summoner. Companion-focused classes that aren't druids or along the same lines as the druid (i.e. PF1's ranger, hunter and various animal companion archetypes) is an underutilized niche and the Summoner's flexibility and conceptual opennness was really nice, even if the PF1 summoner had a lot of mechanical trouble and I think building it into the magical nonspellcaster design space PF2 seems to be exploring a bit might be a way to pull it off more effectively.

QuidEst wrote:

It would be like if you had a PF1 caster that got Fireball... but it did d4s instead of d6s. You need those slots to scale your damage now. Unless the gish class doesn’t use damaging spells, it would take a lot of tinkering to get this working.

Maybe that mechanic needs a look at then instead.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding ‘default’ assumptions. Wizards have always had some melee options. Spells like Transformation or effects like the natural attack from the shapechange subschool of transmutation (or transmutation’s physical buffing school powers in general).

Generally they default assumption is not using them only because they interact poorly with the 3.X model for physical combat. Pathfinder 2e is a chance to not have that problem and make them real choices a wizard could opt for.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
The problem with Magus as a full caster is that unless Wizards suddenly have bonkers good class features, that would basically just make Magus "Wizard with -2 on spell attacks, better weapon and armor proficiency, and better class features".

While potentially true, the problem with the magus as a noncaster is that I worry it won't really feel like a magus.

I love the kineticist and I'd be super down for a sort of arcane re-imagining of PF2's champion somewhere down the road, but those definitely aren't the Magus.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not really a class option but I kinda wish they had explored more design space in terms of racial features and racial attributes. My eyes glazed over trying to count all the various dex/cha offerings the game has while combos like str/int have.. 4 options total? yet for some reason Paizo decided to errata away one of those even

I feel like the game could have used slightly more adventurous design with racial features too. I remember being kind of underwhelmed reading through Blood of the Coven when most of the Changeling heritage features were just situational skill bonuses or incredibly minor perks that might not even come up at all across a whole campaign.

And I get that you don't want to go overboard with those sorts of things but sometimes the end results are so safe and so conservative that they just end up being really boring. Maybe it would be okay if ever racial trait was like that, but some races really do have awesome boons and so these much more minor pickings on the other side always feel kinda bad.

It's not really a matter of power, either, just it dampens the mood a bit when I see an option and end up spending more time trying to remember any time in my history playing Pathfinder I was in a position to leverage that ability than actually thinking about stuff I want to do with it.

Pantshandshake wrote:

but if you look at them as far as the system's view of 'realism,' then they don't make any sense if they interact."

I like to use the parts that make sense, usually. Others might not. Just pointing out that there's a lot of moving parts here, I'd expect significant table variation on most of this.

I'm not sure how realism or what 'makes sense' really comes into play here. A Vesk's custom suit of power armor being built to accommodate/augment their claws seems pretty reasonable from a versimilitudinal standpoint. Whether or not it's kosher with the rules is a little more vague, but it definitely seems like something someone would try to do.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:

Part of the issue you're raising here is that a character without that class feature isn't a hyper-specialist at thing thing.

Which is, legitimately, a design decision that merits some discussion in its own right.

That's sort of the rub, isn't it?

Skill checks seem to be based around optimization, but at the same time that optimization is basically free if you pick the right class. A mystic who wants a high Mysticism skill only has to spend skillpoints. Everything else they get either automatically for picking the right class, or are things they'd do anyways like pumping their wisdom. Meanwhile a Soldier who wants to be good at the same skill is investing two feats and pouring resources into bumping what's essentially a tertiary stat for them and is still going to be rolling in the 'don't bother' range, despite going much further out of their way to be good at that skill.

It's sort of the weird paradox of Starfinder. Ostensibly keeping a tight reign on bonuses compared to all the esoteric ways to boost checks Pathfinder has allows for tighter and cleaner balancing, but it has the effect of meaning that if you can't access what boosters DO exist, you're basically SoL. So on the surface the Soldier looks like they don't have all the issues with skills that Fighters struggle with, but in practice it's even harder for them to go out of their designated wheelhouse.

Stephen Sheahan wrote:
You activate it as an immediate action but it remains active, at level 11, for 11 hours.... that seems unnecessary if it is only for a single check.

It would be if it worked that way, but I'm not sure that interpretation makes a lot of sense. I mean, you said so yourself. That's kind of an argument against your own reading of the ability.

for anyone taking the position "a check" means a single check, doesn't the phrase "An engineer can create a mechanism that affects attack rolls or saving throws, but she expends 2 uses from her inspiration pool to do so" mean more than one attack roll by using the s?

Not really. Inspiration uses the exact same wording and I've never seen anyone argue that a single use of Inspiration effects multiple attack rolls.

No GM in their right mind would let you build rooms full over several days and just use them as needed for each situation - but it's not explicitly excluded by the phrasing.

No, but you are excluded by the duration. You can never have more than a day's worth of them because the longest they can ever last is 20 hours.

they can be activated at any time but retain the expended inspiration pool until used or the engineer disables the mech.

What does retain the expended inspiration pool mean? You're not investing points, you're spending them like normal, just in such a way that allows someone else to gain the benefits later.

although I'd allow inactive ones to be carried

That's pretty explicitly against the text of the skill. Even twisting wording as much as possible I don't see a way around "a creature can only have one mechanism at a time."

A check means a check. Just one. I don't see any way to read 'a' as 'every'.

Any creature means.. any creature. Any creature can activate the mechanism as an immediate action to gain the bonus to one check. Again I don't see a way to read any as all here, especially when the idea of a radius is never even implied.

Effectively the investigator gains the ability to give an ally one use of inspiration with the caveats that it has to be prepared ahead of time, requires an immediate action to activate and has a timer on how long you can wait before using it, with the side benefit of being able to bank extra inspiration at the end of the day once you're past level 11.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the OP that class feats are a good way to go. Having some generic options would be fine, but the best way to tailor a good gish that isn't just a fighter with spell slots or a wizard with better melee attacks has to be done with specific features built with the options available to a given class or character in mind. That's what made Paizo's partial-casters so good (mostly) and what makes EKs so comparatively boring.

Regarding armor... It feels like a big thrust of 2e is giving players flexibility in defining who their character is through mechanical options, all the different flavors of feats and other choices seem specifically tailored around that idea of granular customization.

Given that, tying ANY class feature to a specific type of armor seems needlessly restrictive. If the problem then becomes that one type of armor is the winning choice or that the different classes of armor start to lose distinctiveness, then maybe the armor system needs another look in general.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
I wonder if actually more than one entity survived from the previous multiverse, but doesn't want its true origin to be known.

What if those are the LHfB? They're not otherworldly terrors of unknown origin, they're the survivors of the last universe and Pharasma just locked them out (possibly along with things from the cycle before that if this keeps happening).

Melkiador wrote:
5E was really a move back closer to 3E

Not sure I agree. 5e is more like a move back toward OD&D in terms of a lot of its themes, just done in a way using more modern design principles.

In a lot of ways 4e and 3e are much closer together than 5e and 3e are.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

(*)Where is our Harrowed Medium anyway?

You're right. Where the hell is it?

I don't really like the way Golarion does gods. I feel like they're simultaneously too disconnected from the mundane world to really deal with but too close to it for them to really feel godlike either.

If there were fewer of them, they were more powerful and more concretely dominated their portfolios I think it could be interesting to explore how different cultures and societies interpret a deity and generally reframe them more as aspects and concepts.
If they were weaker and more numerous then you could have complex pantheons and more plot hooks surrounding them and they could much more effectively engage with the world without it feeling problematic.

As it is they're too strong to effectively set up scenarios in which they can be meaningfully interacted with, but not omnipresent or influential enough to really feel like they exist beyond mortal comprehension either.

On top of that they're all too, human might be the wrong word because a lot of them aren't human, but too approachable, I think. Too much like regular characters.

They end up coming across more as a bunch of really powerful people who could ruin your day and reshape societies if they want to but don't.

It kind of reminds me of my friend's GMPCs back when I was playing D&D in high school.

Rysky wrote:
Um, Aroden's death was the herald that prophecies don't work anymore on Golarion, so all prophecies are "affected" by his death.

While true in universe, from our perspective the 'broken' prophecies in Golarion aren't that different from regular prophecies in other fantasy fiction. For that matter, the broken human societies don't look all that different from other fantasy fiction either. So we're told this event has so many dire consequences but what we see is pretty much standard high fantasy and I think that makes it feel a little irrelevant or unimportant.

Cydeth wrote:
Not to say you can't rule it otherwise, that's why home games have GMs, after all! It's just not how it works in-setting.

That's a really important bit of information to bury inside a description block in an AP.

breithauptclan wrote:
I can't think of any good books or movies where the heroes don't experience setbacks or have to change plans fairly regularly.

Usually in those stories those setbacks and changes are externally driven, not caused because the hyperspecialist character written into the story just can't perform their own tasks.

And even when it is, usually that failure is a driver for some other plot point, not a routine occurrence (at 60% failure isn't going to be that rare and, again, someone who doesn't have that class feature is going to be sitting at 50 or 40% more likely, even with heavy optimization).

That's not to say you can't tell stories that way, but I'd assume a story where the master lockpick constantly fails to unlock doors is closer to slapstick than Starfinder's normal tone.

I realize that my way of playing the game isn't the only way to do it. But I seriously don't understand this craving for having characters be able to practically auto-succeed at things.

It's a little ridiculous to try to twist someone thinking that maybe it should be okay to build someone who's good at certain skill without being pigeonholed into very specific optimization paths or that heavily optimized characters should probably be pretty good at the thing they're optimized to do into demanding character should auto-succeed at everything.

I kinda hope Treerazer gets a different name. Treerazer sounds too mundane to me. I could see like, a level 9 orc warlord named Orok Treerazer or something who famously burned some elven village and the forest it was in to the ground and serves as a BBEG for a mid-level campaign, maybe.

Not so much as the title for an apocalyptic threat and ostensibly the strongest statted creature in the game.

MaxAstro wrote:
More to the point, I'd like the tarrasque to come accompanied with enough lore and interesting hooks to give a compelling reason to actually use the thing.

How would you do that? The stuff that makes the Tarrasque bland are also kind of its core themes. It's a big dumb killing machine that just runs around hurting things. Trying to patch up its mechanical weaknesses and thematic shortfallings feels like it would invariably leave the monster unrecognizable.

And at that point you might as well get rid of it, which seems like a good answer to me because I feel like the only real claim to fame it has is being the defacto punching bag for CharOp.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
ITd also explain why they get all bound up when people express doubt that pf2 is going to be much of a success

Then we might as well assume you were sent here by WOTC, right?

Melkiador wrote:
They are both streamlined/simplified mid-fantasy RPGs[...]At least PF1 had the advantage of being more complex with more options to distinguish itself.

PF2 is still significantly more complex and mechanically involved than 5e. It seems really bizarre to make this assertion that because they both tried to streamline some stuff they're essentially the same, nevermind the radical differences in the granularity and direction of that simplification.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope in the final product your Thesis ends up being a really big deal in how you play your character.

IMO one of the weaknesses of PF1 (and most D&D to some extent) is that unless you were intentionally doing something oddball most wizards (and sorcerers for that matter) tended to rapidly converge on each other as you leveled up and trying to keep a tight theme across your caster's spell list got increasingly hard as the game progressed.

More options to specialize and flavor them always felt like the one thing wizards (and sorcerers in PF1) really needed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
What do we call a elf+orc?

I kind of want to play an elforc now (sometimes referred to derogatorily as forks).

7 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
since PF2 has done away with less-than-full casters.

That is such a strange thing to read, given that most places I talk about the game online seem to agreed that Paizo's strength was in writing its 2/3rds casters.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Our Sorcerer (imperial) / Champion (redeemer) of Falayna in War for the Crown is doing really well so far. Excellent spells, credible melee, great protection, and even healing. She has a lot of champion feats, enough to branch archetypes, and is likely to wind up with some bard or monk too.

But do those features combine and mix with each other? Or just complement the other half?

IMO The thing that made PF1's gishes the most interesting were the mechanics designed to combine magical and mundane aspects, with spell combat/spellstrike obviously being the most blatant example.

So even if the Sorc/Champ is mechanically amazing, I feel like if it's something that just sometimes casts spells and sometimes smacks things with a sword it's a step backwards in terms of overall design.

Nerdy Canuck wrote:

That's not "as good as it gets", because that's not even level 20.

For that level bracket it is. Contrast, for example, with trying to build a soldier who wants to identify magic and those numbers rapidly start to become pretty pathetic even with investment because you're not going to have lore and your stat likely isn't going to be nearly as high either.

I feel like as a frontline fighter who's hard to take down the Vanguard does a good job living up to its name.

But I will say there's some dissonance in my head between my mental image of a big, powerful wall charging into the fray and the prototypical SF Vanguard which is essentially a lightly armored, highly agile battlemage instead.

that could just be me though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
That's +32, so you only need an 8.

An 8's not terrible, but given the context I think it's a bit sketchy. The kit you're describing is basically as good as it gets. So this person is literally the best anyone in the universe can possibly be at identifying spells and they only have a 6 in 10 chance of success.

And if you don't have Techlore/Channel it's much worse.

I know you said they're a core part of the system assumptions, but I think it's a serious flaw with the system when it's is built around the assumption that you need to be a certain class in order to effectively perform a skill.

The baseline for way too many checks in SF assumes extreme specialization as the default.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:

Check out the blog post

Designing the Starfinder Beginner Box

That talks about changes being made for accessibility and user friendliness, but stuff like changing damage dice or making a skill give +3 instead of +4 don't really seem like issues of usability either.

John Compton wrote:

Absalom Station is pretty good, but I'd take it out of the top billing because it doesn't have enough places to run or lie low. The Stewards and size make it a tricky place to do crime.

Isn't having a giant, almost completely unmanageable criminal underbelly like, one of the main features of Absalom Station? I remember rampant gangs being a big feature of one of the early parts of the first AP.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
The developers of 5E never tried to create a "balanced" game. And yet they're taking the market by storm.

I dunno about that. Keeping a tight leash on numbers and player capabilities is a core feature of 5e's design philosophy. The game certainly has its issues, but it's easily the might tightly regulated and tuned game the franchise has ever had.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
The mistake Paizo made was making those rules the default for all campaigns.

The rule was essentially already the default for all campaigns given the way the Spellcraft skill works. Unless you can't see the caster, if they cast a spell you get to make a check to identify it. That's been the rule since 2009.

"Visual manifestations" is just a way of justifying how someone in-universe knows to identify a spell in the first place if it doesn't have components.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Enchantment and Divination kind of bug me for reasons people have previously stated. They both can be very disruptive to campaigns or promote combative GM-Player relationships when the GM tries to turn off the player's magic or the player uses those spells to subvert plot points. Way too often I see games that have ended up with GMs either struggling to play around those spells and accommodate the player or the player end up frustrated because they keep getting shut down.

MrCharisma wrote:
How does it make sense that Cure Light Wounds is Conjuration but Inflict Light Wounds is Necromancy? When you get to higher level spells like RAISE DEAD are REALLY stretching the definition of "conjuration".

It feels like at some point during the development of 3.X it was decided that instead of having a cohesive theme as a school of magic, Necromancy was to have a cohesive theme in representing a character archetype.

So even though CLW and Raise are totally within the purview of life and death, they have to go because they're not things evil mages in graveyards do and instead the bulk of the school's spells are things a spooky necromancer would use like Cause Fear, Enfeeblement and Raise Dead, nevermind that altering someone's emotions with magic is basically the description of the Enchantment school and Enfeeblement sort of looks like the debuff equivalent of all those transmutation spells that change stats.

DeathlessOne wrote:
I'm just more direct in saying that people who think they are "doing good" by manipulating negative energy are, at best, delusional.

Why? Doing 1d6 damage to someone via negative energy doesn't seem any intrinsically more or less evil than doing the same damage with fire or electricity or sword.

It feels circular. It's evil, because it's evil... because it's evil.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
If your character dies from hit point damage, is that fun? If not, should we remove player character death entirely? Would that be more fun?

It seems a little absurd to try to twist "It's not fun to have nothing to do for extended periods of time" into "Nothing bad should ever happen to PCs ever obviously".

Outside a few games specifically themed around resource management and survival I've had very few games bother to track ammunition.

Searching is something I've seen ignored a lot too, whether it's searching a room like the above poster mentioned or searching for traps, a lot of GMs I've seen tend to just handle everything with passive perception checks, or, at most passive perception checks that prompt more thorough perception checks.

While definitely not 'never' I've had a surprisingly large number of GMs and players forget that you need trapfinding to disarm magical traps with a skill.

Slim Jim wrote:
Mounted archers may be of the opinion that they're always entitled to a full-attack even if their animal moves more than 5'. Actually, they're usually not.

It feels a little disingenuous to slip this in as if it were a 'reminder' of an obvious yet forgotten rule when it's clear from the thread you link yourself that it's at best vague and contentious.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMO the job would be better done by a hybrid class style project, combining martial gunplay with bombs and alchemist style casting in some fashion.

Gun-wielding archetypes tend to be notoriously incomplete anyways.

LazarX wrote:
And alchemists are just not a good thematic fit.

Yeah, how do you bridge the gap between a class built around the idea of mixing chemicals and throwing bombs with a class built around using a weapon that relies on explosive compounds to launch projectiles.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Biological determinism has iffy implications for PC appropriate things. Like "you are simply suited to one kind of thing because of a genetic configuration" isn't a fun fantasy to indulge in.

It doesn't quite fit the OP's brief because it's fluff based (and mental dimorphism, not physical) but Starfinder's Akitonian lizardfolk (Ikeshti?) have a pretty creepy level of biological determinism built into their reproductive cycle, with them basically as a rule going into all consuming mating frenzies that invariably end in murdering their mate and undergoing a radical personality shift based on their sex (or turning into a giant monster if they can't find a reproductive partner).

I'm honestly a little surprised that race even exists.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
As for tone, in a high action/adventure story, heroes tossing a powerful weapon back and forth to take turns striking an enemy is fine. But some people prefer games with a more grim, serious tone, and that sort of thing doesn't really fit.

Honest question, what about letting someone borrow your weapon breaks grim or serious overtures?

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm scratching my head at why this is a problem that needs to be addressed at all.

Like seriously what's so wrong about this? There's a cost associated with doing it and it makes sense mechanically, narratively and actually gives the players who otherwise wouldn't be able to something they can do in the round.

It seems fine

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The first page of this thread really left me scratching my head. Too complicated? Bosses being deadlier is a bad thing?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I always thought the druid restrictions were the goofiest. You could have a benevolent druid or an honorable druid but a druid who's both benevolent AND honorable? A sin even greater than wearing metal armor.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:

Exactly - I don't even need to see truly "bounded" accuracy - finding cool treasures and specializing IS the fun of the game... but I also prefer to keep my PCs mortal.
E6 works perfectly fine without turning all 20 levels into E6. Or E10, or E12, or E15, or wherever the cutoff point is for your preferences.

So much this. Power levels are already handled by... levels. If your sweet spot is level 5 challenges, that's awesome!

Trying to force people who like level 15 challenges to play like their character's level 5 not so much.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:

sooo much easier and not complicated at all /sarcasm

Not sure why the sarcasm tag is there. XP based on APL and CR is easy and not at all complicated.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, for me the whole point of a new system is to be able to divest itself of the baggage of the old and make something better because of it.

So I'm going to be looking at areas where I think PF1 is weak: High level play in general, versatility and flexibility for non-casters, action economy (regarding attacks in particular), blasting, feat trees, very low level play, etc.

Then beyond that I just want to see how flexible core is. How far I can stretch each class, whether or not I can build a functional battle mage since there's no magus-equivalent in core, etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:

While I can understand that, I must say that I'd probably immediately lose interest in the game, if there was no mundane class to play anymore. I love to play in highly magical worlds with relatively down-to-earth characters (relatively because even the mundane classes can do some amazing things ingame that a normal human being wouldn't be able to do), and I can happily accept that magic is stronger than the sword. As a point of comparison, in a Pathfinder MArvel game, I'd want to play street level characters like those from the Netflix series, but I'd probably not play one of the Avengers' powerhouses. I do not care so much if someone else does that, but if I'm forced to do this, as I said I lose interest pretty soon.

It's also why I don't like partaking in games with more than a small amount of optimizing. Because in order to keep up with my fellow co-players (especially when that's expected), I have to build a character that I'm not interested in and I'd rather not do that.

Isn't that kind of the point of levels? If you don't like high level activities, stay away from high level play and this seems like a problem that sorts itself out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unified or not unified. Bounded or not bounded, I think what I want to see out of a skill system:

  • A meaningful gap in efficacy between specialists and non-specialists. If you're good at something it should feel like it compared to someone who doesn't. 5e has issues sometimes where tight bounding often means good rolls trump investment and that never feels good.

  • NO meaningful gap in efficacy between two specialists. Starfinder has this problem where scaling in-class skill bonuses mean that certain classes shouldn't even bother with certain skills because another class will literally always do it better

  • Meaningful choice in how you specialize. Sort of ties into the previous point but also a general issue I've seen in 4e and 5e with skill proficiency. Two rogues shouldn't have extremely similar skill sets simply by nature of being rogues and likewise a Fighter shouldn't be barred from optimizing a skill just because they're a Fighter.

    Moveover, you need to actually be able to invest in the first place.

  • Specialists should feel good at what they do, but not make content irrelevant either. This is hard to do, but you want a specialist to feel good at their job and be able to tackle challenges regularly, but you don't want hyperspecialists to necessarily be unable to fail either, especially when opposed by other specialists.

  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    The Sideromancer wrote:
    Why is this a problem that needs to be solved?

    The problem is that in order to combat dipping Paizo has nudged a lot of really important abilities back to level 3-4 which makes low level play really really really unfun for certain classes or archetypes.

    The biggest problem here imo isn't dipping, it's the stuff Paizo's already done to combat dipping and how it can negatively impact gameplay.

    What people seem to be missing here from the OP is that 'delay the cool feature until level 4' is already a big part of PF's class design. The OP's suggestion is just being able to get rid of that for your first class. There's nothing anti-dipping there at all.

    8 people marked this as a favorite.

    Poor balance and a lack of bounded accuracy aren't necessarily the same thing though. To-hit numbers can get screwy in 5e too, after all.

    Stone Dog wrote:

    It is a feature for big heroes to be able to endure the hardship of the elements, sure.

    It is a bug for big heroes to cease caring about hostile environments completely.

    Disagree completely. It's perfectly okay for powerful characters to eventually be able to trivialize lower end problems.

    In fact I find it more disruptive to my verisimilitude to have it the other way. Let low level challenges stay behind at low levels.

    My favorite things about 5e:
    Scaling cantrips
    Extra attacks instead of full attacks
    Full casting bards

    The way the system kneecaps character building though is a huge buzzkill and I hope PF2 stays as far away from any flavor of that as possible.

    I think the opposite approach would have been better. Making every spell scale completely improves longevity for casters and de-emphasizes the need for ultra high powered late game spells.

    But I guess I'll try it out before I judge too harshly.

    The Purity of Violence wrote:
    Well you could actually BUY the product, then you would have access to it. I mean if you actually own it, why do you care if its online, you can just check your own copy.

    I own a decent handful of pathfinder books, but when I want to reference something in the ACG I’m going to go to AoN before my actual copy. So not really.

    Probably comparable to Starfinder, perhaps a bit less given that PF is inherently a bit more generic.

    But since it's so easy to strip the setting out of Starfinder that shouldn't be a problem for PF2 either.

    1 to 50 of 1,371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>