Organized Play Member. 90 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

This is extremely odd to me because you listed the main benefit of poisoning ammo in your first post (pre poisoning a lot of it and being able to use it when needed) so why do bows and crossbows get to have that and weapon poisoning? It also opens up a lot of odd rule questions like if I attack with a poisoned bow with poisoned arrows do I get both poisons?

I think you added healer's blessing twice. So it would be 1d8 (you can't get healing Hands level 1 without being a human) +8 from the heal extra and +2 from healer's blessing. So your healing should be 1d8+8+2 (or 1d8+10) at level 1.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like you are overestimating spellstrike. A fighter with a +1 striking greatsword can do 40 damage with a power attack at level 3, and power attack isn't the greatest feat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think simple bows are mainly crossbows.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I think generally the good gods should, and do, have flaws (that cabbage did note a while ago), but those flaws probably shouldn't be things like hating a certain group of people for existing. Likewise, I do think evil gods should have positive traits, if only because I enjoy an archdevil having the anathema of betraying a lover because he loves his wife.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You can flurry of blows with ranged unarmed attacks, wild winds stance would be very weak without it. You can't flurry with core cannon, because the only actions you can take while you are a cannon are striking and changing back to your normal form.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lazarus Dark wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Uh, Conrasu do not get proficiency as part of that heritage, you're incorrect.
they get "effective" proficiency, they essentially get a bonus that replaces proficiency such that they "effectively" have proficiency, it's actually very smart on the devs part.

How exactly? To my understanding a wizard conrasu with Rite of Reinforcement will basically be stuck at mid teens AC because they can't add their level to their AC unless they spend two feats to actually be able to use it or get a dedication to use it.

Can't you already have a simple weapon as the base item for your weapon innovation?

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The "weapons" eidolons use aren't actually weapons, they are still unarmed strikes mechanically so they don't actually use a hand at all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

How the thing is worded, you can prepare spells in your spell collection in the hightened slots, though it also includes reference to being like a sorcerer in nature while mentioning that you still need at least one 1st level spell in your collection to insure the usage of all spells slots. (does that even make sense?)
So... you can heighten spells by putting the heightened version in your spell collection, or by using higher spell slots with the lower spells, or both? Neither? One or the other? It does not say.

I stand by my assessment. It is a role play aspect and hamstrings the prepared caster as to not step on the Sorcerer's toes.

You don't prepare your spells into any slots, you add them to your collection at which point you can use your slots to cast them, heightening them to whatever slot you want.

Verdyn wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I had a PF2 champion in my group who could do exactly what you want to do above. He literally walked into rooms full of mooks, shield raised, and held them all under control. This was at lvl 15. He rarely got hit by standard mooks, rarely got hit hard by bosses, and hammered away controlling them with Champion's reaction. He used to stand in the middle of 10 creatures swinging at him being real annoying.

I was getting really tired of that champion after a while. He made everything harder.

It really sounds like you haven't explored PF2 too deeply. There are ways to build very strong defensive classes that can control a battlefield. The game isn't all low level, easy to get smashed play.

A 3.5 Knight could do the same starting at level 3 raising their AC to 23, and adding a shield bonus to touch AC. Many of the nastier enemies at that level only hit that build on 15+. AC may fall into uselessness at higher levels, but you could start life as a tank in 3.5/PF1 rather than only getting that fantasy fulfilled at level 10+ in PF2.

If you wanted to make a tank I would ask you weren't playing 4e, the edition were tanks explicitly exist.

N N 959 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
The OP said he's getting hit too much and critted too much from published content. Most agree it's because that's the nature of the game. Regardless of what the fix is for the GM, every "fix" you require a GM to make in your published content so that it is "fun" is reducing your success with the product.
'require' is a misnomer though. It's more like "here's an easy suggestion if you're having trouble."

It's not a "misnomer" the word is used intentionally. There are many requirements to GM. The more requirements of the GM, the harder it is to GM.

If the players don't enjoy the encounters without the GM changing the encounter level, then Paizo is requiring the GM to do something to make it fun.

The thing is groups are different both in what they want out of the game and with how strong their party actually is, so most of the time, regardless of the actual difficulty, the DM is going to have to make changes to fit that.

The Raven Black wrote:
To all those who want the option of Class stat boost going into WIS or INT in addition to CHA, would you ever choose CHA over INT or WIS ?

I could see people going CHA over INT, probably not either of them over WIS though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

d10 would be good. I think it could use Expert Fortitude too (or reflex ).

Right now it and the monk are the only non-casters that don't start with two saves at expert (the monk starts with all three). Even Magus and Summoner start with two expert saves.

Feels pretty rough on a class that seems designed to be a frontliner AND has basically two primary stats right now.

The starting profile of the Thaumaturge is that of the Bard, plus Medium armor, minus spellcasting.

Definitely not a Martial profile. Only full casters have only 1 save at Expert (usually Will). The Thaumaturge now joins them, as befits a master of the mystic arts (just kidding).

Its very strange that they don't have 2 good saves, its not like they are against full casters getting 2 as warpriests do and Thaumaturge doesn't really do a lot to warrant them not having 2.

I would assume if someone wants to try counteracting it somehow.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:
Starocious wrote:
Can someone explain what these rituals are to me and of they're worth looking into?

Abyssal pact

Daemonic Pact
Div pact
infernal pact
Planar ally
Primal Call

They are rituals and take various hours, cost funds, and may prove unsuccessful. But they may get creatures to help you out with specific tasks. I havne't used them myself but they all seem really thematic.

Note that all the pacts require you to be the same creature type as the thing you are pacting with, so if you want to cast Infernal Pact you need to be a devil, so planar ally and primal call are about the only ones you can cast in most campaigns.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ganigumo wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
Ganigumo wrote:

Even the word eidolon is vague and doesn't evoke any imagery.

As a more concrete example of what I mean by a strong identity:
"A ranger battles a bear to protect a wounded traveller"
"A summoner and their eidolon battle a bandit to protect a merchant"

You can imagine the scene of the ranger against the bear, since ranger has a strong class identity (people's imagined rangers may differ a bit, but there will be a lot of similarities), but the same is absolutely not true of the example of the summoner against the bandit.

See, this example sort of proves the opposite of your point. If people's image of what a ranger is can differ, then the conceptual identity is by definition weaker than a summoner's. As an example, take the word eidolon out of your second example, and the description doesn't really change. The latter example still evokes the image of somebody summoning stuff to fight a bandit while, as you pointed out in your example, what the ranger is doing can vary from person to person.

If anything, these examples point to a summoner having too strong and defined an identity. It's going to be fun seeing how that identity gets broadened in future, particularly to fit the visions of "summoner" that people argue back and forth on the boards.

(Incidentally, I don't think you meant to, but I find it amusing that your two example classes were two that seem to spark the most debate as to what they are and what they should be.)

When it comes to ranger I think the issue stems from differing views of what the ranger trope looks like (and opinions on how pf2 implemented it).

With summoner part of the problem stems from the name, as the class doesn't actually do a lot of summoning in its current form, and I think the current summoner is too flexible to have a strong identity.

The thing is most people are going to see the eidolon as a summon, so compared to a conjuration wizard most people are going to view the summoner as the one doing the most summoning because they practically always have a summon out.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One issue I see with this style of play is that it either doesn't really affect a lot of classes, like you said a champion can easily swap to a battle axe from a longsword without too much trouble, but if a player is playing a fighter (or even worse, a cleric focused on weapon attacks) then your options of what weapon to give them are limited without heavily reducing their offensive effectiveness unless its a low-level campaign.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They are ranged weapons when you throw them so you use dex.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Subutai1 wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

3) Given the advantages the monk has, being able to strike 5 times instead of seven ( considered 2 hastened characters ) is pretty ok.

Honestly, I don't think that a comparison between 1e and 2e could help in any way ( though I can usderstand it might be difficult to adapt to a new game, coming from an older edition ).

Currently, I think that the only classes which might get some extra love are the alchemist, the investigator ( I am comparing it with the rogue class now ) and "maybe" the witch/wizard ( mostly because there are many people feeling that those classes could get some adjustments ).

You seem to have missed the point. Monk does not need any form of "fix". Monk is perfectly fine power level wise, as mentioned. What Monk is lacking is a trope, which is what I am offering with my suggestion. Also, the comparison to PF1 could just as well have been D&D 5E instead, since there like anywhere else, the monk is also the class that can attack the most often per round.

I don't believe Monks actually have the most attacks in 5e, they cap out as 4, same as bard and rangers thanks to Swift Quiver, and fighters can get up to 5 by dual-wielding.

A major problem I see with trying to make a build around using counterspell on heal is that the main users of heal are clerics and usually also have divine font built into their spell lists. For example, the Plague Doctor NPC ( has 3 castings of heal at 3rd level. This means that most people who are able to cast heal will be able to do it a lot at their highest spell level, making it difficult to counteract, and they will generally have more casts than a witch would have.

Wild wind stance exists so I don't see a problem with using flurry with foxfire.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want to make this easier I would recommend being a hobgoblin with remorseless lash, so you don't need to hit shatter defenses every turn.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hobit of Bree wrote:
dirtypool wrote:
Hobit of Bree wrote:
A ranger shouldn't be outdone on the things associated with being a ranger.
Mounted combat isn't a thing that is associated with being a ranger.

Having an animal companion has been with the class since 1e as I recall. Beastmaster does it better. I see no reason to not allow the ranger to up his companion at the same level as druid and *every* archetype that gives one. I get they wanted the druid one to be better. But should have improved the druid one, not hosed the ranger. To be able to do that well, the ranger needs to take an archetype. Why bother having the feats at all? Animal companion isn't something you are going to dip into. If you don't level it up, it's useless. So every ranger taking any of those feats is very (very) likely going to do it via an archetype instead.

Feels like suboptimal design. Why have feats as part of a class if it's unwise to take them?

The ranger's animal companion gets to benefit from the ranger's hunter's edge so they tend to be better offensively (or defensively if you take outwit) when they get to the same tier.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

"Hey people, just hand in your longbow and we'll give you this shortbow and you'll be just fine."

I mean they will. The damage difference between the two is pretty minor, it is somewhere between 1-4 damage depending on level (it was rather minor in 1e too, just a bit more noticeable because of you much you attacked in 1e).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tavaro Evanis wrote:
Verdyn wrote:
Heck, with cards you could even deal players a small hand of 5-cards that they must empty before they can draw again so they can have more agency in how the battle flows.
This idea intrigues me! Each player receives a pack of 5 d20 rolls of known value. The cards may be spent on attacks, skill checks, etc., or essentially anything that requires a d20. Of course, VTTs would require re-coding, but it's doable. Has anyone tried this?

It is doable, but it makes investigators' Devise a Stratagem not work super well as everyone already knows what they have rolled (you could change it to instead use the top card of their deck if you wanted to, which might help a little), and will create some odd gameplay patterns like doing a bunch of stuff you know will fail to redraw your hand. Generally, it can solve some problems but it will also introduce some new ones.

It will be harder to learn new spells from scrolls and the like, as you need to do an arcana check to learn those.

core rulebook pg. 258 wrote:
Choose a skill you’re trained in. You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus (do not apply any other bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).

You choose to use it instead of rolling.

They've got animate dead. Unlike the ritual create undead, it's not evil so a neutral character can cast it without any problems, Pharasma specifically might have a problem with it though.

I would like to note that this is almost possible baseline, it just because shield of reckoning is level 10 and you need boundless reprisals which is a level 20 fighter feat. If you are doing a dual-class campaign sure (but the dual-class rules do state to try and avoid combining martial classes, especially fighter)

TwilightKnight wrote:
You do. Shield of Reckoning is a rider on top of Shield Block. It clearly says that anytime your shield block and retribution conditions are met, you can use Shield of Reckoning. The Quick Block provides an additional reaction that allows you to shield block. Since you are within melee range in order to shield block, you will be within range for the champion reaction as well. Therefore, you can use Shield of Reckoning twice in a round, though it does have to occur on different creature turns.

Shield of reckoning is a separate reaction, hence why it has the reaction symbol. If it was an upgrade to shield block it wouldn't have that.

I mean you would need a way to actually be able to use it twice in the 1st place. There isn't a quick block or divine reflexes like feat that lets you get a free use of it every round.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Depends on your class of course, but cognitive is pretty good for wizards and witches, they have good int and generally don't carry a lot or make weapon strikes. Drakeheart is pretty generically good for anyone with a decent dex mod, the drawbacks are generally lower than other mutagens and you can just end it whenever you want.

I would like mutagen feats to get a bit of an overhaul. Looking at quite a few mutagen feats be "when you use a specific mutagen get a bonus" kind of sucks. Granted I also can't play clerics because using only 1 type of weapon scares me far more than it should so its probably more of a personal problem.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't believe they do, they have divine access to get spells not normally on the divine list though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Incredible speed doesn't increase the flying speed of pest form. Because it doesn't specify a type (or types) it only increases your land speed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
....pf2 survivors? Methinks your perception of the size of the player base is a bit warped

Oh, I haven't made any claims about the size of the player base, it's interesting that you are trying to ascribe such a claim.

If you have verifiable numbers of the number of PF1 vs PF2 players, please share.

Its not that interesting, your post implies you think most of the player base died as a result of 2e. If that isn't what you meant, you sure picked some odd words to use.
No, I didn't. You inferred something that wasn't said, or implied. The word "survivor" doesn't convey any information about whether the group of victims is greater or lesser in number. Everyone on the planet is a C-19 survivor. If you want to infer that's 20 people, that's on you.

There is a pretty major difference between the use of the word survivor when in reference to a possibly fatal disease and the use of it in reference to a RPG.

You can enter a stance during rage as you normally can to my knowledge, stances don't have concentrate, not even the focus spell stances. There isn't any rules to my knowledge that would cause a barbarian to drop their stance for entering rage, so I'm assuming they just stay in their stance. You could also go animal instinct and skip over stances all together if you wanted.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dargath wrote:
It sounds as though the Alchemist is an unplayable mess. Is Paizo aware? Is there anything that can be done to “patch” the class to bring it up to par? Or anything to make it workable? Is it an exercise in futility to attempt?

Alchemist is in a similar spot 5e ranger is in, they aren't unplayable but they are notably worse than other classes. Paizo is at least somewhat aware of this, alchemist has been buffed in the recent errata, getting medium armor, powerful alchemy as a class feature and the signature item part of their research field.

HumbleGamer wrote:

No need to have a rotation with any class to be honest, and I am sorry to say that you missed what was my point

In other words, to provide hints in terms of gameplay, and toxicologist is perfect either with or without ancestry or dedications ( I just mentioned my ratfolk because it amused me).

If you think it perfect without ancestries or dedications that is fine but you didn't show that at all. Your example seems heavily reliant on you ancestry and dedication given that the only alchemist feat you used was healing bomb while it needs quick draw, running reload and quick stow to function based on what you made. In fact there is exactly one turn in your example were you don't use any of those
All of this leaving apart enemies with reactions, which are far from being that common as you tried to imply
You are still in melee with a wizards health pool, which is still a major issue

This 2e offers a system with 3 action and 1 reaction, which can be improved, or simply modified, depends your ideas. Alchemist is no different from any other classes in terms of freedom, but benefit more than anybody else from dedications.

How exactly?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That rotation isn't that great and would probably get you killed in actual play, with quicksilver you are at the same health pool as a wizard and it involves you being in melee and provoking reactions 3 times. You shouldn't even have a rotation as alchemist, just do whatever you need to do at the moment.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dirge Of Hubris wrote:
Am I sitting in amateur hour here with the boosts in general. In the HP comparison, the Alchemist spends three of their boosts across 15 levels only in Fortitude, but none in Intelligence or Dex? So they don't have a +5 to hit from Dex in this comparison? So AC is different as well? Is this common place for martials/supports to sink their boosts into Constitution through 15?

Constitution and wisdom are pretty common to increase with ability boosts, I would assume the alchemist would increase dex, int, wis and con with their ability boosts.

Cyouni wrote:

math stuff: Okay, I can pack it up now, we found the optimized damage alchemist. For notes, the alchemist spends feats of 1/4/6/10 on Quick Bomber, Calculated Splash, Sticky Bombs, Expanded Splash, and does not spend on quicksilver mutagen. Persistent damage is assumed to last the statistical average of two turns.

Even without any buffs of any kind, they come pretty close to literally the most optimized ranged damage in the game. With martial proficiency, they outdo the most optimized ranged damage, and double the optimized champion.
Thanks to Exocist for reminding me that sticky acid exists, especially since splash damage is so hilariously large with the bomber spec

I'm a little confused reading this, is the two turns of persistent damage not included in the alchemist's average or are your comments based on the damage of single attacks?

Ravingdork wrote:

It was a normal troll. The dice just weren't with us this time.

beowulf99 wrote:
RD, that's not how Regeneration works. If you damage a troll at Dying 3 with fire, it will immediately go to Dying 4 and die. So unless you decided not to try to double tap it with Produce Flame, that should have been a dead troll.

Perhaps I'm not being clear. The GM did everything regarding regeneration correctly.

That does make it a little more clear, I was under the impression that the troll was always up.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean in this case the troll would still be unconscious at 0 hit points, if it wasn't then either it didn't matter because your party never got it to 0 hit points and could never actually kill it or your DM did screw you over by not having the troll be unconscious for a turn at 0 hit points (or like beowulf says it was a type of troll not weak to fire).

Don't monks and barbarians have 3 save shifts while bard only has 2? Monks have 3 path of perfections, each one gives a save shift, success to critical success for the 1st 2, critical failure to normal failure for the last one, and barbarians have juggernaut (fort success to critical success), greater juggernaut(fort critical failure to normal failure) and Indomitable Will (Will success to critical success), while bards only have Resolve(will success to critical success) and Greater Resolve(will critical failure to normal failure).

Its because fighters and gunslingers have better proficiency in simple and martial weapons than advanced weapons. For example gunslingers start with expert proficiency (which adds 4+level to hit) with simple and martial firearms and crossbows but only trained proficiency (which adds 2+level to hit) with advanced firearms and crossbows.

Lanathar wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

They are interesting classes.

Inventor is a themed martial with overdrive and the lvl 7 feature being the extra damage. The feats with unstable are kinda like focus spells, you use then 10 minutes to get back (unless you like DC17 flat check to try again).

Gunslinger is the fighter chassis but instead of the extra feats you gain some deeds and you better weapon proficiency is limited to reload weapons and don't have other damage enhancer outside of accuracy, the only problem right now for me is that it incentivizes the use of two weapons but no way to reload with the hand full with the exception of one drifter feat.

Fighters don't get extra feats do they? Unless you mean AOO and Shield Block.

Fighters have combat flexibility, which gives them an extra class feat that they can change daily. They eventually get two of them.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nugs-Not-Drugs666 wrote:

New class with 8 letters and a CON primary stat:

the Meatsack class

It is nothing but damage mitigation and absorption.

Finally a class for me.

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>