Easl's page

909 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 909 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

HeHateMe wrote:
Those are just spells that most casters have access to. That's not the same as a character whose main ability is shapeshifting, in the same way that a character doesn't have the ability to "control fire" just cause they know the Fireball spell.

Shapeshifting is literally the untamed druid's main ability. It is their focus point-using 'schtick,' and most if not all it's Order feats are geared towards expanding shapeshifting abilities.

What I gather the 'ask' is, is for something more like a kineticist chassis shapeshifter: a class that doesn't have caster flexibility, but the tricks it has, it has at-will.

Which is an okay concept, but I don't think the people asking for it would necessarily be happy with the result. What I gather from the conversation is that they are envisioning a class design logic something like "because the only thing I can do is shapeshifting, I should be getting Rank+1 power compared to top level-available polymorph spells." Whereas Paizo's kineticist design logic was more like: "because you are getting the ability to do it at will, you will be getting Rank-1 power compared to top level-available spells."

It's also worth remembering that the "at-will" kineticist still has some pretty stiff cool downs they must grapple with. 10 mins for heals which makes them once/target/combat, and overflow for most attack impulses (anything 1d8/2 levels or more). So I would expect an at-will shapeshifting class to have some cool downs on their powers too - in addition to it's polymorphing being a rank behind a caster's top-slot polymorphs.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
moosher12 wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:

It's "iniquity," not "inequity."

"Iniquity" means "immoral or grossly unfair behavior." So Iniquity sounds to me more like it's intended to cover the former Antipaladin territory. "Obedience" has always been the Tyrant's thing - it's just been tweaked to allow different interpretations that are non-evil.

I thank the both of you for the correction, somehow in all my years I've never ran into both of the words in a close enough time frame to realize they were even differing words.

Here's a cynical way to remember the difference: The bar you go to after work is a 'den of iniquity.' The office you go to for work is a 'den of inequity'. Heh.

Super Zero wrote:
Does sustaining even do anything? If there's no cost but actions, you can just... do it again next round, anyway.

You lose your harrow omen when the effect ends, and you need a harrow omen to trigger it. So ya gotta sustain to do the attack multiple times.

Finoan wrote:
Easl wrote:
But the fact that you can spam it over and over again for the cost of 1 action seems okay.
As written, you don't spam it over and over again for 1 action.

I probably didn't write that very clearly. The feat gives you a 2a ranged attack, but instead of a 1-shot like a scroll or wand it lets you spam the attack over and over again, every round, for as many rounds as you want, if you spend another action to keep it going. That's what I meant.

An action each round sounds like a reasonable price to me to change an effect from "one use" to "10 uses" (i.e. one minute). But I also think the action compression idea Trip.H suggests is not OP and might make the feat more appealing, because lets face it, in most combats you're not going to get 10 uses out of it, you're going to get 2-4.

I've never played with it. The damage is about 1 rank behind 'top spell slot,' so it's probably not going to be your go-to "big gun" attack. But the fact that you can spam it over and over again for the cost of 1 action seems okay. The ability to access different traits depending on your omen could also be valuable. Though again, I haven't played with it to know if that really comes into play much in that campaign.

Check your classes' class DC progression. That might, more than anything else, tell you whether this is a choice for you. Shout out to kineticists there.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll say up front that the changes you suggest are probably not game-breaking, and if you choose to home brew them into your own table, come back and tell us how it goes! But since you're asking for the "con" arguments aganist these changes, here's mine.

JiCi wrote:
1) Explain to how relegating Tactical Reflexes from a feat to a class feature would be broken.

It gives the already-strongest martial the potential of an extra attack per round, for free. Not even a feat cost. I understand that from your reading of the class and theorycrafting, you might not see it as a strong martial. But pretty much everyone who's played it says it is. So this is adding free combat power to a class that doesn't need it, which can be unbalancing.

2) Explain to me how retraining weapon groups as a daily preparation, not as a downtime, would be broken.

It allows the martial to more effectively and rapidly adapt to an enemies' discovered or predicted resistances and weaknesses. Weapons become like spells, where you daily decide which ones you use. But weapons are already in many ways better than spells, because (a) they do good damage for 1 action instead of 2, (b) never 'run out', and (c) have faster proficiency scaling than spell proficiency in addition to striking rune bonuses. Coupled with the fighter's higher accuracy, like your suggestion #1 this adds free combat power to a class that already has plenty of it.

The last one is my biggest problem with the class: it is VERY gear-dependant. There's no global rule that GMs must follow where "all shops must level according to the players" like some JRPG, so you'll end up looking for gradually increasing gear, which may not be easily accessible... or cheap.

If your GM doesn't understand that the 'martial math' includes fundamental runes, you need to discuss that with them. This issue is NOT appropriately fixed by adding power to the fighter class, because it affects all martials, not just them. And note that fixing it just for the fighter while not for any other martial will, again, make an already strong class comparatively much stronger.

Secondly, Paizo has a published, approved, variant to deal with precisely this concern, for players who don't like the reliance on runes. It seems to me that the best, fastest, and pre-existing Paizo-approved way that you have to solve this issue is for you to turn to p83 in the GMC and institute automatic bonus progression in your games. This is a far superior fix to the one you suggest because, unlike your suggestion, it doesn't leave the 11 other classes that also primarily use weapons to do damage out in the cold.

Could you let me know why ABP variant doesn't adequately address your concern about weapon availability? Because I just don't see a rational reason why you would reject it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
exequiel759 wrote:
I think this discussion is kinda meaningless because one side isn't engaging this discussion with an open mind...

I live in hope that as a group we can provide JiCi with some good options that will give him a fun fighter-y PF2E play experience. And that, on the 'why the PF2E Hate' thread, we can help him understand why he might enjoy PF2E instead of hating it. :)

Agonarchy wrote:

For context, Illusory Disguise grants:

"ignores any circumstance penalties the target might take for disguising itself as a dissimilar creature, gives a +4 status bonus to Deception checks to prevent others from seeing through the disguise, and lets the target add its level to such Deception checks even if untrained."

Yup, and it's a L1 spell. Meaning costs a spell slot to use as well as the repertoire or 'spellbook' resource to have. So going by the way Paizo sort-of designed the kineticist, an 'all day, any time, requires feat investment' version of that should only become available at L3. Something that gives a better bonus than that, at L1, on all deception checks, as a class feature...maybe no? At least, were I a GM and a player suggested it, I'd send it back for a rewrite. :)

Sanityfaerie wrote:
That said, it's still pretty severe. +10 is effectively a full shift - failures become successes, successes become crits, and so forth.

It's better than a full shift because it also offsets other mechanical penalties. PF2E has 'full shift' feats, e.g. "treat a failure as a success" feats...but you still gotta do a regular roll. A feat that does not provide any numerical bonus, but instead lets a shifter 'treat crit fail as a fail, fail as a success [etc]...' on deception checks to disguise themselves (and, uh, ONLY to disguise themselves) would probably be fine. I still wouldn't stick it in the class at L1 though.

I mean.. I'd like to be able to play a shifter who isn't a weirdly overspecialized deception build, you know?

Yup. More generally, when I'm thinking about new PF2E classes I tend to try and rein myself in on 'wierdly overspecialized' in anything. It's a great daydream to imagine a class that is far far better than anyone else at X, but I can't see such a class idea as ever 'making the cut.' If Paizo were to announce a class design competition and ask for public submissions, I'd bet dollars to donuts that none of those win the prize. :)

Zoken44 wrote:

I agree with the idea of a shifter class. But divorced from the idea of "nature as the source". A class that embraces shapeshifting. They'd have free shape shifting among their own speceis, and becoming other species, especially larger or smaller ancestries, would require a focus point. They would be able to shapeshift body parts, making their hands or legs (unarmed attacks) have the versatile B,P,S trait, and maybe become a D6.

They would also have a certain number of "memorized forms". Any other time they try to pretend to be someone else they get a +2 to their deception checks, but if they use a memorized form, it's a +10, number of memorized forms increase as they get higher level.

Holy cow on a cracker that's strong. At least IMO. I don't think PF2E is designed with that sort of specialization in mind. The problem here is that if you give a class +10 on a skill check, then basically that eliminates the game's ability to say "there are many builds, many character concepts, many choices a player can make and still create a competitive [skill] person." Now, there's only one. You want to be good at deception? You must be a 'shifter. No other class, build, or choice can ever come close.

Plus, aside from the point value, having 'at will' flexibility has significant value on it's own. That has to be figured in too as part of the package. It's worth pointing out that the Kineticst pays for it's 'all day blasting' ability by being 1 rank (2 levels) behind casters in their dpr. That's how the devs ensured it was balanced. An 'all day' shifter with 'all day' ability to morph limbs into a variety of tools or weapons would likely need to balanced by making their bonuses, attacks, damage etc. worse than someone who gets that attack via a less flexible mechanic. For example, their combat forms would have to be worse than the forms casters can assume via spells. Their skills worse than, say, the proficiency given by an archetype like Dandy or Acrobat. Not 10 points better than everyone!

At least, that's my expectation of design. It's pure white room speculation of course, and ymmv. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Easl wrote:
I don't consider that trolling, I consider that personal preference. You want this class to have a 'schtick' - a unique thing it does, which no other class does, and which is not simply a bonus to a thing everyone does. Okay, I get that preference.
Is it too much to ask?

Well you can ask. It's just that the Paizo answer is currently "no," "no" is perfectly balanced mechancially, and given the recent resmaster of the class we expect it to continue to be "no" in the future. So what is your plan here? What is your future course of action? Play a PF2E game with fighter 'as-is' and see how it works out? Play a PF2E game with fighter and ask your GM to homebrew it? Play PF2E games never selecting the fighter class because it doesn't meet your personal expectation of what the class should be able to do? Eschew PF2E altogether because this bothers you so much, and stick to 1E instead? If you want to play a game (vs. just kibbutz about the game), then these are all viable paths to take. Continuing to tilt at windmills, OTOH, seems worse (IMO) than any of them.

Finally, if I need an archetype to give the Fighter some sense of uniqueness, the the class isn't either very unique or kinda bland to begin with. Again, if it feels mandatory, there's a problem.

There is zero problem creating unique fighters. At any given table of 3-6 players, you would actively have to work hard to prevent your character being unique in their attribute, skill, feat, class, etc. choices. This complaint is another version of Schroedinger's wizard: the fact that other classes can access fighter-equivalent feats does not mean that at your table all the other characters will actually have the feats you choose. In reality, they won't. In a real game, your fighter will be unique. No other character at that table will have your character's methods of attack and defense, their other attributes, their methods of approaching non-combat encounters, their other abilities, etc.

(Aside, but this completely ignores the nonmechanical role playing aspect of the game too. Which I personally think is important; give me and the player next to me the exact same stat sheet, I guarantee you we will both bring something unique to the experience.)

I've seen people walking away from the table because their Fighters weren't good enough. It wasn't for P2E though.

That...is a bit of a nonsequitur. "People are unhappy with fighters in this other system" provides zero rationale for why the fighter in the PF2E system should be changed.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Easl wrote:
Because they consist of multiple discrete creatures, they can't be summoned.
Emphasis mine.

Do you pooh pooh on my parade? I believe you do lol.

Well, that's easy enough to fix since we are inventing new feats or rules. "Horde Master: you may use summon spells to summon creatures with the troop trait. When you cast..."

Ashanderai wrote:
I would like to see a Conjuror-type class that does the summoning of weak-but-plentiful creatures that I wish the Summoner class could do better. What I mean is something more akin to summoning Troop-type monsters that players could command as a unit and be themed around subclasses like Necromancer, Diabolist, Old Ones Cultist, Fey Caller/Za-Lord, Celestial Messenger, Construct Crafter, and/or others like whatever a culturally-authentic Sha’ir would look like (if such a thing actually exists).

How about this. It's very simple (intentionally so, so as to be 'dropped into' the current system without much change):

Horde Master (feat, or maybe a sub-class power, or maybe an archetype dedication requiring ability to cast spells): when you cast a summoning spell and summon a creature with the "troop" tag, you may increase it's level by 1 or 2. If you do so, sustaining the spell requires 2 or 3 actions (respectively; 2 for a 1-level increase, 3 for a 2-level increase).

This would emulate the "I get my mob to fight for me" style without permitting the PCs to double/triple up their power by fighting themselves while also fighting as 2-3 equivalent NPCs.

I fully agree with spellshapes idea too; there are lots of tradeoffs that would likely be balanced as feats, like your example of increasing casting time to convert a fireball burst AoE into a multitarget AoE (within reason; 3 targets sounds about right, 10 not so much ;)

I think there is room for a Shifter class, but more broadly applicable to other types of creatures besides beasts and animals. For example, they could have options to take on the form of other types of monsters like aberrations, dragons, fey, demons, celestial, etc.

Isn't that just Untamed druid?

Sure, the game would need a wider range of summon spells to get all the types you list...but then again, 'wider range of summoning spells' would be the sort of add that would also support the summoner concept above. :)

I would also like to see if there is something that could be done with making a tanky Gish class… maybe as a class archetype/subclass of whatever the final version of the Guardian looks like. I like playing both gishes and tanks, so getting 2 in 1 would be awesome. Something like...

Well, guardian will certainly get an archetype. But magus is already just one general feat away from wearing heavy armor, and/or taking sentinel or living monolith archetypes. Doesn't that fit the bill?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

Before saying that I'm trolling, "me not liking the Fighter" is why I don't appreciate P2E as much as P1E.

For me, a class needs 100% exclusive class features that aren't proficiencies, involve dice rolls, shared with other classes and related to feats.

I don't consider that trolling, I consider that personal preference. You want this class to have a 'schtick' - a unique thing it does, which no other class does, and which is not simply a bonus to a thing everyone does. Okay, I get that preference.

But I'm not sure how to respond to it, because (a) in terms of game balance and capability, 2E Fighter is solid. IOW, there is no mechanical reason why Paizo needs to give it a schtick. It's not 'behind' the other martials for not having one, and in fact it's arguably top of the heap in terms of capability as-is. (b) Remaster was just released. Fighter's in it. In terms of future development, we can be 99% certain Paizo has zero plans to change the class to give it a schtick. (c) There are plenty of other martial classes with schticks. Thus, as a player, you have lots of options of classes that meet your personal preference. Why not just pick one of them and in-game have your PC refer to themselves as a mercenary or soldier or whatever fighter-word you want? Ones' class does not have to be played to stereotype. You wanna be a champion (class for the schtick) but fighter (role and attitude), your PC can.

All of which leads me to think there isn't a viable solution to your complaint, other than: reskin it (e.g. play champion or bar or whatever and just call yourself a fighter...because in a vernacular sense, they are fighters), or homebrew it (e.g. get your table to agree to the schtick you want).

Zoken44 wrote:
{teleport-based class} likely too overpowerd because of the unlimited teleporting to be viable.

That is my initial thought too. For early levels you'd need to stringently limit range AND usage (maybe...a focus point power? Or like magus, require an action tax before use?) to keep it balanced. Then ramp up usage, range, and flexibility with class feats.

Another good way to approach low level abilities would be to use 'teleport' as simply the flavor behind some more moderate feat power. For example, a 'teleport blink' feat gives a reaction which grants +2 to AC. Okay that's kinda like raising a shield, so mechanically it's probably fine for a low level feat, and 'teleport magic' is simply the thematic explanation for why this class has a reaction which makes them harder to hit.

....in any event, the current 'least homebrew' way to do a teleport focused PC would be as a wizard's Arcane School. 'More homebrew' would be archetype - conceptually, it seems to me about equivalent to chronomancer. 'Most homebrew' would be class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
I honestly don't understand the hate for archetypes.

Because their powers are always behind the curve of class powers. You can never truly dual-class or dual-concept with them; one concept will always be significantly mechanically stronger than the other. They are a supplement to the character's single class dimension, not a full second dimension to the character.

Now, there's nothing objectively bad about that. It's just a game design decision. It probably makes it a lot easier for Paizo to release lots of archetypes, because giving away some other classes' feats at "half your level" or casting several ranks behind a class caster is only rarely going to create game balance issues. So one pro to the system is that it allows the company to release tons of fun ideas for use without much worry about power creep. But one con is, for players who are looking for a PF2E mechanic for more equal dual concepts or multi-class, I doubt archetypes will scratch that itch.

Calliope5431 wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Never assume you can access everything at any point...

I've been burned often by GMs who tricked out or never get you what you need...

I'm pretty sure the reason why this isn't addressed is because the developers of the game assumed you wouldn't be playing with jerks
Yeah I suggest talking to the GM. And if the GM persists in being rude, then maybe, well, don't play with them.

Or play a different class. Or just go with it for a session or two - maybe the GM has some plot device reason for it.

But I suspect that this is a hypothetical 'what if' fear, not an actual, ongoing game problem. In which case the answer is: try it. You will likely find that fear unfounded, and the class plays great as-is. In the unlikely situation that the fear is not unfounded, then try the speak to the GM/new character/other solutions.

ekibus wrote:
One thing to note is at least from what I've gone through I haven't really seen any skill feats that really sprung out to me. (Still looking)

Medicine stands out as one of the skills with good skill feats. Battle medicine, continual recovery, and ward medic are all good (at least, IMO)

Battle medicine: drops "treat wounds" from a 10-min action to a 1a-action. The "I can now heal during combat" feat.

Continual recovery: drops "treat wounds" occurrence from 1/hr to 1/10 min. The "I can heal someone between every battle" feat.

Ward medic: doubles or quadruples the number of people healed. Combined with continual recovery, it's the "I can heal two [four!] someones between every battle" feat.

ekibus wrote:
Thanks everyone, lot to go through..first @Easl It's PFS and I'm luck if I can manage every other week. So my main concern is there might be a session with no healer so having something is better than nothing in that case.

If your party is going to change each session, so that some sessions you may have plenty of healing available and others, none, then have you considered the simplest way of all - gold investment? Just buy some consumables, use them in the sessions where you don't have a cleric or medic and stash them away in sessions where you do. Or is that hard to do in PFS? I've never played in that structure.

Also, I'm not sure of your play schedule but reminder that PC2 comes out in August. New alchemist archetype...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
The actual solution? Play a class with a design closer to your liking instead of acting like one that is in really good shape and suits a specific play style should be changed to suit a different one.

And give up that juicy best chance to hit in the game? Perish the thought! ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Easl wrote:

I don't get this demand, either in theme or mechanics. Theme-wise, there is no reason for this class to be some sort of consummate martial artist or summon-weapon-out-of-air type class or a "doesn't matter what the threat, I always have something to hit their weakness" type class...while at the same time being the game's weaponmaster.

Mechanics wise, alchemists can run out of bombs, casters can run out of slots, etc., etc. Sure, cantrips, but that's like a fighter using her fists. Resource management is definitely a mechanical thing in this game. I see no reason why fighter in particular must or should have a 'get of resource management free' card.

Casters and alchemists can run of stuff... for the day.

A small versatile advantage for the Fighter would avoid him to be "surprised".

How is "fighters are never surprised" either in-theme or necessary for balance? Why should the fighter never be surprised? Shouldn't that be more of an Oracle thing? And how does the concept "never be surprised" relate to an ability to stun+blind+deafen+mute+shove? They aren't the same thing at all.

Barbarians can rage, champions can smite, rogues can sneak, rangers have edges, monks have focus spells and stances, swashbucklers have styles...

Right. And those things allow those martials to do almost as much dpr as a fighter. Because that +10% chance to hit added to their other feat choices does a lot. Go back and look at this thread. Pretty much every person on it is telling you the same thing: fighters are not weak. They don't need anything else to bring them "up to snuff" with the other martials.

So fighters should apply more than one critical effect, as per their selected weapon groups. I don't care if it's once/round, once/hour or once/day.

If you don't care if it's once/round or once/day, then I'm starting to wonder what the concept is. Once/day would certainly involve a lot of 'surprised' moments for your fighter.

Zoken44 wrote:

Okay, here's an Idea for a new class: Teleportation.

They aren't a spell caster (maybe some focus spells) but their whole thing is teleportation. Subclasses based on whether they want to enhance their own ability to pop around, Reposition others (including against their will), or leave your teleportation portals open.

Superhero blink, you mean?

I'm skeptical Paizo thematically would wants a large section of Golarion's population - including down to level 1 PCs and NPCs - suddenly getting the ability to use an uncommon 6th ranked spell at will. Seems a bit much.

Some constrained, short-distance ability to be this already exists (Laughing Shadow Magus, I'm looking at you. Also things like Mirror Thaumaturge, Shadowdancer). So it's not out of the question to create a class that starts at that power level and builds upon it. But I'm guessing there would be a significant mismatch between 'player expectations' (superhero high) and 'Paizo implementation'.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
A Fighter should NEVER be at a disadvantage if he doesn't have the right weapon.

I don't get this demand, either in theme or mechanics. Theme-wise, there is no reason for this class to be some sort of consummate martial artist or summon-weapon-out-of-air type class or a "doesn't matter what the threat, I always have something to hit their weakness" type class...while at the same time being the game's weaponmaster.

Mechanics wise, alchemists can run out of bombs, casters can run out of slots, etc., etc. Sure, cantrips, but that's like a fighter using her fists. Resource management is definitely a mechanical thing in this game. I see no reason why fighter in particular must or should have a 'get of resource management free' card.


Other martials: "Ah ah! I can stun you with a critical hit!"

Fighter: "That's cute, I can stun, blind, deafen, mute AND shove you with one single critical hit."

THAT'S WHAT I NEED! THAT would be a good reason to play a Fighter, because as a weapon master, it would cripple enemies more easily.

Wow, that would be very powerful, particularly coupled with the fighter's best-of-class accuracy.

Are you sure you're asking for a balanced fighter class? Maybe a better way to ask this question is: what do you think other classes have, that make the fighter need the "stun, blind, deafen, mute AND shove you with one single critical hit" power in order to keep up with them?

Dr. Frank Funkelstein wrote:
You should discern between healing in combat - where a max rank heal scroll is costly, but strong, and healing out of combat, where focus spells and treat wounds provide resource free options.

I'm also curious about what other PCs will be in your group. Do you know that yet? I.e. are you going to be relied on consistently to help others, or is this more of a 'just in case' backup dimension for your PC? 1/day abilities are good for the latter (any number of builds), while you probably want to go for 1/10 min abilities (medicine + continual recovery) for the former.

Sanityfaerie wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
"Monster hunter" "pre-eminent knowledge expert" "reality warping martial" "trinket collecting occultist" "omni-tradition magical dabbler" "charisma focused" ... ??? Are we just throwing things at a dart board now?
Thaumaturge gets a bit messy with it, but the general idea of someone who makes magic by studying a bunch of random lore, coming up with their own weird ideas of how things work, and then BSing the world until it agrees is actually fairly tight. They've got some randomness to their powers, but thematically it's still reasonably coherent.

I remember being thrown off by the Cha thing when I first read it. Int seems to be such a better thematic fit, IMO. My guess is they made it Cha for the practical reason that they wanted their "eclectic magic collector" class to be good at spells and effects acquired through ancestries, (non-class) archetypes, etc. And in PF2E, that's Cha.

moosher12 wrote:
Closest clarification I can find would probably be the Manipulate trait on page 458, which specifies that any Manipulate spells would require gestures to make. Even then, not all spells have that trait.

Yeah, searching for 'manipulate' and 'manipulate action' doesn't even bring up an entry in the Basic Actions list. Ah well I guess the lack of rules is good for different caster concepts. Though it woulda been nice IMO if the spellcasting section covered it explicitly [grumble grumble].

Errenor wrote:
YuriP wrote:
I know but I don't doubt that they may just simplify it to just be subtle in a compatibility review.
No chance. Subtle for all spells of a whole class? In a game which values visibility of magic (or at least makes chars to pay for subtlety) and some measure of balance between classes? No chance at all.

Psychic isn't going to be in PC2, so to add on to Errenor, I don't expect there will be any update to Psychic spellcasting happening any time soon.

Aside: does anyone have a page # in PC1 where they discuss one/two free hands for spellcasting? It didn't seem to be explicitly laid out in p299-300.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
moosher12 wrote:
Look, I'm me, and Paizo has no obligation to help me, but I don't think I'm the only me. There are plenty of people out there who have an idea they think folk would want, and potentially buy. But quite frankly, a lot of these types of projects will not be published for customers to enjoy if increasingly fewer of the devs find the PF2E licenses situation too difficult to work with.

I'm sure the devs want to produce both new content and remaster cleanups if they can. The issues are resources, pathfinder line priorities...and sales. A cleanup book has to be something that will sell very well for Paizo - not just create better 3PP opportunities - because it doesn't seem to be a line priority and they have limited development resources.

A PC3 doesn't create new Golarion environments like Tian Xia does, it's not an adventure path that PFS will use, it doesn't move the time frame forward the way War of Immortals does, etc., etc. So it's no surprise to me that it's not top of the list.

Having said that, I'm always in favor of more content. Hopefully Paizo makes loads of money over the next year so that they can pour their artistic talents into all the new content they want to produce AND remastering fan favorite legacy content like the 'outlier' classes.

exequiel759 wrote:
I mean, this whole discussion is meaningless when we are assuming the GM is for some reason going to strip away all your gear and thus your chances to fight back. This never happened to me. Even when you temporarily lose (and I make emphasis on "temporarily") the GM likely intended for you to find some impromptu weapons along the way or built the encounters around the assumption martials are going to be using fists all the way through.

This is my "I agree" face.:)

However, psychology is a thing. Some people hate a particular form of risk or loss much much more than they love the benefits of taking that risk and winning. If JiCi is the sort of person who lies awake at night worrying they made the wrong class choice because "what if I happen upon a scene where I lose all my weapons", then he's probably just going to have a much happier time in the game not playing that class.
I mean it's kinda like kineticist vs. caster. Are casters effective? Absolutely. Do they often completely run out of (non-cantrip) power? No, that very rarely happens. But is worrying about running out of slots the sort of thing that prevents some players from enjoying those classes? Yes. Some people just don't want to worry about it. So....kineticist. Or martial. At that point, it's not a matter of which class is more effective or can contribute to most scenes, it's more about which class an individual player has fun with. And what I seem to be hearing from JiCi is, "the weapon reliance bothers me so much, I don't think I could have fund with this class." Ok, so be it. You do you, play your way. About the only thing I'd suggest at that point is: if you're still interested in fighter, but you don't want to commit to it for a campaign because of this 'potential weakness', then wait until your GM decides to do a one-shot or a three-shot or some other very short campaign concept, then maybe that's a good time to try fighter.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Strip him of his weapons and he's useless...

I don't think that's true really?...

...Generally situations where characters lose their gear are rare and aren't supposed to be harder on one character than another.

They can be rare, but for some player(s) that might also be "that scene I hate playing through more than any other." Everyone has their preferences. What I'd say to JiCi is:

1. if the thought of such 'no equipment' type scenes is one that really gives you angst, then yeah, probably don't play a fighter. They'll feel it more than, say, a sorcerer or kineticist or monk.
2. But most players in most adventures do not find the fighter's inability change damage type or access their highest damage without equipment to be an issue. Either because it comes up less than you fear, or because the fighter class deals with it better than you are predicting from theorycrafting. And probably because of a little bit of both.

Perpdepog wrote:
Is there some issue with granting those spells the Attack trait, or replacing their usual save with the magus' attack roll on a spellstrike? That's what I figured would happen, either through errata or an item akin to the shadow signet.

Well since Magus won't be in PC2, I don't think anyone should expect any change or errata to its class feats or mechanics any time soon. Nor would I expect any items that specifically have some interaction with spellstrike, because again, the class won't be in the book.An updated shadow signet that lets you flip into 'vs. AC' is an intriguing idea, but we've seen zero indication from Paizo about any updates to the signet. Best we can probably expect is relevant spells. From Unicore's and mine's list, it looks like cantrips are pretty well off, ranks 1-4 have at least something in each, but ranks 5-9 could really use some 'target AC' love.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
The blasts don't do very good damage, so I didn't consider if game breaking. It's fun and generally inferior for damage to their melee damage, but it does look very cool. So why stop it?

Yeah, Sanityfairy's point about cramming everything into the base class and then not allowing interactions is well taken, but I think they went a touch too conservative on EB. Or at least, a touch too feat-empty on it. Looks like EB damage was balanced such that a Kineticst using a 2a impulse + EB doesn't overpower other class damage, but that leaves players who want to try a more agile 2xEB+move or 3xEB "striker" character concept or play style a bit lacking.

Back on topic, the thing that first struck me about the elemental bar was the lack of instinct feats beyond levels 2 and 6. That's kinda a low number, with no "ooooohhhh, baby" higher level feats that are going to make players want to take the class up to high level. In that respect, yeah it sure does look like it's designed for people who want to archetype into Kineticist.

Unicore wrote:

Counting disintegrate, I see 7 total spell attack roll spells in the player core 1? I’d love to know what I am missing!

Cantrips: Gouging claw, Ignition, Tangle Vine, Telekinetic projectile.
1: Hydraulic push
2. Blazing bolt
6: disintegrate.

Edit:arcane spell attack spells

Well I did miscount. My initial search was AoN for remaster only AND arcane tradition AND attack trait. That yields some errors, because 'attack trait' and the Magus' 'requires spell attack roll' aren't a perfect 100% overlap. Also because 'remaster only' /= 'PC1' But for what it's worth, here you go.

Cantrips: Needle Darts, Phase Bolt, Slashing Gust.
1: Horizon Thunder Sphere, Snowball.
3: Magnetic Acceleration
4: Chromatic ray

Others which showed up in my search, and may have confused my count:
Cantrips: Admonishing Ray, Briny Bolt (they show up in AoN as being remaster content, but they are not in PC1)
1: Telekinetic Maneuver (doesn't do damage)
3: Dive and Breach (I don't think I counted this, so not an error...but it's a weird one that has the attack trait while using a Reflex save. What's up with that?).
4: Clownish Curse, Daydreamer's Curse, Sage's Curse (they also show up as remaster content, but aren't in PC1. However they were also part of my initial 5 no-counts because they don't really damage, so shouldn't have led to any count error).

Riddlyn wrote:
So I'm confused, what is a weapon master supposed to do if you take his weapons?

Strike 3 times per round for d4+4 with +9/+5/+1 accuracy and your choice of feats, instead of the wizard hitting once per round for 2d4 with +7 accuracy. See that! See how much more terrible it is to be an unarmed fighter than a wizard?

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
And even kineticists need their gate attenuators. Well, not crucially but still.

Well for sure, we have definitely uncovered a flaw in the game: if the GM strips PCs of all their gear and then gives them high AC, high save opponents, it becomes really hard for the party to win encounters. Checkmate, developers?

Tridus wrote:
But if they did go back to "you need to pass what is effectively two 50% odds dice rolls to be effective every turn", I'm never going to touch the class again. That just feels awful. Fortunately I know about the legacy spells so it isn't a problem, but that doesn't help new players.

There's 21 arcane tradition, spell attack roll spells in PC1, 16 of which do direct damage with no additional save (Given your post, I put Disintegrate in the group of 5 no-go's). With almost certainly more to come in PC2. So the player doing "legacy magus class + only remaster spell list" has a bunch of spellstrike options. Maybe not some of the legacy faves, but options.

Ruzza wrote:
I'm not asking to turn the Wizard into a Sorcerer

I see what you did there. But the 'turn into' here is kineticist. ;)

Who can also actually be a pretty good emulator for "martial who is never unarmed because she can magically summon all her armaments." Take an armoring impulse and Weapon Specialization and boom - melee tank who can "suit up" any time, any where.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

I guess what I mean to say is that the Fighter is too gear-dependant...

Strip him of his weapons and he's useless...

If you don't like PF2E's emphasis on using weapon runes and the like to keep martial attack and damage increasing, then you might suggest to your table that they use the Automatic Bonus Progression variant rules (GMC p83). That essentially takes runic increases to attack and damage and makes them internal to the characters. So your fighter will get them on any attack, with any weapon.

And not to be repetitive, but this sounds like a GM problem not a system problem. The game is designed under the assumption that both casters and martials are given access to level-appropriate gear. If your GM is constantly stripping you of your equipment as a means of making encounters tough, then that's a GM issue. I likes me the occasional desert island Thunderdome scene as much as the next GM, but I'm in full agreement that such scenes should not be the mainstay of "how to make it challenging for players." If they are, then you need to discuss with the GM how your group would find sessions to be more fun if your PCs are given standard access to all their character build bells and whistles and for the GM to use monster level and numbers to keep it challenging instead.

Waldham wrote:

Hello, I search the possible way of breaking through the ceiling.

An eartquake ?

Thanks for your future anser.

I'd start with the "Demolishing" section, GMC p93 for general rules on walls and such.

The Disintegrate spell looks like a good bet for 'how to.'

Riddlyn wrote:
It is nowhere near as dire as you are making it sound for Magi. Why would you be willing to use PC 1 and SoM and not DA or G&G? If the GM is willing to let you play a magus there's no reason to then turn around and go I'm only allowing remastered content.

Personally, I'm willing to wait and see if PC2 spell content mostly fixes this issue (i.e. allows Magus class as well as other legacy classes to be well-supported by remaster spell selection). After all PC1 had almost as many spells in it as CRB (472 vs. 537). Which means PC2 has a lot of 'spell space' to tackle more unique class and build needs.

Of course, we players always finding fault in everything, I also expect that the inclusion of spells specifically designed to support the more niche classes and uses will be met with howls of "Touch range vs AC? That spell is trash!" and "my Wizard is would never take this over fireball, it's too conditional!"

moosher12 wrote:
All other classes cannot be used in the book because they are OGL. So the project cannot be shared with anyone outside of my table as a result.

IANAL, but it seems a reasonable expectation that Hasbro isn't going to try and come after you if you rework Thaumaturge or most other 2E legacy classes. After all, the Player Core 1&2 classes are the ones that most resemble 5E classes. Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, etc. Once you get into the classes from supplements, the theming is pretty unique to Pathfinder and Paizo. Now if your book includes a rework of things like Beholder or Magic Missile (by that name), then yes that would be a big risk.

Additionally, there is a common sentiment in the Video Game industry that a large amount of players players would rather see a game fixed before it is given new content.

I'm sure Paizo gives a lot of thought to what projects are most viable for the company. I'm not going to second guess them on that, as it's not my area of expertise. Maybe they see a viable way to do it, maybe they don't. But even if, today, they assessed that there was a big customer demand for PC3, I'm guessing that they would not interrupt their current production schedule to do it. So even if they do come around to your way of thinking about what publications will be most profitable for them, you're probably looking at 2026 at the earliest. But you should be glad they don't think like video game companies; if this were Blizzard, you could expect it in 2036.

But I also had to teach them to bookmark the tiefling feat list because the Tiefling Heritage is not searchable in the AoN Remastered version. And you have to find the tieflign heritage by finding a named tiefling feat first.

AIUI, Tiefling by that name and content is an unfortunate casualty of the OGL debacle. I don't think your complaint on this is answerable, because even if Paizo decided to do a PC3 and decided to include in it a remastered version of every single ancestry, background, and class that they could, from every single book ever published under 2nd edition, Tiefling in it's exact legacy form couldn't be in there, for copyright reasons. If your players are bound and determined to play an exact 5E Tiefling, then yes they will have to switch back and forth. That's never, ever, going to change. Because Paizo can't remaster it to be the same thing it was.

Riddlyn wrote:
Kind of depends really, vitality is a tag and wood kineticist do have the vitality tag. Heal also has the vitality tag. So technically a wood kineticist should be able to cast heal

That's not the way I've been reading it. I read KA as giving you access to spells that have (any) one of the six elements your gate can access: air, earth, fire, metal, water, wood. Heal doesn't have wood tag, therefore wood kineticists can't take it with KA.

It would be amazing for Kineticists if KA let you access spells of 'the tags the kineticist can access.' If wood kineticists can use vitality spells, then air kineticists can throw chain lightning. Great for them. And versatile blasts in combo with KA becomes just that much better. But - and I could be wrong here - I don't think that's RAW or RAI for kinetic activation.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
moosher12 wrote:
Leaving Legacy content in the OGL without porting it to ORC hurts open gaming when you cannot even mix content within the same edition anymore.

Of course you can mix content. People are doing it right now, all over the place. Someone plays a remastered Cleric alongside a Magus, they are mixing content. Someone plays a Wizard in a PFS game and follows the PFS rules on spell selection by selecting remastered Force Barrage and legacy Acidic Burst, they are mixing content. It's perfectly legit, and it works just fine.

They don't want to be like WotC. But if they are going to willfully divide content up into a Legacy and Remastered content that cannot legally be posted in the same book, where a book that provides for one class now has to be divided into both a remastered half of the class and a legacy version of the class because OGL and ORC are not compatible?

What class are you talking about? The remastered classes are fully playable and complete without accessing legacy content. Spell selection will be somewhat limited until PC2 comes out, but looks pretty clear from the way PC1 was written that they will make PC1 and PC2 self-contained, so that no class presented in either book would need to access legacy content to function. If you get a remastered class, it will be with all the feat, spell, etc. support you need to play it.

At minimum if they are not going to make a Player Core 3, they should at least scrub the OGL content and make the content ORC.

Personally I'd much rather they spent their blood sweat and tears on new content. Howl of the Wild or remastered Gods & Magic? Howl of the Wild all the way. Resources are limited. If they put their writers on the projects you suggest, you realize that means they are pulling those writers off things like Tian Xia, War of Immortals, and new APs, right?

Unicore wrote:
With the addition of elemental traits to a whole lot of spells in Rage of the elements and in the Remaster, Kinetic activation would allow for 4 Kineticists to do tons of healing, utility spell casting, and even offensive spell casting with their tons of gold that they don't really need to spend on anything else. It is a massively under considered/utilized feat...probably because so many Kineticists are going back to grab level 1 impulse feats because they are so shiny.

Apologies for the off-topic aside, but I don't really see any good in-combat heals amongst the spells a kineticist can access through Kinetic Activation. Maybe Shock to the System at Rank 7, but that's it. Did I miss something obvious?

Having said that, utility yes.

...a GM could very easily tailor a campaign to be very challenging, but play to the strengths of the party...

I would see this as one key to having fun with an "all one class" campaign...and a reason why any class could work, if the players and GM decide that's an idea they really want to explore. An all-rogue "heist" driven campaign. An all-investigator set of murder mysteries. And so on. Deriven's comments may be valid for the way his group plays, but its much more of a 'tune the characters to the fixed way we campaign' style of play, rather than 'tune the campaign to the characters the players selected' style. Doing the latter could make any group of 'all one thing' fun and viable.

One other thought on the main subject: OAD seems to be doing pretty well with their all-gunslinger assault on Abomination Vaults. Which seems to be a counterexample to the "you must always have a healer" assertion and adds another class to the single-class-party consideration list.

Ascalaphus wrote:
Suppose you took Basic Wizard Spellcasting and were level 8. And you'd learned Hydraulic Push, normally a rank 1 arcane spell. It's not in your repertoire (since wizards don't use repertoires, they use spellbooks). Does that mean that because you're also a bard, you can't prepare it as rank 3 wizard spell anymore? But if you were a fighter/wizard instead of a bard/wizard, that you'd be fine? That would be ridiculous, right?

I'm not sure I'm understanding the problem. Archetype spellcasting doen't prevent you from doing normal class stuff. So if you have it in your Bard repetoire, you can prepare it as a Bard even after you pick up wizard archetype. But if you don't have it in your repertoire, then correct, taking it as a 1st rank Wizard spell using your wizard archetype doesn't let you cast it at Rank 3 using the rules for Bard magic.

You can pay with cash. You can pay with Discover and get 1% cash back on your purchase. But having both in your wallet doesn't let you pay using cash and then get 1% cash back on your purchase. They are different systems of doing the same "pay for stuff" action, and they each follow their own rules.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperParkourio wrote:
As for damage while at 0 but not dying, this is a weird blind spot in the rules...

There's no way that Paizo could anticipate every interpretation players have of their rules. It probably never occurred to the writers that a player who sees a 30-pt disintegrate destroy someone who is at 25 hp...20 hp...10 hp...5 hp...1 hp would then say "aha! But since it says "reduce to 0" that means since I'm at 0, the rules must mean I'm immune!" No, the rules don't have to mean that. It could mean that the obvious is obvious: a person with less hp than disintegrate does, is disintegrated.

In any case, I just think it's weird to count damage at zero as reducing to zero only sometimes.

Are you arguing with yourself now, or one of your players who's not here? Because I think the only person who has argued the "0 makes you immune" is you, in your OP. It doesn't look like the other commenters are defending it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
As another reminder, you have to actively switch weapons to use their critical effects, obviously, yet I have never seen a feat that allows you to 1) select a weapon group, 2) pick their own critical effects if it's the same damage type (B, P, or S) and 3) apply it to another weapon.

The 'weapon master' is a pretty common archetype, not just in fantasy settings but across other genres too. Carrying several melee weapons and pulling out the one that's most useful for the threat in front of you wouldn't be against type at all. Cost is an issue with runes, of course. Other than that, I don't see much issue here.

If you want a carry a golf bag of one weapon per group, fine by me, but don't expect a shifting rune to fall onto your laps everytime.

It's a common rune and PF2E is a high magic setting. It (and it's formula) should be available to adventurers in any decent sized town. Different tables are free to change that, of course, but if you are considering a Fighter build with a shifting weapon and you're worried the GM won't make it available around level 6, then the solution to that is "consult with your GM" not "Paizo add a new ability to the Fighter class"

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
ElementalofCuteness wrote:
So what is the honest point of them? Are they only there for early game casters so they aren't spamming cantrips?

To provide a graduation of weapons so they aren't all in the one bucket.

Exactly this. TTRPGs have four choices. (1) make every weapon available to everyone, but make some of them mechanically superior to others. If you do this, you are guaranteeing a lot of your equipment text is wasted, and weapon choices will be bland and identical. (2) make every weapon available and all of them equally effective, just different. You pick what fits your theme, because it doesn't matter very much mechanically. This creates a lot of variability in which weapons are chosen...which doesn't matter mechanically. Players who like crunch and figuring out cool combos hate this. "Heroic" games often do this but it is not typical of d20 offshoots and systems. (3)make some of them mechanically superior to others, but create class or chargen gates to use them. This is what PF2E has now. It makes some characters just plain better at using weapons than others. But it allows devs to really expand the space of what weapons can do. (4) make some weapons superior to others, make them available to characters through build choices (one example being a feat tax). This lets all PCs get the nice benefits IF they choose to invest in weapon use, and lets devs explore the full space of different weapon types...at the cost of making 'superior' weapon use a costly developmental choice.

There's no single ideal choice. You have to look at the whole system. I do not think PF2E would be better if they took any of the other three options. As Churchill didn't say, the current system of separating weapons into simple and martial and making martial weapons better and available to martial cases is the very worst system...except for all the others :).

Squiggit wrote:
Nevermind that, again, there isn't much of a 'plan B' to have in the first place if literally none of your class features work.

Well that's certainly an exaggeration. Their direct attack powers don't work. Party buffs like tree, armoring impulses, movement impulses, polymorph impulses, healing impulses, etc. - they all work just fine in those encounters. And again, levels 1-4 you're at the same weapon proficiency as every other class in the game except fighter and gunslinger, so if your L4 party is going up against flickerwisps or boss fight Will-o's, your accuracy with your backup crossbow or spear is going to be similar to everyone else's.

I don't disagree, however, that the k is one of the more "one trick pony" types of classes...and that trick is magic. If this is a major concern, talk to your GM before the campaign stars about whether this is a good choice. Talk to them about how they plan to run Extract Elements. Consider investing in ancestry attacks, archetypes, companions, shields, skills like medicine/battle medicine, skill debuffs like demoralize, etc. Heck even a runed weapon. Think about what you plan on doing in such encounters. Tank up and provide flanking? Aid? Battle Medicine? Drop a bunch of walls? Just strike despite the lower chance to hit? Etc. It's not the encounter you want to be in. It's not the encounter where you'll shine. But if it's someone else's turn to shine, get through it with the knowledge that a good GM and a well-crafted adventure will have other encounters, where you *can* shine.

Unicore wrote:
I wouldn't be upset if the wisps got a similar treatment to Golems in dialing down immunity into very high resistance to spells or something similar,

Isn't that a foregone conclusion (as in, 'won't happen')? I don't own Monster Core yet, but my understanding is the remastered Will-o-Wisp is in it, and they didn't change it's immunity. So we have a strong indication from Paizo that yes this is really really we're serious y'all the way they want the monster to work.

I think that the bigger issue of this thread is identifying whether, as the GM of an adventure where a problematic foe is on the horizon, how do you best help your table have fun with that encounter.

Agreed. Though that's the advanced, deeper question. The OP question ('am I reading this right? Does it work this way on kineticists'?) has already been answered, so hopefully Paul got what he was looking for... even if it's maybe not what he was hoping for. :P

1 to 50 of 909 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>