Besmara

Sydney S.'s page

15 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seconding the original post.
Every ancestry other than human has to spend their ancestry feats remembering they didn't write "human" on their character sheet.
Humans, who lost absolutely nothing in the transition from PF1e to PF2e, instead go from gaining 1 bonus feat to gaining up to 5?

That's just not right. Not even a little.
As long as humans have the option to take class/general feats in place of their ancestry feats, every other ancestry should have options that compare to class feats.

For example, elves and gnomes getting a cantrip as an ancestry feat? Work with that. They don't just gain a free cantrip, they gain a free Multiclass Dedication feat for anything that would grant them arcane/primal cantrips, ON TOP OF some other small bonus, like training in arcana/nature.
Let humans be the "jack of all trades", and give the other ancestries more powerful, but more narrow, options.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gosh I really hope Drow don't get turned into a heritage feat.
That's already a terrible shame for half-elves and half-orcs, we don't need actual unique races getting flung into that mess.
We need the races to feel more like themselves again, not turn more races into feats that take entirely too long to get going anywhere iconic.


N N 959 wrote:
It'd be one thing if Snares were this wonderful new mechanic like Inspiration was for Investigators. But who the hell uses it in P1?

I know I sure don't. Even when I archetype my magic out, because I'm not a fan of the 4/9 casting thing, I avoided the ones that tried to replace it with terrible trap gimmicks.

Is the campaign about hunting wild animals? ...gosh, you actually said yes? Alright, sure, lets roll with that. Do you want to spend that whole campaign just setting traps to hunt the wild animals for you?
Even in the perfect scenario the things are still useless, because they actively make the game less fun to play.


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Ancestries seems more appropriate for changelings, dhampir, genie-blooded, duergar, ...

Maybe if they don't do them such a grievous wrong like they did to Half-elf and Half-orc.

Probably the biggest thing I expected from "Half-X is a feat now" was the ability to take them on races other than human. Like, Aasimar and Tieflings in PF 1e have rules in place to be from a race other than human, but that explicitly only changed their size category... and only if the DM allowed it.
As it stands now, I'm just straight up never going to play a half-race, why spend a feat on gaining access to racial feats when I could instead just be the actual real race? Not having the real race as an option (playable true genies when?) for the half-races not appearing in the playtest would suck.


Pathfinder Society play doesn't use the same rules as your average home-game.
For example, they completely change the way gold and item ownership works, so any class or archetype in PF 1e that grants the Scribe Scroll feat (such as the core Wizard, or the Geisha Bard archetype) instead receives a replacement feat in the form of Spell Focus.
In a home game obviously no one really cares, let the wizard craft their scrolls, right? But the rules don't allow it in Society play, and so rather than banning everything that would grant a crafting feat, they instead replace it.

In a home game this is a complete non-issue. Obviously the Paladin can use Lay on Hands, I mean c'mon, right?
But the current rules for Society play on the PF 2e playtest don't allow that. The Lay on Hands power, which counts as a spell, is Uncommon, and the rule on that is "spells with uncommon and rare rarities are not allowed".
This in turn makes the entire class of Paladin invalid as an option, since there's no rule in place to allow or substitute that disallowed power.

For an example of what I mean, typically a Rogue cannot use an Elven Curve Blade. Not only do they not have martial weapon proficiency, it's an Uncommon weapon.
But if that Rogue is an Elf, they could take the Weapon Familiarity feat and gain access to it, as per the rule "Items with uncommon or rare rarities are not available unless you gain access to them with a character ability (for example, an elf with Weapon Familiarity gains access to uncommon elf weapons)."


KingOfAnything wrote:
This is total nonsense and not how the rules work.

You don't need to defend a mistake brought about by unfortunate interactions of wording likely written by three entirely different people.

This is a playtest, there is a problem, and hopefully it will be fixed in time for the official release.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Common class features that give you uncommon options work the same way.

This is obviously the intent, but not how the rule is currently written.

Society play is designed to eliminate as much table variance as possible, and that means deciding things in advance that the DM would normally decide for you.
In this case, because the class does not at any point actually grant access to those Uncommon options, you cannot, by the rules of Society play, select them.

It doesn't matter that in some cases you only select a Common feat that grants an Uncommon reward, you haven't been given access to the Uncommon option, and that means you can't take more than one of them. And because you can't take more than one of them, there are some classes in the game that, as per the currently written rules of the game and Society play, are not legal for play at all.
You would end up selecting more Uncommon options than you're allowed by just statting up normally; there aren't Common options to take in their place.

Again, not arguing this is how it SHOULD work, because that would be ridiculous. Playtest rules just need a fix before the real launch, this is what playtests are for.


At least the PF 2e Rogue isn't forcing that nonsense into the actual mechanics like in D&D 5e.
Every Rogue in D&D 5e knows Thieves' Cant; even if I were playing a thief, why assume I was involved in organized crime?


Colette Brunel wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Maybe y’all should read the PFS FAQ page. John’s post serves as the sanctioning document for the purpose of the Playtest. It does not make particular note of uncommon powers granted by common class options, therefore the default rules apply. As you can see, that means uncommon powers granted by common class abilities are considered legal and available.
Does the 1e FAQ carry over to the 2e playtest?

It does not, in fact. There's different headers for each section of the page detailing what the clarifications below them apply to.

On a related note, such a FAQ for Pathfinder 1e is kinda telling in its own way; they've already been down this road before and didn't have a rule in place to handle it.
Again, I'm not arguing this is the intent because clearly that's ridiculous. I'm arguing the rules need fixed so we won't *need* a FAQ-fix in the future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, they're pretty on the dot here.
By the rules as they are written, several classes are unplayable in a Society setting due to the way they can't even be statted up without taking an Uncommon option somewhere.
They need to either reword the rule, change rarities, or introduce an explicit class feature granting you access to a class's Uncommon options for being a member of that class.

Part of the point of a playtest is to find these sorts of issues and fix them, not to say "yeah but it's obvious it's not supposed to *actually* work that way" like there's nothing wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They probably just wanted to avoid using the word "sex" in the book.
Regardless of a person's particular conundrums of gender, they're going to fall under one of two generally blatantly obvious physical sexes.
Like, you can't even dream of disguising as a female if you have a beard (or your shaved beard starts creeping back in as stubble) and aren't a dwarf, y'know? There's a physical characteristic that's absolutely going to give you away.

I'd say the bigger problem is the feat isn't described as learned type of disguise like "If I wrap my chest just right it really flattens down, and then I add a bulky shirt on top..." and rather retcons in an aspect of your character: "What do you mean? I've always had slightly pointed ears, yeah. Got some... distant elven blood in me. Honest."
It should be either reworded entirely (to represent a learned benefit) or changed to a feat you can only take at 1st level. (to represent a physical, in-born characteristic)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For example, the Ranger in the playtest only gains Trackless Step at 5th level.
Considering how incredibly situational it is, yet also how incredibly thematic it is, it should be a 1st level class feature rather than 5th.

Nature's Edge at 9th level? Again, it's thematic, but not really a "9th level" benefit. Bump it down to 5th, it's not like a Rogue can just dip Ranger and Sneak Attack everything that sets foot in vaguely defined shrubbery.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Heritage feats should be something that changes what you are at a base level.
Any Goblin could learn to chomp things better with the teeth they *all* have, but you can't (short of a Reincarnation) have a Human that decides one day "I'm gonna be part Orc."

Edit: Another example would be Elves and "I can hear a bit good I guess."
That's not a Heritage feat type of change.
What IS a Heritage feat would be something like Aquatic Elves; you've got gills and can breath under water.


Envall wrote:

So are the Lashunta really completely okay with how their race works?

I mean, I feel like a classic blue vs white collar conflict.
Are the taller and more intellect Lashunta snobs towards the shorter and more workman Lashunta?

This is very human culture reading on a fictional alien race, but are the values of "being more physically strong" and "being more intellectual" in harmony or does one have more cultural value?

I mean, considering it's optional now, I figure they're just glad to have the option.

On a planet they intentionally preserve in a 'wild' state having some muscles could help, so it's not like they're that much worse off for it.


Personally I say it isn't even a retcon.
Back before the Lashunta had access to what is basically HRT for them, males and females were just naturally predisposed to becoming a certain subrace, be that from genetics or societal pressures.
Nowadays a guy that wants to develop Damayan traits just pops some pills/gets a different job until they pass puberty.

Not that I like the change, honestly, but it makes sense to me.