Sovereign Dragon

Lucas Yew's page

680 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 680 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As my evergoing rant against the awful abundance of bootstrapped bludgeoning damage, they should have had water, air, earth damage types defined from the very start...

I anticipate much to use them for simulating the movers and shakers' stats in any CS I'd run. The PCs and major NPCs, to be precise.

Umm, what are the Psychic 20 feats other than the obligatory extra 10th slot?

For some reason, both PDFs for the 2nd and 3rd prints both have their first chapter's main text show up as bold in at least both the macOS and iOS...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah, no Wishing for rituals now explicit. Shame, but understandable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
I wrote:
1. If spellcasting is all powerful, what use are non-spellcasters in a typical party (except cleanup duty)?
The answer to the first is that regardless of how strong a caster is, it is meaningless if they are facing a party of adventurers. This is seen in most campaigns with a high level caster as the enemy.

While you may actually be quite correct in the greater scale of world simulation, it still is a major concern intra-player-party-wise; namely spotl..limelight sharing ratio (I recently learned that the replaced word is a more fit word for "positive" attention, BTW).

As magic spells are fictional and can be up to any power level as the rules dev team see fit compared to skills, I'd rather have set up whatever limits personally cast spells have in the fictional world (like many books having a hard NO against resurrection, example only), then give out features for non-casters both in and out of combat so their "price" in XP versus spells available on equal levels would seem to be roughly fair.
Probably better than cantrips (tradeoff being that they're available on "no-gear" situations), around the level of focus spells (non-caster feats usually having situational prerequisites plus a roll), but surely not slot spells nor rituals...

Temperans wrote:
I wrote:
2. If non-spellcasting is capable enough, what benefit(s) did the wannabe spellcasters expect when learning how to cast in the first place?
The answer to the second is that a non-spellcaster gains buffs and utility from casting. Maybe an a few specific damage spells for emergency.

Yeah, buffs and utility are (literally) classic domains of magic spells. Most old fairy tale wizards were helpers, not the acting hero (usually).

A personal tangent though.
I usually do not treat "non-innate" abilities, like magic items and buffs from friends, when gauging a characters specs ("feel" wise, not game performance).
High level non-casters are screwed mathematically against "on-level" opponents if their bling (swords, handwraps, etc.) are stolen, while casters can usually throw something to try fixing such crises.

Temperans wrote:
Btw you forgot the third, "what do half and 2/3 casters get out of the split?" The answer to that is same as the second but to a much greater degree due to getting more spells (if such a caster is ever made).

No personal feelings nor investments on this part.

Although, if I ever made PF1 classes, I would have started with a HD d12 class with all(3) good saves and 8+Int skill points plus no spell slots, then trade off each set of HD step and 2 SP plus a good save with a step of slot growth, ending with d6 + bad saves + 2+Int SP + 9th spell progression.
The rest of class features can be bolted on top of that.

But even then, considering the massively versatile spells of PF1, I think my hypothetical sunfish-fry-frail full caster would still be more potent compared to the somewhat tougher other classes...

Temperans wrote:
* P.S. Occult really does have the best spells overall, which is a shame for the Wizard.

On this, I roughly guess that the 4 essence lore and spell functions map like Mind -> IndirectOffense (mind assaults), Spirit -> IndirectDefense (envigor our spirits), Life -> DirectDefense (includes Healing), and Matter -> DirectOffense (kaboom).

As the player casters' main goal is to survive adventures to grow further, spending spell slots on any kind of Offensive acts should feel economically worse (especially the all out "offensive" Arcane)...

AFAIK the LFQW in D&D equivalents has always been the clash between two questions (wordings might be off due to English not being my primary lingo):

1. If spellcasting is all powerful, what use are non-spellcasters in a typical party (except cleanup duty)?

2. If non-spellcasting is capable enough, what benefit(s) did the wannabe spellcasters expect when learning how to cast in the first place?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder how Unbound Step would work out.

Will they ever get to teleport more frequently? Would a 20th level class feat that enables at-will short range teleportation still be world-economy shattering OP?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no strong enmity on neither keeping nor swapping old mechanics for Kineticists.

Except, Burn.

It's just a foul way of harshly penalizing the PF1 version just because some bizarre consensus in the old design team severely overvalued the Constitution ability being a proactive stat, which it shouldn't had been (especially as CON has no other proactive function like skill bonuses, unlike the other 5).

Addendum: in the case of stats, remember that you effectively get only one more Boost at 1st level for your possible second key ability, which is never enough to start with two 18's and all 14+'s on the save stats.

Plus, you still can only benefit from only 1 Apex item stat booster.

By "pan-pseudo-signature" I mean that a sole spontaneous spellcaster's entire repertoire working almost like signature spells, except only for heightening and not "downcasting" (such limitations extant as to not completely nullify the "signature spell" rule and that Bard 20 feat in APG).

Would making this default, in tradeoff for making all prepared spellcasters getting a flexible spellcasting w/o the cantrip(s)/even level spell slot loss (spell collection size roughly the same), be fair enough?


P.S. This thought was conceived when I thought of 5E's Sorcerer known spells discrimination, and thought of having all Neo-Vancian casters prepare up to half-level + Casting mod spells per day only, in contrast to spontaneous casters getting to know spells equal to at least their current level(s)...

The point is, that I believe the # of spells a flexible caster preps each day must be lower than an equal level spontaneous caster's base repertoire in order for both types to have a niche for being selected.

1. Is this combination possible by RAW?

All other Incarnate spells (if they pass the question below) are castable, yet only Primal Summoners are screwed if they'd love to call Mogaru...


2. Is using the extra slots to cast (10th-SL heightened) Incarnate spells RAW in the first place?

The text for the feat only refers "summoning" spells, unlike Master Summoner which also calls out "incarnate" spells too. Is this an oversight?


Edit: Upon closer inspection, Summon Kaiju is a Rare spell; no wonder it worked clunky with the Summoner class. Even so, shouldn't it work well thematically, at the very least...?

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
What is the difference between houseruling a specific change and an errata making that same change?

The latter is considered more "official" and "default"; which means the majority of anonymous GMs will accept it way easier than an unreliable homebrew.

To be blunt, a sizeable number of players have this mental hierarchy of rules acceptance; starting with the printed default rules on the top, official variants (some of them like Free Archetypes considered good enough to be almost treated as default for some groups), 3rd party splat, then finally plain homebrew on the bedrock...

Most probably Primal, I guess.

Whatever tradition they'd get, I only want to see CON to hit(/damage) with no penalties unlike PF1; CON is already penalized for having no related out-of-combat skills at all, so...

Specifically, one who rolls to hit with Dex (as fists are finesse), not caring about Str damage that much, while only taking "passive" class feats and no stances which modify AC, that is.

I just want to know if a Str 14 -> 20 & Dex 18 -> 22 stat spread is not awfully crippled compared to the contrary...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

LG: Captain America
CG: Sonic the Hedgehog
LE: Darth Vader (too obvious)
CE: Sephiroth (bit unconventional, but fits the part of an omnicidal maniac)

Ched Greyfell wrote:
Is there somewhere where just the errata is listed? So we can see what all changed.

The new FAQs page now lists all errata for PF2, wih a caveat: it does not distinguish which errata is applicable for whatevereth printing. This could be a real problem if a 3rd or later printing happens later on...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a supporter of the "RPG Mechanics Verse" trope, I do agree wih your (supposed) opposition to the arbitrary level treadmill syndrome.

Although, while I enjoy the idea of randomly progresed heroes and vilains dotted around within a sandbox world influencing its course greatly, some others might detest it for various reasons;
be it practical (as in running a game as a GM, sandboxes needing extreme prep to be "realistic"), or political (as in a world wih physically extant levels of big gaps being terrible for a "true" democracy or any "less worse political system" to nurture).

breithauptclan wrote:

If the GM is gating your character using CHA based skills and abilities on your IRL ability to do those same things, that is really unfair and punishing.

Because you are absolutely right. A fighter doesn't have to be played by someone who is capable of swinging a sword effectively. A wizard doesn't have to be played by someone who is capable of conjuring fire. A monk doesn't have to be played by someone who is capable of climbing walls and jumping long distances and doing lethal damage with just their fists.

I cannot agree more!

Happy Lunar New Year (of the black tiger)!


An explanation: in European calendar terms, (usually) if you divide a year's one digit by 2 rounding down, 0 is white/west, 1 is black/north (hence 2022 -> 2 -> 1), 2 is blue/east, 3 is red/south, and 4 is yellow/center. The Chinese five cardinal direction colors, they are.

I suspect PF1's performance floor?average based balance VS PF2's performance ceiling based balance.

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

I think when someone brings up the math and then uses an example, it's usually a power gamer example of not wanting to ever miss the enemy or the skill check. In essence, an exceedingly low failure chance. PF2 is set about a 50 to 60% failure against to level enemies.

What is an appropriate level of failure risk for top level enemies in an RPG? What should that number be set at to ensure a strong challenge while making the player feel strong as well?

If my memory is correct, for 4E it was something like a hit for on level targets on a natural 8, so 65% success / 35% failure. BTW, said edition lets you only make 1 weapon swing per turn, AFAICR.

Whether that ratio is acceptable or not is up to each player, though. For me, it seems OK, as it lines up with the current meta in which only the first two attack actions are expected to score a realistic hit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish like PF1, they make it easy to compare the currrent printing of a book to whatever previous version it differs with (like 1st or 2nd primting to the "current" 7th, for example).

This quip runs on the assumption that if you go Dual Class...,

1. You get 1 key ability boost if the only choice(s) for your two classes are one and the same (so no free replacements). This has the benefits of milking the value of your intended Apex item to the maximum.

2. You get 2 key ability boosts if the scores in question are different. This nets you with a higher ability score total in the end, not mentioning various skill bonuses spread doubly. BTW I think this interpretation is also close to officially intended rulings, as since you still only end up with only a single Apex item, starting with two 18's will still end up with a 24 and a 22 by the end of your career.

Given this choice, would you choose a Dual Class combination with only a single ability boost (like Investigator//Wizard), or two (like STR-Fighter//DEX-Monk)?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Norade wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

"If I want high fantasy I'll likely reach for an older game because neither 5e of PF2 allow for that kind of grand-scale game anymore."

Gonna have to disagree re: PF2, having also played those older games.

Can my Cleric actually fight as a proper frontliner in PF2 and then settle down for a few months and use stone shape and fabricate to build a modest temple? No, he cannot do either.

Can a Wizard create a fortress on a demiplane he willed into existance with conditions tailored to optimize his spell research, scrying, and magical item creation? Nope.

How about emulating maneuver system from BoNS as a martial character who wants some cool moves to bust out? Nope, they don't want me getting beyond my station and doing anything too cool as a martial class either.

Can I at least run across the clouds or scale the smoothest wall in the universe? Nope, again PF2 tells me to get in the box.

Probably the side effect of PF2's greatest achevement, of making Levels actually meaning something accurate (in this case, the performance ceiling of an individual).

5 people marked this as a favorite.

CON as the main proactive stat was actually overvalued in being unfairly punished with the sorry excuse of burns. I mean, as it has no other proactive functions like skills, it's no way even half as broken as a potential DEX to damage situation...

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll most likely never understand those "majority" in that awful poll, who thought crippling martial (or any PF2 character) performance in general by making their expected math dependent on external equipment so badly was a good thing, for the rest of my life (especially when your on-level NPC adversaries blatantly enjoy those expected bonuses as essentially ABP for free)...

5 people marked this as a favorite.

As 2 of my 3 greatest RPG pick checklist was passed (#1 via OGL, and #3 via actually broadly competent martials), most of my dislikes within PF2 has to do with (#2) Verisimilitude, plus some Lost Omens lore stuff.


- I don't like PC-NPC Symmetry no longer being default just for the sake of ease of gameplay.

-- A direct tangent of the former, it's especially jarring when PCs require fundamental runes in order to "catch up" to the hit/dodge numbers for NPCs of playable ancestries.
Shame that ABP is optional, not the default. Personally I'd run vanilla rules and ABP together, making only the higher of potency and item bonuses apply, plus renaming the baked in item bonus in nonmagical armor as Armor Bonus for clarity in usage.

- I don't like how Sorcerers (and other innate spellcasting monsters) still need to vocalize and wiggle elaborate digits to cast spells, when they're supposed to be a natural function of their beings.
TBH, the Psychic still keeping Somatic (albeit allowed to be more subtle by default) also counts as disapproval.

- I don't like the "official" interpretation of the Timeless Body/Nature feats prohibiting the feats' taker from enjoying "immortality until slain or succumbing to various affilctions".
So I would run them as meaning it literally, plus letting the True Elixir of Life also include the effects of the Sun Orchid Elixir (at the very least for the brewer/maker of the P. Stone used during the process).

- I really don't like that in the Lost Omens setting, trying to extend your presence (and self consciousness) post-mortem to prevent being turned into cosmic building blocks, then unto nothingness after the current universe dies, is nigh impossible as of now (unless you're the very last being and the very first being for the next universe, just like Pharasma).

Especially as only the latter lets you put on property runes, but not the former?

Is it just aesthetically more popular and/or convenient?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
The problem is that you sometimes can't reconcile the desires of people who want a game that's fun to play and don't care about the numbers under the hood and people who want a game that's a orderly simulation where every duck is in its properly shaped box but don't really care much for how it plays out in practice - cue all the folks who will discuss the game's mechanics to death and bemoan the lack of symmetry and consistency but have never played the game a single time, ever.

Fair enough. A staunch "natural simulationist" (so much that despite entering the TTRPG world with 4E (Essentials) was quickly swayed towards PF1 and GURPS of all things due to their heavy(? consistent might be a better term) world simulating) like me is a rarity among actual players, yes...

4 people marked this as a favorite.

In stark contrast to the post right above, my biggest gripe about PF2 (to be fair, all "modern" RPGs in genera including 5E) is that they moved towards PC-NPC Asymmetry a bit too much for my sensitive intestines.

It's especially jarring to see NPCs of playable ancestries having unexplained statistic bonuses despite the lack of a (loot-able) magic weapon/armor. Although, if the ABP OPTIONAL rules were the standard (as someone someone implied it was to be if not for the final survey before launch going wrong) for players too, this one could be handwaved easily.

And at least it's not like Starfinder, where NPCs don't even have Stamina Points (my #0 gripe with THAT system), absolutely crushing any hope for a faithful cosmic simulation (most visible when healing spells treat PCs and NPCs like either party were carbon based life and the other silicon based) unto oblivion...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

AFAIK ever since the "Great HP Inflation of 3E" blaster spellcasters were never the same as before (in a bad way, of course). Well, every archetype which relies on reasonably high damage (so no 3E and beyond abominations like those "dungeoncrasher" thingies), TBH...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting, this "thread" is...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That Stone Skin echo feat, if your 20th level champion got petrified to avoid death, will your sorcerer friend's wish copying flesh to stone work?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Realistically (or verisimilitude-wise, or whatever that means), all non-firearm weapons and unarmed strikes should have been DEX to hit and STR to damage.
Then couple that assumption with some martial (non-multi)class features which let you use STR to hit only for melee and thrown attacks if you so desire.

Anyway, despite the default Initiative assumed as Perception(WIS) in PF2, DEX is still a STRonger stat compared to STR, so I see no harm in stacking some bonuses for the latter.

Yeah, crunch is always good, but for true simulationists like me common trinkets like this listed in the game data are an immense help in creating a believable world worth playing inside.

Why more necessary stuff like the price of Golarian toilets and the like are still missing is beyond me, though... (does it exist, BTW?)

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Pinocchio, I guess?

Well, I get that the 2nd point stayed for balancing purposes (grumbling of acceptance), hence the 3rd point.

Can a limbless person ever become a Psychic? The playtest text seems to suggest that as long as you can at least move your head around you're cool (which makes sense, brain power and all that), so is this RAW intended?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
From PF1... I want uh, Wyvaran. Yeah.

They'll most definitely lose the 1st level flight speed, though. Are you sure you can withstand the pain and cringe from that...?

I second this notion!

I was going to post some concerns about it, and it looks like my patience to look for another post for the same topic paid off...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm fine (even enjoy) with what you described as Macro, which probably maps well to others like "Combat as War", "Simulationism", "PC-NPC Symmetry" and other themes if I understood correctly.

Though my biggest gripe on the older d20 systems was that to enjoy these "Macro" abilities, you must be able to cast mid~high level Spells without outside help. Non-casters might be able to oneshot equal CR foes if optimized correctly, but they were still deprived of surefire ways to circumvent the "Mother May I" situation (OTOH the casters were enjoying Macro by default with the GM having to intervene to stop spiraling out of control).

So it seems that PF2 made an incredibly well done balance between players mostly by hammering down such world-defining spells, and other "definitive abilities" (like Monks losing their total immunity to all poison which let them freely inhabit radioactive wastelands in PF1). As such, no Tippyverse in canon Golarion, nil.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Erm, aren't Wish and its cross tradition sibling spells capable of copying the effects of Ritual "spells" with 2 actions...?

Well, at least the "price/budget" of Level means something predictable in PF2...
Whatever the precise compositions would be, two PF2 entities of an equal Level (including item/potency bonuses) should be at roughly equal chance of winning against each other.


Tangent questions:

Is it that anathema to start play on a Level higher than 1?

What kind of class(or character archetype) fantasy would(/not) be eligible right from the lowest Level(s)?

Oh well, if having all components replaced is cemented as a no-deal, guess the other option is to chime with the survey to include an early level metamagic to remove that pesky Somatics ASAP... >:)

So far, seeing no problems oher than Somatic components somehow lingering to the very end. >:(

BTW nice touch there with amped up cantrips as in the Other Edition...

Huh? Emotion OR Logic? Not both components together in a single spell? O_O

The replacement of V/S alone is a major reason why I love Psychics (and actually would gladly house-rule said rules into Sorcerer to simulate a "plausibly born with spellcasting" individual).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

At least 3 out of 4 listed possibilities (Cook, Lift, Tidy) are effects covered by said school, so why is it an Evocation effect of all other schools (other than the now gone "Universal school")?

Squiggit wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
If Alchemist ever gets an overhaul intra-edition, it must be done as a CRB full text replacement, not an Unchained version. So many GMs out there who only acknowledge the authority of "core only"...
A core only purist would probably reject that anyways, so I'm not sure that's that important.

Thus rewriting the actual current Alchemist chapter of the CRB in a near future new printing. If the core RAW text is permanently replaced, what could they do but grumble on?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If Alchemist ever gets an overhaul intra-edition, it must be done as a CRB full text replacement, not an Unchained version. So many GMs out there who only acknowledge the authority of "core only"...

Oh, and the fact it has less mechanical support as of now also works as a last chance to shake up its order of class features before it becomes too tangled to fix later on.

1 to 50 of 680 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>