Sanvil Trett

Malthraz's page

238 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Sorry if this question has been answered already.

Does anyone know if the damage from Diabolic/Elemental/Undead Blood Magic is a status effect or is it an untyped bonus that stacks with Dangerous Sorcery?

From a balance perspective I think it should stack, because divine could benefit from a bit of a damage buff. Elemental can keep up a bit better with Arcane, but could get a boost without being too stronk.

Does anyone know, or have an opinion?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was thinking about this myself, and ran a few examples. I found the current system actually played out a bit better.

I found that adding 3-4 numbers together twice and comparing them, was easier than adding and subtracting 7-8 numbers and comparing them to one number.

Additionally, some things really seemed like that only should be added to one side (defence of offence) rather than subtracted from the other side.

We should definitely be thinking about these types of things, and it is a good suggestion, but certainly from my experience with the current complexity, modifying defence and offence I found easier.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

In playing Dungeons & Dragons with my friends (before Pathfinder), we discovered that a cluster of generous people in a party support each other so well that they outperform the greedy people. The rules favor teamwork. In our later games, the savvy new players adopted the style of the teamwork players because they saw that that style worked.

Therefore, when I became a GM, I had a bunch of generous, team-oriented players whose party performed two levels above their actual level. I took to increasing the difficult of the encounters in the adventure path in order to challenge them. And thus, they learned another lesson: extra power did not make the encounters any easier, because the more power they had, the more I raised the difficulty. My players decided that the only extra power they wanted was the fun stuff--the interesting feats and flavorful magic items. As for the rest of the treasure, their characters gave it away to charity. This was great for me as a GM, because their character's generosity and kindness let me stage plenty of friendly interactions with NPCs and give them good information to support their quests.

The end result is that I had the players that most GMs wish for....

Run a game so that it is fun for people? What trickery is this?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree. The lack of reach from reach weapons while mounted is a huge disadvantage.

I was looking at a Paladin build with a mount, and the lack of reach meant that it is such a poor choice.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think balance is important in so far as unbalanced game system can be very hard to run for the GM, and not fun for people playing characters that get eclipsed by the super characters.

On the flip side, games that sacrificed fun options for balance, are also making a substantial trade off.

My experience is that PFe1 with all of the additional material was so unbalanced that it caused problems. Whereas PFe2 has stripped out so many options as to become dull and boring for players. It does seem really good for GMs though.

I think more interesting options can be put back into PFe2 without compromising balance. However, this is not a trivial task.

Maximising fun is obviously the most important thing for a system. Game balance is part of this equation, and for some people it has a higher priority than others. Good game design is about balancing mechanical game balance against the other factors that make the game fun.

Syndrous wrote:

The lack of a confirmation roll means that there is a significantly higher chance to crit...

What kind of poorly optimised PFe1 characters are you playing?

From about level 10 onwards crit chance is close to 30 percent. Reduces a bit for later attacks, but there are also a lot more attacks in a round as you level up further.

Thanks Jason.

15 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

This game fixes the "powergamers destroy modules in pathfinder society" problem and the "designing APs is difficult when characters values can be vastly unpredictable"problem

The game is designed around Paizo's needs, not ours.

Sounds very similar to my needs as a GM.

Good to see some analysis, albeit applicable in only a very limited circumstance.

I am not really sure why you decided to go with +3 damage at level 1, when 4 would be the usual. Also, likely to pick up a +2 to stat item before level 20, so likely to have +7 to damage.

The analysis does show that you do not lose much damage when going from a 1d12 weapon to a d10 reach weapon. I definitely think it is worth it.

Also, exploiting a vulnerability seems to add considerable damage. Example: a cold iron, holy weapon gets you 30 damage against high level demons (with an extra 2d6 coming from the unholy itself), which is a nice big chunk.

It would be interesting to see how much things change when up against weak enemies. Maybe 15% crit chance.

Who uses swords? Polearm is where it is at.

I do agree that flat footed is too common to make the crit effect particularly valuable. Not all crit effects have to be great though.

The step action sounds like a good suggestion to me.

I do not think there is any argument from a game balance perspective.

It might be some sort of: it is bigger, therefore it requires more "etching". But I think it adds needless complexity and should be done away with.

There might be an argument to be made for making armour and weapon potency runes interchangeable. Got a +3 dagger, rather have +3 armour? Change it over.

Maybe even allow potency runes to add to hardness of shields.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an experienced GM with great game knowledge PFe1 is very hard to run. There are plenty of ways too improve it, n but it is a huge overhead to enjoying.

PFe2 has made a lot of changes to address this. However, I think it had also sacrificed a lot of player fun. I think a lot of the negative reviews are coming from the players rather than the GMs. It is great to have a game that is easy to run, but it is hard to run a game without players.

So I think there is a decent amount of work to be done to put back characters customisation and abilities and systems that feel enjoyable.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I certainly have some misgiving about the PFe2 rules. But the main reason I have stopped reading and positing on the forums because it is an ocean of immature nerd rage.

I will likely be back once the seas have calmed.

Doing an analysis of PFe2 compared to PFe2 spells is pretty pointless.

If you actually want to make a convincing argument you need to do a comparison between the capabilities of the different classes of PFe2.

I also think your are totally wrong about blasting. But I have not had the time to do a detailed analysis.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

If you can spend 6 seconds stabbing an unconscious person and they are not dead at the end of that, something is wrong.

Very nice.

Also, where can one find the errata?

I have noticed something strange:

Sneak in the book:

"If you speak or make a deliberate loud noise, you become sensed. If you do anything else, you become seen just before you act. For instance, if you attack a creature you’re unseen by, that creature is not flatfooted against that attack."

Sneak in the tool:

"If you speak or make a deliberate loud noise, you become sensed. If you succeed at your Stealth check and then attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and then you become seen."

Why are these different?

9 people marked this as a favorite.

The advantage of being able to hit only 40-60% of the time is that it means that defensive and offensive tactics become viable.

If you hit 95% of the time on your first strike, then actions like raise shield drop this to 85%. That only mitigates 11% of the damage for the first. Totally not worth it.

But if you have a only 50% chance to hit, then it will drop that to 40%.
It now mitigates 25%. This is much more worth it.

Similarly, you really want to be getting into position to flank to boost it up again. Or getting that bless or bard song.

A lot of these options are useless if you have a 95% chance to hit with your first attack. It also means that crits become very common. I think crits are more exciting if they only happen 5-15% of the time.

Randomness also makes the game more exciting. With unexpected rolls, a straightforward encounter can turn into edge of your seat action.

Fortunately the GM can adjust these stats incredibly easily to suit the desired play style of their game.

I actually think missing is a good thing. But that is certainly personal preference.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps the most important is that character power level has been reduced. Not as noticeable at early levels, but substantially at higher levels.

Most things (saves, AC, skills, attack bonus) get a +1 bonus every level.

These things have an associated proficiency which gives you a small bonus to the roll and is relevant for unlocking some feats and other perks.
Untrained: -2
Trained: 0
Expert: +1
Master: +2
Legendary: +3

A lot of master and legendary proficiency is lock to particular classes.

You have fewer bonuses you can stack, so the difference in competency between a character that has super specialised in a particular thing compared to someone that is essentially untrained in that thing has been greatly reduced.

Someone talk about 4 degrees of success.


The spell lists have been divided into four: cleric, wizard, druid, bard.

Sorcerers pick a blood line which is tired to one of the four spell lists. They are then that type of caster.

Sorcerers and bards now get spells at the same level as the prepared casters.

Spell DCs for your various spells now are all identical. Still based off your main caster state, but now it includes your level and your proficiency.

Paladins and Rangers do not have spells in the traditional sense.

Paladins use spell points to cast "spells". The other casters also get spell points.

Generally when you are casting a spell from a magic item it requires an additional resource cost called "resonance". Few people like it as it is currently implemented.

Rather than move, standard, swift, free, immediate actions, you get 3 actions a round and 1 reaction.

You can make 3 attacks at level 1, but it takes all your actions and you get -5 on the 2nd attack and -10 on the 3rd.

There are some class feats/abilities and weapons that can reduce this penalty.

Haste grants 1 extra action that you can only use for some specific actions.

thflame wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I will also say, as someone who has a player that every time he rolls his attack has to go through "Oh, I have a +2 bonus from this... oh wait, I forgot my +1 bonus from this feat... Oh, also I cast this spell for a +3 bonus... oh and I also have a +2 bonus from my Teamwork feat..." *rolls* "Wait I forgot +2 from flanking! No wait, +4 from flanking, I have that feat!"

I agree with Paizo this is a problem and I fully support any efforts to address it. XD

How often does this REALLY happen? Surely your players are adding up stuff like BAB, Enhancement Bonus, Weapon Focus, etc. out of game, leaving situational bonuses as the only things that can slow down the game.

Most of the time, players are going to KNOW that they have a flanking bonus, because they will have actively moved into position to flank and, in my experience, casters tend to remind everyone every turn that they have bonuses from their spells.

This theoretical "4+1+3+2+5+3+2+6" is either hyperbole or players not adding up bonuses they should before combat starts.

Nah, this kind of rubbish player activity happens a lot. A LOT.

Also, at times there were a lot of things to add up. Here is what I kept track of on my level 14 Paladin for +hit.

BAB 14
Str 9-11
Weapon 1-3
P.Attack -4 (-1)
S.Evil 5
Haste 1
Bard 3
Morale 0-2-4
Size 0
Sacred 0
Luck 0-3-5
Holy S 4
Total 20-47

This is not including flanking or other circumstance bonuses/penalties.

Wow, look at that 27 point swing.

Xenocrat wrote:
Touch attacks miss about half the time now against equal level monsters, much worse than PF1.

Actually, that is a good point.

Excellent work nerds.

I believe you have to touch as you cast it, as touching is part of the somatic action.
Requirements You have a free hand.
You gesture and move to manipulate the forces of magic, providing a somatic component for a spell. If the spell requires you to touch the target, you do that as a part of this action." Page 196.

Also, I think it specifically says that if you miss with your attack roll the spell is wasted. "On a successful attack, your spell affects the target, and on a failure the spell is lost unless otherwise noted." Page 197.

However, since only about 25% of creatures get an AoO, I would say overall there has been a buff to melee casting.

iLaifire wrote:
Isaac Zephyr wrote:

"If your initiative roll result is tied with an opponent’s result, that opponent goes first. If your initiative roll result is tied with another player character’s result, you can decide between yourselves who goes first when you reach that place in the initiative order. Once you’ve resolved who goes first, your places in the initiative order usually don’t change during the encounter."
Seriously? That is how they decided to "solve" it? Rules need to be written in such a way that it doesn't matter whether participants are PCs or NPCs. In this case, how do you handle PVP? They're both players, so they should decide between them, but since they're trying to kill each other neither has any reason to let the other go first; Since they are both opponents, they both go last.

Just get them to flat roll. Highest goes first.

Cat-thulhu wrote:
PvP? Why? Does this happen often in your experience? I've found PvP experiences tend to undermine the game.

Also a good point.


I think this change alone makes PFe2 superior to PFe1.

Ckorik wrote:

Spell: Dispel Magic - my friend was in a playtest group - and they couldn't figure out how to dispel an item - he asked me if I could figure it out - I did (I think, but I still have questions) but I have complaints about the process:


The layout of the rules is my second biggest issue with the playtest. I think dispelling is fairly straight forward, but figuring this out is not.

My interpretation is that you determine:
-The spell level of the item.
-The DC of the item.
-The spell level of dispel magic.

If spell level of dispel magic > spell level of magic item; then you automatically dispel it.


If magic item level > spell level of dispel magic > magic item level -4; then you make your spell roll (1d20 + caster stat + proficiency (level + 0/1/2/3) + spell level of dispel magic - spell level of magic item) against DC.

Slightly complicated, but easy enough.

If spell level of dispel magic < spell level -4; then you fail at dispelling automatically.



Level 4 dispel magic, level 8 sorcerer, cha 19, trained proficiency.
Level 5 magic item. DC 25.

Because the spell level of dispel magic is not higher than the magic item. You need to make a roll.

Spell roll is:
1d20 + caster stat + proficiency (level + 0/1/2/3) + spell level of dispel magic - spell level of magic item

1d20 + 4 + 8 + 4 - 5 = 1d20+11 against DC 25. So, you have 35% chance of dispelling.

Rules as written Lay on Hands requires a free hand, even with Warden Touch. There are some rumours going around that this has been an errata clarifying that Warded Touch removes the free-hand requirement. Not that I can find it.

I think this change is needed. Multiclassing into Cleric to get Emblazon Symbol is slightly mad.

My first session was awesome.

I generated characters for 3 of my players, the final player made their own.

Also, your wife sounds like a charming lady.


That is exactly my interpretation of the rules from reading every possible applicable rule about 3 times, and trying to inject common sense and guessing at what Paizo are trying to covey.

Good to see it might be correct.

More thinking: If your shield received an 42 dents at once, can it go from undented to destroyed?
Or is there always an intermediate broken step. So, the shield can only be destroyed when actually broken before a denting attack.

I think I am going with you cannot 1 shot a shield to destroyed. Who knows?

Strachan Fireblade wrote:
On a side note, is it stated anywhere how AoEs damage dice work? As in roll once and apply to all targets? Can't seem to find it.

I do not believe that it is stated anywhere, which leads me to believe that you roll once and apply it to all targets.

What kind of sick bastard would make you roll 6d6 for every target?

Unicore wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Unicore wrote:
The rulebook never clearly states what attributes you use when making touch attack rolls with spells. Herolab online seems to think it is your spell roll modifier. The pregens use their dex and str. THe rules in the book are all over the place, but never lay out a specific formula for calculating it.

herolab is wrong.

a touch attack is an unarmed attack targetting touch ac.

unarmed is defined as a finesse weapon.

so you can use either dex or strength, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an attack.

so prof bonusl+dex/str+misc att odifiers vs touch

I don't think people are going to take your word or mine over Herolab until something offical gets stated. The wording on page 192 is not explicit and if Herolab can get it wrong, then a lot of other folks will too.

You are probably right that people are not going to listen to us. But it is definitely a finesse strike, so Str or Dex. I took me about 20 minutes to work it out, but it is spelled out in the rules over about 3 sections.

Also this is what the iconic cleric had on their sheet +2 (1 lvl, 1 dex) for their fire power.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Either familiars are rubbish for Sorcerers or this is typo:

Familiar and Master Abilities (page 287)

• You can prepare one additional cantrip. You must be able to
prepare cantrips to select this master ability.

• You can prepare one additional spell at least 3 levels lower
than your highest-level spell; you must be able to prepare
level 4 spells to select this master ability.



If your ability’s counteract level is the same as the
effect’s counteract level or lower, you must succeed at a
check using the relevant skill or ability against the DC of
the target effect. You take a cumulative –5 penalty to this
check for every level by which your ability’s counteract
level is lower than the target’s. If your ability is 4 or more
counteract levels lower than that of the effect you are
trying to counteract, your attempt automatically fails.


How can you take a -4 or -5 if you automatically fail?!



Heightened (3rd) The damage increases to 1d8 + your
spellcasting ability modifier.


Should be 1d10 (I think).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it is dangerous. I also think it is quite a good thing.

It is totally gone.

Hythlodeus wrote:
Malthraz wrote:
Feat tax? Half elves are amazing. +5 feet and LLV for 1 feat! Then dip into Elf ...

How does one 'dip' ito Elf?

Also, I thought in PF as long as ancestor of yours was an Elf, you were considered a Half-elf? It was not necessary to dip into an Elf to create an Half-elf

Just saying: Select "nimble" from the Elf ancestry feat.

Half elf gives you access to a lot of feats. A lot.

Rysky wrote:

*opens mouth* … *closes it*



I must admit I was a bit surprised when you were posting some positive comments.

There are some prominent people that are still very negative. Maybe they will come around in time.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
6. This is a dumb question
This is a dumb answer.

This is a good forum sass.

Phantasmist wrote:
1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

I definitely like PFe1, but...

Phantasmist wrote:

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

It is definitely troublesome. It is so thoroughly unbalanced it is difficult to run at times. Especially at high levels.

With a few house rules, I ran a really good campaign last year and the year before.

Phantasmist wrote:

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

I think some elements of 4th were good, but it was a miniatures combat game, not a RP game. I never played a game of it, I never wanted to run it.

Never played 5th. Sounds very simplified, but better than 4th.

Phantasmist wrote:

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

I am keen on balance, since unbalanced causes a lot of problems. Fun is more important than balance, but it is hard to have fun without a decent amount of balance.

High level play should be playable. Unlike in PFe1, which in my experience is very, very poor. Does it need to be smooth? Smoothness is not the issue really. The issue is that it is terrible in PFe1.

I like options.

Fun is the most important. All these things can lead to fun. Options and balance can take away from fun if done poorly.

Phantasmist wrote:

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

I am not that concerned with this. A good system that has a steep learning curve is fine by me. It could be good to have more players playing Pathfinder, but I have a stable group of people to play with.

Phantasmist wrote:

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?


Phantasmist wrote:

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Sure. If it is an improvement.

Phantasmist wrote:

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

-Resonance is a good idea. The current implementation needs some work.

-Signature skills is a good idea. I would like to see a little more freedom with picking signature skills.

-Class feats seems fairly restrictive at times. I am pleased that the power level has been toned down, but I think maybe class options are a bit too limited now. With some classes, you tend to pick a specialisation and then you are going to use at least half of your feats to pursue that specialisation, which neglects some other cool options.

-I think ancestries needs a balance pass.

-I am not 100% sold on the animal companion and mounted combat implementation. But I need to do some more reading. One concern is that reach weapons appear not to have reach when you mounted on a large mount.

I am really pleased with the play test rules as well. I think Paizo have done an amazing job.

Is it perfect? No. But it is a play test, why would it be perfect?

I think it is way ahead of PFe1. As enjoyable as PFe1 is, it is a deeply flawed game. PFe2 has addressed a lot of these problems.

Secret Wizard wrote:
uuuhhhh is Lamashtu supposed to allow you to channel POSITIVE energy??

I believe so. It is so her followers can heal all her misshapen and malformed creatures. It was discussed in... the cleric blog (I think).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Virellius wrote:

Why can't my half-orc access Orc Weapons at level one? Why does he have to wait FOUR LEVELS to use a weapon he should have grown up knowing about?

It makes 100% no sense.

It's because level 1 characters are no very good at things. Orc weapons are hard.

You think being a half orc teaches sorcerers how to use falchions from level 1? 100% don't agree.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Feat tax? Half elves are amazing. +5 feet and LLV for 1 feat! Then dip into Elf for Nimble and pick up Fleet with a general feat. 40 ft movement.

So good.

Grab Natural Ambition from your human side.

I too think it is very strange to give Paladins Lay on Hands and then make it very difficult to use.


Round 1:
Action 1: Attack
Action 2: Attack
Action 3: Release one hand as free action and heal friend.

Round 2:
Action 1: Heal friend again
Action 2: Grip glaive
Action 3: Attack

This looks like a good combo, but it is no good for sword and board.

Unarmed and board looks like it might be possible, although this seems weird to me.

Finally, multiclassing to Cleric for EMBLAZON SYMBOL is an option as well. Actually not a bad option for 2 feats and wis 16, you get 2 cleric cantrips: Sheild and Stabilise; as well as access to wands, scrolls etc.

In any case, this whole design seems awkward.

At least you can buff it to d6 with a feat and then it heightens very well.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually really like this ability. I think it is good game design. I actually think it makes reach weapons far more appealing for a Paladin.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ogres were specifically designed not to have riders. They are a big lump of HP that can hit stuff.

The redcap actually does have quite a bit going on in it's start block, maybe not in terms of attack effects, but certainly other abilities.

It seems highly likely that other creatures will have attack riders. If for some bizarre reason they do not, then just put your own in.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

But it does make a big difference if you are wizard with none of these abilities. Suddenly it is one feat that gives you 3.

Arrgh! I be a pirate wizard. But I've run out of rum and me spell book be gettin all salty.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

People often do things without examination. Clarity costs little, and is quite valuable.

It also helps stop unforseen shenanigans, which do happen in RPGs.

For the first time ever, I agree with Voss.

At least in the blog it says explicitly that you cannot multiclass into you in class. Hopefully things are clear in the book as well.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like a good trade off to me.

You might be right DMW. I guess we will see next week.

1 to 50 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>