Some Kind of Chymist wrote:
Well, this sucks. I was hoping I could make a Chaotic Drunken Martial Artist as a subclass of something somewhere, but the three most likely candidate classes don't appear to have that option...:P
I guess I'll have to multiclass the Monk with Alchemist or something... good thing they fixed multiclassing with this edition and took away the Monk's alignment restrictions. Yay!
To add to the thread in a more constructive manner, I believe that the Druid class still has the Plant, Wild, and Storm Orders or whatever they were called from the playtest. Also, it was confirmed that the Cloistered Cleric and the Warpriest are the 2 Doctrines that Clerics will get in the Corebook, but there is room to expand in later books. Rangers will have options for Bow, Crossbow, Agile Weapons, and more, but I don't think we know them all yet or what that class feature's final name is yet. The Rogue Rackets are Brute, Scoundrel, and Thief. Sorcerer Bloodlines include those from the playtest as well as Undead, Hag, and I think at least one more that has been added.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Oh, yeah... well...
Well, BLESS you!
Seriously, though, this was great fun and it brought me back to the forums when I don't usually come here too often these days. So, great job with this whole scavenger hunt thing! :)
Joe Wells wrote:
Uhh... Who is going to accomplish all that without coming across like some kind of Batman villain?
Also, I really hope we won't ever need a Pathfinder 3. I hope this newest edition really nails it.
According to the pre-order tab here, condition cards, a flip-map for one of the adventures, a combat pad, GM screens, and character sheets are coming.
As for pawns and other stuff, including flip-maps and poster-maps supporting the AP line, custom coins for Hero Points, custom AP dice, Kingdom Management rules, and more are going to be made for the upcoming Kingmaker AP revision for 2nd edition, according to the Game On crowdfunding page for the 10th Anniversary of the Kingmaker AP, here.
Oooh, from now on I am deliberately saying "Babble" instead of "Bab" or even "Bee-Ay-Bee" as I have all this time. Thank you for this!
I think my players will probably wonder who introduced me to this concept and cultivate their displeasure accordingly. Don't worry though, I will keep your identity a secret from them. You can rest assured, I will never talk... only babble! :D
Regarding Cantrips used with Spellstrike, why not expend focus (if that is a class feature the magus gets in this theoretical build) for the use of a Cantrip with Spellstrike and/or charge the cost of a level-equivalent spell slot the the effective level of the Cantrip used? If there are no more higher level spell slots, then adjust the power output of the Cantrip according to the lower level spell slot used.
I like that idea, but I don't think any spells from the arcane list should be denied to the Magus, but rather place a limiter on them, such as "casting area-effect spells like fireball requires the Magus to expend an additional action in order for the Magus to cast it (maximum of 3 actions)".
The predecessors of the Eoxian undead were Eoxian, not human. They are a separate race as outlined in one of the Starfinder AP issues.
For myself, this is not at all how I felt about the Magus in 1st Edition. When that class came out, I felt like there was finally a class i actually wanted to play. I never have liked the core classes in D&D or Pathfinder. I just don't. They don't inspire me or capture my imagination. (The alchemist coming out in 2nd edition will be an exception when the new core book comes out.) The Magus never felt like a bandaid to me. This is for thematic and game mechanic reasons. I have always wanted a hybrid of a caster and swordsman, not just someone who could do both separately. The Magus was it. It finally gave me a way that didn't just blend someone who could fight and cast a spell as separate actions in the same character, but someone who did it not only in the same turn, but could also channel it through his weapon. That is what I wanted. No other class did this in a way that was satisfactory.
So, obviously, I want the Magus to be a class in 2nd edition. With the playtest rules and what spoilers of 2nd edition I have seen so far, I don't feel that the multiclass of fighter and wizard (either version) adequately captures what I want to play in a Magus. It needs to be a class in 2nd edition. Furthermore, I forget which panel it was, but could swear I saw a PaizoCon panel on twitch where the designers stated that they will eventually find a way to bring along the favorite classes of 1st edition into 2nd edition somehow; and Magus was always in the top percentile of those popularity polls. So, I am confident they will do so at some point.
The only other classes I enjoyed playing in Pathfinder were some of the classes that came later, but for different reasons, usually for a good theme with decently flavored rules that supported the theme. Those classes were the alchemist, inquisitor, oracle, witch, and kineticist. Summoner was cool, too, but it needed some work to balance it better. I always wanted to play the vigilante, but never got a chance to. Most of those classes find some way to blend magic and combat in some interesting way, which is why I like them.
Of the kobolds on the cover of the new Bestiary, I hereby name them Larry (the red one), Curly (the blue one), and Moe (the black one). In my games, this trio of kobolds will forevermore be known as the...
Why? Because I just did... and the Lords of Light demanded it.
EDIT: Hmmm... Larry isn't really a typical fit for a fantasy setting. Maybe I should've named that one Shemp instead... Nah! That just aids Larry in becoming more memorable. I'll give the name, Shemp, to the next kobold that comes along.
Marco Massoudi wrote:
Actually, the slide named the role, "Magic Officer".
I want to see an episode where we can have a discussion, ask questions, and otherwise get ideas from the Starfinder staff about the starship crew system and everything in the rules and lore related to that. This would include:
I prefer the 3-part format over the traditional 6-part. We can get a change of pace much more easily and reduce campaign fatigue, which is what has always prevented my groups from ever finishing any adventure path. What I want to see now is more 3 parters so that we can have much more variety to choose from at various levels, as well as higher level sequel campaigns.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Ah; thank you. I did not know that.
For those of you who want a word that might better exemplify the entropy aspect of the Vanguard class, I present:
the concluding passage of a piece or movement, typically forming an addition to the basic structure.
I thought of some alternative, one-word names for the Witchweird. Take 'em or leave them, as you like (some of them are pretty dumb sounding to me, but somebody might like them):
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Me too; in fact, I have wanted Berserker to be the name of the class since the beginning of 3rd edition D&D.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Not as much as you might think:
Nothing about hunting here.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
I have to disagree. A quick search on Google gets:
So,when I see the most universal, common, and readily available search engine gets me results that give me a definition that is a more complete sentence that encompasses your definition and still focuses on advice or prophecy (especially in its choice of synonyms) it looks to me that your narrower interpretation of the definition is not any more valid than my narrower interpretation of the definition. Also, I would not call your chosen definition the "plainest". I think that is a matter of personal interpretation when throwing out that expression. So, my point remains valid. On that, I think I'll just have to agree to disagree.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
On this I agree with you; however, nothing suggested has been any more all-encompassing or better; at least not in my view. In fact, names like Endseeker, Entropist, and Chaos Warden just sound really bad to me and do not have definitions or implications that are anymore all-encompassing than Vanguard. Entropy, while being a synonym for chaos, is not necessarily the same thing. In fact, I could argue that it just as much to do with universal order as it is the inevitable process to which all things must eventually succumb.
Entropist? Is that even a word? (Also, it just does not sound good to me.)
Endseeker actually sounds cool, but I don't think it is any cooler than Vanguard and you are back to smashing words together with that name, which is something some folks have already complained about with other class names. With Vanguard, you have an already existing noun that works well for the class.
I don't mind Bastion as much as those (as I think it sounds cool, too), but it is still has a less encompassing definition than Vanguard and is even sort of counter to the what the class seems to represent because, after reading the class, it is clear to me that this class wants to be in the thick of everything and will move to where it needs to be to do that. Bastion implies holding out to the end in a more defensive nature. Bastions are about preservation of something, never changing, and holding on to the last; the ultimate defensive position. To the contrary, this class screams offensive tactics to me as those appear to be at the forefront thoughts behind the design of its abilities. Entropy is all about change; it is the ultimate change all things must eventually face. The term, Vanguard, is about those at the forefront, new developments, and moving forward. And always moving forward means always changing. In the military, those in the vanguard are always facing the toughest and heaviest fighting as they are "the tip of the spear" in strategic formations. That is where this class wants to be.
I really like the name, Vanguard, for that class as I find it very fitting for what they will be most likely be doing in battle. They are the tip of the spear and will be right in the thick of things, drawing as much attention as they can because they need it to be more effective with their abilities. I do not think that their name has to reflect their power source. After all, the Barbarian class is not called the Berserker, even though that is exactly what they do. I mean, if classes all had to be named after they source of power as opposed to what they do or what they are in the setting, then shouldn't the Ranger be called a Hunter or the Oracle be called the "Divine Spontaneous Caster" (they aren't predicting the future as part of their class abilities, so why give them that name).
As to the Biohacker, I am fine with it. But, I am cool with something like Doctor, Doc, Physician, Medic, or Sawbones, too. Though those last two are probably less appropriate, I think. I think I might like Doc best though, as that is something less likely to come up as a generic descriptor in an adventure to confuse the class name and yet also really gets the general point across for what the class is.
I don't know what to think of the Witchwarper, but I kind of like calling it "Weirder" just because, to me, it is the weirdest one so far.
This month, my issue of Return of the Runelords: Runeplague was misprinted. When I opened the cover, the first page I see is page 17, which then goes on in sequential order up to page 32 when flipping pages. Then, instead of page 33, it stars at page 17 again.
Seeing this problem, I went through the adventure paths I have received for the last year, just to see if this was the only AP issue with this problem. It is not, I found that my copy of Starfinder 04 Dead Suns AP The Ruined Clouds starts normally and sequentially through the pages all the way up to page 63, where the OGL legal text and the blurbs for the next issue's content is written; however, when flipping that page, you then see the advertisement for the Pact Worlds harcover, but opposite that page is page 49 again, which when turning through the pages after that point goes all the way to that Pact worlds ad at the back again (but, this time, it really is the back of the book with the inside back cover depicting the Klokworx Prism.
Normally, I first scan through the PDFs when I get them before the print copies and just put the print copies on the shelf, but this time I had not yet peaked at the PDF for Runeplague and flipped through the print copy. I'm glad I did that this time or I would not have caught the problem until getting ready for the day I would actually run Runeplague.
Can I get a replacement copy? I can provide photographic evidence or even return the defective copies, but I would rather not have to pay postage, if so.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Finally, as for calling things feats, we have decided to use that term to help new players understand "feat means I get to pick a new rule to add to my character", much as it did in the past. This was simpler than explaining rage powers, rogue talents, ki powers, etc, all of which were trying to do the same thing (roughly). It made the process of understanding how a character works flow much more smoothly between play (a class feat always means the same thing, but the list you chose from changes with each character, same with ancestry feats, and the like).
I think you are on the right track, but too many feats, whether they are ancestry feats, class feats, skill feats, etc. is too much. Perhaps using something that divides them along those lines without calling them feats, but also not getting more specific names divided along the lines of each race or class (like rage powers and rogues talents - as you are concerned about) is a better middle ground.
So, for example, you could call all of the ancestry feats something like Ancestral Gifts or Ancestry Talents, class feats could be Class Techniques or Class Talents, and general feats and skill feats could remain as Skill Feats and/or General Feats or maybe become something like Skill Aptitudes, Skill Secrets, Knacks, or General Arts if you wanted to keep using the word "feat" with class or ancestry. That way, when we talk with our players we can say feat, talent, technique, or whatever other word you might choose to use and the players would know they are all different from each other, but are equivalent in power and/or design space, while each of those comes from a different place of origin during the character creation process and at different steps of progression when leveling up.
I confess, I think I would like referring to my class feats as something like, "The Secret Arts of the Paladin", or the "Secret Arts of the Druid".
Something else that I noticed last night while making my first character is that I was filling out the character sheet wrong. Some stuff I could tell was off and did not know where to put it (like my Low-Light Vision from being a Half-Elf and trying to find where I should write that I'm a humanoid, a human, and an elf - it looked to me like the step by step instruction were telling me to do so... so I tried...) or I was putting things in the wrong place. I had to go back to that video of Buhlman making an Elf Barbarian on Paizo's Twitch channel and pause the screen to see how he filled out his sheet.
I think the playtest book should have put a filled out sample character sheet in the book. Ideally, they should display the same character they walk us through the step process of creating. Also, instead of a fighter they should show us something like a druid or a bard so that we can see how armor, weapon attacks, and spells all get filled out, too. We don't get all that with many of the character classes like the fighter they used (and who obviously does not get spells; and a sorcerer does not get armor). They showed us a character sheet in the character creation chapter, but nothing was filled in. I did not know exactly what went where. They did put the step numbers all over their unfilled, sample sheet to tell us that something from that step goes there, but some of those steps have a lot going on and I got confused.
I agree with much of what is said here; however, I have a couple of other things I would like to address, as well:
I think the skill feats should be placed with the skill chapter next to the appropriate skill. But, if not that, at least organize the feats the same way they are listed on the feats chart at the beginning of the chapter so that we can comparison shop easily without having to flip all over the book.
I would prefer the action icons to just simply be words, but if we need graphic icons, can it be in addition to the words? As it is now, I have to stare at the icon for a bit to understand which one it is. Telling Actions, Reactions, and Free Actions apart is too distracting to me. I have to stare at the internal components of the shape to tell them apart and I have trouble with that. I don't mind the chevron system to indicate multiple actions; that seems clear to me - though it might be better if the second diamond for that second Action were a hollow diamond. But, I think the biggest problem for me is that Actions, Reactions, and Free Actions are all diamond-shaped. Can they at least be different shapes besides a diamond? For example, how about a Diamond for an Action (keeping the chevrons to indicate additional actions as it is now, but with the hollow second diamond I mentioned above), a Circle for a Reaction, and a Square, Triangle, or Hollow Circle for a Free Action.
Another thing (...and this is really minor, I know, but it is annoying to me on the level of a squeaky front door at your place of work when you're stuck at the front desk in a busy office all day,) is two of the watermarks on every page that make me want to claw at the book to get what feels like a food stain or bug off of my book. An example page to find these watermarks I mention can be seen on page 211 at the bottom over the word, "LANGUAGE" in Comprehend Language and to the far left by the "COMMAND" spell entry. They are on every page and they break my immersion/rhythm every time I read the bottom of every odd numbered page.
Otherwise, I agree with most of what has been pointed out above. I think powers should be broken out into its own section adjacent to the Spells section.
Mark Moreland wrote:
... As it stands, there are several technological melee weapons that resolve against touch AC and deal energy damage, but that aren't light sabers or Thundarr's sword. If those are items you want in your game, as James has said above and elsewhere, they may be able to be added to the AP in a later volume, or you can extrapolate from the rules that are presented in this book and Iron Gods to formulate your own.
Lords of light! No Sunsword? Demon dogs!