Skeletal Technician

Squiggit's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 8,555 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Will do a longer playtest writeup after a few more combats but a brief comment.

Between sustaining vessel spells (possibly multiple of them or a vessel and a normal spell or who knows what), positioning, setting up stances (ngl wouldn't mind seeing a couple more of these), taking other class actions, along with normal things like skill checks or strikes, the class is incredibly busy and it can feel very difficult to fit everything you want to do in a turn in a turn.

I actually think this is a really good thing and important for the class' health. This isn't like the Magus or swashbuckler, where you're constrained by a very rigid routine. The animist has a lot of valid options in any given combat and at any given moment there might be multiple correct answers for whatever you're doing, but you're constrained by only having 2-3 actions per turn (and even haste only helps so much because a lot of your good stuff is specific).

I've seen a number of posts expressing the desire for more action economy compression in the Animist, like better sustain options or free action sustains, and after playing around with the class a bit more I think this would be a really bad idea.

The high constraints of action economy both create a lot of tension when deciding how to best act in a round (a hugely important feature when contrasting with other classes that have very static routines) and acts as a power limiter on some of the higher value things an animist can do.

Cheap action economy solutions would ruin that. If anything I think there's room to make the rules even tighter, like taking Leap out of sustaining dance.

There are a handful of things that make the Animist kind of awkward to play, but I think those things are absolutely essential to making them work. Please keep them weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The potion

... Feels like you can take one of these and then move 30 feet every time you sustain. Kind of ridiculous, 21 GP is pretty cheap for a higher level character too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It makes you immune to charm effects of a certain level and limits what actions you can take... but as far as I can tell that's all it does?

That seems really strangely niche for the core feature of one of the two practices. The channeler's level 1 ability is essentially playstyle defining since it lets you change your vessel spells on the fly, while the Sage ability is just a very specific defensive option (and even then one that bosses or creatures with overleveled spell effects can just bypass entirely).

I realize symmetry isn't necessarily a goal, but at the same time it feels like the Sage doesn't do a lot to push a core theme until level 17 gives you dual primaries.

... It's also a little weird that Sage Animists end up having no Master-rank save proficiency at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm just not sure it really makes sense as an advanced weapon given what it offers.

Comparing it to some of its alternatives and it is just not meaningfully stronger (sometimes it's just outright weaker) than its easier-to-equip alternatives.

Compared to the boomerang: same-or-less damage (boomerangs get strength to damage, crossbows don't), same range, different crit-specs (kind of a wash imo), bludgeoning instead of piercing damage.

The advantage the RHC has here is that you can fire it five times out the gate for free, whereas you need a returning rune for you thrown weapon, but I'm not sure how much that evens out, you gain 3.5 damage by having a flaming rune instead of a returning one, but you lose strength to damage anyways and still have to figure out how to get an advanced weapon, which means the boomerang user gets some sort of nebulous feat advantage.

Compared to the shortbow, you lose damage (propulsive and deadly), and gain the negative repeating trait in exchange for better hand economy. The hand advantage is potentially significant, but you're already trading damage and pick up repeating for that loss. Does that really warrant bumping the weapon up to a higher tier as well?

Compared to the air repeater and RHC has double the range and slightly better damage (d6 and d4 agile are really close to each other, depending on how big your static damage modifiers are, d6 tends to win out if you don't have a lot coming from somewhere though), but loses one round per clip.

This one is solidly a win for the repeating hand crossbow for once, even if the damage is similar the extra range is significant.

The problem though is that the air repeater is a simple weapon and the repeating hand crossbow is advanced, a full two tiers ahead. Is the extra range really worth two tiers of proficiency and the loss of an additional ammunition? Again it feels like a weird sell, but even if you really need the range...

Compared to the long air repeater you gain a die of damage at the cost of 3 rounds per magazine.

More damage is good, generally a win here, but again we're comparing a simple and an advanced weapon, and when you look at other types of weapons, a damage die is generally worth one tier. When you compare a Mace and a Maul, you trade one tier (simple to martial) for one damage die. The repeating hand crossbow trades two tiers for that damage die, but also sacrifices ammunition for it too.

... No matter how you compare it, the weapon never really seems to live up to the ideal of being a uniquely powerful weapon that requires specialized proficiency to use because of its strength. In every way it stands out as similar or worse than its martial counterparts and only marginally better than simple options thanks to the repeating trait and its lack of damage modifiers.

I feel like the weapon could almost use access to some loading rune that gives it infinite ammunition... but even then it would still be largely strictly inferior to a boomerang with returning.

Bonus: Compared to Reloading Trick... the easiest way to get Repeating Hand Crossbows is with the (admittedly AP specific and badly named) Drow Shootist archetype. One feat gets you into the archetype, another gets you proficiency with the repeating hand crossbow, cool.

For the same number of feats, you can take the dedication + reloading trick, which lets you reload and fire a hand crossbow as a single action... so pretty much the same thing as a repeating hand crossbow except you never need to reload a magazine (and while it's even more feats, you can combine that with crossbow terror/ace/crack shot to turn your hand crossbow into a d8 weapon and completely outclass the repeater... while still only being barely better than a boomerang or shortbow with 3+ feats of investment so it's not like it's absurdly out of bounds anyways)

IDK this weapon just seems kind of bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Dex is often cited as one of the stronger stats in the game, being a save granting stat and important for AC for most characters, but something that's come up recently that has me curious, how often do you see finesse-based characters build on classes with a flexible key ability score?

Swashbucklers are obviously nudged toward Dex builds naturally, and Barbarians are locked into a strength KAS. Ranged builds are obviously dex based.

But how often do you see, say, branch spear fighters? short sword rangers? Inventors? Magi?

Do you find finesse melee characters to be prevalent and common, or do people at the tables you've prefer to take the Strength or Ranged based options when those are on the table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Find it here

Some quick highlights:
-Alternate ability boosts, anyone can have two free boosts like a human instead of their default ancestry boosts.
-A gnome flickmace nerf
-Some alchemist changes, including some very positive improvements to the chirurgeon.
-Clarification that Magi and Summoners are allowed to use Staves (but worded in such a way it doesn't answer other questions about Magi/Summoners and spell slots)
-Horse support changed to only work with Melee strikes.
-Clarifications for how handedness works for weapons, for natural medicine, and a bunch of other things.

All around pretty neat, for the most part.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Or a non-good enemy with weakness to evil, etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Random thought I had while helping a player build a character. They give you very little on your own (Inventor gives you a single trained skill and a skill feat, gunslinger is just a trimmed down version of fighter dedication which had already been complained about ad nauseum in the past).

Summoner Dedication too, although they seem to have gotten back in stride and made the DA classes at least a little interesting.

Not much else to say about it, and I doubt Paizo is interested in making them more compelling down the road, but it's a bit of a shame as they're conceptually cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I've been running a couple premade adventures with Haunts with a couple different groups, and despite both of them having completely different players they both run into a similar problem.

They see a haunt, usually take a bunch of damage/eat some nasty debuffs when it activates, make some recall knowledge checks to try to figure out how it works or look for any obvious mechanism, but if they roll poorly or don't see anything they tend to spend a round or two fumbling around and then just run away.

Between the two groups, four of the last five haunts have ended with the party eventually getting frustrated and going "we shut the door and pretend it doesn't exist."

Has anyone else run into a similar problem? Does anyone have any advice on how to help players figure out how to deal with haunts when there's no obvious solution? Straddling the line between not wanting to give up too much information for free but not wanting to see my players get frustrated not having any idea how to even approach a problem has been tricky.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

We've had threads about class paths people want to see and new classes people want to see. Curious what people want from regular archetypes and classless options. Whether it's a new idea or poaching something from an existing class.

... One thought I'd had is that it'd be neat to have a class-agnostic option to improve simple weapons. Deadly Simplicity, Crossbow Ace, Deific Weapon, etc all support the idea of bumping up simple weapons a bit so they're competitive (or at least, closer to competitive). I remember a developer once talking about a hypothetical rogue feat that made daggers stronger (when describing the difference between simple/martial weapon balancing) and it would be neat to actually have that option... but more than that, because sometimes you want to be a swashbuckler with a dagger too, or a fighter with a club, or whatever.

Could be done with a multiple-class feat or an archetype that lets you lean in and power up your weird weapon choice even more, idk.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Feat here

Looking at the feat, it says you use your own statistics.

Does your movement speed count as a statistic, or an ability that you gain from the spell?

The scent and low-light vision are presumably not statistics, but things you get.

Is there anything else you pick up when you activate the ability? It doesn't look like it, but spending an action at level 8 to gain low light vision and impreciser scent at the cost of your ability to speak or manipulate most things seems kind of bad.

... Slightly off topic, but on that same note is there a balance point for the deer instinct? It seems like they get a nearly identical attack to other single-weapon animal forms, but also gain reach at 7 which seems like it just makes it strictly superior to its direct competitors. It makes animal balance feel kind of phoned in.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It seems like they can't, but that seems... weird? So I'm wondering if I missed an obvious option.

I guess Magi and Summoners can't either, looking at it a bit more.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Canny Acumen is a relatively cheap way for a trained character to hit Expert, but going from Expert > Master without class features doesn't come online until very late at level 17 (a full 10 levels after it comes online innately for other classes) and there's no way to progress from Master > Legendary without class features.

This means that if you don't have one of a couple specific classes in your party, it's actually impossible to ever detect a hazard like a Banshee's Symphony.

That's kind of an extreme example, but it highlights to me something that feels almost antithetical to PF2's design. The game has opened up skills so that anyone can specialize in any skill they want and done away with a lot of forced niche protection. Even the skill based classes mostly just get more skills rather than being flat out better at them.

Except for Perception. Perception is still weirdly hardcoded into classes, which means only a handful of them can fully leverage the ability and no matter how hard you try, building a dungeon delving, trap spotting wizard or sorcerer is ultimately going to run into the difficulty of having some hazards you simply can't detect. You just aren't allowed to do that.

I understand that one of the design goals here was to get rid of the feeling that everyone needs to invest in Perception and I get that certain classes might be innately better at it too, that makes sense. But the solution of turning it into a walled garden I think is ultimately really unsatisfying and just walls off things from certain classes in a way almost nothing else in PF2 really does.

Which is why I think it should be easier to improve perception (at the very least, canny acumen's master benefit comes online way too late).


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So advanced weapons are supposed to be a step up from their martial counterparts, hence their higher and more difficult to obtain proficiency. It's why fighters get a -2 with them and need to spend a 6th level feat to catch up.

Some advanced weapons are really cool and unique, but a few of them seem oddly balanced considering and I just want to document a few that stand out to me as seemingly odd.

Spiral Rapier This new weapon from Grand Bazaar is nearly identical to the base rapier: It only trades the deadly d8 trait for the parry trait and doesn't actually gain anything over the rapier. I'm not sure what makes this weapon qualify for the Advanced tier, because that appears to be a mostly comparable trait for trait trade.

Repeating Hand Crossbow Compared to the air repeater, it loses 1 magazine size and the agile trait but gains 30 feet of range and a die size. Comparing other weapons, trading agile for a die size seem about even. It has a lot more range, but having to reload more often is a pain. The thing that makes this one questionable to me is that the air repeater is a simple weapon, a full two categories below the repeating crossbow, yet it only seems really similar or only a tiny bit inferior.
The RHC technically predates the air repeater, but its most recent printing is in the same book as the air repeater.

Rhoka Sword This weapon looks okay at first glance. It's an extra die size over the katana, a deadly longsword, and while it loses Versatile P, that's not exactly an amazing trait (although Paizo seems to value it as a fairly standard trait looking at weapons like the longsword, fwiw).
What gets this weapon on my list though is its other trait. When wielded in two hands, it becomes strictly worse than the Katana, only weighing more and lacking that versatile trait. Is it supposed to be two-hand d12? Most (barring this weapon, the also-advanced bladed hoop and the reinforced stock) two-hand weapons have two die sizes between modes, which seems more consistent. It just feels weird that the two-handed mode is a downgrade from its martial counterpart.

There are a handful of other advanced weapons that appear a little odd, but some of them have unique effects or don't map very well to existing martial or simple weapons. Also avoiding mentioning a certain bow because that one has been talked about a lot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Love both of these classes, but a couple times building or helping players build one I've run into a little bit of a thematic hurdle.

The Gunslinger has four ways, two of which are weapon driven, another of which encourages the gunslinger to be up close (and is a little weapon driven) and another which is stealth based. This, ime, leaves a little bit of a blindspot in the system for someone who's just a little more interested in focusing on gunplay. I had a player who wanted to use a two-handed firearm, but wasn't really interested in combat maneuver/melee or stealth stuff and suddenly to him it felt like he didn't really have a good option for a Way and it made that part of building his character a lot less exciting and a lot more frustrating for him.

I've had similar experiences with the Magus. The existing Hybrid Studies are all fascinating and neat, but I've had players who, just for a couple examples, want to be a switch-hitter, want to use a one-handed weapon but like holding things in the other hand, or just want to be able to pick up whatever drops and don't want to be beholden to a specific type of weapon and they've all felt a little put off by hybrid studies as a result.

Obviously 'generic' is a weird word and hard to really quantify, but the point is I've been seeing some real interest in seeing broader themes and more weapon-agnostic options.

Not really going anywhere with this, just some feedback I've seen more than a few times I thought I'd share.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The Sparkling Targe magus has some implied support for using the Shield spell in lieu of an actual shield, via being able to cast shield with their conflux spell or being able to apply the benefits of their Cascade ability to the Shield spell as well.

But the shield spell has a 10 minute hard cooldown after blocking with it, so you can only block 1/encounter with it and you can't raise it again after you've blocked.

It might be just because I'm tired but is there something I'm missing here? It feels like there's an implication in the way some of the features are layed out that "Magus who uses the shield spell instead of a physical shield" is meant to be like... a thing, but it actually seems like a really bad in practice since you can only benefit from your blocking features 1/encounter and doing so locks you out of your raising abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Title. Free circumstance bonuses to AC are nice, but the ability only lasts until the start of your first turn.

This basically means the ability gets worse the better your initiative roll and Gunslingers are a class with expert-legendary in perception which means they're innately good at initiative.

In general I just think it's an awkward dynamic to have an ability that might not do anything if you happen to roll well (and isn't just a failsafe ability). It would feel a lot better if the ability lasted a whole round or did something entirely different to help encourage Vanguards to charge into battle (something that's weirdly lacking for them at low levels outside the reload action).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Did a small playtest with a Thaumaturge the other day that ended up taking way longer than I expected due to some technical issues, but figured I'd do a writeup about it.

If anyone cares about the context of the adventure

Context:
Basically this is part of an ongoing drop in/drop out campaign revolving around a group of adventurers taking small commissions from the society. The party here was commissioned to investigate disappearances at a small village up in the mountains

So, our party for this adventure consisted of a Human Thaumaturge, a Catfolk primal sorcerer, a leshy barbarian and an elf bard. Everyone was level 3.

Encounter 1 has the party arriving at the village and finding it besieged by a group of strange cultist looking dudes (mostly using modified goblin commando and gnoll hunter stat blocks). Combat started pretty quickly.

Encounter 1:
This was technically a Severe encounter, but the enemies started pretty spread out.

Round 1 started with the Thaumaturge rolling really poorly on Find Flaws and having to manually set up Antithesis before moving closer to the nearest cultist. The Sorcerer caught two of the mooks with electric arc. The barbarian was hit with an arrow and in return strode up and finished off the shooter. The bard Sang and then missed with a telekinetic projectile.

Other than that arrow the enemies rolled really poorly round 1. The leader of the raiding party also landed a hit, but did minimum damage.

Unfortunately the guy the Barbarian killed was the one the Thaumaturge set up on, so next round he had to stride, Find Flaws (success this time) and strike another mook. The sorcerer's next electric arc finished off that bad guy and pinged a third. The bard Sang and missed another telekinetic projectile. These enemies don't even have good AC just really cold dice today, but Inspire Courage is an MVP all on its own.

The enemies rolled better this turn offensively and nearly dropped the Thaumaturge even with two of them down. One of the cultist archers got a lucky crit for 14 damage and another hit with their sword for 6.

But by round 3 things were in cleanup mode. Another electric arc from the sorcerer, a crit from the barbarian and finally landing a TKP from the Bard downed their leader and left one wounded cultist left... who opted to run the hell away.

Encounter 2 had the party helping out/rescuing the villagers and then questioning them about everything that happened... Having an 18 starting Cha and training in Diplomacy and Deception made the Thaumaturge really effective here, but not in any groundbreaking ways. They did get to use their chalice's 10 minute sippy powers repeatedly over the course of this encounter, both to heal themselves up and to help out a wounded villager. That was pretty cool. They attempted to Recall Knowledge about the cult they were tracking and failed, but the diplomacy stuff all went great.

Encounter 3 had them using the information they gathered to find and then head to where these raiders were based. They arrived to find a camp built outside/along/into a cave that was completely empty until they reached the back and discovered a Gibbering Mouther. Apparently the raiders had been feeding captives to it, but with this most recent failed raid it had apparently gotten hungry enough to break free and katamari all the remaining raiders to death.

Anyways, this led into our next fight

encounter 3:

The mouther rolled terribly on its initiative and its Gibbering aura got stuffed by the Bard's countersong. The Barbarian went first, but opted to delay to let the Bard Inspire before running up, swinging their great axe and getting bit for it. The Thaumaturge Succeeded on their find flaws check with a solid roll, discovering its weakness to bludgeoning damage... though this didn't do much for them because they had a warhammer anyways. The Barbarian decided that they'll switch to their fists in future rounds for that reason though. The Sorcerer cast Hydraulic Push and missed.

The mouther responded by rolling on top of the Barbarian, successfully engulfing them, but rolled low on its damage, then used ground manipulation

Round 2 the Bard opted for a bludgeoning TKP, which did decent damage. The Barbarian punched the Mouther twice instead of deciding to try Escaping, doing pretty good damage too. The thaumaturge demoralized the mouther, then hit with their hammer and sipped their chalice. This poor thing's HP is getting kind of shredded to be honest. The Sorcerer cast Electric Arc again and seemed kind of annoyed about hydraulic push missing.

The mouther spit at and dazzled the bard, then hit and bled the thaumaturge, then missed with a third attack.

Round 3 the Barbarian punched twice, the Thaumaturge sipped and swung twice. The bard failed their miss check on TKP but kept singing. The sorcerer calmed down and landed Hydraulic push this time for pretty great damage.

The mouther retaliated again, hitting the thaumaturge hard. They would have gone down at this point if they hadn't been slurping that chalice every round.

Round 4 was basically a repeat of round 3, with the thaumaturge ending up nearly succumbing to their bleed damage before the monster was finally killed

There's more for them to do but that will be next week.

First of all I want to say we both really enjoyed how this class looks. So while I'm going to start with criticisms, it's criticism because the class feels so cool in so many ways to begin with:

Stat Concerns:

The class feels really MAD. Our player started with a 16 in Strength and 18 in Cha and felt like he was obligated to put one of his remaining boosts in Dex just so his AC wasn't abysmal. Which meant he only had one boost he felt like he could freely spend. He said if he was going to rebuild the character he'd probably drop Cha to a 16 so he could get 14 Dex or 12 Con/12Dex/12Wis

I put this observation first because it feels like it ripples into most of the other complaints he had about his character.

-The Thaumaturge felt really squishy. D8 HP is one thing, but again compounded by the MAD issue. He just did not have really any resources invested in his saves and other defensive stats. The Barbarian had 40% more health than him and only one less AC while raging. Saving throws didn't come up too much this session, but all of the Barbarian's saves were better too.

I was intentionally kind of spreading out damage this fight and even then the Thaumaturge was perilously close to dropping, even with heavy usage of Sip.

-The Thaumaturge kind of sucks at knowing about things that aren't monsters. Pretty self evident but, again partly because of how MAD he was, 10 Int felt really bad flubbing lore and occultism checks even though investigating mysterious cults and the like felt like it should be their wheelhouse.

-He wants more stuff that uses Charisma. Right now the only real mechanic that does is Find Flaws. Which is obviously really important, but if Cha is going to be your primary stat, he wishes he could leverage it more in combat. In particular he talked about how the Inventor had some special abilities that relied on their class DC and... kinda wishes he had something like those. Implement abilities that forced saving throws in exchange for debuffs or AoE damage feel like they'd slot into the class really well.

Combat thoughts:

-Fighting that horde of enemies felt awkward. To some extent this is a problem for every martial, but having to spend an action (or two if you fail) to 'set up' on every enemy felt bad when most enemies were dropping within a round. The Ranger kind of has the same problem, but at least it gets action economy enhancing attacks. This is probably where some implement AoE would feel really good.

-The player mentioned it felt weirdly bad to uncover a weakness he could already exploit. Find Flaws on the gibbering mouther felt like kind of a 'loss' to him because he didn't really get anything out of it.

Positive Thoughts:

-Chalice felt really good. It's a relatively low amount of THP, but since you can use it every round it really ended up adding up. The out of combat healing mechanic felt pretty strong too.

-Damage was great, when it worked. He was hitting almost as hard as the Barbarian when he got everything rolling on the raiders in the first encounter. Though as mentioned, he felt like he was missing out against the miniboss.

-Heavy investment in Cha made him feel really good out of combat, where admittedly the Barbarian felt less helpful. This party was a little odd in that it had so many Cha characters in it, but it worked out pretty well

Round 2 will probably be next week.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Between every implement requiring a free hand (including weapon requiring another free hand) and Empowerment also requiring a free hand, the thaumaturge seems way too overly pushed into a specific weapon style.

The weapon implement requires an actual weapon too, so that even pushes you away from unarmed (although just not using that implement can work there).

I sort of get why the class works this way, but imo it feels a little thematically restraining on a class that doesn't feel like it should be quite that narrowly defined.

IMO, having some more flexibility, such as the ability to have a 'combat glove' implement for unarmed combat or the ability to bind an implement to a shield or offhand weapon or ... whatever would feel pretty good and open up more options for the class.

For what it's worth I personally really like the dueling style and would probably use that regardless, but the thaumaturge doesn't feel as thematically liked to the specific style so I think more options for twf/thf/snb/unarmed would only benefit the class.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think if there's one thing this playtest has shown, it's that the Reload trait is dramatically undervalued in Paizo's current formula for weapon balance.

There's been a lot of talk about the fatal trait, about feats and damage and things like running reload, but I think all of that ends up obfuscating the fundamental issue a bit: The reload trait is really bad and the weapons aren't properly compensated for it in the long run.

It was true of crossbows in core and it's still true of firearms in the playtest. The only real difference is that everyone pretty much gave up on crossbows pretty quickly.

Yeah, the gunslinger could get feats to make it better, maybe. But imo that's not good enough. A big part of weapon design in PF2 is creating tiers of weapons that are supposed to be roughly comparable to each other:

If you hand someone a dueling pistol and then hand an identical character a shortbow, they should perform similarly right out the gate, because they're both martial weapons. If you instead hand that character a crossbow, they should perform slightly worse because it's a simple weapon, but only slightly (really just compare simple melee weapons to their martial counterparts: going from a longspear to a halberd is one die step and an extra trait, going from a dagger to a short sword is just one die step. That's the kind of advantage a bow should have over a crossbow, nothing more).

Quantifying 'similar' is a bit tricky when they have different ranges and the shortbow should probably have a slight edge because propulsive makes you MAD, but ultimately, they're both martial weapons so the end result should be similar before you look at any feats.

Solving the issue by giving the gunslinger an overpowered feat or feature to compensate or something would be a significant misstep, imo, because it fails to address the underlying imbalance the Reload trait imposes on the game and creates mandatory feats everyone who's expecting to use similar weapons is forced to find a way to take, which is supposed to be anathema to PF2's core design principles.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If I know a spell that has certain heightened effects, can I choose to cast the spell using a lesser version of its effect?

For most spells, this is a fairly useless question, since heightened effects either include previous effects or are straight upgrades.

The spell that spurred this question though is Dimension Door, which at 5th level gains a significantly increased range and easier requirements, but comes with a one hour cooldown.

If I'm a Wizard who prepared Dimension Door in a 5th level spell slot, or a Sorcerer who learned Dimension Door as a 5th level spell, can I choose to use the lesser version of the spell's effect instead?

This would also apply to spells like Lock (can you forgo the material cost of the heightened version if you cast it from a second level spell slot?) or something like Aerial Form, which ties specific sizes to specific versions of the spell.

The only passage I've been able to find that talks about anything like this in the CRB reads:

Heightening Rules wrote:
Some heightened entries specify one or more levels at which the spell must be prepared or cast to gain these extra advantages. Each of these heightened entries states specifically which aspects of the spell change at the given level. Read the heightened entry only for the spell level you’re using or preparing; if its benefits are meant to include any of the effects of a lower-level heightened entry, those benefits will be included in the entry.

Which suggests that RAW if the heightening effect doesn't specify that you get to choose, you're stuck with the top level version. That seems weird to me though so I figured I'd ask.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Dragon's Roar is a monk feat that allows a dragon stance monk to frighten people in an area and prevents frightened from ticking down as long as the monk sticks to someone. It's really neat, but it feels like it makes a monk trying to leverage it absurdly MAD, basically incentivized to pump every single stat except Int

Curious if other people have been playing around with it and what their impressions of it and builds have been.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I assume yes, but I can't actually find a rules citation that agrees with this and would appreciate help finding one.

The description of prerequisites in both the glossary and the rules section of the book only mention taking feats, not potentially losing them later.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

After playing in a long one-shot with my friend playing one and messing around with it in some mock ups myself, we came to some conclusions about the Life Oracle I figured I'd want to share. Instead of doing an encounter by encounter break down I figured I'd just go over the big observations.

First, the title comment: The Oracle class presents itself as struggling with high risk, high reward curses and using a cycle of refocus and revelation spells to bounce between states.

From our play, we decided the Life Oracle was better off just whiffing two focus spells early in the day to put themselves in Moderate so they could get the buffs to their healing. The penalty never mattered at all and the bonuses were freebies that were too hard to just ignore. Contrary to popular opinion online, we found Life's curse to be the easiest to manage by far. This segues into a second observation though...

Delay Affliction is a bad focus spell By their nature and the nature of PF2's rest mechanics, focus spells are something the game encourages you to use fairly regular. Basically once per combat. Delay Affliction just isn't that kind of spell. I'm sure if we ran into an enemy with a nasty disease or poison it would have been nice to have, but that just doesn't come up often enough for it to be your four times a day spell. The domain spell from Healing domain is about the same and these two together are another reason why it was so easy to just ignore the whole Revelation mechanic and just sit in Moderate all day.

Oracles (and maybe divine casters in general) need something to do at low levels A level one oracle has two spells per day. That's it. We get delay affliction too, but as said in the last paragraph, delay affliction sucks. So once those are used up, or before those are used up, what the hell are we supposed to do?

Clerics address this problem by getting Divine Font and even with just 12 Cha that gives them twice as many spell slots at level one as an Oracle. They also get their deity's favored weapon, which can sometimes help too. Neither of us have played a divine sorcerer but looking at how crappy Celestial's first focus spell is, presumably they're in the same boat as the Oracle. So what the hell are we supposed to do? Throw Lances? Well...

Divine Lance kinda sucks This spell really needs clarification on how it works with classes that don't require deities. We house ruled that it just matched our Oracle's alignment for now. This isn't really an Oracle specific thing, but it plays off the last observation. A lot of people seem to love this spell but we were unimpressed. It does basic cantrip damage (but with no rider like ray of frost or produce flame) and doesn't work on a lot of enemies. After an encounter where our Oracle essentially did nothing the entire fight because the enemies were neutral and she didn't want to waste a spell slot (her fault for not bringing a crossbow, but imo Paizo's fault for leaving the class so barren) we just ruled the attack could damage anything. Hasn't caused any problems.

The major curse is more about undead killing than healing. The healing given by the major version of the Oracle curse felt like overkill on top of being too hard to aim. Again, better to just sit in Moderate for most of the day and ignore the curse mechanic. Where it did shine though was when fighting the Undead, where it dispensed a lot of healing on our allies and a lot of damage on the enemies at once.

There's a very vivid memory there of our Oracle at level 15 dropping a double heal bomb against an undead miniboss and some mooks, basically full healing the party, killing a couple of the mooks and taking off a bit less than half of the boss' health all at once. She nearly killed herself in the process, but it was a complete game changer for that fight so we were okay with that trade off.

In that regard it's either the best or worst major curse Between how heavy the backlash is and the risk of healing enemies, this definitely feels more like an emergency button than part of your core gameplay loop.
I can't decide whether that's a good thing, because it legitimately feels amazing to use when it comes together, or problematic because you're better off pretending it isn't there at all.
Curses could probably at least use more consistency. By comparison, Flame and Battle have fairly mundane Major curse effects with fairly mediocre rewards and I can't tell what the design goal is. FWIW I'd probably have more fun with Flame if it felt more 'limit break and then you die' like Life's does, but this thread isn't about Flame.

The most egregious issue for us was the low level play problems though. Between how niche delay affliction is, only having two spell slots, divine lance being so niche and not getting good weapons, the class legitimately felt really bad to play at level one and the alternative of plinking away with a crossbow most of the day is just not remotely satisfying.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I figure a lot of people are going to jump into this thread and immediately assert that the Investigator shouldn't be a combat focused class.

Okay. Fine. I'm not arguing they should be, but regardless combat is a big part of PF2 so I think it's relevant to talk about.

PF2 has done some cool stuff with action economy and it's given a lot of classes some really unique alternate attacks or abilities they can use in combat, either innately or via feats.

The Investigator has none of these and as a result their combat routine doesn't feel great. You study an opponent, then you hit them for sneak attack dice (better than sneak attack dice after level 9, but only by a bit).

I really think it would be thematic for the investigator to have some debuffs or battlefield control type abilities. As it stands right now it just kind of feels like... a budget rogue in combat.

It's not bad, just... a little bit boring and at least to me doesn't really make me feel like a clever combatant with an emphasis on studying my enemy and employing superior tactics. You just punch people hard sometimes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So multiclass archetypes in the CRB give you an extra trained skill and a clause saying that if you're already trained in that skill you can pick another skill to gain training in instead.

Some of the new non-multiclass archetypes in Lost Omens book (and presumably future non-multiclass archetypes) change that formula up a bit by allowing you to instead advance the selected skill to expert if you're already trained in it.

As a player I love these options, because it's really hard to get Expert or better in skills in PF2. Skill Increases are limited, Intelligence can only ever get you more trained skills, they're just a very limited resource in general and having extra ways to improve that is awesome.

However this kind of indirectly creates a new problem in that it makes the order in which you gain abilities much more important, because you can't access Expert skills normally otherwise, a character who gets Trained in a skill early is able to advance more skills than someone who delays that training, even if the end results are otherwise identical.

Example:
Let's take two identical level 5 Goblin Fighters with 19 Strength, 16 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wisdom and 14 Charisma.

These fighters have identical feats and identical stats and both took Armiger Dedication at level 2.

Except the first goblin put 12 points in Int at level 1 and decided to become Trained in Intimidation and at level 5 used their ability boost to bump themselves from 12 to 14 Charisma. The second goblin started instead with 14 charisma and 10 int and used their ability boosts at 5 to give themselves 12 int.

What happens because of this is Goblin A is an Expert in intimidation, while Goblin B is only trained in intimidation but is also trained in something else as well

I think this puts undue emphasis on the order in which you acquire your abilities, which presents potential book keeping problems because it becomes much more important to remember not only what you took, but where you took it.

I think it also poses a problem to newer players who might not spend as much time planning their build in advance and not realize until after it happened that some choice they made at level 1 may have permanently reduced the number of Expert skills they could obtain.

Don't really have a conclusion to this, just something that feels kind of weird and potentially not great to me, even if as a player I like the ability to snag more skill upgrades.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There's no hard formula for weapon creation, but generally speaking it seems like most weapons in a category have a standard damage size and get a trait.

Then by lowering that damage die they can pick up extra traits.

For simple weapons, we see a lot of d6 weapons with 1 trait (club, mace, morningstar, spear) and then d4 weapons with 2-4 traits (dagger, light mace, sickle)... the only ones with two traits are the ones with the "free hand" trait, too. All the other ones have at least three traits, which suggests the free hand trait is considered extra valuable.

The staff however is a d4 weapon, but it only has one trait. This feels kinda bad and makes its existing trait seem a lot worse by comparison.

Contrast with the Bastard Sword, which also only has the two-handed trait but does standard 1h martial one-trait weapon damage and standard 2h martial 1-trait weapon damage.

Contrast with the Hook Hammer or Katana, which also have reduced die sizes like the staff, but have additional traits instead.

And it feels like the staff should either have an extra trait or do d6 damage one handed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Rangers planting snares seems to be a big thing for PF2. Their preview blurb at the start of the class entry mentions snares. Their suggested downtime activity includes crafting snares (although that seems like a bad idea since you can't move them).

But I feel like snares are kind of a pain to get into.

The lynchpin of the snare ranger is snare specialist, which gives you 4 (6/8 at master/legendary) free snares a day and lets you plant those snares in 3 actions instead of a minute. This is kind of important because snares, especially at low levels, are really expensive. You definitely need the free ones.

But I have a few problems here. For one, level 4 is kind of a late entry point. I know there aren't a ton of strong low level snares but this feels like something Rangers should be able to do earlier on than that. Granted, as it stands right now the requirements mean 4 is the earliest point you could get them anyways but...
My second problem is those requirements. In order to get Snare Specialist you need Snare Crafting and Expert in Crafting. This basically means one of your first feats and your first skill increase must both go specifically into crafting in order to be able to able to take this feat when it's first accessible. That seems like an inordinately high amount of resources invested.

Especially considering that while snares are pretty good, they're not amazing. You get 4 per day at level 4 and while some of them do good damage they're not particularly game changing, especially for something you can't really use in combat given their 3 action requirement and the fact that someone has to walk into them.

It jsut feels like, especially early game, you're throwing a lot of resources into even getting these online to begin with and... I dunno, kinda wish it wasn't such a pain, because they're cool.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Title. You generally get master in whatever your class gives you, there's a general feat to become trained, you can get master from ancestry feats for ancestral weapons and you can throw a few feats in fighter multiclass to get expert in martial weapons.

If it's not a class or ancestral weapon, you're only ever going to get trained in it without multiclassing fighter (and even then you cap out at trained with advanced weapons).

Even if you're going up a weapon tier, dropping from master to trained seems painful enough that most characters won't really end up bothering, and if you're not going up a tier there's going to be a pretty severe hit to your power for it.

I feel like as is this pigeonholes people too much into whatever weapons their class or species is 'supposed' to use and I really don't like the idea of trying to lock players down into what's supposed to be typical for their class or ancestry.

As a houserule I think I might try changing the general feat to simply let you pick a weapon and then treat it as part of your class' weapons for the purposes of advancing proficiency and see how that shakes out. Or, at the very least, add a followup feat that does that.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I really like the modularity PF2 is embracing and the way they're making PF1's generally well received talent systems universal.

But I'm a little worried long term that this kind of makes a character's feat options a bit overloaded in terms of the functions they fill. Multiclassing is feats, class talents are feats, actually class features in general are mostly feats, then of course your feats are feats too.

My concern is just that, especially for more esoteric builds or ones that want to lean heavily on dedications, you're going to have to spend a lot of feats just enabling your build at all. A rogue who wants to build an arcane trickster is spending two of their first three feats on multiclass stuff just to enable spellcasting. More if there are specific rogue or wizard class feats they need to fully enable the idea. If they have another dedication they want to go for a more specific option that locks out their feat options for another four levels too.

Granted, this is entirely a self-made problem as opposed to PF1's bounty of +1s and unnecessary taxes, but I'm just a little bit concerned that certain build ideas are going to have to devote a lot of energy just to turn their various features on and not have a lot of room to use feats as a way to customize or flesh out their character.

I'm sort of curious if anyone else has similar or differing opinions about this. So I made a thread, right now. Here. Yep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Looking over the weapons and mulling over character concepts earlier today it sort of occurred to me that SF has a lot of really niche weapons that are sometimes useful but hard to build a whole character around.

Stuff like Shock Casters and Shirren Eye snipers and plasma rifles all feel like they'd be really fun weapons to have sometimes, but you're losing so much over a more 'traditional' weapon choice that it makes it hard to be your primary weapon, but they're expensive enough that it's also hard to really have more than one or two of them without cutting into other parts of your character.

I think Starfinder might have been better off with generally cheaper weaponry so doing something like throwing a few of these more esoteric options into the armory for emergencies was more viable.

Oh also level 20 frag grenades seem really expensive too.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I realize that part of this is just because it's a new game and so there isn't a wealth of splat yet.

And I realize there's probably math and balancing decisions that go into stuff like this, but this isn't really a balance concern

But the choices an Operative makes in terms of melee weapons is really boring. Two options at level 1 and then starting at level 7 about one every two levels. Of those only two of them have any sort of special properties.

There are also no advanced melee weapons with the operative property. Again, probably some fancy math that says letting Operatives pick up bigger weapons would ruin things but... still it'd be cool if the feat had SOME value. Even if it was just access to a cool crit property or whatever.

Ultimately it's not the end of the world, but one of the cool things about Starfinder is the number of odd weapon choices and the various cool properties you can pick between and for a melee operative... you're essentially stuck with the bare minimum for the way weapon progression works in this game. And they're not even fancy sci-fi weapons either. It's a stick and a knife.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I can't seem to find this described anywhere. She was a saint of Aroden. He died and .. then at some point she became a god?

Is it explained in more detail anywhere?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Negative and Positive energy are inherently neutral forces, so it always kind of bothered me that evil gods gave the former and good gods gave the latter with no difference between them.

But there are evil gods with an emphasis on something other than destruction, LE deities that emphasize order and community or armies, for instance. Wouldn't they have some sort of vested interest providing healing for their army? Or an evil god that doesn't like undead, or emphasizes more corruptive than destructive traits.

There are also good deities that do emphasize destruction, ones that are more interested in smiting the wicked than helping the innocent and it seems like in the same vein such a god might be interested in giving their cleric more offensive powers through which to deliver their divine justice.

But no, it's positive if you're good and negative if you're evil. Neutral clerics of neutral deities get to pick at least, so that's cool.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In most settings I find that use the spelling, daemon is just pronounced and used interchangeable with demon, but in Pathfinder daemons and demons are two entirely distinct races, so I assume there's some special way to pronounce them?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So I have a two man party that was really looking to try out a couple APs but there are only two of them so I was thinking of having them play gestalt and then maybe supplementing that with a very low key cohort, maybe just healing and some buffing to try to pad them out a bit.

But would it even work in Pathfinder? Is Gestalt just a disaster waiting to happen? So looking for any advice someone could offer on stuff like this.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have a GM who's making pretty liberal use of this spell and I'm just wondering if there's anything at all I can do about it, since even if I pass my save I'm still shaken for a round.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Text of the Flame Spirit's spirit animal ability

Quote:
The shaman's spirit animal is surrounded by a nimbus of flame that gives off light like a candle. This nimbus is warm to the touch, but doesn't cause any damage. The animal is immune to fire damage, but is vulnerable to cold damage.

Just wondering if it's possible to suppress that light or if your familiar is just constantly glowing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I've run into this weird issue DMing where melee characters in my group seem a little squeamish about going first.

Specifically if there's a big ugly monster with a ton of natural weapons or an enemy fighter or fighter archetype of some kind. So the fear is that if they charge and hit them, the next turn they'll get hit with a big full attack and either get serious hurt or maybe even dropped outright themselves.

So they give up their turn. Move a little, attack with a ranged weapon, use a buff, sometimes do nothing at all. Then the monster's turn comes around and the monster charges the fighter, hits with one claw or bite... and then sure enough next round the fighter full attacks and the monster dies with the fighter only slightly wounded.

This isn't a huge problem per se, but it still feels awkward that the fighter feels like being the first one to engage in melee combat is actually a disadvantage and I feel like if I played monsters just as intelligently combat would get very strange in those scenarios.

Anyone else ever encounter anything similar?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Any way to pull it off? Have a concept in my head for a swashbuckler-y character that's got an int leaning, but inspired blade is rapier only.

Half tempted to just go Lore Warden and handwave it, but want to see if there are any other options.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just uh, three short house rules I use in homegames for stacking archetypes that I wanted some feedback on:

-Two (or more) Archetypes that alter the same class feature but in different ways are stackable.

So, for instance, the Shadow Caller summoner changes the class' Summon Monster list and changes your Eidolon's appearance while the Master Summoner changes the Eidolon's stats and how often you can use the Summon Monster SLA. Despite changing the same two class features, these two archetypes would be compatible.

-Archetypes that replace an ability with a functionally identical version of the same ability can be traded out again.

The best example I have here is third party: The Dreamscarred Press Path of War Stalker gets to add bonus damage from its Deadly Strike class feature to the next attack it makes after it recovers maneuvers. The Vigilante Stalker archetype instead adds sneak attack damage, because the archetype trades deadly strikes for sneak attack. Otherwise the features are identical. So I'd let the DSP Vigilante pick another archetype that also changes maneuver recovery.

Because a lot of the time archetypes will have to change minor things simply to remain internally consistent, but often those changes aren't meaningful enough to necessitate exclusivity in my mind.

-If two archetypes would otherwise be compatible, but both replace a class' 20th level ability, you may stack the archetypes and disregard one of the capstone changes.

Basically the number of games I've seen that reach level 20 is very rare. The number that stay at level 20 long enough for capstones to be relevant or significant is even rarer, so I think it's a shame to lose out on potentially cool archetype combinations because of a conflict that will almost never be relevant in a typical game.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Goblin feat. You deal 1d4 points of extra fire damage every time you deal fire damage from a nonmagical source, like a torch

Now, obviously any magical source of damage like the flaming weapon doesn't work.

But if I had a +1 fire-forged longsword or somehow got a +1 torch (maybe some shenanigan with the firebrand feat? cast magic weapon on it? not really important), etc. would the weapon still qualify for the feat?

It's a magic weapon, but the fire damage is not an innate feature of the weapon rather than part of the magical enhancements. So unsure. Leaning toward not qualifying, but that's a disappointing answer and makes the feat pretty lame except as a gimmick for low level NPCs, so curious what other people think.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

tl;dr Brute Vigilantes aren't even that good at pretending to be the hulk and even if you want to play one you should probably just go dex also why does this archetype have so many downsides eugh.

When I first looked at this archetype, I wasn't impressed, but upon closer inspection I realized it was much, much worse.

It basically just trades out your specialization for a free enlarge (without the stats) and a some attack/damage bonuses starting at 5. In return you had a ridiculous will save you had to make every time you started combat or risk giving up your social identity and turning into a monster... and an even more ridiculous will save to avoid attacking your allies after combat ended.

It's like 3.5's Frenzied Berserker, only worse because the will save scales with your level and thanks to Brutish Fortitude, it scales faster than your base will save. Glad someone looked at FB and though "this 3.5 prestige class isn't party ruining enough".

Anyways, after I got over my disgust with that class feature I looked at it again and that's where my heart really sank. See, the worst thing about the Brute isn't making dual identity borderline pointless, or the ridiculous will saves, or long lasting fatigue when you exit the form, or the non-scaling duration.

It's everything else, because despite getting so many weaknesses and so many penalties, the stuff you get in return isn't that great and it fails to do a good job living up to its own fantasy.

Now when I say fantasy, I mean what people envision when they think about the class. The most obvious inspiration for the Brute is The Hulk, right? So what exactly is the hulk known for?

Well, the Hulk is incredibly strong, that's an easy one. The Brute has no particular strength synergy at all. In fact the best way to build a brute is probably going to be a dex based build that picks up lethal grace, but more on that later. That said, large sized fists using the monk progression and a small scaling bonus to hit and damage does give you one of the biggest sets of dice a player can roll. So that's not bad.

The Hulk is also incredibly tough... and this is where the Brute really falls flat, because instead of being an unstoppable juggernaut, the Brute is actually one of the squishiest classes in the entire game. You've got a penalty to AC baked into your class feature and basically can't wear armor until level 4. That means you can actually expect to see a level 1 Brute running 8 or 9 AC. On a d8. Level 1 wizards look like unbreakable juggernauts compared to you.

Of course, even when you do get armor, sizing equipment gives you a -1 to AC (just like enlarge person) which means that your +1 mithral breastplate is basically just studded leather. Ouch. A very permissive DM might allow you to buy large sized armor and put it o after you change to ignore the talent tax and the -1, but that doesn't seem in line with how the Brute is supposed to act, so ETV.

Oh, you also have a bad reflex save, so eating full damage from every fireball. So you're basically the most tissue paper class in the entire game.

This is one of the main reasons why Dex brutes are probably the best.

The Hulk is also really good at jumping. Actually lots of monsters that fit under similar categories are. Not much to say here, but yeah your jump checks are going to be ass. Even a dex build isn't going to do much better here. If you're mythic you can pick up Seven League Leap but everyone can do that and that feat is only really great for large distances. A lesser version (One League Leap?) would have been cool here, but that's the least of the Brute's concerns.

The hulk is really good at smashing through walls and stuff. Your big damage dice and bonus to damage rolls helps here, but you have no particular ability to smash things.

The hulk is uncontrollable and the Brute does this... ish. This is mostly an RP concern rather than a mechanical one, but while there are many stories where the Hulk is just a beast, there are just as many where the hulk has a moment where something convinces him to stop smashing or someone forms a connection with him and this is unfortunately impossible. The Brute is either on and attacking or off and changing back into the social identity. Again not the worst thing, but it's still a shame.

Now one thing the Brute does do well is damage. Large fists do a lot of damage and with the right feat support it can really add up. Enabling that damage can be unfortunately difficult though. They get no native access to pounce and because they can't use their Brute BAB to qualify for feats they can't get pummeling charge until 17. Seven levels after the Barbarian and nine levels after a brawler or monk. Kinda sucks.

Talents. Brute Talents are actually pretty cool. They can pick up Awesome Blow at 8. Guess Paizo figured out that a single attack that knocks someone prone is kind of bad at level 16. Heavy Punches is basically mandatory unless you really want to use a weapon, which both makes it an awesome talent and disappointing that it isn't baseline. Ditto for Sizing equipment unless you have a permissive enough DM as I mentioned earlier. Total Destruction is also kinda cool.

But again, the issue with the Brute isn't the talents it gets, but the talents it doesn't get because it's not an avenger. I understand that specialization specific talents are important to help define a specialization, but losing access to extra combat feats and pounce on such a combat oriented chassis really hurts and while it's not as mechanically important, Nothing Can Stop Me is the most Hulk sounding talent in the entire book and it feels so wrong that Brutes can't pick it up. Unkillable is pretty thematic too.

Ultimately, permanent enlarge isn't that expensive and while the Brute's is slightly better and much so for dex builds, it's not worth all the hoops you have to jump through and so many of them feel really pointless.

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>