Top of your post CRB wishlist?


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What do y'all think won't make it into the core rulebook, but you hope will be out ASAP?

For me, I think it might be some kind of advanced ancestry guide. It occurs to me that while the class system seems flexible enough to convert almost any PF1 class, I can't imagine anything comes close to that for the old races. And if you are looking to convert, races are in some ways more important. I can pretty easily make my old Oracle into the new cleric without losing the same feel. This isn't case if,the character is also a Tengu.


For me, top would be probably the APG equivalent, with basically the foundations of an 'expanded core'. Maybe not necessarily quite the same as 1e's APG, since many archetypes or classes might not be necessary as an instant addition, if they can be made reasonably with core, given the approach of 2e with regards to customization, but I can see it more in stuff like new Bard muses or Barb totems, or such.

Otherwise, not quite top of my list, but at least for splat books, I'd say I'd want an early gods book, with options both for divine classes, as well as martials focusing on favored weapon stuff (and probably some options outside of that i.e. Shelynite bards or the like).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely agree that an Advanced Ancestries book (as well as accompanying Ancestries of the Inner Sea splatbook) should be top priority for post-core releases. I don't think anything else comes close to that in terms of being necessary.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

  • Make a mixed high str AND high dex character worth playing for every martial class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

A big bumper book of extra mechanics for both GM and PC world building. I want those Intrigue, Business running, army forming, kingdom creating, spell creation etc rules to be established early on in PF2E lifetime to really enable those stories to be told.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm. Races seem completely irrelevant in PF2, just a set of stat boosts and a random set of limited feats. You could just make a big pool for everyone to dive in and save a lot of time, then just describe your character however you like.

By what's presented there isn't much that separates a 'dwarf' from a 'tough elf'

And I'm really uncomfortable with 'ancestry' as a general concept- as soon as people start assigning int and wisdom adjustments to Varisians, Ulfen, etc, its going to be very bad, as most Golarion human groups are explicitly expies of real world groups. I'd much rather stick to fantasy races and avoid 'ancestry' altogether.

---

as for splat books-
Depending on how the classes shake out, a class book has priority. Some of the base and hybrid classes can be set on fire and eaten by their parent class(es) (hello all cleric and fighter derivatives). But the ones that can't be mapped to the core classes need to come out in fairly short order.

---
But mostly what I -expect- is book after book of feat spam. Oodles of feats. By the bushel and the pound.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dream:

- All characters MAD
- Multiclass not changed from PF1, just tweaked.
- Archetypes kept as today with the preview post just being a bad joke.
- Death redone to PF1 model, not 5ed model.

Reality:

- Multiclass being usable
- Cool streamelined conditions (prone, flanked, stunned,...)
- No randomization of stats or HP
- Cool action system

Let downs:

- The dying system sucks...a LOT
- Dumbed monsters. I REALLY DISLIKE system that doesnt usem the same rules to make PCs and NPCs. Breaks immersion to make A BIG TIME and is what made me play a grand total of 2 adventures in 5ed.
- A lot of changes for the sake of changes. I cant believe how bad is a statement saying "of all the new rules introduced, archetypes by far were the most universal used and liked" just in the beginning of a post explaining how they changed that same rule completely. I think i never had a bigger facepalm reading a design view in all my 30 years of RPG.
- Archetypes. Give it another name, cause they're are not archetypes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Hmmm. Races seem completely irrelevant in PF2, just a set of stat boosts and a random set of limited feats.

By that logic, Races in PF1 were just a set of stat boosts and racial traits, at least in core. And also by that logic, classes seem completely irrelevant in PF2. Both ancestry and class grant a basic set of hit points, a specific set of feat of limited feats, some ability score boosts, a few specific features (vision mostly for ancestry), and some very basic mechanical tweeks. (Speed and size for ancestry, saves and skills for class.)

And flavor wise, ancestry means a lot more than class does in narrative.

Quote:
You could just make a big pool for everyone to dive in and save a lot of time, then just describe your character however you like.

If you eliminate the barriers between ancestry feats, you may as well go full classless. The ancestry feats available to a gnome are quite different from those that are available to a dwarf or human and have some pretty profound impacts on the character.

Quote:
By what's presented there isn't much that separates a 'dwarf' from a 'tough elf'

This doesn't feel true at all. It clearly isn't true at first level when a dwarf who focuses on health has like 5 hit points more than an elf who does the same, can see in the dark, and still has that slow and steady thing going with speed and armor vs the elf being the quickest light armor wearer in the game.

And it almost certainly won't be true at higher levels, as ancestry feats make the two feel more and more distinct from each other just like class feats do for different classes.

Quote:
And I'm really uncomfortable with 'ancestry' as a general concept- as soon as people start assigning int and wisdom adjustments to Varisians, Ulfen, etc, its going to be very bad, as most Golarion human groups are explicitly expies of real world groups. I'd much rather stick to fantasy races and avoid 'ancestry' altogether.

I'm not really clear what you are suggesting here. If by people you mean "Paizo" you just look to be wrong. I don't think anything has indicated PF1 ethnicity will translate into ancestries. Humans are humans, all with the same two +2 floating bonuses to assign. Varisian/Ulfen/Shoanti/etc won't be separate ancestries.

What I expect we will eventually get is a heritage feat for these ethnicities-- something you can take at level 1 if your character identifies with a particular skill of your people. Proficiency with the Earthbreaker and a bonus to ride checks if you are a member of the Sklar-Quah, for example. Which is already stuff we had in PF1.

If by "people" you meant players just choosing to make Varisians more charismatic on average or Ulfen's hardier on average, well, I don't see what is especially changing there, if that is even a problem in the first place.

If you just find the word ancestry makes you less comfortable than race, well, that's your prerogative, but I don't really understand why. Sure seems to me like "Race" is more loaded IRL than "Ancestry" is. Seems to me if there's a problem it has very little to do with using the word Ancestry or players decided to assign floating bonuses in stereotypical ways, and more to do with the lore surrounding these fictional cultures Paizo has created and how they mirror real life groups.

Quote:
But mostly what I -expect- is book after book of feat spam. Oodles of feats. By the bushel and the pound.

Thread derailment aside, I can't argue we won't see lots of feats. But that's because everything is now a feat. You might as well say "I expect them to publish lots of words."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RafaelBraga wrote:

Dream:

- All characters MAD
- Multiclass not changed from PF1, just tweaked.
- Archetypes kept as today with the preview post just being a bad joke.
- Death redone to PF1 model, not 5ed model.

Reality:

- Multiclass being usable
- Cool streamelined conditions (prone, flanked, stunned,...)
- No randomization of stats or HP
- Cool action system

Let downs:

- The dying system sucks...a LOT
- Dumbed monsters. I REALLY DISLIKE system that doesnt usem the same rules to make PCs and NPCs. Breaks immersion to make A BIG TIME and is what made me play a grand total of 2 adventures in 5ed.
- A lot of changes for the sake of changes. I cant believe how bad is a statement saying "of all the new rules introduced, archetypes by far were the most universal used and liked" just in the beginning of a post explaining how they changed that same rule completely. I think i never had a bigger facepalm reading a design view in all my 30 years of RPG.
- Archetypes. Give it another name, cause they're are not archetypes.

I have no problem with archetypes as they currently exist in the playtest, but I will say class specific archetypes are probably the #2 thing we should get after more ancestries. People really like playing an alchemist without bombs or a rogue without sneak attack.

Despite no longer having negative HP and an aesthetic similarity to 5e, I strongly suspect dying will feel more like PF1 than 5e in practice. The main reason for this is the dying condition persists when you are brought above 0 HP. So much like PF1 and unlike 5e, if you get restored to 5 or 6 hit points and then jump back into the fight you are running a serious risk of getting killed.

The main difference PF2 seems to have is your threshold for surviving past 0 HP seems like it will scale alongside enemy damage, where as in PF1 damage scaled far faster than most PC constitution scores which meant death was much more likely. Hopefully this reduces the need for Raise Dead spells being popped left and right at high levels.

all that aside, this meant to be about what we wanted Paizo to publish after the CRB, not complaining about the CRB.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A lot of the effort in PF2e class design has gone into making the classes broader and more flexible, so a lot of the character concepts that needed their own classes before - the Skald, the Swashbuckler, the Magus - can mostly be achieved now through a combination of ancestries, background, class features, feats and archetypes. So I really hope they don't release a book with more classes any time soon. They should give the system enough time to settle, to find the gaps, and to design the new classes carefully.

A book of expanded ancestries, backgrounds, archetypes and feats would be welcome, though. The way to make this work is to talk about countries and cultures and what they mean beyond a mere stat block. It would expand the options available to a character concept, adding depth to the existing classes. I include archetypes in that list because the PF2e archetypes, at least as presented so far, are more like a character's path or profession than they are PF1e archetypes.

The same book could expand on the existing class options with eg more Barbarian totems, more Bard muses, more Cleric domains etc. It would essentially be Core Rulebook, Part II.


Quote:
And flavor wise, ancestry means a lot more than class does in narrative

How so? Class governs what you can do and what people will expect you to do.

Race...seems to mean that the halfling might be able to hide behind you or hit large creatures harder with slings. Or... not. Or other things. It depends.

I don't see a lot of flavor there. Just a random grab-bag of conditional abilities that most probably won't take unless they have to, and will likely forget in actual play.

The big difference between halfling the rogue and elf the rogue is the elf is significantly faster, and probably much better off in a melee role. Other than that, flavor and utility is coming from the rogue bit.


What I would like from the first big post CRB release is the PF2 version of some favorite classes (Witch, Oracle, and Occultist are likely inclusions) and race/ancestries (Changelings please, we have a number of retired PC Changelings who are setting-important people).

But what I'm most interested in is how they plan on expanding the core classes with further options. How much cross-posting there is going to be between "feats for new classes" and "feat lists for old classes" say.


Expanded Ancestries, for sure. Especially the ones that are a bit more unique to Golarion (by which I mean not as commonly found in 5E).

And the other one is Paladin-related, so I'll just keep my mouth shut. :)


Oracle, Inquisitor and class specific archetypes.


Voss wrote:
Quote:
And flavor wise, ancestry means a lot more than class does in narrative

How so? Class governs what you can do and what people will expect you to do.

Race...seems to mean that the halfling might be able to hide behind you or hit large creatures harder with slings. Or... not. Or other things. It depends.

I don't see a lot of flavor there. Just a random grab-bag of conditional abilities that most probably won't take unless they have to, and will likely forget in actual play.

The big difference between halfling the rogue and elf the rogue is the elf is significantly faster, and probably much better off in a melee role. Other than that, flavor and utility is coming from the rogue bit.

You have completely conflated flavor with mechanics. Mechanically, there's a big distinction between a barbarian and an angry fighter. Narratively, there isn't really one, and arguably fighter, barbarian, and rogue don't even exist as distinct titles. Even monk has little of that now that ki powers aren't part of the core chassis. (Other classes like Paladins and Clerics can at least have distinct roles in a church hierarchy, and wizardry is distinct enough from sorcery in narrative.)

Meanwhile, while the mechanical impact of ancestry isn't as distinct, the way your ancestry shapes your upbringing and how people in the world treat you is much more profound than class. A dwarf is more likely to be allowed into a Sky Citadel or attacked by a Duergar than an elf, even if they have the same class. Halflings are considered the most fashionable slaves in parts of Golarion. A goblin rogue is going to deal with a lot more prejudice than a human rogue most towns, and people are more likely to assume you are a product of a tragic inception if you are a half-orc. Flavor is a very important part of this game, especially when the mechanics have become as flexible as they are.

That aside, ancestry still seems like a big deal mechanically. At least until there's a way to get a familiar or talk to animals for a fighter other than "be a gnome."


Not convinced at all. Narratively there is a huge difference between a rage barbarian and a fighter. Far more than 'I want to min/max sling damage so I took halfling'

Background-wise you can rationalize all of what you just said without stat bonuses or feats. Even being a trendy slave or getting access to a sky citadel. Roleplaying and background isn't dependent on mechanics in any way at all.

Ancestry is talking to animals and similar mechanical benefits.


Voss wrote:

Not convinced at all. Narratively there is a huge difference between a rage barbarian and a fighter. Far more than 'I want to min/max sling damage so I took halfling'

Background-wise you can rationalize all of what you just said without stat bonuses or feats. Even being a trendy slave or getting access to a sky citadel. Roleplaying and background isn't dependent on mechanics in any way at all.

Ancestry is talking to animals and similar mechanical benefits.

That doesn't make any sense. You are talking about divorcing the game completely from its setting. Your role-play effects how you react to stuff, but it doesn't determine whether a stranger on the street immediately wants to get a lynch mob together for you. (Which is a criticism that people have leveled against goblins, for example.) Neither does your class, barring some specific exceptions like magic being outlawed in a particular area.

I mean, you could divorce mechanics from ancestry, but that is equivalent to suggesting going full classless. Which is... no longer pathfinder. You are essentially advocating for a completely different game. With the possible exception of 1st level play where you don't have enough Ancestry feats, I really can't fathom what you think Ancestries are losing over PF1 races.

Even folks who don't play in Golarion usually have something that meaningfully distinguishes the cultures of the different races. The alternative is a basically a melting pot fantasy setting where there are no cultural divides between these different peoples.


I'd like a classless/free form rule set where they give us the fiddle-y bits and let us combine them how we want.

A "Magus" class that doesn't force you into a "one had for weapon, one hand for spells" fighting style. I want great weapon magi, TWF magi, swashbuckling magi, shield magi, armor magi, etc.

Can we also get an eldritch scion that isn't an afterthought and can actually do magus stuff at low levels without bleeding pool points.

Rules for breaking character creation limits. If you want to start with a 20 in a stat, there should be some mechanic that lets you do so, like taking 2 -2s.

Making Ancestries matter more than just their Ancestry Feats.

Rules for PCs that aren't superheroes at level 1. (I want to play as a Joe Average that becomes a superhero.)

Homebrew guidelines with all of the equations and pitfalls of making new content given out to us (probably it's own book, since this stuff might get too technical for the average player).

Alternate action rule set that favors verisimilitude over balance. (So my shield using characters aren't wholly incompetent with their shield use and I don't have to spend a 3rd of my turn taking a deep breath.)

Rules for Sorcerers that aren't neutered when it comes to casting the spells they know.

Monster creation rules that follow the same rules as PCs.

Less complex death and dying rules.

There's probably more, but I can't think of any right now.


Im not divorcing the game from its setting. Its just that the connection you're arguing about isn't there. If you play a halfling slave from cheliax who was in a labor pit for 10 years, it doesn't take away his strength penalty and doesn't stop him from being better at hiding or being lucky. He's a halfling with the exact same stats and free choice of whichever random feat. The exact same halfling traits can define the ruler of the fetid swamps of the stolen lands. The background is still there, it just doesn't interact with the mechanics in any way at all.

As to what it loses over pf1? Picking a race in pf1 means something- you know what to expect and what it means in the setting. A pf2 ancestry sets speed, a couple classes you'll be bad at (depending on where your penalty falls)....and nothing else. Just a fourth pile of feats to rummage around in to better min\max with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:


By what's presented there isn't much that separates a 'dwarf' from a 'tough elf'

Petition to start calling dwarves "tough elves"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
Voss wrote:


By what's presented there isn't much that separates a 'dwarf' from a 'tough elf'
Petition to start calling dwarves "tough elves"?

Or Swole Gnomes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think we should rename every race to "Voss" in honor of Voss' remarkable insights into their nature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
I think we should rename every race to "Voss" in honor of Voss' remarkable insights into their nature.

Only if the colloquial term for a tiger is a "Fuzzy-Wuzzy" and a group of annoying tieflings is referred to as "a babble of elleths".


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Voss wrote:


By what's presented there isn't much that separates a 'dwarf' from a 'tough elf'
Petition to start calling dwarves "tough elves"?
Or Swole Gnomes?

Humongous Halflings?


Voss wrote:

Im not divorcing the game from its setting. Its just that the connection you're arguing about isn't there. If you play a halfling slave from cheliax who was in a labor pit for 10 years, it doesn't take away his strength penalty and doesn't stop him from being better at hiding or being lucky. He's a halfling with the exact same stats and free choice of whichever random feat. The background is still there, it just doesn't interact with the mechanics in any way at all.

As to what it loses over pf1? Picking a race in pf1 means something- you know what to expect and what it means in the setting. A pf2 ancestry sets speed, a couple classes you'll be bad at (depending on where your penalty falls)....and nothing else. Just a fourth pile of feats to rummage around in to better min\max with.

What did picking a race in PF1 mean, exactly?

PF1 and PF2 Acnestry both set:
speed
ability scores
viision
size
A grab bag of traits/feats you can mix and match from.
A few classes you are bad at

PF1 also has:
Some racial feats and archetypes people almost never took, and were shoe horned into playing a specific race if they wanted it. And I don't think any of these were core, anyway.
A larger subsection of classes you were mediocre at

PF2 also has:
Bonus hit points
Open design space for adding ancestry specific archetypes and I guess general feats that are supposed to be exclusive to certain ancestries. I really hope they don't do this, but noting is stopping them beside it being bad.

PF1 racial traits could be swapped around to your heart's content, too. You just got them all upfront instead of doled out across your character's life. In exchange, the PF2 ancestry feats actually seem way stronger. PF1 you could get a few once per day cantrips with negligible benefit. In PF2 you can get an at will cantrip that actually scales to be a useful power.

The only other big difference seems to be the floating stat boosts. Do you honestly think it is bad that someone can now be a dwarf wizard without accepting this decision means they are going to be worse than if they were an elf? Do you really think it was better for min-maxing to always be utilizing the same races for whatever classes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is still the CRB after the playtest. So first the things that are most important to me to include in the CRB that we know wont be in the playtest are:

1. Elemental Bloodline Sorcorrer
2. Spell-point magic for Ranger (likely)
3. NG and CG Paladin variants (*duck*)

There are likely more things once the playtest is released that I think should be in core but those are some things we know wont be in the play test.

As far as CRB +Next book goes the top three for me are

1. Magus class or archetype
2. Orcish ancestry
3. Skald class or archetype

Probably not the biggest deals but those are the things I want the most. I'll probably homebrew half-orcs into orcs after the playtest and then see how close I can get to a Magus and/or Skald with multi classing.


Captain Morgan wrote:


The only other big difference seems to be the floating stat boosts. Do you honestly think it is bad that someone can now be a dwarf wizard without accepting this decision means they are going to be worse than if they were an elf? Do you really think it was better for min-maxing to always be utilizing the same races for whatever classes?

This is actually one of my biggest complaints about the system.

Elves SHOULD be better at Intelligence based things than a race with no racial benefits for that.

This doesn't mean that Dwarven wizards are bad. In fact, Dwarven wizards are more likely to be battle mages with their tougher Dwarven genes.

An elf wizard might have slightly stronger spells than a dwarf wizard, but the dwarf wizard sure as heck doesn't mind getting caught in melee as much as the elven wizard.

The floating points make your racial boost almost wholly unimportant. If that was the intention of the system, then why even have mechanics tied to races?

To be fair, It's one of the things I like less in PF1 than in 3.5.

Humans had no attribute modifiers and almost all other races had a +2/-2. Everyone averaged out to being "average" but creatures of a specific race had benefits to being their race that explained why certain class/race combinations were more common than others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread seems to be becoming a complaints list...

Anyways, some wishes about post-CRB:
- An ancestry book in order to expand to more races. This is likely going to be the biggest gap to cover.
- More archetypes. This is an area with huge expansion opportunities.
- Maybe an expansion of classes to meet the needs of those who feel like they lost their favorite class from the CRB. Oracle, Witch and Gunslinger are candidates. However, this is less of a priority, because the flexibility of the PF2 core allows for a lots of concepts already. For example, I think the Magus doesn't need a whole class update - at most an archetype.
- A book for bigger-world-building options, with things like mass combat, kingdom building, and generally more things to do during downtime.


gwynfrid wrote:

This thread seems to be becoming a complaints list...

Anyways, some wishes about post-CRB:
- An ancestry book in order to expand to more races. This is likely going to be the biggest gap to cover.
- More archetypes. This is an area with huge expansion opportunities.
- Maybe an expansion of classes to meet the needs of those who feel like they lost their favorite class from the CRB. Oracle, Witch and Gunslinger are candidates. However, this is less of a priority, because the flexibility of the PF2 core allows for a lots of concepts already. For example, I think the Magus doesn't need a whole class update - at most an archetype.
- A book for bigger-world-building options, with things like mass combat, kingdom building, and generally more things to do during downtime.

Yeah, it is frustrating tendency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


The only other big difference seems to be the floating stat boosts. Do you honestly think it is bad that someone can now be a dwarf wizard without accepting this decision means they are going to be worse than if they were an elf? Do you really think it was better for min-maxing to always be utilizing the same races for whatever classes?

This is actually one of my biggest complaints about the system.

Elves SHOULD be better at Intelligence based things than a race with no racial benefits for that.

This doesn't mean that Dwarven wizards are bad. In fact, Dwarven wizards are more likely to be battle mages with their tougher Dwarven genes.

An elf wizard might have slightly stronger spells than a dwarf wizard, but the dwarf wizard sure as heck doesn't mind getting caught in melee as much as the elven wizard.

The floating points make your racial boost almost wholly unimportant. If that was the intention of the system, then why even have mechanics tied to races?

Well, the big difference between dwarves and elves will not be apparent in wizards. A dwarf wizard will put their floating boost into Int, because "smart dwarves" find vocations that suit their intelligence. An elf wizard can put it anywhere they like, though it will probably be Con. So the end result will be a Dwarf Wizard will have lower AC (from Dex), higher HP (from Con and Ancestry), and less resonance.

Where the difference will be apparent is how Elf fighters/clerics/rogues/monks/etc. are almost uniformly more intelligent than Dwarf fighters/clerics/rogues/monks/etc.


Witches. And I supposed other classes that aren't expressed in core, though the new core classes seem to be open enough that I expect many of the old classes won't be needed. But I still want my favorite witch class with their hexes and patrons (who hopefully get some more features added to them).

Expanded Races. I especially want to see Tieflings and Changelings again, though it will be interesting to see how they do the planetouched races in PF2. Also expanded racial options like archetypes, racial spells, and such to help make each race feel particularly unique.

A book of Deity's and Deity-related options. I really liked some of the systems in PF1 like Divine Obedience, Divine Fighting Techniques, Divine Gifts, etc., which could give non-clerics some mechanical benefit from worshiping a deity and helped flavor the deities. I think it is a shame that such systems aren't in the core book due to not having enough space, and would love to see them back.

If not included in core - some GM rules for monster building and other customizations. Maybe some templates/statblocks for regions, settlements, etc., especially how they relate to things like the new rarity system.

Something more intrigue/social related to help provide more depth to non-combat scenarios.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo seems to have an aversion to printing things I want to see, so my post-CRB wish list consists of only 2 items.

[1] A conversion guide from 1.0 to 2.0, kind of like the one they put out when switching from 3.5 to pathfinder.

[2] The new compatibility license, so awesome 3rd party companies like Dreamscarred Press & Rogue Genius Games can keep putting out the stuff I actually want to play.


Captain Morgan wrote:


What did picking a race in PF1 mean, exactly?

It meant a specific list of abilities and specific feel to the race.

None of the things about swapping stuff around that you're blithely adding in were possible until many, many books and years later, and aren't universally accepted.

By the core rulebook they certainly weren't a thing (and I expect PF2 will also be significantly mutated from the core rulebook however many book and years onward).

Quote:
Open design space for adding ancestry specific archetypes and I guess general feats that are supposed to be exclusive to certain ancestries. I really hope they don't do this, but noting is stopping them beside it being bad.

I'm... not sure what distinction you're drawing between these two (archetypes are just feat chains) or between these two and the pool of race specific feats we already know are happening. Ancestry exclusion is very obviously a thing, and you got very angry at me when I suggested a general pool of feats without it.

Quote:
The only other big difference seems to be the floating stat boosts. Do you honestly think it is bad that someone can now be a dwarf wizard without accepting this decision means they are going to be worse than if they were an elf?

Well, there is a claim I never made. But then, at least one floating stat boost is universal to everyone, and gives no hint at flavor or background. It's simply a function of character creation, regardless of race.

I actually think having race-set stat adjustments at all is bad. The best character creation option I've seen was in Starfinder where you just toss racial adjustments out and go with a full pool of...however many points (13, I think). Then Starfinder Society immediately banned it on kickoff day. >.>

There isn't any reason for 'all elves are smart and nimble' or 'all dwarves are tough and wise', especially not when dealing with exceptional individuals like adventurers. Especially since the setting's elves tend to be blithering idiots and cowards. Unless they're 'forlorn' (which seems to be code for 'awesome,' though some authors will also continually remind you about how sad they're supposed to be).

Quote:
Do you really think it was better for min-maxing to always be utilizing the same races for whatever classes?

I don't think this is really solved. It's just tuned to <this race> should -never- be <these classes>, rather than <this class> should -always- be <this race>.

And if resonance is as important as it seems, the dwarf population will shrink significantly for all classes. Sorry bearded folk, a charisma penalty just means you're globally bad at adventuring.


Voss wrote:

It meant a specific list of abilities and specific feel to the race.

None of the things about swapping stuff around that you're blithely adding in were possible until many, many books and years later, and aren't universally accepted.

By the core rulebook they certainly weren't a thing (and I expect PF2 will also be significantly mutated from the core rulebook however many book and years onward).

Errr.... Alternate racial traits were added as early as the Advanced Player's Guide, the first chapter no less. That is the third book PF published as system, in late 2010. This is also the book that people often point to as when Pathfinder really started being Pathfinder, as it introduced stuff like archetypes.

I guess you're right that some GMs may not allow them, as some allow nothing but core, but I've certainly never met one who didn't let folks pull from at least the Advanced Player's Guide. PFS certainly doesn't have that limitation. When you have to ignore everything but the first year of Pathfinder's existence, your argument doesn't hold a lot of water.

Quote:
I'm... not sure what distinction you're drawing between these two (archetypes are just feat chains) or between these two and the pool of race specific feats we already know are happening. Ancestry exclusion is very obviously a thing, and you got very angry at me when I suggested a general pool of feats without it.

That's my point. There isn't a distinction. Ancestry has pretty much all the same mechanical weight as race did.

Quote:

Well, there is a claim I never made. But then, at least one floating stat boost is universal to everyone, and gives no hint at flavor or background. It's simply a function of character creation, regardless of race.

I actually think having race-set stat adjustments at all is bad. The best character creation option I've seen was in Starfinder where you just toss racial adjustments out and go with a full pool of...however many points (13, I think). Then Starfinder Society immediately banned it on kickoff day. >.>

There isn't any reason for 'all elves are smart and nimble' or 'all dwarves are tough and wise', especially not when dealing with exceptional individuals like adventurers. Especially since the setting's elves tend...

So wait... you think racial stat adjustments are bad, but you also think Ancestry doesn't have enough mechanical impact?

Quote:
don't think this is really solved. It's just tuned to <this race> should -never- be <these classes>, rather than <this class> should -always- be <this race>.

It may not have been completely eliminated, but it is mathematically and undeniably being reduced. The former (PF2) allows you to play anything without a key stat penalty without shooting yourself in the foot. So you can play an effective sorcerer with any class without a charisma penalty, meaning the only bad choice is dwarf.

In PF1, you could only do that with a race that got a bonus to your key stat. Meaning anything other than elf, humans, and half humans was a bad choice for wizards, for example.

The PF2 solution encourages more variety of characters, and reduces bad options even if it doesn't eliminate them.

Quote:
And if resonance is as important as it seems, the dwarf population will shrink significantly for all classes. Sorry bearded folk, a charisma penalty just means you're globally bad at adventuring.

lawlz


Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

Paizo seems to have an aversion to printing things I want to see, so my post-CRB wish list consists of only 2 items.

[1] A conversion guide from 1.0 to 2.0, kind of like the one they put out when switching from 3.5 to pathfinder.

[2] The new compatibility license, so awesome 3rd party companies like Dreamscarred Press & Rogue Genius Games can keep putting out the stuff I actually want to play.

Add:

[1a] A conversion guide from 1.0 to 2.0, like the one done when switching from AD&D to 3.0 D&D. There are more differences between Pathfinder 1.0 and 2.0 than the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder.

One hopes that [2] is addressed in the Nouveau Pathfinder CRB itself, and/or is simultaneously released with the launch of same in 2019.


PF 1.5


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
And if resonance is as important as it seems, the dwarf population will shrink significantly for all classes. Sorry bearded folk, a charisma penalty just means you're globally bad at adventuring.

And if hit points are as important as they seem, the elf population will shrink significantly for all classes. Sorry pointy-eared folk, a constitution penalty just means you're globally bad at adventuring.


My top candidates for Post-Core Rulebook publications:

Spoiler:
Game Master's Guide and Bestiary I
I hope for the GMG to have as many of PF1's narrative and campaign subsystems as possible (such as from Ultimate Campaign & Intrigue, and Horror & Occult Adventures) most of which I think will just be additions to the Downtime rules, or alternate forms of Encounter (such as a 'Social Encounter' or 'Investigation' I don't know). I hope we don't have to wait for post-CRB for aquatic and arial exploration/encounter rules.
We all know there is gonna be more than one Bestiary, just put the numeral in now!
Ancestries of the Inner Sea (the 'big book of races')
Religions of the Inner Sea (the 'big book of gods')
Provinces of the Inner Sea (the 'big book of places')

The Advanced Ancestry Guide, if published, should be a book about creating relatively balanced new ancestries. Note that because the Inner-Sea is baked into the CRB now, I don't see much point in Paizo publishing an 'almost-but-not-really setting neutral' 'big book of races'.
The Advanced Background Guide, Advanced Class Guide, etc. As above, but for backgrounds, classes, etc.

Regardless of where it pops up, I want the following content asap:

Spoiler:
An 'Eldritch Warrior' and 'Eldritch Scoundrel' archetype, which blend your spellcasting tradition with being a military or criminal tradition. Basically class neutral replacements for all those gishing shenanigans normally used to emulate warrior-mages in fiction.
A 'Mystic Theurge'... option. Some way to blend two Traditions fairly.
A prepared Occult tradition spellcaster, and spontaneous Arcane, Divine, and Primal spellcasters (sorcerers don't count because they crop up in every tradition).
A 'Gunslinger' Archetype, as well as fair and reasonable rules for Firearms (a tall order). Too many of may favorite settings have firearms.
Fair and reasonable rules for Creating Constructs, Binding Outsiders and Raising Undead (ways to acquire construct, outsider, or undead companions as a player)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
Voss wrote:
And if resonance is as important as it seems, the dwarf population will shrink significantly for all classes. Sorry bearded folk, a charisma penalty just means you're globally bad at adventuring.
And if hit points are as important as they seem, the elf population will shrink significantly for all classes. Sorry pointy-eared folk, a constitution penalty just means you're globally bad at adventuring.

HP universally goes up in PF2. By rather a lot. A 5th level fighter has 50 HP before any modifiers at all, rather than an average of 32 (10+4*5.5) plus race modifier and then con bonus. And its easy to put extra points in Con at first level and later levels. Being a couple HP behind doesn't matter that much, because the total HP is much higher. A typical fighter will have 100+ HP at 8th or 9th level.

A lower Con is simply a much lower percentage impact, which is significantly different to a negative modifier on a pool that will cap out around 25-26 at 20th level (if you take every single charisma increase available)

To frame it another way, a 5th level elf fighter with an 8 Con will still have 49 HP (or is it 51?). A 5th level Pf1 elf fighter with a 14 Con will average 46 HP. Feel free to tank con, or at least not prioritize it. At least not for HP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
Voss wrote:
And if resonance is as important as it seems, the dwarf population will shrink significantly for all classes. Sorry bearded folk, a charisma penalty just means you're globally bad at adventuring.
And if hit points are as important as they seem, the elf population will shrink significantly for all classes. Sorry pointy-eared folk, a constitution penalty just means you're globally bad at adventuring.

HP universally goes up in PF2. By rather a lot. A 5th level fighter has 50 HP before any modifiers at all, rather than an average of 32 (10+4*5.5) plus race modifier and then con bonus. And its easy to put extra points in Con at first level and later levels. Being a couple HP behind doesn't matter that much, because the total HP is much higher. A typical fighter will have 100+ HP at 8th or 9th level.

A lower Con is simply a much lower percentage impact, which is significantly different to a negative modifier on a pool that will cap out around 25-26 at 20th level (if you take every single charisma increase available)

To frame it another way, a 5th level elf fighter with an 8 Con will still have 49 HP (or is it 51?). A 5th level Pf1 elf fighter with a 14 Con will average 46 HP. Feel free to tank con, or at least not prioritize it. At least not for HP.

So does Resonance, a 5th level anything has an extra 4 Resonance.

I feel with most peoples complaints about not being able to drink a potion, the dwarf [sometimes] having one less Resonance isn't an issue. Their [sometimes] extra Con and [always] extra HP will mean they are in situations were they need to drink a potion less. Like at first level they have a HP bonus of more than a potion heals on average, therefore they are actually out in front at 1st.


Malk_Content wrote:

So does Resonance, a 5th level anything has an extra 4 Resonance.

I feel with most peoples complaints about not being able to drink a potion, the dwarf [sometimes] having one less Resonance isn't an issue. Their [sometimes] extra Con and [always] extra HP will mean they are in situations were they need to drink a potion less. Like at first level they have a HP bonus of more than a potion heals on average, therefore they are actually out in front at 1st.

I genuinely do not understand why my 9th level Dwarf Barbarian with 8 charisma is going to need more than 8 resonance in a given day. If it turns out this character is taking a ton of damage despite their regenerating ablative temp HP pool and general tankiness, I can invest in the healing skill (since Wisdom will be my 3rd or 4th highest stat).

Resonance seems primarily limiting to people who want to spam wands or use a lot of scrolls.


Brock Landers wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Resonance seems primarily limiting to people who want to spam wands or use a lot of scrolls.
Two things I have never particularly cared for, that style came along with 3rd Ed.

Indeed, it is strongly my preference that things like potions, scrolls, and wands are "things you reach for in a tight spot" not your #1 go-to solution for everything.

If I need emergency healing four times in a day, I should probably reexamine my tactics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
Voss wrote:
And if resonance is as important as it seems, the dwarf population will shrink significantly for all classes. Sorry bearded folk, a charisma penalty just means you're globally bad at adventuring.
And if hit points are as important as they seem, the elf population will shrink significantly for all classes. Sorry pointy-eared folk, a constitution penalty just means you're globally bad at adventuring.

HP universally goes up in PF2. By rather a lot. A 5th level fighter has 50 HP before any modifiers at all, rather than an average of 32 (10+4*5.5) plus race modifier and then con bonus. And its easy to put extra points in Con at first level and later levels. Being a couple HP behind doesn't matter that much, because the total HP is much higher. A typical fighter will have 100+ HP at 8th or 9th level.

A lower Con is simply a much lower percentage impact, which is significantly different to a negative modifier on a pool that will cap out around 25-26 at 20th level (if you take every single charisma increase available)

To frame it another way, a 5th level elf fighter with an 8 Con will still have 49 HP (or is it 51?). A 5th level Pf1 elf fighter with a 14 Con will average 46 HP. Feel free to tank con, or at least not prioritize it. At least not for HP.

My point is that all ability scores do something useful, so of course an ability penalty is a negative. But it doesn’t mean that you’re “globally bad at adventuring,” especially when all other races also get an ability penalty. And Charisma isn’t even a particularly important ability score. Resonance has made some progress to bring it in line with the others, but it’s still not as good as Dexterity, for example. Having one less resonance point won’t cripple dwarf characters, and if you do want to have more resonance you can just cancel out the penalty with your ability boosts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd love to see every adventure path come with 2-3 pre-built characters - NOT iconics.

Not every book - but every path - 2-3 ready to go characters - this way we could get a ton of pregens with cool flavor and backstories. I'd love to see these come with a skeleton progression plan and tactics to make it easier to get new people into the game.


Captain Morgan wrote:

It may not have been completely eliminated, but it is mathematically and undeniably being reduced. The former (PF2) allows you to play anything without a key stat penalty without shooting yourself in the foot. So you can play an effective sorcerer with any class without a charisma penalty, meaning the only bad choice is dwarf.

In PF1, you could only do that with a race that got a bonus to your key stat. Meaning anything other than elf, humans, and half humans was a bad choice for wizards, for example.

The PF2 solution encourages more variety of characters, and reduces bad options even if it doesn't eliminate them.

It's only reduced due to the fact we have a smaller race pool. That number of bad choices for Sorcerer will go up. See; Any Race with CHA penalty that sees print.

You're also seeming to base this idea that while the options are THERE(Which is a good thing) that they will get picked. You can totally play other races in PF1 as a Wizard. If you didn't care about min/maxing that is.

And if you care about Min/Maxing, why are you going to take a sub par option in PF2?

-----------

As for my hope, well I'd like to see a lot of stuff but I'll throw on something if only because I'm playing Brawler now. Maneuvers getting some love(or Tricks as they are called now?) I'd also like to see Alchemy stuff get some support rather than completely dropped like a rock. That should happen given that new Alchemy seems to be a fore front of new stuff for the game but I'm not holding my breath till I see the next splat/expansion books.


Bardarok wrote:


As far as CRB +Next book goes the top three for me are

1. Magus class or archetype
2. Orcish ancestry
3. Skald class or archetype

Probably not the biggest deals but those are the things I want the most. I'll probably homebrew half-orcs into orcs after the playtest and then see how close I can get to a Magus and/or Skald with multi classing.

Replying to myself like a kool kid.

I asked a question of Mark when he was on the Know Direction Twitch thing and long story short Sklad will be hard to do with the playtest rules. (There is no raging song equivalent or substitution)

So while I think you can probably do a decent Magus with wizard/fighter multiclass and half-orcs can substitute in for orcs I think Skald is something which would be hard to replicate in the PF2 Core Rules. So Skald is my number one thing now.


I really want the Magus, Occultist, Summoner, and Kineticist A.S.A.P.

The new minion rules really leaves room for a more balanced and interesting summoner class, IMO.

I like the Occultist in 1e and I think their 2e "resonance specialist" iteration will end up having a cool series of magic items and options that will give me power and abilities to explore outside of the core casting system in the same way the alchemist will.

The kineticist is just a favorite of mine and I want it to become more core to Pathfinder's brand and game identity. I also think it could be really fertile ground for cool mechanics.

The Magus would be getting a Magus.

All of this is in addition to the stuff that I posted in my "stuff we didn't get in 1e" thread.

I also really want gun rules but I am okay waiting a little bit for that.

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Top of your post CRB wishlist? All Messageboards