Blue Dragon

Karmagator's page

728 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 728 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

My group usually only buys every pdf once, so thank you for the opportunity for me to feel considerably less bad :D


Gortle wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
If I understand correctly, the point behind calling for a summoning focus spell is that it would be possible for a summoner to conjure creatures in a fight multiple times per day without using up all of their top-level spell slots. Much how Druid can use wild shape to cast several polymorph spells on a recharge.

Yeah, I know and I'm saying that any kind of focus spell like that would be too weak to bother with ^^.

Think about it, summoning a creature 3-4 levels below your own costs one of your highest level spell slots. Focus spells are generally weaker than real spells. That isn't going to change because you can summon one with a custom stat line. Wild Shape can work like it does, simply because it replaces what you can do at that moment, usually a full caster with a discount martial. Summoning spells add to what you can do by virtue of giving you an additional team member. Yes, you have to give up one action per turn, but two actions still allow you to cast.

So yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath :/

Yep I get it. I am saying the designers have the balance wrong. I think the community has enough experience to make that claim now.

And I would absolutely agree ^^


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
If I understand correctly, the point behind calling for a summoning focus spell is that it would be possible for a summoner to conjure creatures in a fight multiple times per day without using up all of their top-level spell slots. Much how Druid can use wild shape to cast several polymorph spells on a recharge.

Yeah, I know and I'm saying that any kind of focus spell like that would be too weak to bother with ^^.

Think about it, summoning a creature 3-4 levels below your own costs one of your highest level spell slots. Focus spells are generally weaker than real spells. That isn't going to change because you can summon one with a custom stat line. Wild Shape can work like it does, simply because it replaces what you can do at that moment, usually a full caster with a discount martial. Summoning spells add to what you can do by virtue of giving you an additional team member. Yes, you have to give up one action per turn, but two actions still allow you to cast.

So yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:

Summoning has a few problems. Only the very few best monsters work well. So if you do your homework and dig through the manuals or just go use a guide someone else wrote you can have an OK summons. That is not fun for many players.

Even with that you run out of top level spell slots very quickly so it’s a short adventuring day. The concept really needs a focus spell, for a couple of generic monsters that the designers are happy are balanced.

Please give us an Conjurer archetype with a focus spell to summon a generic animal/ soldier/ golem/ undead/ fiend/ celestial, distributed amongst the appropriate spell casting traditions. Give the summoned creature no major special abilities to cause problems. We also need to carefully look at the way it scales at higher levels. The gap between caster level and total level grows too wide. Maybe an entry level feat for a level 1 summons, another feat to allow it to scale at all, then a much higher level feat to fix the top end problems.

If people want a specific creature they can spend a spell slot.

The whole "summon a creature with a custom stat block rather than something from the bestiary" idea was actually proposed, but narrowly didn't make it. People seem to like summoning exactly the monster they could have fought, so that won. But yeah, I'd like to have the other option as well. Not as a focus spell, because then the power budget would be too low, but as a regular spell.


They don't get anything exclusive to compensate, but it really isn't that big of a deal. At least from everything I've seen and played, swapping out cantrips is rather rare. Spontaneous casters that really want different cantrips commonly pick up Cantrip Expansion and the odd staff.

If you really need to do it anyway, a spontaneous caster can do so when leveling up or via retraining.


Xethik wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

ANOTHER problem in addition to the very valid one Xethik mentioned above but entirely different.

Bombs that an Alchemist creates are made by spending Reagents that you regain during daily preparations which just so happens to be the exact same time that you would need to Invest in the Bandolier which, if you're using Bombs that are Consumable and need to be re-prepared every day. Since you only actually acquire functional Bombs from Reagents once you fully complete your prep there is no timing window in which your Reagent created Bombs can be placed into the Bandolier so they can be attuned to the newly re-Invested item.

Until you complete the full hour of daily prep neither the Investment nor the Regents + created Alchemical Items can be resolved given that there is not incremental function on that system whereby during the prep you do X, then Y, the Z, instead you do all of it and then ALL of the results trigger as soon as you complete the daily preparations.

I don't think you need to invest at daily preparation unless I missed text on the bandolier itself. While you can carry over investments at daily preparation, you can just let your investment end, make your bombs and slap them onto the bandolier, and then invest into the bandolier (which probably only takes a few actions or minutes).

You can invest whenever you want, as long as you haven't reached your 10/day limit. It might just take a moment, as it typically takes the same time as donning the item.

And this is really a non-issue, as all of those things can/do happen during your daily preparations, not at the end. You can decide on whatever order you like, so using Advanced Alchemy to make bombs and then investing your bandolier works perfectly fine.

breithauptclan wrote:

The Thrower's Bandolier does require investment.

But I don't think I have ever heard of a rule saying that you can't do all the things that you do during daily preparations in any order that you choose. Or that if one thing during your daily preparations depends on something else done during your daily preparations, that you can't do one of them.

That sounds like a Too Bad To Be True ruling in general.

Yeah it does, that's because it is wrong :)


We also have to keep in mind that bombs aren't just a weapon, they are also a consumable. Even an alchemist doesn't get the good stuff all day, much less everyone else.

I definitely agree that this is almost certainly not intended, but let's say I wouldn't mind the opposite being the case :D.


The funny thing is that, as far as I can tell, Versatile S on a piercing weapon and vice versa offer extremely fringe benefits, but don't seem to be budgeted that way. Overlap of slashing/piercing resistance is almost 100% and weakness (or something similar) to only one type is similarly rare. Zombies having slashing weakness and Rakshasas losing their resistance due to piercing damage are the only prominent example I can think of.

At least piercing can turn your sword into an underwater sword (tm). That saved my character's life once, so I can't dunk on this too much :)

So yeah, that's a bit odd.


CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
Karmagator wrote:

Btw, is the nodachi looking like a sort of makeshift d12 reach weapon to anyone else? In the hands of a fighter (or stupid Tyrant build) at least.

I'll have to see how it plays out, because I've always wanted a sword with reach. It was always a little funny how the greatsword doesn't have it, at least without considering balance.

Not really, deadly d12 isn't that good. I ran the numbers, in the hands of a fighter it is about equivalent to a d10 weapon at lvls 1-3. Once you get striking it falls behind, never does d10 damage.

So, it is really only good if you REALLY value bracing. Since compared to a Guisarme which is martial, d10 (more damage) and has trip.

So for an advanced weapon you lose trip, get lower damage (even in a fighters hands) and gain brace. So you really need to value brace a LOT.

Pity, I was hoping for a d10 reach sweep martial nodachi, but maybe some playstyles can make good use of brace, in which case more power to them!

Probably should have just been martial though.

Hm, too bad. Thanks, I'll trust you on that, since the best I can do is a super basic analysis of average damage ^^.

But yeah, seems like it goes on the huge pile of "meh" weapons. There's no way I'll ever get enough use out of Brace to justify getting the proficiency.

aobst128 wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Ye do remember that striking increases deadly dice as well?
It does scale but not at the rate of striking dice. You only get a second deadly die at 10th level

12th, but that isn't improving things ^^


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just find it interesting that the original post cited the thaumaturge as being the example for a class being broken because their primary stat is not their attack stat.

Meanwhile, when looking at that class all I can think is "damn, Mark (and others ofc) was really cooking with fire when he made this". Of all of the classes that suffer this problem, this is the only one where I really don't care.


Btw, is the nodachi looking like a sort of makeshift d12 reach weapon to anyone else? In the hands of a fighter (or stupid Tyrant build) at least.

I'll have to see how it plays out, because I've always wanted a sword with reach. It was always a little funny how the greatsword doesn't have it, at least without considering balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:
roquepo wrote:
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

point blank are so much worse than other archer stance

keep using volley bow in mid to late game seems like a obvious disadvantage

Point-Blank Shot can be picked by all the classes interested in ranged combat, not only fighter (I understand that you were referencing Multishot Stance).

Multishot also breaks if you move, which is pretty bad. Some GMs might allow you to use it and not break while moving with a mount, but I wouldn't count on it.

like mobile shot the most but other ranged weapon also benefit from that stance a lot

was very weird only archer archetype get it and gunslinger only get feat like sword and pistol and disruptive blur

I really don't like Mobile Shot Stance, simply because it only seems to offer a solution. AoOs with ranged weapons are pretty meh, but the "no AoO for ranged attacks" part is a genuine trap. Because guess what also triggers those? Reloading as either part of the attack or as a separate action. You can't afford that either, so the benefit is marginal at best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The Inventor does need a way to iterate on an item that is not a level 0 simple or martial weapon though. Probably not at first level, but that should be possible.
It would have been an interesting option for a level 6 feat for weapon inventor to choose an advanced weapon as their innovation and give them proficiency in it.

Hell yeah, frame it as a literal upgrade. Flavour and mechanics in one package, you love to see it.

It would certainly work, as the archer archetype proves advanced weapons aren't exclusive to classes with the fighter progression. Still weird that this isn't a base option if you are trained in one...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
I'm all about the niche protection that pf2e employs. Caster's still have a reason to exist and now martials aren't just superfluous bodyguards. All those classes that have minuses to hit compared to martials bridge the gap with versatility of options. Some people aren't about it but I could never go back to an unbalanced free for all like 5e or pf1e. Why ever be a fighter when paladins or WIZARDS exist. Also, small quibble.....but the math is the absolute LAST thing in the game that would be broken. It was made with the help of a computer science major. Not agreeing with design decisions is not equivalent to something being non functional.

The math is broken in the game.

1) It's confusing. The jump between level 4 and level 5 is astronomical in terms of effectiveness with martials.

2) That doesn't eliminate the fact there are a lot of feats that provide you with the thing, but doesn't really provide you with the thing because the thing doesn't scale.

Unless you take a serious look at the system itself and understand the system, you'd realize taking armor proficiency general feat to get medium or heavy armor doesn't scale at all and leaves you at trained, often giving less AC at high level than your normal armor gives.

Some things not being as good as others is not any evidence of broken math, but of design decisions. "Broken math" would be a level 1 fighter easily out-damaging a 10th level wizard. Or, you know, a paladin being a full martial and also getting spell slots that allow them to randomly deal twice the damage of everyone else.

1) Ok? How is that confusing, exactly? They get +2 to their attack modifier, just as casters do at level 11. That's it. Monsters take that into account.

2) Sure, there are a handful of feats like that. There being "a lot" is a serious misrepresentation. They are only good in shorter campaigns, but hey, nobody forces you to use them. That isn't the system being broken, that's just a couple of (usually) bad feats.

Verzen wrote:
keftiu wrote:
If you wanna be out there in melee, Sorcerer has never been the right class for that. I don't consider that a failure of PF2.

The fact it gives melee options in abilities without giving support (dragons claws, gluttonous jaws etc) is an issue.

In fact, Gluttonous jaws works pretty amazingly if you're a sorc dedication and fighter main class, funny enough.

They have support, they are just never particularly good. They are not supposed to be your main thing after all. While that could be communicated a bit more clearly, I don't think it requires too much system understanding to recognise.


aobst128 wrote:
It's interesting now that martial crossbows are now explicitly better than their firearm counterparts minus concussive and certain utility like risky reload. They're solid choices now.

I believe you are referring to the sukgung vs the jezail? Because in that case, I wouldn't really say "better". The jezail's 90ft range is plenty for almost all encounters you'll ever have, so I'd say concussive is better. That said, I absolutely agree that we have some solid choices now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

With volley now being present on one/two firearms, I'd really love for the Gunslinger to get Point-Blank Shot, so I don't have to homebrew it.

(Double post, but it really didn't fit the other conversation, sorry :/ )

Edit: Funny thing, I just noticed that the barricade buster should have 8 barrels around a central rod, but the picture looks like 7 barrels around the 8th XD


25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

does doubling ring blazon of shared power blade ally runic impression work with specific magic weapon

that change viability of some weapon drastically

Blazons and doubling rings explicitly disallow specific magic weapons. Blade Ally works, but since it's just a straight upgrade even on a regular weapon, it doesn't change anything. Runic Impression works RAW, but somehow feels like it shouldn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lots and lots of cool items in those chapters. Absolutely agreed on the advanced weapons finally having a bit of variety that is actually worth taking. Some cool runes are always great and were much needed, especially for armour. Also, we got a first glimpse at "regular" magic guns. Cool stuff (despite being "just" specific magic items) and I really appreciate changing the name to "spark guns". The star guns / star metal guns thing was weird.

I really hope one of the remaining sections also introduces ways specific magic items relevant (especially the flood of static DCs) or like half or more of the specific magic items might as well not exist. Really one of 2e few glaring issues.

-

Edit: Btw, if anyone from Paizo reads this - for specific magic weapons that are based on a regular weapon (e.g. "this +1 striking flintlock musket..."), is the base weapon considered when balancing the item?


If it was in, I'd expect them to shout it from the rooftops, given how popular it is. So I doubt it.

The other reason I doubt it would be in is theme. As pixierose said, the theme is elements and the Synthesist doesn't fit that.

So yeah, sorry to disappoint :/


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think Paizo see this from a balance perspective, but rather a lore perspective. Like Necrogiant said, if the lore of an ancestry doesn't justify a flaw, it won't get one. Therefore I doubt we'll see any change in the way they're doing things for each individual ancestry. Any change - which I doubt they have the space for in the CRB - would be a generic one like the errata change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion, the core of what constitutes a blue dragon's personality is not only their affinity for schemes, but also being incredibly smug about those schemes. Especially if they succeed. As long as she is given space to do that, I'd doubt that your players would mistake her for anything else :D


Alchemic_Genius wrote:
Conversely; special ammo doesn't apply property runes so ymmv on that one

Only magic ammunition does that, alchemical ammo (which this is) still applies property runes.


Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah the secret check thing is a wash. I think all in all a much cleaner design would have been more of a reverse:

1) Spend an action
2) Make a check, or force the enemy to make some kind of save, but not secret. If you win, enemy is flat-footed.
3) As a side effect, do a free RK check.

I don't really agree with your objection based on "behind the scenes" either. This is an on-stage combat ability either way. In fact, the current design is more anti behind the scenes: you don't want to RK before meeting the enemy because that raises the DC for follow up checks when you actually meet the enemy.

This is a general gripe I have with combat RK abilities that give you a short-lived bonus for crits (ranger, investigator); these classes should want to prepare before combat, but this effect encourages you to go into combat ignorant as possible.

As for key stat, yeah you'd have to change that. But right now Mastermind is split over Int and Wis to handle the different RK skills. Sense Motive would allow you to prioritize just one ability.

Fair point well made. We'd still need text to get around the "You typically can’t try to Sense the Motive of the same creature again until the situation changes significantly.", but that's easy enough.


Karmagator wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Maybe the solution for Mastermind should be:

- You may use Recall Knowledge, but usual terms and conditions apply. So in general, this is not going to well the third time you run into identical zombies.
- You may use Sense Motive instead, with a +2 circumstance bonus if you've tried to RK/SM this kind of enemy before, regardless of whether the previous attempt was a success.

Sense Motive doesn't degrade over use like Recall Knowledge does, but it's less likely to provide useful information so it's mostly an action tax. But it leverages rogues' good Perception. And it fits the mastermind thematically.

Not a bad idea, but I don't think that is a good solution for several reasons. The primary one from a mechanical side is that Sense Motive is a secret check. If you used it, you wouldn't know whether you'll get Sneak Attack or not. That is an absolute dealbreaker. From a story perspective, Mastermind is framed more as the "puppet master behind the scenes". A schemer, not someone who is typically meeting face-to-face. So Sense Motive doesn't quite fit as a core skill. There are more reasons (e.g. WIS-based, last line of SM), but I think these are the most important.

I think a good solution wouldn't need to be very radical. It couldn't be, really, because the space available is very limited. So something like this might work:

When you use Recall Knowledge to identify a creature, in addition to the normal effects, also compare the result to the standard DC of the creature's level. If that number would be a success, that creature is flat-footed against your attacks until the start of your next turn; if it would be a critical success, it's flat-footed against your attacks for 1 minute.

Wow, I realise I made a massive error. It completely slipped my mind that Recall Knowledge is a secret check as well. So technically, a Mastermind already wouldn't learn whether they get Sneak Attack until they've successfully hit. Not that I would ever run it that way, but damn, there is always another wrinkle to this subclass D:


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gesalt wrote:
CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
gesalt wrote:
I don't suppose it would be too much to ask that we go in the other direction? Remove the rolls from the other weapons instead of adding them to hammers and flails.
If so you really need to boost every other crit effect a lot as those three (slow, stun and prone) and massively stronger than the rest.
Most of the crit spec effects are so weak they may as well not be there. So sure, rework all the trash ones into something that makes the weapon group worth using. How would that be a bad thing?

While I agree some of the crit specs are a little underwhelming and should be improved, I really don't think raising the ceiling that much is a good idea. Sure, it would be fine on most classes. But the fighter and gunslinger would have a very good chance every round of basically neutralizing an enemy, even if they don't kill it. If you've ever had a lucky Sniper or Stunning Fist Monk in your party, you know strong that can be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The hammer/flail crit spec definitely should be changed. I would prefer to have something that doesn't require extra rolls, though. Especially at higher levels, a single crit often already triggers multiple additional rolls via runes and feats. I'd rather not add to that, if at all possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Maybe the solution for Mastermind should be:

- You may use Recall Knowledge, but usual terms and conditions apply. So in general, this is not going to well the third time you run into identical zombies.
- You may use Sense Motive instead, with a +2 circumstance bonus if you've tried to RK/SM this kind of enemy before, regardless of whether the previous attempt was a success.

Sense Motive doesn't degrade over use like Recall Knowledge does, but it's less likely to provide useful information so it's mostly an action tax. But it leverages rogues' good Perception. And it fits the mastermind thematically.

Not a bad idea, but I don't think that is a good solution for several reasons. The primary one from a mechanical side is that Sense Motive is a secret check. If you used it, you wouldn't know whether you'll get Sneak Attack or not. That is an absolute dealbreaker. From a story perspective, Mastermind is framed more as the "puppet master behind the scenes". A schemer, not someone who is typically meeting face-to-face. So Sense Motive doesn't quite fit as a core skill. There are more reasons (e.g. WIS-based, last line of SM), but I think these are the most important.

I think a good solution wouldn't need to be very radical. It couldn't be, really, because the space available is very limited. So something like this might work:

When you use Recall Knowledge to identify a creature, in addition to the normal effects, also compare the result to the standard DC of the creature's level. If that number would be a success, that creature is flat-footed against your attacks until the start of your next turn; if it would be a critical success, it's flat-footed against your attacks for 1 minute.


graystone wrote:
Gobhaggo wrote:

https://youtu.be/QzbUuN16TsE?t=5844

'Ere they are

Thanks. I forced myself to look at a little bit of it.

On the Bottle monstrosity, I see what you mean by "final fantasy summons". The snippet I saw does look interesting but I'm curious to see how they are crafted, what category they fall under [for instance, can a investigator with Alchemical Sciences learn them] and check to see if the DC's are competitive for like leveled items. It moved my from concerned to cautiously optimistic.

Karmagator wrote:
Why not just mute the video, pause and read the text? It should all be visible on screen.
I did but it's infuriatingly SLOW doing so as he slowly reads and goes off on tangents while I've read the text in a second... Had to keep clicking forward in an attempt o keep things going. All in all, it's quite annoying and why I hate video spoilers like this. Less talky, more sauce! :P

Fair enough ^^


graystone wrote:
RaptorJesues wrote:
graystone wrote:
Gobhaggo wrote:
Bottle monstrosity is more like incarnation spells, think more like final fantasy summons than normal summons
I'll have to see them and look at the numbers.
they are in the video, he reads through them all
Ok... Is it written anywhere, because I'm not watching the video. I have zero interest in listening someone read them. It's why I specifically asked before if anyone had transcribed the video to a post before. If they aren't written down anywhere, then "I'll have to see them and look at the numbers" later.

Why not just mute the video, pause and read the text? It should all be visible on screen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like more thrown weapon support, especially a "thrown weapons expert" archetype that grants Quick Draw via the dedication. There really aren't a lot of feats that deal with such a playstyle, even for classes who support it at all.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Already widely discussed, but still deserves a mention: legacy weapon lists for the rogue and wizard have no proper reason to exist in this system. 2e is built with build variety and future-proofing in mind, so please get rid of that stuff!


CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
Karmagator wrote:


2) Spellshot really doesn't have to be a class archetype

The spellshot class archetype should be changed to a regular Way. The only change is that it makes your character worse by tying your class DC to INT. That is not usually part of a Way, or at least that is the only mechanical explanation I can see for this oddity. Not that I see that as a particularly good reason, especially given the additional downsides.

Yes, agreed, but changing a class archetype to a way seems beyond what we can expect from errata. I think Spellshot could be fixed by making the dedication feat actually useful, and removing the "must take 3 feats in this dedication" etc before leaving. The INT to DC thing should go away, straight downgrade.

I had a crazy thought about what if spellshot changed gunslingers key stat int and let it use int to hit but also beyond the scope of errata I think.

Yeah, I agree, the whole class archetype deal is incredibly unlikely to change, so if anything, the changes you suggested would be it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
I think most of the clarifications and necessary fixes have already been heavily discussed,

It is too bad that we actually have no way of knowing if all of our discussion on the rules forum has actually had any effect. Having a list of "these are the things we acknowledge as problems and will be coming out with fixes for in upcoming errata/clarifications" would be fantastic.

I think from everything we have seen, we can be very sure that Paizo are aware of the issues we discuss and make the changes they can and want. While I would appreciate official confirmation, I don't think it's worth the work and additional expectations people would have.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think most of the clarifications and necessary fixes have already been heavily discussed, so I've set my sights on something more in the design changes area. A difficult topic for this type of product, but you never know, maybe Paizo can make it happen ^^

1) Recall Knowledge and Mastermind

Speaking of RK, we really shouldn't have core combat mechanics entirely based on it. Case in point, the Rogue's Mastermind Racket. Not only do you need to keep up to 5 skills "updated" at all times, there's also the DC adjustments to consider. Bosses and similarly significant opponents are almost always unique, meaning a healthy +10 to your check. Also called "you don't have an ability" until you are in the level 15+ range. The +2 and +5 adjustments for uncommon and rare enemies are less severe, but also a lot more common. Add to that the suggested adjustments for repeated use - inferred to be the usual +2/+5/+10 - and you have an ability that is extremely inconsistent and often dysfunctional against significant threats.

This was already heavily criticized during the Thaumaturge playtest and changed accordingly. While I would appreciate a similar change for the Mastermind, eliminating the DC adjustments for the base mechanic (not RK) would already be plenty. Possibly accompanied by a change to the critical success effects, since those look like they take that unreliability partially into account.

2) Spellshot really doesn't have to be a class archetype

The spellshot class archetype should be changed to a regular Way. The only change is that it makes your character worse by tying your class DC to INT. That is not usually part of a Way, or at least that is the only mechanical explanation I can see for this oddity. Not that I see that as a particularly good reason, especially given the additional downsides.

Because part from the usual archetype restrictions, the Spellshot dedication is also just terrible. It gives you a reload that is rendered useless by your turn ending on a full chamber (read: almost always) and in 99% of situations has no benefits beyond saving a single copper. This is only useful in the extremely unlikely event that you have no ammo at all, which is already conveniently solved by Munitions Crafter. The Call Gun + Conjure Bullet interaction deserves a mention for the incredibly niche situation that you have to go in somewhere entirely unarmed, but doesn't justify Conjure Bullet being otherwise useless. Let's not forget the opportunity cost of missing one of the best level of gunslinger feats (Fake Out, Pistol Twirl, Risky Reload and Quick Draw).

So yeah, please change this.


So far, I've only really seen the Nonat stream (the RPGBot article barely had anything in it), but I really like the addition of what is basically buff food. Not only is that awesome for RP, as that is what people would absolutely buy instead of only trail rations, it is also a good mechanical addition.

Some of them are even an attractive alternative to taking certain feats, like using exploration activities at full speed or the "can use stealth without concealment" type feats. There is even coffee that buffs the investigator's strategic strike damage, so now every investigator ever will be a coffee addict XD. Not how I would like that particular issue being (partially) addressed, but it is still cool.

Also, Cooperative Waffles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jedi Maester wrote:
Karmagator wrote:

I want reasonable reload weapon support for anyone that isn't the gunslinger, i.e. reload feats. And by reasonable I mean as a level 1 class feat and/or level 2 archetype dedication feat. Currently, the first available one is Running Reload at level 4 (!) for the ranger or 6 via archetypes. For what is essentially basic functionality, that is absurd.

My group wants to do an all-rogues-party for a low-level homebrew adventure, so I'm strongly considering Mastermind (with some adjustments for balance) to cover the ranged problems of my friends. A crossbow would fit very well narratively, but I'm pretty much discouraged from using it for mechanical reasons. Ofc, I'm gonna do it anyway, but that is still rather annoying.

Yes, please! Classes that need to have some form of decent reload weapon support (outside of gunslinger): Alchemist, Fighter, Inventor, Investigator, Magus, Rogue, and Swashbuckler!

I think thaumaturge, ranger and some flavours of warpriest would like to be added to that list ^^. And I think giving everyone else the option via a dedication should be done as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want reasonable reload weapon support for anyone that isn't the gunslinger, i.e. reload feats. And by reasonable I mean as a level 1 class feat and/or level 2 archetype dedication feat. Currently, the first available one is Running Reload at level 4 (!) for the ranger or 6 via archetypes. For what is essentially basic functionality, that is absurd.

My group wants to do an all-rogues-party for a low-level homebrew adventure, so I'm strongly considering Mastermind (with some adjustments for balance) to cover the ranged problems of my friends. A crossbow would fit very well narratively, but I'm pretty much discouraged from using it for mechanical reasons. Ofc, I'm gonna do it anyway, but that is still rather annoying.


25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

that seems to be ignoring the fact multiple hundred reply thread exist argue over why the one trick of investigator and swashbuckler doesn't work and they end up with not just worse damage but worse support compare to rogue

because they are going to be compared to rogue

the idea witch is undercooked and it is a good thing pretty much prove why class should not be rushed and apg did made mistake

and if the scattered idea and content couldn't be fit into a class framework than archetype is the obvious choice

None of the classes you list have a substantial problem on the story concept front. One could maybe make the argument for the witch and the 5e warlock comparison, but that is details, not a core issue. Swashbuckler and Investigator have no problems at all.

Same with the mechanical concept. Swashbuckler is easily one of the least controversial classes in the game (as far as I can tell), whose mechanics noticeably set it apart from the rogue. I've only played one briefly, but they certainly didn't feel like the same. The Investigator being underpowered I agree with, but that isn't because the core mechanics somehow don't work. The intended scope of Pursue a Lead could be clearer, but apart from that, the core mechanics are some of the most fun ones I've seen. For me, it's just an issue of the numbers being too low and the class lacking more impactful combat feats. The former is more difficult to fix, but certainly doesn't require a major rework. The latter is just a question of adding more feats, which is another thing a lot of people want.

So yeah, I don't agree with your point. None of this would have been any better as an archetype, quite the opposite.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

everyone want something

what make the desire for repeat the mistake of apg class every year so much more important than the desire for not repeat the mistake of apg class every year

that the former must remain as loud as possible and the later must be silenced

what make the desire for more likely functional new archetype so much worse than the desire for more likely non functional new class

Calling any class in 2e non-functional, APG or not, is just incorrect. Some are a bit underpowered, sure, but none of them are even remotely broken. It's just that for some classes, the creators cooked with tabasco pepper and fire, like the thaumaturge. For others, they used mild curry, like the witch or alchemist (or investigator to a lesser extent). Both are perfectly edible, but one is a lot more spicy.

Since the APG, class releases seem to have been very successful and accepted by the community. So calling that a "repeat mistake every year" seems baseless as well.

Lastly, we are silencing nobody. We are simply stating that in our opinion, any kind of archetype solution is insufficient for the "inquisitor" concept. And by saying we would need like 5 to get to that point, you illustrated our point, that's all.


A lot more niche, but a silencer-type item that doesn't break on the first shot would be nice. Or something that at least reduces the noise to regular combat levels. Firearms already have enough built-in drawbacks ^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Could the Inquisitor be a Cleric's Doctrine?

Doctrines are way too limited in both scope and power to adequately fill the inquisitor concept. Their current iteration is for shuffling some proficiencies around, not major mechanics like having a full set of spell slots or not.

A class archetype would be weird as well. You'd be ripping everything but the god and maybe a bit of spellcasting out of the cleric, only to replace it with something new. At that point, a class archetype really isn't the right tool for the job anymore.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

after everything pathfinder 2e put out

it is very difficult to imagine a inquisitor class

4 or 5 archetype for all the inquisitor concept maybe

We've had some animated discussions on the subject in the past, but it's safe to say there's no shortage of mechanical space there.

I think the need for "maybe 4 or 5 archetypes" to cover the concepts of the inquisitor is speaking volumes already :D


I've got another one - I want the Mastermind Rogue racket to be as powerful as its vibes. The Thaumaturge demonstrated that these mechanics can be done well :)


gesalt wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Liogo wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

It doesn't put you at one focus point for the rest of the day.

So if you exhaust your focus pool on Lay on Hands you got from Blessed One dedication, you can refocus to get one focus point back. Then cast amped whatever to put yourself back down to zero focus points - which also qualifies you for the Refocus activity again (you have spent focus points since your last Refocus). Then since you have only used your focus pool to cast Psychic spells, you get to Refocus for two points.

Wait a sec, does that actually work like that? You can refocus all the way back to 3 focus points that way, which isn't normal.
As far as I can tell, yes, it works like that. However, you can't get to 3 points without Deepest Wellspring. The relevant part here is "[...] you regain 2 Focus Points when you Refocus, up to your maximum of 2.".
It's your maximum of 2, not a maximum of 2. Once your maximum stops being 2, it makes sense that you could refocus to your new maximum of 3.

Not really. No other focus ability in the game works that way and even the psychic's built-in upgrade (Clarity of Focus at lvl 5) says "Increase the number of Focus Points in your focus pool by 1. This ability doesn't change the number of Focus Points you regain when you Refocus.". It seems clear to me that the interaction you describe is not intended.


Liogo wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

It doesn't put you at one focus point for the rest of the day.

So if you exhaust your focus pool on Lay on Hands you got from Blessed One dedication, you can refocus to get one focus point back. Then cast amped whatever to put yourself back down to zero focus points - which also qualifies you for the Refocus activity again (you have spent focus points since your last Refocus). Then since you have only used your focus pool to cast Psychic spells, you get to Refocus for two points.

Wait a sec, does that actually work like that? You can refocus all the way back to 3 focus points that way, which isn't normal.

As far as I can tell, yes, it works like that. However, you can't get to 3 points without Deepest Wellspring. The relevant part here is "[...] you regain 2 Focus Points when you Refocus, up to your maximum of 2.".


My experience is mostly limited to my group of 6, but for us, it highly depends on the class. Some of us have a strong tendency to build "backup" characters, so there are quite a few ^^. DEX monks are way more common than STR ones - the current count is 3 to 1. I have one (unplayed) DEX fighter in my back pocket, as the free-hand/duellist route is great with either stat. Thaumaturges (unplayed as well) are a mix of one-handed melee weapons (STR), often with reach, and ranged builds (DEX) so far.

That's basically it. A lot of it comes down to one's vision of a class, for example, I'd be hard pressed to even consider a DEX champion, as wearing heavy armour is an essential part of how I picture a champion. Also, I picture most such classes as being necessarily "strong", so prioritizing STR and Athletics is normal for me.

The other part is mechanics. If you like damage, you basically need an extra damage feature to consider finesse weapons. If you don't have one, d10 reach and d12 weapons are just strictly superior in my eyes. I usually build for high damage, because that is my typical role.

Those are the reasons for me.


WatersLethe wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
I really, really want a one handed reach spear as the baseline "one handed reach weapon" that all others should be compared against.
Ignoring real-life practicality for a moment, this really seems like a no-brainer from a fantasy perspective. The "short spear and shield" combo wins hard on looks alone.

Bringing back the real-world practicality, Spear and Shield has been a staple of human combat and warfare for thousands and thousands of years, and the spear in those combos most certainly had a reach advantage.

One nice video on the subject is by Lindybeige.

Thanks for the video, I haven't seen that one yet ^^.

And yeah, fair point (heh), I should have been more specific ^^. Spear and shield is amazing in a group formation, because there it doesn't really matter how agile your weapon is or how varied your attack patterns can be. In the Pathfinder context we are talking what is basically a duel or at least you are unlikely to fight in formation. In that context, the combination is rather poor.

Edit: I think that is demonstrated rather well in the video ^^


5 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
I really, really want a one handed reach spear as the baseline "one handed reach weapon" that all others should be compared against.

Ignoring real-life practicality for a moment, this really seems like a no-brainer from a fantasy perspective. The "short spear and shield" combo wins hard on looks alone.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

For a more conservative pick, I'd say spears need some love. I love spears both from a fantasy perspective and from what little training I had with them. So it is kind of sad to see so few good variations (imo) of it here. At my table, they see so little use that I actually forgot they have their own crit spec.

For a more wild thing, I want more magitech. Automatons were an amazing addition, especially now that STR isn't hard-coded into them anymore. Same with sky ships and hopefully starmetal guns in the future. So I want more of that good stuff. Not necessarily too much into the Starfinder direction - i.e. very futuristic stuff - but rather things that are more fantasy, usually relics of an ancient civilization. Pseudo-staffs ("spell lances"?) that are functionally a ranged weapon instead of a regular casting device. Ancient superweapons are always a great trope. So are ancient constructs in general, which is a vibe I'm missing from the otherwise excellent clockwork enemies. Artificial limbs and such that can also give you appendages you didn't have before - non-gamebreaking ones like a tail, wings or replacing your lower half with a mechanical scorpion. You know, normal things :D. I'm currently blanking on more, but there is a lot to explore here.

Something related to that is a class archetype for the Inventor that gives it a more impactful innovation and gets rid of the explode feature would also be great. And the option for it to be augmenting yourself, because mad science clearly hasn't gone far enough yet ^^.

Anyway, sign me up for aberration and body-horror stuff as well. Imagine living in a world with so many entities that are so vastly more potent than you. Magic is a thing, so the idea of "I'll have some of that, please" is quite understandable and interesting to explore.

1 to 50 of 728 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>