[PF-1e] Doomsday Dawn

[Wyrom]

While we await decisions, anyone want to discuss what they find most interesting in Pathfinder 2.0?

[Unko Talok]

Withdrawn due to other obligations

 

Application Credit to toshi13go on deviantart; [url]https://www.deviantart.com/toshi13go[/url] Name: Andhace (Andy) Softfoot Race: Halfling Gender: Male Age: 23 Class: Paladin (Sarenrae; Will focus on feats to improve my healing and probably a shield ally. Possibly mount, haven't 100% decided) Ancestry: Mind Quake Survivor Appearance: Andy looks boyish, even for a halfling. Sandy brown hair and cherubic cheeks frame crystal-clear blue eyes. While he's fit, he doesn't have a particularly stout frame, and looks as though he barely fills out his armor. Character: Andy has the naivete of youth, and believes that if he can do enough good in the world and stand up for what's right, people will see that Halflings are more than their size, and deserve better respect and treatment than they get in the city of Magnimar. He's storng in his convictions, but is terribly afraid that he'll fail in being an ideal citizen or adventurer. He's particularly worried that he'll falter on the battlefield and either be bested by another's blade or let a companion fall. This fear is compounded by his memories and lingering strange dreams from the Mindquake that he experienced as a child. Backstory: As a child, Andy survived a Mindquake-- something that he still doesn't fully understand. But he does remember. He remembers the very vivid image of himself, clad in armor, fighting a much greater foe. He watched as his friends-- faces he didn't recognize but knew by heart-- were cut down. Try as he might, Andy wasn't fast enough to save them. The dream went on-- complicated images and knowledge and impossible memories. When he woke, he couldn't be consoled or sleep for days. From that day, Andy set out to prevent that event from ever happening. He set out to become strong, brave, and versed in the healing arts. It's not surprising that he found his way to the Church of Sarenrae and the calling of a Paladin. He didn't realize until several years of training that he may well have been bringing some vision true, rather than preventing it. His dreams continued, and he found himself blessed-- or cursed-- with strange knowledge, knowledge about occult things that shouldn't be known by a mere boy. But this lead him to discussions with several scholars, including Keleri Deverin. He wasn't always helpful, and the strange dream-memories that Andy brought to Keleri were as often confusing as enlightening. But Andy's chipper demeanor and eternal optimism endeared the lady to him. It wasn't so surprising, then, that shortly after completing his Paladin training, Keleri called Andy to help deal with a stolen Star and a cowering goblin... Story: Nope!

(An RP sample can be provided on request, if you like!)

[Phenyks]

Originally Posted by Wyrom

While we await decisions, anyone want to discuss what they find most interesting in Pathfinder 2.0?

I like that many things have level-based improvements. As a player, it reinforces the idea that my character does--via a built-in game mechanic--get better at "stuff" as he/she gains experience. Your pal the cleric preaches about Gozreh all day, sure your Religion skill would get better. Same thing from hanging out with that sorcerer all the time: certain gestures make a tree burst into flame--increase that Arcana skill!

Makes sense to me

[Unko Talok]

I haven't thoroughly read all the rules, but I think what's most interesting to me is the different classes of feats, and how they're treated (mostly) independently. It seems like a great way to allow character customization without archetypes. I also like that it allows you to get feats for skills without putting that at the cost of metamagic/combat/other feats.

At first, I honestly didn't like the "Everything is Feats now" feel. But it's starting to grow on me.

[InstantD]

Originally Posted by Phenyks

I like that many things have level-based improvements. As a player, it reinforces the idea that my character does--via a built-in game mechanic--get better at "stuff" as he/she gains experience. Your pal the cleric preaches about Gozreh all day, sure your Religion skill would get better. Same thing from hanging out with that sorcerer all the time: certain gestures make a tree burst into flame--increase that Arcana skill!

Makes sense to me

While I do agree to a point, I hope that GMs (as the rulebook suggests) liberally puts in proficiency requirements for difficult skills checks. Otherwise, at higher levels, there's not really much difference between someone legendary at something and someone untrained in it other than meeting pre-requisites for certain feats and being able to do trained skill checks.

What does everyone think of the Ranger? To be honest, even though my application is for a Ranger, they seem to be the weakest class and generally not as well designed as some others. At this point, I'm committed though

[Wyrom]

Originally Posted by InstantD

While I do agree to a point, I hope that GMs (as the rulebook suggests) liberally puts in proficiency requirements for difficult skills checks. Otherwise, at higher levels, there's not really much difference between someone legendary at something and someone untrained in it other than meeting pre-requisites for certain feats and being able to do trained skill checks.

What does everyone think of the Ranger? To be honest, even though my application is for a Ranger, they seem to be the weakest class and generally not as well designed as some others. At this point, I'm committed though

I can see what you mean about the ranger, but maybe the point is to be super wary about what your up against. Seems a well prepped one could sneak in and start some chaos. But the brute of the group would make that difficult.

And I agree with the proficiency thing. I would like to see some rules that take into account what the players do in the "downtime". Are you studying through libraries? Hunting for food or just chatting with the locals? All that could help specialize a skill so two people with the exact same skill levels aren't exactly on par.

[Unko Talok]

Something that I don't like: The default ability score determination. Am I right in understanding that the lowest an ability score will ever be is 8? And that, at most, a character will only ever have a single score at 8, if that?

I dunno. I like my flawed characters. I can definitely see the advantages there over rolling, which can be extremely variable and punishing to players. But I'm not happy with this system.

[Wyrom]

Originally Posted by Unko Talok

Something that I don't like: The default ability score determination. Am I right in understanding that the lowest an ability score will ever be is 8? And that, at most, a character will only ever have a single score at 8, if that?

I dunno. I like my flawed characters. I can definitely see the advantages there over rolling, which can be extremely variable and punishing to players. But I'm not happy with this system.

There goes the socially inept wizard I love so much... Smart as anything but with like a 4 charisma.

[Morathor]

Originally Posted by Wyrom

There goes the socially inept wizard I love so much... Smart as anything but with like a 4 charisma.

Yeah, like... I kind of like that all these different layers, your class and race and background and such, factor into your stats. And that most of them give you some choice but aren't completely freeform. That's fun to me. But I would like to see more options for stat drops.

[InstantD]

Originally Posted by Unko Talok

Something that I don't like: The default ability score determination. Am I right in understanding that the lowest an ability score will ever be is 8? And that, at most, a character will only ever have a single score at 8, if that?

I dunno. I like my flawed characters. I can definitely see the advantages there over rolling, which can be extremely variable and punishing to players. But I'm not happy with this system.

Doesn't the Rulebook mention that there's nothing stopping you from putting a lower stat in one of your abilities? Page 19. I'm sure that someone will devise a rolling system to determine stats anyways, maybe taking away the 4 free abilities bonuses and the ability bonuses from backgrounds

[Morathor]

Originally Posted by InstantD

Doesn't the Rulebook mention that there's nothing stopping you from putting a lower stat in one of your abilities? Page 19. I'm sure that someone will devise a rolling system to determine stats anyways, maybe taking away the 4 free abilities bonuses and the ability bonuses from backgrounds

There is an optional one already, on page 21. It's about how you said--but it gets rid of the class stat bonus, rather than the background bonuses.

So that's one way to potentially run a character who is below average at more things, but it's on the unpredictable side, of course. Voluntary stat penalties are also an option, although I think I'd feel uncomfortable taking them in most playgroups--kind of disrespectful to the other players, I guess. (I have a track record of bad character builds that don't end up contributing much to the party; taking weaknesses with no benefits in return would make me feel like I'm not trying hard enough to do my part.)

[gnollservitude]

if i remember right you can take as many or as big of minus (handicaps) you'd like but at the moment you don't get any trade off for it, just a negative if you want to add rp flavor.... i lost me leg and now shamble around on this here peg, yar... (-2 dex to represent what your character has lost)

[Kshnik]

I like my goblins to have an addiction to flesh so after 12 hours without minus 2 to int, wis, and cha. -4 for 24 hours. -6 for 48

[Unko Talok]

Well, I suppose that the optional penalties is something. I can't say that I like it in my gut, but I also can't say that I've got a better suggestion at the moment. I suppose I just like point buy! But I imagine that they wouldn't be able to develop a good, balanced point buy system until they've done some playtesting and have an idea of how well the ability scores are balanced.

[Phenyks]

Originally Posted by InstantD

While I do agree to a point, I hope that GMs (as the rulebook suggests) liberally puts in proficiency requirements for difficult skills checks. Otherwise, at higher levels, there's not really much difference between someone legendary at something and someone untrained in it other than meeting pre-requisites for certain feats and being able to do trained skill checks.

What does everyone think of the Ranger? To be honest, even though my application is for a Ranger, they seem to be the weakest class and generally not as well designed as some others. At this point, I'm committed though

The GM adding a prof requirement in addition to DC is certainly implied by the TEML levels.

I agree that the ability score generation does need tweaked. I was surprised when my human bard had 12s in most things.... Having no flaws plus the "Clever Improviser" feat is too buff, imho. Humans could have a "Free" flaw they could put in a stat of the player's choice.

I think "ancestry flaw feats" would be a cool thing: sub out the flawed stat for some neat flavor mechanic like a dwarven allergy to gemstones (-2 to CON when within 10' of them) or a gnomish aversion to government (-2 to CHA when in the presence of government officials).