Barachiel Shina's page

Organized Play Member. 798 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 798 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

After DMing Monks for so long from 3.0, to 3.5, to PF Monk....the UC Monk is by the far the most broken for sure from experience.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ugh, is there a way to convert new eidolon material for Unchained to make it for the NORMAL Summoner?

Not a fan of the Unchained one.

I think I figured it out. Fused Link works specifically for restoring temp hp provided by the eidolon which only happens if they are fused. But when split the eidolon is a normal eidolon so only healing magic restores its hp.

When a synthesist uses Split Form, can they still keep their Eidolon alive by using Fused Link class feature?

Secret Wizard wrote:

plz no strongheart halflings

What's wrong with Strongheart Halflings?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Damn it, I hate pushbacks so much.

Please tell me this book will involve changes to the Shifter that will make it playable and on par with the other classes?

I may be mistaken entirely, but I thought there was a build out there that allowed you to wield a spiked chain as if it were a double weapon?

blahpers wrote:
The primary benefit is that twin eidolon doesn't involve fusing with your eidolon--you take on the physical shape of your eidolon, and your actual eidolon remains a separate creature. Hence "twin eidolon". That's pretty strong.

Ok I think I get it now, I see. Yeah that is pretty strong. Alright thanks!

I am confused by the Synthesis capstone ability. It looks like it does everything that being Fused already gives you, so what's the point of it really?

Is it really only beneficial when you do Split Form? Such as splitting you and Eidolon apart, and then using Twin Eidolon to gain the same benefits?

What's the difference between it and Fused Eidolon and what are the benefits/cons?

Very disappointed in the lack of new Aeons in this book. Least we got more Inevitables, but kinda hard to run a campaign involving all the Neutral Outsiders when there is such a lack of them. GYST Paizo!

Waiting on another batch of Shifter fixes, Paizo.

Can Paizo just link to this version of Shifter and completely make theirs obsolete? Especially since they stopped working on fixing the Shifter entirely now.

How does terrain affect large spaces?

Say I have a Huge (3x3 squares) creature walking through an area that's only 2 squares long full of dense rubble. Does difficult terrain affect them?

What about, say, a 10 ft. x 10 ft pit and my Huge or Gargantuan creature is going through it. Is their movement normal or is it difficult terrain? What if they stop and are partially in the space?

Thanks to those who can direct me on what to do. I am in a situation where I have a Huge (3x3 square) creature with a 2x2 square pit in front of them, and a Wall of Stone blocking the other side. I was curious if my Huge creature can partially share that space without hindrance as they attempt to break the wall down (the creatures only have 10 ft. reach).

The Gold Sovereign wrote:
We now have 7 Inevitables, 8 Aeons, 14 Psychopomps and 10 Proteans. The "neutral" denizens of the outer planes are still far from the celestials and fiends in number and diversity, but fortunately Mr. Jacobs has said there are new Inevitables in this book - the ones with fewer members until then.

New Inevitables finally. I hope new Aeons as well.

The Mad Comrade wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Maybe there will be unarmored AC options for many classes in this one.
I hope so too, and that it is super-easy to 'export' to PF2e.

If you look at ENWorld's compilation of PF2e ruleset, NOTHING will be easy to export to PF1. It is its own RPG system barely based on the old.

I am the GM, I was hoping for clarification from the devs if they check this forum. Might have to message them directly.

Can someone explain to me Doom of Disenchantment? What if there is more than one spell affecting the attack, does this spell dispel ALL of them? Or is only one randomly chosen?

My one issue with this is not everything in it is "Standard Gunslinger friendly." I did notice some archetypes, thankfully, were but not all of them.

How would I make Alchemical Hotshot, Pale Slinger, Firearm Striker, etc. with a Standard Gunslinger? Those options would have been great.

Are we going to be seeing more updates to the wrongly unplaytested Shifter class soon? Or are we getting the shaft cause of PF2?

I wish Monsters had a way to increase their caster levels. Or is it now official that their spell-like abilities CL increases on a 1 to 1 ratio to their Hit Dice?

Menacing Shot says it functions as the Fear spell.

Meaning if the enemy passes the save, they're still Shaken for 1 round.

But if they fail, they flee in panic for 1 round/caster level.

But Gunslingers don't have a caster level. Am I to assume the enemy is in panic for 1 round/class level then?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am hoping we a get a "Gunslinger's Handbook" before PF2 is here. I doubt it though, Paizo doesn't care.

These Player Companions better be JAMMED with game material since PF1 is almost out the door

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just looking for ways to reverse engineer their feats to PF1e. Man, Paizo sure made the new edition as alien as possible to stop people from converting and staying with PF1.

The Debilitating Shot feat, how can I make that a PF1e feat? I am guessing Point-Blank as a prerequisites with Dex 15 as well. I am thinking the target hit makes a Fortitude save or is slowed for 1 round.

I mean, if no one in their department is going to reverse these to make them work for PF1e, I might as well try.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Well, first of all, they aren't screwing anyone over, so you need to get over that.

Second of all, I'd support this idea with my wallet, if only as an experiment.

Well they are to me, I want more options and new monsters for the material they have now. I would also like maybe a PF1 version of some of the PF2 stuff that's coming out, but for my PF1 games. Right now, if I want to support Paizo, I MUST play PF2E. If that's not screwing over the base, then what is?

Ok, thanks for the info everyone. Gonna check out Legendary Fighters and Everyman Unchained

GM Nitemare wrote:
Cant wait for this, the last PF book I will probably ever purchase!!!

Likewise, I can no longer support a WotC 2.0 after this myself.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's an interesting idea that can easily rake in a ton of cash while ALSO pleasing the community at the same time.

Why not support BOTH PF1E and PF2E?

Yes, I know what people will say. But I'm not suggesting they equally do both, as we all know that will split their resources when they really want to focus on PF2E.

I'm saying maybe they release just a few products per year, better than nothing, I say! Right?!

It's better than screwing an entire community over who still want official PF1 material and don't really like and want to be forced to play PF2 because everybody else is, or arguing why they should switch.

I'm pretty much hanging on a thread here hoping I can look forward to more PF1 material, even if it's just a miniscule amount.

This is utterly depressing me thinking about it. :'(

Is there a 3PP for Pathfinder that has more stuff for Fighters, specifically new Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training options?

Val'bryn2 wrote:

For everyone screaming about how all their stuff is useless now, you do realize that a booklet for conversions will likely be available, if not in the main rulebook itself? I'm planning on continuing to get the pdfs, probably going to continue 1st edition until I get the hang of 2nd edition, and see which is my preferred system.

One thing I might suggest, since everyone else is, perhaps mini-bestiaries in the Campaign Setting line, something to show the ecology of an area. Basically a larger version of what was in the back of the general nation books from 1st Edition.

Judging by all the PF2 information given on ENWorld, conversion to 2E is not simple at all. PF2 is entirely new system, a complete overhaul. Many many things are getting changed, hardly anything is being kept from PF1.

Many of the feats, classes, spells, archetypes and other options WILL NOT translate to PF2 well at all. What will happen is you'll have to sit around and wait for a PF2 version to be printed (again) and buy that product (again) or wait for a 3rd party website to throw it up since it's OGL.

It originally said the 28th.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
I'm glad to see that plenty of people who had reservations, have been more supportive of the idea of the new edition with every little bit of info the devs are giving.
Well, after the initial shock, I realized that I really do have enough 1e material to last me a lifetime, so I can happily keep playing it forever if need be. So once I got secure in that idea, it's easier to take tentative nibbles that maybe I could make use of *some* parts of 2e (like the APs).

The 2E APs are probably the only things us PF1 players will get use out of.

Considering the entire restructuring of their feat system, magic and spells system, and their monsters we are all screwed from harnessing any of the crunchy material from PF2 to our PF1 games.

Converting a PF2 monster to PF1, for example, is probably not going to be possible. Or may be with a ton of work.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Saw some more of the 2E Pathfinder rules today. It's all compiled on ENWorld.

It's no longer Pathfinder anymore. 2nd Edition is a complete overhaul and I hate it the more and more I read it. You don't want me playtesting it. I'll just be suggesting and pushing a lot of things to bring it more in line with PF1 again.

I expected this kind of garbage from WotC with D&D. WotC with the complete abandonment of the 3.0/3.5 community for their crap 4e and, then soon after, 5e, was why I left them and came to Paizo. Paizo showed the RPG industry that you can do an edition change without throwing away so much of the original material. This was why Pathfinder had the moniker of "3.75" but, to me, they are MY 4th Edition D&D. They were what 4E D&D should have been.

Now Paizo is just another clone of WotC, abandoning a great system like PF1 and giving us a completely new, different, and unnecessary 2nd edition.

The saviors have now become the perpetrators. Thanks for succumbing to the same mistakes WotC has made.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atavar wrote:

When asked about remaining hardcover rulebooks for Pathfinder First Edition, Erik Mona said the following:



This makes me sad.... :(

It has me pretty mad. They couldn't fit in at least one more Bestiary at least? As like a going away present for us who don't want to go to 2E PF?

That would be very very crappy of Paizo to not at least fix the Shifter before they abandon us 1e Pathfinder players for good.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

"Works better than everything that came since then" is major hyperbole and just wrong. If it did, nobody would have bothered to move on from 3.5 <_<

Like, I'm actually feeling very mixed here(I have spend a lot of little money I have) for "1e" products, but if nothing else, I guess year in future there will be finite number of them so I can actually buy all of them

Actually no one truly moved on from 3.5. Many came to Pathfinder BECAUSE it was a 3.75e

It was what 4e D&D SHOULD have been, I would argue.

The fact that many of the 3.5 material is very compatible with PF with minimal tweaking made it a very wonderful transition. The only things left in the dust were some of WotC’s classes (like Warlock, for example). It was specifically stated as a PILLAR to Pathfibdwr’s foundations.

Now they want to abandon it. And everyone who came on board with it with something more akin to 5th edition D&D than to Pathfinder 1e.

I’d rather play 5e D&D.

Brother Fen wrote:

Sad day. Instead of looking forward to the books that I've pre-ordered, now I just want to cancel them all along with this account. History repeats itself over and over. Out with the old and in with the newer dumbed down version of the game. Yay.


Pretty much. They lost a customer here.

I would prefer they continue to support 1st Edition PF, even if it means 1 product every few months. At least it's something.

To be completely abandoned (again, with D&D already having started that trend with 4e), there's only so much this gamer's soul can take.

The new edition sounds and reads like an overhaul, and not some kind of update/clarification/some new stuff/minor-but-important changes kinda thing.

So much for a Bestiary 7. Nice knowing ya, Paizo.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would it be too much to ask for ONE more Bestiary before Pathinder 2E rolls in? That would be nice. (This time with more Aeons and Inevitables)

22 people marked this as a favorite.

Along with another poster above, this was why I left D&D too. Edition changes bringing TOO drastic of a change. And I'm not liking any of this at all, it's too unfamiliar and too simplified and too...different.

Well, I am going to pass on this. I'm not liking what I am reading, it's becoming too much like 5th Edition D&D and Star Wars Saga and everything else that's getting too "streamlined" and "easy" and all it really does is dumb down and make less options in a game. Also makes transitions really hard. Really hard.

I jumped onto Pathfinder because it was easy to convert 3.5 material to PF system, but now I'm supposed to make a 2nd jump? And I can't even enjoy new goodies from Pathfinder 2nd Edition because it appears that while PF 1e can be converted to 2e, it doesn't seem like Pathfinder 2e can be converted to PF 1e.

Therein lies my problem. (Doubt it is anyone else's, but it could be)

Were I able to, say, purchase a 2e PF product but find that it wouldn't be easy to switch it to a 1E PF ruleset, then you lost a customer.

But when you make things like "10th Level" spells, for example, you're adding a dimension to the game that really shouldn't be there and making backwards compatibility too much work to bother with.

Edition changes are more harmful, I believe, than good because it separates communities and sadly this is where I part ways with keeping up with PF anymore and just stick to its roots in 1e.

The players are heavily experienced and know how to optimize, so I have to go extra hard on optimizing my "boss fights" in order for my players not to run them over in 2 rounds using little resources.

Well, my players won't be too happy to learn the fiendish fire giant Fighter 12 that they successfully blinded was able to use his dual-wielded earthbreakers to use Cut from the Air to block the gunslinger's barrage of bullets coming at him. That was the idea, but if rules suggest otherwise, I get heat. Mainly because my players eyeball what the enemies do, because somewhere along the line they will try to pull a similar tactic knowing how I ruled it before.

That SHOULD be a cool thing Fighters can get away with but Fighters almost never get the good stuff.

For feats like Deflect Arrows and Cut from the Air, they require the character to "be aware of the attack."

So what does that term mean mechanically speaking?

My best assumption is, if you're surprised in the surprise round. Such as a rogue sneaking up on you, you fail Perception, and they take a shot at you from their hiding spot.

Does this term rely on the character also needing sight to the incoming attack, or just simply knowing the are being attacked? For example, mid-battle my character is blind. He's aware of enemies present and attacking, he just can't see, but can he still use Deflect Arrows?

If the answer is no, then a follow up would be "Does Blind-Fight prevent this, since you keep your Dex bonus to AC when being attacked while blinded/can't see enemy?"

I am asking this because I have a fire giant fighter against the PCs, who wields two weapons and has the Cut from the Air feat. He was blinded by a PC spell, but he still has Blind-Fight. The Cut from the Air feat specifically says it USES an attack of opportunity, but it's not making an attack of opportunity, it's using one to make a melee attack against an incoming ranged attack in order to deflect it.

Can my Blind-Fight blinded fire giant who is aware he is being attacked still use Cut from the Air when some arrows get shot his way?

Does Blind-Fight allow AoO when blinded at least or no?

Oh they added more stuff in the FAQ. Just noticed. That's a good start.

So how much more fixes can we expect and when?

For my next campaign, I have a player wanting something Druid-like without the spellcasting and Shifter is right up his ally cause he likes martial types. But, sadly, until the Shifter gets the update it needs, he's not going to want to opt into it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I never knew this, but the Campaign and Companion lines also have errata. But it's for Organized Play, but looking at many of them it appears they are just as good fixes for core play. Why can't we get those into the core errata as well?

When exactly is this coming out? Next week is gonna be mid-Feb in fact.

Is it me, or is Starfinder causing the slump of new Pathfinder material? We used to have a PF Campaign and Player Companion product almost every month, but lately I have seen it every other month (and it looks that way for the future according to the schedule). Not that I have anything against Starfinder, but I thought Paizo was a growing industry yet it seems Starfinder is replacing some PF releases instead of side by side releases?

Dragon78 wrote:
Four months until the next campaign setting book. It does sadden me that they had to reduce the number of campaign setting books released in a year.

They did? What was the reason for that?

So the Adventure Path has come full circle? What made Paizo decide a Sequel to the first AP? I'm sure there's other themed APs that could have been explored.

For example, a Law vs Chaos kind of AP. (Where you can finally make use of Aeons, Inevitables, and Proteans and make more of them all!)

1 to 50 of 798 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>