Wild Watcher

Mythraine's page

176 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mythraine wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
TBH since the great appeal of Flickmace comes from combining Shield and Reach, I do not see Paizo giving us a more accessible weapon that would do the same.
I mean, we already have whips, scorpion whips, asp coils, and pantograph gauntlets. A d6 martial reach spear doesn't seem that out of line.
I would want at least d8 1H reach martial spear. Flickmace is d8. Martial spear should be an improvement on the longspear, not an improvement on the regular spear (reach weapon probably won't be Thrown). So for names - Warspear anyone?

If it's meant to be a 1h martial weapon, it would be a D6 with the Reach trait, and maybe the Brace D8 trait.

snip ...

I like this a lot.


aobst128 wrote:
D8 reach 1 handed is advanced weapon territory. Other weapon traits like shove, sweep, or versatile can't compete with reach if it would be martial.

Ok, so then I also would like a d8 1H reach advanced spear. ;-)


Squiggit wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
TBH since the great appeal of Flickmace comes from combining Shield and Reach, I do not see Paizo giving us a more accessible weapon that would do the same.
I mean, we already have whips, scorpion whips, asp coils, and pantograph gauntlets. A d6 martial reach spear doesn't seem that out of line.

I would want at least d8 1H reach martial spear. Flickmace is d8. Martial spear should be an improvement on the longspear, not an improvement on the regular spear (reach weapon probably won't be Thrown). So for names - Warspear anyone?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Another thing I'd be keen on is either a weapon or feat that allows for spear and shield with reach (hoplites, phalanx formation etc). Like the Shield Brace feat of 1e. Make it a 1H martial spear with reach, but only usable 1handed with a shield.


It may not be on theme for this book, but I want rules and equipment for exotic mounts, specifically flying mounts. Like the Monstrous Mount feats from PF1e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd love to see support rules for flying cavalry. Using the mount rules for Hippgryphs, Griffons, Manticores, Pegasi, Rocs - all of that.

Also a way to add the mount special ability to any mount.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I desperately need rules for monstrous animal companions. Similar to the Monstrous Mount feats from 1E.

Please give me my Griffons, Pegasi, Unicorns, Manticores and Hippogryphs!!


Captain Morgan wrote:
Ganigumo wrote:
Pathfinder 2e in general struggles with these combat subclasses for casters, they all tend to just be bad options because they lack proficiency, their prime attribute doesn't affect their strikes, and there aren't many support feats for them. Plus the bonuses are easily obtained through other means.
Speak for yourself. My battle Oracle slaps.

What's the build summary? I'd be keen to understand how to get the best out of an Oracle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone play with "FA-lite"? I have yet to GM my first 2e game (1e campaign still wrapping up). I plan to make FA default, but only give an extra feat on levels 2, 6, 10, 14, 18.

If the levels for FA feat don't work for character concept I can work with the player, but this seems more manageable.

Wat do people think?


mattdusty wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

One Stealth roll for both is how I see it. If you beat their Perception, either you stay hidden and sneak by them unnoticed and no encounter even begins, or you spring from your hiding place to attack first.

If their Perception is higher, they saw you coming and act first.

Yeah, I think this is generally how it works. But what if the PCs have Incredible Initiative? What if you rolled a 25 for your Stealth Initiative (incorporating the +2 for the feat) and the enemy rolls a 24 Perception initiative. You get to go first.....BUT are you hidden? Does that +2 (that specifically ONLY refers to initiative checks) also apply to your Stealth check to stay hidden? Do you have a 25 Initiative but only a 23 to stay hidden?

My understand is that it still doesn't work like this.

So you roll 25 for stealth (inc. incredible initiative). Opponent rolls 24. You go first.

BUT, then the 23 Stealth (exc. incred. init.), is vs. the opponents Perception DC. So what if that same opponent only has +5 Percepction (so rolled a 19 to get 24), then the perception DC is 15, and you are hidden. OR, that opponent has +14 Perception (so rolled an 10 to get 24), then the perception DC is 24, and you are NOT hidden.


I plan to implement a scaled down free archetype variant rule.

The archetype feats are at levels 2, 6, 10, 14, 18.

This is mostly to be able to more easily replicate 1e characters in 2e.


Hello brains trust.

I love Automatic Bonus Progression but I have two problems with magic item cost in with ABP.

1. Buying Magic Items with ABP
In 1e, the attack bonus, armor bonus and profiency bonus of all magic items was clear. 1,000gp for +1 armor, 4,000gp for +2 armor, 2,000gp for +1 weapon, 2,500gp for +1 skill bonus etc.

In 1e, using the 1e ABP, if the PCs found a +1 flaming longsword, I would price it at 6,000gp (the regular 8,000gp minus the 2,000gp for a +1 weapon - whether or not that was RAW correct it doesn't matter - it seemed to work out).

I can't find an equivalent pricing for 2e.

If my PC wants to buy boots of bounding for the extra 5ft movement, what does it cost? The PC can't utilize the +2 item bonus for high and long jumps, so what discount should be applied?

Is there an official answer? (edit) Do I use Table 4-16 from the GMG? (/edit)

My current plan is just to let potency and item bonus both exist, though not stack. Therefore the PC just pays the full price for the item, but won't get double the bonus. The problem is it encourages the PC to buy magic items in skills other than the ones they get potency for (but is that actually a problem?).

2. Creating PCs above 1st level with ABP
What do I do to adjust table 10-10 to account for ABP? I couldn't find an official answer.

OPTION 1 Make no changes. With this option, all magic items are the same price and potency and item bonus both exist but do not stack. But the PC will have more "stuff" because they'll get their weapon and armor bonuses through ABP and get to spend all their gold on other magic items.

OPTION 2 Reduce the number of permanent items allowed in Table 10-10. But by how much? At level 12, a PC should get a +2 great striking weapon (LV 12) and a +2 resilient set of armor (LV 11) through ABP. But table 10-10 doesn't even allow a 12th level PC to have a LV 12 magic weapon yet. So what do I reduce the table to?

OPTION 3 Reduce the lump sum gold allow in table 10-10. But by how much? Using the same level 12 example as option 2, the +2 great striking weapon (LV 12) and +2 resilient set of armor (LV 11) are a total of 3,400gp. But how much is +1 to all Perception checks worth? How much is a flat +1 or +2 to a skill worth? This links back to the first topic above on buying magic items. (edit) Again, should I use Table 4-16 from the GMG? (/edit)

Hoping for some good advice or solutions that have seen play - or even an official rule I've missed.

Thanks!


Excellent. Thanks everyone.


The Rogue multiclass archetype gives a free skill feat that the player can choose.

If taken at level 2, this skill feat would have to be a level 1 feat and therefore not more powerful than any other archetype that give a specific skill feat (which is usually a low level one).

But what happens if a PC takes the Rogue archetype at a higher level - e.g. through the human Multitalented ancestry feat.

Can the skill feat be any feat the PC currently qualifies for?

e.g. A PC is Master in Stealth at level 7. They take the Rogue Archetype via Multitalented at level 9. Can they take Swift Sneak as their skill feat? (requires master in stealth).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Feyblood and Shadowblood options as versatile heritages.


I see your point


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote: wrote:
The extra things TWFers pay are not significant to a degree that requires errata or pressures Paizo into changing their mind. They're insignificant to most users, as the overwhelming majority of this thread's responses indicate.

Emphasis mine - overwhemling majority is not something you should assume. I don't believe he is beating a dead horse. 2E is still quite new and there are areas that could be improved.

N N 959 has been clearly and consisely outlining their points as to why they would like clarification. I agree with those points on the whole. I'm flexible to the outcome - whether it be a hard ruling for Quick Draw, or drawing weapons in general, or whether it be a new option that works better for TWFs. e.g. "Double Draw" a feat that allows you to draw or stow two weapons in one action.

But either way, I would also like either a ruling, or a new option as I also believe the current steup is not supportive of TWFing.


Was it mentioned how long the second printing had already been shipping for? If I order it through other sites, will I get a first printing or second printing? (Sadly the shipping is too much to Australia from paizo.com).

I’m very keen to get a copy, just want it to be a second printing.


I've been reading this thread from the beginning. Ranger has been my favourite class and I've played one in every edition since D&D 2nd Edition.

I've wanted to believe the Ranger is already in a good place to play because I don't want to admit my favourite class is not as good as it should be (and therefore will be less fun to play for me).

But N N 959's points are too compelling. To me, the Ranger is missing vital parts of the chassis that make it feel like a Ranger. I want my PC to be the best tracker (Swift Tracker, Ephemeral Tracker etc), but when it has such minimal affect on actual play, and means you cant take cool combat feats, it is too hard to justify.

I desperately hope the Ranger will be given some upgrades for the second printing of the CRB. E.g. make Swift Tracker more compelling as discussed above. Or remove the prerequisite of unrelated lower level Warden Spells when taking higher level Warden Spells (how does Gravity Weapon or Heal Companion have ANY connection to Ephemeral Tracking?!?).

If there is any plan to upgrade the Alchemist in the second printing, the Ranger should get a small upgrade as well. Not saying either will/can happen, just hoping. I feel doing to upgrades to classes will be WAY better than not doing upgrades for any argument of invalidating the first printing.

I won't hold my breath though.


N N 959 wrote:


Quote:
2) Strike QD(blade)+ Strike QD(blade) + TT. This deals optimal damage on a flurry ranger without a pet, and is the same as TT + Strike + Strike.

But it's not. My Ranger fights with longsword + Light weapon (agile). So if I start with two weapons, my TT is doing LS + LW. The next two strikes are with the agile weapon to leverage Flurry and MAP. In your example, TT comes at the end of the combo and TT requires a Ranger use two different weapons. So one of those attacks is at -6 instead of -4.

Where does it say TT requires two different weapons?

The Requirement is "You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand." They can be the same type of weapon. e.g. two sawtooth sabres.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This. Is. EXCELLENT!

While I like the doc VestOfHolding linked for all classes. This one specifically is WAY better as it is grouping the feats by theme, which makes it really easy to plan.

Well done.


Yes I guess I would have to agree with you on the RAW interpretation.

You are also correct regarding published content. I feel it will never show up, as it will come down to two options:
1. Need to track something the doesn't require the feat - easy enough with the correct skills and levels
2. Need to track something that does require the feat - unnecessarily hard as the odds someone will have this one specific feat are next to zero.

I wouldn't be soo worried about this if it was a skill feat (as there is zero combat utility to it). OR if it didn't require an unrelated prerequisite (1st level focus pool feat).

BUT as a class feat and needing to use another class feat to access, it feels like a badly designed feat requiring too much investment for not enough gain. Very frustrating.


Hey team, hoping you help me work through why Ephemeral Tracking exists.

It seems to me, that is this one of those "Fill in a rules niche for something that didn't require rules" and "now the assumption is I can't do that thing unless I take that option."

Before Ephemeral Tracking, I assumed a high enough level of Survival would cover crazy tracking options like across water, through air etc. If you are legendary in Survival you should be able to do those things.

Now it looks like a ranger can't track through air or water, regardless of proficiency unless they take this feat. AND, as it's a focus spell above level 1, the same ranger needs to take a totally unrelated feat to qualify by gaining a focus pool.

I want to make a tracking ranger who is the best of the best. So I see Ephemeral Tracking falling into one of two interpretations:

1. You can't track over sea or air without it
2. Tracking over sea or air is usually a Master or Legendary task. This feat allows you to track over sea or air by only being an expert in Survival (in this way it is similar to the Trap Finder feat of rogues)

Have I read it correctly? Something I've missed?


ikarinokami wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

If you want to see them added sooner rather than later the best thing you can do is appeal to Paizo for them to release some Adventures and/or Lost Omens Books that have a focus on the Mana Wastes and Alkenstar, both of which represent some of the only regions that haven't seen significant module/lore support in the last 10 years.

That said, I think we can PROBABLY except to see a handful of Archetypes to handle these things for PC options rather than an actual full Class based on some dev comments on the topic.

Jason all but confirm that they would return as a full class and not an archtype.

When did this happen? I must have missed that information.

I'm easy with it being a full class or archetype, just wanted to know the current statements on which way it will go.


How are the pdf's sent?

Is it a one-off download or does it go through the Paizo website?

I'm asking because the big draw of the pdf's for me is the automatic update for download via the Paizo website when any errata is incorporated into a new print edition.

If it is a one-off download that options is not possible.


First choice has the be Gunslinger/Drifter (happy with either name). While guns are not traditionally part of western-themed fantasy (my default base setting), I feel so many stories are enhanced by the ability to have and the existence of guns that it is a necessary add on. Pirates? I want cannons and pistols. Eastern? I want early blunderbuss and other gunpowder options.

Second choice is Shifter. They are such a cool idea but implemented way too late in 1e (and not a super strong mechanical choice in 1e) that they never got their due. Would love to see them in 2e (even as a class agnostic archetype)


The Wheldrake link goes to a page where the file has been removed?

I would LOVE a form fillable classic-style sheet in PDF.

My skills in this area mean I cannot do it myself unfortunately.


Ubertron_X wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
If the feat isn't helpful patching up holes in the party (since the DCs are too high), or covering a personal lack of Acr/Ath, then when else does it come into play? Are there story hoops to jump through that only need a token investment, yet you're screwed if somebody forgot (perhaps randomly in PFS) to cover a skill?

I don't think so. For example nobody would readily like to rely on this feat when making recall knowledge checks about monsters, even if you could theoretically use the most obscure lores to reduce the DC of the check. Or try to fool the kings inquisitor using Deception, or try to scare the fire giant chieftain using Intimidation (all examples are considering level appropriate challenges).

However as mentioned you can easily overcome lesser obstacles using Acrobatics or Athletics (as mentioned by Mark), tell a petty lie to a lower ranks city guard using Deception or sneak up on some commoners using Stealth without fully having to rely on chance. The question being if this kind of "low level convenience" is worth the investment.

Emphasis mine.

Why would nobody really like to rely on this feat for Recall Knowledge checks?


Oh nice. Ok so there was one part I missed. Subtle differences everywhere!

That difference makes the power levels understand. Thanks Kyrone.


Now that Disrupt Prey is a reaction, is seems like a poor man’s Attack of Opportunity. While DP can be gained at level 4 rather than 6 for AoO, the text of DP is missing two key parts from AoO. 1. DP doesn’t trigger from ranged attacks. 2. DP misses the text about not counting multiple attack penalty that AoO has.

And of course DP can only be used on a hunted prey.

Was DP meant to be AoO but just for prey? Hence being available at level 4 vs 6? Or are these omissions on purpose?


Thanks Wolfgang! I'll do just that.

I really appreciate the Kobold gang being so prompt and engaging with the community.


Hoping someone can help here - I'm running The Fish and the Rose. On p49 there is an encounter for a "Clockwork Watchman" which references the Zobeck Gazetteer, p29.

Thing is, I own the gazetteer and no clockwork watchman is listed on p29. After some googling I've come to believe the reference is for the original OGL gazetteer and not the updated PFRPG version.

As I don't own the OGL version, where can I find stats for the clockwork watchman?

Is it the same as the clockwork huntsman from the Midgard Bestiary? Both have 36 hp, but the one in Streets of Zobeck is meant to be CR2 each and the bestiary is CR3.


Has anyone else had a close look at the animal focuses for Aquatic Beastmaster (Hunter Archetype)? It looks like Crab and Octopus are exactly the same.


The books have arrived in Australia!!

People kept saying the main book is big, but I really wasn’t expecting just how big!

I’m instantly intrigued by the roachfolk. A dual-wielding roachfolk rogue with razor wheels sounds awesome.

Well done Mr. Pett and FGG!!


I haven't read anything about the Savant or Elven Archer from the original book. Is the Mystic Archer an update of the Elven version? Is the Savant still around?


Futurama reference! I get it. No wait ... now I get it.


Awesome!

Thanks Jeffrey


I posted this in the product page but thought I might get a better response here.

I have two questions regarding monster classes:

1. How does favored class bonus work? As the monster class is technically the race, I assume you don't get any favored class bonus HP/skill points with monster classes, but you do get FCB when you take a standard PC class?

2. If you take the alternate spellcasting, is you caster level for spellcasting from monster classes based on your character level like it would be with other races? E.g. I have a dryad that takes the alternate spell casting and chooses Magic Fang as a 1st level druid spell. At Level 7, I take a level of Ninja. Is my Magic Fang spell CL6 or CL7? I assume CL7 as it would work as per spell-like abilities of a race (a 10 level Aasimar has daylight CL10).


Just bought this and it looks great!

I have two questions regarding monster classes:

1. How does favored class bonus work? As the monster class is technically the race, I assume you don't get any favored class bonus HP/skill points with monster classes, but you do get FCB when you take a standard PC class?

2. If you take the alternate spellcasting, is you caster level for spellcasting from monster classes based on your character level like it would be with other races? E.g. I have a dryad that takes the alternate spell casting and chooses Magic Fang as a 1st level druid spell. At Level 7, I take a level of Ninja. If my Magic Fang spell CL6 or CL7? I assume CL&, as it would work as per spell-like abilities of a race (a 10 level Aasimar has daylight CL10).

Neither question seems to be clarified in the document.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So is Remko Troost in charge of all the Starfinder Iconics like Wayne Reynolds does the Pathfinder ones?


With the extra AAT and AWT presented in this book, does this mean those new ones in the book are now excluded from being in a Paizo book?

Not that I matter so much. I'm keen to have heaps more AAT and AWT options, just interested whether new options will appear in another Player Companion in the future.


I also hope it's a Campaign Setting line book instead of RPG line. I realise Paizo now wish they didn't keep the RPG setting-neutral, but I love that about it and hope the RPG line remains setting neutral.

That said, if it is CS line book, I'm pretty keen.


I would also love a archetype specifically for a dwarven skald.

The skald is SO dwarfy and metal, but the focus on CHA really hampers the dwarf. And no STR bonus for dwarves make it hard as well.

So a racial dwarf archetype for a skald that changes the casting stat to WIS would be super cool.

Plus a focus on bagpipes ... for ... reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gold Sovereign wrote:

Can't deny that even I, as someone more into setting than into rules, got curious about the elemental purist, and also about the planar sneak rogue.

What does planar sneak even implies to you? Did we get any information about this archetype?

Maybe it will be the only archetype that allows you to sneak attack elementals, proteans and aeons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
My favorites to read and write about are the chaotic gods, and the gods who are a little bit rebellious and/or buck tradition to do something different. The way we have a female sun deity, for example, or deities like Desna or Milani or Nocticula or Calistria who in certain ways are rebels against the status quo and aren't perfect and make mistakes but do their best to be true to their nature anyway.

So decidedly not Pharasma XD I suppose for me its the idea of a god who is to some degree above the petty squabbles of the rest of the gods that I enjoy in Pharasma. I do like Desna though I must say :P

Actually, a non-evil death deity is very much a deity that bucks tradition. So yes, Pharasma falls into that category.

I used this exact same notion for my homebrew back in 2001. Female Neutral Death deity as all the other campaign settings were evil death deities. Pharasma is from your homebrew but renamed isn't she?


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Healing for martials?

Then why wouldn't they just kill the cleric?!

Fair point. I don't want the cleric to be outclassed in the healing arena. I would be keen on something that makes martials a bit more independent that isn't just UMD with a CLW wand or mass potions etc.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Mythraine wrote:
I'd love to see more self-healing options for atheist/agnostic PC's. So far, the Rahadoum style stuff has been underwhelming.

I'm pretty sure that's the point Myth.

Now with white mage, there's the fact since you're burning a different form of magic (almost primal one might say), it's different enough to help with healing in some instances.

Adding in lay on hands for burning arcane reservoir, you might get a decent healer and a more than passing spell blaster together.

If so, then that is excellent. I'm also holding out hope for self-healing options for martial characters. I have no idea how that would be done, and doubt it will be covered, but I can only hope!


I'd love to see more self-healing options for atheist/agnostic PC's. So far, the Rahadoum style stuff has been underwhelming.


James Jacobs wrote:
Mythraine wrote:
James, with your discussion here on this particular product page, will you be involved in the writing or design/development of Paths of the Righteous? Will your preferred method of prestige classes as options for multiple base classes be showcased in this product?

That's precisely the reason I'm here. After finishing my work on Curse of the Crimson Throne, I was asked by THEM to come in and take up development work on several Campaign Setting and Player Companion volumes to help get things back on schedule. I developed Haunted Heroes Handbook and Divine Anthology, but Paths of the Righteous is the only one of the Player Companions I've actually concepted from the outset—it's the only one that I've outlined, assigned, and developed from start to finish.

So... yeah. The whole point of Paths of the Righteous is that each of the 14 prestige classes should be viable for multiple classes. The theme that ties them all together is that each one is focused on a specific deity, so that's the one shared characteristic—they all have "DEITY: Must worship this deity" as a prerequisite. But beyond that, options are pretty wide open.

OK, wow. That's got me rather excited. Slightly off topic ... are there other Player Companions announced or TBA that you have concepted from the outset?


James, with your discussion here on this particular product page, will you be involved in the writing or design/development of Paths of the Righteous? Will your preferred method of prestige classes as options for multiple base classes be showcased in this product?

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>