Paladin

Iron_Matt17's page

Organized Play Member. 363 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 363 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

I’m keen on learning more about the Mythic rules… What are Mythic Destinies? Archetypes or something else? Can I plop my Free Archetype character in a Mythic Campaign without rearranging feats? (or seriously overhauling my character concept…)


Aenigma wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
We don't officially categorize what the height break point is for creature sizes in 2nd edition...

According to this webpage, in Pathfinder First Edition the typical height and length of each creature size are concretely defined. I have always thought that Paizo has categorized the creature sizes in Second Edition just like it did in First Edition. But turns out there is no such concrete numbers in Second Edition and Remaster?

By the way, I tried to find the description about the typical height and length of each creature size that can be found in the above link from the First Edition Core Rulebook but I couldn't. Do you know on which page that particular content is located?

<pulls out broken down 1e CRB…>

On pg 20 is a chart of the core races with their relative heights. You can also find height facts in some of the races “Physical Description” sections.
Man, it’s been a while since I perused my old 1e CRB…

Edit- There’s also a Random Height and Weight Chart on page 170…


I pay to play online and find it a very satisfying experience through StartPlaying.games
You may find free games there…


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Champion’s Reaction.
I expected to miss Smite Evil, but I’ll take Retributive Strike over 1e Smite Evil any day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sy Kerraduess wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Do we *know* all undead are unholy?

Yes, the Remaster GM Core says "almost all undead are unholy" on p.127.

Captain Morgan wrote:

While I'm not sure I like this unholy undead Pharasma business, I think this a bigger lore than mechanics problem. Just because something has the unholy trait does not mean it has a weakness to holy. See: cleric Sanctification.

Most undead probably won't have a holy weakness, just like they didn't have a good weaknesses pre-remaster. Instead, they will just take the extra damage from holy light just like they did from searing light pre-remaster. Holy light isn't a sanctified spell and already has the holy trait, so Pharasmans can use it the same as always.

Good point. It's somewhat confusing that holy/unholy interactions are handled in multiple different ways. You have:

-spells that always trigger a unholy/holy weakness of the target
-spells that only trigger a unholy/holy weakness if the caster is sanctified
-spells that always deal extra damage to a holy/unholy target regardless of the caster's sanctification or whether the target has a weakness to unholy/holy.

So post-remaster, a spell like Divine Immolation (new Flame Strike) will never deal more damage to undead, whether you're sanctified or not.

And at the other end of the spectrum, a spell like Holy Light will always deal extra damage to undead and fiends, and then deal EVEN MORE extra damage to devils who have a weakness to holy.

So it turns out Pharasma isn't as cringe as we assumed. :P

I just want to point out that the Fiend trait has weakness to holy, so Demons and Daemons are weak to holy as well. (and any other fiends) It seems to me that the Devil trait having the weakness to holy is a redundancy…


Captain Morgan wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:

Champions add holy or unholy trait (as appropriate) to all strikes now? Well, that's a thing.

That's my favorite part of this compatibility shift. I've been hoping for something like this a long time. I'm fine with champions having lower damage in general, but their options for doing more damage to fiends were too narrow and too high level. Now champions just smite things.

Now several of those later options have gotten a gross nerf-- they now only deal damage to unholy creatures, which is a narrower subset than evil creatures were. Divine eidolons got a similar nerf. You can just skip those options, though, and hopefully they get buffed in PC2. Overall the champion came out ahead here.

Causes got a little funky. Weird that they put "don't hurt innocents" as an edict instead of "harm innocents" as an Anethema. We also lost a little nuance about not needing to prevent potential harm far off in the future, but that's probably a space thing.

I'm hoping PC3 gives us way to play non-sanctified paladins of Pharasma. Redeemer was always a poor fit for the Lady of Graves. There are other examples like that as well.

In my estimation, the only two later feats getting gross nerfs is: Smite Evil and Aura of Faith. But then again, I find the massive buffs to Divine Smite and Blade of Justice far outshine the nerfs… The Champion Reaction now affects most creatures with its persistent damage. Now with Blade of Justice, the Champion can for one more action convert all their damage into Spirit damage (which most creatures won’t resist) and proc persistent damage, and perhaps give their teammates a chance to Strike the target. And hey! If the target is Unholy, then two more damage dice as cherries on top!

Also, if I’m not mistaken… Undead are Unholy automatically. Perhaps with a weakness to Holy or not.


I don’t have the pdf for the GM Core yet; but from everything I have seen they have chosen to not include the Dual Class Variant rule in the GM Core.


Honestly, I like the flexibility FA brings to the game. Yes, most archetypes are not built for 2-20, so I’m sure Paizo could update that if they wished. But there are plenty of flavour options out there. My GMPC is a Charismatic Champion with Marshal (for a charismatic support role) and Lastwall Archetype. (to signify his training in Lastwall before it blew up) Meanwhile, my wife’s Ranger is taking all Beastmaster feats to get more pets. More breathing room to flesh out our characters, I find.
Though I am curious as to how they will implement Mythic. Will it run as the Free Archetype currently runs? What if you want to keep your FA concepts? Will they work together or just be a pain? I’m trying to mentally prepare myself for the various options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suspect that they’re retooling the generic Weapon Specialization into more flavoured/class focused. I’m hoping that they bring Spirit Striking to the Champion & Warpriest Cleric honestly.


Perpdepog wrote:
I hope that we get some more of those item based archetypes. Be really cool to wield some kind of mythical, legendary weapon and become mythic alongside it.

That might be an idea, but I find that in the past Mythic was event based. Some big event “unlocked” Mythical powers for the PCs.


Sanityfaerie wrote:

We know that there will be Mythic Rules.

We know that there will be a collection of immortality-granting archetypes.
We have only wild speculation for what the relationship between these two things will be.

Do we know that they will take the Archetype route? I mean it makes the most sense, but has that been officially confirmed?


During the Playtest, I really tried to focus on the Champion and test the class thoroughly. So, I may be able to speak into the question of which ally does more damage… (since the Champion hasn't changed that much since the Playtest)
I think the short answer is: it depends... 
The Animal Ally is consistent, you spend an action it attacks or Supports you, and is helpful at provoking those Reactions. (cuz it's going to get hit. A lot.)
The Blade Ally is versatile, and specialized. Meaning that it is adaptable for varied situations, crits are more effective, and especially deadly to Evil creatures. (particularly those with a weakness to Good)

They balanced the two for flavour, which I really appreciate.


Is anyone else bothered by the AC disparity of the Nimble Wolf vs the Savage Bear? By level 20 it's 38AC vs 44AC. 6 points!! The Bear is good for damage, but not if it's going to be getting crit all the time...

Constructively, the problem could be fixed by giving specialized companions the option of Master in Barding. I mean, it makes sense if they have been using it for so long...


FowlJ wrote:
The attacks don't combine. You would be able to make Tiger stance attacks or Tangled Forest attacks, while gaining the non-attack benefits of both stances (10 foot steps from Tiger stance and the movement prevention effect of Tangled Forest).

Ok, so what about Tigers crit bleed? Could I crit with a Tangled Forest strike and apply the persistent bleed?

Also, is there anywhere else in the CRB where we can find a similar feat or ability that might shed light on this feat? ie. where are you guys interpreting this feat from? Or is this how you think it was written as intended?


So what you guys are saying is that we can't fuse Crane and Mountain with any others? But the others are free to fuse? So, for example, I can fuse Tiger and Tangled Forest? And if I did, what would the damage look like? 2d8S? How would that work with Striking runes? Or what about if I fused Dragon and Tiger instead? One's 1d8S and the other is 1d10B? Which would the Striking rune work off of?
Thanks for the help guys...


Level 20 Monk feat.
It seems to be simple enough, but on further reflection it seems to get more confusing. Which stances can I fuse? And which can't I? (furthermore why can't Ironblood and Crane fuse? What does "using one type of strike." mean?


Glimturen Runekeeper wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Has the Full Plate armour bonus changed since the Playtest? Is the dex cap still 1 with the clumsy trait? Granting a total of 7 AC?
** spoiler omitted **

Thanks a lot for the answer! So, what is the armour check penalty on Full Plate, and what strength score do you need to negate it? (I'm guessing it's pretty high)


Has the Full Plate armour bonus changed since the Playtest? Is the dex cap still 1 with the clumsy trait? Granting a total of 7 AC?


Ds25 wrote:
Could we get some more infos about cleric domains? Maybe just the most common ones Like battle, healing, etc...

I concur with this. I'm specifically interested in the Light Domain, if that's ok.

Also, an odd question for the Bestiary. Is the Solar in it? Or any 20+ Good aligned creatures?


Thanks for all the info guys...

Have any of the class abilities changed since the Playtest? As in, getting certain abilities earlier or later? As far as I have seen they have only ADDED more abilities. For example, the Champion got only Armored Fortitude at level 7. Now it sounds like they've tweaked Armored Fort by adding Armour specialization to it and also throwing in Weapon Specialization on top of that! (I am by no means complaining...) ;^)


What levels does the Champion get weapon specialization and armour specialization? I'm confused from GCP Champion at PaizoCon having Weapon Specialization by 7th level, but no indication of having Armour Specialization...


How are the Domain Powers? Have they been improved upon?


Quandary wrote:
The Armor Specialization with Resistance is really cool, alot more variety in choosing armors based on construction not just "Plate is best Heavy" etc. I like the over-all approach of picking armor consruction and choosing L/M/H version even without Specialization effects.

I totally agree. This edition has blown my expectations out of the water!!


So we could have Resistance to a specific physical damage as low as level 7!?! 0_o

What about weapon specializations?


When, in general, can we expect the specializations?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Oooohh!!! Armour specialization effects! That's pretty neat. Looking forward to checking those out. I'm guessing Piercing=Light armour, Slashing=Medium armour, and Bludgeoning=Heavy armour.

So happy about those age rules! (or lack there of...)

Nope! ** spoiler omitted **

Oh man! That's way better! Love it!


Oooohh!!! Armour specialization effects! That's pretty neat. Looking forward to checking those out. I'm guessing Piercing=Light armour, Slashing=Medium armour, and Bludgeoning=Heavy armour.

So happy about those age rules! (or lack there of...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Ok, so what compensation do the martials get to boost their power? Since there's no more +5 to attack, armour, and saves?
We pretty much fix this by doubling the bonus from proficiency and adding weapon specialization. I mean, best possible fighter with best possible weapon in the playtest was +28 + statMod for 5W + statmod. Now it's +31 + statMod for 3W+8+statMod. So accuracy went up a little, but damage for the biggest weapons went down a smidge.

Ok. That's cool, I didn't crunch through the numbers to find the differences... Now I'm crunching through the numbers for best possible Paladin armour and maybe other saves. Looking good so far...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks again,
Did they add more "pizazz" to being legendary in something other than just having the highest numbers in it now? I'm specifically thinking about Legendary in armour and/or shields, which the armour check reduction was nice but lacklustre...


Ok, so what compensation do the martials get to boost their power? Since there's no more +5 to attack, armour, and saves?


Thank you Rico,

Do Weapons and amours only go to +4 now?


Could you please tell us what changes they made to the Champion's Radiant Blade feats? (level 10&20) What are the runes gained now? And is there more to the feats than just gaining more runes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally liked secret checks, and would love to see them included in the Core Rulebook.

Another point I noted was that on the Monk had more than one Spell Point. I'm guessing the Spell Point classes are going to start with one, and then acquire more, if they desire, through feats...


Are secret checks no longer a thing in 2nd edition?


Crexis wrote:

I'm creating a level 4 character and I start off with 1 level 3rd, 2 2nd level and 1 level 1 item.

My monk is using unarmed strikes and not wearing any armor.

Can I use these 1st level treasures: a potency crystal, owlbear claw or jade cat onto my fists or unarmed strikes?

So you're making a monk as well huh? Nice.

The answer is yes, as long as you choose the Bracers of Armor 1st and the Expert handwraps of the mighty fists as your 2nd level treasures. Those are the two pieces of gear you'll need to affix the trinkets.


Crexis wrote:


Expert heavy armor is listed as a level 4 treasure on page 349, however on page 190 (the one you mentioned) it says an expert heavy armor is of level 3. So there seems to be conflicting information? If I could take a +1 heavy armor does it give my armor +1 to AC and TAC? What other bonuses does it give for being magical?

I took the level 2 wooden shield.

There isn't anything listed anywhere about an expert weapon on page 349. I'm looking at page 190 (table 6-19) about expert weapons. It says the weapon price is 350 sp. Expert +1. I didn't even know you could have access to this. So if I took an expert battle axe. It would have a +1 to attack roll and would I roll an extra damage die of d8? So 2D8 + 4 (str mod) dmg?

There's no mistake.

Level 3- Expert Heavy Armour: Expertly crafted armour that is easier to move around in. Reduce Armour Check Penalty by 1. Non-Magical.
Level 4- +1 Heavy Armour: Same expertly crafted armour, but now has a potency rune that gives a bonus to AC, TAC, and Saving Throws. Magical.

Atalius wrote:
I thought there was a way to utilize a 16 Dex for example (+3 bonus) while wearing Magical Full plate? Or is the Max Dex bonus always just +1 for Full Plate?

Not that I have seen so far...

Edge93 wrote:
Though a little idea, if he puts the potency runes on his shield boss instead of his main weapon, it will copy to whatever weapon he wields in his other hand, meaning he could switch between different weapons with no loss of power. I can't believe I only just now thought of this for a sword and board switch hitter.

Now that I've had time to think about this... This is a neat idea. Seems counterintuitive, but brilliant. I'll have to look into it. Thanks, Edge.

Crexis wrote:

Regarding Expert heavy armor, I see you can have max potency of +2 and max properties of 1. Also the check penalty reduction of 1. Is there anything else that expert heavy armor gets?

Thanks for the help guys, I've learned a lot!

Nope. You've got it! Happy to help. =)


Crexis wrote:

For my 4th level paladin, I am wearing heavy armor and a shield. Can I make use of the 3rd level treasures called: 'Doubling Rings (p.387)?

I was planning on getting 'potency crystal' (1st level treasure, p.402) - do these and how do these 2 items work together?

I've been reading about doubling rings but I'm unsure exactly how it works. Could someone clarify how doubling rings works and how they would work with a potency crystal on my 'battle axe' weapon for example?

For wealth by level for level 4 I can choose 2 permanent level 2 treasures. One I'm taking is a 'sturdy shield' and I was looking through for another permanent treasure but they all seem to be consumables or have certain amount of charges. Can I choose a non-permanent treasure or does it have to be permanent? Any recommendations for what my level 4 sword and board paladin may take?

I'd take the following:

3rd- Doubling Rings or Expert Heavy Armour
2nd- Expert Light Wooden Shield
2nd- Expert Weapon (pg 190)

Potency crystal is very limited, you can get the same thing with the level 1 feat Deity's Domain: Zeal- Weapon Surge. Go for other level 1 treasures, consumables are fine here.
I'd actually skip the Doubling Rings at level 4 and go with the armour unless you know that the GM is going to be handing out +1 weapons. (the Doubling Rings are kinda useless without, at the very least, a +1 weapon) In that case go for it.


Edge93 wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Crexis wrote:
For my 4th level paladin, I am wearing heavy armor and a shield. Can I make use of the 3rd level treasures called: 'Doubling Rings (p.387)?

Not at all.

This is mostly true, though if you get a Shield Boss, letting you use your shield as a proper weapon, the Doubling Rings would allow the shield attacks to have the same + as the main weapon. Not a good choice though as shields are kinda crap weapons.

Though a little idea, if he puts the potency runes on his shield boss instead of his main weapon, it will copy to whatever weapon he wields in his other hand, meaning he could switch between different weapons with no loss of power. I can't believe I only just now thought of this for a sword and board switch hitter.

I've done this with two of my Paladins in the Playtest, it works very well. The primary weapon of the first is his longsword. By using the doubling rings, I can have a back up blunt weapon leveled to my potency rather cheaply. Thereby having all 3 damage types in a pinch. (Sword=Slashing & Piercing, Shield=Bludgeoning) I just need to make sure that my Shield Boss is of sufficient quality... The other Paladin is a Shield Bash/Blocking Paladin. His primary weapon is his Shield while his flail is mostly decoration, but easily usable in a pinch.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


I don't think it'd work with an aura. The biggest thing between an aura and an area effect ability is that such things need to be activated and actually require effort to affect certain creatures. An aura like Frightful Presence doesn't really differentiate between creatures to affect and not affect, which is a big indicator of what targeting is all about: deciding which creatures to affect with a given ability or spell or whatever. In fact, per RAW, Frightful Presence applies to every creature besides itself. (It certainly explains why Dragons are usually solitary creatures; they scare everything else, even each other, off!)

And to me, that's what my definition of targeting is. There are many ways to target a creature, but the important thing is making the effort to actually try and affect that creature with the effect to do so, and the problem with the current Divine Grace wording is that we aren't sure if it is referring to targeting as a game term or targeting as a more literal or generalized term, and this has been an issue in PF1 with numerous abilities, most notably the Courageous property, where Morale Bonus, a game term, was actually supposed to be a bonus to morale checks (such as saves versus fear).

P.S., multiclassing at 2nd level also a solid option. Could go for that offbeat Paladin who dabbles in Bard or Sorcerer abilities, or pick up Barbarian Rage. Plenty of options here.

This is why the waters are kinda murky with the language. Your reasons for why the Paladin should be able to use DG with the Breath Attack and not Frightful Presence are solid. But they are not intuitive from the language of the book. I'd place it as GM fiat, something that will change from table to table.

In many ways Paizo wants to tighten their language and mechanics in PF2, this is one area that needs improvement. How could it be improved? What specific terms could be used to differentiate between an Aura (or your non-targeting magical effect) from a Breath Weapon (or your targeting magical effect) from a Spell? Because as of now, the Paladin can only react to the last while the Ancient's Blood Dwarf could react to all three...

PS Sorry, Multiclassing never crossed my mind. I've never cared for Multiclassing in any edition. I was keeping the feats to Paladin only choices. Which I'm sure they will add more choices in the future...


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Joey Cote wrote:

This is interesting. Frankly, as the feat is written, the Paladin should not be able to use Divine Grace against an AoE because in no way does AoEs' target the paladin, they just hits everything.

If we use the logic that AoE spells "target" every person in the area, then it becomes a problem in regards to concealed, sensed, and unseen rules. Because in those cases you would need to make the flat 5 or 11 check for the spell to successfully land even before the creature made its saving throw. Maybe this was intended, except I don't see any language in how spells work that says AoE, aura, etc target those in their area.

So, I have to disagree that per RAW for the playtest Divine Grace does not work against AoE spells.

On the other hand, I think the ability is badly written and the target language should be removed.

But it is a circumstance bonus, which means it is going to stack with a lot of spells that give a bonus to saves, since those are almost all conditional bonuses. So maybe it isn't badly written at all.

I understand that RAW, Divine Grace doesn't work on spells like Fireball. But it is immersion-breaking that I can have a Paladin's feat work on Chain Lightning (which affects areas of multiple foes) or Meteor Swarm, but not Fireball or Lightning Bolt. It makes no sense how that is the case, especially when other examples of AoEs do refer to creatures in the aftected area as targets.

It also makes no sense when an ability like a Breath Weapon, which is almost certainly magical in nature, doesn't permit Divine Grace to work, simply because it's not a spell, but merely a magical effect similar to Spell Point abilities.

I agree that it is immersion breaking, and I'm figuring that Paizo will fix the language by the time PF2 comes out.

On the topic of Breath Weapons... I do think Divine Grace should work with Breath Weapons. But the trouble is differentiating when Divine Grace works and when it doesn't. Should it work with the Dragon's Frightful Presence Aura? What about other Monster's special abilities? I suppose that one way to fix this problem is to change the word "spell" to "magical effect". But that may make the Feat too powerful. The Dwarf has to give up 2 resonance points for that ability. Why should the Paladin get it for so little a cost? (It's the only non-oath feat at level 2, and if you don't want to be an oath Paladin... Divine Grace!)


I'm finding level 17 faster than level 12, myself. Level 12 was a slog, so in preparation for that my group familiarized ourselves with our level 17 characters ahead of time. It worked well. The mechanics don't seem to be too complicated for high level play...


Gortle wrote:
Why isn't it just a flat bonus. The fact that it is a reaction makes it awful. Half the time you will have already used your reaction.

I haven't found it to be as bad as I thought it would be. It's a nice little boost if you know you will be going up against spell casters. Then there are the feats that give you more reactions. (level 8 & 14) Yes, I know those are higher level... But they are still helpful and in line with how the game plays.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

While I see the point, let's look at it this way: I think it would be very awkward and unfair that a Paladin can use Divine Grace against a spell like Chain Lightning, but not against a spell like Lightning Bolt.

It's immersion-breaking and it also makes no sense given on how spells like these (or more accurately, Fireball) work in relation to effects like Divine Grace, or even Ancient's Blood.

Yes, I totally agree. That's why I think Divine Grace should be worded exactly like Ancient's Blood. (in fact that's where I got the idea to how to word it above) Ancient's Blood is clear and does not use the word "Targeted". It's a small nitpick, but I hope this change clears future confusion.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

A target for an AoE spell would be any creature affected by the spell. They are in the area, therefore they are targeted by the spell and suffer its effects.

So yes, a Paladin should be able to use his Divine Grace feat on area effect spells and abilities.

I hope you're right.

The reason this came up for me was that I was comparing Divine Grace to the Spellguard shield. They are very similar, with their +2 to Saves. (and not stackable mind you) But I found that the Dragonslayer's shield fit the more AoE niche, while the Spellguard was more for targeted spells. So I reasoned that if the Spellguard shield didn't trigger against AoEs then DG didn't either. But yeah, I think they should remove the Targeted language if AoEs work with DG and Spellguard.


My question originates from the word "Targeted" in the Trigger description. Must the spell have the word "Target" in its description in order to use Divine Grace? Is this intentional?
If it is, well...
If not, could the trigger be changed to:
Trigger You attempt a saving throw against a spell.
(though if Paizo changed the word spell to magical effect that'd be really nice as well...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just read over the Unchained, great stuff. The Playtest would be so much easier apply these changes over 1e, since they simplified and condensed many of these bonuses... The level gate helps simplify it immensely as well.
Here's a quick overview of what characters could get naturally (with the appropriate quality of gear to channel their innate power) that I can pick up on the spot...
Level 3- +1 Light and Medium Armour
Level 4- +1 Heavy Armour and Bracers, +1 Weapon
Level 7- +2 Armour
Level 8- +2 Weapon, +2 Bracers
Level 11- +3 Armour
Level 12- +3 Weapon, +3 Bracers
Level 14- Stat Boost to one stat
Level 15- +4 Armour
Level 16- +4 Weapon, +4 Bracers
Level 19- +5 Armour
Level 20- +5 Weapon, +5 Bracers
Of course, there are questions about multiple weapons and what not. But the attunement bonuses from Unchained are a great starting point. I would love to see this implemented.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe it was an oversight, I'm hoping they fix that soon... But the same could be said about the Cleric losing Emblazon Symbol. Same change, similar oversight of "where is the holy symbol coming from when they cast spells with their hands full?"
As of right now, I'm playing that Lay on Hands does not provoke until stated otherwise that this change was intentional...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to happily announce that I retract my issues with Blade of Justice. I've been testing it thoroughly the last few days, with my own tests and a session of "When the Stars Go Dark". Yes, it is very true that Smite outshines BoJ damage-wise. This would be a problem if Blade of Justice lasted only one round... But of course, it doesn't have to.
I found it was quite flavourful as an aggro type feat, and was a very effective tactic against single target enemies. (since the enemy probably won't be focusing all its attacks on the Paladin. And if so...Great!) Great job, Paizo!


Haha, no one has ever corrected me on my usage of "begs the question" before... I thank you.
But let's stay more on track here...
Personally, I think Divine Grace should be broadened a little to be more applicable. Either a reaction to saves for more than just spells (I find that my gm doesn't always tell me when a spell is shot at me and that saves for spells has gone down since Monster abilities are not spell-like abilities anymore) Either that or make DG a passive ability rather than a reaction.
+2 is fine in this game of "tight math", IMO. No need to change it back to the glory days of PF1...

1 to 50 of 363 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>