Vimanda

ClanPsi's page

116 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

I suspect we'll see Cackle remain as sustaining a single effect as a default, though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a feat or ability to alter this as suggested, if only for your hexes. This upgrade is quite potent (getting extra Sustains is currently rated as a 16th level feat), but could be an interesting niche for Witches in general as the sustain caster.

They already got an ability in this niche as the 20th level feat Echoing Cackle, which automatically sustained your hexes for an entire minute with a single Cackle, but that doesn't necessarily preclude them exploring the space earlier. I think that 10th level would be about fair to start getting multi-sustain, albeit just limited to hexes. It would certainly enable them to push hexes a little harder, and explore cantrip hexes as well, since you couldn't really multiclass to abuse this.

What I really want to see, though, is the option to add riders to Cackle. A feat that enables you to Demoralise as a free action following Cackle would be highly thematic and quite potent.

I like both of these ideas! I think 10th level is bit late, I'd probably make it 6th or 8th. I definitely like the idea of adding debuffs to Cackle itself, too.


When I first read the rules for Cackle I thought it sustained all sustainable spells at once, so I thought it was really interesting and unique. Then I read it again and realised that isn't the case. I think my version is better. What do you think? Should Paizo change it for the full release to be like what I originally understood it as?


I just read through the creature creation rules and I must admit, they're pretty useless. It gives a very basic description of each template trait, but doesn't actually tell you what anything is.

Take Demons as an example. It says they have Sin Vulnerabilities and Sin Abilities, but it doesn't actually tell you what they are. The exact quote is: "Sin Ability Demons also have a special ability based on the sin they represent, which either makes them better embody the sin or instills that sin in others."

Are you just supposed to make something up? If so, what is the point of the book in the first place? Why not just bullsh!t everything about a creature and save yourself the money?

I don't get it.


Why only one level? Can we get a full Adventure Path?


So... did Paizo just forget to finish the statblock for Ooze then? Kinda makes you wonder if anyone actually proofread this game.


A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that are flanking it.

Flanking is no longer a buff you get, but rather now results in the flat-footed debuff condition that the flanked creature receives. If it's now a condition, why does it only apply to some attackers? It's the only condition that is selective like that and kind of breaks Paizo's own rules. If a creature is flanked and has the flat-footed condition, that condition should apply across the board. Thoughts?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we get alternate casting rules for all casters, please? Vancian magic blows.


Krugus wrote:
Here are the changes I've made to my homebrewed campaign, just follow the LINK

Some of these changes are really good. Paizo should have hired you to help with the CRB.


I suggest you check out this dude's homebrew:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/dq86us/the_elementalist_a_ki neticistinspired_class_for/

It's pretty good.

In fact, you should contact him direct and work together to make the best Kineticist you can as a team. That'd be absolutely amazing.


Samurai wrote:


If "prepared casters" could freely heighten spells the way the spontaneous casters can AND freely change their memorized spell list every day, then what makes them "prepared", and why would anyone ever choose to play a spontaneous caster?

That's why I think Sorcerers and Bards need more unique and interesting abilities. I personally don't think they should ONLY have spontaneous casting to differentiate them. 5e was a step in the right direction for Sorcs, especially the Wild Magic idea. I was really hoping PF2 would expand on that concept and make them even more unique. I was sorely disappointed by Paizo's inconceivable laziness.


Spontaneous Caster ability idea:

Since Spontaneous Heighten is now a useless ability, how about...

After 8 hours rest, choose up to two spells from your spell list whose levels add up to half your level. You can cast those spells as if they were in your repertoire for the day.


That sounds fantastic. I don't really like what you did with prepared casters, but it's small enough change. Could you link to the document, please? <3


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's be honest here, PF2's magic system is... not good. 5e isn't a great system for customisation, but it got magic right. It took what was great about the PF1 Arcanist and expanded upon it.
How would you fix PF2's magic system to be more in-line with modern game design? Here are some of my ideas:

1) All spells which can be heightened are spontaneously heightenable.
2) Spontaneous casters don't need to re-learn higher level versions of the same spells.
3) Prepared casters are able to use their spell slots to cast whatever spells they've prepared. Not prepare-per-cast like it is now.
4) Spontaneous casters need new abilities to make them more unique and interesting, especially Bard.

The first three are easy enough to implement, but #4 is a bit of a doozy. Does anyone here have any suggestions?


Aservan is 100% correct. It isn't really up to DM discretion. All you need is Line of Effect to cast a spell, unless stated specifically by the spell. That means you can blind-cast whatever you want, as long as it doesn't require you to specifically choose targets and the point you want the spell to emiate from isn't behind total cover (or behind a wall or something).


So... am I right, or...?
I'm specifically asking with respect to AoE spells. For example, can you cast a fireball into a darkness spell? If yes, does it originate from the point you choose but can't see?


As the subject implies, what are the rules for casting spells into darkness, magical or otherwise? Most spells require a target, whether it's a creature, object or point in space. The best I can find is to roll a 50% miss chance or lose the spell. Is that correct?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Seriously, just make an errata page on your website and update it every week. There's absolutely no good reason to make us wait so long. It's 2019, not 1989.


*I posted this in another thread, but thought it might deserve its own.*

I was under the impression that the activity you do during Exploration Mode is used to determine your initiative at the start of a battle. Specifically, the roll you make to determine how good you are at that activity is also your initiative roll. That's how my group has been doing it and it works fantastically well - combat starts so organically - but it appears we may be playing it wrong.
Under Avoid Notice it says to make a separate Stealth roll at the beginning of combat to use as your initiative. Why? That character has already rolled a Stealth check. Why are they rolling another one? Am I fundamentally misunderstanding something? How do you play it?


I was under the impression that the activity you do during Exploration Mode is used to determine your initiative at the start of a battle. Specifically, the roll you make to determine how good you are at that activity is also your initiative roll. That's how my group has been doing it and it works fantastically well - combat starts so organically - but it appears we may be playing it wrong.
Under Avoid Notice it says to make a separate Stealth roll at the beginning of combat to use as your initiative. Why? That character has already rolled a Stealth check. Why are they rolling another one? Am I fundamentally misunderstanding something?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Pathfinder Second Edition does not include one single sentence or rule carried over directly from first edition."

Except for, you know, the entire prepared casting system. It's straight out of the year 2000.


Claxon wrote:

Another way to think of it, is if you apply the "over other diagonal costs 10ft" rule then 10ft reach should only reach the corner adjacent to your character. 15ft would get the second corner from your character. 20ft gets 3 (5+10+5). 30 gets 4 (5+10+5+10).

But 10ft gets an exception because it has a weird consequence that others don't, which is getting past someones reach without provoking.

So what you're saying is that I'm right and the other two are wrong, since that's exactly what I've been saying.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

p455 it says: "Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally; 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 25-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

I believe it should read: "... 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

Counting diagonally:
5+10+5+10+...

5 feet
15 feet (exception)
20 feet
30 feet


@ShadowShackleton Oh okay, thanks for the clarification. It's good to hear from an actual developer on the matter. I'm glad you're here to give us a definitive answer. -_-

@SuperBidi Is there a FAQ? The only one I know about was during a live stream a few weeks ago.


shroudb wrote:


it all depends when you start to add 5 or when you start to add 10 ft to the diagonals.

since we have the "10ft reach is 2, 20 ft is 3, 25ft is 4, etc" quote, it's just that:

natural reach: 1 diagonal
10ft reach(+5): 2 diagonals
20ft reach (+10): 3 diagonals
25ft reach (+5): 4 diagonals
35ft reach (+10): 5
40ft reach (+5): 6
etc

so it does follow the expected progression.

Why would you count 10 as +5, though? It says "normally after 10 feet." Normally after 10 feet would imply that 10 is 0, which would be:

15ft reach (+5): 3 diagonals
25ft reach (+10): 4 diagonals
30ft reach (+5): 5

Since that's absolutely ridiculous, it's a lot more sensible to presume that Paizo just made a typing error, especially considering the inconceivably large number of other mistakes throughout the CRB.


shroudb wrote:

Grid distance diagonally goes by 5-10-5-10-etc

The part of the sentence you cut:
"Unlike with measuring most distances, 10-foot reach can reach 2 squares diagonally"

Sets an exception.

And then continues to explain that AFTER the exception, Reach is measured like Range.

Hence 25 and not 30

If that were true then 15 feet would be 3 squares and 25 feet would be 4 squares, since it would be 5-10-5-10 starting from 10 feet. It specifically calls out 20 feet, though, which seems to point more towards my interpretation being the intended result.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Personally, I'd endeavor to never use a spell as a second attack because I really want it to land, especially if I'm burning a slot. So this doesn't seem like it will come up very much anyway.

Probably not that often. I was thinking of the situation where you take down an enemy adjacent to you with your first action and want to cantrip something at range afterwards.


That's pretty silly.

Can you give a page number, please?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On p455 it says: "Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally; 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 25-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

I believe it should read: "... 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

Speaking of which, why is there no thread for posting mistakes for future erratas? Paizo, please add one.


I know that attack spells contribute to MAP, but since they essentially just involve waiving your hands around, are they considered agile? For example, if you attack with a sword with your first action, would your second and third actions being used as a spell attack be at -4? It seems like the most sensible conclusion given that unarmed attacks and light weapons are all agile.


Why would they be worse? I bought these specifically for the pictures to help my students understand what each condition is.


Why would they be worse? I bought these expecting them to be similar.


I just got the condition Cards pack. I was led to believe each card was going to have nice Goblin art on them, but mine show nothing but text. WTF is going on?


A description of what each special material does is on p.578


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's why I'm wondering if it's a printing error. It seems like the bit about resting should have been added a lot earlier and not at level 19.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ability lets a Ranger sleep in light or medium armour without being fatigued the next day. That's cool. Why is this ability level 19? The campaign is ending in two sessions by the time you get it. The Ranger should get this ability at level 1.


This article begs the question: How long until Hobgoblins and Bugbears get playable stats?


Steve Geddes wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
It's been great 10 years Varisia, but you've been done to death.
There'll never be enough Varisia material for me.

The Lost Omens world book was announced a couple of months ago. Did you miss it?


With Paizo using OGL, how does Intellectual Property work with respect to classes in their books? Some dude is charging real money for a 5e conversation of the Slayer class in the APG. Isn't that illegal? Wizards seems perfectly okay with it, but they are pretty much pond scum.

https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/276205


Thank you very much for the heads up!

bookdepository is cheaper for Japan, but I don't know about other countries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:

Arcanist-style spellcasting, exclusive NPC classes for all playable ancestries...

That's what I can think up as of now.

YES! Prepared spellcasters should have been this from the start. All spells should be spontaneously heightenable, too.

Of course, this would require Sorcerers to get more unique abilities, which I'm all for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems from the wording of the DM that you still have to prepare each individual casting of a spell, and that you have to decide at the beginning of the day whether or not you want to prepare a spell at a higher spell level.
Again, I hope I'm wrong, but if this is the case... that is SO BAD!!! >_<


I was going to contact directly, but I figured I'm not the only one with this problem, so hopefully starting a thread helps more people.

What is the best way to go about getting the English version of the 2e books in August while living in a non-English speaking country? I live in Japan, so every TRPG book I've seen sold in stores is always in Japanese. Ordering from Canada or the US is possible, but international shipping is often quite pricey. Are we able to order directly from you and not have to pay international shipping? I'd be willing to pre-order now in order for you to group my English books in together with the larger shipment of Japanese books.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Even 5E has Medium playable dragons from the start (albeit without wings and breath severely limited), PF2 should have at least a Small one as soon as possible!

Dragonborn are the single worst thing in D&D. They're nothing but an appeasement of whiny nerds crying that they couldn't play a dragon PC without taking a 10-level prestige class. I don't want that sh*t anywhere near Pathfinder.


Biztak wrote:


Except that in 5e a level 1 can hit a lvl 20 enemy with AC 20 a good 25 percent of the time.

So? In PF1, a level 1 Wizard can hit a level 20 enemy with TAC 9 an astonishing 75% of the time. What's your point?

Mathmuse wrote:
The struggle to use that 20% maxed out features as often as possible hid the treadmill in PF1. Every opponent had a weakness where they were not maxed out and one style of combat especially common among wizards who targeted saving throws was to figure out...

I really hope they've addressed this, because they fundamentally failed at this in the playtest. None of the monsters felt unique and interesting at all, and none had any interesting abilities. I routinely thought: "Okay, what cool thing can they do this turn. ... alright, I guess I'll just attack. -_-"


TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Sure, these numbers are rough and only based on what little i know about the system, but you can see which feels more epic and fun

My problem with this is I've personally experienced having a super OP character who just destroys everything (Thanks, Bloodrager. You broke PF1) and it isn't fun. Like, at all. It's extremely boring when there's no challenge or threat, so the kobolds existing at all in the second part of your example is stupid and pointless. With +level to everything, every single enemy in the game is a single-use paper plate. You use it once, then throw it away. It's awful game design.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
... However, removing +level should be very easy to do for those who wish to do so.

That's actually a really good idea! I just checked the Beastiary and it gives the level of the monster in the description. For example, Banshee are Uncommon Monster 13, so it's easy enough to just minus 13 from everything. Nice!


I haven't heard anything, but I sure hope so. Proficiency is more than enough. Just have UTEML at 0-2-4-6-8 and leave it at that. It'd be so clean and nice.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I pretty much agree with you 100%. I love the action system, and class feats are a neat idea, but I capital-h HATE how everything in the game scales with level. It's the most boring, uninspired design I've ever seen. As others here have mentioned, I also hate feat taxes. Why feats are pretty much the only thing in the game which don't scale with level is beyond my understanding.

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>