Stephan Taylor's page

While I’ve tried to follow this issue of unsavory topics being sidelined, in particular slavery, I’m still a bit fuzzy as to what the actual issue is. Were freelancers and PFS organizers uncomfortable with slavery being focused on? Was the issue that it was not explicitly made to be “evil” to own slaves? Or were the stories told about slavery just not well done? I don’t particularly care that Paizo is opting to not focus on slavery, but completely excising it from the canon seems rather difficult as a number of fleshed out societies like Cheliax have significant ties to the institution.

I am a descendant of slaves, and while I have no interest in playing a slave or a slaver, the presence of slavery in the world in and of itself isn’t necessarily shocking or upsetting to me. Yes, I understand that I cannot speak for all Black Americans, nor am I trying to.

It makes sense to markedly point it out as an evil thing and have nations who are neutral or good aligned moving to outlaw it. It is a somewhat lazy way to say “these guys aren’t good at all”. And you don’t need to focus on it (unless you want to do a Django Unchained fantasy or something).

Can Magi not use a whip? If the concern is constantly fighting against creatures with an AoO, maybe it’s time to invest in whips

dirtypool wrote:

No, I don't think that a PF2 monster should be making checks that don't exist in PF2.

The name of the check doesn't matter. The mechanic exists in PF2 and intelligent foes should use it.

What mechanic are you using that gives away their weakest save? Those kinds of checks could yield some information, particular saves for specific creatures (such as the PCs) generally requires a spell or something a bit more than just a check. A society check might yield that catfolk in general are dexterous and affable; a perception check might yield that Tasjra (my bard) seems to be rather agile and slight. You could make some guesses I suppose

Stephan Taylor wrote:

I don’t feel “suboptimal” at all. She plays the way she is meant to play. And while GMs (and everyone at the table really) do meta game to an extent, constantly having the caster role will saves because we know those are weak is rather meta game-y to an extreme. It isn’t a video game, why are you dealing with such an adversarial relationship with your DM/GM? You can put together challenges without meta game targeting people.

Think of it this way. Shouldn't an ancient elf, or lich, or dragon be doing things like making insight checks against the party as they advance through their layer and battle their underlings? Thus by the time the players face them shouldn't the boss know who the threats are and take actions to disable them as efficiently as possible? This isn't adversarial, this is playing an ancient intelligence intelligently and probably TPKing a party that doesn't meta game their saves. This is a game design issue not a GM issue.

And that’s fine to me. Make me roll the will save (it would be lower anyway as catfolk have a wisdom penalty). If she fails, in character, she would figure the voices in her head don’t make sense usually... why is today supposed to be different? I nearly died to a haunted rope... the character still had fun swinging on it, even though it turned into a noose that required holy water to cure.

But she is functions how she is expected to function as a low wisdom character with high charisma and dexterity and moderate other stats.

The hyper focus on “optimal” takes away from letting the characters be characters and dealing with the world from there.

Stephan Taylor wrote:

And why does your character need to be focused on saving throws? If they aren’t wise, they aren’t wise. That means knowing that mental effects are a weakness. If they are meant to be a scrawny sorcerer, then you know that Fort saves aren’t your thing and you and your team work around mitigating things.

The gameplay actively punishes your concept in a way that it wouldn't punish a very similar character who was stupid instead of being foolish. I don't feel like you should ever feel suboptimal because you chose to play a character on a theme rather than on game mechanics.

Quote:

I have a Catfolk changeling bard who has a -1 wisdom modifier and I’m not planning on focusing on raising wisdom because she’s meant to be an unwise teenager. So I roll (and role) with that. She is an effective bard, but she has weaknesses and that’s fine.

You're relying on your GM going easy on you then. If they play intelligent monsters intelligently and hit you with mind control effects you will suffer greatly at high levels.

I don’t feel “suboptimal” at all. She plays the way she is meant to play. And while GMs (and everyone at the table really) do meta game to an extent, constantly having the caster role will saves because we know those are weak is rather meta game-y to an extreme. It isn’t a video game, why are you dealing with such an adversarial relationship with your DM/GM? You can put together challenges without meta game targeting people.

Stephan Taylor wrote:

Or... maybe make a character and base their stats on what you think would make sense for that character. I tend to like characters that are decently intelligent and charismatic. If that means they aren’t as wise or hardy... I play around that. You have a team around you for a reason.

I take issue with this because saves are purely reactive. You can't take a proactive action in a fight to avoid your saves being targeted.

And why does your character need to be focused on saving throws? If they aren’t wise, they aren’t wise. That means knowing that mental effects are a weakness. If they are meant to be a scrawny sorcerer, then you know that Fort saves aren’t your thing and you and your team work around mitigating things.

I have a Catfolk changeling bard who has a -1 wisdom modifier and I’m not planning on focusing on raising wisdom because she’s meant to be an unwise teenager. So I roll (and role) with that. She is an effective bard, but she has weaknesses and that’s fine.

Or... maybe make a character and base their stats on what you think would make sense for that character. I tend to like characters that are decently intelligent and charismatic. If that means they aren’t as wise or hardy... I play around that. You have a team around you for a reason.

Dhampirs get negative healing. That seems like a big deal in 2E, rendering a lone Dhampir a little difficult to play and making an all-Dhampir party super dangerous against non-undead.

Dhampirs always has negative healing, even in PF1. Also, I believe Soothe doesn’t have a positive or negative alignment tag, which would mean it dhampirs can be healed by it.

Honestly, I echo what others have said... alignment damage is rather rare to begin with and prevents PCs from using alignment damage themselves for the most part.

Also, it is rather metagamey to pick character alignment in that fashion.

Well, it makes sense. You are equally trained in both classes.

I think the general opinion is that warpriest is currently in a tough spot. Though deemed at least somewhat better at low levels the warpriest becomes outclassed by cloistered cleric pretty fast, especially if you consider MC'ing into Champion. Wisdom is the prime stat for both and everything that the warpriest does, the cloistered cleric can probably do better, especially considering the new 3-action economy.

** spoiler omitted **

I could have sworn Champions used Charisma as their casting stat and went either strength or dexterity for their melee stuff.

Again tattoo (and tumor) familiars are a weird one given their previously exclusive nature. Those might work better as part of a dedication than as part of the witch itself.

Then we still have spellbooks that can die and essentially screw a character massively. Witches are encouraged to utilize their familiars (they get extra powers, etc.), yet they have a very high chance of being penalized for using their class features.

Making it a dedication or archetype makes that archetype almost a “duh” choice due to how damaging a familiar dying is.

Themetricsystem wrote:

Again, I'd like to stress how much can be solved simply by giving Occult as the base Spell list and opening the Patron ability up to grant a whole new Tradition would open up the variety of different Witch characters you could make right off the bat without appreciably making them any more powerful than any other spellcaster since their casting will be tied to their singular set of Spell Slots and Class DC.

I think it would make a difference to power to be able to cast spells from two lists instead of one. Occult has good force spells, enchantment spells, divination spells, buffs, and debuffs. It doesn't have the powerful evocations and transmutations on the arcane and primal list, and it doesn't have the healing capacity of the primal and divine lists. Giving access to two lists is a substantial increase to the versatility and therefore the power of the caster. (Multiclass casters get this but with more constraints and at a substantial price to class feat slots.)

I wonder if there are other ways to accomplish something like this, though. One thought is to build an additional tradition choice into the class feats, making it sort of an in-house spellcasting archetype, though that would leave less space for the witch-y class feats.

They could literally witches be occult casters and have your first lesson give you the choice of choosing one spell per spell level from the primal, divine, or arcane lists. A high level (14th-18th level feat) could give you another spell per spell level from your patron’s tradition. You could only learn occult spells via scrolls and what not.

I would have each lesson have a hex cantrip or two and a focus hex. Maybe lessons would also have a passive ability, like at a certain level the lesson of cold gives you some resistance to cold or adds a small amount of cold damage to natural attacks or something.

I’m thinking the Witch will be a blend of the Sorcerer and the Bard, but with Intelligence as their casting stat and they are prepared casters, not spontaneous ones.

I would assume there will be a number of patrons that may change the spell list you use or that heavily pull from lists other than the occult one (which I assume would be the “default” list).

There probably will be different foci—hexes, your familiar, spellcasting/rituals.

Hexes would be akin to composition cantrips (except more debuffing) with some stronger hexes and the utility hexes being focus powers.

I don't mind Channeling being a secondary stat thing. Clerics aren't necessarily brimming with Spell points and channeling is useful enough to warrant having its own pool, with players investing in it or choosing not to.

Sorcerers do still need some love. Maybe have bloodline heightening be a core part of the chassis and add a feat for sorcerers to be able to "undercast surge" a la 1st edition psychics via spell points. I would also give sorcerers more spell points than other classes in general, they are the inherently magical ones, let them feel like it. Also, give more focus and "umph" to the bloodline powers--more damage, more utility, larger area of effect. Also, diabolic edict really should be able to debuff enemies. It could also give some insights to how the witch may play.

The Wizard stuff is fine and thematically fits. They are the casters who can pull out a book to solve most if not all problems (if they can't it's because they don't have the book yet).

I don't mind the idea of paladins being "bodyguards" or punishing those who attack their allies as much, but some offensive options--smite evil/tyranny, some sort of challenge ability that encourages opponents to go after them, or something wouldn't hurt. Also, give ranged paladins more support.

I always think back to a quote I heard years ago when I think about alignment. "The villain is always the hero of their own story"

Alignment is game mechanic designed to quantify an abstract concept, based on societal values...in a real world example...take 2 of the largest religions on Earth...Christianity and Islam...if you ask anyone in either religion if they are 'good' the answer will most likely be yes...and if you ask them if the other is evil (or at least wrong)...guess what the answer to that is likely to be.

Most Muslims don't see Christians as evil and vice versa. Christians and Muslims follow the same God and Islam has the same line of prophets as Christianity. The biggest divergence is that Muslims disagree with the idea of a Holy Trinity--they view God as indivisible, so Jesus in Muslim tradition cannot be God on Earth.

Back on topic, alignment is real, although most common people are only vaguely aware of it and most religions are probably focused on their tenants over hard alignment.