Black Dragon

Tezmick's page

76 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Raylyeh wrote:
Okay I will also give Paizo credit for SF though my group hasn’t gotten around to trying it yet because we are a bit burnt out on sci fi. One of our game nights has been a long running D6 Star Wars campaign.

Starfinder is alright if you’re a fan of item levels like in the playtest starfinder has that although if you don’t like a game full of guns it might not be your thing.


My only real problem with magic items was resonance so when that disappeared I was pretty ok with everything aside from item level since it felt kinda video gamey to me, but the items themselves seemed cool.


Helmic wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
I honestly just want the sorcerer to at the very least have auto heightening on all spells or if not that a complete rework as they are now the only reason to play one over the other caster classes is flavor.

I honestly do wonder why that's the case. It's extra bookkeeping and I don't see why the class really needs that limitation, other than to give prepared casters something in compensation. I'm not happy with either prepared or spontaneous casters at this point and would rather they all move to an Arcanist-like setup.

It's not like an Arcanist is even not preparing their spells. They're still doing their rituals, they're still picking spells for the day and trying to be flexible, but having to predict exactly how many times a particular spell will be used leads to balance problems and boring spell selections. A wizard in PF2 currently is encouraged to prepare multiple slots of common spells, which intrudes upon the fantasy of being studious and having obscure magics at their command. They have a limited ability to flex spell slots into something that just came up, but it's just that - limited. And it's more bookkeeping, making an already demanding class even harder to play. And for what benefit? To make it so the number of spells a caster will actually cast per day extremely unpredictable even for players who know what they're doing? If they cast exactly as many feather falls and grease spells as they prepared, it's going to be a lot more done on that day than a wizard that didn't have a good opporutnity to spend either spell slot.

Arcanist casting lets casting classes use more obscure and fun spells without giving them more spell slots, and makes them better adapted to having fewer slots in general than in PF1. It's been well-received in 5e and it keeps being asked about here.

5e gave Sorcerers metamagic that they could then turn into additional spell slots if the need arised, and that seemed to work just fine. It got across the point that...

A lot of good points all worth noting thanks for a fun read, I agree the arcanist casting would be a sweet alternative.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I honestly just want the sorcerer to at the very least have auto heightening on all spells or if not that a complete rework as they are now the only reason to play one over the other caster classes is flavor.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh
Actually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.

It’s no secret I’ve been one of the less satisfied with the playtest, I actually really enjoy the changes listed my big concern is how much it will change and how much work it will take,the Paizo staff are people as well regardless of how I feel about the final game I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being concerned.

I also think there’s plenty of shots fired on both sides it’s the nature of debate however I severely doubt the forums were a dealbreaker I highly doubt Paizo would of bothered with surveys if they were just gonna go use whatever the forums listed instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly was happy to hear the proficiency change though I did take a healthy sip of skepticism as well, I’m glad that your character has to invest to be good in something, what I now fear however is how several changes will influence the whole framework, the playtest has always had tight math so I imagine this could be a sizeable overhaul, I have had a lot of issues with the playtest but I find myself sharing @Gorbacz feeling of worry that such a big overhaul can be completed on time.

In short whatever misgivings I’ve had with the system I want the final product to do well, I’m just gonna be patient before I outright make predictions on how it will turn out since the final product may look nothing like what we have now save for some core mechanics (3 actions and so on).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Tezmick wrote:

If it requires a GM ok before I can take it I don’t want it in the core rulebook I’d rather it be in a supplement.

As for players being entitled I never said there should be no rarity or limited supply...

Those statements are almost directly contradictory... The rarity system means, in most cases, getting GM okay to take a thing.

Tezmick wrote:
the players handbook should be for the player if I can’t play the character I want then what’s the point.

This is kind of exactly the kind of entitlement Charon was referring to. Putting aside the fact that this statement taken with a little less context easily devolves into the idea that players should be able to just do and have whatever they want no matter what the GM says (Again, the entitlement Charon is speaking of), Paizo shouldn't have to make everything either unconditionally available to the players or else stick it in a GM book. Frankly that's silly.

Something being in the Player book with a rarity tag instead of a GM book is a courtesy, it lets players no that option exists but they need to take certain options or work with their GM to get it. If you put it in the GM book only because "Well I can't have it without GM permission so what's the point", then a lot of players won't even know the option exists so they won't even know to ask about it in the first place!

Well if you want to talk in extremes then why have players make characters at all?

Just have the GM make them all apparently that’s the only way they can be trusted.

I don’t know what kind of munchkins you play with that you feel the need to micromanage everything I got news paizo can limit options all they want people will always find a way to break a system, if the only way you can trust a player is by banning things and telling them how to play then I think you have a much bigger issue at hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Tezmick wrote:

It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.

In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.

Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.

How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?

Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.

I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to it. From the sounds of things, "collaborative" is a code word for players being entitled to everything they...

If it requires a GM ok before I can take it I don’t want it in the core rulebook I’d rather it be in a supplement.

As for players being entitled I never said there should be no rarity or limited supply I said there should be clear rules not a big GM’s discretion tag if that’s the route they want to take I personally think it should be in a DM focused book the players handbook should be for the player if I can’t play the character I want then what’s the point.

As for magic gear I lean more into negotiations here as items are acquired in game not on character creation (inless starting at a higher level) or level up so I think it’s fine if I can’t find something (the caveat being if I never find anything for my character and the campaign is approaching high levels)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
in◆⃟ wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So one of the best things about PF2 is that the proficiency system works the same for things like "saves" and "armor class" and "attacks with weapons" as it does for skills.

It would be a shame to break this in the interest of changing how skills work, and giving a fighter a massive advantage in "to hit" compared to everyone else, and giving Paladins a huge advantage in AC would be worse than the current issues with skills.

Also, nothing wrong with monks having a high AC, some of the highest AC characters I saw in PF1 were monks.

Could you explain what benefit this provides? Is it only for simplicity?

It is for predictable mathematics.

In PF1 the main line of advancement is simple: fighters, barbarians, and rangers get +1 BAB every level, bards, clerics, and maguses get +1 to BAB every 3/4 levels, and sorcerers and wizards get +1 to BAB every 1/2 level. But really, everyone needs to hit the same monsters (assuming blaster wizards that use ranged touch attacks). The full BAB character use their BAB, the 3/4 BAB characters use their BAB plus some trick to boost their BAB close to full BAB, and the 1/2 BAB characters target touch AC instead of regular AC. However, when a full BAB character borrows the 3/4 BAB tricks or a 3/4 BAB character targets touch AC, the expected rate of hitting falls out of balance. The higher the level, the more powerful the tricks that a character can buy or borrow. The rogue and monk suffered because they had 3/4 BAB but limited low-level tricks to help them hit.

In PF2 everyone has full BAB. Bardic tricks or touch attacks are no longer necessary for balance. (I have no idea why PF2 kept touch AC.) And the system can no longer be thrown out of balance by mixing and match the strong boosts with the strong BAB. The bonuses depend on clever combinations of bonuses and are hard to predict for putting level-appropriate encounters into adventure paths.

But we

...

Assuming you can keep a party invested till at least tenth level it’s a little dishonest to talk like they get this guaranteed reliability heck it doesn’t even show any promise till at least seventh level, in the event you’re talking about assurance you don’t add bonus to that you get the number it provides, it doesn’t become remotely attractive till tenth level when you gain access to sneak savant turning a fail into a success a feat I never would of needed before because I’d be actually good at stealth.

If taking ten levels before you notice any real improvement is your idea of good then sure it might be ok, but none of the players at my table could imagine slogging through ten levels of mediocrity before their character does as advertised.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Mirrored moon playing a half-elf Rogue who I made as stealthy as possible, went to scope out the lake where the sea serpent was apparently lurking I rolled a 18 for stealth on dice only to find out I’d been seen and that the serpent had rolled higher on stealth than I did.

Honestly just feels like specialist characters aren’t allowed to be ‘too good’ even though they sacrifice just as many feats as every joker who invested only in combat options.

The tight math in short just made all of us go the hell with it lets all roll for everything it doesn’t matter anyway.

And the final thing that Paizo say will be fixed by the time the game is done is spell casters now I played a rogue from 1-20 in PF1e they were considered the second weakest class after monks and I would of rather played a 1E monk over a 2E caster, if your spell isn’t magic missile, heal or a buff then it’s bad or mediocre at best they upscaled the damage which wasn’t even the issue, the problem was that spell dc’s are so trash that most enemies shrug off spells even on their bad saves.

In short we never felt awesome at best we felt mediocre at worst we would of rather played as monsters or NPC’s since they aren’t trash.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
in◆⃟ wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So one of the best things about PF2 is that the proficiency system works the same for things like "saves" and "armor class" and "attacks with weapons" as it does for skills.

It would be a shame to break this in the interest of changing how skills work, and giving a fighter a massive advantage in "to hit" compared to everyone else, and giving Paladins a huge advantage in AC would be worse than the current issues with skills.

Also, nothing wrong with monks having a high AC, some of the highest AC characters I saw in PF1 were monks.

Could you explain what benefit this provides? Is it only for simplicity?

It is for predictable mathematics.

In PF1 the main line of advancement is simple: fighters, barbarians, and rangers get +1 BAB every level, bards, clerics, and maguses get +1 to BAB every 3/4 levels, and sorcerers and wizards get +1 to BAB every 1/2 level. But really, everyone needs to hit the same monsters (assuming blaster wizards that use ranged touch attacks). The full BAB character use their BAB, the 3/4 BAB characters use their BAB plus some trick to boost their BAB close to full BAB, and the 1/2 BAB characters target touch AC instead of regular AC. However, when a full BAB character borrows the 3/4 BAB tricks or a 3/4 BAB character targets touch AC, the expected rate of hitting falls out of balance. The higher the level, the more powerful the tricks that a character can buy or borrow. The rogue and monk suffered because they had 3/4 BAB but limited low-level tricks to help them hit.

In PF2 everyone has full BAB. Bardic tricks or touch attacks are no longer necessary for balance. (I have no idea why PF2 kept touch AC.) And the system can no longer be thrown out of balance by mixing and match the strong boosts with the strong BAB. The bonuses depend on clever combinations of bonuses and are hard to predict for putting level-appropriate encounters into adventure paths.

But we still cling to the idea that the barbarian and fighter...

I honestly to this day still don’t see the problem if I’m playing a Rogue for example and invest all of my feats, skills and other bonuses into a particular skill then I want to be bloody good at it, it’s utterly stupid to me that a character who commits at being a specialist can lose out because something else rolled 2 or 3 higher on the D20, if everything is roughly 50/50 then why roll up characters I could just flip a coin to decide everything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

Not sure if this has been gone over or not, but Uncommon has been stated more than once by Devs to not be a "You can never get this unless a feat or feature grants you access". Unless it's a spell or item or something the GM thinks will jack with their campaign then to quote a dev (Mark Seifter I think? Maybe Jason B.) almost verbatim, "Uncommon means you should be able to get your hands on it if you search around a bit".

I mean, if that weren't so then uncommon spells would be totally out too since most of them don't have an access method.

It's a meaningful distinction from "Only if you're granted access or the GM says yes", because it makes it clear that while the GM has the right to keep it from being attained, unless they have a really good reason then you are supposed to be able to get it. It's just a little trickier.

It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.

In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.

Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.


Rysky wrote:
Starfox wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:


Switch "feats" with "spells", and you pretty much have the 1.6 Wizard with its built-in Quick Preparation. Heck, just the average Cleric or Druid with instant-access-to-all-spells-ever-printed fall into the same problems you describe.
And this is a good argument for why Combat Flexibility should be a feat option and not a class ability. Wizard is generally considered the hardest class to play, and fighter the easiest. There is a point to having some simple and newb-friendly classes.

... it's a 9th level ability.

Even back in 1st and 3.5 Fighter was never new player friendly.

I adore Flexibility and think they should get it earlier if anything.

The fighter was literally the easiest class in PF1E, as for combat flexibilty I think it’s neat.


If classes can just pick favored bonuses then at what point do we just open all feats to each class but maybe at a different level (Like Dark Heresy).

I’m in no way saying that would be bad just wondering if you think it should be limited to just stats or if you think things should move towards a sytem where classes just decide your starting options and not limit you after or if you don’t want to see this kind of freedom go any further thsn stats at character creation.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It’s almost like we had something that dealt with wounds in PF1e that kept adventures from grinding to a halt *cough* wands *cough*.

Honestly if magic healing is unrealistic and cleric channels are just gonna get nerfed because heal is the only good spell in the playtest they may as well just remove all magic healing, heck just get rid of magic clearly that’s intended to only be fun for monsters unless you’re a wizard we’ll buff those since they were too boring not because data said they were significantly weaker.

Honestly though it feels like you’re inherently punished for wanting magic in the playtest, paizo say that they know and will fix it by the release and hey maybe they will but based on what we have at the moment I am extremely skeptical.


Pre update 1.6 the cleric was the only caster my group would even bother with, I played a divine sorcerer which was honestly terrible, the wizard was boring which actually led to it being buffed because apparently Wizard not being boring is more important than fixing sorcerer and druid was just meh they weren’t terrible but just felt mediocre.

Honestly all the casters need an overhaul as it stands my players have all said if casters are anything like they are now they’ll at best only ever play martials and at worst just not buy the game since apparently fun spellcasters and wands of cure light wounds is what was ruining the world and having to take a day off after EVERY fight is preferable guess we know why they removed age mechanics any humans in the party would die of old age by the midpoint of any campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t even get why anyone is surprised anymore Wizards will always be better because people basically demand it, hell the wizard literally got buffed because it wasn’t interesting not even because it was weaker, it honestly just seems like the sorcerer was designed to fail it’s got access to any spell list but the parent classes are almost always better, even their bloodline abilities don’t help much since they range from mediocre to just bad, who knows maybe they’ll turn out fine but from everything shown the sorcerer is gonna be the runt of the litter who got torn down because it dared to try and be relevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Claxon wrote:


I mean, it's a terrible idea but no reason it can't be an option.

That's exactly the reason it shouldn't be an option. (Or at least, the argument against it.) If an option is terrible and will serve as a trap, don't bother including it.

Guess a good number of class feats shouldn’t be included either then? (Looking at you power attack)


The issue with spells isn’t damage yes that got nerfed, however the real issue is saving throws throughout the playtest my group all agreed that you should always decide if a spell was worth taking if the target passed, the reason because monsters have stupidly high saving throws I don’t care how much they increase damage on spells if it’s doing half damage 80% of the time then I may as well have taken buffs or healing.
The short version play cleric.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's no different then what I was saying.

Sorry I must have misread you I thought you said you’d rather change rarity as you see fit, but I must have gotten confused


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
I can only speak for myself: I prefer to seeing restrictions and then finding ways to be the benevolent GM who gives players an avenue to achieving what they want that isn't normally readily available, than having to restrict access to what the player believes the rules say is unconstrained.
Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?
House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.

It would not be a problem at all for my group. My reasoning would be reasonable...

Also screaming at each other for not being able to have what they want? do you play with 8 year olds?

I run games at a store often with people I am unfamiliar with of varying ages, I make a point to set my standards early and while in YOUR experience it’s not an issue it can be especially when you’re dealing with different kinds of people from different walks of life not everyone you meet is as happy and I’ve met more than a few players who believe that unless a book states you can’t have a spell or particular class feature or archetype then it’s good to go, items are a lot easier to argue you can just say they don’t have what they’re looking for.

In short I like rules because most players read them and accept them, the minute it becomes GM fiat I open myself up to potential problems, i also believe that a set rarity sytem

...

If it’s a home game I may alter things to my preference but at a store game I will always default to rules as written so unless there’s a reason not to such as a AP specifically stating otherwise then anything listed as common would be that it prevents arguments and rules lawyering, but if I was to alter rarity it would be at the beginning of the campaign and only if the players know, openness tends to reduce problems.


thejeff wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.

It always amazes me how many people have terrible experiences with this game. I don't think I've encountered anything close to this since I was 12 playing with friends who were from 9 to 12 themselves and we were first learning the game. It's with some chagrin we can recall all these years later how I once tore up Gary Adam's character sheet in that first campaign when he really got under my skin. lol. We sat down the next day, apologized to each other, and recreated Manar the Wizard together in a campaign group that lasted through both high school and college.

Granted, it is quite possible that some are preteen here and mature interactions are still being developed.

But I've also said before that I play at cooperative tables and favoritism is a foreign concept.

I prefer cooperative tables, but I've wound up at others over the years. I think I've seen more actual GM favoritism than screaming accusations of it. Sometimes bad enough that I've moved on from that group. Other times there were enough other things I liked about the game.

It's not all preteens. The hobby has a reputation that's not entirely undeserved for low social skills, poorly socialized people.

And this can show up in store games too: especially when there are a couple people who always play together and some random strangers added into the mix. Even without blatant favoritism, the friends will know what kinds of approaches will work on the GM and get them to agree to the stuff they want, while the strangers will be fumbling in the dark.

Yes I’ve seen both sides with players using a lack of rules to argue and GM’s using it as a mallet on players they dislike, some call it the risk of playing in a public space but I would personally prefer a system where neither problem makes an appearance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadeRaven wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.

It always amazes me how many people have terrible experiences with this game. I don't think I've encountered anything close to this since I was 12 playing with friends who were from 9 to 12 themselves and we were first learning the game. It's with some chagrin we can recall all these years later how I once tore up Gary Adam's character sheet in that first campaign when he really got under my skin. lol. We sat down the next day, apologized to each other, and recreated Manar the Wizard together in a campaign group that lasted through both high school and college.

Granted, it is quite possible that some are preteen here and mature interactions are still being developed.

But I've also said before that I play at cooperative tables and favoritism is a foreign concept.

I’m one of several GM’s at a store the big issue with arbitrary rarity is some GM’s won’t disclose or don’t get a chance to disclose how they run their games, players then turn up with characters rolled up and are told they can’t use the character they’ve brought or worse a GM will allow the character such as a gunslinger for example and then never allow the character to find more guns because they think they should be near impossible to find, only for that same player to play that same character with a different GM and get all the guns they could want.

It’s not a problem at home games where everyone knows each other but this is a new game with new rules anything that cuts down on potential rules arguments is a plus.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
I can only speak for myself: I prefer to seeing restrictions and then finding ways to be the benevolent GM who gives players an avenue to achieving what they want that isn't normally readily available, than having to restrict access to what the player believes the rules say is unconstrained.
Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?
House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.

It would not be a problem at all for my group. My reasoning would be reasonable...

Also screaming at each other for not being able to have what they want? do you play with 8 year olds?

I run games at a store often with people I am unfamiliar with of varying ages, I make a point to set my standards early and while in YOUR experience it’s not an issue it can be especially when you’re dealing with different kinds of people from different walks of life not everyone you meet is as happy and I’ve met more than a few players who believe that unless a book states you can’t have a spell or particular class feature or archetype then it’s good to go, items are a lot easier to argue you can just say they don’t have what they’re looking for.

In short I like rules because most players read them and accept them, the minute it becomes GM fiat I open myself up to potential problems, i also believe that a set rarity sytem would be better for new GM’s since it takes the weight off them deciding what is and isn’t allowed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
I can only speak for myself: I prefer to seeing restrictions and then finding ways to be the benevolent GM who gives players an avenue to achieving what they want that isn't normally readily available, than having to restrict access to what the player believes the rules say is unconstrained.
Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?
House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.

I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
I can only speak for myself: I prefer to seeing restrictions and then finding ways to be the benevolent GM who gives players an avenue to achieving what they want that isn't normally readily available, than having to restrict access to what the player believes the rules say is unconstrained.
Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?

It’s not that complicated as a GM you inform your players what isn’t allowed at your table ahead of time, if you fail to do that and they build a character without that information then tough luck, the players shouldn’t have to play a guessing game as to what they can have, as for having a rarity list that’s also simple I want a concrete list with tables saying how those items/spells would be acquired if one is to be included, I don’t want everything that’s not listed as common to rest on the GM’s whimsy because that leads to some GM’s allowing anything anyway and others just banning things just because.

A player should know ahead of schedule what they can and cannot have in a campaign last thing you want is to build a necromancer and then be told you can’t have raise dead after the fact JUST BECAUSE.


A high fantasy setting where myself and my friends could adventure and be heroes facilitated by a system that let us build almost anything, put simply we liked feeling legendary and being able to customise characters the way we want with rules to go with it all.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I feel like the question Paizo really needs to answer is "what IS a sorcerer?"* How is a divine sorc different from a cleric? How is a primal sorc different from a druid? And more importantly, why are those two sorcs the same class?
I feel like the answer to this should be Bloodlines. Sorcerers really need to double down on the bloodline mechanic and make their powers really exciting and distinct. I don't think there'd be as much of a big issue of overlap with other classes if they had a real class feature beyond spellcasting.

Too bad the current bloodline abilities pale in comparison to feats and the big hurdle is always going to be

“Why don’t I just play the other class with the spell list I want instead?”
Either they need more stuff to make them better casters or bloodline powers need to be super appealing, I imagine that one way or anothey they’ll end up either weak or overpowered depending on who you ask, the class has to actively compete with all other casters now which is a tall order.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Quote:

1. Members of the group are not having fun. They understand the goals of the playtest and how it makes it different from a normal campaign, but these differences have a negative effect on their playing experience. Here are two examples:

---- Creating many different characters that are only played for a short amount of time lessens immersion and interest
---- Participating in "stress tests" of aspects of the system brings flaws to the forefront

I get that people might not enjoy testing this way, but honestly, this is the best way to actually playtest a game. Campaign play is pretty much the worst, as it yields a lot of anecdotes and hand-waving that obscures mechanics, rather than real data resulting from testing and math.

Really there should be a lot more emphasis on repeatedly running encounters and changing only minor details (spells, feats or opponents) to see how they turn out.

The problem I have with this argument is if it’s not fun to play and I think

“what were they thinking”
The whole time why would I want to bother with the rest, I’m also tired of hearing that homebrew solutions fix a lot of problems, this is a new ruleset it needs to stand on it’s own if the only way to make it enjoyable to my players and myself is to rewrite half of it then why bother there’s already functional games out there.
Also sick of hearing about how it’s new, it’s not an excuse this is meant to be an improvement compared to it predecessor, like it or not this new system has to stand next to the old one and prove it’s worth investing in because like everyone likes to remind me my old books aren’t going anywhere so I don’t need to buy the new edition.

I want the game to be good but I honestly feel like this game was made for different people and is just wearing the pathfinder name tag for brand recognition.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
BryonD wrote:
What RPG would you play then? I'm seriously curious.

I mean the bigger issue is that "promising something then taking it away" is more irksome than never offering it in the first place. "Broadly competent heroes" was one of the things that sold me on PF2 in the first place since the sorts of people we tell stories about in this kind of game are not the sorts of people who should be in danger of drowning in a still pond if they fall out of the boat, no matter how heavy their armor or how little swimming practice they have had- everybody should be able to climb a rope.

So the "you never get better at stuff you don't invest in" model for skills in these games always annoyed me. Particularly since the 12th rank in Skill A and the 1st rank in Skill B were exactly the same price (systems which have higher costs for the bigger numbers encourage people to spread out their choices, IMO.)

The problem I have is that the cost of not being trash at things you didn’t invest in is you’re not that great at the things you optimised for, people can say

“Well it’s because it’s boring if the rogue is never caught or fails a deception check’
I honestly could care less when I decide to optimise towards something I want to be very good at it, but as I’ve said countless times though monsters have better skills anyway to the point that I focus on skills even less in the playtest than in 1E, with the experience I’ve had with the playtest if it doesn’t make killing the target easier or buff the party then it was a sub par choice, you may not like 1E skills but at least when you invested in them you were getting something out of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Gallyck wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
So while I protested initially over the "nerfing" of casters... it's much ado about not-so-much. Casters STILL have a huge selection of spells. Their lower level spells remain valid in combat, especially as weakened higher level foes will, after being softened up, be vulnerable to these lower level spells. And Cantrips will allow Casters to provide significantly greater support than a crossbow or the like, as do Wands and Staves.
SO now casters just wait until the enemies are really weak and then have them make the save anyway? Spellcasting in this edition is stupid. Just get a sword cast your 1 minute buffs and hit stuff with a sword.

You assume they'd make their save. You assume they GET a save. And there are plenty of spells that influence your party instead and enhance their own abilities... increasing the chance of criticals and the like.

Here is the fun thing. A level one Fear spell cast at 1st level has a greater chance of having someone make their save than cast at 20th level... because a 20th level caster has Legendary spell casting and a higher primary statistic and other Class Feats that may very well enhance the spell further. That Fear spell IS STILL USEFUL at higher level. Back with 1st edition Pathfinder, low level spell slots are useless unless you are using them for buffs or effects that allow no saves at all.

The vast majority of playgroups never get past level 12, or at least that’s the case in 1E so saying it gets better at high levels is a pretty poor argument, especially when your spell proficiency doesn’t go up till 15th level, if you think casters being garbage until right at the end of a campaign is ‘balanced and fun’ then I can’t agree with that, either spells need to be overhauled or monster saves need to be knocked down a peg because right now if you roll a caster that isn’t a Cleric you did your party a disservice, honestly 1E was high fantasy the playtest is not, one of their goals was players being able to tell the same stories they did before too bad anything that requires a save is automatically worse than magic missile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I think it's a little unfair to call out metamagic because metamagic is also a fair bit stronger now - it no longer increases spell level, which is huge.

For the record, I fall on the "I want casters weaker than 1e, and martials cooler than 1e" line. Specifically I'd like the difference in narrative power resolved, and I think that absolutely means increasing the narrative power of martials, not just nerfing casters.

And I say that as someone who has literally never played a straight martial character. XD

I particularly think that the removal of caster level was a huge step in the right direction.

My opinion has not crystallized yet about whether the other nerfs are too much or not.

I play primarily martials and with the exception of Cleric wouldn’t even consider a caster in 2E, I tried a primal sorcerer and after our first combat where everything kept passing the burning hands DC I outright gave up on attack spells and just used healing and cantrips since most spells requiring a save are a joke in the playtest, blaster casters were mediocre in 1E but they’re pointless in the playtest since monsters are so overtuned.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Systems are easy to houserule, but going through every feat trying to decide on a balance point for it is much less fun.

Just because a GM can use house rulings to improve a sytem it doesn’t mean the system is fine, rather the fact that the playtest requires house rulings is problematic, if the game struggles to stand on its own then it needs work, this is a new system that new GM’s will take an interest in, it’s unreasonable to expect them to house rule and fix issues on the fly, I like the games skeleton so far but a lot of the meat struggles to stick.


Archimedes Mavranos wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:

So I really love a lot of things in the Playtest and I find certain elements to be a big improvement on the TTRPG genre as a whole. However there are some things which need finessing and a decent number of problems that can be improved upon.

Some of the biggest complaints about the game involve designing your character and how much more narrow your options are for designing a character. Wanna be a duel-weilding or sharp-shooter Barbarian? You can, but you'll always suck compared to a Fighter or Ranger in the same vein.

In top of this, increasing your proficiency in skills feels...well to put it bluntly, dull. Going from Master to Legendary at level 15 in any skill chagnges your bonus from 17 to 18...not very exciting. You have to wait another level to get a Legendary Skill Feat before you start feeling actually Legendary.

A lot of this has to do with the Pathfinder Playtest design mentality which puts so much weight on balance and "class niche" that it doesn't allow much design flexibility or variance outside of the scope of what the classic version of that class can do.

Here is my proposed solution that allows people to have a lot more design flexibility, while maintaining the Playtest's design goal of being more structured, and also fixing the problem with skill proficiency on the way there.

1) Every class needs different paths to take. Plenty already do, like the Sorcerer's Bloodlines or the Barbarian's Totems. But every class needs something like this so that my Paladin feels more substantially different from yours. Paladin is actually a good example because it's a very easy one. Have the different Paladin paths be tied to the different Alignments, each one adjusting how the Paladin's base powers work and only allowing some class feats to be taken by certain alignments. Other classes might be trickier, like the Fighter, but I think it would be doable.

2) Get rid of Skill Feats. Instead, fold in the abilities of skill feats with the proficiency increases.

...

The developers have already said on other threads that they won’t be changing the level scale from 1-20.


Pyrion wrote:
You could just house rule to give every player more feats generally, mission accomplished.

No this is a playtest, if you have to house rule the game for it to work then the rules are failing to facilitate an enjoyable experience, if we have to rewrite the game for it to work then it needs to be fixed.


Tridus wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
That said, I think some people would prefer to have a more basic option be in the game rather than giving all martials their own "magic system" as ToB does.

Oh, absolutely. Lots of room to do things between "strike is the best option 95% of the time" and "Fighters are now Sword Wizards." :)

I wanted to point out ToB because it's got a lot of examples of really neat martial abilities that open up combat options but let you still feel like you're melee combat focused.

I have only played pathfinder no 3.5 but Tome of Battle based on your description sounds like the sort of thing I’m talking about and something I should definitely look into :)


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
One of the playtest goals is to be able to tell the same kind of stories. To do that you need to be able to have the same kinds of characters.
Making the connection between same kinds of stories and direct analogues between character builds is a loooooong stretch.

One of the playtest goals stated was that the new game would feel like pathfinder, so before you say

“It does you fools”
You need to remember everyone valued different parts of the previous edition and a big issue a lot of players have now is that classes included in the playtest no longer have access to play styles they used to have, because of this those players feel that the goal of the new edition feeling like pathfinder has failed.

Now I know a lot of builds can kind of be recreated via multiclass dedication feats but again a lot of people don’t want to HAVE to take these feats, additionally some combat feats are class locked in the new game when they weren’t previously.

So yes 2E has customisation but there are players who feel that the characters they want to play aren’t available such as bow paladins, strength rogues or dex paladins to name the ones I see mentioned with the most frequency.

So yes while a lot of concepts can be kind of remade in the new sytem people want to play characters and build them their own way instead of being forced to go through particular channels.

And again the major cause of friction on this topic is what people consider to be the main feel of 1E, for a lot of people it’s the ability to build what you want the way you want instead of being handed cookie cutter templates you have to layer to get the desired shape, for others the main draw of 1e was versatility of actions and then there were people specifically drawn to the high fantasy which has led to some feeling like the same stories can no longer be told because magic for some people (myself included) has become a pale imitation of its former self.

To summarise no one’s feelings about the feel of the playtest is inherently wrong people just want different things because the previous edition had multiple draws and some people feel like certain draws have been prioritised over others.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like "never considering the opinions of anyone except possibly the 4 or so folks you share a campsite with" is the baseline player character experience.

I think that’s because most groups can’t be bothered caring about what non essential NPC’s think, if it doesn’t push the story or create an interesting story then why should they care, that’s just my theory though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gratz wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
I’m not sure if this is aimed at me but the fact is certain topics and what some players consider to be problems have been addressed while others haven’t, I do all the surveys and want to believe it’s going to help, but there are others who are wondering why some issues have been publicly addressed while others have not, I don’t want to hover I was merely saying why I think some people are unhappy no need to get prickly

I think the most obvious answer to why some topics get more attention than others is that some topics are widely considered to be problematic (like resonance), while others might only be problematic to some (like spells seem to be for some hardcore PF1).

If you only form your opinion on what is considered to be consensus about the Playtest by reading the boards, than you might think the system is terrible, but from my experience outside these boards, people have been rather content with the Playtest. We obviously don't have the data like Paizo does, but the boards might consider some topics as problematic that rest of the players doesn't. In my groups, no one has complained about spells being to weak, at least yet.

Thank you for a calm response I agree some people go a touch overboard on both sides, I myself am not a fan of the current state of spellcasters, however while I have not been happy with the playtest there is a lot here in the current framework I do like, I also understand what you’re saying everyone’s experience is different I was simply stating why I think some are unhappy.

Thanks for the response I’m glad you’re having fun :)


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I've always thought LG was the trickiest tightrope for the hero who lives by a code to walk, since it requires always doing the right thing and always doing it in the proper way.

If we can come up with something similarly limiting for CG (the evil ones are for NPCs) I would be fine with the 4 corners, but I'm not sure since "I'm willing to break the rules/cut corners in order to get the right result" is sort of the sine qua non of chaotic good.

Chaotic good is doing what you believe is right regardless of the opinions of others, neutral good is doing what you believe is right for the MOST people meaning that you may break the rules if you HAVE to.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
That feel when you ask why martials can’t be buffed instead of casters getting gutted twice and they ignore it and only focus on the rest of your post largely changing the tone and message of the post.

Except by any metric, martials were buffed. They don't have to play "I stand there and full attack and wait for casters to solve anything that impedes that". I built a backup martial where the concept sounded interesting (spiked chain swashbuckler) and then threw it aside because I realized that, in the end, it played exactly like the sword-and-shield antipaladin in the same game - it stood there and full attacked. Sure, I might have been able to do it from 15 feet away instead, but nothing really felt different. That, in turn, played pretty much exactly like the android cyborg fighter, or the shield champion brawler, or that daring champion cavalier, or the TWF rogue, etc, etc. And I'm only drawing the comparison to melee characters - it's even easier to draw it for ranged.

For my playtest games, I've put together a Dex goblin paladin and a Dex duelist fighter. Despite the fact that they share a few skill feats, they don't feel anything alike. And neither of them play like the rogue a player built, nor the barbarian, nor the ranger.

(Side note: I want more skill feats like Wall Jump. I love Wall Jump.)

Move. Swing Once. Swing again if you have nothing else to do.

Feat/Ability to improve Hit or lower AC. Swing. Swing if you have nothing else to do.

Move. Swing. Move. Enemy move, swing move.

Riveting. I'm sorry, the martials feel the same to me because all the more interesting stuff seems to come online so much later than in PF1. I would say this is to prevent Dipping, but they seem to have done away with that anyway. You're either still standing in place to get as many accurate or crit possible swings in, or you're stuck doing some kinda weird shuffle dance as you swing and move back, swing and move back.

Unfortunately the increased mobility hasn’t done much anyway, it’s the same pattern of doing two attacks you just finish with a move and then they chase you and swing back, heck several monsters can move and attack in the same action resulting in standing in place like 1E anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I think if you don't trust Paizo to take your feedback and turn it into a workable ruleset without you looking over their shoulder, why would you have any faith in their published products going forward? The vast majority of those will not be playtested, after all.

I’m not sure if this is aimed at me but the fact is certain topics and what some players consider to be problems have been addressed while others haven’t, I do all the surveys and want to believe it’s going to help, but there are others who are wondering why some issues have been publicly addressed while others have not, I don’t want to hover I was merely saying why I think some people are unhappy no need to get prickly


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
did we get the survey reault then?

No. The comment that the 4 Corners model was second is in relation to them asking various people in-house. We'll see what the survey says...eventually, maybe.

For the record, I would like to state my agreement that I prefer Paladins not needing a deity. I'm fine with that being a flat (minor) mechanical disadvantage (can't take Domain Feats, no free Favored Weapon), but in my mind Paladins have always been powered by their own righteousness (and Antipaladins their own wickedness), with a deity being a common addition, but not an inherently necessary one.

This actually strengthens the argument for the 'Four Corners' model, since you can then say that you need 'extreme' beliefs (on the Alignment scale) in order to gain such power.

I can dig the four corners the argument that your beliefs need to be to an extreme is interesting, not gonna lie though anything that isn’t lawful good would make me happy I’ve always preferred neutral good where I try to do the most good not what is good AND lawful.

After all goodness and lawfulness aren’t always the same thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
Well technically they *can* change the fundamentals of the system during the playtest, but I'm worried that people who gave them money to get the playtest book believing it would be used for about 1 year wouldn't be very happy to learn that it's no longer the case

I fully agree with you I bought a book but would be fine with an overhaul, but I can easily understand a lot of people not wanting to learn a revamped sytem and only have PDF’s it’s a tricky balance.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Actually Tridus just hit on something I hadn't thought of before.

Even if Paizo has been convinced that a major core system needs a systematic overhaul, I doubt they would make that change during the playtest because such a change would invalidate the entirely of the rest of the playtest.

That’s still a concern because it is effectively the same as saying

“Trust us you’ll like what comes next we’re certain we can fix and replace things without making any mistakes”

I’m not being sarcastic either if that happens and they nail it then sweet but I think a lot of people’s anxiety is that they keep saying they have issue with certain things (Spell casters, resonance, the inclusion or exclusion of particular ancestries) and they are worried they aren’t being heard.

Again I’m not saying people are being ignored but there is a percentage of players who have had problems with one or more of the examples I listed in brackets that have recieved little to no PUBLIC attention from paizo, again these issues could be receiving heaps of attention behind closed doors.

In short I think a lot of dissatisfied playtesters just want confirmation that their concerns are heard.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

That feel when you ask why martials can’t be buffed instead of casters getting gutted twice and they ignore it and only focus on the rest of your post largely changing the tone and message of the post.

Seriously every time I ask it’s always ignored it’s like people have this silent belief that in this new edition someone has to be disappointed, I want a game where everyone feels like they matter and during the playtest myself and the rest of my group didn’t feel like our characters mattered, you can say what you want about balance but if balance means punishing people for daring to like one play style over another then we’d rather play a sytem like 1E or 5e D&d where the balance is a little wonky but we have fun playing the classes we want, the 5e sorcerer is probably the second weakest class in 5e yet I had more fun using it than I did in the whole playtest, the PF1 core rogue is one of the weakest classes and I’ve played one from level 1 through to 20 because despite being weaker I felt unique and fun.

I honestly feel like nerfing things because of 1E is a poor decision, instead of tearing down casters martials should be built up, to hell with ‘realism’ it’s a fantasy game where you fight monsters if casters get spells that do amazing things let martials do equally extraordinary physical things, because if the design model moving forward is nerf anything problematic then what happens when martials overshadow casters will third edition make casters gods again while relegating martials to mediocrity again?

Or give martials supernatural effects like what Stygian Slayers had, if a lack of magic is what makes martials terrible give them supernatural abilities not tied to spells like grit points or a ki pool, they not only give martials options but allow for more powerful effects since you’re paying a cost be it grit, ki or any resource the game designers feel to be appropriate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

Re: action economy:

'3 actions' are a lie.

I'm really sympathetic with that first post on the action economy, because in practice it doesn't work out that way, often because of the things stated in the OP. But there are also some additional, things, mainly that _meaningful_ actions come up to a completely different number entirely.

First, you've got casters, who are more or less on a two action economy. They cast and either move or take some sort of defensive action. Or they pretend to be martial classes. Yes, a lot of spells require '2 actions' but from the PoV of what the player is doing, it's one thing, with a move action left over.

Second, you've got various martial abilities that are multiple actions as a single action or vice versa. Which means depending on build, a dual wielder, monk or errated ranger are 4 action classes (or more with a couple combinations), while a two-handed character can often be stuck as a 2 action class, unless forgoing feat actions altogether... which given power attack is probably for the best.

And again, this doesn't count fiddly stuff involving hands and juggling and whatever, which often makes things so much worse.

Third, eventually haste and other forms of Quick come in. At that point the '3 action' economy mutates even further. And Slow just utterly breaks people, if you can get the effect off.

Fourth, movement speed as actions is also a major issue, especially when the two sides move at different speeds, as a 5' difference means the slower side needs two 'actions' just to get into melee at all.

---

So yeah, that's my take on it. Different characters interact with this action system in wildly different ways, it's incredibly fiddly and inconsistent and is a bear to juggle it all at the table.

The system also just looks at you funny if players try to be creative or do complex actions that aren't spells or hitting things. It has no way to cope with that whatsoever.

In my group we also found that the game scaling basically demands that you optimise your characters, Which is funny when they said they wanted the game to be nicer to new players and we still have low level trap feats like half the paladin oath feats, don’t get me wong I LOVE the flavor but oath of the dragonslayer makes no g&~ d#%n sense on a lowlevel character, it’s like when a ranger in 1E takes favored enemy dragon at level 1 everyone just rolls their eyes because they know the only dragon you ever hunted was an iguana that grew really big.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
plaidwandering wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
When I sign up for PFS scenarios at level 5 and above, I will sometimes opt out if there are no casters in the group.
Are you serious? In the 200ish tables I've sat at PFS at all levels of play is utterly dominated by weapon combat - maybe not pure martials, but people who "do combat" by hitting things with a weapon.

You're right. I was totally wrong. Martial / caster disparity is a myth.

Someone notify Paizo..

Ok I bothered to read all your back and forth, in first edition I played primarily martials I only learned casters when I started playing with newer people so they could play a simpler martial characters, so before I get ahead of myself yes there was martial/caster disparity and we agree that’s a problem, what we disagree on is the solution, I decided to try a sorcerer out since I never got to play one in 1st edition another player chose Wizard since he’d only ever played a cleric and no other caster in 1E, we both dropped our highest level slots against a ‘level appropriate’ enemy only for it to critically pass both saves, now some people think casters had too much power and options so I can get behind reducing either output or the amount of casting but in this instance both have been hit, any spell that requires a save is bad which hilariously has led to magic missile being the damage go to in the playtest, what I have always advocated for is not the gutting of casters but the improvement of the other classes.

The big argument I hear is if you improve martials instead of nerfing casters it becomes ‘too anime’ or ‘that’s unrealistic’
Who cares? It’s a high fantasy game, any world where a guy can turn invisible by playing a flute has room for a guy who can do equally insane physical acts, why can’t this be considered why do either casters or martials have to be weak?
Honestly just seems like a lot of people who want to watch the other side get punished for some hidden slight against them where 1E was the delivery device.

To summarise I think casters having less spells is fine, but they should still feel powerful, right now you can’t even really be the ‘lore keeper’ since most characters are just as good as you at a skills unless they’re untrained, additionally I see no reason martials have to subscribe to reality, if martials being a bit too ‘anime’ is worse than half the players not wanting to play I think there’s a bigger problem that needs to be addressed.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Long John wrote:

Mass props for the surveys. Although I would hazard a guess that everyone who throws up the massive wall of negativity on the boards aren't willing to sit through the survey. Only the people who WANT this to really succeed would invest the time. As an aside... Make Dragons Great Again*!

*(By making lesser dragonkin such as wyverns or drakes for them to use as mooks, thereby allowing a dragon encounter have numbers to help combat the action economy advantage players historically have over big solo dragons).

In all fairness I’ve been fairly negative towards the playtest I’ve done every survey that has been put out, I don’t doubt there are some who didn’t do them but there are plenty of people who haven’t enjoyed the playtest who simply want to share their experiences and concern, it’s a playtest people aren’t obligated to like it, in fact if people dislike it they should make themselves heard so Paizo knows why they’re unhappy, I could be wrong but your post feels like you’re saying enjoy what’s in front of you or don’t speak.


Tunewalker wrote:
PCScipio wrote:

De-tuning the monsters a bit would solve a lot of problems, IMHO.

I"ll note that my bard in Doomsday Dawn part 2 casts Inspire Courage and smacks creatures with a 2-handed bastard sword (and wears full plate). Fighter Dedication FTW (admittedly, multi-classing may be too good).

Yep fighters are good no surprise that just about anything multi-class + fighter works. So far that has been the only way I have seen Bards be super good is they put a bunch into strength and take the fighter level 2 multi class feat. Which limits races to Goblin and Human and does make Inspire Courage worth it since now you are not sacrificing another fighter slot while simultaneously providing buffs for all the rest of the martial classes and cleric in your group, but the fact that this seems like the only good path for bards shows the inherent problem with the base bard in my opinion.

To be clear not saying this shouldn't be an option it definitely should, but it should also be perfectly acceptable to never cross class and get access to better skills or spell casting ability through bard feats.

Fighter dedication gives a lot even when compared to the other dedication feats

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>