Sleepless Detective

MerlinCross's page

Organized Play Member. 1,781 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,781 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

How updated is this?

As I've come across older PDFs on friends machines and books that for example, have GPL instead of CMD along with other odd quirks.

Basically is it worth picking it up vs updating any older versions?


It's not so much he's completely out of resources, in fact he still has a base to call home.

It's more he's in a very dangerous spot after the starting events offscreen of the AP.

Put a different way, Harrigan is bleeding but will live and be able to come back strong enough to even try to earn a seat at the pirate lords later on(Book 3 I believe).

But he is bleeding and you know what sharks do when they smell blood.

There's a module floating around that has the PCs raid a sunken ship and ends with a large octopus attacking them. I've seen people use that to show how tough Harrigan is to players.


Vic Wertz wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Sorry for the grave dig but with the arrival of Pathfinder 2, is publishing stuff for PF1 going to go through any changes?
Everything you could do before can still be done.

Thanks. I always had ideas on the backburner but never got around to actually seeing them past the idea/homebrew stage.

But now I might actually try to put the work into seeing them become something more but wasn't sure if Paizo was going to say.., ramp down on third party publishing.


Sorry for the grave dig but with the arrival of Pathfinder 2, is publishing stuff for PF1 going to go through any changes?


It's not just Traveler's Any Tool I'm worried about.

There's a LOT of interesting stuff deep in PF1's gear catalouge that I wonder if they will make the jump or not on account of the stronger skills and the lowering of just outright +s.

Yeah yeah, CLW wands all day err day; didn't care. My PF1 side healer used a feat or two along side Bloodblocks to get the job one.

Now this isn't me harshing on PF2(For once), I just don't know how they're going to translate some of these items over. Even nerfing them might not be enough(0r too much to make them actually usable outside of loot drops).

Though hmm, rather than just raw numbers maybe some of these items can bump up the Proficiency during use? Or maybe throw in a reroll? I dunno, there's hopefully something they can do.


Fumarole wrote:
We pretty much had this same discussion regarding grenades in Starfinder. I think the consensus was that they're best off as loot as no one will buy or craft them.

Only Grenade that looks useful is the one Soldiers can make as that's at least 'reusable' and you can splice some effects to it later I think.

But is this just wands being king again or are staffs also up there too? Playtest looked to try to improve staffs but I haven't really checked that section too much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
[I can only speak for myself, but the math and attempts to break the system are precisely why I'm here. At some point, I am going to gather up all my toys, write up my houserules, and not come back for a while. That doesn't mean we do math when making player choices. It just means I want the game designed to maximize choice with minimum punishment for "roleplaying" choices. I'm sure the game designers would tell you that requires some math. The simplest way to put it might be: You don't come to the forums to roleplay.

You're right. We don't come to the forums to roleplay.

But at the rate it seems on the forums, I question if most people here wouldn't be happier with a skirmish war game instead. Or one of those board games that simulate a tabletop game.

I make choices based off some math. The community seems more than willing to just take the accepted answer because of math going into the decimals.

And if a person is that willing to give up their own choices, I can only question what sort of actual in character agency they'll have, never mind their player one. They've already given that one up.


So wait, how do you run Udjebet? She uses her ring to cast basically Alter Self okay that makes sense but then...,

Does she keep her gaze attack in her 'human form' then?


kevin_video wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

The Sceaduinar, Sekuer this is CR7? Really? Okay yeah the PCs don't have to fight the damn thing but really?

I'm looking over the stats of this thing and it's a beast at for it's level. Sure by book it says it doesn't use Harm till it's half dead, but that's 90 damage, 45 if they make their save. That's going to flatten most people in my group if they don't save.

Add to it, that one of my damage dealers is Melee(Oh hello Anti Life Shell) and I have a really brutal fight for them, maybe a bit too much.

Thoughts?

The fact it has slay living doesn't help any either. I can't really give much context unfortunately. My group had access to faerie fire and an archer fighter with Clustered Shots and crit on the first attack. It got one round with the barbarian who had an adamantine morningstar, which he threw at it. The poor creature didn't even get to to a point to even think about using harm, let alone its other abilities.

I mean yeah but Slay the living I think is said to be used at half HP?

My team actually didn't explore that place so I have a Sceaduinar running around. Maybe link up with the Cult.


I'm interested in ideas for the High Prestess of Thoth myself.

My game's leader/soul of the group is a Priestss of Ma'at and linked up with Ma'at and Thoth's worshippers.

I'm trying to figure out a good way of expanding on the beef between them and the Nethys church. Right now I'm going with the fact Thoth's group is big about spreading knowledge, regardless of what happens afterward.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:

I had this concern too. I'm still not certain if it's an issue or not, but it's a possible one. Mostly because class feats are pulling double duty for customization and class abilities.

Thankfully, I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that the GMG will include class feats at every level as an official optional rule. Yeah, you can house rule it now, but sometimes having it printed is what helps convince a GM to allow it. My main concern with a class feat every level is that it will kind of encourage everyone to multiclass all the time, because you'll often find it where you've taken all the good looking class feats, so you might as well multiclass. As more class feats are released though, this will probably become less of an issue, but the ease of multiclassing will make it very attractive. Whether that's a pro or con depends on the individual. I personally want a sweet spot of multiclassing being very doable, but not so easy that it's the default for everyone to have multiple multiclass dedications.

That's kinda debatable and probably more based on Build.

A Feat each level more than likely just means 2 feats from each Rung. And I can't picture there not being at least 2 winners each Feat Level Rung. Double backing for a weaker feat at a higher level seems a bad move unless you're using it to unlock something else later on.

Meanwhile people who have a good build picked out can multiclass a lot easier and probably get close to the old hybrid classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
whew wrote:
In PF2, the action cost for debuffing is much less: characters can do a debuff instead of taking a third attack at -10 or for free with a crit.
Arachnofiend wrote:
If a third strike at -10 is universally a better choice than inflicting Frightened on an enemy then that's a damning criticism of the system. I suspect that isn't actually true, though.

You Can. Will you want to is left to be mathed out. Especially later on when new splat books come out and there might be ways to over come that -10.

I mean for the sake of all the PF gods, we have people mathing out DPR already, to decimal points.

It's why I hang my head at times when talking about PF1. It's not Agency or the choice, it's the Math that makes people do stuff. And far too often it seems. Did it make sense to take this trait for my character? NO but it gives me the Math I wanted. Story be sod off, I need Fey Foundling on Paladin. We'd be here all day if I kept giving examples but I think people get it.

I might not like the changes but right now might actually be the best time to try PF2 as the math isn't figure out just yet. Or maybe it is but it hasn't been broadcast to the wider community just yet.


Excaliburproxy wrote:

I would argue that this sort of thing generally works against a monster more than it does players when the number of players is greater than the number of monsters. If one strong monster uses an action to skitter away from the melee fighters then the monster has more or less used 1/3 of its "side's" actions just to reduce the number of attacks the melee characters can make; recall that a certain percentage of the party are going to be ranged casters or ranged fighters so the monster's action spent re-positioning isn't going to reduce damage from those guys. There are also plenty of ways to get power attack and barbarians can pick up No Escape at level 2 to similarly bypass an enemy's chance of escape.

Hit and run tactics maybe work a little better with many weak enemies but that is why god made burning hands.

Danbala wrote:
[Maybe. But when you are fighting giant rats and skeletons it doesn't seem in character for the enemy to do that. Also, in most cases the monsters are outnumbered which limits that tactic's effectiveness for them.

Against 1 big target sure. And against Several targets yeah AoE still exists.

4 PCs vs 4 Bandits or even like 4-6 goblins I've just seen it turn into a running battle. And not an actual epic running battle the kind you'd seen in movies or fiction. More like Tom chasing Jerry. So then my own groups see this cartoonish running fight or the martials standing in place to screen the Ranged, usually in a corridor to the point we're back where PF1 put us.

That's funny once. Having it happen all the time is annoying.

Besides, where are we in the multi swing math?


Arachnofiend wrote:
Temperans wrote:

(Classes didn't have so much bias for combat roles before, but meh some people will talk about all this bad feat taxes and math fixes, while applauding feat taxes and math fixes)

* btw I'm talking in general not necessarily about people in this thread.

Depended on the class, and depended on what era you're talking about. Things would open up quite a bit as time went on but in the initial launch of PF1 it basically was "Clerics and Druids can build for whatever the f!*~ they want, martials stand still and attack".

Compare the debuff potential of a Core Fighter in PF1 vs. that of a Core Fighter in PF2 and you'll see what I mean.

Why do we care about debuffs if the math shows just doing as much damage as possible is usually the way to go?

You can do debuff fighter in both systems. Both systems(and community) will say you're probably not playing it right but you CAN do it.

Always gotta go for the big numbers, that's what we've been taught and told.


"Mobility equals Resiliency"

This works both ways though. There's no reason the DM can't also have the enemies do hit and run tactics. So it can become this slog of trying to chase them down or pin them in long enough to get killing blows.


Arachnofiend wrote:


I'm far more in favor of a system like this. What Grognard is doing is literally just setting someone up for failure if they decide they don't want this character to be charismatic - again, it's the same thing as forcing the Barbarian to attempt to disable some of the traps. I don't know the details of Shadowrun's system but the theory of making it easier for characters who fit into the situation to negotiate is sound.

Well actually it's a change for the computer games and not in the tabletop system it seems. Weird. And the Etiquette's in game unlock more dialogue options or different skill checks.

But I like the idea that each person/character has their own insights or manners when it comes to speaking to certain groups. Someone skilled at making deals with the nobility might find it hard to deal with the street gangs. An Academic styled character can easily talk to others about science, magic, occult topics but throw them in room full of Socialites or Military minded and they might flummox a bit.

I'm not a fan of the new background system but I think that might be the key way to easily slide such an idea into PF2. Sure someone that can craft masterwork/legendary weapons after adventuring for awhile can convince a Smith, but someone with the Background: Blacksmith has been around long enough to know more of the dangers, pick up on the more subtle tells and can tell the odd metalworking joke that other smiths actually get.

It's not a perfect system probably, and I haven't really tested it in a numbers way but it's something I'm keeping in mind a little bit in my own games.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always questioned "Dump stats". I'm the guy that at least likes to keep everything at 10-12 so I don't get a negative. I never saw going lower as a 'good thing' unless it was for spell casters and even then, there's ways to get more spell slots/recharge them. Also the danger of taking Stat damage early but that's gone last I saw(There's no stat damage just debuffs. Can you die if your stat hits 0 by debuff?)

Arachnofiend wrote:
As someone who plays charisma characters a frankly unreasonable amount of the time, this behavior annoys the hell out of me. It feels like being deliberately robbed of my investment in diplomacy because the GM wants to punish the dwarf. You wouldn't force someone who didn't invest in Thievery to pick half of the locks.

No but the CHA character everywhere or at least IN character might not have the mannerisms to be fully trusted.

A Bard might be able to win over the Thieves guild but a Rogue or someone that is more criminal/underground might have a better idea or way of getting them to talk cause they are "One of us".

It's why I'm slowly testing out Etiquette from Shadowrun in my games. Well the Shadowrun Returns series. Basically different mannerisms or talking/culture points that help with discussing.

Yeah your Dwarf might not have CHA to talk to the big merchant lord but he'd have say Etiquette Miner or Streets and be able to talk with the lower classes just fine, as an example.

While having a strong CHA build is fine, just make sure to let others talk and not just be for combat.


gnoams wrote:

When 3ed d&d came out, it was so all around better than ad&d2 that we switched immediately and never looked back. When pathfinder 1 happened, it was basically just some good updates to the 3e system and we switched immediately again. Now with pathfinder 2, it's something different. It looks to be a good game, but it's not a straight upgrade, it's just different. As someone whose been playing for a long time now it's just... I don't see any good reason to change editions.

For new players, I'd definitely recommend pf2. For casual players too, or those who have not played a lot of pf1. However, I've been GMing games in basically the same rule set for the past 19 years and am very comfortable with its idiosyncrasies. I can run a better game using pf1 over pf2 because I understand the old tools and not the new ones. The new toolbox just doesn't do enough better or quicker to warrant the change for me, but if you are buying a set of tools for the first time, I definitely recommend the new ones.

This is a stance I can actually get behind. I don't even think PF2 is a 'bad game' but it does nothing that says "Play me" to the point of not only switching systems but switching over to that(If I'm jumpping systems, I'm detouring to Shadowrun first).

For newer players, yeah I'd say give PF2 a shot but at the same time I don't see what makes PF2 really stand out from DnD 5E. Now that's not to say it's a clone of it but some things do remind me of DnD 5 that I don't like. Example; Some classes having to pick a certain focus after X level feels a lot like DnD 5E's "You're level 3, pick your actual build" idea. I didn't like that there, I don't like it here.

But I honestly can't say if it'll be better or not. It's certainly a different flavor and it might appeal more to new players and vets. Not me but hey, hope it works out well enough for Paizo to keep the lights on.


I'm more interested in how this works with plot. But this is also running with old info.

Does a summon still take an action from the summoner to do anything? If so, how does one portray the evil court mage that has a few Fiends summoned to do evil plots? If he has enough summoned by RAW he shouldn't be able to do anything and just stand in place. Or just be locked in his room all day.

That said, Planar Binding might still be around?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah no I wasn't expecting instant rules on how to revert back in the first couple APs. Unless said APs are retreads/repeats, like Rise of the Runelords 2.0. Just a little "Hey here's what to do to update it" or something like that.

But again unless it's retreads I don't expect to see rules on how to convert back till later.

I get that you guys want to keep working. I even get you guys want to move on. And I wish you luck.

I just hope your new game doesn't get broken and answered in a year or two.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Suggestions on how to port new AP into the old system.

That aside;

Ramifications on the larger setting could be good, as I think most of us who have run more than one AP like to reference that. I did Iron Gods and Wrath of the Rightous afterward and made a new order of knights/paladins to go with the PCs based off Tech found in Iron Gods.

Or maybe find ways to link the AP from one book to another. Now of course this would be a giant task if you do it for all the APs but maybe link them based on Region or style? It doesn't even need to be the same characters, maybe the retainers of the PCs are sent to deal with an issue near by, but if you're going to link them based of PCs(And their levels) maybe give a broad suggested stat bonus to give monsters? I don't know.

Like if you completed Skull and Shackles, your next character for say, Serpent's Skull or Ruins of Azlant was a retainer/helper of your old PC and gets a small Pirate bonus?

Something to help flesh out where they're from or at least what "Completed" AP they are from. You don't even need to beat the AP but can now go "Okay this AP was completed and here's the fallout" in an easier way.

I think Reign of Winter mentioned a Module that might have been played before the AP and goes "So here's what's up if that happened" or something. More of that be interesting to see.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Even with the explanation I'm with Cyouni and Arachnofiend here. If a game developing optimization paths and preferred builds as it develops is what constitutes a failure... then the vast majority of products that exist or will ever exist are automatically failures.

That seems like a poor metric.

Optimization paths and preferred builds - okay.

Community and dev expectation that they are the absolutely only way to play the game - bad.

I'm tired of being told I need a barrel of happy sticks. I'm tired of being told I'm bad if I select a tier 1 and struggle. I'm tired that everyone rolls their eyes if I pick Rogue or a class-race that isn't optimal.

I'm tired that everyone seems to expect everyone to min max. Even the devs at this point.

And if PF2 shapes up the same way, then yes, I'll consider it a failure.

Arakasius wrote:
I disagree with that too. We absolutely want better builds than others. We want people who explore and theorycraft to find synergies that are hidden (and then of course make guides/posts/videos about it). If there wasn’t room to get superior (and by that also inferior) builds in PF2 then the game would imo be a failure. What they do need to do to succeed though is have the gap be narrower. Too often in PF1 one character would overshadow the table and make them useless. There was a hug gap between optimized and incorrectly built, but the bigger problem was the huge gap between optimized and averagely built.

I don't mind when people do that but I mind when people fully accept it as "The only way to play".

PF2 is a failure to me if it sells itself on all this 'customization' and "oh these are viable" only for the community to throw out 75% of it and keep playing with the same builds again and again regardless of if it fits the character or not.

I don't want to pick Fighter in PF2 and instantly have the community and even Devs expect "Oh he's going Two hander cause that's the only way to play that class at this point". I don't want to pick Wizard and the answer be "Oh pick X, Y, and Z" and have the community AND GAME tell me I'm bad if I don't.

Also; "We want better builds than others". Yeah. That's how the arms race begins.


Cyouni wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

It's fresh. It's new. It's shiny.

It needs time for the new paint to wear off and the community to solve the math problems. Then we'll see if it's a better game or not.

Because I see the term "Tier list" adopted by the community at large, AGAIN in PF2, and a general expected mathed out "you must be X strong" come up AGAIN in the community and official books; it will in my opinion have failed.

I think the requirement for being "you must be X strong" is pretty hard to not meet.

For example, you'd pretty much have to be a fighter with 14 or lower Str and Dex at level 1. Even then, you'd still probably be pretty tolerable thanks to fighter bonuses, so you also would have to avoid putting stat bonuses in either as you got higher level.

And at that point, let's be real - you're intentionally shooting yourself in the foot.

Or be a wizard focusing on attack spells with a 14 Int. Even then, Magic Missile is still functional, and theoretically you'd be able to do some damage with a weapon because your stat boosts went elsewhere.

Between you and Arachnofiend I feel like I need to expand.

You build a Fighter. It's expected you go with These Feats during level ups or even this Dedication. Because the community expects it as it does the most, and thus the devs also start to work with that being the 'standard'.

You pick up a wizard, it's fully expected you take these spells. You go shopping, it's clearly time to pick up X item or you're shooting yourself in the foot. Why would you not do Y because it's mathed out to be the best? You must build "Z way" or you're not playing it right.

This is what I want to see avoided. All the math solved, all the choices discarded for the most standard and board reaching options.

The actual rules are still brand new so no one has had time to actively sit down and solve them and even then a splat book or two might mess that math up.

But that math will be solved again. It's just how much that actually settles into the standard community that I'm waiting to see.


Rafkin wrote:
It's still Paizo. Every possible way to build a character will exist eventually.

Possible and usable are 2 different things in the community.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's fresh. It's new. It's shiny.

It needs time for the new paint to wear off and the community to solve the math problems. Then we'll see if it's a better game or not.

Because I see the term "Tier list" adopted by the community at large, AGAIN in PF2, and a general expected mathed out "you must be X strong" come up AGAIN in the community and official books; it will in my opinion have failed.


Yeah talk to your DM about it. I'd probably allow Knowledge Engineering to function as a pseudo "Heal check"


doc roc wrote:

I see Paizo have finally got a 'caster cleric' (Cloistered Cleric) in the latest tweaking of cleric in PF2

And to think it only took 11 years of people telling them on forums, homebrews and 3PP versions for them to get the message...lol

Isn't Caster Cleric the default of Cleric? Yeah they can support or smash face but Cleric being high on the tier list isn't due to martial power. On that note;

Loved: All the numbers. All the odd ways you could find to boost stuff or cover weaknesses. There was a lot of odd items and feats you could find if you dug deep.

Wanted: Better Animal Companion support. I'm not asking it to be on the level of Summoner's pet but bring them up at least so it's worth taking cause most were gimmick builds or abused some rule.

Hated: The expected 'solved' math and tier list that both the community and even the devs seemed to follow. Which is probably going to happen again in a few years but what can you do?

Will miss: Alchemist. I don't like the new walking supply shed they made it.


Continuing my obsession with the brawler class and it's archetypes;

Quote:


-Snake Bite Striker-
Snake Feint (Ex): At 3rd level, a snakebite striker who uses a standard action to move can combine that move with a feint. If she is able to feint as a move action (such as from having the Improved Feint feat), she can combine a move action to move with her feint. At 11th level, once per round she can declare her square and one adjacent square as the origin of her attacks until her next turn (allowing her to use one or both squares to determine whether she or allies are flanking an opponent). At 15th level, she counts an additional adjacent square for this purpose. This ability replaces maneuver training gained at 3rd and 7th levels.

Okay so the first part is kinda okay. You can move and Feint but I don't understand the second part when you have something like Improved Feint. Unless it means you can Feint then move?

But it's the level 11 ability that concerns me. There doesn't seem to be an action to do it, you just can. So does this mean you can do this without Feinting? Also, what happens if you move, does the flanking space still stay there?


I question will how PF2 handles monsters with Class levels.

Also while Pazio might not make anything else for PF1, pretty sure 3rd parties are going to stay. How many is unsure but they'll probably see some more prints while PF2 fleshes out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By RAW I don't know. Others have put it up there so I suppose that's what happens.

However, in my Mummy's Mask game, I had a snake just as a random enemy. It was hiding under a table outside an estate the team was exploring. The team..., not only left it alone but also gave it some food.

There was a weapon in the building that was going to be VERY useful to killing about half the enemies there so I ruled that the former owner of the weapon was a Ranger/Hunter of some kind and his animal companion was the snake. Smart enough to do a 'snapping' trick to make a sound and smart enough to lead the group to the weapon(Which has a snake decal on it).

The party took the helpful snake with them and actually became the Cleric's familiar


Elanor Benedetto Giuseppe Pietro da Milano (Or Elli)

Elli was just an Alchemist Tiefling born to a Crusading Noble family around the World-wound. She actually wasn't bullied, feared, or anything like that. Sure a few off putting moments but she had a happy upbringing. Well as well as you could near the World-wound.

She actually took off to Numeria not because her family died or she was driven out, she just did it cause as a kid she got a small wind up robot/golem toy from a traveling merchant which lit a fire under her. She was no warrior but what if she could turn the relics buried under Numeria into weapons FOR her and the crusaders? Eventually this desire became more about "Better life through tech" than warfare.

This of course led her to butt heads with the Technic League and lead her to hide out in Scrapwall. When the rest of the party found her.

Sure she's had to struggle a bit with her Demonic nature when she gets really mad but Elli didn't have dead parents, lost love, trauma, etc etc.

She was fun to play.


Okay so I know that having more than one archetype works the following way;

"A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the base class as another alternate class feature."

So if for example 2 archetype change/remove Alchemist bombs, you can't take both.

But how do this work with Skills for example?


Dasrak wrote:
blahpers wrote:


If the character concept matches the vanilla alchemist best, well, there you go.

There are too many archetypes that give up only the poison use ability, so any such vanilla Alchemist would have to value poison use very highly. That already makes the build super-niche, and at that point I'd be very inclined to take a poison-focused archetype that better enhances what would otherwise be an extremely lackluster offering. So yeah, I do see vanilla alchemist as something I just wouldn't use on a PC.

I've used it on NPC's, because they don't have to worry about bleeding money on consumables, but for PC's you need more than just poison use and poison immunity for it to be a good path for you.

My first alchemist I drew him up as a escaped chemist from an evil Empire(homebrew setting). He was a part of weapons development but fled when the Empire field tested his stuff on on combatants.

While I didn't go into the Class or the Story thinking about how he would use all his abilities, he actually could and would use all his stuff.

Poisons in combat? No, but he did threaten a Empire Soldier with a slow painful death due to the fact he could not only Poison the guy but keep him alive DURING the process to drag it out further. Needless to say we got the Info from him.


Aiden2018 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


That aside, I know people want Ki-less Monks for..., flavor or mechanics reasons but what do you DO as a monk if you don't have your Not magic but totally magic powers?

For me is mostly about flavor. I personally like mystical monks as much as I like mortal/brawler monks. I just don't like the idea of not being able to choose the latter.

As for what you do without mystic powers? ...Well, I would hope you do what comes natural and punch bears in their stupid faces. From what I hear they are still very viable as combatants.

And yet at least from what I saw of the playtest, Monk is still very much a trained, drilled, and schooled Unarmed combatant. Put a different way, I can't flavorly make the Brawler I have now(Washed up, half drunk former tavern bouncer who fights well due to his job and the fact he's seen like 50 adventuring parties throw down in a pub and recalls their tricks) with PF2 Monk. If anything, he'd probably be closer to Fighter and even then that's still not close enough.

Monk to me always says "Path of Dedication, Training, and Self Betterment through Practice/Martial Arts". Removing Ki doesn't change that, especially when the other choices seem to be "Pick your School Stance". Monk doesn't seem to a good pick if you want a more Travern Brawler, Street Fighter, or Boxing Master.

Monks without Ki sounds like Sorcerers without Bloodlines. Or Alchemist without Bombs. Or Rogue without Sneak Attack. And everyone complains about Casters doing too much but no one wants Monk to do magic stuff with Ki.

Sure you're still viable but you're going to need some extra help to get over hurdles and from what I understand, Magic isn't as helpful as it was last edition. Well not as helpful to other people, it seems more damage focus/selfish this go around. Why buff you when Spell X can do your damage better?

I'm just confused by PF2 monk and the community.


Ed Reppert wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

As for me, I've always kinda taken the "override" theory. I mean most characters didnt' start off as Alchemist, Fighter, Wizard, Paladin etc as Kids or teens. But at the same time we didn't start off as Commoner or Expert either, we have a full 20 levels to go.

So when your power awakens(Sorcerer), you're chosen(Paladin), something pokes you(Cleric, Oracle, Summoner), or you've just found your path(Fighter, Alchemist, Brawler, etc etc), it supersedes and overrides whatever you were before.

Perhaps this is one of the flaws of a class-based system. IAC I've never liked "solutions" that don't make any logical sense. Maybe it's the engineer in me.

It is a tad..., odd when it comes to the story aspect of the game.

But the flip side would be we're 19 levels of whatever class we are + 1 level of Commoner/Villager stats.

I mean from what I understand, Ezren the iconic Wizard should be closer to Wizard 4-5 and Expert maybe 2-4 given his flashback in the comic along with other material.


Melkiador wrote:
I wonder if it'd be more interesting to ask, "What class would you never take without using an archetype?"

Alchemist. Shaman. Druid. Brawler.

Honestly I really like base Alchemist as it's the class that made the system click for me. It might be a 'grab bag' of random abilities but it always made sense to me.

You're just a chemist/pharmacist who's learned how to fight, heal, and change your own body with all kinds of mixtures + a bit of your own latent magic.

That and I've played the Atelier games a bit along with Secret of Evemore. Both games with a big focus on Alchemy.

Sadly, PF alchemist will never learn Crush.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like one thing that kind of makes brawler style flexibility less necessary in PF2 is that most combat styles no longer require a massive feat investment to be functional. Like grappling feats are no longer math enhancers that help you successfully grapple, they give you options for things you can do to someone you can grapple. A 15th level fighter with 16 dex and mastery with the longbow should be able to hit a lot of things with arrows without a single archery feat.

And yet I would prefer to decide at the start of a fight "Am I going to be grapple based or given that it can fly, should I take some Archery Feats to help me fight it".

That 15th level Fighter can hit things with a bow yes. But he still has to pick "Do I want to be a better Archer or a better Melee today" is the issue. Yes you could just use Brawler to sneak past the Feat Tax problems but being able to pick up 1-3 feats at the start of a fight was really fun and let you choose how to fight that battle. I mean I like Pummeling Style, but I'd like to only have that for DR enemies. I can do that with PF1 Flexing.

And really something that should have it's own topic. Again I just dislike that Brawler seems to be "Ki-less Monk" when it brings it's own style of play to the table.

That aside, I know people want Ki-less Monks for..., flavor or mechanics reasons but what do you DO as a monk if you don't have your Not magic but totally magic powers?

Cause it seems like asking the Spellcaster for buffs is out or at least not as useful.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
And that also makes sense in fiction: the paladin never had to learn first aid when they had such a renewable well of magic to use.
Paksennarion was a soldier before she became a paladin. She almost certainly learned first aid. Same for Bahzell Bahnakson. I would not be surprised if that were the usual way in which people become paladins. It's one class that seems like starting from scratch would be unusual. Of course, neither of those fictional worlds is Golarion.

The stories rarely match up with the Rules/Community play. I mean any story that has Ezren in it should just feature him solving the problem himself if he's past level 10 or so. Like in the comics he gets trapped in some crypt or tomb without his spellbook. You mean to tell me a Wizard didn't have a backup scroll just for that? Who doesn't carry around 10 Stone Shape scrolls or a wand?

As for me, I've always kinda taken the "override" theory. I mean most characters didnt' start off as Alchemist, Fighter, Wizard, Paladin etc as Kids or teens. But at the same time we didn't start off as Commoner or Expert either, we have a full 20 levels to go.

So when your power awakens(Sorcerer), you're chosen(Paladin), something pokes you(Cleric, Oracle, Summoner), or you've just found your path(Fighter, Alchemist, Brawler, etc etc), it supersedes and overrides whatever you were before.


Kyrone wrote:
Elfteiroh wrote:
graystone wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
And given that Combat Feats are gone, I don't see how you can have a Class like Brawler anymore.
Floating class feats? Maybe swap 1/day and give it a focus ability to switch the floating feat to another faster? Plus, if you multiclassed you could pull from another classes class feats.
Pretty sure the fighter have a feature that let him choose, at the start of each day, a class feat that he have for the day. At medium level (don't remember , but I think it was around 10-12)
Yup he had in the playtest, it was Combat Flexibility, it was at lvl 9 and 15.

It helps but I can't help but feel it was just a small bone/nod to what they learned with Brawler.

Meanwhile Brawler could slide into some Ranged feats for a fight and not be locked into that for the day.

I suppose 2.0 Combat Flex is good if your spellcasters are Scrying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
I just picture 2 Anime Monks just countering each other's Ki ability spam while the fight goes on around them.
Monk 1 countering Monk 2's "Wholeness of Body" because they know what pressure points to hit in order to block the appropriate chakras is pretty flavorful.
Very “Fist of the North Star” in feeling... now I wanna make Kenshiro as well as the JoJos... DAMN IT MAN, WHY MUST YOU GIVE ME AWESOME IDEAS?!? But yeah, using Ki to cancel Ki has some very DBZ feels to it as well, Kamehameha beam wars and all that

Because I'm very good at coming up with odd ideas for builds/characters. Like I just found out there's kinda a "Dancer Fighter" archetype for Brawler and I need to make something for that.

As for Jojo..., maybe the first 2 parts. We'll have to see how they do Summoner and see if we can do Stands again.

This is very off topic now so I'll stop.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
masda_gib wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
IMO, it never made sense for "you use your ki to cast dimension door" to not be a spell.

I'm more thinking about an ability that doesn't replicate a spell. Ki allowed extra movement, another attack, ect. Ki strike and such abilities [that add simple numbers] don't jump out as spellcasting: all those untagged, NOT su abilities that ki was used for.

SO for me, if a monk has to cast a spell to get a +1 to strike then a grit user would have to cast a spell to use their abilities: that's really all I'm saying.

I think PF2's definition of spell is very broad. Basicallyyou do stuff to achieve a magical effect, whatever the effect and the stuff is. Especially with occult magic covering all the simply unexplainable effects.

The monks Ki Strike (and Ki Rush too) only has a verbal action, which could be a typical "Huh!" while punching or shouting "Falcon Punch!". And both are tagged as transmutation magic.

If they count as magic, can they be countered Spelled? Does Anti Magic Field gimp Monks now?

I'm pretty sure Ki was Supernatural in PF1, so an AMF stopped their Ki before, didn't it? Or was Ki Extraordinary?

As for Counterspell, that requires having the same spell at hand. So depending on how they are classified in the final rules, either no or yes, but only if you have the Counterspell feat and the same power. Which would be kinda cool honestly.

I just picture 2 Anime Monks just countering each other's Ki ability spam while the fight goes on around them.


I had this question with Unarmed dice progression.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
And given that Combat Feats are gone, I don't see how you can have a Class like Brawler anymore.
Floating class feats? Maybe swap 1/day and give it a focus ability to switch the floating feat to another faster? Plus, if you multiclassed you could pull from another classes class feats.

The multiclass part sounds like it could just ripe for abuse in practice. But they'd(hopefully) figure out how to restrict it a bit. Like Brawler 9/Fighter 1 shouldn't qualify for Certain Strike as a fast example.

But this is more a Monk topic. I just dislike that Brawler is waved off as "Monk without Ki".

Is it the Flurry or the Unarmed damage that makes it so? If it's the latter, there's a lot of archetypes in PF1 that were "Monk without Ki"

Can you even do Unarmed without being a Monk or taking Monk Dedication?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
IMO, it never made sense for "you use your ki to cast dimension door" to not be a spell.

I'm more thinking about an ability that doesn't replicate a spell. Ki allowed extra movement, another attack, ect. Ki strike and such abilities [that add simple numbers] don't jump out as spellcasting: all those untagged, NOT su abilities that ki was used for.

SO for me, if a monk has to cast a spell to get a +1 to strike then a grit user would have to cast a spell to use their abilities: that's really all I'm saying.

I think PF2's definition of spell is very broad. Basicallyyou do stuff to achieve a magical effect, whatever the effect and the stuff is. Especially with occult magic covering all the simply unexplainable effects.

The monks Ki Strike (and Ki Rush too) only has a verbal action, which could be a typical "Huh!" while punching or shouting "Falcon Punch!". And both are tagged as transmutation magic.

If they count as magic, can they be countered Spelled? Does Anti Magic Field gimp Monks now?

As for the topic, I see this going 2 ways.

1) Nova. Every Fight. I disliked it in Spheres, I'll probably dislike it here. No reason to think about resources, no reason to think up a plan that isn't "Damage". Death is the best CC and just take 10 minutes to eyeball the room.

2) Nothing. Being so trained over X years to never use their cool stuff till the boss, players might actually with hold using their powers out of habit.


Aiden2018 wrote:

I never heard of the Brawler class. I'm glad they rolled it in with the monk, though. I love the idea of a Pugilist strait out of a Final Fantasy game.

I kinda figured that warrior monks who specialized in weapons would need to be Fighters. I don't mind, though. If I ever get an urge to make a Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon character I can just make a Fighter and give it some monk feats later on. Kinda lame that they would need to wear armor to be optimal, though.

I'll give that Know Direction link a look. Thank you!

Unless they changed/came out with new abilities, I don't think they rolled Brawler into anything. Yeah there's always been the idea of "Unarmed combatant that isn't Ki Powered" but Brawler was more than just that.

And given that Combat Feats are gone, I don't see how you can have a Class like Brawler anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

61. God Wizards.

62. God Wizards..., too lazy/busy/something good is on the crystal ball that night, so sends the PCs to deal with whatever problem is around.


zza ni wrote:
for alchemist id say Grenadier (getting precise bombs at 2nd level sign me on!) it was so basic that it was posted twice in the books. since it first showed up as a monster race archtype in the monster codex (i believe it was meant to be hobgoblin only at first). untill now both d20pfsrd and the archive of nethys keep 2 pages of this archtype. one for the monster codex one for the pfs field guide.

Personally I would say it's a perfect archetype that should really be the standard class. If it didn't do away with Brew Potion which by RAW, we can't get back. But some people don't like to craft so it's understandable.

Following this; really any Alchemist Archetype that trades out the Poison abilities is as close to "Default" as you can get. It's a neat thematic nod but in practice Poison is just too meh to really bother using.


Arachnofiend wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's kind of interesting how Medium of the Master is under no obligation to actually follow the unarmed strike nudging it gets - you don't lose anything the Champion Medium normally gets by ignoring it, you simply gain a few benefits by using it. You could very easily just use Master's Strike to give yourself pounce in exchange for one of the attacks being a mediocre unarmed strike and then use the rest of your full attack on falchion hits.
I mean, having the monk's unarmed strike damage isn't bad (you punch like a greataxe at level 12), and with handwraps (from the same book) enchanting your punching is no more expensive than enchanting your greataxe.

You misunderstand my meaning; unarmed certainly works for the archetype, but I find it very interesting that it doesn't need to. The fact that it doesn't lock you into being a Medium/Monk supports the argument it belongs in this thread; it's a great choice for any Medium that just wants to focus on the martial bits.

For comparison, I mentioned the Vivisectionist earlier as the standard for mutagen-focused Alchemists; I did not, however, mention the Beastmorph because despite it being an excellent choice and probably the best pair for the Vivisectionist available it locks you into a particular set of skills that isn't appropriate for every Hyde Alchemist (wings are really good, but maybe you don't want to sprout wings). The Vivisectionist doesn't enforce any flavor that isn't already there with the base Alchemist, and it's the same thing with the Medium of the Master.

The flavor is sneak attacks. Maybe I want to go all Hulk on someone and smash their face in. I don't think there's an Alchemist archetype that does that.

Vivisectionist is more Jack the Ripper or as you said, straight up Hyde. Get them flat footed and eviscerate them. But if you don't want to mess around with fishing for that sneak attack damage you're up a creek.

There's also the... odd extracts/spells it gets. Once you hit 7, you also splice in basically Dr Monroe vibes.

Again it's a good archetype, but to say it doesn't enforce any flavor just sounds weird to me. Though I could be the weird one, and people are able to ignore things that I get hang ups about. That or the added damage dice is good enough to just ignore it anyway.


If possible, try to do research on the Wizard itself.

Yes yes, every wizard becomes god at level 13 or so, and your GM has warned you to prepare and this might be deadly, a thing you say he doesn't do often if ever.

But I'm guessing the wizard didn't spring into reality during the last session, they had to have existed at some point in the world.

See what info you can get before heading off to fight them. What Schools do they study, what's their base/hideout/tower like, do they have helpers, monsters, or are they known for summoning armies?

Yes all those questions and more could be faked by the wizard to give false info to their enemies but I feel it might be easier to prepare against what the wizard is KNOWN to do or is said to have DONE than what the Wizard Class CAN do.

Cause otherwise you prepare against the whole spell list and if the GM really wants to end you, hello Timestop+Lantern Archon army.

1 to 50 of 1,781 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>