Ancient Solar Dragon

Dave2's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 273 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

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

I think what you have to look at is whether or not you like the rules/intent of the rules for A game and go from there. I liked the changes in Pathfinder 2. Some errata does not bother me. I do not know of an Rpg book that has not had errata. I think people are more forgiving of errata if you like the rules/intent of rules than if you do not. The more you are on the extremes of like vs not like the more or less forgiving you are. As far as the pace of releases I do not think it is that much different than PF1.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Architypes in the Lost Omens world guide were a page. So it might be very close to 60 in 60 pages. I liked Duelist, Hellknight, and Rune Caster.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Armor proficiency does make sense. To move around and be effective with armor would require training.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There also is the use of the proficiency until a certain level.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The feat is more than likely going to fill a proficiency requirement maybe for an architype. I think the weapon training feat will do the same thing. This is a way to get it without multiclassing into Champion for armor or the Fighter for weapons. This would be my guess.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think it must be the formatting. The fractional math of PF 1 made casters with the bad progression for attacks much worse than they are now. Also just because it is class option does it mean you are going to excel at it. For example the clawed strikes of the sorcerer does not mean they are supposed to be by the side of the Champion, Fighter, or Barbarian when melee combat erupts. It is not meant to replace all other options. Also by the logic being used about trap feats all of the Martial feats in PF1 could be considered trap feats because the caster would not be able to consistently hit a level appropriate target with their plus 10 base attack bonus at level 20. Also the trained feats for armor and may allow future access to Architypes as another poster has speculated. Finally spells are a locked class feature. By using the argument that there should not be locked class feats/features spells should also not be locked and open to any class/character that meets the level or stat requirements.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes I agree it is a downgrade. I just think it is an international design choice to not have casters succeed allot in things such as melee task. I do not think the designers felt it was a level appropriate task for casters to be doing allot of melee attacks without the class feats because it is not an effective way to attack. Casting is.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am also fine with all weapons and armor to expert. I think the design choices tied back into class feats and if you did not have them there is not much point in attacking with them. The class weapon and armor are what are typically associated with classes and why I think the choices are the way they are.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Are you able to where full plate as wizard? Also trained does scale. It is level plus 2. So based on the armor you are wearing and weapon it may be better choice. Then once again. Is that what wizard is doing the majority of time charging into battle with the plate and attacking with the Greatsword or casting.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If that is what you want expert is not problem. That is an easy house rule. Allow the player to have expert in Greatswords. I think some of this can also be tied to the idea that class feats are important. If I have proficiency in something that is nice. Where you shine is proficiency plus class feats. So that may be why classes are capped at certain proficiency with weapons because with out the class feats to go with it. It is not an effective way to attack.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It also may be that not all Mutliclass choices are the best. If you want to improve a proficiency in weapons fighter. Armor is the Champion thing. So there should not be the expectation of multi classing into barbarian and ranger and improving those things.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do not believe the progression with Advanced Weapons is an over sight. Fighters only get Advanced weapons to master and at a later level. I think there is a class feat you may be able to take as fighter to get Advanced weapons to Legendary. So picking a God with their favored weapon is an Advanced weapon may not be the way to go if you are Paladin. I have softened some on this stance. Class feats really are what seperate you.
I will say this. I do not get why so many think it is horrible and broken to be expert with weapon at 11 or 13. In essence that is 11+4 and 13+4 then stat bonus. Why is this so horrible. The fighters progression is on the extreme optimal end with most martials getting master. Also let’s be honest. How many Wizards are going to charge the Fire Giant with there great sword instead of cast.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, that does change things. The arguments I had was based on the assumption of a more locked system. So if 7th and 8th level spell slots are granted then there should be some more flexibility with training and maybe even some class feats.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Are we sure that multi class gives you access to 8th level spells? I thought one of the developers was on indicating the max you would get is 3rd level spells. If it is indeed 8th level spells, then maybe I would reevaluate my view of locked things such as training. In essence you would have the majority of spells open to you if it is 8th level spells. So being trained in all weapons may be something to look at. If it is 3rd level spells then more of locked system.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

PF1 was level dependent. You had good, medium, and bad progression bonuses bases on level. So yes it was level dependent. Being trained in a variety of weapons and armor is class feature. Just like Rage and Backstab. I think what is hard for people is many of these feats were open in PF1/3.5. Like power attack and whirl wind. My argument is they never should have been. I think either the whole system is open or not. No classes everything is feat to select. This would include all spells. Or it is like it is in PF2. Classes give you access to certain training and feats. If you want to look at it the other way. When you multi class into a caster why do you top out at 3rd level spells. I think you should get access to 6th and 7th level spells. There needs to be a rule change to get that. That is what folks are asking when they say I should get Master level training in the weapons I want.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Art is a subjective thing. To me the art ranges from good to great. That is me though. Others do not like it. Art is subjective.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For me it is a better game. I think it was time to move on from the 3.0/3.5/PF1 engine/rule set. Fractional math caused some problems. I think PF2 is good in that the classes get meaningful choices from class and ancestry. It has influences from 5e and 4th edition D&D. If you are short on cash and want physical copy you could try Amazon.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thank you for the response! I am glad it is doing well

Done


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was at Gen Con this year and was talking with staff. Very nice group. I saw that Pathfinder 2 core book did not sell out at Gen
Con like Starfinder. It is a best seller on Amazon US which is a good sign. Also allot of people may have Pre Ordered/Subscribed and got them sent to the house. I really do like it and think it is great game. I hope it sells very well for them. Just was curious about initial sales.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, it had been 10 years since PF1. There were not
many more books they could publish for PF1. Also they probably think and myself that PF2 is better game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To me expert is already a little high for casters. So restricting it to the class and ancestry weapons is what I will do as DM and is RAW. However, it should not be to hard to add single feat to allow for the trained to expert for weapons outside class and ancestry. I would be cautious about master.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I will say that the class feats in PF2 do a nice job of separating martial classes and what they can do with weapons.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would agree with Staffan on the proficiencies. However, since that ship has sailed I would say that keeping classes locked in at expert with their class weapon. If they want different weapons they can become trained. It would be required and expected at expert for the class weapons and ancestry and nothing else.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would agree. I would say expert is slightly better than the bad base progression bonus. With PF1 it was 10 vs 20 without modifiers. PF2 it is 22 or 24 vs 28 without modifiers.

Also I think it is totally on point with expert being it for casters when it comes to melee and ranged. It is not their primary mode of attack like Martials which are Master and Legendary. So expert works just fine for me. There was also the idea that classes should be able to trade out what weapons their class gives them. Not fine with that either. If it is purely for an RP reason fine. Let the character swap out weapons same damage type. That is an easy fix that does not need rule. If it is a different damage type. D6 to D8 then I would say no. That is me though.

What I think was being advocated for is having the PF2 feat be able to increase to the class cap. So the wizard becomes trained with a great sword and be able to increase that to the class cap expert. My point is I do not think they should be able to do that. They can be trained with the great sword and expert with the class weapons.

This where I will agree to disagree with the original poster.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So with PF1 a wizard at 20th level who is non proficient had 10-4 is 6 to hit at 20th level. A trained PF2 is level plus 2. So I am not sure how that does not scale. Expert is level +4. There should be no bonus at all for Wizard who picks up great sword and is not trained. -2 is not really leaving you behind.

Also that statement is in conjunction with being able to swap out your class weapons for whatever you feel like. I am not in favor of that.

So in essence you have the class weapons that will cap at expert and if you take a weapon feat trained. So at 20 the level it is 24 to hit for class weapons and 22 for trained. PF1 it is +10 at level 20. So I fail to see how bad it is. In PF1 there was no way a Wizard was hitting on any regular basis a level appropriate targets AC with melee attacks. In PF2 there is chance. So it is not true that trained does not scale much better than it did for wizards in PF1.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Since those weapons are tied to a class, then my stance is no. I like the RAW. Also trained does scale, just not as well as the class weapons.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sorry you in the above post should be take.

What many want is to take what their class features give.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So how did you do that in PF1 ohh you did not. So I really find it odd you want to say how odd restrictions are when they were worse in PF1. It seems you want to trade out weapons that could require different proficiencies than what the class gives in PF2.

Saying over and over again that trained does not scale is not true. You add your level which does scale. In fact it scales at the good base attack bonuses from PF1. As reminder caster had the bad scaling which was +10 and +5 at 20th level. PF2 it is 20 at level 20.

What many want is to you what their class features may give them at expert or master and switch to weapons and armor that are not part of their class. When I mentioned fighters getting spells it was pointed out that this was nonsense since fighters to not get spells as class. Well, if you do not get the weapon and armor you want as part of the class e and do not want to multi class than the argument you should is nonsense. Since it is not part of your class. Just like spells are not part of the fighter class.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Also trained is basically the good base progression from 3.5/PF1. What proficiency is beyond that is an added bonus like specialization. It is an extra bonus on top of level. So I do not see how they are that far behind. So the balance metric is trained and if you multiclass into a fighter expert. Which is certainly a balance metric.

So if what you want is to trade out d4 weapon for d4 weapon fine house rule it and say the rogue was trained by a different group and the favored rogue weapon is B instead of A. I think that is perfectly fine. If you want to switch that weapon from a d4 to d12. Well, that may be different. However, it is your table do what you want. I do not think these should be official rules though in the case of d4 to d12.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A rogue should not gain proficiency pariety with non rogue weapons. Why should they?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you looked at my post I indicated multi class fighter into a wizard and yes they then would get spells. As far as I am concerned casters should not get weapon proficiency at all. Explain to me how that makes sense. The assumption is that using weapons is easy enough for a caster to gain proficiency in doing it. So PF2 is quite generous in its proficiency system. I am fine with it. To argue somehow that casters are being snubbed makes me smile some.

Also the idea that changing out weapons is an easy thing is also nonsense. Using a mace versuses a club is a big difference. This, my point about changing out weapons and being trained in a variety of weapons is a fighter class feature to the board extent they are proficient with a variety of weapons and the highest proficiency.


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

Yes I do think it is. I will go back to the Wizard analogy. If a fighter Multi classes into a Wizard and starts asking to be able to pick higher level spells than what multi casting allows. This is the same thing with weapon choice. It should matter.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also if it is weapon you are trained with you add your level so you do get better with the weapons each level. Also this is the same way it worked with the attack bonus of PF1. The difference is in PF2 there is proficiency system that adds 2/4/6/8. So I do not see bardic Dave's point since trained is adding your level. Expert adds an additional bonus. if Bardic Dave's point is based on wanting to swap out whatever weapon that is class feature or ancestry for whatever they want. Then no. A rogue should not be able to back stab with great sword. If you want maximum choice in weapons be fighter. If you want to back stab be rogue.


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

I would say it is not nonsensical. Weapon Proficiencies are part of the fighter like spells are to caters. Also there was some mention of multi classing into fighter and why there was an expert cap. That is where the comment would have come from about taking spells beyond what fighter would get when the multi class into wizard.

Also if all you are truly talking about is changing out your ancestry weapon for different weapon then ask the GM. I would not think that should be huge problem.

I think the first rule in the book is if a rule does not work change it. I thinking swapping out ancestry weapons would fit into that category.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My order from Amazon said August 1 also.


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

The more I look at this the more I do not have a problem with it. I actually think Master with the Ancestry Weapon is generous. So trained adds your level plus stat bonus. Multi Class into fighter is expert. That seems on point to me. Otherwise why can't my intelligent fighter take the wizard feat and get access to the spells I want beyond multi classing into the wizard. Most would say well the training. That could also be said for the fighter and their training with various weapons. So no I do not think there should be more ways to gain proficiencies.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just let them swap out the ancestry weapon for a weapon of the PCs choice. If you are wanting anything beyond that, then we would have to be a martial class or fighter.


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

Congratulations to those that got their books. Mine should be here Friday. We know from the Paizo preview that power attack got an extra weapon damage die at level 18. Did they also scale brutal finish? Did other fighter class feats have scaling dice? At 14 pages that is quite a bit. There may be allot of new things for the fighter.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do not think it would be too hard to use PF2 with other settings.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would say fighter that multiclasses into the Champion could work. You could probably use one handed weapon feats or maybe use the twohanded weapon track/feat for bigger shield.


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

So, this may not be the game for you. I think the point of PF2 is to simulate heroic play. High level characters are Fantasy Super Heroes. So a high level fighter will have a stack of hit points and shrug off blows from giants. So you could cap hit points, proficiency,or feats. At this point however. I wonder if different game would better suit your needs at that point. One approach for high level play for 5e was having level 20 characters and looking at how they did things. They could use meteor storm, but what is the fall out after words. Look at things like where the fights take place and the collateral damage. So a fight may take place, but what is the fall out of destroying half the village killing the giant.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would agree since he is running his own show. Maybe though he could be down there to iron out an ongoing show. Fingers crossed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think you should. I like the range in PF2 as well as the depth of character choices Pathfinder 2 has. I like the 3 action economy as well as the to hit roll mattering as far as 10 plus is critical hit and minus 10 critical miss. The proficiency system has more depth than 5e as far levels 2/4/6/8. So, I think you may enjoy it. As others mentioned the PDF can be safe way to check it out. The good news is not too much longer and it is out.


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

So, there has been a post on this forum before about streaming and PF2. I believe I even mentioned Geek & Sundry. I will not restart the debate of who made who as far as D&D 5e and Critical Roll. I think people forget D&D 5e was on the New York times best seller list before Critical Roll was thing. They were tracking subscribes, and was huge deal when they got 500 subscribers. Do I think they have both benefited from each others popularity for sure. However, D&D 5e was successful before Critical Roll. I think it was great idea to do streams and why I started a post about it. So, I am very excited for the news. Thank you for sharing it. I do hope it is more than one show. I think Geek & Sundry is good landing spot for PF2 since Critical Roll left.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That email I wrote above sounded snarky. I did not mean it to. I think the response was to a post about feats and I took it as an overall comparison to 5e. I do think feats in 5e definetly are not suboptimal. Based on the stat bonus they give and the feat effect.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In 5e depending on the class feats are not suboptimal. So not to sure where that statement comes from. Also the main thrust of comparison would be on how proficiencies work as base mechanic not feats. Also remember that in 5e stats have cap. 20 I believe for PCs. So the plus 2 to stats is not always the best choice. Especially when you consider many feats give a stat bonus also.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do not think class feat starvation was issue in the playtest. It was also stated that in PF2 that each class got tweaks as well as 25 percent more class feats. The issues I saw in the thread were wanting to get access to some locked class feats rather than a number of feats a given class has.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the original idea was concern about feat starvation. I think with this topic it became inevitable that PF1 and PF2 would be compared. PF1 has very open feat system. PF2 does not. Many feats got rolled into class options/feats. So it can seam that there is feat starvation. I think however, it would be interesting to see what core book has more feats. If you include class and general/skill feats I would guess that PF2 would be close to the number of overall feats that PF1 would have if not maybe a little more even. What makes the difference is that the class feats are locked. I for one like that, as I have said before.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes, the thing of the fighter is weapons and the feats/abilities associated with it. In PF1 the advanced armor and weapons training was nothing more than a bonus to hit or AC. In PF2 for the fighter this is reflected in the proficiency training levels. The fighter from the playtest as the highest proficiency in weapons.Legendary. This represented them being the best with weapons along with the class feats/abilities and features.

Lethe has a valid point about savage slice. If you wanted to switch out a druid weapon feature from bow, to sword, to dagger that should be fine. I think most DMs would not have an issue with that. As the druid progresses they get different feats with the weapon let them swap that out with the weapon of choice. I do believe the first rule is change the rules to fit your game.

The only gripe I have with PF2, and I understand why they did this, is calling them class feats rather than class abilities. I think there is allot of ideas behind what a feat is. Class abilities not as much preconceived ideas.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can see that. If you had Druid character that wanted to improve their bow skill. In PF1 allot of the feats were open to everyone that had to do with weapons. In PF2 they are now locked. I could see the issue with this. I personally like them locked. That is me though. If it is mearly just switching out weapon types for the Druid I can see that. If it would be saying that they should have access to the Fighter class feats then that is what the multi classing is for.

I also liked the advanced weapon and armor master handbooks for PF1

1 to 50 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>