Lizardfolk Scion

ThePuppyTurtle's page

*** Pathfinder Society GM. 483 posts (608 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Organized Play characters. 4 aliases.


1 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
The gods do exist, and there's no denying it.
I'm gonna start making character who don't believe in fireballs and sharp metal objects. I'll be unstoppable. :)

Maybe a character who thinks all apparent magic is just Numarian tech?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:
One could reasonably interpret that non-religious characters are against the rules.

How?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a little annoyed by the fact that the changes are so small. There's certainly nothing here that would have prevented my Lost Star party from being TPK'd. I hope that's just because of the youth of the playtest?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I played with four players, a wizard, a bard, a druid and a paladin. The druid had a cat animal companion. It will matter later that the bard did not have Soothe because she did not know that it existed. The druid could cast healing, but never would up doing so except on her cat. It is notable that as a dwarf who dumped Charisma, the Druid had 0 resonance points.

The four of them, at least as far as I could tell, did well against the ooze. It seemed to be about the right difficulty to be handled by them. As soon as they entered the second room with the goblins, things went south for them. It was an extremely difficult fight, during which both the wizard and cat were knocked down, but not killed. (The wizard said an hour later that he thought he'd been wrong and actually had died, but as it'd been a while by the time he noticed and he might have been mistaken, I continued the game with him alive.) The goblins were generally managing two attacks per round, and the second attack hit decently often. I will note, though, that the PCs were inhibited by the fact that the dancing light alerted the goblins while everyone was still in the hallway and the party was stuck in a choke point as a result.

They were low on resources and health by the time they were done. They went to continue, and the Druid used burning hands to deal with the centipedes with decent ease. However, they were so drained and damaged after those three encounters that they took the loot they'd gotten so far and left the dungeon. I decided that since they'd been in there such a short time, they could use the rest of the day as downtime. As a result, they were able to sell the gear.

Either there were no listed rules for how much gear sells for, or I wasn't able to find them, so I ruled that it sold at full price, on the basis that was the only value ever technically associated with the loot. This allowed them to restore themselves pretty well by purchasing spell-casting services. (I assumed a level 1 cleric with 18 wisdom was easy to come by.)

They went in the next day. They briefly encountered the fungus but ignored it when they realized there was no reason to deal with it. There were no failed saves before they made this decision. Only because I specifically prompted them to maybe actually use an exploration mode action did they seek and manage to find the hidden loot in the larger chamber.

They never checked the pool for the statue and therefore didn't notice it on their first trip through that room. They signaled the goblins with the armor trap. They caught the statue trap. None of them could disable it, but they avoided passing in front of it.

The next goblin fight was more brutal than the last, and half the party was knocked down. This was likewise hindered by the fact that they were essentially in a single file line in the hallway when initiative was triggered. The cat reached dying three, but no one actually died. The druid again made a big dent in the enemy with burning hands. I awarded her a hero point for being MVP.

This one fight left them so resource deprived that they went to leave again, but because I again prompted them to use an exploration mode action, they found the statue. The bard picked it up without thinking and triggered that encounter, which they actually dealt with without too much trouble.

For the second time, they left the dungeon and sold what they had gotten so far to buy healing and spell-casting services. I believe the paladin was knocked down but didn't die in the fight with the skeletons. From there, they used a grappling hook to scale the cliff and get to Drakus' room.

Once again, they were in a single file line in front of the door because they alerted Drakus and he won initiative. He therefore got into a one on one with the paladin. The cat tried to get through Drakus' space and was knocked down by the attack of opportunity when he failed. The wizard miraculously managed to get through his square, but was cut down not long after. The Paladin fell soon after. The druid and bard fled. They both jumped down the cliff, managing to take only a few points of damage. They left.

Drakus used the other door hoping to cut them off. He passed by the statue trap without problem due to his symbol of pharasma, but the rat activated it when he tried to exit the room. This killed him. Drakus caught up to the Druid and killed her, sucking her blood when she was down and he had no more enemies to deal with. The paladin then rose back up, only to be made quick work of.

Had there been a cleric, they would have been better off, but clericless parties shouldn't be invalid. The core problem was that they didn't have enough healing resources to deal with the damage the enemies were doing, especially since the enemies' second attack meant that they only rarely failed to land at least one successful hit in a round. This wasn't just a matter of them not entering all of their fights at full hp. They straight up couldn't handle more than 2 encounters per day.

I'll end on a positive note. I expected to miss attacks of opportunity and have positioning not matter with them gone. It totally mattered, and I don't wish to see them come back.

Edit: It turns out selling rules are in the equipment section, but not in the game mastering section. I don't know how I ever would have found them without ctrl+f. Why isn't this rule listed along with the "selling" downtime activity?

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2 is a system capable of facilitating non-identical characters of the same class. It is barely hyperbole to say that all 5e characters of the same class are identical.

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.

The "Flipping around" complaint is valid. Too many rules refer to other rules that are pages away. Maybe this happens more than I perceive in other books, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

Creating my first character took about an hour on account of this, when I sense it ought to have taken half that time. Admittedly, I did this from my phone, which makes the scrolling problem as bad as possible, but it would be nice to not have the problem at all.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Currently, the top two most recently-posted-in threads are complaining about the rogue. This one is about how he's too powerful. That one is about how he's been nerfed.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Earthfall wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
It drives me nuts that a system is broken in both ways at the same time by the community.
That's how you know it's balanced.

Or wildly inconsistent.

No one has asserted that multi-classing as a whole is simultaneously overpowered and under-powered. Rather, the problem with multi-class builds is that they are wildly off-curve in most cases. Many combinations which sound like cool concepts don't work or are clearly worse than their pure-classed peers, whilst certain combinations, particularly those involving dips, are far ahead of curve because they get the right combinations of abilities, or simply more abilities than their single-classed peers.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:

I'm fairly certain there will not be any other channels. Paizo will want to track how many of these were downloaded.

If you see any other channels distributing the PDFs, they will not actually have the right to do so.

You might say that they'll have taken the pirate archetype.

Looney Toons exit music

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a game master, my inclination would be to crack down on players who I believe are taking any option with the explicit attempt to retrain it away, barring specific situations like archetypes where you need to hold off on taking it until you meet a prerequisite but then want to be a little bit into it.

Retraining should be away for players, especially newer players, to undo mistakes so that they aren't screwed over by mistakes that they make early on before they really know how the game works. It also means that experimenting is less punished because you can undo decisions that you make that turn out to be bad ones.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DFAnton wrote:

John, is your definition of "flexible" something like "I technically have to ability to make a character with 10 classes of 2 levels each that is awful at absolutely everything it sets out to do"?

If it is, there's a fundamental disconnect in how you and everyone else understands flexibility, and it's a bridge that can't be gapped.

Oh hello there! Nice to be making acquaintance with you. I am Abserd.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So I never really got around to playing a Magus but I've GMed for a few, and what I don't really understand is "what defines the class, thematically, except for a Gish that is ready to go right out of the box"?

Like of all the popular PF1 classes which won't be in the PF2 core, the Magus seems the one most defined by its mechanics, so if these mechanics are largely replicable with other things, is it necessary? Like the Oracle merits inclusion in PF2 because you can't really otherwise be a divine caster whose powers come unasked from a curse leveled on you from some deity, and the Witch is coming back since none of the other casters have power derived from pact magic, but what, without invoking mechanics, defines the Magus in a way that's not "good with magic, and also weapons and armor"?

I don't see how "good at swords and magic" is less of a valid flavorspace than "good with swords" is by himself, which is what the fighter boils down to.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One idea that occurred to me back when SF came out is that it might be better (if more complicated) to spread each packet of ability boosts downward, so that, for instance, instead of getting the first 4 at five, you get one at 2, 3, 4, and 5. There could still be a rule that you couldn't use a boost on the same score twice until you reached level six.

I understand that that's a bit involved, but I wish it were true.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Personally, I hope the addition of Cleric Devotion allows people to make Pseudo Paladins to fill the slot for those who wanted Holy Warriors, but couldn't do LG.

Why would it? Paladins aren't spellcasters, so faking a paladin certainly won't work by taking the cleric dedication (which probably mirrors the wizard one and grants cantrips, then later feats get more spellcasting and a seperate feat grants channel rather than school powers.

It isn't any more or less paladiny than taking an Abyssal Sorcerer Paladin and chowing down on people for temp HP. Still get divine spells, after all.

Abyssal Sorcerer/Paladin is probably a really flavorful combination to be honest will make after release.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I'm surprised I've not seen an explosion on the forums about the fact that LN Asmodeans are confirmed to be no longer possible. I've honestly considered making a thread linking that interview just so I can sit back with some popcorn and watch the magic.

Wait, where were they confirmed as no longer possible? This seems specifically strange, and while I admit I'm no Golarion scholar, I've always felt (and ran him that way when I ran it in golarion games), that LN followers of Asmodeus were almost key to the faith. After all, as the Contractually minded fellow that he is, it always seemed to me that he would be more open to LN than NE, as even though both are one step from him, he knows LN are more likely to hold up their end of the bargain.

As for moving away from the 1 step, I suspect we'll see a roughly equal number that grow their alignment count as ones who shrink it. For example, I can see Pharasma allowing worshipers of all nine, since people of all nine are born and they all die, while I can see Irori, for instance, insist on strict adherence to self-perfection and self-discipline (so no more true neutrals), and I can even see ones that add and subtract from their allowed alignments (though I suspect that'll be more in the non-core pantheons, so no more CG followers of Yog-Sothoth, for instance, but NE followers might get admittance, by virtue of Dark Tapestry cults)

It's in this stream.

Edited to link to the correct moment. The way it's worded, it technically says you can't be "neutral" while worshiping him, but doesn't specify which axis. However, I suspect he means morally, because I've never seen someone refer to the ethical axis as "being neutral" without further specification.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
Chaotic_Blues wrote:
I can't say that I'm a fan of this idea. It feels like it's pandering too much to power gamers.

This makes me have hope that it might be fairly balanced.

It's usually a good sign when you have some people complaining about how underpowered an option is, and others complaining that it creates filthy powergamers.

Are you suggesting that power-gamers aren't filthy?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:

I'll admit it. I'm sad Pathfinder is changing at all. I've played every edition of D&D from the original game to 5E, and out of them all I enjoyed PF1 the most. That my system of choice will soon no longer have any official support makes me sad. I think there are probably plenty of people who feel the same way.

I'm also mildly concerned about no more "within one step" rule for Clerics. The character I've played for years now is dependent on that rule, and if Lamashtu no longer allows CN Clerics in the new edition, I'll have to retire him or find a group that's okay with houseruling that back into the game.

There's no telling, but in my mind, Lamashtu ought to allow clerics of many alignments. We're told in ISG that her church likes to recruit outcasts, people who are rejected as monstrous by society. That could be a justification for her allowing even good-aligned or Lawful-aligned clerics, though I don't expect that to be true. If I were designing it, her allowed alignments would be CE, CN, N, NE.

I'm surprised I've not seen an explosion on the forums about the fact that LN Asmodeans are confirmed to be no longer possible. I've honestly considered making a thread linking that interview just so I can sit back with some popcorn and watch the magic.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:

The nonzero dedication cost bugs me. I can't have e.g. a (Pirate Rogue) Cleric until high levels because I need to finish being either a rogue or a pirate first.

Also, RIP sheylinite Bard/Paladins.

The lack of multiclassing for the other classes is just a space saving measure. Unless the explosion on the forums that this is sure to cause dissuades them from doing this, all of them are going to be in the next one, and probably they're going to be releasing multi-class archetypes as they release classes.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to try to Port my Barbarian from pf1 into the new game. He was an armored Hulk and a devout worshipper of Gorum. In the new game, I'm going to have him multi-class into cleric, as well as take heavy armor proficiency to replicate his former self.

I consider that a bit of a stress test on the customizability of characters in this game. If I can make that build work, I have to conclude that this New Edition is highly customizable, in that I can deviate from my class in two major ways and have it work.

I'm also going to play a goblin Paladin who was taken as a baby from a goblin tribe and raised by my main Paladin and his Husband, who is a silver dragon. I'm also probably going to make pre generated characters for doomsday Dawn, because my situation for running it is going to be such that I'll need them. I came up with the idea of having a packet of 12 pregens who are all goblins raised in an orphanage for Monsters babies run by the Paladin and Silver Dragon.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

So I want to go ahead and say some thoughts I've had about this.

The reason I don't like the prospect of a non-LG paladin is because I'm worried a NG or CG paladin will be the same as the LG one, but with a less restrictive code, and therefore strictly and objectively better.

In the Paladin blog, we learned that and how the LG code is being made less restrictive. If this version proves to be more popular than the PF1 one, and people prove less hesitant to play it out of fear of having to be LG, I'll be a lot less fearful that people will abandon LG paladins altogether.

As things are there's such a stigma around paladins that I once saw a thread where someone panicked and asked the whole forum what to do because one of their players wanted to be a paladin, in roughly the tone that would have been appropriate if they'd wanted to play a CE Gargoyle cleric of Rovagug in a non-evil campaign. In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I think the real problem is that as things stand, being chaotic perceived as being better than being lawful in general. I think the real fix isn't to disallow CG paladins forever, but to figure out what makes LG characters in general so unattractive and fix it. As of now, I think it's the perception that LG characters are disadvantaged because they have fewer options in a situation. We need to either figure out a corresponding advantage (better reputation/relationship with society?) or, and this is the worse of these two options, slap Chaotic characters with some limitation. (Inherently worse reputation? Being treated more harshly by most authorities?)

I love me some LG characters, but I have to say I really don't understand this viewpoint of trying to enforce what...

As things stand, the Paladin is my favorite class to play, and I like to be a lawful good one. If NG and CG opened up, I would probably begin to play NG and LG pallys in roughly equal measure, favoring NG.

However, had that been allowed from the beginning, I would have only ever played NG and CG paladins and ever touched the LG one due to the fear and stigma surrounding them. I wouldn't have discovered Gadrian the Kind, one of my favorite characters I've ever played. I don't want to see people cheated out of LG characters in general because they never have a reason to try one despite the stigma.

I would prefer an environment where that stigma didn't exist and all alignments could have Paladins, but the current environment seems to be such that the day the Chaodin drops is the last day a LG paladin other than Seelah is played by a newbie.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I want to go ahead and say some thoughts I've had about this.

The reason I don't like the prospect of a non-LG paladin is because I'm worried a NG or CG paladin will be the same as the LG one, but with a less restrictive code, and therefore strictly and objectively better.

In the Paladin blog, we learned that and how the LG code is being made less restrictive. If this version proves to be more popular than the PF1 one, and people prove less hesitant to play it out of fear of having to be LG, I'll be a lot less fearful that people will abandon LG paladins altogether.

As things are there's such a stigma around paladins that I once saw a thread where someone panicked and asked the whole forum what to do because one of their players wanted to be a paladin, in roughly the tone that would have been appropriate if they'd wanted to play a CE Gargoyle cleric of Rovagug in a non-evil campaign. In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I think the real problem is that as things stand, being chaotic perceived as being better than being lawful in general. I think the real fix isn't to disallow CG paladins forever, but to figure out what makes LG characters in general so unattractive and fix it. As of now, I think it's the perception that LG characters are disadvantaged because they have fewer options in a situation. We need to either figure out a corresponding advantage (better reputation/relationship with society?) or, and this is the worse of these two options, slap Chaotic characters with some limitation. (Inherently worse reputation? Being treated more harshly by most authorities?)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
What about those of us that would want to make a strong and agile based character? If dex to damage was readily available in the game, it'd be removing that build since you aren't gaining anything from raising your str other than carrying capacity which I think we all know is not a high priority on most characters. Especially ones that are dexterous. I want there to be an advantage to having balanced str and dex.

One thing I've kind of always wanted to do with an RPG but never really been able to is play a character who is very good with a wide variety of weapons, including both melee and ranged weapons. The idea of them not being wedded to any particular thing and switching freely feels bad ass to me and it's something I would like to do. I've sadly not played enough starfinder to see if I can do it there. Probably, I could.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
graystone wrote:


I think most people that are saying "I don't want to look like a bodybuilder" are including the background stuff that goes with that. It's just not the build but what it takes to get it.

I think we're on similar pages. Not completely, but we're very close.

I've run into the "looks" argument so often. Even if strength can represent accuracy, they "don't want to look like a body builder."

Bruce Lee does not look like a bodybuilder, and he was strong. Also, Sneak Attack, for the Rogue, makes up for brawn.
It does. I imagine things come down to perception, you know? How a character looks is very important to the person playing them.
And the whole cake and eat it too thing/wish fulfilment, a bit, I want to look like a hot, 17-year old slightly built model, but able to deal max DPR and rip balor's heads off with my bare hands.
This has gone to a bad place.
There will always be a number of people who play RPGs who believe that anyone who doesn't play the game exactly as they do themselves is a power-hungry munchkin who wants to have badwrongfun. Even when all people are asking for are options, balanced options, so that they can try to approximate their ideas with the mechanics that are available.

I was talking about the reference to a hot 17 year old model. That's creepy as balls.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Considering that a Humble Bundle once made it impossible to download anything off of this site for 2 days, I don't expect to be able to download the play test PDF until it's been out for a week or two.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I definitely do think this is a good idea. I don't expect it to happen, but I would be happy about it. If we're suddenly adding random amounts of nuance to goblins, why not add it to Orcs considering there is actual precedent for good aligned Orcs, whereas this New Edition is the first we are ever learning of any good aligned Goblin ever?

(Or at least the first I'm learning of them. Probably someone even more well-read on the books than me knows about 1.)

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Other than tradition, I don't really see why these heritages are human locked? Why not just open the floodgates and let all of the human-like humanoids interbreed? Just make half-ancestry feats for dwarves, halflings and gnomes and let anyone be half-anything else.

Sure it says you can get GM permission, but why even require that?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
Can't we just get the books now? Waiting starts to get really uncomfortable

In a post-scarcity communist utopia where it didn't matter how quickly people bought it and hype coordination was unneeded, things would just release when they were done.

We live in a society ruled by capitalist lizard people in which money is life and all of the nice paizo people have to psychologically manipulate us as much as they can for fear of going out of business and never being able to make games for us at all. In that context, they're relying on pent up hype and mass coordination to achieve their ideal result and make sure interest is at its maximum when things are released.

Blame the law of value.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

HOLY S#~~ I JUST REALIZED THAT I CAN GIVE MY BARBARIAN WORSHIPER OF GORUM CLERIC STUFF WHILE KEEPING HIS BARBARIAN STUFF I AM DELIRIOUSLY HAPPY!

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
But waiting is the best part!

I respectfully do not know what the f@~@ you are talking about.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
So, once a rogue always a rogue? And there it dies all my hype.

I guess we could extend the new, extremely generous, retraining rules to include "class levels"...

But generally I feel like you sign up to play a class at level 1 because you wanted to play that class, and not a different class. So even if you want to become a magic rogue, you still wanted to be a rogue to begin with. So if you simply do not want to be a rogue anymore, why couldn't we handle this with "make a different character"?

The one situation where I see a valid complaint here is if the reason you left a prior class was ideological. For instance, if your rogue abandons his life of crime to become a paladin or monk.

I imagine we'll do an archetype for ex-paladins, ex-druids, and ex-clerics like in that one Player Companion. I feel like the other way around is kind of different though, since even if you're a Paladin now, it's not like you forgot how how to shiv someone in the kidneys or pick locks or creep around- you're just oathbound not to do those things without good reasons.

I feel like "[x-class] in service to a deity" multiclassing as clerics makes a lot of in-universe sense, since it was always weird when books had things like "Torag's worshippers include s cavaliers, fighters, gunslingers, hunters, monks, occultists, paladins, rangers, shamans, skalds, and spiritualists" as though Torag wouldn't have any use for a Wizard, or a Samurai, or a Geokineticist or something. In particular deities which have large organizations are going to need a diverse set of skills in their flock. Like "Alchemists" aren't limited as worshippers of Iomedae, but assuredly she can find a use for someone who can mix a potion.

I don't disagree that this is a great option, but how much sense does it make that Sir Rey Pentence is continuing to improve in his ability to shiv people, at the expense of his religious training? It could make sense for some characters to act that way, but not all will.

This is a minor nit-pick with the new system. Overall, it's an improvement in my view. I'll put it this way: I never, ever multi-classes in PF1, and now I'm interested in trying it out in PF2.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
So, once a rogue always a rogue? And there it dies all my hype.

I guess we could extend the new, extremely generous, retraining rules to include "class levels"...

But generally I feel like you sign up to play a class at level 1 because you wanted to play that class, and not a different class. So even if you want to become a magic rogue, you still wanted to be a rogue to begin with. So if you simply do not want to be a rogue anymore, why couldn't we handle this with "make a different character"?

The one situation where I see a valid complaint here is if the reason you left a prior class was ideological. For instance, if your rogue abandons his life of crime to become a paladin or monk.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
It's always interesting seeing people learn the lesson about planned release dates for the first time, and I get to reminisce about my first anticipated release. It would be an entertaining experiment just to ship them out as they come off the presses, but I'm pretty sure the result wouldn't be pretty.

This is at least the third time I've gone though the agony of pre-release excitement, and I'll go through it again next year when the non-play-test version is released, and will continue to do so periodically for the remainder of my natural life.

I blame capitalism.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonstriker wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:

If the books are already printed... and the pdfs will be free... everything is ready, why not release it already?

Many people have free time in July, more time to play, playtest and read.

If changes were still being made, ok, i can understand that every single day counts toward making a better product. But since nothing wil be changed until the playtest itself start, seems to me like some sort of deadline that is there just for the sake of deadline.

Your post could be rephrased as:

Since you’ve prepared everything for a GenCon release next week, why not just ditch all the preparation and release it now and spoil the release which is the big Paizo event at GenCon?

Put like that, doesn’t it sound a bit impatient?

But ten days is so long! The new books are shiny and I want them. It's not my fault Paizo makes nice things.

Edit: To be clear I'm not being serious.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Yeah, and why must I have to declare "Give fighters more skills!" in the middle of the Druid preview?! It's so depressing...

That was just an example. I wanted to use a class and skill that I was sure wouldn't match where the skill unlocks for the high proficiencies would be things with material meaning anyone irl should be able to learn to do.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
BryonD wrote:
I keep seeing signature skill, but I missed the definition and can't find it. Thanks
Signature skills are ones you can eventually raise to master and then legendary, non signature can't be raised past expert it seems.
Yuck. Very video gamey. Do not like.

I don't really understand this complaint. But suffice to say it's a new way of reflecting how certain classes or trainings give you a leg up on different skills. One can get new signature skills from anywhere; we know the pirate archetype gets you acrobatics as a signature skill for the cost of one feat, for example, and you get one from your background IIRC.

But I don't see anything "video gamey" about signature skills representing how a cleric is better at religion than a fighter than class skills representing the same in PF1.

What is going on in-universe to stop my fighter from continuing to learn to pick ever more complicated locks if he wants to?

I had forgotten that there were other sources of signature skills besides classes... but there still needs to be a generic way of getting them for me to find this system acceptable. Do we know if there's a skill feat to grab an extra one? I think that'd be good enough, sort of like how you can grab armor proficiencies you didn't start with and get extra class skills with Additional Traits. I certainly can accept that a fighter has to go farther out of his way to learn lock-picking, which is what that would represent.

And for the sake of clarification: A gamey mechanic in a game is one that likely makes sense from a design perspective as a balancing measure, but is confusing in-universe. In Call of Duty multiplayer, respawning is a gamey mechanic. I choose that example to point out that gameyness is not always bad, but it tends to break verisimilitude, which is undesirable for a TRPG.

A mechanic is further video gamey if it limits player creativity. Hence: if there is a magical block preventing fighters from learning to pick the best locks or engage in high-tier diplomacy, it's video gamey, because the player is being prevented from doing something that, in-universe, it makes no sense at all for them not to be able to do.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
BryonD wrote:
I keep seeing signature skill, but I missed the definition and can't find it. Thanks
Signature skills are ones you can eventually raise to master and then legendary, non signature can't be raised past expert it seems.

Yuck. Very video gamey. Do not like.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So on a round you command an animal to perform two actions on your behalf, what does it do with its third action? The answer had better not be that Animal Companions randomly have one fewer action than every other creature in the world.

Please don't turn them into immersion breaking metagame constructs in the name of balance.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:

This seems a bit intrusive and a bit more unnecessary. Not as intrusive and unnecessary as forcing everybody to play in Golarion or spend hours separating it from the core rules like picking unwanted raisins from a chocolate chip cookie, but I digress.

It seems to me that rarity as relates to setting is something the GM can decide on his own, and for other uses, was perfectly serviced by a mention in a stat block.

Do we really need to service the pedantic and unsophisticated on such an intimate level? I remember when these games challenged you to be resourceful, creative, and to learn a little something along the way.

You know what doesn't challenge you to be resourceful? Being able to acquire every magic item at the Quick-e-Mart.

"What do you mean, I cannot just buy a Ring of Three Wishes here? This store sells all sorts of magic items! Even the strongest Bag of Holding or something..."

"Well, you will have to work more to get the ultimate Reality Warper power for 3 uses."

Let me clarify. RAW, the settlement stat blocks place an incredibly severe limit on what you can buy. Literally a handful of different items depending on where you are. That's so intrusive that, in my experience, people don't use it, and just make it anything goes because approving every individual purpose is far too much work for the GM.

You are aware any item under the Base Value is available 75% of the time, right?

(I usually also allow things to be upgraded even if they'd exceed the base value - the Big Six are too important to block off like that - but I certainly do use the settlement rules.)

Base values are normally very low compared to high-level PC's budgets. They don't go over 16,000 under normal circumstances: Too low for PCs over level 10 or so.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:

This seems a bit intrusive and a bit more unnecessary. Not as intrusive and unnecessary as forcing everybody to play in Golarion or spend hours separating it from the core rules like picking unwanted raisins from a chocolate chip cookie, but I digress.

It seems to me that rarity as relates to setting is something the GM can decide on his own, and for other uses, was perfectly serviced by a mention in a stat block.

Do we really need to service the pedantic and unsophisticated on such an intimate level? I remember when these games challenged you to be resourceful, creative, and to learn a little something along the way.

You know what doesn't challenge you to be resourceful? Being able to acquire every magic item at the Quick-e-Mart.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Are Exotic weapons even needed now ?

They're defining 'Exotic' weapons as those that are statistically superior to martial ones. Since some people want 'better' weapons, that seems a valid niche.

I'm not entirely sure about calling them 'Exotic' at that point, though. 'Superior' feels wrong, however, and I'm legitimately unsure what other term to use.

Specialized?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Voss wrote:
But it doesn't explain why there would suddenly be spare katanas hanging around in vampire crypts (or whatever) in the middle of Ustalav, or in Aztlanti ruins, or... (etc, etc)
You wouldn't need there to be. At most you'll need four katanas during the course of your career (unless there is magic to obviate the eventual desire for a legendary katana). Weapons from the dungeon are valuable because the Potency and other Runes they hold can be transfered to your Katana, and the remaining salvage sold to fund your fondness for exotic weaponry.
You can actually reforge your weapon at a higher quality too.
Yuck, not a fan. I can understand melting down your weapon and using the sentinmental metal from your dad's sword in a new one, but that's essentially making a new sword and having a bit of cool background flavor. I hope you can't "reforge" an expert sword into a legendary one at some reduced cost.

The inability to do so has a serious negative side effect: If you can choose to either upgrade now or wait until you can afford a better upgrade, you're much better off just toughing it out if you can and saving up for something you'll buy in a few levels. And of course by the time you get there, you'll be just a few levels away from the next thing. The result of this is that you want to buy gear as seldom as possible if that gear will be something you could get to a better version of by waiting.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love this so much!

I recently finished running Hell's Rebels. In that game, I tried to give Kintargo a limited pool of magic items (like the rules say to). I did this first to make the city feel more oppressive, second to make what magic items they did have feel more special. My players hated it, and I sort of can't blame them. There were two dozen or so different magic items available, so they just crafted what they could and did without the rest. This persisted until they had complained about it enough that I used the end of A Song of Silver as an excuse to retire that entirely. I have this sense that no number of magic items I could list will be enough to get them enough that they find interesting, but giving them everything is part of the reason they're currently on track to take Mephistopholes as a level 20 party.

If settlement stat blocks work something like "All Common Items, NdN Uncommon Items, NdN Rare Items, 1 Unique Item," I can make some of the items very special without denying them a plethora to choose from.

This will also reduce the tendency to pour over 100 player companions to craft the perfect character. There's something wrong when the only serious reason your players can't take a CR 30 creature is its regeneration which they wouldn't normally have a way to overcome.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Walsh, how does it hurt you if the Paladin remains everything you want it to be, but the chassis is used to create a 9 branched Class like the wizard.

Paladins get to be exclusively shining beacons of Lawful Good, but Pathfinder gets more characters from a small amount more wordcount (Perhaps double)

I'm not Walsh, but your earlier comment about Wizards did Revitalize my belief that 9 substantially different classes could be made.

Here's how I might approach it: everyone detects and smites something opposed to what they are. Everyone gets divine grace, Divine health, and divine Bond. Each of the four alignment components, that is, good, evil, chaotic, lawful, comes with a set of abilities. Lawful Paladin's get the auras, good Paladin's get lay on hands and it's family of abilities, chaotic paladins get abilities that compliment the idea that they're agile and good at avoiding hits, and evil Paladin's get debuff abilities.

Weakening your opponent's hits is a way of being a tank, and being agile can be as valid as being heavily armored, so everyone gets to be a tank. the four kinds of holy Warrior still play significantly differently, and have different flavor. Each of them is getting rewards that only they could have gotten by behaving the way that they do.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Ninja Errant wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
My evidence for this is that people who want to make chaotic good paladins a thing often talk about it as though it were an act of inclusion, like there's some class of lawful good challenged people finally being allowed to indulge in one of the game's classes from which they had previously been unfairly excluded, like this were the equivalent of building a wheelchair ramp.
I've played LG, I've played Paladins. It's fun in its own way, but CG is more my style. I don't see why I can't be a CG Holy Crusader of say Milani. Granted Warpriest fills that role, but how long did it take for us to get a class that does? Besides the Warpriest is basically a redesigned Paladin that doesn't have to be LG. So why not make Warpriest default and call the Paladin what it should be: a subclass of Warpriest.

You should, but that class should be flavored around subterfuge, protection, and subversion of more powerful forces. The lawful good Paladin we have is flavored around supporting one's allies, taking blows for them, and healing.

The essence of chaotic good is just more like a rogue than a tank. A chaotic good Rogue/Paladin hybrid would be a wonderful thing that I would love to see in the game.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
A Ninja Errant wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
If people feel like they can get fundamentally the same experience out of whatever the chaotic good Paladin ends up being called, they're only going to play that one from now on. People are scared to play lawful good characters and they need to be forced out of their comfort zone so that they see that everything is going to be fine.
Even granting that is true, restricting the Paladin to LG doesn't accomplish that. It just means those players won't play Paladins at all. There's 10 (11 in PF2) other core classes that don't require LG.

There is some Merit to that point. That does, after all, seem to be what's happening. However, I think the game could take other measures to reduce the lawful good stigma. Here are the changes I would make to the Paladin:

1: Remove the associates clause from their code. That one is the cause of the only problem with paladins that seems to me to have any legitimacy, the fact that they can be required to police the rest of the party in a way that might infringe on the way they want to play their characters.

2: Add a paragraph for sidebar noting that different Paladin's can interpret their codes in different ways. To one Paladin, respecting legitimate Authority means allowing City guard to recapture an escaped slave. To another Paladin, allowing those guards to stain their souls with such an immoral act would be profoundly disrespectful and they could never do it. To a third, the escaped slave being an innocent person in need simply trumps the respect legitimate Authority clause. A fourth Paladin simply cannot bring themselves to violate either aspect of their code even the name of the other, and so they try to do something to satisfy every part of it, like track down the original owner in by the slave so they can free them once they're found.

Building that kind of diversity of interpretation into the game will make even poor GM's less likely to have a different interpretation of the code than their player does and have the player fall as a result. This way, the GM might interpret the code one way, but the fact that the character sees it a different way is sufficient and valid for that to not cause the Paladin to fall. This does not mean that Anything Goes. The evil act Clause is still absolute, and any literary critic can tell you that multiple interpretations being possible does not mean that every interpretation is equally meritorious or even defensible. Arguments over which interpretations are defensible will still mean that the Paladin causes arguments sometimes, but I think this would cut down on it a lot.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

What was stopping those others from playing a paladin before? The answer is that nothing was, save their personal hang ups about playing a lawful good character. The game should help them get over, rather than indulge, those Hang-Ups.

If people would just play the Paladin under a good GM they would see that it's not this spooky table wrecker everyone thinks it is.

This assumes they had issues that stopped them from playing them before, when they may have played them, but just not enjoyed being LG which is a definite issue in a game about having fun with a group of others. LG is not an alignment everyone enjoys playing, but the Paladin is depicted as the "Martial Champion of Good and Righteousness" which a lot of people like the idea of when playing as a hero.

I don't see paladin as a table wrecker (if you don't have a "gotcha" DM), it's a pretty fun class. What I don't see is the hangups on opening up the alignment when all it'd do is benefit the players and allow them to have more fun (I have the same feeling about any other alignment locked class).

Frankly, I think the number of people who actually dislike playing Lawful Good characters in the way you describe is miniscule. I think far more people have never played one, and somehow have it in their head that they can't.

My evidence for this is that people who want to make chaotic good paladins a thing often talk about it as though it were an act of inclusion, like there's some class of lawful good challenged people finally being allowed to indulge in one of the game's classes from which they had previously been unfairly excluded, like this were the equivalent of building a wheelchair ramp.

In reality, these people would get along just fine playing lawful good if they just tried it. But they're scared too, and have it in their heads that they can't, so they think the game is outlawing them from playing a paladin by requiring them to be lawful good in order to do it.

This is a hang up I would have had if I hadn't had to try out a lawful good character in order to play a paladin. I discovered my favorite class and favorite character is a result. If you get what you want, and someone like me joins the game in two years, they'll be cheated out of a great experience.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

With all due respect to Walsh and Turtle, there is only so much available word count in the crb. Even the Barbarian, with his former 'non lawful' limitation and access to six of nine alignments is too limited for the crb, let alone the Paladin.

Now an option that DOES work, a compromise that allows every one to have what they want (except narrative extremists who vehemently object to any other paths to a Paladin's abilities) is to strip the Paladin away from Full Class Status.

Some kind of Champion class takes its place, with Paladins as one type pf champion.

In the same way that a necromancer is not a conjurer, Paladins are distinct from other branches of Champion, but all are constructed on the same chassis.

If people feel like they can get fundamentally the same experience out of whatever the chaotic good Paladin ends up being called, they're only going to play that one from now on. People are scared to play lawful good characters and they need to be forced out of their comfort zone so that they see that everything is going to be fine.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:

This all premises on that by opening paladin up to other alignments, you are losing something, but you're not. In fact it allows others to enjoy playing it as well.

The only thing you lose out on, is the ability to stand on a high horse and say "I'm a paladin, and better than all of you."

Paladins are a fun class in PF1, it'd be nice to be able to play NG or LN ones as well, share your toys in PF2.

What was stopping those others from playing a paladin before? The answer is that nothing was, save their personal hang ups about playing a lawful good character. The game should help them get over, rather than indulge, those Hang-Ups.

If people would just play the Paladin under a good GM they would see that it's not this spooky table wrecker everyone thinks it is.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
The problem I have with this is that you're assuming a static world. You're implicitly saying the world flavor cannot evolve: One must either preserve or remove it. I don't want to accept that premise.

It's true that that's not broadly the case, but in this specific instance, the most likely way chaotic good paladins would be implemented he's by simply removing the currently existing flavor that makes Paladin's lawful good, and replacing it with something much weaker that doesn't require that. That's what 5th edition did after all. You can either be a traditional Paladin, for which there isn't that much support because it's now just a part of the class, or you could be one of five other deeply uninteresting alternatives.

The paladins flavor was diluted, precisely as HWalsh said it would be. I'm also willing to bet that people don't play the traditional Paladin very often now that they have seemingly easier choices.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:

Congratulations! We've taken a thread that had the active engagement of four Paizo employees, and turned it into a flame war.

... this is why we can't have nice things ...

It's not so bad. People love Pathfinder. It means a lot to them. Sometimes things get heated. I wish that folks would not treat dissenting opinions as a threat, but unfortunately, that's not how the internet seems to work.

In the end, I'm happy that folks are sharing their opinions. It's what we want, after all.

Well, they are a threat. If the case for a change I don't want or against a change I do want is made loudly and persuasively enough, it might cause the final game to be different than I want it to be, perhaps in a way that matters a lot to me.

1 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>