There are some nice features here. I like the fact bonuses are included for the stats... but in this case, why not just have this for all stats, including on Character Sheets? Instead of a written stat of 10/12/14/16 etc., provide people with the bonus for the stat? And a Stat Increase would give an added +1 to the stats being boosted?
This would simplify things significantly, and would also mean penalties are not limited to -5 for when a stat is reduced to 1.
I believe they actually said they tested that and got a lot of negative feedback, People have a mental sense of what 20 strength is over +5 strength and it just didn't work out well. Sometimes "Feel" wins out. I can agree to this as a long standing player having an 18 charisma feels right, but having a +4 charisma feels less descriptive (despite not meaning anything different) I'd even prefer the monsters have (possibly in small text) listing the "value" even if all thats important is the modifier, but i will live.
I agree that “feel” is an important thing, and speaking as someone who enjoys reading stat blocks in a Bestiary nearly as much as I do running the monster in actual play, I don’t like not having the monsters actual stats. I wanna know *exactly* what they are in relation to the PCs or other monsters, and a +5 for instance let’s me know it’s a 20 or 21...well, which is it?
A small, but important nitpick for me. I really hope they rethink that.
Remember they said PF2 could be Golarion-infused on the core books. This means the bestiaries can now have lore. This is why the core Bestiaries 1-5 feel so bland in first edition compared to the lore bestiaries such as those in APs or some Campaign Setting books.
I don’t necessarily agree with this. I think the bestiaries felt a little bland because of room, ie. stat blocks and big color pictures vs. lore that people may or may not use. Look at the AD&D Monstrous Manual; that’s my gold standard for lore/ecology/history of monsters, and it was setting neutral, with really only the Planes getting a mention now and then, or specific monsters getting shout-outs in the description (like Lord Soth for the death knight).
It’s entirely possible to have a deep, ecology rich bestiary and not have specific settings forced on us. I don’t play in golarion, for instance, so golarion specific lore wouldn’t be all that useful for me, although I could adapt some of it to what I use. I know Paizo wants to push golarion, and I get it. But I did want to point this out.
I would hope that the first bestiary contain at least the vast majority of the monsters from the first 3 bestiaries, otherwise the game is going to be too lean.
I'm guessing a truly credible version of that book would be at least 600 pages.
Are you willing to pay $60-70 for such a book?
I'm genuinely interested in people's answers, because to tell you the truth I am strongly considering a base monster reference that is significantly larger than Bestiary 1's 320 pages.
So... don't be shy about your opinions, please.
I would absolutely pay $70 for a bestiary that size. And I would freakin’ love it
If there’s one thing we can never have enough of, it’s monsters and monster options.
So I know it's more important to make sure we have a stable and playable 1-20 levels in the base PF2e, but I sure hope that some thought is being dedicated future-proofing the system, and that (those of us that want it; we do exist!) we get some kind of epic or mythic equivalent. I know it's not for everyone, but man I enjoy it.
Hey James, if the demon lord Zura was ever to be statted out, would she be an actual undead/vampire with demon (lord) traits, or would she be a living demon lord with vampire/undead traits?
The problem is that "turning tail and running" is practically impossible at most levels.
At low levels, the monsters move just as fast as you (or faster), and can Charge and attack once while you're running away (if you Withdraw), or get an Attack of Opportunity vs your Flatfooted AC if you try to Run whittling you down as you futilely try to flee.
At mid-high levels, everything moves faster than you, flies, and/or has Greater Teleport at will.
So until really high levels when your caster can whip out a Teleport that can take the whole party along, running away isn't an option. And by that level, you can overcome DR anyway.
DR isn't supposed to make an opponent invulnerable: it is supposed to mitigate a percentage of damage in order to force the party to consume more resources in order to defeat said opponent.
They reduced the numbers from 3.0 deliberately because it was causing issues and people were complaining. Some encounters became almost certain TPKs if you didn't happen to have a good enough magic weapon (2e was the same in this regard).
By forcing very high DR values you just enforce high enhancement magic weapons on all martials, rather than create any interesting interaction. You just reduce the number of viable options.
Yes I know what DR is intended for. The problem is that it really doesn't make the party consume more resources. With the wealth of options availible for martial characters, including but not limited to vital strike (and its entire tree), power attack, multiple ways to boost damage (weapon training, favored enemy, weapon specialization, studied target, etc, there might as well not be DR at all.
But perhaps I'm just of the old school mindset: I frankly don't see the problem with an ill-prepared party having to turn tail and run because they lack the proper weapons to take down a monster.
DR numbers are so low as to be basically worthless. I really enjoyed the change in the way you bypass DR (having to use a silver weapon, holy weapon, slashing, etc.), but the DR itself (basically anywhere from 5-15) is so easily surpassed by melee characters that it doesn't really matter if you used the proper weapon or not, which IMO defeats the purpose.
So, has anyone experimented with using the higher DR numbers of 3.0 while using the bypass conditions of 3.5/PF?
Okay folks... let's not get too worked up here! Remember, we all love gaming and RPGs... we shouldn't fight!
In Pathfinder, and by extension in Golarion, we essentially have what works out to be three "Power Levels" of god/goddess. They are, in descending order of power...
Deity: Deities do not have stat blocks. They are the most powerful of the three categories as a result, since you can't "kill" them using the rules. They grant 5 domains and 6 subdomains to clerics. Some deities are made up specifically for Golarion (like Sarenrae or Urgathoa), while some are inspired by real-world myth (like Asmodeus or Lamashtu). A deity CAN die... and several have over the course of the eons in Golarion, such as Aroden.
Demigod: A demigod does have a stat block. That means they can be defeated, in theory, by powerful mortals or heroes or whatevers who also have stat blocks... but some demigods (see the Great Old Ones for example) have methods of coming back from death such that even killing them only delays them or temporarily inconveniences them. Others, like demon lords, have ways of being instantly resurrected if they die. Demigods are generally in the range of CR 21 to CR 30, but most of them are CR 26 or higher. Demigods grant 4 domains and 4 subdomains to clerics. Some demigods are made up specifically for Golarion (like Cyth-V'sug or Brigh), while others are inspired by real-world myth or literature (like Charon or Cthulhu).
Quasi-Deity: This is the most ill-defined of the three categories. As a general rule, a quasi-deity is anything less powerful than a demigod who can grant spells to clerics. This includes anything that gains the mythic ability of Divine Source. It also may or may not include low-powered demigods, such as nascent demon lords. Quasi-deities are usually below CR 25 in power, but can creep above that if the story needs it.
Now, these rules DO differ from those presented in D&D, and as a result, if you want to use Pathfinder to run certain games or certain story...
Thanks for the in-depth answer James, much appreciated. :)
No antagonism was meant towards anyone else, just differing views is all!
And yes, I do still have my Deities and Demigods book so I suppose I'll be making use of that in the near future!
Maybe their atoms vibrate on the proper frequency or something equally unknowable.
I look at it as Gods are as much an abstraction as an actual being, especially the ancient gods. Pharasma is the concept of death itself. You can't kill her any more than you can stop death. You cannot kill Erastil anymore than you can erase communities. You cannot get rid of Lamashtu without getting rid of all monsters. And so on. This is reflected in canon: when Lamashtu slew Curchanus, it changed the nature of the relationship between mortals and beasts.
Demigods are part abstraction, especially the assorted outsider paragons. For instance, Nocticula has a particular connection with lust, Abraxas with secrets, Mammon with greed, and so on. But they still have bodies that reside in a single location at a time, even if that body is an outsider (which isn't quite a real creature) that resides on an Outer Plane (which isn't quite a real place.)
Demigods can threaten Gods because they are god-like themselves. But they can be killed by (powerful) mortals because, fundamentally, they have a solid bit that you can put a sword through. Demigods sit on both sides of the fence, essentially.
Meh. Again, too much is being made of gods IMO. Pharasma is A god and concept of death, not the only one in existence. She is a physical and spiritual representation of death, not death itself. Just like Kelemvor is. Just like Jergal was. Just like Hades is. Or any other numerous gods of death.
That's my opinion of course. I'm sure Paizo agrees with y'all. I don't even know if Golarions cosmology acknowledges other deities.
I think we just fundamentally disagree on what gods are in general. Y'all see them as some all-powerful, can't-be-messed with entities, I see them as immensely powerful beings who are still subject to flaws and making mistakes, and certainly aren't all-powerful or exempt from aggression from lesser beings.
Also, when talking about demigods and mythic heroes, remember that they are essentially one and the same. Arazni is "merely" a demigod...or more accurately, a mythic character. If you agree that demigods can destroy deities (and we've already established that's already happened before), then why couldn't a mythic character? After all, they can take divine source and even have their own clerics.
That's not my point. My point was the last sentence: generic rules do not serve deities well. Aroden didn't need a stat block to die when the plot demanded. Curchanus (Sp?) didn't need a stat block to die, and Lamashtu didn't need a stat block to kill him.
If your campaign includes going into Asmodeus's throne room and taking over Hell, make a stat block and go for it.
But publishing, for instance, stat blocks for the 'Big 20' deities will just lead to arguments over
'Why hasn't deity X just killed deity Y? It'd be a one-sided fight.'
'Deity X is completely defenseless against this spell combo I found!'
'Clearly Class X is broken: It can get a better attack bonus than the God of Y at Zth level.'
Not making rules/printing stats because of arguments seems silly. There's plenty already and it hasn't prevented the game from thriving.
More to the point, PCs are allowed to do whatever they and the GM want. You can always reboot, or what happens in your home campaign stays in your home campaign.
But Gods being killable in general starts making it difficult to actually treat gods as ancient or eternal. It's already hard enough to believe than any Dragon can live long enough to become a Great Wyrm. Consider a deity like Urgathoa. According to her lore, she's the very first undead thing, created when a mortal refused to be judged by Pharasma, because living was just too much fun.
And now consider that Pharasma hates her (and Pharasma is an even more ancient goddess.) All the Good Gods at least dislike her. And as 'Goddess of Undeath', every two-bit necromancer, lich, vampire lord, and ghoul king has some sort of incentive to try to take her place.
And yet, she has persisted, for eons.
Also, having rules for killing a deity sort of implies having rules for what happens when a deity dies. Aroden dying broke prophecy. What would happen if you killed Pharasma, who represents both birth and death, and is the backbone of the soul trade in the outer planes?
These are not things that can, or should, be handled by one-size-fits-all rules.
And yet, the gods are killable in PF. This is not arguable. It's a fact. James Jacobs has said that demon lords can physically threaten deities. Lamashtu killed a deity and became a god. And if the PCs can threaten a kill demon lords...
The entire "gods are omnipotent" notion is so gross to me. Always has been. Having a bunch of gods running around each with Judeo-Christian god-level of power makes no sense.
But I've resigned myself to the fact that we'll never get god stats in PF. Ah well. Guess I need to get started adapting Deities and Demigods to current rules.
I want to design a half-pit fiend template, similar to how the demons got the treatment in Demons Revisited, which is amazing btw. Any suggestions or pointers? Should it just basically be very close to the half-balor template?
So huge Planescape: Torment fan. I was wanting to pick your brain on a few characters.
** spoiler omitted **
I believe all of those characters have already been stated up for 3.5 D&D back in Dragon Magazine at some point. In Pathfinder, though...
** spoiler omitted **
Thanks for the response man!
Planescape:Torment:
So Ravel is what I suspected, and how I'd stat her up (Wizard levels and Archmage mythic path).
The Nameless One...would you use mythic tiers or ranks like a monster? Normally I'd say tiers, but was trying to account for his better-than-troll regeneration, specially abilities (speaking with the dead, resurrection of other creatures and himself, etc), and the fact that these abilities carry over to all of his incarnations no matter what path (class) he follows; he's been an Archmage, mighty warrior and thief in the past.
And the Transcendent One is his shed mortality given corporeal form. However, unlike him, it remembers all of his past lives and retains all of their skills.
IIRC they gave live expectancies for true dragons in the Dragonomicon. I'm AFB right now and don't remember what they actually were, though. That's the only setting-neutral source for dragon lifespans I know of.
I'm going to be statting a mythic great red wyrm. I want to make this particular beastie even larger than the red dragon normally gets. So my question is: do you think it's appropriate for me to increase it's reach to 40ft (bite 50ft) and give it the "Massive" kaiju special quality as one of its mythic slots granted by its rank? Or is that worth 2 ability slots?
So although dragons are huge, powerful, and extremely long lived, in PF they are still mortal. Does anyone know of an upper age limit of a dragon? Has one ever been given? I know I can just make one up but I was curious if there was an "official stance".
Does favored target count as favored enemy for the purposes of feats and abilities? For instance, could a mythic slayer take the champion path ability endless hatred?
Could you name a few ways that a humanoid (human, elf, dwarf, etc..) could permanently acquire the advanced creature template? I assume being born "perfect" is a way, but others?
Fair enough. We will just have to wait and see. I know that none of my players has expressed the slightest interest in these classes so far. The only ones I am mildly interested in are the arcanist and swashbuckler. If I get a chance I will throw those two into my game as NPCs and see how they work.
By contrast, my group has expressed tremendous interest in playing these classes. One of my players even actually got goosebumps in front of me while we were talking about him one day playing an investigator.
Only thing I can add right now is that if the skills stay at 4+int mod per level, then maybe keeping the capstone fed with int wouldn't be so bad, since it'd make int useful for a couple things, and thereby given a second look at character creation.
Investigator: I feel as if it's just me that feels this way, but this is a pure fluff class.
You say that like it's a bad thing....
Casanova wrote:
Skald: .... It is a purely fluff class and is incredibly inefficient for combat purposes. Have fun role playing though! That is what this game is about after all.
Nice catch at the end there; that IS what this game is all about, and it's good to see people openly acknowledge that.
Casanova wrote:
Swashbuckler: Paizo needs to go see a doctor about the erection they have had for this type of character since they created Pathfinder.
Uh, maybe that's because a swashbuckler is an inherently awesome concept that needs to happen and have the full support and range of a regular, standard character class?
With that acknowledged, please spell out your suggestions for how to make the Swashbuckler even better--because its existence is absolutely essential.
Yeah Casanova seems to have the weird chip on his shoulder about the new classes.
Wanna poison! Play ninja! Who cares if you don't want any of the other ninja flavor!!1 who wants to play a slayer!!1 Investigators are like Sherlock and so suck inherently!
Different strokes for different folks, but the listed reasons for disliking the classes are fairly ridiculous.
Well, I guess I'm in the minority when I say that I absolutely love these. The Slayer, Swashbuckler, Investigator, and Brawler, as they are in this document, are among my favorite classes in the entire game.
So, I've asked you about Randall Flagg, but what about the Crimson King? What would you categorize him as? He seems like he would be akin to a demon lord or great old one.
