Has anyone considered the possibility that battle medicine requires MORE than two hands? That may be fertile ground for novel consideration.
If you can’t counteract a slowed condition from a curse with haste then why would you be able to counteract the battle oracles penalties with other effects? Even if you say, “well, obviously armor still counts” then are you equally sure that temporary bonuses still apply? I am not sure where to draw the line as it stands even if “common sense” (which I am unconvinced entirely applies) would omit some possible issues.
You gotta chop the witch’s hands off if only because it sounds like the foundation for some pretty cool heavy metal lyrics.
Unless I'm reading the Runes vs Handwraps pricings wrong (which is an easy possibility) you start to save a bit going Nails over HandwrapsWouldn't etching runes on your nails be no less expensive than buying handwraps?And other items to spend gold on.The intent here is that you can put runes on your nails, and your hands gain those benefits, but they wouldn't apply to e.g. a lizardfolk tail unarmed attack or a goblin's unarmed bite attack, or any special unarmed attacks from a barbarian. It's letting you use runes without having to invest in handwraps of mighty blows, but with the downside that you dont' get the full benefits the handwraps would convey. By Nethys, the Max level hand wraps cost 40k; meanwhile, a +3 potency rune costs 8,935 and a major striking rune costs 31,065. 31,065 + 8,935 = 40,000 The Stiking rune does not include the potency rune (if that is what is tripping you up). At least, I am pretty sure?
Brew Bird is right to my knowledge.
The intent here is that you can put runes on your nails, and your hands gain those benefits, but they wouldn't apply to e.g. a lizardfolk tail unarmed attack or a goblin's unarmed bite attack, or any special unarmed attacks from a barbarian. It's letting you use runes without having to invest in handwraps of mighty blows, but with the downside that you dont' get the full benefits the handwraps would convey. I am confused. Why would you ever choose putting runes on your nails rather than using hand wraps that would also enhance your kicks or whatever? Is it just for people who have 10+ other items to invest?
Honestly, I think both wizards and witches could do with some kind of mechanic for restoring their lost spell receptacle. Like: maybe there could be some kind of ritual for this kind of thing? Maybe witches could access the ritual for free but other classes with lose-able spell lists could hunt it down.
I would be fine if the current weapon proficiencies for this class remained the same but studied strike had different limitations. Like: maybe they could be limited to 1-handed weapons rather than agile/finesse weapons. I feel like an investigator with a truncheon (club/mace) or even a arming sword ("longsword") tracks for me even more than something like an elven curve sword or--for that matter--a spiked chain.
Listen: I ain't no neopagan. Magic ain't real. That said, I just want to play grim-dark spooky witches. I want to play the kind of witches that Hellboy blasts apart with a big revolver and Jack Chick warns you about,
Percentage no. Actual numbers yes.By why would you expect the percentage of monsters with AoO triggered by concentrate actions would increase? If anything, I would expect it to decrease since additional monsters tend to have more niche abilities than earlier monsters as the lifespan of games stretches on and AoO is kinda boilerplate.And we’re getting a whole new Bestiary in a few months as well. My point is this: players will probably not see AoO triggered by concentration checks any more often than they do now. So why does it matter that there will be more monsters? Henro/Gaterie's points still hold.
And we’re getting a whole new Bestiary in a few months as well. By why would you expect the percentage of monsters with AoO triggered by concentrate actions would increase? If anything, I would expect it to decrease since additional monsters tend to have more niche abilities than earlier monsters as the lifespan of games stretches on and AoO is kinda boilerplate.
I guess "roll a will save versus your class DC" would be more symmetrical and wouldn't result in autocrits. I just want to use Int to Study Target (or just not roll), instead of Wis. I feel ya. That would land the investigator in the same trouble casters are in though: monsters tend to succeed their saves
Cackling also strikes me as kind of twee and goofy and maybe something that would be better as an option rather than something intrinsic to the base class. Mechanically, cackle is super niche and it was only a popular choice in 1e because it was actually mechanically good. So to reiterate Deadman's opinion: cackling should be a feat and it should do more for you mechanically. I think it would be neat if Witches could use cackle to maintain a hex and a regular spell as part of the same action, for instance.
It is also kinda silly if you think about it. The road to 4e DnD is paved with avoiding MAD.
I hope the designers go the route of giving intelligence more to do rather than letting investigators choose other key abilities. To bring up one point re:investigator durability, it seems to me like the class is better suited to ranged combat than the rogue is given that study suspect can be used at ranged but flanking needs to be done in melee. As such, dropping con is maybe not the end of the world.
I feel like the class needs to add its intelligence to perception checks in general or at least in pursuit of your "take the case" or whatever. Intelligence oddly seems like a prime dump stat given you already have plenty of skills to begin with.
I kind of imagine it being like the "hammer" end of a kusarigama but somehow modified to be more easily operated in one hand.
Others have given a more measured answer than I offered. Mutagens can indeed be pretty good if you consider them as being primarily a utility tool rather than a combat tool. You can find uses for all of them given the chance. Like: using combine elixir with juggernaut mutagen and an elixir of life can get you out of a lot of scrapes. Cycling that along with revivifying mutagen lets you hold out almost indefinitely. Still, you are going to want to set aside some resources for bombs if you actually want to contribute to ending fights.
If the Alchemst is a casting class, its proficiencies don't really reflect that. You need multiple feats to get all your "spells" to scale with level and use your class DC, and you can't use your primary stat for attacks, on top of maxing out at expert proficiency for said attacks. It seems meant to be a jack-of-all-trades, but in a game that rewards specialization, it's mostly just a "master-of-none".I would argue that alchemist is a casting class in the same way the psion is a casting class in 3.5 DnD. The alchemist is just interacting with a different magic system.Um. Alchemist is not a casting class.This is probably an intentional design choice, but it can leave the class feeling a little lacking as a solo act. Well, DCs don't matter for buffs and most of the alchemist's kit is buffs and stuff that goes off automatically. I think the alchemist could stand to have their class DC go to legendary, but I don't think it actually matters too much save for where it might help poisoners and other niche alchemical items. And yeah: on-level alchemical items are weaker than on-level spells and they need to be since the alchemist gets to use a ton of them every day. Balance-wise, alchemical items need to be better than competing cantrips but still quite a bit weaker than on-level spells. This probably should all be in an alchemist chat rather than a ACG chat though. -w-
Well, bombs get damage on a miss and have extra effects on a hit so I think the bomber is in an okay place mechanically. I have not made a total math breakdown comparing the two, though.You may be right on that, I'm not quite sure either (and people seem to be overall far less critical of the bomber). In that case Alchemists could likely get away with just master proficiency in simple/unarmed. I think it may be a bit more elegant to just expand the Alchemists options for damage rather than giving them "full" attack bonus. The energy mutagen is a step in the right direction (and maybe even a fix by itself) since that would allow melee alchemists to quick-alchemy into fight-long weakness-targeting and extra damage. However, paizo published that mutagen with the uncommon-soft-ban (TM) so you can't really play that reliably. More martial-focused mutagens and elixirs are the better fix, IMO.
Um. Alchemist is not a casting class.This is probably an intentional design choice, but it can leave the class feeling a little lacking as a solo act. I would argue that alchemist is a casting class in the same way the psion is a casting class in 3.5 DnD. The alchemist is just interacting with a different magic system.
If you buy and feed a donkey, you can gain the benefits that are greater than the effect of floating disk any number of times per day. Q.E.D. Donkeys should be banned or at least made uncommon.
If resurrection and teleportation are both problems even in the core setting then they shouldn't be in the game. It is a house rule that Paizo published.Ignoring your pointed use of reductio-ad-absurdum, I want to enjoy the new game though so I think I am allowed to complain. I get you, but it still seems like a weird half-measure. I say this as a GM who has personally ripped out all long-distance teleportation spells from his setting and replaced them with bespoke ritual-like teleportation.
Ignoring your pointed use of reductio-ad-absurdum, I want to enjoy the new game though so I think I am allowed to complain. If resurrection and teleportation are both problems even in the core setting then they shouldn't be in the game. It is a house rule that Paizo published.
Which is useful, but I don't really think it feel great to use. I have a player who has cast nothing but reach electric arc for 5 consecutive sessions. It's the optimal play in most situations. The character is doing fine and contributing to fights, but the player is already turned off of playing wizard.I don't know about that. Reach spell and widen spell can both do a lot to expand the usefulness of certain spells. For instance, the level 5 version of command can target 10 creatures and has a range of 30 feet. Reach spell quadruples the number of squares that command can target.See, I think the interesting magic feats belong in other classes like the sorcerer. Wizards make spells awesome.But metamagic feats arn't awesome, they take your entire action economy and make small improvements to spells. Sure they might be useful, but they arn't awesome and don't feel great to use. Are you actually saying that the character doesn't use any of their spell slots or is this just a comedic overstatement? Your max-level spells are all pretty good when the situation arises and can significantly turn the tides of a fight.
Ignoring your pointed use of reductio-ad-absurdum, I want to enjoy the new game though so I think I am allowed to complain. Well, now I guess we get to have two rounds of ban conversations then: one to cover rarity and one to cover the GM exclusive bans that have always been around. If that is the case then why is rarity a game mechanic to begin with?
See, I think the interesting magic feats belong in other classes like the sorcerer. Wizards make spells awesome.But metamagic feats arn't awesome, they take your entire action economy and make small improvements to spells. Sure they might be useful, but they arn't awesome and don't feel great to use. I don't know about that. Reach spell and widen spell can both do a lot to expand the usefulness of certain spells. For instance, the level 5 version of command can target 10 creatures and has a range of 30 feet. Reach spell quadruples the number of squares that command can target.
Ignoring your pointed use of reductio-ad-absurdum, I want to enjoy the new game though so I think I am allowed to complain.
If I want to build an arcane warrior that needs a ring of wizardry to be effective, I am still not able to expect that. This is maybe more pervasive than you seem to think. For instance, throwing weapon builds are essentially useless later without returning runes (which are common but still an item that acts as a cornerstone of your character's powers).
That is mostly fair but I actually think the rule you are quoting casts MORE doubt on whether a player can expect an uncommon option is attainable rather than seeing those options as being something you can expect to get. MaxAstro's quote includes the words "by default" whereas your quote would imply that there is no "default" assumption but rather taking each case before the GM is the "default". It's a subtle thing but I think Astro's quote alone would build a better case for players "expecting" to be able to attain a given uncommon option. Right now it isn't onerous but more and more rules are going to be uncommon as the game goes on. I just brought it up as an example of where gaining a specific item can wildly effect the viability of certain builds. In fact, I specifically expect paizo to increasingly use the rarity rules system to gate materials to counteract "rules bloat" (which strikes me as silly since people who don't like rules bloat don't really buy new rule books anyways).
What continues to bother me, especially as I've read through the two Lost Omen books is that people buy these books. Pay 40 dollars a book for things they can't use unless the GM says so. There is no wholly player facing product anymore. Its all on the GM which means that the GM either bears a higher expense or you risked buying a fancy book of neat Schrodinger's Character Options. Firearms are kind of a special case since those are specifically called out in 1e as not being allowable in a lot of settings and games. If I want to make a gun character in a medieval fantasy game then maybe I should ask if that fits the setting. Still, that is just one consideration whereas the rarity system touches almost every corner of PF2E. Also, why would you expect a DM to ban pact wizard, though? It seems innocuous for setting reasons. Is that a balance consideration? I ask this because rarity bans are almost always going to come IN ADDITION TO balance bans.
I still believe that my framing is accurate and that you are incorrectly projecting a lot of emotions and opinions on to me. First of all, I am not looking to dislike anything and I am also not looking to be upset. I came in wanting to really like Pathfinder 2e and--indeed--I like a lot of things about it. It is the only TTRPG that I am playing at the moment and it is full of a lot of great ideas. And maybe I am just in a weird situation, but I have generally played most TTRPGs with GMs that allowed access to all available rules except things that they personally thought were broken or did not fit their personal setting. If a rule was published, I did not need to justify my use of it unless it was itself a poor rule in the eyes of the GM. For the most part, I could tell ahead of time if something was "broken" and I wouldn't use it. In general, I could theory craft a whole character without talking to anyone ahead of time. That is one of the things I liked best about PF1E! Exciting new rules would inspire interesting characters and then next time I generally knew I could play that character with most Gms. Uncommon options make that impossible. Any "theorycrafting" then needs to be done under "what-if" conditions. And when I say, "mother-may-I" I am not trying to treat the GM like a stern parent, I rather intend to compare the experience of playing the game to playing a game without any rules save that "what the GM says is true is true". A TTRPG without rules is possible and maybe even quite enjoyable but I prefer to play games with well defined rules. "uncommon" rules are just rules where it is left ambiguous as to whether or not that rule is part of the game.
This just occurred to me when reading through some of the Paizo blogs. Whenever I see something with the "uncommon" tag, I immediately think "well, this might have been neat but it is only usable if I play mother-may-I with the DM". And really, that is essentially exactly the experience I have when I read a homebrew rule online; I know that I will need to justify the use of that rule. I really don't like this. Part of the reason that I kept coming back to Pathfinder is because I liked coming up with new builds and new character concepts as new official rules were released. When I see the "uncommon" tag, I just feel shut down, though. The rule stops being part of "pathfinder" and becomes part of "a version of pathfinder that no one may ever actually play". This was always really the case since any rule could theoretically have been excised by any GM for any reason. "Uncommon" rules are everywhere though and every instance of it is just another "no" that I will need to overcome ahead of time before I bring a character to the table. Frankly, I find it very discouraging. It makes me sad, even. It takes away the joy I used to have in learning new rules and imagining new character because it just makes me think of all the rhetoric and self defense I'd need to engage in before even starting the game. Does anyone else feel the same way? Why or why not? Is this a good or bad thing regarding the rarity system?
I'm sorry, but there are differences between playing harshly and making hit and run tactics with zombies. Monsters have to be played according to their respective intelligence and mindset.No they don't? That is bringing your own values and preferences to the table that another person might not share. And even if you--as a player--value a certain level of simulation in combat, then a GM can always come up with a plot contrivance to play them how he wants; perhaps a necromancer controls the zombies remotely. Spooky! Well, I run my own games that way because that is what I like best and what my players like best. That said, if I was with a GM that liked to run monsters as described above, I would tend to say that the GM in question is not for me rather than saying the GM is playing the game wrong. @Mathmuse What if the orcs are harassing the mage or healer rather than slapping the tank like a bunch of mouth-breathing orcs?
I'm sorry, but there are differences between playing harshly and making hit and run tactics with zombies. Monsters have to be played according to their respective intelligence and mindset. No they don't? That is bringing your own values and preferences to the table that another person might not share. And even if you--as a player--value a certain level of simulation in combat, then a GM can always come up with a plot contrivance to play them how he wants; perhaps a necromancer controls the zombies remotely. Spooky! Also, if you play like a wargame, then why bother rolling Recall Knowledge checks? Just take the Bestiary and check the monsters' statistics. Why play a videogame without looking up everything about the game first? Because not knowing is part of the game for the players. It is also the reason why I have not read through every scenario in Betrayal on the House on the Hill. Then again, if a party wants to run fights with all information 100% above board then that can be fine too. Everyone who plays this game long enough is going to essentially know all the abilities of baseline orcs and goblins anyway. Playing harshly is not playing badly. It's putting a high difficulty level to combats by playing monsters to the best of their abilities, without crossing the boundary of realism. Where realism begins and ends is subjective as is the value of realism to a given encounter or a given party. I know for a fact that there exist groups that run games this way and that is how those groups like to play. Given that people play like this, I think the game would benefit from explicitly describing how ascribed tactics effect the relative challenge of a given fight.
Does my previous post appear to be insulting or provocative in some way? Because I'm detecting a hostile vibe. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Saying that someone's opinions/thoughts make you "cringe" is generally not a positive expression. I would go so far as to say that it is insulting and I was taken aback by what I read as harshness. That said, perhaps I was reading too heavily into your diction. I do get where you are coming from if you prefer a purely collaborative gaming experience. Many peeps like challenge and conflict, though.
Nah b&!~*!~!. You can gather the same magic components and just pray to Gaia. Bam magic. If Gaia is a real-ass conscious being then what you are describing is a god that likes trees and then that superlady is handing out spells to whoever likes trees the best. If there is a god that likes trees then I guess that works. That doesn't mean I need to like it though.
So why not tree magic instead of book magic? Do you have to kill the tree to make it magical?And, unfortunately for us, neither does reading books. Get real, wizards. :p Yes. Yes you do. Until you process the tree in some way it is naught but base grist for the machinations of the cunning and cultured practitioner of the mystic arts.
The GM plays his hardest even in an encounter that is designed to be stacked against him and both sides try their hardest to win. I am sorry that enjoying games in different ways makes you cringe. I bet you have a very hard time on the internet. The CR system is specifically a guideline to create encounters that players will consistently survive and reduce their resources by a reasonably consistent amount. In that way, encounters are "stacked against" the GM who gain enjoyment from playing NPCs to their utmost tactical efficiency. To be clear (and to establish my unassailable rhetorical ethos), I actually don't run my games this way, but I know people who do and I am glad that they enjoy themselves.
I think it is either you do that or you have strict rules guidelines for how monsters should be run and those guidelines should also effect the CR of the encounter. This has always been an issue, really. It just didn't matter as much in PF1E because well build players still finished most fights in one or two rounds anyways.Yeah, I guess it's one of those things taken for granted sometimes that the GM is supposed to role play the enemy actions. But I don't think it's taken for granted this edition, as I said before there's significant book space dedicated to telling the GM to do this. So it's more the GM either being unable or unwilling to follow the game's advice. Well, I get where some other people here are coming from. Like, there is an model of roleplaying games that some people in this thread are describing in roundabout terms where the RP/exploration portion of the game is in some way fundamentally separate from the combat rules. When a fight breaks out, you are now playing a different game; now you are playing a miniatures games where the GM and the players are against each other and that is fun in its own right and perhaps a game that is much more fun for the GM. The GM plays his hardest even in an encounter that is designed to be stacked against him and both sides try their hardest to win. That can be rewarding for the player and the GM. I would say that 4e DnD works pretty well that way, actually. Perhaps PF2E is unfun if you play that way and that is arguably a weakness of the system for groups that like that sort of game. As a side note, I think OP and Collette Brunel (or whatever that poster's name is) would get along well.
And, unfortunately for us, neither does reading books. Get real, wizards. :p If magic were real, you would need someone to teach you how to make the special wiggly fingers in order use it. This makes perfect sense to me. Meanwhile, if magic were real, trees would still use chlorophyll to photosynthesize and otherwise would be useless trash obelisks if we didn't need them for oxygen or food or whatever. I hate tree and I hate that we need trees.
Combat is an abstraction, not a perfect simulation of events. If this is a tactic that works within the abstraction, there's no reason to assume that it is what's exactly occurring narratively speaking. It also means that thinking the tactic is too smart for orcs, or too meta for an in game creature, isn't a worthwhile complaint to level. I think it is either you do that or you have strict rules guidelines for how monsters should be run and those guidelines should also effect the CR of the encounter. This has always been an issue, really. It just didn't matter as much in PF1E because well build players still finished most fights in one or two rounds anyways.
When is third edition?
Thank you for your time. I'm really excited to play this character. No problem at all~ I had fun thinking of it and I hope you have fun playing your version of the character.
Also, what backgrounds do you...Yeah, your 4 "free" boosts are probably going to be Str, Con, Dex, and Wis at levels 1/5/10/15/20I'm thinking a elf build is probably the most likely for me. Maybe a point or two to wisdom for those insane perception rolls they pull off every now and then?The title. After rereading a couple volumes of the manga. I was thinking it would be fun to play a character like that in PF2. Any thoughts on a build? I would go with martial disciple for cat fall or quick jump. That also maybe fits the Claymore's somewhat esoteric martial training
I think someone made a mistake when they moved this thread to conversions rather than advice.
The title. After rereading a couple volumes of the manga. I was thinking it would be fun to play a character like that in PF2. Any thoughts on a build? I remember a bit about that manga. I would maybe go with fury instinct barbarian and focus on feats that accentuate your athleticism while using medium armor and focusing on Strength, con, and dex (in that order). Maybe build 1/2 elf human? You can pick up raging throw, sudden charge, and no escape all by level 3; fury gives you an extra class feat, your level 1 racial feat can be nimble elf (for speed) and your level 3 general feat can be fleet (for even more speed). Building an elf--especially cavern elf--is also an option but you won't be as tough then and you will be saddled with a mostly superfluous 12 int. You do end up even faster though! For your level 4 feat, you can choose between fast movement and raging athlete (for them leaps). At 6, you can either pick up attack of opportunity (and retrain no escape to something else; if you change the build to take elf atavism/dark vision, you can get acute scent for instance) or you can get the mobility feat that you passed up at level 4. At level 8, you can pick up sudden leap (especially if you took raging athlete at level 4) or you can opt for renewed vigor to double down on being a real tough gal. Your skill feats should probably go towards improving your athletics and acrobatics skills. If you are taking lots of jumping stuff, quick leap is great as are a lot of the various jumping feats and cat fall (when you absolutely must jump off a roof to assail your foe).
A lot of abilities in arcane thesis add adaptability. They are all pretty good and most have effects that you use different ways each day. Spell substitution is the one that probably gives you the most "versatility" out of combat though. On a separate note, I like a lot of stuff in enchantment (which you mention somewhere else in here). Hideous laughter is great for shutting down a tough guy's reaction and fear and paralyze is also great to use against bosses since putting a solo enemy down 1 action is pretty okay (which you get when the enemy succeeds) and shutting down their whole turn is great (which you get if they fail). The third level version of fear and the 5th level version of command are also pretty nice against hordes of losers, especially with reach spell. I also think daze is a pretty alright combat cantrip when arc lightning is inadvisable if only because you can still use your third action to chuck a dagger or whatever at some loser. You can also use it for its maybe intended purpose: incapacitating a foe without killing them. On a separate separate note, Drain Bond essentially lets wizards cast their highest level spell slot 1 more time than any other class (save for cleric with its more limited channel). That generally lets wizards drop 1 max-level spell every encounter and still expect to not run out of spells that day.
|
