Ectar's page

Soooo when will the results come out?

If there's more to your concept than "guy w/ this weapon" though, then other classes contend more.

By and large, there really isn't.

Tin.

Any class, ancestry, free archetype or not.

I've always loved the idea of the 2H dex melee weapon character. I even did it once or twice in 1E, when dex was king.

In 2E, I haven't thought of a character that doesn't feel hampered by that weapon choice. Not so much a trade-off and a trade down. So I'm soliciting ideas.

I remember this from an episode of Whose Line is it Anyway?
The category was: "Things to say to start a fight"

I think this thread beats out Ryan Stiles's iconic answer.

moosher12 wrote:

Probably not Spring Errata, but I really hope Starfinder 2E's Traversal trait comes to a future Pathfinder 2E errata patch.

For those who are not keeping an eye on Starfinder 2E, the trait works as follows:

Disembarking the Starfinder Second Edition Playtest wrote:

One new element we'll be introducing is the traversal trait. This new trait mostly applies to player-facing rules that reference Stride. When it applies, traversal allows the use of alternative movement types (burrow, fly, and swim) to be used in place of land Speed, akin to how Sneak works. Expect to see this greatly impact some abilities used by the envoy and solarian (to name a few).

I'll never get why you can't jump with those extra movement abilities. Flying is fine, but jumping is apparently quantum physics too difficult for a mere adventurer to comprehend.

I get it. As a terrestrial creature myself, walking and running take substantial less concentration or intentionality than jumping. I don't find Leap to be especially useful and the other jumps take two actions, so it doesn't make much sense to allow them as baked into other actions.

Perhaps add a clause into Quick Jump that the feat also adds the Traversal trait to Leap, Long Jump, and High Jump. I think that'd be a solution.

I'd like it even better if Powerful Leap added the Traversal trait to Leap, with one of those special notes making the Traversal trait apply to High Jump and Long Jump as well, only if you also have Quick Jump. As is, I find the trained feat Quick Jump stronger than the expert feat Powerful Leap, so I think it'd be better to add that extra functionality to the latter.

I must admit: the idea of someone using Sudden Charge to Leap twice and Strike is hilarious.

Minor environmental damage is defined as 1d6-2d6.

The paragraph you linked says it is GM discretion if the effect will cause suffocation or not.
I would require the affected character to hold their breath. It's a level 19 creature, it should be threatening!

alchemical investigator used to get different set of resource than alchemist archetype

investigator function far better than before

still have terrible feat like 5 extra damage of ongoing strategy

love surgical shock

forensic are now best investigator

Better than Palatine Detective? I'm skeptical.

Inspired by Deriven Firelion.

On paper, I was never really sold on the remaster changes to investigator's combat efficacy as being sufficient to make the class worth playing over a slightly reflavored rogue. And since I'm now back in the GM saddle, I don't know when I'll get the chance to try one any time soon.
So to anyone who has played a remastered investigator, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Even more so if you also played the premastered one as well.

Also, familiarity lessens the wonder.

Four horsemen of the Apocalypse?
Yawn. Just studied those elsewhere.

Apocalypse Riders?
WTH are those!?

Interesting. I have precisely the opposite reaction.

Apocalypse Riders?
Eh. Just something made up by the writers.

Horsemen of the Apocalypse?
Wait, I've heard of those!

I definitely do not mean to disparage the writers or their creations! Just, to me, the familiarity gives something to immediately latch on to and associate with.

If one were being a real stickler, I think it'd take 4 sets of downtime to retrain those feats as strictly described.
1.) Retrain Prescient Consumable into the desired level eleven feat.
2.) Retrain Prescient Planner into some intermediary feat. We'll say Toughness as an example.
3.) Retrain Armor Proficiency into Prescient Planner.
4.) Retrain Toughness into Prescient Consumable.

I don't think there's a RAW way to do it in only 3 retrains.

All that being said, I'd definitely allow A. In my games, the difference between one week of downtime and four weeks of downtime is rarely significant.

The thing that always stood out to me regarding the hunter was the teamwork feat sharing with your companion. So having a little more cooperation with the animal companion would really differentiate it from other characters which have access to a pet.

Most animal companions I've played with have felt like middling 3rd actions and moderate roleplaying. Rarely even a secondary aspect of the characters' combat utility.

I think a conversation can be had regarding divorcing flavor descriptions and mechanical actions.
Yes, it is in flavor to come in from behind, fake an attack high and go low to score a blow in a weak spot.
Doesn't mean you have to perform the Feint action. There's still the tactical combat part of the game to play.

Perhaps a conversation along those lines could help.

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

I really wished paizo would start caring about giving us more utility options in the playtest phase. It's really hard to give data about how fun a class is when all we're given is a basic suite of combat abilities which are mostly damage focused.

Like, the rune of binding is incredibly cool; but it's also, like, level 17. I also really like the rune of sorrow. Make no mistake, I think the blasty Runes are fun and important too; but I'm not a fan that blasting is one of the few things a low level runesmith can do

I can understand that Paizo probably feels as if they understand out-of-combat balancing more than combat balancing, and thus want to emphasize combat abilities in playtests

However, I think the non-combat abilities of a class are core to it working! They make up a huge part of what makes a class distinct and interesting, and presenting a class without them will always be less satisfying

Also, I think the difference between Player Core Pathfinder 2e Skill Feats and Starfinder 2e Playtest's Skill Feats proves that they're willing to make skill feats much less niche and much more inviting to actually pick. Out-of-combat abilities seem more important than ever to Paizo, and I wanna playtest that!

They may fully feel they understand how to balance utility abilities, but not including any ignores the opportunity cost of acquiring those abilities. So even if the Runesmith has good and interesting damage options in the playtest, that doesn't necessarily mean that including a bunch of utility options in the final release will be satisfying.

Like, the playtest Commander had a tactic to grant a climb speed; pretty good utility. However, because it competes with combat tactics, most people who posted on the forums reported not taking it. That kind of information is still valuable.

Well, it's huge creature, so I'd say 15'.

I took too long trying to edit the above.

Lotta people take issue with the Thaumaturge, so ban DA. Psychic won't be missed. Plus it stops op Magus stuff.
Could ban starlit span anyway, but the rest of SoM is fine.

HotW has Awakened Animals, so that's probably out thematically for you.

GaG is a toss up. Do you like guns in your fantasy? Allow or ban as you will. No tears will be shed for the inventor

Exemplar is kinda silly. YMMV. The Animist seems fine.
Mythic is right out.
If you're overly concerned about Main Character Syndrome that a session 0 won't fix, ban WoI. Otherwise the actual class balance and play patterns are fine. Though I've heard Exemplar Dedication is busted.

In most games, I think you're totally fine banning all manner of BotD ancestries and undead archetypes. I'm personally more forgiving towards undead companions.

The Oracle is, imo, the only class that maybe warrants being built using premaster rules.

The LO books tend to have sillier options than core books. Plus they're less directly player-focused and, imo, a little more fast and loose, rules and design-wise. Could ban the lot, unless someone clears something with you.
(Yes, core can be silly and LO serious, but we're dealing in generalities here).

For real tho, a LOT of potential grief is prevented by a good talk with the group about tone and expectations before anyone puts pencil to paper.

My picks would be PC, PC2, RoE, maybe TV.

The first two are no-brainers.
I like kineticists and while they can be a bit complicated to build, I think they are quite learnable especially if you start from 1. And I certainly don't think they're op.
I like treasure items. You might even just use it yourself to add extra loot, but forbid general item purchases from it if you're worried.

If you run an AP, you have full control over which, if any, AP content becomes available to players.

Thralls are still creatures. Creatures can be learned about through recall knowledge.

It is worthwhile to learn that they cannot take independent combat actions and can be destroyed by any damage and are always hit by attacks. (That's maybe a critical success amount of information, but that's not hard on a DC 13).

I want to become the lord of bones.

I think this is actually a pretty pervasive issue. Most class specs have just not quite enough support, imo.

Archives of Nethys had a recall knowledge DC of 13 for level -1 creatures, though I haven't found a basis for that DC yet.

It'd be cool if there was a way to flag a particular forum post as being a potential errata candidate, and not just a regular rules question.

Sardonic commentary aside, it's been refreshing to see you working hard to try and wrangle us forum goblins.
More than that, it's sincerely appreciated how you're trying to open up long-closed lines of communication.

Trip.H wrote:

Staves becoming Invested items will change every single user of that item group that's already at max investiture.

This actually kinda sucks, as my PCs take archetype casting and use low level staves for utility. One little Alchemist is super fond of her Librarian's staff, and twice during APs the ability to take 10 min to use it's ability to quickly store a mini-library in the thing to read later has been super useful.

After this change, the decision to use/invest in a staff is as big a cost as for any of the evergreen passive items, like boots for +5 move spd.

I cannot afford to sacrifice some meaningful combat potential for the sake of a flavor item like the Librarian Staff. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Whoa I missed that! I don't think thats actually what it means though. The rule that was changed itself doesn't mention staves or give them the Invested trait.

The part that mentions staves is an explanation, which itself seems wrong because nothing in the rules after this change says that staves are invested that I can find. Is there some other part I'm missing?

Quote:

Page 219: The text on investing items didn’t allow for items that are invested but not worn, such as staves. Change the first two sentences to “Certain magic items convey their magical benefits only when invested using the Invest an Item activity, tying them to the PC’s inner potential. These items have the invested trait, and most are worn items.”

I think you are correct. Some held items are invested. Staves, typically, are not. So the rules change is fine, save for a poor example.

On first think through, I really like the idea of using Necromancer focus spells on a thrall or an undead minion you control.

Maybe need to restrict it to non-pet (ie: familiar) minions?
Mostly thinking that to prevent Independent shenanigans.

On the other other hand, a 1/week ability to use a Necromancer focus spell without having to spend one action creating a thrall or a minion first is both flavorful and not overly strong, imo.

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

Thanks for the feedback! I don't wanna only hone in on a small part of what you said, but IIRC isn't the Summon Thrall attack optional? You can create a Thrall, choose not to attack, then two action spell attack at no MAP right?

Yes, it's optional, and the best option if you want to use a spell with a spell attack. But it's obvious that you're giving up the possibility of dealing this extra damage, even if it's not that great. I think that incentivizes the use of spells with a save.

Of course you can choose not to attack, but then you're losing damage so your attack roll spell needs to be better than the combination of the attack from Create Thrall & whatever saving throw spell you cast. Which pushes the Necro towards picking saving throws spells over attack roll spells, if the two spells would otherwise be similar in power.

Not to mention that saving throw spells are generally considered to be a bit stronger already, but that's a whole separate issue.

Rogues are darling and refuse to be killed.

Fall 2024 Monster Core errata:
"Page 238: Add reach 10 feet to the greater nightmare’s jaws Strike."

Ladies and gentlemen: we got 'em

If this were only an issue of flying enemies, I think it's not a significant problem.
The water-based situations are a bit more of a sticking point, imo.

It's pretty easy for most characters to achieve close to a normal level of expected effectiveness for a period of time underwater, if given time to prepare.

With the Necromancer's reliance on thralls and their inability to maintain position underwater, I feel like the Necromancer's effectiveness would drop off a good bit more than other classes.

This is purely theoretical of course, but I think it bears consideration.

Ectar wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

There's also Carryall, though you'll have to wait until 9th level to do it. Good news is you'll be able to carry around I think two or three thralls on it? Just stack 'em up!

No go. Thralls are undead creatures

Which is why I said you need to wait until 9th level. Then you can cast it as a 4th-rank spell, which can carry creatures.

Neat. I didn't realize that spell got changed in the remaster. Cool!

There's also Carryall, though you'll have to wait until 9th level to do it. Good news is you'll be able to carry around I think two or three thralls on it? Just stack 'em up!

No go. Thralls are undead creatures

Alternatively just:

Free Action
Trigger: You roll initiative.

There's precedent for it with Gunslinger initial deeds.

I find this hilarious.
And I almost feel like it's fine?

It scales terribly and requires the necromancer to get very up close and personal with the enemies.

Fwiw, I think it'd be against 7 damage. The fact that the thrall has only 1 hit point, I'm fairly certain is immaterial.

2-fold suggestion:
1.) Baseline +1 thralls on the cantrip
2.) Instead of summoning two thralls, summon one with a swim speed. At higher levels, instead of summoning three thralls, summon one with a fly speed.

In both cases, they get one action per round that they automatically use to stay in their current square. Skill modifiers equal to Necromancer's class DC if the fluid requires swim or fly checks.

If another Necromancer ability or spell would cause a thrall to Stride, it may swim or fly if they have an appropriate speed.

Super spitballing on this one, but I like it on initial thought.

Also means you could never use one of the/ thralls created by the reaction to attack.

Blave wrote:

It's a focus-based caster similar to the psychic. Except it only has a single focus point and doesn't ever get a bigger pool. The psychic outright starts with 2 focus points while the Necromancer needs to spend two actions to get his "second" focus point during combat.

You're pretty much forced to pick up one or two additional focus spells ASAP. And while there are some decent ones in there, I have yet to spot any that are so outstanding that they are worth 3 actions.

The focus spells aren't worth three actions because Create Thrall is itself giving the value of a full action. It's not like spellstrike recharge, which is actually an empty action without using conflux spells or magus's analysis.

Create Thrall+Necrotic bomb is a 1A spell attack that puts a body in a square (and more bodies elsewhere at later levels). Then that's followed by a 2A that does the same damage scaling as a slotted arcane blast spell in the AoE size of a slotted occult blast spell.

"Puts a body in a square" is a hard sell when the very next thing you do is remove that body from the square, before level 7 lets you go positive in bodies.

There's also the downside of substantially deincentivizing Spell Attack spells as a Necro, since your thralls apply MAP. Not that most SA spells are that good in the first place, but that's a separate issue.

Banishment, Interplanar Teleport, and Teleport are all on the Occult list.

All of this. 100%

It doesn't feel like a classic depiction of its namesake.

Almost every ability that utilizes the thralls does so without any regard for the fact they are supposedly undead creatures.
Bone Spear transforms them into a projectile, Life Tap consumes them, Muscle Barrier transforms them. Dead Weight kinda works, but barely. The strength of the grapple is necromantic, not muscular so the fact that a creature has to do the grabbing is almost immaterial.

There are very limited options to use the thralls as, well, thralls. Can't have a thrall grab me that drink off the counter. Can't have a thrall hold a torch for light (or even be lit aflame for light since it would be immediately destroyed).
Want to use a thrall to set of a trap? (Like in the class's description) Better hope it's a pressure plate and not a trip wire or a trapped lever.

Let me use my not-minion minions for something other than fueling the real focus spells.

Why would anyone use the Escape action roll to escape dead weight, when they could just spend one action to automatically Strike and destroy the thrall holding them?

This was my immediate thought as well.

Ectar wrote:

I am cautiously optimistic for the necromancer, with one caveat.

They need either free ranks in religion or the ability to know stuff about undead using occultism. Which works better is probably determined by the necro's KAS, which I don't think I've seen mentioned.

Free Scaling in Lore (Undead) seems perfect, and we have precedent for this from Commander.

Love it. No notes.

I am cautiously optimistic for the necromancer, with one caveat.
They need either free ranks in religion or the ability to know stuff about undead using occultism. Which works better is probably determined by the necro's KAS, which I don't think I've seen mentioned.

Rune Smith is a cool, well-trodden character style we don't have supported yet, so this seems good.

Okay now, Paizo. After these it's finally time. Give us a consummate shapeshifter class.
Everyone loved that "druid" from the D&D movie. Make it happen.

I'd probably require an action to lower oneself into a position to climb a horizontal rope or thin beam positioned at foot level.
Unless they were trying to maintain properly oriented upwards while climbing said rope, but I think that sounds way harder, to the point I'd still require a check, though they'd definitely still get the +4 bonus listed in the climbing speed section of the rules.

Balancing I would not require an extra "positioning" action, assuming the set up described.

But this is all contingent on a tight rope style set up, with the rope at about foot level.

Also also, Balance covers some situations that Climb cannot. You'd have a hell of a time trying to climb across the surface of a frozen lake.

As has been pointed out, there is no such prerequisite in the Sneak action. The first sentence even indicates that you can perform the action whether or not you are Undetected.

Can you please more clearly explain how you guys are coming to the conclusion that you must be Hidden first?

You attempt to move to another place while becoming or staying undetected. Stride up to half your Speed. (You can use Sneak while Burrowing, Climbing, Flying, or Swimming instead of Striding if you have the corresponding movement type; you must move at half that Speed.)

At the end of your movement, the GM rolls your Stealth check in secret and compares the result to the Perception DC of each creature you were hidden from or undetected by at the start of your movement.

Bolded the most relevant bit. Because Hide and Sneak are both secret, the player doesn't necessarily know if they were hidden when they started sneaking, so it can't be a prerequisite to performing the Sneak action. But in a sense, it's a prerequisite to succeeding at the Sneak action.

Ectar wrote:

I find it to be one of the many "oh so quirky" things that are, to my taste, too prevalent in Paizo products these days.

Hmmm. Goblins are an ancient early days tradition as I understand. What are the recent examples? Because I don't remember anything even close.

Lost Omens: Firebrands is probably the most egregious example.

So...

Anyone else find it hilarious that Fumbus was picked to be the Iconic that represents the Apocalypse Rider Mythic Archetype in War Of Immortals. And for his apocalypse mount, the artist chose to give him a dog.

Not really. I find it to be one of the many "oh so quirky" things that are, to my taste, too prevalent in Paizo products these days.

But I'm glad that many people seem to have a stronger sweet tooth than I. Happy for them.

Fwiw- Lost Omens: Absalom definitely mentions the missing orb and gives kind of rumors regarding what it might be being used for. A somewhat interesting read.

I must admit, my party was far more interested in trying to recover that orb than going into the darklands to try and snag that one.
I just didn't have the energy/motivation to fully rework book 5 when, by then, I wasn't even really looking forward to book 6 anymore.

Huh. What a lovely collection of references. I hope they make the people who understand them happy.

Moving along, now.

Barbarian am find traps.
Spirit Barbarian am deal positive or negative damage to many haunt.
Barbarian am smash complex hazards.

I don't have the book, but I haven't seen almost any complaints about the Animist, except that it's complex, which most people are taking to be a good thing. Pretty cool since I remember it being heavily criticized in the playtest.

I will concede that the reactions here alongside my initial trepidations means I'll probably skip on this book. Maybe I'll grab it as a pdf in the future when there's a Humble Bundle or something.

TheFinish wrote:

Mammoth Daddy wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

There is no art, it's presented as the chapter opening for the Mythic Vault part of the book.

** spoiler omitted **...

You’re a gem! Thx!! And RIP ** spoiler omitted **

You can also press F to pay respects for:

** spoiler omitted **

I'll say one final thing I found funny, leave the rest for when the book comes out: several people in Razmiran have been empowered by the Godsrain and are challenging good ol' Razmir, but the man has not stepped out to fight (yet).

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Could you or someone else expand on "Dragon Gods"? I have a PC heavily invested into draconic deities.

Ugh, I swear I don't try to stir up arguments on the forums. Most of the time.

Can you speak more to Mythic Weapons?
That sounds like a potentiality cool story telling tool to defeat the one and only Mythic big bad, who already kicked the party's butts once.
Do Mythic Weapons do anything behind defeating mythic resistance?

What's the word on Mythic Monster templates? How much stronger are they than un-templated versions of the same monsters?

Do the made originally as mythic monster give any indication of how mythic one must be to fight them? Or is it feasible for non- mythic heroes to best them?