willuwontu's page

789 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 789 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Neodymium wrote:

On a similar note; Legendary Elven Chain seems almost entirely pointless. The benefits of Master quality already negate Noisy(it's only a 1 increase to the only -1 check penalty) for a chain shirt. And mithral reduces the bulk. Legendary only increases the hardness(and still not enough to prevent an adamantine weapon from halving it).

Or did i miss something?

It also increases the number of potency runes allowed on it.


auras wrote:

An aura issues forth from each side of your space, emanating out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell’s aura radiates 30 feet from the caster. Because the sides of a target’s space are used as the starting point for the aura, a Large or larger creature’s aura affects a greater overall area than that of a Medium or smaller creature.

The rules for cover apply to auras (see page 314); an aura does not need line of effect to a target, but it must not be entirely cut off from the target (an aura in a lead box would not extend outside the box). Some auras are active for a duration, meaning you can potentially move while the aura is active; in this case, the aura moves with you as you move.

Right now with this wording, this means that as long as the area is not completely cut off from the point of origin from the aura, it will effect that area. This is due to auras in 2e lacking the spread rules from 1e.

Essentially, no matter how far you walk, as long as you end up within the radius of the aura without needing to go through a solid wall, that area is considered to be a part of the aura.

Instead, we could make the edge of the aura be considered a wall

suggested wording wrote:

An aura issues forth from each side of your space, emanating out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell’s aura radiates 30 feet from the caster. Because the sides of a target’s space are used as the starting point for the aura, a Large or larger creature’s aura affects a greater overall area than that of a Medium or smaller creature.

The rules for cover apply to auras (see page 314); an aura does not need line of effect to a target, but it must not be entirely cut off from the target (an aura in a lead box would not extend outside the box). For the purposes of determining the area it affects, the edge of the aura's radius is considered a solid wall.

This clearly states how they work and helps clear it up.

Edit: Relevant Image Currently the ? case on the left is included, this change would fix that.


Based on how most everything is retroactive, I'd say yes, anything official though?


Zwordsman wrote:

I would point out that empower states

"This also increases any persistent damage
dealt by the bomb, but not its splash damage."

meaning it increases persistent damage in general-it doesn't say base effects. AKA. the +1 conditional bonus is also increased.. So that lv 19 alchemist's do 6times. (and if you had another way to increase base dice on the bomb that would increase in such a way as well)

aka. its persistent damage is 12, not 6.
6d8+12Persistent+9 conditional bonus to damage +Splash
= whatever item bonuses actually do. I'm not sure yet.

Probably not quite what they meant. but it is how it currently works.
Or at least how I read it. which who knows if I'm reading it true.

That is an incorrect reading, you only partially quoted the relevant text of empower bombs.

Quote:
At 3rd level, you can create 3rd-level bombs that deal double the bomb’s base damage as presented in its entry.

This means that only the base damage and not any conditionals from other effects (ex: burn it) are multiplied by empower bombs.

So a level 19 alchemist fire would deal 6 + 9 (level 19 /2) = 15 persistent damage, not 60 persistent damage.


Alchemists Poison Touch is missing the Alchemist trait, this means that alchemists can't select it as a class feat.


This means that a level 2 expert crafter cannot do any crafting by RAW, please fix this.

Table is on page 148 for reference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All batch crafting does is let you craft multiple items at the same time. You'd treat every item of the batch as if you were crafting that item alone for the purposes of prices. So in this case, he'd reduce the price of each elixir by 1sp (4sp overall in total).


Back to the original topic, I'd really like to see the combat feats scale based on proficiency like the skill feats.

EX. when you have cleave, and expert or master in the weapon you use with it, you should automatically get the benefits of great cleave as well, no need for separate feats.

Same thing for double shot becoming triple shot, and knockback becoming awesome blow.


Continuing on with the OP's line of thought, just to show how much it breaks the system. (Note that I disagree with it)

This means that by using the archetype feats that gain a class feat from another class, I can instead take another archetype feat, allowing me to get 2 (or more) archetype feats into my archetype and allowing me to take other archetypes faster since I complete my dedication requirements faster.


What's the issue?

I'm not seeing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like resonance, it's a good replacement for the item slot system and x/day item effects.

I dislike it's application on potions and elixirs though.


Forseti wrote:
This is especially unattractive when you consider how few spells the sorcerer learns per spell level: 4, 1 of which is dictated by the bloodline.

Aside from ya'know, it not actually being dictated by bloodline.

Quote:
At 1st level, you learn two 1st-level spells of your choice and four cantrips of your choice, as well as an additional spell and cantrip from your bloodline (see page 130). You choose these from the common spells on the spell list corresponding to your bloodline in this book, or from other spells on that spell list to which you gain access.


It makes so all your bombs are infused, not invested there's a big difference. This allows you to use the empowered bombs ability with bombs that you didn't make using advanced alchemy or quick alchemy.

For mutagens this allows fast onset, extend elixir, eternal elixir or persistent mutagen to work for mutagens you didn't make using advanced alchemy or quick alchemy.


Luceon wrote:
technarken wrote:


The first encounter I created was 2 Clerics of Calistria. While admittedly a severe level encounter, What did happen, however was I learned one very crucial thing about how 2e works: In-Combat Healing is way to strong. These clerics had 7 4th level Heal spells per day, and with only one player able to make attacks of opportunity, they were able to heal with impunity. Each heal healed 7d8+4 hp with 1 action. Then they'd whip to chip down the party. Only the party had a Paladin with Channeled Life and was able to counter with his own healing to counter the chips. The fight (that would have probably taken half an hour or so in 1e) took 90+ minutes to resolve. The Clerics had an AC so high...

How are they healing 7d8+4 with a 4th level slot? And if they were healing at range its 2 actions, so they were adjacent to each other right?

They used heal as a 4th level spell

Quote:

Heal Spell 1

You channel positive energy to heal the living or damage the undead. You restore Hit Points equal to 1d8 plus your spellcasting ability modifier to a willing living target, or deal that amount of positive damage to an undead target. The number of actions you spend when Casting this Spell determines its targets, range, area, and other parameters.
• Somatic Casting The spell has a range of touch. You must succeed at a melee touch attack to damage an undead target.
• Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting The spell has a range of 30 feet and doesn’t require a touch attack when targeting an undead creature. An undead target must attempt a Fortitude save, taking half damage on a success, no damage on a critical success, or double damage on a critical failure.
• Material Casting, Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting
You disperse positive energy in a 30-foot aura. This has the same effect as the two-action version, but it targets all living and undead creatures in the burst and reduces the amount of healing or damage to your spellcasting ability modifier.

Heightened (+1) The amount of healing or damage increases by 1d8, or by 2d8 if you’re using the 1- or 2-action version to heal the living.

Simply by using the 1 action version (or 2 action), they heal for 1d8 + casting modifier + 2d8 * 3 (4th level spell) for a total of 7d8 plus casting modifier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

By RAW no, however most of the features that grant master in a save also grant the ability to treat successes as critical successes. This should become baseline for master proficiency IMO, along with legendary proficiency as a baseline causing crit fails to be fails instead.


thenobledrake wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Also screening needs "one size smaller than you or larger" to be changed to "within one size category of you", right now it's jsut confusing.

The phrasing you suggest changing to is a change of how the currently phrased rule works.

To elaborate, lets use a practical example:

You are a size Medium creature. A size Small or larger creature between you and your target can provide screening. If the creature between you and your target is size Huge, and your target is Medium or smaller, its space is treated as blocking terrain (and so on with larger sizes of intervening creature and target, so long as the intervening creature is at least 2 sizes larger than you and your target, whatever the target's size might be)

If changed to the phrasing you suggest, a size Large creature would providing screening to your target, but a size Huge creature wouldn't, and if your target was size Large or larger that Huge creature also wouldn't count as blocking terrain - meaning the creature between you and the target could improve your accuracy against targets behind it if it enlarged itself from Large size to Huge size.

If the creature is 2 sizes larger than you, it doesn't provide screening, it provides cover, which doesn't stack with screening.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:

Here is my two cents worth:

Give all classes 11 feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, etc.

Take nothing away from casters.

Give all martial classes unique abilities at those levels where casters get to upgrade their spellcasting/receive powers.

This way, feats are equal, casters don't lose out, and martials get something actually unique and cool.

As long as what the martials receive is equal in power to the spellcasting that casters get, then I see no issues with this.


Reynard-Miri wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
I could see changing it if they decide that proficiency increases no longer function as the feat/feature slot.
Weapon proficiencies don't count as class feats for weapon classes, so I don't see why spell proficiencies should for spell classes. It's also a massive pain for "mystic theurge" type builds who want to get a class feat at precisely that level.

Because martials get their weapon proficiencies on their odd levels as their class features, Spellcasters on the other hand get their spells as their class features on odd levels and their proficiencies on their even levels except for legendary caster (which would have to be changed to increase the spellcaster prof by one).

So spellcasters either have to give up their proficiency gain at those levels in order to counter for the fact that they're getting class feats at those levels now, or they don't get class feats at those levels in exchange for proficiencies.


Davor wrote:

Making feat progression more consistent across classes would be much more inclusive, and is more intuitive, for players.

As for the whole "Why can't martials have some advantage over casters?!" argument, maybe feats should just be a way of specializing within your class, not a measure of power. Why SHOULDN'T classes be getting an equal number of feats if feats are no longer entirely shared between classes? These class-unique abilities can, and should, be designed around the class taking them and their viability as accessible multi-classing options, and there's no reason to remove sorcerer customizability just because they get spells. Make feats consistent, and make feats cool.

Yeah, just change the fixed features they get at those levels to feats, and make legendary spellcaster only increase their proficiency by one step.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure we could give casters the same number of feats as martials, we just need to remove the features they gained at those levels and turn them into feats for those levels.


1.) Yes, reactive forms still effect you while using unfettered wild shape.

2.) It cannot take wild shape feats, it replaces that ability with a different one.


Mergy wrote:

Druids get orders that modify how their feats work. Fighters could have schools that govern what their abilities give them:

Schools:

Might (two-handed weapons, or weapon and shield with heavy armour progression)
Finesse (dual wielding one-handed weapons, or one weapon and a free hand with light armour progression)
Archery (ranged weapons with light armour progression)

You would be able to be in the Might school and take a Finesse feat, but you'll get an extra bonus from a Might feat.

Just make the schools the weapon groups.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Oh, and they also get "Giant" not "Jotun" so this is just an editing error.

Yup , I totally realize that, this was just a fun way to write it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you have a dwarf with 14 int, they get to know an orc or a gnome and have them as a translator cohort. And they don't even speak dwarven, instead they start with a dwarf translator as well.

Other races only get to know dwarven, gnomish or orcish, dwarves are OP, pls nerf.


Ryuujin-sama wrote:
And it has recently been pointed out that Quick Alchemy cannot work because it requires a Free Hand, but also requires an Alchemy Toolkit which requires Two Hands.

You don't need to be holding the toolkit, you just need to have one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DEBILITATING BOMB wrote:

Frequency once per round

Trigger You craft an alchemical item that has the elixir trait using the Quick Alchemy action.
You mix a substance into the bomb that can cause one of the following conditions: dazzled, deafened, flat-footed, or hampered 5. If the attack with that bomb hits, the target must succeed at a Fortitude saving throw or gain that condition until the start of your next turn. Use your class DC for this saving throw (even if someone else throws the bomb).

There aren't any bombs with the elixir trait. This feat does nothing.


Alyran wrote:

I think retraining of classes needs to be possible so that a mid-life change of profession becomes possible.

Perhaps there would need to be some kind of a penalty such as XP loss or going a level back in addition to time spent so that people don't do it all the time, but I really feel strongly that it should be possible. Switching from Wizard/Fighter to Fighter/Wizard should be possible over the length of a years-long career.

Or, you know, it takes a year of downtime, so while possible, it's definitely not easy or convenient.


This makes multiclassing archetypes much weaker overall.

By opening all class feats to be selected it makes the multiclass feats that let you grab feats at 1st, or 2nd level, or half your level, pretty pointless.


Paizo had noted this issue before the playtest but not in enough time before they went to print. They have said to expect changes and are looking into ways to handle this.


I find it both annoying and dumb that you can't retrain your class. This and the lack of traditional multiclassing kills off builds.

How retraining classes helps:

For instance if I want to be a rogue who slowly changed into a wizard, I could start off by taking the wizard multiclass archetype feats, and then retrain into a full-blow wizard, maybe with the rogue multiclass feats to represent my change form a rogue to a wizard.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MelodicCodes wrote:

1. Feats should be "unchained" from classes.

A lot of people have mentioned that, without any form of multiclassing, you cannot have a TWF Rogue(at least one that's meaningfully better than a 1 weapon Rogue). This is silly, and an example of a seeming design oversight but it highlights a bigger issue.
By bundling feats and classes together, options during character building and leveling are hugely restricted. The game's writers have to consider each likely "build" for every class. It either leads to character concepts that can't be done properly, or to individual feats being reprinted multiple times, which is a waste of space and time. Moreover, oversights like this are very liable to be repeated in the future.
Feats should return to being selected from a categorically-seperated pool in their own section with specific prerequisites, rather than being bundled up with classes. If the writers see fit, they could list a specific class as a prerequisite to take a feat, but this should probably be done sparingly.
Race feats are less of a problem, but could probably be renamed to avoid confusion with the rest of the feat system.
Bundling feats into classes does not solve any meaningful problems, from what I can tell.

I like having restricted feat access, though I agree there should be some "general" class feats though, such as TWF. There are also some class feats that only make sense for specific classes to be able to take (such as quick prep, animal rage, ki strike, etc).

MelodicCodes wrote:

2. Resonance solves a problem that never had to exist.

From what I can gather, the Resonance system was created to prevent magic item spam/abuse. I take great issue with this reasoning, as it has always been ultimately up to the GM to decide what and how many magic items the players get. In other words, it's solving a problem that a clever GM could easily sidestep, while simultaneously putting hard limits on what PCs are able to do, especially high level martials.
You're putting new rules into the game in order to keep the GM from making a decision that the designers think is bad. I don't think it's wrong to put warnings for GMs before historically problem magic items, but this is limiting on both players and GMs. It doesn't add anything to the game on its own, only takes away from the possibility space.

I actually somewhat like resonance, but only on the investiture and x/day magic item side of it. I dislike it's applications to consumables right now, and I feel it actually needs to be split into two systems, one dealing with "slotted", investment, and x/day items, and another for consumables.

MelodicCodes wrote:

3. Proficiencies in skills & saves are silly.

Thog the Barbarian has trained his whole life to hit stuff. He is a level 10 Barbarian, who smash really good. Suddenly, he's put in a situation where he has to sing, despite literally having never done so in his life. He at least is getting a +8 modifier to that check from proficiency. What?
I don't see what was wrong with static base save progressions and skill points. They were actually somewhat easier to explain/more self-evident than proficiencies, and required you to actually put in training to be good at something, rather than just becoming passively good at everything(and having to update every. single. skill. every time you level up).

I disagree, I like being able to actually have the party sneak around, instead of the old "Fighter is is full plate and no stealth ranks" keeping it from being able to happen. It also helps people not be completely irrelevant (just mostly irrelevant now) in things they aren't good at, while the uses being gated behind proficiency level also keeps it from going overboard.

The big issue with the old system was what the disparity could be between two characters who were both good at something, and that it could be a difference of +30 or more. There's a bunch of stuff in the forums about this, I'll let you go find it.

If you don't want to update all your skills every time, you could just do what I did and just use the skill line for the TEML bonus + ability, and then add your level as well every time you use one.

MelodicCodes wrote:

4. Sorcerers must keep learning the same spell at higher levels.

Why does a Sorcerer need to keep relearning Fireball at every level up in order to be able to consistently blast with good damage? Sorcerers already have limited spells known, all this change does is make Wizards more unholy powerful by comparison by effectively making Sorcerers less able to efficiently utilize said spells known.
Metamagic in the past did a fine job of making higher level spell slots more powerful. This just makes wizards stand out as powerhouses more than they already were.

You mean unlike PF1 where they could freely heighten their invisibility to gain the effects of greater invisibility without knowing greater invisibility, or just by knowing summon monster 1, they could freely use summon monster 2-9. Oh wait, that wasn't how it worked, they had to know those spells in those slots in PF1 just like they do in PF2.

Yes, the removal of caster level as a statistic for everything hurts.

MelodicCodes wrote:

5. You can't do traditional multiclassing at all, ever.

There are many mechanical and storyline reasons why a PC might want to change class partway through their adventuring career. It's very arbitrary to keep people from multiclassing, as people in real life do this sort of thing all the time. Med students discover a passion for the arts, circumstances force somebody to change careers, etc.
The Rogue, seeking to redeem his past actions becomes a Paladin, using his dextrious moves and precision in place of brute strength. Maybe a Swashbuckler ship captain retires from his adventures on the high seas, telling tales of his travels and barking orders to his allies as a Bard or Skald, while still being a daring warrior with the blade. A Human Fighter becomes a Vampire Hunting Inquisitor after his spouse and comrade is murdered by a vampire. These are all examples of the storytelling potential of multiclassing using 1e as a framework.
As more suppliments are added and concepts from 1e are "ported", storytelling potential from multiclassing will simply evaporate. Instead of changing lifestyles when multiclassing, the new system feels a lot more like "oh your Rogue decided to dabble in some magic for a bit", rather than "Your Rogue has made the decision to become a Wizard from now on".

Another fairly common reason for multiclassing in pf1, the paladin gets cursed by a god and becomes an oracle, or their latent bloodline is awakened and they become a sorcerer.

Retraining is a thing in core, if your rogue has decided to become a Wizard from now on, have them retrain into a wizard and stop using their rogue ways completely. If they want to still be a rogue and a wizard, take the damned feat set.

Edit: Yes, I realize that you can't retrain classes right now (which is dumb), but if you are a GM I highly advise allowing as such.


Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1. Yes

2. No

3. No

4. A bit of each, also some changes in the core rules to make up for issues and failings in the rules in pf1

5. I'm am unsure what you mean, if you mean opening up pf2 to a lot more players, then sure, as long as it doesn't bring down the quality of the game.

6. Yup

7. Somewhat, I think the action system, they way characters are created, the critical system, and the levels of proficiency should stay. They are done extremely well imo.

8. Pretty much what we currently have, I'm not that imaginitive of a guy, I can't think of any major changes I'd make to it, aside from an overhaul on resonance.


Another one

by Jesse Thibault


kaid wrote:
I would agree if there is terrain issues it should just be cover and if it is some monster/person/animal between then that should be screening. The second part of the description of screening muddies the waters.

The issue is creatures 2 sizes larger act as blocking terrain and thus provide cover, that's why the description of screening needs to be changed.


cover wrote:
To determine whether a target has cover from an attack, the attacking creature or object draws a line from the center of its space to the center of the target’s space. If that line passes through any blocking terrain, the target has cover. The cover grants that creature a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against the attack.
screening wrote:

When you’re attempting a ranged attack, or a melee attack against a nonadjacent target, your target might be screened from you if another creature is between you. If you must attack or shoot through the space of a creature that’s one size smaller than you or larger, your target is screened from you and gains a +1 circumstance bonus to AC against your attack. Unlike cover and the concealed condition (see page 320), being screened doesn’t allow a creature to attempt to Hide.

To determine whether your target is screened from your attack, pick the corner of your space with the least obstructed line to your target and draw a line to the center of the target’s space. If you can’t reach the center of the creature’s space without passing through either blocking terrain or another creature that’s one size smaller than you or larger, the target is screened against that attack.

Screening and cover both mention blocking terrain, it needs to be removed from screening as that leads to confusion.

Also screening needs "one size smaller than you or larger" to be changed to "within one size category of you", right now it's jsut confusing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can only kiss once a round now though, (and it's not automatic anymore).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the better ideas for signature skills I've seen, besides a feat to add signature skills, is that assurance could be a free part of signature skills.


Posting this here since backgrounds fall under ancestry in the book.

glossary wrote:

Background A background represents a profession or other

significant aspect of your life before becoming an adventurer.
Backgrounds give you ability boosts, signature skills, and feats.

Backgrounds only give trained in a skill, this is a typo, unless it's supposed to make the trained skill a signature skill as well.


There's no normal falling speed listed, is it 300 ft per round like pf1?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Half plate with 14 dex (it's cap of +2 bonus, easy enough to get on the side from boosts) has the same AC as full plate. It's also cheaper, available from level 1, lower bulk, has a higher TAC, and isn't clumsy.

Why make full-plate just a bad option?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

Is this valid?

Round 1:
Action 1: Attack
Action 2: Attack
Action 3: Release one hand as free action and heal friend.

Round 2:
Action 1: Heal friend again
Action 2: Grip glaive
Action 3: Attack

That that is valid, do note that since it's 2-handed weapon though, you couldn't make attacks with it between rounds since you're not wielding it in both hands.


JRutterbush wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Empower Bombs currently does nothing for bombs that the alchemist creates that aren't 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, or 19th level bombs.
I think you might be misunderstanding how the ability works. As written, you can't empower any bombs that aren't 1st level. It's not that you can empower a 3rd level bomb to make it deal double damage, it's that you empower a 1st level bomb, which turns it into a 3rd level bomb that has a damage equal to twice what it was at first level.
So it's even worse than I thought, just wow.
So... you haven't actually looked at the alchemical items list, have you? All the bombs are first level. This is only there to make all the bombs viable at higher levels.

And like I said earlier, that leads to issues when supplements put out bombs that aren't available at 1st level due to their effects.


JRutterbush wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Empower Bombs currently does nothing for bombs that the alchemist creates that aren't 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, or 19th level bombs.
I think you might be misunderstanding how the ability works. As written, you can't empower any bombs that aren't 1st level. It's not that you can empower a 3rd level bomb to make it deal double damage, it's that you empower a 1st level bomb, which turns it into a 3rd level bomb that has a damage equal to twice what it was at first level.

So it's even worse than I thought, just wow.


Power attack muliplies them.

Page 179 wrote:

COUNTING WEAPON DAMAGE DICE

Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice (such as charge or forceful) include only the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice for a magic weapon. They don’t count additional dice from abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes, weapon traits, or the like. On a critical hit, you double this bonus only once; you don’t double it again due to the number of damage dice increasing.

It needs better wording though.


Cartith wrote:

I recently finished mine as well. It's not as fancy as the one up above, but it gets the job done.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_YPRzkaKO1XuCHcbJZPYw-5nf1U0lpA0

Enjoy!

Linkified


Huzzah and thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember in a dev post for a blog, it was mentioned that every class is trained in unarmored defense.

However, proficiency with it is only mentioned in the monk class, and only about the monk's proficiency with it. This needs to be fixed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How do undead exist as monsters without these spells, and why can't my necromancer know them?


MerlinCross wrote:

I do believe the idea is to use Empower Bombs to well Empower Bombs. There's no reason to use level 1 Alchemist Fire at level 3 if you can double the damage.

Unless the cost/craft check of doing so goes up.

As for the level 7 bit, I would assume that once you hit level 7, you also upgrade your bombs to 7th level.

The big issue for me is the inconsistency (why do I only increase x level by y amount, instead of all levels by y amount) and the fact that creating bombs of levels other than those levels (such as ones made in a supplement at some point) are way weaker.


Empower Bombs currently does nothing for bombs that the alchemist creates that aren't 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, or 19th level bombs.

In addition, at level 7 it still only doubles 3rd level bombs while tripling 7th level bombs.

The text should change to say, "At the xth level, you can create bombs of your level or lower that deal y times the base damage."

I feel like that's how many people are going to run it, whether it be on accident or on purpose, please fix this.

1 to 50 of 789 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>