HumbleGamer's page

1,966 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,966 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Read past that one, please.
I was only referring to combat encounters.

As for invisible creatures or not present creatures, no you won't reveal a thing in either vtt ( hidden feature) or during an encounter ( roll it before or roll different dice regardless the number of enemies, so players won't know the exact number).

Leaving apart the fact it doesn't matter when it comes to attack rolls and saves.

There you won't be able to cheat, while with a DM screen you easily could.

I am not saying it's the right thing to do, but pointing out that's the only way if you want to prevent cheating ( though you might not cheat even with a smile screen, players won't be sure of it). Leaving apart that, until now, there hasn't been a single point in favor to use a DM screen when it comes to fairness ( combat encounter, beware).


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Because of the aesthetic of a creature, as well as its traits.

A creature's appearance doesn't always bely its strengths. Undead aren't all mental effect immune for instance.

Other creatures can be hiding their true form or simply don't look as threatening as their level gap may suggest.

These are the exceptions I already mentioned in my example ( requiring a recall knowledge ).

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


And again, knowing a ballpark is in no way equal to knowing the exact number.

It's different, I agree, but it doesn't change your approach at all.

Knowing that a Giant of huge size has +40 fortitude while your spell DC is 42 would help you in any way or, eventually, makes you consider not doing what you already plan to do ( which is not trying a spell which requires a fortitude save against a big creature )?

As you can see, while it's different, it won't change the player approach in any way.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:


There's literally no use for the screen during a combat, unless the DM wants to cheat ( somebody might argue that a player might see the enemy saving throws modifiers, and because so change attack pattern, but this wouldn't be an issue ).

So you say it wouldn't be an issue. Could you elaborate on why you believe it won't be an issue?

Because of the aesthetic of a creature, as well as its traits.

Large ones = High fortitude and low reflexes
Slim ones = Low fortitude and high reflexes
Spellcasters = High wisdom and low fortitude
Captain/Boss/Leader = Highest enemy AC around
Undeads = Immune to mental effects
Animals = High fortitude and low will saves

All of this is general, common knowledge.
If you also perform a successful recall knowledge check you might also get additional information ( It's a fiend, Fiends are vulnerable to cold iron, or maybe that it's immune to poison, or resistant to fire, or able to cast spells, or to teleport. Depends on your score and what your DM shares with you ).

Apart from that, I am all up for using a DM screen outside the combat ( for what concerns lore, story and so on ) because a player who doesn't know something acts differently from a player who knows and have to move a character that doesn't know.

If anybody said that he would be able to move his character like he didn't know he would be lying.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Gortle wrote:

I think you are overreacting to Wall of Stone

Yes it is an awesome spell. But casters can dimension door without line of sight at this level. Plus it has a hitpoints, hardness and AC. A barbarian by himself can take it down in one round.

A typical best case is it buys you one round from a couple of enemies. Overpowered? No.

I really don't think you need to take any more goodies away from casters.

Casters are very powerful as is by the time wall of stone comes into play, taking away "any more goodies" is irrelevant.

See, the thing about it is wall of stone becomes really powerful against large or huge sized melee creatures that have to knock out multiple blocks, especially when you loop the box around the target's sides a few times AND they have to pass through multiple squares of difficult terrain to get out.

Remember that it is immune to crits and precision. Not everyone is a barbarian with barbarian levels of raw damage either.

This is where (in my experience) intelligent casters wall up, then dump AoEs into the zone when spaces open up (cloudkill is a solid choice). It is effective, repetitive and requires the GM to plan against the party to overcome in most cases rather than create natural encounters.

Even with medium sized creatures it is ridiculously good to comfortably wall off 6+ foes for a few rounds and stagger how you take them on, it lets the whole party focus fire.

I 100% agree it is able to do all of this RAW, but it is just too powerful. For groups that are less abusive of obviously effective tactics maybe it is fine.

I think you covered everything.

About the required damage to pass through, talking about monsters, I think it might be quite different depends the creature/s you trapped in ( or beyond ). For what concerns characters well... goodbye spellcasters, rogues, swashbucklers, ranged characters and so on.

What's for sure is that, for what concerns the difficulty of the combat as well for the actions required for the creatures to deal with it, it's a total mess.

Having to rework any single encounter ( past lvl 9 the spellcaster is going to have more than 2/3 walls per day ) to provide challenge would be a real pita ( I think I can easily affirm that it would ruin things for either DM and players ).


thenobledrake wrote:


I've even had discussions with GMs that fudge liberally that were insistent that they can't ask their players, or it would "spoil the magic." And to me at least, that's evidence of believing that the players would want the GM to not fudge, but the GM would rather fudge anyway than risk asking and having to change the way they GM (or do something with full knowledge that the players are against it).

Not using a DM screen, or roll in public chat ( if you are playing on a vtt ), is the way.

There's literally no use for the screen during a combat, unless the DM wants to cheat ( somebody might argue that a player might see the enemy saving throws modifiers, and because so change attack pattern, but this wouldn't be an issue ).

Squiggit wrote:


Deriven Firelion wrote:
If the players are playing poorly and refusing to use teamwork and they TPK, that is on them.
Generally I agree, but if the players want to play unoptimized, reckless characters who don't always work the best together because that's the type of story they want to tell and the GM is smashing them to pieces to teach them a lesson, I'm not sure that's particularly great either.

Shouldn't that be on them too?

Knowing you are playing a game which rely on tactics, party cooperation and so on and creating a whole reckless party ( one character would bring no harm imo ) or even deliberately bad character ( which would be , in my opinion, intentionally given how stats work here ) seems more like a choice of them.


The 90° part was to show you how to turn a wall into a bridge or stairs ( unless you expect to keep it vertically and 1 inch wide, to show what a cool acrobat you are )...


The difference is pretty clear there.

The former mention what the wall of stone can be used for ( a wall ) which can also be turned by 90° to provide some sort of stairs/bridge.

The latter mentions alternatives by saying "such as".

I see no comparison between a spell which says "you do X, but you can also do Y" and another that says "You can to stuff like this, that and any other stuff which you could imagine until within the spell limits ( in your example, "small or medium humanoid" which means "S or M" size and the"humanoid" trait are required ).

The Gleeful Grognard said it right.

Quote:
It is too powerful/cheesy and will become the "every combat" option past a point, especially against lots of medium sized creatures or especially against huge sized creatures.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Apart from extra classes, I'd like for existing ones to be able to choose whatever stat they want as the main one.

I really think that many classes might be given more possibilities providing the chance to start with 18 in a stat which is not their main one.

For example warpriests and wild druids might be a slight improvement, not gamebreaking, if they decide to start with 18 str instead of 16.

Same goes for a strong wizard, which decides to start with 18 str.

Eventually a spellcaster could start with 18 dex ( using its spells just to buff and heal, or simply relying less on its spell dc ).

Stuff like this.
People would probably invest to have 18 in their class stat even without being forced to do so, so that would just be an extra feature who wouldn't harm anybody.


thenobledrake wrote:
graystone wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
RAI I don't believe for a second that it was intended to function this way; the stair/bridge comment suggesting the intent being for utility not offense imo.
You can use the cube for utility too. Make the cube, but leave out a 5' section for a door and you've now got a nifty instant house that'd pretty defendable.

But you are still in the realm of

Spell: "You can make a wall, a set of stairs, or a bridge."
Player: "Cool! I make a box."

Box isn't, as far as I know, a synonym for wall, stairs, or bridge. And the spell doesn't say "you can make things that are similar to these things" or any other sort of permissive to do anything besides 1 of the 3 options stated statements... so where is the logic that follows from the text of the spell to a result that is a box?

I agree that it's clearly not meant to be used that way.

It's a line, 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long and 20 feet high, which might also be placed horizontally instead of vertically in order to provide some sort of bridge/stair if needed.

Shortly, In Sanct Ylem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:
Taking on bosses is out, because range is gone and bosses don't fail saves any more.

That's weird.

Apart from AC, bosses are meant to have 3 different saves :

-Good
-Moderate
-Low

This even without considering debuffs.

In either AoA and EC, for example, bosses have an average chance to fail a saving throw.

To give you an example, the last one my party fought by lvl 8 ( spell DC = 10+8+4+4 = 26 and spell hit +16 ) had these stats:

AC 30; Fort +17, Ref +23, Will +20

So, 40% chances to fail a fortitude one, 10% chances to fail a reflex one, 25% chances to fail a will save and a 30% chance to be hit with a spell attack ).

This without considering any debuff ( frightened, flat footed / Prone, clumsy, and so on ).

There might be issues if the wizard isn't smart enough to memorize different spells ( which require different saves ) and instead go for, for example, 4x fireball/lightning bolt and then complaining when some enemies have high reflex saves.

Consider also that this 2e is more about teamplay ( bonuses and debuffs ) and less about killing stuff on your own.

As for aoe effects against non boss creatures, a wizard excels like any other blaster ( same class DC ), though not being a spontaneous spellcaster might put him behind sorcerers. But that's it.


Cordell Kintner wrote:
The only shield you wear is a Buckler. All other shields are held. The existence of this feat proves as much. You are able to draw a shield in the exact same way as a weapon (an interact action) so it must be a held item.

One of the best feats ever!


Nyhme wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Nyhme wrote:

Also consider mauler dedication for ruffian rogue with longspear or scoundrel that grabbed whip claw.

Harder they fall, shove down and shoving sweep. Your reaction suddenly becomes Gandalf screaming "you shall not pass". And possibly dealing sneak damage. Or skip Harder they fall for knockdown and control the field. If you late add barbarian say 9th multitalented then work in brutal bully you get to add strength to damage twice.

Consider oread human ruffian rogue. 2nd mauler, 3rd unconventional weaponry whip claw, 4th harder they fall, 5th the oread rock break thing, 6th shove down, 8th shoving sweep, 8th lvl you're master in athletics. Oread ability 1 action, step back 2nd action, use hampering 3rd action. Now you've got 5 squares in your reach that can't be stepped into and a reaction ready to send them flying if they try to approach the ranged guys behind you. 9th barbarian from multitalent, 10th sudden charge from barbarian, 12th giant stature since you're giant instinct. Now you're large with a reach weapon and a crazy reaction and mo size creature you can't shove and trip.

Or maybe you also take knockdown at 10th and preparation at 12th so you can and stay down at 14th. Now you trip them they try to stand and you say no with your preparation reaction. And a 2nd baddy comes in and you and you have shoving sweep ready for him. Its amazing control.

Alternatively, knockdown, harder they fall, whatever at 8th, improved knockdown. Now trip from knockdown auto crits so weapon damage plus sneak twice and a d6 plus they're prone.

Isn't better for a rogue to just rely on 2 strikes ( twin fein for example ) per round?

Especially by lvl 12, because of preparation, being able to hit twice during your turn and twice out of your turn should be the perfect deal ( if you are quickened you'd probably forgo twin feint for 2x strike ).

Against low level targets, that would be a higher damage output. But at 7th lvl you're master in athletics. So...

Nice analysis!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fanatic66 wrote:
There are different philosophies on GMing on fudging vs not fudging, and both are completely valid and group dependent. I don't think we should try making people feel bad for their style of GMing if it works for their group. All that matters is if their players are having fun, and if they are, then who are we (random internet strangers) to judge?

I agree with that.

I also think that while anyone has its methods, it also comes down not only to the style of a DM, but also the party the DM plays with.

On the one hand, given a party who likes to min max and face difficult challenges, it wouldn't be strange if the party'd require a fair and square approach ( no screen during fights, for example ) as well as a competitive tactical approach.

On the other hand, given a party who simply likes to enjoy the game ( and could somehow feel bad not achieving anything because of bad rolls in that specific evening ), the DM might consider providing some twists meant to provide excitement in that player.


Nyhme wrote:

Also consider mauler dedication for ruffian rogue with longspear or scoundrel that grabbed whip claw.

Harder they fall, shove down and shoving sweep. Your reaction suddenly becomes Gandalf screaming "you shall not pass". And possibly dealing sneak damage. Or skip Harder they fall for knockdown and control the field. If you late add barbarian say 9th multitalented then work in brutal bully you get to add strength to damage twice.

Consider oread human ruffian rogue. 2nd mauler, 3rd unconventional weaponry whip claw, 4th harder they fall, 5th the oread rock break thing, 6th shove down, 8th shoving sweep, 8th lvl you're master in athletics. Oread ability 1 action, step back 2nd action, use hampering 3rd action. Now you've got 5 squares in your reach that can't be stepped into and a reaction ready to send them flying if they try to approach the ranged guys behind you. 9th barbarian from multitalent, 10th sudden charge from barbarian, 12th giant stature since you're giant instinct. Now you're large with a reach weapon and a crazy reaction and mo size creature you can't shove and trip.

Or maybe you also take knockdown at 10th and preparation at 12th so you can and stay down at 14th. Now you trip them they try to stand and you say no with your preparation reaction. And a 2nd baddy comes in and you and you have shoving sweep ready for him. Its amazing control.

Alternatively, knockdown, harder they fall, whatever at 8th, improved knockdown. Now trip from knockdown auto crits so weapon damage plus sneak twice and a d6 plus they're prone.

Isn't better for a rogue to just rely on 2 strikes ( twin fein for example ) per round?

Especially by lvl 12, because of preparation, being able to hit twice during your turn and twice out of your turn should be the perfect deal ( if you are quickened you'd probably forgo twin feint for 2x strike ).


I think you two are both right, depends the circumstance.

Nefreet is saying that once you have a buckler equipped, you will be always wielding it providing that the forearm is attached to has the hand free.

The Raven Black is probably referring to helding a buckler ( in the hand ), which would require an interact action ( as any other shield ) to be wield.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not a Paizo employee, but I guess the first one might be correct, mostly because I find rather odd the interaction between 1d12 two-hand trait + 1d10 fatal trait.

For example, rolling 4d12 would result into rolling 5d10 on a critical hit.

Also, every single weapon with the fatal trait has a dice which is one or two steps smaller than the one given by the fatal trait.


The Raven Black wrote:


And I am still waiting for the "god among men" Ancient Elf Eldritch Trickster build that can really "one shot everything".

That would be irrelevant given the topic, though it might be used to justify the fact that having 2 dedications by lvl 1 "wouldn't harm the game's balance".

Leaving apart the fact that thinking only about the "combat part" when it comes to balance is, in my opinion, a little silly.

Everything ( skill feats, skills, general feats, ancestry feats, hp, proficiencies and so on ) contributes balancing different game aspects.
Combat is definitely part of the game, but not the only one.


Gortle wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Cordell Kintner wrote:

You can worship whoever you want. You can worship an Ideal, a Pantheon, a set of Laws, whatever. You can even worship nothing!

These choices make no difference on your character's casting, unless you're a Cleric or Champion.

Unless you are a Cleric, Champion, or cast a spell that has different effects based on the traits and attributes of 'your deity'.

That is the entire point in the OP. Some spells themselves change based on your choice of deity. Regardless of the class or feat that lets you cast them.

I wouldn't let that happen. If you are casting Divine spells then you have a divine source. There is a deity there. Even if the knowledge of that source is lost. Even if the diety is some weird entity that is not normaly considered a god. Even if the deity does not know they are providing you spells. Even if the deity is not sentient.

Not necessarily.

Forse example a witch with the fervor patron might be given access to divine spell casting regardless its approach with deities, as long as the patron consider that the witch is useful.

Same could be for other characters, if the deity thinks that the atheist might become a believer someday.

Reasons could be plenty, and in the majority of the cases the character won't be told about supernatural entities plan.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
I'm not playing an alchemist, but the way I see it the "class fantasy" of mutagens should be more along the lines of Mr. Hyde, the Hulk, or even Gummy Berry Juice.

Or even Popeye's spinach.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:


I'm a big believer in the players having trust the DM is not fudging rolls or the like. Or randomly making something...

That's part of the reason I never use either DM screen or Secret rolls when it comes to combat ( they even roll their knowledge checks during combat, as well as other stuff which might involve a dm secret check ).

This also mean that if the odds are against them, some hero could easily die because of RNG.


Mechanically speaking, combats are faster ( assuming, if i recall correctly, that d&d 3e is equal to pathfinder 1e when it comes to mechanics, since I don't remember much about the 1e ), but it mostly comes down to players.

I have players who need 2 whole minutes to make their turn, and others who need ten seconds. Regardless the classes they are playing.

I like to play with turn time limit to push either players and dm ( myself ) to make errors ( that would be also part of a dynamic combat ).


Ravingdork wrote:

Challenge Prompt: You've made many mistakes, but never anything quite like this in your 20 levels of adventuring. You now find yourself, alone, in Treerazer's Tanglebriar, with the nascent demon lord fast approaching. Your only hope? To hide until he passes by.

How do you succeed?

I'd take advantage of this

Nyhme wrote:
If it's 20th lvl character and I can just build it for this situation and it follows the starting characters at 20th lvl for items rules. I'd just kill him.

in order to sneak away from the place, while the battle is ongoing.


What a hero needs is Distuptive stance.

Nobody is going to teleport away from you ( unless you already expended your reaction/s).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that primal and transmutation are meant to be traits of the one-time metamorphosis ( the 24h you hibernate yourself).

Once the ritual is concluded, you simply evolved into your large form and can no longer go back ( for example because of magic).

All rituals have a school trait, but this doesn't mean you can dispell what you get from them.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Besides my comment was directed at people who say a Magus is "a martial". They were and with a lot of luck/hope continue to be the very definition of a Gish.
I read Humblegamer's comment as more of a statement regarding the PF2 playtest version than what it could be in PF1. The playtest version was certainly on a martial chassis, with the normal martial class features taken up by spellcasting, striking spell, and the upgrades to both mechanics.

Yeah.

In addition to that, since I didn't play the 1e ( apart from a couple of games), I tend to simply look at all new classes, or archetypes, mostly in terms of balance, comparison with old ones ( not 1e ones, but for example the 2e crb ones ) and similar stuff ( I understand that the majority of players has the 1e version of any class in mind, and because so they might be more or less disappointed with the porting).

That's also the reason I appreciate the current state of the hybrids ( in many games or boardgames they tend to be too powerful rather than versatile) and keep in mind how could a magus have been with a spellcaster progression ( the reason I am glad they opted for a martial base instead. Better melee hit, excellent AC progression, generous HP pool and so on ).

I came to understand what either magus and summoner used to be, by reading on these boards and also lurking the 1e archives, and get what paizo is trying to do now that they are moving the classes to this 2e.

In my opinion, the summoner is currently in a worse spot ( the eidolon damage and chance to hit is between a martial and a spellcaster when it could have been equal to the former).


Kelseus wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

Yes, potency runes.

Quote:
Adventurers who don’t wear armor travel in durable clothing. Though it’s not armor and uses your unarmored defense proficiency, it still has a Dex Cap and can grant an item bonus to AC if etched with potency runes.
That sentence only states that the bonus from potency runes are item bonuses to AC. (This is necessary b/c potency only "increases" the item bonus to AC, but explorer's cloths don't have one). It says nothing about not allowing other runes.

Right, that makes totally sense.

Thanks Kelseus.


whew wrote:
iNickedYerKnickers wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, Explorer's Clothing does not allow either Resilient or Armor Property runes.
CRB page 580 wrote:
Explorer’s clothing can have armor runes etched on it even though it’s not armor

Yes, potency runes.

Quote:
Adventurers who don’t wear armor travel in durable clothing. Though it’s not armor and uses your unarmored defense proficiency, it still has a Dex Cap and can grant an item bonus to AC if etched with potency runes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Farnaby wrote:
Considering that they get their first witch feat at level 2 and there are enough 2nd level witch feats.

All classes are required to have a pool of lvl 1 feats because of the human ancestry feat Natural ambition.


Apart from dispelling traps, we haven't had a chance to make a good use of the counteract mechanics.

Our sorcerer ( spontaneous spellcasters have it easy) is always saving one or 2 high slots to cast dispell magic ( as well as the same amount of hero points to reroll if needed), and so does the druid in the other campaign.

The sorc will also probably take shadow siphons.

Disease and curses is something the party tend to deal during long rests, which leaves room for poisons.

Fortunately they mostly affect combatants, which have a generous amount of const as well as nice fortitude saves ( haven't seen one past stage 3 ).

Apart from dealing with traps, what do you use your counteract for?


Lucerious wrote:
Then again, the character using it has given the enemy something to grab and rip off their face. It could be a rather short term investment. Maybe that’s the reason for the apprehension.

Whirlwind throw monk likes this one.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


For the questions about when the reactions take place, the Champion Reaction would take place essentially at the beginning of Step 1 of applying damage, because we know damage is going to be applied, regardless of what value that might be.

Are you referring to thenobledrake 1) which is "pick your target" ( or even my "A monk is next to a creature and decides to use its flurry of blows")?

If so, no.

We are not even sure that there would be damage to begin with.

Nope. I'm talking about the 4 steps of applying damage.

Oh, sorry then ( too many numbers here ).

I agree with you.


graystone wrote:
So, I'm hoping a recharge means that we can kiss 4 slot casting goodbye and never look back.

Maybe they'll think about something different ( being entirely focus based, as many proposed, could be an alternative ), but given how they got rid of hyrbrids ( warpriest and wild druid ) with this 2e, I do not expect stuff like:

- 2 spells per level
- 3 spells per level BUT no lvl 10 spell
- 3 spell per level but 1 lvl behind a pure spellcaster

Magus and summoner won't be what they used to in 1e, and I guess we all know this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
it doesn't seem bad to me
IMO, some people say the same about the alchemist...

Man, I'd love for the alchemist to be good as a magus.

Even the one with the playtest spellstrike!

Let's do this!


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


For the questions about when the reactions take place, the Champion Reaction would take place essentially at the beginning of Step 1 of applying damage, because we know damage is going to be applied, regardless of what value that might be.

Are you referring to thenobledrake 1) which is "pick your target" ( or even my "A monk is next to a creature and decides to use its flurry of blows")?

If so, no.

We are not even sure that there would be damage to begin with.


graystone wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
4 big hits per day are totally fine ( and by lvl 14 you will get the haste focus spell which cost 1 action ), and cantrips will do the rest.
With no buffs or utility in a day? Sounds lame to me... :P

Well, it's a martial class after all ( let the true spellcasters buff you :d ).

The alternative would have been something like the warpriest.

it doesn't seem bad to me ( armor proficiency progression as a fighter, which helps for 1/5 of the journey. 4 lvls out of 20 ).


The martial feat to get utility spells was really cool imo ( it's also level 6 iirc, which means it sticks perfectly with dedication + basic spellcasting + bredth ).

Also, I am really curious about the ring of wizardry.
Whether if it's going to work when ythe magus slots improve ( for example 2 lvl 5 and 2lvl 6 slots per day ) or not.

By lvl 13 being able to have 4 lvl 4 slots + 2 lvl 3 slots ( considering the wizard dedication ) in addition to your magus slots would be really cool ( I'd me more intrigued in investing in the wizard dedication, if the magus wouldn't be able to use them on its own, if I'd know that the ring would be available for sure ).


WWHsmackdown wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
What? It's been shown that strike+cantrip is weaker than 2 strikes. It's not very high damage, it's just consistent.

Wasn't that with the 2 rolls?

Confronting 2 lvl 5 characters:

Magus: 2d12 ( striking rune ) + 4 ( str ) +3d6 ( telekinetic projectile ) +4 ( int ) = 17+4+12+4 = 37 damage ( and high chance to crit both of them ).

Combatant: 2d12+4 and assuming that also a MAP -5 would hit, another 2d12+4 = 14+4 + 14+4= 36.

Damage would be more or less equal, if also the second attack lands.

I see really no real confrontation between the two of them.

Plus the two swinging martial has another chance to do something if that first swing whiffs. The magus might be out of luck depending on the needs of the turn or how many actions spellstrike is on release. A nova as strong as two strikes with a recharge between turns seems fine. The nova that would actually bristle hairs is going to be limited to four slots that require half your class feats to supplement with additional wizard dedication spells. Seems fine

I doubt that a wizard dedication might do something useful.

By lvl 12 you are going to have a single lvl 4 spell.
Cute.

Better go with cantrips and save your feats for something different.

4 big hits per day are totally fine ( and by lvl 14 you will get the haste focus spell which cost 1 action ), and cantrips will do the rest.

as for martial characters, they can do whatever they want with their third one. The odds that it could land ( or crit ) will be always lower than the magus spellstrike.

There are some combinations which could do though ( a fighter with power attack + furious focus using 3 actions might be close to the magus cantrip damage )


Angel Hunter D wrote:
What? It's been shown that strike+cantrip is weaker than 2 strikes. It's not very high damage, it's just consistent.

Wasn't that with the 2 rolls?

Confronting 2 lvl 5 characters:

Magus: 2d12 ( striking rune ) + 4 ( str ) +3d6 ( telekinetic projectile ) +4 ( int ) = 17+4+12+4 = 37 damage ( and high chance to crit both of them ).

Combatant: 2d12+4 and assuming that also a MAP -5 would hit, another 2d12+4 = 14+4 + 14+4= 36.

Damage would be more or less equal, if also the second attack lands.

I see really no real confrontation between the two of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since spellstrike also works with cantrips, it can be spellstrike spam all day long.

Being able to merge a cantrips with your main attack ( as currently can also do the eldritch archer ) leads to a very high damage ( compared to any 2x strike ) with a decent crit fishing.

The other issue ( because the fact that either spellstrike and eldritch shot are too good given them a single roll as well as the possibility to spam them every round is imo an issue ) is that classes would be then tied to a static routine ( hello mr swashbuckler! ), unable to use different stuff in terms of feats, actions ( attacks, interactions, etc... ) and so on.

The recharge part could really lead to a perk not available all rounds, and this would be really nice. And hopefully, there would be an errata for the eldritch archer too ( for the same reason ).

Even a rotation like Spellstrike and the next round Electric Arc + Strike would be more interesting than 5 consecutive spellstrikes for 5 rounds ( slide casting provided ). Like being tied to to Acrobatics/SpecializationSkill + Strike ( or another skill check if the first one failed ) + Finisher for 5 consecutive rounds.

Leaving apart that they are forced to invest 2 skills out of 3 without any choice.


If you plan to get Your upgrades 2 or 3 levels pasta your current one, there's no problem.

Forse example, we Are lvl 9 now and a +1 armor rune is worth 160g

If you find one ( bu lvl 9 all characters will be given a +1 ac rune, and by lvl 11 a free +1 saves rune, that's why the first part of the thread. obviously you party is going to give the first ones to the frontlines ) and sell it Is worth 80g

Given 4 characters, it would result in 20 g each.

A small sul which is worth less than nothing compared to a high spell slot used to blast, debuff enemies or support your team.

Not to say that, fortunately, a spell Caster would take less hits than a front liner ( and a +1 ac or +1 saves wont save him in any way), thats why dedicating a high Lev spell slot to get +1 AC and saves ( because when You Are going to have +2 you will have +1 stuff found from enemies) is not worth it compared to alternatives ( a spell which will always help during an encounter).

Part of the earnings come also from a decent amount of downtime, so it's up to either players and master to get 2/6 months between chapters in order to get golds, find items, craft stuff, learn things, retrain, and so on.

We learnt this a bit late, past chapter 2, because the ap loot was ridiculous for what concerns customization, and it requires the group to make also use of the downtime activities.


You can't open new threads there since the playtest ended


The Raven Black wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

I would be incredibly leery of players who play to the "as long as I am not the one doing it, it is fine" mindset indicated above.

While I don't think they should be punished for the actions of others, deliberately not acting where their beliefs and values would push them to act smacks way too heavily of "I want the mechanics but not the lore" for something heavily lore based such as clerics and deific power in general.

The point of the anathema is to show what goes against your god's values and edicts on a whole. Characters who are devout enough to be granted powers should probably not be regularly engaging or associating with people who countermand those edicts without very good reason.

This is a personal pain point for me though, I have met a couple of people in my GM career who have pulled the "I just leave the room" shtick. I would always rather the player just be upfront with what they want mechanics wise rather than to justify actions via RAW that go hard against thematic intent.

Even in something like PFS being told "I worship xxx god, but it is more for the mechanics" in advance makes it a lot easier to reconcile with as a GM and storyteller/guide.

I feel the anathema applying only to the player's character is a very big step in avoiding players ruining things for their party, or even worse telling other players what their characters must do, because "it is what my character would do / has to do".

IMO the days of "Paladins are jerks" are behind us thanks to PF2 and the anathemas. I do not wish to see them come back in any way or shape.

They simply swapped paladin with redeemer!

Anyway, as always, there are parties a champion, as well as a cleric, druid or barbarian won't fit in.

During an adventure they "might" ( depends the situation and the trigger) deal with it, but after the mission is accomplished, they would be inclined to find a team they could better fit in.


Well, the more you proceed, the more the spells you can cast during a day.

By lvl 7 you will have

3(4) lvl 1 spells
3(4) lvl 2 spells
3(4) lvl 3 spells
2(3) lvl 4 spells

+

A staff ( 4 charges)
Eventually a scroll ( one per day) or a wand.

You won't probably be able not to cast cantrips during an encounter, but considering 5/7 fights per day, I guess it's safe to say that you could at least alternate them 50/50.

At higher levels would be indeed better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
vagrant-poet wrote:
I wonder is recharge a reference to focus points.

I think it might be something which won't involve using a focus point, but I expect a new focus spell which would "ready" the spell strike as a free action ( to deal with the spellstrike limits, if the character wants to ).

Maybe it could be an action with the concentrate trait, to force the magus to play in a similar way

Round 1: Free action ( spellstrike ) + Cantrip ( 2 actions ) + strike

Round 2: Recharge ( conentrate trait ) + Strike + Strike

Round 3: See round 1

Obviously, this could be exploited by being quickened, since the spellstrike requires the magus to just strike with the charged weapon, but maybe at some point it wouldn't be an issue at all.


keftiu wrote:

It’s confirmed to only use one attack roll, but involves some form of “recharging” - it sounds like you can’t use it every round.

Figured folks would want to know!

Really nice.

They simplified it ( though I expected it to be the same as eldritch shot, even if the latter is broken in terms of massive single target damage ). Hopefully, Eldritch shot might receive the same treatment in a future errata.

ps: Since it requires to only use one attack roll could it mean that they got indirectly rid of the exploit "message" + "spellstrike" somebody proposed during the playtest?


Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Honestly, these are basically 'trap feats': They look good at first glance, but once you dig into the actual specifics of how they work (the significance of spell level for counteracting and the actual creature levels you can summon with a spell), you can see they aren't really useful for an adventurer...

Yeah, mostly this.

I also want to add that I can understand some niche feat, which can have a slight use.

For example, I took Blessed Blood (Aasimar) instead of Clever improviser (Human), even though it can happen to trigger one or twice from lvl 1 to lvl 20, while clever improviser would have been, objectively, a way better choice.

Gortle wrote:
They are always useful for detecting traps, so "trap feat" is kind of appropriate.

Indeed, but if I were the DM and the used creature hadn't the "mindless" trait, I would treat a similar action like how it is written on the "Final Sacrifice" feat.

Back to the ancestry feats, I think that Purge Sins is how an ancestry feat should work.

Quote:


Actions: 1
Frequency once per day
You call on your celestial forebears to rid your body of all toxins and impurities. For each disease or poison currently affecting you, attempt a Religion check to counteract that disease or poison. As normal, your counteract level is equal to half your level, rounded up.

- 1 action required ( but you are the only one target ).

- Frequency once per day ( so you will be able to use it just once )
- Skill requirement ( tough one, though perfectly related to an Aasimar character )
- Counteract level = half your level rounded up, which means you would be always able to use it regardless the situation.

I'd really appreciate to have stuff meant to counteract working this way, and I'd also accept for the given talent effectiveness to be drastically reduced ( Talking about Aasimar's mercy, it could be once per day, and the time you select your feat you choose between poisons, diseases or curses ).

Either Aasimar's Mercy and Purge sins would be worse than getting a +1 good damage on your attacks, but still they will be useful in niche situations.


Castilliano wrote:


I could see a VERY Neutral creature taking damage from all alignment types. :)

Me too ( and NX too ).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cordell, I accept that you might have your point and try to address the best way to deal with specific feats or spells in the best way, but given how this 2e works in terms of progression, simply shows that some spells, as well feats, don't fit this system.

I mean, this whole 2e is about the 3 action + reaction system, tied to a progression which goes from -1 to +3 ( eventually +4 ) enemies.

Under these circumstances, neither lvl 5 ( if you are lucky, because as pointed out other summons like celestial don't have a lvl 5 creature ) summoned creatures nor remove disease/poison/curse will help in any way.

You could find a city devastated from a plague and help 2 citizens recover from a deadly disease... yeah, cool... but what's the point of this? What's the point in expending a mid/high feat to get stuff you won't ever be able to use.

I'd also like you to consider that many times alternatives ( other lvl 13 or 9 ancestry feats ) are not simply alternatives, but absolutely better ( like being able to deal 1 additional good damage with your strikes, which might also trigger a weakness ).

So yeah, Aasimar's mercy can be used to deal with low level stuff ( you stopped to face 5 levels before ) even if you are no a spellcaster, and you can trade a whole turn ( to summon ) as well as an action per turn ( sustain ) to help flanking ( because your summon won't hit a thing, and the enemies won't hit a non dangerous creature ), but that's it.

So, currently, for what concerns mechanics and utility, they are not even a choice.


Alfa/Polaris wrote:
This has been discussed before with Divine Lance, the most compelling argument to me being that someone who blasts people with unknown, potentially lethal magic to see if they're "Evil" can't themselves be Good for long. Especially since Evil as defined in these games isn't always, like, bad-enough-to-be-seriously-hurt-or-killed-over. Doubly so if you're actively swinging at innocent civilians — even if you don't hurt them, that's distressing and there isn't a good enough reason to do so.

Yeah I was on that thread too.

What I wanted to discuss was something different.

It wouldn't be rare for good people to be tricked into fight each other ( those are enemies of the kingdom. They are the arson who killed my daughter, He has been pillaging village after village for over a year, and so on ).

My concerns is about the fact the champion, the way the feat is written, is able to understand whether a target is evil or not before even damaging it

I don't get extra dice?
The target is 100% not evil ( which leaves good and neutral creature, who which you could probably deal without violence ).

And also, about this part

Quote:
Whether or not the target is evil, you can convert all the physical damage from the attack into good damage

What would be the purpose of this?

Redeemer stuff?
Roleplay stuff?

Your current enemy might know about champion of goods and their strikes which don't harm "not evil people" and because so realize that probably both of them might have been tricked into fighting each other?

To deal with diplomacy during a fight we have the legendary feat which is lvl 15 stuff, requires a high DC check as well as 3 actions.

Talking about protect my allies, I might use it to deal no damage on that specific strike, then go for non lethal damage on the previous ones, just to beat my adversaries down without killing them.

I don't really know.
Maybe I am just overthinking about it.

Alfa/Polaris wrote:


As for the second thing, circlets are just really form-fitting crowns, aren't they? I see no reason why you couldn't wear one behind/above a mask. I guess they'd technically both go in the "head" slot, but I don't think that's as stringent a thing this edition.

Yeah, that was what I thought too at first.

What bothered me is that they decided not to use a generic "head slot" but specific parts ( Wondered if this had already been discussed or not. Or even better, answered. Even if I'm just probably still used to the old systems ).

David knott 242 wrote:


Since "worn circlet" and "worn mask" are different, you can wear one of each. You would not be able to wear two circlets or two masks, but there is no "head slot" in PF2. If the item were merely "worn" (as amulets are), you could wear and use as many of them as you have investment points for.

So, when it comes to rings and amulets ( or simply anything which don't require a specific slot like forehead, hands, back, etc... ) you are allowed to wear any number of them, aren't you?

The only limit would then be the 10 ( or 12 provided the given lvl 11 feat ) invested magic items limit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Found out now you can favorite your own posts.

1 to 50 of 1,966 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>