Halcyon_Janissary's page

76 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
Another related question, that would apply to invisible creatures as well: if you fail the pinpoint check, do you have any idea where they are? Perhaps you have a small area effect spell you're hoping to catch them in?

From the SRD

"A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents’ Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.”

Unfortunately this appears to be pretty much GM fiat. Since I'm comfortable with arbitrary rulings I'd allow the characters success on the perception check to define a scope of area.

If one were attempting to get as RAW as possible and extrapolating the perception rules one could define each 10 ft of possible space from the target for each point by which the perception check failed by. So if you failed by one you could get within 10 ft, by two within 20 ft, and so on. By the time one hits -5 it may make more sense to simply indicate a compass direction from the character.

Personally I think that's a little harsh and would make it a diff of 3 (so on a DC of 28 a roll of 27-25 gets you in 10 ft, 24-22 gets you within 20, 21-19 gets you within 30 ft)

thejeff wrote:

Still, I've got a lot of trouble accepting any of this as RAW. No one is actually invisible or blind. Those are specific rules conditions. There's no rule I'm aware of equating total concealment to invisibility - other than invisibility being one thing granting concealment.
It's not an unreasonable approach, I'm just kind of surprised there isn't something explicit about it.

I agree that total concealment =/= invisibility. However, the rules for lighting do state that if an individual is in darkness they -are- blind. If an individual -is- blind, they take penalties according to the above Blind condition.

See here for rules on illumination.

Where this gets tricky (of course) is trying to pinpoint a creature in the darkness while you're in the light. The indiviudal can see perfectly well in areas of illumination, but are effectively 'blind' in areas of darkness. If an opponent attacked, it's evident that the attack came from the direction of the darkness if one beats a (non-visual) perception check.

This check is at -4 (since being blind imposes a -4 on perception even after visual attempts are gone) and an additional -1 for each 10 feet of space, culminating in a -8 to you in the above example.

These are the modifiers for the person trying to locate the individual in the darkness, now we look at the modifiers for the person in the darkness. Let's assume that no one is taking a stealth action.

I'd rule any kind of attack (lolsing an arrow, casting a spell with a verbal component, hurling a throwing axe) makes you "in battle" which creates a -10 to the perception DC.

Putting these things together we've got two separate checks. First, there's the "tell the direction that folks in the darkness are coming from check" which comes out at a total of -2 (for the "from 40 ft away" example) against whatever DC is set by the GM. Personally I'd set it at a base 15 for a total of 13, but this one's pretty arbitrary.

The second check is the kicker. Per the core rulebook It’s almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature’s square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).

So using the above example, to pin point the exact square the creature you're looking for in the darkness is we add +20 to the DC of the initial "which direction did it come from" check.

However, this check is also modified. If a blinded by darkness creature is struck by an unseen foe, the blinded character pinpoints the location of the creature that struck him (until the unseen creature moves, of course). The only exception is if the unseen creature has a reach greater than 5 feet (in which case the blinded character knows the location of the unseen opponent, but has not pinpointed him) or uses a ranged attack (in which case the blinded character knows the general direction of the foe, but not his location).

Massive Thread Necro, I know; buuuut this thread says pretty much everything I'm wanting to discuss, and has the benefit of it having been said already.

Onto my actual reason for posting. This guide assumes magic item creation exists, and also points out it's broken af. I understand then that the reasonable decision is to remove magic item economy full stop.

However, having played through the Kingmaker PC game, I'm also aware of just how fragile kingdoms are and how easy it is to dig oneself into a hole one can't escape from, or be so frugal with your expansion that by the time chapters V or VI roll around your kingdom gets rightly rolled.

So, how have folks dealt with this? Is the /3 bonus enough to make up for it? Does it radically change how one builds in other ways?

Like, after heavily going through the guide I can already see where I'd personally want to make changes. Casters Towers rather than Black Markets, more waterfronts, less uniformity; how have you folks handled it?

Lastly, on the front of my intent, I'm certainly not wanting to treat the game as an exercise in spreadsheet excellence, but nor do I want my Kingdom to go belly up because my aesthetic sensibilities turned out poorly according to the designers model.

At the end of the day, the Kingdom Management rules are an arbitrary base meant to reflect reality. If the designer assumes things about rulership or good public policy very differently than I and the other players do, odds are that no matter my intent to build a good kingdom, the whole thing could blow up in our faces.

So, anyone have any experience with the rules set absent the magic item economy, and whether their kingdom stood the test of time?

Thanks in advance.

Coolwasabi wrote:
A spontaneous caster also doesn't have spell slots for 0 level spells, they would just apply the metamagic for no extra level cost wouldn't they?

Yup. They'd be required to cast it as a full round action (like all other meta-magic spells) but they still get unlimited zero level spells and a metamagic feat that turns a spell from level zero to zero remains zero.

I have no idea what arbitrary nonsense the poster above is using to claim that cantrips both are and aren't applicable. Happily, I only need to be concerned about my GM's rulings. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Diego Rossi wrote:
1) A metamagiched spell isn't a cantrip anymore, so you can cast it only once even if it is a 0 level spell.

Man, what?

Arcanic Drake wrote:
It acts almost exactly like a 0-level darkness that lasts 10-min/level. Its a little cheap, but was used in fun ways in a build that I had. I do think that this was just an oversight though as most of the time you wouldn't use darkness for much if you had this.

Mostly to pop (anti) light on my armor and follow it with meleeing an opponent. Kingmaker has a ton of human enemies in its first few levels, getting them into melee range makes them blind (50% miss chance to me, +2 to hit them, loss of dex bonus to AC).

Arcanic Drake wrote:

Consider however: >You can cast it as much as you like, but you can only have one at a time due to it still being the light cantrip.

>A walking sphere of darkness isn't all that inconspicuous.

With this strategy I wouldn't need more than one at a time, and the spell would be lit after battle begins. Can be as conspicuous as I want, the point is full concealment while my vision is fine.

Arcanic Drake wrote:

That certain creatures have special senses and they aren't very uncommon (mostly darkvision, though there are others creatures with other sensory abilities).

That higher level "light-level" altering spells always take priority.

Certainly the strategy falls down somewhere between levels four and eight, but in an adventure path that's still quite a bit of time played.

Arcanic Drake wrote:
Otherwise, just have fun with your broken low level toy if your gm is fine with it. It does become less useful as you level up due to higher level magic being used and creatures more and more commonly having special senses, but was a fun gimmick while it lasted.

That's the plan, thanks =D

VoodistMonk wrote:

Sorry, just seen that Eclipse Spell doesn't raise the level.

For a cantrip, that's actually pretty awesome.

Thanks! Yeah, it's so good I feel like I'm missing something or should warn my GM <.<;; I'm putting this up on my Sanctified Slayer / Dhampir Inquisitor, the combination looks mean

VoodistMonk wrote:

For ease of, well, everything... "functions as" = IS...

Your metamagic cantrip would dispel the opposing type of illumination, as long as it is non-magical in nature.

Thanks, good enough for me.

VoodistMonk wrote:
Now, whether or not it is worth you taking a borderline useless metamagic feat, just to have a long(er) lasting, low-level source of benign illumination control...

Longer lasting isn't the issue, it's that the spell functions identically to darkness (a 2nd level spell) and as a cantrip can be cast an unlimited number of times without cutting into a pretty valuable resource at low levels.

As for "benign illumination control" I'd point out that any environment that isn't lit by ambient natural light (outdoors in the day) is going to default to a minimum of dim light when non-ambient light gets overridden by the reverse light spell. That minimum dim lighting then gets downgraded to darkness. So one can cast an (Eclipsed) light and become a mobile bundle of blindness for anything they can get in a 10f foot range of.

It's true that this combo is useless against dark-visioned enemies or in natural daylight, but it's potent enough to shut down a target that isn't adequately prepared. At low levels, this is going to be a large spread of enemies.

The tactic requires preparation or luck, but if it only works in 30% of your 1st to 6th level encounters it's well worth the feat.

Bump, and a clarification. I guess my question is specifically asking if the Eclipsed Spell Meta-magic feat is applied to the light cantrip, does that spell negate mundane sources of light in its effect (20 ft centered on object touched) like other darkness spells, or not?

I've looked for clarification on what it means when a spell or effect "acts like" another spell, but not having found it I guess one is supposed to just infer which aspects carry over, and thus open to GM interpretation (not that everything isn't already under that rule). Anyone have a reason to believe differently or insight into the question?

blahpers wrote:

There is no distinction between temporary bonuses and permanent bonuses other than what the GM decides to use for ease of play.


Huh, something new every day.

It becomes permanent after 24 hours. The permanent vs temporary bonus distinction alters the statistics the enhanced ability does or doesn't affect. The bonus lasts as long as the magic item is worn.

See this thread for a more detailed exxplantion.

Hiya folks, trying to grok the way a meta-magic effect (Eclipsed Spell) changes the light cantrip. The relevant parts of Eclipsed Spell are:

Eclipsed Spell wrote:

You alter how your spells affect illumination.

Benefit(s): Only spells that create areas of light or darkness can be eclipsed spells. If the eclipsed spell creates an area that shines like a torch or raises the light level by one step, you can choose to have the spell lower the illumination level in the affected area by one step, functioning like darkness.

Since light is a Cantrip and lasts 10 min/level rather than the 1 min/level darkness, an Eclipsed Spell of light seems to be the much superior option. It would have the con of easier dispel, but at low levels, this seems like a game-changer.

A possible caveat, Darkness specifically states that it sniffs out non-magical lighting, returning a space to whatever the "ambient" light conditions are (sunlight and any non-mobile lighting fixtures, if I have my FAQs right). An Eclipsed version of light only states that it functions "like" darkness, but doesn't have the specific language about dousing non-ambient light sources.

This would cause the eclipsed version of the light spell to be much more effective for its place, but the optimizer in me feels like this is too good to pass up.


I did some digging, it looks like the closest thing to what I'm looking for is Fester. Hits all the marks that I'm looking for, but the duration drops to just one round if the opponent makes their fortitude save. And where there are big natural armor bonuses there's bound to be high fortitude saves. At least it's on my character's spell list...

CopperWyrm wrote:

Whenever I make a build, one of the things I always consider is whether I can find a way to make the True Strike spell viable for the build, typically by finding a way to decrease the action economy involved. Finding a way to bypass the "personal" target limitation of the spell is also important.

True Strike applies to combat maneuvers. For that reason alone, it is amazing.

At the right time True Strike can be absolutely life-saving. My group were fighting a Solar, I was a Paladin/UnCh Monk that took True Strike as a Ki Power, it was a small miracle to get that +X huge vorpal greatsword out of its hands.

Dragonborn3 wrote:
Fast Healing doesn't typically have the magical tag on it, so it won't stop bleeding. At least as far as I can tell.

While I certainly prefer your interpretation, I think the rules as intended would be that fast healing and regen do stop bleed damage. James Jacobs (not an official source afaik) stated the same here.

I also tend to prefer rules as intended view on things like this, so I can't argue otherwise although it would benefit me =D Pretty sure our GM would rule the same way.

Claxon wrote:

I don't have a statistical breakdown, but I think you're overestimating the number of creatures with regen or fast healing, compared to things that have natural armor.

Basically everything has natural armor after a certain level. Remember, even PCs/NPCs wearing Amulet of Natural Armor has a natural armor bonus.

It's less of a 'how many opponents have it' than it's a 'the most dangerous opponents I'll be fighting often will have it'. I'm aware of how vast and common a bonus natural armor is (why the feat looks so appealing) but I'm looking for strategies down the road that would help me deal with this problem when it comes up.

For consideration, a lot of high level brutes that would otherwise lack access to healing get it, as well as the majority of outsiders. It's not an extremely common problem, but when it is a problem it's a big problem.

I'm looking into picking up flensing strike for my Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor, but at just about the level he'd gain access (9) most truly dangerous enemies that rely on natural armor have access to fast healing or regeneration. Regeneration is easy enough to counter by applying whatever kind of damage negates it. Fast healing, on the other hand, leaves me pretty well out of luck.

So, are there any abilities, magic items, obscure feats or class pick up's that will allow me to counter those abilities?


Derklord wrote:
The main problem is not the Aldori Dueling Sword, but rather Vital Strike - outside of very few specific builds, the feat is just not a valid main plan. Base weapon damage dice just don't usually play that significant part of a character's damage, but what's really killing the feat is Haste - once you get that (or Blessing of Fervor, or Boots of Speed), it's almost impossible to have VS competitive.

The boon for this build was the Vigilante 'Vital Punishment' talent, which allowed me to use vital strike with attacks of opportunity. But thinking more strongly about the character, it's not as if he'll have the ability (or remaining feat slots) to take advantage of increased AoO, say by way of improved trip or other AoO creators.

I was under the assumption that Adding Serran's Masterstroke (hence the need for an Aldori Dueling Sword) to Vital Strike would land me a solid amount of base damage, and a constant move+feint (by virtue of Vigilante talent cunning feint) would give him mobility as well.

It appears that putting it all together still leaves him wanting as a frontline martial. While I'm not so concerned with haste (I can't assume he'll benefit from it since we're going to be just a 4 person party) the amount he'll lag behind when doing the thing he's built to do just makes his build a bit of a waste.

Ah well, plenty of other character possibilities; thanks for the advice.

avr wrote:

The Aldori dueling sword is something that developers have wanted to be good but just isn't. Sorry. Vital strike is useful in some builds but an ADS is not a good place to start for them.

With a vigilante the best talent for damage is take 'em alive, but it's incompatible with enforcer since a free demoralize is a secondary effect.

If you have 13+ Str, high dex, power attack and get the lethal grace and take 'em alive vigilante talents you should have a solid amount of damage to work with.

That's the feeling I've gotten from it as well. Lots of setting value, virtually no reason to use the thing. I thought I could combine a swift or better feint with vital strike and Serren's masterstroke to fill in the damage gap, but even after all that investment the damage bonus ends up being paltry compared to all that's invested.

The relevant passage is "In addition, the vigilante gains a +1 bonus on all attack and damage rolls for attacks that deal only nonlethal damage and have no secondary effects (such as poison)." I'm not sure that technically applies, since the secondary effect isn't happening due to the strike, but actually an effect that allows me to take a free action. Then again, I can see where you're coming from. I'll put it down to 'ask my GM' if I decide to go that route.

Unfortunately I don't have the ability spread to get the strength and dexterity for lethal grace to work effectively. Our GM has us using rolled abilities and a low point value since it's the Kingmaker AP, and I'm wanting to keep his charisma up for leadership roles.

My fallback is a Sworn to the Eldest (replaces Wis caster stat with Cha) Inquisitor, so it's not like I don't have any other options. Thanks for the suggestion.

So I'm attempting to build a Dragonscale Loyalist (Avenger) Vigilante for a Kingmaker AP game, but am having a devil of a time trying to make him effective in combat.

One option I'm pursuing is throwing Vital Strike onto Serren's Masterstroke.
This translates to an extra 10 damage at level 8, 17 at level 12, and 24 at level 16.

Assuming gear, magic items, 2 handed damage bonus and ability increases go towards maintaining strength this would get me DPR of..
17 at 4,
34 at 8,
48 at 12
61 at 16.

Not really worth the 4 feat investment.

I could pick up an impact weapon that would increase my damage to 52 at level 12 and 73 at level 16. This moves me from subpar to adequate, but it feels like I should be tossing more onto here to be meaning ful in combat.

Which gets me to here. I still have enough between feat slots and skills to go for a few feats on an intimidate build, Enforcer + Take 'em Alive is a pretty effective combination. Otherwise, there's..?

Well, I'm hoping you could suggest stuff. The Aldori Dueling Sword has a lot of other feat options, but those all require weapon finesse. That would be doable, but pirhana strike is just low enough compared to power attack that I'd be losing out on too much by keeping vital strike and Serren's Masterstroke.

Anyone have any helpful ideas? Not looking to min-max or dominate, just keep my abilities in the green range as a martial. Any help would be appreciated.

Midnightoker wrote:

I don't really see how people can argue in favor for this but against Weapon/Armor Proficiency locking that occurs with Martials.

I'm starting to think people just wanted Casters deleted from the game.

Martial abilities that require a saving throw tend to cost a class feat, where as weapon/armor prof is built into the class basics.

Getting a consistent miss or hit die to a slightly lower number isn't such a big deal when the effect is passively rolled a great deal of times per day. With focus powers you're looking at 1-3 per day and only 1/ encounter if you want to avoid burnout.

So if something's only occurring 1/day and you devoted a class feat to it, there's a lot more riding on that DC; which makes a lower DC a particularly vexing problem.

Kyrone wrote:
I don't think they should, Monks Stunning fists per example is way more action efficient than spells for being a passive effect, the other proficiencies are way better as well, managing better saves with LME compared to casters MEE(LEE bard) and having better armor proficiency (every martial have M at minimum).

I believe the concern is the lower proficiency dc coupled with the critical pass and fail save effects. Given how potent monster saves tend to be the chances of any given focus power having an effect goes from slight to basically nonexistent as one moves from low to mid to high level gameplay.

I agree Stunning Fist and Mountain Quake aren't necessarily great examples since they have no resource cost. Ki Blast and Quivering Palm, otoh, cost a focus point and a variable number of actions in a turn. Pair these effects with their dependence on Fort save failures, and both powers become a poor option against opponents nearly at your level and negligible against monsters higher than.

And for balance reasons I can see the point behind gating the proficiency terms behind full casters... but, that doesn't change how it rolls out in play.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Each individual focus power lists the page number in the powers class feat section. For example the Monk focus power "Ki Blast" states to see page 401 for power details. The page number for each power is listed in the specific class feat entry that grants it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spells for the Ranger (and Paladin, perhaps even bard) were meant to fulfill a narrative conceit. The idea behind the spells available was to allow rangers to use the sort natural lore abilities they were assumed to have, without falling into the complications that these options would create. So the 3-PF spell casting options were a way to shoe horn in what might otherwise be whole systems.

Since they nixed the ranger spells (confused that they also neglected to give rangers focus powers; but that's a topic for another thread) you gotta ask if they can still do the sort of things one expects a ranger to be able to do..

I think rather than the ranger as historically depicted in D&D, they've gone for more of a stalker approach. The base chasis for ranger provides expanded skill access and (most importantly in PF2) the only access to legendary perception, and the fastest path to master.

As for abilities locked behind feats; that's a problem for every class. Outside of full casters everyone has to pick a suite of powers, which yeah, cuts them off from other avenues.

As far as the ranger being unviable, I've been running through a 5e low level game that could desperately benefit from the rangers ability to track, move about unnoticed, and generally investigate. The lack of win button spells in PF2 is going to make the rangers skills and perception a commodity.

Personally I'd rather he was less woodsy focus than he currently is, but he has a definite niche if you take into account what he provides that fighter, druid and /or barbarian don't.

Dunno, I thought the ranger was a little underpowered perhaps, but overall fine.

So, there are other refocus options, if you're already a full caster and not a sorcerer. That feels, ehh, arbitrary.

As far as my feelings on the focus system in general, meh.

I like the idea that one can spread their points out conservatively or sacrifice later utility to "go nova" in circumstances of dire need. This feels like a very cool way to have X/battle powers that doesn't seem like just an arbitrary game abstraction.

On the other hand I'm pretty unenthused that Champions, Bards and Monks are relegated to 1 to 3/day tricks for the more thematic uses of their abilities. It's not as if their class chasis doesn't have unique stuff all its own, these just happen to be mostly built in or passive benefits. Odds are when you're thinking about your most memorable scenes from prior characters it's something that happens based on their unique actions.

The opportunity to use focus powers seems so slight as to be barely present at all, and the ability to spend more than one per battle without hosing yourself before your next nightly rest is gated behind an area of play that most folks will never see. Forget taking focus powers as a multiclass character, 1/battle tricks just won't measure up to a class feat.

All these limitations just seem to squeeze the abilities into non-relevance. If we could get focus powers without sacrificing a class feat this wouldn't feel like such a harsh sacrifice. Costs being what they are, they just don't feel worth it under these limitations.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I imagine all this has less to do with telling GM's they can run the game as they wish (seems pretty basic) and a lot more to do with setting out rules and assumptions for Adventure Paths and PFS organized play.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:

Focus Powers and Spells have the Uncommon and Rare tags because it's possible to search out for someone that has those abilities. For example, if you're looking for a Champion that can heal you using Lay on Hands it would be uncommon depending on the circumstances.

Rarity is also a guide for a DM as to how rare something would be to find.

In the middle of a random village and looking to hire the services of a Bard that can Inspire Courage for your party and maybe help your party travel quickly to another town with the help of their Triple Time performance? Well, those services would count as uncommon so it's up to the DM whether or not they would be available.

It doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it. It just means that it's not assumed to be available.

If you're playing a class that gains Focus Powers then you'll earn them automatically through your class abilities and class feats as detailed in your class.

Thank god, someone finally gets the question!

Thanks Gloom, makes perfect sense now.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

They're uncommon, so you don't get to choose them - unless a class feature, like school specialization, gives you access. Then you get them automatically.

Every focus power has the uncommon rarity tag.

Every focus power is attainable -only- through a class feat.

If an ability is acquired via a class feat, then the rarity tag is invalidated.

Not being sarcastic here, the rules seem to literally contradict themselves.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Thebazilly wrote:

You quoted the exact rules text that allows you to use Focus powers already.
Taking the class feat allows you to use the Uncommon Focus power. Your Class grants you access to it. There is no other way to gain a Focus power.

If the only way to get a focus power is by taking a class feat to get it, and class feats cannot be invalidated by rarity tag, then why have a rarity tag on focus powers?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

You seem to be either missing or deliberately ignoring the part where the class feat that gives you the Focus spell is NOT uncommon, and thus follows the rule that class features can give you access to uncommon things.

Your claim makes logical sense but doesn't hold up to the text.

Are there are ways to get focus powers other than class feats and items?

Assiming no, then none of the class focus powers need the uncommon tag, since by your logic class feats invalidate the tag, and items that grant class feats (if they exist) are limited by their own rarity rating.

But, all of the focus power abilities do have the uncommon tag. So while a GM could not disallow the ability to select the feat (could through GM fiat anyway, but that's not a thing the rulebook needs to worry about) but per the book they could bar selecting the power that the feat grants access to.

If only some of the focus powers had the uncommon tag this would make sense; instead all the focus powers have.the uncommon tag.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kelseus wrote:

PFS is going to allow uncommon options via chronicle certs and the Adventure Points system, I believe.


Which is just a PFS way of saying, "you gain access to the restricted stuff b/c you did the quest." Which is exactly what your home GM is ALSO doing.

So focus powers are going to be gated behind the adventure point system?

So class features could be gated behind particular quests?

Item rarity makes perfect sense, but my qualms aren't about item rarity.

Shisumo wrote:

Which is just a PFS way of saying, "you gain access to the restricted stuff b/c you did the quest." Which is exactly what your home GM is ALSO doing.

If my home GM is gating the entirety of focus powers behind quests they're quickly becoming not my home GM. (Not that this is relevant, I'm the GM for my group)

This all makes sense for items. It makes a certain kind of sense for mystery games or games that need to block off a portion of play due to where the narrative conflict rests.

My concern is turning blocks of character building into a whimsical benny system for the GM's or a loyalty bonus for long term PFS players.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thebazilly wrote:
Halcyon_Janissary wrote:

"Unless you decide otherwise, the players can choose from any common options they qualify for, plus any uncommon options granted by their character choices—primarily their ancestry and class"

Sooo, any focus power at all is explicitly at the whim of the GM?

No, the exact opposite. Taking the class feat gives you automatic access to the Focus Power.

If that's the case, then what's the "unless you decide otherwise" clause doing in the statement at all?

If a class focus power (or any other uncommon class or ancestry feature) have identical rules to common class features (in that you gain access to them by leveling up) then the question becomes why make it explicit?

Which is the basis of my concern about how this plays out in organized play.

It will be a problem if you want to pick up Dueling Dance at level 12, but there's no rule against wielding a melee weapon while in dragon stance, and no requirement to strike with your weapon to gain the benefits of Dueling Stance. Outside of that issue I don't see a problem.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

All Focus Powers are Uncommon. But, the rules on rarity state that players are assumed to have access to benefits gained by ancestry and class.

"Unless you decide otherwise, the players can choose from any common options they qualify for, plus any uncommon options granted by their character choices—primarily their ancestry and class"

Sooo, any focus power at all is explicitly at the whim of the GM? Fair enough, but seems a waste of time and ink to explicitly call out what's an obviously baked in rule.

Also makes me wonder how Adventure Paths and PFS rules might restrict this stuff =\

Can't seem to find 'em in the core book. There are rough approximations for them in the longsword, rapier, katana (more or less) and elven curve blade; but none that fits all the widgets that the dueling sword did lat edition.

Is this due to come out in a campaign guide, already out elsewhere, or is there somewhere in the book that spells out just what the Aldori swords are assumed to be in this edition?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Quivering Palm went from a kinda bland save vs die to a range of interesting damage effects which could, but are unlikely to, still result in enemy death.

If your monk hits and speaks the death word your target is taking somewhere between zero to 100 damage (depending on failure rate and highten levrl) and has a chance of taking stun 1 or (if you're very luck or wasted the strike on a relatively lesser foe) 3. Its utility against bosses and huge monsters remains a bit meh (a pity, since the enormous monsters you're more likely to face at QP level tend to be massive opponents with equally massive fort saves anyway), but the straight necoromatic death effect means it could effect a few targets otherwise resistant to your monks more, generally punching power. A pretty good improvement over the old monk anyway.

The new Wholeness of Body is a huge improvement, now curing 8 hp per heighten level, or about 1/4 your total hp. The ability to counteract poisons and diseases sounds great, but I'm not familiar enough with the dc's for these to make a good reading on how likely the monk will be in Physicianing thine self. In any case, Wholeness of Body is now at minimum a considerable choice. Yay viable options!

Last on the list of improvements is Ki Blast. It's a little tricky to say where this was in the prior system, since there isn't a straight translation from 1E to 2E. The closest are a few Qin powers that translated to d6 damage per level. The standardized Ki Blast here offers a damage progression and size that ranges according to the time investment. With just one action you get a 15 ft cone and a little less than half your level in d6, 2 actions for a 30 ft cone and half to 2/3 your level, or D6 equal to almost your level and a 60 ft. cone for the full 3 actions.

I really like the modular options of this power, allowing you to invest just a little time and pop one off for a minimal effect or take a full round action for a substantial one. That it's force damage is the cherry on your Tian Xia sundae, bypassing almost all resistances. (Assuming monster resistances are similar in 2 to that of 1st edition).

Speaking of edition concerns, I do have a niggling worry in the back of my mind that HP has been significantly inflated. If PC hp is always max plus the race bonus from level one... well, that's a question for another thread. The Ki powers certainly look improved at first blush, I hope that holds out in play.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are we including powers? The Monk abilities got a few bumps; Quivering Palm and Ki Blast especially.

Spinning my wheels on multiclassing a Monk, I'm womdering if I'm reading the "learn a class feat meeting prereq's as if 1/2 your character level". More to the point is there a downside to taking a power in terms of its overall effectiveness or its ability to be heightened?

Say I'm making a fighter but want to dip into monk powers. If I take Wholeness of Body at level 8 through Adv Kata, can I highten the power as a monk of my character level or as a monk of 1/2 my level? I haven't found a ruling one way or the other so far, but I'm not fantastic at missing little rulings hidden in long descriptions.

Outside of the heightening issue, I imagine the big downside compared to a getting the power as a primary class would be DC. It'd be a mistake, for instance to pick up Ki Blast since my Monk power dc's will never be greater than trained.

Of course, the other big sacrifice is Fighter feat focus in general, but it seems that depending on the character in question it could be worth it..

Very cool resource!
Hmm, it's got me rethinking my ranger/monk as a fighter/monk...

Captain Morgan wrote:

We have been told that skill feats have improved, and we have been given some specific examples of how that sound promising, such as Quiet Allies and Survey Wildlife. We know that there is a feat called "Combat Climber" that probably combines a couple of previous climbing skill feats.

But I still have concerns, based on the single page of skill feats we saw from the Paizo Banquet, that they aren't going to be strong enough for my liking. However, if that is the case I am sure I will be able to adapt my playtest rewrite to the final version.

Went through your list of changrs, and they do seem be solid improvements. Although, given these are based mainly in the series of feats already provided the same issue of relevance and skill spread crops up.

I suppose what I was looking for most in skill feats was a way to bring the skills into more areas of play; but unfortunately "areas of play" is ultimately going to mean combat in a game like Pathfinder, whatever the edition.

I definitely see why taking categories of feats out of combat concerns (skill feats especially) allows players to build characters according to roleplaying preference rather than eekeing out every possible + of advantage. Which is a big improvement. But, that's under the assumption that the non-combat / skill feats are effective at relaying interesting or functional information about a character. It's that part which seems to be lacking.

Kyrone wrote:

Well, I don't know about the situation of the skill feats, but I like this one that was revealed in Paizocon, must be awesome to trip or grab one ancient dragon with it.

Titan Wrestler (Feat 1) (General, Skill). Prereqs: trained in Athletics. You can attempt to Disarm, Grapple, Shove, or Trip creatures up to two sizes larger than you, or up to three sizes larger than you if you’re legendary in Athletics.

I hope that the other skill feats are something on the same level.

Yaaas, that's the sort of thing I was looking for. Although... gotta wonder how that size increase handles the outsized abilities of large+ monsters.

After playing a monk for a high level campaign I had to retrain a number of my feats built around a trip build; while technically within the rules to grapple a huge enemy, the numbers made it an exercise in futility. But! Hopefully PF2 will allow more wiggle room here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

Since skill feats are in their own silo and don't have to match general or class feats for power and utility, I'm not concerned if they don't knock my socks off.

As long as they are consistently applied and don't do things like completely carve out parts of their skill as if they were DLC made by EA I think I'll be content.

The potency tier for feats could well go Class, Ancestry/General, and then Skill.

It's not so much potency that I'm worried about, it's relevancy. While I haven't done a dedicated feat by feat run through of skill fests (saving that for the official release) the skill feats themselves range from 'let you do things you should already be able do' to 'let you do things that will come up maybe once or twice a campaign' to 'allow a very specific sort of build (like intimidation tree) to be possible or remain relevant.'

My concern is not that they're less potent than other feat resources, it's that they feel a waste of time unless one's campaign or character is specifically focused around a given activity.

Which might be fine too! If, you know, there was some kind of better distribution of skill feats. As of now a few have 3-5, a few have one, and the stated design of the resource (to bring skill choices and abilities into greater relevence) feels quite opposite from what the feats actually do.

Lastly, one is expected to choose a number of skill feats and extra skill feats (given class choice and abilities) classes that provide extra skill feats provide those as a feature of the class. Putting five extra bedazzle beads on a class and balancing around it as an advantage seems rather like trying to point to a PF1 Monks slow fall as a real class advantage. Situationally an advantage, but not really worth comparing to other class advantages.

Lanathar wrote:

So as mentioned above they probably don’t need to be amazing

Not worried about potency, disappointed with lack of relevancy.

Sooo, those skill feats in the playtest. Were those meant to be a sampling, or a full list of options? And 3ven if only a sampling, the number and effect of those feats seem pretty underwhelming; mostly occupying space that the feat should already exist in but possible with a penalty, or offering up utilities that I've never seen players take an active hand in, at least in my experience..

So, am I just estimating these badly? Are there promises of much more relevant skill feats once the real book shows? What's the community interpretation?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:

I was curious because of the "straight up" part since flying up counts as difficult terrain making it half speed. It is sort of quibbly, and I don't mean to pull away from the broader scenario. It's still possible with Haste or using wall run / wall jump. I was just seeing if I missed a way to jump crazy high that I could use for the dragoon I'm building for pfs.

Ack, I think you're right; the straight up leap of the fly movement would require movement at 1/2 speed.

The 6th level monk feat Dimension Step allows instant jumps between 10 and 40 ft depending on level, as far as I can tell there's nothing preventing one from chaining activations to raise that to 80 ft*. Of course that would chew through your ki pretty quick, and the Monk is sadly lacking the naginata as a Monastic Weaponry option.

*Corrected to reduce value... egh, hope this gets increased in final book release.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
The next round, the monk combined 2 ki powers to leap 75 feet straight up, landing on a wvyern and flurrying the rider. Another rider flew over to try nd help fight this crazy monk.
Was this via Wind Jump? Or some crazy combination of feats and items that increased your Athletics that high?
It was a Class feat lvl 10 of the Monk that let you get fly speed equal to your movement speed, Monks Incredible Movement class feature gives a lot of movement speed.

Indeed. This combined with a ki rush let him close the distance extremely fast.

(We might have miscalculated distances, or he must have had Wind Jump already active for him to Ki rush fly >> fly >> flurry all in one turn, now that I think about it. But that feels like quibbling and doesn't detract from the broader scenario.)

Looks good by my calc. Wind Jump 1 action, Ki Rush to move up to 90 ft (25 human speed + 20 monk bonus)*2 1 action, FoB 1 action.

Nicely done for that monk.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Halcyon_Janissary wrote:
Looking for a bit of clarification; does the class feat Ki Strike no longer grant 2 Spell points to the monk on selection?

Well, it doesn't now, but I don't think it ever did?

Halcyon_Janissary wrote:

Along a similar vein, does selecting both Ki Strike and Ki Rush mean no additional spell points as well, unlike other instances of Ki Power feasts?

The language for both feats indicate that "you gain a spell point pool if you don't already have one" rather than indicating a specific increase to your spell point pool like other ki power feats.

That is correct. We may hope this gets fixed in the final rules....

Ack, you're correct Ki Strike never applied a straight bonus to ki pool, it just created one equal to Wisdom modifier.

Of course, when Ki Strike was 1st written it was the assumed gateway into Ki powers, rather than the one of many options we have now...

So, I guess we'll see if getting both feats will lead to more Ki.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Looking for a bit of clarification; does the class feat Ki Strike no longer grant 2 Spell points to the monk on selection?

Along a similar vein, does selecting both Ki Strike and Ki Rush mean no additional spell points as well, unlike other instances of Ki Power feasts?

The language for both feats indicate that "you gain a spell point pool if you don't already have one" rather than indicating a specific increase to your spell point pool like other ki power feats.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Not positive I'm reading your concern correctly; are you saying that 17/2 rounded up is 10 and 19/2 rounded up is 11? Because that's off by one;

17/2 = 8.5 => 9 not 10,
19/2 = 9.5 => 10 not 11.
There are level 10 spells (or just slots? I forget now), so that's all ok.

Cripes, your math is right, I don't know how I got 10th and 11th. ‍

In any case, yeah this makes sense with the new 10th level spell cap. Cheers

I can't tell if this is my math, my missing a detail, or if I'm reading this right..

A power (like a monks Ki Blast or Paladins LoH) automatically heightens to 1/2 level rounded up, what happens when 1/2 your level rounded up exceeds 9?

For example:
A level 3 power, Ki Blast Regular = 4d4, +2d4 for each level its heightened.
So at spell level 4 (character level 7) it does 6d4, and so on.

But at character level 17 (unlikely though such characters are) the power does 16d4 (reasonable for character level, I think) as a "level 10" spell. The next and final upgrade comes in at level 19, increasing damage to 18d4 (again, fair I think) but making the "spell level" 11?

I mean, prolly this isn't a big deal since spell level doesn't really mean much anymore, but all my PF1 / 3.X instincts tell me I'm missing something.

...Am I?


Both. Definitely Both.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Curious on your thoughts about whether a human could take the Natural Ambition Ancestry Feat more than once. This feat grants you an additional 1st level class feat.

My assumption is yes, but I've seen other instance of selectable ...things which specifically call out the ability to take them more than once, and Natural Ambition doesn'y have that; so now I'm leaning toward no.


1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>