Jamus Hainard

Biztak's page

Organized Play Member. 318 posts. 4 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 318 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Hello I just received an email telling me that my order has not been shipped yet and I was given the option to ask for a refund and at this point that is what I would like to do.

Thanks


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Huh I didn't think 16 was that bad of an AC. I'll do some more book diving.

Yes but he also wanted 18 strength which he didnt do because he thought it would be a bad idea since his AC would be 15


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I believe in another thread Mr. Seifter has mentioned "prevent Barbarians from falling to their doom, when flying during rage" is on their list of fixes to make.

Good to know


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Probably belongs on the class section but can I ask what was his AC, dex bonus etc.?

his Ac was 16, 4 from dex, 1 fron level and 1 from expert, he had 18 dex 16 str


AndIMustMask wrote:

small little snag: with the rage round limitations (3 rounds on, 1 round off) and only having a fly speed while raging, you can't really sustain flight (such as while chasing a fleeing enemy), and it makes flying at any height a big concern, as you apparently just drop out of the sky for a solid round (and i can't find anywhere that states the fall distance/round, which i hope is somewhere, as i want to have a dramatic chasm-fall battle into a giant lake that takes you to a snowy mountaintop somehow) once your rage is up, and then have to start flying again on the following round if you haven't already hit the ground from 40/80/120+ feet.

the ability is super cool in design, but kneecapped by mechanics.
(devs may want to consider adding a feather fall effect for non-raging turns in the ability effect)

Im aware of that shortcoming but its thematic, now Itd be better design to reduce the flying speed while out of rage instead of taking it away


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I ran Doomsday Dawn first adventure among my PC's there was a Monk, and he was really underwhelmed by the monks ACs, during the game he was the first to go down and was afraid to actually get in the thick of it due to his low AC.
he thinks Monks armor is too low and I have to agree they should be able to add some kind of bonus at certain levels to make their AC at least as good as Light Armor. As it stands the Monk has worse armor of any martial class reducing their staying power in a fight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Martials need better Feat Options specially at levels 10 and above. As it stands there is little incentive not to multiclass into a caster class. Martials get their toys either late, broken or with some assembly required, all of which make it easy to be left behind in a table with Players that are either playing casters or multiclassing into one.

Some feats for martials have questionable restrictions like the duration of the fear effect on Intimidating Strike for the Fighter which only functions seems to be setting up Shatter Defenses instead of being a solid option on its own merits.

Some feats are acquired way too late like the Rangers Powerful Snare that feels like something that should be available way before level 10. In addition there is also the problem of some martials having late or worse options than the casters like Rangers getting Full-Grown Companion and Specialized companion two levels later than the Druid for no aparent reason.

My last issue is that there are some feats that seem incomplete just to make the player invest in two different feats to get the desired result, an example of this is Felling Strike and Sudden Leap, this one example is particularly problematic since those are both level 8 feats which is a major investment on a character at that level and the effects of both feats combined can easily be recreated by a level 5 Wizard casting Earthbind, this means that a Fighter needs to spend a level 8 and a level 10 feat (and spend one more action) to do what a wizard could do at level 5, which is not fun.

Not everything is bad though, things like the Fighter's Mirror Shield and the Barbarian's Dragon Totem Wings seems really fun and serve as evidence of the improvements that martials have undergone since first edition and I hope this means we'll see even more improvement when the second edition is released.


Only unarmored or lightly armored because if somethong can punch through steel in can pierce your Thogh Hide


Would a feat that allows monks to add Strenth to AC and TAC instead of Dexterity whilie unarmored or lightly armored be feasable?
If so could we also have this for Barbarians?
If it isnt could we use Constitution to AC instead?


Cavaliers can fill an interesting niche in the game. It could be a martial combatant that can use actions to give specific actions to allies duting his turn. He could also give bonuses to allies by inspiring them (like the baner ability in pf1), or have features that give bonuses for working together, and do all this while still being able to pick a feat that feels like the challenge even if it doest not work the same. If you separate the cavalier from the mounted fighter gimmick it becomes a way more interesting character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'm running the game, so none.

I'll probably fiddle around building all sorts of characters, mind you, but I won't be playing any of them through the adventure.

Exactly what I'm gonna do


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An elf character can have 14 str, 18 dex, 12 con, a human one can have 16 str, 18 dex, 12 con.
Strenth rogues are viable even without sacrifising high dex


Vic Wertz wrote:
Hargert wrote:
After doing some looking into it at least one person got their shipment to their house early. Sadly it is not me.
If they did, I'm pretty darn sure it wasn't a paizo.com preorder.

So should we expect the preorders to start arriving mondayish


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would be fine with Orcs as a core option, they are a core option in my setting. But I think the recontextualization and cultural shift needed to justify "Heroic Orcs" in large numbers on Golarion is a significantly larger than the similar change needed to justify large numbers of heroic goblins (which some people seem to chafe at.)

Like Golarion should already have a bunch of different Orc groups who are good neighbors to non-orcs before we could consider this.

You don't need them to be good for them to be a playable option, not every character has to be heroic.


Captain Morgan wrote:

In PF2, every race is more flexible than it used to be, but humans remain the most flexible. They can potentially jump start a build sooner, though I sort of suspect where we have feat based prerequisites you will also have level gating, so this probably won't be AS true. But a human monk can get Monastic Weapons and still get one other class feat.

Unlike PF1 though, the human doesn't seem to be the most powerful anymore. They aren't gaining an extra feat, or even necessarily a better feat, just a different feat.

For this to be true all other ancestries need ancestry feats as good as class feats and general feats.


Colette Brunel wrote:

I have been thinking about the matter a bit more with regards to the 2e human's Natural Ambition.

The human race is definitely shaping up to be a strong contender for optimized build creation, because an extra 1st-level class feat could be hugely important for assembling optimized builds that bring out the best in a class's specialties. A human who is also a half-elf or a half-orc is handicapped from 1st through 4th level by dint of lacking that extra class feat, but they are a little better off come 5th level. Still, a handicap from 1st through 4th level is non-negligible and should not be discounted.

On the other hand, how are other races, like dwarves and elves, supposed to compete with Natural Ambition? Class feats look to be very potent, and I cannot imagine that dwarves, elves, and others can offer ancestry feats that can reshape an optimized build as much as an extra 1st-level class feat can.

Though I agree that Natural Ambition seems like the most powerful ancestry feat out there we have seen some pregens that benefit from other options, like the alchemist getting access to martial weapons with the goblin trait thanks to a goblin feat, a martially inclined alchemist might benefit greatly from such an option, now if general training has something akin to Martial training then I see very few cases where humans arent the default top dog


kwiqsilver wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


No, that is not the case. It's a one-time feat, not one you can take again. It's in the first sentence of my post in the quote.

That is... what I said. Perhaps you misunderstood me.

What I am saying is that a human with Natural Ambition will always be one class feat ahead of a half-elf or a half-orc, which actually matters, because class feats are strong options that directly improve a character's ability to carry out their class's specialty. That trumps gaining minor, auxiliary side benefits.

But that's not correct, so I'm not explaining well. Our example from before is Half-Elf Ezren who takes Half-Elf at 1st level and Natural Ambition at 5th to get Widen Spell when it matters more. Compare to Human Ezren who takes Natural Ambition at 1st and then <something else that isn't a class feat because he can't take Natural Ambition again> at 5th. The half-elf Ezren is not a class feat behind. Now a full elven Ezren would never be able to get that class feat, but the half-elf can.
And yet Human Ezren takes part 2 of "Insert Wizard build here" at level 5. Half-Elf Ezren has to wait till what... level 7? Further?

But human Ezren doesn't get low-light vision, the speed boost, the bonus language, or the diplomacy boost.

If you build a human wizard and half-elf wizard in PF1, the human can have one more wizard-y feat, because his bonus feat is more flexible. And the human wizard will always be one feat ahead of a similarly experienced elf, dwarf, gnome, tiefling, etc. wizard. That's part of why humans are the dominant race...I mean ancestry...on Golarion.

The half elf or half orc can still take it at level 5


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Im not sure 2 ancestry feats is the answer since some options would be too powerful (humans with both general training and natural ambition seems strong), but what about geting 1 ancestry feat and 1 heritage feat at level 1. That way hybrid races can have their cake and eat them while ancestries like dwarves do t have to choose between being resistant to poison and having a clan dagger.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Mack wrote:
Really not liking this.

I was on the fence at first but after a second inspection it doesnt bother me anymore. I just hope they dont go crazy creating one hybrid ancestry after the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hope the next reveal is Orcs and Humans... though I doubt orcs will ever be on the CRB


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Necromancer:
An archetype that allows spell caster to select spells from the necromancy school that have the death descriptor (trait?) from any spellist. for example a Cleric being able to learn and prepare spells from the arcane, primal and ocult spell list.

It'd also be cool to add some powers like more hp for undead minions and more temp hp gained from sucking the life out of enemies.


I actually hope this finds its way into the CRB, but here goes.
A Necromancer archetype with the ability to pick spells with the death descriptor (maybe also negative and necromancy descriptor if needed) from other lists, Ex: a Druid with the necromancer archetype being able to learn death spells from the arcane spell list.
Some other cool abilities like more HP for undead minions and maybe a special cantrip would also be cool.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Shield needs a cool down, without it it would be a cantrip that increases ac and is able to block damage every turn.


Do shields take the full damage of the strike or do they take only part of it, for example a strke deals 11 damage and valeros uses his reaction to block it does he take 1 damage or does the shield takes all of it?
I personally read it as the shield taking all the damage unless the shield is destroyed on 1 hit but the rules are not clear on how that would work


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Why would a Rogue need to be a catburglar, and not a thug, by design?

I think the short answer is:

Because a thug is a Barbarian or Fighter with the Criminal Background, not a Rogue.

Also maybe monks and rangers.


Does the precision damage from the backstabing weapon trait stacks with sneak attack?
Also does the dice from deadly increases if the weapon is expert quality?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that the weird DC for lingering composition is because it affects debuffs on enemies


Elleth wrote:
2 class feats and natural ambition again. I suppose it might do that?

It seems that way, and I'm a little disappointed about it. I mean in PF1 humans were more prevalent than any other race because their build would come online earlier and it seems that thos will be the case again.

I was excited about General Training because it was a good way to keep humans on brand without having the same problem we had in PF1 but with the inclusion of Natural Ambition humans are an even better option since they can pick either feat depending on their needs.


With hardness 5 getting your shield completely destroyed in one hit is a real posibility when taking a hit from a great axe


Surprised to see that the dagger does not get the backstabing trait


Elleth wrote:
QuidEst wrote:


Huh. My guess is that with all their features compared to Wizard (casting, armor proficiency, a martial weapon proficiency or upgrade to a simple weapon, a bunch of heal/harm spells, 8 hp, and a domain power), Cleric doesn’t get a class feat at first level. The feats still have level 1 as their requirement, because (as seen in Valeros) humans can get an extra class feat at first level.

Or it’s a sheet error.

Valeros has the same total number of class feats + features as Fumbus, so I don't think that extra feat is coming from human. Though maybe I'm wrong and that's what natural ambition does, which wouldn't be too surprising I guess. Kyra's ancestral feat is spent on a general feat (toughness) it would seem.

I think is a class thing just like the barbarian in the character generation video got to choose a totem and sudden charge the fighter got to choose reactive shield and sudden charge


The Raven Black wrote:
Biztak wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Biztak wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Biztak wrote:
I'm disappointed to see that slings need an action to reload ...
They also made them only get half STR mod to damage.
Yeah didnt notice at first, my guess is that they dont want it competing with composite bows, on that note why not make all bows composite from the beginning?
Because not all bows are composite?
I'd rather have all bows add str to damage from the get go, I doubt it will break level 1, I asume that the sling is a simple weapon and as such should be weaker than a bow which is why it has the reload property, Im just disapointed because I wanted to try an urban rogue that favored a sling not because I dont understand the design choice. That said I still think that most range weapons should add str to damage from the get go, slings included

Even Crossbows ?

STR 8 characters would not be amused

Crossbows would be the exemption, maybe make an aditional version of bows that does not add str to damage


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Biztak wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Biztak wrote:
I'm disappointed to see that slings need an action to reload ...
They also made them only get half STR mod to damage.
Yeah didnt notice at first, my guess is that they dont want it competing with composite bows, on that note why not make all bows composite from the beginning?
Because not all bows are composite?

I'd rather have all bows add str to damage from the get go, I doubt it will break level 1, I asume that the sling is a simple weapon and as such should be weaker than a bow which is why it has the reload property, Im just disapointed because I wanted to try an urban rogue that favored a sling not because I dont understand the design choice. That said I still think that most range weapons should add str to damage from the get go, slings included


Barathos wrote:
Biztak wrote:
I'm disappointed to see that slings need an action to reload ...
They also made them only get half STR mod to damage.

Yeah didnt notice at first, my guess is that they dont want it competing with composite bows, on that note why not make all bows composite from the beginning?


I'm disappointed to see that slings need an action to reload, also why not give ray spells and powers a hit bonus equal to casting mod plus proficiency?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The dogslicer seems surprisingly good


Thanks a bunch Sam. Have a nice day


They said that medium and small humanoids use weapons of the same size


I would like to change my payment method for this order, and pay with the other credit card that I have in my account


Is it me or is the ogre uding medium sized weapons?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

looks great, now I just need to find out how many hp per lvl do they get and what weapons proficiency natural or otherwise they can get, to see if it is actually possible to play the demonic/draconic melee sorcerer without being a liability to the party


I tried to cancel by email last week but got no reply, please cancel my Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscription as soon as possible.
Thanks.


Sammy T wrote:

2) "you (and your allies, if you tell them) gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next attack roll against it, but not against other creatures of that species" So, if we're fighting a pack of 5 wargs, and I critically identify one, the bonus doesn't carry over to the other creatures in the same combat?

It could be roleplayed in many ways, in your warg example it could be something like the ranger noticing that the target of his hunt is trying to avoid putting weight on its front left paw and exploiting that knowledge to get an advantage and the warg after noticing that it is being taken advantage off simply adjusting acordingly


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The martial artist is a popular character archetype that is not necessarily covered by the fighter. Weapons associated with martial arts like the Nunchuck and Bo Staff are as much a part of that character archetype as is the asumption of superior unarmed combat prowess and so I am somewhat bothered by the exclusion of the monastic weapons as part of the baseline monk. On the other hand the mystical part of the Monk like Ki belongs to a subcategory of the Martial Artist archetype and so I'm glad that it is not part of the baseline monk.


Tholomyes wrote:
Agreed, but I also don't know why you'd need the "2 feats from the pirate archetype" even. Feats are already level limited, and sure, they want to design against dipping, but if dedications are already a thing, then you're already cutting back on the attractiveness of dipping. If archetypes are designed well enough, then they should only need to be as attractive as class feats, maybe a little less, by default, but a little more for certain situations or concepts, which means I don't see the reason for mandating full commitment to the archetype. There's power in a broader selection, but there's also already a cost to get that selection in the first place.

That was just an example but I think that the more powerful feats should need a prerequisite to avoid someone at level 12-13 to just dip and get a feat that would be considered a capstone of the archetype.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually like the way the new archetypes are being implemented, but I do not like how the prerequisites are being use for the class feats. I'd much rather have the prerequisites for an archetype feat be to have x amounts of feats in the archetype than a specific feat. For example for Roll with the Ship I'd rather have: For this feat you need to have at least 2 Feats from the pirate archetype. And for a feat like Boarding Action you can add a caveat that if you have Rope Runner you can use this feat While swinging on a rope.

By doing it this way you can add player customability while still limiting acces to the more powerfull feats and so preventing people from just taking the archetype at high levels to get the more powerful feats


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The only thing I disliked about this was Sea Legs being a prerequisite for Roll With The Ship, I mean unless I can trade a skill feat for Sea Legs it would be hard for me to take it instead of a class feat unless I really want Roll With The Ship


12 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:


First of all, absolutely no weapon proficiencies without spending a feat is just horrible. It's just a Feat Tax for people not wanting to play a punchy monk.

I agree with this, having to spend my first level Feat to be able to use a Bo staff is more than a little disappointing


Been looking forward to this


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The info about Barbarian's fatigue was really interesting, they don't become useless in between rages, which is good, but they potentially open themselves to attacks. This open up some strategy for barbarian players on whether or not taking all of their actions while fatigued, each -1 to AC increases the enemy's chance to crit by 5% up to a total of 20% counting the -1 they start with that round making it the smart move to maybe take only one or two actions while fatigued

1 to 50 of 318 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>