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?
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.
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.
You might say that they'll have taken the pirate archetype.Looney Toons exit music
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.
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.
Multiclass ability score prerequisites should be lowered, and level advancement should raise all ability scores
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.
Abyssal Sorcerer/Paladin is probably a really flavorful combination to be honest will make after release.
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.
Are you suggesting that power-gamers aren't filthy?
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.
The Sideromancer wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
I was talking about the reference to a hot 17 year old model. That's creepy as balls.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know what doesn't challenge you to be resourceful? Being able to acquire every magic item at the Quick-e-Mart.
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.
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.
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.
A Ninja Errant wrote:
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.
A Ninja Errant wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
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.