Raxius Malgorian

Shinigami02's page

Organized Play Member. 618 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 618 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Claxon wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Especially the online version of them, which should be one single document (not multiple web pages) so that you can search for keywords.

You can format it such that it's listed by books, but no reason to make it separate pages.

Speaking strictly personally, this would be a nightmare. Not all internets are top of the line internets, and given the number of books that PF1e has and PF2e will presumably eventually have, this would probably murder my internet connection to try to load, even if it is purely text. And the PRD isn't always purely text.

I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't want the decision to be based around page size and someone working with a 56k modem.

The page size of the first page of this thread is about ~260 kb. So even if you were working with a 56k modem, it should take less than 10 seconds to download the data. I think this is a fair. Also, the page includes pictures, which if eliminated could reduce the size.

The first page of this thread is 50 posts. Just going off the PRD alone, that's something like 20 books (and the PRD is more than a couple books out of date), each of which has I believe a couple hundred pages. If we rough estimate 200 pages per book (undoubtedly a serious under-estimation) that's 4,000 pages of information you're trying to put on a single web page. I *hardly* think that's an equivalent comparison point.

Claxon wrote:

Especially the online version of them, which should be one single document (not multiple web pages) so that you can search for keywords.

You can format it such that it's listed by books, but no reason to make it separate pages.

Speaking strictly personally, this would be a nightmare. Not all internets are top of the line internets, and given the number of books that PF1e has and PF2e will presumably eventually have, this would probably murder my internet connection to try to load, even if it is purely text. And the PRD isn't always purely text.

Rysky wrote:

Everyone pooling their resources together to get a certain item means you have that 1 item... but it means your deprived of other things you could have bought. Plus, you have to convince everyone to pool their resources together in the first place.

Edit: ninjaed succinctly by Deadmanwalking

The thing is, going off the linear treasure idea again, you don't even necessarily have to pool your resources together. Take as a for instance:

Say there's a weapon designed for a level 20 character, that is awesome for a level 20 character. Now say as a balancing point it's worth 1/3 of a level 20 character's WBL, a not unreasonable point for a character's main weapon I don't think. But... say you have a level 10 character who's player is really big on offense, and not afraid to take second- or even third-best defense to get it. In a linear system, they see this level 20 weapon, meant for a character twice their level and balanced around that power level, and they're drooling. They look at the price tag... and on a linear system, it's 2/3 of their WBL. So they'll still have 1/3 of their WBL to cover armor and other amenities, which is more than fine for this theoretical player. So they spend their 2/3 WBL and now they have a weapon that is literally twice their power level.

The only ways to stop such a situation in a linear treasure situation is to either inflict artificial caps on what you can buy (a la Starfinder but even worse, and frankly that's not exactly universally loved in Starfinder) or to make level-appropriate gear cost 50+% of your WBL for that level (which is a -I would hope obviously- flawed solution, you pretty much could not have both weapon and armor level appropriate even if you didn't need any other items at all.)

EDIT: Phrasing

4 people marked this as a favorite.

NPCs and Monsters can use different creation rules, but it has also been confirmed that you can create an NPC using PC rules and it will line up as CR (or the new equivalent) for that level. In stark contrast to Starfinder where using PC rules will throw the math all out of whack.

mrianmerry wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Barbs get what is basically evasion with fort saves.
They treat Success rolls as Critical Success rolls from Master proficiency. I think this is 7th level?

From the Monk blog it turns out it isn't directly from Master proficiency, it just happens to usually coincide with Master proficiency.

Bardarok wrote:
I don't think dex to damage has ever been confirmed by devs. I think it is just folks assuming since the Unchained Rogue got dex to damage and so much PF2 stuff is coming from unchained.

IIRC I think it came up in the Glass Cannon podcast. Could be wrong, but I know it did come up in some proper (aka non-speculative) capacity at some point.

edduardco wrote:
Unless item effectiveness is also going to increase quadratically prices should increase in a way that correspond to actual item effectiveness, a linear progression is easier to compare and calculate prices, if that means changing treasure progression to linear so be it. Right now looks like Resonance is been placed in order to force players use overpriced consumables.

The issue with changing treasure progression is that you would have to completely and utterly divorce NPC creation from PC creation rules, which would (and frankly did in Starfinder) have dramatic backlash. A part of using PC rules for NPC creation is using PC wealth, which means PC wealth levels of loot. Which means it is possible to get multiple times your current level's wealth in loot each level, since even solo fighting an enemy of CR=Level likely won't (and IMO shouldn't) level you up. Which is why we have the quadratic scaling WBL we do.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shame we can't get a FAQ on the Playtest Blogs. I'm actually somewhat surprised not a single dev has explained what that line actually means yet. It's clearly open to misinterpretation, since obviously we can't both be correct.

mrianmerry wrote:
as intuited clearly by nearly all readers.

Given the split seems if not even at least pretty close to it, I'm not sure "nearly all" is quite accurate.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mewzard wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Except you have to Crit and they have to critically fail to get stunned. Even if you're good enough that you crit, say, 20% of the time, and they crit fail also 20% of the time, that's still only 4% that you stun with it. And I'm guessing that the chances won't be that high, unless you're fighting something that's way lower level than you, based on what little we know about monster stats from the stat blog, which makes it look like you're seeing only about a 1% or less chance to stun, barring things we don't know about yet, which might put it closer to 2%, but that's still not a lot.
Kaemy wrote:

Then he needs to Critically Fail the Fortitude Save. I'm not sure how you calculate it, but in the post it says it's based on your STR or DEX... Let's assume its 10+Level+STR, that would be DC 15 (is this right? I'm missing something? Maybe a Proficiency?)

A Lv1 enemy usually has +0/2 Fort Save, right? Let's be generous and go with 3. So he Critically Fails when rolling 1 or 2, so 10% of the time...

In these two scenarios (assuming your DC is actually 15, and the 10AC and 15AC enemies have a +3 Fort Save) you are Stunning them 4.5% and 3% of the time). Granted, is not amazing, but is looking okay-ish.

If the enemies had a +0 Fort the Crit Failure would increase from 10% to 25%, and the total stun chance would grow to 11,25% and 7,5%.

You're both missing something important. If you Critically Hit someone with an ability that requires a saving throw, their result is one degree worse.

Meaning, if they normally would have saved from that roll, your Critical reduces their result to a Failure, and if they regularly fail, that would be reduced to a Critical Failure. Even a Critical Success would be dropped to a regular Success from your Critical Hit.

In the scenario you crit them, that DC 15 stays a DC 15 for Critical Failure vs Regular Failure, and would require you to beat a DC 25 for a regular Success.

The blog implies that they're not missing anything, and that Stunning Fist has a particular (possibly unique) clause that basically gives it a worse-than-critical-failure rank, that is explicitly triggered by both your attack critically hitting and then them explicitly critically failing the save. If you crit and then they normal fail, it gets bumped to the normal crit fail result, which is the Stupefied. Stun specifically only matters if they hit the crit-fail DC off of a Crit attack... as many of us are parsing it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I want to play a melee martial who dumps STR. I will need to read the entire playtest book to optimize the build as much as possible :-D

Your first step will probably be Rogue, if not as a core class at least as a multiclass. I've heard something about them getting Dex-to-Damage early (possibly even at 1? Can't remember exactly) and that being unique to them.

I've got many different builds I'm planning on running during the playtest, because there are many things I'm planning on stress-testing. Among them:

1) Battle-Cleric of Shelyn, wielding her Favored Glaive, to see how well a caster wielding a two-hander actually works.
2) (Slightly modified for personal issues) Paladin. Gotta stress-test the Paladin, see what works and what doesn't for the hopefully eventual CG version.
3) Short-Sword-n-Heavy-Board, probably Human for thematics, maybe Barbarian depending on how Giant Totem works because I want a Large shield if possible. Going for that Spartan theme, with the Shield as the main weapon.
4) Sorcerer, gotta see how Spont casting works because Spont casting is my preferred casting.
5) Strength-based Elf Monk, preferably with Ki. First goal: Testing how survivable Strength Monk is. Second goal: I call it the Megaton Punch build, mechanically normal but all attacks for the round are flavored as one hella big punch. Third goal: Since Monks are fast, might as well pump in all the speed and be the Flash while I'm at it.

For those not otherwise stated, race will *probably* be Human or Half-Elf, Human because easy to generalize, Half-Elf because also easy to generalize and also my preferred Core race. Might throw in a Dwarf or Gnome here and there too, depending.

Fortunately it's been mentioned somewhere that there are points in the Playtest where it actually asks you to bring in new characters, so at least a couple of these can reasonably be run in the same test. *Probably* gonna do the Monk first, since low-level survivability is one of the biggest testing points with it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SilverliteSword wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
On key abilities: I wonder what they will do for the Paladin. The obvious key stats are strength and charisma, but if someone wants to make a dex based paladin they need that. But dex and strength only feels wrong. Then again, I would have said not including wisdom as an option for the monk would have felt wrong before the preview.
I feel like this is a thing you can manage via archetypes. Just like how there were archetypes in PF1 that changed a casting attribute (e.g. eldritch scion magus) if you made a PF2 Paladin archetype like the Virtuoso Bravo, you could just change the key attribute to dex. Likewise if you wanted to do an especially mystic monk (like the serpent fire adept) you could change the key attribute to wisdom.
Another thing to bear in mind is that just because it's not the key stat for the class that doesn't mean you don't need it. Monks shouldn't dump WIS just because the key stat is STR or DEX.

Unless of course you don't care about Ki Powers, in which case the only (non-skill) thing Wis gives you (as far as we've seen) is Will Save and Perception. Good things to have of course, but can be worked around.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

BTW, if ASF% is to return to the game (which I support), perhaps best to consider how mechanic could be improved.

Why not convert it to instead of outright failure, it just increases the action cost to cast a spell?

Adding off this, since ASF only ever impacted Somatics anyways, I could see it forcing Somatic actions to take 2 actions to use.

I'd imagine it would probably depend on the skill, and possibly what skill feats you have. For Stealth for instance, I could see a critical success letting you move at full speed rather than 1/2. Likewise with everything that has a 'speed'. Critical diplomacy could move their attitude two steps. Critical intimidate either does the same for influence (or maybe increases the duration, since that was a concern with influential intimidate in PF1e), or increases the severity or duration for a Demoralize. Critical [Knowledge] give more information. Stuff like that basically. And then Skill Feats give more options, or else state what happens when they give more skill uses.

Seisho wrote:

I think another point at the materies of skill one should consider is the +1 per level

I dont know the gateway level so i just make some up for the example

lets say you are at level 5 and get expert
that makes +6 under the cut - +5 from your experience and another one from a few special tricks you learned, which also enable you to do more stuff
next step at lets say 10 where you become master - which makes +12 under the cut, which is a lot more then most people will get in their lifetimes

I think the skills' levels have come up pretty well, though I don't remember where they specifically came up. Expert: 2, Master: 7, Legendary: 13

So looking at it that way... at the level you can become an Expert, if you take that option you are 50% better than others of your level who didn't take that option. When Master unlocks you're a bit less than 1/3 better than Trained, and at Legendary a bit less than 1/4 better than Trained. And that is just numerically speaking, not counting all the other stuff you get for those higher proficiencies.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

An armored paladin, a shielded fighter, and a toughed barbarian get into a fight. The BBEG wins.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The really important question not answered is whether entering rage requires an action.
It was a free action in PF1, what makes you think that would change?

Changing from a 1-handed to 2-handed grip was a Free Action in PF1e too, and that's an Action now. The inverse may or may not be too. There's no way to know what has or has not changed use time until they tell us or we see the document.

as far as we know you get more than 1 signature skill from class (I think there was mention of Druid having 4?) and there's supposedly ways to get them outside of class.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only thing I think I can say I'm remotely disappointed about is that it might not be possible to combine the flight and power-up potential (and potential eventual One Winged Angel form) of a theoretical Air Elemental totem and the oversized weapons hinted at from the Giant totem to create my ultimate Anime monstrosity character. But who knows, maybe Totem Poling will be a thing.

NetoD20 wrote:
I can agree with part of that, but "just being that good" doesn't cut it to me. If they don't wanna explain, fine, don't, but at least in game mechanics terms those abilities should get a Supernatural tag or whatever it is equivalent to that in 2nd ed and don't get to work inside antimagic fields and such.

Disregarding stuff like Cat Fall, Pickpocket 100, and other physical stuff, "just being that good" should absolutely be enough for some things. The legendary diplomat giving a speech so moving, so emotional, that the enemy lays down their arms. The power of that speech spreading through both armies, soldier to soldier, prompting everyone to desire to come together in harmony. Why couldn't someone just be that danged good at Public Speaking aka Diplomacy? ("give a speech that stops a war in the middle of the battlefield") Or the codebreaker that has seen so many codes that code is almost another language, and by now they're fluent. ("decipher codes with only a skim") Neither of these need be even remotely 'magical' to function, just an application of exceptional skill and/or experience. Ruling out an entire explanation without knowing all the possibilities seems a bit like jumping the gun to me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 4 degree system does require big numbers to a degree, because of where the markers for the degrees are. You have to have numbers big enough that +/-10 is a reasonable possibility for the 4 degrees system as developed to be relevant whatsoever.

TheFinish wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:

The answer is that in real life sleight of hand, misdirection and distraction is key. You need someone deft and highly skilled to pull off the physical part, but if you can't keep them distracted well enough it's over immeadiately. But in fact with sleight of hand in real life you are almost always more likely to be caught by an onlooker than your mark.

Shoes are actually remarkably hard iirc, and pants aren't too bad, the deft guy needs to make sure that they won't trip on them when you move the mark . Jackets and button shirts are supposed to be the easiest when it comes to clothing iirc, with gloves being the hardest.

Most of sleight of hand is knowing psychology more than anything, though dexterity is still important. I'm super clumsy myself so I could never pick pocket someone or take off a piece of clothing, I can still take objects from people's hands or put something in their hands without making them notice, and move them across a building before they realize it. Just look into it and things like real life studies on perception, and you realize just how little we actually notice regularly.

Yes but....how? Like, there is, for example, no physical way to remove someone's T-Shirt, Shirt, Jacket, what have you without your "mark" having to move in very specific ways. Especially button shirts, where you have to unbutton them. The same is true for pants (and doubly true if they're wearing shoes.)

I mean, this is easy to see. Just put on a t-shirt and ask someone else to take it off you, without you helping them in any way. You'll see it's pretty much impossible, let alone taking it off without them noticing.

Like, I can see people taking your hat, your cloak, a belt. But your shirt? Your pants? A breastplate? That's when it goes from "really skilled" to "complete silliness".

To be honest, of all these things, the armor seems like the easiest to do. Metal doesn't stretch and deform like cloth does when put on, so armor by necessity will be plates held together with straps. Loosen the right straps, tug the plates in the right way, and maybe some precision application of your dagger, and it seems like generally it would probably slide off quite easily. You'd probably need a good distraction, but well, that's where the Legendary part comes in.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

Funny thing about my groups, in all the time I've played D20 games, the only time I can remember people wanting g to take ten is after a bad roll. Nobody ever did it proactively. "Could I take ten?" You could have, but you didn't. My last mythic game a character even had that power that let's you take ten and twenty all the time and she still never did.

I hope the option is still there for everybody, but Assurance seems like an upgrade. You don't have to be concerned with situation or time involved, you are just ... Well, assured.

Taking 10 happens all the time in my group. Almost any time we can use it at that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There could also be a way to bypass spell requirements like PF1e had. Or team up with the Wizard and coop-craft it.

Not every class is going to produce a hot mess, if they think a class will be less controversial they might put it on Friday. I wouldn't be surprised in fact if Bard was today, provided it's not dramatically, controversially different from the PF1e version.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
We don't know enough about either Oracle Curses or having a Swim speed to say how this would work in PF2. It's very possible that the combination could result in an almost equally great divergence in ability (the numbers would be closer, but they'd also mean more).

Well, they'd have to change the curse pretty dramatically for it to mechanically apply, assuming Blackened even makes the transition. The only thing it actually applied to in PF1e was weapon attacks, the 'suck at climbing' thing was me playing up the uselessness of her arms (which in her backstory were legitimately badly burned.) The mechanics carried it out in other ways, with the curse being part of the RP for why she'd suck at climbing.

And that said, as I said in previous post, RP is RP. My character may be mechanically 'good' at climbing after a while, and I may even find excuses for her to use that at times, but for the most part the character would not even try to climb so that will be expressed in the RP.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I have a serious question here, which I'm going to bold for emphasis:

Has anyone here ever actually had a player complain because they couldn't be bad at X if they were good at Y outside of the social skills?

Because I've been playing RPGs for more than 15 years in almost every context possible with what must be hundreds of different people by now
if you include one shots (I ran LARPs for a while in there, and gamed at cons), and dozens of different systems (some of which had more consolidated skill systems than PF2, some more diversified than D&D 3.0 ever dreamed of being) and I have literally never seen this happen. IME this is a pure theorycraft problem rather than something actual players complain about or have issues with.

Now, maybe my experience is unusual. I'd be happy to hear from people who have had this experience, and interested in what context it came up in, that's why I'm asking the question, but I've never seen it.

Not *quite* the same situation, but I do have one character that absolutely makes perfect sense to rock Swimming but suck at climbing. Said character is a low-strength Mermaid Oracle with the Blackened curse and Medium armor. In PF1e at level 3 this character had an automatic 17 to Swim checks (handles all but the worst checks really), a 60 foot swim speed... -5 Climb, and would take a full action to move 5 feet climbing. That said, in PF2e, I probably still wouldn't 'complain' about this character being 'good' at climbing just because she's a hella swimmer. I very much played up how nearly useless and downright painful her arms were, not to mention how much of a liability her tail was on land (she did not have Strongtail), so if someone asked her to climb something and it wasn't immediately life threatening, she'd probably look at them like they were crazy (possibly with an accusatory thrust of her bandaged, blackened arms). And as for such cases of immediately life threatening, assuming a high enough level where she *could* actually climb, there's two things that could easily come together to explain climbing working in such a case. First is survival instinct, if the only way to survive is to climb that ladder/rope, the brain can probably figure it out, and second is this neat feature called Hysterical Strength. In times of need human(oid) bodies can perform astonishing feats of strength, because the brain kinda turns off the limiters. Done for prolonged periods this can cause severe damage, but for short bursts it could totally explain climbing the rope/ladder/cliff/whatever to escape whatever life-threatening thing was below.

Captain Morgan wrote:
While we know you can Legendary Heavy Armor proficiency outside of the Paladin class, I think it is going to be class locked, probably to the fighter. They've commented that it you can very easily become trained in any given weapon or armor, but getting the higher level proficiencies are trickier.

Personally I suspect it won't be Class locked but probably Archetype locked instead. Some kind of tanky combat archetype that gives Legendary Heavy Armor proficiency would make sense to me.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
They've noted that raising Proficiencies above Trained via non-class stuff is hard. I wouldn't be surprised if we get Great Fortitude, Lighting Reflexes, and Iron Will which would each increase a Save Proficiency one category, but I would be very surprised if you can increase a Save any more than that outside Class Features, and even that might not be around.

I believe Saves and Skills were stated to be the two exceptions to that, though as evidenced in the Skills blog discussion Skills can only go so high normally.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
graystone wrote:
I recall an AP that was on a boat and I played with a character that didn't have swim and it came up quite a bit as they played up that fact and it came up WAY more often than thier non-existent social skills.
Was he really excellent at Climb and did that come up as well? If not, you've just described a character with untrained Athletics in PF2. At least at low levels.

If it's the campaign I think it is climb was incredibly necessary in the early levels. I can't speak for the character's skill of course, but climb would probably have come up a lot in the first act.

ETA: As far as the idea of being bad at a thing, given what we now know about Signature skills, I think it would be interesting to have an option of taking a Drawback (penalty to a skill, flaw to a stat, possibly other flavorful options) at char gen to get an extra signature skill.

thaX wrote:
A blog has already confirmed that the Sorcerer will get extra spells when leveling before getting the higher slots a level later. So, for example, while the Wizard will get four 1st level spells at creation, 2 at 2nd level, then two 2nd level spells upon reaching 3rd level, the sorcerer will get two more 1st level spells at 3rd level then get two 2nd level spells when they reach 4th level. This was in the Wizard preview.

There is no mention of Sorcerers in the Wizard blog itself, so do you have a more specific source for this?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kaid wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
Not gonna lie, unless Remove Blindness/Deafness and Cure Disease have been turned into much higher level spells I'm not super impressed by that legendary Heal feat.
I think it probably depends how early various classes can get legendary proficiency as a medic. At the levels this is available having more options about who can clear some nasty conditions is useful. Also curing blindness through purely non magical means is pretty legendary.

It's been hinted, if not outright stated (there's a lot of info to keep track of), that Legendary turns on at or around level 15. The fact that a Legendary Skill Feat is Feat level 15 supports that.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I think that's a lot of it. There's a lot of fuss from some worried that direct damage might not be as easy a way to play a caster, compared to buffer/controller types.

I'm willing to accept this as a concern if they're equally worried about not being able to easily play controller martials.

Otherwise it comes across as "it's unfair that casters can't directly compete in the one niche martials are good at."

I can only speak for myself of course, but I am absolutely concerned about that as well. Personally from a design standpoint I hate "niche protection" and prefer to have different classes all able to do a vast variety of things in their own ways. A case of "build what you want how you want" as it were.

And before anyone brings up classless systems, as often does tend to come up when that idea does, yes in my experience with one classless system (Mutants and Masterminds) I basically fell in love. Sadly I was the only one in my group remotely interested in even learning how the system worked. Everyone in my group is cool with Pathfinder though, so I try to stretch it as far as I can, even if some of the stuff is of questionable legality or believe-ability.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Now, instead of dozens and dozens of encounter-wreckins spells at higher level, it's supposed to wreck encounters only with the few higher level spells. A blaster is supposed to clean up mobs of low level monsters, or deal high burst damage with single target spells like Desintegrate, at the expense of being expendable resources. Knifes vs grenades. To be balanced, you have to be able to run out of grenades, because if you have more grenades than encounters, you don't need knifes.

Blasting is still fine. It just need to keep up with the proper lvl spells. That's not a bug of the system, that's a feature, and a design goal.

The issue a lot of us have though is that only Blasting has to rely on their highest level spells to do their main thing. With the math being as tight as it is and the DC automatically scaling with the caster's level a low level buff, debuff, or control spell will probably still be at least about as useful at level 20 as it was at the level you got it. After all, something as simple as a +-1 is pretty much always going to be useful since everything scales at approximately the same rate. But using a damage spell in any slot lower than your highest two is going to be a waste unless it's for clean up. Now maybe this will be made up by having more (or more effective) damaging cantrips than any other combat type, but it still kinda hurts those of us who prefer to specialize our casters to be told that we have to ignore our preference for this type of casting.

There's also the fact that from what we've heard a chunk (we don't know how large a chunk yet) of Sorcerer spells known will only be castable at the spell level you learn the spell, so it also means that any sorcerer that wants to have blasting spells outside their (also unknown number) autoscaling spells will basically have to retrain their spells pretty much every couple of levels, as the blasting spells they put in there become useless now.

To be fair, thflame did say core Barbarian. That said, given how iconic some post-core abilities became I wouldn't be surprised to see some of those supernatural ones (particularly Spell Sunder) come back as core in PF2e.

QuidEst wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Another way to keep the discount relevant is if the discount for those extra days is a set percentage of the total cost. With such a system you'd always have level appropriate savings as long as you were crafting level appropriate gear and level appropriate gear and level appropriate WBL were related, even if the prices between last level and this level shift completely arbitrarily.
I don't know how you could make the money comparable to Perform, etc. with a percentage of the item, though. That'd be tricky to pull off.

It's fairly simple, make the value of a day's work at an X Level Day Job roughly equivalent to X% of the average value of an X level item. It would probably require a CR Chart for Day Jobs of sorts admittedly, but that's almost an inevitability anyways. And it also has the added benefit (at least in my eyes) that if you know that's the design, you can fairly easily reverse engineer the Day Job values to approximate how much a homebrew item of X level should cost on average, rather than having to manually compare several items to get a rough estimate.

QuidEst wrote:
Tursic wrote:
Will crafting become much less useful as we gain levels? In PF1 non-magical crafting became very slow as the price of the item went up, but other wise remained cost effective. It sounds like the new system will be time effective, but the cost savings as a percentage of a characters over all wealth will decrease as levels increase. Unless the cost of items increase is linear now.

You're assuming the cost savings of crafting (or the money earned from performance or practicing your trade) increases linearly. If it increases quadratically, then crafting remains about as valuable throughout your career (in terms of percentage WBL).

How would we get this?
- Money saved/earned is DC times your check result. Given that we know Perform and Practice Trade both require a sufficiently challenging task to maximize what you earn, this seems pretty likely.
- Proficiency scaling. This would be really jumpy, since the stretch from level 7 through 14 wouldn't scale, and then it'd correct at 15.

Another way to keep the discount relevant is if the discount for those extra days is a set percentage of the total cost. With such a system you'd always have level appropriate savings as long as you were crafting level appropriate gear and level appropriate gear and level appropriate WBL were related, even if the prices between last level and this level shift completely arbitrarily.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Souls At War wrote:
194) Can we throw Oozes at the wall to see if they will stick?

194b) With Legendary Athletics can we throw walls at giant Oozes to see if they will stick?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Even low level characters can, the table can limit the violation in some areas, for integrity's sake, pedantic rulings aside.

Being able to wrestle rhinos isn't a pedantic ruling, though, it's a fundamental mechanical assumption.

Though, this is pedantic silliness, not cool; I have not mentioned any rhino-wrestling, I am clearly talking about something different...I mean, come on...

You're talking something that is no more 'silly' frankly than wrestling rhinos. A couple something even. The thing is, what you consider 'silly' and 'immersion breaking' others clearly view as a feature, and even downright central to the genre. Heck, I consider it quite flavorful to have a high-level character that could bathe in the purifying flame of a lava flow, and can even see potential uses for that (particularly centered around the "bathe in the purifying flame" aspect) in a storyline outside of the "have to grab the mcguffin from the bottom of the volcano basin."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It'll be hilarious if those actually wind up being the winning lottery numbers.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Lava was just an example, let's say being submerged in liquid nitrogen, or trapped underwater for a day, float in space/vacuum for an hour, in a room where the ceiling lowers until it is flush with the floor, these are things many characters cannot survive, regardless of level/HP.

Most of these aren't actually level/HP concerns. Besides the ceiling thing that Sideromancer already mentioned, the "underwater for a day" and "floating in a vacuum" both use the suffocation rules. Rules that (in PF1e at least) cared only about your Con Score if you were able to hold your breath, and once your breath ran out or if you weren't able to hold it you were dead in IIRC 3 rounds, regardless of HP.

Midnight Anarch wrote:
John John wrote:
In my houserules when I am using automatic level progression, I ban almost all remaining items that give numeric bonuses and apply the 50% rule the remaining half of the wealth by level (since wbl is halved in automatic level progression).
Are you saying that you instead reduce WBL to 25% and let anyone craft anything as long as it seems do-able?

I think they're saying they apply the "allow crafting to effectively increase WBL by up to 50%", so that with crafting they have an effective 75% normal WBL (paying half cost for up to half WBL, effectively doubling the value of that half WBL). Otherwise is what I'm getting too.

Talek & Luna wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:
What monsters are you fighting that have an AC higher than 31 at 10th level? You have to create NPC fighters with high amounts of magic items to get to that high of an AC by PF1 rules. I don't even think dragons approach that AC at CR10.

Fact: An AC of 31 is about the default AC expected of a 10th level Fighter PC (or the equivalent) with only a single magic item (a +3 Chain Shirt). This can be easily determined by basic math and the info we have.

Fact: Monsters have been specified as on par with such PC characters in terms of AC, HP, and the like.

Conclusion: An AC of 31 is a reasonable AC for a Level 10 enemy.

Which leads to the additional conclusion that a level 12 or 13 monster (like a main boss for level 10 characters) might well have an AC at least 2 to 4 higher.

Please show me how a PF1 fighter with a chain shirt +3 and no other magic items has an AC of 30

I'm fairly sure they're not talking PF1e rules, but PF2e. In PF2e with 10 Dex, Trained proficiency, and no Armor a creature has 20 AC at level 10. Add in the +2 Chain Shirt, +3 Potency, +4 Dex (easily doable by level 10, with 14 base and two +2 level bonuses), and bump up Proficiency two points and you've got 31 AC at level 10. The math is very much not the same as PF1e, so comparing specific PF1e and PF2e numbers alone is not a good comparison.

The Raven Black wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A roleplay restriction should not give a mechanical benefit.
This. On the other hand, there is one anathema in the book that a very particular character can opt into that's legitimately also a (quite restrictive) mechanical restriction, and we gave that one a significant mechanical benefit. I'm very interested to see further playtest of it, actually, though so far the one playtest character that chose that very specific option was awesome.

I take this as meaning that the aforementioned anathema is innocuous to most characters who would get it but that it will be a great disadvantage to some very specific build that gets it

Half-Orc Paladin of Torag adopted by Dwarves and with the Hatred of Orcs feat ?

My personal suspicion is it's the classic Monk Vow of Poverty. Notoriously exceptionally debilitating (at least in PF1e), and also traditionally not worth it. If they made that more worthwhile it would be great.

David knott 242 wrote:
Presumably, any spell that requires more than 3 actions to cast is now a ritual.

Not necessarily. Maybe some particular ones will be, but I doubt every Exploration Mode or Downtime Mode oriented spell (which is likely to have casting times measured in periods appropriate for those modes, minutes or even more) will be a Ritual.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

I am also worried about single target blasting in light of disintegrate. Maybe using truestrike or the like could be a factor? I am betting that truestrike is just going to make your attack hit on a failure but not a crit failure. This is me reaching for a counterpoint.

Also! I am watching the stream now and noticed that the disintegrate spell has no critical success entry for the fort save. Did your calculation take into account that even critical successes result in half damage on the save?

Someone (I think Mark) mentioned that you can True Strike into a Crit (explicitly using True Strike on Disintegrate at that) so I'm guessing it either adds +10 to your attack roll (at default level) or just raises your level of success by +1.
It's not quite so powerful, as that. However, it's one-action, and it's incredibly useful if you want to use a big-ticket spell with an attack roll.

Well now I'm just curious. I'm still guessing it's an attack bonus of some sort. We know a level 4 spell can give a +4 to a specific... whatever-Perception-is-considered-now check. I do hope this doesn't mean True Strike scaled down to a +1 at level 1.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
When they went over magic items during the banquet, the Phylactery of the Occult spoiled what the last list of spells will be. We know of Arcane and Divine, they confirmed that Primal is the third list, and they said they wanted to keep the 4th list under wraps for a while longer, but the grater version grants dream message as an innate OCCULT spell. Unless that this is meant to define a 5th category of spells that won't be used by any of the core classes by default, this is our 4th and final list.
I'm not convinced occult here indicated the fourth spell list. Why would you need to point a spell list for the a spell that you gain through an item? What would be the relevance of that information?

It was mentioned in the statblock thread that abilities that are magical but not 'spells' per say are being tagged with a type of magic. For instance, the Redcap's red cap is Arcane. This takes the place of "Spell-Like" or "Supernatural" designations to indicate an ability is magical in nature, and thus subject to things like Antimagic Field. In addition to that, and particularly more relevant to this exact example, having such tags also allows design space for effects and abilities that specifically block certain types of magic. For instance, one could have an area (or creature) that was outside the reach of the Gods, that blocked Divine spells. Or a creature that acted as a Supernatural Sponge that resisted and maybe even got buffs from Occult spells.

Catharsis wrote:
Even though PF1 Bards made decent archers, their magic was always their main contribution. Glibness, Suggestion, illusions, Haste, Confusion, Heroism; all that is part of the Bard flavor. Can’t imagine doing justice to that only with a few powers.

In my group it's usually just the Inspire Courage. Everything else (usually a bow, their spell slots are really too few to focus on) is the icing, the Inspire is their main contribution.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

I am also worried about single target blasting in light of disintegrate. Maybe using truestrike or the like could be a factor? I am betting that truestrike is just going to make your attack hit on a failure but not a crit failure. This is me reaching for a counterpoint.

Also! I am watching the stream now and noticed that the disintegrate spell has no critical success entry for the fort save. Did your calculation take into account that even critical successes result in half damage on the save?

Someone (I think Mark) mentioned that you can True Strike into a Crit (explicitly using True Strike on Disintegrate at that) so I'm guessing it either adds +10 to your attack roll (at default level) or just raises your level of success by +1.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
now I'm going to have to deal with +5 Shield Boss or +5 Shield Spikes on +5 Shield shenanigans

Actually you won't. The Shield Boss/Spikes are the weapon that's enchanted (and also that's calculating Quality presumably), and we know (from the Equipment blog) you don't actually put +Anything on a Shield. Shields can be enchanted, but only with abilities.

Things we know:

- You can play a caster with a 10 in their casting stat. It's not optimal, but it's possible.
- Magic Missile doesn't care about casting stat, as it has neither attack roll nor save.
- Everyone has full level to Attack and AC, modified by Proficiency of course.
- Shield is a 1-action Cantrip, and thus won't interfere with the 'prepare nothing but Magic Missile' clause.

Things I suspect:

- The non-class way to get higher proficiency in stuff like weapons or armor is probably going to be an archetype.
- The Wizard's Focus is probably going to use the same categories of items as PF1e's Arcane Bond allowed.

So my suggestions:

- Pay no more than lip service to Intelligence. As a -Wis Ancestry you'll probably be starting bare minimum 12, which should be fine. Worst case scenario (in this case, still needing 10+spell level to cast that spell level) you can use one of your 4 boosts from each level to keep up, if it's like Starfinder they happen every 5th level which means you might be slightly delayed at higher levels but generally you're fine.
- Instead focus your stats on optimizing your physical scores.
- Take whatever archetype lets you get awesome level Weapon proficiency, if that's through an archetype. If the same archetype gives Armor proficiency great, but if it's one or the other take weapons. You can get Trained Armor proficiency with a General Feat, and Shield will probably make up the difference well enough.
- Related to that last line, take the Shield cantrip.
- Invest in Craft to get magic item crafting.
- Take a weapon Arcane Focus, and make it a good one-handed weapon. Focus your proficiency from archetype on that weapon if that's a thing.
- Pretend you're a sword-n-board martial-type, with your Focus as your sword and the Shield cantrip as your board. Invest your General feats into that as you can, and if Wizard has any class feats that help it those too (if not, well, I think Archetype adds Class feat options so you're still investing Wizard feats towards it technically.) Magic Missile becomes your ranged weapon or for pumping damage into things you can't hit worth a dang. Also a decent opening move against bosses, for you to move in and finish off afterwards.

3 people marked this as a favorite.



- Combo Attacks are great
- The Open trait... is that before any other attacks that round or that combat? There are places that seem to say one way, and others that seem to say the other, so some clarification would be much appreciated.
- RIP Randyll
- Shield abilities seem cool so far. Shield Paragon seems like it might wind up becoming a "must have" for Board fighters.
- Flexible Feats are cool, and will become even cooler as more Fighter feats are released.


- Soothing Words power from the Family domain seems like it will be awesome to combine with a Psychic caster if/when they return to the game, assuming they still have the "Emotion effects block Emotion components" drawback.
- Enduring Might is hilarious to me. "Look at my muscles, they're so big they make me bulletproof resistant.
- Money Talks is making me wonder when (other than Material Components) it might come up. Not saying it doesn't seem useful, just... interesting encounter ideas.


- Good Will Saves, Praise be to the Gods. PF1e's Rogue only being good at Reflex sucked when I played one in Crimson Throne, that save stopped being useful just before I got Evasion.
- Action Economy, Poison, and Trap Stuff: Neat
- Sense the Unseen is awesome. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems it's the only thing that can counter Hidden Paragon. Hidden Paragon seems like the Improved Uncanny Dodge of Invisibility, only other Rogues (or others with similar ability *coughBarbariancough*) can stop you.
- Cloud Step is amazeballs. The other high-level stuff is cool too.


- Finally, some mechanics
- The default Sacred Bond Righteous Ally (Weapon) seems kinda... situational. Disrupting, if it's like in PF1e, will be completely useless to those who don't favor Bludgeoning weapons, while Ghost Touch only matters if you fight incorporeals. But then new!Smite is locked behind it. Hopefully you can get enhancing Feats for it quickly so it doesn't spend too long as a point of embarrassment if you're a sword-wielding Paladin fighting anything other than ghosts.
- Aura of Faith provides yet another reason to oppose the idea of Weakness capping out at original damage, given that weakness seems to be one of the cornerstones of this ability (kinda like splash damage as shown so far.) Other Auras seem interesting, especially the Justice/Vengeance combo with the right party.


- Still disappointed it's not the Infinity Gauntlet, though I know the reasoning.
- That Strength-boosting feature is cool, and will be downright fascinating if it's not a unique feature. The drawback though... kinda stings if you lose the contest. And you can't even use the thing as loot.


- Not quite sure, do you have to use a canon animal from the shortlist for Familiar, or can you just pick any creature of appropriate size and it gets adjusted to appropriate power? My CaptainSparklez fan-character and his Slime familiar need to know.
- 4 HP per level seems kinda low, but then it's not like Familiars should be on the front line. And hopefully any future Mauler translation will provide more HP for your pet.
- Does the Familiar also use your char level for Attacking if it does need to attack for whatever reason?

1 to 50 of 618 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>