Irabeth Tirabade

Big Lemon's page

1,690 posts (2,574 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,690 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's been pointed out yet that the idea of cybernetics is fanciful to us, and many of us feel we would jump at the chance to have it, when its actually a reality, it could be the sort of thing that many people would never want.

In Star Trek: TNG, there's an episode where a character asks Picard why it isn't standard for every Star Fleet officer to have their eyes replaced by a VISOR device like LaForge has. They have the resources, and by comparison regular eyes are "weak", so why not?

Picard doesn't actually answer, but in the moment the subtext is clear: cutting off a piece of yourself is something most people just don't want to do, even if they could get something "better" that's artificial.

EDIT: That's to say nothing of cultural or religious reasons why people might not feel cybernetics is right for them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I missed this train back when the campaign was happening. Is it going to be possible to obtain a book we we didn't back it (just, on the store)?

I've looked and looked, and can find nothing about this, and if there isn't already a store page for it somewhere, that by itself might be the answer I'm dreading.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I would love, and might houserule, is a 4th level or so Monk feat that allows you to treat monk weapons as a shield (requiring you to have taken Monastic Weaponry).

I think something like that would both make Monastic Weaponry a more worthwhile path and also solve the "vulnerable until stance" issue, since you can choose an exploration tactic to have your "shield" raised.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fact that there there is no magic in the real world (that was a sad statement) makes comparing mage/wizard status to a real-world profession completely subjective.

I could just as easily argue that being a wizard is more like being an illustrator: requires a lot of intelligence and training (both to make successful work as well as navigating the freelance business world), but very few are "powerful" enough to be rich and famous.

Or, if you prefer, a wizard is like a physicist, who while probably making a good living don't exactly populate the powerful elite of the world.

You can go on and on. No real world frame of reference means no concrete real-world analogy.

If we get a Barbarian feat that gives spellcasting the Rage trait, we can make a great Shifter out of that.

We already have the "claws", all we need are some buff/polymorph spells to make it fly.

Bill Dunn wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:

Well "why" it's needed is because without it, attack accuracy would increase every level while defenses would not, but I don't think that's exactly what the question is.

Oh, you certainly could increase defense without using the proficiency system - you'd just add it directly without the proficiency structure.

Big Lemon wrote:

What would be the point of created a supposedly "universal" proficiency system and leave one of the three most important numbers on the character sheet out of it?

This is the issue for me. You may have a cool proficiency idea - but is it right to shoehorn subsystems into it that may not make sense just because it's a cool idea?

I don't have a problem with there being required proficiencies to get the most out of armor or at least not be a klutz in it. I do think it's not that great a fit packed into the same system as weapons and skills. They'd have been better off just straight up adding the character level to defenses like Star Wars Sage Edition does.

As it is, I'm sorely considering ditching the whole level addition if I decide to run PF2 for a home game. A gap in proficiencies like lore may make sense as characters level, but the defensive gap for putting on non-skilled armor is insanely deadly.

they all do).

I think it makes fine sense if you aren't at all proficient with a heavy armor to not add your level, buuuUUUUUuuuut I do also wish we still add level -X for untrained proficiencies. I'm considering just giving all characters the feat that does that for free.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well "why" it's needed is because without it, attack accuracy would increase every level while defenses would not, but I don't think that's exactly what the question is.

What would be the point of created a supposedly "universal" proficiency system and leave one of the three most important numbers on the character sheet out of it?

As for the flavor, I've always been of the "Reason to fit rule, not rule to fit reason" school of thought. Armor proficiency is how accustomed a character is to moving around with a certain degree of weight, leveraging an armor type's strongest spots, and so on.

I completely agree, though, that having separate levels of proficiency for each armor type is kind of weird, and does lead to some unfortunate growth situations that other threads have discussed, such as when a human bard gets medium armor prof at 1st level, wears it for a year, and suddenly is better at wearing light armor than medium despite never using it once.

My 2e campaign is going to be in a fairy world based on the the board game Illimat/The Decemberists' discography.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

In 1e every class started at a different baseline and, from there, get to move in a direction they wanted (i.e. an alchemist taking medium armor).

In 2e, every starts at a different baseline and, as far as armor is concerned, get continually corralled back to that baseline.

These are two very different things. I love 2e's proficiency in all areas EXCEPT this one. It's an illusion of choice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The proficiency scaling only bother me in regard to armor, nothing else.

While my reading of the rules is still fresh compared to 1e, I will admit, it doesn't seem like a big deal to allow all one's armor proficiencies to scale at the same rate. They still have to invest feats to even get those armors, and there are enough other incentives to have high Dex that they would be giving something else up to choose this route.

Alternatively, creating a feat that allows all your cross-class proficiency to scale up would also work for me, although maybe with some other slight tack-on.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like durable wands, I'm not really a fan of the overcharge mechanic.

I would weirdly prefer for wands to be strictly single-use per day with no overcharge than with. It feels like an option that is so unattractive it will be ignored or forgotten by my group until someone doesn't remember they already used it and I have to remind them/make them destroy their wand.

Like, say, in 1e, when technically you could choose to cast defensively OR provoke an AoO when casting in melee. The former was such a better option, the latter virtually didnt exist except when someone forgot to say "I cast this spell defensively" and I had to choose between either saying "Are you sure you don't want to cast defensively?" and saying "Okay you provoke an attack *roll*"

Is it really worth having a choice if that choice is worthwhile in 1 case every 2 years of play and any other time is just a trap players get caught in when they dont remember a rule.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They wrote exactly how. They expected us to read exactly how. Not their fault when we don't.

or "The Unstoppable Force Meets the Immovable Object"

How do you think the battle would go if...

1. A fighter and Champion (of any particular build) fought one-on-one?
2. Two identical parties (rogue, wizard, cleric), each with one fighter or champion respectively, went head-to-head?

Unsure where exactly this question belongs, but: I purchased the core rulebook, and am keen to to prepare a campaign. As soon as the 2e prd was put on Archives of Nethys, I started pouring over the monster entries to get ideas.

I found that, for reasons not listed there, many monsters do not have any attacks listed, even if they should. The Barbazu, for instance, lists that is has Attack of Opportunity, but no damage or attack modifier is listed.

Is there a reason for this in the Bestiary that is not listed on the site?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I'm dying to hear about is Numeria.

Because we...:

...see Cassandelee become a demigod at the end of Iron Gods, and we see she's a core-deity in the far future of Starfinder. I want to see the in-between!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VerBeeker wrote:
She looks taller somehow? Also, her breastplate isn't a full-on "breast" plate and I very much like that. This has to be my favorite of the new designs.

I think her head is a little smaller compared to the rest of her body height than in the original, which is what makes characters look big or small in a vacuum

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Troll: Haha! You only have cantrips left, and they only deal 1d3 points of damage!

Kyra: *smirk*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:

We're talking about Aroden, here. Understood that there's a bit of a conflict with Pharasma. Let's chalk it up to "poetic license."

*Heavy sigh of relief*

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo wrote:
The god of prophecy is dead...


Metaphysician wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
Nyerkh wrote:

Plus it's a reason to maybe not put longarms on pretty much everyone.
Which is the best part of shields IMO.
Yes, but watch as "shield is mandatory!" replaces "longarm is mandatory!" as the new repetitive character build refrain. . . *ahem*

It will never be mandatory if it is used for an entirely different goal and playstyle than longarms.

Nyerkh wrote:

Plus it's a reason to maybe not put longarms on pretty much everyone.

Which is the best part of shields IMO.

Proficiency with shields is listed in the playtest as its own thing; separate from weapons and armor. Now that they've been added to the game, some core classes should be proficient with shields at 1st level also, but which?

I think it should just be these four (listed in the order of necessity), and as I continue to playtest with shields, these classes will be proficient with them for now:

Soldier: Soldier is the one class with access to all equipment by itself; even Power Armor proficiency can be gained with the right fighting style. It stands to reason then that soldiers should also get proficiency with shields.

Solarian: As the OG melee-focus class, solarians should also get shield proficiency. An argument could be made that they don't need them; that solar armor stacked with a shield might be too good, but feat taxing them for their best option would not sit right with a lot of solarian players/fans, I think. The premiere melee class is going to reach for shields as soon as they are available: put them within reach.

And now for the more subjective choices...

Envoy: Comparing backwards to Pathfinder, the Envoy is like a non-magical intersection between a paladin and a bard: getting into scraps and inspiring allies or distracting enemies more than dealing the highest damage, and what will help them do both better? A shield. Giving them free shield proficiency would make their role as mid-fight healer and inspiring leader easier to do since they would last longer doing it.

Mechanic: For the class most likely to tinker with volatile, explosive tech, carrying around a blast shield seems natural. It goes along with the idea of a class that emphasises being a smart, resourceful engineer over being an offensive powerhouse. It also serves a little bit of a buff to those mechanics that decide to go with a drone (and lack the offensive power gained from long arm proficiency).

KLGChaos wrote:
The Vanguard definitely seems really beefy. One question, how much use didn't they get out of their EP? How many EP did they gain over the course of the fight? It seems like slow can be really bad for a Vanguard as their lack of mobility is a huge limiting factor along with their lower damage. My biggest fear with the Vanguard is that while they're basically immortal (hyperbole) it seems like it would be very boring playing a class that can't be hurt, but also can't really do much offensively due to movement issues. They'd probably be more enjoyable to me if the were more the Juggernaut and less the Blob. But I understand it can be hard to balance a class like that.

As for EP, as I mentioned, I never really had to use it, as she never took enough damage to want to use mitigate. She probably gained about 2 or 3 total, though only the first one mattered.

One could argue that a slow spell would be a much bigger problem for an operative or soldier, who benefits from full actions a lot more than a vanguard does. It could get boring for a player if they get slowed a lot, but it that's true of any cc ability, and there are many.

Well hey there, thread I started and forgot to follow up on!

4 people marked this as a favorite.

For my first bit of playtesting, I set my party of 5 PCs against a a biohacker, vanguard, and witchwarper bounty hunter crew, building the enemies as PCs of the same level (11th).

The purpose of this was to show off the new classes and to see how powerful the new classes are and how strong the combos are.

I'll summarize here what I will also submit in my survey (after I've had a chance to test out a few more of the new classes' abilities; one combat is not enough).

PC Summary:

Operative (melee-focus)
Soldier (eldritch assailant*/blitz)
Solarian (solar weapon, photon focused)
Mechanic (exocortex, not optimized for combat)
Techomancer (all spells, has not fired a gun in 4 levels)

Enemy Summary:

Kasatha vanguard (able to wield a shield, polarity gauntlets, and smoke grenade at once)
Genetics Biohacker (with injector pistol and smoke grenade)
Blasty Witchwarper (only carrying grenades)

A Synopsis of Events:

After a brief chase (which served mainly to position PCs on the battlefield based on their speed) the fight broke out in an alley that was conveniently 25ft wide and 60ft deep. The operative engaged the vanguard right away.

The first thing the latter did was drop a smoke grenade right at her feet; with blindsight (heat), and her environmental protections on, she could see him (and the solarian when he closed in) clear as day. By chance, everyone in the smoke made saves against breathing smoke on their first round, after which they could protect themselves from it so concealment was the only issue.

The witchwarper was able to keep anyone from escaping effectively by using Infinite World to lower the battlefield where the vanguard was and make everything difficult terrain (which allies of the Biohacker ignored, thanks Limbering Restorative!). The technomancer was able to significantly reduce the threat of the vanguard with a slow spell, but he still was virtually impossible to harm due to both his very high AC[i] and the concealment. Mitigate was not even necessary during this encounter.

Through a creative combination of supernova, quick teleportation, and wall-walking magic items, the PCs were able to minimize (but not completely eliminate) the obstacle of the smoke. While they tried to deal with this problem, the witchwarper was able to pepper the backline with fireb- excuse me, with explosive blasts, while the biohacker was able to weaken the operative with counteragents to keep herself safe. She was able to hit reliably enough to be a problem, but not well enough to be a deciding factor (she failed, blessedly, to make the bloodied players vulnerable to the witchwarper's spells).

The biohacker was the first to die, lacking any real defensive of mobility skills. The witchwarper was hard to pin down, as she could keep flash teleporting away (with 13 Resolve points, she could afford to) through the incredibly complex battlefield she created. Someone would reach her, hit her once, and she would escape and cast another spell. Eventually, though, she was clear of the smoke, and the soldier and technomancer were able to take her down with a couple attacks.

The vanguard never died.

With level-appropriate armor, personal upgrades, and a shield, she still had well over 200 health by round 7. She did not need to use mitigate or align her shield during the fight. Because the solarian and technomancer with both a hit away fro being down (and, frankly, because they were all getting tired) they decided to flee with one last dimension door spell rather than risk someone going down with the vanguard.

Post Combat Impressions:

-Biohacker is on equal footing with the existing classes, but [i]their support/defense is much worse than their offense
. Each attack applies decent damage as well as multiple conditions while support options on apply helpful conditions. In practice, the best thing for her to do was try to hit every enemy at least once, which might be the whole combat.

-Vanguard survivability is kind of absurd, in no small part thanks to the addition of shields. Even without mitigate OR aligning the shield as a move action, she was tougher than every other character on the field and did comparable damage to them (especially when using entropic strike with polarity gauntlets). Entropy points were not used, and I barely kept track of them after she got the first one.

-It's also worth noting that the addition of sheilds gives a vicarious buff to small arms as well as race with extra hands, like kasatha, as it's a worthwhile trade to have lower damage, but higher AC. Both of those are things I like.

-Infinite Worlds is good. Making difficult terrain alone is incredibly valuable in practice when you have a strong melee combatant on your side. All of the other changes; gravity, wind conditions, ground level, are icing on the cake. There's also the added shock factor utility of, as this one did, abruptly turning the town square into a mushroom forest in the middle of a crowd as a distraction. Combine this effect with utility grenades to entangle or stagger your foes, and you will own the battlefield.

Hoo boy

If a witchwarper uses infinite worlds to change the environmental condition within the radius (let's say gravity and atmosphere), and on the next turn, another spellcaster casts Control Atmosphere/Gravity in a radius that overlaps with mine, what happens?

I'm in the "infinite worlds is good as is" camp, but I would like the opportunity to invest in it more, specifically gaining the ability to alter it's shape, making it more useful.

Should this be added, and how "expensive" should it be? Should it be automatic, or require investing a talent in? If so, at what level?

Edge93 wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, the amount of differences in 1e made playing small character less appealing to many, both because they are easily percieved as weaker ("I'm slower and do less damage? No way!"), or because altering the numbers for changing size is daunting (I have a player that has historically been super polymorph-averse for this reason, she arguably hates even beneficial polymorphing more than confusion)

Lol it's kind of funny, my experience on small races has been almost opposite. With how easy it is to get Dex to damage with PF1 splat, a Small Rogue or Halfling is WAY stronger than any Medium option. The Dex boost and Small size both boost your accuracy and AC, and with top Dex the -1 damage is negligible.

Also that insane +4 to Stealth...

But yeah, I suppose they suck pretty hard for any Str build, which is a reason why I like how PF2 handles it. The Str penalty still isn't great, but cancel it with your free boost an despite the tight math you can totally manage with having 1 less Str mod at certain levels.

I, and, if I may be so bold as to suggest the Paizo designers as well, are less concerned with specific build viability and more with broad strokes. They don't want new players opening a book and thinking something they want to play is bad because they haven't mastered the rules yet (and don't, for example, realize that having a higher attack and saving throw bonus than everyone else is more valuable than a few points of extra damage in the long run).

I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, the amount of differences in 1e made playing small character less appealing to many, both because they are easily percieved as weaker ("I'm slower and do less damage? No way!"), or because altering the numbers for changing size is daunting (I have a player that has historically been super polymorph-averse for this reason, she arguably hates even beneficial polymorphing more than confusion)

On the other hand... I've been running SF, which has no hard difference beyond reach, not even carrying capacity (though occasionally an item will say Large creatures can use it easier). I don't like it. I understand that they did this to allow for more options when it comes to player races and who can be what class effectively, but I like some crunch to my flavor, dangit!

WatersLethe wrote:

I think the concept of getting "elfier" as you level is silly, but I do not mind the concept of getting access to traits and abilities that are only found in great elves of legend would be pretty neat. That's what I thought we were being sold, actually.

Any old dwarf is tough and has an affinity for stone and earth, but some rare dwarves have formed a deeper bond with the earth through their experience and can actually perceive the world around them through their feet.

Basically Aasimar feat tree from PF1e would be where I would start with Ancestries.

Don't think of it as "getting elfier". Think of it as "remaining consistently elfy".

In PF1 (and SF), race makes a significant difference at low levels by virtue of the fact that, usually, you have more stuff written on your character sheet from your race than you do from your class (assuming you didn't choose human). As you level, race makes less and less of a difference until the elf fighter and the dwarf fighter are the same in all but flavor. Eventually, my bonuses rolls and my list of feats is so high, being an elf no longer factors in meaningfully.

PF2 gives you a baseline of difference, and makes sure that baseline of difference is maintained. The the elf figher maintains their ratio of "elfy" to "fightery" while the dwarf fighter maintains his ratio of "dwarfy" to "fightery". I like this, because I don't want my character's ancestry to become a fluff note down the line; it should stay a meaningful choice.

Is it meaningful enough at 1st level? Maybe, maybe not. I think it's enough, but I would not say no to have, say, 2 feats at 1st level instead, or its equivalent.

Ravingdork wrote:
Doesn't feel like an exploit to me. Seems like a perfectly applicable use of the spell.

Really? Getting an object that costs 800,000c* for a 3rd level spell slot when a 6th level spell slot gets you an item worth 380,000c doesn't feel a little... imbalanced?\

(*the cost of 2,000ft of smart cable)

Xenocrat wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
With a single use of Fabrticate tech, you could only make 10ft of smart cable I believe. The a "single item" of smart cable is 10ft.
I think like all rope/metal cable the intent is that you buy it in foot (here in Starfinder, 10 foot) increments of length as a whole piece. The smart cable provides both a 10' increment for price, and a 20' increment for bulk, so they don't think you're only buying 10' individual lengths.

Yes, its very clear that you can buy longer pieces, but consider:

1. A 2,000ft piece of smart cable is worth almost 200x more than any other item you can make with a 3rd level spell via this ability.
2. This would be the only item entry one can make copies of up to its bulk limit with a single "casting".

Feels like an exploit to be able to ignore pricing/quantity in favor of the bulk limit.

With a single use of Fabrticate tech, you could only make 10ft of smart cable I believe. The a "single item" of smart cable is 10ft.

Elves and Gnomes can choose an ancestry feat that gives them a cantrip as an "innate spell", which "heightened to a spell level equal to half your level
rounded up".

Let's say I'm playing an elf fighter with this feat and I take acid splash. At 6th level, I decide to take Wizard Dedication, and get a spellbook with 4 "regular" spell cantrips.

At this point my innate acid splash is heightened to 3rd level. Because I can cast this spell at 3rd level, are my other cantrips also heightened to 3rd level?

I know that, when this was introduced in SF, the effect of this (along with how that game handles ability scores and every class is MAD) was that race made a LARGE difference at 1st level, but that difference gradually faded over time so that by mid levels, the choices you made mattered more than where you came from (a good idea, imo).

In PF2 the goal seems to be making ancestry matter throughout your career: a gnome fighter will always feel quite different from a human one.

Speaking of which, is anyone ever going to NOT take the fuzzy animal friend feat for gnomes?

Noticed this as well (half of the characters I was making for testing, which were based on my friends' past PF1 character, would have the Noble background). I wonder if they intend in inverse to be true: use Nobility Lore in the place of Society.

Props for keeping an open mind! I was unsure myself at first but Ive grown to like it.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It definitely takes longer to make a character right now, but doesnt it always for your first time? It really is a different ruleset. Having to right in nukbers for ever variable (as some amount of orof is added to EVERY skill and atttribute) does add timr though, as does huntimg through the spell section for all powers.

Organization of the rules is my major critique.

Its a psychological fact that humans are more likely to react to things they dislike than to things they do. People that dislike are more likely to post and complain that people who like posting and praising. Its just the way we have evolved.

Also, Paizo has made it very clear that they are more concerned with ACTUAL PLAY feedback and NOT theorycraft when it comes to input on their design. You will notice very few of the loud naysayers seem to be citing actual gameplay anecdotes and instead talk about how things "seem" or "sounds".

Matthew Downie wrote:
Frozen Yakman wrote:
No it doesn't because DCs are not level dependent values. Eventually everybody reaches 95% success at picking normal locks. The variance between specializing in picking locks and not caring whatsoever gets washed away by level.

We don't really know how true this is.

Hypothetical adventure 1: All locks increase in DC at a rate of 1 per level. PCs who are better at locks than others will remain better by the same amount. Levelling up may feel like a treadmill, giving only the illusion of progress.

Hypothetical adventure 2: All locks remain the same DC throughout the adventure. As PCs level up, skill bonus points become irrelevant because everyone has enough skill points from their level alone to pick all locks.

Hypothetical adventure 3: Lock DCs vary wildly. Some locks will be pickable by all PCs of the expected level. Some are borderline impossible for all PCs. Some are vaguely level appropriate (eg, 90% for specialist PC, 65% for amateur PC, or 10% for amateur, 30% for expert, or something like that).

I would like to hear the OP's perspective on this one, because the "bloated numbers" make a SIGNIFICANT difference in the lattermost case.

We need to be sure we're all on the same page about what we're arguing before we can honestly disagree.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
To out it another way: fun is a sensation based purely in perception, so decisions that affect perception matter.
people are free to find fun wherever they deem appropriate, however when making statements about game balance and math only true facts count

I still dont agree that the statement is false. If I put in $20 to pay a $30 dining bill and my friend puts in $10, it can be said, factually, that my contribution was more sigificant even we still hit the target of $30.

Likewise, even if it only "matters" that we hit a DC of 30 with a skill check, if the dice adds 10.5 and my character adds +20, it is factual that my character contributed more than the d20.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To out it another way: fun is a sensation based purely in perception, so decisions that affect perception matter.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:

If the average result of 1d20 is 10.5 and my modifier is +4, the roll is mostly luck. If my modifier is +15, more of my result comes from my character's skill.

This is just a perceptual bias.

In reality the only thing that matters is the difference between your bonus and the target DC.

Is... isnt everything in this pretend game dependant on what we percieve the numbers as meaning? We arent just doing math for fun.

Bards have been historically, in various editions of the game, percieved as being weak and passive when, mathematically, they are reaponsible for the most damage in the party (turning near misses into hit, and adding +X damage to every hit including their own).

Perception doesnt just matter, its where the game actually is for most. Otherwise, why describe a sneak attack as being a sneaky? Doesnt just the damage matter?

Id rather have less resonance but also not require it for every single thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Bloated" may not necessarily decrease the influence if the d20 roll, but they do decrease its significance compared to character ability.

If the average result of 1d20 is 10.5 and my modifier is +4, the roll is mostly luck. If my modifier is +15, more of my result comes from my character's skill. Its less about luck, ewpecialy when it comes to many skill checks that dont scale dcs, like trying to jump or perform for a crowd.

I think that matters.

I havent plumbed the list of general feats extensively enough to say, but one concern I have with the idea of taking dedicatiin feats in their place is that the game will become every character only taking dedication feats because they may be more powerful, and are definitely more combat focused.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Luceon wrote:

You could never multi class at level 1 before. Why all the sudden are you saying it should start now? You all say you want it at level 1, but never explain a logical reason why someone should start with two classes.

Personally I don't care when it starts, I do think you are all barking up the wrong tree. There will be supplement material with classes. Those books will have other classes that essentially do what you are asking for, hybrid classes, like Magus, Inquisitor, Arcane Trickster, ad infinitum. It just looks like you guys are seeking more power creep.

You could never multiclass at 1st level in pathfinder before... but you could play as a magus, warpriest, swashbuckler, hunter, shaman, skald, investigator... see where I'm going?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I much prefer legendary being expressed through skill use as opposed to skill numbers. For one, it keeps DCs from being impossible for some and auto-success for others (something SF struggles with) when you have the margin of difference being so smaller. Being able to say I have +30 in acrobatics is kind of cool, but being able to say my character can fall 1000ft and walk away (Cat Fall feat)? That's more legendary.

Assuming the sorcerer dedication gives cantrips when it gets made, I think a great combo will be to take that in order to use the Shield cantrip, which lets you effectively have a light wooden shield whenever you need it, but also a free hand for lay on hands.

1 to 50 of 1,690 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>