zeonsghost's page

*** Pathfinder Society GM. 57 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

You would need to take two other druid dedication feats. After which you would be able to take a new dedication feat.


Doug Hahn wrote:
Super Helpful Stuff

Thank you for your help, Doug! I really appreciate it!


Doug Hahn wrote:

Beyond human error/ laziness/terrible reporting design, my main concern is the fact NONE of my area VAs/co-VL have had their NDAs returned; some have been waiting over 2 years now. We don't even ask Tonya anymore.

Sorry, as an adult managing other volunteers who run games I'm really not into requiring my busy VAs to take MORE time out of their busy lives to rush reporting games — not when Paizo won't lift a finger to even recognize them as volunteers in a timely fashion.

Give us a proxy: a boon the organizer can sign and date for games GM'd/played. Make it like the old race boon sheet from the last few seasons.

And please stop asking Paizo to design against the lowest common denominator players (cheaters) when it only hurts the people who are actually working hard in their free time to make events happen and communities thrive — people who are often doing it for no official recognition.

So, non-venture person here and I have questions. I just want to make sure I'm following the conversation. Are venture officers of all ranks supposed to be able to fix reporting issues in a world where whatever this NDA is for works correctly? Or is it just VCs and regional leads who are supposed to be able to do that? Also, where is the contact information for VOs? I thought it was on the Paizo website, but I can't for the life of me find it anymore.

I ask because last I checked, all but one of the VOs in my state had either stepped down or been removed. I'm getting contacted about whose organizing for local cons and from players whose tables haven't been reported by other GMs. I think something this boon sheet proxy a GM can sign off are great for someone like me, who can't really knock on people above me for support and wants to rebuild a community that's fallen off the last couple years.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gary Bush wrote:

I think it is a bad idea that will be rift with abuse and cheating.

I don't trust players not to take advantage of something. History is a good teacher.

Magic is different and I don't play (realized how much of a money stink it is back in the '90s). Do you need to show that you still own the card that is being proxyed? Isn't the point of a proxy is to protect a valuable card?

I would rather prioritize making exception for players who've had GMs or event organizers fail to report. Cheaters are going to cheat anyways. If one really wanted a legitimate boon and had no problems cheating, nothing stops a cheater from creating 4 PFS numbers and assigning enough table credit to get whatever it is they want. As its not a competitive game, other players aren't directly harmed by a cheater. Whereas when a table isn't reported or is reported incorrectly that directly harms the player's access to materials. Minimizing direct harm to player experience due to human error seems to be a better way to foster a healthy player base versus treating all players like cheaters.


The system seems very prone to human error. I've started double checking numbers when I fill out chronicles and doing my reporting at the table. That isn't tenable at cons for lots of GMs and there's not really a good safety net other than track down a GM or VC and bother them to do it (which isn't great).

Maybe a player reporting feature using the event code for an existing event would be doable? If there's a concern for abuse, it could be capped at so many per year. Just sort of spitballing here.


To all the people who think I'm trying to speak for the whole game, my first line was this:

zeonsghost wrote:

The things I hear the most from my players come in two broad categories.

I am only giving feedback from the people who are playing locally to me and the experiences they relate to me. I cannot and am not speaking to other locations. I'm not even speaking as a player, because I've had a limited chance to play. If you have a different experience, I'm glad to hear it works better elsewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gamerskum wrote:

I fail to understand how 2e is restrictive?

The things I hear the most from my players come in two broad categories.

1. Is that the math is so tight that a being even a bit suboptimal is crippling with how challenges scale. I can see where they are coming from having run some 3-4 tier tables. A suboptimal character is not only incapable of making some of the DCs even if they’re trained, they also add to the challenge points making it harder for everyone. This has created some awkward social pressures and has scared a few players away permanently.

2. There are some classes that just feel locked into certain paths. Nobody is playing caster clerics because the general impression is they just die. All the alchemists take wizard dedication at level 2. Half the sorcerers take champion dedication at 2. A plurality of martials, clerics, and druids all have field medic as their background. No one plays stock elves because they have an HP deficit. I think most tables I’ve run consist of humans and dwarves, with the odd goblin thrown in. I’ve yet to see an elf and there’s been a few halflings.

And I get that we’re early in the game, with the second wave of content now seeing society play. I think they did a good job in being pretty open with options. I think rolling it back at this point would be counter-intuitive pending something that trivializes encounters.


Biggest complaint I hear from my players week over week is that things feel really locked in outside of a few cases. I can only speak to what I hear from them. Most of our other PFS GM’s quit locally (many over complaints on how restrictive 2e was).


Rysky wrote:

Encouraging the use of common sense in regards to rules doesn’t really feel like “stop having fun”.

You need to interact with people to heal them, only Elves can take the Heritage that plays off their long life span. *shrugs*

I think for both, the digital ink spilled outweighs the actual play effect.

For battle medicine until there’s an actual ruling, ask your GM before you start and everyone’s at least on the same page. At this point, it’s just half a year of wheel spinning. It spilling into another thread is just demoralizing.

I personally the spirit and letter of elf atavism would qualify. You’re more elf than human, you got the longer life span out of the deal. It makes 2e half elves capable of feeling more like the multi-class focused half elves of 1e. I think the opposition is anti-fun narratively and mechanically.

In the case of both, the rules and math of 2e are so tight that a restrictive attitude just cuts build elasticity further in a game that already feels more rigid than its predecessor.


I gotta say, I'm glad I pretty much GM 2E right now. Between all the discussion of making Battlefield Medicine harder to use and Ancient Elf less accessible, it stinks of "stop having fun, guys". GMing it is a blast, but if I were playing more I imagine this would be a huge turn off.


The Goblin RP I've seen at my PFS tables has largely been more like Kender from Dragonlance and less like cannibal pyromaniacs. It's been about as disruptive as PF1 clerics of evil gods, occasionally annoying or problematic but mostly silly and good for the narrative.


James Anderson wrote:
zeonsghost wrote:

AoN shares a problem with Herolab when it comes to PFS and it had caused my tables to grind to a halt. A player finds a cool thing in AoN or HL, doesn't understand it or can't explain it. When I ask "ok, where is it from" and they hand me their phone or tablet. Then we need to find the actual Paizo source, find out if they own the source (which 50% of the time they don't), and then come up with solutions.

My experiance has been the opposite. My biggest gripe with HLO right now is that I get access to Cool Things in SFS and Hero Lab doesn't support them. Like all the races we find in scenarios.

My encounters with HL have mostly been with 1E. If they're not loading SF content, I can see that being a big issue.


Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:
Thanks for responding, Michael. For the life of me, I still can’t understand why articles like this — material Paizo decides not to publish — is given priority over support for actually printed material that customers are angry about. It really feels like the company lacks customer-oriented leadership on its web team.

I believe because that the PDF is a feature of the book they'd promised. The writing and production was done, but the actual page count wasn't available to print. Instead of just letting the cut content languish in a computer file, publishing it for free seems pretty customer friendly to me. I can imagine saving it for another splatbook down the line or just letting it go to waste. For non-PFS games, this is a pretty snazzy free product.

Organized play is probably a loss leader and almost certainly not the revenue generation machine for the company. There is a large segment of people who play Pathfinder that don't know about, care about, and/or play Pathfinder Society. For that segment of the player base, this PDF represents customer-oriented attention. The PFS side of things is equal parts ambitious on the part of the OP team and probable lower priority for the web team. Putting out a PDF of material that was likely already tested, edited, and formatted (or fit easily into an existing format) is an easier task than "rebuild our database into an interactive application."

I get being upset over the lack of support for organized play. I'm certainly not happy with it and most of the time I GM. I do think they've put too many eggs in one basket with their new approach and they don't have the time or staff to course correct at this stage of the game. It's a mess, everyone knows it's a mess, but getting upset because someone else got a toy seems silly.


On the one hand, an online resource that's 90% accurate being dubbed "official" would be nice.

On the other, the OP Team is already behind on everything thanks to staffing issues. This just adds another step and another party to the process. It also doesn't solve the source ownership problem.

AoN shares a problem with Herolab when it comes to PFS and it had caused my tables to grind to a halt. A player finds a cool thing in AoN or HL, doesn't understand it or can't explain it. When I ask "ok, where is it from" and they hand me their phone or tablet. Then we need to find the actual Paizo source, find out if they own the source (which 50% of the time they don't), and then come up with solutions.

The one upside of core only PFS2 has been that I haven't had this issue since August. Before it was a once every 2-3 month problem. It seemed like everytime a new player discovered HL or AoN we'd have this problem crop up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I give out about 1 per 2 encounters. If they have a struggle with a fight or solve a problem or encounter in a unique way, I'll give out another. It gives me a good way to balance out issues with party composition. This early on, I'd rather give out extra while people are still learning than be stingy and lose players.


My guess is that they’re going to roll it out after the achievement system, and that rollout has been slow going thanks to technical difficulties. Combine that with staffing issues, the holidays, and how long it normally takes for Additional Resources updates I’d say sometime after the New Year and before PaizoCon.

It’s disappointing that things have hit walls, but it happens.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

With all of its scene-related abilities and abilities to generate ad hoc items in a limited capacity, the Investigator feels like they're playing Dresden Files RPG.

I think this is fundamentally a good thing as it really brings set pieces to life. Though GMs who aren't expecting are probably have to do a lot of improvise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of web updates, I just started GMing 2e and my table is only showing 1 ACP for GM credit. Is this a bug? Did I do something wrong?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Setting the hyperbole and book burning aside, it does seem there's an overall level of discontent with how PFS is handling this.

Problem 1: I'd say the Keepsake system is all around rubbish. Scenario chronicles seemed to have scaled back on the items, which is probably for the best so I can see the logic of not having a chronicle loaded with options. That said, everything about the execution is some combination of unintuitive and unrewarding.

You have a level 1 common item, subtiers for a thing with no subtiers, and a system called "keepsake" in which you buy something. It doesn't feel like a keepsake. It's confusing and really lends itself to the argument that this was rushed.

Solution Suggestions: Get rid of the subtiers unless you're gonna use them and explain how they're supposed to work. Make a Keepsake an actual keepsake. Yes, that'll put a PFS character ahead on the wealth curve. Pick careful as to what those things are and set its resale value to 0 GP. The players and GM are putting in more work for less PFS credit, throw them a bone.

Problem 2: Sanctioned Mode. There seems to be a lot of people upset over the lack of a sanctioned mode and the "we'll put something in the guide later" is a refrain I think a lot of people are sick of hearing.

Solution Suggestion: Let GMs make it up. That's effectively what "campaign mode is" anyways. The lack of content and personnel seem to a ongoing problem that isn't changing anytime soon. It gives organizers the flexibility to put it on so that there's stuff for players to do in a way that suits their environment. It's all giving 1 level's worth of stuff anyways.

If that's too loose, say "Part 1 is Sanctioned" and be done with it. People who are only interested in playing it for PFS credit get their credit. That frees you up to add chronicles for parts 2 & 3 later if there's the right mix of time and demand or to say "play Part 1 at lvl range A-B, get 1 lvl's worth of XP/Fame/GP. play Part 2 at lvl range B-C, get another, and so on through the content. That way, you'd satisfy the "I'm not getting my XP out of this game" crowd (though honestly, I'm not a fan of this option).

Problem 3: I'm getting the impression that the lack of content is feeding this discontent.

Solution: Well, I don't have one. I can't imagine organized play brings in enough money for more resources to be approved for to grow it. Maybe make this repeatable for year 1? That way people can experiment with different builds over the course of a few levels and come out with a lvl 2 version of a character ready to go for future PFS content. It's not great, but its something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
We were just wondering this past weekend if it was time again for someone to encourage players to ignore the rules and cheat. Seemed like we were overdue for it.

I feel like if there's enough players interested in ignoring the rules in a given PFS group, sounds like its time for a home game. If people NEED it to give society credit, they could always run the AP in campaign mode and hand out chronicles when those drop (presuming those rules will exist when/if APs get sanctioned).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Based on my own frustration and that of people who play PFS in my area, I think a not insignificant part of discontent over Additional Resources is that there's no set time frame. A book can come out and there's just no knowing when new options will be added. It creates an extra layer of frustration. You get a book, you like some things and you know that a fraction of material is gonna be PFS legal (might be a big fraction, might be a small one). So you're already forced to temper your excitement. Then add on that there's nothing remotely resembling a schedule.

It would be nice if there was even a broad schedule.
It could be as simple as:

Things released between GenCon and the end of October will be sanctioned in early December (in time for the holidays). Things released between November and March will be Sanctioned in early May (in time for PaizoCon). Things released between April and June would be sanctioned in time for GenCon.

This would have the added benefit for stores that cater to a regular PFS crowd. Knowing when PFS is adding new material would help them move more product and give them an idea of when to order said product. I know our local store owner has questioned why demand for a five month old product spiked (and then not been able to get it in easily) because something became PFS legal.

Just having a basic time frame takes some of the frustration out of a system that people seem to be constantly frustrated with.

I've made the call a couple of times. I am rarely attached to a character, so outside of PFS (where death represents needing to level from 1 again in a limited content environment) I've let pretty much most of my PC deaths stick even when a raise is available and offered. I won't pretend its not a metagame call, to be honest. I GM mostly, so the chance to make a new character combined with the ability of the party to sell or use my dead character's gear is pretty much a win-win for everyone.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

HackMaster had a class called the Charlatan that spent XP and gold to train in other class's abilities. While it was an easily breakable mess, I liked the concept of a character whose who shtick is learning from others. As the bard has moved from the "jack of all trades" concept towards its own more full concept, having something like that could be interesting.

It actually came to pvp at my table with regards to Cinnabar. The party's magus managed to get her to her morale threshold and triggered the "event". When she's begging for death, the party's anti-paladin went "have it your way" and moved to attack. The magus tripped her on the way through to save her. He's a member of the Korvosan Guard and he wanted to interrogate her.

It got testy their for a minute and the party's took her weapons while she was freaking out and kept her locked down while she freaked out, letting her go once she was through the worst of it. Book 4 had some of the most tense RP moments in the AP (which I did not expect when I started reading it).

She's beginning to become a regular source of intelligence on the Queen's activities, but isn't interested in fighting. I'm looking at bringing her back as an ally in some of the fights in book five, but equipped with Merciful weapon enchantments. Maybe as the new Blackjack. (The mostly lawful neutral party and Blackjack have not seen eye-to-eye).

I just finished running this book for my players and I was worried going in. For them, the inhospitable environment and access to two full casters meant they just teleported to rest back in Kaer Maga and teleported back the next day, so the threat of the environment only really existed while they traveled on foot.

Instead I decided to focus on the characters and organizations moving about the area as the hook. The environment wasn't going to challenge them, but that doesn't make alliances. Their alliance with the Shoanti starts pretty fragile, so their guides were often targets for the Red Mantis. More than once they had to shift tactics to protect their allies (including bringing some back from the dead).

I played up the Truthspeaker's interest in the party, and showed him to be a helpful and competent ally. The moon clan's intro with retaking the shrine was a bit "too dumb to live" for my taste, but I made it about their pride in front of outsiders more than a cultural need to avenge their comrades. I tied the Truthspeaker's arrival to a random encounter where he was able to show off that he wasn't just some helpless old man and that he had his own motives.

I made the choice to do the Vault before the last few challenges, as I wanted to break up the flow a bit. I had the Truthspeaker come with them as a witness to their deeds. When he was able to recount the efforts the party went to, saving Cinnabar from herself, but also using magic to capture many of the Grey Maidens alive it fed into the narrative. I gave them Respect Points for taking prisoners, flavoring it as the Truthspeaker telling the Sun Clan that they are strong enough to not fear weaker enemies.

I also played up the politics by changing rebuilding the Red Mantis Assassins who attack the PCs in Flameford to be a kill team of specialists sent to kill them. I left notes in the vault detailing the PCs origins and known abilities, as well as names and info on these specialist assassins. It gave the book a thrilling conclusion and my players were excited when the illusions failed on each assassin, replacing each generic red mantis with a unqiue foe.

So hopefully this provides some inspiration for other parts of the story to focus on if "desolate land of heat and monsters" gets old.



Name: Kei, the Rubellite Sage
Race: Skinwalker
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
Class: Death Druid 9
Description: A young man with tan skin, unkempt white hair and red eyes (most of the time). The one time tomb robber from Osirion had his life change when was bound to the restless spirits whose resting places he plundered. Blending the Druidic traditions of his people and his connection to the spirits, he began to seek out the haunted places of the world to put to rest the spirits that people like him helped to stir.

With him travels Zarisha al-Sahba, one of many spirits whose final business he's been cursed to see to. A cultist who died fruitlessly and now clings to the despair the mortal world brought them. The pair work well together, operating as investigators, infiltrators, and archaeologists for the Scarab Sages and the Pathfinder Society.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


1. Class Design: While some of them are rough and definitely need some tuning (Alchemist chief among them), I like the modular direction of class option. It's a much more dynamic system and adds to character customization. If anything, classes like Ranger and Paladin could stand to be more modular.

2. The Dubious Knowledge Feat: A Fun, Rewarding Feat that makes failure interesting. It's fantastic. Please Keep It.

3. Action system: It's a fun system to play. It's easy to explain and it flows well. It really gives the developers a chance to work in the space of things like how effective a single action ability should be vs. a 2 action one. I really think there's a lot to play with and its fun to play.

3 Dislikes

1. The Return of the 5 minute adventuring day. This could be all three it bothers me so much. I get the drive to remove the Cure Light Wounds Wand due to its negative impact on the narrative, it was a player fix to a problem in D&D as well as Pathfinder. That problem is the 5 minute adventuring day. The changes to healing, lower available spell slots and overall weaker spells seem to make the time between rests 1-2 encounters on average.

2. Half-Breeds: They went and took out two core races and boiled them down to feats (and not even interesting ones). Beyond this, the playtest has done a lot to present itself as providing more options than the Core of PF1. Seeing that we're Net -1 one options out the gate is discouraging.

3. Spell slots: Okay, so the 5 minute adventuring day is gonna be 2 of my 3. However, I felt this needed calling out. Spells are weaker and I get that. Because of that, your casters are going to cast more of them. Now reduce the number of spells per day significantly and you just run out of juice too quickly to feel heroic. Either spells need to be more powerful or there needs to be more slots.

3-1 Also, the spontaneous heightening thing is bullocks. You had a great "Undercast" system with the psychic magic in the Occult book. It felt good, was pretty easy to explain and allowed you to feel like you were learning to better control your spells. Love it. Just do that.

3-2. That said, the rest of the built-in metamagic options are lovely. They use the action economy effectively, are interesting options, and make casters feel powerful. Just...maybe put them all in one list that casters can draw from. Save some trees and reading time.

27 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna come out and ask, because I think its fundamental to the direction of my future critique.

Is the 5 minute adventure day a feature or a bug?

Resonance as a way to manage equipment hasn't given me any issues. It needs some work, yes. The alchemist and it need a divorce, because its an abusive one-sided relationship. However, for equipped magic items and the like its fine.

For healing, its an utter bust. The "Wand of Cure Light Wounds" problem didn't spring up in a void. It sprang up because the effectiveness of offensive actions greatly exceeds the effectiveness of healing and class resources to mitigate damage (buffs & debuffs). An affordable healing solution meant the cleric was solely dedicated to healing. It meant you didn't need a cleric or a life oracle.

The hard return to 5 minute adventuring day is disappointing and jarring. While the rest of the game feels like something of the 21st century, healing feels less like 2nd Edition Pathfinder and more like 2nd Edition Dungeons and Dragons. If that's the feel you're going for,go for it. If you're trying to get away from that old trope, maybe look for better solutions to healing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:

Channel to me, is not really working. It smells like a bandaid fix. It functions nothing like any other class ability. Every other class that wants to do special stuff keys that off their Spell Points or Spell Slots. Clerics get this extra third thing that triples their highest level slots for healing basically. All I hear from folks that think this is good is that "It works! We live with it!" Well, ya, but it doesnt work at making parties varied or gameplay better.

Unless they are going to start hacking in a bunch of random bandaids like this onto the Druid, Bard, and Divine Sorc, then we are stuck with the DM likely running a DMPC Cleric just to keep a party alive and that is just not good design. If they do put in a bunch of such hacks, survivability may go up but the design would likely be clunky (like channel) and be harder to balance.

PF2 would be a far better game if there were no channel and parties could survive with a variety of healing options. Suggestions that fail to address that fail to fix a large problem (the only major one I have with this edition) and just kick the can down the road.

Your post is asking for two mutually exclusive things.

DataLoreRPG wrote:
If they do put in a bunch of such hacks, survivability may go up but the design would likely be clunky (like channel) and be harder to balance.


DataLoreRPG wrote:
PF2 would be a far better game if there were no channel and parties could survive with a variety of healing options.

You can't "have more options" while calling more diverse options "hacks" or "bandaids". To have more options is to have more options. Removing Channel isn't adding options. Buffing the Heal spell isn't adding options. You are specifically narrowing options.

Lets go back to the origin of Channel Energy in PF1, where it was Paizo's fix to healing in 3.5 D&D. It gave Clerics three resources: Spells, Domain Powers, and Channel. This is mirrored in the PF2 version, which has Spells, Spell Points and Channel. Except that now you get less domain powers and less spells. Channel continues to scale, but at a slightly more reliable rate thanks to the higher die and wisdom bonus.

What you're calling "bandaids" are really options and they should include them. There should be a healing focused build of the alchemist. It's thematic, its mechanically interesting, and it allows more non-divine healing into the game. You're right that as is, a cleric is essentially mandatory. However, your wrong in your solution. The problem ins't cleric, heal or channel energy. The problem is in how spells have been powered down and the action economy has made enemies more dangerous.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:

If you increase the power of healing options (curative magic, items, etc) then just get rid of channel and give clerics spontaneous conversion, you will still keep clerics as good healers but you simultaneously improve the healing ability of everyone else.

Tripling one class's highest level slots does not address the underlying issue that the heal spell is not up to the task at present.

Again, just jack up the healing value. Make is 2d6+spell mod (or 1d6 + spell mod in an area). Do similar stuff to LoH and other curative magic. Make some downtime mundane healing feats (see 5e). Remove resonance costs for curative items.

Then, bam, channel isn't needed. Non-clerics can heal. Clerics are still the best healers (especially with the healing domain power) thanks to spontaneous conversion.

You can keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true.

Or maybe the problem is available spell slots, the power of spells over and the availability of mitigation options? "Gut cleric" isn't a solution, its creating another problem. We're back to D&D's healbot cleric. Only its worse because instead of being able to disable enemies with spells, PF2 clerics can just hamper them.

Making the Heal spell more powerful doesn't fix mitigation. Maybe it makes druid and Div Sorc more capable, but it doesn't help Paladin or Alchemist. Even increasing the dice doesn't really help cleric, both because of how the three action version of heal works and because you'll be applying the static modifier less times per day.

Example @ lvl 2:
If a Cleric can cast DataLore Heal 3/day at 2d6+Wis (call it +4), that's an average of 11 points per cast and an average of 33 points healed per day. That represents all their non-cantrip spells for the day.

The same cleric using Playtest Channel can cast, lets call it an average of 6/day (assuming a 16 Cha). You'll heal 1d8+4 per spell, for an average of 8 per heal, but with a daily average of 48 points healed per day. Plus, you'll still have three spells left to do things other than heal with.

Your 1st level heal spell, to effectively replace channel's healing throughput would need to start at 2d8. And all the cleric would do is heal. That's bad game design. The class is called "cleric" not "healer". Healing is part of what it does, but it should not narratively or mechanically be the only thing it does.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintessentially Me wrote:

I for one would like to see the Cleric brought down to where the other supposed heal-capable classes are in terms of their ability to heal, solely because I want the brightest possible light to be shown on the issue of survivability, spell power levels, and lack of healing and avoidance capabilities (i.e. not enough spread around).

I do *not* want to nerf Cleric and call it a day. In fact, for those who are upset about folks saying "Nerf Cleric", consider that many folks don't want to stop there but instead want to even the (healing) power level out in order to then be able to properly bring that (healing) power level up across the board for all intended heal-capable classes.

If were talking in a vacuum, maybe that's the right approach. Unfortunately, we're talking about a game that essentially needs to be done and to the printers in about 6 months. "Breaking" the cleric by lower its healing and then building healing back up is very time inefficient. If the goal is to minimize the amount of 5 minute adventuring days, then damage mitigation has to be higher than it is at present. If the goal is to be a gritty, magic-light game I would recommend HackMaster. The current version nails that style of play.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:

But, honestly, why play something other than a cleric? I can think of nothing as fearsome as a party of 4 clerics in this edition. They get tons of healing through channel, have great armor/shields and can toss out some decent spells too. Heck, take Fighter Dedication and some feats, then you can be decent in melee too. Its Channel that puts them over the top, though.

The same thing applies to PF1, as well most versions of D&D. The thing the opened other classes up in PF1 was the availability of affordable healing.

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Incorrect. The class surfaces a problem. If it has to spam the core healing spell more times that it has core spell casts for it to be able to heal effectively, then the heal spell itself needs to be improved.

By doing that, you can have the cleric effectively work within the bounds of the game while simultaneously improving every healer.

Basically, buff Heal and nerf Channel Energy.

That is a narrow and limited solution to a wider issue regarding mitigation. As it stands, the cleric looks powerful because there are few effective ways to prevent damage. Changing the amount of healing out of the Heal spell or channel doesn't change that mitigation is weak. In PF1, my Shaman's best heal spell is Misfortune Hex. My Cleric's is Waves of Ecstasy (at lower levels it was Murderous Command and Holy Smite). Every point enemies couldn't do while locked down was another point I didn't have to heal. Given that enemies do damage in one attack than you typically can heal in one spell, this was a good value (even figuring the risk of a successful save).

Meanwhile in PF2 Heal is more effective than Cures were in PF1 and Channel is only slightly more powerful than it was (but not significantly until higher levels). The 2nd level cure spell's 3 action version is effectively a 5th level spell in PF1 (mass cure light wounds). However, other spells are weaker than their PF1 versions for the most part. So, Heal's power has gone up over cure, where other spells' power has dropped.

This is compounded by the change to wands, which were a non-narrative fix to a narrative breaking problem. W/O an effective, cheap means of healing between fights and with weaker mitigation, cleric looks all the better because it has more healing. Not better healing, not efficient mitigation, just more healing.

Given all this, I would say increasing max spells / spell level to 4 would be a better fix than buffing the Heal Spell or nerfing channel.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:


I think you are wrong. The need is higher because enemies have three attacks at early levels and they tend to have higher attack bonuses than pcs. Its a deadlier game and the +10 crit thing and the lack of a need to confirm adds to that.

It's a deadlier game with weaker damage mitigation options than PF1, causing the game's single useful healing option to stand out as functionally mandatory. That's not a problem with that class, that's a balance issue with the game.

DataLoreRPG wrote:

I wasn't speaking for you. You said...

Thus, Clerics with their specialized healing ability seem more powerful than other casters because the effectiveness of spells is down, but the need for healing is higher.
So, the need of healing is higher. We have one spell that focuses on healing. The base spell isnt meeting the need.

Please re-read the whole paragraph.

zeonsghost wrote:

I can take a foe out of a fight reliably with a second level cleric spell in PF1 (such as Hold Person or Blindness) or I can heal the damage caused by 1-2 hits with that same slot. With PF2 these spells are largely less powerful (unless the foe fumbles the save), the value of healing is increased but the effectiveness of the class is decreased. Thus, Clerics with their specialized healing ability seem more powerful than other casters because the effectiveness of spells is down, but the need for healing is higher.

To provide an example.

The need for healing is higher because control options are less powerful. Hold Person mitigates a lot more damage in PF1 than Cure Moderate Wounds does. Paralyze (PF2's version of the spell) is a lot less effective at mitigating damage due to a much lower duration. This makes the healing spell more powerful by comparison in PF2 vs. PF1 as the other spells have gone down in power. This, combined with the lack of the ability to effectively convert resources into healing for classes outside of cleric is a flaw in the game, not in the cleric.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:

Clearly, you feel the root cause is the heal spell isnt good enough. So, the answer should be to address the root cause.

Please don't speak for me. I listed things I felt wasn't good enough. None of them were the Heal spell.

To restate: Channel isn't the problem. The state of mitigation and non-channel recovery is the problem.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:


Seems to me the answer is to improve the heal spell and loh so the base healing value goes up (maybe increase the die sizes two steps). So, heal can heal for d12s and loh can heal for d8s or d12 with a feat. Then make channeling a less stupid effect that uses up spell points (like the maximized conversion example I gave).

That would make all healers better and keep the cleric good at healing without being required.

I don't think channeling as printed is overpowered. It only seems that way because there's no other viable healing or damage mitigation option. The lack of reliable damage mitigation due to numerous changes to the game has made it so that the game requires a cleric for the express purpose of healing because they're the only ones capable of reliably doing so.

Because control has become less powerful due to an overall lower effectiveness of spells, inability to rely on combat maneuvers like trip, and more mobile foes thanks to two classes having any form of action punishment (Fighters' AoO and Paladins' Retribution Strike) you have to rely on healing more than before in a version of the game with less reliable healing.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:

Once they figure how to make channeling not crazy overpowered, then they can work on putting in some healing feats for everyone else.

tl;dr: Channel isn't OP, the lack of viable non-channel healing and/or strong mitigation increases reliance on healing creating the illusion of channel's power.

I think the problem isn't channeling. I think the problem is healing done by other classes. Based on higher starting HP, changing in AC and Save scaling, I think we can infer that the devs are trying to discourage the 5 minute work day. At present in the playtest, a cleric is the only way to prevent it without a regular casualties.

The Cure Light Wounds wand of first edition was a player fix for a fundamental flaw in Pathfinder (and D&D): Healing scales much slower than damage does. Maybe in combat, that's fine. Higher level play should feel more deadly. However, the 5 minute work day is disruptive to the narrative of any game that doesn't involve a static dungeon. They "fixed" the narrative problem caused by the CLW wand with the introduction of resonance. However this system reinforces the flaw that wand was used to fix: healing's effectiveness is a fraction of damage output.

I can take a foe out of a fight reliably with a second level cleric spell in PF1 (such as Hold Person or Blindness) or I can heal the damage caused by 1-2 hits with that same slot. With PF2 these spells are largely less powerful (unless the foe fumbles the save), the value of healing is increased but the effectiveness of the class is decreased. Thus, Clerics with their specialized healing ability seem more powerful than other casters because the effectiveness of spells is down, but the need for healing is higher.

Jason S wrote:
DerNils wrote:
A bit less Doom and Gloom, guys. This is what the playtest is there for, to balance all the options.

Thing is, there are only a few months left before the game is finalized and to me, we're not polishing the game, it's still quite rough. And when corrections are made, something else is broken.

Even things as minor as not having archer rangers or smiting paladins, I'm not sure why these decisions were made, but they are not good decisions.

My hope with some of the "duh" choices like archer ranger and smiting Paladins is that they were so "duh" that they wanted to test other options.

I think one of the reasons they're calling it a "playtest" vs. a Beta is that there's a lot things in this that feel like they're designed to test. This isn't a coherent game in a lot of ways (flails wildly at Alchemist). I'm hoping that's because they want to see what strange thoughts they've had work rather than the actual in-office test system they've been using.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can they be made as healing capable as cleric? Yes. Should they? Yes, but they should work differently than cleric.

So, I think this goes into what role a "support" character plays in PF2. In PF1, support casters typically split their actions between buffing and debuffing. Healing was typically something handled in between combats or when someone was almost dead. From my limited PF2 play experience, healing at low levels plays a larger role than it did in most of my PF1 play.

Right now, Alchemist is pretty much non-functional. Which is a shame, because this is probably the best class thematically to make a different sort of healer. With an ability to create healing items via alchemy, it could provide single action healing items to other PCs that spread out healing's impact on the action economy. Instead of a single character dedicating a large portion of their action to healing, an Alchemist dedicates their resources to healing, but leaves the action portion to the other PCs. I think this could be a fun way to play this class and it takes healing out of the realm of divine casters.

Druid has since the ye old days, been an odd duck when it comes to healing. The class dedicated to the preservation of life and nature is a worse healer than priests worshiping the god of drinking or crafting. Maybe giving them spells or powers that mitigate damage would give them something unique? Goodberry has always been an underwhelming first level spell, and while better than in the past its still sub-par compared to heal. If a plant druid could give natural armor, resistance or temp. HP out the gate it would be something that mitigates damage w/o stepping on the cleric's toes.

The Divine Sorcerer is something I don't have a ton of experience or insight with. As it now shares a spell list with the cleric, its easier to make comparisons. My first thoughts on making them a more interesting healer than at present would be the ability to spend Spell Points to make their heal spells heal more. Essentially, you'd have a class that could heal more damage at once, but fewer times per day.

Lastly, I'm gonna touch on Paladin. I think it shouldn't be a comparable healer to Cleric without significant investment. Now, if you want to make something like a hospitalar that focuses on healing while wearing heavy armor and wielding martial weapons, I think that's cool but should require maybe half of your class feats to keep up with cleric. With how weapon damage scales now, a Paladin that could be an effective damage dealer and healer could get silly.

DerNils wrote:

A bit less Doom and Gloom, guys. This is what the playtest is there for, to balance all the options. I do believe that we will get serious buffs to Alchemist, Angel Blood Sorcerers and maybe even plant Druids and Paladins.

And I have hopes for Medicine getting better as well, like making Combat Medic simply a trained skill use and reducing your Chance to kill the guy you try to help.

I can't speak for others posting, but I wouldn't describe myself as "doom and gloom". I had fun playing it for the most part, however these two things are bad for the game as it relates to PFS play.

I think all the things you list would be good things to change to get away from mandatory cleric (which is where we're at), but we're not there yet. Thus, feedback. I think the idea of an alchemist as a primary healer is interesting if done correctly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Had a chance to play through Rose Street this weekend and would like to put my thoughts out there. Overall, I think it does a good job of explaining the modes of play that will matter in PFS and gave a pretty good explanation of how things work. More or less, it felt like a PFS scenario but with a few glaring exceptions. I'm worried these exceptions will make PFS a less fun experience going forward.

First is how magic items and identification is handled. Because identification takes an hour, in most scenarios they'll be relegated to gold/silver on the chronicle and play no role in the scenario. Even with quick identification, you're looking at a pretty hefty amount of time to ID loot. In PF1 many scenarios often reward the players with items that will be useful later in the scenario. Unless its handed over by an NPC, loot will not matter in this model if the scenario has any amount of time pressure in the story.

While Quick Identification can alleviate this problem to some extent it takes a long time to get there and with few exceptions is unavailable to 1st level characters and moderate hauls will still take over an hour (in-game time)for most levels of play. My overall impression is that magic items as in-scenario tools will be limited as a narrative device and I worry that this will harm the diversity of scenarios.

The second problem is healing. While clerics are super duper good at it, nobody else is even okay it. While Rose Street is broken up into quests, it made me think that without a cleric or an ability to identify items like potions in a reasonable time, PFS scenarios will be much harder. While we know Paizo is trying to get away from the Holy Stick, doing so has brought us back a state of always needing a cleric. Given the fluid composition of PFS tables, you can't always guarantee one. If Alchemists could be de-coupled from resonance in some way, they may make a good healer as well giving players a non-religious healer. As someone who regularly plays support characters, I'd certainly appreciate that.

Given that you can identify a magic item without needing a spell and given that we've split PF1 Detect Magic into two spells (Read Aura and Detect Magic) my intuition is that Read Aura (which tells you about the magic of a thing) should provide some sort of bonus to identifying items. Given the limitations on spells and spell slots, having this spell reduce the time would give people a reason to take it in the first place over the arguably more useful detect magic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't look good and it doesn't scale. I can think of three ways to make it attractive, two are strictly good at lower levels and one is remains good in the same way some of the other 1st level feats scale (such as the cantrip ones).

1. It's a +2 to a save vs. spells as a reaction. Remove the penalty entirely.

2. It's +1 to saves vs. spells all the time, reduce the penalty to 1.

3. It's a reroll on saves vs. spells, keep the penalty as is. This way, its something you take that's always good but at a significant cost.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

We lack a +str race

We also lack a - int race

It seems like winwin. (last boost should probably be wis to keep with physical /mental stat arrays)

Although, having orcs as the goto clerics doesn't sound ideal either...

Consider that a cleric can just easily be flavored as a tribal shaman (considering the lack of Shaman) as well having Druids in their tribes who see to their animals.

Right now, the "go to" species option for clerics or druids (based on the wis bumb) would be Dwarf. While dwarven clerics are common, perhaps even a bit cliche, Dwarven druids seem like an oddity. Orc clerics might be the same, odd but not unheard of.

In the defense of Orcs. With the increased focus on Golarion, Orcs have a nation that's referenced in multiple APs. You can explain PC Orcs much more easily than Goblins, who are pretty much exclusively primitive tribal societies. If the book ends up more generic, there's even more reasons for Orcs (and in this case Goblins too) because you can do plenty of worlds where Orcs aren't just a cliche horde of barbarians raining down on your civilizations.

Sydney S. wrote:

Gosh I really hope Drow don't get turned into a heritage feat.

That's already a terrible shame for half-elves and half-orcs, we don't need actual unique races getting flung into that mess.
We need the races to feel more like themselves again, not turn more races into feats that take entirely too long to get going anywhere iconic.

If the half elf/orc feats did something as tangible as the other species options, maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

As is, yeah. I want species to feel unique.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

An interesting thing about people giving us their thoughts, is that in many cases they contradict with other people. For example, I remember someone in a post recently saying that Half-orcs and Half-elves were they favorite thing in the playtest.

Which is why I still think Paizo should focus on the survay. Some people will like what others will hate. "being willing to post it in a thread" should not be the defining quality to pick the opinion of player A over player B.

Definitely agree on the surveys. I'm not married to Pathfinder as a game or brand. If the consensus is somewhere else after those surveys, then that's fine with me. I'm looking forward to getting more experience with it before I put anything down in an official survey.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? More or less, yes. Not my favorite game, but not a bad game.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? It inhereted more than a few of D&D's flaws and its grown into some of its own.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? 4: As a tabletop strategy game. 5: not at all.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? A more coherent play experience. Not inaccurate rocket tag to start, a fairly even experience in the mid-levels then precision rocket tag at later levels.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? I find this question vague. What do you mean by "more accessible"?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? See answer to 5.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will). In that I am not married to a single RPG, yes. I mean, you could call PF1 a different version of PF2 and I've played that.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? A coherent game that is fun to play.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some general impressions how how the game looks to me and a few of my regular players. As is our tradition, we'll start with the bad.

1. Ancestries don't feel good. It seems like Paizo had two goals going into this "make races less front-loaded" and "make racial options". What seems to have come out of that system is largely "take the options you had right away and spread them out". This is really aparaent when you compare feats that replicate old features to new creations. Getting a reaction bonus to certain saves at the cost of a large resonance penalty (that locks you out of magic items until 4th level if you don't bump your cha) seems really bad compared to an elf's ability to just have an arcane spell from jump.

2. Half-Elves/Orcs double this problem. This is my biggest complaint about this book. From a legacy standpoint, it was a bad idea. The actual half-elf/orc feat isn't great from a design point of view (low vision, an RP option, a skill and a buff) as it really feels like an RP penalty to take (I'm a half-elf raised by elves? Guess I'll just take the RP option in place of something usable). Maybe if Orc were a core race alongside the others, it wouldn't seem as bad but as its it looks like there's even less options.

3. The PDF character sheet has that background. It's a pain. I get having it in the book, but make one free of it for people who don't want to fiddle with settings. It'd be a nice quality of life change.

4. Reaction bloat. While I like the increased focus on reactions in the game, I feel like Paizo went crazy with it. Classes like Paladins really suffer from just having too many reactions. Many of these don't scale well (+2 to saves is neat, but boring past early levels). If you don't want to back those into the class's math, rerolls matter more throughout the game, giving your choices more impact and rewards players for taking the ability rather than the Paladin wondering if he needs the save buff before he rolls rather than having the ability to get literal divine intervention after failing. Fighters also seem to suffer from the same problem to an extent, juggling multiple options.

5. The word "Feat". Maybe call class options something different, talent or something. I get the logic, but reading the small print class chart where 30% of the words seem to be "feat" gets old quickly.

Good News

1. Modular class design works. The class feat system works to bake in a path to replicate what were archetypes right into the class, leaving that design space open for universal archetypes, which seem like a neat idea. Even having branching paths like Druid being able to take lesser versions of the other option's abilities provides a lot of versatility to a character.

2. Spell points make for an elegant system (but might need a better name). Having played a lot of classes with "pool" mechanics or uses per day in some combination or another, having that boil down to one resource pool evens things out nicely. It does feel a bit less powerful than 1E, but I haven't spent enough time with it. Only criticism is that "spell points" aren't used to cast spells, they're used to activate powers. So...maybe work on that.

3. Anathemas (should replace alignments). They need some work to allow a wider range of narrative options, but for a playtest I'll take what we're given. Every GM playing a game with an alignment system has had arguments over alignment. You could replace the "lawful good" requirement for Paladin with just "this is your code, this is your gods' anathema. Behave yourself" and you create the same concept without shackling it to an old idea. They're specific enough to matter and lay out consequences clearly.


This is really one minor thing. It'd be nice to have had a blog post or something saying what's been removed. There's been a lot of questions regarding arcane spell failure and oversized weapons that don't seem clearly addressed by the book. Whatever is in the final book, a blog post or document saying "these common assumptions are things you should not assume" would be helpful for many of us. Pathfinder is essentially running an 18 year old engine, its easy to assume. Clarifications help.

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>