Shoanti Tribeswoman

Arachnofiend's page

Organized Play Member. 4,692 posts (5,309 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,692 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asuet wrote:
Multiclassing into a specific class will never be as powerful for all classes. Some classes always get more out of it. That's not a problem and never will be a problem.

God, do you have a justification for every problem with PF2? I have no idea how someone can defend a paradigm where Wizards get practically infinite feats out of the Fighter dedication and Paladins get nothing. If nothing else, the dedication needs a hard nerf to make it less attractive to every Wizard who can afford the strength to carry a breastplate. Armor proficiency goes up one step, you get proficiency in exactly one martial weapon.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
waynemarkstubbs wrote:
No, don't remove them - they add drama and excitement to the play.

What drama and excitement do they add that the +10/-10 system does not already provide? Against a reasonably challenging opponent a 20 will usually critically succeed and a 1 will usually critically fail without any special rules regarding those numbers. Removing that rule just means that you don't randomly look like an idiot at something you're supposed to be a pro at 5% of the time, and looking like an idiot is generally never fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think it's pretty likely we get the 4 corners knights in this edition, since it seems like the best compromise solution. I just hope we don't call the CG one a Paladin (I like "Elysium Knight" or something).

Give the CG one more offensive and fewer defensive powers too- Chaos gets to break stuff, it's Law that's invested in keeping it from falling down.

Frankly, if Paizo was ever open to CG Paladins then the Virtuous Bravo would have been it. They're doing a very careful job of not particularly lying about it but they are definitely stringing us along by pretending that alternatives to the LG Paladin are a possibility.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd honestly rather nat 20's and nat 1's were removed from the game. They're unnecessary with the +10/-10 system, and the legendary athletics rogue still should not have a 5% chance to fail to climb the ladder even if it doesn't mean she falls off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like it. Adventurers are fairly unusual people in general, just because most 70 year olds are relatively frail doesn't mean you should be prevented from playing Muscle Grandma Ozen the Immovable entirely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
And PF 2 is trying - with good reason - to move away from that.

It's still a d20 class based system. PF2 isn't really any different from the "core" assumptions of D&D than, say, 4th edition is (no this is not a PF2=4e post please do not start that).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greyblade23 wrote:
I'm left wondering why wizards went from one of the most skilled characters in the game to one of the least. They have fewer skill points than fighters, for Pharasma's sake. Granted, wizards will probably have a higher INT than fighters, but they'll still only have about 3 more skills trained. This pretty much eliminates the "wise old sage" character trope.

the Wizard only had 2+Int in PF1, and there are fewer skills you need to take in PF2. The bigger issue is the Wizard's abysmal signature skill list (Wizards went from potentially being experts at every knowledge skill to knowing nothing other than Arcana) but that's kind of an issue for everyone.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder 1 was deliberately designed to be the D&D that you are used to, pretending otherwise is just being deliberately obtuse.


shroudb wrote:

We lack a +str race

We also lack a - int race

It seems like winwin. (last boost should probably be wis to keep with physical /mental stat arrays)

Although, having orcs as the goto clerics doesn't sound ideal either...

Golarion orcs are deeply religious. The religions they follow just tend to not be Nice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The reason Deific Weapon exists is that you're not just worse if you're using your deity's favored weapon and it happens to be simple. It'd actually defeat the purpose of the ability if it did anything for martial weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

Uggghhhhhh

You all know they've already said that they're going to have Paladins of other alignments in the future of PF2, but they wanted to go LG for the play test to make sure the mechanics worked.

So....just be patient.

This is absolutely not what was said. They said that they would consider it, maybe, in the future, which is no promise of anything at all. They're basically just passing the buck onto future publications expecting us to wait for all of PF2's life cycle (you know, the exact same thing they made us do for PF1).


9 people marked this as a favorite.

You, like most everyone else who has shown serious disagreements with this system, have a fundamental misunderstanding of it.

First off, hazards do not scale with level. Climbing a tree is climbing a tree is climbing a tree regardless of what level the players are; it simply ceases being a major challenge to a higher level character.

Secondly, the level 10 Fighter is not better at Arcana than the level 1 Wizard, assuming the Fighter is Untrained. The only thing you can do with Arcana is Recall Knowledge; as such, the level 10 Fighter probably has a pretty good idea of what a dragon is. He does not, however, have the means to identify magic items of any kind because he lacks the training to do so.

Thirdly, Pathfinder characters outleveling monsters is nothing new. A mob of level 1 orc warriors is just as meaningless of an encounter to a level 15 PF1 party as it is to a level 15 PF2 party. The only reasonable explanations for you thinking otherwise is that you either came here from 5e and have never played Pathfinder before or have never played Pathfinder at a high level before.


+1 per level has its problems but it doesn't have any problems that bounded accuracy lacks... You still have level 20 characters being just better at everything than level 1 characters, the difference is simply smaller and you have a much higher chance of getting punked by a goblin.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

The new monster creation was advertised as a means of allowing them to make numbers that made sense without faking it by padding them (like how in PF1 every monster got a crap ton of natural armor so that they could compete in AC without giving the PC's a ton of loot). Level 0 goblins being as good as the best possible level 1 PC was not part of the deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Dual wielding is kind of dumb and exists just to fill a fantasy trope, that trope doesn't match up with Barbarians so I'm ok with them not having easy access to it.

I think Blizzard might disagree with that opinion...


The weapon you can attack with is the shield boss or shield spike, not the shield itself. The shield spell does not have either of these things, so therefore you cannot bash with it.


If the PC is a Fighter, he could stab his friend and then move him 10 feet any direction he wants so long as he remains adjacent to the Fighter.

Other than that feat and a few similar class feats... Yeah, doesn't seem to be any way to move people around. A Reposition maneuver is definitely warranted.


Am I reading that right that a 2-handed Fighter with no feat investment will do more damage than a TWF Fighter with Double Slice? Maybe Power Attack should just be removed then, rather than buffing it so the gap between the two playstyles is even wider.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure the intent there is to show that your bonus action refreshes each round. There's no way the intention is that you lose your capstone ability if you have to move first.


That's true, and I hadn't thought of that, though I'm pretty sure it still works; there's no stipulation that your Quick action must be the last action in your turn, so you simply use the Weapon Supremacy action first (since we were doing a normal Strike for that anyways) and then continue as normal.


Scythia wrote:
The failure result only makes the target flat-footed until the end of the Fighter's turn. Combat Grab has the Press trait, so its failure condition only kicks in if the Fighter's current Multiple Attack Penalty is -4 or greater (so their second or third attack), meaning the Fighter will have at most one action left to take advantage of the flat-footed target (and at -8 or -10 for an attack, so good luck). Unless other party members have the ability to act before the end of the Fighter's turn, they will gain no benefit from the failure result.

No? The failure result means that the target is flat-footed until the start of the fighter's next turn. The Rogue can take advantage of the condition whether or not the Fighter hits, the question is if it carries over to the Fighter's next round or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:

dismissing people out of hand despite many people having the same notion seems, well, dismissive (the same with some others' attitudes of "well if you don't like it, there's the door"). it should perhaps make one question as to why or how that many people all get the same impression, and what ways the system can be improved or clarified to show the differences.

"this feels bad" is in fact a proper criticism, if a bit unhelpful if they can't place/explain exactly why.

It is dismissive, it's also the correct response. I have no way of knowing what the OP has a problem with, for all I know he just got infected by the 4e meme and is regurgitating it.

The "criticism" only even works because we're all coming into this thread with the assumption that almost no one on the Paizo forums enjoyed 4e. If I didn't have that historical knowledge that Pathfinder's customer base is largely people disappointed by 4e and who went on to look for other options looking at OP's post wouldn't even tell me that he's unhappy with PF2.


I'm not sure where exactly this thread should go, but I'm putting it here because it's primary focus is putting a particular weapon on display. If it should go elsewhere mods feel free to move it.

I have a lot of criticisms about PF2, but this thread is not about any of them: rather, it's about the new addition I love the most, namely weapon properties. I love the "build game" in Pathfinder as much as I do actually playing the game itself; I adore quirky additions that make me say "that's interesting. What do I do to make it good?" With the new properties weapon choice is added to the list of things I can tinker with to make a unique character.

Before I go into details about how it works, first let me list the "must take" class feats for the character build:

-Combat Grab
-Improved Combat Grab
-Certain Strike
-Desperate Finisher
-Savage Critical
-Weapon Supremacy

The build "comes online" with Certain Strike and the rest is just gravy, though it is very good gravy and not something you want to skip when you have the opportunity to pick them up. This Fighter build is essentially an experiment to get the most out of the Forceful property; I'm using the Orc Necksplitter partially because I need a 1-handed weapon for Combat Grab but mostly because of unabashed orc favoritism. I do think unlocking Combat Grab makes the Necksplitter preferable over the glaive but there's definitely some room for debate on that.

All right, so you're a level 20 Fighter and you have two feats that give you extra strike actions; Weapon Supremacy gives you free Haste, and Desperate Finisher means you can trade out the reaction you aren't using anyways for another Strike. The way you're going to dump all these attacks is as follows: Strike->Combat Grab->Certain Strike->Certain Strike->Certain Strike.

There is unfortunately not a good 1-action Open Strike so we have to go vanilla for our first action, but after that we have some juicy abilities going on. Even at a -5, you're a Fighter and Combat Grab is very likely to succeed, so you have your target grabbed. Now you Certain Strike over and over again on the poor sucker, having not a care in the world about the -10 hit penalty because even on a miss you do plenty respectable damage.

How respectable, you ask? Let's compare the necksplitter to a more standard choice for an Open Hand Fighter, the longsword. A +5 Longsword is going to do 6d8+7 damage, or 34 average, or 13 minimum. The necksplitter does 6d8+19 damage, or 46 average, or 25 minimum. 25 near-guaranteed damage for three actions a round is pretty dang gud! I think most people can agree that +12 to damage is probably worth a feat. If anything, I might have just proven that Forceful is too powerful. Oops.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like this forum needs a new rule: If you don't have anything to say other than "it feels like 4e" then don't say anything at all.

Like. You don't even have a criticism here. Just a vague notion that it reminds you of a previous edition that most people who frequent these forums did not enjoy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What gustavo said. The Signature Skill system is quite possibly the worst addition to PF2 and this is coming from someone who is really passionate about half-orcs. If you want to be a badass muscle wizard who can bench press a dragon I think you should be able to do that just as much as I think my Barbarian should be able to beseech her god for a servitor to fight in the upcoming battle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Dandy Lion wrote:
Someone commented that picking locks can take seven or more attempts. Bulmahn states that it is meant to be a difficult task and this organically represents how long picking the lock can be, as you can just keep trying. They don't know if they've got the exact success rate but they also point out that locks generally have a static DC so this will get easier as you level up.

He... is aware that Thievery has a critical failure effect, right? Is the first level Rogue just expected to put her entire starting wealth into spare picks?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asuet wrote:
The main point here is that spells are a resource. They should be better in the situation they are used in than skills that are available any time. Concluding from that that classes without spells are somehow at a disadvantage is just silly.

Spells are expendable and swappable. A Fighter who has spent his entire career putting permanent character resources into being the best g~*@*&n climber he can be should not be outclassed at climbing by a wizard who woke up and decided that he would probably be doing some climbing today.


PF2 classes are pretty restricted from playing against type in a lot of ways and this is one of the primary examples. The bludgeoner feat exists but it opens up your weapon options by exactly one - technically you get clubs and saps, but a sap is just a club that constructs are immune to so. Not really an option there.


DarkOne the Drow wrote:
Constitution makes more sense to me than Strength for Wildshape ability, due to organic chemical changes taking place, especially to elemental types. Strength is just muscular mechanical property of the organ.

It's intended as a balancing factor. You're paying for the synthesist summoner's sins, essentially.


I'm pretty sure it's intended for Humans to have absolutely busted ancestry feats compared to the other ancestries, because if Humans don't have better ancestry feats there is zero reason to every play a Human over, say, an Elf.

Whether or not this is good design is debatable, though I would lean towards "no" in that department.


16 is on the low end but there isn't very much variance. The highest possible AC at level 1 is 18 if your character fills the dex cap on Chain Mail, which is just going to be Rangers and Barbarians.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone's AC sucks at first level, which is a pretty major problem given how high the attack bonuses for level 0 martial creatures are (an average goblin is apparently as good at swordfighting as a the absolute best possible 1st level PC).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Of course, now that 90% of the problem spells in the game are Rituals, there really isn't anything overpowering or underpowering of spellcasters that Martials don't likewise have access to in some way, shape, or form.

This is incorrect. Due to the Signature Skill system the more powerful rituals are still largely locked to their respective casting classes, with a few exceptions (Paladins can do Religion rituals and Rangers can do Nature rituals). A Fighter can never lead a ritual of any kind unless he multi-classes into a casting class... at which point he isn't a martial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to think the necksplitter is really the size of a longsword and orcs just don't have a concept for how small knives are supposed to be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna be honest here, I'm willing to accept a bit of a breach from realism if it means the summoner doesn't get an infinitely long turn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's honestly kind of cute seeing so many people complain about the caster nerfs. These nerfs were definitely needed with how dominant 9th level casting was in PF1... but then they've been coupled with major nerfs to the martial classes as well, with powerful tools moved much further back and more restricted (I'm looking at you, Spell Sunder). The best class in the playtest is easily the Cleric, and surprise surprise the Wizard falls in line at #2.


kaid wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:

Superstition is still fairly strong, considering how nerfed a lot of buff spells are. I mean, you can only haste one person now. +2 Conditional to saves against magic is just nutty.

It's also important that it says on you, and not on your belongings. So, as far as I can tell, Magic Weapon and similar spells that buff your equipment should still work fine.

This seems legit as they can in fact still wear magical armor and use magical weapons. They seem okay with using magic stuff as long as its not casting spells but are NOT OK with things affecting their own body. The question though is how does this work with bards in the group. I am not sure a bard can selectively NOT affect an ally in their range. Most others they could work with and they can use alchemical stuff so healing them would not be that problematic.

In PF1 Bards worked with Superstitious Barbarians just fine because Bardic Performance wasn't a spell. One of the many reasons why the PF2 version is just worse.


It wouldn't be a problem if Battle Medic wasn't single use per day (and had a reasonable DC but that's mostly a low level issue). That single, arbitrary restriction is what's making parties without access to positive channel energy completely non-viable.


Mark Seifter wrote:

I really like the idea of explicitly hunting your totem dragon if it opposes your alignment. Also, while I still like having the big flashy 1 hour breath attack, having an option to breathe again within the hour for a lesser effect seems like the best of both worlds!

As others have said, superstition can completely use magic items except a small few that cast a spell like wands. The only thing you're missing is buff spells and (and this can be a biggie depending on party composition) healing spells. We had two of these in my alpha groups; one was in a level 9 group with two buff-focused bards and a healing cleric for one session, and that group dynamic was not the greatest (it didn't help that they only fought bruiser monsters that day as well, so no enemy casters). The other was played by someone who was skeptical of the tradeoffs, particularly with how good buffs could be at level 14. That barbarian was showstoppingly incredible, to the point where the player was loving it and the GM was getting frustrated with how effortlessly the barbarian was kicking butt (+2 on all saves meant he basically couldn't critically fail except on a 20, he could screw up spellcasters with his reaction, and spell sunder counting as a max-heightened dispel magic meant he wreaked havoc, dispelling multiple magical traps and knocking down a wall of force instantly). It seems to vary depending on the group and the adventure.

Mark, how exactly is the Superstition Barbarian supposed to stay healthy? Your standard level 1 Barbarian can, at most, be healed 1d10(Medicine)+1d6(Minor Elixir of Life). Ignoring the fact that the DC for the Battle Medic is as likely to kill you as heal you at first level, this amount of healing doesn't even bring a downed Barbarian up to half health. The inefficiency only gets worse as levels go up.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Half-orcs could have proficiency in orc weapons at level 1 in PF1. In PF2, every ancestry can have proficiency in their weapons at level 1 other than half-orcs. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Level 3 isn't any better. I won't accept anything other than Level 1.


Even if that is the case it's worth mentioning that this is important to me, but... I'm not convinced that it is the case. The Legendary skill feats we've seen in the playtest are almost insultingly weak. Given Paizo's repeated statement that the playtest represents them at their most ambitious and there's several things they will dial back on if there's too much blowback I doubt Paizo has any intention of turning the dial up on Legendary skill power. I'm not going to believe that there's any Great Wyrm suplexing in PF2's future until I see it.


Combat maneuvers are a lot better base line in PF2 than they were in PF1 - you can use any of them as long as you're trained in Athletics without further character resource expenditure. In PF1 you had to lock yourself into a specific combat maneuver you wanted to be good at, while in PF2 you can disarm humanoid targets and grapple rhinos.

This is all great and a very positive change, but... there doesn't seem to be any way to increase your effectiveness beyond this baseline level of good? My biggest issue is that as far as I can tell there is no way to remove the "no greater than one size larger" restriction on maneuvers, a restriction that wasn't there for every maneuver in PF1. This means that despite getting your level to Athletics and having more fair numbers to shoot for combat maneuvers still scale horribly into later levels as bigger enemies become more and more common. A skill feat that, for example, lets you use maneuvers on enemies two size categories larger at Master and removes the restriction entirely at Legendary would go a long way to making maneuvers more consistently effective and would actually be a Cool Thing you can do with higher level skill feats, which is currently rather rare. "At Legendary Athletics you can suplex a Great Wyrm" is the kind of thing I would actually be excited about as a high level martial player.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Balancing half-x's so that they're slightly better humans is part of the problem. Half-orcs lost darkvision because giving humans that ability at level 1 would be OP. And all this talk of what's "balanced" or not still doesn't solve the problem that anyone who wants to play an orc has to wait until level 5 before they can use the orc weapon they envisioned their orc using.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Even if non-cleric sources of strong healing were readily available clerics would still likely be the strongest class in the playtest. The current paradigm just means that someone absolutely must play a Cleric or else the party dies.
It does seem pretty clear that the cleric is the strongest class in the playtest, which, I mean, I guess I'm glad it's not the Wizard. But coming out of how the PF1 CRB ended up, I wouldn't have minded if they decided to let the fighter, rogue, and monk be overpowered for once.

It's pretty clear that the powers that be at Paizo still want martials to be weak. I don't think there's anything we're going to be able to do about that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Inner Sea Gods wrote:
If there's no convenient war, daily duels and other mock battles can satisfy this need for a time, but Gorumites living in a peaceful region tend to wander off in search of conflict - or start some of their own.

Gorum does not expect you to fight to the death everyone you meet. While the evil cleric is likely to start their own fights, the good one has plenty of acceptable conflict if they just go looking for it; Golarion is not a nice setting, there are plenty of areas in constant conflict with evil for a cleric of Gorum to use her sword without doing any evil.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gorum blesses those who fight for any reason. Whether it be the conquering commander with a greatsword seeking to make his mark on the world or an abused wife with a kitchen knife who has decided enough is enough, any battle of any morality is honored by Gorum. This idea that he prefers evil is, quite frankly, slander perpetuated by those who favor more "civilized" gods. I see no reason why he would dismiss the valor of a wandering chevalier stamping out evil.


Even if non-cleric sources of strong healing were readily available clerics would still likely be the strongest class in the playtest. The current paradigm just means that someone absolutely must play a Cleric or else the party dies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It occurs to me that I've never actually looked at the spell section in the CRB and have always used a site like PFSRD or AoN because sifting through hundreds of spells (if you told me the count was in the thousands by now I would believe you) is just completely non-functional.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Grimcleaver wrote:

I have problems when games distinguish one group of NPCs from another because people own them. Imagine your character is a pirate and gets into a barfight and his entire crew jumps in to help. How would you run that fight?

In general I think if that answer a game's answer is any different running that situation than it would be for a ranger's animal companion, or a necromancer's troupe of skeletons, something isn't working right.

The world is full of NPCs. Some of them are going to help you out. You can't try and craft an entire subsystem to make this work differently in the effort to try and streamline things. Trying to eliminate any way to make it happen seems like a bad solution too.

I'm sure in that barfight you probably aren't going one by one through every crewmember, having them take one action to break a beer bottle on the bar, then move toward another brawler, then shivving them. The fight would take forever and none of it would have anything to do with the characters. So you pull out the battle rules. You roll to see what the NPCs contribute to the fight and how much damage they take, you narrate, the story goes on.

The answer is a good system for adjudicating NPC impact on a battle in a nice, clean off camera way and then apply it to everything.

Does the pirate PC have full control of exactly what each pirate pal does on their turn? Because that is the situation with animal companions and other "minion" creatures.

1 to 50 of 4,692 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>