Winter-Touched Sprite

graystone's page

Organized Play Member. 9,673 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,673 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Agree with paper, clashing combos actually sound interesting.In general I just felt like curses like Legalistic or Vampirism are a lot more interesting than Lame.

I got to play with quite a few of them: Cold-Blooded, Covetous, Deep One, Infested, Shadowbound, Shattered Psyche and Toxic Blood were the 'odd' one's I've gotten to play and they were pretty fun. Shattered Psyche was especially fun as I was a samsaran that had all her past reincarnations aware and talking in her head: played a Psychic Searcher [lore] and the various other selves were what gave me my Inspiration. We had a blast, with different personalities popping in to comment when their skills were needed.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
If you take the sorcerer dedication then retrain out of it, you just ran out of whatever specialness was in your blood and now you have normal blood.

But you can retrain back, hence you never lost the potential: the magic is still there, it just needs activated.

As to "ineligible", you're never 100% that. If I'm not mistaken, there are items that grant stat numbers like the belt of strength I think. You just have to put one on and you can retrain to gain it.

My point is, the magic is there for anyone to activate it: it isn't has or doesn't but activated or not. If it was there or not, it wouldn't be an option for everyone at 1st... but even the dwarf with an 8 cha can take it with no special requirements because everyone has the potential. ;)


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I could see tying together curse and mystery by either saying what curses a given mystery must choose from, or what mysteries a given curse is available to. But I don't think "all bones oracles have this curse, all battle oracles have that curse, etc" would be good.

It could be possible to combine curses with mysteries by a thematic link: for instance link bone with brittle bones [Consumed] or stiff joints/bone spurs [lame]. I can see the benefits as this would sped up creation [one less option]. That said, I'd rather see more options from their being separate options.

Squiggit wrote:
I do think curses could be more integrated into the rest of the class

Do you have any ideas how you'd like to see that done? I'm curious to see what you're thinking to expand it.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I like the idea of the new medium learning the names (or whatever) of more spirits as they gain in power (i.e. level). So accessing a spirit can be a function of either "being in precisely the right place for that spirit" or "having previous relationship with the spirit in question."

Biggest problem with the class was you need to rely on the GM's permission to access spirits a la "is there an old battlefield around here?"

Myself, I pretty much disliked the entire class: Dm fiat for access was just the icing on the cake. If they do it again, I'd rather see them just dump location requirement for more general ones and present spirits like templates: a quick straightforward list of 'add this' and 'subtract that' like a big buff spell. Add a focus ability with heightened section and done. [a generic focus ability that powers any spirit's power: ie, one focus power the first power listed under the spirit, 2 powers the second...]


Squiggit wrote:
graystone wrote:
Adding fantasy to the game brings with it the "unnatural" by definition.

It always struck me as a little weird that people seemed okay with my Fighter jumping off a cliff and surviving a mile long fall with no meaningful injury, wrestling a creature many times its size to the ground and taking literally dozens of bullets to the chest without even slowing down as a matter of course.

But the moment I wanted to do something other than stand in one spot and full attack the sky is falling.

Yep. The game is set in a world of magic and we know everyone has magic in their blood* so it's seems odd to mire some classes in the boring reality we live in here.

* What I mean by this is every creature that can take levels could have picked sorcerer and/or multiclassed into it and sorcerer has magic in the blood. Hence, it exists in everyone. Boiling it down, everyone is capable of producing magic effects from their own magic blood.

Deadmanwalking: As for "throwing out named attacks", I don't recall a NEED to yell out those attacks. Naming the attacks in game is just for ease of use: it isn't any different from sneak attack where you don't have to YELL sneak attack to do it and different people in world might even call it different things; the thing i liked the best about 4e is the infinite ability to refluff. As long as the mechanics stayed the same, everything else was up for grabs. So one persons magic missiles could be someone elses cucumbers of doom. Or maybe it's their unnamed spell #6.


Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Even then, the Racket's toolkit is full of sneaks, thievery and flavouring of the grimy underworld.

Does it? What about a flourish and a misdirect then following it up with an attack [sneak attack] doesn't sound like a swashbuckling celebrity or noble? Or a hidden blade for a cult leader? As far as thievery and underworld? nothing you are required to take and neither seems like it can't happen for a "cult leader, celebrity or Noble". Nothing about the rogue class forces you to sneak around the city, backstabbing people so you can rob them and then sell that loot to your criminal organization. Rogue fits the debonair actor, the adventuring noble and the master of an underground secret society just fine IMO.

It works just fine IMO thematically. From then playtest: "While the stereotypical rogue is a thief or scoundrel, plenty of rogues make respectable and honorable livings as bounty hunters, detectives, or scouts, and even sometimes as aristocrats, diplomats, or politicians." Note "aristocrats, diplomats, or politicians" can be rogues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
The standard parade of idiots and weaklings as professional adventurers has been baffling for thirty years now.

I don't really see how turning the barbarians mental stats from 10 to 8 is changing him from normal to idiot... Does turning a stat from 10 to 12 make them a genius or strong level? IMO, an 8 stat isn't something to bemoan as too subpar to adventure with in a non key or secondary stat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
IT was in the OP post.

Thank you! With 30 posts above it, without a quote or name it it wasn't clicking with me. :)

Deadmanwalking wrote:
D&D 3.5 and earlier certainly had some anime influences in terms of power level

As far as actual anime, it was the other way around, d&d influenced it. Many, many anime follow the sword and magic of d&d to this day.

As for the rest... I'm not really on board with using anime to describe 'over the top'. Anime covers slice of life and dramas like Heidi, Girl of the Alps or Kare Kano were NO supernatural or over the top elements happen. We don't do the same with american blockbusters like john wick, the matrix or avatar do we?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's thus reasonable to feel that having all of them suddenly doing that is unnatural

In a world with demons/gods/fey lords/elemental lord and a host of various other divine level creatures tossing around curses/blessings/powers/spells/ect... It kind of DOES seem unreasonable when a lot of things boil down to 'a wizard did it'. We aren't playing a WW2 reenactment with realism at the forefront. Adding fantasy to the game brings with it the "unnatural" by definition. Other game have the grim/gritty realism factor missing from d&d.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I feel we could really use a full on diplomacy-based class that ISN'T magical.

For cha based non-magic classes I think rogues have a racket that's cha based: That and it's getting so many skill feats I could see it as one you could easily focus on diplomacy.

Now if you're looking for non-magic buffs, I don't know. The game is based on just about everything being a spell. You'd most likely need a skill feat to gain such an ability and rogue is looking good for that.


CorvusMask wrote:
I'm kind of confused by insistence of claiming manga/anime as unnatural :p

I'm kind of confused about who you're talking to. Are you posting in the right thread?


Paul Watson wrote:
graystone wrote:


"Laws of Mortality": A quick search for this comes up with nothing, only Laws of Man. Was this just changed?
Yes. It was mentioned as part of the Goldm Road blog.

AH, no wonder it didn't show up anywhere. Thanks.

PS: You seemed to have tripped the profanity filter, so you might want to edit that out while you have the chance.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Per James Jacobs (I asked him in the "Ask James Jacobs" thread) it's impossible to combine Rahadoumi atheism and "being a druid" FWIW.

That doesn't invalidate anything I said though. #1 if an archetype is made by Paizo the elements in it would be legal. So if they made that archetype, they'd have a way to make it work. #2 we're talking about what would invalidate the identity of the class. Being able to gain spells/domains doesn't require a god or divine being so it doesn't require the traditional worshiping of a god/deity now.

As to James comments, that's not reflected in what's printed. It clearly says god or divine being. Either Green Faith needs an update to make it a god/divine being or the Law needs an amendment to include divine ideas.

As to RAI, he'd be the one to ask but I'd like to hear why he said that. I see nothing in the Law against divine spells or having divine abilities: everything is tied to worshiping a deific being in return for that power. "Under the Laws of Man, all demonstrations of faith, in a deity are banned within Rahadoum under the principle that divine aid comes at too high a price—a seductive form of indentured servitude that extend even after divorced from a deific patron, aren’t banded, though their practitioners are often suspected of secret religious leanings." With no "deific patron" to worship or tempt you there is no price under the law/philosophy.

"Laws of Mortality": A quick search for this comes up with nothing, only Laws of Man. Was this just changed?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Polytheism, worshiping nature, etc. are still religions. Not the same What I'm saying is that they should under no condition print a Rahadoum specific archetype for "Cleric of the Laws of Mortality"* or something like that.

I'd have no issue with that archetype: the old PF1 cleric could do it without an archetype: dedication to a divine concept worthy of devotion. An ideal vs a religion. In a similar way, Green Faith "is a naturalistic philosophy based on the belief that natural forces are worthy of attention and respect." That sounds more like concept/idea than deity worship/religion.

Maybe we're stumbling over semantics.

*I assume you mean the laws of man. It's technically possible to be a cleric that follows the laws of man. "Let no man be beholden to a god": It "forbid[s] anyone from worshiping any god or other divine being", but it's possible to gain power other ways: again, green faith grants domains/spells without a deity. In Golarion, you just need to find a similar force that clerics can take and outside it following an idea doesn't violate it.


I've been thinking and I wouldn't mind some 'unbalanced' 'races' to fill in for the variable points you used to have for point buys. For instance Low Fantasy, Standard Fantasy, High Fantasy and Epic Fantasy ones. They wouldn't even have to be new 'races' per se: for instance humans gain x for high fantasy or epic fantasy dwarves gain y.

I know for myself, I often had games that didn't use the standard points, so it'd be nice to be able to do so again: I don't know how popular the options would be though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

As much as I enjoy arguing with graystone I have to agree with her.

I will probably do quite a bit of house ruleing to let characters make + items with skills. I like the flavor better.

*hug* I enjoy our debates too. ;)


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Regardless of how the Oracle is done, I do not think they should print any class archetypes for the Cleric which allow for "an irreligious cleric" or any class archetypes for the Sorcerer which do not have special blood.

For the sorcerer, almost anything magic tied to blood: want to make a magic blacksmithing variant, you have metal in your blood. A planar variant, you have planar energy in your blood.

For the cleric, we already have Polytheistic Blessing [like juju wendo], Pantheistic Blessing [groups of deities], Green Faith [nature], demons, oni, ect... Heck, the PF1 cleric had an identity and didn't have to be "devoted to a particular deity": "a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction".

As such, I don't see either of those as off-limits IMO.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Partly because I think I was kind of rude in my earlier post

You seemed passionate about it but you didn't seem rude IMO.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
partly because I wanted to make my case a bit more thoroughly

Yes, I got a better picture of what you're talking about with the new post. You're looking for a more direct port of the class than I'm thinking of. I don't really have a preference myself, I'm just thinking either way could work.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
So, my one real issue with this line of logic is why don’t we just roll Barbarian and Champion into Fighter Archetypes then?

I think you've got the wrong impression from what I posted: I stated that I thought there was a way you COULD make it using the sorcerer and make it work using the existing logic. I never said it SHOULD be done that way.

As to the rest, I'm not advocating ANY route: There is ALWAYS going to be a debate which class should be an archetype or class or subclass. I don't see a right or wrong side. Where you see lost identity, another can still see it clearly. We have to evaluate each in it's new environment and not assume that all the past feature will make as new features. We have to figure out in instances like this how much overlap makes it easier to to use an existing class. If 90% is the same? 80%. Is a single unique feature is all the difference is that enough for a class? Two? It's not as simple as 'make everything a new class'.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
For me, the fact that sorcerers use their literal blood to cast magic sharply delimits the character concepts the class is capable of covering. At the very least, a class arcehtype would be needed to carve that out and replace it with other fluff, probably the rules for curses in this case.

I'm not sure why oracles can't have a curse in their blood and they use that to cast magic: basically instead of a [insert race] in their blood, a curse in their blood. Doesn't seem like much if any refluffing needed. Revelation powers and bloodline powers doesn't seem like a big jump in fluff either [a curse gave it to me vs a [insert race's magic] gave it to me]. Curse feats fundamentally the same as bloodline feats.

Pretty much cursed bloodlines fixes fluff issues IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
graystone wrote:
PFSocietyInitiate wrote:
Three classes I'd like to see added into the game in a similar being to cavalier was in the playtest would be pirate, ninja and samurai
So if they are archetypes, are you saying I could be a pirate ninja? Now we NEED to have an android 'race' so I can be a pirate, ninja, robot. ;)
Make a Barbarian and add Viking to the list

I can just call my barbarian a viking for that: pirate + barbarian pretty much equals a viking IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
graystone wrote:
You find it "intuitive" to be told what stats to prioritize in step 3, after you've already placed bonuses in your stats twice before that point? Cool if you do, but I don't agree.
Step 1 of the process is "choose your concept" and at in the playtest book that section contains an overview of all the major class options and what stats are relevant to them.

That's cool but I didn't think it went into the subsets:

Alchemist says key Intelligence, secondary Constitution, Dexterity.

The subsets say
Chirurgeons Prioritize Intelligence and Wisdom. Constitution increases your survivability, and Dexterity helps you hit with ranged attacks when violence is necessary
Bomber Prioritize Intelligence and Dexterity. Constitution helps you survive explosions gone wrong, and Wisdom prevents you from bombing the wrong target
Mutagenist Prioritize Intelligence and Strength.

So depending on your subset, you might want to look at str, dex, con, int, or wisdom and that's not something you get from that section in the playtest concept section. A mutagenist might have no strength added by the class section and the other two might not have any wisdom.


thejeff wrote:
But that's kind of the point

Yep, agreed: Just interesting how much of it hinges on tactics. For it all to fall in place, it assumes one side holds back and the other doesn't. In situations were the balance shifts one way or the other, I'd be tempted to cut the experience reward: If the wizard novas, uses every spell and goes to take a siesta, in the 4 to 1 situation I'd cut the experience by 1/4th to compensate. Seems an easier method than a timer all the time or something similar. This added in with some improved tactics from monsters when they continually return to the same place again and again should even things out.


PFSocietyInitiate wrote:
Three classes I'd like to see added into the game in a similar being to cavalier was in the playtest would be pirate, ninja and samurai

So if they are archetypes, are you saying I could be a pirate ninja? Now we NEED to have an android 'race' so I can be a pirate, ninja, robot. ;)


thejeff wrote:
graystone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Novaing in every fight is a meta-game problem.
LOL Doesn't novaing every round make you like the average NPC/monster in the average adventure? ;)
It does. But it makes more sense for them most of the time.

Oh I understand. I just find it interesting that the two are expected to use different tactics but they are thought of as equally 'tough'. In CR terms, they are the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Novaing in every fight is a meta-game problem.

LOL Doesn't novaing every round make you like the average NPC/monster in the average adventure? ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Edit: Removed post after some thought. Edge93 was right, this is all a big derail. Rysky, I'll just agree to disagree and everyone can go back to talking about 2 flaws for a boost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
graystone wrote:
It's an issue as it involves hits and crits for a weapon user.
You're moving goalposts.
Quote:
When I think of bandit or highway man I don't think 'inept with weapons' when compared to the rest of the group.
Having a 10 strength doesn't make you inept with weapons, especially if you're a Fighter.
graystone wrote:
Now he want a cool big sword so he picks a longsword... He's not looking too good at using that sword and likely be disappointed with the results. Especially if they are standing next to someone else wanted a hulk type person and took all str every step on a human barbarian.

So the impression of how well the fighter was hitting WAS my goalpost and is also setting the stage for FEELING inept along side the barbarian [note, I said he feels inept compared to the barbarian].

And if we're talking about people that understand how the stats themselves work as edge posted, it's not as issue as I was posting someone picking stats that sounded good without understanding them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
None of this has anything to do with what's being discussed. You started this tangent in response to someone say that you basically don't need to know the details of the stat gen system before making a character. This 10 Str Barbarian you're using as example isn't someone not knowing about statgen beforehand, it's someone not knowing anything about the stats themselves, which no one was talking about.

If it's not about not knowing about the underlying system, then I agree there really isn't anything to debate. If that's the case, I made a mistake: when he said "Complete newbies", maybe I read too much into that. A lot of people went along with me though if this has been a wild goose chase and not what he meant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Do we know this to be true, or it a guess?

I don't recall any mention of tools changing, for instance. With people watching the games played online and such, I'd think magic tools would have caught someone's attention. But, lets assume plus items are all magic, there's all the other crafts that didn't get a plus in anything: why can't they be really well made in the same way to draw out something magical.

Secondly, we were talking about both items and weapons/armor but when Mark posted, he specified weapons and armor. I guess he could be limiting what he said to what was found out but if that's the case, why mention armor?

Thirdly, this all goes back to a post:

Deadmanwalking wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So the difference between "a really well made sword" and "a magic sword" means less than it ever did, I feel.
This really depends on whether people can make magic swords without a specific Skill Feat, IMO. If they can, then yeah, it's purely aesthetic. If they can't, then you need to be able to make all sorts of magic items to make good swords, which seems wrong.

We've been debating the 'what if people can make magic swords without a specific Skill Feat' and the ramifications of that are. We're not even 100% sure you don't need a feat to make +1's.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
learning the rituals to make them magical is part of the formula to craft them.

So when you learn the pattern for a normal sword it included the ritual for making it +1? or do you learn a pattern letter for a +1 sword? And if you learn a +1 sword do you have to learn another pattern to make a +1 axe?

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Well, per the playtest rules if you have expert crafting and magical crafter

Well if they need magic crafter, then I have no issues. My issue would be with every weapon/armor smith getting a version of it for free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
And that’s only an issue if the first player was only concerned with making a character that almost always hits. They weren’t, their thought process was they wanted to make a bandit.

It's an issue as it involves hits and crits for a weapon user. Dropping hits 20% [vs the other player] is much more of a difference between hits and almost always hits, and isn't something apparent when you don't understand the underlying rules but in play. When I think of bandit or highway man I don't think 'inept with weapons' when compared to the rest of the group. This was all about being able to make a character without worrying about viability: I don't think the bandit making players is going to feel that their character plays or feel well and I feel that's an issue.

I think the player should at least know the basic of that things do and what stats are important to that type of character. Grabbing random bonuses is just asking, imo, for issues.

Albatoonoe wrote:
If you follow things intuitively, the character will turn out fine.

You find it "intuitive" to be told what stats to prioritize in step 3, after you've already placed bonuses in your stats twice before that point? Cool if you do, but I don't agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So I don't think it's totally reasonable to presume that someone around is capable of supplying such wisdom as "Alchemists are supposed to be intelligent, Barbarians are supposed to be strong, ..., make sure you increase your most important stat whenever you can."

I guess this is the main value of doing the class step first since it forces you to choose: "Am I a dextrous monk, or a strong monk?" which informs the rest of your choices.

The premise was "Complete newbies don't need to know anything about the rules to generate scores. They get boosts based on the kind of character they want to play rather than assigning scores to make their concept work.". What you're saying, like "Alchemists are supposed to be intelligent" goes against "rather than assigning scores to make their concept work" which was my point: You kind of have to know what works to assign your score or you can have a bad time.

EDIT: also without knowing the value of the stats, that monk might end up with an 18 str and a 8 dex because they answered 'I want to be a str monk, so I don't need dex...'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
graystone wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
1) Complete newbies don't need to know anything about the rules to generate scores. They get boosts based on the kind of character they want to play rather than assigning scores to make their concept work.
I don't think this is exactly true. If you don't know which stats should go where, you could mess it up pretty good. Someone looks at the names and picks a halfling fighter, cool. He wants to be tough bandit so picks con for race, he picks criminal, sees int and thinks [I don't want to be dumb] and picks con and int. Now he gets to class, remembers his -2 to strength and bumps it up. Now he want a cool big sword so he picks a longsword... He's not looking too good at using that sword and likely be disappointed with the results. Especially if they are standing next to someone else wanted a hulk type person and took all str every step on a human barbarian.
I’m not seeing an issue, the first person didn’t want to make a hulk or berserker, they wanted a bandit so they made a bandit.

One only has a 10 str next to the one that has an 18 str and, since they don't know how the game works, the 10 str doesn't understand why he's hitting so much less than the other guy... It's the danger of picking what sounds cool vs what actually works/fits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
1) Complete newbies don't need to know anything about the rules to generate scores. They get boosts based on the kind of character they want to play rather than assigning scores to make their concept work.

I don't think this is exactly true. If you don't know which stats should go where, you could mess it up pretty good. Someone looks at the names and picks a halfling fighter, cool. He wants to be tough bandit so picks con for race, he picks criminal, sees int and thinks [I don't want to be dumb] and picks con and int. Now he gets to class, remembers his -2 to strength and bumps it up. Now he want a cool big sword so he picks a longsword... He's not looking too good at using that sword and likely be disappointed with the results. Especially if they are standing next to someone else wanted a hulk type person and took all str every step on a human barbarian.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
graystone wrote:


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
The other small gripe...
Yeah, I wondered about the appraise. Can you do it without detect magic? It's a strange combo of quality/magic now. Is there any detectable difference between the +1 and the normal blade other than the magic +1?
On that at least, remember that Detect Magic doesn't actually tell you much about your target. I forget the exact specifics but IIRC the best you get is what school of magic the strongest aura in the area is (with allowance for you to ignore known magic auras IIRC).

This then makes me ask, what school of magic is a +1? ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This can work fine in settings that allow for it, and Golarion is a setting it can work in just fine.

The disconnect for me is that only weapons/armor can become magical from being crafted well: no other items spontaneously does this.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
The other small gripe...

Yeah, I wondered about the appraise. Can you do it without detect magic? It's a strange combo of quality/magic now. Is there any detectable difference between the +1 and the normal blade other than the magic +1?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
So what I'm not seeing acknowledged in this a lot is, are we sure you have to explicitly use magic for these weapons? The impression I got was that it's like "you made your sword so good it's actually magical".

That sounds like semantics. It doesn't really matter HOW it's done if it's a natural progression of the skill and not something external that costs some kind of resource to do. My point has been, if smiths can make things magical because 'they make it so good', why can't EVERY craftsman do so with their own creations?

The whole ritual thing was an effort by another poster on how to think about it but IMO it doesn't make it any better to think that way. [for me at least]

Edge93 wrote:
And failing that, if you have a problem with the whole magic thing, just freaking use the mundane quality variant/flavor and let the magic swordsmith people have their magic swordsmiths.

I don't get to do that. I'm not the Dm and because I play online, I play with a lot of different DM's. I'd have to negotiate a house/optional rule EVERY time I join a new game. It's NOT always as easy as 'well just houserule it if you don't like it'. It's going to be something irksome I have to deal with on a ongoing basis. For instance, if someone plays in PFS and it's the rule there, do you expect them to allow someone to "just freaking use the mundane quality variant/flavor"?

QuidEst wrote:
Personally, I think I’ll have both. Most weapon smiths pick up that little bit of magic because it’s so much easier to magically nudge an arrow in the right direction than to craft a truly flawless bow.

I'd be all for this if it was consistent across all the crafts Can a glass-maker's vial magically nudge itself when thrown to hit someone? Does a paper maker learn to ward his paper from fire? This seems to be a super special smith only ability to grant magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
It's a little dubious to try to argue that crafting magic weapons is "entirely tangential" and "has nothing to do with" crafting weapons.

Because one is a skill and the other involves spells/rituals/ect? And the skill in question doesn't involve magic in any way. Does a high arcana used enough times let you cast spells? Does enough diplomacy checks let my cast charm person? Imtimitate checks let me cast fear? Athletics get me a jump spell? Were talking about a single mundane skill giving a magic effect but none of then others. If enough swings with a hammer teaches you a ritual, why no other skill?

Squiggit wrote:
My point is I don't see how you can be okay with a Sorcerer killing a goblin with a magic missile, leveling up and then learning Fireball but not okay with a Smith gaining experience and learning to craft better weapons as a result.

Nothing illogical, IMO, with learning something new about magic while using magic. I have an issue if you can use a skill enough times to get a non-skill ability or use spells enough to get a non-spell ability, ect.

Squiggit wrote:
It's the same principle and frankly a lot more connected to the core of what the smith is doing than a lot of what an adventurer could worn on a level tick.

I'll agree to disagree: I see no "same principle" and no connecting... It's apples [skills] and oranges [magic].

Squiggit wrote:
Sounds like you wouldn't be a fan of multiclassing then either.

Why? You become a monk [multiclassing] to learn monk abilities... Makes perfect sense. What you're talking about is like multiclassing into fighter [mundane] and getting spells [magic]...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, for PF2 I can just keep track of how many steps I increase a given stat, then multiply it by 2 and add 10 and I'm done.

I thought the same of PF1 point buy... I could keep track in my head. PF2 isn't intuitive for me, so I can see where theflame is coming from.

Edge93 wrote:
This isn't to say your negative experience isn't relevant

I wouldn't say MINE was "negative" per se: I just didn't find it as easy as some seem to find the new system or anywhere close to how easy PF1 was. I can just sympathize with theflame as I can imaging what he's saying: when I experiment with a PF1 character and am trying out different things I can find myself digging through a lot of stuff and having each character building set have stats attached to it would compound that in my eyes. It's 3 parts with mobile pieces that you might want/need to move and shift around: you have to write down your free picks if you aren't sure you're keeping them and have to be aware of optional ones if you end up wanting different stats [maybe it looks like 2 16's look better than a single 18].

PossibleCabbage wrote:
So like for an elf rogue I can do

I think this is were the confusion is coming from between theflame and some of the other posters: He's not coming at it from "an elf rogue" but "I want to emulate a magus type/gish character" and seeing what game elements can make that happen through trial and error.


RicoTheBold wrote:
Which would be totally fair. How can you be a legendary craftsman without also being level 15, right? That's like being on the Jedi Council without being granted the rank of Master.

I wasn't thinking of NPC's. You can handwave them much more easily: you don't have to explain how they learned a ritual as you aren't doing a complete minute by minute breakdown of them: this is especially true if they aren't built like a PC as they don't have true classes, skills and such. I was thinking of the PC that, in full view of the other characters, one day picks up ritual casting while fixing someone's breastplate... Does a woodworker learn how to make wands while making arrows? They seem to be able to figure out magic staves by doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
graystone wrote:
Now if it was a feat/ritual someone had to go out an learn, I wouldn't like it but I could understand it. But something everyone everywhere learns once they hit some arbitrary 'hit metal with hammer' counter, not so much. "Don't worry guys, just 200 more strikes and I'll be able to make +1 weapons!" sounds lame to me.

I mean, that's basically not meaningfully different from the "katanas made from steel folded 1000 times" trope that exists.

Or for a completely different direction, it's like the old plumber/electrician/whatever joke about paying for the 20 years of experience in knowing where to hit the hammer.

I'd say that it glowing from a detect magic spell a meaningful difference. My whole thing is that it's NOT like the katana trope: it's a bog standard butterknife except it's magic and not an exceptional quality item made with actual skill. The difference is 'a wizard did it', not 'it's high quality: as far as I can tell, unless someone can detect magic, a plain old dagger and a +1 dagger would appraise the same as it's not a better dagger, but a more magical dagger.

Squiggit wrote:
graystone wrote:
But something everyone everywhere learns once they hit some arbitrary 'hit metal with hammer' counter, not so much. "Don't worry guys, just 200 more strikes and I'll be able to make +1 weapons!" sounds lame to me. Now if you have to go out of your way to do something special [training, drinking some sacred dwarven stout, borrow the original smith union handbook, buy exotic materials and experiment] and spend some resources [feat, buy ritual, ect] it makes some sense to me. Spontaneous spiritual enlightenment for every smith that does nothing but the normal smithing day in and out, no. Heck, even the god of smithing personally handing out rituals to smiths makes more sense to me. :P
It sounds like now you're basically just arguing against the concept of XP and leveling up entirely more than specifically about item crafting.

Not at all, if you hit a monster 200 times I have no issue with you going up a level. If you hit a piece of metal 200 times, I have no issue with your proficiency level going up. What I have an issue with is 200 hit giving you an entirely tangential ability that has nothing to do with what you're doing: ie, somehow doing smithing teaches you magic/rituals... It's like if I stack enough stones, I can learn ki abilities or stances without being a monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
thflame wrote:
I ended up having to draw a graph of each step

A graph? To keep track of the three whole choices you have to make?

I'm sorry, I think PF2's stat gen is a little bit clunky too but this is such an absurd hyperbole it's hard to really take seriously.

It depends on how you make your character: if you're experimenting with different parts to make your concept, you might have to juggle somethings around: coming to the conclusion you'll want a multiclass feat means you'll need some prerequisite stats and if you have to move numbers around, they might need to come from A, B or C and if you didn't write them down, you have to check them again. Think trying to make a 5th level character that's trying to emulate a magus vs making a 1st level wizard.

In PF1, you just took a few points out of one or more stat and put it into another if you needed to bump up stat... You didn't have to wonder if you want to remove your bonus from A, B or C or IF you could add a different bonus in the same step. Do you want to change your background into something different? Can I shift things with my race? Does my class allow me to switch to the stat I need?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fobok wrote:
It won't work in PFS, but I don't see why point buy couldn't be an option at your table.

I'd even be happy with a set of default stat arrays you can pick from as an option of bypassing the ABC's. Take the array, add your 'race' and done.

thflame wrote:
Fobok wrote:
It also ties stats into the character background, which for me I really like.

That's another pet peeve of mine.

Making "Background" a "crunch" mechanic doesn't make people role play.

I'm right there with you: I look through backgrounds and see some that fit the way I think of the character but the stats don't match and stats that match but the rest doesn't fit and neither feels right. I kind of wish they were unassigned bumps you put into the stats YOU felt fit the background: the roll players get the stats they want while the role players get the background they think fits: win/win.


thflame: Yeah, that's what I was getting at with "added baggage". Thanks for going more into depth than I did and making it clearer. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Don't think of it as a specific ritual- think of it as the craftsperson unconsciously applying the same principles that make ritual magic work (whatever those are) based on "learning what gives the best results" via trial and error.

Rituals are just formalization of "doing these things in the correct order makes magic happen."

So. . . Handwave the specifics then?

A wizard did it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Don't think of it as a specific ritual- think of it as the craftsperson unconsciously applying the same principles that make ritual magic work (whatever those are) based on "learning what gives the best results" via trial and error.

Rituals are just formalization of "doing these things in the correct order makes magic happen."

Not a fan of ritual by osmosis... Hit a piece of metal enough times and anyone can do magic... It makes me worried that happens if I weave enough baskets. :P

Now if it was a feat/ritual someone had to go out an learn, I wouldn't like it but I could understand it. But something everyone everywhere learns once they hit some arbitrary 'hit metal with hammer' counter, not so much. "Don't worry guys, just 200 more strikes and I'll be able to make +1 weapons!" sounds lame to me. Now if you have to go out of your way to do something special [training, drinking some sacred dwarven stout, borrow the original smith union handbook, buy exotic materials and experiment] and spend some resources [feat, buy ritual, ect] it makes some sense to me. Spontaneous spiritual enlightenment for every smith that does nothing but the normal smithing day in and out, no. Heck, even the god of smithing personally handing out rituals to smiths makes more sense to me. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Master Smiths just do the rituals correctly without knowing that they are because "that's how I've always done it, and that's how it works." Or "these techniques have been passed down for 137 generations, and it works."

So why go through all the 137 generations of work and not just learn the ritual? And what about the self taught smith? Ritual use by osmosis? This whole thing hurts my brain. None of these explanations are meshing with my in game logic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Level 2 characters (without access to spell slots or focus spells) can make magic items in the playtest. Ritual magic is available to literally everyone, so it's easy to justify whatever lowercase-r rituals the blacksmith keeps (e.g. working a tiny bit of the same bar of steel into everything they make, and working a piece of everything they make back into the bar, saying a prayer to the spirits of the forge before tempering the piece, the specific patterns you draw when etching, whatever) as working like Ritual magic.

But that again, doesn't answer WHY there would ever be a master smith: You instead need a master ritual specialist that's at least an apprentice smith. Is there anything inherently better about the weapon in an antimagic field: IE any mundane improvement in the actual weapon not tied to the ritual? And if there is, why is the magic/ritual needed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
And what does this add to the game, exactly?

The ability to set how strong your characters in the game you are in. Anywhere from local farmer [10] to epic hero [25]. It set how special your PC were. and was an easy nob to turn: want to toss some new/powerful things this game? Maybe give them 30 points.

In PF2 everyone if the same without a houserule. As to easier... Well, you're doing far more than math in that section. You're figuring out which background add which stat and if you want to take 2 flaws to get and extra bump. Even your class becomes part of the math. For me a simple set of math problems is easier and/or quicker to do than PF2's math + the added baggage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
I think the confusion was how both quality and rune provided item bonuses to hit but they didn't stack, and at most levels the item quality wasn't higher than the rune but some it was.

I'd think the easy fix was to remove the bonus to hit from magic so there'd be no confusion. Masterwork = hit, rune = damage. I 100% agree with getting rid of 2 sources of to hit bonuses.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, realistically if minor magic is pretty easily available, why wouldn't a talented blacksmith or armorer make use of it? Not using magic to make a better sword when it's easy to do so is like intentionally using inferior tools.

I'm curious why there ARE talented blacksmiths/armorers past the level to create the highest level mundane weapons/armors. If magic is what makes quality weapons, what is the impetus to further improve the mundane skill? If the dagger from an apprentice and the dagger from master smith make the same +1 dagger, why buy from the master smith?

Or is the assumption that mundane craftsman just make magic items 'cuz magic' as they level up their skill? I don't know which way seems odder to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Point buy needed to be a bit more complicated because it was a sliding scale [low to epic], based no how strong you wanted to make your character. But too much time/effort? Never seemed it to me.

Various character sheets and/or online tools quickly/easily figure out points if you don't want to do it manually. Or if you know the point buy you're going to play with ll the time, make a few set of arrays ONCE and you can quickly pick one without having to think about the buy system again. Here is a 20 point array set [and I didn't even have to do the math as it was EASILY found online]:

No Dump Stats:
18, 13, 10, 10, 10, 10 = 5 net
17, 14, 12, 10, 10, 10 = 6 net
16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 = 7 net
16, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 = 8 net
15, 14, 12, 12, 12, 12 = 8 net
14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 = 8 net

One Dump Stat:
18, 13, 12, 12, 10, 7 = 7 net
18, 12, 12, 12, 11, 7 = 7 net
17, 12, 12, 12, 12, 9 = 7 net
16, 14, 12, 12, 12, 7 = 9 net
16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 7 = 8 net
15, 14, 14, 14, 12, 7 = 9 net
14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 8 = 9 net

Two Dump Stats:
18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 7 = 6 net
17, 14, 14, 14, 7, 7 = 7 net
17, 16, 14, 10, 7, 7 = 6 net
16, 16, 14, 13, 7, 7 = 6 net
16, 14, 14, 14, 9, 7 = 6 net

Three Dump Stats:
18, 17, 12, 7, 7, 7 = 4 net
18, 17, 10, 8, 7, 7 = 4 net
18, 16, 14, 7, 7, 7 = 5 net
18, 15, 14, 9, 7, 7 = 5 net
17, 16, 14, 8, 8, 7 = 6 net
16, 16, 16, 8, 7, 7 = 6 net


5 people marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
I think the expert/master/legendary items on top of the +1/+2 runes was confusing and added a great deal of complexity to selecting equipment for very little depth.

I'm not sure how magic +1 is less complex than non-magic +1. If the names expert/master/legendary was an issue, you can replace them with a single word like masterwork [masterwork +1, masterwork +2, masterwork +3]. As far as we've found out, max number/value of runes is still there for the qualities/pluses.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what problem this solved.

1 to 50 of 9,673 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>