Bronze Dragon

ElSilverWind's page

Organized Play Member. 195 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 195 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>


Please, does anyone know how someone is supposed to create skeletons or zombies? The only thing I can find so far is critically failing the Ressurect ritual, and even that doesn’t give the rules for making an undead minion.

I don’f understand how I’m meant to give feedback on Undead minions if I can’t make any.

From my rough reading so far, I’ve found Command Undead and Bind Undead, which allows a character to control already existing undead. But how does one go about Animating/Creating an undead creature for the purposes of either unleashing them upon the general populace, or simply making them wear a fancy suit and serving wine at a dinner party? I don’t want Necromancer PCs to be reliant on their DMs throwing pity skeletons at them every few sessions.

I only wish to please the Pallid Princess.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Maybe the next blog could be about Resonance?

Haven’t the Bards waited long enough?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
... I am so confused by people who seem to be acting as if they're forced to play high level games when they seem to have issues with high level gameplay. Especially when it's so easy to avoid.

Agreed. It’s what, level 15 to be able to reach the rank for the +3, then level 16 when you get the Skill Feat to put into Cat Fall or Legendary Medic?

I’ve been playing with my group for like 8 years or so now, and the game normally falls apart way before then. I think that in all that time the only group to ever reach level 16 was during Rise of the Runelords during the last book. At that point I was actively encouraging the PCs demigod status!

I want levels 16-20 to FEEL legendary. I’m planning to rebuilding RotR’s final fight in PF2’s system once the Playtest is out, and for my Players to rebuild their level 18-20 characters. I want the characters to FEEL legendary because in my Golarion, these characters ARE legends and household names now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
So to hit the Ranger (who's usually sniping in the back, away from the fray) the maximal Fighter would have to roll a 9. But to hit the Paladin it would have to be a 14. I like dem odds...

Yep, seems a reasonable variance to me.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
But then again that ignores all the Legendary effects for everyone.
Personally, I doubt that Legendary has any effect on attack or AC beyond the +1. Saves clearly do, as do skills but the increased/decreased crit chance is probably sufficient on attacks/AC.

Then what does it mean to be Legendary with weapons? It HAS to mean more than the +3 to attack...

I also can imagine it being frustrating for the optimal Fighter to be face off against my Paladin, if what he needs to roll to hit is a 14... And that's optimal.
I imagine my Paladin fighting a clone of himself and how long that would take if my Paladin's attack would be 33. (20 Level +6 Str + 2 Master +5 Weapon) That's a 16 just to hit!

Hopefully, he's an evil clone so I can, I mean... Blade of Justice(?!) him... heh.

Fighter Vs. Paladin: Unstoppable Force meets Unmovable Object.

Paladin Vs. Paladin: Metapod Vs. Metapod. The Hardening.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, attack bonus is universally Level + Attack Stat + Proficiency + Weapon.

That makes a maximal Fighter +35 (20 Level +7 Str + 3 Legendary +5 Weapon). Someone without Proficiency beyond Trained but retaining a +7 stat would be +32. With a more reasonable 18 stat they go down to +29.

So it's about a 6 point swing, but a lot of that is stuff that nobody is actually gonna have that low if they intend to attack with weapons.

So to hit the Ranger (who's usually sniping in the back, away from the fray) the maximal Fighter would have to roll a 9. But to hit the Paladin it would have to be a 14. I like dem odds... But then again that ignores all the Legendary effects for everyone.

Another benefit for the Paladin is that the Fighter can only crit if they roll a natural 20 to bypass beating their AC by 10 (5% Chance). While the Ranger can takes a crit on a 19 or 20 (10% Chance).

The Paladin also has a shield which will potentially absorb an entire hit’s worth of damage if they are hit, meaning that they can more safely take any damage the fighter does land on them.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
NetoD20 wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
Imagine that, people don’t want martial characters to break physical laws in a world steeped in magic, where wizards and clerics can wave a hand and do the same thing. As a person whose favorite characters for decades have been clerics, I say Welcome to the martials! It’s time overdue.
Well, then at least give me a good in-world explanation for it. Not this determination, and hard training nonsense.

Just curious, but you wouldn’t happen to be an anime villain, would you?

Quandary wrote:
I hope the book has a reinforced corner to handle the amount of times players will need to be beat over the head in order to re-learn what "skill rank" refers to. ;-)

Don’t worry. We know that the book should be roughly as thick as the PF1 CRB. My players can attest that the hardback version of that book has held up for years worth beatings! :D

You softback owners may be out of luck though.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
wizzardman wrote:

Benchak/Fuzzy-Wuzzy: I guess? Both of those are valid explanations, but they strike a bit too close to "you were a spellcaster all along" for comfort.

It might just be easier to stick that (Su) next to the blatantly weird abilities, and then declare that if a player is going to take them, they need to explain where they came from. That way a Tengu player can still take it and claim he figured out how to right himself on the way down, while the human that *doesn't* take it can claim to be the adventurer equivalent of Batman (i.e. an especially experienced normal dude -- only clearly without the preptime needed for a potion of Feather Fall) without clashing.

At least that saves me from having to describe it.

Easiest solution: Everyone wears a cape!

(I mean, in PF1, most people already did mechanically because of Cloaks of Resistance.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would you make them fight each other? They’re in love!

*points to the Redcaps reinacting the spaghetti scene from Lady and the Tramp, except the spagetti is soaked in blood*

See, all Love is beautiful and precious to Shelyn in whatever form it may take, and-

*Redcaps see my Holy Symbol of Shelyn and flee*


Anyone else read these blogs in the voice and inflection of David from Camp Camp?

That Legendary Disguise Feat is absolutely perfect for my Rogue! I think I’ve played him while disguised more than I’ve played him not-disguised!

Seeing as they’re doing skills this week, I’m betting my sawdust that this Monday will be the Bard blog.

Much like how we had the Spell Blog before Clerics and the Combat Blog before Fighters, what we learn about skills this week will give us the context to understand how Bards will interact with skills in ways that set them apart from the other classes. The PF1, the Bard was a better Skill Monkey than the Rogue pre-Unchained (and debatably, after as well) so it would make sense that Bards would be the other master of skills.

Perhaps Lore Master gives them Assurance in all Lore skills?

Perhaps the Bard can spend a spell-point to Critically Succeed a Lore check?

Perhaps to replicate Jack-of-All-Trades, Bards (as Class Abilities) become Trained in all skills at 10th level, Expert in all skills at 15th level, and Master in all skills at 19th?

The idea being that Rogues gain more Skill Ranks and Skill feats so they can specialize in the skills they want and reach higher proficiencies more quickly, while Bards slowly gains a wider range of skills at a lower proficiency.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also there’s no “I Channel Positive Energy to harm undead” anymore from what I can tell. Now you just pick the target and it either heals them if living or harms them if undead (3 Action burst being an exception that doesn’t target).

There is certainly an opportunity for a truly trollish moment of gameplay.

Cleric: “I spend my 3 actions to Channel Positive Energy in a burst!”
*rolls 9d8 + 7 = 48*

DM: “As your friends are filled with the holy light of your diety, you see the Grim Reaper writhe back in pain!”

Cleric: “That means he’s undead!”

*back to Cleric’s turn*

“Alright, now I’ll cast the 1 action version of Heal, adding another 2 actions to it with Empower Spell* and then use my Metamagic Channeler Feat to add Maximize Spell* to it!
28d8 +7 = 231
*Player rolls nat 20*
“Alright, that’s 462 Damage!! How dead is it?”

DM: . . . *chooses to not count the Grim Reaper as undead*

Players: . . .

DM: . . . : )

(* indicates that the Metamagic Feat in question has not been confirmed to exist in PF2 and only is being used in this example for comedic purposes.)

Announce a Hardcover 2nd Edition version of Return of the Runelords with 2nd edition rules once the playtest is out!

They’ll never see it coming . . .

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Student of the Canon
I want a 'Student of the Cannon' feat. ;)

The Students of the Canon are at constant war with the Cult of the Headcanon. Just last week, the Students of the Canon had to embark on a journey through the ruins of The Great Shipping War just to stop the Cultists from performing the Ritual that would summon the dreaded “Highschool AU” onto Golarion!

Just imagine if they had failed . . .

“Seoni is running down the sidewalk with toast in her mouth. Dragon, her kawaii familiar, didn’t wake her up this morning and now she is late for her first day at Pathfinder Society High!

She bumps into someone and falls onto the ground, her toast nowhere to be seen. Who did she bump into? It’s . . . Valeros-sempai!”

. . . *shudders*

Meophist wrote:

I don't know if it means anything, but Occultism is an INT-based skill based on the latest blog post. Religion and Nature are WIS-based, while Arcana is INT-based.

This seems to point that Occultism is for an INT-based caster, although then again, Sorcerer's going to have to have something and is likely still a CHA-based caster, and there isn't really a CHA-based skill to go along with it.

Oooh~ good catch. It may be possible that Sorcerers will be able to add their Charisma modifier to Arcana Checks as well, much like how the Alchemist gains Resonance for both their Charisma and Intelligence Modifiers.

Or if they choose their Spell List based off of their Bloodline, then they’d add Charisma to their rolls using their Bloodline Skill. Which would be Arcana/Nature/Religion/Occultism depending on which Spell List their Bloodline gives them access to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Arcana = knowledge regarding Arcane Spells, Monsters, and Rituals
Religion = knowledge regarding Divine Spells, Monsters, and Rituals
Nature = knowledge regarding Primal Spells, Monsters, and Rituals
Occultism = knowledge regarding Occult Spells, Monsters, and Rituals

Calling it now . . .

Society = knowledge regarding Social Spells, Monsters, and Rituals!

(Joking. But would be somewhat fitting for a Bard.)


Thank you for pointing that out. That relieves most of my concerns. : )

So . . . assuming 17 different Skills in the game (only taking 1 Performance and 1 Lore) with 5 Proficiency ranks each, we would need 85 skill ranks at least to max out every Skill in the game (more needed to grab extra Performances and Lores).

So a Rogue that could somehow manage to learn 4.25+ skill ranks per level, they could be the ultimate Legendary Skill Master by Level 20?

*Begins planning this Pinnacle of Skilldom*
I really hope there are Rogue Feats for extra Skill Ranks~. >:3

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m a bit confused about when we can increase our Skill Proficiencies.

We normally gain skill ranks at each odd-numbered level (and also even-numbered levels for Rogues) and we can use ranks to improve our skill proficiencies. Is that correct?

So a Rogue, who I’m assuming begins the game with Trained Stealth at least, can span Skill Ranks to increase their Stealth proficiency to Expert at 3rd Level, Master at 4th Level, and Legendary at 5th Level???

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m kind of hoping that tomorrow’s blog won’t be Druids, just because we already learned so much information about them lately. I couldn’t imagine that a Druid blog would reveal much information at this point that isn’t just a recap. Still, it would be nice to have it all in one Blog and to see some more Druid Artwork.

I’m personally hoping that we’ll see Rangers tomorrow. We already learned some stuff about Animal Companions. We learned some bits of information about TWF such a Double Slice and Archery such as the Volley Trait. We’ve even seen some Monster Statblocks for the sake of Favored Enemy! So now would be perfect opportunity for Harsk with all of his Dwarven perfection to show us what Rangers will be bringing to the table.

Aramar wrote:
ElSilverWind wrote:
Aramar wrote:
If you happen to be an artisan who takes a commission for a particular item; in order to pay for Crafting the item you would pay half of the item's price up front, and the rest if you want to be done after 4 days. Unless, as a cunning PC, you are going to do a mark-up of the price to earn a profit from the NPC with the commission, you won't have earned anything if you complete the item in the default 4 days. You would need to intentionally take longer to craft in order to make a profit. Am I understanding this correctly?

Remember, unless you’re crafting the item for charity or whatnot, you would be selling the item for full price in PF2. The customer would pay you half of the cost for the item up-front for materials, then the other half once they have received their item. If they specify that they want that item quickly made, the customer would need to pay that extra fee.

So let’s say that your customer wanted to purchase a 200 sp set of Expert Quality Scalemail.

100sp up front, then 100sp once the item is delivered that would be done in let’s say 2 weeks (14 Days). A 100sp profit for you.

But your customer really wants that armor as soon as possible. Crafting that armor in 4 Days requires an additional 100sp worth of additional materials.

So now the customer pays 200sp upfront, then another 100 sp once they have received the item. A 100sp profit for you.

Ah, so you're saying there is a mark-up, since in the latter case this NPC is paying full price plus an extra 100 sp as an acceleration fee.

I imagine the same would apply to PC's looking to purchase custom/unavailable items, with a mark-up of 10%-50% depending on how quickly they want it.

Exactly! Although we’ll need to see how much a Crafter can cut down on the time required to craft a magic item before we throw out any definitive numbers, 150% of the original price of the item would realistically be the highest selling price unless someone was trying to scam the buyer.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DropBearHunter wrote:

4 days to get the +5 worth of magic into the masterwork sword, ok I‘d get that.

but 4 days to create a masterwork sword??
you guys may need to watch some people crafting things and re adjust your time table.

You need only 4 days if you’re not making the entire Sword from scratch. If you’re willing to pay the full price of the item, you’re likely just buying the individual parts of the sword and then spending those days to weld them together, sharpen the blade, etch the rune slots into it, and add personal finishing touches to the weapon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aramar wrote:

If you happen to be an artisan who takes a commission for a particular item; in order to pay for Crafting the item you would pay half of the item's price up front, and the rest if you want to be done after 4 days. Unless, as a cunning PC, you are going to do a mark-up of the price to earn a profit from the NPC with the commission, you won't have earned anything if you complete the item in the default 4 days. You would need to intentionally take longer to craft in order to make a profit. Am I understanding this correctly?

On the other hand, the idea of paying to complete the item faster does make sense to me if often understood as paying other artisans for pre-made components of the item you are crafting (e.g. paying the leather worker for the straps for the armor, a jeweler for the enchanted pommel or rod handle, etc...)

Remember, unless you’re crafting the item for charity or whatnot, you would be selling the item for full price in PF2. The customer would pay you half of the cost for the item up-front for materials, then the other half once they have received their item. If they specify that they want that item quickly made, the customer would need to pay that extra fee.

So let’s say that your customer wanted to purchase a 200 sp set of Expert Quality Scalemail.

100sp up front, then 100sp once the item is delivered that would be done in let’s say 2 weeks (14 Days). A 100sp profit for you.

But your customer really wants that armor as soon as possible. Crafting that armor in 4 Days requires an additional 100sp worth of additional materials.

So now the customer pays 200sp upfront, then another 100 sp once they have received the item. A 100sp profit for you.

If, because you’re really really good at crafting, you can make the armor in 4 or less days without using all of that extra 100sp on extra materials, then you can pocket the leftover as extra profit. :D

3 people marked this as a favorite.

They need those gills to harvest their precious Pearls of Powler from the sea floor.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
1of1 wrote:

Decoding abridged; Friends are good, music is good, bards are good, codes are boring, and Legend of Mana was kind of fun.

Next time on Waiting for Blog Z! 1of1 actually reads the rules instead of condensing them into, "Don't be a butt," after skimming through them. Also unnecessary noises for filler because we need to strech this arch to twenty episodes, and I pay my animators in factory reject ramen and wet saw dust.

This isn’t even sawdust! It is chewed pencil shavings at best!

I’d threaten to strike for better sawdust but the last guy who did got replaced by a Goblin Alchemist and I need this job until the new silver currency rules come into effect so that my copper pieces might actually mean something . . .

*goes back to drawing the in-between frames for your beach episode*

It would be nice if we have some sort of damage increase from weilding 1-Handed weapons 2-Handed. I know that they mentioned the “Two-Handed” weapon trait for the Bastard Sword, but I’m hoping that there will still be some form of mechanical benefit to swinging a Longsword, Morningstar, or Scimitar with 2 hands.

I’m not asking for spoilers, but it would be super nice if a certain handsome purple-faced red-eyed demon monster friend would put my mind at rest and say that at least some kind of appeal does exist for a Longsword user that isn’t holding a shield, 2nd weapon, or spell in his other hand.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Please please please somebody tell me that we aren’t doing “+1 to four stats every 5 levels” instead of “+2s”.

One of the things I’ve been most excited about is the removal of the awkward odd ability scores that don’t effect anything. Everything so far in terms of character creation, enfeebled and similar conditions giving a penalty to rolls, and monster statblocks has led me to believe that we would only be gaining even numbered boosts to ability scores, so that we could effectively translate every bonus as a +1 to the actual rolls.

I’m the “DnD uncle” in my family and have been regularly introducing the kids to the game every year or so at the family reunion and they’re so excited to get that 4th Level Ability Increase in PF1. Then they turn their 18 into a 19, nothing changes, and there’s this palpable feeling of disappointment. The odd ability scores feel exactly like the sort of thing that’s stapled to Pathfinder’s Hip because of 3rd Edition compatibility. It would be so much simpler to explain stats to my players by just removing the actual ability scores and telling them their modifiers instead. And then “+2 to four Ability Scores every four levels” translates to “+1 to four ability modifiers every four levels”.

I don’t want to attack the Core Math of the game too harshly, but does what comes to an effective difference of +2 to a roll at 20th Level really break the game enough to justify the existence of unsatisfying odd ability scores?

Also whether or not it uses Starfinders “+2, only +1 if 18 or older” doesn’t change my stance on the subject. +1s in a system where bonuses are determined for every 2 points feels dissapointing. If my player increases their constitution by virtue of gaining experience and adventuring, then they’ll always want to see that bonus improve their character in some of way beyond “only 4-5 more levels to go before this bonus actually matters”.

^I’d say it depends on when you’d generally have your players roll initiative in PF1. If your players are aware of enemies, but the enemies are not aware of the players, and your players are intending to fight the enemies, then “Encounter Mode” has effectively started. Just without the enemies being aware of the party yet.

If you want to be in Boar Style going into every combat, just say that “I assume my Boar Stance as we talk to the grieving widow”. Then you can probably even use athletics/acrobatics to determine your initiative once the elderly woman rips off her face to reveal that she was actually a werewolf the whole time!

I’m glad to see familiars are being reworked. Hopefully People with enough ranks in Spellcraft or Use Magic Device can use a Skill Feat to acquire one. It always saddened me how few options there were for a Cleric to get one. Also if improved Familiar is still in the game, PLEASE remove the “caster level” requirement that made it really confusing whether or not Rogues and Alchemists could have Pseudodragon familiars.

And also please remove the individual buffs depending on the animal idea. As soon as that accursed Greensting Scorpion came out, I had to homebrew the bonuses away just so my players would considering picking something that WASN’T the +4 Init on 6 legs.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
@Fuzzypaws: That would be a solution. But at that point what's different between a stance and a domain power? We've got martials with spells that we pretend aren't spells. That would be even worse.
Perhaps Stamina can be a smaller but quickly regenerating resource? As such a dedicated martial can hold a physically demanding stance for a period of time less arbitrary than "encounter length" can do this many encounters a day but can't walk around constantly tensed and ready to go.

At that point it seems like you’re introducing an entire new subsystem into the game with its own ruleset to keep track of that offers no mechanical benefit other than avoiding a particular phrasing that you don’t care for.

I’m concerned enough as it is that “Open” and “Press” traits making combos and the versatile “pick at the start of each day” are going to make fighters too complex for new players as it is.

Fuzzypaws wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
I really, sincerely, deeply doubt Haste gives an extra action. That massively favors casters by doubling the number of normal spells they can cast in a round, allowing metamagic on the strongest spells (something that is available in limited form as a Cleric capstone), and allowing a chain-casting universalist Wizard to move during their chain of free spells.
You're probably right, but I'm still sort of hoping Haste gets simplified down into something similar to a straight +1 action buff. I guess we'll see what they do with it.

Starfinder Haste gives a bonus move action, rather than a bonus attack or general action. I expect the same will be true in PF2, at least at the base level - a bonus action that can only be used for Stride, Stand Up and other such actions. A higher level heightened version may potentially grant an actual unrestricted bonus action, though.

As for crossbows, I'm going to second that I would like them to be the high-accuracy, high-damage option to stand apart from the faster weaker plinking of a regular bow.

And as I've said elsewhere, I would love if ALL weapons, so-called "simple" weapons like the Crossbow included, got better in the hands of someone with higher ranks of proficiency in that weapon group...

I believe that it was mentioned somewhere that “Slowed 1” is a condition that reduces the number of actions a creature can perform by 1 (might have been when they were talking about Zombies?). It makes sense that Slow would inflict the Slowed 1 condition, and that Haste would grant the Hasted 1 Condition. It could even go Slowed 2 -> Slowed 1 -> Normal -> Hasted 1 -> Hasted 2.

Casters do get more powerful when Hasted, but I doubt anyone would complain that the Wizard is casting more party-wide buffs. And who’s to say that the improved action economy of the Cleric capstone wouldn’t work with the Hastened 1 Condition. Casting a 3 action Reach Scorching Ray Spell plus another 2 action Heal Spell with a free Empowered Metamagic sounds like what I’d expect from a 20th Level Hastened 2 Cleric.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t exactly get the idea that only Composite Longbows should be a viable ranged weapon because Legolas used one. Like, what if I want to play a character with a ranged weapon who ISN’T Legolas?

I mean, Hawkeye is cool and all, but if my player wants to build Bullseye using Throwing Daggers, then telling my player to just play Legolas instead isn’t going to be fun for the player.

I mean, even Paizo thought that a Dwarf Ranger using a Heavy Crossbow would be a cool idea. It IS a cool idea. But it was just so mechanically underpowered that Pregen Harsk became a meme.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

Well, at least the wizard gets more spells per day than the cleric, one way or another.

You made the universalist just directly better than a specialist, because their bonus spell slots per day from the focus are far more flexible than the specialist slots. It comes down to the specialist only gets 1 extra spell per day over the universalist which is not as good as the universalist's huge flexibility, and the school power which is probably not going to be as good as some of the feat options. Not particularly happy with that.

The Universalist is pretty great (whereas in PF1 it was definitely a poor choice compared to a specialist), but I don't think it's far and away better than the specialist because of an interesting nuance of how the focus spells work.

Compare a universalist who prepared fireball, haste, and dispel magic to a transmuter, evoker, illusionist, or abjurer who prepared fireball, haste, dispel magic, and invisibility sphere. If the adventure needs either an extra fireball, an extra haste, or an extra dispel magic, the universalist is set, but if the adventure needed the invisibility sphere, the specialist had the advantage. Getting to pick from a list of three to double is definitely better than adding a fourth (particularly if the specialist ever decides to double up), but then the specialist gets that extra spell on top. I feel that they are pretty comparable options.

I’m a bit confused by this and would appreciative of some clarification. So I have this right,

Universalist: Dispel Magic, Fireball, Haste + choice of Dispel Magic, Fireball, or Haste.
Evocation Specialist: Dispel Magic, Haste, Invisibility Sphere + Fireball

Unless I’m misreading this, it comes across that Universalists will be casting multiple uses of the same spell because how Arcane Bonds work, while Specialists are more suited to having a wider selection of spells prepared prepared. Because if they had chosen to prepare a 2nd Fireball, Universalists would have been the better choice. Doesn’t that seem kind of backwards?

I’m concerned that Specialist players will feel like they’re forced to spread out their spells known more to maximize their niche, while Universalists will be more pressured to become One Trick Ponies.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
In addition to traps, I would love for someone with a high enough proficiency in Nature to be able to "disarm" hazards, and for a high enough proficiency in Religion to be able to "disarm" haunts.
Roll to disarm the erupting volcano?

Calling it now. Legendary feat for Bluff. Road to El Dorado adventure!

15 people marked this as a favorite.

The real question that this blog provokes, that somehow hasn’t been asked yet is:

“If a Marilith devotes all of her actions to performing her “Spin2Win” for enough turns, can she gain a Fly Speed?”

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This all looks amazing!

The flat bonus damage to hitting a weakness reminds me of Monster Hunter in all of the best ways.

I can’t wait to build a Ranger with two 2 Frost Short Swords and shred a Red Dragon into itty bitty chunks! :3

Fellow nerds, I’m sure that Andrew and Luis are lovely people, but if we would have spread out the donations a little more evenly, we would have hit the milestones for each class already.

Unless Paizo would just be cool saying 2,000 total is good enough for each class to get the extra blog.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

While it wouldn’t likely break the game, it’s just an extra bonus that pushes SAD classes an extra notch above MAD classes, which is what the new system appears to be addressing.

There’s little reason why a Wizard WOULDN’T pick a 20 Intelligence for DCs over a 12 in Strength. It’s an pretty much a non-decision, which is also what the new design is trying to avoid.

My opinion on the matter is that I think people just like the “feel” of a 20 in their main stat, regardless of how important the bonus will actually be. The new design doesn’t accommodate that option (yet. I’m sure we’ll see +4 “stat” Monstrous Ancestries in Ultimate Ancestries, or even the 1st Beastiary), so people are fixated on having the 1 option taking away, instead of the 10 or so new options available to them.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder 2 Featuring Dante from Devil May Cry

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Shnungeons and Schnagons!


Disparity: A Tale of Martials and Casters

Findervania: Symphony of the Path.

Murder Hobo Simulator 2018

Bravely Path: Where the Fairy Finders

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Reece wrote:
After a week like this there needs to be the softest of softballs for the Friday blog. Like, just a picture of a kitten holding onto a branch that says, "Hang in there" underneath.

Great idea! :D

It’ll be the Falling Damage Blog.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it kind of just feels like the same old Paladin and Alignmenf debates of PF1 to me.
: /

The crowd needs something new to excite them.

*takes center stage and addressss the audience*

For where I ask you, is the creativity?
The drama?
Where is.
Bard Blog?!

*cue Paizo to enter Stage Left*

I’d like to add in my love and support for Paizo along with the others in this thread.

I believe that as long as we provide good feedback for them to tweak a few things, PF2 will be a great game possibly even better than PF1. Which says a lot because PF1 is currently my favorite TTRPG! : )

3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Rings, amulets, belts, and the already stacked body/chest items all seem reasonable to stack.
So how many belts will you allow? 2? 5? 20? 30? 50? So long as you impose a limit on how many items can be worn in any individual slot slots haven't been removed from the game, you've simply increased the number of items allowed per slot (on a slot to slot basis).

I say that if you have enough resonance to attune 50 different belts, have the bulk to wear 50 different belts, has the Silver Pieces for 50 different magic belts, and can find 50 different magic belts with effects that don’t overlap to make the others redundant, then go for it.

Yeah you may look silly, but who cares? You’re clearly proven yourself to be powerful enough to disregard the opinions of mere 1-belters.

This is is how my Rogue who walked around with some 15+ Ioun Stones hovering around his head at all times felt about it.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

We know that weapons go up to +5, so it makes sense to have to-hit bonuses built in even if they don't stack.

Exactly how that works remains a mystery.

Is that +5 to hit? If so, then perhaps my suggestion that Master Quality = 3 Slots and Legendary Quality = 5 Slots may hold some weight?

Legendary Quality Longsword would be +3 to-hit Item Bonus, and have 5 slots. Then affixed with 5 Potency Runes, that would be +5 to-hit Item Bonus and overtake the Item Bonus from Quality.

Resulting in a Legendary Longsword of Potency (5) that has a +5 Item Bonus to-hit and deals 5d8 Damage.

Man, all of this talk of weapon slots and armor slots really makes me want to play Monster Hunter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could someone please clarify this for me?

Logically, the +1 to hit from an Expert Quality Dagger and the +1 to hit from a Potency Rune must stack.

An Expert Quality Dagger gives the weapon a +1 to hit and has 1 slot to affix a Rune into. You need to have Expert Quality to have 1 Rune Slot (presumably 2 at Master, and 3 at Legendary).

A Potency Rune gives the weapon a +1 to hit and 1 extra damage die. A Rune can only be affixed to a weapon that has at least 1 available slot.

Therefore, an Expert Dagger with a Potency Rune gives the wielder +2 to hit and deals 2d4 Damage.

If the bonuses overlap (so only +1 to-hit), then there is no reason to write down that the Potency rune gives a to-hit bonus. Assuming Master has 2 slots and Legendary has 3, you can’t exceed the Quality bonus from the weapon with potency runes. So a Master Quality Dagger with 0, 1, or 2 Potency Runes would still always give a +2 to hit.

UNLESS! Master Quality gives 3 Rune Slots and Legendary Quality gives 5. Which would align neatly with PF1’s design where weapons could go to +5 and then have +5 worth of Weapon Qualities added.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Yes, but if the spell can conduct through the plate armor to them (Shocking Grasp being the most obvious example), then it actually isn't harder. Spells like this should be vs Touch AC. Spells that don't conduct through armor should be against Normal AC.

In PF1, Shocking Grasp already gives you a +3 Bonus to hit the opponent if they’re wearing metal armor.

I think spells that sensibly would “go through” armor will include some kind of bonus to offset the armor’s built-in Touch AC.

Otherwise, for spells like Ray of Frost or Harm, it makes some sense that the armor could be thick enough to absorb the impact before it touched the person inside.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
1of1 wrote:

A new day! A new dawn! A new question!

Why does my house smell like bleach!?

You ate your spinach and mozzarella sandwich while wearing a white shirt, and ended up spilling pesto sauce all over it.

You had to pull out the heavy duty cleaning supplies to get those stains out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Mats Öhrman wrote:

Have we seen any evidence for cantrips who are *not* blasts?

Yes. Shield, Prestidigitation, and Tanglefoot are cantrips.
As is Light.

Detect Magic as well.

Dasrak wrote:
ElSilverWind wrote:
With the new Spellcasting Progression, I would like to see dedicated damage Spells to be more impactful in PF2 because we have fewer of them per day.

I've run the math on blasting based on the currently available information and it doesn't look good. While new information may change the analysis, right now PF2 blasting looks weaker than PF1 core-only blasting, which bodes poorly because blasting was pretty much unviable until the APG came out.

The big problem is that blasting is a very "spammy" playstyle that requires you to keep casting until combat is over, whereas a more conventional controller caster would stop casting once everything was under control and the martials could clean up. This meant blasters needed to expend more spell slots, and were more reliant on using lower-level spell slots to get through the day as a result. PF2 has fewer spell slots in total, and blast spells don't automatically increase in damage with level so lower-level slots are also much weaker. And based on my numbers, their damage is also lower than PF1 blasters. I don't really see a way that PF2 blasts can be viable with numbers like that.

Hmm . . . While I’m a bit saddened to see those numbers, I’m hopeful that there are Class Feats that we haven’t seen that will help make up the difference. Otherwise, let’s all be sure to test out Blaster builds as thoroughly as we can and give our feedback. If it just needs a numbers adjustment, that should be a fairly reasonable change to make during the playtest period.

As for Blasters requiring more spells to burn to be viable, I’m not sure that that’s something that realistically COULD be balanced in one class, outside of giving Wizards/Sorcerers some kind of “Channel Damage” pool devoted purely to Blasting.
If we inflate the spell slots just to give blasters “enough” blasts per day, then we either need to nerf every other Spell to require casting it every round to be balanced, or we’re just extending how long the Not-Blaster Casters can go without running out of spells and not actually solving the issue, because the Blaster will still run out sooner.

Where is the Kineticist when you need them?

1 to 50 of 195 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>