nlw.cs's page

It says good things about the state of the game when the number one issue is a minor language error that will not even come up at the majority of tables with how deeply you need to read into the rules to even notice it.

The complaints about universality are curious.

I have never heard it suggested that one should not make a Vudran swashbuckler or a Gokan paladin even though those words are both steeped in European literary traditions. One person expressed a sentiment about Druids but most people appear fine with their ability to be translated as well.

Yet there always seems to be concern over the alleged universality of words like monk and ninja, despite somewhat of a consensus on what those terms represent.

This dichotomy gives the impression that the word universal is coded language meant to represent Europe and Whiteness, or perhaps the Anglosphere more specifically. Such that saying a term is not universal enough is to say that it is insufficiently white in its current form.

Given the consistency in which terms within the European tradition are used freely while terms outside it are subject to enhanced scrutiny, I do not see any other way to parse that framing even if that may not be the intent of individual writers.

Nodachi is a little weak but falls in line with Paizo's orientalist touch to East Asian weapon design. It is probably not an error.

That is still largely merely couching your dislike of the system in objective sounding language.

Shadowrun is not the gold standard you seem to think it is either.

I confess, sometimes when I read a RD post where he describes how classes perform in 20+ round combats that take place in thousand foot long hallways I am left wondering how contrived these scenarios might be.

Paizo's handling of a product, its distribution, and potentially anticonsumer business practices involved therein seems exceptionally relevant to a product discussion thread.

I have found the information brought to light by this conversation to be very enlightening.

If there is something else about the product you wish to discuss, you could try simply doing that.

Two Iconic changes in this edition have replaced women of color with nonhumans. It’s definitely a little frustrating… and I quite like the new Oracle and Psychic!

I cannot complain about any of the new iconics in isolation. The pattern however is becoming awkward: shifting Rivani and Alahazra out of focus, quietly making Seoni paler and blonder, something Paizo described as an 'evolution', and the subtle reintroduction of biological essentialism through Ancestry options all create an uncomfortable disconnect between the way Paizo talks about these issues and the way they design their products.

Imagine crying censorship and bad faith because someone asked you not to post spoilers of a new Adventure Path.

Very brave.

Would have been nice to use spoiler tags for the AP that's still coming out and lots of people are playing.

Yes. Not liking an AP is fine. Dropping an unspoilered line by line overview of an adventure so new it is not even fully released yet feels a bit mean spirited.

I have noticed that many, maybe even most, of the ideas people have for thaumaturges are on the sillier and memeier side of things.

It seems people are treating it as a joke class rather than something to be taken seriously. I wonder if that is something Paizo is happy with.

Oh yeah, the question of whether an AoO happens seems like it was fairly well settled already (summary for those who've missed the last half dozen posts, if they Sneaked successfully and became Undetected throughout movement, no AoO.

Is it strange to anyone else to read a thread with a back and forth argument where nobody really agrees on anything only for someone to show up and unilaterally declare the issue has been settled, usually by asserting that they were Right All Along?

It happens a lot here.

I'd rather they focus on getting Kingmaker done for PF2 than errata for archetypes that probably barely get used.

Kingmaker's been done for a while. Just like the APG errata, if information is to be believed. The AP backmatter that's slated for errata has already been indicated in various forum posts too.

Paizo just seems to have some issues with followthrough.

But, statistically, we can confidently conclude that the Thaumaturge will consistently perform as one of the highest damage dealing classes in the game once it starts swinging. Other classes might get lucky rolls with max results on bonus damage dice, but the Thaumaturge at its worst is going to be hitting as hard as a Giant Instinct Barbarian.

Well, no. At worst the Thaumaturge is going to be getting nothing because they critically failed Find Flaws or because the weakness is one they could have simply exploited naturally and because empowerment is less of a proper damage bonus and more an acknowledgement of the quasi-two-handed nature of the class' core mechanics.

And that is not even touching upon the action economy, which you mentioned in your opening statement but do not appear to have accounted for in your math.

I am not sure any conclusion can really be drawn when so many of the underlying mechanics of the game are simply ignored here.

No, it does not tell us anything, as the two weapons have very little to do with one another besides being in the same general category.

They are both 1d8 0 reload (after correcting the daikyu's typo) long range bow type weapons with no other traits enhancing them. Simply factual to point out that that is a significant number of similarities. Pretending otherwise serves no one.

Then the crossbow picks up additional range at the cost of requiring a magazine to be loaded.

A common refrain in this thread has been that Paizo must have forgotten to include traits for the Daikyu or otherwise erred when printing it because it is obviously undertuned. Paizo, after seeing those concerns, turning around and printing another weapon in the same category with the same damage and same lack of enhancements and even the same weapon group sends a fairly clear message that they are happy with the place those weapons are in. Otherwise the repeating crossbow would not exist as it does.

What it does not tell us is why, since the repeating crossbow could easily just have been a martial weapon without really rocking the boat, but it does not change what Paizo decided to print.

Guns and Gears just added the repeating crossbow is nearly identical to the daikyu but gains an extra 40 feet of range at the cost of a 3 action reload every 5 attacks.

Given how much scrutiny has been leveled at the daikyu, Paizo printing a second advanced ranged weapon that is so similar sends a strong message that this is fully intentional, minus the obvious reload typo.

It does not really tell us why they made these weapons compare so oddly to their martial counterparts but it does tell us that it is entirely on purpose.

The eidolon does not get its own actions. The two of you share actions, the eidolon entry says that outright.

The only line that prescribes any priority to the actions is the rule about confusion and control effects. Otherwise there is no guidance beyond that you 'share' them.

The only other place action sharing is discussed is the tandem trait, which mentions specifically that you cannot use tandem actions if you are unable to act. Weirdly redundant under their interpretation but probably not any more meaningful if they have already decided how to rule it.

Where does it actually state (besides the exception in the meld into eidolon feat) an eidolon can be going around doing things while their summoner cannot act (asleep, petrified, etc)?

You already quoted it. The book could not be any clearer in that regard.

If the rest of the group wants to disregard that to make the summoner weaker even after you have already pointed it out, all you can really do is respect their decision.

They will not be the only company, but Paizo does seem to be experiencing these delays more frequently than other book publishers.

Please unsticky, close, and lock this thread already, this is like having a "Feedback Box" to leave notes for a business that leads directly into a shredder.

That is probably the point.

Your biggest clue should be that letting a Summoner do that would be cool and fun. This is Pathfinder 2.

The-Magic-Sword is correct. Paizo is fairly ambivalent about their digital customer base. If more shipping delays occur, expect your PDF to get pushed back just as far or even farther.

Pathfinder might not be your cup of tea if you do not like wizards. They are pretty ingrained in the setting.

The biggest culture shock I have seen groups encounter is healing. In 5e, PF1 and 3.5 healing is a fairly low value tactic. PF2 does not function properly as a game without a healer. Make sure your party has one.

Note that also unlike those other systems, investment in the Medicine skill and associated feats is a valid path to becoming a competent healer too.

They feel like they are an artificial tax that has been imposed.

That is their design intention. During the playtest a number of options were considered and a preponderance of players, according to Paizo, deeply enjoyed the fantasy trope of a character who is helpless without magical equipment. Paizo crafted their magic item rules specifically to cater to this fantasy.

Is your GM using cover rules properly? Anecdotally many GMs, even in PFS, forget or ignore lesser cover entirely in PF2.

Whether or not those cover rules are being used properly is a significant contributor to the question of whether or not archers are good. The near permanent -1s from lesser cover and the common -2s from standard an archer will have to deal with has a very meaningful impact on their damage output or deprives them of their advantage as a turret if they want to mitigate it.

Please tell me you at least understand the concept I'm explaining about the order of operations

I understand it, it is just a fundamentally flawed premise that reflects nothing in the rules. There is no order of operations. There are just two abilities you must at all times account for. Grasping Reach applies before Fatal activates. It also applies after Fatal activates. It continues to apply at all times until you turn it off because it is, once activated, essentially a passive effect. The concept of checking for grasping reach once and then never looking at the ability again does not relate to any actual rule.

It doesn't cease to function. If something increases damage by 10, and then an ability nullifies damage, does that mean that that the increase in damage ceased to function, or that you need a special exception to overrule the increase? Of course not.

If you had an ability that reduced the damage you dealt by 3 and a second ability that increased the damage you dealt by 10, would you argue that you must deal 10 extra damage because it applies second and overwrites the damage penalty? If that does not make sense and you think 10-3 is 7, then stop doing the same thing here.

Stunned and Slowed do the same thing. Fatal and Grasping Reach do relatively opposite things. The comparison does not really follow.

Fatal has a die size.

Fatal has a die size and you're under an effect that reduces your die size. So you apply both. Fatal-1.

I understand what you're saying, but again, the assumption that that's how it works is unfounded in the rules

It is pretty well founded in the rules actually, because it's what Grasping Reach does.

We have two interpretations. One of them requires you to assume Grasping Reach ceases to function whenever you crit, based on nothing but wishful thinking. The other is based on both abilities functioning as written at all times.

You can 'both sides' all you want, but this is just trying to finagle some extra power out of an ability.

One reduces; one replaces. Basic math tells us that the order is VERY important in that scenario, and I see nothing in the rules that would indicate the change to d12 happens first.

The problem with this line of logic is the whole notion of 'first' to begin with. Grasping Reach is not a triggered ability. There is nothing to support the idea that there is some logic gate that you only pass through once.

Weapons wielded in your extended reach have their die reduced one step. That is it. That is just what the ability does and if you want it to stop, you need to stop wielding your weapon in an extended grasp. There is no 'temporarily suppress this ability when...' language to infer or squeeze out of the text here.

Be glad you never played PF1 or 3.5 then.

One very real issue with saying Grasping Reach works over Fatal is no matter how it’s ruled, one of the rules will betray the other.

Fatal bumps the weapon up to d12 and gives you an additional d12 die. Grasping Reach reduces the weapon damage d12s to d10s.

There is no betrayal because both abilities function. They just happen to mitigate each other just like any other bonus and penalty applying simultaneously would.

RAW is pretty obvious here.

I love it when people hop into a thread full of posts arguing over vague RAW minutiae and unilaterally declare this.

Why though? In RPG culture the term longsword is well understood within its current niche. Renaming it to satisfy HEMA enthusiasts does not really serve them at all.

Even saying it benefits historical accuracy is a reach, because modern sword classifications are just that: modern conventions for the convenience of historians and hobbyists.

??? I understand all those words individually, but not in that order. What on earth are you talking about?

Is this bait?

Energy mutagen alchemist with a longspear does about half of a giant barb's damage and maybe 60% of a dragon barbarian's or rogue's.

Giving them master in weapons makes those numbers slightly more competitive but still noticeably behind.

Truly it would be the end of the world.

You don't need thousands of hours of experience to know that there are some things casters just suck at in PF2.

What's less apparent to people in this thread is that those gaps are cornerstones of Pathfinder 2's design philosophy. There are serious gaps in what spellcasters can do and those gaps tend to conveniently align with what martials are good at.

This is how PF2 addresses martial-caster disparity: by making martials indispensable even though they still kind of suck.

Notice that PF2 doesn't have 6-th level casters anymore despite how popular they were in PF1 (weaker than full casters, but more likely to encroach on martial design space). Notice the things that PF2 casters are the most obviously worse at compared to PF1: Layering defenses, dealing with bosses, summoning meatshields of their own, etc. None of this is on accident.

PF2 creates a synergy where spellcasters are good at manipulating battlefield conditions, AoE damage and providing lateral solutions to problems.

Martials meanwhile are good at hitting things with sticks.

That's the balance. That's why blasting bosses or building pseudo-martials out of warpriests or wizards with weapon dedications or even mutagen alchemists feels bad. Because you aren't supposed to do that.

I get why some people don't like PF2's caster balance and why people think the game missed the mark.

But PF2's balance doesn't allow Paizo to make the changes people here want, martials still suck too much.

The cultural shift from PF1, where rolling our collective eyes at odd rules and dodgy balance was standard, to PF2 where a large segment of the community seems to assume a degree of infallibility on the behalf of Paizo is fascinating.

It's how the math bears out. A fighter w/ 3-4 attacks and d12 weapon vs ranger w/ 4-5 attacks and 6 agile favors the fighter. Doesn't include ranger rehunting or fighter using dual hand or exacting either. Sawtooth or chakram can boost the ranger, but will still never be significantly ahead at any point.

Does that make the Class weak? Not really. It's actually fine, it has some issues as far as being Streak-y when it comes to crits and some logistics issues at the moment, but it is not a "weak" Class.

The Playtest gunslinger is so problematic that you are often better off taking a proficiency dedication and never using a gun at all.

If that's really okay to you it informs a lot about your opinions regarding the Witch.

He chooses to disregard my example of rules writing that goes against what he believes

Nothing you've posted contradicts the rules cited at the top of the thread. Weapon Familiarity verbosely listing both weapons does nothing to invalidate the general rule in the same way that Domain Initiate describing focus pool mechanics doesn't invalidate the general rules for focus pools.

To establish the distinction you want to make you need something that explicitly does so. Or you can just keep patting yourself on the back, since that seems to be the only real purpose of this thread.

that there were so many forces in the world trying to stygmatize and stamp out non-standard means of earning an income, forcing more and more people into the regular 9-5 paradigm.

Could be people just have legitimate issues with the service, rather than you being some sort of moral crusader leading a modern civil rights movement in the sphere of D&D.

I do not see anything wrong with a GM wanting to monetize their services if they can find the customer base for it, but this incessant self aggrandizement is just gratuitous.

you have a very good chance of killing an equal or lower level character with 1 action.

Define very good.

Using the numbers you provide we have a ~25% success rate, so if you have four enemies you can kill one of them at the cost of 10 actions and a spell slot, on a character who has maximized their investment in charisma and intimidation.

What I really didn't like about this discussion was that no one used any stats to try to argue against me.

This is an odd criticism to level when you were the one making a math-based argument, especially since you're admitting in this same post you never actually bothered to check the math at the time.

It's deeply irresponsible to argue a rules element is mathematically overpowered without even bothering to run the numbers to see if your claim is true. It's disingenuous and hypocritical to then deflect that responsibility onto other people for not correcting your mistake for you.

If trip unsuccessful, you did nothing.

You keep emphasizing this as if it's unique to combat maneuvers, but it isn't. Strange.

and it's by no means a strawman.

Just to be clear, this isn't an attempt at glibness.

The previous exchange fits the literal definition of a straw man. RD stated a position and you intentionally misrepresented that position for the sake of appearing to discredit it. I am unsure if you're being dismissive or willfully ignorant, but it deserves emphasis, that is quite literally what a straw man is.

You also more or less called them a liar and accused them of arguing in bad faith, baselessly as far as I can tell.

Awfully intense reaction for a quibble over a minor footnote in the rules of a tabletop RPG.

we aren't here to discuss how people feel about the Rules, we are here to discuss what they actually say and mean.

Pretty sure we're here just to pat ourselves on the back about how smart we think we are, while ridiculing people who come to different conclusions about badly written rules text as incompetent morons.

Craft checks are for making things. You aren't making things, so no check is required by that logic.

Occasionally we mock people with strawman arguments, too.

Discussing what the rules mean is pretty far down the list.

Clickbait video, clickbait thread.

Themetricsystem wrote:

like in the Shifting Rune discussions which proved me correct so I'm done here.

I don't recall anything being proven in the shifting threads. Did I miss errata/FAQ on the Shifting Rune?

Shifting magic staves is no go per errata.

Odd in a way to gloat about being right all along and then point to a document of changes to the game as evidence.

Again, reasonable. But not RAW, and also not possible in PFS play.

Most PFS GMs I've interacted with would run it the way you say not to run it, though.

Preferring one ruling over another is fine.

Weird though how often people try to gaslight on this forum "Oh no you were always wrong."

Not sure how it adds to the discussion.

Odd opinion coming from Zapp. Given the obsession with "offering warm flesh", one would think they'd be much more enthusiastic about a set of feats that give you another bag of HP and AC comparable to a party member.