Elleth's page

683 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 683 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Indeed, like that Kineticist talent in PF1 "Kinetic Form" which has you surround yourself with a whole bunch of the appropriate element in a vaguely humanoid form. Obviously, this should increase how big you are(this is one of the few ways to become Huge in PF1),since you are now surrounded by literal tons of rock or whatever, but it should not make you stronger (because the rocks aren't you) or decrease your armor class (because, again, the rocks aren't you).

So now we can recreate Kinetic Form by stating only what it does, not what it doesn't do in addition to what it does.

Welp. Time to consider designing a homebrew kineticist using the barbarian or monk chassis and the weapon trait patterns.

KageNoRyu wrote:
Hmmmm makes sense at least until later on. 3 attacks per round could produce enough for up to 6 dents a round. Do you use a to hgit roll (what dc?) to hit a wall?

If you wanted to specifically use an attack to hit I'd use the wall of X spells to determine appropriate AC:

  • AC 10, TAC 6 for an easy to grip/impact/slice surface (wall of force, wall of stone, wall of thorns)
  • AC 10, TAC 8 for difficult to contact surfaces (wall of ice).

  • 2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I like the 10 minute buff consideration, esp with the 10 minute rest options.
    I appreciate stuff being calibrated down to try and balance for combat, but it is a little silly having somebody gain superpowers, or turn into a bear, or summon a creature (if this is in the running too) for only a minute. And I suspect that this is a change that could help reinvest the only frequent player of mine who dislikes the system.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
    I assume the excessive version is the case since this would actually give the create a bit of versatility when it comes to casting (just changes the source staff and you change the spell repertoire).

    Incidentally, I really like the Transmutation Staff here, because of how Humanoid Form can be used by an unusually lucid demilich to take on the appearance of how they were in life.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Big things I've liked from the start:

  • I love love love rituals, so I'm glad they're still in (though I'd like skill feat options of unlocking rituals).
  • Action economy is something I love.
  • Monster design, monsters have fun abilities. I find them interesting to run, esp pleb tier ones designed to be crushed.
  • Weapon traits.
  • Modular class design.
  • Plenty of jumping points in the system to inspire or help homebrewing for me.
  • The four magical traditions, and their associated essences.
  • The alchemy system being a thing, with lots of varied items tied into it properly.
  • The rogue. Everything about the rogue.
  • Heal/MM spell design.
  • Weakness.
  • Concealment, sensed, and unseen. As well as how they interact with each other.

    Changes I've liked:

  • Stealth catching foes flat-footed. This was a big one for me.
  • Death of signature skills, my most disliked bit of the system.
  • Brute rogue.

  • 5 people marked this as a favorite.

    I very much like this change. Things costing gold by default was hideously immersion breaking for me, especially as a GM who likes worldbuilding.

    Lady Melo wrote:
    I believe perpetual bombs may not be intended for damage as much as for utility/debuffing.

    Minor thunderstone, smoke bomb, powerful alchemy. It takes till level 8 but this sounds very funny and very obnoxious. Your suggested minefield tactic with delayed bomb would also expand the toolbox of obnoxiousness hear. Flashbang field is precisely the sort of thing I would be happy for players to come up with.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Tridus wrote:
    Dasrak wrote:

    Yeah, two-handed weapon clerics just have some action overhead on the following turn to do it, but sword-and-board clerics are screwed.

    I just really hope Paizo does away with this whole shifting grip thing. It feels like someone is adamant that PF2 Wizards are going have the same weapon restrictions as the PF1 Magus did, and the entire system is suffering for these rules. They aren't needed, they aren't wanted, just get rid of 'em and let us shift our grip like we could in PF1.

    Yeah, it's something the game doesn't need.

    any way to interrupt it?

    So I realise this stuff is an out of context combination, but it did give me a rough idea for a more fun way of handling grip-shifting (esp given that so many people hate it right now).

    Make it a free action, but with the manipulate trait so that it interacts with entangled, restrained, and AoO.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Thematically I think I'd be cool if ranger spells were handled like ki powers.

    I don't actually like rangers being spellcasters by default, but it would be a nice option.

    That said, I'll confess to just very much liking the place the Monk is in right now in general. Which is funny, as it was one of the two classes I was most concerned about prior to the playtest dropping.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:

    I really hate Unburdened being turned into a heritage. A lot of the stuff in 1.4 was good, but I really hate that.

    I was happiest about signature skills being removed.

    About the Barbarian rage, you're getting on average .38 more rounds of rage per use of the ability, so I consider that an improvement (and now there's design space for feats to extend it even more.) I honestly never liked how Rage was only ever 3 rounds, now you have a ~44% chance of getting more than 3.

    Still happy about the death of sig skills.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Honestly I think this sounds like a fun tactic that lets players feel clever.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    Ki Rush has verbal casting, so you have to make noise as you move to gain concealment?

    I mean I think I'm fine with annoying everybody else with "whoosh", "nyoom", or "hyperdrive, engage"

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I very much like Ki Rush, and Chirurgeon makes me very, very happy.

    As an asides. While the PF1 Investigator didn't exactly grab me (despite being formed from thematic favourites), taking into account how medicine can be used for analyze forensics, I actually very much like the idea now of alchemist MC-ed into rogue.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    I feel like I have three strong opinions here:

  • Heavy armour needs to be far less punitive.
  • Armour in general could do with feeling a lot more interesting. Positive traits would handle this.
  • Class features that bump armour prof probably shouldn't just bump heavy. I want to be able to do unusual stuff, like a light armour pally. Without having to neglect class features.

  • 4 people marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:

    I'm wondering if we couldn't redo armor so traits are positive like they are with weapons and give heavier armor some "damage mitigation" effect like shields have.

    Like the reasons to use heavy armor being solely:
    - your class gives better proficiency in heavy armor
    - you can't afford much dex

    Is consistently irritating.

    I would honestly love positive trait armour.

    Positive trait weapons are amazing.
    I think it would be really fun to decide to build a knight, and actually be able to geek out over equipment choices for stylistic reasons.

    Ediwir wrote:
    I could also dig some weak 1-act spells. Magic Missile and Shield come to mind, but Heal and Inspire Courage are definitely powerful for the time they take...

    Coming from 5e, I really like PF playtest Message.

    A big part of that is the lack of a need to point. I feel like if I stuck it on a Rogue I'd wind up with a weird Shadowrun infiltration adept. Take mindlink, and maybe knock, lock, and hypercognition, and I feel like I have exactly the sort of arcane trickster I want to play.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Captain Morgan wrote:

    If I was going to houserule climbing creatures, I'd probably have you roll against their acrobatics DC, either rolling athletics or acrobatics depending on what I felt was most appropriate to that situation. I'd probably wouldn't penalize the monster's AC in any way, or attacks against most folks, but I might penalize its attacks on you. And I'd probably let them use the normal break grapple/escape check rules.

    Not really gonna be relevant for DDD, but it seems pretty workable in my own games. Certainly seems easier than trying to beat the CMD of bug creatures in PF1.

    Also. Depending on the final chassis on the game, it might be fun to redirect crit failed attacks against a climber to the attacker, provided that the attacker is the creature being climbed.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Anybody got a link to the stream?

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I wouldn't object to using other rules to climb onto monsters, but I'm not convinced that should give the grabbed condition. If you see what I mean?

    As grappling currently works, if it worked better on large creatures it would make you better at nerfing them (higher chance for both Grabbed and Restrained to be inflicted, and a lower chance of them reverse grappling you). I have absolutely zero issues with some alternative maneuver that gives you a circumstance bonus on attack rolls or whatever against a creature you're hanging onto (with a likely circ bonus to do so for creatures of appropriate size), but I really don't think this should be the same thing as grappling.

    Yeah. I've been planning with spell points so far.

    I am a little worried still if focus happens, with regards to every class running off charisma.

    shroudb wrote:

    One of the good aspects of Gish Bard is that inspire Heroics is a free action power (see: not a cantrip) that's tied to a 1 action cantrip that either way you want to use.

    What this means basically is that you gain a 1 action activator for Magical striker.

    Magical striker imo is the true essence of a Gish in this edition, and being able to proc it while getting a stacking +2 (on average) attack and damage on top of it is really great.

    Oh this is fun.

    And to think I was previously happy enough with a Ki-strike ki monk-wizard idea.

    Depending on character level, this could be relatively reliable for a character with the 9th level human feat for a second MC without prerequisites, so you can dabble with both sorcerer and fighter/ranger?

    Hero points are one of the few things I currently do not like in the playtest.

    Funnily enough, at face value they're loosely similar to a system I actually loved - Edge, from when I played Shadowrun 5.

    I suppose it might be worth it for me to consider just homebrewing in an adaptation of Edge, if hero points as are make it in to the final game?

    Edge93 wrote:
    He also has a Holy Rune, and once we learned from dev posts that you can price weakness multiple times with a single attack he has been WRECKING things as his blows are both Cold Iron and Good. Even before that his high accuracy and d10 blows were really doing work.

    I'm going to be perfectly honest, and I kind of feel sorry for the demons? I mean demons are jerks but this just feels sad for them, seeing their faces kicked off by some pointy eared little rascal.

    Probably spoiler box it to avoid spoiling the monster defensive stats for players, but how much damage was that monk even doing per kick?

    Also for OP.
    Personally I'm not really sure it's a huge issue that it's harder to inflict the Grabbed condition (and thus catch flat-footed) upon a humongous demon than on a small toddler?
    I realise that it's physically easier to touch a big monster, but I can't say it would sit well with me for it to be EASIER to grapple a creature for being bigger.
    Otherwise, pretty much everything Morgan said.

    Emn1ty wrote:

    I think simply differentiating the Sorcerer's powers via bloodlines (rather than just swapping out their spell lists) is the best way. As it stands the powers are very lackluster and don't truly scream Sorcerer. There seems to be a distinct lack of passive abilities in Sorcerer Bloodlines and many other magical class features.

    I think the Druidic Orders actually provide the necessary flavor that Sorcerer bloodlines presently lack.

    Just take a look at the Storm Order. It gives you a skill (bloodlines do that, I'm good there). It gives you a Feat (Storm Born which has nice storm-themed flavor). And it gives you Tempest Surge.

    Then look at the closest equivalent for Sorcerer, the Fey domain. It gives you a couple trained skills, swaps your entire spell list for Primal, and then gives you some spells that are spooky, fey-like spells. The initial power isn't too different or unique than other spells at that level and honestly you may as well use Sleep as it's better in general. Other than that, there's little direction for the kind of Sorcerer you are.

    Maybe when there are more bloodlines this will change, but thematically they feel week and don't really define the characters that much (though they are far and above better than the current Domains.

    Orders really would make an interesting basis here. I think it would have the plus side of not making a sorc feel like they're missing a level 1 feat - as one gets bundled in with their bloodline.

    I will confess though to really liking the Imperial Sorc, thanks to all of its powers being "cheat magic. You are the magic boss, show those plebs".

    Also agreeing with ClanPsi that 5e sorcs are cool. I normally like complaining about 5e classes not being quite my jam, but unique flexibility with magic does fit pretty well with the thematics of sorc.

    So I guess some weak passive bloodline effects (e.g. fey sorcs getting circ bonuses to certain things based off terrain, or dragon sorcs being able to sometimes apply a conditional bonus to the damage of spells in a type appropriate to their dragon), or unique metamagics might be fun. Either way it could be handled the order way with regards to making the abilities level 1 feats that might work better for their bloodline.

    Thematically though I think PF2 sorcs are really great so far.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I mean I don't even run games in an established setting outside of this playtest, nor do I particularly intend to stick with Golarion after it, but I actually really quite like pathfinder's daemons - they're relatively interesting and distinctive.

    Demons and devils are alright, but I'm a bit soured on them due to the fighting due to different alignments thing from D&D, and they don't strike me as super duper original in comparison (though, I do quite appreciate that PF demons have a thematic basis in sins).

    I do kind of like asura as well though. To a lesser degree qlippoths, but that's mostly for aesthetic and some minor divergence from demons.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    ENHenry wrote:
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    ENHenry wrote:

    Stu Venable from the Happy Jack's RPG Podcast has always said, "Always be listening in case your players have a better idea than you do." This applies both for things that complicate their lives, as well as things that add awesome details to the arising story....
    I generally agree, but if there is too much of that, and things are only established through play, and the multiverse is in some sort of stasis until the PCs interact, that can damage campaign integrity, for me.

    I would counter that, if the players are always having better ideas than their GM is, that the GM should probably do something about that. ;-)

    I find that "well, if that is what you want" strikes an inordinate amount of fear into some of my players, with regards to their ideas. :/

    Ediwir wrote:
    Absolutely. Cone of Cold has an action-based metamagic, but I can’t recall many others...

    Thanks for pointing this out. I completely forgot about this.

    Banishment, 5th level Gentle Repose (also costs money), 2nd level Lock (also costs money), 6th level Restoration (also costs money) all also add an action.

    Definitely would love to see more of this variable action usage, albeit more for reasons like Cone of Cold, Heal, Harm, Magic Missile, or Banishment.

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    WatersLethe wrote:
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    Every PC in Pathfinder is and has always been magical (because the world itself is) it's just that many of them do not have spells.

    I'd like to take the opportunity to expand on this, because I know it can ruffle some feathers.

    "Every PC in Pathfinder is magical" is another way of saying "Every PC is extraordinary from a real world viewpoint"

    A fighter being able to meaningfully harm an animated mountain with a sword doesn't require a spell, but it's quite clearly not a mundane feat.

    Given that magic exists in the setting, it's easiest to say it's some kind of suffusing background magic that allows these feats and call it a day. You could say that, actually, it's an inherent property of Pathfinder PCs to grow strength and sturdiness far beyond that of Earth Realism, but you'll quickly find that there's no meaningful distinction between that and magic.

    You can play a character who doesn't like or trust magic and certainly doesn't cast spells, but they're also a character who grew up on a planet that acts as a cage for an apocalypse god.

    It's not a stretch for me that the barbarian can grow superhuman muscles that let him choke out a tarrasque and the rogue developed superhuman skills that lets him defy physics in other ways. You don't have to call it magic, but from day 1 everyone has started on a path that takes them to truly incomprehensible from an earth perspective heights of ability.

    One thing that was really nice to see as a GM was my player's reaction when he wondered out loud "wait. Is the barbarian basically a muscle wizard?"

    Ediwir wrote:

    Apparently, major changes are coming to Alchemist this Monday.

    I'll stop whinging until they hit (and reprise soon after).

    I am really hoping that reworked alchemist is something I love. I love the new rogue, if one of my other thematic favourites is something I love, then this will be a double win for me.

    I really like the alchemy system principle it has going right now, but the actual class definitely needs some tweaking.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I kind of like how the most sensible featless twf is to fight with whatever in your main hand and an agile weapon in your second hand. Like Rapier+ Main Gauche is a plausible, realistic weapon combination that is encouraged in PF2 by the twf rules but was a bad idea in PF1.

    I also like the dwarven equivalent:

    Dwarven waraxe, offhanding clan dagger.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    MER-c wrote:
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    MER-c wrote:
    What if we did more of an Inheritance Cycle style where magic takes as much energy as the mundane task you are replacing. Thus making it risky to try and one shot an entire horde of enemies because you might kill yourself in the process
    Spellcasting tied to HP depletion?
    It would be interesting, like you can cast a normal spell of your caster level but if you want to heighten it you take an amount of damage equal to the level you heighten it to or your character level

    One of the few things I came away from Shadowrun really liking about the system was the spellcasting system.

    It wouldn't work here, but it definitely works sort of like the Inheritance type. But I like it more as you can use basic probability to clearly cast at whichever level of risk you're up for.

    TL;DR you pick which spell to cast, and how many to cast at once. Pick the level of each spell (spells don't have levels by defaults, costs relative to their level), roll for each spell, and then roll a resistance check (shadowrun so dicepool. More dice you have, the more confident you can be of what exactly your tolerance is) against backlash from casting for every single spell you cast then. Below a certain amount of unmodded backlash it's nonlethal damage, above it it's lethal damage (both damage tracks accrue penalties for things you do). You can take more backlash in exchange for casting spells with a lesser action, or later unlock methods of reducing the backlash (e.g. with somatic or verbal concentration techiques, or a magical focus)

    Learning a level 1 spell costs 20SP (albeit due to the magical materials. I think it's fair enough to handwave this though), and this is allowed to be from being in conversation with the tutor throughout.

    In spellcasting services a spell seems to cost 25% more if it takes more than a minute to cast. You would need to spend an hour learning the spell, so I think it's a fair bet. So 25SP might be about right?

    Incidentally, this is 2 less than what it costs to just hire out somebody to magic missile something. So feel free to take that into account.

    BrotherWon wrote:
    Hi, guys on the question here how I read it. When you cast a non-cantrip spell, so there are 3 casting actions at most in this spell so that being said the first MM from each casting should get the bonus the resulting bonus missiles are not cast just splintered from the original 3 and as such do not receive the bonus. Tell me what you think.

    It's the same casting of a spell. The casting is from the first action to the last action, everything in that being the spell. You just get to choose how long the casting of MM is.

    Also that seems like a very silly and likely broken idea for a fixed turret of magic missile - it not following the all in one turn clause, and having an upper number of actions according the number of resources you spend on it.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    EberronHoward wrote:
    But don't all the caster classes have customization built into them? Sorcerer Bloodlines, Wizard Spell Schools, Druid Orders, Cleric Domains, and Bard Muses all offer ways to differentiate one PC of the same class from another.

    They do. It just doesn't necessarily feel like that. My wizard player before he left the playtest (2 of my players hated it, 4 seem to really like it) felt like human was the only reasonable choice for his level 1 non-universalist wizard, simply because he didn't get to pick a feat at level 1 (I think cleric and druid seem better at face value to players there though?)

    Whereas say, the barbarian clocks in and gets to celebrate the fact he can catch fire and take advantage of the action economy with sudden charge.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Knuck wrote:
    shroudb wrote:

    pf2 doesn't do well the 1vs many boss encounter.

    the reason is not action economy or anything like that, the reason is Accuracy.

    a hard boss encounter vs a single boss would end with casters only applying their spells 1/5 times, martials hitting just once very 2 rounds, and etc.
    on the boss side, it will totally demolish what it strikes, but it strikes not too often.

    the end result would be an encounter that's not enjoyable from either side:
    a monster that acts way too little (comparatively) and players that do too little on the monster regardless of their abundant actions.

    True, really true. A party+4 threat numbers needs to be adjusted..

    ehi, we can create a "reaction/free/ability action list that costs xp with each option appended on the boss, of max party lvl+3 or +2! (more hp=10xp, movement reaction=20xp, and so on)
    that could be a good compromise between a dynamic encounter and numbers balance ^^;

    I feel like this sort of thing would work better as a template, and if it alters the difficulty to simply adjust the effective level (much like Elite) of the boss, the template in part scaling with the original level of the boss.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I kind of want all classes to have a level 1 feat just so we can have archetypes which cost level 1 feats to take so that you can start as one.

    That would be nice.

    I want a level 1 feat for all classes not because I think casters need the buff, but because I think it feels bad to be missing level 1 customisation for a caster player.

    AndIMustMask wrote:
    so... shadowrun-modern? i can kinda dig that. or are we talking magitek?

    Both, I guess.:

    It's shadowrun-modern level tech, roughly. But instead of running on normal tech for the most part, everything runs pretty much entirely on arcane, occult, divine, or primal principles. The main world is a planar hub and the population density is absurd, so it definitely has the Shadowrun Sprawl thing going on a bit. Except like, instead of concrete and steel it's brick and stone facades.

    There are some differences. E.g. lines of communication are way worse as reliable magical communication is probably pretty expensive, so the world is developing way slower than it otherwise should. Also the few patches of environment are less horrific, due to large scale druidic management. Overall it probably looks a bit more Ravnica than 2075 Berlin.

    I will confess to waiting for the final draft of magic items though, as I'd really like to homebrew a high level arcane equivalent to what is basically a cyberdeck. For the rare locations that actually have an arcane information network. Also it would be fun to let the wizard or rogue use their arcana skill to hack. Depending on the role of resonance, I might use item investment in place of passwords

    Charon Onozuka wrote:
    graystone wrote:
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    Like PF1 had a million options, and I think "here's a list of things I am specifically prohibiting, otherwise just ask if you want to take something uncommon" seems more workable than "ask the GM before you take anything at all" or "allow literally anything".
    That works as you KNOW why you are putting things on the list: that isn't the same thing here, as someone else did it for reasons that you might or might not be able to divine. I'm all for a DM having such a 'ask me first' or 'banned' list, but the rarity system isn't that, it's the systems 'ask me first' or 'banned' list. I'd rather see the system give the DM the tools for making their own lists instead of making one for them without any explination on what went into making it.

    As a GM planning to tinker with things when I get back to my own setting, I actually like that there is a base 'ask me first' in the system. The big issue with having the GM be the one to make the entire list is that players are typically going through the official material when selecting options, and not the GM's notes. This can make it very easy for a player to select an option first, with nothing in the official rules to say not to, and only realize later that they weren't supposed to (sometimes in the middle of a session when they try to use it). And lets be honest, after a couple books have been printed, any GM trying to make their own list will have one that is especially long and hard for players to remember offhand (not to mention consuming a massive amount of time to create).

    While it could be argued that it'd be nice to have some sort of traits attached to rarity to call out why something wasn't common (like deity, racial, regional, etc.), overall I view the system as a godsend which will provide a solid base for my own setting customizations & help set player expectations against assuming that every magical item is available in every store they pass, etc.

    Another part of this that I like as I have my own setting, I can handwave some choices for players, while having a sensible way of banning the vast majority of the world from accessing them.

    Like, it is nice to not have to wonder why every single high-end military wizard doesn't just use teleport. That sort of thing has massive worldbuilding distorting effects, and I like actually being able to easily set what does and doesn't warp the world as a whole.

    As for things I actually am planning on tweaking, spellcasting services. Most of them to Common, some staying at Uncommon. Albeit a lot of them aren't actually handled by people.:

    (I asked my players what they wanted out of a setting. All of them wanted high fantasy, but one guy really wanted cyberpunk. The previous setting this follows from was already at approx 20th century tech, and this would be after a 25000 year timeskip for in-story mythology reasons. So, I decided to double down on the magic and make it ubiquitous as the alternative would have probably been a bit tech-heavy to keep everybody else happy)

    So I'm just slowly working out stuff like disintegration chambers for getting rid of hazardous stuff, machines that use about an 18th of Create Food and some Prestidigitation to pop out meals for rich travellers on the go, tamed squirrels and cats that mull around delivering parcels, an obscenely luxurious hotel where every single room is a personally tailored magnificent mansion. Black-market curse-sellers (not exactly unheard of for a group of people to post you a Power Word Blind if they really hate you), etc.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I dislike the thematics and gut reaction with +1/level, but I think I like the effect it has on the game, especially combat.

    1/2 level (more so given that the largest reliable mod without level is something like 15) would definitely be less thematically jarring, esp if it were phrased something like
    "You add your proficiency modifier to your rolls and DCs, which is equal to half your level. Your proficiency modifier counts as 4 lower when untrained, 1 higher when expert, 2 higher when master, and 3 higher when legendary."
    But I suspect it might have some unwanted effects on the relative smushability of weak monsters and deadliness of boss monsters.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    MaxAstro wrote:

    The biggest problem with the Alchemist was forcing them to use Resonance to power their class features, which the Resonance Test makes clear is being fixed.

    That said, I think they should get class DC on all items made with Advanced/Quick Alchemy (basically all infused items) because it just feels bad not to get that until super high level.

    The other thing I would like to see is some sort of cantrip-like at will ability to that they have something to do when they run out of reagents.

    Just personal opinion, but I like the idea of being able to set in your daily preparations a possibly nerfed alchemical item or two that you know to be quick alchemy-able at will, and at various levels getting to prep higher level items for it.

    Dire Ursus wrote:
    RazarTuk wrote:
    Moro wrote:

    However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes.

    I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends.

    I think the biggest issue is that certain fighting styles are locked behind certain classes. Suddenly, you're no longer a bow-wielding Paladin of Erastil, you're a Paladin/Fighter using your Fighter dedication to learn to use a bow.
    Hard disagree. They have actually made it so you don't need feats just to "learn to use a bow". You can effectively use a bow without any combat feats now. No more tax. Erastil paladin taking the Blade Ally and using Blade of Justice with their bow is perfectly viable in combat. No need to take the fighter archetype, although the option is there if you want to be a more combat oriented paladin and sacrifice some of your more "paladin-y" abilities.

    I do think it would be nice to have an alternative to ret strike here though.

    Also less locking in to Heavy armour only, though that might require something like making armours less about raw numbers.

    Dire Ursus wrote:
    No matter how experienced you are. It's still a ton of dice to roll if you do go for the many weak skeleton horde route in combat. Which is perfectly viable since they serve as flanking partners, and general meat shields and barriers for enemies in combat. But yeah. Doesn't matter if you're experienced if you are controller 10 skeletons in a combat on your turn it's gonna take a lot of time.

    I mean it would be nice if something generally considered to be a cool tactic was usable by a relative newcomer without killing the game for everybody else.

    Spellcasting indecision is bad enough.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:

    So I feel like the basic appeal of the other two Rogue techniques are "what if you envision your character to use a weapon that did not work with finesse striker" they want you to be able to have something other than a dead feature.

    Like I wanted to roll up a rogue that used the Elven Curve blade, which is incompatible with Finesse Striker because it's a 2-handed weapon, but works fine with Scoundrel's Feint. I'm going to be feinting anyway for accuracy, so "better feinting" is fine- Plus, since I'm rolling d8s every potency rune makes up another 2 point gulf between Str and Dex in terms of damage.

    On a side note. Not a top end option by any means, but Scoundrel's feint with a rapier and a main-gauche is very thematic. Reactive pursuit and nimble roll or sideside makes it even better there.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Really like the visibility conditions.

    Similarly to you, I'd be fine with having the social conditions axed and/or tweaked and stuck elsewhere.

    Not a massive fan of enervated thematically, but I at least like the name over level drain by a massive margin.

    Fleeing I detest as a common condition, for the same reason I dislike 5e frightened -limits the options of affected PCs for RP reasons, not physical reasons.

    If enfeebled became any stat instead, it would be fun to see things like Ret Strike opened up to flexibility targeting.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

    The PF1 boards were a snoozefest of people posting constantly about how rogues were "underpowered."

    Post after post of people complaining about rogues.
    Now rogues get too much attention.
    Can't win.

    New rogue is a winner for me.

    Elfteiroh wrote:
    Mechagamera wrote:

    You are missing the most important reason to be worried: NPC's don't need to be built with PC rules anymore. Just because the Big Bad NPC can send a 100 skeletons to attack the PC's doesn't mean that a PC should ever be able to get 100 skeletons.

    If I was masochistic enough to design PF2, I would probably give the necromancer a swarm of undead. The mightier the necromancer, the bigger the swarm (or maybe better quality, like having to decide if you want to move from a large to huge swarm of zombies, or change to a large swarm of ghouls). You control a lot of undead with one action, and you don't waste a lot of game time doing so.

    The PF1 troop creature type would fit well here I think.

    That would strike a good balance between "controlling lot of Minions" and "Not boggling down the turns".
    I play with a Necromancer right now in PF1 and his turns are always longer than us because he have to control them all.

    I was so gonna say troop.

    I'm only coming from 5e not PF1, but even there controlling a bunch of individual minions is pointlessly slow. Following minion rules but e.g. being able to heighten an animate dead spell to summon a minion troop could work pretty damn well.

    In normal play it would cap out at controlling three undead swarms, but I think that is reasonable enough. At any rate I think troops would nail the feel without significantly ruining the action economy, balance, or time per turn.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    LuniasM wrote:
    In the case of DPR, the Finesse and Brute builds are roughly equal, with the Finesse build having a nearly-negligible advantage at Levels 1-4. The Finesse build may be better on their second and third attacks with an Agile weapon compared to a Brute with a Longspear or 2H Staff, but they're otherwise very similar.

    While brute rogues could probably do with a few more weapon options, my favourite thing about the longspear rogue is how it later interacts with gang-up and opportune backstab.

    dragonhunterq wrote:
    Elleth wrote:

    Not sure if you still can, but can we get stuff like this spoiler tagged?

    My players haven't played Undarin yet as we're a few weeks behind schedule, and I'd love for certain monsters to not be expected.

    Shouldn't need spoilers in the games masters rules section.

    Whoops. Tired. So used to looking at all the threads I forgot some of them were GM only.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Fuzzypaws wrote:
    MaxAstro wrote:

    I agree with Elleth... and not just because I just realized she shares a name with one of my favorite PCs... :P

    I much prefer a system where monsters and PCs run off the same action economy but monsters have abilities that let them do more with their actions. It's still cheating to make boss monsters work, but it's cheating in a more subtle way that's less likely to break immersion for players.

    Some monsters already have stuff like this in PF2, like the Marilith. I would be happy to see it expanded on and show up on more critters, though :)

    Ngl, I really like how the marilith handled "has a bunch of swords and can hit things in different ways". As a general point on monster design.

    Knuck wrote:

    Yep, some of them have a reaction, but is really limited one, usually an extra attack.

    No repositioning/escaping/utlity ones.
    Expand, expand! ^^

    Bestiary spoilers, players should keep their grubby mitts off:

  • Choker "Yank"
  • Boar demon "greedy grab" (disarm is technically an attack, but I think this counts for the sort of thing you're hinting at)
  • Mutilation demon "tail whip" (tripping to disrupt movement is pretty similar to repositioning in some of its uses, and it can also be used to knock down fliers)
  • Slaver demon "horn snare" (much weaker than the boar demon ability, but still)
  • Devastator "absorb good"
  • Bearded devil "reposition" (note that this one doesn't quite count, as it's typically used on the bearded devil's turn)
  • Erinyes "weeping wound" (this has primary benefits on the Erinyes' turn, so doesn't quite count either)
  • Special mention to Ice Devil's "Tactician of Cocytus", which functionally gives all allies within 100 feet exactly what you are looking for. Not a reaction either way though.
  • Blue dragon "wing deflection".
  • Ancient red dragon "redirect fire"
  • Air elemental "disperse"
  • Earth elemental "crumble"
  • Minor or greater water elemental "vortex pull"
  • Incredibly niche, but the giant "catch rock" ability
  • Gnoll sergeant's "bark orders" gets an honourable mention for similar reasons to the ice devil.
  • Goblin "goblin scuttle"
  • Goblin dog "duke"
  • Grim reaper's "lurking death" definitely qualifies, despite being an attack.
  • Horse "buck"
  • Lich "counterspell"
  • Demilich "contingency"
  • Ice Yai "Icy deflection"
  • Water Yai "shocking douse"
  • Rakshasa "scoff at the divine"
  • Roper "reactive lash" (only really counts as it's a roper)
  • Rust monster "tail trip"
  • Saxra "rebuffing gale"
  • Viper "slink"
  • Spider "spring upon prey" (only before initiative)
  • Star-spawn of Cthulhu "overwhelming mind"
  • Wererat rogue "nimble dodge"
  • Yeti "vanish" (non-combat only)
  • Masterful rogue "sidestep"
  • The actions symbols definitely helped with skimming that.
    Free actions actually seem often even better for this at a glance.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I'm sort of torn.

    I don't particularly lean strongly one way or another for the DC being based off the culprit. I like the idea, but in practice it bogs the game down, and annoys the players who are less than keen on complexity but like knowing what to expect. Given that I want to win players over to this system, and pretty much everybody I know plays 5e, I could stand to gain from less unnecessary complexity.

    On the other hand, I do very much like durability playing in somehow.

    I think my favourite suggestion was allowing various levels of fort training to modify the DC, but I am a little concerned that this would skew the importance of fort.