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.


RSS

1 to 50 of 483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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

Is the hand crossbow supposed to be a simple weapon?

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 3/5

So the party was in a room which, due to a trap, was covered in burning oil. One of the characters decided to use create water to put themselves out. I checked if they could make a knowledge check, and when they couldn't, I let them do this, and then have the fire explode because that's what happens when you try to put an oil fire out with water. I had it do 4d6 damage with a reflex save for half, as that's what the fire was doing to them every round. This did not put this character (it was Kyra actually) into existential Danger. She had plenty of Channel energies left, and was taking a little enough damage each round with a reflex save that she could have healed herself properly with a concentration check.

This was a high-level sanctioned module. Technically, we were playing in campaign mode, which was necessary because it allowed us to use higher-level versions of the pre generated characters. Most of the players at the table were using their society characters' sheets.

As we were technically playing in campaign mode, I'm pretty sure my word was law, but the player in question got so mad that they stormed away from the table. I just wanted to get other people's opinion about that situation? Was I wrong to have something damage him even though it wasn't technically in the rules? Have this not been a campaign mode table, would I have been allowed to do that?

There's nothing in the rules about how create water affects fire in any circumstance. I suppose the most RAW thing to do would be to have it not do anything. At the time I didn't know the relevant rules off the top of my head, which is probably something I should have looked up before running this. Still, after looking at some footage of water being thrown onto oil fires on YouTube, I feel like I could have Justified treating this like a high-level Fireball or something. Having it just affect him and do his little damage is it did seems merciful compared to what would happen in real life.

Silver Crusade

Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1: Yes.

2: No.
3: I've never touched either.
4: High level play is the most frustrating to me of Pathfinder's problems.
5: I think it's not only a good idea, but a decently high priority.
6: I'm not sure what this means. To give up on accessibility altogether would mean creating a game that cannot be played. That wouldn't be worth any benefit. Otherwise it's a trade off and there's no simple way to answer this question.
7: I'd probably not want to bother with multiple rules sets for the same game like that.
8: IDK.

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

PineTowers wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
It's a good sign that I've already seen threads about how the rogue is both too powerful and not powerful enough. Hopefully that means the rogue is well balanced.
That's... not how it works. At all. That means someone is wrong. Someone just need to math out who's who.

There's no way to math out whether being good at skills is better than being better at combat.

Silver Crusade

RafaelBraga wrote:

Lets put this way... Sir Knito challenger Sir Commus to a duel...

Both level 9 paladins...

Duel start... rolls initiative...

Look at character sheet...

Sir Knito weapon is +3

Sir Commus weapon is still +2 cause the upgraded his armor also.

Sir Knitto wins and challenge the next owner of a still "unupgraded +2 weapon".

When we remove extremes and add close characters, the weapon upgrade become even more important. Your feats are equivalent, your stats may vary a little +1 here and there... but your weapon can be a full +dice that will add up to victory in the end after X hits.

Thats too much impact for a mere +1.

The guy who upgraded his armor is less likely to be hit and receives a bonus on saving throws. Granted, the latter doesn't matter in a duel between two paladins, but that's an extremely specific situation. In normal play, the increase to saves has a 15% chance of turning one result into the next better one for you.

Silver Crusade

Dαedαlus wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:

Well, roll your stats them, of all the crappy rules of the playtest, that one is the easiest to solve and the option is even there on the book itself.

It's not just ability scores (though that is part of it). In any case, that doesn't do a thing- you're still limited to no higher than 18.

Also, I never once mentioned ability scores in my first post. If anything, the fact that it's the first thing everyone thinks of says quite a bit too....

Forget the fact you can't increase above 18 by level 1 normally anyway unless you're rolling. That would be... acceptable. I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't agree with it, but I would accept it.

Saying flat-out "you can never have an ability score above 18 at level 1" just feels like a slap in the face to players like me. There's a reason I don't play 5e, and stated hard caps is a very large part of that reason.

What other numbers are hard capped?

Silver Crusade

RafaelBraga wrote:

If you can have a magic shop selling a +4 sword... the game has every shop like this NEVER have a 3rd level rogue robbing it right?

Cause mechanics wall is more important than game consistency.

Even low level PFS adventures have imporant locations being robbed here and the (Blackros family seems specially prone to attract low level invaders)

Oh... the "appropriate level magnet" rule that we all live uppon. You never, through your 20 levels of play, will ever touch some blasphemous level innapropiate item.

And again, in a world when a weapon dos SIX time the damage of another, war should be fought by this weapons and every high level adventure party would have to massacre the kindown they are entering or having their weapons "confiscated by law"

A store with the resources to acquire or manufacture a +4 sword probably also has the resources to make itself difficult for low level characters to rob.

None of the kingdoms ban high-power weapons, because the ones that did were eaten by the monsters no one could save them from because no one could do enough damage.

Silver Crusade

Greylurker wrote:
KuniUjito wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:

The problem is not when the 3rd level paladin found an ancient holy avenger in some lost temple...

The problem is when a 14lv paladin is penalized for using a normal sword or even "just a +1 sword" cause some story relation and he perform even worse than a PF1 character in the same situation (wich is already bad).

The magic weapon dependancy grew exponentially in this ruleset... and i am very shocked that people that were complained of a +2 damage diferential on a rogue having or having not dex to damage are simple mute.

I guess people just have trouble with math when it is a variable number.

My question then becomes why hasn't the 14th level paladin purchased a magic weapon to wield? Even with tithing and giving to the poor he could still certainly afford one.
maybe he's playing in a blasted apocalyptic world where the Undead rule as god-kings and the forces of good fight a gurilla war from the darkness and don't have stores to buy things from

That's a very specific campaign concept, and the GM should adjust the difficulty of the enemies he puts the PCs up against if he's going to have them play with a lower amount of gold.

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

It's a good sign that I've already seen threads about how the rogue is both too powerful and not powerful enough. Hopefully that means the rogue is well balanced.

Silver Crusade

ErichAD wrote:

Most of the creature types are there as a "base class" concept to provide BAB HP and save progression that matched with the typical ability set the creature would have. I'm not sure that purpose is still present if they're ditching the finished monsters in favor of a crib sheets. With a monster building guidline, that they weren't using anyway apparently, I don't see much point in the high level of distinction between creature types.

We have magical beasts and monstrous humanoids who are just animals and humanoids with better vision. We have constructs but then we have undead who are just constructs animated by a specific type of energy. Outsiders are monstrous humanoids that can't be resurrected. Fey are humanoids with low light vision. And so on, it would be more useful to define them by plane of origin and body type.

I propose:
A marker to indicate sentience:
controlled-- creatures responding only to outside stimulus
intelligent- creatures that are self motivating
mystic------ self motivating creatures with inherent magical powers

A marker for body type.
serpentine, bipedal, multipedal, morphic

A marker for creature type.
Creature--- animal, magical beast, humanoid, monstrous humanoid, outsider, fey, vermin, dragon
Construct-- Construct, Undead
Plant------ plant
Aberration- ooze, aberration

So we'd have Mystic Multipedal Creature for dragons, controlled bipedal construct for skeletons, mystic morphic aberration for gibbering mouther and so on. Then add plane of significance and call it good.

I'd much prefer actual build rules and base classes that meant something in the creature's ability set, but if they're moving away from it, I'd prefer they get far enough away from it that it no longer interfered in creature variety.

Bane tho

Silver Crusade

Vic Wertz wrote:
Enlight_Bystand wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

I wonder how it will be distribtued that day. The usual Paizo store method of Store Page -> Add to Cart -> Buy for $0.00 -> Go to My Downloads -> Get PDF watermarked -> Download is awfully slow for what is gonna be a very frantic hour.

I heard there would be other channels too? Perhaps direct link to the PDF on CDNs or something? Where would we find this?

For free pdf products you eliminate the add to cart and buy for $0.00 steps
We will also be providing an even more streamlined process for what we expect to be the two most popular options: "I just want the Rulebook" and "I want all the playtest stuff"

Do you think you can get the website not to melt?

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

Lucas Yew wrote:
Ugh, no blog today? And I have to wait until Friday in my time zone?!

There was a guy who got the book early, and he was asked to suspend his reddit AMA until the 31st. That makes me think they don't intend to release any specific piece of information after that point.

Silver Crusade

Secret Wizard wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

Not everything is a confrontation Merlin. I want a system that allows as much as possible. Hopefully that includes what you want, and I'd seek for ways to make that easier so long as it doesn't lead to imbalances elsewhere.

For example I although I like Multiclassing being built like Archetypes, I dislike that they share the same dedication locking. It shifts concepts back later than I think they need be and causes the non-multiclass archetypes to compare incredibly poorly mechanically (at a first glance, multiclassing wizard makes for a ridiculously superior character over the benefits of picking up Pirate, for no more cost.)

I wrote an edit to the last post. Maybe take a look at that as I realize it was unfair to simply write it out like that.

But the problem is, what I want either won't get ported or the system falls back on the "Well you Can do it this way".

I don't think I'll get Brawler. Because the system says I can because of Fighter/Monk. Or Monk/Fighter. Same with the others.

Now I might not get the same 'feeling'(at least to me) as playing as that class. I mean even moving away from Hybrid; the system could say "Oh you CAN build a Cavalier, you just start as X first and take this, this and this".

That doesn't sound like picking a Cavalier. That sounds like having to unlock the class. Or worse case, Subclass because you'll still be a Fighter just with Cavalier options.

So I'm a bit miffed and worried about that. How many classes will we need if everything can be bolted on as a Multiclass or Archetype? Why yes, you can make your Wizard/Rogue all you want and not fall behind. Me, well that doesn't sound like a stealth Magus. It sounds like Wizard/Rogue. And it's Magus I want to play.

I mean I HATE to play this card; but it's the same problem people have with Paladins. You expect certain things when playing as a Paladin. Yes the features, yes the powers but you have a mental image going into that.

And the

...

I'd say that, fundamentally, a Cavalier is a swordy guy who gets to have a horse animal companion so that he doesn't have to mess with buying horses and having them die instantly to area of effect at higher levels.

Definitely, "get a horse animal companion" is an option that should exist for everyone who could reasonably be a knight. Perhaps one feat for a horse animal companion would be too much, so perhaps the first could grant a first level horse and the second cause it to advance.

Silver Crusade

MerlinCross wrote:
Professor Quolorum wrote:

The ability to dip in PF1 did not start out as a major balance concern. It is only with the exponential growth of options with every class and archetype published that things got really out of hand. It's impossible for designers to foresee every powerful combination of abilities, and players as a group have practically infinite more time to find them. This creates tension between giving classes cool things early and keeping a balanced game.

Eliminating the dip in PF2 makes maintaining balance as the system matures much more straightforward.

How's taking 1 or two feats from Multiclassing for just what you want not dipping anymore? Brain storming here but a Barbarian could very well give up 1 feat for Alchemist Dedication and if within reach, Mutagen on their next Feat.

Heck, I still expect some players to come up with busted things for the least amount of feats. And we'll complain about that "Dip" as well. Because as you said, we as players kinda have infinite time.

While this is somewhat true, preventing this is, I think the reason one's ability to take dedications is limited. Supposing we agree that taking three feats (counting the dedication) in an archetype makes it no longer count as dipping, you can only have one dip on a character at any given time, and only four archetypes total if you take none of your own class feats.

The worst abusers of multi-classing were characters like the four way multiclass I mentioned in another post, who had several skill mods in the 25+ range and several more at 20+ at level eight.

Honestly, compared to that, the fighter dip is tame, as much as it disgusts me on an aesthetic level as someone who values role-playing.

Silver Crusade

Secret Wizard wrote:
I'd like to be able to easily add STR to Shield Hardness.

That strikes me as a worthwhile class feat for shield-using classes like Paladins and Fighters.

Silver Crusade

PossibleCabbage wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I wasn't really partial to dips either to be honest.
I wasn't either, but it was hard to deny their legitimacy in PF1 since they were kind of built into the game. If you wanted to qualify for Eldritch Knight, or Mystic Theurge, or Arcane Trickster ASAP (so at level 6) you needed to split your first 5 levels between two classes. Now this sort of thing is gone but it's hard to say a level 1 fighter dip to qualify for a PRC is legitimate but a level 1 fighter dip for a feat and proficiencies not used to qualify for a PrC is not.

I find it quite easy to say that, actually, as I consider open attempts to create an over-powered character to be illegitimate (unless that's the type of game everyone is out to play).

There will be one in a million cases where a single level of fighter fits your concept, and I imagine I'm about to hear about them from other posters, but virtually always, it will be the player compromising role-playing for a mechanical advantage. This is bad, and it is the fault of both the game and the player for incentivizing and going through with it respectively.

Silver Crusade

Repairing objects was only a cantrip in PF1. If the same is the case in PF2, that cantrip will simply become more popular.

I don't think you're supposed to rely on interposing your shield like this as a major tactic. It's supposed to be something you do to save yourself when you have no other choice.

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

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like "retraining some of your feats" might actually be a good way to represent stories like "a fighter discovers magical talent and, while at home after an adventure, delves so deeply into it they forgot to keep practicing and as such their swordfighting skills are somewhat diminished."

I don't think "I'm taking this now but will retrain it later" is any more of a "rules exploit at the expense of telling a story" than "taking a 1 or 2 level dip in a class, just for divine grace or proficiencies or w/e" and that sort of thing was super common.

I wasn't really partial to dips either to be honest.

To be clear, the specific sort of thing I have a problem with would be someone taking a feat because they thought it would be useful in the next dungeon and then retraining it away right afterward. I have this horrible image of my head of some of my players making themselves into perfectly honed killers of Undead because they're going to go into one dungeon where they will be prominent, only to become their old selves again soon they leave.

Perhaps I'll implement a house rule that any given feat slot can only have its contents retrained once without special permission.

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

The Sideromancer wrote:

From a cosmology perspective it seems kind of strange that

  • Creatures from the Ethereal plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Astral plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Elemental planes are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Outer planes are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Positive Energy plane are Outsiders
  • (non-undead) creatures from the Negative Energy plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Shadow plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the First World are Fey

Either subdivide outsiders more, or fold fey into it.

Fey occupy a completely different flavorspace, though.

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

I get what some people are saying about opposed opposites and wanting to have as few spell lists as possible, but I really think that material spiritual would be fitting for the witch.

Now, that's not what I hope they do. I hope that they have Patron dictate spell list for her. I hope that they do that with Oracle Mysteries as well. I hope that they do that as often as possible.

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

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the Witch needs to be the "Prepared caster of any tradition" since "who is your patron" can vary from "an angel" (who would teach you divine magic" to "the Green Mother herself" (who would teach you primal magic) and so forth.

I definitely second this. I recall James Jacobs mentioning that he wished they'd built a real sense of a bargain into the witch, and I think that this would be a good idea. I'm not sure how you'd keep this distinct from the cleric, except that witch patrons should be mysterious and eccentric, and it shouldn't be clear what the reasoning is behind their demands and anathemas.

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

deuxhero wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
When I was GMing shattered star, we briefly had a character who, at level eight, had levels in four different classes and roughly a +30 on the majority of skill checks as a result.
How? With that kind of build I'm willing to bet the archetype/feats selected were broken in and of themselves, if it was even legal in the first place.

I don't remember exactly, and it is possible that this person cheated. They got their INT absurdly high, then took that one trait that lets you use your INT for cha things. They were an investigator (among other things), and got their inspiration for free on most of their skills via talents. (My estimate of +30 includes the 3.5 from the inspiration die.) I know they were an Evangelist as well, and I think an alchemist. (I know they had bombs.) I'm sure they weren't a spell caster.

Knowing this person, them cheating is on the table.

Silver Crusade

My "first priorities" would be:

Oracle, with mysteries dictating spell lists like bloodlines.
Summoner
Investigator
Vigilante
Gunslinger
Inquisitor, perhaps with 9th level divine spells, because we seem to be doing away with 6th level casting.
Keneticist

I think those seven are the ones that are most unique and achievable currently. I believe they said they had no intention of "downgrading" any classes to archetypes, despite the fact that that would probably suit the Vigilante quite well.

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

HWalsh wrote:

Mark,

After many pages one question I haven't seen asked...

What happens if you multiclass classes that are very similar?

Like: (Specifically)

Palader (Paladin - Fighter devotion)

What happens with the doubled feats?

I mean what happens when you multiclass fighter/paladin in 1e? It's probably less beneficial than Paladin/Oracle or other pairs of classes that are dissimilar. The flip side of that is that fighter things probably synergize better with paladin things. Indeed, the most popular multi-classes and gestalts I can think of are classes with disparate abilities that happen to work together well, like the Palacle.

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

deuxhero wrote:
Moro wrote:
Tallow wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:

I'm very disappointed that this is the direction 2e has chosen to go.

Multi-classing was one of the most interesting and skill-expressive mechanics in 1e, allowing players to create a character that's both unique and wholly their own. Reducing such mechanics to a handful of pre-defined packages is a massive loss for everyone who enjoyed the customization of 1e. If anything is reverted in playtesting, I hope this is it.

Unfortunately, multiclassing in PF1 often lead to characters that could not stack up to single class characters in terms of relative power compared to the APL, just like Prestige classes weakened a character. Hopefully, the archetype system in PF2 allows for abilities that are in line with single class options in terms of usefulness at their given levels. At least I think that's what the designers are looking for.

And does anyone else now have "Leeloo Dallas Multi Class" stuck in their heads now?

--Vrock & Load

More importantly, however, was the multiclass abominations that broke the game are now no longer possible.

What?

The most broken abominations that broke the game were straight casters.

Yeah, I'd love to know what the dips that supposedly broke the game were. The anti-dip view seems heavily steeped in 3.5, which was largely vulnerable to dipping because there were a ton of classes, both base and prestige. In PF the only common dips are

1: Fighter 2, for proficiencies and feats
2: Monk 2, for feats
3: Paladin 2, for proficiencies and Divine Grace
4: Oracle 1, for immunity to fatigue. Oracle 2 for a revelation

Paladin 2 was only used as a dip for Oracle (It's hardly a dip if you're going into a dual advancement class, so Sorcadin doesn't count for the same reason Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster doesn't). Oracle dips were a problem due to how rage worked, not how mutliclassing worked, or unexpected combinations (Getting charisma to AC and reflex saves...

When I was GMing shattered star, we briefly had a character who, at level eight, had levels in four different classes and roughly a +30 on the majority of skill checks as a result.

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

No bueno on the wise halflings if it's true. That hint is pretty cryptic and I'm not sure that that's actually what he meant to imply, but if it's true it's kind of b*******. Halflings are supposed to be Plucky and charismatic. As much as I can understand wanting one of the small races not to be Charisma boosted, I can certainly think of two better candidates for that.

Silver Crusade

Captain Morgan wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Where the Paladin has to obey silly or even evil laws, the CG paragon would have to BREAK such laws, or even reasonable laws in specific circumstances.
They really don't. Paladins are deonteological, they know the right and wrong way of things and will not break those regardless of what the law of the land says. (Remember that there is a difference between societal laws and metaphysical Law, note the capitalizations.) A Paladin of Freedom doesn't have to break every law, they're teleological. They only break the law when it serves their goal of ensuring living creatures are free to pursue their own ends. (The reason we see them breaking so many laws is the fact that so many laws are designed to limit freedoms. Often for a good reason, but not everyone agrees with that reasoning.)

The LG Paladin does have to obey local laws. "You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet." Admittedly, I'm not sure I can think of any example of an evil law that doesn't violate a higher tenet, but I can think of plenty of silly ones that would fit the bill. Lots of areas have really archaic laws about who can sell liquor and when they can do it for example.

I agree with you on the Paladin of Freedom, actually. I just phrased my post poorly.

The best example I can think of of a time that this would interfere with things is Fort Inevitable. There, you're expected to pay a 30% tax on all of your adventuring income.

Meanwhile, the Paladin of Freedom would immediately have to Stage a rebellion against the Hell Knights there.

Silver Crusade

The main reason I went for the lawful good wizard was that the wizard in question was a ratfolk. I rarely play non good characters, so that was a given. He was lawful because rat-folk are generally supposed to be on account of coming from a large community-oriented warrens and because he's a studious nerdy wizard, and I figure he should be disciplined in his studies.

That's not to say there aren't chaotic researchers, but that's not the kind of researcher I imagine to this guy to be. I imagine him submitting to peer review and speaking cordially to his fellow scientists about various elements of Arcane Artistry of interest only to him and his colleagues.

Silver Crusade

Deadmanwalking wrote:
A Lawful Paladin has serious issues in areas with restrictive laws.

Not the PF2 version. She can disregard a law any time it'd prevent her from saving an innocent. I'd argue that this probably includes cases where those laws would cripple her and keep her from engaging in Paladinry. She also never has to do something suicidal.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Frankly, I don't see situations where 'honor' comes up that much in games either.

Fair point, at least in PF2. PF1 has a concrete example in the form of poison use.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Uh...no. That requires you to go in and save the kid if possible (which the CG one still needs to do, by the way). It in no way forces you to let another innocent endanger their life trying to save them. The CG one generally does require you to allow them to go, or at least err in that direction.

I'm presuming that the person running into the building obviously had no chance and letting them go is letting them die. If that is true, letting them go in is letting them come to immediate harm and violates the code. If not, that is, if they may very well succeed and we all accept that then sure the Chaodin has to allow them and the LG paladin has a choice.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
For example, a CG Paladin could not imprison a murderer if they sincerely believed they were reformed. They can imprison to prevent future harm, but not to punish past wrongdoings. The person would not be innocent and they could thus allow others to imprison or coerce them, but could not engage in such behavior personally.

That's actually the kind of thing I am looking for. Something most people wouldn't accept that'd get them on the wrong side of the wrong people, but that wouldn't require them to become an outlaw and derail the campaign instantly. If paired with mechanics that complimented this alignment (Smite Law instead of Evil probably, less emphasis on teamwork/helping allies, etc.) I could get behind this.

Silver Crusade

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Joe, who you know is innocent, is being arrested. If he went along quietly, you could clear this up at the station, but he refuses to do so. As a CG Paladin, you have to back Joe up, even to the point of physically fighting the police, because his autonomy is more important than the law.

There are many other equivalent situations. They certainly come up at least as often as honorable behavior that doesn't fall under 'Don't commit Evil acts.'

Do they though? So I see that this prevents you from playing nice with guards unless you're able to talk them down during the inciting incident, but I can't think of any other situations which aren't just recolors of this one.

It also needs an "unless it would be suicidal" clause to prevent Chaodins from charging headfirst into a guardsman's spear the instant they enter an evil-aligned nation.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Not necessarily. From a LG perspective, forcing people to do things 'for their own good' is potentially valid.

Again, that's too specific. A "force you to do it for your own good" situation is going to come up like once every ten campaigns. It's not a meaningful difference.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
For example, physically preventing someone from running into a burning building to save their child violates this tenet, but is certainly not an Evil act most times.

This would count as allowing an innocent to come to harm through inaction.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Enchantment would come into conflict with #3 if the enchanter used it on an innocent, and #4 would mean they couldn't personally use it most of the time, but a party member using it on non-innocents would be fine.

I'll concede this point. It's probably at least no worse than the relationship between a LG paladin and a rogue.

Silver Crusade

Deadmanwalking wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I don't remember what DMW has to say on this matter, but I find it very hard to imagine it won't be any easier to play in practice. Strictures are generally lawful by nature, so it's going to be difficult to come up with a code that is chaotic to begin with. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I find it hard to imagine what it would consist of.

My version (found here among other places) suggests the following for a CG Paladin's Code:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

3) You must always defend the autonomy of innocents from those who would violate it. If one person is forcing an innocent to do anything against their will, you must attempt to stop this act, using words if possible and force if necessary.

4) You must personally respect the autonomy of others, never forcing them to engage in any particular course of behavior. You may advise and admonish, but never actually force them to do as you wish them to. Except as necessary to fulfill the higher tenets, of course (ie: jailing a criminal who harmed or violated the autonomy of innocents is acceptable in order to prevent such behavior).

I feel like that gets a little wordy, but it could probably be edited a bit, and if taken seriously it is very restrictive of your behavior (to about the same degree as the LG one) in a way that is very CG in principle.

To my eye, three is mostly entailed by two. I can't think of many situations where walking right past a situation where someone was forcing someone else to do something against their will wouldn't also mean allowing an innocent to come to immediate harm.

Likewise, most ways of breaking four also involve breaking one. The only thing I can think of that this prohibits that a LG paladin is allowed is the use of enchantment magic, and if it turns out that the party's enchanter cannot exist peacefully alongside the Chaodin, that's the bad kind of restrictive that pits different players' fun against each other.

1 to 50 of 483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>