Sargogen, Lord of Coils

Darksol the Painbringer's page

9,555 posts (9,578 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 9,555 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

gesalt wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's flat by being both samey and having a lack of overall variety. Yes, it's definitely extremely effective in a lot of standard land-based combats, but against enemies that use other tactics (such as Invisibility, Control Effects, Flight, Dimension Door, etc.), or in adventures that require certain things to be done (such as casting Teleport, being extremely skilled in numerous skills in the game, Healing), it's definitely not as effective as a more rounded party.
It's less of an issue than you'd think. Spellcasters are pretty easy to shutdown with a level 4 silence and trip. Flight is taken care of by items or a buff as in any other party, enemy control effects are no more or less effective than against any other party, bard can off heal with soothe, a fighter/champion can use LoH or champ reaction to mitigate, medicine bot uses Battle Medicine or healer's gloves depending on level. Skills usually aren't too much of an issue if you spread them correctly but you don't lose much subbing the dex fighter for a Thief rogue's two people's worth of skills if you're concerned about it.

The Silence is a bit overkill and could lead to problems with the Bard in the group based on positioning (if they pinched in, they can't cast). Also note that Silence would mean they cannot benefit from Inspire Courage, so they are debuffing themselves to shut down a Spellcaster. You could accomplish the same thing with Disruptive Stance and (Improved) Knockdown, really, when they come online (which is 12th level at the earliest).

Flight is probably the hardest thing to counter without expressly investing in it. In the lower levels where it becomes somewhat commonplace, it's especially crucial to have those back-up ranged weapons. Of course, when you get high enough level, said Fighters can just carry entire backpacks worth of Fly potions, making it pretty moot. Of course, Dispel Magic makes them easy targets if they're spotted, so it's still a bit problematic.

With Enemy Control effects, a Spellcaster might have the tools to remove or negate it that a Fighter simply doesn't. Although not my favorite, I can't deny that an appropriate level Dispel Magic can do a lot against a Dominate effect than simply beating down your friend to unconsciousness (who is also consequently beating you down) can do.

Soothe can be helpful, but as you point out, it requires help from the rest of the party to maintain its effectiveness. A Fighter needing to go into Champion dedication for Reactions to reduce damage and Focus Spells to help heal, another Fighter with Battle Medicine requiring free hands, etc.

Skill training is crucial in this game, as there are several skills that are required to accomplish things in the game to overcome obstacles and encounters. Being in a party that isn't trained enough to deal with Hazards means that most Hazards are TPKs unless we use appropriate contingencies to dispose of the Hazard (my personal favorite so far is Disintegrate, even if it means nuking potential loot into orbit). While the one time we actually TPK'd was from an overclocked homebrew encounter with express counters to our characters (such as Deafened affecting our ability to benefit from Inspire Courage, and triggering AoOs from doing anything besides standing and fighting), the other time we used an as-is adventure path hazard, it nearly resulted in a TPK all by itself, and a trap before that one nearly one-shot a character. A Rogue is far more likely to deal with a Hazard than a Fighter or Bard is based solely on their skill training alone, and depending on how it needs to be disabled (usually Thievery), a Rogue will have better stats for it compared to a Fighter or Bard, and those Hazard DCs are absurd. They would also benefit more from a Bard's Inspire Competence, no less, using the same argument as Fighter being the best to benefit from Inspire Courage.

YuriP wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

Regarding this quote:

CRB pg 304 wrote:
Spells with a range can affect targets, create areas, or make things appear only within that range. Most spell ranges are measured in feet, though some can stretch over miles, reach anywhere on the planet, or go even farther!
My argument is that the area is being created (its defining origin point is) within the spell's range.
Interesting. So is fireball real range (500 feet - 20-foot burst)?

I don't think so. There is an express example that was quoted in the rules for Burst effects (which Fireball certainly is) which uses Fireball in it that states that the explosion centers within 500 feet, and that the explosion still radiates 20 feet out from there.

That being said, that seems to be more of an exception to Bursts than it is that the general rule of effects with Areas can extend past the listed range, since other Area-based spells (as well as walls) don't have that kind of exception.

I was largely curious with the Walls more than anything, and it appears I have found my next item to bring up with my Sunday group for rules clarifications.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:

I'm personally hoping for some archetypes that focus in on using certain kinds of items. A wand-focused archetype would be amazing.

There is also just the joy of getting and finding new stuff. I also get inspired by item descriptions to make characters, and they can also serve as adventure seeds for GMs. This is especially true of artifacts but not always.

Equipment-specific Archetypes would make sense, in the same vein as Talisman Dabblers, Trapsmiths, etc. Wands are just begging to get an archetype about them at some point, and this could be a good book to do it in. Maybe the basic dedication (we'll dub it Wand Focuser) lets you substitute a spell slot of equal or higher level to focus the magical power into the wand to "stabilize" one that's already Overcharged, so that you can recast it again without making a check or risking breaking it, with feats expanding upon what Wands can do for you, or reducing the risks of Overcharging the Wands, etc.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really hope more attention is paid to the overall budgeting of the "newer" items this time around, instead of the options just providing more of the same (or worse) junk.

For context: A lot of the Uncommon/Advanced weapons that came out in new books were strictly worse than most Common/Martial weapons. Now, Common/Uncommon isn't (usually) an indication of an increased power level, but Advanced should definitely be more powerful than Martial options, and actually warrant the feat costs for it sometimes, not unlike the Flickmace that floats that line pretty well (although it being tied to the Gnomish ancestry makes it more cheesy than what it is). It would be nice to have some visibly clear differences demonstrating why such weapons should be Advanced compared to a Martial weapon, and the options being sweetly balanced behind the proficiency gating, instead of having to crunch the numbers and realize the option is just strictly worse and isn't worth investing feats towards under any circumstance.

Armor and Shields definitely need more expansion and rebalancing (especially heavy armor for Druids; would be nice for a CRB errata to let Druids wear any proficiency of armor, but have the same restrictions as before, so Druids can wear that sweet, sweet Stoneplate or Dragonhide Full Plate), and I hope that they implement a lot of the more "natural" materials for these items, like the aforementioned Stoneplate, some sort of Bonemail, a Leaf Armor maybe, etc. Bonus points for a "Haz-Mat Suit", a Medium (or Light) Armor that gives a +3 bonus in place of your Constitution for Saves versus Disease and Poison, but I would understand if not for obvious reasons.

The Tattoos I don't care for that much, since it's pretty niche as-is, but it would be nice to actually have low level options for the Tattoo Artist feat to work with when picking it up and leveling with it, instead of it being dead for the majority of the game. After all, if Tattoo Artist actually has some interesting options, people would be more inclined to take the feat(s) for it.

gesalt wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
gesalt wrote:
My personal favorite is the tri-fighter+bard configuration.

While that does sound like it would be quite effective, it also sounds like it would be incredibly flat to play.

I guess that is again pointing out the differences in approach to the playstyle of the game. Is the focus on the adventure and the interesting characters, or is the focus on the plot and winning the game?

I'm not sure what you mean by "flat." If you mean samey from fight to fight then you're simply describing what happens when you find and apply a successful strategy. It might look different depending on party comp, but every party I've seen or played in settles into a default battle plan that works in 99% of encounters.

As for the second part, I feel like there was a name for this fallacy. System mastery and mechanical optimization don't necessarily impact RP. Especially with fighter here able to turn himself into a better champion (fighter champion), something resembling a ranger (dex fighter/druid), a better barbarian (fighter/barbarian or just base fighter yelling loudly, monk (claim to be from a temple using whatever suitable monk weapon)

It's flat by being both samey and having a lack of overall variety. Yes, it's definitely extremely effective in a lot of standard land-based combats, but against enemies that use other tactics (such as Invisibility, Control Effects, Flight, Dimension Door, etc.), or in adventures that require certain things to be done (such as casting Teleport, being extremely skilled in numerous skills in the game, Healing), it's definitely not as effective as a more rounded party.

The Fallacy you're referring to is the Stormwind Fallacy. As you stated, it was coined when a certain user (I believe was actually called Stormwind) defined that a player wanting to be both a rollplayer (AKA powergamer) and a roleplayer simultaneously was neither mutually exclusive, nor detrimental to the overall health of a given game. It's something I 100% agree with, especially since I'm of the mindset that the rollplay should work hand-in-hand with the roleplay.

breithauptclan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I can certainly see where Paizo got their inspiration for designing Hexes for the Witch in PF2; that Focus Spell is extremely bad compared to most other Sorcerer Focus Spells that are actually pretty decent. Yikes.

There are a lot of limited or niche use level 1 focus spells across all classes. Jealous Hex certainly isn't the worst one. That honor probably goes to Dim the Light.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
As for why not, it's simply because you're suggesting that a class that is specifically designed to be slinging hexes around is actually worse at slinging hexes around than a class that has a "subclass" choice to do so.

And that isn't quite what I am saying.

For myself, I have no aversion to using the Witch class for slinging Hexes around. I find it to be quite satisfying. Though I do freely admit that there are some mechanical problems with the class that could use fixing.

But if you do have problems with the Witch class, or any other class, the solution may not be to tinker with the class or gripe about how it isn't rewarding enough or isn't reliable enough compared to other classes that you like better. The solution may instead be to play a class that you like the mechanics of better. The core classes (aside from Alchemist) are all fairly reliable and can be played effectively with a minimum of system mastery.

So I am not saying that Witch is worse at slinging Hexes than a Sorcerer. I am saying that a Sorcerer has lower system mastery and lower team synergy needed in order to play optimally. So it may be a better choice for inexperienced players or powergamers.

I would say that's probably only a step down from the Hag Bloodline cantrip, since by comparison, an enemy can simply Save (which is to be expected) and the effect does nothing with that. That one is only worse simply because of how niche it is, and the requirement and action cost being wholly unnecessary. Heck, a 1 action Focus Spell that lets you perform the Hide action in plain sight while in Dim Light or Darkness, and let you maintain those benefits for 1 minute while in Dim Light or Darkness, would be far more useful. And that didn't take me much effort to come up with.

Really, the only saving grace for the Hag Bloodline cantrip is that it's one action to cast, and you can Refocus to try again in another fight and hope the enemy rolls bad so it can last for a round, maybe 2 if they're on a bad rolling streak. Either way, the Focus Spell is indicative of how most Witch Hexes function, and most Witch Hexes are bad as-is, so if this Focus Spell was indeed used as the balancing point for Witch Hexes, it's about as helpful as Familiars in a combat situation.

I understand fully what you are saying. You are saying that you don't have to play a Witch to play a character that slings Hexes, and that other classes can fill that flavor niche. This wasn't disputed or misinterpreted. The problem is that further examination of the specifics of that statement (such as comparing what a "subclass" choice gets in comparison to a specialist class, to determine if it is indeed a fair fit for the role I want to play) reveals to me t2hat, not only can you play a non-Witch character to play a Hex slinger, but that doing so is actually superior to playing a Witch character as a Hex slinger, when one of the biggest focuses of the Witch character is to sling Hexes. (It's even the only class that has the Hex trait in its in-class Hexes! Which only serve to bog the class down even more, given how pointless the restriction is with how bad the Hexes are to begin with.)

I'm curious as to what "mechanical problems" you believe the Witch has if you think the class is functional for the role of slinging Hexes around, to which I vastly disagree with it being functional, both because of the limitations regarding Hexes, as well as their overall disappointing power level and scope.

That's not a solution at all. That's just accepting that the designers made a crucial mistake in regards to designing the class and that the class failed to accomplish (one of) the main role(s) it was designed to fill, and that other classes simply accomplish that same exact role, but do it far better, and just require a bit of reflavoring at most. Take a Bard or Sorcerer, and boom, instantly better version of the Witch, either by having more spell slots in general, better focus spells, and better class features all around. I mean, I guess a class choice substitution is a solution, but that doesn't make it a good or even acceptable solution, given the design principles of PF2 being that classes have niches that should be protected, and Hex slinging being one of the Witch's niches, should mean that they would indeed be better at it than any other class, and yet they aren't by design.

Requiring more system mastery or team synergy just to try (and fail) to meet the Core Rulebook options is such a non-argument at this point that it relates to a certain skit involving two famous dimension-traveling characters recharging a car battery. You can make new classes that are equivocally functional all without invalidating previous options. A Witch with a Mischievous Eye Hex (can't really call it Evil Eye anymore) that provides a Status Penalty to a specific Proficiency based on an enemy's Will Save won't ever overpower Inspire Courage, or more comparatively, Dirge of Doom. It also won't even overpower a simple Demoralize check from a competent Intimidator, if we want to compare a more broad option available to the party. But it provides an iconic ability that doesn't suck and promotes a debuffing strategy that is very versatile in application for any group make-up (and isn't tied to Fear effects). And that's just something I whipped up to "buff" a certain BBEG from a certain PF2 published adventure. I'm sure Paizo could have come up with something far better if they devoted the time and energy to it compared to what we got now.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I won't necessarily speak for Squiggit, but I can say that a player can certainly like the flavor of a Witch hexing their enemies, but hate how poorly those mechanics were executed, and I am obviously in agreement with that in regards to the Witch, because it is literally a complete 180 from what players were wanting or expecting the class to be.

Witches from PF1 were not iconic because of Familiars, they were iconic because of Hexes.

MmmHmm. Not going to say that Witch doesn't need some mechanical help.

But if your character concept is someone who is slinging around hexes, why not use a Hag Bloodline Sorcerer? Your first focus spell even has the word 'Hex' in it.

I can certainly see where Paizo got their inspiration for designing Hexes for the Witch in PF2; that Focus Spell is extremely bad compared to most other Sorcerer Focus Spells that are actually pretty decent. Yikes.

As for why not, it's simply because you're suggesting that a class that is specifically designed to be slinging hexes around is actually worse at slinging hexes around than a class that has a "subclass" choice to do so.

The fact that this is the case is just a fundamentally bad thing to have, which is precisely what Squiggit and others were getting at by bringing up liking a class' themes, but hating its design and execution. A Hag Bloodline Sorcerer, a Bard, and now also probably the Psychic, are better Witches than the Witch.

This would be like having Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, and Gunslingers a better Martial than Swashbucklers. The worst part is, they totally are, and many people dislike that being the case, and often cite Swashbuckler mechanics and expectations as the reason for this coming to pass.

breithauptclan wrote:

Regarding this quote:

CRB pg 304 wrote:
Spells with a range can affect targets, create areas, or make things appear only within that range. Most spell ranges are measured in feet, though some can stretch over miles, reach anywhere on the planet, or go even farther!
My argument is that the area is being created (its defining origin point is) within the spell's range.

That's an interesting point, but the reason I bring up Walls as an example is because they don't actually have an Area entry compared to spells like Fireball, hence why I wonder if the entirety of the wall must be constrained to within the range of the spell.

They list dimensions in their description, but it's not an actual Area entry, which gives me pause, even though it essentially behaves like an Area entry, in a sense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
While this is all pretty sound by RAW, as a GM, I would still be inclined to warrant a flat check, simply because the effect is tied to the creature. If the creature isn't precisely pinpointed (because of the effect), neither is the effect, by comparison. Unless you have a precise sense on them, they aren't precisely pinpointed. Dispel Magic isn't an area of effect anymore, and does have a target line.

And that's fine. I was also expecting such a ruling from the GM. As a GM, I could make such a rule if the character is targeting an effect on an invisible target and that effect would be masked by Invisibility, but not if it's Invisibility itself as I find you are perfectly aware of the effect and can hardly be more aware of it (as any effect that sees through Invisibility would actually make you less aware of the effect instead of more aware of it).

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Just as well, Visible Invisibility sounds like an oxymoron. Suggesting an oxymoron is all you need to be able to dispel an effect is dubious.

Invisibility has an effect on your vision, it is "visible". It's an oxymoron but is also really true.

Anyway, visibility doesn't seem to be the proper sense used to Dispel Magic as most spells aren't visible. It would make the spell unusable otherwise.

Except by your arguments, that would make no sense, simply because an effect being based on sight, as you claim, does not affect your ability to, you know, affect it, with Dispel Magic. Furthermore, See Invisibility has a specific call-out stating that Invisible creatures are translucent shapes, meaning if the shape you see after it casting a spell, or an entity simply appearing, is described as that, you would most likely know that is from the result of See Invisibility, which tells you that the creature is Invisible. The real problem can then stem from if the creature is naturally invisible (in which case Detect Magic does nothing), or if the creature simply cannot be detected by usual means (as in the case of Disappearance).

Sure, artificially altering what others see (which would be the lack of your form being present) by modifying your own being would constitute an effect of a spell (which can also simply be an illusion, I might add, which See Invisibility would not help with), but in terms of being aware of that, it really depends on the senses being used to detect the creature, and if you know from character knowledge that an effect is indeed in place. After all, Abilities which give you senses usually describe what you use to locate creatures and such with said senses, and if it's a precise or imprecise sense. If I am given a precise sense of echolocation, which lets me hear minute noises and breathing, I can still pinpoint a creature's exact location with it (largely because it's precise), but that doesn't mean I can see the creature with my other precise sense (sight), which means I am still unable to actually see said creature. And that's nothing short of having a spell memorized/prepared, with a Recognize Spell feat for good measure.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:
If you don't like Witch, play a Bard or Sorcerer or Wizard.
The problem becomes when you do like the Witch (or whatever) but playing a Druid or Bard is still the right option because Paizo was worried about someone having too much fun.

I am honestly very confused by this.

The point of my comment was that if you don't like the Witch mechanics, then play a similar class that will adequately represent your character.

So saying that you do like the Witch mechanics, but you don't like the Witch mechanics - and also don't want to represent your character with a different class...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I won't necessarily speak for Squiggit, but I can say that a player can certainly like the flavor of a Witch hexing their enemies, but hate how poorly those mechanics were executed, and I am obviously in agreement with that in regards to the Witch, because it is literally a complete 180 from what players were wanting or expecting the class to be.

Witches from PF1 were not iconic because of Familiars, they were iconic because of Hexes. Who played a Witch in PF1 because they had a Familiar option? Nobody. Yes, even the Iconic Witch in PF1 had a Familiar, but it wasn't really the forefront of the Witch's features or capabilities, and the Iconic would probably be just as potent and capable with or without it. Who played a Witch in PF1 because they had Hexes? Everybody. It was literally their primary (and consequently, most powerful) class feature, so it makes sense that people would engage in what is their primary feature of the class, and people absolutely liked it (or hated it, depending on which side of the GM screen you were on, and if your dice were good or bad to you in those moments). Ergo, Paizo decided to drop the ball in PF2 and say Witches were the Familiar class, not the Hex class.

Familiars were garbage since well before Core, and it was an agreed-upon design decision from the Paizo developers that the Witch, who already had a previously established flavor of being a Hex Master, slinging curses that debilitate their enemies, should be a Familiar Master instead, a feature that is probably the lowest powered in the game, and doesn't even have any innate combat capabilities without some finagling or hoopla about it. It might have been viable if Familiars were as useful and versatile as their PF1 counterparts, but currently? Not a chance in Asmodeus' domain.

I mean, I won't say that Hexes weren't borderline broken in PF1 (looking at you, Fortune, Misfortune, and Slumber), but PF2 certainly had the tools and capabilities to rebalance them in a way that made them functional without them being game-breaking. Fortune/Misfortune can be a 1/day thing. Slumber can have the Incapacitate trait. And so on. Even a lot of the current implementations aren't bad, such as Cackle being a Focus Point to maintain a spell effect as a Free Action, and Patrons providing a Hex unique to them. But it just isn't enough to make the class stand out or fill the niche it was obviously intended to fill. Bards were the best buffers in the game in PF1. Witches were the best debuffers in the game in PF1. Now bards are both the best buffers and debuffers in PF2, and the Witch is just...there, doing a lot of the things other classes do, but worse, and for what? To have the word "Witch" written across the Class portion of your character sheet?

As the title.

If I cast a Fireball at maximum range, does the explosion continue past it (giving an effective range of 520 feet)? Or does it simply fizzle out past 500 feet?

Also, what about Wall spells: if I cast a Wall spell at maximum range, does the entirety of the Wall have to be in range, or only one part of it?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
YuriP wrote:
OK but did you at last made a flat check? Because at last the effect is hidden.

No, I didn't. You don't need to target a creature to Dispel Magic, you need to target an effect. As such the notion of Hidden doesn't apply.

For example, if a creature casts Bane and I'm affected by it, I can target the effect on me, on my square, and remove the spell on them, on their square.
You don't need vision or whatever to Dispel Magic. You need to be aware of the effect.

Now, the GM has a say about how much you are aware of the effect. But knowing the square of the creature and considering that the spell has a very visible effect there's no reason to ask for any kind of flat check. And anyway, it would be GM interpretation, not RAW.

While this is all pretty sound by RAW, as a GM, I would still be inclined to warrant a flat check, simply because the effect is tied to the creature. If the creature isn't precisely pinpointed (because of the effect), neither is the effect, by comparison. Unless you have a precise sense on them, they aren't precisely pinpointed. Dispel Magic isn't an area of effect anymore, and does have a target line.

Just as well, Visible Invisibility sounds like an oxymoron. Suggesting an oxymoron is all you need to be able to dispel an effect is dubious.

SuperBidi wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Haste, Fly, Fear, Bane effects is applied in or from a creature so when a caster thinks that one creature is affected by a magical effect he/she can target this creature because it's the subject of effect and try to dispel because the spell's effect is in the creature or changes something in the creature or enchants it in someway and the creature and the effect turns into the same target for dispel purpose.

You can't target a creature unless you want to dispel a creature (from a Summoning for example). But otherwise, it would make your dispel fizzle as you don't target a valid target.

You can target the effect of a spell on a creature, like the effect that makes a creature fly.
The rest is an interpretation that is quite far from RAW.

For example, you can dispel Mislead by targeting the decoy. There's no miss chance whatsoever, you don't even need to know the position of the caster, you just target an effect and it dispels the spell.
You can also dispel Haste 7 by just targeting one affected creature.
You can dispel Bane by targeting the effect it has on you, even if you don't know or see the creature who cast it.

But you need to both know the effect (otherwise how can you tell what is or isn't an effect of a spell) and see where the effect is to target it. With Disappearance, you don't have line of sight without a successful Perception check to dispel it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
YuriP wrote:


Sorry because english isn't my primary language but..

Are you saying that due you are not seeing the creature because it's undetected due Disappearance this made you consider not see it as effect of disappear so you used this to dispel it?

Dispel targets an effect. And the fact that I don't see the creature is an effect. And this effect is perfectly perceivable.

You don't need to know about the creature to cast Dispel Magic, you need to know about a spell effect.

That's not how that works. You can't just target an effect with no capacity to know that the effect is in a given area, or even a flat check if you surprisingly manage to spot the effect in place, especially if you are unaware that such an effect is even there to begin with. I wouldn't let a player simply blanket-cast Dispel Magic on an effect, even if they know what that effect is from a successful Recall Knowledge/Recognize Spell check. They still need to know where the effect is (thus being able to draw a line of effect for their Dispel Magic), and Disappearance makes that short of impossible besides using a Seek action to decipher their actual location without sheer luck or metagaming what spot they could possibly be in.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I wish there were less of these gems hidden so far in the rules that, even after years of perusing AoN to build optimized characters, I did not know about this, and I am likely not the only one.

Front and center makes for a better user experience.

Concern noted, but if you look at this in the CRB the description of full plate says it includes a suit of padded armor with a "see below" paranthetical, and straight below the full plate on the same page is padded armor which includes the description I linked. If you look it up on AoN, the full plate description says it includes a suit of padded armor and hyperlinks to the padded armor, which includes that description.

This is not meant to be snarky by the way; I'm genuinely not sure how we could make that information any easier to find and am open to hearing your thoughts, since it does seem to have been a point of confusion for some people.

Not taken at snarky at all. And YuriP has it exactly right. Even on AoN, I did not notice the links.

I think the easiest way to increase visibility for this kind of specific but very relevant info is the same as what is used for other specific and relevant info : traits.

A trait attracts attention and indicates that a more detailed reading is required.

Sadly, simply adding a trait to something has an effect similar to what is being complained about. While some people may read traits and go "Hm, Flourish, what's that?" Some others will gloss over said traits entirely. I've had this happen numerous times with fellow players who want to wombo-combo with things that have the Flourish trait, and me going "No, you can't do that because of Flourish trait," and them not even seeing it on either ability until I go to point it out in the respective entries.

It really boils down to people actually bothering to read the entirety of entries and any sub-addendums they may have (such as traits) to ensure they understand what they're getting out of a given option, not unlike a person reading a contract fully to know what it is they are contracting themselves to. If a person doesn't read the rules, they will come to a conclusion different from what the rules actually state, and will end up being disappointed.

And really, people getting into PF2, especially if they come from PF1, will know that rules are important to the game, and should at least make an effort to read said rules. This isn't 5E, where simplicity is brought to the forefront at the cost of variety and options. If people really want simplicity over options, 5E is the game for them, not PF2.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Which is good. True seeing will get all these. But if your really want to upcast an Invisibility in a level 7 slot well you can, you just can't do it so often.

Disappearance isn't a Level 7 Invisibility spell, because a basic True Seeing spell requires a Critical Success to "counteract" the effects of Disappearance, which is 8th level. Which means I must Heighten to get more reliability from this utility spell, which means it competes with my other higher level spell slots to maintain its relevance as a utility spell. Short of the Third Eye magic item providing a once per day 8th level True Seeing benefit, there's no reasonable way for a character to reliably counteract this effect without being extremely action-starved.

Furthermore, I can't utilize an effect like See Invisibility to make note of where the creature is if they are under the effects of Disappearance, meaning my "lower level utility spells" start falling off even more than what they already have. Compared to a 7th level Invisibility spell, I would still know their location from my lower level See Invisibility spell.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Eclipse Burst: A very good damage spell that's is also present in divine tradition breaking the tradition of many levels with almost none good offensive and direct damage spell that don't depending from alignment.
I do agree that Eclipse Burst does some decent damage, and one portion is hard to resist against. The problem I have is with the ridiculous radius and being at high risk of damaging allies by using this spell. In my opinion, a Chain Lightning of equal level is far more effective in both damage and practicality than this spell.
That's why you use Spell Immunity for it. The issue of Chain Lightning is that it can fizzle if the GM rolls a natural 20 in their first check, making it very random. And also the need for the enemies to be 30ft. away from each other can generate stupid issues if they are a bit scattered (at high level, 30ft. is not that much).

Spell Immunity follows the same rules as Dispel Magic, True Seeing, Remove X, et. al. If my highest spell level is 7, using a 6th level slot for Spell Immunity and hoping I roll high enough to counteract my own DC for that casting is a poor use of spell slots, IMO. Especially when you could have probably learned/memorized a better spell (in either of those slots) instead. It also doesn't protect my allies if I only memorize 1 casting, meaning if the plan is to just pre-cast 4 (or more) Spell Immunities, while then slotting all of my highest slots with that same spell, then that leaves me only with lower level utility spells, which is just plain poor planning. It might be more feasible with a Spontaneous Spellcaster, but a Prepared spellcaster is just dumb for doing this.

I don't disagree that Chain Lightning can be finnicky with GM rolling, but that would be true with Eclipse Burst as well, or for any spell with a saving throw for that matter. GMs rolling Natural 20s is just part of the game, and there isn't really a mechanic to deal with that besides using a spell that doesn't involve a saving throw. Even despite that, when I first cast it, Chain Lightning was, and still is, to this day, one of my most damaging spells I've ever cast, even when the GM rolls a Natural 20 earlier than I expected/hoped. And this is coming from someone that is still playing a 19th level Wizard.

Honestly, the biggest reason why I don't use Chain Lightning anymore is because of the prevalence of enemies with stronger resistances/immunities, combined with better uses for spell slots given the current circumstances. Using Maze on an enemy is a lot more effective at defeating the encounter than a Disintegrate, for example. But really, spells stop getting interesting by Spell Level 8. They're either rarity-barred, super niche, or are just plain ineffective against a lot of prevalent enemies. Meteor Swarm, a 9th level spell, was my most disappointing damaging spell cast yet, and between that and its infeasible ranges and areas of effect, I can't reasonably ever cast this in combat again without damaging allies, or even myself for that matter. That's really just poor spell design.

Yqatuba wrote:
What about using passwall or disintegrate to put holes in all of the support columns?

Would be more effective than trying to beat or pick away at it, assuming the support columns aren't somehow like 50-100 feet in diameter or something (such as a Colossus Bridge).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
YuriP wrote:
True Seeing: Doesn't need too much explanation. A spell that allows the caster to see through all forms and illusions without any concealment penalty.

This falls under the same problems of Dispel Magic that was discussed before; you perform a Counteract check against the existing Illusion (or Transmutation) effect once, and if you fail, you don't see through it. This might be helpful against an enemy downcasting benefits, but this is few and far between. If an enemy is using higher level spells, and has a ridiculous Save DC, this won't be very helpful.

The factor that this has to be heightened at all times, not unlike the Remove X spells, to maintain relevance to the encounters via Couneracting, really sours my feelings on this spell.

Thats a good thing.

That True Seeing totally hosed a whole class of character - illusionist - was awful. This means they are still relevant, and a whole category of effects remain viable, and True Seeing is still a useful spell to take.

I didn't say it wasn't. I'm merely pointing out that it's just Dispel Magic with a different theme behind it, meaning that again, unless it's downcast and/or is with a lower spell DC, it's not going to be a relevant spell, in the same vein that Remove Curse/Blindness/Disease/Whatever ceases relevance.

Kekkres wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
my biggest issue is honestly why is padded armor just... objectively bad? Padded cloth armor was ubiquitous throughout history but in rpgs its always the worst option that no one ever uses, even in character creation

I think the answer isn't obvious: because it is treated as a balancing tool for heavy armor users getting ambushed at night. Padded armor is there so that heavy armor users still have a disadvantage but not an insurmountable one.

As to history, was padded cloth armor ubiquitous because it was effective or because it was cheap to produce? I'm legit asking.

I legitimatly think that the "sleeping in armor" rules are probobly the most hand waved rule in the game, ive never encountered a single group or even heard of an instance where that rule was brought up in actual play. overmore since fighters and paladins are just as proficiant in unarmored, the differance between padded and nothing is only +1 so i dont think that really amounts to much of a reason.

as to your second question well made cloth armor was fairly resistant to cutting attacks, and somewhat resistant to stabbing and crushing attacks, mail was 'better' but it was also immensely heavy and not especially cheap

We're a group that has had this happen before. It was against Werebears, and those who didn't have their Full Plate on were hit a lot more, but some hits were indeed saved because of the Padded Armor (since they had little to no Dexterity). I will agree that it's very rare, and there are tactics and items that make this negligible, but it's most common in the lower levels, where people won't have Magic Mansions or Portable Gourds or Rope Tricks to hide in.

Val'bryn2 wrote:
About how long do you think it would take someone to do enough damage to cause a stone bridge to collapse? Running a game involving a battle throughout the city, and was thinking that one encounter would be them defending someone/trying to stop someone from dropping a bridge, to cut off one of the possible avenues of attack.

Depends on thickness, location, and area it covers. To collapse a bridge, you would have to target its upholding structures, and destroy those, causing the bridge to collapse due to lack of support. A great way to sabotage an invading army by doing this without them knowing as they invade.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Val'bryn2 wrote:
No, you still aren't understanding: Paizo is Hasbro's biggest rival in TTRPG, why on Earth would the company that already produces an RPG sell the rights to ANOTHER company, especially given how free Wizards is with producing, essentially, one-off setting books. If they wanted a Might and Magic game, they would produce it themselves. As to your proposal of Hasbro buying Paizo, they would just kill off Pathfinder. TSR learned about competing in-house brands back in the 90s, Hasbro isn't going to need a repeat of that lesson

If there is a company that Paizo has a "rivalry" against, it would be WotC, since both are in the same sort of game genre business, not Hasbro. But it's not really a rivalry when WotC is far more broad in its scope (meaning a wider web of influence and income) and far more successful company, and plus both aren't really "at odds" with one another; that's really a creation of the public opinion.

Otherwise, yeah, I agree: no sale would realistically happen regardless, since neither are in a state to sell off either their company or a franchise.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

So talking about other kinds of armor. Last week we had a thread about Bulwark variants for the other saving throws. I dunno what happened to it, I guess it got moderated off around the corner?

But armor that provides a bonus against some kind of Fort saves, say a hazmat suit that protects against poison and disease, is certainly a possibility.

Likewise, you could have some kind of noqual thread woven through a suit of armor and especially the helmet, protecting you from mental magic (will save vs magic && mental).

Interesting design consequence of that is that it means you do have to choose which save you'll armor against and which ones are going directly on your stats; you can't have both Bulwark and Hazmat at the same time. So that provides some guardrails for balancing it.

Not to derail the thread topic with expanding on this, but the genius with the Hazmat Suit is something I didn't consider before, simply because I associate that more with science fiction than dark age fantasy. There are some caveats to it, now that I put some thought process into it, but I think they're fair:

1. It should be Medium Armor, simply because Medium Armor has the worst overall options. I can understand this may not necessarily be the case and feels arbitrary when put that way, but I imagine a typical Hazmat Suit (if one can be described as typical) is more maneuverable than Full Plate (or any Heavy Armor for that matter), but certainly less mobile compared to most any Light Armor, meaning in my personal headcanon, a Hazmat Suit as Medium Armor makes the most sense. (Sidenote nitpick: Why isn't this a damn Inventor Armor Innovation, at the very least?! There's hope for a supplement option, perhaps, maybe as a feat requiring Armor Innovation.)
2. It should be at least Uncommon, if not Rare, both because it's highly advanced technology, but also because it's probably linked to specific regions based on prevalence (such as the Mana Wastes, or some other similar commonly-radioactive area). I would probably compare this to other region rarities to determine the grade, as well as use it as a means of providing access.
3. It should be a Level 2 Armor as well, to mirror Full Plate being a Level 2 Armor. Since it does possess a trait that shores up Poisons and Diseases, a core portion of a saving throw (but not all parts of them), this makes sense from a balance standpoint. It also works out thematically, since a Harm spell or Touch of Corruption would probably not be hindered by a Hazmat Suit whatsoever.

Xethik wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Includes an Interact action to benefit from the Parry trait, which triggers AoO for having the Manipulate trait, meaning that action could be disrupted, compared to simply spending a non-listed Action for the same +1.
This is almost certainly an errata issue. Since the Lost Omens Character Guide was written, the action to gain a circumstance bonus with a party weapon has gone from an Interact to a unique action instead. I'm sure this was not intended to make Parry worse, but just hasn't been updated since the CRB was updated.

Potentially. If the ability simply referred to the Parry activity, I would agree, but it is a special ability that lets you strike twice and benefit from a Circumstance Bonus to AC from a weapon trait for two actions, and calls out Interact specifically.

IMO, the errata might stem with Protective Sheath being tied to Clan's Edge explicitly, and not just the Parry activity.

I don't see why not. This is the same action cost as making a single Strike and then raising a Heavy Shield, the feat really only provides more than that when you are actually able to strike two foes with it.

It's like asking if you can Sudden Charge when you only need to Stride once to reach your foe; there's no reason not to disallow it, since a character could instead literally Stride and then Strike for the same action cost. It would make no sense to disallow it because it's overpowered, when it's not any better in action economy than any other sword-and-board character. In fact, it's actually worse, since the feat includes an Interact action to benefit from the Parry trait, which triggers AoO for having the Manipulate trait, meaning that action could be disrupted, compared to simply spending a non-listed Action for the same +1.

That being said, I would expect table variation on whether any future strikes in the round would be at -4/-5 or at -8/-10, since some GMs may rule you still take the efforts to strike (even an empty square) to benefit from the other part of the feat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Honestly, I think there tends to be too much diversity in armor.

In PF1, there are no less than 6 Medium armor sets with a +6 armor bonus, but Agile Breastplate is simply the best option past character creation (its only drawback is the 400g base price, which is far too high for a brand new character but inconsequentially cheap after your first adventure or two):

  • Breastplate is slightly heavier and harder to climb/jump in (this was the 'Gold Standard' before the Agile version was printed).
  • Chainmail has a even worse weight, Dex Cap, ACP, and ASF than Breastplate and pretty much seems to be a 'legacy' sort of thing from before Breastplate was introduced (Why exactly do elves make mithril chainmail instead of the superior mithril breastplate?)
  • Four-Mirror Armor is just like chainmail, but even heavier and cheaper.
  • Lamellar (Steel) is Breastplate with worse ACP and Weight.
  • Mountain Pattern is Breastplate but heavier and with a worse ASF.
You can argue that you don't care about a specific characteristic (maybe you only have a 14 Dex), but you can't argue that any of the other sets are actually better for you mechanically, and given that none of them are particularly affordable at creation (four-mirror is still kinda expensive at 125g) they really are little more than a waste of space.

While PF2 isn't as bad (yet), you already have the Chain Shirt being kinda pointless (except maybe for aspiring acrobats with less than a 12 Strength)....

I don't disagree with PF1 having plenty of "duplicate" armors, but this does reinforce the concept that Medium armor has been Paizo's weakspot when it came to armor design, since a lot of your examples all refer to everything be "Breastplate, but worse." Incidentally, there are multiple instances of this design concept implemented in PF2, where every Heavy Armor that isn't Full Plate is "Full Plate, but worse," and some instances of Medium and Light armor are just "[Best Armor here], but worse," so I'm not sure if that lesson was either ever really learned, or if it just didn't become apparent until now.

In addition, the idea of simplifying it down to just utilizing the categories would be a fair compromise I would like as well, since this doubles down on the simplicity factor, and plenty of armor within identical categories already have similar design structures, as I indicated before with my Heavy Armor examples, where every Heavy Armor has -10 movement speed with high Check Penalties and Strength requirements, with a +1 effective AC over other armors. And given how the current armors published functions similar to PF1, where there is simply one true "best armor" for a given category, it would make sense that armor gets simplified to represent that everyone is already using the "best armor," and isn't weaker due to a lack of system mastery or for using flavor choices.

That being said, that doesn't solve Medium armor becoming dead half-way through the adventuring career, unless you both never work towards Heavy Armor and never improve Dexterity for Reflex Saves and Dex-based Skills, but given how PF2's math works and the importance of boosting Saves whenever you can, it's not very acceptable to do neither.

Michael Sayre wrote:

The answer to the initial question posed by the quoted post is "nothing but time and space". Like, the edition is only three years old and it's not like we've gotten zero new ways to customize armors or shields in that time. Grand Bazaar has a whole spread of armor and shield adjustments, as well as shields and armor made from new materials. Guns & Gears also has options for modifying or customizing shields and armors with various accessories.

It's wild to me how often people on these forums will be like "Obviously Paizo is never going to to do X", "Clearly the devs hate Y", or "Why haven't we gotten Z yet?"

Like, seriously now my guys, gals and nonbinary pals, we'll get there, this stuff just takes a minute and has to have the right home at the right time. I don't know that I've seen an edition of any TTRPG that accumulated this much content this quickly, and as I've said before, we're just getting started. The majority of the people who bought all of the release day books for PF2 at GenCon are still playing Age of Ashes, you know? The average rate at which an actual player gets hands-on experience with our material is one level of one class every 2-3 months, or every 1-3 months if they're playing in org play. If we put out material any faster there'd be a drop in quality and a drop in the game's accessibility for new players. With PF2 being the most successful thing we've ever created as a company, we're taking active efforts to keep things deliberate and carefully paced to keep the content consumers fed without shutting doors on the new players pouring into our communities every quarter.

New base armors? I'm confident we'll get there and I can think of half a dozen different traits we could use to make interesting and dynamic base armors without even trying very hard. More and more varied shields, magical or otherwise? I'm sure we'll get there too. We just need the right book at the right time with the right amount of design bandwidth available to get them done right and in a way that's healthy for the game's ecosystem.

First, thanks for taking the time to give a reply; it's nice to have developer insight on things, and I actually wasn't expecting a developer to come in and comment on something.

Second, I'm glad that there are potential plans to make new armors, as well as making armor as a basic item a more interesting and dynamic option for gameplay (though maybe not like shields, IMO, as that's stepping on their niche). Even with all of the adjustments and new materials, I still feel that there is more that can be done so that even base armor choices can be interesting and dynamic, and/or even change to suit certain needs at certain levels. I can understand that the opportunity to simply "errata" several of those options into a previous published book is problematic (meaning I suspect a lot of the existing armors won't really improve), though it does create a sense of "What sort of book would include these kinds of added options?" An equipment book, perhaps, but I suspect that won't be for quite some time yet. Otherwise, I'm at a loss, and we probably won't cross that bridge until we get to it, which can take years.

Third, a lot of the "Paizo won't do XYZ because [reasons]" posts (which I have indeed made some of) largely stem from a pre-conceived establishment of rules balancing brought on by currently published options, and the odds of Paizo as a company deciding to implement XYZ is being weighted based on said pre-conceptions. For example, all Heavy Armor is currently designed to incur a -10 feet penalty to Movement Speed, incurs the most check penalties of any other weight, has a 16 to 18 Strength requirement to ignore said check penalties and reduce movement speed penalties, and has an overall AC bonus 1 higher than other armor weights. No Heavy Armors behave any differently from this mold, with the exception of Full Plate, which has a very powerful defensive trait attached to it with the drawback being that it's a higher level item with the highest cost in the game. While this is all Core Rulebook only, there haven't been any actual new armors published since (whether intentional or not), and a lot of the adjustment items don't really change these pre-conceptions too much, if at all. The Armored Skirt, while cool thematically, is a great example of an item that does something that tries to make the mold more malleable, but doesn't actually break it, though I feel it's almost a bit too niche in my opinion. (It also only works with certain equipment, and isn't a general application to armor as a whole.)

Fourth, I did get a kick out of you saying people are still playing Age of Ashes, since I am actually in a group still playing through it (though we are on the final book now and getting towards the end). We started on it about two years ago, though our play schedule now has been pretty lax compared to what it was then (every 2 to 3 weeks compared to every week). But the previous comment, as I stated before, isn't necessarily about publishing content faster. I'm actually of the opposite mindset, where it seems like content is being published almost too fast, in my opinion. Though this doesn't factor in things like needing to hit deadlines to generate sales to pay bills and workers, which is completely understandable, it does create a neat thought hypothesis of "What could a rulebook look like if Paizo was able to take their time with it without fear of a deadline or dues?"

I Ate Your Dice wrote:
Here's a fundamental question that I rarely see asked, what does armor proficiency by armor type bring to the game? What harm is done by opening up armor availability?

The PF1 Druid worked this way, and I thought it was a neat workaround for using certain armor types.

The PF2 Druid takes the worst of both that world and this one, and it's even worse than the current armor paradigm is. And by RAW, Dwarven Druids can't wear a hypothetical Stoneplate without Sentinel.

Gisher wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Look at it from a different angle: what's stopping writers from adding new, interesting armors? It's pretty clear how the balance of existing armors is set up, so adding new ones that are in line with that should be straightforward.

You want to keep the AC value (Dex + Item) in line with the weight class, and the strength/speed in proportion too. But you can certainly come up with new good and bad traits, material options, and specializations.

I view the CRB armors as a basis to work from, not as a closed off set that can't be extended.

I think the Armored Skirt was an interesting addition. You can basically create new styles of armor by combining it with the allowed armors. I wouldn't be averse to more options like that. Sets of greaves, for example.

It doesn't really change anything fundamentally, though. If I am using this for one of my light or medium armors, I don't gain an effective AC unless my Dexterity is low enough, and it also requires more strength to ignore penalties, as well as increases them and adds a detrimental trait for it. If I use it for my Half/Full Plate, then I'm just adding the same detrimental trait for less strength requirements and relying more on Dexterity for my AC; which can certainly have a niche. But the biggest fundamental problem is proficiency adjustments that it poses, which might not be feasible. After all, a Barbarian, a class likely to dump Dexterity, will not be proficient in the final result, even if it's a net gain for them.

And really, the premise of my OP is that I am not a fan of the current fundamental operation that armor provides, and throws a couple bones to change that premise up in a good way that promotes diverse armor choices, instead of "Full Plate for Heavy, Leather/Explorer's Clothing for non-Heavy." The fact armor is essentially that binary is a pretty sad reflection of its design impact.

VampByDay wrote:

One option is to reflavor armors. The basic armors are there just to give you a baseline. You could say that parade armor has the same stats as stuffed leather, but is made mostly out of metal. Splint mail could have the same stats as scale. O-Yori armor and full plate could have the same stats. The armors are there to cover the range of 0/max dex 5 to 4/max dex 1, and then the heavy armors. Their job is to set a baseline. If you want to make Japanese Ashigaru armor, just give it the same stats as a chain shirt.

Oh, and a TON of classes use medium armor
Melee rangers, melee in inventors, melee thaumaturges, brute rogues, any caster with the sentinel dedication. Heck my warrior muse Bard uses medium armor through sentinel dedication.

Also most magi get to twelve dex and stop (for the breastplate). They have other things to worry about like strength, con, and int. Only starlit span magi care about dex.

They are, but even the basic armors aren't interesting or have good tradeoffs besides worrying about a Strength score, a Dexterity score, or if your class is proficient in that weight of armor. Where are my neat traits that can compare to Bulwark? Where is a better compromise for Padded Armor having less AC for a Comfort trait? Where are my Stoneplate and Bonemail armors at? Reflavoring doesn't do much to add variety to armors beyond what we already have, and that's evidenced in the Class/Ancestry-specific "armors."

Melee rangers might be inclined not to boost Dexterity, given they get Improved Evasion at a later point, but being in two groups that have melee rangers, neither of them dumped Dexterity. A Melee Inventor would do that if they invest in Full Plate, especially if they take the Armor Innovation to do so, otherwise I suspect not, since Reflex saves are deadly enough to kill parties now. Same can be said for Thaumaturge, Magus, basically any class that isn't specifically restricted to Medium (like Barbarian and Druid).

graystone wrote:
Interesting... A thread without an OP. :P

I believe this is a glitch with previewing an opening post (which I did to make sure I did some HTML coding correctly). It's there, though.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
I think Medium keeps a niche as you level. Fighters and Champions that have some STR but are mainly DEX should be using Medium for Armour Specialization.

If Medium gave the same amount of armor as Heavy did, you'd be right.

As it stands, no sane person would make that switch.

YuriP wrote:
Eclipse Burst: A very good damage spell that's is also present in divine tradition breaking the tradition of many levels with almost none good offensive and direct damage spell that don't depending from alignment.

I do agree that Eclipse Burst does some decent damage, and one portion is hard to resist against. The problem I have is with the ridiculous radius and being at high risk of damaging allies by using this spell. In my opinion, a Chain Lightning of equal level is far more effective in both damage and practicality than this spell.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
True Seeing: Doesn't need too much explanation. A spell that allows the caster to see through all forms and illusions without any concealment penalty.

This falls under the same problems of Dispel Magic that was discussed before; you perform a Counteract check against the existing Illusion (or Transmutation) effect once, and if you fail, you don't see through it. This might be helpful against an enemy downcasting benefits, but this is few and far between. If an enemy is using higher level spells, and has a ridiculous Save DC, this won't be very helpful.

The factor that this has to be heightened at all times, not unlike the Remove X spells, to maintain relevance to the encounters via Couneracting, really sours my feelings on this spell.

pauljathome wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
there are very few reasons to take other feats compared to those ones,
Adopted and Ancestral Paragon are both very useful for some builds. But you're pretty much spot on.

The only build I really know of that benefits from Adopted is the Flickmace Sword and Board, which is about as cheesy as it gets half the time; it's even more cheesy than these feat tax abilities. As for Ancestral Paragon, I'm not quite familiar with how good that would be for a given build. Unless you have a lot of 1st level Ancestry feats that you want, but either don't want to wait to unlock them all, or don't have enough Ancestry feats to unlock all the ones you want, I'm kind of at a loss. But I'm more than happy to chalk that up to "I didn't bother researching this enough to see where it would be really beneficial compared to what I already know can work well," more than "I don't think this is good at all compared to what we already have."

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As the title.

I'm really disappointed that Armor, as an item type, doesn't have any really cool or interesting options for customization or variation from one another, and that it ultimately boils down to 3 factors: What weight proficiency your class(es) provide(s), if any; what your Strength Bonus is, and what your Dexterity Bonus is. That's it. It otherwise doesn't particularly matter what Armor you wear. And I don't much like that compared to what we otherwise could have gotten, and what was apparent in PF1. Granted, PF1 had differing variations on what Armors were the best for those same reasons, and what materials were most practical, but the point is that PF1 did more to at least try to make Armor different from one another, and had fewer interactive tools to do so. PF2 has far more interactive tools by comparison, so why does it feel even more restrictive?

Look at what Heavy Armor could have been, for example: Half-Plate could have been neat with a Piecemeal trait that lets it benefit from two Special Materials at once, and/or letting it benefit from both Composite and Plate groups for the purposes of Armor Specialization, making it more competitive to Full Plate for those common wearers of heavier armor. Splint Mail could have also been cool with having only a -5 foot penalty speed to signify its added flexibility, or add a Fortified trait, increasing the amount of damage reduced from Specialization by a significant amount (maybe by half item-level rounded up, for example). But no, instead it boils down to "Just take Full Plate when you can, it's the only armor with a solid support trait compared to the other two." I'm sorry, but what kind of design philosophy was this? What was the goal to accomplish? Simplicity? Uniformity? Just getting a product out the door?

And the other weights aren't any better by comparison. For Light Armor, there is Comfort, and is handy on the Padded Armor, but it gives 1 less AC than most other armors of its weight to compensate, which is unfair to what other armors could have given in exchange if they were actually given something else to offer, and Padded Armor is really only relevant for, surprise surprise, Heavy Armor wearers who get ambushed at night while resting. And Explorer's Clothing, while listed under the Armor section, isn't actually Armor to begin with, yet is essentially better than Padded Armor with the right amount of Dexterity. Even if you need to wait until 10th level at the earliest (or don't have that choice if you aren't proficient with any armor), it's just not worth it, even if you are already proficient in Leather Armor, since you'd already be down the AC anyway. Worse yet, Light armor doesn't even benefit from any form of Armor Specializations by RAW, meaning the only reason they have groupings is for Special Material purposes (as few and far between as those are, given only one of them is actually a metal that can be made of a special material), and has little to no traits or neat attributes to warrant improved diversity, especially not compared to something like I proposed above. I can accept that Light Armor doesn't protect you as well as Heavy Armor can, and the AC bonuses support that, but I don't accept that it doesn't provide intricately useful benefits for you that Heavy Armor can't, either. Yes, 5 feet of movement is a useful benefit, but it's both universal and generic, and isn't bound to a specific armor of a given weight. It also doesn't justify armor within the same weights being equally universal and generic of themselves, which is what brings me to the other baffling tier of Armor.

Medium. Medium is the most boring armor category ever, worn by maybe what, Barbarian and Alchemist? Possibly Druid (for Hide Armor, anyway,) and Magus as well, but most of those classes are already inclined to increase Dexterity anyway because of Reflex Saves constantly escalating, and they get no help compared to Full Plate wearers in that respect from their armor. Either way, it's got the least amount of classes wearing it (especially later in the game, where non-Heavy Armor wearers have their Dexterity jacked up to be considering Light Armor instead), and it has the least amount of variation or interest behind it. It's either just a slight change in armor groups, adjusting a trait or two, and/or the cost is 2 or 4 gold different. That is super unoriginal and uninteresting compared to even the Simple weapon category, and that has weapons like Daggers and Longspears, which offer a lot more combat variety to the game than any given Medium Armor does. Don't get me wrong, Chain Mail might have been interesting if characters that benefit from Armor Specialization don't already have access to far better options, which is really the only neat place where it shines compared to any other Medium Armor; reducing damage from Criticals of any damage type is pretty helpful. But the scaling is pretty weak compared to even the basic Armor Specializations from Full Plate. And the worst part is, it actually doesn't see the light of day anyway, because nobody would actually want to do this compared to the other options.

What about some of the other neat armors that were introduced in Pathfinder 1, like Stoneplate or Bonemail, for example? Why haven't such items made an appearance and changed the dynamic of Armor for the better in a later book? A few ancestries list wearing equipment made of such things (Lizardfolk and Dwarves in particular, based on the example armor names I provided), but don't actually have items that replicate this very ideal, which hurts immersion immensely. Players may want to play a Lizardfolk with Bonemail, or a Dwarven Druid with Stoneplate, but as it stands, they simply can't. Also, where's the Lamellar Armor at? It sounds cool, and might have added another bit of diversity to the Armor game by having another group that may add a different benefit to the Specialization boons.

And boy, do we keep getting things like Class or Ancestry-based Armor that is just a rehash of the original Armors, just in slightly different packaging that doesn't involve gold(, at least not right away, thanks fundamental/property runes! ABP solves this a bit, but not for property runes). In my opinion, it's relatively annoying, given how common it's becoming; it seems like there are a bunch of Ancestries that have feat-specific Armors, and the Inventor with its Armor Innovation did not help matters any, either. There might be some slight benefits to such things, depending on which Class or Ancestry-based Armor you're benefitting from (such as being able to sleep in it despite not having the Comfort trait), but it's otherwise just as boring and uninteresting as the other basic Armors the game has to offer.

Is this really all that we should expect from Armor in this game? Do you think the game could be more than what it is if Armor was expanded on compared to what we have now? Are there any things you would like to see Armor do that it currently doesn't do well now?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Gortle wrote:
Feat Tax? Not really at the strength some are talking about. Is Fleet, Improved Initiative or Toughness a Feat Tax?

Most characters seem to end up with at least a couple of those, so while its not quite a feat tax its pretty close.

Of course, a big part of that isn't so much how powerful these feats are as how meh most general feats are.

Or how very few of them actually exist, much less come up in actual play. Breath Control, for example, might be useful in a combat scenario if you get eaten, but usually that just means you'll be dying from the passive damage of being eaten, not because you run out of rounds and start suffocating, so you're really just trading one bad thing for another with this feat. There are otherwise very few instances where being able to hold your breath for long periods of time is something helpful to the adventure. But it's cool that certain characters can undergo training or learn tips and tricks to maintain their breath in situations that call for it, or you get characters like Lizardfolk that earn it automatically, and want it to show for...well...something.

I mean, maybe Paizo decided that General Feats shouldn't have too many options, especially since you can always take a Skill Feat in place of a General Feat, so my guess is that they don't want players to have decision paralysis? But that becomes more and more apparent with each release of content that adds feats, spells, etc. Most won't be super good or break the mold a whole lot, but there can be (and have been) exceptions to those molds, and that's what we need more of to shake things up a bit.

But really, I am in agreement that the reason those feats appear to be "feat taxes" is because there are very few reasons to take other feats compared to those ones, even if all those ones do is boost numbers by adding HP, move speed, Initiative, and your choice of Perception/Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves. The other General feats are so few and so bad that there's really no comparison.

Maybe a feat like the ones proposed would actually shake the "meta" up some. General Feats, like Armor, are very bland and have little to no decision-making behind them, which is why they're honestly pretty lame number-boosters. They're even more lame than abilities like Resolve and Evasion, and that's kind of sad.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

In my current level 17 game the players have

- bard: no resistance rune, 10 wis
- barbarian: +1 resist, 12 wis
- rogue: +1 resist, 12 wis
- alchemist: +1 resist, 10 wis
- ranger: +2 resist, 18 wis

A no downside effect for fort/will would be bad imo, and a property rune would be too universally applied imo. A cloak as an item that sits in a slot that can't be doubled up on is a better approach.

I know people don't want to hear it, but this isn't needed for balance reasons or even to allow for MAD builds. This is more for folks who don't like feeling vulnerable, which is fine, but gotta be honest about it rather than suggesting it is a hole in the design.

Same deal with a cleric player when I ran Abomination vaults, they had 10 less AC than the fighter with a shield raised for a chunk of the adventure and 8 less for the rest.
Common sense on this forum dictates that they died instantly and swat teams came and killed them in their house for being so far below the rest of the party in AC. Reality is, they avoided being in places where they would be in danger, the party helped out when they did get crit hard and just planned around it.

I don't recommend it and it was suboptimal, but he wanted to play an old man and designed the character around that concept.

I would probably just weigh up the wants of a player if they asked for an item like this though. I am not against it, but I can't say I am for it either.

The best solution imo is to have a good session 0 and make it clear you would rather a less threatening campaign.
A possible houserule could be to just have the minimum ability bonus to saves be +3 and increase if you go over that... or you could key it from your class stat.
Less vermisimilitude, but that isn't really the goal of this anyway.

Double clarifying, not suggesting anyone play a character with AC as low as my cleric player did. He was happy with how it informed his RP mechanically and it was extremely memorable (especially as he was the note taker and wrote them...

Based on my count, the Bard, Barbarian, and Rogue all have the same Will Save modifier of +25, since Bard has Greater Resolve, and the Barbarian and Rogue both have Resolve/Slippery Mind. The Alchemist is 1 lower at +24 since they only cap at Expert Will Saves, and the Ranger actually has the most, at +28, with Expert Will Saves and having 7 boosts to it. This would actually be +30 with Canny Acumen, which is 100% recommended for a Ranger at this level, since they already get Improved Evasion and Juggernaut, plus Legendary Perception. That being said, besides the Ranger, those values are very low compared to even on-level threats, especially since those classes are meant to be at-least competent in those saves.

A Banshee by itself would be a relatively difficult encounter for this group as-is, given that half the party would fail against their Will Save effects, and if they're Frightened, they're very likely to critically fail and burn entire turns down the drain. Throw in some level-1 or level-2 mooks, and this party is set to TPK against this encounter. Bonus points with the Bard applying Inspire Courage getting countered whenever the Banshee strikes their allies as well, something I didn't notice until after properly evaluating the statblock.

I'm very curious what is going on with the gear and the stat boosts with this group, since those values are very atypical for characters of their level.

ThatGuyDM wrote:

The RNG Gods have decreed a goblin Champion, and I'm struggling to figure out how they can be optimized. The Definitive Guide said Stealth was the biggest reason to go down the Dex path, but I'm not how a Champion would use Hide and Sneak to do what they wanna do.

All I (maybe) know for sure is that if you use ranged weapons, Paladin is an auto-pick for Ranged Reprisal. After that, I'm clueless. Light hammer & returning shield? Composite shortbow? Making Hidden the new shield block?

I know I'll probably never be as cool as the strength chads, but I'd appreciate advice on how to get almost as good.

EDIT: If it matters, assume Blade Ally will bypass the melee-only prereqs that usually apply for those runes.

As others suggest, you don't have to utilize Dexterity fully with a Goblin Champion if you don't want to, simply because the ancestry gives a bonus to Dexterity inherently. Goblins can function just fine as a Strength-based character since they do not suffer a Strength penalty that most Small-sized Ancestries do, and can still use their Free Ability Boost from their Ancestry to increase Strength.

But if you're still really wanting to make use of your Dexterity, though, then you're limited to using only Finesse weapons, or Ranged weapons, which reduces your options significantly. But you're not completely helpless; there are Shortbows, Tridents, and Light Hammers as your primary means of attack. Bonus points if you put the Returning rune on them ASAP, especially via Blade Ally. If your GM is open to let you doing some crazy stuff, picking up an Elven Branched Spear or a Bladed Scarf could give you a Finesse Reach weapon instead (though its damage is equivalent to a Shortbow and worse than a Trident's, it lets you reliably make use of the offensive portion of your Champion's Reaction compared to those other weapons). For the latter, you could explain that the pretty colors of the Bladed Scarf act like flames, which make you want to keep using it as a Goblin.

For feats, I would look at Desperate Prayer for 2nd level (an extra Lay On Hands when you need it is always good), and for 4th level, possibly looking at expanding your Dedication choice via Free Archetype. For 6th level, if you are wanting to stick with melee weapons, Attack of Opportunity is an awesome feat if you aren't able to make use of your Champion Reaction, but could have been able to take a swipe at a guy moving adjacent to you. Otherwise, Smite Evil is too good of a feat not to take if you're using ranged weapons, as the free bonus damage is more helpful to you compared to a melee weapon, especially if it triggers Weakness. 8th level is another weak level for feats, so maybe expand your dedication(s) some more with this level of feats. With 10th level, Radiant Blade Spirit lets you add Flaming and Holy and Axiomatic to the choices of rune effects to attach to your weapon of choice, meaning you can vary up your rune choices with your weapons to account for this, and taking Holy at a level before you normally get access to it as a rune is very powerful for you. 12th level gives you Blade of Justice; despite its name, you can use this with any weapon, including ranged and projectile weapons. Against Evil foes, this adds 2 weapon dice to the attack, lets you convert weapon damage to Holy/Good damage (great for triggering weakness and bypassing resistance), and only counts as one attack for MAP. 14th level, Divine Reflexes is the best feat, bar none. Potentially Double Champion Reactions per turn is insane, or if you are running a Reach weapon, this lets you combo Attack of Opportunity and Champion Reaction in the same turn if your enemies trigger either way, but don't want to make a choice as to which weapon to use. 16th level is probably the last of the bad feat choice levels, though if you're wanting to really capitalize on Blade of Justice, the Instrument of Zeal feat lets your weapon become even more devastating on a critical, adding more damage dice and putting a Slowed 1 debuff on the enemy. Otherwise, expand your dedication(s) one last time here. 18th level, Celestial Form is the best choice, bar none. A permanent Fly Speed equal to your current speed is so good, especially if you're a ranged/reach character. 20th level, your choice of Radiant Blade Master or Sacred Defender. The former is great if you're wanting a Keen property on your weapon, and if the GM okays it with a Bow, for example, that's really powerful and unique. Greater Disrupting is useful if you're fighting Undead a lot, but is otherwise useless, and Dancing isn't so great unless you're using a back-up weapon with it, which kind of defeats the point of a free rune that stacks with all others. If you're wanting a bit more defenses against Evil creatures, then Sacred Defender is your best bet, especially if you're still using melee weapons. This gives Resistance 10 to all physical damage against Evil foes, and any creature rolling a Natural 20 against you doesn't increase the degree of success by 1 step, meaning you can't just get whittled down by a GM fishing for 20s, which is nice. This, unfortunately, probably won't protect you too much from primary attacks from credible enemies, but it does make a stray Natural 20 from a mook or a secondary/tertiary attack from enemies nowhere near as effective.

And for Free Archetype, that's really up to you, depending on which playstyle you roll with. If you want a very basic one to take that gives you solid scaling stuff without any investment, there's Acrobat dedication; free scaling of Acrobatics up to and including Legendary by 15th level. This lets you take Kip Up (great for nullifying enemies that trip and freeing up potentially lost action economy) and benefit from Legendary Cat Fall (which is fun as an armored tin can falling thousands of feet from the air and just landing as if nothing happened). Bonus points if you use Elven Branched Spear as your weapon of choice, as some of those feats work with that type of weapon. If you want added mobility as well as a specialty animal companion, there's always the Beast Master dedication, which lets you have a full-scale Animal Companion (which scales far better than Steed Ally, I might add), and might add a bit more offensive capability in combat, especially in the lower levels. You could even go full support-type frontliner and take Marshal dedication, especially if your group doesn't have a bard. The possibilities are nearly endless here.

That being said, I would advise against going Dexterity and Stealth as a Champion for a few major reasons. With Stealth, the ability to utilize it reliably does not kick in until the major levels, and requires both skill increase investments as well as skill feat investments to make work against enemies with ever-scaling Perception DCs and in a real-time combat scenario. Goblin helps accelerate the process some (with Very Very Sneaky giving you the effects of Legendary Sneak without needing to be, well, Legendary in Sneaking, and at an earlier level), but it's 2 Ancestry feats, and still going to be well over half your adventuring career before you can reasonably use Stealth as part of your regular tactics. Even if you do commit fully to Stealth, the problem that's posed is that you are supposed to be the most AC (and probably also the most health) of the group, meaning you're the one meant to take the enemy's front-line to keep your back-line protected. If you all-of-a-sudden poof from the battlefield via Stealthing, you leave your other allies open to getting beat down or surrounded by enemies, when your role as Champion is to be the one getting surrounded and beat down, because it's not meant to be as effective. Having played in a group where this happened, not having that extra member there to draw attention and take hits here and there, definitely caused some added pain to the rest of the group, forcing us to rest longer and/or burn more in-combat resources to stay up.

Another reason to avoid Dexterity is simply having lower AC. Relying on Dexterity and without wearing heavier armor is still less AC than if you simply went Full Plate (or another heavier armor in the early levels). Even if you want to say that having the best AC without armor is really only a 1 point difference (which puts you on par with Monk, actually), another big factor is Armor Specialization, which depending on what you wear determines what resistance you get from physical attacks. Wearing any Light armor (or even no armor at all, such as Explorer's Clothing,) gives you nothing for Armor Specialization, which is a nice boost in survivability. Just as well, with an 18 Strength, you're only really losing out on 5 feet of movement speed, which can even be negated entirely with Mithril Full Plate. Honestly, other than having a better than usual Reflex Save (which is crucial for a Champion), it's not particularly powerful compared to just going Strength, as there are other ways besides having a higher Dexterity to make your Reflex Saves not garbage.

But with this, I've given you an idea of what to expect between each build type and what to potentially build toward, depending on if you want to stick with full Dexterity, or just go into Strength and just keep your Dexterity minimal. From here, the choice is yours.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are correct.

As for it being self-defeating, the player did spend a class feat to make his successes more helpful to himself and others; it wouldn't be fair for a GM to metagame with that knowledge in mind unless the enemies have already seen the ability in action.

roquepo wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You do see what you're typing out, right? "We want Bulwark-like options for Fortitude and Will saves, but they don't have to function like Bulwark." Then how are they supposed to function if they don't mimic Bulwark? And if so, people are still going to argue why Fearless and Fortuitous doesn't have the same opportunity/gold costs as Bulwark, when they're just the same effects but for different saves.
I do not want a "Bulwark-like option", I want a solution to a problem. What shape it takes is of no importance to me. As mentioned before, Shadow Signet was a solution to attack roll spells sucking that do not look like spell attack runes. What I proposed had nothing to do with Bulwark. It seems you are the one not reading what others are typing.

You see it as a problem. I don't. And based on nothing being published about it for nearly 3 years, Paizo either doesn't view it as a problem as well, or can't find a way to balance those options out (as even we are struggling to do so without completely revamping what they do). Even despite Paizo's stance on the matter, that's the trade-off of investing in different resources. Want to be good at Intimidate, Diplomacy, etc.? Gotta give up a saving throw or your main attribute for it. As for the Shadow Signet trying to make Spell Attack Rolls not sucking, there are times where using it is actually worse off than it is more helpful, especially with enemies that have bonuses to Saves versus Magical Effects, and/or have a Fortitude or Reflex DC that is either equal or superior to their AC (as a result of said bonuses). It requires either extensive player knowledge (AKA meta gaming) to get the full use out of it, going up against specific enemies, or helpful Recall Knowledge checks (or similar abilities) to make proper use of it. Which, if your table either has poor Recall Knowledge rules, or doesn't let you meta game (as they probably shouldn't), then it's not the bee's knees. Even with favorable conditions, it still requires investment outside of the item's part to make it a valuable asset.

But I suppose if you aren't wanting a Bulwark-like option, then I at least apologize for strawmanning what you want with what others were wanting or proposing instead.

SuperBidi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When a Reflex Save does 60 damage on a success

You mean level 10 Finger of Death with Dangerous Sorcery? 55 damage on a success, but a Fortitude one.

Or level 10 Debilitating Dichotomy, 47 damage on a success on average, so potentially more on a good roll. Unfortunately, you're looking for Resolve for this one.
Ho, found it: Meteor Swarm. 41 damage on a success if you take one meteor, but 74 damage if you take 3 of them and even 90 if you take all four. Unfortunately, you need to be large or huge for that to happen.

Now, if we speak of an actual spell that blasts a lot: Eclipse Burst: 32 damage on a success, mostly Cold but also Negative. So your 15 points of resistance reduces the damage by half and you can even grab a few points of Negative resistance to end up with nearly no damage.
Obviously, Evasion is better, but it's not like you were taking a crazy amount of damage anyway, 17 damage at these levels is not even a scratch.

When you succeed at the save, blasts don't deal that much damage if you have the proper resistance.

It's kind of sad when not even Cataclysm, another high level Reflex Save spell, does acceptable damage for its level, and is far more unwieldy than an equivalent Meteor Swarm. 9D10 and 12D10 for an average of 115 on a failure is pretty lackluster compared to 7D10 and 16D6 for an average of 94 damage on a failure. Especially if an enemy has Resistance 15 to each of those types of energy damage, which is reduced to 95 for Cataclysm, and 79 for Meteor Swarm for a failure. So with a Success, it only does 37 damage for Cataclysm and 32 for Meteor Swarm, after all is said and done? And Meteor Swarm does that damage with only one actual Meteor; if it was multiple meteors on the target, it'd be higher than Cataclysm. Yikes. Cataclysm would be even worse regardless without ignoring 10 Resistance clause it possesses.

Eclipse Burst is just as unwieldy as Cataclysm, and actually even weaker as well for an equivalent level, since it does 11D10 and 11D4, which is an average total of 88 damage, 44 on a Success. With a Resistance 15 Cold ring, it's reduced to 29, and if you have any Negative Resistance (which is extremely rare unless you have special options already chosen for it), it's even lower. That being said, with Undead spellcasters like Liches, they are prone to cast this unto others while being in close range, making it more likely for a Champion Reaction to occur, reducing the damage even further, to where it's borderline useless.

I suppose I did exaggerate the damage a bit compared to the averages, though it's certainly possible to roll good enough to reach those values.

With my actual play experience of a Paladin Champion compared to a Shield Fighter in the same party, though, failing Reflex Saves instead of even just succeeding them was getting me killed a lot faster compared to the Fighter with Evasion, forcing me to take Canny Acumen for Reflex Saves (to not die so fast) instead of Perception (to go first and get in position for my allies), which was really my original point.

The Raven Black wrote:
Lay on hands and the Champion's reaction are great for the Tank role. The Fighter has nothing like these.

Like the Fighter needs them, they already have Master Perception (making them more likely to go first in combat) and 2 Master Saving Throws (3 with Canny Acumen at 17th), with 2 of those 3 having Evasion/Juggernaut, and the third having Resolve-lite via Bravery, and could even be shored up with Talismans if so desired. Compared to a Champion, the Fighter takes less damage from Saves, which deal a lot more unmitigated damage. So if you fight an enemy with a lot of Saving Throw abilities (or several enemies that chain such effects), that Champion is getting wrecked, while the Fighter may suffer a few scratches if he rolls bad.

Champion's Reaction only works for protecting others from damage, not yourself (unless you are a Desecrator, but 1 out of 6 Champions isn't a realistic number to actuate this being reliable), and Lay On Hands provokes AoO, resulting in even more damage, and can be disrupted on a Crit, resulting in no healing and wasted actions (on top of even more damage). Even if they have the highest AC, and are the least likely to be Crit, it's still a possibility with higher level enemies, the ones you are most likely to try and heal yourself with since they hit more often, and for more damage.

roquepo wrote:

Just curious, why are we pretending that an item that costs money does not have an opportunity cost? You can make the item give a +1 at level 10-ish, +2 at level 15-ish and +3 near 20. Fitting an item that scales in your character economy IS a steep cost.

Also, who cares something like this does not fit a mundane item? These effects do not have to work like Bulwark at all.

Gold certainly is an opportunity cost, not unlike invested items. The problem is that Bulwark doesn't have the same sort of opportunity cost that these proposals do. If so, why should these hypothetical items have that opportunity cost if they're meant to just be the equivalent of Bulwark, but for Fortitude and Will saves, of which Bulwark doesn't have a steep gold or investment opportunity cost?

You do see what you're typing out, right? "We want Bulwark-like options for Fortitude and Will saves, but they don't have to function like Bulwark." Then how are they supposed to function if they don't mimic Bulwark? And if so, people are still going to argue why Fearless and Fortuitous doesn't have the same opportunity/gold costs as Bulwark, when they're just the same effects but for different saves.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Why do people keep saying bulwark had a steep cost? Two classes get it by default.

It is also attached to the best armor in the game. Even if you don’t care about Bulwark, heavy armor is great. Not like you are sacrificing to use it. 1ac for 5 speed is a great trade, particularly later on when you can amp your speed up high enough that 5speed is a minimal difference.

Heck, I homebrew a medium armor with Bulwark just to keep heavy from being such an absolute must have.

It is a steep cost, especially if you don't get it baseline.

If you are a light-armored class, you need to invest a Dedication feat for it, which might not be feasible if you aren't running Free Archetype, or if you do have ideals for a different Archetype choice, that's now in competition of it, meaning you have to either delay Sentinel or delay your other desired dedication(s). Good luck if you don't run Free Archetype and/or have other important uses for your feat slots. If you're an unarmored class, you also need to sink a General feat on top of said Dedication, and those classes are the ones most likely to just simply keep their Dexterity high enough anyway. Just as well, if some genius thinks "Oh, I'll just take the Armor proficiency feat for it," the problem is that the scale is garbage. You need to take it multiple times if you are light-armored, and it never scales past Trained. It's really only there so if you are unarmored, you can take it and still qualify for Sentinel benefits, which don't kick in until way later in the game.

Heavy Armor for the +1 AC is nice. You know what's a better defense, though? Being skilled and prepared enough to not require that +1 AC to begin with. This is the place on the battlefield where most spellcasters are, and should strive to be. Having seen a "martial" spellcaster in action with this very thing, it wasn't very effective, and it really only drug them down. It was a cool flavor thing, but I didn't particularly care for it from a mechanical standpoint, because it was really that subpar at the time.

SuperBidi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

In my opinion, Fighters are more tanky than Champions. Evasion really is that overpowered.

Champion's tankiness drops at high level because of their lack of saves. But overall their whole carreer, they are better tanks than Fighters: Evasion comes late, and you need to improve Dexterity if you want to have decent chances of success to trigger it.

Also, at high level you are expected to have some resistances (at least against the most common energies) strongly reducing the damage taken when you succeed at a save.

In terms of AC, Fighters are just as tanky as Champions until 7th level, equal them by 11th level again, and lose out from 13th level onward by the same value of 2. So for 8 of the 20 levels, a Fighter has equal AC to Champion, and that's true in the first 6 levels of overall gameplay. The fact a Champion needs to wait 7 levels for their AC to actually pan out over others is pretty bad design IMO, when a Fighter never has an optimal to-hit lower than anyone in the game at any given point in the game's progression (assuming they're using their chosen weapon group).

For Saves, their Fortitude is identical through and through. Short of a choice in Constitution score, anyway. Reflex, Fighters have 2 higher than Champion until 9th level (or if they take Canny Acumen prior to that level), and tie out until 15th level. (If the Champion took Rogue dedication, they could take Evasiveness at 12th level for Master Reflex Saves 5 levels earlier.) With Canny Acumen, the value might be the same at 17th level, but Evasion does so much more than Canny Acumen ever could. Champions do have superior Will Saves for the first 2 levels, but Bravery equals that out until 11th level, and with Canny Acumen, by 17th level, Bravery is just Resolve-lite, which is more than enough given most Will saves are indeed Fear effects.

When a Reflex Save does 60 damage on a success in the late game, what's more survivable, resistance 15 if it's a common energy type (which Mental, Poison, Sonic, and Negative certainly aren't common resistances to have, and they certainly exist), or an effective unlimited resistance against any damage type ever conceived, even untyped? Evasion really is that powerful, if not moreso. When a Champion is taking upwards of 45 damage per Reflex Save (assuming resistances apply), and a Fighter isn't taking that damage, you can't tell me that a Champion becomes a superior tank due to 2 AC.

siegfriedliner wrote:

As a player when I get a chance I tend to pick my stats to get 14 in my saves attributes and 18 in my key attributes.

Now you may argue thats unessary but enemy dc especially for bosses feel fairly high and avoiding a critical failure is fairly important.

So I really struggle with classes like the paladin who could benefit for 5 good attributes and I have to make a trade off between charisma and dexterity.

The obvious compromise is bulwark but I was wondering how well do people feel it allows you to tank dexterity and how often relying on it lead to disaster?

I started with a 14 Dexterity for my Champion because I took Fighter dedication for Lunge via Reach weapon. As such, Bulwark didn't give me as much of a benefit as my Dexterity already did (a mere +1 on damaging effects).

That being said, I definitely could tell the moment my Reflex Saves were my glaring weakness, which was at 15th level. So, I took Canny Acumen for it, and grinned and bore it for 2 more levels to make my Reflex Saves into Master proficiency. It didn't give me as much protection as Evasion does, but not (critically) failing Reflex Saves that much more often gave me the staying power I needed.

In my opinion, Fighters are more tanky than Champions. Evasion really is that overpowered.

The Raven Black wrote:

Paizo did publish the shadow signet in a later book. Seems pretty obvious that they are open to learning and evolving. Maybe they just had not thought of this specific point earlier or they believed that people did not really care since there was no thread about it.

In both cases, this thread has great merit.

The Shadow Signet is meant for Spellcasters to be able to take more advantage of Spell Attack Rolls for enemies with weaker saves. While unique in its approach (which potentially lends itself to a nigh "must have" item for offensive spellcasters, a bad thing to consider when this game wanted to do away with the "Big 6" expectation), it's not the same as shoring up a weakness that is purposefully neglected by not boosting the relevant stat or taking Canny Acumen for it.

Free Archetype is considered a great way to play the game, and is something people want as baseline for playing the game. Paizo disagrees with that by having it be an optional rule instead. The point is that Paizo may feel that the system is accommodated to have Bulwark, but not, say, Fearless or Fortuitous, for example. And if Paizo feels that way, then the entitlement that they have to take your suggestions and implement them into the game is childish and absurd when homebrew and houserules already accommodate this for you.

The Raven Black wrote:

I find it odd to dismiss the comparison with Bulwark and then give counter-arguments that would apply just as well to oppose Bulwark.

In other words, if you are ok with Bulwark, why would you not be ok with this ?

I now wonder if people who oppose this would have also opposed Bulwark with the same zeal if it had not been a Core element.

Bulwark makes sense because it's rooted in mundane equipment and requires specific character investment for it to function. It's not for everyone. These new options aren't presented with similar limitations or with the same approach as Bulwark was. The fact they came up with this from Core, and the other two weren't, means those effects are far less likely to be published, even at a later date.

This is like asking why Spellcasters don't get Potency Runes for their Spell Attacks or Save DCs, but Martials get Potency Runes for their Weapon Attacks and Damage Dice; because Paizo didn't feel the balance needed those options implemented. Even when everyone clamored for that expectation from Secrets of Magic, Paizo turned around and "NOPE"'d that notion right out of the atmosphere.

Squiggit wrote:
"If Paizo hasn't published it by now they never will" is a weird sentiment when publishing new content is the backbone of Paizo's business model.

Here we go with the one-liner strawmen again.

If Paizo doesn't feel that the system needs these options, then they won't publish anything about it. It really is that simple. And for people that feel the system does need it, they can homebrew the content for themselves, the Rulebook already gives them the ability to do this. And nobody else besides those people will care that they did this. Paizo won't barge into your home telling you that you're playing the game wrong, or take notes and add it to the game at a later date, especially if they don't feel the game needs it.

The ideal that it's somehow part of their "business model" when they haven't made any option identical to Bulwark post-Core Rulebook is both atypical as well as unprecedented. Last I checked, their "business model" refers to publishing books at regular intervals containing things like Lost Omens, Expanded Rulebooks, and Adventure Paths. None of those currently published contain anything remotely hinting at a Bulwark-like option.

To call my pointing that out a "weird sentiment" means you either have information the general public doesn't about something like this being in the works or having already been discussed by Paizo as a possibility, or are spouting things in an attempt to stick them to a wall without any actual basis behind it.

SuperBidi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ray of Enfeeblement is already a feels bad man spell, because it's both an attack roll and a save before any effect is done, meaning odds are, no effect will occur. It's basically a poor man's Disintegrate, which is mostly identical in execution.
But it's a first level spell that never ages (no damage and no Incapacitation tag). In my opinion, it's a pretty potent spell, just not one you want to use at low level with your top most slots but one you'll use at level 5+ when it will use a slot you don't care about.

Neither does Disintegrate, really. If you use Disintegrate for its damage effects, that's just dumb, unless it's your top slot. Even then, it's still dumb, because it has the same double failure mechanic that Ray of Enfeeblement has. Sure, debuffing enemies is great, and can save party members from getting hit/crit, but the concept of it being a lower level utility spell that has very poor overall success rate, the entire point of me making that reference via Disintegrate, still stands.

Disintegrate functions as a utility spell, not a combat spell, which is very much more true in the later levels, and on that front, it's basically an identical appropriation to Ray of Enfeeblement. Need to create a quick exit/entrance from a wall to escape or surprise an enemy? Disintegrate solves that problem pretty well. Is there some crazy object doing bad things to the party? Disintegrate takes care of that problem just fine too. (Actually had this one come up last session. Ended up destroying a valuable item in doing so, but I blame teammates with bad Initiative(s) and not having the appropriate skills to disable the hazard anyway.)

Really, the only difference is one targets a creature and affects Strength checks, the other targets objects or terrain and destroys/eliminates said objects/terrain. Other than one being 5 levels higher than the other, the point still stands IMO.

1 to 50 of 9,555 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>