Darius Finch

Lanathar's page

Organized Play Member. 1,775 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.

1 to 50 of 281 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

Yeah I have the feel you've got the wrong game here. You're specifically mentioning PF1 spells and elements, this is about PF2... Common mistake if you're new I suppose.

Unless you have previous experience. I mix up things too, sometimes :)

I am glad I was not the only one thinking this. Especially the feat section . That entire section is pretty much PF1 complaints

Honestly it is a mark of this community that so many people are indulging the OP

The way I can see it is the OP has come in and complained and denigrated about almost every underlying aspect of the d20 system that people on here love

On top of that has demonstrated an utter unwillingness to learn anything about the game (I have 1.5 job and family comment + the combat section demonstrating that they didn’t bother to learn the feats that their fighter could do). Almost no one plays this game full time. And very early on most GMs modify as written content

All whilst claiming the whole group have PHDs as if that means something? Is the suggestion “this game isn’t good enough for well educated people because it is too boring and limiting” or something like that. Maybe it is because I am messaging at a bad time but I find the whole thing quite insulting

And that is not mentioning the well trodden point from above about the OP wanting two different things from the same game without awareness that they clash and a compromise is needed . 100% Delivery of one of the aims would lead to non delivery of the other

And on top of all this the post doesn’t seem to have a reason on top of berating the game whilst trying to sound clever at the same time. It is quite frustrating and I am not sure why it is even necessary

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My stance comes from GMing a game where I allowed (in theory) everything except 3PP and gunslingers .

My PCs are far too powerful for the AP and there have been numerous instance where racial or deity specific spells have been picked because d20pfsrd was the source and not AoN and I have then had to have a long winded discussion as to why the options aren’t allowed

Add on arguments over non core rules (not options) like underwater variant rules and retraining which have been thrown at me with “well it is a published PF rule...”

It is a road to madness and I am glad to see a system that seeks to get it under some degree of control

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alaryth wrote:
Rysky wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
I couldn't agree more with the OP, I can't stand stuff like the UA options in 5e or the uncommon/rare options in 2e. Either something is a legit option or it isn't, get off the f@#king fence and make a decision. Don't leave it up to the player to work out some kind of deal with their GM to get that option.
Every campaign and story is different, so why not leave it up to the Players and GMs to work out a deal?

As the rules are, there is no "work out a deal". On a deal both sides participate and have some power on the final result, here all the decision power falls on one side, the DM. I find funny all the talk about having the confidence on the DM to use rarity system well, while players that want uncommon things are presented as whiners. Where is the confidence on the player?

And currently, some characters concepts are so full of uncommon as to barely be playable, like Divination Wizard.

Edit: I find specially problematic the alignment spells case. It seems arbitrary to make some alignment spells the main route to do damage on the Divine casters (looking at Divine lance) and then made so many others uncommon. Either all should be usual spells, or all should be uncommon and take other mechanics as the damage dealing side of Divine spells. The current state made little sense to me.

Coming from a forever GM there is no confidence in the player for a very good reason

Players are presented as whiners because, unfortunately, in the majority of cases they are . The complaints about restrictions are nearly always about “their” fun

An example is a player who dug out Blood Money the other day. I said no because it seems quite obscure. He was also already talking about “it’s great there is no downside because I don’t need strength and can easily heal it back anyway”

He, predictably, said “I found it online on the spell list”

I had to tell him it was a spell only known (in published material) by the BBEG of an entire AP before I could get any concession

An extreme example? Maybe. But picture that over and over again with region specific options, racial spells , deity specific spells etc.

A quick read of the boards and reddit and anywhere (plus my own personal experience) is that the vast majority of players have a supreme sense of entitlement and the person running the game and the story often has to allow this especially if the other players join in

The GM is considered to be trusted with this decision because they have been trusted with running the game . As has already been mentioned if you don’t trust your GM in this way then that is a different conversation - but not one directly related to this particular issue

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How have you come up with the numbers for the NPCs? Have you used the new guide? Because their stats are all amazing especially Ameiko

They put the PCs to shame quite significantly

I think key ally NPCs should use player rules but the enemy combatant ones should use the recent guide / align with bestiary to match the challenge requirement

I don’t think Ven should be built to a CR2 threat since he never really was in the original. His AC, saves and attack was all very poor for a CR2 in 1E. I can only assume his original CR2 was assuming a one on one fight , potentially with an unarmored PC (although unlikely) with enough HP that he might have got a lucky crit in and dropped a low level PC

Your build would be a fairly tricky challenge for a level 1 party altogether which I don’t think is the point of the encounter

That damage output seems out of proportion for a shop keeper even under the new standards . But that is just me

6 people marked this as a favorite.

So your actual question seems to be “why are the Signifer requirements so steep for wizards/sorcerers”

Why ask it in an indirect way? And is the premise of your question even correct ? Was there ever any indication of how many were in the ranks in the first place lore wise ?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

I'm just going to say that I value early and strong Errata more than getting APG print product on schedule.

Mark mentioned how long-delayed Errata impacts player understanding, but it seems like it also impacted DEV understanding,
since after all if they are writing auxiliary rules, their understanding of core functionality will impact how they construct them.
And it seems like a hot mess to try to manage editing new rules content against vague undertanding of actual rules intent,
when concretely formulating actual rules errata would give solid basis upon which to build and judge new rules content.
All the more so considering the constraints of errata on already printed product, where ideal wording won't always be achieved,
which will necessitate "bandaid" wording in other places, so knowing that bandaid boilerplate is really really important.

With exit of Stephen, I honestly can't imagine how original schedules can be met while pursuing strong Errata process,
so I'm very hopefuly management can see and accept that, and allow devs to do what they need to do for best game system,
recognizing that staying on top of Errata early on for Core Rules is not comparable to "normal" book scheduling needs,
but in fact is about establishing a strong base which can help prevent rules problems in the future.

If you change “APG” in your post to “GMG” then that may be reasonable

But they are not missing the Gencon release of the APG regardless of the errata situation . They are far more likely to compromise on errata quality (despite Mark’s comments) than the APG timetable

The APG is the flagship product for GenCon 2020.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Richard Crawford wrote:

I want no errata.

Because I want a perfect product with no errors.

But, given the choice between a product with unfixed errors and a product with errata, I'll take the latter everyday of the week.

Paizo does not have a good reputation for their handling of errata in the past, and with PF2, it seems to be getting worse.

At least with Pathfinder, developer's rulings ended up split between the faq and the errata documents.

Now, we need to refer to random comments that they're making on whatever podcast or promotional video that they have appeared on.

Where do you get the “seems to be getting worse” from?

When was the first errata for the first printing or the 1E core rulebook released?

Was it within 2 months of release?

I have tried to find online and the best I can see is end of May 2010 - so almost 10 months after the release . If (and that is a big if) that is true then we have 8 months before we know if it is getting worse

Of course I wasn’t following errata back then and maybe they did come out earlier

It seems the problem is some errata have already been acknowledged which has given people arguably unrealistic expectations

Of the points that were mentioned I believe most were things that seem like they could have been design choices until confirmed as errata (wizard feat, sorcerer saves and unarmed proficiency). There were questions and doubt but no certainty

They are primarily working on the GMG and then getting classes ready for the APG playtest right now

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am interested to hear how the fight goes as it seems to me like it could either be really lacklustre (notably if he has no allies) or really brutal (if he gets chance for death attacks and the saves are failed as breath of life from the song will not bring people back)

I am already thinking ahead to a hypothetical scenario of killing the PC with teleport (not deliberately but if it happens). Then the group don’t seem like they can easily get out (but I might be misremembering) and might be picked off...

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Natsil wrote:

Good morning all.

It's been a while since I've been waiting for the Catfolk Ancestry. But nothing until now. The next book gives only three additional ancestry (hobgoblin, the plant-like leshy, and lizardfolk).

Lizardfolk ok, but Leshy and Hobgoblin? Does anyone want it? Maybe, but I'd rather see out the Catfolk (especially that is already present in the bestiary 1. And when we see the output speed on Starfinder, I think that there is let go.

Anyway, I'll be much more adept to see a race book come out. For the moment Pathfinder 2nd is not selling dreams.

It’s been a while? The game hasn’t even been out for 2 months!?

It took 3 years for Catfolk to be playable in 1E

What does “Pathfinder 2nd is not selling dreams” even mean?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Forced your game?
By lack of choice do you mean in character options or not being able to choose to stay with 1E.

Because if it is the latter then you kind of have to go with what the GM wants to run unless someone else steps up

As to "take on anything and walk out of it" - that is not how the game work in either edition. You are supposed to work as a party to get through challenges

What level are you playing at?

If you want survival ability then a Dwarf Barbarian at level 9 with the dwarf ancestry feat for bonus HP with Toughness and Die Hard will probably have the most HP, die only at dying 5 and have an easier time stabilizing

I think they will have 136 HP before CON per level is factored in and any bonus temp HP from Rage. So minimum will be 145 + 10 temp and that is with just 12 Con

They will also have damage resistance whilst raging

Living Monolith could make this crazier but will mean not taking Barbarian class feats an might not be allowed (uncommon and rare options)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
K1 wrote:

However, if it comes out not true, then we could add to champion issues the

"A naked monk has the same armor as me".

Flat bonus = same
Lvl = same
Proficiency = Same
Dex = Monk 5 / Champion +0
Armor = Monk 0 / Champion 6 ( plate )
Bonus Armor = Monk +3 ( bracers ) / Champion +3 ( runes )
Stance = Monk +1 ( crane ) / Champion +0
Shield = Same

Definitely not so good.

How determined are you to let reality get in the way of your complaints?

Your example above ignores/assumes:

- only one type of monk gets that AC boost - you have picked a specific one
- says “naked” monk but gives him a shield
- is using level 10 as an example it seems in which case you will have 3 or 4 physical resistance
- you like shields so you will have shield ally . So at the very least a more effective shield
-your damage output will likely be better than the monk as he has started with 18 Dex rather than 18 strength
- you are NOT playing a game of top trumps with the monk or any other class for that matter

What exactly is your expectation here?

Have you not seen the monk threads complaining about how unviable they apparently are due to low armour

Your weird comparison here is for a very unusual and specific type of monk whereas every champion is probably going to be set up in a similar way unless they want a two handed reach weapon

Sure you can bend over backwards to try and find something like that but why is it worth the effort.

What game are you actually playing because one where you are seething with jealousy because the other defensive class has the same AC as you whilst you ignore all your other abilities doesn’t sound like the right game really

How is it possible that the one before you understood that it was just a list of possibilities in terms of classes and you don't?

What are you arguing for?
Does it hurt that I showed you my reasoning instead of saying "It has the same armor" ?

And I share part of the guilt because...

Feeding me? What are you talking about?

Your reasoning is fine. My point is that it is not exactly the standard set up for a monk as they can pick other stances

I was arguing that your complaints are unreasonable and they really are. I was trying to include some of the other benefits or factors that you ignored - such as armour specialisation and having a more powerful shield

You also ignored all my other points and questions including why you are getting so angry

2 people marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:

However, if it comes out not true, then we could add to champion issues the

"A naked monk has the same armor as me".

Flat bonus = same
Lvl = same
Proficiency = Same
Dex = Monk 5 / Champion +0
Armor = Monk 0 / Champion 6 ( plate )
Bonus Armor = Monk +3 ( bracers ) / Champion +3 ( runes )
Stance = Monk +1 ( crane ) / Champion +0
Shield = Same

Definitely not so good.

How determined are you to let reality get in the way of your complaints?

Your example above ignores/assumes:

- only one type of monk gets that AC boost - you have picked a specific one
- says “naked” monk but gives him a shield
- is using level 10 as an example it seems in which case you will have 3 or 4 physical resistance
- you like shields so you will have shield ally . So at the very least a more effective shield
-your damage output will likely be better than the monk as he has started with 18 Dex rather than 18 strength
- you are NOT playing a game of top trumps with the monk or any other class for that matter

What exactly is your expectation here?

Have you not seen the monk threads complaining about how unviable they apparently are due to low armour

Your weird comparison here is for a very unusual and specific type of monk whereas every champion is probably going to be set up in a similar way unless they want a two handed reach weapon

Sure you can bend over backwards to try and find something like that but why is it worth the effort.

What game are you actually playing because one where you are seething with jealousy because the other defensive class has the same AC as you whilst you ignore all your other abilities doesn’t sound like the right game really

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are two things at play here . One specific and one general

Specific - apparently Jason Bulmahn like to write lethal adventures for low level characters

General - the enemy “level” system is more robust than in 1E and also seems to mean something slightly different

A CR2 creature in PF1 has a much wider range of effectiveness than in PF2. And some are utterly hopeless and a walkover for a party of 4. Look at a Dire Badger with AC14 , +4 to hit, relatively low damage and about 20 HP

This is doubly true for many NPCs with class levels, especially NPC class levels. A level 4 warrior is CR2 but their stats are awful and will be similar to the Badger . They might scrape up to +5 to hit

Most PCs in 1E quite easily get over 15AC if not 18+ at level 1 leaving these foes laughably ineffective

4 people marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
Everyone just sucks equally somewhere in the middle.

This is a rather “glass half empty” view of things...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:

1) As for elven chain mail, it's a chainmail which give 2 more armor ( and can be modded as any other else chainmail ).

So 7 vs 6 (plate)
or 10 vs 9, if you consider the runes

2) About the shield, the point is that a champion is a class meant to be a protector, and it sucks the fact a fighter multiclassing champion could do a better job.

If I wanted to go not shield based I would have gone fighter, with a multiclass depends my gameplay.

The fighter +2 hit is currently not comparable with any other stuff.

And talking about tanking, the fighter has better traits for a better overall, and by hitting lvl 12 you will always have your shield raised. so 1 extra action per round.

You won't hit legendary in defense, which will probably give a champion, or a monk, the right to be the frontline.

3) Finally, about champion's reaction, you need:

1) Ally in range
2) Enemy in range ( enemy next to you if you are a paladin ).

Ranged shot?
Can't use reaction.

Aoe from a caster?
Can't use reaction.

You are the target?
Can't use the reaction.

There are, imho, way too many blind spots for that reaction.

You are utterly wrong about Elven chain . It gives +2 armour.

It doesn’t give 2 “more” armour. It gives 2 armour

It removes the check penalty and the noisy trait and has whatever benefit Mithral does. That is it

It is also “Uncommon” so not guaranteed for a build. Most GMs could easily say it was Elf only or that you have to do a mission for elves to get access

2 people marked this as a favorite.

An Elven chain shirt gives +2 armour.
Full plate gives +6

So what on Earth are you talking about? By my reading Elven chain gives at best +5 AC if you have 16 Dex


What do you mean that the Champion Reaction needs 2 checks instead of one? It is one reaction ...


+2 to saves is strong in this edition . If you don’t agree then inherently you don’t think the numbers are that tight so therefore your point about needing to max you attacking score wouldn’t make sense. It is one of the other. If each bonus is not that big a deal then you can afford a 16 but divine grace is rubbish

If the maths is so restrictive that you need the extra +1 to hit then divine grace is very powerful


This is a group game so there is a chance that someone else would have the crafting skill to fix your shield . That is how these games work


Limited AOO mean you are allowed to move and so are your allies . So 15 foot reaction range shouldn’t be awful


Isn’t their a feat that lets you raise your shield as a reaction ? So no wasted action. I am also sure that other things champions get will offset whatever paragon guard does. Such as : healing yourself and better armour proficiency scaling

Are you playing a variant of the game that is all about one-upping other party members? Why would a fighter “laugh at you”. Bizarre

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:

I strongly agree. 2e is better casual game (casual isn't a pejorative) and 1e is a better serious (serious =\= better) game. They both have their positives. But casual gamers are more common, and casual games help being potential serious gamers into the community.
Define serious in this context please.

Not wishing to put words in people’s mouths but at certain stages of 1E the players really need a lot of system knowledge / put a fair amount of time into the game to ensure they have bases covered e.g resistances (having them and overcoming them), different movement types etc

I had a group trigger a mass combat in a Book 4 of an AP and lack of flight and the right resistance spells made it an incredibly hard challenge

I even had someone recommend on the boards that equipment purchasing was so vital AND time consuming at this stage that it should be done out of session

It is past the point where they can just turn up and roll dice

So this is what I at least would consider a key difference between casual and “serious”

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

I agree with the hot opinion that the sorcerer is the second-worst class in the game (it does not compare favorably to, say, the bard), while the alchemist is the worst. However, the degree to which the sorcerer is behind the other spellcasters is nowhere as much as the degree to which the alchemist is behind genuine spellcasters; the sorcerer is only a smidge behind the curve.

The sorcerer does get markedly better at 6th, and again at 10th, when they can replace their ofttimes-mediocre (diabolic edict, elemental toss, and maybe, maybe, jealous hex are probably the best of the lot) focus spells with much better standby focus spells.

What “hot opinion” are you referring to?

Sorcerers were not referred to as second worst in this thread. Is that somewhere else?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I think the recent session in the Temple has revealed both my inexperience GN at these kind of levels, my players at playing them and probably me overestimating my party

And I believe at least 2 of my players are not happy right now


They had got in through the balcony and killed the Hell Hounds. Then went through the double doors revealing the Nave and the ritual

They apparently had the idea that they need to stop it immediately (they had ritual notes explaining it was staggeringly complex)

They also got a rush of blood as soon as they realised they could have a surprise round (as those are so rare).

So they attacked the ritual

Pre Fight:

Kinetic barriers blocking all the doors on the balcony floor


- Devoted Muse jumps off the balcony to be close to the first devil

- Wall of Ice to try and limit 2 each of the devils and priests at the back (but not high enough really at 10ft)

- Blessing of Fervor

- A Kinetic Blast on one priest that didn't drop him.

So group is now split with three on the balcony and one on his own on the group with no way of getting back up


Then a very complex combat starts. First host devil is killed easily.
High priest stays buffing for at least a round.

Shadows are summoned but can't touch Devoted Muse due to protection from evil. I rule she can't redirect them as my herolab said they didn't have any languages

Between round 1 and either 3 or 4 I throw up 3 fireballs (one from High Priest) and a Flame strike. They mostly don't do a lot due to great saves but chip away at hit points


6 Rounds in : the whole party apart from the Devoted Muse is still up on the balcony.

They are dismayed that Thrune has shown up as they were not expecting him

(So a key mistake is I made him join in even though the PCs didn't have the upper hand. But he has only made one Flame Strike and one melee attack so far - and taken around 100 damage for his troubles)

In the combat are:

High Priest
4 Priests (only one died)
2 or 3 Host Devils
2 Bone Devils (one killed)
The Gardener (more chipping away with chain lightning and cone of cold)

SKinsaw cultists have just shown up but I have left out Zella and the extra priests for now


Group are mostly full HP but that is around 45 for the witch due to 3 negative levels and effectively 50 for the kineticist due to 5 points of burn
(No one has gone down even once but the odds are just becoming impossible)

They want to run but are not helped by being split up

And they are a bit flustered at walking into a fight which as written they cannot win

I have clearly made some mistakes in over estimating what they can do but I am mostly running it as written

One even said "Who wrote this?!"

It feels like that an all out assault on the Nave is only for if you are super prepared (all the right spells and buffs) + allies

They showed inexperience by not using any kind of divination (but I never would as a player so can't blame them)
But it seems like they thought what they could see was all there would be in the enormous temple


I think I have a bit of a battle to win the group back around now.
It is not even clear they can all escape

It seems like I should have known my players better and realised that they weren't likely to make an early tactical withdrawal. (The main thing really seems to be splitting up and leaving one guy on the ground floor on his own)

It is tricky because several of their big mistakes are really clear to see from my side of the GM screen

I think I need to grease the wheels to get them out and then let them prepare as much as they can - allies (potentially planar as well), fire resistance etc.
Probably adjust the rule on having NPCs needed to control districts...?
But I need to be careful that they don't feel like they win due to NPCs alone

It is not massively clear what the residents of the temple do once assaulted for when a second attack is made. The book doesn't. I assume (at least):

- Dead Host devils replaced by any other devils still alive
- any dead priests also replaced

And then perhaps have some kind of guards in the entrance ways?


Would the "expected" approach of going in and going round the side rooms eliminating enemies even be possible once the group have already stormed the place once? I know I could make it that way but wouldn't it be seen as bizarre...?


I am not really sure what exactly I am looking for with the post. Primarily an outlet. It has certainly gone a bit rambling

I have seen others who have had groups assault the ritual. But I think they always had allies? I really wasn't sure if my group would make that choice given it was one of 4...(three other doors)

There have been previous replies of "I know my game and I know my players" - but I appear to have made a big misstep

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Distracting feint gives a creature -2 to perception and reflex whilst it is flat footed from a feint . But does it get that negatives against everyone as long as it has the flat footed condition? Or do the rogue’s allies only get to take advantage of this if the rogue crit succeeds on the feint?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
Takamorisan wrote:
Problem is that we are missing a lot of customization options. So they need to publish the basic material.


I can guarantee that if Paizo wasn't publishing at this rate, we'd have a "should Paizo speed up" thread instead.

I would not be surprised if that thread showed up anyways.

It already indirectly has what with the number of people criticising lack of options (but nearly always comparing to 1E) or asking for feats to “fix” the proficiency system (which could come in a later book)

So there might not have been a specific thread asking for them to speed up but there have been lots of threads and comments asking for more content

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justinian9 wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

I think at level 1 most classes will start round 1 with low AC if they don’t have a shield raised . I believe medium armour would be 15 as well

Occult as a skill is just as useful as Divine but for different things - identifying different types of spells and monsters

Let use Fighter as an example as they are also a melee class.

A 1st lvl Fighter, in med armor let say scale has a +3 to armor class and +2 dex cap, let say he has a +1 ability bonus from dex.... that is a 14 AC... than add in +2 for proficiency 16 AC plus level 17 AC... shield? +2,
19 AC

4 AC higher than a Monk with a str build.... unless the monk also uses a shield (which I did not consider in this post). A 20% higher chance of a crit and a hit on a monk than a fighter.

I forgot proficiency *facepalm*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think at level 1 most classes will start round 1 with low AC if they don’t have a shield raised . I believe medium armour would be 15 as well

Occult as a skill is just as useful as Divine but for different things - identifying different types of spells and monsters

1 person marked this as a favorite.


So very much like the original. Most of that can be generally useful but the crowd stuff has always been quite niche

I have never known many games that involve lots of crowds

Hells Rebels starts with one and you can be really mean an have one in later but then there is no more. Not sure if they appear any more frequently in other written content...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is probably most simplicity.
It doesn't break the game too much to make certain sensible changes in a home game. Indeed I think by its very nature this game was designed to be harder to "break"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

I'm not sure I get the notion that you need to spend all your class feats to get a good amount of casting from multiclass.

2: Dedication
4: Basic
8: Breadth
12: Expert
18: Master

Throw in (Tradition) Breadth in there somewhere probably, it makes for a nice number of extra spells later. But even with Breadth that's 5 class feats out of 11. That's not all your class feats. It's not even half.

I've gone ahead and thrown it in Breadth at 8th level. And to help make up for it I'm going to have us compare the fighter:

Level 1) 1/1 class feats are fighter feats (100%)
Level 2) 1/2 class feats are fighter feats (50%)
Level 4) 1/3 class feats are fighter feats (33%)
Level 6) 2/4 class feats are fighter feats (50%)
Level 8) 2/5 class feats are fighter feats (40%)
Level 10) 3/6 class feats are fighter feats (50%)
Level 12) 3/7 class feats are fighter feats (43%)
Level 14) 4/8 class feats are fighter feats (50%)
Level 16) 5/9 class feats are fighter feats (56%)
Level 18) 5/10 class feats are fighter feats (50%)
Level 20) 6/11 class feats are fighter feats (55%)

So yes. You are right. Strictly speaking they are not 50% of a fighter's feats. But claiming that is actually misleading because you're only looking at 1/20th of the game.

100% class feats are fighter feats: 1 level
55-56% class feats are fighter feats: 3 levels
50% class feats are fighter feats: 10 levels
43% class feats are fighter feats: 2 levels
40% class feats are fighter feats: 2 levels
33% class feats are fighter feats: 2 levels

If you look at the median we are definitely talking about 50% of class feats being fighter feats. If we talk about the mode we are definitely talking about 50% of class feats being fighter feats. If we talk about the average but we look at it in an honest way rather than cherry picking exactly 1 level out of 20 and instead look at it across all 20 levels, we are firmly talking about losing 50% of your class feats (49.9925% is what I calculated it to be. But I suck at...

I am really confused at what you are trying to prove here. It seems like a bit of a rant based off of nothing

Edge seemed to be challenging the ideal that you have to give up “all” of your class feats - because the OP said that it was a buzzkill not getting *any* class feats

The response was basically - that is wrong you only give up X out of Y : not even half. You may want to quibble about a few percent here and there but you have gone of on a maths splurge and not actually really read what you are replying to

And no one is being dishonest . I can’t believe there hasn’t been a general post about this on community behaviours. I know a paizo rep has had to come on and specifically say “always assume people are posting in good faith”.

So once again :

- OP says you won’t get any class feats to multiclass into caster
- Response proves this factually completely incorrect
- End

Now whether that is too many is a separate point.
What was unhelpful was some unintentional hyperbole from the OP

7 people marked this as a favorite.

This has deviated from the original purpose of the thread

And the OP specifically said they didn’t want to start another Goblin war...
Can’t there be another thread for that? I know there was one but perhaps it got shut down ...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:

Well, it probably beats the MASSIVE orphanage that used to be run by the gnomes. The one that turned out 90+% of paladins.

Paladins of Shelyn, of Iomedae, of Irori, of Abadar. Even, rumours hold, a long time ago Paladins of Asmodeus. It doesn't matter. ALL came from that orphanage

What is this a reference to? Fey foundling ?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:

Oh right, I didn't read the OP properly =P

Sorry Lanathar there's no loophole. Touch of fatigue will destroy an image and will be discharged if touches one (and must roll to see whether they hit an image).

I unfortunately saw my mistake 1 hour and 2 minutes after I posted it, so I can't take it back =P

TDIL that the edit window was 1 hour

And I wasn’t looking for the loophole. I wanted to confirm there wasn’t one just in case my player tries to hold the charge on a non damaging spell in an upcoming game. Because I can see someone taking a very RAW approach to “attack that destroys and image “ with the emphasis being on the destroyed

So my interpretation has been confirmed :-)

I have also started to realise (obvious as it may seem) that these boards are dominated by players looking for loopholes rather than GMs seeking clarifications. One look at the 2E boards reveals a bunch of people griping over not being able to make their old broken characters...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
reddragon76 wrote:
Steel Forged Games wrote:

Heightening is an option I suppose but looking there are only 2 spells that can heighten into that slot. I mean spending a 4th level slot to get 6 more hp with false life seems a bit of a waste.

Also where is our create undead spells? The only one close I see is level 2 bind undead.

I guess I don't understand the purpose of necros in PF2. I was making a villain for my campaign guess I'll have to change him. Hmmm.

Thanks for the replies.

Create Undead is a Ritual and not a spell (rituals are after spells and Create Undead is on page 411)

Meaning spells don’t need to be burnt on creating the minions as far as I can tell

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

I foresee a lot of broken hearts when the Summoner makes a reappearance, second only to the Shifter. This time, though, it will be deliberate malice rather than incompetence.
Broken hearts? How so? In that the Eidolon will be no way near as powerful as hoped ?
Yes. Plenty of Summoner fans were already mad about the unchained eidolon. It's not going to get better. Quite the opposite.
Pardon me as I play a small song on the saddest violin for them if this comes to pass. They can join the wizards in the "my class no longer invalidates x and that's a bad thing" room.

100% this. I have zero sympathy for the rage at the lost of completely broken / overpowered class features and abilities

Kind of like the people complaining about the change to Divine Grace when all it was a case of was "I am annoyed I can't dip paladin and get charisma to all my saves".

Indeed a fair portion of the complaining threads for 2E have been "I can't make my super broken 1E character" just worded with more finesse. Probably second to the proficiency complaints (with maybe some overlap)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never thought alchemy made sense on an investigator either

There is an argument for a swashbuckler name change. It might not be too late. Paladin was changed after all

I personally was never really a fan of a lot of the names, notably APG. Cavalier, Inquisitor, Oracle and witch


Cavalier - implies daring to me (a cavalier attitude). I have clearly missed the actual etymology as I know there is a knight link there. But Knight would have been better especially as a mount was forced (something I really didn’t like about the class)

Inquisitor - can’t really explain but didn’t feel right. Might be that it has never had positive connotations - even the iconic has Spanish Inquisiton garb. And they weren’t nice at all

Witch - arguably too gendered as many assume woman with witch. Same argument could be made for wizard of course . But many assume you have to be a cackling old lady for this class. A different iconic right back at the start would have helped

Oracle - people assume it means someone who sees the future which is absolutely not what the base of the class is. I even had someone say they wouldn’t put oracles in the game as their powers would break the setting with the seeing the future part ...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One thing I think will be interesting is if Paizo tries to maintain parity with the number of spellcasting classes compared to non-spellcasting classes they release. PF1 had a huge number of casters (something like 28/43 classes got spell slots), and while we've already seen the Paladin and Ranger lose their vancian casting, a lot of these old classes are going to need spells if they come back.

So if they want to release 4 classes in a book, and there's 2 spellcasters they really want to bring back, then there are 2 slots for non-casters to fill. So there's probably much more room for "something new" in that martial, or skilled martial, or martial with focus spells space than there is in the caster space.

I would like if parity was kept. It would show they are committing not having spellcasters take over the game

It is worth thing about ways old classes could “lose” spells.

Occultist could be really focused based . Perhaps having more than most

Inquisitor could lose spells and be a more skill and sneaky version of champion ( or it could be the “skill” cleric to go with the martial and magic ones already there so not a new class)

Summoner and spiritualist could be pet classes once they work that out. Summons could be focus related and eidolon permanent

Hunter could be like the above or a new rangers edge to focus more in companion teamwork

Radically magus could become an arcane based focus caster with class feats more like the old arcane shield and strike (this one is a bit much I accept)

Skald if not some kind of “fury” muse for bard could have the composition like cantrip and then other skill and combat abilities

Several bloodrager abilities could just become barbarian instincts . I mean - dragon already has...

Some fairly radical thinking there that could see several of the old spell classes folded into existing classes or have spells removed. But an example of each has already happened (warpriest and then alchemist/investigator)

If the above approach is taken there might not be enough casting classes :-P !

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
keftiu wrote:
A first-party Psion would be a lot of fun.
And we can be pretty sure that that one won't happen unless Dreamscarred Press decides to try to persuade Paizo to buy them out.
Dreamscarred Press don't own the Psion or Psionics, they just did the Pathfinder versions so Paizo could technically make them, they just have no interest in doing so.

Exactly. Paizo has no interest in stepping on the toes of Dreamscarred Press, so the only way to get a 1st party Psion would be for Dreamscarred Press to become part of Paizo and then get Paizo to publish their 2nd edition version of psionics. Otherwise, what we will get will be a 3rd party version of psionics of equal or better quality.

Unless I have misread, Rysky is saying the opposite to what you said. Having Dreamscarred be part of Paizo is not the “only way” to get 1st party psions as they don’t have copyright over psychic magic

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Out of interest why were the non human iconics switched to human? Was it for consistency?

And what is Seoni's intimidate bonus? 20 + 8 (legendary) + 6 stat gives +34. But the DC suggests +36 so where does the final +2 come from? A buff or an item?

Liegence wrote:
Well, I was here and I’m still baffled.

You and me both.

But It is the problem with theorycraft vs playing the game
And probably why loads of the inevitable DPS discussions are going to be much less valuable than before as there are more options with actions

Or why wizard abilities to reduce enemy actions with certain spells even on a successful save have been undervalued because not enough people have had exposure to some of the nasty multi action effects that are new in this edition

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Liegence has clearly missed all the threads from the last two weeks that had people insisting that -2 behind did indeed equal unviable . It was a little more complicated but all the complaints about proficiency levels (and there were a lot) basically boiled down to that

As to Edge’s point about the PF1 Eldritch Knight struggling at many points - it would appear the OP has done a theorycraft at level 15 which I assume it a point where the PF1 EK was really balancing out and catching up in spells and BAB and not factoring in the journey to get up to those levels

(It would be like comparing a level 16 mystic theurge who would have have access to level 7 spells in both classes in PF1 to what you can do in PF2. It would ignore that assuming you take 3 levels of cleric or wizard first (not guaranteed) that levels 4 to probably at least 10 you would be miles behind.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
swoosh wrote:
keftiu wrote:
It's racist

It's always fun when people act like there's some sort of moral component to their houserules.

Play the game however you want, but using such charged terminology doesn't do anything to help anyone.

Plenty has been written about the racist elements of classic fantasy (https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-r ace-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror is a recent favorite), and pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone. There's no reason not to try and do better - which 2e is making an explicit, visible push for already.

So to try and clarify - the writer of that blog is accusing a man famously anti-allegory of making an allegorical race deliberately and intentionally ? That is sadly inflammatory and the point I stopped reading (but also because it is early here and it probably wasn’t best processed early morning)

Sure there may be themes there but to argue it was deliberate seems to misunderstand the person you are talking about

If the author of that piece was going to going to try and confidently assign intent to him (something that is actually impossible as I have brought up on this board when one poster was accusing others of lying by calling them “dishonest” when they couldn’t know that) then it really would have helped to actually learn everything about the person written about

I didn’t know this sort of discussion was common in gaming circles because I am not close to that world. I can see where they are coming from. But they do need a better foundation that the one in the blog linked

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:

thanks kindly.

Yep I'm hoping Alchemist get a bit of a gander.
The bulk issues with what they have to have at base. That they have to buy alchemist’s tools themselves (I don't think the other classes have to buy items required for their class skills).
Also how several class features either don't interact at all, or go against each other (Perpetual infusions. Double/triple batch) or hands issues (quick alchemy 2+items).

Love alchemists though haha.

Would be kind of neat if the content discussion streams become a semi frequent thing. Would be a fun monthly Paizo-community event.

Perhaps the alchemist teething issues are not as surprising as it changed most from 1E to playtest and then again from playtest to 2E

Nitpick on the classes buying items - martial characters all buy weapons and armour. Rogues buy thieves tools. I guess the point is alchemists ALSO buy these things ...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am interested by your view on the playtest merely because there were people who shared your view but took it as a negative - “oh nothing we say is going to make a difference “ - and what people said did

8 people marked this as a favorite.

It never ceases to amaze me that people call for an errata or clarification and the when one is provided effectively say they don’t like it and are going to ignore it

As many have said the wizard has not been nerfed by this. It was a simple mistake . I hope those keeping the feat will also be houseruling everyone else getting one extra level one class feat (not a bad houserule for my mind and supported by the modular system of the game)

Of course people can do what they want and will do. Indeed these official rules are meant for PFS which I think was meant for group fun originally not extreme power gaming - this can be inferred by how weak most of the PFS1 encounters were


I think of all of the above this wizard is the most important to translate/communicate to those who don’t read these forums closely or regularly as it seems like the main one with first level impact


Incidentally I have no desire to join back in the wizard nerf thread as it was already incendiary and with “200+” new messages being how far behinds I am I imagine it has gotten worse

One thing I picked up on from KD was something mentioned about spells that reduce enemy actions even on a successful save and thus potentially scuppering some of the new nasty monster special abilities that require multiple actions. I don’t think this was factored in when I last read the wizard thread and it reinforces my view that white room theory crafting and the resulting bickering only goes so far

The first time a hydra is prevented from attacking everyone in reach even on a successful save against a spell could be when the discussion becomes slightly different ...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
The Drunken Dragon wrote:
I mean, Sorcerers do receive their 1st level focus spells for their bloodline, which feels comparable to, say, a bard getting one feat from their muse.

Wizard gets a focus spell and a feat and a thesis.

To be honest it seems like Paizo is just valuing spontaneous casting especially highly as a class feature.

This has always been the case and was true in 3rd as well

I am not certain I understand it but at least they don’t get delayed spell progression anymore ...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Are we comparing PF1 Core to PF2 Core <or> PF2 core to PF1+10 years of products. One of these options is very unfair comparison and will 100% leave people unhappy.

For Swashbuckling, you get weapon finesse same as before, actually don't even need to spend a feat on it, just pick up a finesse weapon. Unarmed strikes are also finesse and don't provoke AoO so arguably a level 1 fighter can pick up a rapier and be able to grab or punch better than ever. Not to mention that the Fighter, especially the Fighter, gets a lot of moves and strikes that need a free offhand or increases to AC or ripostes.

It looks like CRB vs CRB but some of the analysis is way off. The rapier threat range is given significant weight over and above :

- free weapon finesse
- ability to move far more easily - including effectively free spring attack
- far more support for duellist builds with fighter feats that simply didn’t exist in CRB
- wearing light armour was riskier in 1E because being caught flat footed or losing Dex to AC meant a much bigger drop

That is just on the swashbuckling fighter which is the most egregious analysis (apart from the monk without a shield which of course can be done and incredibly easily )

Monk with weapons are potentially the only valid point but CRB monks were awful especially if the argument is that they go high strength with flurry. Accuracy and AC lagged behind. They now have the best AC.

Now weapons have different abilities that not all unarmed strikes will.

Are handwraps the same costs as a weapon in terms of magic bonuses ? (Because in 1E it used to be more expensive to get magical enhancements to unarmed)

You also pointed out something important that made me scratch my head.

How is a shielded monk or raging bard "Classic Fantasy". Duelist I get, but as mentioned, the fighter can build a really nice duelist, a lot of his class feats actually specialize in having a free hand. Snagging strike alone is really fun...

My reading of the OP was that they thought Monk with no shield was “no realisable” because having a shield is free and better . Which is why they said it was weird .

So of course unshielded monk is classic but the analysis that is is not realisable or “viable” is absurd


As an aside what racket is your spiked gauntlet rogue that you mention a lot ?

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t want to come across as dismissive but there are some major flaws in the entire title / premise of this thread :

- as pointed out “classic fantasy builds” is the title and concept but then the list really isn’t made up of classics at all.

> I have never seen “Bard-barian” in any classic fantasy . Ever . And Skald as the name used in PF1 does not mean Skalds are a missing trope. Skalds are Norse poets and so largely covered by bards. Unless we have a very different idea of “classic” which seems likely

> sword and buckler men : this is a real world fighting style. Not often a classic idea . Indeed it is my understanding that both versions of pathfinder have misunderstood the real world purpose of a buckler

- there is the whole realisable / viable part thrown in which then has qualifiers attached to it seemed purely to try and discount the obvious counter that all of these builds are “realisable” in PF2 because they can all be made . So that part of the title is misleading even if it then changed in the into blurb

- as has already been addressed many of these work perfectly fine if not better under PF2 than PF1 unless significant mental gymnastics are performed or the goalposts changes mid discussion

All this really points to a very biased premise where hard work has gone into trying to find holes/deficiencies in the system that do not really exist .

And I don’t see how that is helpful as a discussion piece given it is set up solely bash the system. This is shown by the definitive statement “i effectively couldn’t” and no invitation from others to show how you can do these things (although that is of course implied and was such responses received anyway).

There are some gaps and potential errors in the proficiency system that point to some flaws in the system. But not being able to achieve these “classic” fantasy builds (when you can and they are not) is not one of the flaws - the topic of this thread

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

The current general feats let you add your level and +2 to AC or attacks when the equipment is used

This is an effective feat up to level 13 and doesn’t cease working just because other armours go up to +4. They just don’t work as well at that point but the trained proficiency bonus is still there

That's just not true man because it assumes that someone wants to invest and then retrain.

I find it very rare that people select Armor/Weapon choices without an incentive to continue using them. Often times having a concept in mind from character creation. Building towards Full Plate takes planning, you can't just do it in a vacuum from level X and say "see it's fine", the player that levels from 1 to the point of invalidation is going to be upset.

In the case of Armor, you specifically have to allocate STR just to use it properly, which is much harder to retrain.

And it's not even a single feat, if you take the feat multiple times, you now have X feats that are inferior to your standard Armor proficiency from Class.

Stop thinking about it as "+2" and start thinking about it as "Baseline until level 13(11), then it's a -2 to use this item"

Because that's how the enemy Proficiency scales in the game. At 11th level, there is clear intent that "Expert" is the baseline for weapons and 13th for armor.

Picture if the errata after all these threads was actually to remove them completely. I imagine there would be outcry (even though they won’t be removed it is purely hypothetical)

I might be salty that it's not possible yet, but I'd be happy they were gone.

If you're going to do something, do it right or not at all IMO.

The next book will give an idea about what other options could be in store. I don’t think paizo expected people to reach level 13 by the end of August . Whilst people don’t like that some of these will be locked behind archetypes and won’t want to play specific ones it will reveal the design intent

I will admit to not thinking about it as baseline until x and then -2 afterwards . Reversed the perspective on that so need to consider it from that direction

I was referring to the Golarion stuff - whilst I know people don’t always want lore connected things but things like magic warrior, Hell knight and swordlord will show if there are other ways to get proficiencies , what levels they come in at and what type of feats they replace

I expect them to be class feats again which for those who see a bottleneck will not be good news ...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

37 Masque points ! Amazing. Pretty sure my group had less than 10!

Thanks for pointing me at Sire and Cabal devils as I have been getting a little frustrated with host, bearded and Erinyes

I might use some in book 4. Horned are not too great due to the power from liberation domain but the others seem interesting

Cabal could have some connection to Zella . Or I could have one somewhere in the keep as well as an infernal sorcerer signifier or two that is “helped”. Or is that wrong ? I always get a little confused by the hell knights and their relationship with devils as they have to kill one to qualify

Sire devils from when I first read about them sound horrifying and are really effective when, like you , there is a tiefling in the party. Since I may move Strea to the keep I may have one watching his “daughter”

Cool write up

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does there need to be yet another thread on this? There are lots already :

One on armour
One on mutagenic alchemists
One on sorcerer unarmed
The “player agency” one I think brings it up a lot

They are mostly saying the same thing. I am not sure flooding the boards with very similar threads is the best approach to trying to get a change. But perhaps it is I don’t know how the developers think about these things

As Raven Black pointed out - this clearly seems like deliberate design intent whether one agrees or disagrees

My guess for “fixes” in order of likelihood/ priority :

- archetypes such as hell knight , weapon master, armour master , perhaps even weapon specific ones (I assume aldori swordlord advances proficiency but it might not )

- new general feats for “weapon expert” and “armour expert”

Way way down the list would be the scaling of the initial general feats. There are already scaling general feats (or at least the one based on saves, perception etc) and some other feats scale too. So it was not an oversight that these didn’t scale

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reliably hit against what?

And how accurate do you want to be? AC of a CR20 seems to be 45 or 46. Giving you about 50:50 chance on an inbuffed attack

I think that is potentially the design intent

3 people marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
It would be nice if you didn't call people dishonest and their views reductionist just because they disagree with you. It is not really polite because calling someone dishonest is pretty much calling them a liar. Something which you have no way of knowing

Very simple:

* dishonest : we do not ask to be equal to Fighters and Champions. We're asking to have the General feat scale together with the feats a class provides for free. Which will never even match the level Fighters and Champions reach, and we are not asking that it does. Furthermore, this leads me into:
* reductionist : by saying that giving class-matching proficiency in weapons and armour the character uses General feat is encroaching on Fighter and Champion design spaces, you are treating them as if those proficiencies are class defining - reducing them to mere proficiency bonuses they provide.
Lanathar wrote:
And since the discussion is about the level 13+ power curve can I ask about how your level 13 Pathfinder 2 game is going? What experiences do the characters wearing armour without the expert proficiency have? Are they getting crit all the time and dying? How many have died so far due to this?

Why would it be important at all?

Lanathar wrote:
What level would you be happy becoming expert in an armour not "designed" for your class? I guess 13? And would you take another feat to allow it - although that would mean level 15

Yes. If I get armour proficiency, I would simply expect that armour scales the same as the armour proficiency provided by my class. Otherwise we're back into tax feat territory.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If it's for roleplay. At least armors don't have failure chance anymore, and you can negate checks with str, which shouldn't be hard since you don't need dex as much.
There is a difference between powergaming and building characters optimally for the character idea you want.

So you missed what I said about accusing people of lying when they are forming their own opinion. Someone’s opinion cannot be a lie if it is what they believe. Just because you disagree it doesn’t make them dishonest


And as for my “logical fallacy” - I raised that point because your “logical argument” was no compelling at all. It seems very maths based and there are posts on this thread that suggest that the maths is actually wrong anyway (unless I misinterpreted). It also wants too much for too little a cost (at least based on the current benchmarks)

So I requested anecdotal evidence because believe it or not it is a not a logical fallacy when actually playing a game. Otherwise the playtest would not have existed because logical arguments and theories would be all that was needed

But your ignoring of my point on actually playing to see if this is really an issue reveals a lot. Namely that you are complaining about something potentially being and issue in theory whilst having no idea how much of an impact it truly has.


And you want a general feat to scale when the only other one that does only scales at level 17 - so there is very limited precedence for scaling general feats that boost proficiency

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If the +2AC is that important, you got bigger issues than wearing heavy plate as a wizard.
Thing is with the tighter math every plus is precious now in 2E. So, yes, the +2 AC is that important.

So it's an optimization/power-gaming issue then. Weird how no one seems to open with that and covers that up with "It's for roleplay."

I think in the end, if you start building into say, full plate for your caster, by the level 13th, you should be invested in it enough that a +2AC isn't a dealbreaker. If it's for roleplay. At least armors don't have failure chance anymore, and you can negate checks with str, which shouldn't be hard since you don't need dex as much.

Yes it is very weird I agree. If roleplay if the big driver then the mechanical bonuses are not worth jumping on an internet forum and complaining about. Pure and simple. You just have fun playing your concept regardless

All signs point towards it being much harder to fall behind by making "roleplaying" choices in 2E unless you are trying really hard (14 or lower in main stat for example)

1 to 50 of 281 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>