willuwontu's page

489 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Diego Rossi wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Obviously enough people dig longboard-sized weaponry to allow the option, easy to ignore it if you think it is stupid, which is perfectly reasonable, at least for some campaign settings.

If that is meant for me, I was responding to Secret Wizard comment comparing being unable to use giant sized weapons to "straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act" and willuwontu idea that "Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act." when referred to using giant sized weapons.

Swinging a sword as high as you with two hands can be done with the appropriate training and a good physique. Swinging an 8-10' sword with two hands or a 7-8' sword with one requires something more.
In PF2 that "something more" is the appropriate totem or, possibly, a jet undisclosed feat or class feature.

A 13-20' sarissa made for the 10" long human hand is very different from a 16' spear made for a 25" giant hand.

And I was saying mundane, as in its an ex ability, not an SU or a spell. It can be gated behind things, and would require training, but makes no sense to be classified as anything but an ex ability (which are achievable by the mundane).


JoelF847 wrote:
Sinistrad wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I think "bolstered" is a new term. Anyone know what it means?

Based on the context, especially the part of "for 24 hours" I am going to guess it's their chosen word for immune to the effect. Seems to be part of Paizo's efforts to standardize the language a bit to reduce ambiguity.

So rather than saying "is immune to the effect" or "cannot by targeted by this ability for 24 hours" they just say "bolstered against X for Y duration."

Not sure how that is any more clear than "immune to X for Y duration". My guess is that immune is reserved for permanent immunities and bolstered for temporary ones.

Bolstered by itself is immunity for the effect (from that source iirc) for 24 hours iirc.

I suspect that the reason in this blog they use "target is bolstered against being killed by quivering palm for 24 hours." is because people might think that the bolster from a failed save (since it comes from the spell itself) would last permanently rather than just 24 hours.

Whereas if you look at success "The target survives, the spell ends, and the target is bolstered against it." they don't feel the need to say 24 hours.


Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.
Typical usable greatswords average from 5'2" to 5'10". Given that str based pathfinder characters have far larger strength, and are used to it, they should be able to use those larger weapons (especially if they're balanced properly) effectively in an open combat environment. The real issue I have with them in combat in pf is in hallways but that's an issue for more than just the large swords.
I'm going to ask for a reference on that one, as any historical source I see puts the standard at 50-55 inches, with a particularly long specimen being cited at just over 5 ft.

Here another and another

You also have to remember this is just the blade length we're

...

Paizo ate my response T_T, here's the gist of what I was gonna say.

Also in that page further down are more examples of practical swords one of which is 70.4 in.

In addition there's this excerpt you chose to ignore as well of a longer one, with a total length of 71 in.

Curator of arms for the Hungarian Military History Museum in Budapest, László Töl, describes a very fine specimen of another 16th century German two-handed great sword of 53.4 inches length, which this author also had the privilege of examining, as weighing only a little over 8 pounds. Again, the piece's size and weight betrayed a functional and well-balanced weapon. László Töl adds: "The full length of the sword is 1808 mm [this is 71 in], the full length of the blade is 1355 mm[this is the 53.4 in he refers to], the edge of the blade is 936 mm long, the length of the hilt is 306 mm, and the diameter of the cross-guard is 502 mm. The width of the blade is 46 mm, and its thickness is 7.5 mm. The 'neck' of the blade is 8.6 mm thick and 32 mm wide. The centre of gravity is 616 mm from the pommel. The sword weighs 3650g. The blade's cross-section is rhomboid in shape."

I linked to the wiki page that I did because it links to all the 2 handed swords, if you look through all the various practical ones of each type, they range from 34 in (the shortest I remember, fairly certain this was a blade length and not including the handle) to 80.4 in.

Large swords are a thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Belial__ wrote:

I'm worried with the Str and Dex choice.

Str bigger damage, and lower AC -> dead in every battle
Dex lower damage, higher AC -> fast kid punching

Flurry of glass shards vs flurry of tickles


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
If they crit fail, they're stunned. If you crit on your attacj, their save is treated as one step worse. So if you crit on your attack and they regular fail their save, it counts as a critical fail. If you crit on the attack and they succeed on the save, then it counts as a regular fail.
That isn't how it reads. If you crit fail, they're stupified. You'd have to crit, and have them crit fail for them to be stunned... All in all, as an attack no longer limited in rounds per day, I don't mind if it gets nerfed accordingly, but this seems a little much.
You're still ignoring the "the target's saving throw result is treated as one category worse" function. Regular failure is treated as Critical Failure. Only difference of "real" Crit Failure vs "upgraded" Crit Failure is "real" one can counter a target ability to downgrade Save Failures. And like you say, you can throw these out all day long, and probably will be doing so alot given choice of 1 Stunning Fist vs. 2 attacks at -4/-8, for example.

The stun is essentially critical critical failure, essentially its effects chart looks like this:

Success (they crit succeed and you crit attack, or they just succeed and you normal attacked): nothing happens.

Failure (critical attack and a successful save, normal attack and failed save, failed save with save prof boosting to success and crit attack): they're flat-footed 1

Critical failure (crit fail save and normal attack, crit attack and failed save): stupefied 2

Critical critical failure (crit fail save and crit attack): stunned 1


Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.
Typical usable greatswords average from 5'2" to 5'10". Given that str based pathfinder characters have far larger strength, and are used to it, they should be able to use those larger weapons (especially if they're balanced properly) effectively in an open combat environment. The real issue I have with them in combat in pf is in hallways but that's an issue for more than just the large swords.
I'm going to ask for a reference on that one, as any historical source I see puts the standard at 50-55 inches, with a particularly long specimen being cited at just over 5 ft.

Here another and another

You also have to remember this is just the blade length we're discussing, this doesn't include the handle.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Waves the banner of pick a better name for stunning fist

Some more suggestions including the one from earlier.

Staggering blow
Upsetting fist
Offsetting strike
Controlling fist
Disrupting strike
Lurching touch
Disordering blow
Teetering touch


Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.

Usually they don't go much past 5 feet for actual battlefield use, with ones that are too big being purely ceremonial. Realistically the sample would be a frost giant's bastard sword, which sets up at about 8 feet long. Amiri's probably not quite that tall, so "significantly taller than she is" would be more accurate.

Typical usable greatswords average from 5'2" to 5'10". Given that str based pathfinder characters have far larger strength, and are used to it, they should be able to use those larger weapons (especially if they're balanced properly) effectively in an open combat environment. The real issue I have with them in combat in pf is in hallways but that's an issue for more than just the large swords.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Interesting, though I wonder whether Str based Monks aren't just going to be subpar. True, they seem to do a little more damage than Dex monks, if Crane Wing and Dragon Tail are to be considered as representative, but a Dex monk might not need to care about Dex, while a Str based monk still needs Dex a whole lot for AC, not to mention reflex. Maybe it won't be as bad as prior editions, since Wis is somewhat optional, but still, I'm unsure.
My suspicion is that such a monk will still have Dex second, so 18 Str/16 Dex at 1st level, 19/18 at 5th level, 20/19 at 10th level, and so on, meaning they're behind by 1 or 0 in AC at most levels. A monk like this will probably want Con third for sure. We'll see how it fares in playtest!
How ability increases works in this edition?

They work like starfinder stat increases, ever 5 levels (1,5,10,15,20) pick 4 stats, if they're under 18 increase by 2, if 18 or higher, increase by 1


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Not gonna lie, with stunning being so rare on stunning fist, I think it shouldn't be called stunning fist. Maybe staggering blow?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
You'll notice that monks no longer add their Wisdom modifiers to AC, which is due to a few factors. First, depending on the monk's Dexterity modifier, the gulf between a heavily armored character and a monk without armor is extremely low, so adding even more bonuses would put the monk really far ahead.

What about monks who use str as their key ability, do they get some other bonus to ac?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Monks aren't trained in any weapons, but they are trained in all unarmed attacks.

Are the different types of unarmed attacks considered separate weapons in pf2 (kick, punch, elbow, etc)?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Sure, if someone is channeling the power of inferiority complexes like the Giant Totem, passing a chance to prove oneself may cause them to have performance issues.

But straight up forgetting how to do a mundane act? That's too close to divine intervention to me.

I'm not sure I'd classify "being weirdly good at swinging around swords that are literally as tall as I am" to be a mundane act.

... you realize greatswords tend to be as tall as their user here on earth right? And that pathfinder str based characters tend to be stronger than earth humans?

Swinging larger swords makes a lot of sense as a mundane act.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.

Yeah, sure it's not a horrible trade, but I'm losing the things I literally chose that totem for (and any of the feats that I chose based off of that totem which could be all of them up to that point, we won't know till we get the playtest), really losing my powers for something that while I had some control over, wally is forced upon me if I don't want to sit around the table and watch the next few fights occur while my barb hides during the fights. If this was a paladin losing their powers, people would be going crazy.

Yes, titan mauler was not core, it still existed and had no anathema (sorry core only people, you lose out on things), so that's a false point of getting benefits from having anathema added.

Also the gm could have planned to do something with your anathema for RP the evening prior to your

...

I guess I misremembered that then, I stand corrected. That alchemical item sounds neat.

And we're back to the how is this better done than in pf1 were there weren't these restrictions. Don't say it's a roleplaying hook, because in pf1 the player could have had these hooks without an anathema. Also I still don't think they need removal, just that players should be able to select from a list of them.

Also I just realized that this started over me correcting that it's not that the barb loses these powers for a day, but until he spends a day to get them back, which was a huge difference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.

Yeah, sure it's not a horrible trade, but I'm losing the things I literally chose that totem for (and any of the feats that I chose based off of that totem which could be all of them up to that point, we won't know till we get the playtest), really losing my powers for something that while I had some control over, wally is forced upon me if I don't want to sit around the table and watch the next few fights occur while my barb hides during the fights. If this was a paladin losing their powers, people would be going crazy.

Yes, titan mauler was not core, it still existed and had no anathema (sorry core only people, you lose out on things), so that's a false point of getting benefits from having anathema added.

Also the gm could have planned to do something with your anathema for RP the evening prior to your characters departure out of downtime mode, and you

That's the thing though, totems are almost entirely flavor with a little bit of mechanics. With the exception of superstition, you lose barely anything when you trigger your totem. You still have your rage, your feats and skills, and any other choices you made. Unless you built a character entirely around wielding extra-big weapons (which is unlikely) you are basically unaffected. And it's not like you can only wield those weapons with the Giant totem. There are going to be other ways, probably with a small penalty like in PF1. So I don't see how the triggering the totem is this session-ruining event, even in the outlier case of superstition. Totem's are just not a big enough deal that if you lose the benefits you are left hiding during fights.

I don't see how we don't get benefits from adding totems, even with anathema. Take away the totem powers and you get... a PF1 barbarian. So we can only gain from this. They say "hey, you can have this, but only if you follow certain rules". OK, and if you don't like those rules then you're right back where you started. So we really can't say anything has been taken.

But again, if anyone really hates this system, they just take Fury. No big deal.

Except totems aren't supposed to be flavor with a splash of mechanics, it's supposed to be mechanics with a splash of flavor. And the bigger the mechanic, the bigger the splash of flavor that's supposed to accompany it (superstition vs giant totem).

Except we don't know that we can wield those weapons other ways, unless you can point me to a relevant blog or dev post. So I'm going based off of the fact that totems, which are a barb thing, are tied only to barbs, and we also know that the pf1 totems which these were based off of are exclusive.

Yeah, the same pf1 barbarian that had these totem powers, whether through rage powers or an archetype, and still didn't have the anathema. We've yet to see any indication these restricted powers are better than the unrestricted ones that were in pf1.

Woo, I get the choice of 1 totem if I don't like how anathema is done. That's like saying, "You don't like cleave, all you can take is vital strike and it's chain, enjoy."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.

Yeah, sure it's not a horrible trade, but I'm losing the things I literally chose that totem for (and any of the feats that I chose based off of that totem which could be all of them up to that point, we won't know till we get the playtest), really losing my powers for something that while I had some control over, wally is forced upon me if I don't want to sit around the table and watch the next few fights occur while my barb hides during the fights. If this was a paladin losing their powers, people would be going crazy.

Yes, titan mauler was not core, it still existed and had no anathema (sorry core only people, you lose out on things), so that's a false point of getting benefits from having anathema added.

Also the gm could have planned to do something with your anathema for RP the evening prior to your characters departure out of downtime mode, and you

...

Potions are literally spells in a can and can't be used, refer to up thread dev posts, they literally haven't mentioned any healing alchemical items. The only thing they have mentioned (that I forgot about) was medicine skill works, but that's also with a character dedicated to it. So now my barb has to be dedicating their feats to being a healer instead of being a Superstitious barb.

Sure the second one is you screwing yourself, but what if it's something in character wise, like "I don't accept challenges the day before heading out because I want to prepare to leave and don't want to risk hurting myself doing something strenuous." Similar to how athletes don't go wearing themselves out before a big competition.

Or maybe the gm said they had 2 weeks of downtime and the player had kept getting pestered by the gm to do something to do with their anathema everyday of it by the gm (who's not trying to be a jerk, just wants to hook em and they ain't biting in) and so halfway through stops following their anathema just to knock it off, figuring theyll do it the day before the 2 weeks is up. Only the gm had already planned to ambush the town after 1 week, thereby screwing the player.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.

Yeah, sure it's not a horrible trade, but I'm losing the things I literally chose that totem for (and any of the feats that I chose based off of that totem which could be all of them up to that point, we won't know till we get the playtest), really losing my powers for something that while I had some control over, wally is forced upon me if I don't want to sit around the table and watch the next few fights occur while my barb hides during the fights. If this was a paladin losing their powers, people would be going crazy.

Yes, titan mauler was not core, it still existed and had no anathema (sorry core only people, you lose out on things), so that's a false point of getting benefits from having anathema added.

Also the gm could have planned to do something with your anathema for RP the evening prior to your characters departure out of downtime mode, and you don't feel like dealing with it, so you take the penalty planning on using the following day that you don't get to fix it. It's not the gm trying to screw the player in this case, because they'd already planned on doing this, it's the player screwing themself due to insufficient info, or not thinking properly and realizing what's happening the next day.


Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Quandary wrote:

I'm ignoring the comments which ignore the dev's own comments.

I love the new design, tying into alot of the flavor I enjoy about Barbarian, and I agree with fixed relationship of Anathema and Totems. This represents specific source of specific power, and that comes with specific behavioral dynamic. I think the calibration of power loss is perfect, only Totem powers and only 1 day keeps it real but not apocalyptic.

You probably shouldn't ignore the dev comments when making your post, you don't get the powers back after one day like a wizard regaining spells. Which is what it sounded like to me what you said.

Whenever you perform such acts, you lose the totem’s power and any totem feats until you spend 1 day of downtime recentering yourself, though you keep all other barbarian abilities.

It's 1 day of downtime. I hope you weren't in the middle of a dungeon delve when you lost your powers otherwise you don't have access to them for the whole expedition.

So while it's lighter and easier to clear up after than a paladins fall (as it should be), if you lose it in the middle of dungeoning it still screws you for something that previously didn't exist.

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

I'm ignoring the comments which ignore the dev's own comments.

I love the new design, tying into alot of the flavor I enjoy about Barbarian, and I agree with fixed relationship of Anathema and Totems. This represents specific source of specific power, and that comes with specific behavioral dynamic. I think the calibration of power loss is perfect, only Totem powers and only 1 day keeps it real but not apocalyptic.

You probably shouldn't ignore the dev comments when making your post, you don't get the powers back after one day like a wizard regaining spells. Which is what it sounded like to me what you said.

Whenever you perform such acts, you lose the totem’s power and any totem feats until you spend 1 day of downtime recentering yourself, though you keep all other barbarian abilities.

It's 1 day of downtime. I hope you weren't in the middle of a dungeon delve when you lost your powers otherwise you don't have access to them for the whole expedition.

So while it's lighter and easier to clear up after than a paladins fall (as it should be), if you lose it in the middle of dungeoning it still screws you for something that previously didn't exist.


Since this has turned to alignment, I will say that according to a popular theory in LG only paladin threads we can't have C barbarians with an anathema, or at least one that they keep.


Stone Dog wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Am I the only one that didn't find this that confusing?
Well there is a guy around that still thinks you get (Class ranks) + INT per level and Proficient means something else. So this isn't surprising.
Okay, morbidly curious. What does proficient mean there?

You start off with x+ int modifier skills ranks to assign for proficiency, every odd level (or is it even level can't remember off the top of head) you get another rank to assign to a skill to increase proficiency with some restriction (can't raise to x prof before y level).

Proficient refers to your proficiency level in a skill, untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quicken seems unneccesary as still/silent/eschew reduce the actions associated with a spell, similar to what quicken did in 1e reducing the action needed for the spell to a swift instead of a standard.


Since movespeed increases don't stack anymore, do movespeed slows still stack?

Edit: doesn't seem likely.

How about different conditions that apply opposite effects, do they automatically negate each other? Or do they merely supress each other for the duration of the shortest one.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
willuwontu wrote:

It was an example of a situation that could happen (sunder is a mean thing), the boss could easily just as well disarm the barbarian and knock the sword off to the side as he bears down on him.

Another situation, the barbarian is taken by the guards and imprisoned (by servants of the BBEG? the city for drinking too much and killing someone?), his weapon is held elsewhere from him while he's jailed (duh), and the party goes to free him so they can get him out, and free him before getting his gear (includes a macguffin? he really wants his gear?), on their way to recover his gear they encounter a fight, he won't use the smaller weapons because he only uses strong (larger) weapons or his fists, like a strong person.

Again, that seems way worse than having to accept strength challenges. Seriously, getting stripped of equipment and thrown in jail?

Even disarming, which is certainly less "mean" than sundering, is still pretty dang annoying, and seems like it would be a lot easier to exploit that the test of strength stuff. I've been in games where the GM got disarm-happy, it wasn't fun.

I guess I'm just not understanding why you were griping about the impact level of the challenge thing, when your proposed alternative is really high-impact (or at least, something you largely see coming up in ways that profoundly mess with your character).

Fair, I lost sight of the forest for the trees. Mostly what I'm against is the shoehorning of a one size fits all anathema for the totem, rather than giving players the choice of what anathema they want to take.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Toblakai wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Well that and it doesn't take up your boot slot and a resonance.

But it does use up one of your few options for a legendary skill feat. I think that "No damage" from falling will not come into play enough for the feat to be horribly useful. I like to take feats that get used regularly.

Except it doesn't take up one of your legendary skill feat slots, you can take it as early as one, it just scales in effect with your proficiency. However I agree that it isn't likely to be an oft used feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

How about you can choose your anathema, and then get powers that relate to that anathema. Call the collection of powers something like a ‘totem’.

Seriously, adding options to each totem is much more headache than it is worth when the totem itself is a choice.

Or they could list all the anathema on one page, and then have under each totem something like

Allowed Anathema: Strength, Superstitious, Bravery, etc.

Allowing each totem to limit the anathema to a suitable list.

This is also a great option. Certain totems like Superstitious which are more powerful than others can have a Major Anathema as part of their writeup which is tailored as a counterbalance. Others just get the line entry, selecting from a main list of Minor Anathema.

Then in a later book, when adding more anathema, they can even say stuff like "Counts as Bravery." That way, it's always forwards and backwards compatible. New anathema added later can be used for earlier totems without having to remember to specify every applicable totem in the game, and new totems don't miss out on later anathema.

Exactly, they could also have the anathema categorized by something like: nature, battle, skills/competition (anathemas for competitions of speed, endurance, athletics etc) and so on, with totem specific (major) anathema as their own category.

And then totems could instead give a list of categories or specific totems (major anathema (superstition), etc.) if they want to limit them more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

How about you can choose your anathema, and then get powers that relate to that anathema. Call the collection of powers something like a ‘totem’.

Seriously, adding options to each totem is much more headache than it is worth when the totem itself is a choice.

Or they could list all the anathema on one page, and then have under each totem something like

Allowed Anathema: Strength, Superstitious, Bravery, etc.

Allowing each totem to limit the anathema to a suitable list.

Problem here is that now you need to make anathema all roughly equal to each other so you aren't stuck with hurr durr obvious picks. Mark more or less said some totems (Superstitious) pack more debilitating anathemas to compensate for some really frightening abilities and can't just be shuffled around as an option as such. To put it another way, say Giant totem's picks for anathema are the Strength one it has, the Superstitious one, and some other one. Who in their right mind is going to pick Superstitious beyond die hards? Inverse all applies with why not take Superstition totems if you get a ton of power and can shunt away all those downsides by taking something like the Strength anathema.

Bolded the relevant part, I'm fine with something like superstition having exactly the one anathema available (I only listed it in the above example, because we only know of 2 anathemas right now, I made up bravery), because as the blog states they're stricter totems. However, they are exceptions to the norm, and should be treated as such, instead regular totems should have a list, and ideally the normal anathemas (which the list for normal totems would be from) would be about the same in terms of impact (strength: accept all challenges, bravery: never flee from battle).

This also helps cut down on the work done for every new totem they put out after the crb, since they don't have to create a brand new anathema for it as it'd feel wierd for 2 totems to have the same anathema if they kept it the way it is. This also makes it easier for them to make new anathema to expand the list in something like an inner sea gods book where they give barbarians religious anathemas they can use.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

How about you can choose your anathema, and then get powers that relate to that anathema. Call the collection of powers something like a ‘totem’.

Seriously, adding options to each totem is much more headache than it is worth when the totem itself is a choice.

Or they could list all the anathema on one page, and then have under each totem something like

Allowed Anathema: Strength, Superstitious, Bravery, etc.

Allowing each totem to limit the anathema to a suitable list.


Kaemy wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:


Especially since your concern seems to be that your GM is going to try to exploit your anathema too often. In that situation, why would you ever pick "break or steal my weapon" over "challenge me to a test of strength that I don't even have to win"?

"You don't have to win", heck, you don't even have to accept it if you don't want to, and many people seem to be forgetting that part.

If you fail to ACCEPT the challenge, for whatever reason (its too dangerous, it would take time away from a more important task, you don't feel like it) you will "only" lose some (or all?) your Totem-Related stuff (temporarly mind you), but still be a Barbarian.

Then in comes the roleplaying bit of "Why did I backup from that challenge? Did I use the excuse of my mission to avoid it, or was I afraid for my life?" (or however you wana go about it) that represents tha Barbarian losing his focus/center, and so not being as good at fighting until he has sorted his mind out.
Once you have sorted it out (by spending 1 day sorting your thoughts), you will be back to your own self.

By that same logic, paladins don't have to follow their code, they only lose their spell point pool and righteous ally class, but they're still a paladin.

And then they can spend some time figuring out what they did wrong and atoning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
willuwontu wrote:

The barbarians giant sword gets shattered from a mighty blow from the boss, the fighter, noticing his ally lose his weapon, presses back his foe for a moment and then goes to toss his sword at the stunned barbarian for him to take and use as he draws his back up axe. The barbarian ignores the sword going into his rage as he pounces barehanded onto the boss, "No. This just got personal."

This sorta situation, is perfect for it. But then again you'd rather have him get challenged every session by some person to do something, which isn't the point of what's supposed to be a

blog wrote:
relatively low impact
thing. When it's occurring often it's no longer low impact to a player.

I would far and away prefer to get challenged to a test of strength every session than have my sword sundered every session.

Unless cool over-sized magic swords are going to be way cheaper and easier to fix or replace in the new system, this seems like a no-brainer.

Especially since your concern seems to be that your GM is going to try to exploit your anathema too often. In that situation, why would you ever pick "break or steal my weapon" over "challenge me to a test of strength that I don't even have to win"?

Hell, even if it was only once a campaign, I'd still pick the test of strength.

It was an example of a situation that could happen (sunder is a mean thing), the boss could easily just as well disarm the barbarian and knock the sword off to the side as he bears down on him.

Another situation, the barbarian is taken by the guards and imprisoned (by servants of the BBEG? the city for drinking too much and killing someone?), his weapon is held elsewhere from him while he's jailed (duh), and the party goes to free him so they can get him out, and free him before getting his gear (includes a macguffin? he really wants his gear?), on their way to recover his gear they encounter a fight, he won't use the smaller weapons because he only uses strong (larger) weapons or his fists, like a strong person.

There's also a bunch of other suitable anathemas they could have (MER-C suggested some nice ones, and we could always steal the goblin classic of no reading.). My point was that anathemas shouldn't be treated as a one size fits all system and that totems should (as their norm) allow people to choose an anathema that fits their flavor for their character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For all this talk of wuxia, I don't see a lot of talk about playing the hedonistic young master ("I, your father"). Let me play the monk as a hedonistic young master.


Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:


Or d)
You don't always accept challenges of strength, instead you can't use any weapons smaller than larger ones as using them messes with your ability to use larger ones, causing you to be unable to do so while you have to readjust back.
How does that create a roleplaying hook? That just sounds like a mechanical "this is pretty much never going to come up, so it's optimal".

The barbarians giant sword gets shattered from a mighty blow from the boss, the fighter, noticing his ally lose his weapon, presses back his foe for a moment and then goes to toss his sword at the stunned barbarian for him to take and use as he draws his back up axe. The barbarian ignores the sword going into his rage as he pounces barehanded onto the boss, "No. This just got personal."

This sorta situation, is perfect for it. But then again you'd rather have him get challenged every session by some person to do something, which isn't the point of what's supposed to be a

blog wrote:
relatively low impact
thing. When it's occurring often it's no longer low impact to a player.

Again, that's not a roleplaying hook. That's a "I can't use the sword or I lose access to features" mechanical thing.

Just as much as accept every challenge or lose these features is.


Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Wultram wrote:
So here is a simple argument then. Enforcing and/or locking mechanics behind characters personality is a bad decision and about as close as wrong as you can be on a subjective matter. As an example who would tolerate their GM saying something along the lines "You find this person attractive"(In this example assume that no external forces influencing the character.) As in not describing that the NPC is atractive, but that your character find them so. To me at least that is stop hold on a second, serious talk and very real possibility of walking from the table. So why should we allow the rules to do this?
This is a complete and total non-sequitur that has... absolutely no relation to Anathema as showcased.
Blog wrote:
you cannot fail to accept a personal challenge of your strength

Sure about that? Sounds a whole lot like enforced personality trait to me.

Options: you are cursed to accept challenges of strength; any challenger is a potential recruit to join your order, and you are always on the lookout for new recruits; your tribe places strong cultural value on demonstrations of strength. You don’t agree with them, but still feel dissonance when you break that tribal custom.

Or d)

You don't always accept challenges of strength, instead you can't use any weapons smaller than larger ones as using them messes with your ability to use larger ones, causing you to be unable to do so while you have to readjust back.
How does that create a roleplaying hook? That just sounds like a mechanical "this is pretty much never going to come up, so it's optimal".

The barbarians giant sword gets shattered from a mighty blow from the boss, the fighter, noticing his ally lose his weapon, presses back his foe for a moment and then goes to toss his sword at the stunned barbarian for him to take and use as he draws his back up axe. The barbarian ignores the sword going into his rage as he pounces barehanded onto the boss, "No. This just got personal."

This sorta situation, is perfect for it. But then again you'd rather have him get challenged every session by some person to do something, which isn't the point of what's supposed to be a

blog wrote:
relatively low impact

thing. When it's occurring often it's no longer low impact to a player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Reece wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Options: you are cursed to accept challenges of strength; any challenger is a potential recruit to join your order, and you are always on the lookout for new recruits; your tribe places strong cultural value on demonstrations of strength. You don’t agree with them, but still feel dissonance when you break that tribal custom.

Or d)

You don't always accept challenges of strength, instead you can't use any weapons smaller than larger ones as using them messes with your ability to use larger ones, causing you to be unable to do so while you have to readjust back.

Well, option D sounds like someone is trying to rewrite the rules in the book. I'd recommend they go with this next option:

E) Play something that better aligns with your character concept and personality.

Sounds more like dissatisfaction with a one size fits all system for how the anathema is done.

E) A character who wields large weapons to protect others, because they believe larger weapons allow them to shield others easier and that offense is better than defense in that regard, which is why they don't use a shield instead.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Wultram wrote:
So here is a simple argument then. Enforcing and/or locking mechanics behind characters personality is a bad decision and about as close as wrong as you can be on a subjective matter. As an example who would tolerate their GM saying something along the lines "You find this person attractive"(In this example assume that no external forces influencing the character.) As in not describing that the NPC is atractive, but that your character find them so. To me at least that is stop hold on a second, serious talk and very real possibility of walking from the table. So why should we allow the rules to do this?
This is a complete and total non-sequitur that has... absolutely no relation to Anathema as showcased.
Blog wrote:
you cannot fail to accept a personal challenge of your strength

Sure about that? Sounds a whole lot like enforced personality trait to me.

Options: you are cursed to accept challenges of strength; any challenger is a potential recruit to join your order, and you are always on the lookout for new recruits; your tribe places strong cultural value on demonstrations of strength. You don’t agree with them, but still feel dissonance when you break that tribal custom.

Or d)

You don't always accept challenges of strength, instead you can't use any weapons smaller than larger ones as using them messes with your ability to use larger ones, causing you to be unable to do so while you have to readjust back.


Honestly if sorcerer doesn't have taboos from their bloodline, I'm going to be thoroughly disappointed. And it seems like wizards should have anathemas associated with their schools.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It still doesn't make sense for every barbarian who takes x totem to have x anathema.

Instead, barbarians should have a list of anathemas (including the fury one and superstition one), and they need to select one when selecting a totem. Some totems could be restricted based upon the anathema you choose (superstition), but they should be exceptions instead of the norm.

This allows you to have a variety of flavors to choose from, and some can be restricted, but for the most part it gives players the freedom to choose ones that match their character while allowing them to choose the mechanics they want.


Revan wrote:
I'm not super bothered about the current state, and certainly for the 'basic' rules of the playtest, just one anathema per makes sense. But this would be a really nice way to handle it, honestly!

Yeah it makes sense to have it simpler for the playtest, just something that I observed and felt needed saying.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I can see where milo is coming from, and I partially agree with him.

It doesn't make sense for every barbarian who takes x totem to have x anathema. Instead each totem should have a short list of anathemas that are associated with it and the barb needs to choose from. There could be a couple totems (superstition), where they only have 1 anathema, but those should be the exception and not the rule.


Are totems still restricted like in pf1?

I take it superstition was changed to a totem because of how good it was.


Cool stuff


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Are there any skill feats that let me sunder space and time with my weapon to dimension door around?


blahpers wrote:
Technically, sunder is an attack against a creature, so you shouldn't be able to use such a maneuver. The alternative, then, is to simply attack the shield directly--it's just sitting there, after all, so it can hardly be considered attended. That's actually much easier than attempting a sunder maneuver, which makes sense given that the shield's owner can't really do much to stop the attack without "unsetting" the shield.

Correct you'd be targeting the object itself, and since the damaging objects line has this

Quote:
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object’s AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.

Our attacks would be swapped to sunder attempts than normal attacks because we're attacking a shield (also sunder "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent" which means you don't have to be able to see and reach the opponent just the items they're using).

Therefore, we're sundering the shield (technically you sunder unattended weapons and shields as well, but you can't sunder unattended armor, just normal attack it.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like it.


If you were to choose another race (besides goblin) for core in pf2, what would you choose and why?


Weather Report wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
wuxia sized weaponry is something a lot of people really like.
That would be Anime/Manga-sized (Wuxia films do not feature longboard-sized weapons), and is something a lot of people really hate.

Xianxia and Xuanhuan tend to have oversized weapons used in them , technically they aren't Wuxia, but people tend to confuse the 3 genres and they actually fit the setting of pathfinder more than Wuxia does.

So yes, oversized weapon are something appropriate for PF2E.

Yes, sofa-sized weaponry is more common than people-on-wires in 3rd Ed/PF1.

It's more of wuxia genre tends to not have spellcasting or other similar mystical things (ex gods granting you power), instead focusing on the body training and inner qi.

Which could be fine as a standalone setting with no spellcasters or divine personages in a homebrew setting, but for base pathfinder where those are a thing, Xianxia and Xuanhuan, which do include similar such things to spellcasting and divine powers, are far more appropriate than wuxia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
wuxia sized weaponry is something a lot of people really like.
That would be Anime/Manga-sized (Wuxia films do not feature longboard-sized weapons), and is something a lot of people really hate.

Xianxia and Xuanhuan tend to have oversized weapons used in them , technically they aren't Wuxia, but people tend to confuse the 3 genres and they actually fit the setting of pathfinder more than Wuxia does.

So yes, oversized weapon are something appropriate for PF2E.


The no-shield creature can attempt any maneuver they would be able to use use if it was a wall there instead of a tower shield.

Sunder, for example, is allowed because it can target an object (thus you're not targeting an enemy hidden behind total cover), and thus it could attempt to sunder the shield.


Mathmuse wrote:
I will accept that about tier. Sadly, my suggestion, celestial spheres, also counted 1st sphere as the most powerful. However, rank counts in both directions, from best to worst or from beginner to expert.

Fair, I was thinking in terms of Rank 1 Spells rather than 1st rank spells.


Using tiers is a bad idea, because of things like 1st tier sounding better than 9th tier even though the reverse is true (same things for ranks).

Circles is boring, but I'd rather use terms for the relative power level of the spell than use circles (and would rather use level over circle).

EX:

  • Initiate Spells
  • Novice Spells
  • Apprentice Spells
  • Adept Spells
  • Journeyman Spells
  • Expert Spells
  • Master Spells
  • Grandmaster Spells
  • Legendary Spells
  • Transcendent Spells

Alternatively, I'd just like it to be left levels.

1 to 50 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>