Lightning Raven's page

586 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 586 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

N N 959 wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
I completely understand that Monster Hunter isn't even a near match for other feats, but I made a point of making a supportive build, that's why I didn't pick those other feats (I don't like animal companions).

I imagine someone at Paizo is smiling that you are making a "support" Ranger starting at level 1, and this feat is helping you do it.

My build focus will be granting Warden's Boon, getting knowledge and the occasional +1 to hit would be just a side bonus.

Well, you know, that might be a fairly interesting build. With Precision and Warden's boon, you can give the d8 bonus to three allies per turn. The only problem is that you're having to wait until lvl 8 for this build to pay off. 7 levels of mediocre combat could be rough.

Report back and let us know how satisfying that build turns out. I tried to make a support cleric one time and I scrapped it after one scenario. Just wasn't the fun I thought it would be.

My build is basically this:

Woodland Elf Precision Ranger
STR 14 DEX 18 CON 10 INT 12 WIS 14 CHAR 10
Ancestry Feat: Otherworldly magic (Shield)
1st: Monster Hunter
2nd: Rogue Dedication(Natural Medicine) and Skill training (society).
3rd: Toughness. Nature increase
4th: Rogue Feat (Mobility). Skill Feat (Battle Medicine) [There have been a lot of encounters in tight spaces, I'm picking this worried about AoO's getting my character trapped.
5th: Elven Instincts
6th: Skirmish Strike (for the action economy). I would go for Swift Tracker, to keep in line wth the Hunter concept, but my GM doesn't follow the exploration rules closely, so it would be a waste in my table.
7th: Ancestral Paragon (Woodcraft). Master in Nature.
8th: Warden's Boon. Skill Feat (Forager).
9th: Elf Step. Master on Survival
10th: Master Monster Hunter. Recognize Spell (No reaction so far, seems to be a good way to capitalize on my investment in Arcana,Occultism and Religion).
12th: Double Prey. Skill Feat (Terrain Stalker)
14th: Shared Prey (So that I can benefit both allies). Skill Feat (Swift Sneak).
16th: Legendary Monster Hunter.

That's basically the endgame for this build. I've still a long way to go and there are some choices that are still up to debate, because my GM is adapting Rise of the Runelords and so far there has been a LOT of encounters in very tight spaces, which prompted me to choose Mobility for extra survivability.

So far, on 4th level, I've been satisfied, despite the fact that I roll less that 5 more often than not on Recall Knowledge checks (My GM doesn't like rolling them), on the other hand that extra +1 made our Barb one shot two enemies because it turned a normal hit to a critical.

I completely understand that Monster Hunter isn't even a near match for other feats, but I made a point of making a supportive build, that's why I didn't pick those other feats (I don't like animal companions).

My build focus will be granting Warden's Boon, getting knowledge and the occasional +1 to hit would be just a side bonus. I didn't want to get into the spotlight because in this campaign we have a new player that although was experienced with PF1e, he was coming from years of playing 5e, so I decided to make a enabler build so that my teammates take the charge in combat and the new player has the chance to experience more of the system since we play inconsistently.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dpb123 wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Why not get the Shield Cantrip, instead of Detect Magic/Electric Arc
Thanks Lightning Raven. I had thought about going this route too but was turned off by not having access to the cantrip's AC boost for 10 minutes if I do decide to use its reaction clause to absorb damage.

That is true, but if you don't plan on using Sturdy Shields at higher levels the Shield Cantrip is better in most aspects, because other non-sturdy shield at higher levels will only be blocking once anyway.

I think this boils down to how much you want to go in this direction, if it is just a little bit the Cantrip is the best option since it's very useful and doesn't cost anything.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Free Recall knowledge and not building a basic b*&~* build was my first goal, that's why I picked Monster Hunter.

I wanted my character to be someone that hunted creatures as his job, so knowing everything about them was a must. I never underestimate the advantages of Recall Knowledge at my table because in another campaign, there were A LOT of fights our GM told us it would've been better for us to know about the monsters, we even lost to a dumb Moderate fight because we didn't recall any knowledge about the Hazards we were fighting, since they seemed like just incorporeal creatures and we tried killing them by attacks and it would've been much better to use a skill check that my Monk was great at.

You may not get that +1 every time, which is a shame, but the action economy enhancer is good enough for a level 1 Feat, even if it's less attractive than other feats.

Why not get the Shield Cantrip, instead of Detect Magic/Electric Arc. Then you can get Arcane Sense for the Detect Magic.

Otherwise, I think if you don't have another good 3rd actions and will not be investing in Reactions, then yes. If it fits your character concept and visuals, then it is worth it, specially if you invest on better blocking shields later on.

Draco18s wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
The goggles are there for lower level Bombs, basically.
They're 100 gold! You don't have that much until 4th and your bombs get that same bonus at 3rd...

Yeah, but you still can spam the lower level bombs with the Bomber's Perpetual Infusions.

The goggles are there for lower level Bombs, basically. Regardless, it's terrible investment, IMO. I much rather spend my money on fun utility stuff like Healer's Gloves, Elven Cloak/Boots, etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brian2344 wrote:


I guess making a single roll for both wouldn't make sense since they could be different levels and have different DCs.

Monster Hunter is super weak until you can get Master Monster Hunter. I just did some retraining at level 13 and I think it will be pretty strong with Master in Nature.

You are right, it's pretty weak by itself (It could've been a +1 from the get go and +2 on a crit. success and it wouldn't be insane, Bards do much more for much less and every round).

One thing that can you can suggest to your GM to speed up the game is to roll only once when the targets are of the same type.

Samurai wrote:
Lightning Raven is right, you only get the +1 on 1 attack roll on a Crit Success, so given my lack of dice luck, I didn't take the feat line for my Ranger. You should look at the feat as a free lore check that very rarely might result in a +1 bonus once, but that is not the main purpose or typical effect....

I'm playing a Precision Ranger with focus on support abilities and I've yet to see much return from this ability. I'm not that worried in the end because it was my goal to have a character less focused on being great at combat.

As feedback for anyone interested, I think the ability truly kicks in when you have Master Monster Hunter (I really wish it was available sooner, though). So you should be ware of picking such an ability if you will not be investing a little bit in INT. On the other hand, if your character is stating at higher level, it makes this build quite good since you can simply focus all on DEX/WIS and still perform the knowledge role quite well because of Master Monster Hunter's powerful benefit of identifying everything with Nature.

1) I think the point of the ability is to grant that +1 from the get go. Even if not, it's a free action to say a few words. Just in case your GM is trying to put meaningless extra hurdles.
2) The +1 is only for Critical Successes, unless you're a master monster hunter.
3) I think you repeat the exact same process for each enemy, which means rolling against each of them.

Exocist wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:

The thing is that difficult terrain is way less prevalent now and you can still Sudden Charge through it and in fact, you move a lot more now, so the impact is lessened. But yeah, Wall Spells are still pretty good, even if they're still easier to by pass than before either through damage or simply having the right Skill Feats (specially later on when characters start to become Masters).

If you box someone in with a wall, their only options are to teleport out, burrow or attack it. Hardness 14 and 50HP on Wall of Stone is actually extremely difficult for most level 9-10 monsters to take down (A level 13 monster took 4 hits to destroy it). On top of that, the health is for each 5x5 section so large creatures have to destroy 4 sections before they can move out... all the while ranged characters can just poke them inside be box.

Yeah, but such an use is certainly GM dependent. Mine, for example, will definitely grant a Reflex Save if I'm trying to use it like a single target removal spell.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:

Bards are the only class I feel like may be too powerful, and that's only really because they make other casters feel "bad" by comparison.

Which should prompt the designers to make every other casters as fun, engaging and strong as Bards not the other way around.

Just putting it out there, in case nerfs are being considered.

The thing is that difficult terrain is way less prevalent now and you can still Sudden Charge through it and in fact, you move a lot more now, so the impact is lessened. But yeah, Wall Spells are still pretty good, even if they're still easier to by pass than before either through damage or simply having the right Skill Feats (specially later on when characters start to become Masters).

Henro wrote:

In my experience, the best use of an Alchemist is distributing nearly everything* amongst the party; bombs, elixirs, everything. So in that sense, I don't think I agree with Deadmanwalking that the good playstyle that works is bombs. I think any Alchemist playstyle works... within the constraints of committing to being the purest of pure support. I think this is a really fun playstyle, but I do feel I may be a bit of an anomaly in that regard.

*You do keep some for yourself, and having spare reagents for quick alchemy is handy for specific problems requiring specific solutions. The idea is spreading out about 3/4ths of your alchemy in order to provide improvements to your party.

I think being a support is very different from being an item dispenser. I like to have my actions to directly impact my teammates. As a Bard I love the fact that my Cantrips will have several benefits that I can pick and choose at will, my spells will either disable enemies or enhance my teams, this feels very different than making an item and placing the burden of activation on them.

I think an Alchemist would be in a good spot for me if it had more ways of using items on their teammates that didn't require so many actions and hoops to jump. There's plenty ways of making Chirurgeon great buffers and healers, if only they're not just item crafters.

I you really think about is there truly any difference in playing a Cleric Healbot in PF1e and playing an Alchemist that only craft items to give to party members? I would say there is not.

Of course, nothing inherently wrong with the playstyle, but I find that a class is better if it can be engaging while also providing heals and buffs.

One of the biggest aspects, I think, that made Spellcasters was the battlefield control abilities. Ever since I've started digging deeper into Pathfinder, I've noticed how just by perceiving things different you can see how powerful some things are when they don't seem like it, just because they didn't have numbers attached to them.

For example: Imagine a cleric that managed to heal 30+ HP in a AOE per target at lower levels, that would be OP, right? Well, it certainly would. But imagine that you're fighting against a lot of monsters that are in an advantageous position against your party, so they will charge in and start dealing damage... And then suddenly your caster acts first or manages to act on the surprise round and he decides to use Sleet Storm or Stone Call.

What would've been a situation where most monsters would be able to take charge and engage first, now becomes an extra round where your teammates have the engage initiative. You just prevented the possibility of a s%+~ ton of damage from your party without engaging with saving throws or numbers, you just interrupted their charge with difficult terrain.

You could replicate this effect with most wall spells by basically cutting off an enemy for a few rounds (if they even could get hid of the wall in the first place). You would cast haste and suddenly every attack your teammates made would make them look cool, but in truth that damage could easily be tallied for your caster.

This goes to get even crazier at higher levels with reality shattering spells. But it certainly didn't look that strong because you were no Barbarian dealing 50+ damage at every attack or a fighter never missing.

Of course, this is basically common knowledge for every player/GM that know why Spellcasters were so powerful in PF1e, but most of my friends never stopped to think about it at all and I suspect most players never did (I had one friend that also plays a lot of sorcerers get mad because I never threw a fireball or dealt a lot of direct damage).

Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:

Eesh, and all of that on what's one of the most complicated classes to learn? No wonder people have so many gripes with it.

I wouldn't all it hard to learn at all. Specially with so many features that are very static (extra range, quick draw, bigger numbers, etc). They don't have a lot of stuff to remember and keeping your formula book in mind and at hand will definitely take a lot of your burden.

Alchemists are much easier to learn than a Wizard, in my opinion. Vancian casting is almost a Rube Goldberg Machine and using it effectively with lower amount of slots and a new spell design paradigm certainly makes things harder.

Blackest Sheep wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Going straight Barbarian, multiclassing into Fighter, then grabbing Double Slice makes for one of the highest DPR builds in the game (specifically, I believe to get as high as possible you go Giant Totem and dual wield oversized, non-agile, weapons).
If you go giant instinct, you should talk to your GM beforehand so that they can decide how you get a second weapon, as the class feature only grants one weapon initially.

You can just buy it. It will reduce a little from your starting gold, but you can compromise from the get go (cheaper weapon) and buy your main option after the first few adventures.

Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:

I see a lot of- somewhat unsavory- comparisons to Alchemist and Warpriest Cleric, and I have little experience with either class. So, what's the problem with them?

In fact, expanding on that question; what do people not want to see in the Magus? Particularly boring/unsatisfactory arcana and 1e features, changes you'd absolutely hate?

In a system where a Rogue gets Legendary Perception and Reflex (At level 13, no less), Master on Will, armor and simple weapons, on top of gaining a skill increase AND skill feat at every level that nets them 6 legendary skills (other classes get 3) without any significant cost, on top of having cool feats early on and at higher levels that let them be great combatants as well, there is something to be said why Warpriests and Alchemists have such a s!*#ty proficiency progression on top of having their to-hit as secondary stats (WIS for Cleric and INT for Alch, neither can have max STR/DEX, I'm not against starting at 16 on your hit stat, but coupling that with meager expert proficiency at high level simply bypass any dice variance that was in your favor).

Basically, Fighters and Rogues have amazing (the best in their respective "niches") base features with great proficiency progression with no visible trade off (fewer feat options, especial hoops and limitations to jump through) while Warpriests and Alchemists just completely fall off the curve at level 13 because they only get to expert proficiency on their attacks, no legendary proficiency in their fields, like a Bomber being legendary (or at least master) in Bombs or a Warpriest having high proficiency it their deity weapon. No forgetting to mention that their progression is way slower, at least a Warpriest has spells, but the Alchemist only have low impact items at their disposal.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I think this is only true if the Feats are extremely overtuned, which causes its own problems (most notably, it almost certainly makes a Wizard who multiclasses Magus flatly better than a pure Magus).

There's plenty of room for a Master Attack/Master Spellcasting/Master AC Class. In fact, you can already do that just with multiclassing on, say, a Rogue. I see absolutely no reason Magus should not follow that pattern but with better casting and high level spells and worse Saves and Perception (remember, Rogues get Legendary/Master/Expert Saves and Legendary can easily drop that to Master/Master/Expert Saves and Expert Perception for Magus), and then also dropping 9 Skill Feats and 10 Skill Ranks which more than pays off the 'didn't need to spend Class Feats on multiclassing' costs.

Really, it becomes a discussion of how much spellcasting is really worth. It's clearly a lot, but how much? Getting a Multiclass Wizard Archetype to the full extent of spellcasting is 5 Class Feats and results in Master Proficiency but a low spell count. How much do you need to give up for a higher count? Two full Proficiency tiers in Perception and another in a Save is no small sacrifice, and I'd say 9 Skill Feats and 10 Skill Ranks are a bit...

In my mind, the feats would be designed like the good stuff we see on the Martial Classes. They have really interesting feats that makes them more than just the proficiencies, because they engage in the action economy in several ways, gain lots of different reactions. One the other hand, if the feats are designed like the spellcasters' (useful but boring as hell), then I think that the base chassis really should be strong. Nothing's worse than weak proficiency with few and boring feats to choose from, that would step on the Alchemist's toes!

Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:

The problem with anything less than master/master in proficiencies is that it's completely invalidated by multiclass archetypes. If you get master in martial weapons and expert in spellcasting, why not go a different martial class and multiclass into Wizard? You get your main class' extra features and better spellcasting. Vice-versa where if you get master spellcasting/expert martial weaponry, because then you're just playing a worse Wizard.

Without master/master attack proficiencies, Magus would either be redundant or need extra material in order to make it worthwhile. Which results in making the class more complex and in turn goes against PF2e's design philosophy of lowering the barrier of entry.

This is ignoring one of the biggest parts of this system: The Feats.

Even though I think some classes were unreasonably screwed in the proficiency department (namely Warpriest and Alchemist), I think that they are neither the only aspect that makes a class good nor the primary attractive for someone to play with it.

A magus may have expert/expert (Weapon/Spellcasting prof) and still be a very good class despite the bad progression, because it has, I believe that will be the case, that directly support the Combat Caster niche much better than a simple spellcasting multiclass and with feats enhancing this aspect at every level, it could further set it apart despite having weaker proficiencies than pure martials and casters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a good base chassis that allows the class to do its thing without having to jump through hoops (Basic feature granting combat casting and not triggering Reactions while doing so), so that the feats become actual options and playstyle enhancers. We don't need an Alchemist 2.0.

I still think it would be cool if certain shields (focused on blocking) were immune to some kind of damage, this way they would leave the raw stats for the Sturdy Shields (making them the same as fundamental runes), but would have situations where they would perform well above average (Bludgeoning, Slashing, Piercing, elemental damage, monster-specific). Another balancing factor that could be added was increased hardness against specific types of attacks, for example, holy shields against undead, devils or fiends, evil shields that works well against good-aligned divine followers (cleric, champions, etc). That would make special materials significantly different compared to specific shields and the sturdy shield.

Hopefully, in the future we get to see more interesting and complex options, that will at least remove some of the sting if they deem that current shields don't need changes.

While I do get where you're coming from, you still need two actions to drink a potion with a bandolier. Otherwise, you would need to get from your backpack, which would require more actions (three).

I think it would be counterproductive lock them into specific body parts since the combat styles themselves (Tiger, Crane, Dragon, etc) have several different types of moves and techniques. That would be very reductive, in my opinion, specially since they're Kung Fu styles (mainly) and it's a martial arts that use every body.

If it was boxing, taekwon do or something similar, then it would make more sense, imo.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
dmerceless wrote:

If nothing changes, oh well, I can go back to not playing any shield blockers ever again and say that I tried.

If you could clarify something for me -

Is the current trajectory of new shield releases, such as the reforging shield and jawbreaker shield (and the shield creation guidelines Draco18s helpfully copied from the GMG) not to your liking?

Does it really require massive errata to the core book to "fix" this, despite all the tools needed to run a shield block character already existing (ie, Sturdy Shields), albeit with "limited" options?

The Sturdy Shield is the baseline option, and covers all the "needs" in the Core Book, we have an actual trend of new items and guidelines that support peoples desires... what IS the issue at that point?

What everyone appears to want is on the way. Until then, you're covered. Is this not solved, other than minor corrections to items everyone agrees could be tweaked?

While I'm glad that the new shields aren't paper (which only serves to further validate our point that the baseline shields have issues), just printing more material will not make the baseline shields go away, it will only make them obsolete. Furthermore, this also will not change the fact that special material shields (and as a whole, really) are a very significant aspect of this issue that won't be addressed (we at least agree that special material shields are broken, right?).

David knott 242 wrote:

Does anyone ever play a character who buys and uses a shield but does not have the Shield Block feat? For such characters, this entire thread would be moot.

Actually if your character have a free hand, than most minmaxers will pick a shield regardless of concept. My Monk could easily use one, for example, but given it doesn't fit with my concept I don't use it, even though I know it would require low investment and it wouldn't harm my action economy that much.

Well, here's what this feat does:

You are choosing at level 18 any of your 1st features that was your second option to begin with, on top of that none of your choices significantly alter anything, they just enhance particular playstyles that you weren't particularly interested anyway.

Honestly, this feat may become good in the future when you have many Edges to choose from, but right now it's underwhelming to say that least. I particularly don't feel inclined to ever pick it when the other options were already cooler and much more attractive.

Then it's a bad feat. You're using hunting prey in combat most of the time and when is the best moment for you to choose a weaker second choice? Probably never. If you're a Flurry ranger, trading away your superior accuracy for an extra 1d8~3d8 in a single attack doesn't look like an attractive option AT ALL, specially because you're also trading away your Masterful Hunter benefit.

If you really wanted that other Edge, then you would've picked it to begin with. Talk about an absolute let down, huh? From my initial interpretation that made it an attractive choice to it being an straight downgrade to your chosen playstyle. Yuck.

Cyouni wrote:

I don't believe you should be able to have all of those at once. If you want the best defensive proficiencies, you should have to give up utility in shield effects. The opposite should also be true - if you want utility shield effects, you should have to give up having the ultimate blocking power.

That's basically what everyone against the current state of shield is arguing. We want shield options for shield-focused characters, there are clear issues with the shields (Special material shields, Arrow Catching and Forge Warden) that may warrant a look on the system as a whole.

If the devs elect that the shields are fine as they are, then everyone will just accept that this is a system that is working as intended but is not everyone's cup of tea. It happens, nothing is perfect.

The core issue is that it is OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE that non-sturdy shields aren't viable at higher levels (Around 12+), either being it a matter of price, stats or availability (Rare items). The huge elephant in the room that the defenders always forget to take into account (They always focus on Spellguard for some reason) is that there are several special material shields at higher levels that are directly competing with Sturdy shields, since they only offer Hardness and HP, but are completely broken, they cost too much, they don't offer anything and they simply get destroyed but most monster's average attacks and this is taking into account the very favorable scenario of same-level monsters.

A shield-focused character can't, currently, choose anything other than a Sturdy Shield, there is no meaningful choice to be made past certain levels. At 7th level the Spiked Shield is the last moment where there's a meaningful trade-off. I'm not touching on the issue of dabblers, whatever shield they're using is meaningless to them, because what it matters is the +2 AC and then they still have a lot of options to pick and choose from, meanwhile the choice a Specialized character has to make is

"Do I buy the benchmark of blocking shields that don't offer anything interesting or do I waste hundreds, maybe thousands, of gold in a shield that is worse than my level 4 shield and will be destroyed the first time I use my class features?"

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Very little imo, they made the limit too high. I would have personally liked it tied to charisma modifier and maybe have it be 5+charisma mod with the feat doubling the charisma mod.

But yeah, you really have to try to max out your slots.

This was the case during the playtest. It was called "Resonance" and it was the first mechanic to be completely scrapped. The reports said it was awful, but not only because of the magical items cap, it did other s*&%ty things too. You can also blame it for the Alchemist release state, it was intrinsically tied to it and once it was scrapped, the class went through the major overhaul and landed on what it is today, with some good aspects but janky as well and very underpowered.

Aratorin wrote:
voideternal wrote:
Aratorin wrote:

I don't think that's what Manifold Edge does. I don't see anything that says you get both benefits. It basically lets you swap out your normal Edge for a different one, with the sacrifice of the temporary Edge being weaker.

So, like if you're fighting an enemy that's immune to Precision Damage, you switch to Flurry instead, as the base Flurry Edge is better than getting no benefit from your Precision Edge.

If it gave you both, it would be extremely OP.

I don't see why you would lose your normal Edge. Nothing in the description of Manifold Edge says you lose your normal edge.

It says "other than", not "in addition to". I never really thought of this Feat as unclear, but I can understand how you are coming to your interpretation as well.

The Druid comparison isn't fair, as that requires a Feat merely to gain access to another Order, and then additional Feats to gain any benefit from that.

This is a single Feat. That's an extremely low cost of entry to get a second benefit from a Class choice.

At this point, I would say that the Feat needs to be clarified as to the intent.

It's true, the Druid indeed doesn't grants you full benefits until later on, but you're getting access to it at second level, while we're talking about an 18th level feat that's competing with Impossible Flurry/Volley that pretty much breaks the action economy (lots of attacks at very small penalties) or Perfect Shot (that isn't as good as the others because its very feast or famine, but guaranteed maximum damage sure is attractive). So I think the feat could be just a dip in another Edge without sacrificing your Masterful hunter feature, it's not as cool as the other options but at least is a solid choice that fits more character concepts.

By that point other classes are doing even crazier things as well, so it doesn't feel so above the curve.

My Monk is at 11th level right now and I'm at 9 invested items. It certainly fills up fast if you have several utility items. For example, I have an Tourmaline Sphere Aeon Stone (grant's Heal 1st level and prevents death once), Healer's Glove (1-Action 2d6+7 heal already paid itself off a few times) and Eyes of the Eagle (actually helpful when our party only has members without darkvision).

I think this limit will matter only if you're interested in buying or keeping utility items that don't directly relate with your playstyle. For example, both healing items my monk has already saved our party several times from losing because it prevented the tide of battle from changing (one character falls, then others go soon after). Cloak and Boots of Elven Kind also are a great combo, even if your character isn't particularly inclined to scout.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Why do...

Except that not everyone will be the best at particular things. Inspire Defense is indeed great, but you need to be a Bard (or multiclass into one) to use it. But you can also be a Wizard and provide defense as well, while having your Wizard flexibility, utility, blasting and battlefield control, things that a Bard would be way less able to do.

You're approaching the game as if every choice must be the very best possible compared against everything else, which must not be. I get that there are some feats and other Wizard aspects that aren't that great, but you also need to remember that having more options is a good thing, so just because an entry Focus Spell isn't better than a higher level Class Feat (Defense is level 2) at that particular benefit, doesn't mean that it must be dismissed and you "might as well play a Bard".

This way, why even bother with other classes in the game? Just play a Fighter for combat and be done with it, their niche is pretty much the most toxic (for the game) they could have, which is "Being the best at combat". Yet, we have other classes that aren't supposed to be as good as a fighter in combat.


That was my thinking as well. You're choosing an 18th level feat, by that point, it seems reasonable to dabble in another path. Druids do it much early, for example. I think that choosing one of the other makes this feat beyond garbage, because you will NEVER EVER trade out your main Edge with the Masterful Hunter's benefit for a meager +2 on some skills and +1 AC or 1d8 Extra, even Flurry Hunter isn't that great because if you didn't pick it you didn't intend to do that many attacks in the first place (odds are you're either using a Crossbow or doing something outside of damaging focus, like my Ranger that's focused on knowledge and support abilities like Warden's Boon, Monster Hunter, etc).

Trading your Masterful Hunter benefit, on the other hand, doesn't feel that bad, but I think it doesn't compete with the other feats at 18th, specially against Impossible Flurry/Volley and Masterful Companion (basically a must have for your companion, if it's your main playstyle).

My first reaction is that it probably it is the case. But given how Pathfinder2e often keeps a tight leash on such things, I think that Share Prey will only grant your ally the benefits of your main Edge, while you and probably you companion will have the two Edges.

Given the high level of these features (including a level 20), I think your assessment is correct.

Sorry for being so inconclusive, but sometimes what I think it's an obvious answer turns into a complex issue.

Temperans wrote:

Lightning Raven.

PF1 allowed a Wizard to prepare individual spells in 5 rounds using 2 feats, while still keeping your familiar. Alternatively, you could grab one feat to prepare partially prepare 2 spells in one slot, than finalize it as a full round action (3 PF2 actions): One more feat and you could finalize them as a standard action (1-2 PF2 actions).

The metamagic thesis is nice and different (it was a pair of Arcanist Exploits). But the previous wizard could have 5 free metamagic, more than enough.

Familiar thesis is nice because the new abilities for Familiars. But familiars themselves are very debated and depend heavily on the GM. Not to mention whether improved familiars are even possible.

Spell Blending's ability to get higher level spell is really is unique and a great. However, PF1 had abilities that let you split a spell slot in half, not down to cantrip.

Well, I'm point was just saying that Wizards are still pretty strong, although I would like them to have more meaningful feats (Spell Penetration just hurts my soul to chose, for example). But Wizards were indeed nerfed because they were really insane previously and now that they're more in line with other classes, the difference is felt the most because of the stark difference between God Tier that could summon hordes of monsters easily while creating demiplanes with a Standard actions. Hell, just look at the "Painter Wizard" build that is perfectly legal, that's just beyond absurd.

I'm glad the Wizards were taken down a notch (A big one, I'll not deny), but I will be the first to say that they're in dire need of more interesting Class feats, I also can't wait for the new thesis (hopefully I can finally play with a Magus).

dmerceless wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
But I’ve never seen comments claiming druids, for example, are a “failed class” because their “cantrips are a joke”, or that bards are like accountants because they focus on buffing and debuffing. Those who dislike the nerf to spellcasters always single out wizards. If I had to guess why, I’d say most detractors are familiar with 1E and wizard class’ widely-acknowledged status as God-tier OP. They notice the 2E change but don’t understand the why and how of the wizard nerf.

To be honest, I think Wizards are the ones that feel the spellcasting nerfs the strongest, even without directly comparing the class to the PF1 version. That is, because the other casters all have more unique things to define them. Bards have their Compositions, Druids can have Wildshape or Animal Companion, and even the ones who don't still have medium armor and can use shields, Clerics have their domains, Divine Font, Warpriest can have a bit of martial ability, etc. Wizards just... cast things.

They sacrifice having any other significant features to just "cast good", while also being a 6 HP class with the worst proficiencies in the game. Even their feats, at least most of the good ones, generally give you... more spellcasting. When 90% of your power budget is spellcasting, spellcasting being nerfed feels bad. This is also why I think Wizards in this edition are, while not necessarily bad, utterly boring. The class has been defined as just having a better spell list for so long that now that they don't have that anymore they're just... kinda there.

(Just to be clear, I do agree with spellcasting being nerfed, and I also agree that Wizards shouldn't just have a better spell list by essentially nerfing everyone else's. The issue, for me, is that they didn't manage to give the class an interesting identity after taking those things away).

The Wizard Thesis are pretty strong. They don't offer a lot but they are powerful. They have the best familiars, they can swap spells during the day, they can "shed" lower level spell slots for stronger ones at higher levels and they can use a lot of different metamagics (that aren't that good yet, but definitely will gain support in the future). Spells also aren't that bad because of the degrees of success, they can still use Cantrips (that AREN'T underwhelming, because they're free ranged damage that offer better utility and damage than other ranged options).

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

For example, if you're level 12 you will fight some minions that are level 8 to 10 requiring 4th and 5th level slots to affect with incapacitation spells. And these lower level minions often are easily killed, less of a threat, and often not worth using incapacitation spells against.

Just use Chain Lightning on them and deal 383 damage in a single spell (3 crit fails and one fail) like my Wizard friend did. Lower level enemies have a really high chance of failing and a good chance of a critical failure, if there's someone intimidating them as well (AOE stuff like Terrifying Howl or Dragon's Roar) then this gets even worse for them. You throw an AOE in them and you're going to "incapacitate" them much better than using single target incapacitation spells, they exists mainly so that you have to use your best slots against higher level enemies (which you're prone to do anyway).

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

The problem is that if Sturdy is a rune or any type of upgrade, then it's basically going to be on literally every shield because there's no reason for it not to be. By separating Sturdy and other effects, you can have more interesting design.

Does that mean that shields are totally fine? Probably not - as noted, some of the shields you want to block with are unreliably effective even against things of similar level, and that needs fixing.

All that would change if Sturdy were a rune is that people would complain that Sturdy was basically mandatory, because it's better at Shield Block than other runes.

Well... One would even say that... Sturdy Rune was an Fundamental Rune, huh?

Ezekieru wrote:
Honestly, I just wish they kept the dent system. As much as people wanted the familiarity of HP, the dent system just made the process simpler for Blocking purposes. I kinda wished they would have included it as a variant rule in the GMG, but alas.

My only problem with the Dent system at the time was that it was made so that a shield would never be destroyed in a single hit, which doesn't make much sense. I much rather have the HP system, with good numbers, so that the amount of damage is variable and so that the possibility of a single-hit destruction to still exist on rare occasions.

Even though now I advocate for better non-sturdy shields so that they aren't destroyed in a single hit, the difference is that in my view, shields being completely destroyed should happen on thoses cases of massive hits (I would definitely sacrifice my shield if it meant that my character wouldn't be killed if he was downed, since this happened a few times already with me) dealt by bosses critical hits.

Just as perspective, that were several fights we won in Age of Ashes that we were hanging by a thread, against a spellcaster, only our Wizard was left standing with 30 HP while everyone else was down. It also happened just 3 sessions ago, when my Monk was left standing with 58 HP against 3 healthy enemies, 2 thugs (PL-2) and a Bruiser (PL-1), I managed to whittle them down (hit and run tactics, Winding Flow is amazing), but it was by a hair's breadth and I'm 100% sure that any of my mates would trade their shields to avoid getting down by the several critical hits (all characters have means of healing or other ways to stay longer in a fight given the chance).

KrispyXIV wrote:

Lightning Raven, the more specialized ANY build is, the less options it has for gear.

The more a fighter commits to the Power Attack style, the less optimal non-two handed weapons become.

The more a Ranget commits to Flurry, the less optimal non-agile weapons are.

The more you commit to Shield Block, the less optimal non-blocking shields become.

That is the STANDARD way that specialization works.

Two-handed fighters have several great options for it. Not only d12 weapons. They also can buy different runes, have specific weapons that have cool abilities (Shields have that, but can't block).

Flurry rangers can have vast amount of options because they can either melee rangers that can either opt for finesse weapons in DEX builds or more damaging weapons in a STR focused builds, they can also use two types of bows that offer some special arrows to further add versatility in playstyle.

A Shield-focused Fighter or champion will start the game with a Steel Shield and upgrade to a sturdy one at level 4 because it's the first upgrade, then he will reach the 6th level and look for an upgrade and will see a "Lion Shield" which has half HP and -2 hardness compared to his level 4 item, the Lion also costs 2.5x times, after that the stat difference just grows, which is when at level 15 you have the "option" between a common item and a RARE item that inherently needs the GM to grant you either access or give it to you as loot. The only time where a shield player truly has choice is at level 7 which is between a spike shield (Hardness6/HP24/BT12 +30 HP from spikes) and a Sturdy Shield, the former grants you ranged attacks that cost your shield HP but it regrows every day, so if you attack with it you reduce its durability and if you block with it you have less attacks to make. If only this choice presented itself at higher levels.

I'll not even mention special material shields because they are a complete joke. They don't offer special benefits, their stats are inferior and the price is beyond absurd. For example, a High-Grade Adamantine Shield(16th level) costs 8800GP and it has Hardness 10/HP 40/BT 20, meanwhile a Minor Sturdy Shield(4th level) costs 100gp and has Hardness 8/HP 64/BT 32, this doesn't sound right, does it? If you compare with a Lesser Sturdy Shield (Hardness 10/HP80/BT40) that costs 365 gp, things gets even worse, the Sturdy shield is twice as good and at a fraction of the cost.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Larsen wrote:
Zapp wrote:

Obviously you don't block if the hit is going to ruin your shield for you.

In fact, that's the whole criticism, that you need to use your face to save your shield.

Even if you could block 3 times before the shield being destroyed, the same problem would come the 4th when you would use your face to save the shield.

So I don't think this argument really support more resilient shields (eventually indestructible shields).

It seems to me that "shield block" was conceived as a "sacrifice shield" last resort option, but then since it was cool, some designers wanted to have some class/feat make more use of it, so they also added the sturdy shield to make it possible, but now it feels frustrating to be limited to the sturdy.

Maybe each "shield block" dependent feat adding something like 10HP / 1 hardness to the shield used would help characters specializing in this unusual use of the shield?

What? This makes absolutely no sense. The whole point of being able to use a shield without them being destroyed is to have them BROKEN. You have the option of using your shield to save your face and it BREAKS, after that you CAN'T use it.

This argument of shields blocking more than once and then falling into the situation of "using your face to save the shield" makes no sense whatsoever because it relies on something that has no sense.

Also your "analysis" doesn't reflect the current state of the game right now. As I mentioned before in this thread, I made a Paladin build that could block three times PER ROUND, a shield Blocker Fighter at level 20 can block once per monster turn (it gains a reaction at each monster's turns).

There are no features that grants you benefits for destroyed shields, specially higher level ones (It seems like there's an upcoming feature that does that, so let's see how shields will be handled in the errata), while there are several shield builds that increases the amount of blocks, the sturdy shield exists, so it already implies that you can be blocking every attack you're able because it have the hardness and stats.

I'll state again: There is no reason why a Shield Focused character should have LESS options for shields than a dabbler. Non-Sturdy shields at higher levels should be able to block at least once and NOT be destroyed, they can either gain the broken condition or still be able to tank more, this should be the kind of trade-off that a character can make. Right now, if you want to make a Shield Build you're obligated to have a Sturdy Shield, because it have the best stats, it's a common item, it has progression and it's cheaper than every other shield that offer only HP and Hardness (all material shields are completely inferior to sturdy shields, 16th level items are INFERIOR to level 4 sturdy shields).

HumbleGamer wrote:

As for me, I hope they will modify them while maintaining some trade off, mostly because some suggestions I read on this forum are the last thing I'd like to see,as they'd remove any choice.

This is pretty much what everyone wants. Nobody wants to have shields that do as much as a Sturdy Shield and have cool abilities on top of that. Sturdy shields should be the best at that single thing, the issue most of us have is when you can't even block ONCE with other shields.

Special material shields should be priced with Sturdy Shields in mind, since they're pretty much running the same race. Which means that either Adamantine shields offer different stats (instead of just inferior ones) or they offer something altogether and leave Sturdy Shields as the sole shield-block options. For example, it would be cool if Adamantine Shields only took damage from Bludgeoning damage, Piercing and Slashing would still cause damage on the user, but the shield itself wouldn't take it (hardness stuff and whatnot), that would make the shield work really well against specific types of damage, but it would break easily against proper damage type. That would be a cool trade off, if we're not talking about changing stats. This is just from the top of my head, so I don't claim that this is balanced or something like that.

I think, as a player and occasional GM, I would like to keep Sturdy Shields as good as they are but other shields could gain a boost in HP to make them tank at least one max damage hit (not critical) from a level appropriated enemy and gain the broken condition. That makes them useful in a pinch without being a Sturdy Shield that you can count on against every hit thrown against you. Let's not forget that Shield Block for dabblers include a reaction and an action used, this is a relevant balancing cost for the benefits granted by shields, they're not passive stats anymore.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:

Paladins and fighters (the two main classes that will make shield builds) are able to block several times at higher levels. I made a Champion build yesterday and I was looking at three shield blocks per round (Normal reaction, extra champion reaction with Shield Warden and quick block), that's something only a Sturdy shield would even be an option, because instead of making a Paladin that could just Shield Block for their friends, I wanted one that could do it a lot, so I went with this round, instead of choosing other weapon options (i'm using everstand stance). In this case a Sturdy Shield would not be obsolete at all even if every other shield had the chance to block at least one without turning into dust.

This balance you claim so much DOES NOT exist because there is no MEANINGFUL TRADE OFF, it's simple as that. You either are a shield-focused build with a sturdy shield or you simply abandon the build because it's the only economically viable and is the best stat-wise, every other shield is subpar in every category (Price, hardness, hp and BT), the difference is so staggering that no matter which cool ability you have on your shield, if you can't use your amazing class features, then you're not doing what the build supposed to do.

Believe me, having a Champion in your party is pretty much like everyone focusing on using Shield block (but much better, since Champion reaction do other stuff and the target doesn't expend its reactions) and it still doesn't feel like monsters are lacking damage. My party is currently level 11 on book 3 of age of ashes and I play a monk that could use a shield but I don't just because it's not cool for my martial artist.

The Manipulate Trait of the Lay on Hands spell doesn't create problems to cast it while two-handing the shield (this was a problem during the Playtest, it's not anymore). Regarding the combat maneuvers, I think this can be worked around. As a Champion, I think you should be Intimidating and taking advantage the class' inherent focus on Charisma, it doesn't have the Attack Trait, so it can be used to debuff first. Also, you could just break the requirements of your stance by simply using your hand to perform a maneuver, the worst that can happen is to spend an action in the next round to get it back up. When you have so many Action Economy enhancers, I don't think spending an action once in a while to get it back up again is such a steep cost.

The alchemist needs to be spending 2+ actions just to grant a buff and there are some folks that thinks it's fine, a Champion getting the Stance back up after some situational grapple/trip is no big deal.

Large creatures? Yes. Wall? No.

BastionofthePants wrote:

When a weapon gains any type of elemental damage, like fire, the entire attack gains the Fire trait. So let's say a +1 Striking Greatsowrd has the Flaming Rune.

If a creature has "Immunities: Fire" or "Resiste Fire 10," would either of those abilities be affected by the Fire trait of the attack, or would they exclusively apply to the 1d6 of extra fire damage added by the Flaming Rune?

The runes have their own damage, they do not turn everything to that particular type. For example, if you have a +2 Striking Weapon, you can have Frost and Corrosive runes in it, which means that your weapon will be dealing its own 2DX of physical damage + 1d6 of Cold +1d6 of Acid damage. All abilities that grant a specific kind of damage (Barbarian instincts, etc) also do not change the type of damage dealt by the weapon, the item or feature must specifically mention that all damage is converted into the specific type, for example the Champion feat Blade of Justice :

"...and you can convert all the physical damage from the attack into good damage."

This is specifically mentioned by the feat. Why? You might ask? Because having a single type can be very useful, and strong, to bypass resistances of certain types of monsters like Incorporeal Creatures that no longer have the 50% damage reduction, they instead have DR Everything (except Force and other specific types of dmg).

Dyslexic Character Sheets wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Stance Savant was corrected in the first batch of Errata. It was changed from a Reaction to a Free Action.

Curse you, Errata! I already fixed that once, then I UNfixed it when I saw it didn't match what's in the book.

I'll fix it again.

Don't forget the Fierce Flurry feature. I think this was from the Playtest, but it's not present on the released CRB neither on Archive of Nethys (I checked to make sure).

Some feedback on the Monk's character sheet:

1- Stance Savant was corrected in the first batch of Errata. It was changed from a Reaction to a Free Action.

2- There's no "Fierce Flurry" 9th level Monk Feature anymore. The only things a monk gains at that level are Metal Strikes, Monk Expertise, Skill Increase and Ancestry Feat.

Otherwise, the character sheet is looking amazing. The Combat Style specially it's even better than before (my friend was one of the patrons).

Mythicman19 wrote:

The idea being maybe material properties need to be reworked to actually mean something and be a choice, because at the moment they are a non choice offering 0 to the player besides flavor. Which is the not the goal of 2e it seems.

So true. Looking at the prices and checking the benefits, they're simply terrible. And they could've been so much more. I wonder why they're just HP and hardness increases when the system barely interacts with item damage at all. There's no Sunder anymore, only Rogue's Sabotage, Corrosive runes and some creature's attacks, which all in all, are pretty rare occasions.

1 to 50 of 586 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>