Oracle

Cyder's page

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 489 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am kind of not excited by what I see here sadly. I was really looking forward to SF2e but for me these feel as conservative as PF2e ancestries. I hope they don't use the term ancestry, its a weird term and as much as species isn't great for androids, its still better than ancestry (which doesn't even make sense in PF2e since each ancestry does not have a common ancestor it was a weird pick to replace race (also a bad term) with. I hope they revert to using species, its matches the Starfinder feel more.

Still surprised Vesk and Iruxi are different species. I was kind of hoping they would make a more flexible approach to species in Starfinder, it would make more sense to have species descriptions and heritages and each species have a bunch of traits associated with it, e.g. reptilian, multi limbed, tailed etc. that way feats could have 1 or more traits and apply to multiple species without having to be reprinted and slightly renamed. Its the same problem a lot of ancestry and heritage feats have. How many ancestry feats in PF2e just equate to giving darkvision? It would be far better if there was 1 darkvision feat, I feat for ancestries that can all get wings for 1 minute than a higher level feat for permanent wings. For Starfinder it would make it much faster the bring out ancestries.

Other than that the conservative and super limited power for these feats (for the most part) make me feel like species will (mechanically) be as boring a choice that ancestry is in PF2e. I would much prefer they really make ancestry feats shine on a power budget level the same as class feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

All we know is the core rules will he compatible (3 action economy, proficiency bonus TEML etc) and that the classes will be designed not to be cl9nes of pf2e classes but in space.

Everything else from the relative power of spells, additional class mechanics, the way focus/resilve work is up for grabs. Even skills m8gjt be c9mpatible but differently named (culture vs society, nature vs life sciences).

I hope balance isn't the grind it is in PF2e. I want my sci fi to feel scifi. Something about the way magic, especially magic items in pf2e seems to have lost the fantasy/special of them and replaced with something that just feels like utility or items I just purchase from a store.

I sincerely hope Starfinder feels compatible but a different game (not just different setting/gear) to Pathfinder else they should have just given us a high tech splat book for pf2e.

SF2e seems like a good place to break or test things outside of the constraints of pf2e in a way the remaster couldn't. They can take what they have learned from 5 years of pf2 and improve it without worrying about whether it is balanced against the pf2e crb like all pf2e stuff has to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

More stuff for Starfinder 2e.

Something that shakes up Golarion for pf2e a bit. Hoping the Godswar refreshes the world a bit.

A direct sequel adventure path to Abomination Vaults.

APs in Cheliax and Taldor.

Someone to do a 2e Wrath of the Righteous like Kingmaker got.

Better Wizard options. Deeper class ootuons for classes with the least number of class feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Tbis l9oks amazing!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wizard is still a mixed bag, more limited than it was before thanks to the lazy approach to the new schools. Wizards oower is in 4 spell slots per rank that they can freely change 3 of per day and 1 spell slot with a super limited number of school options. Feats are boring and mostly meaningless with little flavour compared to other casters.

For the 'knowledge/academic' class they have less interaction than most other classes do with recall knowledge other than a level 8 feat and the theory that recall knowledge benefits wizards more than other classes to learn a weakness... that they probably won't be able to take advantage of until they have slept overnight and done their daily preparations if they even know a good spell to take advantage of it. It does very little in the heat of battle.

The best way to think of wizard is the prepared spell slot arcane class as there is very little else going for it. Wizards are as powerful as spells are in PF2e and behind other casters for interesting feats that define those classes. Right now Cloister Clerics have more spell slots than they do at most ranks and always more max ranks spell slots (even if limited to heal/harm and with a feat remove conditions spells), a much better list of feat options, more flavour through deities, domains and more focus spell options. Clerics can also grab a couple of spells from other tradition lists with some deities.

There is a lot of room for improvement and the remaster was a missed opportunity to rethink how bland they are. New schools are just a very limited number of spells with rehashed focus spells from the pre remaster wizard. Its like they looked at the existing focus spells and thought about schools they could build around them. There is almost nothing exciting or winning about the new schools where they had a real chance to make them feel unique and interesting. Thesis are exactly what they were, none of them feel at all academic or tie into knowledge at all, to be honest I am not even sure what purpose they serve anymore as they feel like a grab bag of options, 3 of which amount to a couple of free otherwise easily obtainable feats (spellshape and familiar). Spell sub and staff should have just been low level wizard feats. Spell blending is the only one that kind of has a non feat level interaction with the class but even then could have just been 3 feats to blend 1 to 3 level spell slots at level 6, 4-6 at level 12, and 7 to 9 at 18 or maybe even just 1 feat that got better as you levelled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anguish wrote:
JamesMaster wrote:
Conflating them means the ultra Perceptive, raised by wolves Ranger your player has put together also happens to be equally good at reading people’s intentions? This makes 0 sense to me.

I assume you have the same issue with Athletics. I mean... dead-lifting weight and rock-climbing are dramatically different uses of physical strength that have nothing in common.

Also Deception, where verbal falsehoods requiring agile-minded creation of fiction is blended with creating a disguise, which amounts to knowing how to use make-up.

Point is, for purposes of gameplay we've always had skills that lump thematically similar but mechanically disparate abilities into one roll. It's always been up to the player to decide if their character is good at all applications of a skill. If your character is bad at reading other people but good at spotting distant enemies... don't roll for sensing motive.

I already have issues with Athletics being a god skill in PF2e. Combat applications of athletics should be either a separate skill or skill feats. Right now athletics is the be all and end all skill for strength and combat, it does everything physical and the only feat a martial needs to invest in to have it all (other than balance). There are 3 social skills, 5 knowledge skills etc so a social/knowledge character cannot cover it all but a fighter only need to max athletics to cover 90% of what they need to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sense motive should be a seperate skill from perception.

A thick as bricks fighter shouldn't be better at detecting a lie or understanding motives better than a socially skilled bard.

No matter how quiet you are or whatever we want to say about the rustic ranger understanding motives, particularly when they are complex is a social skill.

I would much rather 'sense motive' was tied to the higher if diplomacy or sense motive. Diplomacy involves understanding what other people want ad part of being good at it. Good deception involves knowing what people are willing to believe or not believe, how far truth can be stretched.

These are very very different to noticing an ambush.

Part of the issue is how blunt skill tied to attribute is rather than the some skill used in a different way (a recall knowledge about athletics not being int based). They have feats in some situations (strength for intimidate) but nothing for blanket you can use int to recall knowledge adding your prificiency with amy applicable skill. Int for nature, medicine and religion makes sense for simply recalling kniwledge. But equally appraising how difficult it is to climb a wall int + athletics should be an option.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Don't update Foundry then? You don't need to do the update immediately.

What if the rest of the party and the GM wants to update? Should the rest of the group miss out?

This isn't necessarily a good or workable solution for a group.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
At level 7, a low threat encounter should yield about 220gp to the party. Assuming you have to sell what ever you find (which should not be the case all the time) and a party of 4, that is 27 and half gold pieces, per low threat encounter. A level 1 scroll is 4 gp, so not even 15% of what is really the minimum amount of treasure you should receive for that encounter. Yes a spell slot is more convenient than a scroll, but it would take some strange number of encounters for that issue with scrolls to be something where having 1 more rank 1 spell slot is significant or important compared to having a bundle of 1st rank scrolls at that point in the game.

That hasn't been my experience at all. Many creatures have no treasure in APs and when treasure is gotten it is in items which sell for half price if not needed by other players. Treasure is rarely coins, is not divvied out this way. This is completely out of line with published adventure and play experience.

Unicore wrote:
A dead level 1 slot is such a minor issue

But you agree it is an issue.

Minor or not it didn't need be designed that way. With a little bit of extra thought designers could have ensured there was at least 1 spell per rank in each curriculum that stayed useful as the character levels when cast at the rank it was received at.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

By design, unless you are playing proficiency without level mixed level parties are not really well supported in PF2e.

In AD&D mixed level parties were a feature as different classes required different amounts of XP to level, only humans had access to every class, other ancestries had huge class restrictions. Only humans could have unlimited levelling (and I think Half Elf bards in 2nd Ed) other ancestries were capped in what their max level could be so Halflings could only ever go to level 8 as a fighter and never higher.

Part of me misses how organic parties were in that it encouraged different levels of ability but told the story of them well. I never liked limited class levels based on ancestry but the rest was lore defining. Also every ancestry was better than human which is probably why they were unrestricted in level and class choices.

PF2e class levels make a huge difference to ability to survive or dominate an encounter. A 1st level character in a fight against a 5th level boss that might be easy for 4th level party members is all but guaranteed to die in a hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

N9ne of mine has shipped, no pdfs, no response from CS. No updates here.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You will always need to intervene as a GM in some way. Even if that is to say 'no, you can't add those spells'.

... is... is this really your argument? That a GM saying no to something justifies bad design?

Its also not intervention as you are not intervening/providing an intevention merely saying use the options as written, you are not intervening to change things.

Point is people are already talking about how to remove school slots or impact of poor spell choices set to them without relying on fickle GM intervention.

The new schools look like they decided which focus spells to keep and then decided to try to build a narrative around them without fixing core issues. School of the boundary in particular males little to no narrative sense. It looks like a way to blend Augment Summoning with Dread Aura so is a hodge podge of things that don't quite fit together forced into a concept.

Augment summoning still wasn't fixed to ne a reaction or freeaction with the trigger being casting a summoning spell.

Schools could have been so much more. They could have included non arcane spells, they could have actually spent the time to make good new thematic focus spells for identifiable themes. Basically not try to rearrange what was there to work but given them the care and attention they deserved.

There is a not a single good design reason not to have a school spell at each rank that remains useful/relevant when cast at the rank you get it. School of Battle Magics school spells are eclipsed by cantrips by rank 3.

Requiring GM permission to have amother spell rather than explicitly allowing a player to always pick a spell that is within them as part of the process or just doing the job properly and making sure school spells in thst rank can be relevant for more than 2 or 3 levels isn't a big ask.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Good design can only limit GM intervention, not prevent it entirely.

Difference between 'limit' and 'require.'

Nothing limits GM intervention other than self restraint or a lack of need by game or players.

I don't talk about preventing GM intervention, I talk about removing the need for it. These are very different things.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If I have to ask a GM to change things or pick particular options to remove the limitations of a key design (schools) that is a failure of the design.

If even the most avid supporters are proposing those options or talking about adding spells to schools or other ways to work around them that is a failure of design.

Good design doesn't require GM intervention.

Good design doesn't have players making choices to erase the mechanics of the option.

Good design excites players about the mechanical possibilities to support their narrative.

There are lots of examples of this in other classes in PF2e but wizard, like pre remaster witch isn't quite where it needs to be. Its functional but its not good.

Popularity of class not a measure of success on its own. Many people play wizard because the love the fantasy of the wizard not because its mechanically a good class. I have no idea how Paizo determines the success of a class but I have never seen any surveys or other customer engagement about them go out. If its PFS numbers... thst is only a very small part of the picture and without follow on questions they cannot know why people are playing a wizard.

Stats like that without qualitative information or something else are meaningless on their own as they tell you only that many people are playing a wuzard. not why people are playing, not whether they are finding it satisfying (or not) nor whether they are playing a lot of games with wizards. It could be create and try to make it work and give is a s&@@ only for it to be a disappointing experience once we get to where most pfs game levles stop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dancing Wind wrote:

For those of you waiting for your subs, let me give you my little story about picking up my pre-ordered copy from my FLGS.

This isn't really relevant. 1 store not treating your order properly does not really have any relevance to a paid subscription service being subpar with late and poor communication about issues.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would say subtle/conceal removes the need for incantations and obvious gestures. I would say it doesn't say remive gestures so you can't cast while bound using subtle spell.

In terms of countering, it makes more sense to counter the spell effect than it does counter at casting. A conceal ray of frost still has a ray if frost shooting from you and I would still allow a counter at point of effect.

In terms of countering charm... there are other abilities that allow you to detect if someone has been charmed, there is also dispel magic. Recignising and counting charm as it is being done seems unfun, its a much better story to discover that someone has been charmed then keep an eye out for whonis doing it should they try again.

Immediately noticing and being able to counter manipulate type spell effects or knowing someone just cast invisibility etc takes the fun away from those effects as a narrative. Investigating what happened is a much better story. YMMV though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And again no pdfs on release day. Given international orders take the longest to get to subscribers I would think they should be shipped first. I only got the physical books for last mobth's sub yesterday. You would think if Paizo usn't going to spend the time looking regional shipping centres like other small companies manage you would think they would send international first so we weren't waiting a month after release for physical books.

Like others I think I need to look into other options if Paizo can't fix their shipping.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Maybe diversify and not make vision an ancestry thing? I mean its lazy that vision improvements are such a common thing rather than other adaptions.

Also now they aren't under the OGL they can more easily update the fantasy of the ancestries to be more varied.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bluemagetim wrote:

If there was one key thing you wanted to see different with the Wizard what would it have been?

I like the new school themes for role play and the possibility of new schools or just making your own but I do think future released schools will have potential for power creep.
I like the staff nexus addition but think it needed to have progression of some kind any kind at levels 4 and 6.

I will give you 2.

School spells as a font as described above.

A complete rework of thesis. Right now they feel like half formed class ideas that were never completed, never properly balanced against each other and don't feel at all academic. If wizard is supposed to be an academic class it should have a stronger thematic tie to recall knowledge, preferably aligned with Thesis.

Even a thesis 'Magical zoology' - You can use Arcana to make Nature based recall knowledge checks about plants/animals/beasts. When you crit succeed at a recall knowledge check using arcana instead of nature you get a +1 on your next spell attack roll or 1 target takes -1 on the next spell DC against a spell you cast before the end of your turn.

Suddenly that feels academic, feels like they have a benefit for researching a particular academic topic rather than the weirdness that Thesis now are which have no thematic link to each other and don't feel academic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am kind of sad so many ancestries still have 'low light or darkvision' as their thing. I would rather Paizo have moved away from almost every ancestry has better sight than humans trope. Its lazy and boring.

Seems like a clear majority of ancestries have low light vision and not having it is the exception.

It never made sense that low light vision was arbitrarily upgraded to dark vision if both your ancestries (for mixed heritage) had low light vision in some cases.

I feel if they ever get around to PF3e or even a proper .5 edition they should rethink low-light and darkvision as a default for so many ancestries - they are no longer shackled by DnD so they can reinvent things a little. They seem to do this with some things and not others.

Also maybe the nerf to poisons means Alchemists will get other buffs. Regarding TV poisons being stronger they can easily errata them down once player core 2 gets released. My hope is more of the class power for alchemist goes into the alchemist - even if it is the alchemist gets more power from items than others. Part of the issue of the alchemist is everyone else gets more benefit from their stuff then they do. Being a class that can provide 70% of its contribution to the party during daily preparations (creating and handing out consumables) and then can be replaced by another character is not a good feeling for a class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

With how rushed the remaster was I feel wizard bandaided with the new schools shoehorned in with little thought. The whole class reeks of a rush job with mo champions for the class on the design team.

New schools are lazy. Augment summoning still not being able to be cast on the turn you summon the creature is still poor design and not looked at. 1 less base skill for no reason still males mo sense and hardly affects balance.

New schools are shoehorned with little thought on school spells at differebt levels of play.

New feats are... ok I guess, better than what the ranger got but clearly given far less consideration than the cleric.

Mot sure why people think the new arrangement of focus spells for school slots is good, still a wierd mishmash. School of the boundary feels incredibly hodgepodge with a confused narrative that falls apart under any real scrutiny.

I think the largest problem with the wizard and the new schools is they are rushed and rather than maybe writing some proper new spells to fit the narrative in some cases thwu shoehorned in some vaguely relevant existing spells (both focus ans spell slot spells).

Wizards would be better served if they got a font like clerics but only for school spells amd got rid of the bonus spellslot per rank which is a hangover from dnd anyway. Low level school spells would remain relevant all the way througb the game. They would be encouraged to strongly work with their school spells as they would always have more of them prepared at high ranks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:


I'm gonna personally disagree on background lore automatically scaling proficiency. It's better off as something minor by default, with the option to scale it with the Additional Lore feat. Then you can play a former herbalist, or take a background because the skill feat is important to the character without winding up with Underworld Lore as one of your best skills despite the thematic discrepancy. I don't really want to run into a bunch of once-bitten wizards because scaling Undead Lore beats any magic-related skill feats on an Int class.

And I am going to disagree with you there. Having your background feat continue to improve and remain one of your best skills because thematically even though you may have 'left that life' the skills, knowledge and interests never leave you. Its like I no longer work in several kinds of industries but whenever I hear news or come across articles about subjects in those industries I feel compelled to read and know.

For underworld lore you may have left the thug life, but the thug life never leaves you, your old associates etc are still around, the game is still in your blood and even though you want to leave you know you need to keep up in case old contacts come into your life again and want to end you.

Undead Lore from once bitten, I can imagine if I had a harrowing experience before I started adventuring like being bitten by undead I would keep my knowledge of undead up out of fear that I want to be prepared or know what I am up against next time.

Undead Lore being super good (campaign dependent) leading wizards to taking that background is a lore balance problem... or not. Maybe being good at something that is valuable in a campaign is a positive.

Honestly I feel like backgrounds are a great idea but need to be reworked to either matter other than 'I picked this background for mechanical reasons' or I didn't pick this background because the skills it grants or the attribute bonuses are irrelevant - if background forces a boost for 1 of 2 stats I am not interested in (say Int or Cha for most fighters) then picking that background is a bad choice even if the story of it suits my concept.

I would rather fewer more generic backgrounds with more depth and more advancement options that the massive monte haul of rarely picked backgrounds we have now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sweet, looking forward to this... but then I look forward to most APs.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I love the fantasy of swashbucklers... I hate the implementation. A fighter or rogue with duelist archetype is just better right now and that is sad.

At low levels its a super frustrating class, not sure why Paizo doesn't consider that classes need to feel good, or close to as good as each other at low levels. Most play is at low levels, not being disappointed by your class pick, having your moment to shine is super important, especially with keeping people playing.

Paizo also has a problem balancing risk vs reward playstyles, risk is always high, reward is balanced around what other classes seem to achieve without the risk which is just bad design. Succeeding against a very high DC especially at low levels is bad. Much better to have success against average DC with something extra for crit succeeding.

Finishers either need to hit a lot harder if I can't attack for the rest of the round or they to not have that restriction. This doesn't open up interesting play or interesting attack routines, it just leads to frustration and wishing they were playing a fighter or rogue themed as a swashbuckler.

Hopefully they get less conservative with Player Core 2 as they have more time to do things right. Unfortunately I feel it will be like player core 1 where 1 or 2 pet classes get great buffs and other classes get some window dressing disguised a fix for issue with the class. I still can't fathom the buffs for cleric and rogue, both were already super strong classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Richard Lowe wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Orcs make much more sense as core option than goblins do because orcs already had nuance shown to them where goblins got spontaneously overall much more nicer in much higher quantities when they became core :'D
Perhaps unfortunately for those not involved an awful lot of that development was in Society, there were many scenarios over 10 years and multiple seasons showing numerous different goblins and goblin tribes working with both the society and others in helpful ways. So there was absolutely a ton of cooperation shown, just perhaps not in ways that every player would be able to see and experience.

Its a shame a lot of the story, even summaries of society stuff or key story points are not easily (to my knowledge at least) accessible.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I feel like if they wanted this outcome it would have been much easier to just say you die at dying 3. That is your maximum dying value is 2. Its a whole lot of extra complication to add a wounded value each time you are down for very little gain.

This seems to be a case of overly complicating things for minimal gain and honestly feels like a throw back to some of the more complex PF1 rules and interactions. I am not saying the change isn't the intended change but there are easier and cleaner ways to reach the same outcome and I wish they had done that rather than this convoluted way of going about it.

This change, if intended does massively increase the value of Toughness, Diehard, numb to death and orc racial feats which were already very strong and overshadowing other options. Not sure why they needed this buff, they now feel almost mandatory which I feel is a bad change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Advanced doesn't really have that, and weapons which were just more powerful like the falcatta would be too much of an auto pick if they were cheap to use. If you could spend a general feat to increase your damage dice by one or add deadly to it, why wouldn't you? Once you have toughness and fleet there's very little worth taking among general feats.

I disagree with this. There are a lot of great general feats that are potentially stronger than +1 avg damage per die or adding deadly for a class that doesn't have fighter accuracy. It feels like you don't value the other feats and have assumed others don't. Prescient planner can be a god send when you need something and you don't have it. Uncanny acumen is great for classes with a low save that want to improve it, or getting better initiative. Just because you don't value other general and skill feats doesn't mean others don't. I was rather a better will save than +1 damage per die (average) since 4 extra damage at max level is less important than not making or crit failing a save. Having the right consumable can often be more impactful.

You value extra damage more, not everyone does. I have no issue with advanced weapons getting more use than the waste of space they are right now otherwise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For the cost of a general feat I thonk it should level with class weapon proficiency. Advanced weapons really aren't that big of an upgrade, certainly not worth more than a general feat.

Right now its a disadvantage to use an advanced weapon even for martial classes and at that point I ask why even bother to print them. They are too niche and take up book space that would be better used for things that would see a decent amount of play at most tables.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Lightning swap could have been a good candidate for a General Feat. It eould benefit a lot of classes and playstyles.

It feels the remaster was super rushed and some basic things or considerations were just missed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For me if Quick Alchemy is what is holding the class back then I wouldn't miss it at all.

I would rather Quick Alchemy be a 10 minute activity or gone entirely if it mean I can be more reliable in other areas. As a 10 minute reprepare some of what you made using advanced alchemy into something else (maybe with a 2 or 3 advanced alchemy being remixed into 1 quick alchemy object) it might balance while still giving that balance out of combat.

Alternatively less infused reagents per day but with quick alchemy being a once per hour activity to make a number of items based on int modifier.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't mind about the price increaes its the shipping costs to Australia thats killing me. I really wish Paizo would investigate other distribution options. Reaper and other small companies have mamaged it so not sure why Paizo can't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

M8nd you given that we are discussing the merits of 1 specific feat which is an optional pick against a slew of strong other lvl 4 feats for the cleric I would say this is a resounding success for the remaster cleric.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Just remove the Monk trait from all weapons and give monks proficiency in all non-firearm advanced weapons. It will instantly make them unique among classes and--alongside giving wizards and witches Simple Weapon Proficiency and Rogues and bards Martial Weapon proficiency--will nicely streamline all class' proficiencies along the three proficiency groups.

After all, in nearly every medium they appear, monks and martial artist are all about using unusual weapons to outmaneuver their opponents in combat.

Let's see.

The Karate Kid.
Kung Fu.
Saint Seiya.
Kung Fu Panda.
Bruce Lee's movies.

Nope. Not many weapons there.

And yet here are 100s more martial arts movies where they use weapons. Cherry picking a very very limited list doesn't help anyone or make any kind of point.

Numchaku are synonymous with Bruce Lee so not sure why you blanketly reference Bruce Lee movies without mentioning that he does use classic 'monk' weapons in many of them. Also arguably the reason Asian style martial arts and weapons became popular in the western countries.

Some other great martial arts movies.

Hero
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
House of Flying Daggers

These are amazing and award winning movies yet aren't on your list.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Awesome, its fiction like this that bring the world of Pathfinder alive and give a solid basis to imagine and work out own stories. from.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sy Kerraduess wrote:
It does have unlimited targets, so it may have value in a party that has many minions or in campaigns where you expect to heal large groups of NPCs.

Thats super niche. As a skill feat triggered off religion its ok, as a clads feat its dead on arrival.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think cleric is my favourite of the remasters so far.

I kind of wish sanctified ground was a skill feat based on religion to open it up to more classes (even if it required ability to cast vitality energy spells as a pre-req). I find feats that grant pure out of combat utility something I want for skill feats not class feats. My divine sorc and summoner would love this. It would also buff the non spell cast utility of magic knowledge skills (arcane, occult, nature, religion).

Otherwise I love everything presented here. Cleric was already a super strong if a little boring class, not sure why it got a lot more love and help over ranger/wizard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Calliope5431 wrote:


Oh that sounds excellent. Do you know where you saw it? I imagine it's long gone by now...

But I agree - this is one of the best parts of the remaster.

Dragon Magazine #271 'By the job' by Paul Kidd I think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I much prefer the idea of a deity being determined by their ideals and character/expression of those ideals than by an alignment.

One of my favourite pieces of short fiction for D&D was from around the time D&D 3rd edition was released set in Greyhawk. It was about the conflict between a ranger and a paladin. The paladin followed Pelor and killed a hell hound the ranger had spared/reached an agreement with leading to a conflict between 2 good aligned characters based on ideals, both which could have been 'good' based on point of view.

Having them not being good/evil allows for a lot more nuanced concepts and faiths (and relationships to faith and between faiths).

Getting rid of alignment is probably my favourite change in the remaster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Again though table variance doesn't affect most classes and scrolls and other prepared caster (druids, clerics) can achieve a lot of what Unicore was able to but still be considered strong at most tables.

A class shouldn't depend or be thst affected by table variance. Some minor modifications to APs can be expexted to weave character story arcs or adapt to zany ideas the party had that cannoy be anticipated. Changing the way the adventure is run away from its baseline, wholesale swapping or modifying monsters to meet a class should not.

Designers know the wizard exists and could easily set the pace way the adventure is run so its good for a wizard baseline without affecting the rest of the party too much. They don't though so we can only take as APs are written as the baseline expectation of play. Everything else is homebrew and not base expectation and may or may not happen. A class shohldn't only be good if it relies on GMs having to significantly alter the base published adventure.

Examples of GMs changing it cannot and should not be the expectation. We have adventures as written (RAW) then we have table modifications (homebrew). Classes shouldn't be balanced around homebrew.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As for skills additional free lores (or additional lore) feats would go a long way to improving the academic feel of the class.

Less boring class feats would help but with the changes so spell proficiency becomes universal dedications for MOAR spell slots (if that is the niche of the class) is fine.

Prepared casting is not really an advantage and often worse in the moment that spontaneous and signature spells, scrolls cover my need for prepared casting readily enough. I would like more ability to swap or heighten spells im combat even if it was just the much more limited corriculum spells.

I would love better focus spells but we'll see what comes out of the remaster.

Wizards aren't far from being a c9mpetitive choice its just 'MOAR spellslots' especially with the '3' challenging encounters per day is not a great selling point. For me more spell slots is about longevity and if that isn't a factor is weakens more spellslots being an advantage. You need less spellslots if you have less encounters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AestheticDialectic wrote:
Cyder wrote:

Either way, classes shouldn't be balanced around niche playstyles and campaigns but rather what can reasonably be expected in a published adventure.

High Int giving extra skills/languages isn't a class thing, especially not a wizard thing. Also wizards start with 1 less trained skill than most classes. Saying its cause they have a high int is like saying fighters should start with less weapon proficiency because they will have a high strength/dex. There isn't a good reason for it.

Wizards day to day flexibility is super niche and campaign dependent. Usually it can be replaced with an arcane sorc who buys scrolls (same as the wizard is apparently supposed to do to increase slots).

This has always appeared as a goofy complaint to me. Wizards will always have 2+4, a fighter will most likely have 3+0, but at most 3+3 which is equal. Genuinely a wizard is not going to actually have fewer trained skills than most classes. It's just not going to happen unless you don't get a +4 in intelligence. This is a non-complaint and it doesn't matter

Its a non complaint in your opinion but you provide no reason as to why wizard baseline starts behind and they effectively start 1 trained skill behind other classes before stats? Why should they ztart with less skills on the base chassis? Alchemists also have int as a main attribute but don't start with less skills.

So they are behind (by 1 trained skill) where they should otherwise be for base class + int. This kind of means they need the extra int just to catch up in mumber of trained skills.

Just because something is a 'nom-complaint' to yoy doesn't mean it isn't itrational or illogical and makes little to no sense. Why should wizards start with less skills than others before stats?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Either way, classes shouldn't be balanced around niche playstyles and campaigns but rather what can reasonably be expected in a published adventure.

High Int giving extra skills/languages isn't a class thing, especially not a wizard thing. Also wizards start with 1 less trained skill than most classes. Saying its cause they have a high int is like saying fighters should start with less weapon proficiency because they will have a high strength/dex. There isn't a good reason for it.

Wizards day to day flexibility is super niche and campaign dependent. Usually it can be replaced with an arcane sorc who buys scrolls (same as the wizard is apparently supposed to do to increase slots).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
its not whether it changes the actual game math, it is about what it leads players to try to do in play.

This is an illogical assumption. I can easily apply this thinking to spell attacks or any action which may be worse than another in a given circumstance that exists.

So a +1 to spell hit iyem would encourage players to use spell attacks which I infer is 'bad.' However the existence of spell attacks won't encohrage players to try them.

Earlier in the thread you say spell attacks are ok as they are situational. At best a +1 item allows slightly more of those situation to exist or be worthwhile, how is that a bad thing? Either spell attacks are bad and shouldn't be encouraged or they are situational and could bemefit from some minor support. If +1 isn't a umbalancing why not give spell attacks some mimimal support?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If a limited resource requires another limited resource to do its job why not have it baked in?

Is it a good or interesting choice to choose between option A which mostly works or option B that requires help for it to work as good as option A does without it?

Does anyone here think that spell attacks are as good for casters as save spells are in general (rather than the niche circumstances). I get the feeling that is a no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My larger issue with spell attacks are the ones that require a save as well to have any effect (Ray of Enfeeblement). It should be 1 or the other not 2 rolls going your way for 1 effect.

Truestrike tax feels bad, I would prefer it was a lesser spellshape feat that granted a +2 to hit, so half the numerical effect of a truestrike and without its other advantages.

Not all spells are supposed to be good for all classes that can access them. I am fine with some arcane spells being clearly a better choice for the Magus than Wizard.

I would much rather the highly situational or niche spells be made more universally useful. I want more spell flexibility in existing spells and trim the bloat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would improve Hunt Prey to give the benefits of Outwit Edge.

Outwit by itself un my experience hasn't been popular compared to flurry or precision and getting a skills/defence bonus as part of focusing a target seems very huntery. I would at leadt give the option as a feat rather than an edge that just won't perform as well over the long game.

I would probably also consider giving a free RK check as part of applying it. As the ranger changes their focus they are thinking about what weaknesses/strengths the target has.

I don't mind the hunt prey action tax if I can combine it with rk or reload or a move. Fixes most of the issues with the ranger.

Crossbows still feel subpar but willing to see if that changes in play experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Calliope5431 wrote:


In fairness they have life sense, which detects undead creatures.

And yes the entire point of Geb is that positive damage is illegal. It's not exactly fair to say "if you want to play in Geb and not be undead you deserve what you get". Which seems to be what is being said.

Also - what's to say positive energy is a thing you have? Wizards, bards, psychics, magi, many sorcerers...none of them have access to positive energy.

The default assumption seems to be "everyone should be armed to the teeth to fight undead". But take a look at the parties you've seen before. Is that borne out in your actual play experience? Did ALL of them come equipped with huge quantities of positive damage?

Maybe, depends on the party and the typical enemies of the campaign. In Geb where undead are super frequent I would expect the party to be prepared to deal with undead.

Sorcs can get access to heal pretty easily with cross blooded at 8th level for a feat and most sorcs take the feat to pick up a spell they are likely to need. Disrupt undead as a cantrip is easy for anyone to pick up with an ancestry feat (and if you are doing the remaster rules will scale nicely for casters in terms of spell DCs). Positive energy bombs are easy enough to pick up.

It does seem your party was very very suboptimal for that kind of encounter, not saying it doesn't happen to other parties but I wouldn't put that down as a typical encounter with lower CR enemies. It was on the back of another encounter without giving the characters a chance to regroup, it allowed no counter play with the undead coming through the floor. The GM set it up so they new to focus the cleric and were somehow able to get them all in range for reactive strikes. Any GM can create similarly unbalanced encounters using lower level enemies but this is not the typical (and certainly not in most APs as written) encounter design and you had a party that was really poorly designed to handle undead encounters in an undead campaign.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Highlighting a feat that doesn't come online to level 16 as playstyle defining feels weird to me. Many campaigns never get tobthe last 5 levels including the super popular Abomination Vaults.

I am not sure on Paizo's design choices that put playstyle defining feats so late in play as to almost never get picked. Playstyle defing feats should be between levels 1 to 6 or baked in to class features.

The rest of the blog looks... ok I guess. Nothing to help with hunt prey switching at higher levels. A feat tbat allows you to swtich targets as free action/reaction for hunt prey if your hunt prey target dies around level 10 wouldn't go astray.

Create a diversion is nice but with the way Paizo balances the math it means a ranger that doesn't imvest in deception and cha can't really count on this working to trigger backstab. A class feat that both locks you into 1 weapon group but requires increasing a dtat and skill to keep up feels bad. The Take Cover part is nice though.

Feels like crossbow rangers need to pay feat, skill and stat increase feat taxes just to keep up with bow rangers that don't need to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I hope that is something that is changed, a lot of class feats don't work with natural weapons which is sad. My Ammurran ranger would love to use their claws but they don't interact with ranger feats.

1 to 50 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>