Search Posts
My group hasn't run the playtest game yet, but just from reading the book I have a few concerns. My primary one is that it seems to me like characters don't get enough feats early on, particularly ancestry and class feats. Most classes seem to get about one class feat per "bucket" of feats.. meaning they are likely going to pick a single path (eg. dragon totem barbarian), and spend every feat in that tree, and not have any free feats to pick any of the cool stuff. Ancestry feats are similar; you get one at 1st level, which seems like half (or less) of a PF1 race. We'll play the playtest adventure/rules as written, but if these progressions stick through to the published 2nd Edition, my gut is that we'll houserule additional feats, especially at early levels.
A disruptive player is absolutely a problem, I agree with you there 100%. However, I don't think playing a goblin means a player is disruptive. Sure, the disruptive player may be attracted to the zany antics of the goblin, but without a goblin, that player is just going to be a CN halfling rogue or whatever and spend their time stealing from the party. If you have disruptive players at the table, maybe have a conversation with them, or as a group.
It's really interesting coming to a comments section hours late... the tone shift between page 1 and 15 sure is a thing. I don't understand the flames around goblins being a PC race. Sure they're generally evil, but goblin PCs existed in 1E too. They're just a race of chaotic goofy monsters. If you don't want to play a goblin, don't play a goblin. If someone else wants to play a goblin, why not? As long is everyone is having fun, who cares? If someone else having fun means you aren't having fun, maybe some introspection is in order. Sigh.
Liking what I'm reading of the Rogue so far. Seems characters no longer start combat flat-footed, which, sure. I wonder what Acrobatics vs. Athletics is? Presumably Strength-based skills (Climb+Swim) are moving to Athletics? Does that mean Jump will move under Athletics from Acrobatics and be Strength-based again? Curious! And excited for the playtest!
I believe it's been stated somewhere (these forums have become a tangled web lately) that Power Attack will eventually add more dice, so maybe that will become more useful at higher level? Then again at higher level you're probably getting better +X weapons too, so maybe that just scales the same way. Interesting post, thanks!
I think this system sounds good. Looking forward to trying it out in action. I like the flatter spread in numbers, and the tier/deed aspect seems like a good way of ensuring the trained characters have an advantage over those who don't, without just giving them enormous numerical bonuses. This system seems like it will scale to high level much better than the old one.
I'm planning to run the provided playtest adventure. Having already given up on Pathfinder 1E, I'll be interested in things like: - How much prep is required compared to 1E?
Really looking forward to taking the playtest for a spin.
You make some good points in this post, and I think the amount of information we've been given is just enough to be dangerous with regards to speculation. I'm curious to see what the full rules are, but given what we do know, I think applying Resonance to consumable items seems like it might not be a great idea, and that having a limited pool will mean most players will just save the points and not want to spend them. I'm happy to be proven wrong though!
Resonance seems like a weird system to me. I guess I can see where it's coming from, but Pathfinder characters want to kill monsters and take their stuff. Now they just can't use as much of it? I suppose this fixes the "CLW Wand Issue" but it seems like a pretty heavy-handed bandaid. I guess we'll see what the full rules are eventually, but this doesn't sit right with me from what's been described so far.
Ok - it's possible I did misunderstand, but based on the Glass Cannon podcast it didn't seem like they were adding class level to untrained skill checks. I maybe misheard, and that would be just fine. If everyone adds their class skills and mods and it's a -1 to +3 swing, that's more reasonable. Maybe too far in the other direction, but I'd have to see it in action to form a useful opinion.
I'm personally all in favour of a Pathfinder 2E. I was hoping they'd get around to it years earlier, to be honest. I think being 3.5 compatible was one of the worst things in Pathfinder from a design perspective, though I'm sure it helped ease the market into buying the new system. I like the Paizo design team, I think they can do great things, but I also think 3rd ed. / 3.5 is not worth shackling their game to, and I am excited to see what they can do with their own ideas. I can see if you really love 3.5 that you might be annoyed by a 2E announcement, but 3.5 and Pathfinder 1.0 will still exist once 2E ships.
I like the unified feel of this, but I dislike the massive gap that will appear at high level, which is one of the big reasons I stopped GMing OG Pathfinder in the first place. IF these values are correct (which they very well may not be - we'll see), it's fine at low level, but at high level starts to fall apart. A character (maybe a bard?) at 20th level with an 8 Wisdom who is untrained in Perception would have a -2. An Expert in Stealth (rogue) with 20 Dex would have a +26. This means the bard has a d20-2 to hit a DC 36 to spot the rogue, while the rogue is rolling d20+26 vs. DC 8 to be sneaky. The rogue could take actions totalling a -20 penalty and still only fail on a 1. This is an extreme case for sure, but the disparity in values leads to dice being meaningless and flat bonuses being the whole game, which I very much disliked about OG Pathfinder. Who knows, maybe this system works entirely differently from my understanding, and it's still just a playtest, so things may definitely change, but I'm skeptical for now.
My group did the same thing last night. "Wooden fort, eh?" they said. "Good thing I memorized flaming sphere!" said the druid. And up went the flames. Having not seen this thread or JJ's comments until now, I ruled that since it was built out of old ships, it would likely burn pretty well. Oh well. Many goblins died in the blaze, but Ripnugget and some choice commandos escaped to the lower levels of the island. Now I just have to decide how the rest of the crew will react to this. Also, I predict the druid will have a bit of a meltdown when they search the rubble and find the charred remains of Shadowmist...
I use a lot of soundtracks. Some movie soundtracks (Van Helsing, Conan, Gladiator, 300), but mostly video game soundtracks. I find that video game music is a lot more ambient, because anything can be happening in a scene in a game, whereas movie soundtracks tend to be scored to fit what's happening in the scene. Some good video game soundtracks I use: - Any of the Infinity Engine games (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc.)
I just have the tracks separated into three playlists in iTunes: town, adventure, and combat. I have a pair of speakers at the table into which I plug my iPhone, then just set the appropriate playlist on random.
Not technically. You can't charge through a square that has a creature in it. You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
There could also be the jealous people - the husbands/wives of commoners who have fallen in love with this bard's music. Maybe some of them would take steps to silence this young upstart? Don't forget other (less talented, jealous) bards. Maybe they have connections with dangerous people and don't like all the attention that this bard is getting.
I'm with Wolf and the devs - you can't use the vestigial limbs to get extra attacks, it says so right in the discovery. Please note that yes indeed, you are getting extra attacks by attacking with all four limbs. Saying an "extra attack" is something that haste or something like that provides is not a valid argument. Yes, haste grants an extra attack. So does TWF. So does a high BAB, if you want to get super technical. An "extra attack" is not a term that is defined in the Pathfinder rules, meaning it's just defined by the english language. Extra: "Added to an existing or usual amount or number." If you can make 4 attacks normally (dagger/dagger/claw/bite), anything above 4 that you're getting via use of the vestigial limbs or tentacle is, by definition, an extra attack. As far as I can tell, anything other than that is either against the rules, or is a cheesy bending of the rules, and the rulings made in this thread and others by developers of the game. If your GM allows it, fine, but they have just as much reason to allow wizards to have a full BAB and d20s for hit dice.
I still believe this tentacle is an extra attack. A "natural attack" is a term with a definition in the game, as are "unarmed strikes", etc. "Extra attack" is not a term with a discrete definition. It's an attack above what you can normally do. With regards to this discovery, treating it like a regular natural attack would grant you an extra attack - for example, your regular full round, plus an EXTRA secondary natural attack (tentacle). I think the opposite argument would make more sense if we can answer this question: Assuming the tentacle discovery grants you a secondary natural attack, what does the "The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round" caveat mean in the context of this discovery? To me, it seems the only thing this text means is that you cannot use the tentacle as an attack in addition to your normal attack routine (without the discovery).
An "extra attack" is not a term defined anywhere in the rules. With regard to this discovery, an extra attack is an attack in addition to your normal attack routine - like you'd get from a secondary natural attack. Tentacle discovery does not give you a secondary natural attack. It would normally, but the discovery is an exception to the rule. It's been decided about a dozen times on the forums by now. As another counter argument... if, by your logic, a tentacle is not an "extra attack", then what does the text in the discovery even mean?
+1
So... I guess all the "no extra attacks" bit really just means that the alchemist can't use the tentacle as his haste attack? I guess that makes sense! This thread is bananas.
Tentacle attacks are always secondary natural attacks. Look it up in the beastiary under Universal Monster Rules. Huh, was not aware. Thanks!
The tentacle never says it's a secondary natural weapon. It would only be considered secondary if you were using it during an attack sequence with a weapon (primary). If you were just using the tentacle, it would be primary. A bite attack is the same thing. It's primary, unless you are also using a weapon, at which point it becomes secondary.
|
