Allustan

Kaboogy's page

Organized Play Member. 282 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Draco18s wrote:


The Fighter's attack of opportunity is also very reactive. You can at least utilize it in a few situations, either by threatening a caster-type or blocking a hallway, etc. But it's also a feature that's less a "defining feature" of the class. I dunno.

I have to disagree here. With AoO you control the situation, you make sure that the enemy either doesn't move/cast/etc. or gets a wallop. Not reactive at all.


Draco18s wrote:


You can do some really fun stuff with reactions. Just saying.

For example:

Quote:

Kick them While They're Down

Trigger: When an ally you are flanking with attacks the flanked enemy
Action: Make a Strike against the enemy at a -2. The damage of this Strike is Evil damage. If the enemy is also good, additionally deal 2d6 persistent Evil damage.
On a miss: trip the enemy
It might be a reaction, but it's pretty proactive and powerful.

That's a good point, and I think a portion of what annoys is that the reactions are all so... well.. reactive, like you said further down. That said, it being what I consider a main class feature (being one of the two things you get at level 1), cementing it as a reaction cement the paladin as a reactor instead of a proactor (is that a word?), and lay on hands also works in that direction a bit. I mean, it's a valid design choice, just not what I typically think of as a paladin. Tomato tomahto.

Thoughts on the suggested alignment feats?

Edit: just thought that with a change of name and removing the resistance, retributive strike works really well as a proactive evil reaction ><


My problem isn't the lack of smite (well, not my main problem), it's that all paladins have a reactive main class feature. Why limit the design space?

As for the paladin being the complementary defending class to the fighter, I don't see where you're coming from; the fighter can defend just fine, and the paladin has magical powers and entirely different fluff.

As for the alignment feats, I'm not saying all feats should be alignment feats, I'm saying that once all alignments are available it's a good method to distinguish and associate between the different alignments. And I'm only talking about having alignment components as prerequisites, that's only four different types. Much better than different feats for each paladin type (which is what we've seen in 1.6).


So with the 1.6 Paladin we were given conformation of non-LG Paladins, and what those look like. I have some thoughts and opinions I'd like to share.

First of all, I am really happy the alignment has been opened up, and I am especially excited at the prospect of more then 9 Paladins, since more can be created with the same alignments but different value systems, or even independent of alignment.

What I dislike is that it seems that all of the Paladins will have a reaction as their main class feature; just within the domain of LG I want a sword of Right and Justice, that gets basically smite evil instead. This seems overly restrictive, and dismisses many loved and cherished tropes for no reason.

What I suggest (besides opening up the above restriction) is to have class feats with alignment prerequisites (single element only). This will help both to differentiate the different the different Paladins and emphasize the common ground between some of them, all with lower page count than many feats with the various reactions as prerequisites.

What do you folk think?

All in all, great work done, and hopefully great work ahead!


I'm all about choices myself, so I would like something that always allows another round of rage, but doesn't make the choice one sided. Maybe something like a constant benefit but growing cost.
So something like +X to dmg/str/whatever, and an AC penalty equal to the rounds raged. And instead of fatigue the penalty goes down for each round, giving a meaningful lasting cost. I could imagine a feat that gives a 1 action to keep penalty as is for the round.


Guys come on, the core rule book hasn’t even come out and you’re talking about lack of additional classes? There has always been niche overlap in classes and that never stopped the publication of the classes you like (Eldritch Knight and Magus anyone?). I get having a discussion about whether 6th level should come back (I’m cool either way), but I think we can be certain that there will be more classes with unique features in the future.


I think the deal with the lower proficiency is a narrative one: barbarians are unsophisticated unlearned beasts of damage, so they they don’t have any of “thos phansy teknics” with weapons or armor (the proficiencies) but they do hit harder and take more punishment.
This raises 4 questions: is the narrative appropriate, and is the tradoff fair (*2 for attack and defense).
I’m fine with the narrative, and think it’s not too overbearing for those who aren’t, but this is highly subjective.
As for balance, I haven’t played or GMd for barbarians in the playtest, so take my statements with a grain of salt:
I think the ac for temp health is a great and flavorful idea, and just from reading seems balanced (though I might be wrong there).
The attack for damage may or may not be balanced, I haven’t done the math, but I think it has a major issue with criticals. It may be fine to take away some hits from the barb, but lowering the attack bonus also means taking away some of their crits, which seems counter to the point; barbarians are all about swinging wide and hitting hard! They should have more crits, not less!
Here is my suggestion - keep the lower proficiency (or even lower it more!) drop the bonus damage, and give a bonus to crit chance. Maybe at high levels all hits are crits. This way playing a raging barb will be an emotional roller coaster, with great highs and lows. You know, like a rage fit.
It also turns out pretty balanced regarding the various weapons - low damage weapons with agile, deadly, and fatal all get boosts, as do high damage weapons (obviously).


Wow, that’s some strong necro. Nice to see I’ve been here for so long.

Your post isn’t related to the topic of the OP, so you should open a new thread. That being said, I think using an implement with the returning quality and throwing it at a party member with Snatch Arrow works by RAW, though no GM should play it that way.


That sounds like a healthy amount of caution.

Thanks again for the responses :)


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Another example of the awesome responsiveness of the team, and one of the many reasons I love PF

So you calculate the percentage only in relation to playtest players? Or do you also try to get a picture of which parts of the general PF community participate? You obviously can’t measure the response of people who haven’t read the playtest to it, but it’s likely that those who have are more system savvy than the general public (as they are willing to learn a new, transitory, changing system).

In other words, are you also addressing the selection bias of the pool from which you are gathering, with selection bias, from?


Thanks to you as well, both for making us a new fun game and for listening and interacting with our feedback (even though a lot of it is toxic).

Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Our confidence is very high, with the caveat that these are self selected surveys. That comes with a certain bias, but our numbers are getting so big, in many cases, that we feel that we are probably about as close to having an accurate picture of the community as we can get.

I get why you won’t share survey results, but could you share your analysis of this? I can think of a great many issues (and a few solutions) to this problem, and as a statistics enthusiast I’d like to hear your approach to it (not to mention seeing a high level thorough analysis will raise my already high confidence in the team)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don’t see what the problem is. Excluding the Paladin mc (which I think is problematic) it takes three feats for a caster to get heavy armor, and their proficiency never improves. Definitely balanced against the melees, and has a steep enough cost not to be essential.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Produce flame is far better than the hand crossbow. You need to load your crossbow, so it also takes 2 actions, hit AC instead of TAC, and you do less damage on a hit. Not to mention you need to spend loads of money on the crossbow for it to keep up.

Cantrips do okay amounts of damage; they’re there in order to make sure you don’t wast turns or spell slots inbetween uses of your real spells.


Snickersnax wrote:

I guess I wasn't very clear about my proposal. Here is an example to demonstrate what I was trying to say.

Say a 7th level sorcerer wants to cast a heightened Mage Armor spell. He has Mage Armor as a Level 1 Spell in his repertoire. He casts the spell using a Level 1 spell slot and as a free action spends a spell point to spontaneously heighten the spell to 4th level (his maximum level). This does NOT use a 4th level spell slot.

This would make sorcerers MUCH stronger than other casters, more than tripling the number of heighest level slots they have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:
Porridge wrote:

First, as an aside, in each case I think it's important to allow for heightening and lowering -- it just feels wrong to me to be able to (say) be able to cast a powerful Heal spell but not a weaker one.

I'm still not sure I know what you mean by lowering spells. Your example with the heal spell didn't help. Heal is a 1st level spell it can't get much lower. Are you suggesting to be able to cast it as a cantrip?

Or are you suggesting that sorcerers should be able to cast level 2 fireballs?

The meaning is that if you learn fireball for the first time at character level 7, meaning as a level 4 spell, you could still cast it using a level 3 slot.

I specifically didn’t mention lowering in my post since I’m still going back and forth between auto lowering and only being able to learn spells at their lowest level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It’s also important to remember the bard when discussing these things, as any structural changes to spontaneous casting will affect them too. I’d say any change to heightening and number of spells known will have to apply to both classes.
Then again I can see an argument for bards to be prepared, since their magic comes from rehearsing performances; this will make the sorcerer even more unique, while letting the bard keep most of their flavor (of which they have spades).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A heighten metamagic feat is an option that’ll sidestep the resource problem while remaining balanced.
Here’s a few other options (desiderata satisfied in square brackets)
- Heightening using spell points as suggested, coupeled with the ability to burn slots for points. This has the added value of further connecting the sorcerers’ innate magic (bloodline powers) with their learned magic (spell slots); it’ll also make sorcerer mc builds really interesting. [1,2,3?,4?]

- Free heightening and lowering, and reducing the spells known by one per level. [1,2,3?,4]

- Change bloodlines so you can only choose spells with the appropriate traits (from all lists), with complement powers. [1,2,3?,4?]
Examples that are not be balanced but show what I mean: Fire bloodline only gets fire spells (duh), one of the powers bypasses some resistance; Fey chooses from spells with the charm or plant traits; Celestial gets all good and light spells, and one of the powers grows wings.
This option needs some elbow grease to be balanced, and I put it here because I think themed magic fits the idea of sorcerers really well.

I personally think low number of themed spells known with a bunch of metamagic and free heightening is the best option (and one that can fill loads of splat books), but it might be a bit out there for others.


First of all great thread. It’s always nice to see polite, constructive, data driven threads, and this is a good one to boot.

I think the highest level slot precentage needs to be broken up to single target and multiple targets, with single being 200% and multiple being around 60-80%, with the goal being 300% in total. I completely agree with OP about casters.

I have to say one of the things that I liked in PF1 is that spell levels had two strokes of life: when a spell level is your highest and used in combat, and when you have spells three or so slots higher and can use the spells for utility and prebuffs (like unseen servent and mage armor). If the second type is still alive and well in PF2 then it isn’t a problem that those spells don’t take part in damage output calculations (though they still need to be taken account of because of spells like the excellent true strike).

Edit:fixed some grammar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tamago wrote:
I think I saw this suggestion on the other thread, and I liked it. The DC should be based on the level of the creature you're healing, rather than your own level. For most cases this would be the same thing, but it would allow for high-level NPCs being able to easily heal the party, or low-level PCs struggling to save a high-level creature. That seems more interesting to me.

The problem with this Idea is that it penalizes characters in need of healing for being higher level, leading to the kinda absurd “Frank died becuase he leveled after that fight!”.

I'd like it if the amount healed would simply go off the number rolled. It probably means giving up on the four tiers of success here, but I don’t mind it not applying to everything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I get the power issues with having automatic heighten, but I think they aren’t as drastic as the confusion from having a spell but not being able to cast it at all levels. I’m not talking about things like invisibility, that basically have a greater version, but about things like fireball or heal, that just have an “add this many dice when cast at this slot”. It also feels wrong to have heal at level 1, being able to cast it using a level 5 slot, but still getting the level 1 benefit.
The only solution I can think of that doesn’t give too much of a power boost but avoids this confusion is splitting up some of the spells back to regular and greater versions, while leaving the spells that only change the strength of their effects as one spell and giving them auto-heighten.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

First off I’d like to say that I really enjoyed this blog, and most of the others, and am excited and grateful by being able to play PF2 soon. I like the bloodline change in particular.

That being said, the way spontaneous casting deals with heightening is concerning to me. It feels like solving a physics problem (I’m a physicist) and getting a solution that lacks some symmetry or aesthetic property. When that happens it not only feels icky and gives me a headache, it almost always means the solution is wrong. I believe this is the case here.

I understand and agree with all points made against automatically upcasting or downcasting, how they eat up time or may be stronger than prepared casters etc. But, I believe they are an order of magnitude less disrupting than the confusion from not being able to cast spells that you have and get the appropriate effect. A sorcerer with heal can now cast it at 5th level but not get the effect that it says it has at 5th level.

I think the issue with spontaneous casting has to do with how spells behave in general now; with spells being unaffected by caster level, collapsing spell chains into the heightened mechanic that affects both the magnitude and the scope of spells, having opposing effects being resolved through spell level, and so on, spontaneous casting needs to jump through too many hoops.

Maybe you should re-split some of the spells? Keep heightened effects like additional damage/healing and the opposing effects resolution , but re-split things like invisibility where the effect of the spell changes. This means that auto upcasting will involve a lot less bookkeeping (just the number of dice or the rare level comparison), be less confusing, and give what I think is the right sort of flexibility for this type of casting: that of magnitude, not scope.

Another option is to give heightening through spell points, though this doesn’t resolve the confusion of not having a spell you know, and will need to be done on a class by class basis.

As a last note, I’d like to thank you all for being so responsive. These blogs, your continued commenting in them, and of course the various faqs, errata and support in general are a huge part in why PF is my RPG of choice, and the main reason I’ve been excited by PF2 even before any details were announced.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I like what I see with the structure of the archetypes, though my Spidey sense is tingling as to the power level. Just using the pirate dedication as an example, what if I already have acrobatics as a signature skill and am already trained with those weapon? Both of those seem like things easily gained through class (especially ones chosen for a pirate character) and greatly reduce the appeal of the dedication feat.
I worry issues like this will deter players from going with archetypes, but I withhold judgment until I have the playtest in my hands.


I think it might be more interesting if the draconic heritage is of an evil dragon, that way there’s tension between the characters beliefs and choices and their ancestry.


Note that hurtful takes a swift action to activate, as does arcane strike, so going hurtful and riving strike means you need blooded arcane strike, so another feat.


Toughness is never a bad choice, but you have con to spare, so no priority there. If you like cornugoun smash then I highly recommend you get riving strike, intimidating prowess and a cruel weapon. This way in two attacks you can give a whopping -6 to saves and -4 to attacks, making you an amazing debuffer on top of your damage skills.

Oh, and it seems you wrote improved critical twice.


Dimensional dervish is great, but takes a bunch of feats and a pretty high level spell for a bard. You could probably find something more effective to do with the feats (like more LoH or a combat maneuver), but you might struggle finding anything cooler.


Why the blooded arcane strike? I don’t see anything that needs the swift action in your build. You can take the excellent riving strike instead.


MrCharisma wrote:
ViConstantine wrote:
im reading the feat now and im simply baffled, a feat that you dont NEED TO TAKE TO HAVE. Im not sure if thats the intention, im pretty confused to say the least.

So normally people do have to take the feat(s), but a bunch of the gods have favoured-people who can get the benefit(s) of the feat(s) by giving up a certain aspect of their class instead. You still give something up, so there is an opportunity cost, it just happens that this one is perfect for your character.

I should also note that at the top of the page for DIVINE FIGHTING TECHNIQUE it says:

Quote:
Special: A cleric, inquisitor, or warpriest who worships a deity can choose to give up either the first power of one of her domains or a minor blessing benefit to gain access to her god’s divine fighting technique without having to meet the technique’s prerequisites (including the Divine Fighting Technique feat). In addition, a warpriest can give up a major blessing to gain the advanced benefit without meeting its prerequisites.

This part gives another optional replacement for the feat, and it specifically says you don't need the feat to begin with.

If you're worried, show it to your GM and see what (s)he thinks.

The way I read the feat (which you should feel free to disregard with if that’s fine with your GM), is that the exceptions given in each individual style are exceptions to the prerequisites given in the style itself, not to the actual feat, Only clerics, inquisitors and warpriests don’t need the actual feat (as per the general special text).


A big part of your choices is what levels you’re expecting to play at. I mostly play PFS, which gets up to 11, so I don’t take more than 4 levels of DD, since you lose spellcasting and a bab point. But if you get to higher levels advancing your bloodline powers becomes way more important.

Some other points to keep in mind:
It might make sense to take 1 level of sorcerer since their spell progression is faster than bloodrager (and that way the DD levels give you a more potent spell progression);

I wouldn’t advise taking both bloodrager and skald, since their rage abilities don’t work together. Better to pick one or the other;

Everyone in this thread have offered you a lot of great, complicated ideas and options. This is just your second character, in a home game. You probably don’t need to be 100% optimized and preplanned. Feel free to do something simple with just a base class and DD, instead of a 4/5 multiclass monstrosity, and take the advancements one level at a time (or not; I like monstrosities).


Monk can also work, since they fit in with the unarmored, super skilled vibe. The alignment constraint might be an issue, but I’m sure your GM will be willing to waive that for a cool enough build.


The most important thing to remember is that a good DD is (usually) a melee build, so your ability scores, feats, class, and spell choices should all go towards that goal.

The easiest advice I have is to focus on strength (which both bloodrager and DD help with), choose a two handed weapon (great sword is the best damage-wise, but the choice isn’t too important), and take the power attack feat. I would also advise against taking more than 4 levels of DD.

Another good choice for dragon disciple is to add in a few levels of paladin. This takes a higher level of system know how than sorcerer or bloodrager (because now you have to have at least three different classes - paladin, spontaneous caster and DD), but the payoff can be great. It also opens up some nice RP opportunities; I have a friend who built such a character, and its whole deal was the struggle between its evil dragon ancestry and its faith.


Just noting that a paladin still needs to take the Divine Fighting Technique feat, even if they give up a mercy to qualify for its benefits.


Hi Mark, super excited about the second edition! I agree that now is the exact right time to do it, and am excited to see how PF will look with the rigor and expertise that I see in the later products.

Until then, do you have any input about how overrun works as part of a charge? It’s explicitly allowed, but I’ve seen wildly different interpretations of how it works.


It really isn’t clear, at least for me. The additional resources state:

additional resources wrote:
the use of Arinna's Wagon...are not available in Pathfinder Society Organized Play unless they appear on a Chronicle sheet

The way the book is set up I’m not sure whether this includes the tattoo or not, not to mention the additional resources entry only states which items are not legal to buy, and at no point explicitly states that anything can be purchased.

I’d really appreciate it if someone with access to the book could give their take.


I’ve heard of FCT being used on multiclassed cave druid monks for some impressive results.


I’m going to have to say the shaman doesn’t count, due to the slippery slope argument. To my knowledge every prepared caster has some access to spontaneous casting: cure spells, arcane bond, summon nature’s ally. If the shaman counts as a spontaneous caster, then the distinction is moot.
Assuming the separation between prepared and spontaneous is meaningful, we must conclude spirit magic doesn’t give access to dragon disciple.


In addition to the above issues, pummeling style explicitly states that only unarmed strikes can be made at the end of the charge. FCT doesn’t override that.


So in order to change from one benefit to another you just need a standard action and to move to the next minute increment?


This may have been answered before,but my search-fu was too weak.
What action does it take to end a totem transformation (from the various Druid shaman archetypes)? And does it take a different amount of time to change the specific power gained from it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just some options that weren't given above:

Feats:
Bloatmage Initiate (+1 CL to school)
Irrisen Icemage (+1 CL to cold descriptor, -1 to other elements; 3/day change spell damage to cold)
Flame Heart (+1 CL to fire damage spells)

Traits:
Secret of the Impossible Kingdom (+1 CL to one spell)

Items:
Voidfrost/Shocking/Blazing Robe (+1 CL to cold/electric/fire spells)
Conduit Rod (constant +1 CL to electricity descriptor)
Alchemical Reagents (variety of effects depending on the reagent and spell used, including +1 CL and +1 dmg/CL)

A rod of intensify or intensify spell and blood intensity become more and more crucial the more of these options you choose, so watch out.


Tarondor wrote:
Rory wrote:

Tarondor, read the whole sentence that you partially highlighted:

"While in such a form, you cannot cast any spells that require material components (unless you have the Eschew Materials or Natural Spell feat), and can only cast spells with somatic or verbal components if the form you choose has the capability to make such movements or speak, such as a dragon."

You can cast spells while using Form of the Dragon and Elemental Body. You can't cast material component spells, but you can cast spells.

For posterity, you can even cast spells using Beast Shape, Plant Shape, and Vermin Shape as well, but removing the verbal, somatic, and material components from spells is mostly impractical for the purpose.

Fair enough. I was referring to being able to cast without those restrictions, but you are quite right.

All of the restriction, except for the simatic one, can be sidestepped with the methods I pointed out in one of the previous posts on this thread.


Why brawler and not UC monk? Leg sweep gets you trip without giving up an attack, and elbow smash gives another (none lethal) attack.


The right answer is 2. You get your first +1d6 at level 3, and it's in addition to the regular damage.


Ascalaphus wrote:

"a single spell" and "the spell" suggest that it's a one-time thing.

Since the feat gives you access to multiple tricks for which you qualify, not just this one thing, getting +1 CL to all castings of the spell would be unusually powerful as well, closer to being worth a feat on its own.

Thing is that "single spell" can refer to a single spell casting or to a single spell.

I also think the first interpretation makes more balancing sense, but I think it makes less rhetoric sense.


avr wrote:
'before casting the spell' suggests to me that this is a one-time thing, but I'm not totally sure.

This is exactly the source of the confusion, since it can be read as "you don't need to choose at the beginning of the day, just don't cheese up and choose after you casted".


So one of the benefits of the feat are as follows:

Equipment Trick wrote:
Aura Mastery (Use Magic Device 1 rank): Once per day, you can choose a single school of magic represented by one of your wondrous items’ auras; you treat your caster level as 1 higher when casting a single spell of that school. You can make this choice at any time during the day, but you must choose the item (and school) before casting the spell.

Does this mean that you add the bonus once per day or that you choose the spell that gets the bonus one per day, and get the bonus to all castings?


In general using an ability that emulates a spell effect takes as long as the spell to activate unless otherwise noted. Hexes might be an exception, but I doubt it.


Yeah, seems good. Don't forget to get a Ring of Rat Fangs and Helm of the Mammoth Lord for additional natural attacks. Depending on how many fighter levels you're taking you could even take the Weapon Specialist Advanced Weapon Training and apply Jabbing Style to them too, along with saving feats on Weapon Focus and such.


Secret of the Impossible Kingdom, Precocious Spellcaster and Gifted Adept all raise your caster level by 1 for a spell(s), in addition to the feats discussed Blood Mage works too, and Irresin Icemage would work for Snowball. Using Urea as an Alchemical Power Component is cheap and effective, and when you have the money you can get a Voidfrost Robe\Shocking Robe and a Conduit Rode.
All in all you can get +10 on Snowball and +9 on Shocking Grasp, but not by level 3. If you're human and want to go all in, taking two of the traits as your free traits(+2), Spell Focus (evocation), Spell Specialization (+2), Varisian Tattoo (evocation,+1) and using Urea will net +6. Maybe there's some Magus specific things that can done too, but I'm not that knowledgeable in them. Also let me note that this is all way overboard, since Intensify only raises the cap by 5, so these caster levels will be very useless very fast.


Cool guide. I haven't gone through it all yet, but I did notice you said wood school gives an inherent bonus to an ability score, but it is an enhancement bonus, making it much less valuable.

1 to 50 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>