I suppose it is close when you put it that way, I keep forgetting Shortbows aren't Agile because in my houserules I drop Volley from Longbows and give Agile to Shortbows.
I think the reason stances feel stronger is that most Monk weapons are 1-handed and some of the stances compare nicely to two-handed weapons. Dragon Tail is d10 with one trait, I think Tiger and Wolf are both d8 with two or three traits. These are 2-handed martial weapon specs or close, which is why they seem more powerful than most Monk weapons. And why Bo Staff with its d8 and 3 traits is the best-looking option.
So it's not that Monk weapons are weak, they measure up to similar martial weapons (except maybe Shuriken, that thing really feels like it should be d6) and for that reason making them stronger for a Monk could very well be unbalancing. It's that some Monk Stance weapons are quite strong (Crane is at or near Martial 1H, Wolf and Tiger are between Martial 1H and 2H, or more accurately are at 1H Exotic, Dragon is at Martial 2H, Mountain is at Martial 1H, and Root is between Martial 1H and 2H with those last two having added effects on their stance) without taking up both hands, which makes them look better thab the equivalents sometimes.
That said, Monk stances DO take up your one stance at a time limit, which is something, but since Monks don't have other stances this is more a Multiclass thing.
I have a question about the license. Say you make a 3pp class and it's going to have one or more class feats from the CRB, either the same or slightly different from their CRB forms (like how some class feats in the Playtest are available to multiple classes, sometimes with minor differences). Do you have to put for that feat entry "see (class name) feats in chapter x of the Pathfinder Second Edition Core Rulebook" and then qualify any differences in that class' version, or would you be allowed to actually put the feat entry there, complete with any changes for your class, since you're actually giving them that ability and not referencing an existing ability like in the example given in the license?
I suppose the same question by extension applies to universal or semi-universal abilities like Weapon Specialization or the increases to weapon proficiency (or even the basic progression parts of the class table like when and how you get skill feats), which leans me towards assuming you could just put the text for those abilities in because otherwise 3pp classes would probably look a mess, with constant flipping back to the CRB to do anything at all.
I apologize if this is an obvious question but it's something I'd like to be quite sure on before making content.
That said, even without Hunter's Edge Hunt Target can be useful. The range penalty negation effect is nice, particularly if you're using a weapon with poor range like Shuriken. And perhaps more importantly it's a stepping stone to other feats that give effects adding on to Hunt Target.
I'm actually glad Ranger MC doesn't give Hunter's Edge, that would be a mess. Ranger MC would become optimal for a lot of builds it probably shouldn't be for. It'd be like if Rogue Dedication gave a Racket, any Finesse weapon build would be pressured to take Rogue MC for Dex to damage.
I'd have to double check but I'm all but certain Hunter's Edge is a separate class feature gained at first level that alters Hunt Target/Prey. Just getting Hunt Target/Prey doesn't actually grant Hunter's Edge, in the same way that pre-1.6(or was it 1.4?) Ranger MC explicitly didn't get the MAP reduction from Hunt Target back before the MAP reduction was made one option for the Hunter's Edge feature instead of being part of the Hunt Target action itself.
It's unfortunate that Ranger MC doesn't give Hunter's Edge, would be nice to have that hefty MAP cut.
Would be nice if there was a mid-level Ranger MC feat to get a level 1 Hunter's Edge, but maybe that would make it too much, that MAP drop is a big deal.
Actually 8th level DC would most likely be 26 (10 base, 12 proficiency, 4 Int) assuming Wizards now get Expert casting at 7th like the Cloistered Cleric. Which means a 45% chance on its weakest save.
I don't suppose we could share that Playtest Discord, could we? That sounds like fun. XD
That first bit sounds fitting on paper but would probably just be unnecessary complication, the avoidance of which is probably part of why they did things like making Invisibility, Greater Invisibility, and Mass Invisibility heightenings of 1 spell instead of 3 separate spells in the first place.
As to locking it into level up or rebuild instead of daily, that's probably what they HAVE done generally speaking. Changing them daily is only via a feat Bards can take.
Also, on the topic in general, something that the earlier (unquoted) part of your post brought up.
First off, I think it's great you go to the trouble of making spell cards and such and generally having your crap together. That is great.
However, speaking from the GM side for a moment instead of the usual player-side arguments, not all of us GMs are lucky enough to have players that put in that effort and have that efficiency and are willing to make that effort to not slow down the game. Many of my players have been great, I'd say I've only had a couple really bad players, but I have had players that are certainly not the quickest with getting to grips with different abilities and that don't really put in the work to get quicker at it. Occasionally to the point where if we're going to get anywhere anytime soon I have to practically spell out what they should do with their turn, and I hate doing that because I feel like I'm hitting in too much. Combining that kind of player with free spontaneous Heightening probably wouldn't go well, but Signature Spells as we expect them to be is notably less of an issue.
Now I don't think the rules should have to account for BAD players or GMs, because you really just CAN'T account for those with written rules IMO, and trying usually just makes it harder for the ones who aren't a problem. But it's not just bad players that would have this issue, and I think it's great when the rules aim to work well for newer or slower players, I think that's something that maybe even SHOULD be the case, as long as there's room for easy houseruling for more experienced players (who are the ones that would notice these things and know how to Houserule them) and as long as things aren't being dumbed down or anything to where it's condescending or doesn't work enjoyably for experienced players (which frankly is not the case with Signature Spells).
Sorry if this doesn't come across right, in short I'm trying to say that as a GM who has experienced a LOT of table slowdown on plenty of occasions I appreciate when the rules make things flow more smoothly for less experienced or quick players without ruining things for the more experienced because that helps the whole table.
I'm making one last ditch effort just in case. I realized none of us have just outright asked Jason Bulmahn nicely for #85 so I asked to make sure that wasn't the trick all along, like some Xiaolin Showdown reference or something. XD
I doubt it, but all stops pulled, right? I'd feel dumb if I didn't try.
Rolled while typing the question, 14. Not bad, but no clutch Nat 20. XP
I think the real reason to do "mystic theurge" as an archetype rather than a bespoke thing you do by multiclassing is that it allows you to print mystic theurge feats which are not wizard feats or cleric feats, which has a lot of potential.
It also allows the potential to make it to where you cast from two different lists but maybe can use the same stat for both casting mods without needing a specific class combo.
Also you could maybe have stronger versions of the ...Breadth feats to lessen the disparity between your two casting traditions and make more of an Archmage/Sage style of character. IDK, might be too much.
It's different for prepared casters because they choose from their breadth of options at the start of the day. Once per day. Sorcerers with free full spontaneous Heightening have that massive expansions of the options that are available to them at any moment.
Prepared casters make their wide-pool decision at the start of the day.
That makes sense. My campaigns usually send the party through story beats and missions fairly quickly, and advance scouting is something they usually don't do, their only advance Intel is typically just what they can glean from relevant individuals beforehand.
My parties are more typically a "examine the outside of destination from a safe distance then proceed while examining thoroughly" type than a try to map the place ahead of time type.
Of course that may be partly because a lot of places they go are inhabited with things that want to kill them.
So prepared casters usually just change a few spells situationally based on what they expect to come (like not preparing Harm if we're after a Necromancer XD) rather than having really specific info to tailor a bunch of spell picks to.
Also please tell me that I'm not the only one who's found spontaneous casters every bit as useful and often more useful than prepared at the actual table? Like the situations where the perks of being a prepared caster (namely more malleable spell selection over time) come up just don't come up that often while the perks of spontaneous casting (more malleable use of existing spell selection) comes into play much more often.
Like maybe I'm I'm a minority but I've ALWAYS preferred spontaneous casting in both PF1 and the Playtest, (and PF2 looks even more so) and it's been more useful at my table in general as well.
Joe Wells wrote:
*Sad violin solo*
How could this happen to me? I've made my mistakes...
Who can say, where the road goes...
Hello darkness, my old friend...
Everywhere around me are familiar faces...
Oh well. Was worth a shot. XD
C'mon #85! Don't be a her- well actually DO be a hero, fork it over! And don't wait till the last second! XD
Which might just be perfect for something like an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster or Must Theurge archetype, or for concepts that go with a spell list but not the class associated with it.
So heck YEAH "yay". XD
Dante Doom wrote:
That's genius. Let's freaking go!...anyone got 100 XP? I don't use Twitch worth a darn. XD
David knott 242 wrote:
Nah, he's already said he's sticking to his guns, even at 99/100. And even with our genius fake spoilers. XD
This isn't quite getting Captain Morgan's argument.
The two main points are that at any given moment a Sorcerer has both more spell options total and especially more options for their highest slots. They may not be able to change them as readily but their moment-by-moment versatility shines.
Take a 12th level caster. Wizard, total of 48 spell options (less if he prepared duplicates). Sorcerer, assuming the way we thing spontaneous Heightening works is so, as much as 63 (their 4 per spell level plus their level 1 signature has up to 5 more options, their level 2 has up to 4 more, etc.)
Now this IS rose-coloring it a little since not all their signature spells will necessarily heighten every level and those that do aren't worthwhile at the lowest levels. But it's still an expansion in options in any given moment.
Add to that the main perk of Spontaneous over Prepared, that being that they can use their spell slots on any combination of applicable spells known, whereas a Wizard must choose exactly how many times they want to use each spell ahead of time. So either you're only getting one casting of each soell you pick or you're reducing your number of options by preparing multiples of a spell that you guess you will want multiple times.
Yes there's Quick Preparation, but that's not going to help you in battle or on a time crunch. I think most people over-value Quick Preparation a bit (also it's tied to a Thesis now which means not all Wizards will have it anyway) and heavily undervalue the ability to use your slots more flexibly rather than pre-choosing the exact spell (and level) for each spell slot.
That's the way I've been looking at it, and why I think it's a good balance.
For my own game I've houseruled free spontaneous Heightening while giving prepared casters Neo-Vancian (Arcananist-style) casting (and allowing them to undercast and spell they prepare in a higher slot, but not to spontaneously heighten) in order to balance them.
It's worked excellently so far, but the casters in my party are all experienced Pathfinder players. I don't think for a second that kind of open option breadth would work so well in the hands of the other players in my games who aren't so experienced.
Oh yeah, that. I thought he meant this specific thread, that's why I was confused. XD
I'm sure there's more but immediately coming to mind are:
Gloom Blade, deals +1d6 precision to flat footed foes (doesn't require sneak attack but stacks with it)
Bloodsucker Beak, low level trinket, deals 1d4 persistent bleed but requires a sneak attack to activate.
There's probably more and these arent exactly grand, but I'm just highlighting these to support the idea that just havung sneak attack does indeed open some doors as you say.
Wait, what? Did someone at Paizo just know there was going to be a thread? Because I didn't make the thread until after I heard about the cards, and it took me a little while because the Paizo forums were down temporarily. XD
First World Bard wrote:
You're right, my bad. It was Rangers that got it in an update.
Given she seems to be one of the people in charge of removing inappropriate or combative posts, extensive derailings in certain circumstances, etc., that "suggesting a best course of action" is possibly more a nice way of telling than suggesting. And either way it seems a little silly to say "Well we don't need to do that because it was a suggestion of the best thing to do, not an actual order". It's a little too hair-splitty about specific phrasing in a comment where she was likely being nice about telling us to keep the thread focused, and it's kinda rude to be hair-splitty like that. The "Well you didn't actually TELL us to..." attitude doesn't really help anything.
That's unfortunate. XP
Even in the Playtest Fighters did get upgraded proficiency in Fist since it is a simple weapon, so they could at least throw punches effectively (if they have magical handwraps ;P ) though they would still be Nonlethal damage.
In the Playtest group I'm in, we've had a handful of ACs (our "main" DD party had an Animal Order druid, with Snappy the Bear), and I have to say, derping out and forgetting the AC feels REAL bad, there were MANY occasions where Snappy just sat there doing nothing (in the final act, we said that Snappy got his own Wish, and that he spent it so he could summon salmon whenever he wanted, that was our RP explanation for our Druid being an occasional dolt). But the main issue was, and the reason Snappy was often abandoned, was that he didn't do much even when ordered. It was worth more for our druid to just use his own full turn to wail on stuff than to have the bear just kinda "eh, eh, EH!" the baddies. So our druid got way more mileage just having the bear as a flanking buddy, then only commanding Snappy to get BACK into flanking position if the enemy moved, and otherwise attacking by himself. If Snappy had a single action per turn if left to his own devices, I don't think it would have mattered that much mechanically, but it would have felt WAY better in an RP sense. But that was our experience with ACs, and our table on a whole has a habit of sucking whenever we have to roll for our ACs. And my Sorcerer who had Summon Monster has one of his auto-heighten spells didn't have much luck either, other than getting massive utility out of a water elemental being used to ferry us across a river because none of us had great Athletics.
Was this all before the update where Animal Order Druid ACs DID in fact get an action each turn if left to themselves? Because that is a thing they got in the Playtest.
As an aside, massively weird question about one of the cards........ Card 30, it says "Whenever your proficiency rank for simple weapons increases, your proficiency rank for unarmed attacks increases to the same rank unless it’s already better." I thought unarmed attacks were already "simple" weapons, so they'd already keep pace unless stated otherwise (like with a Monk, who gains extra proficiency with unarmed ALONE). So I don't understand why they have to point out unarmed keep pace, unless unarmed are no longer "simple" weapons, and now their own thing...
I think it's because technically the only "unarmed" attack on the weapons table is Fist (which is indeed a simple weapon). Other unarmed attacks you could get from Heritage, Monk, Barbarian, spells, or spell powers were all technically different weapons with their own damage and traits which were typically not specified as simple or martial weapons. Which was a weird quirk in the Playtest, nice to see that's sorted now. XD
I'm hecking hyped for PF2. I'm already running a Playtest campaign and converting a long-hiatused campaign (was on break for almost a year between breaking for the playtest and finishing another game) to Playtest rules because I can't wait until Aug 1, I already have other plans for when we get there lol. XD
Good GMs often believe the fun of the group outweighs the toll of the dice in a crucial moment. ;P
I've only run 2 APs (Fires Over Blackcrag to start my Mythic game and then Doomsday Dawn) but I heard of Baba Yaga through wandering the SRD and ended up making her a bit of a... recurring character in my games in a way that's given her an interesting reputation with the party. It probably helps that I characterized her somewhat off of Master Popo from DBZ abridged. She can be terrifying and her hut is ABSOLUTELY terrifying. So much so that hinting at an appearance of the hut and/or Witch or even playing Ievan Polkka (long story but basically I have completely associated that music with Baba Yaga in the minds of my players) fills them with good-humored dread. XD So fun to mess with my players with...
She's mostly (painfully) helped my players since they try to stop worlds from ending and ended worlds aren't fun anymore, but they ended up actually fighting and killing her in the 20th level Post-Doomsday Dawn oneshot I made for New Year's. But it's unclear where that falls in the timeline of my games (all of my campaigns thus far have fit into the same wide continuity [with some shenanigans], though IDK if I can hold that too much longer. I was actually considering doing something weird woth timelines to explain any overlap in my games and possibly blaming it on Baba Yaga LOL) or if she's even truly dead, so they may see her again.
This is totally off topic, I know, but you were talking about Baba Yaga reputations so I wanted to share my story. XD
Not exactly satisfied with "the player has to do mental gymnastics to make sense of this" as the conclusion of why animal companions operate so poorly. Was there even alternative ideas for balancing them?
I'm not sure taking 5 minutes to come up with a flavor explanation that makes sense for a mechanic that doesn't immediately fit the knee-jerk assumption of how things should work qualifies as "mental gymnastics".
Explanations I like for the "why would my AC have less actions if it's acting on its own" and "why does the 'one action stride or strike when not commanding' cause it to only have one action" arguments:
First one, the AC doesn't KNOW you aren't going to command it until, well, you don't. It's trained to expect and follow your commands, so if you aren't commanding then naturally it would have a certain amount of hesitance as it waits for your commands before realizing you're too occupied and acting on its own. This is manifested as losing one or two of the three actions it would normally have.
Second one, the AC is now so in tune with you that even if you don't command it, it can still observe you and deduce what you would want it to do. But dping so is obviously less time-efficient than just following your commands or acting on its own, so it only gets in one action (but that action is in line with your wishes rather than being reactionary to the situation at hand).
And lastly, to the dislike of GM adjucation, as always I kinda get where it comes from but my gosh, the rules CANNOT FULLY ACCOUNT FOR BAD GMs.
Bleh. Sorry if I sound harsh, but the merit of rules being argued by how they would play with a bad GM bugs the heck out of me. The game is designed around decent or good GMs, if you have a bad GM your problems extend beyond anything in the system.
Sounds like similar school of thought to my Karate training, particularly in grappling.