martinaj's page

I think that I'll probably just house rule it so that the PCs can transfer runes for no cost if they do it themselves with a skill check, or can hire someone to do it for them for a price that I scale to their current wealth. That being said, the warpriest IS a follower of Sarenrae, and I had already been thinking of swapping the bugbear's dagger and sickle for a scimitar and hatchet.

I'm also now thinking of just nixing the chase entirely and having the party wash up relatively close to the homestead I want the to find, and they will presumably seek refuge from a big rainstorm. If they start wandering away I can have something chase them, or just drop a different abandonned homestead in their paths (I imagine there are several near the border of the Gravelands).

So that lets me really focus on this minidungeon. Mild inspiration from RE7. I like the idea of them being stalked through a house with some small attached structured (a main house, a barn/livery, and maybe a smaller, partly buried building that used to be used to store perishables?)

I've got a bugbear tormentor (level 3, 60 xp for this party - should be a moderate threat on his own) for the main villain. Apart from that, I do kind of need help filling out the rest of the tribe. I was thinking it might fill out the rest of the gang with...

A goblin warchanter and a a goblin pyro who work together (both level 1 - 30 xp each), and a goblin commando who keeps 2 goblins dogs (also all level 1) Between those three, I'd have 2 encounters that are moderate threat (bugbear and the goblin pair), and one that is severe (the commando and 2 goblin dogs). This accounts for them being a party of 3 - would that be too much for a 2nd level party? I guess I could shuffle it by having the dogs attack the PCs on their own and shuffle the level 1 goblins around so the final encounter is bugbear + 1 goblin if I want the big boss encounter to be the toughest?

Treasure wise, I think I have a +1 scimitar, a +1 potency rune they can find somewhere, and the Cloak of Faces I mentioned (functions as Hat of Disguise, except it only allows you to look like one of the 17 people who's faces have been sewn into the cloak. In exchange, it takes 3 actions instead of 1 minute to activate, and can be used twice per day instead of 1).

So I guess from here I just need draw the map, place minor treasures, and figure out a handful of traps (maybe 2-4?)

Alright, I'll revisit the skill options for the chase. I'm also planning on letting them make a case for skills (or spells) that aren't on the list.

I hadn't considered the lack of thievery for the traps (good catch!) - I still like the idea of filling the house with traps, but in this case, at least, I'll set up alternate skills or checks that can disarm them once they're spotted (a way to set it off from a distance, a rope that can be cut, etc...)

I like the suggestion on just not counting some magic items that NPCs and monsters have on them (I did the same thing with Shadowrun - I didn't need to know skill ranks and ability scores, just total die pools).

If I want to stick with just placing fundamental runes on the weapons I want the baddies to use, do you forsee any major problems of just increasing the wealth I give the PCs by an extra 10% of each of those runes' value, expecting they will use it transfer it to their own weapons?

I think the big thing I need help figuring out isn't so much designing singular encounters, but deciding how many encounters I can have in this initial dungeon. I want an open to the campaign that has a gritty feel, so I want them to have to keep going after the shipwreck and chase, so there's a good chance they'll have taken some damage and used some resources by then so they FEEL like they're in dire straights, but I want to make sure to account for the fact they'll be weakened underneath the hood of everything.

For 2nd level, going on third, I would include as treasure at least two +1 weapons, one something they want (longbow?) and one on a less optimal weapon. Then fill in the rest of the treasure per level as you will.

Good to know, thank ye. With all of a weapon's magic coming from runes now though, am I right in assuming that the type of weapon I give to enemies doesn't really matter? I was going to use the stats for a bugbear tormenter for the 1st adventure boss, but maybe swap out the sickle and dagger with something with marginally more oomph (like 1 die size up) - if I just put a potency rune on each of those, the party could transfer those runes to their own weapons, correct?

So here's what I've got for my 1st adventure.

The party starts on a ship bound for Caliphas, crossing Lake Encarthan.They get a chance to meet each other and RP with NPCs if they want. When they are starting to get fidgity or bored, the ship is attacked by Skum (hinting at an Aloglthu presence that I might use later). the party just has to deal with 1 (while crew and passengers deal with others) so I can get a feeling for how they do in combat. A 2nd will join the fray if they do well. If they're on the ropes (or after they win), the ship is hit by a rogue wave. The 3 PCs wash up on the shore of the Gravelands, not far from the border of Ustalav.

They are spotted by a horde of undead that outnumber them so thoroughly they shouldn't even think twice fleeing. Tried to design a basic chase for this... I've got...
Obstacle 1: Copse of trees. DC 15. Survival, Perception, or Acrobatics to navigate succesfully.
Obstacle 2: Steep Hill -- DC 13 Athletics or Acrobatics to climb, or Fortitude to push through the strain.
Obs 3: Rainstorm begins, creating mud. DC 13. Athletics or Fortitude to power through, or Survival to navigate with wilderness savvy
Obs 4: Lightning strike creates rough terrain. Everyone makes ref save DC 15 to get clear (counts as a success for chase). If they fail they must use athletics or acrobatics to clear the terrain.
Obs 5: Cross river. DC 15. Athletics to swim across, Survival to find a ford, or Crafting to hastily repair a very rickety rope bridge.
Final obstacle: Defend/reinforce house. Party finds refuge but must defend it from a (relative) handful of undead that manage to cross the river. DC 16. They can make attack rolls to deal with undead pushing through, or Crafting checks to reinforce doors/windows with boards and such.

Once inside, I kind of want to aim for a Resident Evil vibe with them being trapped in the homestead. The gang of goblins who hides out there is lead by a bugbear who is basically a serial killer. He or a lackey use a Ghost Sound spell to lure the PCs into the cellar with the sound of a girl crying. They are locked in and have to escape. This is the part I still need to plan.

For a 3rd level party, how big should this "dungeon" be, and how many encounters should I split their dealings with the group of goblins across? I plan for the goblins to use the time the party needs to escape the cellar to arm traps and hide throughout the house, lock doors, etc, and try to whittle the PCs down hit-and-run attacks and traps before anyone engages them directly. How many goblins ought to be part of this gang?

Any tips for placing treasure? So far all I've got is that the bugbear has a cloak made from the sewn-together faces of previous victims. It functions like a classic hat of disguise, except it only allows you to take on the appearance of someone who's face has been incorporated into the cloak.

Been GMing for ages, but it's been a few years, and I've got a new campaign starting on Sunday (PF2). 3 players, starting at 2nd level. Party consists of a cleric (warpriest), a wizard (universalist) and a ranger (animal companion and ranged attacks). I'm trying to finish the 1st adventure for Sunday (the 14th), and have the rest of the campaign outlined in broad strokes.

As far as the campaign goes, it's set primarily in Ustalav, around Caliphas, and I've projected 2 shorter adventures and the a few larger arcs.

1st adventure (2nd to 3rd level): Party starts on a ship en route to Caliphas. A rogue wave upends it and they wash up together in the Gravelands. They have to flee a horde of undead and seek refuge in an (apparently) abandonned homestead just across the Path River. They're lured into the basement and trapped by a sadistic bugbear and a handful of goblins he's cowed into helping him prey on travelers and refugees.

2nd adventure (3rd to 4th level): On their way to Caliphas the party is hounded by wild animals (to hint at the next arc) The party has to wait outside of Caliphas for a while before being admitted through the gates. In the meantime, they get roped into looking into a rash of disappearances, which takes them into Nar Voth to foil a cell of Derro that have started snatching people from the surface to run expiriments on.

1st major arc (levels 4-7): I want to do something with a druid villain who is having animals start attacking the city (not just the usually dangerous ones, but also birds, squirrels, etc... becoming weirdly organized and aggressive). Eventually they'll have to enter the wilderness to deal with them.

2nd arc (levels 8-11): The Pharasman Penitence is the major villain. A "priest" (he's actually a witch but doesn't know it - thinks he's talking directly to Pharasma) uses the druid's attack on Caliphas to definitively turn popular opinion against Prince Odranti and effectively seizes control of the city in a populist uprising. Oppression of local elements he deems heretical or unsavory (especially the Kellids and their beliefs) gets turns up, and in desperation, they reach out to some sort of Lovecraftian entity for help. Party will have to deal with both the church and the results of the Kellids' desperation.

3rd arc (levels 11-16): Not certain, but it's Ustalav and I've always like Nosferatu, so I want one to be the villain for this arc. During this arc the party hears rumors of Razmiran invading the River Kingdoms.

Final arc (levels 16-20): Razmir invades Caliphas from Lake Encarthan, his forces bolstered by undead given to him by the Whispering Tyrant (of whom he is a pawn).

Obviously some of these need fleshing out, but I also could use another set of eyes on what I'm planning for my 1st adventure. Outline/questions to follow.

Alright, thanks for the tips! I've sent an e-mail to the address Logan Harper posted (Thanks!), and if nothing else, it seems like I could direct students to the SRD, and maybe get a single set of books to keep in the room.

My current inclination is to pitch a club that will facilitate both Starfinder games and MTG: Arena matches as a sort of tabletop games starter.

Want to ask here before I pull the trigger on anything.

So I just started at a new high school, and each teacher is supposed to sponsor a once-per-week club. Mine will start next semester and it doesn't have a tabletop club, so that's my strongest leaning right now. If interest is high enough enough among students, I may be able to get a little bit of funding for it.

I think it would be big stretch to get enough for a set of physical rulebooks (I would want to gauge interest of students and use either PF2 or Starfinder), but probably enough for PDFs. But I know that there would probably be legal issues involved there regarding sharing them with students, so I want to see what the situation there would be.

For example, a set of PDFs was purchased with a school account, could they be shared via a google drive with students? That way they would only have access as long as they are students, since they'd lose their school account after graduating.

I believe I'll be launching a, well, let's call it a "hometweaked" rather than a "homebrew" campaign that's going to be retooled to have a pretty heavy space western feel to it. Planning for a party of smugglers or outlaws or something, but one of their early (hopefully) recurring antagonist is going to be a hanging judge style Kasatha sheriff (who will join the Hellknights if he survives the early game), and I got an idea for a weapon I'd like him to have, but I want to keep it both cool and balanced.

Basically, he's going to use a pair of slug pistols and a cable lasso that he can use conventionally, or charge with electricity for stun and/or electric damage to subdue targets, create a laser edge around the inside of the loop for lethal attacks (which, in "cutscenes" could lead to some stylish executions).

But I am at a total loss at how I would stat such an item. Him being a boss level enemy, I don't mind if it feels kind of powerful or overbalanced, but I don't want to overdo it, and want to make sure it's useable and balanced if it ends up in the hands of my PCs.

There's also a fun little fringe theory that Desna is, in fact, the sole good-aligned Outer God, and that her true form is some kind of enormous, monstrous space butterfly.

I've been thinking about trying to launch a campaign set there that is either about Razmir doing his thing, or about the Ivory Labyrinth (loved those guys in WotR)trying to infiltrate/conquer Seven Arches to repurpose their portals to create a new World Wound, but the books that I've got don't have a ton on updates yet, and I kind of stopped following the APs around that one that had Xin in at the end.

So I'm just wondering if there were any big standout events in there? The world guide mentions that Pitax is gone (but it's still on the map), and that the kingdom that was established in Kingmaker is now a thing, but doesn't offer much more detail about it.

I would just have her sing "Mary Sue."

So this seems to be RAW, but I'm not sure if it's RAI and was wondering the thoughts of the forum.

The rogue's ruffian racket lets you do extra stuff when making sneak attacks with simple weapons. The orc weapon familiarity feat says that "for you, orc martial weapons are simple weapons." So that would mean that for a half-orc with this feat, the normally-martial orc knuckle dagger could be used with the ruffian racket, right?

I wanted to ask here because it seems that just about every other ancestry weapon familiarity specifically states that you count the racial weapon as one step simpler for purposes of proficiency. The wording on proficiency is absent from the half-orc entry, so I wasn't sure if this was an oversight.

Sorry, general question here - I just want to make sure I ask in the right forums. Where would the proper place be for threads regarding...

1)RAW with slight homebrew stats/mechanics, such as advice on building NPCs and creatures?

2) Suggestions for campaign macrogames or narrative development.

Yeah, I definitely want to draw on Firefly early on. We just did character creation a few hours ago, and the party is...

Korasha Solarian - came from a deeply religious family and became estranged from them because her solarian philosophy didn't mesh with their beliefs (still haven't nailed down a god for them), but they basically become a drifter exploring the universe and landed in this little town some months ago where they were abandoned by their last crew after a falling out with the captain.

Ysoki Envoy - Professional grifter who's been in town for 5 years as he's been lying low from an as-yet-to-be-determined criminal syndicate after stealing something from them or otherwise pissing them off.

Android mechanic - escaped from slavery elsewhere on the planet and fled to this town and works as a mechanic for broken down ships and vehicles but has dreams of making it as a crack pilot.

Here's the brief writeup I did for the town they start in:

Switchtracks was once boom town on track to become Akiton's next
metropolis. It's built next to a massive deposit of Thasteron ore,
necessary for conventional ship drives. While thasteron is still used
for short-distance starship travel, 100 years ago Drift technology was
discovered and made thasteron unnecessary for long journeys. Demand
didn't quite disappear, but it dropped significantly, and further
development of Switchtracks effectively stopped. Fortunes were lost,
and a lot of people who came to the planet to strike it rich ended up
stuck there. Many of their descendants still work there today in what
is now just a corporate mining town.
The six magnetic rail trains that haul thasteron ore and credits in
and out of the town are its lifeblood. Thasteron remains the backbone
of Switchtracks' economy, though there are also some moisture farms
and sand cow ranches on the outskirts that keep the residents feed.
These remote outposts must constantly deal with the threat of attack
from local shobhad tribes who to this day resent the town being built
on their ancestral lands.

I'm about to start up a new campaign, but the setting as written is a little to shiny for my tastes, so I was wondering how you guys would go about making the setting a bit darker and bit rougher? Generally, I prefer setting in which there aren't really any "good guy" organizations - the PCs might meet good individuals, but the various institutions are generally corrupt or at least highly self-serving, and the impetus is very much on the PCs to be the heroes. So less like Star Wars, more like Dune.

It's starting at a local level on a town I'm making up on Akiton and we're going for a space western theme in the beginning, so I've got some time to flesh out what the greater system looks like, but here were some early ideas I had.

The Pact officially only extends to the Diaspora. Anything beyond that is not a Pact World. The Pact Worlds themselves each vie constantly for political advantage over one another, and sabotage and espionage are very common.

The Kasatha are a lot more militant, and the faction on the Idari that is crying for them to colonize (by force, if necessary) is more vocal and larger than as presented in the core rulebook.

Brethesda is the unofficial intermediary between the Pact Worlds and the Outer Worlds (going out to Aucturn - no one touches Apostae). They have a reputation for being skilled mediators and diplomats but a lot of people are weirded out by them largely because of their non-anthroporphic shape.

The Outer Worlds helped in the war with the Veskarium and against the Swarm, but refused to sign the Pact afterwards due to concerns that their distance from Absolom Station would lead to them being marginalized under the Pact.

The treaty with the Veskarium is tense as heck, and as the years have drawn on, it's starting to look like each side saw it differently. Many people in the Pact Worlds fear that what they felt was an alliance and a trade agreement was seen as a suzerian arrangment to the Veskarium.

There is nothing that even remotely resembles a Pact military. Forces are rallied on, at the widest, a planetary scale. Stewards have a lot of authority but there aren't very many of them. They have the right to commandeer resources and manpower in pursuit of missions when deployed, but they're usually seen as secret police or unwanted federal interference.

Androids are kind of like replicants that also have a fair number of mechanical components. The knowledge of how to make them is known only by the anacites and is one of their most closely guarded secrets. Their sentience and autonomy has been recognized on the Pact Worlds and using them as slave labor is illegal there, but not beyond the Diaspora. Whether or not they actually have souls is still a matter of debate for many people.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

I've had a character I wanted to try for Age of Ashes ever since I read the player's guide for it. Half-Orc wizard inspired by Alexander Hamilton. 2nd gen half-orc (He thinks. His mother was a half-orc prostitute and he never met his father). He had a good head for numbers and puzzles as a child, and even though he was born a nobody, he picked up wizardry where he could - he idolizes Lamond Breachton and dreams of following in his footsteps and using his magic for the advancement and betterment of civilization. He's young, scrappy, and hungry, and he's not throwing away his shot.

Living in US Eastern Time Zone (UTC-5). Just got my teaching license so I'm not working this month, but come August, It'll probably be tough for me to go later than 9:30 or 10pm unless it's on a Friday or Saturday.

Early childhood development specialist The master of stars (the society's biggest flagship) apparently has some kind of childcare.

Nutrition specialist (cook)

Lifeguard

3d printer tech

copy machine technician (paperless office is coming AAAANy year now...)

alternate landing gear system operator (when it gets stuck someone turns a crank)

safety instructor (in the event of a crash, your seat cushion can be used as a life preserver or an emergency nutrient bar)

window washer

I love these. I'm kind of torn between having them play out these positions for a few missions or having them be part of the away team on the first session, only for the captain and first mate to die by lava monster or something, and then the ship radios to ask who is left alive and they're like "Ah, no one important then," and start the campaign with them marooned on an uncharted planet.

So after watching a bunch of Dimension 20, I wanted to do something a little sillier for a game. So I'm thinking of starting up a starfinder game where the big theme is that the PCs are the red shirts on Starfinder Society vessel. This would definitely not be the RAW Starfinder Society - they're going to be bureaucratic and kind of callous and more of a caricature of the England's golden age of exploration.

But to start characters, I was thinking I'd just make a list of professions that a red shirt might hold. Ship Sanitation Specialist, Officer Refreshment Dispenser, etc. I want to come up with about a dozen of these, and each PC picks a profession that their character ended up filling on the ship (regardless of their actual expertise). Any suggestions for similar job titles?

Four-winged storks.

I think this would be nigh impossible to balance in a satisfying fashion. When someone wants to play a dragon, they want to be a DRAGON, not a hatchling that never grows up. And not a version of the creature that's been scaled back to be balanced against humanoid PCs.

The only solution I would see is a sourcebook entirely about campaigns where the PCs are dragons. Council of Wyrms 2: Electric Boogaloo.

How about a development that sees Bachuan take over Amanander, leading to widespread protests over their loss of autonomy and brutal crackdowns from the Tiger Youth Brigade?

I really hope that in this edition we eventually see a gazetteer for each continent, especially Casmeron. I was a little bummed that we only got Tian Xia in 1E.

martinaj wrote:

There are several modules or APs I've looked and come across an NPC that immediately makes me go "Oh, this one is an author's favorite."

I don't understand the point of this complaint. If an author doesn't have a favorite NPC in an adventure they write... they're not really into writing that adventure and I like to think that the authors we hire to write adventures have passion for the subject.

In every adventure I write I put a lot of myself into the NPCs... the allies and the enemies alike, and I often have multiple NPCs who vie for the role of "favorite."

And when I read another's adventure and they have lovingly detailed and interesting NPCs... that adds to the game for me.

I guess I see where you're coming from, but I think it's a difficult line to walk in an AP format, where so much information has to be condensed so heavily. There have been times when I've seen someone in an AP or module and it's obvious that the author really likes this character, but there isn't room to flesh them out and present them to the reader in the way that the author sees them. By necessity, an AP that isn't a doorstopper needs to adapt a "tell, don't show" account of its characters and events sometimes, but when too much of this is focused on a single character one ends up asking "What's so great about this guy, and why should they be stealing the spotlight from my PCs?" I think the larger the role they play in an adventure that isn't an antagonist that is eventually thwarted, the greater the risk of their appearance seeming to chiefly serve as self-gratification for the writer.

I think a mostly underwater AP dealing with the alghollthus could be cool. Maybe the party reveals the identity of a veiled master in the first adventure and they book it rather than fight an entire city, then in the second adventure they start looking into what it was up to and get wind of a plan to reconquer Golarian by opening a large, persistent portal to the elemental plane of water, flooding the planet over the span of a few years or a few decades, and then the rest involves the party going deeper and deeper into the ocean to deal with that biz.

Not exactly pathfinder, but I would also love to see a Starfinder AP that involves an immortal-but-senile Jatembe resurfacing, maybe in response to the King of Biting Ants rearing his head again on Akiton.

Lepidstadt for me.

Looks like the thread has drifted away from the topic a bit, but I absolutely adored the feel of very early Pathfinder, and it does feel like it's been made more friendly for all ages as it's gotten more popular. I do miss it though.

Rise of the Runelords is probably my favorite Paizo AP, and my second favorite AP overall (behind Razor Coast), because when I read it I kept thinking "Oh cool, it's like D&D for adults that doesn't try too hard). It was gritty, it was pulpy, and the forward from Hook Mountain Massacares (probably my favorite single adventure) STILL has me thinking that one ogrekin was filating his brother in the original draft.

These days it feels like a lot of the grittiness has been smoothed out, which I understand, but it's now the rules system that keeps me engaged in Pathfinder more than the lore. Some of my personal problems with it have been reflected by others in this thread. There are several modules or APs I've looked and come across an NPC that immediately makes me go "Oh, this one is an author's favorite."

I'm gonna bow out, actually. Been having trouble getting motivated lately, and apparently this is now exception. Don't want to take a player slot if I'm not sure I'll stick with it, especially when others want in.

I'll try to get mine done after work. Should be up yere by tomorrow. Thinking about a dwarven cleric of Desna or Pharasma.

I'd be interested as well. What sort of parameters are we looking at?

I did something like this for a couple of games once, except I would have my players roll their own dice in-advance. At the start of each session, I would ask my players to roll 3 each of a perception check and each saving throw, then record every character's results, in order, and use those results as needed for checks they would not be aware (non-active percepion, a hidden enemy trying mind control, etc...)

Mechagamera wrote:

No need to retire anyone, the PC just "saw the light" (or dark as it were). I am okay with this rule change, unless the game built in some sort of automatic temptation rules that kicked in when you level up: you can be a LN cleric of Asmodeus at level 1, but when you hit level 2, you need a successful charisma check (and yes, I said charisma, not wisdom) or else your soul is overwhelmed by the dark teachings of the Church (that aren't on display for the lay folk). It seems like it shouldn't be hard to make it a 95% chance that a level 20 cleric with 10 charisma has had an alignment change, so either you are really lucky or spent some resources.

Ever tried playing with a Chaotic Evil PC? Unless you're in it for laughs or running an evil campaign, it's like pulling teeth trying to work with them. Someone who isn't sure if they want to eat ice cream or orphan meat is not the best person to have following you around.

I agree. I've seen people pull of LE and a little more rarely NE, but the only time I've ever seen a CE character work, long-term, in a party was in an all-evil game where the whole party pretty openly acknowledged that they'd been through enough together after the first 3 levels that they mistrusted each other less than the rest of the world.

So I'm sitting down to toss together a few ready-to-use characters for a potential game opportunity, and I'm starting with a fighter going for the Elven Curve Blade. Furious Focus at a casual glance seems like it would be an ideal compliment to it's Forceful quality, but when I actually try to figure out how Furious Focus works, I'm not 100% I'm understanding right. Does functionally bump the -10 of a third attack to -5 on the condition your second attack missed?

Prestidigitation. You can't even clean yourself off with it anymore.

Clean yourself?! I always used it to soil myself if I had an empty bladder but wanted someone to leave me alone.

martinaj wrote:

Alright, maybe I sounded a little cranky in my initial post, but this is more or less what I'm talking about. With most of these examples, I guess I just don't see why I see why they need to be there. From my perspective, this edition seems to push each class towards a certain set of playstyles, but I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't think every class should be able to be played in any way, because it cheapens what makes them distinct. I would argue that a lightly armored fighter could be re-imagined as a rogue or a ranger. I think saying that "spears can't sneak attack" is an extremely nitpicky thing to complain about, because what is it you really want to do? Do you want to do a lot of damage while using a spear? There are other classes that can do that. I would argue that most of the frustation here is just being married to the idea of your class being called "rogue." I'm going into this looking at it in terms of "what class works best for the concept I want" rather than "which concepts can I do with this class."

There's more to character concept and class than what fighting style and armor types your use. People who play tabletop RPGs want to make their own unique character concepts and not just remake the same cookie-cutter defaults that you see in any MMO.

If your character's thing is that he's an awesome swordsman and is neither at home in the wilderness and big on hunting or prone to sneaking and stealing things than making them as a ranger or rogue isn't going to work out. Fighter has feats suited to a duelist fighting style, but going for a swashbuckler feel doesn't work with that heavy armor. Rangers don't have access to the feat you need to make longbows practical, so if you do want to be wilderness-oriented and skillful but aren't into crossbows or dual-wielding, you're stuck. What weapon they use doesn't define a ranger, being a wilderness warrior does. If you want to be a guile hero who steals stuff and disarms booby-traps and has lots of different...

Alright, I can see where you're coming from, and I can't say I disagree with it. I don't think every character should be a cookie cutter, but I also was starting to feel like PF1 started offering so much versatility that my character's class became less relevant as the game marched on. From eyeballing it (been working a lot this weekend so I won't have time to really dig in and absorb this thing till Monday), it looks each weapon has become much more statistically distinct, which I like, but I wonder whether that would create balance issues for opening sneak attack to each weapon from the get go? But yeah, I guess I can see how maybe a class feat (or multiclass feat?) should be able to give it to other weapons.

What is it about the bow so that makes it so unappealing (classes and feats are the last thing I'm reading in great detail - trying to figure out the moving parts of this thing before I look at how each class interacts with them)? When I look at the stats compared to the crossbow, it seems like the bow is set up to do a lot more.

One thing I will say, though, is that this is the only edition besides 4th where I would actually consider making a fighter right out of the gate. They get unique stuff more than just stat boosts, and I feel like the really stand out as the premier weapon masters, and it seems like multiclassing into fighter would open up a lot of options for more martially oriented characters. That being said, it shouldn't be a requirement for every character who wants to use a weapon. Maybe a few of their low level abilities should just be general feats?

martinaj wrote:

The nature of complaints I see popping up a lot here boil down to "This class can't do whatever I want it to do." I mean, seriously? That's kind of the entire point of a class-based system. Different classes play differently. One of my biggest complaints of PF1 was that it got to the point where I felt like my class wasn't actually doing enough to distinguish my character. They had a couple unique gimmicks, sure, but a witch I made didn't feel fundamentally distinct enough from an Enchanter or a Fey Sorcerer. When someone comes out and says "I want X class to be able to do whatever I want," I have to wonder to myself why they're even playing Pathfinder instead of a system that uses build points to create characters, or maybe an STG.

This is such a blatant misinterpretation of people's arguments that I can only assume it is willful and in bad faith.

Please, go make a light armor fighter. Or a ranger with a two hander. Or a rogue with a spear.

These are not "I want to do whatever I want" requests. These are "why does a master of weapons and armor not get any bonuses to 2/3 of the armor choices as options when that used to be a thing they could do?" Or "why can I not take a general combat feat to use a two hander better?" Or "why can I not sneak attack with a weapon that has been used in sneak attacks for all of history?"

These are basic, basic things. SO MANY complaints would be resolved if there were just more general feats, and class feats were used specifically for things that make a class special and unique (animal companions, channeling energy, etc.).

Alright, maybe I sounded a little cranky in my initial post, but this is more or less what I'm talking about. With most of these examples, I guess I just don't see why I see why they need to be there. From my perspective, this edition seems to push each class towards a certain set of playstyles, but I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't think every class should be able to be played in any way, because it cheapens what makes them distinct. I would argue that a lightly armored fighter could be re-imagined as a rogue or a ranger. I think saying that "spears can't sneak attack" is an extremely nitpicky thing to complain about, because what is it you really want to do? Do you want to do a lot of damage while using a spear? There are other classes that can do that. I would argue that most of the frustation here is just being married to the idea of your class being called "rogue." I'm going into this looking at it in terms of "what class works best for the concept I want" rather than "which concepts can I do with this class."

The nature of complaints I see popping up a lot here boil down to "This class can't do whatever I want it to do." I mean, seriously? That's kind of the entire point of a class-based system. Different classes play differently. One of my biggest complaints of PF1 was that it got to the point where I felt like my class wasn't actually doing enough to distinguish my character. They had a couple unique gimmicks, sure, but a witch I made didn't feel fundamentally distinct enough from an Enchanter or a Fey Sorcerer. When someone comes out and says "I want X class to be able to do whatever I want," I have to wonder to myself why they're even playing Pathfinder instead of a system that uses build points to create characters, or maybe an STG.

I like it overall. It needs some polishing, but I can't believe how people are whining about it. It seems like everyone is cranky a because 434 page book doesn't let them chose from 30-some classes and hundreds of archtypes (I actually read a complaint that was exactly this - someone complaining that there were only 12 base classes and not enough archtypes). It sounds to me like a lot of people weighing in on this are just spoiled as hell.

JJ is still here? I thought he had moved elsewhere.

I like PF2 overall, but I definitely agree with this. A lot of the classes get a legendary proficiency as their 19th level ability, and while it does SOUND cool, getting an extra +1 to my main thing is underwhelming in practice.

Cause I don't see them in the book, which seemed a little weird with a playtest adventure starting in Magnimar. I know that they're concentrated in Korvosa, but if I recall they had really spread out from there. Wasn't Magnimar founded but a group of Chelaxians that wanted to break with the old empire?

K, I want to change my answer to the accessibility thing, because I absolutely despise the Fate system. I would not be in favor of pushing something like this at the cost of depth.

Overall I like what I'm seeing in PF2, but the layout is my single biggest complaint. I would still prefer text to symbols on abilities - it's not a video game. I think with text, it is far, far easier to infer what something means if you're still working on your system proficiency. I'd rather see "1 action" displayed next to an ability than a little nested diamond. I think that uncommon and rare player options should include a brief entry next to them that tells you what you need to do to get access to them ("x" spell can be granted by "x class feature," or "y" weapon is opened up by "y" ancestry feat.)

1) I don't have an active game right now because I can't find a group that won't constantly flake on me, but I used to play a ton of PF1. However, when I have been working towards getting a game off the ground, PF1 has dropped down to like my 3rd or 4th choice behind SF, Shadowrun, and possibly a new RPG that has recently caught my interest.

2) This is me in a nutshell. When the PF1 hit, it was my favorite thing ever. It had a lot of elegant fix to balance issues from 3.5. As it drug on though, the power creep and the enormous glut of option started to kill it for me. None of my characters felt particularly special anymore when everyone was running around with an obscure class, and I felt like the extreme number of class options actually made the decisions I made within my own class less special. It was less a question of "how do I want to build this witch?" and more a question of "would I rather make a mesmerist?" I'm not against new classes - I loved the APG, but they started hitting too fast. I'd prefer a book after a year or two that has maybe four new classes, and then I'd like to see it slow down from there. It had a few gems, but conceptually, I feel the Advanced Classes Guide was too far. I want more options for the classes that already exist before I want entirely new classes.

3) I played 4th for a little bit. I actually really liked how combat flowed, and how tactical it became. I went back and forth over whether I preferred skills having ranks or being simply trained or untrained, so I love the proficiency system in PF2. Everything else in 4th ed was worse, tho. I have never played 5th ed.

4) I think more anything, I want the choices I get to make within my class be significant, and that's one thing I like about PF2, at least conceptually. Class feels more important, and so does race. Many of the most significant options you will chose about how your character performs seems to be found within class, but there also seem to be a few distinct ways to go about it. I need to look through it a little more, but I think it's cool that Fighters gain legendary weapon proficiency, while Paladins get legendary armor proficiency. I like that some of the class options that used to be automatic are now class feats that you have to pick, because, for example, it lets me make a druid that is more of a nature mage than a shapeshifter, and if I don't want to wild shape, I can pick something that will compliment my abilities as a spellcaster instead. I like low level play to include, shall we say, more options that starfinder has. Not necessarily super powerful ones, but interesting ones. I think the paladin's retributive strike is a good example here. It's unique, it affects how you will want to position yourself, and I think that's interesting. The increased durability of 1st level characters is a huge plus, IMO, as are scaling at-will cantrips.

5) I WANT to say that I prefer depth to accessibility, but lately when I've tried to start new games with new players, no matter what system I bring to the table it feels like they are almost TRYING to not get it, so I'm not sure.

6) Mostly, but not entirely. I'm still willing to tough out new players learning a complicated system if it lends itself to more depth, better options, and a smoother flow once they've been thoroughly understood, but I don't want to see them taking it to Hackmaster levels.

7 & 8) If they were to put forth a different rules system, I'd give it a go, but I'm also willing to give this one a go. I think they are, overall, on the right track. They DEFINITELY need to clean up their formatting - I think that's the biggest problem with this right now. Currently, I'm not super bothered by it because I understand it's just a playtest, but if 2019 comes along and the final book is laid out like this, I'm gonna be pretty miffed.

The problem isn't the generic nature of the options given alone. It's that, with the aggressive siloing of those options into neat little boxes, characters tend to feel far more generic than PF1's core options alone.

In PF1, I could make an entire party of four Bards straight from the core rulebook and they'd mostly feel distinct from one another right from level 1, before even sitting down to play. Without archetypes this wouldn't be a good idea due to the Performance overlap, but it could be done. I can't really do that in PF2 - they're restricted to a small set of very similar weapons, the large pool of known skills and shorter list of skills means they're going to have a pretty large overlap even before Bardic Lore and Versatile Performance are taken into account. There's Ancestries and Spells, but (not having had a chance to play yet) the Occult list doesn't feel like it has enough variety to make up for the fact that everyone's going to have a longsword, rapier, or their race's ancestral weapons plus a short bow.

There's also something about Signature Skills that. . . feels restrictive. It's not as bad as it feels, but you end up looking at it and getting the initial impression that "This is all the class is good for."

I feel like you're excercising Trumpian levels of willfull disregard for relevant details here. Bards in PF2 have exactly the same weapon proficiencies here that they did in the PF1 core rulebook. A PF1 core rulebook bard gets to chose their race, their skills, their spells, and a 1st level feat. In PF2, a 1st level bard gets to chose, let's see... Their race (ancestry), their skills, their spells, their muse, and an ancestry feat. They actually get an additional choice to make over PF1 bards. Now, yes, the pool of feats they are choosing from is narrower than in PF1, but I think that using that single 1st level general feat as justification for "I can make PF bard and they'll all be different and all the PF2 bards will be the same." PF2 bards, as you already pointed out, can snap up a racial weapon proficiency if they want more options. They can all chose different spells. They can pick different muses. Many cantrips are also significantly more useful than they were in 1st ed, giving them more valid at-will options.

Yea. It's a playtest. So the devs are looking to see what works great, and what is clunky. So, saying you're quitting the game forever because the first day of a year-long playtest didn't strike your fancy... Did you never eat your wife's cooking again after the first time she made a recipe she was trying out?

Give your feedback and see how the product develops.

Fixed it.

See, what I feel like I just read at the top of this thread was "Beta playtest book has layout problems. Not playing Pathfinder anymore."

I noticed that Droogami has put on some weight since PF1.

I'm actually a little surprised by how much people seem to take issue with this. I gotta say, I was very ready for a change - the glut of classes and power creep in PF1 had gotten pretty out of hand, and even though I'm not a big fan of how SF did gear (I hate leveled items), I love almost everything else they did with the system, and PF2 seems to build on a few of those design philosophies while trying some new s&~! too. I feel more or less the same way about this game after a quick glance at it. There are some things that are weird, but not bad. There are some things that I kinda hate. But overall, I like the direction they seem to be moving, though I really hope they tighten this up before release, because the layout is a mess.

To me, PF2 feels kind of like AD&D for the modern age. They way that the pieces of the system fit together seems more complex than PF1, but less so than, say, Shadowrun.

Here's my takeaway so far...

Feats everywhere! I've been absolutely in love with PoE: Deadfire, which has a similar system for leveling characters, so this doesn't really bug me. I actually think that it will make it easier to track the overall balance of classes while adding future options when so many of their most significant build options are part of their class entries - smaller chance of a general feat escaping notice and being totally borken on a specific class. That being said, I agree with what a lot of people have said here - calling them general feats, racial feats class feats, and skill feats is going to be a little confusing, and I wouldn't mind seeing them renamed.

Ability score generation and proficiency I love how they stats did in in Starfinder, and I love how they do it here even more. I like coming out of making any character with nice, round numbers, and I like. With proficincies ensuring the greatest disparity between base bonuses between two classes is no greater than +5 (untrained vs legendary), it makes your ability score bonuses a much larger part of what you excell at, which I like.

Racial stats and feats] Another thing I love. Race just feels like it will play a bigger role in my character here, and that picking my race is more than just something I chose at 1st level and then forget about forever. It locks some of the more powerful racial abilities (wtf were they thinking with +2 to saves against ALL spells in PF1?) are locked behind feats, but feats that I still I will be able to get without deviated from my class's build.

Spellcasting overhaul This one I have mixed feelings on. I think the heighten mechanic is interesting, but I feel like they missed an opportunity saying "you have to do an entire activity in one go." I think it would add an interesting element to combat if a spellcaster could cast a multi-action spell over 2 or 3 turns (with the caveat that they must spend at least one action towards progress in the activity each round or the spell fizzles, and you initiate any new activities until the current one is finished - basic actions only). This way, you could have a wizard weaving through a battlefield and maybe taking a couple potshots with a crossbow as they charge their spell.

I'm not sure yet about the reshuffled spell lists. On paper, I like it. It makes it far easier to track what spells a given character has access to as more spells are released, but I'm not sure about the actual spell lists we got. We have a sorcerer who can potentially be flinging spells from the "traditional" cleric or druid spell list, which I think is rad as hell thematically and it changes up the niches sorcerers can occupy, but I don't know if I'm convinced all of the spell lists are balanced against one another.

As far as giving everyone 9th level spells, I could take it or leave it. The bard was really a support class anyways, and spells were always a big part of what they did in-practice. Adding in the angle of them being more dedicated mental mages can work, but I also think that heightening could have opened up an interesting way to go about making 6-level casters. What if, instead of getting 7th+ spells, a bard instead started getting more casts per day of their lower level spells, and around level 12 or 13, ALL of their spells are automatically heightened by +1 (maybe later to +2, and at 18th or 19th level they could heighten one to +3 a couple times per day?). This way, the actual power behind the spells they are casting is still in line with the higher level spells they give up, and they can cast their spells more frequently, with their lower level spells always being more powerful, but they entirely give up access to the biggest, baddest spells in the game.

Goblins as a core race Absolutely despise this choice. Sometimes, when I play an RPG, I want my monsters to be monsters. I remmber that when PF first hit, I feel head over heels in love with their monster manual because I had just been having a discussion with one of my buddies like a week prior that in 3.5 it felt like every other monster in the bestiary had been rewritten to being either misunderstood or "not as bad as they make it out to be." And PF1, initially, departed radically from that. Their goblins were creepy, their ogres were horrific, and even the goofy ol' bugbear got a chilling writeup. I feel like a lot of this grittiness the setting started with has disappeared.

Alchemist as a base class 12 classes is just a rounder number than 11, and we had no shortage of classes to add. I'm glad they went with the alchemist, because it adds an option for someone who wants to play a medieval fantasy scientists, or someone who wants to sort of cast spells, but not really. I also think this would have been a good chance to trim a little more fat and get rid of some legacy classes that were largely redundant or thematically off and save them for a later release instead (The sorcerer got a cool overhaul, but I wasn't convinced they were necessary when 3.0 hit, and I'm still not - Not that they never have a place in the game, but I feel like they're close enough to other casters that the space in the core rulebook would be better spent on a more distinct class)

So the more I read here, the more it looks to me like every single one of a Solarian's problems are a symptom of their MADness. This MADness comes pretty much entirely from the fact that they use Cha as their resolve stat, but it does basically nothing else for them. So it seems the best option, that requires the least amount of system tinkering, is to make Cha do more by allowing a Solarian to substitute their cha bonus for one other stats they would otherwise want.

So how about this little tweak to solar weapon/solar armor.

Solar Weapon: The solar weapon allows the Solarian to use their Cha bonus to melee damage rolls in place of their Str bonus.

Solar Armor: While solar armor is active, the Solarian may use their Cha bonus in place of their Dex bonus to calculate AC. It is still limited by their max dex bonus.

BOOM! No mandatory feats, and all of the proficiency see some action! A solar weapon solarian doesn't need str as long as they stick to their solar weapon, letting them invest in enough dex to make use of light armor to have, perhaps not tank-like AC, at least enough to survive in melee with good positioning. And solar armor solarian doesn't need dex, letting them invest in enough str to make that advanced melee proficiency worth something. Either way, it mantains the vision of a lightly armored melee warrior (they were clearly never intended to be ranged - such builds were simply a byproduct of dealing with their MADness), with the weapon solarians getting to be melee damage dealers without having to pick and chose which automatically gained class abilities they can make use of, and the armor solarians being able to do the same with their AC.

I want to see deity stat blocks like they had in Deities and Demigods, where the gods just have 10 levels each in like five different classes.