Shoanti Tribeswoman

Arachnofiend's page

Organized Play Member. 4,280 posts (4,897 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Talek & Luna wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
I wonder why he didn't mention that when he was involved in this thread. Elemental resistances being less prevalent and weaknesses being more common is a rather big deal.
Mark is very careful not to give out major system revelations in random forum posts. Especially ones that will be covered with a blog later in the planned reveal progression. He often collates information that's already been revealed, hints at things, or occasionally even reveals minor stuff...but major reveals in a non-Blog Thread? Probably not gonna happen.

Very much this. Not going to drop spoilers before the blog, but happy to mention things in their due time.

Also, PF2 weaknesses are particularly good for AoE or DoT effects, as they apply a static amount of extra damage (the 1.5x calculation on the last page is using PF1 vulnerability). So if you are fighting a bunch of monsters with weakness 25 to fire, even a tiny AoE that does minor fire damage to all of them is going to be very effective.

Well I hope that monsters have been reworked to include weaknesses to spell damage more often. I do not recall a lot of monsters have spell damage weakness in PF1. (Red dragons & fire elementals not vulnerable to cold for example) Even in the PF1 preview, zombies have a slashing vulnerability with no magic vulnerability while skeletons get both resistance to non-bludgeoning and fire attacks

Casters have a telekinetic projectile cantrip they can use to take advantage of physical vulnerabilities. It'll scale up since it's a cantrip and I'm sure there will be other, higher level spells that also do physical damage as well.


Talek & Luna wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It'd be pretty surprising if Wizards suddenly sucked at using buff spells in PF2 considering that was one of their best options in PF1.
I wouldn't be. If blast spells are an indication, wizards are being nerfed pretty hard for no good reason

I'd point to all of the math done by good people like deadmanwalking that indicates that the blast spells we've been shown are fine in the situations they are intended to be used in, but I know you're not the type to listen to reason on this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It'd be pretty surprising if Wizards suddenly sucked at using buff spells in PF2 considering that was one of their best options in PF1.


That's disappointing but quite understandable. Should we take this as confirmation that the bonus blog isn't going to be ready this week either?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to look at the list of class feats for the various martial classes and think to myself, "Woah, I can do that now? That's so cool!".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Concept: What if being more effective with lower level spells used in higher level spell slots is a sorcerer thing?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
It's a nice-in-theory concept. Using Reactions for it helps it become something that doesn't just waste the Wizard's actions. But in practice it is not nearly as useful as the alternatives.
This implies that you have experience using counterspell as a wizard using the playtest rules.
Your response implies you know all the spells Wizards will have and have learned they will be massively limited so there's only a half dozen spells for each level so a Wizard could easily have memorized the spell... oh wait, that's not how magic in Pathfinder works, is it. There's dozens of spells for each spell level. Nearly a hundred for the low level stuff... so. How do you know which ones to memorize to counter them? Any Wizard worth his books will avoid the common spells so to avoid being Counterspelled.

You're really gonna just not prepare Haste because it might get Counterspelled? Is that really the position you're taking right now?


HWalsh wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Gorignak227 wrote:

Is the wizard still a SAD class?

I just realized that there wasn't any mention of any extra attributes needed for the wizard...

I assumed that they were trying to make all the classes a little more MAD after seeing that Cleric still requires charisma.

I don't think the difference between MAD and SAD is going to be that big of a deal since there isn't as much opportunity to sacrifice your weak stats to boost your strong ones with the new character building system. I could be wrong, and if I am I'll be sure to make note of it once the playtest comes out.

The only SAD class is Alchemist.

Everyone else, even Wizards, needs at least Charisma for scrolls, potions, wands, etc.

Even Alchemists aren't SAD because they rely on a physical stat for their offense (probably dexterity for bomb throwing but if poison ends up working out I could see STR Alchemists coming out of the woodwork).


Wermut wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


In other words, the portion of my post that triggered the "as it should be" in terms of doing less damage was the "without spending resources" not the fact it was a martial character doing it.

Apologoies, Mark, but I find myself coming back to this. For me, it's not that the Wizard can out damage just about any generic martial, it's that the Wizard has the flexibility to do that, and also do massive single target damage the very next spell. Or, choose spells that dominate for one setting and then change those spells the next adventure and dominate a completely different set of obstacles. Granted, there's a question of the quality of information that proceeds preparation, regardless, no random martial has that type of flexibility.

At the risk of repeating the same mantra, saying that a martial can do X if they spend the resources, isn't really a fair counter. Even if a PF1 martial could find an AoE build that could out damage a full caster, the martial is pot committed to that build. A caster is not.

In recent thread, Pandora talked about this as character "agency." Her complaint with the Fighter was that it lacked the agency of full casters. My response is that no class should have that type of agency.

Has there been any thought to restricting what spells can do? Why not put serious boundaries on spells and take away all the skill duplicates? Or, be far more restrictive on how many schools of magic a wizard can cast from. Sure, they can always have an offensive cantrip, but if they want skill duplication, then they don't get Evocation/Illusion/Divination. If they wand Evocation, then they don't get three other schools to cast from, scrolls/wands included.

Again, for me, it's not about the highest level of power, its the breadth of that agency, even if it is from day to day and not encounter to encounter. Fewer spells doesn't really address this.

I don't agree, if you ever read through guides and class builds...

You've never read the original God Wizard Guide, have you. All those other guides exist because Treantmonk broke the "do everything" Wizard very early in Pathfinder's run time, every guide that's come after it has been for people who don't want to manage a God Wizard and just want to spam fireball.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorignak227 wrote:

Is the wizard still a SAD class?

I just realized that there wasn't any mention of any extra attributes needed for the wizard...

I assumed that they were trying to make all the classes a little more MAD after seeing that Cleric still requires charisma.

I don't think the difference between MAD and SAD is going to be that big of a deal since there isn't as much opportunity to sacrifice your weak stats to boost your strong ones with the new character building system. I could be wrong, and if I am I'll be sure to make note of it once the playtest comes out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
thflame wrote:
If wizards are going to be able to do anything they want with magic, whats the point in playing a martial?

The trick, I think, is to make a Martial character's Skill Feats on par with equivalent level spells. That allows the Wizard to have the advantage of tailoring their spell load out, but the disadvantage of limited uses per day and having to select what they can do, while the martial character only has so many tricks, but can use them at will whenever they like.

Throw in Rituals (which are available to non-casters), and this becomes even more interesting, since they seem able to allow even otherwise 'martial' characters to access the versatility of casters but only at the cost of time and effort.

Gawd, it's so tiring explaining to caster-haters this exact sentiment. Martials can do this unlimited times per day, whereas casters are limited. Get over yourselves.

You're not going to have enough high flat walls you need to climb up in one adventuring day where the wizard can't cover it with spider climb. Furthermore, in the PF1 paradigm the martial can't climb this wall anyways because skills suck.

You get over yourself, and enjoy your nerfs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
A good reason to avoid bosses that are alone then.
That still doesn't fix the problem. Your allies and the enemy wizard allies can both work to protect their wizard but you BBEG is still having everything counter spelled so might as well of put him as a class that could of done something.

Counterspelling is really good in 5E with a certain build and this is basically what our experience was. Any time there was a caster of some kind among the enemies our party wizard would just force him to pass turn every round. He eventually switched to an evocation focus because even he wasn't having any fun with it, his build basically amounted to "my job is making less interesting things happen".


Trimalchio wrote:

Killing some level 3 monsters when they roll -10 vs the save against a level 9 character is pretty underwhelming, and we're already assuming they are all lined up in a cone for the wizard.

Of course since the wizard is getting +9 to their AC from just being level 9 the ogres will probably not even be able to hit the wizard anyway.

Blasting always been a sub optimal choice, but it starting to sound absolutely abysmal.

I feel like you need to temper your expectations if you expect AOE spells to keep up in single target situations. That's one of the many mistakes that made casters ridiculous in PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Suppose as a level 9 wizard *** So you're left with half the encounter insta-dead and the other half at about 1/3 health, fitting for using your best spell on a warm-up fight.

Is there place/blog where you'll talk about martials in a comparative fashion? As you can guess, I'm most interested in how the classes tackle similar situations and I'm sure you guys are looking at these things as well. I didn't read all of the Fighter blog, but I didn't see these types of examples.

thanks.

It'd be great if martials get some actually valid options for AOE. With how bad/costly to obtain Whirlwind Attack is in PF1 AOE damage is one of the many things casters have an exclusive stranglehold on.


Mekkis wrote:

My biggest concern here is that with the HP inflation we've seen in other blogs, the damage of wizard spells is less impressive.

With our CR3 ogre with 60HP, the fifth-level Cone of Cold (doing 11d6 damage) is very unlikely to take it out.

Even a ninth-level Magic Missile (doing 15d4+15 {average 52.5} damage) won't take it out half the time. And that's coming out of a seventeenth-level caster.

The Cone of Cold will probably kill the ogre, actually, since said ogre is low level with a bad reflex save and has a very high chance of critically failing that save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To put it bluntly, if there's ever a combat situation where it's a good idea to cast a "free" first level spell when you have ninth level spells available then I think we have bigger balance issues to be concerned with.


Xenocrat wrote:
If you select the abilities that grant boons to your wizard, you're presumably passing up on others, like deliver touch spells, speak with master, and whatever other stuff they had. Given the overall nerfs, I wouldn't assume the boons available are as good as Alertness and a +4 to Initiative were, either.

I sure hope you don't think they should be that good.


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Gibblewret_Tosscobble wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

So: They stripped away what few class features wizard's had and then gave them back as class feats.

Remember, Paizo is now in the boat where WoTC were when they ditched 3.5 for 4th ed, except replace 3.5 with pathfinder 1st ed and replace 4th ed with 5th ed.

They have to play catch up, shore up their bottom line, and simplify the game to get more people playing because that's the market now. The days of complex RPGs are going away.

Right or Wrong, it's what Paizo is doing here. They will out right deny it or at the very least push out some clever PR word play as to how that isn't the case but I'm not falling for it.

Me? I'll stick with 1st ed, and enjoy it's handprint on the rpg walk of fame and watch as people come out the wood work with great ways to balance it.

...Right, because making classes more modular and giving you more options to tinker with is simplified compared to "this exact suite of abilities is what you get".


Xenocrat wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Another question regarding Phantasmal Killer, what's this "mental" damage thing? Will their be monsters/PC options to get mental resistance?
Presumably mind-affecting immunity has been replaced by mental immunity and perhaps mental resistance.

That would be pretty bad since it would mean resistance against mind-affecting no longer does anything against mind-affecting spells that don't do damage, such as charms.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Another question regarding Phantasmal Killer, what's this "mental" damage thing? Will their be monsters/PC options to get mental resistance?


Fuzzypaws wrote:
I'd expect him to have an Exterminatus order on raptors and other carnosaurs, tbh.

I doubt Kurgess blames the raptors for what they used for; a raptor is just an animal that attacks and eats on instinct, the blame lies with the people who used those natural instincts for cruel purposes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?

You can pick one of those two things because they both happen to be class feats that require "Wizard 1". If they end up being the only 1st level class feats available to the wizard I would be pretty shocked.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I know the class blog isn't the appropriate place to talk about what makes a class worse in PF2, but this blog really does not alleviate my concerns about Wizards being universal problem solvers.


edduardco wrote:
Senkon wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
edduardco wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
I wouldn’t be surprised to see opposition schools go away, though.
I really hope so
Meanwhile, I'm hoping they make specialization and picking opposition schools /mandatory/, as part of reigning in the all-powerful generalist God-wizards who cherry pick all the best spells from every school without respect to theme or flavor.
Well Wizards to some people are things that lack specialization. They don't pick fire spells because they are arsonist, they pick whatever because wizards are whimsical amoral weirdos. Wizards really also just gets too many spells to pick one type anyway.
Exactly, thank you

Wizards can't be generalists and also the best at what they do. You're gonna have to pick one for the class to be even remotely balanced.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
edduardco wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
I wouldn’t be surprised to see opposition schools go away, though.
I really hope so
Meanwhile, I'm hoping they make specialization and picking opposition schools /mandatory/, as part of reigning in the all-powerful generalist God-wizards who cherry pick all the best spells from every school without respect to theme or flavor.

I mean, Wizards were already always picking a specialization (Divination, specifically) and just picking the crappiest schools for their opposition schools. Universalist Wizards sucked precisely because the Wizard that "specializes" in a school suffered practically no penalty for doing so and could still do basically everything he wanted to do.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
How is that useless? There's PLENTY of things that give flight to fighters. :p ;)

Clearly it's just supposed to be something that only works once you get to 9th level and can afford a Carpet of Flying. Leave it to a Fighter archetype to not be able to do the things it's advertised to do without outside help...


Well that's... largely useless. Teaches me to get my hopes up.


I assume the Aerial Assaulter Fighter gets some means of flying on his own, but... well, I'd still be curious to know more. :p

Actually, I'm curious if any of those air-themed feats give flying...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Remove the Wizard and replace it with the Silksworn Occultist.

I'm only half-joking.


Dragon78 wrote:

So big metal boots do piercing damage instead of bludgeoning. That doesn't make sense even the boots have spikes they should do both damage types.

If touch AC is going to be so close to regular AC why bother having it all.

The boots have the "Versatile B" property which indicates that they can do bludgeoning instead of piercing if you so choose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually agree with N N on that one, I'd much prefer the Wizard to be pushed more towards the "expert in a given field" territory than have him capable of just being the best at everything that isn't doing damage with a melee weapon. The generalist role is more suited to the Bard and other mid-casters who trade their broad usefulness for not being the best at anything.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My hope is that martial agency goes up and caster agency goes down. I'm not sure where exactly the happy medium is but there's definitely plenty of room for martials to do More Stuff without being as insane as casters are in PF1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I've done pure Fighters. They are totally viable.

You can run into some PFS problems, depending on the season, the year of the skill check was less than fun.

If all you do is try to min-max Str, Dex, and Con I can see issues, but I play a human Paladin with a 10 int and I've got 2 +Int (0) +1(human) skill points per level. Sometimes I toss my FCB to add a 4th.

If I can be useful (at times) in a skill, so can you.

Are you gonna beat out a Rogue, Wizard, or Arcanist? No.

However you, as a Fighter, have more play in ability scores.

Heck, I met a PFS Fighter, level 10, last week who has a +33 to intimidate.

The Paladin is a charisma class with diplomacy as a class skill... Paladins can be useful outside of combat with zero investment beyond that one skill point. For a Fighter to be similarly useful in face situations you have to burn one of your traits and put points into your least useful stat. Personally I tend to do this anyways because I like to play the damn game but I do it with the Barbarian because, y'know, Fighters suck.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand how someone can think fighting is the Fighter's niche. Literally every class participates in combat in some way. Some provide utility, some provide damage, some provide a mixture of both, but when every other class works both in combat and out of it you have to wonder what the hell the point of the Fighter is.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting tidbit for players in this blog: knocking someone prone makes them flat-footed and therefore eligible for sneak attacks. Trip Rogues incoming?


Totems will probably be a Barbarian thing, since they're a popular mechanic in PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Rysky wrote:
*are General Feats still a thing?
Yep! I believe they're at 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19. They're for things like getting more armor proficiency.

Erm, does that mean a Cleric of Gorum can't choose to be proficient in heavy armor right away? That sounds like a problem...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

Just going to say I feel uneasy at the Pathfinder Society inclusion.

IMHO that doesn't belong in Core game, PFS is distinct and shouldn't be here.
If it was generalized to grant "Lore in your choice of public organization" (which could allow PFS) then OK.
Having specific "PFS Lore" skill itself is dubious, although I can accept it if it is simply another
Organization Lore option amongst others listed in book, e.g. Hellknights, Worldwound Crusaders, Shackles Pirates, etc.
But baking in some exalted importance to PFS just doesn't sit well with me, leave that for Org Play.

It's not in the core game. It's in an AP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope the character creation rules make it feasible for a character with heavy armor proficiency to start the game with some type of heavy armor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm pretty sure the Paladin has this in the bag though I'd be happy to be surprised and for the Fighter to end up pushing through.
It's not a race, necessarily. All of them can be in the blog if they all make $500!

I read that, understood that, and ended up posting as if that wasn't the case anyways. Oops.

Hoping to get some interesting tidbits, then. Really want to see how far Paizo is willing to take Extraordinary abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They take the test of the Starstone. Results to be determined.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure the Paladin has this in the bag though I'd be happy to be surprised and for the Fighter to end up pushing through.


Blake's Tiger wrote:

I see each race has a floating ability boost and now backgrounds each have a floating ability boost.

Is there a reason why those two floating ability boosts aren't just removed from their respective homes and placed in a final customization: choose two abilities of your choice to boost?

It's because you can stack each step, but you can't put the same boost in the same place for an individual step. If the floating boosts were all put together it wouldn't be as clear that you can't use your second floating boost for strength because it lines up with your choice to be a blacksmith, for example.


Ryan Freire wrote:

The barbarian that flies cant pounce

The barbarian's dispel magic is weaker than a standard level 3 spell
The barbarian needs to invest 3 of his 10 feats in order to debuff effectively

This tells me that you didn't even click on the damned links, because I specifically used Elemental Blood instead of Dragon Totem so that the Barbarian can still pounce. Again, ignorance.


The Barbarian can fly.

The Barbarian can dispel magic.

The Barbarian can make strength checks no one else can.

The Barbarian can debuff his enemies.

The Barbarian does not need Endure Elements to survive harsh conditions.

I gotta be frank, anyone who thinks the Barbarian's capabilities come down to just DPR is ignorant about the class. That's all it is.


Who cares about the core Barbarian? The class's identity has evolved over the years and become more distinct and I see no reason why Paizo would dial back on that when the class's fans readily identify it with stuff like the totem powers and Spell Sunder now. I'd be incredibly disappointed if the Barbarian got changed back into a purely Ex class and this forum would never hear the end of it.

I vehemently disagree with the idea that a character blessed by the gods must be better than one who's focused purely on martial training. Media is full of characters who are "just that good, baby", and we should be able to play that in-game.

Also, OG DnD sucked and nothing Gygax said is sacred. There, I said it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dominik D wrote:

im not rly more smart then before. it just is the new race boost with additional skil lboost.

will there be a rule to craft ur own backgrounds??
im not sure if i like these determened things....

and also. wtf is pf society skill?

Lore: Pathfinder Society means that you know stuff about the Pathfinder Society. It's a campaign background for the AP so it's fine for it to be setting specific.


I know Paladins were better than Fighters in PF1, but that's because the balance in PF1 sucked (Barbarians were better than Paladins if you knew what you were doing). I'm more talking about design philosophy than reality - should this be true, rather than is it true.

As an addition, saying Barbarians are just "self taught Fighters" is completely ignoring the way Barbarians actually worked in PF1. A Barbarian was more comparable to a Monk in the sense that they both weaved Ex and Su abilities together.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

All backgrounds confirmed to boost intelligence! Charisma fans, time to riot!

I kid, I kid. At first glance I don't see anything I dislike about this system, though that may change when the time comes to build a character. I like the note about "refluffing" the blacksmith background to work for a tinkerer or alchemist. That'd be a great point to put in the rulebook itself if it isn't already.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Felinus wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.
How about a role playing benefit?

TBH i disagree fundamentally with the idea that a roleplay restriction shouldn't give mechanical benefits. The design of the game is rife with them.

Paladins and clerics being beholden to codes and dieties
Various monk vows
Druid armor restrictions

PRC that require you to perform obediences daily for powers. Hell the whole obedience style feat group is roleplay restrictions in exchange for power.

The commonality, other than the monk vows is that these are classes, abilities and feats that are for characters literally suborning themselves to a higher power in exchange for mechanical benefits, so clearly roleplay restrictions DO give mechanical benefits.

Let me ask you this question: do you think the Paladin, Barbarian, and Fighter should be equal in mechanical capabilities - they get the job done in different ways, but they can all do the job - or do you think the Fighter should necessarily be weaker than the Barbarian, who in turn should be weaker than the Paladin?

1 to 50 of 4,280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>