andar90's page

This looks sooo cool. I'm admittedly a bit confused as to how Focus will work, but I'm sure it'll make sense on a reread.

I do wish we had some examples of how cantrips will work, since they're apparently going to form such a big part of a spellcaster's contributions, given less spell slots and scaling cantrips.

brad2411 wrote:

eddv wrote:

In the context that you need to spend feats doing things youre used to getting free, doesn't it become a feat tax anyway?

Not really because you are now getting to choose what you want. More customization.

Which is bloody pointless when the math is done.

Everyone keeps going on about "Customization" and "Options" and "Greater build Varieties".

I stand by the idea that we'll be back to Builds X, Y, Z within time anyway.

I'm in the camp that his happy we're getting more options and pieces to put together our characters. I don't feel like anything's being taken away (except spell slots <.<) so much as...instead of being handed a plate of spaghetti, I'm instead being given 10 dollars (multiple times over the course of 20 levels) and being told I can buy whatever meal I want (though we don't know the breadth of options yet).

I think that breadth of options will make a difference, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they're providing.

About builds x, y, and z though...I do feel like it's a bit reductive to reduce the game simply to 'math', though I also get that a lot of players really love that side of the game (and that's fine). You can build a character that's super-optimized, but very sterile to play. I've built characters that felt way more organic; they weren't necessarily super optimal but they were so much fun to play.

For example, the ability to choose a feat that lets me gain a Tongues effect isn't very optimal math-wise, but it can be incredibly rich for my super-nerd priest of Irori. Math isn't the only measure of value, at least not for all players.

Hmm. Is Lamashtu going to be non-evil now? That is... not what I expected.

I mean, it's not necessarily good if you're healing violent monstrosities. My understanding is that Lamashtu is all about motherhood and birthing monsters into the world. She's a giver of life, but horrible life.

Similarly, I feel like Iomedae feels more Harm-centric to me. She's so fiery and rightous and wants to kick evil in the face, I can easily picture an Iomadaean (spelling? lol) cleric blasting a demon than I can healing an ally.

I do wish that Domains naturally scaled. I like picking one, but I figured we'd get a few abilities as we leveled from them, or a few feats exclusive to that Domain. I like the feat for the second Domain though.

I suppose it's also possible that the Domain ability we get could, itself, scale, or be used for more than one thing. Like, just playing around here, but maybe if we pick the Fire domain, we get an ability called Spiritual Flame, and we can use it to either throw a bolt of fire that damages an enemy, or we can touch a weapon and grant it extra fire damage for 1 minute or something. It would be one ability, but have multiple uses?

Idk, but I'm curious to see more.

Hmmm very interesting.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't anxious about how many spells we're losing. That's like....not a lot of spells, and I really don't want to be resting every 5 seconds. I get that cantrips and domain powers might make up for this, and I love that we're getting free heals to help free up our spell slots, but it still feels a little...sparse.

This is almost off-topic, but I agree with other posters that I really hoped they would go more in the direction of the Arcanist/5e and get rid of the traditional Vancian casting. It is just SO INCREDIBLY counterintuitive to prepare each individual spell. I really wish we could just prepare a certain number of spells per level and get a certain number per day. :/

I doubt they're going to make the Oracle an archetype, as it has too much great flavor to not be a class of its own. I honestly think that the bit in the blog was just referencing their eventual reveal of oracles, but possibly of clerics if they were influenced by them.

I DO think that the design of the cleric should draw some inspiration from the Oracle in that the 1e cleric is pretty bland, mechanically speaking. I don't think clerics should steal from oracles, exactly, but they definitely need something to spice them up beyond domains.

I was always struck by how the Dragon Age games (the first two) handled currency. It was mostly the same - 100 Coppers to a Silver, 100 Silvers to a Gold. (I'm pretty sure).

What struck me about it was that everything you bought had its cost broken down. When you bought something (or found, or were given) 1-2 gold, it actually felt like a decent chunk of money. A nice item might cost 10 Gold and 30 Silver or something like that.

Obviously, this would work in a computer game better than a tabletop since they can quickly do the math and it would be a giant pain at the table, but it still comes to mind.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if PF didn't move to Silver being the predominant coinage, with Gold being rarer. But I don't think the system as it functions now is really a problem. Everything I've ever seen just tracks Gold and ignores the rest, though it's significantly more than what your average person would have in the world.

I agree with most of the stuff in the OP.

I have never, ever liked any world or game that paints any race or creature that has free will as inherently anything, good or evil. I'd much rather they simply describe behavior.

For instance (pulling all of this out of my butt, haven't checked bestiaries), do trolls need to be evil? Maybe they're just animalistic and territorial. Maybe they're regenerative powers require a steady diet of living things, so when they're pressed (or when habitat is infringed upon), they venture towards settlements for human food and such. Maybe it's super hard for them to raise their young (let's say 3 or 4 troll kids are born, but only half or less typically survive), which gives them further incentive to get food at all costs. They aren't evil, necessarily, just often in conflict with other races for resources.

I get that saying Orcs are evil and Silver Dragons are good and such fits the sort of pulpy background a lot of games have, but it feels very hollow and forced to me, and it always has.

Iiiinnteresting.

I genuinely have no idea what it means when people mention Kender (I know Kender are Dragonlance halflings, but that's it).

This is also a really interesting look at Ancestries if this is any indication of how they'll work.

At first I was a little weirded out by the Cha boost, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Pathfinder goblins might not be pretty, but they are bursting with personality (and I dislike reducing Charisma to just charm and looks).

Honestly, I can understand people not wanting goblins as player races, but it's hard to be upset about that as it's such an easy thing to house rule out of the game.

Hello! This is my first post on these boards ever.

I find myself agreeing with Kerrilyn. I like the idea of wands, but they're just too easily accessible, so any cost associated with them (either in charges, or in gold) is pretty negligible. I feel like potions are different since they're gone after a single use, as are scrolls.

I kinda wish that wands worked more like staves, where they had far less charges, but could be recharged over time. Then, when you got one, it would really be something special as opposed to a fairly banal part of the game. If you found a Wand of Healing, it was probably in an ancient temple or on the body of a powerful enemy cleric. If you are given one, it's because you saved a church from destruction or something. Sure, maybe you could buy one, but probably only in a very special or prominent shop, and at a significant cost.

Just my 2 cents, I guess. :)

This was hot.