Jarl Ceszac

Link2000's page

***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Tacoma 474 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 34 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 474 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

If a GM accepts that argument, I could also see it as being a bit better.

I'm just a little sad. I might end up taking it for theme anyways, but probably never actually cast it as it has way too many flaws to justify the loss of the spell slot.

Thoughts on the spell?

Character Operations Manual wrote:


School transmutation
Casting Time 1 round
Range touch
Targets 1 bulk of inert electronic equipment; see text
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You turn the target into a robot that can guard you. This spell works like handy junkbot insofar as targeting parameters and your inability to target the same equipment after the spell ends. The junkbot you create is Tiny and appears in your space. A vigilant junkbot can take no actions. Instead, you instruct the junkbot to perform its melee protocol or ranged protocol. You can change the protocol telepathically as a move action. In its melee protocol, the junkbot attaches to you, granting you a +1 bonus to KAC for every 4 technomancer levels you have. In its ranged protocol, the vigilant junkbot hovers at strategic angles to cover you, granting you concealment against ranged attacks. Additionally, when you take damage from an attack that matches the protocol (melee or ranged), the junkbot takes the first 3 damage. Any additional damage passes to you. Enemies can target the junkbot instead of you. Its KAC and EAC are each 10 + your caster level, and it has Hit Points equal to one-quarter of your own (but no Stamina Points). The junkbot uses your saving throw bonuses, and it is a construct with the magical and technological subtypes.

I have a "junk" character and "squeed" when I read the description of this spell. I was suddenly filled with disappointment once I read the casting time and duration. Here are my thoughts:

I feel that this spell would be fantastic if one of three things happen:
1) The casting time becomes a standard action. If this happens, then it can be cast more reliably during combat. The ability to effectively "waste" a target's attack can be worth the spell slot.
2) The duration changes to at least 1min/level. It can now be used as a reliable pre-encounter buff, offsetting the long casting time and saving your character from a hit or two in an upcoming fight.
3) Making it so the junkbot cannot be targeted. As is, the junkbot easily has the lowest AC and HP between it and the caster, combined with the high attack and damage values of the average enemy at any given level, it is "doomed" to be destroyed. If the enemy at any point decides to attack your junkbot directly, consider the junkbot dead as the attack will likely hit and deal more than enough damage to destroy it.

If even one of these changes occurs, I think this spell would be a good addition to any "junk" character or meleemancer, but in its current shape, I think I'm going to avoid it. It takes too much time to create something too fragile that doesn't last long enough to see much benefit.

But maybe I'm not seeing something, so that's why I came here. What do you all think?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Metaphysician wrote:
thejeff wrote:

We may have different definitions of trap.

Losing a better fit for concept because they thought the stat bonus mattered is a trap to me.

If they are prioritizing single ability score points enough to mistakenly think theme makes a huge difference in power, than they were never going to pick to fit a character concept, in the first place. Or, a munchkin is not going to magically build for concept just because its explained that one particular munchkinism doesn't actually work. Thus, I feel no regret.

That's not necessarily true. When I talk to new players and explain ability scores to them and how they work, they catch on to that pretty quick. And maybe they at first want to be a priest, but they see that it gives a bonus to Wisdom. They think "I'm a soldier, so is putting this point into wisdom the best choice?"

Now, I would tell them, "Select the priest if you want it, the point doesn't matter." Followed by explaining why the point doesn't matter. But I know that I am not the only person introducing people to the game, and some may not point that our to their players.

Their concern is rarely "I want the best stat." It's often "I don't want to be a hindrance to the group." Both of these thought processes, however, lead to the same result of over-valuing that one point.

That mindset you have would work with experienced players, but I would dread sending a new player to your table when you belive they are prioritizing for no reason other than "munchkinism".

Dracomicron wrote:

You have a point, for sure, but it leads into what I was discussing earlier...

The next step would be removing ability scores altogether, and I'm not sure if Paizo is ready for that. Once you've eliminated all reason to have odd numbers, you shouldn't have the ability to have odd numbers. Just go with bonuses instead.

I don't think the "2-number ability scores" will go away entirely, it would definitely need some sort of replacement. Modifiers provide a "small number" to utilize for many aspects of the game, but the score itself provides a "large number" for aspects of the game where small numbers don't cut it such as holding breath, carrying limits, etc.

2nd Edition removed odd numbers from the character creation process and they still definitely use the "2-number ability score system" for those very reasons.

Hmm wrote:

My feeling is this: so long as the bonus stays only at +1, all themes are open to all characters. I really love going with an unexpected theme as a character twist.

Aba Calling is a Priest Gadgeteer Operative who is a ship-to-ship salesperson for Abadar Corp. She has the Priest theme because she has quite innocently taken up Abadar as her faith. Her job is her religion. Does that +1 in wisdom do anything for her? Nope. But being a priest in addition to a salesperson is what really makes her character.

Because the +1 is so small, I can be more open about the themes that I choose, and not worry excessively about the optimization calculations.


And I am fine with themes being open to everyone, I love all of my characters as well regardless of their efficiency. I just think it would have been simpler to have just dropped the bonus altogether and had the rules be based purely on even-numbers as everything else seems to work off those even numbers (similar to 2E).

I feel that because they put a +1 there, it made things more complicated than it needed to be.

I have a group I'm GMing for and 2 of the players are brand spanking new to RPGs in general. When one showed me their character sheet, she had her Damaya Lashunta Envoy ability scores as: STR 10, DEX 10, CON 8, WIS 15, INT 15, CHA 15. It was really difficult explaining to her that although her stats were fine, that having three 15's hinder her more than help. She didn't understand how a 14 was just as good as a 15 in the vast majority of cases, and why she should turn one 15 into a 14 and one into a 16. After explaining how modifiers work, she eventually came back to me asking how to get rid of that "odd" point. I told her she can't, built into the system. I then gave her suggestions in putting it towards STR, DEX, WIS, or INT for meeting feat prerequisites, and showing her what those feats are.

Dracomicron wrote:

Most game rules are arbitrary. That's why they're game rules. Your own post says that the extra point DOES do something: You get a cheaper backpack or heavy armor with a stat bump.

Themes are flavor with minor stat benefits. As you say, "flare." Increasing them to a +2 pushes them into the "major stat benefit" category and suddenly you only have themes that benefit the character mechanically from the stat bump.

The reason the point does anything at all is that the rules forced it in by including random odd-numbered prerequisites.

They could have just as easily made the stat bonus nonexistent and had just had all the feats and things be based on even-numbered scores (12 or higher STR for Heavy Arms, for example). The cheap backpack still provides a +1 effective, as it raises max bulk regardless. The game would play exactly the same without saying "Hey! If you are an Icon you get +1 to your CHA that does NOTHING mechanically!" In terms of flavor, the rest of the theme gives plenty, a +1 is not needed.

The +1 feels clunky and makes you think that you are getting something when in reality, you gained nothing and the rules were built around that nothing, to make it seem like you gained something.

Just for clarity, I don't care if it gets bumped up to a +2 or not. I think it just shouldn't have been a +1 to begin with. Overall, I love Starfinder and have been (and will continue) playing it as is with no complaints. That doesn't mean I don't see something and ask myself "Why did they even bother with this?"

I don't mind the small bonuses at 1st, 6th, etc. They give lots of flare and helps give the character a little built-in background. I just think the ability point is forced arbitrarily. It just doesn't really do anything in the short or long term.

I almost always end up with 11 STR for any character that won't really need STR just because if I decide later in my character's career that I want a heavy arm, I can easily accomplish that. Or if I just want a cheaper backpack, that's now possible too. I don't need to pick a STR based theme for this, I just take the "extra" point that's floating around and putting it there.

I agree. Either the bonus should be +0 or +2, but +1 literally does and means nothing.

As is, I just build my characters with an "11 point buy" as my theme will likely boost a score that I invested in anyways. Though I suppose I might one day go for wanting to play the "dumbest scholar ever" or the like and my method would no longer work.

Then their example "you may wish to do this when an attack deals no damage due to resistance" makes no sense. But thanks for the replies all!

That's what I'm trying to figure out. The second part of the trait gives the example of maybe choosing to fail if you would deal no damage due to resistance, but typically I find out that I deal no damage AFTER I have had a successful attack, and I don't get to go back and say "Nevermind, I meant to do this instead."

For example:

I attack and it succeeds and I roll 10 slashing damage. The creature has slashing resistance 5 so I deal 5 damage.

My next attack will be an Exacting Strike, I attack at a -5 and manage to hit the creature, but only roll 5 damage. Due to the resistance, I deal no damage.

Is this when I can say "actually, because of Exacting Strike, my attack fails and my next attack will be at a -5 instead of a -10"? Or did I have to make the determination after knowing that my attack was a "success", but before damage is calculated?

Anyone with an opinion?

Does "applying the failure effect instead" on an action that succeeded mean that the action failed as well, or that I just get to tack on the "failure" effect of Exacting Strike.

The rest of the Press Trait reads:

Press (trait) wrote:
(For example, you may wish to do this when an attack deals no damage due to resistance.) Because a press action requires a multiple attack penalty, you can’t use one when it’s not your turn, even if you use the Ready activity.

If I assume that by taking a failure for the effect means that the "successful" action also fails, then when do I get to make the determination? After tallying up damage? Because that final part of the Press trait makes it sound like it.

Press (trait) wrote:
Actions with this trait allow you to follow up earlier attacks. An action with the press trait can be used only if you are currently affected by a multiple attack penalty. Some actions with the press trait also grant an effect on a failure. The effects that are added on a failure don’t apply on a critical failure. If your press action succeeds, you can choose to apply the failure effect instead.

I'm asking this in regards to the Fighter's "Exacting Strike".

I understand that if I "fail" my second attack (which would be an Exacting Strike), that my third attack would still be at a -5.

What I am wondering is referencing the last part of what I quoted. If I apply the failure effect on a successful attack, does that mean I fail the attack as well? Or does it possibly mean that I succeed the attack and get the effect of Exacting Strike as well?

Either way, I like the ability, just wanted to see if there is an additional perk to the obvious one.

Thanks Sara! Just was checking in to see if it was just me or not. I will continue to wait patiently!

I am unsure if it is just me or if it's "system-wide", but I have not received an e-ticket for PaizoCon even though I was approved for 5+ sessions and replied to the e-mail I received as instructed.

I normally wouldn't "freak out", as I'm a patient person, but now the event lottery is running and if I don't get an E-Ticket before it ends then I don't get to participate. Should I be worried? Or will I be okay before the lottery ends?

Thanks for the help!

Jeff Alvarez wrote:
Link2000 wrote:
We currently have a 5 month old, and he will have leveled up to a 10 month old when this convention rolls around. Will a badge be required for him?
Nope, you should be fine without a badge for him.

I would like to say thank you for your reply, and I apologize for not thanking you sooner! I honestly forgot I posted this...

Thank you so much for this information! The wife and I are super excited, and we are pretending that the little one will be as well!

We currently have a 5 month old, and he will have leveled up to a 10 month old when this convention rolls around. Will a badge be required for him?

I've had great fun with my Melee Mystic (Mind Breaker). Pumped up STR and WIS, will be upping those two as well as CON every Ability Boost interval. Got my first enhancer towards CON to thicken my skin and my feats at 5th level are:
Advanced Melee Proficiency
Versatile Weapon Spec
Extra Resolve

So far, I haven't made a character in Starfinder that I didn't enjoy! If you have a nifty idea, I'd say go for it!

4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Thanks for the official clarification! Much appreciated!

4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Thanks for the insight everyone! Until we get some more "official" word, the GM is just going to mark on our Chronicles that we have a missing eye, with the intent on hopefully everything being a little more clear in a week or two.

We will check up on this thread in case any updates occur.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

You sure?

If the wound effect gave "severed limb", would that also not be a condition?

I just want to be clear, because that's what brought all this on anyways when we searched through rules on how to get back an eye. People were saying that a lost limb would need a prosthetic, and a lost eye would just suck until you can buy "eyes". That was for non SFS play though.

I would greatly appreciate your version, I also just don't want to run into this in the future and have lots of variance.

Do you by chance have a section in the rulebook that I may reference?

4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

So in yesterday's session two of us received a critical hit from a weapon with the wound critical effect. We coincidentally both lost an eye. My character just hit level 2 and has effectively burned all credits on improving gear. The cheapest replacement "eyes" (dark vision capacitors) will take my weapon, armor, and the scenario reward. And the other player doesn't even have the option as he just doesn't have enough credits even after selling gear.

According to the Guide, all conditions with a mechanical effect have to be cleared by the end of the scenario or the character is effectively "dead". Since a lost eye imparts a -2 on perception, does this mean that the other player's character is dead? Does this mean that my character (a soldier) is running into the next scenario equipped with no weapons or armor?

How does this work? The GM is holding off on any final calls until we see what the community thinks on this. Seems strange that if we had lost a limb instead, this wouldn't be much of an issue as the scenario rewards could pay the 100 credits to buy a prosthetic, yet the same critical effect hitting an eye is now drawing problems.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RocMeAsmodeus wrote:

Conjectures! (possible spoiler alert)

** spoiler omitted **


** spoiler omitted **

3/4 Correct!

By the way, the puzzles were amazing this year, and there would have been no way for me or the wife to have solved the "secret puzzled" without Jason's and Joe's help.

I'm super excited that this has been made public!

I'd assume just about any grenade would do. Data recovery is quite difficult when you are just dealing with scrap. Would that change in a sci-fi setting? Who knows.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My Envoy in an AP is going for a computer to place into the Datajack he has installed in his head.

Tier 3 Computer (Total Cost = 2135 credits)
Complex Control (Shirren-Eye Rifle)
Average Secure Data (Stewards)
Artificial Personality
Miniaturization x4 (Negligible Bulk)
Range II (1 Mile)

He was eventually going to load it all up with some Library Chips as well to sort of act like a walking infosphere. He can control a Shirren-Eye rifle from up to a mile away with it as well. I thought it was all pretty cool.

"Handsome" Twik wrote:
Robert Gooding wrote:
Pantshaandshake has it, read the bold text you add your move and swift actions to its standard to hack as a full action, still allowing you to hack from a distance and use your standard action

This may be how you would rule it. (How I would likely rule it myself.) However, as Pantshaandshake pointed out. Starfinder does not have the "combining action types together" to make a full-action stated as a general rule. Instead, it allows for that when specifically called out as part of a specific class feature.

As such, as written, the cortex can only do a standard action itself... Unless you spend full-actions yourself, you can't hack the system. It DOES, however, allow the cortex to do actions once the system is hacked into. At which point you could combine your own standard actions to do the other Computers checks faster.

But based off what it says:

Wireless Hack wrote:

Wireless Hack (Ex) 5th Level

Instead of combat tracking, your exocortex can access another computer system within 20 feet, allowing it to attempt a Computers check against that computer each round, using your skill bonus. This counts as a standard action for the purpose of the Computers skill. You must remain within 20 feet of the computer system for the entire time your exocortex is interacting with the computer. If the task requires multiple actions (or even rounds) to accomplish, you can spend your actions to work in concert with your exocortex, counting both your action and the exocortex’s effective standard action toward the total time required. If you don’t have the remote hack class feature, you must be adjacent to the computer to attempt your checks.

It says you can spend your actions to work in concert with your exocortex. Meaning you can spend a Move and a Swift, and use the "Exocortex's effective standard action" toward the total time required.

And since the rule on how actions can work, you can trade your standard for a move or a swift. Or you can trade your move for a swift. So in the end, you have multiple combination of actions on how you can wirelessly hack using an exocortex.

My only "question" would be can you break down the duration of the full round per tier? For example:
Tier 3 Computer requires 3 Full Round Actions. Full Round Action is defined as "Standard+Move+Swift" Actions, so 3 Full Round Actions would be equal to: "Standard+Standard+Standard+Move+Move+Move+Swift+Swift+Swift" Actions

The exocortex can have one standard per round (which can be traded as a move or a swift, per rules on actions) to attempt a hack. If we gave it nine rounds, could it attempt to hack a Tier 3 computer? I currently don't think so, but I am curious if I could be pleasantly surprised.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Darrell Impey UK wrote:

Ignoring the fact that 30 firearm bullets would sell for 15 gp, whereas creating them will cost a 15 gp wand charge plus 2 gp worth of lead...

Money making schemes are pretty much a no-go in PFS; it's a day job roll, and that's about it.

Maybe he was thinking that he could buy a wand of Fabricate Bullets with Prestige? He would still be incorrect of course as that costs 850gp and not 750gp, but I know many players who forget that the material components can and will up the cost of a wand if applicable.

I would like to thank the GMs I had this weekend. I only know one's name, as he was staff, but they all were amazing!

To the gentleman that ran Oath of the Overwatched for our group Friday morning, thank you for completely destroying us! It was frustrating at the time, but looking back, I had a great time. Thank you for your time and dedication.

To the gentleman that ran Star Sugar Heartlove!!! at an ungodly hour of the morning Sunday, thank you for providing such a fun game! I got to play my character the way I had hoped, and I appreciate that!

And to Cosmo, me and the wife loved your railroad game! She is still talking about how much fun she had, and I cannot deny that I enjoyed our tables shenanigans just as much!

Thank you everyone!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I've finally got it! Thank you Joe and Jason for all the help both at the con and away! The wife and I enjoyed the puzzles immensely! We can't wait to see what's brewed up next year!

Down with Thrune!

Joe Pasini wrote:
Link2000 wrote:

I'm still scratching my head at this, I got an extra hint before I left, but I'm still not understanding

** spoiler omitted **

First off, congrats on making it this far! We made this super hidden and obscure; it's a wonder anyone found it (and attempted it once they did). In the spirit of keeping the thing more fun than frustrating, here are some guideposts based on the contents of your spoiler.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Thank you so much! I will hopefully be able to finish it using the first two of the three hints you gave me! I'll look at the third if I still feel stuck.

Thank you again! I'll definitely post back later!

Jason Keeley wrote:
Grim Ranger wrote:
Haladir wrote:

I am usually pretty good at puzzle-hunts. Heck, I have a Games magazine t-shirt from playing one back in the early aughts.

But I am really getting stumped by this one!

It's pretty difficult; I had to enlist help from my wife (who loves word games). And I had forgotten that there were more instructions and a final puzzle in the program book (just remembered that last night, and was able to finish it).

** spoiler omitted **


** spoiler omitted **

I'm still scratching my head at this, I got an extra hint before I left, but I'm still not understanding

Secret Puzzle Spoiler:
THE DIAMONDS! I was told that the poems reference paizo products (big hint, so I'm thankful as I would have never thought of it). Which I want to say references the adventure paths (pretty sure I got them all). I've then tried using the diamonds as hints. Like, each page has between 2-6 diamonds. The diamonds never land on the same "space" twice on the entire twenty one line.
I've tried seeing if maybe the number references a specific book of an AP (as 6 is the highest).
I've tried using it to count words, letters, and even noticed that the diamonds were the same shape as some of the cities in the booklet, and tried cross referencing that (might have been reading too much into it for that last one).
I feel like I'm missing something important.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

I've found the Alchemist to be a pretty flexible class overall. So a level dip (or a few levels) in another class shouldn't be too much of a problem. The only big downside is the loss of time on the mutagen. I've seen STR get pretty crazy with a barbarian (maybe bloodrager), alchemist, dragon disciple build once.

Although natural attacks are good, they are not necessary. If you'd prefer to swing a blade or a spear around, I'd say go for it. I was just mentioning that the Feral Mutagen is pretty common for mutagen based alchemists.

And those discoveries with Alchemical Allocation are great, especially if given time to pre-buff (potion of heroism anyone?). The biggest problem I had building alchemists is that they have so many good discoveries. There really is no "bad" way to build an alchemist, in my opinion, unless you intentionally do so.

I think that as long as you have a concept in mind, you're going to have a great time playing the alchemist regardless of the choices you end up making. My alchemists typically evolve around what I feel has been needed between level.

My first alchemist started as a punch-you-in-face ragechemist, but ended up taking a bunch of discoveries and feats that allow her to close into melee quickly and be able to stay there for the majority of the fight. (Dragon Style and Iron Will were definitely on her list of feats, and Spontaneous healing, Preserve Organs, Mummification, and Elemental Mutagen were a few of her discoveries) If you feel that your character is missing something at given levels, I can safely say that there's a discovery/extract for that.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Going for the Master Chymist prestige class will net you a few extra transformations a day. But then you would have 2 personalities, and I'm not sure if that's something you'd like.

I would also like to mention that although occasionally the timing of the mutagen is limiting, I mostly only experienced it at low levels. Any scenario I played often either had the encounters throughout numerous days or within a relatively short span. And on the rare occasion it wasn't, I usually had an hour to prep another one. If it's really concerning though, you could pick up the Infuse Mutagen Discovery and drop 1000gp to have a backup mutagen.

It's pretty common to go for the Feral Mutagen. My alchemist ultimately went for the Mummification discovery and didn't regret it one bit. The two preserve organ discoveries had saved my character from a possibly deadly crit more than once.

Also, I can't think of any feat being more valuable than Extra Discovery. So many of the Alchemist's discoveries are just better than feats.

My Tumor Familiar used to be a Protector, but since the reprinting, I've switched to Valet personally. I've heard good things about making it a Mauler as well.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

My first PFS character was an alchemist. I intended on her being the whole "Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde" kind of persona. In order to add some flavor to the character I wanted her to be really short roughly the height of a female dwarf. Then, after she drank her mutagen, she would grow into this monstrous physique that was roughly the height of a male half-orc. None of this provided me any mechanical benefits, so I never had any real problems.

In fact, only once did a GM question whether or not it was legal. I just told him that for all ruling purposes, my character is a medium character and if height plays a part in a ruling, I'll be more than happy to assume my character was as tall as an average human female for that purpose. We just moved on from there.

Most of her ruling problems was that she combined unarmed strikes with natural attacks and many believed I was attempting to "flurry" with unarmed strikes.

I'm not saying it's without use, I just find it disappointing for a level 3 Fusion.

That's a little disappointing for a once a day ability...

It says to declare an area of up 1000 cubic feet. I'm no expert at math, but isn't that just a "10 foot cube"?

A cubic foot is defined as "the volume of a cube with sides of one foot in length", meaning 1ft x 1ft x 1ft = 1 cu ft

10ft x 10ft x 10ft = 1000 cu ft

Am I mathing this wrong? Does the Sentinel Fusion only cover a 10 foot cube?

Thanks for all the responses! I will talk with my GM as to what he feels the limiting factors of the computer should be. I just thought about how cool it would be for my character to have a miniaturized computer in his data jack to control a bunch of functions remotely.
I then started feeling like I was in "GM territory" and made a full stop wondering if players were supposed to have access to these things.

I appreciate all the ideas as well!

First off, I understand that this seems a preposterous question, but bear with me.

So I was thinking of getting my character a Tier 3 Computer with a few upgrades and started wondering if I would just be wasting the hard earned credits we are making.

In the beginning of the section, it talks about giving tools for the GMs to use. Does this mean that the computers weren't designed to give players options so much as challenges? (Which I'm okay with, just curious)

I know that the players have access to computers in general, but could I (as a player) purchase a computer that could remotely fire a weapon or start our starship? What about store secure data to have access to when not in range of an infosphere? Or even to have an AI for those lonely nights out in the drift?

I'm just curious what other people thoughts are on this? I just want some ideas to take to my GM about it, and to have hopefully a better understanding of what I could do.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Glad to hear! Thanks you two!

4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

I know that this thread is a couple of weeks old, but I have a question about the faction boons as well.

When we purchase a faction boon, is that boon permanently available to us? Example, I purchase the "Collector and Examiner" ally boon from the Exo-Guardians (meeting the Tier prerequisites of course), can I slot that boon whenever I want without paying the cost again? Or do I have to make the purchase each time?

Turmoil wrote:
Link2000 wrote:
I'm not talking about a single level 1 fighter.

Fine. Phil brought 6 (or even 10) of his buddies from the academy. I still think that Bob should be able to handily take them all down with a dagger.

Just my opinion though, not attempting to sway yours. We all have our rights to feel how we want to feel about such a subject.

So far, I'm all for the "level" bonus to skills. I hated being a level 16 Cleric who actually just barely knew religion. (+7 total if I recall)

My character went across seas and mountains and faced off against monster after monster, threat after threat, and still could not make swim check naturally to save her life. At least I had spells unlike my Fighter friend. Like, did my character learn nothing except to keep her eyes peeled? (I tossed the other 1 skill rank at anything to give me a bonus)

And more skill ranks doesn't feel like enough. That's still saying that even though I've experienced just about everything, I still suck at most things except for those I work really hard on (what kind of "hero" is that?)

I do think it's weird with perform/profession/craft stuff... Mayhaps you fake it better?

Just my opinion thus far.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually okay with a Level 20 Wizard being able to tear apart a Level 1 Fighter with nothing but a dagger.

That level 20 Wizard (Bob from hence forward), has seen things. Experienced things. Bob has had to face down Dragons, Demons, Devils, and gods knows what other horrors.
Bob has created entire planes of existence simply because he desired it. He has terra-morphed entire landscapes because he did not feel like teleporting around a mountain this morning.

Then this Level 1 Fighter (Phil) want's to raise a blade against him? Who is this Phil anyways? A once upon a time farmer who picked up his grandfather's sword? He's been "training for months" on how to wield it. Like that's supposed to mean something to Bob.

The more you've experienced, the better you are. Bob has experienced ALOT (19 levels worth of crap), Phil may not have even seen a zombie in his life, and is supposed to be a challenge to Bob simply because Bob is only armed with a knife and decided it would be nice to leave the spell book in his tower within the demi-plane "Bobbiton"? I don't think so.

Just my feel on it. If you think a level 1 should be able to compete with a level 20 simply because circumstance is against the level 20, that's okay. I just so happen to disagree with the sentiment.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:

what people seem to be missing is that in pf1 it is a *choice* to be better at climbing. You spent a *limited* resource and decide to be better at climbing but not better at swimming. And that resource, it goes up per level, I don't see anyone in this thread complaining that high level characters should improve.

Now instead we have *no choice* you *must* be better at not just climbing, but swimming, and bluffing, and perform dance, and all sorts of things that probably never even came for the character during the campaign.

And for people who propose, just ignore the rules, just house rule, just refuse to roll and say you fail, sure people can do that, but why are we even playing pf2 then? And let me ask, if you're at a pathfinder 2 society game and everyone decides they are going to sneak past the guards and one person suddenly says, my fighter, lord Berneer was always a clumsy fellow, i don't roll, i fail my stealth check, what you think will happen at that table? The player likely to be tossed for being disruptive or get collective gasp from fellow players. People are proposing a non solution.

I want variety, I don't all my level 10 characters to essentially be within a -/+3 margin in every single untrained skill, that feels so incredibly boring to me. And worse, completely destroys my agency as a player playing a character.

I don't know about the campaigns you've played in, but even at low levels, most if not all of my characters have had the opportunity to use all the skills on the character sheet. Some of which I could not perform because I was not trained in them even at the mid to high level games where one would think that I should have learned something by then.

I like to build flaws into my characters just like everyone else, but I expect my character to learn to grow around those flaws. I don't expect my character to adventure for months or years or whatnot and never be able to learn to at least grow in most areas of their adventurous life.

A socially inept Wizard is great idea at level 1. But to forever be socially inept after being in countless social situations seems more farfetched at level 20.

As for your final paragraph, Mark has mentioned numerous times in this thread about the gaps being much larger than just -/+3.

I am not without concerns of this new system, most of the blog post was vague and didn't necessarily say anything other than "The system is going to be totally different and great". Right now, I'm hoping that at least the last part is true. But before accusing Paizo (seeming to specialize in the field of character options) of removing options off the table, I think it would be most fair to wait until we have more information.

Please don't take this as an attempt of me silencing your or anyone else's concerns. Voices from all sides matter, I just wanted to point my view on this system and your post looked like a great building block for me to speak mine. Thank you.

Thanks for all the information!

Due in early July.

So, I have been playing PFS for quite a while now, and have moved to the stage of my life where I would rather play AP's over the scenarios provided. I have fun with them, but I just feel that I never really get to see my characters progress.

I always need to change characters to fit tiers, to make parties more balanced, or just feel that the character would better fit the description of the scenario. Overall, I just feel like I'm jumping all over the place and don't even know who my characters really are any more.

To the task at hand, is PbP right for me? I live a pretty busy life in general. I have a 40hr/week job (with 7.5hr/week commute), am a Venture Agent for a Thursday game taking up another 4-5hrs/week, am in a bi-weekly AP (6hrs/2 weeks), bi-weekly games of Starfinder (10ish hrs/2 weeks), am happily married (24hrs/day technically, but only requires genuine effort for roughly 16-18hrs/week), and I sleep, eat, etc... Also, I'm expecting the first little one in a few months, so time will be even tighter. So although I want another game, I don't know where to find the time.

That's where I'm hoping PbP will be of help. Is it perfectly acceptable to make 2-5 posts a day around my work schedule? I almost always have my computer with me, so I should be able to make a post or two around the same timeframe daily.

If so, then how do I start? Like, I've read the Guide on the discussion... But I don't know how to make a "character sheet" for PbP. Is it just my PFS character listings? If so, what if I desire to play in a non-PFS game? I may have a couple more questions arise after these, and I thank you all in advance for any help you provide.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, this will be my final post on the matter, because I will probably make better use of my time teaching my cat how to play a proper game of chess than to explain how an amulet of mighty fists works to you.

The flaming weapon property gives all the attacks of the enhanced weapon the effect. Spell storing gives one attack of the enhanced weapon the effect. Same goes for the amulet... like every other enhancement works. The only difference is that the amulet can apply the effect to your unarmed strikes and natural attacks.

The amulet is spell storing. The amulet holds one spell of 3rd level or lower. When a natural attack or unarmed strike makes contact, you may discharge the spell that the amulet has stored.

Also, the Magi's ability tells you exactly what happens, so I'm still not seeing the relevance here. Are you looking for help as to what it's ability does? Does a part of it confuse you? I'd love to give my interpretation, if you point out the part that doesn't make much sense.

Where are you getting the idea that every attack gains the spell storing property? If I can attack with my spell storing sword 3 times, can I put 3 spells into it? If the answer is no, guess what? It's the same with the Amulet, since when does a weapon special ability work differently on an amulet compared to a sword unless specifically stated otherwise?

1 to 50 of 474 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>