Search Posts
Okay I think we are good to go. I will send PMs to both of you with Discord Invite links. Please introduce yourself in #General and then say you are here for Bardarok's Mosquito Witch Game, Azzur or I will get all your channel permissions setup. Also please respond to my PM with your discord handle so that I can recognize you, I am Bardarok in Discord as well.
The plan is to extend invitations on the 31st and start play two weeks later (around the 14th maybe the day after since some folks are likely to be busy on the 14rh itself). Currently the two confirmed players are planning a Bard and a Gunslinger.
That sounds relatable there are a lot of parents and GMs on the server (myself included) who use PBP as an opportunity to have some regular Pathfinder when IRL games become difficult to schedule. Splinter sounds cool
That sounds good, I am going to leave this post up for a second weekend before we extend any invites but since there doesn't seem to be a rush of applications you will probably get a spot.
Hello I am Bardarok a long time Pathfinder Player and GM (started with DnD 3 and played PF1 for years before jumping to PF2). I am usually a generous GM who likes creative solutions and a bit of improvisation. I try to keep the players balanced with each other so that it is fun for everyone but also I like allowing a bit more freedom than a strict RAW interpretation of the game. Looking for two to three players (I already have two) for a play by post game running the Mosquito Witch Scenario in Pathfinder 2e. The game will be run on an established Discord PbP Server and I expect it to take one to two months to run through the entire scenario. It took just over a month for me to run Mountain of Sea and Sky via PbP. Hoping to start middle of next month so we are looking at a Mid Feb through early April as a likely time period for this. The expectation is that you post at least once every 48 hours. I have some house rules that I want to try out so please take a look at those to see if they inspire/deter you before you comment. This is running a PFS scenario but it is not an official organized play game. Generally this is a friendly server where we mostly play in various PbP games but sometimes chat about non PF2 stuff in #general. You don't need to participate in the general chat at all but please do not be disruptive. Character Creation and House Rules:
Maneuvers If a weapon/unarmed strike has a maneuver trait (Trip, Disarm, etc.) and also has the finesse trait you can substitute your Dexterity modifier for your strength modifiers when making that maneuver with that weapon/unarmed strike. Familiars with Manual Dexterity can activate items that can be activated using only interact actions, such as alchemical elixirs, but cannot perform other types of activation Bards are proficient with all simple weapons plus one martial weapon of their choice instead of just those listed in their class description. Their proficiency with those weapons scales as normal for their “class weapons”. Monk
Rogues are proficient with all martial weapons with the agile or finesse properties not just the ones listed in the class. Their proficiency with those weapons scales as normal for their “class weapons” Wizards are proficient with all simple weapons instead of just those listed in their class. Their proficiency with those weapons scales as normal for their “class weapons” Finally I add the following homebrew spell just so Electric Arc has a little bit of competition. Ember Burst (Cantrip 1)
Server Wide Rules:
This is a community where all are welcome. Harassment of any form will not be tolerated. We are LGBTQ+ friendly and any form of bigotry, racism, or sexism is explicitly not allowed on this server. ~~~~
Cheers,
Man those How it's Played videos have been brutal, RAI always seems to be the most strict and limiting interpretation possible. Based of the very conservative sensibilities displayed there I'm not hopeful for any significant Witch buffs in the errata.I like knowing the answers, regardless. I dislike ambiguities that keep me from making decisions. Yeah it good to have answers and I'm thankful for the devs for sharing and engaging with he community. It's just disheartening to see them consistently rule oppiset of what I would do in a home game. Of course they have a much bigger area of concern than I do, needing to balance all of PFS as best they can.
Man those How it's Played videos have been brutal, RAI always seems to be the most strict and limiting interpretation possible. Based of the very conservative sensibilities displayed there I'm not hopeful for any significant Witch buffs in the errata.
That's a good point about more information. I think I'll let my Playtest thaumaturge keep rolling against the base DC. They don't learn any additional information but they also don't risk getting a crit fail on an Incredibly Hard check just to use their main ability. Still the Identify Creature rules need clarification.
The Recall Knowledge, Additional Knowledge Rules state: "Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a check to Recall Knowledge, rolling another check to discover more information. After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should adjust the difficulty to be higher for each attempt. Once a character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless—the character has recalled everything they know about the subject." https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=565 Now suppose a Thaumaturge is fighting a group of four enemies of the same variety, let's say Vampire Spawn. The use find Weakness on the first Spawn and the DC is a normal Level based DC. They kill that one. Now they want to Use Find Flaws on a second one is the DC another noromal DC because its a new individual or is it a hard DC now since it's another recall knowledge on the topic of Vampire Spawn? If it's the first one than fighting groups is essentially a way to get around the increasing difficulty of Recall Knowledge checks. If it's the second Thaumoturges (and to a lesser extent mastermind rogues and others with recall knowledge based abilities) have a severe disadvantage vs groups of similar enemies as their ability becomes harder and harder to proc. Am I missing something? I want to playtest this properly but this playtest is pointing out how unclear the recall knowledge rules are.
Temporary gadgets would be great. Gadgets replicating some spell effects would also be fun, and make Int more prominent. Right now it feels like a cool modular martial, but if that could be shifted more to "combat engineer" then I'd be happy. I like that idea. Maybe something like make a craft check to quickly put together cover in combat (mini wall of stone like effect). Could also be used to make a bridge or like a ladder perhaps.
Remember guys, just because the fear or feature isn't used 100% of the time, doesn't mean it isn't good or useful. I agree with this for feats. I disagree for core class defining features. I think they really should be used most of the time. But given that reloading is a big concern right no, I wouldn't mind changing up the movement benefits for reloading benefits. For example, each Deed would give you the current quick draw benefits (including the +2 from Pistolero) and instead of giving some kind of movement (or the extra damage), it the gunslinger a special kind of reload. For Drifters this could mean Reload+Avoid Reactions, Pistolero could Reload+Recall Knowledge (sizing up your opponent in a duel) and sniper could give Reload+Aim (avoiding Unsteady). I think that type of reload benefit is a lot better design since it gives more flavor to the class and is more commonly going to be used.
The poor heavy crossbow... Ha! you are of course correct.
Telekinetic Projectile with Reach Metamagic would be a potential comparable. But weapons do more damage than single target cantrips usually so that would be a lower bound on damage.
I don't doubt that in games such as yours where you are ambushed a lot that it is good. In terms of action math alone it's three actions for free which is pretty amazing. However if you aren't ambushed than the free draws don't help and the free step is situational. The only one that is always useful is going to be the Sniper one but as you said it's pretty boring. I also think ambushes are more rare in other games. I think maybe one in eight combats in my home games are ambushes, not sure how common they are in APs overall. I think thees current deeds would even make good feats for that always ready gunslinger concept (though it's hard to beat the general versatility of quick draw). However I think the core class feature should be a bit more universally useful.
The core odd level features are martial classes in PF2 are their defining characteristics. A character might spend all of their class feats from level 2 up on an archetype but a Barbarian will always have rage, a Ranger will always have hunt target, and a Gunslinger will always have their Way and their Deeds. Unfortunately Deeds are pretty underwhelming from levels 1-8. I understand that the Gunslinger also gets higher proficiency but comparing directly to the Fighter the Deeds are less interesting and build defining than lvl 1 AoO (and the gunslinger has less HP to boot) I think that in the final version the level one deeds should pack a little more punch. Something that makes you think "that's a gunslinger" rather than that's an ability that is largely useless if you are already expecting trouble and have your guns drawn.
I'm not sure that is a problem though it leaves risky reload as an option for rifle or single pistol type gunslingers. Not every feat needs to work with every build.
Rogue's and Bards also have a random proficiency list. I happen to think it's also a problem for them particularly rogues since it locks them out of future published sneak attack weapons (why aren't rogues proficient with the sword cane!) It's an easy enough homebrew fix but kind of a problem for the society players.
Yeah requiring tools would make the most sense. Whatever it is though the devs should make it more clear in the final version. I like the ability I just don't think it's clear.
Rules Text: "You tamper with a foe’s weapon or armor. Choose either a weapon held by an enemy in your reach or a suit of armor worn by an enemy in your reach. Attempt a Crafting check against the enemy’s Reflex DC. Critical Success Your tampering is incredibly effective. If you tampered with a weapon, the enemy takes a –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls and damage rolls with that weapon. If you tampered with armor, the armor hampers the enemy’s movement, causing them to be flatfooted and take a –10-foot penalty to their Speeds. Either effect lasts until the enemy interacts to remove the effect. Success Your tampering is temporarily effective. As critical success, but the effect ends after 1 round even if the enemy hasn’t Interacted to end it. Critical Failure Your tampering backfires dramatically, causing a small explosion from your own tools or gear. You take fire damage equal to your level." Is this a sunder type thing where you hit the weak point of the item with the weapon or are you reaching out with your hand to do this? Does it require a free hand? If not does it use your weapons reach?
For most classes the key ability is tied to their offensive capacity either Str/Dex for martials or the spell attack for casters. The major exception currently is Alchemist which has some serious issues because of it. Investigator is in a similar spot to inventor but Divise a stratagem lets them use their key ability to attack in certain situations so probably something like that. Currently the Inventor has Tamper which is close but likely not enough.
You could perhaps get a pair of doubling rings for each pistol. All of the gold rings bonded to the sword and each silver to a different gun. It's strange but would be cheaper than buying a full set of runes for each pistol.
Hmmm so something like quick draw and drop until level 6 where you get reloading strike. I guess I can see that. Still dual pistol seems to have no solution other than dual weapon warrior but maybe I'll just need to play with the options a bit more. Thank you for the response.
I'm a fan of the draw and drop model of flintlock fantasy but I worry that it's not going to work once striking runes become relavent. Pistols are cheap but runes are still expensive.
The fact that two of the guns have (1st level) next to them kind of implies that there are other non-1st level versions of those guns. Unless I'm reading way too much into it. Ah that makes a lot of sense as well.
The fact that two of the guns have (1st level) next to them kind of implies that there are other non-1st level versions of those guns. Unless I'm reading way too much into it.
You can make a dual pistol and/or sword and pistol build work if you take the dual weapon warrior archetype. Dual weapon reload seems so essential to these builds though that it should probably just be a gunslinger class feat.
Hey Deadmanwalking, Similar to Necrogiant I am going to use some of thees in my own homebrew. I also wanted to say thank you for posting this document and additionally that based on my observations of your various posts on the forums here over the past years I generally respect your opinions and analyses of the game.
Yeah a lot of the confidence in that interpretation was based on a devs comment in a facebook group during the playtest. So it's probably much more prevalent amongst the types of people who are likely to be aware of a devs comment on a facebook group during the playtest aka forum goers and nerds amongst nerds.
Has there been a clarification on if Agile is supposed to work with maneuvers yet? The text just says attack not attack roll but since clearly finesse was not intended to apply maybe agile isn't either.
Exactly what language would convey that to you? I'm genuinely curious.I guess I just disagree with you then. That is not a clear statement that they are mutually exclusive.It is pretty clear that a spell attack roll is not a ranged attack roll for the purposes of determining what penalties, bonuses, and ability modifiers apply to it (which is what this discussion is specifically about), even if it happens to also be a ranged spell attack.Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page. Either a direct statement "a check can only be one of these types" or a statement defining the types without all the qualifiers of things like "three main types" indicating there are other types or the intro qualifier of high variability which again indicates that not everything is covered in the text that follows. When they write everything with a bunch of qualifiers they avoid making a definitive statement. I think based off of all the evidence that you are right but I don't think that that is clearly written in the first printing RAW.
Can you highlight where in that quote it says they are mutually exclusive? I just see it defining three types. The first sentence indicates that they are highly variable and that these are the main types. It does not then follow that the three types absolutely define all possibilities.
It is pretty clear that a spell attack roll is not a ranged attack roll for the purposes of determining what penalties, bonuses, and ability modifiers apply to it (which is what this discussion is specifically about), even if it happens to also be a ranged spell attack.Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page. I guess I just disagree with you then. That is not a clear statement that they are mutually exclusive.
Can you highlight where in that quote it says they are mutually exclusive? I just see it defining three types.
Saying that there are multiple types is not the same as saying they are mutually exclusive. The existance of the errata itself and all the people asking questions about it here and on other forms should be evidence enough that it was not perfectly clear in the first printing.
Part of the confusion on both this and the maneuver thing was weather or not you assumed that the types of checks were mutually exclusive. The text never says that a check can't be both a spell attack and a ranged attack nor does it say that check cant be an attack roll and a skill check. Based on the fact that they were all just categories of check I assumed it was like the tag system used elsewhere in the system where you can mix as appropriate. I was wrong there.
I actually disagree. Giving -2 to AC against all attacks (including allies that can't normally flank like casters and archers) and forcing them to spend an action to stand up are all great benefits. It gets even better if you have someone with Attack of Opportunity or Stand Still in the party, giving them an easy MAPless attack.Spending an action to trip instead of strike was pretty hard to justify before. Doing it "reasonably well" is most likely a waste of an action. Those are all good effects but they only happen if you actually succeed in tripping and are highly dependent upon initiative order. If you are more likely to hit than trip you are better off striking, this just shifts the balance to be more situations where you are better off striking.
Spending an action to trip instead of strike was pretty hard to justify before. Doing it "reasonably well" is most likely a waste of an action.
My argument goes the other way though. Yes clearly maneuvers have the attack trait and apply to MAP and suffer from MAP. But the rules for MAP say that MAP applies to attack rolls. Ergo since it was not clear in the first printing many people assumed that maneuvers must be attack rolls as well as skill checks. It was a reasonable assumption and hence the new confusion is on Paizo.
If MAP doesn't apply to maneuvers than the mixed maneuver feat and the agile maneuvers feat do literally nothing.
Maybe it's because the way my brain works, I see two different labels, I don't assume they're related even if they have a word in common, but both me, and both of the groups I'm in, never had trouble with "attack trait" and "attack roll" being two different things. Things with the attack trait affect MAP, full stop. The section talking about MAP on page 446 of the CRB is specifically within the context of attack rolls, since it's under the much more bolded "ATTACK ROLLS" heading. It's not just that section though. There are multiple places where MAP for maneuvers is mentioned or referenced. None of these other things were errataed which makes this a new rules conflict. The text on p. 447 sidebar Striding and Striking says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." Knockdown Fighter Feat [2 actions]
Mixed Maneuvers Monk Feat [2 actions]
Agile Maneuvers Swashbuckler Feat (From the APG obviously not the CRB)
Apparently, a designer made a check on these streams, and about 50% of the answers on these streams were wrong. That's why they don't answer these questions "off the cuff" anymore.I'm a little new to the game and to Paizo overall - do you think we can expect any clarification from somebody on the team in this thread or in a blog post shortly, or are we going to be confused about these questions about finesse maneuvers, etc... until the next official round of errata?Next round, they really don't like talking to us outside of these official posts on their own platform. There are enough inconsistencies that I'm not sure if a lot of theese questions have a right answer. This might be an instance of one designer disagreeing with others 50% of the time.
The Paizo page appears to be down but you can check out this forum post where user "1d6 Fall damage" compiled all the new bits that they could find: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs438bv?Errata-2-but-its-just-the-new-stuff
I can't imagine any GM is actually going to accept that MAP no longer applies to maneuvers. It's definitely an oversight between the main MAP entry and the errata, but the intent is obvious. I guess that's true the intent is to nerf maneuvers and finesse/maneuver weapons. I just don't get the reasoning behind that since they weren't particularly good in the first place.
There are multiple feats which only make sense if maneuvers have MAP. Knockdown, Mixed Maneuver, Agile Maneuvers. Plus the sidebar on p. 447 says: "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." As written this seems like just a straight nerf to maneuvers which no longer benefit from finesse, inspire courage, or bless since those call out attack rolls specifically but still suffer from MAP. I don't know if that was the intent though maneuvers were already hard to justify vs a Strike.
So Grapple not being an attack roll anymore means that it does not suffer MAP on the roll, but would increase it for the next action? The fact that agile Maneuvers is a thing also suggests they should suffer MAP. Unless that is going to get changed in the first APG errata.
I like the master/master proficiency that feels right and I like the limited high slot spellcasting in concept. I think it needs tuned a bit but the concept is good, high level spells for combat but no low level spells for utility making the magus a battle focused mage. Some of the focus spells are cool, Raise a tomb and spirit sheathe are both very flavorful though raise a tomb has issues with the way the synthesis' work.
The Fighter MC rune Witch/MC Wizard is probably the most similar to the Pf1 Magus concept that isn't the Magus that would probably be a good comparison. EDIT: I guess for the other side of the comparison you could do Wizard MC Sentinel MC Fighter.
I like the only high level spellcasting as a way to make a limited spellcaster. I think 3/3 would be better than 2/2 (or maybe 2/2/2) but I think it's a good concept overall I think striking spell is a little clunky in execution. It feels like it is trying to be both spell combat and spellstrike in one feature. Might be better to split it something like spell combat that lets you cast an attack spell without suffering from or incurring MAP and maybe something else more similar to eldritch shot.
The witch needs a lesson that grants the Baleful Polymorph spell so that occult witches can turn people into frogs.
I was talking with ClanPsi on a different site and reached the conclusion that I think the different styles should add alternate key ability options just like the rogue rwckets. Braggart and Fencer would add a Cha option, gymnast would add Str as an option. Additionally I think there really needs to be a style/option where you can get pinache from disarming. I mean it's the ability on the iconic swashbuckling weapon the rapier.
|
