Catfolk

ChibiNyan's page

1,162 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

+2 to attack rolls and maneuvers from level 1 to at least 17 (if not 20) is probably the most powerful class feature in the entire game.
At least for just straight up combat, that is.


Mark Seifter wrote:
There aren't really Small and Medium weapons; one longsword fits all core ancestries. It should probably say "a weapon for Large creatures (or a weapon for creatures one size larger than you if you aren't Small or Medium)" to make it clear.

Not even greatswords and pikes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

All 5 gnome heritages awwww snap

Chameleon gnome: let's you change your hair to suit your mood, blending ing .

Fey Touched gnome: casts a primal cantrip. Gives you a stronger tie to nature.

Sensing gnome: Keen sense of vision and smell, bonus to perception checks to find things they can't see.

Umbral Gnome: Dark vison.

Wellspring Gnome: connection to different source of magic, gets a cantrip from occult, divine, or arcane.

8 HP for gnome, speed is still 25, ability boosts and flaws are the same.

Gnome feats sounded pretty much like what we had in the playtest, at least for 1st level choices. Cantrips, familiar, burrow speech, fey connection, illusion sense, weapon familiarity.

Awesome unless Umbral Gnome = Svirfneblin and we're back to the problematic lore implications we saw in the playtest. Some of the heritages could use the rarity rules applied to them!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never really treated +1 and +2 weapons as particularly magical, since the effect is not very awe-inspiring tbh. Some +1 weapons are like Elven/Dwarven masterpieces that were just so good they got the bonuses.

So what do high level crafters do with weapons/armor now?


Totally warranted. The lack of accuracy is HUGE!! Some DPT calculations on the playtest forum showed that damage boost had to be vastly improved to compete with other martial builds in contribution.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Am surprised targeting the WEAKEST Save is still not like 60%+ to fail. I mean, there's supposed to be room for critically failing them outside of a 20, no?
Are you being rewarded for finding the lowest save or punished for targeting any of the others?


So it's the same as the Playtest Crafting? Spend Half to start then may either pay the rest or spend more time crafting, reducing time based on Craft check.

Only thing missing is how you could get multiples of a small item from each 4-day batch.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

Paladins in the playtest were one of the areas I was most critical in, and I'm reasonably sure it never got fixed to my satisfaction. The focus on bodyguard duty and heavy armor came out of the blue for me. In PF1 Paladins were a terrifying weapon of the forces of good, forged to cut a swathe through the darkness.

None of my paladins got heavy armor, unless it was mithral. They always led the charge. If they could fight on their own, they would because it shifted more risk of harm to themselves. If they failed to end the threat on time, they would lay on hands to save people.

All of my paladins knew that taking a passive, reactive stance against evil was shortsighted.

So when Paladins lost Smite and gained Babysitter, I was sad. However, the Champion class is fine for lots of other concepts, so I plan to look into ways to home brew a fix for my games. I'm thinking a level 1 archetype that trades out retributive strike for Smite Evil would be a good start. Making sure they're viable in other armors will help too.

Yeah, I'm thinking a Class Archetype is probably the best bet (that's the name for the PF1 style ones that trade class featurers out right?). I'm not sure if just giving the Smite Evil feat is a good idea though. The one in the playtest update 1.6, was really pretty powerful. It was 12th level an deserved it. For one, there were no limits to how often you could smite, it was just a 2 action attack that gained two weapon dice if the target was evil, all the extras given to your Retributive strike from feats, and could make all the damage Good, letting you get past resistances and possibly trigger a vulnerability. But as stated above, this has been renamed Sword of Justice in the final book. It's possible the old Sword of Justice (6th level feat) will be the new Smite Evil, or maybe it can indeed be a 1st level feat. A first level smite evil certainly needs to be weaker than the 12th level version, something like the playtest Sword of Justice might well be...

Blade of Justice or whatever that just added some dice depending on your level would work pretty well even at level 1 because of it's scaling nature. Smite is supposed to be strong vs the specific enemies in can target, too!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder how much pressure there is going to be to ensure that a party contains at least one expert in every (non-lore) skill.

A character appears to get training in 5 skills at level 1 though there are other sources of training, there are 17 skills, and being an expert requires the investmenent of a single skill increase.

When you add that there's probably never a need for following the expert in any kind of lore, craft, performance (barring something like the play in council of thieves or the dance contest in hell's rebels), and perhaps thievery (only one person need pick the lock) and the 4 ritual skills this seems pretty doable.

In the Playtest it felt like the Rogue straight up ran out of choices at some point and they started learning/boosting random skills.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
- Keep in mind, slow selection time wasn't the only problem. That feeling of wanting to grab three first-level heightenable spells is the other part of the problem. People wouldn't feel free to select things like Unseen Servant (which may not impact your enjoyment, but it does impact others').

I'm not sure I really buy that. Good spells are good spells. If you've got some great idea you can leverage out of Unseen servant, it's still worth the pickup. Plus if all your spells rely on heightening you're gonna be kinda SoL when you burn through those higher level slots.

Besides, doesn't this have the opposite problem and devalue taking spells that rely on heightening to stay relevant? Just take spells that scale automatically or have utility that never stops being relevant in those lower level spells known.

Which basically means we're back where we were before heightening was even a thing and recreated the problems that heighten was supposed to solve.

The goal is that you'll want a mix of both, which I think it's reasonably succeeding at. You'll probably want at least one spell that you can use once you unlock level 2 slots because you don't get many opportunities to learn new spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, we know what the minion trait does, so the issue is which of these three scenarios is most desirable-

1) Animal Companions have the minion trait.
2) Animal Companions are significantly less puissant and durable than player characters; they are likely to die in fights against same level opposition.
3) Animal Companion focused PCs essentially are twice as many characters as all the other players get.

4) The expected damage and versatility increase from Animal Companions is about the same as a similar feat or feature investment.

Or if we can't believe balance is possible, then outcome 2 isn't all that bad. I don't think ANY option should be viable all the time. If the level 12 Companion user has to be careful when stumbling upon an Adult Green Dragon, thats fine! Just like how a rogue doesn't get to sneak attack all the monsters in the book, or your choice of spells might fail against a monster with particular resistances/immunities etc.

This. The developers have all the math. I wouldn't mind my Ranger being noticeably weaker than the Fighter/Barb if my 3-4 feats invested AC can help even things out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I'm playing Ranger/Barbarian and want to get AOO, 2 feats seems really rough. One is pretty useless. Even if I wanted other fighter feats, it doens't look worth it to ever take that MC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the "tactical" advantage of the AC is minimized a lot in this edition compared to before.

First off, some of the ACs used to be really good, comparable to full martial party members or even stronger in some instances. I'm glad this is gone and they are pretty weaksauce now. They are a pet, after all, a class feature and not your entire character.

Being weaker is compounded a lot by the tight math. Having -2 attack and AC relative to the other characters/enemies was barely noticeable before. Now it goes a long way and you have to use the pet more carefully to get the most benefit. Their low health is specially good at balancing this aspect.

Lack of reactions or AOO ability from the companion reduces some of their utility in controlling the battlefield. Having more "bodies" could be a real advantage, but now weak creatures are just speedbumps. However, flanking is still very valuable and lack of enemy AOOs might make it particularly easy to get the pet into advantageous position.

Keeping the pet strong now costs a bunch of feats and leaves you with a pretty bland main PC whereas before the power boost was pretty much "free" (Boon Companion for Ranger was the main tax) and the PC didn't even need the AC to remain competitive.

I think it would have been at least worthwhile to check if those nerfs were sufficient to balance the old action economy advantage (Except it always costs an action to give/swap a command), and it'll be interesting to try this out once we get the full rules. The Orders/Trick system would be mandatory, of course, full tactical control can make them significantly better both in and out of combat without helping the "realism" issue we got here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not exactly satisfied with "the player has to do mental gymnastics to make sense of this" as the conclusion of why animal companions operate so poorly. Was there even alternative ideas for balancing them?

Also, I'm on the camp that the PC should not control the exact movements of their animal companion. The "trick" system was their interface which made them not be tactically optimal. The issue to me was how they could get huge stats and pounce, not the action system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
My untrained dogs defend me more fiercely than these Animal Companions...
That is almost certainly not true unless your dogs have actually killed someone. And there's a pretty narrow range of scenarios where your dog could kill someone and not be put down by requirement under the law. Like killing a home invader.

By fiercely I mean in determination, not effect. Of course they're not much compared to a Wolf or dinosaur AC in power. However, they will jump in to defend me if I'm under attack and probably use several actions in the process.

The joke was a jab at how people here keep saying the Animal Companion would just "run away" and abandon you mid-fight like that's completely natural.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know it's the one Cantrip we got, but i'm pretty sure Divine Lance deals "Good" typed damage which only affects evil creatures. I figure the damage form it is higher than other cantrips to account for the situational effectiveness.


My untrained dogs defend me more fiercely than these Animal Companions...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Don't all the animal companion classes eventually get a "even if you don't use an action for your AC, it still gets 1 action to stride or strike"?

I feel like the issue with ACs is that they are animals, and if you're not telling them to do something they are just going to do normal animal stuff... which is probably not combat.

I'm just curious how things like Eidolons and Phantoms are going to work with this, since those things are much smarter than animals and in a sense have a telepathic bond with you.

"Eventually, for a feat" is a steep cost to get some semblance of verisimilitude. If this was automatic for all pets then it would be a pretty good step forward.

People here really think animals are stupid and useless. If anything, real animals trained to attack will attack to the best of their ability unless told to stop rather than stop every 5 seconds unless told to attack.
I realize we probably can't get a system like that because I guess it would be "too good" (presumably, in this edition where numbers matter less than level), but also doesn't mean have to go the total opposite.

Also, I liked the "tricks" system which gave the GM a lot of control in making the animal feel real rather than just "a second PC". But I think now commanding gives you full control of the 2 actions?

I feel like this system is going backwards. 5E also had pretty dumb companions on launch, but the revised Ranger one is pretty good and balanced without all these restrictions.

TO CAPTAIN MORGAN EDIT: So do they get all 3 actions to do that? That part needs to be codified or it's so vague as to be unusable. How doe sit interact with the feat that gives them 1 action? That line just makes it confusing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My issue with Minion actions is more with animal companions than summons. The explanation we got for summons that they require 1 action to concentrate to keep the spell going or manually controlling the creature's movement is enough for me to accept it.

That living animals who are not magical in any way and have some measure of intelligence follow the exact same system, though, that's where things fall apart.

Sure, summons and Animal Companions are both "minions" in that they obey you, but I would say "persistent pets" can't just operate the same way as "temporarily conjured summons".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So is there no catch-all term for extra-planar creatures now? How does this affect the wording of stuff like Planar Binding, Banishment, etc?


Getting summoner lore pretty early over here! Wonder if it's in the books for early PF2.


Somehow these don't seem as exciting as in the playtest. Will think twice before MCing now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone animal would probably defend itself when it's being attacked while the Master is busy. It would at least try to run away or something. AC here will literally sit on hazardous acid pools unless you spend an action to tell it to move away.


Is this just the summary/introduction to the chapter?
Do we know every country get their proper writeup in the following pages?


So Armiger is the one for Old Cheliax?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whatever boost they give to CHA, it should NOT be tied to skills like Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff. As has been said, getting higher INT can usually improve them more than CHA on some circumstances. It should be something where the CHA ability score truly matters.


Well, all these new fancy advantage the Rogue gets to shore up the lack of sneak attack don't really extend to spells, is what I was saying...
Gonna be spending 2 actions to fire off an inferior ability score/proficiency for damage they could probably exceed with a leveled shortbow.

Might have synergy with certain spells, but I don't think Cantrip sneak attacks are the way to go.
It's thematic, but damage spells is not why I would be multiclassing the rogue in the first place.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Need that old CHarisma to your men-at-arms morale and amount of them you can keep employed :p

At least it was tied to a pretty useful core system!


MaxAstro wrote:

On another note, on the theme of "multiclass feats for other classes": Something I just thought of that would be an awesome Fighter feat would be "requirement: you cast a spell this turn; benefit: you can use abilities with the Press trait this turn, even if you lack a multiattack penalty".

I think that's a big advantage of putting multiclass feats into the base class; it allows the base class to really play with its core mechanics in interesting ways.

This could be pretty powerful in some circumstances and would totally be worth a feat. People would just cast the 1 action magic missile to get 2 Strikes without any MAP using that spoiled ability.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Foreshadowing!?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't say I'm too impressed with that magical sneak attack feat, though. Rogue's sneak attack damage in the playtest was significantly reduced, likely to account for multiple attacks per round. Enemy HP was also vastly increased, with most things having no less than 2X their original health compared to PF1. Spells are still mostly once per round, so they don't get this benefit.

So I don't think +2d6 on a spell at mid level is going to be worth anything at all, specially if compared to a shortbow. Can see it being good only if it hits several targets at once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
The wording in the Playtest was definitely a little unclear, since sneak attack just required you to use a "ranged attack". Hopefully the wording in the final version will make it clear that spell attacks and ranged attacks are different things, or specify "ranged weapon attack" on sneak attack.

Well, being able to sneak attack with Snowball in PF1 was one thing, but being able to sneak attack with Fireball required the AT prestige class.


Mark Seifter wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Still seems like these level -1 creatures are more capable in melee than non-fighters at level 1... again.
Eh, I doubt that zombie could win a melee fight against even a level 1 wizard with a dagger using no magic and simply attacking with the dagger unless the zombie got lucky. It is not even close to as capable in a fight as any level 1 martial character. The plague zombie at level 1 is a little better off and can usually beat the no-magic melee wizard, but it's a level 1 foe.

Is that so? I'm just going off that +7 to hit and 20HP. Both should be higher than most level 1 wizards. Damage is probably comparable and the grab ability seems pretty decent.

If anything they're closer to like STR focused clerics or a Rogue, assuming I understand the lv1 mechanics.

If anything, I figure level -1 is peasant tier, or there an even lower level than this?

EDIT: I remembered the SLOW penalty thing. I suppose that could make up for this zombie being tougher than other level -1s numbers-wise.


Still seems like these level -1 creatures are more capable in melee than non-fighters at level 1... again.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Biztak wrote:
tqomins wrote:

TREERAZER'S CULTISTS

Edicts corrupt plant life with evil or fungal influence, slay elves, feast on rotten flesh or fungus
Anathema grant mercy to elves, plant trees, encourage natural plant growth
Follower Alignments NE, CE

DEVOTEE BENEFITS
Divine Font harm or heal
Divine Skill Nature
Favored Weapon battleaxe
Domains destruction, nature, nightmare, tyranny
Cleric Spells 1st: grim tendrils; 3rd: wall of thorns; 6th: tangling creepers

Wait wait wait, are these rules to roll up a cleric of Treerazer?

Yep!

And he has the Healing channel? I figured this was a lord of corruption and destruction of nature! He has the nature domain somehow... Is this because blighted forests are still nature?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do know most people get into 5e from their Starter Box thing (Which was released before the full game somehow!) since it gives them character sheets, dice and a beginner-tier adventure. Lost Mine of Phandelver is probably the most played 5E module BY FAR!!

Also I consider that Box to SUCK compared to the Paizo ones which include pawns, bases, colored maps, mats and pregens.

This product is gonna be important to get new people into PF2.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

This is freaking awesome, the monsters were IMPROVED from the playtest! Plus we got templates and guidelines for customizing. You're the man, tqomins!! Thanks for all your effort <3.

Though these are probably some of the more complicated monsters in the entire bestiary, I like how the outsiders have a large variety of spells and abilities (But not overwhelming) which makes them more than just one-trick ponies, specially since these creatures might be summoned with planar binding or be recurring NPCs.

Even the simple basic monsters like the zombies have some unique tricks up their sleeves, no monster is just a meat-bag; there's always some cool gimmick! They even kept their resistances and such. This bestiary looking to be far superior to 5E's.


Heine Stick wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:

My question is: what system should I use? Originally I planned for PF1e, a system with many faults but one I've grown to love. I'll admit I haven't had the same feelings for PF2e yet, but I'd rather support Paizo than WotC. Unfortunately, there basically isn't enough GM support to even try to get started. That's not a huge downside as this is an admittedly huge project that has already been in the works for two years. 5e has the largest player base and simplest ruleset, but it doesn't scale in power the way I need. Plus the whole supporting Paizo thing. I'm currently thinking of hacking my own unpublished system, but that would make it even more niche.

I want to justify using PF2e, particularly to support Paizo as a company, but right now I just can't. So does anyone have any advice? Suggestions of other systems are welcome, as are questions.

I plan to do something similar, writing a Mendev sourcebook and a companion adventure (strictly fan material), and my idea is to go with Pathfinder 2nd Edition. It'll be interesting to learn the system both by playing it and by writing material for it. Two different experiences, I reckon, which will both let me tinker with the game engine in their own way.

So, write to learn?

(I'll be kicking off this project of mine once I get my hands on the Gamemastery Guide for Pathfinder 2nd Edition)

Sarkoris cleanup gonna take a while, indeed.


Yo, are the PCs for the adventure regular humanoids or is this the type of evil campaigns with monstrous PCs and exploring this contrast?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

There's that "Spell Substitution" spoilers now. It's essentially the old "Quick Preparation" except it's now a Thesis, so it will not be Universal to all wizards.

Just gonna say it'll be very hard to compete with this thesis since it can be used unlimited times. I liked it when it was free for all wizards since it wasn't going to dictate builds.

Hopefully there are ways to get the effects of a different thesis. Otherwise yeah, that's going to be the best one to take, and anyone who doesn't take it is hampered with no way to compensate. This is one reason I'm not really thrilled with these "class paths" like Wizard Thesis and Rogue Racket. I don't like abilities being gated behind your 1st level decision without a way to get it later, as well as making them mutually exclusive.

If School Specialization is a thesis and it precludes getting this... Heads will roll...


Artofregicide wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

Both, probably! But not simultaneously. Once 1 is 100% finished it shouldn't be the worst to convert, givne how simple PF2 is supposed to be.

Granted, core-only might limit some choices.

Since I'm basically doing this project solo, I think I'll limit myself to just one system at first.

Also I haven't found PF2e either simple or easy to convert to 1e, plus 1e is an increasingly shrinking audience. Or did you mean a different combo of systems? I don't think PF1e or PF2e to 5e would be any easier from design standpoint.

Meant things like Treasure distribution guidelines, monster power level and flexibility in their design, easier to figure out skill DCs to challenge players, etc. A lot of the PF2 innovations are quality of life improvements for adventure writers rather than player-centric.

Also I thought you were already deep into the project using PF1 and didn't want it to go to waste, sorry.


Both, probably! But not simultaneously. Once 1 is 100% finished it shouldn't be the worst to convert, givne how simple PF2 is supposed to be.
Granted, core-only might limit some choices.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pramxnim wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

There's that "Spell Substitution" spoilers now. It's essentially the old "Quick Preparation" except it's now a Thesis, so it will not be Universal to all wizards.

Just gonna say it'll be very hard to compete with this thesis since it can be used unlimited times. I liked it when it was free for all wizards since it wasn't going to dictate builds.

When it was a feat it basically was a feat tax that all Wizards took because of how powerful and flexible it was.

I don’t know what the other Wizard theses are like, but chances are players will now have an actual choice to make w.r.t. their Wizardy abilities, and I see that as a good thing

When an ability is so good it's an autopick it either shouldn't exist or be granted automatically as class feature. Quick Prep is such an overwhelmingly powerful ability that it could invalidate the other theses unless they're incredibly amazing, which I'm skeptical about.

At least when it was a feat you could still make your wizard normally, it didn't carry much opportunity cost (just a feat slot), now it has a huge one.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There's that "Spell Substitution" spoilers now. It's essentially the old "Quick Preparation" except it's now a Thesis, so it will not be Universal to all wizards.

Just gonna say it'll be very hard to compete with this thesis since it can be used unlimited times. I liked it when it was free for all wizards since it wasn't going to dictate builds.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

One thing that still bothers me is that passive/trigger abilities still have to be "Free Actions". Stuff like: When you land a critical hit, you heal X HP has to be an action type for some reason instead of an automatic thing. The main side-effect of this is that 2 free actions cannot trigger off the same event, so it's gonna stop some interactions down the line.

Even sillier is stuff like "Free action after you cast a heal spell to heal an additional +X" rather than just "Add +X to the amount healed by Heal spell".

What's worse is when they use up a reaction instead...

That bit feels like a deliberate balancing choice. The holy rune healing effect would be absurdly overpowered if it didn't use up your reaction, locking you into it once per turn and costing your other options. It still feels kind of OP even with those restrictions.
I'm not familiar with this effect, can you show me?
You use your reaction to heal twice the level of the creature you strike. Doing this on every hit would be crazy. Even as is, holy runes were the only thing keeping the Glass Cannon team alive during the later waves of Doomsday Dawn Chapter 5.

Ok that is pretty good, but current taste in my mouth is that one from the spoiler card: "When you drop a creature to 0 HP, spend a reaction to gain temp. HP equal to your CON mod for 1 round". That's the pacific ocean between the two abilities


Captain Morgan wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

One thing that still bothers me is that passive/trigger abilities still have to be "Free Actions". Stuff like: When you land a critical hit, you heal X HP has to be an action type for some reason instead of an automatic thing. The main side-effect of this is that 2 free actions cannot trigger off the same event, so it's gonna stop some interactions down the line.

Even sillier is stuff like "Free action after you cast a heal spell to heal an additional +X" rather than just "Add +X to the amount healed by Heal spell".

What's worse is when they use up a reaction instead...

That bit feels like a deliberate balancing choice. The holy rune healing effect would be absurdly overpowered if it didn't use up your reaction, locking you into it once per turn and costing your other options. It still feels kind of OP even with those restrictions.

I'm not familiar with this effect, can you show me?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing that still bothers me is that passive/trigger abilities still have to be "Free Actions". Stuff like: When you land a critical hit, you heal X HP has to be an action type for some reason instead of an automatic thing. The main side-effect of this is that 2 free actions cannot trigger off the same event, so it's gonna stop some interactions down the line.

Even sillier is stuff like "Free action after you cast a heal spell to heal an additional +X" rather than just "Add +X to the amount healed by Heal spell".

What's worse is when they use up a reaction instead...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That Trash action seems really cool, almost like wrestling, but am kinda disappointed it looks weaker in every way than just punching or attacking the target with anything else. Only advantage I see is that it asks them to roll a save which MAY be lower than AC.

Kind of want to build a character around this, but need to confirm it doesn't just suck.


Mathmuse wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Well searching for terms like Bolstered instead of looking in the glossary or index is a bit silly if I'm honest. For stuff like named Feats, Powers, Spells or Items it is really quite adequate. As for having open pdfs, you are obviously being facetious. We had two open, one at the thing we were building (i.e the Cleric class page) and one for looking up things like Powers.

My PDF reader--the free Acrobat Reader DC--won't let me open two copies of the same file. Later, I copied the rulebook file to have two separate files, but I did not think of that at first.

Thus, I had to scroll away from the original page to the index, look up the reference in the index, go to the reference, and then return to the original page. While dealing with the minor annoyance that the PDF page numbers were one off from the rulebook page numbers. The Search function often arrived at the right description in one or two page jumps from clicking the Next button, and returned to the original page by clicking the Previous button. Alas, the easy Search fails for "manipulate" or "bolstered" or other common words.

I also had both the paperpack rulebook and the PDF. But usually a player was reading the paperback and I was reluctant to borrow it back.

Bolstered is a non-descriptive keyword when applied to a beneficial effect, as in bolstered against Treat Wounds.

To be fair, while it takes a while to internalize all of the "tags", they add a lot of future proofing since you only have to do it once and they'll apply consistently throughout the life of the game. Now that you know about manipulate, you'll never question whether an action will provoke an AOO or not if you have access to the tags. I still sometimes check the PF1 chart for provoking after many years and I was surprised to learn that drawing a weapon didn't provoke, but sheathing did (unfortunately it's different now).


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Am happy they changed the reaction icon, now I can tell it apart from Free action every single time while it screams "reaction" to me (Looks like the icon for Yu-Gi-Oh! Counter traps). Very intuitive.

1 to 50 of 1,162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>