Captain Morgan wrote:
Attack of Opportunity triggers off of ranged attacks, movement, and manipulation, but only actually disrupting the latter.
How does the utility compare in terms of actual triggers and disruptions?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Consider the array 16 14 14 14 10 10.
This character's primary function keys to that 16.
My question is, those three 14's, can they viably serve as three secondary functions? Or will the game render that math obsolete?
My gut tells me that yes, having a primary at 16, and a few secondaries at 14, is a fine way to play a character who is "well-rounded" and can have fun succeeding at their primary and secondary functions with reasonable frequency.
88Jakoby and Ro
Human Criminal Ranger
Eagle Animal Companion
Golfbag of Weapons
Dedicated Spellcaster Disrupter
Plans on Multiclass into Bard
And means Bastard Sword over Greatsword for better action economy with Multiclass Fighter-Wizards.
First World Bard wrote:
Ok for comparison, Bastard Sword Caster vs. Greatsword Caster.
Assume both are using the 2-handed grip. If they want to cast a spell, they'd have to use an action to free up one hand. Then they can Somatically cast a spell. The difference is, the Bastard sword could now immediately make 1-hand attacks again, but the Greatsword user would have to use another action to "regrip" before attacking again?
I'm sort of concerned that I'm going to be left behind when this hobby goes overly digital, to be honest.
I feel as though folks that play online do so as an admitted concession to being unable (for various reasons) to do so live.
And whereas the the technology will definitely continue to improve, it will never completely replace the social and kinesthetic elements that Steve Geddes mentions above.
In my group, 3 of our 4 new players started with online play, and finally made "the jump" to live. Not that they quit online play altogether, but they definitely express a preference for live play, often including that they had "wanted to for a long time" priorly.
I'm not too worried.
I like having property runes separate from the enchantment track, I'll probably have something similar to FF7 Materia that function as property runes...
Alternate Campaign RuleYou can swap out property runes during a short rest. Or perhaps an Occultist class can do so as a "manipulate" + "concentrate" combat action. There are property runes that grant Class Feats to those wielding the item they enchant. And property runes that grant a spell effect or the ability to cast a spell to those wielding the item they enchant.
(For the purposes of the argument, Gunslinger and Swashbuckler are interchangeable, as are Grit and Panache, naturally.)
When I look back over the Gunslinger Deeds, by and large, they were never any more or less "impossible" than combat feats of equivalent level. So to me, that distinction - impossible vs non-impossibe - misses the point. That begs the question:
"What differentiates Gritty Deeds from Class Feats (of the Fighter, Rogue, etc)"?
To me, the answer harkens back to the OP's first post: the concept of a ratio between risk and reward, acted out mechanically. So perhaps an Axiom could be as follows:
"When the Grit pool is full, a Gritty Deed is comparably better than a Class Feat. When the Grit pool is empty, a Gritty Deed is comparably worse than a Class Feat."
This to me is one of the greatest appeals of the new edition.
That the powergamers can sit at the same table with the new players and everyone else, and the system minimizes play disparities.
Suddenly, the emphasis shifts more towards how you play your character than how you build them.
Perhaps Hubert's anxieties will be relieved that he/she can't break the ceiling because it is possible (yet)?
But I'm positive that "3d6 down" will have special appeal to fans of earliest editions, and is incredibly compatible with the ABC character creation algorithm.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Your players are in luck.
Have them roll 3d6 down the line. This averages to 10.5 for each ability score.
Then apply your ABCs. Cap starting stats at 18. Maybe decide upon a minimum value too.
graystone,I count "Ki" as a form of "magic" by virtue of using the Focus mechanic. And in so doing, purport to maintain a magic / martial distinction. And besides, even if you disagree that Monks are not "magic", a distinction can still exist with Monks being a special exception.
Secondly, Interesting you mention Sorcerer (which I didn't for my second point). Because, the Grit mechanic can be analogous to sorcery, whereas Fighter, Rogue, and Monk abilities can be analogous to wizardry; One is more talent and the other is more training.
Thirdly, explain to me how an Archetype (a collection of feats) has more modularity than a class (a collection of initial abilities and feats)? I do not understand your logic.
Fourthly, I agree and disagree with you. Agree in that yes, using feats and deeds to distinguish the class sufficiently from other classes will require a lot of design work. Disagree in that "demand" is not measurable. Uncommon measures include thread content in these forums. Enough to say that Gunslingers and Swashbucklers are definitely popular with the playerbase.
Final point, citing a point of disagreement, or pulling in another perspective, is not an act of negation. Your making claims then labeling my points "out" does neither the work to verify nor disavow. Though, I do enjoy the discussion that is generated notwithstanding.
And Dedication feats are three feat chains between links.
Let's say you have a "pool class", then pick up a second "pool class" at 2nd level with a Dedication feat. You need to choose two more feats from that class before picking up a third Dedication.
The system has that future-proofing built in.
With enough work, it's definitely workable, but that's just it, it'll require a lot of work to make it balanced.
That said, if the group is willing to put in the work - a lot of work - it works great.
Which is to say that the only drawback is the difficulty of initial and maintained implementation.
I see it as a DM tool:
"Is this item available?"
In our game, if the result is "no" that stands for that session. You can try again next session. We use our imaginations to conjure the story that explains the outcomes of the dice.
I see Focus pool as being for magic-users. Thus, a Grit pool as being for martial-users. Five arguements:
1) It defines an Adventuring Philosophy represented by the "risk/reward" concept behind the Grit mechanic, which becomes the engine of the class's abilities.
2) Grit is not a "learned technique" as are Sneak Attack, Opportunist, Shield Block, Flurry of Blows. Grit is something else.
3) A Class allows for thematic modularity which could easily include choice of initial proficiencies (gun, fencing, etc), covering both Gunslinger and Swashbuckler.
4) Since it is a class, by default, it becomes a multi-class archetype.
5) A Class (as opposed to just an archetype) would probably be "in demand" enough by the playerbase to justify.
Cashing in XP to Level Up.
In addition to Artificial 20's idea above, the concept of "cashing in" could put another tool into the DM's hand as regards gaining levels.
Something like "Once you have accumulated 1000 xp, you may spend x days of downtime to level up according to these prescriptions...(gameworld stuff)...to emerge as a higher level character."
For DMs who want either more "realism" or "immersion" or "control" or whatnot.
The verbal component is yelling "Shield!" while you swing that baseball bat.
Do you mean the part where there was a disagreement about art?
PS: What I find REALLY annoying is that in PF1, an alchemy crafting kit which "is assumed to have all the material components needed for his extracts, mutagens, and bombs" weighs 5 lbs... And "As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk", it should default to 1 bulk. I'm not sure why someone thought alchemists needed to carry an extra bulk.
Don't know how else to put it. They carry extra bulk because they carry extra bulk. It's part of the very concept of Traveling Alchemist.
That said, I refute your claim perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the rules? I thought 5 bulk is the allowance for a ST 10 character before the penalties kick in.
I see. Kind of like 1E the Vital Strike feat.
When I look at the Damiel iconic Alchemist character, I see a character significantly encumbered.
And really, I think the problem solves itself. You want a high-ST Alchemist, you get to carry heavier weapons and armor in addition to your lab. You want a low-ST Alchemist, you get to carry lighter weapons and armor, if any, in addition to your lab.
*Rolls a saving throw to avoid devolving into a semantical debate.*
Are you suggesting that a character wearing armor, carrying a weapon, and dragging around a portable chemical laboratory should be treated in the game as equivalently carrying a jansport backpack?
If Pathfinder 1 classes are eventually trickled back into second edition, which do you hope return first?
While I understand where you are coming from, I vehemently disagree with your design philosophy. You are copying the surface level while failing to capture its soul. And this applies to the new mechanics as well.
I partially agree with you.
I think Kineticist could use Focus to power it's abilities, but also think Swashbuckler / Gunslinger would better be it's own separate "pool" mechanic.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing your issues/war-stories/complaints about it, Skerek.
I think Skerek means converting all the existing 1st edition classes to the 3-act system means you either have to do a lot of prep-work (pouring over 1,000+ combinations) or else adjudicate whether every "free" or "swift" or "immediate" action counts as 1 Act, a Reaction, or is indeed a "free" action.
That's a lot of work, because you are essentially trying to rebalance those classes inside of a new system when all of them were designed with a different system in mind.
If that makes sense?
Upon none-other than the very Site of a potential second North American Civil War for the Soul of the Country, our Popular Culture? Watch out for splash damage equal to Rysky's Intelligence modifier!
Still think the black in Seoni's cloak clashes with the Color Wheel though.
Kind of like if you mix all your pretty paint colors and woops brown. Bleh.
I am not sure I follow exactly what you are clarifying here.
Are you saying that "automatic worsen on natural 1" only happens if you are attempting an untrained check?
I am skeptical that "natural 1" automatically means "failure worsens to critical failure" because as a natural 1 would typically result a failure for many/most checks, this would basically doom one in twenty rolls to critical failure.
This would seem to me to be a fundamental flaw in this edition's skill engine.