Lausth's page

My 1d10 is meaningfull to me even when i add +52 and 1d6 then another 2d6 to it. It eventually becomes 4d10 or 5d10 or more(iterative attacks and aoo triggers).

People take weapon spec for 2 damage. 1d10 has an average of 5.5.

EDIT: I know this is nitpicking and not entirely related to the op. Sorry about that. It just feels wierd when people calls 1d8s or 1d10s meaningless.

I am seeing some people adjusting stuff just because they are on the rare list. I do think they are cool people but that can be an example to baning things just because they are on the rarity list and no other reason.

Somethings are low level because they allow you to do what you want without waiting for a year or more.

Anyway i came here to say if you dont want to be effected by rarity and uncommon lists you can make a level 9 or higher level version of your current level 1 build then give it to your gm and to your fellow party members. Your gm can look at things with a clearer wiev of things and if something is banned either just because they are on the rarity list or it is realy game breaking you will know it before the game.

Its being a while since the last time i looked at pf2 but cant you increase the pc's attacks and save dc by 2 or 3 and make critical success at +12/-10?

It might be just me but i couldnt find anyone. Michael Sayre's cleric friend seems like a fun one.

There are poeple who enjoyed playing casters as a pure caster who didnt buffed and deal damage? I might have missed those people.

EDIT:Can you point out those threads Freagarthach. I am tired and dont want to search for it for +30 minutes

I dont remember anyone saying that we should make this edition 1e again other than few people who is againts casters.

I want a d666 system.

Didnt datalore just accused you of not using what is best for your character then blaming it on the system?

Well in pf 1e you can say the same thing for high level play.

EDIT:Oh it was yesterday.

Hmm.

People not doing what is best for their build argument.

Same could be said about 1e high level play.

I wouldnt try that.

I did. I playtested the wizard. One of my friends tested the druid. They werent funny experiences. I will playtest it more ofcourse. It is hard to find a dedicated party. I guess our next playtest session will be next week.

EDIT:With amiri i was invincible! That is ofcourse due to gm rolling very low all the time in that session.

I feel the need to stand up for the kineticist. Sure, it has flaws (like how hard it is to hit with physical blasts at late levels), and being underpowered compared to trad casters, but the rules arent too complicated (just dense). I'd love it if they released the kineticist early in 2nd ed, or made the sorcerer like the kineticist.

Edit: i lovecit when companies experiment with mechanics. I hate vancian and spell slot based casting and love alternatives like psionics, tome of magic, magic of incarnum and warlocks/dragon shamans.

This is a 2e forum. I dont want to turn this thread to a 1e kineticist thread but as a player who played kineticist class for 3 years now. I dont think kineticist is underpowered. You can reach to +28 to hit and do more than 100 damage in a round with a kineticist telekinetic blast without accepting burn while flying while having the ability to turn invisible with more than 200 hp and some stupid fort save while having at will breath of life and some other stupid stuff at level 12. Your hit can go higher than +28 to. I can accept that reaching that point requires wierd things and some system mastery but kineticist isnt underpowered. I feel like i should give mark his credit where its due. Your class is a funny one and i like it.

EDIT:I know you meant casters but nah it isnt underpowered.

If i gave the impression that i dont like the kineticist then i am sorry. I do like the kineticist. Its attack bonus problems is for sure there but there are ways around it.

What i was trying to say is how i understand ops problem with complicated text.

It gets better once you get used to it.

EDIT: It gets a lot better. I am fairly positive that 2e CRB will be good once its done and released. They have a lot of things to do. So some complicated text is understandable.

sigh

Shroudb

I am worried for new gms and new players. I started this game with occult adventures. Wierd invisible walls, misunderstood text and intentions was baked into my first year. It was a soul crushing experience. If you want newer people to play your game you should avoid those and let people have fun with half of your options you are giving to them.

More experienced players has no candy in this. They have their own games.

This why i dont want to discuss how to make magic better here. You need people who want to make magic better first.

EDIT:I dont want newer players go through the same things i had to go through. This magic system is pushing them in that direction.

Putting spells in an uncommon list wont do. Just adding some notes to it or guiding new gms to better understand the problems they could face would be much more helpfull to them. At its current state uncommon list will be no go list for a lot of gms. Why making it look like a game breaking choice is better than informing newer gms. I just dont get it.

Wisest decision? Hardly. They could have add a note to it. Saying how and when to use teleport. Talking about wisest decisions. Nerfing half of the all of the player choices(Out of 12 classes 6 of them are casters including the alchemist) in your game where players of said classes starts to feel like a useless weight isnt exactly the most wisest decision ever. Yes i am including the cleric to the list. Being the healbot isnt the best caster experience ever excluding people who likes that type of playstyle.

Lausth wrote:

PF2 is similar to occult. It will take sometime to get used to. I dont think it will be hard to remember things after you got used to it.

I started this game with the kineticist. I do understand your pain. It will get better in time.

It will only get better if Paizo improve the game though. Right now, I don't think PF2 is in a good place, and that's a very popular consensus. Adapting is one thing, accepting is another. This is a "this need to change" not a "oh we'll just get used to this".

A lot of things in the playtest book can change in release. Pazio is just trying to gather some data from us so they can make a great game.

If they found out that majority of the players dont like the current way of writing things than they will change it.

EDIT: I dont like somethings in the playtest to but if i were to try to make a great game, my playtest book would look like this one.

PF2 is similar to occult. It will take sometime to get used to. I dont think it will be hard to remember things after you got used to it.

I started this game with the kineticist. I do understand your pain. It will get better in time.

You can nerf teleport to some point. I dont think i ever saw people who likes arbitrary long distance travels where they have to fight arbitrery random encounters and face challenges such as climb this unnecessarily high mountain. Teleport saves you from those and it is a nice backup plan when things dont go according to plan. You can nerf it to a point where it cannot be used for things such as scry and fry but putting it into a list which new gms can easly see it as a no go spell isnt the way to do it. A lot of those gms will look at uncommon list and saw them as broken spells.

You could buy a level 8 scroll which would cost some money and cast some spells which can be dispelled that also cost a lot of money combined with caster health pool and making yourself a target? Well good luck with that.

There ways to counter those things. First of all it would be hard to find a level 8 scroll among other things. I dont think they are even hard to do it.

Can you guys please stop acting like we dont agree with everything. Yes some nerfs is nice and acceptable however current nerfs are pazios classic overnerfing things so they dont have to deal with it later on.
This kind of attitude even though it works on some magic items it will not work on players entire kit.

Nerfing everything then expecting players to have fun in a gaming environment is going too far. This is what we said and honestly we all are saying the samething about the entire 2e playtest.

People who likes martials complain about skill dcs and other things too.

Lausth wrote:

2/3? in 4d12+16 magic weapon adds 2d12. BTW i wasnt talking to you. I was talking to rameth.

Yes, 2d12 and +1 attack.

That's how important the +1 attack is, you can actually check the math yourself, actual percentage of damage with is 167.39%

So a bit MORE than 2/3rd

I didnt say it was weak. I just said it wasnt the 2/3 of the entire damage like you suggested. I was talking about what actually happened in game.

I dont see how i was biased in all this. Maybe i should have my breakfest now.

EDIT: Casters job isnt just the buff martial either.

2/3? in 4d12+16 magic weapon adds 2d12. BTW i wasnt talking to you. I was talking to rameth.

EDIT:Only the edit part was directed at you though shroudb. i forget about that part.

I just compared a level 9 wizard with no optimization in 1e to level 1 barbarian with no optimization in 2e.

Damage comparison is your example. This god thing became popular after treatmonk. He didnt meant actuall gods. God wizard in 1e is a wizard who helps his team with buffs,debuffs,control and utility. That is his job. God wizard is a teamplayer and dont outshine anyone. Martials didnt break the game with their stupid amounts of damage in 1e? Thousand damage in a round is somehow weak?
What do you want your casters to do in 2e? Nothing? Do you always want to play 2e in a dungeon crawl mode? With durations like that that will be your experience.

EDIT: Apperently for some of us staying back and doing nothing in combat is somehow fun.

No actually i rolled for 5 and 6 with the extra dice.

I am not mixing editions. It was a cross editions example.

@Freagarthach More i look at it more i dont see how this is complicated. You are not rules lawyering your way out of this. Ethical paradox does nothing to save you from alignment shift and no celestial heal wouldnt save you either but i guess every gm for himself. BTW there was this cheap item called ghostbane salt(i guess that was it), you can easly be hurt whenever your gm wants to challange you.

@Rameth I played with level 1 iconic barbarian amiri. My friend cast magic weapon on me then i moved into damage the slime in doomsday dawn.
Two hits and 43 damage with 4d12+16. At level 9 with fireball you do 9d6 damage which is 31 damage before reflex save and resistance or immunity.

Lausth wrote:

I wouldnt call you transcendently powerfull...dont get me wrong it is good. There are reason for not allowing evil PCs. That is certainly one of them.

So that beign said what did you do in sombrefell hall? What kind of spells did you pick.

Envoy of Balance has to be neutral. They have an ability called Ethical Paradox that affects their interaction with spells and alignment descriptors. That character has been one of my favorites to play, and seems really powerful for my local environment...but I am curious to hear where your sense of transcendently powerful PCs goes :)

As to Sombrefell, we have not finished, but my Wizard multiclass Cleric focuses on Heal and Augmented Summon Monster - Hell Hound. So far the Hound has been great, and with two other dedicated Clerics in the party, my healing resources are so far under less strain than in the first two modules.

You are just very battering blastable. Well i wouldnt use that on you as your gm. Probably. Well you cant be killed in your shadowform so maybe. I dont think i would allow ethical paradox protecting you from alignment shift too but well thats just me.

So basicly smash smash heal smash? Huh with two clerics that should be fun. That is ofcourse if people like clerics. Happy to hear you having fun with sombrefell.

EDIT:I am realy not seeing how ethical paradox protects you from alignment shift. I think the act itself(Which is casting a high level spell with an evil descriptor) causes the alignment shift. I dont how to see that as a spell effect. Am i wrong?

I wouldnt call you transcendently powerfull...dont get me wrong it is good. There are reason for not allowing evil PCs. That is certainly one of them.

So that beign said what did you do in sombrefell hall? What kind of spells did you pick.

Martials could one shot anyone from level 1 to 20. Ability to one shot someone from level 8 to 20 will not help your argument.

You know i am seeing each side calling others a minority. Please stop. Everyone on these forums are a minority.

EDIT:Just to be clear. All of us on these forum are part of the same minority. A lot of people never visits these forums.

EDIT 2: Calling other people minority doesnt help your arguments. It makes it look biased and makes it look like you are trying a little too hard to support your argument. Which it doesnt btw.

I am hurt to be honest. Reading the crb for all day. Nerf bat hurts man. Sure they didnt get the nerative power but casters are brought down a lot. Now a wizard has to wait a long time to have that kind of power and mundanes want the same kind of abilities at the same time wizard gets them? I am not sure if i would let that fly in my table.

EDIT: Maybe i need more time to read and playtest.

Spells are nerfed into the ground. Slots are limited. Durations are once per encounter. Now martials want to have world bending powers. I dont want players of martial characters to feel leftout but with all of the nerf bat going around here i dont know what to think of this.

Maybe in 2e we should keep the double standard. Since martials are already brought up.

I dont understand. How did we disrespect him/her? I just wanted to help him/her the same way experienced players and pathfinder community helped me with my own problems. How is that horrifying?

Basically, I think it's a dependency issue. Some of us like playing characters with a really strong independent streak, but that makes no sense if your character is heavily dependent on magic items.

With casters, they can have spells prepared for most situations, and magic items end up just feeling like an extension of what your character is already capable of, especially if your character can craft magic items. But with martials that magic sword is proof that some of your damage came from a wizard, and in 2e, thanks to the crazy magic item dice bonuses, it's proof that most of your damage comes from a wizard.

I got to ask this. Do you think wizard or sorcerer is the source of all magic? What if fighter could forge magic weapons? Would that solve your issue? I am preaparing for mythic campaign as a gm. The issue that you pointed out is to be honest alien to me. I never had a player who had issues with magic items otherthan the WBL limiting those which is solveble. I am seeing a lot of people who dislikes magic items and i think this forum has a chance to effect my table. So at which point magic stops representing the wizard? Why is it so bad to need magic items in a high magic game where magic is everywhere otherthan the obvious WBL issue. Is it possiable to add magic to your martials in way that wont make you think the wizard? If it is possiable than how would you like it to be?

I am seeing a lot of people who dislikes magic items and they just say i want to do this x thing while some of them hate anime,some of them hate magic,some of them hate otherthings. You see there isnt exactly many things to go with here. Whatever you do you upset someone.

EDİT:I didnt use magic as synonym for magic items. I just meant anykind of magic. It could be in anyform.

1) unless specialised archery is terrible, but ok.

2) fair enough, more difficult but fair enough

3) Casters usually are, Clerics and Druids especially, prepared for damn near anything, given a rest

4) Unless you are making the BBEG an idiot, having them move plane if that is practical, especially to a stronger position, is just playing smart, artificially making the villains stupid so character classes are still relevant? Not sure I like that idea, if the BBEG can make preparations and smart decisions they should.

3-Yes casters usually prepared for almost anything when given the knowledge and the time to preapare for it but so is everyone else.

4-Where did you get the idea that i am making the BBEG an idiot?
As a gm you have to give something to your players so they can move with the story if no one in the party cant cast planeshift. Because if you dont then game has to stop and nobody likes that and i just said giving them a way. That can be anything realy.

Nerfing casters is a solution to making martials doing awesome things?

....

EDİT:People are saying that the original party is the fighter,rogue,wizard and the cleric. Half of that party are casters.
You know seeing that party will be very hard when players of the cleric and the wizard starts feeling like a mundane.

But martials are awesome.

Many things you just said can be identified as a GM problem.

-Yes you can shoot that arrow. Why is this a question?

-You replace him or find someone or something that can fix that problem which a gm should put in his game.(demon king)

-There should be some magic items that can fix that survival issue and please stop acting like that every caster is ready for every situation there is. We prepare solutions to problems we expect to encounter.

-Story problems such as traveling to a different plane are gm problems. Gm is responsible with putting that solution to his/her game.

I dont get it. Why do you guys think that martials are useless?

EDİT:This is starting to feel like a both gm and a system mastery problem rather than a martials are useless problem.

And we get to the problem I have with P2 and similar games - forcing everyone to stay within narrowly defined boundaries is less fun for me and mine than a freer system that can accommodate a wider variety of playstyles. Especially when said systems promoted as able to support settings it is entirely incapable of doing.

Sometimes the freedom of systems like 3.x result in some people being better at it than others. The response I prefer, which is how everyone I know personally handles it, is for the better optimizers to not make characters that are significantly better than everyone else, and for players to not make things their GM can't handle. GMs need to improve their skills to make things fun for the players. We are groups of friends, and compromise and self-improvement are necessary to keep things running smoothly.
The fact that organized play cannot do this and has to rely on hard rules and specific game design to force everyone into a narrow band of ability are strikes against it in our books.

That summarizes my feelings aswell. Thank you.

We didnt imply anything. We just dont know what is going on. So we need more information before we can start to help him/her.

It would help to know what your player's PC sheet looks like. 1e CRB has good options but what you described shouldnt happen.

EDİT:BTW if you are a new gm and if you are having problems then just come here or reddit and talk with other people. Trust me people will be happy to help you.

Data Lore wrote:

I want the current implementation. I want no part of any game that plays like a japanese cartoon or a console button masher.

Problem I have with the current system is that it's weirdly inconsistent what a fighter can do. Like a level 20 fighter can fairly easily wrestle an elephant to the ground with no grappling training, can drink poison for fun, can aim and fire 5 heavy crossbow bolts in six seconds, can punch through stone walls, and can tap dance after being shot by a dozen arrows... but we can't let him jump higher than a normal person.

Some people want certain kind of realism. It doesnt mean it is fair. They just dont like certain classes doing certain things.

PS:I am not one of those people.

In PF 1e building a competent martial required a lot of system mastery,finding the best magical item in 600(or something like that) magical items and a lot of planing. I have met with people who thinks animal companions are better than fighters because of this. If we can avoid that then i am happy. I want my martials to be able do things in common fantasy tropes and some ridicules stuff with ease.

If people are not sure about the plan then there is no plan.

EDİT:At that point only plan is you going to castle.Swing your sword,cast your fireball,throw your bomb until it is dead or move on to a different part adventure.

You bother because there are other people in your party.
An adventurer group isnt made of people with the same specialization fields. You know some of the plans people make might rely on the rogue never failing that check(well they could because you know spells,blindsight,etc). While some plans might rely on wizard never failing at his job or fighter never failing at whatever his field of expertise is. I think pf 1e is more than just your modifier but i guess that is just me.

Spell Roll: You make a spell roll when you’re testing the power of
your magic against a particular target. Your spell roll modifier
is equal to your proficiency modifier plus your key ability
modifier, as well as any other bonuses and penalties (though
these are quite rare). Many of your spells will call for saving
throws against your spell DC (10 plus your spell roll modifier)

Lausth wrote:

This edition wants to challange you all the time at all levels.High levels of investment in one thing making you awesome is PF1e.PF 2e is more gamist than that.So naturally even the very earth itself scales with you and on a level challange means that you have a chance of doing that thing %50-%60 of the time.

I don't get that at all from reading the rules. From reading the rules I get that, for the example of lockpicking, a standard lock will have the same DC no matter what level you are, but when you're level 4 those will be easy to pick but you'll have graduated to picking high quality locks meant for securing really important places, and when you're level 20 you'll be able to pick those in your sleep but will have a tough time with the artifact puzzle locks engraved with fell runes of protection, wreathed with the most sensitive of alarm spells, guarded at all times by sleepless constructs and bound greater elementals protecting Tar Baphon's phylactery.

And, you know, that makes perfect sense to me.

You are right.

For instance, when the PCs’ level
is relatively low, they might be faced with climbing a stone
wall with handholds, but later in the campaign they should
encounter tougher obstacles, like a smooth iron wall.

CRB does mention skill dc's better than i remember. Sorry. Very earth it self doesnt scale with you.

That is correct.I think all of the melee spell attacks has the finesse trait.

Well...stealth isnt that much different than first edition. You usullay failed not because of your +900 stealth modifier but because of your fighter with 12 dex -5 acp and no investments to stealth anyway. Either that happened or that adventure turned into a hide and seek game while your party waits for you to finish it for like 30-40 minutes

This edition wants to challange you all the time at all levels.High levels of investment in one thing making you awesome is PF1e.PF 2e is more gamist than that.So naturally even the very earth itself scales with you and on a level challange means that you have a chance of doing that thing %50-%60 of the time.