Cyclone

Henro's page

831 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 831 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I apologize for using Evil necromancy to revive a long-dead thread.

The other day, I found an interesting tidbit on page 456 of the CRB:

"Many area effects describe only the effects on creatures in the area. The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects."

This which reminded me of this thread and the discussion surrounding collateral damage. Turns out the game more or less handles it like I wanted it to after all, which was a pleasant surprise to be sure. Fireballs do in fact destroy unattended chairs (unless the GM is a hardass about it).

The only reason I bring this up is to the benefit of future 2E GMs who stumble onto this thread - it took me two years before I even found this passage after all.

EDIT: Wait... Did Lethe really bring up this passage on the second comment??? How did I miss that back then??? Then why did I even...? Anyway, don't mind me, carry on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It depends a lot on the situation. I'll generally allow a takeback, and will give my players information or context in advance of certain actions if I think their characters would be aware of some critical piece of information that they missed. A chasm may look fairly safe in a player's mind, but the PC can see it and knows just how deadly a fall would be.

However, at some point an action has happened, and choices are made as a result of that action. At that point it's too late for rollbacks - not because of realism or grit but because the choices and actions subsequent to the rollback are valuable too.


One thing I've done lately is being a lot more loosey-goosey with magic item levels relative to PC level, especially when it comes to consumables. For instance, giving the players a high-level scroll of a spell they can't cast yet can be a lot of fun and make players more excited about picking that spell later.

However, I think this approach works less well if you run a game with easy access to buying and selling magic items. I prefer running games where buying and selling (especially very valuable items) can be a challenge.

Edit: I also do Class/Spell DC for all magic items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
Are there? The Daikyu seems rather unique in its awfulness. I have trouble thinking of a weapon that's as bad as it, maybe only the heavy crossbow. And even then, I can think of more characters that would make use of a heavy crossbow just because it's simple.

Sort of late reply, but I think Heavy Crossbow is actually pretty sweet depending on who's using it. The key is never ever reloading, which is totally feasible as a low level Wizard (you're probably not using those hands for anything for the first couple of levels anyway). Getting a d12 ranged attack once per fight is not unlike getting an extra focus spell, and once you've fired you can drop the crossbow as a free action if you need to use those hands for anything. IMO, low level crossbow usage is actually pretty optimal for a lot of characters.

But Daikyu sucks, yes.


If you run the spell as written, the optimal way of using the spell is choosing a trigger that triggers as frequently as your GM will allow.

So if you can get away with it "Trigger: I breathe" or "Trigger: a second passes" would be the optimal triggers to stick on any casting of contingency. Most(?) GMs probably wouldn't allow those triggers but you can apply this to other kinds of triggers as well. For example, "Trigger: I take damage" would be completely superior to "Trigger: I take fire damage".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I want something in the design space of the 1E occultist (martial who prepares special items which change around their playstyle). I'm not at all married to many or any of the specific mechanics of 1E occultist though (and Antiquarian is a really good name). So that's probably the new class I'd like to see.


At very low level, with a party that large, I don't actually think the bard is doing too poorly. Inspire courage scales with party size, so keeping those coming consistently is a good idea. At mid/higher levels, occult spellcasting gets some really hard-hitting spells that makes mixing things up important.

Beyond that basic advice, the GM might adapt to this as enemies get smarter. If the enemy can set up an ambush with pincer tactics that could be pretty bad for the Bard.


vagrant-poet wrote:
I'd be curious what has changed in your estimation since that post.

A few noteworthy things;

-Barb should have gotten a higher Tank score, probably 3* (or at the very least 2*). Barbs are pretty likely tanks if you invest in the right feats and subclass. I talk about what criteria I use when rating a tank in the linked thread (this is probably the most straightforward rating out of all the roles).
-I'd probably give Investigator a 4 in support. That doesn't mean Investigator is 80% the support Alchemist is, but after playing around with it some more I think it does more in this role than Rogue.
-Ranger gets a 5 in Independent Striker, which I still stand by. However, this is one of those things that break down nearly completely when you factor in Archetyping - a lot of that 5 comes from Animal Companions which is a huge boost to that particular role. When you factor in Beastmaster, this niche is almost entirely eradicated. Put Beastmaster on a Monk (especially with Free Archetype), and watch my rating system crumble.

vagrant-poet wrote:
I'd also be interested what the equivalent ratings are for spell casters.

Honestly, I'm not sure I could make equivalent ratings for casters. If I were to do something like this for casters, I think my gut instinct would be to rate the spell lists instead of the casters themselves - rating a Sorcerer like this doesn't make a whole lot of sense when their choice of list matters much more for their role than the class itself. Some casters affect the role more via their class kit (Bard and Cleric come to mind) but even then much of their role is determined by their list (and snagging spells from other lists tends to be the key to working roles outside of your purview).


I mean if we're doing PvP, then Evil Champion is probably the best martial class, and then casters mostly win if they can use 4th level invisibility. Such a tier list would be completely useless, however.

I think that applies to most kinds of 2E tier lists actually. There is no established baseline for what kind of environment these classes are judged against, unlike a fighting game. That was true for 1E as well, but in that game certain classes eclipsed other ones in nearly every conceivable area, making it possible to say one class was better than another.

Even the things that probably seem like the most "duh" baseline of making a 2E tier list to some people are things I have a hard time taking seriously. For example, "Fighter is in a tier which is higher than Alchemist" is not a statement I think really has legs. Not when so much of that depends on party comp, table style, campaign, etc etc etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
vagrant-poet wrote:
Quite like these categories as roles. Can you apply them to the classes with rankings?

Here's a ranking I did in the past. These are entirely based on limited personal experience with the classes, and I don't feel the same way about all of them anymore. Hopefully the conversation in this thread is of some use.

EDIT: Also, I should note that these ratings only really apply to base-class only with no Archetyping. I think ratings like these start to break down completely when you try and take archetypes into account.

EDIT the second: I will also note, having a perfect 5 in this rating is not the same as being Tier 1. In most games, many martial PCs tend to need to play at least 2 of these roles, switching between them as needed.


I actually did a rating using these roles in another thread previously. It’s a little outdated since I don’t feel quite the same way about all the classes I rated after getting even more experience with the game, but I’ll go dig it up tomorrow (it’s getting late).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My initial role classification for martials in combat was;

"Supported Striker" (Giant Barbarian would be the posterboy for this, and so would Rogue. This role focuses on dealing big damage, but usually needs help from the rest of the party to operate at max efficiency and also just to stay alive)

"Independent Striker" (Monk is the best example of this role. This role focuses on skirmishing, helping out with flanking, and generally being in the right place at the right time. Mobility and action economy is a big focus)

"Tank" (To tank, you need two things; bulk and tanking abilities. The tanking abilities usually come in the form of reactions like AoO. Generally wants to punish enemies if they decide to attack the frailer party members. Best example is obviously Champion)

"Support" (For a martial this mostly means buffs & debuffs, and to be honest it's a bit of a misc category mostly there for Alchemist. However, Rogue and Investigator would be two other classes that do some useful things in this regard.)

This classification focuses less on abilities in a vacuum, which I think is important when rating classes from a combat role perspective. I also don't think casters and martials can be rated against each other in any meaningful way. They tend to occupy fairly discrete spaces within the party, and the fact that casters start out somewhat below curve but generally scale slightly ahead of martials complicates things further.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I use the same metric as Exo for some things (role classification), and while I think that metric would be the place to start for proper tiers, I also think actually doing tiers like this becomes too complex to actually go anywhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucerious wrote:

This has been a helpful thread in helping provide uses for that spell. When going over spells, I looked past it as it didn’t seem particularly impressive at first glance. Removing all reactions on a successful save now does seem a great way to throw a wrench in my players’ tactics.

Muahaha! And they will have all of you to thank...or blame.

Notably, the spell is a lot less powerful in the hands of a GM since you lose the spell's best case scenario (full party vs a solo enemy). In the hands of a boss monster, the spell is quite weak. However, it can still be a useful one to remove annoying PC reactions like AoO, especially when the enemies are in a group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The secret use of this spell is that it's unbelievably good. It's gotten a bit of a reputation of being a bit OP at my tables.

The trick to it is using it against solo bosses or other fights with few opponents. At that point, you're not trading actions 1 for 1 - you're trading 1/12th of the party's actions for 1/3th of the enemy actions, and their reaction. It's an exceptionally good deal for a 2nd level spell.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Honestly I am surprised I haven't heard more people talk about wealth as a limited resource because there is a large block of posters to this forum that have pretty negative opinions about consumables and view the destructibility of shields as an impediment to their use as opposed to incentive for the GM to keep giving out new, more level appropriate shields as the game progresses.

I feel compelled to chime in as a staunch anti-permanent-item destruction poster. I still strongly support consumable use and am a huge fan of tactical scroll use and the spell slot liberation that comes with them.

My beef with shield destruction in particular is that shields aren't consumables - they're permanent items - and therefore occupy a different role in the game's economy. The game is ready and balanced around players spending consumables but not magic item.

This thread needn't become another shield thread (and I apologize in advance if I inadvertently cause that to happen) - just wanted to clarify why someone might be vehemently against permanent shield destruction but not consumable use.

-----------------------------------------

As a GM, I rather frequently give out consumables like scrolls earlier than the players are expected to have them - to give the players a taste of later power (potentially influencing their build decisions if they find a spell they like more than expected), and giving them a super-tool to get them out of a jam.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a recent online conversation which made me warm up a little towards Clinging Ice. Previously I wrote it off because while it's very action-efficient, I thought it would run out of steam too quickly unless you face off against several foes (not dealing damage on sustain, coupled with temporary immunity, means you can only damage one particular creature once per combat.)

However, it was pointed out that the sustained -5/-10 movement speed can actually be really impactful in solo encounter, specifically against enemies with a 25ft speed, due to the fact that these enemies then become super easy to kite. Having that utility in solo fights (against 4+ enemies it's just plain old efficient damage), definitely got me past my poor first impression of the spell a little.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder how much of the shield problem we could solve by making destroyed shields salvageable (possibly in downtime) without a significant GP expense.

Since "you can't use your cool magic shield until you get back to town" seems less punitive than "that's some money wasted."

Incidentally, this is basically how I run things at my table. A destroyed magic item counts as 90% of the destroyed item's value in materials - so it can be remade with crafting/paying an NPC for a reforge. This has the added bonus of making crafting a more generally useful skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Not sure how having the choice is punishing over it just happening without a choice on the players part.

Again, the only thing I really care about here is permanent magic item destruction, which I don't think should be a thing in the game. If shields could be destroyed without player input, I'd think that was an even bigger problem than what we currently have.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I just feel that blocking a big attack with your shield and barely hanging on is a great cinematic moment and feels good as a player to do - therefore I think the game is in error when it punishes this exact behavior.

I will add that I have no personal gripe with knowing the damage before blocking, just with permanent shield destruction (and magic item destruction in general).


Sidetrack on Clinging Ice - do other people find that focus spell strange? It's one I see brought up fairly often in defense of Witch, and 1-action damage + slowdown definitely seems welcome on a cantrip. The fact that you only get the damage on cast and not sustain seems like a pretty severe drawback to me, combined with the 1min immunity.

In practice I could see it play out differently than I expect it to, but it seems very hard to get long-term use out of it in a lot of encounters. If a solo monster makes the initial save the cantrip is basically dead for the rest of combat - is this a big issue for people using it or does it end up being fine in practice?


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the big disconnect comes from the fact that 2E operates opposite to how you expect the fiction to work in this regard.

Fiction: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... I have no choice but to sacrifice my trusty shield if I want to remain standing"

2E: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... Now is the time to intentionally not block with my shield, taking the attack head on and dropping unconscious. Falling in combat is just a temporary setback, while losing my shield would be near-permanent damage"


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Shield destruction is the game giving you an option it's not prepared for you to take. Generally, I think its bad that the game lets you potentially break your character's economy for a temporary advantage. At best, it basically never gets used.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

You're being very aggressive in probing me right now, which I can't say I appreciate. The Wild + Life witch brought it to a oneshot which wasn't specifically prepared for what each individual PC might look like - I feel like I should be allowed to run those too. And yes, the Witch played really poorly... I really don't know why you find that so hard to believe. He cast his spells and didn't have a lot to fall back on after that unlike the other casters in the party.

Shroud comes from whiteroom and online conversations - APs apparently have a lot darkvision as you reach higher levels.


Midnightoker wrote:
And complaining about options that I'd wager you never picked as if it affects the whole Class isn't really a fair assessment of the value.

This is a correct assessment since I'm an eternal GM, but I still feel a little insulted by the sentiment. I play with all sorts of people, including players who just pick options that look cool without considering their power especially. 2E as a whole has been great at not punishing that. Wilding Word + Life Lesson is something I've actually seen, and it really, really sucked. I'd appreciate it if you took my experience for what it was.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

See, I think we're talking past each other at this point. What I'm talking about currently is less a power issue and more of a design issue. Being penalized for making easy-to-make choices just doesn't feel very good. I personally feel like Wilding Word is a badly designed focus cantrip because it ties so much of your character's early game power to something so situation-dependent. It reminds me a lot of the kind of hyper-specialization you'd find in 1E, actually.

However, if the Wizard>Witch part of the conversation is what matters the most to you, I will gladly concede that point. I don't especially feel like trying to argue for an absolute like that (because it's impossible, Witch will always have at least some things it does better than a Wizard, even though I don't think most of them matter), even though I personally believe Wizard for the most part beats Witch in every way that matter.

Also;

Midnightoker wrote:
So because there are 3 Hex cantrips, two of which are excellent in the proper circumstances and one of which has a heavy narrative focus, the whole Class is worse than the Wizard?

You make 3 sound like an insignificant amount. I understand you won't concede these spells are bad - that's fine, we don't have to agree there. But try to also understand my perspective here; I think all of these spells are really bad, and that's almost half of the available Hex Cantrips. Given this, do you really think it's unfair of me to think this affects the overall power of the class?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
In one group she was the most effective action economy user by a large margin. Evil Eye Occult is a fantastic Witch and I have no idea how anyone in their right mind would call it "bad".

Evil Eye is quite, no doubt. If a new player selected that path, I think they'd have a good experience with the class.

Midnightoker wrote:
Not really. The only real exception to choices being "asbolutely abysmal" is Eldritch Nails, but that's more of an issue with no in-class support for the Class Feat than anything else.

Nails really isn't the abysmal option I'm talking about. That's just one feat - if the rest of the character is good "wasting" a single feat isn't going to murder it. I'm specifically talking about bad hex cantrips, which in my experience make or break a Witch's early game.

The most obvious one to me is Wilding Word - having your hex cantrip be that situational is just a horrible time. Shroud of Night and Discern Secrets fall into the same box partially to me - they're certainly not as situational as Word by any means, but both have pretty serious table variance. For Discern Secrets, the combat utility will largely come down to how the GM runs creature identification. I think I'm a lot more generous than many tables on that front (I tend to allow my players to ask 1 or 2 questions about a monster on a successful ID) but even then I think Discern is a little so-so. Shroud is theoretically pretty cool, but is seriously hurt by the fact that everything and their mother has darkvision, exponentially so as you level. At the very least it's at its best in the earlygame, which is where Witches need the most help.

Many of the other Hex Cantrips are okay-ish. I think Evil Eye is the only standout one that really justifies the sacrifices the class makes, but my biggest Witch issues comes from allowing people to make incredibly poor, mostly irreversible, choices at level 1.

Midnightoker wrote:
If your experience is that the Witch is weak, describe some experiences then. I can talk about how Evil Eye Witch, solid Recall Knowledge, and Weakness targeting turned the Witch into an MVP during a few encounters.

The absolute worst I've seen would be a Wild + Life Witch in a one-shot without animals. You're free to argue that that doesn't represent all of witch - and I'd agree, it's about the worst the class can possibly be. However, I think it's a pretty big problem the class can perform that poorly just based on a basic 1st level choice.

(I should clarify; this isn't me saying Witch is bad just because about the worst-case scenario is bad. I do think Witch is bad for this among other reasons - this is just me providing part of my experience since you did ask for it. If the Witch was overall great with one single terrible worst-case scenario, I'd look at the class a lot more favorably)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Henro wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
You can sustain multiple Hex Cantrips and Focus spells at once which is the major difference between them and other spells of their type.
This made me really excited because I thought I'd missed some kind of serious upside for the witch that I didn't see before. The statement makes me feel like Witches have a way to sustain multiple hexes as part of 1 action.

I don't think that was what he meant, but indeed there is actually is a way for witches to do that at level 20.

Hex Master

I am aware of that feat... Not a huge fan of it for a 20th level feat personally (the baseline of an extra 10th slot is really good so capstone caster feats like that usually need to be strong to compete, and I think this one is pretty mid).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the direct damage calculation is a little disingenuous - MM has significantly lower damage than other spells as a direct result of always hitting, which raises average damage by quite a bit, even when accounting for crits.

If keeping the cone effect is very important (and I'm not saying it's not, it's a neat effect), you could always write that into the item rather than the spell. So the Greater ring would read "Cast Rampush (4th or whatever). When you cast the spell using 3 actions this way, blablabla." Something I'm strongly in favor of is magic items altering spells in certain ways - I think that's a good design space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
You can sustain multiple Hex Cantrips and Focus spells at once which is the major difference between them and other spells of their type.

This made me really excited because I thought I'd missed some kind of serious upside for the witch that I didn't see before. The statement makes me feel like Witches have a way to sustain multiple hexes as part of 1 action. If that's the case, I still couldn't find it on my latest read-through. Could you elaborate what you mean by this so I can figure out if I've actually been missing some important feature of the class.

As for the rest of the comment; my views on Witches are entirely rooted in practical experience. In practice, I do believe the class mostly becomes "strictly worse Wizard". If you know what you're doing and select good hexes, lessons, and so on, you end up with a passable baseline caster - certain good enough to serve you well across a campaign. The issues I've seen are more so when you don't make these "correct choices", in which case the class can feel absolutely abysmal.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Current Witches have all the drawbacks of Wizards and none of the upsides. Unless you can snipe really specific focus spells (the fact that we need to bring in Rare options says a lot), the class is mostly just not good.

The lategame of the class is.. fine. The basic caster chassis does better the higher levels get, but the earlygame of many witch setups is among the worst in the game. Class is in a really bad spot atm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like we're drifting sort of off topic with "can Rampush feasibly be a variable action spell", but I honestly just don't see the hurdles you're describing at all. The spell doesn't need to be the same level as Magic Missile, and it certainly doesn't need to share the same damage scaling. Individual damage numbers can be tweaked if need be, though I think giving up the auto-hit from MM is a fair enough trade for some knockback.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
You could make the exact same argument for Boots of Elvenkind.

It's possible I could, but I wouldn't. The effect on Boots of Elvenkind translates far less cleanly into a spell - something that generally holds true for these kinds of "smaller-action" effects stuck on items that I tend to look more favorably upon. A "Rampush spell" would need minimal tweaking (damage numbers adjusted based on level, mostly). An "Elven Step spell" would be a lot harder to envision as a slotted spell - the effect is just too small to cleanly fit into that design paradigm.

(The Boots also don't suffer from the whole DC thing either which means I inherently like them more but that's sort of beside the point.)

Midnightoker wrote:
At some point you have to say "What do magic items get to do?", and I think the space that Ring of the Ram and Boots of Elvenkind have progressed into with regards to the action economy is where I'd like to see more items.

It's entirely possible I'm just misunderstanding you somehow here, though from this comment I get the sense we're somehow talking past each other.

My gripe was never about what magic items were and weren't allowed to do - I think anything that's already a spell could be stuck on a magic item, so I'm not trying to exclude certain effects from magic items. Rather, I think it's an uneconomical design to give magic items unique effects unless there are specific reasons these effects can only appear on magic items - and there are a lot of reasons an effect might only show up on a magic item; just none that I can see on the Ring*.

If there was a variable-action spell that worked exactly like the Ring currently does, and the ring worked exactly as it does currently only it calls that spell rather than spelling out the unique effect on the item, do you think the game would hurt or lose anything?

*Okay, that's not entirely true. I can actually see one reason, which is that a hypothetical Rampush spell would probably want to heighten with a (+1) for linear damage scaling, but the ring also adds an additional effect for the greater version. I don't think this reason is good enough to lock away this effect on a single item rather than making it more generally available, but I'm going to mention it anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Henro wrote:
Unless I can come up with a compelling reason why this specifically needs to be an item and also not a spell, I'm not sure why I would do that.
Well for starters, it can be used by someone that isn't a caster, which is a big portion of what makes it awesome.

So would a version of Ring of the Ram that said "cast Rampush (DC 22)." Plenty of magic items exist that cast spells, and martials can use those no problem. When I look at Ring of the Ram, I just see a neat effect that can tragically only be used for a really small portion of a character's career due to the fixed DC, while also being locked to only ever being a magic item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:


Why does some effect being *possible* to make into a spell *require* you to do so? Honest question.

I don't think that's what I said. However, as a designer/GM I get a lot more utility out of a spell than if I stick the same effect on a magic item. A hypothetical Ring of the Ram which just read "cast Rampush" rather than the current version would have let me give more options to more characters with the same amount of design. Unless I can come up with a compelling reason why this specifically needs to be an item and also not a spell, I'm not sure why I would do that.

Not related to the Ram conversation, but something I'm fiercely against is fixed DCs - really hate that the game took that route. Having class/spell DC be default for item DCs would have done wonders for this game I think.


Midnightoker wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
And more items is not the solution. If you give a shower of items then casters can get dozens of scrolls/wands, completely eliminating their limitation of spells per day.
You misunderstand, I don't mean more items per character, I mean more items designed and published into the game, so that players and GMs have a wider variety to select from when trying to develop their world.
Please more things that work with the action economy. Ring of the Ram I thought was cool in PF1, but in PF2 it's a masterpiece.

See, this here is super interesting. Because personally, I mostly just wish Ring of the Ram was a regular spell - it doesn't do a whole lot it can only do as a magic item to me.

That's a big thing I've found when homebrewing magic items - when I veer into the space of "interesting", I often end up creating an effect that could just as easily have been a spell. At that point I have to ask myself "why shouldn't I just create a spell instead and stick it on an item?".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I consider Witch to be the worst caster in the game atm. Worse than Wizard by a long shot imo.


Hey! I converted some spells from Starfinder to 2E. I picked the ones that I thought were the coolest/most convertable.

Cosmic Spells

As always with these projects, feedback is welcome. If people tell me to change things and I agree with it, I'll probably make at least one update. Some things are going to slip past me when I make these after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh hey, I also had this exact idea the other day. Great minds think alike!(?) I think Gunslingers need a stronger mechanical core than "gun user" - and reloading fits the bill pretty well, while also future-proofing the class for any potential non-gun, non-crossbow reload weapons down the line.

I think there is a lot of design space for reload mechanics. In addition to what you said;
-Abilities that let you augment a reload, such as loading a gun with special ammunition.
-Abilities that let you use an unloaded weapon to some kind of effect, such as bluffing a shot for a Feint/Demoralize or similar.
-Abilities that let you use a loaded weapon for purposes other than striking, such as firing warning shots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really don't understand why Scaring NPCs to Death is more of an issue than stabbing them with a sword. If they're lowish level compared to the Barbarian, he or she could probably destroy them in one round either way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This came up during one of my games. Total protection against all inhaled threats on a reaction is far more than I would want or expect a 1st level spell to cover. The spell is also worded ambiguously, the trigger seems to clash with the spell text. Things get weirder in situations where you don't know there's an inhaled threat, or when it isn't overtly lethal.

My solution was giving air bubble the same effect as holding your breath versus an inhaled threat (described on CRB 550). Which is to say, a +2 bonus to the save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I were to run paid games, any "reasonable" price I were to set would be a rather low rate for my time and effort. And the downsides are unreasonable to me - it would completely shift the dynamic between me and my players and it would add a lot of stress to the hobby for me.

However, I do have my players join in to pay for certain equipment, like any APs we run and certain types of software we can all use (most recently FoundryVTT). I don't think this is necessarily payment for a service, but more so a way to distribute the burden of investment the GM makes into the game.

As for the topic at hand. I hardly think it's unreasonable for communities to not want people to advertise paid games, even in lfg. Some communities may not want the promotion of any paid service/product without approval, and that's their prerogative. Paid games are inherently a different player/GM relationship compared to a non-paid game, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the two to be viewed/treated the same way in every community.


I'm going to be running a Kaer Maga adventure soon so I made I wanted playable Trolls. But full playable trolls didn't really make sense to me since their regeneration would need to be so much lower, so I made Half-Trolls instead. Now it's a versatile heritage.

Half-Troll Heritage


PochiPooom wrote:
- Experience as a players, deep knowledge about rules and understand that you don't play wizard to destroy combats, that's not your role.

Tell that to my players haha. I've seen plenty of combats "destroyed" with a well-timed Hideous Laughter.


RPGnoremac wrote:
Henro wrote:
I think Wizard is a very strong class after ~level 5, in the hands of a player who knows what they're doing. Both spellsub and spellblend can put in some serious work.

I havent played a Wizard yet but they really look really bad at the low levels compared to every class which I feel is where the dislike comes from. Most of the thesis take quite awhile before they even do much of anything.

I do feel it would be super fun to play a level 10+ Wizard at the same time every other class would feel fun too.

Also imo Pathfinder 2e intellect as a stat depends how your GM handles recall knowledge to be good otherwise WIS/CHA are just always good for fun skill. Who doesnt love demoralizing or using bon mot in between casting.

I think the time it takes for wizards (and sometimes casters in general) to get "good" is somewhat overblown. In my experience, level 5 is the big breakpoint rather than the commonly cited 7. Mind, level 5 is still not early - it's a 1/4th into a 1-20 character's career and for a lot of players it's going to be their entire career or half of it.

(I'm making large generalizations here, and it's a lot more complicated than casters being bad early on in my experience. Spells like Magic Weapon are big complications)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Wizard is a very strong class after ~level 5, in the hands of a player who knows what they're doing. Both spellsub and spellblend can put in some serious work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would probably say Oracle because the Curses/Mysteries make me really excited to build for that class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
While PF2 does things different in some regards, I feel that it is arriving at effectively the same place. It's just taking a better route.

While this is at least kind of true, I do think there are also large differences that don't just come down to choosing a different route to accomplish the same thing. The biggest one for me is where the game places PC optimization. In 1E, optimization happened in CharGen - the strength of your character was the biggest factor in determining how effectively you were able to handle encounters. Whereas in 2E, optimization happens during encounters, depending heavily on PC tactics.

In 2E, a party of average characters who use advanced combat tactics will most likely do much better than a party of optimized characters who don't. In 1E, the reverse was true.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Major Rulebooks;
-Core Rule Book
-Advanced Player's Guide
-Gamemastery Guide
-Bestiary 1&2

These three form the core of the current game and I would say they offer a pretty sizable amount of content between them, and are all worth reading. The upcoming rulebook is Secrets of Magic (spring release) which will be heavily magic-focused with the Magus and Summoner classes. All of the rules featured in these books are officially available on Archives of Nethys for free.

For minor rules material, there is the Lost Omens line of books. These half setting pieces, half rulebooks for certain more niche aspects. For example, the Lost Omens Character Guide had a few playable ancestries and expanded on ancestries already in the game. These would also be good jumping-off points for homebrew adventures.

For adventure paths you have 3 so far;
-Age of Ashes [6/6]
-Extinction Curse [6/6]
-Agents of Edgewatch [5/6]

For standalone adventures there's;
-The Fall of Plaguestone
-Little Big Trouble in Absalom
-The Slithering
-A lot of one-shot Pathfinder Society scenarios


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't really think giving specific numbers is an issue, I just don't find it all that interesting or even all that useful. When it comes to saves, knowing what's high/low/mid is usually plenty. I don't think you end up losing all that much information between "that ooze is bulky but slow as molasses and is unlikely to dodge your spells or attacks" and "That ooze has 165 hp, 14 AC and +6 reflex".

Another thing I like to do is let players look at/reference the monster's statblock once they've identified it and fought it a few times, maybe spent some time researching that creature or that type of creature.

1 to 50 of 831 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>