MEATSHED's page

MEATSHED wrote:

To prevent swords that feel weirdly racist (This is the same reason favored enemy isn't a key ranger feature and is much more limited)

No, it was removed due to how strong it is in themed campaigns, or how useless it is when you never fight chosen enemies.

As opposed to current bane which is strong in themed campaigns and useless if you never fight the enemies its good against. Like that is just the nature of how bane works, if they wanted it to not have that issue they would need to give it a full rework. Like the only mechanical reason I could see is that it makes you play a guessing game withing a guessing game (while it can't pick undead because they effectively already have one in disrupting)

To prevent swords that feel weirdly racist (This is the same reason favored enemy isn't a key ranger feature and is much more limited)

MEATSHED wrote:

Ancestry feats DCs generally scale with either class DC or spell DC, whichever is higher.

Can you be more specific on how this is calculated? Like a few examples?

It's basically the same as anything else in the system, 10+proficiency+a stat. The stat is whatever your key ability score is (so strength for a barbarian, Dex for a gunslinger) except for magus who would use int because they are the only class that casts with a stat that is different than their key ability while also not having a class DC like most casters.

Ancestry feats DCs generally scale with either class DC or spell DC, whichever is higher.

You could carry it, you couldn't use the buckler while carrying it as staves are weapons (and even if they weren't, they aren't light objects)

Also some constructs have healing immunity and self-repair. Self-repair only restores hit point, but it lacks the healing trait, as if self-repair did have the healing trait constructs would be immune to it.

Does that mean you can still use Repair to heal them? Is it still an option, even if it's not compulsory?

Doesn't seem like it based on a strict reading of the rules, the construct tag doesn't make the familiar an object, so you can't target them with repair. I don't think any GM will actually stop you from doing it because its rather silly that you can't.

They actually got rid of the text saying you can repair them, but being immune to healing just means that they are immune to stuff with the healing tag and they don't have the thing that only allows them to heal with repair. So long term rest and Focused Rejuvenation work fine.

exequiel759 wrote:

I mean, versatility is strong in this system. Rogue is probably the second strongest class in the game and the versatility of a rogue is entirely skill-based.

What is the "Strongest" Class then if it isn't Rogue?

Probably bard.

Yeah the urban barbarian archetype in 1e
had controlled rage, which didn't have any downsides but gave less stats (though it could increase also Dex) and didn't give a bonus to will.

Probably wouldn't be broken but the two classes that benefit the most from it (cleric and druid due to knowing most of their list) are already pretty good.

Now, please explain to me again how it's debatable that the class is supposed to be all about Rage, and that the player who plays according to the above advice is somehow at fault for failing to consider other tactical approaches.

There is also the major issue of barbarian feats mostly only working while raging. Out of the 88 barbarian class feats, around 20 of them actually do something when you aren't raging.

The main issue is that the first line and last lines focus on 11 being symmetrical which is very dependent on how you write 1s. This makes a weird thing where the only 2 relevant lines are the middle two.

The remaster has, as far as I am aware (i scrolled through a few pages of both normal spells and focus spells, did not see any without concentrate) made it so that all spells have the concentrate trait by default.

Heal doesn't have it. Most spells are going to have it because its basically just if they had originally had verbal components.

Yeah. Lay on hands is pretty decent to pick up on on barbarians.

It is possible to get 3 minions out at level 2 but you need to be witch for cackle so you can cast 2 summon spells without 1 fading from not being able to sustain it.

They don't get an orc heritage (as their heritage is Dromaar), the other indicators is appearance related stuff, which is why its paired with the green tinge.

Still, though, true military combat with hundreds of people isn't exactly what PF is for, and you could do a lot more good in any number of situations with the much better feats listed above. I don't think that scouting needs to be gated behind a feat, either. It feels like the feat exists to fill someone's quota.

This is kind of the issue with a lot of them. Like yeah in certain campaigns they can come up fairly often but there are usually better systems to do those campaigns in.

MEATSHED wrote:

Like this tactic requires

1) a chokepoint that the party can use to funnel which is long enough that the backliners are safe and can actually see into the room and narrow enough that frontliners can block movement though it.
2) The enemies not to outperform the party at range (Which is mostly outperforming the caster's blasting as non-AoE attacks will have line of sight issues)
3) A room small enough that an AoE spell can hit a reasonable number of the enemies in it from the center (Which means that you can probably cover said room in 1 move action, which is weird from an encounter building standpoint but you are going to have to clarify if by 30 x 30 you mean squares or feet, because if its feet a 6x6 square room is extremely small for basically any tactical game, a character with reach covers over half the map)
4) A door you can break so it doesn't just get closed
5) The enemies and party's only real goal being to kill each other, as if there is any kind of time crunch in the fight its going unopposed by half the party.

Like I could see this occurring in combats where you are defending something but to have it be common enough as to be a default tactic seems odd.

Why does that seem odd considering how many times you're doing an interior room by room clear in APs?

6x6 is suffocatingly small even in games where you are slower and have less range than pf2e and the idea that it is treated like a normal map size is giving me an aneurysm, I always made my maps at least 10*10. Like my points with 1, 3 and 5 was that those things mean that you can't really have a tactically interesting map. There is 1 chokepoint that the players start with access to and the rest of the map is too small to have anything interesting like flanking routes or a 2nd chokepoint because around 8/36 squares are going to be filled with characters.

Like this tactic requires
1) a chokepoint that the party can use to funnel which is long enough that the backliners are safe and can actually see into the room and narrow enough that frontliners can block movement though it.
2) The enemies not to outperform the party at range (Which is mostly outperforming the caster's blasting as non-AoE attacks will have line of sight issues)
3) A room small enough that an AoE spell can hit a reasonable number of the enemies in it from the center (Which means that you can probably cover said room in 1 move action, which is weird from an encounter building standpoint but you are going to have to clarify if by 30 x 30 you mean squares or feet, because if its feet a 6x6 square room is extremely small for basically any tactical game, a character with reach covers over half the map)
4) A door you can break so it doesn't just get closed
5) The enemies and party's only real goal being to kill each other, as if there is any kind of time crunch in the fight its going unopposed by half the party.

Like I could see this occurring in combats where you are defending something but to have it be common enough as to be a default tactic seems odd.

We'll position far enough back their reach won't work. What do we care if they take a while to kill.

Some people earlier were saying we can't drop nukes in the room. But if they move out of range, we'll nuke them.

So now you're saying move up and use reach then move back? We'll be nuking them as they stand back. Caster will pop up and nuke them.
Players have far more variety than monsters most of the time. If you're going to keep bringing up corner cases, just spend time thinking out how to deal with each issue if the enemy tries to use it.

If reach, move far enough back reach doesn't work.

Pop the door and nuke if they hide around corners and such.

We don't really care where they set up as long as we control where we fight. We don't care how long it takes to kill them, so have them hide in the room. What do we care? We're still controlling their actions and not the other way around.

Your tossing out variables we've dealt with many times. We adapt the vertical kill zone strategy as needed. If the DM wants to hold them back and let us whittle them down at range using move actions in and out of battle, we're perfectly ok with that. We'll win that fight as well. Medicine works to heal all day.

The main issue is that this tactic is built around an area being easier for invaders to bunker down in than actual defenders. Like you don't have anything to encourage them to fight it out with you instead of leaving to get back up or leaving until you actually enter. Honestly if you are backed up to avoid reach the battle is more likely to turn into people just delaying in a cold war scenario because someone closed the door and whichever side opens it is going to get attacked trying to open it.

MEATSHED wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

We don't spread our attention. Which is why we funnel to a kill zone using a vertical set up to focus damage.

Quote:

We did this in a giant battle a few days ago. Drew them into a hallway, lined them up, tripped them as they came, smashed them as we stacked bodies. Trip is particularly effective against giants due to their weak Reflex saves.

How exactly do you funnel and draw monsters into hallways? Because with how you describe it, it seems like someone is just opening the door and the enemies just follow them like an old roguelike.

Think for a bit about it.

You have the martials set up at the door or hallway. Understand this requires martials who don't mind doing this which is what I think most groups don't have.

Then you hit he monster with ranged attacks if they don't come. They have a simple choice, die at range or close the distance to where we want them to fight.

It's why on these boards I see people undervalue archery. Sure, archery doesn't do as much damage as melee martials, but it is useful in that you can use it to draw monsters in by hammering them from range until they come. Same as casters can do this.

So say you have monsters in a 30 by 30 room. You open the door. Your frontline martials don't enter the room. They position at the door using a delay action depending on where the monster is in the room.
Your archer and ranged casters start to hit the monsters. If the monsters have a decent ranged attack, maybe you have a problem. If not, then you hammer them from range until they come. We don't care where or how they die if the DM did something odd like have them stand there in the room taking cover waiting to die.

Wouldn't the monsters just move to the front left or right side of the room, the part the ranged attackers can't see them (which is most of the room if they are in a hallway). Hell if they have more reach they can stab one of the front liners and then just move out of line of sight to the ranged attackers (which most of the ranged attackers can do as well).

Gouging claw is a spell attack, while sneak attack needs either a weapon or unarmed strike, with ruffian removing some restrictions on the weapons they can use with it. Ruffian doesn't allow sneak attacking with spell attacks, they need magical trickster to do so.

We don't spread our attention. Which is why we funnel to a kill zone using a vertical set up to focus damage.

We did this in a giant battle a few days ago. Drew them into a hallway, lined them up, tripped them as they came, smashed them as we stacked bodies. Trip is particularly effective against giants due to their weak Reflex saves.

How exactly do you funnel and draw monsters into hallways? Because with how you describe it, it seems like someone is just opening the door and the enemies just follow them like an old roguelike.

Yeah even some higher proficiency feats are like that, divine guidance gives you the ability to read holy texts to find a "passage, parable, or aphorism" related to a current problem you are facing. It doesn't give the answer to a problem, it gives you guidance on how to deal with it. This is literally one of the main points of holy texts in the real world and it's locked behind having legendary in religion.

The main issue with a lot of super-mode type abilities is that if you need to build it up before using it is that a lot fights are generally over (either literally being over or having all the major threats already dealt with) by the time you get it, so it would probably just make barbarian kind of bad in most fights.

I think there is also the fact that trip is a lot more accessible. 31 weapons have trip and then there is stuff like knockdown to do it with a lot more weapons, while grapple has 3 weapons and most of the grapple stuff still needs a free hand.

Replenishment works on channel smite (and also stuff like restorative strike)

Depends, vitality damage only works on undead so without negative healing using it is pretty situational unless you are fighting a lot of undead.

This is a 1e question so you are likely to get a better answer on the 1e forum but I believe bleeding also doesn't stack so it would just be 1d4.

The other big animal/nature themes would probably be animal companion or warden spell ranger and beast or fey summoners. The occult spell list does fit fey trickery a bit more which is why fey bloodline sorcerers get a bunch of occult spells as bloodline spells.

Honestly I still think you're generally better off going with cleric/druid/wizard over a divine/primal/arcane witch for prepared casters for various reasons (druids have armor, cleric have healing font, both get a lot of spells for free), but witches have actually decent upsides instead just kind of existing.

I always saw Monastic Weaponry as the equivalent of a Stance (ie costs a class feat to access specific attacks) except that it opens up more variety and does not cost an action.

A lot of them do have the issue of not making a whole lot of sense over just punching someone stanceless, especially in core where a lot of them are d6 or less and are one-handed with maneuver traits. The bo staff is very solid though.

MEATSHED wrote:

Superstition's entire gimmick is hating magic, I feel like someone like that isn't just going to be like "Don't use heroism on me, however standing next to me with bless active is fine"

"Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead)."

So willing is not just about the character willingness. If the Bard with Conceal Spell bluffs my Barbarian into believing they're not casting a spell on them I can still decide if I accept it or not.

"Whether you're a member of a superstitious family or culture that distrusts magic, a warrior in constant battle against wizards and witches, a survivor of a magical accident that instilled an intense aversion in your mind and body, or a scion of a bloodline known for its magic resistance, your rage is inimical to magic"

Amongst the 4 archetypes described in the Instinct, only one will run away from magic at all cost. The warrior in constant battle against wizards and witches is obviously affected by a lot of magic on his own volition: their career choice. Similarly, the last 2 archetypes have more of a natural resistance to magic than a willing choice to not be affected by magic. So they can be considered always unwilling to represent their magical resistance when the character itself is not necessarily refusing any form of magic (actually, the Superstition Barbarian doesn't refuse any form of magic as they use magic items, it's just the magic from spells).

They also are driven by a deep distrust of magic. Like that is the first thing the instinct says. This reading also makes what I said pointless because heroism doesn't require a willing target so a superstition barbarian can have a spellcaster walk up to them and cast a spell directly on them and that doesn't break anathema according to you. Despite the whole continuing to travel with someone who has shown that they will to cast spells on you counts as willing accepting them thing.

No you can take it without flurry of blows, it just doesn't do anything (unlike stunning fist, which you do need flurry of blows for)

Superstition's entire gimmick is hating magic, I feel like someone like that isn't just going to be like "Don't use heroism on me, however standing next to me with bless active is fine"

You could but it opens up your grab getting broken if you fail the 2nd attempt.

Bucklers don't take up a hand at all. If you are grappling something with the arm it's on your wouldn't be able to raise the buckler, but it doesn't get in the way. Potions have light bulb so you could raise one while carrying a potion in hand.

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think my main issue with FA is that it creates a gap between "players who are using their free archetype to maximize power" and "players who are using their free archetype for one of those archetypes that wouldn't otherwise be worth taking, but are fun and thematic."...

I find it weird that people treat dandy like it's a weak pick thats only there for memes or flavor....

But how much dpr does it add? If it ain't combat, it's fluff! ;)

I kid, but I think that mindset is somewhat easy to fall into. Or maybe many GMs don't put critical, campaign-changing win-the-session social, intrigue, investigative, exploration, etc. encounters in their campaigns. So the players in those campaigns don't see succeeding at social, intrigue, etc... as a high priority.

I mean it does have issues, Fabricated Connection mostly replaces diplomacy checks with deception checks, which is a skill you already have trained, probably have a good stat mod in and in any campaign where the dandy/connection abilities are coming up frequently is just a good skill to invest in because of its feats. Focusing on an int skill and charisma skill is also kind of rough for a lot of classes.

In fact couldn't a master mind rogue be trained in every non lore skill at level 1 giving them a leg up at any out of combat situation.

Literally every type of rogue can do this.

https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq

In the Recovery Checks degrees of success, remove all instances of "(plus your wounded condition, if any)"; that's both in the failure and critical failure entries.

Under Taking Damage, remove the final sentence that reads, "If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value." This reminder should only apply to when you gain the dying condition after getting knocked out.

Effectively it just applies when you go down, not everytime dying increases.

Divine attributes are used for exactly one background (raised by belief) to determine the attribute bonus it gives.

As for myself, the feat seems quite clear, you grab the opponent you attacked and trying to grab someone else is not what is intended

This isn't about the strike as part of the feat, it's about the strike made before you use combat grab, as it is a press action.

Yeah.

MEATSHED wrote:

One of the example topics for nature recall knowledge is geography.

Would it be Society to learn about geography like cities and states? Since they are "humanoid made".

Yeah, natural geography would be nature, while stuff like borders and city layouts would be society.

Meatshed wrote:

I would probably just give her occultism or arcana, giving a specific lore as a divine skill doesn't feel great because of how narrow it is. To give you an idea there is one thing you can worship to get a lore skill and its whatever lore you want and even then it lets you pick performance instead.

I looked through the deities in the Players Core book and didn't see any that gave Lore as a divine skill. Which being are you referring to? I'd like to read on it.

Its a pantheon, The Enlightened Scholar's Path.

One of the example topics for nature recall knowledge is geography.

On another note Under the Lore skill it lists Fortune-Telling Lore. Is this skill supposed to be some sort of accurate foretelling of a person's future or is it intended for scamming superstitious people? How would you judge or explain Fortune-Telling Lore?

You could do it for both, which is why both the fortune teller and false medium backgrounds give it to you. It would mainly be knowing about the different ways to tell fortunes and also how to apply them to make a living.

My Goddess Oracle (for my world) is the Goddess of Time (destiny, divinization, fate, and prophecy). I am wondering if the Fortune-Telling Lore skill is a suitable Divine Skill?

I would probably just give her occultism or arcana, giving a specific lore as a divine skill doesn't feel great because of how narrow it is. To give you an idea there is one thing you can worship to get a lore skill and its whatever lore you want and even then it lets you pick performance instead.

To be fair 14 int runs into resource issues early on, which is something that I would hoped to be smoothed out a bit with the remaster because 1-3 alchemists could use a few more reagents.

No, as the d6 upgrades triggers when you cast a positive/vitality spell, and interacting with vital beacon isn't casting it.