Amiri

WatersLethe's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 2,925 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,925 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've been using versatile heritages to fill in the gaps and it's a little annoying now and then. Like, I really enjoy a specific heritage, but the ancestry's feat selection is so poor I feel like I have to go to a versatile heritage to get a wider selection.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I somehow don't like it being built into the proficiency math, because that muddies a core mechanic that is billed to be the same everywhere.

If I were to implement it, I'd put it onto a tool used by the skill. Like a Masterwork Repair Kit that gives you the effective ability score bonus minimum if you're expert/master/legendary.

That way you can also limit it to certain non-combat skills if you wanted to, or rarity gate combat relevant items.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm sympathetic toward people who are feeling tired of being badgered to play a different game than the one they like. Ginny Di almost definitely overreacted, but I can understand why.

Telling 5e players to play PF2 instead is almost as bad as the heaps of indie RPG players who scoff at people enjoying anything mainstream.

It gets old fast.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Example:
Let's say you're in a campaign with a moderately benevolent GM who has said she's willing to give Divine Intercessions as appropriate to the circumstances, but doesn't plan on adding quests or significantly altering the AP you're running.

Let's say you're playing a cleric of Nethys and you *really* want a specific arcane spell on your spell list, and you want Nethys's moderate boon real bad.

[For reference:
Moderate Boon: Nethys grants you insight into the secrets of magic. Add one spell from a different tradition of magic to your spell list. You still must learn it or add it to your repertoire normally.]

How would you go about helping set up an appropriate circumstance for acquiring that divine boon?

Broader questions:

1. What guidelines should GMs follow when considering granting boons?
2. If a GM has decided to give out boons, what level makes the most sense to target?
3. Should any player reasonably hope to acquire a specific boon as part of their character's story arc, even if that means discussing it with the GM? Or should it really be a GM tool in play only?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I was gonna say an Inventor Dwarf Archer might be interesting, so you could apply your dwarf craftiness to the ever popular composite shortbow/longbow, however it appears Inventors need a whole lot more weapon modifications. There's basically nothing of interest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I thought about Brilliant, but a lot of its mechanics just don't seem to fit. The fire damage is fine, but bonuses against evil? Blindness? Dispelling magical darkness? The draw is the light fluff which I'd have been handwaving for 12 levels by then anyway.

The Brilliant Rapier is *so* good though! Turning all the physical damage into fire? That's way better than I thought I'd be able to get! I will definitely talk to a GM about doing a Clan Dagger version.

For the life of me though I can't decide between Adamantine and Hot Siccatite. The siccatite is probably better mechanically, but the cut through anything flavor of adamantine is just *chef's kiss*


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Hi! I'm working on an archetypical dwarf who is outwardly and in most respects a bog-standard dwarfy dwarf, except that his hobby and life's work has been to invent a lightsaber. He rolls around in heavy armor, brews and chugs beer, is stout and strong, and when a fight breaks out KSSHH! out pops a lightsaber. I was hoping people could give me suggestions to improve my plan, and perhaps make the lightsaber more lightsabery.

Fluff-wise I want it to be a small looking rod that has a thaumo-magneto-field that acts as a blade, but also contains and shapes the plasmothermal energy that he can sometimes get to work. He's supposed to be good in combat, but not necessarily super strong. Also likes to hand out drinks and help his team mates.

Mechanically I'm planning on going with a strength based Dwarf Inventor with Weapon Innovation on a Clan Dagger. Using the Agile to capture the quickness of the lightsaber and Parry to get the cinematic feel of lots of blocking and parrying happening. Inventor's bonus damage will be fire, and the offensive boost will be fire too. I'll pick up Clan's Edge to get the attack-attack-parry for two actions, then Protective Sheath to up the AC. With the free hand I'll be using my Free Archetype Alchemist dedication to mix/brew/drink beers as buffs for me and the party in the vein of Deep Rock Galactic. I'll pick up Sentinel dedication to go up to heavy armor so I can leave dex at 10 (classic non-graceful dwarf), and pick up Unburdened Iron to help my speed.

Modifications I'm looking at are:
Complex Simplicity (1d6 damage instead of 1d4)
Aerodynamic Construction (Sweep, for the wide cinematic arcs of the lightsaber, and to help with Clan's Edge)
Extensible Weapon (Reach, because a lightsaber could get longer than a usual weapon, and reach is super good for Clan's Edge attacking multiple targets)

Runes I'm looking at are:
Flaming, Keen, Wounding(?)

So, anything you would change? Any ideas to make a lightsaber more lightsabery?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

In absolute terms it's not overpowered, since nothing about the stats are going to wreck the game. Low strength heavy armor users are extremely well served by it, but to an extent they need the help, and high strength heavy armor users are barely going to notice the difference.

In comparative terms, yeah it's significantly better than base full plate, and leads me to believe you're right that it should have an access requirement. Otherwise I would always get this, since 5 gold for +1 bulk is not bad for high strength characters and the -2 str requirement opens up 5 levels of reduced penalties for a bunch of characters.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
jimthegray wrote:
the numbers are pretty close to linear by level unless the dm chooses it not to be

Is this Mathmuse bait?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
McMoogle wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

Personally, d4s are one of my favorite dice to roll because of their definitive, sharp "click" when they land. They feel different! That's what a magic missile feels like!

You have to make sure they tumble in the air, usually by quickly moving your hand before release to give them that spin.

I'm starting to feel like I'm the only person who uses a dice cup to tumble my dice before emptying it into the dice tray...

Me like touch smooth shiny rocks


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Hsui wrote:
Ly'ualdre wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

Does your Goblin have to be a Rogue? Because both Swashbuckler and Investigator gives you access to the Spiked Chain.

Otherwise, I agree with Karlgamer, you have to wait one level to grab the proficiency through Mauler. As Ly'ualdre says, you can use it without being proficient, which means a -3 to hit at level 1. It's harsh, but still roughly playable until you hit level 2 and get the proficiency.

Overall, it's just one level of suffering, not that much. Tell your GM that they have to be nice with you.

Being Untrained no longer provides a penalty. That was in the Playtest. Being Untrained simply means you gain a +0 from Proficiency, instead of the Level + X you get from Trained and above. So, there isn't any punishment really for using a Spiked Chain Untrained.

You are -3 to hit compared to others at level 1 (-5 compared to a fighter). THAT is the punishment

The posters on this board are very clear that every +/- 1 makes a big difference. In other words, yes it sucks to use the chain untrained. Where the fighter might hit on a 10, trained on a 12, you would hit on a 15

Yeah, -3 on something you want to be important to your character is a big deal. If this were like a side hustle, -3 is manageable, but taking that penalty on your character's main weapon, and main way of interacting with combat, is going to be quite frustrating. I certainly wouldn't downplay its importance, especially as you advance in levels and that penalty grows.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

GM Perspective: If my player was this invested in the concept, I would most certainly allow them to acquire the weapon and I would also bend over backwards to enable it as early as possible.

If their plan was to get proficiency normally at level 2, I'd let them play through level 1 as though they already had proficiency just to make sure they're having fun.

If they wanted to spend a resource like a background or ancestry feat to get access, I would help make a balanced custom option for them.

I'd also take their desire into account when implementing free archetype and ancestry paragon rules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, d4s are one of my favorite dice to roll because of their definitive, sharp "click" when they land. They feel different! That's what a magic missile feels like!

You have to make sure they tumble in the air, usually by quickly moving your hand before release to give them that spin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I have to agree, when the number of dice for a roll gets out of hand it's no longer cool and fun, it's a chore. The distribution curve is also extremely weighted toward the center, so it's extra annoying to do all the work to roll and count up and then find you're one point off from the last time you did it, and the time before that.

Personally, I'd like it if the number of dice for a roll never goes beyond ~8. Assuming each player has a couple of each die, you can round up a full hand from everyone without resorting to rolling multiple times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

From a GM's perspective: 6 bulk for a medium creature is a narrative device to simplify the question of moving allies during the heat of the moment.

"How many people can I carry at once?" Is a different question and has a different answer. I'm not sure what that should be, but would likely come down to whatever is narratively satisfying.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

As a GM: Single enemy fights suck. I get to do only 3 actions worth of stuff and half the time one action is burnt from something the players did. Then if I do down someone it's almost always because of a lucky hit rather than tactics, so the player doesn't feel outplayed they feel unlucky.

Single bosses are overrated. My absolute favorite boss fights have two strongish enemies that can do stuff like flanking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I hereby declare that I am clamoring for a Technology Guide. I'll put money down now.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Devise a Stratagem uses the word "Strike" rather than attack, so I think that's out. However, that's a potentially really cool metamagic feat or something!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Enchanter Tim wrote:
I like a lot about this edition, but sometimes it seems like a +12 to -12 crit spread would have felt better.

An idea, if one wants to have such a feeling, is to give the choice when you make an attack/skill check/casts a spell to benefit from a +2 at the cost of not being able to score a critical hit (or critical failure in the case of DCs).

If what one wants is to succeed often, it should put their chances of success closer to 70%, which is really nice, even if the maths should not be impacted much as it'll remove all the chances to critically succeed.

An interesting idea. Seems like something a Tactician class could play around with, perhaps.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I honestly forgot all about the martial consolation effects! At least those two you mentioned seem quite modest from a damage standpoint, though yeah they might happen more frequently.

Maybe something like a feat that lets you choose to redirect the energy of your missed spell into a magic missile, or multiple magic missiles at higher levels.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Man, if people could get their chances higher buffs and support and tactics would be either meaningless or crits would be so common battles would be rocket tag again.

I'm really, really happy with the balance as is.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Let's say I wanted to give something to a player who burns a spell slot on a missed attack spell. Perhaps not as much as the save spells' success conditions, since attack spells are ostensibly tuned up to account for that lack.

What would be a good thing to add that wouldn't be too strong, and isn't too annoying to track?

Here's my idea that I wanted to bounce off you guys:

A Rune you can only carve into a staff that gives you a bonus charge when you expend a Spell Slot of 3rd level or higher on a spell with the Attack trait, and you miss.

Eh? eh? Maybe?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
nephandys wrote:
I think you're really overvaluing the brand of Might and Magic in the year 2022.

I literally only know about Heroes of Might and Magic from back in the day. I'm uncertain what Might and Magic is if it's distinct from that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You should know that all of those mechanics are up for grabs with or without Might and Magic IP. There's no mechanical reason for Paizo to desire Might and Magic IP. So the only other reason would be to acquire the cultural cachet of that IP, and frankly I think you're vastly overestimating that value.

The proposition only has downsides and risk, and is a non-starter based purely on Paizo's lack of financial capability to make such a purchase.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't want to be mean, but I think this post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the industry, Paizo's finances and motives, and game design in general.

I encourage you to look into publishing a PF2 module or package with Might and Magic flavor or rules that you are looking for while dodging copyrights from the owners of Might and Magic. You'll likely get further than you think, and that project would be far more likely to happen than something from Paizo's end.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Errenor wrote:
And no, casters are not fine at all. A lot of people (including me) need more (and more reliable) roles for them than utility and healers.

In your opinion casters are not fine. They provided their opinion, and you stated yours as though it was fact, which it is very much not.

Try not to do that. And also try not to appeal to data you do not have (how many is a lot of people? cite your source).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think Property Rune access can do a lot for changing up the armor types. Like give some offense-oriented or thematic utility rune that only goes on Medium armor? Suddenly the choice between medium and heavy becomes more interesting than +1 vs the feat for Sentinel.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

In the past I've had a player skip a bunch of sessions and want to come back and I had them off on a solo adventure for the missing time, keeping them up to the same level as the rest of the party. I've used that nebulous solo adventure as a plot device, which is the price for getting the free advancement.

"Oh, while you were away you did some scouting work for a local lord who was an insufferable t~@%, and your relationship soured. You might want to let the group know not to go to him for help."

It can be a lot of fun, and lets them feel like they're still hooked into the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
PF2 is a new edition with fundamentally new mechanics. None of the classes really match their PF1 counterparts entirely. Fighters no longer get more feats than anyone else and are no longer armor specialists. Rangers look more like PF1 slayers than PF2 rangers. Bards are no longer gishes. Investigators are significantly less Alchemical. Swashbucklers have an entirely new mechanical conceit. Paladins have a new name, variable alignments and are tanks instead of DPR machines. Witches no longer have a unique spell list and no longer specialize in a variety of at-will hexes.
I agree with the thrust of your post, though point of order ... I think fighters do still get more feats than anyone else, mostly thanks to their Fighter's Flexibility class feature granting them an extra two, possibly three at level twenty. It stuck out to me because it's probably my favorite aspect of the fighter; I like being able to switch up tactics on the daily.

Yep, Fighters still kept their "most feats and most weapon bonuses". While also taking over the Brawler's "most flexible feat useage". Bards still kept the most buffs/debuffs and most knowledgable. Clerics kept the most healing. Monks kept the most mobility and easiest multi-attack. They also kept most of their monk powers.

The ones who keep losing out are the non-core classes (outside of wizard and alchemist). Chances are that Kineticist will lose out a lot, which is why I wanted to know the reason people were asking for other class mechanics while saying they want kineticist.

Eh, those are pretty broad themes compared to hyper specific mechanical constructs like Burn. The main thrust of a kineticist was "wield elemental power without being a spellcaster" which could easily be carried forward without Burn. That would compare well to Bards "having buffs" etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Outwit rangers work fine, they won't be dps kings but they excel as scouts, in social scenarios and more. Oh and are absolutely what you want for recall knowledge rangers (which aren't bards but still have great class skill options for recall knowledge options).

Now if the group only plays kick in the door campaigns with no social engagement, scouting or stealth... or the group has a low level of system mastery and tends to forget abilities; it is probably better to not choose this.

But not being the absolute top dps you can be isn't that bad if you are making use of the tradeoffs.

An unpopular edge, but far from bad.

So you've actually played one?


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
dmerceless wrote:

How on Earth does an optional rule drag something down? Even if something like this did release, you can just... not use it. There's no need to attack the dude like a ravenous Barghest just for making a suggestion, jeez.

I don't even like Bidi's suggestion in this case but it's hard not to sympathize when the other side of the discussion treats any suggestion that deviates from the core game's path as a deadly sin that should be punished with hellfire.

Exactly! It's blowing my mind how vitriolic and borderline unhinged the response is.

The proposal is an optional ruleset to help bring PF1 diehards into the fold of the superior PF2 chassis. What's so nefarious about potentially meeting a niche demand?


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

*gasp* More knee-jerk hostility toward SuperBidi earnestly proposing something? I'm so shocked!

I'll be frank: I don't much care for the PF1 balance nightmare stuff, but I know there are people who liked being able to optimize and solve in-game problems during character gen, and I want them to have fun too.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect PF2's design is robust enough to accept a bolt-on package that allows for hyper specialization and balance-shattering options without losing a lot of what makes PF2 cool. If such a system could be designed, and there was a big enough market of PF1 diehards to sell it to, I don't see what harm it brings to discuss it.

For my 2 cents:

For such a system, I would strongly consider adding a new silo of feats that give numerical bonuses. Since this kind of optimization is pretty orthogonal to the PF2's design, you could likely get pretty close by just granting new feat selection options with a pure math focus at certain levels. Call them Superlative Feats or something.

I don't know what the market would be for it, and it should definitely not replace Mythic options, but I would guess that it would be a better fit for a 3rd party offering.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You were making infinite attacks while the person next to you was simply stopping time and dropping a briefcase nuke of explosive runes under C'thulu while piloting a simulacrum body from a personal demiplane?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

I haven't really found it to be an issue. My players have used it as an opportunity to hang back for the first round and set up for a flank. It's also not the end of the world if they wait out a round or two before activating it.

Yeah, but staying out of the fight for a round isn't fun a lot of the time, and tactically giving up your first round is rather huge.

They don't "stay out of the fight" or "give up" their first round. They lob a spell, cast a buff, or move into a better position.

What is huge is rushing in headlong, getting downed with your d8 class hp and not-stellar AC, and waiting on the ground for a heal. It's not uncommon for a character to make tactical setup decisions first round.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I haven't really found it to be an issue. My players have used it as an opportunity to hang back for the first round and set up for a flank. It's also not the end of the world if they wait out a round or two before activating it.

An early feat that combines it with the actions of casting a spell would be fine though, or even part of a class archetype that monkeys around with some of the melee magus stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've just built a Paladin that uses heavy armor for the +1 AC, but starts with 18 dex and 16 str. She uses daggers (her deity's favored weapon) to get a 1d6 thrown weapon. With Ranged Reprisal I can get some more use out of Retributive Strike, either stepping or throwing as necessary. With Free Archetype I'm picking up Dual Weapon Warrior and Rogue dedications. Dual Weapon Warrior gets me Double Slice and double throw, and rogue gets me an extra 10 feet of dagger range, sneak attack, and more skills. I dumped Charisma and just ignore offensive focus spells. Blade Ally gets me Returning at level 3.

Even if I am attacked at night without armor I have decent AC because of the high dex, and I have good stealth, acrobatics, and thievery.

(she's also a skeletal combat maid, but w/e)


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
So we take a new player, someone who doesn't understand PF2 and is just putting together what sounds cool in their head. We give them these ideas for a dragon monk and help them figure out how to make it work.

Yup! This is why I'm in favor of a design that allows people to shore up their egregious weaknesses within the system. We can't go around calling PF2 newbie approachable and balanced and then pull the rug on players who unknowingly made early choices that are later making them unhappy. And you don't want a new player's first character experience to end with "yeah, it kind of sucked by the GM let me rebuild him, but at that point I didn't really care and wanted to make a new guy"

I think SuperBidi is definitely onto something with the idea of Bulwark-for-other-saves, and the pushback he's getting doesn't feel warranted. I feel there's plenty of design space to allow for feat/item/spell coverage of a Will/Con Bulwark type effect. Outright rejecting the idea without even talking about how to make it work seems knee-jerky.

Like, in my opinion, Canny Acumen is trying to do this but not quite doing enough, because it's not addressing stats just the proficiency. If there were a Canny Acumen that made you treat your ability score as higher for saves you're already really close to a solution.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I started PF2 with my PF1 gming style of starting with weak enemies then dialing up the difficulty until fights were challenging and you didn't need to slog through a ton of boring fights.

I noticed it wasn't working out as well as it used to. In PF1 high powered fights meant pulling out all the stops, using more buffs and consumables and generally dipping into the deep well of cheese available to players in that system. In PF2, you can't generally solve tough fights by figuring out a new broken combo and crafting/cheesing your problems away. I started softening up fights to keep players from feeling like they're always up against a wall.

I really noticed how hard I had been pushing my players when I went to Strength of Thousands, and saw their much, much easier early combats. I'm making a point of adding more encounters with easier foes now because the players seem to have fun with that extra variety.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Arcaian wrote:
In the interim, you might be able to just take a screenshot of the creature, and insert that into your notes? It won't be searchable, but depending on how you're using your notes, it might be a viable alternative.

I've done this so many times it's second nature. I resize my window and zoom to get just the right scale.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've always preferred that Patrons take a hike, familiars take a back seat, and hexes come to the forefront. In PF1 Witches, it was apparent what kind of Witch you were based on your hex selection. Healing, fortune, ameliorating vs child scent, evil eye, misfortune.

They could have leaned into hexes, and built flavor around them as the core witch class mechanic.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:

I think it'd be really nice to see a comeback of a save item (that I'll call Cloak of Resistance as it was quite the item back in PF1) allowing you to dump a save stat without being too penalized. An item working like Bullwark, replacing your attribute modifier by a modifier dependent on the grade of the item. With, for example, a +1 bonus at level 7, +2 bonus at level 12 and +3 bonus at level 17. It would be worse than increasing the stat every 5 levels so it won't change the way optimized builds are being made, but it would still prevent a high level character to have a ridiculous save ending up crippled every time they have to roll it.

What do you think about it?

I think that's a pretty cool idea for an item, but I worry that things like Bulwark take feat resources to obtain and aren't just solved by items. This means a "dumpstat enabling" item would become pretty meta, even if it's not technically as good as normally increasing a stat. It would leave the people who don't optimize but do still chip in to their save stats now and then wondering why they're bothering.

If it were me, I'd like it better if it was a feat, but an item could work with some tweaks, or simply being a Rare option that a GM gives a player who finds out they're struggling because they accidentally built their character without the saves the late game campaign ended up needing.

Definitely something worth considering!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Brow beaten? Who is intimidating you? I'm confused. I think maybe what you're trying to say is that you don't want to be reminded of being let down maybe?

They're talking about this.

Themetricsystem wrote:
How are people somehow forgetting that Hero Lab has been supporting the Paizo game systems with digital tools and expanding on them for over a decade?
Now, "brow beaten" may be a bit overstated, but you were at least chiding people... and for someone who felt badly used by the company in question? I can see how they might have felt that chiding as stronger than you had intended it.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I thought to browbeat someone meant to lecture them


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I abandoned Hero Lab when they abandoned Starfinder (they're years behind now, still haven't supplied features they promised on launch) and they made it clear they can't really be trusted to deliver on promises. They also dragged their feet too long on getting an option for my players to join my game without paying a fee, and they still don't have an option to join without making an account.

Then they refused to support Battlezoo Bestiary (or any 3rd party/homebrew) and now I'm actively encouraging people to steer clear.

I gave them too much of my time, patience, and money to be brow beaten about forgetting they exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

A Powerful Ancestries book with ancestry based class feat powered archetypes. Dragons are already done with Battlezoo, but I'd love to see something like Giants, Angels, Demons, Fey, Dogs, Drow, and maybe even weird things like Oozes and Aberrations.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Oracles are different because the Deity essentially tries to foresee what would happen for their long-term plans if they hook a free agent up directly to the power grid. Clerics are more like household appliances that can be turned off and on at will.

At least in every game I've ever played, a cleric very much can have their power retracted if they fail their god. They can find a new god, but that doesn't mean they get to keep their spells and stuff.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It is very hard to overstate how expensive playtests have to be. Just looking at the man hours involved in setting them up, managing the community/answering questions, sifting through the data, then meetings to discuss the outcomes. There is no way it's not pricy.

Sure, they could do more but I think they may have hit the sweet spot where they get enough player feedback without both locking themselves into a design box and not driving up cost and pushing out the timeline.

With more playtesting iterations you will also start to get playtester fatigue, and the second/third iterations start to get responses from a suspiciously similar subset of diehards. How much do we really want that group dictating design direction?

Overall I think Playtests are a useful tool that have done a LOT for Paizo (their products are better but also their goodwill with the community is stellar because of them), but it's not a panacea and ultimately could easily be overused.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
Outside of some ancestry feats that reflect drow abilities (faerie fire/darkness innate spells, a different suite of ancestral weapons, etc) and light blindness, in what ways are drow actually different than cavern elves?

That about sums it up. In other words: everything important to make a drow character is currently absent.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

And getting better pay and better work-life balance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I want Solarian in PF2 as its own class. You'd have to do a ton of work to convince me its worthwhile to smash the two pretty dissimilar classes together. PF2 will allow us to explore lots of the lore and intent of the Solarian that Starfinder just couldn't.

I see Solarian as a mystic warrior with a spiritual connection to cosmic forces that ended up playing more like a simple bruiser because the attempt at making an interesting build-spend and photon/graviton switching mechanic failed. It was meant to feel sort of like a Jedi, but didn't get anything like enough interesting non-combat options.

I see a Kineticist as a conduit of elemental power that could fill in for an elemental damage focused spellcaster. The elemental blade stuff is secondary, in my opinion, but should ideally also get other elemental stuff like the ranged blasts and elemental utility. I don't see it requiring any sort of spirituality or mysticism, and doesn't need a Stellar Mode type mechanic.

A Kineticist might be able to handle what the Solarian ended up playing like, but not what it was supposed to be.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I really want a Dark Lands book with Dtow and dwarven history and claustrophobic, oppressive environs with little access to magic shops and built-in limits on teleportation. New kinds of hazards like living caves that move and change to thwart your escape. Different baseline assumptions about the rules like effects that make lacking darkvision sometimes a benefit, or treating cyclic light cycles of certain areas make traveling in the "day" more dangerous, or making food a huge and impactful resource. I really want a clan of super ancient dwarves who have some of the best records of their descendents and offshoots histories

1 to 50 of 2,925 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>