Paizo Games General /pgg/

I think they're two separate concepts entirely. Mythic means that, from the get-go, you're more than a normal person. It's closer to giving PCs Divine Ranks than Epic, which is 'you've become more powerful than the scale normally measures".

>My guess is the distinction is now you may nominally be an Elf, and can of course choose the catch-all Elf ancestry, or you can choose a regional ancestry or a more-specific bloodline or familial option as relevant.

I can see it being used as a way for players to create a "half-orc" who uses the Orc ancestry, or to further emphasize the importance of a character's Background.

Reposting for discussion

So to summarize from their blog post:
>Unified proficiency bonuses scaling with level
>Time-unit action economy where each character gets 3 TU per turn and a reaction like Unchained
>Distinct narrative and mechanical divide between "tactical grid time" and exploration
>Ranger is now a trapper class to oppose Rogues
>Fighter now has AoO as a class feature
>Spell lists being condensed and 10th level spells
>Monsters are now defined by a unique ability or two to be bolted on to a level corrected stat block
>Character creation is now "Ancestry" + Class + Background which unlocks feat paths to choose later
>Initiative is now based on skills like Perception or Stealth depending
>Magic Items will be adjusted to never be necessary for builds and more quirky

Obviously this is all speculation and should be taken with a grain of salt. Did I miss anything important?

>'you've become more powerful than the scale normally measures"
They're both that though; that's the entire point of having mythic ranks be outside the normal leveling scheme. Also, Mythic doesn't depend on you having a mythic rank at base level; it can become available later in your career - the best example being the way it was handled in WotR - I've never heard of anybody complaining about that particular bit, and by and large you expect that most characters are only going to achieve a mythic rank after hitting like level 10+, from everything that I've seen.

What the fuck is the point of Modes even supposed to be?

Well my point is just that Mythic Ranks aren't really tied to normal progression. Epic means you literally become more powerful, but Mythic is more like a divergence of the powercurve.

The blog implied only fighters can make AoOs, because it said everyone gets one reaction to use outside of their turn and then went on to say they can be used for different things by different classes/monsters like a fighter making an attack of opportunity or a red dragon stealing a caster's fire spell.

As for the initiative thing, it's not ONLY perception. It seems like various skills can be used depending on what you were doing when combat started. Another example they gave was that if you were scouting ahead with stealth, you use stealth for initiative and could begin the fight already hidden.

No, they both pretty clearly mean you become more powerful. The difference is in the way you become it; Epic is "I gain more levels now. I have refined my abilities well beyond the norm for an individual of my class", whereas mythic is "I have some kind of infused enhancement to my base abilities."

It's skill versus inherent power. While I get that one or the other is more appealing to some people, the divide doesn't really mean much when even as far back as 3.5 "inherent power" has also been a qualifier for levels. Elsewise we wouldn't even HAVE a sorcerer class.

That's the thing I don't get about Sorcerer though
Why is Sorcerer even a class instead of something like Mythic? Do you actually train as a sorcerer? Don't you just gain the powers out of thin air? Why can't you be good at sword while gaining magic power because you were born with it?
In any case, that's exactly what I mean - one of them means you're refining your abilities, the other means you have some inherent superiority, and I think that they should remain separate things.

Sorcerer powers aren't inherent, the knowledge of how they perform their spells are inherent. No class in D&D has inherent supernatural powers outside of Monks and Psionic classes.

That and Sorcerer's existed in their current form as an excuse to have "spontaneous" casting a half assed concession to the outdated vancian model.

I know nothing of this man. give some examples of why is the herald of doom.

Because it's about power levels. They need to have given sorcerer a way to scale, and that means levels; it's all a refinement on inherent power; that's the explanation for sorcerer levels, and I imagine why they're so readily available for high level advancement bullshit in-lore.

The only way to manage what you're suggesting, having sorcerer be something you are rather than something you train, is to either change the structure of the game to be like Exalted (where you're channeling all that inborn power into talents and abilities that defy logic) or have it be something similar to a template, which has a numerous amoutn of other problems associated with it. when was the last time you saw a GM allow a player to roll as a Half-Fiend?

Sorcery is still something you need to practice at. The thing is that LOTS of people have Sorcerous POTENTIAL, but only actual Sorcerers tap into them enough to do anything with them.

Like, there's literally 'Orc' and 'Kobold' bloodlines. And Imperial is basically 'Humans'.

The man behind Akashic Magic and Spheres of Might, among other things. Incredibly stubborn and autistic, and he loves super-fiddly things that no average player can stand.

There should be a 10/10 bombshell template

Isn't half-succubus a template?

I think so, but sometimes you don't want to be a sex crazed demon, you just want to be 10/10 hot

And speaking about wanting to be hot, they should take a leaf from GURP's book and make Charisma, at least in terms of appearance, its own separate thing instead of a stat.

Mechanically speaking, it already is, or else shit like Cthulhu would be the sexiest creatures alive. Mechanically, Charisma is supposed to be your ability to coerce others, your ability to manipulate them, your presence in a room, and your raw force of personality. It's writers and players that get it wrong; the only way to get around that problem is to explicitly state in the rules that appearance is something else.

Well yeah but I think appearance should really be, explicitly, its own thing. The issue is Wisdom being its own thing and affecting the Will save, which doesn't make sense when Charisma is force of will and personality.

5e player here, can't wait for you fucks to ruin the board with your very own flamewar over which rip-off of D&D is superior.
Hugs and kisses.

paizo.com/pathfinderplaytest/faq#v5748eaic9wfk

At least they have a sense of humor about their playerbase.

I really wish they'd take a page out of 4e's book for saving throws. Using either Strength or Charisma for fortitude saves, dexterity or intelligence for reflex saves, and wisdom and charisma for will saves. It makes sense on a lot of levels. It's one of the things that 4e got really, really right, and I doubt many people would complain over.

Just let players say "my character is pretty/ugly/average" and stick with the coercion, manipulation, and presence aspects of the stat.
>. It's writers and players that get it wrong;
Actually no. In book 1 of Rise of the Runelords, there's a character with 8 Charisma described as handsome and a character with 12 Charisma described as kinda frumpy with body image issues.
Charisma isn't force of will, it's how well you can project your will onto others in a way you can control.

>Strength or Charisma
Strength or constitution. Ugh, this is what I get for operating on three hours of sleep.

They really should, it just makes sense.

But that is exactly what force of will is. It's basically presence. Also Wisdom should really be cleaned up and basically looked at from the ground up as to what they want it to mean.

So between their terrible, near un-useable website and this latest announcement, is Paizo just trying to drive away all but the most loyal fans?

Int is Mental Strength
Charisma is Mental Dexterity
Wisdom is Mental Constitution.
>But that is exactly what force of will is.
Having good "presence" isn't the same as having good self control. See most celebrities and a good chunk of politicians.

That's the thing though. If you make Wisdom forcibly Willpower, then why does Heal and Perception key off Wisdom?

It's 4e

Wisdom is also tied to vague notions of intuition and care. Hence why it's the stat of all the hunty woodsmany classes. The assumption of the heal skill is more midwifey folk medicine as opposed surgery derived from empirical medicine. That or purely for the sake of energizing with Cleric. I'm leaning more towards the latter.

>vague notions of
That's the problem. It's at least three different things at the same time.

Swap Int and Cha. Then you've got it.

So is Charisma. Welcome to mental stats, where we try to codify vague tenbrous concepts.

Charisma is force of personality though. Sorcerers literally just will their spells into existence. Diplomacy / Bluff / Intimidate using the raw stat modifier means you're basically pushing yourself onto them with raw force.

I disagree Int is associated with memory(carrying capacity) and creating new useful knowledge and processes.

Charisma is about deceiving and convincing, moving around things. Dexterity.
>Charisma is force of personality though. Sorcerers literally just will their spells into existence
They don't. As they're not a Psychic/Psionic class. If they did Sorcerer's would not cast spells, they'd have spell like abilities or be a psychic class. Sorcerer's cast spells like bird's build nests.
>Intimidate using the raw stat modifier means you're basically pushing yourself onto them with raw force.
No, it means you're getting around their sensibilities by projecting an image that may or may not actually exist on them. If Intimidate was about force, it would be a strength based/whatever stat lets my character to grievous harm to people based.

>No, it means you're getting around their sensibilities by projecting an image that may or may not actually exist on them
Yes, mental force. As in forcing your opinion forward in Raw diplomacy, not forcing your cock down their throat.

>They don't.
A sorcerer casts spells according to intuition, but the actual power of their spells is based on force of personality and presence (Charisma). Unless you're saying that Sorcerers are a Wisdom class.

No, he's talking about how it works out mechanically.

Str gets stuff stolen by Dex with very little parity.
Cha gets stuff stolen by Int with very little parity.

IF CHARISMA IS WILLPOWER
WHY DOES WILL KEY OFF OF WISDOM

>A sorcerer casts spells according to intuition, but the actual power of their spells is based on force of personality and presence (Charisma).
No as in a sorcerer isn't willing anything into existence when they cast. They use the same rituals to call forth the same effects as a Wizard as opposed to using spell likes/ki/psychic stuff which is actually willing things into existence or using aspects of their biology to do something.
>As in forcing your opinion forward in Raw diplomac
Diplomacy isn't forcing an opinion, it's coaxing a more favorable disposition. Much like disarming a trap isn't just smashing a rock into it.
Because it isn't.

>No as in a sorcerer isn't willing anything into existence when they cast. They use the same rituals to call forth the same effects as a Wizard as opposed to using spell likes/ki/psychic stuff which is actually willing things into existence or using aspects of their biology to do something.
So Sorcerers are Wisdom based then? They use the same 'rituals' to call forth magic, but Vance's magic isn't ritualistic or constructed.

>Diplomacy isn't forcing an opinion, it's coaxing a more favorable disposition. Much like disarming a trap isn't just smashing a rock into it.
Are you literally autistic? Having a massive force of presence helps you get a favorable reaction. The raw basic stat usage of Diplomacy, as in you have zero ranks, is just you smiling while talking and talking confidently (whether or not it's eloquent or sound reasoning - that's Intelligence based), and that smile charming the other guy enough. Shit charisma would mean stuttering, murmuring, and basically being overwhelmed as you talk.

Charisma is offensive, Wisdom is defensive.

>it also governs perception, heal, and profession

>but Vance's magic isn't ritualistic or constructed.
It is though. At least as D&D presents it. What the fuck do you think verbals/somatics/materials are. They're mini rituals, dude.
>So Sorcerers are Wisdom based then?
They should be, but Sorcerer as a class shouldn't exist at all and Clerics should be charisma based.

>What the fuck do you think verbals/somatics/materials are
Foci for conducting the spell. Eschew Materials being a bonus feat for Sorcerers cements my point. Wizards are people who make up an entire ritual to cast spells and can mix and match, the Sorcerer basically shouts at the magic "work you fuck" and it works.

> Sorcerer basically shouts at the magic "work you fuck" and it works.
No they aren't. Sorcerer's are people with an inutive grasp of the rituals that Wizards study. If they did what you described they'd be Wilders or people with natural spell like abilities.
>Foci for conducting the spell.
What the FUCK do you think a ritual component is, user?

For dummies and those new to the hobby as a whole.

Sell me on Silksworn, it doesn't actually seem very good.

I mean...it could be fun?

>Pathfinder
>2e
What happened and where can I read more?

this is probably most info I've found

reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/82j4ua/glass_cannon_crew_sits_down_for_the_first_ever/dvarlin/

paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkl9?First-Look-at-the-Pathfinder-Playtest
paizo.com/pathfinderplaytest

There's also a post from Bulmahn in the thread.

>I want to take a moment and talk a bit about the a concern I am seeing here with some frequency, and that is that characters will be streamlined and not customizable. I get that we are using some terms that may lead you to think we are going with a similar approach to some other games, but that is simply not the case.

>Characters in the new edition have MORE options in most cases than they did in the previous edition. You can still make the scholarly mage who is the master of arcane secrets and occult lore, just as easily as you can make a character that goes against type, like a fighter who is skilled in botany. The way that the proficiency system works along with skill feats gives you plenty of choices when it comes to skills, allowing you to make the character you want to make.

>Beyond skills, every class now has its own list of feats to choose from, making them all pretty different from one another and allowing for a lot of flexibility in how you play. And just wait until you see what Archetypes can do...

>Next Monday we will be looking at the way that you level up, and the options that presents. Next Friday (March 16th), we will investigate the proficiency system, and how that impacts your choices during character creation and leveling.

>Stay tuned folks... we have a lot of great things to show you

Oh fuck dude. There's no way "each class has its own list of feats" is going to go well unless they're cribbing other game systems wholesale.

>The man behind ... Spheres of Might
No, that would be Adam Meyers. You retards just jump on the Ssalarn boogeyman bandwagon. He's a stubborn asshole that doesn't respond to feedback, but he is actually capable of good mechanics. The Sage in Champion of the Spheres is fantastic, and his new akashic material for City of Seven Seraphs is miles ahead of Akashic Mysteries (to which he's admitted having made mistakes with it originally). All things considered, as a purely mechanical designer he's way fucking better than the hacks at Paizo that brought you the goddamn Kineticist and SHIFTER.

>Beyond skills, every class now has its own list of feats to choose from
>more taxes

>>Beyond skills, every class now has its own list of feats to choose from, making them all pretty different from one another and allowing for a lot of flexibility in how you play.
That shit sounds worse and more rigid than 5e though.

4e...

Currently we don't know what exactly "each class has its own list of feats" entails. Best case scenario is they're something like a Ranger's combat styles, and each class just gets a suite of bonus feats to choose from. Most likely scenario is that in addition to all the normal common feats there are a number with specific class level requirements which are then tagged as a specific class feat. That's pretty much what we have now, with all the "Fighter Level whatever" feats and similar stuff that runs on class feature requirements.

Worst case scenario is "All feats are class locked, so multiclassing is the only way to get access to specific feats" which would be a massive clusterfuck of rules.

I think it could be a good control method for making sure that classes function as intended.

>I think it could be a good control method for making sure that classes function as intended.
Paizo's intentions are ass tier and at the point you may as well go full OSR and just make it so characters aren't mechanically distinct from each other at all. I don't trust Paizo to lock in functions since they can't even make classes that function properly to begin with.

He also wrote the Time handbook for SoP, which just went into playtest.

>as intended
Paizo intends many things, most of them retarded.

That depends very heavily on how it winds up being implemented. Also, having "classes function as intended" is pretty boring. If I wanted to be told exactly how my character was going to be playing for levels 1-20 I'd play 5e.

Two books later there's ways to get class-locked feats on other classes and everything goes to shit again
You know it would happen

Well, role protection is something that PF is currently abysmal at.

Yes but taking away options isn't the answer. Having options is the strong point of PF. See .

>role protection is something
That honestly isn't necessary. I'm fine with every class being able to do lots of things as long as they can't do lots of things super well at once.

Yes, but the point of a class is largely to specialize. If your class' specialization is not at least somewhat protected, it devalues the class.

Apparently according to the reddit thread, BAB is gone and everyone has effective full BAB now.

Being able to do something better than everyone else is not the same as being the only people who can do it at all unless it's a high-level thing to begin with.

Finally. There were so many dumb gish archetypes for full casters, maybe now they'll be useful.

>fullBAB Wizard spellstriking with Disintegrate

4e did this an it worked fine. If they ditch touch-attacks being practically automatic, then it becomes necessary.

Is that BAB to hit or just for number of attacks? Because I think the number of attacks is due to the adjusted action economy.

>Disarming still exists, is an Athletics roll vs a DC = target's Reflex bonus.
Rest in fucking peace

I can see Fighters having niche protection on the AoO. Everyone can punish a bad move, but only fighters can punish you for, as a hypothetical, attacking someone else or using ranged attacks or spells.

To hit, it's just level + strength modifier + 1d20 as an attack roll now.

Which is obviously retarded. Even *I* can punch someone in the face if they try to load a crossbow in front of me, you're telling me trained warriors can't?

Huh, wonder how that's going to work for balancing between classes now.

AoO is also something that slows down play, and encourages everyone to stand still. Limiting them to actual defenders may not be a bad thing.

Maybe you can't as well as the Fighter. Maybe the fighter also has Combat Reflexes as niche protection, so he can punch all the dudes in the face

For movement I can understand, but shit like firing ranged weapons or spellcasting? AoOs on spellcast is one of the premier weapons a martial has against a caster trying to DimDoor away.

>as well as the fighter
See, that works. Because someone can do something better than everyone else. That's niche protection. Not "nobody else can do this thing that you expect anyone to be able to do".

Apparently part of the Fighter's thing is that they get a bunch of reactions available to them.

Also, apparently shields no longer give passive AC bonuses. If you spend an action to "ready" the shield, you gain the shield bonus plus another reaction for that round.

They must've completely changed how the game is balanced or something if this isn't a huge blunder

I'm going by what I read on a Reddit post from someone who listened to that play podcast they did. When they have time I'm going to go through myself.

>Apparently part of the Fighter's thing is that they get a bunch of reactions available to them.
This is pretty great in a game with limited reactions

Again haven't heard it first hand, so I'm not sure if that's "They get three reactions to everyone else's one" or "they get a bunch of different reaction abilities" or both.

Oh boy, all of these changes sound great. Anybody else getting very hype for Pathfinder 2.0? It makes me almost want to buy their products again!

Good. The game needed a rewrite, not an update.