BluLion's page

Spellstrike as one strike to MAP is too powerful and will never happen or should never happen.

Boring but powerful is exactly what the magus is. It hits hard, but lacks versatility.

It should never, ever return to the magus power level of PF1 which is what would happen if you could spellstrike and do much else.

Magus should either spellstrike or do something else, not both. That is your option as a magus.

Every single magus I've seen in play has been one of the most powerful damage dealers in the group, so not sure what Blue Frog is doing to end up middling or weak. Not even sure if Blue Frog is actually tracking his damage to see if he what he claims is true.

I've tracked magus damage and sure, they have some down combats, but overall they are a damage hammer. Their focus spells are boring, but effective.

This attempt to somehow show the magus is weak would require the devs to have zero experience with the class.

As far as sorcerers or other casters being more powerful, they are more powerful than everyone at the highest levels. Welcome to the high level game and high level spells. No other classes can match what high level spellcasters are doing.

Every magus I've played has been a top performer in the damage department. Not every combat or every round, but the majority of the time. They do have varied actions if you choose to take them, which I do. Magus who get locked into spellstriking every round don't use the full power of the magus. That's on them.

About all I'd like to see is Arcane Cascade designed better. It's all but pointless as it is. A tiny bit of extra damage and a waste of an action to use the majority of the time.

I agree with Arcane cascade needing a rework. Having to cast a spell to be able to enter the stance is way too cumbersome, and it feels like it's too little of an impact unless you use laughing shadow, targe, or maybe aloof firmament (though that last one is debatable)

that being said, I don't think Spell strikes as MAP 1 for saving throw spells is really a deal breaker. Monks and to an extent Rangers can already do two attacks (a first and a second) and a spell with their action compression, and with a similar spell save progression to boot. My proposed change would just allow a similar trick for a magus that isn't looking to use spell attack spells.

I think I may have said this earlier, but I was gonna suggest to have spell strikes only count as 1 attack when using a saving throw spell as the main change. It doesn't make spells more accurate, but it would help magi who aren't aiming for burst damage.

And maybe a -1 (-2 on lvl 17) to your target's saving throws if you land the strike portion. This is in-line with the Vindicator, so it should be fine.

Honestly, the sure/true strike change isn't really that bad. Most of the time you're not spending multiple surestrikes per combat unless the fights are super long.

And with the saving throw stuff, I think it still procs even on a missed strike (just not a critical miss). I still wish it gave a -1 to saving throws (upgrade to -2 later on) to match the vindicator's, and even boost the effect on a crit, but I guess thems the breaks

I wonder how well magus will work unarmed, or with a monk dedication. I just made a character from Worlds Without Number which was essentially this to an extent, and I wonder how well I will be able to transfer her over in PF2e

I'm kinda curious about spell hearts. I know runes already handle physical attacks and ac/saves, so I wonder if it is just a new method, or if it affects something else. Maybe it boosts magic attack rolls?

Claxon wrote:

This is precisely why I quit PF2.

As somebody who DM'd a couple of PF2e sessions (I was running Plaguestone via Roll20) you've summed up a couple of the reasons I didn't jive with the system. I'm most used to DMing for low to mid-level 3.x characters (3 to 10) and playing stuff like Red Hand of Doom (usually with heavily edited encounters to deal with very skewed parties) or a pure sandbox game where I'd build out encounters as we went and only really plan a session or two ahead if I even planned that far. PF2e while looking similar at a glance just didn't feel right and I think a lot of your statements - as well as those of others - have shown just why things felt so strange.

Coming from 3.x and players who had a boring job where they'd pass time by building new characters while folding boxes I'd rather my players start a bit broken and let me gradually bring the challenge level up over a few sessions as we dial into how the party at the table solves problems.

I'm a very permissive DM who wants to let players play anything, as long as it doesn't break the game completely, and PF2e just feels like my players are in straight jackets. For example, I'll never get to see a Troll Paladin who uses a ring of sustenance to keep his instincts in check in this system. I certainly won't get the joy of running an adversarial evil party who don't coordinate well most of the time and who'd let another party member perish just for a chance to steal their magic boots, it just isn't something PF2e seems to want to support.

I think for all the fun that can be had with PF2e the tight math just makes it too difficult to get wierd with it and that's a shame.

I'll be frank, the fact that pf1 punishes you for building for flexibility instead of hyper-specializing your one routine, and the huge disparity between optimized builds and standard ones (lets not even get to the unoptimized ones) is more of a straight jacket than how pf2e handles it.

There is so many times where I wanted to try something gimicky or unique in pf1, or even a 'bad touch' frostbite magus centered around debuffs, only to realize that that doing so would be shooting myself in the foot. I then go for what I thought was 'optimal', only to get blindsided by a unchained monk able to solo encounters because he was running a meta build. And even if he wasn't able to quite solo the encounter, there was a wizard who would just 'save or suck' everything with standard god-wizard paired with sacred geometry. Even the magus in the party, who went for the standard scimmy shocking grasp build, was overshadowed because he didn't go for all of the parts of said build, namely magical lineage and that accuracy arcana.

I'll admit, I'm hesitant about the weapon accuracy on non-martials, and I think warpriest should've gotten more to compensate, but after seeing a bladed scarf fighter in action, and playing a champion with a sorcerer dedication, I feel like I have real flexibility in what characters can do in pf2e.

I guess I can throw in my opinion.

If anything, the vitrol is because tabletop games are seen by many as a cooperative game where players and dms hangout and make stories together. I'll admit, I'm not really comfortable with paid dming myself because it turns the game into a transaction (and I heard horror stories about paid dm games gone wrong), but I can see why there's a demand for it, and I don't have anything against dms who do charge for their services. Still, I don't see why people have to be rude to you about it.

If you need help with searching for the right spot, I think there was a subreddit specifically for pay to play tabletop rpgs, I think it was called lfg premium or something. Pathfinder lfg I think allows pay to play dming, but just regular r/lfg/ banned it (granted, the vast majority of the stuff there is 5e posts).

BluLion wrote:

I guess I'll have to just wait for the bonus spells then. For some reason the guide I looked up rated this mystery as quite strong, but I guess it's just something that kicks in later on.

Remember that guides usually only rate according to other options. The Winter mystery is a very good choice for a blaster oracle, but only compared to other oracles, not, for example, compared to a blaster sorcerer.

BluLion wrote:

My only concern is that I delay the slot progression of the oracle even more than it already is from prepped casters (to the point of matching the war priest).

I might go against conventional wisdom, but I wouldn't worry too much about this as a blaster (+controller) oracle. There simply is no point in getting higher level spell slots, if your fundamental strategy isn't pulled off properly in the first place. Especially after you get Fireball(cold) there is little awaiting you at higher spell levels that makes your principle tactic that much stronger. In other words: Worry more about achieving your caster's goal than hoping a higher level spell does it for you.

Your primary concerns are damage, which you can usually increase by additional caster levels, and control, which requires a good DC.

If you dip sorcerer, I recommend the Crossblooded archetype and the Boreal, Div, Arcane, Orc bloodlines, depending on DC/damage preference. Also, make sure to get the False Focus feat later in this case.

However, I'd say you should also take one of these Oracle archetypes:

At high levels the Seeker archetype is wonderful, but it's too weak at lower levels, so probably not a good choice.

The Dual-Cursed archetype is very powerful, but it would eat your first 3 bonus spells -- Endure Elements, [i]Frost Fall, Sleet Storm -- although they are weak spells anyway; Frost Fall is the only useful one for you , but its debuff effect is wasted since you slow enemies anyway. So Dual-Cursed is a good option, and it helps landing spells with[/i]...

I've considered spirit guide, but I have never considered Lore spirit for Arcane enlightenment. How does that work for spontaneous casters? It seems like it was meant for prepped casters.

It's not an ap, but a homebrewed campaign in a homebrewed world.

And to be honest, one of the main reasons I was interested in it was because the revelations were interesting and thematic. I know it has an achilles heel, but if it stops me from overshadowing others, I'm fine with that ( or at least I think I'm fine with it). It'll give scenarios where others shine. And the guide that rated it well was called "Bell, book, and candle".

That being said, maybe I should consider a melee route. Swap blackened for a different curse, and take "shooting star" style? I'll have to figure out how to become proficient in star knives though. I wonder how my friend got it on his whimsy oracle

I guess I'll have to just wait for the bonus spells then. For some reason the guide I looked up rated this mystery as quite strong, but I guess it's just something that kicks in later on.

This isn't my first caster, but this is the first time playing an oracle. This is starting at level 2, but after seeing the low amount of cold damage spells on the oracle list (not even ones with saves either), I figured why not try a elemental sorcerer dip, and use the blackened curse to try to expand the amount of spells that fit the flavor (and the use of freezing spells).

My only concern is that I delay the slot progression of the oracle even more than it already is from prepped casters (to the point of matching the war priest).

I know the mystery seems centered around battlefield control, so I guess while I will be a slot tier behind the witch at all times as opposed to occasionally, I'll at least be able to slow enemies more often, and sooner. Still, is it better to simply wait for the bonus spells to kick in instead of dipping?

thenobledrake wrote:

Ice Titan wrote:

I really like that the worst-case scenario is the first stage of the Battle Oracle's curse.

No, that's not what I was saying.

The worst case scenario is "I need to use my focus spell, but I'm not in circumstances that I can play into my curse without that being too inconvenient"

To be fair you can't shake that penalty for the rest of the day after you refocus. It is harsh, no doubt.

The minor curse effect seems like a hindrance at best with no bonus, but the later stages seem more like an opportunity to me. Extra damage and fast healing at moderate is really nice, and though risky, the major's plus 6 to damage looks satisfying. Then again, I have bit of a soft spot for glass cannons

So it's a free action that's activatable when you cast a spell, huh? I didn't think an npc would already solve it, but it has for the most part. All it needs is to have it count as 2 attacks for map (but only after the spell strike happened), and reduce the save penalty to a -2.

Still, I wish there were a way to make a magus synthesis that specialized in debuffs (like the frostbite magi I've been meaning to try in pathfinder 1). I would've liked to put the save penalty onto that synthesis as a feature, but then that would screw over some traditional blasting options.

I think the way spell slots are handled was quite creative. I might've gone with 5 or even 6, but I think unless magus get a higher focus point total, or regain them at a higher rate, I think the spell slots is the best way to handle magus.

I'll be honest, after seeing the chart posted on another thread, I'm concerned about spell-strike accuracy regarding spell attacks. Do you have anything in mind about this?

I have yet to read through the whole thing, but I wasn't expecting this. This screams 13th age, which is a pretty cool thing.

citricking wrote:

This is an RPG, there are going to be trap options.***Going flurry edge is often a trap option. Going flurry with an animal companion that is not a mount is definitely a trap option.

That's a disappointing statement, considering that Flurry was the the default/only ability for the Ranger in the Playtest.

If you're telling people that Flurry with an ACom is a "trap option" (which you are), then I think there's a strong argument that Paizo screwed up this class because the Ranger + ACom was designed around Flurry, not Precision. And you're not even basing that on the issue with ACom armor class if you don't go Nimble.

During the Playtest I asked why Paizo was putting so much effort into making sure the Fighter/Wizard combo worked. I think Mark's words were something to the effect that they wanted to make sure it worked because people were going to want to play it. You'd think they'd have done the same thing with Flurry + ACom's on the Ranger?

Oh well.

I'm sure trap is a strong word, since there's feats that make multiple strikes more efficient (heck, eventually you get a feat that lets you make 6 attacks), but when I look at it, I'm pretty sure animal companion does not mix with flurry, since you and the ac use different MAP tracking, and you rarely ever get 3+ attacks.

I'll be completely honest, I looked at the rangers feats, and then the fighter's, and I don't really see anything wrong with the ranger, aside from maybe the hunt target action economy. But even then, a lot of classes have something like that, whether it be rage, stances, trying to make skill checks for panache depending on the swashbuckler style, and certain methods of getting flatfooted for rogue. Plus I'm usually in the mindset that once you get just enough combat feats, or the right ones you want, getting anymore just feels redundant, so I grab utility stuff. The fighter feats, being almost entirely combat related, feels a bit much to me, though many are quite nice. Then again, I guess that's why I hardly ever run fighter equivalents anymore in tabletop rpgs.

Now how about Champion tenents? Would it be a good idea to swap em out for the ones 5e uses, or should I just leave them alone?

I wonder what the mechs would be modeled after... will the mechs be mostly fast and nimble or large and weighty, or is it a mix of the two? And are the mechs learning more towards the modern gundam kind where they are mostly flight capable, or are they mostly ground bound like in battletech?

I read some posts saying that alchemist is more of a weird, but manageable class that can actually be quite effective when built right. Sure the mutagenist has the drawback of loosing ac for using feral/bestial mutation, but there's also ways to offset the loss of survivability, like the mist form elixir which gives concealment (which I think has a 25% chance to negate attacks/spells completely) and the stone body mutagen once you get the ability to combine mutagens. There's also the medium armor proficiency feat to lessen the stat burden (though I wish the feat scaled).

And that's no getting into the utility that you can put out in terms of giving elixirs or poisons to allies

Should work fine. Dial back the treasure a tad and make armours and weapons all mundane and it will be fine.

Personally I like tying the values to weapon and armour tiers as I love craftsmanship being a bigger role than magic runes in a campaign. But ABP is great for streamlining.

As for alignment I like treating it as "how the gods, fallible creatures themselves, judge people" as opposed to it being hard set.
Then keying spells and weaknesses off of how that person feels/their gods view on the matter. But I haven't done this in PF2e yet.

I was actually considering something like that in place of alignment, but it might feel a bit to finicky with some abilities. I do like the idea of the gods in my setting being flawed creatures.

I do plan on using property runes though

I never liked the idea of having the majority of your power coming from magic items, so the inclusion of ABP is very welcome.

On No-Alignment, it has given me the suggestions for changes regarding damage types, like replacing alignment based damage types with radiant and shadow damage, and the removal/alteration of alignment based detection and spells. However, it didn't mention anything specific about champions, or if it would require changes to their tenets or cause abilities, or even their feats. Would I need to do anything with the champion kit or focus spells if I were to use the No-alignment variant?

What I would like out of the magus would be:
-Master proficiency with martial weapons and armor at the same (or sameish) rate as non-fighter and non-champion martials

-A class that can support multiple playstyles, whether it be damage based (like the shocking grasp builds), debuffed based (like the frostbite enforcer builds), or ranged/archery based (which probably used scorching ray back in 1e)

- Something that can seamlessly blend the spells (or focus spells/cantrips) into weapon attacks in terms of action economy.

-I am alright if it is focus spell based, or if it uses actual spell slots, but I don't want the magus to have too many slots

I was actually planning a Gorum harm war cleric in once I get the chance to play in the future. Does it not synergise well with melee attacks as well as I hope it did?

Oh I'm sure the mathematics and logic of it works, I will never deny that. Its the perception of it that's a problem. Its the same case with the lottery/gambling, it doesn't matter that you didn't lose money on the bet, you will feel bad that you didn't won.

The boss losing 1/3 of its action might be good, but the caster will feel bad that their spell failed. Also, I think people forget that PF1 had many "Save for half" and "Save (partial)", and there is no difference in that aspect. The real differences being how often the target succeeds, how easy it is to increase the DC, and the entire system being standardized. Effects on a critical failure are mostly new (before only attack spells had that due to spell crits).

The inability to get better DC and the innately higher saves, is what causes the problem. Let caster increase their DC by 1 or 2 points and the entire feeling will probably change. (debuffing is not the same).

If there's feats and items that increase dcs, then those would end up as autopicks for the most part, which would limit meaningful customization. I think debuffing saves is healthier tbh. It encourages teamplay.

I think Finesse striker works great for a "switch hitter" type of solider, where you can focus mainly on Dex and be able to shoot really well with a ranged weapon, and then swing accurately with a melee operative weapon, maybe investing some points in strength to boost your melee damage. I don't know if you can still hold ranged weapons with them, but polarity gauntlets, while a dice behind some 2 handed weapons at some levels, can catch up on the second swing due to the polarized effect. There's also the quick draw feat that can help.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

I thought the general gist of that particular can of worms wasn't so much never altering the dice but rather "every enemy ever from the slimes to the pit fiends are played with the precise purpose to kill the pcs" to which yeah, the system generally isn't meant for everything to be supreme tactical hiveminds that go straight for throat cuts the second a pc gets downed.

And that's a form of fudging - it's just that is what everyone expects from the game. In the real world a pack of dogs doesn't stop attacking the downed 'target' because they stop moving - and intelligent animals (Humans) will obviously co-ordinate to best effect.

I even agree that it's a *brutal hardcore* mode of play - but it does expose the truth behind play - that the GM is expected to play a *game* and not a brutal deathmarch - and in *many* cases that also means they are making sub-optimal choices for the NPC enemies to not overwhelm the players.

That's fudging - it's just want everyone accepts as part of the game - if you accept that the GM is going to make calls for the game to keep the 'fun/excitement/fairness' and that it's still a game and not a simulation - then you can't (in good faith) get righteous because they change the outcome of something.

The game even encourages this - with secret rolls. If 'fudging' was such a sin against the game - all rolls would be encouraged to be open and in front of the players (many groups *DO THIS* because they are so against fudging). You can't however - have secret rolls and encouraged adjudication without accepting that the GM can modify the results and you wouldn't know.

In the real world a pack of dogs doesn't stop attacking the downed 'target' because they stop moving...if that target was alone and no one is threatening the pack. Would the pack continue attacking said prey if a bear starts charging towards them? Or what if the target is backed up by allies who go in rescue the downed target?

The only time I would see a intelligent animals/people go out of the way to finish off or cut the throats of a downed creature in the middle of combat is if said creature continuously came back to cause them trouble, or if no one is threatening the guy who downed the creature (but even the latter seems unlikely if the attacker's friends are in trouble). It may not be "optimal" in the face of party equipped with a healer and the players, but it's more realistic when you consider combat to be a chaotic brawl happening with each round being 6 seconds long with everything happening all at once.

And the secret rolls wasn't there to encourage fudging die rolls. It is there to prevent metagame knowledge from affecting player decisions because they saw that they rolled low, and it prevents scenarios where everyone joins in to roll a check because one person rolled poorly on a skill check, even if it was intended to be a one person skill check.

Porphyrogenitus wrote:

We interrupt this regularly scheduled thread for an off-topic on-topic observation:

Quote:

most of the time make good game design. If you read books like Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals from Eric Zimmerman and Katie Salen, or The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lens by Jesse Schell

Ahhh, so *that* explains what's been going on in the unfolding trends in gaming over the last generation or so.

Let me guess: these books use quantitative psychometrics to help game designers see what keeps people clicking for the pellet like a grandmother spending down her fortune at the slot machine.

The same design principle behind those ftp games with microtransactions and rng enhancing that gets people to plunk down time and or money trying to get the pellet. It *does* work (and none of those games are loathed or if they are it's never for any good reason, and certainly no one who plays those games have feelings of frustration that they then take out via in-game aggression in likewise carefully designed contexts).

I don't mean to knock these - I'm sure they're invaluable for game developers, from the pov of a game developer. But I'm not sure these are the sort of game design principles behind the success of the hobby Gary & Dave launched. It comes from a orthogonal perspective.

If the game was made based on the sort outlook I'm sure it will make the devs a fortune (by tabletop RPG standards).

You should read the books before saying such blatant accusatory and defamatory things about it.

Both are very well recognized both by game designers and academics in the area.

They are the exact opposite of what you said here. They talk about creating good and engaging games, about player experience, game rules, balancing, and all the encompass good game designing.

They have NOTHING supporting...

Look, I didn't like the prebuffing, nor the martial/caster disparity in pf1, and I felt that save and suck mechanics in that 1e were bad game design (since those spells were impossible to balance around without making them useless or instant win buttons), but rather than telling people to buy and read 500-700 page books to get your point, why not quote specific lessons and theories from the book so we can get a pick at what you are referring to when you mention game design. Just saying "read the books" doesn't give much weight to your argument regarding game design (and no, I'm not trying to downplay the graphs).

The Hanakan and their tech adversity have actually given me an idea on a scenario for a homebrew campaign I want to try eventually.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I did not say the quoted text. BluLion did.

Sorry about that... the positioning of the reply button on this board is different than every other board I've ever used, so I click the wrong post sometimes.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I agree with you that doing the 'wrong' thing because you 'don't know the right one' can equally be metagaming. I do not, however, think that makes the question of metagaming meaningless. Just a tad more complicated.

All of the cases I have seen thus far in my gaming career that someone invokes the term "meta-gaming" fit into three specific categories:

Category One: trying to force a knowledgeable player to 'play dumb.' An example of which is using a type of damage you know will be less effective when a more effective damage type is available to the character.

Category Two: referring to reading the adventure content being played through. The clearest examples being a player choosing to avoid a particular area when their character actually appears to have incentive to go to that area (such as while exploring and not knowing what the right place is, and that place is nearer than another option).

Category Three: an attempt to redefine the term. For example, the way the D&D 5th edition DMG defines metagame thinking as basing your choices on knowing that you are playing a game (I.e. trying to say that metagaming refers to things like "The DM wouldn't throw such a powerful monster at us!" rather than the usual "you can't do that because your character didn't know [blank]" type of stuff)

Category One refers to the thing which is not at all useful to do (worry about what a player does or doesn't know). Category Two is covered by the terms "cheating" and "being a bad player" better than it is by the term "metagaming." And Category Three wouldn't exist if the term already had a useful meaning.

That's why I say the very idea is flawed to the point of uselessness.

I appreciated that you went to the trouble of giving examples from your experiences of what others called metagaming. I haven't actually heard of the definition from category 3 being used before, as the definition I've always used was "using knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character" or "The use of out-of-character knowledge in-character". I have always thought that this definition was widely accepted, but it looks like I'm wrong.

As for category 1, or the part where you mentioned where knowledgeable players are forced to play dumb in, is about trying to separate what you, the player knows, from what the character you are playing knows. I'll admit, this is actually harder than it sounds since it feels unnatural at times, and purposely trying to hit it with things you know it doesn't work against feels even more unnatural. Personally, I have always tried to just forget about my past experiences and just tried to go with what my character would know, that way my character will be able to act more organically to threats. I know it sounds like another form of playing dumb, and it doesn't always work, but it feels like it's the most natural way for me to play.

And to be honest, I'm be more worried about having a player say "okay, it's green and it has a 15 foot reach, so it's clearly a Adult Green Dragon at least so the AC is 27 and it's got DR 5/magic and we're looking at a 12d6 breath weapon" (yes, that's 3.5 stats) before initiative even started. It kills the magic, and it falls more in category 2 territory (the cheating kind).

The main issue, in my experience, with knowledge skills as a means to impart information to the player is that some dingus bad-DM back in the day that had a huge lean towards DM vs. player competitive attitude put forth the idea that there is a thing called "metagaming" and that it is a bad thing and should be avoided, and even punished if it does show up, and defined the term in such a way that literally any player that isn't in their very first table-top RPG experience ever and lacking any knowledge whatsoever about the game rules or game world cannot not be doing it constantly.

And no one said "wait a minute, that's actually nonsense, no, stop." to it.

It is entirely because of this unavoidable thing - the knowledge of a player existing, and thus inherently influencing the way that player approaches the game - being treated as inherently bad that you have GMs jumping through hoops seeking to avoid it and arriving at things like trying to convince a player that their character can't tell that their fire spell had reduced effect against the fire-resistant creature because "your character doesn't know what HP and damage values are." Duh. The player knows those concepts and can use them to understand information that the character does have, which is that the thing they are trying to burn doesn't seem to be all that flammable.

GMs should be provided better advice, and hopefully in the Game Master's Guide they will be even though for many purposes that is entirely too late, how to enable general character knowledge and thus make it so that Recall Knowledge isn't lying when the text for it says "You might know basic information about something without needing to attempt a check"

That isn't what metagaming is.

Metagaming is when you encounter a monster, look up (or remember from your past experiences outside of the campaign) the creature so you know exactly what the monster is (hp and everything) without making any check or doing any in character research beforehand before the fight even began, and exploiting said knowledge, even if it doesn't make sense for the player characters (not the players) themselves to know without a skill-check or research.

Dealing with a troll is generally (and should be) common knowledge in most settings, just like assuming a skeletal creature is undead (because why wouldn't it be unless the "skeleton" is just a carapace or the creature is actually a living beast that is just wearing skeletal bones for protection). And finding out in combat that a creature that's getting hit by fire damage is suffering more from it is not meta-gaming either, that's just obvious observation that's obvious both in and out of character. Frankly, I have never ran into a dm who would punish players for things like that or consider those examples to be metagaming, but it sounds like everyone in these forums suffers from this quite often, and it's rather unsettling.

As a player, I have always tried to separate what I know about monsters in tabletop games from what my character knows about them, since it makes it more fun to roleplay my characters fighting said creatures for the first time in their lives and trying to survive from what they have learned and experienced. And in all honesty, it feels cheap when a more experienced player stats telling the group about an obscure monster's abilities before anyone makes a move or a knowledge check just because the player fought the same monster in a different campaign or used said monster in a campaign he dmed in.

I personally find it a lot quicker to make a new character in 2e than in 1e.

In 1e, I when I would think of an idea, such as a gun or whip magus, a hunter, a ranger (with or without guns), or a unchained rogue with a shadow spectre, I would have to try to research if said build was actually viable or if I would be simply shooting myself in the foot if I tried that (and I never play humans or half-humans, so the bonus feat is off the table). It would involve browsing through guides or through forum lurking, only to find out that there are some conflicting posts about said ideas or guides that are heavily outdated. Some classes like the slayer don't even have guides. Granted, I do have the archery feats memorized.

In 2e, I just have to look at the class, which has the class feats listed, and then switch to the multiclass feats section if I wanna try that. It feels like it's more comfortable to just grab feats as I go as opposed to having to plan out everything.

BluLion wrote:

It seems like a lot of the features are copied and pasted from 5e, so you may want to go over some of these abilities so they fit better for pathfinder 2e. For example, the fey presence ability mentions fear and charm effects, but in pathfinder 2e, fear has different tiers of effects, with Frightened 3 usually being the one that causes creatures to flee.

Porting a class from one system to another is difficult, but I think the Warlocks invocation system is a great fit for how class feats work in path 2e. I wish you luck on your endeavors!

also correct me if i'm wrong, but they have way less spell slots but have them all heightened automatically. so they could be a class that focuses on focus casting. :P pardon the pun.

Indeed they do! Warlocks only have 4 slots total for their pact magic slots, but they all scale up a level, up to 5th level, and they recharge at short-rest (as opposed to having to long rest for normal casters)

For spells of higher rank than 5th lvl, they have features (one feature per spell rank) that let them cast each of those high level spells once per long rest.

Discounting how warlocks handled 6-9th lvl spells, pact magic slots are very similar to focus spells.

Why not make eldritch blast a cantrip? You also use "counts as a weapon" similar to Playtest description of unarmed attacks of monk. This was removed after playtest, so I think it's better to remove it here too. So:

* maybe convert it to cantrip and remove "as weapon". I think that having "WARLOCK EXPERTISE" is enough. Maybe you can add "Warlock's feat" to simulate "WEAPON SPECIALIZATION" on eldritch blast (not everyone uses blast, but you are effectively making at as good as weapons, that is not very just and makes "weapon warlocks" less attractive than caster warlocks)

Warlocks in 5e are pretty infamous for being a "dip class", particularly because eldritch blast is a cantrip. Granted the newer hexblade patron is extremely dip friendly as well, but for the blast, all you needed was two levels, one for eldritch blast and the other for the charisma to damage invocation for it. After that, you were free to just put the rest of your 18 levels in another class without loosing on any of the e-blast scaling.

Granted, dipping and multiclass is now done through feats, but it would not be good for the warlock if another caster, like a bard or sorcerer, could simply take eldritch blast through a feat or even a bloodline choice.

I feel that it'd be better to make blastlock and bladelock into different archetypes, kinda like the cloistered cleric and war priest.

It seems like a lot of the features are copied and pasted from 5e, so you may want to go over some of these abilities so they fit better for pathfinder 2e. For example, the fey presence ability mentions fear and charm effects, but in pathfinder 2e, fear has different tiers of effects, with Frightened 3 usually being the one that causes creatures to flee.

Porting a class from one system to another is difficult, but I think the Warlocks invocation system is a great fit for how class feats work in path 2e. I wish you luck on your endeavors!

Don't most classes already max you out in your primary schick? How is a +2 bonus to a secondary trait way too good? What am I missing?

In terms of weaponry and armor, classes generally get their proficiency upgrade to Master(for martials)/Expert (for non-martials) at lvl 11-13. You can get a general feat at lvl 7, so this feat would let you get that upgrade quite a few levels early at the least (assuming this doesn't stack with the natural proficiency progression).

Michael Sayre wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

This, however, is what I was concerned about.

YMMV, but spells that simply allowed a caster to completely replace a skill-based character were viewed by a large swath of gamers as problematic. Now, a wizard who casts e.g. invisibility will be stealthier than he was before, but tactically it's likely a better move to cast invisibility on the rogue (assuming the goal is to sneak someone into a place) since their better Stealth facility will compliment the buff.

That was the case in PF1 as well. +45/65 is better than +25/45.

And I never saw a spell that could completely replace a skill. The classic example of knock invalidating disable device is silly, because a rogue can get a much higher disable device score than level+10.

That's true in pathfinder, but in 3.5 knock pretty much unlocked devices (and even opened secret doors), no check required.

And even in pathfinder, a rogue was more than just someone that unlocks doors and disables traps, yet it felt like in mummy's mask I was obsolete in everything else besides unlocking stuff (and yes, I was playing unchained rogue). The Spiritualist was a better scout than I was because of his spirit that can peak through walls and spot stuff without risk, I wasn't able to get damage in due to low accuracy and difficulty with sneak attacking, the bard had skills, buffing, AND spell-casting, and it felt like my skills didn't match up to spells in terms of versatility, especially when invisibility or similar spells showed up.

I ended up switching to an alchemist, which handled rogue's roles just as well, if not better, on top of having "spell-casting" to vastly improve my utility and have better overall damage to boot. Now when ever there's a skill I need to solve, I can just cast "alchemical allocation", chug an elixir of the right skill, and get a +10 to that skill for an hour (or even use another spell potion or extract). And because the class naturally uses intelligence, my skills aren't really behind the rogue to begin with.

I guess in hindsight, maybe I shouldn't have run a rogue when we had a bard in the party. I didn't think the two classes would compete as much as they did.

Is there an argument that the system mastery discussion be transported to another thread?

Sure “not needing system mastery” is a reason some people are looking forward to the new edition.

Others disagree and the back and forward is really interesting but muddying things quite a lot...

I think we should put this system mastery discussion in another thread.

I apologize for that rant earlier.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to seeing what they ended up doing to the skill feats in the final version, the new bard and the ranger.

Starting to happen to me too.

I noticed today that when ever I tried clicking on some of the links to check the sub-boards, they just take me back to the homepage. I guess some of the links just broke during an update or something

gwynfrid wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

RussianAlly wrote:

I feel that system mastery should be rewarding when it shows through intelligent strategical and tactical application of the systems in play to achieve unexpected and interesting results. It should not be a reward for having extra 20 hours to spend on manuals or the SRD reading build options.

And why not? It's just like any other subject. If I spend an extra 20 hours studying statistics, would it be unfair for me to perform markedly better on an exam than someone who did not? I certainly don't see a difference.

If you work hard, you should do well. If you dont, then you shouldn't complain.

This approach is perfectly valid on its own logic. However, it implies that the game is designed for an elite group of heavily invested players. Other players don't need to apply, unless they don't mind their PCs being vastly outclassed at the table. Your exam analogy is telling, in that perspective. You have those who pass, and those who, well, fail or drop out.

I don't agree with this philosophy. It's appropriate to reward mastery, but that reward should be moderate in scope. Otherwise the difference between hardcore and casual players becomes so large that they can't play together.

So then the casual players ask the hardcore players for help. Back to the metaphor, I used to study with and help classmates all the time. You can do the same thing with character builds. Think of it like tutoring.

As long as it takes some effort to make a solid character and the cap on outcomes based on effort is high. Tutoring or studying on their own, either way the casual player learns the system better (I would expect the experienced player to talk things through and go over why to pick A vs B for a given scenario, and why C is usually a trap, to raise the quality of the game overall by educating the casual player for future events, not just say "take A"). Sure, the experienced player has to be willing, but I've always been happy...

That's all fine and good, but then you run into cases where a new player asks the experienced players in the group for advice on a type of character, only to find out that said experience players in the group are unfamiliar with said class. For example, I remember my first campaign I decided to play a hunter (the Ranger/Druid hybrid that focuses on animal companions) as my first pathfinder character. When I asked for advice, no one had any idea on how hunters work, and had never worked with teamwork feats before. Needless to say, I had to rely on some outdated guides, and as expected, the character flopped(though at least the pet raptor was decent when buffed). After the party wiped, I remember a couple of those players being pissed off at me and my crappy character, and it actually caused me to get turned off from pathfinder for a while. A few months later, I then tried an alchemist for a one shot, then a unchained rogue for mummy's mask, which also flopped, even though I was just going for a simple twf build that happened to dip 3 lvls in shadowdancer (and it didn't even reach the dip point), and then I made another bomber alchemist, which was finally a character that can hold his own. But the only thing that those experiences had taught me is that I shouldn't play non-casters or hunters, and that alchemist was my "safe-zone" class. I'm too cautious to try anything else now.

I actually have an expert optimizer in my current group, but his knowledge focused in pure martials. He's able to give people all the advice in the world when it comes to making unkillable monks or deadly gunslingers and fighters, but he wasn't able to help me much with building inquisitors aside from maybe focusing on crossbows.

I'm for system mastery when it comes to things like positioning or coming up with creative ways to use your spells, but it just feels overly punishing when it reaches into building your character the way you want it. I think that kind of mastery belongs to trading card games like magic the gathering, where at least you can change your deck after a 5-20 minute game. In a campaign, you're forced to bear with the fact that your dragging your team down, or your just reduced to being a spectator. And not every gm is fine with you changing your character multiple times

I was in the opinion that grit/panache should just be built in to the martial classes, but the ship has sailed. Still, I would rather have a class that uses panache/grit than have it be a feat/archetype, because it would turn those abilities into either something to be ignored or a "mandatory" feat for all builds.

I don't know why you can't just take will saves and swap them from being wisdom based to charisma based. I know having a choice between the two was suggested earlier, but to be honest,given how it influences perception and now initiative, I doubt wisdom is getting dumped even if it no longer influences saves.

I generally try to stay around the 18-20-something range with my characters. I think my only older characters was the pirate I made (who was around 30-40) and a duergar(dark dwarf) barbarian

MaxAstro wrote:

Have you not seen the new art direction for kobolds, Draco? Check out the cover of the 2e bestiary.

I live under a rock. I'll go look that up now.

Edit:
Huh. Not sure I'm a fan, but I don't really have anything against it either.

Regardless, I've always been a fan of Maim 'bolds. A few examples:
https://d.facdn.net/art/doodlies/1503792714/1503792714.doodlies_kt._09-16_f a.jpg
https://d.facdn.net/art/duskthebatpack/1534450579/1534450579.duskthebatpack _maim_-_ko-fi_color_sketch_for_duskthebatpack_sirocco_3_full.png

And Sefeiren 'bolds, which are harder to link samples for. Literally the only general rated images I can find and they're not even representative of why I like her style.
https://d.facdn.net/art/slither/1531785861/1531785861.slither_frillbolds_by _sefeiren.png (specific character designs koboldized)
https://d.facdn.net/art/sefeiren/1301006581/1301006581.sefeiren_zam_ske7as. jpg (relatively generic)

This one is better, if you'll allow some suggestiveness, but that I've edited out anything explicit.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/5k5vw980tht100w/kobold-valentine.png

Those links don't seem to be working, though tbh,I don't think fur-affinity lets you link just the images themselves.

I want to see an artificer, but more along the lines of using gadgets and technological inventions to fight as opposed to just being an item crafter. I want to be a gadgeteer.

I remember the spells per spell rank was actually a bit higher than 5e's, especially the latter ones (since in 5e, the highest ranks only got one slot), and I never had a problem with this as I was always rather conservative with spellslots and relied on cantrips and cutting words most of the time as a bard unless it was the right moment for a actual spell. Then again, I never had to deal with true vancian spell-casting in that system. With normal Vancian magic, I guess the slots could be a tad restrictive, but with cantrips being stronger, I still think it shouldn't feel necessary to have more spellslots.

So mummy's mask is the first adventure path I played, and so far I've been enjoying playing alchemist. However, I was quite surprised of how many will saves I had to deal with, to the point where I'm afraid to even use mutagen since it would tank my already low will save. I'm lvl 6, and I'm planning on taking iron will as my next feat to shore it up to a +6 (from a +4). Aside from this, is there anything I can do to better prepare myself for those? I usually try to quietly peak through doors or corridors, but often times, I come into moments where I had no time to prepare for anything, especially since I have a tendency of rolling poorly on initiative rolls despite having a good dex. I'm the main trap disarmer of the group (though the monk is also a good finder), and usually stay 3rd on party order, but should I stay in the back more often to avoid those will saves?

Edit: I think I know that some races have traits that help with will-saves, but I don't think mine is one of them. And our group is using Automatic Bonus Progression

WatersLethe wrote:

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

I do hope casters are a bit more potent in actual play. It's why I love the 4 degrees of success, the best use of a spell I've done was a Gust of Wind Spell that not only extinguished the fire on an ally, but it blew a fire elemental into a pond. But I only got that from a nat 1 on the save and cant rely too much on that. I think unreliability is my biggest worry with spells-I personally as a spellcaster in PF1 try to pick spells that dont have saves and rely only on my ability to hit. Would be nice to see some other spells come into play hat work, so big fan of spells that still do damage on sucessful saves, needing a crit success to dodge completely.

Excuse me, this is a hero point thread, can you take this discussion to- oh, wait. Nevermind.

I agree, I'm a bit nervous about too much being stuck behind a crit fail. I *hope* that buffs to spells that they hinted at included making sure a regular success matters.

If they hit the balance just right, they can really go far with the 4 degrees of success. Potentially the whole "Oh, they saved? Guess my turn and spell slot was a complete waste, see you guys tomorrow." feeling can be significantly reduced.

Yep, the key isn't to make a regular failure a disaster, that'll just take us back to PF1 instawins, but instead to drill into the idea you mention here and one of the main reasons for the degrees of success in the first place: We need to make sure that success is still something useful for the caster. For a single target save or lose spell, if you cast it and the target saved, it's more likely a boss, so something like taking away one of the boss's actions is very useful (slowed 1 may be humble, but I can't count the number of times in my game that my foes were screwed by losing that third action, for instance by losing access to a three-action activity or because I couldn't move and use a two-action activity). And some reasonably lowish level spells do that on a success, like slow is a...

I'm glad that you're trying to implement a way for spells to not instantly win fights while still being effective. Having playing a couple of games already, it felt like it was one of the main reasons for rocket tag like issues, and it felt like fights were won based on who can pull those off first. That being said, I'm glad the durations are getting buffed for some spells too.

Lucas Yew wrote:

Even 5E has Medium playable dragons from the start (albeit without wings and breath severely limited), PF2 should have at least a Small one as soon as possible!

Dragonborn are the single worst thing in D&D. They're nothing but an appeasement of whiny nerds crying that they couldn't play a dragon PC without taking a 10-level prestige class. I don't want that sh*t anywhere near Pathfinder.

Their race features are rather lacking compared to the other races, and the race could have more flavor, to say it's the worst thing in d&d is rather harsh. I always viewed them more as an option for players that like playing reptile/scaly characters (I'll admit, I'm one of them).