Raxius Malgorian

Shinigami02's page

Organized Play Member. 774 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 774 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
dnoisette wrote:
thflame wrote:

Why weren't Drow an option for a future race? That would have been my number one pick, as my favorite character is a drow.

This, I kept looking for Drow and couldn't even believe it wasn't available when I could not even remember what some of the races on offer actually were.

Isn't the Golarion canon that Drow are inherently evil in that they have been tainted by Rovagug and in case they somehow get over being evil and are cleansed of the aforementioned taint, they cease to be Drow?

Doesn't really seem appropriate for a PC option.

For the record, this was retconned a while ago, though non-Evil Drow are still rare. There is a canon CG Drow of significant setting importance referenced in the Adventurer's Guide even, under the Lantern Bearers section (though admittedly she is a... particular case).


My primary choice would be Kineticist. For one, I love blasting and would love to be able to get a class that can actually focus on throwing around raw elemental energy without having to devote 1/2 or more of their resources to off-theme stuff (like blaster casters have to do to keep lower level spells at all relevant.)

Besides that though, I want to see Magus come back, but maybe as an archetype you can stick on any caster. As people have said, you can kinda sorta emulate spell combat with the new action economy (though 1 spell + 1 attack hardly a spell combat makes IMO) but what we're really lacking is spellstrikes (well, maybe with the fancy arrows you can Ranged Spellstrike.) And besides, there's still room for fancy action economy playing, like the classic suggestion of performing a Strike on a Somatic Component.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zorae wrote:
DataLoreRPG wrote:

Channel to me, is not really working. It smells like a bandaid fix. It functions nothing like any other class ability. Every other class that wants to do special stuff keys that off their Spell Points or Spell Slots. Clerics get this extra third thing that triples their highest level slots for healing basically. All I hear from folks that think this is good is that "It works! We live with it!" Well, ya, but it doesnt work at making parties varied or gameplay better.

Unless they are going to start hacking in a bunch of random bandaids like this onto the Druid, Bard, and Divine Sorc, then we are stuck with the DM likely running a DMPC Cleric just to keep a party alive and that is just not good design. If they do put in a bunch of such hacks, survivability may go up but the design would likely be clunky (like channel) and be harder to balance.

PF2 would be a far better game if there were no channel and parties could survive with a variety of healing options. Suggestions that fail to address that fail to fix a large problem (the only major one I have with this edition) and just kick the can down the road.

Druids get spell points, spell slots, and a wild shape pool.

Channel is Cleric's main way of healing. Most domain powers don't allow you to heal (pretty sure it's only the healing domain that does). If you were to remove channel, then even with the healing domain they'd be lesser healers than the current leaf order druids (and offer less since druids can still pick up an animal companion). Without the healing domain, it would be impossible to play as even an off healer without completely devoting all of your spell resources to healing (not really being an off healer at that point).

It's not a bandaid. It's a class feature that lets Clerics be either primary healers or decent off healers.

Druid Wild Shape is hardly an equivalent comparison, for a few reasons.

1) Only one of the four orders gets Wild Shape by default.
2) On orders that don't get it by default, if they spend the feat they get a pool, yes. A pool of one use. They get a second if they spend, like, something like half their feats on it.
3) Even on the one order that does get it for free, they get a number of uses per day equal to the modifier in a secondary stat (Strength). 1+Strength if they (like the other orders) spend something like half their feats on it. Compared to Cleric's 3+Secondary Stat (Charisma) pool of Channels from level 1.
4) Even Wild Druids are going to have to spend at least one feat anyways to actually make it something worth using because the base form... really isn't. Pest Form is a joke, and I'm not entirely convinced it doesn't exist purely so they could make claims that Wildshape is usable from level 1 while what we know as Wildshape actually turns on at level 4 like it always did (though of course the duration is gutted, the stats are pitiful, and I could go on but this has been discussed in many threads as is...)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:
As a DM, players who see those narrative opportunities as "hoops" are not often welcome in my games. Players who respect the work those "hoops" take to make and work to add to party fun and experience often get what they are after.

As a player, most of the DMs in my group are the ones who see such "narrative opportunities" as "hoops" they have to jump through to design and tack on to a (generally pre-written) campaign. Not once have we ever had a successful homebrew game (I think the furthest one's ever made was level 3), and our GMs are incredibly adverse to making more than aesthetic modifications to Paizo's APs. Even modifying loot is sometimes problematic (when we did Crimson Throne's book 5 we literally wound up with the Barbarian grabbing 3 different Greatswords, and the same Barbarian (who'd spent a feat earlier) and Magus getting fancy full plate, while the Cleric, Gunslinger, and my Rogue were still in the same gear we'd picked up two entire books earlier, just because the DM refused to modify anything) so an entire side-quest for 1 player to have the potential to get something that's not directly plot relevant is right out.

DataLoreRPG wrote:
I still say the current issue with this system is not power but versatility. Give casters Arcanist/5E like casting. Now the lower spell number of spell slots dont matter since less are wasted and the lower power level doesn't sting as much since they are more able to react in a versatile manner in the moment.

For the record, I used to agree this was the right approach, but once I really looked at 5e's system... it kinda screws Spont Casters. Especially with the current system where they have the exact same number of slots as prepped casters. You would either have to let the prepped casters prep fewer spells (which, given the current system only gives Spont 4 spells known anyways, really doesn't leave many daily options), or give the spont more spell slots (which breaks their whole "one progression for everything" ideology) so they can still have a niche. Especially since Spont would likely still have to learn the same spell several times while the prepped can still prep it in whatever level they want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Flames of Chaos wrote:

Despite every effort to the contrary, my efforts to make a druid for PFS for this coming wed have taken me almost a full week and I'm still not done.

I say this to frame my complaint here fully as between the time I started making the character and now the rulebook was updated TWICE:

Why on Golarion are Druids losing a skill rank?! They're already being forced to dedicate additional ranks more than others as their order throws additional "signature skills" at them, yet now I'm supposed to go with 3 plus int mod rather than 4 + int mod?!

Please explain the reasoning behind this.

As someone who just made a Druid recently, I have an answer for this. A basic design philosophy so far seems to be that a character with 10 Int will at level 1 have a number of trained skills equal to their number of signature skills (not counting Lore and Background's interaction). Druids have 3 signature skills for being a Druid, +1 from their Order, and 4+Int Trained Skills. But then part of the Order also involves getting the Order's Signature Skill as Trained. As a result they effectively had 5+Int Trained Skills, and 4 Signature Skills, which violated the design philosophy. There were two ways they could have handled this, either decrease the number of chosen trained skills, or take away the auto-trained from Order. They decided the former.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to add some anecdote to this. In my DD game so far... I'll be honest, most of what we've done has been combat and Secret checks, so this is definitely coming at it from that angle. But I still have something to note. Our party has a Monk (me) and a Barbarian, both of us at 18 Strength, so we're at +5 attack bonus, the absolute maximum you can get without being a Fighter I believe. Not too long ago we were in a fight, I think it was the Quasits, where we (through keeping track of our rolls) found the enemy's AC was a 16. Fortunately we have a Bard in the party, and their Inspiration is the only reason we, the second-most optimized attackers we can get, could hit 50/50 odds on hitting on our first attack. Crits are almost a non-entity, and our third attacks are almost guaranteed to miss. Even with Bard Song up and using my Fist instead of my preferred Dragon Style for the Agile, I was still looking at only a 15% chance to generally make 2 of my 3 actions actually worth while. And since MAP applies to combat maneuvers too and we're only level 1, it's not like I actually have any viable alternatives, heck I'm less likely to succeed at a maneuver (since I can't apply Agile to them and I'm not sure if Bard Song applies or not.)

But hey, so far that attack has been one of the harder to hit so far. Unfortunately, I know the rest isn't much better. We had a discussion with the GM recently, where he revealed some of the average stats for the contents of the dungeon. The average AC according to him is 13-15, so we're looking at 50-60 hit chance with our best attack against the average foe, and for the Barbarian his third attack still is probably only hitting 5 to maybe 15% of the time (with my third and fourth only being better because Agile is, like, the best weapon quality in the game right now). Meanwhile, we also learned the average attack bonus is +5 (on par with us) to +6 (on par with an optimized fighter). Again, average attack. I'll admit my actual play experiences with that are skewed because both of us are kinda glass-cannon-y with horribly unoptimized AC, but it's still an issue that the average attack is on par with our optimized attacks.

There's also the issue that with the ~50/50 odds that generally arise... it really makes the value of the +/-10 system questionable. Most of the time it seems you're only going to crit on a nat 20 or crit fail on a nat 1 anyways, unless you're dealing with something well out of your league, with the exception seemingly being MAP and its increased chance of crit-failing (not that that usually matters anyways.)

As one final note... I am notoriously unlucky. There have been times I've had long stretches where I couldn't roll higher than a 10 (notably the Quasit fight was one of those, which just reinforced how miserable that AC was) where-as times when I manage to roll a 19 or 20 are generally note-worthy. So for me or anyone with luck like mine, we're pretty much doomed to fail far more often than we succeed with the math as laid out right now.


I will note that I doubt that the level 1 Power will be made a feat, simply because level 1 abilities being locked in based on subclass seems to be a recurring theme for casters (and to a lesser degree with Barbarians, though they still get the level 1 feat too since they don't have spells). You can see it in Wizard School, Bard Muse, Cleric Domain, and Druid Order, so I doubt it'll change for Sorcerer Bloodline. That said, I think the only reason the Sorc Bloodline does lock in the other powers is as an experiment, see how locked-in expansion works and how the community responds to it (so far negatively from what I've seen but yeah.)

ETA: For that matter, I think all the casters have a bit of an experiment going on. Wizard has the "you can only pick from this subclass but the expansions are feats", Cleric has "You can cross-sub, but only so many times", Druid has "You can cross-sub, but your original sub has benefits", and Bard has "You can freely cross-sub to your heart's content."


Our Act 1 party
- Elf Monk, Strength-based with Dragon Totem, very fast (me)
- Human Barbarian, Spirit Totem
- Halfling Cleric of Desna, Travel Domain, Primary Healer (mostly through Channels, doesn't actually Prepare Heal)
- Human Bard, Maestro, Secondary Healer and spends most of his time spamming Inspire Courage and Telekinetic Projectile

To date I've gone down twice, the Bard once, and the Cleric once, all of which were negated with Hero Points (we're using a checkpoint system for "sessions" since it's PbP). We're still in the middle of Act 1, but our GM wants us to have our Act 2 characters ready before we get there so what we know so far of that:

- Gnome Druid of the Storm, strong Blasting and a minor in Healing (1 prepped in each spell level and a Staff of Healing,) also has a Panther companion (me again)
- Dwarf Ranger. Don't know much about it but I think it has a Badger companion (the Act 1 Cleric's player)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quijenoth wrote:

3: Not sure I understand this question as you can already take stats above 18 currently.

Playtest Rule Book wrote:

Ability Boosts

At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, your character
boosts four different ability scores. Your character can
use these ability boosts to increase her ability scores
above 18. Boosting an ability score increases it by 1 if
it’s already 18 or above, or by 2 if it starts out below 18.
For more about ability boosts and applying them during
character creation, see page 18.

It's not that you can't take them above 18, but that once you're above 18 you start dealing with literally useless odd numbers (literally useless because a 19 is literally identical to an 18 except for the fact that it becomes a 20 with another boost.) Hence the bit about "no mechanical change from stats for 10 levels." What they want instead (if I'm parsing this right) is to be able to spend 2 of their 4 boosts at that level to basically double-boost it up to another even value instead. Like, say you have 18 strength at level 4. You hit level 5, and by the current rules you could drop one boost into strength making it 19, but that boost has no effect until you hit level 10 and can drop another boost up to 20. By their concept, you'd instead take a second boost at 5, put it into Strength instead of some other stat, and now you have 20 strength at level 5, at the cost of not boosting some other stat.

Personally, I don't really like the idea, since the whole idea of the 4 boosts was specifically to spread them around and bring secondary or tertiary stats up, rather than pumping one or two stats as high as you can go.


shroudb wrote:

*I want to take this opportunity to adress this issue even further, because it's actually a quite detrimental issue for the rpg genre, and especially PF.

We keep complaining (rightfully so) that things that should be "baseline" to our abilities and our skills, are getting shoved into "feats". Making the base skills/abilities/strikes lose more and more value as supplements get published shoehorning perfectly reasonable uses into "feats".

And yet, when someone says a perfectly reasonable thing like "my character is in the roof so he should have a bonus" we suddenly jump into "where does it says so", "this is gm fiat", "how can you do that", "what ability is that" and etc.

We can't have it both ways.

We can either have (give) GM freedom to arbitate for us what we can and can't do, or we can "feats" doing the GMs work for us at the price of buying them.

It's reasonable that we can't have in writing every single thing someone can think of doing. That would make a CRB of around 1 million pages. So, we either let the GM decide what we can and can't do, or use the very, very small percentage of our abilities that's actually written or covered by rules.

"GM fiat" is being thrown around like it's a BAD thing around here. well.. GM fiat is a GOOD thing. It actually means that you don't have to buy a feat in order to breathe, to tie your shoe, or to stab with the pointy edge or... to get a circumstance bonus while on the roofs.

Just to note here, not everyone has the advantage of a GM that will apply such bonuses, and I'm not just talking PFS. In my group GMs are very stingy with bonuses, to the point that they might as well be a non-entity... unless it's something spelled out in the book. So just assuming "oh, doing that will get you a circumstance bonus that'll make everything easier" when no such thing is said anywhere really doesn't help in my case.

Of course, that's a bit beside the point, because a circumstance bonus doesn't help... unless a circumstance bonus to speed is a thing I've just completely missed to this point. Because either you're moving at full speed to keep pace with them, in which case that full sphere of awareness kicks in and they spot you with no check involved (Circumstance bonus doesn't help if there's nothing to apply it to) or you're doing the sneaking thing which means you're moving slower and are quickly out-paced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
heretic wrote:
I would entreat those who think that moving towards this is paradigm is great not to dismiss the concerns of others. Also not to interpret the adoption of this kind of system and the alienation of many in the current player base as some kind of victory. To my mind anyone in this discussion who chooses to comment along the lines of "well, if you don't like this then PF2 isn't the game for you" is substantively detracting from their own position and the debate in general.

The counterpoint is though... there are plenty of systems out there that support that lower power, same-threats-are-always-relevant style, while there is very little for those that do want the kind of high-power feel that the current system gives. So why shouldn't those of us who want that feel see it as a win that our preferred style is being supported? Neither side should dismiss the concerns or preferences of the other out of hand, but no one system is going to please everyone and one side really does have more options than the other.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
duje wrote:

block damage that is below your hardness, and from rase shield action you get AC bonus.

Shield is not made to take big hits, rather with a bonus to AC and negating damage up to its hardness, its more of anti-attrition tool rather than anti spike-damage tool.

So with shield, those 3 or 5 damages that you periodically block save you a lot of life over time. Only occasionally is smart to block big damage, if that would save you from going down, a party is low on healing and sacrificing shield is a good idea in that moment

I actually find it funny how people who don't understand mechanics very well, or are not intelligent enough to see that even 5 hardness shield is not anti-spike tool, treat it as such and demand its uselessness because of it

How often is it going to be remotely useful though? Take a light shield. It has Hardness 3. Only blowguns have a damage die below 1d4, which means with no damage bonus at all all but the absolute weakest weapon in the game has a 50/50 chance of denting a light shield. With a +1 damage mod a 1d4 weapon now has a 75% chance of denting a light shield, and with a +2 damage bonus it's guaranteed to dent it (with a 25% chance of breaking it).

But let's look at a Heavy shield instead. Hardness is up to 5, so yeah that dagger or whatever won't get through it on its own, and doesn't reach 50/50 until a +2 damage bonus (because that's so hard to get, right?) Let's step up one size though, now we've got a 1d6 weapon, which people might actually use as a primary weapon. Flat, it has a 33% chance to dent your shield. At +1 damage, it's up to 50/50. At +2 damage it's now at 66% chance to dent, and at +3 you'd only be able to block a min-damage blow without taking a dent. And of course this is just flat worse with d8, d10, or Gods forbid d12 weapons.

Let's go a few levels, say level 5. You've now got an Expert shield. Light Hardness 4, or Heavy 6. Meanwhile your foes have +1 weapons. Let's see how long that Hardness 4 or 6 lasts against 2d6, 2d8, or 2d12 hitting opponents. But maybe you splurged and got a Sturdy shield. At item level 5 you have Expert Light Steel or Heavy Wooden, either way getting Hardness 8. You're still going against 2dWhatever, with whatever damage bonus... still a very high chance of taking bare minimum 1 dent (>50% with 2d6+1, or 2d8 or higher flat) but at least you can block 3 times before that very expensive level 4 or 5 shield is Broken and useless I guess.

Now let's look at the strongest option, the uncommon Legendary Heavy Adamantine Shield. Hardness 21. Meanwhile you're fighting foes wielding +5 weapons, dealing 6d4 to 6d12 damage flat, likely with other effects on top of that. You have a good chance of blocking a flat +5 dagger, which only has a 2.05% chance of beating 21... but a d6 weapon dents you more than half the time, a d8 weapon just shy of 90% of the time, and against a d12 you have only a 1.29% chance of it being low enough to not dent and a 38.65% chance of it dealing enough damage to inflict 2 dents at once. The entire reaction is either a money sink or completely worthless.


Grimcleaver wrote:
A d10 + Wis feels like too much healing for a single action--more than you can heal with healing magic, alchemy, potions or wands, but spread out over a ten minute action--I don't hate that.

It heals more than a single cast of healing magic yes... at level 1 and 2. If you can make an exceptionally difficult check. With a high chance of damaging whoever you're trying to heal. And once the caster hits level 3, they now take the lead, and the gap grows ever wider with every spell level they gain. Add to that the fact that the caster has potentially several casts while the skill feat is only ever 1/day per target... yeah no it's just too weak.


breithauptclan wrote:
Ogre is still seen and can be attacked by Kyra because line from best corner of Kyra to best corner of Ogre is clear (top right corner of Kyra to top right corner of Ogre).

This is a logical way to calculate, and is probably how I would do it if I was GMing, but technically is not a rule.


shroudb wrote:

you keep confusing 2 things, sneaking behind someone and shadowing.

what you describe (following someone) doesn't need stealth, just needs the person to not be suspicious of you and not knowing you. that's usually how tailing is done. Sneaking means to not be seen, at all, by him.

Say you're tailing someone. They start off not suspicious of you, going about their day. They're not blind though, and presumably are doing things that involve needing to be specific places, so they're looking around to make sure they don't miss their goal. They see you, but (assuming you're not someone they personally know) they pay you no mind and continue on.

Bit later, you're still tailing them. They look around again, notice you're still right there. They shrug, surely it's just coincidence.

Bit later again, still tailing them. They look around again. This exact same person is still behind them for the third time, likely the exact same distance behind them. At this point, any sane person is probably going to be suspicious, and someone doing something shady (which is the likely reason a Hero is tailing them) is going to be on full alert. Chances are, now they are actively searching, if not turning around and starting a fight.

There are a couple ways around this, based on the fiction I've read.
1) Every so often pause to make a disguise check. This is going to take Expert Deception and a skill feat in PF2e to do at a reasonable speed, but then it does take some training to do it effectively so whatevs.
2) Take a route out of the target's sight. A common example would be roof-running. IRL, this works awesomely, people tend to not look up, and the brain tends to ignore things it doesn't expect to be there (like a person on the rooftops) even if you are glimpsed. Unfortunately, Pathfinder gives everyone a full sphere of awareness at every moment unless the GM fiats it away, and since they might as well be staring right at you if anything you're more likely to be noted... unless you use the Sneaking tactic. Which slows you to half speed. A skilled enough roof runner can move over the roof tops at the same speed they can move on the ground, but because of the mechanics of PF2e it just... doesn't work right without a lot of GM Fiat.


Gortle wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

Rough Rider doesn't change the fact that there aren't any published Flying companions with the Mount ability.

Quote:
You or an ally can ride your animal companion as long as it is at least one size larger than the rider. If you do, it can use only its land Speed unless it has the mount special ability. In addition, if someone is riding your animal companion and it doesn’t have the mount special ability, it can’t use the Work Together action.

The Rough Rider feat makes no mention of an animal companion. There is no reason to insist that your mount is an animal companion. Surely anyone even without the Ride feat can puchase a horse and try to ride it.

The Rough Rider feat also means that the animal does not have to have the mount trait. Your GM can insist on it but he is making a house rule.

There are plenty of animals that fly. Check the bestiary.

True, Rough Rider doesn't say anything about Animal Companion. True it doesn't say anything about whatever you're riding having to have the Mount Trait. You know what it does say? That it gives you the Ride feat for free (ignoring prereqs) and gain a +1 to handle Goblin Dog and Wolf mounts. And you know what the Ride feat says? "You can use the Command an Animal action to control a mount without having to first use Handle an Animal." To have it do anything more than that is a house rule, which you should not be using for the playtest.

Besides that, there is the rule (literally quoted in the post you were responding to) that says that a mounted creature without the Mount trait can only use its land speed. Yes that is in the Animal Companion section, but there is literally nothing in the (very short) Mounted Combat section that remotely contradicts it, so unless a dev says otherwise... well, table variation can be a thing but I'm pretty sure that makes it a general rule.


wizzardman wrote:

Matthew Downie is right.

Now, as it is, if you ride anything but a horse you'll likely be traveling at about the same speed as you could walk (two actions at 40' vs 3 actions at 25'), but that's a different problem.

And if you're not a level 20 Mount Paladin then you can rule anything with a fly speed right out, since without the Mount trait you can't use anything but Land speed, and the only way to get something with the Mount trait and a fly speed at the moment (that I've found) is Celestial Mount. Or maybe Polymorph.


Well for one thing, Cover or no, at least part of the creature is still exposed since (as the example itself states) she can still see it. Not a lot of it is exposed (hence the Cover bonus) but some of it still is or she wouldn't be able to see it. This is very much a GM ruling thing (the book doesn't even give any indication for how you know you can See a creature, just that the GM decides.)

As an extra note though, even if Kyra couldn't actually see it, but could sense it through Seeking (likely by hearing the combat happening) in that exact scenario she still has a valid way of attacking it without having to shoot through walls: They are (or at least appear to be) outside, and gravity exists, so a ranged attack (maybe not a magical one, but any projectile) could be arced over the structure. In that case there would be a miss chance too, but it's still possible without breaking physics. As I said, it probably wouldn't work with laser-like magical attacks, and definitely wouldn't work indoors, but in that exact situation, if I was GMing I'd say go for it.


The Narration wrote:

The various standard D&D armors are kind of from all over history, rather than all being contemporaries.

You've got bronze breastplates in the classical era, and then (chain)mail started to show up. Mail would eventually extend to cover pretty much the whole body. Then over the course of the medieval period, people started adding more solid plates to their mail (including first coats of multiple smaller plates--what D&D mistakenly calls studded leather--and then later solid breastplates) until eventually it was almost entirely plates with only some mail at the joints. At that point, shields fell out of use because the armor coverage was so total that there was no need for it.

Then guns came along and started punching holes through the steel plates.

The reason the breastplate was one of the last armors to become obsolete was because, as firearms came on the scene and became more powerful, armor plates had to become thicker to stop it. (Mail was just plain useless; it actually made bullet wounds worse.) It very quickly reached the point where a full suit at that thickness would be too heavy to be practical, but keeping just the breastplate to protect the center of mess would still work.

Firearms then eventually rendered those obsolete as well, and armor disappeared from the battlefield for a few centuries.

(Modern steel ballistic plates to protect against rifles are way thicker than medieval armor was, and heavy enough that they can only manage 10" x 12" plates front and back, which weigh about 15 lbs.)

So in the kind of era D&D tends to take place, where firearms are rare, I think it's very unlikely that you'd see a breastplate by itself, rather than as an addition to an armor with more coverage (like chainmail) or as part of a full plate suit.

Just a random tidbit to add to the history lesson, some modern body armor is actually very similar to scale, but with the scales being something like ceramic instead of steel. The ceramic absorbs and distributes the impact of the bullet, while the multiple scales means it can take more than one hit, provided they're not *too* close together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:

Aid (a reaction) can be used in combat now that Athletics (a skill) is used for combat maneuvers. And it has a nominally fixed DC (usually 15) and doesn't have the Attack trait.

So if your colleague is attempting to disarm the orc, you can use the reaction you probably weren't otherwise using (no AoO) to give him a fairly achievable +2. It's unclear whether ACP hinders you in this case.

The problem is using the Aid Reaction requires you first have prepared to help, which generally costs an Action. An Action you notably could have been using for some other purpose.

EDIT: It also requires explaining how you're helping and the GM going along with it, so expect table variation on if you can even Aid with combat maneuvers.


thistledown wrote:
Kalvit wrote:
I never looked at the Aberrant bloodline as being about shifting and morphing the body. I looked at it as twisting and manipulating the sorcerer's mind, and perhaps mess with ones perceptions of reality.

What they DO get now:

Tentacular Limbs - shifting those arms out to unnaturally long
Aberrant Whispers - ok, yeah this one's mental
Unusual Anatomy - entirely about shifting your body into weird stuff
Granted Spells - Ok, Enlarge and Shapechange are the only shifty things there.

I might be looking too much through the lens of first ed, where it and especially its wildblooded variant (Warped) had their Arcana and Powers more focused on messing up bodies.

As an extra note just off this, can we talk about how horrible Shapechange is for the Occult Sorcerer? For those not in the know, how Shapechange works now:

Shapechange wrote:
You transform yourself into any form you could choose with a different polymorph spell you know of 7th level or lower.

Fortunately, from what I can gather spells you "know" is no longer inherently synonymous with your Repertoire, but just spells you have access to (based on reading from the "Learn a Spell" activity you can use Occultism for)... but let's look at what polymorph spells are even on the Occult Sorcerer's list. From Aberrant you get Enlarge. Other than that you have Humanoid Form and Gaseous Form. And that's it.


Grimcleaver wrote:
If you're going to have a shield get destroyed in combat you would it to magically reform and appear bright and shiny at the foot of the paladin's bed every night.

I feel it's worth pointing out that the Shield Paladin does (basically) get this... as half of their capstone. So for at most 5% of the game. And the other half (having your shield always raised) the Shield Fighter has basically had access to for the last 6 levels (Shield Paragon + Stance Savant, your shield goes up as part of Initiative and doesn't come down unless you change stances, practically the same thing...) Woops.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zorae wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Zorae wrote:
Channel energy is only really good if you invest a bunch into Charisma.

A Cleric with 10 Charisma still gets 3 extra castings of their highest spell level.

Name one other class feature that comes CLOSE to that, especially at first level without costing a feat.

I'm not saying Clerics need a general nerf; mostly I'm saying that Channel Energy is obnoxiously overpowered and it trivializes all other healing options.

As I said in the other thread, my preferred solution is to make a weakened version of Channel Energy the Healing Domain power, and then buff up all of the domain powers to each be awesome, thematic, and class-defining expressions of divine power.

You get 3 castings of a specific spell at your highest spell level that is only used for healing. Paladins can get the same exact thing if they take a class feature. Universal wizards get an extra casting of any spell at every spell level. Sorcerers also get an extra spell slot for every level.

I haven't heard anyone claiming that Clerics trivialize healing. In fact, I've heard that the 15min adventuring day problem is worse than ever.

That sounds awful. Doing it that way makes it almost impossible to play an off healer cleric. It would be like 1e Oracles where the only way to play with even decent healing you needed to be built completely dedicated to it.

Clerics with 10 Cha get 3 castings of a specific spell at highest spell level that is only used for healing, yes. But they get that on top of their full spellcasting and their full spell points worth of Power uses. The Paladin using their option in contrast is available instead of their other Power options, since their healing comes from the same pool as all of their other powers. A pool that's not all that big all things considered.

As for other healing options, as someone who enjoys being the healer but tends to avoid Clerics (even above an beyond my general dislike for Prepared casting, something about the Deific angle just tends to sit poorly with me) I've compared its healing to a number of other healing options, and the other options desperately need a buff. Especially Alchemist and non-magical healing.

For reference, an Alchemist with their Elixirs of Life is double-dipping Resonance (1 Resonance gets them 2 Elixirs at daily prep, and then each of those Elixirs costs 1 Resonance to drink from anyone but the Alchemist) for an effect that is just flat weaker than an equivalent level Healing Potion, let alone an on-level Heal spell. As for proper crafting... you're better off just spending the skill feat on Magical Crafting and crafting those self-same Healing Potions, since an Elixir and Potion of the same level cost the same amount, use the same amount of Resonance, and as I said the Potion is always just flat stronger. It really feels bad.


Tamago wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Every action that has multiple strikes but doesn't incur MAP, says so in its text

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If there were an action that has multiple strikes, doesn't incur MAP, and didn't say so in the text, would we know about it? In other words, without knowing for sure how the ability is intended to function, there is no way to tell whether the lack of text clarifying no MAP is an indication that it *does* suffer a penalty, or if that text was just not included for some reason.

That is, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

While that may be true in a vacuum, given there are several examples of activities with multiple strikes with text clarifying no MAP present, comparing those activities to Flurry's distinct lack would, in lack of Dev comments to the contrary, indicate that MAP applies to each strike normally.


Scythia wrote:
Loreguard wrote:

If they aren't trained in religion, they won't be able to participate in ritual magic. I believe other spell related things for divine casters key off religion, so not getting it while potentially possible, may have some significant impacts.

I believe it would be similar to an Arcane sorcerer not choosing Arcana skill may impact their spell casting abilities in the long run.

Yes, the rituals (that require multiple participants of the same faith, already becoming rather impractical) won't be an option. I don't know that's much of a loss. The second point is decent, in the sense that learning uncommon or rare Divine spells will rely on a Religion check, although it will also depend on the DM giving an opportunity to learn said spell.

Yes there are potential drawbacks to not choosing Religion as a trained skill, but that's the nature of choosing trained skills in general.

To add another point, you do have to be Legendary in your spell list's associated skill to unlock 10th level spells as a Capstone... but the other Capstones are pretty decent and have no such lock so eh.


MerlinCross wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Wulfhem: Please do. Better yet, do some playtestkng where the discussion points are proven and then repost them.

As for your point that only the optimised character should attempt things: that hasn't been my experience in PF1e or 4e. Although in PF1e anyone without near max ranks shouldn't bother trying.

Because GM's don't reward good ideas, rp, and or make adjustments for the players do they?

Speaking strictly for my group: Good Ideas, sometimes, depends on the idea and the GM's whim at the moment. Good RP? Only if you're *REALLY* good (the kind of Really Good that I, and most of the group for that matter, am not). And making adjustments for the players? Heck no. In 99.999% of cases, it's by the book or not at all.

MerlinCross wrote:
Nope, sorry, only the highest guy should roll. Why is that any different in PF2? Because the numbers are smaller and everyone can do it?

Not so much "smaller" but "closer" pretty much. Barring cases where the entire group is built around a concept (like the aforementioned case in this thread of everyone winds up being Charismatic, or one game we had where the entire party wound up being Stealthy) any kind of check gets relegated to the most effective character and anything that requires the entire party pass a check is generally thrown out unless the check is ridiculously easy (like the DC 0 "Climb a Knotted Rope with a wall to brace against).

MerlinCross wrote:

In my playtesting, my group all rolls for stuff. Because they almost always roll for stuff if they have points into it. In groups that don't bother with rolls unless they are maxed, Do they roll? Or do they just sit there and let the skill monkey do it?

I'm interested in hearing your experience.

Continuing off the stuff relayed in the last response, so far in PF2e playtesting... we're not exactly far yet per say (we've only just finished our second fight of Doomsday Dawn, against 4 goblins), but in the pre-dungeon briefing we had, we all felt a lot more open rolling for things. Knowledge mostly so far, but I suspect the concept will probably continue into higher levels, because we actually have a chance of reasonably succeeding without devoting a large (potentially massive, our party has a Monk and a Barbarian, in PF1e we wouldn't have many skills to go around) amount of resources to whatever is coming up.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Also you made a mistake, since no critical fail is listed it just uses the normal failure case, so fail or crit fail is still not increasing your MAP.

Not the case.

Press Trait wrote:
The effects that are added on a failure don’t apply on a critical failure.


In my group's Doomsday Dawn I'm currently playing an Elf Monk. 18/14/10/12/14/10 starting stats, Strength-based obviously. So far we've only had one fight (we're doing a discord PbP rather than "sessions") that ended before the enemy even got a chance to hit me (I rolled hot trash on initiative, I managed to get into melee range, flurry it once, and then the barbarian killed it right afterwards) so I can't speak to AC, and my build has a particular gimmick that gives me a particularly unusual tactic (Going Speedster mode, I'll have 70 speed by the final act, would be 75 by 20 if we went that far) that might make up for my lack of AC. I do not however currently have (or currently have any intentions to get) Crane Style, a Bo Staff, or any other such Circumstance bonus to AC. In fact, my first feat was Dragon Style because I wanted to hit like a truck, and later feats will probably mostly be Ki Powers.


Hythlodeus wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

With +level to everything, I was worried that skills would scale too high. I made a Str 8 gnome wizard to see how high his athletics bonus would get. Here are the results:

Level 1 Untrained bonus -3 (need a 15 for a low DC, 17 for a high DC, 18 for a severe DC, cannot get an extreme DC)

Level 8 Untrained bonus +5 (need a 16 for a low DC, 19 for a high DC, cannot get a severe DC)

Level 11 untrained bonus: +8 (need a 17 for a low DC, 20 for a high DC, cannot get a severe DC)

Level 15 untrained bonus: +12 (need a 20 for a low DC, cannot get a high DC)

So you do undeniably improve. However when faced with level appropriate challenges you also clearly lag behind the group. With these results I'm satisfied with how skills work. It does make sense you'd pick up some knowledge across levels and the bonus you do get is quite minimal.

So I was wrong in what I said before the rules came out.

sorry, if I don't find crippling a character's Ability score just to get nearly acceptable Skill differences a good design choice.

You also picked the only one ability that influences only one skill. Let's say you don't want a high Thievery skill but high Acrobatics, you'd have to dump DEX to get to the low Thievery but you need the DEX for Acrobatics. So that character concept is nearly impossible, even taking Feats into account

Okay, so let's look at level 15 acrobatics and thievery. Your level and Dex are of course identical since it's only pulling from one source. You don't care about Thievery, so it's Untrained, while you do care greatly about Acrobatics so you've pumped it up to Legendary (I'm assuming for these purposes it's a Signature Skill.) So that's a 5 point difference. Of course, you're also level 15, Potent items just became available last level, and conveniently the Dex item is also an Acrobatics item, hooray. So you pick up your Anklets of Alacrity, and that brings the difference up to 9. Almost any DC that you could succeed at with Thievery, you can crit that same DC with Acrobatics, and if you have a 50/50 chance of an Acrobatics DC, that same DC of Thievery you only succeed on a nat 20.

But here's the big thing, those numbers really are only half the equation. Let's look at what you can actually do with those skills. Thievery is untrained, so the only thing you could do with it is some sleight of hand, either concealing an item or lifting a lighter-than-Light (negligible bulk) item that is easily stolen from the imperceptive. You might get away with a loose coin purse, but that's about it.

In contrast, let's look at what you might be able to do with Acrobatics. The trained uses aren't that useful unless you can fly (which admittedly probably isn't that difficult by now, if not through your own power or an ally spellcaster, probably through items) but if you're actually gung ho about this skill, you've probably invested skill feats. And let's not forget that you're Legendary now, so while you haven't had the chance to get a skill feat at Legendary yet any skill feats that can scale up have. So, depending on your skill feats you can:
- Fall from orbit and land unscathed on your feet. (Cat Fall, Legendary)
- Stand from prone as a free action while flipping a finger to the 8 fighters arranged around you with their AoOs. (Kip Up)
- Or just not really care about being prone, since you can move at full speed and aren't flat footed (Nimble Crawl, Legendary)
- Casually run up and down a tightrope without a care in the world, since you get full speed on normal successes and won't fall unless you crit fail (which should be difficult with your Legendary, item boosted modifier.) (Steady Balance)
- Squeeze through tight spaces approximately 5-10x faster than those less acrobatic than you. (Quick Squeeze, though honestly, you might want to retrain this next level because...)

If we add just one more level for that Legendary Skill Feat, Legendary Contortionist, now you can squeeze through spaces at full speed. For the average human, that's 75 feet per round. An expert with Quick Squeeze is managing 5 feet per round, and anyone else might manage 5 feet per minute (maybe 10 feet per minute if they can crit succeed the check.) So you'd be going 15 times faster than others just slightly worse at the skill than you, and 75-150 times faster than the losers who aren't Acrobatic.


That table does exist in Fighters, but explicitly is only for effects that tell you to change the damage dice (which nothing ever says to do so for oversized weapons. It's irritating, but it's RAW.)


Could probably add Heighten and Intensify Spell, since both are just an inherent part of the magic system now, and thus any caster can do it for free (even Spont, though theirs is rather limited.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Madame Endor wrote:
It is a fact that all of the original "core" Pathfinder races are derived from Tolkien fantasy.

Maybe we were reading different Tolkien, but I don't remember Aliens (Golarion's Elves are aliens), Gnomes, or much of any Half-bloods (Orc or Elf) in Middle Earth. Men, Fey-like Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits sure, but none of the others.


It's in the Craft rules on page 148.

Craft wrote:
You can Craft items with the consumable trait in batches, making up to four of the same item simultaneously. This requires you to include the raw materials for all the items in the batch at the start, and you must complete the batch all at once.


The description of the Potent trait (a trait on certain magic items, namely the ones that boost stats) certainly suggests that it applies retroactively, but unfortunately that is literally the only place in the entire book where it is so much as hinted at.


Rameth wrote:

Under the Efficient Alchemy feat it specifically says that items made during Downtime with the Craft Alchemy Skill can be made in double batches. And it says in the Craft Alchemy Skill that alchemical items with the consumable trait come in batches of 4. Elixirs have the consumable trait. So that means in downtime you could make 4 elixirs at the same time but with advanced Alchemy you could make 8, correct?

It also never says how much a batch is for any other items. Does that mean you can only create 1 bomb of your lvl in 4 days? That doesn't seem right.

All items with the Consumable trait (as indicated the blue box of the item description) have 4 item batches. This includes every alchemical item in the playtest, as well as stuff like potions and trinkets.


One thing I will note is that while it turns on a bit late (level 8 minimum) Monastic Weapons is not the only source of ranged attacks Monks have. The Wild Winds Stance Ki Power Stance gives you 1d4 Agile Propulsive ranged attacks up to 30 feet as long as you maintain the Stance. It costs 1 Spell Point to enter the stance, isn't quite as powerful as Shuriken, and has less max range than Shuriken, but it's still a pretty decent option and works with the same Handwraps you're probably using for your other unarmed strikes anyways. And Wild Winds Stance leads into Wild Winds Gust, a decent Cone attack for those whose attack rolls are a lot better than their class DCs.


Well, ofMars, downtime is supposed to be a lot more common in this edition than first.

As for the original issue, the real advantage is supposed to be having whatever you need whenever you need it, provided you can spare a few days. Having access to a fully stocked alchemy shop is not supposed to be the assumption anymore, and especially with the rarity system there are some items you're flat out not supposed to be able to buy at all.

Of course, crafting items below your level is also supposed to help a lot. Take a level 4 character crafting an Alchemist's Fire (Item Level 1, 300 silver cost, and useful for Alchemists at all levels.) You spend 600 silver to start producing a batch of 4 of course. Because your level is 3 higher than the item's level you hit base crafting time in only one day, and then you make your skill check. The DC for a level 1 item is baseline 14, and I doubt circumstances will make it any harder than that, while your crafting modifier is bare minimum +4, +5 if expert, and that's without applying Intelligence (which should be bare minimum 12 if you're an Alchemist, since no playtest ancestry is -Int). so you should be able to make that DC easily enough, and even have a chance of crit-succeeding it. If you don't crit-succeed it'll take you about 4 months at Trained (or a bit over 3 months Expert) to get those items down to half price unfortunately, 600 silver is a lot at that level. Even if you do Crit it'll be a smidge over 2 months Trained (almost exactly 2 months Expert) to do it.

Thing is though, like I said, an Alchemist's Fire (unlike, say, a Minor Elixir of Life or such) is always useful. So let's look at that same project at, say, level 10. Alchemist's Fire is still a level 1 item, so the DC is still 14, and the cost is still 600 gold to start crafting all 4. Now though, your modifier is going to be either 10+Int, 11+Int, or 12+Int based on your proficiency level. And remember, as an Alchemist you have bare minimum 12 Int, so at Master level you are literally rolling to not Nat 1 and probably crit succeed (you do so on an 11+, so 50/50 odds you crit.) But let's look at this from all 3 proficiency levels (durations counting the first day to reach minimum crafting time):

-Trained: 1/2 price in 21 days, 19 if you crit
-Expert: 1/2 price in 15 days, 11 if you crit
-Master: 1/2 price in 13 days, 9 if you crit

And then as a final point, let's look at level 15. DC still 14, possible modifiers are 15+Int, 16+Int, 17+Int, or 18+Int, you are literally rolling not to nat 1 regardless and even at Trained with 12 Int you have, like, 60% chance of crit-succeeding. So let's break it down now:

-Trained: 1/2 price in 7 days, 6 if you crit
-Expert: 1/2 price in 4 days whether or not you crit
-Master: 1/2 price in 3 days whether or not you crit
-Legendary: Same as Master

And then if you go 1 more level to 16, now both Master and Legendary are hitting 1/2 cost in 2 days on a crit. Another level and now you don't even need to crit, just don't nat 1. Now granted, these are high level games that few will reach, but as I said, if you do reach these high levels, as an Alchemist those Alchemist's Fires will still be useful.


My first character (built for DD) is an Elf Monk, like I'd said it would be. She has 35 speed at level 1 (Nimble), will have 60 when she returns for Act 4 (Fleet and Incredible Movement), and 70 in the grand finale (more Incredible Movement). If she went to level 20 she'd have 75, literally triple the typical human, and be permanently Quick for Striding or various Jumps (Enduring Quickness), making her the fastest character I can build in this system that I've found thus far. She'll also hit like a truck, including eventually being able to punch so hard that the sheer pressure wave can be lethal (through Wild Winds Stance and later Ki Blast, though having to spend a spell point every time I swap into WWS will be annoying.)

Besides that, definitely Barbarian, those Totems are awesome (though I'm not sure about the "don't defy that color dragon" part of Dragon Totem's Anathema)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:
Grimcleaver wrote:

Here's an idea: make the alchemist the alpha healer. In lore they're the ones that make all the healing potions anyway. I agree though, any class with healing as part of what they do should get an equal shot in helping out. I wouldn't even so much seeing rangers step up with some healing power--like herbalism.

"Do you have any Athelas? Kingsfoil? It should slow the poison."

I've actually got my alchemist set up , at least partially, to hand out "needs"

I love quick alchemy for those kind of uses.. random antidote, antiplague, silversheen etc.
Though sadly the class is built.. WAYYY too much into "use quick alchemy for bombs dangit!" to get a whole lot of milage out of them
that said..

I don't think any class should be "the alpha healer" I think most or any class should be able to be an alpha healer. but nothing heads and shoulders above the rest.

Shame that anything but those Antidotes, Antiplagues, bombs, and a few other niche items costs two Resonance (one from the Alchemist and one from the consumer) to use. Elixirs of Life being just a weaker Healing Potion for the exact same cost (both gold and Resonance) most of the time really stings.


The main thing to note is that repeatedly casting a spell for 10 minutes inflicts Fatigued until you "take a significant break".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Large weapons do not (currently) do any more damage than Medium or Small weapons in the hands of a PC, you just gain the bonuses (and penalties) of Titan Mauler and the flavor of getting to wield a weapon that may or may not be bigger than you are.


...huh. That does make it a lot better, thanks for pointing that out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Mage armor gives better TAC,

Mage Armor (weirdly IMO) doesn't add to Touch AC while Potency Runes do, so chances are your Touch AC will be equal or even better most if not all the time in the Full Plate than it is in Mage Armor. By level 20 a Mage Armor (or Bracers) character with capped out 24 Dex will have TAC 37 while a character in +5 full plate with 12 Dex will have 38.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Skaldi the Tallest wrote:

AoO = Attack of Opportunity

AoE = Area of Effect

No one was able to hit the casters when they were casting.

There wasn't some way to hold an action to attack the Clerics while they tried to heal?

Yes.

Disrupting Spells, pg 196 wrote:

If you take damage from a reaction triggered by any of your spellcasting actions while Casting a Spell or the Concentrate on a Spell action, your spell may be disrupted. If the damage you take is equal to or greater than your level, the spell is lost (sometimes referred to as “wasted”).

When you lose a spell, you’ve expended the prepared spell or spell slot, as well as all the spell’s costs and the actions the Cast a Spell activity required, but the spell generates no effect. If a spell is disrupted during a Concentrate on a Spell action, the spell is instead immediately dismissed.

Readying an action to attack when spellcasting begins would work, as a readied action is triggered as a reaction, meeting the requirements of this section.

Unfortunately, from my reading of the Clerics' tactics, it wouldn't have mattered anyways since (much like in PF1e) avoiding getting attacked while healing is as simple as a Step out of range.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:
BUT my point is that both characters, or any character can use whatever they want because of Dedication Feats. Yes they have to wait but that's not all that bad.

"Your archer ranger can be just as good as an archer fighter if you would just pretend to be a fighter too" isn't exactly a great argument. One would hope something as iconic as an archer ranger would be able to be a perfectly functional archer in-class rather than having to multiclass. (Which, for the record, I have no idea how good or bad an archer ranger is, I've not built one let alone tested one, I just heavily dislike that particular argument.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kodyboy wrote:
The Narration wrote:
I don't understand why the Fighter can't get Expert and Master in all armors like they do in all weapons. Which armor you wear is going to depend on your Dex and how much you care about skills and speed. It doesn't make much sense to restrict it to only heavy.
Can't you just take the armor feat multiple times to bring it up to legendary?

Sadly doesn't work that way. The feat buys you Trained proficiency in Light, or if you already have that Trained in Medium, or if you have that Trained in Heavy, and you can take it multiple times to get all of those if you need them. If you're already Trained in Heavy armor though it does nothing, as it doesn't go higher than Trained proficiency.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So I was looking at Gorum's Edicts and Anathema...

Edicts: attain victory in fair combat, push your limits
Anathema: kill prisoners or surrendering foes, prevent conflict
through negotiation, win a battle through underhanded tactics
or indirect magic

So let's see. He wants you to fight fair, and gets upset if you kill those who are at your mercy or use underhanded tactics... Someone remind me, why does he support Evil and not Good? Because those tenants seem borderline Good-leaning to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Luceon wrote:

Although it is obvious, I would like to add.

Flat-Footed (CRB page 322)
You’re unable to focus your full attention on defense. You take a –2 circumstance penalty to AC.

So for example if my rogue is in a tree and I fire a bow at any target that I am treated as unseen, they are flat footed to me. So if my strike is a hit, I deal sneak attack damage. This could occur in any round of combat. The traditional concepts from all D&D versions, essentially are still in effect. Now replace tree and bow with numerous environments, and certain weapons.

# Sniping

Sadly not accurate anymore.

Sneaking action, Stealth rules, page 158 wrote:
If you do anything else, you become seen just before you act. For instance, if you attack a creature you’re unseen by, that creature is not flatfooted against that attack.

Sniping flat out does not work anymore unless you are invisible or the target is blinded, and it doesn't matter if you're right next to them or 840 feet away with a crossbow and Ranger's Hunt Target.


They removed it for the playtest to see how things go, depending on how the populace responds they might leave it out of the end product or they might add it back in.

1 to 50 of 774 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>