Captain Morgan wrote:
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.
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.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
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.
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.
Logan Bonner wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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:
God i love that book. Illumian are the single most interesting race ever created, and the charmeleon where pure genius.
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.
Charlie Brooks 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 as optimal" is still going to be thrashed.
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.
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
So, less obvious information I can infer from this blog.
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.
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.
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.
The trouble with adjudicating charm and illusion spells; and how Ultimate Intrigue solves all of that
The only real question is why rules on how to adjudicate CRB stuff are in a tecnically optional rulebook.
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.
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.
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.
Doesn'ìt work that way Diego.
Activate an item includes determining it's bonus. Some items give different bonus depending on the users.
Sorry for the slight necro but I wanted to chime in.
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.
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.