ArchSage20's page

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Sorry, but "It is too hard to buy a few scrolls" is a bad argument

You could at least pretend to have this conversation in good faith.

Scrolls are consumables.
Runes are not.

Spells are consumables.
Weapon attacks are not.

Until you admit these are not equivalents you aren’t engaging honestly.

But then we also need to admit that Martials and Casters were not on an equal footing in PF1.

Agreed. Without argument.

But this isn’t PF1 we’re talking about. Unless you are advancing the idea that casters need to “pay” for a previous imbalance, PF1 balancing issues have no impact on PF2 balancing issues.

Not at all.

Just that you cannot expect Casters not losing things when compared to PF1 while Martials gain some. The gap was that huge in PF1.

And Scrolls vs Runes, as well as Spells vs weapon attacks, were just the same in PF1. So that is not really the crux of the matter.

they already did pay a lot

bad hp

bad saves

bad proficiency

bad armor proficiency

many spells are now higher level (even cantrips like create water)

many spell were erased

many spells were moved between traditions

many spell were nerfed

many spell are now uncommon or worse rare

many spell are now rituals (and uncommon and require help)

the amount of spell slots was severely reduced compared to first edition

many spell had their range area or target availability reduced etc...

skill proficiency increases being capped means some status like intelligence got devalued

martial were buffed a lot including skills that plain and simply surpass spells (barbarian using earthquake ever 10 minutes, scare to death, rogue hiding behind air, etc...)

on top of all that casters having to rely on true strike and consumable is overkill

also if we use the consumable reasoning all of the caster utility short of level 10 can be replaced by magic items. wands etc... you are basically buying spell slots

so i think people are either overestimating what casters can do or underestimating how bad the nerf was

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

How do people not understand this yet.... at-level Spells will always do more damage and have more bonus rider effects than a Weapon Strike or even a special 2 Action Activity that a Martial PC can do.

They are less accurate because they're more powerful, that's by design, how it this so hard to grasp?

Always is a strong word. So strong it’s makes your statement flat untrue.

But if we want to talk about things people seem not to get, it’s the value of a limited resource vs an unlimited.

And the fact that spells are not much of a limited resource, too.

If you properly build and equip your character, you're not supposed to spell starve.

i disagree with that if it wasn't limited they would just give you infinite slots but they give you 4 and a lot of people treat more spell slots as a big deal (remember the wizard discussions) so spell casters slots being limited is a drawback

a ranger has range damage and infinite shots

casters get utility effects and a little bit more damage in exchange for getting limited to 4 slots per spell level and a lot of other drawback such as low hp lack of good armor proficiency etc...

so there is no need for casters to be further limited by having a harder time hitting because they are already paying for it elsewhere

How do people not understand this yet.... at-level Spells will always do more damage and have more bonus rider effects than a Weapon Strike or even a special 2 Action Activity that a Martial PC can do.

They are less accurate because they're more powerful, that's by design, how it this so hard to grasp?

could you show where you getting that data from?

also shouldn't the power be balanced by them being limited in use to what 4 slots?

It isn't nitpicking. Its the truth. That PFS GMs can't bend the rules doesn't really matter. Even if they could bend the rules, the scope of PFS games means your immortality is guaranteed to not come up at all, expect by you bringing it up as part of your character description. It makes literally 0 difference within that environment.

And I'm not against such a feat being printed, but I find the idea that it can't be a story note because convincing GMs each and every-time (you never fancied playing a character obsessed about anything else?) is prohibitive is ridiculous. Mostly because in 95% of games, it isn't ever going to come up in the first place.

i'm not saying its not true i'm saying its not the point immortality is already not gonna come up most of the time if they had made it so no class got and age wasn't mentioned i would be fine but the fact monk and druid got but for whatever reason others are gated from it its not fun

i do fancy playing necromancer who want to become lich vampires etc... but that doesn't solve the problem of having to convince gms in fact the immortality one is probably the easiest one since its not evil and relatively common

why does it make you happy if players spend 4 spell slots on levitation instead of 1 in a log

besides if they cast on a log or so someone could just destroy the log and make them fall

if a player makes a log levitate and them uses a lot of unseen servants to pull it then he is still using resources its not a cantrip

i will never understand that mindset

The culture of this edition especially seems against anything not directly supported by the rules, and allowing this opens up a huge can of worms.

An unseen servant, animal companion, or even a familiar might be able to do this.
If you can be towed, can you pull yourself along?
Can you toss an anchor or throw a harpoon and use to pull yourself?
Could you levitate a tree trunk, then have your while team climb on?

that reminds me of a certain gm that whenever he had enemies hidden in flammable places and i said "spark" he would say "yeah the straw house is a little bit moist so it doesn't catch on fire" and i'm like "sigh dude you know if i knew you were gonna act like that i would have picked burning hands"

i call that making up rules and if its culture then its bad culture

Came here excited that JJBA Stand users could decently be replicated with the Summoner playtest, especially when I saw someone with a thread mentioning it before I got here.

Disappointed to see a sizable part of the thread is people crying wrongbadfun. One of my favorite things about Pathfinder is that Paizo works well to make most fantasy concepts able to be replicated in their rules, kind of a bummer for this to be met with such vitriol.

i think you misunderstood what people are saying they are fine with you being able to play a stand they just don't want to be forced to play one those are completely different things its not wrongbadfun its dontstealmychoice

Ravingdork wrote:

Could you use levitate and fly in conjunction to avoid eating the attack penalty and the action expenditure?

I think it would veer into exploit territory because the game doesn't give us it's internal mechanics, so you're overlapping two effects that could mechanically be exploited, but I think in the game world they would either conflict or Fly would simply an evolution to Levitate.

Unless I'm missing some trait interactions, I think you could use both to exploit the system mechanics, but it would veer too much into metagaming for me, personally.

i don't think its a exploit its more like a combo as for the benefit the players is paying 2 slots to get it so he isn't getting it for free

Huh, Legendary things are Legendary, who'd a thought?

now we just need to improve the rest of them so they can match this level

question could you conjure a unseen servant hold his hand and tell him to move?

i mean he can't carry you but you already weightless with levitate so he could pull you

So wait, you're telling me, essentially, that skill checks are more effective than spellcasting in 2e? What amazement and wonder!

Scare to death is hilarious, but doubly hilarious when you realize that a high level character can be more effective in combat by hurling scary threats and the stinkeye than using actual magic?

Truly, this is the height of high fantasy!

pathfinder martial edition

in all seriousness i don't dislike it at all i much prefer these permanent reliable powers sadly they didn't do the same for spell casters

maybe i will try making o a scaromancer at some point

imagine a party of 4 people with this skills killing 12 enemies each turn just by looking at them

kinda of sounds like a cantrip to me that + focus spells and abilities like legendary survivalist that lets you outright forgo food and water indefinitely maybe a sign that we are ready to try something different from the vancian casting system (who im a kidding this is would be too good to be true)

wait does that mean a character with that feat could kill entire armies of low level characters without even fighting wow

this one?

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs432sn?Elixir-of-Life-and-Immortality-by-Rejuve nation#29

Demonizing those who disagree with you is sure to make your argument so valid, and why this Playtest has gone so swimmingly.

calling people out isn't demonizing then, the point of a forum and a play test is so people can give feedback so if versan wants to talk about how he thinks more customization eidolons are more important let him do it we can create threads for that reason

it will be over much faster if people feel like their feedback is being listened to rather than invalidated otherwise they push harder which leads to pushing back feeling like they have to justify or explain their views which leads to unnecessary discussion

i understand you don't want op classes like wizard and summoner to be life in pf1 but acting like they don't have any problem and gas-lighting then will not result in people shutting up and saying "wow i guess there must be something wrong with me and my experience" it will just make them more polarized and frustrated

Verzen wrote:

Considering that's what the PF1 class was, your argument is disingenuous.

The original version of the Summoner was one of the best casters in the game even without the Eidolon. They got extremely powerful spells from the best school of magic, some of them before everyone else.

The Chained version of the Summoner was an issue even without the Eidolon - which is why it too, got nerfed in Unchained.

Where the Summoner was STILL an extremely potent spellcaster.

i think considering every class feature of the chained summoner from pf1 was about the eidolon that wasn't the intention

these are the ones dedicated to the eidolon

eidolon, life link, Bond senses, Shield ally, Maker’s call, Transposition, Aspect, Greater shield ally, Life bond, Merge forms, Greater aspect, Twin eidolon

these are the ones that are not

spell casting + summon monster I, II, III etc... all the way to gate

even those who are not eidolon related are very clearly about summoning or buffing so i think the class was indeed focused on the eidolon

Verzen wrote:

GameDesignerDM wrote:

You keep arguing from the assumed perspective of the Eidolon being the true player character and thus are entitled to the same breadth of feats.

They are not, and so are not entitled to them. They are a class feature, and their customization is from class feats. That's all.

We all understand it is what YOU want, but it is not what they are.

You obviously never played pf1.

I did for years.

But this is PF2E. And we are discussing the PF2E playtest version of Summoner. Quite different - which has been pointed out plenty of times.

if by different you mean worse i agree

...

using deities is such dishonest, shameless and underhanded move i clearly said same level alchemist

he isn't a god he is a level 20 human

i wont reply further in this thread because its very clearly a waste of time

pathfinder used to be the game with most option where you can do anything even extremely niche things or pointless things

its just sad not just how much it was downgraded but that people seemingly don't appreciate the things that made it good before

Frankly I'm surprised they left in the monk and druid feats for agelessness, given that they removed it from the alchemist. I suppose part of the theory was that immortal alchemists feel more like that guy that makes the Sun Orchard Elixir than immortal monks/druids do---and the whole point is to niche-protect that part of the lore---but why keep any of them?

is what players are now a side thought meant to be discarded so that the story character can get the spotlight

to hell with that stupid alchemist i wont play all the way to level 20 to have a npc from the same level get what i want while i'm barred from it because ???

this is disgusting i will not play a side character on someone else's story specially a stupid character like artokus kirran

Filthy Lucre wrote:

Temperans wrote:

a lot of words

Neat - but the entire premise of what I've been talking about is minimum necessary conditions for survival - not inflicting suffering that is unnecessary for survival so not much of that really bares on what I'm talking about. We're in complete agreement that *gratuitous* violence is not permissible.

I see inflicting suffering for lichdom is greedy and purely for pleasure. Same with vampires inflicting suffering for the sake of extending their curse.

Suffering to extend you life through undeath is evil. Specially in Pathfinder where undead are actively going against the flow of nature and consuming living things for no nourishment.

we got it can we please go back to the subject of where do souls end?

A GM advice blog recently had something to say about passive skill DCs and whatnot and I feel like this segment is relevant:

The Angry GM wrote:

Beyond all that, I know every GM has a voice in their brain that complains every time the players succeed without having to roll a die. Every GM has a little “did they really earn that” sensor that goes off whenever they feel like the players didn’t have to work hard enough for something or didn’t burn enough character resources. And that sensor makes GMs do really crappy things. It stops GMs from ending fights early. It makes GMs demand initiative rolls and attack rolls and damage rolls when the rogue – on his own – sneaks up behind an unaware guard and just wants to garrote him dead. And it stops GMs from giving players information if they didn’t roll enough dice to earn the clues. But here’s the thing: dice rolls aren’t how you earn things. You earn things through player skill – making the right decisions – and avatar strength – having the right skills and abilities and using them. Dice have nothing to do with player skill or avatar strength. They’re random chance. They actually just take away things earned with smart decisions and well-built, well-used characters.

i wish i could like this a thousand time i had gm that clearly wanted me to roll that dice every 10 seconds as much as possible naturally even with ridiculous bonus sooner or later you gonna fail or critically fail something that as a player who likes to avoid risks and rolling was a nightmare to me

Forgot to mention, I echo the desire for an Artificer class. The inclusion of technology and science-based character options is lacking. There are a number of avenues they could take with such a class. From pure tech, to magic, to alchemy; or even the combination of these things therein. I felt like a good place for Damiel could be the combination of magic and alchemy, to kind of bring back that idea of them being one and the same as a niche concept. How would this work? No clue. But it could be neat. Magic-tech, clockwork, golem-crafting. This could be the realm of the Artificer. Not including a number of in-universe things they could build on.

maybe the the capstones would be one of the following

1- become a half-construct or cyborg [and paizo remember to make it stop aging for the love of Christ]

2- build a giant operable golem [like a gundam but not that big]

3- build a laser satellite with a dimensional door equipped so it can snipe people form anywhere once a day

4- build a nuke

Just popped in here to say, honey bees emerge from their cells with fully formed wings but do not fly for the first 3ish weeks of their 4 week lives.

Also, Ostriches.

The presence of a wing does not mean flight is possible, either at all or “yet.”

Though I do get the OP’s point... we don’t think of angels or dragons as being flightless.

just to note humans are also born with fully formed legs and mouths yet we don't walk or talk for some time as well

maybe we should make human speed 1ft [crawling] and remove their speech until they take a feat at level 18 to become fully grown humans

ArchSage20 wrote:

also its interesting that both the Ambrosia of Undying Hope and the Sun Orchid Elixir both have the necromancy tag

maybe alchemy could become the future of necromancy

Quite possibly. Healing magic generally got bumped over to Necromancy in PF2, but there's definitely avenues to explore in Alchemy for necromantic "magic."

i know this will never comes true but i love the idea of being a scholar of alchemy (level 20) who knows both the sun orchid elixir and ambrosia of undying hope formulas

a group of assassin was send to kill me they try to poison me but it fails due to antidote(major) then they make a trap and i just walk into it a rogue stabs me over and over but it get resisted/nullified by a juggernaut mutagen with invincible mutagen and eternal elixir feats as he scream "its not working" as i laugh like a maniac

then their boss decides to break out their secret weapon just to watch as i come back to life and he says "how? we are in a dead magic zone" and then one of his underlings says in a scared voice "are the legends true? is he that immortal monster who has lived for over 5 centuries" and they decide to make a tactical retreat

at this point its a power fantasy but come on at least when you get to level 20 you gotta get a moment of glory once in a while

Yeah, it's 100% about the roleplay.

"Did you hear about _____, the legendary alchemist, who made a potion of immortality?"

vs

"Did you hear about _____, the legendary alchemist, who made an extra 750 gp last month?"

to be honest 750 is really not that much for a month

a flying potion from a random dungeon is 1000gp and a level 15 item and it doesn't take a month to finish a dungeon

so at level 20 a alchemist who is a class focused on crafting really shouldn't care that much for 750 gp

now that i look at it spellcasting services of level 9 are 1800 so universalist could do that 5 times a day every day and if he manages to do it once a moth he already beat the alchemist

holy Christ level 20 wizards in pathfinder must be filthy rich

imagine a level 20 diviner with spell blending selling his 5 casts of wish every day even if he does so for a very spell price say 100gp that is (5*100)*30 = 15000gp a month

indeed we need pommels as a first priority to counter enemy fighters only then can we end then rightly

Also, on the subject of the Philosopher's Stone granting immortality, I don't really think it needs changing. Immortality is, barring certain unusual campaigns that stretch over decades or centuries, not likely to ever matter in game play terms. You're level 20 anyway; just say it makes you immortal.

great so you have no issues with making it grant you immortality

i think most people who like picking immortality doesn't actually care if it will take effect its more about the role-play

for instance think of a dhampir sorcerer with the undead bloodline at level 20 selecting the bloodline mutation will not give him a lot of benefits since undead don't usually have wings

however that would have a immense roleplay benefit for the character because that undead tag represents him a half-vampire becoming more vampire like a true undead

same goes for something like for instance Endurance of the Rooted Tree for the monk, its unlikely at level 20 that food and water will ever be a problem but for a player that wants to mimic a Buddha like character it might be a huge deal

so its good to have the option

Oh, I forgot about the Sun Orchard Elixir feature of Golarion. They may not want all those hordes of 20th-level alchemists competing with it.

hence i suggested having a personal elixir that only worked on the alchemist like 1e

an alternative would be just adding eternal youth to the class features as something you just gain at level 20

still i dislike the idea of sacrificing player freedom for the sake of npcs we never had that issue before in 1e

first because not everything takes place in golarion

second because its clear npcs are using the same rules as players

look at the guy who made the sunlight orchid elixir he also made wish alchemy that would be like what 2 level 20 feats

by that weird line of reasoning every monastery would be filled with immortal monks and every forest would be filled with immortal druids

monks and druids would eventually be forbbiden as pharasma and axis would send legions of morrignas and maruts to hunt them for their immortality

so i guess we should all just agree not to go into that rabbit hole

It can be used to create the Elixir of Rejuvenation, which can instantly bring any creature that has died within a week back to life. And unlike other forms of resurrection, this doesn't come with any negative consequences and can't be stopped by Pharasma.

i'm not sure if i can put links on this forum so just google, actually let me copy it here

Philosopher's stone

The philosopher's stone is a legendary alchemical substance capable of turning base metals such as mercury into gold or silver. It is also called the elixir of life, useful for rejuvenation and for achieving immortality

[i removed a little bit of jargon]

Elixir of life

The elixir of life, also known as elixir of immortality and sometimes equated with the name philosopher's stone, is a potion that supposedly grants the drinker eternal life and/or eternal youth. This elixir was also said to cure all diseases

[same i removed a little bit of jargon]

resurrection at a point in the game [level 20] is far from rare and if you have a death clock over your head called aging it wont be very useful
besides its not like you can drink it after you die

i propose they add a third option to the stone so you can craft a elixir of youth that only works on you

like just typing it on google and looking at Wikipedia immediately shows the 2 main functions of the stone are turning metals into gold and granting immortality

i just cant understand why developers decided not to add it considering the capstone for alchemists used to be eternal youth

could the devs please give us alchemists our immortality back?

lol weirdest stuff ever i pity the summoner that finds himself quadriplegic because his eidolon got petrified those thing are sounding more and more like a life hazard i'm scared

"GMs that took stuff away from their players."

"GMs that give their players extras."

see right here that is your issue

you think people aren't smart enough to realize they just made the taken away into default to make the gm look better?

its doesn't feel like we are being given anything it feels like we are being forced to ask for permission to use something we already had

also if he gets hit with deafened or blinded does that also happens to the summoner?

Deriven's goal here is to make the mechanic look as cumbersome as possible as a way of convincing people to join them in petitioning for the mechanic's removal.

Not only are the questions rhetorical, but even attempting to answer them is potentially undermining their crusade, which probably explains the passive aggression and naked hostility being thrown your way.

i agree with him it feels like a hassle, its too unnecessarily complicated

ArchSage20 wrote:

the dreams of having a class that lets you become a lich as a captstone

That is the thing that I would change about the class^^

noooooo i vote against it

now i'm visualizing eidolons as those japanese voodoo dolls that appear on cartoons when a character wants to curse someone

you nail the doll and the cursed person gets a massive nail wound

you flick it to a wall and the cursed person get thrown midair and hits a invisible wall

you squeeze it with you hands and the cursed person is now getting crushed unable to move

no idea why anyone would willingly attach such thing to themselves though

thenobledrake wrote:

I think you're using a way different definition of "railroading" than I've ever heard of before if you think not having access to every ability that exists in the game counts.

Railroading isn't "you don't have the spell that would be perfect for this" - it's "I, the GM, have left you with literally one single path forward, so take it or the game isn't going anywhere."

Otherwise you might as well be calling the level the characters are "railroading" since it's not 20th from the start.

Despite being in the minority by favoring permanent flight, I agree with thenobledrake about the definition of railroading. We GMs set up the situation. We could set it in a country ruled by hostile orcs, in a cave of deeper darkness, in an ancient ruin that is warded against scrying and teleporting, or in a land of acid clouds where flying is fatal. That is part of the challenge. Oncevthe challenge is set, the players can handle it as they see fit.

Railroading is when the GM defines how the players should handle the challenge. The PCs want to enter a castle and the guards prevent that. Attempting to bribe the guards fails automatically, yet the guards just throw the PCs out. Attempting to sneak past the guards fails automatically, yet the guards just throw the PCs out. Attempting to fight the guards finds them unkillable, yet the guards just throw the PCs out. The walls are unclimbable. Yet a sewer grating can be pried open. The sewer is the railroad.

Railroading would be easier for the GM if the PCs could not sneak nor climb, since they would have fewer options to try. Restricting abilities can be a tool for railroading; nevertheless, it is not railroading.

no its not they are arguing semantics

i was talking about gms preventing players from obtaining or using certain abilities such as fly

i referred to that as railroading

i pointed out that gms wont have to railroad

"limit players ability to use certain spell etc..."

because that limit would already be embed on the base game

which is bad because now everyone who liked the other way would have to home-brew or be forced to play in a way they dislike

the basic reasoning is that its far easier for gm to limit fly that its is for a gm to buff it

because if a gm tried to do that on 2e since the whole game is now balanced with the intention of permanent flying not being available it will break the game

but then again anyone with basic reading skills can understand what i'm saying but they are desperately looking for something to disagree even semantics will do

i think limiting peoples ability to fly teleport scry etc... does remove railroading from the gm but it does so by embedding the railroading into the very system which is far worse

I love metamorph type of using aspects like growing fleshbows or boneblades to claws, with its subclasses being like ozoomorph(acutral one) or void creature so more of blue mage type. If was made I rather it have no link to druid, no wildshape as wildshape is druid thing.

yep me too the idea of having a character who can just change his body as he feels like sounds great

its sounds like being a weird mix between a martial and a caster, you use supernatural powers to alter yourself but you fight with your body

I'd like to be able to plan an adventure without thinking about literally everything a PC can theoretically do at a particular level so that I can spend less time/effort

i would say those people are lazy and likely love railroading

There is no force in the world that could just give you arcane magic

but wizards literally do that to their familiars