Sanvil Trett

Malthraz's page

209 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>


That is exactly my interpretation of the rules from reading every possible applicable rule about 3 times, and trying to inject common sense and guessing at what Paizo are trying to covey.

Good to see it might be correct.

More thinking: If your shield received an 42 dents at once, can it go from undented to destroyed?
Or is there always an intermediate broken step. So, the shield can only be destroyed when actually broken before a denting attack.

I think I am going with you cannot 1 shot a shield to destroyed. Who knows?

Strachan Fireblade wrote:
On a side note, is it stated anywhere how AoEs damage dice work? As in roll once and apply to all targets? Can't seem to find it.

I do not believe that it is stated anywhere, which leads me to believe that you roll once and apply it to all targets.

What kind of sick bastard would make you roll 6d6 for every target?

Unicore wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Unicore wrote:
The rulebook never clearly states what attributes you use when making touch attack rolls with spells. Herolab online seems to think it is your spell roll modifier. The pregens use their dex and str. THe rules in the book are all over the place, but never lay out a specific formula for calculating it.

herolab is wrong.

a touch attack is an unarmed attack targetting touch ac.

unarmed is defined as a finesse weapon.

so you can use either dex or strength, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an attack.

so prof bonusl+dex/str+misc att odifiers vs touch

I don't think people are going to take your word or mine over Herolab until something offical gets stated. The wording on page 192 is not explicit and if Herolab can get it wrong, then a lot of other folks will too.

You are probably right that people are not going to listen to us. But it is definitely a finesse strike, so Str or Dex. I took me about 20 minutes to work it out, but it is spelled out in the rules over about 3 sections.

Also this is what the iconic cleric had on their sheet +2 (1 lvl, 1 dex) for their fire power.

Either familiars are rubbish for Sorcerers or this is typo:

Familiar and Master Abilities (page 287)

• You can prepare one additional cantrip. You must be able to
prepare cantrips to select this master ability.

• You can prepare one additional spell at least 3 levels lower
than your highest-level spell; you must be able to prepare
level 4 spells to select this master ability.



If your ability’s counteract level is the same as the
effect’s counteract level or lower, you must succeed at a
check using the relevant skill or ability against the DC of
the target effect. You take a cumulative –5 penalty to this
check for every level by which your ability’s counteract
level is lower than the target’s. If your ability is 4 or more
counteract levels lower than that of the effect you are
trying to counteract, your attempt automatically fails.


How can you take a -4 or -5 if you automatically fail?!



Heightened (3rd) The damage increases to 1d8 + your
spellcasting ability modifier.


Should be 1d10 (I think).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it is dangerous. I also think it is quite a good thing.

It is totally gone.

Hythlodeus wrote:
Malthraz wrote:
Feat tax? Half elves are amazing. +5 feet and LLV for 1 feat! Then dip into Elf ...

How does one 'dip' ito Elf?

Also, I thought in PF as long as ancestor of yours was an Elf, you were considered a Half-elf? It was not necessary to dip into an Elf to create an Half-elf

Just saying: Select "nimble" from the Elf ancestry feat.

Half elf gives you access to a lot of feats. A lot.

Rysky wrote:

*opens mouth* … *closes it*



I must admit I was a bit surprised when you were posting some positive comments.

There are some prominent people that are still very negative. Maybe they will come around in time.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
6. This is a dumb question
This is a dumb answer.

This is a good forum sass.

Phantasmist wrote:
1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

I definitely like PFe1, but...

Phantasmist wrote:

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

It is definitely troublesome. It is so thoroughly unbalanced it is difficult to run at times. Especially at high levels.

With a few house rules, I ran a really good campaign last year and the year before.

Phantasmist wrote:

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

I think some elements of 4th were good, but it was a miniatures combat game, not a RP game. I never played a game of it, I never wanted to run it.

Never played 5th. Sounds very simplified, but better than 4th.

Phantasmist wrote:

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

I am keen on balance, since unbalanced causes a lot of problems. Fun is more important than balance, but it is hard to have fun without a decent amount of balance.

High level play should be playable. Unlike in PFe1, which in my experience is very, very poor. Does it need to be smooth? Smoothness is not the issue really. The issue is that it is terrible in PFe1.

I like options.

Fun is the most important. All these things can lead to fun. Options and balance can take away from fun if done poorly.

Phantasmist wrote:

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

I am not that concerned with this. A good system that has a steep learning curve is fine by me. It could be good to have more players playing Pathfinder, but I have a stable group of people to play with.

Phantasmist wrote:

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?


Phantasmist wrote:

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Sure. If it is an improvement.

Phantasmist wrote:

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

-Resonance is a good idea. The current implementation needs some work.

-Signature skills is a good idea. I would like to see a little more freedom with picking signature skills.

-Class feats seems fairly restrictive at times. I am pleased that the power level has been toned down, but I think maybe class options are a bit too limited now. With some classes, you tend to pick a specialisation and then you are going to use at least half of your feats to pursue that specialisation, which neglects some other cool options.

-I think ancestries needs a balance pass.

-I am not 100% sold on the animal companion and mounted combat implementation. But I need to do some more reading. One concern is that reach weapons appear not to have reach when you mounted on a large mount.

I am really pleased with the play test rules as well. I think Paizo have done an amazing job.

Is it perfect? No. But it is a play test, why would it be perfect?

I think it is way ahead of PFe1. As enjoyable as PFe1 is, it is a deeply flawed game. PFe2 has addressed a lot of these problems.

Secret Wizard wrote:
uuuhhhh is Lamashtu supposed to allow you to channel POSITIVE energy??

I believe so. It is so her followers can heal all her misshapen and malformed creatures. It was discussed in... the cleric blog (I think).

Virellius wrote:

Why can't my half-orc access Orc Weapons at level one? Why does he have to wait FOUR LEVELS to use a weapon he should have grown up knowing about?

It makes 100% no sense.

It's because level 1 characters are no very good at things. Orc weapons are hard.

You think being a half orc teaches sorcerers how to use falchions from level 1? 100% don't agree.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Feat tax? Half elves are amazing. +5 feet and LLV for 1 feat! Then dip into Elf for Nimble and pick up Fleet with a general feat. 40 ft movement.

So good.

Grab Natural Ambition from your human side.

I too think it is very strange to give Paladins Lay on Hands and then make it very difficult to use.


Round 1:
Action 1: Attack
Action 2: Attack
Action 3: Release one hand as free action and heal friend.

Round 2:
Action 1: Heal friend again
Action 2: Grip glaive
Action 3: Attack

This looks like a good combo, but it is no good for sword and board.

Unarmed and board looks like it might be possible, although this seems weird to me.

Finally, multiclassing to Cleric for EMBLAZON SYMBOL is an option as well. Actually not a bad option for 2 feats and wis 16, you get 2 cleric cantrips: Sheild and Stabilise; as well as access to wands, scrolls etc.

In any case, this whole design seems awkward.

At least you can buff it to d6 with a feat and then it heightens very well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually really like this ability. I think it is good game design. I actually think it makes reach weapons far more appealing for a Paladin.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ogres were specifically designed not to have riders. They are a big lump of HP that can hit stuff.

The redcap actually does have quite a bit going on in it's start block, maybe not in terms of attack effects, but certainly other abilities.

It seems highly likely that other creatures will have attack riders. If for some bizarre reason they do not, then just put your own in.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

But it does make a big difference if you are wizard with none of these abilities. Suddenly it is one feat that gives you 3.

Arrgh! I be a pirate wizard. But I've run out of rum and me spell book be gettin all salty.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

People often do things without examination. Clarity costs little, and is quite valuable.

It also helps stop unforseen shenanigans, which do happen in RPGs.

For the first time ever, I agree with Voss.

At least in the blog it says explicitly that you cannot multiclass into you in class. Hopefully things are clear in the book as well.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like a good trade off to me.

You might be right DMW. I guess we will see next week.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was pretty sure this is the way PFe2 was going to approach multi-classing.

Given how class feats work, I think it is sensible. Multi-classing is very hard to balance in PFe1. This way of doing it does reduce options a bit, but it is far cleaner and easier to balance.

I am expecting this to be very controversial. I think it is a compromise situations, but I think it really will allow people to build the characters they imagine, reduce the amount of rules overhead, and reduce broken combinations.

This definitely gets a thumbs up from me. Great work!

Kevin Mack wrote:
Well if there putting Goblin in why not Orc's?

Can we exclude goblins as well as orcs?

Actually, I have a great idea: Why don't we include Balrogs as a core race? And Dragons.

Hey, while we are at it, I want to be Cthulhu.

Interesting idea.

I get the feeling that ranged weapons are being brought in closer. It is very difficult to have a grid with 300+ feet. That is 60 squares. It works on virtual table top, but it is still a lot of scrolling around; also a lot of time drawing out such a big map.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

Those are the playtest previews that I have been reading. I don't see weaker spells.

There has been a bunch of other stuff revealed.

Maintaining buffs
Check out the pre-gen character sheet for the Cleric for Bless. 2-Kyra-Human-Cleric

It requires concentration now to maintain. I believe this costs 1 action per round. I think a lot of buffs work this way. So it looks like there is no more fire and forget buff stacking. Going by the bard cantrips, buffs also seems to affect fewer people.

Less stacking
Additionally, there are far fewer things that stack. The Twitch banquet presentation on the Druid showed that polymorph type spell set your stats to particular levels, rather than added bonus. There are far fewer categories of buffs as well. et-information

Flatter bonuses
Because of the flatter maths, spells are not going to give big bonuses. We have seen some +1 to hit . But I doubt we will be see anything that gives a +3 that stacks with weapon/armour magic bonuses.

Reduced duration
A lot of buff spells shown so far have duration in the order of minutes. So, it will take an action (or two) in combat to get them going.

Debuff sliding scale
Because of the new debuff system, a lot of save or suck spells and effects appear to less sever on a fail, and only a major debuff on a critical fail. Whereas in PFe1, you could offload high DC, area of effect debuffs that essentially ended encounters starting around level 7. These got worse with Persistent Spell metamagic.

No automatic damage scaling
Many of the damage spells do not scale with level. They need to be prepared in higher spell slots for more damage. This is a clear reduction in power.

Burning Hands is previewed in the Wizard pre-gen character sheet. 6-Ezren-Human-Wizard

It does 2d6 fire damage. This is better than PFe1 at level 1, but then it is behind from level 3. Of course, it was quite possible to be doing 3d4+6 at level 1 with a particular character build, 5d4 with another.

Save scaling
Character and monster's saves are generally going to scale at a similar rate to spell DCs. Therefore monsters are going to be able to make saves more often. Critical fails are going to be rare against challenging monsters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As someone that does a lot of home brew adaptions to PFe1 stuff I will give my take on the official play test feedback process.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to run the whole play test scenario. What I am going to do it adapt the level 7-8ish scenario. It is going to be mechanically identical to the play test scenario, but it will be a totally different story (so far as is possible with identical mechanics).

So, it will be my story, in my game world, my fluff and flavour, only with identical encounters, skill tests, traps etc.

That way I can run (kind of) what I want to, but still give useful and relevant feedback to Paizo.

I will also be giving a fair amount of general feedback. I hope it will be insightful enough to warrant Paizo's attention.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

The Pathfinder 1st Edition spells are time-tested for power and were found to be totally unbalanced.

I fixed that for you.

Mathmuse wrote:

I doubt Paizo will make the spells weaker.

What play test previews have you been reading? They are absolutely making spells weaker. And more power to Paizo for doing so.

This is some fantastic stuff. Hugely keen on 3 of the 4 orders.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Strong spell progression.
Single action buff cantrips.
Potent reactions.
Lots of skills.
Great muse class features.

Looks like Paizo has been seduced by the Bard.

Great work.

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

Anyone else besides me blowing a gasket while trying to figure out what classes to play for the playtest? :) I know that Doomsday Dawn will have at least two chances for players to make PCs to play, but I can't narrow it down from twelve choices!!!

Mark, why couldn't you ladies and gents have intentionally made at least one or two classes suck, to make my life easier??? ;-)

If you are playing all of Doomsday Dawn and you never repeat classes except when it's the same character, you will get to play 5/12 classes. Still doesn't help you though, I think. Sorry, which do you recommend we make suck?

Make the paladin suck. Oh the tears...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This fixes one of my major problems with Pathfinder 1, which was codex creep and rule exhaustion.

As someone that GMs far more than I play, I think this change is absolutely fantastic.

Also, anything that resembles teleport is going to be rare.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am definitely someone that leans towards spell casters. My favourite classes are sorcerer, paladin, druid, cleric, bard, oracle, rogue. In that order.

I absolutely welcome the caster nurf. It is entirely required at high levels.

Dragonborn3 wrote:
More overpowered? That implies it is overpowered now, when it just has 2 free heightens and it really isn't. Spontaneous casting is just getting shafted again.

Does your wizard or cleric somehow have perfect knowledge of what spells they need to prepare?

Sounds like there sorcerer is in a very strong place at the moment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A remotely balanced (even a playable) end game.

So far things are look very promising.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
I think if people do get their books before August 2nd, the playtest PDF should release as soon as the first people start posting their first impressions. Otherwise this will lead very early on to a skewed perception of the playtest and many, many angry customers. Which will make for a bad start to the playtest, IMHO.

I just got my book.

Paizo now has to release the playtest pdf.

Do it!

7 people marked this as a favorite.

This is my level 14 Paladin buff list:

Already Active:
Eagle Soul
Magic Weapon, Greater
Delay Poison

Saddle Surge
Holy Weapon
Angelic Aspect, Greater

Stunning Barrier, Greater
Shield of Fortification, Greater
(Divine Favour)
Blade Tutor’s Spirit
(Righteous Vigour)
Vest of the Champion
Weapon of Awe
Burst of Glory

(DF and RV were subbed out for some of the situation spells)

Scrolls (situational):
Death Ward
Resist Elements, Communal
Deadly Juggernaut
Crusader's Edge
Iron Beard
Righteous Blood

I did not ever go the full cycle, because it was ludicrous, but I certainly was prepared to do so.

It has been a few months, I could not remember exactly what one or two of them did.

I think it would be good if buffs were toned down a bit.

Paizo definitely read the forums. If you have valuable feedback, posting it here will likely get back to them.

I suspect the first few weeks will be a flood of feedback.

Some will be high quality, some not so much.

Boojumbunn wrote:
Malthraz wrote:

So, I will give my take on these points.

See, I don't think "the healer" is something that Paizo are supporting. There is no healers class. There are classes that can do more healing than others, but it seems like a large number of the classes can bring some healing.

*lots of snippage*

Healer is a role, not a class.. just like dps, tank, blaster, controller are roles. Does your group play with no magical healing? In my experience, playing with no magical healing results in total party kill. Also, playing without a character who is designated "The one who will advance in healing skills/magic/whatever" results in total party kill at the higher levels when you can't dish out enough healing to keep up with the higher DPS at the higher levels.

Sorry it has taken a while to get back to this thread.

Defining "healer" as a roll does make a lot of sense. But, I do not agree that all roles should have limitless resources.

If you think attrition based play has any place in game design, then healing must be limited. But this also means that good class design must allow characters to have another roll in addition to healing.

In PFe1 all casters had limits on their damage. At low level you felt these limits with a long adventuring day, but at high levels, while still technically limited, in practise you have far more resources than you could reasonably expend. You could also use an almost trivial amount of gold to ignore heal and attribute attrition.

In PFe2, they are giving spell casters spamable spells (cantrips), but they are limiting potent spells a lot more. They are also limiting using gold to bypass these limitations. You can dislike resonance as a clunky mechanic, but with resonance taxing consumables, you can then drop their price and still keep attrition mechanics and allow people to use them more freely (from a gold perspective).

Also in PFe1, healing per round was generally a lot lower than what creatures where putting out (Heal being a stand out exception). I found that you would often mitigate monster damage through disable spells, or just flat out kill the monster before it had much of a chance to do damage.

Boojumbunn wrote:

If you pick one portion of one class and say "See! That one person can heal AND hit things!" Except that the priest who kits out as a healer really CAN'T hit the higher level monsters, and don't have the AC to stand on the front line with higher level monsters, and when they go down because they ARE in the front line, no more healing. That just happened in our last game. The Healer (in this case an Oracle Healer) put himself in the front line in our low level game. One hit, down and unconcious. No more healing for anyone.

Yeah, that is definitely a drawback in PFe1. Now everyone essentially gets full BAB progression and very similar saves. Therefore, there is a smaller gap in martial offence and defence.

Boojumbunn wrote:

The person who plays a character (not class) dedicated to healing is useful when healing. Taking a tool away at low levels that helps them to keep up with healing because their personal powers can't keep up yet results in them being left out of the game once their healing is used up... because they can't stand in the front line.

That is why good game design would make healing less of an opportunity cost. Having to build towards a dedicated healer by sacrificing your ability to perform other roles should not be required. I think healing should be a secondary roll for a number of classes. Yet it should still be limited.

Paladins are a good example from PFe1 of a class with healing, but still very good at another role: hitting things. Paladins can invest in Bracers of the Merciful Knight and drop a feat on Lay on Hands. This does make them substantially better at healing, but you do not really need to. You generally cannot out-heal incoming damage, but you do not need to out heal it, you just need to do enough to keep people alive.

With the action economy for PFe1 it seems like 1 or 2 actions can be spent on offence, and 2 or 1 actions can be spent on buffs, heals. With haste it gives an extra action for movement or a strike. This means healing AND... is the new normal.

Boojumbunn wrote:

Now I am sure that you can come up with one class/power/feat combination that can both stand in the front line AND has enough healing. Wonderful, as long as that is the only character one player is allowed to play so that the group has healing.

Myself, I don't believe this is a good thing. Just as I like that there are multiple classes that can be DPS, and multiple classes that can be blasters, I believe there should be multiple classes who can be healers. I also think that rules which leave characters out of play because they "run out of power" are bad for overall enjoyment for those players.


I definitely agree with what you are saying here. I think making healing a secondary role and giving half the classes in the game the ability to do it viably is the answer to this.

If people think their main role is to heal, I think maybe they are going to be left out in the cold. Running out of power is rubbish. But if they can heal AND... then they can always do their other role.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Allowing Sorcerers to automatically heighten all their spells creates some problems. Let’s take a spell load out for a Sorcerer of level 7.

You get: 4, 4, 4, 3

You might take:

Level 1 : Vanish, Summon Monster I, Magic Missile, Mage Armour
Level 2 : Glitter Dust, Create Pit, Scare, Darkness
Level 3 : Dispel Magic, Fire Ball, Haste, Protection from Energy
Level 4 : Dimension Door, Confusion, Overland Flight

Now assuming you get automatic heightening, what does this turn in to (definitely some guess work on what spells are lumped together):

Level 1 : Vanish, Summon Monster I, Magic Missile, Mage Armour

Level 2 : Invisibility, Summon Monster II, Magic Missile II, Glitter Dust, Create Pit, Pit, Scare, Darkness

Level 3 : Invisibility Sphere, Summon Monster III, Magic Missile III, Mage Armour II, Spiked Pit, Deeper Darkness, Dispel Magic, Fire Ball, Haste, Protection from Energy

Level 4 : Improve Invisibility, Summon Monster IV, Acid Pit, Fear, Dispel Magic 4th, Fire Ball 4th, Protection from Energy Communal, Dimension Door, Confusion, Overland Flight.

It is only level 7, and it is seriously out of hand.

I will do a down casting version later. It looks better, but I still prefer spontaneous heighten for its adaption and planning element.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Malthraz wrote:

Is there a DC boosting implement? Or is it that most classes are not going to get access legendary saves, and casters are going to max their primary stat, whereas people cannot max all of their saves?

We just don't know!

We actually do know this. Mark Seifter got into it in a thread, explaining that you can max out your stat and Proficiency with Save DCs pretty readily, but that nobody can actually do that with more than one Save. The Potency thing is thus added to keep most people from needing 15+ to Save vs. most on-level spells.

Great. I edited my post as you were replying, speculating exactly this. Greta stuff.


Bloody hell, now you are editing to catch up with my editing, while I was posting this, which I am now editing.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

This being the case, there are no Save DC enhancing items, and he said as much. However, AC is not like Saves, since heavy armor can compensate for low Dex there, so there are items giving an attack bonus with spells.

Yeah, I have been thinking about this. I figured there could be.

They really have thought through a lot of the scaling issue very thoroughly. It is very impressive for the mathematically inclined person.

One thing about saves that I find interesting is that saves vs. spell DC seem to follow slight different formulas, although the net result may still be a fair degree of balance.

Saves = d20 + level + proficiency + stat + potency

Whereas spell DC is

DC = 10 + level + proficiency + stat + nothing (?!)

Is there a DC boosting implement? Or is it that most classes are not going to get access legendary saves, and casters are going to max their primary stat, whereas people cannot max all of their saves?

So, the caster may have a 2-4 stat advantage over saves, and a 0-2 proficiency advantage over saves, but saves may have a 3-5 potency advantage over caster DC near level cap.

This looks balanced.

So keen for the playtest.


My favourite class is the sorcerer, and has been since I rolled my first character in 2001. So, I have really been looking forward to this blog. I have to say I am not disappointed at all. The only detractor is that it I wanted 5 times the information. Not too long for release now though.

I was blown away by the spell list selection option. Definitely a thumbs up for me. Definitely did not see it coming. Almost like 4 classes in one.

While I certainly spend more time on the Playtest boards than most, I am surprised by how many people were unaware that sorcerers did not receive automatic heightening as a default. Mark made this clear about 4-5 weeks ago.

I really like the way spontaneous heightening feature works. In PFe1, your spell selection at level was everything, and then no decisions can be made. With this, in the morning you can adapt what you can do based on what you think you will be facing. This meaningful choice is great. Spontaneous everything would just be overpowered, and too much choice.

I can see the merits of down casting, but I think this version is better mechanically. Interesting tactical choice appears to be a very important game design theme of PFe2, and I think the spontaneous heightening feature offers the best way of implementing it for the Sorcerer.

I think standard spell progression is a huge boon, and a really great thing to do away with.

It would have been great to get an idea of how many spells known Sorcerers get. It looks like it will equal the number of spell per day you get (including your bloodline spell). But I do not consider this confirmed yet {wrong, Mark confirmed in thread}. If true, I think this is definitely enough spells known to be competitive with the prepared casters (maybe even better). It would be good to get confirmation that you can cast a level 1 spell (e.g. magic missile) in a level 2 slot. It would be weird if you could not.

How many Cantrips? Maybe 3 + Bloodline, same a wizard. Or maybe slightly more because wizard can change them around.

I hope to see a good archetype that allows demon sorcerers more ability to hang out in melee and bite people. Glutton's Jaws does not look that great in isolation, but when you combine it with some buff spells: divine favour or divine power (if they exist) and the temporary HP to offset some damage, then things start to look like they might be competitive. Also the finesse trait means that you are probably going to want to go with high dex, which helps AC.

Steel you have picked a confusing time to start playing Pathfinder. In August Paizo are going to release a play test version of Pathfinder 2.

This version is significantly different from version 1. Studded leather armour (which is not a real armour and should not exist) does appear to be +2 to AC in the play test of version 2, based on the limited information Paizo has released as a preview.

I imagine resonance as sort of a combination of tolerance and attunement.

Gorbacz wrote:

Dear OP,

In case your free product will not be available on release day and the resulting psychological trauma will cause you major distress, my services are available at affordable hourly rates. Options include: a really nasty forum post, am equally spiteful Reddit post or at a slight premium, a warrantless but intimidating threat of a class action lawsuit.

Here's my card.

You truly are an evil bag.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Looks great.

Maybe a slight rewording for a few parts of the pit trap description, removing a "trap door" and describing it as "camouflage":

Description Camouflage trapdoor covers a 10-foot-square pit that is 20 feet deep.

Disable Thievery DC 12 to remove the camouflage, making the trap no longer hidden (Perception DC 0 to notice)

Trigger A creature walks onto the square with the pit.

Reset The trap still causes falling damage if anyone falls in, but the camouflage must be reset manually for the trap to become hidden again. This takes 5 minutes. {or some other amount of time}

sadie wrote:
If there really are that many action types, I really hope that somewhere in the book is a single definitive list of them. I don't want to have dumb arguments at the table over whether a certain word used in a feat or spell description counts as an action type or not.

They are having a glossary, so everything will be well defined.

So, I will give my take on these points.

Boojumbunn wrote:
You are the healer. You spend your time healing, until resonance says you can't use the backup wand you got in case you ran out of healing in an encounter.

See, I don't think "the healer" is something that Paizo are supporting. There is no healers class. There are classes that can do more healing than others, but it seems like a large number of the classes can bring some healing.

Boojumbunn wrote:

You are a fighter, your job is hitting things.. you can hit them with YOUR magic item all day long without having to worry about resonance.

Clerics (the class that comes closest to a heal) can hit things with their magic deity's weapon all day. Or fire off cantrips all day. Healing is a limited resource. Maybe you think that is a mistake, but I do not.

Boojumbunn wrote:

A 1xday resonance charge for a wand would seem to be reasonable to me. A 1xCharge resonance for a spellcaster is like a 1xSwing resonance cost for a fighter. Gee, I'm sorry, but you cant swing your magic sword anymore. This was done so that you feel the attrition and the excitement. Are you an archer? I'm sorry, but every arrow you shoot costs you 1 resonance.. you are all out and you can't shoot any more arrows.

Wands are not a primary weapon. Cantrips and actual weapons are.

However, I think that investing in a wand and then being able to use an amount of charges (2-4) might be an idea worth thinking about. It is additional bookkeeping overhead though.

Boojumbunn wrote:

It seems silly when applied to the fighters, doesn't it?

No, how you are thinking about wands is different to how Paizo is thinking about wands.

If a +1 wand did 2d8+Cha worth of damage with a ranged touch attack, and required 1 essence per attack, then it certainly would be silly. But wands are not the caster equivalent of a weapon.

Boojumbunn wrote:

But this argument is seriously taken for spellcasting classes. For the healer, the spot of excitement they get IS doing the healing. They are generally kept out of combat other than that. For the arcane caster, the spot of excitement they get IS casting spells. They are generally kept out of combat other than that.

There is no healer class. Casters can always cast cantrips. Wands are not the weapon equivalent for casters.

Boojumbunn wrote:
If you ARE going to nerf spellcasters, then you might as well nerf all the classes for using magic, including fighers.

They have. Resonance applies to everyone and every class will use it.

Themetricsystem wrote:

Can we get Dancing Shields Please?

I don't care if they act as a functional Shield when dancing, I just want a Shield floating around me slapping goons in the face while I'm playing the Harmonica for my party.

It will hit people. Like a boss.

1 to 50 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>