Catfolk

ChibiNyan's page

1,249 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 642 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't get 18 WIS on Warpriest Clerics or Wild Shape Druid. Specially not on PF1, but still applies.
Spellcasters that focus on physical combat dont need their casting stat that much and gotta focus on STR/CON, or DEX if you're an archer style.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that Alchemists have at least ONE reason to invest in STR is a positive, not a negative. Every stat should be desirable and there should be a difference between the different builds that isn't just about being "more optimal".

Getting STR as the wrong class in PF1 was just bad, you'd get 0 benefits. Now there can be some stronger alchemists carrying more stuff, but weaker ones that maybe have better aim or initiative. There's opportunity cost to every decision instead of a lot of "false choice" in PF1: you could suck or optimize.

You're not "forced" to get STR to be viable, but whether you do it or not will have both upsides or downsides regardless.

Now if only Wizards could gain something from STR or anyone from CHA, that'd be good stuff.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it me or Brutish shove is awesome? Yeah, it is Press but you get a full strike + 2 riders on it for no cost. Even on a Failure it causes flat-footed? Will be spamming this every turn!

Also, can the guy from this blog cast Shield while holding his 2h Maul? Are "free hands" not needed for somatic components again?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remember you can always retrain Power Attack once those Striking runes begin to overpower the feat. Though remember that magic weapons have been nerfed from the playtest, and PA buffed, so it might be worth keeping this time around.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm relaly happy with roll20 and pay my subscription for all of my campaigns, so I can't switch out right now. Let's hope we get a good sheet early. We had one for the playtest day 1 (even if it sucked).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
rainzax wrote:

The characters roll good enough, they get what they want, if they roll incredibly well, either it happens faster, or at discount.

That type of thing.

Meh. Reminds me of a game where players would present their DM with a list of treasure they want to get over the next X levels and the DM would insert that treasure into the future adventures. Wasn't really my cup of tea.

But more power to you if you enjoy that sort of thing.

I also really dislike it, but it seems to be the most common way to play PF1 if the optimization talks are any indication.

I only feel pressured to do this when there is a Monk in the party, who are beholden to 1 specific item to progress, one that isn't easy to justify with lore a lot of the time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think we can agree that if climbing the wall or unlocking the door is the only way to proceed, and if there are no repercussions for failing then there probably should not be a roll. Or at worst some kind of check for "how long did it take?"

But the issue I think is if the GM has planned for routes A, B, and C to proceed, along with recognizing that players are liable to come up with even more, when the players select the hardest, most obvious route and fail whether there should be consequences for not picking a better solution or whether nothing should happen and they are free to pick something else.

Like if the PCs are tasked to "get into a fancy party to which they are not invited" if the PCs decide "let's just bring a ladder, smash a window and get in that way" I figure the "fail forward" here is after a guard chases them away, security is more alert and posts somebody at the accessible windows. In doing that you make it clear "that is even less likely to work the next time, try something else." Plus you fail them forward because moving more security to the 2nd floor windows means there is less of a guard presence somewhere else.

Which roll did they fail here? The (common)fail-forward scenario is they just walk up the front door, fail the diplomacy/bluff to be allowed in but still make it in somehow, perhaps through a bribe or with someone keeping an eye on them. They wouldn't need to use the ladder gimmick, that would require the main attempt to be utter failure than they decide to try something else, or at least the players figuring it's not even worth trying the front door approach.

If I had to fail-forward this situation, I would make it so when they fail front door attempt they may notice an NPC open a nearby window... Or maybe overhear a conversation about a musical troupe being late to the event. Even those are a bit heavy handed if too obvious, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's still highly customizable, though through different avenues now. It's also not a game of "GM just makes up the rule", it is HIGHLY codified.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I use fail forward mechanics all the time. I think a lot of people have some misconceptions about what Fail Forward means.

I mentioned this the other day on twitter, but the lack of academic study on tabletop RPG design is to the detriment of the community, as discussions get derailed and mired in semantics and definitions rather than the far more interesting discussion of affect, effect art and culture.

But here I go delving into a discussion that has devolved into semantics and definitions.

Fail Forward is not the following:

- Players succeed, or succeed at a cost no matter their roll. I saw this one bandied about a bit. That's not what failing forward is. Of course the dice and mechanics should be meaningful, otherwise what's the point of playing a game that has mechanics and dice.

- The GM moving the goal posts in the background. Again setting a secret DC and then adjusting it based on the player's rolls, it's functionally identical to the above.

What I feel Fail Forward is, and what it's for:

When players make a dice roll, no matter what they roll: SOMETHING INTERESTING MUST HAPPEN. If there is no interesting outcome on a successful, or a failed roll, then there was no reason to make a roll. (In PF1e this was what Take 10 and Take 20 were actually for).

Fail Forward means that on a failed roll: SOMETHING HAPPENS. The situation escalates, or there is a real cost that makes the difference between success and failure.

The issue is people assume "Forward" means to the end of the adventure, rather than the next bit of the narrative. Player characters are adventurers, by definition everything they do is an adventure.

They fail to scale the cliff:
"Cool, some of the rock crumbles away in your hand you start sliding down the cliff face, more rock is following you down! Oh god, that's a rock-slide, what do you DO?"
Maybe they try and push off the cliff and activate their ring of Feather Fall so the rockslide will fall safely under them (Acrobatics), find an...

This does have one issue though. As soon as the players fail only ONCE, that challenge is over. This is one of the things John Lynch said that stuck to me. Maybe the players tried to climb the cliff and failed. In your example, they now find the entrance, which means they do not get to try the "Fly over it" idea since it's pointless now. This means the "obvious" solution is always the right solution. They aren't really incentivized to experiment.

There are games where the players would be hit by the rockslide and then have to consider whether they now fly over or think of something else. Maybe now they can find the entrance IF THEY SEARCH. Seeing the consequences of attempting a check out of their league without much of a reward will educate players that they gotta actually think about the choices they make, because there are wrong ones.

It depends on the party, but after being a railroady/fail-forward GM for so long I've become disappointed in how I've raised my players to just sit around wait for me to tell them how the story advances without them taking initiative or trying creative things. I've since started doing my best to give them more independence, including the freedom to fail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
A level 6 Alchemist making 30 Elixers for a party of 5 is basically delegating the healing to individual agency allowing their focus to be completely free. Both i would say are completely viable so long as the numbers remain comparable.

I would argue that this point is not in favor of the alchemist, particularly not an alchemist who has focused on healing instead of bombs.

I'm unsure of the details of how this'll work out in the action economy, but the most generous way I can see a fighter drinking an elixir on their turn has them spend one action to ready the elixir, one action to drink it, and then having one action left to strike. It is very likely in this scenario that the fighter will need to use their third action on re-readying their weapon, unless they are fighting one-handed without a shield. On the alchemist's turn, they will shoot a crossbow bolt, reload, and then have one action open for something else. So, one crossbow bolt from the alchemist, and one heal for the fighter and maybe one strike as well.

If we instead have a cleric in the party instead of an alchemist, the cleric spends two actions healing the fighter, and then one action on bashing someone with a mace or something. Then the fighter has their full turn, likely consisting of two strikes and some form of trick (raising a shield or pushing the foe back or something). So, two fighter strikes, one cleric strike, and one heal.

The latter action economy seems much more useful.

THIS is where Chirugeon falls apart. Can't even heal people on your own turn.

Administering potions to Allies is a thing.

Also it doesn't inherently make Chirurgeon break down, it means Chirurgeon is a different brand if healer. It'd be a little bland if -everyone- approached healing the same way IMO.

That said, I wouldn't mind a specific ranged heal option for them. Something like PF1 Healing Bombs. Plenty of room for that to stay unique.

I guess there's a few upsides to putting the responsibility on the ally needing the heal, but come on. It's worse in 90% of scenarios. I'd take "the same" as compared to "just bad". I'm not sure you can be bottle feeding conscious allies while they're fighting, either. This is worse for Chirugeon than the other alchemists since at least they have better things to use their actions on while Chirugeon is kind of a healbot that can't use their turn to heal...

Heal bombs would be awesome, but we didn't get them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
A level 6 Alchemist making 30 Elixers for a party of 5 is basically delegating the healing to individual agency allowing their focus to be completely free. Both i would say are completely viable so long as the numbers remain comparable.

I would argue that this point is not in favor of the alchemist, particularly not an alchemist who has focused on healing instead of bombs.

I'm unsure of the details of how this'll work out in the action economy, but the most generous way I can see a fighter drinking an elixir on their turn has them spend one action to ready the elixir, one action to drink it, and then having one action left to strike. It is very likely in this scenario that the fighter will need to use their third action on re-readying their weapon, unless they are fighting one-handed without a shield. On the alchemist's turn, they will shoot a crossbow bolt, reload, and then have one action open for something else. So, one crossbow bolt from the alchemist, and one heal for the fighter and maybe one strike as well.

If we instead have a cleric in the party instead of an alchemist, the cleric spends two actions healing the fighter, and then one action on bashing someone with a mace or something. Then the fighter has their full turn, likely consisting of two strikes and some form of trick (raising a shield or pushing the foe back or something). So, two fighter strikes, one cleric strike, and one heal.

The latter action economy seems much more useful.

THIS is where Chirugeon falls apart. Can't even heal people on your own turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


Mountain Stronghold: Allows you to take an action to get 2 more AC until your next turn-- it sounds like by increasing the dex cap upwards.
It both gives you the action and permanently boosts the Dex cap by 1!
So it has a passive Dex cap increase and lets you have a Shield Raise action. Not bad...

Considering I'm planning on building Captain Taldor at some point, I'm very curious to see if Mountain Stronghold will stack with Raise Shield... Defend/defend/attack could be a decent set of actions if you are getting 4AC out of it.

Of course that is reliant on some way to get Str to thrown accuracy, otherwise Captain Taldor is going to need more Dex than Mountain Stance allows. :)

Is he friends with Captain Andoran, champion of freedom and democracy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is everyone furiously transcribing the images right now? I don't see any discussion on the stream and they revealed a buncha feats and ancestries!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They didn't heal as much, Treat Wounds was suicidal until after some updates, costed resonance, Cleric could heal your full health like 10x a day, Alchemist was garbage in general and had to receive updates, cleric Channel had to be nerfed from the insanity it was.

Current alchemist is looking way better and Cleric is probably not going to be as silly anymore, but the gulf between them was VAST in Playtest 1.0.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, from just the pure playtest, I'd say this was a hard NO. However, the developers for sure realized this, given some of the closed threads we had back then, so... I expect the gap to be a lot closer in the full release.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Seisho wrote:

If you put a lot of effort in it (or take elf) you could go with 18 in both in the campaign and keep both up on the same level

admittedly your other stats would look a bit worse
There's no way to have a stat aside from your key score at 18 to start with.

Yep. For an Elf Alchemist I might try:

Str 8 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 16 Wis 12 Cha 8

Or Dex 16/Int 18, depending.

This might be THE Alchemist spread depending on bulk considerations of all the stuff they carry. 16 INT/16 DEX is almost mandatory, and I feel 18 INT will be common


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You know people tried that, right?

People try to do lots of things. Doesn't make them good ideas.

Out of interest, do you have any handy links to people trying to houserule AD&D 2e into the playtest? I'm genuinely interested what idea they could possibly want to grab from AD&D 2e that they think would work well in PF2e.

There's some good ones! We got Archetypes from it. And it's one of my favorite implementations of that system since they include roleplaying caveats instead of just grabbing a set of beneficial mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isn't what you're looking for called Pathfinder E6? Google that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Hopefully stay as they are, because 1) Mutagens were not amazing, the onset time made it so they had to be really good to be worth it. Now they can be above and beyond!

Well, they WERE really good once they got going, but the onset times are hella wonky, yeah. That's one of my two big problems with mutagens in the playtest, the other being that you had to keep your mutagens up to date to keep them competitive, and with only 2 free formulas a level that gets pricey quick.

I think the larger problem with the alchemist isn't that it is bad, but that you need a lot of system mastery to make it great. It has a high ceiling but might have the lowest floor, which is part of what PF2 should be avoiding.

Quote:
2) The Alchemist proficiencies don't make them super dangerous, but now a fully invested Mutagenist can lay down some Fighter-tier ass-kicking.

This was actually pretty close to the case in the playtest. A mutagenist could use feats to bypass the onset time of mutagens. That meant that they could make themselves competitive with a specialist at any given thing on the fly. They can gab like a bard, punch like a monk, or sneak like a rogue.

Quote:
I'm not sure if you can give mutagens to your allies, but that would be the only situation where it could get OP. As long as only the alchemist takes them, it would be fine to go to +5 since they're weaker in combat than most classes.

The thing is though that you COULD indeed make mutagens for your allies, which people seem to overlook a lot. So it isn't just that the alchemist can punch like the monk, it is that the he can make the entire party punch like the monk. So they need to make sure the bonus doesn't make the monk double monk, because that would break the math paradigms. Making it so that the mutagens don't work on allies would be a big nerf to the alchemist.

I do agree that in the playtest you sort of needed mutagens to be at your best. Even the bomber worked best when under the effects...

Unlike most classes, the Alchemist doesn't use their primary attribute to hit. They have to spread points between DEX and INT which means it's not gonna be max for the entire campaign. So yeah, they are at -1 compared to everyone else for around half the levels. The same goes for STR builds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As for AOOs, I also would like to interrupt things like drinking potions or casting spells when surrounded. YEah you can grab them ahead of time to prevent all this but it would still be cool.

The fact that 5-step costs an action now makes the old AOO system more powerful! Mages and Archers aren't just backing off for free anymore to avoid the AOO. SOme may say it's even more restrictive than before, but to me it means positioning is even more fundamental!

Plus by grabbing you can't do stuff like having enemies just ignore you as they run past early in the battle. It makes it so some chars can actually tank a bit without contrived mechanics like retributive strike.
The "Stand Still" feat would be quite fearsome!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Free movement and melee casting/shooting/drinking in combat is fun at first, but has lead to some facepalm situations in the playtest.
Hopefully, that rule does not survive in the final version. :D

It's already confirmed AOOs will be the same as in the playtest, so will need to be a house rule. That or I didn't understand your message.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If possible, I will test Universal AOOs ala PF1 and replace the AOO ability with something else that buffs it (Like no penalty or more usages per round).

Free movement and melee casting/shooting/drinking in combat is fun at first, but has lead to some facepalm situations in the playtest.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Before the end of the year, there will be a lorefinder video just about the jump from PF1 to PF2. Likely September!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would have preferred at least 1 extra Bonus type so Magic + non-magical stuff could stack together a bit better in some cases. Alchemical items, for example, probably still don't stack with your equipment since it's all item bonuses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Worry not, PFS players who hate their GM. In that mode of play, this item will pretty much ALWAYS affect your allies every single time so the week thing is meaningless. Reserve it for a full campaign GM who probably won't let the item TPK you when the party gets ambushed by Balors while they camp.

I do like this item and the imprecision! Also it reminds me of the guidelines for playing Mummy PCs in like 3.5 who have this ability built-in and always paralyze the party once a day when they woke up.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a SHAMELESS PLUG for my youtube channel: Venture Captains
The history of Golarion and other lore in video format!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
First World Bard wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Speaking of this... Do bombs target full AC? They are the Alch's bread and butter attack but they aren't expected to have 18DEX and their proficiency is nothing special. Bombs are a pretty limited resource too.... How reliably are they landing?
Touch AC isn't a thing anymore, so it's the only AC *to* target. Spellcasters now get to use their casting stat to make spell attacks, so they're not too worse off from that change, though.

You can target saves, skills and all sorts of stuff in this edition. Anything that you can add proficiency to is able to compete vs each other reasonably fairly.

For sure some stuff that affects "Passive Fortitude" has been shown.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
I have a little concern here myself as the Alchemist... Doesn't seem to get Master in simple weapons and bombs. They do get Master in armor though. Seems weird. Especially since they get E weapons at 7, E armor at 13, then M armor at 19. There's just a conspicuous lack of following up on the weapon boost. Any chance that got missed?

Speaking of this... Do bombs target full AC? They are the Alch's bread and butter attack but they aren't expected to have 18DEX and their proficiency is nothing special. Bombs are a pretty limited resource too.... How reliably are they landing?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to admit, I' not a big fan of how the Alchemist class feats are distributed. Almost every level consists of "Improvement to bombs, improvement to elixirs, improvement to mutagen" with a generic one as 4th every now and then.

The end result is that most alchemist of any given path are gonna have the exact same build. They can only pick 1 path at the start and from there on there is 1 feat per 2 levels tailored to them. You gotta multiclass to actually get more than 1 relevant option most of the time.

I realize this is a result of space considerations, but it is what happens when you have too many paths: Can't fit variety for all of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

AM not greedy, I want something simple:

My favorite prestige archetype would be Hellknight. All I ask is that it doesn't suck horribly like in 1st edition. People should actually be excited for the feats in it rather than "Makes my Fighter worse" when it would be a thematic choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Yes. Multiple avenues of success is a good thing. Quite notably, he didn’t get to acrobatics his way to the other side. That failed. Now he has to find a new approach.

Yeah, a new approach, but the adventure accounted for this possibly failing and put an alternative specifically in case the PCs failed to cross it by whatever reason.

The examples so far in this thread have been really "brute force", but this is how I imagine it could be done discretely. A new thing opens up as a result of failure which would otherwise not come up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AvalonRellen wrote:

I'm excited to have more of those "MY character helped this work out" moments, via the 'Follow the Expert' action. It is very easy to imagine a group feeling like they could accomplish something thanks to a specific player.

Things like a dexterous rogue setting a climbing route for the rest of the party, or a powerful fighter helping athletically hoist people over a wall to get into a private Villa, or even a sneaky ranger helping point out the safe places to step while sneaking through a forest.

There is now the possibility of having a concrete and meaningful way to play out all these situations, and I really like that. Mechanically, all you're doing is letting untrained people add their level to a check, but in game your character is giving the whole party the chance to succeed where they wouldn't stand a chance before. Moments like that are what deepens the connections between PCs at a table, and that makes the game worth playing.

Pretty sure Climbing is STR based, so it'll be the Fighter again!! Doin' work with skills for once.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Please make it more like Divinity and less like Baldur's Gate. I really like my Tactical RPGs to be turn based.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

No need for "Creating one-use wondrous item is better than a scroll" jank to happen again. I agree with Mark that codifying this too much makes it almost impossible to future-proof.

A scythe that's identical to the storm rapier except it's fire instead of electricity will probably have identical cost, give or take a few SP. I would be happy to just get a lot of crazy magic items published and extrapolate from the data.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Saint Evil wrote:

Fail Forward seems like 'Designer Speak'.

Term gets thrown around but is it well defined.

The definition I could find is this
Quote:
Failing forward is the idea that you still get to unlock the door on a failed roll, but it comes at a cost.

That isn’t how skill checks are described in the rules for the playtest core rules.

If you actually want to hear why I think that’s awful feel free to start a new thread. It’s pretty off topic for this one.

Like everything else in adventure design, it has it's place. Of course it would be really dumb if all checks were like this, there's plenty of things that would be boring such as finding a secret item/door/shortcut, stealthing, bluffing, any knowledge etc. But a lot of times an adventure can get super derailed for failing certain checks like following tracks, convincing an NPC to do a thing, opening the ONE entrance to the next area.

Pathfinder adventures are mostly railroads, they expect events to happen in a certain orders so of course you don't need "Welp, guess the adventure is over because of a bad roll"/"This has resulted in creating an epic sidequest/contrived alternative solution".


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

A once per minute one action Phantasmal Killer? YEESH. I was worried magic items were going to have either their power or their frequency cut back with resonance gone, but clearly that fear was misplaced.

gwynfrid wrote:

The list of conditions isn't much shorter than in the playtest (1 less if my count is right) but it's been greatly clarified, by removing redundancy and unclear language. Well done.

Examples:
- The playtest had Drained and Enervated, now down to Drained.
- The playtest had Accelerated and Quick, now down to Quickened.
- The playtest had Entangled, Hampered, Slowed and Sluggish. This is now just Clumsy and Slowed.
- The playtest had Asleep and Unconscious, this was simplified to just Unconscious.
- The language used for degrees of concealment (Hidden, Unnoticed, etc) is also more clear than the playtest's (Sensed, Unseen).

Huh, I'm a little bummed we lost Hampered and Accelerated, as those never felt hard to track. In general, the PF2 rulebook seems to be cutting back on the playtest traits and keywords in favor of redundant text that is easier to understand. But I mourn the page count loss these concession cost for new content. Hopefully little things like "basic saving throws" make up for it.

I'm also curious what happened to Enervated. That was a complicated condition, but also a pretty iconic one between the spell and creatures that inflicted it.

Guess we're back to losing a full level of experience :p Then you don't need Enervated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
I’m not against making some simple generic feats that build off weapon proficiency and give classes some more options but I also don’t think it’s required given that basic competency is so high now.

The thread has been through this. Indeed it is not "required" to be effective in combat, but it is required to materialize your character concept. If you're some Rogue sniper archer you want some archery feats but you don't have access to any. You are competent even without any of these feats, but does that make you "The archer rogue"? Only in your imagination if you aren't picking options to reinforce it. Will someone who looks at the character sheet immediately figure out how your character plays? To some players, this has a lot of value. Many modern RPGs don't allow this anymore and it's why they have chosen Pathfinder.

So by making a lot of feats unnecessary, it made it harder to realize builds/concepts mechanically. Keep in mind you can still realize many other concepts, but only that your class specifically allows. So you can be an Archer Fighter or Ranger, but not Rogue anymore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
Had a question about changes in animal companion, the answer was that was mostly like 1.6 version of the playtest but they polished the different types of animal companion (like cats, bear and etc).

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't think this thread right now is about "My druid can't specialize in archery" so much as "There's no resource to add some non-druid stuff to my druid (replace druid with any class) at a reasonable time." Certainly general feats exist but don't have the necessary options and you don't even get one at lv1. The other option is archetypes, but they are too slow and quickly begin costing a lot of "Druid" abilities in exchange for getting your 1 thingy.

Essentially, there is 1 dimension of character customization currently missing from the rules that did exist in PF1. PF2 added skill feats and ancestry feats to open up new avenues, but they don't replace the need to have a combat feat every now and then to flesh out a concept. I realize they're merged into class feats but you have to wonder if your Druid/Fighter with 0 Druid feats is even a Druid anymore. This wasn't a problem before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^^^ I really liked the Playtest Bestiary guidelines. It's clear this is an issue they wanted to iron out early. Now the only issue is making it make sense in some contexts since some monsters are very unlikely to have companions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Aiden2018 wrote:
You've lost interest in playing a monk because they need a turn to prepare for combat?
It sounds like they lost interest in Stance Savant as a fix for Mountain Stance incentivizing low dex; so their main issue of lower AC on the first turn of combat is still relevant.
Yep, you nailed it: it's an awesome feat but it comes online about the very end of where my games wind down [levels 8-12].
I wouldn't assume games wind down at 8th -12th levels in PF2. Perhaps this structure makes for better, more natural scaling.

I don't think it's "the game breaks down into insanity" so much as it's very difficult to maintain a cohesive party/story going on for this long. The longer you go, the more likely it's the campaign will fall apart due to IRL stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
emky wrote:


I'm concerned about the ability scores being so tightly integrated with race and class. Does it limit roleplaying character viability/straightjacket choices? Is a high charisma fighter/leader still doable? Or a strong-enough Sorcerer who fights at closer ranges?

*Along side of "alchemist and goblin are absolutely not core races; they're extraordinarily setting-specific".

As a longtime 1e player I can tell you those character concepts are way more viable now than before since the Ability Score distribution system rewards more spreading out and you don't need huge investment to max out your god stat.

For your second point: PF2 is a setting-specific RPG. It can be used for homebrew but that won't be an excuse to limit the hardcover content anymore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
I'm not quite sure why it's a bad thing for a high level character to pick up a feat and gain a bunch of cool benefits. They're quite literally 'legendary' after all.

Because I thought one of the cool parts of a scaling feat was that you watched it evolve together with your PC rather than jumping straight to the capstone. The other benefit, of course, would be to prevent it from becoming underwhelming at high levels.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

NEO WOLF FANG FIST!!! AWOOOOOOOO~


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do agree that scaling skill feats can get a bit silly in specific scenarios. They sound amazing if you are taking them at the earliest opportunity and slowly see the feat grow. But imagine you're legendary in acrobatics and you grab a skill feat at like level 17. You suddenly get all of the powers instantly!

It's probably not that bad, but I can imagine it being silly depending on the feats. Having to work your way up from the first one made for sense as "organic" development, even if you call them "Feat Tax".


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually happy with the carrying capacity being relevant this time around. For too long have people dumped STR and gotten away with no repercussions because of how hard the old system was to track. Not to mention that example with carrying Full Plate + Entire warehouse worth of items is ridiculous when you really think about it.

Videogames have really changed the perception of this... I actually thought it was kinda cool how you'd figure out the logistics in old games. Had to have mules or henchmen carrying your stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

I wonder if part of the disconnect is that the two editions are assuming a different level of base competence.

This post got away from me and is way longer than I started out, whoops.

In PF1 if you weren't picking up combat feats and you didn't have a full 1:1 BAB, you just didn't have the stats to keep up, even with weapons you were trained in. Even if you did have a full BAB, if you weren't picking up combat feats you were likely to be not pulling your full weight in a combat encounter.

In PF2 it seems that you have a better baseline of competence and won't have to make such mandatory feats masquerading as choices.

In PF1 if you are a Wizard then using a weapon is basically an act of desperation. In PF2 it might not be the best choice, but it doesn't appear to be a terrible one either.

I dunno... Playtest was already rightly accused of expected a very high "floor" of competence from PCs before they can contribute to fights. This applies specially to Spellcasters, who need to squeeze every possible advantage so their spells actually work on level-appropriate enemies.

Sure, the wizard may only be at like -3 to hit compared to the Ranger when it was a lot more in PF1, but then you realize the ranger is only hitting on an 11+ so you still suck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Some Kind of Chymist wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Iakhovas's background is one of the parts of him that is most difficult to quantify here. He and his sister were used for their blood by a vampire—the sister of a Blood Lord of Geb—until the vampire overfed and killed his sister, breaking him free of his domination and leading him to stake the vampire while she slept. Then wanted for murder, he escaped Geb and joined the Pathfinders, trading his loyalty for the promise of asylum. He is certainly a criminal in Geb, and criminal is a background, but he hasn't really lived the life of a criminal, so the mechanical elements wouldn't make much sense. Laborer is normally a good choice for characters enslaved by evil creatures, but that background is about a life of manual labor, and Iakhovas was kept around for his blood. My other options are acolyte, acrobat, animal whisperer, artisan, artist, barkeep, barrister, bounty hunter, charlatan, detective, emissary, entertainer, farmhand, field medic, fortune teller, gambler, gladiator, guard, herbalist, hermit, hunter, martial disciple, merchant, miner, noble, nomad, prisoner, sailor, scholar, scout, street urchin, tinker, or warrior.

Emphasis mine.

Lawyers, we can play lawyers now; clerics of Abadar just got even cooler.

I wonder what skill it grants, diplomacy? intimidation? society? deception? thievery??

Of Abadar? Nah. This is for clerics of Lord Asmodeus.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I do agree some class features like Woodland stride should be either automatic or use up a skill-feat slot. Actually spreading the class stuff to skill feat region opens up a lot of customization for some of the low-power abilities. Trapfinding is another good example that has been mentioned, but even stuff like Tongue of the Sun and Moon for high level monks would be a good skill feat since no way in hell it's gonna compete vs combat class feats.

Feat siloing now allows characters to be more well-rounded than before, but I think it can be expanded further to get some off the heavy load off the almighty class feat resource since Skill Feats right in the playtest were kinda garbage. You could even do this with ancestry feats like Catfolk Rogues had in 1e.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

O_O NOW EACH DAY WILL FEEL LIKE AN ETERNITY!

1 to 50 of 642 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>