I've looked around, but there's a lot of unrelated discussion about skills that doesn't answer my question.
It is my understanding that all uses of a skill must be as a "named use" (Recall Knowledge, Sense Direction, etc)...but I'm a bit confused by how this plays in a real game.
It sounds like the DM has to be fully aware of all of the "uses" for each level of training?
And what happens if something that isn't (yet?) covered in the ruleset arrives as a "new Master usage" of [skillA] - does it just mean what you've been doing all along you just can't do anymore?
It gets even worse if new "uses" are unlocked through skill feats. Then you have to know "oh you can't do that with that skill because only people with that skill feat can do that".
Is the idea you literally just have to look at the skill "uses" available to you from your training and choose one? That works until you want to think outside the box a bit (which all good rp games should allow, right?). It makes sense from the "need to know the different success-type results" but does seem limiting if so.
So why not just tie Focus (or whatever you want to call it) to your classes' main stat (set at character creation for str/dex classes?)?
That being said, I'm still not sure why/how thinking/wishing/focusing/praying really hard should make magic items act better.
And I also think the whole "invisibility potion is more powerful with focus than a 20th level Wizard's casting of it" is really weird/broken (spell only ever lasts a minute, but focus makes potion last 10)??
Ya, it does seem very odd that some class-specific abilities are drawn from the same resource pool that all characters have, that are required for other, non-character things.So some class abilities come at a "cost" that other classes' abilities may not.
Class #1 has these unique things they can do : A, B, C
Class #2 has these unique things they can do : D, E, F (but E & F each cost focus).
And if the solution is "Class #2 will get a small boost in focus to allow for their focus-based abilities" shouldn't we ask whether spell points + focus points (or some version of 2-resource-pools) makes more sense (as much as they're trying to avoid keeping track of these things).
Vic Ferrari wrote:
But it does mean every spell in the game, if it's allowed as a potion, needs a new entry saying what it does as a regular (and Focused) use potion.
Also doesn't explain why a focused invisibility potion works better (longer) than any level caster casting the spell itself (as far as I can tell).
I like where this is headed, but have a couple questions/issues concerning potions:
1) I don't like how focus + potion = more powerful effect than casting the spell can do.
2) isn't it dangerous/terrible to have potion effects different (in general) than their spell's regular effect? Probably don't want to have to have a magic item entry for every single spell that can be put into a potion, to describe how it's different than the spell, and how the focused version is again different. Wouldn't it be better to have a more general rule of "potion does base of spell, focus elevates it to higher level effect of spell"? Or something like this?
No, I get that - I just mean if "balance" was really the reasoning for that, meaning they don't want you multiclassing until you are higher level - there are better ways than stat pre-reqs.
I still think the "but I want to be just a little bit good" at this other class is a valid character concept. Rather than being "just slightly less than the best".
I'm not sure I see how making a high stat requirement limit you from taking dedication feats at 2nd level.
Has there been any discussion about loosening the restrictions to multiclassing?
Seems like the Class Feats (is that the right term?) inside the archetype could have varying degrees of [main stat] requirements if you really want to do that -- but what if I just want 1 or 2 things?
I'm fine with the order:
I think the devs said before it has to do more with what's more common, not "best-to-worst". Could be just we need to get used to it.
makes some sense using that understanding.
I personally don't like the short-forming that I've seen in a lot of stat block examples above, where you're just using S, CS, F, CF
These short forms are a bit too short maybe.
Look at Dominate for example, these save outcomes would look terrible without newlines, using just S/CS/F/CF
I like it.
Maybe the term "Standard" instead of Basic?
And while I have YOUR attention (and we're talking about spell blocks).
Mark Seifter wrote:
Firstly, love the idea - can't wait to see how it works out.
It does feel a little bit more (too much?) like 2e D&D though... Where your stats precluded you from taking certain classes.
I totally agree. Have to be careful comparing 1e to 2e, and rather compare 2e to 2e.Yes, you can't be a Half-elf from start (where you'd be able to, theoretically choose from human OR elven ancestry feats right away).
But the games are different. There are WAAY more "racial feats" than before, with much wider benefit (ancestry feats). Which is why they explained (as I understand it) that standalone split races are too powerful.
Have to think about it terms of "I am a Human, I can take a human feat at 1st to give me (x,y,or z) OR become a half-elf and get (2 of 4 new racial abilities) and open up the ability to take from 2 sets of feats".
Which does kind of open up a bigger question of playtest feedback. I wonder what happens when a majority of people "complain" about something because they liked it the way it was before (even if the developers have the math/reasons to prove it's too powerful or breaks stuff).
Not bad, I have really like every class preview so far - this one falls a bit flatter imo though.
1) I'm a bit confused I think.
John Ryan 783 wrote:
That's a good question -- does the math still "add up"?I like the idea of not having to be X HD to get skills (etc) as high as you'd like (which meant automatically Y hit points and Z BAB -- even if you didn't want them that high).
But how do you keep it flexible and still follow some ruleset to estimate challenge, etc?
Maybe some type of point buy for things per monster "level"? More of something means less of everything else?
Looks good, thanks!
Seems odd to list the 10 ft reach in the weapon specifically, if it's because of the creature's size.
It seems to me like the system (as much as we know about it) may have a type of "armor as DR" baked in.
In 1E, you can assume crit rate of a monster (5% if needs a 20) but 2E's crits are just if you beat a PC's AC by 10.
I do love the idea of the 4 stages of success/failure. We have a tough time in our group with all-or-nothing approach to so many spells. I assume this is partially the reason why monster saves are so high.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Well, that assumes anything that can cast would certainly have Freedom of Movement on at the time - that's still one spell effect being the only thing that stops a caster from being totally screwed.And I'd assume that a "fighter-type" who's specc'd for grappling could probably take a round of full attacks (also considering they can't use 2-handed weapons will be less damage) - and they still have to hit (etc).
There's still a question of whether the grapple feat tree allows more than other similar feat trees.
So in total we have:
Considering breaking out of even a basic grapple from a "grappler" is damn near impossible (and basically instant death for casters), at least they had the "either being pinned OR getting killed". Such that they could still fight back with 1-handed weapons while grappled (but not pinned).
Seems very suspicious...
Just started looking at Sword of Valor, reading up on mass combat rules in UC. Going through the armies, there are some I can't figure out how/why they seem different than the build rules would indicate. Any insight?
LOL, ya we're doing non-mythic, with a few character perks. Which is why I don't care really that much about this. Just don't want it unfair to other players, if the demonslayer doesn't have to "pay" as expensive a cost for for archetype upgrades as other characters, which seems to be the case -- for what they get and give up
Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:
Not truly forgoing FE in other things, still gets 4 other critter-types at +2 (which I admit isn't much). Not really sure what kind of split Rangers usually do for different FEs (how many they update, how many stay +2 etc).Ya, I see what you guys are saying about for balance sake. I actually have no real issue with anything in the archetype for power level (except maybe the skills, and that's only because as FE they already get bonus to these skills). It's really that I feel like it should cost more in trade. So many other archetypes give up more than just 1 thing to get these types of additions, and Endurance is really much.
I understand that the advantages are only against Evil Outsiders (not just demons) but I was thinking more about the concept of a balanced archetype. An archetype shouldn't make you more powerful than the base class, ideally - there should be tradeoffs.
As a followup, I now see the Planar magic weapon ability. I wonder whether this is more reasonable. I can't tell if it's less or more powerful than bane. I'm feeling like it's less but still neat. <?>
Running, non-mythic with some boosted stats.
Hey, I was thinking about renaming the Sword of Valor to something else, as it's clearly not a sword.
Yes, it's really powerful at early levels, but we also don't use STAT boost items (generally) so higher levels it seems to balance out.It also helps that we have a very mature group of players who don't tend to power-game. Points are spread out so no one (generally) has a negative dump stat, and everyone has at least SOME int/cha (etc)
- We use very high stats (mostly so pcs don't dump CHA). Not point buy, but 82 stat points to buy, straight-up, 1-for-1.
- Still using the campaign traits, just the upgrade will be basically the 1st half (a feat-level increase) without the Mythic point addon.
-- also, reducing the +4 CL vs SR to +2 (seemed OP)
- Instead of "Mythic":
Thoughts/tweaks on this or anything else I should maybe do, based on better knowledge of what I'll be up against would be great.
Was thinking of not giving them other favored enemy types (to balance the crazy save bonus) and possibly remove the extra spells too(?)
I had a similar question.
Can an Amulet of Mighty Fists without either a +1 bonus or Ghost Touch damage incorporeal creatures?
I just ran into this question last night.
Thoughts? Any official word anyone's heard?
Yes, all that I know as RAW (hence why I'm asking for a discussion)...
The MA has the ability to bypass all DR, but it seems missing the one ability that the original monk was also missing (and was errata'd) - to affect incorporeal.
And I'm never a big fan of the "well, just get X magic item" - that's not always a possibility depending on the campaign/dm, and doesn't have any bearing on the rules or RAI.
So the FAQ was updated with a response about what the intent is for a monk's Ki Strike (magic) with respect to incorporeal:
My question now is about the Martial Artist's Exploit Weakness ability. It is (Ex) not (Su) and refers to only bypassing (all) DR (or hardness) nothing specific to magic attacks.
It seems like RAI would imply that the Martial Artist is being provided the benefit of all the DR-bypassing abilities as the Ki-using monk, but at the costs of
Incorporeal is really the only rule that specifies a need for magic that's not phrased as DR X/magic. Has anyone heard anything official about this?
I disagree with this. Immunity doesn't mean still affected but don't suffer effects. For example, if there was something that said "max sneak attack damage to poisoned creatures" then you attack something immune to poison with poison -- you wouldn't suffer the full sneak attack damage. They're not affected by the poison because immune.Same as the many things that are "only works if creature is shaken" (etc) -- creatures who are immune to shaken condition don't still have the shaken condition for purposes of being susceptible to other effects
I think you'd still take the 1d6 non-lethal damage for every failed con-check after 8 hours of walking/adventuring, but you'd never become fatigued or exhausted.
Ya, that makes sense. So that part doesn't apply to a 10ft hall (you can stop there even w/o the feat) because even squeezing means you take up the 5x10 beside the friendly creature.
That's why even without the feat, being adjacent in a 10ft hallway wouldn't affect me because he's the one squeezing (as long as it's 10 ft wide) - he takes the -4s not me.
I have a question about Narrow Frame, for my large-sized animal companion.
If the hallway was 5ft wide, he could fit into it without squeezing.
Most round-by-round official poison examples are for cure = 1 save.
It seems reasonable to me that, while attempting saves during the duration (not the initial got-hit save), if you fail you take the stat damage, but if you pass you take no damage that round and you have ONE save banked (ie: you have passed your save and are safe for this round).
This is how I believe it works (and have seen several people explain it this way) but can't find any actual Paizo documentation (forum or book) that shows this.
Another interpretation could be "you take damage until it's cured" and it's not cured until 2 consecutive saves or its duration runs out. The official 1-save-cure examples don't fully explain this part because after their 1 save they *are* cured.
Example A (2-save cure):
Example B (2-save cure):
I strongly believe Example A is the way it works, but am looking for official wording/ruling.
Technically the second use of exploit weakness doesn't ask for a check. So you can have the dodge bonus on tough fights with no check.
Have you seen any official ruling on this? I agree that this is how it's read RAW, but it could also be interpreted that the same lvl+wis as above, if it succeeds, could be used for the defensive stuff instead of the offensive??