Mewzard's page

105 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

This is one thing I kinda hate. Classes like Bard and Ranger went from being high skill classes to just baseline and that feels pretty jarring.

I mean it's nice not having the Fighter et al. just be terrible at skills for no good reason, but I'm not sure I like high-skill being the sole purview of rogues either. Investigators will probably get good skill increases too but that doesn't really change the point.

I can't speak for Ranger, but the Bard still has great skilling options. Bardic Lore, for instance, lets you do Recall Knowledge checks on literally every single subject, and can hit Expert, so while you might be -4 compared to someone with Legendary in a Lore or say Arcana, you can literally recall from all subjects.

Versatile Performance meanwhile lets you use Performance to Make an Impression, Demoralize, and Impersonate instead of Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Deception (and lets you get the skill feats from those skills with Performance's proficiency).

Taking Eclectic Skill lets you add your level to all untrained skills and lets you do any skill check that requires you to be trained. Bump that up to any skill check that requires you be Expert when you hit Legendary Occultism (that's also when Bardic Lore bumps up to Expert).

Hell, Inspire Competence lets you use your Performance to Aid your ally on a skill check, and bumps up any failures to successes. Legendary in Performance? Auto Critical Success.

The Bard definitely still has a role as a skilling character, it's just not set up the same as the Rogue.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

Ok, a cool feat.

Not exactly: it's only guarantee is you can feed yourself. "A success on your check to Subsist can also reduce the damage dealt by the plane, at the GM’s discretion." Can, not does. Free food isn't too exciting IMO.

Not bad.

But lets get to the point here: you only get ONE of these nifty things at 7th and only for skills you increase. How many skills are getting high enough for these again? maybe 4 skills? Now how many of those awesome skill feats use the same stat? I'm seeing Int, Cha, Wis...

Scratches head... How do any of these impact the ranger? I'm saying the RANGER seems a downgrade. Or are you telling me a ranger should multiclass to get an upgrade?

To be fair, someone keeping their Survival skill up on Proficiency with a decent wisdom will probably manage to find food more often than not. Also, the other part of the feat letting your success reduce damage of said plane is useful.

Also yeah, only one, then two by level 9, three by level 11 (more if you're a Rogue of course). ALso yes, you are limited by what skills you've raised, but there are a lot of solid options I feel. As for stats, the fact that you need to raise four unique stats every single time you hit a stat boost means you're bound to at least have a decent mod in some of them. Also, you're bound to have at least one skill associated with a stat you're good at, like Athletics for the Fighter, Acrobatics if you're rocking a Monk, etc.

Sorry, I misunderstood that part and thought it was a dig at 2e overall.

Alright, Ranger. I've not done much with them in 1e, but I did notice the occasional gem.

Warden's Step at level 10 single-handedly makes group stealth viable in natural environments, terrible group stealth can be so frustrating when you're particularly stealthy. In the same vein, Camouflage to sneak even when being observed is particularly useful. Swift Tracker letting you move towards your target as a free action if you did Survival could also be quite useful for a more melee-focused Ranger. Stealth and Survival are definitely two skills that are supported by the class.

Not a feat, but the degree to which Flurry lowers MAP is also quite valuable. It can be hard to justify the -10/-8 with agile third attack on a lot of foes, but -6/-4 with agile? Much more viable, and the degree to which it lowers later is insane.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Mewzard wrote:
But is it really a downgrade?
*nods* Yes. If you have to point to 16th or 19th level abilities, it's not impressing me as upgrade material. How about tell me what the upgrades are from levels 1 to 15? Because I spend most of my time in the 1 - 12 range so it the wonderful upgrades are all 16+, it's not sounding so good to me.

I mean, endgame martials actually feeling like they could be godly heroes is important, but fine, some earlier stuff, let's try some stuff from Master Proficiency, starting around level 7:

Being so skilled at stealth you can hide from all forms of senses (Tremorsense no more), so adept at surviving that you can survive on planes of existence that shouldn't be able to support you due to a lack of food and avoid the harm such planes cause, be so good at Deception that you can deceive magical means to read your mind, tell if you're lying, or detect your alignment.

Hell, by this point, Quick Repair lets you fix an entire broke item in three actions, you can heal up to four people at a time with Ward Medic, and feed up to 16 people with Forager (double on a Crit Success).

If you want to talk classes:

A Fighter could take Sudden Leap for a massively high Jump (up to double their speed depending upon what DC they can beat) and strike with two actions at level 8, and at level 10 combine it with Felling Strike to down a flying foe with just one more action.

A Monk could take Ki Blast at 6th level for up to a 60 foot cone and 4d6 damage with some knockback, which scales up every single spell level. Wild Winds Initiate gives the Monk a ranged stance that also gives a bit of ranged defense and ignores cover. Sleeper Hold at 10th level gives them an excellent option to knock a foe out right away

If you're going into Wild Shape, I'd argue 2e's given a lot of great options for it given the wide variety you can add to your options. The Bard being able to add their level to every untrained skill at level 8 is basically like getting skill points for everything in the list, and I rather like their 4th level Metamagic feat Melodious Spell. Forget Still and Silent Spell, they might have never noticed you casted a spell if your performance check is high enough.

Honestly, I like a lot of what 2e's got going for it.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

Yeah, they made things real hard choices about what you want to excel at instead of giving you everything for free.

Yes characters are less powerful in PF2 and have a smaller suite of abilities at their command.

This is all intentional.

This is part and parcel to why I haven't committed to switching to PF2. I plan to play a one shot or maybe a short scenario to see how I feel about it, but I definitely feel "downgraded" in comparison to PF1.

But is it really a downgrade? I don't recall being given an option to casually Jump over a hundred feet in the air, trip the largest monsters in the game, fall from orbit without a scratch, run full speed through a gap about the size of your head as if you were a Pillar Man, survive all extremes of temperature without food and water with no harm, steal the literal armor off the back of a man, scowl at someone so hard they literally die...all things without magic, just with pure physical/mental skill. Like, one feat and going Legendary in Athletics is all it takes to get either a full climb or swim speed equal to your speed (your Monk is a damn speedboat at this point).

That's not even counting stuff like the Ranger's 20th level ability to track their target pretty much anywhere, even through teleportation/planar travel if they're Legendary in Nature. Or the Rogue's 20th level ability to be so stealthy, you go so absolutely invisible that not even glitterdust, see invisibility, etc help find you.

Even casters get 10th level spells. Turning into the Avatar of your god, or a literal Kaiju. Hell, upcasting Earthquake makes it damage a quarter-mile burst up to half a mile away. That'd devastate a town.

Even ignoring 10th level spells, True Shapeshifting is an insane capstone for the Wild Shaping Druid. Bards can rock a Haste Cantrip in Allegro, Wizards can give themselves spell slots to combine two spells into one (sometimes you just want to double Disintegrate someone), I mean, the list goes on and on.

I can't really say I feel particularly downgraded here. Especially with Martials, but even with Casters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

According to Jason Bulmahn at the Paizo 2019 and beyond Gen Con panel, they consider the Core Rulebook, Bestiary, Gamemastery Guide, and Advanced Player's Guide to be the "Core Nexus" of Second Edition that they'll assume everyone has at their table, so that should aid including playable Orcs greatly (less so for poor Hobgoblins, even though Hobgoblin enters Second Edition first).

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
All Orichalcum items if damaged but not destroyed repair themselves after 24 hours.

Huh, so they're basically the Cloths from Saint Seiya? They could achieve some level of self-repair and were even partially made from Orichalcum. I can appreciate the nerdy reference if so, lol.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Does this PF version screw over the rogue again?

Well, Rogues do get twice as many Skill Feats and Skill Increases when compared to all other classes (one of each per level), so that alone is a massive boon for them.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
It's very frustrating and boring that you can't specialize in a skill enough to guarantee being better at it than any equivalent-level or slightly higher creature you encounter throughout your career. It's a slap in the face as a player that you've invested in something as much as possible but you're still worse at it because the game is designed that way.

Skill feats are also quite important. How important is it that you run into some creature that is close to your Legendary Medicine modifier when you can end up healing 8 entire creatures without stopping, if they're stuck healing one creature with them then being unable to be treated again for like an hour?

It is that big a deal if your Athletics are comparable if you can grapple the largest creatures in the game and they can't? If you're so good, you get a swim speed whereas they have to roll regularly?

8 people marked this as a favorite.
PMSchulz wrote:
So, multiclassing into a spellcasting class is still a bad thing. Well, there go a lot of play styles. I was hoping the "you get two zero level spells to cast per day and have to burn another feat to get a first level spell" was a bad idea that would get tweaked. If you didn't want people to multiclass, why even give the option?

...Why is it bad now? If you want to be, say, a Fighter, you still get your full proficiencies, saves, attack, hit points, etc, but for a few feats, you can also get some cantrips, up to 8th level spells, master proficiency in your casting, up to two spell slots of every level through 6th, and that's not shabby given it also doesn't completely hobble you like it did in Pathfinder 1st Edition.

Sure, you're short a few feats, but with five alone (of eleven class feats), you can get all of the above. Still leaves you with a few decent feats for your Fighter abilities. Whereas if you went in, say, ten levels into Wizard on your Fighter, you'd be massively thrown off in important aspects that make you a Fighter (BAB goes down the drain, your HP gains would plummet, you'd have a drop in bonus feats, and you'd do all that only to peak at 5th level spells, which your stats may not end up supporting all that well anyways, vs how much easier 2e makes raising multiple stats).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Antony Walls wrote:
Did I mention the rules?

They literally just let loose a hundred spoilers, 99 of which we have. We’ll be getting more info soon.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Alenvire wrote:
I find it funny everyone is talking about how this game should be more simple and easier to play then pf1. Me, I am hoping its not too simple. When you have simple systems you end up with simple characters, simple games, and simple just ends up being identical to other characters with just different flavor. If a rogue stabs for 1d6 and a fighter stabs for 1d6 does the rogue and fighter really matter? That is a overly simple example that I really hope is not a problem in pf2

Simpler than Pathfinder 1E doesn't mean as simple/samey as D&D 4E.

To me, from what I've seen, Pathfinder 2E's going to find a nice home as a healthy middle ground between Pathfinder 1E and D&D 5E. For Pathfinder 1E players who want something simpler without hitting 5E, and for 5E players who want something more complex, but not at Pathfinder 1E's level, this could be the perfect home to many players.

Honestly, if it goes well with my group and it gets proper support from Paizo...who knows? Maybe we'll move from PF1E to 2E.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwynters wrote:
Duergar anyone...

I'd be down with some Svirfneblin love, gotta recreate my super awesome Svirfneblin Monk.

There's so many fun Ancestries left to add, that's for sure. Kobold? Orc? Drow? Half-Giant?

The DM for our Iron Gods campaign gave us the option to use Psionics if we wanted, and while nobody opted for the classes, I did end up going with a Half-Giant Barbarian, which fit the setting well enough, as far as I could tell.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the comments on nerfing PCs/weakening their abilities seem off. With the skill feats and hitting Legendary, you're seeing characters able to land from space with little harm, literally scare someone to death via intimidation, then go ham swimming across the planet like they were Heracles. On top of that, the dice increases for enhanced weaponry get to insane levels for singular attacks.

Casters may have gone down a bit (though they too can take skill feats), but closing the gap isn't a bad thing. And I seem to recall some of the things being addressed for the main game is a general improvement/powering up of casters.

If both martials and casters can be badass gods by level 20, I can dig it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually playing Kingmaker for the first time and playing as a Chaotic Good Goblin Rogue (with an impressive 14 Charisma, which would be 18 Charisma under 2E Playtest rules). Let's just say my Gobbo's going to be making a strong argument about changing society and the world at large.

I've never been a player who likes the assertions of some race or another being inherently "evil". So, I'm always down with adding options for playable races.

Well, I suppose Ancestry now.

Either way, definitely want to do a face Goblin down the road in 2E. Maybe a Bard. Having fun with my Bard in another game.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So...are we also getting an Orc Ancestry? Feels like with Orc Ancestry Feats it seems reasonable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:

I just wanted to say...

Casting Lightning Bolt outside of natural stormy conditions is both unnatural weather and potentially harmful to wildlife.

It also seems like a pretty staple action of a Storm Druid.

Also, basically any use at all of Control Weather. Making a thunderstorm worse than it already is isn't something you cast high level magic to do - making a tornado or four on a sunny day is *exactly* what you use high level magic to do!
And it's anethema...

So... Uh... Rewording plzkthx?

Also, I'm really not liking the sound of shape shifting being tied to Polymorph spells.
Prepared at the beginning of the day? Limited by number of times you can cast?
This makes the class fantasy of a shapeshifter basically impossible to fully realize... Unless I'm missing something.

Mark mentioned the Anethema earlier:

Mark Seifter wrote:
Something like mega drought in the rainforest, snow in the Sahara, anything that is so far off that the local environment isn't ready to handle it and could be truly damaged as a whole should be off limits. Damaging a few things in the environment is one thing, damaging the environment itself is another.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

I question why Dents is capitalized. Possible Weapon/armor damage mechanics?

Also wait, do I have to spend RP, after drinking the Dragon Potion, everytime I go to breath?

I'd like to see this clarified before jumping to "Worst potion ever" stance. But if true I can see this only being used at time of drinking.

Didn't they mention a thing a while back about shields receiving damage if you tried to use them to block damage and the damage was higher than your shield's DR?

Maybe it's for that, fixing up jacked up shields.

Also, could be for sundering shenanigans if that's still in game, but I don't know if it is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
Except you have to Crit and they have to critically fail to get stunned. Even if you're good enough that you crit, say, 20% of the time, and they crit fail also 20% of the time, that's still only 4% that you stun with it. And I'm guessing that the chances won't be that high, unless you're fighting something that's way lower level than you, based on what little we know about monster stats from the stat blog, which makes it look like you're seeing only about a 1% or less chance to stun, barring things we don't know about yet, which might put it closer to 2%, but that's still not a lot.
Kaemy wrote:

Then he needs to Critically Fail the Fortitude Save. I'm not sure how you calculate it, but in the post it says it's based on your STR or DEX... Let's assume its 10+Level+STR, that would be DC 15 (is this right? I'm missing something? Maybe a Proficiency?)

A Lv1 enemy usually has +0/2 Fort Save, right? Let's be generous and go with 3. So he Critically Fails when rolling 1 or 2, so 10% of the time...

In these two scenarios (assuming your DC is actually 15, and the 10AC and 15AC enemies have a +3 Fort Save) you are Stunning them 4.5% and 3% of the time). Granted, is not amazing, but is looking okay-ish.

If the enemies had a +0 Fort the Crit Failure would increase from 10% to 25%, and the total stun chance would grow to 11,25% and 7,5%.

You're both missing something important. If you Critically Hit someone with an ability that requires a saving throw, their result is one degree worse.

Meaning, if they normally would have saved from that roll, your Critical reduces their result to a Failure, and if they regularly fail, that would be reduced to a Critical Failure. Even a Critical Success would be dropped to a regular Success from your Critical Hit.

In the scenario you crit them, that DC 15 stays a DC 15 for Critical Failure vs Regular Failure, and would require you to beat a DC 25 for a regular Success.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
I'm in no way comparing stunning fist to anything, spellcasters or not. I'm talking about the name of the power. I think it's poor to name a power for something that only happens on a critical hit. That would be like having fireball not cause fire damage unless it's a crit, and otherwise just warms targets up and give them heatstroke. Or to use your color spray example, have it not create a spray of colors in a cone unless you crit them. It's not calling stunning spray. If it were, that would be a much better comparison to stunning fist only rarely stunning.

Critical hits are far easier to get in 2E given either a natural 20 that beats their AC or getting 10 over their AC will work. With said crits making the failure degree get one worse, all one needs is a regular fail to get the Stun.

Doesn't seem like it will be all that bad to stun someone.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Pathfinder Design Team: "Hey guys, with the new action system making that last attack with a big penalty often isn't worth it, so we're giving classes lots of FEATS and class abilities that let them trade that last attack that probably won't hit anyway for something more useful!"

Monks: "Oh, cool. So what ability do we get in place of making that third attack?"

PDT: "You get Flurry of Blows, which lets you make two attacks at the highest penalty instead of just one!"

Monks: ...

Uh, you could make the Flurry of Blows as your first attack, which would be +0/-4, like doing two attacks, meaning you could move in, get in two attacks, and get out of dodge, something that's not really an option for many classes.

Plus, you could do Flurry of Blows then a Ghost Strike. Three actions, three attacks, but your -8 attack would be against Touch AC. Not amazing against, say, another Monk, which would probably have equal normal AC and Touch, but I'm betting a foe in Full Plate or a Dragon might not have the best Touch AC.

Just some valid options.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Poet wrote:
-4 for flurry of blows? Back to flurry of misses. Also no wisdom to AC? How on earth is an unarmored monk supposed to survive? Why then would a monk ever pick strength?

It follows the progression of all iterative attacks, but gives you an option for one more. Normally it's +0/-5/-10 with each additional attack being -10, but since your unarmed strike is agile, it's instead +0/-4/-8.

So, using three actions for four attacks thanks to Flurry of Blows gets you +0/-4/-8/-8 before adding your proper modifier to them, and if you were hasted, one more -8 attack.

Monks aren't punished any more than any other class trying to do multiple attacks.

Also, Mark did mention a Monk's AC could match a Paladin in full plate:

"In fact, a full-on Dex-based monk will very eventually hit a point where they can equal even a full plate paladin, all while not having any of the restrictions of heavy armor, which is pretty incredible."

The Monk will be fine.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dilvias wrote:
I am... concerned. From what I can tell, compared to PF1 monk, PF2 monks lose all weapon proficiencies, increasing damage dice past the first level, stunning fist, bonus feats, wisdom to AC and fast movement. Some of these can be bought back as class feats I presume, but doing so means you don't get ki powers at the appropriate levels. Flurry seems worse as well, going from -1/-1 to 0/-4.

Worth noting, Monks have several means to increase their dice damage (Fierce Flurry ups their dice by one level on two attacks if both flurry attacks hit, and styles change the dice, potentially increasing the dice as well).

Most everyone loses bonus feats as well (though Rogues get bonus Skill Feats).

Also, Monks still get Fast Movement, how did you miss it?

"Speaking of moving, at 3rd level, a monk gains incredible movement, increasing his speed as long as he's not wearing armor. This starts at a 10-foot increase, and it goes up by 5 feet every 3 levels."

Both Incredible Movement and Fierce Flurry are built in upgrades not listed in the feats section.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DeciusNero wrote:

"Scaling Feats"

You have my attention on this feat-ure!

Yeah, definitely. The idea that a feat you took early on might not become obsolete with time, but improve as you do in a skill is great.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Mythic was an optional rules set in PF1. In PF2, it appears that it's called "Legendary".

I think after some comments from people on Mythic, one of the devs humored the idea of putting a Mythic Proficiency above Legendary for a +4 in one of the comments sections, that would be something, lol (nothing confirmed, don't worry, but the thought amused me given the reactions some have given to Legendary).

I genuinely love these skill feats. If a scrawny guy wiggling his fingers can cause mass death, I don't see why your Monk can't Suplex the Demon Train as it were. Hell, besides the story reasons of studying the spiritual, I took the Serpent-Fire Adept for my Unchained Monk for the crazy shenanigans it let me do.

One Rounding Pit Fiends and fist fighting your friend possessed by an evil god to free them is something worthy of telling a story about.

There's no reason either house ruling said feats out or limiting the level can't resolve issues for those who aren't big on that problem.

I want to see the Fighter of the group chuck a small mountain at the Red Great Wyrm. End him Typhon style. If he's still shaking things, let the Druid spam Earthquake until he's gelatin.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
NetoD20 wrote:
Well, then at least give me a good in-world explanation for it. Not this determination, and hard training nonsense.

What about Beowulf? I don't remember his birth being all that supernatural, yet he did insane things.

14 people marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:

I'm with BPorter also. I don't want non magical abilities to become magical when you become legendary in them. Saying they're supernatural doesn't make it better, it just makes it more explicit that someone who's non magical inexplicably became magical.

There's a difference between playing a superhero game and a fantasy game where some are magical and some aren't. I want to play a character like Conan because he's awesome at being a kick ass barbarian fighter rogue without magic. If I wanted magical powers I'd pick a magical class or use magic items to get access.

It makes me think of heroes of Legend, who were almost magical even if they didn't cast spells. Like when Beowulf spent days swimming and fighting sea monsters for a race in full armor.

Legendary is just that: Legendary. You're hitting the point of true Heroes, virtual demigods.

You can always end a game before that point or houserule such feats out...but it's a damn shame really. Magic users always got over Martials due to their insane power. Skills like these give Martials the chance to shine on that level in their own way.

Besides, if Wizards can have their 10th Level Spells, let my Monk piledrive the final villain from his floating sky city into the nearest mountain, and brush the dust off his shoulder afterwards.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Varun Creed wrote:
If you wouldn't want a 'Legendary' style game, your campaigns wouldn't go above level 15 anyhow in Pathfinder 1.

Yeah, it seems level 15 is when Skills get the option to go Legendary.

Seems the earliest other stuff can go Legendary is 13, like the Fighter with one weapon group of his choice (all weapons go Legendary proficiency at 19).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

Meh. This just makes me tired.

So skill proficiencies are just a trivial numeric bonus and unlock permission for taking skill feats.

And the skill squish... I don't understand these choices.
Athletics and Acrobatics ate related skills, but Diplomacy, Intimidate and Deception are separate and indivisible things because... ?

Lore is still a multi-headed abomination, but Arcana is still separate, something called Occultism exists that isn't Arcana, Lore *or* Religion (somehow), and Society is its own thing that isn't a Lore because...?

Profession is gone, but Craft and Performance still exist. Craft has a downtime use, but what is Performance even for [either in the case of playing a bard- does it affect your class abilities, or not playing a bard- what reason do you have to care about this skill taking up page count?]

Just looks like a muddled mess.

Also terminology problems: 'healer's tools' just sounds ridiculous. What tools are people whipping out to bandage wounds, prevent death, repair eyes, remove leeches and cutting out cysts? Not to mention midwifery, setting bones, curing poisons, treating diseases, etc, etc, etc.

Bonuses still matter because of DCs, though how proficient you are still matters greatly.

It's massively different to convince someone to do something via either passion or rational reasoning, to scare someone with threats/attitude/appearance/expression, or to get what you want by telling a bold-faced lie. Not that surprising that they're different.

Lore seems to be about specific subjects (Sailing, Blacksmithing, etc), while stuff like Arcana, Religion, etc seem to be more broad subjects.

Performance also has a downtime use and was mentioned in the downtime blog. You can use it to make money during your downtime.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We've already seen some examples of the impossible in skill abilities/feats like being able to jump over 20 feet in the air, or using Acrobatics and basically holding yourself in place in the air.

Things that will give martial characters especially the ability to deal with some issues that would formally leave them stuck hoping the Wizard could help them.

Which I say is a good thing, let the Martials have some options where they aren't stuck depending upon a flight spell or waiting for an enemy to be 5 feet off the ground or less.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElSilverWind wrote:


Thank you for pointing that out. That relieves most of my concerns. : )

So . . . assuming 17 different Skills in the game (only taking 1 Performance and 1 Lore) with 5 Proficiency ranks each, we would need 85 skill ranks at least to max out every Skill in the game (more needed to grab extra Performances and Lores).

So a Rogue that could somehow manage to learn 4.25+ skill ranks per level, they could be the ultimate Legendary Skill Master by Level 20?

*Begins planning this Pinnacle of Skilldom*
I really hope there are Rogue Feats for extra Skill Ranks~. >:3

Don't forget that Skill Feats count as General Feats too, so you can use General Feats for skill options.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aiken Frost wrote:
Corrik wrote:
With the Lv 15 Legendary stealth feat, you no longer have to tell your DM "Just assume I'm stealthing unless I say otherwise."
Oh wow, so legendary...

Given you can use your Stealth roll for Initiative when stealthing...that can actually have a major impact. Plus, being able to go into almost any battle hidden? That has advantages.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:

Generally, I like the look of this. I don't really want, however, a system where untrained high-level characters outshine trained low-level characters at basic knowledge stuff like Religion or Occultism. The 3rd level cleric should probably know more religious stuff than the typical 15th level atheist barbarian--but the fact that the cleric gets +3 on her check, and the barbarian +13, doesn't bode well to me.

I wonder what the effect would be if I houseruled "untrained" to mean level divided by 2. . . .

Keep in mind, a lot of your skill stuff is gated behind how proficient your character is. One example I remember hearing is that your level 20 Barbarian might know more about Dragon Slaying when using Arcana due to his fighting experience than a level 1 Wizard, but the Barbarian won't know much about specific spellcasting stuff over the level 1 Wizard.

Said level 20 Barbarian might also be surprisingly good at pick-pocketing due to his experience with reading people's awareness of their surroundings and what have you over the level 1 Rogue, but he has no clue how to pick a lock, he has no training in it. The level 1 Rogue, however, has this.

Look at Crafting. If your level 20 Barbarian tries to craft something, it won't even be of standard quality. He'll probably peak at something junky, whereas the one who is trained in Crafting, even at level 1, will be able to make something more standard. You can only craft something as high quality as your Proficiency (Trained for Standard, Expert for Expert, Master for Master, Legendary for Legendary).

It's more than just a level difference that matters here. That's not even factoring in crazy skill feats.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
If you put it that way Heightening sounds worse each time and speak waves of the nerf spells suffered.

I don't think it speaks badly of that so much as good of this skill. If you had no option, using a spell on it will work, but if you're the dedicated healer as is, why not study medicine? Why not give yourself some free options there for treating serious issues.

Hell, not only the healer, a Fighter could see the rationale that the Cleric won't always be able to make it through a battle, and would at least like the option of bringing the Cleric up if nothing else.

Like they said above:

"Moving forward with the example of the Medicine skill, as long as you are at least trained in Medicine, you can take the Battle Medic skill feat. This feat allows you to apply straight-up healing to an ally through nonmagical means, which is nice when your cleric is knocked to the ground or has run out of uses of channel energy."

It's nice to have options outside of spells.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:

Some consolidation makes sense, but 17 seems like too few for me What happened to social skills?

From the legendary medic I get the feeling guides will quickly rule out skills worth ever taking to legendary...

Thats just a feeling tho. I think legendary medic may have been a poor choice since there seems to be extra attachments that cant be mentioned at this time...

Now im wondering how easy it could be to axe skill feats and just drop PF1 skill system into PF2?

Why would you drop the skill feat system? It's one of the best parts of Pathfinder 2E. Legendary Medic alone saves you spell uses in a game that cut down on spell slots. It also scales to level, whereas with spell slots, you'd have to heighten it to increase the odds of success.

Like Mark posted earlier, at level 16, you'd already be curing high level diseases more easily than someone using one of their limited 8th level slots for that purpose, and only surpassing it with 9th or 10th level slots.

Would you waste your one tenth level slot for such a purpose when you could instead be preparing Avatar and literally turning into the Avatar of your god?

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Let me guess what's next, Legendary Stealth allows a "Hide in Plain Sight" skill feat that grants a form of Invisbility, something that 2nd level+ Arcane Spellcasters can do? Cool, sure, but you could at least raise it to Improved Invisibility for a Legendary Skill + Feat.

Here is something that was posted with the Rogue section of the Hail the Gauntlet blog:

"And finally, Hidden Paragon lets you go completely invisible, even beyond the sight of true seeing, see invisibility and the like and impossible to outline with even glitterdust, faerie fire, or similar magic!"

You might be underestimating some of these skill feats a bit.

Also, keep in mind, the Legendary Medic feat lets you cure these things at no cost of spellslots. In a game that seems to be reducing the spellslot number a bit, that's useful.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:

Yes, another problem with the 5th Ed Bard (and Rogue) is Expertise, by 9th level with a high Str, you can go around pinning pit fiends to the ground with impunity: "Welcome to 5th Ed, where Bards and Rogues are the best wrestlers in the multiverse."

As for the PF1 bard, with feats and archetypes, they should be able to cover a lot, maybe even get back to some of that druidical tutelage action!

Seeing 9th level spells still might make me...

You think 9th level spells are bad? If they get that, I bet they'll have an option for 10th level spells.

Just wait until Tiamat is going to attack, only for your Bard to cast Azathoth's Dance of Madness and have her stuck doing the Charleston around your Bard while the party does their best to turn her into paste.

All joking aside, I don't mind higher level casting for Bards. But if we're stuck with full casting or no casting, and Bards have to lose it, you'd have to give them some potent stuff to make up for the loss (they were more potent in spellcasting than the Paladin).

What would Bardic Performances be buffed to in order to make up for that?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malthraz wrote:

I think that rangers will probably just have spell points, rather than spells, as the Paladin does.

I think it seems more likely that Sorcerers will just have the arcane list.

I think that Bards are the most likely to get the Occult list. It would be strange if bards became full casters. But it would also be weird if they were not casters at all.

When the question of Spontaneous Casters were brought up, the audience was told to wait for Bards and Sorcerers. Pretty sure they're still casters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, this is quite the interesting set of abilities. Really liking what I'm seeing all around.

Fighters' combos and the revamp to Familiars are especially interesting. Also, that Ultra Invisibility for Rogues...dang.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

So I take it that this means that wizards will be running out of spells somewhat frequently?

Wizards will have to ration their spells if they want to have them when they count?

Wizards that "go nova" are going to be near-useless later?

Wizards that want a ton of utility spells at the ready are NOT going to also be able to contribute to combat effectively (outside of whatever combat utility those spells offer)?

If these are true, then this would be awesome, but I have my doubts.

Well, Wizards will still have their Cantrips for regular spellcasting and perhaps some of their School Powers have a use in combat, but yeah, limits to their best damaging stuff might mean, depending on the situation, they may wish to be a bit conservative with their spell slot usage.

If you know you're only going to have the one major boss fight, go nuts, but if you're expecting to go through a large enemy base with minimal safe resting spots, you'd definitely want to hold back and rely on Cantrips/the occasional class power unless the situation is dire/your spell will help drastically minimize the threat.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

Arcane Bond is a guaranteed base ability of a wizard. Counterspell and Familiar are feats. The reason why you can have both an Arcane Bond AND a Familiar is because one is given to you for free and the other is a feat.

We also have zero confirmation that you can pick lower level class feats later in place of higher level ones.

Wouldn't it defeat the entire purpose of making classes have open choices if you made it so that feats can only be taken at exact levels?

Hell, current Pathfinder lets you take feats at any level past the minimum, why would 2E change that?

The only level one locked feats that we know of specifically are Heritage Feats, and they're supposed to represent the stuff you're born with.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
4E's problem wasn't that it was TOO balanced, it is they made things balanced by having everyone work the same way. The balance came from blandness. The Cleric operates in the same way as the Fighter as does the Wizard. You can have fantastic asymetric balance. Now how much PF2E does that we don't know, but so far it seems to be doing a pretty good job.

As a person who played a fair bit of 4E before switching over to Pathfinder for the last few years, yeah, that's what I was feeling. Every ability I had seemed to be almost the exact same with a slight change and a different name.

Honestly, after getting into Pathfinder, I never wanted to go back to 4E. Yet, Pathfinder also had its flaws, and 2E thus far is exciting me as it seems to be in some healthier area than the over simplified/overly repetitive 4E and the at times overly complicated, messy Pathfinder.

Hopefully people are able to enjoy it as its own thing and it can carve out an enjoyable niche for those of us who get into it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cowswithguns wrote:
There is also the possibility to not have to break either. The cleric in question could interpose themself between the work of art and the person in question and/or plead with the person to stop destroying the work of art. Not every conflict has to be solved with weapons but you sure wouldnt know it reading through the arguing over the strike first tenet, it's almost as if the diplomacy skill doesn't exist.

That's very true. I was focusing on their particular scenario of striking first OR letting it be destroyed, but there are a myriad of options available. Diplomacy? Human Shield? Magic like sleep? Even perhaps a peaceful, but firm grapple until intents can be negotiated (or a proper sleeper hold). Does it count as striking first if you're only keeping them from acting on destructive urges?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Overall, I'm cautiously optimistic about the Domain Preview, even if I'm cautiously pessimistic about the Cleric Preview itself.

Add my vote (in case it got lost elsewhere in the shuffle) for finding a name for Spell Points that better describes their function. So far, Power Points seems to be the best match.

Power Points might not be a great choice, given how many people would think back to Psionics, which use Power Points to manifest Powers.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Many of the people who complained about C/MD hoped that martials were elevated to casters ceiling rather than drag casters to the floor with martials, a nerf on casters was the last thing we wanted, one of my concerns since PF2 was announced is that Paizo will overreact to those C/MD threads.

Martials are getting some level of buffing. The ability to do the impossible we've heard about, swimming across an ocean, leaping dozens of feat in the air (if not a hundred by the time of Legendary) to smack a flying monster down, standing on air to fight such foes, etc.

But Casters are also getting buffs to some degrees. Cantrips scaling with level means not getting stuck with your poor Wizard out of spells and trying to hide in the corner (or going mad man with his staff just to be broken instantly). 10th level spells sound insane (one mentioned spell sounds borderline like turning into a Tarrasque), and they'll get a lot of abilities via Spellpoints to spend outside of that. Not to mention what both martials and casters can do together via ritual spells.

Sure, less spells per day could suck, but it could also very well work with the system. The fact that Cantrips will have value at high levels means your Cleric/Wizard doesn't have to blow a spell slot in every single fight. You could save your spells as a mix of combat emergency and utility. Between pre-planned Ritual Spells for buffs, Cantrips for light threats, and Spell Point stuff more medium threats, you can save the goods for more menacing foes...or for crazy shenanigans.

Crazy shenanigans are always nice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know who would be justified in taking a life for self-defense? The poor Goblin who was minding their own business when some maniac tried to kill them for daring to live.

They would be totally justified, and I would gladly come to their aid, because they did no wrong and were targeted due to their ancestry. Don't even need to go lethal, one whack to the noggin should subdue most low end NPC village types.

Also, if your "Paladin of Torag" tried to kill an innocent being due to race, my LG Monk would gladly turn your tinfoil armor and weapon to dust and send you packing. Equality for all, regardless of race and financial status/lack of nobility was always his championed goal. It's why he fought a kingdom of technologically advanced Elves convinced of their superiority over the "lesser races" alongside quite a potent team.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

It's not evil in the least, it's self defense. Being mistaken isn't evil as the intent WASN'T to kill a good or neutral creature but protect himself and the community. If someone is disguised as a devil and get axed by a paladin, does the paladin fall? The 'good' goblin is 'disguised' as a murderous, psycho-pyromaniac and it's not the fault of anyone they didn't see through it.

So "lack of understanding" totally does impact the alignment of the action. If the person understands that demon and goblins are both naturally evil, why is killing one evil and the other not?

It's not self-defense unless the Goblin attacked him. It is absolutely an evil act to murder someone good because you feared and/or hated someone for their race.

No amount of "belief" or "understanding" makes a good person evil because they have green skin and pointy teeth.

Arguing ignorance in the court of law isn't a defense, it's not much of a defense against murdering the innocent anywhere.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

An NPC's lack of understanding that Goblins aren't inherently evil doesn't make murdering an innocent Goblin in cold blood any less evil an act. If they have to sadly only discover that fact in the afterlife, it's a sad timing indeed, but that still doesn't change that using race as a reason for murder is absolutely wrong.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>