Dekalinder's page

1,268 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My only wish is for errata and FAQ to be actual errata and FAQ instead of balance changes ala mmo.
This ain't a mmo, and we don't need "calibration patches"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spell sunder and superstitious in core. Great. Just Great.
Also i'd like to know ho much of the ubiquitness of the totems was because of coolness or because f$##ing pounce on a barbarian was THE mechanically optimal choice.

If touch AC is only 2 points lower than normal AC spell will actually be ahrder to hit without the bonus from weapons (witch is quite significant)

What if, for once in a lifetime, every stats has some mechanical value to every character like COS? Would that make dumping a stat more accepted?

Captain Morgan wrote:

Yeah, this is a fair point. I think average damage is going up a little though, at least if the fighter is a fair benchmark. I think a a PF1 5th level Greatsword Power Attack hits for an average of around 23 before you factor in stuff like Weapon Training. In PF2, that same character probably hits for 26. Then we have to look at crit mechanics... I think PF2 character will be critting a lot more often, but I'm not a good enough at math to tell you how much that will increase their damage.

So how much damage blasters do in relation to the martials is important, which I think me and Dasrak agree on. I just think we should focus on amping up the single target blasts first, because right now they suck so hard.

5th level is a bad comparison IMHO. The new action economy front loads much of the power of martials giving them iteratives from lv 1. If you compare level 6 however, a PF2 fighter can dish out 1 power attack + 1 normal attack, compared to a PF1 fighter who can dish out 2 power attacks. So even if PF2 PA is better, I have problems believing it will keep up with fighter iteratives from lv 6 onward.

People seems to miss the fact that having a 50% damage spike 3 round a day has a different impact when the average lenght of the fights in a day is 40 rounds compared to when is 20 rounds.
If average HP is going up and average damage is remaining the same, fight lenght is going up, devaluing the power of said damage spikes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that a God is completely optional to being a Paladin. And apperently now also the Chaos has Rules. I'm ok with chaotic gods having rules. I'm not ok with Chaos itself having rules. I'll show myself out now.

Well, since said paladin is Chaotic, he doesn't give two hoots about any rule or oath and can simply ignore any point he believe to be interfering with his cause of a greater good. So we can skip bothering with the code altogether.

I'd like to point that personally I believe that being able to get out of moral quandary (or i more in general any situation) thanks to a simple flowchart is going to be as anticlimatic as possible. Never liked games with paladins in it because there was almost no point in spinning situation or proposing deals, you always know how the party would have reacted if they didn't want the paladin to fail, and that kills most of my enjoyment as a master.
You get in this weird state where you are basically playing with a finite state machine, you put in decision, they follow the flowchart, they spill out the answer. Boring.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
1, only a select few people here on the boards see anything of 'evolution of PF to 4e', and it seems rather ridiculous to most of us. (From what I've seen from reactions so far.

4e removed BAB and skill points and added in +1/2 level to everything. They also added in leveled items (level didn't actually mean anything in terms of what you could use but was instead simply an indicator for the DM to determine what items to hand out to the players). This elicited complaints about people feeling like they were on a treadmill, which directly led to 5e removing the +1/2 level to everything and instead condensed it down to a bonus that maxed out at +7.

PF2e has removed BAB and skill points (at least as they worked in PF1e) for a +level bonus with us being told we'll have leveled items (they won't have any meaning in the game other than to act as an indicator for the GM as to when to hand them out). Sure enough, in the post I quoted, we see one person making the same complaint about the treadmill.

why do you feel that a +level bonus to everything is identical to a +1/2 level bonus to everything, but a (roughly) 1/3 level bonus to everything (like 5e) is not?

All of those have much more in common with each other than spending skill points to gain skill ranks. The difference is 5e aims for bounded accuracy, and more interaction between lvl 1 threats and lvl 20 threats, while PF does the opposite.

Because in 5e is not to everything, is only on proficiency. Is not on all Saves, only on the 2 you are good, to make an example. Basically, in 4e/PF2 the level scaling raises the floor, while in 5e raises the ceiling. This creates a different sense of progression, where DC doesn't ramp up as much, instead reliability on action with bonuses does.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you expecter PF2 to be a straight up power creep where every class simply gets more stuffs you are going to be sorely disappointed. New edition serve the exact opposite porpose, that is to cleanse options and power to a more manageable size.
I suggest not expecting to be able to port all characters from PF1 to PF2 as is since a lot of stuff are going the way of the dodo.
Hopefully dex to damage is one of those. I already have to endure 5e for that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like this topic have long since diverted into ad hominem, so I urge everyone to let it die before someone comes in swinging the hammer left and right.

Logan Bonner wrote:
brad2411 wrote:
I was wondering if you get a 2nd domain or expand your current domain do you get more spell points or is it another feat like "extra spell points" that increase your spell point cap?
The feat that gives you the new power also increases your Spell Points.

So you can chose to stack on subpar option just to jack up you spell point to use on the better one? Sounds cool for thinkering. I guess only testing it's going to tell us if is a bug or a feature.

Action sistem and ability score generation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would have said that I was estatic at the reduction in spell slots if that came with an adequate power compensation on the remaining ones. But seeing from the spell blog that most offensive spells have been nerfed, especially damage ones, and combining the fact that spells have to be heightened to keep up with the moster CR, make me feel like spellcaster are getting the shaft.
We are looking at around 5-6 spells of relevant power at any given level, and then we are back at spamming cantrips. I'm not fond of that system.

Unrelated note, spell tier sounds awfull. If we really are going to pool for a rename, to me the only sensible choice would be spell circles.

Dasrak wrote:
If this is the case, spellcasters would need commensurately more spell slots so they can continue to apply damage over successive rounds without exhausting themselves. However, that could push battlefield control over the edge, giving wizards far more daily resources than they could ever possibly need.

Not really, the simpliest approach is to make cantrip scale with level to deal "accceptable" damage and have the blast being a 1 turn "steroid". It's the way the 5e has gone and mathematically it works. I'm not really a fan of it since to me the difference between martial and caster as always been "at will consistent damage" versus "nova/silver bullet"

I would have much prefered if PF2 went back toward the 1° edition root where slots where very tight but really powerfull.

David knott 242 wrote:

Do any of you remember the D&D 3.5 supplement Races of Destiny? PF1 invalidated more content from that book than any other D&D 3.5 book in terms of Pathfinder applicability.

At this point, I am wondering how many PF1 feats will have "grown up" and how many will have to be "buried" because of systematic game changes.

God i love that book. Illumian are the single most interesting race ever created, and the charmeleon where pure genius.

How about tring to get fluff and mechanics as far away as we can? No regional feats, no raised by feats, and please no g~&&@+n found by faeries in the jungle.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Indeed, some quick math based on weapons adding damage dice for every +1 indicated to me we probably aren't. I mean a 20th level Fighter with a +5 Greataxe probably does a minimum of 6d12+12 or so, for 51 average in PF2...a PF1 Fighter with a +5 Greataxe and Power Attack sans Class Features is 1d12+38 for 44.5 average. That goes to 50.5 if you add Weapon Training and Gloves of Dueling.

Those numbers are close enough that I'm pretty sure there's no damage drop. Indeed, individual attack damage may have gone up a bit (since the PF2 example was sans Class Features). Now, they do have less attacks, I suppose so total DPR on a Full Attack may have gone down a bit...but probably not since crits have also gotten more common.

As far as crit being more likely, considering that a greatsword (witch 99% of fighter who doesn't have a falcata use) is already 20%, I really hope they are not going to be even more likely.

As far as damage, I have noticed both a damage drop in the alchemist bombs and in the spells damage, so i'm only assuming martial damage is also going down since they were already quite ahead in that department.

As I mentioned before, I believe PF2 is going to take a hint from 5e with lower DPR and higher average HP to avoid OTK or DPR races and give defensive tools more importance than right now in PF1.

Charlie Brooks wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
I'm not getting it. If instead of slot, you use as a limiting factor resonance, you are simply moving the goalpost. You still have a limited amount of magic you can use, and you will still have priority on what to use, so anything "fun but not usefull" is still going to be thrashed.

The way I see it, it's not about items that are fun but not's about items that are fun but not essential.

The cape of the mountebank is a fun, useful item. But it's not a cloak of resistance, so taking that means you're at a disadvantage for saves. Eliminating that opens up more choices.

I'm not getting it. If instead of slot, you use as a limiting factor resonance, you are simply moving the goalpost. You still have a limited amount of magic you can use, and you will still have priority on what to use, so anything "fun but not as optimal" is still going to be thrashed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not getting it. If instead of slot, you use as a limiting factor resonance, you are simply moving the goalpost. You still have a limited amount of magic you can use, and you will still have priority on what to use, so anything "fun but not usefull" is still going to be thrashed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

A full quiver of arrows has a certain bulk (say 1), a half-full quiver of arrows has the same bulk, a quiver with one arrow in it has the same bulk.

A loose arrow has a bulk of, say, L, so 10 of them is one bulk. If you're carrying 20 of them that's 2 bulk so you're better off putting them in a quiver, which is a more efficient way to carry them (also arrow heads are sharp, and you don't want those just bouncing around in your pack).

Remember that past a certain level people are going to be keeping their stuff in extradimensional spaces and before then pack animals suffice. A handy haversack will hold a certain amount of bulk, and can't accommodate any items above a certain amount of bulk (so you can't fit a boat in there). Items in the haversack don't contribute to your bulk limit, but the pack itself has bulk.

I can bundle the 20 arrow with strings, in witch case that take less space of a quiver and are even easier to carry in a sack. But with bulk, carring 20 bundled arrows in a sack is somehow more bulky than carring an extra quiver on shoulder with said 20 arrow.

Unless "bundle of arrows" becomes a different item with different bulk value. Whitch at this point you should have multiple of to indicate the various bulks for, say, 20, 30, 40, 50 ecc arrows.

Now we can move the golapost for the rest of the year by making hundreds of corner cases or contrieved justifications, but I think at this point my argument should be clear: bulk is way less clear cut and easy to asses than just a damn straight number you tally on your sheet. Any argument that "bulk is easier to track" hold no credibility.

Malk_Content wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
I don't get it. If 1 arrow is L, so 10 arrows are 1 bulk, and a quiver with 20 arrow is also 1 bulk, then is an empty quiver worth -1 bulk?
Yes. It is a lot easier to carry 20 arrows in a quiver than it is to carry 20 loose arrows.

So I can carry 200 quiver with 10 arrow each for 0 bulk?

Also, can I carry a 500 bulk house on my shoulder with 7 in strenght as long as I have 500 empty quivers to lighten the load?

I don't get it. If 1 arrow is L, so 10 arrows are 1 bulk, and a quiver with 20 arrow is also 1 bulk, then is an empty quiver worth -1 bulk?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Taking time to make alchemy and alchemical items a balanced part of the game instead of something tacked on after the fact is giving alchemy preferential treatment over how it was handled in the first edition, but that doesn't mean it is more important than magic or other parts of the game. Alchemy is an important part of the world of Golarion, and the developers want that system integrated into the games core mechanics as opposed to being something developed later. Having non-magical items worth buying at higher levels is something I am happy to see balanced into the game from the beginning.

Too bad all we got from that read on alchemy is that if you are not an alchemist you shouldn't bother reading the chapter.

Bombs deals no damage without the alchemist multiplier, potion and elixirs eat on your resonance unless you are using the quick alchemy class feature, and poisons still have the same old crappy CD that are not going to reliably kill even a random commoner.
Honestly that blog looked too much like Alchemist part 2 than a separate system compared to skills and actions.

Rules Artificer wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
1 hand to hold it and one to trigger it. Pulling granade pins with the teeths only happens in films.

What a coincidence, we happen to be playing a fantasy game as well! :D

But seriously, from everything that's been said, these are flasks packed with dangerous reagents, not grenades with fuses to be lit.

As such, I don't see why you can't throw it with one hand.

Mine was a joke. Personally i believe that the reason for requiring 2 hand is becouse they are going to "liberalize" a bit the access to armors so they wanted a mechanic to prevent bombing alchemist from using a shield for thematic/balace reasons. Once again, i'm shooting in the dark here.

Blave wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
Either sneak attack is going the way of 5ed, namely 1/turn, or it's scaling is going to be reduced
Magic weapons provide more damage, the new power attack deals more damage than the old one and everthing has 40% more hitpoints. Why on earth would they reduce sneak attack?

To not have everything explode in 1 round like it happens now? Number of attacks are being reduced now so static plusses to damage are less effective than before, power attack takes 2 action IIRC ecc. I reiterate taht is all speculation on my part but I have the impression they want to "normalize" the damage and lenghten the average turn life of the enemy. I could be wrong.

Blave wrote:

Re-post for visibility:

Somehow I seem to be the only one who thinks there will be more powerful bombs at higher levels. Do y'all really think they'd give the Alchemist a limited-times-per-day attack for 4d6 at level 11 while the rogue deals unlimited 10d6 with his +3 shortsword and sneak attack?

The 4d6 is the base damage of a level 1 bomb times 4. I would assume there are higher level bombs with a much higher base damage. I could see a level 11 character throwing level 6 bombs (analogue to spells) dealing like 5d6 damage or something like that. And if an alchemist multiplies all damage by 4, the damage will be much more useful.

Either sneak attack is going the way of 5ed, namely 1/turn, or it's scaling is going to be reduced. There are probably more powerfull bombs, but they most likely take more action to concot/activate. This is all my speculation btw.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Do bombs really require two hands to use? That seems a little much.

I think that the two-handed requirement of smokesticks is also going to heavily impact their usage as well.

1 hand to hold it and one to trigger it. Pulling granade pins with the teeths only happens in films.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So, less obvious information I can infer from this blog.
1) Level 11 alchemist bomb does 4d6 damage, with a maximum of 3 bombs per turn (missing shenanigans like rapid shots ecc). 3x4 is the same as 2x6, only "extra attacks" like rapid shot and the like most likely do not apply anymore. This tell me average DPR is going down compared to now. Which is good.
2) Resonance is called for 6 times in this post. Meaning, it has become such an integral part of the ruleset is not going away no matter how much we don't like it. And I don't.

Bluenose wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
I want a rogue who is actually a rogue and not just a beefed up Ezio on a killing rampage.
So what sort of abilities does this rogue develop by, say, 5th/10th/15th/20th level?

Scouting, crafting, disable traps, find secret doors, find information, interrogate people, distrupting enemy formation and procuring battle advantages with clever use of terrain and items and their own traps. This kind of thing. You know, rogue things. Assassin/swasbuckler should be an archetype (in the broad english sense of the word) of the fighter and not the rogue imho.

I want a rogue who is actually a rogue and not just a beefed up Ezio on a killing rampage.

From the Fighter Class Preview, Monday, March 19, 2018
"To recap, you take an action to raise your shield and get its Armor Class and touch Armor Class bonuses"

The activation time of a bardic performance is different from the action cost of starting a performance. For example, a sixth leve bard to use Suggestion, he needs to start a fascinate performance as a standard action, and then pay one other standard to use Suggestion. The next level, he can start a fascinate performance as a move, but the action cost to activate Suggestion remains a standard.
So, back to Harmonic Spell, with it you can start a Requiem of the Fallen Priest-King as a swift action, but completing it still requires the full 1 minute.

Here is my "definetly not run of the mill tank"

Halfling fighter 1/water kineticist rest

Heavy armor + water shield + small size gives you very high AC, COS gives a lots of HP and kinetic whip gives opponents a very good reason to not try and run past you. Kinetic healer for burst HP tanks to the buffer.

I'd hardly call D&D/Pathfinder standard ambientations as "European style". They are not. They mostly drawn from what is been created through the ages as a "common fantasy template" that has been aboundantly used even in foreign litterature.

This process of building a mostly commonly shared expectation for what a "fantasy" word should look like is the results of years of memetic mutation from word classics like Tolkien's book or The Thousand and one Nights or stuff like this. It looks like "European" to us simply because we think of it as the most generic one, while instead "foreign" cultures looks a lot more specific and flavorfull in our eyes thanks to different nomenclatures for basically the same concepts.

For examples, mummys come from egyptian coultures, djinn, ghouls and genasy comes from arabic roots, ecc. ecc. There is a lot of non-european stuff in the "common fantasy template" I cited above, but since has become so "standardized" you miss the feeling of "exotic" that you usually associate to non-european cultures.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The only real question is why rules on how to adjudicate CRB stuff are in a tecnically optional rulebook.
Things that affects basic game rules like this should be published as addendum to the base CRB, not as additional purchases. If I go in a Pathfinder game, the CRB is the only thing I should ever need to play the basic game by the same rules everybody else at the table abides.

Very, Vìvery good guide and usefull benchmarks for both newbs and veterans. Just a few nitpicks.

First, as ascalphus said, provide the formulas you are using

Second, I would have my reserves abpout calling Muffins not-optimized. At level 5 he has not a single mechanical choise that is not straight numbers. Traits for AC and saves, fate's favored and half orc sacred tatoos, 18 starting STR and 7 CHA. I can't think of anything to make it numerically better, so that's definetly not a "fluff origin" character.
Baegel is the same story. And both are just within the benchmarks range, with close to no leeway.
So, if you wanted to showcase how to fit flavors into character while making them at least "viable" you have failed miserably.

'm too in the camp that it should count, even if based on the current language I'd have to rule that they do not.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mark, i'm not sold to party having access to ninth level spell. Usually a single monster is espected to be CR at least +2 if not +3/4, especially when is the kind of "campaign moster" and not "mook/swarm" type. We are looking at a party of 14-16 level to go against it on average. Still within Limited Wish however.

Anyway, ruling the mindscape to be mind-affecting is a big hit since immunity to that is cheap as duck at those levels.

Yet, you will excuse me if a chuckle a little on the irony of making away with all the supposed "save or die" during the 3.5->pathfinder yet they always find their way to sneack back in, sometimes even stronger than before. I mean, and istant kill is one level 5 spell away from being undone, stuff like this mindscape are way more hard to remove since you are supposed to have that one "silver bullet" available.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The kicker is that apparently there is no way to wake up from the Seamless Reality. A monster litterally sucking your organic material doesn't. So it's basically every round save vs istant death at CD 29. Sooner or later while walking 300 feets everyone will fail. And is not a mind effect, so you can't protect from it in any real way. Saving does not makes you immune for 24 hours like it should, and this is also true for the Fascinate. It's basically a "you'r f$#*ed" as soon as you set foot inside the 300 feets.

3.5 Heroes of Horror had a Taint system for both mental and physical exposition to supernatural tain. The mental side was very similar to how DD handles stress.

Doesn'ìt work that way Diego.
1) Check UMD = 45 Oracle level 25
2) Activate ring as an Oracle 25
3) Ring is being activated by an Oracle 25, give back bonus to that Oracle
4) That oracle happens to be you

Activate an item includes determining it's bonus. Some items give different bonus depending on the users.
For example, an Holy Avenger. In the same way that you can emulate being a paladin to get a higher bonus from an Holy Avengers, you should be able to use UMD to emulate a higher level Oracle to get a higher bonus from the ring, or from a staff.

Sorry for the slight necro but I wanted to chime in.
since UMD says that

UMD wrote:
Emulate a Race: Some magic items work only for members of certain races, or work better for members of those races. You can use such an item as if you were a member of a race of your choice. You can emulate only one race at a time.[

it is clear that you can emulate something at the sole scope of improving the effect of the item. This to me set a strong enaugh precedent to allow someone to emulate a higher CL to improve the effect of a stave.

A is stated to work with x
B is not stated to work with x
Conclusion, B does not work with x

Permissive ruleset aren't that hard

Kinny are perfectly fine. The only change I suggest is having the buffer be full at the start of the day instead of having to fill it the night before, but that's just a QOL change more than anything.

ElvenMercenary wrote:
Hasn't someone just asked the designer (whoever designed the summoner class) how they intended it to work?

Even assuming someone did, it would have almost no consequence in organized play, witch is the only place where asking this kind of FAQ have any reason to exist. Otherwise, the intent behind is quite clear.

I'm with Claxon. You fire +5 Bane arrows, and then you calculate you bonus against the specific target.

I'd think a True Dragon is so proud of being such a natural killing machine that he would shun mortal.made weaponry.

I would personally rule that claws are not able to wield weapons. In fact, I'm pretty sure that claws do not counts as "hands".

1 to 50 of 1,268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>