Kylian Winters's page

As part of channel elements, you can use 1-action Elemental Blast or a 1-action stance impulse. Can you pay an extra action to get the 2-action Elemental blast + Con Damage bonus, or is that just a straight limitation of Channel Elements where you are probably better off doing the stance THEN spending other 2 actions doing the Elemental Blast that gets +Con Dmg?

Captain Morgan wrote:

Kekkres wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

I've been comparing to a rogue with a shorbow, my damage MVP in the AP I've been running.

My shortbow Investigator has similarly felt insane. Stealth to initiative is so so good on archers.

But you're proving my point. If the rogue deals consistent sneak attack damage they get full martial single target damage. The kineticist will have to deal less than that for single target if they also want AoE and utility.

Rogues certainly do have utility, though I think it is hard to compare extra skills and skill feats to things like flight and invisibility. You're solving different problems there.

But they have nada for AoE and will have less hit points to boot. So even if you call their utility a wash the rogue would still be too high a benchmark for single target.

rogue already has plenty of utility, they have 10 skill up's and 10 skill feats worth of utility power budget we have to work with, as for aoe, as ive previously stated i think its nice, but i dont think its especially valuable, and certanly should not be a classes focal point

It is still going eat into your class budget though, regardless of whether it is the focal point. Having the tool is a significant advantage that straight up martials largely don't have. So your single target damage will inevitably suffer for it.

barbarians can aoe https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=148 so can fighter and ranger https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=426 inventors have explosion built in, magus has access to all kinds of aoe with or without spellstrike, eldritch trickster just has spells and thaumaturge can throw around scrolls.

now these are all admitidly much slimmer pickings than the kineticist, but they also do more damage for less actions at aproximatly the same dc (class dc growth is wobbly) now im not saying that for instance dragon barbarian is better at aoe than a kineticist, but i am saying that treating it as...

I am struggling to see how people aren't seeing how weak the damage is in the Kineticist as presented. Seems painfully obvious.

This does seem rather underwhelming for what is suppose to be a core aspect of the clas....

Way I've thought of dual wield vs 2 hander has always been about flexibility. If I enchant one weapon with element x and the other with element y, I get more flex against resistances. Also, variation in poisons, where maybe I poison one to focus on damage and the other to focus on adding a condition, etc.

So, I've been playing P&P for awhile, but mostly D&D and Shadowrun. Bought the PF2E books and been making a lot of chars in Herolabs Online. I want to get involved with some online play given that most of my friend group are pretty heavily invested into 5e.

I was thinking of None Society game for flexibility, given variability in my social and work life; however, if Society games have fairly decent drop in drop out rules, I am open to that as well.

Where would you all suggest I begin? Are there particular forums ideal or well traveled for pick up games? Any particular tool/platform (Roll20 for example?)?

Really appreciate any suggestions, links, or help.

logsig wrote:

A boring series of repeated rolls against level-inappropriate locks can be prevented altogether by gating the ability to pick them behind higher Thievery proficiency levels (Expert, Master, etc).

Yes but that is more a house rule than anything else when dealing with existing locks and trying to decode how they actually intended the multiple attempt locks, since they specifically state it is to thwart low skill pickers just picking repeatedly.

The biggest issue I have with proficiency gating locks as the primary restriction is that it means locks outside of combat (where most lock picking is done) are then no longer rolls at all, and that can be felt as a GM telling a player "yes I wanted you to be able to enter this building, no I don't want you to enter this building".

Yeah, I am strongly against proficiency gates my self.

Something also to consider, time. How much time is spent attempting the lock pick? Are they trying to pick a lock that is on a public street and quickly found a moment where no one was passing by? How long till someone passes by? Is it a highly patrolled area? Roll a d20 and determine if a patrol is coming, say on a 20 or 19. On a 18 or 16 it's a passerby who may would roll perception to see if they even noticed (assuming they're being sneaky), etc, etc.

Time is a resource. Exposure is a risk. If every lock they attempt to pick exists inside a pocket plane where no one could observe them and time stands still, then I get the concern. Otherwise, imo, the above addresses it. Merely takes the GM to act on it. File under, "making failure interesting"

I still disagree. It is telling you what happens if you don't already have a focus pool. If you already have a focus pool, you follow the rules on pg 302.

Focus Points from Multiple Sources wrote:

It’s possible, especially through archetypes, to gain focus spells and Focus Points from more than one source. If this happens, you have just one focus pool, adding all the Focus Points together to determine the total size of your pool. (Remember that the maximum number of Focus Points a pool can have is 3.) If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool. For instance, if you were a cleric with the Domain Initiate feat, you would have a pool with 1 Focus Point. Let’s say you then took the champion multiclass archetype and the Healing Touch feat. Normally, this feat would give you a focus pool. Since you already have one, it instead increases your existing pool’s capacity by 1.

Note that Healing Touch has the same wording as Basic Bloodline Spell. Advanced Bloodline doesn't need that wording because you already need a focus pool, due to the prerequisite.

Yeah, this is my interpretation as well. Seems pretty straight forward. Takes less cognitive load to interpret it this way than twisting the feat description to not adhere to the focus pool rules as written.

I mean lower level than the ooze, seems like we just need to stay away and pick it apart. But if its a small room then what to do?

Can you explain what about level 4 makes players immune to paralysis?

Themetricsystem wrote:

You will still need to also consider that you need a specific formula for every different type of special material that an item can be made from too which is bound to make your costs explode.

Is that explicitly stated in the rules?

Seems about as absurd to me as those claiming you need a different formula for every spell scroll at every level in which they can be cast.

Uhhh, I cannot find any rules that denote you need a per material version of a formula....unless someone wants to reference exact page, this sounds like just as much bollox as the example you provided about spell scrolls.

Also, in regards to the murder-hobo suggestion of finding craft recipes, if you're going Rogue route anyway for skills, would make more sense to sneak into different crafters workshops and steal or copy their formulas. Could also use deception to work with a crafter during your downtime to earn money and copy his recipes on the down low....

Not sure why everyone jumps to murder-hoboing when there are far more elegant and, potentially, rewarding rp opportunities that get the same result if not better.

Orichalcum - "...can have four magic property runes instead of three"

Weapon Potency +1[2,3] - "...weapon can be etched with one [two, three] property rune[s]."

So, how is orichalcum supposed to work since the wording says four instead of three.

Option A) Orichalcum adds +1 property runes to any level weapon potency (i.e. +1 can have 2 weapon properties, etc.)

Option B) Orichalcum only has a benefit when combined with Weapon Potency +3 allowing 4 instead of 3 weapon properties.

Rules as written would indicate option B (otherwise rules should simply say adds 1 weapon property to the number normally allowed with weapon potency), but option B makes the material much more restrictive and less interesting.

Thoughts?

Option A. If you make something with Oirhcalcum, I would rule it could have 1 property rune without a potency rune. Then, when you add a potency rune, it could hold 2 property runes, etc.

Gravity of existential threat will incur a response. If easier to kill, dedicated Hunter Groups, profitable bounties, Holy Orders trained specifically for identifying and hunting weres, etc would crop up.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Would not be surprised, in lore, if a more efficient means of silver coating weapons became the norm, due to the increased desire for silver coated weapons, economies of scales could kick in. Magic research could turn toward spells that are sustained that basically light up a were creature.

"you can draw
on the magic within your blood to replace any material
component with a somatic component."
-Page 303, 2e Core Rulebook

So, if a spell has a material component cost listed, does this override the listed cost given the unique nature of Sorc?

The limitation of class functionality for 'decision paralysis', I find frustrating. Give us more flexibility, let people learn what works, and they'll make quicker decisions. Let the GM encourage moving things along.

Fuzzypaws wrote:

You should be able to craft items of up to your level + proficiency modifier. Are you an expert? Then you can craft up to level +1.

Where did you see that in play test? Reading rules, said you cannot craft an item above your level, no exception listed.

Even if that is so, ok, as level 16, I can now make a level 17 item now. Frustration point is still there.

I am starting to think your post is a suggestion on how it should work, and not RAW. Love how English can have very different meanings for the same phrases.

"You should be able to..." can be
1) Yeah, that is how it works, from my understanding, you should be able to do that with RAW

2) This is the way they should change it.

Either way, I agree. Maybe even include a feat that gives an additional modifier bonus and multiplied the level cap by 2. ie if expert, can make +2 levels above your char level. If master, can make +4 levels above your char level, etc.

Fuzzypaws wrote:

You should be able to craft items of up to your level + proficiency modifier. Are you an expert? Then you can craft up to level +1.

Where did you see that in play test? Reading rules, said you cannot craft an item above your level, no exception listed.

Even if that is so, ok, as level 16, I can now make a level 17 item now. Frustration point is still there.

I am genuinely interested in where that is in the play test. If they don't change the rules, and the level by which you can get legend proficiency, then a level 17 could make a level 20 item, or level 16 could make 19. That doesn't sound terrible if that is how it works.

Hmm, yeah, level 7 I believe is soonest you can get Master in Crafting, so +2. So at 7, could craft level 9 items. At 15, can craft level 18 items.

Hmmm...Also, if you go the route of Craft as profession, and you make rolls and request of DM for commission job, that could be major pay days, that then turn around and fund the crafting of your own objects.

Really hope it works the way you said. If so, I think that it is reasonable. Still prefer no hard level cap, but this at least weighs more in the direction of respecting player agency and investment in skills, allowing for rewards in investing heavily into a skill (the skill increases, the additional feats to make each corresponding item type [Alchemical, Snares, Magic, and Specialty if you wanted to get additional bonus]).

You should be able to craft items of up to your level + proficiency modifier. Are you an expert? Then you can craft up to level +1.

Where did you see that in play test? Reading rules, said you cannot craft an item above your level, no exception listed.

Even if that is so, ok, as level 16, I can now make a level 17 item now. Frustration point is still there.

I feel like if anything is going to be level gated as opposed to just represented by an increasingly high DC it should probably be crafting. Raising the DC means you are creating room for a character to luck out and get an OP item, or more likely, critically fail and waste a bunch of time and money. Neither outcome is actually good for the game.

From a realism perspective, it also makes more sense. An un-charismatic person could "roll a nat 20" and make a very cogent point out of sheer luck. But it seems rather unlikely that they a person without the technical expertise is going luck into building a super computer.

As for why you would take crafting, it functions as a revenue stream that can used in lieu of Lore (practice a trade.) It has more uses adventuring than Lore does, like repairing gear, transferring runes, or identifying alchemical items. And even with formula restrictions, it can provide you with upgrades that aren't available in the shops. For example, my current level 8 party hasn't had shop access, but they did find a +2 weapon, and were able to reverse engineer the formula and then use the treasure and raw materials they had on hand to outfit the whole party with +2 weapons.

I am actually kind of ok with the 'luck out' aspect. Not only luck, but RP. If we focus on DC, instead of hard level requirements for crafting, it opens up the, "You've been Crafting at the World Famous Black Smith Of This Metropolis Shop inbetween your adventures. The Grand Master Smith, renowned for his unrivaled expertise, has taken notice of your work and offers to mentor you."

Also, as long as a player is aware of the consequences, so what if they risk big and lose it all? If a player is stealthing through forest, and come across a dragon that is way out of his parties league, if he decides to charge it instead of trying to sneak away, he made a choice. Is it a smart choice, no, but it's still respects player agency.

Also, what about interesting hooks? If I am level 16 and craft a level 20 item, lets say through RPing the mentorship angle of the Grand Master smith, perhaps one of his other apprentices grow jealous and pay for assassins, or perhaps he interfered with the creation of the item and implanted a curse that could be triggered at a specific event, perhaps, simply through gossip from fellow employees, others hear of this Legendary item and seek you out to make it theirs.

I just realllllly hate railroading on things such as this. I love the idea of allowing a player to invest heavily, collaborate toward something his character is good at. In the RAW it is much easier to RP with GM a long running goal to get a specific legendary item, as it's own kind of arc by the player or the group(regardless of player level). Due to RAW, there is no way to do with this utilizing your crafting, unless the great finish occurs at level 20.

I do not see the rhyme or reason behind 2e's rarity system. For reference, this is how it works:

Quote:

The majority of such elements are commonly found within the world, which means that anyone can buy them, in the case of items, or access them, in the case of feats, without any trouble. The common rarity, marked in black, is the default.

The uncommon rarity indicates an element available only to those who have been initiated into a special kind of training, grow up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world. A character can’t take these options by default. Specific choices, such as class features or backgrounds, might give access to certain uncommon elements. The GM can grant any character access to uncommon options if she so chooses. The level (or type of element for those without levels) is marked in red.

Elements that are rare are practically unknown or impossible to find in the game world. These elements appear in the game only if the GM chooses to include them. Rare elements are marked in orange.

The unique rarity indicates an element that is one of a kind. This means that there’s only one in the game’s world. Artifacts, for example, are often unique. Unique elements are marked in blue (one appears in Pathfinder Playtest Adventure: Doomsday Dawn).

There are a few legitimately decent things I can see this rarity system being useful for:

• Enforcing an aesthetic. The unwritten rule behind some rarity assignments is that Pathfinder is supposed to be western fantasy, hence why katanas, kamas, kukris, nunchakus, and the like are uncommon. Although this should be spelled out more clearly, with explicit notes about how certain weapons change in rarity in different regions of the setting, this is a sensible use of rarity. It means that anyone who wants their character to wield a katana or a kukri has to ask their GM about it.

• Ancestry-specific weapons. I personally think that ancestries should have automatic access (though not necessarily...

I think Shadowrun did it best. Gear had rarity levels, but you could use skills to find them, make contacts (with a Fixer contact having skills and connections specifically tied to finding things) who would search for you, etc.

Make it part of the system, where if something is rare, you use your diplomacy/Intimidation/Investigation/CraftSkill/Feat, based upon the size of the city, it actually becomes easier to find rarer/uncommon items in larger cities than in smaller towns (larger city has more trade, more people, more rumors, where as the local farm town probably doesn't have a clue where to find orichalcum). Right now, this just seems like a great opportunity for mismatch between someone who studied all the cool stuff available and building a char around it, only to have a GM say, nah, because they're intemidated with, "How do I handle teleportation?!".

Has anyone run into this in their play tests? Seems kind of restrictive? Why would you take the crafting path? Why wouldn't you just seek out through adventure or commissioning a NPC through roleplay, seeking out the Orichalcum shortsword you've been seeking out, spending your every last coin, forsaking every other luxury, etc?

Where is the opportunity for the crafts people, when you've got a hard level gated on your craftsmanship via level. Why not allow the opportunities of difficult skill rolls to craft great items, instead of flat out making it so, "Sorry, you're not level 20, you can't craft that because the item level is higher than your level".

Why would they be so prescriptive? Isn't the time and gold cost sufficient? If the GM was concerned about power creep, could they not handle it in their story, instead of a hard Rules As Written slamming the door in the face of crafters being able to achieve anything great?

This kind of design reminds me far too much of Action RPG or MMO design. "Can't have them getting access to this equipment to early, got to keep them in their nice little lanes! May outpace the content!" Which, imo has no place in the Pen And Paper world.

If a crafter specializes, investing their feat ups in getting to Legendary proficiency, sinks all his gold into making something magnificent, it makes me cringe that Rules As Written would put up a hard wall of, "Sorry, you rolled a nat 20 and have dedicated a lot of your RP and Character development toward making something magnificent, but RAW clearly states, you're only level 15 and are trying to make an item level 20 object. Sorry, please try again at level 20"

Thoughts? How precious do ya'll think they are about this? Hoping the playtest gives push back on this.

Method: I attacked the same bandit with the spell wilting surge documented the dmg number and ran rinse and repeat on SAME BANDIT. I did this for 10 data points. I have wilting surge trained to 3.

.
.
.
.

Result:
*=crit
___Charged staff +0 - 79,79,79,52,79,79,67,54,57,79* Total=704
Diminishing staff +2 - 79,53,79,79,79,56,79,79*,79,57 Total=719

The +0 has one matching keyword. The diminishing +2 has 3 matching keywords. This seem's like maybe there is a bug for staff dmg.

For purpose of testing, all you need to do is have one specific mob be the kill type and register a crit. Crit guarantees that you 'hit for full damage', otherwise you wouldn't have been able to crit. Keeping it being the same mob, you are going up against the exact same resistance every time. So, all things being equal, if you crit with both weapons, it shows you the max possible damage for both weapons.