Cyouni's page

Organized Play Member. 1,955 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 1,955 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't believe the wizard was deprived of a choice of ??? because they got Drain Bonded Item.

You're aware that taking away Shield Block from the fighter doesn't mean they gain anything as a result, right?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, that would be part of Doomsday Dawn, part 5. Checking tells me the name is Heroes of Undarin.

Question: how does the Starlit Span archer do with lesser/standard cover being an impact? When I was playing a sniper gunslinger, I constantly had to work around that, and Starlit Span, as presented, seems to need a lot of those 3-action turns, especially if you're recharging manually instead of conflux.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Can you use Rapid Affixture to attach the scroll? That is what I was wondering. I can attach them rapidly with Affix a talisman and and Rapid Affixture?

That you can do, yes. Striker's Scroll notes that it uses Affix a Talisman, and Rapid Affixture reduces the time of Affix a Talisman.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:

You picked bad examples. AD&D isn't particularly detailed or granular for a modern TTRPG that isn't a rules light it's just from a different age and isn't very tightly writen with lots of fluff and ambiguity.

You literally insisted that skill simplification made the game objectively less interesting. Hence, anyone reading this would understand that by that logic, complexity/granularity is interesting by default.

But I specifically pulled out the weapon system for a reason. There is absolutely no fluff or ambiguity there - it is literally a table of how good each weapon type is against each AC bonus.

It is dated in exactly the same way that 3.5's skill system is.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:

Complexity isn't a net negative. It allows for granularity and fine-tuning which is highly desirable in a TTRPG. The constant simplification of skills and character-build options makes 5e and PF2 objectively less interesting games than PF1 and D&D3.5 even as their better balance makes them more playable.

You can have the complexity without the worst excesses if that is your goal.

Counter example 1: FATAL. (Please do not look this up if you are not already aware of it.)

Counter example 2: AD&D.

Both examples have tons of granularity which provides absolutely no improvement to the game. In AD&D's case, for instance, Haste aging the target by 1 year and having a material component of licorice root does not make it more "interesting". The weapon tables of AD&D do not allow for more "desirable fine-tuning".

And before you attempt to say something to the effect of No True Granularity, I don't think you can prove that skill simplification and weapon simplification are meaningfully different.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

So question: how do you have enough information to comment on how "unacceptable" and "below par" the balance of multiple classes is in play if you basically don't play yourself?

Or is this yet another person armchair theorizing and feeling they know best?

It's not like I haven't played and GMed the system before and see struggle bus classes in action. I played right at launch with one of my players rolling up a pre-errata Alchemist in Fall of Plaguestone. It was not a good time and even once we applied the errata he still felt useless in that AP. I've played alongside a Gunslinger and watched them struggle against foes he couldn't easily roll crits against. I never saw a Witch because nobody I knew would touch the class pre-remaster.

I don't need to continue playing the system because I've already seen its flaws in action and they're the same flaws people keep pointing out on this forum and on Reddit.

So you've seen precisely two examples and clearly it's because of inherent flaws in the system.

I've seen a druid be unimpressive because he prepared very questionable spells and spent a lot of time with a melee weapon. But yes, clearly this is representative of all casters and I should be yelling about how casters suck and can't do things in play.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So question: how do you have enough information to comment on how "unacceptable" and "below par" the balance of multiple classes is in play if you basically don't play yourself?

Or is this yet another person armchair theorizing and feeling they know best?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Travelling Sasha wrote:


So, I'm not a native English speaker — in fact, I GM in both Spanish and Portuguese. Since these two languages are so full of cognates, though, the actual act of translating anything from English to either of these two languages can be confusing. I can't do it on the spot, not with precision. So, I'd have to sit down and actually translate these little blue room descriptors that Paizo puts in premade adventures to be read out loud. That... could take a bunch of time. Certain words don't translate easily. I remember spending a good thirty minutes trying to translate the word alcove, for example.

But today, it really is a matter of just quickly copying the text and asking ChatGPT to translate it. Running online, I can even do it on the spot! It's a breeze.

Have you considered dedicated actual language things like DeepL?

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pixel Popper wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
... there's been a massive push by companies to replace people (writers, artists, etc) by using AI to create something "good enough" to function for profit...
Why is that any worse than automation to replace assembly line workers, kiosks to replace food server order takers and cashiers, or any other of the myriad examples of advancement replacing human labor (the printing press, industrial looms, bulldozers, harvesters, ad nauseam)?

One thing to consider is the difference in fields here. Creative fields are the big difference - automation in the form of the printing press hasn't done anything to say, calligraphy, because automation can't do that. Automation is only really able to cover tasks that can be done simply, whereas there's also still a market for hand-done and custom work of all types.

Generative AI takes that and stifles creativity because you can mimic hand-done work on the cheap, thanks to it stealing and copying the work of those that had come before it. It's also self-devouring, because you can have infinite levels of standard automation without affecting anything, while AI work can't sustain itself without non-AI people feeding it. It can't create something new - taking an example from a recent show, it can't imagine stars in a sky that has never had any.

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm a graphic designer and technical illustrator by profession, draw dozens of illustrations a week for my job, and I'm loving the new capabilities these automation tools allow.

So another big reason why, aside from the art theft mentioned above, is also that there's been a massive push by companies to replace people (writers, artists, etc) by using AI to create something "good enough" to function for profit.

Working in that field yourself, I'm sure you can see the problem there.

The concept behind generative AI-assisted tools is fine in and of itself, but the execution and general corporate response has some major problems.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

You might be interested to know that undead aren't immune to nonlethal. They're immune to unconscious, which is a different thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squark wrote:
Can we get guidance on which pre-remaster spells should have the [Manipulate] and/or [Concentrate] trait added? It feels important since the former is not universal to all remastered spells, and Reactive strike only triggers if the action has the [Manipulate] tag, so spells like Sure Strike no longer trigger Reactive Strike or most similar reactions.

I suspect that Manipulate is generally on things that had Somatic, and Concentrate on things with Verbal. I'd have to trace through all of them to find exceptions, though, and see if there's a pattern there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh, you do have to consider that you're also shorting yourself on the benefits of conflux focus spells. It's clearly better than not using a focus point (as it should be), but you do also have to give up a level 2 and 6 feat, in addition to the opportunity cost of other archetypes and a focus point.

That said, it does get insane if you maximize its power with things like Spell Swipe.

Don't update Foundry then? You don't need to do the update immediately.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will also point out a few other factors:

1 - yes, the swash is going to deal less damage than a two-handed barbarian on each hit because that's how weapons work. The barbarian is paying for that extra damage by having 3 less AC, for instance. Similarly, yes the swash is going to do less damage than a top level spell, because again, that's how the numbers are designed. That's all basic design math - that the tradeoffs that are happening have costs as a result.

2 - the swash has significantly more support tools built in automatically. For instance, fencer makes its targets off-guard, which is a free helper that makes a lot of people very happy (the spell attack psychic you like to trot out, for instance, gets a big boost there). A lot of the other ones should be insanely obvious as well, with gymnast and wit being especially far up there.

3 - I've absolutely never seen a GM go "it's not worth it to target the swashbuckler", first. And if you really keep getting that, that's what AoO is for - it's really not hard to lean into that in ways that force one or the other to happen. Also, if they do that and you're *not* punishing their incredibly silly positioning as a result, that's on you.

Calliope5431 wrote:

Well, we can do that math...

At level 11, a swashbuckler with a rapier is dealing 1d6 (base) + 1d6 (striking rune) + 4d6 (finisher) + 2d6 (property runes) + 3 (strength modifier) + 2 (weapon specialization) = 8d6+5 ~ 33 points of damage, using two actions (one to get panache and one to make the finisher stab).

A level 11 dragon barbarian with a greataxe (standard "basic damage", nothing crazy like flurry ranger or rogue) is dealing 1d12 (base) + 1d12 (striking rune) + 2d6 (property runes) + 8 (rage and instinct) + 5 (strength modifier) + 2 (weapon specialization) = 2d12+2d6+17 ~ 35 damage with one action. It gets even higher with a giant barbarian.

And the barbarian is making two attacks, because it costs an action to do that feint. Given there's a decent chance of failing the feint and not getting ANY finisher, I think that more than cancels out with the flat-footed accuracy boost you get from succeeding...

I mean, that's base Confident Finisher and presupposing those two actions started in melee. That said, let's drop some sample numbers.

Level 11 is High AC 31, DC 28/31 for Low/Moderate saves. To-hit on both is +22. Swash can have +21 to Tumble and +19 to Feint.

Swashbuckler hits for 33, which turns into an average of 30.6 after accounting for flat-footed. Add 1.75 for Confident, and 3.5 for Precise. Ballpark double that instead if they can do Impaling or Dual Finisher.
Barbarian hits for 35, averaging into 24.5 on the first swing and 14 on the second.

So yes, the swashbuckler averages a little less with 32.3 at base finisher as opposed to 38.5. The better available finishers compare closer to 61.2 in the case of the multi-targets, and 30.6 + ~14-42 in the case of bleeding. Ability to riposte spikes this quite a bit, however, with that adding on another 18 on average assuming no panache - and riposte is really not that hard to get. And in this case, it also guarantees easy flat-footed for everyone else in the party.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

One thing about the playtest is that it was really big. Four classes is a lot, and opinions on the investigator, witch, and even oracle were extremely polarizing and intense.

I feel like to some extent a lot of people gave the Swashbuckler a once over or a very superficial test and then moved on to the 'real' problems. It just didn't get the same level of deep analysis and criticism the other classes got.

I mean, you were part of it, you tell me. You were one of the people commentating in the swashbuckler playtest forum.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

So you're saying the swashbuckler is bad due to popular vote? Wouldn't you have a process in place to ensure that you saw the data problems?

I guess I am too accustomed to video game balancing at this point. I figured the devs could run the numbers and see the problems. But maybe there is more to it than that with a tabletop RPG.

...tabletop balancing and video game balancing are completely different. You just cannot tweak tabletop numbers with near the same level of control that you can in a video game. Not to mention tabletop balance is basically like balancing for an open world game, except you're also balancing for Diablo on steroids, and with significantly more options because of how it works with action flow.

But if you want a longform discussion with specifics, here, you can listen to Mark talk about Electric Arc.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

There were so many ways the Swashbuckler was short circuited. How the design team did not see this is beyond me given how obvious it was in play.

It made me wonder if they fell in love with a bad mechanic. One that was clunky and techy as I've heard them put it.

I'm not sure who "they" is, because I'll remind you again that it was insanely well rated during the playtest by everyone that participated. 80% of people picked either 4-5/5 on enjoyment in every regard.

So clearly if it was so "obvious", it's interesting that it barely came up during testing. Two things noted in the one thread where it came up as a topic (specifically against a level+4 enemy) is first, the alternate method of gaining panache where you don't interact with the boss's DCs (but very hard for your level), and second, not necessarily burning panache every round for finishers.

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

I personally want to see the math they ran and what their design parameters that made things work out in the end game the way they are.

They must have calculated the rate of panache generation combined with finisher damage compared to what a comparative class does to come up with the Finisher damage dice and finisher limitations, right? They must have had an idea of how that works.

I'm wondering if they expected people to focus more on regular strikes, then use panache judiciously to boost damage with finishers in fights rather than almost every round as I see it used in the game.

One thing I definitely note is that you're expected to get decent use of Riposte, and don't need to be parrying to get that use, unlike Duelist or Fighter feats. (Also, that example is 2-3 feats deep in a chain.)

Another thing that certainly comes up is that some posters basically never consider movement as a factor, see every example where people only ever consider 4 attacks standing still. I do see a quick reference to a dev-side level 5 swashbuckler doing fine with fists critting at 2d4+4+3d6.

One thing I did recall is that it's definitely come up to use the secondary damage on panache in a way where you might not necessarily burn it every turn in situations where it's not reliable to regain it.


That said, one thing to consider is that swashbuckler was, far and away, the most popular class in the playtest. I'd have to dig up the Twitch VOD somehow again to confirm, but I don't recall any concerns about damage coming up during the retrospective. In general, people picked 5 stars to rank it more than any other option.

So what changed since then? Retort was lost, because it came up as limiting, though this did an interesting thing in regards to Cheat Death and how often it could be used. One fascinating thing I see changed is that styles had a way to start with panache - when they rolled it for initiative - but that was cut.

What could have been missed? One thing I definitely feel slipped people by is skill increases and the limitations therein, because there wasn't really leveling/characters over time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's very funny that people seem to think they are the only ones with the ability to do math.

Especially when Mark was one of the core designers.

Uh huh. At the cost of literally your entire turn standing there just attacking, taking absolutely no advantage of literally anything from the swashbuckler.

And is there literally any sillier example you could take? As though the prime example of things includes a level 19 rune at level 17, a rare rune, and the worst possible comparison.

Like barely even trying I can simply drop this counterexample:

TH 36
AC 38
Damage 55.5 (+27)
Critical 0.6975
Hit 0.3
Damage 112.905

Oh and it has 4 higher AC than your example fighter and doesn't have to spend its entire turn standing there.

So literally nothing alike, okay. Especially when you're pulling four actions vs one plus random extra bonuses out of nowhere.

nicholas storm wrote:

Finishing strike extra damage is so bad, that a swashbuckler does more damage full attacking than doing finishing strike in many high level real combats. If a class using it's key ability is worse than not using it's key ability - this proves the class is broken.

As I said earlier, the only way to fix swashbuckler is to remove finishers from the class.

I can tell you this is not true without even checking the math. At absolute worst, a base finisher with absolutely no added effects is 1.5x damage (with the d8 example I showed above), with a more likely number being 1.6x-1.8x.

I recall average damage goes down by approximately half with each multiple attack penalty, assuming no agile. So 1x, 1.5x, 1.75x with each attack. I'd have to do the math to figure out where each finisher places, but I'm quite sure that effective True Strike, for instance, is better than a 10% increase. Other examples get whackier, with Dual Finisher being obscenely out of whack if you satisfy the requirements (something like 2.8-3x would be my quick guess) and Bleeding being pretty out there.

And even then, if Confident comes equal to triple attack, that's still 1 action vs 3.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think something that'd be nice is better scaling for Finishers, because it seems weird that they get comparatively worse as you get higher level. At level 1, it's cool to do 10.5 damage on a rapier instead of 3.5. But when we get to level 20, let's use the triple damage rune weapon as an example - a rapier is 4d6+3d6 rune+6 specialization, averaging to 30.5. With finisher, that's 13d6+6, or average of 51.5. Significantly less impressive of an increase. Even if we take out the triple damage rune, that's still 20 to 41, which is a pretty big cut. Yes, we've gotten much more reliable about it, but the corresponding result is less interesting.

(Note that an example with 16->20 Str doesn't throw this off that much, even with a d8 weapon. We go from average of 7->14.5 to 39.5->60.5, with no damage runes being 29->50.)

Corabee Cori wrote:
Easl wrote:
Corabee Cori wrote:
Yup. Just as legit as saying that my awesome feinting ability makes me feel awesome and inspired and I gain panache status even if the mindless enemy I am feinting against doesn't notice.
I honestly have no problem with that. The audience Errol Flynn cares about is mostly Errol Flynn, not the other guy.
I would think so too. But apparently that is a disengenuous reading of the rules. I haven't found a GM yet that allows this.

So question: what separates feinting against a mindless enemy versus feinting against the adjacent vase, besides the difficulty?

You might argue that the vase isn't trying to kill you. In that case, what stops you from feinting against a hazard, say a Spinning Blade Pillar?

I'd argue it's hard to say you're succeeding if you have no effect.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Corabee Cori wrote:
Or the GM rules that Tumble Through and effectively go nowhere is allowed.
This is RAW. There is no ruling required - Tumble Through has absolutely no specification on where you go besides "into an enemy's square". If it did, you couldn't move past an enemy within a corner space.

So you're slipping in and out of their legs just to style on them?

Eh? Sounds legit.

I like this one in combination with Tumble Behind, because it implies that they spin trying to follow you, only to find you didn't actually go through their legs as you stab them in the back.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Out of curiosity, do you disallow Running Reload from taking a Step because then it's not a "Running" Reload?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corabee Cori wrote:
Or the GM rules that Tumble Through and effectively go nowhere is allowed.

This is RAW. There is no ruling required - Tumble Through has absolutely no specification on where you go besides "into an enemy's square". If it did, you couldn't move past an enemy within a corner space.

...am I missing something about your situation such that failing wouldn't cause you to remain in place?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless they've changed the actual design principles 2e started on, Dex-to-damage isn't happening.

Corabee Cori wrote:

I remember once when we were fighting against some mindless enemies and the GM was ruling that feint wouldn't give panache no matter how well I rolled at it - that I still didn't want to use Tumble Through because I was the one plugging up the hallway and preventing the enemy from getting to the downed characters and spellcasters behind me. The thing instead had to try and attack me and my high AC, Hit Points, and Dueling Parry.

But... you can just use Tumble Through and return to your previous location. You're still moving through the square, and gaining panache. Is it the most efficient way? Definitely not. But you still trigger things like Tumble Behind, which in the situation you were in is still handy for off-guard.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, if you don't want that, simply Tumble Through, Finisher, Tumble Through again on your way out to end with panache at a safe distance. And that's not even counting the fact that you don't actually have to end surrounded - you can Tumble Through to a spot adjacent to only one enemy, or return to the previous square after Tumbling Through. I know this sounds heretical, but you don't have to play stupid simply because you're playing a swashbuckler.

Acrobatics is attached to the class for a reason.

(I liked Twin Parry as well on my swash.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know it always comes up, but auto skill increases a la Inventor is definitely wanted.

VampByDay wrote:

-1 Panache is a problem. Listen, Panache is a problem here. I love the idea in concept, the idea that you are styling on your enemy, and that gives you the confidence to get more done. The problem here is that it just doesn't work for a couple of reasons

--A) A lot of fights only last 2-3 rounds. So if you spend your first round getting up to someone and getting panache, not only are they going to merc you for the whole of your next round, but that's 1/3 of the fight you aren't participating in.

What are you even doing that you're taking your full first round there? If you are close enough to get your base move -5, Tumble Through gets you panache in one action.

AestheticDialectic wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

I don't see why spirit should have anything to do with emotions, clearly a mental thing. I don't understand why you seem to think controlling someone's mind with magic is a spirit-based thing, because the whole point is that mental control does not affect the soul.

If anything, I'd say force effects are more along the lines of spiritual vs material, given how they affect spiritual bodies so effectively. (Yes, I'm temporarily putting aside how they are physical manifestations that also affect the physical form.) I think one of the most obvious things here as an example is Spiritual Blast.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
I believe it has been made clear in the lore before that the experience of consciousness (including emotion) does not belong to any one essence. I'm running off to work right now, but iirc emotions are actually based in all four essences to greater or lesser degrees. For example mind is supposed to specialize in headier, more cerebral aspects of emotion while life essence sits around basic instinctual emotions.
Emotions are stated to be spirit in the Secrets of Magic book, and that mental does not govern emotions

I would have to take a look at that, because that's an interesting setup there.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Game designers' sanity and quality of life ?
Is maintaining a table and thinking about which new spells are appropriate for each casting class really supposed to be some impossible feat? I do not buy that for a second.

You're aware that there are 1388 spells currently and 13 classes capable of casting, right?

You're aware that you're suggesting quadrupling+ the work of developers for no benefit? And then it also breaks the entire system if they introduce a new casting class, because now they have to backport all 1388 spells into that class?

I don't see why spirit should have anything to do with emotions, clearly a mental thing. I don't understand why you seem to think controlling someone's mind with magic is a spirit-based thing, because the whole point is that mental control does not affect the soul.

If anything, I'd say force effects are more along the lines of spiritual vs material, given how they affect spiritual bodies so effectively. (Yes, I'm temporarily putting aside how they are physical manifestations that also affect the physical form.) I think one of the most obvious things here as an example is Spiritual Blast.

3-Body Problem wrote:

I fundamentally dislike the way the traditions have been implemented so even if balance is perfect, and given the issues I have with PF2 I have my doubts, I don't think I would enjoy it. I do not think there is a valid excuse for not maintaining per class spell lists in the digital age we live in.

Ah yes, the "we should go digital-only" crowd appears again, despite all the reasons Paizo has given against it.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the question is: is this thread adding any value or new information, or just the 30th retread of old ground?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:
I don't find that true at all - I've long-played with folks who take what some people consider 'traps' and forgo 'must-takes' and the experience has been completely fine and often they had more fun than they would have if they took the 'must-takes'.

You know what's a trap in forums' eyes?

A martial druid with a Savage animal companion, maxing Diplomacy with 10 Cha.

You know who was a perfectly functional character in the AP I played all the way to the end?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grumpus wrote:

If 3 moderate fights a day are the expectation, they need to communicate this to AP writers.

Just looking at the start of book-1 of Outlaws of Alkenstar ** spoiler omitted **

And this AP does not have the excuse of being an early one.

And to answer the OPs question. From what I have seen, The designers seem to think those who don't enjoy the wizard or think it is too weak are playing the game wrong.

I will point out you definitely feel like you're supposed to be resting in that second area you mentioned. There's a literal campsite there. I don't know why you think you shouldn't be resting at the literal campsite surrounded by friendly characters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Only if you build one that doesn't.

IMO is a bad idea not to build a martial that can target every save with at least something. Max out intimidation, dip Alchemist or Gunslinger for bombs, get a weapon with the trip and/or disarm trait, use snares and talismans.

Its all there.

Are you implying that a character with one archetype, a maxed skill, and a specific weapon type is equivalent to one that doesn't have all those requirements?

Not to mention that only does things related to frightened, trip, and disarm. By rank 3 spells, you can target slowed on at least two different saves, damage large AoEs, blind enemies (for a minute, which is basically the whole fight), make groups invisible, open locks, cause stronger fear, etc.

This is unquestionably a larger variety of activities that can target a wider range of defenses. Now, you can absolutely argue that it's not as good as just hitting things (which people may disagree on), but martials definitely do not reach the range of things a caster has available.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah to talk about "the prepared wizard can solve anything"... no.

And see, this is why these threads always have issues - because people take things and warp them into this.

Because what was actually said was:

Since a wizard very much can have a spell for every situation that targets every possible defense, the game has to assume they do, otherwise you cannot meet the goal of balance.

This is absolutely and unequivocally true. A martial can target AC, and possibly use Athletics on Fort/Ref. This is very much more limited than the defenses a wizard can target.

18 people marked this as a favorite.

I saw that the Twitter thread was posted and immediately knew the exact same people were going to be in this thread.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
EidolonAzul wrote:
I really wish they would nerf Fighter in the remastered edition, my players just don't see a point in playing other martials, for example you can be a fighter with a martial artist/monk dedication instead of a monk who will never reach Legendary proficiency in unarmed strikes or grab the champion dedication and be a champion with the reaction, lay on hands and the +2 to hit from fighter.

I see your players don't understand the value of Legendary AC and movement.

Which, y'know, says something about the GM.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ouatcheur wrote:

We House Ruled a "fix":

- Power Attack becomes a clear upgrade, not a mere occasionnal sidegrade, and remains useful at all levels.

- Assumed that it will be used relatively regularly, too.

We changed it to:

Power Attack: <> (1 Action)

Traits: Barbarian, Fighter, Flourish, Press.

In order to deal a mightier blow, you gain momentum to push your strength beyond its limits, focusing everything on offense to the detriment of defense. However, this leaves you momentarily reeling and unbalanced.

- Make a Strike with a melee weapon wielded in two hands. That attack loses any potential Precision Damage.

- The attack's base damage adds twice your Strength bonus instead of addding it only once. Note that for Critical Hits, this is added before the doubling of the total weapon damage.

- Until your next turn, you become Clumsy 2.

It's funny because your "fix" accomplishes none of your stated goals. Giving yourself Clumsy 2 on Press in return for 4-7 flat damage (and also disabling precision damage) is so insanely bad that I'd take it on maybe the Giant Barbarian at most (because they're clumsy 1 anyways), and it'd stop seeing use very quickly.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
I feel like this is kinda reopening the door to "good" or "neutral" Asmodeus or Lamashtu worshippers though. They specifically moved away from that for a reason.
I think the way around this is to make "receiving divine power from a God" require accepting both a set of edicts and anathema specific to that God and a more general set of edicts and anathema shared by a bunch of simiilar Gods.

I definitely think this is possible, which would be interesting to see how it resolves certain things like that.

It's also going to be interesting to see how things like Divine Wrath are handled. I definitely think it'd be weird if those AoE aligned blasts changed to hitting everyone, for instance.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The one thing I'm wondering about with the loss of alignment is how they're going to present certain deities.

Like Torag being Lawful and Good is an important bit of context to his edicts *not* demanding genocide. Arazni being Neutral and Evil but granting divine power to only one evil alignment, three neutral alignments, and one good alignment tells us a lot about Arazni. I sort of suspect what we're going to be doing is "backformating a lot of this." Like "Arazni is still NE, and allows CG, LN, N, CN, and NE clerics, but we're not going to say any of those words."

I think Torag is less fraught when you don't have to label what he's doing Lawful and Good. Likewise, "Arazni grants powers to those abuse survivors who refuse to have their pride broken by suffering" is perfectly coherent without a list of Cleric alignments stapled to it.

I feel like this is kinda reopening the door to "good" or "neutral" Asmodeus or Lamashtu worshippers though. They specifically moved away from that for a reason.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vasyazx wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nothing in there says you get to identify the tags the spell has. Why are you adding that in when it seems to cause problems?
Well i assume that correctly recognition of spell would give you full information about it otherwise it would not be correct recognition at all.So what exacly should be gain from that action from your persectve?

You recognize the spell being cast as Divine Lance.

How is that not correct recognition?

I'll try my hand at discussing stuff with the OP.

2. One reason for backgrounds is to help flavour and give ideas for your character. Think of them as PF1 traits, but where traits were used to game mechanics because some were so much stronger than half a feat, backgrounds are a lot more flexible - to get a specific set of two stats out of it, you have about a 60% chance to get one of those two stats in the possible selections.

3. The problem here is that basically no one ever used the standard array because of how inflexible it was. The standard was usually some form of point buy, and PF2's shines over that by a mile.

4. This is no less true than PF1? I'm not sure how you build a level 5 PF1 character, for instance, without people actually needing a rulebook to know their 3 feats and two rogue talents and weapons and spells and-- Like, please do me a favour: I'll show you a level 15 PF1 character, and you tell me what all the feats and talents do without looking at a rulebook. I spent years and years memorizing random PF1 details, and that didn't stop a player from pulling out a feat I've never heard of before.

7. I'm not sure what you mean by save or suck here, because that's not the definition anyone else has ever used. Aiming for a higher DC meaning you have an issue on failure has always been a thing in Pathfinder. Take a lot at PF1's Acrobatics to jump, for instance: if you aim for DC 20 and hit it, you make the 20 ft jump. If you aim for DC 30 and hit DC 20, you don't make the 20 ft jump - you fail to make the 30 ft jump and fall prone.

8. What are you comparing their damage to? 1d4+4 is going to be better than a shortbow's 1d6, for instance.

9. Utility. Or you can hold onto them for weakness procs if you really want, as you covered in 6.

10. Focus spells replace the 3+Int (or whatever they were) powers that wizards/clerics/oracles/paladins/etc used to have. They're still limited in use compared to cantrips.

11. Did...you not play PF1, the game where you can get over +100 to a roll if you really tried? My level 15 diabolist witch wasn't exactly optimized for it, but she still had a +26 Bluff, +46 with glibness, +6 more vs devils, +30 more to convince people that I was a specific outsider when transformed. Note that adds up to +82 to convince devils that she's a devil if I really felt like it.

12-13. A) see PF1. B) I can literally tell you how most things level straight up off the top of my head because of how consistent it is.

14. This was intended, because PF1 basically made it irrelevant to be a martial character after a certain level because spellcasters were so much more effective at being a thing. Where high level martials were just "hit sword more". A level 10 melee martial is literally supposed to be a character on par with a young red dragon in power, but a PF1 martial doesn't show that, because all they can do is sword a thing next to them and move 5 feet.

15. Let me give you a quick example of my level 14 swashbuckler if that makes you feel better. He has three ways of gaining panache - Aiding an ally, insulting an enemy with Bon Mot, and dodging through with Acrobatics. He has two ways of spending it to attack - Confident Finisher to deal damage even when missing, and Dual Finisher to hit two enemies with two weapons. He has one major defensive tool in Twin Parry, which he can also do a stance for so that it lasts permanently, and can hit an enemy with Riposte when they miss by enough. (He also has some cantrips.) This is actually likely to be more complicated than other martials of the same level. Does that really seem that hard to handle?

Jacob Jett wrote:
Right now folks are bailing on 5e not for reason of its maths.

I just wanted to push back and say that people are absolutely bailing on 5e because its balance is absolute garbage. Trying to pretend otherwise is impressively tone-deaf to what people have been constantly commenting as problems with it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arcaian wrote:

I'm definitely not trying to argue that 5e doesn't have a tremendous advantage in reach and visibility over all other ttRPGs - that would be plainly ignoring reality, as you say. I ran a club at uni introducing students to ttRPGs, and I am fully aware how few of them even knew what Pathfinder was, despite being the second biggest RPG on the market. How I'm using accessibility doesn't really include visibility though. I was talking about the game design, and when saying accessibility I am talking about how the game design gives rise to more or less accessible games for new players. When I'm talking about visibility, I'm meaning the popularity of the game in the cultural zeitgeist.

I feel they're important to distinguish, because if someone is talking to a new player who wants to get into tRPGs and says 'the key advantage of 5e is its accessibility', I think they'll interpret that as 'this is a really easy-to-get-into beginner's game'. If you say...

I'd argue that accessibility includes visibility, in that it's hard to get people to join a game if people have no idea what it is. It's rare that people go "I'm fine with playing any TTRPG" as they enter into the system.

I think 5e is accessible enough in gameplay that it doesn't deter people from its overwhelming popularity.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Please remember at even at its weakest, during 4e, D&D still outsold everything not named Pathfinder.

So it's unsurprising that during a boom that they created, backed by both tons of influencers and highly popular ones, that they're doing better than ever.

The D&D brand is just that strong, and that's the biggest factor behind their success.

1 to 50 of 1,955 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>