The Eternal Keeper's page

Is it just me or is swords worse than hammers and axes (especially hammers) in this edition? Versatile is so much more situational than abilities like Forceful and Sweep.
But what really sticks out is the critical effects. Hammers basically got a much better version of the swords (being able to knock prone the target, which is more deliberating than merely being flat-footed for 1 round) and axes got a free cleave.

Also, please make full-plates actually useful. Right now, there's no meaning for a fighter to grab it rather than half-plate or splintmail.
(Also, it being clumsy makes no sense, noisy however does)

Skeld wrote:

You are correct that this change seems arbitrary to me because there appears to be no reason behind it (or at least no reason that's been pointed out to me yet), which is definition of an arbitrary change. If something's going to change, I'd like there to be a good reason behind it. For me, the change barrier for game mechanics is low, but this change isn't just about game mechanics, it affects something (the price/cost/value of everything) that's been established in the game world across a few hundred published books. Even that wouldn't bug me so much if the change didn't appear arbitrary (again, having no apparent or stated reason behind it).

I'm right there with you, Skeld. I personally despise when changes are made to the world just because. "People love playing goblins, so let's make them a common playable race!" This doesn't do it for me at all, which is why I'm really hoping they establish some sort of continuity for it. Same goes for the currency. I actually love the idea of going to a silver standard; in fact, I love it far more than having a gold standard like they have now! But I've been playing in Golarion for over eight years now, and goblins are akin to vermin, save that they're far more deadly, and gold has always been the standard. Changing mechanics is one thing, but arbitrarily altering the way the world works without explanation is just a No-No, in my opinion.

Well, there's a very simple explnatation for why they might change to a silver standard. There's simply not that much gold around to cover all the economic transactions requiring them going around, so the various kingdoms, in order to avoid crashing their economies, decided to change the values of the coin denominations.

It is pretty obvious that they got going coin denominations, with how the copper coin is worth 1/10th of a silver going without being enourmous relative to the silver coin

John Lynch 106 wrote:

You say spell list, I say power source. Tomato vs tomato.

Ah, well, there is no Martial Spell List, thank god.

But if there's no Martial Spell List how will we be able to cast Fist?! D:

P.S I'm joking

Mmh, in my opinion crossbows should start out being a little bit stronger than bows, but doesn't scale with player attributes as they are mechanic, not muscle powered. Crossbows would however be able to be built to be more sniper like weapons if one puts a focus on it, with the exception of the repeating crossbows.
If it takes 2 actions to shoot a bow, without a feat (Shoot, draw arrow, shoot, for example) a repeating crossbow could have the advantage of being able to shoot a number of weak bolts before having to reload.

Other than that yeah, Bows should be able to become more powerful than most crossbows as a generalists weapon, whilst the crossbows (not counting repeating crossbows, which probably get passed by when the archer gets the feat that allows him to shoot without having to spend an action to reload) become more of a marksman weapon.

Historical note: The repeating crossbow was actually initially considered too weak to be a weapon of war in its homeland of China, more of a weapon of home defence or hunting, until people started putting poison on its tips, and realized that the sheer number of bolts was good on it's own anyway

Well, to be fair with the pope and the crossbow, it was not just the crossbow he tried to ban, but all ranged weapons, and only against other Christians and everyone ignored him.

I guess there's also the question if something that has no concept of honor, or nothing resembling common conception of it, like a beast, or monster, can be treated with honor. In my eyes, if it's a duel with a enemy champion, the fight should be honorable and fair. If it is against a great monster, like a dragon or demon, who have no code themselves, the rigors of honor is a lot more loose.

All about context

I would personally like Fighters to become like legendary heroes, such as Achilles, Cu Chullain, Beowulf and such people. Capable of doing what most others can, just much better. Like Cu Chullain holding off an invasion force by himself (imagine 300, where the spartans are just 1 guy), and killing a dude by of-handedly throwing an apple through his head. Beowulf wrestling an invulnerable monster and ripping off it's arm with his bare hands. That's the kinds of stuff I want high level fighters to be able to do. Not s much Wuxia, as mundane, but to extreme levels

And there has been many cases in myth where supposedly honorable characters have used a variety of poisons to defeat a foe. In Japan for example getting the monster really drunk before attacking it was really popular, as seen with Susannoo and Orochi, and the slaying of Shuten Doji, where the heroes used barrels of alcohol to poison the monster.

I feel like the difference between the two classes are like this:
Cleric: Priest that dedicate themselves to a god and takes up arms in it's name. Similiar to the medieval bishops that took up arms, though often for more selfish reasons such as protecting their land.
Paladin: A Holy Knight, not a priest, but blessed by their god non the less. Think more like the crusader orders, like the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller

I always imagined Clerics as the kind of bishop that donned armor and led armies, which is a historical thing. Whilst the paladin could be equated to Holy Knightly orders like the Knights Templar or Knights Hospitaller

I have a serious problem calling the class itself Paladin in the playtest, which has a specific meaning, and then saying that later this class will spread to other deities and alignments. Does that mean a CN Holy Warrior of Gorum, who fights to prove his strength in battle, and puts victory over all other pursuits and concerns, will still be called a 'Paladin of Gorum'?

That is a huge literary problem for me. A Paladin is a very specific type of warrior, with a very specific set of ideals. I'm not saying that a 'Paladin' should not exist, but it should be a specific name for specific holy warriors of specific deities, NOT the name of a mechanical class that is just as suited to going completely against those specific ideals.

And before D&D Paladin referred to Late Roman and early medieval Frankish palace guards and officials (the schola palatinae who replaced the Praetorians, and the palatine who was a high ranking government official) as well as Charlemagne's 12 mythical companions (who were specifically The Paladins, written as we do today) that didn't really have much to do with being Holy warriors.

Conceptually Templar, or some other reference to the knightly crusader orders would be closer to what a paladin actually is, but Gygax decided on Paladin and changed its meaning.
Doing this small alteration changes it whole lot less than what Gygax did, so I don't really see it as an issue

As for the Sorcerers niche. I personally think a bigger focus should be put on their bloodlines, the source of their power, and give them access to more unique and powerful abilities. Of course with some choices so two Sorcerers can grab the same bloodline and still have variety.
In short, they should focus more on using their Spell Points than their Spell slots

Arcanist/5e style for sure. Less bookkeeping, and more fun as the wizard don't have to worry about choosing the wrong amount of various spells and being useless. Also Vancian spellcasting never made sense to me (how the f*#$ do you just forget a spell after you've cast it?).
always hated it and never played a Wizard more than once in 3.5 because of it.

"Open" spellcasting also opens things up more for variant rules such as "Mana".
Example of Mana ruleset: You have a certain number of points to cast spells equal to the number of spell slots you have (with the spell level of the slots being how many points they are worth, so a Spell Level 3 slot is worth 3 points). Spells then cost as many points to cast as their spell level. And you can cast the spells you got as many times as you want until you use up your mana points

I agree, the wizard and Arcanist should be merged, and Arcanist style casting should be the default.

JRutterbush wrote:

And as I said repeatedly in the Alchemist thread, it's not a damn tax if they're giving you the money you're using to pay them. I don't know how to explain this any simpler than I already have several times: they're taking away your A, then they're giving 1 money, which you can use to either buy A, B, or C. You are strictly better off than you were before, because if you want A back, just buy it back with the free money they gave you.

We have different opinions on "Feat Tax" then.

What's the point of Offering A back to me even if it's free? It shouldn't have been taken away anyway. It feels very much like we are being allowed to "Buy Into" Archetypes.

So you have fun with B and C, those are great. I had my A taken away and shoved back into my hands with a confused "WTF" look on my face.

Actually now that I think about it, how the heck will Archetypes work if we just BUY what we want? Archetype removes X? Well I'll just buy it back. Balance nightmare anyone?

From what we've seen so far what Archetypes does is add more feats that you can buy

Oof. That hit to low-level spells per day hurts, making it much harder to cast your low-level spells for casual, fun things. (In PF1, casting Unseen Servant, making wine, eventually providing food, that sort of thing.) It's more something I'm concerned for on my arcane casters, but I'm presuming similar setup. My friend and I will be checking that out in playtest. Hmm. Feat for extra low-level spells in exploration mode?

Well, it is quite possible that kinda stuff might be cantrips, at least Unseen Servant

Personally, I despise the idea of being restricted by having to prepare or learn certain spells at certain levels. Overcasting a spell to me is more that you just pump extra power into the spell, no fancy new gestures or reagents, you just add more raw power. At least for the scaling stuff like Fireball

I personally hope that the Eldritch Knight is an Archetype for Wizards and Sorcerers this time around, providing them with feats for wearing heavy armour and wielding weapons in conjunction with spells. Just makes sense with the new way Archetypes seem to function this time around.

Well, most if not all Healing now belongs to the Necromancy school, so...

Armor as DR is also far less realistic than armor as AC anyway. For the most part, metal armor protects against most attacks, except very specialized ones. Even a simple gambeson, (D&D's "padded armor") is surprisingly effective against attacks. The trick to getting past armor is just that - getting past the armor, not through it. Target the weak spots, the cracks and unarmored sections.

So the AC bonus representing the chance armor has of stopping a blow entirely makes much more sense than it reducing damage by a small amount, thus making all weapons super armor-penetrating ultra-weapons.

Well, even if technically stopped a powerful enough blow is still going to deliver blunt force trauma that can cause damage, to a much lesser degree than otherwise.

That and past 10+ even fighters seem to become superhumanly powerful warriors that it is not inconceivable that they'd manage to cause serious damage, even through armor

The Eternal Keeper wrote:

Well, bashing can break bones sure, but slashing severs arteries, muscles and possibly bone as well. That's not to say bashing can't cause internal bleeding, or crush internal organs, but it requires more force

Historically - and I admit I'm focussing on Wars of the Roses era here - blunt weapons and / or piercing are the way to kill people in armour. The ideal weapon is something like a poleaxe that focuses a lot of weight behind a small area, or a heavy mace that just smashes the ribcage into the heart. Scimitars look pretty, but they are llittle use against an armoured opponent, because they don't have any weight behind them.

Not denying that. Cuts were practically useless against most armor (unless you had a big axe, which due to the top heavy balance also delivered a lot of blunt force trauma), but they were more efficient against unarmored opponents. Which is why I suggest giving blunt/spiked weapons like maces and war hammers (look up bec-du-corbin) an innate armor penetrating capacity

Quote:

As blunt trauma was generally less lethal than a deep cut or stab, they could still have slightly lower damage

As stab sure... as slash... I don't know.

I'd rather be cut with scimitar in my skull than hit with warhammer.
The best it would be if it would work on various places in body differently - where headshots would be most dangerous when bludgeoned, because it overcome part of skull AC, while cuts and slashes less dangerous.

Well, bashing can break bones sure, but slashing severs arteries, muscles and possibly bone as well. That's not to say bashing can't cause internal bleeding, or crush internal organs, but it requires more force

The Eternal Keeper wrote:

For example,

Spears and other polearms have reach as a major advantage yes, but that could also act as a disadvantage if the enemy gets to close, provoking a penalty to attacks (Which could be alleviated via feats perhaps).

I am not fond of this. A polearm whose thrusting or slashing head you manage to get past has another striking surface worth noting: The entire rest of the polearm. It's a long bar of hard-wood. Kind of like a staff or a baseball bat, just with some weight distribution quirks. Hit someone with it and they're going to have a bad day.

Getting past the main striking end of a polearm remains a good idea, but let's not act like the shaft is an unwieldy weapon to use.

In my experience, it kinda is (SCA and HEMA). Sure, you can shove and strike with the butt end of the weapon, but with drastically decreased power due to less leverage, especially since the enemy has gotten too close for the use of the striking end. Not to mention that the striking end can have up to around a pound of metal at the end which can throw balance out of whack and acts as a counterweight against swinging with the butt end.

There was a reason why soldiers with polearms generally carried a sidearm, such as a dagger, axe or sword for when the enemy got too close

I always imagined that a cleric preparing their spells would be more like prayer to regain the favor of the gods and be imbued with their power. And then when he uses spells it's more that he channels the divine favor bestowed upon him, so not really spellcasting.

Mmh, I'm probably hoping in vain, but I dream of the day a Fighter can do some Dynasty Warriors stuff XD

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

"At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!"

I'd have to see how weapons are sorted, but I'm not sure this feels good. When you are Legendary at every weapon, nothing seems special (Incredibles? =P )

At 19th level though, what's more impressive: casting a spell to gate in the heavenly host or being good at using all weapons...? To me, it sounds painfully dreadful and boring considering how often any one particular fighter uses a multitude of weapons to begin with. Pick a ranged, one slash, one pierce, one bludgeon - done.

*yawn*

Well, considering that IIRC someone who got a high Proficiency in Athletics might be able to jump 30 feet or more in the air, someone who got Legendary Proficiency in a weapon type might be able to bat aside a fireball or other projectile spell the wizard is shooting at them.

So don't think "Just very good", think superhumanly good

That would also indeed be excellent. Being able to make more use out of what the weapon is good for and maybe combat it's weaknesses.

Also had idea for more in-depth specialization for the spears and polearms. Could, for example, have spears dealing slightly less damage than say a glaive or halberd, but being able to be wielded in both one hand and two. Glaivesand halberds deal the most damage, but has the same range as a spear and must be used with both hands, and a pike deals about as much damage as a spear, but has even further reach and must be used with both hands

Please, please, Paizo, let all weapons in the CRB be balanced and have their own role and purpose!
in old Pathfinder, certain weapons were so much better than others, such as spears, crossbows and maces being very weak by virtue of being classified as simple weapons. With the new proficiency system, and specific weapon qualities, there is no longer a need for those classifications and you can make all weapons interesting and useful, even if it is somewhat situational.
For example,
Spears and other polearms have reach as a major advantage yes, but that could also act as a disadvantage if the enemy gets to close, provoking a penalty to attacks (Which could be alleviated via feats perhaps). Would also be great for people standing behind the tank, allowing them to snipe at the enemy from safety

Maces and warhammers were designed to be armour piercing weapons to defeat the increasingly heavy armour of the medieval period, so maybe let them ignore varying degrees of AC granted by armour. As blunt trauma was generally less lethal than a deep cut or stab, they could still have slightly lower damage

Swords were versatile, excellent on both attack and defence, and swifter than many other melee weapons. So maybe they could have the Agile quality that we've seen that reduces the penalty for multiple attacks, or maybe allow for Dex to hit as a default.

Axes meanwhile sacrificed defence for raw attack power so they ought to deal more damage per hit than a sword, but leave the user more vulnerable.

The big benefit of daggers are already pretty obvious. They are probably the best weapons when you want something sneaky, and when grappling (Maybe give them armour piercing much like the maces when that happens, as they were often used to target the weak spots in a knights armour). This of course at the cost of damage potential, making them excellent backup weapons.

Bows could be fast and deadly in the hand of a strong and skilled wielder, but that's the key, a strong wielder. Thus I ask you to make composite bows the default, letting the user add both Dex and Str to their damage.

Crossbows meanwhile, due to relying on mechanical power and not muscle strength and as such should have high basic damage dice, especially compared to bows, but at the cost of having to spend actions on reloading.

These are my wishes at least.

The idea of paladin/templar as an archetype that can be used by various
martial classes to grant them Divine abilities does sound pretty nice.
Could have Divine Barbarians (Avengers), Divine Fighters (classical paladin), and divine whatever-this-new-armor-class-is (though it probably is paladin), which does add quite a bit flexibility in regards of character concepts