Yarzoth

Knight Magenta's page

Organized Play Member. 1,183 posts (1,184 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 7 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I was comparing it to the other amps to prove that they boost damage more significantly, but instead it seems like none of the level 1 cantrips get increased damage from amping at level 1 to 2.

examples:
Daze goes from damage equal to casting modifier to "1d10" which conspicuously does not mention that it adds your modifier. It's only a 1.5 average boost, and even then daze is not really a damaging cantrip normally.

Forbidden Thought adds a rider effect.

imaginary weapon adds extra targets but no extra damage.

It looks like the intent is that at level 1 focus points are only intended to add a bit of versatility instead of actually being a big damage boost for the psychic. For example, I could see the splash damage being important against a group of fire/cold vulnerable enemies.

The reason this looked like an outlier to me at first was that I was comparing it to the amp for Message which gives an ally an attack, but that costs another character a reaction so maybe it's a bad comparison.

I guess in the end this looks like it's working as intended.


Reading the Amp effect of the psychic's produce flame cantrip, it says this on Nethys:

Produce Flame (amp)

Produce Flame (amp) wrote:

Amp You project pure heat that causes a target to combust. The initial damage changes to 1d10 fire damage (not adding your ability modifier) plus 1 fire splash damage. When using amped produce flame as a melee attack, increase the damage dice of the initial damage from d10s to d12s. You are not harmed by splash damage from amped produce flame.

Does this mean that (assuming int 18) that these are the possible damage numbers:

ranged: 1d4 + 4
melee: 1d4 + 4
ranged + amp: 1d10 + 1
melee + amp: 1d12 + 1

If so, it looks like the amped versions are worse then normal versions. Is that intended or am I miss-reading the parenthetical in "The initial damage changes to 1d10 fire damage (not adding your ability modifier)"?


Dwarftr wrote:

So this went from asking for a way to make heavy armor light, in an attempt to play a vigilante with some fighter lvls so i could use heavy armor with skills like acro, stealth and disable device, and maybe splash of rogue for evasion.... all to suit a pic i have of plate wearing dwarf.... in a campaign where skills and roleplaying matter just as much as surviving in combat...

To this.

I only ask here cause im not as good with pathfinder as i was in 3.0-3.5, which i could just use the cloth enhancement on my fullplate, which would give me the protection of fullplate with the stats of padded armor. Also i dont really know how to link pics, i tried in a dif post and was semi succesful in do it then but cant now, or i would have posted the pic with my original post.

Pls, keep it to what i would like, and if thats not possible, just say so

That may be what you wanted, but that's not what you asked. If you had asked: how do I make a heavily-armored dwarf that can run jump and climb? you would have gotten very different answers.


Use Spiked gauntlets disguised as bone spurs :D They could even be spiked gauntlets made of bone!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Torture does not work in the abstract, but it totally works in situations where you can check the answer. Like if you ask "what is the command word to this item" then you can test it right there... Doesn't make it any less evil though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chance Wyvernspur wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

Let's say the party are crossing a wobbly bridge with a broken handrail, and I'm trying to set a DC for them not to fall off. I want it to be pretty easy, because the entire party has to get across, not just the most skilled PC.

The party is, let's say, level 7. What is the level of the bridge?

First, what's the purpose of the bridge related to the story? Is it intended to be a significant and memorable challenge, or is it part of some travel montage?

I'm not likely to challenge a 7th level party with a rickety bridge as part of establishing that travel took place during the story. It can be part of a narrative... "Across a rickety bridge and through the woods, to grandmother's house you went."

It matters because not every game is an adventure path where there is a defined story the bridge serves. The bridge could have been a previously described piece of background in the PCs home city. Say there is an old manor accessible only by this bridge that the PCs saw at level 1, but at level 5 the DM decided to put a plot-hook in the manor. So now its important to know how to evaluate the bridge because we want to know "is this even hard for heroes of level 5?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
neonWitch wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:

,’:\

Because the idea of free will is incoherent in a deterministic universe (read: in any conceivable universe)? That’s ah, that’s the joke. Nothing to do but laugh or cry. x)

Though obviously forcing people to act against their preferences is a Bad Thing, and the idea of letting people act on the conclusions they come to, commonly referred to as allowing people to exercise their free will, is a less bad thing (in most circumstances).

Not to necro, but the real-world universe isn't deterministic, it's stochastic. God plays with dice, according to our current understanding of physics.

That doesn't help much though. Random != Free will.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

If you feel no attachment to your soul after death, do what you want now and don't worry about it later. If you still want to worry about it, think of it like an involuntary post-death organ donation, or think of Pharasma as the cosmic trash collector-cum-recycle-center of the universe: you build up a bunch of moral and ethical detritus over your existence, and she sorts it and places it where it goes. Green living and all.

Really, it's a kind-of-okay system, all things said and done.

I think the main problem comes up when people who take this view then decide that they'd ranter not die at all. Then you get Pharasma getting upset with you and Murats knocking on your door.

The meta issue is that if you don't feel any attachment to your (character's) soul but you play with someone who does. That generates an intractable disagreement about the cosmology. You can see it in this thread! Some people say "why defy Pharasma, you heretic!" While others say "It's my life! I only have one."


Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Galiza wrote:

Somebody might find this useful.

Under the 'good' subtype rule is written:

"Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has a good alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment."

Which, for me, indicates that even if the creature does not have the good subtype, it's still affected by effects that target a good creature because its alignment is good.

You can replace 'good' for any other alignment aside from true neutral and it will work just fine

Correct, generally speaking the requirement is 'Good Outsider' not '[Good] Outsider'...

This is why when playing an Aasimar in 'Wrath of the Righteous' I took the Worldwound Walker feat as quickly as possible after getting hit by my first Unholy Blight.

This is a legacy of the rules being written before planetouched existed. When everyone is playing core races, 'Good Outsider' and '[Good] Outsider' are basically the same thing since players are only really encountering celestial or fiends which naturally have the alignment subtype. And if the DM wanted to include an Evil angel or Good Vrock then he would presumably decide how blasphemy affected them.

When they added assimars, no one went back to check whether all the spells say "good outsider" or "outsider with the good subtype" and here we are. I will point out that the technically correct wording is about twice as long so it would often be cut for word count.

I also disagree that planetouched need "balancing" by making them more vulnerable to a small list of alignment spells. You would be hard-pressed to convince me that they are a more powerful race then humans or dwarves.


Generally just saying "help! explain this whole thing to me." Makes it really hard to help you because it looks like you've not even tried. Go read the class, think about it and come with specific questions. Then people will be more likely to help you.

A quick google search also turned up this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?482463-Can-someone-explain-th e-Kineticist-class-to-me


Why do people not go to the gym or eat unhealthy food? Because taking the optimal choice is often more work. Dragons can be lazy too!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What if a demoralizec critical made the target frightened 2 and slowed 1?


Rysky wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:
blahpers wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:

Yep, yep.

With Planar Adventure's we learned that souls who believe in the gods go on to become petitioners for their various planes of existence. These petitioners lose pretty much everything that made them who they were as a mortal, and either are sculpted into a higher being, feed their way into becoming a higher being, or else collapse into cosmic dust to power the outer planes from death or inaction.

No afterlife full of bunnies for these folks, just either being forged into an entirely unrecognizable version of themselves or turned into dust to be used to empower the outer realms.

Almost makes someone mad enough to rebel against this system and lock one's essence away so the gods can't get it. Of course, Pharasma takes offense to that for some reason...

That's . . . nightmarish. I knew JJ was into cosmic horror, but . . . wow.
I'm pretty sure this comes from 3.5 cosmology. This is incidentally why I laugh when people say "Well it does not make sense to be Evil in pathfinder when you can just visit Hell and see that it sucks!" All afterlives are basically the same, since you get erased.

Actually going off The Redemption Engine Hell is one of the few planes where souls that aren't immediately sculpted into something useful get to keep their memories, or at least part of them.

Those souls also have Hell torturing them too so there's that.

Hell is paradise for people who believe in Evil. If you are the baddest dude on the block, you can actually get immortality in the afterlife. I like that, it nicely explains why you would want to be evil, even if you know what the cosmology is like.


blahpers wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:

Yep, yep.

With Planar Adventure's we learned that souls who believe in the gods go on to become petitioners for their various planes of existence. These petitioners lose pretty much everything that made them who they were as a mortal, and either are sculpted into a higher being, feed their way into becoming a higher being, or else collapse into cosmic dust to power the outer planes from death or inaction.

No afterlife full of bunnies for these folks, just either being forged into an entirely unrecognizable version of themselves or turned into dust to be used to empower the outer realms.

Almost makes someone mad enough to rebel against this system and lock one's essence away so the gods can't get it. Of course, Pharasma takes offense to that for some reason...

That's . . . nightmarish. I knew JJ was into cosmic horror, but . . . wow.

I'm pretty sure this comes from 3.5 cosmology. This is incidentally why I laugh when people say "Well it does not make sense to be Evil in pathfinder when you can just visit Hell and see that it sucks!" All afterlives are basically the same, since you get erased.


Initiative bonuses are pretty valuable. I feel that the Cracked Dusty Rose Prism Ioun stone is very under-priced. a +5 bonus for a mere 6250gp (5^2 *250) seems low. There is a reason that reactionary is the most popular trait

Consider that most other initiative bonuses are attached to hella expensive items. I think the best comparisons (those that don't have much other than initiative) are the Righteous Medal and Dueling Property. If we assume that the initiative portion is half of each of these items, it gives us +1 being worth either 3000 from the medal, or 500 from the dueling property.

Personally, I'd price it at around bonus squared times 2000. I also would probably settle on one bonus type instead of each item giving a different, stacking, bonus.


Derklord wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:
Keep in mind that in order to full attack with a pistol the gunslinger is misfiring on a 1 or 2, which you absolutely need to calculate into DPR, as each missfire will end your full attack and mean you need to spend grit or a standard action next turn to un-break your gun.
Which is why I used the greater reliable weapon enchantment.

Ah, you may be right. I've never played in a game where I had a +4 weapon :(


I think the gun rules are poorly written. When guns are working, they do too much damage against an AC that scales poorly, so the DM feels bad. This is "balanced" by all the times when you missfire and lose your whole turn, or the enemy is more then 30 ft away. Keep in mind that in order to full attack with a pistol the gunslinger is misfiring on a 1 or 2, which you absolutely need to calculate into DPR, as each missfire will end your full attack and mean you need to spend grit or a standard action next turn to un-break your gun.

So any fight that the gunslinger missfires in he is stuck feeling useless. It doesn't help that there is about one viable build for the gunslinger...

My recommendation would be to take a longbow, reflavor it as a revolver and play a fighter.


So there are two reading here that are in conflict. I think a strict interpretation means that Accomplished Sneak Attacker and Sense Vitals don't stack. That being said, I think it is more useful to look at what each of the abilities is intending and then decide on how they should interact.

Accomplished Sneak Attacker is an bog standard multi-class feat in the vein of Monastic Legacy or Boon Companion. They say: "This class feature starts to fall off if you multi-class, so you can pay a feat to keep it relevant." But, since it would be silly for a rogue or a rogue/other to be better at sneak attacking then a normal rogue they add the provision that "This can't make you rogue harder then a full rogue."

In summary, I feel that the intention of Accomplished Sneak attacker is to make a rogue 1 / wizard 3 have the same sneak attack as a rogue 3.

Sense Vitals is designed as a flavorful conditional damage buff.

So there are two interpretations of how this should work.

1) ASA just makes a rogue 1/ wizard 3 a level 3 rogue for sneak attack, and since a rogue casting SV from a scroll would get the full effect, so does the multi-class.

2) Only a real rogue should get the fullest benefit of sneak attack. So this corner case is intended as niche protection for the rogue.

I personally prefer interpretation (1), since it means you don't need to keep track of where all your sneak attack comes from and Sense Vitals seems tailor made for the arcane trickster who I see no reason to shaft.

I could see the argument for (2) but it seems unlikely that this particular interaction was ever foreseen by the author of either the feat or the spell. Plus Sense Vitals is such a marginal spell that I doubt it would break anything if high-level arcane tricksters did +1d6 damage...


I actually like that failures just take longer. It prevents the metagame issue of seeing everyone roll less then 10 and trying to justify searching again.


pad300 wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:
So for a mere 500 gp (level 10 intensified shocking grasp), at level 10 you can throw a 20d6 (save for 5d6) single target spell. That seems like it would be worth a level 5 slot. At the very least I might sometimes want to do this instead of throwing an empowered fireball if I was building a blaster.

It's OK, but expensive. Compare to a Icy Prison for the same level:

On a failed save, target is out of the fight barring a large strength check or special power (with concentration check for the continuing damage) or someone else rescueing them, further they are taking 10 hp cold damage every round, which will catch up with 20D6 in 7 rounds.
On a successful save, target is entangled (an effective debuff) and is also taking 10 hp cold damage every round, which will catch up with 5d6 in 2 rounds...

That without burning 500 gp of consumable.

Debuff spells better then blasting, news at 11 :p

That being said, icy prison is defeated by cold immunity (maybe?) and freedom of movement. Parchment Swarm can target varied weaknesses and dead is a strong condition. Not saying its better but I can see a place for it.


1. The DC in the template does not match the DC in the creature (13 vs 10) Its unclear what the bonus is based on. If Strength, it should be DC 12, if CMD it should be 14.

2. While there is precedent for strength checks to be used for this, I don't think pathfinder supports them really well. Strength does not scale really well, and even a strength 18 level 1 character has 40% chance of failing to pull his weapon away. And that's after every attack.

I would recommend a reflex save to avoid being stuck and a grapple check to break free.

3. How does this interact with the skelleton's claws? Grab seems needlessly complicated on a simple monster.

4. The skeleton only has 6 hp. So they will usually die in one hit rendering Trap Weapon useless. Maybe put some language that it works even if the skeleton is destroyed?

5. I really dislike that skeletons have a broken weapon by default. It means that disarming them will make them more dangerous. Though maybe that's intentional? It makes it hard to give them a correct CR.

6. For bonus points, you should define what special thing you need to do to raise tar skeletons with Animate Dead :)


So for a mere 500 gp (level 10 intensified shocking grasp), at level 10 you can throw a 20d6 (save for 5d6) single target spell. That seems like it would be worth a level 5 slot. At the very least I might sometimes want to do this instead of throwing an empowered fireball if I was building a blaster.


It seems like a pretty versatile spell that is actually different from lower level blasts.

When you need a single target blast, you can use a CL5 level 1 scroll to deal 9d6 slashing and 5d6 lightning damage. That's an empowered fireball :D But also you can cast it to do area damage if you need to.

Is a scroll that contains an intensified shocking grasp a level 1 scroll or a level 2 scroll?


We went with Fort when it cam up with the reasoning that that is what heal uses. For what its worth in P1, Order's Wrath uses will.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Mechalas wrote:

I believe that, as written, Demoralize is problematic on several levels:

1. There's no penalty for failure, which means you can spam combat with it until you hit a critical failure. ("I didn't scare them last time, but this time things will be different because reasons!")

2. The effect doesn't last long enough, so you end up spamming combat with it to make it useful.

I would suggest that it gives Frightened 1 and the frightened level can't be reduced as long as the creature can sense you. That way it would encourage the enemy to run and hide for a turn but not be as strong as a true fear effect.

A crit success would set the frightened level at 2 so that a creature would need to run away for longer. They would then become bolstered once the frightened condition fell off.


I would just like to say: CALLED IT.

Easy healing after combat with the medicine skill. Take wounds when you go down. Take too many wounds and you die. I award myself 1 achievement point!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm playing Dead Suns in Starfinder right now and I just hit level 10. The level 10 stat bump really bothers me. I am playing a divine Gish and my strength is 18. Normally, Id want to bump it to 19 because I am playing a strength-focused melee character, but I know that Dead suns ends at level 12 so there is no point to me boosting my strength. This feels really weird. I think it would be even worse if I was playing a home game, got a 19 and then the game ended at level 14. I'd feel really sad.

Odd stats should either do something cool or we should not have them. And carrying 1 more bulk is not cool...


Depends on what the favored weapon is. As long as its not a good exotic weapon like the falceta its fine. If the weapon is exotic you may consider the trait letting you treat it as martial.

It should give a trait bonus like other traits to prevent stacking shenanigans.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So a few things. First your group is kinda undersized, and the sea serpent is a solo level 12 monster. It sort of makes sense that it would be a near impossible fight for you. Mark has also said that monsters at that level have all their numbers ~2 points too high...

I do find that in P2 you need at least 2 front-liners and a combat-healer to have a good chance in hard fights.

The other thing I noticed is that unlike P1, you can't rely on your AC and saves to protect you. You absolutely have to have a high con score if you want to be on the front lines.

That said, boss fights are kinda super lethal. Solo encounters used to be bad in P1 because action economy was on the PC's side. They are still bad in P2, but because the boss blows through the balance window.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Divine Wrath says:

divine wrath wrote:


Casting Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting
Range 120 feet; Area 20-foot burst

Choose an alignment your deity has (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful).
You can’t cast this spell if you don’t have a deity or your deity
your deity is true neutral. You deal 4d8 damage of that alignment.
Creatures that match the alignment are unaffected. Those that
neither match nor oppose it treat their result as one degree better.

Success The creature takes half damage.
Critical Success The creature takes no damage.
Failure The creature takes full damage and is sick 1.
Critical Failure Full damage, sick 2, and slowed 1 while sick.

Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 1d8

You will notice there is no save type but a four-degrees entrance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

Yeah, I find the idea that class gives 'identity' to be really weird.

Class gives mechanics. Backstory (not backgrounds, which are also mechanics) gives identity.

Class identity is how easy it is to identify the class when you are playing with/as it. take a P1 monk for example: it has a lot of identity as a lightly armored, slightly mystic martial artist. You can tell someone is playing even an archetyped monk based on what they do and how they fight (most of the time).

P2 backgrounds have almost zero identity. Consider: can you tell me the background of your last character without looking it up? I know I can't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The untrained thing worries me. It means you can never hit when doing nonlethal damage.


Quandary wrote:

I'm curious of the experience of non-specialists using Aid to Skill checks. I mean, some checks everbody will need to make, but the playtests complaining incompetent PCs always getting erroneous results is absurd, they don't need to make those checks themselves, and the Aid DCs seem potentially easier and thus low/no chance of Crit Fail and higher chance of main Lore character succeeding (or simply not CritFailing).

EDIT: Actually is there reason to say Aid is even exclusive with making Recall Knowledge yourself? If multiple characters are decent, they could each make separate (sequential) Recall checks with everybody Aiding them. Honestly, that probably is not good for balance, but it doesn't seem obviously wrong AFAIK. ???

Aid provides a circumstance bonus and thus does not stack with itself. I'm also not sure what action you could take to aid on knowledge...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do they have to be dwarf fighters specifically? You have access to a ton of disabling spells at level 6. If they must be fighters you can use a Cytillesh stun vial. DC 20 is pretty high at level 6 and the dwarves can throw several vials. It goes like this:

1. Dwarves sneak up on the guard.
2. In the suprise round, the dwarves throw 4 stun vials almost guerenteeing a 2 turn stun.
3. The dwarves grapple the PC.
4. She is stunned for one more round, so the dwarves pin her and prevent her from speaking/shouting.
5. She gets tied up and carted away.

2 Things you need to decide/remember: The DC to hear a fight is usually -10, but you can fudge it a bit if the target is not fighting back. The dwarves also can't be wearing heavy armor because of the ACP, so if the PCs catch them they are in trouble. I'd set the DC to detect them at 10 + the dwarves' stealth bonus. Remember that sleeping characters get -10 to perception.

Also, don't worry if the ambush fails. The PC who rolled high on perception will feel good, you will still have a hard fight with one PC disabled right away, and you will get your exposition anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

I see, sorry for my sloppy language. I mean someone who fights using cover, terrain and distance to gain advantage being able to maintain constant pressure on the target regardless of their tactics.

...

Ya, that makes sense.

I guess my complaint is that I would prefer a broader fluff-defined class identity instead of A tighter mechanical identity. I think its easier to write content for the fluffier classes; leads to more player customization. That being said, you may be right that Paizo is going in the opposite direction. Then new books won't contain new class feats for the fighter, but might contain new classes, like "Marksman" or something to that effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
It appears to me that PF2 does attempt to define classes by their mechanical niche. I don't like it, but it's obviously there. Monk has how many non-skirmishing feats, 5? If your argument is that the fighter being defined by its mechanical niche has forced other classes to become too defined by a mechanical niche as well, then I agree with you. If a class is defined solely by mechanics than mechanics are weirdly restricted, and if they are defined solely by fluff, then classes are mostly interchangeable.

So I am not actually sure what you mean by "skirmisher," so forgive me if I appear to be straw-manning you. It seems to me that at least half of the monk's class feats are encouraging him to stand still.

- Stances all take an action, which suggests that your first round is supposed to go: stance > move > flurry.

- the monk gets an option of 2 action strike every 4th level that adds a rider effect (and encourages a turn of 2-action strike > flurry)

- Tangled forest stance straight-up makes it hard for enemies to move away from you

- There is a grappling feat chain.

Also, most of the possible unarmed strikes are all agile. That means that your 3rd and 4th attacks are at a higher chance to hit. This again encourages you to stand still and make strikes.

ErichAD wrote:
The erastil paladin is a good example of the problem. They sound like a ranger mechanically but with some paladin fluff. You could build classes that way, cut out most of the mechanical combat abilities and give them fluff and downtime packages, but I don't think people would find that satisfying.

The ranger has no bow synergy :( The fighter has all the bow feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
I used to play a lot of Magic: The Gathering, with its five-color system of traits. Green started as the creature color, with the best creatures for attacking. But Wizards of the Coast realized that the game was more fun when all colors had good creatures on the battlefield. Before they clarified their vision to give green a better role, green got marginalized as the color of big, bland creatures, because no-one was allow to have the best creatures all around.

I didn't know that about green, but that is exactly what I was trying to say :)

Mathmuse wrote:
Thus, Tactician Warrior or Craftsman Warrior would be my goals for fighter class.

I like imagining that the fighter could be split into 3 classes: a Wisdom focused, Charisma focused and Intelligence focused one. The int-fighter is the warrior scholar who fights by knowing his enemy. The wis-fighter is the disciplined mystic swordsman. The cha-fighter is the battle-field commander. Unfortunately, the monk is already the wis-fighter, and the bard is the cha-figher. So I only had an int-fighter to suggest.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

The fighter in the PF2 incarnation is the combo guy. He attacks inflicting you with some disability, then follows that up with something exploiting that disability. The archery and two weapon fighting feat chains don't really work within that theme though.

Monk is designed to not stand in base to base contact with their target, moving in, striking twice and moving back out again leaving some hampering effect on his target.

Barbarian is built to ignore tactical considerations and supports staying in base to base contact and engaging multiple enemies.

Rogue is built for skill based support abilities such as intimidate and distraction. He shouldn't be attacking an unhampered foe.

Paladin is supposed to be a pseudo tank with powerful counter attacks if his allies are engaged, but the range on his ability is too limited for his kit to be a reliable main pillar.

Ranger I don't know. I honestly don't get it at all. At this point, I'd play a rogue or a fighter with the druid dedication if I wanted a ranger.

You can reduce the concept of the classes to something less specific, but these are pretty well defined mechanically.

You could make a game where classes are defined by their mechanical niche (see strong hero, fast hero, etc.. in d20 modern) but Pathfinder 1 and 2 are not that game.

First, we already have baggage attached to classes. We have canon paladins of Erastil that are not about tanking at all, but about being light armor-wearing archers. Second, you are supposed to get 11 class feats in P2. Since we expect the ability to pick from new options every level, you need at least 33 feats per class. I challenge you to come up with 33 unique abilities around the theme of "mobile skirmisher."

Finally, Paizo is already not using your approach. Look at the monk's ki powers. Why does a mobile skirmisher get magic? That makes no sense. But it does make sense if the monk's theme is "ascetic, self-sufficient warrior"


ChibiNyan wrote:

Well, Fighter is supposed to represent "every other warrior not already covered" and at least a generic "weapon and armor specialist". Just look at the PF1 Fighter archetypes: Viking, Aldori Swordlord, Taldane Falcata+Buckler duelist, Ustalav duelist, 1 Weapon Master, Archer, Druman blackjacket, etc.

So pretty much any sort of thematic/regional combat specialist/soldier falls onto this class. The way the class usually works is that they get dozens of combat feats, this means you can build any sort of combat style from history, fiction or fantasy by using the fighter chassis.
They don't need to just be "best at fighting", but should be the best at "realizing all concepts based around weapon/armor/style" without needing to tack on "gets angry" or "hugs trees". They've done this just fine since forever and for the most part the PF2 can kinda do this, but they could do with more varied and less-generic feats.

P1 archetypes did give the fighter more identity. I am actually a big fan of the Dragonheir Scion for example. But you'll notice they did this by trading in all of the fighter's class features...

I also think that

Quote:
best at "realizing all concepts based around weapon/armor/style" without needing to tack on "gets angry" or "hugs trees".

is not compatible with

Quote:
but they could do with more varied and less-generic feats

I think its really hard for a designer to meet both these goals in a satisfying way. If they give the fighter sword slashes that shoot wind-blades, some fans will complain that that is too "anime" or "wuxia" but give the same thing to a paladin or barbarian and it all makes sense.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

When I ask you "what is a pathfinder paladin about?" The answer is really easy. Its a "holy warrior." This gives a designer a lot of room to create cool abilities because that identity is a deep well of ideas that can be diverse but fit together and feel like a paladin. What about the other classes?

Barbarian -> Gets so angry that he can transcend human limits
Ranger -> Nature Warrior
Rogue -> Sneaky/Cunning Warrior
Monk -> Ascetic Warrior
Fighter -> ??? Warrior?

All of the martial classes are fundamentally about fighting. This is because pathfinder has easily ten times the page count dedicated to fighting then to non-combat interactions. In various incarnations of the game we've tried to make the fighter about being a "warrior warrior" by making him slightly better at combat then the other classes. This is unsatisfying because you can't actually do that without breaking the game. Most games of pathfinder are all about fighting, you can't have one class just be better then others at the same job.

P2 tried to fix this by giving the fighter his own unique feats, but because the fighter is not about anything there is no answer to "Why can't my barbarian power attack?" The reverse is not true though; if you ask "Why can't my fighter rage" the answer is "He is not angry enough!"

So give the fighter something to call his own. A random suggestion:

Warrior Scholar: The fighter knows his enemy. He can seamlessly change up his style; switching weapons quickly and gaining unique benefits from different weapon groups. He can also direct his allies to best attack the enemies' weak-points.


N N 959 wrote:

Paizo...stop trying to hide a Slayer in Ranger's clothing. Make a Ranger for people who love playing the Ranger. Not for people who don't want to play it. If people want to Hunt Target, then let them do it as a Slayer. If you want a class that is "first and foremost a hunter" then make the Hunter. Jebus.

Reducing Rangers down to this single-target mindset diminishes the class. It undermines the lore and robs the class of a sense that it was more than the sum of its parts. It makes the Ranger small-minded.

I think that that ship has already sailed :o In my mind, the ranger was about being a kind of jack-of-all-trades. You have some spells, some skills, some combat feats, some animal companion. You could specialize in any of the facets of the class but you still have the others to fall back on.

Spellcasting seems to be an all-or-nothing type of thing. I could see the ranger get spellpoints, but it won't be as flexible as getting the whole ranger spell list. Animal companions take up 5 or 6 feats now, so its also all or nothing. The "good at combat" niche has been given to the fighter so the ranger almost by definition needs to be worse at it, but because he does not have an identity beyond that its hard to balance it out.


One thing we found is that it is unclear how climbing out of water works. Specifically, Does it take an action to climb out beyond moving and are you prone when you climb out. That makes a pretty big difference to the threat of the water room and to a lesser extent the river and the gnolls.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
manbearscientist wrote:

The game isn't balanced around healing to full between combats, and shouldn't be.

1. It makes weak encounters meaningless
2. It forces rocket-tag; for encounter to matter, they need 100-0 potential if players start at 100
3. If an encounter can 100-0, the enemies need to either be extremely tough, extremely numerous, or extremely deadly to account for the difference in action economy
4. If most encounters have that potential, you create more opportunities for party wipes or 'random' deaths
5. This ISN'T balanced. It makes fights that matter 50/50 endeavors ... but parties need to win to advance. RPGs require the PCs win 90% of the time just to advance the plot. Fights need to feel challenging and have consequences without becoming rocket-tag or making every combat a coin-flip.

It is foolish to advance into combat at <50% health if you can manage otherwise, but I've found in both Heroes of Undarin and The Affair at Sombrefell Hall that players are generally okay at 70-80%. Note that in both cases I had the healing of both a Paladin and a Cleric, it just wasn't used to top-off everyone after every combat.

My take as a GM was simply to shrug and accept the necessity of a healer and to run a low importance Paladin/Cleric if the party lacked one. This still gives meaning to weaker combats (they run through healing resources), without creating 20-0 encounters that prey on low-life parties or forcing 100-0 encounters.

Oh I agree that you can make a game that's not balanced around being at full. But my argument is that P2 *is* balanced around 100% HP. If my fighter was not at full or near full HP each fight he would go down in one the turn instead of two.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hooray I got a Mark response! Achievement get :)

That's a good use-case. Touche.

I guess I was disappointed by this incarnation of the assist action because the fighter has a "ranged assist" feat and I thought that it would be neat to do that with my 3rd action. Part of it is that I don't think that there are enough non-class-gated martial options for the third action; by my count there are:

• Raise Shield
• Intimidate
• Feint

I think its important for the base system to have enough options there so that the classes can then add twists on the baseline.


I guess that removing the attack trait does make sense since Assist is quite different from most attack. Unlike most attacks, it has 2 targets (your ally and enemy). It does not deal damage so it would not make sense to apply most enhancements to it. Finally, it has a negative critical failure effect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was locking at the Assist action when trying to find neat uses for my third action, and then I noticed this:

Assist wrote:
You help an ally attack the enemy or foil the enemy’s attacks against one of your allies. Choose one enemy you’re adjacent to and one ally adjacent to that enemy. Then, attempt a melee attack against the enemy’s AC.

Assist targets AC and has a critical failure case where it applies -2 to your ally. If you are expected to have a ~50% chance to hit, making an Assist attack with your 2nd or 3rd attack seems counterproductive. Yet to make giving up your primary attack worthwhile, your own damage output needs to be about 1 tenth of your ally.

I could maybe see a save-focused spell-caster using Assist, but they have no way to use Assist at range or any desire to be in melee. Assist is such an iconic action that it would be sad to see it relegated to being super niche.

My quick fix would be to give Assist attacks +10 to hit (or target AC-10). That way, giving up your primary attack may be something you want to do to give a stronger friend +4 to hit, but it makes using your 3rd attack something that's not counter productive.


Egeslean05 wrote:
It's an inconsistency, so with this one weapon I fixed it. But for almost nothing they get to attack at both 10 (and 15 using the thrown attack) feet away from them, more than any standard weapon would allow, so they aren't really being punished for being small.

But now your weapon is inconsistent with every other weapon in the game :o

Egeslean05 wrote:
Contrast the Dorn-dergar with the Meteor Hammer, which is in the same book as the original rope dart (Ultimate Combat). It can also be used to attack as a non-reach weapon (double weapon in this case) as a free action at the start of your turn. It does less damage than the dorn-dergar and by it's stats it's also 5lbs lighter.

Good point, I didn't realize the meteor hammer could strike in the 5ft range.

Its a little unclear from the write-up, but does a medium creature with a Johyo threaten 10-15 ft? Because that's moderately crazy. That't the reach of an ogre with a spear without having the 10ft doughnut-of-sadness.

If you want to fix ranges, you should probably have the throwing range scale with the wielder's size too. Since a large Johyo wielder can't throw it farther then he can attack with it.

Have you considered just using a whip instead?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This archetype is so cool. It's good at what it does but does not seem OP on a first read. I wish I was starting a new campaign soon :(

Edit: This is actually just Yasuo the Archetype :) Were you inspired by the League of Legends champion?


Having different raches for small and medium is more realistic but non-standard. Don't punish the poor halflings.

I also think that being able to freely change from reach to thrown is too strong. Compare the Dorn-dergar. It taxes you a move action to switch from melee to reach. I think it would make sense to do the same for your Johyo. Then again, since this is not a racial weapon, you would need to invest a feat to wield it anyway...


graystone wrote:
This has been their MO for quite some time. Like the 'problem' with crane wing. Everyone knew the problem was with early access to the feat with MoMS but instead of fixing the actual issue, they 'fixed', and 'refixed' and 'refixed some more' the poor feat that was just sitting there and minding its own business NOT causing any problem when you used in as intended. So it seems the 'pathfinder way' to come down hard on the consequences of a problem while leaving the core issue alone.

They did that eventually :D

1 to 50 of 1,183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>