Necromancer

Atalius's page

2,455 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,455 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Nettah wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Nettah wrote:
I prefer to keep the instruments two-handed for balance reasons as well as the factor that more or less every instrument needs two hands to play or play optimally.

Not necessarily. If a character can perform Somatic components with an occupied hand, then I think numerous instruments likewise can be done the same, and numerous examples have been given.

I mean, sure, balance reasons is a thing, but there needs to be more of a reason to use the instruments besides a whole minor scaling bonus to Performance that can't reasonably be expected to have much use. If we had some feat synergy to work with, I'd consider it fair, but we have none of that.

Well the mechanical benefit is good for boosting your bard songs, so I think it's relevant. The issue is if you could replace a two-hand instrument with a one-hand instrument there is only disadvantages to use a two-handed one.

The bonus there isn't relevant for it to matter since the DC scales. Being 5-15% more likely to succeed or critically succeed is not really worth what you can potentially do with your hands.

Keeping with the current theme, +1 per hand per item quality seems fair. So a two-handed expert gives +2 compared to +1. And since Perform is so limited in use, it's not game-breaking to make it work that way.

Absolutely well said.


Could always make it so it gives less of a benefit than using it two handed. For example wielding certain weapons one handed opposed to two handed do different damages.


A high enough performance score might be cool to allow someone to play single handed, as they have proven they are experts in the field. Perhaps a low level character couldn't be allowed, but a high level character has mastered the art.


Yes lots of options for one handed instruments.


Cool idea Pumpkinhead


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

I suppose this means we'll be forced to choose which kind of violins we're gonna deliver.

But yeah I have a very hard time imagining playing an instrument with a sword in hand. This makes sense and it's fine.

A drum (like bongos) strapped to your body can be played one-handed. A Harmonica, likewise, is one-handed. Both are very common and popular instruments amongst some of the most iconic genres of music.

A Bard using a Harmonica and singing about the Murder HoboAdventuring Blues is probably one of the coolest character concepts to date that can very easily be exciting and inspirational to the game.

Thanks! Yes this is what I meant, it's very plausible, not the least bit absurd. It would be great to implement it into the game.


Ya I figured a one handed instrument of some sort might be playable by a master of Performance or something. Or even have a magical item later on in the game be a single handed instrument. People can fly in this game, and can do amazing things, I'm sure there are some human beings IRL who can play a musical instrument one handed.


One handed drum ftw :)


I agree Instruments should be able to be played in one hand.


Does this spell allow an individual under the invisibility spell to be unaffected by a creature trying to Sense him through the Seek action?


This is all so confusing


Yes it would not be possible for Valeros to take cover he's directly infront of the monster. I'm referring to Seoni who has Valeros infront of her (which I intrepret as a feature that lets you take over, he's an obstacle).


Anyone?


May I get a little assistance here Paizonians. On page 314 of the Playtest book there is a diagram of Cover and Screening. Please refer to that page for the following questions.

If I was playing Seoni (#4) could I use the Take Cover action since I am somewhat behind Valeros (#1)?

If I was playing Seoni (#4) if I were one step to the right thus being directly behind Valeros (#1) could I use the Take Cover action?

Sorry I didn't know how to best optimally draw out the example here, thanks all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Three of my friends have wanted to GM, started campaigns, and then quit because the workload was too much.

Hehe ya I hear you. This is why my group and I are always looking for Paid GMs.


Yes, that AC could certainly be higher.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyone else notice how weak Summon Monster is early game? When at level 1 summoning a CR 0 monster with 6-8 HP seems a bit underwhelming, everytime I summon it gets destroyed in 1 round. Anyone else think that the HP are a bit low? With only 3 spells per day I would expect spells to carry a bit more weight, what's your opinion?


When using a whip and making a trip combat manuever would one use Athletics (STR) or would you replace the STR with DEX when making the Athletics roll?


Could anyone tell me how many dents this shield can take? I couldn't find it in the book, it was difficult to locate. I did read it has a Hardness of 5.


MaxAstro wrote:

Full agreement. I've said it a hundred times - I want more Catfall in the game. I want rogues that can stealth past dragon-sight, rangers that know herblore as good as magical healing, and archers that can quick-climb a wall by shooting arrows as footholds.

Basically, if a martial character in one of the LotR movies can do it, it should be an absolute minimum for what martials in PF2e can achieve.

Right on the ball


WatersLethe wrote:

In PF1, I always pictured non-singing bards (singing bards were disproportionately represented) as strumming the instrument and then the instrument playing itself magically for the following rounds. I'm quite happy to abandon that fiction.

Spending an action each round to play music feels so much more bard-like. It also makes it easier to balance the ability and make it impactful.

Did the performance ever get changed to stack with rage?

Good question on Rage stacking, anyone know? If it still doesn't lets hope they get that changed for the final version, besides that it seems like the Bard is doing ok overall. I think the comment earlier about Bard being compared to the wizard is not quite accurate, wizards will end up with at least equal skill points at level 1 but likely more than the Bard AND the Arcane spell list is much better than the Occult list hands down.


Is anyone else hoping that the final product brings more options for the Cleric? Currently the healbot with a subpar list and domain powers has been frustrating for a vast amount of people. It would be great to see a debuff style Cleric be viable in this game because currently next to nothing stacks so a domain power perhaps would be nice which could give a different type of penalty, quite possibly an untyped one (and no we are not talking a huge penalty like Vision of Madness from PF1 but could be something like that just on a more nerfed scale to bring it in line with everything else). Just wanted to know how other people feel about seeing a different type of Cleric rather than the current healbot. A negative channeler just isn't viable as positive energy is almost strictly superior.


Now that the Playtest is complete and we are now awaiting the final edition, I thought I'd get people's opinions. Let's hear your tier list, who's at the top of the mountain?


DM Livgin wrote:

This is my journal to talk about my experiences, struggles, and joys in running my first ever Adventure Path. The primary purpose of this thread is a place to order my thoughts, however everyone is welcome to post here and join the conversation.

** spoiler omitted **

After an extensive survey of player preferences we decided to close the doors on the lodge until the release of PF2 and become Hell's Rebels!

DM Livgin I wondered for the longest time if you were still active on these forums as I haven't seen you in ages. It's good reading your thread mate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
kaisc006 wrote:
Ugh am I the only one who finds the excuse “tight math” for almost all of PF2’s problems annoying? This is the first roleplaying game I’ve seen where the math comes before the narrative / world building...

The thing for me is, it's WAY easier to add/make narrative for a system with great math than it is to make great math for a system with great narrative.

Or to put it another way I have, it's easier to fix narrative issues than it is to fix broken math by FAR. Something making narrative sense isn't excuse for breaking things IMO, but YMMV and that's understandable. Lots of people like PF1 despite its brokenness, myself included (Though it is proving RIDICULOUSLY hard to get my heart and head back into it to finish out the two campaigns I was running after having a taste of PF2. Doesn't help that I'm having to jump back into the mythic rules for one of them.).

But PF2 has great narrative and world to me on top of great math, so it's kind of all good to me.

Agreed, this game is shaping up to be something special. Just some changes to the obvious which Paizo has said they are going to adjust (spells, etc), and 2019 is looking to be a very good year.


I hope they make that clear in the official release. Because currently it is confusing.

"Compositions are a special type of spell that require you to use the Performance skill as a part of their casting."


Edge93 wrote:
Atalius wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
It would make sense for it to work that way, if Focus Spells were an optional feature for all the classes that have it. But that is not the case. It's a baseline feature for clerics and non-universalist wizards. So, it this was tied to Cha, it would be an undue burden on these classes (less so on clerics since they already have Channel Energy tied to Cha).
Well, as written clerics already have that burden. What if all characters had it? Like, what if focus spells were all as potent as channel?
Exactly this, except maybe not quite as game-defining as channel. And also there needs to be more support for NOT focusing on it. I would really like "Charisma-dumped Cleric who never really gets any use out of channel energy" to be a viable and effective (and most importantly feat-supported) build in the final version.
Exactly this. Fully agreed. Lest we forget the bad touch cleric of the Madness domain, one of the most feared debuffers if not the most in the entire game.
Oh gosh, that ability was so BS. All because of lacking the likely intended restriction of it being meant for WILLING targets, or at LEAST allowing a save for unwilling.

Hehe I loved that ability. I hope one day they bring in a weaker version of that power (fingers crossed). He was a great charisma dumping Cleric option a ton of fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
It would make sense for it to work that way, if Focus Spells were an optional feature for all the classes that have it. But that is not the case. It's a baseline feature for clerics and non-universalist wizards. So, it this was tied to Cha, it would be an undue burden on these classes (less so on clerics since they already have Channel Energy tied to Cha).
Well, as written clerics already have that burden. What if all characters had it? Like, what if focus spells were all as potent as channel?
Exactly this, except maybe not quite as game-defining as channel. And also there needs to be more support for NOT focusing on it. I would really like "Charisma-dumped Cleric who never really gets any use out of channel energy" to be a viable and effective (and most importantly feat-supported) build in the final version.

Exactly this. Fully agreed. Lest we forget the bad touch cleric of the Madness domain, one of the most feared debuffers if not the most in the entire game.


I would much rather have Charisma be useful in this game than a dump stat. Useful like it is in 5E.


just a question, with no Resonance moving forward, can I now dump charisma like I always did in PF1?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fumbles_suck wrote:

If we assume that they fix the broken ass spell DC vs Saves, properly it will certainly help.

But for hypothetical blaster focused mage, this is where I think the math should be.

If we assume 4 encounters per day. For blasting the 2 highest spell slots are relevant. So you have 2 relevant spells per encounter. This is blaster so they should have metamagic to help, so they are spending 3 actions to cast.

I say the damage of those spells should be equal to twohanded weapon user hitting with all 3 attacks for the highest level slot and 2-2,5 for the second highest, assuming failed save. My opinion is based on the fact that they are spending all their top 2 slots to accomplish this with rest of the casting regelated to minor significance. Where as the weapon user should be averaging something like equilevant of 2 strikes a round during the entire fight. AoE vs Single target spells naturally should have different math.

And yes the 2 handed is what a dedicated blaster should be compared to given that both are builds focused on offense opposed to defense, specifically DPR.

Granted I think a lot better idea would be to increase the anemic amount of spell slots that was cut in half.

definitely agree the amount of spell slots could be increased OR increase the power of the spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

All spells need to be improved. But Cleric Spells more than most, and Domain Powers too.

Oddly enough it's the specialist wizard powers that are in the best place at the moment... But Specialist still sucks because of how much better off Generalist is.

Absolutely that Divine spell list is a shadow of the PF1 Clerics list.


Let's be serious, those domain powers need to be improved.


dmerceless wrote:

So... I've been in the Playtest forums for a while, and now that the Playtest is coming to a real close, I wanted to write a pretty extensive text on my general impressions and what I'd like to see going foward. I hope this feedback is somehow useful for the Paizo.

First of all, thanks Paizo for providing this Playtest environment and actually hearing and working on the feedback you get. Unfortunately this should be the rule for Alphas and Betas but it isn't (D&D Next Playtest, WoW BFA Beta, etc.). Like everyone I had some things that didn't go the way I prefered, but that's just life. Also thanks to all the other folks in these forums that engaged in civil discussion about all that stuff, both those who agreed and disagreed with my points of view. Without further ado, I can't humanly talk about every thing that I like/dislike, but here are some of the highlights:

The Good

- The general vibe of PF2. I don't know if that's the objective that Paizo is looking for, but the game really felt like and attempt to give depth and choice without unnecessary complexity. As a player/GM who always found PF1 to be too complex for the sake of it in a lot of thingst but also found 5e to be too shallow, that's great.

- The 3-action system. This is probably the single most loved feature of the Playtest and there's a reason for that. It's even simpler than 5e's move, action, bonus action to explain for new players while also giving a huge amount of different options on how you want your turn to go.

- The design on martial classes. The Fighter, Monk and Rogue gain extra points here for me, but all martial classes are miles away from the previous iterations. They are stronger, but not too powerful, and most importantly, they have tons of variety. When I read the Fighter Feats for the first time I was thinking about like 10 different builds and each one of them actually played in a different way in combat.

- No more /caster level scaling on spells. I know this hurts for some people, but this was the root...

This is all brilliant stuff. I hope Paizo considers this beautiful piece of literature.


Edge93 wrote:
Planpanther wrote:

Can I ask folks their thoughts on how they would houserule something?

Like how would folks divorce save and damage increases from magic weapons and armor, and put them on character leveling where they belong?

Oh yeahhhh, I totally forgot that one too. I had a draft of Automatic Bonus Progression to work with too. I haven't actually looked at Ediwir's version of this so this is just my own take:

First off, unlike PF1 ABP I don't reduce wealth or item allocation for this. Part of the whole point is removing these things as a mandatory cost, so taking them out of wealth allotment wouldn't really do this. Besides, I felt in a lot of cases like a little less treasure was given using the standard measure than I would like, so removing mandatory items without reducing wealth fits for me.

Weapon and armor potency runes are removed, but higher quality weapons and armor retain the same effects. Magic items no longer provide item bonuses to skills but retain their other properties. Mundane high quality skill-boosting items still exist as normal. Bracers of Armor have the same cost and effect for their weakest variant but then are simply upgraded in quality like physical Armor probably.

So the table is like this:

1: Gain a +1 item bonus to one skill.

2: Gain a +1 item bonus to another skill.

3: +1 item bonus to AC and saves if wearing no armor or expert quality armor

4: +1 item bonus to accuracy and any manufactured weapon you wield deals an additional die of damage if it is at least expert quality (To clarify for this and all other entries, this bonus applies to non-weapon attacks also and those do not have a quality requirement but do not gain extra damage dice)

5: Increase your item bonus on two skills by 1 (Max of +2)

6: Increase your item bonus on two skills by 1 (Max of +2)

7: Item bonus on AC and saves increases to +2 if wearing no armor or at least Expert-quality armor.

8: Item bonus on accuracy increases to +2 and manufactured weapons...

Paizo should hire you. You have an innate talent.


Quite surprised not a single response. If the thought of getting paid frightens you, would you be willing to run a session for free?


Just wanted confirmation on this one, a PC can voluntarily fail a save correct?


Good points, ya I guess the most significant change was going from a Free action to a single action.


How do people feel about Recall Knowledge and where it currently stands? Specifically Monster Identification. Any word if Paizo is going to make any adjustments to this ability for the official release? Knowledge checks use to be extremely effective (PF1), it seems like acquiring knowledge now is much less rewarding as you are getting a lot less information.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think up to this point and changes that will be coming for the official release (ie. Spells being buffed etc) are tremendous. It's come a long way since August. I've been particularly impressed with the way in which Paizo implements feedback from the community. This is just the beginning of the journey Paizonians, there shall be many more changes when the game is released, constant erratas like in PF1 which will keep improving the game. Here's to 2019, the year of Pathfinder 2E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Edge that blasting spells are excellent right now. I'm with Merlin that buffs and especially debuffs need to be improved (give us some real save or suck spells Paizo, this coming from a former Bad Touch Cleric player). I'm aware you want get away from this kind of thing. Just I miss the Madness Domain Cleric, truly was an awesome and fun character to play! But this isn't just about my preference, there are many others on these forums who feel the same way.


Diffan wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
Secondly, run it where the enemies have the access to taunt and see how your players feel after encountering. Once more, I feel like taking away player autonomy is going to feel, at the end of the day, not fun. It introduces a challenge, yes, but overcoming it doesn't feel like a victory so much as it does, "Oh, good, that annoying obstacle is gone."

Unless you're suggesting that we also get rid of spells, such as Command, fear, sleep, confusion, or most spells of the Enchantment school then I don't think "player agency" is really that much of an problem. Heck at least with a taunt you're not losing your actions at all unlike many spells where's it's you stand there babbling like an idiot or drop everything and walk stupidity towards the guy commanding you.

I dislike very much the free pass magic always gets simply because it's magic yet Martials have an ability that's not as reliable, usually has caveats, and functions in a limited factor but its considered "broken".

Yes, once again I have never played a martial nor do I like martial characters, I just feel as if they should get these types of things. It would make the class more enjoyable as an option for some, and if you don't like it then you don't need to go that route. Pathfinder has always been about options.


I like Compel Hostility type of a deal but rather than having it a spell just make it a higher level feat usable once or twice a day max. The number of actions to use or whatever is best left in the hands of the professionals at Paizo. Or you could do something like In Harms Way, you could make it a Reaction, "...you intercept a successful attack against that ally as an immediate action, taking full damage from that attack and any associated effects" this is of course different from taunting but there countless ways to implement these things into the game and eventually they probably will be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

· Goad (complete adventurer)

· Test of Mettle (knight 4th level, PH2)
· Antagonize (PFsrd)
· Boasting Taunt (barbarian 6th level, APG)
· Glowering Threat (fighter 2 exploit, Heroes of the fallen lands)
· Come and Get It (fighter 7 exploit, PHB)

And the list goes on...

Taunts, goading, pulling Aggro, and other distracting or creative non-magical devices have had places in D&D/PF for many many years so lets stop pretending that the notion is crazy or doesnt have precedent in TTRPGs

This is what I've been trying to say. Balancing it would not be a problem for the experts at Paizo IMO. I'm saying it can be done without being a spell, perhaps a high level feat or another way which can only be used once or twice a day that way it could not be abused (I'm not a designer) but I am certain Paizo could make it work in some sort of manner. These designers at Paizo are legends, anything is possible.


There are quite a few spells or feats in PF1 which were quite similiar to just what you said "I yelled something and so now you're mind controlled into attacking me no matter how little sense it makes." Taunting is something that should one choose to acquire somehow, they should be able to I feel. Its cool flavor. Some will disagree others will agree, but there is no doubt this has already existed before and it was quite neat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dunno Captain, when an enemy uses a special ability and it requires a saving throw, you don't get a choice. You just better hope your Will or whatever is good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Would you look at that, good changes this late in the game.

Hoping their changes to the magic system will also make spells worth taking instead of the crap they were.

Who knows, maybe the release version will actually be decent after all.

Hearing that spells will be getting buffed was a great decision by Paizo. Well played Paizo, well played.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
Atalius wrote:
IRL people get taunted into doing silly things and it is not all that uncommom, these are intelligent people.

Exactly this. If the argument against a "taunt" mechanic is that "Well, thinking people don't make mistakes," I dunno what to tell you. If that's your view, Bluff shouldn't exist either cause "intelligent opponent" will see your ruse. Like, sure, it's easier to get my dog with some sleight of hand trick like pretending to throw a baseball, but illusionists have existed for millennia and fooled even the fastest eyes.

There's really nothing wrong with an ability that says "If you fail this save, your next turn is spent trying your best to kill me."

Right up until I make a bad guy who hires four minions who do that to every PC. Suddenly it's really, really awful.

It's absolutely fine if a bad guy does it, as they should. There were far worse things in PF 1 if I recall, one example would be Dominate Person among many others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greg.Everham wrote:
Atalius wrote:
IRL people get taunted into doing silly things and it is not all that uncommom, these are intelligent people.

Exactly this. If the argument against a "taunt" mechanic is that "Well, thinking people don't make mistakes," I dunno what to tell you. If that's your view, Bluff shouldn't exist either cause "intelligent opponent" will see your ruse. Like, sure, it's easier to get my dog with some sleight of hand trick like pretending to throw a baseball, but illusionists have existed for millennia and fooled even the fastest eyes.

There's really nothing wrong with an ability that says "If you fail this save, your next turn is spent trying your best to kill me."

Yep, this man gets it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

Man, I hate to say this but I'm not actually too thrilled about all this.

The no level to Untrained is really a bummer to me and seems like it could ruin the awesome nuanced system of how you are in a skill that skill gating provided. However this will probably be super-easy to houserule out if I don't like it in play so I can't be too upset. Hopefully most classes will at least get some more trained skills so we aren't back to PF1's your-superhuman-still-sucks-at-a-whole-lot-of-things.

I'm not a fan of doubling the proficiency bump either, again I would have much rather seen more non-number perks and abilities gained by advancing skills, that's way more exciting to me than any number hike. This one I expect will be harder to tweak if it doesn't play well to me as the DC tables will likely be balanced around that.

Between that and what sounds like only 1 DC per level of task it sounds like we might end up back a little too close to the PF1 levels of hard to challenge specialists. That said I expect 1 DC per level will be much easier to work with so that's cool.

But that variance between Trained and Legendary, let alone Untrained and Legendary, it just feels like we will be right back to "You can't challenge the specialist without leaving everyone else out". Again, I'd much rather have seen expansion on the more nuanced system we were teased with the Playtest rather than just bigger number difference.

Resonance, I mean I wasn't expecting too much different but I was of the unpopular opinion that Resonance was awesome and just needed a few tweaks to be excellent, certainly a huge improvement on item charges per day. But yeah, after all the complaints people had I figured we would end up with something flung far away. So sorry to hear it but no surprise. I'll look at what Paizo is doing for magic items before I decide if I need to try to work a form of Resonance back in.

The bit about Fighters potentially looking at a 90-95% hit chance on best attack against on level creatures actually...

I admire this mans passion for the game. This gentleman has contributed a lot to the Playtest forums. You can throw this man up a flagpole, and I'll salute him.

1 to 50 of 2,455 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>