Sending Your Heroes to the Mirrored Moon

Monday, September 24, 2018

The Pathfinder Playtest is roaring along as we move our focus to Part 4, The Mirrored Moon. This adventure sees the return of your characters from Part 1. In the years that have passed, these heroes have grown to be powerful adventurers in their own right, but the mystery that started all those years ago in Keleri's basement has yet to be solved. In Part 4, you'll rejoin them as they continue the quest in Thicketfell, in the faraway River Kingdoms.

Once you have completed your playthrough of Part 4, please remember to take the following surveys. Your data is critical in helping us make the second edition of Pathfinder be the best game it can be!

Player Survey | Game Master Survey | Open Survey

As a reminder, if you have not completed Parts 1, 2, or 3, you still have plenty of time to finish your sessions and get us your survey feedback. The more data we get, the more certain we are of how various parts of the game are performing. I should also note that as we get further into the playtest, some of the goals of each part of the adventure become a bit more extreme. You might play sessions that seem out of balance or somewhat harder than you're used to as we push the system to its limits and beyond. We've endeavored to make sure each part of Doomsday Dawn provides a fun and engaging adventure, but the goals of the test come first. We want to thank all of you for your patience and understanding as we delve deeper and deeper into the system.

All of the Changes in Update 1.3

Today also marks the release of Update 1.3, which promises to deliver a number of substantive changes to your game. Before I launch into the details, why don't you go grab a copy?

So, first and foremost is a revision to the Proficiency and DCs of the game. As of today, if you're untrained in something, your bonus is now equal to your level -4! This change was made to ensure that characters who haven't specialized in a given skill or ability aren't directly competing with those who have made the choice to invest in it. We've also made significant alterations to Table 10-2, Skill DCs by Level and Difficulty. In most cases, we lowered the DC by a point or two (but sometimes by 4 or more at higher levels). We made this change so that players who focus their character choices around a task have a better chance of success and so that this chance of success grows as you do. As a result, we have included errata for all 7 parts of Doomsday Dawn, updating all of the skill DCs across the adventure to reflect this change.

Death and dying receives another revision in this update. After looking at playtest data, we saw a significant change in dying rates and play style due to the way that characters came back from being unconscious. As of this update, we have removed the slowed condition that applied to characters after they were revived, and we've replaced it with a new condition: the wounded condition. This condition doesn't penalize your checks or DCs, but if you fall unconscious again, your dying condition is increased by your wounded condition. This means that while you're not penalized directly for getting up and charging back into the fray, your chance of dying increases the more times you're knocked out in a fight.

To go along with this change, we've also added a new way to use the Medicine skill, allowing you to spend 10 minutes to bandage the wounds of up to six creatures (one of which can be you). Depending on the check, this allows you to heal a significant amount of damage to everyone under your care! The best part is, you don't have to be a cleric to use this ability and it doesn't rely on your magic resources, so you can save those for combat. We made this change so that out-of-combat healing was a bit easier to manage, which allows you to heal up between fights and rely a bit less on the classes that have access to magical healing.

Finally, there are a lot of smaller changes in this update, including revisions to a number of classes, most notably the ranger and the rogue, both of which got some much-needed versatility added to their builds. But there's one other gigantic addition I want to talk about.

Multiclass Archetypes Update

Today we're releasing playtest material for all 12 of the multiclass archetypes, along with some revisions to the existing multiclass archetypes found in the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook. These additions expand your range of tools when building new characters. With these changes, you can now play a bard that dabbles in the strange mysteries of the monk, or a barbarian with a sorcerous lineage!

We put all of these archetypes in their own document for ease of reference.

The Future of Resonance

Since the start of the playtest, we have heard a lot of feedback on the resonance system and we have been working hard to come up with a way to make it a better part of the game. Currently, we're looking at ways to use the resonance system just for tracking the items you wear, purely as a replacement for the slot system from Pathfinder First Edition. At the same time, we're looking to add a system that allows you to focus on the magic that your character can utilize to give it a boost in power when you need to, but otherwise allowing you to use it in a simpler way in an emergency. It's a little early to go into too many details, but I will say this: under this new system, you'll always be healed when you drink a healing potion.

While our current plan for the system is still coming together, we know that a change of this size is going to be challenging for us to fully implement before the end of the playtest. But, we do have a way to ensure that you can give it a try before we're done. In the coming weeks we're going to release a special version of the Pathfinder Society Playtest Scenario Raiders of the Shrieking Peak. This adventure is played using pregenerated characters, which allows us to create a conversion to the new system without having to convert the entire game all at once. When this scenario becomes available, we'll be asking everyone to give it a try, and we'll generate a specific survey looking at the new systems to get your feedback.

Well, that's about all for this week! Let us know what you think about these changes in the comments down below. And as always, we thank each and every one of you for participating in the playtest!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Join the Pathfinder Playtest designers every Friday throughout the playtest on our Twitch Channel to hear all about the process and chat directly with the team.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
101 to 150 of 308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the MC feats, I don't mind the initial Barbarian Rage being limited to once a day. I noticed that the one of the next feats for MC Barbarian actually removes that restriction. Looking at the Paladin/Barbarian mix a bit more now. I can use Rage as a replacement for the lack of normal Smiting so long as I can keep it going all day long.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So for treat wounds you can do this infinitely until you get a critical failure?

If you use the medium DC, it seems like you'll never actually critical fail. Using 1st level as an example, the DC is 13, so you'd need a 3 to CF. However, almost any character who trained in medicine would have a +2 pretty easily, a 2 on the die would never CF, and if you had a +3 bonus, you would never CF.

Seems that you should have a maximum you can heal with treat wounds per day. I'd much rather infinite magical healing through wands than unrealistic unlimited medicine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:

So for treat wounds you can do this infinitely until you get a critical failure?

If you use the medium DC, it seems like you'll never actually critical fail. Using 1st level as an example, the DC is 13, so you'd need a 3 to CF. However, almost any character who trained in medicine would have a +2 pretty easily, a 2 on the die would never CF, and if you had a +3 bonus, you would never CF.

Seems that you should have a maximum you can heal with treat wounds per day. I'd much rather infinite magical healing through wands than unrealistic unlimited medicine.

Each use heals almost nothing, though. At level 1 it's 1-2 HP usually per use. So yeah, gonna take hours to cap out with this... Don't think it's super powerful or anything. Odds of crit failing on 10 usages are a real thing, and it will make the entire party immune.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

6 people marked this as a favorite.

For the rogue updates, it's great there are 3 paths now, but you should have them all be feats - to allow for combining them. Make them higher than 1st level to give some advantage to picking one to start with, but just because I'm a fast talker doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to be finesse as well.

There should also be feats which build off each of those options at higher levels.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pramxnim wrote:

Double Slice obviously outperforms Twin Takedown if they're the only attack actions you use during your turn, but Twin Takedown + Strike is better than just Double Slice.

Fun fact: You can now multiclass Fighter to pick up Double Slice. Then you can use Double Slice and Twin Takedown together to get a pseudo-haste effect as early as level 4 (4 attacks in a turn).

I'll do you one better, if you're willing to play the long game - Ranger / MC Monk.

Start with STR 18 and pick Brawling as your weapon group at Level 3.
1: Twin Takedown
2: Monk Dedication
...
10: Monk's Flurry
12: Basic Kata: Monastic Weapons

Use two Kama (Uncommon 1d6, Agile/Monk/Trip) and a pair of Greater Doubling Rings to have both Kama enchanted for the price of one. Normally the fact that Kama are Uncommon would be an issue since you can't benefit from Weapon Expertise or Weapon Mastery with Uncommon weapons (and by extension Masterful Hunter, which only applies if you have Master Proficiency in your weapon). However, Monastic Weapons grants you access to Uncommon Monk weapons and you treat your proficiency in them as equal to your proficiency in Unarmed Attacks, which are in the Brawling group. Thus, you can get around the restriction and treat your proficiency with Kama as Expert at 3 and Master at 13.

Your strategy with this build is to use Hunt Target, Twin Takedown, and Flurry of Blows. Since Kama are Agile you attack at -0/-3/-6/-6, totalling weakness and resistance once per set of attacks, and have the option to add another attack at -6 when Hunt Target is already active. When Quick you can potentially get 6 attacks a round. And finally, the big finish - at Level 17 the Master Hunter feature reduces your multiple attack penalty again, bringing your multiple attack penalty with Agile weapons down again for a routine of Hunt Target, -0/-2/-4/-4 with the potential for a -0/-2/-4/-4/-4/-4 turn when Quick with Hunt Target already active.

DPR Maths if you're interested::
At Level 12, you should have a +2 Potency Rune and potentially a Corrosive/Flaming/Frost/Shocking rune. With expected attack bonuses and items, you're looking at +20/+17/+14/+14 (3d6+5 plus 1d6 elemental, average 19 per hit). That's an unbuffed DPR of 27.55 +4.75 for any additional attacks you might get. For comparison, a 2H Fighter with a d12 weapon and the same ability scores and runes deals 29.4 damage over 3 Strikes and deals 2.8 with any additional attacks unbuffed against the same enemy.

tl;dr, this build nearly matches the highest-damage martial class in the game, and that's without figuring in buffs from a party or assuming more attacks than 2 actions would allow. Pair with a Bard and have fun!

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:

So for treat wounds you can do this infinitely until you get a critical failure?

If you use the medium DC, it seems like you'll never actually critical fail. Using 1st level as an example, the DC is 13, so you'd need a 3 to CF. However, almost any character who trained in medicine would have a +2 pretty easily, a 2 on the die would never CF, and if you had a +3 bonus, you would never CF.

Seems that you should have a maximum you can heal with treat wounds per day. I'd much rather infinite magical healing through wands than unrealistic unlimited medicine.

Each use heals almost nothing, though. At level 1 it's 1-2 HP usually per use. So yeah, gonna take hours to cap out with this... Don't think it's super powerful or anything. Odds of crit failing on 10 usages are a real thing, and it will make the entire party immune.

The percent of total hp healed increases with each level though, since you only get the racial bonus hp once.

Also, it's a very unfun way to have this work - needing 10 uses to heal most of your hp - I'd rather it work once a day per target, take an hour, and heal roughly 40% of your max hp in a single role. Nothing says fun like rolling 10 times to fast forward 100 minutes of resting and determining if you heal your con*level or your con*level*3 for each one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:

I may be a minority here but I actually like the inclusion of 1/day abilities for multiclasses, I think it stems from a different narrative view of classes particularly Barbarian and Fighter.

Using Rage once per day for someone who was not raised in the tribal environment of a barbarian makes sense, it's not a driving force for them, sure they may have adopted a totem later in life, but a true Barbarian was shaped by that totem, molded by the spirit it symbolizes and focuses their very being into the spirit of their totem when they rage. A multiclass, say a Monk, does not have that same experience, for them it is merely a brief moment of primal Rage, a small push over an edge of fury they didn't know existed within themselves.

For a Fighter multiclass it's simply training, a Fighter trains rigorously to master combat, it is their very life, if a Wizard suddenly decides to take up the sword and fight he'll not even come close to the level of skill even a first level fighter has, someone who has trained all their life to punish mistakes can eventually do so with confidence, and nearly every time. A wizard just learning how to fight will not have the surety of his reflexes. Think of it like a fighting game, at some point when learning a character you figure out how to do some of the things, but without dedicated investment you'll never come close to a true master, let alone someone who constantly practices.

You're just stating a narrative justification for something that makes no actual sense at all.

Even in modern civilization you get examples of people who have to deal with rage and anger management. But your idea implies that the character is unaware that they can Rage or that they are fighting against it. That shouldn't be baked into an archetype.

The Fighter makes even less sense. When you learn how to do something there is nothing that dictates how often you can do it other than the amount of time it takes and your own physical limitations. Learning isn't a binary process where you just suddenly forget how to do something because you tried it once.

What would make sense for the Barbarian Dedication's Rage is if you were limited to using your Rage a number of times per day equal to your CON modifier because that is how much stress your body can take before having to rest. Or alternatively making the cool down between uses longer than one round could work, too.

And the Fighter Dedication's AoO should reflect the user's lack of extensive training by having a penalty to hit; maybe a -2.

The 1 use per day limit is very gamey for these and the other two similar multi-class archetypes. This is especially true when you consider that the proper classes get unlimited uses per day. That's a very big difference.

Further, you have to consider that a single class build will be optimized for that class most of the time. A multi-class build may not have nearly the same level of optimization.

Your Wizard with Fighter Dedication may indeed be able to try to use an AoO, but how great will he be at hitting anything if his STR and/or DEX are only a 10 or 12?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

So... I was expecting a bit more. Sure a couple math fixes, the other MC dedications (but they're incredibly formulaic, except, inexplicably the paladin), and a couple spot fixes.

But the New Rules paragraph at the top of page 3 worries me.

Quote:
These address acute problems, in advance of bigger overhauls for the final version of the game

Problem is, I don't know what worries me more:

Sweeping changes sight unseen with no feedback. (Something that 5e pulled)

or

Real problems left unaddressed in the inexorable march to a fixed publication date.

The scarcity of changes and 'quick fix' feel of the thing makes me think I should be more worried about the latter:

_Treat wounds_ is awful. The upshot is you'll be sitting there making checks repeatedly for an hour or two, if not more. It's also completely detached from the game world. Ritual magic (something present but completely neglected) would be a better approach then 'six bandages fix a sword wound' completely (on every person in the party).

_Rogue changes_ are meh? These other options aren't good, and have odd and arbitrary restrictions. Brutes can sneak attack with longspears and morningstars, but not tridents or warhammers/picks? Staff but not bo staff? And not staff if they use it two handed, multi into cleric of Nethys and pick up the feat to increase the damage of favored weapons? That's... insanely convoluted.

And its also just strictly worse than taking dex to damage.

_Sorcerer_ opting out the terrible bloodlines is great (but the issue wasn't really 'too restrictive,' it was that they were almost universally awful). So now sorcerers are encouraged even more to just take a multiclass archetype and have as little to do with their own class as possible. Lovely. This is the opposite of progress.

_Ranger_.. this change feels worse. Yes, it isn't anti-synergy with hunt target anymore. But the issue was *hunt target*, not double slice. Again begs for multiclassing archetypes prioritized over sticking with the class.

Yay, bows, I guess. But, why not just do a generic double attack feat rather than multiple identical-but-overly specific ones? This is a rabbit hole that isn't going to end well in future products.

-----
Short version: aside from the easiest fix in the world for monks, this doesn't address any of my concerns, and highlights the possibility of a very unfinished playtested forced into a final document and published with minimal and minor changes.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My question for Resonance is how the new changes will effect/change the Alchemist, as it was the only class that required it to use the resource to fuel their items.

The limitation for the class is that the change from "spell slots" of alchemy is going to "Alchemy craft" specialization. No longer being a spell caster as he sort of was in PF1, is this something that will transfer to spell points instead, or have another way to build up his arsenal?


LordVanya wrote:
MER-c wrote:

I may be a minority here but I actually like the inclusion of 1/day abilities for multiclasses, I think it stems from a different narrative view of classes particularly Barbarian and Fighter.

Using Rage once per day for someone who was not raised in the tribal environment of a barbarian makes sense, it's not a driving force for them, sure they may have adopted a totem later in life, but a true Barbarian was shaped by that totem, molded by the spirit it symbolizes and focuses their very being into the spirit of their totem when they rage. A multiclass, say a Monk, does not have that same experience, for them it is merely a brief moment of primal Rage, a small push over an edge of fury they didn't know existed within themselves.

For a Fighter multiclass it's simply training, a Fighter trains rigorously to master combat, it is their very life, if a Wizard suddenly decides to take up the sword and fight he'll not even come close to the level of skill even a first level fighter has, someone who has trained all their life to punish mistakes can eventually do so with confidence, and nearly every time. A wizard just learning how to fight will not have the surety of his reflexes. Think of it like a fighting game, at some point when learning a character you figure out how to do some of the things, but without dedicated investment you'll never come close to a true master, let alone someone who constantly practices.

You're just stating a narrative justification for something that makes no actual sense at all.

Even in modern civilization you get examples of people who have to deal with rage and anger management. But your idea implies that the character is unaware that they can Rage or that they are fighting against it. That shouldn't be baked into an archetype.

The Fighter makes even less sense. When you learn how to do something there is nothing that dictates how often you can do it other than the amount of time it takes and your own physical limitations. Learning isn't a binary...

A couple things you may have overlooked. Attack of Opportunity already has a -2 penalty. And your wizard can't take the fighter multiclass without 16 in either Dex or strength.

Also, your argument against rage once per day feels more like an argument against rage being a class feature at all. It also feels like a lot to be riled up over something that is undone with a second feat. Given how powerful rage can be on a fighter, or how powerful AoO can be on a giant totem reach barbarian, I feel like it certainly seems fair from a balance perspective.

Dark Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you guys missed a big opportunity to really fix the existing multi-classes rather then repeat the mistakes across more of them. Key issues are:

1.) L12 feats are punitive for primary class casters who have had their L12 feat removed for spell casting proficiency bumps. I suggest dropping L12 MC archetype feats to L10 at least so there isnt a needless 2 level delay.

2.) Insufficient access to MC feats. The pre-req for taking a higher level class feat should be a 4 level delay, not half you current level. That means the PC is stuck taking only low level feats for his entire career. This is especially problematic when stylistic fighting/martial feats are locked behind class gates instead of being free for all classes to take (or even all martial classes to take).

3.) Key class features are STILL not available to people who multi-class. The biggest one is Channel but also applies to things like finesse striker. Alternatively, some of these L1 features are now gated at ridiculous levels, L8 inspire courage (yet still no scaling for primary class bards), L10 flurry, etc.

4.) Spell casting progression for MC archetypes is too slow and there are not enough spell slots. This really gimps the excitement of picking up caster MCs because spells are already so under-powered in this edition. There aren't any reliable/meaningful long term buffs, so it is not clear how a 'non' spell caster gets much functionality? You should combine the Basic spell casting and increased spell slot feats into one feat and start giving out extra spell slots for less feat investment (it is still only giving extra slots for spells 2 levels lower than your highest level spell AND your spell progression is slower vs. full casters).

5.) There are insufficient feats to allow MC. You frequently have to give up 4-5 of your 11 or 8 feats to get value out of a MC. Not to mention the fact that because of that STEEP investment it makes it all but impossible to have a MC PC and a Archetype (like cavalier or pirate). This all leads to less flexibility and built capabilites vs. 1e and really harms the enjoyment many people get from building. You should provide a way to exchange 1 or 2 general feats or a MC feat so people can actually achieve the builds they want without reducing their primary class to an empty vehicle that carries the MC.

Questions/Comments:

I) If I MC into Sorcerer or Bard do I get to spontaneously heighten my lower level spells or is that just off the table?

Some of the things I like though are:

A.) Sorcerers now have their feats back (yay! they are at least a viable class now).

B.) I do really like that the Fighter/Paladin dedication give the reactions at 1/day. It is nice to have a sample of them and I think it improves on the dedication vs. what was in the original playtest. However I think the other 2 (ranger/barbarian) need to be more than once per day to make them viable. HT isn't that great without the MAP being reduced and requires a lot of feat investment, while a dedication rage would be better if they could initiate it a number of times equal to their CON mod or something like that.

C.) The Barbarian resiliency feat should be ~+5hp to help mitigate the -1 AC from rage, which will open up MC'd PCs to crits and monster attacks.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

Thoughts on Multiclassing:

Why does Paladin Dedication grant proficiency in all armors when everyone else only increases existing proficiency?

Multiclass feats granting straight HP increases feels wrong to me. Seems like a tanky character who wants as much HP as possible is now forced to pick up some multiclass.

1/day abilities: I hate these with a passion. By my count, we've got 4 of these now, Barbarian Rage, Fighter Attack of Opportunity, Paladin Retributive Strike, and Ranger Hunt Target. Either grant the class feature or give nothing, don't clutter up a character sheet with 1/day abilities that don't feel rewarding. Especially considering that most of these don't even make much thematic sense, ("I'm a barbarian that can only get really mad once before I need a nap in between.")

THIS.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Red Griffyn wrote:
1.) L12 feats are punitive for primary class casters who have had their L12 feat removed for spell casting proficiency bumps. I suggest dropping L12 MC archetype feats to L10 at least so there isnt a needless 2 level delay.

I think this is more a reason to remove proficiency increases from counting as a feature slot. For casters, definitely, but also just everyone, unless they come with some other major upside. Given that the monster math seems to generally assume their presence (something that I'm overall fine-ish with, seeing as you'll still often be fighting monsters lower than your level, where it actually does make an impact), it doesn't really have the weight of a feature.

Quote:
2.) Insufficient access to MC feats. The pre-req for taking a higher level class feat should be a 4 level delay, not half you current level. That means the PC is stuck taking only low level feats for his entire career. This is especially problematic when stylistic fighting/martial feats are locked behind class gates instead of being free for all classes to take (or even all martial classes to take).

Not sure how to feel about this, since ideally, to me class feats should be hard to get if you're not that class. Again, I think the solution is to not lock those combat style feats behind class, which would make the class feats you're denied be things more intrinsic to the class, which I'm ok in limiting.

Quote:
3.) Key class features are STILL not available to people who multi-class. The biggest one is Channel but also applies to things like finesse striker. Alternatively, some of these L1 features are now gated at ridiculous levels, L8 inspire courage (yet still no scaling for primary class bards), L10 flurry, etc.

Personally, I think it's better this way. I don't want multiclassing to be the goto way of getting something like Dex to damage, because then, you'll just see every dex fighter multiclass rogue. Likewise, I think with inspire courage and flurry, I think the design team is sort of stuck. Because it'd be hard to present a bard multiclass without inspire courage, or a monk without flurry, but providing them at level 4 for any character would make them insane, even if you count it as a 2 feat investment.

Quote:
4.) Spell casting progression for MC archetypes is too slow and there are not enough spell slots. This really gimps the excitement of picking up caster MCs because spells are already so under-powered in this edition. There aren't any reliable/meaningful long term buffs, so it is not clear how a 'non' spell caster gets much functionality? You should combine the Basic spell casting and increased spell slot feats into one feat and start giving out extra spell slots for less feat investment (it is still only giving extra slots for spells 2 levels lower than your highest level spell AND your spell progression is slower vs. full casters).

Here's something I'll largely agree on. Honestly, I'd be probably be fine baking in the extra slots for 2+ level lower spells into the multiclass progression, as you suggest, but I feel like this is also some place where a more radical departure from their current way of doing things, like adding not necessarily more powers per character, but maybe more options of powers per character, and leaning into powers as a solution to multiclass casters could also work.

Quote:
5.) There are insufficient feats to allow MC. You frequently have to give up 4-5 of your 11 or 8 feats to get value out of a MC. Not to mention the fact that because of that STEEP investment it makes it all but impossible to have a MC PC and a Archetype (like cavalier or pirate)....

I agree that I'm wary of the fact that non MC archetypes are difficult to mix with MC archetypes, but I feel like investing half your feats in a multiclass isn't too unreasonable, since, by definition, investing in a class that's not yours means not investing in your class, and having the line be about 50/50 in terms of feats works alright with me.

Something I'd considered, though, and it probably wouldn't be easily done in the current form of the game, is instead of ancestry feats, past first level, you get archetype feats, that can only be spent on non-multiclass non-prestige archetypes. That way you can be a pirate without necessarily having to give up your class feats to do so (though a ton of rebalancing would probably have to be necessary). Ancestry feats at first level would probably have to go up +1-2 feats, though I could also see some sort of "Elven Exemplar" (or whatever) archetypes, with requirements that you are of that ancestry, that house some of what are currently higher level ancestry feats, as well as options for picking up additional lower level ancestry feats, and other ancestry-based benefits.

Sovereign Court

How do you multiclass into Ranger and use its class feats when you can only Hunt Target once per day?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
How do you multiclass into Ranger and use its class feats when you can only Hunt Target once per day?

I guess you could always take the other Ranger dedication feat that lets you hunt target as often as you want.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Ascalaphus wrote:
How do you multiclass into Ranger and use its class feats when you can only Hunt Target once per day?

Guess you are stuck with feats that do not require Hunt Target, such as animal companion feat line.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
How do you multiclass into Ranger and use its class feats when you can only Hunt Target once per day?
I guess you could always take the other Ranger dedication feat that lets you hunt target as often as you want.

Dude, if you share ALL the inner sanctum minmax tricks this early, you're just ruining it for the rest of us.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Twin Takedown has some big anti-synergy with Twin Parry. If you want to avoid taking a pretty substantial penalty on your second Twin Takedown attack you need to have an agile weapon in your offhand. But that reduces the AC bonus from Twin parry to +1. I'm not convinced a +1 AC bonus is worth an action and a feat, especially since you can't even Shield Block like you could with a small shield. Seems hardly worth a feat.

You could only have the best of both worlds by using a main gauche in your offhand but that doesn't really seems all that fitting for a ranger.

Also, I'm still not convinced I like that the caster Multiclass feats require their skill up to legendary. I can be a level 20 wizard who is barely trained in Arcana, but if I want to get a reduced amount of arcane spells, I must be up to legendary?

We can only get 3 skills to legendary (except rogues) and having one of them be Arcana/Nature/Occultism/Religion isn't that exciting, especially since those skills don't really have (m)any useful skill feats that require more than Expert.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, Druid and Monk archetypes seem flawed.
1) All martial class archetypes provide training in new weapons and armor (the latter potentially gives +1 or +2 AC). Monk gives you only unarmed Attack proficiency - the thing you already have (wizard does not, but that do not count) and make it a weapon. However, to get the defence - unarmored expert - you have to spend a class feat. Is that +1 AC worth it? I doubt.
2) All caster class archetypes provide feats that enable their non-feat class features (cleric gives domain, wizard gives arcane school ect.). Druid gets nothing. Only Order skill and anathema.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
it's good that you did a /4 level comparison.

Complaints about numbers should generally actually reference the numbers, IMO. I've occasionally not done that, but I try to when I can.

shroudb wrote:

we see, that at 4 level increments our chances, when optimized, are 55%/55%/60%/70%/75%

this points to me 2 outliers:
early on there is not an increase in a step, later on there's 2 increased in a step.

Yup. That's absolutely what I meant about it being backloaded. The current numbers have some pretty big increases, but really only in the second half of the game (there's a further 10% shift to 85% by 20th level above and beyond those listed). That makes for a 5% shift between 1st and 9th, and then a 15% shift between 9th and 17th, and then a 10% shift between 17th and 20th.

That's super backloaded. 25% of the 30% shift (5/6 of it) only kicks in at 10th level and above.

shroudb wrote:
if we streamline this to 55/60/65/70/75 we reach the same ballpark Paizo wants, but have a more smooth transition and better progression feeling in general.

I think it needs a tad bit more adjustment than that, but even that much would be a really good start, yeah.

Data Lore wrote:
Quote:
55%/55%/60%/70%/75%

Those success rates still feel a bit low to me. But, you gotta figure in stuff like assists or bard help or guidance or whatever.

Still, I would hope for something like 60/65/70/75/80 for the optimized dude since not everyone is gonna be optimized.

Agreed. This progression actually sounds just about perfect to me (with 20th level still hitting 85%). It'd be fairly easy to put into effect, too.

I'd also prefer if so much of it wasn't item based, but more ready access to mundane skill items would make up for a lot in that regard.

Data Lore wrote:
But maybe Paizo is future proofing since they know that PCs get OP as splat books come out.

I'd much rather they ditched the concept of Virtuosic Performance than build the game's math around all skills having such a Feat (which is what I think seems to be going on), given that the Feats in question don't exist yet.

And Feats like that seem to be the only room the system even has for increases beyond the current math.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

So is the Ranger dedication supposed to make Hunt Target useless in combat? It says "however, you don’t decrease the multiple attack penalty for your attacks, and if you share your Hunt Target benefits with others, neither do they."

Targeted Hunter also doesn't change that. So you basically get a Hunt Target that only gives you +2 to Perception and Survival no matter what?

That's...really bad...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just pointing out a copy/paste error for the next update:

Pathfinder (2e) Playtest Rulebook Multiclass Archetypes Update 1.0, p.2 wrote:

EXPERT BARD SPELLCASTING FEAT 12

Prerequisites Basic Bard Spellcasting, master in Occultism
You gain a level 4 occult spell in your repertoire and a spell slot to cast it in the same way as your basic bard spellcasting. You become an expert in spell rolls and spell DCs for casting divine spells and in attacks you make with divine spells.
At 14th level, you gain a level 5 occult spell in your repertoire and a spell slot to cast it in the same way, and at 16th level, you gain a level 6 spell in your repertoire and a spell slot to cast it in the same way.
Pathfinder (2e) Playtest Rulebook Multiclass Archetypes Update 1.0, pp.2-3 wrote:

MASTER BARD SPELLCASTING FEAT 18

Prerequisites Expert Bard Spellcasting, legendary in Occultism
You gain a level 7 occult spell in your repertoire and a spell slot to cast it in the same way as your basic bard spellcasting. You become a master in spell rolls and spell DCs for casting divine spells and in attacks you make with divine spells.
At 20th level, you gain a level 8 occult spell in your repertoire and a spell slot to cast it in the same way.

I believe that the highlighted ought to say 'occult spells'.


This update makes me so happy... ;w;


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Resonance doesn't impact charges at all. Charges are their own thing and you never need use Resonance to use a Wand or Staff that has been Invested.

I know I am beating a dead horse (no offense to horses), but the way I would have wanted this to work is for charges to disappear, replaced entirely by resonance.

A big issue with items with charges (those that don't regenerate) is that they reduce the sale value of the item. A permanent item can be upgraded or sold for 50% of its price, a consumable or item with charges is a complete loss.


Shinigami02 wrote:
User_Undefined wrote:
Why does the Monk dedication list becoming trained in unarmed attacks as a bonus when everyone is already trained in them?
I think the thing to note here is that Unarmed Attacks does not just mean the Simple Weapon Fist. It also applies to all the various Unarmed Attacks both now and in the future, and some of those may wind up being Martial or even Exotic. And of course, the proficiency you use for Unarmed Attacks also applies to a whole slew of proper weapons if you take Monastic Weaponry.

The entry on 178 includes a number of different strikes and mentions access, but not proficiency changes for special attacks granted by other abilities. How would making an exotic unarmed strike nullify the proficiency granted by simple weapon proficiency and not from monk unarmed strike proficiency?

The easiest workaround I can think of would be to make unarmed strikes that weren't labeled as unarmed strikes but did have the monk trait. That solution wouldn't work though as monk dedication doesn't grant the ability to use monk weapons as if they were unarmed strikes.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Why is it harder to heal someone that took an arrow at level 10 that is was at level 1 ?

This is why the DC table is so dangerous. Once it is there, it is a great temptation for game designers to use it like this, to make DCs that automatically rise as the PCs advance in ability. This gives the illusion of progress while not really letting the PCs improve.

The simulationist way to do this would have been to give an increasing effect based on your Medicine check result, such that a high level characters need a high roll to be healed well. Say you recover a number of Hp equal to your check result -10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:

So is the Ranger dedication supposed to make Hunt Target useless in combat? It says "however, you don’t decrease the multiple attack penalty for your attacks, and if you share your Hunt Target benefits with others, neither do they."

Targeted Hunter also doesn't change that. So you basically get a Hunt Target that only gives you +2 to Perception and Survival no matter what?

That's...really bad...

Yes, while overall like the new multiclass options, I built a 20th-level monk, and wanted to splash into ranger, so I have been waiting for this, but it seems to be a tad lacklustre, stingy.

I also am not a fan of the Resiliency feat (extra hit points).

Going from using an ability 1/day to as many times as you like seems extreme (almost jarring).

Back to the ranger, as it does not have spellcasting in the base class (I believe they mentioned an archetype?), I do not think I can convert my classic Monk/Ranger from PF1.


For the Druid Archetype there should be dedication feats to gain their order abilities — like there is for the Barbarian Totems. Let me get Wildshape! (And also change it to function long enough to be useful outside combat, even if only for non-combat forms)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ramanujan wrote:
For the Druid Archetype there should be dedication feats to gain their order abilities — like there is for the Barbarian Totems. Let me get Wildshape! (And also change it to function long enough to be useful outside combat, even if only for non-combat forms)

Uh...Wild Shape is a level 1 Druid Feat. It is thus readily available. You even get an Order and thus the extra uses per day (though what spell you can use it for will lag sharply behind).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Why is it harder to heal someone that took an arrow at level 10 that is was at level 1 ?

This is why the DC table is so dangerous. Once it is there, it is a great temptation for game designers to use it like this, to make DCs that automatically rise as the PCs advance in ability. This gives the illusion of progress while not really letting the PCs improve.

The simulationist way to do this would have been to give an increasing effect based on your Medicine check result, such that a high level characters need a high roll to be healed well. Say you recover a number of Hp equal to your check result -10.

Or allow the healer to voluntarily lower their level for both DC and amount healed.

That solves the forced scaling and would even make Assurance (Medicine) usefull. At higher levels you could select a healing level that you can auto succeed and just heal X HP per 10 minutes without rolling.

I would always allow that.

Liberty's Edge

18 people marked this as a favorite.

Looking it over, the Medium Skill DCs are even worse than the high ones in some ways, and not what they are advertised to be at all.

Let's examine what someone with a 12 stat and is Trained, but uses no Skill ups or Items, and no level-ups, has as odds for Medium Skill Checks. That should certainly meet the text's requirements, which say:

'...a decent chance to succeed for low-skilled characters who don’t have a good proficiency or a high ability score.'

The chance at 1st level is 50%.

The chance at 5th it drops to 45%.

The chance at 9th drops to 40%.

The chance at 13th drops to 35%.

The chance at 17th drops even further to 30%.

The numbers become 50%/50%/45%/45%/45% if they raise the stat at 5th, 10th, and 15th, but I'm not sure if that quite qualifies as 'not having a high ability score' any more.

Really, the issue is that they're always within 2-3 of the High ones, which is fine if that's what you're aiming for but a huge disconnect from what the actual text bills them as representing.

This makes PCs get actively worse as they level at anything they don't invest fairly heavily in, even in terms of Medium difficulty stuff. Which is decidedly un-fun.

Now, all this was true of the previous version as well (which is why it wan't my first thought), but I, at least, was rather hoping to see it fixed.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Looking it over, the Medium Skill DCs are even worse than the high ones in some ways, and not what they are advertised to be at all. ...

The chance at 1st level is 50%.

The chance at 5th it drops to 45%.

The chance at 9th drops to 40%.

The chance at 13th drops to 35%.

The chance at 17th drops even further to 30%.

...

This makes PCs get actively worse as they level at anything they don't invest fairly heavily in, even in terms of Medium difficulty stuff. Which is decidedly un-fun.

Yep. The first thing I did upon reading Treat Wounds was check the Medium DC for 5 and 15, and saw it went up by 12, where I found it reasonable that a PC only gains 10 to their score, and this felt very wrong. Medium DC sems like what you should 'keep up with' with 0 investment, not having to raise your ability by 4, or get an item, or push it to master.


Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook Update 1.3, p.7, Unconscious condition from p.324 wrote:


If you were dying when you regain conscious, you’re slowed for 1 round, with a slowed value equal to the dying value you had just before you returned to 1 HP

Have you forgotten to update the description of the condition?

Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook Update 1.3, p.7, Wounded wrote:


The wounded condition ends if someone attends to you with Treat Wounds...

Does this mean that success is not important and failed medicine check still remove wounded condition?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Looking it over, the Medium Skill DCs are even worse than the high ones in some ways, and not what they are advertised to be at all.

Let's examine what someone with a 12 stat and is Trained, but uses no Skill ups or Items, and no level-ups, has as odds for Medium Skill Checks. That should certainly meet the text's requirements, which say:

'...a decent chance to succeed for low-skilled characters who don’t have a good proficiency or a high ability score.'

The chance at 1st level is 50%.

The chance at 5th it drops to 45%.

The chance at 9th drops to 40%.

The chance at 13th drops to 35%.

The chance at 17th drops even further to 30%.

The numbers become 50%/50%/45%/45%/45% if they raise the stat at 5th, 10th, and 15th, but I'm not sure if that quite qualifies as 'not having a high ability score' any more.

Really, the issue is that they're always within 2-3 of the High ones, which is fine if that's what you're aiming for but a huge disconnect from what the actual text bills them as representing.

This makes PCs get actively worse as they level at anything they don't invest fairly heavily in, even in terms of Medium difficulty stuff. Which is decidedly un-fun.

Now, all this was true of the previous version as well (which is why it wan't my first thought), but I, at least, was rather hoping to see it fixed.

(Copying what I wrote in another thread)

Basically, with threadmill DCs you don't choose what you get better at as you level up; you choose what you don't get left behind in.

As you level up, you can keep up with the DCs in very few skills (approximately three?), as you have to spend skill-ups on them, you have to increase their corresponding attributes, and you have to spend magic item picks on them. (This is also why I think that the argument on how many trained skills a specific class starts with is a red herring; what matters is how many of skills you can afford to keep updated as you level.)

Why even have a threadmilled check in e.g. Lingering Composition? Why not simply have a flat check? Then at least you won't have to take time to look it up all the time... :) :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

DC should be a function of how much damage you are trying to heal and con mod. Or, better yet, a direct function of your skill.

Healing 1 hp at level 15 should not be harder than at level 1. That is not good.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I am very pleased with the change to the Infused trait for Alchemists. That alone helps them a lot. It was a change on my list of high-priority changes, but I didn't expect it to be touched until next update.

It is odd that shields can be repaired more quickly, but the shield spell's recharge time, and the mending spell's casting time didn't change.

The new multiclassing archetypes are uninspired and formulaeic at best, or downright trap options at worst (particularly because dedication feats lock you into a given archetype). For example, why does every archetype have the equivalent of "basic" and "advanced discovery"? I ask rhetorically, they simply pad the woedully short lists out nicely.
All of those feats could have been replaced with a sentence or two included in each dedication about gaining the "alchemist trait" and "access to alchemist class feats", and that "For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your alchemist level is equal to half your level."
Alternatively paizo could at least fold the basic and advanced permutations into one another and save something like 60-lines worth of text-space.

The content of the archetypes could also use adjustment, but since the character classes they're based on also need work that is understandable and difficult to compose a comment on. I won't get to delve into that content as a GM very much though, so I await my player's feedback when they level-up this week. As is:
I am slightly disappointed that my oft theorized 'heavy-wizard' now has to multiclass paladin instead of fighter in order to qualify for grey-maiden ASAP. I also dislike how many game elements are still being arbitrarially restricted in terms of access to them (Finesse Striker and Additional Heightening for example).

I am also becoming a little concerned about how confusing and unsatisifying it will be for multiclassed casters to have to track spell slots, repertoires, and/or spellbooks for up to three traditions (of the effectively seven different sub-traditions, eight once a prepared-occultist is published). In addition to spell-point powers, secondary class pools (wildshape and channel energy for example), invested items, hero points, whatever new mechanic limits consumables... etc

I'm even more concerned because there's currently no way for a single-classed caster to compete with the sheer number of cantrips and spell slots a triple-classed caster can eventually sport.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:

So is the Ranger dedication supposed to make Hunt Target useless in combat? It says "however, you don’t decrease the multiple attack penalty for your attacks, and if you share your Hunt Target benefits with others, neither do they."

Targeted Hunter also doesn't change that. So you basically get a Hunt Target that only gives you +2 to Perception and Survival no matter what?

That's...really bad...

Hunt Target also allows ranged characters to ignore the penalty for firing into their second range increment, which is pretty useful for stuff like Shortbows that have a shorter range. It does seem like an odd choice - it may be more balanced but it does lessen the value of the multiclass.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

I am very pleased with the change to the Infused trait for Alchemists. That alone helps them a lot. It was a change on my list of high-priority changes, but I didn't expect it to be touched until next update.

It is odd that shields can be repaired more quickly, but the shield spell's recharge time, and the mending spell's casting time didn't change.

The new multiclassing archetypes are uninspired and formulaeic at best, or downright trap options at worst (particularly because dedication feats lock you into a given archetype). For example, why does every archetype have the equivalent of "basic" and "advanced discovery"? I ask rhetorically, they simply pad the woedully short lists out nicely.
All of those feats could have been replaced with a sentence or two included in each dedication about gaining the "alchemist trait" and "access to alchemist class feats", and that "For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your alchemist level is equal to half your level."
Alternatively paizo could at least fold the basic and advanced permutations into one another and save something like 60-lines worth of text-space.

The content of the archetypes could also use adjustment, but since the character classes they're based on also need work that is understandable and difficult to compose a comment on. I won't get to delve into that content as a GM very much though, so I await my player's feedback when they level-up this week. As is:
I am slightly disappointed that my oft theorized 'heavy-wizard' now has to multiclass paladin instead of fighter in order to qualify for grey-maiden ASAP. I also dislike how many game elements are still being arbitrarially restricted in terms of access to them (Finesse Striker and Additional Heightening for example).

I am also becoming a little concerned about how confusing and unsatisifying it will be for multiclassed casters to have to track spell slots, repertoires, and/or spellbooks for up to three traditions (of the effectively seven different sub-traditions, eight once a...

Disclaimer: I don’t know Paizo’s intentions. The following are educated guesses.

Basic and Advanced Maneuvers serve several purposes. They are archetype feats instead of class feats, which means taking them counts towards the 3 feat requirement before you can switch dedication. There are two different feats because the Basic version lets you take a level 1 or 2 class feat from your archetype and is available from level 2, breaking the rule provided in the Advanced version (gaining a feat as if your level in your archetype was half your actual level).

Furthermore, making them archetype feats instead of allowing you to take class feats directly prevents edge cases like a Human taking Natural Ambition to take a level 1 class feat in his or her archetype’s class feat. It’s basically future-proofing.

As for your concern about a Spellcaster who dips into 2 other spellcasting classes gaining too much, it’s basically a non-issue. To get the maximum benefit from a spellcasting archetype, you need to invest 5 feats (1 for dedication, 3 for basic, expert and master spellcasting, and 1 for breadth). Casters only have 8 free feats for archetype use, so even if they invest them all, at most they’ll get 8th level casting in a 2nd class and 6th level casting in a 3rd class, for a total of 20 extra spells per day. In return, they give up on ALL their class feats, including their level 20 feat which can grant them 10th level spells. I think most people would not trade their level 20 feat for the ability to cast level 4, 5 and 6 spells in another class.

As for the amount of tracking such a theoretical character would have to do... while it’s true that’s a lot to keep track of, it’s the player’s choice to do so. They’re not forced into multiclassing 2 other spellcaster classes, because the benefits conferred are not clearly better than the alternatives. So if someone ever decides to take that choice, it’s because they want to and are willing to deal with the extra bookkeeping involved.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

(making a monk-fighter just for lawlz) Oh yes! Let's test some heavyarmor-wearing monk!

(Reading update 1.3 archetypes) Not good... Now I get only a light armor.

(Reading paladin multiclass) Oh yes! Let's test some heavyarmor-wearing retrebutive handlaying monk!

P.S. Still need to hurry and play before next update will nerf pal dedication though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pramxnim wrote:
Basic and Advanced Maneuvers serve several purposes. They are archetype feats instead of class feats, which means taking them counts towards the 3 feat requirement before you can switch dedication.

Said requirement could just as easily be reworded to refer to Fighter feats generally (and all the Fighter Archetype Feats beyond the Dedication would similarly become Fighter feats.

Quote:
There are two different feats because the Basic version lets you take a level 1 or 2 class feat from your archetype and is available from level 2, breaking the rule provided in the Advanced version (gaining a feat as if your level in your archetype was half your actual level).

No they don't... all of the Basic X feats are 4th level and let you take a 1st or 2nd level feat. They're completely reduntant.

Quote:
Furthermore, making them archetype feats instead of allowing you to take class feats directly prevents edge cases like a Human taking Natural Ambition to take a level 1 class feat in his or her archetype’s class feat. It’s basically future-proofing.

Natural Ambition is irrelevent as all Archetype feats are 2nd level or higher class feats. That natural ambition could be used to take a 1st level feat from a class you've dedicated to is a feature of removing the Basic and Advanced feats not a bug. However removing just the redundant Basic feat and rewording the Advanced feat retains the inability to use Natural Ambition that way (since it would be a 4th level class feat just like all the Basic X feats).

Quote:

As for your concern about a Spellcaster who dips into 2 other spellcasting classes gaining too much, it’s basically a non-issue. To get the maximum benefit from a spellcasting archetype, you need to invest 5 feats (1 for dedication, 3 for basic, expert and master spellcasting, and 1 for breadth). Casters only have 8 free feats for archetype use, so even if they invest them all, at most they’ll get 8th level casting in a 2nd class and 6th level casting in a 3rd class, for a total of 20 extra spells per day. In return, they give up on ALL their class feats, including their level 20 feat which can grant them 10th level spells. I think most people would not trade their level 20 feat for the ability to cast level 4, 5 and 6 spells in another class.

You misunderstand my complaint. I'm not concerned that a character can get extra spell-slots by multiclassing... I'm upset a spellcaster cannot get more spell-slots without multiclassing. I should be able to build a pure wizard capable of perparing a comperable number of spells per day as a similarly invested wizard/cleric/druid.

Quote:
As for the amount of tracking such a theoretical character would have to do... while it’s true that’s a lot to keep track of, it’s the player’s choice to do so. They’re not forced into multiclassing 2 other spellcaster classes, because the benefits conferred are not clearly better than the alternatives. So if someone ever decides to take that choice, it’s because they want to and are willing to deal with the extra bookkeeping involved.

I think they are clearly better, because I think many of the class feats are worthless drivel (not just the spellcasting ones). So the way I see it multiclassing is effectively required to build a "full-spellcaster", which means at least one member of every table will be dealing with this 'self-imposed' problem.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I really love all of the changes. Heal Wounds, the Alchemist changes, and making bloodline powers not mandatory (although I'm sad there weren't any additional feats at those levels created) are all really wonderful.

I do wish that archetypes would only require a 14 in the stat rather than a 16 because sometimes it's really difficult to have that much at lower levels. And all it does is punish you sub 5 and force a retrain.

I also really dislike that you only count as half your level for the purposes of meeting MC feat prerequisites. My gnome Cleric wound up picking up Cavalier dedication because we all became emotionally attached to the pack pony (I blame bulk for this). And I was super excited for the Druid MC coming out because it's really more thematically appropriate for my character... But the MC Druid animal companion is worse than the Cavalier mount. It doesn't get nimble/savage until 16 and can never get a specialization. I also vote for half your level or level-4, whichever is higher. Or at least a level 16 Dedication feat to let you pick a level 10-16 class feature.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

8 people marked this as a favorite.

In response to the 1/day abilities... I wonder if it would help to instead make them once per 10 minutes.

That would effectively make them usable once per encounter, which I think really helps them be more relevant while at the same time still limiting them enough that it's worth picking up the later feat to use them at-will.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm disappointed that there is no way for a multiclass rogue to get more sneak attack. I think Sneak Attack is the quintessential Rogue ability, and only getting +1d6 really feels watered down.

I'd suggest that the Rogue Dedication feat should grant the +1d4 sneak attack instead of Surprise Attack. Then the Sneak Attacker feat could grant the level-based increases of +1d4 at levels 5, 11, and 17, just like the base rogue.

+4d4 sneak attack is way more satisfying than +1d6 at high level, and I feel like staying at d4s instead of d6s makes you still feel like you get to throw a lot of dice around, while also making full rogues the best at sneak attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tamago wrote:

I'm disappointed that there is no way for a multiclass rogue to get more sneak attack. I think Sneak Attack is the quintessential Rogue ability, and only getting +1d6 really feels watered down.

I'd suggest that the Rogue Dedication feat should grant the +1d4 sneak attack instead of Surprise Attack. Then the Sneak Attacker feat could grant the level-based increases of +1d4 at levels 5, 11, and 17, just like the base rogue.

+4d4 sneak attack is way more satisfying than +1d6 at high level, and I feel like staying at d4s instead of d6s makes you still feel like you get to throw a lot of dice around, while also making full rogues the best at sneak attack.

That would be a 4d4 increase in weapon damage for 2 class feats (in most occasions).

Waaaaaay too powerful.

I could see though the ability to just pick up the sneak attack feat a second time for an extra die (and cap it tgere).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a BIG step in the right direction. Kudos for smart responses to community feedback!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be happy with a 2d6 Sneak Attack for 3 feats. The Rogue combat styles should also become class feats or else be granted by Rogue Dedication.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Tamago wrote:

I'm disappointed that there is no way for a multiclass rogue to get more sneak attack. I think Sneak Attack is the quintessential Rogue ability, and only getting +1d6 really feels watered down.

I'd suggest that the Rogue Dedication feat should grant the +1d4 sneak attack instead of Surprise Attack. Then the Sneak Attacker feat could grant the level-based increases of +1d4 at levels 5, 11, and 17, just like the base rogue.

+4d4 sneak attack is way more satisfying than +1d6 at high level, and I feel like staying at d4s instead of d6s makes you still feel like you get to throw a lot of dice around, while also making full rogues the best at sneak attack.

That would be a 4d4 increase in weapon damage for 2 class feats (in most occasions).

Waaaaaay too powerful.

That's a 4d4 increase in weapon damage for 2 class feats at level 17. By that point, your +4 weapon is going to have 5 damage dice already, so it's a relatively small percentage of your total damage.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone know: Will there be a General Feat that says: Select a class feat for your given class?

Right now, as many have pointed out, the class feats/abilities feel very streamlined to the point of "Well, you selected this to start. Here are your next X feats."


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
shalandar wrote:
Does anyone know: Will there be a General Feat that says: Select a class feat for your given class?

Well, Humans can take the Natural Ambition ancestry feat, gaining them a 1st level class feat. Anyone can take Adopted Ancestry (a general feat) to take Ancestry feats from another Ancestry (unless those feats rely on physiology). As a note, you don't need to be backstory adopted by humans, the flavor says that a close friendship is enough.

101 to 150 of 308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Sending Your Heroes to the Mirrored Moon All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.