duje's page

roll them in a cup

I think class archetypes will be selectable only at character creation, much like giant barbarian, i.e some classes in core already came with class archetypes like barbarian, while other didn't, like fighter

I just think when you get into higher levels, the power you get severely limits roleplay, and you are mostly facing monsters.
Go to desert kill some huge demon, and that's it, a safari, no politics, no danger on the streets unless you make some dragon ball z super sayan thugs. Someone stabs you with a dagger in the neck in a dark alley, no biggy its just a d4

I just think a for RPG with leveling system days are over, at least for me
If nobody played shadowrun which is a good example of horizontal character progression, you basically dont level, there is no levels, every skill, feat, stat, or spell has cost in experience points that you can buy any time.
When you are facing a bigger threat, equivalent of a dragon, you need a right weapons and tools to defeat it, rather then just becoming a captain America by leveling. System like this makes those kobolds, thugs, and bandits you fought when starting out relevant through any stage of the game.
...and its just silly to hire a lvl 1 party to clear out kobolds, when you can hire a flying mage that could exterminate them in 50 mile radius in couple of hours. From a world immersion perspective there wouldn't be a kobold alive when first person in the world reached level 10.
Its just to gamey

Well if you like Shadowrun you can look at its lore related fantasy game Earthdawn. Part of the plot is that magic waxes and wanes. Shadowrun is set in a future where magic is rushing in, trolls and the like began being born, dragons stirred and became CEOs. Earthdawn is set in the past, at a time where magic is dwindling and it was so bad in the past people moved underground.

I really like it because the whole world is infused with magic. Your a ridiculous swordsman? Its because you know that magic of stabbing! Your sword is awesome? Its because you uncovered its name and learned its secrets (you spend xp on bonding with items)

tnx for sugestion

One other thing that came to my mind as a flaw of game with vertical system like this.

Lets say you want to make world dangerous at higher levels to keep suspension, ok so you are at 11 and walking down the street, thug jumps out and wants to rob you, he is at level 10 so you can have challenge.
But why he is mugging you when he could be killing manticores and hydras :D

Also all of that, i am a warrior and wth my flimsy sword that glows i solo thunder giants and what not just by standing there and exchanging, i still look as normal dude that needs eat, s$%% and sleep, just doesent hold water from immersion standpoint.

Maybe you can keep the level down like at max lvl 5 and let the players get acess to the more advanced feats in the story, class feats and the other feats in the game to allow more options than power increase.

thats the point, most of us play low level games, because then is still world filled with dangers, cities to explore and so on, once you go at certain threshold it becomes a safary

you are dime in a dosen my friend :D

Thing is, you had 1 game from 1 to 20, and how many adventures at low level?
Honestly when i see those high level options in classes, i always laugh at myself, like that ever going to be used, same thing with monsters, items and other high level content.
Sure it gets used sometimes, rarely, but thats hours worth of money and time from creators for such niche aspect of these kind of games

duje wrote:

JohannVonUlm wrote:

duje wrote:

Fobok wrote:

duje wrote:

Isnt Pathfinder like fork from DnD?

And D&D forked off of a wargame.

I dont consider a DnD or Pathdfinder a Wargame, Wargame is completely another genre.

Warhammer, Infinity(altho this could be more of a tactics game), historical wargames and so on.
To me wargame or tactics game is a game where you dont have a close attachment to the army or squad you are using, there is no leveling but point buy, nor any kind of social interaction with the world, you are simulating a battle or skirmish on a map against other people in a competitive manner.
Chess is probably oldest wargame in existance

Pathfinder and D&D certainly aren't wargames now. But Kraege and Fobok are right, D&D had it's roots in a wargame, Chainmail. Gary Gygax's innovation is that you could marry a story with it and give depth to the experience.

If you're looking to tone down high-fantasy, you need another game mechanically. I'd look at the One Ring - (not the 5e version, but the system unique version). Tolkien done right really is a low-magic game. You could also look at the RPG based on George Martin's Song of Fire and Ice. It's another low-magic game. Both would let you focus on the story and intrigue and less on the tactical combat.

I think shadowrun is also a good example of balanced not over the top RP game, i dont know any pure fantasy game like that, as you bassicaly start as finished charachter, and all the karma(xp) and money you get is basically just to expend your options, at the end of the day no matter how much stuff you did, you are still just as helpless dude in a dangerous world :D

Then check out World/Chronicles of Darkness games. You can build completely Horizontally or Vertically and still be relevant. It’s designed around lethal and quick combat with out of combat solutions being just as viable.

I agree its a good example, its just not pure fantasy game, like sword and sorcery

Part 6 Doomsday Dawn in the Playtest was designed to specifically test intrigue-type scenarios at high level. Sure, there were combats, but most of it was focused around running a heist without anyone finding out what you were up to.

I think it will be quite possible to run RP-first campaigns with the 2e ruleset, but it will be done in the assumed high-magic setting. So many of the solutions will revolve around the use of magic or superhuman abilities of the player characters.

You can probably adapt the system for low magic, but those types of setting work much better at low levels, IMHO.

I think 2e is a step in a good direction, but then again how proficiency rises with levels, once you hit lets say level 11, you basically became immune all those monsters you fourth at lvl 1, while inother systems they are still dangerous and can kill you, you just have more ways to deal with them

duje wrote:

Fobok wrote:

duje wrote:

Isnt Pathfinder like fork from DnD?

And D&D forked off of a wargame.

I dont consider a DnD or Pathdfinder a Wargame, Wargame is completely another genre.

Warhammer, Infinity(altho this could be more of a tactics game), historical wargames and so on.
To me wargame or tactics game is a game where you dont have a close attachment to the army or squad you are using, there is no leveling but point buy, nor any kind of social interaction with the world, you are simulating a battle or skirmish on a map against other people in a competitive manner.
Chess is probably oldest wargame in existance

Pathfinder and D&D certainly aren't wargames now. But Kraege and Fobok are right, D&D had it's roots in a wargame, Chainmail. Gary Gygax's innovation is that you could marry a story with it and give depth to the experience.

If you're looking to tone down high-fantasy, you need another game mechanically. I'd look at the One Ring - (not the 5e version, but the system unique version). Tolkien done right really is a low-magic game. You could also look at the RPG based on George Martin's Song of Fire and Ice. It's another low-magic game. Both would let you focus on the story and intrigue and less on the tactical combat.

I think shadowrun is also a good example of balanced not over the top RP game, i dont know any pure fantasy game like that, as you bassicaly start as finished charachter, and all the karma(xp) and money you get is basically just to expend your options, at the end of the day no matter how much stuff you did, you are still just as helpless dude in a dangerous world :D

Actually, D&D really was forked from the wargame of miniatures. The original game was called Chainmail.

First edition of DnD had some aspects of an wargame, you could build a castle, raise an army and go to wars, but that aspect of that game was almost never used, and was actually poorly done

DnD maybe took inspiration from a wargame, but its not a wargame

Pathfinder or Dnd is basically a PvE game, maybe from DM perspective it is a kinda wargame, but as a DM you dont really wont to kill of players, but rather push the story forward.
If you are going into role playing game thinking its a wargame, then you really like your wargames in care-bear mode :D

duje wrote:

Isnt Pathfinder like fork from DnD?

And D&D forked off of a wargame.

I dont consider a DnD or Pathdfinder a Wargame, Wargame is completely another genre.

I think the game will work just fine for less combat-heavy games. The one I'm setting up now is very Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild-inspired, in that a lot of it is going to be exploration, survival, and uncovering ruins and things (all of which I'll give XP for, in addition to combat), that kind of thing.

But I like high fantasy, so I wouldn't want to really get rid of it. What you do is take inspiration from bigtime mythological stories and other media. If the PCs are now like gods, cool, get them involved directly in the machinations of the gods as peers, rather than mere uppity mortals who challenge them. Have them take on more abstract challenges. Starvation, wars over resources, plagues, natural disasters (on a vast scale). Have them go to other realms and do the things high-level PCs do. They can still face challenges that you can't just beat up and still need strategy to overcome, such as a league of gods, social upheaval, or that kind of thing.

Even at lower levels, I don't tend to run games that are one fight after another. Not that there's anything wrong with such a game, but what I enjoy most is immersion in a high fantasy world, so I really strive to help bring it to life through exploration, interaction, and so on.

exactly, and that where all the fun and jokes are, when you are in a fight you are basically looking at your sheet, adding numbers, looking at your options, while interaction with players and world/DM goes to minimum.

When i said tone down high fantasy, i think all the flying, teleporting, time travel, whishes, traveling to other planes and dimensions should be harshly reduced, stuff like that should be rare, hard to get, and precious, basically a plot hook rather than a form of gameplay.
The way is it now, once you get to that powerlevel you need monsters that can challenge that, and it just becomes to weird

Isnt Pathfinder like fork from DnD?
Wargame would be like war hammer, where you command an army.
I dont have trouble playing a game of pathfinder where we have 1 or 2 fights per session, its just it becomes more difficult as you get into higher levels as world becomes harmless, and you are pigeonholed into playing a safari against weird or ginormous monsters

I think problem with Pathfinder and DnD today is that all that high level content gets used in like 1% of the games, its wasted effort of creators for the most part...

Most of you would agree that playing game from lvls 11+ happens really rare, and besides people quitting because personal matters and game going too long to get to there, not many ones-shots are played either at higher levels.

From my perspective, I am more of a black trenchcoat then pink mohawk player, I like intrigue, planing, avoiding fights by finding alternative solutions if possible, rather then rolling for initiative fight after fight, as that becomes more of a stale dice game then role playing game to me. I like 80-90% of my game to be roleplay, and those 10-20% really lethal/important fights, rather than you are jumped by kobolds, roll for initiative, goblins, roll for initiative...

Now why is this important for high level play, its because you became so epic, that world around you becomes to mundane and harmless, world does not present a challenge, and funny enough only challenge you get are these ridiculous huge monsters that are so abstract to imagine a fight with, as everyone is flying teleporting around, its just a mess, and its just not enjoyable at all.
I think thats the reason why high level play gets so little love, from both kind of players.

What do you think solutions would be?
I think leveling should be more horizontal then vertical, you dont get more powerful, but rather you have more options and tools on your disposal, maybe tone down high fantasy as well?

I dont even think there are many element types left that could be used. I can only think of acid (which was mentioned) and sonic, but both of those have very few properties and abilities that can be implemented as a talent/infusion. If it's about implementing existing bloodlines, most of them aren't even elements, or they are different versions of the same thing.

For those that don't know, lore wise Kineticists draw power from the elemental planes (Air, Fire, Earth, Water). Aether, Void, and Wood elements are drawn from where the elements meet another plane: Ethereal, Negative, and First World respectively. The only remaining planes are: Material, positive, and shadow.

positive, negative.. there isnt much more in spells either, thing is, kineticist is sorcerers done right, but incomplete, and bloodlines from sorcerer would round them up nicely

So for instance a serpent blood sorcerer would get serpentine feutures, fangs, charm/poison element, think of Thulsa Doom from Conan, and sorcerers done as kineticist would also be great as enemies in your campaigns, because of the bloodline there are basically half monsters/outsiders or something close to it, and sorcerer/kineticst would give you a robust toolbox to craft your bosses

as for wild talents, i think it would be best done as feats, while instead of getting new spells you get to chose infusions for your elements.

It seems you are using different definition than he is. Esper can mean a lot of different things in a lot of different settings, but it comes from ESP (Extra-sensory perception) - er, or a synonym for psychic.

it can be then for a aether based kineticist, but aether based kineticist is also elemental blood, its just drawn from eastern cultures, i think asian or indian, aether is considered a 5 element.

When i see kineticist, is a spontaneous caster that gets its power innately, and rather from study of magic, he shapes it intuitively and its based of his bloodline, ie. he is extorting his body to do this stuff.
Exactly a description of sorcerer, while in sorcerer you make pretend ok it isnt a fireball, its bomb of radiant energy because you are celestial blooded, but also deals fire not radiant energy damage because of lets make-pretend.
I guess you really need good charisma, but to roleplay a sorcerer and not look dumb :D

kineticists are exactly elemental blood sorcerers, nothing to do with espers, how is being a kinetics make you a truly lawful guy without any chaos of elements? LOL

only casters where charisma makes sense as casting stat is clerics(much more then wisdom) and paladins, because their magic comes from their patrons, Gods, think of it as having sugar daddy, and if suggar daddy likes you more he gives you better stuff, as well the fact as collecting followers into your flock is doing Gods work.

Wizards are perfectly mechanically sane, in world of pathfinder magic is like science, and wizards are scientists, every wizard spell you have in this world is designed by some wizard, every spell has components, like material, somatic, and verbal, its basically a specific formula that works in this world because magic is a fact.

Bards IMO should be wisdom based, maybe a combination of wisdom and charisma, with charisma being conected with performance thing, kinda like clerics now, where wisdom is from common folk wisdom, stories and superstitions they collected while traveling around.

Only thing that really stands out as sore thumb in world of pathfinder as really badly slapped on concept is sorcerer, because its made exactly for the reason that kids can throw fireballs

Sorcerers aren't magic because they're charismatic; they're charasmatic because they are inherently magical. The new system really fixes the source of power / wizard list disconnect. PF2 sorcerers are what sorcerer always should have been; the magic users that tap into the inherent power with them, regradless of the intial source of that power.

Imperial bloodline sorcerers cast arcane magic not because they willed themselves to learn a few wizard spells but because some long distant ancestor was a wizard with power so great that it caused metamagically ripples in there very bloodline. Angelic bloodline sorcerer tap into the divine within them to call upon the power of the gods. Fey sorcers were changed by the first world and channel the primal magic through themselves.

Kineticist is a different creature and they do not fill that same design space.

its pure make-belive, being something in you dna does not make you use it because your are persuasive and likeable, but by exerting your body, its just a made up excuse why they have chosen charisma, and they choose it mainly so its different from clerics or wizards.

What would be a perfect dragon bloodline sorcerer, lets say blue?
Combination of air kineticist and dragon disciple, power over air and electricity as well as being a freaking half dragon getting talents that make you more resilient, strong and dragonlike.

Why should blue dragon sorcerer have spell slots, acces to enchantment, or necromancy spells, it simply does not make sense, the only sense about sorcerer is that is made for people who wont to think less about spells by having only couple of them good ones to spam.
Playing pathfinder is about having fun roleplaying, number crunching and mechanics are there just to facilitate a character concept and determine rules of the game, and this is where sorcerer falls short, its a class simple made from mechanics perspective with back story of poor excuses, basically a dumbed down wizard, and in 2e dumbed down caster with impossibility to be an unlikable a+@+$++&.
I mean even if you are demon spawn of pure evil, or half lich emitting entropy around you, people just want to hang around you

duje wrote:

Rather then clunky sorcerer that somehow knows wizard designer spells that are manufactured by wizards, learned and quite specific in their wording, and doing that by persuading their bodies with charisma?

For me sorcerers are people with a strong soul/supernatural link (depicted by high charisma) who naturally can evoke effects that wizard recreated with long study in way more rigid forms

also you can individualize your magic without having it effect the game effectivity

fey bloodline sorcerer? your fireball sparkles like a firework!
fiendish bloodline sorcerer: your burning hands spell looks kind of nasty, it burns the same though
celestial bloodline: that ice from the frost spell looks really pristine and pure

The kineticist fills kind of a different niche for me, avatar or not - they are linked to the elemental planes directly and don't have some more or less obscure heritage, a whole different way to draw power (with their body as medium)

sorcerer is real make-believe character in pathfinder, saying that in world laws of pathfinder if we imagine someone says i am a sorcerer i can cast very specific spells i never herd of by persuading myself, everyone would think junkie or loony :D

lets be honest, most plays happen in range of 1 to 10 levels, where levels 5-7 are probably most played levels after 1-5, and sorcerer gets few spells, that he doesn't need to prepare, basically easy to play compared to wizard, and thats the whole reason for existence of this class, and in 2e its even worse because now sorcerer works as simplified version of every caster class

For me kinetics would be a sorcerer with believable mechanics with some elemental bloodline, and what i am saying that i wouldn't mind if sorcerer would be completely erased in condition it is, and switched with kineticist who in turn would be expanded using various bloodlines to give them more domains/elements to shape or infuse with.
Like for instance sorcerer of some angelic bloodline would get to use positive energy, also maybe fire/radiant that he could shape with infusions and get talents connected with it, kinda like cleric channeling where he gets variation in use of the same thing.
That way he could actually feel as descendant of an angel, dragon and so on

to me kineticist was never an avatar meme, it was what sorcerer should be, drawing magic from their birthright and shaping them intuitively, a natural blaster.
Rather then clunky sorcerer that somehow knows wizard designer spells that are manufactured by wizards, learned and quite specific in their wording, and doing that by persuading their bodies with charisma?
In fantasy we tend do believe in impossible, but only when impossible makes some sense, and sorcerer never made sense to me, it always felt to me like a wizard made for lazy people.

So actually I wouldn't mind if sorcerer was erased and replaced with kineticist with some of their features combined, for instance bloodline predetermines your 'elements', so 'elements' could be expanded to acid, mind affecting and so on, this would put some sense into both sorcerers being a natural casters, and holes in kineticists backstory

what if instead of taking nonlethal damage for each burn, you get -1 to fortitude saves, replicating you are getting physically weaker.
It would be much easier to keep track of, and you would not get shift in HP every round you use burn making you calculate hp, but you would get more susceptible to fortitude attacks.
Similarly how the psychokineticist would have will saves reduced

sorcerers are flawed design that was leftover from 3.5 that screws up balance. It donesnt even make sense, i.e. using charisma to cast, even tho the ability has come to them through their blood.
The biggest issue with sorcerer is since it uses wizard, or now bard, druid and cleric spell lists it will be either better choice or worst choice depending on design because essentially you cant have 2 classes doing same things and be od same effectiveness, one will always be a more optimal choice.

What should be done is combine sorcerer bloodlines with kineticist mechanics, into a sorcerer that makes sense, that would make it the unique class of its own that really shapes its raw magic intuitively, and the magic ability they get is really tied to their bloodline.
You would have an element, magical powers, and mechanics of a kineticist, coupled with bloodline features and powers of a sorcerer, i.e with gold dragon bloodline you would control fire like kineticist, but also can grow claws or wings or have a fire breath

I always felt that charisma as a casting stat for a class that gets its power from bloodline is so out of the place, and doesn't make sense, what are you persuading your red blood cells to grant you power? lol
Charisma makes sense for DND warlock, or someone with some kind of all powerful patron like cleric, actually it makes more sense for a cleric then wisdom, but for sorcerer it doesn't make sense in any way

It should be a constitution, it makes perfect sense, how much you can extort your body and natural gift to cast. Sorcerer as an idea always struck me as a physical caster, someone who drains his vitality to cast, this is why I never played sorcerer, could not ever put that having sunny personality is somehow required to having innate supernatural powers, and that having high charisma always pigeonholes you to be guy with a silver tongue, which is actually as mentioned before more a requirement for being a priest and gaining people to follow your god, spreading the word of god, which god rewards with giving you more power, and thus charisma.

This change alone would put sorcerer into more gishish idea, this would be a good baseline for an actual sorcerer that makes sense

duje wrote:

I have a nice idea how would i fix INT

Put INT mod into every skill check in addition, and for INT based skills you double the mod.

I mean, it makes sense, IQ helps with everything we do in real life, so why not in fantasy. Yeah, you need to be charismatic to persuade someone, but being smart in addition helps as well, and you can say this about any other skill, even things like athletics, have you ever heard a phrase that grappling is like a chess game

Its really easy and quick solution that makes INT a valuable stat, especially for skill monkeys, and makes INT a prime skill stat

As much as I want Int to be buffed to useful, this sounds way overpowered.

well INT is OP in real life, that is why humans dominate :D

Maybe if you lost extra trained skills for it, it would make it more balanced, trained skills are determined by your class and level progression.
It makes more sense too, training in skills requires time and dedication, not intelligence, however if you are genius you can pretty much wing it at any skill just by your own wits, and as i said before, no matter how charismatic person is, if he is dumb he is going to have hard time persuading anybody so having INT influence every skill is kinda realistic.

So INT mod to skills, while INT does not get you more trained skills, makes it more balanced and fixes INT
That would make classes like wizard more immersive, so he gets few skills like arcana, but he is really good at it, it makes sense because wizard dedicated his life to studying arcana to become a wizard in a first place, however, because he is smart, even tho he has not worked much in other skill, he is a friking genius that surely saw somebody do it before, so he wings it better than others

Other stats have modifiers as well, so if he is 8 STR he would get malus to athletics, and bonus from inteligence and malus if he is untrained as well, so it evens up

I have a nice idea how would i fix INT

Put INT mod into every skill check in addition, and for INT based skills you double the mod.

I mean, it makes sense, IQ helps with everything we do in real life, so why not in fantasy. Yeah, you need to be charismatic to persuade someone, but being smart in addition helps as well, and you can say this about any other skill, even things like athletics, have you ever heard a phrase that grappling is like a chess game

Its really easy and quick solution that makes INT a valuable stat, especially for skill monkeys, and makes INT a prime skill stat

duje wrote:

does it really matter what used to be true, it's a new system, and you get to put 4 boosts of +2 at scores lower than 18, while before you got +1 to one.

Abilities scores are more available in 2ed.
And it makes more sense if your profession requires to lug a bunch of stuff all the time, you would naturally get stronger
One thing I didn't check if STR influence throwing range, if it doesn't I think a nice change to strength would be STR mod to range, like 5 ft per mod.
So for instance with +1 to strenght you could throw 5 ft further, +2 str 10 ft, but with -1 str you get 5 ft less.

Yes, it does matter what used to be true. Because it was true. IT was a thing we had. Now we don't have that and we're... supposed to be happy? I never get this.

Oh wow, Ability scores are more available. We really need that as we want Basically everything that isn't CHA. Congrats, we're back to dumping CHA for a stat. This time it's just STR. Yay?

duje wrote:

on alchemist, str makes sense, and especially compared to wis, because doing stuff that can get you killed, like drinking the experimental stuff, and mixing bombs and poisons is not something a wise person would do.

Also alchemist is not a caster ist a kinda martial class that uses usable items well

So you're fine with getting mind controlled or feared or paralyzed or hit with a mental effect because you thought to dump WIS because alchemists aren't Wise people? Wow your team must love having to deal with that.

We aren't a martial unless we go Mutagen and even then we're subpar. We are a storage shed on legs in PF2.

alchemist in 1st ed was a clumsily put together, it was a mishmash of many things, I think 2nd edition put more tought to it to make it distinct, so yes its a good thing that we lost some nonsensical stuff.

I am also not against classes getting weaknesses, you need strength to carry stuff and throw stuff, and getting low wisdom on some crazy chemist that can go boom seems appropriate, and since you are in your basement making and using drugs, you will not naturally be a social beast.
But yeah, you can make background of an charismatic and wise alchemist, but to get that you will sacrifice your ability to be more effective crazy scientist, its simple as that

I would also say, requiring 14 str is silly as hell class idea.

The class should allow for Int Dex/str con/wis priority. That way they can decide if they want to be more ranged or not.
getting 12 str is pretty easy no matter the build.
but, with the way stat arrays work, it is pretty easy to end up with a race-background combination for your story that won't allow for the spare points.

My alchemist, human, pathfinder hopeful, could get 14 16 10 16 12 10 array fairly easily. But, if i had different combo it becomes much harder. I ended up with 12, 16, 10 18 12 10 for the character story.
(also. I wanted more INT because of the character story--honestly INT gives surprisingly little for Alchemists..which is why I suggested INT modifier determine how much you make in ADV Alch per RP).

my alchemist is a thrower, so he will get more str at lv 5 of course, but if i was using a crossbow or bow, I would loath putting more points into str just to use my base class skills. (i think its fine to require str to carry more "choices" i.e. tool kits, repair kits, etc, things you went out of you way to want). But. it is very bad, almost unforgivable to require any stat for the class to work, that is NOT its' class stat (INT for alchemist). Much less when none of its class skills actually push close range preference and a lot involve throwing bombs or other dex based things. (hence using knifes for finesse to hit)

Note: i don't count Con or Wis (for non casters) in the "class requires it" context. Because those are base character values (will save, hp/fort save)

on alchemist, str makes sense, and especially compared to wis, because doing stuff that can get you killed, like drinking the experimental stuff, and mixing bombs and poisons is not something a wise person would do.

Also alchemist is not a caster ist a kinda martial class that uses usable items well

duje wrote:

well, the flavour of the alchemist is that he lugs around lots of items he uses, so STR should not be a dump stat.

In if you think Alchemist should not look muscular, then you are plain wrong, mutagens are basically fantasy steroids, and the whole shtick of using enhancement drugs is the flavour of alchemist :D

Starting at 14 str mostly solves this issue, you don't have to have INT 18, I feel 16 is more optimized, as on first stat bump you'll go from 16 to 18 rather than 18 to 19, and your strength will go from 14 to 16 allowing for more carry.

As an alchemist, you'll probably want to bump str, dex, con and int.

As a side note, I don't consider bulk purely as an abstraction of weight, but rather weight and volume combined, as in you can pretty tightly fit 10 arrows together, but not 10 potions

See Bomber Alchemist didn't really need STR in PF1. Or support. It was mainly MR Hyde or close combat Alchemists that needed it.

Now, WE ALL Do. That or spend some cash on a porter/pack animal or get the other party members to carry part of it. It's not a dump stat but looking at the new system you also can't just leave it at 10 either, it needs to be buffed. And as a side note we're only Trained in will so maybe also raise our WIS too so we don't get mind controlled and carpet bomb the party.

We aren't Monk levels of MAD but we could really use stat ups in EVERYTHING.

Other note, it really depends on just how you word/describe the potions. If the potions are in metal testing tubes, or syringes yeah you can fit those pretty tightly. But if it's closer to..., for the sake of picturing it, those mini soda cans; then yeah it's harder to carry 10 of those around even if you bind them together.

This creates a bit of visual/mental problem that 10 loose potions carried on your person have the same bulk as 10 potions placed into a box, placed at the bottom of your backpack. It might BE true but it feels off.

does it really matter what used to be true, it's a new system, and you get to put 4 boosts of +2 at scores lower than 18, while before you got +1 to one.

One thing I didn't check if STR influence throwing range, if it doesn't I think a nice change to strength would be STR mod to range, like 5 ft per mod.
So for instance with +1 to strenght you could throw 5 ft further, +2 str 10 ft, but with -1 str you get 5 ft less.

well, the flavour of the alchemist is that he lugs around lots of items he uses, so STR should not be a dump stat.
In if you think Alchemist should not look muscular, then you are plain wrong, mutagens are basically fantasy steroids, and the whole shtick of using enhancement drugs is the flavour of alchemist :D

Starting at 14 str mostly solves this issue, you don't have to have INT 18, I feel 16 is more optimized, as on first stat bump you'll go from 16 to 18 rather than 18 to 19, and your strength will go from 14 to 16 allowing for more carry.

As an alchemist, you'll probably want to bump str, dex, con and int.

As a side note, I don't consider bulk purely as an abstraction of weight, but rather weight and volume combined, as in you can pretty tightly fit 10 arrows together, but not 10 potions

well, you can up your odds with flanking, tripping, buffs from pots or clerics and various feats, martials don't need to use spell slots, while casters can only use use spells depending on how many times did they prepared it.
That being said, casters need that on failure effects, because its usually one-shot thing, martials can use their best attacks all the time, so yeah, you are completely wrong, and don't have any understanding about balance

also if there is no backline, like mages or archers, high mobility lets them get into flanking positions easy, and if engaged in combat while flanking flowchart would be, something(stance, ki power, grapple..) + flurry + assist(cooperative human will get it at -6 + flank).
This can be done with every monk no matter the build.

Zorae, for me it seems monks have different builds now, rather than good stuff and cool stuff, and I am sure they will get more options on release.
Even stuff like catching arrows and throwing them back is really useful if you play smart and know your role.
So you go against archers and mages primarily or providing flanking and assists, you will be usually targeted by archers since you will be closest, and with your mobility, you can position yourself to get a screening with the enemy you engage, which means you can capitalize on those second or third ranged attacks against you

Monks IMO are class that I assume to play as backfield disruptors, 2 strides and flurry which gives you lots of mobility without losing damage.
They also have feats that deal with grappling, teleporting, leaps and some self-heals, which to me also confirms the idea of mage killers, get in and lock down a problematic enemy while being separated from rest of the group that is engaged in the main melee.

they are not frontline fighters, and they are not rogues, they are class that specializes in high mobility to deal with key backline enemies

heavy armour on paladin lets you focus more on str, con, cha and wis(for will saves), and you get legendary prof which completely trumps medium armour, yeah you are clumsy, but you are not sneak thief but self healing tank

I am disappoint. I thought you were going to say that druid had to break their oath by teaching a non-druid (technically a pre-Druid, but that still isn't a Druid) the secret Druidic language in order for a Level 1 Druid to know it.

The reasoning for why Druids can't wear metal armour (as I see it): Sure, Iron Ore comes from the Earth, it's natural. Do you wear chunks of Iron Ore as armor? No, of course not. It stops being natural when you use artifice to melt the ore from the stones, then smelt the refined iron into steel, then forge the steel into armour.

On a related note, I preferred when Druids couldn't use metal weapons either, for consistency. I can see why they relaxed that for ease of game, but it does make the armour aspect seem out of place.

I guess you as druid learn druidic language when you are dedicated to become one, teaching druidic language to a person who is not going to be a druid is anathema.

All armours are made from processed materials, so thing about metal being processed, ie heated and shaped doesn't hold water in principle compared to making cloth or hide

duje wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

duje wrote:

Real shields were not actually sturdy, because it was beneficial for the sword to bite in your shield because that way you trap the sword and disarm the other guy.

Shields were basically one-time use items, in battles if you had any action, you would probably need to replace parts of your shield afterwards, maybe even just boss would be all that is left.

[Citation Needed]

This guy, who wrote an entire book about shields, says otherwise.

well he is wrong, when shields were most used, i.e they were common armament. they were very thin, especially at the edges, as many survived shields of the era show, they were not made heavy.

Only later in full plate era, we see metal shields and heavy wooden shields with metal around the edges, those were also much smaller because added thickness and material made them heavy.
Those shields were made for minority of full plate guys fighting against hammers and polearms, they are vastly inferior against swords than those before, but because full plate makes you invulnerable to swords it doesn't matter how good they are against edged weapons.

What matters is context, now i dont think an RPG should be that complex to go that much into realism, because basically to kill someone in full plate you need to knock them out by hitting them in the head with high impact force weapon then finish them while they are out, or wrestle them to the ground, open visor and dagger to the face.
Chainmail makes you immune to slashing and resistant to piercing when worn with gambeson as it should be, but maces break bones through them...
Or successfully catching a sword with a large thin shield would give you disarm, and million other minutia

You are so completely and fundamentally wrong it's not even funny. If shields were even half as fragile as you're trying to claim, they would never have been as prevalent in battle as they were...

no i am not wrong at all, that was a fun video made in colab with joerg, mostly for entertaining purposes to compare wooden shield to modern riot shields if i remember correctly.

Here is the same guy using real shield replica, with same wood, same glue, same construction as originals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7M3vAmGeiQ

thats the part one, starts with making of the shield itself, then they go into using it in combat in part 3

duje wrote:

Real shields were not actually sturdy, because it was beneficial for the sword to bite in your shield because that way you trap the sword and disarm the other guy.

Shields were basically one-time use items, in battles if you had any action, you would probably need to replace parts of your shield afterwards, maybe even just boss would be all that is left.

[Citation Needed]

This guy, who wrote an entire book about shields, says otherwise.

well he is wrong, when shields were most used, i.e they were common armament. they were very thin, especially at the edges, as many survived shields of the era show, they were not made heavy.

Only later in full plate era, we see metal shields and heavy wooden shields with metal around the edges, those were also much smaller because added thickness and material made them heavy.
Those shields were made for minority of full plate guys fighting against hammers and polearms, they are vastly inferior against swords than those before, but because full plate makes you invulnerable to swords it doesn't matter how good they are against edged weapons.

What matters is context, now i dont think an RPG should be that complex to go that much into realism, because basically to kill someone in full plate you need to knock them out by hitting them in the head with high impact force weapon then finish them while they are out, or wrestle them to the ground, open visor and dagger to the face.
Chainmail makes you immune to slashing and resistant to piercing when worn with gambeson as it should be, but maces break bones through them...
Or successfully catching a sword with a large thin shield would give you disarm, and million other minutia

To be fair, even if blocking minions is mechanically useful, that use is not how we imagine or expect shields to be used.

And while if we think about the physics, it has some similarity to how they work in real life (anything taking the blow would take the damage), real shields would have higher hardness values, and probably higher block values too.

if we go by realism, beating the AC means that a hit has gone through an opening of your armour, or you failed a dodge/parry it if you aren't wearing any, as you are automatically taking damage, what shield does with increasing your AC is making a harder time for your opponent to find weakness in a fight if you are actively using it to defend.

Real shields were not actually sturdy, because it was beneficial for the sword to bite in your shield because that way you trap the sword and disarm the other guy.
Shields were basically one-time use items, in battles if you had any action, you would probably need to replace parts of your shield afterwards, maybe even just boss would be all that is left.
Even in rules of some judicial duels, you would have 3 shields in your disposal, and if all 3 break you lose.
Shields were not some cumbersome heavy barnyard door, they were light as they can be and specialized to go against weapons

duje wrote:

block damage that is below your hardness, and from rase shield action you get AC bonus.

Shield is not made to take big hits, rather with a bonus to AC and negating damage up to its hardness, its more of anti-attrition tool rather than anti spike-damage tool.

So with shield, those 3 or 5 damages that you periodically block save you a lot of life over time. Only occasionally is smart to block big damage, if that would save you from going down, a party is low on healing and sacrificing shield is a good idea in that moment

I actually find it funny how people who don't understand mechanics very well, or are not intelligent enough to see that even 5 hardness shield is not anti-spike tool, treat it as such and demand its uselessness because of it

How often is it going to be remotely useful though? Take a light shield. It has Hardness 3. Only blowguns have a damage die below 1d4, which means with no damage bonus at all all but the absolute weakest weapon in the game has a 50/50 chance of denting a light shield. With a +1 damage mod a 1d4 weapon now has a 75% chance of denting a light shield, and with a +2 damage bonus it's guaranteed to dent it (with a 25% chance of breaking it).

But let's look at a Heavy shield instead. Hardness is up to 5, so yeah that dagger or whatever won't get through it on its own, and doesn't reach 50/50 until a +2 damage bonus (because that's so hard to get, right?) Let's step up one size though, now we've got a 1d6 weapon, which people might actually use as a primary weapon. Flat, it has a 33% chance to dent your shield. At +1 damage, it's up to 50/50. At +2 damage it's now at 66% chance to dent, and at +3 you'd only be able to block a min-damage blow without taking a dent. And of course this is just flat worse with d8, d10, or Gods forbid d12 weapons.

Let's go a few levels, say level 5. You've now got an Expert shield. Light Hardness 4, or Heavy 6. Meanwhile your foes have +1 weapons. Let's see how long that Hardness 4 or 6 lasts against...

with shield block, you take reaction AFTER THE DAMAGE IS ROLLED so you know is it worth it to block or not.

block damage that is below your hardness, and from rase shield action you get AC bonus.

Shield is not made to take big hits, rather with a bonus to AC and negating damage up to its hardness, its more of anti-attrition tool rather than anti spike-damage tool.

So with shield, those 3 or 5 damages that you periodically block save you a lot of life over time. Only occasionally is smart to block big damage, if that would save you from going down, a party is low on healing and sacrificing shield is a good idea in that moment

I actually find it funny how people who don't understand mechanics very well, or are not intelligent enough to see that even 5 hardness shield is not anti-spike tool, treat it as such and demand its uselessness because of it