Red Dragon

Abyssalwyrm's page

145 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm not 100% sure One-Inch Punch even works with battle form. (Battle forms continue to be unclear in what exactly it means to modify the special statistics. Expect someone else to chime in to say that it is perfectly clear one way and someone else to say it's obviously really clear that it's the other way.)

Multitalented probably won't solve your issues either, since it only allows multiclass archetypes, so not for example Sixth Pillar.

One-Inch Punch is just one thng about Battleforms. I have like 20+ questions about what and how works with Battleform.

But... at least one can try and convince GM on find compromise.

Multitalented still can work. With moving feats around again a little bit, and instead taking Sixth Pillar dedication first on 8th level. And technically that would allow me to take Monk Dedication feat on level 9 via Multitalented. And practically the only thing i need from Monk Dedication is One-Inch Punch. Where also need only Sixth Pillar Mastery from Sixth Pillar. Although. Taking Sixth Pillar on level-8 bit beneficial. Will give you expert proficiency in unarmed strikes bit earlier.

But, again that still would require me to take human ancestry. Which i prefer to avoid.

Nefreet wrote:
Abyssalwyrm wrote:
10) (?)
Change your mind about Flurry of Blows?

Not that critical at all. Just looked semi-usable feats to use to meet requirement of taking another dedication feat.


OK, even with getting basic kata, i still can't find a way to optimize it...
That's what i get right now
Level:
2)Monk Dedication
4)Basic Kata (Ki Dash or Ki Strike)
6)Form Control
8)Soaring Shape
10) (?)
12)Dragon Form
14)Advance Kata (One-Inch Punch)
16)(very preferably Sixth Pillar Mastery)
18)Perfect Form Control
20)True Shapeshifter

As a base Ancestry i am set for Lizardfolk, mostly for roleplay reason.
I know there kinda workaround with human ancestry, and picking Multitalented ancestry feat on level-9. But i very strongly prefer to stay Lizardfolk.
On class feats also everything is needed, both for build integrity, and roleplay reasons.


So. Lets say i am a druid who picked Monk Dedication feat at level 2. I picked Monk's Flurry feat at level 10, and Advanced Kata (for One-Inch Punch) on level 12.
The only feat i am willing to retrain at this point is level-6 feat. And the only free room for non-druid feat on planned build is on level-16.

Do you think it's ok to allow retrain level-6 feat for an Archetype feat (let's say Sixth Pillar Dedication), when i am on level 12 and technically picked two monk feats, and thus eligible to take another Archetype feat? I would like to pick second archetype's feat (Sixth Pillar Mastery) on level-16.


I talked about it quite a lot in the past.
With overall amazing balancing job in PF2e, sometimes devs goes too far, limiting some options to non-viable.

Most important thing to remember when starting melee caster - you need base class that will get AT LEAST master proficiency in weapons (or unarmed strikes). There is currently no game mechanics that temporarily would give you extra bonus to your proficiency in melee. Thus with expert proficiency you always stay behind those who have master, or better legendary proficiency. Also, in PF2e overall attack roll define not only how often you can hit target, but also how often you can critically hit it. With just expert proficiency you will likely critically hit only on 20, and overall hit chance against target of your level unlikely will go above 50%.

Magus and Summoner provides one of best options. Both get up to master proficiency in melee attacks (for Summoner your eidolon gets master, while you stays at expert). If spellcasting feel to limited with those - just multiclass into any other spellcaster. With 5 feats invested you will get up to 14 extra spells per day.
Otherwise, fighter and monk are best starting class, as both gets legendary proficiency.
Barbarians can compensate his master proficiency with +2 circumstance bonus to attack roll (reckless abandon). Of course it comes with limit of staying below half health to have that bonus, and limitation of (normally) not been able to cast spells wile raging. All pre-cast spells will stay though. Plus circumstance bonus to attack roll specifically actually extremely rare in 2e, so it's a fair compensation.
After that just get standard multiclassing into spellcaster class, with 5 feats invested in total you get 14 spells per day, and up to level-8 spells. Tbh more than you would get in older editions with... lets say something like Eldrich Knight and similar.

Just do not start melee spellcaster as... well, spellcaster: bard, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, oracle or witch. You will be forever stuck with expert proficiency in melee. And no matter how much extra you put into synergy - it wouldn't matter if you can't hit your target often enough.
Druid is somewhat exception to that. At least they get +2 status bonus to attack rolls, when using their wildshape. Although status bonus to attack not as rare as circumstance. In comparison fighter/cleric or fighter/oracle can get access to level-8 heroism. Which would allow them to get same +2 status bonus to attacks. While still having their legendary proficiency. Thus effectively still stay at "+4" better chance on hitting and critically hitting their targets.


Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:


Yet the point-based casting psionics that you're arguing for is a very 3.5 WotC-made thing.

Well, first... yeah, because it was actually felt unique. Not very well balanced, but gave you feeling you playing something outstanding from regular spellcasters.

And second... i already mentioned it does not have to be purely based on 3.5
Psi-points over spells slot is a good starting point. But everything else can be a subject for change.
For D&D 5e WotC tried to make it differently. Of course it is... well, didn't worked well in the end.
It was noticeable they put some effort in designing first 10 levels for Unearthed Arcana of psionic. But remaining 10 levels was very hastily and lazily done. In the end it felt both very imbalanced and poor powers design.
Sill they didn't tried to make just copy-paste of 3.5 psionics. Just kept psi-point as base. And of course kept the lore about psionic powers.


nick1wasd wrote:


I think you mean standard psychic lore from various movies/comic books. WotC had to get their ideas from somewhere

Well, if we gonna dig. First it appeared in Darksun setting for AD&D. But latter were adopted in pretty much all settings.

As of psionics overall? Yeah. X-men, WH40k, and many other had those. Yet it wasn't just plainly copy-pasted in D&D, but rather evolved as something on it's own. Own lore, own rules, own "flavor".
And... well, reading psychic class abilities, feats, focus spells etc. Clearly tells Paizo still draws inspiration from that.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't think Paizo is interested in adding more kinds of magic that aren't tied to the 4 existing traditions (and 4 essences). There's even places they can go for a new tradition (like one that uses opposing essences together), but the fact that there's only 4 spell lists and all spellcasters work the same way is a benefit of the system. Adding point-based casters in parallel with slot based casters is basically just complexity that doesn't add depth.

If there's going to be psionics for Pathfinder 2e, that's a third party product.

Well, funny you mentioned it. 3rd party for Psionics Unleashed for 1e was good, but... out of place.

It's really how it should be done for 3.5 They went far enough to actually made unique non-repeating powers. But it didn't followed main course set for PF1e, on how Paizo tried both balance out 3.5, and differentiate it from 3.5
Not sure if it can be done well for 2e, if not made by Paizo themselves.


Grankless wrote:
That would take up a huge amount of book space to reprint several dozen spells

In needs full size supplement on it's own.

And no, again not reprinting old spells but makes them psionics power (tbh biggest downside of 3.5. Only about 1/3 power were truly unique, the rest was just lazily copy-pasted). But all powers should be completely queue from existing spells.

Would it take more effort? Absolutely.
But otherwise i see no reason even implementing "psionics".


Grankless wrote:


DnD psionics do not exist on Golarion or in pathfinder. They're not going to make a new spellcaster class (and yes, psionic classes were functionally casters) that arbitrarily isn't able to use all the spells they've already printed in the game. Reprinting all the spells but with slightly different names to be used for just six classes or however many there were in 3.5 was a bad use of page space, and it would be an even worse use of page space here given they're not printing a new splat every month to fill that roster.

Psychic magic and psionics are the same thing: it's magic that comes from your brain. There's no good reason to make the psychic less approachable just to repeat a weird design decision from a 20 year old game for something that, with the lore stuff that exists in Golarion, does not exist.

It doesn't matter really. Paizo still clearly uses "classic" psionics vibes: Power of own mind, over drawing cosmic powers (spellcasters). Not relying on verbal, somatic and material components (kinda still is on somatic, but that's fine). And hundreds of other features very clearly inspired by classic 3.5 psionics lore.

And as of "psychic magic". Even in 3.5 general rule stated "magic affects psionics, and psionics affects magic". So not much difference here.

Still it's just doesn't feels like something unique on it's own.
IMO it should have it's own system on power manifestation. Doesn't even need to be exactly like in 3.5 (and yes, there certainly room for improvement from how it was in 3.5), but not related to "core spellcasting".
And again not just "occult spells, but bit more different from how bard, sorcerer or which would cast it". But actually it's own list of powers. All unique and all build around idea of psionics lore and versatility of psionics.


Honestly i am disappointed.

I always liked psionics in D&D, since they provided proper feeling of being something really different from regular spellcasters.
But i have yet to see of repeating success since 3.5e

In PF2e in particular, it's just spellcaster with very slight flavor of psionics.

I know it wouldn't be nearly as easy to balance going from regular spellslots to classic psionic points. But without those it... well, it's just hardly feels like psionics at all.
Not mentioning that it also should not use any of magic traditions. But instead having it's own psionic (psychic, whatever) list of powers (and yes, should not be even called spells).

Not mentioning that it's just as single class.
Psionics surely deserve at least 4 dedicated classes on their own.


So Shocking Grasp provides: "If the target is wearing metal armor or
is made of metal, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your
attack roll with shocking grasp".
But Spellstrike replaces your regular melee spell attack with Spellstrike's melee attack.
Question is, would +1 circumstance bonus apply to Spellstrike's attack, if Magus uses it against target wearing meta armor?"


Btw, a little bit of an offtopic, but since i mentioned specifically Daze Being used. Also wonders:

Quote:

You cloud the target’s mind and daze it with a mental jolt.

The jolt deals mental damage equal to your spellcasting
ability modifier; the target must attempt a basic Will save. If
the target critically fails the save, it is also stunned 1.
Heightened (+2) The damage increases by 1d6.

Does will save affects only whenever target is stunned or not, and damage (including heightened) is guarantied?

Or does it still goes "usual" half damage at successful save, and no damage on critical success?


breithauptclan wrote:


Yes, having it auto-heighten to maximum castable level like a cantrip or focus spell is too much. But this is also Magus that we are looking at. The ability requires consuming a spell slot. Of which you have two at your highest level and two at one level lower than that, two more lower level spell slots from Studious Spells, and maybe some other slots of various lower levels through archetypes.

This tbh. Magus don't even get spells extension feats like Summoner...

...albeit even summoner likely will benefit more from multiclassing into another spellscaster, rather than using his own spells extension feats. Yeah that's 5 feats over 3, but also 14 additional spells per day, and up to level-8, compared to 7 additional spells per day and max level-7, with 3 feats.
Although if treating it as RAW, neither Arcane Shroud, nor Arcane Cascade, nor even Spellstrike defines that spell have to be cast specifically from Magus' spell slot.
So potentially you can extend it up to 18 time of usage of same Arcane Shroud effect per day... or even 28 times per day, if you go all nuts and multiclass into 2 additional spellcaster classes.
Of course that also means you giving up on pretty much all Magus' specializations, and you would have to use specifically only "harmful" enchantment spells via spellstrike, just to get that status bonus to your attack roll.
In the end you still sacrifice more than you actually gain.


Quote:

Your spell has a powerful aftereffect, briefly granting you a certain spell

depending on the spell you cast. You use Arcane Cascade and are subject
to an additional aftereffect spell depending on the school of your most
recent spell. This aftereffect spell’s duration lasts until the end of your
next turn or its normal duration, whichever is longer. Using Arcane Shroud again
ends any existing spell you gained from Arcane Shroud.
• Abjuration stoneskin
• Conjuration blink
• Divination see invisibility
• Enchantment heroism
• Evocation fire shield
• Illusion invisibility (ends after a hostile action, as normal)
• Necromancy false life
• Transmutation fleet step

Let's say i used Spellstrike with Daze (with expansive strike feat, to make possible using Daze with Spellstrike). If i use Arcane Cascade afterward, while having Arcane Shroud feat. That should put Heroism spell on me, which should last standard one minute.

Question is - what level of Heroism would it be? If i am at level-17, and all my cantrips auto-leveled to level-9, does that mean Heroism also will be level-9?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:


casters can compitently go into melee, especially in battleform. They won't do it at martial lvls buts that's ok

But that's the thing. Do i just fool myself, pretending been good in melee, but in practice just been carried by others? Or been honest with myself roll either classic spellcaster, or martial?

I would prefer have more options. I might agree that making spellcasters so powerful in melee, that they can put any martials to shame is a bad idea (although monks historically always were very good). But give option at least make equal, situationally temporarily, but also consistently (not only on key battle form levels).

Guntermench wrote:


In short, as a spellcaster you spent your time learning how to hurl fireballs and lightning.

Martials learned how to hit stuff real good.

They do different things.

Well, at least you confess in the end that you simply hate melee casters, and not just want something fare.

And no, you spent your lifetime however you want.
Just like fighter can spend 50/50 learning martial arts and be spellcaster at the same time. Spellcasters can do the same.
D&D in particular even have rich lore of whole traditions like that. For example Bladesingers and Raumathari Battlemages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
Quote:
So in the end it comes
In the end it comes down to you are still a full spellcaster outside of wideshape.

In short, like i said: "go hurl fireballs in lightning, leave melee to fighters".

i don't know how you, but i hated D&D 4e with passion. And last thing i want is Pathfinder turning into one. Especially since Pathfinder was founded as alternative to "new route" WotC decided to take back in a days.

And no, it's ok loving "classic" spellcasters, who like hurl all kind of harmful energy around.
What is not ok, is trying persuade others that this should be the ONLY way of playing spellcasters. Especially since in older editions it wasn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:


Martials will have at best what? 14 spells a day? Not reaching the same proficiency while having less than half the slots, and having those slots scale pretty slowly. Yet you want casters to reliably reach the equivalent of master weapon proficiency.

How does that matter, when spells still work at full potential?

At level 20 you will get 2 level-6 spells slots, 1 level-7 and one level-8.
That's enough to cast level-6 Heroism 4 times. Do you possibly need more? I highly doubt it.
So fighters and monks, who already have legendary proficiency, can get another +2. barbarians gets master +2 circumstance bonus, so still can benefit from heroism's status bonus. An monks can treat their first roll as minimum 10.
Where even druid at best get expert +2 status bonus. And heroism wouldn't help because... status bonus.

"But hey, Druids have elemental spells and all". Yeah, except if you use wildshape - your build surely is melee based, not spell-damage based. Not mentioning that normally you can't cast at all in Battle Forms.

So in the end it comes again to questioning yourself "should i keep sucking in melee, landing maybe half hits compare to our party fighter/barbarian/monk? Or should i just roll new character who will instead specialize in Lightning Storm?".
And where you surely can pick second option. It really sucks when game tells you "nope, melee is just not yours, go back to your fireballs and such".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:


It's not a problem that casters can't tie martials in beating things to death. Temporarily getting pretty close, sure. Tie permanently with the option to just become a full caster again at will? No.

Well the martials can become spellcaster, permanently. Ironically making their martial prowess even deadlier.

You think your legendary proficiency in weapon not enough? Well, here yours +2 status bonus from heightened Heroism!
Spellcasters at best, and very situationally will get just equibalent of master weapon proficiency. Which is... fine. As long as it's more reliable, and not only on "specific levels".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nephandys wrote:


You seem to be conflating your opinion with fact. It's a problem for you. It's not a problem for others. As you've suggested if you don't like it house rule it. Alternatively, play another game that allows you to achieve this fantasy.

I'd assume there might be a Shifter class or expansion on polymorph in the future but it's likely to come with heavily restricted casting similar to the Magus or Summoner.

It's absolutely far more than "only my problem".

If anything, topics about Battle Form keeps pop up on this forums more often than anything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
I don't see this as a problem. They're temporary power boosts to get casters close to martials. I fail to see the problem with a permanent version not doing that. When not transformed you're still a full caster.

And yet it is a problem.

And one thing where core system is flawed and you can't really do anything about it. Other then very heavily homebrew it (which likely cause myriad of other unexpected issues), like with D&D 5e.
But with PF2e you actually CAN quite easily "reverse-engineer it" and see that base mechanics DOES allow more "fluid" polymorph rules.
And once again, unlike nowadays WotC, Paizo still are often publish new materials. So all they need to do is give a little bit of room for optional extended polymorph rules in future books.


Guntermench wrote:

Don't scale well in what way? AC wise they're practically the same, occasionally higher. Attack modifier for about half the levels there's at least one that's identical and the rest of the levels they're only usually 1 or 2 lower. They give you temp HP and generally have some utility, and give you reach in the majority of forms.

They're actually really close, and arguably situationally already better. The only issue with them is the wording that makes it look like RAW you can't use maneuvers or Escape.

Say you want to use permanent duration of Dragon Form via wildshape and perfect form control. Sounds cool? On the paper. On practice you can use it earliest on level 15, when you would normally get access to heightened version of it. And what would we have on level 15:

AC 33. That's about as much as wizards/sorceress get with +3 explorer outfit. Good enough not to be hammered with critical hit on every single hit. But absolutely NOT to be involved in melee combat... which whole purpose of form is about.

Even worse with attack. AT this point your own attack modifier absolutely will be higher than puny +22.
But "hey", will you say, "druids have +2 status bonus, if they using Battle Form via wildshape!" Yeah. And that will bring you just at equal status to those who have unarmed proficiency naturally. More to that, since it status bonus, it WON'T stack with other status bonuses. Specifically Heroism spell. So all those bearers of of master and legendary proficiency can get another +2 to attack from heroism (including martials who multiclass into spellcaster, so don't even need to rely on another divine spellcaster). And you not.

Goes so much worse with lower Battle Forms. What if RP-wise i want to stay at bear form, even on higher level?
What if i am wizard/sorcerer, who doesn't even get that +2 status bonus, and only freaking 1 minute duration per spell. "Guys, i am out of both my level-8 slots. Yeah, after our first combat this day. Can we take a long rest?".

Can battle forms work well? On starting level when you get them they work...ok. Just ok. On higher level same battle forms are just bad.
And. That. Is. A problem.


Guntermench wrote:
full spellcasters should not tie martials in martial combat. And yet there are already levels where they do. That's enough, thanks.

That's just a poor design choice. "Hey, that not gonna work well in this edition, so you should just not goin that direction." Especially for D&D/Pathfinder, who have rich history of "doing cool s&@@" with multiclassing and all (well, except for 4e and 5e D&D).

Quote:
There's also with battle forms you don't need to multiclass into a martial as a spellcaster.

Problem is - they are not scales well with higher level, and/or multiclassed choices.

Hence this, and hundred more topics on this forum about Battle Forms.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:


Bluntly, I don't think they should be equal. That is the same as making martials obsolete. Why be only a martial when you can have full spellcasting when necessary and full martial ability when necessary?

Oh but they get so much more than that. Not only they get their weapon and armor proficiency PERMANENTLY, but they get access to their higher level feats (above level 10, which you can't get through multiclassing), and of course number of base class features. Which you either get either in super-nerfed form (via multi-classing), or not getting at all.

Plus. They also can multiclass into spellcaster. And unlike multiclassing into martials, multiclassing into spellcaster reeeeeealy buffs your character A LOT!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:


Personally I would prefer never.

In D&D 3.x and PF 1 casters made martials effectively obsolete. If you wanted to be good at melee, your best bet was to go CoDzilla.

Over-nerfing is not an answer. Don't make them better, just make them equal... situationally that is. And spells exist precisely for that. Right tools for right situations.


Starocious wrote:
When do you think we are likely to see more support for battleforms, such as spellcasting during or having scaling AC / using own AC / "wild" runes?

Spellcasting is kinda already in there.

Quote:

Unless otherwise noted, the

battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and
using most manipulate actions that require hands. (If there’s
doubt about whether you can use an action, the GM decides.)

Tbh Paizo could just left "can't speak, cant use manipulate". Which automatically means - "Can't cast".

Unless that is you CAN speak and/or manipulate. Like dragon form.

Quote:
When do you think we are likely to see more support for battleforms, such as spellcasting during or having scaling AC / using own AC

Absolutely. It's really sucks when in specific situation you get worse AC than your own. Because game just provides you raw numbers.

For attack as well.
It would work so much better if they would provide simple formula like that for upscaling:
Dragon Form. Attack: Your Level + master weapon proficiency in unarmed strikes (unless your is legendary) + 3 strength modifier (unless yours is higher).
Damage: 3 (master weapon specialization, unless yours is legendary) + 3 (strength modifier, unless yours is higher).
Boom, you have exactly the same numbers on the start (level 13), but you CAN properly upscale them with better strength, higher level, and maybe legendary proficiency.
For AC it would be 10 + master unarmored proficiency (unless yours is legendary) + 2 (natural armor) + your level.

For lower levels battle forms obviously there should be used expert proficiency in unarmed and/or unarmored, or even just proficient (for lowest level animal forms). Although it still should hit master proficiency at specific heightened levels.


Starocious wrote:

Thats cool but I'm aware of that not working.

So does anyone have any suggestions or have i found the only 3 ways already?

Why specifically 6 dices though?

Would you be more satisficed with 6d4, over 4d12?


Blave wrote:
Abyssalwyrm wrote:

Arguably Handwraps of Mighty Blows still should affect you in polymorphed form.

Although even if they does, it's hard to judge how exactly they will affect you.
IMO it's just shouldn't be stackable. That is they won't provide you more than 4 damage dices in total.
Striking runes don't increase your number of weapon dice. They Set the number of weapon dice to 2/3/4. So even if they affect battleforms, they would never allow them to go past 4 dice.

That's what i said, not stackable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even Forgotten realms in the end got cultures influenced by real world ones. Although E.G. was unhappy about it.
Pathfinder cultures largely ARE influenced by real world cultures.


Arguably Handwraps of Mighty Blows still should affect you in polymorphed form.
Although even if they does, it's hard to judge how exactly they will affect you.
IMO it's just shouldn't be stackable. That is they won't provide you more than 4 damage dices in total.


Karmagator wrote:


I'm not entirely sure how to do it either. One could do a lot with reducing things like the maximum fly speed to manageable levels, which would be honestly fine. That still leaves quite a few gaps, though.

But I have a direct answer from the head of the project that they will be "balanced against the rest of the game". And since its basically Paizo people doing it, I'm confident it'll work out.

I remember there was attempts to make transition of monsters as player characters in 3.5 Savage Species. But in order to become Great Gold/Red Wyrm, players would have to gain experience equal to.... lvl 53.

That might be imbalanced on other end. As powerful as Great Wyrms can be, they are not equal to someone of lvl 53. Still casual attempts of equalizing CR of Great Wyrm to players level also not how it suppose to work.

And main problem is, in 2e Paizo decided not even go with 4 age categories (wyrmling, young, adult and ancient) of 5e D&D. Not mentioning original 12 categories of 3.5/pf1e. But dropping wyrmling, and living only 3 age categories.
And player starting even as a young white/brass dragon would be already waaaaay more powerful than the rest of the party.


Karmagator wrote:
An guess what is also in there? I quote "[an ancestry book] that allows you to play as 39-different dragons in PF2 (not Dragonkin, but an actual dragon)".

How they gonna pull that out? o_O i can't possible see the way to balance the out true dragon as player character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Age basically matter only about character's backstory.
Where can they remember only what happened 3 years ago, with very limited travel one can have at such short period of time.
Or something that happened hundreds years ago, and possibly in great many parts of the world.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
Personally, I'm more interested in the Undead book than a Dragon book. That said, dragons are very popular and I would be absolutely stunned if Paizo didn't produce a dragon themed book full of dragon themed character options.

I have no doubt they will, eventually.

They releasing new books for 2e just about as often as they used to for 1e.
Unlike for Wizards, who nowadays publish at best 10% of what they used to publish in the past.


TiwazBlackhand wrote:

One thing, in general, that I'd want from any D&D or Pathfinder book on Dragons is a moderate length section on roleplaying and portraying a dragon as GM.

Most adult dragons have 16+ int and wis, some have 20+.

And yet all too often they're played as mindless ravening beasts. Oh they may be cunning or use tactics, but actually they don't even do that most of the time, they're just played as direct power combatants.
Breath weapon
Claw claw bite
Spell
Take whip
Repeat.

I'd just really liked to see more dragons justifying and using their +4 to +7 int/wis/cha mods.

Older dragons are known to be quite an experts of divination magic, spying on protentional adversaries. And if adversary might prove to be too to tough to handle streight-forward, dragon might try trick players. Which very much can involve conversing with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is to say, in D&D there was era when dragons pretty much was kings and emperors. Well, at least in Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk.
But even then, lore for that era is nearly non-existant. It was so long ago (roughly 2 million years), that almost no records survived nowadays. Tiny bits of it was found only in magically enhanced ruins, that managed not to crumble over the ages, due to... well, been magical.

Then there is of course Eberron, where dragons have their own continent and society in current (in-game) days.


WatersLethe wrote:

I just saw D&D 5e is coming out with the "Fizban's Treasury of Dragons" book and I realized I'm probably going to buy it despite having never played 5e just because I love dragons (and also Fizban). I've always liked Dragons in the D&D, Dragonlance, and Forgotten Realms settings and basically pick what I like best from there and Pathfinder lore to use.

Anyone else in the same boat, and strangely looking forward to 5e book? If Paizo put out a new Big Book of Dragons, what would you want to see?

I wouldn't really expect much from it. WotC are just not the same anymore.

Karmagator wrote:
For the dragon side of things, I would be particularly interested in dragon politics, society and organisations..

There is almost nothing to tell really.

Silver dragons form reclusive clans.
Blue dragons sometimes form despotic society in their domain. But even then it rarely includes other dragons.

Other dragons (sometimes) are just works with humanoid races (or infiltrate them), and as such adopt their customs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's opposite to positive energy. Which is basically a life force for all living beings... well, mostly. Positive energy actually ARE in rare cases capable of damaging living beings as well.

It's like matter and anti-matter. Except... not so volatile by interacting with each other.

If you looking for symptoms. Large tissue necrosis would be one of most obvious.


WatersLethe wrote:
Dragon Form is 1200% NOT (at all) "anthro" by default.

They are absolutely not. Nor have customs of wearing any clothing, even when working with humanoids. Unless of course themselves polymorphing into humanoids (especially if plans to infiltrate, rather than co-operate), in which case they do their best to fit into society (well, at least definitely not walking around naked :P ).

Best i can think for dragon is just wearing little bit of jewelry. Fancy bracers maybe, perhaps some horns decoration, maybe specially designed neckless for them. Still goes against their own customs. But if dragon stays in their natural form most of time, and it "helps" wearing jewelry, to enhance their status in society they are working with.

Now half-dragons, that's totally different story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For bear you can ask someone to carry animal barding for you, and put it on you after you polymorph into bear.
Obviously worth doing only if you can have at least one hour duration of polymorph (so, druid only), preferably permanent duration.

For dragon... even if polymorph would absorbed all your gear (and it's just always does), it wouldn't be transformed to suit dragon. So it would be as hell uncomfortable and ugly.
Best i can advise for Dragon Form is to cast Illusory Disguise on yourself after the transformation. And yes, standard battleform rules not allow you to cast any spell. But practically it come to simple old lore of been able to perform somatic and verbal components of spell, which you can't in majority of polymorph forms. With exception of dragon... since dragons, well, are damn renowned spellcasters. I am personally think that there should be no issue for character polymorphed into dragon to be able keep casting spells.


Guntermench wrote:


Overall, this isn't 1e or a 3.5 clone. It's not pretending to be or trying to be. Casters not being as effective with weapons and unarmed is intended, regardless of how you feel about it.

Oh i am for one glad it's not a clone. My immediate impression with 2nd edition was very high. And as i already mentioned earlier - i am glad devs focused on balancing. It's just they bit overdo it in some areas. No one asks after all make spellcaster be better than martials in melee. Just equal, and just temporary. Can be done multiple ways:

*Having spellcaster using his spell attack for melee attacks, as a 1 minute spell (the original idea of (Tenser's) Transformation reiteration). Again, you by no mean can out best fighter. Both pure fighter, and multiclassed fighter. In both cases fighter will have his attack bonus PERMANENTLY (which is important, when you suddenly run out of appropriate level of spell slots). And of course access to leve-12+ fighter feats, which quite potent in melee combat. Multiclass fighter in fact on top of that can gain access to Heroism spell. Where as arcane caster, who is trying multiclass into martial, will just have no room for that (assuming Transformation still stays as an arcane spell).

*Same as above, but giving instead circumstance bonus to attack rolls, during spell duration. Unfortunately game capped at +3 bonus max, so you still can't beat the fighter (and Barbarian) with their attack rolls. But i'll take +3. Something like +2 at 6th level of spell (presumably it will stay as level-6 originally), and +3 as heightened to level-9.

*For spellcasters who is clearly prompted to be involved into melee combat. Not as must have, but as clear theme-options. Giving them either +1/+3 circumstance bonus to attacks, when they use obviously melee spells. Or again just allow them use spell attack instead of melee attack. I am mainly talking here about just shoving Dragon Form to dragonblood sorcerer, as if it's gonna be good use to him/her.

Quote:
Saying you can't hit is hyperbolic. You can hit. You won't hit as often, but you're not far enough behind martials so as to be useless.

But it is.

It's not like you can jump into melee, in... let say 10 round combat, hit twice for 40+ damage, and then cheerfully claim: "hey, guys, have you seen those two melee hits i landed?!"
Ranger: "Yeah, totally not like mine 30+ hits, for just poor 30+ damage each"
Fighter, monk, barbarian, rogue: "Or our consistent 1 hit per round, for 50+ damage. And we not gonna mention about those few critical hits, who cares about those right?"
Whole team: "Maybe you should focus on... i dunno, at least just Produce Flame or Electric Arc? We feel you just better at it".

At least that's how game IS right now. And i don't think that's how it should be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:


I don't get it. If you want to play a melee dragon-type character, you have options. Like, dragon instinct barbarian, or fighter with a sorc dedication

Well, let me explain.

First edition pathfinder lived to the legacy of 3.5. Where you presented very broad variety of options. In particular you could be matrial-class with good spellcasting capabilities. As well as spellcaster who specialized in melee.
And if it would be just at least "mirrored" in second edition, where fighters do only only fighting, and spellcasters do only fireballs hurling (in short utter boredom of D&D 4th edition, which we all hate with passion). But thing is, martial classes still get roughly 60% of spellcasting capability of spellcasting class, they multiclass into. But spellcaster get 0% improvement when they multiclass into martial.

And before you will start with "oh look how much more damage you can do if you pick this, this and that feat!". How would that matter if you JUST... CAN'T... HIT?

Get it now?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:

Again, people here seem to assume that proficiency, in form of the to-hit numbers, are what makes martials distinct from spellcasters. That misunderstands the game engine *so much*.

In fact, the to-hit numbers are the least part of it. The whole system is so skewed that if you don't have the on-level to-hit, you're not merely weaker, you are completely out. Having appropriate to-hit is a prerequisite for making ANYTHING work.

So in short leave to-hit to martials, and make only spell-artilery out of spellcasters?

Where it's certainly most popular option among spellcasters, many ppl, including me, just finds utterly boring. Especially comparing it again with older editions, where you actually HAVE been giving a chance to do something more unique.
Also, AC is not the only form of defense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:


I mean that the first week PF2 came out we had a player maximize strength on his sorcerer, cast Glutton's Jaws, then proceed to miss a lot and go into dying a lot until he eventually decided that the best way to play his character was to just pretend he didn't have a focus spell and that strategy worked much better.

That's the problem.

One thing if devs for some reason would decide that spellcaster should serve only as classic spell-artillery, and healers. Which would be bad on it's own.
Another thing when devs provides means for spellcasters to actually be involved in melee combat. But it's just too underwhelming.
I understand intention been careful, not to turn game into "munchkin paradise" again. But in some areas second edition is just way over-restricting.

Not all bad though, there is certainly room to improve it via new spells, feats and archetypes.


Verdyn wrote:

What if we fundamentally looked at changing transformation spells by giving them a new rule? My idea is that at their core they'd stay as they are now, they'd offer a couple of bonus feats while active, and have a duration measured in hours. In trade, they'd burn off an extra spell slot at each level when cast and can't be cast unless those slots, or one of higher level, are available to burn.

This gives these spells a larger impact when cast, but also a unique cost.

I am ok having it just one minute duration by default. But more classes new specific specialization in specific spells.

It is really silly that dragon bloodline sorcerer gets simply dragonform as free extra spell, and nothing else. No extra duration, no extra bonus to attack, to not suck while in transformed into dragon.

And i am not even sure if i want or not for Paizo to reintroduce dragon mystery for oracles. It was good in first edition. But what if they decide again simply give you dragon form as extra spell and nothing else? That certainly will suck big times.


Cyouni wrote:


There is no attack action. There is only Striking.

I'v literally quoted core rule book...


Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
As those are unique attacks on their own.
power attack is not an attack, it's an activity that modifies the strike action.

Even is so, basic strike is an attack action on it's own.


Gortle wrote:


Both of these powers use the basic strike action anyway, which the battleform spells clearly allow you to do.
Quote:

You gain the following statistics and abilities regardless of

which battle form you choose:
One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle
form you choose, *which are the only attacks you can use*.

Attack is an action. Every attack consist one or more strikes, specific to that attack.

In case of Power Attack and One-Inch Punch it's modified basic strike.
In case of battleforms those attacks provides very specific strike(s), listed in attack(s).
Basic strike is an attack action on it's own as well:
Quote:

STRIKE [one-action]

ATTACK
You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed
attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a
melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). Roll the
attack roll for the weapon or unarmed attack you are using, and
compare the result to the target creature’s AC to determine the
effect. See Attack Rolls on page 446 and Damage on page 450
for details on calculating your attack and damage rolls.
Critical Success As success, but you deal double damage (page 451).
Success You deal damage according to the weapon or unarmed
attack, including any modifiers, bonuses, and penalties you
have to damage.

So no, you cannot use basic strike in battleforms. You can use precisely listed attacks, and listed strikes for those attacks, and nothin else. That's what spell description says. (Especially since provided strikes in battleform attack are anything but "basic").

And even if spell would allow you to use basic strike - you still wouldn't be able to use Power Attack and/or OIP. As those are unique attacks on their own.

Tbh i actually disappointed. I had few idea on how to make cool mix with battleform, and actually DO make battleforms somewhat useful, where you can compete on melee combat with fighter/barbarian of equal level.
But... what i read just tell me i can't.


Guntermench wrote:


Martial | Incarnate: Level 20 | +36 | +34

20(lvl)+8(prof)+6(str22(with apex))+3(item bonus)=37

Then again... what if i would wan to stay in dragon form? More importantly, what if i would like permanently stay in dragon form as a druid? Due to how feat works, until lvl-19 i will be forced to use non-heightened version, for permanent duration. That's cool and all for roleplay. But when it will come to combat - i will be very underwhelmed. Even as a druid, using +2 status bonus. Especially since that a status bonus. For fighter, nothing really will stop him multiclassing as a cleric/oracle/divine-witch/divine-sorcerer. Which will grant him access to Heroism spell, and toping his already best possible attack bonus with another +2 (or even +3, if full divine ally caster will spare lvl-9 slot for that). For druid that will give him nothing (or just +1, in case again ally will cast it on him), due to the same type of bonus. And that's again for druids. It will be so much worse for wizards or sorcerers.
On top of that, you can't even modify those attacks with something like Power Attack or One-Inch Punch, since latest counts as their own unique attacks, and battleforms restrict you using any but listed in battleform attacks.

No, you not gonna be utterly useless, but i guaranty somewhere along the line you will sit there and think: "Why i didn't just picked flame oracle, or nature-witch, so i would be able to hurl highly efficient elemental spells for days?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:


Am I understanding correctly, that this whole multi-page argument exists because some of the caster focus spells are bad?

Welcome to off topic central. No, it didn't have anything to do with focus spells.


Claxon wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Regarding (formerly known as Tenser's) Transformation in particular, I think Righteous Might is a more appropriate model than most of the arcane/primal polymorph spells. Just polish off some of that god-stink, and inter-/extrapolate 7th, 9th, and 10th level versions of it.

I disagree, just fix all the transformation spells to grant a to hit bonus*, that scales all the way up to level 10 spells, and keeps them close but definitely behind a non-fighter martial of the same level.

*And probably some other statistics too

Thing is with Rightouse Might, it's still flagged as full polymorph effect, not just morph. And more importantly a battleform. So even though spell technically lets you use your own weapon, since it's a battleform - you cannot benefit from item bonus from your weapons. So Similarly to "form" spells, if you try to use lower level ones, on high level, you still underpowered even compared to non-polymorphed yourself.

1 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>