It just.... does not feel awesome


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:

But that's not what Paizo wants for feedback here.

"Tell us about your actual game play. Theory is all well and good, but everybody’s got theories, and we’ve probably heard most of them already. Tell us how things are actually working in play, not how you think things will work." - Vic Wertz

I see your point, but agree with the other poster: Me and three friends met today because we were looking forward to have a first look at Pathfinder 2 together. We went through the character creation, had a look at the changes, talked about our initial impressiond and came to the same conclusion. It looks organized, structured, clean and neat - just like an Excel sheet. But it doesn't look fun, exciting or thrilling. It doesn't seem to adress what we consider problematic about Pathfinder and doesn't seem to add any qualitity of life changes.

We were willing to give it a try and play it, but eventually decided that no one of us feels in anyway motivated to play the game, neither as a DM nor as a player. So while I understand Paizo's wish to get feedback on actual gameplay, I've never seen such a case of curiosity turning into indifference as I did today.

And I think that's valuable feedback, too. The main concern of Paizo shouldn't be to design a well-balanced and well-organized game, but to create one that looks fun and that gets people into the mood of giving it a try. For us, Pathfinder 2 failed in this regard. It doesn't look fun.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

'Play' starts at the first moment you pick up a book of Pathfinder, open it up and hopefully become immersed in an alternative world and excited about experiencing it.

It's not the most important part of play, but it matters. Particularly because if someone doesn't enjoy their first encounter with the game, they're less likely to continue with it.

It's a cliché because it's true: first impressions count.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Telefax wrote:
I dont see how pf2e is going to be better than any of these systems, there would have been a place for a higher magic, more gonzo system, especially if martials had been given meaningful high level abilities, which was what i thought you were going for, considering the last few years class additions (kineticist is my favorite class in pf1e, and i love all the caster hybrid classes).

This is also what I was expecting, instead we got nerf over nerf on magic, I'm severely disappointed by magic in the playtest


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm pretty sure that Paizo already has factored in disappointed PF1E players who will not buy the system in their sale projections. The question is if they can mitigate that number, by pulling back on some of the more radical stuff and if that is even possible without breaking the entire new math of the game.

But, yeah. I still find the new version seriously underwhelming, even after prepping for my playtest session tomorrow for six hours just today.

Scarab Sages

11 people marked this as a favorite.

After reading the rulebook (and constantly needing to remind myself what those symbols meant - ugh the symbols) I came away with a few thoughts.

First impression: After two years this is what was created?

Next impressions:

What was wrong with the term "race"? Was this some kind of trigger word at Paizo?

Why the move from gold pieces to silver pieces? Fantasy world, fantasy economy.

Why the massive nerf to spellcasters? A wizard familiar is now a separate feat? Most of the time they're not going to be moving and as has been pointed out in other threads spells have been depowered and number of spells per day greatly limited.

Much of the changes feel like a movement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Sure it is vaguely different but overall many changes feel like change for change sake.

Needless complications with what gets added to die rolls. I'll not waste post space with the long list.

No true combat example in the rule book. Just some small bits but no complete combat example to show all the bits tying together.

Rules used as examples before they're introduced (a critical hit damage example that uses a magic weapon before the whole etchings or whatever they're called is explained and what they do - I thought it was a typo when I first read it).

Nothing thus far says "buy me, play me" when I have nearly a complete library of PF1e material. I dearly hope the company isn't betting on this to survive. I really hope you have a Plan B.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
On the other hand, I found the Bestiary very fun to read and easy to understand even the complex systems like encounter building.

The bestiary is actually VERY cool, LOVE the new take on monsters, it's so flavorful. besides being overtuned, one of the best parts of the new system.

It's character creation that is really lacking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's honestly kind of cute seeing so many people complain about the caster nerfs. These nerfs were definitely needed with how dominant 9th level casting was in PF1... but then they've been coupled with major nerfs to the martial classes as well, with powerful tools moved much further back and more restricted (I'm looking at you, Spell Sunder). The best class in the playtest is easily the Cleric, and surprise surprise the Wizard falls in line at #2.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's honestly kind of cute seeing so many people complain about the caster nerfs. These nerfs were definitely needed with how dominant 9th level casting was in PF1... but then they've been coupled with major nerfs to the martial classes as well, with powerful tools moved much further back and more restricted (I'm looking at you, Spell Sunder). The best class in the playtest is easily the Cleric, and surprise surprise the Wizard falls in line at #2.

Yeah, they were really not needed, IMO. What was needed was moving the martials up to the level of casters in many respects. But I know that it is basically religious dogma for some that casters needed to be nerfed into the ground.


Agelaus wrote:

What was wrong with the term "race"? Was this some kind of trigger word at Paizo?

Why the move from gold pieces to silver pieces? Fantasy world, fantasy economy.

Why the massive nerf to spellcasters? A wizard familiar is now a separate feat? Most of the time they're not going to be moving and as has been pointed out in other threads spells have been depowered and number of spells per day greatly limited.

These are all questions that are easy enough to answer without any prior experience to PF2.

Paizo wants to be ahead of the political correctness curve, so they switched it to Ancestry in an attempt to better bring in players of all ethnicities and cultures. Except now I think of doing some sort of DNA test to see if I'm 23% Goblin or something...

The movement from Gold to Silver is both an in-universe change (you'd probably have to play Return of the Runelords to find out for sure; hint, it also tells us why Goblins are Core in-lore!), and a concept change. The idea that having 10,000 gold in PF1 was pretty low and uninspiring, but having 10,000 gold in PF2 is pretty dang rich and you can buy a lot of neat things with it. Of course, I think it doesn't particularly matter since all money is in D&D and its semi-identical "clones" is an equipment budget staggered over the course of your gaming career; there's no way, outside of cheating/houseruling, that you should be above (or even below) what the game expects you to have. Or, if you purposefully try to be poor (or extort the game's economy), would being insanely rich or poor be a thing in relation to what else is going on.

Spellcasters getting nerfed is one half of fixing the Caster/Martial Disparity, the other half being bringing martial options (of which Casters still have full access to) up to snuff to make Martials feel less worthless (though logically speaking they still are since they aren't unique in most everything they have or can do). Of course, now that 90% of the problem spells in the game are Rituals, there really isn't anything overpowering or underpowering of spellcasters that Martials don't likewise have access to in some way, shape, or form.

I hope these answers give some insight into Paizo's outlandish designs...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DFAnton wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Fallyna wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects

The reverse was far more entertaining, as I can recall at least one occasion when I stealthily used Prestidigitation to soil the drawers of an enemy noble at a Grand Ball, then had another PC loudly point it out to everyone around them, letting them draw their own conclusions. Instant social suicide for that noble and a high CR enemy removed from future social encounters. Cheesy, but fun. :)

Like lots of other spells, Prestidigition has been heavily nerfed from the PF1 version, but feels worse because it was always used to enhance roleplay, rather than combat. It'll be missed.

Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?

Not only do I think so, I would actively encourage it. Creative use of resources is rewarding for everyone at the table except railroading GMs.

Know what else can have huge narrative powers? Pickpocketing a key. Or slashing a painting with a knife. Or spreading a lie. Or any number of an infinite set of options that require zero resource investment whatsoever.

my tiny quibble of those examples (sans knife-slashing, which may now be an issue as sunder isnt in the game anymore) isn't that they're resources at all--skills don't have any daily limit that i know of (and spreading a lie of any import to a large number of people requires a high shockingly DC, if memory serves)


GM G Klein wrote:

Well having checked out the new system...I can say Pathfinder has gone the way of D&D...I think it's dying.

I'm sad to see the old system go and be replaced by...this.

I can only hope that 3rd party publishers keeping pumping out the 3.5 version stuff as I won't be adopting the new rules and my gaming group feels the same.

Sorry Paizo...you've lost a customer.

This kind of reminds me of when people were all "roll 20 has like no pathfinder games on it!?!?!" but it just turned out that roll20 had a massive influx of 5e games, and the pathfinder games were also growing but at a much slower rate than the new shiny game, kind of indicating that tabletop rpgs were healthier than they had been in a very long time.


What would it take to make the game feel awesome? I don't mean this in a dismissive way. In fact, I ask because I have mostly seen lots of insightful points made and great design skills on the fourms, and I think hearing about what would excite such people could be valuble.

I'll start with something I'd think is exciting. I'd want to see something like the Fighter and Ranger's Impossible volley but with no area limit. Just blot out the sun. Or The ranger being shoot somebody over a mountain, Huang Zhong style.

Balanced? No clue, haven't thought about it. Exciting? Heck yeah!


7 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's honestly kind of cute seeing so many people complain about the caster nerfs. These nerfs were definitely needed with how dominant 9th level casting was in PF1... but then they've been coupled with major nerfs to the martial classes as well, with powerful tools moved much further back and more restricted (I'm looking at you, Spell Sunder). The best class in the playtest is easily the Cleric, and surprise surprise the Wizard falls in line at #2.
Yeah, they were really not needed, IMO. What was needed was moving the martials up to the level of casters in many respects. But I know that it is basically religious dogma for some that casters needed to be nerfed into the ground.

I could not agree more strongly, and this is the direction I thought they were going with Legendary proficiencies and such. Basically that mundane characters of a certain skill level are, for all intents and purposes, magical in all but technicality, like many mythological heroes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
my tiny quibble of those examples (sans knife-slashing, which may now be an issue as sunder isnt in the game anymore)

If a GM doesn't let you slash canvas with a knife without a combat maneuver, that's when you get up and go home.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

@Kazk: doing cool things above and beyond usual uses of the skill or ability is exactly what i'm trying to impress upon the devs as well! if it's from mythology or legend (y'know, the capital H heroic stuff that tends to inspire people's character creations in the first place!), being able to do something resembling that at mid-high levels or master/legendary proficiency would do wonders to improve the feel and mechanical/narrative impact of things. or at least giving options on par to face the fantastical challenges one encounters in higher levels (like higher-ranking demons/angels/fiends/etc, literal godly avatars, eldritch abominations) you, as someone so successful and storied in your career to be near a legend yourself by this point, should be just as appropriately fantastical, i feel.

something mechanically insignificant but incredibly flavorful/narratively impactful one could be able to do by level 17+ is whisper to themselves the words of power, "$)*% range increments", and deliver a message via bow with a shot to another city. no muss, no fuss, no deeply mired mechanical quibbles, just fwish *long pause* thunk and some dude the next town over sees a call for aid embedded in the town sqare's pillory or the guard captain's doorframe.

make choosing between class feats an exciting prospect that players actually look forward to, with interestign side options or expansions to their existing abilities to make them truly shine, not incremental bumps in basic competence. make players say "man, i really wish i could take both of these!" rather than "well, at least one of these does something for me."


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Of course, now that 90% of the problem spells in the game are Rituals, there really isn't anything overpowering or underpowering of spellcasters that Martials don't likewise have access to in some way, shape, or form.

This is incorrect. Due to the Signature Skill system the more powerful rituals are still largely locked to their respective casting classes, with a few exceptions (Paladins can do Religion rituals and Rangers can do Nature rituals). A Fighter can never lead a ritual of any kind unless he multi-classes into a casting class... at which point he isn't a martial.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I struggle to read the book because it's so dry and lifeless. Nothing really inspires me or gets my creative juices flowing, as opposed to 5e which made me very excited to play every class. PF2, just reads like a college text book about programming and only programmers will find it worth the read. Me, my eyes will glaze over. Yossarian is doing a good job of adding some spark and life to the flavor text. I want to play an alchemist chucking smoke filled dirty bombs now. ;)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazk wrote:

What would it take to make the game feel awesome? I don't mean this in a dismissive way. In fact, I ask because I have mostly seen lots of insightful points made and great design skills on the fourms, and I think hearing about what would excite such people could be valuble.

I'll start with something I'd think is exciting. I'd want to see something like the Fighter and Ranger's Impossible volley but with no area limit. Just blot out the sun. Or The ranger being shoot somebody over a mountain, Huang Zhong style.

Balanced? No clue, haven't thought about it. Exciting? Heck yeah!

Filling out the classes from start with options that are not trap options, sound exciting, and give meaningful bonuses rather than a +1 here and there. Role playing games that are overtuned for balance, at least in noncombat scenarios, are not really that fun. Everyone should be able to meaningfully contribute to combat, but also to other aspects of the game, even going into higher levels.

In pf1, the paladin gives off the implacable warrior of righteousness vibe that the pf2e one somehow just lacks, thanks to smite evil, lay on hands and divine grace. The alchemist in pf1 is a unique class that gets a lot of conflicting freebie abilities that are situationally useful enough to make it an awesome toolkit class. The pf2e one can get them, but it does not feel the same way.

The pf2e playtest book feels like they made a safe system (that is very different from the last one), and in order to not upset the math, avoided giving anyone fun stuff or being mechanically different. I do not feel like the 6th level casters that were the best designed classes in pf1e can slot into the new system easily.

My personal opinion regarding the market is that there are a lot of systems out there that do low fantasy basic adventuring stuff very well, but very few that tackle higher powered characters (at least well).

Personal sidenote, i'd be willing to support any system that went out of its way to support differing subsystems between classes. I love learning new stuff, so i've played swordsages, warlocks, shugenjas, psions, incarnates, and even a truenamer once. In PF my favorite class is kineticist, despite understanding it is a flawed class.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Of course, now that 90% of the problem spells in the game are Rituals, there really isn't anything overpowering or underpowering of spellcasters that Martials don't likewise have access to in some way, shape, or form.
This is incorrect. Due to the Signature Skill system the more powerful rituals are still largely locked to their respective casting classes, with a few exceptions (Paladins can do Religion rituals and Rangers can do Nature rituals). A Fighter can never lead a ritual of any kind unless he multi-classes into a casting class... at which point he isn't a martial.

All the more reason to sign DMW's petition to remove Signature Skills from the game.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazk wrote:
Balanced? No clue, haven't thought about it. Exciting? Heck yeah!

I think this should be the design philosophy.

In general I'd love to see improvements to the overall game design and a change in the design philosophy, i.e. "Fun First". Personally, I'd just cut a lot of systems, categories, etc. pp. that make the game more tedious to play the game but not more fun. Just a few ideas:

(1) Make the skill system more elegant! Cut the number gloat on skills. Cut the gating of basic activities behind Trained/Expert/Etc. pp. I prefer the "You can try"-approach in Pathfinder and D&D 5e. Whether I succeed or not should be determined by my roll. Profiency should not be added to skill checks, as it causes the numbers to explode and leads to situations where tasks that very difficult at level 1 become trivial just a few levels later. The linear, numercial progression was one of the worst aspects in Pathfinder and they repeat the same mistake in Pathfinder 2. Smaller numbers are better numbers. The same is true for AC and saves.

(2) Choices should matter! Feats and abilities feel very restricted so far. It feels like there was a guard checking the designers and telling them "Nope, that's too funky", "Tune it down", "That's too impactful" whenever they created a new feat. Just be bold. Pathfinder 2 is not a PvP game, so if a class happens to be stronger than others, we'll handle. I'd rather have classes that feel too strong and too impactful rather than too weak.

I mean, have a look at 'Stormborn' (Feat 1, Druid): "Reduce any circumstance penalties to your ranged attacks or
Perception checks caused by weather or weather effects (such as wind) by 1." That is not fun, exciting or thrilling. It is plain boring. Don't be boring. I mean, if you call a feat 'Stormborn' and want it to be situational, then be situationally cool with it, like: "Reduce any circumstance penalties to your ranged attacks or Perception checks caused by weather or weather effects (such as wind) by half rounded down. Addtionally, you can channel and redirect one thunderbolt during storms or severe winds to strike your foe. You can use this ability 1 + WIS-modifier per day." Is it too strong? Maybe, I don't know. But it's more flavourful. Again, this isn't a a PvP game, balancing should not trump fun.

Feats should grant players new things to DO, instead of mere numerical improvements that feel negligible because of how fast numbers increase in this game. A feat that grants a +1 bonus is okay'ish at level 1 but eventually becomes irrelevant just a few levels later.

(3) Add fluff! The handbook should not read like a manual for a dish washer, but like a book for a game that allows you to roleplay your wildest imaginations and fantasies. At least the non-sexual ones.

(4) Cut mechanics that don't add to the fun. Why does Finesse only add your DEX-modifier to the attack roll, but not the damage? If I want to play a DEX-based fighter that uses Finesse weapons then the game should help me to do build such a character effectively without constantly telling me, "But, but ... the math! It might be too strong if you can add to +2 DEX-modifier to the damage." Why does each component of a spell require one action? Just give each spell a specifc cast time. Again, all this subdivsion and adding of just another category does not make the game better, it just adds complexity for its own sake. Cut Bulk and Carryping Capacity and just write this sentence: "Players are intelligent beings. Every character can carry as much as is considered reasonable by the players and DM." If you enjoy book keeping and filling out tables, add Bulk as an optional rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
GM G Klein wrote:

Well having checked out the new system...I can say Pathfinder has gone the way of D&D...I think it's dying.

I'm sad to see the old system go and be replaced by...this.

I can only hope that 3rd party publishers keeping pumping out the 3.5 version stuff as I won't be adopting the new rules and my gaming group feels the same.

Sorry Paizo...you've lost a customer.

This kind of reminds me of when people were all "roll 20 has like no pathfinder games on it!?!?!" but it just turned out that roll20 had a massive influx of 5e games, and the pathfinder games were also growing but at a much slower rate than the new shiny game, kind of indicating that tabletop rpgs were healthier than they had been in a very long time.

That actually reminds me, has anyone seen the Fantasygrounds numbers recently?

They're pretty interesting.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Of course, now that 90% of the problem spells in the game are Rituals, there really isn't anything overpowering or underpowering of spellcasters that Martials don't likewise have access to in some way, shape, or form.
This is incorrect. Due to the Signature Skill system the more powerful rituals are still largely locked to their respective casting classes, with a few exceptions (Paladins can do Religion rituals and Rangers can do Nature rituals). A Fighter can never lead a ritual of any kind unless he multi-classes into a casting class... at which point he isn't a martial.
All the more reason to sign DMW's petition to remove Signature Skills from the game.

Even if we get around Signature Skills, there's still the fact that rituals require "secondary casters". So not only to YOU have to have the skill at the appropriate proficiency level, you have to find 1-4 more people to join in and make secondary checks.

Rituals are not anywhere close to making a martial competitive with casters in narrative power. At best, it's 50% to 20% of a group effort.


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Of course, now that 90% of the problem spells in the game are Rituals, there really isn't anything overpowering or underpowering of spellcasters that Martials don't likewise have access to in some way, shape, or form.
This is incorrect. Due to the Signature Skill system the more powerful rituals are still largely locked to their respective casting classes, with a few exceptions (Paladins can do Religion rituals and Rangers can do Nature rituals). A Fighter can never lead a ritual of any kind unless he multi-classes into a casting class... at which point he isn't a martial.
All the more reason to sign DMW's petition to remove Signature Skills from the game.

Even if we get around Signature Skills, there's still the fact that rituals require "secondary casters". So not only to YOU have to have the skill at the appropriate proficiency level, you have to find 1-4 more people to join in and make secondary checks.

Rituals are not anywhere close to making a martial competitive with casters in narrative power. At best, it's 50% to 20% of a group effort.

I'm not really familiar with the ritual rules at all (haven't read that yet, still going through the classes in-depth, half-way through Monk now), but as long as "secondary casters" does not actually mean spellcasters, I'm okay with that. I'll still sign DMW's Signature Skill repeal, and Rituals will be hunky-dory.

As long as rituals are most broken PF1 spells like Simulacrum and Clone (and Raise Dead/Resurrection), with spellcasters not being a requirement whatsoever, I'm totally okay with the Ritual niche and its relation to the Caster/Martial disparity.


Honestly, I think there are aspects of the system that could let it have ridiculously cool things without necessarily having to scrap balance.

1.Skill feats, both how many a character gets and how they allow characters to explicitly do things outside the scope of what is physically possible in our world, without forcing the DM to stop and think about how much harder one impossible task is vs another.

2.The fact that there is little combat power to be gained from general and skill feats (so far) means that the vast majority of a character's combat power will be coming from class features class feats, and items. There are aspects to this to this that I dislike, but does make balancing combat easier.

3. As for Out of combat power, or utility, or narrative power, or however you want to call it, the fact that certain class features (mostly rogue) and many skill feats defy our world's physics without magic, this opens up space to address the gap in materials and casters have outside of combat, which seems to be where much of the disparity comes from.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The movement from Gold to Silver is both an in-universe change (you'd probably have to play Return of the Runelords to find out for sure; hint, it also tells us why Goblins are Core in-lore!), and a concept change.

I was going to say that seems ridiculous, but since the game's trying to push Golarion Goblins as a respected and common adventuring race that's not killed on sight in 90% of cases, it's probably pretty reasonable in comparison for the entire world's economy to have been decimated.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that mechanical PvP balance doesn't make it easier to have ridiculously cool things. Pathfinder's balance error wasn't in making one class more powerful than another, but in making the abilities of several character archetypes subsets of the abilities of caster classes.

Removing all the big scene setting abilities in favor of low impact abilities just means the game is less exciting. It would be much better to improve the effect of abilities if used in conjunction with archetypes more suited to that ability. Divination spells that let you see through invisibility, but would let someone with master perception mastery have true seeing, or a spell that would turn you into a giant boar, but would be better used on the barbarian who is better trained in animalistic combat.

As is, we have spells that just do less rather than using the opportunity to engage more players in the benefits.


ErichAD wrote:

The problem is that mechanical PvP balance doesn't make it easier to have ridiculously cool things. Pathfinder's balance error wasn't in making one class more powerful than another, but in making the abilities of several character archetypes subsets of the abilities of caster classes.

Removing all the big scene setting abilities in favor of low impact abilities just means the game is less exciting. It would be much better to improve the effect of abilities if used in conjunction with archetypes more suited to that ability. Divination spells that let you see through invisibility, but would let someone with master perception mastery have true seeing, or a spell that would turn you into a giant boar, but would be better used on the barbarian who is better trained in animalistic combat.

As is, we have spells that just do less rather than using the opportunity to engage more players in the benefits.

Huh, spells that scale with the targets skills. That sounds like a really good idea. It seems like it would bump up the power of spells in a way that lets other party members feel good because its a combination of the caster's power and their own character power that allows it to happen.

And on a personal level, I can deal with imbalance, but I understand the complaints of some classes having much less power over the narrative than others is a reasonable complaint.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's honestly kind of cute seeing so many people complain about the caster nerfs. These nerfs were definitely needed with how dominant 9th level casting was in PF1... but then they've been coupled with major nerfs to the martial classes as well, with powerful tools moved much further back and more restricted (I'm looking at you, Spell Sunder). The best class in the playtest is easily the Cleric, and surprise surprise the Wizard falls in line at #2.
Yeah, they were really not needed, IMO. What was needed was moving the martials up to the level of casters in many respects. But I know that it is basically religious dogma for some that casters needed to be nerfed into the ground.

Totally agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazk wrote:

Honestly, I think there are aspects of the system that could let it have ridiculously cool things without necessarily having to scrap balance.

1.Skill feats, both how many a character gets and how they allow characters to explicitly do things outside the scope of what is physically possible in our world, without forcing the DM to stop and think about how much harder one impossible task is vs another.

2.The fact that there is little combat power to be gained from general and skill feats (so far) means that the vast majority of a character's combat power will be coming from class features class feats, and items. There are aspects to this to this that I dislike, but does make balancing combat easier.

3. As for Out of combat power, or utility, or narrative power, or however you want to call it, the fact that certain class features (mostly rogue) and many skill feats defy our world's physics without magic, this opens up space to address the gap in materials and casters have outside of combat, which seems to be where much of the disparity comes from.

on #2. my current problem with everything on a class being devoted towards their combat competence (with the exception of skill feats, which are largely lackluster and need a good fun-itizing), it feeds into the whole class-disparity thing--as 100% of your class features, class feats, etc are devoted to just that, and casters get the same number (wait, two less skill feats, oh no!) to also devote there, just results in the casters being plain ahead of the others (as they get large flexible options on top of all that via multiple spells, which can render some skills or feats completely obsolete), while other classes must purchase those options, if they exist at all. in theory one could attempt to emulate utility magic via skill feats, but sadly most of those don't even slightly approach that (no super high stealth making you invisible or letting you exude silence, no super high diplomacy letting you charm people, no super high nature letting you speak with animals, no super high acrobatics/athletics to let you run/jump on air or even glide if that's somehow "too crazy", etc etc--things one would expect someone fantastically skilled in both training and adventuring to pull off in a heroic adventure in a fantasy world).

as with my other post to this effect, I'm not saying that casters should lose some of those combat resources to compensate for this advantage, just that noncasters should get something approaching the same ballpark of an equivalent that they don't have to purchase with feats or the like that grant them similar interesting round-by-round choices and narrative impact.


Kazk wrote:
ErichAD wrote:

The problem is that mechanical PvP balance doesn't make it easier to have ridiculously cool things. Pathfinder's balance error wasn't in making one class more powerful than another, but in making the abilities of several character archetypes subsets of the abilities of caster classes.

Removing all the big scene setting abilities in favor of low impact abilities just means the game is less exciting. It would be much better to improve the effect of abilities if used in conjunction with archetypes more suited to that ability. Divination spells that let you see through invisibility, but would let someone with master perception mastery have true seeing, or a spell that would turn you into a giant boar, but would be better used on the barbarian who is better trained in animalistic combat.

As is, we have spells that just do less rather than using the opportunity to engage more players in the benefits.

Huh, spells that scale with the targets skills. That sounds like a really good idea. It seems like it would bump up the power of spells in a way that lets other party members feel good because its a combination of the caster's power and their own character power that allows it to happen.

And on a personal level, I can deal with imbalance, but I understand the complaints of some classes having much less power over the narrative than others is a reasonable complaint.

Thanks, I thought it worked a little. It would probably be polite to ensure that the caster was the best target for some spells based on their specialization, like a transmuter wizard being the best target for their own polymorph spells, but otherwise it seems more fun overall to ensure that other players are supported in their chosen roll rather than replaced.

It would be a bit weird for drop in play though, as you couldn't depend on certain ability sets being present at the table. But then there's no risk of overshadowing another player, so it's all good.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazk wrote:
What would it take to make the game feel awesome?

A number of things:

-1st level PCs that don't have worse attack rolls and skill checks than 0th level monsters with lower ability scores. Seriously, I cannot emphasize enough how disheartening it was when I looked at the Bestiary. How are you supposed to feel like a hero when every mook and scrub is just as good at what you do as you are?
-MARTIALS NEED MORE SKILLS. (Except the rogue, obviously.) Seriously, for the fighter to skill only have 3+Int when a primary spellcaster like the cleric has 5+Int feels like a slap in the face. Spellcasters already have all these options for spells and powers. Skills are the only thing that martials have give them versatility and be relevant; quit shortchanging them.
-Skill Feats that actually do cool things, not just things that you'd expect anyone trained in the skill to be able to do (Survey Wildlife, Kip Up), and with DCs that make sense (Battle Medic is equally likely to kill your teammates as heal them at low levels). The ones that are basically equivalent to rogue talents from PF1 like Quick Sneak are a good start.
-Master and Legendary martial abilities that actually feel like something epic and powerful, rather than things that you got ten levels earlier in PF1 (Whirlwind Strike, Savage Critical, Armor Mastery). These are the abilities you got instead of getting high-level spells, they need to feel meaningful.
-Don't pigeonhole classes into specific fighting styles, weapons, armor, etc. (assuming they're proficient, obviously). Let people make the characters they want to make, don't restrict their Armor Mastery to only heavy armor or lock them out of combat feats they need for archery or dual-wielding.
-Don't have a bunch of class abilities that seem so weak that they're pointless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It feels like a Health & Safety obsessed PF, must wear a helmet when playing this completely flattened (unfortunately not in the good maths way...+Level indeed...), homogenised iteration.

As I said in another thread, in a slightly different way, but, where is the flaming Wow-Factor?!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:
Kazk wrote:
What would it take to make the game feel awesome?

A number of things:

-1st level PCs that don't have worse attack rolls and skill checks than 0th level monsters with lower ability scores. Seriously, I cannot emphasize enough how disheartening it was when I looked at the Bestiary. How are you supposed to feel like a hero when every mook and scrub is just as good at what you do as you are?
-MARTIALS NEED MORE SKILLS. (Except the rogue, obviously.) Seriously, for the fighter to skill only have 3+Int when a primary spellcaster like the cleric has 5+Int feels like a slap in the face. Spellcasters already have all these options for spells and powers. Skills are the only thing that martials have give them versatility and be relevant; quit shortchanging them.
-Skill Feats that actually do cool things, not just things that you'd expect anyone trained in the skill to be able to do (Survey Wildlife, Kip Up), and with DCs that make sense (Battle Medic is equally likely to kill your teammates as heal them at low levels). The ones that are basically equivalent to rogue talents from PF1 like Quick Sneak are a good start.
-Master and Legendary martial abilities that actually feel like something epic and powerful, rather than things that you got ten levels earlier in PF1 (Whirlwind Strike, Savage Critical, Armor Mastery). These are the abilities you got instead of getting high-level spells, they need to feel meaningful.
-Don't pigeonhole classes into specific fighting styles, weapons, armor, etc. (assuming they're proficient, obviously). Let people make the characters they want to make, don't restrict their Armor Mastery to only heavy armor or lock them out of combat feats they need for archery or dual-wielding.
-Don't have a bunch of class abilities that seem so weak that they're pointless.

You got me with the bestiary thing... Monsters are all assumed to be 18 STR Fighters of equal level it feels. They overshadow PCs easily and put them on a treadmill despite having like 10 STR in some cases. This includes lvl0 ones that apparently are Masters in their weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Fallyna wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects

The reverse was far more entertaining, as I can recall at least one occasion when I stealthily used Prestidigitation to soil the drawers of an enemy noble at a Grand Ball, then had another PC loudly point it out to everyone around them, letting them draw their own conclusions. Instant social suicide for that noble and a high CR enemy removed from future social encounters. Cheesy, but fun. :)

Like lots of other spells, Prestidigition has been heavily nerfed from the PF1 version, but feels worse because it was always used to enhance roleplay, rather than combat. It'll be missed.

Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?

Why the hell not? It was a fun, innovative thing to do. Again, killing fun should not be objective of the game.

Also, mechanically the guy should have gotten a save, because someone used magic against stuff he was wearing. Furthermore, and I know this is subject to interpretation for many GM's, if he gets a save, he knows magic has been used against him.

Also also, even if we take the situation as is, while the guy was removed from future social encounters, you can be pretty sure that he would try to take his revenge on the PC who embarassed him in some other way, maybe by hiring assassins to take him out. Roleplay! Consequences!

Casters should be able to use 0-level cantrips which require saves only if the GM feels like it while martials should jump the hoops of multiple skill checks and be just plain unable to match a 0-level cantrip at all?

This isn't fun. This is driving the "casters do cool things, you get to stand and watch" further. I can see how, by being a caster player, you didn't notice that.

So having seen a lot of your posts elsewhere, I think you should just be a DM and ban magic from your tables. Like just play a low magic setting and make people play barbarians, fighters and rogues. Or else find a table where other people want to play just pure martials in a low/no magic setting. Then you can have your fun without nerfing the system for those of us who like magic, and think magic should be special. You can always REMOVE something from the game, but its a lot harder for individual tables to build a system into their game.

Or why don't you just play a caster? Stop hating a join the dark side?


AshVandal wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Fallyna wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm all for "cleaning my pantaloons with magic" effects

The reverse was far more entertaining, as I can recall at least one occasion when I stealthily used Prestidigitation to soil the drawers of an enemy noble at a Grand Ball, then had another PC loudly point it out to everyone around them, letting them draw their own conclusions. Instant social suicide for that noble and a high CR enemy removed from future social encounters. Cheesy, but fun. :)

Like lots of other spells, Prestidigition has been heavily nerfed from the PF1 version, but feels worse because it was always used to enhance roleplay, rather than combat. It'll be missed.

Do you think that a 0-level at-will cantrip should have that big narrative powers?

Why the hell not? It was a fun, innovative thing to do. Again, killing fun should not be objective of the game.

Also, mechanically the guy should have gotten a save, because someone used magic against stuff he was wearing. Furthermore, and I know this is subject to interpretation for many GM's, if he gets a save, he knows magic has been used against him.

Also also, even if we take the situation as is, while the guy was removed from future social encounters, you can be pretty sure that he would try to take his revenge on the PC who embarassed him in some other way, maybe by hiring assassins to take him out. Roleplay! Consequences!

Casters should be able to use 0-level cantrips which require saves only if the GM feels like it while martials should jump the hoops of multiple skill checks and be just plain unable to match a 0-level cantrip at all?

This isn't fun. This is driving the "casters do cool things, you get to stand and watch" further. I can see how, by being a caster player, you didn't notice that.

So having seen a lot of your posts elsewhere, I think you should just be a DM and ban magic from your tables. Like just play a...

The martial caster divide is oh so very real, and also a dm issue. I am personally in the camp of bringing the martials up, and the casters down a slight notch, especially in terms of versatility, while still having a high powered system. spell levels 7 and up (mostly the noncombat spells), but also noncombat spells of 4th level and up, plus the fly spell make a lot of games a nightmare to run and balance, and the kind of casting that Highest level dnd gives you is unmatched in any other kind of system, including exalted.

I really did not wish this thread to turn into the martial vs caster thread though, i mostly just wanted to point out that reading through the class tables felt like blandcakes (esp. at higher level), mostly on the martial (and alchemist) side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I disagree that casters needed needed; but I think we can all agree the massive nerf to martial was probably I'll advised.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DFAnton wrote:
GM G Klein wrote:

Well having checked out the new system...I can say Pathfinder has gone the way of D&D...I think it's dying.

I'm sad to see the old system go and be replaced by...this.

I can only hope that 3rd party publishers keeping pumping out the 3.5 version stuff as I won't be adopting the new rules and my gaming group feels the same.

Sorry Paizo...you've lost a customer.

...? D&D is booming, right now. Unless I missed something.

I totally agree it is booming...for all those people who can't do math so increases are pretty even and simple...want increases across the board that are even...need 'advantage' and 'disadvantage' for re-rolls...

By the way what is the range of a longbow or crossbow in 5th edition? What's the maximum range? (These rules don't even make sense...but its real easy and ranges are great if you're simply doing tabletop)

Some of us can do the math and don't need equality and want the ability to get really diverse characters. Characters who can fail even when things look like they shouldn't. Charaters who can face death.

I'm glad people like it...I just need something a little less cookie-cutter. And the current incarnation of PF2 looks pretty much like Paizo just don't want us old gamers. It kind of reminds me of Apple...everytime they release a new phone you need to buy all new accessories or you just get left behind. I'm not opposed to improvements...I'm just opposed to scrapping a system to be "new" and hope that helps.

I also don't think you need a new system to get new players. You could re-work PF1 and still make improvements. But hey, if you just want to say you're like another company and scrapping the system for something new...go ahead.


GM G Klein wrote:
DFAnton wrote:
GM G Klein wrote:

Well having checked out the new system...I can say Pathfinder has gone the way of D&D...I think it's dying.

I'm sad to see the old system go and be replaced by...this.

I can only hope that 3rd party publishers keeping pumping out the 3.5 version stuff as I won't be adopting the new rules and my gaming group feels the same.

Sorry Paizo...you've lost a customer.

...? D&D is booming, right now. Unless I missed something.

I totally agree it is booming...for all those people who can't do math so increases are pretty even and simple...want increases across the board that are even...need 'advantage' and 'disadvantage' for re-rolls...

By the way what is the range of a longbow or crossbow in 5th edition? What's the maximum range? (These rules don't even make sense...but its real easy and ranges are great if you're simply doing tabletop)

Some of us can do the math and don't need equality and want the ability to get really diverse characters. Characters who can fail even when things look like they shouldn't. Charaters who can face death.

I'm glad people like it...I just need something a little less cookie-cutter. And the current incarnation of PF2 looks pretty much like Paizo just don't want us old gamers. It kind of reminds me of Apple...everytime they release a new phone you need to buy all new accessories or you just get left behind. I'm not opposed to improvements...I'm just opposed to scrapping a system to be "new" and hope that helps.

I also don't think you need a new system to get new players. You could re-work PF1 and still make improvements. But hey, if you just want to say you're like another company and scrapping the system for something new...go ahead.

I mean. I'm not a fan of how simple 5e is, but I think it's false to assume that just because people want something simple means they can't do the maths in other systems fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's honestly kind of cute seeing so many people complain about the caster nerfs. These nerfs were definitely needed with how dominant 9th level casting was in PF1... but then they've been coupled with major nerfs to the martial classes as well, with powerful tools moved much further back and more restricted (I'm looking at you, Spell Sunder). The best class in the playtest is easily the Cleric, and surprise surprise the Wizard falls in line at #2.
Yeah, they were really not needed, IMO. What was needed was moving the martials up to the level of casters in many respects. But I know that it is basically religious dogma for some that casters needed to be nerfed into the ground.

There is a type of "balance" that is clearly lost on paizo.

Balance between TYPES/MOODS OF PLAYERS.

The relative simplicity of martial classes exists to allow more casual gamers ACCESS to the game. The trade off of playing a caster vs a martial class is that PLAYING a caster is more complicated, and requires keeping track of more things.

I generally prefer more complicated characters to play, but once in a while I just want to smash stuff, and not have to think about managing resources, enhancing spells, crafting items etc.

Casters SHOULD be more powerful, because they require a greater investment of time and energy to play.

At least that is how I have always viewed it.


Dairian wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's honestly kind of cute seeing so many people complain about the caster nerfs. These nerfs were definitely needed with how dominant 9th level casting was in PF1... but then they've been coupled with major nerfs to the martial classes as well, with powerful tools moved much further back and more restricted (I'm looking at you, Spell Sunder). The best class in the playtest is easily the Cleric, and surprise surprise the Wizard falls in line at #2.
Yeah, they were really not needed, IMO. What was needed was moving the martials up to the level of casters in many respects. But I know that it is basically religious dogma for some that casters needed to be nerfed into the ground.

There is a type of "balance" that is clearly lost on paizo.

Balance between TYPES/MOODS OF PLAYERS.

The relative simplicity of martial classes exists to allow more casual gamers ACCESS to the game. The trade off of playing a caster vs a martial class is that PLAYING a caster is more complicated, and requires keeping track of more things.

I generally prefer more complicated characters to play, but once in a while I just want to smash stuff, and not have to think about managing resources, enhancing spells, crafting items etc.

Casters SHOULD be more powerful, because they require a greater investment of time and energy to play.

At least that is how I have always viewed it.

I agree with you.

The sorceror was build for that too.
Also social characters need more effort to play and understand them.

Besides, I don't need to have a leading role in every part of the game. I can't understand why I need to be part of the combat.

I love puzzle solving, preparation
I like social gaming (though bad at it)
I don't care about combat, why can't I just let others take more responsibility in that part of the game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Responding to more or less give a thumbs up in agreement with the general sentiment of this post.


Elleth wrote:
GM G Klein wrote:
DFAnton wrote:
GM G Klein wrote:

Well having checked out the new system...I can say Pathfinder has gone the way of D&D...I think it's dying.

I'm sad to see the old system go and be replaced by...this.

I can only hope that 3rd party publishers keeping pumping out the 3.5 version stuff as I won't be adopting the new rules and my gaming group feels the same.

Sorry Paizo...you've lost a customer.

...? D&D is booming, right now. Unless I missed something.

I totally agree it is booming...for all those people who can't do math so increases are pretty even and simple...want increases across the board that are even...need 'advantage' and 'disadvantage' for re-rolls...

By the way what is the range of a longbow or crossbow in 5th edition? What's the maximum range? (These rules don't even make sense...but its real easy and ranges are great if you're simply doing tabletop)

Some of us can do the math and don't need equality and want the ability to get really diverse characters. Characters who can fail even when things look like they shouldn't. Charaters who can face death.

I'm glad people like it...I just need something a little less cookie-cutter. And the current incarnation of PF2 looks pretty much like Paizo just don't want us old gamers. It kind of reminds me of Apple...everytime they release a new phone you need to buy all new accessories or you just get left behind. I'm not opposed to improvements...I'm just opposed to scrapping a system to be "new" and hope that helps.

I also don't think you need a new system to get new players. You could re-work PF1 and still make improvements. But hey, if you just want to say you're like another company and scrapping the system for something new...go ahead.

I mean. I'm not a fan of how simple 5e is, but I think it's false to assume that just because people want something simple means they can't do the maths in other systems fine.

Yeah, that's the best part of 5th Ed: is how easily hackable it is, it's sort of like 3rd Ed Lite, so I use 3rd Ed/PF1 material to swing it in a more crunchy direction (and some 4th Ed goodies, like monster Reactions).

I am still hoping PF2 can fill that niche, between 3rd Ed and 5th Ed; tough needle-to-thread.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm starting to think 'more awesome' is the direction PF2 should have gone. Every new level would allow you to choose a cool new power; no more '+1 to a dice roll under some circumstances'. Allow Druids to turn into monsters that can swallow humans whole. Let Fighters unleash 30-foot cones of destruction with a wave of their swords. Let Rogues run up walls and hide in plain sight. Let Monks use living enemies as throwing weapons. Let Alchemists turn slain foes into flesh golems. Give a Ranger a riding wolf and healing magic from level 1. Give Bards the ability to make their enemies dance themselves to death. Give Barbarians the ability to smash a human-sized hole in a wall rather than waste time picking a lock. Give Paladins the power to purge all evil from foes who surrender. Let Wizards cast twenty spells a day from Level 1.

This wouldn't please everyone, but it would give me an answer next time I'm asked, "Why would I want to play this instead of D&D?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

I'm starting to think 'more awesome' is the direction PF2 should have gone. Every new level would allow you to choose a cool new power; no more '+1 to a dice roll under some circumstances'. Allow Druids to turn into monsters that can swallow humans whole. Let Fighters unleash 30-foot cones of destruction with a wave of their swords. Let Rogues run up walls and hide in plain sight. Let Monks use living enemies as throwing weapons. Let Alchemists turn slain foes into flesh golems. Give a Ranger a riding wolf and healing magic from level 1. Give Bards the ability to make their enemies dance themselves to death. Give Barbarians the ability to smash a human-sized hole in a wall rather than waste time picking a lock. Give Paladins the power to purge all evil from foes who surrender. Let Wizards cast twenty spells a day from Level 1.

This wouldn't please everyone, but it would give me an answer next time I'm asked, "Why would I want to play this instead of D&D?"

Yes, I was hoping for Legendary to be, well, /legendary/, this could be the D&D/PF that offers your high-level Fighter the ability to rip the heads of demons, and swim for days, come on!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yossarian wrote:

Exhibit B:

Quote:


IMPROVED BRAVERY FEAT 6 - Fighter
Trigger Your turn ends.
Reduce your frightened condition by 2, rather than 1.

I can't think of a less exciting way to describe bravery. It says nothing to a new player at all, and hardly sums up the image of my fighter holding his steely nerve in the face of a fearsome demon as the rest of my party quakes in their boots.

Maybe it's just a case of having one of the writers who's very good at exciting superlatives to have a pass over the feats and spells and make them sound cool and desirable? Paizo has some outstanding creative writers there, this is something they can do comfortably within their capabilities. Crystal Frasier can't help but sound awesome whenever she writes anything down. Paizo can absolutely improve this.

It would mean accepting a few less feats in the main book, because *pagecount*. But that's the cost of flavour.

This is a very specific, well pointed criticism. Yes, the book reads like a computer manual, and should be evocative. I think this is a point that Paizo needs to look at, because it's also a point LOT of people has pointed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dairian wrote:

Casters SHOULD be more powerful, because they require a greater investment of time and energy to play.

That's certainly a point of view.

My point of view is "No".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:
Kazk wrote:
What would it take to make the game feel awesome?

A number of things:

-1st level PCs that don't have worse attack rolls and skill checks than 0th level monsters with lower ability scores. Seriously, I cannot emphasize enough how disheartening it was when I looked at the Bestiary. How are you supposed to feel like a hero when every mook and scrub is just as good at what you do as you are?
-MARTIALS NEED MORE SKILLS. (Except the rogue, obviously.) Seriously, for the fighter to skill only have 3+Int when a primary spellcaster like the cleric has 5+Int feels like a slap in the face. Spellcasters already have all these options for spells and powers. Skills are the only thing that martials have give them versatility and be relevant; quit shortchanging them.
-Skill Feats that actually do cool things, not just things that you'd expect anyone trained in the skill to be able to do (Survey Wildlife, Kip Up), and with DCs that make sense (Battle Medic is equally likely to kill your teammates as heal them at low levels). The ones that are basically equivalent to rogue talents from PF1 like Quick Sneak are a good start.
-Master and Legendary martial abilities that actually feel like something epic and powerful, rather than things that you got ten levels earlier in PF1 (Whirlwind Strike, Savage Critical, Armor Mastery). These are the abilities you got instead of getting high-level spells, they need to feel meaningful.
-Don't pigeonhole classes into specific fighting styles, weapons, armor, etc. (assuming they're proficient, obviously). Let people make the characters they want to make, don't restrict their Armor Mastery to only heavy armor or lock them out of combat feats they need for archery or dual-wielding.
-Don't have a bunch of class abilities that seem so weak that they're pointless.

I am grateful that I'm not alone in wanting the contents mostly rewritten, and the guidelines you provided are on-point


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

I'm starting to think 'more awesome' is the direction PF2 should have gone. Every new level would allow you to choose a cool new power; no more '+1 to a dice roll under some circumstances'. Allow Druids to turn into monsters that can swallow humans whole. Let Fighters unleash 30-foot cones of destruction with a wave of their swords. Let Rogues run up walls and hide in plain sight. Let Monks use living enemies as throwing weapons. Let Alchemists turn slain foes into flesh golems. Give a Ranger a riding wolf and healing magic from level 1. Give Bards the ability to make their enemies dance themselves to death. Give Barbarians the ability to smash a human-sized hole in a wall rather than waste time picking a lock. Give Paladins the power to purge all evil from foes who surrender. Let Wizards cast twenty spells a day from Level 1.

This wouldn't please everyone, but it would give me an answer next time I'm asked, "Why would I want to play this instead of D&D?"

YES, YES, YES.

I would love to play any of these classes.

Why make them suck?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The magic system definitely does not feel awesome. It feels nerfed to its core. The shield fighter does feel awesome which is good. The cleric as a healer feels awesome. He does not feel awesome as a general caster. The monk seems really cool, the paladin decent and the ranger and barbarian along with the bard, wizard and sorcerer seem like burning garbage heaps. Have not tried the rogue or druid yet so no comment on them


Arachnofiend wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Of course, now that 90% of the problem spells in the game are Rituals, there really isn't anything overpowering or underpowering of spellcasters that Martials don't likewise have access to in some way, shape, or form.
This is incorrect. Due to the Signature Skill system the more powerful rituals are still largely locked to their respective casting classes, with a few exceptions (Paladins can do Religion rituals and Rangers can do Nature rituals). A Fighter can never lead a ritual of any kind unless he multi-classes into a casting class... at which point he isn't a martial.

Yes and that makes perfect sense. If you don't allow a caster to have legendary in skills such as survival or athletics which tend to fall more on the martial spectrum then why should fighters be allowed signature skills in lore backgrounds when their Intelligence won't probably ever get past 14?

101 to 150 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / It just.... does not feel awesome All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.