Catfolk

ChibiNyan's page

1,334 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
shroudb wrote:
how do you "seed" a dungeon with consumables when crafting the consumables in the first place is, economy-wise, a TERRIBLE decision by the crafter.
Not specifically consumables, but I've always had a similar issue. There are a lot of items that are just bad, so who is making them? Where are these Rods of Wonder coming from? There can't be any significant demand for them, they're useless items that only gets printed because it's iconic and produced a few chuckles back in the 70s. Or my favorite punching bag for this edition, the Bracers of Missile Deflection. They're crap, a mundane shield is much better, who would want one? So who's making all the stuff that your party immediately says "It's useless, sell it," and who's buying it?

Game designers trying to "balance" are the ones making the items. As for who's buying? not many people. Gotta see things from a gamist standpoint for these.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it's not the worst with running reload, precision style and the feat that makes the crossbow hit 2 targets in a line. You need to put all on 1 big attack per turn, which is pretty likely to hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I loved the concept of this archetype! But it had some big glaring flaws that could now be fixed.

We might get it back someday, but it doesn't look like anytime soon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Would have liked Air to be slashing for the RAZOR WINDS!


Almost everything after level 5~ has a low Reflex Save in the Bestiary. Monsters just get bigger and badder and start getting slower. It is at low levels versus Goblin, Kobolds and other tiny/medium people where you see most of the creatures with good Reflex.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
The thing I can't wrap my head around is why Investigator beat Inquisitor to release...
Because of the urban AP that's launching alongside it, and since Oracle was in as well they didn't want to do two Divine classes. Plus more Alchemical stuff.
Not only urban, but one where you literally play police officers in Absalom. Including the Investigator before they do the actual detective story AP seems like kind of a must.

Maybe it'll be enough to get someone to pick that class. It was one of the most unpopular of all in my opinion since it was very janky and had small impact on Combat situations (Pretty much unavoidbale in APs/PFS).

Not sure it'll be worth it in the long term unless it comes out awesome this time around. If it's anything like before it would fade into obscurity as soon as that AP stops being relevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IIRC the current price formula is the way it is to prevent players from affording items well above their level. If consumables were so cheap, you might see people buying Potions/Scrolls of Fly and other powerful spells from really low level. I guess there's a danger these items could mess things up?


Berhagen wrote:
graystone wrote:
Berhagen wrote:
You do realize that horses are usually a lot bigger and heavier than almost any kind of bear?

Tiger and raptor are on small too. And the bears they list range from 130 lbs to 1000. Getting at least some medium animals would have been nice.

Berhagen wrote:
I agree alternate mounts would be preferable, but the size of a horse does make sense
I don't think anyone has said otherwise: it's more that all the small sizes don't make the same kind of sense. Your smallest adult polar bears are 5.5' long and 330 lbs and a 8 month old cub is 100 pounds.
Didn’t realize the bear was at small...... indeed that does not make sense........

Flashbacks to first edition where this was the case forever and only got fixed in 2017!


Arachnofiend wrote:
Increase the item bonus from mutagens by 1 when the Mutagenist drinks them. That makes it so that mutagens aren't any better or worse when given to someone else, but it also makes making mutagens for yourself feel like less of a waste of effort.

This would be cool since the mutagens seem balanced for martials rather than alchemist chassis. Also people who pick mutagenist kind of wanna kick the ass themselves.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

After re-reading a lot of stuff, I feel like it boils down to what you want to focus on a gish kind of class. If you go caster first, you'll be behind +2 to hit if your stats are maxed. The cost is 1-3 general feats and 2 class feats for weapon expertise. But that nets you a full caster progression and just +2 modifier to hit in regard to accuracy.

The alternative if going martial first and start with higher weapon and armor proficiencies, but in return you'd have to pay up to 5 class feats to play catch up, lagging behind both spell levels and spell slots despite paying more class feats. But you get +2 or +4 to hit depending on which martial. Each has own appeal. I personally value 2 more spell slots in each level, as well as access to 9th and 10th level spells more than +2 to hit.

I personally don't value 2 spell slots of any spell level more than +2 to hit. Think spells are being overrated a lot, being a full caster doesn't mean THAT much this time around. True Strike, Shield and Haste is probably all you need to get from the Wizard multiclass (+ Bespell weapon). You could argue for some other stuff like Fly and Invis, but you're not gonna get a lot of mileage of most of the spell list, and you wouldn't want to anyways as a Fighter/Wizard, hitting with a sword wins a fight better than those options.

Given this divide in opinion, there isn't a lot more to discuss with you.

As for people saying 50%+ most of the time is unreasonable, pretty much every character in the game can. It may take flanking or one of your in-class buffs/debuffs/gimmicks, but you'll do it in practice.
Saying 50% is the same as "hitting on a 2" is pretty silly, 11 is not 2, or even close.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackest Sheep wrote:

As I said in the other thread, you need to campare wizard-fighter with fighter-wizard. The latter is the one you want for smacking bad guys while also casting the occasional spell.

Magus and/or more archetypes will probably get you closer to what you im ah imagine.

Future archetypes will also make this concept more realizable, yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that there doesn't seem to be any good Wizard/Fighter builds at this time either. It's like... You pick up a sword but you suck at it so just stick to spells, all you did was throw feats to the garbage. Is there situations when you'll be like "Oh, good thing I invested in some melee prowess?" Maybe just vs Golems or things like that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

What might be useful for people responding to the initial premise is:

- what is your definition of “viable”.

Because it seems to differ from many people responding. What exactly is the threshold for becoming “viable”?

- what is your vision of what an eldritch knight should be able to do? It sounds like it is casting combat buff spells on themselves to boost their power with a weapon? Is that right ?

I ask the second question because your common response to many suggested tactics seems to be something to the effect of (paraphrased) ‘that is wizard behaviour not eldritch knight behaviour”

So once again another case of your definition being different to the people replying. Which is fine but is probably the cause of circular discussions ...

I'm now John Lynch, but I have read this thread and all of this has been answered already.

1- Viable means your basic routine every turn can get at least a 50% success rate against a Level+2 enemy. Does not mean it has to be without any buffs or setup, just that you can have it when it matters.

2- This EK is not supposed to blast enemies. They are supposed to setup buffs/debuffs and then go to town in melee after. Their DPR is gonna be with a sword, not fireballs, spells are just a way to enhance the melee.
They are behind a martial, but are able to use spells to close the gap for a fight or two in a linear manner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It says only for the purpose of determining your proficiency. But they still count as Martial weapons for everything else, so no boost.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bond Conservation is nowhere near as reliable as you think. Need to spend several turns without moving or being able to do anything besides cast spells with that feat.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Going straight Barbarian, multiclassing into Fighter, then grabbing Double Slice makes for one of the highest DPR builds in the game (specifically, I believe to get as high as possible you go Giant Totem and dual wield oversized, non-agile, weapons).

I'd definitely do this as a Half Orc with two necksplitters, because that sounds super neat and mechanically powerful to boot.

Have high doubts of this DPR claim. The -2 from not using an agile weapon cannot be easily made up with a damage boost. It'd have to be like +12 damage to be even worth considering taking a voluntary -2. DPR of this build is probably ok, but doubt higher than a pure Fighter/Ranger using TWF normally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't even notice he wasn't in, Hound is one of the most commonly used Archons so they are usually among the first to come out! Been running Hell's Vengeance and you see these dogs all the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

What worries me is that it seems the dedications are only good for pushing the weapon into Expert/Master territory down the line, which are not going to be issues at level 2 (except the fighter). Everyone else who gets them will be seeing no benefits whatsoever for several levels unless they delay picking it.

Feel as if they could have put something else to make it attractive at low level, specially if your character concept is to get everything from the archetype.

This is a very good point, too. A character receiving only a delayed feat from a feat they invest in early on is being screwed out of an immediate, tangible benefit.

Yeah, it's a delayed benefit but on the very first feat of the line. At level 5 it's probably already worth it for +2 on an advanced weapon but still, you're not doing anything until then because spent all your feats on getting proficiencies.


What worries me is that it seems the dedications are only good for pushing the weapon into Expert/Master territory down the line, which are not going to be issues at level 2 (except the fighter). Everyone else who gets them will be seeing no benefits whatsoever for several levels unless they delay picking it.

Feel as if they could have put something else to make it attractive at low level, specially if your character concept is to get everything from the archetype.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

People really complaining about how other classes can be Aldori Duelist/Red Mantis Here. Those builds are not really meant for most classes anyways, PF1 Aldoris were pretty much always Fighter or Swashbuckler and Red Mantis were Rogue, Ranger or Warpriest. When Achaekek gets published there'll be an easy way for Clerics to gain the Sawtooth saber proficiency, though they won't really need the dedication go get Expert on it.

If you want to use them on a class that's not really meant for it, well, of course it's gonna be tricky and out of place. It's more of a lore limitation than anything, really, which is fine for me. The fact that an archetype is generic doesn't mean it's for everyone, as long as two classes could use it that's good enough excuse to make it open and just set difficult requirements.

We might even get some archetype down the line with "Powerful Fist" requirement...


Intimidate is the obvious one when 2 groups start shouting at each other before the encounter begins!

Bandits: Surrender your valuables!
Fighter: I'll give you my sword, TO YOUR FACE!

Roll initiative!


I'm preeeetty sure they do stack! That could be really strong since there's not many ways o improve those rolls.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Call it a nerf or not, the Wizard is weaker than what we have been analyzing in this forum so far. The results were already pretty weak.

I'm keeping that feat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Should at least errata that flavor text then, since it is misleading, all balance concerns aside.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weapon Specialization, which adds bonus damage to them.


Wait, so you are able to use Wild Morph while already Polymorphed (With wild shape or a spell) to gain additional stuff on your form?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed that we wouldn't need so many archetypes if the regular multiclass ones actually did their job at making you actually competent with the stuff they're supposed to.

We'll probably get a duelist Archetype that can get you Expert with the Rapier by level 11, and one that gives you some armor you want.
Could have just been Fighter multiclass with feats to boost specific weapon/group/armor. Might even get one to boost unarmored defense/unarmed proficiency that could have been in Monk. Some are going to be really similar to the current multiclass ones, I bet.

Current ones are really broad and you end up getting a buncha stuff you don't want, which causes it to all be weaker to compensate for the variety. I believe people will stop using them once there's other archetypes that let them achieve their character concept more narrowly (And more powerful).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll agree this rule kinda feels.. "tacked on" even if it's been that way since the Playtest. It´s easy to theorycraft all these scenarios but in practice most of them are very gimmicky and it's gonna be perception/stealth 9 times out of 10 when a combat is supposed to begin(Not in the middle of using skills for non-combat stuff). Can't imagine a Tracking attempt starting a fight unless you crit fail it, for example.

One I can think of that might actually happen is Intimidate for when the enemies show up and banter/threaten the party before actually attacking. A lot of combat vs other civilized humanoids is going to have some talking prior to the start, limiting the choices.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yeah, the weird assumption here is that most checks you make will be on-level checks. They won't.

I mean, I just went through Hellknight Hill looking at skill DCs. There are certainly on-level, and even above level, checks to make, but they are not the majority of important skill checks. Not even close. Most checks are below level (or, depending on point of view, on-level but with the -2 or -5 for being easy applied).

I remember reading, don't know if on the Playtest CRB or current CRB, where the DC tables are, something like this:

"The party should mostly face Medium challenges for their level"


It happens during the

Spoiler:
Hell's Rebels Adventure Path, which ran form like 2015-2016, so it would be the equivalent of 4715 in Golarion or whatever was 3-4 years ago.


Everwinter wrote:

I still find the Divine Font to be the strangest part of the 2E cleric. Wisdom caster has one of their biggest abilities based on their charisma modifier? No other class does this, and it grates.

Rant aside, regarding the two doctrines I prefer cloistered cleric. Warpriest feels like a watered down wannabe Champion. Frankly with general feats to get armor the cloistered cleric, especially for gods who have two handed favored weapons so shields won't mean s$$@, loses almost no ground to the warpriest in the martial combat department while getting some nice magic bonuses. Not to mention if you play a human you can get two domains at first level, so two focus spells and two focus points.

I'm actually playing a human cloistered cleric right now, my group used the playtest rules for a homebrewed Egyptian campaign so we just remade our characters with the full rules between sessions. At level 4 I have the sun and healing domains and I'm doing quite well in combat. I can flashbang people, heal like nobody's business, and hold my own just fine in melee with a two handed longsword as my deities favored weapon (Technically reskinned as Khopesh). It's still a good all around class, but I think they were entirely justified in scaling back the cleric from the one man army it ended up as in 1E.

You do realize Warpriest gets Expert weapons and armor before lv10? Has a +2 to attack and AC that the Cloistered Cleric is gonna be very hard-pressed to overcome if he's using the general feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

I've brought up this issue with Skill Increases several times during the Playtest, but yeah it's an issue and it's deliberate.

There's no real way to diversify your Skill Increases, and personally, I was hoping that once you reached the appropriate proficiency threshold (Expert -> Master -> Legendary), that you would get a "bonus" increase for Skill Increases laterally.

Basically, when you get an increase that would take Expert -> Master or Master -> Legendary, you also get a "bonus" Skill Increase for Trained -> Expert or when Master -> Legendary a "bonus" Skill Increase for any Trained -> Expert or Expert -> Master.

Or something of that nature. You could even tie the "bonus" Skill Increases to Intelligence in some way (perhaps modifier increases with a minimum of 1).

As of right now, you're encouraged to shove all your increases in a small subset of Skills so that only those Skills advance due to Proficiency Tier requirements on Skill Feats.

Right now Skills at 20th level look as you've said:

X Untrained
Y Trained
0 Expert
0 Master
3 Legendary

What would make far more sense is:

X Untrained
Y Trained
4 Expert
3 Master
3 Legendary

I would say just create new Skill Feats or General Feats to supplement the issue for increases, but ultimately there isn't enough to spend to solve the problem (IMO).

Personally would have loved to see Int matter more in that regard, but I assume Int based classes were the reasoning against (though if you dropped initial Training numbers down, I think the Int Mod would work).

As is, I wouldn't call it "bad" so much as it to me is unrealistic that a 20th level Fighter is Legendary in Athletics, Acrobatics, and Intimidate but is then untrained or trained in the rest of his skills (and thus can't really use many of them at higher level).

This is the same issue Proficiency is suffering from across Proficiency sharing as well, it's too hard to keep up with number inflation related to opposing the scores at higher levels.

This is a much bigger issue to me than the DCs. Characters start with broad competence but end up with only 3 real skills pretty early in, and it carries all the way to level 20. Only Rogue is Safe from this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighter can Cleave and do some stuff to multiple targets too, not many, but at least 2. He's going to see very good gains from being put into that situation of fighting multiple books, and will be doing it for free. I wouldn't want to cast my max level chain lightning unless it's a "tough" encounter.

Seems like maybe the Single target damage spells gotta be revised, at least.
One would think that a wizard saving "the big one" to use on the boss would be a smart idea, but from what we are seeing, it's not really competitive at all even if it's only a once or twice a day resource.

I'm of the philosophy that casting the highest level spell in the entire party should be the most powerful turn anyone can do, regardless of if it's AOE, Single Target, Buff or anything else. You have very few of these and knowing when to drop it should be a big part of playing a spellcaster.

So yeah, am not super satisfied that your "Big one" is equal to or worse than the other party member's "basic routine" in a lot of scenarios.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Yeah, I've yet to make a character that I didn't want to excel in at least one of Intimidation, Diplomacy, or Deception.
As all are forms of coercion, I wish they just wrapped them up, like Unchained did: Influence (you can role-play in which manner you coerce the NPCs).

yeah... no.

what's next? All knowledges being 1 skill "knowledge", all physical skills being "athletics" and etc?

*Looks at CRAFT*


citricking wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

Pretty much confirms my hypothesis that Fighter does comaparable damage in any given round than even the best blast available at that level. Main difference is Single target vs AOE.

Would like to see the burst damage of a caster just throwing the strongest spell under these same circumstances to get a more complete feel of this. There's not a lot of ways to optimize them, so should be straightforward.

That would be very easy to do if I just said damage for the AoE was 7 times spell level. But it's a little more complicated than that because spells get stronger with spell level, but not in such a simple way. Do you think I should just go 7*spell level? Or how could I incorporate that increase in power?

Pick the most obvious blast spell every time a new spell is unlocked, focusing on the highest raw damage. Like the poster above me said, there's not really that much variety in them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a thread right now showing average Martial damage at every level if you want to see for yourself. It is indeed not 70 at level 13, but Finger of Death is not doing 70 average damage, it's closer to 52~ against a lv13 enemy. They are surprisingly close!


Pretty much confirms my hypothesis that Fighter does comaparable damage in any given round than even the best blast available at that level. Main difference is Single target vs AOE.

Would like to see the burst damage of a caster just throwing the strongest spell under these same circumstances to get a more complete feel of this. There's not a lot of ways to optimize them, so should be straightforward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

A mean, a big thing about Cantrips is that they are literally free. You get them as spells known without additional expense, and they continue to upgrade them without spending money, unlike the archer who is going to spent at least 40,000 GP on their bow (likely much more) over the course of their career.

It would suck to play an archer if the cantrip blaster can be just as good as you at this with minimal investment.

How does the damage from blasting spells stack up to archers?
It depends. A True Strike boosted Disintegrate does quite a lot of expected damage.
I suspect caster damage gets pretty nutty once you get to the point your 1st level slots can just be True Strike.

Dunno, I've been pretty underwhelmed by the numbers on spells such as Flame Strike and Finger of Death, is it because they are Divine? An archer can probably do more damage in any one round than those spells at the level you get them.

Most blasts don't get to use True Strike, either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It does seem to do nothing unless you a are a Monk or Wizard that don't normally gain full proficiency on simple weapons, but yes on other stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's not a lot of skills in 2E. A Rogue will pretty much have all of the relevant ones trained right off the bat.

It does seem a bit silly, they could do with 1-2 less since they also have more skill increases. Let other party members shine too!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... Saying some classes are good for only the non-combat half of the game is pretty weird, everyone is supposed to contribute effectively in all modes of play this time around. It's why we got super empowered skills and skill feats.

Not to mention Pathfinder is one of the most combat-focused RPGs out there, not rare to have sessions where it makes up like 80%+ of the playing time using an Adventure Path.


I guess you can call the Sorc claws/vite"backup" weapons, but being your only focus spell for a few levels on the class that best regenerates focus points doesn't scream "backup" to me. These shouldn't really be your defining lv1 ability and instead be a feat you can pick if you want to build a melee sorcerer. The average one has no use for these, making them pretty bad at low levels despite being the most popular bloodlines thematically.

To get mileage out of the claws you'll need 16DEX and some form of AC increase. At level 11+ you'll need an unarmed prof. increase. As others have said, the sorcerer "chassis" is about the worst in the game to have this ability.


Gamerskum wrote:

maybe they are intended to be used with your spell attack roll when you have then active?

This would be really good and make them valuable. CHA to hit would go a LONG way! Maybe should make this a House Rule.


Wonder why Paizo keeps adding these powers that result in suicide half the time. Sorcs aren't hitting with them, just putting themselves in danger.

They're not really better at them than in PF1 with low BAB and having low ability score, it was a well known issue that these cool powers were so unusable for 10 years. They are very evocative abilities and I wish there was a way they weren't pretty much a "trap". Wish they got improved proficiency or enchants with these to make up for the difference.

It's not even that they're bad at lv11 like the thread title indicates, they are already bad at level 1, and at low levels it's pretty much their only "sorc" power... 11 is just another nail in the coffin, if you somehow didn't forget this ability existed by then.

Is their purpose to only be used by multiclassed monks and fighters?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Mostly boils down to the "viable" band being a lot tighter in PF2 right now compared to PF1. The best character you can make right now is going to be hitting like 60% of the time with their stuff. As soon as you deviate a bit to make something more flavorful, you are going to run into some -2s and suddenly your character feels really useless. A -2 did not use to feel so insurmountable before, but it just cripples your character right now. Being 50/50 (or worse) on whatever you built for is not very satisfying.


Pretty sure all bonuses and precision damage are all multiplied on a critical hit. But extra elemental rider damage form runes or effects will not.


It is the superior thesis, nobody has said otherwise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is why I was shocked they never got Master proficiency on weapons. Up until like lvl 10-11 they do keep up really well in attack/defense, but after that they just stop getting any proficiencies and become garbage at melee. Then you'll wish you were a Cloistered Cleric.


Spell attack rolls one is a bit worrying, it's never really over 50% and missing causes it to result in no effect whatsoever. Targeting will Save is in the 70s% success range on the other hand.

Removing touch AC has some consequences for sure.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Just for any simple weapon in general, rather than crossbows in particular, they are not going to be as powerful as a martial weapon. If they were, what's the point of having simple and martial weapons as a distinguishing feature between characters? When comparing them to bows, as in the OP, they are supposed to be weaker on the net; they are a category down. Now in PF1, due to the action economy, they were pretty terrible even when compared to other simple weapons. In PF2, they're quite solid for a simple weapon, which means worse than a martial.

If people think a weapon is cool, they will use it. Just give them the tools to build around it and they'll invest the feats if it can give an acceptable return! Crossbow Ace, for example, makes Crossbow a lot better than just a simple weapon. You can spend 1 feat for Martial weapon prof. So why not also one to make your simple weapon stack up? It just should be a bit more widely available.

This is pathfinder after all, every idea can work reasonably well once there's enough supplements out. Sounds way better than "This weapon was designed to suck forever".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ranger has some decent options even as he levels up. Near the end there is one that maximizes all damage dice for one shot, but at that point your crossbow is like 4d12+2d8 precision (multiplied on crit) +2 crossbow ace + whatever from weapon spec and runes. There's some ways to make the enemy flat-footed and even Deadly aim.. You're aiming for a jackpot crit by superloading 1 shot per turn. With penetrating shot you can nail 2 enemies with the 1 attack!

If you're not a Ranger then don't bother. Tis one of the issues of siloing feats: It's a big hurdle to access the only things that make Crossbow usable. (And Deadly simplicity, I guess!)

1 to 50 of 1,334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>