42nfl19's page

47 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

I don't like the concept of being unable to make an attempt at something even if the odds are terrible. Would it be unbalanced to apply a penalty for lacking sufficient training?

Maybe -10 per level of training you are behind so an untrained character can attempt a trained only task but takes a -10 penalty or an expert only task at -20 etc. the odds of critical failure would probably be enough to prevent most people from trying it but it means you can still make an attempt.

I don't think it would break anything to allow this houserule, but it would lead to some of the situations that many on this thread find particularly troublesome, where the 20th level barbarian with 10 Int can use +18 - 10 = +8 Arcana to outperform the 1st-level 18 Int trained in Arcana wizard (1 + 4 = +5 Arcana) on some kind of trained-only test of obscure arcane theorems. That's something we've included safeguards to avoid, but it won't break anything if you do as you suggested, since it's not like the plot of a 20th level adventure is going to be likely to hinge on a standardized test duel between your 20th level barbarian and a 1st level wizard.

I know you don't want to have the Barbarian out "nerd" the wizard but by the time they reach that high level, shouldn't it make sense that they would have some Arcana prowess that they have experienced? They could have learned somethings through osmosis through proximity of partner members or the challenges they have faced in the past. If I had a Bard teammate that played his annoying flute every spare minute, I might have picked up at least some musical inclination from it. Or another party member speaks in another language often enough that I might pick it up.

Which leads me to another point, what happend to Linguistics? I use to love leveling that skill.
"You come upon a sign with strange writing on it. It's strange scripture leave you befuddled."
"WAIT, is it one of these languages?" *Start listing the 15+ languages you know*
"Sigh...its X language"

This might have been asked before but how is the balance between spells that just beat out skills?
i.e. I know 10+ languages vs Comprehend Language, I can climb good vs Spider Climb, I have a good intuition on lieing vs zone of truth? ETC


So where does Sense Motive lie in all this? Is it rolled under perception also?


42nfl19 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
So I read you can either counterspell or get a familiar. Are there more options than that? Or does every wizard start by making one of those two choices?
That is not even half the wizard class feat options for which a 1st-level wizard would meet the requirements.
Will there be a way to upgrade your counterspell with at least having the same school? Or even opposite effect? Slow vs Haste as an example? Also is counter spelling a wizard only thing now IF you have this class feat? While counter spelling was kind of lackluster in PF1, anyone with spells could do it as a ready action I believe. While it is cool and possible to counter spell someone, it seems lack luster in that you either have to be very lucky with the matchup(same spell), or know ahead of time what to prepare. So for the most part it is random. At the very least it is a reaction now and not a prepared action which thematically feels better for counter spelling.

So Mark(or any other dev), is counter spelling a wizard only thing now? Can you upgrade it to counter schools/opposite effects also?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
So I read you can either counterspell or get a familiar. Are there more options than that? Or does every wizard start by making one of those two choices?
That is not even half the wizard class feat options for which a 1st-level wizard would meet the requirements.

Will there be a way to upgrade your counterspell with at least having the same school? Or even opposite effect? Slow vs Haste as an example? Also is counter spelling a wizard only thing now IF you have this class feat? While counter spelling was kind of lackluster in PF1, anyone with spells could do it as a ready action I believe. While it is cool and possible to counter spell someone, it seems lack luster in that you either have to be very lucky with the matchup(same spell), or know ahead of time what to prepare. So for the most part it is random. At the very least it is a reaction now and not a prepared action which thematically feels better for counter spelling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If any Devs can answer this, are Backgrounds suppose to replace Traits? I always felt in PF1 that traits acted as neat .5 feats to enhance your background. Or will Traits still exist as a thing in PF2? I feel like there are 2 schools of thought with traits. People who used them to spice up their character's backgrounds, and "min maxers" who only wanted the ability/buffs.

Speaking of backgrounds, Background skills were a non-core optional rule for PF1. Are they making a comeback also? Seeing that you already have the name Background claimed for PF2, it seems like my hopes are low. Background Skills were a neat way to fluff out your character who would normally have low skill points. Your Paladin loves to farm in his spare time? Now you can put points in Prof(Farming) to represent that.


I just had a weird thought and I hope this does not lead to more strife. Will smite evil only work on people with the evil alignment/subtype? I could see times where a neutral type character can be seen killing innocents. Or a neutral creature being controlled/commanded to do evil thing like attacking innocent civies. Will the act of evil be allowed to be smiteable? Or at the very least, evil/against in the eyes of your deity/tenants? It sometimes sucks when a thing is doing an evil act but nope he is not "really evil". So no smite for you. I would be happy for a reduced smite evil effect for an act that is evil. Like a chaotic good character can thinks that doing this evil act will result in a net good thing in the bigger picture but the pally is having none of that. Just like how we have "tiers" of codes, will we also have "tiers" of evil or something? To be flexible?


I am just somewhat overall glad about the Paladin even with all this division. First time I ever played a tabletop game was 4e. First every character was a Paladin. Then when we switched to pathfinder, guess what I played? Paladin. Paladin is my most favorite class. With a close second being the Magus.

I asked this before but now that it is late night and the board has slowed down I think I will try and ask again. Have Paladin spells been "rebalanced"? Because they were at a lower caster level, saves, DCs and effects were generally lower. Therefore it sucked to use a spell and the enemy easily beating the DC or something. I have to basically spend my feats less on "offensive" and utility ones for self-buff spells. They don't require much scaling but were still effective. I could be wrong and Paladin spells were the best thing ever and I was just using them wrong/built them wrong.


Mark Seifter wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:
I think I asked this before but how easy it
I think we should leave the discussion of magic items, beyond what Logan revealed in the gear blog, for a later date when it can get its own full blog. So I will answer all these questions with just three words and my most favorite of all punctuation marks, those heroes of the LISP programming language, parentheses: Etch Rune (Crafting).

With the tease if being Crafting, I hope it becomes more accessible to all/other classes that are not the wizard. It kind of sucked/was sub-optimal if your crafter of magical wondrous items was not a wizard. I am ok with other classes only ever reaching Master or something and the wizard gets Legendary prof or something.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ah, it is at all times, but it isn't quite right to say it's permanent. It's much better than permanent. But why is it much better? Because each day you can move the spirit to a different weapon and pick a different rune from the ones you have available to you. Need to fight a lich? Move it to a bludgeoning weapon and pick disrupting. Ice giant jarl's fortress in your way? Move your spirit to a reach weapon and give it flaming. Etc.
Ooh, I like this. I probably won't be moving it between weapons because I'm the type to pick a weapon and stick with it, but changing what the enchantment is on a day to day basis? That's good stuff.
I hope you don't mind, but we're trying to make your preferred playstyle less mandatory than it was in PF1 while still being useful and effective. It's still probably true that until you get more magic weapon drops or potency runes, you likely have one weapon with a higher potency that's enough more powerful that you use it most of the time, but we don't want to compound it with a lot of abilities that buff your abilities with one particular weapon over others, forcing you to lock yourself into, say, longswords in such a way that any other weapon would be a drastic step down mechanically.
I don't have any problems with that, just because I like to have a signature weapon doesn't mean it's the one true way to play. If I end up feeling gimped by not running around with a golfbag I'll let you know so you can make the proper adjustments. ;)
I doubt you will, it's still really efficient money-wise not to be toting around a bunch of fully kitted weapons. As an aside, let's avoid using the term 'gimp.' I know not everyone who uses it as a gaming term necessarily knows this, but it comes from a slur for someone who is disabled or physically impaired.

I think I asked this before but how easy it is to transfer weapon runes from one thing to another? Do you need an equal level of proficiency to the level of rune/weapon? Is it something available to everyone with downtime rules? How do runes stack? Let's say you have a +1 rune and a fire rune. Can you combine them? Or do you need a separate +1 flame rune if you want to have both abilities?

How does it work with characters that can essentially buff their weapons with their own self runes? Paladins and Magi could add enchantments to weapons with existing enchantments already. Is there a limit like before?


I hope this does not derail but I had a thought. For the people who wish to lighten/remove the alignment restrictions from the Paladin, does that mean you also wish to remove the alignment restrictions from Druids and Barbarians? Druids in PF1 have to be any neutral. Barbarians can be anything but lawful.There might be some archetypes that can change that, same as the Paladin/Anti-Paladin but it was never a built in core thing. I mean I sometimes wish the names were different. Paladin=sounds cool. Anti-Paladin...sounds kind of dorky. I mean Tyrant is a cool name for a LE pally. Hellknight would of been a cool name for an evil paladin thing but that is taken by something else.

I am in the camp that alignments should be lifted. But I also agree with the otherside. What would the codes be? I mean LG we have, LE and CE we have also. What kind of codes could you have for a CG? What kind of codes can you have for a Neutral? I mean technically the Cavaliers/Samurai have an oath/codes that enable a "neutral"/selfish ways. The Knights Errant or Ronin. Then again, I always saw the Cavalier/Samurai as some weird "neutral" variant of the Paladin. I mean they have no alignment restrictions but they can be seen almost having similar/thematic powers without a deity. IDK I might be wrong and rambling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
So putting THAT aside, can we take your post as confirmation that the Paladin does still get traditional spellcasting, presumably of the 5th level variety? It wasn't entirely clear in the blog post, to the point where many were wondering if the Paladin didn't get spells at all and simply had the points pool to reflect its various (Su) and (Sp) abilities.
I can get wordy when it comes to design diary type information, but either of the two topics suggested (by you and HWalsh) would use up a lot of words to fully explain in a comprehensive fashion, and I already maxed out my words for the blog to cover the elephant in the room. I will say that those who think that hero's defiance may share a name with a PF1 spell that has a similar niche, but it's a much more powerful heal than people may be giving it credit for (19 dice of healing, and it doesn't even use your reaction!). Also, some people were asking about righteous ally. It's basically what you would expect from the blog. You either get a mount, a free weapon rune (at all times, not activated via an action for a set duration as in PF1) or some sweet shield buffs, and then you can take more feats to get even cooler abilities for your ally (mount upgrades, cooler runes, more shield benefits).

I don't know if you can tease this but is there a way to get the ability to be flexible? i.e. Depending on the situation you can choose a better mount, a better weapon, or a better shield. I feel like you can easily be flexible at a cost. You can choose a main thing to upgrade and buff. But later on you can gain the ability to use an un-upgraded/un-talented ability. You spend levels increasing your weapon rune buff. But then you gain the ability to use a vanilla/basic version of the shield buff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know these changes or proposed changes to the Paladin is so divisive but I would of really wanted some more Dev input. It was nice to get some clarifications, more teases, and future insight from them. It was nice to read them from the other blogs.


In PF1, due to the lower casting level, "offensive" paladin spells did not really scale well. With lower DCs and effects, they almost felt like a waste. It is almost better to spend spell slots on self buff spells. Has this been changed at all or rebalanced for the PF2 version?

Another note, with the mention of spell points, what will the paladin spend them on? Are they similar to the Cleric where we get special abilities based on our Deity?

Do paladins still have Channel Positive Energy? While it is a nice option, I almost never used it. But with how the clerics get a new channel energy, will Paladins see it also? Was Variant Channeling also not popular to make a non-core thing core? It added more spice to a somewhat boring ability.

Since you included oaths and litanies, super cool non-core things I also use, was variant divine bonds not popular as well? I can see how it was not compatible when people chose certain archetypes but what about others? Did anyone here also use variant divine bonds? I especially like the Agathion Bond for my healing focused Paladin I built.

Overall, just the idea that talks for more alignment freedom is happening brings me hope.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3
Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)
Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

SLOTS? OH THANK GOD. This fixes one my major annoyances in game. You find a neat weapon with very good properties and enchantments BUT it is on a weapon that you are not specced into. Think weapon focus or chosen weapons from the Kensai. The ability to switch runes to upgrade your blade is such a grand idea. But I have to ask, how easy is it to switch runes from one item to another? Depending on the weapon prof, does that determine what craft prof you need to transfer?

On another note, dual shields when? Ultimate Turtle build when? Plate armor, two heavy shield. One Boss and one Spiked. Also of note, I love the idea of separating the weapon part of the shield. The idea of upgrading and swapping things really makes me want to make a crafter character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Agile is a trait. It's a trait that mainly light weapons from PF1 have. TWFing with at least one of two weapons as agile is a very smart idea, similar to TWFing with at least one of two weapons as light in PF1, though not as punishing if you don't as in PF1.
Can you give us a hint as to when two weapon fighting is going to be covered? Soon hopefully. It's something I'm very curious how it will fit with the new action economy. Hopefully it's a worthwhile thing to do, but not an "I win" button.

Since it seems like Unchained Action Economy was a prototype for PF2 actions, I think it would act similar. Only Mark could confirm of deny this.

Two-Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows

When you fight with a second weapon in your off hand or with a double weapon, you can make two attacks with the first attack simple action you take during your turn: one with your primary hand and another with your off hand. You take penalties on these attack rolls as listed on Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties. Any other attack simple actions you take during your turn allow only one attack roll, using either the weapon in your primary hand or the one in your off hand.

If you have the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can make two attack rolls on both the first and second attack simple actions taken during your turn; both of the attacks made on the second attack action are made at a –5 penalty. Further attack simple actions taken during the same turn allow only one attack roll, using either the weapon in your primary hand or the one in your off hand.

If you have the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can make two attacks on each of your attack simple actions on your turn, though you take all the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting, as well as the cumulative –5 penalty per attack simple action (all attacks made as part of the same attack action have the same penalty).

The flurry of blows class feature works in a similar way. At 1st level, you can make an additional attack with a –2 penalty on your first attack simple action during a turn. At 8th level, you can make an additional attack on both your first and second attack simple actions during your turn. At 15th level, you can make an additional attack on each of your attack simple actions during your turn. You must, of course, take all the penalties associated with those attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yeah, we're not really interested in forcing you into specializing in one very specific weapon. Probably the most we'd ask a character to do would be to decide they were into swords, and many characters don't even have to specialize that deeply. As to rapier/main gauche, personally, I feel like a good main gauche specifically for parrying was one of the few oversights in the incredibly wide diversity of PF1 weapons (there were options like a swordbreaker focused specifically on anti-weapon hijinks, but not really a main gauche).
Ah! When you mentioned the rapier earlier I wanted to ask if that fighting style would be supported, but I couldn't remember the name of the main gauche.
It is! It's better defense than rapier/shortsword but lower offense and better offense than rapier/shield but lower defense. Optimization corners tend to prefer being extreme in one direction and taking it as far as possible to a middle-ground...

Can you not shield bash? You say rapier/shield has lower offense than rapier/main gauche but you can still attack with the shield right? But if you do, do you lose the ability to raise it for defense? All this talk of main gauche, is this hypothetical or is it in PF2 now?

Another tangent but if you had two shields could you spend two actions to raise both of them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:


Question about agile, does that mean that agile has really great synergy with TFW to the point that it would be almost sub-optimal to not use it? And I might have missed it but is agile an enchantment you can get on weapons or is it that agile is a special property that exist in a certain class of weapons?
Agile is a trait. It's a trait that mainly light weapons from PF1 have. TWFing with at least one of two weapons as agile is a very smart idea, similar to TWFing with at least one of two weapons as light in PF1, though not as punishing if you don't as in PF1.

Does that mean TWF will be more flexible in PF2 than in PF1? I always felt that if you ever do TFW you always had to use a single weapon type because sometimes feats, classes/features, or etc asked you to choose a certain weapon. I might be wrong though. The idea of a samurai using a katana and wakizashi or a duelist using a rapier and a parrying dagger are very thematic.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Tursic wrote:
graystone wrote:
Tursic wrote:

I am see a lot of short sword fishing fighters in the future.

Are you using short swords to fish or are you fishing for short swords?

I am see a lot of short sword crit fishing fighter builds in the future. I forgot to crit and build.

The short swords being better at doing multiple attacks and if the first of the second attack is a crit, the enemy will be flat-footed which will mean a lower AC most of the time. Thus easier to get the need +10 over AC for a crit, even with the minuses to attack for multiply attacks.
If you have a spare hand, assuming we want to stay in the finesse family, it's even better if your first attack is with a rapier (it's deadly for even more damage if you do crit first time around, and agile doesn't matter yet on the first attack).

Question about agile, does that mean that agile has really great synergy with TFW to the point that it would be almost sub-optimal to not use it? And I might have missed it but is agile an enchantment you can get on weapons or is it that agile is a special property that exist in a certain class of weapons?


Mark, can you still shield bash? Are spiked shields still a thing? There was also no mention of the offensive defensive item in the blog either.

Better yet, I just want to dual wield shields and actually be more tanky. IDK how that works now where you have to use an action to raise your shield. Can you even do that?
Action 1: Shield Bash
Action 2: Raise Shield 1
Action 3: Raise Shield 2

The idea of sacrificing damage for defense always felt appealing to me. A Guardian Protector Paladin!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:
It is kind of implied by the devs that Paladins will be the armored guys. Because what other class besides the fighters love going into battle with heavy armor?
I'm still hoping this isn't true. While I understand giving fighters weapons, I don't like the idea of attaching armor specialty to a class that also has moral codes.

I just hope that the Paladins are more flexible with their alignments just like how the Clerics can be flexible with theirs. No more Paladin, Anti-Paladin, and "neutral" paladin aka bad archetypes and not Cavaliers.


Captain Morgan wrote:
42nfl19 wrote:
Why no mentioned of ranged or thrown options? I see one mention of bows in this whole post. I feel weird that in a whole blog about weapons, you only have one spectrum of them and not the other. Sure hitting things is fun but sometimes you want to hit things without getting close. In the old blog post about the fighter it was mentioned that Paladins will have a thing with armor. Does that mean Rangers will get more talk with ranged weapons? I don't really want to combine Paladins/Armor and Rangers/Ranged weapons in single articles.
I also noticed the lack of ranged discussion here, but the Fighter blog did have a couple mentions of things they can do with bows, so it looks like ranged weapons will be a valid specialty for them just as much melee. (Also, I don't think they actually said Paladins are gonna be the armor class. That is an assumption by the community, though I think it is a pretty good one.)

It is kind of implied by the devs that Paladins will be the armored guys. Because what other class besides the fighters love going into battle with heavy armor?

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Another thing to note, is that you didn't mention any proficiency with armors, is fighter not getting armor training (so to speak) in this edition? Are they still proficient with all armors and shields at level 1?
He does still have armor proficiency, and it does improve a bit for him, but for the fighter, we decided that weapons were his prime focus. This leaves a focus on armor for another class...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why no mentioned of ranged or thrown options? I see one mention of bows in this whole post. I feel weird that in a whole blog about weapons, you only have one spectrum of them and not the other. Sure hitting things is fun but sometimes you want to hit things without getting close. In the old blog post about the fighter it was mentioned that Paladins will have a thing with armor. Does that mean Rangers will get more talk with ranged weapons? I don't really want to combine Paladins/Armor and Rangers/Ranged weapons in single articles.


Mark, I don't know if you can tease this but will Paladins get the same treatment in alignment just like the Clerics? Or will Paladins be shoehorned into LG or Anti-paladin into CE and the only way to change that is through archetypes which kind of suck. I always found it weird that the two divine classes that one had more alignment freedom than the other when they both worship and gain their powers from their deity.


Mark Seifter wrote:
archmagi1 wrote:

At my table, channel was never used to heal. Because it underperformed every time someone tried it. The only character we ever had that used it regularly was a 3pp Channeler. I'm so glad to see that you can use it for something more productive.

I'd expect some cleric feats to give alternative uses for channel energy like the paladin in 1e had, similar to the status cleaning version in the blog post.

Logan listed one of those feats in the blog. Channeled Succor is an incredibly useful feat; it's actually even more amazing than it sounds when you consider that spell level matters for dispelling/removing effects (as per the spells blog), so you have a toolbox full of jacked up removal spells without needing to prepare them ahead of time.

Speaking of making channels better/flexible, will Variant Channeling be a built in default thing with the talk of Domains and stuff? Maybe a Class feat to modify your channels to access these boons/blights?

Also I am not sure if I missed it but has channeled healing been changed so that it targets allies OR enemies only? It sometimes feels like you have to get the Selective Channeling feat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
fujisempai wrote:
This has me wondering if deities each have their own interpretation on how their alignment is or if P2E is moving towards the "loyalty" system of alignment that was introduced in pathfinder unchained
You'll find out more about deities and how they work with cleric alignment soon!

I hope the talk about alignment and domains also leads towards more freedom for the Paladin. Good paladin, Evil paladin, and "neutral but not a really a cavalier" paladin. A paladin of a concept/domain if you will.


Mark Seifter wrote:
When discussing the spell slots, the spells for high ability score aren't just gone with no replacement; you also get more of your best spells automatically (2 of your best spells at odd levels, 3 at even without counting channel/domains, as opposed to PF1's 1 at odd 2 at even without counting channel/domains). While at very low levels, a heavily optimized character (starting at 20 casting stat and aggressively pushing headband) might be getting 2 bonus spells or her highest level from ability scores, that tends to be impossible to keep up by about level 5.

Bonus spells? Does that mean the Cleric has to learn spells just like the Wizard or am I misinterpreting something?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The decrease of spell slots is kind of weird to me. But I guess this is the interaction now that you can take lower level spells and slot them higher for more effects. I wonder if you get more or less spell slots overall at the end.

I know it is not strictly said here but do Clerics have access to all spells like before and don't need to learn them?

I can't wait for the Paladin reveal also.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am fine with having goblins as a player race. But they always came with the stigma that they were outsiders to be wary of and it was great to roleplay with. I just don't understand the Cha boost. Before they were -2 Str, +4 Dex, and -2 Cha. That thematically made sense. The were small creatures so they were quick and agile but on the scrawny side. They were also ugly and socially..not really nice. So these stats made sense. I just don't understand how they have a +Dex, +Cha, and -Wis with a floating mod. Dex and Wis make sense. They are quick and not really the wisest creatures but cha? The floating mod makes sense based on different heritages/bloodlines. Kind of like Humans are so flexible or how there are so many different types of tieflings with varying ability mods. Has it been explained how this ugly mug of a race suddenly got more charismatic? While stat wise this is a buff, thematically it just does not make sense to me. It almost makes me want to play with the old stat block if I were to ever play a Goblin in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looks like there still has been no mention of modifying the 10 barrier. i.e lowering the positive 10 side for more crit successes or increasing the negative 10 barrier to decrease the crit fails.

Mark, is crit fishing still a thing in PF2? It seems like if you want to crit hard and often you just increase your to attack numbers as high as you can. There has been no mention of confirming crits also. It just happens if you hit hard enough. In PF1 you could modify your crit range, damage, confirmation ,etc. Meaning you did not necessarily have to have a super high to hit bonus. So it felt cool that your damage burst out really high sometimes. Unless this information has not been revealed yet like a weapons blog to explain this mechanic.


It shows in the art that the rogue is twf with 2 different weapons. Has PF2 fixed the "problem" that to be "optimal" both twf weapons had to be the same? Certain feats/class features made you literally focus on a certain weapon so to get the full benefit you would need 2 of the same weapon.


So to get a confirmation from the Devs cause I think this thought has been implied but, Do class feats for the rogue equate to the old rogue talents in PF1? In the act of "unifying" or trying to standardize stuff, it can sound confusing also at times.


Since crits seem to revolve around 20's or getting 10 greater than AC, are crit builds even possible? It seems like being a big hitter and being a crit fisher is now the same. Just build/increase your to hit bonus. The cool thing about crit fishers is that you could crit and not really need as high of a to hit bonus. I could be wrong though. Will PF2 have an equivalent? A way to lower the 10+ barrier to crits? Like weapons that are more critable than others like before?


Before Power Attack use to be the go to feat for increasing damage for a strength build. In PF1 if you wanted to do something similar for a dex build,you could use something like Piranha Strike. Technically you could use Power Attack also for dex builds. It seems like the new Power Attack does not care if you use Str or Dex. How easy/hard will it be for someone to opt into a dex build this time around? There was mention of less prereqs when choosing feats. Or will it be the same where the optimal builds are Wizard/Int, Fighter/Str, Rogue/Dex, etc?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for all the hard work that you do. I did find one issue though. Not sure if this was intended but in the sources page for Potions & Poisons, I could not find any references to any of the drugs. I can't seem to find any references to any drugs by using the search bar also.

Examples can be found on the d20pfsrd from such sources as, Potions & Poisons, Alchemy Manual[Keif, Golden], Black Markets[Keif], and the Game Mastery Guide[Opium] and more.


Wouldn't RAI allow it to work? It seems like the itention is that an arrow can not travel to the shield if a wall is in the way. It seems that the total cover they are refering to has to block line of sight from attacker to shield. Since a tower shield is not being hindered by anything it would seem like it would atttact the arrow. The tower shield is the one attracting the arrow not the user. If it did not attract the arrow in total cover mode but it did in normal use, I would not conceptualy see the difference.

Also for the other question, that is referring to a user with a normal shield.


I have a few questions concerning the interactions of all these things. The first is this. What happens when you have a Tower Shield(in total cover mode) and the shield enhancement Arrow Catching?
I have drawn a simple picture to show the potential interactions.
Figure.

Black circle is the archer. Blue is the guy with the shield. The Red is the ally next to the shield guy. With the Enhancement, ranged attacks would target the shield guy as shown in Figure A. If there is an object which provides total cover which blocks the shield, the attack continues to the red target unhindered. But what about a Tower Shield? The shield is the one with the enhancement but also is the total cover. What should happen in figure C?

As another question, what happens if a shield bearer also has Deflect Arrows or Missile Shield? Can he deflect the arrow that he himself attracted?


OK follow up. I found where I read up that you need a strength check to remove a grappling hook. My question is, does this apply to the other grappling hooks? Are these "rules" specifically mentioned for the Grapple Launcher for the Experimental Gunsmith(Gunslinger) only?

Grapple Launcher:
Grapple Launcher wrote:
Grapple Launcher: The experimental gunsmith's firearm includes a special set of rails that allows her to slide a grappling hook over the barrel and fire it as a full-round action. The grappling hook anchors into anything she successfully hits with an attack roll, and the DC of the Strength check required to pull the grappling hook loose is equal to her attack roll to lodge it in place. A Disable Device check can remove it with a +5 bonus on the check, and a creature struck by the hook can escape it with a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check with a +5 bonus on the check. The firearm is powerful enough to fire a hook trailing up to 100 feet of rope, but throws off the balance of the experimental gunsmith's firearm, reducing its range increment by 50%.


So preface this by saying this issue came in a recent game where I tried to use a grapple bolt but was told I used it wrong. I thought I was in the right which lead me to read up on grappling hooks and different items which use them, imply certain actions. So here is a crude drawing which demonstrates different ways I think a grappling hook(and its variants) can be applied.

Diagram
A: Grappling Hook catches on a lip
B: Grappling Hook jams its self on the facing getting stuck
C: Grappling Hook can work on an edge
1)
Let's ask the first question, does a grappling hook/arrow/bolt need a specific orientation or placement for it to work? Some wordings says target object or structure with out stating what form it is?
Example: Steadfast Grapple
If yes, we can try and answer the next questions, if the rest is moot.

2)
Next lets go with a normal Grappling Hook. I assume when you throw it, it has to catch a lip i.e. position A. But can a grappling hook be thrown and used like in C?

3)
Now Grappling Arrow/Bolt. Do they function as A? or do they function as B? My thinking is that because you are firing an object it has the force or strength to lodge itself. OR that you are only firing to get effect A cause throwing it is harder. I side on B cause 2 other objects(while magical) reference that it hits the smooth surface or whatever. Cornerstone Crossbow. It mentions "to anchor on corners and walls of structures". Another item is the Caver's Bolt. It says "chooses a solid surface within weapon range".

4)
Now if Grappling Arrows/Bolt do B is true, another question comes up. I read somewhere that removing a grappling arrow/bolt is a strength check vs the attack which hit the wall.
i.e. Ranged attack roll with a crossbow is 1d20+8 and I get an 18. That beats an AC of 5 to hit the target object/structure. Now to remove said arrow/bolt I need a strength check vs DC 18. Can anyone source me on this? I read it somewhere or maybe I was imagining things.

Overall, any closure would be great.


I was able to find this for third party sources.

Power Word Spells: Lore of the First Language- Super Genius Presents.

If you have anymore, I can start updating this list.

For the Occult classes, when I have spare time, I am just going to make a comparison to other known spell lists and see which are similar or common. From there we can somewhat justify which word list we can use for them.


Azten wrote:
I think a number of cheap pdfs from Paizo expanding on the list would do well. I wasn't disappointed by the ones I bought from 3rd party publishers.

There are third party word lists? Care to share who or where?


For the occult classes, are any of their spell lists similar to other classes' spell lists?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a question but I am not sure if this is the right board to ask.

For those who do not know, Words of Power is a magic rules variant which enables players to lego block build spells. As I was looking through the Word Listsfor certain classes, the word lists were not updated for newer classes.

Hybrid Classes[Bloodrager, Shaman]
Occult Classes [Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, Psychic, Spiritualist]

I mean if it was as simple as the Arcanist(Hybrid class) which just pulls from the Wizard/Sorcerer spells list it would be simple.

For the Bloodrager you could say he pulls from the sorcerer word list and the Shaman maybe some weird combo of Witch and Oracle.

I would not even know where to start with the Occult classes.

This would be moot point if Paizo decided to stop supporting Words of Power for future classes with spell casting capabilities.


I have a question on Challenge Evil and maybe mind-affecting spells in general.

In my game I have a Paladin with this spell. Now that is all find and dandy but he has a Squire Paladin who will eventually gain spells also. What happens if they both cast Challenge Evil http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/challenge-evil on the same target? Will second application of the spell override the first application those changing "ownership"? Or will both paladins double team the enemy where he is always sickened unless he has an aoe/multi attack that can hit both paladins?

This question was for Challenge Evil but what about other mind-affecting spells in general? For example: Dominate Person? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dominate-person Do both dominators share the creature or does the second one override the first one? Can the second one even be applied?


With a level dip Wizard(Spellslinger) you can channel your magus spell through your arcane gun first. Arcane gun says you can channel ANY spell through it unlike a Magus' spellstrike which specifically calls for a spell in the Magus spell list. So sack a wizard spell to enchant your gun +1 as a swift one turn, then swift another turn to +1 again with arcane pool. Then when your gun all beefed up, channel your Snowball spell(the ranged equivalent to shocking grasp) through your gun with a +2 to attack or +2 to save (but do mudball if you want a better reflex save maybe), then shoot your enemy in the head with a ranged spell strike. So its like throwing a snowball at kid's head with a rock in it...but the rock is a bullet. And we haven't touched ranged spellcombat yet so get ready to chuck another ro- I mean bullet at him. Now if you use ranged spell strike you don't attack vs their touch ac...wait a minute you do if you are in the first range increment with a firearm WHICH YOU HAVE.

Now if I am wrong in any of this rambling, please correct me.

(This "build"/theory craft is based on a Wizard1(Spell Slinger),Magus4(Eldritch Archer) so the numbers are sure to change)

Edit: Snowball has a saving throw effect for staggered. So if you want to raise the DC to that you can, but I think it's better to get the +2 to attack.


I am sure this was mentioned but I don't have the time to go through all the posts but what what happens to the spell Cleanse and Persistence Inquisition? Cleanse is a standard action which enables you to remove the Nauseated effect. But per the rules you can't even use the spell. Kind of like a catch 22 of sorts. Does this mean nauseated should be removed from the spell? I mean you can't even use the spell on other people effected with nausea cause it's range personal. Persistence Inquisition gets Inner Strength which enables you to remove nausea with a swift action. But then again you can't use it cause only move action. If Inner Strength were allowed then you could somehow allow Lay on Hand where a paladin with with the Mercy for Nausea could self remove as a swift action. Lay on Hands does not need a concentration check to use in combat so technically it would not break the nausea clause where you can't do actions that you need concentration on cause you never needed concentration checks for it in the first place?

Please correct me if I am wrong in any of this rambling.

Overall, if the Nauseated effect is stand-firm in it's wording, does that mean there needs to be a FAQ or changes to all abilities that clear the nauseated effect from the self? I mean all abilities that target the user themselves. Lay on Hands with the Nauseated Mercy could still be used on players but cannot be cured on the self.


I'm a little confused. In this FAQ, it implies that it should be ok?
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9thg
You have Deeds as the main feature and the deeds inside are the sub features which are changed. Is deeds FAQed differently to say otherwise?


I need a clarification for the Siege Gunner archetype for the Gunslinger. The archetype changes the normal classes Deeds but they way it does makes it confusing or conflicting.

"A siege gunner swaps a pair of deeds of her choosing for the following."

Ok this implies that to use the new deeds from the archetype you can trade any deed for the new ones. Does that mean you can choose to not trade and keep your normal deeds? Besides that, when you look at the new deeds, it tells you that you can only trade for these specific deeds.

Targeted Blast (Ex): At 1st level, when using a firearm or siege engine that targets an area rather than a specific creature, the siege gunner can spend 1 grit point to focus the brunt of the blast on a single creature within the target area. The target creature takes 1 additional point of damage for each level the siege gunner possesses. This is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit. At 5th level and for every 5 levels the siege gunner possesses beyond that, she can select an additional creature to target with this bonus damage. Targets must be selected before any attack rolls or saving throws are made. [[This ability replaces deadeye.]]

Scattershot (Ex): At 3rd level, if the siege gunner has at least 1 grit point, she can increase the effectiveness of scattering shots from hand-held firearms and blast shots from siege engines. The cone radius of scattering shots or blast shots increases by 5 feet for every three levels the siege gunner possesses (to a maximum of 30 feet at 18th level). [[This ability replaces gunslinger initiative.]]

Overall, the reason I am asking is for the sake of stacking different archetypes. I want to combine this with Pistolero but they both modify Deadeye, but with different interpretations of Siege Gunner, it does not so it is able to stack together.