chocobot's page

PF1 already has paladins of every alignment in its conceptual space.
They're just called Antipaladins and Champion of the Faith Warpriests because of the sacred cow LG alignment. And they aren't core.

It seems like a waste of time, space, money, etc to have to get minor variations of the same concept written over and over as different classes when it could just be one class with some good/evil/law/chaos based powers. You get the ones that match your alignment/deity, or choose if you're neutral just like clerics do. And if that's upsetting to anymore, everything but lawful good ones can be uncommon, then DMs get the justification to say "not at my table" if they really want to.

One thing I’m noticing as I try out these rules by building a few characters is that the free ability choices which the ancestries have make me more inclined to choose less standard ancestry/class combinations than in PF 1.

For example, I love that I can now easily have a dwarf wizard starting with int 18 and a host of other reasonably high ability scores. In PF1 I’d always feel this was too sub optimal to enjoy (which is probably more to do with my perceptions than the system).

But now my image of a craggy bearded, grey haired grumpy dwarf with a crow on his shoulder and a rune encrusted staff can enter the game.

Incidentally my planned ability scores are below if anyone has any thoughts (using scholar background) Tempted to put strength down to 10 and boost wisdom to 14 but not sure yet.

STR 12
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 18
WIS 12
CHA 8

I played a dwarf wizard in PF1. He was my first PF character actually, but not a rookie mistake. I played 3.x a lot and knew what I was doing. He was still a wizard. That is to say, not really having a problem on the optimization side, even if the int was 2 lower than a human.

I am using this thread to Point out other Problems with exploration mode. This time, the example for which skill to use for initiative (pg331):

- Merisiel and Kyra have been captured and are negotiating
with the kobold king. Things aren’t going well, so Merisiel
decides she’ll launch a surprise attack against the king. As
soon as she says this is her plan, you call for initiative. -

What threw me off was how they extended on this to explain using different skills for initiative (pg. 331-332).

- For example, if in the prelude to the attack, Merisiel’s player had
said, “I’m going to dangle down off the chandelier to get
the drop on them,” you could let her use Acrobatics for her
initiative roll. -

Really? In the middle of the negotiation, Merisiel decides to climb up on the chandelier, and after that we roll initiative? Based on Acrobatics?

This is just one of the Points where it is painfully vague and annoying as to how we are supposed to Transition from Exploration mode to Encounter mode.

Kyra: Let's work something out, your majesty. Perhaps we might reach an arrangement that benefits us both?

Kobold King: No, no, no! Humans are slaves now!

Merisiel: What? I'm not human, you moron.

Kyra: You're not a diplomat either...

Kobold King: Lies, lies, humans always lie!

Merisiel: That's just racist, you little dragon wart. And again, I'm not human!

Kyra: Just calm down and let me handle this, please, Meri. Please!

Kobold King: You slaves now, humans.

Merisiel: That's it, I'm climbing the chandelier

Kyra: Is that code for... oh dear goddess, you're really doing it

Kobold King: No, no! My lighty thing. Mine! Guards, get human off lighty thing!

Kobold Guards: (look way up at the chandelier, then down at the short swords in their hands)

Kyra: Uh... King... your majesty, ignore my friend please. I'm sure she's just getting some exercise. Let us discuss the orcs in the southern passages. Life would sure be easier for the kobolds if we took care of them for you.

Merisiel: Surprise attack!

Kyra: (sighs) Chaotic neutral...

I believe that if you've put every possible resource into that skill your chance of success against the average equal level unspecialized opponent should be around 90%. If you're in your specialty but not completely optimized, maybe 70-80% range. The chance of the average trained character with maybe 12-14 stat and no other bonus is what should be 50%. Untrained, ability penalty, unfavorable circumstances, or a higher level opponent are the only situations in which you should be much below 50%. If the system can't do that, then I think it needs to be fixed.

I haven't played an actual game session yet, let alone a high level one, so I have no idea if it works this way in play... but that's the scale I'll be grading on.

chocobot wrote:

...

Signature Skills only prevent you from becoming a Master or Legendary at a particular skill that isn't typically used by a class. There are ways to unlock certain skills as Signature Skills either through Archetypes or some class features.

All in all though, this shouldn't prevent you from being able to perform most trained or expert actions that a skill is capable of. It just prevents you from getting the crazy bonuses of high level skill unlocks.

Oh I understand, and that is exactly what I hate about it. Limiting skill progression based on class skills was a specific problem in 3,x that Pathfinder fixed. I consider this essential to how I like to play, so going back to that is as I said, hard pass.

I agree with a lot of what's been said here. My perspective is mostly as a player, and the thing I like most about 1e is all the ways we can customize our characters to build someone who feels really unique. I didn't really care for 1e until APG, and then slam dunk, I was sold on it. I'm a semi-optimizer, in that I'm going to make a character that is highly effective but not so tuned that I lose my individuality. I hope that's a common viewpoint, but who knows...

My likes:
Action economy: great 100% love it. There may be some room for tuning actions, but the system is perfect IMO.

Feats at every level. Yes, I'm all about the options.

Charisma is a good stat: I like having some charisma on my character and not feeling like I screwed up for it.

Everyone has perception - well it was a defacto requirement already, so yes it should be an actual requirement. Good choice.

More HP at 1st level and no rolling. Well, we haven't rolled for a long time, but yeah I'm on board with anything that makes 1st level better.

Proficiency levels - I like it, but I wish it went further in making proficiency matter. Legendary proficiency should be able to do truly legendary actions. Higher weapon proficiency should give you some basic actions that are currently feats, like anyone with expert can power attack. Feats could do more interesting things.

Class Feats: I like how the option choices of all classes and archetypes have been standardized into one system. That's cool and now you can apply the same archetype to any class so we don't need 10 different pirate archetypes. That's a further improvement on the ideas in starfinder. Great job.

Heightened spells - awesome, except spontaneous casters who still need to learn new versions of the spell, except that they can pick a few they can heighten... Too complicated, too burdensome on limited spell selection. Drop that, otherwise, great.

Cantrips more effective, other spells less effective. i think this is probably a necessary balance adjustment.

Dislikes:
Choices we used to get at first level are now spread out over 4-5 levels. It's already hard enough in 1e to make your character concept feel complete at first level. I already don't like 1st level in PF 1e - it always feels very limited in play, and very contrived how these schlubs end up the heros when there's a dozen more powerful npcs in the town. Anyway, I tolerate the first couple levels to get to the game I like, but PF 2 seems determined to make it worse. I would like to be able to choose stuff like archetype and racial abilities right off the bat. Not having a general feat at first level really hurts too.

Language Nerf - what does making it harder to communicate add to the game? There's nothing overpowered about languages. Having more languages just means more chances to roleplay, more variety in encounters. If you can't talk to the goblins, then every encounter has to be a battle. That feels like 4e where it's predetermined which encounters will be battles and which will be skill challenges and as a player you just follow the script.

Not enough difference between proficiency levels and I don't like untrained getting full level bonuses. This is a game where we usually have a team of specialists working together and you lose that feel if everyone can do everything just about as well.

Fighters should get more skills. Anyone without spells needs a lot of skills. They fill the same need for something you can do outside of combat.

Signature Skills - no. That's terrible. Class limits on skill level is a hard pass for me. What would work for me is maybe pick one signature skill at 1st level that you get expert instead of trained. Because I'm always in favor of more competent 1st levelers, and 2e has very low skill bonus and very little ability to specialize.

Magic weapon damage dice - I like the result, but I dislike putting more power in the gear and less in the character. I'd rather see this as an effect of proficiency.

....

I could probably say a lot more on both sides, but that's enough. Although I wrote a lot on the negative side, I'd say I'm optimistic overall. Signature Skills is the only thing I straight up hate.

So since you're here... is there any Golarion justification for elves taking 10x as long to learn basic apprentice skills as some other races? Or just because that's the way it was in D&D?

If so please let it be because as aliens they have completely different developmental stages that they metamorphose through as they grow. Elves do not learn, per se, until the final stage known as adulthood. Prior to that, they operate purely on instinct, at almost an animal level, although their instincts are complex enough to appear like learned behavior to an untrained observer. Every 7 years or so they go through a growth metamorphosis which increases their size equivalent to a year of human growth and provides them with a new set of instincts equivalent to a year of human learning. When they go through the final metamorphosis their brain develops true cognition similar to a human, and at that point they become capable of learning from their experiences. Trying to make an elf learn prior to then actually slows their development, possibly making them take decades longer to reach adulthood. Only the most learned of all elf masters understand this however, and most make their students study before they are ready. But 1 in 60466176 elf wizards can train an apprentice in 10 years, similar to the average human, simply by recognizing the signs of maturity and waiting until the brain is fully developed.

For dwarves, apprentices are literally just too stubborn to learn stuff, like at all, but after 50 years their master finally gets fed up with their incompetence and literally hammers their heads into shape so they get a class (see phrenology for why this works). Master wizards just have more patience than master barbarians, which is why it takes them longer.

Edit: fixed elf wizard age to 10d6, instead of 8d6

"Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance." (Core definition of the ability). Your Dex mod modifies your initiative which determines when you get to act in combat or a non-combat encounter. This applies even if on your action you solve an equation, try to remember something, or hum a tune. If Stephen Hawking was in your group he would probably be the last one, owing to his poor physical coordination, to recognize some cosmic phenomenon as it manifests.

If your entire group are astrophysicists? Otherwise, he's the last one to examine it, but the only one who makes the knowledge (cosmic) check.

I mean unless it's DC 10 or less. Like you know, the moon.

DM: perception checks please.

19... 15... 22... 25... 3...

DM: not with the -125,000,000 modifier! You're all surprised as something massive comes out from behind the clouds where it was hiding. Surprise round: it illuminates the area in dim light. Now roll initiative guys.

I'm pretty much with the "it's not a class, it's a disguise check" crowd. I can't see the point of having a whole class based on such a narrow concept and when you add that it also gets to be a pale imitation of some other class it seems doubly pointless. It seems like the whole concept could be boiled down to a Dual Identity feat, and maybe a couple other feats that build off that if you really want to concentrate character resources on a secret identity.

And if you have a full campaign focused on secret identities, then it should be a campaign system like kingdom building or relationships, not a class ability.

Now if you want to make a class that does something unique with the vigilante concept like take batman's devices and make a class that uses mechanical and/or magical gadgets to create spell-like effects - I'm all for that. Especially if you can attach them to arrows like hawkeye and green arrow. Or any other concept as long as it is actually how you fight crime, not what you do when you aren't fighting crime.

Felyndiira wrote:

Redelia wrote:

Well, if 51% of your actions are putting the needs of others first (including basic self care to enable you to meet the needs of others), you are of good alignment. If 51% or more are selfish, you are of evil alignment. To truly be neutral, it would have to be 50% of each.

Neutral is as much a gradient as Good and Evil are. It's not this fine balance that can be tipped by the smallest actions.

Usually, Good and Evil are defined by a strong commitment. If you occasionally donate to charity/the homeless to make yourself happier, that doesn't automatically make you good. Similarly, a bit of selfishness doesn't make you evil.

This extends to Pathfinder characters, as well, or you'll get ridiculous stuff like this:

Druid: After getting out of that prison, I take a moment to appreciate my freedom and lie down under the gentle embrace of nature.
GM: You expressed a love for freedom, which is chaotic. Shift your alignment from NG to CG. You fall as a druid.
Druid: What?

I truly want to see that play out sometime in an actual game.

next time he'll know: write a petition to have this day declared national freedom of me day and get 1000 signatures (more or less) and submit it to the city council, but only by bribing a disbarred lawyer to impersonate the official secretary to the under minister of the wrong department.

Duh

Well in that paradigm the dwarf fighter wouldn't have a 20 speed, he'd have a 200. Because why is it totally realistic for fighters to be colossus but not quicksilver? There's zero difference in realism, and it's just an arbitrary decision that the muscle groups in their arms are allowed to develop beyond human potential but those in their legs are not. Monks of course can develop superhuman musculature in their legs, but fighter for some reason are restricted to arms. Totally arbitrary.

I have no issue with evil characters in principle, although even a well-played evil character just can't fit into some parties. Most campaigns have a way to fit in evil PCs, if they're the right kind of evil. But...

They usually aren't. Most people who want to play a guy who isn't nice, is completely out for himself, willing to do whatever is needed to win the scenario, but functions within society and the party because he knows that's the best way to succeed write "Neutral" on their sheet. The "Evil" characters I usually see are more like comic book villains, and not nuanced villains like Magneto or Lex Luthor. LE: Darkseid, NE: Thanos, CE: Joker.

CN gets used a lot for "I don't want to play an alignment, I just want to do what I want to do" in groups I've played in, and that's a thought I can totally get behind. So although I have seen a few pure random insane chaos characters, CN doesn't cause a problem as much.

Besides, let's suppose I'd like to bind the Hierophant Spirit and I have a temple nearby. What do I do?! I perform the calling ritual inside or nearby this temple?! A 1 hour ceremony that can't be uninterrupted and requires concentration?! And the clerics of the temple or the inhabitants of the city would allow such ceremony!?

There are some obvious problems with the mechanics of the class because almost every favored location of every spirit brings a lot of problems. Sometimes you will bypass these problems (for example, a inn nearby the temple where you can perform the ritual quietly) but, often, you won't. So, you won't be able to use the Medium class features. It's like a Wizards who couldn't read his book or a cleric who couldn't pray for his spells. They would become useless.

It's true that, even without bonding to a spirit, the Medium would still have his 4th level spell casting but I don't think it would be enough.

I'd kind of been assuming that your ritual could (and even should) be something more or less indistinguishable from appropriate activity for the location - so prayer or meditation for temple, weapons kata for a training yard, study for a library, etc. Because you're inviting this spirit who dwells there and is tied to the ambiance of the place, it seems unlikely that you're going to have to do something considered offensive by the probably like-minded inhabitants. Unless they're actually your enemies, in which case I suppose you probably have to kill them first.

i suppose you could say that the ritual must look like evil bad magic with skull candelabras and curvy knives, but the way I see it you only do that when you're trying to get a spirit out of a necromancer's sanctum or a temple of asmodeus.

All the really smart tieflings spend 4d6 years learning to be sage sorcerers and 5 days retraining to wizards. Wizard school is a trap for tieflings without enough system mastery to really be wizards.

Mythraine wrote:

A quick read through of the ARG errata seems very reasonable to me.

I particularly love the adjustment to the Aasimar, Dhampir and Tiefling starting ages.

Wait, do people actually use the starting ages? I always ignored them. Granted, my campaigns have an in-universe minimum PC age of 17 1/2 to 21, depending on exactly where the campaign is taking place, but I've never seen normal campaigns use the starting ages.

i hate starting ages. I have been forced to use it by dms who thought that was crucial to their world. I can't stand the idea that elves are somehow so mentally disadvantaged that it takes them 100 years to learn the skills of an adolescent. I know it's meaningless fluff, but I care about my PC history and I feel obligated to write "I spent the next ten years learning to tie my shoes. Once I felt I had mastered that, I focused on eating without smearing food all over my face for the next decade. In truth this turned out harder than I could have imagined and I was well into my sixties before my wetnap needs diminished."

It works if you imagine every elf as an Adam Sandler character.

Good point, draw length is a factor. The length of the bow staff is relevant only in so far as that a long bow staff is the mechanically simplest way to maximize force over the full draw length. Compound bows do the same thing, composite bows do the same thing. I think most medieval crossbows are composite bows, but I'm not an expert. At any rate the composite bow of crossbow size is still smaller than the composite bow of longbow size and thus a shorter draw length. So yeah I can see how that affects the str factor. Exactly how that impacts damage considering the mechanical advantage factor as well, no clue. I just know that crossbows have different pulls and stronger people can use stronger crossbows.

Pathfinder crossbows lol physics fail. Crossbows take longer to load than bows, not because they're made by or for idiots, but because they require more strength to pull. Because of the high draw strength a mechanical advantage is necessary which results in a slower draw. The net result is that when you pull the trigger they shoot really f-ing hard, because conservation of energy is a real thing. Not being able to get any effective strength bonus on a crossbow is silly. If it takes no strength to pull, it also takes no time or effort. Realistic crossbows would be something like 1 1/2 strength.

Obviously that ain't how it works in pathfinder, but for Paizo to claim their stance on crossbows is realism is incorrect. It's based on Legolas and an arbitrary rule of cool for bows, not science or anything.

Bandw2 wrote:

can get weapon training natural...

Weapon training (firearms) wouldn't help him shoot down a wall any faster with the non-lethal rounds I mentioned earlier, so why would weapon training (unarmed) help with his fists? Again, this isn't about his skill level, which is what weapon training augments, it's about the delivery mechanism being unsuited to properly distribute enough force in a manner to actually damage the target object. To give another, perhaps more helpful examples, think of if you gave the fighter a wooden bat and had him go to town on the stone wall/pillar. Which do you think breaks first, the bat or the wall? The bones in your hand and arm are NOT as solid as the bat, soooooo...

my arm would be mangled I'm sure. But I'm not a guy who can dive in to lava, swim out 6 seconds later, brush it off, and be just fine if a bit singed. So I don't think the capabilities of real human being are at all a viable estimator of the capabilities of 20th level characters. There's at least an order of magnitude difference. Saying that guy fist isn't an appropriate weapon is the absurd thing. He can punch a hole in a stone golem which is the same exact material. His hands can withstand more damage than literally any weapon he could possibly use against a wall short of an artifact.

And the same goes for a level 20 wizard punching a wall because being only 50% as durable is close enough. If he's strong enough, there's no logical reason he can't do it. It's not a special fighter thing. There's no rule to support that, but every rule in the game supports level 20 characters being superhuman, even when only mundanely so.

Do note how I said Sorcerer...

The sorcerer equivalent of a naked fighter doesn't have any hands or mouth. Hmm... Maybe I'm proving your point.

But maybe the martial equivalent of a sorcerer is a brawler, in which case it's much more dependent on who wins initiative.

Having played a high level sorcerer beside a high level wizard I didn't feel like I was any way inferior. Obviously a wizard's total capabilities are more, but a sorcerer can be better than a Wizard at whatever he chooses for his expertise. So what happens is the sorcerer defines his niche, wizard gets what's left. Psychologically, that's huge. The wizard's slice of pizza may be bigger, but the sorcerer is choosing one with all the toppings he likes. It's not a bad deal at all.

Being a level 3 sorcerer sucks though.

Tormsskull wrote:

From an RP perspective, my characters are trying to survive. They generally want their allies to have the best equipment possible to ensure that the team, and by extension them self, live through the day.

If that's the goal, to survive, the best move is to fire the fighter, monk, and rogue and replace them with a druid, a cleric, and a summoner. But that's not an outcome that most players want to see.

There's actually no way to identify someone's class aside from guessing, OOC knowledge, or house rules. By the time you get enough observational evidence they aren't pulling their weight anymore you're on like book 4-5 of the adventure path and have already given them 10s of thousands of gp in loot. If not 100k+. If you kick them out now, you're not getting any of that back. And if you kill them - well that's evil (which is a problem if your party isn't). No, the best course of action is to stick with that guy until his inevitable demise, at which time you can make your case to his spirit why it should refuse resurrection (so we can't say you didn't try) and just let you take all his worldly possessions that he'll no longer need in the paradise of afterlife.

In all seriousness though, in the RP perspective kicking a guy out of the party gives you no guarantee of finding someone more capable to replace them. The people you need are extremely rare individuals, especially those of a level where martial are no longer effective. Only OOC do you know that player can just make another PC of the same level, or maybe 1 level less - whatever the DMs rule is.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Petty Alchemy wrote:

Amusing thought: What if fighters/barbarians/whatever could yell gibberish/warcry to try to mess up a spell with a verbal component being cast?

I'm... not really sure. I mean as a concept it seams fine, but would you be making this a standard part of the game so spellcasters are ALWAYS running into this problem, or is it locked behind yet another feat?

Does it use the Concentration mechanic?

If it's a cool and actually useful ability I wouldn't say it would be "locked behind a feat." A phrase like that implies things like "ugh, guess I can't trip without provoking even though 3 int wolves do because Improved Trip is locked behind Combat Expertise" or "I'm never going to take Spring Attack because it's locked behind two bleh prerequisites."

As for how this would work, I'd say something like:

Immediate action, spell being cast within X feet. Make an intimidate check, DC = 10 + base enemy concentration check + Y for every Z feet you are from target. If successful, spell fails. If successful by 5 or more, this failure also provokes an attack of opportunity. Once per target per day. Or maybe make it a fortitude save based on your BAB.

I'd see that more as your war cry scares the hell out of them at a pivotal moment and their concentration slips. Once per day per target because now they are expecting it. Just don't make the Disruptive line prerequisites and you are good.

So this is a good idea and all, but I was thinking, why does it even need to be a new option? Right now there's a massive disparity in how conditions affect casters and martials. Why not just make the existing conditions have an actual effect on casters?

We've got staggered, sickened, dazzled, fatigued, exhausted, shaken, frightened, prone... maybe some more I'm forgetting. None of these have any real effect on a caster's ability to use magic, but if they all required concentration checks Like casting defensively then they'd have a real impact - especially the ones that apply a penalty to that check like shaken. Then getting off a demoralize on a wizard would give a martial a decent chance of at least making the caster rely on his lower level spells to reduce the chance of failure.