Cyouni's page

120 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Corrik wrote:
Quote:
How many castings of unseen servant do you think it takes to keep a metropolis clean? And no, you're not allowed access to the custom magic item rules. Prestidigitation can't really do anything that an untrained labourer couldn't already do, so great work there.
Could easily be hundreds, which is why you'd want magic items to do it. And yes, I am allowed access to the custom magic item rules. But having hundreds of low level casters in a city resolves that issue either way. The point isn't to do things that laborers couldn't do, it's to make it so they don't have to do that and can instead focus on other things. I've repeated that several times so I feel like you haven't actually read my posts.

Yes, but there aren't hundreds of low-level wizards in a metropolis. Let's go by my (extremely generous) note earlier that 1 in 100 people is a caster. So in a given metropolis, there are 250 casters, and not all of them will be wizards. You'd be lucky if even half of them are wizards, actually, given the sheer number of other types of caster. So let's say 100 wizards. Those 100 wizards can replace 100 labourers...for 2 hours each - 200 work hours. Presuming an 8-hour workday, you have successfully added...25 people to the economy, in a city of 25 thousand.

And if you want to use magic item creation rules, then start by explaining where in Golarion the infinite wish items are, or where the bracers of mage armor went to.

Corrik wrote:
I see you've skipped right past the magic school and trade guilds part and are moving the goal post to "But that would be a high level effect!!1!". I know it would be high level effect, that's why I said high level effects could create banana things. It's also why nothing I said was based on such an effect happening and it was mentioned after the fact as a bananas thing you could do with high level effects. As to why they would do that, that's a broad question that doesn't actually raise a point. Why does anyone do anything? Why does that one Wizard live on the Sun? Or are you suggesting that a high level wizard would never run a wizard school? Because there are canon numerous magic schools with mid to high level wizards running them.

The magic school and guilds being infinitely effective relies on massive sudden magical man-hours appearing out of nowhere, so there's no need to cover that when they can't appear.

Yes, there's a high-level wizard running a magic school in Golarion...as a front for an Infernal Duke. Now, I don't actually recall what Lorthact uses the Acadamae for, but what was a noted thing about that?

> Students give ten years of their life to try and become highly talented wizards. During the first three years of their studies, the students are used as cheap labor by the staff and the senior students. Two of every ten students at the Acadamae do not survive these first years, being slain by magic traps, wayward spells, or murderous imps, or simply dying from exhaustion or carelessness.

A 20% fatality rate is not great for this magical society, and this is one of the best-known and highly skilled in Golarion.

Corrik wrote:
This is assuming things would progress roughly in the manor as things did with technology in our world. It doesn't come close to "optimal human condition".

Very big assumption, considering there are demons, daemons, devils and their agents, all of whom would love to take advantage of that. And that's not even counting mortals that like the status quo. You're basically assuming everyone of a significant power level or above wants to contribute to this, and nothing like the Technic League forms, for example.

And you can't assume anything in relation to magic in comparison to our world's technology, when people of a certain level or above can literally take on an army of commoners and slaughter them all handily.

Corrik wrote:
Fish monsters crashed a meteorite in to it?

Yes, because they didn't like the empire growing too big for its britches. There have been things that might eventually approach what you talk about (Aroden Cheliax, Azlant, Thassilon) but it turns out that pretty much anything like that usually can't survive long enough to eventually (over millenia) become a magic utopia, and any upheaval destroys the progress that was built up.

Even Cheliax (the absurdly big government) has only even been around for about a hundred years.


Corrik wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Corrik wrote:

Actually construction is a lot of what the working class does in a medieval city. But I didn't say it replaces all of the working class now did I? Being able to spend half an hour to get the same result as 100 people laboring for 3 days(for the minimum is massive. Cities and fleets of ships could be built in an effective blink of an eye. Because yes, if it can build something like a building, then it can build a boat. That is a lot of labor that we no longer need, than can now be focused on becoming skilled laborers. Who can then focus on creating more magic and money that creates more of a surplus of labor, thus creating more ability to create skilled laborers, thus etc, etc. Then of course there is automation, which magic more than allows for. For example, horde of unseen servants could take care of a lot of the cleaning and other such menial labor, constructs could be used for hard labor or creating more constructs to do more hard labor. Not that we actually need constructs to mine for us since we can easily conjure raw materials out of thin air. Repair work is simple as Make Whole takes care of the majority of it. Even prestidigitation frees up a lot of chore time. Again, the list goes on. That s*$@ is exponential in a society that has had the available means for centuries, millennia even.

"I haven't run across that many construction workers in stories that didn't revolve or involve construction workers" is hardly a compelling argument. You haven't run across all that many farmers. Am I to believe that farmers aren't particularly common? To be fair, the ability to easily conjure food certainly takes away a lot of the need. But I've never once had any of the farmers in the released material talk about all the magical means of crop production they use.

So question: where are all the wizards that can cast these unseen servants, and why don't they have anything better to do with their spells?

Only 1 in 10 people that are even worth a stat block are

...

Yeah, so to start with.

How many castings of unseen servant do you think it takes to keep a metropolis clean? And no, you're not allowed access to the custom magic item rules. Prestidigitation can't really do anything that an untrained labourer couldn't already do, so great work there.

Similarly, a demiplane that has a different rate of time requires a level 17 wizard, and again, what is this wizard doing that he has time to afford to do this for pretty much 0 benefit of his own? (Not to mention greater demiplane can only double time, not do 10x it as you'd like to think.)

And this is all assuming optimal human condition that all wants to work together for a collective benefit, as though that's ever happened historically.

Finally, I'm pretty sure that this was basically the definition of Azlant. Look what happened to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:


So it seems to me like we are looking at three main builds:
Dex/wis/con: dodge wuxia monk. Hard to hit, deal okay damage, have some neat little tricksy tricks. All their saves are gonna be hella impressive too.
Str/dex/con: DPS monk that is a little easier to hit but hits hard in return. I worry that this build has little support but maybe the damage will truly be sick when we know all the mechanics at play here.
Dex/con/wis: dodge tank monk. This is pretty much the first kind of monk but with more health and fewer tricks.

I had a huge success with Strength 20, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 10. If I was a dwarf, I could have had Cha 8 and 18 in either Con or Wis, which would have been even better.

Quote:
On a related note: I want to try and get dragon tail style on a barbarian somehow.
Hmm, that would be awesome on a dragon totem barbarian for maximum dragonation! Animal totem barbarians can already do things of similar magnitude based on their animal.
That seems like a very respectable strength-first stat spread. For some reason, I was expecting the “4th best stat” to end up in a somewhat more dire position. Perhaps I should withhold my exact judgement on the state of MAD for the monk until I know all of the rules for attribute progression.

We're generally pretty sure that attribute progression is +2 to four stats every 5 levels, +1 if it's already 18 or higher. So that looks like a level 10 setup, starting with 18/16/12/10/12/10 or the like, and going to 19/18/14/10/14/10 (Str, Dex, Con, Wis) at 5, and then to 20/18/16/12/16/10 (Str, Con, Int, Wis) at 10.


Corrik wrote:

Actually construction is a lot of what the working class does in a medieval city. But I didn't say it replaces all of the working class now did I? Being able to spend half an hour to get the same result as 100 people laboring for 3 days(for the minimum is massive. Cities and fleets of ships could be built in an effective blink of an eye. Because yes, if it can build something like a building, then it can build a boat. That is a lot of labor that we no longer need, than can now be focused on becoming skilled laborers. Who can then focus on creating more magic and money that creates more of a surplus of labor, thus creating more ability to create skilled laborers, thus etc, etc. Then of course there is automation, which magic more than allows for. For example, horde of unseen servants could take care of a lot of the cleaning and other such menial labor, constructs could be used for hard labor or creating more constructs to do more hard labor. Not that we actually need constructs to mine for us since we can easily conjure raw materials out of thin air. Repair work is simple as Make Whole takes care of the majority of it. Even prestidigitation frees up a lot of chore time. Again, the list goes on. That s*$@ is exponential in a society that has had the available means for centuries, millennia even.

"I haven't run across that many construction workers in stories that didn't revolve or involve construction workers" is hardly a compelling argument. You haven't run across all that many farmers. Am I to believe that farmers aren't particularly common? To be fair, the ability to easily conjure food certainly takes away a lot of the need. But I've never once had any of the farmers in the released material talk about all the magical means of crop production they use.

So question: where are all the wizards that can cast these unseen servants, and why don't they have anything better to do with their spells?

Only 1 in 10 people that are even worth a stat block are casters (and let's even pretend that all of those are wizards), and that's of people worth a stat block. Let's say for example that 1 in 10 of the people that exist are worth a stat block (and that's likely an incredibly generous number). So of this wizard's two spells/day, one of those (unseen servant) is spent doing the work of an unskilled labourer for one hour.

How is this supposed to "advance society" again?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I presume it's intended to solve the scroll/wand golf bag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
When you make a fourth attack then with agile, is the fourth attack also capped at -8 or is it -10?
It's pretty clearly -8. The point is that attacks after the third use the same penalty as the third, not that they cap at a specific penalty.
So a character with four attacks using both an agile and non agile weapon can exploit the system to do first attack with the heavy weapon at full bonus, second attack with agile at -4, third attack with agile at -8, and fourth attack with heavy weapon at -8?

I'm pretty sure it'd use the heavy weapon's third attack in that case, ie. -10.


tivadar27 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

How much of a problem is having a 16 in your main stat in PF2? I know that +1 matters a lot, but I always have trouble with monk stats.

Like I'm thinking of playing a Dwarf Monk with 16 in Dex, Con, and Wis, 12 Str, and 8 Cha. Bad idea?

Pretty sure this will be impossible by the new character building system...:

Class: +2 one stat
Background: +2 two stats
Race: +2 three stats, -2 one stat
Floating: +2 four stats

I think at max you could have 16s in two stats, and that's giving up an 18 in one stat to do it.

Hmm.

Ancestry: 10/12/12/10/12/8
Background: 10/12/14/10/14/8
Class: 10/14/14/10/14/8
Floating: 12/16/16/10/16/8

Seems possible.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, unless other things specifically
build on Ki Strike, it does sound quite a bit like the type of feat tax we were told wouldn't happen. Though it technically builds on the pool you gain access to, it's still not a great feeling...


willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.
Typical usable greatswords average from 5'2" to 5'10". Given that str based pathfinder characters have far larger strength, and are used to it, they should be able to use those larger weapons (especially if they're balanced properly) effectively in an open combat environment. The real issue I have with them in combat in pf is in hallways but that's an issue for more than just the large swords.
I'm going to ask for a reference on that one, as any historical source I see puts the standard at 50-55 inches, with a particularly long specimen being cited at just over 5 ft.

Here another and another

You also have to remember this is just the blade length we're discussing, this doesn't include the...

In your own links:

> Dr. Hans-Peter Hils in his 1985 dissertation on the work of the great 14th century master Johannes Liechtenauer noted that since the 19th century many arms museum collections typically feature immense parade or bearing greatswords as if they were actual combat weapons ignoring the fact they are not only blunt edged, but of impractical size and weight as well as poorly balanced for effective use. (Hils, p. 269-286). Though never intended for actual fighting, examples of such ponderous specimens are still occasionally cited incorrectly as having been actual combat weapons.

Furthermore, if you go check further down to actual weapon examples, all the samples are 5 feet or less. Same thing if you check the actual weapons in Wikipedia instead of just linking to classifications, because those classifications also include the ceremonial ones.

Edit: The lengths they reference also include the hilt.


willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.
Typical usable greatswords average from 5'2" to 5'10". Given that str based pathfinder characters have far larger strength, and are used to it, they should be able to use those larger weapons (especially if they're balanced properly) effectively in an open combat environment. The real issue I have with them in combat in pf is in hallways but that's an issue for more than just the large swords.

I'm going to ask for a reference on that one, as any historical source I see puts the standard at 50-55 inches, with a particularly long specimen being cited at just over 5 ft.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.

And this is currently associated with a -4ish penalty to attack in 1E. Don't see you up in arms about it.

Still a mundane act. 15 STR characters are ridiculously strong by modern standards.

Yes and that 15 Str character is still less likely to hit than a 10 Str commoner with a dagger.

That's the point - fighting with an 8-foot long sword like it's a normal weapon is not really a mundane act anymore.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ruemere wrote:

"If you succeed and the target is alive, anytime during the duration you can spend a Verbal action to speak a word of death that could instantly slay it, depending on its Fortitude save."

This is really awkward method of expressing the dependencies. It also does not state whether the target must be able to hear the word of death or be within a range of hearing, or...

Moreover: this casting deals no damage. So why would the target become NOT alive at the end of the casting, huh?

Also this section (below) is not clear whether it relates to QUIVERING PALM casting or target's Fortitude save.

"Success The target survives, the spell ends, and the target is bolstered against it.
Failure The target is stunned for 1 round but survives. The spell's duration continues, but the target is bolstered against being killed by quivering palm for 24 hours.
Critical Failure The target dies."

Verdict: Really bad. As in back to the drawing board.

----
Upon successful casting, the target is affected by a spell effect. The effect is dormant until activated by a caster with a Verbal action (the target must be within a range of hearing and alive, though not necessarily able to hear the caster).
----

*sigh*

That seems pretty clear to me?

You hit and deal damage. If they're alive after that, they have Quivering Palm attached.

You spend a Verbal action at any time to activate it, and no matter where they are they then have to make their save. Doesn't matter if they're deaf, on a different plane, or on the other side of the world.

On a Success, they lose the Quivering Palm effect (meaning you can't try to kill them through it again) and you can't try and reapply it for 24 hours.
On a Failure, they just can't die from it for 24 hours, but you can keep trying to stun them.


Tholomyes wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

I really, really like this implementation. I have some questions though:

1. Is there any incentive to focus on STR? I imagine styles without Finesse-type attacks are one of them, but not having armor early on pushes the class towards DEX pretty hard.

I'd figure strength is so their punches don't hit like a pile of wet noodles. Dex can be your primary attribute all you want, it doesn't change the damage formula of being base+str mod.
I thought we already saw (in the glass cannon podcast, I think), that agile attacks are automatically dex-to-damage.

Agile lets you take less penalty on iteratives, while finesse attacks are dex-to-hit. We haven't seen any dex-to-damage yet, but Rogue might have one in their class feats somewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Interesting, though I wonder whether Str based Monks aren't just going to be subpar. True, they seem to do a little more damage than Dex monks, if Crane Wing and Dragon Tail are to be considered as representative, but a Dex monk might not need to care about Dex, while a Str based monk still needs Dex a whole lot for AC, not to mention reflex. Maybe it won't be as bad as prior editions, since Wis is somewhat optional, but still, I'm unsure.
My suspicion is that such a monk will still have Dex second, so 18 Str/16 Dex at 1st level, 19/18 at 5th level, 20/19 at 10th level, and so on, meaning they're behind by 1 or 0 in AC at most levels. A monk like this will probably want Con third for sure. We'll see how it fares in playtest!
...Which means that the monk can't be intelligent, charismatic, or wise if he wants to survive combats. That is really bad.

Hmm, by quick math, a sample human monk like that might look like: 18/16/12/10/12/10

Spreading out a bit more (16/14/14/10/14/10) might be better, and non-humans with a penalty to Int or Cha would also fare a little better.

Not sure how to feel about this.


The ability to choose your key ability is a very interesting one. Wonder who else has this as an option.


willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.


willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.

Yeah, sure it's not a horrible trade, but I'm losing the things I literally chose that totem for (and any of the feats that I chose based off of that totem which could be all of them up to that point, we won't know till we get the playtest), really losing my powers for something that while I had some control over, wally is forced upon me if I don't want to sit around the table and watch the next few fights occur while my barb hides during the fights. If this was a paladin losing their powers, people would be going crazy.

Yes, titan mauler was not core, it still existed and had no anathema (sorry core only people, you lose out on things), so that's a false point of getting benefits from having anathema added.

Also the gm could have planned to do something with your anathema for RP the evening prior to your characters departure out of

...

The actual comment that was said was:

>A lot of things in the game that are the spell, now count as spells. Those spell in a can items (wands, scrolls, staves) would not work. Elixirs from alchemists aren't even magic, so they're definitely fine. As seen in a few playtests where potions were found, potions aren't exactly spells in a can any more either, though some are pretty similar to spells (we had enough spell in a can types of items).

Notice how potions aren't on the "spell in a can items" list.

There's been the healing alchemical (Potion of Vitality I think was the name) that's been mentioned on the Glass Cannon podcast. Heals less than a potion, but gives an alternate bonus if you're at full health. Pretty sure it was 1d6, but gives a +1 to Fort vs toxins at full health, or something like that.

If you purposefully don't accept challenges, then you have to accept the consequences that come with it. Again, we're back to "want to do dumb things and don't like having consequences".


willuwontu wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.

Yeah, sure it's not a horrible trade, but I'm losing the things I literally chose that totem for (and any of the feats that I chose based off of that totem which could be all of them up to that point, we won't know till we get the playtest), really losing my powers for something that while I had some control over, wally is forced upon me if I don't want to sit around the table and watch the next few fights occur while my barb hides during the fights. If this was a paladin losing their powers, people would be going crazy.

Yes, titan mauler was not core, it still existed and had no anathema (sorry core only people, you lose out on things), so that's a false point of getting benefits from having anathema added.

Also the gm could have planned to do something with your anathema for RP the evening prior to your characters departure out of downtime mode, and you don't feel like dealing with it,...

Maybe you shouldn't provoke your own downfall then?

There's already been mentioned to be tons of non-magic ways of healing - Medicine skill and alchemical fluids among them, not to mention potions - so you breaking your own anathema to do that is 100% on you.

Similarly, the second one is "I make bad decisions and don't like consequences".


willuwontu wrote:
Quandary wrote:

I'm ignoring the comments which ignore the dev's own comments.

I love the new design, tying into alot of the flavor I enjoy about Barbarian, and I agree with fixed relationship of Anathema and Totems. This represents specific source of specific power, and that comes with specific behavioral dynamic. I think the calibration of power loss is perfect, only Totem powers and only 1 day keeps it real but not apocalyptic.

You probably shouldn't ignore the dev comments when making your post, you don't get the powers back after one day like a wizard regaining spells. Which is what it sounded like to me what you said.

Whenever you perform such acts, you lose the totem’s power and any totem feats until you spend 1 day of downtime recentering yourself, though you keep all other barbarian abilities.

It's 1 day of downtime. I hope you weren't in the middle of a dungeon delve when you lost your powers otherwise you don't have access to them for the whole expedition.

So while it's lighter and easier to clear up after than a paladins fall (as it should be), if you lose it in the middle of dungeoning it still screws you for something that previously didn't exist.

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.


Valcali wrote:

Getting back to the core topic, less dice is better. Due to degrading attention spans when computers or smart phones are at the gaming table I have banned them. Thus dice rolling apps are not an option for my group. My wife is terrible at basic arithmetic and one of my other players has a strange mental process, that while still able to get the correct answers causes him to calculate very slowly.

The wider variation you get in the amounts of damage being generated the harder it is to properly pace encounters, especially for extremely wide variations. I do not like how P2E is heading towards larger damage numbers, to the point where we are encroaching into Final Fantasy levels of damage. More damage means increased hit point totals for monster, which means increased HP tracking strain on the GM if they decide to have a larger amount of weaker creatures attack.

More so large dice pools make is harder for players who are not math inclined to make proper informed decisions about their chracter's actions. While I can determine variances, averages and the percentages generated by such in my head quickly, most of my players cannot. This deprives them of the ability to make proper informed actions and I would hope would be something that Pazio would consider in this new system.

The damage numbers are approximately the same, but there's just more dice involved. When you're dealing 1d4+45 in 1E, you really don't care about the damage dice because the difference between max and min is 3 damage.

Why do they need to determine variances and averages at the table, and in what situation does this come up? I'm presuming you're not referring to the difference between 10d6 and 10d4, or the difference between 10d6 and 6d6, because those are pretty obvious at a glance.

I can totally see why problems with calculation could lead to issues at the table, however.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
Not a big fan of “quickened” giving you different types of actions depending on the source. Really unintuitive and messy, and basically means that haste and that monk ability don’t actually give you the same condition, but it has the same name anyway. Would quickened just giving you an additional action you can use for whatever really be that overpowered?
Probably not, definitely something to mention during playtest
I dunno. Casting 2 9th level spells in one turn seems pretty potent to me.
Considering that it will require a caster at least level 17 and spells per day is capped at 3, I don't see any issue in that.
It's a 20th level Wizard class feat to cast two spells at once, and even then they put a "same target" limitation on it. They are not going to let you have this capability through Haste.
Wow PF2 really went hard on caster, I will check the playtest but looks like PF2 is not going to be do it me

Some people like playing things that aren't casters without feeling like they've made a mistake because casters always do their job better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
Okay, I'm calling it now: getting reliable access to the "Quick" condition is going to be a staple of high-level play.

I think it's still going to be a strong condition, but less ubiquitous than it was before. This is (for haste, for example) simply due to the fact that you still take the iterative penalty, and when you go down to -10 your odds of hitting usually aren't great enough for that to be a required thing.

It really depends on what additional actions are allowed by some of these. This third one, for example:

- For instance, a 20th-level monk with Enduring Quickness is permanently quick, and can use the extra action to Stride, to Leap, or as part of a High Jump or Long Jump.

This suggests that a High Jump or Long Jump can be augmented in some form aside from a standard Leap, and I'm thinking that's likely a Monk prerequisite feat similar to what it had before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Wultram wrote:
So here is a simple argument then. Enforcing and/or locking mechanics behind characters personality is a bad decision and about as close as wrong as you can be on a subjective matter. As an example who would tolerate their GM saying something along the lines "You find this person attractive"(In this example assume that no external forces influencing the character.) As in not describing that the NPC is atractive, but that your character find them so. To me at least that is stop hold on a second, serious talk and very real possibility of walking from the table. So why should we allow the rules to do this?
This is a complete and total non-sequitur that has... absolutely no relation to Anathema as showcased.
Blog wrote:
you cannot fail to accept a personal challenge of your strength

Sure about that? Sounds a whole lot like enforced personality trait to me.

Options: you are cursed to accept challenges of strength; any challenger is a potential recruit to join your order, and you are always on the lookout for new recruits; your tribe places strong cultural value on demonstrations of strength. You don’t agree with them, but still feel dissonance when you break that tribal custom.

Or d)

You don't always accept challenges of strength, instead you can't use any weapons smaller than larger ones as using them messes with your ability to use larger ones, causing you to be unable to do so while you have to readjust back.
How does that create a roleplaying hook? That just sounds like a mechanical "this is pretty much never going to come up, so it's optimal".
The barbarians giant sword gets shattered from a mighty blow from the boss, the fighter, noticing his ally lose his weapon, presses back his foe for a moment and then goes to toss his sword at the stunned barbarian for him to take and use as he draws his back up axe. The...

Again, that's not a roleplaying hook. That's a "I can't use the sword or I lose access to features" mechanical thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Wultram wrote:
So here is a simple argument then. Enforcing and/or locking mechanics behind characters personality is a bad decision and about as close as wrong as you can be on a subjective matter. As an example who would tolerate their GM saying something along the lines "You find this person attractive"(In this example assume that no external forces influencing the character.) As in not describing that the NPC is atractive, but that your character find them so. To me at least that is stop hold on a second, serious talk and very real possibility of walking from the table. So why should we allow the rules to do this?
This is a complete and total non-sequitur that has... absolutely no relation to Anathema as showcased.
Blog wrote:
you cannot fail to accept a personal challenge of your strength

Sure about that? Sounds a whole lot like enforced personality trait to me.

Options: you are cursed to accept challenges of strength; any challenger is a potential recruit to join your order, and you are always on the lookout for new recruits; your tribe places strong cultural value on demonstrations of strength. You don’t agree with them, but still feel dissonance when you break that tribal custom.

Or d)

You don't always accept challenges of strength, instead you can't use any weapons smaller than larger ones as using them messes with your ability to use larger ones, causing you to be unable to do so while you have to readjust back.

How does that create a roleplaying hook? That just sounds like a mechanical "this is pretty much never going to come up, so it's optimal".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
<snip>

The point of my thread was the question at the end. I know this because I wrote the post. The question at the beginning was to provide context for my thought process which led to the question.

Again, I know this, because I wrote it.

If you chose to focus on other elements of the post vs. the true question I posed, that's cool, but it doesn't change what I asked or what motivated me to ask it.

If everyone reads your question as something else, perhaps the problem isn't in everyone else, but in how you worded it.

If by legendary/high-level play you mean anything above level 12, then no, I don't want a separate book that's only supposed to cover half the game time. That would be incredibly wasteful and pointless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Grumpus wrote:
maybe this has been asked before but, can every class, with the right selection of abilities, eventually get any skill they want up to legendary?
Probably any one skill yes. We don't know the non-Class ways to acquire a Signature Skill right at the moment, but since it's been said there is one, and that's all you need to do this, I can't see this being impossible.

I'm pretty sure it was reported that the skill feat you get off the Street Urchin background (Pickpocket?) adds Thievery as a Signature Skill.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I've never seen a game where enemies metagame stuff like the cavalier's order. We must play in very different games...
it's not metagaming, it's research: The guy wears THIS Orders colours in his heraldry, their power comes from THIS oath, so we can take advantage of that oath in THIS way, exactly the same as figuring out a Clerics deity or Mages school, or Sorcerers Bloodline, you gain intelligence and use it. If you aren't trying to do the same as a player, looking for and taking advantage of weaknesses, everything from knowing what DR the monsters/beasties have, to what the tenents and doctrines of the other guys faith, what aspect of the Cleric of Lahamatsu's faith can I use, what should I be aware of, what am I likely/unlikely to face etc. The advantage of fighters, barbarians and rogues was that it was individual, you had to get to know that one guy, you couldn't (for instance) say 'oh oversized weapon, ok Giant Totem, obssesed with strength, how can we use this?'

You...are aware that exactly like totems are, orders are things personal to the cavalier, right? (It remains to be seen if you can retrain into a different totem if your ideals or traditions change.)

There's no actual Order of the Cockatrice that cavaliers across Golarion sign up for membership with, with accompanying badges and heraldry.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
That's not an example of a totem, though. Totems are described as "a representation of how and why you rage". Big weapons are a consequence of choosing the giant totem, they aren't the totem itself.

Except totems have been said to just be a result of belief or states of mind? Why would there be a mental block preventing anyone who lacks a strength complex from learning how to use big weapons when it isn't magical in nature. It is literally a skill (standard english definition not RPG Skill definition) that the can barbarian learn without needing to tap into anything supernatural or special.... so why does a skill require you to have a very specific personality if you want to learn it without supernatural aid?

The inconsistency is what is creating this friction. Hopefully it will become more clear once everyone has the playtest rules in our hands and/or devices.

You are learning it without supernatural aid but it is still an esoteric technique that perhaps requires you to first attain a specific state of mind to access. I do not see any disjoint from a storytelling standpoint at all:

The barbarian class interact with these primal concepts/mind states/mythic archetypes that result in them unlocking techniques that are unattainable through traditional martial education.

What is mechanically important is that these mind states are mutually exclusive. -w-

You're making stuff up. Just straight up. In an effort to justify a specific anathema that doesn't particularly make sense you're inserting fluff where it does not exist.

Earlier in this thread I came up with a concept for a Superstitious Barbarian that got the Mark Seifter badge of approval who's totem isn't related to a state of mind in any way; she was the subject of scientific experiments to turn her into an antimagic supersoldier, and her body and spirit simply repels magic

...

I was unaware Cavalier orders were a "nerf the Cavalier button". They're basically the same feature, and if you weren't up in arms about the Cavalier, I fail to see why you should be now.

It's a "But Thou Must" in the same way the Order of the Lion must serve their liege, or the Order of the Shield must protect the common folk, with approximately the same level of penalty for failing to uphold their convictions.

Does everyone go around baiting Order of the Cockatrice cavaliers into things where refusing would violate "The cavalier must take every opportunity to increase his own stature, prestige, and power"? Is there a culture where this happens that I've missed? Why is this suddenly a concern for the Barbarian?


Milo v3 wrote:


Cavaliers are odd, because apparently if you want to be a tanky character you need to devote yourself to protecting commoners? So you can't have a tanky evil knight who guards the evil king, which is just odd.

Without even trying, I can name LE Order of the Lion Cavalier.

So at some point, you might need to recheck your biases.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it really necessary to literally write THIS TOO CAN BE DISCUSSED WITH GM on every single page people might have a problem with (every page)?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
The mundane (as in non-magical) effect of leveling up shouldn't facilitate reality-altering effects the way magic does. It's that simple.

And this is why CMD has been a thing for the longest time - because martials can't have cool things or people complain.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
nogoodscallywag wrote:

Really? Legendary Cat Fall means you can fall from a height of 1,000 feet and take literally no damage whatsoever? I don't know how I feel about that. While it would certainly take a lot of feats to accomplish this, it seems a bit cartoonish to me. I realize characters are superheroes, but zero damage from this sort of thing is bit much for me. At least this ability is behind a ton of feats costs. Will take some getting used to, if possible. Seems like "mythic" all over again.

Legendary Thief skill will undoubtedly need to have concise wording for GMs so that players don't take advantage of it.

Mark Seifter wrote:


That said, the necessary houserule to avoid them is easy to employ and doesn't even penalize the PCs compared to a more well-rounded build: Just tell them they can't raise a skill to legendary rank, even when they hit 15th. They can still use the skill rank increases to get another master skill and another expert instead, and then the whole group wins if they aren't into legendary skill feats :)

If the devs are saying legendary can be house-ruled out without effecting other rules, then I'm ok with that. My fear would be ruining other aspects of the game when removing them. It is OK, in my opinion, to keep the rules in core, as the more options the better for those players who want them. But Legendary ability starting at level 15 seems a bit much; epic/mythic should be 20+ in my opinion, so in my games legendary would be prohibited if they don't make sense or fit or are too cartoonish- which the legendary proficiency appear to be (again, for those that like this sort of thing, that's fine, but it's not for me). if people want to play Thor, more power to them, leave the rules in! But also leave an out for those who don't want that silliness. I wonder what the general consensus is on these legendary skills?

BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.

I...

Again, people have been able to catch bullets, slash lasers out of the air, fight things triple their height with swords, use alive enemies as a weapon, fall 1000 feet as long as there's a wall near the bottom, and run 825 feet in 6 seconds, all non-magically...

And this is what you have a problem with?


Legendary is only for signature skills, yes.

You get more than one signature skill for each class, and there's at least one skill feat that adds to signature skills


JoelF847 wrote:

I wonder if the superstitious totem barbarian will have their resonance set to zero? That's one way to limit them "never willingly accept the benefits of..." magic rather than of spells specifically. Seems like if it's limited to spells it's a bit of a cop out:

"Filthy wizard, don't enchant me with your evil spells!"
"But I need to get you flying you you can rage smash that dragon attacking us!"
"I'll gladly drink your potion of fly then"

It's been noted that "spell-in-a-can" potions are going to be significantly less prevalent. I don't recall if the comment said that they don't exist anymore, though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Question: for those who feel that Legendary skills are too close to mythic, what are your proposed alternatives, and how do they remain somewhat impressive compared to things like 6th-8th level spells?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

So, I am still confused as to what happens when you assign more than four ranks to a skill. (Like assigning 10 ranks to Stealth)

With the character getting x + Int every odd level, this seems to be the question to ask at this point.

From my understanding, you get X + Int once. This gets you that many skills from untrained to trained.

After that, at each odd level, you can raise the proficiency of any skill by one level.

Those are all the increases provided you don't spend skill feats on them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Please remember that in PF1 you could totally cut bullets out of the air, and smash lasers out of the air. This was sufficiently non-magic enough.


If the players fulfill the objectives for allying with nobles (like the Earn Gold one, for example) before they actually approach that noble family, should they be eligible for the alliance when they make their approach?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm also going to be the constant reminder that 2E is supposed to be less rocket-taggy than 1E, not more. And that it's aiming to resolve the problem where spellcasters above a certain level basically had infinite spells because low-level ones always scaled up.

Looking at the above analysis, the expected DC for a PF2 cone of cold (level 9) should be at a minimum DC 24 from some napkin math. 10 + 9 level + 4 stat + 1 expert. It's more likely to be at least DC 25 thanks to stat increases by that point, but that's a different story.


Diego Rossi wrote:
That is what I get from the blogs. I can be wrong.

Well, if you throw an encounter of four CR 3 enemies at a level 3 party...you should have about a 50% chance of wiping out said party, with equivalent CR of 7. I'm pretty sure the same is applicable for PF2, and would be the equivalent of an AP-ending boss fight.

So technically, yes, it's a same-level encounter, but same-level encounters have a pretty good chance of wrecking a fresh party.


Why...are you firing a disintegrate at something you have a 55% chance of missing? If someone's fortified so heavily that you have a 55% chance of missing his TAC, perhaps a different spell would be more appropriate.


Norgorber and Lamashtu probably have things they consider honourable/dishonourable, but does that mean that they would care about the same code of honour that a paladin would be tied to?


Looking at the video, I don't think anyone's mentioned Disjunction yet. Looks like it's only usable on a magic item (vs an unattended magic item for Dispel Magic), and takes it out for 1 week, destroyed on crit success. Interesting note is that it now automatically fails on artifacts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

At 3rd level and every level thereafter, he gets X ranks in skills. He can use those, on a one for one basis, to buy new skills at Trained, or to upgrade existing skills by one rank (so Trained to Expert, or Expert to Master, or Master to Legend). He cannot buy skills to Master before 7th level, or to Legend before 15th.

The only part of this we don't know is what X is, though it seems to probably be 2 (it could be 3), and the same for almost everyone, with only Rogues getting extra and nobody adding Int Mod.

We can probably do a little math based off this statement from Mark:

Mark Seifter wrote:
As best I can tell, a single-classed rogue who desperately desired skill, spent every option and took every advantage, could manage to gain at least 54 skill rank increases, but 35 of those would all be only for untrained to trained, so...lots of Lores!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
With the Lv 15 Legendary stealth feat, you no longer have to tell your DM "Just assume I'm stealthing unless I say otherwise."

Other things seem to be: "I'm stealthy even when I'm asleep", "I'm stealthy while surrounded by guards staring at me", and "I'm stealthy while there's literally no way to stealth". At least theoretically.

If I'm right, the big boon is "always use Stealth as initiative, no matter what". That sounds pretty good.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
Not gonna lie, unless Remove Blindness/Deafness and Cure Disease have been turned into much higher level spells I'm not super impressed by that legendary Heal feat.

Seconded.

Remove Poison/Disease and Remove Blindness/Deafness are 3rd level spells that Divine spellcasters of 5th level or higher could cast in PF1. The fact that they think Legendary proficiency with a Skill Feat being even just comparable to a 5th level Cleric's spell power (again, assuming no major spell level change) is just laughable.

Let me guess what's next, Legendary Stealth allows a "Hide in Plain Sight" skill feat that grants a form of Invisbility, something that 2nd level+ Arcane Spellcasters can do? Cool, sure, but you could at least raise it to Improved Invisibility for a Legendary Skill + Feat.

It's certainly going to be underwhelming...if remove blindness/cure disease are still 3rd level spells. And if they haven't been downgraded in the same fashion as knock/pass without trace.


Lucas Yew wrote:
Not bad, the legendary feats are. But seriously, fighters and other non-casters should have above average skill points compared to casters; +1 compared to PF1 is a bit meh...

I think it's also the fact that the skill list has been halved in size and that you simply need to be trained in a skill - number of ranks in that no longer matter.

I sincerely hope that the number of skills you're trained in each level aren't quite that high. With 12 Int, a fighter will be trained in every skill by level 5, and might start making rogues look obsolete. This is less true given skill feats, of course, but still applicable to other classes. Characters getting their set amount at level 1, and then 2 every level after probably sounds like a solution which wouldn't result in everyone being legendary on every skill at level 20.

Edit: I see the proficiency blog covered exactly how it works, but the exact amount gained probably is going to be something that is going to be heavily looked at in the playtest.


So you're just trying to exacerbate the "infinite spell caster" problem? Because really, you're just complaining at this point that spellcasters can't use level 1 spells fully effectively to eliminate things when they're level 15. If you remove that problem from control casters, and give that ability to blaster casters, then you have the exact same problem, just on a different type of caster.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
The thing is: honour comes up constantly under the portfolio of lawful gods (even evil ones, sometimes), and never under the portfolio of neutral/chaotic gods.

Gorum is one. Reading his entry in Inner Sea Gods, he's also a deity whose theoretical CN paladins would be barred from using poison.

I'm sure I could find more, but at least one major god as an exception should be enough for this conversation as it applies to Golarian.

Last I checked, his areas of concern were:

Areas of Concern Battle, strength, weapons
Domains Chaos, Destruction, Glory, Strength, War
Subdomains Blood, Duels, Ferocity, Fist, Legend, Protean, Rage, Resolve, Tactics

Honour is neither an area of concern nor a subdomain for him.

1 to 50 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>