| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's up with the PDF being so large? 230-ish MB is way more than normal.
Search Posts
Would anyone with the PDF be willing to say what the werecreature dedication grants?
Am I missing something? It says that Blighted Boons allow saving throws, but doesn't appear to specify what kind.
Elemental Blast also has the impulse trait, which in turn grants the manipulate trait, so melee kineticists will be provoking attacks of opportunity on their strikes. I'm just not sure what Elemental Blast as its own action is trying to solve. I don't think the Strikes are so powerful that they'd break Flurry of Blows or Haste? And if Paizo is worried about non-kineticists getting them easily, the multiclass archetype could just start with weaker versions of the blasts.
I understand not including burn as a core mechanic when it was so contentious, but I was definitely a fan in 1e. I’d love if there was a way to include it as an opt-in, either through feats or even a class archetype.
Am I reading this right? Impulse trait says it gives an action the manipulate and concentrate traits, unless something says otherwise. Elemental blast does not appear to say otherwise, so do melee blasts have manipulate, thus provoking attacks of opportunity?
A couple classes (or specific builds) can have 2 focus at 1st level. Pretty sure the Psychic is the only which can actually recover more than 1 before 11th level.
Due to a number of intersecting circumstances, I would like to cancel my Rulebook Subscription. I'd also like to give my sincere appreciation to Paizo's dedicated customer service team, at what is certainly a difficult time. You folks keep things running, and deserve all the love!
I'm not playing an alchemist, but the way I see it the "class fantasy" of mutagens should be more along the lines of Mr. Hyde, the Hulk, or even Gummy Berry Juice.Or even Popeye's spinach. This is how I always envisioned the Mutagenic Mauler
My biggest hang-ups with the Alchemist have definitely been the lackluster performance of the Mutagenist. Feral Mutagen Alchemist was my favorite build in PF1, but such a character simply doesn't work with this edition's iteration of the class.
Not to mention, "You failed to account for... this!" might as well be "Your next line is going to be..." Then we just bring in the Summoner for Stands... Shouldn't be too hard to run a proper Bizarre Adventure.
Do Kitsune have any options for mimicking other people, like PF1's "Realistic Likeness"?
I definitely agree that something like Running Reload ought to be a core class feature. The only thing worse than not having cool toys is having cool toys but not having the actions to really use them. However, I think modeling this feature on Running Reload might allow for a more straightforward feat, while also avoiding potentially problematic corner cases. What if this proposed "Quick Reload" ability was an action like Running Reload, but had a small list of subordinate actions that it could be used with, which could be expanded by Ways and feats? Something like this: Quick Reload (1 action)
Special Class feats or Features might expand the list of initial actions you can take with Quick Reload -- Then feats like Pistol Twirl could include text like "Add Feint and Pistol Twirl to the list of actions which can be used with Quick Reload".
My playgroup's been a bit busy this month, but we managed to get in a two-session playtest campaign. We hope to get in one more playtest session with different characters before things close, but here's a quick writeup of our thoughts so far: I was GMing for a party of 3: a Sniper Gunslinger using an Arquebus, an Armor Innovation Inventor going for a melee build with a Dwarven War Axe, and a Swashbuckler just to round things out. All were level 7, with standard gear for their level, based on the "Character Wealth by Level" table. The campaign only had 3 combat encounters. The first was a werebear and 3 werewolves, the second was by 2 Vrykolakas spawn, and the final encounter was a Vrykolakas Master. The first two encounters were one after the other in the same location, with only 10 minutes between them. The final encounter was effectively an ambush, but the party was freshly rested going into it.
Though the gunslinger player really dug the flavor of the class, he seemed frustrated with the clunkiness of the Arquebus. One shot per turn with PF2's fairly bounded accuracy made for enough wasted turns to be annoying (in his case exacerbated by bad rolls). Coupled with the relatively low damage on non-critical hits, and he didn't feel he contributed much in combat. Big critical hits were cool the few times they happened, and definitely felt right for a sniper, but I don't think he liked the price he had to pay for them. Maybe a little too much risk for not quite enough reward. The fact that you still took a penalty shooting from prone with a firearm was also pointed out as an oddity, especially for a Sniper.
One complaint I did get at the end of the campaign, however, was that the Inventor player felt the armor innovation was not particularly defensively impactful. He was never hit by energy damage, so the innovation amounted to little more than a free breastplate. He would have liked to see some first level modification options that were less situational.
This came up in a game last night. If a gunslinger uses "Hit the Dirt" against a ranged attack, and their Leap puts them in the attack's next range increment, what happens? Does the enemy attack now take an increased range penalty? Or is the enemy attack roll still based on their initial space?
Agreed on all counts, but specifically in regard to the first two: I think being simple weapons is really what put crossbows in such a strange position. Most simple melee weapons have some sort of martial upgrade with the same playstyle, so if you get martial proficiency, you'll use that instead. Crossbows, on the other hand, have a unique playstyle that only exists in simple weapons (in the core book), so there had to be some way for martial classes to keep competitive damage if they wanted to pursue that playstyle. Since we're getting simple and martial firearms in this book, I'd be fine if a gunslinger would never want to pick up a simple firearm. Ideally, there should have been martial crossbows in the CRB that would have been the go-to for crossbow Rangers, in the same way a Barbarian or Fighter will always want a martial polearm over a longspear, and Crossbow Ace wouldn't have needed to be printed in the first place.
Part of why I think the armor innovation should have an unarmed attack line I definitely want my Inventor to wield some sort of steampunk power fist, and the gauntlet's stats just don't quite fit the fantasy.
Perhaps our "Drifter" might be a "Wanderer"? EDIT: Ha! Seems I wasn't the only one.
The GM-player dynamics certainly change when there's money involved, and there's definitely room for abuse. From that angle, I can understand why a forum would be wary of allowing it. Beyond any perceived "sanctity" of the hobby, there's probably potential for liability should something go south, and I would not want to take that risk were I running such a website.
I didn't play PF1. What's the deal with Gunslinger and why do so many seem to want it? For me, it's not so much that I want a gunslinger as much as I want firearm rules. Firearms in my group's home campaign setting are much more common than Golarion, and that's been a major roadblock when it comes to continuing stories that started in PF1. As far as a gunslinger class goes, though, I really prefer the idea of the "Drifter" that's been passed around on the forums as a class who can do all the gunslinger tropes without being dead weight to a group who doesn't like firearms.
Yeah, I'll echo Nyerkh's sentiment. I was definitely expecting a new blog post based on past experience, and the absence threw me off. I had actually completely misremembered what day the playtest was starting. When I saw there wasn't a blog post about it yesterday (when I had mistakenly thought it was starting), I went back to the initial one to discover the playtest had been going on for a week without my realizing.
At this point, I’d pay for a book with an unchained alchemist. This slow drip of half-fixes is agonizing. I know it’s not Paizo’s fault, there’s only so much time that can be devoted to errata, and other issues have to be addressed too. But that doesn’t make it any less frustrating.
A bit late to the conversation, but having just completed a playtest with the Summoner that focused on more exploration than combat, I concur that the duration of Unfetter Eidolon is absolutely too short. A minute is just not enough time to accomplish much scouting, and that's really where this ability seems to be aimed.
Isn't this just how backpacks already work? As of the latest errata, that is.
Shared HP just feels like a more elegant way to do life link. My only issue right now (I've yet to actually engage in playtesting, since real life has gotten in the way) is that it feels weird for the Summoner to care about Con while the Eidolon can nearly ignore it.
Is time strictly linear in your setting? You could do alternate timelines, where some historical event established in your setting went a different way, perhaps with dramatic consequences.
I just find it strange that the cleric never gets expert in simple weapons and unarmed strikes, regardless of doctrine. Every other class that starts with simple weapon proficiency eventually gets expert, but in the shift to doctrines, it seems like that was overlooked.I think that "deity's favored weapon" counts as "specific group of weapons" for improving Unarmed attacks, is it not? That's a good question. I'm inclined to say yes, but I don't think the unarmed errata was particularly clear for this specific case. Though that doesn't address the absence of simple weapon scaling.
I just find it strange that the cleric never gets expert in simple weapons and unarmed strikes, regardless of doctrine. Every other class that starts with simple weapon proficiency eventually gets expert, but in the shift to doctrines, it seems like that was overlooked.
This is great to hear!
It's sort of like the inverse of Spell Blending. Instead of sacrificing most of your lower level slots for a few extra high level ones, you sacrifice some of your higher level slots for a lot of castings of some low level spells through your staff. There are a couple first level spells that are pretty spammable, True Strike being the most obvious choice.
A Crit from a Level 4 Fighter Power Attacking with a Striking Weapon is indeed beautiful to behold, but often ends up being overkill for anything other than the Boss. It's about sending a message.
This is really strange, since most classes with a defining ability (inspire courage, flurry of blows, etc.) grant access to that ability eventually when multiclassing. I wonder if that was an oversight due to changes to the Witch being made late in the development cycle? That might also explain why cantrip hexes seem to lack any feat support, as there might not have been time to do as much of an overhaul of the class as people probably expected. Luckily the latter issue can be remedied with cantrip hex feats in future books (and since the next one is magic focused, I'm confident it will be), but I'm not sure if Paizo would errata a multiclass archetype.
Upon read-through, and with a bit of mock combat, some notable issues with two abilities of the Redirection Faculty have become apparent.
Reconfiguring your cloud is possible, but that eats up the move action that Seeking Strike requires. What's more, in many cases, you are forced to move with your cloud so as not to cause it to end prematurely, meaning your whole turn is spent setting up your next turn's Seeking Strike, and you have to hope your enemy doesn't just move again. It seems that Seeking Strike as written is only particularly useful when engaged in melee with an enemy, but in Starfinder, that's not a particularly common occurrence.
This is further exacerbated by the fact that Bend Bullet only applies to weapons formed with your Gear Array. Because Seeking Strike also requires your Cloud Array, you're obligated to use your manifold arrays in order to use Bend Bullet. It's unclear if the effective Nanocyte level reduction has any impact on your Gear Array, but if it does, one would need to make their Gear Array their primary array to keep pace in damage. In such a case their Cloud Array would be even smaller, making it yet harder to use Seeking Shot.
I also hope none of this comes across as mean-spirited. That's not my intention at all! I really appreciate that Paizo continues to hold these public playtests, and my criticisms of the Nanocyte are by no means intended to be criticisms of the Starfinder team.
More than a few knacks seem to be matched by lower level gear or feats. It does seem like a bit of a strange oversight, but I suppose that's what playtesting is for.
The Facial Reconfiguration knack seems really odd when compared to other options that affect Disguise checks. The fact that it can only reduce a specific DC adjustment seems like a needlessly clunky mechanic when most other disguise augmenting items and mechanics simply negate multiple DC adjustments completely. Further, while the quick disguise is nice, the ability overall seems to offer little else over a Holoskin, a very cheap item at level 6. The 10th level knack Biometric Theft is likewise matched by a lower level item. The Doppleganger Morphic Skin, which has nearly the same mechanics, is a level 6 item, incredibly cheap with 10th level credits. It would seem to me that these knacks ought to be dropped down in level. As is they don't seem worth taking when lower level gear provides roughly equivalent utility.
The text of Gear Array states that you begin play knowing 2 major forms, and that you learn a new one at 3rd level, and every 4 levels thereafter. This conflicts with the number of known major forms listed in Table 1-1, which shows one more new form learned at 5th, and then a new form every 4 levels. Which should we follow for the playtest? The rules, or the table?
This seems like another one of those problems that's caused by bad GMs, not bad rules. Are these kinds of obnoxious rules lawyers really the norm? If so, then it sounds like there's a much deeper problem in the hobby itself, one that no rulebook is going to solve.
I believe this should be in the Second Edition rules discussion forums, not Third-Party. As for your question, where are you getting 2 spells from? For each spell level you have a slot for, you'll have one spell in your repertoire. The basic spellcasting benefits don't grant you any spells known by default, only your spell slots.
While the Warrior muse does give you martial weapon proficiency, I don't know if it's going to be an aspect you'd want to build a character around. Instead, the Warrior seems to really excel as a commander rather than a combatant. Instead of swinging a sword, a Warrior Bard will probably want to sit on the edge of combat, orchestrating the bloodshed. Courageous Advance, Courageous Assault, and Defensive Coordination all give your party a real edge in the action economy war, a much greater contribution than an extra trained weapon Strike. It's still worth carrying a weapon, but it's likely going to be more for threatening squares to help your allies flank, or an occasional free Strike from Courageous Opportunity. Not really for getting in the thick of things like a gish might.
Swashbuckler seems like a really fun and unique martial class, definitely a welcome addition. (The martial classes in PF2 have all been top notch, I should add. After a career in PF1 where I never played a class with fewer than 6 levels of spells, PF2 has finally gotten me to play a martial combatant, and I've been having a blast!) The APG has re-sparked my interest in casters, though. The Warrior muse Bard makes me want to build a battlefield "conductor", and I'm looking forward to playing the delightful masochist of a Life Oracle I built for an upcoming campaign. I'm also eyeing the Sorcerer's Shadow bloodline (if only because it seems a perfect way to build a character inspired by She-Ra's Shadow Weaver).
Already preparing my sacrifices to Haagenti in the hopes of getting some patches for the Alchemist.
Maybe... just maybe, it's supposed to communicate that the bow "Throws" the projectiles and you should benefit from your Strength Modifier by default? The game doesn't even have a mechanic for determining which way you're "facing", it just assumes you can turn whichever way you need to in your space. I'm not sure how you're supposed to run the Daikyu's restriction. Or maybe it's just fluff?
Eldritch Archer requires expert prof in a bow so you cant meet that prereq with Ancient Elf. This is about the Eldritch Trickster, a rogue racket.
A Mountain Stance Monk with Drakeheart Mutagen is the latter, and in desperate need of a fix the more I think about it. It wouldn't take much more than saying "Abilities that require you to be unarmored don't function while benefiting from this mutagen" would it? Seems an easy enough houserule in the interim, though I know that's no use for PFS.
The Daikyu has "Reload --", instead of "Reload 0" as other bows do. It also has no weapon traits, which, while not necessarily an error, does seem highly unusual for an Advanced weapon.
The Daikyu just seems...unfinished. I thought for sure it would have a Composite version, and be a Monk weapon - given Monastic Archery calls out Monk bows...but there aren't any. I doesn't have any normal traits either, not even Deadly. Yeah, I have a hard time believing the Daikyu as-printed was intended. Perhaps something got lost during layout? As written, it's not even good for using on horseback, since nothing stops you from using a composite longbow or shortbow while mounted.
The Ranger's Warden spells grant initial trained primal spellcasting proficiency, but no means for ever advancing it. Based on how other martial classes with focus spells work, this seems likely to be in error.
Maybe this was discussed somewhere else, but the fact that the Nanocyte can only learn new forms on level-up and only if they already have enough of a nanite investment leads to a weird consequence. When leveling up, since you won't yet have had a chance to 'eat' an item of your new level+1, you'll have, at most, a nanite investment equal to the price of an item of your old level+1. Though you'll be able to choose forms of your new level +1, at higher levels, it's unlikely you'll have the necessary investment. Perhaps this is by design, so that more expensive items like weapons will be effectively restricted to your level, while cheaper utility items can be level+1, but it still feels like a roundabout way to implement the restriction.
|