HumbleGamer's page

IIRC the RAW states quite openly that Uncommon should usually be made available to PCs as long as the player puts a little effort in it.

Wasn't that towards items access?

Given a blaster arcane spellcaster within the group, I found out that it's better to have an occult spellcaster as healer ( even if soothe is not strong as heal ).

This would allow the characters to benefit from synesthesia, as well as some healings.

Currently we have 3 occult spellcasters:

- Sorcerer ( they can get heal by lvl 8, making them excellent ).
- Bard ( They have inspire courage and heroics, along with the occult list. Definitely the best support we have )
- Witch ( 1 less slot and prepared spellcaster... it's not real impressive, but they can get lesson of life by lvl 2, which helps a lot during encounters. Anyway, it's the worst among the three ).

Whatever the occult spellcaster, things are going to be fine ( I prefer spontaneous ones because this 2e is full of useless spells, making easier to just keep the essentials ).

The wizard might easily provide assistance by getting the witch dedication and the basic lesson ( lesson of life ). Even a single cast per fights would allow to save daily resources, making it always an excellent pick ( they also get a familiar that way ).

Anyway, I think the main issue is that players still look for a way to ease combat encounters the most, while they can easily complete any adventure with a healer, a blaster and a couple of combatants.

To make a quick examples, it's not rare to find groups that play this way:

- Several characters with medicine and battle medicine
- Several characters with healing focus spells
- Several characters with hybrid spellcasters ( nature ), providing aoe and healings
- Synesthesia and Inspire courage all day long ( meaning there's always a bard )
- companions

and so on.

On the one hand, it's pretty normal for characters to increase their chance of survival the best they can, but on the other hand it's just the players choice. Would taking synesthesia and 2 hybrid healers/blasters, synesthesia, heroism/inspirecourage,etc... make things easier compared to bring an arcane spellcaster?

I say yes, but APs don't require any of this.

And reading similar threads, it's pretty clear that Paizo did wrong creating a spell like synesthesia ( and I also agree that heroism could easily be on the arcane list too ).

IIRC there's a beautiful feat for the alchemist that allows you to shape the form, and also gives a +3 status to your own saves.

Not the question is whether you inhale to shape because of the feat or you always inhale when you open the vial.

Anyway, being an item I think you can always throw it to an empty space with no check at all. Smashing the vial.

no elves and goblins? well thats a game I wouldnt have joined

but I agree with the notion of most people - going dexterity is the way to go if you have no easy access to armor

and no magic items till level 9?

I seriously hope for yout that excludes runes or that the gm carefully handcrafts your enemies

because this will become a very dangerous slogfest

by level 9 runes provide +1 armor, +1 saves, almost +2 attack and +1 weapon damage dice (closer to the third)

The OP mentioned they are going to use ABP so, for what concerns runes, they are going to be ok.

Why giving edicts/anathemas, that force creatures to act in a specific way, rather than guidelines, that would be meant to show how, "generally speaking", a specific creature behaves?

Having the build working around moment of clarity would make the class pretty clunky in my opinion.

I think that the bloodrager might be a good archetype, giving rage by default ( as an alternative to the barbarian dedication), and the feats could provide a specific set of spells ( focus spells) that have the rage trait ( allowing them to use the spells while raging).

I am curious how the DM intent to deal with combat encounters, especially when some characters don't have armors during travelling ones.

Talking about the champion, it's pretty common for them to have 10 dex ( and it's unlikable that they decided to put 14+ dex just in case they shipwrecked ).

So, assuming a 10 dex champion and a hide armor ( given the fact there are leather ones, there should also be hide ones ), the character is going to have +3 AC vs +5 ( light/medium) or +6 ( heavy armor ).

Having a shield raised will put you at the same level of a normal character without shield.

During travelling encounters you will have no armor at all, ending up being critted frequently even by -1/-2 enemies.

Forbidding a champion to use their armor would indirectly force them into putting points on DEX, renouncing to other important stats.

I'd go this way:

1) I'd ask the DM to get the soulforger dedication, in order to manifest your armor asap when needed. This would allow the 2e Math to properly work during travelling encounters, and it would end up just being a tax feat ( one less feat for the character ), so the DM shouldn't be able to complain much. Try to let them notice that even a -1 is a huge debuff, and that being with -3/4/5/6 armor ( depends your build ) would mean being annihilated, being a frontliner

2) I'd ask the DM to come midterms and agree on a medium armor that only requires +1 DEX to work ( for example a chainmail ). This would allow you not to sacrifice too much stats ( you'd be able to start 18 str, 14 con/wis and 12 dex ).

Just with this 2 things you'd be able to play in a somehow decent way ( good luck finding a sturdy shield I guess. I'd also try to point that out to your dm. It's not fun to make a shield build and learn after that you can't get a shield to make a proper use of your shieldblock and quick shield block features ).

Consider you are a martial class, and because so trained in both simple and martial weapons ( you won't need the firearm expert feat ).

Apart from that.... I have the feel this is going to work very well.
.
The investigator shines with recall knowledge and skills, and begin tied to a static routine which is:

1) Reload
2) DAS
3) Strike

is IMO not good, regardless the character ( unable to move, starving for actions, no good use of skills, etc... ).

A bow would allow you to save one action that could be used to several purposes ( also moving ) and it's free ( it would allow you to get a different dedication ), while using a xbow would allow you to make a proper use of running reload ( useful for get into position, ovoiding lesser covers from creatures, or even to disengage from close enemies ).

Have you considered the archer dedication instead of the gunslinger one?
Or you'd like to use firearms?

The summoner's eidolon is just a tool, so they won't get in the way with the necromancer with lichdom.

I think that those who would make use of tiers end up simply lurking on reddit for the most powerful build, picking one among them.

Sometimes is also just a random topic to discuss.

I also think removing the finisher limit would harm the balance rather than solving the swashbuckler issue.

The right and easier way to go, in my opinion, is like the thaumaturge esoterica.

Critical success = panache + skill critical success effect

Success = panache + skill success effect

Failure = panache + skill failure effect

Critical failure = skill critical failure effect

I think it might be a mistake to create many tiers, but having 2 ( useful and less useful ) is imo the way to go.

For example, on the "less useful" i'd put:

- Alchemist
- Swashbuckler
- Investigator
- Witch

While all the other ones in the "useful" one.

I set an alarm snare, so I can flee if something is coming up that ominous side corridor? Not hostile, I have no intent for it to harm anyone or expectation that it will do so.

I set a spike snare to stab someone that comes up the same corridor? The whole point is for someone to get stabbed. My intent is hostile.

It isn't hard if you just start from the concept that you can never get out of an action being hostile on a technicality, only by actually not expecting or intending harm.

There's no need for a universally defined boundary instead of a simple question you ask of each case.

I agree.

It's pretty straightforward whether an action is hostile or not.

It's also pretty straightforward to have players trying to justify hostile action as they were not hostile ones, because they "might" not harm anybody.

It kills me how unwieldy any class using reloading weapon is.

fixed.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised we don't have the Neutral champions yet. Although it is a little weird to imagine a champion of Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Neutral too.

How come?

It's just getting the champion class and tie it to a LN, N or CN deity, depends the champion.

Then give them 1 reaction, a lvl 1 feat that enhances their reaction and finally remove the tennet part ( or add tennets of neutrality, but I wonder how to make some good ones).

But in the end it's just a character being a champion of their deity. It's more weird that some deity can't have champions, in my opinion.

Indeed... the critical failure should have the death trait given how death effects work.

HumbleGamer wrote:

Because it's left to the DM, it shouldn't be considered a "rule" at all ( aka, there's no specific trigger ).

It's there just to remember the DM that, in some specific circumstances, they might forbid players from using their reactions.

Which means that by default every players has reactions ready before the beginning of their turn, unless the DM says otherwise ( for example, if the party is ambushed, the might decide that players lose their reactions before the beginning of their first turn).

It's the other way around: By default you don't have a reaction. You have to ask the GM if you want to use one before your turn happens.

I personally allow the party to use reactions only when they were perfectly aware of the enemies before the fight breaks out. If they happen to "fall" on the enemies, no reactions (I may sometimes allow a Shield Block when someone is defending as a rare exception as the character was ready to perform such reactions).

One important things to see also is that if you allow reactions before the first turn, you open the door to Ready shenanigans. So it's a good rule of thumb to remove them most of the time and only allow them on an exceptional basis.

Definitely not.

If the DM wants to prevent players from using their reaction, in specific situations, they have the right to do so ( but normally, everybody gets their reactions ).

I also think that both deception and gambling lore would have fit better that situation.

After all, they are neither stealing something that's on another creature nor an unattended item everybody can see.

Because it's left to the DM, it shouldn't be considered a "rule" at all ( aka, there's no specific trigger ).

It's there just to remember the DM that, in some specific circumstances, they might forbid players from using their reactions.

Which means that by default every players has reactions ready before the beginning of their turn, unless the DM says otherwise ( for example, if the party is ambushed, the might decide that players lose their reactions before the beginning of their first turn).

It really seems odd that the monster gets to decide what happens to them.

It's the rules.

They are not meant to be interpreted, especially when they leave no room for interpretation ( the skill also has not a single trait but champion, meaning that it works against any creature ).

Apart from that, it's definitely strong (enfeeble 2 is amazing).

I'd ditch the name Monk, not because it offends me, but because it adds baggage to a class that no longer needs to be there. We don't need a semi-Asian-themed, but not really, class that only uses Asian weapons, except when it doesn't and the name Monk keeps it centered in that role. Monk or Spiritual Martial Artist should be a classpath or an archetype that layers over the unarmed and armored warrior baseline.

Wouldn't be easier to just give monk simple and martial weapon proficiency?

Fun fact is that fighters, even without having a subclass, have more choices and possibilities to build different characters than other classes having a subclass.

HumbleGamer wrote:

What's surprising, in my opinion, is reading that PFS game masters expect players considering feats flavor text ( for example cackle ) as additional rule, ending up forcing them into something that is not even required ( leaving apart from a moment that every table might add/remove/tweak what they dislike)

They almost universally don't, it can be hard to know when this is the case but I'd recommend against believing everything people say 'happens' in Pathfinder Society, sometimes you'll find they've never actually even played Society at all!

You are absolutely right, I am sorry.

I was kinda perplexed reading that, that I took their words for gold and wrote without considering alternative possibilities.

What's surprising, in my opinion, is reading that PFS game masters expect players considering feats flavor text ( for example cackle ) as additional rule, ending up forcing them into something that is not even required ( leaving apart from a moment that every table might add/remove/tweak what they dislike)

Cackle shouldn’t be baseline. Not all witches cackle, and the reason cackle being baseline was removed after playtest was because people felt it too heavily restricted flavor

My divine themed fervor witch isn’t going to cackle!

Again?

Cackle is a focus spell that just gives sustain as a free action ( verbal component ).

If you intend to stick with cackle being only used to laugh, is a choice of yours, but the spell works perfectly with the witch class in terms of mechanics.

The best you can do is to stop associating cackle as a laughter, and start playing the game using, when required, the focus spell for its purpose, making it a chant, laughter, or anything else you want.

Alchemist. give them the construct trait and also make them permanently immobilized.

Barbarian. no changes

Bard. no changes

Champion. a variant not tied to deities

Cleric. no changes

Druid. no changes

Fighter. no changes

Monk. no changes

Ranger. Outwit needs some love ( making the given bonuses a status one would be excellent ).

Rogue. no changes

Witch. Cackle baseline. More familiar oriented witch feats.

Wizard. no changes

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Say no to what? GMing? You have to do it to get better at it. Or say no to cackle?

Say no to reflavoring if you’re not comfortable with it rather than making it the book’s fault, going off your example.

It kind of is, though. I wouldn't have to worry about saying no or yes, were it named in a more flavor neutral way.

This.

Less arguments, confusion and frustration if it were renamed to be flavor neutral

Actually, there's no confusion at all.

I'd relive paizo from spending time to deal with this kind of stuff.

2. The Medic archetype (amongst other things) increases the Medicine skill to Expert. This is obviously a useful thing, especially for those character that do not get a skill increase at second (ie most of them). But at first glance I cannot see any other which do the same for other skills, but I assume that there must be at least a few. Can somebody point me in the right direction?

Marshal and Lastwall Sentry, for example.

I see what you are referring to Vasyax ( and I agree given the existance of the psychic ).

As for the magus, I think this might be to give value to the character that also invested in int, rather than dropping it to increase CON/WIS to have better saves.

Starting 18 STR/DEX, 16 INT, 12 DEX and CON is a standard setup, but starting instead with 18 STR/DEX, 10 int 14 CON, 14 WIS and 12 DEX is pretty good too too, if you don't intend to use your spell slots to "cast spells" but only to deliver big hits with spellstrike.

You will also have less skills, in addition to less spellcasting DC.

Even if we leave out all the non-mechanical reasons why people wouldn't always choose the bladed scarf - aesthetics for example - mechanics alone provide enough incentive for variety.

The bladed scarf is a two-handed weapon. Rogue is one of the classes that gets a lot out of having a free hand, both for skill actions and feats. Sabotage is hilarious when you just cut an enemy archer's bow sting XD. Also thrown weapons if you fancy those.

Indeed there's no such thing as "everybody bladescarf", but it's no surprise either that bladed scarf is really good, and that giving the rogue martial weapon proficiency would lead making that weapon a way more common pick, if not "the common pick" ( but again, this doesn't mean that everybody would go for it ).

I don't know if I like putting all flavor text in italics, honestly. I think it promotes the idea that flavor and mechanics aren't intrinsically linked, that the flavor designers and developers create is something redundant or vestigial. Reflavoring might be easier than house ruling, but it is no less impactful on gameplay. It should be left entirely up to the GM to decide which rules and which flavor elements should be subject to change.

But they already are.

Given the math and balance between this 2e, it seems pretty reasonable that mechanics are meant for the game to properly work, while flavor is something meant to provide a "brief" ( talking about feats ) idea of what could happen.

Players should be provided the best rules/balance ever:

- No room for interpretation
- a solid range of alternatives
- low powercreep
- etc...

then any DM would be able to decide whether to add something their own or not.

Talking about cackle, if the DM would like to make it just a laughter, on their own game, they can. But forcing this on all tables because flavor must be important as rules, is imo really bad for both flavor and possibilities.

Rysky wrote:

Opening up basic proficiencies is not a game breaker on any class. You had to deal with feat taxes for flavor purposes.

I would say for "balance" purposes. Now you will see every Rogue running around with Bladed Scarf for reach + finesse + flail crit spec + trip on it.

True ( as it was for the flickmace with paladins, and even fighters ), but you shouldn't be angry or disappointed about Paizo giving rogues martial proficiency, but rather towards too good weapons ( and too bad weapons ).

What I mean to say is that it's exactly the same if we compare bows to reload weapons.

So I wouldn't worry too much about it.

On the one hand, if you are ever going to have a rogue in one of your parties, and that specific rogue is going to take the thief racket + bladed scarf, so be it.

They'll eventually become tired of trying the same builds with the same weapons ( or aiming for damage rather than try to build more interesting characters ).

On the other hand, I wanna say that I is also important to understand that anything meant to improve the character/team survival chances is something any adventurer would consider.

So, if having a strange weapon ( like the flickmace or the bladed scarf ) would increase the character chances of survival... it's an excellent reason to go for it.

And I am not saying that one must go for it, but rather that it's understandable for both players and characters to make some considerations and, eventually, go for it.

I think this could just be solved by a blanket policy of putting all flavor text in italics.

I want to believe...

Wouldn't be easier to just leave the current name and add instead some text to the brief description ( that has no value ) on the feat?

For example, rather than

With a quick burst of laughter, you prolong a magical effect you created.

something like

With a quick burst of laughter, hum or chant, you prolong a magical effect you created.

I really don't know why there should always be the need to change names, when in the end it's just mechanics that can be used in several different ways depends the table.

Growlbears :d

Paizo seems to use specific rules depends the rarity

Flying ( if given )

-Common ( no access )
-Uncommon ( permanent by lvl 17 )
-Rare ( permanent by lvl 13 )

Size increase ( if given )

-Common ( no access )
-Uncommon ( by lvl 17 )
-Rare ( by lvl 13 ))

Climbing Speed

- Common ( lvl 9 )
- Uncommon/Rare ( lvl 5 )

and so on ( being tied to rarity, it would quickly allow a dm to prevent specific specific mechanics that might be given to players too early ).

HumbleGamer wrote:

If the chromatic/metallic dragon won't make it in the new book ( the one that will be the base remastered monster book ), won't be shifting on new dragons, without having access to the old ones is somehow replacing them?

I mean, those who are going to play 2e remastered won't have chromatic/metallic. Is it right?

Would the stats of the current ones be ok until will be released new monster books?

You're looking at it wrong.

2e is 2e. The new monster book coming out isn't going to make metallic dragons obsolete any more than printing Monster Manual 2 made Monster Manual 1 obsolete.

It doesn't seem that 2e is going to remain 2e ( talking about accessibility with the new books ).

For example, a new group starting with the remastered ( if I properly understood Jacobs ) won't have in the remastered monster book ( the base one ) chromatic/metallic dragons, but new or different ones.

This would mean that, at least for what concerns the beginning, they won't have them in their books ( I am not talking about making some creature obsolete, like you said ), but probably in the second or third one ( if I got it right, and Paizo is just postponing them ).

ps: ofc nethys/pathbuilder will always be there, but I was talking about books.

The current healing is ok to me.

I would just make them without activation ( just load and shot ) and working like the alchemist healing bomb ( hit on a failure, but not a critical failure ).

If the chromatic/metallic dragon won't make it in the new book ( the one that will be the base remastered monster book ), won't be shifting on new dragons, without having access to the old ones is somehow replacing them?

I mean, those who are going to play 2e remastered won't have chromatic/metallic. Is it right?

Would the stats of the current ones be ok until will be released new monster books?

Pretty good!

Is by any chance the front ( the dragon / character ) embossed ( is this the right term? )?

Guess I am the only one ok with both barbarians and monks.

Assuming there's something that should be fixed.

Tangorin wrote:

the one thing i hope stays optional is PwL.

Whatever that is.

Proficiency without Level!

I kinda like alignment since it's a fantasy game, but just for flavor purposes and hints about how a character would act.

This will point out that a specific ancestry or creature tends to be neutral rather than evil, or lawful rather than chaotic, but wouldn't prevent exceptions ( but it's already this way, as you can play any character of any alignment, unless class restrictions like champ/cleric).

I hate alignment in terms of gameplay because it can be badly exploited.

So I'd rather have damage that can only be deal with resistances ( and not to have character being immune because of alignment).

Also it's kinda annoying that the only armored tank ( legendary armor and reaction to protect allies ) can be somebody full into faith, so I hope to see big changes to champions, and also a non faithful variant that can be played.

I really hope that Paizo took their time and made a good use of these years of questions among the boards ( reddit and official forums, but also things that have been clarified by their staff on YouTube channels like "how it's played").

Knowing what is ambiguous or poorly written ( whether it's the description itself or multiple rules contradicting each other) is an excellent point to start revising the essentials ( nobody expects paizo to address everything, I suppose, but fixing the major rules and topic that have been brought back over and over during the years, would be really appreciated).

What I'd like to see addressed the most is probably:

- battle forms (what character bonuses can be applied, if any)
- familiars ( what they can do or can't do. A few examples would help making it clear).
- eidolons ( see the familiar part. In addition to this, it is mandatory to know whether they can use tools, like the crafring tools, or not)
- hardness and resist all damage. Some examples with different attacks ( spell strike with a splash spell, a weapon with several energy runes, etc...)

Given the fact it's coming out in November, I am not sure there will be time to read expectations, but still, here I am.

Will this fix any of the things the community really wants including, but not limited to:

- Rogues with Martial Weapon Proficiency
- Alchemist Master in bombs/KAS of STR, DEX, or INT.
- Shield runes (e.g., durable?)
- New look at signet ring vs. spell attack roll runes
- Swap of warpriest to bounded caster magus style weapon/spell casting progression base chassis.
- Neutral Champions with no alignment?
- Making Free Archetype the base rule not the variant rule
- Making Automatic Bonus Progression the base rule not the variant rule.

I kinda dislike reading "things the community really wants".

I think tha apart from a couple of them ( rogues and neutral champions ), the rest is something I wouldn't like to have ( as for FA, I like and don't like it, so making it optional is pretty good to me ).

It was the only way in order to stop clerics from divine lancing random people to find out the evil one.

That's nice!

I see that the rules are going to remain the same, which is great, but would there any chance to see addressed "major topics" that have been discussed all over these years?

I mean, although the rules remain the same, if they are ambiguous ( given the fact there will be some sort of 2.0 ) would be pretty convenient to have them explained the most important in a "different" way.

Or some sort of way that won't allow "interpretation".

For example Battleforms ( what a character can use or can't use while morphed ).
Or what already clarified by paizo staff on "How it's Played" channel.