| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be frank I think for a lot of people magic item systems are a "you don't know what you want" sort of thing - met plenty of people who will complain about mandatory magic items and then a few months later when you're playing in an ABP campaign will complain about not having any useful magic items to get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prefacing this with the assurance that I'm not being sarcastic or cheeky: Hi. I am someone who likes the way magic items work in PF2E. At the tables I've been at so far it's felt consistently fun when we find one, even for me, and I'm the caster who should never be in melee ever, for any reason, usually. I think I mostly like the upgrades to the striking runes. It's always fun when someone first gets one and we all remind them they roll an extra die.
Yeah that's fair. Like I said, just been looking at my own circles, anecdotes aren't very useful etc.
To be frank I think for a lot of people magic item systems are a "you don't know what you want" sort of thing - met plenty of people who will complain about mandatory magic items and then a few months later when you're playing in an ABP campaign will complain about not having any useful magic items to get.
It could also be that it's not as simple as either-or, though. Like I said, a couple players in campaigns I've run have expressed that they don't like ABP because they specifically like having meaningful magic items, but also don't like how thoroughly helpless their characters feel at mid or higher levels if they're using a different weapon for any reason.
I feel like a lot of times in these discussions we tend to reduce issues to binary state that don't always reflect how people feel. Tastes tend to be a little more nuanced.
How difficult is it to mix ABP and non-ABP characters in one party? Has anyone tried it before?
Honestly, though I haven't tried it (or even considered it), it really doesn't seem like it would be too hard. As long as everyone is on board with what sort of weirdness that creates. The GM would have to adjust treasure in some weird ways and the ABP player is going to have to either willingly not grab up the magic items from the other players or have some sort of GM fiat thing that stops them from functioning when they wield them.
Mechanically, not hard. Thematically, a little strange.
To be frank I think for a lot of people magic item systems are a "you don't know what you want" sort of thing - met plenty of people who will complain about mandatory magic items and then a few months later when you're playing in an ABP campaign will complain about not having any useful magic items to get.James Jacobs pointed out in one of the other threads that magic items serve as mid-level power-ups. I thought that was an interesting insight, and I hadn't seen them from that angle before.
I've used ABP but you get the bonuses half-way between levels. Felt good.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone where a significant part of their overall power is in the form of truly magical abilities that are strongly themed to the point of having significant limits on breadth. That's a *large* design space. It covers everything from "all I can do is mind-affecting magic" to "all I can do is wield fire" to "all I can do is muck about with necromancy" and so forth. Yeah, I hear that the kineticist is going to cover some of that space, but at least for the moment, there are four traditions of magic to draw on. Every magic-primary character out there gets one of those traditions, and gets access to pretty much every spell of that tradition. We don't have the mystic theurge "I get to draw from more than one" and we don't have any way to limit a character to only a subset other than just choosing to deny ourselves certain options.
I'm thinking... this might be a solid way to run at least a few hybrid classes, for the martial/magical hybrids. They get a certain number of spell slots (not as many), and they get a certain number of spells known (not as many) and they get a tradition... but they are limited to only the spells in that tradition that are of certain schools.
We don't have the mystic theurge "I get to draw from more than one" and we don't have any way to limit a character to only a subset other than just choosing to deny ourselves certain options.
We do have 1 example of spells being pulled from different lists with the Halcyon speaker and related archetypes, but yes.
I'm generally in favor of the consolidation of spell lists, but the fact that you no longer have themed casters is a gap.
Anyone where a significant part of their overall power is in the form of truly magical abilities that are strongly themed to the point of having significant limits on breadth. That's a *large* design space. It covers everything from "all I can do is mind-affecting magic" to "all I can do is wield fire" to "all I can do is muck about with necromancy" and so forth. Yeah, I hear that the kineticist is going to cover some of that space, but at least for the moment, there are four traditions of magic to draw on. Every magic-primary character out there gets one of those traditions, and gets access to pretty much every spell of that tradition. We don't have the mystic theurge "I get to draw from more than one" and we don't have any way to limit a character to only a subset other than just choosing to deny ourselves certain options.
I'm thinking... this might be a solid way to run at least a few hybrid classes, for the martial/magical hybrids. They get a certain number of spell slots (not as many), and they get a certain number of spells known (not as many) and they get a tradition... but they are limited to only the spells in that tradition that are of certain schools.
Pathfinder's never been good at this as a consequence of using a Vancian system; I think you'd have better luck egging DDS into making a PF2 version of Spheres of Power than getting Paizo to satisfy this craving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically, I really like generating a resource in combat to spend on various things. Swashbuckler does this to an extent, but I'd like it pushed a lot further. Something more like grit in first edition or a vanguards entropy in starfinder. Maybe it just wouldn't work in 2e because combats are over so quickly, but a class that gets more potential the longer a combat goes like that could be a fun niche too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thought I've had working with some players to make characters is that PF2 sort of does a nice job letting you dabble in other areas with archetypes, but that tends to specifically do so in a support/utility way.
You can make a fighter with a wizard dedication and pick up some nice utliity spells, but 'fighter who wields fire magic' is a lot harder to pull off... you don't have many spell slots and you're going to have some accuracy issues.
Investigators and people with the Alchemist dedication can dabble in alchemical items, which can be nice for making tools and elixirs... but Investigators can't make bombs and the archetype's items are going to be behind on the level curve which again makes the offensive options are harder sell.
Characters along those lines are probably always going to be pretty hard to build in PF2.
One thought I've had working with some players to make characters is that PF2 sort of does a nice job letting you dabble in other areas with archetypes, but that tends to specifically do so in a support/utility way.
You can make a fighter with a wizard dedication and pick up some nice utliity spells, but 'fighter who wields fire magic' is a lot harder to pull off... you don't have many spell slots and you're going to have some accuracy issues.
Investigators and people with the Alchemist dedication can dabble in alchemical items, which can be nice for making tools and elixirs... but Investigators can't make bombs and the archetype's items are going to be behind on the level curve which again makes the offensive options are harder sell.
Characters along those lines are probably always going to be pretty hard to build in PF2.
It is a bit of a shame but I like it more than the 3.x/5e philosophy of multiclassing being either a trap or a power gamers dip factory for little to no character reason.
|
Investigators and people with the Alchemist dedication can dabble in alchemical items, which can be nice for making tools and elixirs... but Investigators can't make bombs and the archetype's items are going to be behind on the level curve which again makes the offensive options are harder sell.
The Investigator is probably the best class to take the Alchemist archetype when Devise a Stratagem/Strategic Strike is taken into account. Know you're not going to hit? You get to know it'd be a waste of a limited resource and hold off. Plus bonus precision damage. Outside of the few bomb DCs and increases in splash and persistent damage, it might even be a better bomber than Alchemists. Poisons might be the only thing you'd be bad at.
Edit: Forgot about all the Debilitating Bomb feats Alchemists get. That probably gives them a huge edge since they get the develop their class DC.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A "tank".
That is, a character that
1) has the supernatural ability to draw enemies to attack him, instead of his friends, even when they deal more damage or are at low health...
2) can withstand being the focus of attention of most of the enemies in the fight
3) has very little offensive output himself, relying on his party members to kill the monsters while he keeps the monsters from killing them
My shield champion/Knight of Lastwall would disagree. Between the champion reaction that allows me to move 5ft as part of the action combined with all the shield feats, I get to tank quite nicely. Attack me and I have the AC, HP, great saves and lay on hands to withstand a lot of punishment. Attack my ally and I will interpose my shield and/or use retribution to make you pay a price for doing so. I don't produce much DpR, but my rogue ally does A LOT of damage so my job is to keep her vertical.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My shield champion/Knight of Lastwall would disagree. Between the champion reaction that allows me to move 5ft as part of the action combined with all the shield feats, I get to tank quite nicely. Attack me and I have the AC, HP, great saves and lay on hands to withstand a lot of punishment. Attack my ally and I will interpose my shield and/or use retribution to make you pay a price for doing so. I don't produce much DpR, but my rogue ally does A LOT of damage so my job is to keep her vertical.A "tank".
That is, a character that
1) has the supernatural ability to draw enemies to attack him, instead of his friends, even when they deal more damage or are at low health...
2) can withstand being the focus of attention of most of the enemies in the fight
3) has very little offensive output himself, relying on his party members to kill the monsters while he keeps the monsters from killing them
I feel like that's where Zapp's first point comes in. Any enemy/group intelligent enough to know that you're tough and the rogue isn't will just ignore you in combat, and there's really nothing you can do about it.
I feel like that's where Zapp's first point comes in. Any enemy/group intelligent enough to know that you're tough and the rogue isn't will just ignore you in combat, and there's really nothing you can do about it.My shield champion/Knight of Lastwall would disagree. Between the champion reaction that allows me to move 5ft as part of the action combined with all the shield feats, I get to tank quite nicely. Attack me and I have the AC, HP, great saves and lay on hands to withstand a lot of punishment. Attack my ally and I will interpose my shield and/or use retribution to make you pay a price for doing so. I don't produce much DpR, but my rogue ally does A LOT of damage so my job is to keep her vertical.A "tank".
That is, a character that
1) has the supernatural ability to draw enemies to attack him, instead of his friends, even when they deal more damage or are at low health...
2) can withstand being the focus of attention of most of the enemies in the fight
3) has very little offensive output himself, relying on his party members to kill the monsters while he keeps the monsters from killing them
That's just the issue isn't it? In an MMO or any other video game, you can count on your opponent to react a certain way to certain things. Hence pulling aggro and etc...
Your ability to build a "tank" character in any TTRPG is largely dependent on your GM's thoughts and opinions on how creatures split their attention. If they decide the monsters don't want to go after the big imposing metal clad Champion with his shield and instead go after the softer looking Wizard behind him, then there is little the champion can do (except using their reactions of course).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't build a character that trades serious flaws for a boost to a core stat. You can build purposely suboptimally, but you gain very little for doing so and it makes such a flawed character unappealing to build. This is due to hard caps on stats which make it so Perseus ends up with the same final strength score as Hercules unless the player building Perseus decides not to cap out his strength stat for some reason.
Nor can you build a character designed for non-combat problem-solving. The tools to bypass such encounters don't exist in a way that would allow you to bypass a 3+ challenge boss monster with a skill check. Any such character would only succeed by DM fiat and not the skill of the player or their character's build.
You can't build extremely low-power campaigns such as an NPC class-only game because this system explicitly doesn't want to build their NPCs in that way. It, in fact, doesn't even offer suggestions for how to power down your party to even simulate such a thing.
It doesn't allow for Epic level play or Psionics which 3.0 had released by this point. In fact, 3.0 had released several setting books and 18 splatbooks in addition to things like a Diablo II tie-in product. I get that this kind of release schedule just isn't a thing anymore but it's crazy how much material was released between 3.0's launch in late 2000 to the start of 3.5.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't build extremely low-power campaigns such as an NPC class-only game because this system explicitly doesn't want to build their NPCs in that way. It, in fact, doesn't even offer suggestions for how to power down your party to even simulate such a thing.
The Gamemastery Guide has both level 0 and no-level-to-proficiency variant rules. One or the other would work for whatever low-power campaign concept you have.
As for non-combat problem-solving I, for one, am glad that diplomancers are in the dust bin. If a skill challenge is appropriate to bypass a tough boss 1. the GM has tools to implement that; and 2. a rogue will do very well.
My PFS party just bypassed the final fight in a scenario by having the right skills and rolling well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Gamemastery Guide has both level 0 and no-level-to-proficiency variant rules. One or the other would work for whatever low-power campaign concept you have.
I'm not sure that this method will replicate the feeling of a commoner-only game from 3.x. You know, the sort of game one might want to run in a Heroes of Horror like setting. I don't think d20 systems handle horror all that well, but I'd argue that 3.x was more capable than PF2 and rules for NPC classes helped with this.
As for non-combat problem-solving I, for one, am glad that diplomancers are in the dust bin. If a skill challenge is appropriate to bypass a tough boss 1. the GM has tools to implement that; and 2. a rogue will do very well.
This is basically just: If the GM wants you to bypass it with a skill check you'll have some chance at doing so, otherwise go to combat because this is what the game assumes as the default. This removes player agency and the ability to force any game into a sandbox scenario which was one of the more interesting parts of 3.x. This doesn't fit with the AP-heavy nature of PF2, but that doesn't mean it isn't a loss.
My PFS party just bypassed the final fight in a scenario by having the right skills and rolling well.
Was this an AP or homebrew?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Gamemastery Guide has both level 0 and no-level-to-proficiency variant rules. One or the other would work for whatever low-power campaign concept you have.I'm not sure that this method will replicate the feeling of a commoner-only game from 3.x. You know, the sort of game one might want to run in a Heroes of Horror like setting. I don't think d20 systems handle horror all that well, but I'd argue that 3.x was more capable than PF2 and rules for NPC classes helped with this.
As for non-combat problem-solving I, for one, am glad that diplomancers are in the dust bin. If a skill challenge is appropriate to bypass a tough boss 1. the GM has tools to implement that; and 2. a rogue will do very well.This is basically just: If the GM wants you to bypass it with a skill check you'll have some chance at doing so, otherwise go to combat because this is what the game assumes as the default. This removes player agency and the ability to force any game into a sandbox scenario which was one of the more interesting parts of 3.x. This doesn't fit with the AP-heavy nature of PF2, but that doesn't mean it isn't a loss.
My PFS party just bypassed the final fight in a scenario by having the right skills and rolling well.Was this an AP or homebrew?
NPC classes were basically neutered classes designed to be weaker than the 'relevant level' they were built for. I can't recall if they were one level weaker or 2 levels weaker.
So... to built the equivalent of this advancing as an NCP like class. What it takes is starting at the 0 level/ commoner rules offered in the GM guide. Allow them to progress to apprentice with partial class abilities (again GM guide). Then let them move on to being 'full' first level characters.
Meanwhile, when you build your adventures, you are trying to make them feel like they are always being pounded and are barely making it by. They way you do that is tune your encounters to harder encounters. (but be wary of the TPK risks)
It is perfectly legitimate to make any NPC retainer of the PCs be one or maybe two levels lower than the PCs (probably would not go much lower than that generally). Makes the PCs have to protect them a bit, but lets them utilize their skills or positioning for strategic aide. Because, again NPC classes were classes designed to be one or two level lower than their level. With Pathfinder 2's balancing it makes more sense to simply build them as a character one level lower, and potentially skip assigning/picking abilities you aren't concerned about knowing they have for the NPCs you build.
I will admit, in p2, it is difficult to build a character designed to pass notable skill tasks nearly automatically, due to their skill investment. With Assurance, it is possible to make some easy tasks accomplished all the time, even under difficult circumstances, but it is difficult to make someone REALLY good at a particular skill, compared to someone else of a similar level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My PFS party just bypassed the final fight in a scenario by having the right skills and rolling well.Was this an AP or homebrew?
PFS = Pathfinder Society scenario
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't build a character that trades serious flaws for a boost to a core stat. You can build purposely suboptimally, but you gain very little for doing so and it makes such a flawed character unappealing to build. This is due to hard caps on stats which make it so Perseus ends up with the same final strength score as Hercules unless the player building Perseus decides not to cap out his strength stat for some reason.
This is one that bugs me too. Traditional PF point buy meant there was a trade off for siloing into your main stat. A character who took their primary stat all the way to 20 was going to have much weaker everything else as a result. You still wanted to emphasize a primary stat, but between point buy mechanics and PF1 bonuses, there were compelling reasons and advantages (even if they weren't optimal) to trying out other stat lines.
In PF2 that's just significantly diminished, as bonuses are much harder to come by and you gain a lot less by choosing to not maximize your main stat.
In PF1 I'd see someone start with 20 in their main stat and another person start with 16 and both of them had really solid characters, even if the former hit harder. In PF2 I can't imagine a 14 strength barbarian would ever feel very good.
I'm not sure that this method will replicate the feeling of a commoner-only game from 3.x. You know, the sort of game one might want to run in a Heroes of Horror like setting. I don't think d20 systems handle horror all that well, but I'd argue that 3.x was more capable than PF2 and rules for NPC classes helped with this.
I dunno. There's nothing qualitatively unique about commoners, they're just worse at everything. Replicating having poor saves, low BAB and low HP is just a matter of making encounters scarier and more lethal. Arguably I think tighter math makes horror easier to run in PF2, since you have a better handle on what the numbers will look like and it'll be more difficult for players to find some force multiplier that just outright bypasses it as they progress.
This is basically just: If the GM wants you to bypass it with a skill check you'll have some chance at doing so, otherwise go to combat because this is what the game assumes as the default. This removes player agency and the ability to force any game into a sandbox scenario which was one of the more interesting parts of 3.x.
I mean, it's not like you could do much if a 3.5 GM really didn't want you to do something either. That's just sort of the nature of the player-GM relationship. You need at least some degree of consent to get one over on the GM because they're empowered to just say 'nah' whenever they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NPC classes were basically neutered classes designed to be weaker than the 'relevant level' they were built for. I can't recall if they were one level weaker or 2 levels weaker.
So... to built the equivalent of this advancing as an NCP like class. What it takes is starting at the 0 level/ commoner rules offered in the GM guide. Allow them to progress to apprentice with partial class abilities (again GM guide). Then let them move on to being 'full' first level characters.
That rather misses the point of running an NPC classes-only game. The idea is to make your players feel alienated from their normal experience with the game and two slightly off levels before picking normal class levels doesn't do that. In an NPC-classes-only game, I'd require the players to reach a trainer to start trading out NPC levels for real class levels and probably hold that off until they'd hit 5th level or higher.
I'd want them to wish there were somebody qualified they could call for a good long while before letting them start to claw back any ground. This wouldn't happen if I just ran them against tougher foes and artificially made the game harder for them. I want them stuck with weak classes and less than heroic stats and let them build what they can within those limits to respond to the stresses they're under.
Meanwhile, when you build your adventures, you are trying to make them feel like they are always being pounded and are barely making it by. They way you do that is tune your encounters to harder...
Horror isn't just tough encounters. You can set a feeling of horror with a weak encounter if it catches the players off guard and you play up the atmosphere. The thing that breaks horror is the players being able to fall back on something they know, like a favorite spell or class feature. You want them off balance and unsure if they want to fight even a weak encounter due to a lack of confidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno. There's nothing qualitatively unique about commoners, they're just worse at everything. Replicating having poor saves, low BAB and low HP is just a matter of making encounters scarier and more lethal. Arguably I think tighter math makes horror easier to run in PF2, since you have a better handle on what the numbers will look like and it'll be more difficult for players to find some force multiplier that just outright bypasses it as they progress.
See my post above. The NPC-classes aren't about power, as a DM I can always challenge a group of players through raw stats if I have to, it's about taking away any sense of comfort the players might have. It's about denying them usual tools and build paths so that the RP and atmosphere stick better.
I mean, it's not like you could do much if a 3.5 GM really didn't want you to do something either. That's just sort of the nature of the player-GM relationship. You need at least some degree of consent to get one over on the GM because they're empowered to just say 'nah' whenever they want.
Yes and no. I've generally found rule 0 to be a crutch and like to invoke it as little as possible. If a player builds something problematic I'm inclined to let them have their fun for a while before letting word spread and having powerful outside forces take notice of that character. That diplomancer might be a hot shoot against certain foes, but unless they went full CharOp, it's nothing that can't be handled by something 5 or so CR above what the party can handle shadowing that character and making life difficult for them.
If you know your group letting them feel broken for a few levels before reigning them in isn't going to end a campaign or overshadow the other party members.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think we can do the character that gets stronger as they lose greater and greater amounts of their hit points.
One character concept I could not really build in PF1 was the warrior who builds his equipment only by taking loot as trophies from his vanquished foes. I have not yet tried to build it in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno. There's nothing qualitatively unique about commoners, they're just worse at everything. Replicating having poor saves, low BAB and low HP is just a matter of making encounters scarier and more lethal. Arguably I think tighter math makes horror easier to run in PF2, since you have a better handle on what the numbers will look like and it'll be more difficult for players to find some force multiplier that just outright bypasses it as they progress.See my post above. The NPC-classes aren't about power, as a DM I can always challenge a group of players through raw stats if I have to, it's about taking away any sense of comfort the players might have. It's about denying them usual tools and build paths so that the RP and atmosphere stick better.
So why doesn’t the level 0 character variant work for this? Just level up the PCs with ancestry and general feats until you are ready to give them class levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So why doesn’t the level 0 character variant work for this? Just level up the PCs with ancestry and general feats until you are ready to give them class levels.I dunno. There's nothing qualitatively unique about commoners, they're just worse at everything. Replicating having poor saves, low BAB and low HP is just a matter of making encounters scarier and more lethal. Arguably I think tighter math makes horror easier to run in PF2, since you have a better handle on what the numbers will look like and it'll be more difficult for players to find some force multiplier that just outright bypasses it as they progress.See my post above. The NPC-classes aren't about power, as a DM I can always challenge a group of players through raw stats if I have to, it's about taking away any sense of comfort the players might have. It's about denying them usual tools and build paths so that the RP and atmosphere stick better.
Agreed. Allowing players access to the normal Ancestry, General, and Skill feats, as well as skill increases, seems like it should work for a while. 5th level is when the first attribute increases kick in, so that seems like a good time to apply a class to the character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the NPC caliber campaign, use the variant rule of removing level from proficiency. I think someone mentioned that quite a while ago. Then you don't need to make the characters more powerful by as much. When they level up, all they get are HP and skills. And they wouldn't need to level up very often.
Probably want to reduce the HP of the high-level monsters that they are fighting, or else the battles will take too long and the players won't be able to keep going that long. Probably best to use the custom enemy creation tables to set the HP to appropriate levels.
And if no suggestions are ever going to be good enough and the only thing that is going to make you happy is the D&D 3.0 edition rules, just go back to playing D&D 3.0. Shooting down everyone else's suggestions just makes it sound like you are stuck in the past and are not willing to even consider change.
-----------------
Also, my intent with creating this thread was to inspire each other to come up with creative workarounds using the existing rules, or houserules that will let us play these interesting non-standard characters. Maybe even inspire the devs to create official rules and new classes that can fill these holes.
So talking about previous mechanics is not as useful. Saying 'we can't create a character that uses ability pool points to power their abilities other than focus' isn't very meaningful. That isn't a character. That is a mechanic. It doesn't really show the pain of having a character that you can't play.
Instead come up with a character concept, or even better would be a specific character. Show the pain.
I see comments on various threads saying 'I really want kineticist back'. And I am sitting here (and probably the game devs too) going, 'why? what can't you currently build? Specifically - what character can you not currently build that you think the kineticist rules would allow?'
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have one that I haven't been able to approximate with a PC.
A bumbling, maybe even foolish, or generally incompetent hero who is just unnaturally lucky and leads a kind of charmed life. They aren't bestowed with any particular exceptional qualities and are more or less unassuming and average in most ways but nonetheless manage to survive and "become a valued part of the team" by luck, chance, or "circumstance."
Examples include Arthur Dent, Rincewind, Forest Gump, or Domino.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So talking about previous mechanics is not as useful. Saying 'we can't create a character that uses ability pool points to power their abilities other than focus' isn't very meaningful. That isn't a character. That is a mechanic. It doesn't really show the pain of having a character that you can't play.
Somewhat disagree. Sometimes mechanics are what we are looking for, and are useful for these discussions.
In the examples you list, both are ways to approach a “limit break” kind of character, where you have an increasing array of increasingly powerful options as a fight continues. Paizo has had several examples of this, from the Luck/Grit/Panache pools, to Kineticist burn, to Solarian attunement. How well each of those works for you is of course subject to opinion, but PF2 has so far shied away from those mechanics entirely, preferring a more binary state that we see in barbarian’s rage and swashbuckler panache.
I would like to play that kind of character, where they’re slowly becoming more powerful within the context of a single fight. It’s a pretty tall ask, given how the game engine works, but I think it can be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have one that I haven't been able to approximate with a PC.
A bumbling, maybe even foolish, or generally incompetent hero who is just unnaturally lucky and leads a kind of charmed life. They aren't bestowed with any particular exceptional qualities and are more or less unassuming and average in most ways but nonetheless manage to survive and "become a valued part of the team" by luck, chance, or "circumstance."
Examples include Arthur Dent, Rincewind, Forest Gump, or Domino.
I don't think I'd want this character to be supported. Pathfinder is a game for teams of reasonably competent heroes - these characters "work" because they're sole protagonists with supporting casts (and often times they don't work - see every light novel about an average guy with no special talent...).
A PF1 Swashbuckler was only "generally incompetent" by the error of the developers. Luck manipulation is already supported in PF2 (there's even a specific tag for abilities that do that), what TMS is referring to is an entirely different archetype of character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I'd want this character to be supported. Pathfinder is a game for teams of reasonably competent heroes - these characters "work" because they're sole protagonists with supporting casts (and often times they don't work - see every light novel about an average guy with no special talent...).I have one that I haven't been able to approximate with a PC.
A bumbling, maybe even foolish, or generally incompetent hero who is just unnaturally lucky and leads a kind of charmed life. They aren't bestowed with any particular exceptional qualities and are more or less unassuming and average in most ways but nonetheless manage to survive and "become a valued part of the team" by luck, chance, or "circumstance."
Examples include Arthur Dent, Rincewind, Forest Gump, or Domino.
In technicality, that was supported in PF1.
In technicality, that was supported in PF1.
Oh, I hate this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to play that kind of character, where they’re slowly becoming more powerful within the context of a single fight. It’s a pretty tall ask, given how the game engine works, but I think it can be done.
Yes, this part of your post is exactly what I have in mind for this.
Asking for the specific mechanics limits the design space. It reminds me of the quote (which I have seen most often attributed to Henry Ford) 'If you ask the people what they want, they would say "faster horses"'.
The Solarian Attunement mechanic does fit what you are looking for quite nicely. But maybe there is something else that would work as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A PF1 Swashbuckler was only "generally incompetent" by the error of the developers. Luck manipulation is already supported in PF2 (there's even a specific tag for abilities that do that), what TMS is referring to is an entirely different archetype of character.Swashbuckler was there because they literally get Charmed Life as a class feature.
Swashbucklers being lucky didn't mean that they weren't assumed to be as generally competent as other character classes, which was what was being talked about.
And options that make you lucky exist in 2e, including the swashbuckler and Charmed Life, so if that's all it takes to make a lucky bumbling idiot character then that's clearly not a concept that's 'difficult to create in PF2'.
|
|
Any enemy/group intelligent enough to know that you're tough and the rogue isn't will just ignore you in combat, and there's really nothing you can do about it.
...go after the softer looking Wizard behind him, then there is little the champion can do
My experience indicates this is quite untrue. Its exactly how the character is built. With the full suite of shield feats including Shield Warden up to Shield of Reckoning he has a lot he can do about it. It gets even better when the rogue takes the champion dedication to use Liberating Steps to help the champion be in the best position. Team up with a character that has Attack of Opportunity with an interrupt rider and you have quite a bit of battlefield control.
The overly-lucky bumbling hero sounds more like a flavor thing. Your actual proficiency doesn't have to match how you present your character. You can also (as a player) decide to voluntarily lower the level of success that you roll (OK, this may be a houserule, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that it is too powerful).
Whether you succeed or fail is determined by the dice roll, your modifiers, and the DC. How you describe how you succeed or fail is up to you.
The overly-lucky bumbling hero sounds more like a flavor thing.
I strongly agree - there's no actual reason why your big critical hit can't be because you tripped over your feet and stabbed the monster through the eye by accident, or whatever. Making a whole bunch of specific rules for a character that's terrible at everything but is supposed to still function at the table is a lot of work for little gain, and that's assuming those rules work in the first place instead of just being actually awful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be much more interested in a dedicated luck manipulation character - the kind of flavor the Sczarni Swindler Rogue was trying to fulfill. A lot of different characters can pick up fortune effects but there isn't a class that really doubles down on them yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see comments on various threads saying 'I really want kineticist back'. And I am sitting here (and probably the game devs too) going, 'why? what can't you currently build? Specifically - what character can you not currently build that you think the kineticist rules would allow?'For my money, I see the kineticist as someone who can get a lot of mileage out of cantrip-style casting, but can make those kinds of casts more interesting with a suite of metamagic-style "infusions," alongside some elemental-themed other abilities.
As they were originally presented, kineticists were also one of those "I hurt me to hurt you" kinds of classes, which I am a fan of even if they don't often come out as being terribly optimal.
I think a lot of people like making themed characters too, such as someone who has cool earth powers. Im currently playing an earth sorcerer and while its great, a lot of the power it has is from non earth spells. It feels a lot less the character has earth powers, and more like they can do whatever and are a little better at earth spells. If I played my earth sorcerer using only earth spells, it would be pretty terrible and limiting. The class is designed with access to a whole spell list.
How I see kineticists is that they're a lot more focused on their element. Their primary attack is their element, their utility is elemental. And because of this, it can afford to be a little stronger with those things than a sorcerer would be, at the cost of not having an enormous spell list to choose from.
And all that is simply the flavor, mechanics wise they are also very different and fill a few niches people in this thread have mentioned.
One character type I'm not seeing supported well is someone with persistent/at-will battlefield manipulation abilities. There are some characters who effectively have small zone effects right around themselves, but nothing that reaches out past that. The summoner has two characters to lay with at a time, but both of them are significant, focused chunks of the player's power. There's no way to build a character that, say, has a group of semi-persistent replaceable wisps that float around with small auras or area effects or whatever. Anything that would do that sort of thing is gated behind limited-use powers, generally daily.
It's part and parcel of the minion rules, I suppose. Followers and minions of all types have been *profoundly* restricted in this edition. I can see why, and I'm not arguing that it was a bad decision, but it does limit the design space. Having a character built around the idea of having lots of little followers rather than one big follower doesn't work as well when you want to keep the action economy as firmly under control as they do.
One character type I'm not seeing supported well is someone with persistent/at-will battlefield manipulation abilities. There are some characters who effectively have small zone effects right around themselves, but nothing that reaches out past that. The summoner has two characters to lay with at a time, but both of them are significant, focused chunks of the player's power. There's no way to build a character that, say, has a group of semi-persistent replaceable wisps that float around with small auras or area effects or whatever. Anything that would do that sort of thing is gated behind limited-use powers, generally daily.
It's part and parcel of the minion rules, I suppose. Followers and minions of all types have been *profoundly* restricted in this edition. I can see why, and I'm not arguing that it was a bad decision, but it does limit the design space. Having a character built around the idea of having lots of little followers rather than one big follower doesn't work as well when you want to keep the action economy as firmly under control as they do.
Well the Summoner is the one I'm waiting for and it hasn't been done right yet.
It should be possible for the minion to be the main part of the character.