|
Oh, man I'm really pissed about Ultimate Equipment, especially as it seems they were already working on PF2, and they still took the time to nerfbat those items into oblivion, but not enough time to make them reasonable, balanced options.
Ultimate Equipment came out 6 years ago (and thus, developed about 7.5 years ago). They've been working on PF2 for 2 years.
|
Oh, man I'm really pissed about Ultimate Equipment, especially as it seems they were already working on PF2, and they still took the time to nerfbat those items into oblivion, but not enough time to make them reasonable, balanced options.Ultimate Equipment came out 6 years ago (and thus, developed about 7.5 years ago). They've been working on PF2 for 2 years.
They're talking about the errata from the reprinting, where they changed items like the jingasa of the fortunate soldier from a solid choice (almost must have on a martial) to something no one would ever consider buying.
Personally, I'm just looking for better balance in magical items all around, as I feel most items are either must haves for your particular build, or not worth having at all. I'm currently playing in an AP with the automatic bonus progression and all it's really shown is that outside of the big 6, most magic items are either must have class items, horrendously overpriced, another +1 item that technically isn't a big 6, or just straight garbage. There are a couple exemptions, like low level metamagic rods, but they definitely are the exemption, not the rule.
Oh, man I'm really pissed about Ultimate Equipment, especially as it seems they were already working on PF2, and they still took the time to nerfbat those items into oblivion, but not enough time to make them reasonable, balanced options.Ultimate Equipment came out 6 years ago (and thus, developed about 7.5 years ago). They've been working on PF2 for 2 years.
They've been internally playtesting PF2 for 2 years. They started working on it well before that.
Pathfinder Unchained came out in April of 2015 (so roughly 3 years ago). I assume the development of Pathfinder 2 coincided or immediately followed with the develop the development of the unchained rules (since the PF2 action economy is similar to but more polished than the Unchained Action Economy).
Lamashtu ascended by ripping out the domain of beasts from a dead god. Lamashtu doesn't offer any related domains.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone speaks 8 languages, but it never matters because everyone speaks Common.
I'd suggest at least a small Bluff and Diplomacy bonus if you can talk to a creature fluently in its native tongue.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always thought "Hatred" was a poor fit for PF gnomes and wouldn't mind seeing it replaced...
'Hatred' and 'Greed' seem like odd racial traits for predominantly good PC races, and all the more odd for that no *evil* races like orcs or ogres or bugbears have racial traits based off of the seven deadly sins.
But, ignoring that bit of thematic silliness, racial traits like hatred and weapon familiarity seem more cultural than racial, since many gnomes live in areas which would have never seen a kobold, and so be quite unlikely to have trained all their life to fight them, and some elves are aquatic, and would have zero use for proficiency with shortbows and longbows (just to pick two examples of 'racial traits' being overly specific and not necessarily suitable as generic race traits).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ "Predominantly good PC races" Really, which? No "PR race" is presented as "predominantly good", the overwhelming norm is Neutral, quick look at Golarion material shows that. Even Aasimar. There are very few "predominantly Good" nations in Golarion. Sorry if that impedes conflating backing specific races/nations with "supporting good".
I agree re: broader point re: cultural vs "biological" distinction of "ancestry features", and I've posted before how the distinction should be made clearer... It would give solid basis for what is legit to gain via "Adoption" type mechanics, it would give solid basis for what ISN'T gained via Polymorph mechanics. It facilitates "culturally distinct" populations that don't share culture features while sharing "biology" features with same "Race" populations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone speaks 8 languages, but it never matters because everyone speaks Common.
I'd suggest at least a small Bluff and Diplomacy bonus if you can talk to a creature fluently in its native tongue.
Can't agree enough with this. I get, there is playability concerns, and Paizo doesn't want to over-complicate this area of game. But there can be simple repurcussions like you suggest. I think there should be scope for "related languages" giving you significant bonus to understanding/communicating but still falling below scope of full fluency. There could be "basic fluency" which amounts to auto-suceed at that lower level of communicating basic facts, but not gaining extra bonuses for Diplomacy etc. If you don't have that, and can't pass the Linguistics check, then even if GM allows a Diplomacy roll it would have penalty etc.
IMHO that inherently lends itself to better role-playing because different characters would logically take the fore of different social interactions depending on language... instead of the max Diplo skill character ALWAYS doing so. Whereas if characters have range of different language backgrounds (largely with some overlap, although this may only be at basic proficiency level, since PCs rarely need Diplo bonus vs each other) it will engender world contextual reason for each to take on different social roles.
And while Paizo is probably keen on maintaining current level of granularity re: languages themself, the partial/full fluency and related/unrelated systems would be easily extendable by groups which might prefer Taldane to be distinct from Chelish, or Osirioni distinct from Nexian etc. Still mutually intelligible, but there will be impact on social skill rolls and the like (unless either party has upgraded to full fluency).
Please just say NOPE! to "childlike" feats for halflings. Because creepy is, apparently, a thing beyond what I'd seen at my table, especially to halfling females. I am not the only one to have run into this. I'm sure I'll be told "they'll do it anyway," but it's a big, fat NOPE! from me.
But my lolis!
Clarifying what natural attacks are gained when polymorphing. Some creatures have natural attacks that are modified by special abilities, but it is unclear if those attacks are granted by or just modified by the abilities. So when polymorphing into those creatures it is unclear what attacks with what effects should be gained. For example the Green Man with its Vines attack.
Make shapeshifting a bit more easier to understand.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ "Predominantly good PC races" Really, which?
Pretty much all PCs, since they aren't allowed to be evil in most games (or PFS). There are exceptions, obviously (Hell's Vengeance!), but when the entire game is built around the concept that evil is for NPCs and adversaries, not for PCs, it seems to be baked in.
You are quite correct that there are few, if any, 'predominantly good nations' on Golarion, and even some of the neutral ones are portrayed as super-evil by some of the developers (Hermea, Rahadoum, etc.), but that has little to do with PC options, like the core races, and more to do with making sure that the setting has plenty of built in adventuring potential.
And yeah, back in PF1 Beta, I agitated for splitting up racial characteristics that were biological/innate/nature vs. cultural/learned/nurture, perhaps having the cultural/learned ones in italics (rather than add more lines of text to every single racial entry, italicizing the cultural stuff like hatred or weapon training, could be explained once, with a single line of text at the beginning of the Races entry), but that was a reverse-compatibility step-too-far, I guess.
Core races are on average Neutral races though iirc
Not by RAW:
Most dwarves are lawful good.
Most elves are chaotic good.
as a result, most half-elves are chaotic good
rather, most half-orcs are chaotic neutral
Most halflings are neutral as a result.
3 good, 2 neutral, 2 undeclared one one axis, 2 chaotic, 1 neutral, 1 lawful, 2 undeclared on the other. Apparently core races tend towards the chaotic side of NG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FYI Paizo said they are ditching "setting neutral", so Golarion should be norm, not some Schroedinger's "vanilla D&D".
Which I welcome because hopefully the different product lines will now work better towards one goal.
Really, that change justifies re-assessment at format of product lines, given they ALL will now detail aspects of Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I hate paper cuts! I DEMAND that Paizo stop printing on sharp paper, and switch to the much safer latex pages with peanut and shellfish based ink!
Don't do latex. I'm sensitive to it.
Also, please make sure that whatever company does the bindings, it's not the one that does the Starfinder books, please.
Thank you.
Skills don’t require int. Please don’t make wizard/alchemist accidental skill experts again just because of their primary stat.
I know skills are being reworked into proficiencies but remove int from the equation.
That would mean Int does nothing at all for the majority of characters. I support the goal of making Rogues better at skills than Wizards, but Int needs to do something or everyone will dump it and we'll have parties full of idiots.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Detailed process for detecting traps without bogging down gameplay - Preferably baked into exploration mode. With step by step examples. Should include advice for how to run a trap as a GM, advice for character precautions, a comprehensive table of DC's for levels 1-20, and if they ever even suspect they might want trap crafting, comprehensive rules for that as core too.
- Easy way to hook in common "always on" effects like detect magic into exploration mode.
- Flesh out rules for any exotic weapons/combat styles that need it: such as Nets.
- Future proofing to stop people trying to do crazy convoluted things with readied actions.
- Valid actions table vs invisibility, based on unaware/aware/aware of location/visible: including explicit "can i target a spell on an enemy that I know exactly where it is, but cannot see at all" kinds of thing.
- Valid actions/checklist for underwater
- Valid actions/checklist for prone
- clear rules/reasons to validate bull rush as a combat action
- A flowchart to clearly explain grapple, grab, limbs as grappling vs whole person grappling, and actions while grappled.
- If skills like appraise/heal are sticking around, that's fine: but having them irrelevant past 2nd level means they need to have more gameplay benefits, or consider being scrapped.
- A usage for languages.
- Explicit language to hardcode rules for things like dirty trick so you don't always need to justify things with a dramatic monologue about your dastardly deeds.
- loot rules that don't have a 10-100% variance in value of items for GMs designing modules. Sell for 10% in starfinder is fine, but assign to NPCs for 10-100% vs WBL depending on your guess that the group will like/use it is a headache.
The biggest papercuts really amount to rules that don't explain how to use the rules properly.
The second biggest are ones that explain how to use them, but the rules are effectively useless, due to lack of options, or them not being functional in practice.
The third type are the "Just decide as GM" ones, which make running sessions harder for no reason, and unnecessarily dissuade prospective GMs from the task.
GM Fiat should never be required to make a core rule system functional.
|
|
Skills don’t require int. Please don’t make wizard/alchemist accidental skill experts again just because of their primary stat.
I know skills are being reworked into proficiencies but remove int from the equation.
What it sounds like they're doing is, at first level you get Skills From Class + Int Mod skills, but from there you just get one skill at 2nd and every 2 levels thereafter, with Int playing no further role (beyond, presumably, giving an additional skill when your mod goes up).
So, if you assume a Wizard would have, say, 4 from Class + 5 from Int at 1st, for 9 skill ranks, and then go up 23 total skills by 20th as he raises Int (assuming he starts with a 20 and maxes with a 28). Which is solid, but everyone gets at least 4 or so to start with and gets to at last 14 by that metric, so he's got less than twice as many skills as the Int 10 guy who never bothered.
But, per the Class Preview, a Rogue gets an extra skill every level instead of every 2. So if they start with, say, 8, and have Int 10 they're behind the Wizard by 1 skill very briefly, but by 3rd level they're on par, and they surpass him by 6th at the latest, eventually having 28 to the Wizard's 23.
And that's if they never raise their Int above 10. If they start with, say, a 12 they're on par from the start, and if they raise it every time they can (and it's been at least implied you get to raise 4 Abilities at 5th and every 5 levels after, so this is very doable), then that goes to 33 skills and a full ten past the Wizard by 20th (and well more than double the low-end people).
I think that's actually a pretty solid set up and makes Int quite useful to everyone without invalidating someone like the Rogue who's skill focused.
FTR, this is just a theory based on the info we have (which is that Int has some impact on number of skills but only on getting extra low level ones...so probably just on starting skills) and the starting skill numbers for Rogue and Wizard are purely arbitrary (Wizard might easily still be only 2, for example)...but I think it definitely shows how such a system can work to give Int an advantage without invalidating Rogues.
Hmm ok I doubt their will be 28 skills to choose (at least that you would want to bother with) so maybe their is also options that you can take of those 28 that is instead like a skill unlock?
wait wait wait I think I think im thinking about this wrong. a skill unlock is probably like moving from trained expert master and legend. so Say at 1st level I might have 8+int mod and choose to get trained in 8+ skills then as I level as rogue get them up to expert master etc.
|
|
Hmm ok I doubt their will be 28 skills to choose (at least that you would want to bother with) so maybe their is also options that you can take of those 28 that is instead like a skill unlock?
Skill Unlocks (now called Skill Feats) are separate. However, those are skill ranks, not skills. You'd need to invest 4 of them to max out any one skill (one to get it Trained, then another to Expert then another to Master then another to Legendary).
Though I think I did screw up that distinction myself. It's actually Skill Feats that Rogues gain every level, not new skill ranks, though they do explicitly still gain more skills than anyone else, so I think the basic principle of my post stands even though the specific numbers are certain to be wrong on the Rogue.
They're not all that wrong though, since Mark Seifter has said Rogues probably average in the 30s on skill ranks.
wait wait wait I think I think im thinking about this wrong. a skill unlock is probably like moving from trained expert master and legend. so Say at 1st level I might have 8+int mod and choose to get trained in 8+ skills then as I level as rogue get them up to expert master etc.
Nah, like I said, these are separate. Many of the Skill Feats have prerequisites of a particular tier of skill proficiency, but they're a separate thing acquired separately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is going to sound dumb and petty, but I absolutely want the rule of, "Iconics must be Core Races" to get thrown out. Big time.
If the Iconics are supposed to be stand-ins for the PCs, and the PCs are supposed to be exemplary, why do they have to fit into some Word-of-God defined restriction? I would be a little more forgiving if all of the existing iconics we had were of different ethnic groups, but all of the elves and dwarves are white and there are like three Varisians.
Sorry. I got REALLY salty when the Iconic Shifter was revealed to be a Varisian. :>
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is going to sound dumb and petty, but I absolutely want the rule of, "Iconics must be Core Races" to get thrown out. Big time.
If the Iconics are supposed to be stand-ins for the PCs, and the PCs are supposed to be exemplary, why do they have to fit into some Word-of-God defined restriction? I would be a little more forgiving if all of the existing iconics we had were of different ethnic groups, but all of the elves and dwarves are white and there are like three Varisians.
Sorry. I got REALLY salty when the Iconic Shifter was revealed to be a Varisian. :>
I'm going to respond to this with something petty and dumb.
This does sound very petty and very dumb.
|
|
Skills don’t require int. Please don’t make wizard/alchemist accidental skill experts again just because of their primary stat.
I know skills are being reworked into proficiencies but remove int from the equation.
An interesting idea would be to only give bonus skill points at 1st level. However, EVERY stat gives bonus skill points, but those bonus skill points have to be applied to skill that use that stat.
That would mean that every character gets a lot of the bonus skill points at first level, but they would mostly go into the types of skill that are archtypical for their class (assuming that the player chooses to put their highest stats into their classes "prime requisite").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all know that Alex really wants the iconics to be 100% kitsune! ;)
Flumph iconic or I riot. :)
My character wants to paint a picture or bake a cake. Do I use Profession (Artist/Baker) or Craft(Paintings/Cakes)? Can I just pick whichever one I want, and if so are we proposing that there are just two kinds of pastry chefs- the smart ones who use craft and the wise ones who use profession?
My character wants to paint a picture or bake a cake. Do I use Profession (Artist/Baker) or Craft(Paintings/Cakes)? Can I just pick whichever one I want, and if so are we proposing that there are just two kinds of pastry chefs- the smart ones who use craft and the wise ones who use profession?
The wise one sticks with the tried and true to protect his business. The smart one unleashes his creativity, because change is inevitable....er, wait...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of these look like paper critical gashing injuries, rather than the tiny paper cuts the OP was talking about!
However, we just added coffee and tea to the Playtest Rulebook. Harsk thanks you!How about a range of "hardness": from wine and spirits, to coffee and tea...and for those of us (er...I mean, for those characters)...who also refrain from caffeine...how much for a glass of juice or milk, please? :o)
DIABEETUS
From the ancestry descriptions, it seems like dim lighting is already being baked into the system. I like the idea that lighting plays a mechanical role in my RPGs, but I have very rarely found myself enjoying actually trying to track or use that mechanical role in my RPGs. If we have maybe 3 levels of Darkness, (Dark, Dim, Bright) it might be possible for the new system to surpass 1e flashlight/darkness tag confusion, but if we end up with 5 or more, I predict a lot more players handwaving light rules out of the game 90%+ of the time.
If the mechanics of hitting and dodging attacks can be abstracted to something relatively easy to follow consistently, it would be nice if the mechanics of sensory perception could be abstracted to something easy to consistently follow as well since attempting to perceive the world is, arguably, the one thing opportunistic murder parties, I mean groups of adventurers, do more than fight things.
Profession might relate to: sourcing the best ingredients, advertising, compliance with guild regulation, getting the best prices for your wares, knowing what and how much to bake, operating multiple bakeries at the same time, or training apprentices.
However- in Pathfinder 2nd edition one skill will handle both swimming and climbing, and one skill will handle both picking locks and picking pockets. So it seems weird, going forward, to have to invest in two skills for "I am pretty good at baking a cake."