AnonMD's page

Pronate11 wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

I will not operate under this assumption unless informed by a dev. As it's more an exception to the rule.

I will point out, medium armor is almost certainly less disrupted than using con for Ac, which is what you are suggesting. So, what should Paizo remove to add con for AC?

You lose Dex to ac. It's a swap. Not a combine.

I'm not against medium armor as an option btw. I just don't know where they'd pull from if they decided that was needed.

Where from this concept of a budget that you keep referring to would they pull to apply your 'Con to X Stat' idea?

Furthermore, I think even having a concept of a budget on what a kineticist can or can't do is a bad idea this early into the playtest. We shouldn't set hard barriers on what the class can and can't be based on what is clearly in need of fine tuning.

It really is bizarre to me that a class can have Con as their key ability but get stuck with a d8 hit die. If they want to convey that it's a tough class, they should just give it a d10 and make the key ability Dex or Str based on if you want to be melee or ranged.

Also, if we have the ability to make weapons out of our chosen element, why don't we get a similar choice for armor? Why is the Shield stand-in restricted to Earth? I understand Assume Earth's Mantle exists, but having a much lower level feat that grants essentially light armor to air, medium to water and fire, and heavy to earth would still be on brand I feel.

Your playtest results are valid, but to be honest, I am not sure I am going to making any significant changes to the game based on a rather harcore approach to NPC tactics.

I can understand not wanting to make significant changes, but could you at least elucidate further on how foes are meant to handle downed players? "... only the most viscous creatures..." tells us very little of what actually would attack a downed player, and leaves far too much to interpretation.

The rules didn't crumble, your combats did because you had all enemies function as "vicious" and focus fire and CDG individual PCs until there was none.

Intentionally misreading a rule to force a negative income does in no way/shape/form prove a rule is faulty.

What exact ruling was misinterpreted?

If you enjoy running survival games, then just change the rules for your game rather than requesting a change that would alter the game for everyone, including those that don't like survival-esque campaigns. It's that easy.

Even if you changed the encounter to something else the room is full of strategic possibillity where it would be impossible for the enemies to shoot.like behind the pillars and in the niches.

You can just run away and take him in another room. There is alot of big rooms. Well nevermind your players obviously didn't figure this one out so..

Being rude to someone isn't going to help make the game anymore fun, man. The party never expected to get annihilated within a single round, which is why they didn't have the time to explore the avenues you're talking about. This wasn't a drawn out fight either time, this was near instantaneous death. And as for changing things, this is a playtest. They were given a scenario to beat. They did not beat the scenario. If you were to alter it so they could beat it, the feedback goes out the window.

Just because you saw a guy rolling around in armor on YouTube, does not change the fact that many task are actually harder to do when you put armor on, swimming, climbing, and yes acrobatic moves too, and many other things like fatigue. I know for a fact, I have worn armor, and I wore body armor, for many long periods of time for many decades. Training and experience in the armor helps but it never mitigates the penalties completely . The ideas you suggest are dangerous to the game 1 they make no sense. 2. In a game you describe everyone would wear plate mail. You need interesting choices for a successful fun game. Armor needs to have serious drawbacks. Having no armor needs to have serious drawbacks, which it does AC +0, touch AC +0.

So despite there being plenty of documentation to the contrary, you're going to refuse to acknowledge it just because "Oh well this was my experience with it, so it must be everyone's."? Kinda a funny argument when you're arguing with someone over playtest feedback, but hey, you do you. Also, "interesting choices" should not mean "choices you are penalized for taking". Not to mention that characters that usually go without armor gain it for free elsewhere, so really if anything, folks that actually wear the armor should be at an equal playing field, not constantly at a disadvantage because they decided to not make a wizard.

Kineticists can utilize Spirited Charge and Kinetic Blade for ludicrous damage.

4 levels of Agathiel Vigilante followed by Id Rager or Rageshaper Bloodrager. I haven't had the chance to play it, but playing what is essentially a really angry awakened dire badger that is also on fire sounds great.

Occultist with martial flexibility.
Druid that "weirdshapes" into aberrations.
Cavalier/Swashbuckler that uses mounted feats without use of a mount.
Cleric that trades channeling energy for the ability to make weapons out of positive or negative energy. I've always wanted to play a Jedi.
AoO focused Ranger who treats bows as staves, as if under the bowstaff spell.

Play an Occultist or a Black Blade Magus! While they don't have anyway to appeal to your love of Oozes, their focus on items and intelligent items can be really fun to RP. They both not only have casting(up to 6th level), but a myriad of fun abilities to play with.

If you were to make room for three levels of Fighter (Trench Fighter/Crossbowman + Eldritch Guardian) you can grab a large ranged weapon and have your familiar help you use it with Artillery Team. There are also a ton of good teamwork feats for ranged combat, and if you want to be really cheesy, I think Broken Wing/Paw Gambit would be pretty funny if it worked.

Pathfinder will carry on as long as people play it.