Search Posts
Depends on your players and what they've got acccess to. I know mine would prefer a bit more than just rolling a skill check but yours might not. Do you have a group right now or is this just hypothetical?
(and unfortunately, probably a lot of reprints of Secrets of Magic spells and other things). No need to reprint runelord also, and that was one of the larger ones.
There is already an Impossible Lands sourcebook? Rival Acadamies doesn't touch on magic in any special detail, really. It's like most sourcebooks where there's magic, but I wouldn't call it a "magic book".
This is literally the search I am referring to scrolling through, so once again, can you be more specific about what you're trying to show me? Yes, and as Karys and myself noted you're overrating how many of those are there for balance concerns or because something has a mistake in it. Eyeballing it, it looks like it's roughly a 60/40 split between PFS adaptions and legitmate corrections, and some of these "mistakes" are so minor I'm not suprised they've been left as is. Not to mention there's only 151 examples, which includes corrections to the same item at every level it exists at. That's why Karys is asking for more speficic examples because most of these are completely normal.
You have got to stop taking this so personally. Xenocrat's explaination is far more likely in that if it's so easily fixable then it's not really high priority. I disagree, if that is Paizo's perspective, but we're talking about slight texual mistakes here, not entire books being printed blank. None of this is ideal but this isn't being done out of spite or malicous neglect. Also, I don't think there's as many problems with the PFS-adjusted stuff as you've noted because a lot of these are things like "Runelord players should keep in mind PFS values" or explaining how something works in PFS because it doesn't quite work the same was as a regular campaign.
We don't "know" for certain but it being the gencon release is so likely I'd be shocked if it's anything else.
Something I'm foolishly hoping for is bloodrager.
I don't hate the one we got, it's really cool actually. But I am still looking for something that captures the feeling of the 1e bloodrager. It could even have less spells than a wave caster, I just wanna play an angry guy who surges magic.
Also - with respect to "adding level to DCs". It's important to know that this is also how monsters, traps and so on behave. A level 1 character attempting a level 1 check and a level 5 character attempting a level 5 check have more or less the same chances of success if all else is equal. That's what the +level is for.
This will break the game wide open and your players will never ever fail a check in that sill. Since you're coming from first it's really important to note the numbers in pf2e are much more tightly controlled, and even a +1 will have a big impact on whatever you're doing. This isn't to say you can't meddle with the rules or numbers, but with Pf2e it's a really good idea to have a feel for the system first before you do so. Also what Finoan said is vital for meeting the system where it is. I've seen too many people try to brute force their way through combats with triple attacks and it always ends badly.
You don't need to be dex based. You could take something with a dex cap of 2 with medium armour and your AC would still be pretty decent. In your case, i would probably rate quick shield higher than heavy armour because it means you can take reactive strike (or attack of oppertunity, whatever magus calls it) without comprimising your ability to hold melee attackers in position.
Yeah the whole point of the errata was so we don't have ad-hoc rules clarifications which, for the record, I support, Sage Advice in dnd proved to me you cannot have one guy just answering random questions when he feels like it. (Apparently you can't twinspell disintegrate because it can target objects). That being said if they're not going to give regular errata I am fine with this one exception because of it's simplicity and because of how fundemental an error it is. We have live with mythic being jank because that's not going to be solved in one go, but oracle having so much amibuguity over a fundemental part of the class is a really big problem. I am "Fine" with almost every other minor error because most of the time it is easy to intuit what is actually supposed to be, but this isn't that. IMO if the president gets set that paizo might answer a rules question when it is a) fundemental to the option affected and b) solvable with a yes/no then I don't think that's going to be detrimental, especially if paizo make it clear this is for exceptional circumstances.
Honestly you don't NEED heavy armour, if you hit your dex cap on the medium armour you'll have enough AC for most purposes, espesically with your shield. Not having mastery of it at later levels is a pretty big issue, especially since you want to be tanking, imo. You'll be down +2 AC which is pretty harsh, so if heavy armour is something you want, sentinel/bastion dedication is a good idea. Psychic dedication w/ Magus is one of if not the best class/archtype combos out there, for all the reasons you noted, but especially imaginary weapon. I would also really advise against investigator/guardian, as Sir Belmont said, Magus is incredily action heavy, as you need to be consistently spellstrking, refreshing spellstrike and potentially arcane cascade, and having to add the additional action cost of divise a stratagem or taunting on top is going to squeeze you, especially since you're potentially raising a shield and taking cover.
Nope, no balance issues at all. Guns aren't balanced to be any stronger than the next weapon of their tier. Also, simple and martial profiencies already give profiency in those firearms. There's no seperate firearm profiency. So to make firearms more common it is as simple as telling your players to treat any firearm as though they are common!
This is something I've really struggled with in my campaigns. I was certainly just going "Oh here's some guys, beat them up", and it gets stale. I actually took a lot of inspiration from Balder's Gate 3, which I think tackles this problem quite well, especially given 5e's more limited ruleset when it comes to monster design. While it still undeniably has filler fights, the game takes pains to vary combat as much as it can by introducing varied combat environments. It's pretty rare to have a large square room with no difficult terrain, traps, verticality, etc. So to me, a "meaningful" combat encounter has come to mean one that introduces something new or interesting for the players (and me, the GM) to interact with. This can be interesting terrain, a monster with a unique ability, or a different objective to the combat outside of just killing the enemies. For example, a recent combat encounter I had involved an almost "king-of-the-hill" aspect, as the enemies and the PCs battled to control a harpoon cannon on a docked boat. It really let the athletics-focused barbarian shine, as shove became instantly more valuable.
We have a lot of things planned, including a playtest straight off!! So, we hope you all have a good year with us too ^_^ :0 Starship time, perhaps? Time to engage thrus- uh I mean, waiting
Oh something I completely forgot to bring up is items. While their DC being fixed can be a pain, it's a good way to have an important spell always on hand. They are perhaps more useful for buffs, which you want to shy away from, but something that still does something on a failure will retain value for a while.
Yeah if the primary concern is not being able to deal direct damage, and the DM is running hard+ encounters, your best options are magus, for the martial scaling on spellstrikes, or kineticst for just being able to spam the hell out of something without having to worry about burning through your resources for those 4 severe encounters.
As others have said, it's a form of pseudo-action compression. Magus suffers a lot from being squeezed tight given all the actions you have to take to keep spellstrikes coming. Being able to do a bit of extra damage and recharge your spellstrike gives you some more options that some other focus spells just don't. You can manage without it, certainly, but it's still very good.
If the choice is between errata and people getting paid a better wage, I'm not going to go to miss the errata lmao. Also you yourself said Paizo have always had a problem with putting out conistent useful errata, so i'm not sure how you're connecting the dots between a union forming four years ago and this.
I think of it the same way we see grifters claiming magic powers in the real world. Some believe their own hype, fully.
Agreed. I try to normally avoid saying things are entirely bad because I think it can get hyperbolic quickly, but this one is pretty bad.
Thanks for the response Maya, but (and I'm speaking to everyone here, not just you or the paizo team) but I'm a little concerned that there isn't an errata for certain issues. The ambiguity over things like Oracle spells really does feel like something that needs addressing. Re: Gaulin
No it does look like an oversight. I suspect it was assumed that martial artist already had the reuglar monastic weapontry feat, and so it wasn't printed for martial artist. For a homerule fix, giving it to martial artist as a second level feat is probably fine enough.
I think the playtests got thrown a bit out of sync by starfinder playtests, so it might be a while.Weren't the Battlecry, Impossible, and Starfinder 2E playtests also fairly close together as playtests go? Or maybe I'm thinking of Tech Core rather than Battlecry. Yeah as I recall what happened was Impossible got moved up earlier to make space for Tech Core.
When you say "apply to critical failures" does this only work for spell attack rolls then? If so that's strong but honestly not the worst thing in the world.It's to improve your saves against one tradition, with the appropriate setup. Spell attack rolls don't enter the picture. Ohhh. I see. I read it as spells you cast, not spells cast against you.
This was the first ancestry I've gotten to write for Paizo, and I had so much fun with it. I hope everyone loves them as much as I do and is as eager to play with them as I am. (I also secretly hope that they make you ask your GM if you can have ancestral paragon instead of free archetype. Though I guess I just spilled that secret.) Were the pearl dragonets you? If so how do I send them fanmail. And undying fealty.
I think "absurdly unprofessional" is a bit much. Calling them rare just sounds like an oversight. They're not doing this to spite us, as annoying as the lack of "weapon" runes for spell attack rolls is sometimes.
Reanimator rejigged to work with necromancer!!! In the VERY unlikely event that summoner and magus get new goodies on top of hypothetical reprints, I really want a duel wielding hybrid study for magus. I think it'd be pretty easy by giving double slice for free and letting you spellstrike + double slice at once. Perhaps too many dice to roll at once, or perhaps, not enough! |
