Yeah, that about covers it, so I just want to say I freaking love staves in this edition.
Search Posts
Not serious, but... Rulebook: The Book That One Person On the Forums Keeps Asking For
Featured Classes:
If you want, above all else, to be good at landing attacks and other offensive abilities, I would highly recommend an 18 in your primary score if at all possible. It will be very useful for your playstyle. If you want to spread your focus between multiple things at all, it is *absolutely* viable to start with a 16 in your "main" stat. Almost all my characters start with a 16 in their main stat. Also, if your whole party mostly doesn't go beyond 16, then you'll feel even better about it.
Also, for the record, every melee hybrid character I ever made in PF1 would universally spend the first 3 rounds of any difficult looking fight using spells to make the fight easier. If you imagine a difficult fight and envision your character primarily defaulting to a melee routine, you should take a melee focused class.
It sounds more like a failure of the GM to play up the dangerousness of the foe the bard is facing. Anyone would feel like they're playing an ineffective build if they assume they're fighting a standard enemy and whiffing a lot. It'd be like if you were to give the Butcher in Diablo no voice line or lore.
It's only a trap if you hyper focus on boss encounters though...
I just want Pathfinder streams in general. I love listening to all the Paizo people on twitch talking about the game. Mark especially never fails to give really interesting commentary.
Ehhhh... my suggestion is to not hyper fixate on bosses. The game is designed to have lots of lower level and at-level encounters, which a bard or warpriest can certainly contribute to using weapons. Conserving spells by helping against less dangerous melee foes then switching to supporting the dedicated martials against bosses seems exactly where I want the balance to be. If you were just as effective as a martial against bosses, martials might as well pack it in and go home.
Surprisingly close to 50% of respondents
I wanted the magus to get 1 level delay in acquiring new spell levels as well as only 2 spells per level, so that full casters could show off when new spells come online unlocking different aspects of play (invisibility/flight/teleport etc). At first level a magus would have a key focus power and cantrips, which would set the tone for the rest of the magus play experience.
After the uneccissarily large amount of vitriol on these forums in response to the playtest, I'd honestly be surprised if we get to do any more playtests. I know that if I were in charge of some things, I'd probably scan through and pick out the people that did more than armchair theorize and whine. Find those that playtested and analyzed well, and have just them do the playests in the future. Based on what happened, I do not think that the forum community can handle another playtest. You're probably blowing the vitriol out of proportion. There has been loads of good discussion, it's just easier to remember the negativity from frankly a small number of users. Even then, if I were in Paizo's position I would treat the forums as an armchair game designer kindergarten and let people have their fun here, only stopping by to see if anything sticks out, and rely on the documentable surveys.
1000x this. Incorporating disparate opinions from randos using statistical analysis and survey writing expertise is such a *freakin* chore. And this is being done by people with the game design chops of Mark Seifter and Logan Bonner. These guys know what they're doing and consistently put out excellent work. The fact that they're putting in the extra legwork to let us weigh in too is just a huge boon, no matter how you look at it. I very much do not want them to polish their work up before putting it to playtest with the expectation that little is going to change. Save that performative garbage for AAA video game publisher "paid betas".
Flavor? Sure. Rules as Written? I don't think it's super clear cut. Unburdened Iron ignores movement penalties from armor, not necessarily negating the unarmored requirement of monk's fast movement. If there was a dwarf monk tradition that wore armor, I wouldn't be surprised. I'd let it work if the player really wanted it, not like it's going to be a powerful option.
I think that the game needs less 'Just pick a spell list' classes. I'm quite happy that Magus is an arcane caster. Agreed. I firmly believe that making too many classes "pick a list" is a grave mistake, and will result in a lot of unintended consequences. Only a select few classes should have it, and only with a LOT of work put into making the list choice suit the selected class path. Call me the old woman shaking a stick and yelling about doom, but I swear it's a bad idea. Now, class archetypes that change things up are fine, because it gives the designers the ability to make the different options feel distinct, and support the pros and cons of each list better.
I did that, except I didn't let them save their feats (that's too messy and encourages waiting for more powerful options) but I did reduce all dedication feat level requirements by 1. This lets you start your multiclassed character concept at level 1 if you want, as well as some other benefits.
Everybody will be happy with no effort at all. You must be new here.
It's a decent system with a great setting, but you should be aware that there are some "traps" built into the system that your players should be aware of before starting. If you bear these in mind, you can and will have a great time playing Starfinder. The top ones for me are: 1. Everyone should have either a decent strength for melee or a decent dexterity for ranged, even casters and support. 2. Small-arms are essentially useless for damage unless you're an operative. 3. "Weapon Focus" is almost required for reduced BAB classes. 4. If your class doesn't offer a boost to a certain skill, you're going to fall significantly behind in effectiveness in that skill no matter what you do. 5. Don't multiclass more than one or two levels unless you *really* know what you're doing. 6. Damage grenades are disappointingly weak, don't buy them. 7. Don't spread your skill points around too much or you'll find you'll be bad at everything.
I used 4d6 drop lowest for the better part of 20 years. It's just not worth the nostalgia. I like to be able to plan out a character without finding out it's unplayable because I rolled bad.
I liked the suggestion of True Strike being changed to "if you miss, roll again" so that it can't be used to fish for crits as much.
That's interesting, because what I've noticed is that for the most part, you can find archetypes that would just let you double down on whatever your concept is. Like, if you wanted to be a Wizard's Wizard, you'd accomplish that by taking Ritualist or Loremaster or something else that is very much already within a Wizard's conceptual barnhouse For me, this was only really a problem for my druid who wanted to get all the wildshape feats and order explorer to get more focus points at the start, and focus point increasing feats, etc. It's also a problem if you stick to something like CRB-only.
I also cut a section from my original comment, that I'd far rather go with double class feats than a free archetype. I wouldn't do it, but I'd go with that over a free archetype because at least it would allow the players to focus purely on their own class if that was what they wanted This is one of the reasons I prefer double class feats. Another reason is that I like giving the option to pick a class feat every level, instead of picking two at every even level. I think whether a person enjoys double class feats or not definitely comes down to personal preference. I always imagine characters with a laundry list of desirable features and abilities that flesh out their personality, playstyle, and lore. The default number of class feats severely cripples my creativity.
To me, the magus is the apprentice wizard who decided that a life dedicated solely to the arcane was just not for them. Maybe it was when they realized their master was pushing 80 and hadn't left his tower in 25 years and still hadn't finished his life's work. Maybe it was when they heard their hometown was recently attacked and realized those cantrips that their master scorned as trifles could have been used to save lives. Maybe it was when they saw the starry wonder in their classmate's eye as they gushed about one day reaching the heights of arcane knowledge, and realizing that they didn't share that fervor. Maybe it was that time their studies had ground to a halt and they decided to go out for a run and they realized there was a simple beauty in the way their muscles burned, and that maybe there was more to life than dusty books. I tend to think of becoming a magus as an extremely personal journey, rather similar to the path toward becoming a monk. You can't force someone to become a magus, nor would you necessarily want to, since it's more efficient to have the wizards focus on being wizards and the fighters on being fighters. A magus is the result of a unique combination of personality traits and training. To me, a magus is by default: 1. Hard working and dedicated, being able to apply themselves to various forms of study at once. 2. Intelligent, having the minimum faculties to learn arcane magic in the same way a wizard does 3. A pragmatic spellcaster, using their magic at the right moments as necessary rather than as a first instinct 4. A capable martial combatant, even without magic, having trained their bodies extensively. The visuals and flavor can vary between magi, some casting with one hand while swinging with the other, some using the tip of their blades to trace magic in the air, others preferring to use magic only to augment their physical abilities, and still others preferring to switch between casting from afar and then closing in. The most important thing is that they're not just fancy swordsmen. They are learned spellcasters, with a spellbook at their side and a years of study under their belt.
I can easily see a cleric writing the new spells down in a book just like a wizard, but for druids, I'm not sure what such a repository would look like. Overall, I'm fine with those spells just being "unlocked" and not stored anywhere. The player will have to mark down what they've learned somewhere, but I don't think that needs to be represented in-game. In fact, a spellbook might be confusing for a new player...
I want to play a full blooded honest to goodness dragon, tired of beating around the bush!
I would re-do your comparison against ranged characters. Being able to perform cantrips at a distance is a massive benefit. From what I'm seeing the normal damage lines up with what I would expect for a ranged ability that requires no investment.
Dragon druid, eventually you can just stay a dragon for good. The problem is not being able to cast spells in a battle form...
Man, I really hope we get confirmation about staves being usable by magi and staves being usable while shifted.
I really love druids with Free Archetype or Double Class Feats. Without those I feel pretty constrained. The class itself is awesome though, and I'm definitely planning on making a Dragon themed kobold druid.
For envoy, I'd probably go with an option that leans into the support role of envoy, a "gun" designed for aiding another from range, that gives bonus damage to successful attacks against that target. This lets a high cha envoy who has presumably decided to focus on the support/talking aspects of the class continue to do so without feeling that they can't engage in the weapon system.
Someone ran with the old description of kobolds having dog-like heads.
A magus is literally what you get when a wizard splits their focus between hitting the books and hitting the gym. If they do not behave at all similar to how wizards learn and cast spells, the class will have failed. You'd have to go far out of your way to explain why they're so different from a lore perspective, and at that point you'd be far better off just making a new class. I wouldn't terribly mind a class with unique casting, or even an archetype of magus that does so, but I do not at all want to see them totally abandon the "ready made 50-50 martial-spell slot caster that starts at level 1"
Like that spell slots are necessary for something to actually be 'magic' where for me, those are just a mechanic by which a certain kind of magic (traditional spell casting) is described, focus magic, spell like abilities, and even abilities that don't use the spell system at all but are narratively magic, are still very much magic. In my opinion, if a magus can't perform "traditional spell casting" then it has failed as a concept. It's certain that such a class could be fun and good, but it would not be a magus, and I'd have to go back to waiting for my 50-50 martial-caster to arrive. It's fine to want that type of class, but don't try to paint those of us that want a half martial half traditional caster as narrow minded. Also, if spontaneous and prepared are different enough to make classes distinct, imagine how different slotless casting and traditional casting are. We're talking about wide gulfs in expectations of the class.
I absolutely felt pushed to take a caster archetype as a Magus. There are not nearly enough spell slots to play in a satisfying manner. I do think it's a problem because the dedication feat is pretty meh for Magus, and as such it's a feat tax to get adequate spellcasting.
It won't ever realize greatness that way though as it will always hit the power budget wall while being weaker than everyone at everything. Yeah, if it's literally impossible to have a class that feels like a 50-50 caster-martial that spells "significant structural changes to the system required" to me.
I'm super stoked about the book wielding mechanics coming into play finally. We got reasonably accessible and useful staves and wands. Now books? Casters can finally hold caster-feeling things!
Not really necessary, in my opinion. Kobolds are a really dragon-themed full ancestry, and fill the niche of "dragonkin" quite well. Dragon Disciple and dragon sorcerers/barbarians are good options too. I *would* get behind a FULL dragon ancestry in a powerful ancestries book, however.
While I strongly disagree with the premise, I will point out that this: For those that want proper spell casting, they could create class feats that are equivalent to the caster multi-class spell-casting feats-- Basic/Expert/Master, and build them right into the Magus so that you can get real spell-casting on a multi-class progression if you want utility magic, but save yourself the dedication feat. This'd be a decent compromise I think, since the worth of that casting style is pretty well established in the system. ...has been considered in a similar vein to the Summoner Revelation thread where someone realized that archetyping your eidolon into other classes at the right levels is inherently balanced. I disagree that the Magus should lose baseline casting on many fronts. Here are a few: 1. The Magus' whole reason for being is to let someone play a gish in a streamlined fashion. The idea is a person with equal parts spellcaster and fighter. Without baseline spell slots it does not fulfill this fantasy, even if it is technically an acceptable way to build a different class not called the Magus. 2. Abandoning spell slots to get some magical effects like you suggest will make it feel like a martial with a coat of paint on. That's what they did in 4e, and it is in my opinion, the easy way out that will wind up making the class bland compared to what a Magus should be. 3. In-class feats to pick up casting will be "must-take" feats 4. Class feats that grant casting at the same rate as multiclassing would make for an unsatisfying "half-caster". That spell progression is the majority of the reason why we even need a Magus class in the first place. If it was good enough, Fighter/Wizard would be the Magus. 5. This "magical effects tacked onto martial abilities" should really, really, really be given to the future Kineticist. Sending the Magus down this path will severely limit the design space of the non-spell-slot magical martial of the future. There are other reasons, but these are my main ones.
SuperBidi, I think you forgot this part: Since it is behind, I tank my summoner's charisma on my beast eidolon and focus on buff/support spells
*looks at thread title* Insert "always has been" meme here.
I haven't played a full spellcaster yet. What exactly is the problem? The wealth by level guideline expects you to buy a weapon anyway so why not buy a gun? If you start with a 10 in both strength and dex, you will start *very* behind other characters and never catch up to a satisfying degree. We went through the same exercise with a player who started an Envoy with minimal attack stacks and was having zero fun trying to hit with small arms, which inevitably did peanuts damage when they did hit. We had to rebuild them with higher dex and longarms so they didn't hate the game. So this new player fell into the same trap, thinking they'd primarily use magic. Now their options are: expend several feats and stat boosts to get up to less than par with something like longarms, or buy tons of spell gems and ignore weapons altogether. I'd like to introduce another option, a weapon they can use with their spell-focused build that does minimal useful damage because of the lack of investment required, but isn't colossally useless at later levels like cantrips are currently.
Let's not turn this thread into another Striking Spell thread please!
A suggested change would be to change true strike from "roll twice and take the best" to "reroll if you miss". That would still have it make things more accurate, but would prevent using it for crit-fishing. I actually really like this a lot. It's clean.
It kind of sucks that the chance to land cantrips drops off so badly since spell level is factored into the DC. I might have to add an effect that boosts its effective spell level.
As a big Stargate fan I'm ashamed to say I had to look it up. That does seem like a good option though!
Any ideas how I could make it less "Wand" and more sci-fi? I was considering changing it to "Power Stone" to be evocative of the marvel infinity stones.
I can definitely see baking "weapon specialization" in, but I feel that 1d3 becomes basically negligible at higher levels. I might keep the wand idea for increasing the dice size of cantrips, but bake in the weapon specialization scaling. I like having something occupying a hand to increase fairness and give them something to spend money on or find as loot.
I figure Rare would let it be a nice loot drop rather than "that item you have to buy at this level" I wouldn't complain if Secrets of Magic gives us a common version, but if it doesn't then I'd want to be cautious about giving them out as a baseline option.
Which is why I argue losing top end slots gives you room to add lower level slots and tinker with or buff class features like striking spell.
I want a "Powerful Ancestries" book with something like ancestry feats that can be bought with class feats only. Of the powerful ancestries I *really* want included: Dragons
For more standard ancestries, I'd definitely like to see Svartalfar
thenobledrake, you're a valued member of this forum, you have great insights and contribute to discussions intelligently. I bet you're a great person and also you would be fun to hang out with. But, I'm telling you as gently as a I can: it's okay to make mistakes, this time you said something confusing and it seems like you really didn't want to walk it back, so now it looks like you're feeling defensive and embarrassed. We've all been there. I hope you don't feel like anyone is trying to pick on you. Now, regarding the topic of the post: I do think having a rare wand or rune that could be put on a staff that grants +1/+2 to spell attacks would be a welcome addition to the game. That's the kind of treasure I'd love to drop on a caster. I used to think something of the sort should be made just for cantrips, but the more I play the more I think all spell attacks should benefit.
|