Search Posts
The 1K XP set up makes it a lot easier to make judgement calls for bonus XP as well. Little festive bonuses stay the same across all levels. I really like that.
Lore:Theology can't ID monsters and might not have any insights on the Great Beyond either. Focusing purely mortal organizations and philosophies seems like a fair Lore, but I'd keep it narrowed to specific creeds and sects.
I would actually put Naofumi as a Witch with the shield as his familiar and some Barbarian multiclassing for his durability and Wrath powers. A lot of the Shield abilities could map as hexes and he isn't exactly a martial type. He more gets in the way of the enemy while his companions brawl, though he is good at that. Of course, as a mythic type almost unique in the world hero the shield probably gives him feats as event rewards as well as leveling, so he is a special case. The other wrinkle is that he cannot use any weapon other than his shield, so some allowances might need to be made.
Wouldn't the gunslinger be best as an archetype this time around? It arguably would of been better as a archetype the first go around. Just give it a variety of feat opions for spellshooters or all the other gun types that were previous individual archetypes and that should pretty well handle it. It depends on if the class is just "can use a gun pretty well" or if the class has any mechanical uniqueness to it that justifies special abilities every other level.
You've got my principle reasons right there. Focus seems like a fine mechanic for getting all the per encounter style of abilities under one umbrella, but it isn't the same as panache/grit. It really is the risk/reward style that makes the class appealing and something that is absent at the moment. I don't know what a single class that a fencer/gunslinger could branch off from would be called though. "Maverick" sounds a little Westerny, but fits the stereotype of such a character being a risk taking solo, but comes with RP baggage. A bunch of other class names could sound good, but have their own baggage as well as sometimes being stolen from Fantasy Craft. Duelist, Gallant, Skirmisher, Martial Artist...
My top five in no real order are: 1. Witch for the hexes/prepared Occult caster. 2. Swashbuckler/Gunslinger for the deed/grit/risk management set up. They fill the same basic niche, each could be a class path. 3. Shifter for a new chance at what should have been a fun class. 4. Mesmerist, my favorite of the Occult Adventures classes. 5. A class that can be made either from the bones of the Tactician Cavalier or the Investigator. Again, each could be a class path. Call it a Sage or Savant. Something that bends their mind to a non-magical pursuit. And that is it, really. I'm not going to complain if others get in first, but those are the ones I really want to see.
The "Glyph of the Open Road" Pathfinder Hero Point Tokens (Pack of 6) by Campaign Coins are available to preorder now HERE. Do you need three per player?
I'd like it if clerics were the top of the line in burst "I NEED HEALING NOW" type of recovery, but if you had a bit of time for an alchemist or other specialized medic to work on you then you could get more HP back that way.
Nothing. same here. I had already salted the earth of my 3.x mechanical memories. I'm not recycling a single piece.
This might ramble a bit. My apologies. PF1e always had multiple ways to reach an end goal (which is effectively what you are describing). So I disagree with the idea that PF2 including this is a new tool. I didn't say it was a new tool. I said that I think PF2 is going to be more GM tools, meaning advice and ways to facilitate gaming, and not so much hard coded "you can't actually fail" laws, meaning dictates in the rulebooks that tell GMs they have to explain failed die rolls as successes. I also disagree this is failing forward. D&D 4th ed’s DMG2 has failing forward as I’ve defined it I've never read what D&D 4th has to say on the topic. 4th edition didn't even invent the phrase. It is from a year 2000 motivational book encouraging people to allow their mistakes and errors to drive forward development. If 4th edition D&D defines failing forward as you do (I trust it does, I'm not going to check), then it is a bad definition and from what I've seen on the topic things have moved on. Failing Forward isn't always about success. It is just about a mindset intended to keep the game moving. It isn't always the solution needed or course, sometimes a locked door is just a locked door. However, if that locked door is important or if the failure has the chance to be exciting or dramatic, then even a roll that doesn't meet the DC should trigger something that drives the game forward and creates new opportunities. When the answer to "do I succeed" is a simple "no," that doesn't always add anything. All fail forward means is to encourage "do I succeed" to be answered by "no, but..." or "yes, but..." or something else that helps inspire motion in the game. Unless the players take initiative and start making moves to correct the situation themselves. If they are driving the game forward and doing your work for you, why get in their way?
The main problem with Jason's explanation is that it is sort of off the cuff and has to be brief, which is going to hurt clarity and final intent. I'm willing to give him the benefit of that doubt though. I think PF2 is going to be more GM tools to move the game along and not so much hard coded "you can't actually fail" laws. Here's another explanation: The orcs have been following a single path to their hideout. They've been taking great effort to hide their tracks. The players fail to follow the tracks and end up going along a game trail. Because the GM doesn't want to waste their prep they use GM fiat to say that this game trail ALSO leads to the orc hideout. Because we're too lazy to provide multiple avenues to get the PCs onto the rest of the adventure*. I'm going to piggy back off of that for a moment, just because the discussion is fun. Not actually arguing. Here's another explanation: The orcs have been following a single path to their hideout. They've been taking great effort to hide their tracks. The players fail to follow the tracks and end up going along a game trail. Because the GM doesn't want to waste their prep they say that this game trail has orc hunters looking for game to bring back to camp. Or the players draw the attention of a random encounter, which alerts the orcs. I think we largely agree though, or at least are facing the same direction. Bad failing forward is situation A leads to situation B no matter what and a GM has to work hard to make that look organic. The overly convenient game trail is a fine example. Players are likely to roll their eyes and say "Well that is lucky." Good failing forward is one of two things. 1) You get what you want, but not the way you want it. You find the orc hide out, but through circumstances the orcs have advantage. This is the simplest one and might be the easiest to put into a published adventure. It is a simple "If x then y, but if not x then z" situation. 2) You don't get what you want... yet. You fail to track the orcs, BUT there are opportunities to get back on track that make sense for the situation and the game moves along instead of grinding to a halt while the players search for the right pixel to click. "If x then y, but if not x then select from range of options which should work back to y eventually. It might be a z by the time you get there, though"
Using Jason's example of the outriders as Failing Forward, motive matters a whole lot and it ties in to the idea of preparing situations instead of plots. A plot based GM wants the party to find the outriders because they have to save the captives so they can earn the trust of an important NPC who gives them the next adventure and the party doesn't really have a choice in what happens. They are going to find the orcs because the GM says so and they are going to save the captives because that is what has been plotted out. I think that is the failing Forward John Lynch is arguing against and if so, then I agree. A situation based GM wants the party to find the outriders because the events led up to it, he wrote their stats up, made the lego figures all special for the evening and set up an encounter to entertain his friends. Part of the game is to not waste the GMs time as much as it is for the GM to not waste the players time. However, the outcome is not as scripted as the plot based GM. All sorts of things could still go wrong and failure on key rolls can drastically affect how things happen! Finding the orcs becomes a variable crossroad, or decision tree with branching outcomes and not just a straight line to the next event. That is where a fail forward philosophy is valuable. Not to drag people around by their nose, but to leave things open to change while still being able to use the material you've worked on.
The new 7th Sea RPG has a similar assumption and anybody who has read "Play Dirty" knows that John Wick isn't the kind of GM to let people off easy. 7th Sea assumes success (being a swashbuckling game), but the roll is there to see how many consequences you can buy off. Navigating through a storm? The bare minimum success might mean you get through, but you've lost most of your crew, your cargo is damaged, you are off course and your crew resents how crazy you are for trying. Better success rolls means that you can start chipping away at those consequences and you might wind up merely off course and a crew one step closer to mutiny because you might have killed them all.
In my opinion, the important part of Failing Forward is that the results of the die rolls have to have the potential to matter if F>F is going to work, regardless of the result. I was going to correct the typo of F.F., but I actually like F>F as a short hand for Failing Forward. If success or failure isn't going to be particularly important and there isn't a need for a random result, then rolling is just for the nice noise it makes. If a random result is needed, just note it and move on, no need to dwell on minor issues. If success or failure IS going to be important, then you have to ask yourself "Is this binary or not." "Do you know about X creature that is right in front of you" is an example of binary. If you do, great! Have some tactics. If you don't, oh well... no time to go to a library. If success or failure is going to be important AND you need to know how well things are happening, that is when F>F is going to work out the best. In these situations a failed roll might mean that you succeed at your task, but you still do not achieve your goal. As an example of that, say you just had a fight with the villain and now the building is on fire. The villain escapes and you roll Athletics to try and get out of the burning building and get after him. The Athletics roll is really just to get out of the building, but what you WANT is a chase scene so you can catch the fiend. F>F on that Athletics roll could be that you get out safely enough, but that your quarry has escaped you, or that you start out the chase scene at a more pronounced disadvantage, or you get free and see your prey clearly but you are ON FIRE. A critical failure might mean that you get out while still on fire AND your prey has the advantage in the chase or is gone. A bland result of "no, you failed" in that case isn't as interesting as the potential for further action and game play even though the dice say the same thing.
WatersLethe, yes! I forgot about all the talented people who put a lot of work into making the guides. I'm looking forward to seeing how many of them put their writing skills to work making all that interesting and entertaining.
Entangled sounds like it has been turned into Restrained. So for ability degrades we have Clumsy (Dex), Enfeebled (Str), and Stupified (Int,Wis,Cha). Stupified is so that there only needs to be one condition for any given spellcaster, right? While I appreciate a lack of direct Con degrader, what sort of thing takes its place? Doomed & Wounded?
We're back to relative XP calculations so yeah, low CR creatures give little to no XP (sometimes straight up 0). It would still be really weird to start an AP with higher level chars, it would make stuff vastly less dramatic than intended for at least 1 book. One GMs vastly less dramatic is another GMs highly cinematic. Granted, you might still be right, but it might also be used for the opportunity to run around with more crits than normal, do more things they wouldn't normally be able to accomplish, and get to feel the opposition strengthening instead of being roughly matched. Especially in Age of Ashes where the PCs wind up with their own castle. It lends their "moral arguments" some weight if they are gloriously triumphant rather than merely successful. It would just take a bit of work to make sure it is action movie fun instead of so easy it is boring.
For me it'll be a nice little extra thing for my group. We will probably do Plaguestone and then Age of Ashes. If the players want to keep there characters into Age of Ashes I don't see why the shouldn't. I can just scale up the encounters and say "you guys are on 1250 xp per level until the AP catches up. Do low CRs still give low XP rewards? It might be fun to just let Lvl 4 characters roll through the beginning stages of an AP and let them show off how awesome they are for a while. Maybe beef up a boss fight so they don't just steamroll over everything. The XL rewards should adjust themselves.
Another way things could be organized in the background are in how the feats interact with modes. Class Feats= primarily encounter & exploration, maybe some downtime. Skill feats= primarily exploration & downtime with maybe some encounter uses. Just an idle thought to toss into the mix.
I'm probably going to print out the reaction table from GURPS Lite and use it with maybe slight modifications.
Background: Boy Named Sue
Bandits start having enough people to both keep everyone busy and others to do a loot and scoot.
I wonder if part of the disconnect is that the two editions are assuming a different level of base competence. This post got away from me and is way longer than I started out, whoops. In PF1 if you weren't picking up combat feats and you didn't have a full 1:1 BAB, you just didn't have the stats to keep up, even with weapons you were trained in. Even if you did have a full BAB, if you weren't picking up combat feats you were likely to be not pulling your full weight in a combat encounter. In PF2 it seems that you have a better baseline of competence and won't have to make such mandatory feats masquerading as choices. In PF1 if you are a Wizard then using a weapon is basically an act of desperation. In PF2 it might not be the best choice, but it doesn't appear to be a terrible one either. In PF1 if you wanted to wield two weapons, that was a character defining build. You had to sacrifice lots of other options in order to do it well. In PF2 it doesn't seem to be that vital. Granted, I haven't gone over those options completely, but you don't seem to be losing much by not selecting them. Flurry of Blows seems to be the best of them, letting you Strike twice with one action, but Double Slice seems to only be worth it if you are going up against damage resistance. My impression of 3.X from my years of play is that if you weren't excellent at something, eventually you'd be terrible and if you tried to be good at a little bit of everything you wound up good at nothing. If you had the system mastery to juggle the options from all the books then you might be able get around that, but it was a mini-game I'm not willing to entertain anymore. PF2 seems to have a much better starting point where you can make non-combat choices and not be a burden in a brawl or make combat choices and not be failure outside of a fight.
Yes, if you want to be a trap specialist, you need to make choices that involve being a trap specialist. This is a feature to some of us, not a bug.
Thank you for confirming because you keep saying things like "why do I have to choose between searching for traps and Double Slice" when you are really choosing either Double Slice or to be a trap specialist. You have to choose because the character game is about choices. You choose to be good at one thing and it means you aren't going to be as good at something else, or you have to delay gratification in order to be good at both things. 3.X has always been this way. So has GURPS and Savage Worlds and anything where you choose your options in character creation. The only difference here is organization. Now Rogues do Rogue things unless they sacrifice Rogue things to do Fighter things. So far I prefer this to having to choose fighter things over rogue things in order for Rogues to keep up and pull their weight.
Toker, could you confirm that you understand that Trap Finder the feat is not necessary for searching for traps? That is a repeating argument that I keep seeing and I don't understand how it keeps being brought up.
I do remember that now, thank you.
These examples sound like they are only issues if you want to multiclass, which might not even be an option for some characters due to ability requirements. If you want to be a Rogue/Fighter, you are going in with the understanding that you aren't going to be 100% rogue-y. That us a choice that a player should be aware of at character creation. And these feat picks aren't competing for access, they are competing for how soon they can be aquired. If you pick up a Fighter dedication at level 4 you can still get a Rogue 4 feat later.
By carving out as if DLC do you mean them breaking off a pat that could be done as standard in 1E and locking it behind a feat ? I can see the fear here as this seemed to be what ancestry feats did in the playtest Sort of. I don't actually care what could have happened in PF1, but things like Pickpocket being walled off completely from Thievery is what I mean. A skill feat should either enhance the use of the skill or provide something that a skill shouldn't be able to do as a baseline. Somebody with X proficiency in Thievery should be able to attempt to lift items off of another characters person. The same person with a specific Pickpocket feat should be able to do it in broader circumstances, or even while being observed, or be able to replace an item with the same action... Something like that.
They had website updates yesterday. We'll probably get character creation this afternoon.
Aside from the fact that nobody needs Trap Finder to Seek for traps, how are Rogues blocked from having Trap Finder and Double Slice? It looks like you pick Trap Finder at level one and then Fighter dedications at two and four. Or Trap Finder at some other level. What is keeping them from having both?
Since skill feats are in their own silo and don't have to match general or class feats for power and utility, I'm not concerned if they don't knock my socks off. As long as they are consistently applied and don't do things like completely carve out parts of their skill as if they were DLC made by EA I think I'll be content. The potency tier for feats could well go Class, Ancestry/General, and then Skill.
Warpriest is a confirmed Cleric doctrine, isn't it?
That would make Christian Rock Bards divine.Prog Rock Bards are arcane, though. "You aren't making Sarenrism better, you are making folk dancing worse!"
That would be pretty great. It makes sense now! There is already a sheet out in the wild, they don't lose anything by releasing the English one and next week's blog is a perfect place to preview the pages. Plus, the poster who runs Dyslexic Character Sheets might not be able to count for getting a preview copy of the rules, but this could help their efforts in making their sheets ready to go.
In truth, divindade is "deity" as in "which deity you follow". Furtividade is Stealth (Furniture is "mobília", lol). And yes, tendência is as brazilians call the alignment. I figured as much. Putting "Religion" down on the character sheet is what I'm used to, but "Divinity" is also pretty neat sounding. Furtividade made the most sense as Stealth, due to the word Furtive, but I couldn't just not mention the bad translation. Also, traits? I'm guessing that means distinguishing features and not traits as we knew campaign traits to be.
Okay, I'm going to break some of this down with the power of GOOOOOOGLE TRAAAAAAANSLAAAAATE! Just the bits I think are interesting though. Up at the top, we have spaces for: Ancestralidade e Herança, Biografia, Classe, Tamanho, Tendência, Traços, & Divindade. Ancestry and Inheritance, Biography, Class, Size, Trend (tendency?), Traits, & Divinity. Is "trend" what they call "Alignment?" Divinity is religion, but it is amusing to have what I would call "what sort of god are you?" there. Some skills are neat. I didn't know the word Ladroagem, naturally. It is "thievery." INTIMIDAÇÃO shows up as "bullying," which is worth a smile there. "FURTIVIDADE" translates as "Furniture" according to Google, all hail the god of truth and lies. "OCULTISMO" is.... Ocultismo. Good job, Google.
It does seem official, just because of the page stamps being 624-627. That would be an odd thing to fudge. Maybe on Monday when they do the character creation blog they can link the English one....
Okay, I see it now. You have to sign in to get the download link, but you don't need to actually subscribe to anything. Looks decent so far, though!
Maybe a direct link to the sheet instead of the page, please? I think I can see where the sheet is supposed to be, but that site is not mobile friendly.
PF2 has a weird set up where everything has been interesting and promising, making me more interested than I thought I could be about a D20 system again, EXCEPT the official web releases. It is like the staff have been walking around with choice slices of sashimi and wonderful morsels of flavor, but so far the only thing to take home in a package are 7-11 California rolls. The meal is coming though.... Sooner than I'll even realize once it is here.
Midas has an asses ears.
That sounds rather like the 3.5 Binder class, actually. Which is definitely a good thing.
There is a Champions thread over here for the tangent to go to.
Thank you, Malcolm. You have been a diligent and appreciated scribe.
No chances for a consolation prize? xD Free rules for all! It will just take a few weeks to get ready.
That looks really... really familiar. Like it was already spoiled from another source. Pity. Well, other spoilers are bound to be coming soon.
And the bell tolls.
*plays Nearer My God to Thee.*
43 minutes from this post.
|
