Lollerabe's page

164 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Sanityfaerie wrote:

I have discovered another hope within myself.

I hope that the metal druid class archetype is actually cool. I hope that it's a reasonable choice that's actually worth considering, that isn't necessarily any weaker than any other druid. I hope that whatever payoff it offers is worth approximately as much as both the feats that it demands *and* whatever drawback it comes packaged with.

I don't actually care about metal druids per se, but it would be nice if Paizo could crack the code on how to put together satisfying class archetypes that don't wreck game balance but are still worth playing some times. There are a number of character concepts out there that seem like they ought to be class archetypes, but there's no way to get satisfying versions of same until satisfying class archetypes are a thing in general.

Is it a class archetype ? I thought it was just an order, like stone was

Let's hope the kineticist bridges that gap. Although, judging from the playtest I'm not getting my hopes up.

Pf2e isn't new anymore. An APG2 with class archetypes would be very welcome at this point.

Look at the threads that are currently up. Weapon proficiency and scaling issues. Lack of feats for certain classes. Power vs complexity issues (swashbuckler). A lack of blaster casters.

I fully believe an APG2 would help the system more than another 2 niche classes at this point.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

The thing is, the extra weapon proficiencies are bonuses, not limitations. The rogue is already an exceptional damage dealer. With party support they pretty easily become the best damage dealer in the game. The problem with the investigator is that it wasn’t anywhere near the rogue on reliable damage dealing. There was room to give more proficiencies there because the class was behind.

The rogue that really benefits from getting martial weapons are rogues that are just mining for agile weapons, and will be attacking with STR instead of dex. Rogues want good agile weapons. Hatchets that are d6, agile, sweep and thrown are incredible for a strong rogue with a decent dex. The double accuracy boost of agile and sweep on sneak attack is absolutely an upgrade over the short sword and you can throw it in a pinch. Your next + dread striker and you have a death machine. Kill a target on your first attack? Intimidate another foe and you have a flat footed enemy that you can attack with essentially a -3 MAP. This combo is already possible, but it takes investment to make happen. The rogue really doesn’t need it for free.

That's just a bunch of hyperbole. Hatchets aren't 'incredible strong' come on.

Most of your 'death machine' build is available to any rogue. Get an agile weapon and your next + dread striker. There you go.

Hatchets aren't stronger than options already available to the rogues as is.

The leaps some go to in order to defend questionable design choices are interesting

Martialmasters wrote:
Lollerabe wrote:

I suspect Paizo has caught on to how strong flail and hammer crit specs are.

Flickmace got dropped a die size down.
The Dorn-Dergar is a d10 reach weapon with a mediocre trait (razing) yet it's advanced.
If crits specs were equal it would just be a worse guisarme.

Same goes for the earth breaker.

Maybe an errata that made the hammer/flail crits require a save vs class DC would've been smoother than this.

I've honestly been expecting this. Quite simply, it's too strong

For sure. I think anyone would agree. It's just a strange way to approach it, as it isnt backwards compatible so to speak.

Look at the Warhammer vs longsword/battle axe or maul vs great sword/greataxe. At that point in the design they were deemed equal.

But all of a sudden everything that's a hammer or flail is 1 die size below where it should be.

Dorn-Dergar, long hammer, earth breaker (less so, as I guess you could argue it has enough traits to warrant it compared to a bastard sword). Are all below budget, unless the budget changed behind the scenes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think he's saying companions are bad in general.

Though a flurry shortbow ranger with bear support should put out solid damage.

No one beats a fighter at avarage dpr tho. So that's a non starter, as far as baselines goes.

But yeah,at later lvls it can fall off. Companions scale kinna eh at best. I'm actually surprised treasure vault didn't adress companions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah but the problem is that the argument is lacking nuance. Rogues are never encroaching on the fighters 'weapons master' trope. Due to how limited sneak attack is.

And when were rogues known for using simple weapons outside of a few lagacy exceptions ?

As many others have said by now - rogues already have access to mechanically strong weapons - shortbow and rapier.

More often than not it's a side grade not an upgrade we're talking about here. Or a flavor thing.

One of issues is also how inconsistent the in game logic is: as a ruffian I can sneak attack with a mace. If I attach a few links of chain between the handle and head, it's a flail aaaaaand it's gone *insert south park meme*.

5e had a similar problem - you had to use a finesse weapon to sneak attack. But you could opt not to use dex when using a finesse weapon. So i could be a raging barb getting SA with my strength based rapier. But a Warhammer ? That would be crazy. Although the weapons were more or less identical.

And yes, giving rogues acces to martial weapons as a category does allow them easier access to certain things. Such as specific archetypes etc. But again, nothing that seems to shift the balance

1 person marked this as a favorite.

More often than not, sure. But the best debuff to apply is still 'dead'. So if a high lvl shocking grasp achives that, then that's play.

When dealing with actual bosses / threats that is

I'd like to see more restrictions lifted in general. As long as it doesn't throw off the balance to much.

I don't see the need for ruffians to only be able to use simple weapons either. It's capped at a d8. Let my dwarf ruffian use a long hammer if I can get proficient.

Same with monk weapons. Just allow whatever weapon, but put a clause in that says; if wielded as a monk weapon, it's damage is a d8 if the weapon is normally a d8 or higher.

You wanna swing around a big maul as a monk ? Have at it. It's a d8 maul tho.

It seems like Paizo is trying to remove many legacy restrictions and allow for a broad range of concepts, so the few that are left just seem off.

I don't like rapiers and swords. I do however like rogues tho, throw a dog a bone.. or better yet a flail

I actually did forget that a long hammer has hammer spec and not polearm. In which case it has that going for it. Carry on good sir.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trixleby wrote:
gesalt wrote:
Riddlyn wrote:
Have you actually played a magus or are you theory crafting? Yes people do use their slots for spellstriking it's one of the main reason some favor not raising INT to high. I know I personally prefer using cantrips for spellstriking because it let's you get 2 stats to damage since I only get 1 swing a round most times

I know I haven't seen slots used to Spellstrike since people figured out they could do so with cleric (and now psychic) focus powers. Who'd want to waste important resources like that?

I have seen magi take electric arc anyway though. That or the elf feat that gives you Electric typed acid splash.

Does this mean as a Magus you multiclass into Cleric at some point in order to gain access to their Domain Spells and then use their Domain Focus Spell to Spellstrike? Why not Druid? I heard Druids have amazeballs Focus Spells but Cleric Focus spells is kind of bad mostly across the board.

I don't know anything about Psychic. Didn't even know it was a class.

It usually goes: spells that require a spell attack = not great. Casters are better off targeting saves. So a druids tempest surge is an amazing focus spell.

But for magus it's the other way around: spell that require a spell attack - great, 'cause all you have to do is land ur strike and the strike + the spell hits.

With expansive spellstrike you can use save based spells. But you have to hit, and the target then has to fail their save = not that great.

Prior to the psychic, fire ray was top dog, as it requires an attack roll and scales really well.
It's much more impressive on a Magus than a cleric

Huh, I was certain thats how everybody measured the power of cantrips.

Hence we all run melee casters with gouging claw

Squiggit wrote:

Between the lack of a level 2 feat, dual form weapon being so jank, devastating weaponry not working with reload weapons (because an inventor with a fancy gun is clearly bad and wrong), the prohibition on advanced weapons, and in general the innovations being kind of boring I was super underwhelmed with weapon inventor.

I had fun with my character and he was pretty good, but he felt more like a barbarian with a couple gimmicks rather than some high utility gadget specialist inventor.

That sums it up quite well. The inventor almost suffer from to much fluff. All the feats are really funny to read, and definitely gives a 'crazy inventor' - vibe. But the mechanics aren't really there. Really wish overdrive interacted with everything alot more.

There's a few modification for armor that has a: when in overdrive this bonus is increased by X.

That should've been baseline with almost everything imo. It really just is a rage with extra steps.

I feel the same. I really like the inventor conceptually but they need more stuff. Both feats and modifications imo.

I would love an action compressor:

All engines, go! 1ap, Lvl 1 feat (frequency once per minute)

Attempt a crafting check to enter overdrive and then stride/strike.

I would also like a feat (I'd prefer it to be a class feature via an errata) that makes critical overdrive interact more with your abilities.

Fully charged, passive, lvl ? Feat:
When you are in critical overdrive you gain the following benefits:

* Increase the damage die of your offensive boost feature by 1 step
* The first time you use an unstable action while in critical overdrive you automatically succeed your flat check
* Your innovation gains the effect of an additional initial (breakthrough?) Modification.

This would make fishing for critical overdrives something you might actually do.

Currently overdrive feels very much like rage with extra fluff. If it interacted more with your base kit it would feel more unique and open up a more interactive playstyle.

Another option was one exocist suggested:

You can reduce your overdrive by 1 degree of succes (from critical to normal, from normal to none) if you do so your innovation immediately becomes stable.

The wording is wrong but the idea is you can sacrifice your overdrive to use your unstable trait more often. So again, you can interact with it to gain benefits. Plus entering overdrive might be something you do multiple times in order to churn out more unstable actions.

You also still can't make advanced weapons or heavy armor your innovation. This seems like an oversight honestly. If there's one class in the entire game that should be able to juice up off the wall items like the tricky pick, it's the inventor. And if I manage to get heavy armor prof, I should be allowed to make that my innovation.

Forgot you mentioned you didn't like halberds etc.

I'm with you, hammers 4 life. Although I would prolly reflavor an existing polearm as a lucerne prior to using long hammer.

Oh and smite evil imo.

Frostlight wrote:
Thanks again, everyone. The discussion really helped me. I'll go with maul as a main weapon and when reach is needed i'll swap for a long hammer (since it's a common martial weapon). At level 10 I don't think i'll get radiant blade (to get flaming or holly). Devoted focus looks better, since i'm using a lot of focus points (and i'll use a lot of blade of justice in lvl 12). It will also allow me to keep the shifting rune.

I'd prolly run a maul/guisarme setup. D10 and trip is sweet as a reach wep

More feats that didn't require the use skill - gain panache - use finisher playstyle would be great.

Maybe something where your bonuses from being in panache increased the longer you didn't lose it / used a finisher.

Inflated ego:

For each turn you maintain panache without losing it, not including the round you gained it - Apply the following benefits:

Increase the bonus precision damage on your strikes from X to Y
Increase the movement speed bonus from A to B
You gain an additional effect based on your style.

Or something akin to that.

A more elegant solution might be to let panache stack and add an extra style dependant effect.

You would still be rewarded for using a finisher. But stacking panache bonusses might be worth it from time to time. I'm not a game designer, but yeah either one of those options has some potential imo.

Unicore wrote:

A wizard throwing 1action magic missiles as a 3rd action on top of a spell is a pretty decent nova option, especially since it always hits and does damage.

It burns a lot of resources but that has to be considered a part of their ceiling. The eviler is a good way to experiment with it since you basically get a nova round thrown in on every encounter. Super bidi has done the damage charts to show that with scrolls and going all in, casters do not slouch.

Often times though, just intimidating before you cast, or pulling out a scroll are real ways casters interact with the three action economy.

Yeah but when 2/3 of your AP is 'locked in' you aren't interacting with it very much. A major advantage that the 3ap system introduced was allowing the player to be creative and flexible with their turns.

When I get a 3rd of that to play with, the feeling of freedom is lessened pretty drastically.

It's an issue many have with hunt prey, spellstrike and most of the kineticist playtest abilities as well.

Mind you this isn't a power concern; it's a gameplay loop / feelings things. Spellstrike is powerful. But with very few action compressors, a lot of times it feels like you got 1 ap + spellstrike.

Hindsight is 20/20 but having a variable action cost on most spells, seems so.. well obvious. They just made a game with this great new system, and then more or less nullified it for a large part of the classes.

It would also have the benefit of cutting down on spell bloat. Alot of spells could be wrapped into 1 with different effects based on AP spent.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another thing that can sour the caster for new players is the action economy.

When my group moved from 5e to pf2 we were all hyped about the 3ap system. During our first session the barb and rogue were having a field day.

Our wizard player - not so much. He basically didn't get to use this part of the system in a interesting matter. We were all left wondering why most spells weren't designed like heal.

1-3 ap with different effects as a baseline.

SoM helped a bit, but yeah.


In regards to the swash and ranger; luckily alot of those issues can be bandaided somewhat.
Swash def needs an errata that gives it auto scaling in acrobatics. Inventor and the thaumaturge gets their crucial class skill for free and with good reason.

The ranger needs a feat(ure) that allows them to designate a new prey when their prey dies. As a free action / reaction. Call it endless hunt or whatever.

They also need a command animal + stride / strike for 1ap compressor. Playing a melee ranger with a pet is a chore.

I suspect Paizo has caught on to how strong flail and hammer crit specs are.

Flickmace got dropped a die size down.
The Dorn-Dergar is a d10 reach weapon with a mediocre trait (razing) yet it's advanced.
If crits specs were equal it would just be a worse guisarme.

Same goes for the earth breaker.

Maybe an errata that made the hammer/flail crits require a save vs class DC would've been smoother than this.

25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

trait give all reaction strike 2 damage per damage dice would be too strong

maybe 1 damage per dice instead

I was thinking of the mechanic, not the number. But yeah could be 1 pr die.

The problem with alot of the newer traits is that they are pretty niche. But they still affect the overall budget.

I would much rather have a d8 1h than a d6 razing, hampering, brace 1h.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Math enhancers becomr boring when the game is balanced around you having them. Hence why alot of people, including myself, prefer playing with ABP.
Math enhancers can be great when they allow you to 'break' the expected curve a bit. I imagine that's why we all love having a bard or a fakeout slinger in the party. Same goes for truestrike.

We've decided to remove elemental runes aka +1d6 damage no meaningful interaction required runes in our upcoming campaign.

Not only are they kind of mindless, they are also unfortunately very often the best choice as a martial for a runeslot. And a flaming shocking icy weapon just seems.. Wrong. And boring.

I actually really like the new spellhearts from TV as a baseline of what items could/should do. A minor passive effect, acces to a new permanent feature (in this case a cantrips) an interactive effect (after using a X spell Y can happen) and some daily powers.

I couldn't care less about anything golarion lore related, but I'm happy that it scratches an itch for those of you who do care.

Personally I'm hyped for and hoping for:

The kineticist

The elemental barb - elemental infused melee warriors are just.. Awesome.

The metal order druid - very curious about this one. Being able to wear metal is fine, but I'm mostly interested in how they make metal feel like a druidic concept.

Archetypes that gives elemental flavor. Be it utility or combat prowess. There's alot of concepts where I wish I could sprinkle a bit more lightning and storm on top.

Spells. While we already have spells galore this book hopefully makes blasting a bit more fun / viable

It's pretty niche, unfortunately. But many of the new traits often are. Hampering anybody ?

They could have made brace a thing that just applies to your reaction attacks, that would be something to built around at least.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel that the casting system was something 5e got right. Well the way you prepare and could freely upcast part. Not casting in general.

Realizing that pf2 had decided to stick to vancian was a bit of a letdown, and has confused a few of my friends greatly. As their main ttrpg experience was 5e.

Having to prepare multiple versions of the same spell dosent feel intuitive imo.

'im a conduit for magical energy. Throwing out stronger versions of a spell, drains me faster' makes more sense to me than 'I can't because I didn't memorize the stronger version' in fiction.

While SoM did introduce a way to get 5e casting, it's just way to expensive.

My understanding is that they did try to get rid of vancian in the playtest tho ?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:

I just don't see why this "martial == simple, caster == extremely complex" thing has to be such an immutable axiom of the universe. Did Pharasma say it had to be so at creation? Paizo has shown that they're willing to break it one way (more complex martials), so why not break it the other too? There are like, 10 caster classes? Couldn't one of them afford to ditch super hard standard casting for something simpler and more focused?

I guess (more like hope, really) Kineticist can do that. But Kineticist isn't exactly a mage, more like a tanky bender person, and elemental flavor is only one of the many possible ways of doing focused magic.

Still, it baffles me that we've had this game for 3 years, with an insanely fast release schedule, and haven't gotten a single real option for that yet. Like, I'd be personally willing to have casters in general be "dumbed down" a little if that's what it takes to make the experience better for non-hardcore players, but... I don't think that's even necessary? Both things can coexist.

Yeah it's pretty odd. Don't get me wrong - the universalist toolbox wizard, should def be an option.

It just should t be THE option.

It's feels a bit archaic. Most games and media manages to have casters that plays/seem awesome, without a huge barrier to entry.

Edit: The issue might be that the baseline toolkit (spell lists) are to big and versatile. Hence it's hard balancing acces to it, while allowing specialized themes such as "I'm a storm druid that only blasts" to coexist.

Could be a thing class archetypes could help with. Lose access to certain spell types, in order to get alot better at others.

I can only cast storm themed spells (the tag system should make this somewhat easy) but they are alot more potent than a baseline casters version.

Edit 2:
Superbidi kinna beat me to it. But yeah, his point.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Merc summed it up pretty well. The issue isnt the power ceiling of casters. It's the system mastery required to reach it.

While martials can also run into 'feelsbadman' moments; trying to trip a high athletics enemy etc, it's just less punishing to do so. They waste an AP and get MAP.

If a caster targets the wrong save, or the monster has resistance/immunity. They lose 2ap and a limited resource.

So the learning curve also feels different. Most of my friends (including myself) liked the learning curve as a martial.
"Huh, -10 to hit attacks feels crap. Huh, maybe I shouldn't run into 4 enemies with no ranged attacks solo. When my entire party has ranged attacks".

My friend who played a body horror / Lovecraftian flavored occult sorc just felt stupid and bad. Granted, he kind of was at times. But using your highest spell slot to deal negateable damage just feels eh.

System mastery and complexity should be rewarded imo. But I'm fairly certain one could buff blasting / add + to hit for spell attacks / whatever without breaking the game at all. And system mastery would still be rewarded.

A spell like sudden bolt caused an uproar on Reddit. Insanely OP. I was thinking a 2ap 2nd lvl spell dealing 4d12 seemed about right (as in what i would want spells to do).

Alkarius wrote:
CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Personally think Falcata and Nodachi should have switched traits. Falcata is a LOT of damage in a fighters hands for a 1handed weapon, deadly d12 seems to make more sense.

Opposite for nodachi, not a great martial weapon, let along advanced, Fatal d12 would make more sense on a 2hander anyways.

100% agree with you, the Falcata does introduce creep, and deadly would be a good errata for it, or Fatal d10.

Considering the formula for advanced weapons is usually just a die increase, or an additional trait, when you compare it to a Pick (d6, Fatal d10), the Falcata gets both a die increase and a boosted trait. Fatal d10 would've been fine. It is minor though, and the crit spec might be the reasoning...

I just feel we just have a clear cut 'best in slot' for a 1H (and definitely sword and board) Fighter, in a system that seems to try not to have one.

I replied to your concern regarding the falcata in the 'advanced weaponery' thread. I think you're making a mountain of a molehill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could make it a arms master / weapon master.

Stuff like quick draw and dual handed assault would be nice to have access to more freely. And both fit within such an archetype.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alkarius wrote:

Also, as is, the Falcata is OP (IMO), and a lot of players will want it. Its the new Flickmace.

I think this might be a knee jerk reaction. Another poster did some math and it actually isn't that great for many builds.

For a double slice / twin takedown build you deal more damage with a pick + light pick combo. For a 1h + freehand build it can be good. But doesn't outdamage a dwarven waraxe/ bastard sword with dual handed assault build. Hell earth breaker also works with DHA and is a hammer.

For a fighter you most likely want reach. So Dorn-Dergar or guisarme. Or just a maul for high damg knockdown. Same goes for champions. And if they sword and board - flickmace, boarding pike or chain sword are all better. Due to how reach and MAPless reaction attacks work.

So it actually doesn't impact many builds. Maybe barbs with dual weapon warrior as they most likely don't want a agile offhand. And even then 2x Warhammer might be better due to how strong hammer/flail crits are.

The flickmace was 'OP' due to being a reach 1h flail with a top 1h damg die. Even after the nerf, it's still strong.

So I don't think you have to worry about falcatas all that much. Hell pick is a d6 d10fatal martial as is. With a crit spec that ups that damg a bit.

If you are gonna spend a feat I would def recommend the dwarven Dorn-Dergar over the long hammer. A d10 reach flail is great on a paladin.

While reach is good, I would say that the maul is alot stronger than the Bec de Corbin. Going from a d12 to a d8 is a very very noticeable drop.

Basically: Dorn-Dergar (unconventional weaponery) or maul / guisarme whatever.

To answer your actual question: Yes the maul is still very viable. Actually it's top tier. A d12 wep with a great crit spec is awesome, and with ranged reprisal you should be able to get your reaction off almost constantly with said party.

Personally I think raze and brace as firmly in the 'meh' category of traits.

A quick edit here: the base die of your weapon matters alot in pf2e due to how damage scales.
Even more so if you get stuff like :

My dwarf fighter uses a meteor hammer (he was made a long time before treasure vault spoilers were a thing) that's flavored like a Dorn-Dergar. Or a great pick. Even dropping from a d10 to a d8 felt frustrating

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Okay. I'm just wrong all around, then. Sorry, folks.

Happens to all of us. It's an efficient way to learn tho.

I recently learned that neither the fatal die, nor addional dice fron power attack and/or megaton strike are affected by picks crit specialization. Not that anyone at my table uses one, but still.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You definitely don't want goblin weapon expertise at 5th. It litteraly does nothing for you. Goblin weapon familiarity makes the dogslicer a simple weapon in regards to your proficiency. And at 5th you get a bump with all simple weapons and certain rogue weapons.

So goblin weapon familiarity is all you need.

Might have misread then. I thought you guys meant you could lift of traits with the oil. As in "oil of fatal d12".

As is it's pretty niche and might as well be called "hammer oil".

Just apply hammer spec to every weapon when you can afford the oil often enough, and retrain your wep group to hammer as a fighter I guess.

Would've been cool if you could store traits for a limited amunt of time, or the like.

shroudb wrote:
Lollerabe wrote:

Did I misread something with the weapon weird oil? Doesn't it just change the crit spec and which prof you use ?

Can't see how you can transfer or add traits

say you want a bludgeoning weapon, but you are specialized in axes. you grab your hammer, apply the oil, and now you have a bludgeoning "axe".

same thing with traits. you want to have X trait for some reason, you grab a weapon with that trait, apply the oil, and voila, you now have the trait but you are using your main weapon proficiency.

i think it's mostly useful for picking up specialization on different damage types myself, i dont think just a trait is worth it for that expenditure, but you can do it.

I mean reach and or fatal could be. I understand the logic but where in the text does it say anything about traits ?

All i can see is that it can swap the weapon groups crit spec and what prof you therefore use.

Nothing in the text suggested you can copy paste traits. Or maybe I'm having a brain fart here.

Edit: and yup, falcata with hammer / flail sounds gross.

Did I misread something with the weapon weird oil? Doesn't it just change the crit spec and which prof you use ?

Can't see how you can transfer or add traits

1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
Lollerabe wrote:

I'm more disappointed in the newer traits like brace and razing. They seem very niche yet appear as if budgeted as good traits (same goes for hampering).

If razing worked against constructs, that would've been cool.

Last time I read through it, it does indeed work on constructs. Hazards too naturally if you don't have the requisite skills to disable it, might as well smack it with a razing weapon.

Only vs objects unfortunately. So against an animated armor, yes. Vs any construct without the object tag ? Nope.

Dargath wrote:
Lollerabe wrote:

That's not how it's flavored but most people would be completely fine with you flavoring it that way. It's often referred to as 'fluff' - a way you describe something that has no mechanical bearing.

My ruffian rogue uses a longspear. In fiction it's actually a spiked ball on a long chain, very akin to a meteor hammer. Stats are the same.

If you wanna emulate a tauren feral druid from modern wow, a barb might be a closer fit either way. As a druid your a full caster and you are doing yourself a massive disservice by not using your spells alot.

Animal instinct barb with a monk dedication is a super viable build for what you are going for. The wrestler archetype with the animal barb is also great. Might be more of bear druid vibe, alotta crushing and throwing. Plus acces to the coolest feat in pf2e history - whirling throw.

I think the aspect I like most about the WoW Druid is flexibility when exploring. You can fly at will pretty much, save yourself from falling, breath under water and swim faster, and so forth. It seems there’s no real way of getting that flexibility, and I would be using the classic spells like remove curse, healing, having a ranged cantrip (like wrath basically), and all that. I know this game has a massive problem with casters also being good at dealing damage for whatever reason, but I think an animal instinct Barbarian dedication Druid with spellcasting can get me a lot of the way there. Could possibly even grab the wild shape for the other utility forms (maybe). Not sure if you can get aerial form via dedication or if it’s too high level.

You gain access to:
At lvl 8. Which should help with that aspect and alot of the jump skill feats etc can make you pretty legit at jumping around etc both in and out of combat.

Yeah you can't be a full caster with a full martials frontline capabilities. For good reason imo, but hey.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not how it's flavored but most people would be completely fine with you flavoring it that way. It's often referred to as 'fluff' - a way you describe something that has no mechanical bearing.

My ruffian rogue uses a longspear. In fiction it's actually a spiked ball on a long chain, very akin to a meteor hammer. Stats are the same.

If you wanna emulate a tauren feral druid from modern wow, a barb might be a closer fit either way. As a druid your a full caster and you are doing yourself a massive disservice by not using your spells alot.

Animal instinct barb with a monk dedication is a super viable build for what you are going for. The wrestler archetype with the animal barb is also great. Might be more of bear druid vibe, alotta crushing and throwing. Plus acces to the coolest feat in pf2e history - whirling throw.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm more disappointed in the newer traits like brace and razing. They seem very niche yet appear as if budgeted as good traits (same goes for hampering).

If razing worked against constructs, that would've been cool.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh not really. The maul is great, flickmace is still great even with the nerf. I don't really see many of the new items rendering old ones useless.

I agree with the wider not taller ceiling anology.

I mean some of the stuff like the insight coffee just seems like it should've been an errata for the investigator. "Fixing" it's damage with a strange consumable is kind of backwards to me.

I'm happy that we get new advanced weapons with an actual decent power level. I actually suggested something very familiar to the falcata, so there would be a DPS rival to the flickmaces control dominance.

Fatal d12 might be a tad much, and it favors the fighter a fair bit. Wouldn't mind just seeing a d10 1h advanced weapon at some point.

The phalanx piecer got gutted it seems, reload 1 now. But before it was to strong I guess.

Barricade buster is awesome, i wanna make a build around that bad boy. Dorn de-degar is my jam. My dwarf fighter actually uses a meteor hammer flavored exactly like the depiction, so yay me.

I'm not sure razing and brace are priced right tho. Bec De Corbin just seems.. eh to me ?

We'll see how those traits hold up in play. But if they are as lackluster as they seem, alot of the TV weapons are meh for me

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Most people I know rank humans as the strongest ancestry by a large margin. This change hardly influence that.

Their feat support is that strong. I very much welcome this change. I had to jump through hoops to make basic (and pretty mediocre) concepts work before, and now I at least can.

You try making a gnome str based inventor with the old array.

To be fair; I've wanted ability scores divorced from ancestries for ages. I find them a boring way to represent an ancestries uniqueness. And rather people consider it munchkin-ry or not, playing an ancestry that has a - in your KAS feels bad.

There's a reason you often see certain ancestry/class combos. Player chars are supposed to be the exception to the rule. Let me make my gnome barb or whatever without punishing me needlessly.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

More options for the current content. Specifically more subclass specific feats would be great. Clerics could benefit alot from doctrine specific feats imo, to further distinguish the doctrines from eachother.

And then id love more gadgets. The inventor doesn't actually invent alot. Most of their abilities feel like martial abilities with cool flavor.

It would be awesome if they had a bunch of one time use things they threw at their enemies. Think a one shot 'shotgun' FX. Could use int to hit and deal a con aoe damg as an example.

Would also allow other crafters to get some of that flavor.

More in combat related crafting feats and/or stuff. The ability to add additional traits, active effects etc to gear seems like a cool way for players to contribute to their party with crafting.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

Yet another thread about Magus and AoOs. Though with a new title.

What makes you people think the Magus does not already have benefits that counterbalance it ?

Not to mention the quote in the OP specifically states that Kineticist does not cast spells and thus should not suffer from AoOs.

Which is an argument that just cannot apply to Magus since those do cast spells.

How about you read the thread ? There's plenty of solid arguments as to why they don't

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure I follow. By all means prep for a boss fight. Be smart about it.

I fail to see what that has to do with a Magus' disproportionate issues with AoO's.

I think it's pretty telling that you have mentioned a bunch of ways (and some I just think are bad, such as power attack) to circumvent AoOs, yet the question remains:

Is it a needed weakness ? Is it there to balance the Magus overall "power budget" ?

I don't think it is. As many others have pointed out by now: if it's there for balance it's odd that it's so swingy in its effect. Sometimes it doesn't matter at all, at other times it more or less disables your entire class feature. Not only does it prevent your spellstrike, you also lose your spell. That's just insult to injury.

How about changing the premise of the discussion a bit: Why have it be a thing to begin with ?
I've read many suggestions as to how one can soft counter it (and frankly 'play a Magus that doesn't use spellstrike' makes no sense to me) but not alot of reasons to justify the mechanic being there.

Could it be possible that it was

An oversight as the manipulate part is tied to casting a spell and not actually spellstrike itself.


Bad design. Now I realize that saying the game designers might have missed the mark is widely unpopular, but I don't think it's such a sin to simply call it that. Bad design.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The problem with the Kineticist taking a ton of AoO was that the motions that the Kineticist makes to control the elements are like the motions that martial artists do in katas. Since this involves "paying close attention to your body is as to control it" it didn't really make sense for you to also leave yourself open to attacks while doing this.

I can, however, believe something like "casting a spell" takes your attention away from what is happening right next to you.

Remember, the Magus is not just supposed to spellstrike to do damage. Using your spell slots to buff and not spamming spellstrike with cantrips should be a viable way to play the class.

There seems to be alot of premises one has to accept for this to makes sense.

Magus is very much the alpha strike king. And it's fairly logical to assume the Magus in the party is the one you sic on the BBEG.
Ironically BBEG's are the biggest threats to a Magus as they more likely to have both AoO and a high crit chance.

Why should not using your main class feature be a viable way to play ? Not using your champion reaction or rage shouldn't be all that viable either

5 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:

Currently I'm no more so against AoO risk of melee manipulation attacks because this also creates a lot of tactical opportunities to make the encounters more interesting to such classes. After I noticed that Elemental Wrath can be used to not trigger AoO in Magus.

The usage of reach weapons or feats and class abilities like Twisting Tree could give more interesting tactical limited solutions than just remove the AoO completely.

Instead of just remove the AoO risk completely maybe just add more concentration only attack spells to circunvent the limitation but not completelly may be mora interesting than just ignore completelly it.

In general I don't against the idea that AoO can be a disadvantage to magus just like ghosts are resistant to physical attacks and are more difficult to martials. The only problem now is that many subclasses can be barely useless when a magus face an AoO opponent.

I'm not buying it. It's not really tactical nor interesting imo. It's just a game of 'how do I circumvent this BS mechanic'. And it's really not like reach isn't strong enough on martials as is. Making it feel mandatory is just annoying.

I always disliked the whole 'having less options means you actually have to make more choices' rhetoric. Alot of 5e people used the same argument to defend mechanically weak subclasses like the champion etc.

I honestly think the main question should be:
Is it needed ? Is the mechanic there because otherwise the class would be broken ?

And I don't think so. I mean come on, the inventors AoO triggers AoO's. That's just ridiculous.

Should rage or hunt prey also have the manipulate trait ? It would lead to some interesting and tactical plays I'm sure

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a long time till release so hopefully they can go back to the drawing board and do something great.

The line about the class being pretty good if it was released as it were concerns me a bit. That was not my impression whatsoever. Had it been released in its playtest version it would've been close to unplayable for me personally. But hey it is what it is.

I'm still very curious about the defensive aspects of the class. Even if elemental weapon becomes a strong feature the class can't stay in close quarters as is.

Squiggit wrote:

A really popular houserule I've seen bouncing around the internet lately is making any ability with a range of melee/reach/5-feet and the manipulate action not provoke. It keeps ranged manipulate actions vulnerable while making it harder to punish melee people. Seems good.

It's not like manipulate can really be a balancing factor anyways, AoOs are too inconsistent and can either ruin your character or be meaningless depending on the campaign.

I like this. It's also easier than having to remove manipulate on a case by case basis. Cheers

We already removed that at my table a long time ago. The funny thing is I actually believe it was an oversight on the Magus, with the exact same reasoning as the kineticist.

It was baked into casting a spell, and thus it snug past the radar.

I mean them doing a sweeping errata and removing manipulate from basically all Magus/inventor/thaum abilities that are used in melee combat would be swell. But it's such an easy houserule either way.

1 to 50 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>