As part of building a BBEG, I'm looking at the Pain Taster PrC, and I've noticed a problem. The Pain Mastery ability at level 5 states that the Pain Taster can use two of the routines from Masochism at the cost of accepting the damage for both of them.
The issue with this is that:
1) Masochism doesn't have multiple routines.
2) The ability that does have multiple routines, Disciple of Pain, doesn't deal any damage. (Which, how are people torturing themselves for an hour with no damage?)
About 15 minutes with Google has turned up no FAQs on the class, and there isn't an Errata document for the Occult Adventures book that the class is from, so is there an answer out there to this, or should I be hitting the FAQ button on this? If the latter is the case, what would seem like a reasonable house ruling for people in the interim? The following options are what have occurred to me so far:
First, and most obvious to me, is add an amount of damage to the Disciple of Pain ability (say, 5 points of non-lethal damage), and allow two different routines to be used at the same time.
Second, homebrew an additional routine or two for Masochism, such as applying the morale bonus to attack rolls to saving throws vs. mind affecting effects, or the morale bonus to damage to saving throws vs. pain effects.
You're not going to get a response from the FAQ, pf1e is dead in the developer's eyes.
Second, the ability is clearly referring to the other 1st level ability "disciple of pain" letting you select two options from there. The editors just mixed up the two abilities and no one caught it because occult adventures was released when Paizo was making Starfinder and 2e and thus there was no second editor looking at the product that was supposed to be keeping the lights on in the interim.
You're not going to get a response from the FAQ, pf1e is dead in the developer's eyes.
Second, the ability is clearly referring to the other 1st level ability "disciple of pain" letting you select two options from there. The editors just mixed up the two abilities and no one caught it because occult adventures was released when Paizo was making Starfinder and 2e and thus there was no second editor looking at the product that was supposed to be keeping the lights on in the interim.
Pain Taster is from Occult Mysteries, it's a 2014 book, from back when neither Pathfinder 2e nor Starfinder was a thing for Paizo at any rate.
You're not going to get a response from the FAQ, pf1e is dead in the developer's eyes.
Second, the ability is clearly referring to the other 1st level ability "disciple of pain" letting you select two options from there. The editors just mixed up the two abilities and no one caught it because occult adventures was released when Paizo was making Starfinder and 2e and thus there was no second editor looking at the product that was supposed to be keeping the lights on in the interim.
Pain Taster is from Occult Mysteries, it's a 2014 book, from back when neither Pathfinder 2e nor Starfinder was a thing for Paizo at any rate.
They weren't released, they were in development. Or do you think it just takes a couple of weeks to design, playtest, write, and edit a rules system (even simple ones)? Even the AP's had around a 1 year development cycle that was always on going.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They weren't released, they were in development. Or do you think it just takes a couple of weeks to design, playtest, write, and edit a rules system (even simple ones)? Even the AP's had around a 1 year development cycle that was always on going.You're not going to get a response from the FAQ, pf1e is dead in the developer's eyes.
Second, the ability is clearly referring to the other 1st level ability "disciple of pain" letting you select two options from there. The editors just mixed up the two abilities and no one caught it because occult adventures was released when Paizo was making Starfinder and 2e and thus there was no second editor looking at the product that was supposed to be keeping the lights on in the interim.
Pain Taster is from Occult Mysteries, it's a 2014 book, from back when neither Pathfinder 2e nor Starfinder was a thing for Paizo at any rate.
Nice ad hominem strawman there, but so it happens that we have more or less a good idea when the development of PF2 started. Wayne Reynolds got heads-up that a new edition is coming (and his skills will be needed) in late 2015. 5e took 3-4 years to make (first playtest doc in 2012, release in 2014), 4e took 3 years, PF1 took 2-3 years (decision in 2006 when 4e came out, full product in 2009) so it's safe to assume that in 2014, PF2 wasn't even in the plans and Starfinder was likely at very early stages - and done by a separate team.
The quality issues of PF1 softcover books like this one came not from parallel development, but from the quantity > quality publishing model. The playerbase cared more for getting 53490 feats/archetypes/spells monthly, less so about the quality, and Paizo followed suit.
Note that you do take damage from Disciple of Pain.
RAW, the only damage Disciple of Pain does is to your wallet when you change which daily routine you are using. Unless you're looking at a source outside of the AoN that does include damage. If you are, please share the amount of damage done.
They weren't released, they were in development. Or do you think it just takes a couple of weeks to design, playtest, write, and edit a rules system (even simple ones)? Even the AP's had around a 1 year development cycle that was always on going.You're not going to get a response from the FAQ, pf1e is dead in the developer's eyes.
Second, the ability is clearly referring to the other 1st level ability "disciple of pain" letting you select two options from there. The editors just mixed up the two abilities and no one caught it because occult adventures was released when Paizo was making Starfinder and 2e and thus there was no second editor looking at the product that was supposed to be keeping the lights on in the interim.
Pain Taster is from Occult Mysteries, it's a 2014 book, from back when neither Pathfinder 2e nor Starfinder was a thing for Paizo at any rate.
Nice ad hominem strawman there, but so it happens that we have more or less a good idea when the development of PF2 started. Wayne Reynolds got heads-up that a new edition is coming (and his skills will be needed) in late 2015. 5e took 3-4 years to make (first playtest doc in 2012, release in 2014), 4e took 3 years, PF1 took 2-3 years (decision in 2006 when 4e came out, full product in 2009) so it's safe to assume that in 2014, PF2 wasn't even in the plans and Starfinder was likely at very early stages - and done by a separate team.
The quality issues of PF1 softcover books like this one came not from parallel development, but from the quantity > quality publishing model. The playerbase cared more for getting 53490 feats/archetypes/spells monthly, less so about the quality, and Paizo followed suit.
Massive assumption to assume this "separate" team had no restructuring and pulled resources from anyone in any 1e teams. Even giving someone still in the 1e team extra work for SF can lead to my exact point. So I fail to see how you've countered anything that I've said. (Also, a rhetorical exaggeration isn't an ad hominem, at most it's a strawman, but even then only when it's made as your actual argument and not for effect.)
Did you not read my post?
I did read your post. I also read the full description of the class ability Disciple of Pain, and also all the other class abilities. For the purpose of this discussion, please note Masochism in particular, which allows a character the option of applying 2 points of lethal damage to themselves for attack and damage bonuses. Disciple of Pain does not have any wording like that, and therefore it does not do any damage to the character using it, by RAW.
Did you not read my original post? Did you not see how I specifically called out the fact that the ability does not state that it does damage to a character using it?
You need to keep in mind that if you and your GM adjudicate this ability to deal damage, that is a house rule, and not a rule supplied by the class or the ability. This is specifically why I called out the fact that Disciple of Pain not dealing any form of damage in the description of the ability as being strange.
… we have more or less a good idea when the development of PF2 started. Wayne Reynolds got heads-up that a new edition is coming (and his skills will be needed) in late 2015. 5e took 3-4 years to make (first playtest doc in 2012, release in 2014), 4e took 3 years, PF1 took 2-3 years (decision in 2006 when 4e came out, full product in 2009) so it's safe to assume that in 2014, PF2 wasn't even in the plans and Starfinder was likely at very early stages - and done by a separate team.
FYI, in August 2011 we were already planning for a PF2 Beta release in the middle of 2014, with the PF2 launch in the middle of 2015.
Obviously, those plans changed. When I left in Feb 2014, we hadn't started working on PF2. (Nor was Starfinder even a thing.) I was thinking they *might* try to get a PF2 Beta done for Gen Con 2015, or (more realistically) 2016, but that didn't happen.
Soo, it was in constantly shifting plans, but nobody was really working on it beyond constantly shifting planning!
Tangentially, what a different Paizo (and universe) would have been if PF2 had launched in 2015 or 2016.
Probably would have been more a 1.5 than what we got with lots of aped features from 5e.
One reason for me choosing to leave Paizo was they made it really hard to start working on projects they had already approved.
Probably would have been more a 1.5 than what we got with lots of aped features from 5e.
If you can name three 5e features "aped" by PF2, you'll get a cookie.
The Proficiency system over direct assignment of modifiers/feats/skills/etc. that make the game enjoyable by those who cry at the idea of simple addition, the whole "Ancestry/backgrounds/mixed class skills/abilities from extra options that aren't race/class derived" nonsense that makes backstories super cookie cutter, spell casting scaling based off your level and not necessarily the level of the spell.
Feel free to pm me for an address to deliver said cookie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The proficiency system isn't based on 5e, it's actually more like 3.5/PF1 where you, heh, do a simple addition of your level (imagine having a rank in the skill at every level in 3.5, it's the same), stat modifier, proficiency (not unlike class skill bonus) and whatever bonuses from items you have. It's literally the same degree of math, except without all the obtuse 584 categories of buffs you get three.
5e has just proficiency + stat and not much else, and the proficiency goes up just 2 or 3 times, ever.
PF2 backgrounds =/= 5e backgrounds, and while at it, PF1 had backgrounds too, they were called "traits" and "alternate racial traits", functionally the same thing.
Spell scaling works entirely differently, in PF2 only cantrips scale automatically while everything else needs to be heightened in advance, with 5e you can switch around what spells you cast at what level cast them.
If you would spend some time with games other than 3.5/PF1, you'd notice that PF2 has much more 4e/13th Age DNA than any other D&D variant. You'd get a cookie for calling that out, sure, since PF2 poached some of the best design ideas of 4e and didn't take the worse ones.
So, no cookie. I get it, you're unhappy that PF2 exists, unhappy that people enjoy it, and feel betrayed and cast aside by Paizo. Cool. But you don't have to make up things along the way and imply that people who enjoy PF2 are "worse at math", you can just tell everybody how you feel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBF, the "worse at math (actually "people who play it winge about math") is a callout A to the 5e people, and B at the same time a callout of how pf2e is appealing to that crowd.
But yes, making everything scale on your level if it's a class skill instead of having to assign from a pool of ranks, and then adding a scaling proficiency is aping 5e's design, even if 5e is essentially just redone 4e.
Your explanation of heightened casting conveniently leaves out spontaneous casters' near universal (and one time actually universal) ability to spontaneously heightened cast baked into the classes. Of course prepared casters need to prepare, nothing new here, or even greatly different between 2e, 5e, and even 1e. That is closer to 5e than it is to 1e.
To compare 1e traits to 2e backgrounds is the most laughable thing, not only does one give *very* minor bonuses, but that same one has nearly a thousand options, while 2e has 158. Granted, 158 seems like a lot, until you realize there are over 40 base classes in 1e and 7 core races that create 280 combinations even without branching into non-core races or the vastly different ways to build those classes. While this may seem like a "content hasn't developed yet" comment, it's still more about what the two different things try to accomplish. 1e traits give bonuses for incidental things you will already have thought of in the process of creating a backstory (unless you're just taking reactionary again), while 2e is just giving you what your race formerly gave you under the premise of describing the core foundation of where your backstory meets the game itself. That is the exact same impetus that 5e's backgrounds fills, and it defeats the point of creativity, even if it doesn't stop you from being creative.
So I will demand my cookie now, as well as you to stop assuming people who are upset at Paizo making a long series of stupid decision aren't able to come to their own subjective influence based on objective knowledge of systems that 1e's core design philosophy is the better way to play an RPG over 2e/5e.