Nettah's page

328 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
dirtypool wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Unguided wrote:
Personally I'd rather have a 2E to 1E conversion. Grabbed the books on Humble because I'm poor and can't afford the bourgeoisie pricing the 2E books are going for.

I don't think there's a significant pricing difference between 2E and 1E books. At least, not that can't be attributed to being new releases or having larger books on average, plus 10 years of inflation. A hardcover for the PF1 CRB seems to still retail for $50, and that's a 10 year old book.

I think many people are forgetting just how much they utilized free resources to make PF1 work, and those resources are still going to exist for PF2. And PDFs will of course still be cheaper than physical books.

Came here to say exactly this. Yes the CRB is $10 more expensive than the PF1 CRB, but it's 10 years later and the book is a solid 70 pages longer with (I hope) a better binding than the first print run PF1 CRB
On reddit, they said it was 210 pages longer than the PF1 one. This book is going to be an ABSOLUTE UNIT.

Either Reddit is wrong or they have misunderstood. The CRB in PF2 is 70 pages longer than CRB in PF1. However the 210 pages might be a reference to the playtest rulebook. The CRB is 210 pages longer than that.


The DM of wrote:

Whoa, nice math find on Forceful. I have been discounting it as inconsequential, but adding up the dice and minimums for use with Certain Strike is brilliant. Ignoring what happens with your 1st attack, that's a minimum 53 points of damage that is unstoppable.

To the point of the OP, there are lots of neat rogue builds that look like they do great damage in cool ways. Every time I've built one, I've found a simpler fighter build whose math is superior. Nettah's build is another check for the fighter as the better... well, fighter. That is rightfully so I think.

Well the 53 points aren't automatic. You can still crit fail for 0 dmg, but it does help boosting the average dmg output quite a bit.

And rogue can hang in there, but it does seem fair that fighter is generally the superior melee combatant.


Not sure how he is getting a d10 dice on his flurry of blows. If he is using dragon tail he gets neither the dex bonus to dmg or sneak attack.

But yea several things wrong with the math.

A fighter using a falchion and certain strike can do some crazy stuff too.
1st attack 4d10 + 2d6 (enchantment) + 5 (str)
2nd attack 4d10 + 2d6 + 9 (str + forceful)
3rd attack 4d10 + 2d6 + 13
4th attack 4d10 + 2d6 + 13 (from desperate finish)

With 2nd, 3rd and 4th attack doing 15, 19 and 19 on a miss.

All with a higher accuracy than the rogue would have.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Let's follow the "1.7" set-up and subtract 2 from everything (so Legendary is now Level+6 instead of +8). A Level 20 Bard with Legendary Proficiency, a Legendary Magical Lute, and all of the relevant feats (a Performance feat grants yet another +2 to a specific type of Perform) would have a +38 at the absolute highest barring Aid Another shenanigans, pre-rolling, meaning they can have a result of anywhere from 39 to 59, which is probably the highest you can expect.

A stronger creature of the same level somewhat geared towards the relevant benefits would probably have +30 (20 base, 4 proficiency, 6 attribute), or a 40 Will DC barring specific benefits. A truly optimal creature of a higher level with specific benefits will have a significantly higher bonus, or would outright negate such a check from happening via immunities.

However, they would be spending actions and spell points for empowered Composition cantrips and Intimidate checks, but no spellcasting unless they have 3 Hero Points, which doesn't grow on trees per RAW. Sounds in-line with what I can expect Bards to be capable of. In fact, I like...

I don't really get your math in this context. It seems you get a +3 item bonus in it, which is less than you are currently able to get (but might be right after update 1.7, but we don't really know) but changed proficiency levels toward 1.7 which is still pretty much unknown.

It would make more sense to stick with the current rules for the math, because then you can more readily compare it to the beastiary. Currently you would get a maximum of +37 (+20 level +3 legendary proficiency, +7 attribute, +2 circumstance from feat +5 item). Bards playing instruments being the best possible demoralizer is fine by me, in fact I believe that is how it should be.

But the whole reason I started mentioning the bonuses was because of your suggestion to increase the bonus you get from two-handed instruments to be double the current value to make one-handed instruments a thing. And I do think that would break some of the maths, because +42 to demoralize would be just insane.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


The bonus there isn't relevant for it to matter since the DC scales. Being 5-15% more likely to succeed or critically succeed is not really worth what you can potentially do with your hands.

Keeping with the current theme, +1 per hand per item quality seems fair. So a two-handed expert gives +2 compared to +1. And since Perform is so limited in use, it's not game-breaking to make it work that way.

That would make both relevant, but +6 just from quality (before going into the magic ones that would then provide +10 i guess) would likely be pretty game altering. Remember you can also use performance in place of other skills. Bards would be amazing at demoralizing with that kind of bonus.

EDIT: Just did the math. That could lead to a level 20 bard with +42 to demoralize when performing. He would scare pit fiends left and right :)


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Nettah wrote:
I prefer to keep the instruments two-handed for balance reasons as well as the factor that more or less every instrument needs two hands to play or play optimally.

Not necessarily. If a character can perform Somatic components with an occupied hand, then I think numerous instruments likewise can be done the same, and numerous examples have been given.

I mean, sure, balance reasons is a thing, but there needs to be more of a reason to use the instruments besides a whole minor scaling bonus to Performance that can't reasonably be expected to have much use. If we had some feat synergy to work with, I'd consider it fair, but we have none of that.

Well the mechanical benefit is good for boosting your bard songs, so I think it's relevant. The issue is if you could replace a two-hand instrument with a one-hand instrument there is only disadvantages to use a two-handed one.


I prefer to keep the instruments two-handed for balance reasons as well as the factor that more or less every instrument needs two hands to play or play optimally.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Since Powers seem to be a replacement for 4 level spell casting, I think it would be good for there to ways to get more powers than one per feat. A larger number of powers would more closely replicate the number of spells in PF1, and would also give these classes more versatility than the playtest version.

I think feats granting multiple powers, can be a good idea, but not anywhere near the amount of different powers as there are spells in the various list. You can get access to that a lot of different ways instead. But maybe 2-3 powers in a single feat seems reasonable to me (not for every single feat but some of them) and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect this to some degree since there is already precedent with the druid feat Wind Caller and maybe others.


Draco18s wrote:

That diagram also doesn't explain screening very well, either.

Character on the far right, who is drawing a line through a corner of a fully solid square: is that screening?

Well it's cover. So better than screening. But if Merisiel used a ranged attack, I don't see the ogre having screening against that.

A bigger issue I have with the diagram is that I don't understand how the Ogre is only screened from Kyras ranged attack. Unless it's impossible to get cover from ranged attacks, which would be odd to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

Given that the idea is that the Core class should be viable to play without the Archetypes(including Rogue and Monk regardless of what community says), I would think it actually does come out to be different.

One is suggesting "Maybe this will fit" while the other sounds like "You have to pick these feats to work".

I dunno. It sounds different to me. Having a player's guide say "sea singer (bard) is a suitable archetype this AP" sound different to "Picking up Pirate Dedication, Dirge of Doom, and X Muse are suitable Class feats for this AP"

But this is probably something that deserves it's own topic. We can take it to PMs if you want to continue discussing it.

Personally I also would want you to be able to build multiple archetypes within the class without resorting to picking other class dedications. And I think this will be more the case in the final version of the CRB and likely even more so when additional books start coming out.

So most of the views I have expressed about picking up druid dedication if you want to have magic abilities as a Ranger is limited to the playtest. I don't know, but I could imagine that it wasn't by accident that a class like the ranger didn't have the opportunity to pick up any magic in class, while a class like paladin could. It would (in my mind) be too big a change to add or remove this sort of thing in the middle of the playtest, so Paizo would need to have several different "class types" available in the playtest to get a better sense of the data.


RazarTuk wrote:
Nettah wrote:

The amount of people suggesting Fighter with druid dedication to be a "stronger" ranger is actually pretty shocking to me. Yes +1 to attack is good but is it really enough make a good "ranger". Currently I don't see fighters really having any support for high dexterity which I kinda see as a must-have for most rangers (wielding light armor to move faster, stealth better etc). A bad reflex save also makes the fighters much more prone to fail against most kinds of traps.

Maybe it's just me that view one of the core niches of the ranger to be the parties scout, which I honestly don't see the fighter/ druid fulfilling. So the argument for the fighter base vs ranger seems to come down to +1 to attack from proficiency.

Fighter/druid might be better fighting with 2 non-finesse weapons and wielding a heavy armor, but is that really a "ranger" at that point?

It makes sense to me, at least. To me, one of the most defining features of the Ranger, possibly even more so than something like the pet or favored enemy, is the combat style. Fighters may be the archetypical heroes with things like Bravery, but Rangers are weapons masters. Not only do they get bonus feats, but they get to ignore the prerequisites on those feats.

Since the 2e Fighter is meant to be a weapons master, it makes a certain amount of sense that you could use one to build a Ranger-equivalent.

I am not sure whether we are misunderstanding each other a bit. I don't think you can't use a fighter base to make a "ranger"-ish character, like Aragorn. My point was more that several people in this thread have stated that ranger is pretty much obsolete because a fighter/druid makes a "better" ranger than a ranger or ranger/druid does, which I disagree with.


Malk_Content wrote:
Nettah wrote:

The amount of people suggesting Fighter with druid dedication to be a "stronger" ranger is actually pretty shocking to me. Yes +1 to attack is good but is it really enough make a good "ranger". Currently I don't see fighters really having any support for high dexterity which I kinda see as a must-have for most rangers (wielding light armor to move faster, stealth better etc). A bad reflex save also makes the fighters much more prone to fail against most kinds of traps.

Maybe it's just me that view one of the core niches of the ranger to be the parties scout, which I honestly don't see the fighter/ druid fulfilling. So the argument for the fighter base vs ranger seems to come down to +1 to attack from proficiency.

Fighter/druid might be better fighting with 2 non-finesse weapons and wielding a heavy armor, but is that really a "ranger" at that point?

Then I guess you want Rogue/Druid then.

The insane amount of skill rogues get compared to rangers is a decent reason to go for that build instead. But other than skills I don't really see what rogue is offering that I wouldn't get better from the ranger. Hunt target/ hunters edge is vastly better than sneak attack for duel-wielding or archery, secondly I prefer to be able to use a martial weapons (though a general feat isn't the biggest cost).

So in my mind the rogue is taking the ranger too much towards skill monkey at the cost of combat options, but it's definitely an option. But having this option doesn't take anything away from the ranger in my mind.

A brute rogue seems to be one of the best "tanks" in the game in my mind in the low-levels, however I don't see that as invalidating fighters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The amount of people suggesting Fighter with druid dedication to be a "stronger" ranger is actually pretty shocking to me. Yes +1 to attack is good but is it really enough make a good "ranger". Currently I don't see fighters really having any support for high dexterity which I kinda see as a must-have for most rangers (wielding light armor to move faster, stealth better etc). A bad reflex save also makes the fighters much more prone to fail against most kinds of traps.

Maybe it's just me that view one of the core niches of the ranger to be the parties scout, which I honestly don't see the fighter/ druid fulfilling. So the argument for the fighter base vs ranger seems to come down to +1 to attack from proficiency.

Fighter/druid might be better fighting with 2 non-finesse weapons and wielding a heavy armor, but is that really a "ranger" at that point?


I know. I was going towards a new scenario in the end (which is why it's with Kyra instead of Seoni).

But back to your issue. It isn't stated what a "feature that allows you to take cover" is. Valeros can't grant cover to Seoni because he isn't large enough (with just the regular cover rules), so personally I don't see him as a feature that allows you to take cover.


I think the Take Cover action isn't phrased in a way where you could 100% see it one way or another. In my reading of the rules you wouldn't be able to Take Cover behind a monster (unless it had the sufficient size to grant you cover normally).

The issue I am having for being 100% about my view of the rules is the text for Take Cover:

"Requirements: You are benefiting from cover or are near a feature
that allows you to take cover."

While you are clearly not benefitting from cover in the current situation the second part of the requirement isn't very specific to me. Does it refer to the action itself or does it refer to the more general term of taking cover.

But my reading of the rule is that you have to be within reach of an object or some terrain/creature that would be able to grant you cover in order to take cover. However I am not sure which scenarios would grant you +2 instead of +4, because if you can take cover why wouldn't you already be benefiting for the cover. And I couldn't imagine Valeros using Take Cover with his current position to get a bonus against attacks from Kyra with the placement from your example.


The DM of wrote:
We're using 0 for untrained. Level +2 per progression above that per the "1.7" interview.

How is that feeling balance wise? I could imagine several things being semi-broke with the "updated" rules without it being accounted for in class balance, the bestiary or the DC tables. Especially fighters might be too strong with having master proficiency at level 3 with weapons.


I am unsure whether 5d12 is the best number, but overall I like the mechanic for golems. And the wizard feeling like a hero for doing massive dmg with his Ray of Frost or any of the other characters have a weapon that deals cold damage being able to shine doesn't really bother me.

Even a bunch of low-level wizards would have trouble taken it down because they would have a hard time hitting it with the ray. But in general a build in weakness seems to be reasonable to prevent golems from running amok against the wizards that created it.


Yes indeed. The only requirement is that you haven't spend all your reactions for the turn and that the trigger occurs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rooneg wrote:
I feel like my primary complaint about TWF is that it never seems to give you a reason for the super-iconic swashbuckler style TWF. I really want Rapier and Main-Gauche to be a reasonable thing to do, and I'm sorry but it just isn't in the playtest. If I cared about damage I'd use something other than a Main-Gauche (probably a Shortsword), and if I cared about defense I'd just use a Shield and occasionally punch people with it. The ability to trade most of the Shield's defense (1 point of AC and the ability to shield block) for slightly more damage doesn't seem like a reasonable trade off at all. The only other thing a Main-Gauche gives you that the Rapier doesn't is versatile S, which doesn't seem terribly useful compared to picking up the ability to shield punch for bludgeoning damage.

I personally see swashbuckler more as a rapier combined with a free-hand but there are several TWF feats available to give you a better combination than you would get with a shield. And if you are going with rogue or ranger as a base instead of a fighter you wouldn't be able to wield a shield without a general feat.


MaxAstro wrote:

Actually, Loreguard, if you do the math then one-handed weapon + light weapon is strictly a benefit over either other option. Let's consider three attach routines. In the first one, let's say you attack with a one-handed weapon twice, giving something like this:

+9 (1d8+3), +4 (1d8+3)

For the second attack routine, let's attack with an agile weapon twice:

+9 (1d6+3), +5 (1d6+3)

Now for the final routine, let's attack once with a one-handed weapon and then once with an agile weapon:

+9 (1d8+3), +5 (1d6+3)

As you can see, this effectively lets you take the best aspect of each of the preceding two attack routines. On the first attack, you have maximum accuracy anyway so the larger weapon gets you +1 damage. On the second attack, losing a point of damage for a point of accuracy is a great trade.

Going back to 3.5 D&D (or even PF1e), where the inspiration for this came from, there was a similar issue with the "two light weapons" setup - mechanically speaking there was no reason to do it. The twf penalties for dagger + dagger were the same as they were for longsword + dagger (even with the appropriate feats), so why not get that extra damage on the first attack? The only mechanical reason people would pair the same weapon was for feats like Weapon Focus, which obviously don't exist in 2e.

But the first scenario only requires wielding a single weapon in one-hand to achieve, which I generally would favor over something equal to that small dmg difference.


MaxAstro wrote:

Yeah, that's true. I'd be surprised if the majority of martial classes didn't eventually get at least one TWF feat. I'd also put money on there being a TWF archetype.

I will say that your suggested action has some balance issues - if it doesn't stack with agile then it obviates agile weapons, and if it does stack with agile then +3 to hit on your second attack is so good that everyone will want to TWF all the time.

Nearly all light weapons are also agile. I haven't thought a lot about the math and all the different scenarios, it was pretty much just a random number. However I doesn't seem game-breaking to me with the numbers stacking.

A scenario with a fighter swinging twice with a greatsword or once with a longsword and then a shortsword with these rules end up with favoring the greatsword by 1,475 dmg on average per round, where it currently favors the greatsword by 2,225 dmg.

But it might be such a good action it makes Double Slice less mandatory or worth the feat. It might be a bit too strong on rogue that is currently using 1-handed weapons with a free hand without getting a benefit, but then again rogues could also get dedication to get double slice or something else to better utilize their off-hand.


I think thematically you can easy play Aragorn with the current ranger, but it might not be so mechanically strong. Maybe a few more skill points to better ensure he could have all the skills needed. The hunt target feats all seems like decent candidate and something like Skirmish Strike also seems pretty reasonable for a ranger wielding a two-handed weapon.

I would likely need to take fighter dedication for getting some of the free-hand combat he also does a lot, unless some of this is included in the ranger class feats in the final version.

Honestly though I could just as easily see Aragorn as a fighter, since the main aspect of his character (besides fighting) is done via skills like nature and survival and not really depending on class features.


Gorbacz wrote:
Ranger is a person with bow (or twin scimitars) and a pet. That's the Core Identity of the class. Anything beyond that is projecting your personal preferences that aren't shared by people who associate the D&D range with the above archetype.

Twin scimitars is likely a relic of the past with the current traits. Not that I object to that, scimitars have always been a weird duel-wielding weapon in terms of how the sword works in my mind, so forceful and sweep seems much more appropriate.


N N 959 wrote:
Elfteiroh wrote:
Ranger is probably my most played class ever. I'm happy that they made the spells optional (they already mentioned they were thinking of a way to put them back as optional)

They aren't optional. There is no option for Spells. Mark says its on a list of things to look at, but it sounds like PF2 is going with a spell-less Ranger for Core because they've interpreted the Survey to mean people don't want spells. But I don't see any consideration that people wanting to opt out of spells has more do with the spell system in PF1, than not wanting Rangers to have spells.

There is always the option to pick up spells from dedications. That seems to be a better way to go for me personally than giving them access to the primal spell list or inventing a new spell list.

I wouldn't mind seeing them get some spell powers sort of like monk or paladin, but that should be the closest the ranger got to be a spell caster in my view, at least in the CRB.

Down the line maybe if certain archetypes are introduced to replace some of the core class features rangers could get something more closely resembling spellcasting capabilities.

How would you prefer to do it, and what is the perfect goal in your mind in terms of spellcasting?


MaxAstro wrote:

I'm surprised more people haven't realized this but there actually is a built-in benefit to two-weapon fighting. Not to wielding paired weapons, but harking back to the original D&D twf where you were supposed to wield a one-handed weapon in your main hand and a light weapon in your off hand.

Namely, if your off hand weapon is agile and your main hand weapon is not, then you can make your first attack with your main weapon - boosting your damage over striking first with the agile weapon - and your second attack with the agile weapon - boosting your accuracy over striking second with the main weapon.

It's small, but it's there.

I assume most people think about this. There is also just the option of holding a weapon with a different dmg type or traits, like a whip in the off-hand. But I do think most, if not all martial classes should be able to benefit more from it (and I think they will be).


I actually think brute rogues can also do some really cool things. If you pick up shield proficiency he can out damage most other sword and board types and your starting AC is the best since most fighters, clerics and paladins go for a lower dex, but can't afford heavy armor to open the adventure. Or even a build focusing on the spear can get you high dmg with a reach weapon, combined with Gang-up to get them flat-footed. A combo of a spear rogue and a paladin I imagine would be an excellent front-line.


Loreguard wrote:
At first I like having multiple actions to begin with, and it felt like it was a great way to handle being able to attack with two weapons at an early level. However, I become severely disappointed when I realized by the RAW rules, without a feat for some sort of two weapon fighting 'special action', there is absolutely no reason to hold a second dagger in their off hand, in order to get a second attack. Carrying a second identical weapon in your other hand is if anything a liability to being able to get another attack action in, since it limits your options of trying to do a grab or other maneuver. By nature, it is equally efficient and available, to make a second attack with your dagger in your first hand than to try to get another attack in using your other hand. This seemed to simply not make sense. I can understand wanting a feat to make it more usable, but making a second weapon flat out being a liability in a fight by default, seemed harsh. If I could find a easy way around that I'd consider it (and would likely use the improvement in 2nd edition).

Now I think that in the final version there will be a feat for two-weapon styles for every martial class but maybe it would be worth it to give a small bonus regardless, to make the fighting style have some merit even without feats. Maybe an action like this.

Off-hand attack: Make a strike with a light weapon held in your off-hand, if you haven't attacked with a weapon using your off-hand this turn reduce the MAP for this strike by 2 (the culmative penalty increases as normal).


Scoundrel's Feint seems to be primarily for wanting Cha as a key stat instead of Dex in my mind. So a character focusing on using a lot of Cha based skills could benefit from it.

Combat wise Finesse Striker does seem a lot stronger unless you plan on having a high str score. Overall feints, being it the standard or Scoundrel's is honestly pretty weak because of the monster math giving most monster too high perception scores currently.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Both Alchemists I saw played were actually really effective. The first, at 4th level in Chapter 2, was a pure bomber and very nasty with it, almost single-handedly dealing with the manticore, while the second was a Mutagen focused build in Chapter 6, who was extremely good at punching things to death, and could dabble in any needed role via his Mutagens.

My mind boggles. This is so far from my experience. Some of that might be that I am notorious for bad rolls, but I think that's mostly confirmation bias really. It was hard to hit at all.

I played an alchemist in part 2 as well. I think it was 1.3 and I honestly felt like one of the strongest in the party. I think some of it is down to certain level spikes being good for some classes and not for others. I was using 2d6 bombs and the rest still had only expert weapons. And Calculated Splash was also a clear MVP often ensuring I did at least 8 points of dmg/turn.

And throwing 2 bombs each "missing" but still burning the mummies for a lot of damage was also a cool moment for my alchemist.
Overall my group might have been rolling quite well, because one of the things I actually didn't get that big a benefit from was the persistent damage (often hitting with an acid bomb on the first turn of combat on the biggest target) but then seeing the target get downed so fast that I would have been better off just throwing bottled lightning or alchemist fire on the problem instead.

As far as I remember my biggest concern was the resonance limit of the potions (since removed) and bulk being quite the issue. I ended up boosting my str to 12 and getting hefty hauler just to avoid being encumbered at all times.


N N 959 wrote:

No. It's not my vision, it's the vision for the class as laid out by Tolkein and actualized by Gygax and Skip Williams. I didn't create the Ranger, but that doesn't stop me from being able to analyze wha that class has been about historically and how it has changed. That isn't opinion, that's assessment of facts. An opinion is that I don't like the PF2 Ranger. A fact is that Ranger's have spells. That's what the class is. There's no opinion involved in that. The fact that you can op out of having spells does not change a fundamental fact about the default class.

When Paizo creates a Ranger and takes away the spells, they are 100% not providing us with a Ranger, but some variant. Are there people who want to play the variant, who would prefer the variant? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not a Ranger. People like the changes doesn't change the facts on what the class is.

I don't think PF1 ranger and PF2 ranger has to be the exact same character. Personally I like rangers a lot, but I have never really been the biggest fan of the spellcasting aspect of the class. While I generally do see the ranger close to Aragorn, the D&D legacy and characters like Drizzt also put a huge emphasis on the animal companion which was never really part of the LOTR legacy.

I think a lot of the mechanically combat issues with hunt target was fixed in various updates by giving ranger feats to deal with action loss and making hunt target stronger.

My current issues with rangers (besides Snares which are just god-awful in every aspect) is that they lost a lot of the skill-monkey aspect having roughly the same amount of skills as any other characters and less than alchemist, rogues, bards and wizards. So giving rangers 2 more skills from the start and maybe give them a skill feat or two more over the levels should do a nice job of helping out in this aspect.

I dislike the way animal companions seem to be way to big of a feat expenditure while progressing to slow they often aren't even worth it with the feats.

So changing animal companion feats to be scaling would do a lot for the class (and make it progress at the same level tiers as druids). So let animal companion scale to full-grown at level 4 (or maybe 6) and nimble/savage at 8 (or maybe 10) for both rangers and druid. To ensure the dedication doesn't get out of hand just count your level as half (like I think is already the case) for non-rangers and druids picking the feat. With maybe a level 10 dedication feat that lets the progress be equal to your level.

But TL;DR I don't mind the direction they are going in and I personally doesn't think spells are a must-have for the class, more likely the opposite. But a few mechanically adjustment might be needed to make the character better fulfill it's role.


Hmm interesting take @Themetricsystem... I actually thought most people agreed that monk was generally in a good space in this edition, and overall Monks have looked strong so far to me.

Technically the reaction will prevent 40% of the hits (equal to your AC before to +9 of your AC removes 4 of the 10 outcomes, but when looking at percent you can always take it in relation to different things)
I think you could change the feat to simple deflect a hit instead of doing the +4 bonus to sometimes deflect it and the feat would be more fair, and less meta-gamey. Reducing a critical hit is a pretty powerful effect so I'm unsure whether that wouldn't make the feat too powerful compared to the others.

So I am onboard for changing the feat, but would just change it to be a reaction that automatically deflects on hit (but not crit) instead of it's current version. To keep it simple and to keep the powerlevel close.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

The idea that everyone is a Gary Stu/Mary Sue unless they opt out is what confuses me.

I don't mean this as an attack, I'm just really puzzled as to how that makes the game better.

I think it's a matter of perspective. I don't see a character with +level to untrained to be good at everything (a Mary Sue type), I just see them being competent within reason at everything and good/great at some things. Especially now with the increased difference between the proficiency ranks, which would end up with +10 difference between untrained and legendary (if untrained stayed with 4 less than trained as it currently is).

Purely mechanical it makes all skills a possibility to use (the untrained uses at least) for characters throughout the game, instead of the scenario where all but the "face" of the party will have to keep their mouths shut when interacting with anyone in the world or magic being the only real solution for infiltrating anywhere in the game as a group, because most balanced party will not include 4 characters all trained in stealth and athletics.

In terms of "realism" the idea that a normal capable adventure would be stomped by any basic skill use while fighting monsters that could easily wipe out entire towns seems odd to me.

So that is why I think +level to untrained made for a better game.


Helmic wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Helmic wrote:
It is useless when the players then instead decide to scale the building and come down the chimney, and you need to quickly come up with a DC for the climb up or sliding down that chimney without getting stuck.

Useless is a bit strong. I would actually find it quite useful in such a circumstance because it actually gives me a reference point for what different numerical DCs actually MEAN roughly in comparison to a given character's likely abilities.

Like okay, DC 20. Sounds cool. A nice, round number. But who does that number challenge? What character level and/or degree of specialization is that number a challenge or a breeze to?

That's a big reason I like 10-2 and the PPT skill system, it answers that in a way nothing in PF1 can.

Except if you're trying to make numbers that "challenge" your players you're doing that inflating numbers thing. A basic assumption of +1/level is that players should just get better at doing simpler things. That chimney should have the same DC no matter what level your players are at - it just means that sliding down it might literally be an automatic success at level 15 or whatever, and that's fine. At level 15, you should be automatically succeeding at stuff like that a lot.

If you instead use 10-2, your players will notice that suddenly the DC to slide down an ordinary chimney is suddenly extremely high compared to the DC it took to do a similar task three levels ago for no apparent reason other than their own level increased. That causes that treadmill effect that players so very much hate, that ruins the point of even having inflating numbers in the first place. At that point you should be using 5e's system where the DC's never increase, where any obstacles that logically should be challenging are challenging from 1-20.

The point of the chimney isn't to "challenge" your players. Your players already solved the challenge by avoiding the high DC of the barricaded door to instead pursue...

I can't be sure but I think Edge is talking about getting the perspective on what it challenges with the 10-2 table. Climbing down a chimney would be DC16 in my head. (Level 2 like climbing a cliff. With the adjustment of it being slick but also that you can brace against a wall thus the standard "hard" level 2 DC).

Now regardless of the players level this should stay the same, however if a player ask if it's reasonable to climb down the chimney for his character before all I could say is: It's a DC16 check (which seems weirdly gamey) unless I applied the knowledge of his specific + to athletics. With the use of 10-2 I can now put it into the context of the players without knowing the specific bonus they all have at athletics, so at level 9 I could say that it's a very easy task, maybe even trivial and it would be trivial for all above level 9, but at level 4 it would be described as a "medium" challenge.


FowlJ wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
You can't craft for half in this edition (right? I seem to recall that). They also have to get the down time to do the crafting, which is far from guaranteed.
Yes and no to both - when you craft an item, you can either spend one day (if you are a few levels higher than the item, up to 4 days if you are the same level) of crafting time and pay full price for it, or you can spend more time working on it to reduce the price (at a rate per day based on your level and Crafting proficiency), to a minimum of half cost. A high level crafter can pretty reliably make potions for half cost in two days, though two days per potion is not an insignificant amount of time if your goal is to stockpile a bunch of them.

It's a consumable so you can make them in batches of four, but it might still take too much time if you want to craft them at half price.


Helmic wrote:

Also believe that dropping your weapon is a free action, as is switching from a two-handed to one-handed grip on a weapon (which you can do even with two-handed weapons, you just can't then attack with them until you go back to a two-handed grip). So a fighter with a broadsword, even if they were completely unprepared, would spend a free action to release their grip, an interact action to draw the potion, an operate action to drink the potion, and then an interact action to return to a two-handed grip (or to pick up whatever it is you dropped on the ground). Remember that the haste effect is immediate, so you get your extra action on the same turn with which to do whatever you want, like smack someone upside the head or move into position.

That is the worst case scenario, and it would not be until turn 3 that you break even and turn 4 where you start reaping the benefit. Any amount of prebuffing makes it an immediate and massive benefit, and doing as you said and just keeping it in your hand at the ready means you break even on the second turn and start benefiting on the third.

For a one-handed Fighter, drinking the potion and then following it up with Dual-Handed Assault is a pretty potent combo, following that up with a combat grab, dueling parry, or what have you. At that point you break even on the very first turn, and reap the benefits come the second turn.

I don't like that sort of consumable, that you basically must use every combat if you've got the money for it. Health potions generally aren't going to outheal the damage incoming and their effects can be recreated now with the Treat Wounds activity. Most other potions are situationally useful enough such that there's a point where having more than X number of them just means the extras will never be used and aren't even useful as a contigency. This sort of potion that you would want to use for every single combat so long you have the money for it seems excessive, and the only limiting factor is if the party believes they're not going to ultimately profit from it and thus severely fall behind WBL, which just goes back to that "spend every single copper on mechanically useful stuff" I'd rather avoid.

Yea the potion is a lot easier to utilize for all other styles than sword and board, but that was the example he was using. Personally I don't like to drop the sword on the ground, it seems wrong to me that it's without consequences to do this and just as easy to grab a sword lying on the floor as it is to draw it from the scabbard. (However the rules doesn't agree with me on that).

The effect of the potion doesn't kick in until the turn after you consume it, because the quickened condition giving you an extra action happens at the beginning of your turn. (Rulebook being confusing again, I had to check the potion, then haste spell then quickened condition).

I agree with that kind of potion being bad for the game. Mistform Elixir is also a problematic effect for the low cost. I would at least argue that being concealed is often better than the AC a shield provides, so wielding a Mistform Elixir in your off-hand instead of a shield would be better and after the first turn the action economy would turn in your favor since you don't have to raise shield every turn.


Agreed that heavy armor is pretty bad compared to medium armor (which is also what they should be compared to for the most part I think)

Would it be unreasonable to simply change the penalties of heavy armor to only -5ft and remove clumsy from splint mail and full plate. Sure heavy armor would be almost strictly better than most medium armor, but they still have a generally higher ACP, cost more, higher bulk and require a higher proficiency.


The DM of said wrote:

As a consumable not currently restricted by the updated PF2 rules, this example is outside of the item limit scope, but pricing-wise it is a good topic at 30gp.

Is it really breaking is my first thought. It takes an action to drink, and depending on what you need to have in your hands, could take several more to pull out, drink, and then re-equip yourself. 1min duration, so you can't have this effect on you for long enough to explore.

I will think of an example. Shield and Sword warrior enters room, attacked by ogres, goblins, baddies.
Turn 1) sheathe sword, draw potion (we'll say it's handy), drink
Turn 2) draw sword, take 3 actions
Turn 3+) Take 4 actions

In this example, it is not until turn 5 that our warrior breaks even on actions and round 6 before he nets 1 more action than never having drank the potion. With MAP not allowing a 4th attack to be very useful, this example would prove to be a very poor magic item use.

I know a 1 handed person with the potion in their second hand does better, but unless you drink this ahead of battle, you are behind the action curve.

What do you think from seeing your players' usage?

If your general fight plan is to utilize this potion it would make more sense to either be carrying it in your hand from the start, or at least keep your weapon sheated while exploring so you have a free hand for a quick drink if needed (if the encounter is low risk enough to not drink it, you can spare the extra action required to draw your sword regardless). The first scenario would net you positive action economy from round 4 and the other from round 5.

But depending on the situation it's also quite likely you would get to drink the potion without it impacting your action economy, since if you are breaking down a door in a dungeon a perception check would likely let you be aware of the enemies before hand. And since it's a potion you don't really risk getting discovered like a verbal action might otherwise do.
There are also plenty of situations where the fight begins with the enemies being 100+ feet away, where you have the time to drink the potion before they get to you, unless they are utilizing ranged weaponry.


caratas wrote:
Wow, thats crazy. That makes the bard fear song superior to the bard hit song unless you use inspire heroics.

In some cases but not in every situation, so that seems fine. The aura of inspire courage is a lot bigger and currently demoralize is quite effective, but doesn't work well with dirge of doom.


John Lynch 106 wrote:

I realise this is mostly true*. I wasn't speaking specifically about PF2's system being bad (and even mentioned in brackets that I didn't mind how PF2 is implementing it), but more observing how different settings can elicit drastically reactions without the rules changing one bit.

*Pretty much guaranteed that Pathfinder Society will prohibit items based on level and rarity.

I haven't played pathfinder society myself, but I think that seems like a positive. Maybe go with the rules of SF to allow you to purchase items a level above your own. And all uncommon items shouldn't be banned, rather they should be readily assessable in different scenarios. This could lead to some cool "reward" in meeting new players that allows you to gain knowledge of uncommon or rare item formulas/spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The realization that for low-levels medium armor is the better tank option is what let me to the idea of a rogue tank (sure HP is worse than other melees) but a rogue in medium armor and using a shield has a very solid AC while still doing decent dmg thanks to sneak attack. And being one of the highest AC classes combined with Deny Advantage makes you less concerned of being surrounded than even a fighter or a paladin in those levels. And because of sneak attacks enemies might not just want to walk past you to hit the rest of the party.


Changing the duration on Mighty throw might be reasonable to buff. My first draft of it was having the knockdown effect happen on a success, but I realized that then it was basically the effect of Knockdown a level 14 fighter feat, and that seemed a tad too strong, but I might have backpedalled a bit too far.

I had several different versions of Double Strike in my mind. My first instinct was going toward a brutish shove type effect mixed in (to give it the action economy advantage) but I started to question the use of shoving like that for the barbarian, and the feat started to look very complicated for a first level feat. All in all I think that's the one I'm the least happy about. I considered making the base duel-wield barbarian feat a 3 action ordeal, but I was concerned how often you would actually get to use that, since your first action would almost always be rage and/or movement. However I really like the idea of a 3-action feat for duel-wielding barbarians but thought it might be a later level class feat.

My reasoning for making judgement of the crossbow use Wis, was actually to avoid charisma being the go-to stat for paladin and not having the scenario where you get +cha to dmg from both Blade of Justice and this at the same time. I haven't played or seen a paladin in play since the 1.6 update so I am actually unaware of how strong ranged reprisal is, therefore I was being cautious about given too much of a bonus to the feat and also it might make bows too bad in comparison.
I have had a fascination with an Abadar worshipping paladin wielding a crossbow for quite a while, and the original plan for that character was to get Crossbow Ace from the ranger dedication, so I always imagined a high wis paladin with a crossbow (The character concept was discarded after I realized that the dice increase from crossbow ace and diefic weapon didn't stack)

You are completely right about light and agile always being on the same weapons, I did not realize that. Maybe Precise follow-up should be limited to a weapon in the knife category in the off-hand instead. That seems pretty thematic and this might also balance it better against certain strike, since any successful attack is limited in damage. I do share the concern that all of a sudden every rogue would want to be duel-wielding (unless they were a brute rogue with either a spear or sword/board, which is another character concept of mine).


So several people are currently playing with playtest rules in their custom setting or have converted existing APs into the playtest rules, so I thought it might be fun to try and implement more class feats to make more playstyles from the different classes viable. Maybe it could also inspire Paizo to include feats that are similar if they aren't already planned for the final version. Good ideas for adjusting the current class feats are also welcome in this thread (I know people like Edge93 has already merged several class feats in his current campaign).

Personally I really want most play styles to be viable for the different classes, but I do prefer that they have different methods of doing this (like Double Slice for fighter and Twin Takedown for ranger) so i'll attempt to support new play styles for the different classes primarily to begin with.
I haven't done a lot of math on the feats yet, so they might be a bit unbalanced or there could be some OP combos between several classes I haven't thought about, so any constructive criticism is more than welcome.

Barbarian:

Mighty Throw
Two Actions; Feat Level 1
Traits: Barbarian, Rage
Requirements: Your are wielding a weapon with the thrown trait
You throw your weapon with a mighty force at the enemy staggering or knocking it down.
Make a ranged attack with your weapon, if it's within it's first range increment add the following enchantment.

Enchantment: The target is sluggish 1 until the start of your next turn. If the attack was a critical hit the target is also knocked prone. This only affects creatures that are large or smaller; if you are using a large weapon this can affect creatures that are huge.

----------------------------------

Double Strike
Two Actions; Feat Level 1
Traits: Barbarian
Requirements: Your are wielding a weapon in each hand, neither is agile.
You make two strikes in rapid succession with such force the target is loosing it's footing
Make two Strikes against the target, once with each weapon (MAP is applicable as normal) they get the following enchantment.

Enchantment: The target is flat-footed until the start of your next turn. If both attacks hit, the target is flat-footed until the end of your next turn.

----------------------------------

Paldin:

Judgement of the Crossbow:
One action; Feat Level 2
Traits: Paladin, Open
Prerequisite: Ranged Reprisal
Requirements: Your are wielding a crossbow
Your crossbow strikes true against enemies hurting the innocent or your allies
You make a ranged attack against an enemy that has harmed the innocent or your allies. Add half your wisdom modifier to the damage roll. If you are level 10 add your full wisdom modifier instead.

[Special]: If you use retributive strike add the effect of Judgement of the Crossbow to the attack. If you weapon is currently unloaded you can instead reload in place of the Strike of your retributive strike; you will gain the effect of Judgement of the Crossbow on the next ranged attack against the enemy if you attack before the end of your next turn.

----------------------------------

Rogue:

Precise follow-up:
One action; Feat Level 1
Traits: Rogue
Frequency: Once per round
Requirements: Your last action was a Strike that dealt sneak attack damage to a flat-footed target. The target is flat-footed. You're wielding a light and agile weapon in the other hand than you used for the previous Strike.
You quickly attack your target while it's guard is down
Make a Strike against the target, you can the following failure effect:

Failure: You deal your sneak attack damage to the target.

----------------------------------

I plan on adding more later, but comments or suggestion to the first ones are quite welcome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
oholoko said wrote:
Agreed. But some of the lower level items also are pretty good. My players had so much trouble grabbing two level 2 items and literally asked to instead grab some level 1 items xD

Just FYI expert items (except heavy armor) are also level 2 items, but they are found other places than the treasure table. I would imagine most players would want expert weapons, expert armor (or regular full plate) or expert tools for most characters, so I think there are plenty of options to choose from.


I think the poisoner is currently in a weird space. Hell of cool thematically but most of the stuff he gets seems lackluster compared to the other specs.

* Poison resistance and + to save makes sense, but frankly doesn't do a lot, unless you have a habit of unleashing inhaled poison in the same area you are in. I really like that concept, however inhaled poison is so high level that it doesn't make sense for a build. But if you give me more inhaled low-level poisons this would be a very cool character to play.

* Applying poisons to weapon as a single action doesn't seem to matter too much, at least for some time. It seems better to simply apply the poisons before combat to a bunch of arrows (and then give said arrows to another party member that is actually better with a bow and arrow), if you are even allowed to use poison on ammunition.
The "free" poisons you can make from Perpetual Infusions hardly seems worth the full-round action to do a single attack, with a low DC poison. Making arsenic from nothing does have some fun role-play elements but might be mechanically weak and I am unsure how the 1 round potency works with poisoning food or drinks.

* I think contact poisons have a ton of potential, but I am unsure how to best utilize it for combat perspective before getting Greater Field Discovery, which is frankly the best reason I see to become a poisoner, instead of just being a bomber utilizing poisons. But in the right party you might be able to infiltrate certain hostile areas and dose the place in contact poisons to greatly reduce the power of the enemy before the fight even really begin.

I think some of the stuff I would change to make poisoner more worth playing is giving poisoners or maybe all alchemist Powerful Alchemy for free (either at first level or pretty early on).

Change the way you apply poison to either be a single action that you can do as a free action when you use quick alchemy to create a poison or an interact action to fetch a poison (maybe this could be a class feat instead). Or at least let the character apply poison to a 2-handed weapon without having to change grip as a separate action.

Maybe also let you dose your weapon in so much poison that it was good for several attacks instead of a single attack, this might just be for your Perpetual Infusions, but at least then you might want to spend the actions to always have a poisoned weapon active in combat.


+1 to edge suggestion of using true strike in combination with ray attacks. Disintegrate is such a limited resources at level 13 that not buffing it with a 1st level spell and a single action would be a shame, and getting a critical hit with it is just amazing damage.

In general most of the spells that require hit + save is really strong effects, so if you can maximize the hit rate with them you will be a killer vs all single target encounters.


1) I like the increased distance between the ranks (but it does require some balancing changes to characters attack and defense proficiencies in the final version)

2) Maybe, maybe not. It could end up being similar to PF1 wherein the party has a specialist in the different areas and the rest just don't really use that skill. We also don't know how many skill increases you will get now, or whether there will be feats that let's you use untrained skills better or maybe letting high ranked players "aid" the others thus allowing them +level to the roll. It was hinted in the stream that some changes would come to this area as well.

3) I know you didn't have a 3rd point but in terms of the DC-table I think it's a good idea to simplify it and just having a flat + - you can add to the level DC for making the task easy, hard or impossible. It did seem a bit odd to me that each variant scaled so differently (but it might also make certain checks too hard/easy now that it's gone. Time will tell).


BronD said wrote:

But + level forces the world to be filled with things that have DCs which are impossible to succeed. That is supposed to be part of the goodness of it.

Lets say a river exists in Golarian an it is in an AP intended to be encountered by 12th level characters. Well, that river exists in the world. And if 4th level characters go there then it will be nigh impossible for them to swim across.

To be clear, I have no problem with this. I like it. I'm just pointing out that the 2E original draft still had this issue. And I fully suspect some will argue that you adjust the world to fit the characters. The debate over that approach is well covered elsewhere.

Well the river exists regardless of characters level. It might be a small challenge for the level 12 party, quite impossible for most low-levels and a cakewalk for any well trained high-level. That seems pretty reasonable to me since that is the case in the real world as well.

All +level did was allow you as a GM to make "basic" challenges like crossing a river cooler by making it occur in a storm or while the water was disturbed by some spell and still have the PC's able to succeed, now any untrained character would need to find another way to cross the river (which can be a fun game element as well). The main issue I can imagine is that unless you want to split the party everyone will use the same way as the untrained to cross the river, thus taking away a moment of cool for the one character that otherwise could have excelled in the situation and helped once one of the other characters started to falter in the water after a bad roll.

I'm still personally on the side that wanted the characters to progress to the extend that "basic" challenges was always easy for them, and if I wanted to have a character that couldn't swim etc I would role-play him as having a fear of water or something similar instead. I am starting to feel quite good about the increased distance between the ranks otherwise though.


I am not sure about a free kit for every class. It seems a bit odd and makes the rules more "clunky" in my mind. However I feel like the pricing of the various tools are off.

Most tools cost around 50 sp and expert quality for most tools is approximately 4 times this price. The master quality is 15 times the price of expert. Except a few items that is priced a lot lower than the rest for the mundane item but the expert items cost the same, it just seems weird to me.

I would prefer to have the general mundane tools cost 20-25 sp and expert sticking in the 160-200 range and master at 3000+

So standard tools like artisans, alchemist, healers etc cost 25 (200 expert) and tools that use consumables like disguise kit and thieves tool cost 20 sp (160 expert). I'm not sure how to price climbers kit.


I think various equipment packs is a nice thing to have. But I don't want it to be class specific. So have an explorers kit, adventures kit, scholars kit etc. but keep it in the equipment section.

If people want a quick PC rolled up from a template (as in 5e) they might as well use the iconics in my mind.
But for players that just want to save some time getting "basic" adventuring gear together different kits would make the process easier and reduce the amount of calculating small amounts of SP and CP and adding up some of the bulk.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure they don't get multiplied in the way you are talking about Urlord. Potency runes just adds a weapon damage dice (so no extra dice on the property runes).

I think Draco is referring to critical hits multiplying property rune damage, which they should do.

So the damage should be 3d10 S + 1d6 F + Str on a hit and 6d10 S + 2d6 F +2x Str + 1d10 persistent fire damage on a critical hit.

1 to 50 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>