Demagogue's page

Well, I used Microsoft CoPilot to ask the following questions:

1. How do you calculate damage in PF2e?

2. What would the calculations look like using a greataxe for a Fire Giant?

In #1, it gave an example of a barbarian using a greataxe. Ignoring barbarian special abilities, the difference in damage centering around the greataxe my PF1e players thought just wasn't believable.

We're not asking for realism -- we're just asking for a level of believability.

I'll bet if a survey was taken, most PF1e players would have a lot of issues playing with PF2e damage calculations -- with the core issue being weapon size.

Having a tiny greataxe and a huge greataxe do the same damage is just unacceptable to PF1e players. Almost always discussions about this with different PF1e players yield utterances of "dumbing it down".

This is the same thing PF1e players said about 5e.

For the love of all that is holy do not use LLMs to tell you how a system works. They're prone to just lying at the best of times, much less parsing specific information about a system with similar names and mechanics to other systems.

I'm not going to comment on the size thing because this is clearly just going to come down to personal prefrence, but the rules are easily accessible online and you're more than capable of reading them on your own.

omg please i'd love a second edition contempary of Strange Aeons. I love putting cosmic horror stuff in my games even when it is entrirely irrelvant. Sure APs don't add loads of feats or whatever but I can dream.

I don’t really see much value in telling the players to play different characters. Especially for a homebrew campaign where the GM can really be flexible with the levers.

Yeah I really don't think this is a character problem*, at least with the information we have now. You can get away with a lot of stuff in this system. It sounds like a group not working together to deal with the boss.

*Outside of not having ranged/mobility tools but that's an easy fix.

Regarding 3) Opening up the floor to some free retraining might also help. On the speed front it sounds like your party might benefit from tools that they don't have.

Also - what are they doing in combat? This sounds eerily like my first party which were consistently using -10 MAP attacks instead of moving or using skill actions. Even something as simple as walk to boss - hit - walk away from boss (Or step if reactive strike is involved) would quickly drain the action economy from the boss.

It's been said somewhere (I can't find it now!) that we're about to enter a "multi-year" metaplot event called the Hellfire Crisis with Battlecry, Hellbreakers, Operation Hellmouth, and the next PFS season, so it seems like safe money to finally bet on that Lost Omens book on Hellknights... and maybe an Old Cheliax guide.

I suspect next year won't be Arcadia's, either, and that's a bit of a bummer to me.

We'll get you that arcadia book one day. I'm currently attempting hypnosis on paizo staff but it doesn't seem to work

Oh my god that coral dragon is so close to something I made myself. I almost get to mark my own homebrew.

Also, I'm noticing some crossover between the rune dragon and what runesmiths can do. I don't know what point i'm making here.

Aren't Pathfinder ancestries getting stuff in the Galactic Ancestries book already?

That's one aspect of what's being asked for. But that won't include things like class feats, cross-compatible numerian items, etc.

BotBrain wrote:

Huh that's interesting, because I'm reading their (admitedly limited) entry on starfinder wiki and they sound like they're closer to some kind of beast. I wonder if the loss of aucturn will spur them forward.

We've had beasts as ancestries already, too. Awakened animals, for one. (Anadi aren't, but I really think they should be.)

Sorry i'm not sure why I said beast. I meant unintellegent. But Moosher seems to have answered my question for me.

Huh that's interesting, because I'm reading their (admitedly limited) entry on starfinder wiki and they sound like they're closer to some kind of beast. I wonder if the loss of aucturn will spur them forward.

As written, no.

Yes. Coming from 5e I really appriciate that taking options like a Champion oath or being a cleric comes with serious weight to it. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood but it really annoys me when characters that should be beholden to some tenants are incredibly flippant about it.

Certain edicts and anethemas are problematic either generally or for some games, but that's a discussion you need to have to your DM so you can make them work for that game or table.

Family corpse resureccted without your permission? Sue now!

Cultists in your neighbourhood? It's more likely than you think!

Have you or a loved one been diagnosed with radiation sickness?

The insanity machine is correct, Irrisen is ruled by a granddaughter of Baba Yaga.

Shyka has an AOL address actually.

I think a lot of the fun of in-game myths like wukong becoming immortal is that they DON'T make sense. It hints that these stories are something mortals tell to explain something, and the "Real" events may be different.

Perhaps wukong didn't just delete his name from a book, he used supreme trickery on a cosmic scale to make it so his name was never real, and that's much harder to communicate.

Perhaps this is bias on my end, because in my setting I enjoy mixing the way TTRPGs normally do gods, and adding this unknowable aspect on top. My fave little tidbit is introducing doubt as to whether mortals actually ascend, or if their acenction has produced something that thinks it's the mortal.

(Yes i stole this from swamp thing)

Yeah by the standard of normal release candance that is remarkably swift. Especially so with two starfinder playtests also occuring.

(I know the pathfinder and starfinder teams aren't the exact same people, but there's going to be some crossover and logistics involved)

I do wonder if that one was to avoid spoiling Jotun until later since we didn't know about them until much closer to the book's release.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I understand Paizo wants to change around their announcement or release schedule, that's fine and normal. But the reason this is somewhat bothering about this particularly book is that was the book we playtested the classes for where they wouldn't even tell us the title of the book for the playtest (a thing that they hadn't done before.)

So some part of this has to be "they are holding their cards close to their vest" because the very title of the book is predicated on something big happening.

I think another thing they hadn’t done before (at least in my memory/back to 2012ish) is release a playtest without sketch art of the Iconics.

I feel so many things are in transition for Paizo at the moment. Changes to Adventure Paths from episodic releases to hardcovers; the release of SF2; changes to PFS; the final Remasterings and also the slow but sure move to a new webportal/store/site.

I also feel that these are all fairy useful/necessary, the unfortunate thing is that any or all of these changes, taken together or in part will play havoc with production and thus the release schedule will no longer be “normal”. What might have been a usual occurrence is…a thing of the past.

Battlecry's playtest didn't have them either.

I'd appreciate clarification from Paizo.

You'd be very lucky if you get one.

The read problem with gang up is it overshadows the very funny head stomp. Imagine being Tiberius Von Spellcaster the lich and the 2ft nothing gnome stamps on your head with such force you become worse at casting spells.

BotBrain wrote:

Timber sentinel being a stronger guardian tree isn't power creep, because nobody in their right mind is going to take a kineticist dedication just for timber sentinel because it's stronger protector tree.

Oh I dunno, that one, the healing ones, and a couple of the stances make it really tempting. Use-all-you-want on things where your attack or save DC doesn't matter are like this whole other dimension of niceness. IMO the thing holding the kineticist archetype back is not what you get but when you get it; waiting until L4 to get your first impulse, then getting 1 per 2 levels is kinda meh. I think a lot of other archetypes deliver a quicker 'hit' of benefit.

Okay but now we're talking about kineticist in general being strong. Kineticist has not entriely overshadowed prior options to the point where you're causing yourself problems by not taking it. I'm not denying it's a stronger-than-baseline ability. It obviously is.

My point is that it has not created a problem where anyone who would want to take protector tree is instead coaxed into taking kineticist dedication JUST for timber sentinel.

Again to go back to YuriP's point, Strong =/= power creep. It's why I don't think Numbing tonic is a strict upgrade to elixir of life. There are lots of situations where you want to pick one or the other.

I really don't understand what timber sentinel is power creeping. Power creep is when an older option is rendered obsolete by a newer option which is stronger.

Timber sentinel being a stronger guardian tree isn't power creep, because nobody in their right mind is going to take a kineticist dedication just for timber sentinel because it's stronger protector tree.

Same with numbing tonic. What's that completely replacing?

As yuriP said. Something being above baseline =/= power creep. There's above baseline options in the legacy PHB.

This sounds more like a PFS failing than the system itself. We've known from the get-go that mixing SF2e and PF2e will come with issues like flight from level 1.

I don't know how much you can argue something is power-creep when it's from an optional ruleset that explicitly flags this as a problem. It'd be another thing if Dragonkin was a printed ancestry in Pf2e.

Okay, so for the "Beast Boy" version of a shifter what is keeping the Wild Order Druid from fulfilling that role? Serious question. Not down playing that desire at all.

For the Werewolf-ish Shifter, what is keeping the Beastkin VHeritage, the Werewolf Archetype, and the Animal Barbarians from fulfilling that role?

The beast boy comparision is limited, I just use it to emphasise the difference between barb and a hypothetical shifter.

Druids are still spellcasters, so you don't get to commit fully to the fantasy of this blurring of man or beast as you swap forms freely in battle.

Untamed form is also very limited, you get a small pool of fixed options, instead of a wider pool of options to pick from.

Would my hypothetical shifter be derivative of wild order druid? Yes. But a lot of classes have a decent amount of overlap and I don't see the difference here.

If you want to see what I'm on about, Teridax's shifter is essentially my pitch, though i would prefer it remain purely animalistic, at least at first. There's not really any reason for that, I just like the flavour of PF1e's shifter.

I would go into how the system expects you to USE your items, especially consumables. I know from my own games players will hoard consumables and use them levels later when they've dropped off and are now useless.

BotBrain wrote:

Ooh con based shifter sounds like a really fun idea.

This could be something. The Shifter concept is much more amenable to damage boosts than the Guardian one IMO.

Though Unarmed martial with a big bag of HPs does sound pretty similar to an Animal Barbarian.

In my mind, the distinction would be the shifting aspect. Unlike barb, you adopt parts of various animals (or even more) for both encounter and exploration mode.

I've seen "Wolverine Vs Beast Boy" used to explain it and it's pretty spot on.

Ooh con based shifter sounds like a really fun idea.

Yrmidar is the humanoid polar bear deity in Divine Mysteries.

Archives of Nethys has the entry.

I think i've said it before but I'm wondering what will happen to the stuff that's already got a reprint in divine mysteries. Reprinting it again is the obvious choice but there's the tantalising possibility that the space gets used for something else.

Also I say this every time but don't forget these books are special errata, not true remasters. The best we're going to get are numbers tweaks, as with gunslinger and inventor.

Yeah you're just not getting pf1e levels of caster power in this system. It's kind of one of the goals of the system, to not have that.

That being said, it really sounds like your DM set you up for failure here. Learning to play the system at 18th level whilst trying to play a character that's radically changed between systems sounds like hell.

If you haven't been completely put off when you're going into a new campaign I would encourage you to keep an open mind. I personally find it a lot more rewarding than pf1e because it's not enough to blast something down with an absurd build, because absurd builds don't really exist. You have to work more with your party, and I really enjoy that.

If that doesn't sound appealing, it's probably not the system for you atm.

Nope. The feat automatically fails the standard level DC at every level. Like, WTF? Barbarians, rogues, and others don't have to deal with this **** for their extra damage.

Is this not just a failure of overdrive as a mechanic instead of assurance?

Assurance is useful for skills and situations where you are making a lot of below-level checks. Like, medicine, athletics against weaker enemies, and so on. Push it higher, and it moves out of the space normally occupied by skill feats (Nice to have, not vital) and into centralising terrotory where you essentially have to have it. It's contextual but so are most skill feats.

I still really want a gunslinger archtype that lets them work with slings (and also buffs slings in their hands.)

So I brought this to my DM and he responded with:

Quote:

What I understood was: it's within a turn. The reason it doesn't normally apply is that you have one reaction --- so one reaction during another actor's turn.

... so if you 're fighting A and B and you take one reaction on A and one reaction on B, it still doesn't apply.

But if you take two reactions on A, and those reations have the attack tag, then it applies.

In other words, it's a pretty specific, narrow case.

I know Weapon of Judgment specifically calls out that sort of thing -- are there any other examples of that?

This Strike doesn't count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn't apply to this Strike.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

You're right. This is exactly what many of us are asking for. Strong class features that scale that fit the wizard playstyle as the ultimate arcane caster.

Well, I guess the OP's original position of "we should buff the arcane spell list" is pretty well refuted. No, the arcane list doesn't need a buff. Arcane casters that aren't the witch or wizard are fine (and the remastered witch is...better?).

The problem isn't the spell list. It's class features/feats, and almost everyone agrees the wizard lacks good ones.

I was running a campaign with an Arcane Witch (Rune/Inscribed one) as changes rolled in, and they saw immediate improvements. The flavour changes sell the class better, and the familiar getting stuff when you cast hexes gives the familiar a greater presence in combat, as well as making the witch feel less like wizard.

Publishing in one go seems like a better approach. One of the reasons i've never really bothered with APs that i've picked up in humble bundles or whatever is that they feel really disconnected.

That being said, not putting the stat blocks is a severe misstep. Running in organised play is pretty stressful, and anything you can do to reduce that load is really important. I would urge reconsidering, or at least adding a free download for each one that gives you the statblocks in one place, since i suspect this is being done for space reasons.

To an extent I actually like non-scaling items because they encoruage players to actually use them. It has its own problems, but I do like the fact that my players can't just sit on 100 items until the perfect time to use them.

BotBrain wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Why would you think this when the only reason to redo these books is to make substantial changes?

The remasters of existing books are being done in the place of regular reprints. That's why it's been semi-random. All the remastered non-core books are is special errata.

In addition We can look at treasure vault and guns and gears to see that anything that's going to require a lot of new or altered text is unlikely.

This happens with each book and people need to stop getting their hopes up that the reprint is going to fix whatever pain point they have, because Paizo have been pretty clear that's not what they're doing here.

Idk, the gunslinger changes weren't exactly nothing. The class got a nice bump, so wondering if the psychic would land on the gunslinger end or inventor end of the remaster spectrum doesn't seem like a baseless speculation.

Sure it's not nothing, but it's also not what champion got. It was tweaks to numbers and some of the changes requested here are just not going to happen.

I want No!!! to be reprinted with an extra exclamation mark.

Why would you think this when the only reason to redo these books is to make substantial changes?

The remasters of existing books are being done in the place of regular reprints. That's why it's been semi-random. All the remastered non-core books are is special errata.

In addition We can look at treasure vault and guns and gears to see that anything that's going to require a lot of new or altered text is unlikely.

This happens with each book and people need to stop getting their hopes up that the reprint is going to fix whatever pain point they have, because Paizo have been pretty clear that's not what they're doing here.

Maybe this is just me but I really like summoning using actual stat blocks. I find it sells the fantasy of summoning much more than using a template. I really felt this in dnd 5e around 2020 when they starting printing summon spells that used a template. A vital change given how problematic the first summoning spells were, but it creates a very different feeling.

I don't nessercarily think a subclass that has a very simple playstyle is a problem. There does need to be simpler options in the system that you can point someone towards.

I am still eager to see Sniper in play, because I do think it is verging too simple, similar to how I feel about reload weapons in pathfinder when you don't get the action compression. I certainly hope not, because I like the fantasy.

WRT to "why take away unwiedly" I suspect that's more future proofing than anything, as I'm sure we'll get a 2+ ammo sniper eventually, as well as not restricting some of those reaction feats.

In fact, looking at the archives of nethys page, we have the Reality Ripper from Collison's wake. If it weren't for the 40ft incriment, it'd be perfect for this.

I don't nessercarily think a subclass that has a very simple playstyle is a problem. There does need to be simpler options in the system that you can point someone towards.

I am still eager to see Sniper in play, because I do think it is verging too simple, similar to how I feel about reload weapons in pathfinder when you don't get the action compression. I certainly hope not, because I like the fantasy.

WRT to "why take away unwiedly" I suspect that's more future proofing than anything, as I'm sure we'll get a 2+ ammo sniper eventually, as well as not restricting some of those reaction feats.

I've been having a blast theorycrafting with some of the weapons in SF2e, and I was wondering what sort of things people wish were in the game, either trait or flavour wise.

For me I definetly wish there was an automatic 1-handed weapon. I would very much accept low damage for the fun of spraying bullets/fire/godknowswhat everywhere from both hands.

Castilliano wrote:

PF2 changed Summon spells so they create simulations of creatures, not summon actual creatures...

Castilliano, do you have a cite for that? I'm not seeing it in the 'Summoned' section of spell descriptions (PC1 p301). Now the spell lists use the word 'conjure', but the actual spell descriptions consistently start out with "You summon a creature that has the ______ trait...". That seems pretty clear: you are summoning something, not creating a simulacrum.

Additional texts in some spells (see specifically "Summon Monitor", PC1 p361) also seems to point to this being a real critter. Urgathoa doesn't prevent her followers from creating illusions of psychopomps, but she does care if her followers summon one.

It's mentioned in the writeups of the old spell schools in Secrets of Magic.

Woah! The ancestries are meaty too!
I was really worried that the focus on ancestries would give us quite shallow ancestries but this is a good sign. Keep it up starfinder team!

Yeah hard agree on not making classes to just fill out whatever combination we don't have. While it isn't mutually exclusive, I'd rather not just get classes to fill out random gaps if they're just there to fill out that gap.

I think I've said it in this thread but I'd love a shifter to be structured like kineticist (or, more likely, thaumaturge and exemplar) where you get to pick various aspects of beasts (or other things) that give you unarmed attacks, passive bonuses and so on.

GlennH wrote:

yes druid with the appropriate feats and spells.

1st round
3 actions to cast summon dragon

2nd round
1 action sustain the summon dragon
2 actions wild shape or spell dragon Form

The summoned dragon will continue to need the sustain action to remain.

ty for the reply. can effortless concentration remove the need to use the sustain action?

I am going to be a pedant and point out it doesn't "remove" the sustain action, it just lets you sustain it as a free action. This is important to note if you're sustaining multiple spells in a round (which effortless concentration obviously makes much more viable).

I wonder if Pathfinder, which ever edition it is on by then, will do something crossover-y with WWII nine years from now.

Not to be a party pooper but I hope not. WW2 alternate fiction can cross the line into yikes territoriy really fast, because you get put in a catch 22 where you ignore the holocaust, which is a bad thing to do, or you introduce the holocaust to your TTRPG with dragons and goblins. Neither option is great.

moosher12 wrote:

Yes please, I'll reiterate my want for a technology guide.

Honestly, I want more Stasian technology too.

For Stasian Technology, hear me out. I wanna see more Earth products. Not just Russian ones with the return of the Russian guns, but I wanna see if a few American and European guns can have been smuggled out of Irrisin, as well as other more mundane appliances, tools, and gadgets of the 1930s that are too modern for base Pathfinder, but too archaic for Starfinder.

See, this I'd be jazzed for. Actual 1930s-1940s technology.

The Stasian Technology I find disagreeable is the stuff that still defies known laws of physics, but does so in a purportedly non-magical way, via the inclusion of "Stasian Coils".
These things seem to generate electrical power from nowhere, non-magically.

Take the Electrocable from Guns and Gears. It reads like a handheld plasma cutter of light Bulk with no external power source and is non-magical.

That kind of take on Stasian Technology gives me exactly the same bad vibes as "Borg Technology" did in later seasons of Star Trek Voyager.

Oh my god THAT's what I've been bothered about with stasian tech. It's always rubbed me the wrong way but I've never been able to work out why.