Valeros

Ssalarn's page

247 posts. Alias of Michael Sayre (Organized Play Developer).


RSS

1 to 50 of 247 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:


If we were playing playing a strategy game or a shooter or fighting game or whatever, the argument that certain guns, factions or characters should intentionally be bad so that good players could feel better about themselves when a new player naively decides to use one you'd probably get a lot of weird looks.

This is actually an extremely good example because you can directly map it to examples in other games.

For example, in the first Destiny game there was a rocket launcher called the Gjallarhorn that was far and away the best rocket launcher in the game. Since this was a weapon initially only obtainable by RNG, the only ways to get it were to either be very lucky or to ground for countless hours. This rocket launcher was so powerful that soon groups would start posting for raids with disclaimers like "Gjallarhorn only"; they didn't want to play with anyone who didn't have it because there were "easy mode" strategies that were only possible with this super powerful gun. Ultimately this was damaging to the community and Bungee first released a patch where anyone could get it by performing a certain quest (the video game equivalent of a TTRPG guide), and then removed it from the game altogether, because a weapon that was so powerful it warped the intended design of the game was just not something worth keeping around.

Magic the Gathering intentionally prints bad cards for a variety of reasons; sometimes they're better in legacy, sometimes they do exist just to reward system mastery, and mostly they exist to boost sales since they take up space in a pack that might otherwise be occupied by a useful card. That makes sense in an environment built around competitive collectibles.

Both of those games have competitive elements (which Pathfinder does not), which means that a certain amount of mechanical inequity is to be expected; they need to drive you to play more, because doing so is the only way to collect the best stuff. Pathfinder doesn't share that element though. Everyone has access to the same books and the same options, and the players are cooperating together, not competing against each other. Trap options and intentionally subpar options don't really add anything to the environment except gatekeeping tools for gaming "elitists". There's no value in my cleric maybe not being able to tackle the same encounters as my wizard, or my fighter not being able to fight the same monsters as my rogue. I'd argue the opposite is true, that any dynamic where one player's system mastery has them playing a fundamentally different game than another player is bad for the hobby as a whole. It leads to decades of forum arguments, loss of players in the community, and it can be particularly bad for business as the things that players at one end of the curve want becoming increasingly divorced from the things players at the other end of the curve want.

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Minigiant wrote:

When building a Vital Strike build what are the pros and cons between the aformentioned weapons

  • Butchering Axe
  • Bastard Sword

A Large Butchering axe is 4D6 vs the Large Bastard swords 2D8

TLDR If you have the Strength and a method to wield it, the butchering axe will pretty consistently be much more powerful than a bastard sword.

Notably, a Large butchering axe is a three-handed weapon for a medium character (and thus unwieldable without additional mechanics) while a Large bastard sword is a two-handed weapon for a medium character with Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword), so there's fewer hoops to jump through on the bastard sword side.

You're going to spend a feat on EWP either way, so it comes down to what the rest of your build is. Butchering axe is better in many ways because it's frankly not a balanced weapon; "must have a 19 STR" is no more a balancing factor than "deal 2d6 extra damage with knives but can only wield knives"—if you're using it, of course you're going to take the steps necessary to use it. So from a raw "I want to whack the bejeezus out of something" standpoint, if you have the ability to wield a Large butchering axe, it's going to be better than the bastard sword. The difference is in the resources you spend to get there.

If you want to wield a Large butchering axe, you need to also have an archetype, item, or race that allows you to do that, while all you need for the bastard sword is the EWP feat. As long as playing one of those options doesn't conflict with what you were already doing, the butchering axe is better (especially on a Vital Strike build where you're making fewer attacks and thus the individual per-hit value is going to be notably more significant than the amortized value of the bastard sword's greater crit range).

If your build is markedly improved by having e.g. a human bonus feat at 1st level or using an archetype that doesn't grant you the ability to wield Large weapons by default, then you'll need to start breaking down the cost of resources you're spending on grabbing that last piece vs. the benefit you'd get by just going with the bastard sword and having that extra resource available. Also, if for some reason you're going with a race that doesn't get a bump to STR, then the -2 on the butchering axe (combined with any other penalties you may end up taking for wielding an oversized weapon) can be pretty crippling.

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Sure. But where the heck are all these Leshy players coming from that they manage to outnumber players of aasimar, tieflings, kitsune, tengu, ratfolk, etc, etc.

One thing to consider is that this book is part of the series still focused on the Inner Sea region. Kitsune, tengu, and ratfolk are more strongly associated with Tian Xia. Hobgoblins were heavily featured in an AP that changed the course of the Inner Sea and now occupy their own nation in the center of it. Lizardfolk have been becoming more prominent parts of Inner Sea society as cultures that oppressed or ostracized them have lost some of their grip on international politics. I'm not sure where all the leshys came from (I assume it's actually either really horrific and part of some plot by Dark Tapestry cultists or a completely accidental effect of certain events in Tyrant's Grasp), but presumably the reason all three ancestries were chosen is that they're relevant to the current state of the Inner Sea in a significant way. Just because something popular didn't show up in this specific book doesn't mean that it won't show up somewhere in a more appropriate book.

Paizo Employee

Jhyarelle wrote:
But isn't the hand crossbow the exception to the rule?

It is not. A hand crossbow is a ranged weapon you can wield in one hand while taking two-weapon fighting penalties as if attacking with two light weapons, which is not the same as it being a One-Handed or Light Weapon. Pathfinder can get a little weird that way.

Quote:


If at all by weight a pistol is only 1 lb heavier than a hand-crossbow and thus really should have the same exemption.

From a game perspective: Things only do what they say they do. Just because a kind-of-similar thing acts one way doesn't mean a different thing does as well. Game balance is pretty complex.

From a "but in the real world" perspective: The last thing in the world you generally want to do if you're hoping for accuracy is lighten a gun. A gun's weight is part of what helps balance recoil and lightening it would actually make it harder to aim, not easier. A black-powder pistol actually has significantly more recoil than a hand crossbow (which granted is more of a fantasy weapon than a practical-use thing that saw much real-world application) would have.

Quote:


Sorry for the side track. The main query is, is it possible to use dual pistols as standard action?

Not with Flash Attack. Because Flash Attack references "two light weapons" it is melee exclusive. You could use a double-barreled pistol, which allows you to fire both barrels as a standard action, you could use the Leaping Shot deed which allows you to move and fire each firearm you are wielding as a full-round action, the Black Powder Vaulter archetype allows you to attack twice with firearms while using the Shot On The Run deed, and there's probably a couple other ways to get in that ballpark. Just not those particular feats from your original post.

Paizo Employee

You can't make ranged weapons light because the light designation only applies to melee weapons.

"Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons
This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon."

There's no such thing as a light ranged weapon by default.

Paizo Employee

22 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the things to note is broader examples of failing forward, rather than the narrower "locked door that always opens" analogy.

A massive mountain range bars the path forward. The PCs fail their check to avoid triggering the avalanche and now the way is impassable, so instead they have to cut through the goblin infested mines. That's a fail forward.

The PCs need to confront a vicious pirate king who's been terrorizing the coastal regions, but when they try to jump his mate, they get their booty handed to them and wake up in the brig of the pirate king's ship. That's a fail forward.

The PCs are sent to hunt a dragon terrorizing the forests near a town, but they utterly bomb the survival check to find it. That night they find the dragon as it murders half the town and makes off with their reward money, leaving a more visible trail to follow back to its lair as it flies off with a leaking bag of coins.

So on and so forth.

A fail forward is simply any point in the story where the PCs failing to accomplish a thing is rewarded with "Instead of X, Y happens."

The only times you're not going to have fail forward points in an adventure is if it's so sandboxy that the thing you were trying to do didn't really matter to your overall goals anyways or when failing the check or task is rewarded by the GM saying "OK, great game everyone, the lich wins, you're all dead, and its Sam's turn to GM."

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:


The difference with the Pirate, which you like using for your example, is that things like Sea Legs were on the same level of power as a skill feat of that level, but you had to take it with a class feat. So you were downgrading because you wanted that archetype. So things like that would possibly be archetype feats that could be grabbed with a skill feat slot.

Pirate is also something that the design team has mentioned in some of their interviews and such as being a thing that spurred other thoughts, like the possibility that even if something is an archetype feat, that shouldn't necessarily preclude it from taking a skill feat instead of a class feat if that's really what the ability it grants is. So even Pirate isn't the best example in this instance since they were still in the process of nailing down how archetypes worked when that was released.

Paizo Employee

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Mostly because people enjoy it and are willing to pay money for it.

New classes expand the game. Almost every class, good or bad, pushed the rules out a little further and added new options to tell stories and affect play.

Plus PF1 multiclassing often sucked (YMMV) and even a not great class could be fun to play if it exactly what you wanted to play.

Also because the more unique classes you have in a game, the harder it is to support all of them. Since most/all of the hybrid classes had some shared feature with one or more of their parent classes, they were able to tap into the options that had already been published for those abilities and new abilities could support multiple classes. If you're looking at e.g. a 32 page splatbook and you know that at least half of those pages are already spoken for in art and story elements, you either need to start deciding who doesn't get support or try to find a way to make the options you can fit applicable to as many classes as possible. That's one of the big dangers of having too many classes in your system: you could end up dividing your own customer base or forcing yourself into a situation where you know you have to make books that some of your audience likely won't buy because you couldn't fit their favorite thing in.

Paizo Employee

Loreguard wrote:

Auras and being able to grant bonus actions to key allies might be enough. Actually, it might be like granting teamwork feats, granting your allies access to some set of circumstantial bonuses they can apply. Options might be something as simple as getting a +1 to hit if two allies threaten a particular opponent no matter if they are flanking or not (potentially boosting the normal flanking bonus for them by +1 if they are flanking). Or it might grant any one of the allies the ability to utilize an AoO reaction, if the Officer gives up their reaction, as well as the reacting individual. If any of these abilities that are granted seem kind of powerful they might require either the Ally or the Officer, or even both to use up their reactions to trigger it.

So Aura's would become tactical teamwork abilities that would be largely conditional and the Officer would learn new ones as they advance in levels, and they can teach a certain number to their allies, and as long as the Officer is leading them, they can utilize whichever one(s) are currently made active by the officer.

If you're still playing PF1, you might find this to be of interest.

Or also possibly this.

Paizo Employee

Arachnofiend wrote:
For the record I am of the opinion that Surprising Strategy is rather underwhelming as an 11th level feat - most of the new feats are, with the super interesting Eldritch Knight options as a major exception.

It's better than Quick Dirty Trick even before you count in the fact that it also offers disarm and sunder options, has no prereqs beyond the class feature, and is a free action rider on a thing you want to do every round anyways. Outside of key build feats that require a robust expenditure of other resources (Shield Master, Coordinated Charge) it's pretty much the best thing you could be spending a feat on. Dirty trick works on everything and disarm and sunder are both situational but can also completely flip an encounter when they matter. Even with CMD scaling being what it is, you'll generally have a better chance of landing that full bonus maneuver than you will of landing the -12 to -14 third off-hand attack from Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. Blinding, deafening, or disarming an opponent can all effectively end the threat the opponent poses and there's no real limit to the number of times you can do this.

Paizo Employee

Attacks of Opportunity are as strong as your ability to trigger them, which can vary a lot between builds. There are some builds that can handily surpass a full attack primarily by chaining together AoOs with different triggers, or by effectively threatening so much territory that it becomes all but impossible to perform any action that can trigger an AoO (including movement) without suddenly having a character in the creature's face smacking it down.

Swashbuckler in general is a class that can feel powerful by virtue of its array of options, but about 1/3 of its class features are actually mutually exclusive and block each other out. Its damage also isn't actually that impressive compared to a barbarian or fighter (especially if you're two-weapon fighting and losing your precise strike bonus damage.)

To the build- Swashbucklers can't actually take Surprising Strategy. It requires the Riposte class feature which the Duelist has but the Swashbuckler does not. Normally you wouldn't be able to take Surprising Strategy until 11th level. So that could be negatively impacting things if you're using an 11th level feat as a 7th level character. A free disarm, sunder, or dirty trick on your riposte is incredibly good; at least one of those will always be useful and when using the correct maneuver against the correct opponent, you can end a fight right there. Dirty Trick as a free rider in particular is very good because normally you can't perform a Dirty Trick in place of an attack and combining it with a full attack + parry and riposte is significant, far more powerful than something like Improved or Greater Two-Weapon Fighting which is just giving you an extra attack on a full attack (and maybe catching you up to the damage you gave up by being a two-weapon fighting swashbuckler in the first place.)

Paizo Employee

7 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I feel we could really use a full on diplomacy-based class that ISN'T magical.

[...]

Now if you're looking for non-magic buffs, I don't know. The game is based on just about everything being a spell. You'd most likely need a skill feat to gain such an ability and rogue is looking good for that.

Theoretically the framework for a warlord/marshal/envoy type character already exists in the game (or at least the playtest). Characters with animal companions already spend an action to grant their animal companion actions; a class feat for a two-action ability with the verbal trait could say something like "You harangue your ally into action. The target gains one bonus action that that they must immediately use to Stride or Strike." Low level feats would need to have action economy slightly skewed like that (since having the barbarian who's already in the enemy's face take a free whack at them is probably more efficient than having the envoy-type run up and strike), but you could use cooldowns and conditions for more powerful abilities.

From there you've got a framework you can use for any number of tactical abilities, even complex tactical maneuvers. And it would be vastly superior from an ease of use and usability standpoint since it would take the place of teamwork feats but not require party-wide buy-in. The class feats themselves would probably make the multiclass archetype extremely exciting as well; "battle herald" bard builds that combine tactical feats and cantrips would be a glorious addition to any group.

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Also abilities that had a special rule concerning all of that type but wasn't repeated in the text of said abilities every single time.

Betrayal feats were leapt to my mind. The clarifying rules text is on the site but not on the same page as the feats, which can still cause confusion. I can recall a specific (non organized play) instance of someone being vocally upset because they had taken a betrayal feat on their inquisitor without actually reading the expanded rules for how betrayal feats work. Suffice it that while the player was perfectly happy thinking he could grab his allies and use them as shields, he was less thrilled to realize that the feat actually only allowed his allies to use him as a shield.

Tangential, in addition to Paizo products I've written a lot of 3pp sourcebooks and I occasionally get questions from people where it's very obvious they're working from an incomplete or differently organized online rules source and haven't ever actually looked at the book itself, because the answer to their question is literally in a prominent sidebar, the first paragraph of the section where the rules element(s) are presented, or a similarly accessible location. Or where the item in question was corrected in errata before the book even went to print and is clear in its function to anyone with an actual copy of the rules source.

Even in home games I tend to ask my players to use an actual rules source (either the print product or PDF) when creating their characters and save the digital tools for error checking (in the case of something like Hero Labs) or quick reference at the table.

Paizo Employee

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Please keep what book items are from on a chronicle. It helps at venues where there is spotty / no computer access. It helps with those players that like to play, but aren't computer literate. They do exist.

It can also be really helpful for assisting people who are computer literate but don't realize that sites they find like e.g. d20pfsrd aren't actually reliable rules sources since that site has to rename and rework any feat that references Paizo IP. If someone tries to take a feat called Battlesmasher with a prerequisite of "Must worship a god who grants the War domain" thinking "Oh man, this would be great for my Iomedaean fighter and it's from a legal source" without actually looking at said legal source, they might not realize that the feat is actually called "Gorum's Smash" and the prerequisite is "Must worship Gorum", meaning it's actually not a legal feat for their character. Considering that Paizo has said they're going to infuse more of Golarion into their rules elements, it's likely that such sites are only going to become even less reliable going forward, so getting people into the habit of recording and referencing the proper rules source could help avoid confusion and frustration that could be created by someone trying to use Google as their primary rules reference without being familiar with some of the nuances of the gaming environment.

Paizo Employee

8 people marked this as a favorite.
zimmerwald1915 wrote:
What are you on about? D&D parties are motivated by loot and plunder, not principle.

Fortunately, the Pathfinder parties tend to hold themselves to a higher standard ;)

The meta reality of Golarion is that it trends towards powerful heroes rising up, and typically it takes a global threat like Tar-Baphon to actually trim those numbers. Cheliax is fairly familiar with what happens when one of these groups of walking atomic bombs crops up; totally aside from the particulars of canon in any given AP, Razmir is the constant reminder to the entire Inner Sea that any high level character can just start claiming territory until they run into a sufficiently dense number of other high level characters, or a coalition of lower level characters whose numbers give them superior resources to leverage. This is a setting where, canonically, a not-even-20th-level wizard just said "I'm a god" and then flexed enough magic that everyone else just went "Whatever you say, your holiness."

Given that Thrune's own resources have been battered and taxed, their most complacent vassal state (and the territory containing some of their most viable and prosperous trade routes) has never fully recovered from being ravaged by goblins, and that a militant hobgoblin nation now sits astride the trade route to the now-relatively peaceful northern nations that they've been selling war supplies to for over a decade, any expansionist attempts by Cheliax would be hilariously high-risk. They'd be initiating conflict from a position of weakness when their own resources are tenuous and they've already suffered significant losses to high level characters at least twice in the last decade, as well as dealing with internal conflict related to the existence of legitimate heirs who some still might see as viable successors to lead an overthrow against Thrune. A military conflict against Ravounel risks Thrune's grip on the throne at a time where even the Chelish nobility who don't particularly mind worshipping the king of devils might be contemplating a change in regime.

Abrogail is smart enough and experienced enough to bide her time before trying to bring Ravounel back into the fold, in part because she's been around long enough to know that "4-8 humanoids who are each the martial equivalent of a small army" is a potential setback any conqueror needs to be prepared to face. Meanwhile, Ravounel has nearly unrestricted access to the vast wealth and prosperity that can be derived from having nearly unrestricted trade access to Varisia and New Thassilon (and far more people interested in Cheliax remaining weak than in seeing Abrogail consolidate her power and return to conquest.)

Paizo Employee

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Virellius wrote:

My BIG disagree with this is that I never found '-2 to your dex is a -1 to your dex related rolls' to be hard.

'You take a minus 6 to your strength from the symbol of weakness! that's a -3 on attack and damage rolls!' is pretty simple.

Did you also remember to adjust your Climb and Swim bonuses, CMB, and CMD? When you took that Dex penalty did you remember to adjust your initiative, Reflex saves, Armor Class (don't forget how this affects your touch and flat-footed), CMB, and CMD? And don't forget that if you've taken damage to both STR and DEX, you'll need to add those modifiers together for any stat that's affected by both.

Also be sure to remember that if it's drain and not damage it actually reduces the ability score, so you'll need to double-check your carrying capacity and encumbrance limits, and if those have shifted too far down, you'll need to make sure you're applying the appropriate adjustments for being encumbered and potentially reduce your number of spells per day or other effects that determine their total usages based on your ability scores. You may need to reduce your number of skill ranks as well, so you'll want to decide where those are getting shaved off.

Quote:


What IS NOT simple is 'oh youre spooked3, sluggish2, accelerated2, exhausted5, annoyed7, but you're also aroused8, soooo... that's a... like a plus... 3.7 on your diplomacy check to attack the DM?'

I really did hate the conditions system in the playtest even more than resonance.

Since same-type bonuses and penalties don't stack, I, personally, find it a lot easier to quickly determine what someone's actual bonuses and penalties are in the new system, and generally it seems that people are much less likely to overestimate or underestimate their actual numbers. Typically someone is going to end up with a single column of adjustments at most that they can easily track themselves and tick down or up as appropriate. YMMV, but I think the total number of floating bonuses and penalties has actually shrunk, and the fact that penalties are typed down and nothing stacks with a same-type penalty has meant there is much less number shuffling and corrections needed at the table.

Paizo Employee

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

Specifically with Orcs, none of the regional backgrounds really sound applicable to Belkzen Orcs, so why include them in this region? Especially when "The Orc Story" really includes not only Belkzen but Varisia and Land of the Linnorn Kings as key parts, considering Urglin and Shoanti conflict and Half-Orcs and Gorumites in islands of Land of Linnorn Kings. Conversely, what an opportunity is missed by not grouping as many Kellid lands together as possible but instead grouping Realm of Mammoth Lords with Land of Linnorn Kings and Varisia?

It kind of feels like grouping people together by ethnicity is definitely not a preferred solution? It's honestly kind of weird to want to talk about the "Orc Story" as though being an orc in the Mwangi expanse, a half-orc in Absalom, or an orc in Belkzen are going to be equivalent experiences. Similarly with the Kellids, being a Kellid in Numeria isn't really going to be anything like being a Kellid in the Land of the Mammoth Lords.

Paizo Employee

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I think you are probably right about active 5e players, kaisc. However, people who tried 5e but found it too simplified - but also find PF1e's barrier to entry too high - are likely to be prime targets for 2e.

Kind of a case in point, I have fully 7 players across three different groups who are currently playing 5E because it's easy, but not because they're satisfied with it. They just find PF1's character customization not to be worth the excessive complexities and learning curve required. A game that offers more options and choice with a more intuitve baseline is exactly what they're looking for, and they're all really excited for PF2. A few of those players were willing to play the PF Playtest until PF2 became available, but the others didn't want to get comfortable with a system and then have to relearn all the ways it changed halfway through the campaign.

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Hmm a Swashbuckler class would be fun. Maybe make it the reaction based light armor class.

I sincerely hope that's not what happens. I'd be good with a swashbuckler class (though I would actually probably prefer it as an archetype since I think it's more of a theme that's appropriate for a wide number of classes), but nearly 1/3 of the ACG swashbuckler's abilities are mutually exclusive since they all use swift/immediate actions. No class should be built around "uses this action the best" or "is the X action class" since every class should have unique ways to use every action. Let's look for real opportunities to fill the design space instead of arbitrarily limiting mechanics and falling into traps we've already seen before.

If we do get a new swashbuckler class, I'd like to see it really focus on mobile combat, flashy swordplay, maybe even some neat reputation or verbal-repartee-based mechanics.

Paizo Employee

Set wrote:

D&Ds long history of this nonsense (monsters having game-wrecking abilities that no PC should have, and yet refusing to use them for specious meta-game reasons) is why I cringe whenever I see a game edition boasting of having monsters using different rules than PCs.

I mean, they always do though. There's never been an edition of D&D where monsters followed the exact same rules as PCs, there's just been some that were stricter on how the chassis was assembled. There are more monster abilities in PF1, for example, that are not appropriate for player use than there are monster abilities that would be fine transferred to PCs as-written, and I can't really think of any version of the game or its inheritors to-date where that hasn't been the case.

Paizo Employee

DM Livgin wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
You need to make a Handle Animal check to command a mount to do anything other than move (including charging).
Ride Skill wrote:


Guide with Knees: You can guide your mount with your knees so you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount. This does not take an action.

All this covers is giving you a hand off the reins.

Quote:


Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

Emphasis added. That sentence tells you what you can do. It doesn't say "You can make a Ride check to control a mount" it says "If you direct your war-trained mount to attack[...]" which is a usage of the Handle Animal skill.

Quote:


Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

Mounted Combat Says: Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat. If you don’t dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a mount.

Quote:


I did not come to the same conclusion from the ride skill section.

Nothing in what you posted contradicts what I posted.

Paizo Employee

You need to make a Handle Animal check to command a mount to do anything other than move (including charging).

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Summersnow wrote:


Given the timing, right when you launch a new crowd funding project which negative publicity could kill, I hope you'll forgive my suspicions.

That project was at like 400% funding when Vic posted, so your suspicions in this instance are not based on facts. There was absolutely zero chance of any negative publicity killing the Kingmaker project because it had already funded several times over.

Paizo Employee

blahpers wrote:
Hmm. I wonder if trading spellcasting for full BAB would be a balanced trade for a bard. It probably breaks something.

Mostly the bard, in that 5 points of BAB is not equivalent to 6 levels of spells (and broken as in "doesn't meet class performance expectations" not "is overpowered"). But if you made that swap and gave them like a bonus feat whenever they would gain a new level of spells it would be functional and pretty playable. The bard's spellcasting is fairly silo'd from its other class features, so it wouldn't be like trying to do the same thing with a wizard whose bonus feats are all based around the expectation that he can cast spells.

Paizo Employee

PossibleCabbage wrote:
[...] How subtle the manifestation can be should be commensurate to how subtle the effect is, so "nice smells with no apparent source" wouldn't work well for a fireball, but could for Charm Person.

With a fireball you usually know where the nice smells are coming from, and it's often a little traumatizing.

"Anyone else smell bacon...?"

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Legowarrior wrote:
[...] How is the Magus doing it, and why is this act limited to when he casts a spell?

Magic.

Quote:
Can he fake casting a spell, and get the bonus attack?

Not unless he can fake the spell's magic as well.

Quote:
If not, why not?

Lack of magic. More specifically, it might help to look at this through the lens that most offensive touch spells give you a free touch attack as part of the casting. Regardless of whether or not you take that attack, the spell is still normally a standard action, so part of the magic of that spell is also "speeding up your reflexes" or something similar and helping you deliver it. A magus has the ability to take that magical energy and focus it through their sword, allowing them to make an attack in a fraction of the time they'd normally be able to thanks to the magic essentially acting as an accelerant during that moment when it initially releases.

So a magus casting a non-touch spell is fighting with his blade, on the balls of his feat, swings with his sword while his fingers dart through the motions and then makes a bladed dash through the enemy ranks.

A magus casting a touch spell goes through all the exact same steps, except in the moment where the spell releases. Instead of reaching out and touching the opponent, the magus redirects that magical energy that would normally "propel" his hand forward into his sword instead, allowing him to strike a second time with the blade as the magical energy courses through it.

Paizo Employee

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:


I’m surprised it took this long to do 5e material.
Kobold Press is far smaller than Paizo, and was doing cross system products for years. And Green Ronin is able to support their own game lines and 5e 3rd Party books.
Paizo has the staff that they can do a few 5e books (with freelancers) and still manage Pathfinder and Starfinder.

Neither KP nor GR are the same size as Paizo, and what works for a publishing company of one size typically does not work for a publishing company of a different size. It's much easier to support multiple systems when your company essentially produces one product at a time with a limited in-house staff. It is very, very different to be a mid-sized publisher like Paizo who produces significantly more products on much more aggressive timetables, and who has a much heavier burden of distributor deadlines to meet and full-time staff to pay.

There is much less overlap between running a small publishing company with fewer than a dozen full-time staff members, running a mid-sized publishing company with 70+ employees, or running a corporate organization that is a subholding of an international conglomerate, than someone not familiar with the industry might think.

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ograx wrote:
Will the PF2 version not be getting a bestiary as well or is that just because the monsters will be in the regular bestiary?

I interpreted that as the AP-specific monsters being included in the encounter blocks with standard Bestiary references for the monsters appearing in that book, as normal for Paizo APs. The 5E bestiary seems like it would be so you can just drop the stat blocks for all the monsters that don't already appear in the 5E Monster Manual directly into the encounters as you're running the adventure, so that presumably it would be no more difficult to convert the book to 5E than it would be to convert it to PF1.

Paizo Employee

Mercanes. I know, you'd think Abadar would have had them on lock, but it turns out that when you're the last Azlanti, you need a bunch of servitors who can hook you up with magical goodies (and who you can pay or reward with your fallout shelter vaults full of experimental ioun stones).

Further evidence:
1) Mercanes live on Axis, as did Aroden.
2) Aroden's clergy wear headwear that makes them look more like mercanes.

3) The weird magical symbol this mercane is holding is obviously a variation on Aroden's holy symbol.

They're only CR 5, but that's because they lost their destiny and innovation related powers when the big guy died. Most of them compensate with levels in wizard (diviner) these days.

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

I don't think this is true at all. Making a level 1 character in PF2, if you know what class you want shouldn't take more than 10 minutes (unless spell caster, which slows down all systems.) It's literally pick 6/7 things.

I've seen quite a bit of variance in this. My personal experience has been that in many instances, the more familiar a player is with PF1, the longer it took them to build characters in the playtest, whereas most newer players had their characters built in about 15 minutes, excluding picking out gear (since some of that was allowed to bleed into play time and they took a couple mid-session shopping trips to grab things they hadn't thought of).

One of the factors I noticed coming into play was that the veteran PF1 players just fundamentally did not think about building characters in the same way as the newer players. The newer players adopted the "I'm a dwarven blacksmith and cleric of Torag" style of character creation very quickly and didn't have many issues; by the time they got to picking out the "fidgety" mechanics like spells and feats, their characters were already mostly done and the flavor they'd established told them which feats to pick. For the veteran players, they'd feel that they had to memorize every feat a class had available, pick the one they thought was most interesting/powerful/useful/effective, and then try to build backwards and outwards from that. I strongly suspect that building around a mechanic first rather than building towards an initial concept is a habit that the current edition of Pathfinder, with all of its prereqs, "fiddly bits", and hyper-specific archetypes, has ingrained in players but which isn't necessarily "true" to how people intuitively learn.

All that being said, PF2 is definitely more complex and a different beast entirely than 5E. For my own players I tend to pick a system based on the group's average experience in a selection that goes something like the following:

Beginning gamers (< 1 year experience with TTRPGS): D&D 5E

Intermediate gamers (1 - 2 years TTRPG experience): Cypher System

Veteran gamers (3+ years of TTRPG experience): Pathfinder

I'd consider the Pathfinder Playtest to be a step down in complexity and more towards the Intermediate gamer level, though I've had a lot of success with beginners playing it and picking it up quite quickly. It's also important to note that those recommendations change significantly depending on the group; for a group of much more casual players who just want to jump into the story and are less concerned with having a robust mechanical framework, I'd lean towards a system like 5E even if the players all had a lot of play experience. For a group like the one I used to play with on Thursday nights, where the players had very little TTRPG experience but a lot of experience with M:tG, I've jumped right in to a PF1 game with 3pp materials available and everyone had a great time.

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
Probably should have been done in the first place.

The fact that it wasn't was not for lack of trying on Paizo's part.

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
CorallineAlgae wrote:

Great news. Like so many of us said back at the start of this, Paizo should've gone with WizKids and/or Reaper from the beginning. I keep wondering why they didn't. My guess is that Paizo was in a rush to get them to market and the other companies couldn't do it on Paizo's "we need this right away" time scale. Of coarse, Ninja Division's time scale is the same it's been for the last 4 years.

If WizKids comes out with unpainted Starfinder minis I'll be pretty thrilled. Other than occasional gloopy primer issues, they've been solid. I'll gladly give WizKids money for Srarfinder minis.

WizKids and Reaper were approached by Paizo and each turned them down.

Reaper already have a science-fantasy line and they didn’t want to compete with themselves. WizKids didn’t have the capacity at the time.

This was noted and explained by Paizo's COO Jeff Alvarez fairly early in this thread as well.

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Name Violation wrote:
Nieroshai wrote:
Then why can it be taken?

Why shouldn't it be able to be taken?

It's bad game design to not put a level prereq on a feat that doesn't actually give you any benefit until you reach that level. It's the very definition of a trap feat.

Not necessarily. There's a few different ways to increase your effective caster level that don't change your actual spellcasting class level, but prereqs in feats often use "caster level" as shorthand for "your levels in a spellcasting class". Using a "level" entry in the prereq line here could actually make the ability more confusing, or even prevent it from being usable by characters it's intended to be used by.

Currently, a gunslinger 2 / wizard 3 with the Magical Knack trait would be able to benefit from this feat. If the feat included a "Caster level 5th" entry in the prereqs, there would be more confusion about whether or not the same character could even take the feat, let alone use it.

There's nothing inherently bad about making a feat that someone could take without immediately deriving any benefit from it; there's a whole slew of metamagic feats that fighters technically qualify for and which are definitely not trap feats. There's just a balance to be weighed behind how much guidance you want the prereqs to provide, how much space you have on the page, and whether or not less is more for that particular issue.

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:


No there isn't, which undercuts your original idea that DM's Guild is just a way for WotC to cynically milk its unused, unloved IPs for spare change.

Or, from a different perspective, it confirms it. They're not exactly cranking out books or setting support material, they're just kind of dribbling out campaign settings from the IP catalogue and then letting other people do the work of supporting each one with adventures. It's a zero risk proposition for them and each time a new campaign setting book drops they get a surge in shared profits a few months later as everyone jumps on the wagon of finally releasing that Ravenloft/Forgotten Realms/Eberron/etc. adventure they wrote. It's exactly the business model I'd use if I had a bunch of IP that used to be very popular but which I had no interest in spending time and money supporting anymore. Each time one IP starts flagging, you drop the next one, then you sit on it until the 3pp support dries up and the money stops coming in, so you drop the next beloved property from someone's childhood and go back to watching the money pour in.

Outside of the Forgotten Realms, which supplanted Greyhawk as the core setting back in 4E, each of the campaign setting books they've released has been largely a standalone product, which immediately became available to DM's Guild. That is virtually the definition of milking money from unused IPS.

Paizo Employee

6 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Wizards is a much larger company with a much tighter grip on their IP and a lot less to lose.

I would hazard to guess it's the opposite, really. WotC isn't really doing a whole lot with those IPs anymore beyond cranking out new 5E materials for people to play in them. They've intentionally dropped the novel lines and even their adventures are being written out of house to a fairly significant degree. There's much less concern from WotC's side about whether or not someone writes an adventure that allows you to establish your own domain within Ravenloft, kill Lloth, what-have-you, because they're not really utilizing that IP as more than an engine to move RPG books and licenses.

Paizo on the other hand has a very direct and active hand in their IP, and only one campaign setting. The results of APs, PFS scenarios, modules, etc. all inform what happens next in the setting, and all the developers work very hard to try and keep everything consistent (or address inconsistencies as they creep up).

WotC's IPs are all largely in semi-retirement, with the only active changes and growth being directly made by the company primarily those necessary to launch the next product. Golarion is very much alive and being constantly cultivated, and there is exactly one person (James Jacobs, the creative director) overseeing the lore and canon. James Jacobs has to review and approve every adventure from the tiniest PFS quest to the most expansive AP. That would be impossible if the IP was opened up to an outside source, and Paizo's IP would lose value as it was diluted by semi-official, non-canonical content. There's a very significant difference between a company maintaining one carefully planned and cultivated campaign setting and a company who has half a dozen settings with decades of backstory, retcons, and reinterpretations associated with them (and a lot of that is before you actually start looking at the difference in business model between small 3pp publishers, privately owned mid-sized publishing companies like Paizo, and larger corporately-owned publishing divisions of a multinational gaming conglomerate).

Paizo Employee

blahpers wrote:

Which clause is that?

The one I quoted in my first post on this page. It's page 159 of Ultimate Combat "As large and imprecise weapons, siege engines do not deal sneak attack damage or any other kind of precision damage."

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:


If saving space is the only reason to leave out seemingly important details then why write a paragraph that only includes some of the info and makes assumptions about the rest, when saying "A cannon using Blast Shot has the scatter quality" would have contained ALL of the necessary details without assumptions, and done so in a fraction of the words?

I can think of a lot of reasons.

1) Siege weapons aren't normally used like this and the scatter property was being written with different expectations in mind that the siege engine writer didn't think would mesh properly.

2) The person who wrote the siege rules didn't even realize that the scatter property existed since they were both being written and developed at the same time.

3) The person developing the siege weapons didn't believe this situation was something that could possibly come up.

4) One sentence wouldn't have been enough to fill the page and would have left a gap at the bottom, so they needed enough text explaining it to fill that space but not as much text as it would have taken to reprint a line that was already stated and which the developer didn't believe needed to be reprinted.

5) The "Large and larger can wield siege weapons as two-handed weapons" rule didn't exist at the time this was written and was itself added during copyfit because the developer thought it would be cool or any of twenty other variations on "The person writing one didn't realize this weird rules situation would come up with the other."

It might help to understand that each spread in a book is planned and ordered before it's ever written. Someone at Paizo knew a year before Ultimate Combat was printed that they needed 10 pages to talk about siege engines. Then they contracted those 10 pages out to some number of freelancers (or possibly internal employees). Many months later, they got those turnovers and started stitching them together in development, likely while a different developer or designer was stitching together all of their own turnovers for the firearms chapter.

Then all of these bundles were sent off to editing, after which they went on to art and art laid them out. The laid out version then went back to the developers, who now not got to see whether or not the art and word counts they ordered fit on the page the way they expected. Some number of them didn't (there will always be some number of them that don't, whether because the art has a bigass spear that cuts through area you thought you could put words, because one author used way more multisyllable words than expected, or something of that nature) and needed to be copyfit; typically the ideal way to do this is to remove redundant text that can be found elsewhere, exchange big words for small, add flavor text, try to manipulate rules text into a smaller space, etc.

Remember, the number of pages available and the material to fill them with was ordered long ago; they can't just run over onto an extra page, and they're not going to leave ugly dead space. They have to maximize the page they've got with the materials they ordered, and all they can really do is add or remove words until everything fits.

Quote:


You are right, but we are referring to a weapon here, siege weapons are repeatedly referred to as weapons... ALL weapons have the ability to use the attack action to make an attack roll with it.

That's not true. We already know that indirect-fire siege weapons do not use the attack action. "Normal attack roll" doesn't imply anything about the action type, just how you resolve it. There are actually far more things in Pathfinder that require normal attack rolls and aren't attack actions than things that are.

Quote:

"Ask your GM" isn't really an answer that belongs in the Rules Forum.

Perhaps not, but things that come about as a result of 3pp mechanics typically go in the 3pp forums, not the core rules forums. However, as Blahpers noted there are 1pp ways to do it so it's worth discussing. That being said, there are some notable gaps in the siege rules that don't seem to be defined anywhere, so it's entirely possible there is no clear RAW answer to your question, at which point the RAW answer is, in fact, "Ask your GM".

If you don't want to ask your GM and would prefer to see how they rule it at the table, your best answer is going to be "RAW a Large creature can wield a siege engine as a two-handed firearm. Since it's a two-handed firearm, I can make attack actions with it. Since blast shot does not have the exact same text as scattershot, which specifically notes Vital Strike as an exception, I can Vital Strike with blast shot against all affected creatures."

Paizo Employee

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

Despite it's name Vital Strike is absolutely not precision damage. Its more like a critical hit. It's a multiplier on your base damage, which is why you don't multiply the damage on crit, you add it because in Pathfinder you don't multiply multipliers, you add them. And you can definitely crit with a cannon.

It was also made clear by James Jacobs a while back that the intention of vital strike was for it to be used with any weapon in which you make an attack roll to hit with. Which firearm siege weapons qualify as. And since you are making a regular attack with it, ("A direct-fire weapon uses a normal attack roll"), vital Strike definitely should work with a direct fire siege weapon.

Blast Shot is the weird one though as it's not really direct fire anymore. Though it does specify that you make an attack roll against all targets. I'm really not sure about that one.

I'm very aware of how Vital Strike works. Part of your claim in the OP was about how Blast Shot didn't have the same text as scattershot; my point was that it likely wasn't included because whomever wrote or developed the siege engine was aware that there was already a similar clause that applied to all siege engines and didn't believe it was necessary to repeat (particularly likely if the page was really tight during copyfitting and they were looking for text to cut).

There's also a distinct difference between an attack roll and an attack action; you make attack rolls all the time for things that aren't attack actions (like each individual attack in a full attack). So a "normal attack roll" is just letting you know that direct-fire engines aren't making an aim check like indirect-fire engines.

You are almost certainly not intended to be able to Vital Strike with siege weapons, but given that you're already using 3pp materials to activate this build the best thing for you to do here is ask your GM.

Paizo Employee

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:


Blast shot uses language very similar to the scatter firearm quality but specifically ISN'T scatter as there are also numerous differences, particularly the absence of any language about not including extra damage from precision, vital strike, etc the way scatter does.

Most likely because either the author or developer assumed this was already covered by the general rules for siege engines which already say "[...] siege engines do not deal sneak attack damage or any other kind of precision damage." That doesn't specifically call out Vital Strike, but it's pretty likely that it was assumed that was already covered.

The other thing that's a bit unclear is whether or not you're using an attack action when you fire the cannon; for an indirect-fire weapon like a catapult you're definitely not using the attack action (you're making a targeting check), but the action type to fire a direct-fire siege engine is never defined. The "[large creature] can use a siege firearm as a two-handed firearm" could potentially override that limitation, which would just leave the RAW vs. RAI of siege weapons being able to Vital Strike at all per the rule on page 159 that says "As large and imprecise weapons, siege engines do not deal sneak attack damage or any other kind of precision damage."

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
There are A LOT of us who questioned it from the start and wondered why they didn't just go with WizKids considering how well that relationship was worked out. I'm just speculating, but if WizKids had taken on Starfinder minis, we might already have 2-3 full sets and talking about a fourth.

Both WizKids and Reaper were approached first according to Paizo's COO Jeff Alvarez, and for various reasons neither of them was interested in creating a new Starfinder line. Sci-fi / sci-fan game settings have traditionally not been very successful outside of the Star Wars / Star Trek franchises (and even those are fairly spotty). Starfinder's resounding success was literally unprecedented and not something any company could have predicted, so WizKids needing to expand their bandwidth to do it would likely have involved a significant investment of funds with very little data to justify the expense.

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Revturkey wrote:
I'd like to see less books...
People say this or "less bloat" but what do they want an RPG publishing compny to sell? One book for the very short life of the company?

5E called, asked me to remind you its release schedule.

Which, IMHO, is a bit too timid, but I can see why WotC went that way - people were just fed up with being swamped with material and jumped to a system that's pretty much contained entirely in the core rulebook.

It's also a bit different because 5E doesn't need to carry the bulk of the company on its back. Hasbro rakes in huge amounts of cash from licensing video games, mobile apps, various toys, cartoons, etc. They just need a system that keeps the brand alive and can serve to collect new players and feed them into the expanded revenue stream. While Paizo has been steadily branching out, they're still primarily a publishing company, which makes them much more reliant on a steady product schedule as their main source of revenue.

Even with that it does look like the product schedule is trimming down a bit on the book front, but there's probably a hard line to how much trimming can happen and how/where it can occur.

I'm looking forward to the World Guide and anything that expands on areas we don't know a lot about currently or which haven't had equivalent support for their size to the Inner Sea, like the new/old Sarkoris, Arcadia, and the inevitable return to Tian Xia.

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ZenCloud wrote:
The Deluxe hardcover description starts with "Nearly 400..." while the regular bestiary has "More than 400..." so my question is which one is right?

They can both be true!

Quote:
"Nearly 400 of fantasy's fiercest foes [...]"
Quote:
"More than 400 monsters!"

From these two things, we can determine that there are more than 400 monsters, and nearly 400 of them are drawn from fantasy's fiercest foes. I assume the remainder are monsters which are classic but not fierce foes, like the noble pegasus.

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

It does bring out a counter to the "she has to look weak for the story to make sense" argument though. I don't think there's anything in the story that suggests she looked weak, much less that she was. She had proved herself and outdid the male warriors, they just didn't care because she was a woman.

They thought she couldn't wield the giant's sword and they were right - without Rage, she couldn't. Neither looking nor being weak is part of her backstory.

I, personally, don't think this version of Amiri looks particularly weak. She looks pale, which could make more sense given her geographical origins, and she looks a bit haunted, also appropriate for someone who murdered a bunch of family members when she lost her cool, but not weak.

Does she look like someone a male chauvinist might pick out as a target for derision? Yes. Does she look like she could arrange said chauvinist's teeth across a 20-foot arc with her fist? Also yes. Note that quite a few female multisport Olympians also have compact, tightly-muscled frames.

Paizo Employee

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Or they decided that they didn't need to rely on cringey fantasy tropes where every woman is an Olympian goddess? And lets not forget this fact: SHE'S STILL A WOMAN. Her appearance has just been modified per the input of actual women the artist spoke to and with better integration of her own backstory.

Why did it ever matter that Amiri's tribesmen were "enthralled by her beauty", other than reinforcing tired and wrong-headed tropes about how women need to be both beautiful and talented/strong/clever/etc. in order to have worth or stand out? Why does Amiri being adjusted to not meet this dated fantasy standard that all warrior women have to be a specific type of "attractive" apparently detract from her femininity and struggles in your eyes? Because nothing about her story changed. The only thing that changed is how she looks, and those changes were established per her own established heritage and the input of female players.

Paizo Employee

14 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

[...]

But with her being a bit wiry... There's this little mental hitch where it's like "She terrifying and I don't understand why. She looks like I could knock her over with one good punch so why am I shaking in my boots?"

I feel like that is exactly the kind of fear Amiri should provoke. That little voice in the back of your head that says "this person is dangerous in ways you don't consciously understand".

Also I think from Amiri's backstory she should be the kind of person who tends to get underestimated based on their size.

I think that's definitely one thing her new art does, is support her backstory much better than the old art.

Amiri before was basically a marginally-less-busty Red Sonja clone with a Conan skin. How do you reconcile that with her backstory? She was clearly the physical match and then some of any of the other Pathfinder iconics. It doesn't seem terribly believable that everyone would have mocked and doubted the prowess of this woman.

As we've already seen though, everyone is willing to mock this version of Amiri. "She's too scrawny to be a barbarian" or "She's too sickly-looking to be intimidating", so on and so forth. This thread almost becomes a microcosm of Amiri's own life as a group of (almost exclusively men from what I've seen) imply that the woman depicted in the new art isn't capable of being a badass. Clearly the only way she could be threatening is if she was bustier and beefier.

The fact that so many people started channeling Six Bears tribesmen by immediately piling on mocking and deriding this version of Amiri as not looking "enough like a barbarian" is to me a pretty clear signal that this art does exactly what it should be doing.

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm kind of curious about when the brutish dwarves with axes trope really got locked in to how people interpret fantasy. I don't think it was Tolkein; Thorin Oakenshield used a sword as did several other dwarves, and dwarves have been considered skilled craftspeople across a broad range of franchises.

Was it Gimil from the Lord of the RIngs, the dwarf in green from Golden Axe, or is it something that's just kind of slowly gained momentum a piece at a time because of how the classic portrayal of dwarves meshed with D&D mechanics?

I'm all for new concepts and broader categories. If the ranger being a dwarf is a clear signal that Pathfinder is not the same game as D&D, great. If Paizo gets a little weirder and wilder as they embrace their own brand, even better. Maybe we'll get a CG Halfling Champion (Liberator) iconic who wears full plate and wields a slingstaff. I legitimately think that would be sweet.

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say, my favorite depictions of dwarves from across the various D&D-inspired franchises have almost always been dwarven rogues, rangers, or similar tropes, as opposed to the stereotypical dwarf fighter.

In Eberron I liked that there were House Kundarak dwarves who broke into banks to test their security.

In Dragonlance there was a shady dwarf rogue who ends up (not entirely intentionally) helping some draconians secure their race's existence.

In Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II there's a dwarf "rogue" who also has a bunch of pseudo-alchemist abilities, I absolutely loved him.

Ultimately, I think it's really smart for Paizo to have their own iconics who aren't shackled to tropes D&D has used a hundred times. Make the nature-warrior a dwarf instead of an elf. Make the elf the gritty, street-smart rogue. Do whatever makes sense to preserve the clear message that this is a fantasy roleplaying game while finding ways to make the characters and options distinct, interesting, and different. It's part of the same reason why goblins as core make so much sense to me; you can drop almost any other Pathfinder iconic into any fantasy RPG and there'd be very little to differentiate them. Pathfinder goblins are unique and readily identifiable as belonging to Pathfinder, which is a great way to remind people that Pathfinder isn't just an alternate rules-set for D&D; it's a robust franchise with unique character options, a massive and lore-filled campaign setting, and an unrivaled array of adventure material for GMs to use in their games.

Paizo Employee

I suspect it's for the same reason the flames are violet, whatever that may be.

Paizo Employee

The fewer ability scores a class needs, the better it does in a 15-point-buy game.

Paladins do fairly well since they can get by with nothing other than Charisma and their main attack stat (either STR or DEX) above a 10.

Wizards can often get by with Intelligence and some DEX, though 1st level can be a scary place if they don't have some way of mitigating their low hit points (though that's a pretty large toolbox and there are ways to get that mitigation).

Unchained Rogue would do all right since you can go DEX-focused with a splash in CON and don't particularly need to raise anything else above a 10 starting out.

Inquisitor can do reasonably well with DEX primary and WIS secondary.

Kineticist does reasonably well since they can also go CON/DEX without needing to worry much about other stats.

The more stats a class needs, the harder it will be to keep them viable and effective in a 15-point-buy. Gishes who don't have stat consolidation or combat types with a wide spread of abilities and/or needs that key off different stats can all end up feeling the squeeze. Fighter, magus, and monk will really feel the strain since they are dependent upon multiple stats (or have class features that are effectively dead if they can't boost the related stat, like a fighter's armor training), while a lot of 9th level casters can often get by with a single good stat and a wisely chosen array of spells and abilities.

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
Step #1: PFS should match what WotC is doing with Adventure Leagues. I.e., relax player requirements for material ownership. --This is the one thing that would draw more "newbies" into the game.

Step #1 in 2019 is: have some game streaming show that reaches the level of popularity remotely close to Critical Role. That's how you draw newbies and that's how WotC managed to open the hobby up.

The sad part there is that Critical Role actually started with Pathfinder, but it was so cumbersome they swapped to 5E. At which point the show became much more fun to watch as they stopped getting bogged down in minutiae :(

Paizo Employee

Have you looked at skinwalkers? They cover pretty much all of the extended shifter stuff from 3.5 and even work pretty well with the OG shifter feats using minimal conversion.

They don't use spheres, but is that necessary from the race angle? Giving them Magical Training (Alteration) might be more complicated for anyone wanting to play a shifter who uses SoP than just playing a skinwalker and taking talents normally.

If nothing else they should serve as a decent point of comparison since they do a lot of what you're looking to do (and they clock in at 10 RP).

1 to 50 of 247 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>