paizo.com Favorited Posts by Gortlepaizo.com Favorited Posts by Gortle2024-03-18T20:47:17Z2024-03-18T20:47:17ZRe: Forums: Advice: Achieves of Nethys & RoguesGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ycy?Achieves-of-Nethys-Rogues#212024-03-16T19:25:50Z2024-03-15T23:10:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> It gets pretty insane.</blockquote><p>Yes and this is where Paizo stuffed up with the balancing of the Rogue Rackets. Scoundrel and Mastermind only give you an alternative way to get Off-Guard. But from mid level that is 99% automatic anyway without a roll. (Improved Invisibility, Dread Striker, Gang Up etc etc) so the Rackets Scoundrel and Mastermind become largely pointless. Given that Eldritch Trickster RAW doesn't work and is not a unique benefit anyway, there are only 2 Rogue Rackets mechanically worth taking Ruffian or Thief.Deriven Firelion wrote:It gets pretty insane.
Yes and this is where Paizo stuffed up with the balancing of the Rogue Rackets. Scoundrel and Mastermind only give you an alternative way to get Off-Guard. But from mid level that is 99% automatic anyway without a roll. (Improved Invisibility, Dread Striker, Gang Up etc etc) so the Rackets Scoundrel and Mastermind become largely pointless. Given that Eldritch Trickster RAW doesn't work and is not a unique benefit anyway, there are only 2 Rogue...Gortle2024-03-15T23:10:34ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Archives of Nethys is now remastered, yay!Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43yct?Archives-of-Nethys-is-now-remastered-yay#182024-03-13T23:07:11Z2024-03-13T23:00:21Z<p>Archives of Nethys is the reason I play PF2.
<br />
Thank you.</p>Archives of Nethys is the reason I play PF2.
Thank you.Gortle2024-03-13T23:00:21ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Unanswered Eidolon QuestionsGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ybw?Unanswered-Eidolon-Questions#442024-03-12T21:52:41Z2024-03-12T21:34:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">YuriP wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Honestly I think that clear condition when your Eidolon unmanifests is TGTBT. This easily would end in "Oh! My Eidolon was debuffed. Let's unmanifest it to clear it without any checks".</p>
<p>That's why I consider that's all effects are ongoing no matter if the eidolon is in the field or not. </blockquote><p>It is abusable either way. If conditions don't clear then you can precast as well.
<p>The rules don't say - they need to.</p>YuriP wrote:Honestly I think that clear condition when your Eidolon unmanifests is TGTBT. This easily would end in "Oh! My Eidolon was debuffed. Let's unmanifest it to clear it without any checks".
That's why I consider that's all effects are ongoing no matter if the eidolon is in the field or not.
It is abusable either way. If conditions don't clear then you can precast as well. The rules don't say - they need to.Gortle2024-03-12T21:34:35ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Unanswered Eidolon QuestionsGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ybw?Unanswered-Eidolon-Questions#142024-03-12T16:05:21Z2024-03-12T11:21:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Thod wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 1) Where does it state that an Eidolon can't use mundane items?</p>
<p>P.53 says:
<br />
Gear and your Eidolon
<br />
Your eidolon can’t wear or use magic items, except for items with the eidolon trait. An eidolon can have up to two items invested. Your eidolon’s link to you means it can benefit from certain magic items invested by you. </blockquote><p>That is not it. If fact this rule only stops magic item use by the eidolon.
<p>Instead look at </p>
<p>P51
<br />
Key Terms</p>
<p>Eidolon: A creature with this trait is an eidolon. An action or spell with this trait can be performed by an eidolon only. An item with this trait can be used or worn by an eidolon only, and an eidolon can't use items that don't have this trait. (An eidolon can have up to two items invested.)</p>
<p>Honestly I think the intention is only prohibition of magic items. They just have worded it poorly. There are of course non magical items like alchemical ones.</p>Thod wrote:1) Where does it state that an Eidolon can't use mundane items?
P.53 says:
Gear and your Eidolon
Your eidolon can’t wear or use magic items, except for items with the eidolon trait. An eidolon can have up to two items invested. Your eidolon’s link to you means it can benefit from certain magic items invested by you.
That is not it. If fact this rule only stops magic item use by the eidolon. Instead look at
P51
Key Terms
Eidolon: A creature with this trait is an eidolon. An...Gortle2024-03-12T11:21:03ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Unanswered Eidolon QuestionsGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ybw?Unanswered-Eidolon-Questions#122024-03-12T21:18:21Z2024-03-12T07:51:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Ravingdork wrote:</div><blockquote> If an eidolon is unable to use mundane tools, then that severely limits its ability to make full use of feats like Dual Studies and Skilled Partner. Several skills (like Medicine and Thievery, for example) don't do a whole lot for you without the appropriate tools. </blockquote>"severely limits" is quite the overstatement: every skill has uses that do not require tools. </blockquote><p>Yep but still clearly a reasonable candidate for TBTBT.graystone wrote:Ravingdork wrote: If an eidolon is unable to use mundane tools, then that severely limits its ability to make full use of feats like Dual Studies and Skilled Partner. Several skills (like Medicine and Thievery, for example) don't do a whole lot for you without the appropriate tools.
"severely limits" is quite the overstatement: every skill has uses that do not require tools. Yep but still clearly a reasonable candidate for TBTBT.Gortle2024-03-12T07:51:37ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Unanswered Eidolon QuestionsGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ybw?Unanswered-Eidolon-Questions#112024-03-12T12:17:01Z2024-03-12T07:49:14Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">YuriP wrote:</div><blockquote>Now. The Eidolon shares the HP with the summoner. The Eidolon died and its hit points are automatically reduced to 0. What's happens to the summoner when the Eidolon dies!? The summoner dies too!!!</blockquote><p>No, the player goes to Dying 1 because it's hp are 0. As they share hp, and the dead can't raise their hp above 0, you can at best make them unconscious with 0 Hit Points: this means that you can prevent death but they can't ever do anything until the Eidolon is brought back to life.
<p>So, no it doesn't kill the summoner but it's mighty close. </blockquote><p>I don't think that is all clear. I can argure the reverse. The Summoners HPs were reduced to zero by a death effect (which damaged it's Eidolon). You only have one pool of hit points. It is not like there is a disconnect or level of indirection here. I'd just as easily have the death effect apply to the Summoner.graystone wrote:YuriP wrote:Now. The Eidolon shares the HP with the summoner. The Eidolon died and its hit points are automatically reduced to 0. What's happens to the summoner when the Eidolon dies!? The summoner dies too!!!
No, the player goes to Dying 1 because it's hp are 0. As they share hp, and the dead can't raise their hp above 0, you can at best make them unconscious with 0 Hit Points: this means that you can prevent death but they can't ever do anything until the Eidolon is brought...Gortle2024-03-12T07:49:14ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Double Slice and HardnessGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ybe?Double-Slice-and-Hardness#102024-03-12T10:39:33Z2024-03-12T07:36:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ascalaphus wrote:</div><blockquote> Yeah, shield block happens very late in the damage sequence, after the damage has already been merged for processing weaknesses and resistances. At that point it makes no sense to split it up again into separate pools to use shield block against one or the other or both. </blockquote><p>Paizo have not provided a tight damage procedure. The definitions are just not precise. Damage Type is complex even though the damage procedure is written for a singular damage type. Nothing is said about additional damage. It is all a little fuzzy.
<p>I don't think you can infer the sequence precisely from the trigger condition for Shield block <i>you would take damage from a physical attack</i> is IMO also satisfied by a successful hit at the start of the damage procedure, as well as step 4 of the damage procedure.</p>
<p>I think "unclear it is GM's choice" is the best answer to the original question.</p>Ascalaphus wrote:Yeah, shield block happens very late in the damage sequence, after the damage has already been merged for processing weaknesses and resistances. At that point it makes no sense to split it up again into separate pools to use shield block against one or the other or both.
Paizo have not provided a tight damage procedure. The definitions are just not precise. Damage Type is complex even though the damage procedure is written for a singular damage type. Nothing is said about...Gortle2024-03-12T07:36:51ZRe: Forums: Advice: Nimble Strike vs Opportune BackstabGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y75?Nimble-Strike-vs-Opportune-Backstab#62024-03-04T18:58:18Z2024-03-03T21:57:21Z<p>Depends on party composition and tactics. If you have 2 other melee allies and you are up against a major combatant then Opportune Backstab is more reliable. If you are more often skirmishing without much support as your allies are erratic then Nimble Strike is clearly better. It also might be better against a horde.</p>Depends on party composition and tactics. If you have 2 other melee allies and you are up against a major combatant then Opportune Backstab is more reliable. If you are more often skirmishing without much support as your allies are erratic then Nimble Strike is clearly better. It also might be better against a horde.Gortle2024-03-03T21:57:21ZRe: Forums: Advice: Looking to get enemy aggroGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y4c&page=2?Looking-to-get-enemy-aggro#782024-03-01T11:32:09Z2024-03-01T11:24:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">SuperBidi wrote:</div><blockquote> And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong.</blockquote><p>No but there are builds that focus on damage just like a DPS build would.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">SuperBidi wrote:</div><blockquote> In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role). </blockquote><p>I don't think of DPS as a role in PF2 I'd use the term Striker. Of course everyone can deal damage in PF2. Roles are not tight or enforced. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.SuperBidi wrote:And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong.
No but there are builds that focus on damage just like a DPS build would. SuperBidi wrote:In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).
I don't think of DPS as a role in PF2 I'd use the term Striker. Of course everyone can deal damage in PF2. Roles are not tight or enforced. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.Gortle2024-03-01T11:24:48ZRe: Forums: Advice: Looking to get enemy aggroGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y4c&page=2?Looking-to-get-enemy-aggro#722024-03-01T20:41:14Z2024-03-01T06:01:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">turtle006 wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I have been playing D&D consistently since 1979. I have played MMOs since about 2001. I had never heard anyone say Tank, Healer, DPS until MMOs and it didn't become prevalent until WoW took off.
</p>
</blockquote><p>You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before. Example Champions an RPG which came out in 1981 had roles like Brick, Energy Projector etc.
<p>Knowledge existed before the internet made it popular.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">turtle006 wrote:</div><blockquote> I am still opposed to a taunt mechanic. I don't think any professional fighting for their life is going to be distracted by someone enough to attack them irrationally. A taunt mechanic removes tactical options. And removes player agency, because don't forget Monsters get skills too, generally with a better bonus too. </blockquote><p>You don't like it - that is cool. But again this game has confusion, trip, grapple, dominate, and even just the slow spell. It is a world of real magic. So your objection to something that already exists in the game is odd.
<p>Adding an extra ability to a game only reduces tactical options if it is so powerful it invalidates other options. No one is asking for that. Be reasonable.</p>turtle006 wrote:I have been playing D&D consistently since 1979. I have played MMOs since about 2001. I had never heard anyone say Tank, Healer, DPS until MMOs and it didn't become prevalent until WoW took off.
You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before. Example Champions an RPG which came out in 1981 had roles like Brick, Energy Projector etc. Knowledge existed before the internet made...Gortle2024-03-01T06:01:23ZRe: Forums: Advice: Looking to get enemy aggroGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y4c&page=2?Looking-to-get-enemy-aggro#692024-03-01T20:40:32Z2024-03-01T04:40:59Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Gortle wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> About the only thing you thought of was a healer of some kind which was usually a cleric. But you could build every class to be hard to hit back then. Hit points just weren't that high in early D&D until 3rd edition with a few 2nd edition exceptions</blockquote><p>Really?
</p>
We thought of them in terms of melee, caster, healer, skill monkey. Pretty much right from the start. So the roles were and are still relevant. No it was never a tight thing like MMOs but no one is saying that. </blockquote><p>How could you think of it as a skill monkey when skills did not exist? Rogues had percentage based abilities as did rangers. No other classes even had skills.
<p>The only arcane caster was a wizard. The other caster was a cleric. </p>
<p>I'm talking about 1st and 2nd edition D&D. The old, old days.
<br />
</blockquote><p>There were Bards, Druids, Ranger, Illusionists in 1st ed. Real choices. Skills absolutely did exist. You have just described them. They were needed and useful. You are just getting hung up over nomenclature again.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote>The game was very different prior to 3rd edition. We never much thought out it in terms of tank or melee or what not. </blockquote><p>Tank was definitely popularised by online games, but the rest of it yes. 1st ed characters had roles in combat.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Everquest came out in 1999/2000. D&D 3rd edition came out around the same time. So the two games kind of created this way of thinking about party composition that did not exist prior to 3rd edition and Everquest. There was a lot of crossover between MMORPG gamers and Tabletop RPG players.
</p>
</blockquote><p>I never was big on MMOs. But we were defintely using these concepts long before then.Deriven Firelion wrote:Gortle wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: About the only thing you thought of was a healer of some kind which was usually a cleric. But you could build every class to be hard to hit back then. Hit points just weren't that high in early D&D until 3rd edition with a few 2nd edition exceptions
Really?
We thought of them in terms of melee, caster, healer, skill monkey. Pretty much right from the start. So the roles were and are still relevant. No it was never a tight thing...Gortle2024-03-01T04:40:59ZRe: Forums: Advice: Looking to get enemy aggroGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y4c&page=2?Looking-to-get-enemy-aggro#592024-03-01T20:33:18Z2024-02-29T22:41:30Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> About the only thing you thought of was a healer of some kind which was usually a cleric. But you could build every class to be hard to hit back then. Hit points just weren't that high in early D&D until 3rd edition with a few 2nd edition exceptions</blockquote><p>Really?
</p>
We thought of them in terms of melee, caster, healer, skill monkey. Pretty much right from the start. So the roles were and are still relevant. No it was never a tight thing like MMOs but no one is saying that.</p>Deriven Firelion wrote:About the only thing you thought of was a healer of some kind which was usually a cleric. But you could build every class to be hard to hit back then. Hit points just weren't that high in early D&D until 3rd edition with a few 2nd edition exceptions
Really?
We thought of them in terms of melee, caster, healer, skill monkey. Pretty much right from the start. So the roles were and are still relevant. No it was never a tight thing like MMOs but no one is saying that.Gortle2024-02-29T22:41:30ZRe: Forums: Advice: Looking to get enemy aggroGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y4c&page=2?Looking-to-get-enemy-aggro#562024-03-01T00:00:59Z2024-02-29T20:40:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">SuperBidi wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">YuriP wrote:</div><blockquote>The MMORPGs takes the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm inspired from the roles of D&D classes. </blockquote>Hard disagree. The Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm is purely a video gamey concept. It has never existed in TTRPGs (outside 4th edition). Trying to shoehorn the Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric paradigm into the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm doesn't work, they cover very different notions. </blockquote><p>The specifics? Of course they are different. It is a different medium and as discussed there is no aggro mechanism so no true tank in the same way. But similar roles exists in table top. The concept of roles does as well. Even though roles are not as strict or as required. It still has some value when talking about party composition. It has some role playing value as well.SuperBidi wrote:YuriP wrote:The MMORPGs takes the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm inspired from the roles of D&D classes.
Hard disagree. The Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm is purely a video gamey concept. It has never existed in TTRPGs (outside 4th edition). Trying to shoehorn the Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric paradigm into the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm doesn't work, they cover very different notions. The specifics? Of course they are different. It is a different medium and as discussed there is no aggro...Gortle2024-02-29T20:40:33ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Swarms and BarbariansGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y5d?Swarms-and-Barbarians#112024-02-29T11:20:48Z2024-02-29T09:42:32Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">SuperBidi wrote:</div><blockquote> I think we should not focus on our own world physics and play with our mind eye. </blockquote><p>Guilty as charged. I'm far too practical. Unrealistic mechanics are very jarring to immersion for me. Especially those that seem to be opposite to reality. We have enough of them, and a certain amount of them are obviously required. Let's leave it at that.SuperBidi wrote:I think we should not focus on our own world physics and play with our mind eye.
Guilty as charged. I'm far too practical. Unrealistic mechanics are very jarring to immersion for me. Especially those that seem to be opposite to reality. We have enough of them, and a certain amount of them are obviously required. Let's leave it at that.Gortle2024-02-29T09:42:32ZRe: Forums: Advice: Looking to get enemy aggroGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y4c?Looking-to-get-enemy-aggro#412024-03-03T06:47:10Z2024-02-29T06:31:34Z<p>Yes we do want everyone to attack us that is literally the point of the thread. I'll let you think about how that might be a good thing. Correct it doesnt exist in the game, this is more like a request for a feature. It would have to be balanced.</p>
<p>No it shouldn't take over player agency - well no more than confusion or dominate does. It probably should just be a chance of mandating an action. But like Create a Diversions, repeated checks should have a penalty. If we can have feats like Evangelize and Disturbing Knowledge then I think we can have a Taunt.</p>
<p>At the moment I just roleplay it with a diplomacy check. An actual mechanism would be nice.</p>Yes we do want everyone to attack us that is literally the point of the thread. I'll let you think about how that might be a good thing. Correct it doesnt exist in the game, this is more like a request for a feature. It would have to be balanced.
No it shouldn't take over player agency - well no more than confusion or dominate does. It probably should just be a chance of mandating an action. But like Create a Diversions, repeated checks should have a penalty. If we can have feats like...Gortle2024-02-29T06:31:34ZRe: Forums: Advice: PSA: Jousting is better than it used to beGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y11?PSA-Jousting-is-better-than-it-used-to-be#372024-02-29T01:53:27Z2024-02-28T21:35:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">yellowpete wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
I also don't really get complaints about the lance. It's a one-handed reach 1d6 that hits like a 1d8 weapon once per round and has deadly d8 on top (a nice trait that not even any non-reach 1-handed d8 weapon has). I don't know a one-handed weapon that I'd rather use for a mounted character. Gnome Flickmace might have been a contender for the better crit spec, but probably not anymore after the remaster nerf. The rest of the one-handed reach weapons have really niche benefits in comparison.</p>
<p>Of course you don't take a large mount with it as to preserve the reach trait, but that's not so much the fault of the lance as it is one of the mounted combat rules. </blockquote><p>As a weapon. The Lance is not terrible, it is about right to be interesting. However size medium creatures need a size large mount, which drops the reach trait, which then makes it a weapon for a tricky build like is being suggested here. A human on horse back is essential to many settings and Lance is a staple. But in this game it is just pathetic. There are no good Maneuvers with it. You may as well just use a sword. It's just depressing.
</p>
Yes it is the mounted combat rules. But those should work in favour of the Lance not against it.</p>yellowpete wrote:I also don't really get complaints about the lance. It's a one-handed reach 1d6 that hits like a 1d8 weapon once per round and has deadly d8 on top (a nice trait that not even any non-reach 1-handed d8 weapon has). I don't know a one-handed weapon that I'd rather use for a mounted character. Gnome Flickmace might have been a contender for the better crit spec, but probably not anymore after the remaster nerf. The rest of the one-handed reach weapons have really niche benefits...Gortle2024-02-28T21:35:44ZRe: Forums: Advice: A Gentleman's GM Guide to Remastering GolemsGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y3s?A-Gentlemans-GM-Guide-to-Remastering-Golems#502024-02-28T15:02:13Z2024-02-27T22:12:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">SuperBidi wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Captain Morgan wrote:</div><blockquote> Again, this feels like a really weird case to complain about the kineticist being useless when literally every martial has been dealing with this same level of resistance since day 1. </blockquote><p>Same level of resistance in value, not in impact.
<p>At level 14, Elemental Blast does 4d8 damage for an average of 17. So the Golem blocks 80% of its damage. Most damage impulses cost 2 actions and have half damage on a successful save. If I count 1d8 damage per 2 levels (which is quite average in terms of progression), at level 14 you deal 7d8 damage=31.5 average damage. On a successful save, the Golem takes roughly nothing, otherwise it blocks half of the damage. If I combine an EB and a 2-action Impulse, the Golem blocks 70% of the Kineticist damage. And I don't count damaging auras that are very interesting in general and completely blocked by the Golem Resistance.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, a basic d10 Fighter of that level deals 3d10+5+4+2d6=32.5 damage. The Golem doesn't even block half of the Fighter damage. And I'm not counting any ability like Power Attack specifically designed to go through Resistances or like Double Slice that can combine damage.</p>
<p>There are some martials that are crippled by such resistances (typically the Flurry Ranger, but most archers, too) and that I call out when asked. But your normal Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue/Swashbuckler/whatever can strike through the resistance and still deal acceptable damage... unlike the Kineticist. </blockquote><p>The precision martials can have some problems as some adventures are full of incorporeal and oozes and are straight immune to precision damage. If you combine a bit of resistance with that it is very effective defence.SuperBidi wrote:Captain Morgan wrote: Again, this feels like a really weird case to complain about the kineticist being useless when literally every martial has been dealing with this same level of resistance since day 1.
Same level of resistance in value, not in impact. At level 14, Elemental Blast does 4d8 damage for an average of 17. So the Golem blocks 80% of its damage. Most damage impulses cost 2 actions and have half damage on a successful save. If I count 1d8 damage per 2 levels...Gortle2024-02-27T22:12:00ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Sanctificaton and You: A Guide by Captain MorganGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y1z?Sanctificaton-and-You-A-Guide-by-Captain-Morgan#142024-02-23T09:58:56Z2024-02-23T05:40:42Z<p>I'd like to note that the change of aligned damage becoming spirit damge is a significant change. Instead of alignment damage coming up only occasionally it is now useful in 90% of cases. Campaign dependent of course. It is a significant rebalance of the Divine spell list as Divine Wrath and other spells are very good direct damage. Where in the past Divine casters of certain religions had not all that many damage options.</p>I'd like to note that the change of aligned damage becoming spirit damge is a significant change. Instead of alignment damage coming up only occasionally it is now useful in 90% of cases. Campaign dependent of course. It is a significant rebalance of the Divine spell list as Divine Wrath and other spells are very good direct damage. Where in the past Divine casters of certain religions had not all that many damage options.Gortle2024-02-23T05:40:42ZRe: Forums: Advice: Unexpected party composition/Possible Champion build adviceGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xvl?Unexpected-party-compositionPossible-Champion#92024-02-14T15:48:13Z2024-02-11T10:29:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Finoan wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Yeah, the entire purpose of this thread leans towards a Pathfinder1e mindset. Where there is a 'right' way of building a character and a 'right' party composition - which implies that there is also a 'wrong' way to build a character and a 'wrong' party composition.</p>
<p>PF2 doesn't tend to do that.</blockquote><p>You are overstating things a lot.
<p>You can still build a mechanically inferior character, or take a character with little team synergy. The roles that you take on in combat matter. So there are better and worse choices still.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Finoan wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The current party is Inexorable Iron Magus, Cloistered Cleric, Witch, and whatever you decide to bring, yes?</p>
<p>I don't see anything wrong with playing a Bard in that. I also don't see anything wrong with playing a Champion in that.. </blockquote><p>The thing is an Inexorable Iron Magus has a full melee routine that doesn't give him a spare action for movement (unless mounted). So he is likely to be fairly stationary. He would really like a flanking partner.
</p>
A Cleric can melee, though it would be better option if they were a War Priest. A Witch is very unlikely to be in melee. Bottom line is you will get much better synergy another character that can handle themselves in melee.</p>
<p>I think Bard and Cleric overlap a bit as my Clerics will typically want to cast Bless. But you can quickly sort that out and it could work fine if the Bard wants to be in melee. Personally your Champion idea is a better fit. But really any class with more than 6HP base would work.</p>Finoan wrote:Yeah, the entire purpose of this thread leans towards a Pathfinder1e mindset. Where there is a 'right' way of building a character and a 'right' party composition - which implies that there is also a 'wrong' way to build a character and a 'wrong' party composition.
PF2 doesn't tend to do that.
You are overstating things a lot. You can still build a mechanically inferior character, or take a character with little team synergy. The roles that you take on in combat matter. So...Gortle2024-02-11T10:29:03ZRe: Forums: Advice: Throwing Dagger RogueGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xv0?Throwing-Dagger-Rogue#42024-02-14T22:20:21Z2024-02-09T01:56:55Z<p>There are a few ways to get flatfooted at range.</p>
<p>Deception - Feint doesn't work. That is unless you take Grovelling Feint and your GM has an expansive interpretation of it.</p>
<p>Deception - Create a Diversion does work. That is not a bad option. But probably only useful once per target.</p>
<p>MasterMind Racket - Recall Knowledge works.</p>
<p>The best is probably Dread Striker and demoralise effects. Or an ally with Winter Sleet. But that is level 4 and up.</p>
<p>Then there are the team work ways. If you have a grappler or tripper in the party it is all set up for you.</p>
<p>My recommendation would be to play a Thief Racket Rogue maximise your Charisma and Deception so ability scores like 18 Dex, 16 Cha, 12 Wis and Con. Just accept that you are going to have to be in melee occasionally. Also rank your Intimidation skill. Then level 4 pick up Dread Striker. That will work well enough and should fit your concept.</p>There are a few ways to get flatfooted at range.
Deception - Feint doesn't work. That is unless you take Grovelling Feint and your GM has an expansive interpretation of it.
Deception - Create a Diversion does work. That is not a bad option. But probably only useful once per target.
MasterMind Racket - Recall Knowledge works.
The best is probably Dread Striker and demoralise effects. Or an ally with Winter Sleet. But that is level 4 and up.
Then there are the team work ways. If you have a...Gortle2024-02-09T01:56:55ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Objects as Targets!?Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xu4?Objects-as-Targets#412024-02-08T22:30:40Z2024-02-08T22:08:12Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Finoan wrote:</div><blockquote><p> traps are objects and <a href="https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=675" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">are able to be attacked</a>. They have AC and HP and everything.
</p>
. </blockquote><p>True but a Strike is not required. You have to use one of the legal pre allowed ways of making such attacks eg the Shatter spell.
<p>Or you have to ask your GM saying you want to smack it with your weapon, and they can reply whether you can use a modified Strike action - or not.</p>
<p>It is frustrating as it is an obvious action , and goes against the design of PF2 which is explicit in nature and tells you the player and GM what you can do. The designers are not always perfectly in alignment.</p>Finoan wrote:traps are objects and are able to be attacked. They have AC and HP and everything.
.
True but a Strike is not required. You have to use one of the legal pre allowed ways of making such attacks eg the Shatter spell. Or you have to ask your GM saying you want to smack it with your weapon, and they can reply whether you can use a modified Strike action - or not.
It is frustrating as it is an obvious action , and goes against the design of PF2 which is explicit in nature and tells...Gortle2024-02-08T22:08:12ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Objects as Targets!?Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xu4?Objects-as-Targets#242024-02-08T22:27:53Z2024-02-08T03:54:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Guntermench wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Gortle wrote:</div><blockquote>Excepting the specific abilities you mention, there is no right to strike objects. It is specifically a GM call. Paizo have clearly made an effort to keep that as an active GM call.</blockquote><p>I disagree. There's always the right to Strike objects, at least unattended ones, most of those make the assumption of that. There's no right that it's going to do damage though, generally only not happening if it's an artifact or particularly sturdy structure.
<p>Basically all of what I linked is worded in a "this is a thing you can generally do, unless you're breaking into a castle with a dagger, now you can do it better" way, not a "now you can aim an axe at a table, congratulations" way. </blockquote><p>Not true. It is a specific rule. Strike only allows you to only target creatures. You have to ask to Strike objects. Not just ask to do damage.Guntermench wrote:Gortle wrote:Excepting the specific abilities you mention, there is no right to strike objects. It is specifically a GM call. Paizo have clearly made an effort to keep that as an active GM call.
I disagree. There's always the right to Strike objects, at least unattended ones, most of those make the assumption of that. There's no right that it's going to do damage though, generally only not happening if it's an artifact or particularly sturdy structure. Basically all of what...Gortle2024-02-08T03:54:53ZRe: Forums: Advice: Your Kineticist Experience so far?Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wu8&page=5?Your-Kineticist-Experience-so-far#2032024-02-14T16:21:17Z2024-02-08T03:49:40Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> Molten Wire doesn't have the attack action, but the text says to make an impulse attack roll. So all abilities of a kineticist operate like spells and the MAP description says spell attack rolls increase MAP. So wouldn't impulse attack rolls be like spell attack rolls and increase MAP? </blockquote><p>Yes it is clearly an error. It mentions attack roll but has no attack trait. There are a couple of these errors in the latest book. Technically it is the presence of the attack trait that affects MAP, but the whole rules section for MAP is under attack rolls - so I'd need something more to swallow that reasoning.Deriven Firelion wrote:Molten Wire doesn't have the attack action, but the text says to make an impulse attack roll. So all abilities of a kineticist operate like spells and the MAP description says spell attack rolls increase MAP. So wouldn't impulse attack rolls be like spell attack rolls and increase MAP?
Yes it is clearly an error. It mentions attack roll but has no attack trait. There are a couple of these errors in the latest book. Technically it is the presence of the attack trait...Gortle2024-02-08T03:49:40ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Odd/Strange RulesGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xo4&page=3?OddStrange-Rules#1122024-02-03T00:37:43Z2024-02-02T22:46:20Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">YuriP wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Ravingdork wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Rules that I consider strange? That's easy.</p>
<p>The fact that there are constructs and undead in the world (ancestries and versatile heritages) that can bleed, drown, get poisoned, die of starvation, and almost anything else that living creatures have to deal with. It goes against absolutely everything that makes a construct a construct and an undead an undead. <b>•rolls eyes then spits on the ground•</b></blockquote><p>Yes I understand the rational due the balance but still very strange and completely breaks the immersion to have an automaton or a skeleton becoming poisoned.
<p>My hopes is that in some future PF3 (or even now for SF2) the designers put in the ancestries balance that some ancestries will get non-living immunities and balance all living ancestries to compensate this in their chassis. </blockquote><p>Yes they may a choice to give us the option of these types of characters but with weakened abilities. It does sort of break immersion a bit. It is a big change in the style from older D20 games. I guess it is a plus. I certainly enjoyed playing a couple of Poppets.
<p>AFAICT the options for full constuct / undead style immunities are with Construct Companions, Undead Companions, summoning spells, and Ferrous Form. Not even the full undead archetypes can get you there at high level - which is dissapointing.</p>YuriP wrote:Ravingdork wrote:Rules that I consider strange? That's easy.
The fact that there are constructs and undead in the world (ancestries and versatile heritages) that can bleed, drown, get poisoned, die of starvation, and almost anything else that living creatures have to deal with. It goes against absolutely everything that makes a construct a construct and an undead an undead. *rolls eyes then spits on the ground*
Yes I understand the rational due the balance but still very strange...Gortle2024-02-02T22:46:20ZRe: Forums: Advice: Day 1: VampByDay's thaumaturge guide!Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ng9&page=4?Day-1-VampByDays-thaumaturge-guide#1522024-01-30T08:17:58Z2024-01-30T06:42:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Atalius wrote:</div><blockquote>So for this ability so you can decide which skill check or saving throw you want to use it before the end of the next round? It doesn't have to be the next skill check like True Strike is for attack rolls corect? </blockquote><p>Correct the language is clear.Atalius wrote:So for this ability so you can decide which skill check or saving throw you want to use it before the end of the next round? It doesn't have to be the next skill check like True Strike is for attack rolls corect?
Correct the language is clear.Gortle2024-01-30T06:42:26ZRe: Forums: Advice: Optimized blaster caster build anyone?Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xm1?Optimized-blaster-caster-build-anyone#312024-01-27T00:14:54Z2024-01-26T23:43:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> Focus spells are not a trap, but they are more useful if you play well past level 10 and not as much if you don't.</blockquote><p>If you think focus spells are a trap then you haven't got a good one. If you really don't like the 2 action focus spells because it is one dice down on a top level spell slot, then there are single action and free action options.
<p>I find that often in a tight encounter you spend a couple of slots which may or may not be blasts, a couple of focus spell blasts, then you can probably just use cantrips for the clean up. Having reasonable focus spells really extends the casters ability to handle a longer adventuring day. </p>
<p>Most casters should have 2 focus points by level 4/6. Though Wizards are probably not getting there till level 8 if they don't go with an archetype. At least one of your 2 focus spells should be a common combat option.</p>Deriven Firelion wrote:Focus spells are not a trap, but they are more useful if you play well past level 10 and not as much if you don't.
If you think focus spells are a trap then you haven't got a good one. If you really don't like the 2 action focus spells because it is one dice down on a top level spell slot, then there are single action and free action options. I find that often in a tight encounter you spend a couple of slots which may or may not be blasts, a couple of focus spell...Gortle2024-01-26T23:43:07ZRe: Forums: Advice: Optimized blaster caster build anyone?Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xm1?Optimized-blaster-caster-build-anyone#132024-01-27T00:10:55Z2024-01-24T22:00:02Z<p>I prefer a primal sorcerer, multiclassed into a occult caster (psychic or bard). Then pick up a staff with true strike in it. You will have a good range of spells. Getting a big attack spell with true strike is very effective. Searing Light and Polar ray can be devastating.</p>I prefer a primal sorcerer, multiclassed into a occult caster (psychic or bard). Then pick up a staff with true strike in it. You will have a good range of spells. Getting a big attack spell with true strike is very effective. Searing Light and Polar ray can be devastating.Gortle2024-01-24T22:00:02ZRe: Forums: Advice: Ways to prebuffGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42y9q&page=2?Ways-to-prebuff#562024-01-27T00:04:55Z2024-01-21T21:20:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dark_Schneider wrote:</div><blockquote>Or allow only dwarves :) </blockquote><p>Mono cultured games can make sense for some custom campaigns. I think it can force people to think a bit beyond the stereotypes. Putting guard rails on characters can also help people to be more creative.Dark_Schneider wrote:Or allow only dwarves :)
Mono cultured games can make sense for some custom campaigns. I think it can force people to think a bit beyond the stereotypes. Putting guard rails on characters can also help people to be more creative.Gortle2024-01-21T21:20:19ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Remastered Fighter & Bastard SwordGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xl4?Remastered-Fighter-Bastard-Sword#202024-01-27T00:04:55Z2024-01-21T21:16:24Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">aiglos wrote:</div><blockquote> USELESS! </blockquote><p>This game is not PF1 where you can trade everything away for something else. Sometimes you are stuck with some class defaults. This is a different game. You don't need to waste time with that sort of deep optimisation.
<p>If you don't want a shield yes it is useless to you.</p>aiglos wrote:USELESS!
This game is not PF1 where you can trade everything away for something else. Sometimes you are stuck with some class defaults. This is a different game. You don't need to waste time with that sort of deep optimisation. If you don't want a shield yes it is useless to you.Gortle2024-01-21T21:16:24ZRe: Forums: Advice: Ways to prebuffGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42y9q&page=2?Ways-to-prebuff#522024-01-27T00:04:01Z2024-01-21T13:24:04Z<p>The GM can prohibit whatever he likes.
<br />
Common or not.</p>The GM can prohibit whatever he likes.
Common or not.Gortle2024-01-21T13:24:04ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: All I ask for the Remastered Barbarian...Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xdn&page=5?All-I-ask-for-the-Remastered-Barbarian#2032024-01-23T20:53:46Z2024-01-18T03:08:38Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ryangwy wrote:</div><blockquote> Yeah barbarian is a very solid class already and some of the suggestions people are making here is practically a new class. </blockquote><p>Agreed. A few people here are asking for a major rewrite. It is not warranted. The barbarian is a good effective class. I don't want substantive parts changed.Ryangwy wrote:Yeah barbarian is a very solid class already and some of the suggestions people are making here is practically a new class.
Agreed. A few people here are asking for a major rewrite. It is not warranted. The barbarian is a good effective class. I don't want substantive parts changed.Gortle2024-01-18T03:08:38ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: All I ask for the Remastered Barbarian...Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xdn&page=4?All-I-ask-for-the-Remastered-Barbarian#1812024-01-17T06:02:04Z2024-01-17T05:05:51Z<p>Fix Superstition, fix Cleave, give something to Fury, and allow the Elemental Impulses to work without Rage. </p>
<p>Still at the same place I started.</p>Fix Superstition, fix Cleave, give something to Fury, and allow the Elemental Impulses to work without Rage.
Still at the same place I started.Gortle2024-01-17T05:05:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Thaumaturge is whack. It's a franken-class that breaks the rules...Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x9d&page=4?Thaumaturge-is-whack-Its-a-frankenclass-that#1902024-01-17T03:31:23Z2024-01-17T00:01:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> Do people feel the Thaumaturge is strong in actual play? What are their main combat roles? </blockquote><p>It is a bit like the Kineticist. You can build it to fit a wide range of options. Probably most naturally fits a striker roll.Deriven Firelion wrote:Do people feel the Thaumaturge is strong in actual play? What are their main combat roles?
It is a bit like the Kineticist. You can build it to fit a wide range of options. Probably most naturally fits a striker roll.Gortle2024-01-17T00:01:00ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: All I ask for the Remastered Barbarian...Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xdn&page=4?All-I-ask-for-the-Remastered-Barbarian#1652024-01-16T07:31:31Z2024-01-16T07:12:20Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kaspyr2077 wrote:</div><blockquote> Would the Barbarian be overpowered without these limitations?</blockquote><p>No not at all.
<p>Just like the Swashbuckler, Inventor and some Oracles, the Barbarian has real limitations. It costs an action to Rage and the vast majority of its powers are gated behind that. Rage makes concentration actions mostly too expensive to use. </p>
<p>Most classes can use their abilitites out of combat, but a lot of Rage actions can't reasonably be used that way.</p>
<p>Some classes like Fighter really don't have any limitations. A Rogue can take a few feats and pretty much always have Sneak Attack. Yet the classes are balanced assuming they have all their powers functioning. No it is not especially fair.</p>Kaspyr2077 wrote:Would the Barbarian be overpowered without these limitations?
No not at all. Just like the Swashbuckler, Inventor and some Oracles, the Barbarian has real limitations. It costs an action to Rage and the vast majority of its powers are gated behind that. Rage makes concentration actions mostly too expensive to use.
Most classes can use their abilitites out of combat, but a lot of Rage actions can't reasonably be used that way.
Some classes like Fighter really don't have any...Gortle2024-01-16T07:12:20ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: All I ask for the Remastered Barbarian...Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xdn&page=3?All-I-ask-for-the-Remastered-Barbarian#1462024-01-15T21:18:16Z2024-01-15T11:08:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">SuperBidi wrote:</div><blockquote> </blockquote><p>There are plenty of other classes. I understand your frustration with players who deliberately avoid any thought of tactics. But the character has more to it that that. It's up to the people to use it. There is support for Intmidation at least.
</p>
Personally I'd be happy enough if they got rid of the term Barbarian as it taints too many cultures in a negative light. Berserker would be much better.</p>SuperBidi wrote:
There are plenty of other classes. I understand your frustration with players who deliberately avoid any thought of tactics. But the character has more to it that that. It's up to the people to use it. There is support for Intmidation at least.
Personally I'd be happy enough if they got rid of the term Barbarian as it taints too many cultures in a negative light. Berserker would be much better.Gortle2024-01-15T11:08:04ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Most Overpowered thingGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x7p&page=6?Most-Overpowered-thing#3002024-01-14T16:43:08Z2024-01-14T00:12:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
1. Be in position.</blockquote><p>??
</p>
You have another action to move and you are a mobile Monk. Or you can just use a BOW and do it from range.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> </blockquote><p>Shock!! Horror!?! You have to think about when it is appropriate to use.
<p>But you know what is good about it? It costs you nothing. Most Monks are going to take Stunning Fist anyway. It is still good value even in your normal turn. So no net feat cost unless you want a bow (1 level 1 feat), no resource cost. Use it when it makes sense.</p>Deriven Firelion wrote:1. Be in position.
??
You have another action to move and you are a mobile Monk. Or you can just use a BOW and do it from range. Deriven Firelion wrote:
Shock!! Horror!?! You have to think about when it is appropriate to use. But you know what is good about it? It costs you nothing. Most Monks are going to take Stunning Fist anyway. It is still good value even in your normal turn. So no net feat cost unless you want a bow (1 level 1 feat), no resource cost. Use it...Gortle2024-01-14T00:12:33ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Most Overpowered thingGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x7p&page=6?Most-Overpowered-thing#2862024-01-13T13:02:55Z2024-01-13T12:19:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">YuriP wrote:</div><blockquote> As GM I won't allow such kind of cheese</blockquote><p>Agreed.YuriP wrote:As GM I won't allow such kind of cheese
Agreed.Gortle2024-01-13T12:19:44ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Remastered StunGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xee?Remastered-Stun#502024-01-13T12:21:59Z2024-01-13T08:27:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">magnuskn wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Errenor wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">magnuskn wrote:</div><blockquote> "stunned 2 for two rounds"</blockquote>Shouldn't exist. It should be either "stunned 2" or "stunned for two rounds" (or "stunned 6" I guess). </blockquote>Ah, so there are no cases of being stunned for X actions and stunned for X rounds together. That clears that up. </blockquote><p>It is possible to inflict both. From two different effects. That would be a GM call how they stack but I think that just the longer ne would apply. Similar to how you just take the worse of duplicate persistent damages. Maybe someone knows if there is a general rule on this.magnuskn wrote:Errenor wrote: magnuskn wrote: "stunned 2 for two rounds"
Shouldn't exist. It should be either "stunned 2" or "stunned for two rounds" (or "stunned 6" I guess). Ah, so there are no cases of being stunned for X actions and stunned for X rounds together. That clears that up. It is possible to inflict both. From two different effects. That would be a GM call how they stack but I think that just the longer ne would apply. Similar to how you just take the worse of duplicate...Gortle2024-01-13T08:27:10ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Most Overpowered thingGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x7p&page=6?Most-Overpowered-thing#2662024-01-13T17:00:04Z2024-01-12T23:34:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">gesalt wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Grapple does nothing to inhibit enemy attacks, costs actions to maintain and the opponent attempting to end it doesn't trigger reaction attacks. On the plus side, it slightly inhibits casters. This is more useful now that a silenced caster can still drop a dominate on you. </p>
<p>Trip applies a penalty to attacks, lasts forever until the enemy ends it and doing so triggers reaction attacks. It's better in every situation where the enemy isn't a caster with subtle spells and not much worse in those. </blockquote><p>Grappling targets Fortitude DC. Tripping targets Reflex DC.
</p>
You trip Ogres and Zombies. You grapple fast and nimble creatures.
<br />
The difference between the defences is often 5 or more and is typically obvious from the description of the monster.</p>gesalt wrote:Grapple does nothing to inhibit enemy attacks, costs actions to maintain and the opponent attempting to end it doesn't trigger reaction attacks. On the plus side, it slightly inhibits casters. This is more useful now that a silenced caster can still drop a dominate on you.
Trip applies a penalty to attacks, lasts forever until the enemy ends it and doing so triggers reaction attacks. It's better in every situation where the enemy isn't a caster with subtle spells and not much...Gortle2024-01-12T23:34:09ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Most Overpowered thingGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x7p&page=5?Most-Overpowered-thing#2462024-01-14T11:11:29Z2024-01-12T05:40:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> not to use the best maneuver in the game just to break up the monotony. </blockquote><p>Just because you have found one effective tactic doesn't mean it is the only tactic.Deriven Firelion wrote:not to use the best maneuver in the game just to break up the monotony.
Just because you have found one effective tactic doesn't mean it is the only tactic.Gortle2024-01-12T05:40:03ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Wishes for the Remastered ChampionGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xdv?Wishes-for-the-Remastered-Champion#312024-01-12T20:47:02Z2024-01-11T09:42:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote> I still want the ability to play a Champion whose cause is unrelated to any deity. </blockquote><p>They are a deity class. Lean into the deity and have fun with it instead. I always insist that a Champion has to be able to bring their characters religion into their role playing.PossibleCabbage wrote:I still want the ability to play a Champion whose cause is unrelated to any deity.
They are a deity class. Lean into the deity and have fun with it instead. I always insist that a Champion has to be able to bring their characters religion into their role playing.Gortle2024-01-11T09:42:48ZForums: Rules Discussion: Remastered StunGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xee?Remastered-Stun#12024-01-10T13:30:57Z2024-01-10T13:07:41Z<p>I am getting upset with the remastered stun rules. It is all in one handy page 446 of the remastered rules.
<br />
The box in the top left in the second paragraph says
<br />
<i>Other conditions say you can't act... Unlike slowed and stunned...</i>
<br />
In the colum right next to it is the condition Stunned. It says
<br />
<i>Stunned. You've become senseless. You can't act.</i></p>
<p>Please Paizo stop writing directly contradictory statements. </p>
<p>Please remember that Stuned has two different implementations. Stunned with a number of actions lost, and Stunned with a time duration.</p>
<p>Note that this is different to the problems cleared up in the errata with the 4th printing of the CRB
<br />
<i>Page 460, 462, and 469: The text on Gaining and Losing actions on page 462 and for the last step of starting your turn on page 469 indicated that if you had a condition that said “you can’t act,” you wouldn’t regain any actions on your turn, rather than merely being unable to use them. This conflicted with the sidebar on page 622, which was correct. Conditions and other effects that cause you to change the number of actions you regain (such as quickened, slowed, or stunned) say so.</i></p>I am getting upset with the remastered stun rules. It is all in one handy page 446 of the remastered rules.
The box in the top left in the second paragraph says
Other conditions say you can't act... Unlike slowed and stunned...
In the colum right next to it is the condition Stunned. It says
Stunned. You've become senseless. You can't act.
Please Paizo stop writing directly contradictory statements.
Please remember that Stuned has two different implementations. Stunned with a number of...Gortle2024-01-10T13:07:41ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: All I ask for the Remastered Barbarian...Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xdn?All-I-ask-for-the-Remastered-Barbarian#362024-01-09T14:19:28Z2024-01-09T11:29:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">SuperBidi wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Gortle wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The first is a superset that includes the second.</p>
<p>Targets and effects are different. A fireball doesn't target, produce flame does.The first is not going to miss because of concealment, the second can. The effect of both is damage.</p>
<p>Still confused read this <i>Spells that affect multiple creatures in an area can have both an Area entry and a Targets entry. A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately.</p>
<p>Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead).</i></p>
<p>Anyway Paizo have acknowledged your confusion. It is part of the reason they are getting rid of golems. Their antimagic is complex and most people are getting it wrong. </blockquote>So if the Bard casts Inspire Courage, I'm not willingly accepting the effects of magic as I'm affected by magic outside my own will. As such it doesn't trigger my Anathema. </blockquote><p>Well when you emphasize accepting, it gets a bit clearer what you are going on about. It doesn't really help though as the anathema has 2 restrictions.<i>Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells</i> and <i>an ally insists on using magic on you</i>.
</p>
Both are effects. Its clearly includes the secondary effects of Bless and Circle of Protection. Using magic on you does not require either targeting or acceptance.</p>SuperBidi wrote:Gortle wrote:The first is a superset that includes the second.
Targets and effects are different. A fireball doesn't target, produce flame does.The first is not going to miss because of concealment, the second can. The effect of both is damage.
Still confused read this Spells that affect multiple creatures in an area can have both an Area entry and a Targets entry. A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately.
...Gortle2024-01-09T11:29:34ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Wishes for the Remastered ChampionGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xdv?Wishes-for-the-Remastered-Champion#22024-01-10T05:59:01Z2024-01-09T08:52:22Z<p>I'd like to see some more shield feats. Some more action efficiency options would be nice. Don't mind if it is high level.</p>
<p>Clarification about the exact relationship of hardness and resistance.</p>
<p>Rebalancing of the level of the celestial mount feats. </p>
<p>A reason to use a lance.</p>
<p>More broadly my concerns with the Champion is centred around that they have a lot of highly specific feats the Oaths, Litanies and Auras. They are largely not worth it. But a fair bit of that is tied up with alignment damage so I figure it is all being reworked anyway.</p>I'd like to see some more shield feats. Some more action efficiency options would be nice. Don't mind if it is high level.
Clarification about the exact relationship of hardness and resistance.
Rebalancing of the level of the celestial mount feats.
A reason to use a lance.
More broadly my concerns with the Champion is centred around that they have a lot of highly specific feats the Oaths, Litanies and Auras. They are largely not worth it. But a fair bit of that is tied up with alignment...Gortle2024-01-09T08:52:22ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Thaumaturge is whack. It's a franken-class that breaks the rules...Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x9d&page=3?Thaumaturge-is-whack-Its-a-frankenclass-that#1292024-01-09T09:07:33Z2024-01-09T07:13:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Easl wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">AestheticDialectic wrote:</div><blockquote> Ideally feats should be picking between different equally potent build options. Powerful things should compete with powerful things so classes have build diversity. The issue is when one thing is clearly always better. Choices between feats should be what kind of fighter, wizard or cleric you are. What your focus is </blockquote><p>Two considerations and an agreement.
</p>
First: the problem is, there is no single answer to "potent for what." If your group sessions are 3 hours of six combats, intimidating glare is more potent than charming liar. If your group sessions are 3 hours of six social encounters, charming liar is more potent than intimidating glare. I am wary of "powerful" being used as shorthand for "useful in combat." That's not the only metric of value.</blockquote><p>Very happy for multiple value metrics and options which are good for particular styles of play.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Easl wrote:</div><blockquote> Second: in terms of game design, the devs probably can't be faulted for not knowing ahead of time which skill feats would be taken and used a lot and which wouldn't. In that respect, it makes sense to offer a wide variety of capabilities in these feats and let the chips fall where they may in terms of which ones players often choose and which ones never get chosen. If they had perfect foresight, this could be laid at their feet as an error. But they don't, so it shouldn't be.</blockquote><p>Perfectly no. But some of it is pretty obvious.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Easl wrote:</div><blockquote> An agreement: having said those things, the remaster and other revision cycles seems like a good time to take stock and update. Use feedback from the community to combine or buff up skill feats nobody takes, for instance, to make them more appealing. </blockquote><p>Paizo have clearly been doing this so far which is good. Apart from my own particular hobby horses that they missed.Easl wrote:AestheticDialectic wrote: Ideally feats should be picking between different equally potent build options. Powerful things should compete with powerful things so classes have build diversity. The issue is when one thing is clearly always better. Choices between feats should be what kind of fighter, wizard or cleric you are. What your focus is
Two considerations and an agreement.
First: the problem is, there is no single answer to "potent for what." If your group sessions are 3...Gortle2024-01-09T07:13:44ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: All I ask for the Remastered Barbarian...Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xdn?All-I-ask-for-the-Remastered-Barbarian#182024-01-13T21:45:28Z2024-01-09T05:05:36Z<p>My thoughts are:</p>
<p>1 No they add flavour. Just fix the Superstitious one as it is largely unplayable and interferes with team cohesion. </p>
<p>2 Another terrible idea. Disadvantages like this are key conceptually to the class and are fun to play with. If you really think barbarians are soft then go for more hp or resistance.</p>
<p>3. For sure, add some bonuses to some of the weaker subtypes. </p>
<p>What I'd want to see is:
<br />
4. Fix Cleave so MAP does not make it near worthless. So far it depresses 99% of users.
<br />
5. Fix Elemental instinct by clarifying the rage trait so that you can use Elemental powers outside of rage.
<br />
6. Add something specific to each instinct. Especially Fury.</p>My thoughts are:
1 No they add flavour. Just fix the Superstitious one as it is largely unplayable and interferes with team cohesion.
2 Another terrible idea. Disadvantages like this are key conceptually to the class and are fun to play with. If you really think barbarians are soft then go for more hp or resistance.
3. For sure, add some bonuses to some of the weaker subtypes.
What I'd want to see is:
4. Fix Cleave so MAP does not make it near worthless. So far it depresses 99% of users....Gortle2024-01-09T05:05:36ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Remaster Monk (Remonkster?)Gortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x96&page=2?Remaster-Monk#732024-01-10T02:41:25Z2024-01-08T23:55:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Crasimia wrote:</div><blockquote> My big hope for monk in the remaster is that they do something about the feat taxes, it shouldnt take 2 class feats(ontop of a ancestry feat) to use a ancestries weapon which for many are worse than what a monk can do normally. </blockquote><p>No there needs to be a cost or every Monk would do it. Using weapons instead of unarmed strikes is an advantage that gets around one of the limitations of a Monk - having to touch things.Crasimia wrote:My big hope for monk in the remaster is that they do something about the feat taxes, it shouldnt take 2 class feats(ontop of a ancestry feat) to use a ancestries weapon which for many are worse than what a monk can do normally.
No there needs to be a cost or every Monk would do it. Using weapons instead of unarmed strikes is an advantage that gets around one of the limitations of a Monk - having to touch things.Gortle2024-01-08T23:55:25ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Staff Nexus QuestionGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xcs?Staff-Nexus-Question#52024-01-08T01:45:10Z2024-01-08T01:39:35Z<p>I would handle it as a GM by using the retraining rules. The text there makes it clear you shouldn't normally be locked into a character option.</p>I would handle it as a GM by using the retraining rules. The text there makes it clear you shouldn't normally be locked into a character option.Gortle2024-01-08T01:39:35ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Most Overpowered thingGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x7p&page=5?Most-Overpowered-thing#2352024-01-06T07:05:45Z2024-01-06T03:30:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> When a single build or ability is the best option 90 percent plus of the time, it is on the system. </blockquote><p>Then it is still on you and your GM to make adjustments to your game to fix this. You know Paizo isn't going to change to match your opinions. Given that there is moderate disagreement, you should be looking at what other options are out there.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> Trip with reaction attacks is a god maneuver ability that trivializes encounters. </blockquote><p>It is not. It is merely one strong combination out of several. The GM does not have to trigger those reaction attacks or engage in bad tactics.Deriven Firelion wrote:When a single build or ability is the best option 90 percent plus of the time, it is on the system.
Then it is still on you and your GM to make adjustments to your game to fix this. You know Paizo isn't going to change to match your opinions. Given that there is moderate disagreement, you should be looking at what other options are out there. Deriven Firelion wrote:Trip with reaction attacks is a god maneuver ability that trivializes encounters.
It is not. It is...Gortle2024-01-06T03:30:56ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Most Overpowered thingGortlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x7p&page=5?Most-Overpowered-thing#2322024-01-06T01:42:45Z2024-01-06T00:14:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I know no writer or director would make trip this common and easy to do. It would look terrible in a story or movie.</p>
<p>It's not tripping or grappling a dragon or some huge creature that is a problem, it is the frequency with which it is done and the extreme effectiveness of the tactic to make it so ubiquitous. </p>
<p>I find it odd that so many seem to enjoy this in their mind's eye. Tripping nearly every fight setting off reaction attacks as the target stands up or it gets destroyed laying their on the ground. </p>
<p>I can't recall any edition of the game encouraging this much us of a single combat maneuver. </p>
<p>This level of repetition of the same combat tactic seems not so cool in the mind's eye. I guess I should chalk it up to playing a game. It is true that casters often use the same spells over and over again to great effect. I guess trip should be seen the same. </blockquote><p>You have made your point like ten times already? We disagree.
<p>So do you find strike repetitive? Its the same problem it is up to you the player and the gm to describe your action. It doesn't have to be the same. You can describe it as prone or off balance or just badly aligned or out of position. You don't have to be the same all the time.</p>
<p>Trip is the wrong tactic in some situations. If you are doing it all the time you are doing it wrong. </p>
<p>Take some other maneuvers and use them sometimes. Have some other tactics.</p>
<p>Stop building or playing one dimensionally. It is on you as much as it is on the system.</p>
<p>Every now and then a GM should be putting you up against monsters and situations that your plan A will not work against.</p>
<p>Build mechanically different PCs.</p>Deriven Firelion wrote:I know no writer or director would make trip this common and easy to do. It would look terrible in a story or movie.
It's not tripping or grappling a dragon or some huge creature that is a problem, it is the frequency with which it is done and the extreme effectiveness of the tactic to make it so ubiquitous.
I find it odd that so many seem to enjoy this in their mind's eye. Tripping nearly every fight setting off reaction attacks as the target stands up or it gets...Gortle2024-01-06T00:14:19Z