Yun E. Bears's page

“You say things used to be differently? That Yong spellcasters could make you stronger, smarter, and wiser? I think you’ve been listening to too many bards spinning their fanciful yarns.

“They probably told you of wizards flying around battlefields, paladins healing themselves and damaging undead with their holy blessings in a single combat.
“I hope you didn’t give them too much of your silver for their stories, of course it’s always gold in their stories.”

Wait, do you mean that if I want that kind of fantasy I've got to play a different game? 'Cause I totally want to play that kind of fantasy...n_n

I think that Bloodline Spell should have been a first level feat instead of being cooked into general progression. I say this because of two reasons.
1) Not everybody wants to grow claws and wade into melee combat. Bloodline powers are cool and interesting, but they are not for everybody, and it puts pressure into you to choose a bloodline that has the focus spells that have the best synergy with the way you are going to play -because otherwise you are stuck with an ability you don't care for and could have easily traded for, say, a familiar-.

This also increases diversity even among sorcerers of the same bloodline. And it isn't as if it would water down bloodlines, these are already very different by virtue of spell list, granted spells and trained skills.

Now, this is also a problem for people multiclassing into sorcerer. You may be into it for the spellcasting, but you may be doing it for the bloodline spells as well. And if you take this path, you have a problem. You see, imagine your monk or Barbarian wants to have a bloodline, you start with the dedication, easy, two cantrips. Then you take basic bloodline spell at fourth, cool. Now at a later time you plan to take advanced bloodline potency to get advanced bloodline and/or greater bloodline and find you can't until you take basic bloodline potency. The problem is, there is nothing you can take for this character type, so it ends up turning into a feat tax (Unless you are doing it for both spellcasting and bloodline...)

Turning Bloodline spell into a first level feat -and turning the feature into a feat slot- would solve both situations, you can now choose to grab your bloodline spells or not, or to grab something else that catches your fancy. And characters mutliclassing into sorcerer for the bloodline can use basic bloodline potency to grab the first bloodline spell. (I mean both feats are the same level, it isn't breaking anything!)

Well at least those are my thoughts...

N N 959 wrote:

Michael Sayre wrote:

[Generally speaking, class names, spell names, and such are player facing, not necessarily in-world terminology. Going around calling every angry warrior you meet a barbarian is likely to get you hung from a lamp post or prickly tree in some places, and it's pretty unlikely that anyone is going to self-referentially call themselves a rogue or champion (and much more likely that someone who does self-reference themselves by either of those names isn't actually a member of either class).

I've seen this philosophy come up a lot outside of PFS games (and once or twice in it). I think this approach to the game is more detrimental than helpful.

1. Labeling and categorizing stuff is a necessary and important condition of human existence and culture. So in-game, people would absolutely organize themselves or be categorized based on their functionality. Wizards would seek out other wizards. People needing trackers would identify Rangers as a group of people who had abilities to track (not that it is ever needed in actual game play).

Even if you have a group like "barbarians" who might not self-label, they would get labeled by society and barbarians would certainly be aware how society refers to them or identifies them. The degree to which they are different or the same is irrelevant because they fall into a specific class OOC which mandates there is specific IC commonality and thus labeling.

Where I've seen this pushed hard is the concept of "level" which lots of people seem to choke on outside of PFS. While that word maybe feel more "player-facing," whatever the in-game concept is, it would exist. Casters would absolutely know their "level." Martials would know their "level" the same way recreational tennis players know their level. Labeling and categorizing It happens automatically so that societies can get things done efficiently.

2. In games where I've seen GMs try to push the "no one calls themselves a wizard"

1. right... so i already have a concept for a fury barbarian just based off the example fury barbarian in the CRB(the picture). he's just a mercenary with a curved sword, he grew up in a desert city and wears medium armor.

he crafts clay sculptures in his spare time and generally would just appear to be a self-taught swordsmen for hire.

at no point would anyone, including himself call himself a barbarian...

a Wizard and witch or sorcerer would probably all get confused for one another all the time, making superstition the king of the day. Wizards wouldn't call themselves wizards(like group all of themselves together, etc), they say their magical practitioners from X or in association with Y or Apprentice of Z, etc. the average person wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a wizard and a witch or sorcerer and might even get bards and druids mixed in there.

The sorcerer is even more complex than that. Two sorcerers of different bloodlines aren't likely to recognize each other as belonging to the same class. More so if they belong to different traditions. Yes, an arcane or primal sorcerer can be confused with a witch or wizard, and at the same time not identify with an angelic or demonic one. This is also because sorcerers get little out of interacting with one another -as everything they do is an extension of their own nature so they can't really teach each other the way basically every other class can- so they aren't naturally drawn to each other, except as a result of already present filial attachments. So, if any, they can at most group and band together with relatives that share their gift and bloodline.

Some other classes are that likely to not be acknowledged in-world, like the fighter and rogue, in contrast with other stronger ones like wizard, alchemist, witch, druid, and (until this edition) cleric and paladin (as they are now bound to be confusable with each other). In the middle we have bard, barbarian, ranger, monk that could as easily be acknowledged and even band toghether or ignored.

Yun E. Bears wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

I get your point about not being able to retrain class but how common was it for someone to pick one class at the start and multiclass and then stick with the multiclass without having carefully thought it out in advance

I don’t think many people did something like start off as a rogue and then find a spell book from a defeated enemy and then pick up wizard levels from that point . Those wanting to play a wizard / rogue often planned it that way from the start

I have run two APs through to book 4 before life got in the way. Not extensive but no character ever swapped class focus part way through.

Or was that not what you were trying to say?

Well... I do it. Like all the time. I don't like to plan ahead. I have an idea at the begining of play, but I'm not married to stick with a single concept. My thieves find religion, my clerics will turn to assassins, my criminals turn to paladins. (Right now I'm about to play an angelic sorceress that might multiclass into cleric, but what happens in the campaign could change that)

On another related issue. I tend to pick off-the-wall choices, like going full melee with a sorcerer ( in core-only third edition!). I don't

I do applaud you as that is how the game would be played in an ideal world where you stumble upon a monastery and get trained or get swayed by a priest you meet. But most people, at least in PF1, are too focused on feat trees or improving class abilities

Arguably the new system lets you do this by picking up dedications on the way. You just can't ever leave your original class

Which is something I don't really find that desirable. Unless my first class is sorcerer, I can see it being sticky since it is a part of you, it doesn't gels well with me. I don't want my ex assassin to just keep getting better at killing people. Or my ex-thief to keep getting better at stealing, or my former cleric with a crisis of faith to keep getting better at channeling divine magic.

Should I stay longterm with PF2 it'll be despite and not because of this.

Also, you didn't really address this part:

On another related issue. I tend to pick off-the-wall choices, like going full melee with a sorcerer ( in core-only third edition!). I don't care if something is not standard or underpowered sometimes I even go for underpowered on purpose. And that's the thing. I need to trust that if I pick a proficiency it will keep working and do its job. I play at the limit of what is not-viable; I cannot afford to further fall behind. If monsters suddenly start hitting way harder or become harder to hit I will become an outright liability to the party and I won't be tolerated at the table anymore.

Well, the way I pretend to handle this is, well I have divine magic, and it comes from inside me. So I am the source of the divine magic. Ergo I must be divine in some way. So for all purposes related to my magic I am my own goddess!

The Raven Black wrote:

PF1 like its predecessors was a hodgepodge of options. Like 3.0 and 3.5, those options were quite open to players, much to the chagrin of GMs.

PF2 is far more structured in a modular way. But it does swing back to the GM's control side. Thereby lessening the variety available to players.

This results in the classes going back to straightjackets, though more flexible ones.

And Multiclassing is not here to change the basics of your class, but to add a different spice.

The biggest change IMO comes from having to definitely make your mind about the concept for your character before beginning to create it. No class retraining means your character is stuck in their class with all its package of flavor and abilities.

Choose well.

I get your point about not being able to retrain class but how common was it for someone to pick one class at the start and multiclass and then stick with the multiclass without having carefully thought it out in advance

I don’t think many people did something like start off as a rogue and then find a spell book from a defeated enemy and then pick up wizard levels from that point . Those wanting to play a wizard / rogue often planned it that way from the start

I have run two APs through to book 4 before life got in the way. Not extensive but no character ever swapped class focus part way through.

Or was that not what you were trying to say?

Well... I do it. Like all the time. I don't like to plan ahead. I have an idea at the begining of play, but I'm not married to stick with a single concept. My thieves find religion, my clerics will turn to assassins, my criminals turn to paladins. (Right now I'm about to play an angelic sorceress that might multiclass into cleric, but what happens in the campaign could change that)

On another related issue. I tend to pick off-the-wall choices, like going full melee with a sorcerer ( in core-only third edition!). I don't care if something is not standard or underpowered sometimes I even go for underpowered on purpose.And that's the thing. I need to trust that if I pick a proficiency it will keep working and do its job. I play at the limit of what is not-viable; I cannot afford to further fall behind. If monsters suddenly start hitting way harder or become harder to hit I will become an outright liability to the party and I won't be tolerated at the table anymore.

totoro wrote:

I meant reasonable from her perspective.

I think what you're trying to say is that she picked what she saw as thematic for her character: That's 100% fine but as the DM you should prepare her by letting her know that because of her build, thematic in this case equals useless.

Sorry if I sound confrontational, but...How is this supposed to be a good thing?

This thread is making me want to play a Heal Domain Cleric.

And is making me want to play a Divine Sorcerer... that poaches Heal Domain. n_n

I share many of the concerns about sorcerers, number of feats, limited support for non-arcane bloodlines, comparing negatively to other classes, having to study like a wizard to get uncommon and rare spells, etc.

One thing that bothers me that has been barely mentioned about the sorcerer is having to make daily choices, it feels wrong. IMO the sorcerer shouldn't have to make daily choices, they make the class feel more like a learned wizard and less like an innate spellcaster. Sorcerer abilities work best when they are something "hardcoded" -or at least mostly permanent- or something entirely reactive -tactical not strategic-, so having abilities like "choose an arcane/occult spell every day to prepare..." takes away that feeling. Very much the same with familiars and spontaneous heightening, having to choose which two spells get the benefit -and which ones don't which renders them essentially useless if having more than two- forces the sorcerer to be a planner. Sorcerers shouldn't have to plan ahead!.

The more I think it, the more I feel that such day to day changes don't belong in the sorcerer. I would feel better about the sorcerer if these features worked differently.

Spontaneous Heightening.- There's two possibilities, either they are fixed at each level up as some sort of signature spells -and maybe add one more if making them static proves to be too limited-, or keep them malleable, but instead of playing pretend wizard every morning, you get to assign them and shift them on the fly with one or two actions. -Or maybe using a minute to change them if that proves too good, or maybe lower them to one at the time-.

Arcane Evolution.- Feels wrong, prepare a different one each day is wizard lite, and having to rely on an external object is quite unsorcery. Maybe just add the spell permanently -with the chance to retrain at level up-, and perhaps add a second/third spell if it turns out to be too weak.

Occult Evolution.- Again, just make it one or two permanent spells known.(Maybe allow for uncommon spells?)

Familiar.- Having to rebuild your familiar everyday feels wrong. How about making it static outside of level-up? and maybe get one extra ability if it being fixed is too weak.

What do you think? does anybody feel the same, or am I just babbling incoherent thoughts?

I really hope the Divine sorcerer doesn't need a weapon to get by. That's kind of the clerics thing, getting better weapons armor and hit points.

This seems like the right place to have a proper priest/whitemage class that is all about casting. Here's hoping they get some good ways to burn people with holy fire and good defensive casting they can be doing round after round instead of having to fall back on the old crossbow or multiclass into fighter just to keep up.

I don't know, but a whitemage that uses magic to hurt doesn't feel all that whitemagey IMO. More like the weapon thingie is a token contribution to combat but more of an afterthought than a focus...

There is a glaring issue for the play test that there are only two paths to legendary heavy armor proficiency and one is gated by alignment and the other by gender (gray Maiden), but I suspect that issue will be resolved with the introduction of the Hellknight.

However, this still means that there is no path to getting heavy armor not tied to a specific narrative type that probably includes other restrictions on your character concept. The General Knight in shining armor (not paladin specific) is not looking very well supported, especially since armor is not included in any part of the cavalier archetype.

But the paladin is the proverbial archetypal Knight in shinning armor. That people keep projecting religious overtones onto it is a whole different story.

An alternative I like more could be, to just outright heighten every single spell the sorcerer casts to its maximum possible level? Maybe not to its full progression, but maybe like at 5th level every spell under 2nd level heightens to full second level regardless of the slot is used to cast it, then again at ninth they all go up to third, at eleventh they go to fourth, at fifteenth to fifth and at seventeenth to sixth?

Well, from the previews the Paladin is LG only in the playtest because it is the most iconic and they want to get it right. The finished game will have all of the other alignments so-called pallies. (I say that, because to me paladins aren't servants of deities, they worship lawful good deities because that is what lawful good people do, but in the end they are paladins because they are heroic, chivalrous,and dedicated to good. They don't owe their power to any deities. Can any deity have divine warriors/champions? yes but these aren't necessarily paladins)

I'm not sure. How about this, maybe we keep feats gated through class, but we create "weaker" dedication feats that have stronger prerreqs that give a simpler benefit and access to the feats if you are already close to the class in class features. For example

Alternate Fighter Dedication: Prerrequisites: Trained in simple and martial armors, trained in light, medium and heavy armor.
Benefit: You gain a first level fighter feat. This feat counts as Fighter Dedication for the purpose of meeting feat prerrequisites.

Just like that, as it is Paladins and Rangers gain nothing out of the standard fighter dedication, yet have to pay the full cost.

Cost wise, it looks steep, but it's in SP not GP. It's something I have to see in actual game play before I'd change it.

But the edition runs on the silver standard. SP is the new GP.

Another thing that is missing is the Additional Heightening, it would be fine if it didn't exist, but it does exist and Bards of all people have exclusive access to it.

If it remains as it is in the final product, I won't allow it on any game I run. But if it gets toned down, (like it is only once or twice per day, or takes an hour, or needs swaps for a spell one or two levels lower) I will