Thunderbird

Lightning Raven's page

1,066 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,066 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:

Before the change dwarves had darkvision and elves had speed. Both are powerful worthwhile abilities. Cavern elves can get darkvision too, but this was offset by the elves' Constitution penalty.

Now that elves can completely ignore said penalty, elves are superior to dwarves in nearly every way. Why would anyone ever play a dwarf now? <[rhetorical question]

Who would have thought that Paizo would play favorites? ;P

I still think Dwarves' ancestry feat options are probably the best in the game as a whole. Other ancestries have really good ones (Natural Ambition, for example), but Dwarves are just too damn good overall. Elven feats are way weaker with some really terrible ones, imo.


Squiggit wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:


Murksight should apply to magical weather at the very least. And probably be available before level 8.

Honestly I think upsets me more than anything else that Murksight is just a straight downgrade over a similar druid feat that you can pick up seven levels earlier.

I know we shouldn't really be comparing classes 1:1 that much, but storm born vs murksight hurts.

Dubious Scholar wrote:


Bard is... probably a bad comparison. Dirge of Doom and Inspire Courage are, frankly, OP.

I sort of disagree. Bards are very strong, but at the same time the class exists and is not going anywhere. We just had a major CRB errata with no changes to the Bard, so Paizo is clearly happy with where they are.

Given that that's the standard that exists, it's the standard Witches will be inevitably compared to.

Bards aren't OP. They're the golden standard. That's a very different outlook.

They're rewarding to play and you feel like your support matters. That's how every other class should feel.


Lessons incorporated into Patron progression. More Lessons that fit each Patron Theme. If the 1-action niche is to constraining, I don't see why not move on to 2-actions+Sustain.

Patron-related Familiars. Only Witches get these. They work similarly to Eidolons.

Adding Feats such as: Recall Knowledge+Sustain a Spell, something Patron-Related, either a demand or a cry for help with some RP-related penalty attached. Witch-Specific Pact Feats, similar to Thaumaturge. Maybe even allowing it to share the same pool with them.

All the Nail Feats are removed, they become a Witch Class Archetype, that trades off some spellcasting and their familiar for proficiencies that allow a melee Witch to function (whether its armor proficiency and less reliance on INT or using INT to augment the Nail attacks).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nikolaus de'Shade wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
adam morin wrote:
Yes are group didn't have max in the weapon and armor department(I.E. +3 major stuffs)
Here's your problem (apart from writing walls of text): the game expects you to have +3 greater striking weapons and +3 greater resilient armor at that point. If you skip that, you're behind the curve big time.

For all that PF2 is much more balanced mechanically and tried very hard to do away with the Big 6, they actually made certain items (the runes) absolutely compulsory just to keep the maths on track.

Kinda ironic.

Not ironic. That's what the people playtesting the game wanted.

Lots of other people, including me, advocated for implementing Automatic Bonus Progression from the get go, however, the survey results showed that a lot of the testers wanted magic weapons that gave straight power. Whether the ever realized what that meant, or if they ever thought deeper about the issue or the only way to implement this in the game, I don't know. But here we are.

Ironic, to me, is that one of the main designers wanted Automatic Bonus Progression as well (Mark Seifter). This, at least, meant we got it really fast in the GMG.


SuperBidi wrote:

I disagree with what is said above.

The Alchemist is quite a versatile class, with potentials in a lot of areas. Also, even if it has support abilities, it brings a lot more on the table than just support.
And Ranger + Alchemist seems like a good combo (as long as the ranger is using Piercing or Slashing weapons to benefit from poison).

Obviously, the challenge of playing with 2 characters is tough. But that's because there are 2 characters not because there's an Alchemist among them.

So I think it's fine to play with an Alchemist in a party of 2. It's even quite a good idea considering the built in versatility of the class.

It is a versatile class, however, I don't think its versatility would be enough to meet the requirements of a tag team of adventurers. You need strong classes by themselves first and foremost, then you need synergy between them, this is accomplished by having a strong front-liner and a spellcaster that can bring both versatility and power. Nothing the alchemist does is something that can't be easily replicated, the thing it brings to the table is reliability and low monetary investment for that.

I would forego having +1 or an important check any day of the week if it meant my buddy lashing out with a powerful spell in a fight that can turn the tide. This only gets more prominent later on, when spells become quadratic while alchemical items remain linear and easier and easier to invest money in.

If GM is willing to dish out either more money or outright alchemical items as loot to compensate the lack of players, it just makes the Alchemist more obsolete, in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For a duo, you need one spellcaster and a melee. That's the first requirement. The Alchemist is neither a spellcaster, nor its items makes up good substitutes.

Then you need versatility from both classes. The Alchemist sorta shines on this aspect, even though their terrible action economy still remains a hindrance in tough situations.

In the end, you need synergy and autonomy. The alchemist fails spectacularly on this. It doesn't offer synergy, specially since any other duo can simply buy the items that would be helpful (you can do this by putting more alchemical items as loot or as an extra) and it certainly isn't a class that can hold on its own.

I think the best option for your player would be playing a druid with either the Alchemist Archetype or Herbalist Archetype. Even better if both players have Free Archetype available.

Alchemist will only work if the players are using Dual-Class characters. Then a Wizard/Alchemist will be a force to be reckoned with.


Gortle wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
If they end up doing neutral champions, I wonder what their reactions will be. Good champs punish enemies for targeting allies. Evil champs punish enemies for targeting them. Neutral could be something else entirely.

It will depend on their Cause and Tenets. Neutral can have a cause like pacifism, or balance, or self enlightenment, or opposition to the good/evil or law/chaos conflict, or just that they have another priority issue that is outside the typical dimensions of alignment. There are quite a few different ways of going with it.

They can focus more on buffing the target of the reaction, instead of retaliating against the aggressor.

Pacifism could enhance the defensive capabilities of the target (temporary HP, for example), Balance could either dish back some damage to the aggressor (or having something to do with trips/falling) and Self-Enlightenment could offer bonus to Will Saving Throws, new saves against mental effects and a +X to Hit for 1 round (clear mind for a better accuracy).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You're not losing anything by not using shields.

Just make your character and forget shield block. You're applying PF1e character-building mentality to PF2e, this won't wield the results you want. In fact, forget even your conception of what's good or what isn't from PF1e, it won't help you either.

My suggestion: Focus on making your character concept work, not your build.

In case you want to make a good attacking build that's borderline broken, here it is: Take a Giant Instinct Barbarian and multiclass into a Dual-Weapon Archetype for Double Slice. If you want to go extra munchking, just pick Adopted Ancestry to use two Gnome Flickmaces (1d8 with Reach). There you go.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

All errata that change the game for the better are welcome in my book.

Honestly, I think Paizo doesn't do nearly enough. We're living in the 21st century, my friend. We don't need to hold to the same principles of early TTRPG and its constraints. With so many things being online, having errata correcting stuff without the need for reprints is great. I don't really care if books become "Obsolete", as long as the game itself is improved by the new errata.

It's doesn't cost a thing to check it out. Having it freely available and easily accessible certainly cuts down on any excuses for it being a good thing.

The best of all? These rules changes don't need to be implemented in your game at all, unlike it would be for a videogame's patch notes.


Chiming in a bit later:

I would love to see a proper Ninja/Shinobi/Infiltrator. Something uncoupled from the Rogue and without the Monk framework like it was implemented in PF1e.

I think the theme of the class is fairly narrow, but when you look at the variety of Ninja across media and its real counterpart, you actually have some variety here that would share the same kind of divergent paths of a Swashbuckler.

Off the top of my head I think three build types would already make it class-worthy. The melee-combat type focused on damage with their unique weapons; the Ninpou user which would require a lot of interesting Focus Spells that used elemental techniques and weird stuff (Cloning, Substitution/kawarimi, Shadow-hopping and/or blending, etc), probably even dealing with Seals and Scrolls as well; The Shuriken/Kunai/ Bomb thrower that would enable a thrown build that doesn't rely on the Returning Rune and that would throw this stuff at quantity and with special effects or outright magical projectiles.

Of course, regardless of which path you choose, the class would be highly focused on Stealth and Impersonation, with class feats expanding them towards poison/alchemy, summoning stuff (this one I'm stealing from Naruto, the anime is absolute garbage but summoning is cool as hell), special benefits to Stealth, high mobility and any kind of special mechanics the class might have (Stealing some of the monk's "wire-fu" abilities would be cool as well).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
You're correct on pretty much everything except for this being a hot take.
Well... Also having a character AND a build is very possible in PF2e.

This has pretty much been the foundation of my character building since my very first one. I never let my builds overpower my character-creation, but I have always tried to make the best character possible within my concept, which is what makes PF2e so attractive to me. Not only I can pick what I find interesting, but it will also be something that adds to my character rather than something that will ruin it or, more likely, gimp it because I'm not picking the same old choices like before (power attack variants, weapon proficiency, etc).


Ed Reppert wrote:
Hm. I noticed today that Nonat1s published, a few months apart, two YouTube videos on the alchemist: the first said essentially "alchemists suck!" and the second one said "alchemist is the best class ever!" I wonder what changed his mind. :-) He has told me (not on this particular subject) that he reserves the right to change his mind about anything at any time. :-)

He probably read more about the class and alchemical items and reached that conclusion.

For me it was the opposite. The more I read and understood it, less enthusiastic about it I became. Then I saw it in play, on an AP that should've enabled it to shine no less, and it just became a disappointment. There wasn't a single fight in the entire 11 levels we ran that the Alchemist felt justified, let alone pivotal, to our success. Quite the contrary, there was a battle the player was very frustrated and just bailed, the remaining three characters (Monk, Range and Necro Wizard) finished the battle despite being wounded (roughly 50%~60% HP) against two hurt strong enemies (Alchemy Golems) and three healthy mooks.


Dream Scenario:

Overhaul of Research Fields, with more drawbacks and boons, each field offers something that gives it a unique style. Bombers get Quick Draw for Bombs, can throw them farther on top of adding INT to Splash; Mutagenists can make a Strike after drinking a potion and they delay mutagen penalties for 1 round; Chirurgeons gain a special feature that allows them to craft Elixirs as single target Bombs with Advanced or Quick Alchemy, Toxicologists can apply poisons swiftly and gracefully, they apply poison and can Stride or Step (Alternative Benefit: Feint. Might be a feat).

The trade off? You have less "generalist" reagents (any items can be crafted with these), the rest are specialized reagents, reaching the current implemented maximum number of reagents.

Feats and stuffs added:

Bouncy Elixirs (Bounce them off walls/characters to alter trajectory), Airborne Salve (Elixirs heal everyone in the splash for half the target's damage), Airborne Threat (Converts injury poisons in toxic gases, only affects damaged enemies and those with bleed get a penalty), High Toxicity Tolerance (If you're under the effects of mutagens, you rolls take the better result against poisons and diseases), Mutagen feats that grants feats from martial classes. Homunculi as Alchemist-only "Animal" companions full of crazy powers that are as strong as Druid Companions.

Items that I hope make an appearance: Summoning jars that let you throw monstrosities at people, oozes and plants. Poisons that hurt you but give great enhancements (imagine fighting off death in favor of an insane buff such as +2 to hit and +4 or more to damage?). Items that when thrown cause quick mutations (offensive and defensive stuff), such as growing gills that filter harmful stuff, skin that can withstand heat. Acid that don't deal damage but destroys certain kinds of materials. And more that I don't have time to type.


Squiggit wrote:
I just can't help but feel like an archetype would just kinda suck. Archetypes are never good at shaping your whole character direction. It's impossible to fit all the stuff people want into anything as small as an archetype.

Just to clarify, I did meant Class Archetypes. They are more impactful than others. As such, they would be, in my vision at least, more specific to Clerics and Investigators. Depending on the implementation, it could change either class dramatically. Clerics with better combat and interrogation skills and Investigators with access to divine-related abilities (Detect Alignment, for example).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What do I want out of an Inquisitor in 2e?

That they are implemented in the form of a class archetype for Investigators or Clerics, maybe even both. Granting access to Divine stuff for Investigators and enhancing the cleric's combat and interrogation skills.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:


Initially I was shying away from the idea of direct blast-buffing feats, but it's not like they're unprecedented. Alchemist has a bunch of feats that buff bomb-throwing, and there's plenty of other math feats out there.

The alchemist is really not the best example we have of well designed class. Specially when you take one of its main issues and use it as an example of what to do with a Kineticist.

I think a good way to improve blasts is to tie it to the number of elemental gates you have. This could increase the attractiveness of single-gate Kineticists and can be controlled by granting a specific benefit. It also balances out the fact they trade the versatility of manipulating several elements (the current clearly best way of play a Kineticist).

Can we just not bring up the worst class, at all? The Kineticist doesn't deserves that and we definitely do not need yet another class designed like the Alchemist was.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What's happening!?


Errenor wrote:
manbearscientist wrote:
even a creature with Acrobatics will have a hard time making 3+ saves
Reflex save against fixed DC15? Easily autosuccess from level 7.

They will still be flat-footed, without saves. And depending on the number of attacks/saves (Bosses, for example), they would be forced to roll several times in a single round. A lucky Nat 1 might be good.

However, the fixed DC 15 is weird as hell. It should definitely scale, even if it remains well below average. For example, I good scale would be following your character's Class DC proficiency, trained 15, Expert 20, Master 30.

Given that 56% of current creatures have Acrobatics, the higher DC might not be something insanely strong, for example, if the vast majority of creatures didn't have acrobatics, thus virtually no chance of saving at higher DCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Slippery Sleet seems pretty strong from the Water Element. Uneven Ground is incredibly powerful, even if short lasting, given the potential to waste a lot of the enemy's actions, on top of being difficult terrain and being in a large area, specially at 6th level. It seems more like a PF1e battlefield control ability than PF2e.


Personally, I think they should go "Bang for Buck" on this one. Often my complaints are about poor action economy in classes and lack of mechanically varied, interesting and flavorful feats, which we can say with certainty that the Kineticist is not lacking at all.

I think the Kineticist could do with these clunky 3+1 action costs, as long as the pay off is great.

Personally, I've seen one ability flying under the radar, which is a 6th level feat of Water called Slippery Sleet, which deals damage, creates difficult terrain and Uneven Ground. That s#&$ is NASTY, which by the way is a 20ft burst out the gate. It honestly should stay as it is but moved to higher levels while dealing more damage in compensation. Not every character has Acrobatics and a DC 15 will be failed by those without it. This can screw over bulky Extreme Threats with low dex and no acrobatics.

A while ago I said I would pay a 5th-6th level spell slot for a spell that created uneven terrain in a large area and nothing but that. Seeing this stacked almost at-will ability made my eyes pop.This one is DEFINITELY worth the 3+1 action cost even with its 1-round duration.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Doesn't matter if you can do it all day if it basically tickles.
more or less this, actions are a resource too, and if you are spending too many actions for too little effect it doesnt matter if you dont have to spend anything else

Action is the biggest resource there is. Playstyles that rely on "lasting all day" by sacrificing power and impact rarely ever work if they are not martial classes (who get the numbers to compensate and occupy a different niche altogether).

The fact of the matter is that as long as TTRPGs last a short number of rounds and parties will, far more often than not, stop once they're low on important resources, A.K.A. spell slots, then the added benefit of doing it all day becomes meaningless.

Damage over time effects, long ramp ups, sustained resources and similar styles that sacrifice burst power for a "longer" adventuring day are things for other kinds of games that can afford longer running battles (like computer games such as Pillars of Eternity, Divinity Original Sin, etc).

Want the best example? Just look at the myriad of Alchemist threads that are almost monthly by now.


Temperans wrote:

Restricting armor usage to only 3 elements is quite literally the worst.

Just because you cannot imagine a fire kineticist in medium armor does not mean it should not be an option.

My point is that going with heavier armor seems like a good direction for an opt-in playstyle instead of just giving the class better armor proficiency all around and basically making every Kineticist that wants good armor bonuses to inevitably go with heavier armor, which may not fit their intended theme and flavor.

Having heavier armor as opt in gives players the best of both worlds. Also, if you wanted to use fire and wear heavy armor, you could simple choose Dual or Universal Gate, no big deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Instead of giving it more armor, why not go in the other direction and design it like the Monks?

Leave the heavily armored playstyle for specific builds (Metal and Earth, maybe even with Wood) and give the class better Unarmored Proficiency or give it special elemental armors based on their class choices. For example, enhancing whatever armor they wear with their elements, thus allowing the change from Dex to Con for their armor (while elements that encourage Dex-playstyles gained another benefit).

It seems like light/unarmored defense is the way to go in terms of flavor.

Elements already look like Stances (although you have more incentive to switch, unlike Monks), I don't think borrowing more from them would be bad for the Kineticist.


Quote:
For example, while fighting upon a sailing ship, could you run off the plank, sprint across the water, and attempt to board an enemy ship nearby by running into a hole caused by battle damage?

I would follow the Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon rules. This is way too cool for me to be splitting hairs.


This probably the curse where they easily went way too overboard with the penalties and didn't give nowhere near enough benefits to compensate.

Slowed 1? That's huge on a spellcaster.

This Revelation is the only one I would consider a hard pass and that's not even a difficult consideration.

This has been filled in my "missed opportunity" category of class features. I would even accept the heavy penalties if the benefits were crazier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just randomly chiming in with my unsolicited opinion:

To me, I rate classes based on how good they are at successfully realizing multiple concepts, the breadth of their options and if they offer mechanically impactful and distinct options. They also need to be good at what the player wants out of it, given reasonable expectations, of course, I'm not saying that Barbs should be amazing skill-monkeys and Investigator masters of single target damage.

That's why to me the best classes are Fighters and Rogues because of their terrible game-wise niches of "best combatant" and "best skill-monkey", which gives them stacked base chassis and a wide variety of options with more options than the average class (Rogues being one of the very few to get actual new class options).

That criteria is the reason why I consider Alchemists and Witches the bottom. They have bad chassis and their options are often limited that do not allow for meaningful customization and they also happen to have few choices to make that have little to no impact on how the character plays. They also don't have something unique as their core identity like other classes, which cements them as easily the worst, even though they aren't mechanically broken. In the case of Witches, they at least are spellcasters, which means that the scale quite well into the late game, while Alchemists' flavor remain the same but their proficiency starts to lag.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

I would like to point out that if stunned does not remove actions or reactions then it could had just been slowed from the start and save a lot of page space. Here is what I mean:

Stunned rewriten to also be slowed wrote:

If you are affected by stunned/slowed X, at the start of each turn you remove actions up to X and decrease the value of X by the same amount. If the value of X becomes 0 the condition ends.

If a duration is added, for example Stunned X for Y rounds, you lose up to X actions until the duration Y ends at which point the condition ends.

Slowed 1 for 1 round is covered by my rewrite.

Stunned 1 is covered by my rewrite.
Slowed X for Y rounds is covered by my rewrite.
Stunned X is covered by my rewrite.

Petrified is then just "you are stunned/slowed 3 until the petrified condition is removed". Paralyzed is still fine since that one doesn't remove your actions, just says you can only use "mental" actions.

**********************

So either stunned does something more than just remove a few actions and is overall a worse slow. Or the devs messed up and wrote nonsense rules for some reason (it happens this is why errata and FAQ exists).

Basically the point I'm trying to make. I personally don't even understand people are holding on so hard against this idea. Stunned is tied to Incapacitation for a reason and it certainly not because it's supposed to be a worse slow. It's short lasting but it wrecks you. While slow is easier to land and lasts longer.

Getting stunned on your turn sucks. We get it. Don't let it happen or you'll regret it. Moving on!


Ascalaphus wrote:

So about the claims that Stunned has to do all this other stuff otherwise it wouldn't be sufficiently different from Slowed.

That would only really apply if you were slowed for a very short duration, like 1 round. Slowed 1 for 1 round, and Stunned 1, is basically the same. Like how the effect of Sickened 1 and Frightened 1 is mostly the same too - the difference in both cases is how the condition ends.

Slowed ends after the duration of the slowing effect expires. Stunned X expires when you've lost X actions.

Becoming Slowed X for 1 round is kinda unusual. The most common reason would probably be successfully saving against the Slow spell. Which means it's a broken effect, not the normal effect but a better than nothing consolation effect prize for the caster who couldn't quite make the spell stick. Why are you then Slowed 1 for 1 round instead of Stunnned 1? Well, why not? It's just simpler for both success and failure to use the same condition.

But the normal run of Slowed is that you're Slowed X for multiple rounds. Each round you lose some, but not all, of your actions; and next round it happens again.

Stunned X on the other hand, is a condition that tries to resolve as fast as possible. If you were Stunned 5, you'd lose 3 actions on the first round and 2 on the second and then the condition would be paid off. You can't do that with Slowed. You'd have to be slowed 3 to lose all actions in the first round, but then you would also lose 3 in the second round. You can't replicate the run of all stunned situations with slowed.

Also, Slowed tends to have lower values; becoming more than Slowed 1 is rare, but it tends to last for multiple rounds. Higher versions of Slowed are typically used to simulate becoming more and more petrified.

Stunned on the other hand does go over 1 more commonly; critical failure against Stunning Fist causes Stunned 3. That's a hard hit, but it runs its course in a single round, while failing against a Slow effect tends to last multiple rounds.

---

TL;DR -...

Funny you mention Frightened and Sickened when they actually work differently, despite having the same debuff effect. You can't drink potions and you need to "retch" to get hid of Sickened, while Frightened is easier to apply and more frequent, at the cost of being short lasting. This makes both conditions very different. The same way that Stun calls out the target as "Senseless and Can't Act", while slowed just costs actions.

Here's a question. Assuming a normal situation. You stun someone. Then during the course of the Round, how the enemy behaves for you guys? They can use reactions?

If the answer is no (as it should), then what's the difference between said enemy being Stunned in the attacker's turn and in their own turn?

In the first stance, the target being stunned on the attacker's turn, the stun would have an instant effect, like the name implies and what he condition supposedly simulates. You hit someone hard enough that they get completely disoriented for a short amount of time (like a boxer, that gets groggy but still standing).

On the second stance, the target being stunned on their own turn, being Stunned would have a significantly delaying effect, the character would be able to perform any kind of task despite being "Stunned" already. Imagine a completely disoriented Wizard casting complex spells and then suddenly after an arbitrary mechanic called "end of turn" the Stun immediately takes effect. It seems a bit weird, doesn't it?

To me, this situation is rare enough and controllable enough that it warrants this kind of benefit. If it was easy to apply with little to no cost, then I would be more inclined to think that it was too powerful.


Onkonk wrote:

I'm not sure why people are going "if Stunned doesn't remove an entire turn it is completely useless".

Removing reactions is incredibly powerful in this system, also the vast majority of sources of Stunned (including those with Incapacitation) are also impossible to inflict on someone else's turn so that clearly cannot be the balancing point for the condition.

Because if it works like exactly like Slow, as your interpretation suggests, then it's a redundant rule, which is an waste of printing space.

There's zero logical reason for Stunned and Slowed work exactly the same, but with one being a straight downgrade in applicability, availability and duration.

Logically, Stunned is treated as a worse condition for a reason, that's why it often is an Incapacitation Effect, doesn't last 1 minute like some slowed effects and is harder to come by.


Guntermench wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:


The RAW is nonsense for both interpretations, but I really cannot fathom that the RAI is that gaining stunned 1 during your turn is supposed to end it given the problems it causes and the way the writer of the CRB seems to think it works.

Regardless of the finicky situation between the loop of "You Can't Act" and you not being able to gain actions because of it, I think Stunned is supposed to work like that. If it's not, then it's a useless condition because it works like Slowed. Except is worse in every single way existent in the game.

People are also blowing way out of proportion the situation of someone being stunned mid turn. It's most likely rare, it's gated behind several conditions (critical hits, both attacks landing, Incapacitation, etc) and it also features a heavy cost (Two actions plus a reaction, at least).

Looking at the sole effect it may seem out of line, but when you factor in the action costs and circumstances aligning, it actually seems reasonable.

As for the Violent Unleash at hand, it's obvious the cost is just 1 action and done. I mean, come on, even if the wording isn't perfect and left dubious holes in its mechanics, applying some reasonable thinking would quickly sidestep situation.

Which is more likely an ability that costs one action (and is balanced as such) despite its obtuse implementation or something that is balanced as a one-action activity but because of some corner case of the rules the player loses their turn? One answer is the correct one and the other warrants a slap on the face.

The only place it becomes problematic is with Power Word Stun, because that's guaranteed to end a bosses turn. But if your players are the type to cheese this and you disagree with it, it's Uncommon. Just don't give them the spell.

Otherwise I entirely agree with you. Stunned prevents you from doing anything until you lose the condition. If anything the issue is the sentence that you don't regain actions if you...

Power Word Stun is definitely a powerful option. However, as I also stated, when we look at one side of the equation, it's certainly looks really powerful, but when we consider it's an 8th level slot and it can only be done once per target, with a two-action cost attached and since it's a spell, there's all kinds of interactions with it (Reactions that disrupt spells, random abilities that bosses might have to prevent this, Counterspell, etc), then it seems like good example of how spellcasting still scales well into the late game. The good thing is that the GM might also control its power by ruling on how the trigger will work to prevent complete shut downs of the Boss' turn (you can allow only perceived actions as the trigger, which gives the boss the chance to at least spend one action).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Djinn71 wrote:


The RAW is nonsense for both interpretations, but I really cannot fathom that the RAI is that gaining stunned 1 during your turn is supposed to end it given the problems it causes and the way the writer of the CRB seems to think it works.

Regardless of the finicky situation between the loop of "You Can't Act" and you not being able to gain actions because of it, I think Stunned is supposed to work like I'm saying. If it's not, then it's a useless condition because it works just like Slowed. Except it's worse in every single way existent in the game. It's basically a waste of space.

People are also blowing way out of proportion the situation of someone being stunned mid turn. It's most likely rare, it's gated behind several conditions (critical hits, both attacks landing, Incapacitation, etc) and it also features a heavy cost (Two actions plus a reaction, at least).

Looking at the sole effect it may seem out of line, but when you factor in the action costs and circumstances aligning, it actually seems reasonable.

As for the Violent Unleash at hand, it's obvious the cost is just 1 action and done. I mean, come on, even if the wording isn't perfect and left dubious holes in its mechanics, applying some reasonable thinking would quickly sidestep situation.

Which is more likely an ability that costs one action (and is balanced as such) despite its obtuse implementation or something that is balanced as a one-action activity but because of some corner case of the rules the player loses their turn? One answer is the correct one and the other warrants a slap on the face.


Given how rare Stun happens and how short it lasts (the vast majority of instances are of Stunned 1), makes me think that it does indeed makes your character unable to act at all (including being completely senseless). You were, after all, stunned by the effect even if for a short period of time.

Otherwise, Stunned would be a harder to apply, shorter span Slow that, on top of it all, is tied to Incapacitation effects.

In short, if you stun someone mid turn, they lose their remaining actions, regardless of how many there are. On their next turn they recover themselves and can't function. Otherwise, Stun has no reason to exist in the game at all and it certainly doesn't need to have a lot more restrictions and balancing factors as the Slowed condition.

If you run Stunned in any other way at your table, you might as well remove the condition entirely.


Lightning Raven wrote:

1. I think that you either declare to be targeting a Darkness' spell source or area (for example, with Searing Light).

2. Here's where tags come in handy. Spells with the [Light] tag will have this property.

3. Since often times Darkness Effects are generated by spells or spell-like effects (with limited range and area) then the whole thing. However, it wouldn't be weird, at my table at least, for me to rule only the surrounding/line/point of light to clear up the darkness in a fully dark place (caused by whatever the dungeon demanded).

4. It's not the casting itself, but the effect of the magic. For example, you cast Light at a stone and chuck it in a globe of Darkness, once the Light's AOE overlaps with the Darkness' AOE, the Counteract check happens and whatever the results are (Light is engulfed by a stronger darkness, or Light dispels darkness).

That's how I rule things, at least.

According to what YuriP has posted, then number 4 above is wrong. You would need to cast the Light cantrip itself on a possible source of Darkness (assuming it was a valid target for the Light cantrip).


YuriP wrote:

This video may help to understand how it's work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdCysHTI-JQ

Great to know. I thought we could just use the Light Spell after the Darkness so that you could try to dispel it (basically a test to see if the Light or Darkness was "stronger").


Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
I personally am very apprehensive with allowing a cantrip to counter a non-cantrip spell.

This is a property of the [Light] Trait, not of a specific spell, here: https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=100

You can, however, ignore any rules that you want. But it's good to know that's how the system is set up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. I think that you either declare to be targeting a Darkness' spell source or area (for example, with Searing Light).

2. Here's where tags come in handy. Spells with the [Light] tag will have this property.

3. Since often times Darkness Effects are generated by spells or spell-like effects (with limited range and area) then the whole thing. However, it wouldn't be weird, at my table at least, for me to rule only the surrounding/line/point of light to clear up the darkness in a fully dark place (caused by whatever the dungeon demanded).

4. It's not the casting itself, but the effect of the magic. For example, you cast Light at a stone and chuck it in a globe of Darkness, once the Light's AOE overlaps with the Darkness' AOE, the Counteract check happens and whatever the results are (Light is engulfed by a stronger darkness, or Light dispels darkness).

That's how I rule things, at least.


There as been a paradigm shift between the previous edition (and other d20 systems) and Pathfinder 2e, this has had a direct impact in the spell design. This means that while these spells still exist, they are more limited.

Off the top of my head I can only think of Knock, but I'm sure there are more.

There are, however, other ways of having a lot of skills to cover all your bases, since with the reduction of skill and some classes that gain a lot of them, you can actually be trained in every single skill if you're a Rogue with lots of intelligence, for example (Investigators also can have quite a lot).

A good thing about PF2e is that you don't need to be a particular class in order to be a ritualist, so you can pick any flavor of class you want and advance your character in the Ritualist Archetype


Megistone wrote:
jimthegray wrote:
the numbers are pretty close to linear by level unless the dm chooses it not to be
No... if they were linear, then if a level 1 Fighter can take on a single orc warrior, a level 10 Fighter can take on 10 orc warriors with the same risk. We know it's not true, as the level 10 Fighter will mow down twice that number of orcs while getting no more than a couple scratches. The power increase is not linear.

Absolutely agree with you Megistone.

Even if the characters didn't gain a single feat that would be the case. But when you factor in the huge amount of feats and choices a high level character has, then they're exponentially stronger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
My opinion from my experiences, speaking more for the people I play with than myself, is that the game should have been easier by default. It makes more sense in my mind than to get the gm to adjust things to make them easier, as the gm might also be new to the system or just not dig enough to find the advice to lower enemy levels. A huge amount of people don't go on forums or Reddit and ask for advice.

I'm thinking you are talking more about the published adventures than the game rules.

I have no problems with the idea that a CR= enemy is the baseline for a tough enemy. If you go higher than that, it means that this enemy is going to be really challenging. If you want easier combat, use enemies that are lower than that. This is also what the encounter building guidelines in the rulebooks recommend too.

It makes sense. No reading of Reddit required.

The published modules, especially the earliest ones, are known to have been tuned a bit high.

If a new PF2e GM is doing a homebrewed adventure, more likely than not they will mainly use moderate encounters against the party, which definitely allows everyone to shine. But that's, of course, assuming the GM is being prudent and following the guidelines, instead of assuming they either know better and want to challenge their players (thus doing harder encounters as baseline) or they are veteran GM's trying to apply their previous knowledge to this new system, which is most likely the main driving factor behind posts with titles such as"is Pf2e too hard?", when they are thinking PF2e's system can't be trusted like D&D5e and PF1e (most common previous systems for new PF2e players).


Gortle wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

...

Which is OK.
But people keep telling us it is Ok if you don't have an 18 in your attack stat etc
What do the odds look like for them?

Because dice variance is a thing, because these numbers are assuming a very specific situation, because the trade-off has its own benefits (often can't be quantifiable) and because you and your party should be working to stack the math in your favor. Also, there's a good chunk of levels when 16 and 18 characters will be at the same +X bonuses.

You're looking at a small part of what comprises combat in PF2e and making assumptions on a sliver of data.

There are so many, many ways that trading off your 18 for a 16 on your main stat can benefit your character in other ways, from avoiding death altogether (DEX or CON) to completely avoiding combats (extra language, crucial skill, etc).

An extra +1 in CHAR instead of your main stat, for example, may give you better odds of feinting/intimidating which nets a benefit to you (compensating your 16) AND to your party.

In short, it's a trade-off you make, PF2e's design made so that it warrants consideration. It's up to you to evaluate it's worth it or not.


SuperBidi wrote:
Temperans wrote:

People expect specialists to be better than regular people. Not just have a 50/50 chance. It doesn't matter if its a team game or not, you either have a unique ability or your have a higher accuracy. Its the same with d6 games, its the same with board games, its the same with tactics games, its the same in video games.

This edition is the first time I hear that specialist should have a 50% chance to fail on something that should be basic. Fighter reaching 80% under ver specific circumstances is the only exception in the game, and its only because they straight up start with a 10% higher chance than everyone else.

But as I've shown, they are at 60% chance to succeed, not 50%. And that's without any kind of buff, which are not uncommon.

Then you add in Flanking and a +1 to hit from spell/ability and you already have a big swing in your favor, since both of these are easy to achieve most of the time. Bless and Bards, early Magic Weapon (probably the best spell of the game at the interval where it's most useful, then it's completely useless).


keftiu wrote:
The underwhelming design of Patrons and the emphasis on (pretty disappointing) Familiars have both put Witch at the bottom of the heap for me. I’m not sure there’s a class I want to play less, and it’s a shame, because the class fantasy of being bound to some otherworldly power is awesome… but the class mechanics feel like “off-brand Wizard.”

It's on the bottom of my spellcaster priority list for sure, but the Alchemist still sits comfortably on the "i won't touch it even with a 10ft pole" category. Witche's base chassis can be as bad as it can be, but it's still a spellcaster that only gets more powerful with levels.


breithauptclan wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Even the Fighter and Monks have mutually exclusive paths that make each build feel unique even though they're the pathless classes.

Which parts are mutually exclusive? Fighter's weapon type choice is all that I can think of. Not sure which part of Monk is mutually exclusive though.

Charon Onozuka wrote:
They also really hyped up the idea of Wiches having the best familiars - which I don't think is what many were expecting/hoping from the class
And if that was what the point was, they failed at it. Wizard with Familiar Thesis is just as powerful. Familiar Master gives a strictly more powerful familiar since there are unique abilities that you can get from feats from that archetype. Even Druid has Leshy Familiar Secrets that unlocks unique familiar abilities and is therefore more powerful than the Witch familiar.

It's, of course, not a hard-coded thing, but you'll be actively gimping yourself if you try to pick more than one style early on. Some of them even completely define your stat spread (Mountain Stance). The same goes for weapons of choice for Fighters. There are many feats that work with various weapons, but some of them are not even though they don't explicitly say (the reposition feats, for example, are more useful for reach weapons).

What I'm trying to say that even though Monk and Fighters (or Bards) don't have Class-Paths baked into the class, they actually offer pretty distinct experiences with just their feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Even the Fighter and Monks have mutually exclusive paths that make each build feel unique even though they're the pathless classes. Each Monk Style have more flavor attached to them than all the patrons. They completely inform the kind of character you want to play despite just being level 1 feats.

I don't see why Witches couldn't get a inherent Patron benefit and a cantrip to go with it. Just the cantrip feels lackluster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thaumaturges have better Witch Patrons than Witches and it grinds my gears.

The Dark Archive can't come soon enough and hopefully we get some pact feats available to everyone (not just Thaumaturges) so that I can finally have the kind of patron/witch dynamic that I want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's this some PF2e Standard thing that I'm too Automatic Bonus Progression to understand?


Errenor wrote:
Ezekieru wrote:
I know a fair number of people who only need to take 5-10 minutes to build out a character nowadays.
Build a character and make a character are different things. I too can build a character in 20 minutes, but making a character still takes several hours. Even though I'm not a hardcore roleplayer at all.

My standard process is basically:

If I have a good idea I make a build for it and add in bits of information that can help me create the character later. Basically, I build the framework of the character and have it ready, so when I need to use it I create a fitting backstory and add some layers. A build with a fully realized concept is roughly only 50% of my characters.


My rule of thumb, if I would want todo that:

Against many monsters I would remove one creature or more. Against a single or a couple of monsters I would apply the weak template to one creature. In the case of a duo, one of them would be weaker, this can even open up some visual queue descriptors to nudge the party into attacking the weakest and make the fight easier.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sandal Fury wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:

Frightened is a penalty to

Saves
Skill checks
AC
Attack rolls
Special power DC's
Spell DC.

Basically anything that you roll or that is derived from something you roll.

So...

AC

is a DC

Huh.

Against mooks grapple is great because it prevents them from running away/targeting the back line, so you can kill them faster with your superior numbers, while against stronger foes, trip is preferable, because they either burn an action or they remain flat-footed and with a -2 penalty on their attacks. Sickened is also valuable because it has an action cost and a DC attached to its removal (unlike Frightened, which goes down naturally at the end of the target's turn).

Assurance (Athletics) can be a great boon for martial characters when fighting mooks, because they can use it as their "last" attack action (which would incur -10MAP) and get rid of all their penalties (and bonuses), which means that against lower level enemies you can trip/grapple/shove them automatically (hit them with your full bonus then -5 MAP, and finish it off by instead of a -10MAP attack you use assurance and apply only your Level+proficiency bonus).

Another tip: AID sucks at early levels, but there will be a time when you'll critically succeed quite easily, turning it from a +1 to a +2/+3 bonus to an attack roll. The action economy cost is high (one action+reaction), but for certain character and situations it's well worth it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sandal Fury wrote:
On a related note, though, dumb question: When Frightened mentions a penalty to checks, that doesn't include attacks, right? My knowledge of 1e says no, but I've learned that 2e is very much not 1e, and similar terms don't carry over.

That's exactly right. Frightened and sickened apply to all checks and DCs (including Attack Rolls, Maneuvers, AC and Spell DCs). Other debuffs are more specific, though.

Frightened also combos with several feats in the game (Dread Striker). If you're flanking and then you apply Frightened 1 on the enemy, you're applying a -3 AC penalty, this means higher chance to hit and crit. If your teammates are aiding you or giving you a buff (Magic Weapon, Inspire Courage, Bless, etc), that's a 4 point swing in your favor.

Against stronger enemies, the chance is slower, but they will be fewer in numbers, which means their actions are more valuable than yours, so spending your round trying to trip/grapple/Demoralize them may be preferable than just attacking once or twice. The numerical bonuses are in their favor, but the action economy is in yours, so failing something is expected against them, but at the same time every little bit helps (if they succeed against a Fear spell, they're still Frightened 1, which means everyone else going after the caster is going to have an easier time).

Of course, Dice rolls will always matter. Some sessions you roll high, others you roll low. That's why using Hero Points proactively is better than hoarding them to stabilize. Point out to your GM that the Gamemaster's Guide suggests giving out one hero point per hour of session. This is a good system to encourage spending and to get the party used to the hero points. It also significantly cuts down the bad morale that comes from subsequent terrible rolls when the players have a chance to shift the outcome.

1 to 50 of 1,066 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>