|
Bandw2's page
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber. 7,046 posts (7,413 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.
|


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Komoda wrote: Justin McKeon wrote: Going to mega-necro this thread, because of candlelight.
I rule that candlelight is normal at 5' for LLV characters, because they can read scrolls by it. Dim out to 10'.
Sometimes you just have to use your own interpretation of the rules and enforce that upon your players. If they have objections and are unhappy, things can be changed.
There are stickier rules than vision, but I agree with some that these rules not very clear as written. Using your own interpretation of rules that are difficult to define, like stealth, is one thing. Making up your own is known as "House Rules". These are fine, but the difference should be understood. also going to mega necro this thread again, because I think everyone missed something.
the moon is a light source that at the range of golarion produces dim light. light sources always seem to have half the distance that produces dim light produce bright light, rounded down.
so doubling the bright range of the moon by simple geometry will always create bright light for a LLV character at night.
there is only 1 overriding rule and applying it to the moon as a light source or any source of light that produces dim light, will yield bright light for a LLV character, except for possibly the candle, depending on if you decide the 2.5 bright light still exists but is rounded down or if it doesn't have bright light.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
on page 452 of your CRB, where it explains how damage types are used.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
since alignment damage only damages people of the opposite alignment, i tend to describe alignment damage as almost sentient(tendrils of darkness worm their way into your flesh before dissipating) or like a matter-anti-matter reaction, where around the cut some of the flesh just vaporizes.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote: Vital is instinct, connection and faith. Whereas Mental is reason, logic, study.
Way I see it, Vital is about immersing yourself in either the tangible world (Material) or the unseen (Spiritual). And Mental is about understanding and controlling them.
I actually disagree, the essences are the end goals, and the traditions are how you get to that goal. I don't think the essences themselves say anything about the tradition, but that the tradition says everything about the essences.
a small difference of opinion, but a difference none the less.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
krazmuze wrote: Yes that would be true if all you did in this game was try to kill stuff, without stuff trying to kill you.
true but barbarian being an example of someone easier to hit and higher than average damage, they still seem to come out on top a lot.
i feel like this sentence falls apart or at least is inconsistent if you don't think a barbarian isn't a poor choice of class.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote: Bandw2 wrote: Martialmasters wrote: Strill wrote: Quandary wrote: Squiggit wrote: My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much. I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate. What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of. How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile. electric arc doesn't use MAP because the enemy must save, so if it were 1 action, you can attack twice and force a save out of 2 opponents. if used as a flourish it gains the attack trait
/fix? MAP doesn't effect your Save DC, so it at the very least needs special wording to how it effects your DC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote: Hbitte wrote: SuperBidi wrote: Of course, we are speaking in a vacuum. Situation is more important in PF2 than it was in PF1. But it's important in my opinion to sell tactical movements, especially to beginners who may think it's not the role of their character to provide buff/debuff, or who may think that a +2 to hit is negligeable.
By the way, I use your charts of average DPR to assess some moves on my characters. So thanks for having made them ;)
It is not their role.
IT SHOULD NOT BE CASTER'S ROLE TO BE BUFFER OR DEBUFFER. Unless he wants to.
If the only way the caster can be efficient is as a support, it is undoubtedly weak and without any flexibility. Disagree. As martials are largely incapable of mirroring a caster and vice versa. Therefore having roles to both is not explicitly a bad thing provided there he some variation within.
A martial cannot equal a caster in utility or buffing or debuffs or buffs or AOE damage capability. A martial can perform limited aspects of certain things on a smaller or more strict scale such as combat maneuvers for debuffs or limited feat tax AOE options but still cannot reach the equivalency of a caster. Given the above. What is their shortcomings? When compared. Single Target damage? Struggle vs strong single Target? Though you still can use a spell that has a failure effect and still contribute and damage options are still a thing as well
Biggest issues with casters are players trying to compare to 1e. And action economy interaction.
they're just not as fun to play as martials who get new ways to attack as they level.
they have worse DCs and to-hit in general compared to martials and so they have to lean into the failure effects, which isn't fun. oh yeah, i get to do pity damage.
skills provide, in general just as much an impact on combat as spells, and against lower level enemies you can guarantee they work instead of having to still rely on rolls for a more or less equal effect.
I don't in general think it should be the best case scenario for a wizard to grapple or trip an adjacent foe(their chance to-hit will stay relevant if they use a traited weapon).
not to mention their spell DPR and debuffing only stays relevant in their highest slots.
basically casters seem relegated to more or less mostly just give yourself and allies 1-2 extra to-hit or AC or reduce it by the same amount on enemies(while also using actions occasionally to reduce the number of actions enemy's have), and if you feel like a gambler, you can use other spells, that could potentially do something really cool, if your enemy rolls really badly.
if you in general have no problem with only ever moving numbers up or down, then this probably seems fine, but if you want to actually make choices in combat, the action economy and how spells are designed (more or less just choose what save to target, or buff allies with no roll) make most of those choices mostly only flavor and constrained.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote: Strill wrote: Quandary wrote: Squiggit wrote: My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much. I agreed with your broader point as well, but I think this is key concept. Pushing for 100% balance everywhere, "solving" issues as it were, actually doesn't lead to interesting game. The small imbalances and assymetries are perfect foundations to build other mechanics upon, since the preceding "weakness" helps moderate the new mechanic from being too powerful. If everything was tightly locked down in balance, there would be less freedom to expand and innovate. What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of. How so? Your still at minus 10 since they are not agile. electric arc doesn't use MAP because the enemy must save, so if it were 1 action, you can attack twice and force a save out of 2 opponents.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ten10 wrote: 10% to do 800 damage is 80 DPR
90% to do 78 damage is 70 DPR
Looks like 70 DPR is more reliable than the 80 DPR. Particularly when every creature has no more then 63 hp. I can get math to do whatever I want as well.
You have zero information on how the 80 or 70 number was reached. Saying that the higher number is more reliable is faulty logic.
Sorry, you have two options
1. Hit -> deal damage
2. Miss -> 000000
Which is the case for the vast, vast majority of RPGs including PF2
right, which is why overkill needs to be included in DPR calculations.
if enemies only have at most X HP, then all the extra damage isn't DPR.
most people who say DPR isn't everything, just don't know how the do extensive DPR calculations.
and we actually have 20 options.
we can roll any number on a d20, and depending on the situation involved each d20 number might do a different thing. sometimes a 7 is a hit, sometimes it isn't sometimes a 17 is a hit, sometimes it's a crit.
DPR takes into account how likely you are to hit or miss and should take into account how likely you are to waste damage as well.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote: Bandw2 wrote: with a build that relies on high AC, you're less likely to take a hit, but the maximum overall damage you can take in combat is higher than a purely offensive build. The maximum damage you can take is 'enough to kill you' in both scenarios, whether you're focused on DPR or AC. If the dice keep going against you, you'll lose. incorrect/misunderstood, if nothing changes but the damage and AC, there's a difference in rounds(potentially, not all cases) that the enemy will be alive.
so say with 1 build assuming each hit(same to hit, both characters rolled a 17+mods to hit the enemy), but one has more damage the other higher AC, the higher damage one might kill the enemy in 2 rounds, the other 3.
so if the enemy has 2d6+6 damage per attack, each attack has a range of 8-18 for possible damage, say the enemy attacks twice per rounds against you.
the higher damage build will only possibly take 32-72 damage, which the higher AC build will possibly take 48-108 damage.
i'm just pointing out alpha strike is very useful in all forms of combat, where it lets you have less chances to take damage, even if you're more easily hit.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote: Deadmanwalking wrote: Yeah, Spiritual is shared by Occult and Divine (with Occult also having Mental and Divine having Vital). Ah I see.
That’s rather strange then to me but I suppose the thought behind them still makes sense.
Now I’m wondering how a Bard is at all “spiritual” and a Druid, who communes with the forces of nature, is not.
shrug
Edit: I suppose music is inherently spiritual in some form. i kinda went over it a long time ago, but to me;
Arcane is pragmatic and empirical, requiring diligence to change the world to how you need it. it's all about changing people or things to how you need them to be.
Divine is vague and emotional, requiring faith to protect or harm, being almost entirely around helping or harming people.
(i don't think they need as much explanation as the other two.)
Occult is idealistic, viewing things as how they are to people, but not to the world. occult magic alters the world like a narrative or a set, instead of based upon matter or people, it alters the soul of a situation, the center of a story, how it's perceived or how people are able to react to it. I find it no coincidence that occult magic is what most often you'll find it fairy tales and fables. (basically it can make illusions like a set, and curse or bless people to force their behavior like actors, mess with people's minds and souls, but not actually making permanent changes to the landscape)
Primal is simply how things are, regardless of people. it effects things as they are and has no connections to how people view things. it requires the ability to listen to everything but people, to a person's body and not the person himself. it only concerns itself with what is actually here.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Temperans wrote: The reason I said it's a strawman, its because people have argued that class archetypes (style of pf1) allow for single list Witches to still be able to have a different spell list. His response, was to ask why Witch Archetypes should be made into their own classes.
Of course I wont deny that I have talked about the benefits of the old system, but people have also talked about the benefits of the new system. I don't know who is right or who Paizo will choose: So all I can do is change my mind or continue to support my case.
still not a strawman, at best it's a non sequitur (irrelevant argument). (because they defended themselves with not fallacious reasoning, and didn't try to knock down the other argument)
looking back trying to piece together what you're talking about, I don't think they were responding to you but Rysky, who was talking about and comparing them to separate classes.
beyond that, archetypes are certainly different this edition, and i don't think any of them change any fundamental things about a class yet. the closest to a new spell list is halcyon casting, which is more or less a multiclass spellcaster archetype for primal and arcane.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
I don't see having a lot of bonus spells based on your patron being a thing if you can also pick your spell list. If you have a Winter Patron and that gives you Primal then that already gives you all the cold spells so getting Cone of Cold and Eclipse Burst as bonus spells is useless.
from my understanding, people who put forward this option have your spell list based on your lesson, and bonus spells based on patron, or vice versa. so you take an occult lesson and a cold patron if that's what you want, or a primal lesson and a curses patron.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Temperans wrote: Hedge Witches (healing witches), Scarred Witch Doctors, Pact Witches, etc. are all archetypes of Witch; They are not new classes. To use "should they make this archetypes into classes" as an argument against single spell list is a blatant strawman. Of course they shouldn't be seperate classes, that's why no one every suggested it to happen, and why I and a few others talked about Class Archetypes. mmm, no it's not. strawmen are making a fake position to knock it down. making a position and defending it, can never be a strawman.
in fact, you could potentially be making a "no true scottsman" fallacy here, by trying to argue that they aren't really potentially witch class material. this is more likely a semantical difference however, and isn't a the above fallacy, as it depends on the definition of witch, which hasn't been hammered down by even paizo yet.
you could have also been making an appeal to tradition fallacy, just because something was done some way before has no indication on it's own how it should be done now.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote: I brought this up in a previous thread, but I've seen it creeping into discussions both on here as well as on the Facebook Group for PF2. Basically, DPR as a metric for character effectiveness often leads to people misevaluating the effectiveness of their character because they're used to how things worked in PF1.
To bring up a concrete example, this came up in the context of "building the best barbarian", where someone stated that they'd go Giant Instinct, because it did the most damage/had the highest DPR. But let's take a closer look:
well, here's the issue with offense versus defensive builds.
offensive builds will get attacked less, because enemies will die sooner. defensive builds will get attacked more because it'll take longer to end the fight. (not even going into enemy's potentially ignoring you to attack squishier targets)
one of my player's is a giant instinct barbarian (it's his first time playing TTRPGs he just liked having a big sword) and the rage damage moves his attacks into territory where he can 1-shot potentials level+2 enemies currently, because he almost did just that, and only needed to roll higher on his damage to have done it.
instead he rolled low and got crit himself and so had to retreat. with animal instinct he'd still have been crit (natural 20) but would have had no chance of ever 1-shotting that particular enemy and saving his HP. it only had 3 hp left, and so was cleaned up with a cantrip from the cleric in the group.
Alpha strike is a very important thing to keep in mind in all forms of combat, because it, in general gives your enemy's less chance to roll the dice against you.
with a build that relies on high AC, you're less likely to take a hit, but the maximum overall damage you can take in combat is higher than a purely offensive build, even if the average is possibly lower(that the offensive build).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Bluenose wrote: Bandw2 wrote: Bluenose wrote: Bandw2 wrote: PossibleCabbage wrote: It's sort of interesting to me how there aren't similar complaints about how much worse archery is relative to other options compared to PF1.
Since archery was the king of DPR strategies in PF1, since not only could you get a full attack off wherever, but you could get a lot of shots off in a given round with pretty good accuracy, and stack up a lot of static bonuses.
But now static damage bonuses are gone for the most part, nobody gets more than 3 attacks off, and the -10 attack isn't that valuable so you're no longer at a severe advantage compared to "run up and whack them" as a combat strategy.
Archery had a similar damping down to spellcasting, but doesn't seem nearly as controversial. like, with what my theory is, that people aren't actually complaining about being weak, but being boring or static, this isn't a surprise. Propose a solution that makes the Wizard more interesting without also making them more powerful. I'm sure the people complaining about casters being underpowered will take it up enthusiastically. that not the point >_> Maybe not, but your suggestion that people aren't complaining about being weak but being boring or static seems pretty conclusively disproved by all the proposals to make playing wizards fun again by giving them more power. right because people playing them think they're not as powerful, but they're really just less fun.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Bluenose wrote: Bandw2 wrote: PossibleCabbage wrote: It's sort of interesting to me how there aren't similar complaints about how much worse archery is relative to other options compared to PF1.
Since archery was the king of DPR strategies in PF1, since not only could you get a full attack off wherever, but you could get a lot of shots off in a given round with pretty good accuracy, and stack up a lot of static bonuses.
But now static damage bonuses are gone for the most part, nobody gets more than 3 attacks off, and the -10 attack isn't that valuable so you're no longer at a severe advantage compared to "run up and whack them" as a combat strategy.
Archery had a similar damping down to spellcasting, but doesn't seem nearly as controversial. like, with what my theory is, that people aren't actually complaining about being weak, but being boring or static, this isn't a surprise. Propose a solution that makes the Wizard more interesting without also making them more powerful. I'm sure the people complaining about casters being underpowered will take it up enthusiastically. that not the point >_>
really spellcasting would have to be redone from the ground up, and let you do spells that actually let you effect things again.
for instance, i'd have preferred that wizards had decent DCs and accuracy but didn't use the basic save paradigm, with only effects happening on a success.
spells like floating disk would actually be able to carry a meaningful load.
likewise, we could potentially have spells with basic saves be able to be cast as a 1 action for their saves to be 1 degree worse for you. (so if they succeed they take no damage, etc.)
I wish there were 1 action damaging cantrips as well, and feats that changed what you could do with these cantrips in the same way a warrior or wizard can alter their strikes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote: Quote: You said being super powerful had nothing to do with being a deity, so why are demigods not just listed as weak deities then? Looking at the list of demigods, calling them Planar Deities would have worked fine too - it's not like other groups of deities don't have a modifier before the term. Yet instead, they get a completely different classification and even have things like Inner Sea Gods describing demigods as, "Somewhere between gods and mortals stand demigods: semidivine creatures with enormous power and obscure agendas." If demigods are "between gods & mortals," that would imply that they are part of neither - which would make them not deities... who still can grant divine magic. I'm confused by your confusion.
Full deities/gods do not have statblocks.
You can be a super powerful being and not be a deity (the Tarrasque).
Demigods/lesser deities (like Treerazer) is a deity because they can grant divine magic. They can also be killed.
Quote: So again, if granting divine magic is what makes you a deity - then why are these mythic characters only "like a deity" rather than being a (weak) PC deity? Because that's just being pedantic?
DnD uses/used tiering of deities (lesser, intermediate, grater/ a number ranking), that's not something Paizo wanted to copy. i have to agree, this seems overly pedantic.
the Empyreal lords and the archdukes of hell can all grant spells, and are deities, but they're also demigods.
there are countless countless beings that can grant spells if you view the wider universe beyond golarion.
inner sea gods and the book of the damned have a ton of information on deities that aren't the big crazy ones most people worship.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote: It's sort of interesting to me how there aren't similar complaints about how much worse archery is relative to other options compared to PF1.
Since archery was the king of DPR strategies in PF1, since not only could you get a full attack off wherever, but you could get a lot of shots off in a given round with pretty good accuracy, and stack up a lot of static bonuses.
But now static damage bonuses are gone for the most part, nobody gets more than 3 attacks off, and the -10 attack isn't that valuable so you're no longer at a severe advantage compared to "run up and whack them" as a combat strategy.
Archery had a similar damping down to spellcasting, but doesn't seem nearly as controversial.
like, with what my theory is, that people aren't actually complaining about being weak, but being boring or static, this isn't a surprise.
archery still does what it used to be good at, it's as fun to do before if not more so now, you have options on how to leverage your ranged attacks.
casting just feels hampered into a corner.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
i had an interesting thought.
what if witches could choose their list but always cast as an occult caster... they use occult casting spell for everything.
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote: It's cool that some spells have a failure effect, it's a nice that your spell is not completely wasted, but consolation prizes are not very "feel good". When you cast a spell you want it to at least get the "regular" effect. I realize the optimal strat versus bosses is "pick spells expecting they'll succed on the save, but not crit save", it doesn't feel super fun to me.
A martial class that had -2 to hit over the regular ones but got half damage on every miss would probably be effective, but not exciting. It would add up if they can do it infinitely!
yeah this whole, you're worse at applying effects so get a pity effect just isn't fun compared to actually being able to apply effects only on a success.
I'd rather only apply on a success and have a decent time of doing it over, this.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote: I think a lot of gamers view a 65% chance that your action doesn't have a result as "a complete waste of time"
I mean, I've seen arguments on this very forum that treat a similar chance of reduced effect - rather than no effect at all - as if it were unbearable.
considering the original topic was for a GM to paralyze a player(because npc stat blocks aren't made super well), i don't think you're arguing for what you think you are.
it was a 35% chance a player would be paralyzed for a long time. generally i don't think abilities like that should have high DCs when used on players.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Squiggit wrote: Quote: meaning my lower level slots turn into what feels like mostly dead space or last choice options. This is one I have to disagree with. DCs scaling automatically has made low level slots vastly more usable than in PF1, where they were pretty much just fodder for whatever random quality of life spell you felt like by midgame. before, DC didn't scale but the spell still did more. a 3rd level fireball, while lower saves had higher damage, meaning your cap went up, even if it was rarer unless you heightened it.
now, a 3rd level fireball has a good DC but is guaranteed to do very small damage.
with incap trait being a thing, a lot of things that would only need a good DC are still required to fight over your highest slots.
11 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
imo, the real change, is casters are less fun to play than martials now.
they just do less(generally 2-1 actions in a round) and everything they do has a feeling of mediocrity.
martials get to do a lot more in a turn and have more options on what to do.
while casters have a slew of spells to choose from, they tend to do a lot of the same thing just from a different angle. (ah yes, 3d6 damage but do i target fort or reflex?)
so like casters get effects on a fail, but martials can choose to do damage and an effect only on success(like grapple or demoralize), but casters don't have that option.
they just feel really boxed in, while martials are a bowl of spaghetti seeping out of the bowl.
it's like they got the ability to do things on a fail, in exchange for being able to do a lot with their turn.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
i don't think you shouted at me, it were others.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote: Strill wrote: Gorbacz wrote: Christopherwbuser wrote:
All I'd ask is that people go back and re-read Pirate's Prophecy, and try to imagine Celeste's story using the proposed second edition Oracle rules. Fiction and rules sometimes overlap. Sometimes they don't. Most of the time they don't, because if you were to tell a story about a world with D&D economy and mid-level people with Sacred Geometry and Dazing Spell, you'd be likely telling a post-apocalyptic nightmare about a world where economy and ecology collapsed and a bunch of super-powered OP full caster warlords are struggling for control of a ruined landscape and devastated society. You realize that's pretty much what medieval times were like right? That's why they're called the dark ages. It sounds to me like that's a feature, not a bug. Golarion is nowhere in the vicinity of being a medieval/dark ages setting. while the tropes are medieval in appearance, it feels more like a post Alexander era, where the Collapse of society from the death of Aroden has caused many large nations to splinter.
so alexander's emprie splintered into the seleucids, macedonia, Anatolia, Egypt, etc.
most of the regions in pathfinder have an empire that splintered not that long ago, which makes them fascinating, but it's definitely not a fall of rome scenario, more of a power vacuum scenario.
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
i know the other day , i said i felt like i prefered playing pf1e and got shouted at like i was trying to say 2e was bad. it was strange.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote: I could actually see Occultist being pick-a-list, depending on what items they dive into.
(I'd also like them and the Arcanist to be renamed, if they stay Occult and Arcane respectively)
oh they could make them a full caster that has access to all spells of a school instead of a tradition. where they get to pick a school like every 6 levels.
they'd probably still cast spells as occult though.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
hell, i use initiative to figure out who goes when people start going on a shopping spree. i've decensitized my players to not assume it means combat with a few key encounters where even after combat started an NPC will try to cool things down.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote: The-Magic-Sword wrote: Occult and Primal is a good compromise So interestingly, I think this dichotomy could be exceptional cool if paired with an opposition type class or say other two spell list classes. In the prepared space I could easily see a primal and divine, a arcane and occult, and an occult and divine.
Possibly shaman, arcanist, inquisitor? Hmmmm. there's already Halcyon casting, god i already remember how to spell it now.
which is a mixture of arcane and primal, would be neat if they got a full class.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
This was more relevant in the Divine list thread. But
Something people may find interesting. Raksashas which are fiends/devils cast occult magic. I discovered this while looking through the bestiary for what cast occult stuff.
Also poltergeist undead cast occult too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote: Sporkedup wrote:
For sure. From that perspective, would you have been asking for a binary choice between occult and primal, or would you have felt a bit of blending would have better served both the class and the concept?
Because it stands, the witch is not filling either of the prepared niches. It's not a prepared occult and it's not a prepared any, as it's leaving divine out in the lurch.
I think if they moved away from the witch theme, leaned heavier on the patrons and a true list-pick, that wouldn't be a bad class at all. Separate the traditional folklore witch, keep the name, but expand more by focusing on the patron relationship and effect. That's a totally viable class to me. But I think it would lose out on the hex/curse portion--what dragon is going to grant you a bunch of twitchy hexes instead of grand arcane magic?
That's a tougher question to answer.
I'd like to find a way to make everyone happy, because that's just the type of thing I hope for despite it being somewhat unrealistic at times.
I do think the legacy of the witch from PF1 needs to be considered in some aspect, so to that extent, it can't just be "dumped" down to a pick-a-list class as the focal point.
And personally, if Pick-a-list was the focal point of the class itself, I would have to see it as the Arcanist, since their themes seem to jive with that better as master of all magic (though the name is then grossly unfitting).
It's just too hard to see with Patrons/Hexes/Familiars/Lessons in their current state. At least for me. Spring boarding off of this, imo, arcane has the best witch spell selection, with good necromancy, enchantment and polymorph spells.
Like they have charm and baleful polymorph and can curse people, I don't think that list should be excluded either.
I'd prefer they added all lists before limiting it to occult.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote: Bandw2 wrote: Rysky wrote: Bandw2 wrote: Rysky wrote: Witches and Wizard have access to their whole list to learn from, Clerics can just change to any when... right, a cleric can prepare anyspell, a wizard or witch needs to get access first. Which is minor, all things considered.
(Unless you saying access to mean Clerics get Uncommon and Rare spells too automatically, which they don’t aside from the ones granted by their deity). It's not minor when talking about errata that removed a deity getting Divine spell access, because they already had access. A witch who needs to find the spell first could be given a spell for free from their own list as a way to ensure they get it and save money or time. But they still can't change spells out through out the day so the ones they pick are what they're stuck with that day. That's never been something I said. Their lists change while clerics are constant.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote: Bandw2 wrote: Rysky wrote: Witches and Wizard have access to their whole list to learn from, Clerics can just change to any when... right, a cleric can prepare anyspell, a wizard or witch needs to get access first. Which is minor, all things considered.
(Unless you saying access to mean Clerics get Uncommon and Rare spells too automatically, which they don’t aside from the ones granted by their deity). It's not minor when talking about errata that removed a deity getting Divine spell access, because they already had access. A witch who needs to find the spell first could be given a spell for free from their own list as a way to ensure they get it and save money or time.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
ikarinokami wrote: Patrons and a single list creates internal contradictions in the class. Why is a Dragon patron teaching you occult magic? or a fey patron teaching you occult magic. Why is Baba Yaga teaching you occult magic?
I don't understand this concept, a dragon can learn to cast occult magic just like anyone else, it can also have a unique reason to be able to(Mcguffin artifact, esoteric knowledge, or perhaps from being exposed to the astral plane).
like reasonably the only tradition that's iffy is divine, since the list is heavily deity focused.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote: Witches and Wizard have access to their whole list to learn from, Clerics can just change to any when... right, a cleric can prepare anyspell, a wizard or witch needs to get access first.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ruzza wrote: Bandw2 wrote:
it really feels like an up hill battle to specialize. i don't particularly enjoy that kind of battle.
I think one of the design goals has been outright stated as "moving away from hyper-specialized characters." It's not an uphill battle because the system isn't working, it's an uphill battle because you aren't supposed to approach it that way. which isn't what i said, i said, i don't prefer it because of it over 1e. that's all.
Bluenose wrote: Bandw2 wrote: like each melee class as an example, feels all even, except at the one thing their class ability alters.(fighter has better accuracy, barbarian, better damage, and ranger better reliability/adaptability) Bandw2 wrote: 2. the chill touch thing is CRB... <_> a wizard -> chill touch -> any polymorph spell(i mean technically the polymorph spell needs a bestiary), or even just punching someone. you can always deliver touch spell attacks as part of a natural attack or unarmed strike if the spell hasn't discharged yet. How did you go from melee classes (specifically calling out fighter, barbarian and ranger) "feel all even" to explaining what wizards could/can do? That's some major goalpost-moving there. that's because i'm currently playing a wizard. also i meant all classes feel really even, and merely showcased some of the classes with little differences. the differentest in my opinion, are bard and alchemist. the rest all rely heavily on the same mechanics and attack assumptions, it's why people complain casters don't have accuracy items on spells because rolling against AC while 1-3 behind means a lot in this system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote: Considering that outside of rogues folks can only get 3 non lore skills to legendary, the game cant assume specific levels for a skills rank. On top of that there is around a 4pt variability for related attribute, a 1-3 pt variability for equipment and a massive variability in skill feats. Overall at the lowest levels there may be a spread of over 10 and at the highest levels a spread of over 15. sure and if you look at DCs by level, in the game master section, the DC for a level 1 roll is 15 (difference of 14) and 20 is 40 (difference of 20)
if you don't put any ability adjustments in there, then it stays on par with skill increases. basically, compare a character with the ability to boost charisma to a character who isn't capable, and that's fine, but they're both still at expected ranges, for themselves. like i don't think a comparison of a fighter and a sorcerer both trying to be good at deception is a good comparison. instead compare either a fighter who isn't focusing on deception with one, or the sorcerer with himself likewise. you end up with ranks and possibly a 1-3 item bonus, with maybe spells for a bonus all over the place.
and yes, i know you can also boost charisma, but if you don't really plan on using charisma for anything but deception you're left out, so over the course of play it's a wash. everything else you do isn't a wash, but it's so hard to get those little bonuses out there.
it really feels like an up hill battle to specialize. i don't particularly enjoy that kind of battle.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Strill wrote: Bandw2 wrote: Malk_Content wrote: I mean the gap between heavy investment in something and a bit of investment in something is smaller, but you absolutely be amazing at any skill. I mean ultimately the same was true in PF1 but the gap was bigger. Outside of specific class features, everyone had the same maximal cap on any given skill.
It also means that you as a non caster who has invested in lying isn't completely invalidated by a cheap scroll by level 5. i mean, it's as simple as there being expected levels where you'll have access to expert, master and legendary for skills. I don't know what you mean. You're saying that because you can't put all your skill increases into one skill, PF2e is more restrictive? Or are you saying that because you don't get skill increases every level, that it's restrictive? I'm having a hard time seeing how this differs much from PF1e.
Quote: it's less what actions you perform and what effects you can apply to those actions. like using chilltouch to deliver strength damage through unarmed attacks, just as a really obscure thing i did in a battle. So your problem is that PF2e doesn't have the mountains of splatbooks required to enable obscure combos?
Quote: mind you i'm also a big fan of spheres of power and might, which takes a ton of emphasis off of full attacks. (you can for instance, choose to trade AC for temp HP each turn you do it, trip as a move action, attack twice as a standard action if using 2 weapons, can cause people to bleed and apply conditions for as long as they bleed, all in one turn at level like 6 or so on the right classes... and that's just how i'd imagine to play an armorless dual axe wielding barbarian in the system.) For the most part, that sounds like a normal turn for a Pf2e character.
Quote: I'm currently playing in 1e a divination wizard with a focus on transmutation and summoning (not in-combat summoning, like summoning devils and elementals to perform tasks for me and the party).
in ... 1. it's more like, the game knows full well when most people will get a skill increase and is balance around that, and that it's the only reliable way to increase your skill bonus.
2. the chill touch thing is CRB... <_> a wizard -> chill touch -> any polymorph spell(i mean technically the polymorph spell needs a bestiary), or even just punching someone. you can always deliver touch spell attacks as part of a natural attack or unarmed strike if the spell hasn't discharged yet.
3. doesn't for me, spheres of might boosted melee up to caster level instead of 2e nerfing casters down to non-casters. that's not a bad thing mind you, just noting i do play with a playset that fixes a lot of martial class's issues in 1e.
4. i can't poison them, that's for sure. I don't do much damage per attack and so i rely on doing multiple attacks or using strong poisons. (i'm level 11 and i can do a 1d4 con 1d4 str poison with cure: 3, the creature is from bestiary 6 i think) Also most divination spells are uncommon, i'm using arcane eye and scrying to get us all information before hand.
most of the splat books are for spells, and i actually clear everything i get with my GM beforehand. besides ultimate magic and occult adventures I think i could lose most of these spells.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote: Orithilaen wrote: Gaterie wrote: RexAliquid wrote: You could use Flame Barrier to save the fighter’s life for a round so he can finish the fight. Or rebuke death to get him and the rogue both back into it. Awesome. So the hail mary stuff works only if you multiclass to get some actual focus powers. No need to multiclass--you can get rebuke death or flame barrier from Domain Fluency at level 12. Having to rely on poaching abilities from other classes isn't much better in that regard. I honestly think we're going to see more and more of this happen honestly, as time goes on.
do we need 3 spells that would do effectively the same thing but have a different name for a new class?
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Puna'chong wrote: Well I don't think a Patron could have only one trait if that's the route that's taken. Three would probably be pretty reasonable
A "curse"-focused patron might have Incapacitation, Enchantment, and Necromancy if Polymorph is too broad but you want baleful polymorph. If two schools are also too broad, then you could limit it to Incapacitation, Enchantment, and Emotion, or Sleep, or something else a bit more narrow. A cold-focused patron could have Cold, Darkness, and Mental, etc.
An argument for all Witches getting baleful polymorph is pretty strong though
thats a LOT of spells... not something like gaining a spell for every level or anything, that's like half of all lists...
it's not particularly thematic either, you just gain a ton of spells that are someway involved with a trait...
like imagine having access to ALL incapacitation spells...

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote: Bandw2 wrote: Castilliano wrote: I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list. you retain them after a lost familiar and don't have to spend resources learning them if they happen to already be on your list.
Rysky wrote: Sibelius Eos Owm wrote: Castilliano wrote: I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.
If I can get all my ice & cold spells from the Primal list, then why would I want an ice & cold Patron?
Wait, of course I want such a Patron for my Winter Witch, don't I? Because if your patron teaches you those spells, you are free to pick any other spell you want from the Primal list (I kind of assume Winter Witch would be Arcane, but I've never been deep in their lore). Just because all the cold spells your Winter patron grants you were already on your list doesn't mean you already knew them. Seeing as how Deities only grant bonus spells from the non-Divine lists (and they even have Errata for the one case where it was a Divine spell) I don’t think this would be the way they go. It makes the bonus spells from the Class Feature valuable that way. that's because a cleric has access to the entire divine list And the Witch has access to their entire list(s) as well. Clerics can't trade out spells on the fly. no.. they gain spells like a wizard.
like a cleric doesn't get anything from a diety giving you a divine spell, because you already can prepare all spells on the divine list at any time... right?
a witch has to get a scroll and have their familiar eat it.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
first, you should be using a dogslicer or horsechopper, and then just stab everyone and everything in the ankles, unless it is a dog, in which case run. also possibly look into just carrying around some bombs to start fires and cause general mayhem.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Gaterie wrote:
A divine class whose signature ability is an explosive belt... No, thanks.
thank god, someone else understands why i don't think hail mary should be a thing.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
separately on the trait system, are we sure spells are traited with enough vigor to make sense?
like looking at baleful polymorph, it's a [incap][polymorph][transmutation] spell.
I don't think any of these traits should particularly be used to say grab all curses...
most of the elemental and attack spells have decent traits, but nothing else really does...
like if we give all polymorph or transmutation spells, you also allow a witch to access the 10th level avatar spell from the divine list... which doesn't feel particularly correct if you're trying to give a witch baleful polymorph.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Castilliano wrote: I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list. you retain them after a lost familiar and don't have to spend resources learning them if they happen to already be on your list.
Rysky wrote: Sibelius Eos Owm wrote: Castilliano wrote: I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.
If I can get all my ice & cold spells from the Primal list, then why would I want an ice & cold Patron?
Wait, of course I want such a Patron for my Winter Witch, don't I? Because if your patron teaches you those spells, you are free to pick any other spell you want from the Primal list (I kind of assume Winter Witch would be Arcane, but I've never been deep in their lore). Just because all the cold spells your Winter patron grants you were already on your list doesn't mean you already knew them. Seeing as how Deities only grant bonus spells from the non-Divine lists (and they even have Errata for the one case where it was a Divine spell) I don’t think this would be the way they go. It makes the bonus spells from the Class Feature valuable that way. that's because a cleric has access to the entire divine list

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote: Bandw2 wrote: The-Magic-Sword wrote: So- let me ask a question and I'm hoping people give their opinion, because I'd love for the dev team to know if this is an acceptable compromise:
How would you feel about the weight of the Patron if it worked the way it does now in the base class (so no specific patron is necessary), but they also had Class Feat chains that require a specific being as a patron (in the same way some ancestry feats require specific ethnicity) to be able to take?
These would presumably come in adventures and lost omens products like other setting specific options.
i don't feel it would be very cost effective page wise. most people will either ignore it, and if having those entities as your patron has no mechanics still, there's no narrative concreteness to it anyway. People likely won't ignore it if those class feats confer flavor / mechanics that they want. I don't know how narrative completeness plays into it, but class feats that require Baba Yaga as a Patron would, by definition, be a mechanical effect of having Baba Yaga as a patron (and most notably, without GM intervention, silo those mechanics off from the feats offered by other Patrons) different from the mechanical affect of having Runelord Sorshen, or Pharasma, as patrons. no i meant people will probably ignore the required patron requirement.
people might like having baba yaga as a patron but not the feats, and people might like the feats but not baba yaga, and it's one of those things i see getting easily house ruled a lot.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote: I mean the gap between heavy investment in something and a bit of investment in something is smaller, but you absolutely be amazing at any skill. I mean ultimately the same was true in PF1 but the gap was bigger. Outside of specific class features, everyone had the same maximal cap on any given skill.
It also means that you as a non caster who has invested in lying isn't completely invalidated by a cheap scroll by level 5.
i mean, it's as simple as there being expected levels where you'll have access to expert, master and legendary for skills.
the most interesting skill interaction i've seen so far is the Iruxi's ability to change their scale color to match an environment to get a +2 to stealth.
Strill wrote:
Moreover I'm completely baffled how pf1's combat could be more varied than pf2? Pf1 is all about full round attacks or spells. Theres way more tactical options in pf2
it's less what actions you perform and what effects you can apply to those actions. like using chilltouch to deliver strength damage through unarmed attacks, just as a really obscure thing i did in a battle.
mind you, i've cooled off to the idea of the increased mobility in 2e, sure you get to do more in 1 turn, and AoO aren't a thing as much, but it makes most battles kind of flat, where movement feels less calculated(but makes it much easier to run from a mindscape), you either can flank or can't. in 1e, you might try to avoid AoO with acrobatics and get behind an enemy and now they're trapped.
mind you i'm also a big fan of spheres of power and might, which takes a ton of emphasis off of full attacks. (you can for instance, choose to trade AC for temp HP each turn you do it, trip as a move action, attack twice as a standard action if using 2 weapons, can cause people to bleed and apply conditions for as long as they bleed, all in one turn at level like 6 or so on the right classes... and that's just how i'd imagine to play an armorless dual axe wielding barbarian in the system.)
I'm currently playing in 1e a divination wizard with a focus on transmutation and summoning (not in-combat summoning, like summoning devils and elementals to perform tasks for me and the party).
in combat he transforms into forms with very strong poisons and uses true strike to try to poison key targets.
Another wizard in my party, is only really good at casting fireball, but has also brought a ton of utility spells to the table. same class but really different.
just saying i think i prefer playing 1e, i don't think 2e is a worse game. I may come off as trying really hard to prove 1e is better here, but i'm just showing some of the reasons i prefer 1e.
like i said, i can still GM for 2e and several of my player's seem to be happy playing it. i'll probably even play as a player eventually.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
I'm of two minds on pathfinder2e.
on one hand i find it MUCH easier to GM for. a lot of the garbage rules that were more complicated than needed have been removed, and there are very easy rules to make almost anything very quickly.
however, after my initial excitement of seeing how things are different from 1e, i've become less excited about actually playing it personally. Classes all have the felling they've been set up to end up doing about the same but in a slightly different way. like each melee class as an example, feels all even, except at the one thing their class ability alters.(fighter has better accuracy, barbarian, better damage, and ranger better reliability/adaptability)
it's a fun game, but in that it's easy and quick to play, and nothing is likely to upset the gameplay. like besides being a charisma class, it's hard to make a character good at lying, at least more than anyone else can be. glibness is a +4 from a +20(it was favorite spell ;-;)
idk, it's a fun game, but i think i'd prefer to play 1e as a player.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Henro wrote:
The most important one is that the player is making a choice level one that they can't change and may not understand the full consequences of. A player who wants to play a spooky fairytale witch and picks up the "lesson of curses" may be shocked to learn they will not ever be able to transform someone into a frog.
just going to point out this is a pretty bad argument that seems good at first glance.
anyone with the level of knowledge suggested will end up just as stuck if they pick literally any caster as they don't know what any of the spell lists have given him being confounded by the choice of spell list.
they may pick even pick just a bard expecting the same thing because they have an "occult" list.
|