Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Clockwork Librarian

AndIMustMask's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,435 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,435 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

QuidEst wrote:
As opposed to entanglement effects, which are save-or-stuck.

would plane shift be a 'save-or-oh f@%&' ?


Ravingdork wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Mark, how would you treat the Elven FCB for the Rogue considering that Minor Magic is now at will?

seconded.

(my vote is 1/4-1/3 of another at-will cantrip)

because they're CANTRIPS

I imagine they will change it to 1/2 major magic per day.

i'd be comfortable with that as well.


Alan_Beven wrote:

To be clear for me, for those who are saying this new system "cripples classes", what you are saying is that say a fighter can attack 3 times in a round with say power attack, and for example a Paladin must spend one action to activate Smite Evil and hence will only attack twice in that round? So the "crippling" is that you essentially can attack one less time per round when you wish to use some of your other powers? I am far from a rules expert but I have not seen anything that is prevented with these new rules, it seems like some things just no longer happen in a single round as they used to? And hence now are less fun?

I am genuinely interested in these responses as I am considering using this system with my players, but I don't want to make the game less fun for them.

so far it seems that it completely kneecaps the cavalier, lessens diversity in the magus even further (spell combat+spellstrike und nussing else), and classes that have a swift-action 'now i have class bonuses' abilities get tied up.

said class abilities have to meet or pass that missed attack in overall usefulness in order to not have been a waste (since you could have just taken that third attack and contributed more to the fight).

it gives the swashbuckler the extra swift actions it begged for... at the cost of everything else i could do in its turn instead, similar with the warpriest's ability and paladin/inquisitor casting.

'lotsa' natural attack builds are no pretty much dead but 'big hit' natural attack builds are terrifying now (a t-rex can now [bite->grab->swallow] up to three party members in a single round), twf is now far more attractive, a lot of action shift class abilities/feats are now useless (rapid reload is now in a weird place, brawler and investigator abilities for their core features now do nothing, etc), casters are now less mobile, and nobody gets a 4th iterative anymore unless they have haste.

on the upside, new players don't have to juggle the different action types (a MAJOR hangup for my newest group), and you can move -> attack -> move (or) move -> attack x2 (or) attack -> move -> attack etc, all from level 1, which is HUGE for martials (but causes the earlier mentioned dilemma for classes that cost actions to activate their core class features).

have i missed anything guys?

overall it's a mixed bag. a good deal of the current meta either doesnt work or works far less efficiently--while stuff that was previously subpar are now a great choice with the right application.


the loss of the courageous enchant kinda hurts (since it was one of the only classes not named bard that could really use the thing), and there's less knock-on effects all around as pointed out by Taja the Barbarian.

stances seem good, though why would someone take the other accuracy stance over accurate--the latter doesn't impose an AC penalty for the same bonus, and even has another power to boost it for concealment stuff! i'm expecting a feat later that shifts rage stances from a move action to a swift action (even without it you can use a runners shirt to take it as a freebie when combat starts).


Imbicatus wrote:
Mark, how would you treat the Elven FCB for the Rogue considering that Minor Magic is now at will?

seconded.

(my vote is 1/4-1/3 of another at-will cantrip)

because they're CANTRIPS


Epic Meepo wrote:
Lance Manstrong wrote:
There is a pelvic thrust style strike but its limited to attacks with the pelvis and its not available until level 18.
It also costs 4 ki.

and is a 1/day standard action.


Personally:
i'm definitely adding the stamina/featboost mechanic (free for fighters, errbody else needs a feat), variant multiclassing, skill unlocks (free for rogues, errbody else needs a feat), automatic bonus progression (this is almost literally the chart i made earlier for a homegame, feels good), and the new poisons/diseases mechanics.

i'm considering (pending input from my players) changing over to the action economy overhaul (with some minor houseruling), and active spellcasting rules.

also eyeing the alignment shifts/affirmations + alignment feats and wound thresholds systems because they seem pretty cool, but more bookeeping on my and the payers parts has me kinda wary of them.


Kudaku wrote:
Flame Effigy wrote:

So how do Greater Grapple and Rapid Grappler fuction with this new system?

How do lots of things in general work that change something from Standard -> Move or Move- > Swift. Do they just do nothing now?

Generally speaking, a standard action takes two actions and a move action takes one. So something that goes from standard -> Move usually goes from 2 actions to 1 action. Swift actions are still one action, so Move --> Swift makes no difference now.

getting swift -> free ones is still great though (rapid reload on gunlsingers is a waste unless they're using alchemical cartridges--hooray build and ammo diversity!)


i'll say most of 1-9 is definitely agreeable (although for the bonus feats thing i'd give the condition that you must meet the bab/skill rank/level prereqs for such feats since full bab is a thing now), but for 10 i'll say that elbow smash is fine.

yes choosing between it and flying kick is a pain, but an extra full-bab attack in a round that you're already flurrying is a lot (even moreso if you go for enforcer+hurtful). that it's nonlethal-only seems fine, since if they hit zero hp from lethal+nonlethal they're unconscious and can be CDG'd anyway (one of the reasons i was yelling at mark about the kineticist's ridiculous playtest costs). yes things are immune to nonlethal, but things are also immune to magic, and sneak attack, etc.


a lot of wizards' nastiest spells usually require either a party member or a summoned monster to actually finish the target off (the bigger control spells--pits/clouds/rays of prismatic light), which is fine--it promotes SOME sort of co-dependency/teamwork until the wizard gets simulacrums or summon monster down to a standard action.

when it gets to the point that the wizard can come in and go 'aaaand you're dead and youre dead and youre REALLY dead' without any aid or cooperation with the party (while invisible and able to teleport out instantly if things somehow get bad) or even effort on his part--he just lists off what spells he's using and on whom and marks the spells cast off on his sheet. it falls to the monsters to either roll well or keel over--that it becomes an issue for me (because this is a team game and everyone should have a chance to contribute).

thankfully most of that is solved by asking 'hey, could dial it back a bit?' to the wizard player who's a reasonable guy and swapping to the Active Casting alternate rule.


(dotting for interest, might drop some builds/advice in a bit)


Tels wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Money Advantage where?

nowhere, since he still has to shell out dosh to cover his armor disparity until his WIS gets high enough to count (still needs it if he wants armor enchants even then), and freeing up the neck slot for the amulet of natural armor helps his money a bit and makes him not need to pay the class ability tax for barkskin.

nice quality of life upgrade.

Remember though, the Monk never gets disarmed for the king.

#unarmedOP

which he is paying for by not being able to wear armor/shield/medium load+ and lots of feats/abilities/items to make it competitive with simply using a weapon.


ITWF has a bab requirement of +6, not sure he can take it at 1 without retraining at a later level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Money Advantage where?

nowhere, since he still has to shell out dosh to cover his armor disparity until his WIS gets high enough to count (still needs it if he wants armor enchants even then), and freeing up the neck slot for the amulet of natural armor helps his money a bit and makes him not need to pay the class ability tax for barkskin.

nice quality of life upgrade.


SAMAS wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
edit: I would like to say that no class in the game is more "anime" than a Sorcerer. You get "special powers" that grow and progress with you. You make special secret hand signs while shouting magical words to unleash powerful juts-I mean "spells." You fly and rend reality and logic easily and without remorse.
Sounds a bit like Super-Sentai... >.>
No, that's Synthesist Summoner.

RIDER KICK!


Puna'chong wrote:
So then don't use it.

yes, that's what he said he's doing.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Because it allowed move, cast, teleport. It was a rare and unique combination that made the teleportation subschool interesting. It really allows a wizard to think tactically on the battlefield without have to resort to flying or invisibility. That cannot be accomplished under this action economy; you need to choose between full moving or, for most of your career, a short form of teleport. Still useful, but not nearly as interesting.

I like swift actions; they have an interesting flavor and allow for combinations of unique activities. I fear that notion is so baked into the system that such a radical change cannot accommodate the myriad rules made based upon this assumption.

Find a way to give martials pounce abilities; leave the action economy system alone.

couldnt you do that with this system as well? i thought the teleport was part of the casting, and casting a spell is only 2 actions, so couldn't you [move][cast] to teleport anyway?


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
I know there's not a whole lot of caster sympathy out there, but this pretty much ruins the teleportation subschool. I don't like it generally, a lot of classes are build on swift and standard actions; it's a nerf to all classes that have powers based on that. Luckily, it's optional, no need to utilize it.

wait how is it a nerf to teleportation?

it's always ended your turn after use (unless you've got dimensional agility, which also works in this system), so it doesnt seem much different to me.

then again i dont play casters too often, so if im missing anyhting really obvious please enlighten me.


Scavion wrote:
Redblade8 wrote:

I just noticed that sneak attack is now only spoiled by total concealment, not just concealment. That's pretty big, isn't it?

Ghorrin Redblade

Yup. Means a thug in an alley isnt a total pushover anymore.

but only if he's a rogue, not a slayer.

(it's not as if a slayer doesnt get his own tricks though.)


i was considering vmc, but it took too many feats away (turns out stealth is pretty intensive!) to really justify it.


reposting form the UC rogue general discussion thread:

AndIMustMask wrote:

So i've been fiddling around with things for the unchained rogue, and here's what I've come up with:

Spoiler:

half-elf unchained rogue 20
FCB: 18 human (+3 talents), 2 hp
Alt racials: dual-minded (+2 will)

example stats (dex>cha>con=wis>int>str)
base: str 10, dex 16 (5+2r), con 14 (5), int 10, wis 14 (5), cha 14 (5)
final: str 16, dex 32, con 20, int 16, wis 20, cha 24
+5 dex (level), +6 all (gear), +5 dex/+4 cha (book/wish)

traits - river rat/reactionary

edges
5 - stealth
10 - perception
15 - sleight of hand
20 - escape artist

talents
2 - combat trick (TWF)
4 - minor magic (detect magic at-will)
6 - fast stealth
6* - major magic (chill touch 8/day)
8 - ninja trick (pressure points)
10 - double debilitation
12 - slippery mind
12* - crippling strike
14 - opportunist
16 - improved evasion
18 - ???
18* - ???
20 - ???

feats
1 - skill focus (stealth)
1* - weapon finesse (dagger/???/??? +D2D)
3 - eldritch heritage (shadow 1)
5 - steadfast personality
7 - hellcat stealth
9 - ITWF
11 - improved eldritch heritage (shadow 9)
13 - dampen presence
15 - ???
17 - ???
19 - ???


-pretty much always attacks touch after level 6 (helps offset TWF penalties and low bab)
-can inflict 2 debilitations + stat damage (str or dex) on sneak attacks
-has HiPS light+dark+blindsight/sense at levels 7, 11, and 13 respectively, moves full speed during stealth at no penalty, and the stealth-break sneak attacks last all turn instead of a single attack (depending on stealth ranks).
-fairly MAD, but gets both wis and cha to will saves as well as slippery mind.

kinda lowish on accuracy, but after activating chill touch and you get an AC debilitation on them you're all set for the most part.

the build becomes MUCH more flexible with the action economy rework, since he could [move or step+stealth]+[TWF]+[ITWF] for four sneak attacks and loads of debuffs pretty much every round.

- - - - -

Thoughts? suggestions? any glaring flaws i missed?

edit: fixed


So i've been fiddling around with things for the unchained rogue, and here's what I've come up with, at least initially:

Spoiler:

half-elf unchained rogue 20
FCB: 18 human (+3 talents), 2 hp
Alt racials: dual-minded (+2 will)

example stats (dex>cha>con=wis>int>str)
base: str 10, dex 16 (5+2r), con 14 (5), int 10, wis 14 (5), cha 14 (5)
final: str 16, dex 32, con 20, int 16, wis 20, cha 24
+5 dex (level), +6 all (gear), +5 dex/+4 cha (book/wish)

traits - river rat/reactionary

edges
5 - stealth
10 - perception
15 - sleight of hand
20 - escape artist

talents
2 - combat trick (TWF)
4 - minor magic (detect magic at-will)
6 - fast stealth
6* - major magic (chill touch 8/day)
8 - ninja trick (pressure points)
10 - double debilitation
12 - slippery mind
12* - crippling strike
14 - opportunist
16 - improved evasion
18 - ???
18* - ???
20 - ???

feats
1 - skill focus (stealth)
1* - weapon finesse (dagger/???/??? +D2D)
3 - eldritch heritage (shadow 1)
5 - steadfast personality
7 - hellcat stealth
9 - ITWF
11 - improved eldritch heritage (shadow 9)
13 - dampen presence
15 - ???
17 - ???
19 - ???


-pretty much always attacks touch after level 6 (helps offset TWF penalties and low bab)
-can inflict 2 debilitations + stat damage (str or dex) on sneak attacks
-has HiPS light+dark+blindsight/sense at levels 7, 11, and 13 respectively, moves full speed during stealth at no penalty, and the stealth-break sneak attacks last all turn instead of a single attack (depending on stealth ranks).
-fairly MAD, but gets both wis and cha to will saves as well as slippery mind.

kinda lowish on accuracy, but after activating chill touch and you get an AC debilitation on them you're all set for the most part.

the build becomes MUCH more flexible with the action economy rework, since he could [move or step+stealth]+[TWF]+[ITWF] for four sneak attacks and loads of debuffs pretty much every round.

- - - - -

Thoughts? suggestions? any glaring flaws i missed?


Dekalinder wrote:
Wait so with this haste gives an extra attack at minus 15? that probably makes it the worst third level spell in the book. Talk about a fall from grace.

for everyone but pummeling style monks, yeah.


rogues/slayers can now [move+sneak][attack][attack] with this system.

at first glance it seems like it'd work fairly great with TWF/ITWF--even better with HiPS or the stealth rogue edge/skill unlock.


Blackbot wrote:

After reading this thread I feel like two things have been overlooked:

1. Yes, the AC-penalty helps with the rogue's 3/4 BAB. But you should note that to apply the penalty you have to hit your enemy first and even then it's only for 1 round - meaning that if you don't have that many attacks and only hit with one sneak attack, by the time your next turn rolls around the penalty is gone. Once you hit with two sneak attacks this changes because every sneak attack (and from how I read it not only the rogue's) prolongs the duration by one round, so from then on it gets useful.

2. Rogues will hate regeneration and fast healing now. ;)

with the rogue's new dex-focused abilities i'd think TWF would be a decent choice, especially if using the action economy overhaul (moving AND attacking is really nice).

still has accuracy issues until you can hit someone at least once yeah--and you raise a good point on fast healing and regen: are there any ways to cancel such abilities for a while?


might be a bit of a wait--folks are still toying around with it i assume.


jesus christ on a bicycle when did all the bots get here


CRB says you cant cast more than one quickened spell in a round, iirc.

most you could get is two (one standard+one quickened) in a turn, which is the same as the old system.


DinosaursOnIce wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

The relevant rule was posted earlier in the thread:

Core page 213 (Magic Chapter) "A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round."
This suggests that with four actions per round, you'd still have your normal limit of one spell plus one quickened spell.
Does that mean that a Magus under the new system can't use Spellcombat and Spellstrike in the same round?

spell combat packages the spell as part of the larger full-round action, and i thought spellstrike's action was (spellcast) + (free action attack to deliver it)


rant on teamwork feats and rogue playstyles:

Spoiler:
on the subject of lookout: having to force someone else to spend their precious resources (feats) to make sure you work correctly is exactly the kind of terrible gameplay the original rogue promoted, which is capital B Bad.

every class--E.V.E.R.Y. class, should be able to at least stand and function on their own (and thus have fun even if separated from the party). having every other class (we'll not talk about the original/unchained monk here, since the latter requires a PhD in optimization to make not-awful and the former is still fuzzy until i can get the pdf) do this and then one class says "No! You HAVE to position here and delay your own build progress to accommodate my class' playstyle or i will be completely useless!" is TERRIBLE for both players put in that position.

Now dont misunderstand me, teamwork is all well and good, and making characters that use teamwork to excel is also fine, but the line is drawn when that 'teamwork' becomes mandatory to keep one person at the table from pouting over their choice of a trap class.

now on the actual front of teamwork feats: were that partner who gets lookout either A) an animal companion or familiar (with high enough int) gained via the animal ally feat or other means, or B) a cavalier, inquisitor, etc. who either get the feats for free or have incentives towards taking the feats regrdless, then thats great. nobody's losing out on their end to help you out on yours, and that's just fine.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
they ARE however outweighed by WBL and feat expenditure until higher levels i'd think.

The numbers cited are already counting the WBL disparity (ie: they compare a +2 AoMF with a +3 weapon...the weapon actually costs more).

Feats you have a little more of a point, but I don't think it's enough of one to matter a whole lot.

sorry, i more meant WBL expenditure for/to the same effect

a +3 AoMF and +3 weapon are very different costs. as is a +3 bracers of armor vs +3 armor.

monk's robe can be counted as a wash, since most classes also have a '~15000g Class Ability Boost' item, and most martials have to put more money towards defensive items (jingasa, cloak or resistance, clear spindle ioun stone+wayfinder, etc), but items towards ki reduction or ki recovery are more WBL that most other classes don't have to account for.

the monk saves money on not having to buy an amulet of natural armor--if they traded a class ability for barkskin, a tax which is unheard of in most other classes--and used to be able to leverage their superior saves against having to purchase save-boosting stuff for a bit to buffer their larger purchases, but that's not the case anymore.


er, sneak attack isnt useless against undead and constructs anymore.

oozes and aeons are a different story, but they tend to annoy anyone not named wizard.

edit: ah, just saw that that was a bleed/nonlethal build.


they ARE however outweighed by WBL and feat expenditure until higher levels i'd think.


I'm still boggled at how anyone could think an unarmed strike isnt at LEAST a type of natural attack--it's not like you can equip your fists or equip your claws--they're there all the time if you have them.

I mean unarmed strike is specifically listed in the weapons table and everything as well, and spells and enhancements that affect either manufactured or natural weapons will affect unarmed strikes (or at least that's how enchants work with the clockwork arm at least).


Starbuck_II wrote:
kestral287 wrote:


Vivisectionist Alchemist VMC Rogue.

Not all that hard, honestly. And a rather solid use of VMC if you can get by without lots of feats (you can).].

Likely, they stack but weirdly, just normal multiclassing with sneak attack.

So normally rogue levels grants 1/1 levels to sneak attacks. But VMC feats are slower so they add slower toward sneak attack.
How much sneak attack do they grant and at what rate?
Then add that rate to the Vivi alchemist and viola you've conquered how they stack.

i think on the SA bit it's less of a question of IF they stack (both abilities specifically say they stack with similar abilities), but SHOULD they stack.

since having oodles and oodles of sneak attack dice to throw at things might seem excessive to some people.


@lorekeeper: your tiger vs dragon thing got me thinking--going without dragon style REALLY hurts your damage on the unarmed side, and you cant take both without MoMS (iirc, one of the few archetypes that actually still work with unchained monk)

that trades out flurry, which used to be a pretty hard sell outside of dipping monk 2 and never touching it again (flurry was your ONLY class accuracy booster in the old monk), but you can pick up TWF fairly painlessly as a monk--you're required to have a high dex already anyway

you could start with 16 dex--after racials, since everything and their dog has dex bonuses--and put your 4th-level stat point towards it, then pick up ITWF at 7th (was never a fan of GTWF, since an extra -12 attack usually wasn't a spectacular idea)...

.

anyway, this is all just musing. anyone else got ideas for shoring up the defensive side? before 19th level, preferably (#shotsfired #paizodevsdown)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
maalpheron wrote:

I like the new action economy rules, but they need some serious work. I dig that it was a subtle buff to martial characters (in general), a subtle nerf to casters, and puts the brakes on some of the cheesier builds, but there are a lot of unintended consequences born of the minimal page count they devoted to it.

Vital strike was the first thing I thought of, then some of the swift actions. For things like this, I think the best fix would be to go through them one by one and make a call rather than play them as written.

Some things that are swift actions currently, should be free actions using this optional rule, and some things that are currently standard actions (like vital strike) should take 2 actions. I'm fine with a character making a vital strike and a single normal strike at -5 in a round, but not 3 greater vital strikes.

I agree with everything here.

I also think the 5 foot step should revert to a non action.

I do like the reaction mechanic, but upthread someone mentioned some exploitation of it to cast an extra quickened spell, and that's not how it works. To use your immediate action, the spell must have a casting time of one immediate action. The only difference now is that your immediate action doesn't eat up your swift on your next turn, which is better game design.

er, were you referring to my houserule musing? that's exactly that--houserules (and still WIP ones at that)

Yes I was. Looking back at things like the Hexblade from Complete Warrior, and then at later classes you really see how the invention of the swift action happened. I'm not a fan, but I understand that some actions seem like they could be less of an act.

I think, not unlike the existing system for stamina, there ought to be new feats and redone feats to reflect the changes in this system.

i'd love to see a pamphlet or pdf just going over how feats and other abilities now interact with stamina/action economy overhaul.


master_marshmallow wrote:
maalpheron wrote:

I like the new action economy rules, but they need some serious work. I dig that it was a subtle buff to martial characters (in general), a subtle nerf to casters, and puts the brakes on some of the cheesier builds, but there are a lot of unintended consequences born of the minimal page count they devoted to it.

Vital strike was the first thing I thought of, then some of the swift actions. For things like this, I think the best fix would be to go through them one by one and make a call rather than play them as written.

Some things that are swift actions currently, should be free actions using this optional rule, and some things that are currently standard actions (like vital strike) should take 2 actions. I'm fine with a character making a vital strike and a single normal strike at -5 in a round, but not 3 greater vital strikes.

I agree with everything here.

I also think the 5 foot step should revert to a non action.

I do like the reaction mechanic, but upthread someone mentioned some exploitation of it to cast an extra quickened spell, and that's not how it works. To use your immediate action, the spell must have a casting time of one immediate action. The only difference now is that your immediate action doesn't eat up your swift on your next turn, which is better game design.

er, were you referring to my houserule musing? that's exactly that--houserules (and still WIP ones at that)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avadriel wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

.

Same goes for having 200HP, diving headfirst off a 500ft cliff into an antimagic zone, and getting up and walking away.

Its ok, pathfinder doesn't have facing so he still landed feet first.

actually those cat-step slippers or whatever set a rules precedent otherwise, since they specifically land you on your feet while wearing them, instead of automatically falling prone when landing after X distance.


Albatoonoe wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:

I always saw Swift actions and the 5-foot move as a patch to a problem with the system. They fact that iterative attacks made classes so dependent on the full-round that they needed a swift action to do anything else that was interesting. The swift actions were swift because because classes were often limited in what they can do.

I, personally, would rather have this system that opens up more options than the old one.

i'll agree that this system does open up a lot of options (it really does). I just feel it needs to be considerate of the classes that were unfortunate enough to be designed for the previous system--otherwise we'd need a whole wave of unchained classes (magus/cavalier/swash/etc) designed with this in mind so they're not tripping over themselves as they are now.

so far this new action economy makes combat more mobile (always a plus), slows down kiting wizards (good), and removes 1/4 of every full bab class' damage output--since even at -15, the barbarian, paladin, slayer, fighter, and ranger could still land that last iterative reliably--in the endgame (not a plus, but only affects level 16+ gameplay).

overall that's pretty great so far--i just want it to be a little better.

I'm going to start playing with it and see where things need adjudication from actual play, though. In theory some things might be terrible, but in actual play it might be alright. I'm hoping it's more alright than not.

i'd say keep folks posted (maybe with a thread or something later) for that, since a lot of my worries could just be making a mountain out of a molehill, as i tend to do.

i'd love to see some playtest logs for the new stuff once the pdf drops for most people.


Albatoonoe wrote:

I always saw Swift actions and the 5-foot move as a patch to a problem with the system. They fact that iterative attacks made classes so dependent on the full-round that they needed a swift action to do anything else that was interesting. The swift actions were swift because because classes were often limited in what they can do.

I, personally, would rather have this system that opens up more options than the old one.

i'll agree that this system does open up a lot of options (it really does). I just feel it needs to be considerate of the classes that were unfortunate enough to be designed for the previous system--otherwise we'd need a whole wave of unchained classes (magus/cavalier/swash/etc) designed with this in mind so they're not tripping over themselves as they are now.

so far this new action economy makes combat more mobile (always a plus), slows down kiting wizards (good), and removes 1/4 of every full bab class' damage output--since even at -15, the barbarian, paladin, slayer, fighter, and ranger could still land that last iterative reliably--in the endgame (not a plus, but only affects level 16+ gameplay).

overall that's pretty great so far--i just want it to be a little better
edit: er, better right now, instead of waiting for four more books and as much money for paizo to finally patch the system, if they even do so at all--after all, wordcasting was pretty freaking neato, and it's never gonna see the light of day again.


Malwing wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

from what i understand so far, a houserule i think my table will be using (until we can put our heads together for a more elegant solution) will be:

-everyone gets 1 'swift' action free on their turn, additional swift actions cost one action.
-casting a spell (even modified with quickened spell or similar abilities) always costs at least 1 action, unless the spell is a swift action to cast to begin with.
-other exceptions to this rule exist, such as the magus or warpriest's class abilities (ones that bundle a spell to another action)
-'paired' natural attacks (such as claw/claw, wing/wing, etc) use a single action, similar to using the two-weapon fighting feat.

helps un-bone classes and monsters that got left in the lurch by the economy shift, still keeps spellcasting in its new less-mobile state.

thoughts?

also, im unsure how to handle vital strike-at one action it's strictly better than a single attack (slightly weaker than twf, i think), but at 2 actions it's FAR worse than just attacking twice.
i've also considered letting classes use their immediate/reactionary action for the turn instead of granting the free swift action.

.

edit: also @the t-rex comment(s) earlier: it's too bad crane wing is dead now, huh?

I would say something against spells being 1 act. It seems the paradigm is that anything that is a Standard or attack action turns into a 2 act action while anything that can be an attack or replace an attack is a 1 act action.

I think the more 'fair' house rule would probably be to have swift actions eat your reaction.

While the ruling pattern would make Vital Strike a 2 act action I would find it more fair to make it function like TWF where each feat handles a different iteration of attack actions. It functionally becomes a two handed weapon version of TWF under this system only slightly worse in exchange for the extra damage. Add in a generic dex to damage feat and they're about even.

using the reaction does make it a bit less of a no-brainer, yeah. also make combat reflexes for AoOs a bit mor attractive, since you could use your regular reaction for a swift action, and still AoO things outside of your turn.

anyway: casting a spell (2 actions) and then a quickened spell (1 action) in a single turn seems fine to me, since wizards can already do that--they're only really losing out on their mobility, which is fine.

then again with my ruling one could feasibly cast a swift-action-base spell (reaction), cast a regular spell (2 actions), and cast a quickened spell (1 action) in a single turn. hmm.

limiting it to divine-only would help keep the paladin/inquisitor and their spellcasting working properly, but seems too biased.

.

thejeff wrote:

Why would you ever not use Vital Strike in this system? An extra damage die for no penalty except the feat cost. Goes a long way towards keeping 2HF on top.

Of course, the reverse is also true, why would you ever use Vital STrike if it took 2 actions? I guess if you were very likely to miss at -10? Bonus to damage on your first attack, then a normal one at -5? Probably not worth the feat tax most of the time.

actually a thought occurs to me--why not have it cost 2 actions, but let people buffer it with their reaction?

so you could fit two 2-action vital strikes (2 actions, 1 action+reaction) in a single turn if you didn't move.

could give people who dont usually have swift action class abilities to take advantage of my rule's 'reaction trade' thing something to use it with.

applying it to other feats similarly might help that as well.


Rynjin wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

Stunning Fist, and related strikes, should function like a held-charge that only takes effect when you score a hit.

I like some of the new changes, even if everything is now ki dependent, as there were a lot of choices that were so situational they never were selected when you leveled up.

The issue is now upping the monk's ki pool enough to be practical.

i'd assume with near-mandatory vows, more wbl/slot taxes, and spending your general feats on--like everyone else does on their core class abilities!
Don't forget that taking Vows now removes the only thing anyone could reasonably consider to give you an "edge" in Will saves.

yep. paizo monk design at it's finest!

after all, the lord giveth, and the lord sayeth 'screw you monks'


Otherwhere wrote:

Stunning Fist, and related strikes, should function like a held-charge that only takes effect when you score a hit.

I like some of the new changes, even if everything is now ki dependent, as there were a lot of choices that were so situational they never were selected when you leveled up.

The issue is now upping the monk's ki pool enough to be practical.

i'd assume with near-mandatory vows/archetypes, more wbl/slot taxes, and spending your general feats on--like everyone else does on their core class abilities!


from what i understand so far, a houserule i think my table will be using (until we can put our heads together for a more elegant solution) will be:

-everyone gets 1 'swift' action free on their turn, additional swift actions cost one action as normal.
-casting a spell (even modified with quickened spell or similar abilities) always costs at least 1 action, unless the spell is a swift action to cast to begin with.
-other exceptions to this rule exist, such as the magus or warpriest's class abilities (ones that bundle a spell to another action)
-'paired' natural attacks (such as claw/claw, wing/wing, etc) use a single action, similar to using the two-weapon fighting feat.

helps un-bone classes and monsters that got left in the lurch by the economy shift, still keeps spellcasting in its new less-mobile state.

thoughts?

also, im unsure how to handle vital strike-at one action it's strictly better than a single attack (slightly weaker than twf, i think), but at 2 actions it's FAR worse than just attacking twice.
i've also considered letting classes use their immediate/reactionary action for the turn instead of granting the free swift action.

.

edit: also @the t-rex comment(s) earlier: it's too bad crane wing is dead now, huh?


okay wait, can someone clear this up for me:

we all know casting spells costs two actions (this has been brought up repeatedly, and is generally accepted as fine and balanced) unless you us quicken spell to drop it to a swift action (one action)

do spells that are already swift actions cost one action or two?


Malwing wrote:
I know I opposed the idea that it should have retained it's good will save. I think it could have extra HD or a good will save not both. It could have lost it's good ref or good fort and I'd have the same opinion.

i'll say that as a wis-based class i could deal with them having a lower will save due to it, but ONLY if they have a means to cut down MAD.

juggling four 'core' stats makes it so that lower will save isnt compensated for even with all the other wis-centric abilities incentivising investing in it--it's not like the monk doesn't want to have good wis, they simply cant afford to invest in it and not either:
-deal crap damage (low str as a combat class is BAAAAAD, and every means of getting another stat to accuracy/damage are very costly)
-have REALLY crap AC (low dex and/or wis, no armor allowed unless you're begging buffs off your teammates until level 3-5 if you can get +1 bracers and the barkskin ki ability tax)
-have crappy health (better HD alleviates this a little, but until you can get your AC managed you're GOING to take hits, and need hp to not die before then)
-have crappy class abilities (wis lots of class ability DCs, your AC, your ki pool, etc etc)

i mean the dcs don't usually matter much outside of stunning fist, since quivering palm is now COMPLETELY USELESS WHO THOUGHT STANDARD ACTION WAS A GOOD IDEA SMACK HIM

besides the barkskin tax this is all a completely different issue from their stupid and completely needless WBL handicap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

wait, unless im misreading this, marshmallow is the one who points out that apparently everyone's taking twf now, and then says 'we're just looking at class abilities not feats' when kudaku does consider the twf angle?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Personally, I think the more "absurd" martial powers should be considered Supernatural abilities. It's pretty easy to houserule, too.

That said, dual-wielding greataxes? Not really that much more absurd than a human being able to get a 30 Strength, or survive a fall into laval, or [arrow-related gripe]. Heroes are heroes. Choose your battles. Save your overthinking for the "I can split a mountain with my sword!" or "I can cause earthquakes with my hammer!" abilities.

odd that the mountain-splitting and earthquaking are seen as less possible while the bearded invisible flying guy calls in angels en masse to battle cthulu.

why cant everyone be a heroic demigod at high levels? at the upper levels you are regularly worldhopping and wheeling and dealing with planar overlords, why the hell CANT i play a properly Fantastic martial? Why do I only get to affect the world only within the reach of my weapon, while the wizard can wave a hand and vaporize a city. or summon an elder god. or change the weather. or stop time. or or or or OR OR OR

why is any of that absurd when the party wizard can just up and turn into a dragon when he wants.

Yes I'm mad.


Raltus wrote:

I think people are most upset be those "optimized" builds go right now the window, you can not longer 1 round the BBEG (although you probably could) so people don't like it.

If you don't want to adopt the system then don't, move along to another thread and let people who want to use the system and discuss the merits of it.

I know this is the first I have talked in the thread and I have been reading it since the launch of the thread, I am waiting for the PDF to be available to buy and put it into practice. I even think it will be good for helping introduce children to the system.

wanting a new and interesting thing to actually take existing class/ability design into account does not make one a muchkin.

as-is, a lot of classes get shafted class ability-wise despite (or even because of) the new action options in combat (large examples being investigators, the magus, the cavalier, the swashbuckler, and the warpriest, and it kicks the previously forgiving paladin spell list in the teeth). wanting that to not be the case is not a bad thing.

1 to 50 of 2,435 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.