Corwin Icewolf's page

*** Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 471 posts (478 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 51 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 471 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Squiggit wrote:

tbh, I think part of the problem with executing the idea is that being freakishly strong is relatively mundane in Pathfinder.

There is an upper limit to how strong you can be and everyone who is strength-based is going to be exactly that level of strong. So being 'the strong guy' is only really an option if you're in a party with no other strong guys, because once you do those characters will be just as good as you purely because the game's math demands it.

Eeeh yeah, but they could still make like... A half giant style race that gets ancestry feats that gives you things like hefty hauler + bonus. And maybe a heritage that gives you some other strength related benefit.

You still wouldn't technically be over 18 strength, but there's room for workarounds that don't break the game and still let you feel like a strength beast is all I'm saying.


HumbleGamer wrote:

Aggressive advertising on Golarion would be like having npc with message wandering from town to town and harassing people in a similar way:

"Hey, are you happy with your current deity? New followers of XXXXXX gets an extra lvl 2 spell slot and +1 circ damage on all damaging spells for 24 sessions!"

"Tired of keep missing your attacks? The last time you scored a critical hit was for your birthday? Leave your old class and Join the fighter academy! With awesome weapon proficiency you'll be having +10% extra hit, critical hit and fun!"

GM: You're walking through the woods and suddenly you receive a sending spell. The message is: "we have been trying to reach you about your carriage's extended warran-ty."

Player: shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JstCurious wrote:

When I saw the Anadi, I instantly wanted to play one. Shapechanging, intelligent spider PC? Count me in! Reading the class though, even after the errata, they are a very nerfed ancestry (still playing one for my first pf2e game ever!).

While an amazing concept with some cool lore, it’s clear the developer(s) that came up with it never went through a period in their life where they found spiders fascinating. I’ve seen some in this post mention pedipalps, which is a good step, but no one has mentioned that spiders have 2 claws on every foot, and web weaving spiders have 3, which they use to grip, climb and yes, manipulate things (read: fingers). While I don’t see them wielding a sword, the manipulate issue was only somewhat solved by the errata. I think a creature with 16-24 opposable thumbs can do a lot more manipulating than described. And surely, knowing how weak their fangs and venom were, an intelligent race capable of magic and weaving would have developed some sort of weapons or tools, even armor that they could wield? Especially after they met people who screamed “kill it with fire!” How they weren’t hunted down to extinction is a mystery.
Also, as the only real thing they get is 1d6 fangs, there surely should have been other things they could have done.
No low light vision or dark vision, even though spiders are commonly portrayed in fantasy settings as subterranean or nocturnal? Surface dwelling elves get it for some reason… in fact, the list of non-humans that get at least low light vision is extensive, without any logic behind it. 15 foot imprecise tremorsense at 9th level is weak, mainly because you can’t get it until 9th level. If you do, you never get a climb speed.
Web weaver is ok for a 1st level feat, especially considering most Anadi can’t spin webs. But it never gets better. The thing that kills the lore, is it still doesn’t allow for Anadi “weavers”, since anything created must be maintained daily, or dissolve away into nothing. That Anadi blanket being displayed by the peacock...

If you can't take lower level ancestry feats then I've been doing it wrong. And if you get to level 17 you may as well, since there's currently no 17th level ancestry feats for Anadi. Which is its own problem, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
Are people also seriously forgetting that the kineticist has access to walls, movement control, and other utility?
Maybe, possibly, depending on their feat selection (and depending on how your GM rules how magical those features are).

Especially since, if I'm not mistaken, in this case your GM would technically be perfectly within the RAW to rule that not a single one of the kineticist's impulse feats affects a Golem, unless it's one of the specific magical effects that does something to it.


Temperans wrote:

One of the biggest issues with the whole "Its fine if they just preemptively buy these very specific item" is that it is by definition metagaming. Which is one of the most derided parts of playing and why so many people love to do the whole "This looks like its X but it actually has different stats LOL". People know about trolls, and you still have plenty of GMs that complain about how using a torch is bad if they don't recall knowledge. You think they won't complain about the Kineticist specifically doing that?

Kineticist have it even worst off given that they have literally no in class option to deal with creatures who are straight up immune. Having to rely on a consumable item, and even more specifically punching things, when you wanted to be shooting fireballs is literally the worst.

Go tell the fighter that the only way they have to fight a specific monster is the weakest of cantrip and nothing else, bet they wouldn't stand for it.

I agree with everything you've said, though in my experience melee fighters forget to bring ranged weapons all the time till they run into flying enemies and begrudgingly buy a longbow. So certain specific fighter concepts aren't immune to this problem. Slashedy Mcgreatsword occasionally using a bow usually isn't as big a departure from their character concept as a kineticist pulling out a mace, but still...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
on the subject of "respectful" shamans who would they even be respectful to?

The people it originally applied to, if we want to be respectful. A more generic name might be the better approach, though. It might be a bit confusing, but with the equivalent of the pf1 spiritualist being folded into the summoner, we could reuse that name.

Quote:
based on what I've read the term originally referred to religious figures in Siberia, Mongolia and associated areas but has since been applied to native Americans from Inuit through to indigenous beliefs in Peru, not to mention aboriginal priests in Australia, and spitualists in Africa and through the Indian ocean. Other than a general belief in spirits these groups have basically nothing in common that you could use as a basis to ground what a Golarion shaman is.

It was white Christians who barely knew anything about those practices who started applying the term to those other people, though, so it was already a bit racist to do that. Like, "Oh you talk with spirits and lead your people in their religious beliefs, you must be exactly the same as these other people on the other side of the planet."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems worth noting since no one's mentioned it, that the term shaman originally came from northern Asia, and Christian white people started applying it to native American medicine men, and other indigenous religious leaders because they looked the same to them.

So I'd start there if we want it to perfectly reflect real world shamanism.

Either way, primal or occult sounds right. Divine but with ancestor themes to take the place of deities for the class would sound interesting, too.

What someone said upthread about them using diplomacy in place of religion sounds cool, if we take that idea and run with it, they could be charisma based and have an ability that let's them identify magic items and such by speaking with spirits.


graystone wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
happyninja42 wrote:
...like a filthy caster memorizing spells.
Was that really necessary?
We're playing around with water and earth and you're surprised to see someone tossing around a little mud? I don't think fictional wizards are getting their feelings hurt.

Not fictional wizards, but the players of those fictional wizards might get rather upset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chase young from xiaolin showdown for lawful evil. Gleefully sets lava on innocents but let's the heroes go for no other reason then "I gave my word, accepted your challenge, and lost"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
A Humble Calf wrote:
You just have to weight them to se if they weight the same as a duck.

No, that's for witches. Wizards hang out with kings and kings sit on thrones, and thrones are cushioned, therefore you need a butt that's very cushioned with fat to be a wizard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Should note that the signature kasatha fighting style in 1e was dual-wielding bows.

As someone who is cross dominant this always bothered me. I'm right handed, but left-eyed so in order to shoot accurately (with a bow or a gun) I need to shoot left-handed.

It seems very difficult to hold two bows in your two right hands (since they're going to get in each other's way), and it seems impossible to hold a bow in your left set of hands and your right set of hands.

FWIW, I have also always been bothered by the "gun in each hand" thing you see in action movies. This accomplishes nothing unless your only goal is "put a lot of lead down range without any particular preference about what you hit with it."

Which makes sense to do in a world where most people can survive one bullet, to be fair.


Would it be problematic to lean into the "answers to their god and their sense of justice alone" aspect? It's definitely something I'd want still in the class... Not that it's a huge deal to me, personally.

aobst128 wrote:
What if it's a rogue racket?

Then it'd likely overlap too much with a divine based eldritch trickster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AceofMoxen wrote:
Thess wrote:
The stakes are real, and they could party wipe with bad planning or bad luck. In a Pathfinder game, they’d just run into the cave and use some power or another to win and I, the GM, would be bored to tears.

Coming from 5 years of 5e, this is the opposite of my reaction to PF2 combat. Compared to their biggest competitor, Pathfinder is already much harder. Your group must be real pros if they just randomly clear Level +3 encounters.

I think they were talking about 1e, where everything they said was 120% accurate, for good or ill. They said upthread that they hadn't had much chance to try 2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thess wrote:


2 Progression is too steep. A fifth level character can fight 1st level villains all day without breaking a sweat. We have been playing OSR games with flatter curves and have been much happier.

PF2E isn't any better in that, to be honest. Pretty sure it's intentional, too. A lot of people in playtest, myself included, wanted level to really matter, and as a result pretty much anything 3 or more levels lower than you is a bug to be stepped on.

PF2E does reward specialization less than 1E though. Mainly in that using the same tactic in all situations ever is eventually not going to work. But also there's a lot less of x stat to y going on.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like the fact that I accidentally hit refresh and lost the entire page of gripes that I just wrote... *Sobs*

I don't understand barbarians having anathema. Do Giant barbarians worship Giants, and the Giants give them the power to rage in return? If not then what's enforcing the anathema? If so then how are Giants and dragons and animals giving out power like gods.

I don't like the ancestries being so bare bones.

I didn't like material components for spells the way they were presented in pf1e and I'd prefer 5e arcane foci than a bag of random garbage powering your spells. I also don't like that wizards need to spend a feat just to avoid using said bag of random garbage.

I don't like how weak player characters are without magic items at higher levels. "Oh you're a level 5 fighter? You got stronger, but not stronger enough. Time to go buy/steal someone else's power. Or learn to craft magic weapons yourself I guess..."

As someone said above, I don't like that casters don't get a level one feat because it discourages playing non human casters.

I don't like how weak low levels are in general. I don't like how hard it is in PFS to start at a higher level than level one. I've done the level one song and dance so many times at this point. I'm sick and tired of having to take characters up through the rat slaughtering levels.


Xethik wrote:


Moment of Clarity is only first level, so a later career boost to it seems reasonable. It could even be a class archetype like the Gunslingers, locking you into a specific Instinct.

It could also itself be an instinct that gives you sorcerer dedication, and some new tricks along with it. Of course, presumably they'd have to figure out anathema for it.


Perpdepog wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Anyone upholding the 3.5 wizard as a standard of "balanced" is never going to be happy with anything that gets made within the mainstream RPG industry today, unless someone makes an RPG called Wizard: kneel before me or die.
They did, it's called Mage: the awakening and it's actually quite fun !
I prefer Ars Magica for my Wizards are Gods games.
I'm a fan of Godbound, myself.

Godbound always kinda bothered me with it's odd armor system. It wasn't complicated, super simple actually, just worked pretty weirdly.

Have to admit it's a really easy system to learn though, so I have a better chance of converting people to it than the others being talked about here. Even if I might prefer mage or ars magica. Never actually played ars magica, tbh.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to agree with the people saying spell penetration is boring.

As a rule, plus ones with nothing else attached are boring. They were boring back in 3.0/3.5 when 90% of your levels gave you +1s and nothing else, and 90% of fighter feats looked like

Superior ultimate great weapon specialization

Prerequisites: superior weapon focus, great weapon focus, ultimate weapon specialization, weapon specialization, weapon focus.

You gain another boring +1 to your attack and damage rolls. Yahoo, I guess...

In pf1 Paizo figured out they were boring, and gave every non caster something at every level, and even gave most casters something at all even levels. So a boring plus one being defended as a great feat kind of irritates me.

Temperans wrote:


Take for example action costs. The 3 action system is great for adding versatility. But it's mostly just Martials who enjoy that as they get multiple ways to interact with the action economy. Casters do not have those interactions. What little interactions they do have is gained only at high level and are very limited.

Many of the new spells in secrets of magic allow for exactly that, actually. Gravity pull, and elemental annihilation wave, for instance. I'd still like more interesting wizard feats, though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather a more lamia/naga like version of the nagaji than adding serpentfolk. I don't mind what my snake people are called, but if they still have legs then I don't see the point, tbh.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A soul eater style, living weapon ancestry. Essentially a sentient weapon that has an alternate form as a person.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't play many weapon wizards personally, but I'm gonna go ahead and say I'm in support of this anyway, to make the concept easier for other players.


Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
Verdyn wrote:
Power creep isn't a bad thing.
I strongly disagree.

I guess it depends on if you're happy with the current level of power in the game or if you'd like it to be higher.


SuperBidi wrote:
Salamileg wrote:
This does evoke the image of young apprentice wizards having to practice the Air Bubble spell by intentionally drowning themselves.

And the ones breaking their necks when practicing Feather Fall.

That's why there are so few Wizards.

Nah, you don't have to do either.

Air bubble: have someone pinch their nose and lie down in less than 1 foot of water. Assuming they aren't a sprite or other tiny ancestry, if they don't notice an air bubble, they can just sit up.

Feather fall: just jump. Immediately after you're at the apex of your jump, you will be falling, and therefore a valid target for feather fall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much. What I gather from the essays in secrets of magic is that yes there's a connection between occult and arcane, moreso than the other traditions. But it's that occult is the art to arcane's science. So I don't think a wizard should have an occult option either, just like I don't think bards should have arcane as an option.

Not in the main classes anyway. I could see adding some archetypes that switch spell lists.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It... Doesn't really make sense to me when I try to think about what it means from an in universe perspective, and raises questions about what spell slots even are.


If someone wants to spend all their first level slots and 30-60 minutes fixing a vase, sure why not?


Arklore wrote:

Going way back to the beginning of this, with 2E you have tons of options on builds that get you away from the 1E big six or the mandatory must-haves.

Perhaps there will be some alternate rules published where instead of runes, martial types will just be able to hit harder or more potently with their weapons similar to heightened spells? Like anything, there are pros and cons to this but in the games/tables I have run, the ability to actually hit seems more critical.

That's uh... Exactly what ABP is. An alternate rule that gives you those bonuses innately.

It can be hard to find GMs willing to run alternate rules when the main system is what they know though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Was ABP not made with alchemists in mind? It seems problematic if it wasn't, considering alchemist is a core class now. But the way their bonuses work...
Alchemist from the start were practicaly thrown to the side compare to how the rest of the system functions. Like the entire class on release was barely playable due to half the options either not working properly, being hard to use without having 4 hands and twice the bulk, or just straight up not really supported.

I think the bulk issues were mostly mistakes, to be fair.

The fact that the alchemist pregen in pfs doesn't line up with the original bulk for the alchemist's pack supports this.

But even so, if abp didn't take into account how alchemist's bonuses work, then like I said that's really questionable.


Was ABP not made with alchemists in mind? It seems problematic if it wasn't, considering alchemist is a core class now. But the way their bonuses work...


Themetricsystem wrote:

Am I the only one here more bothered by the OTHER clearly best-in-slot Magic Items that are pitched at individual types of Characters than they are by Runes? To me Runes are ... yeah required, but they're at least something that more or less is universally assumed as being part of the normal advancement of a character through their career.

Ring of Wizardry, Doubling Rings, Lifting Belts, and the dozens of great Wayfinder+Ioun Stone combos are just absolute no-brainers for the concepts they support that NOT picking them up represents essentially just choosing to worse at your role than pretty much everyone else. In many ways, some of these things are actually even more powerful and impactful than another mere +1 to hit with a single Weapon or a bonus to Saving throws you rarely have to actually check on.

Well, doubling rings are funny. If you use abp they aren't needed and if you don't and play a two weapon fighter they're essential.

Ring of wizardry is uncommon so you may need to put some effort into getting it.

Way finder's are uncommon, though if you're playing society it doesn't matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Magic items are part of advancement experience in D&D type of games. They have been incorporated as part of advancement since the creation of the game.

I think Paizo was smart to include certain mandatory magic items as a measure of advancement. I think the majority of their customers enjoy magic items being part of the experience of advancement. I think just as getting new spell levels or a new higher level feat is part of increasing your power, getting a new powerful, meaningful, and necessary magic item is part of the character advancement experience.

I still don't really understand it. And can't see it that way. Gold is money, not experience. Buying a new magic item isn't the same as getting a new spell level at all. That spell level is something innate to your character, that's power, your power. Buying a new magic item is getting someone else's power. It's not the same, and doesn't feel as awesome.

Well, To me it feels kinda lame since it means your character is dependent on some random craftsman to do more damage, but I guess I could see someone more socially adept and well adjusted than me finding it cool, maybe even equally cool in a "people stick together and help each other" kinda way...

But I don't understand how anyone could see it as being cooler.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalaam wrote:
Ahahah That's litteraly a Golden Sun spell xD Love it

I mean, bigby's hand predates Golden Sun so I never really thought of it that way, but that is pretty cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't really understand the people wanting the mandatory magic items myself. Striking runes have actually somewhat turned me off of playing fighters and monks in pfs.

And playing those classes is actually otherwise fun to me in pf2.

But then they get to level 5 and are waffling little wimps without those runes. So they have to then buy more power from somebody else to succeed, instead of getting stronger themselves.

Well, unless they're crafting them themselves of course, but then all my fighter and monk characters also have to also be magic item crafters. Which feels weird.

That's how I feel about it, anyway.


Perpdepog wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Almost literally no Witch that saw play in the first ed can faithfully be recreated in PF2, they lost all of their punch and utility being locked into just a couple Hexes even at max level.
In fairness, this same situation played out for 1E witches as well. Evil Eye/Misfortune/Slumber/Cackle dominated the majority of witch builds, from what I recall.

I mean, I wouldn't go that far. Those were just the most useful in all combats, which is why they were the most commonly taken. Other hexes were plenty strong and useful, just more niche like giving you water breathing, at will feather fall and flight at higher levels(and making you swim better, because you weigh the same as a duck of course.) Letting you use your hair to grapple people. These were all solid options.

*Shrugs*


I'd be a wizard and learn Create food, then create water, then prestidigitation for flavoring the lousy food created by that and making the water taste like soda but with no calories.

Then, I dunno, probably something I could use to power a generator or something so I can get off the grid. Maybe control water?

Healing would be nice, but I still don't like the idea of depending on a deity or nature for it. I'd have to go with first edition arcane physician...

An immortality/eternal youth ritual that doesn't exist yet, and magnificent mansion would be all I needed from there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that it's a strange design decision regardless of which question you ask.

Because of how it works, first level spellcaster feats have to compete a bit harder with second level spellcaster feats than with martial feats.

And choosing to take less than optimal feats for the sake of following a desired character concept becomes a bit more painful for those who do so...


beowulf99 wrote:

Fair dues on FMA. Like I said, I've never given it a full watch through. But look at it this way: Let's say that some Wizard fully decodes the mysteries of the Universe and fully understands magic. They understand what every symbol and word used as incantation and or somatic component do and exactly why each material component is required. At that point, to that person, Magic would no longer be Magic, it would just be a form of science. But to everyone else it still would be magic.

I mean if I was in the FMA world and didn't understand Alchemy and watched an Alchemist do any of what they do, that would just be magic from my perspective, even if they tried to explain it to me as they did it.

And I think that may be the exact thought process they were going off of in FMA when they had the characters call it science.

But I don't think that thought process works well in pathfinder where there actually is a force that people call magic that's divided into 4 traditions, and things outside of said traditions aren't considered magic by those in the know, no matter how fantastical they are.


beowulf99 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Not really. Are tazers magic? By this logic, they are. What about Firearms, are they magic? Again, by this logic they are.

I mean, ubiquitous, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," quote here.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
After all, I'm not waving my hands, uttering incantations, evoking glyphs of traditional power, to make lightning appear out of nowhere. That's magic.

No, you aren't invoking glyphs of traditional power and waving your hands. Instead you are rubbing together bits of "alchemical essence infused reagents" and making a bomb/elixer/alchemical tool appear out of no where. That is also magic.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Could follow the rules of Full Metal Alchemist in that respect, where there's just simple transmutation circles with the materials turned into what you need, done in a matter of seconds. Or it could be like Edward Elric, whom doesn't need said transmutation circles, just a clap of the hands and poof! Which would be pretty interesting and a valid way to flavor it. But that's pure speculation.
I don't think that Full Metal Alchemist is the best comparison to draw. Now I will be up front in saying that I never gave it a full watch through, it's on my long list of to watch anime that keeps growing, but it was always my assumption that "alchemy" in FMA was basically just Magic with specific rules attached. IE there is always a price and all that. I could 100% be wrong about that, but that was always my perception of it.

FMA alchemy is completely different from pathfinder alchemy so maybe not the best for a direct comparison, but it works in this case in that according to the characters' words on it, it's science and not magic, and they're very insistent about that. So it depends whether you accept their word on that, I guess.


Yep, you're right. Was thinking it was an action for some reason. But point being, excellence is a thing and isn't typically considered magic by the rules. So I don't see why alchemy should necessarily be considered magic either, even when it let's you do things that we'd probably consider to be magic.


I mean, it's also a world where stealthily pulling the armor off someone in 6 seconds without them knowing isn't magic, so...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

In first edition, The Alchemist had class feats discoveries that allowed them to grow a tentacle, vestigial arms, a parasitic twin. They could mummify themselves, grow insect like wings. Their familiar could become a tumor on their body, which is an ability not shared by the alchemical familiar in second edition.

The 2e alchemist can't do any of that. And, given that long term buffs are problematic in 2e, and the fact that there's not one single Alchemist feat that fits that theme so far, I'm actually concerned that those abilities aren't coming back.

I'm also wondering if I'm in the minority here, or even the only one, since I haven't seen anyone else talking about it...


Ravingdork wrote:
Calistria's temples include bars, brothels, and other places of hedonism. Not sure how I'd feel about my player's divine heroes being able to summon a brothel or tavern at a whim.

It would likely be an uncommon spell like magnificent mansion, so you wouldn't have to let them.


Temperans wrote:
Btw Clerics used to get the Web Shelter spell.

And create demiplane at 7th level, which isn't a slot spell anymore. Maybe they could get a spell that lets them take the party to a refuge on their deity's plane, then? Might be a bit hot for clerics of infernal deities...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess it could be the essence thing. How do you build a temple out of spirit and life?

*Notices a huge temple made of biomass.* Oh...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The most amusing thing about the sprite giant barbarian is not that you can go from tiny to large (eventually huge) in one action- it's that you are constantly carrying around a weapon sized for a large creature despite being tiny.

So you have a 9" tall pixie carrying a 9' long polearm, somehow.

It physically hurts me to point this out...

archivesofnethys wrote:

You can use a weapon built for a Large creature if you are Small or Medium (both normally and when raging). If you're not Small or Medium, you can use a weapon built for a creature one size larger than you.

You gain access to this larger weapon, which can be of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation.

But no, you're not a 9" tall sprite carrying around a 9' tall weapon. You're a 9" tall sprite carrying around a 3' tall weapon. And my soul just died a little at the loss of a beautiful awesomeness.

I'm not sure what your point is... A tiny creature would use a weapon 1 size larger and that means small. Small and medium creatures use the exact same weapon sizes so it uses weapons right out of the core book and that can mean a 9' long polearm. Now most weapons have no lsted length, but Guisarme lists it's "shaft is usually 8 feet long" so 9' seems right and it's the size a tiny giant barbarian would use.

I was mixing up my editions, never mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The most amusing thing about the sprite giant barbarian is not that you can go from tiny to large (eventually huge) in one action- it's that you are constantly carrying around a weapon sized for a large creature despite being tiny.

So you have a 9" tall pixie carrying a 9' long polearm, somehow.

It physically hurts me to point this out...

archivesofnethys wrote:

You can use a weapon built for a Large creature if you are Small or Medium (both normally and when raging). If you're not Small or Medium, you can use a weapon built for a creature one size larger than you.

You gain access to this larger weapon, which can be of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation.

But no, you're not a 9" tall sprite carrying around a 9' tall weapon. You're a 9" tall sprite carrying around a 3' tall weapon. And my soul just died a little at the loss of a beautiful awesomeness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
"Some choices are suboptimal at my tables!"

I don't think witches are bad either but in fairness I do think this is a very legitimate criticism. The focus spells are the main draw of the class and the balance for them is all over the place.

I'm not at all surprised someone who ended up playing a Rune or Wild witch has such dramatically different experiences than you and it's pretty clearly a problem, imo.

Yeah it is legitimate, especially when most classes don't have anything that situational.

If I want to make a nature witch, and my GM is like "okay, but we're not going to be fighting many animals," it's like "welp, guess my witch has to be specifically winter based and love the freezing icy cold, then"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
In fact, I do not really understand why people prefer the Shield cantrip (+1 to AC) rather than a mundane Shield (+2 to AC) for casters.

Stylistic choice? Carrying an actual physical shield around is really very unwizardly.

Could be the bulk or hands, too.


KrispyXIV wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
All this talk of the wizard's third action... sustaining a previously cast spell sounds like a good idea

I mean, so is movement via Stride or Step.

In reality, its not hard to fill that third action slot. There just seems to be an ideological divide where its felt that Wizards, in particular, need to be able to fill that with a "Wizard" specific action.

But not with a Wizard Focus spell, because they aren't good enough- though its not a power thing because people don't want more power... or something... but Wizard focus spells are definitely bad because reasons...

I'd say that Wizard focus spells aren't bad for the most part, but most of them are pretty situational. When the enemies are trying to get to you warped terrain is great but when they're already there... Listen, I have a level 7 illusionist in pfs. I've used warped terrain maybe three times.

Abjuration and transmutation's focus spells are hard to use in combat without being in danger of being killed by enemies. Augment summoning requires that you already have a summoned creature out.

Evoker's force bolt is boring but practical. Solid.

Universalist's hand of the apprentice... I've seen it used to great effect, but personally, I feel like I've failed as a wizard if I have to resort to using a weapon.

The shield cantrip is pretty situational too. If there's big stompy fighter between you and the enemy, the enemy probably isn't going to want to take an attack of opportunity just to run up and attack you. Even if your big stompy guy is a barbarian, they may prefer to keep fighting them to wasting extra movement running around them. If you cast it and then don't get attacked you wasted your third action.

Moving or Sustaining something are probably going to be your main third actions most of the time, to be honest. Even moving isn't necessarily going to be helpful.


Temperans wrote:


An aspect has multiple meanings. One of them means a part of something. The other means the apperance of something.

Sure but it wouldn't normally be used to mean that something has an appearance relating to itself. It would be normal to say "that castle has a very spooky aspect" but it would sound pretty ridiculous to say "that castle has a very castley aspect." It's being used in an odd way here if it's intended to mean appearance, I guess is what I'm trying to say.

Also, why limit the flavor unnecessarily?

Quote:
A Summoner using the Gate spell (yes they can use that spell) can summon the physical form of the Eidolon. As can any caster using a calling spell. None of them would bring a creature that is different than the Eidolon.

Maybe it's just a really big (metaphysically speaking, but possibly literally, too. Who knows?) outsider such that they can't just call the whole thing.

|Edit: actually, if you go by balazar's backstory, they don't seem to have a physical form until they're first summoned, but they can communicate somehow before having a physical form? Yeah, definitely sounds like something closer to a deity than a plain old outsider to me.|

Quote:

There is also the fact that killing the Summoner or breaking the connection can break the Eidolon and make them weaker (See Unfettered Eidolons). The actual Eidolon with the influence of the Summoner is actually weaker.

And maybe having a Summoner to bond to stabilizes their aspect in such a way that its form is stronger. Don't unfettered eidolons shift between evolutions pretty frequently, or am I thinking of something else?

Nope, I just misread a line a while back that said they continue to evolve on their own.

Anyway, I always thought they were different from normal outsiders in some fundamental way because of the way their evolutions progress and how frequently their evolutions can be changed. We're not told how, other than that they can bond to a Summoner and they start out really stupid for outsiders, so letting players fill in the blanks is fine.

1 to 50 of 471 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>