Deranged Stabby-Man's page

109 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Thebazilly wrote:
Very excited to see some errata coming out already! The stealth changes are especially appreciated, it makes much more sense this way.

Can you link the errata?

I just want a digital version.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So does that mean Half-Orcs and Half-Elves will be getting most of the benefits of humans? I'm all for that. Half-Elf was *alright* but Half-Orc was kinda just a crappier, slightly scary human that could see in the dark. Both could do with a bit of a lift.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:

So, is the weapon Potency different from the Weapon Tier? Does a Legendary +5 Longsword grant +8?

They're different but don't stack. So you could have a +1 Legendary sword, which'd have +3 to hit, or a +5 Legendary sword which'd have +5 to hit.

And I assume the same applies to damage? The +5 Legendary Longsword only has 6d8 damage?

So, is the weapon Potency different from the Weapon Tier? Does a Legendary +5 Longsword grant +8?

I've never liked Archetypes to be honest. Too many of them, particularly for the Rogue (See Roof Runner), feel like they should have been either selectible feats/ talents, or simply built into the base class from the get-go.

So Exactly HOW HARD can a Barbarian hit in a Raging Power Attack with an Enchanted Great Axe? How many d12s are getting dumped onto a poor idiot's head?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
Lol, that legendary stealth ability. You literally need to wear a bell on you at all times to keep from giving your party mates heart attacks.
Or you can double down and also take Scare to Death from legendary Intimidate, and literally give them heart attacks.

It's just funny because it harkens back to a question I asked back in PF1e "How stealthy do I need to be to just passively make folks jump out of their skins when I come up next to them?"

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Lol, that legendary stealth ability. You literally need to wear a bell on you at all times to keep from giving your party mates heart attacks.

So when't that next blog?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a Rogue, I am almost afraid of the influx of power I'll be getting. Almost. With a Proficiency/Attack Bonus rivaling a Martial, a crap ton of mobility, and a lot of ways to just make things horrible for opponents, Rogues can finally start being the terrors we always knew they were supposed to be.

Okay so where's the next blog?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm always torn on the Martials vs Caster debate. I want to be able to do stuff and shine, but I also think it's a pretty nice feeling to call in a magic airstrike from the party's wizard. "See that thing over there? Make it go away as destructively as possible."

As a Wizard's Proficiency goes up to Legendary, do their cantrips and spells get enhanced? Like Legendary Magic of the Wizard nets them +3 to their DCs and Spell Attacks, and adds 3 more dice to their Cantrips?

What' a focus and how do I drain it?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As long as the NPC versions of character classes aren't grossly insulting to the PCs, we're good.

Hrodwulf wrote:
111phantom wrote:
What's the line between Commiting Murder (the highest restricted tenant) and smiting evil foes?

Phantom I think the distinction (or at least how I was distinct them at my table) would be intent and context.

Killing an Evil Warlord in his sleep so that he can't burn a village of farmers to the ground in the morning would be Murder.

Killing that same Evil Warlord in the fields outside the village as you do battle with his forces to protect the farmers and their village would not.

But that's just how I would read it.

I think killing the evil warlord in his sleep is the point where the Paladin gives a wink to the Rogue and looks the other way.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

And Yeah, Paladins shouldn't gain Legendary Armor INSTEAD OF The Fighter. If it was the case where Fighter gained Legendary Weapons AND Armor, I'd be fine with it, but this just feels weird.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Divine Grace is a Reaction instead of a Constant +Charisma to Saves? That's... hmm... not sure I like that.

So do Potency Runes stack with Weapon/Armor Quality? Are we going to want Quality Weapons or Magic weapons?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And do these weapons and armor suits with Potency runes still require Resonance? How does that work? Are there +x items that AREN'T magical?

Charlatan wrote:

Most interesting, but at this point I'm champing at the bit just to get the whole thing in my hands. And it's only just May!

I do like the crit effects, because it makes a critical seem truly worthwhile, extra damage and a flavoursome effect. I remember rolling a crit once and rolling 1 on my d8s and sneak attack dice, for a total of 3 damage against the boss. What was critical about that?

Yeah, that always hurts. That's why I ruled that if you crit on a sneak attack, you deal max Sneak Attack damage.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Neilson wrote:
It sounds like some things that were feats became weapon traits, I hope there are ways to focus on a weapon and perhaps be able to get traits out of it that it does not usually have. I also hope they do not go the route of Starfinder and make it so only 'rogue' weapons will be able to be used for sneak attack, or if that is true they at least let you open it up with a feat.

Yeah, that was possibly one of the stupidest choices in Starfinder.

So how do ranged weapons work? DO we get Dex to damage finally instead of strength or intelligence of all things?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kassegore wrote:

The thing that worries me most is this:

“Anathema: destroy works of art or allow one to be destroyed except to save a life or in pursuit of greater art, refuse to accept surrender, strike first”.

Ambiguous anathema text. “Refuse to accept surrender” Does that mean the cleric of shelyn refuses to accept surrender from their foes? Does it mean the cleric refuses to surrender? Or (as I believe) the cleric cannot refuse to accept surrender from a foe.

I’m hoping through the playtest that we can catch all the ambiguous text, otherwise we’re looking at the next decade of table/forum arguments about interpreting a deities tenants.

I love flavor text, but Paizo, please be as clear and concise as possible for all codes, rules of behavior, etc, just to keep everyone on the same page and minimize conflicting interpretations in the player base.

The Anathema "Refuse to accept surrender" means a Cleric of Shelyn MUST accept her enemies' surrender. It also means she can never be the one to initiate combat in a situation where diplomacy is also an option.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a shame you can't target enemies with Tempt Fate, so when you have a spell targeting what you know is your enemy's poor Save, you can absolutely DUMPSTER them with a forced crit fail.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Although my BIGGEST concern is actually with the deity's favored weapon; I hope weapons are balanced enough where an Asmodean can properly smash people with her mace rather than being forced to pick up a falchion like everyone else.
The simple weapons are balanced with the simple weapons and the martial weapons are balanced with the martial weapons; I'm sure we'll eventually have a blog detailing more about weapons. Warlike clerics of a deity with a simple favored weapon have an option that flat-out buffs their weapon to be on par with a martial weapon (contrasting the choice to take martial weapon proficiency, except that you can actually use the thematic weapon that matches your deity and be awesome). Paladins, who have martial weapon proficiency anyway, get that benefit automatically with the deity's favored weapon!

Dude, I just want to know if we'll finally have Dex to Damage with Bows, crossbows, and finesse throwing weapons like daggers.

So with Artistic Flourish, you can make a weapon go from mundane to Legendary for 24 hours for the price of 4 spell points?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
You get a +2 Ability score buff from your class. (Wasn't it also said that Backgrounds give Ability score bonuses, too?) Looks like ability scores are going to be a lot higher than in PF1. I really like the ability to make a competent character of a non-optimal race.

This isn't strictly true. the way they look to be doing it is that each stage of character creation has stat bumps...but those are basically all you get. For example, we know that Kyra in a demo game had Str 14, Dex 12, Wis 18, Cha 14 and probably 10s in Con and Int. That's better than 20 point-buy in PF1, but only a little.

The current theory (which seems likely to be close to right) is:

Ancestry: +2 to two specific scores, -2 to one specific score, one floating +2 (probably two floating +2s instead for humans)
Background: +2 to one specific score, one floating +2
Class: +2 to one specific score
First Ability Up: Four floating +2s

That's allow for the stats Kyra has listed above, make sense with this Blog, and allow for some flexibility.

Which demo game was this? Where?

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Three spells per spell level, eh? I guess the better cantrips are justified as your "Magical Auto-Attack/Left Click" now, whereas your proper SPELLS are meant to be your "number key" abilities.

So... where's that next blog?

AnimatedPaper wrote:
thflame wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
So are we CERTAIN the the whole Material, Mental, Vital, Spiritual thing is actually a thing, or is it entirely conjecture?
I'm pretty sure it's just wild conjecture that people are running with at this point. None of the devs have said anything about it and the blog post doesn't imply that to me.

Otoh, Mark has been chatting away and hasn't stated "its mostly a flavor thing." I'd not advise reading into that, but I AM hoping that a dev, just like us in this thread, went "That's not a terrible idea..."

I assume the answer is somewhere in the middle. Different casters have different flavors attached to their powers as a baseline guide to what spells would be appropriate to their spell lists, but they didn't go to the full mile of "this spell is a mental spell, this one is vital, this one is both spiritual and material, this one is..."
But I would LOVE to be wrong, because Material/Vital/Spiritual/Mental is a lot more interesting to me than Arcane/Divine.

I concur. Plus, it would, at a glance, tell you what you needed to know about a caster.

So are we CERTAIN the the whole Material, Mental, Vital, Spiritual thing is actually a thing, or is it entirely conjecture?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tristram wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

*basks in the new information*

I wonder if Prestidigitation gets any heighten effects.

More effects at once/stacking the same type effect in multiple way!? You could put on quite a show if so.

I'm all for this system, it pulls everything together in nice universal bundle.

However, I do feel like Heal could be written with slightly more clarity (or an example box of two & three action castings at a higher level). We've all had those moments where we had a brain fart and forgot how math worked, it could also help newer players out.

Ooh, imagine if the more components you give to Presti, the more "Real" the trick looks. Imagine if there was a feat to make objects made by presti actually usable as tools. Suddenly an Arcane Trickster type rogue always has a magical multi-tool.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Also, any word on what Spell Points are? They're mentioned in the blog. Are they like spell slots, or something different?

They're surely like the Psychic's Phrenic Pool and Arcanist's Arcane Reservoir.

Combat Monster wrote:
It's looking like I'll be able to make a martial who has a magic attack or two. I'm optimistic.
Your combats must be really long if you think you'll pull of a ritual on the middle of one.

Master Roshi with his Mafuba/Evil Containment Wave says it CAN be done. And if your GM happens to be a weeb who loves Dragon Ball...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It feels like y'all grabbed the best bits of PF1e Casting and Mixed in the best of D&D 5e. I like this a LOT. I don't play casters, but being in a party with a caster that is on his game always makes you feel good, because everyone loves fire support with actual fire.

So what about higher levels of the 3-component Burst Heal? Still JUST Casting Mod, or does it get d8s too, just less than the two lesser versions?

Mark Seifter wrote:
TwilightKnight wrote:

"Additionally, the sling is now a more formidable weapon than in Pathfinder First Edition—we've both increased its damage and done away with the difference in damage die size between Small and Medium creatures."

The way this reads is a bit misleading. Is it that slings (and only slings) will have the same damage small vs medium? Or will all weapons not have the same damage. I read it as only slings are getting this treatment, but others are reading all weapons are. Can we get designer commentary please?

All weapons!

So Mark, what is the Damage of the Sling? Does it get modifier to damage? Is the Modifier Dexterity? Are ranged weapons going to use Dex so that characters that focus Dexterity don't feel like there's no incentive to go ranged?

Will we be getting a blog dedicated to our favorite halfbreeds: The Half-Elves and Half-Orcs, soon?

Stupid question, but: Can you include scenarios into larger Adventure Paths? I've gotten the complaint that the Dead Suns AP is "Boring as all Hell" from some folks, including my group, and I'm wanting to spice things up a bit.

Maybe I'm too kind of a GM, but I'd just let folks grab ancestry feats at level 1 that got them to their 1st Edition level of strength.

JRutterbush wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
I'm hoping Half Elves gain their elven-side's Speed of 30.
I'm hoping they do away with half-breeds as distinct races entirely, and just have generic rules for how to cross two races together.

Nah, Humans are far too breed-happy to not have entire races of crossbreeds. By your logic, we wouldn't have Teiflings or Aasimar either.

I'm hoping Half Elves gain their elven-side's Speed of 30.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

A natural 20 on an attack is a crit unless a roll of 20 would not be enough to hit.

So a level 1 fighter against the Tarrasque who rolls a 20 scores a regular hit, not a critical one. Assuming people fight things that are not wholly level inappropriate, I doubt that this will come up a lot.

I guess I see the logic in that. At the same time though, if I finally find the one spot on the monster that my puny little weapon actually manages to wound, I want that wound to hurt a LOT.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
Guarantee you that'll be the first thing folks houserule in.


Expanded crit range for everyone is interesting and fun.

I don't mean that. I like that bit. I mean Nat 20s not being automatic crits on attacks, merely successes.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
I mean, the degrees of success is just skills and saves, yeah? Attacks will still have Nat 20 Crits and Nat 1 Fails.

No, the new system also applies to attacks.

1s and 20s are still auto failures and successes respectively, though.

Guarantee you that'll be the first thing folks houserule in.

I mean, the degrees of success is just skills and saves, yeah? Attacks will still have Nat 20 Crits and Nat 1 Fails.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

So sneak attack are damage dice... am i right!?

Also, I like the addition "and meet/don't meet the target DC" for natural 1's and 20's. Don't want to be turning those failures into critical successes!

I'm pretty sure in one of the playtests, someone crit'd a Sneak Attack and doubled their dice.

Leedwashere wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
In my opinion, this is just a Shakespeare's Rose situation. A skill by any other name functions just as well if it were named anything else. It doesn't particularly matter if the skill is "Thievery," "Purloining," or even "Dick Move Time," if the situation calls for it. As long as it functions properly and as intended, they could even call it "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious," and I wouldn't particularly care.

I have to disagree with your assessment here, because words don't exist in a vacuum where their strict definition is the only thing about them that matters. They have connotations and associations. In this case thievery, and every other synonym you've listed so far, is inextricably associated with unlawful and nefarious pursuits. This can put a cognitive limiter on interpretation. In this case the implication is that the purpose and goal of investing in this skill set is to steal stuff, which means that there will likely be people that ignore the skill entirely because they don't want to be a thief. Even though there are other uses for these fine motor skills besides theft. Calling it something else without that baggage removes the issue in its entirety.

If all you care about is the mechanical function of the skill, then I don't understand your reason for arguing against a change in the name to make it less conceptually limiting.

Thing is, a Paladin goes and picks a lock, you're gonna give them a funny look because such talents naturally have far more negative connotations. Hell, you'll give the ROGUE a funny look when they pick a lock. Until you realize they're a Rogue and that's just what they do.

Well, they're not changing one word in the whole book right now. Maybe the full release will have another name for it, but for now, we all need to just deal with the skill being called Thievery.

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>