Gimble

Bardic Dave's page

Organized Play Member. 605 posts (606 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


DPR calculatiosn are used to determine how you should build your character, what you will get the most out of. d6+1 versus d6, there is not choice to take, d6+1 is the better choice. there is no reason for me, even in play choose an option that does 1d6 damage versus choosing an option that does 1d6+1.
The reason to choose 1d6 over 1d6+1 is presumably that you'll get to make some other build choice instead (e.g. boosting your Int instead of your Str). The fact that variance may stand a decent chance of making that +1 insignificant (depending on the projected length of your campaign) is just ammunition for justifying whether or not you make that choice.
that's a non sequitur, you could just as easily use DPR calculations to figure out if +1 to deception is worth losing a point in strength. I lose on average X DPR, or reducing charisma to gain strength makes melee have X higher DPR, how does this effect my rounds to kill?(goign from 2.1 rounds to kill, to 2.2 rounds is more or less fine for a little boost in side stats) etc. Variance still isn't the best tool for that >_>

I think you’re misreading my post; I’m not suggesting that variance can help you determine the relative value of increased DPR vs improved decpetion. I’m saying that if variance can show that within a projected number of sessions a +1 bonus will not be statistically significant, you might feel more inclined to invest that +1 based solely on personal preference. This isn’t a non-sequitur, it’s my entire point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


you... are not getting it.

I think you might also not be getting it? If a build choice stands a chance of not actually making an impact in performance, isn't that a valuable metric to consider when building your character?

For instance, if I'm contemplating making a bard with only 16 charisma, don't you think it's helpful for me to know that the difference between a 16 and an 18 charisma will only become statistically significant after X number of saving throws?

Yes but you dont need a graph showing comparisons between two sets of rolls to show that. What you need to know is against the dcs you are likely to face, how often would that plus 1 been the difference in a success category.
DC (i.e. AC) is already factored into DPR calculations. That's not really what's under discussion. We're talking about dice variance. How a +1 bonus compares to the noise of the d20 across a given number of rolls is what's being discussed.
I know, I'm debating whether that adds any appreciable utility to a players desicion making.

It does if you have an idea of how long your campaign will be and how likely a particular kind of roll is to come up. My contention is that recognizing the role of dice variance can help free a player to feel comfortable making a "sub-optimal" choices dictated by personal preference. Squeezing that extra +1 out of your build might seem less essential when you realize there's a 63% chance it won't actually make a difference over the next 6 sessions (or whatever).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:


DPR calculatiosn are used to determine how you should build your character, what you will get the most out of. d6+1 versus d6, there is not choice to take, d6+1 is the better choice. there is no reason for me, even in play choose an option that does 1d6 damage versus choosing an option that does 1d6+1.

The reason to choose 1d6 over 1d6+1 is presumably that you'll get to make some other build choice instead (e.g. boosting your Int instead of your Str). The fact that variance may stand a decent chance of making that +1 insignificant (depending on the projected length of your campaign) is just ammunition for justifying whether or not you make that choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:


you... are not getting it.

I think you might also not be getting it? If a build choice stands a chance of not actually making an impact in performance, isn't that a valuable metric to consider when building your character?

For instance, if I'm contemplating making a bard with only 16 charisma, don't you think it's helpful for me to know that the difference between a 16 and an 18 charisma will only become statistically significant after X number of saving throws?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm by no means a statistician or mathematician, but I'd like to take a crack at explaining in very simple layman's terms, why small bonuses to-hit are less important than people like to think. A lot of people are saying things like "higher average roll = better performance, it's really that simple," but it actually isn't.

I think there are a couple simple things that people overlook:
1) This one is fairly obvious, but I think it still bears repeating: a success is a success and a failure is a failure. Whether you need an 11 or a 10 to succeed makes no difference if you actually rolled a 12. Similarly, if the monster only has 6 hit points left, it doesn't matter if you deal 7 or 8 damage with your strike. So that +1 bonus is actually only relevant in a small number of cases.
2) You don't make an infinite number of rolls in a campaign. With a limited number of rolls, it is quite possible that the variance in your rolls will render the theoretically higher average result of a +1 bonus irrelevant. A lot of people are saying "Sure, but that's just bad luck. You can't account for that mathematically", but what they aren't getting is that you actually can, thanks to the magic of statistics.

So how does this matter for you, in practical terms? It's simple: for any given character over the course of a campaign, the variance in dice rolls is almost certainly going to be high enough to make that +1 bonus moot. That's right; once the campaign is over, if you were to go back over all the checks/saves/attacks you rolled to analyze the impact of your +1 bonus, you'd most likely discover that statistically it didn't impact your performance in a meaningful way. Meaning it probably doesn't matter if you start with an 18 or a 16 in your main stat. Meaning that min/maxing often doesn't actually result in a statistically significant improvement in your performance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:
No, it's half the spell's level not half your level. If you're level 6, the spell is heightened to level 3. Half that is one point of damage resistance.

What I find funny about this is how the rounding rules come into play differently depending on whether your character level is odd or even.

At level 6, spell level is 6/2 = 3, and damage resitance is 3/2 (rounded down) = 1.

But once you reach level 7, spell level is 7/2 (rounded up) = 4, and damage resistance is 4/2 = 2 damage resistance.

I wonder why fractional advancement for proficiency was deemed too complicated when this passes muster? I doubt the OP is the only one confused by this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Think of it like this:

The MAP for a regular weapon is -5 per additional attack: 0 – 5 – 5 = –10
The MAP for an agile weapon is -4 per additional attack: 0 – 4 – 4 = –8

Does that help?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:

And your point is... that I didn't have a good answer to an objection that hadn't been raised yet? I'm not trying to claim I made an unanswerable argument. My point was just that you obviously misunderstood my what I was advocating for, probably because you didn't read what I'd written closely enough.

Anyway, I don't particularly care about Advanced Weaponry, and I've never argued for or against any particular viewpoint on that front. I just think there should be a way for a wizard to invest 60% of his total General Feat allotment so he can be an Expert with a halberd if he wants to be. That's all.

I've uh...been talking about the consequences for advanced weapons pretty much every post I've made.

You did read those, right?

Uh huh, I did. But how does that change the argument as far as the halberd (or other martial weapon) goes? You vehemently argued against allowing wizards to get Expert in the halberd before you brought up advanced weaponry. I can dig up the exact post if you want.

Anyway, I'm exhausted. I need to go to bed. 'Night.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:

DeadManWalking comes in and says exactly what some of us have already been saying for the past 3 pages, and now it's an interesting concept when before it was unacceptable power creep? :P I guess you didn't really read some of my earlier posts?

I did actually check back to make sure, and every post I'm seeing is "I want the base Weapon Proficiency general feat to add to your class weapon list for the purposes of scaling".

(I also did check some of your earlier posts, and that still does fall under "suddenly have to change your entire fighting style" for any advanced weapons.)

This gem is from my very first post in this thread:

Bardic Dave wrote:
Maybe I was too quick in my response. I actually think your house rule looks pretty reasonable. Breaking it into two Feats, as you suggested, would be more in line with how the Ancestral Weapons Feats work.

I'm expecting that apology card in the mail any day now...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Hrm... Except I think my example is more apropos than you think?

TPtP doesn't read "all crit fails are regular fails, and all regular fails are successes"; in fact it very much reads "all crit fails are regular fails and all regular fails get an extra bonus".

For example, consider an ability that did full damage on a failure and no damage on a success - TPtP would give you half damage on a failure, not no damage.

I don't see why it matters if the extra bonus ability is attached at the end of the spectrum or not; my argument is a general rule that "if an ability changes [one result] to [other result] and then has a separate clause that [other result] gets [bonus effect], the ability doesn't cause you to get [bonus effect] on [one result]".

To give another example, let's consider a theoretical version of TPtP that works on the positive end of the spectrum. It is worded like this:

"When you roll a success on the chosen type of save, treat your result as a critical success. When you critically succeed at the chosen save against an effect that deals damage, you instead gain that much life."

By the same logic that the actual version of TPtP doesn't give you half damage on a crit fail, wouldn't this version of TPtP not give you life gain on a regular success?

Ohhh.... I clearly should have read your post more closely. My bad. Well, I'm uncertain of the correct interpretation. I think it's a reasonable that Third Path to Perfection might give you half-damage on all Failed Saves, even if they would have otherwise been critical failures. I suppose it could go either way, but I imagine there's be a correct answer buried somewhere in the book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

I'm going to point out that the solution constantly coming up is to make a level 1 General Feat equivalent to a level 6 Fighter Feat, alternately a level 12 multiclass Fighter feat.

It would alternately be equivalent to two Ancestry feats, one of which is a level 13 one.

Which solution? The solution I think is reasonable is the addition of a single 11th level General Feat that grants Expert (technically, it would grant whatever you have as your highest Proficiency from Class) in a single weapon you are already Trained in (restricting it to not be an Advanced Weapon seems a reasonable limit).

So, this can't duplicate the 6th level Fighter Feat, doesn't really duplicate the Fighter Multiclass version (as that applies to all weapons) and is even narrower than the Ancestry version (since all those also apply to multiple weapons).

Hmm, that's definitely an interesting concept. So in this proposal, what happens with the trained Advanced weapons that you can get from Weapon Proficiency? Are you just expected to not take them?

Expert in a single specific weapon (martial or lower) for a level 11 general feat would certainly seem to fit the guidelines, but that does leave Advanced weapon proficiency high and dry.

(I'm not certain how I feel about Elven Curveblade rogue, but eh, uncommon can probably handle that.)

DeadManWalking comes in and says exactly what some of us have already been saying for the past 3 pages, and now it's an interesting concept when before it was unacceptable power creep? :P I guess you didn't really read some of my earlier posts?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I'm stumped! My hunch is that the interpretation a few of us have suggested is correct, but I agree there is some ambiguity there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is Stunning Fist a Free action? What's the trigger?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Except that as soon as you get Expert, the complains then become "why does my rogue have Master in all these weapons but only Expert in the greatsword?"

Exact same situation, different class and weapon.

Except can't human rogues already do that via Ancestry Feats?

One, no. The ancestry feat is quite explicit in how it applies. It applies only to "a single uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry or is common in another culture".

If two general feats get every rogue master proficiency in elven curveblade, oh look we're back to the PF1 problem again. Or one general feat gets every single martial master proficiency in an advanced weapon. Welcome back falcata everybody.

I'm not convinced. If the elven curved blade is actually that much better than every other weapon (and I'm not convinced that it is), then wouldn't you expect every single rogue to be an elf? How is that situation preferable?

EDIT: also isn't it reasonable to say that the Greatsword is common to another culture? Perhaps somewhere that venerates Gorum, like Realms of the Mammoth Lords, or the Linnorm kingdoms?

EDIT: NVM, I see why; the Greatsword isn't "uncommon".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe Wells wrote:

Gygax acknowledges the fictional roots of the game's druids right up front in the AD&D PHB:

"Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."

The class was never meant to closely model historical druids.

Nice quote! Thanks for sharing! I enjoy learning more about the roots of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Except that as soon as you get Expert, the complains then become "why does my rogue have Master in all these weapons but only Expert in the greatsword?"

Exact same situation, different class and weapon.

Except can't human rogues already do that via Ancestry Feats?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
I disagree. Master and Legendary should be limited by the main class. This is like BAB in 3.X.

I hope this person is trolling... and if they are, well played!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:

When I was building my fighter early today, I seriously considered taking the elven feat Otherworldly Magic to get Ray of Frost for a ranged attack. This is available to every elf, and gnomes could do similar things.

Ray of Frost is an innate spell, and thus is considered Trained and only uses Charisma for the linked attribute. As such, unless I multi-class to a spellcaster, my to-hit with it will never rise above Trained, and I'll be using Charisma for it's to-hit.

This is exactly like using the Weapon Proficiency feat. It has the same pitfalls. Thus, the previous comments about them being similar are very applicable.

Fair point. So do you think it would be bad if there were another General Feat at level 11 to increase your spellcasting proficiency to Expert for one (or more) innate spell(s) that you can cast? Because I think I could live with that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:

Actually, yes it is. Several ancestries get innate spells, and innate spells are only trained unless you have an Expert or higher spellcasting proficiency.

It is the exact same thing as what you're asking for.

No, the reason it's not the same thing is because the Wizard already gets Expert Weapon Proficiency for free at level 11.

Actually, the fact that your innate casting proficiency increases along with your own spellcasting proficiency kind of speaks against your point, doesn't it?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:


Being a wizard comes with certain ups and downs.
Up: You get 10th level spells.
Down: You'll never be as good at the halberd.

So, I feel like you're misunderstanding/misrepresenting my point. Regardless, this part is wrong, because from level 1-10 you are exactly as good as the expected baseline for your class with the halberd. So "never" is wrong, because you can be 100% at par for your level, but only within a particular level band.

That's the part that bugs me. I don't like the inconsistency of it. If it's a valid concept from level 1-10, it should be valid from 11-20. If it's not a valid concept, then it shouldn't be supported from levels 1-10.

That's my position. If it's "better" for it to be gated behind multi-classing, then it should actually be gated behind multi-classing for all 20 levels.

The reason I don't like the inconsistency is because for a new player, the nuances of the Feat being "good at some levels but not at others" won't be readily apparent, which could make for an unsatisfying gaming experience when they hit level 11 and realize that they can't swing their mother's ancestral batteaxe as well as a club.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Cydeth wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
All they want is a way to extend a wizard's existing Expert proficiency with the club to gain Expert proficiency with the Warhammer at the cost of a couple of feats. That's not really that unreasonable, is it?
I'm beginning to think yes, it is. They can get it by multiclassing, since class feats are supposed to be more powerful than general feats.
Yeah, I think I also prefer that it be restricted to Multiclassing and Ancestry Feats as it currently is. However, if that's the case, then the existence of the General Feat that grants Trained proficiency is problematic, because it allows you to stay on par up until level 10, only to fall behind with no way to catch up at level 11. Like, why would you ever take that Feat if you know your campaign is going above level 10?
Because you remembered that retraining feats is easy?

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think any Feat in a game that is supposed to be beginner friendly should come with the implicit caveat "this is only good up until X level, so make sure you remember to retrain".

EDIT: I also don't find the idea that you should retrain out of your preferred weapon style because you've hit the magic level very satisfying. Like, if I was allowed to be the cool Wizard with a halberd for the first 10 levels without multiclassing, why can't I continue being that wizard for rest of my adventuring career and not fall permanently behind?

EDIT2: Alternatively, if being the the cool non-multiclassing Wizard with the halberd isn't supported from level 11 onward, then why did you give me a Feat to realize that concept for the first 10 levels? Why is the concept ok at some levels but not at others? It just seems wrong...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Yeah, I think I prefer that it be restricted to Multiclassing and Ancestry Feats as it currently is. However, if that's the case, then the existence of the General Feat that grants Trained proficiency is problematic, because it allows you to stay on par up until level 10, only to fall behind with no way to catch up at level 11. Like, why would you ever take that Feat if you know your campaign is going above level 10?

I did the math earlier in this thread. If you do the same degree of focus, a character who's only trained in their weapon is able to hit an enemy pretty much on the same numbers all the way to 15th level. That isn't 10th level.

That said, I don't think it's a good feat. I struggle to come up with an instance where I'd personally take it, because I'd build my characters to where they got the proficiencies I felt were vital very early on, either via multiclassing or my base class.

But that doesn't make it a terrible feat. Just not an amazing one.

11th level is when the least-weapon focussed classes (wizard, sorc, bard, druid etc.) get expert proficiency with their weapons. That's where the "up until level 10" comes from. So no math needed. Or rather, some very, very simple math (+2 is less than +4)

Why would I stubbornly insist on swinging my morningstar past level 10 when the club has now become unequivocally a better option for me? And why was it "fine and balanced" for me to swing my morningstar as well as I can swing a club for the first 10 levels (at the cost of a General Feat), but now It becomes "unbalanced" for me to keep pace at level 11?

That's why the General Feat is problematic in its current implementation. There should be another one to go up to expert at level 11, or they should get rid of the current one that takes you up to Trained. But having one without the other is... unsatisfying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
You could go with "Any time you roll a check to Recall Knowledge, your degree of success increases by one".

Still wouldn't work. What's above a Crit Success? There's no general rule for a Super Critical Success. Also, your re-wording would turn Failures into Successes, and Crit Fails into Regular Fails (something the current Feat doesn't do). It would be a very different Feat if you worded it that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:


Just delete the General Feat then.

I agree. Just get rid of it. If multiclassing or ancestry feats are the only "correct" options, then don't include a "wrong" option that functions perfectly fine for 10 levels and then leaves your character permanently behind the curve unless you change your fighting style.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Think of it this way: if proficiency only went to expert, with fighters getting "Weapon Master" and "Legendary Caster" as class feats while wizards got "Spell Master" and "Legendary Caster" as class features would you still be clamoring for the fighter's high level abilities for weaponry?

Come on, man! No one is "clamouring for the fighter's high level abilities for weaponry!" All they want is a way to extend a wizard's existing Expert proficiency with the club to gain Expert proficiency with the Warhammer at the cost of a couple of feats. That's not really that unreasonable, is it? And I'm not even really advocating for their position; I'm pretty happy with how things stand. It just really bugs me how people keep misrepresenting what they're saying.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

I'm unclear on who has the final rules and is referencing them and who isn't.

re: MaxAstro's Incapacitation quote (if accurate, in final rules),
"When(...), you reduce(...), the creature improves(...)" doesn't seem to be grammatically correct if both are to be applied.
If that was the intent, there should be an "and" before "the creature". Of course, there should also be supporting grammar if they are intended as alternatives, but I would say it is a reasonable possibility the intent is NOT for both of them to be applied to any single Incapacitation effect.

That ties in with BD's comment (above) which queries whether the "triggering" attack roll itself is properly part of the "Incapacitation effect" or merely a trigger for it. Which would clarify the rule re: Stunning Fist itself, but not in general for potential future Incapacitation effects which "actively" contain both an attack roll AND saving throw. Although the "editorial" meta-guidance for such abilities could include need to specify WHICH of attack or save is penalized.

Even with such meta-guidance covering prioritization, I think the text of Incapacitated would still need to be amended either with an "or" preceding "the creature". Or alternatively, if intent is both always apply when possible, amended with an "and" although that wouldn't apply if attack roll is "outside" scope of the Incapatitation effect "proper".

I like your in-depth analysis, but I think the whole question is circumvented by the fact that Stunning Fist doesn't even enter the picture until AFTER you determine the degree of success of your attack roll.

Example 1: You miss. Stunning Fist isn't triggered.

Example 2: You hit! Stunning Fist triggers! But Stunning Fist has the incapacitation trait and your target is a higher level, so actually you miss? That doesn't seem right... why did you even take this Feat again?

Example 3: You hit! Stunning Fist Triggers! You don't revisit the attack roll, because it's over and done with; it's in the past; its success was a necessary pre-condition to even invoke the Stunning Fist rules. Your opponent now rolls a Saving Throw and fails! But they're a level higher than you, so actually they succeed on the saving throw. That seems more reasonable, no?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Isn't anything higher level than the PCs supposed to be a serious challenge in which the PCs likely already have a noticeable action economy advantage? If so, I assume "let's not compound that action economy advantage even more" is why incapacitate effects are bad against higher level opponents.

Yes, that logic makes sense.

My concern is that the other Incap effects I have seen (Sleeper Hold and the rogue's Master Strike) both only apply the debuff to a single roll, while Stunning Fist both penalizes your roll and buffs the enemy's roll - in other words, while normally you take an effective -10 penalty for Incap effects against higher level enemies, with Stunning Fist you are taking an effective -20.

Basically it makes Stunning Fist something you should never, ever try against anything higher level than you, because not only will it fail, it will fail AND ruin your attack rolls.

Based on what I've read in this thread, I don't think you reduce the degree of success of your attack rolls; the attack rolls are just regular old attack rolls and don't have the incapacitation trait. Stunning Fist seems like it's a "passive ability" that "triggers" when your Flurry of Blows attacks hit, i.e. you determine the degree of success of your attack roll before Stunning Fist even enters the picture. Otherwise, Stunning Fist would just be a straight up nerf to your Flurry of Blows, and that doesn't seem right. It's not like you can choose to turn Stunning Fist off, right?

So the Saving Throw is increased by one degree of success, but the attack rolls aren't reduced by one.

Does that seem like a plausible interpretation, MaxAstro?

EDIT: For clarity, I don't have the final rules. I'm just going off what MaxAstro has written. MaxAstro does have the final rules.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Samdroid wrote:

I would definitely argue that the General feat to increase a weapon's proficiency to Trained is a trap option. One could just use that general feat to pick the Adopted Ancestry general feat instead (which lets you choose ancestry feats from an ancestry of your choice) and then use two ancestry feats to pick up the 1st level weapon proficiency feat for Humans and the level 13 feat to match class proficiencies.

It's admittedly a 3 feat tax, but most ancestries are already paying a 2 feat tax to do it with their ancestral weapons. The tax of a general feat seems like a fair price to match versatility of Humans.

Just wanted to highlight this, in case it gets lost in the noise. So there's already a way to do what the OP wants in the game, and it only costs 2 Ancestry Feats if you're a human? That sounds pretty good. It's not a complete solution to the OP's issues, but it's something.

Not only would a feat like this devalue humans, it would also devalue Fighters - they have a level 6 feat to treat a specific advanced weapon as a martial weapon for proficiency.

The more I think about this the less I'm okay with it. One thing that specifically turned me off to it was the comment about "elf with longbow is okay, why not dwarf with longbow?" Giving different races reasons to play differently is a good thing.

Yeah, I tend to agree with you. I think my only real issue is that the General Feat essentially accomplishes this up until level 10, and then you hit level 11 and suddenly there's no way to stay on the same track you've been on since level 3. That seems like an unfortunate gap to me. IMO, If it's acceptable and balanced from level 3-10, it should be acceptable and balanced from level 11-20 also. Either there should be another General Feat to extend your weapon proficiency to Expert at level 11, or there shouldn't be one to get Trained at level 3.

As it is, the existing General Feat seems like a bit of a trap if your game is going above level 10 (similar to how Toughness was a good feat for a 1st level one-shot in 3e, but was a trap if your game was going past level 2 or 3).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can you clarify what you mean by "Incap penalty" and how this affects the sunning strike ability?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Cleric by default only gets expert in unarmored. Warpriest changes that.

Oh, that's totally fine then. Expert Unarmored will get them through the first few levels without *too* much trouble I'd think.

With a 14 Dex you'll have the same AC 17 as a lvl-1 Fighter.

I doubt they start at Expert unarmored. I'm pretty sure only the Monk starts at Expert.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:


Since critical success gives "more information or context" exactly, you can give whatever you were holding onto for a critical success. Now if they also critically succeed, you might need more info if you decide to give more, which is discretionary. It's written to ensure you always have what you need if you're uncomfortable making up more, assuming you were ready for a critical success of a normal character.

Thanks for weighing in, Mark. And I guess the reason you didn't phrase it as "success=crit success" is so that you could include the bit about getting even more info on a crit (at the DM's discretion) without confusing anyone?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samdroid wrote:

I would definitely argue that the General feat to increase a weapon's proficiency to Trained is a trap option. One could just use that general feat to pick the Adopted Ancestry general feat instead (which lets you choose ancestry feats from an ancestry of your choice) and then use two ancestry feats to pick up the 1st level weapon proficiency feat for Humans and the level 13 feat to match class proficiencies.

It's admittedly a 3 feat tax, but most ancestries are already paying a 2 feat tax to do it with their ancestral weapons. The tax of a general feat seems like a fair price to match versatility of Humans.

Just wanted to highlight this, in case it gets lost in the noise. So there's already a way to do what the OP wants in the game, and it only costs 2 Ancestry Feats if you're a human? That sounds pretty good. It's not a complete solution to the OP's issues, but it's something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:

My biggest gripe is that the General Feat seems to be somewhat of a trap option. It works perfectly as expected until level 11, and then suddenly you're subpar.

Exactly. It makes literally no sense. Especially since you all of a sudden got good with weapons you weren’t using.

You have the book right BardicDave? This is in release correct?

*sheepishly* I don't.. but MaxAstro does and they seem to be on the same page, so I don't *think* we're barking up the wrong tree here...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

My biggest gripe is that the General Feat seems to be somewhat of a trap option. It works perfectly as expected until level 11, and then suddenly you're subpar.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
I would say a hard no. the good thing about the proficiency system is that it is easy to establish a quantifiable power system. additional feats and class update should expand horizontally on the power curve not vertically. the best thing about Pathfinder 2 is that it is designed in such a way that you can quickly identify and counter power creep. and adding more ways to improve weapon proficiency would be power creep.

Except no one is asking for a vertical expansion. They're asking for something that is already possible (e.g. an elven wizard that fights with a longbow) to be extended to more cases (e.g. a dwarven wizard that fights with a longbow). That sounds pretty horizontal to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Who is your daddy, and what does he do?

(Anyone else? Just me? I'll see myself out...)

EDIT: for reference


1 person marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
On the other hand, there is a Bard feat that lets you Recall Knowledge five times as a single action. That's pretty cool.
I very much want to do stupid knowledge tricks as a bard. Mostly they involve taking Assurance with Bardic Lore, and then picking up Automatic Knowledge:Bardic Lore once I get Legendary in Occultism, assuming that all works like it did in the Playtest.

I wonder if a Rumor-Scientist is doable. Take Dubios Knowledge, put no training in any knowledge skill and dump INT and WIS. You basically try to crit-fail any knowledge check and after that try to counter-check the "facts" you've gotten.

Combine that with the 5-Recalls-per-action feat and have the GM murder you after a session. :D

This is great!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

Really what Paizo should have done was invent their own temperature scale just for Golarion.

Maybe even have competing temperature scales, so people could argue over whether Dwarven Units (DU) are better or worse than the Taldane Standard.

DUs are the only unit of temperature that actually makes sense! 782 DU = the temperature at which stone melts. It's easy peasy! TS is just so silly and arbitrary!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhyst wrote:

As I read it (and also as a question to confirm my understanding), Focus Spells are automatically heightened to half your level (rounded up) per p300.

Lets use the entry for Ki Strike as an example. It is a Focus1 spell, meaning it is a level 1 Focus Spell. It's entry has a Heightened (+4) entry which adds 1d6 damage.

Does Heightened (+4) mean (spell level + 4) or (at spell level 4)?
Per p299, looks to indicate "each increment above lowest spell level"

Heightened value at level 7 = (7/2 = 3.5 rounded up) = 4. This is not yet at (<lowest spell level> = 1 + 4) = 5.

So this sounds like:
- Character Level 1-8 (not heightened yet)
- Character Level 9-16 (additional 1d6)
- Character Level 17-20 (additional 2d6)

Does that sound about right?

Yes, it does. It seems you've got it!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kelseus wrote:

The differences of proficiency is the new BAB. Fighters get Legendary instead of full BAB + Weapon Training. Wizards only get expert, cause you're a wizard.

I get it, you want to hit as hard as the Fighter with a super rare, really awesome weapon and ALSO not give up any of your Wizard feats to do it. In P2, that isn't an option. If you want that, Multiclass or be a Fighter. Your PC, while being fully competent, isn't going to be as good as an actual Melee class in their advanced rare weapon.

To allow otherwise would make the Fighter obsolete in the CRB.

I had a similar knee-jerk reaction to this post too, but if you reread the OP, that's not actually what they're advocating for, like at all. Your misreading of their post and your subsequent response really don't contribute to this conversation productively.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Title. You generally get master in whatever your class gives you, there's a general feat to become trained, you can get master from ancestry feats for ancestral weapons and you can throw a few feats in fighter multiclass to get expert in martial weapons.

If it's not a class or ancestral weapon, you're only ever going to get trained in it without multiclassing fighter (and even then you cap out at trained with advanced weapons).

Even if you're going up a weapon tier, dropping from master to trained seems painful enough that most characters won't really end up bothering, and if you're not going up a tier there's going to be a pretty severe hit to your power for it.

I feel like as is this pigeonholes people too much into whatever weapons their class or species is 'supposed' to use and I really don't like the idea of trying to lock players down into what's supposed to be typical for their class or ancestry.

As a houserule I think I might try changing the general feat to simply let you pick a weapon and then treat it as part of your class' weapons for the purposes of advancing proficiency and see how that shakes out. Or, at the very least, add a followup feat that does that.

I'm fairly certain the bit about Ancestral Weapons going up to Master is wrong. Rather, the Feat in question makes your ancestral weapons scale with your class. So, all the way up to Legendary if you're a fighter, but only up to Expert if you're a bard.

Regardless, I'm going to disagree with your premise. I think the weapon proficiencies that each class receives are broad enough to cover a wide range of concepts for most of the weapon-focussed classes. And for classes like Rogue and Monk with thematic reasons for their more restricted lists, I'm glad those restrictions aren't trivially overcome; it helps reinforce the class fantasy better.

And if you really want to have the whole weapon list at your fingertips, you can always multiclass Fighter and be an Expert with essentially every weapon. Not bad for a martial focused bard or wizard.

The only real gap that I can see is for Rogues and Monks (who get Master in their class-preferred weaponry) that want to wield a great-sword; they can't get higher than Expert, and they can only achieve that by multi classing Fighter. Personally, I'm ok with that gap existing, but it's fair enough if you aren't.

EDIT: Maybe I was too quick in my response. I actually think your house rule looks pretty reasonable. Breaking it into two Feats, as you suggested, would be more in line with how the Ancestral Weapons Feats work.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
"when you succeed a check to Recall Knowledge, you gain more information or context. When you critically succeed a check to Recall Knowledge, at the GM's discretion, you may gain even more information or context."
Is that the exact text or are you paraphrasing?

Exact text is

Know-it-all Feat 8
[bard]
Prerequisites enigma muse
When you succeed at a Knowledge check, you gain additional information or context. When you critically succeed at a Knowledge check, at the GM's discretion you might gain even more additional information or context than normal.

Thanks! So it was the exact text, more or less.

Mamma mia is that ever loosey-goosey! I think it'll be tricky for the DM to keep coming up with actual, bonafide "extra" stuff for the bard's lore checks. I can already see myself subconsciously just shifting the goalposts instead:
DM's internal monologue: "This information is all stuff I probably would have just given out on a success, but because there's a bard with Know-it-all in the party, I'll just designate some portion of it as the 'extra bit' so the bard gets to feel special."
Net actual benefit to the party: zero, but the bard does get to feel special.

It's hard to convince myself this is worth a Class Feat; it seems much more like a Skill Feat.

I mean, I know it's technically possible to generate several discrete pieces of information on every knowledge check and then restrict yourself to only doling out certain pieces according to whether or not a character has a particular Feat. In practice however, it can be tricky to come up with interesting/relevant extra tidbits on the fly, and it's even trickier to not just spill all the beans on a good knowledge check regardless of what Feats a character has.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CyberMephit wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:


This has been covered before. Yes, there is. Also, there's common sense (not to mention fashion sense!)
It only took a quick "fashion double boots" Google image search to make me very happy that there is an actual rule I can appeal to instead of either of those senses!

LOL! I just googled it; I don't know what I was expecting, but it definitely wasn't that! That is too funny!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
CyberMephit wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
User69 wrote:
Investing Magic Items, how does it work?
** spoiler omitted **
Is there any rule to stop people from wearing multiple boots or cloaks at the same time?

This has been covered before. Yes, there is. Also, there's common sense (not to mention fashion sense!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It adds precisely this: you can't follow Sudden Charge with another action that also has the Flourish trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Heal/Harm were never going to be good at both healing and damage as long as they remained symmetrical. Any number that is a meaningful amount of damage would be an excessive amount of healing, and any balanced amount of healing is going to be an insufficient amount of damage.

I get what you're saying, and that's how healing has usually been balanced in prior editions of D&D. However, in the case of of Heal/Harm in PF2, the asymmetry actually favours the healing over the damage. Two actions to heal is 1d8+8 per spell level, whereas 2 action to do damage is only 1d8 per spell level (if I've understood correctly).

So in this case, it actually works exactly opposite to what you said. If we followed your formulation, 2 actions to do damage would be "insufficient" even at 1d8+8 per spell level, and yet the spell does EVEN LESS damage than this "insufficient" amount (only 1d8 per spell level).

It seems like the relative values of healing vs damage are different in PF2 than they were in prior editions of D&D. Or maybe 2 actions to heal is just a huge outlier.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I know we aren’t supposed to waste words beseeching the orb, but Rico ain’t no orb! So thank you Rico! You’ve been awesome! And I would thank the orb too, but I’m afraid of incurring its mystic wrath...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ngodrup wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Formula book is L Bulk now, as has been stated a few times in this thread.
This is not true. Formula book is still 1 bulk, as is spellbook

I stand corrected. I'm not sure what thread I was thinking of, but I must have misread/misremembered something.

EDIT: I found it. It was earlier in this thread.

MaxAstro wrote:
It looks like the formula book is L now.

I guess MaxAstro had bad info.

1 to 50 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>