|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The only minor thing I have to add is there is much more allowance to add a spell to a curriculum than to a spellschool. Adding a spell to a curriculum feels like an optional rule, except more allowed than a normal optional rule would be with the way it's phrased, while adding a spell to a spellschool is pure homebrew territory. At the very least, with the new version, it tells a GM that adding a spell is fine, whereas good luck getting a GM to mess with the spell schools if the GM is home rules light.
I'd lump this in with wider variance as well. Because, you're right, including the clause in the text does show that there is intent for this to happen, but they didn't didn't go so far as to indicate things likes permissibility, commonality, total numbers, if it works as a swap-out or pure addition, etc.
So while there will be tables where the Wizard is basically an unrestricted 4 slot caster, there will be others where they are basically 3 slot casters with a strict list of additions.
Which can dramatically impact play experience. And, given that this is meant to be the Wizard's whole thing, it means the experience gulf from player to player could be extreme.
I honestly feel like this was one of the worst possible ways to implement this ability.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point I Just assume that's the design goal. The wizard, more than any class other than maybe the investigator, is stuffed full of features that rely heavily on GM buy-in to work in a satisfying manner.
It's not a class you're supposed to just bring to a table and play like a fighter or cleric or druid or sorcerer or gunslinger.
The gap between the 'bare minimum' (highly irregular adventuring days with no foreknowledge, little to no time to learn a spell, basic curriculums with no uncommon spells) and the 'high GM buy-in' (lots of room for preparation and foreknowledge, plenty of time and money to add extra spells, flexibly curated curriculum additions) is just too significant, even before you consider the more mundane table variations everyone has to deal with.
Treat the wizard not as a normal class, but as a project between the player and the GM.
A remastered Inventor should be able to add more innovations...
Right now, it's a maximum of 2 initial ones, 1 breakthrough one and 1 revolutionary one. It doesn't help that many have repeated traits...
I'll also take an Inventor who can build customed weapons for anyone else and can add, swap and remove traits when crafting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A big part of why people want pc3 is because paizo has done such a good job not only with adapting classes for the remaster, but touching up classes to make them more enjoyable to play. In my mind, that is why people want pc3. Lots of people have their favorite class not in the core/core 2 list, and the idea that the issues they have with their class could possibly be fixed (or they just straight up get new toys) is a big reason to want them updated.
Not only. After watch many videos about new PC2 content I saw many legacy things becoming incompatible, buggy, overpowered or senseless due many classes changes to (not only due the removal of alignment system or how focus spells works now but due changes of how many classes works now like many non-crb/apg witches and oracles subclasses) and a PC3 and even a PC4 bringing all supplementary content rules to remaster may help to fix this and put a mark where "starting from here is better to just use the remastered content instead of try to use legacy content that not always works seamlessly".
I know that the Paizo promessed to make erratas to fix the incompatibilities but up to now it is far from the same work that they done in the fully remastered content.
Helps because they can put the reviewed incompatible buggy stuff correct for remaster in the new books. This already will happen with PC2 spells.
Paizo still has incompatible buggy stuff in PC1 and 2, I don't think PC3 will necessarily help on that front.
The only one I can think of is that Champion Dedication gives you scaling with your armor proficiencies while Fighter Dedication doesn't with weapons.
Paizo still has incompatible buggy stuff in PC1 and 2, I don't think PC3 will necessarily help on that front.The only one I can think of is that Champion Dedication gives you scaling with your armor proficiencies while Fighter Dedication doesn't with weapons.
The fighter dedication might be the single worst feat in the game. Putting aside the fact that it literally gives "training in one skill" if you already have martial proficiency, if you're someone who wants to pick up a martial weapon when your class only has simple weapons the general feat "Weapon Proficiency" gives you auto-scaling to expert at level 11 but the Fighter feat leaves you at trained, something the fighter archetype lets you spend another feat on at 12th level.
Like yes, it can give you access to fighter feats, many of which are good, but the rest of the fighter archetype is rough.
The fighter dedication might be the single worst feat in the game. ...Paizo still has incompatible buggy stuff in PC1 and 2, I don't think PC3 will necessarily help on that front.The only one I can think of is that Champion Dedication gives you scaling with your armor proficiencies while Fighter Dedication doesn't with weapons.
There are two contrasting themes:
* The game is balanced and fair.* Not everything is equal.
Mature Animal Companion feat is at a different level for Druid and Ranger. Stand Still is not the same as Reactive Strike.
Not every feat is as good as every other feat. Sometimes you have to take a second feat before you get meaningful value. Sometimes identical would be boring.
C'est la vie.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All feats are equal.
But some are more equal than others.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe Player Core 1 & 2 are examples of why Paizo needs to do a Player Core 3. A lot of the classes that were specialty classes can 100% use a tune up. Magus gotten weaker with the change to Arcane Cascade. Gunslinger munition craftor makes no sense until an errata comes. Psychic might actually need to go to 3 spell slots if Oracles can go to 4 slots like a Sorcerer with 8 Hit Points. Maybe unleash Psyche could have less drawbacks? Summoner can use a dragon tune up, Inventor well I have no clue. Thaumaturge is in a SUPER good spot.
Magus might actually should be given a reason to use INT outside of Expanded Spell Strike since right now I feel the optimal way to play a Magus is either you go to +2 (14) Int and multiclass into Wizard or Witch (Doesn't really matter) for the extra spell-slots. Go to +2 (14) Int and go Imaginary Weapon Psychic.
Perhaps you simply ignore the INT and focus on STR or DEX with CON and maybe archetyping into Sentinel for Heavy armor. Unless you're a Starlit Span Magus then you go all in on DEX,CON, STR (Maybe), IWS (Will saves are awesome), Ignore Arcane Cascade because the extra damage is not worth the 1 action to enter it over a Recharge Spellstrike Action. Because Long-bow 100 ft ranged Spellstrike is superior to melee.
With the compatibility of Starfinder Second Edition using the base rule of Pathfinder Second Edition I am slightly worried that this will buff Starlit Magus is there happened to be any magazine/clip loaded Firearm or Energy based gun which has more then 100ft of Range.
Heck with the buff to Eldritch Archer at Level 10 feat which if using a Crossbow. It's basically if you Eldritch Shot for 3 actions you get to Free-action reload the crossbow. This makes me wonder if Fighter or Gunslinger will outshine the Starlit Magus for Damage just based on sheer Accuracy (Look a +2 is quite strong).
I still think on Summoner Protective Bonds should just be a class feature. If you and your Eidolon is in the same AoE and one passes and the other fails you can Reaction and choose to only take the better save is massive and a no brainer to take! Also have different Traditions of Dragons would fit Barbarian and Sorcerer themes we have now in Player Core 2.
As for Inventor just let me get a feat that lets me Change my Weapons mode for 1 action. I understand combination weapons is 2 actions to switch so combination weapons are useful but Paizo look i am willing to spend 1 feat out of 11 to reduce the Action cost from 2 Actions to 1 action!
As for Gunslinger, I actually have no idea what I would change other then giving it extra damage for Firearms, maybe their +1 Damage for Firearms could be changed to +Dex Mod of Presidion Damage which would actually make me consider the class. As Currently I feel it is very much a "Crit Fishing" class outside of Flurry Ranger with a bow. I heard sniper is the best but if that is the case then it needs flat-damage buffs for Firearms to make up for the Reload action they require.
Actually I do know what I'd change in Gunslinger. give the Trigger-brand full proficiency with Combination Weapons, none of this one step low for melee. It makes using combination weapon Gunslingers hella harder since we don't get that much benefit from it using light armor and hardly any class features to back it up.
As for Psychic and Thaumaturge, I legit got nothing other then increase the number of Spells-per-day or give Psychic 4 Focus Point cap instead of the normal 3 at level 1. As for the other class, I've planned one and I have no complaints Thaumaturge is incredible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inventors getting a more options and a readjustment of the Unstable trait are the biggest pain points from what I've observed. I'm currently playing around with the idea of switching the roll to being a Crafting check against your Level-based DC, probably with a hard or very hard modifier, but I still need to math it out, point being, my players often say they don't like feeling like their Crafting skill does not matter for it, so this seems a good middle ground to increase the feel, whether or not the numbers change or not.
Though as for fixing the invention complaints, that's a workload I do not want to work with, especially with the OGL/ORC/Infinite license being how it is. All I know is people say they look at Inventor and simply say it doesn't feel "Inventor-y" enough or does not sound like they imagined when they actually start reading the class.
I would not even know where to start with Inventor. I've heard of only one being played at my TTRPG Group. Turning out with good RNG they basically solo'd a boss with insane damage but I am unsure if this was due to the kit or just dumb R?NG being on their side.
The issues in the term Inventor is not something the class does well. If it was given bombs and other inventions it might feel better. Yeah it be stepping on Alchemist but that is fine. We have multiple spell-casters of the same tradition so multiple item craftors would be fine! It be fine to let Inventors make Gunslinger Munitions
Magus gotten weaker with the change to Arcane Cascade.
...what...? It's identical, more or less
|
Paizo still has incompatible buggy stuff in PC1 and 2, I don't think PC3 will necessarily help on that front.The only one I can think of is that Champion Dedication gives you scaling with your armor proficiencies while Fighter Dedication doesn't with weapons.The fighter dedication might be the single worst feat in the game. Putting aside the fact that it literally gives "training in one skill" if you already have martial proficiency, if you're someone who wants to pick up a martial weapon when your class only has simple weapons the general feat "Weapon Proficiency" gives you auto-scaling to expert at level 11 but the Fighter feat leaves you at trained, something the fighter archetype lets you spend another feat on at 12th level.
Like yes, it can give you access to fighter feats, many of which are good, but the rest of the fighter archetype is rough.
Reactive Striker at level 4 is reason enough to suffer taking the Fighter dedication.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay so I will justify my reasonings from earlier.
Gunslinger - I don't see anyone wanting to play one over a Investigator or Ranger. I might not be able to see it but it's not terrible with their legendary firearmsbut the thing is melee, Sword & Gun Gunslingers need some love. Being similar to the hit points of the rogue with no long term benefits is painful.
Inventor - It can stay the same honestly. Just give us some new feats. It doesn't really invent but that's fine.
Psychic - Strong class but with the refocusing action buffed and Oracles getting more slots, this class has the second more terrible downside of all casters if you use it's full class kit. Giving it another focus point capping at 4 would help it feel like you want to play it over a Sorcerer or Oracle.
Magus - Really nothing needs to change here nothing is in a bad spot outside the fact INT is not a requirement. Nor is the fact Arcane Cascade as a core class future. People realized a bow magus is just better sicne you can simply Spellstrike every round more or less.
Summoner - Dragon Eidolon no longer feat with Monster Core dragons and the changes to Barbarian & Sorcerer, that's all really.
Thaumaturge - Yeah half of the classes don't need help but the others do. Psychics can get a change to help them feel worth something outside of their gimmick is still there with great focus spells at a greater chance to use them!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing magus brushed up with the swashbuckler treatment of getting incentives to do things other than their big boom would be nice. It be awesome to get more feats that recharge your spellstrike but are beefy two action abilities so you can't spellstrike that turn; 3 actions rolled into two or two actions with one or both getting a bonus would conditionally have me forgoing spellstrike if it could also act as a recharge. It's not super vital, but would definitely be appreciated for magus to get that kind of QoL
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people are overestimating what a PC3 would mean. Like, most of the classes in both player cores didn't change all that much, and even some of the more significant changes retain much of the class' original framework.
Expecting fundamental redesigns to the Inventor or Gunslinger or Psychic feels unrealistic. The inventor and gunslinger in particular exist so firmly in the acceptably mediocre space that it seems more likely to see the printed with virtually no changes at all outside a few clarifications.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a bit silly to write off "fundamental redesigns" when this is exactly what we're getting from the Alchemist and Oracle in PC2, the former of which came with changes to a lot of alchemical items as well. I don't think anyone here's really asking for equally intensive overhauls of the remaining classes, particularly as they don't need them, but if there ever were to be a PC3 on the horizon, there'd definitely be room for structural changes to a class's framework, and even to the item suite designed around them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expecting fundamental redesigns to the Inventor or Gunslinger or Psychic feels unrealistic. The inventor and gunslinger in particular exist so firmly in the acceptably mediocre space that it seems more likely to see the printed with virtually no changes at all outside a few clarifications.
I think honestly I would expect to see reworks for those classes in a Starfinder 2e book before a PF2 book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the demand is there and profit can be made then imo Paizo will release PC3.
If not we have so many classes as is to last us many adventures.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the demand is there and profit can be made then imo Paizo will release PC3.
If not we have so many classes as is to last us many adventures.
Actually, it would be if the return on investment for this product is higher than for other products.
Much unlikely IMO, as in we would not have had the Remastered classes if the OGL-debacle never happened.
Interesting enough, one my my players saw the Badluckgamer Alchemist video and raised the question in regards to the Gunslinger's Munitions Crafter feat, and it basically resulted in a question of how we should reconcile it. The Munitions Crafter feat gives lets you perform alchemy like an Alchemist for the purpose of creating bullets and bombs. But it references alchemist rules that would no longer apply. Should we, A) let it work like Advanced Alchemy, B) let it work like Versatile Vials, or C) Just keep it working like a legacy alchemist. I'm leaning on the legacy alchemist until further notice, but am also considering the Versatile Vials approach, but the fact of the matter is that the feat has been broken, because it requires GM oversight to determine whether to reference an older version of alchemist or change to use a newer version of alchemist, and determine how it should work going forward for the purposes of Remaster compatibility.
Granted, that's a small breakpoint that could be easily done with an errata pass. But the point is, toward earlier arguments by some folks that the Guns and Gears classes are completely untouched by the Remaster, here's an example of evidence against.
I'm GMing a Fists of the Ruby Phoenix game with a Gunslinger that has that feat chain, and my advice is "use the legacy Alchemist rules for this feat chain". The feat was designed for legacy reagents and Advanced Alchemy. It expects that. The next feat in the chain raises your advanced alchemy level to make better stuff for example, which with the new rules isn't really a thing you need to do.
Once you get past low level, the new version is a significant reduction in ammunition per day (you get far fewer vials at high level than you get infused reagents), and in general the feat chain just doesn't expect it to work the way it does now.
If someone wants to use the new Alchemy rules, they can still get that by taking Alchemist Dedication instead.
Do ancestries really need a lot done in order to be remastered? It seems like the Kholo and the Tripkee needed to be redone since their previous names were OGL. But if you want to just update any legacy ancestry to remaster standards, is there actually much to do besides "combine the ancestral weapon feats."
Like don't give me wrong I love some of the obscure ancestries, but I would very much prefer they print more Anadi feats than just reprint the whole ancestry.
Long term it would be better to package the ancestries from Ancestry Guide and their feats, the classes form the remaining books, as well as items into another player core or GM core or something. It would just help make the game itself less confusing to new folks and not require a GM to intervene 'remastering' a class for them or ancestry that might require some changes here and there.
But as always Paizo is only going to do it if there is interest enough to buy it as they are in a business of selling books. And considering how out of the 4 people I personally game with that had subscriptions that 3 of them have cancelled them (mostly due to the various side bar lore changes to satisfy critics of previous content that don't even buy their books) Paizo is going to have to get pickier about the books they focus on to make money on the road they've chosen.
Like the reason to remaster the core books is that "if the OGL thing blows up again, we need things like 'basic rules' and 'the classes, monsters, and items people expect' to continue to be available."
I see no reason they couldn't just continue printing various old books under the OGL and if something happens that they cannot reprint "Guns and Gears" or whatever, then they cross that bridge when they come to it.
Like "updating ancestries that do not need new names" seems like something you can do at the level of errata. Like "Remove Conrasu Weapon Understanding, add the following line to Conrasu Weapon Familiarity - 'At 5th level, whenever you get a critical hit with one of these weapons, you get its critical specialization effect'." is easy errata to apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*IIRC they already know they can't reprint any book that contains OGL content.
They can. The OGL 1.1a still applies and is available for Paizo and anybody else. You can still get Print-on-Demand reprints of PF1 books, IIRC.
The work involved would be going over, say, Mwangi Expanse book with a fine-toothed comb and seeing what, if anything, requires them to reprint it under the OGL and whether they can just change a few words and avoid it completely.
But the point is that Pathfinder does not suffer that much if, for whatever reason, the rules content in the Mwangi Expanse book becomes unavailable for near-term releases. Pathfinder suffers a lot if things like "elves" and "fighters" become unavailable even for a little while.
Like if a given adventure path requires the Goloma for something, they can just reprint the ancestry in the toolbox of an AP. There's relatively little that would need to change for that. A reprint of an ancestry that was already cleared as "fine" by the rules people is the best way to get an ancestry in an AP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inventor is a class that honestly baffles me. It feels like a class that was directly taken from a playtest and introduced as is in the system without tweaking anything about it. It has a feature that works almost exactly like a barbarian's rage but way worse although with less restrictions (not like that matters anymore after PC2), fairly lacksluter innovation modifications except for very specific ones, feats that aren't bad exactly but not something that I would call fantastic either (Gadget Specialist is probably the exception, to the point that I don't understand why I need to take a feat for those). They also have a a nice AoE damage, which probably is one of the better parts of their kit, but at the same time is a bit dissonant with the concept of the class because you are supposed to be a craftsman but you don't have any features that interact with crafting at all (not the skill, though besides overdrive nothing uses the skill either) and you have your invention exploding every combat. The class feels like someone faking being an inventor, as if someone stole someone else's invention but doesn't know how to craft or use that innovation properly.
Looks like Guns & Gear will be getting Remastered, so that takes it out of discussion for the hypothetical Player's Core 3. If that means that the other books (SoM, BotD, DA) might also get similar treatment, that changes the prospects for PC3. Or maybe not.
The source was this reddit comment
Could be a placeholder title...
Guns & Gears... doesn't seem to require this much remastering, unless it's a booklet and not a chunkier book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could be a placeholder title...
Guns & Gears... doesn't seem to require this much remastering, unless it's a booklet and not a chunkier book.
I think the process goes like this:
1) They want to reprint Guns and Gears2) They want to reprint it without the OGL.
3) There isn't that much OGL stuff in the book, but while they're at it they can apply errata and do another pass on the classes in the book.
4) That's enough to call it a remaster.