Search Posts
I'm pretty sure that they're not going to remove the value of pathfinder's name in the world of tabletop games, also they'd have to pay for another trademark
I hope being more formally separated from 3.5 will mean that they'll me more ambitious when it comes to class mechanics
I don't really like roleplaying disadvantages. Magic making you pure lawful good won't stop you from teleporting your invisible party to the top of the villain's tower and roleplaying disadvantages will cause a big grey area with GMs that like punishing their player on one side and a whole lot of people who ignore it in general.
I don't know, personally I think an equivalent for fighters and rogues can work, perhaps for some special attack maneuvers, like a whirlwind lunge, or some stronger kinds of debilitating strikes from the rogue side, and even some extraordinary moves like smashing the ground with a hammer to knock groups of enemies prone and create difficult terrain, or a debilitating strike that forces a save or die, like stealing your targets heart or something.Cleric preview shows this is not the case. Domain Powers are "cast" with spell points, one point for the basic ability, your pool starts equal to your Wisdom (not your WisMod). Channel Energy is different, it has separate uses of 3+ChaMod per day. Agreed. I think that not giving any mechanics that restricted the use of abilities for non spellcasters in 1e overly restricted what abilities could exist since they all had to be balanced as if you'd be constantly using them.
Ugh the tick swarm could devour towns. the worst is the leech swarm, they usually take less damage from fire because they're most likely in water and they can eat through a wooden boat if the GM is evil enough. Also looking at it to write this post, they have dex DRAIN poison, deal 1d3 str and con damage and +24 to stealth checks in their natural habitat. Its CR4 somehow.
I'm not worried. Pathfinder always felt like a low magic game disguised as a high magic game. The mechanics mean that very few non adventurers will have magic equipment besides an emergence stabilize potion and magic doesn't really help with day to day jobs. farmers still farm, crafters craft and overall outside the realm of adventurers or GM fiat events it ends up building a place much like early renaissance Europe.
This guy gets it EDIT:In all seriousness a page about a character and a page about a subsystem seems to be what you should expect
lets replace all the dice to coins while we're at it
I don't think they will make it that detailled because it would be seen as "too anime" but it would be cool. You can also add in more techniques as your weapon proficiency gets higher
sounds too complicated:
then why are you arguing since you think that no word in any of the texts have no more value than any other? Why did you argue the component rules if you didn't believe they have any authority on the assumed setting?Yesyou can't possibly be arguing that the only description of how a golem works that is found in the same paragraphs as the rules for creating golems is just as optional as a system that describes itself as an addon. Do you consider the existence of Constitution as a stat just as optional as the condensed skill set in unchained? I don't see how you can argue no true scottsman when the text itself describes the rule you're using to argue this as optional while the text you're talking about in the core rulebook states " While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games.". Change implies there being a standard you can shift from using houserules which would mean that rules are "opt out" unless they are described as optional which makes them "opt in" rules. Like if I or most other people join a pathfinder campaign the fighter isn't assumed to be out of play if the GM says nothing about it you'd have to explain that you are using explicitly optional rules like ac to dr or talisman components (which the game stresses repeatedly is something to be added later, can you point me to the section of the fighter class that says "If the GM wants to use the fighter class"?) Also no one knows what the Marshmallow fallacy is
The "points of res acts as fuel for magical vehicles" thing will make for some unique worldbuilding, including possibly making travel in those ships free if the resonance carrying passengers in a cargo vessel is worth more than the cargo they lose. EDIT: I hope that they either don't do magic items purely by equation or have much more robust rules that allow for limitations on items, fueling items with various substances to make them work and other things like that. I want some magitech damn it!
I agree too. We usually do it for food or poison in our pathfinder 1e game and we now jokingly call ourselves a "chopshop" after an incident where we harvested hundreds of pounds of meat from a couple giant scorpions so it would be cool to get better and more varied payouts.
IMHO, the biggest issue won't be miscellaneous magic items like magic bags, quivers, ladders and such. It'll be wands and potions. That's where the resonance limit os going to chafe. my real question is how the resonance system is going to work at all with many magical items, will the bag of holding spill everything out when you're not wearing it? Will the Ioun Torch spend one resonance to float? Will there be rules for magical items that aren't supposed to be carried around like for a flying boat or something?
I hope they put some sort of system in because many situations, especially ones that use the diplomacy skill shouldn't be decided through one roll
I hope the actual element of your spell is generally less important this edition
you mean like how Arcanists had an "magical supremacy" capstone?
I'm actually planning to use animate construct to re-create Howl's moving castle
Yesyou can't possibly be arguing that the only description of how a golem works that is found in the same paragraphs as the rules for creating golems is just as optional as a system that describes itself as an addon. Do you consider the existence of Constitution as a stat just as optional as the condensed skill set in unchained? then why are you arguing since you think that no word in any of the texts have no more value than any other? Why did you argue the component rules if you didn't believe they have any authority on the assumed setting?
definitely. In a game I'm currently playing one of the characters I don't control considers a waffle iron to be one of his favorite items and my character's favorite "item" is a heavy cart tricked out as a mobile home
you can't possibly be arguing that the only description of how a golem works that is found in the same paragraphs as the rules for creating golems is just as optional as a system that describes itself as an addon. Do you consider the existence of Constitution as a stat just as optional as the condensed skill set in unchained?
Some quality of life alchemical items so it doesn't feel like alchemy only exists in the adventurer market
that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction. Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
If we can't critique what they give us what's the point of even having a playtest forum?
how does that even work? In that system why doesn't everyone just play a full caster? because playing any kind of martial is going to be a pretty miserable experience I would have thought.Why is "add your level to your attack rolls" a problem when Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, Bloodragers, Swashbucklers, Slayers, Unchained Monks, Avenger Vigilantes, certain Occultists, Shifters, etc. have been doing that for a while? I think the intention is that the class feats and proficiencies will make up for it. I personally can't see that happening however since despite the lack of prerequisites feats seem to come later than they did in 1e
damn, I was hoping that I could justify more alchemy stuff in world-building but apparently its more expensive now.
I frankly never understood having both great cleave and whirlwind attack. I know they're different but they are in a similar enough niche that I don't understand why we need both. I'm kind of hoping that they make it so that some feats evolve when you get higher proficiencies. like whirlwind attack becomes available the proficiency after great cleave automatically if you have the general cleave feat.
It didn't help that 80% of people were thinking "Avatar" when the kneticist came out. Also what anime has the supernatural system give a character exhaustion based damage? The closest thing I can think of is Digimon season 1-3 but that was more hunger since eating food restored them. Maybe Dragon Ball but I think they stopped doing that early.
I have no clue where that came from but I guess I would agree that a flaming sword is evil if it required enslaving a sapient creature for it to work.
I'm more worried about what the ancestry feats are going to be for humans. There's most likely going to be a couple based on how you were raised but what will humans get at higher levels?
Also if you can use magic as a fighter and its not breaking your theme why can't your theme use wands or scrolls? your confused because you ignored "fighter that dosen't like using magic" as a suggestion I gave for a theme that isn't well supported. if you're supposed to be a knight that doesn't like dealing with foul sorcery you can't use potions but since you ignored that I assumed that potions and scrolls don't count as spoiling a theme for you.
Also if you can use magic as a fighter and its not breaking your theme why can't your theme use wands or scrolls?
swarms, characters that aren't supposed to like magic, enemies with high ac in general EDIT:also by the logic of being worse or investing points into it dosen't count as a problem (I'd argue that a feat is worth more than a spell prepared) you can deal with sometimes doing less damage.
since when can you choose martials based purely on thematics without suffering? Have a theme based on a melee weapon? screwed when enemies fly. polearm user? step up. etc.
can't disagree, I really had trim my list for my post
so your excuse is "there might be a completely different type of elemental not mentioned in any other sections which is what they're really talking about"
also this section found under golems states that the most commonly used "elemental spirit" is an earth elemental which is an actual int 4 minimum creature "Golems are magically created automatons of great power. They stand apart from other constructs in the nature of their animating force—golems are granted their magical life via an elemental spirit, typically that of an earth elemental. The process of creating a golem binds the spirit to the artificial body, merging it with this specially prepared vessel and subjecting it to the will of the golem's creator." EDIT:Ninja'ed by TheFinish
so they're half archetypes half prestige classes?
So forcibly binding a spirit of the elements into a body it can't control isn't torturous to you?
The dumbest elemental has an int of 4 with 3 being the minimum to be considered sapient in Pathfinder. Enough to learn a class and even have their own language.
that would only make sense if elementals were innately violent and attacked everything in sight, which is one of the reasons people give to define undead as evil but most elementals are neutral
dilemmas/combo moves sound like a good idea to make creatures more active I also like your Hydra idea since it removes the clumsy sunder based rule that creates more problems than it solves("so can I sever limbs of other creatures with sunder?")
"come on, you only need 9 pounds of napalm to disperse the spiders! It's only 2 players worth of starting gold. Its an average level 1 encounter"
I think the problem with this is what complaint about undead can you not make about golems?
Since they said that instead of using a formula to stat out monsters like they did in 2e they'll give it the stats they think it needs I was thinking what monsters are you hoping will be improved in the new edition. personally I am looking forward to they fey getting reworked since there were many that conceptually aren't tricksters like the Nuckelavee who all had pretty terrible BAB despite the fact that they're fighters. Also I hope that they put in the weird fey protections that exist in the myths.
It would be cool if they made it that way. D&D/pathfinder always had tiers of power you were essentially supposed to move through as you level so I think its a good idea to formalize it.(especially if it means the problems that are below the importance of an adventure was controlled by something other than what spells you can cast)
barbarian:I think they don't have enough mechanical aspects to show how the nomadic/wilderness aspect if the character. In 2e that would probably be giving them something extra for the nature skill. Maybe also give them an animal focus type ability if you want their nature powers more supernatural Paladin/inquisitor/warpriest: make a general warrior of the faith class, possibly with archetypes to mimic the specific classes (like giving holy protection for paladin, the tracking for inquisitor and holy boon like effects for warpriests). Occultist: I would like the implement system to be more robust and maybe replace their magic completely (especially since I didn't like how similar psychic powers were compare to regular magic) Kineticist: I'd like their powers to not be based on taking damage since it just didn't feel right according the people I play with as well as myself. monk/ninja: I want the ki abilities to be a more fully fledged system. I also want martial characters to have more supernatural options and archetypes. Since most pathfinder campaigns have a lot of magic in the world its weird that a fighter or rogue wouldn't pick up a few tricks
I second the idea that fumbling attack roll spells would mean much. In my personal experience it is very rare for a spellcaster to use attack roll spells since most spell schools don't have any, with none of the iconic spells using attack rolls and divine casters having basically no way to fumble since 90% of the time they are using buffs which use no rolls whatsoever.
I'm against anything that would make my character look stupid outside of either me choosing to let it happen or an intelligence failure on my part
I'd argue that this shouldn't be necessary but I've seen people argue against fluffing using buff spells on yourself as a magical martial techniques because you technically could've memorized "create food and water" instead
I don't understand how you can complain about rules that bind a GM since by definition that literally all rules. Edit:also for your first point I feel like the success of a course of action shouldn't be so dependent on how well you can convince the GM.
I fail to see how "whether or not to roll being left up to the GM's sense of what's best for the story" is unreasonable. This is especially bad for me since the reason I favor d20 skill systems in general is because target numbers and taking 10 give a good idea of what a character can just do. I've seen enough arguments over how reasonable it was to make someone roll for a skill to know how bad grey areas are.
7. How does the world change to reflect that fact that any task that could theoretically be done without training, no matter how ludicrous or improbable, is successful 5% of the time? Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if the "when not to ask for/allow a roll" section boils down to use your gut which can cause serious problems when playing a game where you're eventually supposed to be able to do normally impossible things |
