Edge93's page

1,318 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,318 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Vic Wertz wrote:

The Compatibility License doesn't have any specific requirements or restrictions on how you handle things like that. (The closest it comes is section 6, which tells you how to reference a product from the list of products in Exhibit C.)

Keep in mind that the Compatibility License is to be used in conjunction with the OGL, and the OGL tells you can "use" (specifically, "use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of") Open Game Content. The OGL is Wizards of the Coast's license, not Paizo's, so I can't provide any binding advice on that; I'll just say that in my view, that sentence gives you a lot of leeway in your approach.

Excellent, thank you. Much appreciated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Shuriken is a martial weapon albeit an uncommon one and being agile, thrown, and one handed it is competitive with the shortbow.

Grumble, grumble, grumble... Stupid playtest pdf. They have uncommon ranged after exotic melee so when I saw exotic I though everything after that was exotic too. :(

That does make it pretty close then.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
nick1wasd wrote:
citricking wrote:

Monk weapons may have some niche uses, but I feel it's very important for a monk that focuses on weapons to be just as good as a monk that focuses on unarmed strikes. Currently that was not true in the play test.

One option is for weapon using monks to have stances that work with weapons. I don't like that because stances have some issues, but I don't see any other solution because of how they set up the monk class.

Are you asking for/referring to a specific stance that has synergy with weapons? Because as is, with the exception of crane, you can mix weapons with stances, so you can have a Temple Sword and Dragon kick Style, trip someone with the sword then ax kick them to death while they're flat on their back. Having Monastic Weapon mixed with a single stance you can come up with some very silly wombo combos (aforementioned trip -> kick, Vine style with Nunchaku so you can disarm, throw the weapon far away, and make them stay put so they can't go get the weapon and fight back)
That wouldn't be focusing on using weapons though, that's using weapons to support a primarily unarmed focused character. I mean something like a stance that increases weapon damage dies by one size, or a temple sword stance that adds new properties like agile and new attacking actions you can perform with the sword.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

We basically know the rangers stuff from the paizocon spoilers.

#61 shows Hunt Prey (+2 Perception & Survival vs target and ignore penalties in second range increment)

#62 shows hunters edge as a class feature not a feat. The one shown in precision but the reducing MAP was flurry in the playtest. Probably not available for a MC ranger unless as Edge93 says there is a high level class feat to pick another edge.

MC ranger can probably still grab twin take down but I also think that flourish tag we have seen in the spoilers from paizocon will likely specifically prevent this. cards #57 #63

The only things that have the flourish tag are flurry of blows and hunted shot. Both abilities which allow two attacks as one action.

As to flourish, it says that ability can only once per turn. It didn't say you can't use another ability with flourish. [it might mean that but it didn't say it on the spoiler that I saw] So 2 different flourish abilities might work in a round. "As it has the flourish trait, you can use Flurry of Blows only once per turn."

I see the difference from the spoilers now. Hunt Prey is the base ability and edge gets you the bonuses [flurry, precision, stalker]. That's disappointing if it can't be gotten somehow.

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.


graystone wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Lady Wrath wrote:
graystone wrote:

The part in Monastic Weapons about melee weapons is meaningless when talking about flurry as the weapon trait ALREADY allows you to use them [without monastic weapons] with flurry and Shuriken is a ranged weapon with the monk trait. About all Monastic Weapons does is allows matching proficiency bonuses with unarmed/monk weapons and allowing monk feats to be used with monk weapons: however, since an ability can be "a feat, a spell, a class feature, and so on", I'd say the weapon trait already allowed use with feats anyway.

To be honest, I'm not sure why the feat mentions melee at all as it gives you something you already have.

OMG GRAYSTONE I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!

I never noticed that, I hope that dosn't change cuz I'm so excited to make a ranged monk now.

I'm glad I made you happy! ;)

Yeah, I missed it at first too when I made a monk for the playtest and wanted Shurikens: I think the wording of Monastic Weapons throws people off so I hope they reword it and remove 'melee'.

Myself, I might try out a monk [ranger multiclass] and go crazy with those throwing stars.

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.

from spoilers - RANGER DEDICATION (Feat 2)

[Archetype, Dedication, Multiclass]
Prerequisites Dexterity 14
¶ You become trained in Survival; if you were already trained in Survival, you instead become trained in another skill of your choice. You become trained in ranger class DC.
¶ You can use the Hunt Prey action (page ??)
¶ Special You can't select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the ranger archetype.

Hunter's edge is what they renamed hunter target. The flurry type reduces MAP's. Isn't Hunt Prey the new name for it?

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.


graystone wrote:
Lady Wrath wrote:
graystone wrote:

The part in Monastic Weapons about melee weapons is meaningless when talking about flurry as the weapon trait ALREADY allows you to use them [without monastic weapons] with flurry and Shuriken is a ranged weapon with the monk trait. About all Monastic Weapons does is allows matching proficiency bonuses with unarmed/monk weapons and allowing monk feats to be used with monk weapons: however, since an ability can be "a feat, a spell, a class feature, and so on", I'd say the weapon trait already allowed use with feats anyway.

To be honest, I'm not sure why the feat mentions melee at all as it gives you something you already have.

OMG GRAYSTONE I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!

I never noticed that, I hope that dosn't change cuz I'm so excited to make a ranged monk now.

I'm glad I made you happy! ;)

Yeah, I missed it at first too when I made a monk for the playtest and wanted Shurikens: I think the wording of Monastic Weapons throws people off so I hope they reword it and remove 'melee'.

Myself, I might try out a monk [ranger multiclass] and go crazy with those throwing stars.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FowlJ wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Maybe its just me but im still a little put off by the saving throws being that high, wouldnt a wizards dc for spells be roughly 23 at level 7.giving the flesh golem more than a 50% chance to pass even on his weakest save.

The golem is lv9, so yeah, its saves are good against a lv7 effect. At level 9, a Wizard should be around DC 27.

That said, the golem is immune to magic, so these saves are against physical effects, such as stunning or tripping. And we’re talking about a golem. I’m ok with it.
You make a very good point about golems being inherently antimagic, i was just Nam flashbacks of the playtests numbers. im not sure ive done math incorrectly for lvl 7 wizard dc, 10 + prof (7) + int (5) and this is against the cr7 flesh golem.

The flesh golem is level 8, so it would be compared to an 8th level wizard's DC 24 (10 Base + 10 Proficiency + 4 Intelligence), giving the golem a 55% chance on its weakest save.

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.


Ediwir wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

-monsters have no math,

-NPCs by default have no math,

The poor things. To live without math must be so sad. I will have to send them care packages of math.

(I will probably take apart their numbers to deduce the secret math of monster creation.)

Do you have Discord and are you willing to share a few spreadsheets to work on it together?
Yes, I have Discord and I am on the Pathfinder Playtest server as Erin Schram, though I usually forget to look at that group. I hope to fan-convert some PF1 adventures to PF2, but recognize that that would be best as a group effort.
Didn't know there was a specific playtest Discord. There's a decent 2e community on the pathfinder reddit discord, however. You have PM.

I don't suppose we could share that Playtest Discord, could we? That sounds like fun. XD


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mellok wrote:


I actually think Paizo missed the boat a little on the heighten mechanic. Some spells just increase in power but do not really change in function (mostly the damage spells) but other spells vastly change in function and truly are different spells. A sorcerer totally should be able to power up any spell that doesn't change function with a higher spell slot but needs to have the spell as a bloodline or signature spell to heighten it if it changes form with levels. I would have also locked changing signature spells into a level up or rebuild mechanic rather than a once per day.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


Donald wrote:

I called the hotel and if it wasn't left in a room it would have been tossed. If it was in the room, you'd need the room number.

Nothing ventured....

Did you ask them to check room 85? XD


The PaizoCon hotel check might be worth a go. What have we got to lose, right?


https://youtu.be/TsBlQ0gdo5o


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping for an Elemental Bloodline, which I feel like would use Primal Magic. Maybe a Focus Power to turn any energy spell to ypur element while also tacking on a debuff appropriate to the element? (Enfeebled for fire, Sluggish for elec, Hampered or Entangled for cold, ? For Earth?)


TBH I'm less work the cards were lost or someone is invoking dramatic timing and more worried that they ended up woth people who don't like PF2...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remain cautiously optimistic, given how obstinate the last 4 spoilers seemed before they all popped off.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:

Edit: Ninja'd on the main point by DMW, as is tradition for this board.

I think DMW has many levels in PF1 Ninja (Or PF2 Rogue with Monk MC) that he isn't telling us about. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
thflame wrote:
As far as that goes, 5e is proof that analysis paralysis isn't a good argument. (Especially since wizards didn't seem to suffer from it when preparing their spells during playtesting.)
Again, this simply isn't true because 5E casters have fewer spells per day than PF2 ones by a fair bit,

Again, then why isn't it "analysis paralysis" for prepared casters when they prepare their spells?

When it comes down to it, 99% of the time, prepared casters are going to prepare the exact same list and sorcerers will likely cast the same go-to spells at the same go-to levels.

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.
Spontaneous casters would be making their wide-pool choices much more frequently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

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.

That normally depends on how much your group/questline actually allows scouting/planning. A likeminded group that sinks money into a wizard can just waltz through otherwise impassable obstacles - but if you just walk into things or don't have the one day to prep, prepared casters are definitely worse.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe Wells wrote:
Jason Bulmahn, Game Designer wrote:

@JasonBulmahn

I'm back from Scotland which means tomorrow I will streaming some Kingmaker on Twitch! Join me starting at 4pm PST!

@JasonBulmahn
And no, I won't be spoiling #MyPathfinderSpoiler #85... even if someone spends XP to ask me a question. ;)

*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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
In any case, it makes it highly likely there will eventually be ways for martial characters to get spellcasting without multiclassing, which is pretty neat.

That seems to me like a distinction without a difference. Either way, you are taking an archetype (just not necessarily a "multiclass" archetype) and paying class feats for spellcasting. I guess for story reasons you could feel like it's more of a "prestige" opportunity, even though they've gone away from that specific terminology. Presumably it will still be a dedication, though.

Right, this just means you'll get access to a spell list without getting access to a spellcasting class's abilities or feats; you'll instead get access to some other feats. Yay?

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:
Dalvyn wrote:

Just saying... on Jason's Twitch channel, you can read this:

Earn XP
Watch stream = 1 XP / 10 min
Follow me = 5 XP
Subscribe = 50 XP
100 bits = 10 XP

Spend XP
Ask a question = 100 XP <-------
Follow your twitch = 200 XP
Nightbot command = 200 XP
...

"What is the exact content of Spoiler #85?" would make a perfect question to ask if we can't get this spoiler by more conventional means...

Is this a Glimpse of Hope?

That's genius. Let's freaking go!

...anyone got 100 XP? I don't use Twitch worth a darn. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:

[dice=Deception] 1d20

So I pretty sure that 85 doesn't exists. Only way for Mr Jason proves the contrary is if himself post #85 here...

Please tell me you have Confabulator or at least a Hero Point so you can have a go at that one again without too much trouble...

I am sure that the Paizo folks already have this one figured out, but the obvious thing for Jason to do in his blog next week is to post whatever spoiler(s) we failed to come up with -- which would prove the existence of #85 to the extent possible.

On the other hand, since he has to prepare the larger spoiler blog anyway (because it is still possible that that single last spoiler will turn up), maybe he will settle for 99 out of 100?

Nah, he's already said he's sticking to his guns, even at 99/100. And even with our genius fake spoilers. XD


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

The wizard still "knows" those higher level spells. He just didn't prepare them. This has been how Spontaneous vs Prepared has ALWAYS worked (except 5e).

It's not really a boost for the sorcerer to have access to ALL of his spells when that has ALWAYS been the case.

This is even LESS useful compared to the wizard since they can swap out spell with 10 minutes of downtime, effectively making them spontaneous. Wizards will just prepare spells they expect to need on short notice and swap them out for utility spells when circumstances call for it.

Then there is the issue that learning Fireball in PF1 means you have a decent damaging spell throughout your career. Learning Fireball as a Sorcerer in PF2 means you are going to be okay for a couple levels, then you are going to have a subpar spell.

Yes, the sorcerer can swap out this spell for (or just learn) the higher level spell, but you only get so many swaps and new spells known.

The addition of signature spells helps a bit, but still not nearly as much as the wizard just flat knowing all the spells at all the levels.

The wizard never forgets his old spells and never has to "relearn" a new spell at later levels.

There is also the whole bit where the devs have stated the explicit reason for this design choice, and that was "analysis paralysis", therefore, arguing whether or not it is too strong or weak is irrelevant, as the devs didn't seem to think that was the issue.

As far as that goes, 5e is proof that analysis paralysis isn't a good argument. (Especially since wizards didn't seem to suffer from it when preparing their spells during playtesting.)

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:

[dice=Deception] 1d20

So I pretty sure that 85 doesn't exists. Only way for Mr Jason proves the contrary is if himself post #85 here...

Please tell me you have Confabulator or at least a Hero Point so you can have a go at that one again without too much trouble...


malcolm_n wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ah, those globally recognizable American cultural references ;-)

As an American, I do not get that reference in the slightest.

4 days to find 1 of 4 cards available to the public. It’s madness, I say

I'm an American and I didn't get it either. XD


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:

Let's shift the point of view a little... this is assuming that Signature spell works the way that we think that we are assuming.

If a lvl 8 Wizard prepare Invisibility in a 4th spell slot it means that they didn't prepare something else there, this would mean that they have something like:

4th spell slot: Invisibility, Random 4th spell x2, School Spell

While Sorcerer would have the option to have:

4th Spell slot: 3 Random Know Spells, Bloodline Spell, Invisibility (Signature 2nd level Spell), Signature Spell from the 1th and 3rd level.

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.


nick1wasd wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
malcolm_n wrote:

Good morning everybody! 4 days left, and only 85 left :D

transcribed list

I know the Paizo Twitter account posted and since we've gotten down to this last one. Hopefully in the next couple days we get that one final person who throws 85 up for us.

I watched the video finally where the cards were handed out. I didn't know attendees were actually told about this thread beforehand. Hopefully somebody is just holding out to be the hero of the day.

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
Jason stated "If there is a thread on the forums with all the cards, I will do the super spoiler", so he kinda demanded we make a thread if we wanted the super spoils

Oh yeah, that. I thought he meant this specific thread, that's why I was confused. XD


5 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
(Good commentary)

Those are some good points I actually hadn't thought about when I first complained about the weak multiclass sneak attack damage waaaay back.

Another reason non-scaling sneak attack is okay is that it acts as a delivery vehicle for certain debuffs. For example, Twist the Knife. I imagine there will be more things like that that you suddenly have access to when you acquire even baby sneak attack damage. Heck, there could be feats that let you drop the damage and do something amazing, in which case the damage is irrelevant.

There are also potentially magic items that could boost sneak attack damage. I could easily see a weapon enchantment that grants extra sneak attack dice, or even a legendary weapon specifically for the one-hit-one-kill assassin playstyle.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
malcolm_n wrote:

Good morning everybody! 4 days left, and only 85 left :D

transcribed list

I know the Paizo Twitter account posted and since we've gotten down to this last one. Hopefully in the next couple days we get that one final person who throws 85 up for us.

I watched the video finally where the cards were handed out. I didn't know attendees were actually told about this thread beforehand. Hopefully somebody is just holding out to be the hero of the day.

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:
nick1wasd wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
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.
I think we didn't find that ruling until halfway through p7. We knew about Ranger's ACs going after marked targets, but AODs ACs I think we missed.
I thought Animal Order Druids' ACs one action per turn was in the Playtest as published, and not part of the update. You just needed to pick up Full Grown Companion (4th level Druid Class Feat).

You're right, my bad. It was Rangers that got it in an update.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

Quandary: I used caps as the posts literally mentioned the card in question: #30. As such, the only reason to complain about them is to not have actually looked through the posts.

If it was about actual reveals vs reveal details, the post failed to point this out. It should have been much clearer if that was his point.

GospodinSneg: Yep, she suggested a best course, not what was allowed or forbidden. I took it to mean any extended debate is best in it's own thread but I don't count 3-4 posts an extended debate.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
nick1wasd wrote:
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.
I think we didn't find that ruling until halfway through p7. We knew about Ranger's ACs going after marked targets, but AODs ACs I think we missed.

That's unfortunate. XP


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
nick1wasd wrote:
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...
It could be as a note for clarity. Unarmed was usually in a weird place previously, even for always being in the Simple Weapons chart. For me it’s nice to see since i’ve Always been of the mind that a fighter should be able to throw a good punch or kick if needed, but i’ve Had a DM argue with me that i can’t cause i’m ‘Not a monk, and that’s a thing only monks can do’.
I can see a fighter throwing an accurate punch, but it not having as much power behind it as a monk's would, since they've trained exact muscle groups to make punches hurt like an SoB, and monk's have to worry about hitting soft spots, whereas fighters just generically swing a blade around and if it hits, it hits. But yeah, "monks are the only ones who can punch" is dumb, since most classical knights actually did go through some semblance of HtH training in case of the unfortunate incident they got disarmed.

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.


nick1wasd wrote:
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, to clarify for anyone who didn't look at the link, the #85 that was "found" is indeed fake. We still need the real deal. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
It's funny because that's the last one :P

I THOUGHT that was the last one, and honestly that's just too perfect. XD

We will have to stick that on the list if we can't dig up the real deal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
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


Freaking HECK YEAH! So close, and just as I was starting to worry!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


2 people marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:
Kubetz wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

5 to go...

And just over1 week until the deadline. As long as I'm in Scotland, there is still time...

Happy Hunting Folks!

In case those 5 spoilers get completely lost, could you be so kind, create another twitter account and post them. I am sure we can reciprocate your efforts with a nice bottle of scotch O:) .

Have fun out there!

Are you sure Jason will show that much mercy? ;) That's basically fudging the dice.

Good GMs often believe the fun of the group outweighs the toll of the dice in a crucial moment. ;P


Reckless wrote:
Troll Food wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
#51, no joke this time
Nooooo!!!!!!! That was mine to release!!! Vengeance shall be mine!!!

Well,pig, ye had best be releasing whatever else ye got, lest someone else try to steal ye glory.

Or ye bacon!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Did a Wizard do it?
Always blame it on the Wizard

And in Golarion, there's a decent chance that wizard was Baba Yaga. :P

Yes, yes, I know she's a witch. My group has just had a running joke since playing Reign of Winter; Baba Yaga turned out to be responsible for so many implausible things that we gave her the unofficial title of The Wizard That Did It.

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


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
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".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nice! I like that one.

Lol yes, let's be nice to the nice spoiler-wielding Frenchmen. XD


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.
If a rule doesn't work well with a bad GM, I'm sorry but that doesn't make the rule bad! Frankly the game overall doesn't work well with a bad GM because rule 0 is and needs to be a thing!

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.


graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
real grappling techniques are designed to work specifically against humans and wouldn't be particularly effective even against medium size non-humanoids - who trains to know moves against wolves?
Anyone who rough houses with large dogs or has to handle violent dogs, I would think.
Which is equivalent to anyone who roughhouses with people, not training in special skills and moves to take advantage of weak points and the like. There are many entire disciplines devoted to grappling humans. Nothing equivalent for animals that I'm aware of.

Maybe not exactly grappling, but my wife witnessed a physiotherapist specialized in horses push a too affectionate 1,200 lbs draft horse back on its hindquarters, much to the dismay of said animal. Because this horse knew he was much stronger than humans and had trouble processing the thought that this human was stronger than him.

So, I would guess understanding of leverage mixed with knowledge of non-human anatomy provides a good basis.

Aikido is basically this same principle. Using leverage and pressure points to take down people bigger and stronger than you. Without causing lasting harm to them either i believe.
Yep, aikido is meant to protect the defender and the attacker... Now hapkido, something I trained in along with tae kwon do, isn't worried about the attacker so much: we learned the quickest way to get someone to stop grabbing you was to grab a finger and bend it back as far as needed. ;)

Sounds like similar school of thought to my Karate training, particularly in grappling.

1 to 50 of 1,318 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>