Kutholiam Vuere

Cheburn's page

Organized Play Member. 463 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 463 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
so the resonance caps are high enough that they don't matter anyway?
I think he's saying they only matter when you spam some limited resource item, such as wand or potion of CLW many times over.
so groups lacking a dedicated healer are now more f***ed than ever, I guess. That's nothing that bothers me on a personal level, but sometimes stuff like that happens. players have to drop out, no one else wants to change character and GMs still want to keep the game going even though the group is missing a Cleric. This complicates things for them

Player 1 is down 45 points of damage.

Strategy 1: Cure Light Wounds wand x10.
Strategy 2: Cure Critical Wounds wand x2.

One of these is unlikely to run into problems from resonance.

That's definitely a design decision. In the Know Direction podcast, I remember one of the participants (sadly, I don't remember which one) say that they felt that cracking open a CLW wand like guzzling it down like a Gatorade was a crappy system, and one that was not found in any fantasy story ... ever.

I agree with Lady Firebird.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:

I still think everyone is forgetting the fact that any damage that surpasses the Hardness of the shield when you Shield Block is dealt to the shield. This means that the shield will break very quickly, possibly in just one attack. The Shield Block reaction is essentially a trap option unless you use the Shield cantrip (and that can apparently only be cast one every 10 minutes, so you're not going to fully negate more than one attack per combat with its Hardness of 4). Shield Block is essentially limited to casters with the cantrip and pack mules with backpacks full of mundane shields.

The +2 AC is far more useful than destroying your own equipment considering that you need to stack up as many raw stat numbers as you possibly can to avoid enemy criticals and avoid critically failing yourself.

Without knowing the hardness and HP of shields, and the average enemy damage, it's pretty impossible to say this. Since they're completely changing shield mechanics, I would expect shield hardness and HP may be up for 'rebalancing' as well.

Also, we have no idea how difficult it will be to repair shields between battles. In the current game design, mending (or a wand of the same) could patch up a shield pretty quickly.

Finally, I think they mentioned the 'dented' condition with regards to shields in the Glass Cannon podcast, though I don't remember exactly where. It sounded to me like your shield could withstand a certain number of 'dents' before being broken, which is totally different from how sundering works currently.

One question I had regards skill allocations. Did you use pregen characters, or did you build your own? And if you built your own, how much freedom was there in terms of allocating skill points (or at least choosing which skills your character 'focused' on)?

2 people marked this as a favorite.


TolkienBard wrote:

A necromancer is still just a wizard. They just like playing with dead things. The difference is mostly cosmetic. Heck, by high levels the penalty for opposition schools is almost irrelevant. This is very different from making a dedicated path of each alignment.

Off-topic, but this exact statement is one of my biggest gripes with the way wizards are built in Pathfinder. Pretty much every specialization only differs in their school powers, and can cast every spell on the Wizard list with nearly equal effect. The only major exception I can think of is building a specific blaster wizard.

If (as an example) wizards specialized school was the only one they had 9th level casting in (and they could cast one spell level lower in non-specialized school, and two lower in opposition schools), it would feel like a much more important character choice. Heck, they'd probably still be the most versatile class in the game. [Obviously, you'd need to tinker with other facets of the class too.]

I hope in PF2 that there is more distinction between Wizards based on which school they have taken.

Now back to your friendly Paladin-related discussion, and sorry for the derail.

Cuttlefist wrote:
Can you elaborate on the new initiative system? I hadn’t seen any explanation on how it is different yet.

There is no separate initiative score. What you're doing at the start of the encounter (when you're in exploration mode, probably) determines what skill you roll for initiative.

So if a rogue is keeping to the shadows, he may roll a Stealth check for initiative. If a fighter is walking with her sword drawn, staying alert and looking for danger, she may roll a Perception check.

It's detailed a bit in the Glass Cannon podcast (part 1 - https://glasscannonpodcast.com/the-pathfinder-playtest-parts-1-and-2/)

35:04 (Exploration mode detailed a bit)
41:40 (Combat starts - explanation of new Initiative system)

It also describes Perception in PF2 a bit.

Hopefully, Marc Radle can elaborate or give some more insight from his play experience.

Those both sound like reasonable systems, though they don't match the information in Marc Radle's thread (which related that a 20 was a crit with no need to confirm). And I agree that it seems very likely in a playtest demo that you wouldn't have something with AC higher than 20, though I don't know the details for this particular one.

It sounds to me like you (rooneg and David knott 242) are describing similar systems. I particularly like David knott 242's system (which is similar to the one described by rooneg for SF, but includes a chance to hit on a natural 1 ... if you're REALLY accurate), and it might be interesting to see something like that in play. Both do remove some 'randomness' in terms of crits and misses, which could be either good or bad. If during the playtest, PF2 feels 'off' in terms of nat1/20 mechanics, they might be suggestions on how to improve the mechanics.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based on the GaryCon play experience of Marc Radle, there's a slight update to the plot I made before. Specifically, Marc states that a natural 20 is critical hit, without the need to confirm. This means that number [3] in my list above is no longer valid. There would be a slight buff to characters with a low hit chance when compared with the current rules (since it gets rid of the need for confirmation, which is unlikely if your hit chance is low).

Updated physical damage plot for PF1 vs PF2.

I'm a bit concerned that this may lower the survivability of AC-based characters, since (when attacked by a pile of mooks) each attack has a 5% chance of dealing critical damage, but it swings in the players' advantage on offense too. I'm curious to see how this will balance out in play.

I also think that this may increase the relative value of shields, even against large numbers of weaker enemies, since you can spend your reaction to (at least partially) negate a critical hit. I'd guess you have to make a judgement whether you think you can soak an unlikely crit (and thus can afford to spend your third action on something else), or if you need the defense. There are way too many unknown variables (HP vs damage, available healing, other ways to avoid crits) to really definitively say whether or not this is correct right now.

I should also add (at least) one more caveat: all of this is in terms of damage per attack. If the average damage per attack changes substantially between PF1 and PF2, the relative TRENDS in damage across 'to hit' values above will be correct, but the absolute comparison ("You do more damage when you need a 5 to hit") falls apart.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I mean, we haven't said what happens on a 20 or a 1 yet. Details like those are probably best saved for a comprehensive blog on successes and failures.

I was actually thinking that as I was working on this. I set this up under the assumption that you 'always miss on a 1', and 'always hit on a 20,' because I thought I remembered a similar mechanism for skills from the Glass Cannon podcast. Obviously, we poor forum folk don't yet have the playtest document (for good reasons), so it's the best I can do. :-) The exercise did get me excited about the new mechanics, though, so I thought I would share.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd treat it as the equivalent of drawing a weapon, socially. I'd doubt that bystanders would react well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark Seifter's post and the subsequent discussion got me thinking about the new critical hit formula.

As far as I understand it, in PF2 you crit (or are crit) when your attack roll exceeds the target's AC by 10 or more, as opposed to PF1, where you threatened a crit on a weapon-based target number.

As I thought about it more, I realized a few implications of this new system:*

[1] High-accuracy characters probably got buffed (depends on exact numbers), ESPECIALLY against low AC opponents.
[2] Attack buffs do more for high-accuracy characters than they did in the old system.
[3] Lower accuracy characters got slightly nerfed.

I made a fast and dirty plot showing how your expected damage changes with the difference between AC and attack bonus in the old and new systems. The difference at the more "accurate" end of the plot is pretty striking. For the old system, I used a 19-20/x2 weapon. The qualitative picture doesn't change much with other weapons. For the new system, I assumed a crit was double weapon damage (no x3 or x4, for obvious reasons, and I think this is pretty strong evidence we won't see those crit modifiers in PF2). I also assumed you still miss on a natural 1.

Of course, this all depends on the exact AC and attack numbers. But it certainly looks like a difference of 4-5 on attack could really end up being quite a bit of damage, and that the difference does not go away with party-wide buffs (e.g. bard).

Overall, I suspect that's a slight buff of more 'martial' classes, and think it would be a good thing. I'll be interested to see how it turns out in the playtest.


*I have not gone through this for iterative attacks. I suspect, however, that the trend would hold up pretty well, since the "inaccurate" end of the plot is very similar between the two systems. In other words, the first attack would do significantly more damage, and the later attacks would do at least equivalent damage. On net, a damage increase.

Chess Pwn wrote:
a 4 point swing? this is what I'm afraid of, when the difference between don't care and super invested is like 10 points it really makes you question why you cared to invest much or at all.

So that you succeed nearly all the time (because of supposed failure on a 1) while they succeed only half the time?

Or so that you succeed half the time and they can't ever succeed (or only succeed on a nat 20? not sure about that one for PF2)?

Which case depends on the skill DC.

I'm missing something here. Even assuming he has all of the burrowing feats listed: He has Darkvision, but no Tremorsense or any way to sense what's going on above ground as far as we know. How does the rogue know where the enemies are when he's underground?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:

5E has no Paladins. They have "thing that isn't me hunters". They're specialized in fighting creature types, not Evil.

Looks at PHB, reads the Paladin entry

I think I can say for fact 5e has Paladins.
The problem you are facing, as I'm sure you no doubt noticed, us that your opponent does not care what the name says. If it doesn't match their idea if what a Paladin is, it's not a Paladin.

If I call a cow's tail a leg, how many legs would she have?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Renraku wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It's cool to see all the different ideas, particular those in this thread who were clever enough to predict that "Attack of Opportunity" might have some extra benefits now for fighter and friends, and that someone dedicated to interrupting without that reaction could ready an action. AoOs are pretty nice at interrupting actions nowadays, and they're not the only game in town for these kind of "attack when the enemy does something particular" reactions; they're just the one that's most recognizable. A certain character might hate magic enough to attack whenever someone casts any spell, even one they thought was safe, and another might be so skilled at combat that they get a riposte whenever an opponent misses them by 10 or more! The reaction system allows characters to have all sorts of different reactions that surprise and confound their foes!
what about spellcasters possibly having "counterspell" reactions?
My magic 8-ball says "Outcome seems likely."

I wish I could Favorite this post more than once. I've been dying for a good counterspell system since the first time I played a Wizard. Definitely interested in seeing implementation, but moving it to a reaction seems like a good first step.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

What you just described is using the shield as a weapon.

The purpose of a shield bash is to hit with your main hand weapon AND the shield, gaining an extra attack, not to be Captain American and use only a shield.

Currently we get the AC bonus for free, then get an attack with the main and an attack with the shield, or at 6th level 2 main attacks and the shield.

What I described is a shield bash (PF Core Rulebook, page 152). A shield bash is literally "using a shield as a weapon." There's no requirement that a shield bash be made as part of another attack.

Core Rulebook wrote:
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield. See “shield, heavy” on Table 6–4 for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right. [There is analogous text for shield bash attacks with light shields]

What you're described is two-weapon fighting with a weapon and shield. That's already a highly feat- and ability score-dependent build (2-5 feats, depending how deep you want to go), and it locks you into needing a full attack action to deal respectable damage.

Shield bash in PF2 playtest looks reasonable so far. It exists. It does not lock you out of using your shield for other things (unlike in PF1, where you lose your shield AC bonus without feats). It does not preclude using another weapon, even in the same round (i.e., you do not have to be "Captain America" to use it). At a minimum, a shield gives you access to a bludgeoning weapon that can also be used for defense and that you don't have to spend an action to draw.

TWF rules in the PF2 action system are currently unknown. I'm hopeful that it's a style of fighting that PF2 will support, but I don't think we have enough info to say so yet. If TWF is supported, I'd suspect using a shield as part of TWF will be as well. I don't mind advocating for that (and would myself). That could be useful feedback in a playtest.

Nathanael Love wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Plus, this is just the baseline shield we're seeing, there's no telling what kind of support there might be if you want to focus on defense using a shield by spending feats or choosing class features.

I expect this is going to be the worst part.

There's going to be a feat that says "you gain your shield's bonus to AC even when you don't spend an action to guard"

So, you'll have-

Base, no action: nothing

Base, action: +2 AC and use reaction for DR

And then after the feat tax!

Feat, no action: +2 AC

Feat, action: +2 AC and use reaction for DR (possibly slightly more)

This is without considering that shield bashing either effectively no longer exists, or is locked behind the feat or class ability that gives you a "shield bash action" where you attack with a weapon and a shield.

Potentially you'll have to take the passive AC feat, plus the shield bash feat, then a third feat to still be able to use the shield reaction when you shield bash. . . And it snowballs from there.

From the 2nd half of the Glass Cannon podcast, right around 1:15:00. Anyone using a shield can shield bash as an action, while still using the shield for defense. Fighter (trained in using shields) gets level + str mod (+5 at first level) to hit.

1st action - heavy steel shield comes up (+2 AC and get access to the 'shield block'* reaction)
2nd action - shield bash (+5 to hit)
3rd action - 2nd shield bash (+0 to hit)
reaction - DR 9 from shield against an attack.**

This is all at first level with no additional feats.

It sounds better and less restrictive than what you're fearing.

* I don't remember if they actually named the reaction in the podcast
** The attack was less than 9 damage, so the shield was undamaged. There was some mention of 'dented' as a condition for a shield that took damage, but I couldn't get exactly how you tell when your shield is effectively broken.

KingGramJohnson wrote:
I like the idea of critical success/failure on skills. It always bothered me that you could roll a Nat 1, but because you have a +30 in stealth, you still remain unnoticed.

It's a fun idea, but I have a little bit of concern about it. A blanket 5% chance to fail at any activity, independent of skill level and training, does not map well with how skills function in the real world.

Depending on how the rules from PF1 port over with respect to 'taking 10,' and depending on any new rules, this may be a non-issue. It's definitely something I will personally keep an eye on though.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

First, as is Bards are a great class. I'm happy most times I see one at a table.

Second, I don't believe that Bards are going to be in a bad place in PF2. But in a "worst case" scenario, where you have to spend one action every round to maintain your buffs, I'd happily spend a single action every single round to buff the entire party's damage output by 10-30+% (depending on the level of Inspire Courage, and the average necessary d20 roll to hit for the party).

In that worst-case scenario, I'd then either use my two additional actions to cast a spell (Good Hope, if it transferred over), or to make two iterative attacks with my bow. I'm literally only losing my lowest attack bonus attack, while simultaneously buffing myself and the whole party. I fail to see the nerf compared with the current situation.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FedoraFerret wrote:
I do have some concern about archery being overpowered in this system, considering that archers don't have to move, and I'll be keeping an eye on how they balance that, but that's a concern specific to PF2, and not related to how things functioned in PF1.

I would expect Paizo to plan around it. Generally, archers in PF1 can compete in full-attack damage because of the ability to put a high number of arrows in the air (rapid shot / manyshot), despite lower per-hit damage.

From the little bit I've seen on the website and gleaned from the Glass Cannon Podcast, it seems that full attacks are less of a "thing" (maybe non-existent, but who knows), and melee characters mobility is increasing. In the new system, it should be relatively common for melee characters to have to move and still deal around their optimal damage in a round.

In PF1, at level 6, a full BAB melee would often have to move and make only a single attack. A full BAB archer, on the other hand, would hang out in position and make 4 or 5 (with Haste) attacks per round, every round.

Unless Paizo decides to specific break their "one action, one attack" for range attackers, it seems like this new system could easily move more towards balance between melee and ranged.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So you can get up to three iterative attacks at first level, and reactions for most classes aren't just "I can take an attack of opportunity if someone provokes" (which the GM will often prevent through tactical movement) ... and this is somehow a bad thing? I see only improvements here.

Decimus Drake wrote:
Have you tried asking him?

Definitely sounds to me like something you need to discuss outside of the game with the player. I really doubt you'll come to any satisfactory in-game solution to this sort of problematic player behavior (making disruptive characters).

The Sideromancer wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
A Speed weapon is not a viable option for most campaigns, because of the absurd cost associated with adding it to a +X weapon. Assuming you're level 10 and are adding it to a +2 weapon, you're looking at 42,000 GP. That's almost 70% of your WBL for a single enhancement (and over 80% for a single weapon). These numbers get worse if you're trying to add it to a +3 weapon. That's not something I would want to plan for in most campaigns.
all those costs go down with crafting
Stupid crazy high being cut in half is still crazy high.
Suppose an item is cost N, which is crazy high. N/2 is still crazy high, as is (N/2)/2. Since an arbitrarily large cost is trivially crazy high, and the definition makes no distinction of powers of 2, all costs are crazy high.

It's not an "arbitrarily large cost." Expected wealth by level (which the discussion above is clearly based on) gives a benchmark for what costs are reasonable in a normal campaign. If you're playing in a game with 4x WBL and crafting, the sure, Speed is a nice enhancement. Otherwise, the Speed weapon enhancment is too high of a fraction of WBL to be a good investment in most campaigns.

Generally, spending significantly more than around 25% of your wealth by level on a single weapon is not the best idea, because you're then starved for money for your other essential items. I'm quite confident that 80% of your WBL on a single weapon can safely be called 'stupid crazy high.' 40% of your WBL (cost with crafting) on a single weapon is around 1.6 times what you'd normally want to spend, so 'crazy high' is still a reasonable description. Half of that again is 20%, which is actually quite reasonable, so ... yeah. Making a reductio ad absurdum argument against a straw man doesn't really contribute to the discussion.

However, even if you were willing to spend that amount of gold on a Speed weapon, I suspect you'd be better off just putting it on the weapon a straight bonus. That is, for almost any melee character, I'd rather have a +5 weapon than a +2 speed weapon.

Errant Mercenary wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
The last two years of my life have been pointless.
Did you write an unchained version, and if so where could we find it?

The Fighter has gotten a lot of upgrades (largely in the form of advanced weapon and armor trainings, but also in weapon/shield/armor/item mastery feats) over the past few years. Many of them mitigate to some extent the problems described above. Marshmallow wrote up a fairly comprehensive Guide to the PFRPG Fighter, that summarizes a lot of these new options, but it seems a lot of people haven't taken the time to read it (or disagree with what it says, but just ignore it, rather than pointing out where they think it's incorrect).

@JiCi, I would strongly argue that, with current published material, a campaign where a Fighter couldn't be a good BBEG is simply one where a non-caster can't be a good BBEG. That's certainly true for some campaigns. I don't think it's true for every campaign, however.

Saldiven wrote:
For burkoJames example, the Druid's player was trying to finagle a way to get a full round action (a Charge) before rolling initiative. If you need an explanation for why Initiative should be rolled in this specific case, consider that this charge action takes an entire round (6 seconds) to complete; it is completely reasonable that the target sees the charge occurring and reacts before it's completed, rather than standing there in shock waiting for it to happen.

Just for completeness, I'll note that you can use a modified (standard action) charge during a surprise round (though you can only move up to your speed, and can't draw a weapon unless you have the Quick Draw feat).

In terms of burkoJames's Druid, I would start initiative with the first clearly hostile action by either party. So initiative would be rolled either when the Druid gets into range and starts trying to attack, or when the enemy decides they don't like the party moving into a tactical position and starts trying to attack. Assuming that both parties are aware of each other, there would be no surprise round, just a first round in initiative order. I would probably give the enemy a sense motive roll as the Druid was moving closer, to get a "hunch" (DC 20) that the Druid has hostile intentions, though I'm not sure if this is precisely RAW.

The GM needs to be reasonable. Intimidating an NPC, or bluffing to try to get an NPC arrested (when you're both in front of guards), while "aggressive in intent," are not really combat actions. What burkoJames is describing sounds like overly aggressive initiative calls by the GM, which can cause their own problems (though they do have the "benefit" of making sure that no one's flat-footed when actual combat starts).

Anyone who is releasing prisoners of mine is a hostile threat.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
There are no readied actions outside of combat. If you say "I want to attack him" then the GM calls for initiative to see if you get your attack off first. Players don't make the call for when combat starts, the GM does. "I said it first" does not mean you get a free action before combat starts. That's a surprise round, and you only get that if your enemy is unaware of your presence.

Very much agreed.

Casting a spell and swinging a sword are much the same as far as combat goes. If you're standing next to a Barbarian who is aware of you, you don't get to draw your sword and attack with a surprise round (let's assume you have Quick Draw). You declare your action to draw your weapon and attack, and that starts combat. Everyone rolls initiative. If the Barbarian comes up first in the initiative order, that just means "You went for your weapon, and he reacted faster than you."

The same rules apply to casting spells. You're in a verbal confrontation with an angry Barbarian. You start trying to cast a spell. This act is conceptually the same as drawing your sword and attacking. You don't get a surprise round. Battle starts and you act in initiative order. If the Barbarian acts before you, then "You started casting a spell, and he reacted faster than you."

You don't get a free sucker punch just because you say, "I hit you," before the GM said, "I hit you." This works both ways. The Barbarian doesn't get a surprise round if the GM says, "He hits you," before you said "I hit him." The Barbarian is starting hostilities. You roll initiative, and act in initiative order, because you were aware of him.

A Speed weapon is not a viable option for most campaigns, because of the absurd cost associated with adding it to a +X weapon. Assuming you're level 10 and are adding it to a +2 weapon, you're looking at 42,000 GP. That's almost 70% of your WBL for a single enhancement (and over 80% for a single weapon). These numbers get worse if you're trying to add it to a +3 weapon. That's not something I would want to plan for in most campaigns.

Boots of Speed are great, but as noted by Claxon, there is a significant opportunity cost associated with using the Feet slot.

To me, Unfettered Rage looks like a very nice feat. If I were playing a Barbarian, I would strongly consider picking it up. It also has the benefit of working even if Haste is dispelled, or if Haste is not up for a given encounter. The downsides aren't that big, given the potential damage increase when the feat is being used and the lack of feat taxes to pick it up.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dellis wrote:

By the old gods and the new, please help me with this, I'm going mad. Not the "angry" mad, the "I'a I'a chtulhu ftagh'n" mad.

One of my players, based on pfsrd, thinks that EVEN if a surprise round did not occur, and EVEN if everyone is aware of each other succeeded in their perception checks and what not, you are STILL flat footed, until your initiative turn comes up.

Now, I do not completely trust the SRD on all matters, and being a stupid college student who for some reason decided to study Law, time to check the rulebooks accurately is at a premium.

I checked online and conferred with a fellow GM, which said that it is certainly true that you are flat footed even in a normal round until your turn comes up and you act: but ONLY if there a surprise round OCCURRED in the first place, not in every single combat you will ever make in your poor PC life!

Could a kind, good soul, help a fellow GM not to fall into the clutches of eldritch madness and tell me who the BANANA is right between the two, and WHY?!?

Possiblynotbasedonjustthesrdentries,whichsometimesareoutofcontextduetothemb eingorganizeddifferentlyforeasy,uhm,reference

Your friend is correct, and you are incorrect. Characters are flat-footed until their first regular turn in the initiative order. This condition is defined on page 178 of the Core Rulebook, (Chapter 8 - Combat).

Core Rulebook wrote:
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot becaught flat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.

There is no mention at all of a surprise round here; in fact, the surprise round is not even mentioned until after the discussion of the flat-footed condition.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BlingerBunny wrote:

I'm not skeptical, I know it's magical and not classified as armor. I just don't want my GM to fiat my character and effectively ruin my enjoyment for the game.

It's hard enough having scent and not being able to use it as frequently as I'd like. I'm pretty sure oozes have odor, don't they?

I mean, maybe the reason that oozes don't evaporate is just that their vapor pressure is insanely low and there's nothing to smell ... <.< ... >.> ... Yeah, I can't really justify that one. You should be able to smell an ooze with scent.

Ultimately, if your GM is aggressively and stubbornly house ruling, there's only so much you can do about it. Hopefully your GM is reasonable on the majority of rulings (including Bracers of Armor), though it sounds like that might not be the case. Best of luck, because this one is pretty cut and dry.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd advise staying away from voluntary PVP unless all involved players and the GM are on board. It's seldom fun times to start the game of "who can murder whom in their sleep."

Atalius wrote:
doesn't superstition still work even if not raging? The waves of fatigue would only stop the rage wouldn't it?

Superstition, like all rage powers, only benefits the Barbarian during rage.

Dαedαlus wrote:
Omnius wrote:
"How" is a simple question. One bad roll is all it takes.
The same applies to Casters, yet oddly I rarely see threads asking "what if the Wizard gets dominated?" Normally, that's because martials are rocking a Will save in the +5-10 range, not +17, which is conceivably higher than the witch themselves.

Very likely higher than that of the caster (while raging), unless they're building for saves.

BlingerBunny wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Master of Many Styles can't be chosen with Unchained Monk.
But you can pair MoMS with levels in the Brawler class, which I believe is the plan if you read closely.
The whole point was to figure out what constitutes as armor, RAW and RAI. Monks, vanilla & unchained, lose their AC bonus when wearing any armor. Bracers are, by definition armor that goes over your forearms, so that's why I was inquiring.

To expand on burkoJames's point: Bracers are, by RAW and RAI, not armor. Armor in Pathfinder

  • Occupies the Armor slot
  • Has an associated category (Light, Medium, Heavy) with a required proficiency
  • Grants an armor bonus to AC
  • It has a maximum Dex bonus associated (even for armor like a Haramaki, this exists, it's just "—")
  • Has an associated Armor Check Penalty
  • Gives an Arcane Spell Failure Chance
  • May affect the character's Speed.
Bracers of Armor +X take up the Wrist slot and are a Wondrous Item that grant an armor bonus to AC. They are not a piece of armor as defined by the game, and are not intended to be such. This is why they're a favorite of classes that typically eschew armor, such as Wizards and Monks. Check the difference between Armor and Bracers of Armor if you are feeling skeptical.

You could make an argument that Bracers would colloquially be considered "armor." I think that this argument is factually incorrect, unless you would also consider leather gloves to be "armor," but you could make it. In the Pathfinder system, however, it's not really up to debate. "Armor" is defined in-game, and Bracers of Armor +X do not qualify.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Hollow's Last Hope has always been my go-to. A little bit sandbox, a little bit linear, with a minor sense of urgency and lots of ways to expand on it afterwards.

I've got quite a soft spot for Hollow's Last Hope as well. As an added bonus, it's available for free from Paizo, and transitions nicely into Crown of the Kobold King (which is also quite fun).

Wayne Bradbury wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
The bigger problem I see is that Banner is that the build assumed 20 str and is substantially over level 7 WBL. The overall point of the post is fair though.
That's a fair point. The Banner is a little pricey. You probably don't actually buy one until 8, and that's if you hold off on a +2 weapon, but you got what I was getting at.

Looking more carefully, I also don't think overlapping bonuses from Flagbearer and Heroism stack (both morale bonuses). Still a fun build (and fantastic at combat buffing).

666bender wrote:
Wayne Bradbury wrote:

You can make very, very competent combat Bards. If you don't care about buffing the party, be an Archaeologist or Dawnflower Dervish. If you do care, be a regular Bard. Still good.

Take the Flagbearer feat and carry a flag in your off hand, with a buckler. Later upgrade the flag to a Banner of the Ancient Kings to both increase your effective Bard level for Inspire Courage and also increase the Flagbearer bonus. Use your one handed weapon of choice. Or just use a longspear to unlock the extra bonuses from Banner and forget the buckler.

By level 7, as a normal Bard, assuming you've bought the Banner of the Ancient Kings and you're not forgetting to use Heroism, you're looking at something like:

5 BAB + 5 STR + 3 Inspire Courage + 2 Flagbearer + 2 Heroism + 2 magic - 2 Power Attack = +17 to hit
1d6 weapon + 5 STR + 3 Inspire Courage + 2 Flagbearer + 2 magic + 4 Power Attack = 1d6+16 damage

That's +17 for 1d6+16 of your own, plus you can cast Haste. Not to mention that you're giving out +5 to hit and damage for the rest of the party

how is your inspire courage +3? it's +3 at 11+....

It's an effect of Banner of Ancient Kings. You treat your Bard level as 4 higher than it is for determining bonuses on Inspire Courage. The bigger problem I see is that Banner is that the build assumed 20 str and is substantially over level 7 WBL. The overall point of the post is fair though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

wraithstrike, I usually agree with your posts. In this case, I highly disagree.

If the devs intended that FAQ to only apply to "concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power," they would not have provided the general clarification (emphasized in my post above). By your interpretation, the entire third paragraph of that FAQ means nada. Why include a clause about the general treatment of metamagic feats if the FAQ only applies to the specific case listed?

Furthermore, the very first sentence of the FAQ states that the spell counts as the level of the spell slot used in the cases they treated. It doesn't say that the spell "counts as the original level, but uses a higher spell slot."

Extending to the general case a maximized magic missile counts as a fourth level spell (the level of the spell slot used) when it is disadvantageous for it to do so. Not being able to cast the spell counts as a disadvantage, so ...

Is there a dev statement I missed specifically about this FAQ? Because if not, my opinion of the rules stays the same, for the reasons stated above. I understand that you think it's impossible to extend this FAQ to a general case. We're just likely to disagree on this one.


Seravix, that sounds like a pretty crappy situation to be in. 11 in a primary casting stat is pretty awful. If I were you, I'd strongly advocate either allowing the metamagics to work (regardless of the exact RAW that wraithstrike and I disagree over currently), or (more likely) a reroll. Best of luck.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This FAQ implies that you wouldn't be able to.

Core Rulebook FAQ wrote:

Metamagic: At what spell level does the spell count for concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?

The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it.

For example, an empowered burning hands uses a 3rd-level spell slot, counts as a 3rd-level spell for making concentration checks, counts as a 3rd-level spell for a magus's spell recall or a pearl of power.

In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.

Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage.[Emphasis added]

So the spell would count as a 3rd-level spell for being able to cast it.

I wouldn't be surprised if a GM in a home game let it slide, though.

Lazlo.Arcadia wrote:

Looking at the demographics suggested in the Settlement Rules and we can see that we don't encounter an NPC high enough level to cast raise dead before hitting a large town (2000 - 5000 people) and the material components are 5000 gold in "diamond" ...

Would "diamond" have to be a single diamond worth the 5,000 gold, and thus potentially MUCH harder to find? Or would a pouch full of 200 gold diamonds (totaling 5,000 gold) work just as well? ...

Another consideration which I've been considering as well it the cost of having a cleric cast the spell in the first place. Possibly while using strong arm tactics such as stating "I brought you back, now you owe me! <insert Geas here>"

I try to run it close to the rules when possible.

Since it is a 5th level spell, you must generally travel to a large city to find a cleric capable of casting raise dead (based on the CRB). The material component is one diamond worth 5000 gp, though I often would hand-wave this away. If I'm feeling cantankerous, the cleric could provide it, with a 10% markup for having to track one down.

The cost of having the cleric cast the spell is caster level x spell level x 10 gp. Between the raise dead and two restoration casts, that's around 1300 GP (depending on the CL of the cleric), plus 7000 GP in material costs. I don't see any need for additional "cost." For low level parties, I have occasionally given them access to raise dead at a reduced monetary cost from friendly dieties. The remainder they made up by running side quests for the church. That's just how I dealt with it though.

Lazlo.Arcadia wrote:

Worse, Raise Dead is fairly restrictive in the way it is worded with, "While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole."

What if the body was badly damaged during death such as crit which triggered massive damage? Or death by fire, acid, lava, etc. Now i can understand death by poison, or a simple arrow through the heart, but some of these situations seem to be beyond what Raise Dead should be able to handle (higher level spells would of course make this a moot point). Do you tell the players, "No you are dead and no healer within range can change that?" What if the bad guy was able to deliberately coup de gras the PC in some graphic fashion?

Resurrection or true resurrection work, as you referenced. In cases where these are not available, reincarnate may also work (and can be fun, if the player is on board).

Unicore wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:
Tarondor wrote:
What's wrong with knock? I haven't seen a party with a rogue in it for years.

I like knock too but at lower levels an adamantium short sword will cover most locks.

At higher levels when the DM gets annoyed and puts a bug ass adamantium door in the way I'm a fan of disintegrate.

Yeah you could passwal and such, but disintegrate sends the right message ...

Baah, let them keep their doors and their locks. Use divination magic to find out the history of who is using the lock, where they sleep, who their next of kin is, what they are thinking about, what their goals are, what will stop them without them even realizing that anyone was paying them any attention. And if all else fails, and they are out to cause the world harm, find a paladin to teleport in next to them, smite them, and leave them dead before they knew what hit them.

Of course at lower levels, the diviner is pretty underwhelming, hiding behind a crossbow and the Big stupid fighter in the front, but acid orb is a pretty effective way to slowly destroy a lock without burning through real resources and is a lot cheaper than Adamantine.

I agree that divination is especially useful in the information gathering and planning stages. It's generally less useful in direct confrontation, though spells like true seeing are gems.

Excepting school spell slots, I suspect that many who play Diviners do so specifically for the school powers (specifically Forewarned). The combo of a high initiative and "can always act in the surprise round" is very powerful.

As an aside:

Acid Splash:
Many GMs would not allow Acid Splash to eat through a lock, since it deals half damage and thus can't overcome the lock's hardness. (CRB: pp. 173-174)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
My sole and only point here is that you're not likely to know less about dangerous creatures simply because they're more dangerous. In fact, other factors being equal, those are the ones you're more likely to know about, because they're the ones not knowing about is more likely to get you killed.

I agree, for common dangerous creatures. Most NPCs, however, are more likely to be killed by wolves, hyenas, or ghouls, rather than by ancient black dragons. Consequently, they're going to know a lot more about these common threats than the uncommon ones.

To most villages, a pack of wolves is a threat they can deal with. A high CR dragon is a force of nature that's going to wipe them out no matter what they do. I wouldn't be surprised if the average "useful knowledge" about a dragon was "hide in the storm cellar and hope it ignores you."

Once you've retrained your maxed Diplomacy into another skill (the first time you use this trick), how do you ever do it again? I see nothing in the AWT about the retrained skill points going back to Diplomacy to let you rinse and repeat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaouse wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

The problem is people rattling chains about C/MD operate under the assumption that "balance" is the goal rather than worrying about fun.

If balance was what people wanted Pathfinder wouldn't be what it is, and 5th ed would look a lot more like 4th.

People continually rail against 3.0/3.5 problems while ignoring, forgetting, or disingenuously glossing over the fact that pathfinder exists because people wanted 3.0/3.5 and wanted the customization and options that they provided.

The case hasn't actually been made that the existence of that disparity has been a significant financial dent for paizo, and without that, people whom are super bothered by it are probably best off finding a game more to their liking. To change it significantly rather than putting out different games is the kind of risk that could (and should) be viewed as potentially putting Paizo out of business or at least dramatically shrinking the company.

Here's an idea: Every dollar made by a 3rd party company that purports to help "fix" Caster Martial Disparity, is a dollar that Paizo could have made were they not so archaically insistent on pretending it doesn't exist. There would be no need for Path of War, Spheres of Power/Might, Legendary Fighter or anything else if there wasn't this huge gaping problem with the system.

Additional revenue has to be counterbalanced against revenue lost because other players quit buying their products when they "fixed" the system. It also must be counterbalanced by every additional dollar lost because the entire line of APs and modules no longer functions without a massive rewrite.

Third party publishers are filling a useful niche right now, providing compatible classes and systems for players who are dissatisfied with aspects of what Paizo has published. I'd hazard a guess that no matter how Paizo built their Pathfinder classes, these publishers would continue to make money providing something "slightly different from Paizo" that a subset of players enjoy.

None of this means that the classes are balanced, but the magnitude of the changes that are typically proposed ("completely change around half of the classes in the game") really is enough that they require a new system.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

Epic heroes? Wuxia protagonists?

I'm just sayin', I feel like a high level fighter is Gilgamesh or Hercules, not a regular guy with a sword and armor. A level 1 fighter is a regular guy with a sword and armor who hits very hard, where's the sense of PROGRESSION?

A first level fighter can kill a rat each turn, a level 20 fighter can kill a dragon each turn. That's the PROGRESSION.

Well, actually, no, the first level fighter runs away or dies screaming against a swarm of rats.

As does the 20th level fighter who didn't bring a swarmbane clasp or alchemist's fire, interestingly enough.

I'd give a first level fighter substantially better odds than a first level wizard against a rat swarm. A 20th level fighter would have no problems, nor would a level 20 wizard.

Also, many GMs would rule that an energy weapon (Flaming, Flaming Burst, etc.) are effective even against swarms made up of Fine and Diminutive creatures, eliminating that problem at higher levels. Similarly, many GMs would rule that torches or lanterns can deal 1 pt of damage against swarms (as was the case explicitly in 3.5 iirc).

Then again, there's no evidence that Hercules could deal splash or AoE non-weapaon damage so ... maybe he was also helpless against swarms in PF.

Chess Pwn wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

Reward them for a BRIEF creative description AND rolling ALL of their attack and damage dice at the SAME TIME. Or saying "I need a DC 14 Reflex save please" as opposed to "Make a saving throw."

"What kind?"
"What DC?"

I think this is the direction I'm heading after reading the responses in this thread. If they resolve their turn quickly and give a cinematic description, then I'll award the bonus damage.

To address some of the other points in this thread:

On the "metagaming" criticism, my issue with metagaming in general is that it ruins the immersion. Whereas the entire point of this houserule would be to increase the immersion. If I can create a more immersive world for my players at minimal cost, then that's worth it for me. (Besides, do you also consider Hero Points to be metagaming?)

On the "do it secretly but don't tell them" suggestion, I don't understand what that accomplishes? The whole point is to encourage immersive gameplay. If I don't tell my players, then they have no extra incentive to do it. It just becomes a bookkeeping exercise for me with no actual benefit to the game.

I'd write a short line, ask the GM if that was enough, and then just use that line every time.

It just turns "I cast fireball DC 15" to "I cast fireball and I add this extra bit for the +1 DC thanks you! So the DC is 16 since I gave the description."

And this wouldn't be meeting the purpose for what you wanted. All this turns into is you saying that everyone has a +1 to DC and +1 to damage rolls and combat takes 25% longer.

Since this plan seems to be in clear violation of what the GM is trying to do with his house rule, why would you expect the bonus? Passive aggressively antagonizing the GM rarely works out well.

There are suggested rules for removing iterative attacks in Pathfinder Unchained.

They're not perfect, but they try to address a number of the same issues dealing with. There is even a Mobile Melee variant that sounds like it might be of interest.

If nothing else, it may give you another example of how someone has tried to "fix" the system of iterative attacks.

paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/gameplay/replacingIterativeAttacks.ht ml

Daw wrote:
I should ask you natural scientists, in your bastion of various strong personalities that you are quick to discount: Who is it that is getting the grants? Perhaps you do not Feel Their Power because they don't really feel the need to influence you. Try being helpful, or even just non-condescending, and maybe their focus towards you might be more than keeping you at a distance.

As far as I can tell, the ability to get grants is very decoupled from how you treat others. I've known amazing scientists (who have a lot of grant money, which is a very different statement) who are great, friendly, outgoing people. I've known complete jerks who are struggling to keep their labs running because they can't get good funding. The you could reverse those previous statements and they would also be true.

Protoshoggoth wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
...I work in natural science. The building I work in is full of strong, memorable personalities. Few of them are charismatic.
Yes, but do they get their way?

Not as often as they would like. More importantly, from what I can tell, that metric is decoupled from what I would consider "strength of personality" without concern for other metrics.

Protoshoggoth wrote:
BTW, I work in the natural sciences also (Physics) - yes, it can be quite a collection of "memorable personalities." Some of ours need to be kept in a broom closet :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Protoshoggoth wrote:
Meraki wrote:

I'm not usually a fan of people playing complete jerks at the table for any reason, low Charisma or not.

Low Cha doesn't necessarily mean someone is rude. They could just be that kind of person who everyone overlooks for whatever reason. (Like Kellam from Fire Emblem: Awakening. The running joke is that no one ever notices him.)

That makes me modify a point I was making earlier, and to agree with Meraki - lacking the personality to even get noticed is probably just as good an expression of low Cha as being unlikable, and maybe even better; unlikable people can still have significant force of personality.

We talk about "strength/force of personality" a lot. But charisma is fundamentally not the strength of your personality. It's about the ability to influence others. These aren't necessarily the same.

I work in natural science. The building I work in is full of strong, memorable personalities. Few of them are charismatic.

GreyYeti wrote:

A stat of 7 is not extraordinarily impaired. It just means you get a -2 malus on checks. To give some numbers:

A character with a stat of 10 (mod +0) and a stat of 7 (mod -2) try to do the same task:
57,25% of the time the 10 will be better
4,5% of the time they will be equal
38,25% of the time the 7 will have a better a result than the 10

The 7 still has a more than 1/3 chance of beating the 10.

A stat of 7 for a human is 'extraordinarily' low (not necessarily extraordinarily 'impaired,' which is different) compared with everyone else. Ordinarily, 'bad' ability scores are an 8 (based on NPC guidelines). I would argue that it's probably best described as 'slightly impaired.'
  • You fail about 10% of the time on some tasks that are so trivial that an 'average' person would never fail at them.
  • You are much less likely to succeed at 'hard' tasks for than an average person (they are two or three times more likely to be successful than you).
  • An 'average' person will be more likely to succeed at you at any task.
  • Some tasks that an average person would have a low chance of success at are simply too hard for you to succeed at.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seven is actually quite low in terms of an ability score. Your basic/heroic NPC statblocks have a low score of 8 (and an average of 10.8 and 12.3 for humans respectively). That means an 8 is already someone who is uncharismatic compared with the vast majority of NPCs. Below 8 is someone who is extraordinarily uncharismatic.

Similar, someone with a strength of 7 is extraordinarily weak, and someone with an intelligence of 7 is extraordinarily dim.

Exactly how you RP that is up to you, but I would encourage any player at my table to take that into consideration when they're deciding how they want their character to act.

Irontruth wrote:

My example is not about what solutions are possible, my example is what solution is iconic.

What is the iconic solution to that situation that you would stereotypically consider to be "fighter"? What solution, if presented without the class, would immediately make you jump to the conclusion that the character was a fighter?

I'm not asking you to judge the other ones, I'm asking for what the fighter's would be.

Wait. I'm confused. Are you arguing that the Fighter doesn't have good enough "fluff" for the class, or are you arguing the class lacks the mechanical tools to solve the problem?

If it's fluff ("iconic solutions"):
... a cavalier ... challenges someone to a duel over the cow?
... an alchemist ... wonders why these farmers are such idiots and goes to work in his laboratory?
... a summoner ... scares everyone with her Eidolon and takes the cow?
... a barbarian ... gets really angry at the conflict and murders everyone?
... a monk ... recommends the farmers detach themselves from their possessions and then meditates on self-perfection?

Of course, each of these classes has methods of dealing with the Cow Crisis. I don't think they necessarily have "iconic solutions" to it though, and I also don't think that's a bad thing.

If you're arguing mechanics, I'm more sympathetic.

1 to 50 of 463 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>